of Palackẏ, which is not only more complete but also has the merit of presenting the letters in their approximate chronological arrangement. In Bonnechose’s collection, where the order of the edition he used is strictly followed, early letters often come at the end, and the letters of the two captivities are sadly confused. Sometimes also simple expressions have proved a stumbling-block to Bonnechose, e.g., the word stubam (infra, p. 152). The Czech of his edition (Nuremberg, 1558), which is, so to speak, the Czech of Frankfort-atte-Bowe, is left severely alone; for no Palackẏ had as yet made it intelligible. An instance will be found on p. 206.
The text we have chiefly followed is the great edition of Palackẏ (Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus, vitam, doctrinam, causam in Constantiensi Concilio actam illustrantia Ed. Fr. Palackẏ: Regni Bohemiæ Historiographus, Prague, 1869)—usually cited by us in our notes as Doc., or, where questions of text are concerned, as P. The readings, however, that are to be found in Höfler’s Geschichtschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen in the “Fontes rerum Austriacarum,” Vienna, 1865, 3 vols.)—cited as Höfler or H.—seem to us in some cases to be preferable. The two editions have been collated—so far, that is, as readings are concerned which would make an essential difference in translation. A few of these differences, as also a few of the readings of the Monumenta, are indicated in the notes. In spite of the severe criticism to which Palackẏ subjected the
