¹ Cited in Betts, R. R., ‘The Influence of Realist Philosophy on Jan Hus and his Predecessors in Bohemia’, The Slavonic and East European Review 29 (1951) pp. 402–19, and reprinted in his collected Essays in Czech History (London 1969) pp. 42–62, at p. 61Google Scholar. The Latin text of Kaspar Weinstein’s evidence is given as ‘Nos audivimus illum predicare, panem non esse cum corpore Christi, et esse unum communem asinum etsimilia’, in Klicman, L., ‘Processus iudiciarius contra Jeronimum de Praga habitus Viennae A. 1410-1412’, Historický Archiv xii (Prague 1898) p. 29Google Scholar. Cf. also Klicman, L., ‘Der Wiener Process gegen Hieronymus von Prag, 1410-1412’, MIÖG 21 (1000) pp. 445–57Google Scholar; Bernard, P. P.,’Jerome of Prague, Austria and the Hussites’, CH 27 (1958) pp. 3–22.Google Scholar

² Cf. his Wyclif and Hus (London 1884); (ed.), Johannis Wyclif Sermones, 4 vols. (WS, London 1886-90); Johannis Wyclif De Civili Dominio, 3 vols. (WS, London 1902); Johannis Wyclif Opera Minora (WS, London 1913), and the series of contributions in ‘Beirräge zur Geschichte der husitischen Bewegung’, I-V, AöG 55 (1877) pp. 265-409; 57 (1878) pp. 203-76; 60 (1880) pp. 343-561; 75 (1889) pp. 287-413; 82 (1895) pp. 327-418; ‘Urkunden und Traktate betreffend die Verbreitung des Wiclifismus in Böhmen’, MVCDB 25 (1887) pp. 329-46. ‘Zur Kritik der Wiclifhandschriften’, Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereins für die Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens 20 (1916) pp. 247-71. A complete bibliography of his writings on these topics is given in Kern, W.Erben—A., ‘Johann Loserth als Geschichtsforscher’, Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins für Steiermark 22 (1926) pp. 18–21.Google Scholar

³ See esp. Loserth, Wyclif and Hus, passim.

⁴ Most recently see Thomson, W. R., The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf: an annotated Catalog (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,Toronto, 1983)Google Scholar, with extensive references to the work of S. Harrison Thomson, including his unpublished notes. For an extensive bibliography of the Czech literature on the subject, see Kaminsky, H., A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley—Los Angeles 1967) pp. 558–62Google Scholar; see also Seibt, F., ‘Bohemica. Probleme und Literatur seit 1945’, HZ Sonderheft 4 (1970) esp. pp. 73–99Google Scholar. For a fairly balanced assessment, see Macek, J., Die Hussitenhewegung in Böhmen (Prague 1965)Google Scholar, and the series of lectures delivered by Śmahel, František in the ‘Collège de France’ in April-May 1983, now published as: La révolution hussite, uneanomalie historique. — Collège de France, Essais et conférences (Paris 1985).Google Scholar

⁵ Thomson, S.Harrison, ‘Learning at the Court of Charles IV’, Speculum 25 (1950) pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Pre-Hussite Heresy in Bohemia’, EHR 48 (1933) pp. 23-42.

⁶ For a useful survey see Leff, G., ‘Wyclif and Hus: a doctrinal comparison’, BJRL 50 (1967-8) pp. 387–410Google Scholar; and also the remarks of Wilks, M. J., ‘Reformatio regni: Wyclif and Hus as leaders of religious protest movements’, SCH 9 pp. 109–30Google Scholar, esp. p. 115, n. 1.

⁷ See also Spinka, M., John Hus at the Council of Constance (New York 1965).Google Scholar

⁸ For Adalbert, see Emden (O) III p. 1547; and esp. Kadlec, J., Leben und Schriften des Prager Magisters Adalbert Rankonis de Encinto. Aus dem Nachlass von Rudolf Holinka and Jan Vilikovský — Beiträge NF 4 (1971).Google Scholar

⁹ Now Cvp 1430, see Walsh, K., ‘The Manuscripts of Archbishop Richard FitzRalph of Armagh in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 18 (1976) pp. 67–71Google Scholar. Kadlec (as n. 8), p. 12, suggested that this visit could have taken place in 1347 or 1353-4, when Adalbert also disappears from the Paris records. Such a visit would have permited him to acquire some other MSS which he took from Oxford to Prague, including the commentary on the Sentences by Osbert Pickingham, O. Carm. (see Emden (O) III p. 1481), now Prague, Metropolitan Chapter Library C 105, but not De Pauperie Sahatoris. The possibility of more than one visit to Oxford need not be ruled out. For Adalbert’s books see Kadlec p. 58.

¹⁰ Ibid. pp. 14-7; Loserth, , ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der husitischen Bewegung. II. Der Magister Adalbertus Rankonis de Ericinio’, AöG 57 (1878) esp. pp. 216–20.Google Scholar

¹¹ For conflicting interpretations of this problem see Lang, A., Heinrich Totting von Oyta. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgexhichte der ersten deutschen Universitäten und zur Problemgeschichte der Spätscholastik — Beiträge 33 (1937) pp. 18–28Google Scholar; Winter, E., Frühhumanismus. Seine Entwicklung in Böhmen und deren europäische Bedeutung für die Kirchenreformbestrehungen da 14. Jahrhundens (Berlin 1964) pp. 75–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Machilek, F., Ludolf von Sagan und seine Stellung in der Auseinandersetzung um Konziliarismus und Hussitismus — Wissenschafilicne Materialen und Beiträge zur Geschichte und Landeskunde der böhmischen Länder 8 (München 1967) esp. p. 15.Google Scholar

¹² The significance of this emerged in the course of discussion with Gordon Leff, see pp. 217-32 for his contribution to the present volume.

¹³ On Peter Payne see Emden (O) III pp. 1441-3; Thomson, S. Harrison, ‘A note on Peter Payne and Wyclyf’, Mediaevalia et Humanastica 16 (1964) pp. 60–4Google Scholar; Cook, W.R., John Wyclif and Hussite Theology 1415-1436’, CH 42 (1973) pp. 335–49.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For a survey of this literature see Spĕváček, J., ‘Karl IV.—Darstellungen und Wirklichkeit’, Historica 20 (1980) pp. 5–58Google Scholar; Walsh, K., ‘“Böhmens Vater—des Reiches Erzstiefvater”. Gedanken zu einem neuen Bild Kaiser Karls IV.’, Innsbrucker Historische Studien 3 (1980) pp. 189–210Google Scholar, and for a more complete bibliography of the publications 1978-80, the list published by Ingrid Volz, in Karl IV. Politili und Ideologie im 14 Jahrhundert, ed. Engel, E. (Weimar 1982) pp. 402–10Google Scholar with 105 titles!

¹⁵ As n. 11, and the review by Seibt, F., in Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 15 (1966) pp. 567–70.Google Scholar

¹⁶ E.g. Schmidt, R., ‘Begründung und Bestätigung der Universität Prag durch Karl IV. und die kaiserliche Privilegierung von Generalstudien’, Kaiser Karl IV. 1316-1378. Forschungen über Kaiser und Reich, ed. Patze, H. — Blätter für Deutsche Landesgeschichte 114 (1978) pp. 695–719Google Scholar; Svatoš, M., ‘Hospodářské zázemí pražské univerzity v dobé Karla IV. (1347-1378)’ (The economic foundations of the university of Prague in the age of Charles IV.), Historia Uniuersitalis Carolinae Pragensis 18/2 (1978) pp. 7–36.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Patschovsky, A., Die Anfänge einer ständigen Inquisition in Böhmen. Ein Prager Inquisitoren-Handbuch aus der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts—Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 3 (Berlin 1975)Google Scholar, who shows that early fourteenth-century heresy in Bohemia was mainly linked with the tendency to minimize the role of the priest, e.g. with regard to hearing confessions by the laity.

¹⁸ On members of her household see Loserth, J., ‘Über die Beziehungen zwischen englischen und böhmischen Wiclifiten in den beiden ersten Jahrzehnten des 15. Jahrhunderts’, MIÕG 12 (1891)pp. 254–69Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See Schnith, K., ‘England’, in Kaiser Karl IV. Staatsmann und Mäzen, herausgegeben von Ferdinand Seibt aus Anlaß der Ausstellungen Nürnberg und Köln 1978/79 (Munich 1978) p. 162.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Stacul, P., Il cardinale Piteo da Prata—Miscellanea della Società Romana di storia patria 19 (Rome 1957)Google Scholar; Heeren, J.J., Das Bündnis zwischen König Richard II. von England und König Wenzel vom Jahre 1381 (Halle, Diss. 1910).Google Scholar

²¹ The sermon is edited in Kadlec (as n. 8), pp. 174-81, at 178. See also Boor, F. De, Wyclifs Simoniebegriff. Die theologischen und kirchenpolitischen Grundlagen der Kirchenkritik John Wyclifs (Halle 1970) pp. 28, 125Google Scholar. Both in De Pauperie Salvatori; and in his sermons FitzRalph frequently spoke of avaritia, when discussing purchase and abuse of ecclesiastical office and benefices, see Walsh, K., A Fourteenth-Century Scholar and Primate. Richard FitzRalph in Oxford, Avignon and Armagh (Oxford 1981)p. 193.Google Scholar

²² Above n. 9.

²³ See Kaňák, M., John Viklef. Život a dito anglického Husova předchůdce (Prague 1973)Google Scholar, and German trans, as Der Ketzer von Oxford. Lehen und Wirkungen John Wihlefs (Berlin 1977)esp.p. 80.

²⁴ Trapp, D., ‘Clm 27034. Unchristened nominalism and Wycliffite realism at Prague in 1381’, RTAM 24 (1957) pp. 322–4, 335, 354–6Google Scholar. For Biceps see Kaeppeli, Scriptores 3 pp. 147-8; Koudelka, V.J., ‘Heinrich von Bitterfeld (+ c. 1405), Professor an der Universität Prag’, AFP 23 (1953) esp. 17–8Google Scholar; ‘Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Dominikanerprovinz im Mittelalter III’, AFP 27 (1957) pp. 60-2.

²⁵ Stein, E., ‘Mistr Mikuláš Biceps’, Mémoires de la Société Royale des Sciences de Bohême, classe des lettres (Véstnik Královske České Společnosti Nauk), an. 1928 (1929), IV, pp. 43–4Google Scholar, discussed in Śmahel, F., ‘“Doctor evangelicus super omnes evangelistas”: Wyclif’s Fortune in Hussite Bohemia’, BIHR 43 (1970) at p. 18.Google Scholar

²⁶ Śmahel p. 18; Kadlec (as n. 8) p. 55; Idem, Studien und Texte zum Leben und Wirken des Prager Magisters Andreas von Brod—Beiträge NF 22 (1982) esp. pp. 21-8.

²⁷ Heinrich Bitterfeld is a good example of the speed with which Dominicans in Prague learned of developments elsewhere, for example Oxford teaching on indulgences as represented by the Augustinian friar Geoffrey Hardeby. See the remarks in Paulus, N., Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge Uszur Mille des 14.Jahrhunderls, 2 vols. (Paderborn 1922) 1 pp. 377–8Google Scholar, on Breslau (Wrocław), University Library MS II F 65, fol. 183^re-203^ve. See also the ‘Prager Ketzerartikel’ cited by Matthew of Cracow, 25 January 1384, in: Patschovsky, A. (ed.), Quellen zur böhmischen Inquisition im 14.jahrhundert—MGH, Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 11 (Weimar 1979) pp. 318–23.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Bartoš, F. M., Čechy v dobĕ Hosovĕ (Bohemia in the time of Hus), (Prague 1947) p. 267Google Scholar; Kad lec, Andreas von Brod p. 232; Koudelka, ‘Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Dominikaner-provinz (as n. 24) p. 14. Hübner is not listed in Kaeppeli, Scriptores.

²⁹ Koudelka, ‘Zur Geschichte’ p. 33.

³⁰ See Catto, J. I., ‘John Wyclif and the Cult of the Eucharist’, The Bible in the Medieval World. Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley SCH, Subsidia 4 (Oxford 1985) pp. 269–86.Google Scholar

³¹ For a sensitive assessment of the limitations of such rigid categories in a late medieval context see Gilbert, N. W., ‘Ockham, Wyclif, and the “Via moderna”’, in Antiqui et moderni. Traditions-bewußtsein und Fortschritsbewußtsein im späten Mittelalter—Miscellanea Mediaevatia 9 (Berlin-New York 1974) pp. 85–125.Google Scholar

³² For a recent view see Palacz, R., ‘La “positio de universalibus” d’Etienne de Palecz’, MPP 14 (1970) pp. 113–29Google Scholar; Sousedik, S., ‘Stanislaus von Znaim (+ 1414). Eine Lebensskizze’, MPP 17 (1973) PP. 37–56Google Scholar; Kadlec, Andreas von Brod pp. 22-3, attempts to relativize Stanislav’s allegiance to Wyclif, see also below pp. 411-12.

³³ Printed by Loserth, in ‘Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zu dem Magister Adalbertos Ranconis de Ericinio’, MVGDB 17 (1879), pp. 210–12.Google Scholar

³⁴ Betts, R.R., ‘Jerome of Prague’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal 1 (1947) pp. 51–91Google Scholar, and reprinted in Essays in Czech History pp. 195-23 5, at p. 197.

³⁵ Loserdi, ‘Über die Beziehungen zwischen englischen und böhmischen Wiclifiten” (as n. 18) pp. 2S5-6. For Faulfiš and Knĕhnic, and their links both with the Lollard ‘publishing house’ and the country gentry who supported it, see Emden (O) 11 pp. 670-1, 1059.

³⁶ Emden (O) III pp. 1512-3. Neither of these MSS have survived, but for the large number of Bohemian manuscripts see Thomson, , The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf (as n. 4) pp. 79, 268–9.Google Scholar

³⁷ Although his approach has been much criticized, McFarlane, K. B., Wyclif and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London 1952)Google Scholar, attempted to put this in perspective. For a more theoretical approach to Wyclif’s political thought and action see Daly, L. J., The political theory of John Wyclif (Chicago 1962).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Emden, A B., An Oxford Hall in Medieval Times (Oxford 1927) pp. 139–40Google Scholar, who first drew attention to the irregular meeting of Congregation which took place on 5 October 1406 for this purpose.

³⁹ Seibt, F., Hussitica. Zur Struklur einer Revolution (Cologne-Graz 1965) pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See the contribution of J.I. Catto to the present volume for manuscript evidence which indicates a substantial circulation of Wyclif’s less controversial writings among a non-Lollard audience, who did not feel obliged to reject all his writings. See also Hudson, A., ‘The Debate on Bible Translation in Oxford 1401’, EHR 90 (1975) pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Betts, ‘Jerome of Prague’ (as n. 34) p. 205; Seibt, Hussitica p. 79.

⁴² Apart from Klicman and Bernard (as n. 1), the relevant sources are printed in Uiblein, P. (ed.), Acta Facultatis Artium Universitatis Vindohonensis 1383-1416—Publikationen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung VI. Reihe, 2. Abteilung (Graz-Vienna-Cologne 1968)Google Scholar and Idem, (ed.), Die Akten der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien (1396-1508), 2 vols. (Vienna 1978).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Uiblein, P., ‘Zu den Beziehungen der Wiener Universität zu anderen Universitäten im Mittelalter’, The Universities in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Ijsewijn, J.Pacquet—J. (Louvain 1978) pp. 168–89, at p. 175.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Matthäsius, F., ‘Der Auszug der deutschen Studenten aus Prag (1409)’, MVGDB 52 (1914) pp. 451–99Google Scholar; 53 (1915) pp. 58-110; Seibt, F., ‘Johannes Hus und der Abzug der deutschen Studenten aus Prag 1409’, Archiv für Kuiturgeschichte 39 (1957) pp. 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ For Andreas von Grillenberg see Uiblein, Acta Facultatis Artium (as n. 42), ad indican; Krick, L. H., Das ehemaltge Domstift Passau (Passau, 1922), pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See the evidence presented by Klicman (as n. 1). Little attempt was made to establish either whether the articles under discussion were genuinely taught by Wyclif or that Jerome really held them.

⁴⁷ Uiblein, Die Akten (as n. 42) pp. 17-20, where the entries are largely concerned with more mundane matters of academic or curricular details.

⁴⁸ On the latter see Girgensohn, D., Peter von Pulkau und die Wiedereinführung des Laienkelches. Leben und Wirken eines Wiener Theologen in der Zeit desgrofien Schismas—Veröffentlicliungen des Max-Planck-lnstituts für Geschichte 12 (Göttingen, 1964)Google Scholar. But see also the group of MSS containing texts emanating from Petrus von Pulkau and his circle, which take issue—among other topics—with a Wycliffite interpretation of the Eucharist, in BAV, Cod. Vat. Lat. 1119-1122, parts of which date from the pontificate of Nicholas V, when these problems were still a subject of discussion with the remains of the Council of Basel.

⁴⁹ A similar situation appears to have prevailed at Cracow, , see Codex Diplomaticus Universitatis Studii Gentralis Cracoviensis continet privilegia et documenta quae res gestae academiae eiusque beneficia illustrant, 3 vols. (Cracow 1870-80)Google Scholar, passim for the special position of the ‘Collegium Artistarum’.

⁵⁰ His name is not mentioned in the acts of either faculty.

⁵¹ See Loserth, J., ‘Über die Versuche wiclif-husitische Lehren nach Oesterreich, Polen, Ungarn und Croatien zu verpflanzen, nach gleichzeitigen Correspondenzen’, MVGDB 24 (1885) pp. 97–116.Google Scholar

⁵² Uiblein, Die Akten (as n. 42) p. 25. A blanket condemnation was issued to cover all those who held to the views of Jean de Pouilly and Armachanus, despite the condemnations of Pope John XXII. For a correction of Loserth’s chronology of the academic career of Siwart, ibid. pp. 12-3, 15-6.

⁵³ Ibid. pp. 17-8.

⁵⁴ Johannes Müntzinger had also, according to the testimony of the faculty, held that Corpus Christi non est Deus et Hostia consecrala non est Deus, ibid. p. 429.

⁵⁵ Printed in Loserth, ‘Über die Versuche’ (as n. 51) pp. 102-3.

⁵⁶ For the episode see Brandt, M., ‘Wyclifitism in Dalmatia in 1383’, The Slavonic and East European Review 36 (1957) pp. 58–68.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Printed in Loserth, (as n. 51) pp. 105-10.

⁵⁸ Printed in Loserth, ‘Urkunden und Traktate’ (as n. 1) pp. 331-7. In the preamble to the bull, dated from St. Peter’s, 8 February 1413, it is recalled: Nuper ingenerali concilio, quod adhuc in basilica principis apostolorum de urbe pro reformacione et confirmacione prosperi status universalis ecclesie celebra(ba)tur, eodem approbante concilio quosdam libellos vel tractatus quondam Johannis Wykleff seu per ipsum editos et intitulatos dampnavimus et reprobavimus …. See Loserth, ‘Über die Beziehungen zwischen englischen und böhmischen Wiclifiten’ (as n. 18) p. 258, for the list of Wyclif’s works already known in Prague by ca. 1409.

⁵⁹ Ibid., pp. 332-3. Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf p. 81, n. 6, is inclined to accept Workman’s view that Hus translated at least parts of the Trialogus as early as 1403, and an almost complete translation of the Dialogus by Hus’s follower, Jakoubek Ž Stříbro, was edited by Svoboda, M., Mistra Jakoubka zu Stříbra překlad Viklefova (Prague 1909).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Rupprich, H., Das Wiener Schrifttum des ausgehenden Mittelalters — Õsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 228/5(Vienna 1954)Google Scholar; Hohmann, T., Heinrichs von Langenstein ‘Unterscheidung der Geister’ lateinisch und deutsch.Texte und Untersuchungen zu Übersetzungsliteratur aus der Wiener Schule (Zurich-Munich 1977).Google Scholar

⁶¹ The most comprehensive study is still Heimpel, H., Dietrich von Niem (e. 1340-1418), (Münster 1932)Google Scholar, but see also the introduction to Dietrich von Nieheim, Historie de gestis Romanorum Principum, Cronica, Gesta Karoli Magni Imperatoris, ed. Katharina Colberg-Joachim Leuschner (+), MGH, SSM 5/2 (Stuttgart 1980) pp. vii-lv.

⁶² See Johannis Wyclif Miscellanea Philosophica II pp. 1-152.

⁶³ E.g. S. Sousedik and J. Kadlec (both as n. 32).

⁶⁴ Palacz, ‘La “posino de universalibus”’ (as n. 32) pp. 113-4 summarizes this point of view.

⁶⁵ Sousedik (as n. 32) p. 38, though he correctly draws attention to the importance of Stanislav’s extensive writings for any study of Wyclif’s impact on later medieval Bohemian intellectual life.

⁶⁶ Ibid. pp. 41-3.

⁶⁷ Kadlec, Andreas von Brod p. 22, used Stanislav’s attack on Wyclif’s determinism to support the view that he was a critical and discriminating student of Wyclif’s writings, but see the contribution of Kenny, A. to the present volume. See also Kenny, A., Wyclif (Oxford-New York 1985) esp. pp. 14–41.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See below n. 74.

⁶⁹ Sousedik (as n. 32) pp. 44-5.

⁷⁰ Before moving to Cracow he had been Hus’s colleague as the second preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel, see Novotný, V., M.Jan. Hus, vol. 1/I (Prague 1919) pp. 83–90Google Scholar; Kadlec, Andreas von Brod pp. 18, 24. For the sermon on the Eucharist which he preached in Prague 1406 against Stanislav’s teaching, now Cvp 4314, fol. 135^v— 136^r, see the works of J. Sedlák, cited in Kadlec, as above, p. 24, nn. 52-3.

⁷¹ Discussed in Kaňák, DerKetzervon Oxford (as n. 23) esp. p. 84, though he appears to have been under the impression that the legate was bishop of Ńódz (which became a bishopric in 1920). For Arrigoni, a former Magister regens at S. Domenico in Bologna, and subsequently also bishop of Trieste and Urbino (+ 1435), see Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica i², pp. 296, 477, 509; Kaeppeli, Scriptores, ii, pp. 298-304.

⁷² For Uguccione (+ 1412), see Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica i², p. 26, and for his activities in England on behalf of the dissident cardinals, Harvey, M., ‘Nicholas Ryssheton and the Council of Pisa, 1409’ SCH 7 (1971) pp. 197–8.Google Scholar

⁷³ The Latin text of what Ludolf Meistermann and Cardinal Uguccione apparently considered to be the most dangerous teachings of Wyclif that were also held by Stanislav, is printed in Bartoš, F. M., ‘V předvečer Kutnohorského dekretu’, Casopis českého musea 102 (1928) pp. 107–8Google Scholar. See also the discussion of this episode in Kaminsky, , A History of the Hussite Revolution (as n. 4) pp. 60–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Sousedik (as n. 32) pp. 49-50.

⁷⁵ See Heimpel, H., Studien zur Kirchen—und Reiclisreform des 15. Jahrhunderts. 11. Zu zwei Kirchenreform-Traktaten des beginnenden 15. Jahrhunderts— Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.hist.Klasse, 1974/1 (Heidelberg 1974).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Printed from the then only known MS by Erler, G., ‘Dietrichs von Niem Schrift Contra dampnatos Wiclivistas Pragae’, Zeitschrift für (vaterländische) Geschichte und Alterthumskunde 43 (1885), pp. 184–98Google Scholar. In addition to this text, Cracow, University Library MS 1373, fol. 252^r- 254^v, a further copy has recently come to light, also in Cracow, in the Dominican convent, MS R XV 14, fol. 271^r-274^r, see Włodek, , ‘Inventaire des manuscrits médiévaux latins, philosophique et théologiques de la bibliothèque des pères dominicains de Cracovie’, MPP 14 (1970) pp. 155–86, at p. 168–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Dietrich von Niem (as n. 61) pp. 69-70.

⁷⁸ The concluding passage of the tract, ed. cit. p. 198, appears to justify this conclusion.

⁷⁹ This extreme concern for the fate of his fellow-countrymen is not surprising in view of Dietrich’s efforts on behalf of the German ‘national’ house and church in Rome, Santa Maria dell’Anima, of which he is generally regarded as the (second) founder, see Nagl, F., ‘Urkundliches zur Geschichte der Anima in Rom’, Römische Quartalschrift suppl. 12 (Rome 1896)Google Scholar; Schmidlin, J., Geschichte der deutschen Nationalkirche in Rom, Santa Maria dell’Anima (Freiburg i. Br.-Vienna 1909)Google Scholar, passim.

⁸⁰ ‘… ne incrassentur interim …’ (as n. 76), p. 192.

⁸¹ ibid. p. 188.

⁸² For this debate see Heimpel, Dietrich von Niem (as n. 61) p. 117.

⁸³ Ed. Heimpel, H., Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelaltersund der Renaissance 3 (Leipzig 1933)Google Scholar; in the Viridarium imperatorum et regum Romanorum, ed. Pivec, A. Lhotsky-K., MGH, SSM 5/1 (Stuttgart 1956) p. 19,11.27–9Google Scholar, which was also completed in 1410, Dietrich launched an attack on quosdam hereticos Boemos de universitate studii Pragensis errore quondam Wiclevi de Anglia scelestissimi heretici sectatores illius Wiclevi heresis dogmatibus infectefuerunt et continue magis et magis inficiuntur.

⁸⁴ For a discussion of Dietrich’s apparent ecclesiological inconsistencies see Heimpel, Dietrich von Niem (as n. 61) pp. 116-7.

⁸⁵ Hudson, A., ‘The Debate on Bible Translation’, (as n. 40) pp. 6–17.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Loserth, , ‘Über die Beziehungen zwischen englischen und bohmischen Wiclifiten’, (as n. 18) pp. 255–6.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Hudson, The Debate on Bible Translation’, p. 5, drew attention to the faulty arguments for this interpretation of Arundel.

⁸⁸ Now Cvp 1759-64. See also Unterkircher, F., König Wenzels Bibelbilder (Graz 1983).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ For useful summaries of the present state of research see the contributions of J. Macek, ‘Die Hofkultur Karls IV; F. Kavka, ‘Die Hofgelehrten; S. Grosse, ‘Zur Diskussion über die Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache’; Kalista, Z., ‘Der Hof Karls IV. und das tschechische Geistesleben’, Kaiser Karl IV. (as n. 19) pp. 237-41, 249-53, 260-4, 281–5Google Scholar; Klapper, J., Johannes von Neumarkt, BischofundHojhanzler. Religiöse Frührenaissance in Böhmen zur Zeil Kaiser Karls IV.— Erfurter theologische Studien 17 (Leipzig 1964).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ The allusion is of course to Smalley, B., ‘The Bible and Eternity: John Wyclif’s Dilemma’, JWCl 27 (1964) pp. 73–89Google Scholar. See also Kadlec, J., ‘Die Bibel im mitcelalterlichen Böhmen’, AHDLMA 39 (1964) pp. 89—109.Google Scholar