*
The paper focuses on the personal actions of Bishop Andrew of Prague and the situation
within the church in the Czech Lands after the Fourth Lateran Council. Andrew is a central
representative in the process of immediate reception of the Fourth Lateran Council in the
Czech Lands. Previous research has focused on the fundamental question of Andrews’s
episcopate: his conflict with King Ottokar I regarding the church reforms introduced in the
Czech Lands between 1216 and 1222. However, it is necessary to study the conflict in a
long-term perspective (from the middle of the twelfth till the end of the thirteenth centuries)
and in the context of the promotion of the patronage law, the judicial exemption of
clergy, and the enforcement of church control over tithes. The analysis shows that the
church was a strongly decentralized institution controlled by local lay elites and damaged
by nepotism. The private life of the clergy was corrupted by concubinage and, resulting
from that, we can see attempts to create ―clerical dynasties.‖ The route to a change only
began with Bishop Andrew and the implementation of the change would not have been
possible without the overall transformations of the political, economic, social and mental
structures.
*
This study was written as part of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GACR)
P405/15-01866S project: The Fourth Council of the Lateran and the Transformation of
Bohemian Lands during the 13th and 14th Centuries.
The Fourth Lateran Council, convoked by Pope Innocent III on 19 April 1213
with the bull Vineam domini Sabaoth and commenced on 11 November 1215,
was one of the decisive ecumenical councils of the High Middle Ages. In the
seventy canons, which resulted from the discussions, the council provided
clear opinions on a series of questions that resonated in the life of the church
and the laity. The discussions that were guided by the distinctive personality
of Pope Innocent, who developed an ideology that shaped the thought world
of the clergy and direction of the church as one of the political powers of the
medieval West, touched on a number of issues of the then Latin West. These
included positions on new heretical movements and efforts to strengthen the
discipline and create a functional hierarchy within the church, and to define
the relationship between the clergy and the laity subjected to them toward the
representatives of secular power. Issues concerning the morality of the clergy,
excommunication, and marriage, as well as the problematic collection of
tithes were also discussed. The council also addressed the situation in orders
and the issue of the regulation of relations of Christendom to Jews and Muslims.
The proclamation of a crusade to the Holy Land at the end of the
canons—the tone of which matched the ambitious plans of the theocraticminded
papacy—became an integral part of the Lateran IV Decrees.1
A number of authors have focused on the course of the discussions, which
took place in November 1215 at the Lateran, and their effect on Western
Europe’s development.2
In contrast, Czech historiography has dealt with the
impact of the Fourth Lateran Council on the situation in the Czech Lands only
in the context of the events that immediately followed the return of Bishop
1
For the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, see GIUSEPPE ALBERIGO et al. (eds.):
Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils], 3rd ed.,
Bologna 1973, pp. 227–271; for the English translation, see NORMAN P. TANNER (ed.):
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London 1990.
2
For the Fourth Lateran Council, cf. MARION E. GIBBS, JANE LANG: Bishops and Reform,
1215–1272: With special reference to the Lateran council of 1215, Oxford 1934;
HELENE TILLMANN: Innocenz III, Bonn 1954, pp. 152–168; HUBERT JEDIN (ed.): Handbuch
der Kirchengeschichte, Freiburg et al. 1968, pp. 206–213; RAYMONDE FOREVILLE:
Geschichte der Ökumenischen Konzilien. Vol. 6: Lateran I–IV, Mainz 1970,
pp. 265–381; ANDRÉ VOUCHEZ, ODILO ENGELS (eds.): Die Geschichte des Christentums:
Religion, Politik, Kultur. Vol. 5: Machtfülle des Papsttums (1054–1274), Freiburg
et al. 1994, pp. 581–589; PHILIPP SCHÄFER: Innozenz III. und das 4. Laterankonzil
1215, in: THOMAS FRENZ (ed.): Papst Innozenz III.: Weichensteller der Geschichte
Europas. Interdisziplinäre Ringvorlesung an der Universität Passau, 5.11.1997–26.5.
1998, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 103–116; GERT MELVILLE, JOHANNES HELMRATH (eds.): The
Fourth Lateran Council: Institutional Reform and Spiritual Renewal. Proceedings of
the Conference Marking the Eight Hundredth Anniversary of the Council, Organized
by the Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche (Rome, 15–17 October 2015), Affalterbach
2017; JESSALYNN L. BIRD, DAMIAN J. SMITH (eds.): The Impact of the Council of
1215 on Latin Christendom and the East, Turnhout 2018; ANDREA MASSIRONI, ATRIA
LARSON (eds.): The Fourth Lateran Council and the Development of Canon Law and
the Ius Commune, Turnhout 2019.
Andrew of Prague—one of the participants of the Fourth Lateran—to the
Prague diocese.3
It is a story that has traditionally been interpreted as a conflict
between the ecclesiastical (bishop) and the secular (king) power that
arose as a consequence of the bishop’s efforts to implement a number of
council principles.4
Although we will soon return to the course of the actual
disputes, it is important to emphasize here that the above-mentioned perception
of the case of Bishop Andrew must be considered as ahistorical. As I will
suggest below, the main opponents to the principles promoted by the bishop
were not the secular elites led by the king, but rather clergy whose personal
lives were most affected by the promoted innovations. Thus, the difficulties
he faced when attempting to implement his will in his diocese well document
the state of the church in the Czech Lands in the first decades of the thirteenth
century.
The events that took place in the Czech Lands between 1216 and 1222 in
connection to Bishop Andrew’s reform efforts are predominantly a result of a
complicated development of relations between the secular and the ecclesiastical
segments of medieval Czech society in the previous centuries. Despite
the reform efforts of Bishop Henry Zdík of Olomouc and Bishop Daniel I of
Prague the church in the Czech Lands entered the thirteenth century as an
organizationally decentralized institution whose functioning was heavily de-
3
The details of Andrew’s participation are discussed by a Prague annalist. See JOSEF
EMLER (ed.): Annales Bohemiae [The Annals of Bohemia], in: IDEM: Fontes rerum Bohemicarum
II, Praha 1874, p. 283; cf. also GEORGINE TANGL: Die Teilnehmer an den
allgemeinen Konzilien des Mittelalters, Darmstadt 1969, p. 223.
4
For an overview of the events discussed below, see e.g. KAMIL KROFTA: Kurie a
církevní správa zemí českých v době předhusitské [The Curia and the Ecclesiastical
Administration of the Bohemian Lands in the pre-Hussite Period], in: Český časopis
historický 10 (1904), pp. 249–263; FRANTIŃEK HRUBÝ: Církevní zřízení v Čechách a
na Moravě od X. do konce XIII. století a jeho poměr ke státu [The Church Administration
in Bohemia and Moravia from the Tenth to the End of the Thirteenth Century
and Its Relation to the State], Praha 1917; VÁCLAV NOVOTNÝ: Čechy královské za
Přemysla I. a Václava I. (1197–1253) [The Royal Bohemia under Ottokar I of Bohemia
and Wenceslaus I of Bohemia], Praha 1928, pp. 454–533; JOSEF ŅEMLIČKA: Spor
Přemysla Otakara I. s praņským biskupem Ondřejem [The Dispute of Ottokar I of
Bohemia with Prague Bishop Andrew], in: Český časopis historický 29 (1981), pp.
704–730; IDEM: Počátky Čech královských 1198–1253: Proměna státu a společnosti
[The Beginnings of Royal Bohemia 1198–1253: The Transformation of State and
Society], Praha 2002, pp. 118–131; VRATISLAV VANÍČEK: Velké dějiny zemí koruny
české II (1197–1250) [The Great History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown II
(1197–1250)], Praha—Litomyńl 2000, pp. 135–145; ROBERT ANTONÍN: České země za
vlády posledních Přemyslovců I. (1192–1253): Cestou proměny společnosti k vrcholně
středověké monarchii [The Bohemian Lands during the Reign of the Last Přemyslids I.
(1192–1253): On the Way from the Transformation of Society to the High Medieval
Monarchy], Praha 2011, pp. 300–305.
pendent on representatives of secular power, the duke and nobility.5
This was
evident in its entire institutional life, as well as in the relations founders had
to the founding of monasteries.6
The development in the Catholic Church represented
by the theocratic program of the popes of the time meant that
church houses—whether parishes or monasteries—no longer depended on
their founders, as had been characteristic of the situation at the beginning of
the thirteenth century. Thus, after the Fourth Lateran Council, Bishop Andrew
de facto stood between two millstones. On the one hand, the curial policy,
which required him to centralize the administration of the diocese, included
streamlining the collection of the papal tithe and implementing legal exclusivity
over clergy and church subjects, bore down on him. On the other hand,
the Prague bishop struggled with the ―Bohemian‖ reality, which did not grant
him adequate authority to implement the reform steps, including, primarily,
the efforts to introduce canonical elections of bishops, to establish the
bishop’s influence on filling parish posts and other church offices, to control
the payment of tithes, and to exclude church dignitaries and people who
settled on ecclesiastical land from the scope of land law.7
By raising the demands that resulted from the canons of the Fourth
Lateran, Andrew fanned the flames of a conflict that was potentially lurking
within the structure of twelfth-century Czech and Moravian society. Given
the seriousness of his case, the papal curia intervened. The diplomatic discussions
between the curia, the bishop, and the king, Ottokar I of Bohemia, resulted
in rich correspondence, the interpretation of which represents a path to
learning about the state of the church’s organization at the time, as well as the
society in the Czech Lands as a whole.8
Earlier scholarship has discussed the
course of the dispute, so I will provide only a brief summary.
Bishop Andrew’s reform demands for a transformation of the life of the
priests and the position of the church within the Bohemian kingdom were rejected
by the majority of secular and clerical elites, including Ottokar I. In
5
On Jindřich Zdík and his activities, cf. KROFTA (as in footnote 4), pp. 125–129; for the
most recent comprehensive discussion, see MARTIN WIHODA: Morava v době kníņecí
906–1197 [Moravia in the Age of Dukes 906–1197], Praha 2010, pp. 171–206.
6
Social development in the Czech Lands in this respect was summarized by MARCIN R.
PAUK: Działalność fundacyjna możnowładzstwa czeskiego i jej uwarunkowania społeczne
(XI–XIII wiek) [The Foundation Activity of Czech Aristocracy and Its Social
Conditions (11th–13th Century], Kraków—Warszawa 2000, which also cites older literature
on the subject.
7
These demands are clear from the files that concern the dispute of Bishop Andrew and
Ottokar I; for more on that see below.
8
The case was started by the bishop’s efforts to effectively collect tithes, as can be concluded
from papal letters sent to the Czech Lands and the initial reaction of the king to
the bishop’s accusation, see GUSTAV FRIEDRICH (ed.): Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris
regni Bohemiae II [The Book of Charters and Letters from the Bohemian Kingdom],
Pragae 1912, pp. 120–121, 128–130, no. 129–130, 139; KROFTA (as in footnote
4), pp. 24–27; HRUBÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 56–63.
1216, this led him to leave the kingdom and travel to the curia in an attempt
to encourage it to undertake more energetic actions. When he left, he imposed
an interdict on the entire diocese. However, the bishop faced opposition, not
only from representatives of Czech chapters (including, among others, Dean
of Prague Arnold, along with the majority of the Prague Chapter, and Provost
of Litoměřice Benedikt, who at that time also served as the royal chancellor),
but also the Olomouc Bishop Robert, who, during Andrew’s absence, celebrated
mass in the church of St. Vitus. Czech monasteries, which maintained
close ties with their secular founders, also did not support the bishop. Czech
prelates were simply not prepared to adopt a new universalistic church program.
It is no wonder—many probably were of noble origin or came from
several generations of prelate families.9
Diplomatic negotiations between the curia and the Czech king and nobility
ensued. But available evidence does not indicate an effort to find a compromise
until three years later, 1219, in the so-called Kladruby Agreements,
where the king promised to grant the bishop the right to fill the posts of
priests in parish churches and to pass judgment over the clerics in church
matters.10
However, this agreement—probably leading to the cancellation of
the interdict—was not upheld, and Andrew was soon sending further complaints
to the curia.11
The negotiations, therefore, continued in the second half
of 1220, as evidenced by a papal letter of January 1221 addressed to all Czech
abbots, provosts, deans, and clergy in general. In the letter, Honorius III announced
that, based on the agreement between Andrew and a negotiator from
the side of the king and nobility, Master John de Scaccario, the filling of the
post of priests in the Czech Lands—and also their suspension—would be independent
of the will of the laity. At the same time, the clergy was to no
longer come under the jurisdiction of the secular court and the bishop would
be able to use his visitation right to monitor the state of church institutions.12
At least verbally, then, there was a significant shift on the level of staffing of
rural parishes, which was no longer supposed to be the exclusive right of
church owners. However, this regulation was not observed in practice.13
The final reconciliation between the bishop, the monarch, nobility, and
prelates was supposed to take place in the summer of that year, at a place
9
For more details on this phase of the dispute, see KROFTA (as in footnote 4), pp 259–
262; ŅEMLIČKA, Spor Přemysla Otakara (as in footnote 4), pp. 714–719; IDEM, Počátky
Čech královských (as in footnote 4), pp. 120–123; VANÍČEK (as in footnote 4),
pp. 138–139, and for other work, see above, footnote 2. About the origins of the Czech
clergy, cf. ZDEŇKA HLEDÍKOVÁ: Svět české středověké církve [The World of the
Bohemian Medieval church], Praha 2010, pp. 65–72.
10
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 160–161, no. 172.
11
See the papal letter ibidem, pp. 168–170, no. 183.
12
Ibidem, pp. 193–195, no. 209; cf. ŅEMLIČKA, Spor Přemysla Otakara (as in footnote 4),
pp. 719–720. For the confirmation of the agreement between the king and the Czech
nobility, see FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 197–198, no. 212.
13
See HRUBÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 41–45; KROFTA (as in footnote 4), pp. 264–275.
called Ńacká hora on the Moravian-Austrian border. The main participant in
the meeting, which was attended by a number of Czech prelates, was, besides
King Ottokar and Bishop Andrew, the papal legate Gregory de Crescencio.
The negotiations culminated on 2 July 1221 in a written confirmation of the
privileges of the Prague bishopric. Here, Ottokar avoided the issue of tithes
collection and patronage rights in the broader context of the entire Prague
diocese for the privilege only concerned a specific bishop’s domain.14
Therefore,
Andrew probably understood this outcome as a defeat. A few months
later, he returned to Italy, where he died at the turn of 1223/24. The controversy
between the bishop and the king, however, had yet another outcome,
which on the one hand strengthened the position of church institutions, even
though it did not strengthen the position of the Prague bishopric, and, on the
other hand, brought the interests of some church houses—mainly monasteries
and chapters—closer to the interests of the monarch at the expense of the positions
of the nobility. As I will show below, this is, in my opinion, precisely
the way to understand the issuance of the so-called ―Great Privilege‖ of the
Czech Church, which Ottokar I accepted on 10 March 1222, and to which
adequate scholarly attention has not been paid.15
As stated above, the opponents of the principles promoted by Andrew after
his return from the Lateran Council need to be sought within the world of the
representatives on all levels of the Czech church. At the same time, it is true
that in the Czech Lands this world was not de facto separable from the world
of laity.16
If we observe the development of the dispute between the bishop
and Czech elites (1216–1222), we see that it began with Andrew’s demands
for a change of the prelate lifestyle on all levels of the hierarchy and simultaneously
with his efforts to streamline the administration of the Prague diocese,
which presumed a greater degree of supervision over individual church
institutions. Put simply, the dispute between the bishop and clerics erupted
primarily over the regulation of their everyday life and between the bishop
and monasteries but also chapters, holders of archdeacon posts, and, last but
14
For the letters, see FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 200–205, no. 216, 217; cf. KROFTA
(as in footnote 4), p. 263; ŅEMLIČKA, Spor Přemysla Otakara (as in footnote 4),
pp. 721–723; IDEM: Počátky Čech královských (as in footnote 4), pp. 124–126; VANÍČEK
(as in footnote 4), pp. 140–141.
15
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 210–213, no. 227; cf. KROFTA (as in footnote 4),
pp. 263–265; VÁCLAV VANĚČEK: Studie o imunitě duchovních statků v Čechách do
polovice 14. století [Study about the Immunity of Ecclesiastical Goods in Bohemia
until the Middle of the 14th Century], Praha 1928, pp. 43–51; IDEM: Základy právního
postavení kláńterů a kláńterního velkostatku ve starém českém státě (12.–15. stol.) [The
Basics of the Legal Status of Monasteries and Monastic Estates in the Old Bohemian
State], vol. 3, Praha 1939, pp. 7–14, but the consideration of the Great Privilege runs
through all of Vaněček’s work; NOVOTNÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 514–517; ŅEMLIČKA,
Spor Přemysla Otakara (as in footnote 4), pp. 723–726; IDEM, Počátky Čech královských
(as in footnote 4), pp. 126–129; VANÍČEK (as in footnote 4), pp. 142–144.
16
On that cf. HLEDÍKOVÁ (as in footnote 9), pp. 84–105.
not least, also individual parish priests.17
The subject of the dispute was the
bishop’s authority over these institutions but the issue particularly concerned
the payment of the bishop’s tithe. Nonetheless, both moments are two sides of
the same coin since the bishop’s authority within his diocese necessarily hit a
snag not only with monasteries, which in the negotiations with the bishop
strove to achieve the greatest possible sovereignty, but also with canons and
parish priests. The issue was the social origin of the holders of the benefice
and their approach to serving in the posts entrusted to them. If Zdeňka
Hledíková shows for the fourteenth century that the Prague and Vyńehrad
provostries were staffed by members of the most important noble families and
representatives of lower nobility in the Czech Lands who are also represented
in great number as holders of parishes alternated in posts of canons18
, it can
be assumed that the reality of the thirteenth century was not different. The
establishing of ―clerical families,‖ where the sons of the prelates who habitually
lived in concubinage followed the ecclesiastical careers of their fathers,
also remained common.19
To reconcile life strategies and lifestyles of this particular social group
with the ideas of the reform papacy at the beginning of the thirteenth century
was apparently impossible in most cases. At the same time, it is necessary to
place the clerical service in the context of the customs of the period, where
the patronage right was highly influential, allowing its holders to intervene in
the economic situation of parishes and their staffing. In this way, the clerical
world was closely intertwined with the lay world; the idea of their separation
was rather wishful thinking on the part of theoreticians. Two documents of
Pope Honorius III, issued in November 1216, i.e. at the time when Andrew’s
case started, provide us with details about these matters in the Czech Lands.
In the first one, the pope told Andrew that the parish priest in Praskolesy appeared
before the curia and confessed to his illegitimate origin—he was the
son of a priest. This, as he noted before the Fourth Lateran Council, was not
only common in the Czech Lands, but also a precondition for an acquisition
of church benefice. The pope subsequently emphasized that he forgave the
parish priest due to his piety and humility and graciously granted him a dispensation.
The letter to Bishop Andrew also included a propagandistic interpolation,
stating that if similarly humble people who recognize the pope and
his love and confess to him should come to him, they would also receive his
forgiveness.20
At the same time, the pope granted a dispensation to Prague
canon Petr and his brother Herman, both sons of a priest who, according to a
17
On the structure of the church institutions of the Prague diocese, cf. HLEDÍKOVÁ (as in
footnote 9), pp. 55–83.
18
Ibidem, pp. 67–70.
19
ŅEMLIČKA, Počátky Čech královských (as in footnote 4), pp. 435–471, summarizes the
situation of the state of the church in the Czech Lands in the first half of the thirteenth
century.
20
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 121–122, no. 131.
local custom, took a virgin and made her his wife, so that they were able to be
ordained as priests.21
The examples make it clear that the situation in the Czech Lands started
shifting in the autumn of 1216. This is, after all, evidenced by the letter sent
by the papal chancellery as early as October, which responds to several of the
questions that Andrew had asked the pope. The above-mentioned cases also
almost certainly relate to the question of how the bishop was supposed to deal
with illegitimate priests. The pope replied that they were supposed to be deprived
of everything, unless they properly applied for a papal dispensation
(which was undoubtedly properly charged). At the same time, however,
Honorius added a postscript in which he cautioned Andrew to show prudence
and tolerance in those cases where settlement according to church principles
might otherwise cause public outrage.22
Therefore, the cases of the Praskolesy
parish priest and canon Petr and his brother are certainly only the tip of the
iceberg of the situation that prevailed within the church structures of the
Prague diocese at the beginning of the 13th century—structures that were created
based on client-family ties, often without a regard for the bishop’s will.
The resistance of the majority of Czech clergy to the reforms Andrew requested
became apparent soon after the bishop left the Czech Lands where he
had declared an interdict. A number of high-ranking prelates went into opposition
against their bishop. Olomouc Bishop Robert, Prague Provost Arnold,
Litoměřice Provost and the king’s Chancellor Benedikt (already mentioned as
an emissary to the curia in 1216), as well as Litoměřice Provost and Prague
Canon Pelhřim all stood on the side of the king and the nobility.23
The names
of dozens of clerics appointed to their benefices based on various kinds of
protections remained more or less concealed due to a lack of available
sources. Nevertheless, in the dispute with Andrew it is necessary to presume
their loyalty to their lay patrons and protectors, and also monasteries. It was
not an accident that the above-mentioned Kladruby Agreements, concluded
between Ottokar and papal legates at the beginning of 1219, included a
promise in which the king, with the consent of the nobility, would let the
bishop appoint and remove parish priests. The bishop would also have jurisdiction
over them in church matters, however ―salvo iure patronatus.‖ With
this said, this pledge, subsequently confirmed on 11 January 1221 in an
agreement between Andrew and royal prosecutor John de Scaccario24
, was
evidently not implemented during Ottokar I’s reign. The promise did not
come into effect until the end of the thirteenth century, and even then with
21
Ibidem, pp. 122–123, no. 132; both cases were already presented by KROFTA (as in
footnote 4), p. 257.
22
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 120–121, no. 130.
23
ŅEMLIČKA, Spor Přemysla Otakara (as in footnote 4), p. 714; IDEM, Počátky Čech
královských (as in footnote 4), p. 121.
24
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 193–195, no. 209.
objections.25
The pledge was de facto undermined as early as in 1219 in
Kladruby by the seemingly innocent but fundamental qualification of the patronage
right that represented one of the essential obstacles to a full implementation
of the bishop’s influence at least within the parish network of his
diocese. The issue at stake was a custom the violation of which meant a loss
not only for the monarch and the nobility, but also for a number of monasteries
that, in various locations, held the patronage right in parish churches of the
districts that were in their possession.
In the case of Bishop Andrew, all of this also had an important impact on
the position of a large number of monasteries. It was the monasterial communities,
along with chapters, that first came into conflict with the bishop. The
monarch and nobility, as representatives of secular elites threatened by
Andrew’s reform demands, only entered the dispute at a later point. Disputes
over tithes that resonated in Czech society long after Bishop Andrew was no
longer alive played an essential role here. The issue of tithes, their collection,
and their structure in the Czech Lands during the first decades of the thirteenth
century was mentioned at the beginning of the entire dispute in a papal
letter from 15 October 1216 addressed to the Prague bishop. In the letter,
Honorius stated that he was acquainted with the situation in Andrew’s diocese,
where people paid tithes to individual churches according to various old
customs—in some places 24 denars, in others 12, 6, or 3 denars—a practice
that the pope deemed no longer acceptable. He urged the bishop to unify the
practices based on the church custom.26
The letter, which indirectly referenced
the Fourth Lateran Council’s tithing regulations, indicates that, after his
return from Italy, the bishop decided to intervene primarily into the customs
around the payment of church tithes in his diocese. In this context, however,
he collided with the above-mentioned patronage rights. It is well documented
that tithes were gathered by the patronage rights holders who subsequently
decided their further allocation. This redistribution did not allow for the
bishop’s tithe, which at that time probably stabilized at six denars per field
(per laneus).27
However, it is not possible to perceive tithes as a dispute between the
bishop and secular holders of patronage rights, i.e. the monarch and nobility.
Tithes comprised a substantial part of the donations to monasteries, who subsequently
refused to pay the bishop ―his‖ share. At the same time, colonizing
activities where monasteries were given previously unsettled areas, including
the right to collect tithes from villages being established in these areas, meant
25
On that, cf. HRUBÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 41–45; KROFTA (as in footnote 4), pp. 264–
275.
26
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), p. 120, no. 129. Krofta emphasizes the connections of the
dispute related to tithes. See KROFTA (as in footnote 4), pp. 258–264.
27
On the development of church tithes and their structure in the medieval Czech Lands,
cf. HRUBÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 24–28, 54–73; NOVOTNÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 344–
346; ŅEMLIČKA, Počátky Čech královských (as in footnote 4), pp. 451–454.
that tithes were becoming a source of income for the monasteries. The Fourth
Lateran Council responded to this situation by regulating that the Cistercians
and other orders pay a tithe to the church in the diocese they are affiliated to.
The tithe was to be paid from all property they stood to gain after the council
concluded. However, it needs to be added that this did not concern non-colonized
estates that had been in monasteries’ possession prior to 1215. Tithe
disputes often centered on cases such as these, at least as it appears from the
text of one papal bull of 8 February 1222, which responded to this situation.28
One of the first questions Andrew approached the curia with in 1216 was
whether he may cancel some exemptions from paying the bishop’s tithe that
had been granted illegally, that is, without his knowledge. Honorius’ reply
was part of the letter in which the pope also addressed the issue of illegitimate
priests and left the matters concerning tithes entirely to the bishop’s discretion.
Václav Novotný notices a certain causality between the questions the
bishop asked the pope and the dispute between Andrew and the Teplá monastery,
and which also overlapped with the events discussed in this article. In
1219 Honorius III intervened in the dispute, appointing the abbot of Velehrad
along with the dean and provost of Olomouc as arbitrators in the case.29
In
addition, the bishop was also in dispute with the Premonstratensians in
Milevsko, and the reaction from the monasteries to the situation in the Czech
Lands after the declaration of the interdict made it clear that that these were
hardly isolated aversions.30
Viewed through this lens, the entire case of
Bishop Andrew was primarily a dispute over the extent of the bishop’s legal
and property authority over monasterial communities, the bishop’s right to
perform church administration over monasteries, and payment of the bishop’s
tithe from monasterial properties. The tensions between the bishop and monasteries
can be observed in the Czech Lands throughout the entire first half of
the thirteenth century, and the monasteries attempted, as paradoxical as it may
seem, to defend themselves against the bishop’s pressures both through papal
protections and tighter alignment to the monarch.31
The position of the monasteries toward the bishop is relatively noticeable
during the period from 1216 to 1222. Representatives of monasterial communities
already joined the dispute on the side of the monarch at the time of the
Kladruby Agreements, where sources document the presence of Břevnov
Elect Dluhomil, Kladruby Abbot Silvester, Postoloprty Abbot Kasián, Ostrov
Abbot Reiner, Vilémov Abbot Herman, and also the Cistercian Abbots Hein-
28
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), p. 131, no. 127.
29
Ibidem, pp. 165–166, no. 179; cf. NOVOTNÝ (as in footnote 4), p. 453.
30
The disputes resonated in sources even earlier, e.g. in the bishop’s decree for Milevsko
from 1216-06-20, see FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 115–116, no. 126; or in the
papal protection letter for Teplá from 1219, which confirmed the privileges granted by
Přemysl Otakar I, see ibidem, pp. 161–162, no. 173. On Czech prelates not implementing
the interdict, see NOVOTNÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 472–476 and passim.
31
The situation was already summarized by KROFTA (as in footnote 4), pp. 138–152.
rich from Bavarian Langheim, Hartmut from Nepomuk, Albert from Plasy,
and the Premonstratensian superiors Adam from Strahov, Vilém from Ņeliv,
and Vilém from Teplá.32
These all appeared to be the prelates the king noted
in the introduction of the deed as those who were acting in accordance with
him and the Czech nobility for the purpose of resolving the dispute. Several
documents of Honorius III explicitly mentioned that monasteries, particularly
the Cistercians, Premonstratensians, and St. John’s Hospitallers, stood up to
their bishop and did not abide by the interdict.33
Both the Prague Chapter34
and later Olomouc Bishop Robert were also accused
of violating the interdict.35
Representatives of other chapters have been
discussed. For this reason, it certainly was no coincidence that the agreement
between the pope and the royal prosecutor John de Scaccario after the
Kladruby negotiations included the removal of the Mělník, Boleslav, and
Litoměřice provostries from the bishop’s authority.36
I believe that all the
church representatives named in the documents along with the majority of
minor clergy dependent on their patrons need to be counted among the greatest
opponents of Bishop Andrew’s attempts at introducing the principles of
the Fourth Lateran Council. Considering that, starting in 1217, the bishop did
not target the clergy but rather the monarch and nobility; his critique was
aimed mainly at that segment of society as it provided monasteries, chapters,
and parish priests with their positions, which in turn allowed them to remove
themselves from centralized diocesan administration. For this reason, it is
necessary to understand his move as a result of careful deliberation; the prospective
change for which he strove would affect the very structure of societal
order in medieval Czech Lands as it necessarily stood in opposition to the
country’s entire body of legal traditions. An erosion of the tradition that perpetuated
the client and political relationships in society and also impacted
church institutions was the only way toward a true beginning of reforms.
The bishop’s position in this regard fully corresponded with the overall
legal status of church institutions in the Czech Lands. The legal status resulted,
among other things, from the weak position of Prague and Olomouc
bishops toward the monarch. This is due to the fact that, throughout the entire
twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century, the bishop’s post was filled
by persons with close ties to Přemyslid dukes and kings who had influence on
the election of the bishop. Paradoxically, Bishop Andrew himself began his
career as a canon in Boleslav but soon became dean of the Prague Chapter
and the Czech king’s chancellor in 121137
, i.e. he came to his post through
these practices that Milevsko annalist Gerlach, for example, condemns in his
32
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), p. 161, no. 172.
33
Ibidem, pp. 144–145, 147–148, no. 154, 157–158.
34
Ibidem, pp. 146–147, no. 156.
35
Ibidem, pp. 149–150, no. 159.
36
Ibidem, p. 194, no. 209.
37
NOVOTNÝ (as in footnote 4), pp. 324–325.
chronicle.38
But the core of the problematic legal position of church houses in
the medieval Czech Lands was their proprietary and criminal integration into
the structures of land law. This practice can be observed in analyses of the
documents that were created for the needs of church houses, and it also
emerges from the establishment of the aforementioned confirmation of privilege
for the Prague bishopric within the negotiations at Ńacká Hora (1221)
and the so-called Great Privilege of the Czech Church (1222). That property
disputes of the Czech church institutions were decided at the land court is also
documented by the deed of Ottokar I for the Plasy monastery. This text made
it clear that the dispute over a donation of property that Agnes, the widow of
Kuna of Potvorov, willed to the monastery took place ―in coloquio communi
Bohemorum,‖ in December 1219.39
Similarly, as early as 1216 ―in communi
colloquio Bohemorum,‖ a settlement was sought in a property dispute between
the same monastery and Protiva from Litice, who contested the validity
of his brother Ulrich’s property donation. As the text of the letter reveals,
everything happened in the presence of Prague and Olomouc bishops,
Margrave of Moravia Vladislaus Henry, and a great number of Czech ―nobiles,‖
i.e. nobles.40
The practice according to which church institutions’ disputes were decided
before the land court is eloquently demonstrated by one of the fundamental
provisions of the above-mentioned ―Great Privilege‖ of Ottokar I from 1222,
intended for all monasteries and churches in the Prague diocese. If one of the
fundamental innovations here is the introduction of the Czech king’s promise
that all abbots and other prelates at the general assembly, regardless of where
it met (―ubicumque generale coloquium debuerit celebrari‖), would be provided
with the opportunity to settle their affairs in the presence of several
Czechs and the chancellor41
, then the letter’s dictator provides us with several
pieces of essential information about the situation that prevailed up until the
issuance of the privilege (and, indeed, for many more years to come). The
privilege de facto concerned a modification of the existing practice of debating
cases that related to church institutions, and which this article excluded
from a broad discussion at the plenary session. The church’s cases were transferred
before a more limited group of nobles: experts, and hence bearers of
(court) posts, and assessors—as attested by a number of testimonial letters in
which the monarch guarantees property relations or changes concerning monasterial
goods and rights more generally.
The role of the chancellor in these hearings was probably related to the
fact—as the sources also make clear—that church institutions more frequent-
38
JOSEF EMLER (ed.): Gerlaci abbatis Milovicensis Annales [The Annals by Jarloch, Abbot
of Milevsko], in: IDEM: Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 2, Praha 1874, pp. 463,
476.
39
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 173–174, no. 187.
40
Ibidem, pp. 113–114, no. 125.
41
Ibidem, p. 212, no. 227.
ly used written confirmations, i.e. presented deeds and privileges, when producing
evidence in proceedings. This way of presenting evidence was something
new in Czech legal culture and corresponded to the general trends in the
medieval West. This was, after all, supported by another part of Ottokar’s
―Great Privilege‖ in which the monarch established that those who have their
property holding supported by privileges are no longer required to call on wit-
nesses.42
At the same time, monasteries required written confirmations of the
verdicts reached by the board. The chancellor thus served mainly as the arbiter
overseeing the course of the proceedings and, simultaneously, a guarantor
of the results of the proceedings.
However, from a legal perspective, the ―Great Privilege‖ mainly concerned
the situations connected with the area of criminal law and procedures. This is
immediately clear from one of the first provisions of the Privilege, according
to which those members of church institutions charged with theft or another
crime were now—in contrast to the old custom that probably required proving
innocence by ordeal/judgment43
—supposed to defend themselves using testimonies
of their neighbors. Theft, in particular, and other similar crimes, fell
within the area of criminal law, the execution of which was overseen by the
monarch who delegated responsibility at the regional level to his bailiffs. The
Privilege discussed the bailiffs several sections later, forbidding them to prosecute
church subjects or to summon them to court without first obtaining a
decree from the king, chancellor, or supreme judge, that is, as discussed
above, the three officials who were supposed to be present at the hearings of
the church institutions’ representatives at the general colloquium (―Volumus
etiam et precipimus firmiter observari, ne aliquis vilicus seu beneficiarius vel
officialis noster sine iudicio nostro vel cancellarii seu maioris iudicis curie
nostre homines ecclesiarum audeant molestare, et ne quis ad iudicum venire
cogatur‖).44
Therefore, I suggest that if we examine Ottokar’s decree: ―et ut
nullus hominum ecclesiarum a iudicibus provincialibus, sed a nobis vel summo
iudice curie nostre vel cancellario, si non fuerit causa sanguinis, iudice-
tur,‖45
in the context of the deed, the provincial judges can be identified in the
sense of Libor Jan’s interpretation as provincial magistrates who substituted
for the royal power in criminal matters.46
Other articles that specify the amount and types of fines, as well as recipients
thereof, also made it clear that the examined document primarily concentrated
on criminal law and sanctions derived from it. False accusation was
punished by a fine of 300 denars paid to the king rather than by stoning,
which was the punishment according to the statute of Konrád Ota. Church
42
Ibidem, p. 211, no. 227: ―ut ea, que privilegii regum et ducum probari poterunt esse
sua, volumus, quod habeant et possideant sine lite et uti aliis testibus non cogatur.‖
43
VANĚČEK, Základy právního postavení kláńterů (as in footnote 15), pp. 8–9.
44
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), p. 212, no. 227.
45
Ibidem, p. 211, no. 227.
46
LIBOR JAN: Václav II. [Wenceslaus II of Bohemia], Praha 2015, pp. 23–27.
subjects who were served with a citation paid the chamberlain responsible for
delivering the summons half of the usual 30 denars. The old custom, according
to which authorities would convict a thief by searching for stolen items in
homes throughout the entire village, was also abolished. Instead, only the
thief’s house was searched, even if, as had been customary earlier, the entire
village was to pay a fine of 300 denars to save the thief’s life. Similarly, the
whole village was to pay 200 denars if murder was committed on its territory
and the murderer was not found. This was a great financial relief for church
subjects since the earlier custom required each homestead to pay the fine.47
Therefore, ―Great Privilege‖ was mainly about specifying the position of
church institutions and their members within the area of criminal law. Even
from this perspective, if the text speaks about exemption from obedience of
authorities, it probably concerns those whose involvement extended into the
area of criminal law. This was no doubt similar in the case of the privilege for
the Prague bishopric, where the main topics include enforcement of penalties
imposed for various types of offenses prosecuted by the court and a clause
that gives the same overall message as the above-mentioned article of the
Great Privilege, i.e. that if any of the bishop’s people commits robbery or another
serious offence, the person comes under the jurisdiction of the king
while their property remains in the possession of the bishopric. In the case of
murder, the victim’s relatives are to prosecute the bishop’s subject according
to land law (―iure terre‖), while the bishop’s other subjects from the village
where the offender lived are to remain untouched.48
The fundamental change in the legal position of church institutions, which
the privilege promised, was the transfer of the execution of judicial enforcement
and punishment to the supervision of the monarch or his direct representatives.
In matters concerning the ―people of the church,‖ the king reassumed
the ―ideal role‖ of monarch who passes just judgements and punish-
ments49
, i.e. the role that he had, within provincial administration, previously
delegated to his regional magistrates. Similarly, the king also strove to
strengthen the control over disputes concerning monasteries and chapters, a
move that was undoubtedly related to their integration into the structures of
the royal chamber.50
In so doing, the monarch actually only defended the
sphere he perceived to be a potential source of income against pressure from
47
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), p. 212, no. 227, already summarized in VANĚČEK, Základy
právního postavení kláńterů (as in footnote 15), pp. 7–14; DALIBOR JANIŃ: Zemské
soudnictví na Moravě vrcholného středověku [The Provincial Justice in Moravia of the
High Middle Ages], Brno 2013, pp. 161–163.
48
FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), p. 204, no. 217; cf. JANIŃ (as in footnote 47), p. 161.
49
For a general discussion of the ideal ruler in the medieval Czech Lands, cf. ROBERT
ANTONÍN: The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, Leiden—Boston 2017.
50
On the development of the royal chamber in the thirteenth century, see ŅEMLIČKA,
Počátky Čech královských (as in footnote 4), pp. 288–313; JAN (as in footnote 46),
pp. 38–78; ŅEMLIČKA, Spor Přemysla Otakara (as in footnote 4), pp. 232–251.
the nobility, whose members, coming from the position of bearers of patronage
rights, showed constant tendencies to curtail the rights and properties of
church institutions, particularly monasteries.51
From this perspective, it is
necessary to understand the ―Great Privilege‖ of the Czech Church as an
expression of the monarch’s efforts to secure a more independent position for
individual church institutions within the Prague diocese. In issuing the Privilege,
Ottokar did not respond to Bishop Andrew’s reform demands but rather
to the need to integrate the monasteries and chapters into the political, economic,
and social structures of the transforming Přemyslid monarchy of the thirteenth
century.52
As evidenced by the number of privileges sent from the royal
chancellery to monasteries during the course of Andrew’s case, the king’s
activity in this regard was particularly generous toward monasteries.53
It was
at this time that the foundations were laid for the later integration of monasteries,
including those originally founded by the nobility, under the monarch’s
direct protection. Over the course of several decades, the monarch transferred
the income generated by the monasteries into his chamber.54
In light of the sources created in the course of the Bishop Andrew’s case, it is
possible to state that the church in the Czech Lands during the first decades of
the thirteenth century was in a situation that fundamentally differed from the
ideal postulated by the Fourth Lateran Council. Firstly, the church of Andrew’s
times was strongly influenced by the laity. We can see many aspects
of this phenomenon. From the mid-twelfth century, bishops were elected by
members of chapter houses. But they were nonetheless installed by the rul-
51
There are numerous examples of this beginning deep in the fifteenth century, see
VÁCLAV VANĚČEK: Základy právního postavení kláńterů a kláńterního velkostatku ve
starém českém státě (12.–15. stol.) [The Basics of the Legal Status of Monasteries and
Monastic Estates in the Old Bohemian State (12th–15th Centuries], vol. 1. Praha 1933,
pp. 43–47.
52
For a summary of the transformation of the Czech Lands in the High Middle Ages see
JAN KLÁPŃTĚ: The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation, Leiden—Boston 2012.
53
On Přemysl’s privileges for cloisters issued in the course of the dispute in 1216–1222,
see FRIEDRICH (as in footnote 8), pp. 113–114, 142–144, 172–175, 181–182, 205–206,
no. 125, 152, 187, 189, 196, 218.
54
On the issue of sovereign protection, cf. VÁCLAV VANĚČEK: Dvě studie k otázce postavení
kláńterů a kláńterního velkostatku ve starém českém státě [Two Studies on the
Question of Monasteries and Monastic Estates in the Old Bohemian State], Praha
1938, pp. 18–31. On the issue of the gradual restructuralization of the royal chamber
and the role of monasteries in this process, see ŅEMLIČKA, Počátky Čech královských
(as in footnote 4), pp. 288–314; JAN (as in footnote 46), pp. 13–78; for a summary of
the situation in Moravia, see TOMÁŃ BOROVSKÝ: Kláńtery, panovník a zakladatelé na
středověké Moravě [Monasteries, Rulers and Founders in Medieval Moravia], Brno
2005, pp. 24–72.
ers—Bohemian dukes and later kings, as evidenced by Andrew himself. Prosopography
research based on sources from the late thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries has shown that most members of chapter houses in the Czech Lands
(not only in Prague) came from the ranks of mid-level and minor nobility, and
we can assume that the situation was identical at the beginning of the
thirteenth century. We can observe the same conditions at the level of parish
priests at that time as well. And from Andrew’s harsh criticism of the behavior
of the clergy in his diocese, as is evident from the corpus of sources discussed
here that deal with his case, we can see that many clerics who perceived
a position in the church hierarchy as the only way to secure their livelihood
did not differ much from secular nobles. The pattern of inferiority of
church institutions with regard to the secular institutions in the medieval
Czech Lands before 1215 can also be noticed at the level of law and judiciary.
The critique that the clergy and villagers subjected to them were quite often
brought before the secular provincial court is one of Andrew’s issues in his
struggle for the church’s position. Regarding the legal circumstances, all of
the mentioned aspects were intertwined with the fact that the so-called ius
patronatus was applied in the medieval Czech Lands and practiced not only
by founders of monasteries and chapters, but also parish churches. Especially
these institutions (i.e. parish churches) were considered part of the property of
the nobility, who provided them (i.e. the churches) with furnishings, help, and
protection. All this entrusted great authority to the laity, namely the secular
nobility, who was thus superior to the clergy. This situation was more
problematic. This is evidenced by numerous cases from the thirteenth century
where the holders of patronage rights to parish churches, who were not members
of the laity but rather came from church institutions, mainly monasteries.
This created a tension between them and bishops, which is also apparent from
the sources that detail Bishop Andrew’s case. Ius patronatus also gave the
nobles the power to decide who, for example, would be a parish priest; the
nobles, including obviously the rulers, had an influence on the elections of
abbots in the monasteries they founded, and the king, in particular, attempted
to select ―his‖ people for the two most influential chapter houses in Prague.55
And last but not least, all the above-mentioned aspects had an effect on an
effective collection of tithes, since patrons—whether the king, noble, or abbot
as a representative of a monastery—used to make their own decisions about
the tithes collected, and there was not a lot of space for the bishop’s rights or
budget in their opinion.
All of the above-mentioned factors reveal that the church in the Czech
Lands before 1215 was a strongly decentralized institution controlled by local
lay elites and showed signs of nepotism. The private life of the clergy was affected
by concubinage and, resulting from that, we can see attempts to create
―clerical dynasties.‖ All this stood in sharp contradiction to the program of
55
For the West European context and development of the ―proprietary church‖ see SUSAN
WOOD: The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West, Oxford et al. 2006.
Lateran IV and its canons. In this context, it is important to stress that the
situation of the Czech church wasn’t exceptional within Central Europe. A
similar situation regarding the relations between the secular and sacred power
can also be observed in Poland and Hungary. However, the detailed comparative
analysis of the Central European development does not represent the core
matter of this study and will be a subject for further research.56
If we return to
the Czech Lands, it is possible to state that the route to a change only began
with Bishop Andrew and the implementation of the change would not have
been possible without the overall transformations of the political, economic,
social and mental structures of the Czech world in the High Medieval Period.
56
For the situation in Poland and Hungary see WINFRIED IRGANG: Libertas ecclesiae und
landesherrliche Gewalt: Zur Kirchenpolitik der schlesischen Piasten im 13. Jahrhundert,
in: JOACHIM KÖHLER (ed.): Säkularisationen in Ostmitteleuropa: Zur Klärung des
Verhältnisses von geistlicher und weltlicher Macht im Mittelalter von Kirche und Staat
in der Neuzeit, Köln—Wien 1984, pp. 33–58; JÓSEF DOBOSZ, Monarcha i możni
wobec kościoła w Polsce do początku XIII wieku [The Monarchy and Nobles against
the Church in Poland until the Early 13th Century], Poznań 2002; JACEK MACIEJEWSKI,
Episkopat polski doby dzielnicowej 1180–1320 [The Polish Episcopate during the
Fragmentation Period 1180–1320], Kraków—Bydgoszcz 2003; GÁBOR BARABÁS: Das
Papsttum und Ungarn in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts (ca. 1198 – ca. 1241):
Päpstliche Einflussnahme—Zusammenwirken—Interessengegensätze, Wien 2014;
GERGELY KISS: The Protection of the Church by Hungarian Royal Decrees and
Synodal Statutes in the 11th–Early 14th Centuries, in: RADOSŁAW KOTECKI, JACEK
MACIEJEWSKI (eds.): Ecclesia et Violentia: Violence against the Church and Violence
within the Church in the Middle Ages, Newcastle upon Tyne 2014, pp. 313–332.