[HarleyD]

...according to what other historians (whom I have read) have said, essentially pro-Huss but he makes it plain that Huss was a heretic and was tried by the procedures of his day. Why is that so hard for you to accept?...I have not read either book.

So you're basing your assessment on what someone else has stated that Fudge stated? I have found that to be a very dangerous practice. I've looked on the Internet but have not found very much on Fudge, his doctrinal beliefs, or what he thinks of Hus. His books are very expensive and right now I have over 40 books on my shelf that I'm trying to read through.

[vladimir998]

"So you're basing your assessment on what someone else has stated that Fudge stated?" Do you have any info to the contrary? "I have found that to be a very dangerous practice." Well, since I actually know the work of both Thomas Izbicki and Norman Housley to be excellent and generally reliable - and what they say simply agrees with the actual record (as shown by the work of Czech scholar Jiří Kejř 15 years ago in his book Husův proces) - I have no reason to doubt what they said. When I read the book maybe I'll remember to post to you. http://spcp.prf.cuni.cz/15-20/16-kejr.htm http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Zm5RbVOjjMgJ:www.mravenec.cz/henry/File-hist/HUS-proces.rtf+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us "I've looked on the Internet but have not found very much on Fudge, his doctrinal beliefs, or what he thinks of Hus." Okay. "His books are very expensive and right now I have over 40 books on my shelf that I'm trying to read through." I understand. His books are expensive. Still there's no reason to doubt Norman Housely's word as to what Fudge says in his book.