Page:Lectures on The Historians of Bohemia by Count Lutzow (1905).djvu/119

 nected with Prague) he has spoken very freely, and his views are perhaps more hostile to the views of Rome than those of Palacký. As I mentioned, Tomek’s history of Prague is still unfinished, but all those who are friends of Bohemia will hope that time will be granted the veteran to finish his gigantic task, which will rank with Gregorovius’s Rome in the Middle Ages as one of the greatest town-histories of modern times.

It would be difficult to give in a limited space of time more than a very brief account of the modern historians of Bohemia. I should not, however, do justice to my subject, if I omitted to mention the work of Professor Josef Kalousek. He has devoted much time to the study of the early Christian records of Bohemia, and particularly to the legend of St. Wenceslas. Of his many historical works the most interesting appears to me to be his České Státní Právo—in a rough translation, The Bohemian Constitution. I think a brief quotation from this valuable book will throw some light on the subject of the ancient constitution of Bohemia—a subject that is almost unknown. Kalousek writes: ‘The ancient constitution of Bohemia and Moravia, like others grounded on feudal principles, had a considerable likeness to modern constitutions; but there was also in many respects a considerable difference. The power of the sovereign in Bohemia and Moravia was limited; in this respect we find a considerable likeness to the so-called modern constitutional system. There is in this also a likeness, that while both the ancient institutions of Bohemia and modern constitutionalism limit the power of the ruler with regard to certain matters, they yet reserve certain rights to the sovereign