haired and so comely, without deeply bewailing their fate?’
It should be mentioned that Sigismund's distrust of the Moravians, which caused him to assign to them the most perilous post, contributed to arouse in their favour the sympathy of their Bohemian countrymen.
Professor Ernest Denis, who in his brilliant work Hus et la Guerre des Hussites has translated into French a considerable portion of Březov’s account of the battle of the Vyšehrad, truthfully writes: ‘There is nothing in history more touching than this grief of the victors who deplore their victory, and—forgetful of temporary divisions and full of pity for their brethren who have separated from them—reserve all their hatred for the foreigner who has encouraged internal strife, profits by it, and strives to rule the country by the destruction of all Bohemian parties.’
I feel that I have already devoted too much time to the chronicle of Lawrence of Březov, though it is the greatest—some have said the only truly great—historical work that deals with the Hussite wars.
Together with his edition of Březov’s chronicle, that brilliant historian Professor Goll has also edited two minor documents dealing with the Hussite wars. They are the so-called chronicle of the university of Prague, and that of Bartošek of Drahonic. The former work is a mere compilation of writings derived from various sources; and even its tendency differs, as we find Hussite sympathies in some and Romanist sympathies in other parts of the book. The writer has copied extensively from the chronicle of Březov. The chronicle of Bartošek of Drahonic is the work of a soldier, and warlike deeds obviously alone had interest for the writer. He
