XML version of this edition is available on Zenodo.

Introduction

The synodal sermon on the biblical verse from the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 6:14) − State succincti lumbos vestros − was delivered by Jan Hus in Prague on 18 October 1407.[1] It was his second synodal sermon (cf. Diliges Dominum Deum from 1405) and Hus used it to launch a sharp critique of the Church, especially its schism (understood in the fundamental sense of any ecclesiastical conflict), which he regarded as the clearest manifestation of the Antichrist's presence in the world. This interpretation of the deteriorated state of the Church as a sign of the approaching end of the world appears for the first time within the long tradition of synodal preaching precisely in the sermons of Jan Hus. It therefore represents a new and fundamental extension of the traditional framework of synodal sermons, which is structured around the antithesis between the good and the bad priest.[2] Many critical passages were inspired by John Wyclif's sermon Confortamini in Domino which is based also on Ephesians 6, as well as by Sermones super Cantica Canticorum composed by Bernard of Clairvaux. Many of these ideas were later reiterated by Hus in his other works – Tractatus de ecclesia, Expositio Decalogi,  Contra octo doctores − or can be found in Pseudo-Hus's Dicta de tempore or Sermones in Capella Bethlehem.

Manuscripts and editorial principles

The text of State succincti is preserved in 25 manuscripts (including a fragment preserved in the Prague National Library, XIII F 21, f. 76v), three of which (dating from the mid-15th century) were selected for this digital edition. For the base text, we have used the manuscript preserved in the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague,       shelfmark VIII F 2, fols. 37r−51r (siglum A). A collation of the preserved manuscripts has shown that this manuscript is textually the best (as it contains only four scribal errors) and it ranks among the oldest extant manuscripts. This manuscript contains a substantial number of Hus’s works, and so-called hussitica (e.g., Jakoubek of Stříbro, Štěpán of Páleč) and situates State succincti between Hus’s Diliges and his Questio de arguendo clero. The precise dating of manuscripts and relationships between them, however, cannot be established with certainty. In the past, codex VIII F 2 has proven to be the best manuscript version also for another Latin sermon by Hus – Abiciamus opera tenebrarum − edited by Anežka Vidmanová.[3] In the apparatus, variant readings from two additional manuscripts are recorded – one held in the Jagiellonian Library in Kraków, shelfmark 1628, fols. 24r^b−33v^a (siglum B), and the other in the archive of the Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus in Prague, shelfmark N 7, fols. 56v−65r (siglum C). Both manuscripts contain a substantial number of Hus’s works, and so-called hussitica. Manuscript B alone can be dated with precision, on the basis of Jiří Kejř’s research, to the year 1412.[4]

The text of the edition follows the wording and graphic features found in manuscript A. Graphical variants and scribal errors (manuscript B contains 15 scribal errors and manuscript C contains 20 scribal errors) are not included in the apparatus. Manuscripts B and C differ considerably from manuscript A and are genetically closer to each other, as they agree in most of their variant readings (manuscript B and C share nearly three hundred variant readings or omissions). On the other hand, manuscript B includes more than one hundred additional individual readings (not attested in manuscript C), and manuscript C contains more than twice as many (not attested in manuscript B), which precludes the possibility of a direct common model for these two manuscripts.

The close relationship between manuscripts B and C has previously been established in the edition of Hus’s sermon Abiciamus opera tenebrarum (ed. Anežka Vidmanová),[5] in the edition of the synodal sermon Diliges Dominum Deum (ed. Zuzana Lukšová),[6] and also in the currently being published works – Hus’s De matrimonio II and De viciis. According to these editions, the group of mutually related manuscripts further includes the manuscript Brno, MZA G 12 II 151, in which the sermon State succincti is also preserved. This manuscript group is characterized by nearly identical contents and the concordance in the sequence of the texts as well as the graphical features of the manuscripts. This conclusion was reached by Jiří Kejř, who was the first to examine in detail the contents and the ordering of works in manuscript Kraków, Jagiellonian Library 1628. Prior to his study, scholars had been limited to Wisłocki’s old manuscript catalogue,[7] which omitted numerous texts from the era of the Bohemain Reformation. Kejř corroborates our conclusion regarding the relationship between manuscripts B and C, noting that, in view of the substantial number of divergent readings, these manuscripts did not derive from a single common exemplar.

In manuscript B, State (as in manuscript Brno, MZA G 12 II 151) is placed between Hus’s Diliges Dominum Deum and the work by Matthias of Aula Regia, Convertimini ad me in toto corde vestro. It is followed by Ductus est Iesus by Stanislav of Znojmo and Hus’s Vos estis sal terrae. The Kraków and Brno manuscripts agree both in the number of Hus’s works and their sequence. The Prague manuscript (C) contains the same works, but in a slightly different order (which, however, creates a more compact block of Hus’s works) and additionally includes two further works by Hus. It places State between Hus’s Diliges and also Hus’s Vos estis sal terrae.

The sermon State succincti has so far been published only uncritically – in the old print Historia et monumenta (vol. II) from 1558 edited by Flacius Illyricus[8] (in 1715 in reissued version). This digital edition represents a crucial first step, enabling future supplementation with the transcriptions of the remaining manuscripts and, on that basis, the completion of a critical edition of this significant synodal sermon.

Detailed description of the manuscripts A, B and C:

At the beginning of the text, manuscript A mentions the author’s name (Magistri Iohannis Hus) twice – once is written by the medieval scribe and once by an 18th-century hand (f. 37r). At the end of the text, it gives the date and indicates that it is a synodal sermon − Anno Domini 1407 in die sancti Luce in synodo (f. 51r). Manuscript A contains short marginal glosses: numbering (41v−42r, where Hus recalls seven instances in which the Saviour punishes seven distinct sins of the clergy with weeping and gnashing of teeth) and a manicule drawing attention to the word dignitatem (f. 42r); on f. 43r, a single-word gloss (infideles) summarizing the content of the text section. Manuscript A contains only four scribal errors − the scribe duplicated the word fructus (f. 41v), used form ewanglii instead of ewangelii (f. 37r) and Iustimiani instead of Iustiniani (f. 46v and 47v). On one occasion, he forgot to strike out the corrected word (when vel was replaced with aut, f. 42r).

At the beginning of the text, manuscript B states that it is a synodal sermon by Jan Hus − Sermo Magistri Iohannis Hus sinodalis (f. 24r^b), and the manuscript C likewise describes the sermon as synodal, but without Hus’s name − Sermo synodalis ad clerum (f. 56v). The date of delivery is missing in these manuscripts. Manuscript C contains marginal glosses summarizing the content of the text – on f. 58v (hec notanda sunt), 59v (hic horribilia notanda sunt de clero; Crisostomum nota) and 65r (de pluribus beneficiis), and marginal numbering on f. 60v where Hus mentions seven cases where the punishment of weeping and gnashing of teeth is pronounced (as in manuscript A). Manuscripts B and C exhibit a much higher number of scribal errors, yet none of these scribal errors are shared by both B and C. The scribe of manuscript B most often omits the abbreviation mark above words, corrupts words by omitting letters, incorrectly interchanges letters within them (e.g., n/m), or inserts superfluous letters. The scribe of manuscript C repeats words and likewise omits abbreviation marks above words, letters within words, or interchanges letters within words. He incorrectly changes the case of noun forms or the person or tense of verbal forms. The following table presents a summary of all scribal errors of the manuscripts B and C in comparison with manuscript A.

Scribal errors

Graphics

Manuscripts contain graphical features, e.g. A: exsequitur/B: exequitur; A: Luciferi/B: Luciperi; A: agwille/B: augwille/C: auguille; A: calceati/B: calciati; A: Bel/C: Beel; A: gardiani/C: cardiani; A: contis/C: chontis; A: contus/C: conchus.

The chief shared variant readings of manuscripts B and C in comparison with manuscript A

Regarding omissions, they typically consist of only one or two words. The following three omissions are exceptions: vestros in veritate et induite loricam iusticie calceati pedes in preparacione ewangelii pacis (A, f. 42v) is replaced by etc. (B) or et cetera (C); et nequam tribuit debitum, dum eos a maliciis retrahit, insolentes (A, f. 45r) is omitted in B and C; Anno Domini 1407 in die sancti Luce in synodo (A, f. 51r) is omitted in B and C. On two occasions, manuscript B and C provide an extended text by more than two words: pigwes (A, f. 44v)/B,C: pigwes que estis in monte Samarie; state (A, f. 48v)/B,C: state calceati pedes.

Most frequently, manuscripts B and C, in shared variant readings, use a different person in verb forms, different endings in noun forms, omit a single word, abbreviate a biblical citation, refer to a different biblical verse, or add a conjunction or preposition. Word order is changed only occasionally, and then only at the level of transposing two words.

[1] The date is attested by these manuscripts: Olomouc, Reserach Library, M I 34; Wien, ÖNB 4515; Wien, Stiftsbibliothek 50 e 7; Praha, The Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus, E 57 and N 48. Hus’s authorship is attested by these manuscripts: Olomouc, Reserach Library, M I 3, Brno, Moravian Provincial Archive, G 12 II 151; Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska 1628; Wien, ÖNB 4509 and 4515; Praha, The Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus E 57 and N 48.

[2] Cf. Mazalová, L. and Lukšová, Z. ‘Gradus summus et animus infimus: The contrast between ideas of the ideal priest and the real priest in Prague synodal sermons.’ Medieval sermon studies, 64, 1 (2020), pp. 48−65. ISSN 1366-0691 (https://doi.org/10.1080/13660691.2020.1815431); Nechutová, J. Reform- und Bussprediger von Waldhauser bis Hus. In Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14./15. Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa. Eds. W. Eberhard and F. Machilek. Köln 2006, pp. 239–254.

[3] Iohannes Hus. Positiones, recommendationes, sermones. Ed. A. Schmidtová.  Praha 1958, p. 234.

[4] Kejř, J.: ‘K rukopisnému zachování Husových spisů.’ Listy filologické 81,2 (1958), p. 206−214.

[5] On the basis of the work of A. Vidmanová, it can be assumed that the strongly pro-Hussite manuscripts Praha, National LibraryXIII F 21 and Praha, The Metropolitan Chapter of St. Vitus F 20 also belong to the group of the oldest manuscripts of the sermon State succincti.

[6] Lukšová, Z. Synodální kázání Jana Husa Diliges Dominum Deum. Synodalpredikt von Jan Hus Diliges Dominum Deum (doctoral disseratation), Brno – Erlangen 2017, p. 92 (URL: https://is.muni.cz/auth/th/humms/Dissertatio_ZL_full.pdf

[7] Wisłocki, W. Katalog rękopisów Biblijoteki Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kraków 1877−1881, p. 394.

[8] Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta II. Ed. M. Flaccius Illyricus. Norimbergae 1558.