Communion Under Both Kinds in the Lublin Frescoes and Gregory Tsamblak’s Liturgy at the Council of Constance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the article is to highlight the fact that discussions surrounding the peculiar wall painting of the Communion of the Apostles in the chapel of Lublin Castle (in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) have largely overlooked an important historical context. The author focuses on the fact that Orthodox Bishop Gregory Tsamblak, who served as an envoy of king Władysław Jagiełło of Poland (the patron of these wall paintings) to the Council of Constance, administered Communion under both kinds during the liturgy he celebrated there. This event was documented in the annals of the Council. Two aspects of this situation are particularly striking: first, the depiction of such a communion practice within a Western church, and second, the fact that Tsamblak celebrated this liturgy at a Council that condemned Jan Hus to death for advocating Communion in both kinds. Bishop Tsamblak appeared at the Council in 1418, the same year the Lublin paintings were created. It is plausible that Tsamblak, in collaboration with King Władysław Jagiełło, played a role in shaping the program of frescoes in Lublin - just as they both worked together to establish a framework for the coexistence of Christians of different denominations within a single state structure. Thus, it is also important to recall this remarkable figure and the crucial role he played in a key moment following the unification of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The concept of this article is somewhat controversial but highly intriguing. The text is very interesting and definitely deserves to be published.
Minor comments: the term "Roman Catholic" should be used instead of "Catholic"; the use of the term “Ruthenian” in the context in which it appears in the article requires consideration (it is not always appropriate).
Author Response
I am extremely grateful for reading the text and reviewing it, as well as for your valuable comments, which I will take into account in the text, i.e., I will change ‘Catholic’ to ‘Roman Catholic’ and ‘Ruthenian’ to ‘Rus’ where it seems appropriate. In general, I have so far used the term ‘Ruthenian’ to describe painters who came from Red Rus to narrow down their area of origin. However, it is obviously advisable to change it in several places in the article, a revised version of which I am enclosing. I am aware that the concept of the article may be surprising, but I nevertheless wanted to draw attention to the parallel of important cultural-political-artistic phenomena, the coexistence of which is rather unconscious in historiography, and which may stimulate further studies on the subject. The manuscript presented for review is at the same time a fragment of a larger whole, which is to make up a monograph devoted to the circumstances of the foundation of Orthodox frescoes in the Polish-Lithuanian state.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting, important and original study that sheds light on art history, late medieval theological considerations, the Council of Constance, along with the intersection of eastern and western Christendom at the end of the Middle Ages with special attention to Polish factors. It is well-written, has solid documentation and is suggestive.
The essay consists of two loosely related matters that are not adequately connected (see final comment below): 1) analysis of the Lublin frescos and 2) a liturgical celebration at Constance in 1418. There is a good use of figures to illustrate the narrative. These are both useful and valuable. The author notes that the two should be correlated. But are the two anything more than coincidence and is there a risk of advancing a false equivalence? The author clearly believes that there is more than coincidence and that the two issues suggest an important and hitherto unexplored nexus.
On the Lublin frescos, the author quite nicely overviews possible readings. This is especially good as the relevant scholarship is mainly Polish. What about the Lublin frescos being a visual depiction of the medieval doctrine of concomitance? Does this view have any replication or resonance in Orthodoxy? What about a Trinitarian motif? What do we know about the relocating of the frescos?
A point (perhaps not relevant) to consider follows: A depiction of communion in a Concordantiae caritatis manuscript originating in Vienna c. 1460-70 now in New York, Pierpont Morgan Library MS M 1045, fol. 128v shows at first glance the Trinity in the middle, with the cloak of the life-size figure in the middle of the picture enveloping two smaller, similar figures (all three male, with long brown hair, a brown beard and nimbus), so that it is not clear whether the two are held by the invisible arms and hands of the central figure or whether a common lower body is intended. This is fairly typical in the Eastern Church, in a modification of the doubled Christ. If one assumes an apostolic communion, a new look can be taken here at the unusual “representation of the Trinity”: two (God the Father and Son) or three (together with the personified Holy Spirit) largely identical divine figures sometimes found in Marian coronations. Also, in Vienna, ÖNB, cod. 2766, fol. 231v, one of the two small persons is Christ, although whether it is the Holy Spirit distributing communion on the other side or rather a second Christ, as is often the case in Apostolic Communion iconography, is unclear and may suggest the depiction is not the Trinity, but a mixed form of Western and Eastern depiction types of Father and (doubled) Son.
There is an over-emphasis on Jan Hus and his defence of the lay chalice. This needs to be modified. This point is not why Hus was executed and not even a significant factor in his demise. These claims are repeated several times throughout (pp. 1, 2 twice, 6, 21). Heresy certainly is at issue but the concern around Utraquism comes very late in the trial period and cannot be regarded as important in his eventual condemnation. The essay tends to overlook almost entirely scholarship on Hus and Utraquism, especially that available in English and German and thereby neglects an international perspective. There is a good historiographical overview of the Polish scholarly literature which is generally inaccessible to an Anglophone readership but needs non-Polish/Russian sources on Hus and Utraquism and maybe even Constance.
Several suggestions in this respect: On Hus, a number of important studies demonstrate that Hus’ defence of Utraquism was very late and not significant for his condemnation. After all, he had been embroiled in legal affairs for five years and this point arises only in the last month of his life. He did not practice Utraquism and lent support to the initiative only. See Thomas Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus: Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); Fudge, ‘O Cursed Judas: Formal Heresy Accusations against Jan Hus.’ In Religion, Power and Resistance from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries: Playing the Heresy Card. Eds, Thomas M. Izbicki, Karen Bollermann, and Cary J. Nederman. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2014, pp. 55-80; Fudge, ‘Why was Jan Hus Burned at the Stake During the Council of Constance?’ Andrews University Seminary Studies 55 (No. 1, 2017): 29-44.
On Utraquism see David R. Holeton, ‘The Evolution of the Celebration of the Daily Office in Utraquism: an overview’ The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 8 (2011), pp. 198-222.
For broader contextual considerations around the Council of Constance: Walter Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414-1418, 2 vols (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1991-1997) and Ansgar Frenken, Die Erforschung des Konstanzer Konzils (1414-1418) in den lezten 100 Jahren (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1993). On Hussitism: Fudge, The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), Kateřina Horníčová and Michal Šroněk, eds., From Hus to Luther: Visual Culture in the Bohemian Reformation (1380-1620) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), and František Šmahel, Europas Mitte in Bewegung: Das Königreich Böhmen im ausgehenden Mittelalter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021).
On the bottom of page two and with regard to the Prague uprising of 1419 the excellent and unsurpassed analysis remains Howard Kaminsky, ‘The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419’ Medievalia et Humanistica 17 (1966), pp. 106-126. This is worth a footnote.
The author might consider that the acceptance of Utraquism on the part of King Władysław II Jagiełło was political especially when two years later in 1420 he declined to accept the Four Articles of Prague or to respond positively to overtures to assume the Czech crown. This should be noted as the correlation between the king and the Hussite movement may simply be political but also suggests a disjunction of the king’s motivations.
As for the disuse of the lay chalice, what about trends occurring after Lateran IV? There were precedents which made the Hussite initiative seem more stark and seemingly revolutionary. Early on, Hus did not think the laity ought to receive the cup. Nor did he made it a liturgical requirement or a religious demand that the laity exceed the stipulations set forth by the Latin church. The western church had concluded the entire body and blood of Christ was truly and completely present in both eucharistic elements and therefore it was not essential to partake of both. Thomas Aquinas put it succinctly following Anselm of Canterbury and Alexander of Hales. Hus agreed. It was not that he regarded the chalice as unimportant. It was simply redundant. Unlike the eastern communion, the historic utraquist practice fell into general disuse in the Latin Church in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Greek reference on p. 8 is obtuse and should be clarified a bit better
The author is aware of exaggeration (i.e. Richental’s figure of 300 delegates, pp. 11, 21-2; and inaccurate portrayals in the miniatures and the ambiguity in the frescos). These are important and useful caveats.
Some terminology might be checked or changed: i.e. temple (p.1 abstract), fumigate (p. 18), prosphora (p. 19), etc
There are occasional different spellings for some names and consistency should be adopted.
The discovery of the liturgy in the Sandomierz Collegiate Church (p. 2) is introduced quickly and then set aside. This is too abrupt. It should be better integrated into the narrative.
Consider the possibility that both the Lublin frescos and the Richental miniatures may be misunderstood or forced to bear an unsustainable weight of inquiry and assumption (this is alluded to on p. 20).
The essay ends without circling back to tie together the Lublin frescos and the Constance liturgy. There should probably be an epilogue or conclusion added to the essay structure. This would enhance the value of the argument for the reader and more firmly establish the main thesis the author has endeavoured to establish.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting, important and original study that sheds light on art history, late medieval theological considerations, the Council of Constance, along with the intersection of eastern and western Christendom at the end of the Middle Ages with special attention to Polish factors. It is well-written, has solid documentation and is suggestive.
The essay consists of two loosely related matters that are not adequately connected (see final comment below): 1) analysis of the Lublin frescos and 2) a liturgical celebration at Constance in 1418. There is a good use of figures to illustrate the narrative. These are both useful and valuable. The author notes that the two should be correlated. But are the two anything more than coincidence and is there a risk of advancing a false equivalence? The author clearly believes that there is more than coincidence and that the two issues suggest an important and hitherto unexplored nexus.
Author’s Replay:
My intention is to point out the parallelism of the phenomena that are peculiar to the two cases described in the paper - in the first (the Council chronicle), it is the communion both kinds given at the Council of Constance, where it was discussed; in the second (the Lublin frescoes), it is the communion under two species in the Catholic Church, which did not recognise this iconography for the reason mentioned above and for lack of tradition. What links both cases is the person of Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak, who probably influenced the programme of the Lublin paintings.
Reviewer:
On the Lublin frescos, the author quite nicely overviews possible readings. This is especially good as the relevant scholarship is mainly Polish. What about the Lublin frescos being a visual depiction of the medieval doctrine of concomitance? Does this view have any replication or resonance in Orthodoxy? What about a Trinitarian motif? What do we know about the relocating of the frescos?
Author’s Replay:
A review of the surviving works of Orthodox art shows that the motif present in the Lublin frescoes is a kind of hapax legomenon, i.e., a work without corollary. A modified Trinitarian motif involving the multiplication of God's heads, i.e., God with three faces (Latin: Vultus trifrons), was encountered. Generally a phenomenon rather present in Western iconography, although encountered in orthodox painting. I have expanded on this thought in an addition to the text, which I am enclosing
Reviewer:
A point (perhaps not relevant) to consider follows: A depiction of communion in a Concordantiae caritatis manuscript originating in Vienna c. 1460-70 now in New York, Pierpont Morgan Library MS M 1045, fol. 128v shows at first glance the Trinity in the middle, with the cloak of the life-size figure in the middle of the picture enveloping two smaller, similar figures (all three male, with long brown hair, a brown beard and nimbus), so that it is not clear whether the two are held by the invisible arms and hands of the central figure or whether a common lower body is intended.
This is fairly typical in the Eastern Church, in a modification of the doubled Christ. If one assumes an apostolic communion, a new look can be taken here at the unusual “representation of the Trinity”: two (God the Father and Son) or three (together with the personified Holy Spirit) largely identical divine figures sometimes found in Marian coronations. Also, in Vienna, ÖNB, cod. 2766, fol. 231v, one of the two small persons is Christ, although whether it is the Holy Spirit distributing communion on the other side or rather a second Christ, as is often the case in Apostolic Communion iconography, is unclear and may suggest the depiction is not the Trinity, but a mixed form of Western and Eastern depiction types of Father and (doubled) Son.
Author’s Replay:
This is an excellent comment and addition. I consider that the indicated miniature (MS M 1045, fol. 128v ) should be taken into account, therefore I have included extensive excerpts referring to the content of the treatise Concordantiae caritatis and its analyses in the context of possible connections with the Lublin frescoes.
Reviewer:
There is an over-emphasis on Jan Hus and his defence of the lay chalice. This needs to be modified. This point is not why Hus was executed and not even a significant factor in his demise. These claims are repeated several times throughout (pp. 1, 2 twice, 6, 21). Heresy certainly is at issue but the concern around Utraquism comes very late in the trial period and cannot be regarded as important in his eventual condemnation. The essay tends to overlook almost entirely scholarship on Hus and Utraquism, especially that available in English and German and thereby neglects an international perspective. There is a good historiographical overview of the Polish scholarly literature which is generally inaccessible to an Anglophone readership but needs non-Polish/Russian sources on Hus and Utraquism and maybe even Constance.
Several suggestions in this respect: On Hus, a number of important studies demonstrate that Hus’ defence of Utraquism was very late and not significant for his condemnation. After all, he had been embroiled in legal affairs for five years and this point arises only in the last month of his life. He did not practice Utraquism and lent support to the initiative only. See Thomas Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus: Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); Fudge, ‘O Cursed Judas: Formal Heresy Accusations against Jan Hus.’ In Religion, Power and Resistance from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries: Playing the Heresy Card. Eds, Thomas M. Izbicki, Karen Bollermann, and Cary J. Nederman. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2014, pp. 55-80; Fudge, ‘Why was Jan Hus Burned at the Stake During the Council of Constance?’ Andrews University Seminary Studies 55 (No. 1, 2017): 29-44.
On Utraquism see David R. Holeton, ‘The Evolution of the Celebration of the Daily Office in Utraquism: an overview’ The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 8 (2011), pp. 198-222.
For broader contextual considerations around the Council of Constance: Walter Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414-1418, 2 vols (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1991-1997) and Ansgar Frenken, Die Erforschung des Konstanzer Konzils (1414-1418) in den lezten 100 Jahren (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1993). On Hussitism: Fudge, The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), Kateřina Horníčová and Michal Šroněk, eds., From Hus to Luther: Visual Culture in the Bohemian Reformation (1380-1620) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), and František Šmahel, Europas Mitte in Bewegung: Das Königreich Böhmen im ausgehenden Mittelalter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021).
Author’s Replay:
I am very grateful for the supporting literature. The question of the Council, its deliberations, its significance, its reception is extremely vast. I wanted to focus directly on Tsamblak’s mission, its reasons, its course and its circumstances.
Reviewer:
On the bottom of page two and with regard to the Prague uprising of 1419 the excellent and unsurpassed analysis remains Howard Kaminsky, ‘The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419’ Medievalia et Humanistica 17 (1966), pp. 106-126. This is worth a footnote.
Author’s Replay:
I have tried to incorporate all indications in the text.
Reviewer:
The author might consider that the acceptance of Utraquism on the part of King Władysław II Jagiełło was political especially when two years later in 1420 he declined to accept the Four Articles of Prague or to respond positively to overtures to assume the Czech crown. This should be noted as the correlation between the king and the Hussite movement may simply be political but also suggests a disjunction of the king’s motivations.
Author’s Replay:
I think that the King's conduct was determined by opportunity and necessity. He clearly wanted to support the Hussite movement, but he had the Emperor and the Polish clergy against him, headed by Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki.
Reviewer:
As for the disuse of the lay chalice, what about trends occurring after Lateran IV? There were precedents which made the Hussite initiative seem more stark and seemingly revolutionary. Early on, Hus did not think the laity ought to receive the cup. Nor did he made it a liturgical requirement or a religious demand that the laity exceed the stipulations set forth by the Latin church. The western church had concluded the entire body and blood of Christ was truly and completely present in both eucharistic elements and therefore it was not essential to partake of both. Thomas Aquinas put it succinctly following Anselm of Canterbury and Alexander of Hales. Hus agreed. It was not that he regarded the chalice as unimportant. It was simply redundant. Unlike the eastern communion, the historic utraquist practice fell into general disuse in the Latin Church in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Author’s Replay:
I did not want to get into these issues in order not to stray too far from the topic.
Greek reference on p. 8 is obtuse and should be clarified a bit better
The author is aware of exaggeration (i.e. Richental’s figure of 300 delegates, pp. 11, 21-2; and inaccurate portrayals in the miniatures and the ambiguity in the frescos). These are important and useful caveats.
Some terminology might be checked or changed: i.e. temple (p.1 abstract), fumigate (p. 18), prosphora (p. 19), etc
There are occasional different spellings for some names and consistency should be adopted.
Author’s Replay:
Term “temple” in abstract is wrong, although it seems that the first clergyman is fumigating the altar, and prosphora is the proper term for Eastern Church rite.
Reviewer:
The discovery of the liturgy in the Sandomierz Collegiate Church (p. 2) is introduced quickly and then set aside. This is too abrupt. It should be better integrated into the narrative.
Author’s Replay:
I have added an extensive description of this liturgy as testimony to the autonomous nature of the orthodox painting programme in Jagiello's foundations.
Reviewer:
Consider the possibility that both the Lublin frescos and the Richental miniatures may be misunderstood or forced to bear an unsustainable weight of inquiry and assumption (this is alluded to on p. 20).
The essay ends without circling back to tie together the Lublin frescos and the Constance liturgy. There should probably be an epilogue or conclusion added to the essay structure. This would enhance the value of the argument for the reader and more firmly establish the main thesis the author has endeavoured to establish.
Author’s Replay:
I have added a paragraph referring to the Lublin frescoes in the context of Gregory Camblak's mission.
