natural, is not that of a scholar, but is rather of the colloquial order, which tends to fall into a rugged and homely patois. There are also a few isolated words that, so far as we can discover, have escaped the notice of lexicographers. These we have indicated in the notes.
The constant quotations in the letters from the Fathers, the Vulgate, and other sources have given us no small difficulty. As regards the Vulgate, Hus differs very widely from the present Clementine-Sextine text. In the lack of data it has been impossible to decide to what extent the difference is due to a faulty memory, or to the use by Hus of manuscripts somewhat differing from the Paris recension that was the standard of his time. As a matter of fact, the quotations of Hus from the Scriptures are generally only verbally accurate in the few letters for which we must depend alone on the doctored text of the Monumenta or Epistolæ Piissimæ. In turning the Vulgate into English we have generally quoted the Douai-Rheims version.
The quotations from the Fathers have proved an even greater difficulty. Hus’s knowledge of these authors was not first hand, nor will the student deem it sufficient to indicate the original source. The question must always be faced, What was the connecting link between Hus and the original? Loserth, in his valuable monograph (Wyclif and Hus, 1884), established the deep dependence of Hus upon the great English Reformer. We are inclined to
