1. “Luther and Bohemia,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, XLIV (1953), 160–81.Google Scholar

2. Concordia Theological Monthly, XIX (1948), 747–63Google Scholar; Concordia Theological Monthly, XX (1949), 496–517, 829–43.Google Scholar The last two articles are the most important for the present topic.

3. The distinction between “First” and “Second” Reformations in relation to the Hussite and the 16th-century religious movements was introduced by Amedeo Molnár in his chapter on the Theology of the Brethren in Říčan's, R.Die Böhmischen Brüder (Berlin, 1961), pp. 183ffGoogle Scholar. I am not quite in agreement with it, because I think that some of the parallels between the “magisterial” movements (e.g., Utraquism and Lutheranism) and the more radical developments (e.g., early Brethren and pre-Münster Anabaptists) are closer than the relations between some branches of the “First” or the “Second” Reformations.

4. For the prehistory, the background and the early phases of the Hussite Reformation and Revolution, especially for its ideological development, see Kaminsky, H., A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, 1967).Google Scholar

5. See about him Kaminsky, op. cit., pp. 180–204 and passim, and Bartoš, F. M., Světci a kacíři (Prague, 1949), pp. 82–105.Google Scholar

6. See Heymann, F. G., John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (Princeton, 1955).Google Scholar

7. See among other works Kaminsky's, introduction to “Peter Chelčický: Treatises,” in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, I (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1964)Google Scholar, and Brock, Peter, The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries (The Hague, 1957), pp. 25–69.Google Scholar

8. See on this whole development Brock, op. cit.

9. There had always been German Hussites, and their not insignificant role inside Bohemia has been justly emphasized by Seibt, Ferdinand in his recent work Hussitica. Zur Struktur einer Revolution (Cologne and Graz, 1965)Google Scholar, but in comparison with the Czechs it does not seem that they were ever very numerous, and in some cases they probably underwent, in the decades during and following the Hussite Revolution, a process of Czechization.

10. See Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, and Heymann, Žižka, both passim.

11. See Bartoš, F. M., Bojovníci a mučedníci (Prague, 1939), pp. 39–42.Google Scholar

12. See Heymann, , “John Rokycana, Church Reformer between Hus and Luther,” Church History, XXVIII (09 1959), pp. 240–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. See Krofta, K., “Václav Koranda mladší z Nové Plzně,” in Listy z náboženských dějin českých (Prague, 1936), pp. 240–87.Google Scholar

14. See Prokeš, J., M. Prokop z Plzně (“Husitský Archiv,” III, Prague, 1927), passim.Google Scholar

15. See Heymann, , “The Hussite-Utraquist Church in the 15th and 16th Centuries,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, LII (1961), 1–16Google Scholar. A short but good Czech summary can be found in Krofta, K., Dějiny československé (Prague, 1946), pp. 271–72.Google Scholar

16. There is, of course, a rich literature on the history of the Brethren. See, e.g., works of A. Gindely, J. Goll, J. Th. Müller, F. M. Bartoš, Otakar Odložilík, Rudolf Říčan, Amedeo Molnár, and Peter Brock.

17. See Brock, op. cit., pp. 153–81.

18. See Molnár, A., Bratr Lukáš, bohoslovec Jednoty (Prague, 1948).Google Scholar

19. See, e.g., S. H. Thomson's article mentioned in footnote 1.

20. See Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Dějiny křest' anství v Českoslouensku (Prague, 1948), IV, 146–47Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Dějiny).

21. See Weimar edition (cited as WA), Briefe 2, 41–42.

22. Hrejsa, , Dějiny, IV, 252.Google Scholar

23. WA II, 632. See also Kraus, Arnošt, Husitsví v literatuře, I (Prague, 1917), 153.Google Scholar

24. See, e.g., Voigt, Georg, “Georg von Böhmen der Hussitenkönig,” Historische Zeitschrift, V (1861), 438–39.Google Scholar

25. Hrejsa, , Dějiny, IV, 185.Google Scholar

26. See especially the contributions to this issue, beginning in 1960, by Šmahel, F., e.g., Humanismus v době poděbradské (Prague, 1963).Google Scholar

27. An important special study of this subject was quite recently published by Rudolf Říčan. See his “Tschechische Übersetzungen von Luthers Schriften bis zum Schmalkaldischen Krieg,” in 450 Jahre lutherische Reformation (Festschrift für Franz Lau) (Berlin, 1967), pp. 282–301. While I have used several of Luther's translated works in the State Library (Manuscript Department) and the National Museum in Prague, only Říčan's study gave me a complete survey of all of the preserved early translations of Luther, especially those of the period 1520–23, and has thus been an especially valuable help for this article.

28. I have used, for this partial, rather free, and much shortened translation, the copy in the National Museum Library, 25 D 12.

29. See Říčan, “Tschechische Übersetzungen,” p. 283, also Hrejsa, , Dějiny, IV, 256, 260, 265ff.Google Scholar, and v, 40, further Husa, V., Tomáš Müntzer a Čechy (Prague, 1957), pp. 64–67.Google Scholar

30. See his letter of 1524, in the “Prague Chronicle of Bartoš Písař” (the most valuable contemporary source), ed. Šimák, , Fontes rerum Bohemicamm, VI (Prague, 1907), 108 (hereafter cited as “Bartos Písař”).Google Scholar

31. See Říčan, “Tschechische Ubersetzungen,” p. 284.

32. This seems to me obvious, even though Říčan at least considers the possibility that the book was printed at Litomyšl, then a town dominated by the Brethren.

33. Ibid., p. 286.

34. See my article on Rokycana cited above (n. 12), p. 267 and note 103.

35. See, e.g., Jaroslav, Kolár, ed., Zrcadlo rozděleného království (Prague, 1963), pp. 52–57.Google Scholar

36. A History of the Hussite Revolution, e.g., pp. 115ff.

37. See Říčan, “Tschechische Übersetzungen,” p. 287.

38. For a detailed report in a western language see Müller, J. Th., Geschichte der böhmischen Brüder (Herrnhut, 1922), 1, chapter 6, pp. 418–35Google Scholar. (It contains, however, passages which indicate Müller's strong prejudice against the Utraquists.) The main source is Bartoš Písař, op. cit., also used carefully by Hrejsa, , Dějiny, IV, 265–81.Google Scholar

39. See for the meeting and its results Bartoš Písař, 1, 20–25.

40. It was, indeed, only in the second half of the 16th century that the Utraquist clergy began accepting married status of their members, and in the Church of the Brethren even later, around the turn of the century. See Říčan, Die Böhmischen Brüder, p. 221.

41. The considerable degree to which Rokycana, more than any other reforming mind before him, anticipated at least some of Luther's teaching, has, I hope, been proved in my earlier study of his life and thought. See the article cited above (n. 12.). At the time of writing I had taken it for granted that Luther had never had a chance to become more closely acquainted with Rokycana. I am no longer of this opinion, since Cahera most likely informed Luther in some detail about Utraquist theology which was largely based on Rokycana's teachings. This would probably have included the strongly presented thesis of the ubiquity of Christ's body which we then find again in Luther's theology.

42. See on Münzer's stay in Husa, Prague V., op. cit., pp. 58–88.Google Scholar

43. See Písař, Bartoš, I, 108, 109.Google Scholar

44. I shall, however, treat this part of the issue in much less detail than that concerned with Utraquism. While, perhaps understandably, the history of Utraquism in this period has been treated hardly at all in any western language and only in a rather perfunctory way (except by Hrejsa) in Czech, this is not the case with regard to the Brethren, about whom there is a substantial literature not only in Czech but also in western languages, especially in German and to a lesser extent in English, In the latter language we have the articles by Thomson and Pelikan quoted earlier, further Brock, P., op. cit., pp. 241–73Google Scholar. In German there is Müller's, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, I, 396–435Google Scholar, and on the theological issues see 465 (the seven sacraments), 466–86 (baptism), 486–99 (the Lord's Supper), and 510–16 (faith and works). In Říčan's Die Böhmischen Brüder we find the relation between Luther and the Brethren treated on pp. 82–98 and 102–107, and in the theological chapter by Molnár in the same work, 283–321, especially 286ff., with its important treatment of the “wesentlichen” and the “dienlichen Dinge” (things essential as against things merely useful). In Czech there is Molnár's, Boleslavští bratři (Prague, 1952), especially pp. 93–99, 139–41, 151–53Google Scholar, and the same author's Bratr Lukáš, bohoslovec Jednoty, particularly, on the issue of salvation and the role of faith and works, pp. 60–71.

45. See Molnar, Boleslavští bratři, pp. 96–97.

46. See Molnár, Bratr Lukáš, pp. 66–67, and Müller, op. cit., I, 510ff.

47. See Müller, op. cit., I, 514–15.

48. Luther's pamphlet Against the Robbing and Murdering Gangs of Peasants was, incidentally, translated into Czech, but by Catholics who wanted thereby to prove the need to support the princes (in this case the Habsburgs) against any sort of rebellion, even nonviolent religious deviation.

49. See for this and later phases in Luther's judgment most recently Peschke, Erhard, Die böhmischen Brüder im Urteil ihrer Zeit (Berlin, 1964), pp. 109–120.Google Scholar

50. See Dobiáš, P. M., Učení Jednoty bratrské o Večeři Páně (Prague, 1940), especially pp. 29–43. 97–112Google Scholar; also Müller, op. cit., I, 486–99.

51. See also Molnár's, article “Zum Gespräch zwischen Luther und den Böhmischen Brüdern,” in …und fragten nach Jesus, Festschrift für E. Barnikol (Berlin, 1964), pp. 177–85.Google Scholar

52. See Říčan, Die Böhmischen Brüder, pp. 96–98, and Molnár, A., Boleslavští bratři, pp. 119–21.Google Scholar

53. See Hrejsa, , Dějiny, V, 57–58, 62–66.Google Scholar

54. Its significance was emphasized already by Pelikan and Thomson in the articles mentioned above.

55. See Říčan, Die Böhmischen Brüder, pp. 123ff.

56. Ibid., pp. 150ff. Blahoslav was also the leading historian of the Unity in the mid-15th century. For the bibliography of his works see Molnár, Boleslavští bratři, p. 261.

57. See for the following Hrejsa, , Dějiny, V, 122–23.Google Scholar There is also a fairly detailed, useful recent study by Winfried Eberhard about early Protestantism among the Germans in Bohemia, presented in October 1967 to a meeting at Passau of the Collegium Carolinum and probably to be published by this institution.

58. See Heymann, , “City Rebellions in 15th-Century Bohemia,” Slavonic and East European Review, XL (06 1962), 324–40.Google Scholar

59. See Müller, op. cit., I, 440–44.

60. The question whether Lutheranism was stronger and more successful in absorbing Utraquism in Moravia than in Bohemia became, in the thirties of the present century, the subject of a dispute on a high level between two distinguished Czech church historians, František Hrubý and Ferdinand Hrejsa, partly based on the latter's book about the genesis of the Bohemian Confession of 1575. See Hrejsa, F., Česká konfesse (Prague, 1912)Google Scholar, Hrubý, F., “Luterství a Kalvinismus na Moravě,” Český časopis historicitý (1934–1935)Google Scholar, and Hrejsa's answer in the same journal (1938), pp. 296–336, 474–85. While Hrejsa had, without disregarding Luther's role in the strengthening of the Neo-Utraquist Church, considered that the development of this church in Bohemia as well as in Moravia was essentially an autonomous and continuous development, Hrubý contended that in Moravia the Lutheran influence was stronger and more immediate and that it justified to a greater extent than in Bohemia the assumption that Neo-Utraquism there was essentially just another name for Lutheranism. Hrubý contributed some important facts to the understanding of the situation in Moravia. Nevertheless it seems to me that on the whole Hrejsa was right, just as I believe that his general emphasis on the continuous character of the Hussite survival is justified.

61. See Říčan, Die Böhmischen Brüder, pp. 127–39.

62. See Hrejsa, , Dějiny, V, 354–56, 379.Google Scholar

63. See Krofta, K., “Václav Mitmánek,” in Listy z náboženských dějin českých (Prague, 1936), pp. 306–36.Google Scholar

64. See Hrejsa, , Dějiny, VI, 266.Google Scholar

65. The whole prehistory and history of the Confessio Bohemica are told in Hrejsa's excellent work Česká konfesse (Prague, 1912).

66. See Říčan, Die Böhmischen Brüder, pp. 178–89.

67. See my article on Rokycana cited above (n. 12), pp. 262 and 278, n. 79, and note 41 above in this article.

68. See, e.g., Molnár's chapter on the theology of the Brethren in Říčan's Die Böhmischen Brüder, pp. 310–12, and Müller, op. cit. I, 218ff. and 510ff.

69. See Říčan, Die Böhtnischen Brüder, pp. 178ff.

70. This view of the continuity of the Hussite-Utraquist reformatory tradition seems to me of great significance. I myself have defended it ever since the publication of my book John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution in 1955. It is being increasingly supported also by present Czech historiography. I had this impression especially when I had the opportunity of participating in a symposium which took place at Liblice Castle in Czechoslovakia in October 1967, on the Hussite and the Lutheran Reformation. The emphasis on elements of continuity was noticeable especially in two of the leading papers, “La Réforme tchèque et les Réformations du XVI^e siècle” by J. Macek, and “Quelques aspects de la continuité de pensée dans la Réforme tchèque” by A. Molnár. Their publication by the Historical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences can be expected.