Talk:Charles University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC

The question is how the founder of the university should be titled in the article. Various views are explained in previous section. --Wikimol 14:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Encylopaedia Brittanica entry for Charles University only mentions Charles IV. That's what I leaned toward anyway before pulling out my Micropaedia and after reading the discussion above, since clicking on the link for Charles IV already describes all his other names and titles. Here is the first sentence from EB: "Charles University, Czech Universita Karlova, also called University of Prague, state-controlled institution of higher learning in Prague, founded in 1348 by Emperor Charles IV, from whom it takes its name." --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but half of the sentence not beeing true, the quality of this source is disputable. (Charles University is not state-controlled institution, fortunately.) --Wikimol 07:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edition of EB on my shelf is 1992, so I imagine the article wasn't quite caught up with perestroika in Czechoslovakia, still a current event at the time. While the university's state-controlled status has changed since then, I'm pretty certain the founder has remained the same : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

...neither was it founded by emperor.... Qertis 10:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's common in academia to refer to historical people by their most prominent name. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

OK, then rewrite the whole article about Pope Benedict XVI. He is called "Joseph Ratzinger" there, which is obviously against the rules. Qertis 07:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about "rules" or rewriting biographies? In Charles IV's biography, all his other names and previous titles are described, just as the Pope's biography describes all his previous names and offices. This isn't Charles IV's biography though, it's an article on a university. I came here because there was a RFC asking people to comment. My feedback on this debate is that convention is to use the most prominent name when referring to a historical figure, but I doubt it's some grave sin if you buck convention and are bent on mentioning multiple names in this article for the same individual. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger became pope Benedict XVI in 2005. As you probably wouldn't call him Benedict for the period of his life before 2005 because he simply wasn't pope from his birth, you shouldn't call Charles "emperor" when referring to the foundation of the university in 1348 when he obtained this title only in 1355. The fact that he founded the university as King of Bohemia ("Charles I") played eminent role in the history of the institution and therefore is worth mentionig here. Qertis 13:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have discussedf this above, The founding document actually calls Charles IV roman emperor. Qertis provides numerous fanciful explanations for why this is not to be read as it plainly says... Refdoc 00:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having read through the arguments, I see no rational reason for describing him as anything but Charles IV. The version Qertis keeps reverting is clearly more accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The correct text is: founded "by Charles I./IV., Bohemian king and German king (and King of Romans), later known as Emperor Charles IV" and probably also "as the king of Bohemia" (I cannot decide on the latter point). There is no reason not to write it this way, since it is correct. He definitely cannot be called emperor for this time period - that's simply an incredibly false piece of information. It also interesting that most of you here do not make difference between Roman emperor and the King of Romans, the latter being an unimportant purely formal quasi-title basically meaning "wanna-be-Roman-emperor" (therefore it should be left out). Juro 23:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly. Charles never used the title "German king" (rex teutonicorum). From German wiki:

   * 1. Wahl zum römischen König (Gegenkönig) in Rhens am 11. Juli 1346, Krönung am 26. November 1346
   * ab 2. September 1347 König von Böhmen als Karl I.
   * 2. Wahl zum römischen König am 17. Juni 1349, Krönung am 25. Juli 1349
   * ab 6. Januar 1355 König von Italien
   * ab 5. April 1355 römisch-deutscher Kaiser als Karl IV.
   * ab 4. Juni 1365 König von Burgund

As it stands in the bull: "Karolus, Dei gracia Romanorum rex semper augustus et Boemie rex." He probably didn't use "IV" as "antiking" of the Romans. Qertis 08:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, here comes the solution. 1. He was antiking in 1346, but after the death of his predecessor in 1347, he was definitively king - he is treated as such in all books (the election of 1349 was a kind of "insurance"). 2. Rex romanorum (later Romanorum rex) is a somewhat complicated topic, I will try to put it simply: Initially, German kings were elected as "rex" (not as German rex), which was supposed to mean German rex (ie rex of the German kingdom) of course; later on some of the rex started to call themselves "rex romanorum" (meaning wanna-be-Roman-emperor)without having an approval of the pope, later SOME of them were rex romanorum instead of just rex even with the approval of the pope, and before the time of Charles IV there was a (very disputed) royal order saying (at least) that anyone elected "rex" is also "romanorum rex". Now, I do not know whether he was really elected as "romanorum" rex ,or just elected "rex" and called himself romanorum (therefore I do not know whether it is correct to use the title here), but in any case, in the case of Charles the romanorum rex simply means what is generally called German king in the literature. 3. As king/German king/rex romanorum (or as German emperor) he was Charles IV.(because he was the 4th one). Juro 18:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addition:Strictly speaking, he was not the 4th rex romanorum (because the first Charles ruled before the title arose), but I do not know how this was dealt with at that time Juro 20:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of ordinals was not usual nor standardized in his days. It is much more like a retrospective reconstruction in literature. As emperor (but apparently only after his imperial coronation) he however USED sometimes the ordinal "quartus" (= IV), as evidenced in eg [1]. As an elected king (which was the situation in 1348), he apparently did not yet use ordinal, as ordinal was a rarity and sort of a novelty in that era anyway. A systematical use of monarchical ordinals became standard only some centuries later. As king of Bohemia, HE did not use any ordinal, the "I" is a later reconstruction - but of course historical works now may use the "I" as far as it is helpful to distinguish individuals from each other. Marrtel 19:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal

I suggest moving (renaming) this article to Charles University in Prague, as it is the official and more commonly used name. Anyone who would object? -- Sandius 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Meeting no opposition, I've moved the page. -- Sandius 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only communist and post-communist

This article is dealing not only with the communist and post-communist university, but also with the Charles University from 1347 to 1945, in which time it was mostly German-speaking, and the article will deal with the university in its entirety, and include its official names during its history including the German one. The alternative would be to split the article into the communist/post-communist university which was founded in 1945, and the pre 1945 university.

of Prague or in Prague?

I think official english name is Charles University in Prague. See Official webpages in English (old version) and "google fight". --Michal Jurosz 11:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask somebody in authority at the university, to make sure it is not just the webdesigner who has written it like that. If confirmed, I see no reason not to move the page (but some links and redirects will need to be changed). BTW, if you live and/or study in Prague, could you perhaps take some pictures for the article? / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 13:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a email. Web countains some official documents, so probably name "Charles University in Prague" is not only any choosed by webdesigner. Google found 7,330 Czech and English pages for "Charles University in Prague" and 1,140 Czech and English pages for "Charles University of Prague". Foto not found! I study in Brno. --Michal Jurosz 17:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to change it in that case. No pictures in the Czech version of the aricle either, I notice. I found one on commons:Prague of the Charles IV statue. Are there any other pictures there that have any connection to the history of the university? / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the facsimile of Prof. Hopfner Diploma one can read Vniversitatis Caroloinae Ferdinandae Germanicae Pragensis, meaning that it is (or was) "of Prague" not "in Prague".
On the other hand, the same facsimile (same sentence) states clearly "German University of Prague"; thus, I insist that the reference to Charles University of Prague being the oldest German language university ought to be back in the article. In the German Wikipedia it is referred to as "German University of Prague" as well; so it seems that it is a bit capricious to delete this most interesting reference.--Lcgarcia 08:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That diploma is from the time when the university was divided into two parts. It is perhaps debatable whether it is really the same university, but the continuity is probably strong enough to treat it all as the same institution for the purpose of the article. As for the medieval university, I doubt they used anything but Latin. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 21:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Charles University of Prague is an English translation of "Universitas Carolina Pragensis", but as I was told in my English course, the official name of the university is Charles University in Prague (which, in fact, is a translation of its Czech official name, "Univerzita Karlova v Praze"). -- Sandius 21:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charles Iv vs I

Before this becomes the silliest edit war for a long time, I think the question to be asked - was the university founded by teh King of Bohemia or by th e Emperor? Former would indeed be Charles I, latter better be Charles IV This should be easily answered by having a look at the original foundational acts - how was it signed. The highest rank mentioned takes precendence. Refdoc 14:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually - the Bull says: Karolus, Dei gracia Romanorum rex semper augustus et Boemie rex. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. So the references should be to the Emperor. As a King he was a vassall of himself, the emperor. Refdoc 14:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The university was founded by Charles I, the King of Bohemia, who was coincidentally newly elected King of the Romans at that time. He could not found it as the Roman King or Emperor (he was crowned only in 1355), because he had simply no rights to do that, since Bohemian King was the one and only sovereign in Bohemia and his subjection to the Empire was only formal and symbolical. Qertis 07:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He became first elected as Roman King (Emperor-elect), in 1346, and then also became Bohemian King in 1347. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the complaints of Quertis that mentioning Charles IV name around 1348 is "ahistorical", everyone knows Charles as Emperor Charles IV rather than King Charles I. In the current version, it is not visible at first sight that Ch I and Ch IV is the same person (only when you hover or click on the link). Also, there are references to Ch IV later in the article, again - it's not clear at first, who that is. IMO, both variants should be mentioned right from the beginning. Matt 08:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats fairly reasonable conclusion, I agree with that. Qertis 09:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should stick to what the Bull says "Dei Gratia Romanoru, rex semper augustus" - i.e. emperor. And the subjection to the emperor is/was by no means a simple formality, Bohemia at the time is just in the same position as all other constituents of teh empire. If he had founded the university as the Bohemian king, he would not have used his primary title as emperor in the same bull. Further, just because he was not yet crowned does not make him less the emperor. Crowning and start of the actual reign do not by necessity co-incide. He was emepror from the moment he was chosen to be emperor by the electors. If he signs as "rex romanorum semper augustus" than this must have happened already. Refdoc 09:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1)Romanorum rex=King of the Romans, Romanorum imperator=emperor. 2)Boemia was NOT in the same position as other parts of the empire, it was granted already in the Golden Bull of Sicily (1212), that King of Bohemia is sovereign with only formal obligations to the empire. 3)He used both his royal titles simply because of superiority of the first one, he wasn't "just" King of Bohemia, but also the most eminent king in Europe, king of the Romans; however it still did not give him any right to found university in the Bohemian capital. Qertis 09:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are quite wrong here. Rex romanorum is the title used by this Emperor again in 1356 ( one year after the crowning) - please compare http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/golden.htm and http://www.phil.uni-erlangen.de/~p1ges/netzsem/gb/gb_frame.html (for the Latin Original). This time he is speaking undoubtedly as the Emperor. Refdoc 09:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where am I wrong? "Charles the Fourth, by favour of the divine mercy emperor of the Romans, always august, and king of Bohemia" (Karolus quartus divina favente clementia Romanorum imperator semper augustus et Boemie rex. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam) He was elected (and crowned) king (1346) and crowned emperor (1355). Qertis 10:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And he starts out as per electione rex romanorum in chapetr one, before the list of electors etc. The matter is mostly contentious as his claim to being emperor took a while to be (generally) accepted. But it does appear to me that he certainly acted as Emperor rather than as King of Bohemia when founding the university Refdoc 11:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is really becoming a supersilly edit war. If anybody is interested in my 50 hellers' worth: He's known as Karel IV. in all Czech history books no matter - by goodness, it's even Charles IV in the Wikipedia entry, so what point is linking to it under another description? I doubt anybody called him with a number in his lifetime (after all he was born Václav - Wenceslas); and do you know of any English-language histories where he'd be referred to as Charles I.? --Malyctenar 13:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, you want him to be known under his nickname "Charles IV", I want the proper historical designation. I am very sure, that Charles himself thoroughly distinguished between his imperial and Bohemian titles and dignities as well as his imperial and Bohemian authorities. Qertis 14:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The university confirms "Charles IV" [2] and Charles himself used his imperial title together with his local one to found the university. Refdoc 18:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He used both his royal titles, of course, (it was unthinkable for him not to mention he was, among many other titles, "King of the Romans", the most prominent king in Europe), but he founded the university as king of Bohemia, therefore it is better to refer to him as "Charles I" here. Qertis 12:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you are very repititive here. You have no evidence whatsoever apart from what appears to be wishful thinking. He is signing as emperor, he uses his imperial title on the Golden Bull, the university writes "Charles IV" - what else do you need? Refdoc 16:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am repititive, because there is very little to add to my previous comments. Try to read them more carefully and you will find the answers. The crucial point in this case is that he founded the university as king of Bohemia and for Bohemia, NOT as king of the Romans for the empire. That is not wishful thinking, that is fact. He negotiated the foundation with pope Clement VI in Avignon (1346) who issued the bull on January 26, 1347 when Charles was still only antiking to Louis IV. Charles fought extensively for the imperial title, so when he finally secured it, he simply used it on every occasion even when he acted as king of Bohemia. The university writes Charles IV simply because he is generally known as Charles IV (the "IV" stands for surname or nickname here) and the text was made for general public without further "scientific" ambitions. Qertis 07:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it helps, I strongly agree with Quertis. He is generally known as Charles IV in history books just for simplicity. Juro 02:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, this discussion is completely unnecesssary - Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). The general rule is use the most common form of the name used in English, which is Charles IV. Whether it is more correct or less corect in this situation or what would have Charles thought or what he had written is not that important. Wikimol unlogged

Factual accuracy is certainly more important than simplicist wikipedian rules. Your proposals are wrong. The naming convention is primarly dealing with names of articles, not with their contents, especialy when the subject of possible ambiguity is explained (later known as Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor). Qertis 06:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The naming conventions are meant for article titles, and make good sense in that context. I don't think anyone is seriously saying that Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor should be moved to Charles I of Bohemia. And so, the article on Samuel Clemens is filed under Mark Twain, since his literary pseudonym eclipsed his actual name, even though he was a celebrity apart from his literary accomplishments. But within the article Mark Twain, you don't find the sentence "Mark Twain was born ..." because it was Mr. Clemens who was born.

If Charles founded the university in his role as king of Bohemia rather than as emperor, it makes sense to call him Charles I of Bohemia in this context. And for wider understanding, it also makes sense to write immediately thereafter "(Emperor Charles IV)" Shimmin 14:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree - these rules make good sense for real-life Wikipedia. These details should belong to specific page. Last but not least: the rules were invented in order to avoid edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 18:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These "details" are important enough to be in the article, especially when my version is true while the Refdoc one is not. Do the wikirules favorise wrong versions against the right ones? If so, these rules are wrong and should be rewritten. You can't avoid edit wars using stupid guidelines, you generate them instead. However, I don't think this is the case. I am not violating the rules by putting his right designation here. What about these articles: John Hunyadi, Crown of St. Stephen, Principality of Achaea and many others? Should they also be "corrected"? Qertis 08:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a somewhat silly edit war. Why don't you take this issue to Wikipedia:Request for comments? Maybe someone else can come up with a way to accomodate both views. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 08:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok. --Wikimol 14:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)