we have any reliable information concerning him. He was then one of that group of priests which included John of Zělivo, Venceslas Koranda, Marcold, and others, who most strenuously opposed the High Church Hussitism of the university of Prague. He was, however, by no means a visionary or a fanatic, as were some of these men, and it was principally his teaching with regard to the Sacrament and to the questions of ritual which rendered him obnoxious to the masters of the university. Both Dlugoš and Æneas Sylvius, contemporary writers, state that great friendship united Žižka and Prokop. We have now no contemporary Bohemian records vouching for this, but as most Bohemian historical documents, particularly those referring to the Hussite period, were destroyed after the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, Dr. Neubauer’s conjecture that the writers mentioned above derived their information from some now unknown source appears very plausible. The writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries generally described Prokop as the immediate successor of Žižka. The study of the contemporary chroniclers who have now become accessible proves that this is untrue, as has already been mentioned. It is not easy to ascertain the exact position which Prokop at first occupied in the Hussite armies. From the beginning of the war Hussite priests—as has been noted in the case of John of Zělivo—accompanied the national armies. If we consider the intense religious fervour of the Utraquists, it is not surprising to read that during their campaigns their priests not only preached, but also celebrated mass in a wagon specially fitted out for that purpose,[1] which constituted what may be called a moveable chapel. In consequence of the state of intense religious excitement which then prevailed in Bohemia these army
- ↑ “Sciant omnes et singuli quod falsum nobis adscribitur; non enim in communibus lapidibus absque omni strato sacramenti cumulos conficimus ut experiencia docet; scitur enim, quia in civitatibus in quibus missamus habemus utensilia specialiter distincta et in exercitu campestri specialem currum distinctum in quo deducebantur” (Pelhřimov in Höfler as above, p. 565).
