¹ The other of the two, Johannes Moravetz, the Dominican who read for his master's degree in Oxford some time before 1348, later became papal penitentiary in Bohemia. (Monumenta Vaticana Res Bohemicas Illustrantia (1903 ff), I, no. 1014; also ibid .., Nos. 813, 1015, 1016, I3I5.)

² See Loserth, J., in Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte, LVII, pp. 11, 71Google Scholar, and Loserth, J., Huss und Wiclif (1925), p. 62.Google Scholar

³ Höfler, C, “Anna von Luxemburg,” 112 (Denkschriften der kaiser lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosoph.–hist.Klasse XX).

⁴ Codex pal. Vindob., 1430. See Loserth, Huss and Wiclif (1925), p. 45. n. 1.

⁵ Novotný, V., Náboženské hnutí české ve 14 a 15 stol., I, p. 142.

⁶ See Loserth, in Mittheilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, XVII, p. 210, for the text of the willGoogle Scholar. See also Young, R. F. in the English Historical Review, XXXVIII, p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 77 note 1} Höfler, C, “Anna von Luxemburg” (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosoph.–hist.Klasse, vol. XX, pp. 89– 240. Wien, 1871).

^{page 77 note 2} Perroy, E., L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme d'Occident, Paris, 1933Google Scholar; Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, Camden Society, Third Series, No. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} See Guggenberger, K., Die Legation des Kardinals Pileus in Deutschland, 1378–1382, Munich, 1907. CfGoogle Scholar. Rymer, , Foedera, VII, 256–7, 292a, 293bGoogle Scholar, and Walsingham, , Historia Anglicana (Rolls Series), I, p. 452.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 4} Rinaldi, , Annales, VII, s.a. 1379, Nos. XL and XLI, pp. 390–2.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 5} Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, p. 141.

^{page 77 note 6} ibid.., 141.

^{page 78 note 1} For Hereford's mission and his companions see French Rolls, 20 Jan. 1380 (Richard II, membrane 15).

^{page 78 note 2} Perroy, op. cit., pp. 141–3.

^{page 78 note 3} Or “Sedlec”; he is described in Rymer, VII, p. 257, as “Miles curiae nostrae”; there is probably no connexion between this mysterious Bernard and the abbey of Sedlec in Bohemia. Cf. French Rolls, year 3, Ric. II., m. 2.

^{page 78 note 4} Perroy, , Dipl. Corr. Richard II, No. 18. Cf. Rymer, VII, pp. 304–5.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 5} Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, p. 145.

^{page 78 note 6} ibid.., p. 147. Cf. Rymer, IV, pp. 104–5.

^{page 79 note 1} Letters of procuration in the Public Record Office, E.30, 292 and 293. Cf. Rymer, IV, pp. 105–6.

^{page 79 note 2} P. R. O., Dipl Docs., E.294. Cf. Rymer, IV, p. 106.

^{page 79 note 3} Perroy, op. cit., p. 149. For Pileus’ unpopular conduct in England, cf. Adam of Usk, p. 2; Walsingham, I, p. 452; Rymer, IV, p. 109; Calendar of Patent Rolls, I, p. 615.

^{page 79 note 4} Perroy, op. cit., p. 153. Rymer, IV, pp. 117–121.

^{page 79 note 5} Perroy, p. 154.

^{page 80 note 1} Round, J. H., on Braybrooke in the Dictionary of National Biography, II, pp. 1151 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 2} Perroy, Dipl. Corr. Richard II, Nos. 34, 57. Issue Roll 490, m. 14.

^{page 81 note 1} Rot. parl., III, p. 248. Rymer, IV, p. 139.

^{page 81 note 2} Perroy, op. cit., No. 37. Treasury rolls, 72, m. 21. For the unpopularity of Anne's retinue, see Walsingham, II, p. 46; Continuatio Eulogii, III, p. 355; Knighton, II, pp. 150–1; Mon. Westm., 12.

^{page 81 note 3} Novotný, V., M. Jan Hus, II, pp. 59 ff. Bartoš, F. M., Husitství a cizina, p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Novotný, op. cit., II, pp. 104 ff. Bartoš, op. cit., p. 32.

^{page 82 note 2} Loserth, Huss und Wiclif, p. 64.

^{page 82 note 3} Bartoš, op. cit., pp. 40–1, 47n., 62, 110. Loserth, op. cit., pp. 65, 194–203.

^{page 82 note 4} Loserth, op. cit., pp. 196–9. Cf. De Dominio Divino, ed. R. L. Poole, p. 249.

^{page 82 note 5} ibid.., pp. 200–1.

^{page 83 note 1} Text in Novotný, Husova Corres., c. 22, pp. 75–9.

^{page 83 note 2} Text in Loserth, op. cit., pp. 210–12.

^{page 83 note 3} ibid.., pp. 212–13.

^{page 85 note 1} I owe the phrase and much besides to Bartoš, Husitství a cizina, p. 27.

^{page 86 note 1} Bartoš, op. cit., pp. 20–3.

^{page 86 note 2} Cf. Wyclif, de Mandatis Divinis, p. 153, with Hus, , Expositio Decalogi, Opera, ed. , Flajšhans, Vol. I, p. 7;Google Scholar Wyclif, op. cit., p. 159, with Hus, op. cit., ibid..; Wyclif, de Civili Domino, p. 368, with Hus, de Ecclesia, CCIa; Wyclif, de Simonia, p. 2, with Hus, Opera CXCIIII.

^{page 86 note 3} Cf. Wyclif, , Political Works, II, p. 666, with Hus, Opera I, p. 175b.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} Loserth, Huss und Wiclif, p. 124.

^{page 87 note 2} Novotný, , Náboženské hnuti české ve 14 a 15 stol., I, p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} See Novotný, , M. Jan Hus, I, i, pp. 182 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} Loserth, Huss und Wiclif, p. 182.

^{page 89 note 2} See Novotný, , M. Jan Hus, I, ii, pp. 238–42. The text of the O Svatokupectvί is in Erben, I, pp. 474 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 1} Университетскіа Изв***стія.Kіев***, May 1884.

^{page 90 note 2} Florinski refers to Palmov, “ The question of the chalice in the Husite movement,” Petersburg, 1881, and Lamanski, “Important participants in Western Slavonic education in the XVth, XVIth and XVTIth centuries,” Slav. Sbornik, I, 1875, pp. 546 ff.

^{page 93 note 1} Cf. Bartoš, F. M., Husitstvί a cizina, p. 24. Sedlák, Studie a texty, p. 363.

^{page 93 note 2} Compare with this exposure of the false claims of relics by Waldhauser Hus's mission to Wilsnack to examine the genuineness of the miracles reported to have been performed by the Sacred Blood exposed there. (Mag. Joannis Hus de Sanguine Christi, edited by Flajšhans in Mag. Jo. Hus, Opera omnia, Tom. I, fasc. 3, p. 33).

^{page 94 note 1} For Waldhauser see Loskot, F., Konrad Waldhauser, Prague, 1909Google Scholar; Novotný, V., Náboženské hnutί české, pp. 157 ff.; Menčík, F., “Konrad Waldhauser,” in Abh, der kgl. böhm. Ges. d. Wissenschaft, VI, Folge XIGoogle Scholar; Palacký, F., “Die Vorlaufer des Hussitentums “ in Böhmen, N.A., 1869, p. 16Google Scholar; Apologia Konradi in Waldhausen, ed. Höfler, C., in Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, 2, VI, pp. 17–39Google Scholar. For complete bibliography see Zirbt, , Bibliografie České Historie, II, 1117.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 1} For Milíč see: Zirbt, , Bibliografie České Historie, II, 1117–18Google Scholar; Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, I, pp. 401–30Google Scholar; Janova, Matéj z, Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti, ed. , Kybal, III, pp. 358–67 (Narracio de Milicio)Google Scholar; Palacký, Vorläufer, pp. 39–46, and Gesch. Böhmens, III, p. 1; Klicman, , “Studie o Milíčovi,” in Listy phil., XVIIGoogle Scholar; Novotný, , Náboženské hnuti české, I, pp. 65 ff. Milič’s sermons are edited by Menčik in Věstnik (1890).Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 1} For Tomáš ze Štitného see: Durdika, J., Toma ze Štítného, Prague, 1879Google Scholar; Wenzig, Studien über den Ritter Thomas von Štίtný; Novotný, , Náboženské hnutí české, I, pp. 179–214.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} Kybal, V, M. Matêj z Janova, jeko zivot a spisy, Prague, 1905Google Scholar; Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti, edited Kybal, V. and Odložilík, O. Innsbruck and Prague, 1903–1926Google Scholar; Novotný, , Náboženské hnutí česhé, I, pp. 145–75.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 3} Bartoš, F. M., Husitství a cizina, 24; Sedlák, , Studie a texty, I (1914), p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 1} For Štěpán z Kolína see: Odložilík, O., Štěpán z Kolina, Prague, 1924; Bartoš, F. M., in Časopis národného musea, 1924, pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 1} Bartoš, F. M., Husitství a cizina, 53. Cf. Hus, O Svatokupectví, ed. Novotný, pp. 131–4.

^{page 99 note 2} For Hus on predestination and free–will see: Hus, Super Sent., I, dist. 38 (p. 162); dist. 40 (pp. 165–6); dist. 17 (p. 110); dist. 41 (pp. 168–9). Cf. Novotný, and Kybal, , M. Jan Hus, život a učení, II, i, pp. 179–83.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 3} For Matěj's treatment of free–will and predestination see: Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti, I, p. 22; II, pp. 10–11, 171, 307; III, pp. 150–1; V, pp. 69–70, 247.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} See Odložilík, M. Štěpán z Kolína, pp. 41–2, and n. 165 on p. 68.

^{page 99 note 5} Cf. Regulae, I, pp. 58, 62, 129, 133, 287; V, pp. 7, 162, 200.

^{page 99 note 6} The whole question of Hus's view of spiritual lordship is discussed in Novotný, and Kybal, , M. Jan Hus, II, ii, pp. 380–401.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 1} Cf. quotation from him in Janova, Matěj z, Regulae, II, pp. 89, 90.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} Regulae, V, p. 35.

^{page 102 note 2} ibid.., I, p. 105; V, pp. 27–9, 36–7, 92–3.

^{page 101 note 3} ibid.., I, pp. 57, 59, 107; II, pp. 136; V, pp. 38, 78, 83, 143–4, 148, 171.

^{page 101 note 4} ibid.., II, p. 137; V, pp. 216–17, 218–19, 164–5.

^{page 101 note 5} See Betts, R. R., in Journal of Theological Studies, 1931.

^{page 101 note 6} Loserth, Huss und Wiclif, pp. 189 ff.

^{page 101 note 7} See for a full discussion of this, Novotný, and Kybal, , M. Jan Hus, II, iii, pp. 244–7.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 1} See for a full discussion of this, Novotný, and Kybal, , M. Jan Hus, II, iii, p. 241. Hus, Super Sent., pp. 580–2.Google Scholar