1. See Glücklich, J., “Mandát proti Bratřím z 1602 a jeho provádění,” Věstníkkrálovské ˇeské spoleˇnosti nauk (1904)Google Scholar; he prints several additions to the documents in Sněmy české, X. Cf. also Šimák, J. V., Dějinné pamě;ti okresu mnichohradištského, I (1917), 392f.Google Scholar; and, for the carrying out of the Mandate, Winter, Z., Život církevní v Čechách, I (Prague, 1895), 223 ffGoogle Scholar. Škarka, A., “Ze zásü nekatolického tisku a protireformací,” Český ˇasopis historický, XLII (1936), 4ff.Google Scholar, lists the more recent literature and describes the process of the printer Sixtus Palma of Moěidlan, in 1602–1603.

2. [For these and the following details see Jakubec, J., Dějiny literatury české, I (2d ed.; Prague, 1929), 785ff.Google Scholar, as well as the sources cited in note 1.]

3. The text has been printed for the (Unpublished) Prameny dějin ˇeských, IX, 3–10.Google Scholar One version extending to the closing of the Diet is printed in Sněmy české, X, 424–434Google Scholar; another and longer one is in the University of Prague Library, MS XVII F 51. Hrejsa, F., Česká konfese (Prague, 1912), p. 423,Google Scholar conjectures that the latter version was written by the Senior, B. Néméansk, but against this see the statement cited by Glücklich, op. cit., p. 16 n. 3. I should rather incline to the view that Němanský wrote the continuation of the “Conversation of an Old Czech” (see below), a work issued from the Senior's seat and originating obviously in the milieu of Budovee, with whom Něméanský had found refuge in his exile.

4. Rozmlouvání starého Čecha (“Conversation of an Old Czech”—see below), Hlasy ze Siona, VII (1867), 240.Google Scholar

5. Rozmlouvání starého Čecha s mladým rytířem, Hlasy ze Siona, VII (1867)Google Scholar. The original version was issued in Mladá Boleslav about 1570; its basic core dates perhaps from the mid-1560's and was probably written by Joachim of Prostiboř (see my article, “O skiadateli Rozmlouvání starého Čecha S mladým rytířem,” Časopis českého musea, XCIV (1920), 87–96)Google Scholar. The continuation goes up to 1604, speaking of the relaxation of persecution in that year, and is hardly much later in date. Jafet's Hlas Stražného of 1605 uses it extensively.

6. For a description of the codex see Flašhans, V., Knihy české v knihovnách švedských a ruských (Prague, 1897), p. 18f.Google Scholar This version has a variant conclusion: “Tebe svétlem pravdy své osvítiti a do věčného života přjiti;” it seems to come from the conclusion of a different work. It is followed by a work beginning “Suplikací ponižená” (“Humble Supplication”), with an explicit dated 1603 (cf. Škarka, op. cit., p. 52 n. 1); it is the counterpart of a contemporary work entitled “Mand´t duchovní proti pohru˚žkám světa a Antikrista” (“Spiritual Mandate against the Threats of the World and of Antichrist”) (Škarka, p. 47ff.). Both these works were undoubtedly written by Němˇanský the latter one recalls in many respects Budovee's “Kšaft duchovní” (“Spiritual Legacy”) of 1594.

7. In 1630–31 Sádovský had several of the Brethren's works copied: Budovec's “Aeta” of the Diets of 1609–1610; Jafet's “History of the Origins of the Unity of Brethren,” and his “Goliath's Sword” J. Černý's “Description of Some Special Acts of God” and the so-called “Life of John Augusta”. For the first two books see Glücklich, , O historických díech V. Budouce (“On the Historical Works of W. Budovec”) (Prague, 1911), p. 12f.Google Scholar; Jireček, J., in the VKČSN (1876)Google Scholar; and Souéek, B., in Reformačni sbornik, I (1921), 59Google Scholar. On the “Life of Augusta” see my article in Reformačni sbornik, V (1934), 97. George Sadovský was Comenius' patron in Bilá Třemešná, and left with him, in 1628, for Lašno; in 1631 he was married, for the third time, to the widow of Budovee's son Adam, who perished in 1629 in the prison of Albrecht of Valdštejn (Wallenstein) (cf. Hrubý, F., Moravskékorespondence a akta z let 1620–1686, II (1937), 325)Google Scholar.

8. [Since the originàl appearance of this article the “Description” has been printed in Rekopisy Braci Czeskich, ed Jerzy Šliziński (Wroclaw: P. A. N., 1958), pp. 210–284Google Scholar, in the original Czech text accompanied by a Polish translation. The edition is based on the present article's identification of the author and discussion of the work's background and significance.]

9. This is clear from a comparison of the treatment of the supposed abrogation of a Mandate against the Brethren by Vladislav II. The “Conversation” (p. 123) merely asserts it, but the “Description” (p. 5) gives evidence: “…that the order to abrogate the Mandate was issued appears from old references to it, and the fact is confirmed by what our opponents say elsewhere about King Vladislav: ‘To be sure, he was alleged to be a good and peaceful king, if only he had not always been tolerant of the Pikarts.’ And a certain James Ziegler, who in those days also wrote very sharp and bloodthirsty attacks against the Brethren, to whom he begrudged the little peace and calm brought by the softening of the King's heart towards them, this James Ziegler stated: ‘Pieardi per nefariam cuiuspiam intercessionem facti victores,’ that is, the Pikarts [a term of abuse for the Brethren] won a victory by means of a certain ignoble intercession.” This evidence was gratefully taken over by Jafet, Was Hlas sražného Prague Museum, MS IV A 6, f. 16). (Other Latin sentences can be found in the “Description” on pp. 7, 8, 9, 20, 33.)

10. See Schmidl, J., Historia Societatis Jesu provinciae Bohemiae, II (1749), 353.Google Scholar

11. The text is in Sněmy české, X, 645.Google Scholar

12. In 1605 Senior Němčanský called Bočkaj “Gideon” (cf. Glücklich, , “O česté za korespondenci V. Budovce,” Věstník české akademie, XIV (1905), 67Google Scholar; cf. also Tomek, V., Dějepis města Prahy, XII (Prague, 1901), 417)Google Scholar.

13. Glücklich, , O historických dílech V. Budovce, p. 30.Google Scholar

14. The bourgeois Estate was to be sure also represented at the Diets, but only from the royal towns, and the Unity did not penetrate these ranks until 1600, when Mladá Boleslav bought its freedom and was received among the royal towns (see Bares, F., Paměti Mladé Boleslvě, I (1921), 108)Google Scholar.

15. [I thus translate “desky zemské” (Landtafeln, tabulae terrae).]

16. This passage has its counterpart in a speech of Budovec's at the Diet, where he enumerates the nobles who have fallea in battle against the Turks (Sněmy Českě, X 427).

17. [The reference would be to the papal denunciation of the Compacts of Basel, in 1462.]

18. My colleague, Professor F. Čada, has kindiy informed me that there is nothing of the sort in the Bohemian Ordinances; it must therefore be supposed that the writer was referring to the actual legal situation or to a decision in the unpublished volumes of the Official Records. This would, I think, confirm the argument for Budovec's authorship: as a Counsellor of the Court of Appeals he was well-versed in the Official Records.

19. It was Šturm who made him study the Taborites; speaking of the Diet's decision against the latter in 1444, Budovec remarks (p. 27), “there is a detailed account of this” — he is undoubtedly referring to BrotherLuke's Trialogus (ed. Bidlo, J., Akty Jednoty bratrské, II [Brno, 1923], 25)Google Scholar. There are also other such references to works of the Brethren's historiography.

20. On Budovec's chronicle, see my “Nový Budovec,” časopis matice moravské, LXXII (1953), 175–183.Google Scholar The known un work on the history of the Reformation is attested by Dornau; see Glücklich, , in Listy f i lol o g i o k é, LXXIV (1950), 169–174.Google Scholar It was evidently in connection with this work that Budovec borrowed the work, De statu religionis regni Bohemiae, from the library of the Carolinum in 1606 (šimák, op. cit., p. 331).

21. The author is evidently thinking of John of Pernštejn, an opponent of the Unity, who spoke for rebellion as late as the May 1547 Diet in Prague, but was then one of the first to respond to Ferdinand's call and offer his submission. Budovee knew this clearly from the Acta of Sixtus of Ottersdorf, with which he was doubtless quite familiar (see Glücklich, , O historických dílech V. Budo'vce, p. 124)Google Scholar. Budovec's father, Adam, was condemned for his participation in the rebellion (Sixtus' Acta, ed. J. Teige, I, Prague, n. d. [c. 1919], 55).

22. The “Deseription” shows the same loyalty to the Emperor Sigismund, who is characterized (p. 11) as a pious man who greatly benefited the Czechs in religious matters; but when he allowed himself to be persuaded to ignore the safe-conduct that he had given to Hus, and was then incited by the pope against Bohemia, he suffered many difficulties himself and brought many upon his lands. For when God sent Žižka against him, he and many of his lords met terrible defeats at 's hands. And indeed he could not win victory against the Turks either. And how dreadful was the manner of his death, from an infected leg, which was amputated but to no avail. This peculiar concept of Sigismund is evidently an echo of German evangelical historiography of Melanethon's school.

23. [In the following discussion, page numbers in brackets refer to Bainton's, R. translation: Concerning Heretics (New York, 1935)Google Scholar. For Montfort and Kleinberg, see Bainton, p. 10.]

24. Printed for the (unpublished) Prameny dějin českých, IX, 13–32; cf. Glücklich, , O historických dilech V. Budovce, pp. 64–74.Google Scholar