The incessant molestations of the censors finally induced Palacký to address to the government authorities a manly letter which he has preserved in one of his later works. After excusing himself with regard to the fact that his narrative threw favourable, rather than unfavourable, light on the career of Hus, and referring to the existent historical authorities, he wrote: ‘Another reason for my judging Hus favourably, consists in the undeniable importance and value of the man. According to my innermost conviction and, I may add, according to the opinion of all unprejudiced judges, Hus strove only for the good, though the means by which he furthered his endeavours were not all devoid of sin, and therefore not blameless. It is in this sense that I have written my account, and I do not think that it contains anything that is at all opposed or contrary to a truly Catholic mind. If I have been mistaken as regards certain details, I gladly accept corrections and will include them in my book. I cannot, however, believe that it is an indispensable demand of Catholicism that every deed and thought of Hus should be unconditionally condemned, that his portrait should be painted entirely in black, and that all circumstances that appear favourable to him even if historically uncontested should be suppressed. Such a one-sided and unjust account would, unfortunately, constitute not an historical work but a party-pamphlet. The censor seems to expect something similar from me. Should this apprehension prove justified, I regret being obliged to declare that I shall never accede to such a demand. I should prefer to give up my whole work and abandon the study of history. A historian has high and extensive obligations, which must to him be as sacred as
