the same; but us the Germans oppress without resistance.
Prague was, however, not captured by the Margrave of Meissen, and another of the many temporary agreements between the King and the Bohemian nobles, which were so frequent in the reign of Wenceslas, was concluded.
In the following year Wenceslas again became a prisoner. By order of his brother Sigismund, King of Hungary, whom he had foolishly invited to Prague, Wenceslas was seized in the royal residence, near the powder tower, and conveyed first to the Hradcany castle and afterwards to Vienna, where Sigismund entrusted him to the custody of his ally the Duke of Austria. In the following year, however, Wenceslas succeeded in making his escape from Vienna. He returned to Bohemia, where he was now joyfully received by the people, who had suffered greatly during the time that the rapacious Sigismund had illegally ruled over Bohemia.
King Wenceslas’s nature seems to have deteriorated with increasing years; his tendency to drink became stronger; his capacity for work decreased; he became more and more incapable of controlling his always violent temper. A proof of this is the King’s well-known conflict with John of Pomuk or Nepomuk. The size of this book—perhaps fortunately for the writer—entirely precludes entering into controversial matters. I will therefore only remark that recent historians have thrown some doubts on the tale of John of Nepomuk. Palacky declared that St. John Nepomucene belongs solely to legend, in no wise to Bohemian history. Recently even some Roman Catholic writers have agreed with him. I will now give the legend in its earliest form, as it appears in Hajek’s chronicle. Hajek writes under the date of 1383 that ‘King
