Talk:Jan Hus/Archive 1

Love of Wyclif
I am guessing that the writer of this article is enamoured with Wyclif, but stating that Hus is just an epigone of Wyclif at least 20 times is a bit much. Reading the article I had the feeling that the writer is on the verge of crying: "Yes! Yes! Burn the bloody copy-cat!". 192.115.133.141 23:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Emm please can we delete "devoted pupil of Englishman" it reads like an unobjective announcment. Though Hus did indeed like Wyclif he was far too national to be a devoted pupil and his sermons were in keeping with Wyclif/reform thought not devoted paraphrasings as seems to be implied.


 * Yes please. Pavel Vozenilek 09:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I did delete but this article is still childish and needs to stress the Czech reform tradition and Hus's difference from Wyclif. Wyclif was a intellectual Hus a man of the church.


 * By the way, this article started out its life as just a copy of the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia's Jan Hus entry, which presumably is in the public domain. That accounts for the floweriness of a lot of the language, as well as the pro-Wycliffe bias. But please do indicate some evidence that he was not influenced by Wycliffe, for my curiosity if nothing else. Korny O&#39;Near 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hus' date of birth
Wylie gives Hus' date of birth as 6 July 1373 - is there any other source for his date of birth? What's the origin of the year given in this article?

Wylie's reference (I just noticed) is:


 * Lechler, Johann von Wiclif, vol. ii, p. 133

--Michael Noel Jones 13:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Iconography
This section makes no sense to me. Are these three separate points, or all one? It isn't clear.


 * Modern ideas of Hus being tall and bearded man should not illustrate the text, but only its present popular perception. —Guy Peters Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Famous followers of Jan Hus
Were Jan Žižka z Trocnova a Kalicha, Matěj z Knína, and Mikuláš Biskupec z Pelhřimova known by any other names to Hus? I own the book "The Letters of John Hus" translated by Matthew Spinka, and none of these personal letters of Hus are addressed to, or even mention, these people by these names. There are some excellent letters to Jerome of Prague and Jan Kardinál z Rejnštejna, however. Thanks! Also, if any source material is needed for Jan Hus, I would be happy to help provide quotes from this book. --Dulcimerist (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

sound file
The sound file should reappear once the IPA-cs template is updated. Please let me know if I miss it for some reason. kwami (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Last Words Wrong
The article claims: "in a hundred years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform can not be suppressed."

That's an interpretation of the more interesting last words, which are reported quite differently here:

See: http://www.williamtyndale.com/0johnhus.htm

When the fagots were piled up to his very neck, the duke of Bavaria was so officious as to desire him to abjure. "No, (said Huss;) I never preached any doctrine of an evil tendency; and what I taught with my lips I now seal with my blood." He then said to the executioner, "You are now going to burn a goose, (Huss signifying goose in the Bohemian language:) but in a century you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil." If he were prophetic, he must have meant Martin Luther, who shone about a hundred years after, and who had a swan for his arms.

See: http://www.kszdar.cz/file.php?id=210

"Dnes pečete hus, ale přijde labuť, kterou nebudete moci upéci."

I translate that as "Today you all bake a goose, but there comes a swan which you won't be able to cook." Czech is not my native tongue, but this is a pretty simple sentence and I'm positive I'm not far off.

Given the Hus reputation for oratory that this quite poetic Czech language quotation sure seems much more accurate when you hear it. The translation provided and cited is an okay interpretation of the last words, but loses the original flavor, then distorts and exagerates.

The information in the article provided seems to me to be in error, even though this version is the most frequent result on Google. As we can see, in the original there's no mention of a hundred years, God, man, raising up, or calls for reform. That's only implied.

Unless a Hus scholar can show this is wrong, it's best to correct this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.180.197.108 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Accents
I always thought it was Comenius who designed Czech accents, not Hus, but I don't have a source for it...

Nope it was Hus and I do have a source. It was all part of the great national project.
 * Certeinly, it was Jan Hus's invention.  R eo  ON   |   + + +  18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit unclear issue and no one can be ever certain. The use of accents had been suggested in the tractate DE ORTOGRAPHIA BOHEMICA, that was written in the time of Jan Hus, but it was de facto anynymous and was attributed to Jan Hus only much later. So it migt have been his invention but this assumption can be based just on the circumstancial evidence, nothing more. At the time (15th century) it was just one of the many spelling systems in use. On the turn of 16th and 17th century, this system was adopted by a group of protestant schollars for the comission of the new czech Bible tranlation, so called Kralicka Bible. This clear and comprehensive translation (similarly as the Luther's Bible in the german environment) has become a czech language standard lasting for centuries, and thus in the nationalist 19th century became one of the main sources for the creating of the official czech language corpus. Jiri Dokulil 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind to create new article on this topic? It would be /very, very/ interesting and it would also offload these discussions into more relevant place. Pavel Vozenilek 12:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, why not? (Although I believe there are many more competent people to deal with such an issue) The only issue here is to check the sources (and possibly consult the scholars) in order to avoid the "cut and paste" approach of many articles relying on single (often outdated) source, which all takes time to do it properly. But it's a tempting proposal, wil do my best to produce something. Jiri Dokulil 10:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a follow-up on that? I'd be very interested. Can you point me to the article? Szabi (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article De orthographia bohemica which I translated from cs.wiki, which might be of interest to you. It's far from ideal, but it's a start. Knepflerle (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically.....
Ironically, if you look at many of the things Hus wanted, most of them became part of the life of the Church with Vatican II (Mass in venacular, communion under both species, etc).DaveTroy 10:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How is that Irony, I call it development... marcelina!


 * Then maybe you don't know what "ironic" means or you haven't read the article :-) w.0q

Evolution is irony? Hmmm new definition, in retrospect it may seem, but...

Evolution and irony are two different discriptors, both seem to apply here. What a moronic arguement.

550 years too late for Hus. Meanwhile he burned at the stake for it....Spiritquest (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Latin
I think the Latin references in the article should be translated for those of us who don't know Latin.Spiritquest (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Actually, it may be Czech, but whatever language it is, it would be good to have it translated. Spiritquest (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"The forty-five articles"
The reference to the "forty-five articles" in the section entitled "Response" is made without explanation, as if the articles have already been mentioned, but I could find no previous reference to them. It would be good to have it explained what these articles were.Spiritquest (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Was a decent fellow who as often in history ended up being the cause of that which he was trying to prevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animus63 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Where Hus was killed
The cutline under the photograph of the Jan Hus statue in Prague asserts that Hus was killed at that site. The article itself correctly states that Hus was burned at the stake in Germany.


 * Which photograph you have on mind? Anyway, Jan Hus was burnt at stake at Konstanz. Ceplm (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

hagiography...
(Section: "Execution") "It is said that when he was about to expire, he cried out, ..."

Oh please, said by whom? And how verifiable is it? Such hagiographical intrusions challenge both the reliability of this article and the trustworthiness of Wikipedia as a whole. I suggest to throw this sentence away asap. Bansp (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Buried and exhumed?! Source??
The article claims Hus was buried, then exhumed and his ashes scattered in the Rhine. (This section used to say, "scattered at sea".) But I can't find any sources for that claim -- except with reference to Wycliffe! Could it be that this factoid has swapped over from Wycliffe's into Hus's biography? Until someone comes up with a source, I suggest we just say, as various online sources do, that Hus was burnt at the stake and his ashes thrown in the Rhine. — Wegesrand (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To me it just sounds really strange, the Rhine being several hundreds of miles away. If any such action did happen, it would have been a scattering into the Vltava (which flows through Prague) or possibly the Danube, wouldn't it? Scattering the ashes into a major river could have been a deliberate move by the emperor and the church to deprive his followers of any grave to focus on; the same kind of treatment was given the ashes of as different executed figures as Joan of Arc and the lurid bunch hanged after the Nuremberg trials.  Anyway, it's still unsourced. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hus was executed in Konstanz. "It is said" that Vltava has not ever flown anywhere near there... ;-) Bansp (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A century later, as much as ninety percent of the inhabitants of the Czech Crown lands still followed Hussite teachings.??
What about Silesia and Lusatia? These lands did not followed Hussite teachings, quite opposite. That is much more then ten percent of inhabitans of the Chech Crown lands. Pavel.Boreš (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Selectivity
Why is there only a bare mention inpassing of his linguistic work, and almost nothing on the first 30+ years of his life? AnonMoos 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * a) because it is not sure he ever done any linguistic work (see Orthographia_bohemica for more thorough discussion about the issue)
 * b) because we know almost nothing about him before he graduated from the university?
 * Ceplm (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ceplm (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominalist or Realist?
In "Early life" the article states that Hus was a strong supporter of the "Czechs, and therefore the Realists". Is the author referring to Medieval Realism and it's connection to the question of universals? Hus most powerful influence was without question John Wycliff, how then would he arrive at the "Realist" position? Can we get at very least a citation here? Or perhaps a "rethink"? Are there for instance, citations from Hus's own work concluding that universals have existence outside of the mind of God? I'm by no means qualified to make the call here but I'm suspicious of this attribution and also the logic that it was derived from his support of the Czechs. Skyboltone (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The relationship of Hus towards John Wyclif specifically and whole Realism-Nominalism discussion generally is now part of the wide scholarly discussion. The only source I can think of is the Czech book “Husovská dilemata“ (Karmelitánské nakladatelství, Kostelní Vydří, 2015) by Ctirad Václav Pospíšil, but I don’t have particularly good citation from it. Ceplm (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

theoretical reformer
Wycliffe, Hus and Luther were all 'theoretical' reformers. Wycliffe had a powerful protector, but no more than that, in John of Gaunt. Hus was on his own, which is why he was so easily kidnapped and murdered. Luther had protectors who were prepared not only to protect him but, fed up with the avarice of Rome, support the reform position initiated by Wycliffe and continued by Luther against Rome. Without this political support one has to wonder how far Luther would have got. If one reads 'Exsurge Domine' it is fairly clear that Rome had little idea who Wycliffe or Hus were, but was quite familiar with the cultural entity known as Germans,described there as 'Catholicae veritatis germanos' (a feeble pun) (Pamour (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan Hus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221184947/http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/%24File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf to http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/%24File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104224923/http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_2_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_regions/%24File/PVCR072_ENG.pdf to http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_2_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_regions/%24File/PVCR072_ENG.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in the Hussite rebellion
This site

http://mackays1626.com/Site/HussiteWars14201434-681.html

Claims that Jan Hus stated that "Women were made in the image of God and should fear no man”

and that this 'set the stage for women to preach at Hussite services and participate in governing councils, not to mention fight beside their men in battle.'

If this is true I would think this should be a major factor in this article. Can anyone clarify this and / or suggest a reason why this shouldn't be in the article?

Drifter bob (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just three comments:
 * 1. that site is down
 * 2. there are zillion of sayings supposedly said by John Hus; so, unless, I am given the chapter and verse of any quotation, I won’t even consider it.
 * 3. Don’t confuse John Hus and Hussite movement. He was just a thinker and never formulated his opinions to the laws and rules. Besides, the movement started only couple of years after his death (and yes, because of his death).
 * 2. there are zillion of sayings supposedly said by John Hus; so, unless, I am given the chapter and verse of any quotation, I won’t even consider it.
 * 3. Don’t confuse John Hus and Hussite movement. He was just a thinker and never formulated his opinions to the laws and rules. Besides, the movement started only couple of years after his death (and yes, because of his death).
 * 3. Don’t confuse John Hus and Hussite movement. He was just a thinker and never formulated his opinions to the laws and rules. Besides, the movement started only couple of years after his death (and yes, because of his death).

Ceplm (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

film based on his life
I removed a reference to this film Jan_Hus_(2015_film) from the "works" section for (hopefully) obvious reasons. Is the film notable enough to be reintegrated somewhere else in the article? Hypershock (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan Hus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103104641/http://www.czso.cz/sldb/sldb2001.nsf/tabx/CZ0000 to http://www.czso.cz/sldb/sldb2001.nsf/tabx/CZ0000
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204103805/http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Huss/HUSS-DOOR.html to http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Huss/HUSS-DOOR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Popes and Anti-Popes
What the heck is an "Anti-Pope"?? This terminology needs to be clarified. Also, in the section "Crusade Against Naples" I'm going to assume that "Anti-Pope John XXIII" is a typo. John XXIII was a pope in the 20th century. At any rate, the use of the term Anti-pope in that paragraph makes no sense without more explanation. I know the term is used in the previous section about Alexander the V but it's not really explained, and its use makes no sense here.Spiritquest (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritquest (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)   The above also applies to the reference to "Anti-Pope John XXIII" in the section entitled "Imprisonment and preparations for trial." Spiritquest (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See the article antipope for more information. It's a perfectly valid and commonly-used term. Knepflerle (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Pope: That is the designation of any of the handful of popes who were not legitimately elected. There have been more than 40 of them, and the term "antipope" is pretty common in articles and discussions of popes, and it is the only word that actually describes what

Re: Pope John XXIII: That was my first thought too, but when I went to find who the pope actually was in the latter part of 1414, lo and behold, I found that this was during The Schism, and that the first John XXIII is indeed considered an antipope. He reigned from 1410 to 1415, after an invalid Council of Pisa where the cardinals declared both Pope Gregory XII and Antipope Benedict XIII deposed and elected Antipope Alexander V. When Alexander died, John XXIII succeeded him. (What a mess that made!) Just a clarification. ObadiahKatz (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Reformation and the Catholic Church
I am NOT saying that burning people at the stake is a good thing, or even the right thing; HOWEVER, it would be nice to see an article on the Reformation or a reformer that didn't make it sound like the Catholic Church was out of line... it needs to be clear that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only game in town, and that many laypeople supported the suppression of non-orthodox Christian belief for religious reasons as well as political ones. Just wanting to see more that reflects the real religious issues brought about by the Reformation, not just an implication that this was all some kind of political struggle (despite the fact that the Church was and is politically very powerful). That said, one of the reasons that Luther was successful where Hus wasn't is because Luther didn't do much to rock the political boat, where Hus's reforms threatened the landowners as well... JHK 02:36, 21 November 2001


 * But it was a political struggle, especially in Germany where German princes adopted Luther's reforms to break away from the Holy roman Emperor, who spent about 30 years battling them unsuccessfully.
 * Also, when protestants gained the upper hand they were also fond of burning their religious opponents at the stake (see Calvin in Geneva and Miguel Servet). -- Miguel

Ah, subtlety. I've done my best with 'inquisition' to make it clear that things are complicated. One of the delightful things, historiographically, about the Hus thang is that the Council of Constance, i.e., the conciliar movement at its finest, the great hope of 19th century Protestant historians who think that what the Papacy needs to reign it in is a nice representative assembly meeting on a regular basis, is EXACTLY who condemned him. Ah, well. --MichaelTinkler
 * I've always had a soft spot for the Conciliarists..."more bishops know more than one" works for me (except for the fact that a council of bishops is still as influenced by outside forces as one elected pope...maybe nore, maybe less -- all depends on the pope...) JHK
 * 'nore'? I added quotation marks where you MEANT them (check previous versions), but I'm not sure what you mean by 'nore'. --MichaelTinkler, who'd rather have God choose just one pope at a time rather than a whole council full o' them


 * 14 years, and you still don't know what I nean by nore. Nore is nuch nore than less... JHK, still not entirely convinced that God watches over every papal election, but agreeing that it's better to have just one Pope.

Oh, B*******!!! I found a new article entitled John Huss, which was just a stub, and couldn't believe there wasn't already an article on the subject. So I tried to "Go" to "Jan Huss" but according to the search engine there was no such article, and the same happened when I tried "Jan Hus". And now, when I try to create it, I find it exists!!! I'm fed up!!! Deb 08:50 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * I find it constantly amusing that I have an easier time finding wikipedia articles by searching with google than I do searching with wikipedia itself 76.93.65.34 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The catholic church in the person of a pope admits that it was out of line. As one of the quotes in the article shows. We cannot whitewash what happened if we are reporting history. The strongest testimony of guilt comes out of the guilty party's mouth. I think rather that the whole article has a bit of a Roman Catholic slant to it. This is evidenced by the many unsupported claims about correctness of doctrine that are found in the article. Also the exteral reference to a Jesuit site leads me to believe that the main problem with this article is the Roman_Catholic slant. The untrained or Roman Catholic eye may not observe it. We owe it to a reformer to let those who held to his views have editorial supervision over those by whom he was victimised, don't we? (Written by youngdrj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.149.51 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: JHK's comment, and I quote: "it would be nice to see an article on the Reformation or a reformer that didn't make it sound like the Catholic Church was out of line"

Get real, JHK. The Catholic Church WAS out of line. How can you write an accurate historical article on this without saying the Catholic Church was out of line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.16.208 (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the standards of today the Catholic Church WAS out of line, and because it wasn't the standard in Hus' time it becomes a news-worthy, history making article ... the whole point of looking at Hus is to see how he stood up to the Catholic church exposing it to it's errors base on the SAME teachings, and how the CC (MIS)used it power to try to stop him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh1973 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't think the Catholic church was out of line by burning people for thought crime? Then it would be OK if it did it again, would it? Campolongo (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * JHK says: "it needs to be clear that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only game in town, and that many laypeople supported the suppression of non-orthodox Christian belief for religious reasons as well as political ones." And this makes it right? Or any less wrong? There was a time and a place when the old Roman gods were the only game in town and most people were pretty solidly, obediently and traditionally against the teachings of Christ himself, too. In Jan Hus' own words, "If the whole world as one told me something, that conflicted with my own reason, I could not without betraying my conscience take it to be true." Popular opinion in itself does not justice make, and neither does it have any miniscule, remotely defensible shred of justice to burn a human being alive for having unorthodox ideas and telling other people about them.
 * If you were only talking about making it clear that the majority of European laity outside of Bohemia stayed Catholic and didn't immediately throw in their lots with Hus, fine, though it's probably unnecessary as rather apparent from subsequent history. But to say that this action, this brutal murder committed by the Church hierarchy was not "out of line"? Really, sir or madam? Really? Florestanová (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Luther had an issue not available to Hus—the sale of indulgences. Further, Gutenburg's printing process had introduced many unprecedented factors, including that Bibles became potentially much more widely available, with consequent dissolution of Rome's ability to be the sole interpreter. Additionally, separating the Reformation from the Renaissance would be difficult or even impossible. The atmosphere was ready for Luther in ways which for Hus had yet to develop. Rammer (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"...it needs to be clear that the Catholic Church was pretty much the only game in town". It was "the only game in town" because it tended to burn people alive if they disagreed with it. As Sydney Smith said, "Mankind ... is impatient of combustion".METRANGOLO1 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hussites.gif