THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
s.w. of Prague). He was born probably about 1340 and studied at the new university in Prague. In 1393 he was made vicar-general of Archbishop John of Jenstein. In the same year, March 20, he became a martyr to the cause of clerical immunity, being thrown into the River Moldau at the behest of King Wenceslaus IV., who was at variance with the clergy, as a penalty for his confirmation, against the king's will, of a new abbot for the Benedictine monastery at Kladrau. Dr. Johanek, as he was called because of his small stature, enjoyed no special reputation; be was rich, possessed houses, and lent money to noblemen and priests. The development and transformation of the legend can be traced through successive stages. The archbishop, who hastened to Rome soon after the crime, in his charge against Wenceslaus, called the victim a martyr; in the biography written a few years later miracles are already recorded by which the drowned man was discovered. The uncritical Bohemian annalists from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century fostered the fable. About the middle of the fifteenth century the statement appears for the first time that the refusal to violate the seal of confession was the cause of John's death. Two decades later (1471), the dean of Prague, Paul Zidek, makes Johanek the queen's confessor. The unscrupulous chronicler Wenceslaus Hayek, the " Bohemian Livy," speaks in 1541 (probably owing to carelessness in the use of his sources) of two Johns of Nepomuk being drowned; the first as confessor, the second for his confirmation of the abbot. The legend is especially indebted for its growth to the Jesuit Balbinus, the " Bohemian Pliny," whose services to the history of his country were so conspicuous that he was persecuted by the government, which preferred oblivion and silence. He was, however, as credulous as he was patriotic, and even became a forger to honor his saint. Although the Prague metropolitan chapter did not accept the biography dedicated to it, " as being frequently destitute of historical foundation and erroneous, a bungling work of mythological rhetoric." Balbinus stuck to it. In 1683 the Prague bridge was adorned with a statue of the saint, which has had numerous successors; in 1708 the first church was dedicated to him at Koniggratz. Meanwhile, in spite of the objection of the Jesuits, the process was inaugurated which ended with his canonization. On June 25, 1721, he was beatified, and on March 19, 1729, he was canonized under Benedict XIII. The acts of the process, comprising 500 pages, which cost more than 180,000 crowns, distinguish two Johns of Nepomuk and sanction the cult us of the one who was drowned in 1383 as a martyr of the sacrament of penance.
The ingenious suggestion has been made that the historical kernel of St. John Nepomuk is really Huss, who was metamorphosed from a Bohemian Reformer into a Roman-Catholic saint; and that the Nepomuk-legend is a Jesuit blending of the John who was drowned and the John who was burned. The resemblances are certainly striking, extending to the manner of celebrating their commemorations. But when the Jesuits came to Prague, the Nepomuk-worship had long been wide-
spread; and the idea of canonization originated in opposition not to the Hussites, but to Protestantism, as a weapon of the Counter-Reformation— though his cultus was also intended to supplant Huss in the hearts of the Bohemian people. In the image of the saint which gradually arose the religious history of Bohemia is reflected. This much is historically certain, that the Vicar-general John of Pomuk was drowned in 1393 because of the choice of the abbot, and that Rome, making use of a forged biography, has canonized a man whose very existence can not be demonstrated.
Georg Loesche.
Bibliography: The Vita by Bohuslav Balbinus is in ASB, May, iii, 668-680. The Acta leading up to the canonization were published at Verona, 1725, and the Acta canonizationis at Rome, 1727. Naturally a large part of the literature on the subject is in Bohemian — for a list consult Potthast, Wegweiser, pp. 1400-1401. Consult O. Abel, Die Legende vom heiligen Johann von Nepomuk, Berlin, 1855; A. Wiirfel, Legende des heiligen Johann von Nepomuk, Prague, 1862; A. Frind, Der geschichtliche . , Johannes von Nepomuk, Prague, 1871; A. H. Wratislaw, Life, Legend and Canonization of St. John Nepomucen, London, 1873; Die Frage ilber . . Johann von Nepomuk, in Der Katholik, i (1882), 273-300, 390-414; T. Schmude, in ZKT, vii (1883), 52-123; KL, vi. 1725-1742.
JOHN OF SALISBURY: English ecclesiastic, and bishop of Chartres; b. at Salisbury between 1110 and 1120; d. at Chartres (54 m. s.w. of Paris) Oct. 25, 1180. He was of humble Saxon origin, but in 1136 left his native land to study in France, especially in Paris. Among his teachers there were the famous Abelard, Robert of Melun, and Alberic of Reims. After studying dialectics at Paris for
two years, he went to Chartres, where Life. for three years he heard the lectures of
William of Conches, and later studied under Richard l'Eveque, Hardewin the German, Theodoric, Peter Elias, and others. He returned to Paris and began the study of theology, his teachers being Gilbert de la Porree, Robert Pulleyne, and Simon of Poissy. Despite bitter poverty, he spent twelve years in France, passing the latter portion of the time with his intimate friend Peter, abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Moutier la Celle near Troyes, through whom he became acquainted with Bernard of Clairvaux. This powerful head of the Cistercians brought John to the attention of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, who had fled from England to escape Stephen. When the archbishop was able to return to his see, John was invited, in 1148 or the beginning of 1149, to act as his chancellor or secretary. He was a firm defender of the spiritual and secular supremacy of the pope and of the independence of the clergy, regarding these principles as the means of protecting mankind against the injustice of the secular arm and the consequences of sin. He sought to carry out his doctrine in practical ecclesiastical life, even though his views that only the Roman Catholic hierarchy could unfold the blessings of Christianity aroused the opposition of the court and of the bishops, the latter regarding themselves as peers of the realm rather than as subject to a distant pope. The increasing age and infirmity of the archbishop brought additional ecclesiastical responsibilities upon John, while he was able to render many important poht-