Jan Hus; Patriot or Martyr
Jan Hus was a bohemian church reformer whose ideas had been years before his time. Hus was able to sway the church to accept so many different ideas than it had previously accepted though his teachings and sermons. Hus engrained his beliefs through the Bible, seeing as where he was from, the Bible was their main source of text. In this paper, three historian’s views will be analyzed through their arguments on Hus. Professor Stefan Swiezawski, Francišek Šmahel, and Oscar Kuhns will have their thoughts on Hus be closely looked at to determine who had the most valid points and if they agreed or disagreed with one another.
In an interview with Anna Karon, Professor Stefan Swiezawski elaborates on the main ideas of his …show more content…
He also claims that Hus was predestined to be a preacher and to spread the word of God during difficult times in Europe, because Hus was an energetic preacher, and because of his “long established teaching activities” (Šmahel 28). In addition to this argument, Šmahel also supports his other claim of Hus being a patriot in several different ways. One of the ways is that he points out Hus’s role in the social order of society. While Hus did not believe in the papacy hierarchy, Šmahel draws on the thought that Hus condemned the peasant revolts and relied on the rich for support in his mission to reform the church. He divided society into different groups of good and bad, yet Šmahel states that he did not try to disturb the social order too much, he rather wanted, “an ideal, fair feudalism in which everyone would contribute by fraternal love to the prosperity of all,” (Šmahel 28). Thus, although Hus did wish to increase the success of every person in the feudal system, he wished for the arrangement to stay stable and continue as it was. This further demonstrates Šmahel’s point that Hus was a patriot that attempted to preserve the social order of his nation. Another example Šmahel uses to justify his point is when he writes, “A ban on all church services, including funerals, would have brought many difficulties for the 40,000 inhabitants of the city [in Prague]. The consequences could have turned people against the reformation movement,” (Šmahel 32). This passage is followed by the idea that Hus then left the country in order to protect the citizens that would have suffered under the ban of religious
Jan Hus was a bohemian church reformer whose ideas had been years before his time. Hus was able to sway the church to accept so many different ideas than it had previously accepted though his teachings and sermons. Hus engrained his beliefs through the Bible, seeing as where he was from, the Bible was their main source of text. In this paper, three historian’s views will be analyzed through their arguments on Hus. Professor Stefan Swiezawski, Francišek Šmahel, and Oscar Kuhns will have their thoughts on Hus be closely looked at to determine who had the most valid points and if they agreed or disagreed with one another.
In an interview with Anna Karon, Professor Stefan Swiezawski elaborates on the main ideas of his …show more content…
He also claims that Hus was predestined to be a preacher and to spread the word of God during difficult times in Europe, because Hus was an energetic preacher, and because of his “long established teaching activities” (Šmahel 28). In addition to this argument, Šmahel also supports his other claim of Hus being a patriot in several different ways. One of the ways is that he points out Hus’s role in the social order of society. While Hus did not believe in the papacy hierarchy, Šmahel draws on the thought that Hus condemned the peasant revolts and relied on the rich for support in his mission to reform the church. He divided society into different groups of good and bad, yet Šmahel states that he did not try to disturb the social order too much, he rather wanted, “an ideal, fair feudalism in which everyone would contribute by fraternal love to the prosperity of all,” (Šmahel 28). Thus, although Hus did wish to increase the success of every person in the feudal system, he wished for the arrangement to stay stable and continue as it was. This further demonstrates Šmahel’s point that Hus was a patriot that attempted to preserve the social order of his nation. Another example Šmahel uses to justify his point is when he writes, “A ban on all church services, including funerals, would have brought many difficulties for the 40,000 inhabitants of the city [in Prague]. The consequences could have turned people against the reformation movement,” (Šmahel 32). This passage is followed by the idea that Hus then left the country in order to protect the citizens that would have suffered under the ban of religious