¹ For the conclusion of the Compactata in Jihlava, see Hoffman, František, “Jednání o kompaktáta v Jihlavě,” in František Hoffmann devadesátiletý: výbor studií a článků (Jihlava, Czech Republic: Státní okresní archiv, 2010), 127–140Google Scholar; Prügl, Thomas, “Die Verhandlungen des Basler Konzils mit den Böhmen und die Prager Kompaktaten als Friedensvertrag,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 48, no. 2 (2016–2017): 249–253Google Scholar; and Šmahel, František, Die Basler Kompaktaten mit den Hussiten. Untersuchung und Edition (Wiesbanden, Germany: Harrasowitz, 2019), 74–89Google Scholar. Naturally, the council did not accept all the demands presented by the Bohemian negotiators over the years, but it should be noted that some of the demands that it rejected, such as confirmation of the 1435 non-canonical election of the Archbishop of Prague, Jan Rokycana, were accepted by Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg—undoubtedly due to his desire for the Bohemian throne—in a collection of legal acts known as the Imperial Compactata. For the origins and contents of the Imperial Compactata, see Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 157–161.

² For the significance of the Compactata in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see Macek, Josef, “Osudy basilejských kompaktát v jagellonském věku,” in Jihlava a Basilejská kompaktáta (Jihlava, Czech Republic: Muzeum Vysočiny, 1992), 193–202Google Scholar; Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 97–124.

³ The monograph in question is Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten. It is extremely valuable thanks to Šmahel's edition of the Compactata. Regarding a partial analysis of their text, see Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 43–49; Rudolf Urbánek, České dějiny III, Věk poděbradský I (Prague: Jan Laichter, 1915), 101–108; Frederick G. Heymann, George of Bohemia. King of Heretics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965), 6–12; Rudolf Říčan, “Georg von Poděbrad und die Kompaktaten,” Communio viatorum 8, no. 1 (1965): 43–45; and Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen,” 254–257.

⁴ Heymann, George of Bohemia, 8; Petr Čornej and Milena Bartlová, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české VI (1437–1526) (Prague: Paseka, 2007), 15; Thomas Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy? Cusanus and the Hussites,” in Wycliffism and Hussitism. Methods of Thinking, Writing, and Persuasion, c. 1360–c. 1460, ed. Kantik Ghosh and Pavel Soukup (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2021), 413; Blanka Zilynská, “The Utraquist Church after the Compactata,” in A Companion to the Hussites, ed. Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (Boston: Brill, 2020), 241; and Jan Červenka, “One Church or Two Churches? The Role of the Compacts in the Reunification Efforts with Rome,” in Church at the Time of the Reformation: Invisible Community, Visible Parish, Confession, Building. . .?, eds. Anna Vind and Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021), 413.

⁵ Urbánek, České dějiny III, 103 (He comments on the Catholic, allegedly “sophistic” interpretation of the words “qui talem usum habent”); Thomas A. Fudge, “Reform and the Lower Consistory in Prague, 1437–1497,” The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 2 (1996): 69 (addressing the same issue as Urbánek). Cf. also Thomas A. Fudge, “The Hussites and the Council,” in A Companion to the Council of Basel, ed. Michiel Decaluwe et al. (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2017), 274–275.

⁶ Pálka, Adam, “Papoušek versus Lupáč: polemika o výklad basilejských kompaktát z poloviny 15. století,” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 8, no. 1 (2016): 41–len Google Scholar; Pálka, Adam, “The Compactata of Basel in Enea Silvio Piccolomini's Letters, Speeches and Official Documents,” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 11, no. 2 (2019): 177–212Google Scholar; Marek, Jindřich, “Václav Koranda mladší a kompaktáta,” in Kalich jako symbol v prvním století utrakvismu, ed. Halama, Ota – Soukup, Pavel (Prague: Filosofia, 2016), 153–166Google Scholar.

⁷ Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen,” 256–257.

⁸ Bartoš, František M., “Cusanus and the Hussite Bishop M. Lupáč,” Communio viatorum 5, no. 1 (1962): 35–46Google Scholar; Heymann, George of Bohemia, 26–42, 258–292; Odložilík, Otakar, The Hussite King: Bohemia in European Affairs 1440–1471 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1965), 46–60Google Scholar, 130–134; Hallauer, Hermann, “Das Glaubengespräch mit den Hussiten,” Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus-Gesellschaft 9 (1971): 57–69Google Scholar; and Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy?,” 409–431.

⁹ Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1992), 350; Emily O'Brien, The Commentaries of Pope Pius II (1458–1464) and the Crisis of the Fifteenth-Century Papacy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 152; Petr Čornej, “Kvadratura kruhu (Jiří Poděbradský, kompaktáta a papežství),” in Světla a stíny husitství (Události – osobnosti – texty – tradice). Výbor z úvah a studií (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011), 282; Červenka, “One Church”, 417.

¹⁰ Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 38–124.

¹¹ The history of replacing sub utraque with sub una specie is addressed in Dieter Girgensohn, Peter von Pulkau und die Wiedereinführung des Laienkelches: Leben und Wirken eines Wiener Theologen in der Zeit des Grossen Schismas (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 84–120; and Dušan Coufal, Polemika o kalich mezi teologií a politikou 1414–1431: předpoklady basilejské disputace o prvním z pražských artikulů (Prague: Kalich, 2012), 17–19.

¹² For more information concerning the origins of Bohemian Utraquism, see Dušan Coufal, “Die Theologie des Laienkelchs bei Jacobell von Mies († 1429) und den frühen Utraquisten,” Archa Verbi 14 (2017): 157–201.

¹³ These articles are well explained in Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955), 148–163; and Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1967), 369, 373–374, n. 32.

¹⁴ The importance of Hussitism for conciliarism was stressed by Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy (London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), 169.

¹⁵ In the Quoniam alto bull of December 18, 1431, he stated that one of the reasons for his decision was the recent invitation of the Utraquists to Basel. The council refused to obey, and Cesarini, one of its members, even wrote a treatise in defense of the invitation. See Michiel Decaluwé, A Successful Defeat: Eugene IV's Struggle with the Council of Basel for Ultimate Authority in the Church, 1431–1449 (Brussels: Belgisch Historisch Institute, 2009), 88–92; and Dušan Coufal, Turnaj víry: polemika o kalich na basilejském koncilu 1431–1433 (Prague: Filosofia, 2020), 69–78.

¹⁶ The delivery of the Basel confirmation of the Compactata to Prague (February 11, 1437) is recorded in “Johannis de Turonis Regestrum actorum in legationibus a sacro concilio in Boemiam,” in Monumenta conciliorum generalium seculi decimi quinti [hereafter cited as MC] I, eds. František Palacký and Ernst Birk (Vienna, 1857), 852.

¹⁷ For more information on the council–papal struggle, see Loy Bilderback, “Eugen IV and the First Dissolution of the Council of Basle,” Church History 36, no. 3 (Sept. 1967): 243–253; Joachim W. Stieber, Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel, and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire. The Conflict over Supreme Authority in the Church (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1978); Jesse D. Mann, “The Devilish Pope: Eugenius IV as Lucifer in the Later Works of Juan de Segovia,” Church History 65, no. 2 (June 1996): 184–196; and Decaluwé, A Successful Defeat.

¹⁸ Relevant sources concerning the diet are available in Archiv český, čili Staré písemné památky české i moravské [hereafter cited as AČ] II, ed. František Palacký (Prague, 1842), 209–218 (a letter to Eugene IV on 217–218).

¹⁹ These words were originally recorded in an Old Czech account presented at a land diet in 1448. AČ II, 234: “Opusťte ten kalich a sjednajte se s kostelem římským, však dokavadž se nesjednáte, vždy Němci budú vřieti a papeže popúzeti.” Unless otherwise noted, all translations of Latin/Old Czech words into English that appear in the main text are my own. The whole text about the Rome embassy is on 233–236.

²⁰ Ibid., 234: “Item mnozí želejí těch kompaktát mezi vámi učiněných; ale musilo to býti pro pokoj toho času.”

²¹ “Poselství kardinála Jana z Karvajal v Praze r. 1448,” in Fontes rerum Bohemicarum VII, ed. Josef Emler (Prague, undated), 51: “Item diximus pape: ‘Tamen Grecos cum calice recipitis, cur non nos? Et nos habemus compactata cum concilio Basiliensi. Petimus propter Deum, faveatis nobis hoc idem, ut saltim compactatis possimus frui.’ Ad hoc papa nichil respondit.”

²² Ibid., 48: “Dixit autem, quod sanctissimus pater nichil de compactatis sciret, nec nobis aliquid de eis constat. Supplicatus igitur quod: detis nobis eam conspiciendum, tunc dederunt ei literam originalem.” Carvajal's legation and the role of the Compactata therein have recently been addressed by Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 103–104; and Antonín Kalous, “The Papacy and the Czech Lands between Reform and Reformation (1417–1526),” in The Papacy and the Czech Lands. A History of Mutual Relations, eds. Tomáš Černušák et al. (Prague: Historický ústav, 2016), 128.

²³ Commentarii De Regni Bohemiae Incorporatarumque Provinciarum Iuribus Ac Privilegiis I, ed. Melchior Goldast (Frankfurt: Sande, 1719), 155*: “De primo igitur, videlicet de compactatis, quia heri tarde per magnificum dominum Georgium sunt mihi oblati et nondum super his deliberavi (sed tamen cum consilio vestro, pro bono pacis huius regni inclyti, deliberare volo), pro hac vice loqui non intendo.” Dominus Georgius is probably none other than the future king of Bohemia, George of Poděbrady.

²⁴ “Poselství kardinála,” 49: “Optaverunt, quod det eis finale responsum de communione duplicis speciei et de compactatis. Respondit, quod non venit ad decidendam eandem materiam et determinandam, sed pro pace facienda.”

²⁵ Ibid., 52.

²⁶ Ibid., 51: “Diximus, . . . quod nobis confirmaret in archiepiscopum Rokocanum; si autem noluerit, convertemus nos ad Felicem et ad concilium. Dixit (Carvajal – n. A. P.) nobis: Circa Felicem nichil accipietis, quia nichil solus habet.”

²⁷ See the relevant text in Concilium Florentinum documenta et scriptores 1/1. Epistolae pontificiae ad concilium Florentinum spectantes, ed. Georg Hofman (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940), 105. The gist of the bull is explained in Decaluwé, A Successful Defeat, 304–305.

²⁸ For Capistrano's mission in the Czech Lands and his letters from that time, see Zdeněk Nejedlý, “Česká missie Jana Kapistrana,” Časopis Musea Království českého 74, no. 1 (1900): 57–72, 220–242, 334–352, 447–464; John Hofer, Johannes Kapistran: Ein Leben im Kampf um die Reform der Kirche 2 (Heidelberg, Germany: Kerle, 1965), 69–137, 259–286; Štěpán Kohout, “Pobyt Jana Kapistrana v Olomouci,” Ročenka Státního okresního archivu v Olomouci 22 (1994): 117–140; and Pavel Soukup, “The Polemical Letters of John of Capistrano against the Hussites: Remarks on Their Transmission and Context,” in The Grand Tour of John of Capistrano in Central and Eastern Europe (1451–1456). Transfer of Ideas and Strategies of Communication in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Paweł Kras and James D. Mixson (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2018), 259–273.

²⁹ František Valouch, Žiwotopis swatého Jana Kapistrána (Brno, Czech Republic: Dědictwí ss. Cyrilla a Methodia,1858), 750–751: “In compactatis continentur, quam concilum dare licentiam communicandi sub utraque specie, . . . sed quia servata non fuerunt, neque sacrum concilium talem licentiam debuit elargiri . . . Videas igitur, si post declaratum decretum sive a Domino Juliano, sive a sacro concilio sub autoritate et obedientia Eugenii vel ab ipso Eugenio aut a sanctissimo Domino nostro Nicolao papa quinto licentiam aliquam habuistis . . . Si vere et realiter habuistis , ostendite.” The Basel decree and new license of the chalice are further discussed below.

³⁰ Valouch, Životopis, 826: “Praetera ipsimet bene nostis, si quod promisistis in vestris compactatis, cum effectu et realiter observatis, si ecclesiasticam unitatem tenuistis in unitate katholicae fidei et conformitate ritus universalis ecclesiae, si servastis decreta et decretales sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae, si timuistis excommunicationes et censuras ecclesiasticas, si habuistis recursum ad sanctam Romanam ecclesiam pro absolutionibus a casibus sedi apostolicae reservatis, si restituistis bona ecclesiastica, si habuistis vel habetis archiepiscopum institutum et confirmatum per summum pontificem et sanctam Romanam ecclesiam, si servatis pacem cum universo populo Christiano, sive intra dictum regnum, sive extra, vos ipsi judicate . . . Attendite etiam, si vestri sacerdotes exhibuerunt, communionem sub utraque specie illis solum, qui usum habuerant sic communicandi pro prius, vel si infatulis in die baptismi et primo anno, et infantuli aetate exhibuerunt, vel si etiam adultis, sine aliqua praeparatione, sine confessione, exeuntibus de thabernis et forte de inhonestioribus locis, indiscrete praebuerunt.” For the Utraquist priest John Rokycana's polemic reactions, see Ibid., 717–727.

³¹ For this and relevant literature to this topic, see Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel,” 182–187.

³² Die Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini. 1. Band: Briefe von seiner Erhebung zum Bischof von Siena bis zum Ausgang des Regensburger Reichstages. I. Teil: Privatbriefe, ed. Rudolf Wolkan (Vienna: Hölder, 1918), 31: “Si noluit legatus innovare pactiones vestra, quid miri est? Vobis indulta est sub duplici specie communicatio; jussi tamen sacerdotes vestri sunt, quotienscunque ministrant populo sacramentum, commonere atque instruere omnes, ne sub duplici tantum specie, sed sub qualibet totum et integrum esse Christum intelligant; nihil faciunt. Prohibiti sunt infantibus atque dementibus eucharistiam porrigere, porrigunt tamen.”

³³ Ibid., 31–32: “Vera dicis, non si omnes, sed si aliqui dicunt federa ritum ecclesie non recipere, compactata manere; quod si omnes abicerent ritus, ut omnes abicitis, vigor conventionibus aufertur.”

³⁴ His talks with the Bohemians in Basel in 1433 are discussed in Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy?,” 414–419; and Coufal, Turnaj víry, 452–454.

³⁵ Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia. Volumen XV. Opuscula III. Fasciculus I. Opuscula Bohemica, eds. Stephanus Nottelmann and Iohannes G. Senger (Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner, 2014), 61–62: “Cum extra universalem ecclesiam, quae catholica graece dicitur, non sit salus ut et ipsi negare non possunt – videte in compactatis, ubi est illa ‚catholica ecclesia’, et reperietis in capitulo primi articuli esse scriptum, quod ‚regnum Bohemiae et marchionatus’ in fide conformare se debent ‚universali ecclesiae’ – et non potest intellectus alius dari, quam quod illa sit universalis ecclesia, cui se debent regnum et marchionatus conformare.” Cusanus's mission has been reflected in Bartoš, “Cusanus and the Hussite Bishop”; Hallauer, “Das Glaubengespräch,” 57–69 (including a number of remarks on the Compactata); and Fudge, “The Hussites and the Council,” 277–278.

³⁶ Nicolai de Cusa Opera, 62–63: “Legite textum et ponderate mentem concilii ex littera et reperietis negligentia illorum sacerdotum vos omnia ibi vobis oblata perdidisse. Est enim vobis notorium, quod illi tales sacerdotes nunquam ea, quae fieri debebant ad permissionem illius communionis, procurarunt aut observarunt, sed non obstantibus compactatis continuarunt illa, quae dimittere tenebantur. Ideo ex eorum neglegentia permissio etiam quoad personas, quae usum habebant, non est sortita effectum.”

³⁷ Ibid., 63: “Minus permissio de libertatione concedenda obtinere potuit a synodo – semper ob talium presbyterorum praesumptam pertinaciam, qui toto tempore, quo concilium sedebat, compactata nulla ex parte observare curarunt.”

³⁸ Its author was the Utraquist priest and former diplomat Martin Lupáč. Having received Lupáč's letter, which accused the legate of failing to understand the true sense of the Compactata, Cusanus wrote a letter to Lupáč and other priests living in the city of Klatovy, in which he stressed the idea that the Compactata allowed the chalice only for those united with the Catholic Church in faith and rite. See Ibid., 65–67.

³⁹ Oration “Res Bohemicas” of Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1455, Rome), ed. Michael von Cotta-Schønberg (2019), 138–140, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01180832/document (accessed April 12, 2023): “Compactata namque, solum habentibus usum, potionem calicis indulgent, necessitatemque negant. Quod si regnum ea suscipiat, post quinquaginta annos vix aliquis vivet de calice bibens.” Enea's speech for Calixtus is extensively discussed in Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel,” 187–194.

⁴⁰ For this issue, see Heymann, George of Bohemia, 165–167; and O'Brien, The Commentaries, 74.

⁴¹ Between 1439 and 1453, there was a prolonged interregnum during which there was no legitimate king ruling over the Czech Lands.

⁴² As with previous Piccolomini's actions, the 1462 events are thoroughly discussed in Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel,” 194–201. For his 1462 speech, see “Poselství krále Jiřího,” in AČ VIII, ed. Josef Kalousek (Prague 1888), 342, 345. Cf. also Heymann, George of Bohemia, 263–277; Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 105–108; and Kalous, The Papacy and the Czech Lands, 131.

⁴³ “Poselství krále Jiřího,” 328–336. The gist of Koranda's speech has recently been addressed by Jindřich Marek, “Major Figures of Later Hussitism,” in A Companion to the Hussites, eds. Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (Boston: Brill, 2020), 161.

⁴⁴ “Poselství krále Jiřího,” 361–362: “Neque tamen inde reperitur, quod concilium postea huiusmodi facultatem dederit. Sive igitur primam compactatorum partem sive secundam adducitis, nichil habetis. Nam secunda pollicitacionis est nunquam impleta, sive quia non petivistis, sive concilium ex racionabili causa recusavit concedere, quod noxium videbat futurum, cum vestri sacerdotes non servarent contenta. Nec prima pars vobis subvenit, quia concessa est communio calicis usum habentibus et unionem recipientibus ecclesiasticam in omnibus aliis preterquam in articulo communionis. Sed unionem ecclessiasticam et conformitatem nunquam recepistis, non igitur indulti fuistis capaces.”

⁴⁵ Ibid., 352.

⁴⁶ A contemporary account of the Prague events of 1462 is given in Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum VIII, ed. Josef Max (Wroclaw: Josef Max & Komp., 1873), 133–135.

⁴⁷ Bohemian polemical reactions to the Constance decree have been addressed in Dvě staročeská utrakvistická díla Jakoubka ze Stříbra, ed. Milan Čejka and Helena Krmíčková (Brno, Czech Republic: Masarykova univerzita, 2009), 89–108; Coufal, Polemika o kalich, 49–51; Coufal, “Die Theologie des Laienkelchs,” 161; and Petra Mutlová, Nicolai Dresdensis Apologia: de conclusibus doctorum in Constantia de materia sanguinis (Brno, Czech Republic: Masarykova univerzita, 2015).

⁴⁸ For the war between George of Poděbrady and Matthias Corvinus, see Heymann, George of Bohemia, 476–585.

⁴⁹ Lambert, Medieval Heresy, 350.

⁵⁰ O'Brien, The Commentaries of Pope Pius II, 152. Similar claims can also be found on 25, 80–81, and 153.

⁵¹ Čornej, “Kvadratura kruhu,” 282.

⁵² Červenka, “One Church,” 417 (see also 424): “The Compacts were the steady remnant of the conciliarism, which put the head of the Catholic Church in an ambiguous position. In a way, Compacts might be seen as a sign of weakness of the Pope and viability of the conciliar thoughts.”

⁵³ For instance, when O'Brien addresses Pius's arguments against the Compactata in her The Commentaries of Pope Pius II (152–153), none of them is aimed against the council; in fact, the last argument listed by O'Brien is an example of Pius employing the council's authority.

⁵⁴ See the section “The Two Faces of Enea Silvio Piccolomini.”

⁵⁵ Valouch, Žiwotopis, 826: “Sed post translationem factam de Basilea ad Ferrariam per ipsum Eugenium, et post recessum ipsius Domini sancti Angeli, quidquid actum exstitit, nullo juris vigore subsistens irritum et improbum judicatur. Patet igitur ex vestris compactatis vestram opinionem subsistere non valere ex supra dictis rationibus et decretis.”

⁵⁶ For a better illustration, let us quote all the three Catholics in question. In 1451, Capistrano wrote (Valouch, Žiwotopis, 826): “Nonne et concilium Basiliense confirmavit decreta Constantiensis concilii, et novum edidit expressisime contra vestras hereses?” In the same year, Piccolomini stated (Die Briefwechsel, 53): “In Basilea autem, dum generalis synodus illic erat, postquam exacte visa sunt et diligenter excussa sacrarum testimonia litterarum, magnorum conciliorum decretis ac sanctorum patrum et illustrium doctorum traditionibus enucleate pensatis, decretum promulgatum est, quod aperte declarat, fideles laicos sive clericos communicantes et non conficientes ad suscipiendum sub specie panis et vini divinum eucharistie sacramentum ex precepto domini nos esse astrictos.” Cues wrote in 1452 (Nicolai de Cusa Opera, 85): “Et duae synodi Constantiensis et Basiliensis definierunt talem communionem non esse de veritate praecepti evangelici quoad laicalem populum et quod non liceat contra ritum ecclesiae rationabiliter introductum alicui illum sua sponte usurpare.” The Basel decree can be found in Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta II/2, eds. Giuseppe Alberigo and Alberto Melloni (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2013), 1035–1036.

⁵⁷ The Basel ratification of the Compactata includes a typical phrase (Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 207, 213): “Sacrosancta generalis synodus Basiliensis in Spiritu Sancto legittime congregata, universalem ecclesiam representans.” For another relevant phrase, see note 59 below.

⁵⁸ For the Pragmatic Sanction and its relation to conciliarism, see O'Brien, The Commentaries, 25, 34, 118, 132, 152.

⁵⁹ Litera de unitatis et obediencie includes the words (“Thomae Ebendorferi Diarium gestorum per legatos concilii Basiliensis pro reductione Bohemorum,” in MC I, 776): “Promittimus obedienciam canonicam, reverenciam debitam sancte matri ecclesie, sacroque generali concilio ipsam representanti, Romano pontifici nostrisque pontificibus et prepositis aliis canonice intrantibus reverenciam debitam et obedienciam canonicam promittimus secundum legem Dei et sanctorum patrum instituta.” The possible conciliarist approach can be seen in the fact that the words ipsam representanti are evidently related to the council, but not the pope.

⁶⁰ O'Brien, The Commentaries, 45–46, appears to assert the opposite, but no solid evidence for such a notion is given.

⁶¹ This phenomenon has recently been addressed in Coufal, Turnaj víry, 62–83. See also Bilderback, “Eugen IV,” 243–253.

⁶² “Johannis de Segovia Historia gestorum generalis synodi Basiliensis,” in MC II, ed. Ernst Birk (Vienna, 1873), 1039: “Causa Bohemorum quoad articulum communionis sub utraque specie, quem solum articulum volumus in dicta civitate Basiliensi a data presencium infra triginta dies continuari posse, dumtaxat excepta; quos eciam Bohemos, si pro ea causa ad dictam civitatem Ferrariensem et concilium sic translatum eis magis venire placuerit, in eum casum benigne suscipiemus, tractabimusque cum omni humilitate et caritate possibiliter, et ab aliis tractari faciemus.”

⁶³ This Catholic stance can be attested in Carvajal's mission discussed in the section “The Catholic Church and the Compactata, 1447–1452.”

⁶⁴ This is discussed in more detail in the section “The Limited or Unlimited Legitimacy of Utraquism.”

⁶⁵ Numerous Catholic complaints about alleged Utraquist transgressions of the Compactata are discussed in Adam Pálka, “Přijímání maličkých jako třecí plocha mezi utrakvisty a katolíky po roce 1436,” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 23, no. 1 (2020): 77–89. See also the Catholic diplomats’ position discussed above, notes 9–11.

⁶⁶ Similarly, Zilynská, “The Utraquist Church,” 241, asserts, “The formulation of the Compactata was not unambiguous; both sides argued for their own interpretation of their contents, and thus the Compactata remained a source of controversy between Hussites and Catholics both within the kingdom and abroad.” Nevertheless, she gives no examples of the controversy. Cf. also Marek, “Major Figures,” 142.

⁶⁷ The first disputes of this kind occurred in Jihlava almost immediately after the Compactata had been promulgated and the subsequent transfer of the Basel legates to Prague (August 1436) failed to resolve anything. Although the talks between the legates, Sigismund, and Utraquists in 1436–1437 often involved the interpretation of the Compactata, no agreement was reached. For these events, see Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen,” 251–252; and Pálka, “Přijímání maličkých,” 61–77.

⁶⁸ For disputes over the Compactata, see Heymann, George of Bohemia, 10–11, 163–164; Pálka, “Papoušek versus Lupáč,” 41–87; Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel,” 177–212; and Marek, “Václav Koranda,” 153–166. It is important to emphasize that none of the works, unlike this article, offers a clearly arranged list of various controversies surrounding the Compactata with both the Utraquist and Catholic points of view.

⁶⁹ For instance, all three themes were employed by Piccolomini/Pius II, as has been proven in Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel,” 182–187, 194–201, 205–209.

⁷⁰ Cf. Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 41–45, 171–175; Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen,” 254–255.

⁷¹ Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 172: “Dictis Bohemis et Moravis suscipientibus ecclesiasticam unitatem et pacem realiter et cum effectu, et in omnibus aliis, quam in usu communionis utriusque speciei, fidei et ritui universalis ecclesie conformibus, illi et ille, qui talem usum habent, communicabunt sub duplici specie cum auctoritate domini nostri Iesu Christi et ecclesie, vere sponse sue. Et articulus ille in sacro concilio discucietur ad plenum quoad materiam de precepto, et videbitur, quid circa illum articulum pro veritate catholica sit tenendum et agendum pro utilitate et salute populi christiani. Et omnibus mature et digeste pertractatis, nichilominus, si in desiderio habendi dictam communionem sub duplici specie perseveraverint, hoc eorum ambasiatoribus indicantibus, sacrum concilium sacerdotibus dictorum regni et marchionatus communicandi sub utraque specie populum – eas videlicet personas, que in annis discrecionis constitute reverenter et devote postulaverint – facultatem pro eorum utilitate et salute in Domino largietur; hoc semper observato, quod sacerdotes sic communicantibus semper dicant, quod ipsi debent firmiter credere, quod non sub specie panis caro tantum, nec sub specie vini sanguis tantum, sed sub qualibet specie est integer totus Christus.”

⁷² We have already encountered the second permission for the chalice in the writings/speeches of Capistrano, Cusanus, and Piccolomini. Compare with the section “The Catholic Church and the Compactata, 1447–1452.”

⁷³ Cf. interpretations of the Compactata in Urbánek, České dějiny III, 102–104; Thomas A. Fudge, “Reform and the Lower Consistory,” 69; Odložilík, The Hussite King, 6; Čornej – Bartlová, Velké dějiny, 12–13; Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 43–44; and Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen,” 254–255. Nevertheless, the fact that there are two separate concessions of the chalice in the council's proposal of 1433 (the text of which is almost identical to the Compactata) is highlighted in Coufal, Turnaj víry, 512–513.

⁷⁴ This idea was, among others, promoted by Enea S. Piccolomini and Hilarius of Litoměřice. For Piccolomini, see “Poselství krále Jiřího,” 325 (He claims that according to the Compactata, the chalice “is only for those who practiced or practice the rite; and there are few of those and others are not allowed.”). For Hilarius, see Hilarii Litomericensis S. Ecclesiae pragensis decani disputatio cum Ioanne Rokyczana coram Georgio Rege Bohemiae per Quinque dies habita, ed. Jan Karel Hraba (Prague, 1775), 31. (“Item dicunt Compactata, qui habent; non dicit, habebunt, sed qui habent, de praesenti“).

⁷⁵ This view can be found in the treatise Edicio of John Papoušek of Soběslav. He claims that “in eadem sacri concilii concessione ponitur, quod communio calicis conceditur usque ad discussionem et lycenciam” (Pálka, “Papoušek versus Lupáč,” 74). A similar line of reasoning was given by a Catholic anonym writing between 1455–1458 (Rajhrad, Museum of the Brno Region, MS R 395, ff. 182r): “Compactata per ambasiatores sacri concilii et Boemos congesta sunt eccleiasticam unitatem et pacem suscipientibus, et ita communicandi usum habentibus expresse solum usque ad declaracionem illius articuli, et confirmacionem compactatorum per sacrum concilium concessa est et ita limitata.”

⁷⁶ Here Lupáč justifies his claim with reference to a privilege sealed by Sigismund in 1436. In Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS Cod. 4302, ff. 369v–370r, he quotes the words: “Et volumus, ut per nos et nostros successores in futurum perpetuo singulas eis teneantur et plene conserventur, nec in regno nostro et marchionatu aliter fieri promittemus.”

⁷⁷ Pálka, “Papoušek versus Lupáč,” 81: “Item si compactata et per consequens communio calicis haberent virtutem solum usque ad Basiliensem discussionem, quomodo stant mandata sic in compactatis exarata? ‘Reverendis in Cristo patribus archiepiscopo Pragensi, Olomucensi et Lithomyslensi episcopis, qui sunt, vel pro tempore erunt.’”

⁷⁸ After presenting several biblical citations in the present tense, Lupáč says (Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS Cod. 4302, f. 370v): “Ista ergo omnia dicta sunt de tunc presentibus et nihil pro futuris? Puerilia sunt hec et risu digna!” Whereas the ideas in nn. 76 and this are taken from Lupáč's polemic Super responso Pii pape (1462) against pope Pius II, the idea in n. 77 appears in the treatise Sensus (1449–1462) against John Papoušek.

⁷⁹ “Johannis de Segovia Historia,” 437: “Consuetudinem ecclesie immutando assumere usum communicandi populum sub utraque specie absque auctoritate sancte matris ecclesie licitum non est, sed illicitum. Sancta vero mater ecclesia suadentibus causis racionabilibus facultatem communicandi populum sub utraque specie potest concedere et elargiri.” The proposal from November 1433 adds these words (Ibid., 493): “Et talis communio, que sine auctoritate ecclesie attemptata est, esset illicita. Cum autem de auctoritate et licencia sancte matris ecclesie fiet, erit licita, si alia non impediant.”

⁸⁰ Ibid., 495: “Vos, qui talem usum habetis, communicabitis sub duplici specie cum auctoritate ecclesie.”

⁸¹ Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 172: “Illi et ille, qui talem usum habent, communicabunt sub duplici specie cum auctoritate domini nostri Iesu Christi et ecclesie, vere sponse sue.”

⁸² Adam Pálka, “Super responso Pii pape Martina Lupáče jako pramen k jednáním husitů s basilejským koncilem,” Časopis Matice moravské 134, no. 1 (2015): 47–48.

⁸³ That is evident from “Aegidii Carlerii Liber de legationibus concilii Basiliensis,” in MC I, 455: “Dixit insuper dominos contentos esse, quod ubi ipsi posuerant in cedula per eos data in tractatu hec verba ‚auctoritate ecclesie’ ponerent ‚auctoritate domini nostri Jhesu Christi et ecclesie etc.,’ cum eadem sit auctoritas etc.”

⁸⁴ Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS I F 18, f. 303r: “In eodem tamen concilio Basiliensi ex certis et racionabilibus causis fuit quibusdam Bohemis sub certis compactatis indulta ad tempus communio duplicis speciei, que compactata si servassent, licite sic communicare potuissent et meritorie.”

⁸⁵ Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS XI F 3, ff. 103r–103v: “Communionem sub utraque specie ipsi tam v Bazylii nobis non confirmaverunt, quia nos habemus confirmacionem a Cristo ab eius lege, toliko teď nám zchválili et sigillaverunt, quod sanctum et salubre est etc.”

⁸⁶ Prague, National Museum Library, printed book 25 E 1, pp. 13–14. In fact, the legates aimed for the phrase auctoritate ecclesie, not auctoritate concilii, as has been proven in note 80.

⁸⁷ Hilarii Litomericensis S. Ecclesiae pragensis decani dispvtatio, 31: “Item communicando parvulos faciunt omnino contra Compactata . . . Item inferius in Compactatis dicitur: communicabunt illas personas, quae in annis discretionis constitutae reverenter postulaverint.”

⁸⁸ Hilarius of Litoměřice claimed in 1465 (Ibid., 31) that “expresse dicitur in compactatis: communicabunt illi, qui talem usum habent, sed parvuli non usum habent . . . Nec potest dici, cum semel vel bis recipiunt, quod habeant jam usum; quia si non habent rationem, usum habere non possunt, cum usus et consuetudo proprie sumta, solum sit circa rationem utentes, quod non habent pueri.” The idea of children not capable of having a custom was also expressed by Pavel Žídek, George of Poděbrady's advisor, in his Old Czech treatise Spravovna. See M. Pavla Žídka Spravovna, ed. Zdeněk V. Tobolka (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa, 1908), 60.

⁸⁹ Pálka, “Přijímání maličkých,” 77–89.

⁹⁰ For more information on the Judge of Cheb, see Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen”, 261; Adam Pálka, “Husitské poselstvo, projev Pax vobis, šestice stručných vzpomínek: (staro)nové poznatky k chebskému jednání z května 1432,” Český časopis historický 115, no. 1 (2020): 7–45; and Dušan Coufal, “Key Issues in Hussite Theology,” in A Companion to the Hussites, ed. Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (Boston: Brill, 2020), 269–270.

⁹¹ “Johannis de Turonis Regestrum,” 863: “Tamen secundum conpactata non aliter sumus obligati, nisi ut ea faciamus secundum iudicem conpactatum in Egra, qui iudex est scriptura sacra, doctores sancti, decreta; et ex illis nichil est ostensum contra communionem parvulorum. Et nos habemus pro communione parvulorum scriptura sanctorum, decreta, praxim primittive ecclesie, pro qua veritate deberemus nos exponere usque ad mortem.”

⁹² Lupáč says (Pálka, “Papoušek versus Lupáč,” 80): “Compactata eque bene sonant pro communione parvulorum, sic adultorum auctoritate domini nostri Iesu Cristi et ecclesie, vere sponse eius. Dicitur enim simpliciter: ‚Illi et ille, qui talem usum habent, communicabunt sub utraque specie.’ Ubi tamen parvuli talem usum habentes non excluduntur, sed includuntur.” The same idea presented by the author of the printed Compactata is in Prague, National Museum Library, printed book 25 E 1, p. 17.

⁹³ Brno, Moravian Library, MS MK 111, f. 77v: “Littera ergo illa non nobis, qui iam ex compactatis habuimus communicare sub utraque specie, ut premittitur, sed adversariis (Catholic clergymen – n. A. P.) dari debuit.” Compare identical thoughts in the printed Compactata in Prague, National Museum Library, printed book 25 E 1, pp. 12–14.

⁹⁴ Neither the Compactata, nor the concept of the license as described by John of Segovia (“Johannis de Segovia Historia,” 1111) makes it clear whether the right for the Bohemian and Moravian clergy to administer the Eucharist in both kinds ought to be temporary or not.

⁹⁵ For difficulties regarding specification of the Utraquist church, see Zilynská, “The Utraquist Church,” 220–221. By using the word “churches,” I refer to the fact that apart from the moderate Utraquist Church, there were also conservative Utraquists ruling over Prague until 1448, led by John of Příbram and Prokop of Pilsen. For more information, see Jaroslav Prokeš, M. Prokop z Plzně: příspěvek k vývoji konservativní strany husitské (Prague: Společnost Husova muzea, 1927). Besides, there still existed the highly radical Taborite Church in southern Bohemia until 1452, the existence of which, however, had nothing to do with the Compactata of Basel. Cf. František Šmahel, “Pax externa et interna: Vom Heiligen Krieg zur Erzwungenen Toleranz im hussitischen Böhmen (1419–1485),” in Toleranz im Mittelalter, eds. Alexander Patschovsky and Harald Zimmermann (Sigmaringen, Germany: Thorbecke, 1998), 255.

⁹⁶ The treatise is preserved in Prague, Archives of Prague Castle, Archive of the Metropolitan Chapter by St. Vitus, MS D 118, ff. 99v–106r (relevant passages on ff. 99v–100r, 104r–106r).

⁹⁷ Winfried Eberhard, “Zur reformatorischen Qualität und Konfessionalisierung des nachrevolutionären Hussitismus,” in Häresie und vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter, eds. František Šmahel and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner (Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg, 1998), 231–238. Eberhard's approach has recently been addressed by Olga Fejtová, “Německá diskuze ke konfesionalizaci v evropském kontextu,” Český časopis historický 109, no. 4 (2011): 773–774; Robert Novotný, “Konfesionalizace před konfesionalizací? Víra a společnost v husitské epoše,” in Heresis seminaria. Pojmy a koncepty v bádání o husitství, eds. Pavlína Rychterová and Pavel Soukup (Prague: Filosofia 2013), 233–266. On 264–265, Novotný claims that the building of a confessional identity in Bohemia did not occur in a straightforward manner, and religious issues never outbalanced other elements of one's identity (that is, regional, family, and estate affiliations). For confessionalization as understood in German historiography and criticism of some of the aspects of this approach, see Stefan Ehrenpreis and Ute Lotz-Heumann, Reformation und konfessionelles Zeitalter, (Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002), 62–79; and Irene Dingel, “Bekenntnisbildung und Konfessionalisierung. Strukturen und Verlaufsformen,” in Orthodoxa Confessio? Konfessionsbildung, Konfessionalisierung und ihre Folgen in der östlichen Christenheit Europas, eds. Mihai D. Grigore and Florian Kührer-Wielach (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 23–44.

⁹⁸ This term was used and connected to the autonomy of Bohemian Utraquism by Eberhard, “Zur reformatorischen Qualität,” 238.

⁹⁹ See n. 1 above.

¹⁰⁰ Philip Haberkern, “The Lands of the Bohemian Crown: Conflict, Coexistence, and the Quest for the True Church,” in A Companion to the Reformation in Central Europe, eds. Howard Louthan and Graeme Murdock (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2015), 24.

¹⁰¹ Hugh Lecaine Agnew, The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2004), 50.

¹⁰² Zilynská, “The Utraquist Church,” 231.

¹⁰³ Basically all the late medieval monarchs ruling over Bohemia after 1436 had to accept the binding nature of the Compactata. For the significant role of the Compactata in the Czech royal politics, see Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 100–102, 104–109, 112–113, 120–121.