lishers, Jansky & Co, placed it before the proper authorities and received permission to publish it; about three months after, when it had been publicly sold all over Austria, it was suddenly confiscated on the 22d of June, 1890. At first I was told it was on account of the poem “John Huss,” but in about two weeks I received the written explanation that it was on account of “The Patriots.” The Austrian government did not confiscate my poem because it was historically untrue, but because they said that, “one could think that Ferdinand had acted on the advice of his father confessor” Here I beg to say that such a thought never entered my head, and that I agree with William Coxe, F.R.S., F.A.S. (Coxe’s House of Austria, Bohn’s Standard Library, p. 181, Pelzel, pp. 731–742): “Several native and Catholic writers endeavor to extenuate the cruelty of Ferdinand, by declaring that he was with difficulty induced to make these dreadful examples; and was overborne by the representations of his ministers and the Jesuits. Admitting this fact, it is no exculpation of his conduct to assert that he acted unjustly by the advice of his ministers. But the preceding and subsequent transactions, as well as the general character, the relentless disposition, and the deep-rooted prejudices of Ferdinand, furnish ample evidence that he wanted no external impulse to commit acts of persecution and cruelty against the Protestants.” There is also another poem that may want an explanation, and that is, Kryspek’s “Goblet.” It will be found in Coxe’s House of Austria, Vol. II., p. 180. “Three months elapsed without the slightest act of severity against the insurgents of Bohemia. Many, lulled into security by the dreadful calm, emerged from their hiding places, and the greater part remained quiet at Prague. But in an evil hour all the fury of the tempest burst upon their heads. Forty of the principal insur-
