Talk:Jan Hus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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...) <sigh> 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)

[edit] 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'Near 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Reo 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] POV Problem

the section entitled "Hus' scholarship and teachings" needs some serious source citing

  • "wherever he goes beyond Wycliffe, he falters and becomes dull or verbose."

says who? maybe i find him invigorating. it would take a team of experts all in agreement to possibly make this anything but completely subjective.

  • "He claims not to have shared Wycliffe's views regarding the sacraments, but this is not certain."
See weasel words!

i removed this sentence, but there are still a lot of subjective statements that would only add to the article if they were from someone in the know Bantosh 14 June, 2006

[edit] 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.

[edit] Place of Birth

The hyperlink to Husinec in the current article is INCORRECT, as it points to Husinec, or Husinec/Rez north of Prague. The correct Husinec is the one near Prachatice. The distance to Prague is approx. 110km.

I suggest that a stub for the birthplace is created. The hyperlink for the village's web is: http://projekt.jiznicechy.org/cz/index.php?path=mest/husinec.htm

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)