Chapter M: O. B. C (2)

During the year 1413 the arrangements for the meeting of a general council at Constance were agreed upon between Sigismund and Pope John XXIII. The objects originally contemplated had been the restoration of the unity of the church and its reform in head and members; but so great had become the prominence of Bohemian affairs that to these also a first place in the programme of the approaching oecumenical assembly required to be assigned, and for their satisfactory settlement the presence of Huss was necessary. His attendance was accordingly requested, and the invitation was willingly accepted as giving him a long-wished-for opportunity both of publicly vindicating himself from charges which he felt to be grievous, and of loyally making confession for Christ. He set out from Bohemia on the 14th of October 1414, not, however, until he had carefully ordered all his private affairs, with a presentiment, which he did not conceal, that in all probability he was going to his death. The journey, which appears to have been undertaken with the usual passport, and under the protection of several powerful Bohemian friends (John of Chlum, Wenceslaus of Duba, Henry of Chlum) who accompanied him, was a very prosperous one; and at almost all the halting-places he was received with a consideration and enthusiastic sympathy which he had hardly expected to meet with anywhere in Germany. On the 3rd of November he arrived at Constance; shortly afterwards there was put into his hands the famous imperial "safe conduct," the promise of which had been one of his inducements to quit the comparative security he had enjoyed in Bohemia. This safe conduct, which had been frequently printed, stated that Huss should, whatever judgment might be passed on him, be allowed to return freely to Bohemia. This by no means provided for his immunity from punishment. If faith to him had not been broken he would have been sent back to Bohemia to be punished by his sovereign, the king of Bohemia. The treachery of King Sigismund is undeniable, and was indeed admitted by the king himself. The safe conduct was probably indeed given by him to entice Huss to Constance. On the 4th of December the pope appointed a commission of three bishops to investigate the case against the heretic, and to procure witnesses; to the demand of Huss that he might be permitted to employ an agent in his defence a favourable answer was at first given, but afterwards even this concession to the forms of justice was denied. While the commission was engaged in the prosecution of its enquiries, the flight of Pope John XXIII. took place on the 20th of March, an event which furnished a pretext for the removal of Huss from the Dominican convent to a more secure and more severe place of confinement under the charge of the bishop of Constance at Gottlieben on the Rhine. On the 4th of May the temper of the council on the doctrinal questions in dispute was fully revealed in its unanimous condemnation of Wycliffe, especially of the so-called "forty-five articles" as erroneous, heretical, revolutionary. It was not, however, until the 5th of June that the case of Huss came up for hearing; the meeting, which was an exceptionally full one, took place in the refectory of the Franciscan cloister. Autograph copies of his work _De Ecclesia_ and of the controversial tracts which he had written against Paletz and Stanislaus of Znaim having been acknowledged by him, the extracted propositions on which the prosecution based their charge of heresy were read; but as soon as the accused began to enter upon his defence, he was assailed by violent outcries, amidst which it was impossible for him to be heard, so that he was compelled to bring his speech to an abrupt close, which he did with the calm remark: "In such a council as this I had expected to find more propriety, piety and order." It was found necessary to adjourn the sitting until the 7th of June, on which occasion the outward decencies were better observed, partly no doubt from the circumstance that Sigismund was present in person. The propositions which had been extracted from the _De Ecclesia_ were again brought up, and the relations between Wycliffe and Huss were discussed, the object of the prosecution being to fasten upon the latter the charge of having entirely adopted the doctrinal system of the former, including especially a denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The accused repudiated the charge of having abandoned the Catholic doctrine, while expressing hearty admiration and respect for the memory of Wycliffe. Being next asked to make an unqualified submission to the council, he expressed himself as unable to do so, while stating his willingness to amend his teaching wherever it had been shown to be false. With this the proceedings of the day were brought to a close. On the 8th of June the propositions extracted from the _De Ecclesia_ were again taken up with some fulness of detail; some of these he repudiated as incorrectly given, others he defended; but when asked to make a general recantation he steadfastly declined, on the ground that to do so would be a dishonest admission of previous guilt. Among the propositions he could heartily abjure was that relating to transubstantiation; among those he felt constrained unflinchingly to maintain was one which had given great offence, to the effect that Christ, not Peter, is the head of the church to whom ultimate appeal must be made. The council, however, showed itself inaccessible to all his arguments and explanations, and its final resolution, as announced by Pierre d'Ailly, was threefold: first, that Huss should humbly declare that he had erred in all the articles cited against him; secondly, that he should promise on oath neither to hold nor teach them in the future; thirdly, that he should publicly recant them. On his declining to make this submission he was removed from the bar. Sigismund himself gave it as his opinion that it had been clearly proved by many witnesses that the accused had taught many pernicious heresies, and that even should he recant he ought never to be allowed to preach or teach again or to return to Bohemia, but that should he refuse recantation there was no remedy but the stake. During the next four weeks no effort was spared to shake the determination of Huss; but he steadfastly refused to swerve from the path which conscience had once made clear. "I write this," says he, in a letter to his friends at Prague, "in prison and in chains, expecting to-morrow to receive sentence of death, full of hope in God that I shall not swerve from the truth, nor abjure errors imputed to me by false witnesses." The sentence he expected was pronounced on the 6th of July in the presence of Sigismund and a full sitting of the council; once and again he attempted to remonstrate, but in vain, and finally he betook himself to silent prayer. After he had undergone the ceremony of degradation with all the childish formalities usual on such occasions, his soul was formally consigned by all those present to the devil, while he himself with clasped hands and uplifted eyes reverently committed it to Christ. He was then handed over to the secular arm, and immediately led to the place of execution, the council meanwhile proceeding unconcernedly with the rest of its business for the day. Many incidents recorded in the histories make manifest the meekness, fortitude and even cheerfulness with which he went to his death. After he had been tied to the stake and the faggots had been piled, he was for the last time urged to recant, but his only reply was: "God is my witness that I have never taught or preached that which false witnesses have testified against me. He knows that the great object of all my preaching and writing was to convert men from sin. In the truth of that gospel which hitherto I have written, taught and preached, I now joyfully die." The fire was then kindled, and his voice as it audibly prayed in the words of the "Kyrie Eleison" was soon stifled in the smoke. When the flames had done their office, the ashes that were left and even the soil on which they lay were carefully removed and thrown into the Rhine.

Not many words are needed to convey a tolerably adequate estimate of the character and work of the "pale thin man in mean attire," who in sickness and poverty thus completed the forty-sixth year of a busy life at the stake. The value of Huss as a scholar was formerly underrated. The publication of his _Super IV. Sententiarum_ has proved that he was a man of profound learning. Yet his principal glory will always be founded on his spiritual teaching. It might not be easy to formulate precisely the doctrines for which he died, and certainly some of them, as, for example, that regarding the church, were such as many Protestants even would regard as unguarded and difficult to harmonize with the maintenance of external church order; but his is undoubtedly the honour of having been the chief intermediary in handing on from Wycliffe to Luther the torch which kindled the Reformation, and of having been one of the bravest of the martyrs who have died in the cause of honesty and freedom, of progress and of growth towards the light. (J. S. Bl.)

The works of Huss are usually classed under four heads: the dogmatical
and polemical, the homiletical, the exegetical and the epistolary. In
the earlier editions of his works sufficient care was not taken to
distinguish between his own writings and those of Wycliffe and others
who were associated with him. In connexion with his sermons it is
worthy of note that by means of them and by his public teaching
generally Huss exercised a considerable influence not only on the
religious life of his time, but on the literary development of his
native tongue. The earliest collected edition of his works, _Historia
et monumenta Joannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis_, was published at
Nuremberg in 1558 and was reprinted with a considerable quantity of
new matter at Frankfort in 1715. A Bohemian edition of the works has
been edited by K. J. Erben (Prague, 1865-1868), and the _Documenta J.
Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi concilio_ (1869), edited
by F. Palacky, is very valuable. More recently _Joannis Hus. Opera
omnia_ have been edited by W. Flojshaus (Prague, 1904 fol.). The
_De Ecclesia_ was published by Ulrich von Hutten in 1520; other
controversial writings by Otto Brumfels in 1524; and Luther wrote an
interesting preface to _Epistolae Quaedam_, which were published in
1537. These _Epistolae_ have been translated into French by E. de
Bonnechose (1846), and the letters written during his imprisonment
have been edited by C. von Kügelgen (Leipzig, 1902).

The best and most easily accessible information for the English reader
on Huss is found in J. A. W. Neander's _Allgemeine Geschichte der
christlichen Religion und Kirche_, translated by J. Torrey
(1850-1858); in G. von Lechler's _Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der
Reformation_, translated by P. Lorimer (1878); in H. H. Milman's
_History of Latin Christianity_, vol. viii. (1867); and in M.
Creighton's _History of the Papacy_ (1897). Among the earlier
authorities is the _Historia Bohemica_ of Aeneas Sylvius (1475). The
_Acta_ of the council of Constance (published by P. Labbe in his
_Concilia_, vol. xvi., 1731; by H. von der Haardt in his _Magnum
Constantiense concilium_, vol. vi., 1700; and by H. Finke in his _Acta
concilii Constantiensis_, 1896); and J. Lenfant's _Histoire de la
guerre des Hussites_ (1731) and the same writer's _Histoire du concile
de Constance_ (1714) should be consulted. F. Palacky's _Geschichte
Böhmens_ (1864-1867) is also very useful. Monographs on Huss are very
numerous. Among them may be mentioned J. A. von Helfert, _Studien über
Hus und Hieronymus_ (1853; this work is ultramontane in its
sympathies); C. von Höfler, _Hus und der Abzug der deutschen
Professoren und Studenten aus Prag_ (1864); W. Berger, _Johannes Hus
und König Sigmund_ (1871); E. Denis, _Huss et la guerre des Hussites_
(1878); P. Uhlmann, _König Sigmunds Geleit für Hus_ (1894); J.
Loserth, _Hus und Wiclif_ (1884), translated into English by M. J.
Evans (1884); A. Jeep, _Gerson, Wiclefus, Hussus, inter se comparati_
(1857); and G. von Lechler, _Johannes Hus_ (1889). See also Count
Lützow, _The Life and Times of John Hus_ (London, 1909).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] From which the name Huss, or more properly Hus, an abbreviation
adopted by himself about 1396, is derived. Prior to that date he was
invariably known as Johann Hussynecz, Hussinecz, Hussenicz or de
Hussynecz.

HUSSAR, originally the name of a soldier belonging to a corps of light horse raised by Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, in 1458, to fight against the Turks. The Magyar _huszar_, from which the word is derived, was formerly connected with the Magyar _husz_, twenty, and was explained by a supposed raising of the troops by the taking of each twentieth man. According to the _New English Dictionary_ the word is an adaptation of the Italian _corsaro_, corsair, a robber, and is found in 15th-century documents coupled with _praedones_. The hussar was the typical Hungarian cavalry soldier, and, in the absence of good light cavalry in the regular armies of central and western Europe, the name and character of the hussars gradually spread into Prussia, France, &c. Frederick the Great sent Major H. J. von Zieten to study the work of this type of cavalry in the Austrian service, and Zieten so far improved on the Austrian model that he defeated his old teacher, General Baranyai, in an encounter between the Prussian and Austrian hussars at Rothschloss in 1741. The typical uniform of the Hungarian hussar was followed with modifications in other European armies. It consisted of a busby or a high cylindrical cloth cap, jacket with heavy braiding, and a dolman or pelisse, a loose coat worn hanging from the left shoulder. The hussar regiments of the British army were converted from light dragoons at the following dates: 7th (1805), 10th and 15th (1806), 18th (1807, and again on revival after disbandment, 1858), 8th (1822), 11th (1840), 20th (late 2nd Bengal European Cavalry) (1860), 13th, 14th, and 19th (late 1st Bengal European Cavalry) (1861). The 21st Lancers were hussars from 1862 to 1897.

HUSSITES, the name given to the followers of John Huss (1369-1415), the Bohemian reformer. They were at first often called Wycliffites, as the theological theories of Huss were largely founded on the teachings of Wycliffe. Huss indeed laid more stress on church reform than on theological controversy. On such matters he always writes as a disciple of Wycliffe. The Hussite movement may be said to have sprung from three sources, which are however closely connected. Bohemia, which had first received Christianity from the East, was from geographical and other causes long but very loosely connected with the Church of Rome. The connexion became closer at the time when the schism with its violent controversies between the rival pontiffs, waged with the coarse invective customary to medieval theologians, had brought great discredit on the papacy. The terrible rapacity of its representatives in Bohemia, which increased in proportion as it became more difficult to obtain money from western countries such as England and France, caused general indignation; and this was still further intensified by the gross immorality of the Roman priests. The Hussite movement was also a democratic one, an uprising of the peasantry against the landowners at a period when a third of the soil belonged to the clergy. Finally national enthusiasm for the Slavic race contributed largely to its importance. The towns, in most cases creations of the rulers of Bohemia who had called in German immigrants, were, with the exception of the "new town" of Prague, mainly German; and in consequence of the regulations of the university, Germans also held almost all the more important ecclesiastical offices--a condition of things greatly resented by the natives of Bohemia, which at this period had reached a high degree of intellectual development.

The Hussite movement assumed a revolutionary character as soon as the news of the death of Huss reached Prague. The knights and nobles of Bohemia and Moravia, who were in favour of church reform, sent to the council at Constance (September 2nd, 1415) a protest, known as the "_protestatio Bohemorum_" which condemned the execution of Huss in the strongest language. The attitude of Sigismund, king of the Romans, who sent threatening letters to Bohemia declaring that he would shortly "drown all Wycliffites and Hussites," greatly incensed the people. Troubles broke out in various parts of Bohemia, and many Romanist priests were driven from their parishes. Almost from the first the Hussites were divided into two sections, though many minor divisions also arose among them. Shortly before his death Huss had accepted a doctrine preached during his absence by his adherents at Prague, namely that of "utraquism," i.e. the obligation of the faithful to receive communion in both kinds (_sub utraque specie_). This doctrine became the watchword of the moderate Hussites who were known as the Utraquists or Calixtines (_calix_, the chalice), in Bohemian, _podoboji_; while the more advanced Hussites were soon known as the Taborites, from the city of Tabor that became their centre.

Under the influence of his brother Sigismund, king of the Romans, King Wenceslaus endeavoured to stem the Hussite movement. A certain number of Hussites lead by Nicolas of Hus--no relation of John Huss--left Prague. They held meetings in various parts of Bohemia, particularly at Usti, near the spot where the town of Tabor was founded soon afterwards. At these meetings Sigismund was violently denounced, and the people everywhere prepared for war. In spite of the departure of many prominent Hussites the troubles at Prague continued. On the 30th of July 1419, when a Hussite procession headed by the priest John of Zelivo (in Ger. Selau) marched through the streets of Prague, stones were thrown at the Hussites from the windows of the town-hall of the "new town." The people, headed by John Zizka (1376-1424), threw the burgomaster and several town-councillors, who were the instigators of this outrage, from the windows and they were immediately killed by the crowd. On hearing this news King Wenceslaus was seized with an apoplectic fit, and died a few days afterwards. The death of the king resulted in renewed troubles in Prague and in almost all parts of Bohemia. Many Romanists, mostly Germans--for they had almost all remained faithful to the papal cause--were expelled from the Bohemian cities. In Prague, in November 1419, severe fighting took place between the Hussites and the mercenaries whom Queen Sophia (widow of Wenceslaus and regent after the death of her husband) had hurriedly collected. After a considerable part of the city had been destroyed a truce was concluded on the 13th of November. The nobles, who though favourable to the Hussite cause yet supported the regent, promised to act as mediators with Sigismund; while the citizens of Prague consented to restore to the royal forces the castle of Vysehrad, which had fallen into their hands. Zizka, who disapproved of this compromise, left Prague and retired to Plzen (Pilsen). Unable to maintain himself there he marched to southern Bohemia, and after defeating the Romanists at Sudomer--the first pitched battle of the Hussite wars--he arrived at Usti, one of the earliest meeting-places of the Hussites. Not considering its situation sufficiently strong, he moved to the neighbouring new settlement of the Hussites, to which the biblical name of Tabor was given. Tabor soon became the centre of the advanced Hussites, who differed from the Utraquists by recognizing only two sacraments--Baptism and Communion--and by rejecting most of the ceremonial of the Roman Church. The ecclesiastical organization of Tabor had a somewhat puritanic character, and the government was established on a thoroughly democratic basis. Four captains of the people (_hejtmane_) were elected, one of whom was Zizka; and a very strictly military discipline was instituted.

Sigismund, king of the Romans, had, by the death of his brother Wenceslaus without issue, acquired a claim on the Bohemian crown; though it was then, and remained till much later, doubtful whether Bohemia was an hereditary or an elective monarchy. A firm adherent of the Church of Rome, Sigismund was successful in obtaining aid from the pope. Martin V. issued a bull on the 17th of March 1420 which proclaimed a crusade "for the destruction of the Wycliffites, Hussites and all other heretics in Bohemia." The vast army of crusaders, with which were Sigismund and many German princes, and which consisted of adventurers attracted by the hope of pillage from all parts of Europe, arrived before Prague on the 30th of June and immediately began the siege of the city, which had, however, soon to be abandoned (see [VZ]I[VZ]KA, JOHN). Negotiations took place for a settlement of the religious differences. The united Hussites formulated their demands in a statement known as the "articles of Prague." This document, the most important of the Hussite period, runs thus in the wording of the contemporary chronicler, Laurence of Brezova:--

I. The word of God shall be preached and made known in the kingdom of
Bohemia freely and in an orderly manner by the priests of the Lord....

II. The sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist shall be freely
administered in the two kinds, that is bread and wine, to all the
faithful in Christ who are not precluded by mortal sin--according to
the word and disposition of Our Saviour.

III. The secular power over riches and worldly goods which the clergy
possesses in contradiction to Christ's precept, to the prejudice of
its office and to the detriment of the secular arm, shall be taken and
withdrawn from it, and the clergy itself shall be brought back to the
evangelical rule and an apostolic life such as that which Christ and
his apostles led....

IV. All mortal sins, and in particular all public and other disorders,
which are contrary to God's law shall in every rank of life be duly
and judiciously prohibited and destroyed by those whose office it is.

These articles, which contain the essence of the Hussite doctrine, were rejected by Sigismund, mainly through the influence of the papal legates, who considered them prejudicial to the authority of the Roman see. Hostilities therefore continued. Though Sigismund had retired from Prague, the castles of Vysehrad and Hradcany remained in possession of his troops. The citizens of Prague laid siege to the Vysehrad, and towards the end of October (1420) the garrison was on the point of capitulating through famine. Sigismund attempted to relieve the fortress, but was decisively defeated by the Hussites on the 1st of November near the village of Pankrác. The castles of Vysehrad and Hradcany now capitulated, and shortly afterwards almost all Bohemia fell into the hands of the Hussites. Internal troubles prevented them from availing themselves completely of their victory. At Prague a demagogue, the priest John of Zelivo, for a time obtained almost unlimited authority over the lower classes of the townsmen; and at Tabor a communistic movement (that of the so-called Adamites) was sternly suppressed by Zizka. Shortly afterwards a new crusade against the Hussites was undertaken. A large German army entered Bohemia, and in August 1421 laid siege to the town of Zatec (Saaz). The crusaders hoped to be joined in Bohemia by King Sigismund, but that prince was detained in Hungary. After an unsuccessful attempt to storm Zatec the crusaders retreated somewhat ingloriously, on hearing that the Hussite troops were approaching. Sigismund only arrived in Bohemia at the end of the year 1421. He took possession of the town of Kutna Hora (Kuttenberg), but was decisively defeated by Zizka at Nemecky Brod (Deutschbrod) on the 6th of January 1422. Bohemia was now again for a time free from foreign intervention, but internal discord again broke out caused partly by theological strife, partly by the ambition of agitators. John of Zelivo was on the 9th of March 1422 arrested by the town council of Prague and decapitated. There were troubles at Tabor also, where a more advanced party opposed Zizka's authority. Bohemia obtained a temporary respite when, in 1422, Prince Sigismund Korybutovic of Poland became for a short time ruler of the country. His authority was recognized by the Utraquist nobles, the citizens of Prague, and the more moderate Taborites, including Zizka. Korybutovic, however, remained but a short time in Bohemia; after his departure civil war broke out, the Taborites opposing in arms the more moderate Utraquists, who at this period are also called by the chroniclers the "Praguers," as Prague was their principal stronghold. On the 27th of April 1423, Zizka now again leading, the Taborites defeated at Horic the Utraquist army under Cenek of Wartemberg; shortly afterwards an armistice was concluded at Konopist.

Papal influence had meanwhile succeeded in calling forth a new crusade against Bohemia, but it resulted in complete failure. In spite of the endeavours of their rulers, the Slavs of Poland and Lithuania did not wish to attack the kindred Bohemians; the Germans were prevented by internal discord from taking joint action against the Hussites; and the king of Denmark, who had landed in Germany with a large force intending to take part in the crusade, soon returned to his own country. Free for a time from foreign aggression, the Hussites invaded Moravia, where a large part of the population favoured their creed; but, again paralysed by dissensions, soon returned to Bohemia. The city of Königgrätz (Králové Hradec), which had been under Utraquist rule, espoused the doctrine of Tabor, and called Zizka to its aid. After several military successes gained by Zizka (q.v.) in 1423 and the following year, a treaty of peace between the Hussites was concluded on the 13th of September 1424 at Liben, a village near Prague, now part of that city.

In 1426 the Hussites were again attacked by foreign enemies. In June of that year their forces, led by Prokop the Great--who took the command of the Taborites shortly after Zizka's death in October 1424--and Sigismund Korybutovic, who had returned to Bohemia, signally defeated the Germans at Aussig (Usti nad Labem). After this great victory, and another at Tachau in 1427, the Hussites repeatedly invaded Germany, though they made no attempt to occupy permanently any part of the country.

The almost uninterrupted series of victories of the Hussites now rendered vain all hope of subduing them by force of arms. Moreover, the conspicuously democratic character of the Hussite movement caused the German princes, who were afraid that such views might extend to their own countries, to desire peace. Many Hussites, particularly the Utraquist clergy, were also in favour of peace. Negotiations for this purpose were to take place at the oecumenical council which had been summoned to meet at Basel on the 3rd of March 1431. The Roman see reluctantly consented to the presence of heretics at this council, but indignantly rejected the suggestion of the Hussites that members of the Greek Church, and representatives of all Christian creeds, should also be present. Before definitely giving its consent to peace negotiations, the Roman Church determined on making a last effort to reduce the Hussites to subjection. On the 1st of August 1431 a large army of crusaders, under Frederick, margrave of Brandenburg, whom Cardinal Cesarini accompanied as papal legate, crossed the Bohemian frontier; on the 14th of August it reached the town of Domazlice (Tauss); but on the arrival of the Hussite army under Prokop the crusaders immediately took to flight, almost without offering resistance.

On the 15th of October the members of the council, who had already assembled at Basel, issued a formal invitation to the Hussites to take part in its deliberations. Prolonged negotiations ensued; but finally a Hussite embassy, led by Prokop and including John of Rokycan, the Taborite bishop Nicolas of Pelhrimov, the "English Hussite," Peter Payne and many others, arrived at Basel on the 4th of January 1433. It was found impossible to arrive at an agreement. Negotiations were not, however, broken off; and a change in the political situation of Bohemia finally resulted in a settlement. In 1434 war again broke out between the Utraquists and the Taborites. On the 30th of May of that year the Taborite army, led by Prokop the Great and Prokop the Less, who both fell in the battle, was totally defeated and almost annihilated at Lipan. The moderate party thus obtained the upper hand; and it formulated its demands in a document which was finally accepted by the Church of Rome in a slightly modified form, and which is known as "the compacts." The compacts, mainly founded on the articles of Prague, declare that:--

1. The Holy Sacrament is to be given freely in both kinds to all
Christians in Bohemia and Moravia, and to those elsewhere who adhere
to the faith of these two countries.

2. All mortal sins shall be punished and extirpated by those whose
office it is so to do.

3. The word of God is to be freely and truthfully preached by the
priests of the Lord, and by worthy deacons.

4. The priests in the time of the law of grace shall claim no
ownership of worldly possessions.

On the 5th of July 1436 the compacts were formally accepted and signed at Iglau, in Moravia, by King Sigismund, by the Hussite delegates, and by the representatives of the Roman Church. The last-named, however, refused to recognize as archbishop of Prague, John of Rokycan, who had been elected to that dignity by the estates of Bohemia. The Utraquist creed, frequently varying in its details, continued to be that of the established church of Bohemia till all non-Roman religious services were prohibited shortly after the battle of the White Mountain in 1620. The Taborite party never recovered from its defeat at Lipan, and after the town of Tabor had been captured by George of Podebrad in 1452 Utraquist religious worship was established there. The Bohemian brethren, whose intellectual originator was Peter Chelcicky, but whose actual founders were Brother Gregory, a nephew of Archbishop Rokycan, and Michael, curate of Zamberk, to a certain extent continued the Taborite traditions, and in the 15th and 16th centuries included most of the strongest opponents of Rome in Bohemia. J. A. Komensky (Comenius), a member of the brotherhood, claimed for the members of his church that they were the genuine inheritors of the doctrines of Hus. After the beginning of the German Reformation many Utraquists adopted to a large extent the doctrines of Luther and Calvin; and in 1567 obtained the repeal of the compacts, which no longer seemed sufficiently far-reaching. From the end of the 16th century the inheritors of the Hussite tradition in Bohemia were included in the more general name of "Protestants" borne by the adherents of the Reformation.

All histories of Bohemia devote a large amount of space to the Hussite
movement. See Count Lützow, _Bohemia; an Historical Sketch_ (London,
1896); Palacky, _Geschichte von Böhmen_; Bachmann, _Geschichte
Böhmens_; L. Krummel, _Geschichte der böhmischen Reformation_ (Gotha,
1866) and _Utraquisten und Taboriten_ (Gotha, 1871); Ernest Denis,
_Huss et la guerre des Hussites_ (Paris, 1878); H. Toman, _Husitské
Válecnictvi_ (Prague, 1898). (L.)

HUSTING (O. Eng. _hústing_, from Old Norwegian _hústhing_), the "thing" or "ting," i.e. assembly, of the household of personal followers or retainers of a king, earl or chief, contrasted with the "folkmoot," the assembly of the whole people. "Thing" meant an inanimate object, the ordinary meaning at the present day, also a cause or suit, and an assembly; a similar development of meaning is found in the Latin _res_. The word still appears in the names of the legislative assemblies of Norway, the _Storthing_ and of Iceland, the _Althing_. "Husting," or more usually in the plural "hustings," was the name of a court of the city of London. This court was formerly the county court for the city and was held before the lord mayor, the sheriffs and aldermen, for pleas of land, common pleas and appeals from the sheriffs. It had probate jurisdiction and wills were registered. All this jurisdiction has long been obsolete, but the court still sits occasionally for registering gifts made to the city. The charter of Canute (1032) contains a reference to "hustings" weights, which points to the early establishment of the court. It is doubtful whether courts of this name were held in other towns, but John Cowell (1554-1611) in his _Interpreter_ (1601) s.v., "Hustings," says that according to Fleta there were such courts at Winchester, York, Lincoln, Sheppey and elsewhere, but the passage from Fleta, as the _New English Dictionary_ points out, does not necessarily imply this (11. lv. _Habet etiam Rex curiam in civitatibus ... et in locis ... sicut in Hustingis London, Winton, &c._). The ordinary use of "hustings" at the present day for the platform from which a candidate speaks at a parliamentary or other election, or more widely for a political candidate's election campaign, is derived from the application of the word, first to the platform in the Guildhall on which the London court was held, and next to that from which the public nomination of candidates for a parliamentary election was formerly made, and from which the candidate addressed the electors. The Ballot Act of 1872 did away with this public declaration of the nomination.

HUSUM, a town in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, in a fertile district 2½ m. inland from the North Sea, on the canalized Husumer Au, which forms its harbour and roadstead, 99 m. N.W. from Hamburg on a branch line from Tönning. Pop. (1900) 8268. It has steam communication with the North Frisian Islands (Nordstrand, Föhr and Sylt), and is a port for the cattle trade with England. Besides a ducal palace and park, it possesses an Evangelical church and a gymnasium. Cattle markets are held weekly, and in them, as also in cereals, a lively export trade is done. There are also extensive oyster fisheries, the property of the state, the yield during the season being very considerable. Husum is the birthplace of Johann Georg Forchhammer (1794-1865), the mineralogist, Peter Wilhelm Forchhammer (1801-1894), the archaeologist, and Theodore Storm (1817-1888), the poet, to the last of whom a monument has been erected here.

Husum is first mentioned in 1252, and its first church was built in 1431. Wisby rights were granted it in 1582, and in 1603 it received municipal privileges from the duke of Holstein. It suffered greatly from inundations in 1634 and 1717.

See Christiansen, _Die Geschichte Husums_ (Husum, 1903); and
Henningsen, _Das Stiftungsbuch der Stadt Husum_ (Husum, 1904).

HUTCHESON, FRANCIS (1694-1746), English philosopher, was born on the 8th of August 1694. His birthplace was probably the townland of Drumalig, in the parish of Saintfield and county of Down, Ireland.[1] Though the family had sprung from Ayrshire, in Scotland, both his father and grandfather were ministers of dissenting congregations in the north of Ireland. Hutcheson was educated partly by his grandfather, partly at an academy, where according to his biographer, Dr Leechman, he was taught "the ordinary scholastic philosophy which was in vogue in those days." In 1710 he entered the university of Glasgow, where he spent six years, at first in the study of philosophy, classics and general literature, and afterwards in the study of theology. On quitting the university, he returned to the north of Ireland, and received a licence to preach. When, however, he was about to enter upon the pastorate of a small dissenting congregation he changed his plans on the advice of a friend and opened a private academy in Dublin. In Dublin his literary attainments gained him the friendship of many prominent inhabitants. Among these was Archbishop King (author of the _De origine mali_), who resisted all attempts to prosecute Hutcheson in the archbishop's court for keeping a school without the episcopal licence. Hutcheson's relations with the clergy of the Established Church, especially with the archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, Hugh Boulter (1672-1742) and William King (1650-1729), seem to have been most cordial, and his biographer, in speaking of "the inclination of his friends to serve him, the schemes proposed to him for obtaining promotion," &c., probably refers to some offers of preferment, on condition of his accepting episcopal ordination. These offers, however, were unavailing.

While residing in Dublin, Hutcheson published anonymously the four essays by which he is best known, namely, the _Inquiry concerning Beauty, Order, Harmony and Design_, the _Inquiry concerning Moral Good and Evil_, in 1725, the _Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections_ and _Illustrations upon the Moral Sense_, in 1728. The alterations and additions made in the second edition of these Essays were published in a separate form in 1726. To the period of his Dublin residence are also to be referred the _Thoughts on Laughter_ (a criticism of Hobbes) and the Observations on the _Fable of the Bees_, being in all six letters contributed to _Hibernicus' Letters_, a periodical which appeared, in Dublin (1725-1727, 2nd ed. 1734). At the end of the same period occurred the controversy in the _London Journal_ with Gilbert Burnet (probably the second son of Dr Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury); on the "True Foundation of Virtue or Moral Goodness." All these letters were collected in one volume (Glasgow, 1772).

In 1729 Hutcheson succeeded his old master, Gershom Carmichael, in the chair of moral philosophy in the university of Glasgow. It is curious that up to this time all his essays and letters had been published anonymously, though their authorship appears to have been well known. In 1730 he entered on the duties of his office, delivering an inaugural lecture (afterwards published), _De naturali hominum socialitate_. It was a great relief to him after the drudgery of school work to secure leisure for his favourite studies; "non levi igitur laetitia commovebar cum almam matrem Academiam me, suum olim alumnum, in libertatem asseruisse audiveram." Yet the works on which Hutcheson's reputation rests had already been published.

The remainder of his life he devoted to his professorial duties. His reputation as a teacher attracted many young men, belonging to dissenting families, from England and Ireland, and he enjoyed a well-deserved popularity among both his pupils and his colleagues. Though somewhat quick-tempered, he was remarkable for his warm feelings and generous impulses. He was accused in 1738 before the Glasgow presbytery for "following two false and dangerous doctrines: first, that the standard of moral goodness was the promotion of the happiness of others; and second, that we could have a knowledge of good and evil without and prior to a knowledge of God" (Rae, _Life of Adam Smith_, 1895). The accusation seems to have had no result.

In addition to the works named, the following were published during Hutcheson's lifetime: a pamphlet entitled _Considerations on Patronage_ (1735); _Philosophiae moralis institutio compendiaria, ethices et jurisprudentiae naturalis elementa continens, lib. iii._ (Glasgow, 1742); _Metaphysicae synopsis ontologiam et pneumatologiam complectens_ (Glasgow, 1742). The last work was published anonymously. After his death, his son, Francis Hutcheson (c. 1722-1773), author of a number of popular songs (e.g. "As Colin one evening," "Jolly Bacchus," "Where Weeping Yews"), published much the longest, though by no means the most interesting, of his works, _A System of Moral Philosophy, in Three Books_ (2 vols., London, 1755). To this is prefixed a life of the author, by Dr William Leechman (1706-1785), professor of divinity in the university of Glasgow. The only remaining work assigned to Hutcheson is a small treatise on _Logic_ (Glasgow, 1764). This compendium, together with the _Compendium of Metaphysics_, was republished at Strassburg in 1722.

Thus Hutcheson dealt with metaphysics, logic and ethics. His importance is, however, due almost entirely to his ethical writings, and among these primarily to the four essays and the letters published during his residence in Dublin. His standpoint has a negative and a positive aspect; he is in strong opposition to Thomas Hobbes and Bernard de Mandeville, and in fundamental agreement with Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd earl of Shaftesbury), whose name he very properly coupled with his own on the title-page of the first two essays. There are no two names, perhaps, in the history of English moral philosophy, which stand in a closer connexion. The analogy drawn between beauty and virtue, the functions assigned to the moral sense, the position that the benevolent feelings form an original and irreducible part of our nature, and the unhesitating adoption of the principle that the test of virtuous action is its tendency to promote the general welfare are obvious and fundamental points of agreement between the two authors.

I. _Ethics._--According to Hutcheson, man has a variety of senses,
internal as well as external, reflex as well as direct, the general
definition of a sense being "any determination of our minds to receive
ideas independently on our will, and to have perceptions of pleasure
and pain" (_Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions_, sect.
1). He does not attempt to give an exhaustive enumeration of these
"senses," but, in various parts of his works, he specifies, besides
the five external senses commonly recognized (which, he rightly hints,
might be added to),--(1) consciousness, by which each man has a
perception of himself and of all that is going on in his own mind
(_Metaph. Syn._ pars i. cap. 2); (2) the sense of beauty (sometimes
called specifically "an internal sense"); (3) a public sense, or
sensus communis, "a determination to be pleased with the happiness of
others and to be uneasy at their misery"; (4) the moral sense, or
"moral sense of beauty in actions and affections, by which we perceive
virtue or vice, in ourselves or others"; (5) a sense of honour, or
praise and blame, "which makes the approbation or gratitude of others
the necessary occasion of pleasure, and their dislike, condemnation or
resentment of injuries done by us the occasion of that uneasy
sensation called shame"; (6) a sense of the ridiculous. It is plain,
as the author confesses, that there may be "other perceptions,
distinct from all these classes," and, in fact, there seems to be no
limit to the number of "senses" in which a psychological division of
this kind might result.

Of these "senses" that which plays the most important part in
Hutcheson's ethical system is the "moral sense." It is this which
pronounces immediately on the character of actions and affections,
approving those which are virtuous, and disapproving those which are
vicious. "His principal design," he says in the preface to the two
first treatises, "is to show that human nature was not left quite
indifferent in the affair of virtue, to form to itself observations
concerning the advantage or disadvantage of actions, and accordingly
to regulate its conduct. The weakness of our reason, and the
avocations arising from the infirmity and necessities of our nature,
are so great that very few men could ever have formed those long
deductions of reasons which show some actions to be in the whole
advantageous to the agent, and their contraries pernicious. The Author
of nature has much better furnished us for a virtuous conduct than our
moralists seem to imagine, by almost as quick and powerful
instructions as we have for the preservation of our bodies. He has
made virtue a lovely form, to excite our pursuit of it, and has given
us strong affections to be the springs of each virtuous action."
Passing over the appeal to final causes involved in this and similar
passages, as well as the assumption that the "moral sense" has had no
growth or history, but was "implanted" in man exactly in the condition
in which it is now to be found among the more civilized races, an
assumption common to the systems of both Hutcheson and Butler, it may
be remarked that this use of the term "sense" has a tendency to
obscure the real nature of the process which goes on in an act of
moral judgment. For, as is so clearly established by Hume, this act
really consists of two parts: one an act of deliberation, more or less
prolonged, resulting in an intellectual judgment; the other a reflex
feeling, probably instantaneous, of satisfaction at actions which we
denominate good, of dissatisfaction at those which we denominate bad.
By the intellectual part of this process we refer the action or habit
to a certain class; but no sooner is the intellectual process
completed than there is excited in us a feeling similar to that
which myriads of actions and habits of the same class, or deemed to be
of the same class, have excited in us on former occasions. Now,
supposing the latter part of this process to be instantaneous, uniform
and exempt from error, the former certainly is not. All mankind may,
apart from their selfish interests, approve that which is virtuous or
makes for the general good, but surely they entertain the most widely
divergent opinions, and, in fact, frequently arrive at directly
opposite conclusions as to particular actions and habits. This obvious
distinction is undoubtedly recognized by Hutcheson in his analysis of
the mental process preceding moral action, nor does he invariably
ignore it, even when treating of the moral approbation or
disapprobation which is subsequent on action. None the less, it
remains true that Hutcheson, both by his phraseology, and by the
language in which he describes the process of moral approbation, has
done much to favour that loose, popular view of morality which,
ignoring the necessity of deliberation and reflection, encourages
hasty resolves and unpremeditated judgments. The term "moral sense"
(which, it may be noticed, had already been employed by Shaftesbury,
not only, as Dr Whewell appears to intimate, in the margin, but also
in the text of his _Inquiry_), if invariably coupled with the term
"moral judgment," would be open to little objection; but, taken alone,
as designating the complex process of moral approbation, it is liable
to lead not only to serious misapprehension but to grave practical
errors. For, if each man's decisions are solely the result of an
immediate intuition of the moral sense, why be at any pains to test,
correct or review them? Or why educate a faculty whose decisions are
infallible? And how do we account for differences in the moral
decisions of different societies, and the observable changes in a
man's own views? The expression has, in fact, the fault of most
metaphorical terms: it leads to an exaggeration of the truth which it
is intended to suggest.

But though Hutcheson usually describes the moral faculty as acting
instinctively and immediately, he does not, like Butler, confound the
moral faculty with the moral standard. The test or criterion of right
action is with Hutcheson, as with Shaftesbury, its tendency to promote
the general welfare of mankind. He thus anticipates the utilitarianism
of Bentham--and not only in principle, but even in the use of the
phrase "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" (_Inquiry
concerning Moral Good and Evil_, sect. 3).

It is curious that Hutcheson did not realize the inconsistency of this
external criterion with his fundamental ethical principle. Intuition
has no possible connexion with an empirical calculation of results,
and Hutcheson in adopting such a criterion practically denies his
fundamental assumption.

As connected with Hutcheson's virtual adoption of the utilitarian
standard may be noticed a kind of moral algebra, proposed for the
purpose of "computing the morality of actions." This calculus occurs
in the _Inquiry concerning Moral Good and Evil_, sect. 3.

Benevolence.

The most distinctive of Hutcheson's ethical doctrines still remaining
to be noticed is what has been called the "benevolent theory" of
morals. Hobbes had maintained that all our actions, however disguised
under apparent sympathy, have their roots in self-love. Hutcheson not
only maintains that benevolence is the sole and direct source of many
of our actions, but, by a not unnatural recoil, that it is the only
source of those actions of which, on reflection, we approve.
Consistently with this position, actions which flow from self-love
only are pronounced to be morally indifferent. But surely, by the
common consent of civilized men, prudence, temperance, cleanliness,
industry, self-respect and, in general, the "personal virtues," are
regarded, and rightly regarded, as fitting objects of moral
approbation. This consideration could hardly escape any author,
however wedded to his own system, and Hutcheson attempts to extricate
himself from the difficulty by laying down the position that a man may
justly regard himself as a part of the rational system, and may thus
"be, in part, an object of his own benevolence" (Ibid.),--a curious
abuse of terms, which really concedes the question at issue. Moreover,
he acknowledges that, though self-love does not merit approbation,
neither, except in its extreme forms, does it merit condemnation,
indeed the satisfaction of the dictates of self-love is one of the
very conditions of the preservation of society. To press home the
inconsistencies involved in these various statements would be a
superfluous task.

The vexed question of liberty and necessity appears to be carefully
avoided in Hutcheson's professedly ethical works. But, in the
_Synopsis metaphysicae_, he touches on it in three places, briefly
stating both sides of the question, but evidently inclining to that
which he designates as the opinion of the Stoics in opposition to what
he designates as the opinion of the Peripatetics. This is
substantially the same as the doctrine propounded by Hobbes and Locke
(to the latter of whom Hutcheson refers in a note), namely, that our
will is determined by motives in conjunction with our general
character and habit of mind, and that the only true liberty is the
liberty of acting as we will, not the liberty of willing as we will.
Though, however, his leaning is clear, he carefully avoids
dogmatizing, and deprecates the angry controversies to which the
speculations on this subject had given rise.

It is easy to trace the influence of Hutcheson's ethical theories on
the systems of Hume and Adam Smith. The prominence given by these
writers to the analysis of moral action and moral approbation, with
the attempt to discriminate the respective provinces of the reason and
the emotions in these processes, is undoubtedly due to the influence
of Hutcheson. To a study of the writings of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson
we might, probably, in large measure, attribute the unequivocal
adoption of the utilitarian standard by Hume, and, if this be the
case, the name of Hutcheson connects itself, through Hume, with the
names of Priestley, Paley and Bentham. Butler's _Sermons_ appeared in
1726, the year after the publication of Hutcheson's two first essays,
and the parallelism between the "conscience" of the one writer and the
"moral sense" of the other is, at least, worthy of remark.