










































52 
 

Jan Hus 
A Connection between Belief and National Identity  
 
 
Yutsil Hernandez 
Salem College  
 
 
Abstract 
Jan Hus was a Bohemian preacher who was burned at the stake at the Council of Constance 
in 1415. However, Hus’s legacy well outlived his death, and six centuries later, he continues 
to be considered a symbol of Czech identity today. Using his letters written in exile and 
while awaiting trial at Constance, this article explores key aspects of Hus’s theology and 
how they gave momentum to the movement that arose after his death and has experienced 
an unparalleled longevity. Hus’s pursuit of truth, his frustrations with the practices of the 
church at the time, and his allegiance to Czech-speaking people resonated beyond the 
religious realm and paved the way for an early form of protonationalism.  
 
 
Article 
What turns a believer into a martyr? Further, how does one’s legacy become a symbol of 
national identity that goes beyond the walls of the church for centuries thereafter? The 
answer to these questions lies in a perfect cocktail of societal and religious volatility fueled 
by unwavering belief. In the fourteenth century, the church found itself in a crisis of 
authority and power that also plagued broader society. There was turmoil in the Kingdom 
of Bohemia, as it experienced several shifts in centers of power. In 1378, the Catholic 
Church had two popes: one residing in Avignon and the other in Rome. The Papal Schism 
had several important implications: The church was no longer speaking on behalf of all in 
Western Europe, and in Bohemia, there was no longer one Christian people held together 
by a homogenous and indivisible church. These divisions gave way for new social and 
religious movements to gain momentum.  
 
One of the most notable figures of this era was Jan Hus, a Bohemian preacher who was 
burned at the stake as a heretic for his beliefs at the Council of Constance in 1415. Jan Hus 
rose to popularity in Bohemia for his teachings and criticisms of the Catholic Church but 
became beloved by many Czech people for his advocacy of translating the Bible into the 
vernacular, making the Bible accessible to all Czech people. His beliefs were considered 
heretical, and he was excommunicated and spent two years living in exile while awaiting 
trial at Constance. During this time, he wrote roughly eighty letters that were addressed to 
a variety of audiences: religious leaders, political leaders, and his beloved Praguers.  Hus’s 
letters in exile and while awaiting trial at Constance reflect his emphasis on the importance 
of truth, his frustrations with the church and its practices, and the importance of teaching 
in the vernacular. This is significant as it helps us see the possible connections between his 
theology and politics that allowed a number of people to see him as symbolic of various 



53 
 

forms of Czech national identity that were a catalyst to events like the Hussite Wars, the 
Thirty Years’ War, and nineteenth and early twentieth century nationalist movements.  
 
Situating the Emergence of Hus: Political and Religious Upheavals in Late Medieval 
Bohemia  
Understanding the political context in the Kingdom of Bohemia leading up to the time of 
Hus is important. In Bohemia, the Luxemburg dynasty ruled from 1310 to 1437. The first 
ruler of this dynasty, John of Luxemburg (1310-1346), was the son of the Holy Roman 
Emperor, Henry VII, and his placement on the Bohemian throne can be attributed to the 
prominence of Bohemia and its integration in European affairs.1 John was well known 
throughout Europe in military and political spheres, and while his reign was not 
particularly notable, upon his death, it was said by his contemporaries that the Kingdom of 
Bohemia was on its way to becoming a powerful state in Central Europe.2 His reign was 
followed by Charles, whose rule would solidify the Kingdom of Bohemia’s prominent status 
in Europe. The kingdom would expand both in size and influence; several small 
principalities, duchies, and territories would become part of the Kingdom of Bohemia. 
Charles would select Prague as the seat of power and, ultimately, of the Holy Roman 
Empire. Additionally, Prague was made the seat of an archbishopric in the 1340s.3  In 1348, 
Charles University was established in Prague as the first institution of higher learning in 
Central Europe, and it would have a prominent role in the Bohemian Reformation.4 Charles 
sought to make Prague the cultural center of Central Europe and his reign was marked by 
relative peace and prosperity and contributed to Bohemia’s “golden age.” Although a 
charismatic ruler who promoted the Czech language throughout the empire, many of his 
contributions to Bohemia would not survive him.  
 
Following his reign, Václav IV came to power, and the underlying issues that Charles 
perhaps covered up with his charisma came to the surface with Václav’s reign. One of these 
issues was his failure to permanently strengthen the royal house against a nobility hungry 
for power. Socioeconomic problems were also coming to light during this time; as much as 
half of the population of Prague in the fourteenth century lived on the cusp of poverty. 
Further, other factors such as the fluctuation of wages, which impacted immigration into 
Bohemia, and the subsequent disruption that the epidemic of the Black Death caused in 
Bohemia has been speculated to heighten tensions between ethnic groups during economic 
crises. While these cannot be taken as definite conclusions or correlations, it is important 
to consider these volatile factors and how they may have had immediate ramifications and 
also impacted the future Hussite Revolution.5 All of this, in addition to the Papal Schism 
that coincided with Václav’s reign, further complicated matters as he did not wield the 
same authority that Charles did. External threats came forth when leaders from Hungary, 
Austria, and Moravia signed a treaty against Václav, and he was arrested. Sigismund, King 

 
1 Thomas A. Fudge, The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia, St. Andrews Studies in 
Reformation History (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 5. 
2 Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, 7.  
3 Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia, International Library of 
Historical Studies 73 (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 19.   
4 Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, 8. 
5 Fudge, Jan Hus, 21.  



54 
 

of Hungary, would seek to install himself as ruler in Bohemia during this time, as well as 
muffle any support for Václav in the kingdom. These events led to distrust and suspicion 
amongst the public, and it is these political instabilities that created opportunities for 
figures to become symbolic of a people.  
 
Whereas the church previously had been a uniting and consolidated force in society, in this 
time, it found itself at the height of the Papal Schism and instead the source of division and 
antagonism. Naturally, when a longstanding institution such as the Catholic Church 
experienced such levels of internal dissent that it threatened their authority, any external 
dissent needed to be silenced. It is important to note that within Prague, the church had a 
wealth of power; it was home to numerous churches and related institutions. Parallel to 
Avignon, Prague evolved into a city of clerics, with thousands studying at Charles 
University and thousands in service.6 Another dynamic that added to this volatile 
environment was the growing association that the church had with materialism in light of 
such influence and power. In the totality of the Bohemian kingdom, the percentages of land 
owned by the church ranges from 25 to over 50 percent. While these figures are debated, 
they are important to note as this correlation between the church and ownership of 
property would be a pillar of not only Hus’s personal theology but also the Hussite 
movement. Records exist of clergy who engaged in illicit behaviors or who had no desire to 
work among the people in their parish, which Hus strongly opposed.7 In November of 
1412, Jan Hus wrote a letter to his beloved Praguers while in exile. Hus writes to them 
about how he heard that the Catholic Church was trying to prevent services where their 
“iniquities [were being] denounced” and that the more “they wish to conceal their 
wickedness, the more they reveal it.”8 The entirety of this letter reads like the product of an 
unstable environment, which Hus certainly was experiencing.   

 
The Theology of Jan Hus 
In this letter “To the Praguers,” Hus acknowledges their desire for God and the truth and 
prays for them to not be led astray despite the “wiles of the Antichrist.” This letter 
encourages the Praguers to “not be dismayed, nor let fear trouble [them].”9 Hus also asks 
them to pray for him, so that he may defend the truth, for he knows that nothing is lacking 
in God’s word to the Praguers. This letter is arguably one of the best examples we have of 
the sum of his theology and its devoted connection to the people of Prague. Furthermore, it 
is evident that Hus’s theology was committed to truth above all else—which, although he 
never explicitly defined it, was a central theme in his writings. 
 
Hus’s definition of “truth” and his moral and ethical compass is evident in another letter, 
“To the Lords Gathered at the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Bohemia.” The letter 
contains statements such as “in continuing to preach the word of God and in truth as I see 

 
6 Fudge, Jan Hus, 22.  
7 Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, 15-16.  
8 Jan Hus, “John Hus to the Praguers c. November 1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, trans. Matthew Spinka 
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972), 81. 
9 “John Hus to the Praguers c. November 1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, 79. 



55 
 

it.”10 His commitment to truth is also evident in his belief of adhering to the law of Christ, 
even if it meant defying one’s superior, yet being equally prepared to submit to authority 
should one be proven wrong. However, for Hus, being proven wrong was only considered 
truth if it was done with the Bible as the sole and final authority and not papal authority. 
This assertion, while bold in nature, is necessary in the eyes of Hus given the turmoil the 
Catholic Church was experiencing during this time.  
 
While the church was in a volatile state, Hus turned to other sources to help make sense of 
his personal beliefs. He relied heavily on Augustine for the development of his stances on 
doctrines such as predestination, the concept of the church, and clerical wickedness. 
Speaking to the latter of these, in a letter he addressed to a nobleman, he speaks of the 
ways in which the clergy is at fault for “filling their purses with deceit…thus speaks St. 
Augustine.”11 In Hus’s treatise De Ecclesia (The Church), Augustine is mentioned over one 
hundred times. In many ways, it is evident that Hus held Augustine in high regard, but it 
must be noted that he likely did not have access to his works and knew his writings from 
the theologian Peter Lombard’s Libri Quattuor Sententiarum (Four Books of Sentences). 
Derivative scholarship in the Middle Ages was a relatively common practice.12 In Hus’s 
letters, references to Augustine are scattered consistently throughout, with Hus often 
deferring to him as an authoritative figure. 
 
Another external influence that Hus arguably drew from was John Wyclif. Wyclif was a 
professor of theology and philosophy at Oxford and considered the forerunner of the 
Reformation for his stances on biblical authority and his subsequent translation of the 
Bible into the vernacular, his challenges to the doctrine of transubstantiation (the belief 
that the elements of communion became the broken body of Christ), and his opposition to 
the sale of indulgences (certificates that you could purchase for the forgiveness of sins for 
yourself or deceased relatives). Hus’s teachings reflected agreeance with these teachings, 
and in addition to these commonalities, Wyclif and Hus shared similar approaches to 
matters such as papal authority and their ownership of property, and it is perhaps these 
parallels that drew accusations of Wyclifism to Hus.13 Hus’s letters provide some insight 
into his views on Wyclif’s teachings, which bring forth some of the ambiguities surrounding 
the extent of the influence of Wyclif’s teachings on Hus.  In his letter “To Master Christian of 
Prachatice or John Cardinal,” he states: “[Štěpán z] Páleč (a former supporter of Hus turned 
opponent) calls us Wyclifites, as if we have deviated from the entire faith of 
Christendom.”14 This statement could be interpreted as Hus condemning Wyclif’s teachings 
all together, perhaps calling them heretical. On the contrary, Hus wrote a response to the 
forty-five articles that had been drawn from Wyclif’s writings, saying that they had been 
taken out of context and did not represent their true meaning.15 At the Council of 

 
10 “John Hus to The Lords Gathered at the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Bohemia before 14 December 
1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, 90. 
11 “John Hus to a Nobleman concerning the Death Duties,” in The Letters of John Hus, 17. 
12 Fudge, Jan Hus, 30.  
13 Fudge, Magnificent Ride, 43-44. 
14 “John Hus to Master Christian of Prachatice or John Cardinal of Rejnšten c. June 1413,” in The Letters of John 
Hus, 102. 
15 Matthew Spinka, John Hus: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 65. 



56 
 

Constance, Hus condemned Wyclif’s teachings yet openly admitted that he found his 
teachings attractive due to Wyclif’s genuine efforts to convert people to the law of Christ. 
Hus’s theology did at times focus on doctrine, but his doctrine was predominantly centered 
on moral reform. While Wyclif’s influence on Hus is evident, Hus always made sure to 
adopt the parts of Wyclif’s doctrines that would be perceived as palatable to the 
orthodoxy.16 Therefore, the connection between Wyclif and Hus exists, but perhaps in more 
abstract and indirect ways than is commonly believed.  
 
Further speaking to the volatile state of the church, those who opposed Hus accused him of 
adopting a sola scriptura stance, but this accusation does not necessarily stand. Hus’s 
approach to theology was both traditional and innovative, evident in his adherence to 
biblical authority that simultaneously did not seek to exclude tradition. His 
acknowledgement of creeds and other patristic authorities back this claim.17 In one of his 
letters written pertaining to his upcoming trial in Constance, Hus claims: “Consider, dear 
lords, even if I were fully guilty, whether they should restrain the people of God from the 
praise of the Lord God and grieve them by such excommunication and cessations of the 
divine services. They do not have the warrant in the holy Scriptures to stop them whenever 
they please!”18  This passage points to several pillars of Hus’s theology. He asserts, in 
passing, that the Bible is superior to papal authority and that he himself recognizes that 
there is a possibility he could be wrong, but that it should not stop him, or other people, 
from worshiping.  

 
Hus’s Critiques of the Church 
At the Council of Constance, Hus’s concept of the church came under assault. The Council of 
Constance was called by Emperor Sigismund in 1414 to end the Papal Schism as well as to 
examine the teachings of Wyclif and Hus and thus reform the church. In the context of his 
time, Hus’s concept of the true church was considered heretical for several reasons. A 
charge that was at the forefront of the accusations was his claim that the church was 
limited to the predestinate. This stance was considered heretical because it implied Hus’s 
denial of the validity of the church militant, which consists of both the predestinate and the 
foreknown and was considered to be the “true” church.19 In his letter “To Master of 
Christian of Prachatice,” Hus writes: “Also in this I stand: if the pope is of the predestinate 
and performs the pastoral office, following Christ in morals, then he is the head of as much 
of the Church militant as he rules.”20 Hus’s writings affirm his stance on predestination. 
However, outside of this context and aligning with his respect for authority, his concept of 
the church is thoroughly Pauline and Augustinian, the evidence of the latter is evident in 
the similarities of language and principles found between Hus’s writings and those of 
Augustine. At Constance, his stance on predestination was never explicitly condemned as 
heretical, but Hus’s concept of the church was a central theme of his trial at Constance 

 
16 Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 35. 
17 Fudge, Jan Hus, 40. 
18 “John Hus to The Lords Gathered at the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Bohemia before 14 December 
1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, 90. 
19 Matthew Spinka, John Hus' Concept of the Church (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 255-257. 
20 “John Hus to Master Christian of Prachatice prior to 25 April 1413,” in The Letters of John Hus, 99.  



57 
 

because it was perceived as a threat, and it was believed that his theology would lead to a 
revolution, of which the ramifications had potential to be catastrophic.21 
 
Within the church, Hus’s view of the church had potential ramifications, but his stances that 
spoke against indulgences, simony (the selling of church offices), and papal authority were 
also most likely to have ramifications in society and beyond. In his letter, “To the Polish 
King, Władisław,” Hus exhorts the ruler to rid his dominion of the practice of simony, yet he 
acknowledges the difficulties of doing so, given how widespread and entrenched the 
practice was: “but how could I expect its extermination when it has diffused its poison so 
widely that hardly anywhere priesthood and people can be found who are not stricken by 
the heresy of simony?”22 Hus’s personal and complex journey with indulgences must be 
highlighted to understand the significance of his writings. First, Hus’s personal decision to 
make a career in the church is rather unremarkable. At the time, the church was one of the 
major employers and provided opportunities for advancement and assurances of salvation. 
Hus himself said, “whoever wishes to live well should enter the monk’s cell.”23 He would 
later repudiate his own statements, which put carnal desire above heavenly things. While a 
student at Charles University, Hus was exposed to a practice that would later cause him to 
protest against the church: He heard a preacher teach vehemently about indulgences, a 
practice upon which the late medieval church depended for economic stability.24 Hus was 
not always opposed to indulgences. While at Charles University, Hus once used his last 
coins to purchase an indulgence after being moved by powerful rhetoric, ready to live a 
penniless life so long as he had the assurance of forgiveness of sins. However, this stance 
began to change for him when the sale of indulgences turned violent in Prague. Seeing the 
negative effects in his beloved Prague, he took a staunch position against indulgences but 
also against the subsequent greed it created among church leadership. In a bold letter 
addressed to Pope John XXIII, Hus claims his innocence since he was accused “that 
indulgences are naught.”25 Considering how heavily the Catholic Church relied on this 
practice for both pious and financial purposes, Hus’s claims against them to the pope 
himself are bold in their time.  
 
In his letters, Hus also spoke out about the greed of such practices among church 
leadership. In his letter “To an Unnamed Monk,” he discusses the rules for clerics 
concerning property ownership and how they should not claim anything as their own and 
further that their money perishes with them.26 Likewise, in his letter “To the Polish King 
Władisław,” he says that “once the priesthood was like gold heated with love…now it has 
become earthly and darkened.”27 In this same letter, he also expresses his frustration 
regarding how this same group of clergy who are “pompous, luxurious, and unrestrained” 
are the ones accusing him of heresy and, should he keep silent on this double standard, 

 
21 Fudge, Jan Hus, 34. 
22 “John Hus to the Polish King, Władisław on 11 June 1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, 73-74. 
23 Fudge, Jan Hus, 11. 
24 Fudge, Jan Hus, 11. 
25 “John Hus to Pope John XXIII, 1 September 1411,” in The Letters of John Hus, 54. 
26 “John Hus to an Unnamed Monk, 28 February 1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, 69. 
27 “John Hus to the Polish King Władisław,” in The Letters of John Hus, 74. 



58 
 

then it would “make [him] a participant in their guilt and hell.”28 He even goes as far as to 
liken it to prostitution, as written in his letter “To Christian of Prachatice, Rector of the 
University.”29 In Hus’s view, the papacy was not the sole authority over him or the church. 
In light of the ways in which he had seen the greed for material things grow within the 
clergy, he had reasons to protest in his letters. Beyond his letters, Hus preached against the 
abuses of simony in Bethlehem Chapel in Prague and urged those in attendance not to pay 
for these privileges.30 In addition to his personal grievances with the practice, his vocal 
opposition of this reinforces his care for people and shows how much Hus did not want a 
corrupt clergy to abuse their power over the people.  
 
Hus’s commitment to the Czech people and their access to faith is evident throughout his 
letters. In his letter “To the People of Plzen,” Hus repudiates a letter he received that stated 
that priests should forbid the reading of scripture in the Czech or German vernacular.31 He 
also argues that the authors of the Gospels wrote in the language of the people they were 
addressing and could not understand how in light of this how priests could deny this to the 
Czech and German peoples. In another letter written in exile addressed “To King 
Sigismund,” Hus writes of how, in preparation for his trial at Constance, he posted notices 
in both Latin and in Czech so that perhaps King Sigismund would grant him the grace to 
publicly profess the faith that he held.32 Theology aside, in another letter addressed to the 
Praguers that he wrote while in exile, Hus’s love for the Praguers is evident. In this letter, 
he writes: “Albeit I am now separated from you so far that it perhaps is not fitting that I 
preach much to you, nevertheless, the love I have for you urges me that I say at least a few 
brief words to your love.”33 This affection, which is evident through this letter, is 
reciprocated. This factor arguably contributed to Hus’s eventual centrality in Czech 
memory and history.  
 
Hus’s time in the countryside also sheds light on why preaching in the vernacular was of 
such importance to him. In Prague, it was expected that clergy should have an acceptable 
command of Latin. However, when Hus moved to the countryside, he found that many 
priests there did not have an extensive command of Latin, thus hindering their abilities to 
draw from Latin handbooks and anthologies. Making matters even more serious, Hus also 
encountered some who were even illiterate. Given the situation, Hus was compelled to 
teach and began spreading religious knowledge in the vernacular. His goals were clear: to 
produce a systematic and accessible instruction on doctrine for commoners and to elevate 
Czech as a language of theology. This is a feat that he could not achieve alone, and with the 
fervent support of priests who were devoted to him and his Czech treatises that were 
published, his vision to bring an internal and personal Christianity to life began to gain 
momentum. This would lead him to arguably his most important contribution to Czech 

 
28 “John Hus to the Polish King Władisław,” in The Letters of John Hus, 74. 
29 “John Hus to Christian of Prachatice, Rector of the University, toward the end of 1412,” in The Letters of John 
Hus, 89. 
30 Fudge, Jan Hus, 63. 
31 “John Hus to the People of Plzen, c. October 1411,” in The Letters of John Hus, 59-61. 
32 “John Hus to King Sigismund, 1 September 1414,” in The Letters of John Hus, 119. 
33 “John Hus to the Praguers, 25 December 1413,” in The Letters of John Hus, 111. 



59 
 

believers at this time: his participation in the translation of parts of the Bible to the 
vernacular.34  
 
Hus’s Afterlives 
Hus’s willingness to speak out against these abuses of power and his refusal to recant on 
his theological stances eventually cost him his life. On July 6, 1415, he was burned at the 
stake as a heretic after his trial at the Council of Constance. This event would have 
ramifications not only within the church, but for many, it would also elevate Hus as a 
champion of the Czech people, the effects of which we still see today. The commemoration 
of Hus’s death as a martyr in the context of the early Bohemian Reformation became a 
cemented practice. His death at Constance affirmed his message: His writings in Czech 
were perceived by his followers in the way they were intended to be—as a call to reform 
within the church and as a tool that utilized the vernacular to empower Czech people. 
Almost immediately after his death, his letters written while in exile and in prison became 
liturgical texts and part of Czech popular piety, and his teachings in the vernacular gained 
the status of a saint’s teaching. The following of a new saint is often, perhaps always, 
political in nature, and these words fueled a movement that would turn revolutionary in 
nature.35 Additionally, a concept of the Czech nation as God’s chosen people gained a 
different meaning after his death, and this was one of the most important motives for the 
Hussite resistance against external forces.36 Hus’s life before his trial and death affirm that 
he sought to be a teacher and a preacher above all and that his principal purpose was not 
only to defend the truth, which he believed in vehemently, but also to make it accessible to 
his people, so they too could know the truth for themselves and perhaps not be subjected 
to unnecessary abuses by religious authorities that sought to gatekeep and control people.   
 
Hus’s public life was a period that covered roughly two decades. However, Hus is one of 
those rare figures who gets to live twice, in the sense that his “afterlife” spans six centuries. 
When considering the potential longevity or impact of phenomena, an important factor to 
examine is the initial success it experienced—or lack thereof. To answer the question of 
how Hus, a religious figure, became a symbol of national identity that has survived six 
centuries and several regime changes, one must look at broader contexts. Hus’s life and 
death was certainly impactful in religious spheres, but his legacy was cemented as a result 
of the social and political discontent in Bohemia at the time.37 Exploring how it is that Hus’s 
influence transcended from religious martyr to national figure is an interesting path. In 
order to understand how this path unfolded, it is important to explore the theological and 
ideological roots of the immediate product of Hus’s life and death: the Hussite movement. 
Originating as a reform movement in Prague, it turned into a nationalist movement and 

 
34František Šmahel, “Instead of Conclusion: Jan Hus as Writer and Author,” in A Companion to Jan Hus. eds. Ota 
Pavlı́ček and František Šmahel, Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition 54 (Boston: Brill, 2014), 399-
405.  
35 Phillip N. Haberkern, Patron Saint and Prophet: Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations, Oxford 
Studies in International History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 25.  
36 František Šmahel, “The National Idea, Secular Power, and Social Issues in the Political Theology of Jan Hus,” 
in A Companion to Jan Hus, eds. Ota Pavlı́ček and František Šmahel, Brill's Companions to the Christian 
Tradition 54 (Boston: Brill, 2014), 215-217. 
37 Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 165-167. 



60 
 

contributed to the construction of Hus’s memory. The Hussite movement was complex in 
nature—it was both a revolution and a reformation. No other religious movement had 
gained the momentum that the Hussites in Bohemia did prior to the Protestant 
Reformation. Understanding the role it played is imperative to comprehend fully the 
beginnings of the influence that Hus’s legacy had.  
 
The Hussite movement and revolutions did not necessarily have Hus as the figure who 
questioned church practices yet was willing to submit to papal authority at the center of 
the movement. The movement, which unfolded in 1414 and for a decade after it, emerged 
amid more radical subscribers of Hus the martyr but less so Hus the theologian. This is 
evident in the Hussite belief of Utraquism. At the Council of Constance, Utraquism, or the 
practice of the laity partaking in communion in both bread and wine form, was condemned. 
Although this doctrine of Utraquism became part of Hus’s legacy, he did not author it. This 
doctrine was birthed from the more radical wing of the religiously awakened laity at the 
time but became central to the Hussite movement and subsequently the Utraquist 
Church.38 After Hus’s death at the Council of Constance, the Utraquist Church would keep 
Hus’s memory alive and lay the foundation of a pronationalist movement. Shortly after 
Hus’s death, he was represented on altars within the Utraquist Church alongside Czech 
patron saints, further establishing the connotation in the minds of the public that made Hus 
a symbol of national identity.39 
 
This Hussite movement appealed to a demographic that desired sociopolitical freedom as 
well as religious reform in several facets.40 One of these was their desire for truth as they 
knew it. In addition to their defiance of the Roman Catholic Church via advocating for 
Utraquism, Hus’s movement held on to the belief that the church was made up of the elect, 
which was derived from Hus’s Wyclifism.41 Hus’s predestination beliefs would be carried 
forward in the Hussite movement. His teachings on predestination were perceived as a 
threat to the church and state polity, since, at its core, it argues that the church does not 
have authority over man. While Hus had no interest in applying this defiance to his secular 
jurisdiction, his followers did. This is evident in the “Four Articles of Prague” that were 
written shortly before the Roman Catholic Church launched the first crusade against the 
Hussites in 1420, which led to a series of conflicts known as the Hussite Wars. These 
articles were written by Hussites who wanted free preaching throughout the Kingdom of 
Bohemia, communion in both kinds for all faithful Christians, the divesting of church 
wealth, and the punishment of all mortal sins that went against the law of God.42 Hus and 
eventually his movement would cling to this belief that the Roman Catholic Church did not 
have authority over them, which would fuel the movement. Aligning with Hus’s 
discontentment with the church during his time, the Hussites also heavily criticized the 
ways in which the church exerted and abused their authority. One of the pillars of Hus’s life 
and legacy was his desire to make scripture and teachings available in the vernacular. 

 
38 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, 5. 
39 Pavel Soukup, Jan Hus: The Life and Death of a Preacher, Central European Studies (West Lafayette: Purdue 
University Press, 2020), 8.  
40 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, 6-8. 
41 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, 38.  
42 Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, 98. 



61 
 

Fellow prominent reformers, like Jacob of Mies (1372-1429), also known as Master 
Jakoubek, carried on this important pillar of Hus’s legacy, approving the mass and church 
songs in Czech.43 
 
To further understand how the Hussite movement would eventually become a 
protonationalist movement, it is important to understand how it radicalized exponentially 
right before and after Hus’s death. For example, two weeks prior to Hus’s death at 
Constance, two preachers were burned for preaching “Hus’s errors.”44 The Hussites labeled 
these preachers defenders of their gentis, or race, on the basis of their Czech nationality. 
Strengthening the Hussite movement and its path towards a protonationalist movement 
were two factors: their counterparts, German Catholics, and their proximity to the nobility. 
German Catholics were utilized as the “other” during this period, as the Hussite movement 
continued to pair truth and Czech nationality as a virtuous message and German Catholics 
as a threat. The pairing of the Hussite church to the nobility would increase this sense of 
national identity. Following Hus’s death, fifty-eight Hussite barons and nobles protested 
Hus’s death at Constance and eventually sent a formal letter of protest to a later pope to 
appeal the actions of the Council of Constance. The Hussite barons and nobles who wrote 
this would go on to form a Hussite League, whose main purpose was to support the next 
pope as long as he followed God’s law. Here, Hussitism began to take on more political 
dimensions. Furthermore, considering the increasing prominence that the Kingdom of 
Bohemia had in Europe, this protonationalist movement, paired with a state that had 
significant military power, was a mark of success internally, while also a cause for concern 
from foreign observers. 
 
After Hus’s death, the Czech people experienced a series of drastic changes, making Hus 
and his movement central to the living history of the Czech nation. Though the Czechs won 
a series of religious privileges in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, these freedoms were 
curtailed in the seventeenth century and Hus remained a “heretic” in the eyes of orthodox 
Catholic believers. Some Habsburg rulers, such as emperors Maximilian II (1527-1576) and 
Rudolf II (1552-1612), were sympathetic to Protestants for different reasons.45 During this 
time, religious issues contributed to a revolt against the Habsburgs that resulted in the 
defenestration, or throwing out of a window, of two officials and a chancery secretary.46 
This event would spark the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), which was a catastrophic 
conflict for Europe overall. During this period, the Catholic minority in Bohemia that had 
been living in the shadows of the Hussites would begin to try to reclaim their power. 
Within Bohemia, this series of events—the Defenestration of Prague in 1618 and the 
decision to depose the kingdom’s elected sovereign and replace him with a Protestant—led 
to the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. This clash on a hill would lead to an aggressive 
campaign to re-catholicize Bohemia with a full-blown Counter-Reformation.47  
 

 
43 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, 183. 
44 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, 141. 
45 Howard Louthan, Converting Bohemia: Force and Persuasion in the Catholic Reformation, New Studies in 
European History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 9.  
46 Louthan, Converting Bohemia, 16.  
47 Louthan, Converting Bohemia, 4-5.  



62 
 

There were times where Hus was seen as a symbol of national identity first and a religious 
figure second. For instance, Catholic author Václav Hájek wrote in his Czech Chronicle in 
1541 that Hus was someone he respected for his virtuous life, even though he could not 
approve of his heretical stances, thus recognizing Hus as someone who lived and died 
advocating for the Czech people, despite ideological differences.48 There were instances 
where Hus’s status as a national symbol was contested by those within the church. In the 
baroque era, Catholic authors were searching for figures in Czech history who could 
redeem the reputation of the nation and used John of Nepomuk (1345-1393) as their 
champion. John of Nepomuk was considered a martyr for his refusal to divulge the secrets 
of the confessional and used by Catholics to erase Hus from church history.49 This effort, 
however, would not have lasting success.   
 
During the Czech national revival in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Hus’s label of 
“heretic” was traded for that of champion for the freedom of belief. His legacy, which until 
then had been centered around his religious contributions, acquired two new components 
in the nineteenth century. First, Hus and the subsequent Hussite movement were 
considered a prototype for social justice efforts by Western European socialists. Second, 
Hus became the center of national efforts for emancipation of the Czech nation from 
Habsburg rule. As a national figure of this kind, he continued to be a part of the history of 
the Czech nation during and after the creation of an independent Czechoslovak Republic in 
1918. Hus was seen as the bearer of the national idea during this time.50 
 
In modern religious spheres, churches in the Czech Republic commemorate Hus in their 
liturgies, even if they do not entirely adhere to the principles of the Bohemian Reformation. 
Established in 1920, shortly after the formation of the nation-state, the Czechoslovak 
Church captured the spirit of their newly acquired independence and nationalism. It was 
not until 1971 that it adopted the “Hussite” part to its name thus becoming the 
“Czechoslovak Hussite Church.” In this church, Hus is commemorated in the provisions 
made for the reading of Hus’s letters dated between 10 and 26 June 1415 which were 
addressed “to all faithful Czechs.”51 Additionally, the offertory sentence and the prayer 
after communion are extracted from Hus’s works. The effect of this within this church is 
powerful, as it evokes historic events and places the liturgical assembly as if it were in the 
presence of Hus, either as those he addressed in his writings or as witnesses in his trial and 
execution. These elements have had their share of polemic, but it is important to 
understand that these practices emerged as a product of an infant church and nation that 
had regained their political and religious freedom and sought to shake off the chains of 
three centuries of Habsburg rule. The Czechoslovak Church at its beginning saw itself as a 

 
48 Soukup, Jan Hus, 9. 
49 Louthan, Converting Bohemia, 279-280. 
50 František Šmahel “Introduction: A Companion to Jan Hus,” in A Companion to Jan Hus, eds. Ota Pavlı́ček and 
František Šmahel, Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition 54 (Boston: Brill, 2014), 1-2, 7. 
51 David Holeton and Hannah Vlhova-Woner, “The Second Life of Jan Hus: Liturgy, Commemoration, and 
Music,” in A Companion to Jan Hus, eds. Ota Pavlı́ček and František Šmahel, Brill's Companions to the Christian 
Tradition 54 (Boston: Brill, 2014), 316. 



63 
 

part of the liberation from foreign rule, inspired by Hus’s life and example that called upon 
ecclesial and national reform.52  
 
If you visit Prague today, there is a statue commemorating Hus in the Old Town Square 
thanks to nationalists who had raised the funds for this statue over a period spanning 
twenty-five years. It was unveiled by civic leaders in the middle of World War I to mark the 
500th anniversary of his death. This choice to make Hus a national icon was not universal 
or without protest. While popular sentiment reflected Hus’s overwhelming popularity 
among the majority of the Czech people, it is important within this historical context also to 
highlight the dissent that existed as a result of these actions. Political conflicts between 
Czechs and Germans heightened between 1890 and World War I, and the choice to erect a 
monument to Hus took a quarter century, since it was embroiled in the peak of nationalistic 
competition and change in Bohemia.53 One cannot ignore how Germans who lived in 
Bohemian lands viewed Hussites as both anti-German and anti-Habsburg, and in the late 
nineteenth century, several protests broke out over the erection of this statue. During this 
time, many Catholics in Bohemia felt alienated by the pro-Hus nationalist movement and 
opposed it by aligning with Catholic Austria for as long as they could. However, once their 
defeat became inevitable, they reconciled with the dominant discourse that supported this 
nationalist notion.54  
 
“Hus” in Czech means “goose.” In his letter “To the Praguers,” Hus says that a goose has 
been caught by a net, but since a goose is a lazy, domestic bird, their net would inevitably 
tear, like “many other birds who fly high to God by their writings, and their lives will tear 
their nets,” since Hus says that the truth they wanted to suppress is such that the more they 
tried to suppress it, the brighter it shone.55 He was right. While he was alive, Hus 
accomplished what he set out to do: make the teaching of the word accessible to common 
people, fueled by his deep commitment to truth above all else. One could argue that this 
dedication to his beliefs and to the Czech people certainly merited the response that his 
death received. His path from martyr to national icon is perhaps a romanticized one, but for 
many Czech people, his living and his dying was a statement of identity above all else, 
which they have held onto in the face of a tumultuous history. Six hundred years later, 
Hus’s life and death are still impactful because there is much that we can learn from him, 
such as the virtues of holding steadfast principles and the unrelenting pursuit of truth, and 
the quiet confidence one has when our convictions align with our actions.  

 
52 Holeton and Vlhova-Woner, “The Second Life of Jan Hus,” 315-317.  
53 Gary B. Cohen, The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861-1914, 2nd ed., Central European 
Studies (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2006), 172-176. 
54 Cynthia J. Paces, “‘The Czech Nation must be Catholic!’: An Alternative Version of Czech Nationalism during 
the First Republic," Nationalities Papers 27, no. 3 (1999): 407-428. 
55  “John Hus to the Praguers, c. November 1412,” in The Letters of John Hus, 82. 


