22(b)
it is worth noticing that Peter (Za̍horka) joined the Taborites during the revolution. . . Peter Za̍horka ceases to be mentioned in our sources after the year 1424 when he would have been at the most fifty years old. . . But the disappearance of the news about Peter Za̍horka could be also explained in this way, that his following existence continued in the life of Peter Chelc̄icky̍."8
If the hypothesis of Dr. Bartos̄ is correct, then we would venture to suggest the following reconstruction: The young 'Chelc̄icky̍' was a scion of a family interested in politics and church life; this would explain a certain cultural maturity of the environment. He became orphaned in his early youth, thus losing a greater part of his inheritance. He was contemptuous of the customary career of his contemporaries and refused to enter the services of either the nobility or the Church, choosing instead to serve the people whom he wanted to educate.
If Chelc̄icky̍ were really Peter Za̍horka we would gain a valuable aid for the solution of the question as to when and how he arrived at his conclusions about the basic discrepancy between the principles of Christianity and the principles of the state. For, as we well know, he developed this theory . . . only some time around A.D. 1425 in his tract About the Threefold People.9
The question of his occupation is not yet definitely
