Between Lipany and White Mountain Studies in Central European Histories

Edited by

Roger Chickering (Georgetown University) David M. Luebke (University of Oregon)

Editorial Board

Steven Beller (Washington, D.C.) Marc R. Forster (Connecticut College) Atina Grossmann (Columbia University) Peter Hayes (Northwestern University) Susan Karant-Nunn (University of Arizona) Mary Lindemann (University of Miami) H.C. Erik Midelfort (University of Virginia) David Sabean (University of California, Los Angeles) Jonathan Sperber (University of Missouri) Jan de Vries (University of California, Berkeley)

VOLUME 58

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sceh Between Lipany and White Mountain

Essays in Late Medieval and Early Modern Bohemian History in Modern Czech Scholarship

Edited, with an Introduction and Bibliography by

James R. Palmitessa

Translated by

Barbara Day and Christopher Hopkinson

LEIDEN | BOSTON Cover illustration: Skica zimní aleje (“Sketch of a Winter Path”), © Irina Slámová. The artist lives and works in Táchov, a city on the edge of the Bohemian Czech Forest (český les) that borders the Czech Republic and Germany. Her illustration inviting one to enter the forest, an iconic symbol of the Czech landscape, invites the reader to become acquainted with the history and historiography of the Czech Lands.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Between Lipany and White Mountain : essays in late medieval and early modern Bohemian history in modern Czech scholarship / edited by James R. Palmitessa, Western Michigan University ; translated by Barbara Day and Christopher Hopkinson. pages cm. — (Studies in Central European histories ; volume 58) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-27757-1 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-27758-8 (e-book) 1. Bohemia (Czech Republic)—History—1403–1526. 2. Bohemia (Czech Republic)—History—1526–1618. 3. Bohemia (Czech Republic)—History—1618–1848. I. Palmitessa, James R., editor.

DB2011.B48 2014 943.71'0224—dc23

2014018497

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ‘Brill’ typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1547-1217 isbn 978 90 04 27757 1 (hardback) isbn 978 90 04 27758 8 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Preface vii List of Tables xi List of Abbreviations xii Glossary of Place Names xiii Notes on the Text and Translations xiv About the Translators xvi Chronology xvii Map xix

Introduction 1

1 The Social Outcome of the Hussite Revolution 43 Robert Kalivoda (translated by Barbara Day)

2 The Divided Nation 63 František Šmahel (translated by Barbara Day)

3 National and Linguistic Disputes in the Bohemian Vicariate of the Observant Franciscans 94 Petr Hlaváček (translated by Christopher Hopkinson)

4 The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia and His Court 120 Václav Bůžek (translated by Barbara Day)

5 The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 149 František Kavka and Anna Skýbová (translated by Christopher Hopkinson)

6 The First Lady of the Kingdom 166 Josef Janáček (translated by Barbara Day)

7 Tolerance or Co-Existence? Relations between Religious Groups from the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries 182 Josef Válka (translated by Barbara Day) vi contents

8 On a Case of Sexual Abuse and Rape of a Child before a City Court 197 Petr Kreuz (translated by Christopher Hopkinson)

9 Culture, Politics, and Law in the Lives of Charles of Žerotín the Elder and the Moravian Nobility 217 Tomáš Knoz (translated by Christopher Hopkinson)

10 The Transformation of Bohemian Religious Brotherhoods in the Early Modern Period 248 Jiří Mikulec (translated by Christopher Hopkinson)

11 Migration of the South Bohemian Population Before and After the Thirty Years War 269 Josef Grulich and Hermann Zeitlhofer (translated by Barbara Day)

12 The Exile 300 Lenka Bobková (translated by Christopher Hopkinson)

Select Bibliography 329 Index 358 Preface

This book presents a collection of twelve essays by modern Czech historians on the history of the Bohemian or Czech lands from the middle of the fifteenth to middle of the seventeenth century C.E. Originally published as journal articles and book chapters, they have been translated and appear here for the first time in English. The essays address a broad range of topics, including politics, religion, demography, everyday life, crime, and rural and urban society. They span in time from the Battle of Lipany on May 30, 1434, one of the recognized end points of the Hussite Wars (which is not well known outside of specialist circles), to the restructuring of Bohemian society in the 1620s following the defeat of Bohemian forces at the Battle of White Mountain on November 8, 1620, which is one of the most recognized events of early modern European history. The book is aimed primarily, but not only, at English-speaking students and scholars of late medieval and early modern European history who are interested in beginning a research project in Bohemian history, pursuing comparative studies, or simply want to expand their knowledge of European history. Their interest may have been sparked by reading a book on German or Central European history in which Bohemian developments appear prominently; hearing a Czech scholar present at a conference; or traveling to Prague, Český Krumlov, or a few other places in the Czech Republic designated as UNESCO World Heritage sites. New interest in Bohemian history arose in North America and Western Europe after the Velvet Revolution of 1989 (named for the relatively smooth nature of the regime change). The revolution loosened restrictions, and made it easier for students and scholars from western Europe and North America to travel to Czechoslovakia (since 1993, the Czech Republic) to conduct research, and gave students and scholars from the Czech Republic greater access to methodologies, theories, and historical scholarship outside of their countries. As a result, opportunities for dialogue have increased between Czech scholars, their neighbors in Central Europe, and the broader historical community in Europe and North America. The dissolution of communist rule and the subsequent entry of the Czech Republic into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1999) and the European Union (2004) have also awakened new interest on all sides in the role of Europe’s smaller societies in central historical developments, and highlighted the need to better integrate the histories of Bohemia and other smaller societies into the broader European historical narrative. Despite growing interest and dialogue, a number of challenges remain today in study of, and research in, late medieval and early modern Bohemian history. First, Czech is not one of the common research languages which historians and other scholars in the humanities and social sciences learn. Those gaining access to the scholarship viii preface of the field have to turn to the available scholarship in English and German. This scholarship has made important contributions to our understanding of Bohemian history and its place in Central European history. In fact, much of what has entered English- language historical scholarship about Bohemia has come through related fields (especially Habsburg history), but his scholarship alone cannot provide a complete picture of the history and historical scholarship about this period, which is mostly in Czech. Beyond the linguistic challenge, other factors related to historical developments of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have been responsible for the relatively low level of familiarity in North America and Western Europe with Czech history and historical writing, and have made it difficult to understand the place of the Bohemian lands within European history. In particular, the national revival movement of the nineteenth century and specific features associated with the founding of Czechoslovakia in 1918, the successor state to the Bohemian Crown Lands, and the emergence of a liberal progressive narrative of European history after the First World War, have relegated the history of the Czech lands in the medieval and early modern periods to the margins of western civilization. Communist rule through most of the second half of the twentieth century further reinforced the view that these lands were different and served to isolate Czech historians and Czech scholarship from western historiography.1 By bringing to English-speaking readers the rich history and historical writing of Bohemian lands, through the lens and words of Czech historians, the volume seeks to expand knowledge about the place of the Czech lands in late medieval and early modern Europe, and the rich mosaic and shared history of the peoples and cultures of Europe. While this is not the first collection of essays on Bohemian history in English or another Western European language, it is the first collection in English that contains essays devoted solely to history of the Bohemian lands in the late medieval and early modern period, which address a number of themes and were originally written for a Czech audience within the context of Czech historiography.2 This volume continues earlier efforts made in the 1960s during a period of loosening of restrictions in Czechoslovakia (known as “the Prague Spring”) and more recent ones since the Velvet Revolution to bring Czech scholarship to an English-speaking audience.3 It is inspired

1 Although not the first to note this, Geoffrey Barraclough poignantly expressed the problem decades ago after the end of the Prague Spring in “Introduction: Towards a New Concept of European History,” in Eastern and Western Europe in the Middle Ages, eds. F. Graus, K. Bosl, F. Seibt, M.M. Postan, and A. Gieysztor (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), 7–14. 2 The best single-volume collection in English on Bohemian history throughout the ages is Mikuláš Teich, ed., Bohemia in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 3 Josef Polišenský, The Thirty Years War, trans. R. Evans (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971); František Bartoš, The Hussite Revolution 1424–1437, ed. and trans. by John M. Klassen (Boulder and New York: East European Monographs and Columbia University Press, 1986); Zdeněk V. David and David R. Holeton, eds., The Bohemian Reformation and Religious preface ix by collections published in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that expanded knowledge in North America of the historical scholarship of two other European societies, the Annales in France and microhistory in Italy;4 and the translation of seminal essays and monographs on the social history of the German Reformation, which helped broaden that approach into a field of international historical scholarship.5 This book is divided into four main sections. The introduction places the territories and early history of the Bohemian lands and the historical narratives on this period within modern Czech historical scholarship. This is followed by the collection of the original Czech essays in English translation, which were undertaken by two translators with extensive experience (see “About the Translators” at the end of the volume). Each essay also has its own brief introduction, situating the approach, argument, and contributions within the broader historiographical context. A bibliography at the end of the volume lists major works of late medieval and early modern Bohemian history by both Czech and non-Czech scholars. This book would not have been possible without support from the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX) and the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), which enabled me to spend an extended period of three years as a guest scholar at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague; and later invitations from Winfried Eberhard and Václav Bůžek for extended sojourns as an international guest scholar at the Centre for the History and Culture of East Central Europe (Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas) in Leipzig, Germany, and at the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Czech Republic, respectively. These visits allowed relationships to form which have grown through the years. Special thanks to: Jiří Mikulec for helping me stay informed on new historical scholarship and granting me access to the library of the Historical Institute

Practice, vols. 1–8 (Prague: Main Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and Collegium Europaeum, 1996–2011); Gary B. Cohen and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds., Embodiments of Power: Building Baroque Cities in Europe (New York: Berghahn, 2008). 4 The following Selections from the Annales: économies, sociétés, civilisations, edited by Robert Forster and Orest Ranum have been published by the Johns Hopkins University Press: Biology and Man in History (1975), Family and Society (1976), Deviants and the Abandoned in French Society ((1978), Food and Drink in French Society (1979), and Medicine and Society in France (1980). Ed Muir and Guido Ruggiero have edited Selections from the Quaderni Storici, also published by the Johns Hopkins University Press: Sex and Gender in Historical Perspective (1990), Microhistory and the Lost Peoples of Europe (1991), and History from Crime (1994). 5 Two among a larger body of works: Bernd Moeller, Imperial Cities and the Reformation. Three Essays, trans. by H.C. Erik Midelfort and Mark U. Edwards (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972); Peter Blickle. The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasant’s War from a New Perspective, trans. by Thomas A. Brady, Jr. and H.C. Erik Midelfort (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). x preface of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Petr Kreuz for being generous with his own work and insights in legal history, and Michal Šroněk and Ivan Muchta of the Institute for the History and Theory of Art of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic for their insight on art and cultural history. Joachim Bahlcke and Winfried Eberhard, who welcomed me in German circles, and R.J.W. Evans have served as role models for reassessing Bohemian history within a broader Central European and European context. The spectre of the first three Habsburg kings of Bohemia, who rest in their own mausoleum in St. Vitus Cathedral on Prague’s Castle Hill, and the works of the historians who have studied them, have also influenced my perspective in more profound ways than is evident in the citations and references of this volume. Ronnie Po-chia Hsia first suggested to me the value of such a collection and to consider editing one. Gerhard Jaritz and Paul Knoll supported earlier efforts at a bibliography of East Central Europe. Ed Muir gave sage advice on translations drawing on his own work. I also benefited from fruitful discussions with Michael Geyer about problematic issues of Central European history and global history. Tom Brady has impressed on me through his scholarship the need to take national narratives seriously without shying away from considering broader questions and connections.6 Special thanks to the Burnham-Macmillan Endowment Fund of the Department of History, and the Faculty Research and Creative Activities Award (FRAACA) and Support for Faculty Scholars Award (SFSA) programs of Western Michigan University, which funded the translations; and especially to the late Catherine Julien and Marion (Buddy) Gray who provided valuable assistance in the application process to these and other funding sources. Thanks also to two colleagues at WMU, José António (Joe) Brandão and James Murray, with whom I co-taught two separate graduate seminars: “Ethnohistory: Early Modern Worlds” and “Princes and their Cities in Burgundian and Habsburg Europe,” the latter of which was offered at the Newberry Library Center for Renaissance Studies in Chicago. These collaborations have expanded my perspective, geographically and chronologically, and in a number of other important ways. Judy Stone, Bob Berkhofer, and a number of other colleagues, past and present, have helped make WMU a good place to work. Last, but not least, thanks to Jason Glatz of WMU Libraries for producing the map in this volume; David Kutzko for assistance with some Latin references; Pat Hollahan, Shannon Cunningham, and Jiří Hrbek for helping me with various aspects of the original proposal and final manuscript; and Joe Brandão, Zdeněk David, Paul Knoll, Jaroslav Pánek, and two anonymous reviewers, who provided critical comments on earlier versions of the introduction. Responsibility for the final version rests solely with me.

6 For example, Thomas A. Brady, Jr., Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). List of Tables table Caption

11.1 Average, median and maximum distance between place of origin and place of residence in the case of persons older than 15 on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %) 277 11.2 Persons older than 15, according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %) 278 11.3a Men older than 15, according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %) 282 11.3b Women older than 15, according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %) 283 11.4 Persons older than 15, according to position in households and according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %) 286 11.5 Population older than 15, according to position in households and according to place of origin on South Bohemian estates in 1585 and 1586 288 11.6 Population of the Libějovice estate, according to position in households and according to place of origin in 1607 289 11.7 Persons in service (farmhands and domestic staff), according to sex and place of residence and of origin on the Libějovice estate in 1607 289 11.8 Homogamy of married couples according to place of origin on the South Bohemian estates in 1585 and 1586 (in %) 292 11.9 Homogamy of married couples according to place of origin on the Libějovice estate, according to village in 1607 294 11.10a Betrothed couples according to distance between their places of residence on the Chýnov estate in 1640–1680 296 11.10b Bridal couples and their witnesses according to distance between places of residence on the Chýnov estate in 1640–1680 296 List of Abbreviations

AČ Archiv český čili staré písemné památky české a moravské, sebrané z archivů domácích i cízích. Eds. František Palacký, Josef Kalousek, Gustav Friedrich et al. Vol. I–XXXVIII. Prague, 1840–2000. AMP Archiv hlavního města Prahy AUC Acta Universitatis Carolinae AV ČŘ Akademie věd České republiky ČAFJVSU Česká akademie císáře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění ČČH Český časopis historický ČSAV Československá akademie věd ČsČH Československý časopis historický ČČM Časopis českého (Národního) muzea ČMM Časopis Matice moravské DaS Dějiny a současnost FHB Folia historia Bohemica HD Historická demografie HÚ Historický ústav Akademie věd České republiky HUCP Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis HÚFFJUČB Historický ústav Filozofické fakulty Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích JSH Jihočeský sborník historický KNM Knihovna Národního muzea v Praze MH Monographia historica. Editio Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionalis OH Opera historica. Editio Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionalis PSH Pražský sborník historický SCetH Studia Comeniana et historica SAP Sborník archivních prací SČ Sněmy české od léta 1526 až po naši dobu. Vols. 1–15. Prague: Královský archiv zemský, 1877–1954 SOA Státní oblastní archiv SPDMHP Sborník příspěvků k dějinám hlavního města Prahy SPN Státní pedagogické nakladatelství SÚA Státní ústředí archiv (renamed in 2005 Národní archiv) UK Univerzita Karlova v Praze Glossary of Place Names

Czech German Polish – Brieg Brzeg Brno Brünn – – Danzig Gdańsk Duchov Lux – Elbing Elbąg Jáchymov Joachimsthal – Jemnice Jamnitz – Jihlava Iglau – Kadaň Caaden – Kladsko Glatz Kłodzko Krnov Jägerndorf – Kutná Hora Kuttenberg – Labe Elbe – Lehnice Liegnitz Legnica Lešno Lissa Leszno Litoměřice Leitmeritz – Lvov Lemberg Lwów (Ukrainian Lviv) Most Brüx – – Münsterberg Ziębice Nysa Neisse – – Oels Oleśnica Olomouc Olmütz – Opava Troppau – Krušné Hory Erzgebirge – Plzeň Pilsen – Tachov Tachau – Vratislav Breslau Wrocław Žatec Saaz – Zhořelec Görlitz Zgorzelec Žitava Zittau – Znojmo Znaim – Notes on the Text and Translations

English place-names are used when commonly accepted forms exist (e.g. Prague, Pilsen). In other cases, the names of places appear in the language of the country in which they are currently located. (One exception to this practice appears in the footnotes of Chapter 3 where the place of publication of a few Polish-language works, published before 1939, is listed in Polish as Lwów, rather than the Ukrainian Lviv, to assist readers who wish to find these works.) In instances when places formerly within the Bohemian Crown Lands are no longer today within one of Bohemia’s successor states, the Czech term is used with the current name of the city placed in square brackets: e.g. Vratislav [Polish Wrocław]. For the two main rivers, the terms Vltava (not Moldau) and Elbe are used. See the Glossary of Place-Names for a list of commonly used equivalents of place-names in Czech, German, and Polish. Likewise, English proper names are used when commonly accepted forms exist (e.g. Charles for Karel, Jiří for George, William for Vilém), although the first time they appear the Czech (or Polish) name may be used in square brackets. One exception is the name Václav which appears in its Czech form (rather than using the older English name Wenceslaus). Following a more contemporary practice, some family and dynastic names will appear in a slightly anglicized form of the Czech name to preserve the Czech (rather than adopting the German name): e.g. William of Rožmberk (for Vilém z Rožmberku, not William of Rosenberg) and Vratislav of Pernštejn (for Vratislav z Pernštejna, not Vratislav of Pernstein); and the plural forms Rožmberks, Pernštejns, and Lobkovices. Most of the essays appear in their entirety (i.e. as translations of complete articles or complete books chapters), but a few are excerpts from longer articles and chapters, which were selected by the editor. In cases of excerpts, ellipses in square brackets [. . .] indicate where text has been omitted. This holds also for text in footnotes, which in its original form was almost as extensive as the main text. In cases where the original text indicated omissions, ellipses are used without brackets. To make it easier for the reader to compare the translated texts and footnotes with the originals, in cases of excerpts, the footnote number from the original Czech publication appears in brackets to the right of the continuous footnote number; for example.54 [120] Any notes and comments from the editor that appear in the main text and foonotes are in square brackets. Words appear in the main text in italics when they are foreign terms or are italicized in the original Czech text. (The one exception is the introduction to each of the essays which appear in italics and citations to books in normal font style.) The original text of Chapter One also contained some phrases in bold. In some cases these are quotes from primary sources, which the author of Chapter One indicated were originally in bold or highlighted in these sources. In other cases, the text is put in bold by the author notes on the text and translations xv of Chapter One. In both cases, the author indicated this in a note in parentheses. The author’s parenthetical marks appear in the translations, but these phrases do not appear in bold. In the footnotes, running text is translated into English, but not the titles of books, articles, etc. However, in the Select Bibliography, readers can find the titles of major works in their original Czech (and in a few cases Polish) and in English translation. Primary Sources are cited as they are in the original texts. Readers should note that the Státní ústřední archiv [The State Central Archives] was renamed in 2005 to Národní archiv [National Archive]. See the List of Abbreviations. Each essay was translated by one of two translators. About the Translators provides a brief background of the translators and the Table of Contents identifies the translator of each essay. However, a few of the passages, usually complex texts from early modern sources, were translated by the editor with assistance from a Czech colleague and are indicated as such in the footnotes. The editor wrote a new introduction to each of the essays featured in this book. All passages cited in the Introduction and titles of works in the Select Bibliography were translated by the editor. The editor also made decisions about and synchronized throughout the book the forms of place-names, proper names (following the practice outlined above above), and the following terms: “Basel Compacts” for Compaktata; “Calixtine” for kališník; “Councilor” for Radda; ‘insurrection” for odboj; “Land Ordinance” for Zřízení zemské, but “law” for zákon; “magistrate” for rychtář, but hejtman remains in the Czech form; “Privy Councilor” for tajná Radda; “uprising” for povstání; “Supreme Chamberlain” for Nejvyšší komorník; “Supreme Equerry” for Nejvyšší štolba; “Supreme Steward” for Nejvyšší hofmistr; “viceroy” for místodržicí (German Statthalter). About the Translators

Barbara Day earned her Ph.D. (1986) at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom with a dissertation on “The Theatre on the Balustrades of Prague and the Small Stage Tradition in the Czech Theatre.” She has resided in Prague since the early 1990s, teaching courses in theatre and culture under communism and working as a freelance translator. She has translated a long list and wide range of works from Czech into English, including scholarly works such as Alfons Mucha- Paris (2001); plays such as Václav Havel’s Tomorrow! (1994) and Ivan Klíma’s Games (1990); and catalogue essays and entries for exhibitions at the Prague Castle, the National Gallery, and the National Theatre. Dr. Day was awarded a Commemorative Medal from late President Václav Havel and selected as a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (M.B.E.) for services for UK-Czech cultural relations. She is an honorary member of the Czech PEN club.

Christopher Hopkinson earned his B.A. (1996) in Modern Languages (Czech and German) from the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Ph.D. (2008) in English Linguistics at the Palacký University in Ostrava, Czech Republic. He resides in Ostrava where he teaches in the Department of English and American Studies and works as an freelance translator, specializing in scholarly texts in linguistics, literary theory, history, historical preservation, and architecture. Among his most recent published translations are Lives for Ransom: Exports and Forced Donations of Works of Art during the Emigration of Jews from Bohemia and Moravia 1938–1942 (2009) and Ostrava Architectural Guide (2009). Dr. Hopkinson is a member of the Union of Translators and Interpreters in the Czech Republic and the Czech Modern Language Association. Chronology

1415 Master Jan Hus is condemned and executed by the Council of Constance 1419 July 30: Thirteen officials are tossed from the tower of the New City Hall (first “Prague Defenestration”)—Death of King Václav IV Luxembourg and defection of Archbishop Konrad of Vechta to the Hussite cause— Beginning of the Hussite Wars 1420 Crusading army led by Sigismund of Luxembourg enters the Bohemian lands to stamp out the Hussite “heresy” 1421 Core principles of Hussitism are outlined in the Four Articles of Prague 1433 Compactata (Basel Compacts) agreement reached at the Council of Basel between Utraquists and the Church 1434 May 30: Battle of Lipany ends the Hussite Wars 1458 George of Poděbrady ascends to the Bohemia throne (rules 1458–1471) 1461 Pope Pius II unilaterally revokes the Basel Compacts while Utraquists and Bohemian estates continue to adhere to them 1471 Vladislav II Jagiellon ascends to the throne of the Bohemian Crown Lands (rules 1471–1516) 1483 September 24: Officials are tossed from New and Old City halls (second “Prague Defenestration”) 1485 Religious Peace of Kutná Hora establishes religious dualism guaranteeing the rights of Catholics and Utraquists 1517 St. Václav’s Day Agreement establishes comprise between the estates of the nobility and royal cities in the post-Hussite political system 1526 Ferdinand I Habsburg ascends to the throne of the Bohemian Crown lands (rules 1526–1564) after Louis II Jagiellon (ruleds 1516–1626) is killed at the Battle of Mohácsfighting Turkish forces 1546–47 Revolt of Bohemian estates against participation in the Schmalkaldic War—After the revolt is crushed, Ferdinand I sends his son Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia to serve as his Viceroy 1556 First Jesuit College established in the Bohemian Lands in Prague 1561 Prague Archbishopric renewed with the installation of Antonín Brus of Mohelnice 1564 Maximilian II Habsburg ascends to the throne of the Bohemian Crown Lands (rules 1564–1576) 1575 Bohemian estates seek approval for a Bohemian Confession 1576 Rudolf II Habsburg becomes King of the Bohemian Crown Lands (rules 1576–1611) 1583 Imperial court moves from Vienna to Prague xviii chronology

1609 Letter of Majesty is issued by Rudolf II Habsburg establishing freedom of religion 1611 Invasion of Prague by troops of the Bishop of Passau - Matthias Habsburg ascends to the throne of the Bohemian Crown Lands (rules 1611–1619) 1618 May 23: Tossing of Habsburgs officials from window of Prague Castle (Third “Prague Defenestration) begins Revolt by the Bohemian Estates— First and Second Apologia issued by the Bohemian estates 1619 Act of Confederation; Frederick V of the Palatinate accepts offer of the Bohemian estates to become Frederick I, King of Bohemia (“The Winter King”, rules 1619–1620) 1620 November 8: Defeat of Protestant forces at the Battle of White Mountain ends the Bohemian Revolt—Ferdinand II Habsburg returns as King of the Bohemia Crown lands (rules 1619; 1620–1637) 1621 June 21: Leaders of the Bohemian revolt are public executed on the main square of the Old City of Prague 1627–28 Renewed Land Ordinance is issued which revokes the Letter of Majesty, recognizes the Habsburgs as hereditary kings of Bohemia, reconstituted the clergy as an estate, and ordered nobles to convert or emigrate 1635 Upper and Lower Lusatia are annexed to the Electorate of Saxony xix (Prague: Karolinum, 2009). 2009). Karolinum, of et al., A History Lands (Prague: the Czech Tůma Oldřich Pánek, in Jaroslav Semotanová on maps ©Eva Based Glatz. J. by Created and Maps 2006. ESRI Data Map

Introduction

The Bohemian Crown Lands (Czech země Koruny české) were a small but diverse group of lands in late medieval and early modern Europe, which consisted of five major constituent territories: the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Margraviates of Moravia, Upper and Lower Lusatia, and the duchies of Silesia, all under the rule of the Bohemian crown. The population of these lands, estimated at between 1.25 to 2 million by the sixteenth century, was both multilingual and multi-religious, and included Czech, German, Polish, and Sorbian speakers, as well as Catholics, Protestants, and one of the largest Jewish populations in Europe.1 Bohemia and Moravia, the historical core of the Bohemian Crown Lands, sit on a plateau protected by bands of rich forests and mountains to the north and west, which have served throughout history as natural boundaries but not as barriers to adjacent societies: the German lands in the north and northwest, Poland to the northeast, Austria to the south, and Hungary to the south- east. With the exception of the Elbe River, into which Bohemia’s longest river, the Vltava, flows in the north, and the nearby Danube River in the south. The Crown Lands lack access to sea and to major navigable waterways and are, thus, positioned outside of Europe’s major trade routes. But these lands were situated on some important secondary trade routes of the period, linking them to markets in Nuremberg, Linz, and Leipzig with connections to major trade centers in the Low Countries, England, and Italy, and the Bohemian Crown Lands played a major role in regional trade, production, and consumption. Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia were settled as far back as the Neolithic Age (6000–5500 B.C.E.), and formed the eastern edge of ancient Celtic expansion (fourth century B.C.E.) before the Germanic, then the Slavic, peoples settled in the region in fourth to seventh centuries C.E. The name Bohemia derives from the Celtic tribe of Boii (Boiohaemum), which became the root of the Latin and German terms (Bohemia, Böhmen). Czechs and Moravians refer to

1 Sorbian is a west Slavic language that is closely related to Czech and Polish and is spoken primarily in Lusatia. The population estimate is from Ludmila Fialová et al., Dějiny obyvatelstva českých zemí (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1998), 100–101. One estimate of the break-down of population estimates by territory at the beginning of the sixteenth century is Bohemia (1–2.25 million), Moravia (585,000–620,000), and Silesia (860,000–940,000); Joachim Bahlcke, Regionalismus und Staatsintegration im Widerstreit. Die Länder der Böhmischen Krone im ersten Jahrhundert der Habsburgerherrschaft (1526–1619) (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994), 9.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi 10.1163/9789004277588_002 2 introduction their lands based on the names of Slavic tribes who replaced the Celts and Germanic peoples after 530 C.E. (Čechy and Morava; adj. český, moravský). In the tenth century, Silesia (Czech Slezko, Polish Śląsk, German Schlesien) was incorporated into the Polish state. With the fragmentation of Poland in the twelfth century, Silesia divided into independent duchies, which came under German, Bohemian, and Polish influence. Upper Lusatia and Lower Lusatia evolved out of territories settled and ruled by the Milzane and Lunsizi, respectively, the largest Slavic tribes between the Salle and Oder River. The latter tribe gave its name to the territories (Czech Lužíce, German Lausitz). The beginnings of the Bohemian state date back to the middle of the ninth and early tenth century when the Premyslid dynasty consolidated power along the Vltava River and eventually established a residence on a hill overlooking a bend of the river known today as Prague Castle Hill.2 The conversion of the Premyslids to Christianity (ca. 883) helped strengthen their home power base by because it led them gaining recognition from outside powers, especially the neighboring Eastern Frankish Empire whose leaders viewed Bohemia as a zone of influence. In the late ninth and tenth century, the Premyslids became more powerful and their relationship with political and ecclesiastical leaders in neighboring Regensburg, East Franconia, and Bavaria grew closer with the impending break-up of the Great Moravian Empire, a early state formation, which extended over parts of Bohemia, Moravia, today’s Slovakia, and the Danubian lowlands, and because of the threat of attack by Magyars (the people who settled neighboring Hungary). During the reign of Duke Václav (ca. 907–935 C.E.), Bohemia experienced an intensification of missionary activity from Bavaria, especially the Cathedral Chapter of St. Emmeram in Regensburg. Reports of the first churches in Bohemia date from this period, especially the St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague, which later became the Metropolitan church and coronation and burial site of Bohemian kings. The foundation of the bishopric of Prague in 983, independent of Salzburg (Regensburg’s metropolitan) and subordinate to Mainz, shifted ties from the regional to the imperial sphere and strengthened the authority and standing of the Premyslids. In the twelfth century, imperial and local leaders first recognized the Bohemian rulers as kings. During this time, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa took over Moravia as an imperial appanage and declared it a free margraviate, but shortly thereafter

2 For an excellent, recent survey of Bohemian history from pre-historic times to the formation of the Czech Republic, see Jaroslav Pánek, Oldřích Tůma et al., A History of the Czech Lands, trans. by Justin Quinn, Petra Key, and Lea Bennis (Prague: Karolinum, 2009). See also Mikuláš Teich, ed., Bohemia in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). introduction 3 returned it to the rule of the Bohemian crown.3 In the early fourteenth century, the Luxembourgs replaced the Premyslids as the ruling dynasty of Bohemia and Moravia. John of Luxembourg (1310–1346) gained control of the six-city federation (Bautzen, Görlitz, Zittau, Kamenz, Lauban, and Löbau) which, in the fifteenth century, which began to be referred to as Upper Lusatia. Much of Silesia, especially the area around the present-day Polish city of Wrocław, which by the fifteenth century had undergone a process of consolidation, also came to be controlled by John. John’s son and successor, Charles IV (Bohemian King 1346–1378; Roman King from 1346; Holy Roman Emperor from 1355), born Václav and later adopting his new name in honor of Charlemagne, acquired Lower Lusatia. During Charles IV’s reign the term “Bohemian Crown Lands” was first used to refer to the group of territories under the Bohemian crown. After being elected Holy Roman Emperor, Charles IV introduced the Golden Bull which made the King of Bohemia a member of the Electoral College, which selected the Holy Roman Emperor when the imperial seat became vacant. He also successfully petitioned the Pope to elevate Prague to an archbishopric, expanded and rede- signed Prague into a monumental residential city, and founded the Charles University in Prague, the first university in central Europe.4 During the reign of Charles IV’s successor, Václav IV (1378–1419), a religious reform movement arose in Bohemia. The Hussite movement was named after Prague Master Jan Hus, who became the rallying force and martyr of the movement after his execution at the Council of Constance in 1415. In the early fifteenth century the movement led to the Hussite Revolution which created one of the greatest social and political upheavals of the late Middle Ages. The catalyst for the transformation of the reform movement into a revolution was a popular uprising that broke out on July 30, 1419 following a mass and procession which began at the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snows in the New City of Prague and ended at the New City Hall. There, thirteen individuals, including urban magistrates and their assistants, were tossed from the window of the city hall tower in an act which was later became referred to as “defenestration” (from the Latin de fenestra: “from a window”).5 In the following

3 See Lisa Wolverton, Hastening Towards Prague: Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). 4 On Charles IV’s reign, see the companion volume to a major exhibition: Barbara Drake Boehm and Jiří Fajt, eds. Prague. The Crown of Bohemia 1347–1437 (New Haven, London, and New York: Yale University Press and The Metropolitan Museum, 2005). 5 Howard Kaminsky, “The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419,” Medievalia et Humanistica XVII (1966): 106–126. 4 introduction two weeks King Václav IV died, clergy and religious institutions were attacked, and war broke out between different factions in the kingdom. Among the factions which developed were radical groups, such as the Taborites, Adamites, Orebites, and others, who developed communal societies based on biblical authority and called for a return to the primitive church. The death of the King and the defection of Archbishop Konrad of Vechta to the Hussite side two years later left the lands without secular and religious heads. In 1420, the Pope sent a crusading army, led by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, the younger brother of, and successor to, Václav IV (whom most members of Bohemian estates did not accept as King of Bohemia) to Bohemia to stamp out the Hussite “heresy.” The Hussites organized forces to defend Bohemia against the crusading army. (The forces of Tábor were led by Jan Žizka, who in later times became a legendary folk hero.) But the arrival of crusading armies also aggravated continuing fighting between Bohemian factions, and turned Bohemia upside down and put its relationship with the universal church and the rest of Europe in question. In 1421 the factions affiliated with the Hussite movement agreed on the core principles of the Articles of Prague, which called for freedom of preaching, frequent lay communion in two kinds (i.e. both the bread the wine), poverty of the clergy and exproporiation of church property, and punishment of sins against God’s law. But after 1421 struggles continued between factions and leagues for control of the movement and kingdom. The Hussite Wars came to an end at the Battle of Lipany on May 30, 1434, when an army of the Catholic and moderate Hussite nobility defeated radical Hussite forces and their allies. The end of hostilities, however, left a number of major unresolved issues within Bohemia and Bohemia’s relationship with the rest of Europe. Although the Council of Constance had declared Hus a heretic, Hus’s followers and their descendants did not identify themselves as a faction separate from the Church. In 1433, the Church and the Utraquists, a moderate branch of the Hussites, had reached a compromise agreement, the Compactata, at the Council of Basel, henceforth referred to in this work as the Compacts of Basel. (The Utraquists were named after their belief in frequent lay communion of both bread and wine; literally, sub utraque specie, in two kinds.) The Compacts of Basel allowed the lay celebration of the Eucharist in two kinds, but did not make it obligatory for all residents of the Bohemian lands, as the Utraquists had wished. The Compacts of Basel established a religious dualism in the Bohemian lands by guaranteeing the rights of both Utraquists and Catholics. Three years later, in 1436, at a meeting in the eastern Bohemian city of Jihlava, the Bohemian estates ratified the Compacts of Basel (the ratified version is sometimes referred to as the Compacts of Jihlava), and officially recognized Sigismund as King of Bohemia. Although Pope Pius II introduction 5 abrogated the Compact agreement in 1462, the Utraquists contined to adhere to it and hoped for a reconciliation. The Unitas Fratrum or Unity of the Brethren, the other major religious group in Bohemia alongside the Utraquists and Catholics, which had been influenced by some radical Hussite traditions, did not adhere to the Compacts of Basel. But the kings of Bohemia on their ascent to the throne were obligated to accept the Compact agreement after having been elected by the estates.6 Within Bohemia, a series of individuals assumed royal authority after the death of Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1437, one of the most important of which was George of Poděbrady (Czech Jiří z Poděbrad; 1458–1471). Real control of the lands, however, remained in the hands of the estates of the upper and lower nobility and the royal cities.7 The Jagellonian dynasty that ruled neighboring Poland and Lithuania ascended to the Bohemian throne in 1471 and brought about a brief political rapprochement in East Central Europe.8 The Jagellonian rulers sought to pave the way for the religious conciliation of the Bohemians with the rest of Christendom. Under the reign of King Vladislav II Jagiellon (Bohemian King, 1471–1516), an earnest program of Catholic reform was introduced, although not without opposition. In 1483, following an attempt by Vladislav to install city councilors in Prague who were sympathetic to his policies, a group of burghers attacked and tossed some of the councilors out of the city halls of the Old and New City in a second incident of defenestration.9 In 1485, a state of bi-confessional parity or equilibrium was declared with the Peace of Kutná Hora (German Kuttenberg), affirming Utraquism and Catholicism as the only legally sanctioned religions and outlawing other groups, such as the Unity of the Brethren.10 Like the Compacts of Basel, the Peace of Kutná Hora was viewed by many Bohemians as a provisional compromise that would remain in effect until reconciliation could occur. Until then, the archbishopric seat would remain vacant, and two consistories were established to administer religious affairs: a Catholic or Upper Consistory, named after its location in St. Vitus Cathedral on Castle Hill, administered by the cathedral canons; and an Utraquist or Lower Consistory located below the castle in the Old City at the Church of St. Mary on the Teyn. Although the Unity of the Brethren were excluded from this agreement and, beginning with the

6 František Šmahel, Husitská revoluce, vol. 3 (Prague: UK 1993). 7 The clergy had lost their representation in the Diet in the course of the Revolution. 8 The Jagellonians also ascended to the Hungarian throne in 1490. 9 František Šmahel, “Pražské povstání,” PSH XIX (1986): 35–102. 10 František Šmahel and Martin Nodl, “Kutnohorský dekret po 600 letech. Bilance dosavad- ního bádání,” ČČH 107, 1 (2009): 1–45. 6 introduction

St. James Mandate of 1508, were periodically persecuted, the Brethren continued to exist and created its own church organization that was independent from that of the Utraquists and the Catholic Church. In 1500, a new land ordinance was issued. Called the Vladislav Land Ordinance (Vladislavské zřízení zemské) because it was endorsed by the King Vladislav, it outlined the basic constitutional issues of the post-Hussite era. Revisions of the land ordinance were periodically issued in subsequent decades. The nobility and royal cities debated for some time a number of provisions of the ordinance which the royal cities believed did not acknowledge their position. A compromise was reached in 1517 with the St. Václav’s Day Agreement, which recognized the prerogative of the royal cities in legal matters within the cities, but granted the nobility certain exclusions from urban law. Strong royal rule did not return to Bohemia until the ascent of the Habsburgs to the throne in 1526 after Louis II Jagiellon (King of the Bohemian Crown Lands, 1516–1526) was killed at the Battle of Mohács in Hungary fighting the Turks. Louis’s successor, Ferdinand I Habsburg (King of the Bohemian Crown Lands, 1526–1564; Holy Roman Emperor from 1556) was viewed by the estates as best able to deal with the Turkish threat and was married to Louis’s sister Anna Jagiellon in a dynastic arrangement dating back to 1515. In 1527, Ferdinand introduced administrative reform in his lands through the issuance of a Court Executive Order (Hofstaatsordnung) that established new institutions in addition to estate institutions in the individual lands of his monarchy. The new institutions included the Privy Council (Geheime Rat), which was the main advisory council of the ruler, and the Court Chamber (Hofkammer), which served as the central office for fiscal matters. The latter were followed in 1556 with the Court War Council (Hofkriegsrat). In time, these institutions would serve not only to centralize Habsburg power, but also acted as a vehicle for estate leaders to exercise power within the new system. In the meantime, in the early years of his reign, Ferdinand, who ruled the Bohemian lands from Vienna, generally sought to uphold the status quo, by supporting the Basel Compacts and working with leading estate officials and the Diets of the constituent lands, the most prominent and influential of which was the Diet of Bohemia proper. The leading estate offices in Bohemia proper were the Supreme Burgrave (Czech nejvyšší purkrabí; German Oberstburgraf ) and Supreme Chancellor (Czech nejvyšší kancleř; German Obersthofkanzler); in Moravia, the Land hejtman (Czech zemský hejtman); in Silesia, the Supreme hejtman (nejvýšší hejtman); and in Lusatia, the Land Governors (zemský fojt). In the early years of Ferdinand’s reign, religion was not in the forefront of relations with his Bohemian subjects. But even before Ferdinand ascended to the Bohemian throne new religious ideas and movements had come to Bohemia introduction 7 from other areas of Europe. As early as 1517, Thomas Müntzer preached in the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague which had been home to Jan Hus. In 1519, Martin Luther openly supported some of Hus’s teaching in the Leipzig Disputation with Johannes Eck. The Evangelical or Lutheran Reformation found early supporters in the Bohemian Crown Lands, largely among the German-speaking population in northwest Bohemia, Silesia, and Lusatia, but also among some Czech-speaking residents of Prague and other royal cities. However, the evangelical movement did not turn Utraquists or the Brethren into Lutherans, but led rather to a realignment of these movements and a series of short-term rap- prochements between the religious groups. (This subject, of some debate in modern scholarship, will be discussed later in the introduction and in some of the contributors’ essays.) Over time, the introduction of foreign rule and new religious ideas led to tensions within Bohemian society and played a role in development of opposition to Habsburg rule in the mid-1540s. The first open revolt against Habsburg rule occurred in 1547 when the Bohemian estates refused to fully support the imperial campaign in the Schmalkaldic War (1546–1547), led by Ferdinand’s brother, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.11 In the wake of the revolt Ferdinand sought to punish the estates, especially the royal cities, which numbered approximately fifty at this time. 12 Ferdinand revoked urban privileges, confiscated properties, and installed in each of the royal cities a royal hejtman (Czech královský hejtman) and royal magistrate (Czech královský rychtář), to oversee the activities of the councils and courts, respectively. He also sent his son, Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol, to reside in Bohemia as his viceroy (German Statthalter; Czech místodržící), Some of the privileges and properties were eventually returned, but the revocation of privileges and properties, even if symbolic, were aimed at curtailing the power of the royal cities, and humiliat- ing those who ran them. They had enjoyed too prominent a place in estate politics since the Hussite Revolution. After the defeat of the Bohemian Uprising of 1547, Ferdinand I also turned to Catholic reform as a tool to centralize power. He actively engaged in and supported Catholic reform by inviting the Jesuits to establish the first college in 1555 in the Old City of Prague, while continuing to acknowledge the status quo. Jesuit Colleges were later founded in Český Krumlov (1584), Chomutov (1590)

11 Petr Vorel, ed., Stavovský odboj roku 1547: První krize Habsburské monarchie (Pardubice and Prague: Východočeské muzeum, HÚ, and Ústavem českých dějin filozofické fakulty UK, 1999). 12 Josef Janáček, České dejiny. Doba předbělohorská, vol. I, part I (Prague: ČSAV, 1971), 160–161. 8 introduction and Jindřichův Hradec (1594); and in Moravia, in Olomouc (1569) and Brno (1578). Ferdinand I also worked to renew the archbishopric of Prague which involved negotiations with the papacy and the Bohemian estates regarding religious affairs and restitution of ecclesiastical property. In 1561, Antonín Brus of Mohelnice was installed as Archbishop of Prague (served 1561–1580), renewing the seat which had been vacant since the Hussite age. Brus and his successors, Martin Medek (Archbishop of Prague, 1581–1590), Zbyněk Berka z Duba (1592–1606), and Charles of Lamberk (1607–1612) took an active interest in the renewal of Catholic religious institutions, reforming the clergy, and playing a role in mediating disputes between ecclesiastical and urban forces. Medek introduced the Gregorian calendar in 1584. In Moravia, Catholic reforms efforts were actively pursued by the bishops of Olomouc, especially Wilhelm Prusinovský (1565–72), Stanislaus Pavlovský (1579–98, and Franz Cardinal of Dietrichstein (1599–1636).13 More subtle changes within Bohemian society also unfolded in the second half of the sixteenth century as Bohemians sought out different ways to accommodate to Habsburg rule. The residence of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol in Prague attracted nobles from leading families, such as the Rožmberks, Pernštějns, and Martinices, to establish residence and build urban palaces near the royal castle. They did not, however, fail to expand their residences in their dynastic homes in Český Krumlov (Rožmberks), Pardubice (Pernštejns) and elsewhere. Through affiliations with the Habsburg court Bohemian nobles were able to establish ties with major noble houses in other areas of Europe and begin to breakdown the isolation of the Bohemians from Europe which had developed in the Hussite age. They were also less reluctant to assume royal posts. As holders of estate and royal offices, many Catholic nobles pursued a conservative political program, advancing the idea of a balance of power between the nobility and the Habsburg monarchy or seeking to dominate the domestic scene to the detriment of their Protestant peers, while allowing the Habsburgs full authority to define foreign policy. At the same time, Protestant nobles sought to keep their exclusive position. None of these trends precluded opposition to Habsburg rule, when it was necessary or opportune—a theme which will discussed later in the introduction and addressed in a number of the essays in this volume.14

13 See Ondřej Jakubec, Kulturní prostředí a mecenát olomouckých biskupů potridenské doby (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2003). 14 Jaroslav Pánek, Stavovská opozice a její zápas s Habsburky 1547–1700, K politické krizi feudální třídy v předbělohorském českém státě (Prague: Academia, 1982); Pánek, “Das politische System des böhmischen Staates im ersten Jahrhundert der habsburgischen introduction 9

By the 1570s a group of non-Catholic nobles, representing a broad confessional spectrum, organized and sought to draft and get approved a Bohemian confession (Confessio Bohemica), which would have given non-Catholics control over education, church administration, church courts, and censorship. But King Maximilian II Habsburg (1564–1576), who had succeeded Ferdinand I, did not definitively approve it. In 1583, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia Rudolf II (1576–1611) moved the imperial court from Vienna to Prague, and the city became imperial residence for the second time since the reign of Charles IV in the fourteenth century. At the Prague court Rudolf assembled a large array of foreign artists, artisans and scientists who made important contribution to late Renaissance culture and learning. Among them were the astronomers Tycho Brahe (1546– 1601) and Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), the painters Bartholomeus Spranger (1546–1611) and Giuseppe Arcimboldo (c. 1530–1593), and the sculptor Adrian de Bries (c. 1560–1626). Rudolf’s Kunstkammer, located in the Prague Castle, was the largest art collection in the Europe of that day. With a population of about sixty thousand people, Prague by the year 1600 had become the largest urban center in Central Europe. The second-largest city in the Bohemian Crown Lands was Vratislav (today the Polish city Wrocław; German Breslau), the main city of Silesia, which had a population of about 23,000. The second largest city in Bohemia proper was Jachýmov (German Joachimsthal). Founded in the early sixteenth century by the Counts of Schlick during the silver rush in the Ore Mountains (Czech Krušné hory; German Erzgebirge), its population grew to 18,000 in a few decades. The population of Olomouc, the main city in Moravia, grew to about 8000 by the end of the sixteenth century.15 On July 9, 1609, Rudolf II issued a ruling known as a Letter of Majesty that declared freedom of religion in Bohemia. This landmark piece of legislation permitted all confessional groups to build their own churches and practice freely and included the Bohemian Brethren and Calvinists, who had been forbidden to openly practice since the Peace of Kutná Hora in 1485. The origins and background to the Majesty lie not in religious toleration and can be traced to the Bocskay uprising of 1604 in Hungary. The latter served as a catalyst for the formation of a confederation of Hungarian and Austrian estates against emperor Rudolf II led by Rudolf’s brother Matthias, which is referred to in Habsburg dynastic history as “the Brother’s Quarrel” (Der Bruderzwist

Herrschaft 1526–1620,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreischische Geschichtsforschung 98 (1989): 53–82. 15 Fialová et al., Dějiny obyvatelstva českých zemí, 98–99. 10 introduction

Habsburg).16 The confederation lobbied for the support of the Bohemian estates, and in 1609, Rudolf II agreed to the Majesty to gain the support of the Bohemian estates. Renewing a practice first established during negotiations for the Bohemian Confession in 1575, a group of fifteen defensors were elected in 1609 to defend the Letter of Majesty. Two years later, the hopes of many in Bohemia were thwarted when troops of Leopold, the Bishop of Passau and Rudolf II’s cousin, invaded Bohemia, what could be viewed as an attempt to pressure Rudolf to revoke what he had promised in the Majesty. Another revolt in 1618, initiated this time by a group of radical Protestant nobles against Habsburg-Catholic policies, brought about a coup d’état in Bohemia, which also served as the catalyst for the outbreak of the Thirty Years War (1618–1648). The opening and closing act of this revolt—the tossing of two Bohemian Catholic noblemen and one of their servants out of a second-floor window of the Prague Castle on May 23, 1618 (a third defenestration) and the defeat of Bohemian forces at the Battle of White Mountain on a field outside of Prague on November 7, 1620, followed by the public execution of twenty- seven leaders of the revolt on Old Town Square on June 21, 1621—were major media events in their day and today are three of the most well-known events of early modern European history.17 Two days after the defenestration of 1618 the leaders issued a justification for the uprising in the “First Apology of the Bohemian Estates,” which outlined the major grievances against the Catholic party and royal representatives. It was followed in December 1618 by a “Second Apology of the Bohemian Estates.” On July 31, 1619, the Act of Confederation was issued, which brought about a new constitutional arrangement that modified the relations between the constituent territories of the Bohemian Crown, putting them on equal footing, and establishing common procedures to ensure the unified defense of the state. The guiding principle was the dominance of the estates over the ruler. It also placed the Protestant majority in a privileged

16 Paula Sutter Fichtner, “When Brothers Disagree: Bohemia, the Habsburgs, and the Schmalkaldic Wars, 1546–1547,” Austrian History Yearbook 11 (1975): 67–78; Václav Bůžek, ed., Ein Bruderzwist im Hause Habsburg (1608–1611), OH 14 (České Budejovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2010). 17 On the defenestration of 1618 see James Palmitessa, “ ‘Send the Traitors through the Window!’: Emotion, Performance and Ritual in the Prague Defenestration of 1618” in Emotions and Material Culture. International Round-Discussion Krems an der Donau, October 7 and 8, 2002, ed. Gerhard Jaritz (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischem Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003), 85–99. On the execution of the leaders of the revolt in 1621 see Howard Louthan, Converting Bohemia: Force and Persuasion in the Catholic Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 22–34. introduction 11 standing over the previously favored Catholic minority.18 In November 1619, Frederick V, Prince Elector of the Palatinate (1596–1632), accepted the offer of the Bohemian Protestant estates to become Frederick I, King of Bohemia. He is often referred to as “the Winter King” for his short reign, which ended at the Battle of White Mountain.19 As the Thirty Years War continued in other areas of Europe, the Habsburgs sought to more fully incorporate the Bohemian Crown lands into their monarchy, punishing the estates with property confiscations and issued a mandate to re-Catholicize the royal cities. Their efforts culminated in the Renewed Land Ordinances in Bohemia and Moravia in 1627 and 1628, respectively, (Czech Obnovené Zřízení Zemské), which brought about a major change in the confessional status quo and constitutional law in place since the institution of the Peace of Kutná Hora in 1485 and the land ordinances in 1500. The statutes of the Renewed Land Ordinances removed the right of the Bohemian estates to elect their king, recognized the Habsburgs as hereditary monarchs, abolished Rudolf II’s Letter of Majesty of 1609 that granted freedom of worship to non-Catholics, reconstituted the clergy as an estate (though permitting Catholicism as the only legal confession), ordered nobles to convert or emigrate, and granted the Habsburg rulers the right to grant citizenship to foreigners. One of the most famous exiles was Jan Amos Komenský (1592–1670), also known as Johannes Amos Comenius, who was the last bishop of the Unity of the Brethren, a philosopher, and education reformer, who continued to thrive as a scholar in his new home in the Low Countries. In the 1635 Peace of Prague (which followed a long and complicated series of negotiations between Bohemia, Saxony, and Brandenburg), Upper and Lower Lusatia were annexed to the Electorate of Saxony. Already during the Estate Revolt, Silesia had been granted a special, somewhat autonomous status and in 1742 was ultimately ceded to Prussia. While contemporaries and earlier scholarship viewed (strictly in terms of demography) the effects of the Thirty Years War as catastrophic, recent Czech scholarship has presented a more modest reassessment. As a result of the war, exile, and recurrent plagues and food shortages, up to 30% of the total population and about 20% of settlements may have been lost. However, most of these loses were regained by the end of the seventeenth century.20 Current

18 I borrow a description of these moves from Pánek, Tůma, et al., A History of the Czech Lands, 223–224. 19 Jaroslav Čechura. Zimní kral aneb české dobrodružství Fridrich Falckého (Prague: Rybka, 2004). 20 Fialová et al., Dějiny obyvatelelstva, 100–105. 12 introduction

scholarship has understood the need for more local and regional studies, which are discussed later in the introduction and in some of the essays.21

Czech, Habsburg, Imperial, and Central European Perspectives of the Late Medieval and Early Modern Past

Even in this short survey of developments between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, a number of features of Bohemian history come to the forefront. These include the unresolved issues of religious and secular authority which first arose in the post-Hussite period. This placed Bohemia, a century before the Reformations in Western Europe, in a precarious position with the Universal Church, left the archbishop’s seat vacant, and control of the kingdom in the hands of the estates. And many of these issues remain unresolved into the sixteenth century when two new forces come to Bohemia: new rulers from the Habsburg dynasty and new ideas of religious reform from the Holy Roman Empire and other areas of central and Western Europe. Another interesting feature of Bohemian history is the complex relationship that the Bohemians had with their foreign rulers, especially the Habsburgs, and the changes within multi-lingual and -confessional Bohemian society, which ultimately lead to the outbreak of the Thirty Years War. The impact of the Thirty Years War on Bohemian society is a significant subject in its own right. There is some important English- and German-language scholarship on the Hussite movement and revolution in the form of a number of monograph studies, including the monumental work by the American medievalist Howard Kaminsky;22 a German translation of the authoritative history by the Czech medievalist František Šmahel;23 and studies by John Klassen, David Holeton and Thomas Fudge on the nobility as a major player in the Hussite Revolution, the Hussite practice of the communion of infants, and Hussite propaganda, respectively.24 Zdeněk David has authored two works that critically decon-

21 For example, see Josef Grulich, Populační vývoj a životní cyklus venkovského obyvatelstva na jihu Čech v 16. až 17. století, MH 10 (České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2008). 22 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution. 23 Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution; first Czech edition, Husitská revoluce, vols. 1–4 (Prague: UK, 1993). 24 John Klassen, The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution (New York and Boulder: East European Quarterly and Columbia University Press, 1978); David R. Holeton, La communion des tout-petits enfants: étude du mouvement eucharistique en Bohême vers la fin du Moyen-Âge (Rome: C.L.V.-Edizioni liturgiche, 1989); Thomas A. Fudge, The Magnificent Ride. The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998). introduction 13 struct the views of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Czech scholars on religious and societal developments and present a reassessment of the role of Utraquism in Bohemian society.25 Among the few scholars writing in a Western European language on the connections between late medieval and early modern developments, the German historians Ferdinand Seibt and Winfried Eberhard have pointed to competing ideas and concepts of rule which led to a process of “integration through conflict” and the formation of a new different type of state and society focused on the estates.26 Winfried Eberhard is also the author of two works on the role of confession in the development of estate society and of Bohemia’s encounter with the Lutheran reformation and the Habsburgs. In these works Eberhard shows that already decades before the Catholic Habsburg came to Bohemia, important changes took place not only between, but also within confessions, and confession served as a rallying point around which parties and ideologies formed within estate society that shaped the ever changing character and dynamic of estate society. And after the Habsburgs acended to the Bohemian throne, two different forms of rule (estate and royal) developed that competed against one another in an open process without a clear outcome, but which ultimately cultiminated in an uprising that took place during the Schmalkaldic War.27 A major international reassessment of the Thirty Years War in the 1970s led to the translation into English and German of works

25 Zdeněk V. David, Finding the Middle Way: The Utraquists’ Liberal Challenge to Rome and Luther (Washington, D.C. and Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and the Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003); David, Realism, Tolerance & Liberalism in the Czech National Awakening: Legacies of the Bohemian Reformation (Washington, D.C. and Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and the Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010). 26 Ferdinand Seibt and Winfried Eberhard, eds., Europa 1400. Die Krise des Spätmittelalters (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984); Europa 1500. Integrationsprozesse im Widerstreit: Staaten, Regionen, Personenverbände, Christenheit (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1987). 27 Winfried Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478–1530 (Munich and Vienna: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1981); Monarchie und Widerstand. Zur ständischen Oppositionsbildung im Herrschaftssystem Ferdinand I. in Böhmen (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1985). And as founding director of the Institute for the Center for the Study of the History and Culture of East Central Europe (Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum für die Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas) in Leipzig, Germany, Eberhard oversaw a number of international research projects that fostered interdisciplinary dialogue in Bohemian and comparative east central European history; Jiří Fajt, Markus Hörsch and Evelin Wetter, eds., Die Lander der böhmischen Krone und ihre Nachbaren zur Zeit der Jagiellonkriege (1471–1626) (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004); Marina Dmitrieva and Karen Lambrecht, eds., Krakau, Prag, und Wien: Funktionen von Metropolen im frühmodernen Staat (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2000). 14 introduction by the Czech historians Josef Polišenský, Josef Petráň, and Miroslav Hroch.28 International Habsburg scholarship has contributed the most to drawing the attention of English-speakers to Bohemian history within a broader central European context, especially in the period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. R.J.W. Evans’ The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy played a seminal role in drawing attention to the role of Bohemia (and Hungary, the Austrian hereditary lands, and the Holy Roman Empire) in the making of the Habsburg monarchy. Evans writes that “[u]ltimately the monarchy was made by Baroque and Counter-Reformation . . . with the decisive years for its formation lay in the seventeenth century . . . [However,] the genesis of Baroque must be sought [in the period starting around 1500] when Central Europe embarked on a protracted and highly complex period of tradition.” According to Evans, Bohemia, ruled by strong estates and possessing a long tradition of religious reform, responded to Habsburg rule with limited acceptance, in contrast to Hungary with limited rejection and the Empire with limited hegemony.”29 R.J.W. Evans’ Rudolf II and His World contributed to the development of international and multi-disciplinary research that took off in the 1980s on the court and culture of Rudolf II in Prague, which include important studies by the American art historian Thomas DaCosta Kaufman and the Austrian historian Karl Vocelka.30 Their works highlight in different ways the many international influences at the imperial court in Prague, different strategies of cultural and political communication, and how these factors contributed to making Prague c. 1600 into a major European center of late Renaissance culture. Habsburg scholarship continues to be a active, vital area of research, extending beyond dynastic, political history to include work in cultural history and, more recently, comparative studies across the Habsburg empire.31

28 Josef V. Polišenský, The Thirty Years War, trans. R. Evans (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971); Miroslav Hroch and Josef Petráň, Das 17. Jahrhundert: Krise der feudalen Gesellschaft, trans. by Eliška und Ralph Melville (first Czech edition, 1976; Hamburg: Hoffman and Campe, 1981). 29 R.J.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), xxxiv–xxxvi, 157–309. 30 R.J.W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World. A Study in Intellectual History 1676–1612 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973); Karl Vocelka, Die politische Propoganda Rudolfs II. (1576–1612) (Vienna: Verlag des Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981); Vocelka, Rudolf II. und seine Seit (Vienna, Cologne, and Graz: Böhlau, 1985); Thomas DaCosta Kaufman, Court, Cloister, and City: The Art and Culture of Central Europe 1450–1800 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995). 31 For some of the most recent discussions, see Thomas Winkelbauer, Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht: Länder und Untertanen des Hauses Habsburg im konfessionellen Zeitalter introduction 15

In addition to these monographs, a larger number of essays and articles are available in English and German, in published conference proceedings, journals, and collections and anthologies. For example, the published papers from the biennial symposium, Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, held in Prague, showcase new work in religious studies, intellectual history, and art history.32 Journals such as Bohemia: Zeitschrift für die Geschichte und Kultur der böhmischen Länder, published by the Munich-based research institute Collegium Carolinum, Historica, published by the Historical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Austrian History Yearbook, published by the Center for Austrian Studies at the University of Minnesota, and Frühnzeit-Info, published by the Institute for the Study of the Early Modern Period in Vienna, present new methodological and theoretical approaches, bibliographic reports on the state-of-research on particular topics, and short summaries and reviews of Czech-language books and articles.33 Collections and anthologies, such as the volumes of scholarly contributions that accompanied two large exhibitions on art, culture, and society of the imperial court of Rudolf II, examine one or more themes (e.g. religion, culture), usually in a regional or supra- regional context (Habsburg lands, East Central Europe, or Eastern Europe).34 Many more essays and articles are dispersed in periodical literature, conference proceedings, and commemorative volumes which are not well known or easily accessible outside of specialist circles. Some of the collections, although extremely valuable in highlighting common themes and connections between

(Vienna: Ueberreuter, 2003); and for non-Czech readers, the citations in Václav Bůžek, Katrin Keller. Eva Kowalská and Géza Pálffy, “Společnost zemí Habsburské monarchie (1526–1740) v české, maďarské, rakouské a slovenské historické vědě posledního destiletí,” ČČH 104, 3 (2006): 485–526. 32 Zdeněk V. David and David R. Holeton, eds., The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, vols. 1–6 (Prague: Main Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 1996–2007); vols. 7 and 8 published as special issues of Filosofický časopis and under the auspices of the Collegium Europaeum (2009 and 2010). 33 Bohemia: Zeitschrift für die Geschichte und Kultur der böhmischen Länder (founded in 1960, appears twice yearly); Historica (1959–1990, new series beginning 1994; annual, except for 2006–2007); Austrian History Yearbook (1965–, annual); Frühneuzeit-Info (1990–; twice yearly). 34 Eliška Fučíková et al., Prag um 1600. Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II (Freren: Luca Verlag, 1988); Eliška Fučíková et al., Rudolf II and Prague. The Imperial Court and Residential City as the Cultural and Spiritual Heart of Central Europe; (Prague, London and Milan: Prague Castle Administration, Thames and Hudson, Skira Editore, 1997). Gary B. Cohen and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds., Embodiments of Power: Building Baroque Cities in Europe (New York: Berghahn, 2008). 16 introduction societies within regions, do not or cannot due to their scope make strong connections and references to issues and debates within Czech historiography (and likewise those of other national histories). Despite the importance of these works, English- and German-language scholarship alone cannot provide a thorough treatment of the historical developments and debates; and the fact remains that the vast majority of works on Bohemia comes from Czech historical scholarship. The dialogue between Czech and Western European and North American historians over the past twenty-five years has helped Czech historical scholarship become better known in broader circles, but the dialogue has also been marked by some tension. In recent years, even as knowledge of Czech has grown among Western scholars, some Czech historical circles have criticized “tourist scholars” who seek to capitalize and make a name for themselves through the superficial appropriation of others’ national histories or comparative studies which are too general. Worse, they claim, is some foreign scholarship, even of a more serious type, that does not refer to or simply cites references to Czech scholarship without seriously engaging with it.35 Most Czech historians welcome foreign interest in Bohemian history and comparative studies, and believe that methodological and theoretical impulses in North American and Western European scholarship can bring new insights into Bohemian history. But there is a growing consensus among historians of Bohemia that serious and critical study can occur only through a more meaningful engagement with Czech historical scholarship. Western European and North American historians can begin to better understand the dramatic events and distinctive features of Bohemian in the late medieval and early modern period and more meaningfully engage Czech historical scholarship by, first, better appreciating that the scholarship on the Bohemian Crown Lands is as rich and extensive as for many other European nations. And it has its own perspective, coming out of its own national experience. The Czech national perspective is not and should not be the only perspective on Bohemian history. But since the Bohemian lands, like all East Central Europe societies were intimately connected with the histories of their neighboring societies, it is an important one. A recent symposium commemorat- ing the fortieth anniversary of the Newberry Library D’Arcy McNickle Center for American Indian and Indigenous Studies (with the provocative title “Why you can’t teach U.S. History without American Indians) argued for the importance of the greater incorporation of Native American scholars and studies in the writing and interpretation of U.S. history. Likewise one can argue for a

35 Jiří Pešek’s review of Dmitrieva and Lambrecht, Krakau, Prag und Wien, as well as authors’ reply and Pešek’s counter-reply in Historica, Series Nova 9 (2002): 187–211. introduction 17 greater consideration of Czech scholarship (and the scholarship of other individual East Central European national historiographies) in our research of the Bohemian Crown Lands (and Central Europe), alongside the histories of the Holy Roman Empire, Habsburg monarchy, and comparative studies.

Historical Narratives and Periodization in Modern Czech Scholarship

To be a Czech historian from the days of Palacký has not been simple or easy. Because of the specifics of the modern age of the Czech nation, history could not be only an academic discipline or interesting profession, but . . . could hurt Czech historians and lead to their silencing and persecution.36 Josef Hanzal ∵ The Czech perspective on history, as that of other European nations, comes out of the central narratives and chronological frameworks arising out the national historical experience. Czech historical scholarship has faced a number of challenges in creating a coherent narrative, setting the chronological boundaries of medieval and early modern Bohemian history and, in turn, connecting its national history with the history of its European neighbors. Describing the beginning of modern scholarship on the Reformation in the neighboring German lands, a topic better known to Anglo-American scholars than Bohemian history, Thomas A. Brady, Jr. writes: “In the beginning was Waterloo . . . Within a generation of the Battle . . . (18 July 1815) . . . where armies of two Protestant Countries (Prussia and Britain) joined to crush the forces of France, thought in Protestant lands to represent both Revolution and Rome . . . Protestants were celebrating their sixteenth-century reformation as a dawn of a modern age.37 Modern Czech historical scholarship on late medieval and early modern Bohemian history also dates back to the early nineteenth

36 Josef Hanzal, “Proměny české historiografie, 1945–1989/I,” VII. Sjezd českých historiků, Praha 24.-26. září 1993 (Prague: Historický klub, Sdružení českých, moravských a slezských historiků, 1994). 37 Thomas A. Brady, Jr., German Histories in the Age of Reformations, 1400–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 3. 18 introduction century, and similarly linked political and religious developments from the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries through the lens of its own time. A Czech scholar comparable to Leopold von Ranke can be found in František Palacký (1798–1876), the father of the Czech nationalist school of history.38 In his History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia (1848), published a year after von Ranke’s German History in the Age of the Reformation, Palacký explained that Bohemian history was distinctive and “more instructive and interesting than that of other nations,” owing to “Bohemia’s unique position in the center and heart of Europe which made it a focal point where over many years various elements and principles could meet and come together in various ways to create the fundamentals of a new European national, political, and religious life . . . Just as the Germans inherited the legacy of the Roman Empire, the Slavs, quiet and moderate, came forward and settled alongside the Germans, creating a society no less noble or moral.”39 Palacký pointed to a “long and personal struggle and mutual inpenetration [that took place in Bohemia] between the Roman, German, and Slavic cultures of Europe,” which made up “the content and fundamental driving force of Bohemian-Moravian history.”40 According to Palacký, during “the middle age [of Bohemian history which] began with the beginnings of Hussitism in 1403 . . . and ended in 1627 with the emigration and expulsion of the Utraquists from Bohemia . . . the nation reached the height of its historical significance . . . That which came before must be reckoned to the ‘old age,’ and that which followed to the ‘new age.’ ”41 Palacký asserted that the middle age was characterized by a religious struggle that twice “led to bloody and long wars: the first, the Hussite wars. . . . the second, the Thirty Years’ War”, which were the high and low points in a larger struggle in which the nation’s destiny was at stake.42 Palacký never got to fully describe this middle age (he did not have time to expand the book beyond 1526) but, in the introduction, he describes “[the] energetic times and chapters of this age [which include] . . . the outbreak of the Hussite Wars in 1419 and the reconciliation of the Utraquists through the Basel Compactata, the decay of royal power in the long kingless period and the unsuccessful attempt by George of Poděbrad to raise it up again, the squabbles between the estates the subjugation of common people under King Vladislav, the connection with the

38 See the definitive Czech biography by Jiří Kořalka, František Palacký {1879–1876). Životopis (Prague: Argo, 1998). 39 František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého v Čechách a Moravě, díl I (Prague: L. Mazáč, 1939), 17–18. 40 Palacký, 17 and 19. 41 Palacký, 21–22. 42 Palacký, 21–22. introduction 19

Austrian dynastic house in 1526 and the strengthing of the royal bloody diet of 1547, the beginning of new religious skirmisches in 1602, and the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1618 in which Bohemia entered its new historical age.” Although the list of events is short, the highly descriptive language lays out a larger, complex interaction of forces over a long duration, revolving around the themes of reconciliation, loss and regaining of royal power, and religous skirmishes. Also noteworthy in Palacký’s narrative is the ascent of the Habsburgs to the Bohemian throne in 1526, presented not as a single turning point, but one of several milestones of the age. Palacký’s contemporaries also viewed the period as central to the nation’s destiny but had some different views of chronology and the religious situation. Václav Vladivoj Tomek (1818–1905), was one of Palacky’s assistants who, in 1851, became the first professor of Austrian history at the Charles University in Prague. He generally accepted Palacky’s chronology but put greater emphasis on subdivisions of the age, pointing specifically to the year 1547 when the Bohemian estates refused to support imperial Catholic forces in the Schmalkaldic War. The estates, especially the royal cities, were then punished for that by King Ferdinand I through a number of measures which Tomek describes as limiting the autonomy and self-governance of the cities, which had reached a height after the Hussite Revolution.43 In an early study published in 1848, Tomek, who came from a Catholic family, presented a liberal and sympathetic view of Utraquism and its role in Bohemia’s development. In discussing Utraquism’s relationship to the universal church, Tomek writes that “it wasn’t the intent of this party to break away from the Catholic church and form its own religious society . . . since the leaders. . . . held on to the mistaken hope that the Roman church would recognize the truth of their principles, and accept them and their teachings into the womb of the church. That mistaken hope is the key to understanding the whole history of Utraquism.” On the arrival of Lutheranism in Bohemia in the early sixteenth century, Tomek writes that “Bohemian Lutherans had from the beginning a different relationship to the church than the Lutherans in the German lands and elsewhere. Whereas in other places they formed new religious societies, separated from the Roman Church, in Bohemia they remained by the existing church society . . .”44 In this article, Tomek had some harsh comments about Ferdinand I, the first Habsburg King of Bohemia, writing that “with Ferdinand I came a Machiavellian, Italian and Spanish system of government to Bohemia and the

43 Tomek, Děje Pražské v krátkém nástinu (Prague: Jaroslva Pospísil, 1845), 40–48; Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. XII (Prague: František Řívnáč, 1901), 1–29. 44 Tomek, “O církewní spráwě strany pod obojí w Čechách, od r. 1415 až 1622,” ČČM XXII, prvního dílu svazek páty (1848), 442. 20 introduction other lands under Austrian power, which in short time weakened the powers of all the peoples living in it.”45 In a later article from the mid 1850s, Tomek presented a very different perspective on religion and politics in Bohemia between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, reflecting his personal transformation after 1848 into a conservative with pro-Austrian and Catholic loyalties.46 The new perspective focused on forces that sought to bring order and unity, which he viewed as positive trends in Bohemian history. Tomek now viewed Hussitism, Utraquism, and the Bohemian reformation in general as negative trends, beginning a process that eventually led to anarchy among the estates in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and ultimately their defeat at the Battle of White Mountain.47 Commenting on the restructuring of Bohemia society in 1627, Tomek wrote that “the great upheaval brought by Ferdinand II which introduced a new religious and societal order brought about a God-saving future despite their unpleasant environment.48 Anton Gindely (1829–1892), a contemporary of Tomek, developed a perspective on Bohemian history that reflected a different personal trajectory through the tumultuous events of the first half of the nineteenth century. Like Tomek, Gindely came from a Catholic family (his father was Hungarian). However, whereas Tomek was transformed during the events of 1848 into a conservative, Gindely became a liberal. At the same time, he remained an Austrian patriot, and sought to reconcile Bohemian and Austrian history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the ideals of German centralism and Hungarian- slavonic federalism of his day.49 One area of Gindely’s interests focused on the Unity of the Brethren, which evolved out of a more radical wing of the Hussite movement, and included a two-volume History of the Bohemian Brethren (1857–58).50 Gindely saw the Brethren “as true representatives of Hussitism, who from the moment of their inception until the death of their last master, [Johannes Amos] Comenius, in exile—1450–1671—left a distinctive mark

45 Tomek, “O církewní spráwě,” 448. 46 Tomek, “O stavovských nepokojích v zemích mocnářství rakouského za pánování Rudolfa II. a Matyáše mezi léty 1594 až 1614,” Časopis Musea království Českého 28 (1854): 240–266, 319–346, 580–613; 29 (1855): 241–272, 384–410; 30,2 (1856): 63–100; 30, 3 (1856): 18–57. 47 František Kutnar and Jaroslav Marek, Přehledné dejiny českého a slovenského dějepisectví (First published in 1973 and 1978; Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 1997), 293. 48 Tomek, “O stavovských nepokojích,” Časopis Musea království Českého 28 (1854), 244. 49 On Anton Gindely in Bohemian historiography see Kutnar and Marek, Přehledné dejiny, 294–98; Jiří Štaif, Historici, dějiny a společnost, vol. I (Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK, 1997), 203–206. 50 Anton Gindely, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, 2 vols., reprint of second edition, 1861 (Osnabrück: Biblo Verlag, 1968). introduction 21 and were major participants in all movements who shook the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”51 Gindely’s other Bohemian interests turned to developments of the early seventeenth century. In 1858, Gindely published a study of the important legislation issued by Rudolf II in 1609, initiated by both domestic and dynastic problems which granted religious toleration in Bohemia for the first time.52 In Rudolf II and his Age (1862 and 1865), Gindely viewed the conflict of the Bohemian estates with Rudolf II in a larger European context of the development of the international Protestant coalition.53 Years later he returned to the rising conflict between the king and estates in a four-volume History of the Bohemian Uprising in the Year 1618.54 Gindely made a point of noting that “the opening act of the tragedy [the defenestration of 1618] was performed in Prague.”55 He believed that “the cause . . . is to be sought chiefly in the incompatibility of religious views which prevailed among the peoples of the time . . . But disagreement in religious convictions was not the sole cause of the war. The subordination of the estates in Austria, the avidity of the princes to enrich themselves at the cost of church property, the ambition of individual party leaders, who could be satisfied only in a general disorder, contributed so largely to the kindling of the conflagration . . .”56 At the end of the nineteenth century, Czech historians began to raise some fundamental questions about the national conceptual framework and chronology of Bohemian history, and the role of religion in societal and political developments. Jaroslav Goll (1846–1929), professor at the Charles University in Prague, virtually unknown outside of Czech circles but a person with whom many contemporary Czech historians still identify, lectured to a new generation of students on the long-term connections throughout history between the Bohemian lands and the societies of western Europe. He challenged the notion that Bohemia followed a unique, isolated path of historical development.57 Josef Pekař (1810–1937), one of Goll’s students who became a professor and then rector of the Charles University, set out to systematically and empirically

51 Gindely, “Vorwort,” Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder I, pages not numbered. 52 Gindely, Geschichte der Erteilung des böhmischen Majestätsbriefes (Prague: Tempský, 1858). 53 Gindely, Rudolf II und seine Zeit 1600–1612, 2 vols. (Prague, Bellman, 1863 and 1865). 54 Gindely, Dějiny českého povstání 1618, vols. I–IV (Prague: Tempský, 1870–80). 55 Gindely, History of the Thirty Years’ War, trans. Andrew Ten Brook, 2 vols. (First published, 1885; Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1972), 67. 56 Gindely, History of the Thirty Years; War, 20–21. 57 Goll’s own work included studies on the Bohemia Brethren and the diplomatic relations between England and France at the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. For more on Goll, see Kutnar and Marek, Přehledné dejiny, 384–402. 22 introduction examine key moments in pre-modern Bohemian history, highlighting western European influences.58 His examinations led him to a conceptual framework that differed from Palackýs on some fundamental issues. According to Pekař, “Czech history is a part, expression, or variation of European life.”59 Pekař viewed the Hussite movement like Palacký, as a high point, “the most important part of our contribution to European culture,” but not because “it was something that was independent from Europe and which arose independently from the Czech spirit and land or was a carrier of democracy, but because it represented a Czech adaptation of larger European developments.”60 Although Catholic, Pekař thought that religion was something of the past. His real interest was the Czech state, and he looked unfavorably on any trends in history which he believed weakened it. For this reason, he hated breaking up Bohemia’s alliance with Catholicism.61 Josef Pekař got involved in a public debate with Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), the first President of Czechoslovakia and a philosopher of history, about the meaning of Czech history. Masaryk, a proponent of Palacký’s views, saw the early twentieth century, as a continuation of the Czech nationalist revival movement of the late nineteenth century which the national political struggle of Palacký’s generation in the early nineteenth century had ush- ered forth and, in turn, as a continuation of the struggle begun by Hus and violently broken at White Mountain.62 Pekař considered these views mys- tical and teological and a threat to the empirical approach to history which he considered so important. Pekař pointed out that historical developments change the course and goals of an age, so that the Bohemia of the fourteenth and fifteenth century had a different mentality than the Bohemia of the sixteenth, seventeenth, or ninteenth or twentieth centuries.63 Pekař proposed a new periodization of Czech history “founded on the spiritual epochs of general European development through which it was influenced and determined in many ways.”64 Pekař’s periodization distinguished between “the First Middle Ages (or Romanesque Age)” which ran to 1200, “the Second Middle Age” which

58 For more about Pekař, see Jaroslav Werstadt, “Rozhled po Filosofii českých dějin,” Spor o smysl českých dějin, ed. Miloš Havelka (Prague: Torst, 1995), 802–805; Kutnar and Marek, Přehledné dejiny, 490–502. 59 Josef Pekař, “Smysl českých dějin,” O smyslu českých dějin (Prague: Rozmluvy, 1990), 387. 60 Pekař, “Smysl českých dějin,” 388–89. 61 Karel Kučera, “Krofta-Pekař,” Historie & Historici (Prague: UK, 1992), 72. 62 Werstadt, “Rozhled po Filosofii českých dějin,” 796–801. 63 Pekař, “Smysl českých dějin,” 392. 64 Pekař, “O periodisací českých dějin,” O smyslu českých dějin, 417. introduction 23 ran from 1200 to the second half of the eighteenth century, and the “New Age” which began in the late eighteenth century. It was important for Pekař that “the Czech Middle Ages ends where the Middle Ages of all the nations . . . end.”65 Kamil Krofta (1876–1945), recognized as one of the greatest interpreters of the Goll school, shared Pekař’s dislike of the romanticism of the Palacký school and the need to look at Bohemian developments alongside those in western Europe. However, in contrast to Pekař for whom religion was something of the past, Krofta possessed a lively interest in religion and sought to reexam- ine the relationship of national and religious issues in a much more differentiated way than had previous scholars.66 Krofta thought that Palacký’s views of Protestantism affected his ideas of history, but he disagreed with Tomek, Gindely and others that the Bohemian Reformation broke up into sects in the sixteenth century.67 Krofta underscored that the Compacts of Basel and the Peace of Kutná Hora never became the basis for a permanent peace with the church or with groups at home, but they did frame historical developments throughout the fifteenth, sixteenth, and early seventeenth centuries. Krofta notes that while “Utraquists did not want to break with Rome. . . . they were reality entirely independent from Rome, they were a national church, although with regards to administration they were not different than the general church.” He admitted “the Utraquists suffered insufficiencies, arising from the Hussite wars and the lack of a constitution.”68 He saw evidence of invigoration in the formulation of a Bohemian Confession in 1575.69 Krofta also sought to reassess the place of the Battle of White Mountain, which Pekař downplayed in his new conceptualization of Czech history. Krofta saw this battle as “the most important marker in the modern history of the nation, though an unfavorable one.” Krofta wrote that “when we speak about White Mountain, we are not just thinking about the battle itself but the entire upheaval. . . . which cannot be blamed only on the unhappy outcome of the battle but on other, deeper causes.” Moreover, “the correct way to understand the ‘pre-White Mountain’ period is in connection with western European developments. . . . because during this period the Bohemian nation was tightly connected with the destinies of other European states and nations as never before.” Krofta then stated that “it is not possible to understand the meaning

65 Pekař, “O periodisací českých dějin,” 414. 66 Kučera, “Místo Kamila Krofty v českém dějepisectví,” Historie & Historici, 44. For more about Krofta, see Kutnar and Marek, Přehledné dejiny, 517–25. 67 See David, Finding the Middle Way, 1–17. 68 Kamil Krofta, Listy z náboženských dějin českých (Prague: Historický klub, 1936), 338–339. 69 Krofta, Listy z náboženských dějin českých, 347. 24 introduction of the White Mountain tragedy if we do not know the general structure of relations between European states in the period which preceded it.”70 Focus on the high and low points of the nation and preoccupation with the place of Bohemia in European history continued to shape the historical narrative of the late middle ages and early modern period long beyond the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some scholars have argued that competing multiple national consciousness and estate structures left a deeper, more long- lasting mark in the Bohemian lands and other east central European societies, and the fact that the Czechs have not had a long experience as an independent state could explain the longevity and strength of these views.71 However, similar cases can be found in the historical narratives of European societies outside of central and eastern Europe. Whether or not the Bohemian lands are distinctive or stronger in this regard, the fact remains that the nation has remained a major focus of the historical narrative of late medieval and early modern Bohemia in modern Czech scholarship.

White Spots and Black Holes in Czech Historiography, 1945–1989

According to Konrad Jarausch and Michael Geyer, “broken glass, twisted beams, piles of debris . . . are the early memories of ‘children of the rubble’ who grew up amid the ruins left by the Third Reich. In contrast to the proud heritage of the victorious occupiers, the German past seemed literally shattered, covering the present with shame and burdening the future with debris.”72 The Bohemian past—and not just the recent past—was also shattered by the Second World War and its aftermath.73 The annexation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany in 1938 brought humiliation, opened the way for decades of communist rule beginning in 1948, and helped sustain older views by turning interest inward and limiting contact with scholarly developments elsewhere.

70 Krofta was one of the first to use the term “Pre-White Mountain;” Krofta, Bílá hora (Prague: J. Otto, undated), 3–5. 71 Karel Bartošek, “Czechoslovakia: the state of historiography,” The Journal of Contemporary History 2,1 (January 1967): 143–155; Joachim Bahlcke and Arno Strohmeyer, eds., Die Konstruktion der Vergangenheit: Geschichtsdenken, Traditionsbilding und Selbstdarstellung im frühneuzeitlichen Ostmitteleuropa (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002), 7–8. 72 Konrad H. Jarausch and Michael Geyer, Shattered Past: Reconstructing German Histories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), vii. 73 Christoph Cornellissen, Roman Holec, and Jiří Pešek, Diktatur, Krieg, Vertreibung: Erinnerungskulturen in Tschechien, der Slowakei und Deutschland seit 1945 (Essen: Klartext, 2005). introduction 25

The late, dissident historian Jan Křen noted that, after the Second World War, official communist historiography in Czechoslovakia appropriated, almost paradoxically, aspects of the national conceptualization of Czech history that went back to Palacký and were influenced by Protestantism, and mixed them with its own nationalist and anti-religious sentiments. This misappro- priation created a kind of new-old conceptualization of Bohemia history, glo- rifying the Hussite Revolution and vilifying the Habsburgs and Catholicism. The latter two topics became taboo areas—or to use the terminology of dissident scholars—“white areas” or “black holes” which could not be openly investigated.74 Nevertheless, some important inroads were made that would begin to fill in some of the white areas, close some of the black holes, and serve as stepping stones for new directions after the Velvet Revolution. Beginning in mid-1960s, coinciding with what has been described elsewhere as a general “remarkable renaissance in Czech historiography” and the loosening of political restrictions known as the “Prague Spring,” new interest developed in the “Pre-White Mountain Age.”75 The Pre-White Mountain age continued to be viewed as a long prelude to the Bohemian Revolt in 1618 and the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, even if one did not convincingly see traces of the rising conflict in the early struggle between the king and the estates.76 But work began in mapping out the age with serious studies. Josef Janáček’s History of Bohemia (1971) took off where Palacký ended, providing a synthesis of social, economic, and political developments in Bohemia between the years 1526 and 1547.77 Josef’s Válka’s Czech Society from the 15th–18th centuries, vol. 1 (1971), which is devoted to the “Pre-White Mountain Period,” sought ties between social and cultural developments and the national political narrative.78 In the introduction to Estate Opposition and its Struggle with the Habsburgs 1547–1577 (1982) Jaroslav Pánek proposed sub-dividing the pre-White Mountain Age, distinguishing between Phase I (1526–1547), or a preparatory phase, when a struggle began to develop between new moves of centralization by the Habsburgs

74 Jan Křen, Bílá místa v naších dějinách (Prague: Lidové noviny, 1990), 14, 88–104. 75 Stanley Z. Pech, “Ferment in Czechoslovak Marxist Historiography,” Canadian Slavic Papers/Revue Canadienne des Slavistes 10,4 (Winter 1968): 502–22; Andrew Rosso, “Czech Historiography,” Canadian Slavic Papers/Revue Canadienne des Slavistes 24, 3 and 4 (December 1982): 245–260, 360–385; H. Gordon Skilling, “Independent Historiography Reborn” in Samizdat and an Independent Society in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Skilling (Colombus: Ohio State University, 1989), 103. 76 Josef Janáček, “Předbělohorská doba v českých dějinách,” FHB 11 (1987): 27–40. 77 Janáček, České dejiny. Doba předbělohorská, vol. I, parts 1 and 2 (Prague: Academia, 1971 and 1984). 78 Josef Válka, Česká společnost v 15.–18. století, vol. 1 (Brno: SPN, 1972). 26 introduction and local traditions; Phase II (1547–1577), characterized by a close connection between the centralization and anti-reform course of the government; Phase III (1577–1611), characterized by organized acts against the crown; and Phase IV (1611–1620) when the estates became convinced to revolt and bring in a new dynasty; and Phase V (1 620–1635), the epilogue.79 Working from the other direction, Josef Polišenský’s The Thirty Years’s War (1970) eloquently and convincingly explicated the Bohemian background to the war at a time when North American and Western European scholarship was undertaking a reassessment of this event.80 Polišenský also authored and co-authored a number of other works, a few much earlier than his book on the Thirty Years War, that compared developments in Bohemia with those in England, Spain, and the Low Countries, which also underwent major transformations in the sevententh century;81 and studies that show Comenius was not just as one of the most significant Czech but also one of the most prominent European thinkers of his age.82 The works of Janáček, Válka, and Pánek and Polišenský directed attention again within Czech historiography (and in the case of Polišenský, also to the West) to the period in which the Habsburg ruled the Bohemian Crown lands. But rather than viewing the Czechs only as Habsburg subjects, Janáček, Válka, and Pánek give agency to the Bohemians; and attempt a more nuanced, differentiated, albeit Czech national, view of the relationship between the Bohemians and their Habsburg rulers; whereas Polišenský seeks to balance Bohemian national with supra-regional European historical perspectives.83 New interest in social-economic history, inspired now by Marxism, was a key element of Czech historiography in the decades following the end of the Second World War. Some of Josef Janáček’s earlier work in the 1950s on urban production and trade revised the scholarship of Zikmund Winter in the early twentieth century.84 In the early 1960s interested developed in the subject population and lower classes in the early modern period.85 And after the invasion

79 Pánek, Stavovská opozice. 80 Polišenský, The Thirty Years War. 81 Polišenký, Anglia a bíla hora (Prague, 1949); Nizozemský politika a bílá hora (Prague, 1958); Tragic Triangle: The Netherlands, Spain, and Bohemia 1617–1621 (Prague: UK, 1991). 82 For example, Nicolette Mout and Polišenský, Komenský v Amsterdamu (Prague: SPN, 1970). 83 For more on Josef Polišenský and his perspective on history, see R.J.W. Evans, “A Czech historian in Trouble Times: J.V. Polišenský,” Past & Present 176 (August 2002): 257–274. 84 Josef Janáček, Řemeslná výroba v českých městech v 16. století (Prague: ČSAV, 1961); Dějiny obchodu v předbělohroská Praze (Prague: ČSAV, 1955). 85 Alois Míka, Poddaný lid v Čechách v první polovině 16. století (Prague, ČSAV, 1960); Josef Petran, Poddaný lid v Čechách na prahu třicetileté války (Prague: ČSAV, 1964). introduction 27 of Czechoslovakia by troops of the Warsaw Pact in August 1968, which ended the Prague Spring, Czech historians pursued fundamental scholarship on wage and price series;86 the structure of early modern feudal estates87 and demographic history.88 In addition to collecting and analyzing economic data for their own and future work in economic history that would help to reassess the views of earlier historians on the economic effects of political conjunctures, such as the Battle of White Mountain, these scholars pointed to the economic strength of Bohemia and gathered basic information on the rural populations in the late medieval and early modern period which had been ignored by traditional historical approaches. Legal history has a long tradition in Czech scholarship, centered at the Law Faculty of Charles University. Whereas legal historians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries contributed to discussions about Bohemian dis- tinctiveness with studies of the founding of the state and judicial institutions at various levels, after World War II, legal historians devoted some attention to the late medieval and early modern period. Among the legal historical works are the studies of Jiří Kejř, known also for his studies on the origins and nature of urban law in the Premyslid period, on legal history of the city of Kutná Hora during the Hussite period, and the Hussite jurist Jan of Jesenice;89 and the critical reassessment of the first codification of urban law in Bohemia, the Koldín law, ratified in 1579, which was the subject of an international conference in 1979.90 The study of religion in the late medieval and early modern period was also pursued during the post-war period, although it was subject to major restrictions by the communist regime, marginalized at best by official communist historiography, and ignored or downplayed by some dissident historians. This is not the place or it is not possible to offer adequate commentary since much of the scholarship deals with theological studies without direct

86 Josef Petráň, Problémy cen, mezd a materiálních života od 16. do poloviny 19. století, AUC Philosophica et Historica, 1 and 3 (Prague: UK, 1971 and 1977). 87 Josef Válka, Hospodářská politika feudalního velkostatu (Prague: SPN, 1962); Eduard Mauer, Český komorní velkostatek v 17. století. Příspěvek k otázce “druhého revolnictví” v českých zemích (Prague: UK, 1976). 88 See Josef Grulich, “Historická demografie a dějiny rodiny v Evropě a v České republice po roce 1950,” HD 26 (2002): 123–146. 89 Jiří Kejř, Právní život v husitské Kutné Hoře (Prague: ČSAV, 1958); Husitský právník M. Jan z Jesenice (Prague: ČSAV, 1965). 90 Karel Malý, ed., Městské právo v 16.-18. století v Evropě, Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference uspořádané pránickou fakultou UK ve dnech 25.–27. září 1979 v Praze (Prague: UK, 1982). 28 introduction reference to historical issues, and is outside of the scope of this book. Other scholarship was shared only through unofficial channels, which has not yet been critically collected, edited, and assessed. But what can be noted by way of introduction are a number of works, which are of direct relevance to historians of the late medieval and early modern period, many of which were conducted at the Evangelical Theological Faculty (Komenského Evangelická Bohoslovecká Fakulta) at the Charles University in Prague by Ferdinand Hrejsa;91 F.M. Bartoš;92 Rudolf Říčan;93 and later by Amedeo Molnár.94 Important research in English and German was also published during this period by Czech historians who went into exile, such as Otakar Odložilík.95 These studies critically analyzed religious tracts and treatises to identify core confessional ideas, a process which would continue in later years; examined the structure and work of institutions, such as the Utraquist Consistory; produced new scholarly religous histories; and highlighted some important connections to developments in other areas of Eurpoe. Scholarship on Bohemian Jewry was also officially supported by the communist regime and conducted through the auspices of the State Jewish Museum (later renamed the Jewish Museum in Prague).96 The 1980s brought new interest among Czech historians in the age Rudolf II. The first sign of a renewed interest actually dated back to Josef Janáček’s Pictures from the Life of Rudolfine Prague (1958).97 Although it was meant for a wider reading public, and not just scholars, the book’s appeal lies in the broader

91 Ferdinand Hrejsa, Dějiny Křesťanství v Československu, vols. V and VI (Prague: Husova československá evangelická fakulta bohoslovenská, 1948 and 1950). 92 František Michalek Bartoš, The Hussite Revolution, 1424–1437, ed. and trans. by John M. Klassen (New York: Eastern European Monographs and Columbia University Press, 1985). 93 Rudolf Říčan, A History of the Unity of Brethren: A Protestant Hussite Church in Bohemia and Moravia, trans. C. Daniel Crews (First Czech edition, 1957; Bethlehem, PA. Moravian Church in America, 1992). 94 A selection of some of Molnár’s key essays can be found in Noemi Rejchrtová, ed., Směřování. Pohled do badatelské a literární dílny Amedea Molnára provázany příspěvky domácích i zahraničních historiků a teologů (Prague: Kalich, 1983). 95 For example, Otakar Odložilík,The Hussite King. Bohemia in European Affairs, 1440–1471 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1965). See Stanley B. Winter, “Otakar Odložilík—historik, který odešel do země zaslíbené,” ČČH 101,2 (2003): 306–331. An excellent selection of works up to 1977 can be found in Jarold K. Zeman, The Hussite Movement and the Reformation in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia (1350–1650). A Bibliographic Study Guide (with Particular Reference to Resources in North America) (Ann Arbor: Center for Reformation Research by Michigan Slavic Publications, 1977). 96 See essays in the journal Judaica Bohemiae (1965–). 97 Janáček, Obrázek ze života rudolfinské Prahy (Prague: Orbis, 1958). introduction 29 picture it portrays of the relationship between the city and castle. Drawing on protocol books of the coachmen’s guild, Janáček recounted stories of men who earned a living transporting goods and people in and out of Prague, making an implicit connection between the imperial residence, its booming economy, and bustling city life. It was the work of the British historian R.J.W. Evans, however, that was seminal in drawing attention to the court in Prague as a major European intellectual and cultural center of its day and in establishing “Rudolfine Prague” as an important focus of research. Evans’ work served as a catalyst, bringing together under a common banner of research a number of disciplines and subfields—intellectual history, social history, art history, archival studies—centered around the court. Josef Janáček’s Rudolf II and His Age was published in 1987, which sought to bring together work in social and economic history, politics, and culture, and offered a more comprehensive view of the importance of the imperial court for Prague and the Bohemian Kingdom than had been available before in Czech scholarship.98 A year later, the international conference “Prague in the Year 1600” was convened, bringing together scholars in the fields of history and history of art and architecture.99 A second international conference was held in 1997, which included a broader group of scholars.100 The cosmopolitanism of Rudolfine Prague was an allure to all scholars, Czech and “foreign,” and for Czechs could be seen as a refuge from the normalized Prague of the 1970s and 1980s. Among those Czech scholars who joined in the broader discussion of the age of Rudolf II were historians of Prague, who had been exploring a number of aspects of urban history, from the spheres of education and private life, through a systematic, critical study of notarial sources, continuing and fulfill- ing an empirical approach first proposed a hundred years earlier. Their work pointed to cultural activities originating in the Prague cities but outside of the imperial court, such as thriving printing industry, book collection of burghers, parish schools, literary societies and the universities. Whereas Rudolfine scholarship explicated and argued for the imperial court’s central, almost dominant role in the society, politics, and culture of Prague, historians such as Jiří Pešek have implicitly argued for an urban culture influenced by, though largely independent from the imperial court.101 At this same time, Josef Petráň and Lydia Petráň began a rich and broad, two-volume study of material culture in

98 Janáček, Rudolf II. a jeho doba (Prague: Svoboda, 1987). 99 Fučíkova, ed., Prag um 1600. 100 Fučíková et al., eds., Rudolf II and Prague. 101 See Pešek, Měšťanská vzdělanost a kultura v předbělohorském Čechách 1547–1620 (Všedny dny kulturního života) (Prague: UK, 1993). 30 introduction

Bohemia, drawing on social and economic history and new interdisciplinary directions, though independent of Rudolfine scholarship.102 In the field of urban and cultural history, The works by Jiří Pešek and Josef and Lydia Petráň, like those of Janáček and Pánek in social and political history, addressed direct Bohemian contributions and perspectives to the period of Habsburg rule.

New Directions, Themes, and Sources in Czech Historiography, 1989–Present

As much of a sea change as the fall of communism in November 1989 represented in politics and everyday life, changes in historical scholarship and the profession, although noticeable over time, have taken place at a different pace— a situation which Czech historians themselves have noted. At the meeting of Czech historians in 1993, the first meeting since the fall of communism, Josef Hanzal commented that the “the quiet, perennial atmosphere of the conven- tion, filled with many standard presentations, does not really show that history stands at a fateful break.”103 Josef Válka, whose work is included in this volume, opened the meeting with the remark that “historiography is of course part of the past and carried responsibility in some way, but not as a discipline, but personally for individual historians.”104 He then noted in another contribution that “[n]o one should be acting as if the past didn’t touch them as if they lived on another planet . . . In order to seriously come to grips with . . . past historiography in the totalitarian age. . . . one should accept the past at its historical face and examine one’s personal stake in it.” Regarding the historical scholarship written during communism, Válka cautioned his Czech colleagues that “an historical analysis of this historiography must come directly out of specific historical works and not put everything under ‘communism’ or ‘Marxism.’ ”105 The smooth and gradual, rather than abrupt changes in Czech historiography during and after the Velvet Revolution, and the need to avoid making broad, brush strokes in describing the historiographic trends, are illustrated in the appearance of two works, which were begun during the old regime, but published in the revolutionary year 1989. They are Jaroslav’s Pánek’s The Last

102 Josef Petráň and Lydia Petráňová, Dějiny hmotné kultury: Kultura každodenního života od 16. do 18. století, 2 vols. (Prague: Karolinum, 1985–1997). 103 Hanzal, 24. 104 Josef Válka, “Úvodní sjezdový projev,” in VII. Sjezd českých historiků, 19. 105 Válka, “Diskusní příspěvěk,” VII. Sjezd českých historiků, 109. introduction 31

Rožmberks: Magnates of the Bohemian Renaissance and the second edition of Karel Malý’s Criminal Law in Bohemia in the 15th and 16th centuries.106 The Last Rožmberks draws on the rich collections of Rožmberk family correspondence and records in archives in Třeboň and Český Krumlov in southern Bohemia, to provide a balanced and much overdue study of Bohemia’s most powerful noble family, the most prominent of whom were William (Vilém) of Rožmberk (1535–1592) and his brother Peter (Petr) Vok of Rožmberk (1539– 1611). The work went in a thematic direction by exploring a group, the nobility, whose position in Bohemian and Czech society throughout the ages was demonized by Marxist historiography. This afforded another opportunity to focus on Bohemian contributions to early modern Bohemian and Habsburg history. Three years earlier, Václav Ledvinka, the director of the Archive of the Capital City of Prague, had written a critical study of the Lords of Hradec (panů z Hradce), based on a close analysis of sources related to property matters in archives in southern Bohemia and Prague.107 Ledvinka’s combined approaches in social-economic history with new interest in the nobility. Since 1989, the study of the nobility has evolved into one of the most flourishing and productive areas of early modern historical scholarship. Václav Bůžek undertook economic and political studies of the lower nobility;108 before going on to train and direct a number of young historians at the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice in multi-faceted studies of the nobility.109 One of the new directions of research which the study of the nobility opened up has been a critical analysis of noble courts and residential cities, represented by fine studies of Bůžek and his colleagues on the residences of the Rožmberks and Lords of Hradec; and Petr Vorel on the Lords of Pernštejn, a leading noble family, whose dynastic home is in Eastern Bohemia.110 Another has been a monumental work by Petr Maťa on the subject of the history of everyday life and travel by

106 Jaroslav Pánek, Poslední Rožmberkové. Velmoži české renesance (Prague: Panorama, 1989); Karel Malý, Třestní právo v Čechách v 15.–16. stoleti, 2nd edition (Prague: UK, 1989). 107 Václav Ledvinka, Úvěr a zadlužení feudálního velkostatku v předbělohorských Čechách. Finanční hospodařeni pánů z Hradce 1560–1596 (Prague: Ústav československých a světo- vých dějin ČSAV, 1985). 108 Václav Bůžek, Úvěrové podnikání nižší šlechty v předběohorských Čechách (Prague: Ústav československých a světových dějin ČSAV, 1989); Nišší šlechta v politickém systému a kultáře předbělohorských Čech (Prague: Historický ústav ČSAV, 1989). 109 The list of studies is too long to list here. See works listed in the Select Bibliography by Pavel Král, Josef Hrdlička and Rostislav Smíšek. 110 Václav Bůžek et al., Dvory velmožů s erben růže: Všedny a sváteční dny posledních Rožmberků a pánů z Hradce; Petr Vorel Pání z Pernštejna. Vzestup a pád rodu zubří hlavy v dějinách Čech a Moravy (Prague: Rybka, 1999). 32 introduction the nobility in the early modern age.111 Contemporary research on the nobility has successfully joined the objectives of exploring Bohemian contributions to early modern history with a direct return to Habsburg history. In Criminal Law in Bohemia, the legal historian Karel Malý draws on Bohemian law codes and court records from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to explore social and political relationships, as historians were doing, but from another perspective. Malý’s work served as a bridge, connecting legal historical scholarship from the early twentieth century and communist period with new scholarship conducted after the Velvet Revolution. Although court records are not as numerous and continuous for the early modern period as in other countries, legal historians continue to critically mine both existing laws and sources and to engage in fruitful exchanges with political historians over issues or urban law, estate law and politics, and law and crime on a number of different levels of Bohemian society. Petr Kreuz, a student of Karel Malý, is the author of a critical work on the Chamber Court.112 Legal and political historians have reexamined the Vladislav Land Ordinance and the beginnings of constitutional development in the Bohemian lands.113 In 2000, Jiří Kejř came out with a new work on “Hus’s trial” at the Council of Constance.114 In 2008, Jaroslav Čechura started exploring some new directions with a work on crime and everyday life in Southern Bohemia, informed by methodological and theoretical trends in the social history of crime in Western European scholarship.115 The positive atmosphere also contributed to a development of a broader and more differentiated assessment and new interpretations of the events leading up to the Bohemian Uprising of 1618, the short reign of King Frederick of the Palatinate (“the Winter King”), and the social and political effects of the

111 Petr Maťa, Svět české aristokracie (1500–1700) (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2004); Bůžek et al., Věk urozených. Šlechta v českých zemích na prahu novověku (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2002). 112 Petr Kreuz, Postavení a působnost komorního soudu v soustavě českého zemského trestního soudníctví doby předbělohorské v letech 1526–1547 (Prague: Karolinum, 2000). 113 Karel Malý a Jaroslav Páněk, eds., Vladislavské zřízení zemské a počátky ústavního zřízení v českých zemích (1500–1619), Sborník pžíspěvků z mezinárodní konference konané ve dnech 7.–8. Prosince 2000 v Praze (Prague: HÚ and Ůstav právních dějin Právnické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy, 2001). This was followed by a critical edition of the law: Petr Kreuz and Ivan Martinovský, eds., Vladislavské zřízení zemské a navazující prameny (Svatováclavská smlouva a zřízení o ručnicích) Edice (Prague: Scriptorium, 2007). 114 Jiří Kejř, Husův proces (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2000). See also Thomas A. Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus. Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 115 Jaroslav Čechura, Kriminalita a Každodennost v raném novověku. Jižní Čechy 1650–1770 (Prague: Argo, 2008). introduction 33

Bohemian defeat at the Battle of White Mountain and aftermath, including a number of new works on Albert of Wallenstein (Albrecht z Valdštejna), the commander of the imperial army (1625–30, 1632–34) who was murdered in the city of Cheb in 1634.116 New interest in these topics encouraged exciting new work in intellectual history, which suffered from restrictions in the communist era, and new work in cultural history, drawing on the rich archival and rare books collections in the Czech Republic.117 The end of communist rule brought an end to earlier restrictions on the study of religion and religion has taken off as one of the major directions of new research in post-Velvet Revolution Czech scholarship. The scene became rich with studies in religious history undertaken by theologians in now three theological faculties at the University of Prague—the Hussite Evangelical Faculty, the Evangelical Faculty, and the Catholic Theological Faculty, each of which is connected to a particular contemporary church and historical confessional tradition—and historians, philosophers, art historians, both non- confessional and those with confessional affiliations. These studies have provided some new assessments of Jan Hus, the relationship of Hus’s ideas to those of John Wycliff and others, philosophical and intellectual historical studies, and a burgeoning area of work on religious practices, based on a large and rich, but not easily catalogued, collection of sources located in the Czech National Library and elsewhere.118 In addition to these studies, Zdeněk David has argued in Finding the Middle Way: The Utraquists’ Liberal Challenge

116 František Kavka, Bílá hora a české dějiny, 2nd edition (Prague: Garamond, 2003); Lenka Bobková, Exulanti z Prahy a Severozápadních Čech v Pirně v letech 1621–1639 (Prague: Scriptorium, 1999); Čechura, Zimní kral. 117 Vladimíř Urbánek, Eschatologie, vědění a politika: Příspěvek k dějinám myšlení pobělohorského exilu (České Budějovice: Jihočeská Universita, 2008); Jana Hubková, Fridrich Falcký v zrcadle letákové publicistiky.Letáky jako pramen k vývoji a vnímání české otázky v letech 1619–1621 (Prague: UK, Filozofická fakulta, 2010); Jaroslava Hausenblasová and Michal Šroněk, Gloria et miseria 1618–1648: Prague during the Thirty Years War (Prague: Gallery, 1998); Josef Janáček, Valdštejova pomsta (Prague: Edice Spirála, 1992); Josef Polišenský and Josef Kollman, Wallenstein. Feldherr des Dreissigjährigen Krieges (First Czech edition, 1995; Cologne: Böhlau, 1997). 118 See contributions in editions of Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice and Communio Viatorum. Also, Milena Bartolová and Michal Šroněk, Public Communication in European Reformation. Artistic and Other Media in Central Europe 1380–1620 (Prague: Artefactum:, 2007); Martin Holý and Jiří Mikulec, eds., Církev a smrt. Institutionalizace smrti v raném novověku (Prague: HÚ, 2007); Martina Ondo Grečenková and Jiří Mikulec, eds., Církev a zrod moderní racionality. Víra-Pověra-Vzdělanost-Věda v raném novověku (Prague: HÚ, 2008); and Lenka Bobková and Jana Konvičná, Náboženský život a církevní poměry v zemích Koruny české ve 14.–17. století (Prague: Casablanca, 2009). 34 introduction to Rome and Luther (2003) that Utraquism remained a vital force throughout the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century, taking issue with historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who viewed Utraquist leaders as ineffective and the movement in the late sixteenth century as decayed, dispersed, or merged into Lutheranism.119 The study of Catholicism, which had been a taboo subject during the communist period, has also taken off since the Velvet Revolution. New studies have emerged of forms of Catholic spirituality, the Jesuits, support for Catholic reform and Counter-Reformation among secular groups, such as the nobility; and in general, a close mapping-out of Catholic Renewal, or what is known in Czech historiography as the “Recatholicization,” of the Bohemian lands from the end of the Hussite Revolution into the seventeenth century.120 Still, by all estimates, the Catholic presence in the sixteenth century was quite small. One figure quoted from archbishopric and Jesuit sources puts them at 10% of the general population. Systematic studies of notarial records in the 1980s by Jiří Pešek provide some insight into the confessional affiliation or, at least, sympathies, of the rest of the population, without beginning a priori with the views of some nineteenth-century historians who saw a break up of Utraquism. For example, over a thirty-three-year period between 1586 and 1617, only 28 out of a total of 367 (or 7.8%) of the extant wills of New City burghers listed gifts to ecclesiastical institutions. Of this small amount, all went to Utraquist institutions.121 One explanation for this could rest in the survival of Hussite principles of the poverty of the church. Book collections of Prague burghers testify to a wide variety of material available. To all this, it must be noted that official records make it impossible or at least difficult to gain an affiliation to illegal or outlawed groups such as the Bohemian Brethren or Calvinists, and one must also keep in mind that confessional affiliations were not necessarily something that were fixed but in flux. The history of Jews has also seen resurgence with new studies and translated editions of the works of number of influential rabbis and thinkers, including Judah Loew ben Bezalel, also known as Rabbi Loew or the Maharal, and the

119 David, Finding the Middle Way. 120 Ivana Cornejová, Tovaryšstvo Ježíšovo. Jezuité v Čechách (Prague: Nakladatelství Hart, 2002). Jiří Mikulec, “Pobělohorská rekatolizace: téma stále problematická,” ČČH 96 (1998): 824–30; 31.7.1627. Rekatolizace šlechty v Čechách. Čí je země, toho je i nábozenství (Prague: Havran, 2005). 121 Jiří Pešek, “Pražské knihy kšaftů a inventářů,” PSH 15 (1982), 74–75. introduction 35 historian-astronomer David Gans; many of whose works have been critically edited and a few translated in the last few years.122 A telling example of the burgeoning interest in religious history in post- Velvet Revolution Czech historical scholarship, as well as a reminder of how the recent past can intrude into the present, can be seen in the attempt by the Conference of Czech Bishops on the eve of the third millennium to seek the rehabilitation of Jan Hus. This campaign culminated in a scholarly conference held at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome in 1999, opened by Czech President Václav Havel—himself a Catholic who had spoken out as a dissident against the taboos of the Catholic, Habsburg past—and Pope John Paul II.123 The conference brought together a scholarly group representing a broad array of disciplines and confessions. In the end, Pope John Paul II did not rehabilitate Hus, but a few years later, it came out that the Czech priest who served as the secretary of the Conference of Czech bishops and liaison for the initiative and had studied history at the Charles University in Prague before leaving Czechoslovakia to take vows in Rome—had worked during the 1980s as an agent of the Czechoslovak Ministry for State Security (Státní Bezpečnost or StB), reporting from the Vatican!124 Petr Morée, a Dutch theologian who teaches at the Protestant Theological Faculty of the Charles University, has hinted at similar problematic trends in Protestantism in a number of critical studies of the evolution of theological study and churches in the Czech lands from the nineteenth century through the communist period.125 Another major trend in Czech historical scholarship since the Velvet Revolution has been an interest in the histories of constituent territories of the Bohemian Crown Lands, the nature of the political system of the Bohemian Crown Lands, and regionalism in general. The Kingdom of Bohemia proper has dominated modern Czech historical scholarship at the expense of wider recognition of the other constituent terrotories and the nature of the associated

122 For example, see Alexander Putík, ed., Path of Life. Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel (1529–1609) (Prague: Academia and Židovké muzeum v Praze, 2009); and Tomáš Pěkný, Historie židů v Čechách a na Moravě (Prague: Sefer, 2001). 123 Jaroslav Pánek and Miroslav Polívka, eds., Jan Hus v Vatikánu: Mezinárodní rozprava o českém reformátoru 15. století a jeho recepci na prahu třetího tisícletí (Prague: HÚ, 2000). 124 “Kdo jsi bez viny? V seznamech StB byl každý desátý český kněž,” Týden 3 (January 15, 2007), 10. 125 For example, see Petr Morée, “ ‘On the basis of the historical background of the Hussite reformation we regard the socialist movements as a part of our history.’ The Political Function of the Bohemian Reformation for Czech Protestants in the Twentieth Century,” The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 8, eds. Zdeněk V. David and David R. Holeton (Prague: Collegium Europaeum, 2011), 340–359. 36 introduction lands as a political entity. The German historian’s Joachim Bahlcke’s study of the political system of the Bohemian Crown Lands was ground-breaking and well received by Czech historians.126 Within Czech historiography a renaissance in land or regional consciouness was also underway.127 Soon after the foreign ministers of Czechoslovakia, Austria, and German symbolically opened up border-crossings between their countries, historians began work on studies of “what bound and separate us at the border.” Historians of the late medieval early modern period have played an important role in this project.128 Moravia, which has one of the richest traditions and consciousness as a territory, has recognized greater recognition since the dissolution of Czechoslavia. Silesia and Upper and Lower Lusatia also became a focus of new attention by German, Polish, and Czech historians of the late medieval and early modern period, who sought a critical approach, free of problematic, ideological conceptions in both pre-World War II German scholarship on Eastern Europe (Ostforschung) and in communist historiographies.129 In a contribution to the 7th meeting of Czech historians, Josef Válka reminded colleagues that lands or territories are

126 Bahlcke, Regionalismus und Staatsintegration im Widerstreit. 127 Václav Bůžek, “Stand, Tendenzen und Perspektiven der frühneuzeitlichen Regional forschung in der Tschechischen Republik,” Regionalgeschichte in Europa: Methoden und Erträge der Forschung von 16. bis 19. Jahrhundert, eds. Stefan Brakensick and Axel Flügel (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöning, 2000). 128 Thomas Winkelbauer, ed., Kontakte und Konflikte. Böhmen, Mähren und Österreich: Aspekte eines Jahrhunderts gemeinsamer Geschichte (Waidhofer an der Thaya: Waldviertler Heimatbund, Horn, 1993); Čechy a Sasko a poměnách dějin—Sachsen und Böhmen im Wandel der Geschichte. Sboník příspěvků z konference—Sammelband von den Beiträgern der Konferenz, 10.–11.11.1992, AUP Slavogermanica II (Ústí nad Labem, 1993); Andrea Komlosy, Václav Bůžek and František Svátek, eds., Kulturen an der Grenze. Waldviertel- Weinviertel-Süböhmen-Südmähren (Vienna: Promedia, 1995). Robert Luft and Ludwig Eibers, eds., Bayern und Böhmen. Kontakt, Konflikt, Kultur (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag, 2007) 129 Joachim Bahlcke, ed., Historische Schlesienforschung: Methoden und Perspektiven zwischen traditioneller Landesforschung und Moderner Kulturwissenschaft (Cologne: Böhlau, 1995); Mečislav Borák, ed., Slezsko v dějinách českého státu: Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference pořádané po zástítou prezidenta České republiky Václava Havla u příležitosti 50. Výročí ústavu Slezského zemského musea v Opavě (Opava: Tilia, 1998); Zdeněk Jirásek, “Slezsko v dějinách českého státu a na česko-polském pomezí. Příspěvek k české histo- rické práci o Slezsko po roce 1945” in VIII. Sjezd českých historiků, Hradec Králové 10.–12. září 1999, ed. Jíří Pešek (Prague: Scriptorium, 2000), 59–63; Radek Fukala et al., Slezsko v dějinách českého státu, vol. II (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2012); Olga Fejtová, “Praha.Vratislav, vzajemné vztahy v obdoví raného novověku,” ČČH 106, 1(2008): 54–79; Joachim Bahlcke, ed., Die Oberlausitz im frühneuzeitlichen Mitteleuropa: Beziehungen- introduction 37 real historical formations that have their own histories, which are not just the histories of the societies who lived there, but also the histories of institutions. Just as theologians and historians of religion have researched neglected sources of religious history, and political historians have mined the rich archives of Southern Bohemian for correspondences of the nobility, a new generation of Czech historians have sought out records of rural populations left by their lords and larger demographic patterns, seeking to reconstruct larger patterns in whatever interpretative direction they may lead, rather than seeking connections to “pre-bourgeois class conflict” which informed socialist historiography.130 Just in the past few years some new studies have appeared on the lives of burghers and urban history by Josef Hrdlička, Jaroslav Miller, and others, which has led to the beginning of a new discussion of the nature of Bohemian society in the early modern age.131 Women’s history and gender studies also represent a new trend in Czech historical scholarship on the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period. Although the Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia can look back to a number of major successes in the twentieth century with respect to women’s rights, in both European and global contexts feminism and gender studies, at least as we understand them in North American and Western Europe, have begun to make inroads.132 The Canadian historian John Klassen’s Warring Maidens, Captive Wives, and Hussite Queens (1999) and his edition of letters of two sisters from the Rožmberk family in the fifteenth century show that the rich availabil-

Strukturen-Prozesse-Prozesse (Leipzig and Stuttgart: Verlag der Sächischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig im Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, 2007). 130 Pavel Himl, Die ‘armben Leüte’ und die Macht (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2003); Dana Stefanová, Erbschaftspraxis, Besitztranfer und Handlungsspielräume von Untertanen in der Gutssherrscahft. Die Herrschaft Frydland in Nordböhmen, 1558–1750 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2009); Grulich, Populační vývoj. 131 Josef Hrdlička, Víra a moc. Politika, komunikace a protireformace v předmoderním městě (Jindřichův Hradec, 1590–1630), Habilitace, České Budějovice, 2009; Václav Bůžek and Jaroslav Dibelka, eds., Člověk a sociální skupina ve společnosti raného novověku, OH 12 (České Budějovice: HÚFFUČB, 2007), esp. contribution by Hrdlička, “Otázky bez odpovědí aneb konsenzuální při obnovách městských rad v raně novověkých Čechách,” 187–208; Jaroslav Miller, “Snový svšt idejí a syrovat skutečnosti: městská historiografie raného novověku jako utopie?,” ČČH 106, 2 (2008): 261–287: Urban societies in east-central Europe (Alderhot: Ashgate, 2007). 132 Jiří Pešek and Václav Ledvinka, eds., Žena v dějinách Prahy, Documenta Pragensia 13 (Prague: Scriptorium, 1996); Milena Lenderová, “Dějiny žen mezi women’s and gender history,” Historica Olomucensia 37 (2010): 43–57; Lenderová, Božena Kopičková, Jana Bureškova and Eduard Maur, eds., Žena v českých zemích od středověku do 20. století (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2009). 38 introduction ity of sources in collections, already drawn on by political and demographic historians, could be used for fruitful studies in women’s and gender history.133 By the beginning of the second millennium, the Habsburgs and Catholics were no longer white spaces or black holes, but have been embraced by Czech historiography. And Czech historiography has again sought out and is engaged in fruitful dialogue with its neighbors, while still seeking to retain its own national identity. Just as in the period of normalization, the new dialogue is not a systemic program, but one conducted between individuals. However, the chronological divisions of the Bohemian lands based on Czech national history remain dominant in Czech historiography. Today, whereas many theologians and religious historians embrace developments within the context of a long Bohemian reformation which extends from the Hussite Reform movement to the work of the educational reformer Jan Amos Comenský (Johannes Amos Comenius) in the early seventeenth century, most Czech historians, while acknowledging that the Hussite Revolution influenced later developments, still tend to identify with and pursue studies that are medieval, “Pre-White Mountain,” or “Post-White Mountain.” In 1987, Jaroslav Pánek aptly described the current state of scholarship when he wrote that despite the importance of this period, the period has “continued to defy with iron regularity any attempts at a synthetic analysis” and the history remains fragmented.134 The problem of synthesizing Bohemian history is not an antiquated relic of the past, but a sign of a continuing historiographic challenge, which was underscored at the 10th Meeting of Czech Historians held in Opava in September 2011.135

133 John M. Klassen, Warring Maidens, Captive Wives, and Hussite Queens (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); Perchta Rožmberk and Anezka Rožmberk, The Letters of the Rožmberk Sisters: Noblewomen in Fifteenth-Century Bohemia, ed. John Klassen, trans. with introduction, notes, and interpretative essay by John M. Klassen with Eva Doležalová and Lynn Szabo (Woodbridge, U.K.: D.S. Brewer, 2001). 134 Jaroslav Pánek, “České dějiny 1526–1620: Úvodem ke sborníku o předbělohorském době,” FHB 11 (1987), 7. See also Pánek’s “Introduction and Initial Assessment” and Jiří Miklulec’s contribution entitled “Early Modern Studies” in Czech Historiography in the 1990s, ed. J. Pánek, published in Historica, Series Nova 7–8 (2001), 9–12, 57–79; Josef Válka, “Problémy syntézy moderních českých dějin” in Husitství—reformace—renesance. Sborník k 60. Narozeninám Františka Šmahela, eds. J. Pánek and M. Polívka, vol. III, 1049–1057; Václav Bůžek, “Der Weg zur Synthese. Die Gesellschaft der böhmischen Länder 1526–1740 in der Historiographie des letzten Jahrhunderts” in Společnost v zemích monarchie a její obraz v pramenech (1526–1740), eds. V. Bůžek, P. Král, MH 11 (České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2006), 33–36. 135 Bohumil Jiroušek, “Česká historiographie na počátku 21. Století—mezi přiběhem, striktu- rou a teorií,” ČČH 3–4 (2012): 501–512, 513–527, here 508–509. introduction 39

Dealing with that challenge, future new directions in Czech historiography will likely be guided less by the nineteenth-and-early-twentieth century and communist pasts and more by developments within Europe throughout the world. It has been almost thirteen years since the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. In addition to responding to the challenges of participating (or not participating) in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the global financial crisis, Europeans have also faced internal challenges relating to the integration of foreigners and attacks on multiculturalism in many European countries. This latter challenge came to a head with the murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh in 2004 after release of his film Submission, and the outcry in many Muslim countries against the caricatures of Mohammed that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The Czech Republic does not have a sizable Muslim population (a fact noted by the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik who had traveled to Prague seeking to purchase illegal weapons), but the Czech Republic shares in this and many other challenges faced by its European neighbors. In a 2010 public lecture, Jaroslav Pánek described how “Europe has become the magic formula and verbal measure of all things in the last twenty years, which earlier generations did not know . . . But contemporary Europe is at a juncture . . . And the fundamental question is how can the Christian-Jewish-Antique civilization, defined as values, survive, . . . and what can we [Czechs] do?” The answer, according to Pánek, will lie in a path that Czech historians the late nineteenth and early twentieth century understood well: to embrace Europe and “try to explain the Bohemian view as the contribution of a land with distinctive experiences, since it has dealt for over six centuries with the problems of the living together of various beliefs, and which, for the good or bad, advanced to the point of the secularization of public and private life.”136

* * *

The twelve essays in this volume were originally published over a span of approximately four decades: the earliest from 1969, the latest from 2008. Some of the essays are from senior scholars; others from younger, emerging ones. Some were selected because they are seminal essays that continue to inform

136 Jaroslav Pánek, “Mezi minulosti a budoucí našého domova: Malá úvaha nad Evropou,” presented at the “Valné shromáždění Učené společnosti České republiky ve Velké aule Karolína dne 17. května 2010. See published version entitled “Jsme všichní v Evropě na jedné lodí,” 1, 6–7. See also Pánek, “Česká historiografie a svět,” ČČH 3–4 (2012): 467–500. 40 introduction contemporary debates. Others draw on new sources and trends of research. All represent work that is not widely known or accessible in Western Europe and North America outside of specialist circles. For example, No essays on Rudolfine scholarship or works from a number of major figures described earlier are included because ample scholarship is available in English and German on this topic or by these scholars. Most of the essays in this volume deal with developments in the Kingdom of Bohemia which dominate contemporary Czech scholarship. Moravia, which has a developed historiography of its own, is represented in one essay; and arguably deserves more. No essays are included on Silesia and Lusatia because of the existence of numerous treatments by German and Polish historians; and the territory of what is today Slovakia because it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the late medieval and early modern period.137 Although no selection could fully portray the rich history of the Bohemian lands in the late medieval and early modern period in modern Czech historiography, the twelve essays present studies of some key moments and debates of the history in chronological order from the aftermath of the Hussite Wars to the aftermath of the Battle of White Mountain. While they essays were written in different time periods and different contexts, readers will be able to see some connections and developments of themes within Czech historiography both in the main texts and the footnote citations. Essays by Robert Kalivoda (Chapter One) and František Šmahel (Chapter Two) present two different views by two historians on the Hussite legacy to Bohemian history. While Kalivoda argues for the continuing, transforming influence of the post-Hussite settlement into the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, Šmahel focuses on ideas and manifestations of the Czech language and nation in the social political program of the revolution and in its immediate aftermath. In Chapter Three, informed by Šmahel’s views, Petr Hlaváček goes on to explore the national-linguistic situation at the end of the fifteenth and begining of the sixteenth century in a study of the Bohemian Dominican vicariate within the regional context, vis-a-vis developments within the Dominican order in Poland, Silesia, and Austria. Moving on to beginning of the Habsburg presence in the middle of the sixteenth century, Václav Bůžek discusses in Chapter Four the arrival of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Prague in 1547 to serve as Viceroy of his father, King Ferdinand I, the establishment of the Archduke’s court, and early relationships

137 See Mikuláš Teich, Dušan Kováč, Martin D. Brown, eds., Slovakia in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). introduction 41 with members of the Bohemian nobility. In Chapter Five, František Kafka and Anna Skýbová examine the renewal of the Archbishopric of Prague in 1561 within the context of Habsburg centralization of power, Catholic renewal and Bohemian estate politics. According to Kafka and Skýbová, the renewal of the Archbishopric, initiated by the Habsburgs, necessitated finding a resolution to the status of ecclesiastical property, which had been in the hands of civic authorities since the seat of the archbishopric became vacant in the early years of the Hussite Revolution. And even though all these issues were not completely resolved, the renewal of the Archbishopric represented an “Epilogue” to the Hussite Revolution. In Chapter Six, Josef Janáček describes the life of Polyxena, a daughter of one of Bohemia’s most powerful nobles, High Chancelor Vratislav of Pernstein, and wife of another, William of Rožmberk, who sought out advice from the Jesuits and became one of the strongest supporters of Catholic reform in Bohemia. Chapter Seven, Josef Válka presents a thoughtful analysis of the nature of relations between religious groups in Bohemia between the fifteenth and seventeeth centuries. In Chapter Eight, Petr Kreuz presents an interesting example of legal historical research today in the Czech Republic with an examination of cases of one type of crime, the sexual abuse and rape of children, before courts of a number of Bohemian cities in the sixteenth and seventeenth century; and ends by discussing one specific case, the accusation of Brikcí Kouřímský of Licska, the compiler of an early law code in Bohemia. In Chapter Nine, Tomáš Knoz describes the life and times of Charles of Žerotin the Elder, one of the most prominent Moravian nobles, introducing the political system of one of the most important, constitutent territories of the Bohemian Crown, and the intellectual and and cultural history of the period from sources outside of both the Habsburg court and more well known residential courts of Bohemia. In Chapter Ten, Jiří Mikulec provides a amazingly detailed picture of the composition and activities of religious fraternities, both Catholic and Utraquist, in Bohemia over the long duration of the late medieval and early modern period, though especially beginning in the early seventeenth century when sources become more available and Catholic reform increases more dramatically. This essay illustrates one new, critical, and non-confessional, approach to understanding and integrating the Catholic past into Bohemian history. In Chapter Eleven, Josef Grulich and Hermann Zeitlhofer explore larger migration patterns in one southern Bohemia, over the longer duration, drawing on sources wherever they might lead rather than seeking connections to “pre-bourgeois class conflict” which informed much of communist historiography. Lastly, in 42 introduction

Chapter Twelve, Lenka Bobková provides a thoughtful and balanced reassessment of the phenomenon of exile after the Battle of White Mountain, taking into account long-term effects and new evidence of exile.

James R. Palmitessa Volume Editor chapter 1 The Social Outcome of the Hussite Revolution

Robert Kalivoda

This is a major section of a 1983 article entitled “Hussitism and its Legacy in the Pre- and Post-White Mountain Periods” that builds on ideas first presented in an earlier book, Husitská ideologie [Hussite ideology] published in 1961. In this book, Kalivoda provides an analysis of Hussite thought and con- tends that the Hussite Revolution opened the way to the broader complex of the Bohemian Reformation whose direct influence reaches to what he sees as the ‘legitimate Revolution’ of the Bohemian estates 1618–1620 and to the ideas of seventeenth-century philosopher and educator Johannes Amos Comenius. Moreover, Kalivoda argues for the need to go beyond what he considers narrow national and regional perspectives and view the Hussite phenomenon within the broader context of developments ranging from the Waldensian, Cathar, and Chiliastic movements of the late Middles Ages to the European reformations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most of the book is devoted to late medieval developments. In this article, Kalivoda goes on to explain in detail the process by which “the ruling intellectual awareness” of Hussitism continued to shape the social and political transformation of Bohemia until the defeat at the Battle of White Mountain, which brought about a collapse of the “glorious Hussite Revolution.” This interpretation reflects some of the same views of nineteenth and early twentieth historians who view Hussitism as a high point of history, and of theologians who con- ceive of a long Bohemian reformation. More importantly, it reflects Kalivoda’s philosophical and Marxist interests and presents one of the most cogent arguments for understanding the continuing importance of Hussitism after the Revolution. While this interpretation is not the dominant one today among historians, its influence can be seen in the work of other historians. Robert Kalivoda (1923–1989) studied at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University of Prague where he wrote a dissertation on the ideology of German National Socialism. In the late 1940s and early 1950s he worked first as a secondary school teacher and then a staff member at the Czechoslovak Ministry of Education. From 1954–1970 he was a researcher at the Philosophical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences; and from 1970 to 1974, was employed at the Pedagogical Faculty of the Academy of Sciences. In 1974 he was granted early retirement for political reasons.

In addition to Hussite ideology, Robert Kalivoda is the author of Moderní duchovní skutečnost a marxismus [Modern Spiritual Reality and Marxism] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1968). Copies of the second edition of this work were destroyed just before their planned distribution in 1970. Posthumously appeared the works Husitská epocha a J.A. Komenský [The Hussite Age and Johannes Amos Comenius] (Prague: Odeon, 1992) and Husitské myšlení [Hussite Thought] (Prague: Filozofia, 1997). For a list of Robert Kalivoda’s works in history and philosophy, see Pavel Floss, ed., Historicko- filozofické dílo Roberta Kalivody. Mezinárodní kolokvium pořádené u příležitosti 10. výročí úmrtí Roberta Kalivody 1.–2. prosince 1999 v Olomouci [The Historical- Philosophical Work of Robert Kalivoda. International Colloqium organized on the Occasion of the 10th Anniversary of Robert Kalivoda’s Death, December 1–2, 1999 in Olomouc,] (Olomouc: Aluze, 2000). Place of Original Publication and Permission: Part III, pp. 19–30 of “Husitství a jeho vyústění v době předbělohorské a pobělohorské” [Hussitism and its Legacy in Pre- and Post-White Mountain Bohemia,] SCetH 25, XIII (1983): 3–44. The excerpt appears by permission of Jan Kalivoda and Eva Kalivodová.

The intellectual development of the Bohemian Reformation in the period after the Battle of Lipany was not some sort of evolutionary intellectual automatism, although the relative evolutionary autonomy of Hussite thought in this time has an important place here (by “Hussite thought” I mean both Utraquism and the ideology of the Unitas Fratrum). The basic principles of this thought— which had an enormous persistent force and enormous range of action in most of Bohemian society—were put into practice and maintained as the ruling intellectual awareness up until the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates [in 1618]. The transformation of this thought in the sixteenth century is only a modifica- tion of this thought, not in any way its “trans-substantiation” into something quite different (I wrote about this more specifically in section one). Nevertheless, the crucial basis of this intellectual development is the social development of post-Lipany Bohemia. Post-Lipany Hussite thought is the crucial intellectual instrument and at the same time the agent of this social development. I have to emphasize in this connection that Bohemian Reformation awareness is far from being merely a religious awareness; religious awareness here becomes at the same time a basic political awareness. That is the case in the whole process of the European Reformation, and especially emphasized in the Bohemian Reformation. Utraquism (here I mean again both Utraquism the social outcome of the hussite revolution 45 in the narrower sense of the word and the ideology of the Brethren as well; I will continue to use it in this sense) becomes at the same time a fundamental awareness of nationality.1 Enriched by its attitude of toleration, this Utraquism was capable of accepting even the minority Catholic part of Bohemian society as having equal rights, as long as they too governed themselves by the principle of tolerance which in reformation Bohemia became the law of the land. A substantial part of the Bohemian Catholic minority unquestionably inclined towards such coexistence. However, a fatefully tragic role in Bohemian history was played by the fact that it was always the militant Catholics bent on restoration who acquired political power, and after the Tridentine Council this counter-revolutionary element simply predominated. The “faithful Czechs” who were the bearers of this militant Catholicism and who mostly acquired influential positions in the Land, were not only enemies of the Czech nation; for the overwhelming majority, Utraquism was a basic form of national awareness. Seen in this light, the defenestration of the Bohemian governors initiated by the Bohemian Uprising of the Estates was a natural action taken against the Bohemian saboteurs of the Czech state.2 We can speak of Utraquism as a fundamental form of nationally political awareness in post-Lipany Bohemia because it was indeed a form of awareness not only in the majority of “free estates” but also the overwhelming majority of the “unfree,” i.e., the plebeians in the towns and the serfs in the countryside. That was a direct outcome of the Hussite revolution which engulfed and left a permanent mark on the whole of Bohemian society, and in Utraquism created a permanent bond between all the social classes of Bohemian post-Lipany society which was not and could not be liquidated, in spite of all the collisions between classes that took place in Bohemia up until the Battle of the White Mountain.3

1 [42] This is not in any way in conflict with the fact that post-Lipany Utraquism is by its basic import and content supranational, universal, that it is Czech in the sense of “böhmisch” [. . .] 2 [43] The dismissed Slavata was certainly subjectively a “faithfully minded Czech,” of which he convinces us in his multi-volume Bohemian history in which he makes connections with Hájek’s Chronicle. [. . . Václav Hájek of Libočany (died 1553) was the author the the 1541 Kronika Česká (Bohemian Chronicle). Vilém Slavata z Chlumu a Košumberka (1572–1652) was a member of the group of Catholic nobles who carried through the policies of Ferdinand II. He was one of three individuals who were defenestrated in 1618. Kalivoda makes specific reference to Paměti nejvyššího kancléře království českého Viléma hraběte Slavaty, ed. Josef Jireček, vol. II (Prague: I.L. Kober, 1866), esp. 212ff.] 3 [44] Through this, the Bohemian Reformation strikingly distinguishes itself from, for example, the later Polish Reformation, which made only minimal inroads among simple people and established itself essentially only among the sated classes. Therefore the Polish Reformation— 46 kalivoda

It is correct to state that, on the contrary, the Jacobin-democratic first phase of the Hussite revolution left a permanent mark precisely on the democratic formulation of the toleration principle in post-Lipany Bohemia, in which religious freedom was established even for the serfs. This considerably modified their social position in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain; the serfs had a share in both the achievements of the Basel Compacts and those of Rudolf’s Letter of Majesty. With those two basic laws of the land they were integrated as an equivalent component of the social structure of post-Lipany Bohemia, although they remained an unequal, “unfree” estate, unable share in the government of the land. As the Compacts of Basel, the Letter of Majesty, and religious tolerance were never mere religious phenomena, but at the same time an expression of the political state of Bohemian society, the serfs, in spite of their unequal position and in spite of their class struggles with the nobility, always had an interest in maintaining and upholding this state, and therefore supported the “free estates” insofar as they were able to do so in the fight against restoration (but of course, always in their own interests and intentions). This feature was demonstrated especially at the beginning of the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates [in 1618]. It would go against the facts to interpret the class parochialism of the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates in the sense that the broad masses of the Czech people had no interest in it from the beginning and were indifferent towards it. In reality it was the exact opposite. To start with, the Uprising of the Estates welded the whole Czech nation, and the broad masses had an active part in it; insofar as the powers and possibilities created for them by the Uprising allowed, they supported the “higher estates” in their struggle.4 It was only in the course of the Uprising, especially in 1620, that the mercenary method of warfare, which brought immeasurable suffering to the

soon liquidated—left no permanent marks on the Polish national political consciousness. The Polish resistance to the Swedes in the 17th century has, on the contrary, a marked folk Catholic nature and there are in fact Catholic folk “partisans”—as Milada Blekastad called them in her last work on Comenius—who during this anti-Swedish action occupied and completely devastated the reformed Bohemian-German-Polish Leśno and at the same time moreover, in Comenius’ manuscripts destroyed unique and irreplaceable artefacts of Czech culture. That is just the specific dialectic of history. [. . . Milada Blekastad, Comenius. Versuch eines Umrisses von Leben, Werk und Schicksal des Jan Amos Komenský (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969.] 4 [45] Bucquoy was very unpleasantly surprised during his first invasion of Bohemia in 1618 when he found out that he was everywhere assaulted by everyone, that the farmers generated all possible methods of resistance against him and led him into a desperate situation. [. . . Charles Bonaventure de Longueval, the Count of Bucquoy (1571–1621), was named commander of imperial forces after the Bohemian Uprising in 1618.] the social outcome of the hussite revolution 47 ordinary people, especially to the farmers, caused them to change their opinions; having to defend themselves “against everything” and in areas laid waste by war, the people found themselves in a desperate situation. Understandably they lost their original spontaneous interest in the Uprising.5 The estates did not want to make and did not make a popular revolution, and were therefore deaf to Georg of Tschernembl’s revolutionary proposal that the country folk be liberated from serfdom and thus won over to a full-scale war against the enemy.6 Nevertheless, 1620 and the years following brought numerous proofs of the fact that the simple Czech people were deeply interested in the last fateful context of the Bohemian Reformation without regard to its limitations regarding estates and classes. This was the case especially in the heroic Wallachian risings, constantly breaking out for a whole decade after the battle of the White Mountain, a contest crowned by unprecedented heroism long after other areas and elements of Bohemian society had already capitulated to a militant and triumphant enemy. If we speak of Czech post-Lipany society as of a society of “estates,” we now have to get to the core of this last section of our outline; that is, to a specific description of the post-Lipany form of the Bohemian social structure. It is not necessary to formulate the description anew, and would not even be acceptable in the context of this outline to expand on it more comprehensively, as I have already covered this in other works.7 The basic outcome of the analyses carried out in these works was the confirmation that Lipany did not mean the defeat of the Hussite revolution; on

5 [46] That is very analogical to the developmental changes in the behaviour of country people from the beginning of the Hussite revolution up to the time of Lipany. 6 [47] Tschernembl, leader of the Upper Austrian Estates which accepted the Bohemian Confederation [of 1619], is an outstanding figure whom our historiographers have still been completely unable to appreciate, let alone to the full. [. . . Georg Erasmus Tschernembl (1567– 1626), a Calvinist, aimed for a union of Protestants in the Habsburg lands. Kalivoda makes reference to H. Sturmberger, Georg Erasmus Tschernembl: Religion, Libertät und Widerstand. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Gegenreformation und des Landes ob der Enns (Graz and Cologne: Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1953).] Insofar as the question of the liberation of the peasants is concerned, one cannot overlook the fact that Tschernembl himself in his youth, when he was still the real master of feudal real estate in his Upper Austrian homeland, came out unusually harshly against the emanci- patory demands of the Austrian Protestant farmers. [. . .] 7 [48] See in particular the first and second parts of the first chapter of my book Husitská ideologie [(Prague: ČSAV, 1961)]; further my studies Die hussitische Revolution und die Podiebrader Epoche [(Prague: Academia, 1966)] and “Seibt’s ‘Hussitica’ und die hussitische Revolution,” Historica XIV (1967): 225–246. 48 kalivoda the contrary, it opened the way to its victorious climax by enforcing program policy variants of Hussites of the “centre right”. Such a culmination is the clear legitimate outcome of all revolutions of the bourgeois type. The basic revolutionary outcomes achieved in Bohemia were the liquidation of the estate of the clergy, the integrating of the towns among the ruling estates, and the creating of a new qualitative form of Land government and Land Assembly in the Bohemian Lands. This acquired the form of three independent, competent and free curiae, the lords’ estate, the knights’ estate and the burghers’ estate. That is, the estate of the clergy was replaced by that of the burghers. That was what the revolutionary overthrow, which has no analogy in any European country in the given period, was founded on. Further: the ruler was bound by the basic constitutional law of the land and by the Basel Compacts, and in this sense the monarchy became an early form of constitutional monarchy. In the election of George of Poděbrady as King of Bohemia the principles of an elected and not hereditary kingship are for the first time classically introduced into the life of the Bohemian Lands. Finally, the principle of “two faiths” which George made the basis of his politics, meant that for the first time the principle of religious tolerance was put into effect in Europe which, as we have shown above, was a political as well as a religious principle. Thus, around 1450 the first consolidation cycle of the Bohemian revolution closed in the political form of the classes which had prevailed in society.8 The basic problem was that the fate of the revolution was not definitively solved and closed by this first consolidation; on the contrary, the consolidation process had a long-term history and evolutionary logic. The development of an explicit point of view is based on an understanding of another long-term cycle of stabilization and consolidation of the achievements of the revolution, over a period lasting roughly from 1452 up to the Bohemian Uprising of the Estates, an uprising forced by continual attempts at the restoration and reversal of the fundamental outcomes of the revolution. The constant pressure for restoration was neutralized and continuously overcome by the constant counter-pressure of the victorious revolution. With a view to the fact that the Hussite revolution was the first Modern Age revolution in Europe, the strengthening and permanent enforcement of its achievements was from the international point of view a very difficult and very complicated task. The Bohemian “glorious revolution”9 had to wait a whole two hundred

8 [49] [. . .] 9 [50] We consider the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates to be a faithful historical archetype of the English “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 which in our opinion resulted quite legitimately from the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642. [. . .] the social outcome of the hussite revolution 49 years, whereas in England it was realized less than half a century after the outbreak of revolution. The first Poděbrady consolidation [i.e. during the reign of George of Poděbrady, 1458–1471] was immediately interrupted by a new crusade against the Utraquist Czechs. The aim of the crusade—restoration—was frustrated, but it which led to the temporary separation of all the adjoining Lands of the Bohemian Crown from Bohemia itself. Utraquist Bohemia found itself in deep international isolation. Vladislav Jagellon carried out a new attempt at restoration which at the eleventh hour was thwarted by the great revolutionary Prague Uprising of 1483. At the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the restoration attempts bore a new form: the aristocracy tried to force the towns out of the Land Assembly. The Bohemian royal cities frustrated this attempt in their last great political outburst and, through the St Václav Agreement of 1517, maintained their position as a free estate in society. Under the government of the first Habsburg, Ferdinand I, an incontestably able ruler, restoration attempts again grew stronger. The royal cities, led by Prague, inspired the first Uprising of the Estates [in 1546–1547] but were at the critical moment abandoned by the aristocracy and suffered a serious defeat. They were demoted to possessions of the Royal Chamber; the king appointed his highest officials to take them over, all military power was taken away from them (they were not even allowed to repair the city walls) and as a voice in the Assembly were left only to the “king’s revocation”. From a formal point of view they remained the Third Estate; but they were no longer. That was an essential change in the situation and it seemed that the pressure for restoration must triumph. It was shown however that the Bohemian aristocracy, for all its “anti-city” attitude was not a force for restoration (this topic will be discussed in greater detail) and became on the contrary a leading force in the political and intellectual system of the Bohemian Reformation.10 The greatest intellectual and political value of the Czech post-Lipany Reformation, Rudolf II’s Letter of Majesty, a newly perfected and higher Compact, was fought through under its leadership. There is evidence that in the struggle for the Letter of Majesty the leading personalities of the Bohemian reformed

10 [51] The second half of the 16th century in Bohemia has up to now received very weak treatment in our historiography, especially insofar as the political history of Bohemia is concerned. It is nevertheless a critical period, directly preceding the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates. A deeper understanding of this time gives an important key to the understanding of the structural development of Bohemian post-Lipany society, especially to an understanding of the leading role taken by the Bohemian aristocracy in Bohemian Reformation society. 50 kalivoda

aristocracy showed supreme political mastery and statesmanship rarely achieved in the history of Czech politics.11 We thus approach an important point of our exposition, which is worthy of higher attention. If the Bohemian Hussite cities had the lions’ share in the revolutionary outcomes which came out of the first consolidation cycle in the Poděbrady period, then the second long-term consolidation cycle provides us with a different picture. In the first stage of this second cycle the towns still play a leading role, as shown most evidently in the Prague revolutionary uprising of 1483, which created the opportunity to close the Religious Peace of Kutná Hora and realize a new and higher level of the state of tolerance. From this moment however a fierce struggle between the aristocracy and the cities began, ending in the defeat and demotion of the towns in the mid- sixteenth century. The leading position in the reform camp was taken by the aristocracy, which had the lions’ share in putting through Rudolf’s Letter of Majesty and at the same time showed statesmanlike maturity in their leadership. What does this mean? How can one explain this? The first conclusion one has to come to will mean a slight but fundamental correction to previous traditional interpretations, which show a kind of short connection between the fates of the towns and the fates of the whole Bohemian Reformation in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain. The fate of the outcomes of the Hussite revolution is not connected with the fate of the cities alone; on the contrary, it has to be admitted openly that the reformed Bohemian aristocracy in the second period of the second consolidation cycle managed not only to defend the basic outcomes of the revolution, but also to develop them at a new, higher level. The linear idea of the linear decadence and reactionary attitude of the pre-White Mountain Bohemian aristocracy, very common up to now, simply has to be rejected. In this way we come to another much more serious conclusion, which can maybe give deeper reasoning to this observation. The takeover of the leadership of the Bohemian Reformation of the sixteenth and beginning of the

11 [52] This concerns in particular the leading personalities of the Bohemian Brethren aristocracy, Peter Vok of Rožmberk and Václav Budovec of Budov. It is little appreciated till now that a fundamental basic power-political overthrow in Bohemia took place with the conversion of the last Rožmberk to the Unitas Fratrum. [. . .] Budovec’s importance has perhaps already been incontestable for a long time, even though still far from being illuminated from every side. What is lacking—if we take into consideration at this place the leading personalities of the Uprising of the Estates—is an all-round and complete appreciation of the personalities of Matyáš of Thurn, Václav Vilém of Roupov and a number of other Bohemian aristocrats who played an exceptional role in the life of Bohemia at this time. [. . .] the social outcome of the hussite revolution 51 seventeenth century from the reformed cities by the reformed aristocracy is an expression of an inner socio-economic transformation of Bohemian society, which is just one of the manifestations of a Europe-wide development. Through the discovery of new continents at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries and through the origin of colonial expansion and overseas trade, the focal point of the economic development of Europe shifted to the Atlantic coast12 and the economy of the continental towns stag- nated. The bearer of economic development on the continent of Europe now became the aristocracy which was transformed into an entrepreneurial aristocracy, developing large-scale production for the market and thus becoming its own bearer of proto-capitalist tendencies; this is shown in its classic form precisely here in Bohemia.13 The clash of the cities with the aristocracy in the course of the sixteenth century therefore has an ambivalent nature. In defending their economic privileges, the cities were also trying to uphold their socio-economic power which Bohemian Utraquism desperately needed. At the same time however, they put a break on the development of openly proto-capitalist large-scale production

12 [53] This of course was far from meaning that the focal point of further development automatically passed to the cities of the Atlantic-coast countries. Classic evidence of this is the case of Spain. Spain, which was the first to make discoveries overseas, gained a fundamental lead over the other Atlantic-coast countries which enabled it to become the first early capitalist European great power. Development likewise tended towards this and at the beginning of the 16th century Spain experienced, after the Hussite Revolution, the second early bourgeois European revolution, shortly before the continental German revolution and half a century before the Netherlands revolution. [. . .] On the revolutionary traditions of Spain, see in Czech literature the unique, brief but unusually inspirational outline by Kurt Konrad in his book Španělské revoluce [Spanish Revolutions], through which Konrad, founder of modern Marxist theory of revolution of the bourgeois type introduced his systematic study of this issue. The first edition of the book came out before World War II. [Kurt Konrad, Španělské revoluce (Prague: Naše vojsko, 1949).] 13 [54] On this, see my theoretical analysis in the first and second parts of the first chapter of Husitská ideologie, where I try to connect to Konrad at the point where Konrad was torn from his work by the Nazis, and where I try to show that the development towards capital- ism in continental Europe—and especially in Bohemia—was essentially different from the “English” development which Marx generalized in Das Kapital. On the separate specific aspects of this development in Bohemia see a number of works by Míka, Petráň, Válka, Janáček, Kavka, Matějka, Seibt, and other authors. [. . . Kalivoda does not provide specific citations to works by these authors anywhere in the article except for Ferdinand Seibt, Bohemica: Probleme und Literatur seit 1945 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1970).] 52 kalivoda which they themselves were not capable of inspiring, and whose instigator became the entrepreneurial aristocracy. The aristocracy, in its efforts to break the cities’ privileges, was also one of the causes of the social and political demotion of the towns; at the same time however it cut a path to the overall development of production and market relations. This again shows a progressive element in the activity of the aristocracy. The fact that the nobles had won the economic hegemony in the sixteenth century was strikingly demonstrated in the development of their subject towns and cities, which enriched the economy of Bohemia and Moravia to an unusual degree.14 The nobles became the progressive economic power and gained the most powerful economic position. Their ascent to the leading position in sixteenth century Bohemian society of the Estates was not only the natural outcome of the basic natural tendency of the socio-economic development of the lands of Bohemia, but also the natural result of the logical evolutionary transformation of those acquisitions brought by the Hussite revolution. In this sense the ascent of the aristocracy into this leading position is a clearly progressive phenomenon. It is therefore not at all unnatural for the aristocracy to become not only the bearer but at the same time the circulator of those basic intellectually political acquisitions brought by the Hussite revolution, and implement the most highly perfected and most democratic state of tolerance known in Europe up to this point of history. The leading aristocratic personalities, who in the contest over the Letter of Majesty showed a truly splendid statesmanlike outlook, eventually became aware that the demotion of the towns as possessions of the Royal Chamber, towns which had at the same time retained the chief fundamental cultural and intellectual values of the Bohemian Reformation, essentially weakened their own struggle with reactionary Habsburg absolutism. They gradually came to the conviction that the final balancing of accounts with this absolutism, which showed itself to be inevitable in the years after the Letter of Majesty, would not be possible without a radical new alliance with the royal cities, and that this alliance would not be possible for as long as the position of the cities as a free estate and as the third free curia in the Bohemian Lands was not renewed.15 Thus in that inexorable development towards the Bohemian

14 [55] Connected with this is the unusually interesting phenomenon, that the social focal point of the Unitas Fratrum and the Moravian German Anabaptists was precisely in the tributary towns and cities and smaller communities generally. [. . .] 15 [56] That was shown especially strikingly when the representative of the Prague New Town, Valentin Kochan, and the Žatec burgomaster Maxmilián Hošťálek were suspended by royal officials immediately after Ferdinand II was accepted as king, when it was necessary to demonstrate the royal power to those courageous city Utraquists who had allowed the social outcome of the hussite revolution 53

Uprising of the Estates, the basic interests of the Bohemian Utraquist towns and the Bohemian Utraquist aristocracy merged again, so that the first political act of the Uprising was the creation of a Directorate in which the royal cities again assumed the equal place they had occupied during the Hussite revolution.16 The demotion instigated by Ferdinand I was historically shown to be only a temporary defeat of the towns in the evolutionary dialectic of the revolution, and the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates definitively—although in a new historical situation and in significant new proportions—confirmed that basic structural revolutionary transformation of Bohemian society brought by the Hussite revolution. The awareness of the basic revolutionary change of the Czech social structures which came in the Hussite revolution also adds the chief—and it has to be said, convincing—argument against the last willful act of the restoration forces, which gave a last direct impulse to the unleashing of the Uprising: the abolition of the Protestant churches in Broumov and Hroby. In opposition to the argument of the ruling powers that this was church property, the Second Apologia of the Estates of Bohemia17 declared that in both cases it was property belonging to the Royal Chamber where, according to the Letter of Majesty and according to the Comparison linked to it, the church could offer the sacrament “under both kinds”18 because the estate of the clergy did not exist in the Bohemian Lands!! (meaning that it did not exist as a political and legal component of Bohemian society). We read in the Apologia: “. . . According to the Land Ordinance, the possessions of the clergy in this kingdom belong to the

themselves in previous negotiations to take up an independent standpoint. That was a clear manifestation of the degradation of the cities to a “royal chamber estate”. 16 [57] The composition of the municipal representatives of the Directorate shows again the deciding position Prague acquired among cities in Bohemian post-Lipany Utraquism. Of ten municipal representatives, alongside Hošťálek from Žatec and the Kutná Hora burgomaster, eight are from Prague! Four of these are from the Old Town, three from the New and one from the Small Side of Prague. [. . .] 17 [58] The Second Apologia of the Bohemian Estates, which essentially reworked the First Apologia and was widely circulated in Bohemia and internationally immediately after the defenestration, is, alongside the Act of Confederation, the greatest state and political document emerging from the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates. [. . .] Of earlier work on the Second Apologia, the study by Antonín Markus “Stavovská apologie z r. 1618,” (ČČH 1911, pp. 58–74, 200–217, 304–315, 421–435)—which has no other major worth—is valuable and indispensable from the bibliographic and literary descriptive point of view. 18 [59] See Porovnání mezi stranou pod jednou a pod obojí učiněné 9. června 1609, supplement- ing Rudolf’s Letter of Majesty. See Krofta, Majestát Rudolfa II. (Prague: Historický klub, 1909), 41. 54 kalivoda royal chamber. And how could the archbishop and members of holy orders raise themselves above His Imperial Majesty, who is bound by the estates in this kingdom, when they are not an estate (italicized or highlighted in the Apologia—note by Robert Kalivoda), and change laws?” As a source document for this inference the Apologia cites in its documentation the following paragraph from the Land Ordinance: “His Royal Majesty is pleased to come to an agreement on this with the estates of the nobles, knights, and cities and declare in the Land Ordinance: since from age-old time (italicized by Robert Kalivoda) there were no more estates than those of the nobles, knights, and cities, there should be no more than those listed above.”19 However, the Apologia, the basic political document which marked the start of the Uprising at the same time says, for the first time clearly, explicitly and officially, that the demotion of the cities to possessions of the Chamber, carried out by the first Habsburg ruler, is considered as unlawful and historically obsolete, and sharply distinguishes the free cities from those possessed by the Royal Chamber: “If the monasteries are part of the royal chamber, how could the subject cloisters be other than subject to the king? And if the king’s subjects can build churches on royal estates, why should they not have the right to build on ecclesiastical estates, which are also royal estates and which are only used by the prelates by the will of the king? The example of free cities led by the supposed Protestant is not right,20 since the king does not have the same right, as he does over cloisters, to sell, pawn, or register cloisters. To this, free cities are an estate in this kingdom while the clergy is not.”21 This restitution of the free estate of the towns was then given constitutional expression in the Bohemian Assembly of July 1619, at which the Bohemian Estates accepted and confirmed the new constitution of the Czech state, the Act of Confederation. The second consolidation cycle of the acquisitions of the

19 [60] See Apologie druhá stavův Kralovství českého . . ., the modern publication published by Václav Šubert (Prague: Tisk Karla Seyfriedca, 1862), 34, 352–353. The formulation of the Land regime, that “from long ago” there were in Bohemia no Estates except the lords’, knights’ and burghers’, is just a new interesting variant emphasising the “Soběslav rights” and should disguise and “immortalise” the revolutionary restructuring of Bohemian society after the Hussite revolution. [Editor’s note: This quote was translated from sixteenth- century Czech into English by the editor with assistance from Jiří Mikulec.] 20 [61] The text here is about a polemic with some pro-imperial standpoint of a “presumed” Protestant which appears several times in the text of the Apologie. In another exposition of the Apologie this “Protestant” is endowed with a further epithet, “dismal.” 21 [62] See ibid., p. 57; highlighted by Robert Kalivoda. The words “there is no spiritual Estate” are highlighted already in the Apologia. [Editor’s note: This quote was translated from sixteenth-century Czech into English by the editor with assistance from Jiří Mikulec.] the social outcome of the hussite revolution 55

Hussite revolution in the primary Land of the Crown of Bohemia thus finally culminated in the debate and acceptance of a set of basic articles concerning Bohemia itself. It is both interesting and remarkable that in the course of negotiating this restitution of the Bohemian Land system of government, counting on the bonding of three independent curiae, the curiae of the lords, the knights and the burghers, the century-old dispute about the towns’ economic privileges broke out again in a very acute form. This dispute became so critical that the towns threatened to leave the Confederation if their privileges were not recognized. It is equally interesting that the basic attack on the cities was carried out by the knights’ estate rather than the lords’, and that on the contrary, the leading representatives of the lords’ estate showed a considerable degree of statesmanlike generosity. In the end the towns apparently achieved at least a partial or temporary recognition of their requirements.22 The Confederation was saved. No less interesting is the fact that it was a leading representative of the lords, Jachým Ondře of Šlik (Joachim Andreas of Schlick), who with great vehemence and using all his authority against the knights’ estate administered a simple annulment of the degrading patents with regard to the towns whereby the Habsburg ruler had punished the first anti-Habsburg resistance (led by the cities). I quote this very important and instructive passage from Pavel Skála of Zhoř: “Meanwhile, as the estates returned to consideration of the articles . . . that the Prague cities should no longer have hejtmans, nor together with the other cities any imperial magistrates either and no longer be part of the royal chamber, the knightly estate responded to the cities with their opinions, that it would not hurt the Praguers if hejtmans remained, even if they in-two-kinds. With that the Praguers and other cities stopped among others Jachým Ondřej of Šlik with the important reason that: it is just and right to fully abolish the imperial hejtmans and magistrates and that the article should be removed from the Land Ordinance that states that royal cities are called part of the royal chamber [. . .]”23 It is clear that in Schlick’s basic presentation there is both considerable statesmanlike generosity, crossing the class barrier, and empirical class experience of the reformed aristocracy which understood that without an alliance with the Utraquist towns they would remain isolated in

22 [63] Pavel Skála of Zhoř tells us the most about this meeting in his Historie česká; see Skála, Historie česká, Part III, ed. Karel Tieftrunk (Prague: I.L. Kober, 1867), 196 ff. [. . .]. 23 [64] See Skála, ibid., 202–203; highlighted by Robert Kalivoda. [Editor’s note: This quote was translated from sixteenth-century Czech into English by the editor with assistance from Jiří Mikulec.] 56 kalivoda their struggle against the reactionary Habsburg absolutism. At the same time, one can see here a demonstration of class and political partisanship, as well as the limitations in class and politics of the knights’ estate. Unlike Skála, who never directly quoted the wording of the articles in question, Slavata briefly quoted at least some of the articles. We learn from him that what is to us a basic change, the negotiated “pruning of the Land government” was, in articles 15 and 16, in its most important practical outcome formulated thus: “that there should be no more royal hejtmans in the Prague cities. Similarly that the imperial knights expire both in the Prague cities and in other cities.”24 Thus the most important change to come out of the Hussite revolution was definitively confirmed and accomplished in the “glorious” Bohemian revolution; that is, the revolutionary restructuring of the socio-political and power political relationships in the Lands of Bohemia. The Bohemian Assembly in July was held in the context of the General Assembly of all the Estates of the Crown of Bohemia at which the most important political document emerging from the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates was accepted and ceremoni- ally confirmed.25 Through this act the achievements of the Hussite revolution were not only re-confirmed but also expanded into a quantatively higher form which was simultaneously an organic reflection of the evolutionary dynamic and evolutionary advance of the post-Lipany Czech state. I cannot deal with the articles of the Act of Confederation in detail here; I hope to carry out a multi-faceted analysis and evaluation in the book for which this paper is the starting point. Here I can only briefly enumerate their most basic revolutionary principles. Above all—as I mentioned above—a natural relationship between the Protestant majority and the Roman Catholic minority in the Czech state was created at the same time the freedom of the Catholic confession was maintained. The validity of the Bohemian Confession was expanded to Moravia and the validity of the Augsburg Confession—over which in 1609 the Czechs helped the Silesians in their fight—from Silesia to Lusatia.

24 [65] See Paměti of Vilém Slavata, vol. II, 236–237. 25 [66] Slavata incorporated the Act of Confederation, which has one hundred articles, in full into his Paměti, vol. II, 202–212. Slavata also incorporated into his narrative the confederation contract between the state of Bohemia and Lower Austria (see ibid., 227–229), between the state of Bohemia and Upper Austria (see ibid., 231–233), and the main documents about the confederation between the state of Bohemia and Hungary (see ibid., pp. 237–240). His Paměti acquired enormous value through recording these documents. the social outcome of the hussite revolution 57

The Czech state transformed itself into an electoral constituent monarchy, thus accomplishing the development towards an elected monarchy which had been taking place in the Lands of Bohemia from the time of the Hussite revolution. The ruler was limited by the constitution of the Confederation and the crucial role which was acknowledged by the free political curiae-estates in all the Lands of the Confederation. He was displaceable, and changed more or less into a titular king. The Czech state surpassed Bohemian hegemony with regard to the “adjacent” Lands of the Crown of Bohemia, transforming itself into a union of lands equal in law, and overcoming centuries of enmity between Czechs and Germans on the whole of its territory, enmity which had been triggered by socio- economic, ideological and political motives. At the same time, the state remained a unified state; it did not collapse into some sort of amorphous and indefinite patchwork,26 and the federation was interwoven with important unifying principles. The Confederation, together with Upper and Lower Austria and with Hungary, created the possibility of a structural transformation of the whole of central and continental Europe and thus a real possibility that the whole of central Europe would play an important, dignified and progressive role in European development in the Modern Age and be organi- cally connected to the unique intervention in European history which was the Hussite revolution. The Bohemian Directorate, having the lions’ share in the Confederation, was fully aware of its political and organizational importance, so that in the extremely short time of just one year, they were able to bring the Act of Confederation into the world.27 Under the leadership that year of the outstanding statesman Václav Vilém of Roupov, the Bohemian Directorate developed such an enormous, effective and far reaching activity that its work has been paralleled only in a few historic epochs of Czech politics. The European revolutionary nature of its political activity can be compared only to the European

26 [67] This frequently expressed opinion is completely false and can easily be overturned by an analysis of the individual confederation articles. 27 [68] Václav Vaněček meanwhile carried out an analogous evaluation—even though dis- proportionately brief in the context of a large monograph about Czechoslovak constitutional history, but at the same time quite careful—in Czech Marxist literature see Václav Vaněček, Dějiny státu a práva v Československu (Prague: Orbis, 1964), section on the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates, 236–241, as did Josef Polišenský in some important aspects in a number of his works. From the German side meanwhile the most compendious work about the Bohemian confederation is that by Rudolf Stanka, Die böhmischen Conföderationsakte von 1619 (Berlin: Verlag Dr. Emil Ebering, 1932). 58 kalivoda revolutionary nature of the politics which had been formed in the Hussite revolution itself. Subsequently, in this country and elsewhere, the importance of the politics of the Bohemian Directorate has not only gone unrecognized but also been seriously underestimated and often in a trivial and false manner subjectively misinterpreted and devalued.28 The acceptance of the Confederation constitution and the election of a constitutional king, Frederick of the Palatinate, formed the apogee and culmination of the first ascending era of the Bohemian Uprising; it also marked the beginning of the second, descending era, in which the Uprising hastened irrevocably to its defeat. This descent and this final defeat are far from being in any decisive measure the fault of the King himself or the activities of the Royal Council, even though the royal administration which replaced the Directorate stood undisputedly below the standard of the administration and government of the Directorate. The weakness, indecisiveness and in a sense unmanliness of Frederick, traumatized by the fact that his father-in-law, the King of England, was too concerned with his Spanish policy to support Frederick in the matter of Bohemia, played only the role of a catalyzer, facilitating and speeding up the final fall. At the end of 1619 in the third attack on Vienna, made possible by the Confederation Agreement which the Directorate had closed with Hungary, there arose a possibility of a fundamental reversal, a blow in the back whereby Slovak Upper Hungary, occupied by the Poles, forced Gabriel Bethlen to retreat from Vienna and thus cause the “third” campaign against Vienna to collapse. This fact however signaled a definitive reversal in the whole balance of forces, at the beginning in favor of the Uprising, but gradually equalizing, and with Poland’s open intervention turning in the Emperor’s favor; in the course of 1620 this turnaround in the whole balance of forces steadily worsened, so that in the same year it was already possible to speak of the defeat of the Uprising as being unavoidable. What is it however that justifies my affirmation at the beginning of this essay, that the defeat of the uprising was far from being a fatality? A sober analysis shows that the Uprising had the maximum chance for rapid total victory at its very beginning, but that over two years of struggle this chance continually

28 [69] The Directorate cannot be blamed on those essential chronic inadequacies and difficulties (above all the negative sides of a mercenary way of fighting and uninterrupted financial difficulties which resulted from this method of fighting) which objectively grew from the class nature and class limitation of the uprising. One has to be aware that the sated classes of the Bohemian Estates did not enter and were not drawn into the uprising, in order not to lose their own property, and possibly to avoid transforming the uprising into a people’s revolutionary war which would have turned against their interests. [. . .] the social outcome of the hussite revolution 59 grew smaller, so that in 1620 the chance not only came to nothing but was actually overturned in an inevitable prospect of defeat. Connected with that is the remarkable discrepancy between the political power and the military power of the insurgent activities. In mid-1619, the moment when the almost perfectly far-sighted and revolutionary political fruits of the Uprising were successfully maturing, the possibility of these fruits being fought for and ensured was gradually being squandered. At the start of the Uprising, Habsburg power was totally isolated in its own lands, the Lands of the Bohemian Crown and Upper and Lower Austria, and foreign assistance (which in the end was the only thing that saved it) could not yet be effectively demonstrated. Direct foreign assistance for the insurgents was on the whole negligible at the beginning of the action, but what was crucial was what the later interveners decided, and it was that that in the end sealed the fate of the Uprising. Poland, Bavaria and Saxony were shocked and neutralized by the Bohemian explosion; they maintained a waiting position of neutrality and adamantly turned down imperial requests for direct assistance. A rapid victory by the Uprising would have soothed these later decisive interveners perfectly. The pro-imperial assistance of Spain at the beginning of the Uprising was slow in forming and was moreover at this early moment perfectly balanced by the pro-Bohemian assistance from the Palatinate, the Low Countries and Savoy. Only the inability of the Uprising to triumph immediately changed the early neutrals into later interveners, of which the most embarrass- ing and shameful role was undoubtedly played by Saxony.29 In this way I come to the core of the last question, which I want briefly to clarify. It was not the balance of the pro-Bohemian and pro-imperial foreign political forces, which, as usually judged, decided the fate of the Uprising; for in itself this relationship of political forces was not constant and in the course of the Uprising changed in a far-reaching and qualitative way. It was the balance of forces within the camp of the insurgents themselves which had the deciding influence on the fate of the Uprising (and on the change in foreign policy relationships). If the uprising was not victorious at its beginning, when it could have won quickly and easily, it was for domestic and not foreign reasons. And so we arrive at the generally clear answer to the question posed. It was the absence of Moravia in the first year of the Uprising which was the root cause of the final catastrophe. The statesmanlike behavior and political wisdom of the Bohemian Directorate was shown in that immediately after the defenestration

29 [70] The treacherous stab in the back dealt by Saxony to the state of Bohemia in its mortal struggle in 1620 is the most abominable event in the history of the European Reformation. “Flacian” Lutheranism showed its true face here. [. . . .] 60 kalivoda it spent its maximum effort in winning over the other Lands of the Bohemian Crown to the Bohemian issue. And it is a tragic paradox of Czech history while as early as the autumn the Czechs were actively and effectively militarily supported by the German Estates of Silesia against possible anti-Bohemian intervention by Poland, Moravia was not only not supporting Bohemia, but allowing free passage to the imperial troops, and thus becoming the main platform for their invasion of Bohemia. This invasion was successfully repulsed, and Count Jindřich Matyáš Thurn implemented his basic strategic plan for the first time by invading Austria; however, the overthrow of inner Austria which was certainly the aim of Thurn’s mobilization was not accomplished, for the Moravian Land Assembly— as though hypnotized by the suicidal swing to the Habsburgs of the great Moravian Czech, Charles of Žerotín—after difficult discussions confirmed in December 1618 the pro-Habsburg attitude of the whole of Moravia and undoubtedly dismayed the Austrian Germans, who were clearly only waiting for Moravia to agree to join the Bohemian resistance before they themselves joined in. Thurn, doubtless also dismayed, returned from Austria and the first, the most hopeful attempt at realizing the Bohemian strategic plan foundered. The greatest chance for the Uprising, counting on one total, immediate and destructive blow, was lost and wasted. It was only Thurn’s military incursion of Moravia in spring 1619 that roused the Moravian Estates to join the Czechs and paralyze Žerotín’s influence. Immediately that happened Thurn, together with the Moravians, marched on Vienna for the second time with the same aim as on the first occasion: to arouse the Austrian Estates, and get them to join the Bohemian Uprising. The whole situation however was already worse, and the pernicious example of Žerotín’s “fundamental” pro-Habsburg position was not completely annulled. The Lutherans of Lower Austria should have opened Vienna to Thurn; plainly they were preparing to do it, but at the last moment they retreated. The problem, which for the Lutherans concerned their own material existence, i.e., the problem of revolting against their own authorities, could not be solved unequivocally by the Lower Austrians. They promised Thurn that they would open Vienna for him, assured him of their full support, but did not keep their promise. The well-endowed classes were not inclined to act resolutely and adventurously; in addition, why should the Lower Austrian Germans take their own ruler prisoner in the capital city of Austria when the Moravian star of the Czech Brethren was still showing his unshaken loyalty to that ruler?30 The disruptive influence of Žerotín’s attitude is all the greater in

30 [71] At variance with the degree of anti-Habsburg determination of the Lower Austrian Lutheran Estates, the Upper Austrian Lutheran Estates, led by the Calvinist Tschernembl, the social outcome of the hussite revolution 61 that it was a staunch attitude, justified by reason, convinced and honest, the attitude of a man who enjoyed great authority among the Austrian Estates. Such an attitude could all the more inspire and arouse every kind of opportunism, indecision, over-caution, dishonesty and cowardice, attitudes which could hide very well behind the pure commitment of the “Žerotín type”.31 Thus Thurn’s second invasion of Austria foundered. The fate of the third I have already mentioned. Nevertheless, the military and political strategy of the Bohemian Directorate and Matyáš Thurn is one of the greatest merits of the Uprising of the Estates. The Bohemian Directorate and Count Thurn revived the offensive revolutionary strategy of the Tábor Hussites and showed thus direct continuity between the Hussite revolution and the Uprising of the Estates in the most important question for the revolution. This strategy, achieved in Hussitism by Prokop the Bald, counted on transferring the struggle to the territory of the enemy and in gaining allies in its ranks. If Thurn foundered in this direction, it was not the same thing as Prokop’s lack of success in his effort to unleash the revolution in Germany. Czech-German hatred of each other, motivated ideologically and politically, was at that time a virtually insuperable obstacle to Prokop. In contrast, Thurn could in his strategy rely on the international solidarity, based on history, of the Bohemian and German forces for reform. Therefore his “Hussite” strategy had maximum prospects for success. Naturally, no strategy is math- ematically exact, and the intrusion of an unexpected and sudden factor which deals it a mortal blow cannot be ruled out. Here the factor was truly sudden, the failure of Czech Moravia in the first year of the Uprising. When the insurgent Czechs achieved their political aim and achieved a con- federative Czech constitution, an alliance with the German Palatinate and a confederation agreement with Upper and Lower Austria and with Hungary, they realized an international aim in a new historical situation and modifica- tion. It followed the Hussite revolution, but was still however unable to put it into practice. At the moment when the international aim of the Bohemian Reformation was at last fulfilled politically, it opened itself up to the terrible road to military defeat. That is where the tragedy of the Uprising of the Bohemian Estates lies.

show possibly in a very rounded way the basic distinction in the political content and impact of Lutheranism and Calvinism. The “Žerotín” attitude has to be submitted to a particular and comprehensive ideological examination. 31 [72] If we were to determine the personality whose actions had the most tragic impact on the fate of Bohemia in its whole history, then the choice would not be at all difficult; it is without doubt the person of Charles of Žerotín the Elder. [. . .] 62 kalivoda

The “glorious” Bohemian revolution, which should have had optimum prospects for opening the road to the further progressive development of the great Czech state and of the whole of central Europe, foundered. Its defeat had an incalculable influence not only on the future development of the whole of Europe but above all on the fate of the Bohemian Lands themselves in subsequent centuries. All the hardships, fears and tragedies of the Bohemian Lands in modern times have one fundamental “non-fatal” cause: the collapse of the “glorious” Bohemian revolution which could and should have triumphed, but did not. CHAPTER 2 The Divided Nation

František Šmahel

One of the broader questions surrounding the Hussite movement is whether or not the movement was an anomaly of European history, which in ways it appears to be, and why. In his augural lecture after being awarded the bronze medal from the Collège de France, František Šmahel argued that although every comparison within late medieval reform and hereitical movements is relative and problematic, Hussitism can be considered distinctive because of the great dynamism and internal coherence that the Czech nation gave the movement. This, he contented, was in contrast to similar phenomena in neighboring nations. Šmahel’s argument about the distinctive nature of Hussitism was first made and developed in Idea národa v husitských Čechách [The Idea of the Nation in Hussite Bohemia] (České Budějovice: Růže, 1971). In this book Šmahel a) criticized Marxist historiography which, according to him, viewed the national question at best as second-rate and then only within the context of class conflict, and b) took on work of the German medievalist Ferdinand Seibt. In a provocative, compelling book, Hussitica: Zur Struktur einer Revolution (Cologne: Böhlau, 1965), Seibt had criticized the national focus that he believed dominated Czech historiography and public consciousness from Palacký through to the communists. Among other issues, Seibt called for a critical understanding of the terms nacio and language and for a broader reading of the social-political program, which he claimed embraced “German Hussites” as well. In this excerpt from chapter five of the revised critical edition of The Idea of the Nation in Hussite Bohemia, published in 2000, Šmahel introduces reflections and manifestions of the Bohemian nation in the wake of the revolution, vis-à-vis the tension between economic needs and beliefs and relations with Bohemia’s neighbors (Germans and Poles). In contrast to Ferdinand Seibt and some Czech scholars (like Robert Kalivoda), Šmahel sees the essential nature of Hussitism in internal developments (i.e. national identity), and suggests a more subtle legacy of the Hussite movement. František Šmahel (1934-) is one of the most well known and acclaimed medivalists in the Czech Republic today. He is a corresponding fellow of the Royal Historical Academy and the British Academy, a member of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, a bronze-medaillon holder of the Collège

de France, and a Honorary Foreign Member of the American Historical Association and the Medieval Academy of America. After graduating high school, he worked as a miner before studying at the Philosophical Faculty University in Prague. After receiving his doctorate (1959), he worked at the Historical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (1964– 1974). Forced to leave that position after the Prague Spring for political reasons, Šmahel worked as a street-car driver in Prague (1975–1979) and later as director of the Museum of the Hussite Revolutionary Movement in the city of Tábor (1989–1989). Between 1993 and 1998 he served as Chair of the Department of Medieval Czech History of the Charles University. In 1998, he became the founding director of Institute for Medieval Studies and since 2004 serves as its deputy director. In addition to The Idea of the Nation, František Šmahel is author of an extensive list of works that include Husitská revoluce [The Hussite Revolution], 4 vols. (Prague: UK, 1993), which appeared in German translation in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica series (Hannover, Hansche Buchhandlung, 2002); Cesta Karla IV. do Francie 1377–1378 [The Journey of Charles IV to France, 1377–1378] (Prague: Argo 2006); and other books, essays, and articles dealing with the Hussite movement, early humanism, the history of the Charles University, and the Middle Ages in general. For a complete bibliography of his works (1956–1994) see Jaroslav Pánek, Miloslav Polívka, and Noemi Rejchrtová, eds., Husitství-reformace-renesance [Hussitism-Reformation-Renaissance,] vol. 3 (Prague: HÚ, 1994), 1059–1129. For a list of works since 1994 see Eva Doležalová et al., eds., Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku. Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi [Europe and Bohemia at the End of the Middle Ages. Essays dedicated to František Šmahel] (Prague: Centrum medievistick- ých studíi and Filosofia, 2004), 11–33. Place of Original Publication and Permission: “Rozdělený národ” [The Divided Nation,] chapter five of Idea národa v husitských Čechách [The Idea of the Nation in Hussite Bohemia,] Revised critical edition (Prague: Argo, 2000), 188–199, 212–225 (excerpts). This chapter appears by permission of the author.

The Compacts of Basel and of Jihlava were nothing other than a forced recognition of the Chalice and everything that involved. Even though the Church had not legalized Utraquism as a confessional offshoot, a dual faith—and the consequent rift in society in the matter of faith—existed de facto in the Bohemian Lands. The dogmatic and doctrinal differences were not especially independent; those however were not the sole inheritance of the wartime the divided nation 65 period of revolution. Profound interventions into the state system, enormous changes in the ownership of land, and the general weakening of the positions of Roman Catholic Church prevailed beyond the Battle of Lipany (1434). In the subsequent period there was a no less consistent struggle over that than over the Chalice. A guarantee of both—that is of the Chalice and of the economic and political status quo—would surprisingly (but not in any way accidentally) the changeable coalition of the nobility and the burghers, which had as early as 1420 raised its own Bohemian-Hussite variant of reforms in opposition to Taboritism and which, with the defeat of the Taborites and Orphans of the field communities, disposed of its stubborn internal opponent.1

The Czech Nation after the Revolution—Economic Needs in Conflict with Faith

The idea, connected with the Hussite Revolution, that there was a farsighted and penetrating Czechization of formerly German or mixed-language areas of what were known as the principle lands of the Crown of Bohemia, comes all the more into conflict with the results of modern research.2 It is certainly worth taking note that the defenders of this thesis are forced to argue predominantly by conjecture, from meanwhile no specific analysis of sources has confirmed their impression. Some correction of earlier opinion has been brought about by the work of Josef Klik on nationality relationships in Bohemia and Moravia in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain.3 What was only

1 According to Robert Kalivoda, “Seibtova Hussitica,” HUCP 8–2 (1967), 80, note 35, it concerned an “eloquently ego-centric nationalist nature of anti-Taborite agitation, which deprived the conservative Hussites of [the Battle of] Lipany.” 2 Adolf Bachmann in particular emphasized the influence of Hussitism on the Czechization of the land, in Geschichte Böhmens, vol. II (Gotha: Perthes, 1905), 675–677. Also see Jan Slavík, Vznik českého národa, vol. 2 (Prague: Knihovna národního osvobození, 1948), 198, according to whom it is necessary to take into consideration that “the Germans held on exactly in those cities where the Hussite revolution had not triumphed.” 3 Josef Klik, “Národnostní poměry v Čechách od válek husitských,” ČČH 27–28 (1922), 28f. Alois Míka came to the same conclusion on this point, “Národnostní problémy Čechů v 16. století,” DaS 11, 5 (1969), 18–21. On the basis of Schwarz’s research he evaluated the changes and shifts in composition of 64 Czech cities and towns before and after 1420, F.G. Heymann, “Česká města před husitskou revolucí, v době jejího trvání a jejich etnický vývoj,” JSB 40, special number 45–46 (1971). The Moravian conditions were researched from the same point of view by Ludmila Sulitková, “Národnostní struktura moravských měst ve středověku se zvláštním zřetelem na královská města” in Národnostný vývoj miest na Slovensku do roku 1918, ed. Richard 66 šmahel indicated in Klik’s work was then confirmed in its full extent by the independent analyses of Ernst Schwarz.4 Particularly important is the fact that the language frontier of 1420 remained valid (in spite of certain swings during the war and later) until the beginning of the German Reformation.5 In the case of towns and villages within the Bohemian Lands the Czechization was almost complete, which in itself was no small contribution to the firming of territorial wholeness of language and ethnic Czech community. In Moravia, where Hussitism and military operations did not take place with the same intensity, this process ran more sedately, and only affected a few areas. However, a major role everywhere was played by the ethnicity of surrounding territory. Where the village populations were of German nationality, the Czech settlement of a formerly German city caused considerable difficulties. Německý Brod and Chomutov are specific cases which maintained their German features in spite of the fact that during the revolution they were occupied by Hussite troops.6 In the border regions or the larger German-speaking parts in the interior of the country the ethnically Czech element could maintain its new position only with the resettlement of the Czech population from more distant places. However, with the exception of the linguistic enclave of Kolín—Kutná Hora—Čáslav, there is scarcely any evidence about any such migration. Not infrequently therefore, of greater significance than the sudden and predominantly violent exchange of inhabitants in the war years, was the gradual and natural penetration of the Czech population which in some areas

Marsina (Martin: Osveta, 1984), 255–266. For the indistinctness of the border between the Czech and German population in the Jagiellonian period see Josef Macek, Jagellonský věk v českých zemích, vol. IV (Prague: Academia, 1999), 177–186, where there is also information about nationalist conditions in the formerly German towns. For the following period see Josef Janáček, České dějiny. Doba předbělohorská 1526–1547, I-1 (Prague: ČSAV, 1971), 175–178. Zdeněk Boháč tried to establish in absolute and relative numbers the composition of nationalities in the Bohemian Lands around 1400 and 1550, “Národnostní poměry v zemích České koruny v době předhusitské a do třicetileté války” in Husitství—reformace—renesance: Sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, vol. 1, eds. J. Pánek, M. Polívka and N. Rejchrtová (Prague: HÚ, 1994), 123–132. While in Moravia the proportion of Germans did not change (15%), in Bohemia it apparently rose from 15 to 20%. 4 Ernst Schwarz, Volkstumsgeschichte der Sudentenländer, vol. 2 (Munich: Lerche u.a., 1966), 460f.; Schwarz, “Die Volkstumsverhältnisse in denStädten Böhmens und Mährens vor den Hussitenkriegen,” Bohemia 2 (1961), 109–110. 5 Ibid., 461 and elsewhere. 6 Schwarz, Volkstumsgeschichte, vol. 1 (Munich: Lerche u.a., 1965), 168 and vol. 2, 209, about the situation in Chomutov, about which it was said “people everywhere and in Chomutov Germans,” Macek, Jagellonský věk IV, 180. the divided nation 67 continued smoothly throughout the fifteenth century, as can be judged at least from some more specific indications.7 The settlement of the half abandoned cities and towns by Czech country people did not necessarily lead directly to the regeneration of the city organism, counting on craft production and trade. On the assumption that the new immigrants would not immediately replace the departed craftsmen and manu- facturers, early German historiography extrapolated the thesis that the forcible expulsion of the German population had as its consequence the immobiliza- tion of craft manufacture and trade.8 In the case of mining in Kutná Hora this was undoubtedly was the case. Evidence appears in the ruling of the city council of 1433 concerning the acceptance into the community “of former German miners who had fled”.9 Otherwise however, if we proceed from the work of Zikmund Winter and Josef Janáček,10 the post-revolutionary period (1437–1490) in the Bohemian Lands was an era of expansion in craft manufacture, which grew to such a degree that the local market was flooded and some products from the Bohemian Lands successfully established themselves in more distant markets. The not too numerous and, as far as statistical studies are concerned, not too suitable sources do not allow for the comparison of the scale of production in predominantly Czech towns with that in predominantly German towns.11 However, taking Tábor as a specific example which, transformed itself surprisingly quickly from a onetime military fortress to a prospering centre of crafts, it is plain that the transition to the normalization

7 From this point of view the surviving Land Register Books of the Žďár Monastery for 1407, 1462 and 1483 are instructive. They contain an analysis of national origins based on the language of the registered serfs; see Schwarz, Volkstumsgeschichte 2, 88. 8 Strictly speaking, there were not many similarly afflicted towns; even so it would be necessary to take them case by case, since any sort of generalization in this direction comes up against a lack of source-based evidence. 9 Jiří Kejř, Právní život v husitské Kutné Hoře (Prague: ČSAV, 1958), 152. 10 See primarily the work of Josef Janáček, Řemeslná výroba v českých městech v 16. století (Prague: ČSAV, 1961), the conclusions to Chapter 3 on 63, and the evaluation of the comprehensive factographical works of Zikmund Winter on 9f. Jaroslav Marek came to mark- edly different conclusions in the case of Moravia in Společenská struktura moravských královských měst v 15. a 16. století (Prague: ČSAV, 1965), 116. The Hussite Wars together with the preceding and subsequent muddles mean for cities there not only a decline in economic prosperity but also population stagnation. 11 Zikmund Winter has already noted the national aspect in connection with the guilds in Dějiny řemesl a obchodu v Čechách v XIV. a XV. století (Prague: CAFJVSU, 1906) and provisionally in the course of an analysis of separate locations even Schwarz, Volkstumsgeschichte 1 and 2. For the last time to the nationality issue of the post-Hussite guilds, Macek, Jagellonský věk IV, 182–183. 68 šmahel of economic function of the urban settlements was not too serious a problem once conditions in the country as a whole allowed. At the same time it should not be lost from sight that, especially in the period of the revolution itself and in the years directly following, there were considerable economic difficulties which derived from the limitation of business contacts to the absolute minimum. The Hussite areas could temporarily do without a number of imported products but not without salt, spices and other goods essential for everyday life.12 Hand in hand with anti-Hussite publications and crusades went prohibitions on all sorts of things such as business dealings with the Czech heretics.13 The importance attributed to the economic blockade is likewise indirectly apparent from tracts in which it is emphasized that if the Bohemians and Moravians comply with the Holy See, “many merchants and craftsmen” would return again.14 To be honest, in spite of all the bans and threats, trade with the heretical regions never quite came to a stop even in the years of the hardest struggles.15 However, in order to ensure at least the minimum provisioning of essential foreign goods, the Hussites had more

12 A list of goods which could not be imported to Bohemia, in a letter of May 16, 1424, from Cardinal Branda to the Bishop of Regensburg—František Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges in den Jahren 1419–1436, vol. I (Prague: B.F. Tempský, 1873), 337. 13 See also a number of warning letters addressed to various recipients in Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte Böhmens und seiner Nachbarländer im Zeitalter Georgs von Podiebrad (Vienna: Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof- und Staatsdrückerei, 1860), vol. I, 189–190, 265–266, etc. 14 See for example the treatise beginning with the question “Qualiter persuadendi sing layci Boemie et Moravie ad abolendam communionem sub utraque specie” to which Jaroslav Prokeš drew attention in Husitská Vatikánské knihovny v Římě (Prague: Orbis, 1928), 40. 15 For more details see Josef Janáček’s study, “Der böhmische Aussenhandel in der Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” Historica 4 (1962): 39–58; Adolf Wagner, “Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des Salzhandels von Linz nach Böhmen (II),” Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz (1962): 85–104 and “Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des Salzhandels von Linz nach Böhmen (III),” Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz (1963), 11–42; Zdeněk Šimeček “Monopolní obchod s vínem v Českých Budějovicích 1424 až 1434,” Sborník historický II (1963): 7–65; Hans Schenk: Nürnberg und Prag. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Handelsbeziehungen im 15. und 15. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1969), Chapters 4–6. Recently Miloslav Polívka has written on this issue in the context of research into Hussites abroad: ‘černému obchodu’ s kutnohor- skou mědí v husitské době,” ČMM 113 (1994): 25–34, other literature on the subject can also be found here. Note also Šmahel, “Wirtschaftliche Beziehungen Nürnbergs mit den ‘böh- mischen Ketzern’ in den Jahren 1419 bis 1434. Haben die Nürnberger mit den Hussiten Handel betrieben?,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 86 (1999), 1–19. the divided nation 69 than once to compromise, which was in conflict both with the military situation and with the views of their ideological spokesmen.16 Not only in the time of revolution but later too, fundamental economic needs were the major factor leading to normalization of the function of the social organism and to the moderating of a priori, ideologically motivated tendencies and prejudices between the Calixtines (Czechs) on the one hand and the Catholics (foreigners) on the other. [Editor’s note: Calixtines literally means “the people of the chalice” (from the Latin calix) and is the equivalent of the Czech word kališníci which has the same meaning. Practically, it is syn- onymous with the term Utraquists, but places emphasis on the central symbol of of Hussitism, especially in the early history of the movement.] Although the return of fugitives or the arrival of new foreigners was for the most part a substantial asset for the resuscitation of economic and trading relations, the Calixtines did not judge it only from this point of view. If the consolidation of economic conditions was accompanied by a clear attempt to restore pre- Hussite conditions, there was naturally a fear that the return of the Germans, and therefore of the Catholics, would be a sign of the gradual liquidation of Czech heresy by way of its inner weakening. In this regard a letter from the city council of Tábor of 22 January 1443 addressed to Oldřich of Rožmberk is typical. In it some unnamed Bohemian lords are reproached for trying to “build up the German language and weaken the Czech voices, by bringing Germans into the country.”17 Especially sensitive was the increasing number (followed by the Calixtines) of returned fugitives and foreigners arriving in Prague. Even though they were not so numerous, it was a thorn in the eye of more than one nationally-minded Utraquist. George of Poděbrady’s occupation of Prague in September 1448 therefore met with a warm welcome from such persons, for “Germans and opponents (i.e., of the Chalice) have left the college and many citizens have fled the Old and the New Towns.” 18 However, soon after that all three Prague townships resolved that merchants of “whatsoever language” from abroad could

16 The sharp criticism of business and trade which we come across in, for example, the preaching of Jan Rokycana, was already current in pre-Hussite moralizing. Rokycana’s views on business practices are summed up by František Šimek in Učení M. Jana Rokycany (Prague: ČSAV, 1938), 196f. 17 See Blažena Rynešová, ed., Listář a listinář Oldřicha z Rožmberka, vol. II (Prague: Ministerstvo školství a národní osvěty, 1932), 246, no. 231. 18 František Šimek, ed., Staré letopisy české. Z vratislavského rukopisu novočeským pravopisem (Prague: Historický spolek, 1937), 112. For visits by foreign students to Prague in the 1440s, see the author’s study “Počátky humanismu na pražské univerzitě v době poděbradské,” AUC-HUCP I (1960), 57f. 70 šmahel come to Prague and freely continue their mercantile activity under the conditions that they would observe the standard rules and refrain from disparaging or offending the faith.19 Other Bohemian and Moravian towns with a Calixtine majority clearly took a similar approach, although we do come across cases where some guilds accepted only Czechs. Such a case was that of the butchers of Chrudim, who in 1455 ruled that they should not accept “any German in our trade (. . .) except those who are already members.”20 On the basis of similar data, evidence of the spontaneous or requested arrival of German craftsmen and settlers, it was sometimes judged that the new wave of “Germanization” of the Bohemian Lands did not date from the Lutheran Reformation but was already the case in the fifteenth century.21 Such a view does not have sufficient foundation, but nevertheless from time to time in Czech public opinion fears do appear that the succession of a ruler-foreigner really would lead to such consequences. It is certain that the consolidation of the exchange economy mechanism was obstructed up to the end of the Poděbrady period by a variety of factors to do with both internal and foreign policy, which was reflected in the relatively rare writing which concerns these mattes. It is interesting that the two authors I have primarily in mind, advised King George not to hesitate in opening the lands to foreign merchants and craftsmen. The Catholic encyclopedia compiler Pavel Žídek saw the chief obstacle in the fact that the Calixtine priests “do not allow perfect craftsmen to settle or carry on their trade or merchants to put down roots or foreigners to reside, unless they have negotiated with them matters to do with the faith hateful to all the world”.22 Whilst Žídek linked a return to Catholicism with a vision of the cloves, ginger and saffron of which, according to him, there was not enough in the whole Prague for even a sack- ful, the king’s French adviser Antonio Marini put forward reasons of a purely

19 See Rudolf Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, vol. 2, České dějiny (Prague: Laichter, 1918), 326. 20 See Antonín Rybička, “Práva řezníkům chrudimským od obce daná roku 1455,” ČČM 37 (1863), 212 and 214; further documentation can be found in Winter, Dějiny řemesel, 686, 405 and 407. 21 Josef Klik, for example, in Národnostní poměry, 28, places the new Germanization of Bohemia in the 15th century. 22 Zdeněk Tobolka, ed., M. Pavla Žídka Spravovna (Prague: CAFJVSU, 1908), 16–17. In the con- fused mixture of Žídek’s advice there is however no lack of cunning insights and above all of critical reservations, for Žídek in his vanity considered himself to be the expert of all experts. Therefore he sometimes artlessly says what others avoid. If the Czechs are “stupid at many crafts, in particular anything to do with ores and mining,” it would be in his opinion stupid for the king not to allow foreigners into the land (20). Elsewhere, however, he does not forget to emphasize that the condition is that they learn Czech (56). the divided nation 71 economic nature. Confessional or other ideological considerations had no place in his Rada králi Jiřímu o zlepšení kupectví v Čechách [Counsel to King George on the improvement of trade in the Bohemian Lands].23 It was no accident that Marini, in his “Advice” drew attention to certain elements of mer- cantilism. Regardless of that however, one should add that Marini’s Advice reached George of Poděbrady at a time when, in view of the external and internal threats to Utraquism, he could not count even on a realization of those impulses which contained real proposals, alongside superficial illusions.

National Reasoning in the Pre-Election Propaganda

In the post-revolutionary Lands of the Crown of Bohemia the king’s power was shaken. Its maintenance was linked with considerable internal and external difficulties and obstacles; in spite of that however there were more than enough candidates for the empty throne of Bohemia from the death of Sigismund (1437) until the election of George of Poděbrady (1458). The question of the succession, more exactly, the election of one of the candidates naturally had in this period an quite exceptional significance not only for the possible candidates for the Crown of Bohemia but also for the individual Lands of the kingdom, and then for the very varied political power groups, as well as for the layers of the population differentiated by nation and by confession. The very act of the royal election was a matter of “high politics” represented especially by competent members of the Bohemian Diet. Nonetheless the egoistic despotism of the holders of power as well as the deciding voices was held in check by direct and indirect pressure from below. Therefore a role was played in the election campaign not only by the regular means of corruption, promises and diplomatic intrigues, but also by propaganda aimed at the wider public. We should not over-value the response and influence of these acts of propaganda. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the individual election parties devoted no small attention to them, they are at the very least worth our notice, partly because a common feature of all the propaganda flyers and pamphlets was an appeal reflecting on the national and confessional consequences of the election of whichever candidate. Emperor Sigismund, who was already of advanced age by the time he was effectively recognized in Bohemia, tried all he could during his lifetime for his

23 K.J. Erben published Marini’s Counsel to King George in Výbor z literatury české, vol. II (Prague: František Řivnáč, 1868), cols. 772–792. 72 šmahel son-in-law Albert Habsburg to be named his successor.24 In spite of the fact that Albert had only the Catholic nobility and moderate Utraquists on his side he was, with the help of a few concessions to a hesitating group in the centre, successfully elected just a few weeks after Sigismund’s death. The commitment to recognise the Compacts and the outlawing of foreigners from Czech offices given in the Election Capitulation were naturally essential conditions.25 For the Council and for the Catholic countries, except Poland, Albert’s success (for which he acquired the nickname “hammer of heretics”)26 was more than a promise of the early pacification and re-catholicization of the heretical centers. The resistance to Albert on the part of the Taborite federation of towns and the lesser nobility in east Bohemia could not, during the hurried pre-election negotiations, be effectively demonstrated. However, it represented greater weight in the period immediately following. The possible candidature of the Polish prince Casimir in which the anti-Albert opposition put their hopes, was not necessarily unrealizable; it represented a serious threat which was emphasized by the political and diplomatic agility of the Cracow court. In this dangerous situation Albert had to invest much greater effort to stay on the Throne of Bohemia than to win it in the first place. The political propaganda of the two warring courts was extremely flexible and careful to keep in mind the interests of those to whom it turned with its arguments. The Habsburg court devoted exceptional propaganda to the whole territory of the Holy Roman Empire both by means of diplomatic legations, and with the help of tendentious publicists.27 Outside Bohemia, Albert was presented to the public as the most reliable support of church unity, threatened by the danger of a possible Bohemian and Polish alliance.28 Alongside Albert’s many years of service in the struggle against the Hussite heresy, the public was reminded that Bohemia might split from the Empire, with the rea-

24 For more on this subject see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, I, 326, 222f., and more recently Roman Heck, Tabor a kandydatura Jagiellońska w Czechach (1438–1444) (Wrocŀaw: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskych, 1964). 25 For the requirements of the Czech Estates and Albert’s reply see František Palacký, ed., Archiv Český, vol. III (Prague: Kronberger and Řivnáč, 1844), 459–161, no. 30. 26 See Urbánek, Věk poděbradský I, 231, which gives some more contemporary characteristics. 27 Heck explains the reasons in Tabor a kandydatura Jagiellońska, 114–115. In the following text I rely in particular on chapter 6 of this monograph, which was published with fuller wording under the title “Walka ideologiczno-propagandowa o kandydaturę Jagiellońską w Czechach w roku 1438,” Sobótka 18 (1963), 95–119. 28 See for example the instruction for Konrad Weinsberg in Gustav Beckman, ed., Deutsche Reichstagsakten. Ältere Reihe, Vol. 13 (3e) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 482. the divided nation 73 soning that the Poles not only would not allow the Crown of Bohemia to go to a non-Slavonic ruler, and would moreover oppress the Germans residing in their lands.29 To counter such propaganda and to strengthen Albert’s position in Bohemia, emphasis was laid especially on the promises given by the king in his Election Capitulation. Inasmuch however as Bohemia was a subject of contention accompanied by a highly intensive propaganda campaign, official declara- tions were accompanied by a publicist polemic countering Polish aspirations. In the compositions of Albert’s clerk Albert’s clerk Nicolaus Petschacher, for example, the German origin of the Luxemburg dynasty is recalled as a proof that the nationality of the ruler is of less importance than his piety and justice. Albert would be a second Charles for the Czechs, he claims, for both Czechs and Germans were his brothers. He is the only one who could raise Bohemia from the dust, guarantee her internal peace, fill the Bohemian treasury and renew the fame of Prague University.30 The writer’s resentment naturally turns in particular against the Poles, for whom the greatest insult and dishonor is insufficient.31 In the same spirit is an allegorical German composition by the otherwise unknown versifier Radeler which was primarily intended for a public which did not know Latin. In his concluding lines Radeler does not forget to wish the Hussites all the worst.32 Official propaganda coming from the Polish royal court was also differentiated according to its intention. However, Slavophil argumentation was present in practically all these manifestations, although a little more conciliatory in diplomatic documents. The same could be said of the accent on the nationalist aspect, predominantly anti-German. The latter was muffled only in documents and writings intended for the international forum at which in the first case the close blood-relatedness of Poles and Czechs was emphasized, and then on the unselfish and Christian endeavor of the Polish court to return the ruined and

29 In the instructions of Albert’s messenger to the Order of Teutonic Knights we read for example: “sie die Deutschen gehoren lassen zu enigen zeiten, sunder alle Deutsche lande zu drucken, wo si mogen,” Beckmann, Deutsche Reichstagsakten 13, 488. More on this can be found in Heck, Tabor a kandydaturę Jagiellońska, 106–107. 30 Petschacher’s compositions were published by J. Huemer, “Historische Gedichte aus dem XV. Jahrhundert. Nicolaus Petschacher.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 16 (1895): 633–652; for their content see Heck, Tabor a kandydatura Jagiellońska, 108f. 31 Especially prominent are the anti-Polish sentiments in Petschacher’s composition Qualis debeat esse election Regis, ed. J. Huemer, 331–332. 32 Radeler’s composition was published by Rochus von Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen von 13. bis 16. Jahrhundert, vol. I (Leipzig: Vogel, 1865), 364–366. 74 šmahel once “sacred” kingdom to its original state.33 Insofar as propaganda and cam- paigns were carried out by the Czechs themselves, it is possible on the basis of surviving sources to judge that that anti-Habsburg and anti-German statements predominated. This is valid especially for literary memoirs or reports on them which, however, is one-sided evidence, for Albert undoubtedly had supporters even in Bohemia, and not only—as was already indicated—among the Catholics. The standpoints of two contemporary Czech chroniclers also typically differ. Whereas to one of them Albert is good as a “king, although a German”— bonus, licet Theutonicus,34 he second inclines towards his opponents, who “did not want to be subservient to German power, which could lead to great evil in the present and in the future, and to all the Slavonic tongues, as is always to be seen, and this can be found in old chronicles, that the Germans are, always were and will continue to be the chief enemy of the Czech language, the Polish language and all Slavonic languages, which would lead to great damage and shame”.35 From the title of Petschercher’s composition contra Ruckenzanum, qui composuit canciones contra domnum Albertum, one might think that Rokycana, as the leading spokesman of Utraquism, opposed the Habsburg ruler not only in his sermons, but also in rhymed songs. Even though this evidence is not otherwise supported,36 other Calixtine representatives did not renounce the use of similar literary propaganda. “Czechs should be diligently warned and with all urgency avoid falling into the use of a foreign language and especially not German,” starts the Krátké sebránie z kronik českých k výstraze věrných Čechóv (s short selection from Czech chronicles to warn faithful Czechs) which most scholars link with the Polish candidature in 1437 and 1438.37 This dating is not incontestable, since

33 Heck, Tabor a kandydatura Jagiellońska, 103. 34 “Kronika Bartoška z Drahonic,” in Jaroslav Goll, ed., Kronika Vavrince z Brezove—Vytah z kroniky Vavrince z Brezove—Vavrince z Brezove piseň o vitezstvi u Domazlic—Tak zvana Kronika university prazske—Kronika Bartoska z Drahonic—Přdavek kroniky Bartoska z Drahonic, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. V (Prague, 1893), 623. 35 Šimek, Staré letopisy české, 79–80. 36 Heck, Tabor a kandydatura Jagiellońska, 98, claimed that Rokycana composed hymns against Albert. Urbánek, Věk poděbradský I, 329, note 1, has instead of cantiones the more plausible contiones, that is preaching. 37 For the dating of this composition see Rudolf Urbánek, O volbě Jiřího z Poděbrad za krále českého 2. března 1458 (Prague: ČSAV, 1958), 29–32, who puts it at the beginning of 1458 and Heck, Tabor a kandydatura Jagiellońska, 98, note 4. Jaroslav Boubín introduces four serious arguments for dating it 1437–1438 in Česká “národní” monarchie: k domácím zdrojům a evropskému kontextu království Jířího z Poděbrad (Prague: HÚ, 1992), 72–73, 130. the divided nation 75 some parts of the “Short Selection,” in particular a mention of “the most powerful Czech,” could also relate to the election campaign of George of Poděbrady twenty years later.38 From our point of view it is not necessary to research the correctness of one or other dating, since we are interested mainly in the attitude of the writer to the national origin of the ruler. The introductory passage indicates absolutely clearly that we are dealing with a statement whose incisive anti-German expression has its analogy only in Dalimil’s Chronicle. This also inspired the anonymous author to such an extent that roughly half its length is a montage of tendentiously selected passages from Dalimil with connecting texts. A typical detail of its tendentiousness taken to orthographic absurdity is that the adjectives “Czech” and “Slavonic” are consistently written with capital letters, while the adjective “German” and the noun “German” are written with small initial letters.39 The importance placed on being taught by the past was, as we know already, a striking feature of Czech contemporary thought and of polemical literature. In the “Short Selection” much more than elsewhere an effort is demonstrated to explain the expansive dynamism of the “German language” to which the Slavonic element either yielded, or did not know how to combat effectively. Tendentiously adapted facts are here linked with fictions and with the loci communes of earlier chronicles and contemporary publicist literature. There is little that is original in this writing; the whole, however, in spite of it evidently being a compilation, provides an idiosyncratic exposition of the age-old conflict between the Germanic and the Slavonic inhabitants of central Europe. Primarily imputed to the German “tongue” is an inborn violence, deception, mendacity and disloyalty, to which the Polabian Slavs and the former Slavonic inhabitants of Silesia fell victim. Thanks to this particular quality, and through deceiving popes and corrupting emperors, the Germans expanded their domain and power at the expense of the God-fearing and peace-loving Slavs, whom they “waited on” (as well as other “tongues”) at the time of the division of languages during the building of the Tower of Babel and under the reign of Alexander the Great40 The Slavs and specifically the Czechs were not however completely innocent regarding their fate, as the author indirectly indicates

38 Bohuslav Havránek and the other editors of Výbor české literatury doby husitské, vol. II (Prague: ČSAV, 1964) are inclined towards the date 1457/1458. 39 That is how it is in the manuscript, but not in the published edition by J. Kolár in Urbánek, O volbě, 32–41, where the writing has been edited to capital letters following today’s norms. 40 See below concerning the fake letter supposedly from Alexander the Great to the Slavs to which the Krátké sebránie refers. 76 šmahel through the borrowed passages from Dalimil, in which they are censured for lack of unity, selfishness and, especially, the tolerant attitude of the Czech rulers and holders of power towards the Germans. Not even Charles IV found favor in the writers’ eyes, which is surprising because neither the Hussites nor the Calixtines, while they may not have been supporters of this king, ever blackened his name in other ways. In the “Short Selection” Charles is blamed in that he “intended to settle the Lands of Bohemia with the German breed, of which he himself came, and gradually wrest it from the Czechs.”41 The whole of Czech history, according to the author, warns against the Czechs choosing a German king, for “it is proper to seek a ruler of the Slavonic language and never to choose a German.”42 According to that the Czechs, “if they want to have good order in their land, have to look for such a king, who loves the divine good above all, then the Czech people and satisfied them. But peace can never be in the land without the divine good, that is the receiving of the body and blood of God and of other truths of God’s law, about which there is these years discord and wars in this country and many friends and goods lost.”43 The “divine good” again takes first place. It cannot be doubted even in the least that the question of the true faith and its possible suppression was not just a hollow argument. However, just as the original programmatic nucleus of the Four Articles of Prague narrowed to the Chalice confirmed by the Compacts, even that feature of supranational universal affinity of believers serving God’s Law with which we meet for example in Laurence of Březová, peters out from the consciousness of the layer of society to which the author of the “Short Selection” belonged. It is perhaps necessary to keep in mind both the mission of this writing, and the far-reaching changes in the whole of society which influenced the mentality of the various layers of society. The author was after all the spokesman of those Calixtines who soon sobered up after having been briefly bowled over by the explosive revolutionary wave, and no longer had already in mind only the higher spheres, but also the present world and their own estates, which would be threatened by an unsuitable choice.44

41 Kolár, Krátké sebránie in Urbánek, O volbě, 33. 42 Ibid., 41. 43 Ibid., 40. 44 The Krátké sebránie characteristically ends with the words: “And a German being King would not want to go uninvited into their homes, but would want to chase out faithful Czechs from their homes and take their property without their will,” (Krátké sebránie, 41). We must not forget that the secularized estates of the church could be returned to the the divided nation 77

After the short reign of Albert Habsburg (d. 1439) the Bohemian Lands remained for almost twenty years without a ruling overlord. In fact the inter- regnum lasted only till the acceptance of Albert’s son Ladislav the Posthumous, but as he was underage the government was taken over by George of Poděbrady who in the years of his governorship became the most powerful magnate in the land. The unexpected death of Ladislav shortly before he could himself take over the reins of government again emptied the throne of Bohemia, a mirage for almost all the surrounding rulers. All the aspirants were obviously aware that it would be neither easy nor cheap to win the Crown of Bohemia. Several unsuccessful candidacies of the proceeding time45 were a warning against exaggerated illusions and against disregarding the numerous competitors, outdoing each other in promises and intrigues. As soon appeared, the most serious rival to all the foreign candidates was the native candidate, up to now the regent. Not even in this case is it easy to evaluate the sequence of factors which influenced the election of George of Poděbrady. The most succinct conclusion we can derive from the extensive literature on this theme46 would be that George’s success was determined by his powerful position, confessional identification with most of the inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia, and his art of compromise at the right time and in the appropriate measure. It is equally likely that the Calixtine electors in particular, or those who could exert some sort of influence on the members of the Electoral Diet, were exposed to what was for their time a relatively strong operation of propaganda of every possible kind. To a certain extent it is possible to speak of spontaneous Poděbrady sympathies with the wider Calixtine layers, for George was not only a Czech but also a Utraquist. The Poděbrady centre did not rely however only on those factors, but threw into the pre-election struggle the most powerful means of mass appeal it had at its disposal, that is, the Calixtine pulpit. The common interests of the Utraquist clergy with George of Poděbrady’s aspirations to rule issued from natural requirements on both sides. and by a

original owners by the Catholic ruler, even though from further development it is clear that not even a Catholic ruler could venture this step. 45 See for example the unsuccessful candidature of Albert of Bavaria of 1440; for more detail see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský I, 502f. 46 See mainly Urbánek, “O volbě Jiřího z Poděbrad za krále českého,” SPDHMP 5/1932, 593– 776; Urbánek, Věk poděbradský III, 23f. From more recent work, see Frederick G. Heymann, George of Bohemia, King of Heretics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), 147f. and Otakar Odložilík, The Hussite King, Bohemia in European Affairs 1440–1471 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965), 89f. 78 šmahel long way were not limited only to this critical period. Therefore it is on the whole appropriate to allow for the reliability of the Silesian pamphleteer and chronicler Nikolaus Tempelfeld who, in an invective against the Rokycana archbishop, claimed that he sent his chaplains and priests not only to all manner of cities, castles, fortresses and towns, but even into the homes of burghers, craftsmen, merchants and representatives of the guilds where they had to campaign for George’s election.47 The enumeration of places and social groups against whom the propaganda had to be aimed is at the same proof time that the initiators did not undervalue the influence of appropriate public opinion. Tempelfeld’s evidence would not in itself be so conclusive were it not confirmed by the accounts of foreign observers. In a report from February 1458 whose author was in all probability the Meissen moneychanger Hans Monhoubt, we have evidence that in a short time news about the situation in the Bohemian Lands penetrated to neighboring countries, where it was further distributed in the form of “newspapers,” that is, mentions about topical events attached to private letters. According to Monhoubt, “it is common knowledge how the Czechs are shouting and proclaiming that no German should be accepted as king, but rather someone of their Czech language”.48 Dr. Heinrich Leubing, one of the Saxon envoys, writes again of a confidential message from the Prague City Council to all leading houses, that everyone who would be present at the election, should not vote for anyone other than George.49 The welcome given to the newly-elected king by the Prague population was exceptionally enthu- siastic, although one should not forget that Albert Habsburg received similar ovations some years earlier. It is also worth mentioning that George was led to his residence led during the singing of the Saint Václav Chorale and that his coronation, as far as possible, followed the coronation order issued by Charles IV.50

47 Johann Loserth, ed., “Die Denkschrift des Breslauer Domherrn Nicolas Tempelfeld,” AÖG 61 (1889), 166–169. 48 See František Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte Böhmens und seiner Nachbarländer im Zeitalter Georg von Podiebrad I, Fontes rerum Austriacarum II (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1860), 126. 49 Urbánek, “O volbě,” 57. 50 For the welcome to Albert Habsburg in Prague see Šimek, Staré letopisy české, 81. See page 123 about how the Prague folk wept for joy after the election of George of Poděbrady. Similar mass phenomena however were frequently instigated by the distribution of money, public banquets and suchlike so that it is not possible to assign any greater meaning to them. For more detail about the coronation ceremony and about the attempt by George to link up with the tradition of pre-Hussite dynasties see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský III, 280f. the divided nation 79

Tempelfeld, in writing that George was elected “by the pressure and shouts of ordinary people,” emphasizes his detestation of a ruler whom Silesian Breslau Wrocław did not intend to recognize, and never did. There is no need to say that in the rampant central European publishing which at the end of the 1450s and the whole of the 1460s was more occupied with Czech conditions than Turkish, indulged in simple-minded expressions of nationalist hatred and intolerance, intensified by crusader zeal, to which the abolition of the Compacts in 1462 by Pope Pius II gave free release.51 There was of course no lack of similar instances on the Czech side, in the most varied manifestations, which we will still hear about. They appeared plainly already in the pro-George election campaign which foreign commentators did not fail to use to their own benefit. The election of a foreigner would, according to these authors, be linked with the most varied subsequent repression of the Czech population, beginning with the loss of offices or property and ending with enslavement or even the physical liquidation of the Czech “tongue.” If we remember the “Short Selection,” there is no reason to set aside such testimonies as being absolutely untrue. One of the surviving propaganda pieces from the pen of a Calixtine spokesman is in this connection more than significant, for Rudolf Urbánek considers the author to be Martin Lupáč, after Rokycana the second most important personality of the Utraquist Church.52 In the first place Lupáč emphasizes the matter of “our sacred faith,” which is not surprising for a theologian. The sacred faith to him naturally could be nothing else than the Czech faith. The Czechs had shed their blood for it, they persevered in it and, as the author proudly emphasizes, with its help they also gained “a glorious reputation surpassing all the heroes of the whole of Germany and the most militant warriors anywhere in the world.” The interests of the faith are identical with the interests of the Czech “tongue,” which com- monsense demonstrates. None of the foreign princes or potentates would take care of the sacred faith, since they would devote all their effort to gathering

51 I cannot discuss here the extensive propaganda campaign abroad in which Nicolas Tempelfeld, Peter Eschenloer and Rudolf von Rüdesheim and others became intensively engaged. Rudolf Urbánek devotes great attention to it in his works and together with him all the authors dealing with the Poděbrady period; see the bibliography and sources in Heymann, George of Bohemia, 621–655. The most important centre of the opposition to George of Poděbrady was Wrocław, whose relationship to the Hussite king was analyzed most recently by Alfred Strnad, “Die Breslauer Burgerschaft und das Königtum Georg Podebrads,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 45 (1965), 401–435, 601–640. 52 I incline here more towards Urbánek’s opinion in “O volbě,” 42–43, than towards the objections of F.M. Bartoš, “Martin Lupáč a jeho spisovatelské dílo,” Reformační sborník 7 (1939), 140, who considers the author to be Šimon of Slaný. 80 šmahel annuities, the confiscating treasures, infringing rights, oppression, and collection of money. From such a king could only come “disregard of our language, weakening of our forces, poverty, and the decline of all our fame and glorious power, as well as the irreparable oppression of our faith in which we live and move and have our being, and for all of us irremediable destruction.” The sav- ior of the faith and of the state, the guarantee of our future and of the re-acquisition by the Crown of confiscated lands, could only be George of Poděbrady, who must by unanimous will be harmoniously elected.53 From everything said up to now, it clearly follows that it is a mistake to attribute to the revolutionary Hussite time the hypertrophy of Czech national sentiment which in the preceding and subsequent time allegedly had no equal. Insofar as such comparison of different time segments is, with a view to existing sources, possible at all, one might suppose that after the ebbing of the revolutionary wave during which Hussite ideologues and preachers—with an emphasis on loyalty to God’s law—somewhat held in check the old national antagonisms, the effectiveness of nationally tendentious propaganda intensified. It was not repudiated, as we shall see, by the spokesmen of the Utraquist Church, for whom the defense of the Chalice was directly linked with the confessional and national affiliation of the ruler. Essentially, only a Czech on the throne could be a guarantee of the further legal existence of the survival of the Hussite idea, for of all the candidates for the Crown, only a Czech could be a Calixtine. Whereas in the time of Sigismund the Hussite nationalists and patriots stood against the ruler, under George of Poděbrady there was a radical reversal. Support from the royal power, whose holder was a Utraquist, merged with the vital interests of all sincere believers in the Chalice. The Utraquist nationalists could come to the aid of George as the representative of their faith, their “tongue” and their state. Before we note what attitudes the Czech Catholics took towards the “Hussite” king, we have to devote some attention to the task and operation of the “Slavophil” tendencies we have already met in various places, and especially in the preceding passage. [. . .]

Hussite Isolationism—Or the Isolation of Hussite Bohemia?

Elements of Slavophilism and Polaphilism in political documents and literary publicist works indicate that a difference in faith was not in itself an

53 A fragment of Lupáč’s propaganda writing survived in Tempelfeld’s Latin treatise Die Denkschrift, ed. J. Loserth, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 61, 1 (1889), 169–171. the divided nation 81

insurmountable obstacle for contacts of Hussite and Utraquist Bohemia with the surrounding world. Hussite isolationism—or, on the other hand, the isolation of heretical Bohemia—should therefore be assumed very circumspectly and only in specific connections. It was already said that Hussitism both in John Hus’s time and in its supreme period at the beginning of the revolution counted potentially on a society of all those faithful to God’s law, without difference of nationality and to a considerable degree even of whatsoever estate. The Taborites did not surrender to the conceived program of reforms even later, and in this sense their spokesman Prokop the Bald let it be understood in Basel that they had not left the Church. At first the representatives of the Calixtines themselves for other motives did not give membership of the Roman Catholic Church.54 Otherwise of course the difference between the Roman Church and the Church as a whole, whose head is Christ, was one of the basic theses of Hussitism and Utraquism.55 The dogmatic and liturgical differences were not particularly deep (with the passage of time, in practice they diminished); on the other hand, they could not be ignored. The constant pressure on the Calixtines from the Council and the popes distanced them from the Roman Church, for it strengthened the idea of an independent Utraquist Church sui generis.56 However, neither the election of Jan Rokycana as Prague Archbishop nor the emergence of a “lower consistory” yet closed the way to a possible return to Rome. In spite of the relative economic and military strength of the Poděbrady state, the Calixtine areas in the Bohemian Lands remained an island in a sea which could sooner or later swallow it. George of Poděbrady was fully aware of this danger, as is shown by the whole of his foreign policy, oriented towards the incorporation of the kingdom of Bohemia in various narrower and wider

54 [120] In a Basel polemic with Jan Stojkovič on February 4, 1432, Prokop Holý expressed the conviction that the Hussites had not left the Church; see František Heřmanský, ed., Deník Petra Žateckého (Libur diurnus) (Prague: Melantrich, 1953), 50. Urbánek gathered examples from the works of Utraquist theologians in Věk poděbradský III, 689–690. 55 [121] On Rokycana’s concept of the Church see Šimek, Učení M. Jana Rokycany (Prague: ČSAV, 1938), 35f. and Urbánek, Věk poděbradský III, 690f. 56 [122] Unlike from the tanks of Czech historians, who considered and still consider post- revolutionary Utraquism and very often the activity of Rokycana with some embarrassment, F.G. Heymann captures their positive features in the studies “Jan Rokycana— Church Reformer between Hus and Luther,” Church History 28 (1959), 240–280 and “The Hussite-Utraquist Church in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 52 (1961): 1–16. Jaroslav Boubín judges Rokycana’s life role very perceptively in the introduction to a publication he wrote with Jana Zachová, Žaloby katolíků na mistra Jana z Rokycan (Rokycany: Státní okresní archiv, 1997), 5–19. 82 šmahel coalitions of the disintegrating Christian society (res publica christiana). His secret plans for the reform of the Holy Roman Empire or for a peaceful union of Christian rulers had semi-Utopian features and was necessarily unsuccessful. However, it is important to emphasize that they were not a mere projec- tion of George’s voluntarism. It is already typical that the author of these plans was not the king himself but his influential foreign advisers (Mair, Marini, Heimburg) who saw in George of Poděbrady the most suitable person for the realization of projects which were not directed only at the unilateral benefit of the Czech state. George’s statesmanlike acumen and diplomatic flexibility is demonstrated in that he understood the usefulness of these proposals for strengthening his own positions in the wider forum. Even though the planned leagues and coalitions either did not succeed at all or could not be brought to life in their intended extent, the feverish diplomatic activity emanating from the Prague court was relatively successfully in blocking the intention of the papal seat to isolate politically, ideologically and militarily a state represented by a heretic.57 However, not only in the line of international policy but also directly in the sphere concerning the church as a supranational organization, the King of Bohemia confronted danger with an active defense. Its basis was the idea of conciliarism which in the Bohemian Lands following the Battle of Lipany and especially in the time of George’s reign acquired unprecedented popularity and urgency. Unprecedented, because the negative attitudes of Hussite ideologues towards the Council of Constance and to some measure that of Basel are well known. Basel was however the Council which confirmed the Compacts to the Czechs, and therefore it was in the Utraquists’ own best interests to emphasize the authority and superiority of the general congregation of Christendom, at

57 [123] It is sufficient here to refer to the compendious monograph of the 1960s from which I have frequently quoted, by Rudolf Urbánek (Věk Poděbradský IV), also to F.G. Heymann (George of Bohemia), Otakar Odložilík (The Hussite King) and the study by Josef Macek, “K zahraniční politice krále Jiřího,” ČsČH 13 (1965): 19–39 (I will say more on this in the next note). Increased attention, excited by the anniversary, has recently been paid by scholars to the project known as the universal peace organization of King George of Bohemia. Regarding some interpretations which critically overrate the reach of this, I hold to my standpoint in the study “Problèmes rattachés aux recherches sur le projet pacifique du roi Georges,” in Cultus Pacis: etudes et documents du Symposium Pragense Cultus Pacis 1464–1964: commemoratio pacis generalis ante quingentos annos a Georgio Bohemiae rege propositae, ed. Václav Vaněček (Prague: ČSAV, 1966), 155–165. Of literature of the following period, I stress the monograph by Jaroslav Boubín, Česká “národní” monarchie, which brings into the issue of the post-Hussite kingdom completely new elements. the divided nation 83 the moment that the consolidating papalism denied not only the principle of the Council as the supreme earthly organ of the Church, but also its specific rulings, in the given case the Compacts. Conciliar theory was for a longer time only one of a number of eventualities of George’s tactics and strategies; at the end of his reign however it became almost the central element of his foreign policy activities.58 Insofar then as the political field of contacts of the Czech state with the external world was concerned, it is quite impossible to speak of Utraquist isolationism. Rather the opposite is true, for Bohemia was at this time one of the most lively focal points of European diplomacy, which among others things is confirmed by the large number of secular and church legations visiting Prague.59 However, one should not fall into the opposite extreme. If we call to mind what was mentioned above about the difficulties with which the process of economic stabilization met in war-demoralized Bohemia, we cannot underestimate any further subsidiary features of the exceptional situation which weighed heavily on the everyday life of various strata of Czech society. Rokycana and other Calixtine preachers must more than once have had to face dwindling devotion, the disillusionment of believers, and actual opportunism in their own ranks. Rokycana did not hesitate to paraphrase these manifestations in his preaching, in order to demonstrate their perniciousness. No sooner than it was possible to administer Communion in both kinds, than some were complaining: “so we cannot do any trading, no one comes to buy from us and we cannot make a living, everything is dwindling and disappearing. We would

58 [124] Josef Macek dealt with this question comprehensively in “Le Conciliarisme, Louis XI et Georges de Poděbrady,” Historica 15 (1967): 5–63; “Der Konziliarismus in der böh- mischen Reformation—besonders in der Politik Georgs von Podiebrad,” Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 3 (1969), 312–330. Generally on the problem of the Church in relation to the national question, Ivan P. Shaw, Nationality and the Western Church before the Reformation (London: SPCK, 1959); Francis Rapp, L’Église et la vie religieuse en Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971), 260–271. 59 [125] Among these legations were a number of diplomats, scholars and theologians of good reputation. None of them however showed such interest in the Czech question as Aeneas Silvius, whose writings, especially the Kronika were for a long time the authoritative source for Czech history. For Aeneas’s stay in Tábor, see Howard Kaminsky, “Pius Aeneas among the Taborites,” Church History 28 (1959), 281–289; about Aeneas’s contacts with Czech Humanists more in my treatise “Humanismus v době poděbradské,” Rozpravy ČSAV 73–6 (1963), 6, 20–22. I listed more recent literature, most of it from abroad, in the introduction to Aeneae Silvii Historia Bohemica—Enea Silvio Historie česká (Prague, 1998), XIII–LII. 84 šmahel have been better off without all this.”60 Such voices had to be censured in public; apparently they were not a rare occurrence. Not only that—the Utraquist clergy, who tried in every possible way to hang on to the influence gained in the revolutionary period in public life as a whole and its institutions, was meeting with ever growing opposition on the part of their lay believers.61 “Where is our courage? Where is our spiritual strength?” the orthodox Utraquist Martin Lupáč cries out in one of his letters. “Woe, it is clearly seen that we, the vic- tors, are abandoned and dispossessed of the spirit of independence, we are overcome by the defeated.”62 Not everyone, however, fell victim to depression and passive disillusionment. A relatively small group of pupils and followers of Petr Chelčický, whom Rokycana himself at first saw as the elite company of his church, in a short time crystallized a compact separatist nucleus which laid the foundations of what was later known as the Unitas Fratrum. This sect, unlike the Utraquist Church, completely severed the bonds with Rome and so became the inheritor of Czech reformation thought.63 Permanent contact with the Roman Catholics, who in a number of aspects of practical life did not come up against the barriers issuing from Hussite ideology and tradition, led to doubts among those lukewarm Calixtines who were concerned primarily with their own personal and group aims. In first place these were ambitious Calixtine clerics and university scholars. The prospects of a Calixtine priest decidedly did not promise either a certain or a well-secured existence. In this respect the Utraquist clergy had reason to envy their Catholic colleagues and in more than one case the vision of a flourishing Catholic parish was a prime motive for their conversion.64

60 [126] Quoted according to Urbánek, Věk poděbradský III, 677, note 1, where there are more examples. 61 [127] The King’s vice-chamberlain Vaněk Valečovský of Kněžmost went the furthest in this regard; for his treatise in detail, see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský III, 72f. Also frequently cited is George of Poděbrady’s declaration, aimed at Rokycana: “Master, you have mas- tered enough, leave us now to master ourselves!”—Šimek, Staré letopisy, 145. The anticlericalism of the Hussite period is dealt with in the study “The Hussite Critique of the Clergy’s Civil Dominium” in Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, eds. Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 83–90. 62 [128] Lupáč’s letter to the priest Zacheus was preserved in the Manuálník M. Vácslava Korandy published under this title by Josef Truhlář (Prague: Česká společnost nauk, 1888), 149–151. 63 [129] For the first information see Rudolf Říčan, Dějiny Jednoty bratrské (Prague: Kalich, 1957). 64 [130] On the problems of conversion in the Poděbrady era see my article, “Polipanští kon- vertité,” DaS 9, no. 1 (1967), 8–10, which derives from the research of Urbánek. the divided nation 85

Bohemia after the Battle of the Lipany and the reign of George of Poděbrady was not short of surprising reversals and paradoxes in another regard. Whilst some of the Calixtine clergy converted to Rome for avaricious reasons, the poor Polish clergy were well content with their abandoned parishes.65 However, it has to be said that it was very difficult for a Calixtine candidate to be ordained, for as a rule they had to bribe or get round some bishop in the neighboring lands or even distant Italy. To deny adherence to the Chalice and sometimes even to the mother “tongue,” which in public opinion abroad was still tainted with heresy, was not infrequently the only way of reaching one’s aim or getting out of a dangerous situation.66 The state of Czech education, upset by the wars and difficult conditions, was another serious problem. A certain revival of university education in the 1440s did not last for long, since the foreign masters and students had to leave Prague again. For the further existence of higher education it was important that Hussitism did not touch the University’s previous organization and system of teaching which gave the preconditions for the possible incorporation of Prague general studies into the international university system. A new prestige was to be added to domestic teaching especially by those Czech students who with direct or indirect support from Rokycana left for studies abroad. However, it was these who had been the most counted on who disappointed the most when, with the enthusiasm of their own conversion, they began to turn the university into a base for militant Catholicism. But they miscalculated too, for neither Rokycana nor George could tolerate such activity. Thus intervention from above for the second time in the short period of fifty years directed the nature and further development of the Prague University’s teaching. Through the Kutná Hora Decree it lost its attractiveness for masters and students from abroad, and by the ruling about fidelity to the Four Articles of Prague and to the Chalice it was closed to students of other confessions. For the first time the Prague University became an exclusively national institution. Its provinciality

65 [131] Rudolf Urbánek wrote about Polish priests in Bohemia in Věk poděbradský III, 840– 843. See also Jaromír Mikulka, “Polští kněží-Husité v Čechách,” Slezský sborník 57 (1959), 473–475; “Polacy w Czechach i ich rola w rozwoju husytyzmu,” Odrozdzenie i reformacja w Polsce 11 (1966): 5–27; F.M. Bartoš, Dvě studie o husitských postilách (Prague: ČSAV, 1955), 60f; Pawel Kras, Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce (Lublin: Tow. Nauk Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubielskego, 1998), 93–200. 66 [132] The case of Václav of Chrudim is characteristic; he had to travel to Italy twice to be ordained. On the journey he learnt that Italians hate the Czechs worse than the Turks because they bribe their bishops to ordain them as priests. On one occasion Václav and his colleagues had to say they were Polish to save their own skins. See Šmahel, Humanismus v době poděbradské, 17–18. 86 šmahel was emphasized by the fact that, it was equally closed to Catholic students from the Bohemian Lands, while many Calixtine students preferred to study abroad.67 Neither the revolutionary nor the post-revolutionary period showed any favor to the muses. Construction declined; painting and sculpture, for ideological and other reasons, had few patrons; literature lacked any strong creative personalities. The Hussite period’s68 sobriety of outlook towards culture and art not only did not prevent actually helped people to see things, phenomena, works and tendencies in correct proportions. For most of the country people this time did not mean either a narrowing or a widening of the hypothetical cultural horizon. The same mutatis mutandis is also valid for the townsfolk of Bohemia and Moravia, for communication with the “higher”—that is, the Latin culture (not only in the Bohemian Lands) remained limited to the small stratum of educated people in the proper sense of the word. It decidedly could not be said for example that for a Czech who was interested, a longing to see a foreign country was unrealizable. The number of Czech diplomat, merchants, students, soldiers or pilgrims documented abroad is really surprising.69 It seems that there was not any decline in the knowledge of foreign languages,

67 [133] See Jan Havránek and František Kavka, Stručné dějiny Univerzity Karlovy (Prague: UK, 1964), 78f. For more detail, see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský IV, 236f. On the number of foreign students in Prague, see the table on page 20 of Šmahel and Miroslav Truc, “Studie k dějinám University Karlovy,” HUCP 4–2 (1963): 3–59. Most recently on the Prague University in the period after the Battle of Lipany, see Michal Svatoš in Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy, vol. I (Prague: Karolinum, 1995), 205–218. 68 [134] On the cultural level of the Poděbrady era, see in brief Šmahel, Humanismus v době poděbradské, 6–7. I try to identify several features of Czech culture from the time of Charles IV to the end of the 15th century in the wider context in the study “Humanismus— husitství—renesance,” Humanistická konference: antika a česká kultura od husitství do Bilé hory 1966 (Prague: Kabinet pro studia řecká, římská a latinská ČSAV, 1966), 43–66. 69 [135] I gave a partial overview of Czech contacts abroad, especially Italy, in Humanismus v době poděbradské, 11f. On the newly conceived issue of traveling, see Jaroslav Pánek, “Cestování jako modernizační činitel středoveké a raně novověké společnosti (Problémy a úkoly českého výzkumu)” in Cesty a cestování v životě společnosti, ed. Lenka Bobková (Ústí nad Labem: Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, 1997), 9–22. Here however it concerned not only traveling for pleasure, but also journeys connected with trade, political alliances and participation in military conflicts. Many valuable examples in this regard were brought by the research of Miloslav Polívka, who, among other thing, explains the nature of Czech- German clashes and competition in the border reasons. See especially “Sebeuvědomění české šlechty na pozadí česko-nemeckých vztahů na sklonku doby husitské,” ČČH 93 (1999), 19–36. the divided nation 87 above all of course among educated people, for even among the nobility it had previously been an exception.70 In the course of traveling abroad the Czech Catholics were at a relative advantage, for they could make use of the dense network of shelters for pilgrims, the hospitality of church institutions, and so on. It was no accident that at this time an effort appears to re-establish the Czech hospice in Rome, apart from other reasons, with regard to national considerations.71 However, not even for the Calixtines did the popularity of pilgrimage places abroad lose its attraction, in spite of the fact that Rokycana, for fear of the infiltration of secular influences which were vain or, to Utraquism, directly damaging, came out sharply against pilgrimages at home and abroad.72 Far from all Czech travel- ers felt bound to disclose their experiences abroad in written form, and therefore only a few travel writings and diaries provide evidence of the mentality of the Czech writer who found himself for a variety of reasons in a foreign environment. Chronologically the first of these relations, that is, a report about the mission of the Bohemian Diet to Rome in 1447, limits itself to a material description of the course of negotiations. However not even this is without interest because it illustrates the atmosphere with what the envoys of a heretical country met more than once. The Cologne Inquisitor Henry Kalteisen welcomed them with the words: “There is much that is crooked in the Lands of Bohemia; there needs to be an Italian or someone wise in another language to put it right.”73 Kalteisen’s caution, that: “Almania and Germania, that is, the

70 [136] Separate examples were recorded by Rudolf Urbánek in Věk poděbradský IV, 311f. and elsewhere. 71 [137] See Frantisek Mareš, “Český hospic v Římě. Příspěvek k dějinám jeho,” ČČM 64 (1890): 65–100. Hynek Krušina of Švamberk interceded with Oldřich of Rožmberk for the appointment of the priest Lukáš as administrator of the Rožmberk infirmary with the words: “I believe, my Lord, you will do it, for the Czech language to have a voice in Rome, as it did of yore.” See Rynešová, ed., Listář a listinář Oldřicha z Rožmberka, vol. III (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1937), 273. 72 [138] Concerning Rokycana’s opinions on pilgrimages, see Šimek, Učení M. Jana Rokycany (according to the index). Jan Hrdina deals with this side of medieval religious life, neglected by Czech researchers in “Ośrodki pielgrzymkowe średniowiecznych Czechach. Problematyka i realia” in Peregrinationes. Pielgrzymki w kulturze dawnej Europy, eds. Halina Manikowska and Hanna Zaremska (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Polskiej Akadamie Nauk, 1995), 252–260. 73 [139] The passage is part of the Staré letopisy české (MSS G and M). I quote it according to the extract in Havránek, Výbor z české literatury doby husitské II, 245–250. 88 šmahel

German Lands, think of you as heretics and seek to correct that heresy,”74 was repeated to the Czech envoys in similar words by Cardinal Carvajal. No less sober is the relation of Václav Koranda about the Czech mission to Rome in 1462. Everything which did not concern the purpose of the visit is left out, including the traveler’s impressions and experiences.75 However it turns out from Koranda’s later memories of this journey that what most remained in his memory was the great variety of transgressions against the rules of a Christian life which he had ample scope to observe at every step in Italy and even at the papal court itself.76 One of the most educated of Utraquist ideologues always still relativizes life abroad through the spectrum of religious and moralizing Hussite austerity which not only adds to his self-confidence as a Calixtine and a Czech, but even provides him with a number of authentic arguments for anti-Rome arguments. The same interest in religious practice and in part even the same critical quality is shown by the authors of the two real travel diaries which have survived from the time of George of Poděbrady. Neither the squire Jaroslav, who in blunt diary notes captures the journey of the delegation of Albrecht Kostka of Postupice to Louis XI in 1464, nor Václav Šašek of Bířkov who, in a somewhat more cultivated style, wrote about his experience on the travels of the nobleman Lev of Rožmitál through central and western Europe from 1465– 1467, deny the land of their origin. However, they do sometimes indicate that to overcome worldly temptations and festivities was not for everyone all that easy.77 It is not unique testimony of the irrepressible urge to return to the joys and cares of the secular world which, in spite of the warning of the preachers,

74 [140] Ibid., 242. 75 [141] Koranda’s report was published under the title “Poselství krále Jiřího do Říma k papeži roku 1462” by Adolf Patera, AČ VIII (Prague 1888), 321–364. Compare the extract in Havránek, Výbor z české literatury doby husitské II, 242. 76 [142] See for example Josef Truhlář, ed., Manualník M. Vácslava Korandy (Prague: Česká společnost nauk, 1888), 80, 106 and elsewhere. 77 [143] The Deník panoše Jaroslava was published several times; I am using Urbánek’s edition in Ve službách Jiříka krále, eds. Bohumil Mathesius and Rudolf Urbánek (Prague: Evropský literární klub, 1940), 3–30. In the same publication see also the translation of the Deník Václava Šaška z Bířkova (34–184) with an extensive introduction and commentary by the editor. Šašek originally wrote about his travels in Czech, but the journal is known only in its Latin translation by Stanislav Pavlovský which was published for the first time in 1577 in Olomouc. This Latin version was published again by Karel Hrdina, ed., Commentarius brevis et iucundus itineris atque peregrinationis . . .” (Prague: ČSAV, 1951). It is not necessary to mention the most recent literature of domestic origin, and of that published abroad the only study worth mentioning is the essay by François Michaud-Fréjaville, “Le voyage the divided nation 89 after the subsidence of the surge of religious experience, again filled the minds of the predominant number of Czech Calixtines and Catholics alike.78 The sec- tarian scarcely makes contact with people of another faith, of other morals; his awareness is blinkered by his own exclusivity. That, however, is not true of either of these travel writers. Each of them according to his own individual interests and inclinations is open to opinions never seen before and never anticipated, each of them in similarly naïve words expresses his own amazement, appreciation and judgment. Czech standards and Czech experience only occasionally stand as the background of individual judgments. This is normal in judging distance or greatness, but exceptional in other connections.79 The consciousness of Czech superiority or inferiority hardly appears in their writing, although neither over- looks any appreciation shown of Czech courage, chosen behavior, or impressions of places connected with Czech history.80 While reading the greater part of the two texts we could feel ourselves in quite another time, a time when the noble participants of similar expeditions thought of nothing else but the ful- filling of a desire for chivalric adventures and the experiences of travel. But in fact both delegations had important political missions whose difficulty derived among other things from the deep-rooted impression that “there is no faith in Bohemia.” Czech missions met with this not only with the prelates at the court of Louis XI, but in various encounters with both common folk and nobility in

du seigneur Léon de Rozmital en Occident, un apprentissage?,” Voyages et voyageurs au Moyen Âge, (Paris, 1966), 31–52. 78 [144] For more on this see Urbánek in Věk poděbradský IV, 5th book (in numerous places) and Šmahel, Humanismus v době poděbradské, chapter 5. The shift towards material needs a early as during the Hussite revolution was documented by Petr Čornej, Rozhled, názory a postoje husitské inteligence v zrcadle dějepisectví 15. století (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1986),109–120. Soon after the Battle of Lipany a sense for sacred and ceremonial moments likewise revived. For more on this, see Šmahel, “Die königlichen Feste im mittelalterlichen Böhmen,” Bohemia 37 (1996), 281–282, 285 and 289. 79 [145] In connection with a comment on the tolerant attitude to illegitimate children in Burgundy, Šašek could not resist a note that “in those countries people disparage and censure much less than we do”—Ve službách Jiříka Krále, 54. 80 [146] Individual entries of Václav Šašek of Bířkov and his interpretation of events, occasions and so on, can as a rule be compared with the journal of another member of Rožmitál’s mission, the Nuremberg burgher Gabriel Tetzel. His journal was published in J.E. Schmetter, Des böhmischen Herrn Leo v. Rozmital Reise durch die Abendlande (Stuttgart, 1844). Such notes as Šašek’s reminder of Czech bravery in Munich in 1158 are naturally not recorded by Tetzel. See also what the squire Jaroslav wrote about his stay in Constance, “where the Germans burned Master John Hus at the stake” in Ve službach Jiříka Krále, 28. 90 šmahel the lands they visited.81 They also typically met with amazement over the fact that the Czechs, perhaps with the exception of their long hair, did not differ in clothes or behavior from the native nobility. It is a pity only that it does not emerge from these notes whether they or other participants in the missions felt flattered or offended. Scarcely anything is mentioned in either travel writing about feeling homesick. Maybe apparently the continual change of scene linked with new experiences dulled such feelings more than would be the case of Czech scholars at foreign universities. For example, in longing for his distant homeland Jan of Rabštejn sketched his native castle Sychrov on an empty page of his manuscript. Václav Křižanovský again in an explanatory note on a work he transcribed in Italy, sighed: “Oh Italia, what great misery is in you, pacienca propter futurum bonum (how much patience it is necessary to have for future good).” Hilarius of Litoměřice similarly expressed his depression.82 Evidence of travels by Czechs abroad, just as like that of the individual experiences and feelings of Czechs living in a foreign environment, cannot be authoritative for judging the native climate. However much George of Poděbrady, with the help of his dexterous foreign policy advisers, tried to ward off the mounting danger of political isolation, insecurity, Calixtine fears and hope among the Catholics increased in the Bohemian Lands. In a tangle of many and varied factors, the confessional element began again to a greater degree to come into prominence as a centrifugal force operating not only between the individual Lands of the Crown of Bohemia, but also among the population in Bohemia and Moravia. The reminder of the royal diplomat

81 [147] Sometimes the rancor against the Czechs was founded on concrete experience. For example, in Wunsiedel in Bavaria—“the Germans gave us ugly looks” (Ve službách Jiříka krále), 3, as the town had been besieged by Czech troops two years earlier. The citizens in Abbeville “were amazed that the Czechs ate their meals neatly and decently” (Ve službách Jiříka krále, 12), while the innkeeper’s wife in Pettnau was “an evil old woman, who accused us and all Czechs of being heretics”. Even the mission of Lord Lev of Rožmitál met here and there with a similar welcome, though Šašek of Bířkov and Tetzel alike emphasize that for the most part they were welcomed hospitably and lavishly. However, Tetzel does not forget to stress where he was warmly welcomed as a German and where “they liked Germans”. We do not come across such nationalistic assumptions with either Jaroslav or Václav Šašek. Insofar as they do express themselves about the members of some nation or the inhabitants of a particular place in a less than flattering way, it origi- nates in a subjectively generalized experience they have had in contact with them acquired. See for example, what Šašek says about the English on page 71 of Ve službách Jiříka krále or about the inhabitants of Olmeda in Spain on page 101. 82 [148] See Šmahel, Humanismus v době poděbradské, 75 and the iconographic postscript, fig. XIII in the first edition of this book. the divided nation 91 and Catholic Prokop of Rabštejn to Pope Pius, that “there are two peoples in Bohemia,”83 expressed only one of the divisive features of Czech society socially, nationally and in other complex ways. It was nonetheless this aspect, which in various intensities reflected all the rest, which in the 1460s again came to the forefront. [. . .]

George of Poděbrady and the National Dualism of the Kingdom

Only a few words need to be said about the deceased Ladislav the Posthumous: “Nothing gains the priesthood more approval from the ordinary people than a knowledge of their language,” Aeneas Silvius advised the young Ladislav84 and his words did not disappear into empty air. This was thanks above all to the regent George of Poděbrady and his closest advisers who made sure that the next ruler should learn Czech and get to know the Czech environment. Whilst he was in the Bohemian Lands this really was the case, even though the Czechization of the court did not include the royal council.85 To analyse the political concept of a Habsburg ruler in a multi-national state is however irrelevant, since at least in Bohemia Ladislav was only nominally the ruler. The real holder of power could for the time being cash in on the situation and appear as the representative of both the Czech and the Calixtine interests. That was how his occupation of Prague and journey to power was understood and welcomed by the Czech Calixtine chroniclers. At this time George of Poděbrady was making use of the Czech-German antinomy to his advantage and by his resolute actions against the “long-time destroyer and enemy” weakened the domestic opposition in both power and ideology.86

83 [149] Koranda records in his narrative the statement of Prokop of Rabštejn, about which I will say more later—Výbor z české literatury doby husitské II, 245. 84 [178] De liberorum educatione—Rudolf Woklan, ed., Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Picolomini (Vienna” in Kommission bei Alfred Hölder, 1912) (FRA II-67), 121. 85 [179] For more on this see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský II, 757f. 86 [180] A vivid example of his tactics is the war with what was called the Strakonice Unit in 1450; see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský II 422f. According to Boubín, Česká “národní” monarchie, 70–71, the idea of a “national” kingdom of Bohemia did not emerge till after the death of Ladislav the Posthumous who unexpectedly opened the path to the throne to the previous regent of the Land, George of Poděbrady. The political group around George made use of the opportunity and with the help of the Utraquist clergy, who already earlier gradually renounced universal supranational ambitions, later established a national monarchy. 92 šmahel

By occupying the throne George was faced with some difficulties which had previously to some measure been subdued by the fact that the Catholics and the Germans linked their future with Ladislav who in the time of his minority was a counterweight to the voluntarism of the regent. Now however George was the only ruler of the kingdom which had long been multi-national and which at present was split by religious disputes. George had to accept this state of affairs, and if he wanted to remain king there was nothing else for him to do but play the great game of compromise, the golden middle way, in which he had excelled already at the beginning of his career. It is instructive how the chroniclers close to the king reacted to this change. To see this shift in attitudes in clear contours we will choose two borderline points of his rule. The first was in March 1458. At that time, according to an early Czech chronicler, many “faithful” Czechs “wept for joy, that the good God freed them from the power of German kings who thought to do evil to the Czech people and especially to those who held to Holy Scripture”.87 And now we shift to the end of George’s reign when in spite of all the king’s efforts the Bohemian Lands again became the object of crusades. “So, dear King George” the same chronicler reproached him,88 “your brothers-in-law the Germans, to whom you are related, behave in a friendly way! It would well to remember the first Czech princes and kings, how they dealt with the Germans, searching for a cause to cut off their noses and ears and throw them out to their own region, so that they would not have them as their kin, it would not have been well done, dear King, to give your daughters to the Germans!”89 If only the King had listened at least to the advice of Rokycana and Lupáč and not given his daughter to the antagonists of the Chalice, the chronicler continues to lament, counting how little use came of this.90 Castles and cities which the Emperor Charles of famous memory had bought at great cost, George sold as the dowries of his daughters.91 Cruel words fell on the head of the King, who did not keep secret either his adherence to the Chalice or his Czech ancestry, and despite extremely difficult conditions succeeded in holding on to royal power and regaining its lost

87 [181] Šimek, ed., Staré letopisy české, 123, reprinted in Urbánek, “O volbě,” 67. 88 [182] Insofar as the opinion of F.M. Bartoš in the introduction to the Staré letopisy české, X, is correct, the documents from 1448–1470 come from one chronicle. Čornej essentially confirms this in Rozhled, názory a postoje husitské inteligence, 41. 89 [183] Šimek, Staré letopisy české, 145. 90 [184] See various places in Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, for King George’s sons and daughters. See especially Věk poděbradský IV, 308, note 263 on the language of their correspondence and upbringing. 91 [185] Šimek, Staré letopisy české, 145. the divided nation 93 prestige. The internal economic and political consolidation of the Bohemian Lands in the 1450s was to a considerable measure due to him, and had it not been for external intervention he could have continued even in the subsequent period, to which a number of remarkable intentions and provisions testify; for causes beyond his control he could not realize these. However, he achieved no small internal political successes at this time, one of which should be mentioned: granting Moravia equal status to Bohemia.92 For the first time since the reign of Charles IV (when the exceptional linking of royal and imperial power has to be taken into consideration) and for the last time in early Czech history the Czech state, represented by George, was a powerful political actor in central Europe and the bearer of an independent and in some respects objectively positive foreign policy. However, because George was not a mere figure on the throne but a statesman in the true sense of the word, his concept, counting on a compromise between antipathetic sides and groups and on a flexible foreign and dynastic policy, was the most realistic of any that could be offered in the given conditions. “The King is lord of two peoples” was how one of George’s closest advisers vividly described his standing, and therefore “he has to tolerate both; for if he held by one side and treated it well, he would be afraid lest he antago- nize the other.”93 These thoughts in relationship to the religious division of the kingdom were valid in no small measure when applied to contradictions of a national nature. In this case too George tried to stand above the parties in order not to get into conflict with one or other of them.94 Therefore he obliged neither the Czech nationalists or the German, who were already so far soaked in inconsiderate intolerance, that they would not give an ear to moderation, even when it would have been to their mutual benefit. [. . .]

92 [186] For the significance of this Act of State in detail, see Věk poděbradský II, 422f. 93 [187] This was said by Prokop of Rabštejn in conversation with Pope Pius II in March 1462—A. Patera, ed., “Poselství krále Jiřího do Říma k papeži,” AČ VIII, 324. 94 [188] Here I agree with Urbánek’s viewpoint in “Idea českého státu za Jiřího z Poděbrad (1458–1471)” in Z husitského věku: výbor historických úvah a studií (Prague: ČSAV, 1957), 231. CHAPTER 3 National and Linguistic Disputes in the Bohemian Vicariate of the Observant Franciscans

Petr Hlaváček

While the strongest and most successful efforts at Catholic reform and Counter-Reformation in Bohemia began in the seventeenth century, Catholic reform dates back to the fifteenth century. However, most of these early efforts have never been at the forefront of Czech historical scholarship because of the dominant influence of Protestantism and the Hussite Revolution in the national historical narrative that developed the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The lack of attention to Catholic reform was also exacerbated by the general low level of interest in religion, and especially the taboo about exploring Catholicism during the communist period. Reflecting a new post-Velvet Revolution interest in exploring the rich religious history of Bohemia, this essay examines the Observant Franciscan Order in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Hlaváček explains that since its foundation in 1452, the Bohemian Observant Franciscan vicariate, which embraced all of the Bohemian Crown Lands, Austria, Styria, and later Poland, was characterized by a great ethnic and linguistic diversity. He shows that controversies arose as soon as the convent was founded in Vienna. And when new foundations in Poland, Silesia, and Bohemia proper were established, new nationalities (e.g. Germans and Hungarians) took leading positions alongside Italians who had previously held them, which precipitated new disputes. Hlaváček argues that these disputes within the Franciscan order reflected a general national awareness in the post-Hussite period, but the problem of nationality was tied to language, not the state. Petr Hlaváček (1974–) is an historian of the cultural and religious history of the medieval and early modern period. He studied history and philosophy at the Charles University in Prague and in 2000, received his doctorate at that same institution. He served in 2006–2007 as Associate Dean and Chair of the Department of History and Culture of the Hussite Theological Faculty. In 2006–2012 he taught medieval history at the Southern Bohemian University in České Budějovice. In 2008, he became the coordinator of the Collegium Europaeum, a reearch group for the history of European thought, affiliated

with the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague and the Philosophical Instutute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Petr Hlaváček is the author of Čeští františkáni na přelomu středověku a novověku [Bohemian Franciscans at the Turn of the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period] (Prague: Academia, 2005) and a long list of articles; and editor and co-editor of a number of books, including Intelektuál ve veřejném prostoru: vzdělanost, společnost, politika [The Intellectual in the Public Sphere. Scholarship, Society, and Politics] (Prague: Academia, 2012); (In)tolerance v evropských dějinách / (In)tolerance in European history (Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK and Filosofia, 2011). Place of Original Publication and Permission: “Národnostní a jazykové rozpory v českém vikariátě františkánů-observantů na přelomu 15. a 16. století (Příspěvek k nacionálnímu partikularismu ve středoevropském prostoru),” [Ethnic and Linguistic Disputes in the Bohemian Vicariate of the Franciscan- Observant Order in the 15th and 16th centuries,] In Omnibus caritas. K poctě devadesátých narozenin prof. ThDr. Jaroslava Kadlece, eds. Milada Mikulicová and Petr Kubín (Prague: Karolinum, 2002), 181–292. The article appears by permission of the author.

1 The Beginnings of National Problems

From its foundation in 1452, the Bohemian vicariate of the Observant Franciscans incorporated a wide variety of national and linguistic groups, with its members speaking a wide variety of languages. The vicariate was established by John of Capistrano and his Italian disciples. In addition to the Czech lands, it also incorporated Austria, Styria and later the entire Kingdom of Poland.1 The oldest monastery in the new vicariate, founded by Capistrano in

1 Neither Capistrano nor his followers could speak Czech, and they used Italian interpreters when preaching. See Augustin Neumann, “Ein mährischer Dolmetsch des hl. Kapistran,” Franziskanische Studien 6 (1919), 175. National problems in the Bohemian Observant vicariate, especially Czech-German rivalries, were described by Lucius Teichmann, “Nationale Wirren im mittelalterlichen Observantenklöstern,” Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte 5 (1940): 64–95. Teichmann, Der deutsche Charakter der böhmischen Observantenprovinz im Mittelalter,” Franziskanische Studien 34/1 (1952): 61–87; Teichmann, “Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung in Ost-Mitteleuropa und ihre politisch-nationale Komponente im böhmisch-schlesischen Raum,” Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte 49 (1991): 205–218. Teichmann’s work was an important source for Franz Ryschawy, “Das Kommisariat der 96 hlaváček

Vienna (1451), immediately became the scene of national rivalries. To provide pastoral care for the German novices, Capistrano summoned friars from Italy and the Kingdom of Hungary. He appointed the Hungarian Michael of Sicily as the Guardian of the monastery, while the posts of Vicar, Preacher and Master of Novices went to Jerome of Italy, from Milan. However, the wide range of languages spoken at the monastery, combined with the differing national mentalities, soon led to conflicts. The German friars objected above all to Jerome— an erudite man and an outstanding preacher who insisted on maintaining the customs of the Italian fathers—and complained to Capistrano about him. Capistrano solved this dispute (caused by “racione ydeomatis”—i.e. linguistic reasons) by sending Jerome and the Italian friars back to Italy. This put an undignified end to the work of the Italian Franciscans in Vienna, just a few months after their arrival. However, conflicts continued to brew between the German Franciscans and those from the Hungarian lands, who mainly spoke Hungarian or were bilingual. These tensions culminated when twelve novices were forced to return to

sudetendeutschen Franziskaner und seine Vorgeschichte,” Archiv für Kirchengeschichte Böhmen-Mähren-Schlesien 6 (1982): 184–205 (both Teichmann and Ryschawy supported the German national position). The issue was also dealt with by Zdeněk Smejkal, K dějinám národnostních sporů u českých františkánů (1256–1517) (Brno-Loštice: self publication, 1939); however this text is entirely based on Klement Minařík, “Vikáři české františkánské provincie od r. 1451 až do r. 1517,” Sborník Historického kroužku 15, no. 3–4 (1914): 200–218, Sborník Historického kroužku 16, no. 1 (1915): 1–9. See also my own study “Lingua contra linguam, nacio contra nacionem”: Der Nationalpartikularismus under den böhmischen Franziskanern- Observanten am Ende des Mittelalters” in Die Länder des böhmischen Krone und ihre Nachbarn zur Zeit der Jagiellonenkönige (1471–1526), eds. Jiří Fajt, Markus Hörsch, and Evelin Wetter (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004). Some important tendencies in Franciscan observance in the Czech lands were outlined by František Šmahel, “Intra et extra muros. Społeczna rola franciszkanów obserwantów i klarysek na ziemiach czeskich od połowy XIV do końca XV wieku” in Zakony franciszkańskie w Polsce średniowiecznej, ed. Teresa Skarbek (Cracow: Prowincjalat O.O. Franciszkanów Konwentualnych Prowincij św. Antoniego i bł. Jakuby Streby, 1983), 275–325. Petr Hlaváček, “Der Bildungsstreit unter den böhmischen Franziskanern-Observanten am Ende des Mittelalters” in Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 1, ed. F. Šmahel (Prague: Centrum medievis- tických studií and Filosofia, 1999), 241–247; Hlaváček, “Errores quorumdam Bernhardinorum: Franciscans and the Bohemian Reformation” in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, vol. 3, eds. Z. David and D. Holeton (Prague: Main Library of ČSAV, 2000): 119–126. The general situation was clearly mapped out by Josef Macek, Jagellonský věk v českých zemích, vol. 4 (Prague: Academia, 1999), 169–215. On the development of the Czech nation in the Central European context see the brilliant monograph by František Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách (Prague: Argo, 2000). National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 97 the Kingdom of Hungary. The Guardian of Vienna, Michael of Sicily, feared the further disintegration of the Franciscan community at the monastery, and asked Capistrano for help. In the winter of 1451–1452, Capistrano was staying in Eger (today in Czech Cheb, in western Bohemia). He sent his disciple Gabriel of Verona to Austria as the Commissar for the entire vicariate, and the threat of a split in the community was averted. The disputes “propter patriam et linguam et nacionem” died down for a time, but the young vicariate was far from consolidated.2 The first Provincial Chapter, held in Vienna in 1452, appointed Gabriel of Verona as the Vicar. However, at the next Chapter—held the following year in Wrocław Gabriel was accused of excessive strictness, and Capistrano did not prevent the friars from electing a different Vicar, another Italian—the erudite lawyer Christopher of Varese. The Chapter appointed Gabriel to the post of Guardian in Vienna.3 As Vicar, Christopher of Varese drew up provincial statutes and entreated the newly accepted friars in Silesia and Poland to live in harmony with their German-speaking fellow friars from Austria. Throughout the entire vicariate, Christopher zealously supported observance according to the custom of the Italian fathers. On January 6, 1455, Capistrano wrote a letter from Vienna to the Franciscans in Wrocław, emphasizing the importance of remaining faithful to the Order’s Italian roots and Franciscan universalism.4 However, this document—Capistrano’s final spiritual testament—was subsequently interpreted in various ways, often with reference to the differences between national mentalities. In 1455 a monastery was founded in the Polish city of Poznań, and again it became a focus of national rivalry. The original Franciscan community in Poznań was of German nationality; the first Guardian was Peter of Kremnitz, a German from the Kingdom of Hungary, who was succeeded in the post by Andrew of Prussia. Later, when Polish friars were accepted into the Order, the relations between the two national groups were marked by intense mutual antipathy.5 From 1454 to 1457, the post of provincial Vicar was again held by Gabriel of Verona. At the 1456 Chapter, in the city of Brno, Gabriel became embroiled in

2 Chronica Fratrum Minorum de Observancia Provincie Bohemie, KBM, Sign. VIII F 75, 52–54 (hereafter Chronica Fratrum); “Memoriale Ordinis Fratrum Minorum a fr. Ioanne de Komorowo compilatum,” Monumenta Poloniae historica 5 (Lwów: August Bielowski, 1888): 160, 163–165. 3 Chronica Fratrum, 55, 58. 4 Chronica Fratrum, 58, 67. 5 Memoriale Ordinis, 176–177. See also Kamil Kantak, Bernardyni polscy, vol. 1 (Lwów: Nakl. Prowincji Polskiej O.O. Bernardynów, 1933), 16–18. 98 hlaváček a dispute with the Italian friars. The Italians criticized Gabriel for his excessive severity, attributing this to his youth and inexperience. Gabriel defended himself by arguing that the German friars had to be treated with great strictness because they were not as strong nor as masculine as the Italians. In Gabriel’s view, the Germans required the imposition of stricter discipline in fasting and worship than the friars in the Italian provinces. When Gabriel was re-elected Vicar and rejected the Italians’ complaints, some of the friars returned to their homeland. The younger German friars also complained of the excessive burdens placed upon them, and the monasteries witnessed a dispute between the proponents of strict observance and a more liberal group.6 Although this doctrinal conflict initially lacked a national subtext, it would eventually lead to radical developments in this sphere. At the Provincial Chapter held in Brno in 1457, the appointee to the post of Vicar was Bernardin of Ingolstadt, a former inquisitor and university master, who became the first non-Italian Vicar. Bernardin’s rigor and his harsh treatment of the Polish friars at the monasteries at Kościan, Poznań, Cracow and Warsaw provoked opposition, ultimately leading to the re-appointment of Gabriel of Verona as Vicar in 1459.7 During Gabriel’s tenure, in 1460, the Order established two new monasteries in Bohemia—in Pilsen and Prague. These communities were predominantly Czech-speaking, which further increased the linguistic diversity of the Bohemian vicariate.8 The several dozen Italian Franciscans who had arrived with Capistrano—or who had subsequently been summoned from the Italian provinces—represented an important stabilizing element in the burgeoning Bohemian vicariate. They set up the organizational structure of the vicariate and acted as guarantors of its healthy development according to the traditions of the Observants. In the nationally diverse context of Central Europe, they also brought a new awareness of universalism, free of divisions along national lines. The first monasteries in Austria, Moravia, Silesia and Poland were populated with Franciscans from German-speaking regions and the Kingdom of Hungary, but local novices soon grew in numbers. The Order enjoyed a particularly rapid growth in Poland and Silesia. At first, the new monasteries were headed by

6 Chronica Fratrum, 72–74. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 206. 7 Chronica Fratrum, 74; Memoriale Ordinis, 183 (giving incorrect date). See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 206; Teichmann, Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung, 207. 8 SÚA Praha, ‘Řád františkánů’ (hereafter ŘF), nos. 31, 34; SÚA Praha, collection ‘Zrušené kláštery’ (hereafter ZK), no. 1220; Chronica Fratrum, 8; “Chronica fratris Nicolai Glassberger,” Analecta Franciscana sive chronica allaque varia documenta ad historiam Fratrum Minorum spectantia, vol. II (Quaracchi: Collegium Sancti Bonaventurae, 1887), 384–385. It is likely that the Czechs held positions in the Jemnice monastery, founded in 1455 (see SÚA Praha, RF, no. 29); Jan Gartner, Klášter v Jemnici (Jemnice: Okresní osvětový sbor, 1939). National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 99

Italians or Germans. The driving force behind the expansion of the Observant Franciscans in Central Europe was the community of German-speaking friars, especially the Silesians, who were based at the Monastery of St Bernardin in Wrocław. The local Silesians gradually took over the initiative from the Italian friars, gaining an increasingly strong position in the leadership of the Bohemian vicariate. Czechs still remained rare among the Observants. At the same time, the Bohemian province of the Conventual Franciscans (Minorites) was also wracked by national disputes. In 1441 there was a deep split between Czech and Polish members of the Order; this split widened further after 1443 when the Bohemian monasteries pledged obedience to the Council of Basel. Eventually, in 1445, the Czech province had to be divided into two parts, and it was not until 1455 that it was re-unified thanks to the efforts of Nicholas of Krnov, who later became the provincial Superior.9

2 The Polish National Question

A new problem emerged at the Provincial Chapter of 1460, held in Opava. The Polish Franciscans had asserted their rights, complaining that their needs were not being sufficiently taken into account; the fathers of the vicariate were forced to accept that this was true. At the time of the Opava Chapter, the Polish-Russian province, governed from the monastery at Cracow (founded in 1453 by Capistrano himself), had a total of seven monasteries, making it a highly important component of the Bohemian vicariate. Despite this fact, however, no Provincial Chapters had yet been held on Polish territory; instead the Poles had to travel to Silesia, Moravia or even further afield to Austria. At the core of the problem was the fact that the Polish monasteries—founded by friars from the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary—were still run by German-speaking superiors, although the majority of members were Polish speakers. Given this tense situation, it is understandable that the Vicar- General Baptist of Levanto, who chaired the 1460 Chapter, refused to accept into the Bohemian vicariate a group of Franciscans who had left Hungary due to disputes over observance. Nor was the approaching conflict averted by the new provincial Vicar Bonaventura of Bavaria, who replaced the Italian Gabriel of Verona in the post from 1462 to 1464.10

9 Augustin Neumann, Die Chroniken der mährischen Minoriten (Olmütz: Published by author, 1936), 27. See Z. Smejkal, K dějinám národnostních sporů, 5–6. 10 Chronica Fratrum, 90–92; Memoriale Ordinis, 181n, 188. 100 hlaváček

In 1463 the Provincial Chapter was held in Brno, and it focused primarily on the problems in Poland. The Polish fathers complained of inadequacies during inspection visits to their monasteries, and demanded that the situation be rectified immediately. The 1463 Chapter, chaired by the Commissar-General Christopher of Varese, eventually bowed to the Poles’ demands and appointed a special Commissar for the Polish monasteries. The first holder of this office was Angelus of Ostrów, the newly appointed Guardian in Cracow. The Polish national identity of the friars did not derive from the Polish state, but from the Polish language; as such, the powers of the Polish Commissar extended beyond the borders of Poland and took in several Polish-speaking monasteries in Silesia, especially at Bytom. The Brno Chapter represented a genuine victory for the Polish friars. The Polish Franciscan chronicler John of Komorów would later describe it as “gloria Polonorum.”11 The 1464 Provincial Chapter took place at the monastery of Paradis in Austria. The nationally neutral Gabriel of Verona was elected Vicar for the seventh time, but not even he was able to dampen the explosive atmosphere that prevailed among the vicariate’s separate linguistic communities. In the same year, the General Chapter in Assisi saw another outbreak of the “controversia Polonorum cum fratribus Almanis”.12 This was perhaps the reason why Pope Pius II issued, at Gabriel’s request, a bull dated June 16, 1464, asserting that the Polish-Russian province fell under the control of the Bohemian vicariate of the Observant Franciscans.13 However, not even this intervention was enough to pacify the self-confident Polish faction. It was into this turbulent situation that the Vicar-General Mark of Bologna came on an inspection visit. He called for tolerance in all the monasteries, in accordance with the true spirit of observance. On Mark’s orders, a Provincial Chapter was convened in Vienna in 1465 in order to quell the national disputes. The first goodwill gesture came from Mark himself, who stipulated that no Italian was to be elected as the new Vicar. The vote was eventually won by Jakob of Glogau, a German-speaking Silesian. This appointment was hard for some of the friars to accept; although Jakob had been the first Guardian in Warsaw, he was intolerant of national aspirations and took a hard line against the Polish faction. The 1464 Chapter also defined the role of the Polish Commissar, restricting his powers to the Kingdom of Poland. The Commissar was to be appointed by the Vicar and the definitorium at the Provincial Chapter.

11 Chronica Fratrum, 91–92; Memoriale Ordinis, 191. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 208; Kantak, Bernardyni, 20. 12 Chronica Fratrum, 92; Memoriale Ordinis, 192–193. 13 SÚA Praha, ŘF, no. 35. National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 101

He was barred from holding other offices—such as that of Guardian—and was only permitted to act in his capacity as Commissar when the provincial Vicar was outside the Polish part of the vicariate. Only the Chapter could remove the Commissar from his post, and it could do so only with the consent of the Polish Guardians; in such cases, the Commissar’s successor had to be appointed by the same Chapter. It was also stipulated that the Chapter was to be held in Poland biennially. The post of Polish Commissar went to Angelus of Ostrów, an erudite man whose calming presence helped to prevent a further escalation of the dispute. The Vienna Chapter of 1465 is worthy of note primarily because it finally put an end to the paternalism of the Italians, opening the way to the emancipation of the other nationalities subsumed within the Bohemian vicariate. However, at the very root of this reform lay the abandonment of the ideal of supranational universalism, and it sparked a rapid growth of national particularism. The Polish faction, still dissatisfied with its status, was set on an unavoidable course toward a decisive conflict with the German majority. Soon after Mark of Bologna’s return to Italy, the disputes between rival factions flared up again: “lingua contra linguam, nacio contra nacionem.”14 At the Provincial Chapter held in Wrocław in 1466, the Poles staged a rebellion against Jakob of Glogau, who had treated them harshly and had given priority to Silesia’s German-speaking monasteries above the Polish-speaking monasteries. In addition, some German friars refused to accept alms for Polish monasteries, instructing donors to give alms to parish churches instead. In view of these circumstances, the Poles refused to participate in the elections to the leading offices of the vicariate, ostentatiously gathering up their possessions and preparing to depart from the Chapter. However, the Italian capitulars Gabriel of Verona and Christopher of Varese brought their authority to bear, persuading the rebels to return and participate in the elections, on condition that the post of special Polish Commissar would again be established, and that this official would take part in the next General Chapter. Gabriel and Christopher played no further active role in proceedings, fully respecting the autonomy of the Bohemian vicariate and trusting in the competence of the non-Italian friars. Jakob of Glogau was re-elected as the provincial Vicar, and Evangelist of Leńcze was appointed as the Commissar for Poland. The Poles proposed the future division of the vicariate, which in the circumstances appeared to be the only possible solution to the Polish problem.15 The possibility of a split was discussed again at the 1467 General Chapter, held in the Italian city of Mantua. The newly elected Vicar-General, Baptist of

14 Chronica Fratrum, 93–94; Memoriale Ordinis, 192–193. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 208. 15 Chronica Fratrum, 94; Memoriale Ordinis, 193–194. See Kantak, Bernardyni, 21–22. 102 hlaváček

Levanto, had personal experience of the complex situation in the Bohemian vicariate, and confirmed that a division was necessary “propter locorum distanciam, lingwarum, morum et dominorum diversitatem”. The fathers of the Observant congregation agreed with him, and Pope Paul II issued a special bull dated June 16, 1467, approving the division of the vicariate into two parts. Baptist of Levanto sent his Commissar-General Peter of Naples, accompanied by Angelus of Clavasio, who on the Octave of St Francis in 1467 summoned the Provincial Chapter to meet in Cracow. As definitors the Chapter elected the Prague Guardian Paul of Moravia, the Wrocław Guardian Alexander of Jauer, Bernardin of Ingolstadt and Evangelist of Poland. This meant that the Czech, Austrian and Polish parts of the vicariate were all represented in the definitorium. Only then did the incumbent provincial Vicar Jakob of Glogau resign. Commissar Peter of Naples opened discussions on a possible split into separate Austrian and Polish vicariates. However, the status of the Czech lands within the Order’s structures remained unresolved, as the Commissar had no mandate to authorize the establishment of a third vicariate. He therefore had to settle for establishing a Commissariat, and left the fate of the Czech lands for the Vicar-General to decide. Either a separate Czech vicariate would be established, or the Czech lands would be incorporated into one of the two vicariates that had just been set up. The 1467 Chapter appointed Bonaventura of Bavaria as the new Austrian provincial Vicar, while the Polish vicariate was headed by Marianus of Jeziorko. John of Meissen was appointed to the office of the Czech Commissar. Franciscans at monasteries in the Czech lands considered this solution a great injustice committed against the long-established Franciscan province of Bohemia, which dated back to the times of St Francis himself.16 The establishment of a shared Observant vicariate for three Franciscan provinces—the Czech lands, Austria and Poland-Russia—represented an evident anomaly within the organizational structures of the Order. The Polish- Russian province, though developing fast, was somewhat remote, located on the periphery of the Bohemian vicariate, and it suffered from a certain degree of neglect. Not even the appointment of a Polish Commissar would prove effective as a long-term solution. Polish-German national conflicts were essentially an expression of the Poles’ opposition to their marginalization within the peripheral Polish-Russian province. The Polish Franciscans had their own specific problems to deal with—especially the issue of the local Orthodox churches—and it would have been counterproductive for them to remain

16 Chronica Fratrum, 94–96; Memoriale Ordinis, 195–197; SÚA Praha, ŘF, no. 38. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 209–210; Kantak, Bernardyni, 22–23. National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 103 within the Bohemian vicariate. The Italians, faced with national problems whose roots they frequently could not understand, retreated from their role in the running of the vicariate. The Italian provinces retained the right to carry out inspection visits in the Central European Franciscan provinces; however, this was the only remnant of the former Italian paternalism.

3 Czech-German Rivalry

The newly established Czech Commissariat was mired in confusion and uncer- tainty, exacerbated by the complex status of the Kingdom of Bohemia in ecclesiastical politics. The remaining Italians departed from the monasteries, with Christopher of Varese returning to Italy in 1468. On January 22 of that year, Christopher sent a farewell letter to the monasteries and returned to his native province of Milan. Once in Italy, however, he felt like an exile, as he already considered himself more German than Italian—even though he could not actually speak German. Eventually he left Italy and travelled to the Holy Land.17 It was not until the Provincial Chapter held in Wrocław in 1469 that a separate vicariate was established for the Czech lands. The office of the provincial Vicar was conferred on Peter of Hlohovec, a Franciscan from the Kingdom of Hungary who had recently arrived in Moravia. This appointment was mainly due to political opportunism on the part of the friars, who wanted to win the favor of the King of Hungary (and Bohemia) Matthias Corvinus. With the support of the Czech friars, however, Peter behaved with considerable disregard for the vicariate’s traditions, and did not even convene a Provincial Chapter.18 The next Chapter was not held until 1471, on the orders of the Vicar-General Mark of Bologna, at Cosel in Silesia. It was chaired by the Commissar-General John of Meissen. After several days of proceedings, the Chapter was plunged into conflict by most friars’ opposition to the incumbent Vicar Peter of Hlohovec. At the root of the dispute was the polarization between the Czech minority and the rest of the friars within the vicariate. Spurred on by Peter of Hlohovec, the Czech friars—led by Thomas of Čáslav (the Guardian of Pilsen) and an unnamed discretus (also from Pilsen)—decided to take radical steps. Thomas read out a declaration to the Chapter on behalf of the Czech contingent, demanding that Peter be re-elected Vicar, otherwise the Czechs would refuse to approve the election of the Vicar and definitors. The declaration also

17 Chronica Fratrum, 96, 169. 18 Chronica Fratrum, 100, passim. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 210; Teichmann, Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung, 212. 104 hlaváček insisted that the monasteries in Bohemia be populated exclusively with friars of Czech nationality. After tumultuous argument, the election of the definitors eventually took place. The appointees were the Guardian of Znojmo, Paul of Moravia, Alexander of Jauer, the Guardian of Brno Anthony of Hungary, and the leader of the Czech faction Thomas of Čáslav, the Guardian at Pilsen. Responsibility for the Bohemian vicariate rested with Paul of Moravia. Peter of Hlohovec was singled out as the main instigator of the dispute; he was given permission to return to Hungary, though he did not actually do so until 1473.19 This first large-scale Czech-German dispute also left its mark on the new provincial statutes, which were approved at the Chapter in Cosel. None of the friars were allowed to declare of themselves or others, either orally or in writing, that they stood on the side of the Czechs, Germans, Moravians, Silesians and so on—on pain of penance with bread and water. Monasteries situated in bilingual regions were to have two preachers, one speaking in each language, unless a preacher could be found who was proficient in both languages.20 At the next year’s Provincial Chapter, held in Brno in 1472, there were renewed disputes centering around three Czech friars who demanded that the resolutions of the Cosel Chapter be revised and that Peter of Hlohovec be reha- bilitated. They wrote a letter of complaint addressed to King Matthias and the Bohemian nobles, fiercely criticizing the Vicar Paul of Moravia and other officials. However, by pure chance the letter was intercepted, and the Czechs’ final hopes of a reversal evaporated. One of the Czech friars was imprisoned for two years until he was released by the Commissar-General Louis of Verona.21 The 1473 Provincial Chapter in Glogau was also the scene of disputes, although it is not clear to what extent national questions played a role. Nicholas of Bohemia was elected to the office of definitor for the second time; he was re-elected again at the Chapter in Jemnice in 1475.22 In the period that followed, the position of the Czech-speaking friars was boosted by the foundation of two new monasteries with mainly Czech populations: in 1475 a monastery was established at Jindřichův Hradec, headed by the Czechs Bernardin

19 Chronica Fratrum, 279–286. Previous literature has given only basic information, omitting details. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 210–211; Teichmann, Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung, 213. 20 Constituciones provinciales facte in capitulo Cosslensi in NK, Sig. XIV H 22, fol. 72r, 74v–75r. The statutes against national particularism were also mentioned by Teichmann, Der deutsche Charakter, 82 (however Teichmann omits to mention the provision concerning preachers). 21 Chronica Fratrum, 113–114. 22 Chronica Fratrum, 116, 119. National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 105 of Prague and Bernard of Netolice, and this was followed some time around 1480 by the monastery of Horažďovice, established with strong support from the renowned Franciscan author Jan Bosák of Vodňany (Johannes Aquensis).23 The Provincial Chapter in Kladsko in 1480 reinstated the regulations against national and territorial particularism. Whoever declared that he (or anybody else) was a Czech or a German was to be punished in front of the assembled friars in the refectory. The stipulation governing the appointment of preachers according to nationality also remained in force.24 However, not even these measures were able to prevent a new upsurge of national intolerance. Czech- speaking friars at the Wrocław Chapter in 1481 rebelled against the officials of the vicariate, probably in connection with a proposal for changes in the voting system to make the ballot secret. However, most of the capitulars supported the continuation of public voting, and the Czechs remained in opposition until the next Provincial Chapter, held in Brno in 1483. At this Chapter, Nicholas of Bohemia was elected to the office of definitor, which quelled the Czech revolt at least for a while. The rebels’ letters and documents were destroyed, and the Czech friars returned to their monasteries, their grievances assuaged. However, they were rebuked by the superiors for having forced the former Vicar Jakob of Glogau to invite Beguines of the Third Order of St Francis to take up residence in Pilsen, though this had been expressly forbidden by the Znojmo Chapter of 1479. This was confirmed by Alexander of Jauer (now the Vicar), Paul of Moravia and the other definitors elected at the Znojmo Chapter, but also by two Czechs: Daniel of Litoměřice (Guardian of Cosel and a former discretus at Pilsen) and Václav of Ivanovice (a former Guardian at Pilsen, now relinquishing his post of definitor). During the Brno Chapter of 1483, a rumor circulated among the German friars that the Czechs were planning to introduce Beguine communities to Pilsen and Prague, and they were about to demand further freedoms for themselves, otherwise they would take certain steps. However, the Czech friars reassured the Germans that these rumors were false, declaring their willingness to live in love and peace alongside their

23 Chronica Fratrum, 119–120. Josef Truhlář, “O životě a spisech známých i domnělých bosáka Jana Vodňanského” Časopis Musea království Českého 58 (1884): 524–547, here 527; Pavel Vlček, Petr Sommer, and Dušan Foltýn, Encyklopedie českých klášterů (Prague: Libri 1997), 228, 275–276. See also SÚA Praha, ŘF, inv. no. 2746, box no. 137—document of Jindřich of Hradec dating from 1478 (copy). 24 Ordinaciones provinciales colecte in capitulo glacensi (1480), NK XIV H 22, fol. 89v, 92r. See Teichmann, Der deutsche Charakter, 83, which omits to mention the provision concerning preachers. The author also mentions a manuscript on the constitution of the Chapters in 1459–1540; the whereabouts of this manuscript are unfortunately unknown. For basic information on the manuscript see Teichmann, Nationale Wirren, 64. 106 hlaváček

German brethren.25 Between 1486 and 1487 the post of definitor was held by the renowned Czech rebel and pragmatic Thomas of Čáslav, previously Guardian of Krupka.26 When in 1487 Paul of Moravia—by now an old man—relinquished the post of Vicar, he sent his ‘sexterniculum’ to the Chapter assembled in Opava. This document was a list of six main problems that were preventing the vicariate from developing further. The first problem identified by Paul was not the failure to abide by vows of poverty or false piety, but the national diversity of the friars (nacionum diversitas).27 Paul undoubtedly knew what he was talking about; indeed, he was soon proved correct. His successor as Vicar, Jakob of Glogau, was a staunch opponent of all forms of national particularism. Jakob died in 1488 after suffering a stroke while inspecting the monastery at Kadaň. His interment, in the choir of the town’s Church of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, was accompanied by scandalous scenes. Some of the friars—opponents of Jakob, mainly Czechs—spat on his grave, defiled his clothing and made insulting remarks while doing so.28 However, this scandal was merely a foretaste of approaching conflicts. The 1488 Provincial Chapter in Brno was chaired by the Commissar-General Louis of Verona. A large number of Czechs came to the city—even elderly friars who had not been invited. Nevertheless, Louis listened to their grievances, publicly and privately; it was almost as if the Czechs had taken over the Chapter. All of the capitulars were surprised at this turn of events, as they had no idea what was being discussed. The Czech friars insisted that Louis meet their demands before the proceedings of the Chapter actually began, otherwise they would refuse to take part in the elections, just as the Poles had done in the past. The Czechs were demanding major concessions; if their demands were met, it would lead to radical changes in the provincial statutes and restrictions on the election of superiors. The post of Vicar was to be held alternately by a German and a Czech. At any one time, two of the four definitors were to

25 Chronica Fratrum, 133–136. The dispute over the Beguines is also mentioned by Minařík, “Vikáři,” 214. 26 Chronica Fratrum, 145. The fact that Thomas of Čáslav held the office of Guardian in the German-speaking monastery of Krupka (near Teplitz, today Teplice) not only reveals that he spoke German, but also shows the even-handed approach shown by the definitorium in appointing officials regardless of their native language. 27 Chronica Fratrum, 150. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 215. 28 Chronica Fratrum, 151–151. See Teichmann, Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung, 214. Minařík, “Vikáři,” 215—the author only writes of Jakob’s death, omitting to mention the distasteful incident. National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 107 be Czechs. After the definitive loss of the Prague monastery following the Utraquist uprising of 1483, the Pilsen monastery was to take over the leading role in the vicariate. The Czechs also demanded that a Commissar be appointed for the Bohemian monasteries; this official would represent the Vicar in his absence, enjoying the same rights as the Vicar himself. German-speaking provincial Vicars were to be accompanied by a socius, who was to be a Czech friar. Commissar-General Louis of Verona called a meeting, summoning nine fathers who had previously held high office—excepting the Czechs—and informed them of the Czechs’ demands. The fathers, who included Paul of Moravia and John of Meissen, took a firm stance against the demands, as they were determined to preserve their right to elect the Vicar—a right that existed in all of the other provinces and vicariates of the Franciscan Order. They insisted that the Czechs’ demands were unjustified and should on no account be met, even if the General Chapter decided otherwise. Therefore there was no change in the structure of the vicariate, and the German friars maintained their dominant role in its leadership. It should also be pointed out that the German friars were in an absolute majority, and a handful of Czechs could hardly expect them to show any understanding for their attempts at emancipation or hegemony. The capitulars voted in accordance with tradition; a small number of the Czechs also took part in the vote. Anthony of Leipzig was elected as the new provincial Vicar, but there were no representatives of the Czech-speaking community among the new definitors. The Czechs had to swear to Louis that they would not, on pain of imprisonment, attempt to cause a split in the vicariate. However, Louis also warned the superiors that the Czechs might attempt to travel to Italy to attend the General Chapter.29 Such a course of action would bring the Czech question to international attention.

4 The Culmination of the Czech-German Dispute

After the Brno Provincial Chapter of 1488, and during the following year, several monasteries in Bohemia were the scene of various assemblies and clan- destine meetings, while Czech- and German-speaking friars wrote letters proving the impossibility of continuing Czech-German coexistence within a single vicariate. An explosive mood reigned throughout Bohemia. In 1489, during a visit by the provincial Vicar Anthony of Leipzig to the monastery in

29 Chronica Fratrum, 151–152, 154, 161. Also mentioned briefly in Minařík, “Vikáři,” 215–216. 108 hlaváček

Jindřichův Hradec, the Czechs set a trap for him. They claimed to have heard rumors that King Vladislav would be excommunicated, and that a Papal Interdict would issued against the Kingdom of Bohemia, if heretics were not banished from the Czech lands, and they asked the Vicar for instructions. Anthony failed to see through this ruse, and replied that in such a case it would be necessary to act on the advice of the Papal Legate, who was currently residing in Hungary. The Czechs then sent two of their brethren to Hungary—without the Vicar’s knowledge and under the pretext of requesting instructions from the Legate. They asked King Matthias (who was ill at the time), his wife Beatrice, and the Papal Legate Angelus (Bishop of Ortona) to write letters of recommendation to the Pope supporting their cause. It was a politically astute move to seek support from Matthias, the King of Hungary (and Bohemia), rather than from the somewhat isolated King Vladislav, whose position in the Papal Curia was weaker. After ten weeks the Czech Franciscans returned from Hungary to Prague, saying not a word to the Vicar about their mission. At the same time, the Vicar Anthony of Leipzig accepted the demands of the Czechs from the Pilsen monastery, sending two of them to Jindřichův Hradec to broker peace and unity between the Czech and German factions there. Anthony made a further generous offer to the Czechs: he promised that if they were willing to live in harmony with the Germans, they would be given a full hearing at the next Provincial Chapter (scheduled for August 1489 in Wrocław) in front of all of the capitulars. The Vicar also promised that he would invite a representative of the Czechs to attend the Chapter, and that the Czech friars could choose who was to represent them there. All complaints and issues would be discussed at the Chapter. However, for Anthony it was unthinkable that the Czech problem might be discussed at the General Chapter in Italy. In the event, only a handful of Czechs attended the Wrocław Provincial Chapter in 1489. The only representative from Jindřichův Hradec—the focus of the radical Czech faction—was the monastery’s discretus. The Chapter was plunged into confusion. It must have been obvious to the capitulars that the Czechs were planning to play the Italian card. Anthony of Leipzig was re- elected as provincial Vicar, while the new definitorium consisted of Alexander of Jauer (the Guardian at Wrocław), Daniel of Prievidza (Guardian at Znojmo), Tobias of Žďár (Guardian at Olomouc), and Paulin of Lviv (Guardian at Legnica). The newly elected officials of the vicariate immediately launched a counter-attack. They addressed a letter to the General Chapter urging the capitulars there not to bow to the Czechs’ demands for the alternate election of Czech and German Vicars, discreti, Guardians and other office-holders, as this would ultimately lead to the breakup of the vicariate. The letter was signed National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 109 by all the capitulars except three—the Guardian of Pilsen and the discreti of Jemnice and Jindřichův Hradec.30 A delegation set out for the General Chapter in the Italian city of Urbino, including the provincial Vicar Anthony of Leipzig, the provincial discretus Paulin of Lviv, and official representatives of the Czech community nominated by the general superiors of the Observant congregation. The Chapter met in May 1490. The Czechs presented their demands for the establishment of a separate vicariate, setting out ten reasons why the separation of the Czechs from the Germans would be beneficial. Firstly, the Czechs claimed, the separation would benefit the friars’ observance. The German-speaking superiors neglected their Czech brethren; the Germans in the monasteries did not speak Czech, and were therefore of no benefit to the Czechs. In a separate vicariate it would be easier to maintain observance, as the Vicar, when visiting the monasteries, would not need to travel with horses and carts like a merchant, but would simply be able to walk in the company of his socius, because the distances between the monasteries would be shorter. Secondly: such a separation would be beneficial with regard to brotherly love, as the Czechs and Germans were intolerant of each due to reasons of nationality. Czechs and Germans found it difficult to live in harmony at all levels of society, because the Germans constantly wanted the upper hand and the Czechs were unwilling to let this happen, especially in Bohemia. The German friars hated the Czech language, and so the Czechs felt unable to speak freely in their native tongue. The Germans insulted the Czechs by calling them ‘dog-heads’, which caused discontent, false accusations, and great danger for the soul. Thirdly: separation would be desirable as it would eliminate some difficulties experienced during inspection visits; the Vicar was currently forced to travel throughout the vicariate on horseback for distances of up to two hundred miles in conditions of some danger. He had to be escorted from castle to castle in order that that his horses should not be stolen. Some monasteries received visits very rarely; there had been no visits at all in Bohemia during the past two years. Fourthly: the irregular nature of these inspection visits forced brethren to travel long distances to see their superiors; this travelling caused discontent and a hostility toward observance. Fifthly: the journeys to Provincial Chapters were very demanding, as these Chapters were always held outside Bohemia, and many of the Czechs were too old and weak to travel. To reach the last Chapter in Wrocław (1489), the Guardian and discretus of Jindřichův Hradec had had to travel a hundred miles. The lord of Hradec had requested

30 Chronica Fratrum, 155–157. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 216–217; Teichmann, Der deutsche Charakter, 84; Teichmann Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung, 214–215. 110 hlaváček that the Chapter be held in Jindřichův Hradec, but the German superiors had rejected his request. Sixthly: the Czech friars did not understand the visiting Vicar, who was unable to hear their confessions except through the mediation of an interpreter. The friars were also unable to inform the Vicar of the situation at their monastery. Seventhly: the German friars were neglecting the need to spread observance throughout Bohemia, and some were actually attempting to prevent it, although John of Capistrano had emphasized that spreading observance was essential to the upholding of the Catholic faith. A split in the vicariate would lead to an increased number of monasteries and friars, as the Czechs would devote more care and attention to spreading observance. Eighthly: separation would prevent many revolts, because currently some of the Czech friars escaped their Guardians’ punishments by running to their German superiors; this was a cause of some friction. Ninthly: if the Czechs’ demands were not met, this would cause great unrest and may bring harm to many souls, as many Czechs would leave for Italy or Poland, or would join the ranks of the Conventuals. Others would not leave Bohemia, as they spoke only Czech, but instead they would go to the castles of the Czech nobles, telling them that they were doing so as a result of their ill-treatment by the Germans. If no separation were to occur, there would be serious consequences for the vicariate, observance and the Church in general. Tenthly: there was no longer any hope of Czechs and Germans living in harmony, as the Germans had claimed that some of the Czech friars would never again hold office due to their conduct in taking their complaint to the General Chapter in Italy. In such cases, it would be better to live a secular life than to succumb to a bitter and dark existence in holy orders. This extensive letter of complaint was received from the Czechs by the general definitor and former Commissar-General for the Bohemian vicariate, Louis of Verona, who read it out to the definitorium. The Czech demands were not particularly systematic, and appeared to have been drawn up in some haste. In places, the wording was somewhat inflammatory. When the Bohemian Vicar Anthony of Leipzig was asked by the definitors to express his stance toward the complaints, he took full advantage of the document’s weak points. Anthony stated that some of the claims were simply untrue, and expressed doubt as to the benefits of splitting up the existing vicariate. He accused the writers of lying when they claimed that Germans felt hatred toward Czech, and emphasized that the Czechs themselves were also unwilling to listen to the German language. Responding to the complaint about the difficulties of travelling to visitations and Chapters, Anthony said that this was because the roads in Bohemia were unsafe. Even if the vicariate were split in two, he said, there would still be regions where both languages—German and Czech—existed National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 111 side by side (commixta ydeomata). The only purely Czech-speaking monasteries were in Pilsen and Jindřichův Hradec, yet the friars from those monasteries wanted to control the entire vicariate. The Italian fathers listened carefully to Anthony’s responses, and dismissed the Czechs from the meeting hall. They then asked the Vicar how he would propose to solve the dispute to the satisfaction of both sides. However, the Italians were not impressed with the two or three possible solutions proposed by Anthony. Eventually, it was decided by the Vicar-General Angelus of Clavasio and the definitors that Czech-speaking monasteries (de lingua bohemica) should have a custodian with the same powers as those enjoyed by the Conventuals; this custodian would come under the command of the provincial Vicar. The new post of custodian was to be established at Pilsen and Jindřichův Hradec; the other Bohemian monasteries—in Tachov, Kadaň and elsewhere— were to remain under the direct control of the Vicar. The Czechs were to nominate three candidates for the position of custodian, and the successful candidate would be chosen by the provincial Vicar and the definitors. Should none of the candidates be suitable, the superiors could appoint someone else, but that person had to be a native Czech (nacione Bohemus). However, the custodian would not be permitted to accept friars from other provinces into the community; the power to do so would remain exclusively with the Provincial Chapter. If the custodian was not also a Guardian or a discretus, he would have no voting rights at the Chapter. A person could hold the office of custodian for a maximum of three years, on condition that he was re-elected annually. During inspection visits, the Vicar could remove the custodian from office if the latter had transgressed. The Czech friars received permission from the General Chapter for the provincial Vicar to establish two monasteries on their behalf. It would be possible to establish further monasteries in the future, though only with the consent of the Provincial Chapter. However, new monasteries could not be established until the existing institutions were full to capacity. The Czechs refused to accept this last provision, and so the Vicar-General Angelus of Clavasio and the definitors issued the following dictate “pro concor- dia, pace et unione inter fratres Teutunos et Bohemos in provincie Bohemie”:

1. The Czechs are permitted to establish two monasteries—one in Bechyně, the other in Ronšperk (now Dobrohostov). However, a majority of the friars from Tachov must consent to the establishment of a monastery in Ronšperk. 2. The Vicar, while present in the vicariate, shall not appoint his Commissar without having reasonable grounds to do so. If he does so in response to 112 hlaváček

a certain situation in Moravia and Silesia, he must also nominate a Commissar for Bohemia. 3. Should the Czechs feel oppressed, they should take their grievances to the Provincial Chapter. If they are not dealt with fairly there, they may appeal to the Vicar-General. 4. The Czechs promise that the monasteries established by them “pro puris Bohemis” shall be populated with their own people, and they shall not ask the Vicar for assistance in doing so. The only German-speaking friars to be accepted into these monasteries shall be those who actively express an interest in joining. However, in such cases the Vicar must issue his consent. It is also not the duty of the Vicar to negotiate with the provincial Minister of the Conventuals concerning the transfer of the monastery in Bechyně.

The two Czech friars who had travelled to meet the Papal Legate in Hungary without the knowledge of the provincial Vicar Anthony of Leipzig were par- doned for their transgression. One of the four most radical Czechs (Thomas of Čáslav? Nicholas of Bohemia?) spent a while in the Holy Land, and on his return he attempted to foment renewed disputes. Another of the radicals insisted that Czechs and Germans should alternate in office.31 The flaring-up of the long-smoldering Czech-German dispute at the Urbino General Chapter of 1490 showed that the Czech question was of more than merely marginal importance. The Czechs had made it abundantly clear that their opinion had to be reckoned with, and they had proved themselves capable of astute political maneuvering. However, their intransigence had ultimately left them with less than what they had been offered. In 1490, a new Franciscan monastery for Czech-speaking friars was established in Bechyně, funded by donations from Zdeslav of Šternberk.32 In accordance with the agreement reached at the Urbino General Chapter, a new monastery was to be established at Ronšperk (today Dobrohostov). The provincial Vicar Anthony of Leipzig dispatched a delegation to neighboring

31 Chronica Fratrum, 161–167. This information on the 1490 Czech-German conflict is published in full here for the first time. See the brief mention given in Minařík, “Vikáři,” 217– 218, 1915, 1. The main aim pursued by the “fratres Bohemi” was apparently justice for “totam communitatem sue nacionis.. Christopher of Varese, already of advanced age († 1490), intervened in the matter of the Bohemian vicariate by sending a letter to the Chapter in Urbino; see Chronica Fratrum, 166–167. 32 SÚA Praha, ŘF, nos. 76, 83 (establishment of the monastery at Bechyně “per patres et fratres Bohemos”); Chronica Fratrum, 167; Vlček, Sommer, and Foltýn, Encyklopedie, 169–170. National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 113

Tachov to investigate whether the existence of a new monastery would impinge on the rights of the Tachov friars. In the interest of objectivity, the delegation included the provincial discretus Paulin of Lviv and two representatives of the Czech community, Nicholas of Bohemia and Alexander of Chrudim. However, the Franciscans of Tachov rejected the proposal for a new monastery in their vicinity.33 The position of the Czech-speaking minority was gaining strength, and the threat of national particularism was growing constantly. After Easter in 1491, the lord of Hradec was encouraged by some Czech friars to remove a confessor from his post at the Jindřichův Hradec monastery, despite the fact that he had been legitimately appointed by the provincial Vicar Anthony of Leipzig. This anti-German move was supported by the monastery’s Guardian and the Czech preacher; during an inspection visit, the latter proposed to the Vicar—in all seriousness—that Germans should be expelled from the monastery altogether, but the Vicar refused to respond to this provocation.34 An important source of support for the Czech-speaking friars was Bishop Jan Filipec. In 1491, Filipec attended the Provincial Chapter in Nysa, accompanied by many Franciscans from Bohemia and Moravia. There he persuaded the vicariate to appoint a preacher for the Czech speakers at the monastery in Olomouc. The local citizens had been opposed to this, but they were forced to bow to the Bishop’s authority. The Chapter also permitted the establishment of a new monastery in Uherské Hradiště, Moravia, which was set up as a Czech- speaking institution thanks to strong support from Filipec.35 The tensions

33 Chronica Fratrum, 165–166. See the brief information given by Minařík, “Vikáři,” 1. 34 Chronica Fratrum, 169. See Teichmann, Der deutsche Charakter, 65. 35 Chronica Fratrum, 169–170. In the Brno monastery, where—as in the city itself—German was the dominant language, Peter of Hradec was described in 1490 as “predicator Bohemorum;” Chronica Fratrum, 161. The necrologium of the monastery at Olomouc (German Olmütz) also mentions the Czech preachers Martin of Lubáň († 1483, also the Guardian), Celestýn of Prussia († 1494), Kornelius of Zhořelec († 1512), the German preacher Andrew of Frankenstein († 1486), and the Czech confessors Felix of Šternberk (German Sternberg) († 1522), Leopold of Bavaria († 1528), and Remigius of Most (German Brüx) († 1532). From the period 1453–1543 we know the names of nineteen Guardians of Olomouc. They included an Italian, a Pole and a Hungarian, but the vast majority were German-speakers, mainly from Silesia and Prussia. The only native Bohemian was the Guardian Ignác of Hradec († 1481). An analysis of the necrologium carried out by the present author reveals that the monastery—just like the city of Olmütz—was German- speaking, with three quarters of the friars originating in the Czech lands (Moravia, Silesia) and the remaining members from the Holy Roman Empire (Prussia, Bavaria, Meissen, Austria) or other regions—Hungary, Poland, Wallachia, Italy and Russia. Viz Protocollum Archivi Conventus Olomucensis Ad S. Bernardinum (1745), SÚA Praha, ŘF, book no. 53, 114 hlaváček between Czechs and Germans in the vicariate eventually began to cool when Filipec joined the Franciscan Order in 1492. He had announced his intention at the Provincial Chapter in Olomouc earlier the same year. Probably due to Filipec’s influence, the capitulars elected a representative of the Czech friars— the erudite lawyer Alexander of Chrudim—to the post of definitor. The Olomouc Chapter also decided that Czechs who were unwilling to remain in Bohemian monasteries would be able to relocate to monasteries in Moravia and Silesia.36 A uniquely important document from 1493 has survived to this day—a catalogue of friars in the Bohemian Observant vicariate drawn up at the Provincial Chapter in Brno. Almost seven hundred Franciscans are categorized according to their nationality or place of birth. Three quarters of the friars came from the lands of the Bohemian crown, especially from Silesia; Silesians made up over forty percent of all Franciscans in the Bohemian vicariate. Around twenty percent were friars from the Holy Roman Empire, mainly from Prussia, Meissen, Austria, Bavaria and Franconia. The remaining friars came from Hungary or Poland. Around three quarters were German-speakers; the others spoke Slavic languages, mainly Czech. Czech-speaking Franciscans were in a minority— though a very important minority—both in Bohemia itself and in the vicariate as a whole. At the Brno Provincial Chapter the Commissar-General John of Sigestro issued an edict to the effect that anybody mentioning the division of the Bohemian vicariate should be punished.37

Sepulturae Fratrum 1473–1550, pp. 522–528, especially pp. 523–524, 527–528. At first sight it is not surprising that some Czech preachers and confessors are described as having come from Prussia or Bavaria, i.e. from German-speaking regions. It is tempting to think that these Germans learned Czech in order to be able to communicate with the Czech population; however, this is highly unlikely. (An individual described as a Prussian or a Bavarian could easily have been a native Bohemian who took a monastic name on his entry to the Order. For instance, the appellation ‘of Bavaria’ could have meant that the friar underwent his formative years at a monastery somewhere in Bavaria. Nevertheless, this issue has not yet been definitively resolved.) On Uherské Hradiště see J.o. Eliáš, “Historický a stavební vývoj bývalého františkánského kláštera v Uherském Hradišti,” Slovácko 1997 (39), 109; however this is a mere compilation from various studies by Minařík. 36 Chronica Fratrum, 171–172. See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 3–4. The involvement of Jan Filipec in the Czech question is suggested (though without citing sources) by P. Foltýnová-Mikulcová, ”Jan Filipec, diplomat ze sklonku středověku,” DaS 1 (1999), 13. 37 Chronica Fratrum, 172 (inserted folio with a manuscript by the same scribe). See Minařík, “Vikáři,” 3–4. Teichmann, Die franziskanische Observanzbewegung, 215–216. In 1493 the Czech-German conflict was discussed at the General Chapter in Florence—see National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 115

From the 1490s onwards, Czechs gained far stronger representation among the high officials of the vicariate; this representation eventually grew out of proportion with their relatively small numbers. However, no Czechs were appointed to the offices of provincial Vicar (or later provincial Minister). The definitorium included Jan Filipec († 1509), Alexander of Chrudim, George of Roudnice († 1504), and Václav of Úterý († 1521), known as “monarcha et corona omnium Bohemorum”. At the 1500 Provincial Chapter held in Legnica, two Czechs were elected among the four definitors: Alexander of Chrudim and George of Roudnice.38 Apart from the positive influence of Bishop Jan Filipec, another factor contributing to the calming of national tensions was the fact that when outside Bohemia, the provincial Vicar was represented there by a Czech Commissar. From 1498 this post was held by George of Roudnice, the Guardian at Pilsen and later the preacher at Kladsko.39 National tensions were also relegated to the background by the pressing need to focus on new challenges, particularly territorial disputes with the Saxon Conventuals and above all the fierce battle against the Lutheran Reformation, a conflict which was raging at the very heart of the Franciscan province of Bohemia. The Conventuals too were not immune from national problems during this period. The problem began to take root at the 1488 provincial congregation in Krnov. Some of the friars elected the erudite and pious Stephen of Brno to the post of Provincial, however others refused to accept the vote, calling for their own candidate—a Czech, Martin of Prague—to be nominated instead. However, it soon became clear that Martin was acquisitive and miserly, and the Minister-General of the Order refused to approve his appointment. Martin eventually secured the necessary approval from the congregation at Kladsko in 1495. At the provincial congregation held in Cracow in 1498, Martin became embroiled in another scandal when he forced the definitors and the Moravian custodian to transfer the vineyards of the Znojmo monastery to his personal ownership. At the 1499 congregation, held in Glogau, Martin behaved so harshly toward some of the friars that he had to flee to Italy and ask the Minister-General for assistance. In 1500 Martin of Prague failed to secure re- election, yet he refused to relinquish his office. The province was plunged into turmoil, and the usurper Martin was kept in his post only thanks to the support of the Czech friars. In 1514 the Commissar-General Bernardin Caeva arrived in

Chronologia historico-legalis ordinis Fratrum Minorum, vol. 1 (Naples: Camillus Cauallus, 1650), 146: “Concordati fuerunt Bohemi cum Alemannis.” 38 Chronica Fratrum, 170, 178, 185, 192–193, 200, 256, 260, passim. 39 Chronica Fratrum, 178. The Moravian Commissar at the time was Jakub of Krupka, the Guardian at Brno; the Silesian Commissar was Eusebius of Meziříčí, Guardian at Breslau. 116 hlaváček the province, but Martin was able to gain even his support through bribery. In 1515 the Pole Valentin of Krosno finally managed to convict Martin of theft, deception, sale of land and buildings, false imprisonment and other transgressions, sentencing him to life imprisonment in the tower of the Brno monastery. He committed suicide later that year. The awkward case of Martin of Prague caused great revulsion among the Polish and German friars, who were disinclined to continue their coexistence with the Czechs. In 1515, Pope Leo X responded to a request from the Austrian provincial Ditrich Kramer by issuing a decree incorporating Moravia and Upper Silesia into the Austrian province. The Czech friars were outraged, but in the ceded territories there was joy that the national disputes had finally been put to rest.40

5 Conclusion: Language as a Symbol of National Identification

The heightened national self-confidence of the Czechs, reinforced by strong elements of Czech messianism, were key features of everyday reality in the Kingdom of Bohemia during the post-Hussite period—including the traditional suspicion of all things German. In this light, Czech-speaking Franciscans must have been deeply disturbed by the fact that their superiors were exclusively German-speaking. The Czech-German rivalry was essentially one long battle to occupy high office and positions of rank within the vicariate, and that was how it was understood by contemporary participants and observers. Linguistic disputes thus represented an expression of the political aspirations of the Czech minority.41 National languages (Czech, German, and also Polish) were used as a means of communication mainly at the lower ranks within the vicariate, i.e. in the individual monastic communities, during visitations, meetings, confessions and sermons.42 The Provincial Chapters were held in Latin, the universal lingua franca of the Roman Church and also the official

40 A. Neumann, Die Chroniken, 27–28, 53–56. See Z. Smejkal, K dějinám národnostních sporů, 7. 41 Chronica Fratrum, 167—the opinion of the chronicler, who was probably the German- speaking Franciscan Michael of Carinthia. Despite his attempts at objectivity, the writer’s contempt for the demands of the Czech-speaking friars occasionally surfaces. For example, he often omits to mention the names of the leading Czech friars, though they represented a large number of friars within the Bohemian vicariate. It remains a problem that we do not have access to any sources authentically documenting the situation from the viewpoint of the Czech-speaking minority. 42 Advantage was often taken of the similarities between the Slavic languages. In 1475, when the jubilee was celebrated in Rome, Polish Observant Franciscans were present “pro National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 117 language of provincial documents. The vernacular was used only in unofficial discussions. National languages proved to be a major source of self-confidence and national identification throughout the national conflicts between the German- speaking majority and the minority communities—first Poles and later Czechs. The German friars, whose majority status gave them the upper hand within the vicariate, were mistrustful of the Slavic friars’ national aspirations, of which they tended to be dismissive. The Germans considered their own hegemony to be an inevitable result of free elections at Provincial Chapters, rather than part of a concerted effort to damage Czech national interests within the Franciscan Order. Furthermore, the German-speaking Franciscans in the Czech lands did not view themselves as belonging to a single, coherent national community; despite speaking the same language (which in any case existed in a wide diversity of local dialects), they had no genuine sense of shared identity. The patri- otic sentiments of the German-speakers tended to be directed toward their home provinces; this was the case with the Silesian friars, for example. Educated friars tended to favor anational universalism regardless of linguistic differences, remaining faithful to the teachings of the Italian founding fathers of the Bohemian vicariate. As a result of the national dispute, the structural positions of the Czech-speaking minority became entrenched. There are hardly any mentions of Czech-German disputes after 1500: in fact, quite the opposite. In 1509 a dispute flared up between the Bohemian Observants and the Saxon Conventuals over the custodies of Wrocław and Goldberg; the issue provoked strong feelings of patriotism and cemented internal unity within the Bohemian vicariate. The friars stood side by side as “Bohemi” against the Saxons. The incorporation of Wrocław and Goldberg was also supported by the King of Bohemia Vladislav (Vladislaus) Jagiello and his successor Louis. Vladislav had an eminent political interest in ensuring that the boundaries of the vicariate were the same as those of the lands of the Bohemian crown.43 This new tendency toward Bohemian patriotism among the Franciscans was also reflected in the work of the Franciscan author Jan Bosák of Vodňany (Johannes Aquensis). Aquensis placed strong emphasis on the anational universalism of the Roman Church. Although himself a Czech patriot, he never

audiendis confessionibus Polonos, Bohemos et Slavos.” Among them was Stanislav of Slapa; Memoriale Ordinis, 212. 43 The most important information on the Czech-Saxon conflict is to be found among the copied documents at SÚA Prague, ŘF, no. 104. See also Ferdinand Doelle, Die Observan- zbewegung in der sächsischen Franziskanerprovinz bis zum Generalkapitel von Parma 1529 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1918), 79–200. 118 hlaváček became personally embroiled in national frictions. In 1508 he completed the Latin-Czech dictionary ‘Lactifer’, which he had compiled on the request of the Czech friars with the aim of enriching the Czech language through Latin erudition. The dictionary was printed in Pilsen in 1511, and reveals the Czechs’ love for their native tongue: “The Czech language is neither so narrow nor so rough- hewn as it seems to some. It is a rich and abundant tongue; anything that can be expressed in Latin can also be expressed in Czech, and there are no Greek or Latin books that cannot be translated into Czech. As far as the accuracy of the Czech language is concerned, I am aware of nothing that cannot be said in Czech with as much eloquence, ornament, or beauty as it can be said in Greek or Latin.” Despite its apologetic tone, ‘Lactifer’ is devoid of any aggressively nationalistic sentiment.44 The new situation was typified by a series of events that occurred in 1528, when Commissar-General Caspar of Krems (a member of the Austrian province) arrived in the Czech Franciscan province. There was considerable disquiet in the monasteries visited by Caspar, culminating at the congregation of superiors in Opava in 1529. The fathers of the province expressed their surprise that the authorities had sent a German (Almanus) to inspect the monasteries, as they had never been inspected by their neighbors the Austrians (Australes) before. They pointed out that in the Czech lands such visits had always been carried out by Italians, who had been the first proponents of the reformist ideas of Franciscan observance in Bohemia.45

44 Jaroslav Vlček, Dějiny české literatury, vol. I (Prague: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1940), 357–386. Citation from ‘Lactifer’—Albert Pražák, Národ se bránil. Obrany národa a jazyka českého (Prague, 1945), 33. An important representative of the Czech-speaking minority was Kliment Bosák, author of many Czech religious hymns— see Karel Konrád, Dějiny posvátného zpěvu staročeského od XV. věku do zrušení literátských bratrstev, vol. I (Prague: Cyrillo-Methodějská Kněhtiskárna, 1893), 46–64. 45 Chronica Fratrum, 324; see Minařík, “Vikáři,” 9–10. Commissar Caspar of Krems received a similar response from the Polish Franciscans as he had from those of the Bohemian province. According to the chronicler John of Komorów, the Germans (Almani) were generally hostile to the Poles. Moreover, the Commissar worked closely with the Lithuanians within the Polish province to the detriment of the Polish friars; Memoriale Ordinis, 346–347. In this connection I consider it important to draw attention to the following facts. The above-mentioned chronicle uses two expressions to denote Germans: ‘Teutoni’ or ‘Teutuni’ refers to all those for whom German is a native language. ‘Almanus’ refers to a German-speaking brother originating in the Holy Roman Empire itself. In other words, the first term refers to a linguistic community, the second to a geographical territory. See Eberhard Isenmann, “Kaiser, Reich und deutsche Nation am Ausgang des 15. Jahrhunderts” in Ansätze zur Diskontinuität deutscher Nationsbildung im Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Ehlers (Sigmaringe: Jan Thorbecke, 1989), 145–246. Thomas Heinz, “Das Identitätsproblem der National And Linguistic Disputes In The Bohemian Vicariate 119

In the end, no deeper consolidation of national positions took place, and no new anational identity ever emerged. The Bohemian province was torn apart by intense internal disputes regarding attitudes to the burgeoning European Reformation.

Deutschen im Mittelalter,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht. Zeitschrift des Verbandes der Geschichtslehrer Deutschlands 43 (1992), 135–156. See also the entry ‘Natio’ in Lexikon des Mittelalters VI (Stuttgart-Weimar, 1999), 1035–1038. CHAPTER 4 The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia and His Court

Václav Bůžek

The ascent of the Habsburgs to the Bohemian throne in 1526 is an important moment in Bohemian, Habsburg, and Central European history. Czech historians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries devoted special attention to the policies of Ferdinand I (1503–1564; King of Bohemia from 1526; Holy Roman Emperor from 1558), the first Habsburg ruler of Bohemia, who resided mostly in Vienna, not in Prague. Beginning in the 1970s, an international group of scholars have studied the reign of Rudolf II, who moved the imperial court to Prague in 1583. One of the off-shoots of both Rudolfine scholarship and new interest by Czech scholars in the nobility, which began in the late 1980s, is the study of residences and residential cities. In a 2006 book, Václav Bůžek combines these trends and explores a new area of research focusing on the court of Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol (1529–1595) the second son of King Ferdinand I, who was sent by his father to reside in Bohemia after the failed uprising that took place during the Schmalkaldic War, 1546–1547. Bůžek argues that Archduke Ferdinand played an important role in the Habsburg plans to centralize power by successfully integrating members of the Bohemian nobility at his court in Prague and Innsbruck, taking them on trips abroad, and arranging marriages with members of other courts, such as Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich, Landshut, Mantua, and Ferrara. In this chapter, Bůžek discusses Archduke Ferdinand I’s arrival in Prague, his establishment of a court, and early relationships with members of the Bohemian nobility. Václav Bůžek (1959–) is Director of the Historical Institute of the Philo- sophical Faculty of the Southern Bohemian University in České Budějovice. He studied at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Pra- gue where he received the doctorate in 1982. He worked at the Institute for Czechoslovak and World History at the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences before moving on to a teaching position at the former Pedagogical Faculty of the Southern Bohemian University. He became the first Director of the Historical Institute (in 1991) and then served, 2004 to 2011, as Rector of the Southern Bohemian University. He returned to the Historical Institute in January 2011.

In addition to Ferdinand of Tyrol between Prague and Innsbruck, Bůžek is the author of a long list of works, including Úvěrové podnikání nižší šlechy v předbělohorských Čechách [Credit Trade of the Lower Nobility in Pre-White Mountain Bohemia] (Prague: Ústav československ7ch a světových dějin ČSAV, 1989); Nižší šlechta v politickém systému a kultuře předbělohorských Čech [Lower Nobility in the Political System and Culture of Pre-White Mountain Prague] (Prague: HÚ, 1996); co-author of Dvory velmožů s erbem růže. Všední a sváteční dny posledních Rožmberků a pánů z Hradce [The Courts of th Lords of the Rose. Everyday and Ceremonial Life of the Last Rosenbergs and Lords of Hradec] (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1997); and co-editor of a long list of con ference volumes in the series OH. He has also been active in collaboration with Austrian historians and is co-editor, along with Andrea Komlosy and František Svátek, of Kulturen an der Grenze. Waldviertel-Weinviertel- Südböhmen-Südmähren (Vienna: Promedia, 1995). Place of Original Publication and Permission: “Příchod místodržitele arcik- nížete Ferdinanda do Čech a jeho dvůr”[The Arrival of Viceroy Archduke Ferdinand to Bohemia and his Court,] chapter three of Ferdinand Tyrolský mezi Prahou a Innsbruckem. Šlechta z českých zemí na cestě ke dvorům prvních Habsburků [Ferdinand of Tyrol between Prague and Innsbruck, Nobility of the Czech Lands on the Path to the First Habsburg Courts,] MH 7(České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2006), 68–96). This chapter appears by permission of the author.

King Ferdinand I installed a Viceroy’s Office in the Lands of the Crown of Bohemia in October 1547.1 He then summoned his second-born son to fulfill the Viceroy’s duties—Archduke Ferdinand, born on 14 June 1529. Earlier in his reign the King had regularly named the highest Land officials to represent him temporarily in the Land during his absence. When in mid-January 1548 he issued instructions outlining the duties of the councilors of the appeal court, he stated clearly that his representative should be the Viceroy of the Kingdom of Bohemia.2 In King Ferdinand’s political strategy, Archduke Ferdinand’s

1 [196] See the letters of the Archduke Ferdinand written from Prague Castle on 17.10 and 31.10.1547 in which he speaks in the name of the king; SČ II (Prague: Královský český zemský výbor, 1880), 539–540; Josef Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol. Geschichte seiner Regierung und seiner Länder, vol. I (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1885), 13. 2 [197] See Instrukcí dole psaným osobám, kteréž na apelacích na hradě Pražském sedají, which Ferdinand I published in Augsburg on 20.1.1548 (SČ II, 545–548, here 547) [. . .] Related to this, see Jaroslav Pánek, Stavovská opozice a její zápas s Habsburky 1547–1577. K politické krizi 122 bůžek activity as Viceroy of Bohemia derived from two assumptions about power which reflected the situation in the Land of the Estates, punished after an abortive revolt against the ruler.3 As far as decision making was concerned, the Viceroy was to rely on the authority bestowed on him by his father; at the same time he was to be independent of the political will of the Bohemian Estates.4 The King clearly understood the position of the Viceroy to be a permanent institution which would ensure control over political developments in the Bohemian Lands, where he spent increasingly less time over the subsequent years.5 The historian Josef Janáček was absolutely correct in noting considerable Spanish influence in the way the institution of the Viceroy was set up and occupied by the Archduke. The measures taken by the King in Bohemia did indeed resemble the administrative system the Spanish branch of the Habsburgs had implemented in the Netherlands.6 The first four years of Archduke Ferdinand’s life were spent with his mother Anna Jagiellon of Bohemia and Hungary, his older brother Maximilian and his sisters Elisabeth, Anna, Maria and Catherine in Linz, his birthplace. In 1533 the family moved temporarily to Innsbruck, which Anna Jagiellon knew intimately, because she had lived in the Hofburg [Imperial Palace] there from 1515 to 1521. The Tyrolean metropolis was a satisfactorily prestigious seat for the Queen of Bohemia and Hungary and her children. When in 1490 the Roman King, Maximilian I, had further been made ruler of Further Austria, Tyrol and Vorarlberg, he began building a grandiose residence in Innsbruck where from 1493 he settled with his second wife Bianca Maria Sforza. By the end of the fifteenth century Maximilian resided in the Innsbruck urban palace called the Goldenes Dachl, where late Gothic elements of architecture mixed with influences from the Italian Renaissance. The heraldic deco-

feudální třídy v předbělohorském českém státě (Prague: Academie, 1982), 19 (with incorrect dating). 3 [198] For more information see Josef Janáček, České dějiny. Doba předbělhorská 1526–1547, book I, part II (Prague: Academie, 1984), especiallz 173–335; Jaroslav Pánek, “První krize habsburské monarchie,” Stavovský odboj roku 1547. První krize habsburské monarchie. Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference konané v Pardubicích 29.-30.9. 1997, ed. Petr Vorel (Pardubice and Prague: Východočeské muzeum and Ústav českých dějin filozofické fakulty UK, 1999), 11–27. 4 [199] See the letters of Ferdinand I of 8.2.1553, 26.7.1554 and 6.8.1554; SČ II, 643, 661–662. 5 [200] Janáček, České dějiny I, part II, 332; Václav Bůžek, “Ferdinand II. Tyrolský a česká šlechta (K otázce integračních procesů v habsburkské monarchii),” ČČH 98 (2000), 268. 6 [201] Janáček, České dějiny I, part II, 332; Laetitia Gorter-van Royen, “Maria von Ungarn als Regentin der Niederlande” in Karl V. 1500–1558: Neue Perspectiven seiner Herrschaft in Europa und Übersee, eds. A. Kohler, B. Haider, C. Ottner and M. Fuchs (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), 451–460. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 123 ration of its oriel window reflected the symbols of the lands over which Maximilian reigned. He also founded new churches and infirmaries; the city was a center for international trade, visited by craftsmen and merchants from both Austrian and German territory who continued their journey through the Brenner Pass to the Apennine peninsula. When in 1508 Maximilian was pro- claimed Emperor, Innsbruck became, during his stays, an important crossroads of European political activity. Not only were the administrative offices of the Holy Roman Empire and of the Austrian lands temporarily located in Innsbruck, but representatives of other European states also came there. Maximilian’s court, which included 400 courtiers and servants, made exceptional demands on the availability of accommodation and the stabling of horses. Only some of them found shelter inside the newly built Hofburg; a number of courtiers had to rent rooms and stables in city houses and inns at the expense of the Hofkammer. The musicians and singers of Maximilian’s orchestra enjoyed special favor at his court; the court composer Heinrich Isaak from the Netherlands and the organist Paul Hofheimer were widely renowned. Their appearances created the context for a number of secular celebrations, held especially at Shrovetide when masked dances were a part of the scenario. The climax of most of the great secular celebrations was the presentation of tournaments, frequently organized in the square in front of the Goldenes Dachl—where the royal couple would watch from the oriel window—or in the courtyards of the Hofburg. Alongside their emphasis on chivalric virtue, the staging of the Innsbruck tournaments gave prominence to the sporting encounters of the aristocratic participants. These formed the characteristic content of the tournaments as early as the fifteenth century and continued throughout the sixteenth century. Maximilian took great pleasure in arranging the tournaments, so the exceptional flourishing of the Innsbruck workshops of artistic armorers, who made magnificently decorated armor for the Emperor and his court, was in line with this. The court armorers from the Tyrolean capital surpassed the renowned workshops in Augsburg and Milan in the quality of the luxury weapons (which Maximilian often gave as presents) and the artistry of the armor. In the winter months Maximilian invited his guests to go hunting in the forests around Innsbruck. Even though there were about two dozen inns in the Tyrolean capital at the beginning of the sixteenth century, many visitors complained about the uninviting and narrow rooms which were always full of guests, and searched for accommodation in towns and villages in the wider environs of Innsbruck. Bianca Maria Sforza maintained her own court in Innsbruck, separate from that of Maximilian. Her court consisted of about 100–150 persons, including 124 bůžek around fifty ladies-in-waiting, the majority of whom she had brought with her from Milan. When she died in 1510 the entourage was dispersed and its accommodation in the Hofburg remained empty until 1515, when Anna Jagiellon and Maria Habsburg moved in with their ladies-in-waiting. In the last years of his life Emperor Maximilian stayed in Wels, where he died at the beginning of 1519.7 The upbringing of the royal sons of Ferdinand I was entrusted to the Supreme Steward [Hofmeister], who summoned preceptors learned in the humanities to the Innsbruck residence. These gradually acquainted Archdukes Maximilian and Ferdinand with history, theology, mathematics and art. Instruction in Latin, German, Italian and the basics of Czech made up an important part of their education. Great attention was devoted to the development of strength, dexterity and other physical skills of the young Habsburgs.8 It seems that Jan Horák (Hasenberg) became Preceptor to the young Archdukes in Spring 1539;9 it is extremely likely that he stayed with them till the mid-1540s. In 1544 he accompanied Archduke Ferdinand on a journey to the Netherlands.10 Horák, a native of Litoměřice, studied theology and philosophy at Leipzig University where, at the turn of the 1520s and 1530s, he expressed himself trenchantly against the opinions of Martin Luther. His well-defined Roman Catholic stance served him well in the church administration. In 1534 he took on the office of Dean of the Chapter in Litoměřice where he soon opened a school at which the sons of the aristocracy were educated. Having shown himself capable of linking Humanist methods of education with the opinions of a white-hot Catholic, he was summoned to Innsbruck to look after the education of the sons of King Ferdinand I.11

7 [202] A broad overview of Innsbruck under Maximilian I, including a summary of the literature, is given in particular by Inge Wiesflecker-Friedhuber, “Kaiser Maximilian I. und die Stadt Innsbruck” in Der Innsbrucker Hof. Residenz und höfische Gesellschaft in Tirol vom 15. bis 19. Jahrhundert, eds. H. Noflatscher and J.P. Niederkorn (Vienna: Verlag der Österreischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005), 125–158. My description is based on her conclusions. 8 [203] Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol, 3–9. 9 [204] See the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien, Oberhofmeisteramt, Sonderreihe, index 181, no. 14 (a list of courtiers of the common court of the Archdukes Maximilian and Ferdinand of 1.4.1539), where he is given as Preceptor. 10 [205] Ibid., index 181, no. 20 (a list of courtiers who accompanied the Archduke Ferdinand on his journey to the Netherlands, dated 31.5.1544). 11 [206] For more on this, see Rukověť humanistického básnictví v Čechách a na Moravě, vol. II (Prague: Academia, 1966), 332–336. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 125

After Ferdinand and Maximilian left Innsbruck for Prague in 1543, their paths and those of their sisters gradually separated. The younger sisters remained in Innsbruck where they were educated according to strict Roman Catholic traditions. In the mid-1540s Archduke Ferdinand gained his first military experience in the combat led by his uncle Charles V against France and against the Lutherans in the Holy Roman Empire during the Schmalkaldic War. The young Archduke’s travels through the cockpits of war took him for a short time to the Netherlands. Whilst Ferdinand was devoting himself to military matters, his two older sisters left Innsbruck and married: in 1543 Elisabeth became the wife of the King of Poland, Sigismund II Augustus, and three years later Anna married Albrecht V Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria, in Munich. In the same year the first of the younger sisters, Maria, married Wilhelm, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg. In 1549 Catherine married Duke Francesco III Gonzaga, who however died the following year.12 Another sister, Eleonora, married Francesco’s younger brother Guglielmo III Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua. In 1565 the youngest sisters also married into the Italian nobility: Barbara married Alfonso II d’Este, Duke of Ferrara and Johanna, Francesco I de’Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany.13 In October 1549 Archduke Ferdinand, accompanied by a large retinue of Bohemian and Moravian nobles, travelled to Mantua to join in the wedding festivities of his sister Catherine. Without doubt, the artistic sensitivities of the young Habsburg, whose previous experience had for the most part been at the former residence of Emperor Maximilian I in Innsbruck, were influenced by the journey. During his short stay in Mantua Ferdinand was provided with a colorful demonstration of the mature art of the court of the Gonzagas. The visual aspects of the church buildings, palaces and gardens had been determined between the 1520s and 1540s by the painter and architect Giulio Romano. Romano had arrived in Mantua in October 1524; two years later he became court builder to Duke Federico II.14 He won artistic acclaim especially for the summer seat of the Gonzagas, the Palazzo del Te on the outskirts of Mantua. This represented a unique type of early Mannerist summer palace in the middle of a lake. Its rooms were decorated with monumental frescoes with secular, biblical and mythological themes with symbolic meanings.

12 [207] Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol, 10–13. 13 [208] On this, see for example Karl Schütz, “Die Beziehungen der Habsburger zu den Gonzaga im 16. Jahrhundert” in Fürstenhöfe der Renaisssance. Giulio Romano und die klassische Tradition (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1989), 324–332, here 327. 14 [209] Volker Reinhardt, ed., Die großen Familien Italiens (Stuttgart: Kröner Verlag, 1992), 298–300. 126 bůžek

According to the latest interpretation by art historians, Federico II Gonzago commissioned the building with the original intention of using it for assigna- tions with his mistress Isabella Boschetti.15 The interior of the Palazzo del Te was so magnificent that in April 1530 Federico II Gonzaga welcomed Charles V there on the Emperor’s return from his coronation in Bologna.16 Giulio Romano made use of the opportunity to propose the building of a triumphal arch on the square in Mantua, through which Emperor Charles could ceremo- nially enter the city.17 The urban palace in Landshut also shows the inspired architectural hand of Giulio Romano. He was commissioned by Ludwig X Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria, who visited the Palazzo del Te at the invitation of Federico II Gonzaga in 1536. Architectural influences from the workshop of Giulio Romano were also used in the building of Charles V’s palace in Granada.18 Working alongside Romano in Mantua was Jacopo Strada, who at the end of the 1550s entered the service of the Habsburgs as architect and court antiquarian first in Vienna and later in Prague. He was subsequently employed by the Fugger family in Augsburg and the Wittelbachs in Munich. It is likely that efforts by the Archduke Ferdinand lay behind Jacopo Strada’s invitation to the court of Ferdinand I at the turn of 1557 and 1558.19 It seems that from the mid-sixteenth century Strada became the most notable interpreter of the artistic language of Giulio Romano north of the Alps. Evidence of this can be found in the drawings by Romano which Strada purchased in Mantua for the Central European Archduke. His artistic renown was likewise put into practice in the architectural decoration of the residences of some of the aristocracy of Bohemia and Moravia.20 The Archduke Ferdinand enjoyed a magnificent

15 [210] On this, see Manfred Tafuri, “Giulio Romano als Architekt 1524–1546,” Fürstenhöfe der Renaisssance, 210–234, here 210. 16 [211] Konrad Oberhuber, “Giulio und die figürlichen Künste.” Fürstenhöfe der Renaisssance. 134–192, here 140; Tiziana Bernardi, “Analisi di una cerimonia pubblica. L’incoronazione di Carlo V a Bologna,” Quaderni storici 61 (1986): 171–199. 17 [212] Konrad Oberhuber, “Giulio und die figürlichen Künste,” 231. 18 [213] Ibid., 232–233. 19 [214] Dirk Jacob Jansen, “The Instruments of Patronage. Jacopo Strada at the Court of Maximilian II: A Case-Study” in Kaiser Maximilian II. Kultur und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert, eds. F. Edelmayer and A. Kohler (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1992), 182–202, here p. 186. 20 [215] Dirk Jacob Jansen, “Der Mantuaner Antiquarius Jacopo Strada” in Fürstenhöfe der Renaisssance, 208–323; Jansen, “The Instruments of Patronage;” Václav Bůžek, “Zwischen dem rudolfinischen Prag und den Höfen der Magnaten mit dem Wappen der fünfblättrigen Rose” in Rudolf II, Prague and the World, eds. L. Konečný, B. Bukovinská and I. Muchka (Prague: Artefactum, 1998), 75–80—on the relations with William of Rožmberk, 76. See The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 127 welcome in Venice, where he stopped briefly on his return journey from Mantua.21 The architecture of the Doge’s palace, the colorfulness of the courtiers’ attire and the frivolous atmosphere of celebration in the lanes of the city and at sea must surely have filled the young scion of the Habsburgs with enthusiasm.22 Shortly after Ferdinand’s return from Mantua—evidently at the end of 1551—the court painter Francesco Terzio entered his service in Prague. However, Terzio had not had an easy journey to Prague. Wanting to establish himself north of the Alps, he had left his native Bergamo and set out for Milan at the beginning of 1551. From there he turned to Pietro Aretino in Venice with a request for support in finding a patron. Aretino kept in close personal contact with Titian, and Terzio was with the greatest probability expecting a recommendation from him to the service of the Habsburgs. Aretino also had a close connection with the circle of artists who worked for Gonzaga in Mantua, either with Giulio Romano or—after Romano’s death in 1546—Jacopo Strada. At the time that Francesco Terzio came to Milan, Giuseppe Arcimboldo was celebrating his first successes in the artistic field. He was connected with Ferdinand, having met him in Milan, although he did not enter his service in Vienna until 1562. The art historian Jiří Kropáček assumes that the first meeting between Archduke Ferdinand and Francesco Terzio could have been in spring 1551 in Augsburg, where the Imperial Assembly took place. It would seem that this meeting was preceded by the overtures of some unknown mediators, but no other information is available. However, it is known that the Archduke was trying with all his might to find an artist for his service in Bohemia able to absorb the artistic impulses of Giulio Romano, whose work had enchanted him in Mantua.23 In the middle of the sixteenth century Prague Castle resembled a large and hectic building site. With increasing demands for the Viceroy to be appropriately

the letter from Maximilian II to William Gonzaga of 12.5.1565 which concerns Jacopo Strada’s recommendation, Elena Venturini ed., Le Collezioni Gonzaga. Il carteggio tra la Corte Cesarea e Mantova (1559–1636) (Milan: Silvana, 2002), 187–188. 21 [216] Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol, 20. 22 [217] In view of the lack of direct evidence, see Zdeněk Hojda’s analogical work “Benátky na konci 16. století ve dvou pražských památnících” in Ars baculum vitae. Sborník studií z dějin umění a kultury k 70. narozeninám prof. PhDr. Pavla Preisse, DrSc., eds. Vít Vlnas and Tomáš Sekyrka (Prague: Národní galerie, 1996), 69–81. 23 [218] Here I rely on the interpretation of Jiří Kropáček, “Malíř Francesco Terzio. Okolnosti jeho příchodu do Prahy,” Ars baculum vitae, eds. V. Vlnas and T. Sekyrka. 92–98; see also Kropáček, “Francesco Terzio: Notes on his Style and Iconography” in Rudolf II, Prague and the World, eds. Konečný, Bukovinská and Muchka, 278–280. 128 bůžek represented, building was going on in the living quarters, in the cathedral of St. Vitus, in the gardens and in the neighboring reservations. Italian builders continued their work on the Royal Summer Palace (later known as the Belvedere) where building works had started in 1538 with the arrival of the builder Giovanni Spatio and continued under the oversight of Paolo della Stella of Genoa.24 Roundabout 1540 the builder and sculptor became famous for a sand- stone relief portraying Ferdinand I handing the shoot of a fig tree to Queen Anna. The relief was made for the wall of the arcade of the summer palace. The chivalrous scene contains a number of valuable details. Whilst the dog undoubtedly represents marital fidelity, the presentation of the king’s clothing, the cut of his hair and the gloves in his hand, are valuable evidence of the lifestyle of that time.25 After the death of Paolo della Stella in 1552, oversight of the building passed to Hans Tirol; three years later it was taken over by Boniface Wolmut who worked there till 1563. At that time the architectural concept of the Royal Summer Palace in the style of the Italian Renaissance was completely unique in the transalpine region. Its main hall was used for court celebrations, often featuring music and dance.26 At the turn of 1555 and 1556 Hans Tirol and Boniface Wolmut shared in the construction of the summer palace called Hvězda [Star] in the New Royal Reserve at White Mountain. Under the supervision of Giovanni Lucchese, Italian bricklayers and masons built this summer palace according to a design by Archduke Ferdinand, with four floors and a ground plan in the shape of a six-pointed star. From the arrangement of the numerous niches on the ground and first floors, suitable for the display of sculptures and armor, it would seem that the Archduke intended to display his collection in the summer palace, as he later did in the château Ambras near Innsbruck. The quality of the floor on the fourth story indicates that this area was used for dancing. It seems that under the Archduke Ferdinand the Star Palace served primarily for court enter-

24 [219] Madelon Simons, “Český král Ferdinand I., jeho syn arcivévoda Ferdinand II. a pražský dvůr v letech 1527–1567,” in Rudolf II. a Praha. Císařský dvůr a rezidenční město jako kulturní a duchovní centrum střední Evropy, eds. E. Fučíková et al. (Prague, London and Milano: Prague Castle Administration, Thames and Hudson, and Skira Editore, 1997), 80–89; Jan Bažant, “The Prague Belveder, Emperor Ferdinand I and Jupiter,” Umění 51 (2003): 262–277. 25 [220] Hilda Lietzmann, “Ferdinands I. Verdienste um die Gartenkunst,” in Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503–1564. Das Werden der Habsburger Monarchie, ed. Wilfried Seipel (Vienna and Milan: Kunsthistorisches Museum and Skira Editore, 2003), 259, 261. 26 [221] Ivan P. Muchka, “Die Bautätigkeit Kaiser Ferdinands I. in Prag,” in Kaiser Ferdinand I., ed. W. Seipel, 249–157; includes a summary of literature on the subject. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 129 tainments.27 Several decades later the summer palace still stirred the sensibili- ties of high-born visitors to Prague. When the French diplomat Pierre Bergeron looked round the Star Palace in July 1600 he marveled at the inventive ground plan of the summer palace, the arrangement of the spacious interiors, and the surrounding reserve, home to wild creatures.28 Archduke Ferdinand displayed an unusual interest in the laying out of the gardens of Prague Castle, started by his father who devoted considerable care to the gardens of the Hofburg in Vienna.29 The Archduke saw to the water supply and the construction of a fountain. He had ideas about the disposition of the flower beds and personally supervised the planting of flowers and bushes. When the weather was fine he moved the life of the court out of the cold and damp rooms of Prague Castle (continually plagued by leaks in time of rain and snow) into the gardens or other open spaces. Partial structural improvements of the living spaces were made in the middle of the sixteenth century, but because of later extensive reconstruction, no closer idea of their architectural shape, decoration and furnishings is possible. In the thinking of the Archduke the garden represented a harmonically arranged cultural space, a kind of earthly paradise with whose use he had undoubtedly become familiar during his trip to Mantua and to other centers of court life north of the Apennine peninsula.30 It is however difficult to imagine that a garden created in the mid- sixteenth century would be an internally unified whole, for its individual parts performed a number of varied functions characteristic of a Renaissance garden. Herb beds alternated with areas of fruit trees, vines, ornamental plants of

27 [222] Madelon Simons, “Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria, Governor in Bohemia, and the Theatre of Representation,” in Rudolf II, Prague and the World, eds. Konečný, Bukovinská and Muchka, 270–277; Simons, “Erzherzog Ferdinand II. als Statthalter von Böhmen, Mäzenatentum und sein künstlerischer Diettantismus,” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien (2002–2003), 130–133; Christian Griess, “Erzherzog Ferdinand von Tirol. Konturen einer Sammelpersönlichkeit,” Frühneuzeit-Info 4, 2 1973): 62–173, here 166–167. See also Martin Stejskal, Hvězda. Pokus o vymezení pražského letohrádku jako filosofického obydlí (Prague: Volvox Globator, 1994), who on pp. 11–25 tried in particular to uncover hidden meanings of the symbolism of the ornamentation. 28 [223] Eliška Fučíková, ed., Tři francouzští kavalíři v rudolfinské Praze (Prague: Panorama, 1989), 62. 29 [224] Lietzmann, “Ferdinands I. Verdienste um die Gartenkunst,” with a summary of the literature. 30 [225] See the letter from Ferdinand I addressed to Archduke Ferdinand (13.3.1564) in the Archiv Pražského hradu, Dvorská komora, inv. no. 182, index 2; further inv. no. 103, 144 and similar; on Renaissance gardens also Jaroslav Pánek, Výprava české šlechty do Itálie v letech 1551–1552 (Prague: Ústav československých a světových dějin, 1987), 15, 29, 43. 130 bůžek a foreign provenance, and fishponds stocked with fish.31 The increased building activity attracted a mixed range of craftsmen to Prague Castle. Their everyday life was hampered by the distressing stench which spread from the hurriedly built management buildings, stables and dung heaps in the area round the Castle.32 The Archduke Ferdinand surrounded himself with his own court both during his stay in Prague Castle and on his travels. According to the court accounts, there were in 1551 more than 130 persons belonging to the court who were paid for their service, payments which were noted in the account books of the Arcduke’s accountant Leonard Giennger.33 Archduke Ferdinand’s court was large in comparison with that of his younger brother, the Archduke Charles, for in 1554 Charles’s court numbered only 33 paid persons, with the Supreme Steward Linhart of Harrach at their head.34 It appears from the lists of courtiers for 1536, 1538 and 1539 that Maximilian and Ferdinand shared a small court as early as their time in Innsbruck. The composition of their court derived from an instruction given by King Ferdinand I in October 1538 during his stay in Linz.35 The court, which comprised over twenty persons, was headed by the Supreme Steward, the Supreme Chamberlain and the Supreme Equerry, who supervised the other courtiers and court servants. From the end of the 1530s the Supreme Steward at the Innsbruck court of the two Archdukes was Zdislav Berka of Dubá; he had with him a handful of nobles from the Bohemian Lands—Jan Horák of Milešovka was Preceptor, Lord

31 [226] Muchka, “Die Bautätigkeit Kaiser Ferdinands I. in Prag,” 255. 32 [227] Václav Bůžek, “Vratislav z Pernštejna mezi Prahou, Litomyšlí a Vidní (Ke zpravodaj- skému přínosu listů české a moravské šlechy),” Sborník prací východočeských archivů 8 (2000), 27–28, including sources. 33 [228] The income and expenses of Archduke Ferdinand’s court for the period from 1.12.1550 to 31.12.1551 was noted by Leonard Giennger in an account book which is kept in the Národní archiv České republiky, Komorní knihy, shelf mark 1898. Some data about the composition of the court were used in Bůžek, “Erzherzog Ferdinand als Statthalter von Böhmen—Residenz, Hof, Alltagsleben und Politik,” in Kaiser Ferdinand I, ed. W. Seipel, 285. A thorough analysis of the source was carried out by Petr Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr arciknížete Ferdinanda Habsburského v Praze roku 1551 ve světle účetní dokumentace,” FHB 21 (2005): 7–66. Vorel was the first person to draw the attention of scholarly circles to this account book, which was worth publication in a critical edition. 34 [229] Archduke Charles (1540–1590), the third son of Ferdinand I, was surrounded by a small court as early as 1550. For the number of court dignitaries in 1554 see the Hofkammerarchiv Wien, Hofzahlamtsbücher no, 9, fol., 448 an. 35 [230] Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien, Oberhofmeisteramt, Sonderreihe, index 181. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 131

Veitmile, Carver, and William of Šternberk, Varlet.36 The Archdukes were still sharing a court in Innsbruck in 1543, when it numbered fifty persons. Surviving lists of courtiers make a better understanding possible of the distinctive principles used for the arrangement of tables at court. Maximilian and Ferdinand dined at the same table as their Preceptor and eight noble Varlets. Six courtiers served their table. At the next table sat the Supreme Steward, the Equerry and nine other courtiers and at a third, the personal servants of the young Archdukes. A fourth table was occupied by the servants of the courtiers. The cook’s assistants had their meal in the kitchen.37 When at the end of May 1544 Archduke Ferdinand set out for the Netherlands, his father put a court together for him. Ludwig von Tovar zu Enzesfeld, with the rank of Supreme Steward and Chamberlain, was placed at the head of forty travelling companions.38 Since Archduke Maximilian was at the same time setting out for France on a field campaign, King Ferdinand created a court for him as well.39 In the circumstances indicated it is likely that the basis of a court for each young Archduke was created before mid-1544, and that the composition changed in subsequent years.40 One can assume that the management of the Archduke Ferdinand’s court, whose main expenditure was on services, was paid for from the budget of the ruler’s Court Chamber [Hofkammer].41 On the other hand of course one should not overlook that some of Archduke Ferdinand’s courtiers were unpaid, as is indicated in the list of 1544.42 There is no doubt that when it came to who was to occupy the key positions at the Archduke Ferdinand’s court, his father had the last word. The historian Petr Vorel correctly identified Ludwig von Tovar zu Enzesfeld as the most important person in the Viceroy’s court was. He remained Counselor at the Court Chamber of King Ferdinand I until 1549, while from 1544 simultaneously occupying what seems to have been the only occasional office of Supreme

36 [231] Ibid., kart 181, no. 14 (list of members of the court of Archdukes Maximilian and Ferdinand of 1.4.1539). 37 [232] Ibid., kart 181, no. 19 (list of members of the court of Archdukes Maximilian and Ferdinand of 1543). 38 [233] Ibid., kart 181, no. 20 (list of courtiers of 31.5.1544 who accompanied Archduke Ferdinand to the Netherlands). 39 [234] Ibid., kart 181, no. 21 (list of courtiers of 31.5.1544 who accompanied Archduke Maximilian to the field campaign in France). 40 [235] As well as the sources given in the preceding notes, see Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol, 10–11. 41 [236] Petr Vorel assumes this in “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 9, 11. 42 [237] Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien, Oberhofmeisteramt, Sonderreihe, index 181, no. 20 (for example, the personal tapster Vratislav of Pernštejn in 1544 “hat keine Besoldung”). 132 bůžek

Steward at the court of Archduke Ferdinand. He remained a key figure at Ferdinand’s court in Prague until Spring 1553, when he died.43 The internal organization of the court, whose composition was probably established at the beginning of autumn 1549, essentially differed from that of the courts of the ruling Habsburg Emperors in the sixteenth century.44 With the exception of the High Court Marshal—an office not occupied in the Prague residence of the Archduke Ferdinand in 1551—the highest ranking members of his court were the Supreme Steward, the High Chamberlain and the High Equerry, who directed the activity of individual groups of specialized court servants.45 The Supreme Steward was entrusted with the oversight of Archduke Ferdinand’s entire court. He was responsible for the servants who served at table, the personnel in the kitchens and cellars, the accommodation, and the running of the chapel. It seems that the Supreme Steward also kept an eye on the guard over the Archduke’s person, which consisted of 32 soldiers under a captain. In addition, he oversaw two trumpeters and a messenger. In 1551 the twelve servants who served the Archduke and his guests at table consisted of sewers, food carriers, carvers, cupbearers, chamberlains of the silver and washers of silver dishes. Eighteen paid servants took care of the daily running of the kitchens and cellars in the Prague residence under the oversight of the Kuchmeister. These included—as well as the cook—cellar men, kitchen and cellar scribes, purchasers, pantry men, bakers, pastry cooks and washers of dishes made of tin. The Court Provisioner was in charge of accommodation for the courtiers, servants and guests of Archduke’s court. The High Chamberlain stood at the head of the personal chamber of Archduke Ferdinand, which consisted of approximately twenty servants. These personal chamberlains, bar- bers, tailors, launderers and porters took care of the Viceroy’s personal needs from the time he rose in the morning till he went to bed at night. The High Chamberlain also had the oversight of the small office in which the Viceroy’s secretary, Czech interpreter, scribe, controller and messenger worked. The Master of the Horse was responsible for the day to day activity of the almost forty servants who looked after the stables, the exercise of the Spanish horses

43 [238] Hofkammerarchiv, Hofzahlamtsbucher no. 7 (1549); Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 29–30. 44 [239] Stefan Sienell, “Die Wiener Hofstaate zur Zeit Leopolds I.,” in Hofgesellschaft und Höflinge an europäischen Fürstenhöfen in der Frïhen Neuzeit (15.–18. Jahrhundert), eds. K. Malettke, C. Grell, and P. Holz (Münster: Lit, 2001), 89–91 for a summary of the literature. 45 [240] A list of persons working at the court of Archduke Ferdinand in 1551 was published in Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 23–26. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 133 brought to Prague from Innsbruck, the kennels, the aviaries of birds of prey, the carriages, the armor and the riding tackle. The pay of individual employees corresponded to their position in the court hierarchy. The Supreme Steward, who received 100 guilders a month, was the highest paid. He was followed by the High Chamberlain and the Supreme Equerry who were each paid 66 guilders 40 kreutzers per month. In third place came the courtiers and a few servants who carried out specialized work (master of ceremony, personal cupbearer and carver) or oversaw the activities of smaller groups of employees (the Kuchmeister and the captain of the guard). The pay of these employees varied between 30 and 40 guilders. All the remaining courtiers who served at table, chamberlains, personal servants of the Archduke, clerks in the office and some specialized court craftsmen, come in the fourth category, being paid 10 to 20 guilders a month. Those receiving less than 10 guilders included the soldiers, regular craftsmen, lackeys and other court domestics, creating a fifth level in the hierarchy. The dwarf and a group of five varlets worked at the Prague court without being paid.46 Jaroslava Hausenblasová, who researched the social composition of Rudolf II’s courtiers, observed that the view of the hierarchy of Rudolf’s court, based on how much the servants were paid with regard to their given place, did not change much even by the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century.47 In 1551, noblemen from the Austrian Lands preponderated in the higher positions of courtiers and servants to Archduke Ferdinand. Some courtiers had in earlier years had close ties to the court of Ferdinand I. The High Chamberlain was Jakob Khuen of Belassy, who was related to the Bishop of Salzburg. The brother of the Archduke’s Supreme Equerry, Alois Graf zu Lodron, was in the service of King Ferdinand I. The Steward was Wolf Dietrich Freiherr of Thannhausen, and among the chamberlains was Jakub Windischgrätz.48 The Viceroy helped some of the Austrian nobles in his service to acquire property in Bohemia and Moravia. He then interceded with the estates of the Kingdom of Bohemia for them to be accepted as inhabitants of Bohemia at a sitting of the Land Assemblies. In autumn 1547 the Supreme Steward Ludwig von Tovar zu Enzesfeld acquired the usage of the Kašperk domain. After mid-February 1553 he and his son Ludwig were accepted as inhabitants of the Kingdom of

46 [241] My starting point is the overview of data about the amount of salary published in Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 23–26. 47 [242] Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II.: Eine Edition des Hofstaatsver- zeichnisses 1576–1612 (Prague: Artefactum, 2002), 121–122. 48 [243] On this, see Bůžek, “Erzherzog Ferdinand als Statthalter von Böhmen,” 285; Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr”, 35–36. 134 bůžek

Bohemia at a sitting of the Land Assembly. However, soon after the award of inhabitant’s rights—at the beginning of March 1553—he died. He was buried in St. Vitus’s Cathedral at Prague Castle, where his grave was decorated with a magnificent Renaissance headstone. In later years Supreme Steward Ludwig von Tovar’s son regularly took part in the deliberations of the Land Assemblies as a member of the Lords’ Estate.49 The Master of Ceremony Andreas Teufel zu Guntersdorf, whose seat was in Lower Austria, provisionally purchased the domain of Tavíkovice in South Moravia. The Carver of the Archduke’s court Rueland of Thun und Hohenstein, a Tyrolean count, also showed interest in owning property in Bohemia.50 The creation of carefully thought-out marriage alliances likewise contributed to the integration of the aristocracy from the Lands of Bohemia and Austria in the service of the Viceroy’s court in Prague. The nobles from the Austrian Lands who belonged to Archduke Ferdinand’s court married Bohemian noblewomen and subsequently aspired to owning property in Bohemia. After the confirmation of their ownership in the Land Register they acquired the rights of inhabitants in the Land without further difficulty. In this way the Supreme Steward Franz Count of Thurn who married Ludmila Berková of Dubá temporarily settled in Bohemia at the beginning of the 1560s. The Archbishop’s cook Martin Mamminger of Lock married the Czech noble- woman Juliána of Vítenec before obtaining inhabitant’s rights in 1561.51 There were also untitled foreigners in the service of Archduke Ferdinand’s court. In some cases their family members penetrated the lesser nobility in Bohemia (the servant Mikuláš Miltic of Miltice);52 in others their descendants were accepted into the estate of the lesser nobility with the passage of a few decades, as is recorded by the Prokendorfs of Prokendorf.53 Despite the deepening of Czech-German bilingualism, there were noblemen to be found very close to Viceroy Ferdinand who could not speak German. If the Archduke turned to them with a letter written in German they had to ask their friends for a translation. Nor was it unusual for letters to be addressed to Ferdinand in Czech.

49 [244] SČ II, 436, 464, 657, 670–671, 712, 810; Vladimír Klecanda, “Zakupování cizozemců v Čechách bez práva obyvatelského (Příspěvek k dějinám inkolátů před Obnoveným zřízením zemským,” Časopis Archivní školy 3 (1926), 64–65. 50 [245] Bůžek, “Erzherzog Ferdinand als Statthalter von Böhmen.” 51 [246] Vladimír Klecanda, “Zakupování cizozemců,” 67. 52 [247] Klecanda, “Přijímání do rytířského stavu v zemích českých a rakouských na počátku novověku (Příspěvek k dějinám nižší šlechty),” Časopis Archivní školy 6 (1928).109. 53 [248] Zikmund Prokendorfer (of Prokendorf) worked at the court of Archduke Ferdinand in 1551 as assistant chamberlain of the silver vessels; on his acceptance in the knights’ estate see Klecanda, “Přijímání do rytířského stavu,” 103–104. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 135

They were presented to the Viceroy together with their German summary, made by the secretaries and translators of his office.54 Even though there was every likelihood that many of the lesser nobility in the service of the court in Prague came from an Italian or Spanish background,55 the language used for communicating with the Archduke, both orally and in writing, was German. During the 1550s and in the first half of the 1560s aristocrats from the Lands of the Crown of Bohemia rose more frequently to the higher ranks and higher services of the court of Archduke Ferdinand. In 1551 the only members of the Bohemian nobility at Ferdinand’s court were his personal cellar man Kryštof Vachtl of Pantenov,56 the servant Václav Posádovský of Posádov, and the commander of the heralds Mikuláš Vrchota of Janovice, all of whom were paid for their services.57 In 1550 the eighteen-year-old Vojtěch of Pernštejn was a courtier for several months.58 Although he is not mentioned in Leonard Giennger’s account books, on the basis of correspondence it is possible to work out that he could have still have been at the court of Archduke Ferdinand in the first months of 1551.59 He was not explicitly free of dvorství [service at court] until the end of

54 [249] Václav Bůžek, “Zum tschechisch-deutschen Bilinguismus in den böhmischen und österreichischen Ländern in der frühen Neuzeit, Österreichische Osthefte 35 (1993): 577– 592. For more about the lack of knowledge of German see the letter from the knight Jan Škopek of Bílé Otradovice (8.5.1565) in the Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 10. 55 [250] The names of some aristocrats in the accounting records of Leonard Giennger would correspond to this. Giennger not only knew no German, but evidently no other language at all. See Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 36. This could have been the case, for example, with the servant Julius Rius, the groom Marcus Antonius Vordoni, the trumpeter Vergillius Aquillus, the doorkeeper Johann de Quarienti de Reales and other servants and courtiers. 56 [251] At the turn of the 1530s and 1540s his father Jiří Vachtl of Pantenov held the post of Hetman of Prague Castle. On this see František Palacký, “Přehled současných nejvyšších důstojníků a úředníků,” Dílo Františka Palackého I (Prague: L. Mazáč, 1941), 378; SČ I (Prague: Královský český zemský výbor, 1877), 500. 57 [252] Bůžek, Erzherzog Ferdinand als Statthalter von Böhmen, 286. Petr Vorel additionally determined Petr Šatný of Šatný were among the Archduke§s cupbearers; Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 37. 58 [253] See the letter from Vojtěch of Pernštejn to Archduke Ferdinand (22.4.1550) [. . .] For more on this, see Petr Vorel, ed., Česká a moravská aristokracie v polovině 16. století: Edice register listů bratří z Pernštejna z let 1550–1551 (Pardubice: Východočeské muzeum, 1997), 92–93; the letter from Jaroslav of Pernštejn to his brother Vojtěch (4.10.1550)—[. . .]ibid., 178; and the letter from Jaroslav of Pernštejn to his brother Vojtěch (13.11.1550)—[. . .]ibid., 187–188. 59 [254] Letter from Vojtěch of Pernštejn to Petr Sadovský of Sloupno (2.12.1550), ibid., 200. 136 bůžek summer 1551.60 The possibility remains that Vojtěch of Pernštejn was not paid for his service at court, as is documented in the case of his elder brother Vratislav in 1544 who accompanied the Archduke Ferdinand to the Low Countries as a member of his court.61 Naturally, Vojtěch of Pernštejn was not the only nobleman from the Bohemian Lands at the Archduke’s court who carried out his duties at court unpaid. There were at least twelve more lords and knights with seats in Bohemia and Moravia indicated as belonging to the court and at least temporarily carrying out their duties at court without any claim to be paid. Most of the young courtiers with the Archduke Ferdinand subsequently remained in his service.62 Although a search of archives at home and abroad has not come up with any other lists of courtiers or account books, the representation of the nobility from the Bohemian Lands at Archduke Ferdinand’s court can be reconstructed at least approximately from incompletely recorded evidence of indirect sources. After the death of Ludwig von Tovar zu Enzesfeld in Spring 1553, Franz Graf of Thurn took over his rank of Supreme Steward, and carried out this office till Archduke Ferdinand ceased to be Viceroy of the Bohemian Lands.63 Zbyněk Berka of Dubá succeeded Jakob Khuen of Belassy as High Chamberlain, and is recorded in this office in 1556 to 1557.64 Fridrich Ludvík Valovský of Valovice also worked as Stabelmeister at the Archduke’s court at the beginning of the 1560s.65 In exceptional cases noblemen from the Bohemian Lands served in the personal chamber of the Archduke. However, only a very narrow group of representatives of a few families of the upper and lesser nobility could aspire

60 [255] For more see the letter from Jaroslav of Pernštejn to his brother Vojtěch (30.8.1551), ibid., 284–286. 61 [256] Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien, Oberhofmeisteramt, Sonderreihe, index 181, no. 20. One cannot, on the bases of the above-mentioned sources, agree with the opinion of Petr Vorel that Vojtěch of Pernštejn did not work at the court of the Archduke Ferdinand; Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 36, 62 [257] Their inventory is kept in the Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 1. From 1549 to 1551 another three lords from the Bohemian Lands (Kamil of Donín, Kryštof Zajíc of Házmburk and Jaroslav Libštejnský of Kolovraty) and nine knights (Zdeslav Boryně of Lhota, Jan Černín of Chudenice, Dětřich Fictum of Fictum, Jan and Jiří Jablonský of Jablonná, Zikmund Myška of Žlunice, Václav Oulička of Oulice, Jindřich Štampach of Štampach and Kryštof Zilvár of Pilníkov) worked as courtiers at the court of the Archduke Ferdinand in Prague. 63 [258] On this, see Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol II, 364; SČ III, 24; Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 9. 64 [259] SČ II, pp. 712, 809. 65 [260] Documented in 1561; SČ III, 73. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 137 to the rank of Gentleman of the Chamber, and during the time that a Viceroy existed in the Bohemian Lands these did not change very much.66 The lesser nobility held the offices of Head Forester and Master of the Hounds.67 They also had their place among the Chamberlains of the Silver.68 During the entire time that Archduke Ferdinand served as Viceroy in Bohemia, the largest number of aristocrats from the Lands of Bohemia represented at court were those in the ranks of cupbearers, carvers and servants who served him as courtiers at the table. Among them were also young aristocrats from the families of the upper and lesser nobility who in some cases worked long term alongside the Archduke (above all the Berks of Dubá, the Černíns of Chudenice, the Doníns, the Gutnštejns, the Kaplířes of Sulevice, the Lobkovices, the Lokšans, the Miřkovs of Tropčice, the Pětipeskýs of Chýše, the Posádas of Posadov, the Štampachs of Štampach, the Šternberks, the Trčkas of Lípa and the Vřesoveces of Vřesovice).69 Through his secret wedding to Philippine Welser in 1557,

66 [261] The most frequent appearances among the Gentlemen of the Chamber of Archduke Ferdinand during his time as Regent in Prague were, of the lords’ estate, the Doníns and the Šternberks, and of the knights’ estate the Vřesoveces of Vřesovice. Ladislav of Šternberk was Gentleman of the Chamber from 1557 to 1562; Jan of Šternberk joined the Gentlemen of the Chamber apparently in 1563 and was in service in subsequent years as well; Jindřich of Donín was Gentleman of the Chamber for the whole of the first half of the 1560s; Václav Vřesovec of Vřesovice was one of the valets in 1565. On this see the Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Hofregistratur, index 2; Ferdinandea, index 10; Hans Francolin, Thurnier Buch warhafftiger ritterlichen Thatten . . . (Vienna, 1560); SČ III, 250. 67 [262] Šimon Tantzl of Tratzberk was Master of the Hounds from the beginning of the 1560s; at the same time Jetřich Vřesovec of Vřesovice was in the office of Head Forester—on this, see Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 10; SČ III, 250. 68 [263] Fridrich Tuchořovský of Tuchořovice was recorded as Chamberlain of the Silver in 1563 (Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 9). 69 [264] The composition of courtiers in service at table at the court of the Archduke Ferdinand in the 1550s and the first half of the 1560s can be reconstructed in outline from a number of indirect sources including especially Francolin, Thurnier Buch (data from 1560); Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 9–10; SČ III, 249–150; On the basis of these sources it has been possible to ascertain that those belonging to the court and serving at table included from 1560–1567, from the lords’ estate: Petr Berka of Dubá (1560, 1564), Jindřich of Gutnštejn (1560, 1564), Jan Haugvic of Biskupice (1564), Jaroslav Libštejnský of Kolovraty (1560), Ferdinand Lokšan of Lokšany (1560), William of Oppersdorf (1560), Arnošt Šlejnic of Šlejnice (1564), Jan of Šternberk (1560), Kryštof of Švamberk (1560), Ambrož Thurn of Thurn (1560, 1564), Kryštof Zajíc of Házmburk (1560); and from the knights’ estate: Petr Běšin of Běšín (1560), Zdeslav Boryně of Lhota (1560), Jan Černín of Chudenice (1563, 1564), Jan Jablonský of Jablonná (1564), Kašpar Janovský of Janovice (1560), Petr Kaplíř of Sulevice (1560, 1564), William Miřovský of Tropčice (1560, 1562), Václav Oulička of Oulice (1560, 1567), Jan Posádovský of Posádov (1560), Albrecht Pětipeský 138 bůžek

Archduke Ferdinand became linked by marriage with several of the notables at his court—with the Lokšans, the Lobkovices, the Šternberks, the Kolovrats and the Thurns.70 While the number of high and low nobility from the Bohemian Lands at the court of Archduke Ferdinand during his time as Viceroy gradually increased, their representation at the court in Vienna during the reign of Maximilian II did not change too much. Apart from the Chancellor, who was at the same time Privy Counselor, Vice-Chancellor, Secretary and Custodian of the “Bohemian Chancellory at the Court,” there were every year around fifteen to twenty of the nobility with the ranks of cupbearers, carvers, sewers and servants who served the ruler at the table or worked as valets in his personal chamber.71 There were some isolated cases in which members of the nobility from the Bohemian Lands took on for a short time the duties of military

of Chýše (1564), Jan Renšperger of Renšperk (1564), Kryštof Robmháp of Suchá (1560), Jan Španovský of Lisov (1560), Burián Špetle of Janovice (1565), Jan Štampach of Štampach (1564), Jindřich Štampach of Štampach (1560, 1564), Zdeněk Trčka of Lípa (1562), Zikmund Varlejch of Buben (1560), Mikuláš Vrchota of Janovice (1564). 70 [265] For more, see Hirn, Ferdinand II. von Tirol II, 313–369. Catherine (Kateřina) Lokšanská of Adler, whose husband was the former Vice-Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia George Lokšan of Lokšany (d. 1554) was the aunt of Philippine Welserová. Their son, Ferdinand Lokšan of Lokšany, was Hetman at Březnice, where Catherine Lokšanská moved after becoming a widow. Kateřina—the daughter of George Lokšan and Catherine Lokšanská of Adler—was married for the first time in 1550, to Ladislav of Šternberk (d. 1566), and for the second time to George Popel of Lobkovice (d. 1590). Her sister, Philippine Welserová—Regina—married Albrecht Libštejnský of Kolovraty and gave birth to Jan and Jaroslav Libštejnský of Kolovraty. 71 [266] The information comes from an analysis of a list of courtiers in 1574 in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien, Oberhofmeisteramt, Sonderreihe, Schachtel 183, no. 50 (26.12.1574) and from data contained in the court account books in the Hofkammerarchiv Wien, Hofzahlamtsbücher nos. 20 (1565), 21 (1566), 22 (1567), 23 (1568), 24 (1570), 25 (1571), 26 (1572), 27 (1573), 28 (1574), 29 (1575) and 30 (1566). Those courtiers serving at table in the years under scrutiny were above all: Aleš Berka of Dubá (1576), George Bořita of Martinice (1565–1568), Rudolf of Bühnau (1565–1570), Achác of Donín (1566), Václav of Donín (1565– 1566), Zdeslav Kaplíř of Sulevice (1574–1576), Jindřich Kurcpach of Trachenburk (1575), Bohuslav Leskovec of Leskovec (1566–1576), Zdeněk of Lipá (1574), Kryštof Metych of Čečov (1570, 1575), Oldřich Mičan of Klinštejn (1565–1567), Fridrich of Oppersdorf (1568– 1570), Bohuslav Popel of Lobkovice (1565–1568), Jan Popel of Lobkovice (1567–1570), George Prusinovský of Prusinov (1574), Jan Pruskovský of Pruskov (1565–1568), Kašpar Pruskovský of Pruskov (1565–1570), Melchior Redern of Redern (1575), Šebestián Redern of Redern (1571, 1575), Václav Říčanský of Říčany (1575–1576), Adam Slavata of Chlum (1566–1568), Jan Vchynský of Vchynice (1565–1566) and George Vřešovec of Vřesovice (1575–1576). Among the valets in the personal chamber of Maximilian II were: George The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 139 counselors or chamberlains of the silver, or were among the soldiers of Emperor Maximilian II, and apparently also in the group of his pages.72 Under Maximilian, the powerful influential offices of Supreme Steward of the court and Privy Counselor were filled by Hans Trautson. Adam of Dietrichstein subsequently took on the rank of Supreme Steward. He belonged to an Austrian aristocratic line, related to a number of the Bohemian and especially Moravian nobility. As well as estates in Lower Austria he owned the domain of Mikulov on the border of Moravia and Austria. The Bohemian and Moravian aristocrats considered the two notables to be the most influential persons at the Emperor’s court, and small groups of courtiers formed around them, sharing to a crucial extent in the distribution of power in the immediate vicinity of the ruler.73 Some nobles of the Bohemian Lands made it plain in their personal correspondence that they were looking for various tools that would help them to penetrate the network of social relationships around Hans Trautson and Adam of Dietrichstein. On their journeys to Vienna they paid for accommodation in inns or houses in the immediate vicinity of the seats of these influential per- sonages.74 One can assume from their behavior that backstage political gatherings used to take place in the Trautson and Dietrichstein residences without the participation of the Emperor.75

Bořita of Martinice (1570–1576), Jan Hasištejnský of Lobkovice (1568–1576) and George Pruskovský of Pruskov (1565–1576). 72 [267] Kašpar Pruskovský of Pruskov appeared as Supreme Chamberlain of the Silver from 1571, and from 1573 likewise occasionally Kryštof Metych of Čečov. Jan Klenovský of Klenová was one of the soldiers before the mid-1570s; Fridrich of Žerotín became Military Counselor in 1574. 73 [268] Heinz Noflatscher, “Regiment aus der Kammer? Einflußreiche Kleingruppen am Hof Rudolfs II.,” Der Fall des Günstlings. Hofparteien in Europe von 13. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, eds. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004), 209–234. For the Rudolfine period, Noflatscher, “Monarchische Willkür? Zur Demission des Wolfs Rumpf und Paul Sixt Trautson am Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1600),” Tirol—Österreich— Italien: Festschrift für Josef Riedmann zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Klaus Brandstätter and Julia Hörmann (Innsbruck: Wagner, 2005), 493–516; Václav Bůžek, “Konfessionelle Pluralität in der kaiserlichen Leibkammer zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts” in Konfessionelle Plurität als Herausforderung, Koexistenz und Konflikt in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Winifred Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Joachim Bahlcke, Karen Lambrecht and Hans-Christian Maner (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2006), 381–395. 74 [269] See the letter from Jan Popel the Elder of Lobkovice to Vratislav of Pernštejn (2.3.1569) and from Ladislav Berka of Dubá to Ladislav III Popel of Lobkovice—Státní oblastní archiv Litoměřice, pobočka Žitenice [Žitenice branch], Lobkovicové roudničtí—rodinný archiv, shelf marks D 126 and D 160. 75 [270] Noflatscher, “Regiment aus der Kammer?,” 218. 140 bůžek

Noblemen from the Bohemian Crown Lands made up roughly three per cent of the 752 persons at the court of Maximilian II in 1574.76 From the mid- 1560s to the mid-1570s upper and lesser nobility from approximately ten aristocratic families remained long-term in the service of the Emperor’s court. For them, service at court represented not only a springboard for their future career but also a symbol of the prestige of the whole family, because it set a precedent for blood relations. There was clearly a strategy at work among the Bohemian nobility, especially in the case of the Berkas of Dubá, the lords of Hradec, the Lobkovices, the Mičans of Klinštejn, the Pernštejns, the Smiřičkýs of Smiřice and the Vchynskýs of Vchynice. In Moravia the lords of Lipá and the Žerotíns took a similar approach, in Silesia the Oppersdorfs and the Pruskovs of Pruskov. The aristocracy whose relations gained personal experience at the court of Archduke Ferdinand in his Prague residence at the beginning of the 1560s (the Berkas of Dubá, the Doníns, the Kaplířes of Sulevice, the Oppersdorfs and the Vřešoveces of Vřešovice) likewise made their mark at the court of Maximilian II. The presence of the courtiers and high-born guests at the residence of the Archduke Ferdinand made increased demands on temporary accommodation in the capital city of the Kingdom of Bohemia. The great fire which broke out on 2 June 1541 in the Small Side home of Ladislav of Gutnštejn led to a severe shortage of accommodation in Prague. This devastating fire affected the larger part of the Small Side, Castle Hill and Prague Castle. As far as the Castle was concerned, the fire spared only the Black Tower, the Dalibor Tower, the incomplete royal summer palace, the vaults of the Vladislav Hall and the Cathedral of St. Vitus. Two hundred houses were lost in the flames. Even though building started very quickly on the scorched earth on new Renaissance burghers’ houses and aristocratic palaces, their construction lasted into the 1560s. The building of burghers’ and aristocratic houses on the Castle slopes moved faster than the reconstruction of Prague Castle which, because of a shortage of money, dragged on until the beginning of Rudolf II’s reign. During the time that Archduke Ferdinand was Viceroy, Prague Castle Hill and the Small Side provided facilities for his court as far as utilities and especially accommodation were concerned.77 This meant that not only did the urban nature of the two Prague cities go through a striking change, but also that the Small Side

76 [271] Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., 106. 77 [272] I am relying primarily on the summary by Václav Ledvinka, “Velký pražský požár roku 1541,” Documenta Pragensia 16 (1998):179–186, where there are references to earlier literature. See further Jan Kozák and Petr Chotěbor, “Ilustrace k soudobé zprávě o požáru Pražského hradu roku 1541,” Průzkumy památek 8 (2001):145–152. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 141 and Castle Hill began to open up to cultural impulses introduced by persons connected with Archduke Ferdinand’s court. In the 1550s and 1560s Renaissance palaces of the aristocracy rose in the proximity of Prague Castle, their construction foreshadowed at the turn of the 1530s and 1540s by Florián Gryspek of Gryspach who had built his residence on Castle Hill Square. In 1538 Ferdinand I helped Gryspek to acquire a plot of land after he had spent eight years in the service of the Bohemian royal chamber, by arranging for him to purchase the unfinished house of Dr. Václav of Velhartice “lying on Castle Hill close to the gates which lead from our Prague Castle onto the Castle Hill”. In the short time before 1540, Privy Counselor and Secretary Gryspek built a magnificent Renaissance palace. By 1562 he had sold the residence to Ferdinand I, who presented it to the Prague Archbishop Antonín Brus of Mohelnice.78 The first stage of construction, beginning in the mid-1540s, of the Renaissance palace of the Rožmberks in the eastern part of the area of Prague Castle was most probably supervised by Giovanni Fontana di Brussata. It was completed a decade later, when William of Rožmberk was living there. During the first stage the palace was designed as a regular four-wing two-story building around an arcaded courtyard, with administration and living quarters together with extensive reception rooms, ending in three towers. Wine and beer cellars, larders, stables for forty or so horses, kitchens and a silver room, quarters for grooms, a large vaulted hall and an armory could be found on the ground floor. The largest room on the first floor was an extensive dining hall with two adjacent rooms. The remainder of the space on the first floor was for living in. It was not until the mid-1570s that William of Rožmberk purchased the neighboring Švamberk House and property that had previously belonged to Zdeněk Lev of Rožmitál. Through this purchase he gained the land necessary for extending his palace and the construction of a Renaissance garden which took up most of the space of the original Švamberk House.79

78 [273] Národní archiv Praha, Stará manipulace, inv. no. 1072, shelf mark G 45/4, G 45/14, index 818; Václav Ledvinka, Bohumír Mráz and Vít Vlnas, Pražské paláce. Encyklopedický ilustrovaný přehled (Prague: Akropolis, 1995), 65 (the sale mentioned in 1561 does not correspond to the evidence of sources quoted in this note); Václav Bůžek, “Florián Griespek z Griespachu ve stavovské společnosti předbělohorských Čech,” in Gryspekové a předbělohorská šlechta—Kralovice a poddanská města, ed. Jiří Fák (Mariánské Týnice: Muzeum a galerie severního Plzeňska 1998), 12. 79 [274] Jarmila Krčálová, “Palác pánů z Rožmberka,” Umění 18 (1970): 469–485; Emanuel Poche and Pavel Preiss, Pražské paláce (Prague: Odeon, 1977), 22–24; Václav Bůžek, Josef Hrdlička, et al., Dvory velmožů s erbem růže. Všední a sváteční dny posledních Rožmberků a pánů z Hradce (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1977), 43–51. 142 bůžek

From the mid-1550s the two-story palace of the Pernštejns took shape in the vicinity of the city residence of the Rožmberk. It would appear that construction was begun in 1554 by Jaroslav of Pernštejn who had close ties to the court of the Archduke Ferdinand.80 The rectangular courtyard of this palace, paved in brick, became an important communication area. The inner façade of the palace was covered with smallish graffito rectangles, while the inner walls of the courtyard led into arcades, the window moldings being distinguished by particularly abundant three-dimensional decoration. Evidence of the representative purpose of the palace is not only the colored painting of the walls of the interiors, but also the decoration of various kinds of tiles and tableware with a heraldic symbol.81 It seems that by the end of the 1550s, Jan the Younger Popel of Lobkovice had proceeded to build a magnificent Renaissance Palace on Castle Hill Square. He summoned the Italian builders who had rebuilt his seat in Horšovský Týn to decorate the palace. The building with its black and white graffito ornament and squaring may have been completed around 1567.82 In the mid-1550s the High Chamberlain Jáchym of Hradec led protracted negotiations with Burian Žabka of Limberk about a house on the New Castle Steps. In 1558 he acquired this seat, which lay on the main connection between the city and the Castle, and in 1561 commenced an extensive reconstruction of the palace under the Italian master builder Antonio Ericero. Craftsmen repaired the roof, adapted the rooms on the ground floor and initiated the building of a first floor which ended with a small tower. By purchasing part of the neighboring plot the garden was expanded and space gained for the building of a wall around the house. Building work on the interior continued in 1563 and 1564; rooms were painted white and decorated with frescoes, painted wooden ceilings, floors and windows. The interiors were then refurnished, and each room had its own tiled stove. The tower was topped by a cupola with a gilded iron five-petal rose—the family emblem of the lords of Hradec. Not only was the courtyard cobbled, but the adjacent arcades as well. A wooden arbor with a small tower was built in the garden. The fountain was supplied with a pump; pipes led the water into the garden, where the gardeners had created flowerbeds and planted rosebushes, tulips, “sweet-scented herbs” and fruit trees. When in 1565 the garden was enlarged, Archduke Ferdinand’s gar- dener planted flowers and medicinal herbs in the beds in patterns representing

80 [275] Poche and Preiss, Pražské paláce, 24. 81 [276] For more see Petr Chotěbor and Tomáš Durdík, “Lobkovický palác—renesance a manýrismus,” Umění 43 (1995): 411–424. 82 [277] Poche and Preiss, Pražské paláce, 24–25; Ledvinka, Mráz and Vlnas, Pražské paláce, 274–275. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 143 the coats of arms of Jáchym of Hradec and his wife Anna Hradecká of Rožmberk. The first stage of the rebuilding of the palace was finished in mid- 1566 with the completion of the roofs. Jáchym of Hradec’s Prague residence also had ample administrative, living and reception spaces. The cellars, kitchens, grooms’ room, larders, pantries and stables were on the ground floor. The first floor served for both private living rooms and reception areas; there were not only rooms for gentlemen of the chamber and ladies in waiting, but also a large space for dining. Jáchym of Hradec did not wait for reconstruction to be completed to use his palace; he slept there for the first time in 1563.83 Although Prague Castle suffered from a lack of accommodation during the time time Ferdinand served as Viceroy, the Archduke counted on the regular participation of his highest Land officers, his courtiers and other high-born guests in the social activity of the capital city. Surviving authorizations are evidence that the Archduke agreed with the building of houses for the use of courtiers and servants directly in the precincts of the Prague Castle.84 Some courtiers found a temporary roof over their heads in the newly reconstructed houses and palaces of the Bohemian nobility in the vicinity of Prague Castle. Considerable problems in finding accommodation occurred at times of great court celebrations, including the coronation of Maximilian II as King of Bohemia, which took place on Prague on 20 September 1562.85 The most nobly born participants in the coronation were accommodated in the palaces of William of Rožmberk, Jan the Younger Popel of Lobkovic, Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk and Vratislav of Pernštejn, who were able to render service to their countrymen close at hand.86 The owners of the palaces themselves moved to inns in the Small Side for the duration of the coronation. The demands on accommodation made by the imperial and royal courtiers and the nobly born

83 [278] Václav Ledvinka, “Dům pánů z Hradce pod Stupni (Přispěvek k poznání geneze a funkcí renesančního šlechtického paláce v Praze),” FHB 10 (1986): 269–316; Bůžek, Hrdlička et al., Dvory velmožů, 43–51. 84 [279] On this see Archduke Ferdinand’s permission of 1561 for the building of a house for the court cook Hanuš Picer on “the empty place between the palace of Prague Castle and the chapel of All Saints (Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 10). 85 [280] Friedrich Edelmayer, Leopold Kammerhofer, Martin C. Mandlmayr, Walter Prenner and Karl. G. Vocelka, eds., Die Krönungen Maximilians II. zum König von Böhmen, Römischen König und König von Ungarn (1562/63) nach der Beschreibung des Hans Habersack, ediert nach CVP 7890 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990). 86 [281] On this see the Státní oblastní archiv Třeboň, Historica Třeboň, shelf mark 4480 (letter from Ferdinand I to William of Rožmberk, 26.7.1562), shelf mark 4481 (letter from Jáchym of Hradec to Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk, 28.7.1562); Sněmy české III, 111, 117. 144 bůžek guests who came to Prague to take part in the coronation were very high. They expressed dissatisfaction with the building activity in the area around Prague Castle.87 They were unhappy about all the stairs they had to climb in the palaces of the Czech nobility. In their critical eyes, both the number and the size of rooms—which seemed to them too crowded and cold—were inadequate, as the Bavarian Duke Albrecht V, who came to the coronation from Munich, documented.88 As the aging Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk spent most of his time in Zvíkov, the Archduke turned to him in the early 1570s with the request that he would lend him his palace in Prague for the temporary accommodation of high born guests of his court, since “the house is suitable and sufficiently spacious”.89 Maximilian II took a similar approach on his journeys to Prague from 1564 to 1565. Part of his entourage lived in the palace of William of Rožmberk, while the rest slept in the neighboring house of Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk.90 The Archduke Ferdinand made additional use of the privacy of the palaces of the aristocrats in the close vicinity of Prague Castle for other opportunities. The palaces could serve for meetings and even for short-term house arrests of unreliable persons, religious and political.91 The constant chaos in the Viceroy’s residence at Prague Castle did not end at sunset. The young courtiers especially enjoyed a wild night life and had a taste for the immoderate consumption of alcoholic beverages. Their noisy late- night excursions gave rise to quarrels and contempt on the part of the older nobility, who complained about their immoral behavior and the disturbance of the night hours.92 The ostensibly innocent brawls of the young courtiers began with verbal insults and a slap in the face. With the increasing intake of alcohol they quickly grew into wild attacks which regularly ended in the

87 [282] Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 9. 88 [283] For more on this, see the letter from Břetislav Švihovský of Rýzmberk to Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk (16.8.1562) in the Státní oblastní archiv Třeboň, Historica Třeboň, shelf mark 4485. 89 [284] Ibid., shelf mark 4528 (letter from Archduke Ferdinand to Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk, 13.10.1563). A similarly sounding letter is held in the Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 9. 90 [285] For more on this, see the letter from Maximilian II to Jindřich the Elder of Švamberk (16.12.1564) in the Státní oblastní archiv Třeboň, Historica Třeboň, shelf mark 4540. 91 [286] Ibid., shelf mark 4341 (letter from 28.6.1555, in which Jan the Elder of Švamberk writes to Václav of Švamberk that Archduke Ferdinand put Bohuš Kostka of Postupice under house arrest with Jaroslav of Pernštejn for “Picardism [pikartství ].” 92 [287] On this, with references to the sources, see Bůžek, “Vratislav z Pernštejna mezi Prahou, Litomyšlí a Vídní (Ke zpravodajskému přínosu listů české a moravské šlechty),” Sborník prací východočeských archivu 8 (2000), 27–28. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 145 serious injury or death of the opponent.93 Such conflicts extended from Prague Castle to the Small Side pubs where they acquired a new social dimension— the high-born courtiers of the Archduke Ferdinand attacked the youths from the burghers’ families.94 Skirmishes as independent expressions of social conflicts became another point of intersection of the parallel worlds—the world of the Archduke’s court and that of its social background where the burghers’ element predominated. In an analysis of the accounts of 1551, the historian Petr Vorel ascertained that Archduke Ferdinand spent most of the year travelling, accompanied by some of his courtiers.95 He spent about a hundred days abroad at the beginning of the year, from January to the beginning of March, taking part in the negotiations of the Imperial Assembly in Augsburg, then continuing to the royal court in Vienna where he stayed till the beginning of April. From then until the end of the year he did not leave the Kingdom of Bohemia, but his short stays in Prague, which from April to December amounted to something over a hundred days, were interrupted by trips of several days duration outside the capital city, trips on which, in the given year, the Archduke and his entourage spent up to one hundred and fifty days. His trips out of Prague were mainly to hunt in the forests of the chamber lands (Brandýs nad Labem, Křivoklát, Poděbrady).96 Archduke Ferdinand thus spent approximately three quarters of 1551 outside his Prague residence. Even though he set out on some journeys alone, he was most often accompanied by some of his court, evidence of which are the expenses for food, drink and crockery.97 It is of course possible that the court travelled independently and the Archduke met them at a predetermined rendezvous.98 On journeys outside Prague he looked for accommodation in inns or in the country houses of the aristocracy. Portraits of Archduke

93 [288] See the letter from Archduke Ferdinand (20.5.1557) and the letter from Jan Bořita of Martinice which he sent to Archduke Ferdinand (12.1.1562). Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Hofregistratur, index 2, 5. 94 [289] For more on this, see the letter from the burgomaster of the Prague Small Side to Archduke Ferdinand (16.7.1563), Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Hofregistratur, index 6. 95 [290] Insofar as not stated otherwise, the text about the travels of the Archduke Ferdinand in 1551 comes in particular from an analysis of accounting sources carried out by Petr Vorel in “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 62–65. 96 [291] Concerning the chamber lands (komorní panství), see Eduard Maur, “Vznik a územní proměny majetkového komplexu českých panovníků ve středních Čechách v 16. a 17. století,” Středočeský sborník historický 11 (1976): 53–63; for the mid-16th century, 54–56. 97 [292] Vorel, “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 40. 98 [293] Ibid., 55. 146 bůžek

Ferdinand—and of other Habsburgs—were a regular item in the homes of Prague citizens.99 From surviving account books it can be calculated that at the beginning of 1551 the financial management of the court of the Viceroy was separate from the budget of the royal court in Vienna.100 The expenses of Archduke Ferdinand’s court were with the highest probability funded by the income from the chamber lands in Bohemia, to which the book keeping for 1551 in the chamber account books would correspond. An overview of financial expenditure of the court of Archduke Ferdinand for 1551 reveals that the largest portion represented the salaries of the serving courtiers, servants and clerks (about 40% of the whole). Travel expenses for the court, which were the responsibility of the High Groom, amounted to 21% of the whole budget. More than 14% of the annual payments went on the expenses of the personal chamber of the Archduke for which the High Chamberlain was responsible, but it is impossible to ascertain in detail how this was divided. Just under 9% of the expenses went on feeding the court and running of the kitchens. The remaining 16% was accounted for by the purchase of drinks, lighting and heating, silver tableware and clothing. The expenses detailed also included gifts, alms, rewards, the care of dogs and birds of prey and a number of one-off payments.101 From the repeated requests for credit we can infer that the income from the chamber lands and the several other domains owned by the Archduke did not cover the needs of the demanding court representation. Since there are however gaps in the surviving materials, which consist mainly of correspondence, the degree to which the Viceroy’s property was in debt is not of major interest.102 In 1560 Archduke Ferdinand acquired Chomutov, selling it eleven years later to Bohuslav Felix Hašistejnský of Lobkovice;103 from 1565–1577 he held on to Křivoklát as a mortgaged domain.104 In spite of the fact that Archduke

99 [294] Jiří Pešek, “Obrazy a grafiky a jejich majitelé v předbělohorské Praze,” Umění 39 (1991): 369–383, here 376. 100 [295] In this connection one can agree with the opinions of Petr Vorel in “Místodržitelský dvůr,” 11; moreover, in view of the lack of sources, the financing of the everyday operations of the Archduke’s court did not attract attention. 101 [296] Ibid., 19, with a detailed analysis of accounts on pp. 37–61. 102 [297] Josef Hirn drew attention to high debt in Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol II, 38. See further the drafts of the letters in the Tiroler Landesarchiv Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, index 9–10. 103 [298] August Sedláček, Roman Havelka, and Karel Liebscher, eds., Hrady, zámky a tvrze Království českého, vol. XIV, third edition (Prague: Argo, 1998), 320. 104 [299] Sedláček, Karel Liebscher, and V Král, Hrady, vol. VIII, third edition (Prague: Argo, 1996), 38; Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol II, 38. The Arrival of Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Tyrol to Bohemia 147

Ferdinand stayed in the chateau in Březnice, he was not the owner of the domain. In 1548, King Ferdinand I, after having confiscated Březnice from Petr Malovec of Malovice at Chýnov because of his participation in the first anti- Habsburg resistance, sold the domain to his former Vice-Chancellor George Lokšan of Lokšany.105 The new owner began by rebuilding the mediaeval fortress into a Renaissance country seat which concluded with the building of a banqueting hall and library at the end of the 1550s by his wife Catherine Lokšanská, who was the daughter of the affluent merchant Jakub Adler of Speyer. One visitor to Březnice in the mid-1550s was Philippine Welser, who travelled regularly from Augsburg to visit her aunt Catherine Lokšanská. Owing to the lack of personal sources, we cannot be sure whether Philippine, who came from an untitled family of Augsburg bankers, may have been considering a similar marriage strategy as her aunt, also of humble birth. Her aunt, formerly Catherine Adler of Speyer, married George Lokšanský of Lokšany, and Philippine’s sister Regina Welser married Albrecht Libštejnský of Kolovrat. Both noblemen were in the service of the Habsburgs.106 The Shrovetide celebrations which took place on 26 February 1555 in Pilsen (whither the Viceroy and his court had fled for fear of the spreading plague) held a symbolic meaning for the development of the socially unequal relationship of the Archduke Ferdinand and Philippine Welser.107 Eight men from noble families appeared in a water ballet, multi-colored masks covering their faces. Half the men wore carnival travesty portraying goddesses, while the other half took the roles of water sprites. Wearing these grandly decorated masks, they showed off before the ladies in Italian dances. The impression of a carnival was created by the play of shadows which the light of flickering candles held by the dancers threw into the evening dark. As the water sprites and goddesses advanced with a dance step towards the watching ladies in waiting, they bowed respectfully to all the ladies present. However, only a few ladies were presented with gifts and

105 [300] SČ II, 436, 516, 576; Sedláček, V. Král, and K. Liebscher, eds., Hrady, vol. XI, third edition (Prague: Argo, 1997), 222–223; Palacký, “Přehled současných nejvyšších důstojníků a úředníků,” in Dílo Františka Palackého, vol. I, ed. Jaroslav Charvát (Prague: L. Mazáč, 1941), 368. 106 [301] Alfred Auer, Margot Rauch, Veronika Sandbichler and Katharina Seidl, eds., Philippine Welser & Anna Caterina Gonzaga. Die Gemahlinnen Erzherzog Ferdinands II (Graz: Stocker, 1998), 5–9. 107 [302] For more on this, see Jaroslav Pánek, “ ‘A tu za někderý čas poostati míníme . . .’ Plzeň politickou metropolí na přelomu let 1554/1555,” eds. Lenka Bobková and Kristina Kaiserová, Vindemia. Sborník k 60. narozeninám Ivana Martinovského (Ústí nad Labem: Albis, 1997), 55–73; here 66–67. 148 bůžek invited to dance. Among those honored was Philippine Welser, to whom all four water sprites paid homage as the companion of the most important par- ticipant of the carnival entertainment. Archduke Ferdinand, wearing the mask of a goddess, stood a short distance away with George Pruskovský of Pruskov, Jaroslav Smiřický of Smiřice and Kryštof Zahič of Hazmburk. Ferdinand observed with enthusiasm how the high-born aristocrats of the Kingdom of Bohemia paid symbolic homage to the low-born woman for whose sake he had been secretly traveling to Březnice.108 A celebration of the upturned values of the aristocratic world became the focal point of the Shrovetide masked carnival.109 It was not until 1557 that the Viceroy’s confessor Johann of Cavalerii was able to celebrate the marriage of the Archduke Ferdinand and Philippine Welser. It remained secret for a long time, because of the unequal social position of the couple. On the threshold of the 1560s, shortly after Philippine had given birth to Andreas (1558) and Charles (1560), the family settled in the castle of Křivoklát, which was temporarily held in suspension of tenure by Ladislav of Šternberk who had married Catherine (Kateřina) Lokšanská, daughter of George Lokšan of Lokšany and Catherine Lokšanská. In 1562 Philippine gave birth here to the twins Philipp and Maria, who died in infancy. Since all the children had been born in secret, shortly after their birth they had to be “abandoned” at the castle gate, so that Philippine could then “find” them, and in this way be able to bring them up. The Pope did not recognize the validity of the marriage until 1576.110 However, long after Philippine’s death in 1580, her humble birth, the illegitimacy of her marriage with the Habsburg Archduke and the lowly origin of her two sons survived in memories of the aristocracy which exaggerated the stereotyped image. This was eloquently documented in the personal evidence of the French diplomat Pierre Bergeron, who even described Philippine Welser as the daughter of an innkeeper.111

108 [303] The dramaturgy of the water ballet was described by Václav Březan; Životy posledních Rožmberků, ed. Jaroslav Pánek, vol. I (Prague: Svoboda, 1985), 114, 116. 109 [304] More widely Petr Maťa, “Karneval v životě a myšlení raně novověké šlechty,” in Slavnosti a zábavy na dvorech v rezidenčních městech raného novověku, eds. Václav Bůžek and Pavel Král, OH 8 (České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2000), 163–189; Peter Burke, Lidová kultura v raně novověké Evropě (Prague: Argo, 2005), 193–217. 110 [305] Auer, Rauch, Sandbichler and Seidl.eds., Philippine Welser & Anna Caterina Gonzaga, 5–9. 111 [306] Fučíková, ed., Tři francouzští kavalíři, 53. CHAPTER 5 The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century

František Kavka and Anna Skýbová

In 1969, right after the Prague Spring, František Kavka and Anna Skýbová published the seminal work The Hussite Epilogue at the Council of Trent and the Original Conception of the Habsburg Recatholization of Bohemia, which openly addressed the themes of Catholics and the Habsburgs, which were two taboo subjects in communist Czechoslovakia. In this work they examine specifically the renewal of the archbishopric of Prague in 1561, which had been vacant since the beginning of the Hussite Revolution. In this excerpt Kavka and Skýbová show that the impetus to renew the archbishopric took place within the general climate of the Council of Trent and a change in Habsburg policy following the failed Bohemian Uprising during the Schmalkaldic War, which moved religious affairs from the background to the forefront of the Habsburgs’ program of centralization. Moreover, the renewal of the arcbbishopric touched upon the problematic and complicated issue of the status of ecclesiastical properties which had been secularized during the Hussite Revolution. František Kavka (1920–2005) was professor of older Czech history at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague, except for the period 1970–1990. Kavka is the author of Vláda Karla IV. za jeho císařství (1355– 1378): země české koruny, rodová, říšská, a evropská politika. [The Administration of Charles IV during his Imperial Reign (1355–1378): The Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Ancestral, Imperial, and European Politics.] 2 vols. Prague: UK, 1993) and Bílá hora a české dějiny [White Mountain and Czech History] (Prague: Garamond, 2003) which was published forty years after it was written. A bibliography of František Kavka’s scholarship can be found in František Kavka, Ohlédnutí za padesáti lety ve službě českému dějepisectví [Reflections on Fifty Years in the Service of Czech Historiography] (Prague: Karolinum, 2002). Anna Skýbová (1934–2010) was a docent specializing in medieval history in the Institute for Czech History at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles

* Both authors of this piece are deceased. The editor of this volume has made all reasonable efforts to contact the beneficiaries of the estates. Communications from copyright holders are welcome, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

University in Prague. Among her works are České královské korunovační kle- noty [Bohemia Royal Coronation Jewels] (1982) and, together with Miroslav Hroch, Králové, kacíři a inkvizitoři [Kings, Heretics, and Inquisitors] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1988). Original Place of Publication and Permission: “Postavení ‘České otázky’ v 16. století” [The State of the ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century], chapter three of Husitský epilog na koncilu tridenském a původní koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Čech: Počátky obnoveného pražského arcibiskupství 1561–1580 [The Hussite Epilogue at the Council of Trent and the Original Habsburg Conception of the Recatholization of Bohemia] (Prague: UK, 1969), 23–34.

The Compacts of Basel plunged the Bohemian political scene into the web of complex international relations that had been created by the conflict between the papacy and the conciliar movement. In a sense the Compacts were a form of concordat—though they were concluded by the Council rather than the Pope—and they were soon followed by a series of papal concordats through which the Roman Pontiffs eventually managed to defeat their opponents in the Council of Basel. The Compacts clearly had no chance of obtaining papal sanction. However, their annulment by Pope Pius II did not make the Pontiff’s position any easier—in fact, quite the opposite. Conciliarism had suffered a major setback, but it had not been completely vanquished. Only if we bear this in mind can we fully understand the situation in which the Bohemian monarchs from Vladislav Jagiellon onwards—despite their Catholic faith—continued to recognize the validity of the Jihlava agreement, including the additional under- takings made by Sigismund. This document—the bane of the Roman Curia— remained encoded in Bohemian law, forcing the Catholic Bohemian monarchs to make repeated attempts to have it re-legalized, either by the Pope or by the new Council. The undertaking first given by Vladislav on June 16, 1471, and repeated by subsequent monarchs, affirmed that the monarch would respect the Compacts, and would appoint a new Archbishop of Prague. The post had become vacant upon the death of Archbishop Jan Rokycana, who had been elected to the see yet whose appointment had never been officially confirmed.1

1 [39] AČ 4, 451–455. These and the following lines deal only with broadly sketching out a framework for the further discussion on the basis of scholarship up until now: [František] Palacký, [Václav Vladivoj] Tomek, [Ernest] Denis, [Berthold] Bretholz, and others, which are not cited here because they are standard works. [See bibliography of this volume for a selection of works by these authors.] If authors took a different stance, a specialist would recognize it The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 151

Both questions—the issue of the Compacts and the appointment of a new Archbishop of Prague—were closely related to each other. The appointment of a new archbishop was originally understood by the Utraquist community as the papally approved appointment of a new Hussite archbishop who would have the power to ordain Utraquist clergymen; the granting of such power would imply that the Pope acknowledged the validity of the Compacts, and thus the Utraquists would no longer be viewed as a schismatic faction. The Pope’s annulment of the Compacts was not viewed as the last word in the matter by the Utraquist estates; this is understandable given that conciliarism had not yet succumbed to papal pressure, and the movement was still an important influence on political thought.2 The main strength of conciliarism lay in its close association with demands for practical reforms within the Church. During the pontificate of Sixtus IV (1471–1484), and especially under Alexander VI (1492–1503), there was a growing conviction that only a new Council could rectify the situation. The issue of the Compacts was—with some justification— not considered by the Utraquists to be a lost cause, and their demand to re-open negotiations was not a display of political naiveté. The demand for the appointment of a new archbishop in accordance with the Compacts was regularly discussed at meetings of the Bohemian Diet, particularly from the 1490s onwards. It was on the agenda in 1494, and again in 1497, when Vladislav came to Bohemia; Bohuslav Hasištejnský of Lobkovice apparently presented a special publication to mark the event. The issue of the archbishopric also appeared on the agenda of the Diet in Pressburg (Bratislava) in November 1499. In early 1502 the Utraquists in Buda made contact with the new papal legate Peter Reginus, who had been sent to Vladislav’s Hungarian court. The discussions broke down over the issue of secularized Church property.3 Despite this failure to reach an agreement, the Buda negotiations did

immediately. Scholarship on the problem of Conciliarism and the papacy for this period were last summarzed by Hubert Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, vol. I, first edition (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1949), second edition (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1951), in the first chapter of his book. In our circles knowledge of ths new literature was presented in Josef Macek, “Král Jiří a Francie v l. 1466–1468,” ČsČH (1967): 499f. The period, which this chapter addresses, deserves closer study. 2 [40] One should consider, for example, that papal bulls, issued repeatedly from the period of Pius II and forbidding appeal to church councils, did not stop rulers or ecclesiastical corpora- tions from recognizing councils as the highest organ either for fundamental or tactical purposes 9 (to exert pressure on the pope). See Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient I, 52. According to Jedin, the theoretical unclarity of the relationship between church, council, and papacy, contributd to this situation. 3 [41] That is the view of Václav Vladivoj Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 10 (Prague: František Řivnáč, 1894), 164ff; based, of course, on later reports. 152 Kavka and Skýbová perhaps achieve something, leading to the mission sent by Vladislav to Rome in 1503, after almost thirty years of petitioning; the delegation apparently reached Rome while Pope Alexander VI was still alive. There is no information on the results of the mission—only that the negotiations in Buda were to continue. The fact that the issue of the archbishopric was again discussed at the Diet in November 1509 indicates that the mission did not manage to achieve its aims. However, the pontificate of Julius II (1503–1513) was fully occupied with the political turmoil in Italy, which distracted the Pope until the schismatic Council of Pisa, convened in 1511 by opposition cardinals with the support of France. Julius II had to respond by convening his own council, the 5th Lateran Council (1512–1517), which outlasted his rule. The Council met at five ceremonial sessions, all of which discussed ways of dealing with the Council of Pisa. The schismatic council was ultimately defeated, but it was not until the continuation of the Lateran Council under Pope Leo X (1513–1521) that the question of ecclesiastical reform was broached. The bold ‘Libellus ad Leonem X’, the work of two Venetians, outlined a program of reform so ambitious in scope that it was not achieved until the Council of Trent. Moreover, a group of Spanish bishops presented a long list of demands that ranked alongside the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges and the Gravamina of the German Nation. Citing the Decrees of Basel, the bishops advocated a program of episcopalism. However, Leo X was unable to address these questions directly. Like Pope Eugene before him, he resorted to concordats in order to overcome his opponents, most notably the concordat with France in 1516. A letter sent to Bohemia in 1513 can also be seen as part of this policy.4 The Lateran Council was the papacy’s last chance to convince the world that it was serious about ecclesiastical reform, and its failure to do so would ultimately have wide-ranging consequences, especially in the territories north of the Alps. Luther’s declaration of October 1517 was a direct result of the prevailing mood of disappointment. Nevertheless, the Popes responded to the emerging threat of a new, reformist Council by attempting to scare it away as if it were a bad dream. The consequences of Luther’s declaration—demanding the introduction of communion under both kinds for laypeople—also influenced discussions on Bohemian issues. The more prescient political operators within the Church must have realized that the Utraquists represented the lesser of two evils, and that it would be better to accommodate their demands before they had the chance to fall under the powerful spell of Lutheranism, which offered precisely

4 [42] This has remained unnoticed in scholarship but was printed by Bohuslav Balbín, Misc. Dec. I. lib IV, no. 114. [No complete citation appears anywhere in this book. It is probably Balbín, Miscellanea historica regni Bohemiae, decas 1, liber 4 (Prague: G. Czernoch, 1682). The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 153 that for which the Utraquists had been petitioning Rome in vain—the ordination of priests. In his second circular letter of November 1523, Luther presented the Utraquists with proposals for a solution to the issue of ordination without the need for episcopal approval. In view of this situation, the Utraquists’ demands earned a response from the Curia for the first time in half a century. It appears to have been Lev of Rožmitál who, in June 1522, took the first steps toward new negotiations. After his fall from power, the initiative was taken over by King Louis. By that time, Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had already appointed the experienced Bologna lawyer Lorenzo Campeggio (1474–1539), an erudite humanist, to lead the legation in the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V requested that a Council be convened in Trent (Trento); though part of the Empire, this city lay on Italian soil. However, neither the Pope nor the Emperor paid much attention to Charles’ request. The legate Campeggio, who was based mainly at the Imperial Diet held in Nuremberg in 1524, was instructed to launch negotiations with the Utraquists immediately; the meeting was to take place in Buda, and Campeggio sent his envoy Jerome, Bishop of Veglia, to the Hungarian city to oversee preparations.5 The Bohemian Diet, lasting from January 25 to February 10, 1525, gave its consent to the negotiations “on the unity and reconciliation of the faith” on the basis of the Compacts; it was also agreed that the new archbishop would be able to ordain members of both clergies. The Diet appointed the envoys to negotiate with the legate in Buda; the delegation was to consist of representatives from all three estates and both clergies. However, these momentous resolutions provoked opposition both from the Lutherans and from Rožmberk’s faction, so the decisions had to be reviewed and ratified once more by a later session of the Diet held in April. The negotiations with Campeggio in Buda lasted from May 19 to June 7, 1525. The envoys requested that the legate ratify the Compacts; the legate then asked the Utraquists to accept the authority of the Church on all matters except that of the chalice, and negotiations broke down. Besides opening up the question of secularization, the discussions had

5 [43] It is interesting that Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, who was among the supporters of church reform, became acquainted with the Bohemian problem already in 1515, when he met with a few Bohemian leaders in Vienna. In the memorial writings of Pope Hadrian VI from March 22, 1522, about the need to repair the church, he earnestly advised the pope about the Bohemian question; Concilium Tridentinum: diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatum, nova collectio, vol. XII, eds. Vicentius Schweizer and Hubert Jedin, (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1930), 11f. That agrees with the calls from the papal administration from November 17, 1524 which Josef Macek notes in Historica XIV (1967), 262f. 154 Kavka and Skýbová also broached several issues of dogma,6 on which—according to Campeggio— only the Council was able to decide. There were also numerous disputes over liturgical issues, which the legate said could only be settled by submitting a request to the Pope.7 These stumbling blocks brought an end to the most important negotiations since Basel between the Utraquists and a high-ranking representative of the Church, who was inclined toward a conciliatory approach; the breakdown of talks showed how difficult the issues would continue to be in the future. The main source of the difficulty was the fact that the Compacts did not define Utraquism in its entirety; they omitted legal issues (secularization), questions of dogma (among which the most important issues concerned salvability for adherents of the chalice, whether children could receive communion, and different concepts of the role of the church), as well as liturgical aspects (a saint’s day to honor Jan Hus, deviations from accepted ritual, and similar issues). The schismatic nature of Utraquism was thus evident in a far broader range of respects than those addressed by the Compacts—yet even the Compacts were perceived by the Church as problematic. Moreover, the issue of the archbishopric was proving to be increasingly complex. In the original discussions with the Council of Basel it was assumed that the archbishop would be a Utraquist, as the elected candidate was the Utraquist Jan Rokycana. However, after 1471, when the Bohemian kings converted to Catholicism, this assumption no longer held; for many reasons (including the coronation ceremony itself) it was hardly tenable to deny the monarch the right to his own— i.e. Catholic—metropolitan archbishop. In view of this situation, in 1515 the Utraquists modified their demands, advancing the (somewhat nebulous) proposal that the archbishop would be a Catholic, yet he would be duty bound to ordain members of the Utraquist clergy; this clergy would, in all other respects, remain independent of the archbishop. Moreover, the Utraquist estates were to be in control of the episcopal consistory, which would administer the diocese and would thus essentially act as the governing body of the Utraquist Church, applying the principles of Protestantism.8 This meant that

6 [44] The Basel Compacts as they are known did not resolve the question of the chalice as a necessary for salvation and the receiving of the Eucharist by children and the negative view of the Council of Basel from 1437 which the chalicists did not accept. The most detailed discussion of the negotiations of both these questions in Basel is by Antonín Rezek, “Příspěvky k jednání o kompaktáta r. 1525,” Sborník historický II (1899). 7 [45] A detailed description of the Buda negotiations are in Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy 10, 544–583; see also A. Rezek, “Příspěvky k jednání.” 8 [46] New observations in this direction on the Utraquist church has been brought by Frederick G. Heymann, “The Hussite Utraquist Church in the Fifteenth Century,” Archiv für Reformati- The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 155 a Utraquist Church of the estates would exist alongside the Catholic archbishop—a state of affairs that was entirely in breach of canon law. According to the law, the Archbishop of Prague would only be able to perform such a role if the Utraquists were no longer considered schismatic—and that could only happen if the Compacts were legalized. However, in the negotiations with the legate Campeggio the legalization of the Compacts was conditional upon the Utraquists’ renunciation of all other deviations. But was the lay chalice a significant enough deviation to justify the existence of a separate church— especially if this church accepted the dogma of Rome in all other matters of the Eucharist? This was the very minimum that the Utraquists could accept— though one should not underestimate the enormous effect of the chalice on the masses, for whom theological issues were inaccessible—and yet for Rome it represented a huge step, for the Church was bound by the decrees of Constance and Basel, which stipulated communion under one kind. To what extent would the Church of Rome be willing to make concessions? Before 1517, the Church showed no willingness to compromise whatsoever. It was not until the German Reformation that the Bohemian question began to be viewed in a different light. The Bohemian schism was joined by the German schism, which involved far more people spread over a much larger territory. However, it was not only the German Reformation that influenced approaches to the Bohemian question. Even though the German Reformation forced the Church to view Utraquism in a different ideological light, this would have been of scant importance had Utraquism not acquired a new political dimension too. The disputes between the Bohemian Catholic monarchs and the mainly Utraquist estates concerning the legalization of Utraquism were placed into a new perspective when Central Europe was unified under the Habsburgs in 1526. Faced with the Turkish threat, the consolidation of the Bohemian and Hungarian kingdoms—as well as the Alpine provinces, which had proved fer- tile ground for Lutheranism, leading to local conflicts—became an issue of the utmost international importance both for the Habsburgs and for the Roman Church. The Habsburgs soon understood that they could not fight a battle on two fronts, against the Protestants at home and the Turks on their borders. They needed assistance from their non-Catholic subjects to deal with the Turkish threat, which required a certain modus vivendi to be reached. Within the Holy Roman Empire, the same argument applied to the struggle against France. In the Czech lands, the Habsburgs hoped to reach an accord with the

onsgechichte 52 (1961): 1–16. On the Utraquist Consistory see Kamil Krofta, “Boj o konsistoř podobojí v letech 1562–1575 a jeho historický základ.” ČČH XVII (1911): 28–57, 178–190, 270– 282, 383–420. 156 Kavka and Skýbová

Utraquists; this appeared an easier prospect than an agreement with the Lutherans. Such an accord would have enabled a consolidation which, besides strengthening Austria and Hungary, would also have helped to solve the problems besetting the Holy Roman Empire. In both cases it was the Habsburgs who provided the impetus to begin the process of negotiation and reconciliation—because they had no other option. The Habsburgs also exerted pressure on the papacy, which (at least among its more enlightened members) theoretically recognized the need for negotiations, though it long remained incapable of taking any practical steps toward this goal. However, it is important to realize that the interests of the Habsburgs did not coincide entirely with those of the Roman Church—though it was essential to reach an accord with the Utraquists if the Habsburgs were to defend their lands against the Turks and maintain their hegemony over France. The Church was in accord with the Habsburg position on the Turks, but with regard to the German Reformation the papacy had to take into account not only the European scene, but also the internal politics of the Church itself. The influence of the German Reformation on the status of the Bohemian question was not clear-cut, though it did have an unequivocal influence on the bargaining tactics used. The German Reformation forced Rome to become more flexible, and raised the stakes for any agreement with the Utraquists; however, it also gave the Utraquists more space for maneuver and opened up new options for making demands. The Compacts were also seen from a new perspective—primarily their central idea, that of the lay chalice; this was no longer solely a Utraquist issue, but had been a central tenet of Lutheranism from the very beginning, and the idea was even gaining currency in Catholic parts of the Empire, which had not yet succumbed to Lutheranism (the Austrian provinces, Bavaria, and Jülich-Cleves-Berg). On the one hand, the spread of this idea put the Utraquists’ demands into perspective; however, on the other hand the lay chalice became just one item in a more extensive list of disputes between Catholicism and Protestantism, and Rome’s stance on this particular issue thus became subordinated to the Church’s broader strategy. This situation explains the attempts made during this period to draw a clear distinction between the Bohemian chalice and the Lutheran chalice—not only on theological grounds, but also in tactical terms. The spread of demands for the lay chalice underlined its importance as a symbol of schism and rebellion against the Church; these demands had already earned condemnation for this very reason even when made solely by the Utraquists, but by now the lay chalice had become firmly established as a symbol of wider opposition to Rome. The question of the chalice had thus become a litmus test for the true The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 157

Catholic faith,9 and this complicated the acceptance of the Compacts. In summary, the issue of the lay chalice made it both easier and more complex to legalize the Compacts. Initially, when there was still hope of a possible reconciliation, the lay chalice had seemed a relatively minor concession compared with the far more radical demands of Lutheranism; however, as positions became more entrenched and the Roman Church placed increasing emphasis on the purity of the Catholic faith, acceding to this demand became increasingly problematic. The Habsburgs were forced to delay their efforts to reach a solution (due to reasons that cannot be dealt with here), with the consequence that it became increasingly difficult to reach an accord with the Utraquists. However, the situation had changed completely by December 3, 1526, when Ferdinand I issued a declaration accepting Vladislav’s original undertaking with regard to Utraquism (dating from June 16, 1471). A problem that had originally been a domestic political issue (except for the international dimension lent to it by ecclesiastical politics) had now become a European problem, closely bound up with Habsburg foreign policy. Ferdinand’s attitude to Bohemian Utraquism changed over time, and merits a separate study. However, his fundamental position did not change: he was convinced that the Church must legalize Utraquism on the basis of the Compacts. He saw this not only as a political necessity; it was also in accordance with his liberal Erasmian strand of Catholicism. He initially viewed the legalization of Utraquism as a way of building a bulwark against the rapidly spreading threat of Lutheranism and the growing influence of the Unity of the Brethren. Later, he came to see it as the only way of saving what remained of Catholicism. Concessions to the Utraquists were the price to be paid for bringing them back to the bosom of the Church. There was a general expectation that the Council would legalize Utraquism; this was reflected in the electoral demand that Ferdinand should press for a

9 [47] Cardinal Stanislav Hosius later characterized true to nature this function of the chalice in his letter to the Polish King from 1560, responding to his inquiry about his point of view on the eventually permission to accept in both kinds: “. . . quin etiam expedire cum quibusdam judico, ut haec sit quasi tesserta, communio alterius specici, qua dignoscantur ab haereticis catholici: ut quemadmodum illi non aliam ob causam sibi calicem usurpant, au tut suam adversus matrem Ecclesiam rebellionem declarent, sic hi propterca sint unius tantum specie usu contenti, ut se ligitimos illius et oboedientes esse filios demonstrent . . .,” which is provided by Gustave Constant, Concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous les deux espèces. Étude sur les débuts de la réforme catholique en Allemagne (1548–1621) (Paris: Éditions de Bocard, 1923), 173, 2 (also in the introduction to Acta Polonaiae historica IV, where Hosius’s biography is published). 158 Kavka and Skýbová

General Council to be convened. However, the Popes feared nothing more than a Council. A further reason for the papacy’s hesitancy in this matter was its slowness to realize the seriousness of Luther’s activities, which the bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ had failed to check. However, it was opposition from France that ultimately stopped a Council being convened; France feared that a Council could strengthen the position of Charles V within the Empire. Clement VII then opted to side with France in the battle to defend the papacy’s Italian interests.10 This situation only began to change after the defeat of Francis I at Pavia in 1525, the debacle of the Sack of Rome, and the Peace of Cambrai in 1529. The Diet of Augsburg in 1530 confirmed Charles V’s official request that the Pope convene a Council. However, negotiations pursued between 1531 and 1534 brought no results; the Pope cited French opposition, and there were few supporters of a Council among the members of the Collegium of Cardinals. Important proposals were submitted by those who were convinced that negotiations with the Protestants were unavoidable. These negotiations were to be based on concessions in matters of Church discipline, including the possibility of marriage for priests (according to the Greek model) and the lay chalice— conditional upon the general undertaking that in all other matters the Protestants believed all of the Church’s teachings, but would not be required expressly to recant their heresies.11 A turning point came after Clement’s death and the election of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese as Pope Paul III (1534–1549); Farnese was one of the few members of the Collegium to support the idea of a Council. In the bull ‘Ad Dominici gregis curam’, issued on June 2, 1536, the new Pope convened a General Council in the Italian city of Mantua, to be opened on May 23, 1537. The bull was also to be circulated to Protestants, including the Bohemian Utraquists. On October 24, 1536 an instruction to this effect was received by the new Nuncio at Ferdinand’s court, the Bishop of Modena Giovanni Morone, who had been assigned the task of dealing with the Utraquist issue. Morone had replaced Pietro Paolo Vergerio in 1536, after the former Nuncio had fallen into disfavor; Vergerio later converted to Lutheranism. Ferdinand asked the Bohemian Diet held in March 1537 to submit a request for the Council to be convened, and Morone’s first report from Rome provided some grounds for optimism.12 The Diet’s Committee refused to submit such a request until repre-

10 [48] The last to discuss in detail the negotiations at the Council was Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 175ff. 11 [49] Ibid., 221. 12 [50] Report from April 19, 1357 in Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Abteilung I/ Band 3, ed. Kaiserliches Preussisches Historisches Institut in Rom und die Kaiserliche Preussische The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 159 sentatives of the Utraquists and Catholics had met and agreed a shared standpoint. The two parties did indeed meet on May 28, 1537, but no agreement was reached. The growing influence of Lutheranism within the Utraquist community was reflected in the Utraquists’ outright rejection of the Compacts, upon which the Catholics insisted. The Utraquists also demanded the right to elect a bishop—evidently their ‘own’ bishop—whose appointment would merely be officially confirmed by the Church.13 Ferdinand reiterated his request for a Council to be convened; the planned date of the Council was put back to 1 November, and the session was to be held in Vicenza. The Bohemian delegation to be dispatched to the Council was discussed again at the Diet in January 1538; each of the parties was to send three representatives, one from each of the estates; however, negotiations broke down again due to the parties’ inability to agree on what demands should be made.14 The new legate Aleandro had received instructions to broker an agreement between the Catholics and the Utraquists,15 but any further negotiations became irrelevant because the Council was not convened. Although three legates (Cardinals Campeggio, Simonetta and Aleandro) had been appointed to run the Council, the organization of the event ran into problems in Italy itself; the Council (planned to begin on May 21, 1539) was rejected by the Schmalkaldic League, so it had to be postponed indefinitely. The meeting of the Utraquist party in May 1539 reaffirmed its standpoint of two years earlier, against the Compacts and in favor of an elected bishop; the party also agreed on 15 articles of faith that were closely related to Lutheranism. To replace the Council, negotiations were held in Regensburg in 1541, in an attempt to reach an accord between the Catholics and Lutherans within the Empire; the Pope sent one of his most liberal cardinals, Gasparo Contarini, to the meeting. The negotiations broke down when the compromise proposal was rejected both by Luther and by Rome—primarily because it proved impossible to bridge the gap between two radically different conceptions of the role of the Church. When the Protestants rejected the dogma of transubstantiation, the fate of the negotiations was sealed.

Archiv-Verwaltung (Gotha: F.A. Perthes, 1892), 148; further reports were obviously more skeptical. 13 [51] Basic documents in SČ I, 414ff, on which detailed descriptions are based in Tomek and Bretholz. The Utraquist articles from 1524 and 1531 there is no mention at all about the future archbishop, the demands of the bishop already in 1535; see Krofta, “Boj u konsistoř podobojí,” 189f. 14 [52] Bretholz, Neuere Geschichte Böhmens, vol. I (Gotha, F.A. Perthes, 1920), 103. 15 [53] Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland I/ 3, 95, 156. 160 Kavka and Skýbová

The successes of Lutheranism in the decade following the Diet of Augsburg were also reflected in Bohemia, and are evident in the results of Diet sessions. The penetration of Lutheran influence into Italy itself, plus a range of additional factors, forced the Pope to mount a renewed attempt to convene a Council—this time in Trent, the preferred venue of the Habsburgs for many years. However, two weeks after the Pope issued the relevant bull on May 22, 1542, war broke out between Francis I and Charles V, and the legates entrusted with running the Council proceedings waited in vain for delegates to arrive. In 1543, the Pope and the Emperor met to agree a postponement of the Council; however, the Emperor, who needed support for his war from the Protestants, could not wait any longer, and at the Diet in Speyer in 1544 he was forced to grant them certain concessions in order to maintain the religious peace within the Empire. It was not until the Peace of Crépy in 1544 that the situation changed sufficiently to consider convening a Council in Trent; the French were forced to agree to circulate invitations, and the Council was scheduled to begin on March 15, 1545. In such circumstances, the Utraquists were in no mood to concede any ground. The meeting of the Utraquist party held in late April 1543 reaffirmed their rejection of the Compacts. The Utraquists were only willing to make concessions in the matter of the bishop; they asked Ferdinand—if he was not prepared to appoint his own bishop—to exert pressure on the Pope to agree that the Bishop of Olomouc would be able to ordain Utraquist priests. Ferdinand accepted the Utraquists’ complaints regarding the ordination of their clergy. He promised to rectify the situation, though not in the way proposed by the Utraquist party. In February 1544 Ferdinand was once again asked to raise the issue with the papal Nuncio at the Diet in Speyer. He finally managed to remove the obstacles facing those awaiting ordination in Venice, so the consistory sent a group of candidates to the city in March. It appears that the difficulties encountered by the Utraquists in these matters forced them to come to an agreement with Ferdinand, so that the question of the Compacts was left open by both sides for the time being. However, the Utraquists’ willingness to back down from their original demand for their own bishop represented a major success for Ferdinand; the appointment of a bishop with papal approval would have to take place on the basis of the Compacts, as the Pope would hardly grant approval on any other basis, and so the Utraquists were forced to return (albeit tacitly) to their previous position on the Compacts. A further success for the King came with the decision of the Diet of August 1545 to request the appointment of Jan Horák of Milešovka as bishop; Horák was the Provost of the Litoměřice (Leitmeritz) Chapter, and he also happened to be employed as a tutor in Ferdinand’s family. His provostship was also expected to solve the The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 161 question of the assets to be allocated to the new bishop—a matter that had not yet been discussed.16 Nevertheless—although this time Ferdinand could hardly raise any major objections against the candidate—the negotiations foundered once again, as the preparations for the approaching conflict with the Schmalkaldic League (which would eventually lead to war in July 1546) distracted Ferdinand’s attention to other matters. The Council of Trent finally got underway on December 13, 1545, presided over by three legates: Giovanni Mario Del Monte, Marcello Cervini, and the Englishman Reginald Pole. In early 154617 the Council decided to discuss both of the main points on the agenda set out in the papal bull—reforms and dogma—despite Charles V’s request to postpone the discussion on dogma in view of the Protestants. While the discussions on dogma were relatively calm, the proposed reform decrees provoked heated discussion between the representatives of Spain and the Empire—who demanded major changes—and the more liberal wing, mainly Italian—whose members were seeking a pretext to escape the pressure exerted on them by the Emperor. The rift was deepened by reports of the outbreak of an epidemic, which forced the Council to relocate to Bologna on March 11, 1547. The Emperor, who two weeks later would win a decisive victory over the Schmalkaldic League at the Battle of Mühlberg, saw this relocation as a plot to foil his own plans, and forced his supporters among the Council delegates to remain in Trent. This brought the threat of a schism in the Council, which both sides were keen to avoid. Charles protested to the Pope about the relocation; the Pope suspended the Bologna synod, but stopped short of reconvening the Council in Trent. And so Charles V, who had originally planned to force the defeated Protestants to come to Trent, found himself obliged to deal with them himself. In an ‘Interim’ issued at the Diet of Augsburg on May 30, 1548, Charles granted consent to the lay chalice and the abolition of celibacy for the clergy. The Protestant estates were forced to promise that they would attend the Council of Trent, but they in turn managed to gain acceptance for their demand that the Council would not be presided over by the Pope and that discussions on previously approved decrees would be re- opened once the Council re-convened (this was termed the ‘non-continuity of the Council’).

16 [54] According to SČ, vol. 1; Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. XI (Prague: František Řivnáč, 1897), 275ff. 17 [55] The most recent work on the first period of the council is Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, vol. II, Second edition (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1957), which also contains further references. 162 Kavka and Skýbová

When the anti-Habsburg uprising in Bohemia (1546–7) joined forces with the Schmalkaldic League, the Compacts were abandoned entirely. The Prague cities justified their absence from the war against the Saxon Elector by asserting that they shared his faith, and there is no mention of the Compacts in the list of demands presented by the Bohemian estates in March 1547. Ferdinand’s victory had no effect on the Utraquists’ status domestically; however, it gave the Catholics the strength to mount their own initiative designed to force the Utraquists back into acceptance of the Compacts. On August 31, 1547 the upper consistory requested the appointment of a new Archbishop of Prague, and in October of the same year Ferdinand confirmed his undertaking of 1545 that he would ensure the presence of a bishop who would ordain both Catholic and Utraquist clergy, and that the bishop would be given assets. The talk was no longer of Jan Horák; in any case, Horák died during the following year. The Utraquist estates were thus forced to return to the position at which the original negotiations had broken down—an Ordinary approved by the Pope, which would mean a tacit acceptance of the Compacts. Thanks to the Augsburg Interim, the ratification of the Compacts appeared to be a fait accompli. On August 31, 1548, Pope Paul III issued a bull conferring upon three Nuncios within the Empire the right (which they could subdelegate to other bishops within the Empire) to grant permission for the lay chalice, provided that the applicants would affirm their belief that the whole of Christ is fully present in each kind and that the Church had been justified in stipulating that communion must be taken under one kind with the exception of celebrant priests. The chalice was to be offered in a different place and at a different time than the communion under one kind.18 This right was explicitly restricted to the Holy Roman Empire—i.e. not the Kingdom of Bohemia—and this restriction also applied to the Interim.19 Ferdinand took advantage of this opportunity and addressed a request to the Nuncio at the imperial court, Prospero Santa Croce, asking him to petition the Pope to extend this right to Bohemia; Santa Croce transmitted this request to the Pope. It appears that the negotiations were heading toward a successful conclusion, but they were cut short by the Pope’s death on November 10, 1549.20 Ferdinand also set in motion discussions

18 [56] The Text of the bull is in Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, I/2, 453–461, Concilium Tridentinum, vol. VIII (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1919), 622, p. 1. 19 [57] The was confirmed by Ferdinand I in his letter to Archduke Ferdinand I from August 8, 1548, which was published by Klement Borový, Jednání a dopisy konsistoře katolické i utrakvistické, vol. II (Prague: I.L. Kober, 1869), no. 649, 106. 20 [58] About this see Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, I/2, 411f and further 649f. In the elaboration commission of the Council of Trent from May 9, 1542, where an expert opin- The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 163 on the appointment of a new archbishop,21 which was placed on the agenda for the Diet in February 1549. Although there were no more discussions on who would become the new archbishop, the stumbling block to the negotiations remained the question of unity—i.e. the basis on which the schism was to be rectified. Ferdinand could not accept a mere tacit acknowledgement of the Compacts, as he knew how strongly the Compacts were opposed by the Utraquist clergy and the estates. As it had done many times before, the Diet set up a special committee which was given the task of achieving unity. The committee met for almost a year, vigorously assisted by the Nuncio Santa Croce, who remained in Prague all the while and attempted to gain the support of the administrator Jan Mystopol. Santa Croce wanted to force the Utraquists to abandon their positions on issues that had always lain outside the bounds of the Compacts: salvability for adherents of the chalice, and whether children could receive communion. Eventually, after both sides had studied each other’s demands, the Nuncio managed to persuade Mystopol to grant his consent to 12 articles which formulated the disputed issues in a manner that was acceptable to the Church.22 The articles were viewed as a great triumph, and were dispatched to Rome; however, Pope Paul II died before he could read them. At the meeting of the Utraquists the articles provoked outrage, particularly the concessions in questions of the Eucharist, crowned by the statement that Christ was fully present in each kind. It was considered advisable to postpone issuing resolutions on those articles that would surely have been rejected given the prevailing mood. From this point onward, Ferdinand no longer attempted to force the Utraquists expressly to reject opinions that lay beyond the confines of the Compacts. His position—one which would later cause numerous problems—was that these opinions did not officially exist. Prospero Santa Croce, the Nuncio who had worked so hard to achieve an agreement, was dismissed from his post; this sent out a clear signal that the pontificate of Julius III (1550–1555)—Cardinal Del Monte, the former Chairman

ion was delivered on Bohemian affairs on which a lot of written documentary was at hand, is reported however, that Paul III did not allow this concession to the Bohemian; Concilium Tridentinum VIII, 632. 21 [59] See the letter to the nuncius from April 26, 1548, Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland I/10 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1907), 314. 22 [60] The response to Ferdinand from October 20, 1549 published Borový in Jednání a dopisy konsistoře katolické i utrakvistické, vol. I. (Prague: I.L. Kober, 1868), no. 438, 260–265, the text of the article is in SČ II, 606ff. See also F.M. Bartoš, “Katolický vládní spis proti utrakvi- stickému podávání dítkám z kalicha z r. 1549, ČČM XCII (1918), 67ff, which contains other details. 164 Kavka and Skýbová of the Council of Trent—would not be inclined to compromise. This harder line is also reflected in the lack of any evidence that the new Pope extended the right to ordain Utraquist clergy to Bohemia, as he had been requested to do. However, Julius III did grant his assent to the continuation of the Council of Trent. The Council was scheduled to reconvene on May 1, 1551, but in fact it did not begin its activities until September. It was initially attended by a large number of German bishops (who would later cease to attend); however, French representatives were absent. Chaired by the legate Marcello Crescenzio, the Council suffered as a result of its ambivalent response to the potential arrival of a delegation representing the Protestants; their presence was dubious from the very outset, given that they did not deem themselves to meet the conditions for attendance as announced at the Diet of Augsburg. In its thirteenth session, held on October 11. 1551, the Council broached the vexed question of the Eucharist, which ultimately brought discussions to the issue of the lay chalice. With a view to the Protestants—whose arrival was still expected—this point was removed from the agenda and discussions of it postponed. It was never actually discussed; although the representatives of the Protestants did arrive, they refused to accept the powers of the legates and demanded further guarantees of their own personal freedom and the freedom of the Council: for the duration of the Council, the bishops were to be exempted from their oath of obedience to the Pope; the Pope was to defer to the Council in accordance with the decree of Constance ‘Sacrosancta’; the discussion on the dogmatic decrees was to be re-opened. The Emperor, who had moved his court to Innsbruck, made every effort to stop the suspension of the Council—which, given the circumstances, was the Pope’s expected course of action. However, it was ultimately a different reason that brought the Council to a close. The Saxon Elector Moritz signed a pact with France and declared war against the Emperor. When his armies began marching south from Augsburg, the Emperor had to flee Innsbruck, and the safety of the Council was at stake. The Council voted to disband on April 28, 1552. The breakup of this phase of the Council cast a shadow over similar attempts in Bohemia, especially when political relations between the Habsburgs and the papacy deteriorated. The erudite Cardinal Marcello Cervini—the Vice- Chairman of the first sessions in Trent and the driving force behind the Council in its early phase—became Pope Marcellus II, but held the office for less than a month (1555) before he was succeeded by the fanatical inquisitor Paul IV (1555–1559), the 79 year-old Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa. Paul IV considered the Council an aberration, and was consumed with an almost morbid hatred of everything connected with Spain and the Habsburgs. The Peace of Augsburg— The ‘Bohemian Question’ in the Sixteenth Century 165 concluded in 1555, six months after Paul was elected Pontiff—confirmed the schism and forced the Pope to reach an accord with France against Philip II. The failure of this policy was not long coming. The early victories of the Spanish forces in Italy culminated in the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559, which sealed the dominance of Spain for many years. Having failed in this foray into international politics, the embittered old Pope turned his attention to a series of uncompromisingly ascetic reforms and a vigorous campaign of inquisition, which also targeted those Cardinals who were working toward constructive policy solutions in the Holy Roman Empire. Among them was the former Nuncio in Prague, Giovanni Morone, who was imprisoned in Rome’s Castel Sant’Angelo. In such circumstances, Ferdinand was unable to take any further steps to realize his plans for Bohemia. In August 1555, a meeting of provincial officials, judges and royal advisors discussed how to achieve ordination for the Utraquist clergy, but given the deterioration of relations between the Habsburgs and the papacy, it was unthinkable to raise the issue with the Curia. The Nuncio was dismissed from his post in 1556. The fate of Catholicism itself in Bohemia hung in the balance; in response to this situation, the Jesuits—an order that had already proved its worth as educators—were summoned to Prague in 1556. At the Diet in January 1558 the re-submitted request for an archbishop was met with the response that the matter was under consideration and would be dealt with when circumstances permitted.23 The next opportunity to raise this issue with the Pope did not come until after Paul’s death and the election of Pius IV after a long and turbulent conclave.

23 [61] It is stated in an announcement of King Ferdinand I at the Bohemian Diet on January 3, 1558: “A bishop was able to ordain clergy in one or two kinds . . . however, the apostolic seat has ordered in these times that he may not: for this reason His Royal Majesty must readdress this matter at once;” SČ III, 7. CHAPTER 6 The First Lady of the Kingdom

Josef Janáček

In Ženy české renesance [Women of the Bohemian Renaissance] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1977), Josef Janáček presents one of the first and best contributions in post-World War II Czech historiography to women’s history in the early modern period. In chapter five, presented here in English translation, Janáček draws on letters and behavior manuals to describe the life and activities of Polyxena (1567–1642), the wife of William of Rožmberk, one of the most powerful Bohemian nobles. Their marriage in 1587 was one of the major society events of the day with the Archbishop officiating and Emperor Rudolf II in attendance. Polyxena was a strong supporter of the Jesuits and Janáček explores how she was personally involved in Catholic intrique of her day. In this book Janáček follows a tradition found in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Czech scholarship to bring history to a broad audience. For this reason, the book does not contain any footnotes or endnotes. Josef Janáček (1925–1994) was one of the leading historians of early modern Bohemia in the twentieth century. He studied at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague and the State School of Archives. He worked first as an archivist at the Archive of the Capital City of Prague and, after 1956, at the Historical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. Among his celebrated works are Pád Rudolfa II. [The Fall of Rudolf II] (First edition, 1973; Prague: Brána, 1995, Valdštejn a jeho doba [Wallenstein and His Age] (First edition, 1978: Prague: Epocha 2003), České dějiny: Doba předbělohorská [The History of Bohemia in the Pre-White Mountain Age] 2 vols. (Prague: ČSAV, 1968–1984); Rudolf II. a jeho doba [Rudolf II and His Age] (Prague: Svoboda, 1987), and a number of important studies on social and economic history of urban guilds and the history of Prague and Bohemian cities. For more on Josef Janáček, see Jaroslav Pánek, “Josef Janáček—Historik raného novověku” [Josef Janáček—Historian of the Early Modern Period,] FHB 17 (1994): 359–367 and Richard Mahel, “Josef Janáček a jeho místo v české historiografii (Pokus o komplexní hodnocení) [Josef Janáček and His Place in Czech Historiography (Attempt at a Complex Assessment),] Archivní sborník (2003): 10–81. Bibliographies of Janáček’s scholarship can be found in FHB 10 (1986): 13–24 and FHB 17 (1994): 369–372.

Original Place of Publication and Permission: “První dáma království” [First Lady of the Kingdom,] chapter five of Ženy české renesance [Women of the Bohemian Renaissance] (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1977), 82–98. This chapter appears by permission of Anna Javorská.

William of Rožmberk spent the last weeks of his life in his palace on Prague Castle Hill. His doctors had no idea what to do about his illness and therefore raised no objections to his taking his friends’ advice, which was to make a pilgrimage to Our Lady of Loreto. William did not express any doubts about the miraculous assistance of Our Lady, but did not want to go all the way to Italy. For one thing, he was afraid he would be exhausted by the journey and for another he was struggling with his conscience which kept reminding him about his worries at home. There were enough of them. For several years now, the vast possessions of the Rožmberks had been threatened by bankruptcy; under the burden of his illness William, who until now had loftily ignored the danger, was losing confidence. During those weeks his most frequent visitors were the alchemists. In most cases their untrustworthiness could be seen at a glance, but none of the Rožmberk servants dared to push them out of the door, even though they positively oozed deception. The head of the Rožmberks felt a little better in their presence, and trusted them more than he did the doctors and priests. None of their ideas seemed to him sufficiently absurd for it to shake him out of his dreams about saving the Rožmberk possessions and bring him back to reality. Only gold which would grow from gold coins sown in the ground could save the Rožmberks from bankruptcy. William died on 31 August 1592, death preventing him from throwing away thousands more on fruitless experiments with distilling apparatuses which ran counter to all human understanding. The Rožmberk chronicler [Václav] Březan and some true friends of William and Peter [William’s brother Peter Vok of Rožmberk] had cause for thought when the Rožmberk ruler’s journey through life came to its end. William’s widow left the management of the funeral to the Jesuits, and the new head of the Rožmberks, Peter Vok, had nothing against this. The Fathers of the Society of Jesus laid their distinguished and generous patron to rest, and took pains for this to be seen everywhere. Even a dead Rožmberk could help to propagate their Order and their work. The corpse of the deceased was publicly exhibited in the Church of St. George in the Castle until October 26, on which day a huge funeral procession was arranged from the Castle to the Church of St. Thomas on the Small Side, which did not stint on pageantry for the funerals of rulers. More than two thousand Rožmberk subjects in cowls with candles in 168 janáček their hands lined the route of the procession. Major figures of the Emperor’s court and of public life, diplomats and the highest officers of the Land, the Emperor’s guards and the Rožmberk servants took part in the procession. Everywhere was buzzing with priestly cassocks, among which the black habit of the Jesuits preponderated. Thousands of spectators from the whole of Prague assembled for the splendid sight, in the course of which they could see important persons and attributes of the Rožmberk fame close up: flags, banners, funeral shields and the legendary Golden Fleece which Adam of Šternberk carried on a samite cushion. The widow walked at the end of the procession, behind the brother of the departed, behind other relations both close and distant, and behind the dignitaries representing the Estates and the Lands. She was escorted by sixty ladies of the highest class of society. Dressed in black and evidently stricken with grief, Polyxena was supported by two gentlemen. Before the eyes of thousands of onlookers, she moaned out loud, clasped her hands together and fell into short swoons. The eyes of the curious onlookers absorbed every movement she made, every wail. Both rich and poor were gaping at her, the high born and those of low degree, Catholics and Protestants, as though they were watching a tragic performance on the stage of a theatre. In a few short hours, twenty- five-year old Polyxena Rožmberk of Pernštejn had ceased to be one of the foremost ladies in the Kingdom of Bohemia and had to adapt to the role of a mere widow who had lost a beloved husband and who would do nothing else for the rest of her life except mourn for him. She demonstrated her penitent sorrow with as much sincerity as the last poor woman in the city, and some young ladies-in-waiting imitated her as proof of their devotion. That was how the ceremony prescribed it should be, and how the Jesuits wanted it, for they understood the impact of folk drama better than anyone. Did not this widow stand face to face with the irrevocable Will of God? Was not her grief a memento for all those who might let the transience of earthly life slip their minds? And the people, devastated by the charm of her performance, forgot about ridiculing the young widow, about their hatred of the Jesuits, and about the stories of an imminent Rožmberk bankruptcy. The following day several dozen carriages with distinguished mourners set out from Prague to Krumlov, to escort the coffin of William of Rožmberk to his last resting place. The carriage procession kept to the same order as the funeral ceremony, although the public spectacle was already over. Polyxena’s carriage came almost at the end, behind the equipages of Peter Vok, the Rožmberk relations and the dignitaries. It was not until the vehicles were on the road that Polyxena could lay aside the mask of the grieving widow and breathe freely for The First Lady Of The Kingdom 169 a while. Some difficult days still awaited her at Krumlov, but the worst was behind her. The last months had decidedly not been easy. Although Polyxena did not delude herself that William’s death had broken her heart, she could not be too lighthearted about it. When she and her ladies-in-waiting knelt in the palace chapel to pray for William’s recovery, she meant her prayers sincerely; just as sincere was her disquiet over his strange dealings with the alchemists, even though not so much now depended on whether William squandered ten thousand guilders more or less. The marriage, five and a half years in duration, had not been physically close, but William, although he quickly said a last good bye to his illusions of siring an heir, remained a considerate husband who was generous to her in every way and never offended her. He heaped gifts on her, paid the bills for her jewels and expensive dresses, indulged her with the feeling of being completely independent as to property. Above all, he definitively established her in the highest circles of Czech society and ensured her the respect due to the wife of the Rožmberk ruler and Supreme Burgrave of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Polyxena Rožmberk entertained the Papal Nuncio and other diplomats in Krumlov, in Kratochvíle and in their Prague palace as the lady of the house; she met the most distinguished lords and ladies of the Bohemian nobility and participated in major social events. Everywhere she was the center of attention, and everyone paid her appropriate homage. No one was taken aback by her youth, nor did anyone take offence at her pronounced religious views, which often sounded naïve in the clever conversations of cynical politicians. In other ways she showed herself swiftly able to adapt to the new world. She rid herself of her inhibitions and learnt how to use every weapon she was endowed with: beauty, a natural astuteness, self-assurance in society, and a command of foreign languages. If she had not married William her talents would probably have remained unnoticed, but at William’s side she slowly but surely began to stand out from the Czech matrons whose intellectual world was confined to social gossip and domestic cares. Satisfaction with this transformation of Polyxena from a clever and beautiful young maiden into a remarkable, strong- minded woman, abounding in charm and social ambition, was reciprocal. Polyxena’s social promotion provided both William and herself with a gratify- ing substitute for a life without children or physical lovemaking. During the journey to Krumlov Polyxena thought a lot about her inheritance. William had also shown his generosity in wanting to safeguard her future and so had given her the castle of Roudnice. It was far less splendid than the family seats in south Bohemia but Polyxena felt more at home there 170 janáček because she did not come up against the family traditions and ties of the Rožmberks at every turn. Now however it depended on Peter Vok whether he would be prepared to honor this gift or whether he would go to court to contest its validity. A widow had the right only to her dowry, and any possible bequests from her husband could be tampered with, with the help of all sorts of legal loopholes. Peter Vok had not actually shown any ill will towards Polyxena; on the contrary, he had always behaved in a very pleasant and courteous way, but friends urged her to be wary. In such a catastrophic financial situation, could the Rožmberks afford simply to write off such a valuable property as Roudnice? Wasn’t Peter Vok attentively followed by the Protestant politicians and didn’t they poison him against Polyxena? She would know in the few days to what extent her fears were justified. They all arrived in Krumlov on 3 November and the coffin with William’s remains was exhibited until 10 December, when he was finally buried in the Krumlov parish church. Polyxena and Peter Vok had come to an agreement about the inheritance even before the burial. The new Rožmberk leader showed himself as generous towards her as his brother; he agreed with the gift of Roudnice, contributed 25,000 guilders at his own expense and allowed her to move not only her own effects out of the Rožmberk Palace in Prague Castle but also some of the furniture. That was certainly more than Polyxena had been expecting. She was not however alone in her astonishment; it would not have taken much for some observers to impute duplicitous intentions to Peter Vok for such a benevolent attitude. Polyxena celebrated the Christmas holiday in the family circle of the Rožmberks and remained in Krumlov for several weeks after New Year, even though Peter Vok had to leave for Prague and took his wife with him. She went to pray at her husband’s tomb every day and spent a lot of time in the Jesuit college. However, she was already thinking about her future at Roudnice and negotiated with some of the Rožmberk servants about them coming with her. The Krumlov hejtman Mikuláš Schreibersdorf of Teutschenstein accepted her offer without hesitation; others should have followed, but negotiating with them was not quite so straightforward. Many of the old Rožmberk servants, especially Václav Březan, still considered Polyxena an intruder and looked askance at everyone who wanted to come to an agreement with her. Some were irritated by Polyxena’s uncompromising Catholicism, others objected to her ambition, but for the financial experts the deciding factor was how much she was prepared to pay for their services. That applied to Schreibersdorf as well. And Polyxena, although up to then she had not had much opportunity to look closely at the Rožmberk management, adopted the Rožmberks’ guiding principle that capable and scrupulous hetmans and managers who paid no The First Lady Of The Kingdom 171 attention to the laments of their subordinates and always knew how to juggle an empty treasury were a primary guarantee of success. Polyxena’s stay in Krumlov had however another side which no one ever mentioned. The whole Roman Catholic party in the Bohemian lands was devastated by the thought that after William’s death the Rožmberk domain was to be ruled by a heretic. Guarantees that everything would remain as it had been on the Rožmberk estate, that Catholic parishes would not be represented by Protestant priests, that the existence of the Krumlov Jesuit college would not be threatened, that Protestant propaganda would not flood the towns and villages of the Rožmberks, seemed weak, even though Peter Vok had made some sort of promises in this direction. Was he however willing to honor them? Wasn’t there a danger that this weakling would find himself under the influence of Protestant politicians and begin to listen to their advice? As far as the Papal Nuncio, the Krumlov and Prague Jesuits, and absolutely everybody who had the Counter-Reformation on their hearts, the widowed Polyxena suddenly represented the only feeler to the Rožmberks. Her name came up by return in diplomatic dispatches sent from Prague to Rome and re-emerged everywhere that the issue of the new Rožmberk leader was being discussed. At first glance this interest in Polyxena might seem paradoxical; as a widow, Polyxena no longer belonged to the Rožmberk family and had no right to inter- fere in their business. The Roman Catholic politicians—even though most of them were not overflowing in their knowledge of conditions and customs in Bohemia—knew that very well, but did not let Polyxena out of their sight. As long as she was in Krumlov they expected her to inform them immediately about what was being plotted against the Catholics in the Rožmberk domain. When she returned to Prague, they urged her to stay in touch with Rožmberk and his wife, to behave towards them in as friendly a way as possible, and to keep the door to their house open. They needed to know in good time whether Rožmberk was going to extend the Reformation to his domains and whether he would apply for his brother’s position of Supreme Burgrave. And maybe they didn’t just want Polyxena to keep her ears open, maybe they also wanted her to contribute with advice and encouragement towards a favorable decision in the Rožmberk family. Had she not shown already during William’s lifetime that she knew her way around the complicated paths of political life in Bohemia? Evidently, nobody asked Polyxena whether this political game was to her taste. She was spoken of in diplomatic dispatches in a tone that implied that she was a person unreservedly devoted to the Roman Catholic faith and prepared to fulfill the orders of the church politicians; sometimes her tasks were formulated authoritatively, allowing no excuse. And Polyxena not only submitted 172 janáček herself to the requirements of the Catholic clique, but by all accounts even came to terms with their tutelary attitude. She attended mass with Catherine of Ludanice, although that hysterical and sanctimonious lady must have been heartily antipathetic to her; she visited Peter Vok—in all propriety, but with the intention of gaining information—even though maybe she did not feel at her best, because it must have reminded her of his generosity in the matter of the inheritance. Did she fulfill this duty only because she wanted to remain a faithful daughter of the Church? Did she listen to the Jesuits and the other Catholic orders in order to quiet her conscience? Did her activity not conceal a certain ambition and longing to play the dangerous game presented by the contest of the Catholic and Protestant parties in Bohemia for herself? Women were involved in this game on both sides, and their spiritual advisors blessed them and promised them eternal salvation. The ladies earned the gratitude of the church by refusing husbands of a different faith and by their passionate support for church buildings, houses of prayer and chapels. They harvested glowing words of recognition, but were not upset by the fact that they were delivered from a superior standpoint: the role of women had just as great importance for Catholic and Protestant priests as for Catholic and Protestant politicians, but it would have taken them considerable self-denial willingly to acknowledge to women the right of initiative. Disdain regarding a woman’s intellectual capacities was deeply rooted in both the Catholic and the Protestant environment. And no one tried to look otherwise on Polyxena’s role, although it was clear that she was not only an influential woman but also clever, and capable of an independent judgment. Polyxena herself could not have overlooked the manifest scorn in the coaxing voices of the papal diplomats and Jesuits but did not let herself put off by this. The great contest whose atmosphere she had experienced during her life with William attracted her ever more compellingly. As the wife of the Supreme Burgrave she had remained a spectator, overshadowed by the authority of her husband, at best the confi- dante of a highly prominent person; as an independent widow she was able to demonstrate some initiative. In 1593 the question of the Rožmberk inheritance and the political ambitions of Peter Vok faded into the background, for two reasons. In the first place Peter Vok displayed no taste for extending the Reformation to his domains, nor for a political career; secondly, a political issue suddenly emerged in the form of the Lobkovice affair, which quickly stifled all the others. While the Catholic camp underwent the major crisis caused by George of Lobkovice, blunting the cutting edge of its aggressive politics, Polyxena was installing herself in Roudnice. Roudnice Castle was at the time of William of Rožmberk’s death a bizarre combination of two entirely different buildings. The massive bishop’s castle on The First Lady Of The Kingdom 173 a height above the Elbe river with its ramparts and round tower representing what had once been the pride of Gothic architecture in Bohemia, made an imposing impression, but was no longer suitable for living in. William had therefore, without showing an ounce of embarrassment, inserted a new habit- able Renaissance wing into the solid mass of the castle. Such reconstructions of old castles, displaying not the slightest feeling for a tradition of visual expression, marked the majority of aristocratic seats in Bohemia at the end of the sixteenth century. Some nobles added more to their old castles, others less; none of them was bothered by startling and unnatural stylistic contrasts. William of Rožmberk was exasperated with the miserable condition of the main castle building primarily because it did not correspond to the represen- tational impact of a seat of the Rožmberk line. He thought about a thorough rebuilding of the castle and considered the attachment of the Renaissance wing to be a temporary solution to which, for the time being, it was not suitable to invite distinguished guests. At his request, Italian builders prepared plans for the renovation of the castle, but there was insufficient money and in the end the preparations were cut short by William’s death. Polyxena had no intention of embarking on any building work, nor the reconstruction of the castle. Like all her female contemporaries, she showed not the slightest interest in the extravagant expenditure on building projects which abounded among all the Bohemian aristocracy at that time. Whilst the highborn noblemen threw themselves into extensive building enterprises and sometimes even displayed sufficient spatial imagination for them to influence their builders, women felt threatened by the cost of it all and the burden of debt which every building project immediately provoked, and did not give it another moment’s thought. Insofar as they ruled over the family purse, they did not embark on building projects and were not interested in the seductive sketches of the architects. The crumbling bishop’s castle disturbed Polyxena as little as the lack of harmony in its symbiosis with the Renaissance wing. She stowed the construction plans away in the Rožmberk archive with a light heart and began to arrange her household in the new wing, which may have lacked outward monumentality but provided sufficient comfort. She was to live here for several more decades without it even crossing her mind that more thorough reconstruction would give Roudnice a more elevated impact. Polyxena saw evidence of her prosperity in the furnishing of the interiors. She added to the existing furniture some accessories from the Prague palace of the Rožmberks, and purchased other things herself. The living quarters of the lady of the castle and her ladies-in-waiting were filled with wall coverings and tapestries from the Netherlands, Turkish carpets, hangings of expensive fabrics, upholstered chairs, tables covered with valuable cloths, carved trunks 174 janáček filled with dozens of dresses, carved desks, precious porcelain from China, majolica, silver and gold. Polyxena laid the first pieces of her own fortune in chests hooped with metal; on the walls she hung paintings which were to be the foundation of the later enormous Lobkovice collections. All of it together, and the quantity of it, quickly struck the eye as an expression of wealth. It was permanent wealth, unlike the transitory value of frescoes or sgraffito castle walls, which were what the lords of the castles mostly thought about. At the same time, Polyxena did not allow her personality to assert itself in the inventory. Much in the arrangement was reminiscent of the Rožmberk house, up to the end a product of the Rožmberk and Bohemian tradition; the influence of the Pernštejn household, indelibly marked by the Spanish mode, was similarly striking. A feeling of luxury, adopted with eclectic uniformity in all Bohemian castles, overrode everything else. If it was expensive, then it must be valuable. Alongside the care she took in arranging the interiors at Roudnice, Polyxena devoted herself to its management. Hetman Schreibersdorf and other officers could be expected to keep the serfs in order and extort from them only what was acceptable. Unlike the deceased William of Rožmberk, however, Polyxena did not rely entirely on her officers and tried to oversee the activities of the estate personally. Possession of her own property awoke in her a previously unsuspected ability for management, of which she soon convinced the officials and serfs. She understood instinctively that the boundless trust the Rožmberks placed in their hetmans had its advantages and disadvantages. She wanted to be active in business and soon everyone quaked before her. No one would have guessed that she had no background in business before she came to Roudnice. Roudnice provided Polyxena with her independence, but it could not rid her of her awareness of family ties. She ran her own household, was surrounded by her ladies-in-waiting, supervised the housekeeping, but did not isolate herself from the world in Roudnice. She frequently travelled to see her mother in the family palace in Prague Castle or in Litomyšl, a return to surroundings immeasurably close to her. She was all the more upset at the disintegration of the Pernštejn fortune which culminated in the first years of her widowhood. The Roman Catholic politicians did not let Polyxena out of their sight, either at Roudnice or during her trips to Prague. The Spanish legate San Clemente stayed in touch with her, as did the Archbishop, and the Jesuits, who had monitored her closely from the first negotiations for her Rožmberk betrothal. Polyxena always remained an important mediator with Peter Vok of Rožmberk and her help could be counted on in further plans of the Catholic politicians, because she had very broad contacts with the higher Bohemian aristocracy. Was this however the only reason? Considerations about Polyxena’s property may not have been very relevant because they were hardly sufficient to permit The First Lady Of The Kingdom 175

Polyxena to establish any sort of generous religious foundation. The only consideration remaining was her personality, and in this direction Polyxena was certainly worth attention, because unlike many other Catholic-thinking and extremely pious ladies she was capable of weighing up a situation and acting on her assessment. The lady of Roudnice Castle aroused general respect, and when in 1594 the Jesuit Bilancetti dedicated his translation of the Latin legend of the “Vita del santo Elzeario” to her, it may have meant more than a conventional bow to a patron, as the Jesuits were very economical in their public dem- onstrations of honor. Polyxena’s specific task in the plots and intrigues of the Catholic side was not always as unambiguous as in 1595, when the question of the Rožmberk inheritance was revived. It is hard to say how the plan to safeguard this inheritance for the Roman family of the Orsini was born; however, without Polyxena’s help, neither the Papal politicians in Rome nor the exponents of the Catholic party in Prague could have made it happen. When one day Francisco and Livia Orsini appeared in Prague with the intention of adopting Peter Vok, the Prague Archbishop Zbyněk Berka of Dubá took charge of them. He did not, however, go alone to Krumlov, but took Polyxena with him. This fantastic plan, relying on the supposed affinity of the two families sounded to Protestant observers like a sheer farce and provocation. However, they soon changed their view when the capricious Peter Vok gave ear to Polyxena’s urging. In the end maybe it would not have been too outlandish, and Polyxena would have succeeded in convincing Peter Vok of the correctness of the Orsini’s claims. Her efforts were spoiled by John George of Švamberk, already determined as the inheritor of the Rožmberk property. He hurried to Krumlov with the bishop of the Unitas fratrum, Matěj Cyr. They appealed to Rožmberk’s deepest feelings and in their presence he rapidly came to his senses. The Orsinis returned to Italy empty- handed, but the whole event became widely known and gave the Protestant politicians a lot to think about. The weakness of Peter Vok was their main consideration, but they could not overlook the diplomatic skills of the lady of Roudnice, who had emerged in circumstances smacking of danger. That was certainly not an accident. After this event, every step of Polyxena’s, every friendship of hers, was regarded with suspicion by the prudent Protestants. Of those friendly relationships, the strangest seemed to be her closeness to Catherine of Montfort, wife of Adam of Hradec who was William of Rožmberk’s successor in the office of Supreme Burgrave. On the formal side it was in accord with all the social requirements: the two women were equal in the hierarchy of the Bohemian aristocracy, they were of the same religious belief and by their marriages even distantly related. However, there were circumstances which told against their closeness. Catherine was a full 176 janáček twenty-one years older than Polyxena, and whereas even Polyxena’s enemies were willing to forgive her anything for her charm, everyone detested Catherine because of her narrow-mindedness and fanaticism. A wedding calculated by the court clique of Queen Maria of Spain, wife of Maximilian II, had swept her from Styria to Bohemia and from that time she had never managed to adapt herself to her Bohemian surroundings and nourished her feelings of inferiority with overweening sanctimoniousness. Was it possible that Polyxena could be close with such a woman without some sort of ulterior motive? Were not the Jesuits again somewhere in the background, trying to establish their college in Jindřichův Hradec? Adam of Hradec fought against the founding of the college, and had reasons enough. First, he did not agree with the sterile fanaticism of his wife, concerning whom he had long been without illusions; secondly, he did not intend to exacerbate internal conflicts in Bohemia any further; and thirdly, he did not have the funds to support such a large undertaking. The Hradec estate was threatened with bankruptcy, and expenditure on a college was above his means. However, since he finally signed the founding document of the college in January 1594, it remains a mystery as to whether in the end it was only Catherine who forced him to give way—or whether someone else was involved. Did Polyxena possibly have a hand in this? She was certainly very close to what was going on, and appeared again at Catherine’s side when Adam died in 1596 and the Jesuits forced Catherine to issue a far-reaching Counter-Reformation code for the Hradec estate which aroused indignation throughout the Bohemian Lands. However, the friendship with Catherine already had a dangerous enough tinge, because every act of hers, every word, had the effect of being a provocation. A conflict arose in 1597 when the Counter-Reformation code was issued, and the chroniclers recorded in extreme brevity: “Dětřich Švenda convicted and sentenced to the loss of honor [and] of life, that he challenged the honor of two widows, Mistress Polyxena Rožmberk, née Pernštejn, and N. Mistress Countess, wife of the Lord of Hradec, and in the course of this wanted to help himself out of difficulty by false documents. And these ladies take care of their honor.” Thus wrote Mikuláš Dačický of Heslov, following the event from a distance. The person condemned was no other than the Imperial Counselor and officer of the cavalry Dětřich of Švenda, owner of the estate Hlemýždí and, according to the well-founded opinion of August Sedláček, “a restless man, immoral, [who] did much harm against people.” The cavalry officer died before the year was out and no one knows whether he really was executed or died peacefully in his bed. Even the subject of the dispute which caused him so much difficulty and in the end could have cost him his life remains a mystery. The First Lady Of The Kingdom 177

What strange chance led Polyxena and Catherine into a fight against a well- known troublemaker? And was it chance at all? The coincidence of persons and the correlation in time somewhat overturns the possibility of chance. Ladies as elevated in the social hierarchy as Polyxena and Catherine would surely not have allowed themselves to be led into a dispute with all and sundry for banal injuries to their honor. Whether Polyxena was rightly suspected of having instigated Catherine to a spiteful policy towards the Protestants, or only shown some solidarity with Catherine, the final result remained the same. No one could have any doubts about the unambiguous standpoint of Polyxena Rožmberk in the campaign on behalf of the Counter-Reformation, nor about her resolution to intervene in this campaign in the context of the given possibilities. The years passed and Polyxena did not marry. At the time of the Švenda affair she must have been approaching thirty and was still a very desirable and beautiful woman. And she had moreover respectable property which remained completely unaffected by the Pernštejn bankruptcy. Roudnice itself must have given many possible admirers cause for thought and when one adds a comely widow from one of the best families to such a prosperous estate, it could be expected that there would be no shortage of bridegrooms. At first sight it might seem that Polyxena’s uncompromising Catholic faith might evoke a few mis- givings, but it certainly did not present an insuperable obstacle. As far as Catholic admirers were concerned, it would have been an advantage; and enough Protestants could have been found willing to convert to Catholicism for the sake of an advantageous marriage. If it came to that, there were many highly born noblemen who showed by their deeds that they did not take into consideration either their own past, or their family traditions. Shortly before, George Bruntálský of Vrbno had caused dismay among the Protestant aristocracy of Moravia when he converted to Catholicism in order to obtain a divorce; a number of brides were not obtainable other than at the price of conversion. However, neither Catholics nor Protestants fawned over Polyxena. And if there was someone at that time who showed interest in the wealthy and beautiful widow, their hopes did not progress so far as to express it publicly. Polyxena remained unmarried, although she did not voluntarily commit herself to permanent widowhood. The first cause of this strange and highly unusual isolation lay in Polyxena herself. With her first marriage she had lost all illusions about marrying for love and never returned to them. There was no shortage of personable and chivalrous gentlemen in her social circles but Polyxena did not yearn for adventure, and did not even consider a marriage which would make up for what she had been missing in the union with the old and sick William of Rožmberk. She did 178 janáček not rule out of her life a husband as such, but in the spirit of all the good advice on which she had organized her life up to now, she was now persuaded that for a woman in her position marriage was above all about one’s status in society. (Would she have believed that even if Rožmberk had not behaved towards her so considerately and kindly?) Her mother and all the friends and advisors of the family had sacrificed her to her first prestigious marriage; the next she was going to determine herself, but was not going to disregard the opinion of these others. She did not intend to join herself in marriage with a man of significantly lower position than Rožmberk had held and did not even give a thought to all the admirers prepared to convert to Roman Catholicism only for the sake of marrying a wealthy bride. The sublimity and fidelity of religious faith now bound Polyxena much more firmly than years earlier, when she had entered married life with Rožmberk. That attitude brought not only satisfaction to the Catholic advisors of the family, but also several political trump cards: Polyxena was a shining example for other Roman Catholic young women and widows, and moreover remained a suitable bride should an opportunity occur for another great Catholic wedding. Polyxena came to terms with all of this, and insofar as she felt personal disappointment, never let it be seen. As the years went by she slowly lost hope that she would find a bridegroom in Bohemia who would correspond to her idea of a prestigious match. And at that time she returned to the idea which in the past had helped her to overcome times of trouble and hopelessness; she thought about journeying to Spain. In 1599 Polyxena intended to accompany her mother to Spain, and there was a question mark over her return. One of her inner circle was Charles of Žerotín the Elder, who tried in a letter of April 24, 1599 to dissuade Polyxena from her intention. He had spent some time at Litomyšl in his youth, knew Polyxena from childhood and never ceased to regard her as a family friend, even though his path had diverged from that of the Pernštejns. In the letter Žerotín asks Polyxena “to please remember that as Lady of Rožmberk you take precedence over all other women in Bohemia by both position and adroitness. It would be good if you were able to speak with her Excellency your Mother for her to remain with us, but if she already decided [to remain in Spain], at least I ask that you to please return.”1 In the hundreds of letters which Polyxena received in her lifetime, this letter from Žerotín is the most noteworthy, even though maybe she never properly understood it. Moreover: it was perhaps the most remarkable letter written to

1 This passage was translated from Old Czech to English by the editor with assistance from Jiří Mikulec. The First Lady Of The Kingdom 179 a woman in the whole of the Lands of Bohemia in the period before White Mountain. Žerotín was quite openly paying Polyxena a compliment as the First Lady of the Kingdom, adding that this role was befitting for her not only as a widow of the Rožmberks but also because she towered above all her female contemporaries in her intellect (smysl). Remarkable however was not only the promotion of Polyxena to a leading place among the Bohemian aristocracy, but the fact that it was based above all on an evaluation of her intellectual capabili- ties. No other woman of Czech society at that time would have provoked such a reaction; no other man would publicly have taken such an attitude to the role of a woman. The exceptional quality of Žerotín’s address could arouse a priori suspicion as to whether there was some lack of care in the formulation of the letter, or some other kind of misunderstanding. However, the care that Žerotín always took in his correspondence, the intellectual vanity with which he put emphasis on the content of his letters and their stylistic and linguistic form, overturn any such suspicions. In 1599 Žerotín was still lacking the small step to the authoritative standpoint of an aristocratic intellectual who dares to judge and evaluate all the sides of public life, but his correspondence already bore all the hallmarks of the maturity of an educated man who knows the value of the written word. What about personal motives? Did Žerotín’s friendship with Polyxena, of many years standing despite political reversals, tempt him to exaggerate? Perhaps reservations are more in place concerning this, but similarly cannot be over-valued. However much sympathy Žerotín and Polyxena felt for each other, their paths could never be joined. Just as it would be unthinkable for Polyxena to marry a Protestant, so for Žerotín, who at that time stood at the head of the Protestant opposition in Moravia, it would be unthinkable to marry a woman from the opposite camp. Both of them were the center of attention and in both cases they had put their personal attitude so much to the fore that for them there was no retreat. In any case, Žerotín was at that time married, and would not have dared even to think of being unfaithful, even in such a platonic sense as the context of the letter might suggest. One cannot rule out sympathy from his attitude, but on the other hand it is impossible to overlook the fact that a still deeper moat of political opinions and actions divided him from Polyxena. At the time he wrote his letter he knew very well that Polyxena strongly championed Roman Catholic policy, and that he himself was threatened by the intense persecution incited by the Catholic nobility. The success of Polyxena’s interests led necessarily to his own harm. Could one imagine a sharper antithesis? 180 janáček

The content of Žerotín’s letter remains unimpeachable. On closer examination, even the problematic formulation about the position of the “Lady of Rožmberk” provides no reason for doubt about Žerotín’s objectivity. Polyxena was not the real Lady of Rožmberk; that was the wife of the current head of the family, Catherine of Ludanice, and because the head of the family Peter Vok did not hold any high office, not even she could claim for formal reasons the first place in Czech society. Žerotín however weighed every word; he referred only to the significance of the Rožmberk line, and was not therefore in any way incorrect. His main argument was quite different. By addressing her he approached the essence of the Renaissance more than most of his contemporaries. Respect for the intellectual abilities of women represented the largest concession of Renaissance open-mindedness in regard to women. Charles the Elder expressed his judgment of the First Lady of the Kingdom in one sentence and never referred to it in written expressions again. He did not explain in any greater detail what he meant by the intellectual superiority of Polyxena over other women, and never even tried to express his attitude to the issue of women in a direct way. As to how his judgment originated, it can be considered only in relation to his general ethical standpoints and finally in relation to the life till then of Polyxena of Pernštejn. Polyxena’s moral strength must have been what impressed her brother intellectual in the first place. He was aware of how she came to terms with life at the side of an old man without any show of weakness and how, regardless of all the difficulties, she showed herself able to maintain her personal dignity. However, what must also have interested him was Polyxena’s personal skill at social contacts, her intelligence and her elevation above the pusillanimous world of the Czech aristocracy. And finally, perhaps even respect for Polyxena’s political views cannot be ruled out, although he sharply deviated from her opinions. Other contemporaries—San Clemente, the Jesuits, numerous Catholic noblemen—were also aware of all of Polyxena of Pernštejn’s virtues. By his formulation, Žerotín conferred on them a form of symbiosis. Žerotín compared Polyxena only with other noblewomen. The world of the townswomen lay outside his interests, although in his time unusually well educated women were emerging in urban surroundings; the life of women living in serfdom simply did not exist at all for him. This view, narrowed by an extreme class standpoint, corresponded to the aristocratic tendencies of the Renaissance. In the end Žerotín remained under its spell, even in his attitude to Polyxena. The prudery of an intellectual of the Brethren evidently did not allow him to express himself concerning Polyxena’s beauty, but he must have been aware of it and seen how it merged harmonically with Polyxena’s intellect, just like San Clemente whose asceticism had similar religious roots. And The First Lady Of The Kingdom 181 insofar as he judged only Polyxena’s intellectual superiority, he could not allow it to be equal to male abilities. This was perhaps even the source of his indulgence vis-à-vis Polyxena’s political eccentricities. Even though Žerotín paid Polyxena that significant compliment, he himself was not going to change the boundaries between women and men. And no one among his contemporaries would have made changes either. CHAPTER 7 Tolerance or Co-Existence? Relations between Religious Groups from the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries

Josef Válka

This is a seminal article by one of the leading early modern historians in the Czech Republic. It takes on the important question of the nature of multi- religious society in the Pre-White Mountain period. Válka argues that the relationship between Catholics, Utraquists, Bohemian Brethren, Lutherans, and Calvinists in Bohemia in this period was one of peaceful coexistence, rather than real tolerance. Its broad scope and approach is informed by both Western European, especially French, and Czech historiography. Josef Válka (1929–) is Professor Emeritus of the Historical Institute of the Masaryk University in Brno, the main city of Moravia. He studied at the Philosophical Faculty of the Masaryk University and began his career at the same institution. During a sojourn to France in 1969 he met the French historians Robert Mandrou (1921–1984) and Victor-Lucien Tapié (1900–1974), and became acquainted with the scholarship of the Annales school, which inspired him to think about new approaches to Central European history. During the period of normalization he was not able to teach but held an administrative position at the Historical Institute of the Masaryk University. He returned to teaching after 1989. Válka’s scholarship spans from early works on social-economic history, such as Hospodářská politika feudálního velkostatku na předbělohorské Moravě [Economic Politics of the Large Feudal Estate.] (Prague: SPN, 1962) to important syntheses of Bohemian and Moravian history in both the Pre- and Post- White Mountain Periods, such as Česká společnost v 15.-18. století [Bohemian Society from the 15th to 18th Centuries] (Prague: SPN, 1972–1983) and Dějiny Moravy [History of Moravia,] vol. II (Brno: Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, 1995); and historgraphical works on nineteenth and twentieth-century Czech historians, such as Myšlení a obraz v dějinách kultury. Studie, eseje, reflexe [Thought and Image in the History of Culture. Studies, Essays, and Reflections] (Brno: Matice Moravská, 2009). For more on Josef Válka, see Jaroslav Pánek, “Josef Válka—historik lidského porozumění” [Josef Válka—historian of human understanding,] SCetH 52 (1994): 162–165, and the volume of essays

presented to him on his seventieth birthday by his colleagues in Brno, Bronislav Chocholáč, Libor Jan, and Tomáš Knoz, eds., Nový Mars moravicus aneb sborník příspěvků, jež věnovali Prof. Dr. Josefu Válkovi jeho přátelé a žáci k sedmdesátinám [The New Moravian God of War or a Collection of Contributions dedicated to Prof. Josef Válka by his Friends and Students on His Seventieth Birthday] (Brno: Matice moravská, 1999). A bibliography of Válka’s publications (to 1999) appears in the commemorative volume, 35–68. A selected bibliography of his works (1999–2000) appears in SCetH 39 (2009): 319–328. Original Place of Publication and Permission: “Tolerance či koexistence? (K povaze soužití různých náboženských vyznání v českých zemích v 15. až 17. století)” [Tolerance or Coexistence? (Considerations on the Coexistence of Religious Confessions in the Bohemian Lands in the 15th to 17th centuries),] SCetH 18/15 (1988), supplement. The article appears by permission of the author.

My paper can be no more than a small excursion into the great theme expressed in the title. However, I would just like to turn the attention of our symposium to a more general question connected with this year’s subject. In his time, Erasmus of Rotterdam was maybe the most important representative of those striving for co-existence and the tolerance of various confessions. He was also a determined opponent of the use of force in the restoration of the unity of faith disrupted by the Reformation. He is the begetter of the ide- ational tendency “Erasmianism”, considered to be a “third way” between the irreconcilable camps of the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter- Reformation.1 [Johann Valentin] Andreae and especially [Jan Amos] Comenius also belong to the long and painful process of the advance of modern religious tolerance. Almost every work about them touches on this side of their thinking and activity. Among the major figures of Humanism and the Reformation whose anniversary falls this year is Charles of Žerotín the Elder who died 350 years ago. His intellectual importance cannot be compared with the great personalities of Humanism and the Reformation, and his political record is debatable.2

1 Hugh Trevor Roper, The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century: Religion, the Reformation, and Social Change, and Other Essays (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). 2 The renewal of the polemic about Žerotín: Robert Kalivoda, “Husitsví a jeho vyústění v době předbělohorské a pobělohorské,” SCetH 25, XIII (1983), 3–44; Josef Válka, “K otázkám úlohy Moravy v české reformaci”, SCetH XV (1985): pp 67–81; Noemi Rejchrtová, “Listy osamělého 184 válka

Nevertheless, we are bound to commemorate him at the very least as a great patron and funder of the cultural work of the Unitas Fratrum, as well as of the young Comenius. He was also an outstanding lawyer, a cultured intellectual and, in his underestimated letters and writings both legal and political, a lover and cultivator of the Czech language. Žerotín is one of the most important theoreticians and practitioners of religious co-existence and tolerance to be found in the Bohemian and Moravian environment. That is why I want to remind our symposium of this man. My contribution will go somewhat beyond the scope of the philosophical harmony of our most recent symposia. However, insofar as we want to culti- vate an interdisciplinary approach to Comenius studies, the discourse of historians should not be lacking. We can trace the theme of religious co-existence on several levels:

1) On the purely theoretical level, as theological and later philosophical solutions to the problem in theological, philosophical and political texts; in treatises and polemics about co-existence and tolerance. I do not feel sufficiently competent at this level; it would require a re-reading of many texts from the fifteenth to seventeenth century, texts which in their complete form have not as yet even been discovered and registered.3 However, I have the impression that in the Czech milieu there are relatively few texts of a theoretical nature about co-existence and tolerance. 2) In the Bohemian Lands we can follow the question above all at a practical level, as the laws, rights and institutional safeguards of the co-existence of various denominations. In this respect the Bohemian Lands have pre- eminence in Europe, because they were the first to face the issue of the co-habitation of members of two different denominations, and because the Czechs were the first who, after painful wartime experiences, tried to legalise and institutionalise this co-habitation. In the sixteenth century this Bohemian model was advocated by Ferdinand I as a possible path to co-existence and renewal of unity. Ferdinand I was also a follower of Erasmus’ ideas—and, lest we forget, the Bohemian King of “two peoples”

politika.” in Karel starší ze Žerotína. Z korespondence, ed. Noemi Rejchrtová (Prague: Odeon, 1982), 7–38; Josef Válka, “Karel starší ze Žerotína (1564–163ž), Z kralické tvrze XIII (1986): 1–7. 3 The possibility of new texts on the theme of co-existence and tolerance is indicated by the edition of the tract by Prokop of Jindřichův Hradec from the beginning of the sixteenth century. Amedeo Molnár, “Neznámý spis Prokopa z Jindřichova Hradce,” Husitský Tábor 6–7 (1983–1984): 423–448. Tolerance or Co-Existence? 185

[i.e. Catholic and Utraquist.] Here we are treading directly on the field of history. 3) And finally, there is the level of the sociology of religion and of social psychology, a sphere of “mentalities.” We are interested not only in theory and regulations, but also in the practice of co-existence and tolerance, in the everyday religious life of a religiously divided society. This has, however, been an “unploughed field” in this country since the time of the school of Zikmund Winter (1846–1912). The modern sociology of religion did not establish itself here as a method of researching religious life— maybe it is also the result of religious life being predominantly a matter of church history, which is always, consciously or subconsciously, apolo- gist. Once we have created a picture of everyday religious life in the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, it will change many traditional and deep-rooted theses about the “religious nature” of Bohemian history of the late Middle Ages and the early Modern Age.

It is in fact the theses that stay with us after we have read the historical books and forgotten much of the material from history textbooks. We all carry history within ourselves, we retain it in our consciousness and our subconscious as a system of several general assertions. There is no other way to retain history in the memory. In this sense, historical consciousness does not differ from any other sort of consciousness, for example of the natural sciences. Historical theses can also have the nature of scientific theory, insofar as they generalise certain pieces of information at a theoretical level and are not trivial banali- ties. A thesis in the true sense of the word expresses a historical paradigm and generalises empirical research; it should be a new critical analysis grounded on empirical material, called into question, and reformulated. One such thesis is the idea that in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain, Bohemia and Moravia were a promised land of religious freedom and tolerance.4 This is particularly insisted on where Moravia is concerned. In the course of my work on the history of Moravia.5 I have come to think that this thesis in its generality is extremely disputable. I would like to show why, and to some extent correct it.

4 František Hrubý, “Zápas Čechů s Habsburky o náboženskou toleranci,” in Co daly naše země Evropě a lidstvu, ed. Vilém Mathesius, vol. I (Prague: Evropský literární klub, 1939), 156–187; Alois Míka, “Z bojů o náboženskou toleranci v 16. století,” ČČH 18 (1970): 771–782. 5 Josef Válka, Stavovská Morava (1440–1620), Přehled dějin Moravy, vol. 2. eds. B. Čerešňák et al., (Prague: SPN, 1987). 186 válka

Allow me first a note about terms and why we must distinguish between the concepts of “co-existence” and “tolerance.” “Tolerance” is relatively new, both as a situation and as a term. The term was precisely formulated at the same time as tolerance began to operate in society, that is, the time of the Enlightenment. My feeling is that we cannot combine freedom of belief and freedom of conscience with the concept of tolerance, as often happens in the writings of Czech scholars. Hussitism and the Reformation fought for the principle of freedom of belief, but certainly not the modern idea of tolerance. Nor did freedom of belief did lead automatically to the co-existence of different religious confessions. It was not until the Enlightenment and liberalism at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century that religious freedom was upheld in constitutions and royal patents as not only a religious but also a civil right. From this time on, up to the present day, virtually the same formulations repeat themselves in civil law. The philosophers of the Enlightenment rightly considered religious tolerance and co- existence to be their own special contribution to modern civilisation. The Enlightenment and modern tolerance imply respect for another religious confession, and the possibility of dialogue instead of mediaeval “disputation.” A profound historical change was necessary before the Enlightenment could formulate the concept of tolerance in a modern way and promote it in society so that religious pluralism and civic respect could exist. In the intellectual sphere first and foremost, religion had to stop being the only possible form of world view; after this it was necessary that it should no longer be combined with a political and state ideology, as it was in the Middle Ages and in the time of the Reformation. It was not until the development of modern scientific thinking and world opinion, together with the development of modern political ideologies—not anchored in religion but, for example, in natural law—and a general laicisation of life had made modern religious tolerance possible that it became one of our essential values and fundamental laws. When Voltaire wrote his famous treatise Traité sur la Tolérance, à l’occasion de la mort de Jean Calas in 1763 he was unaware of the historical conditions of the change he had expressed intellectually in such a splendid way. In the main, he linked the concept of tolerance with the concept of co-existence. Thus he could follow the principles and process of Enlightenment tolerance from classical times to the present day, in an effort to give Enlightenment tolerance a historical dimension. The mediaeval co-existence of Jews and Christians in a Christian world and Mohammedans and Christians in an Islamic world did not have the nature of one of the values of civilization. It was more a case of the necessity for respect, the result of pragmatism based on economic interests, and concerned only an insignificant minority of inhabitants (Jews Tolerance or Co-Existence? 187 in the Christian world) or a mass without any rights (the Christian Raja in the Ottoman Empire). Tolerance was in basic conflict with the principle of one belief. This principle gained ground from the time of Saint Paul onwards. In the Christian Middle Ages it won through in social practice and in awareness. It is connected with an illusion of a unified harmonious society and leads, as does every illusion implemented by force, to very tragic consequences for human- kind. The Reformation broke that illusion of unity of confession with the principle of the freedom of belief, but was for a long time incapable of finding a new formula for the political consequences of the change. The political thought of the Middle Ages, of Humanism, and for a long time even of the Reformation, was completely governed by the idea of unity. In political thought it was expressed by the fundamental “one faith, one law, one king.” In Reformation republicanism the king could be replaced by a council of elders, but the principle of the unity of faith, law and power in one community persisted, as is documented by (for example) Calvin’s Geneva. To a certain extent it was right from the political point of view that it should persist. Differences in belief were the cause of division in society, which then caused wars and chaos. In fifteenth and sixteenth century Europe—its Christian unity so upset by Hussitism and the Reformation that power could not be renewed—some basic theoretical attitudes to the principle of unity of belief in Christianity and the community were formed. It is a catholically orthodox approach, in essence mediaeval and papist. The opposing idea of the Reformation (especially its orthodox representatives) was of a necessary unification of belief in one state or societal con- figuration, controlled by a secular or clerical authority. The Humanist concept feared division, and also postulated unity. But the unity of Christendom had to be renewed by negotiation, dogmatic concessions, moderate persuasion, and patience. With true Humanists the unity of culture arched over disputes about dogma. The approach of the “politicians” was to subordinate disputes of dogma to the state and social interest, and consider the cohabitation of different confessions in one kingdom to be possible. Later there is the approach of sceptics like Montaigne, who did not consider the permanent co-existence of different confessions to be possible, but in practice came close to the attitudes of the Humanists and the “politicians.” However, neither in the Middle Ages nor in the time of Humanism and the Reformation could the idea of tolerance in the modern sense of the word be clearly formulated, still less realised. Freedom of belief had still not found its political equivalent; politics always postulated the religious unity of the state as a condition of peace and order and of civic co-existence. But in the Bohemian Lands in the fifteenth century, and elsewhere in Europe in 188 válka the sixteenth century, a situation was created which forced the practical co- existence of Christians of different confessions in the state and the community. In this way the issue of tolerance also established itself. The time of bloody religious conflicts thus set up theoretical issues like co-existence and tolerance in a practical way.6 Are we then in a time of genesis? Of a gradual increase in tolerance? Unfortunately, the development is not so straightforward.

The Situation in the Fifteenth Century

In the time of Hussitism the Roman Catholic Church supported the idea of the medieval unity of the belief through sustained and uncompromising theological, military and diplomatic efforts. However, the Hussites too believed in the principle of unity and did not intend to upset it. They formulated their own teaching as universal and were convinced that the whole of Christendom should accept their truth because it expressed the real “Law of God.”7 The Hussites went to the Basel negotiations with this idea and its most convinced and unyielding adherents were the Taborites and Prokop the Great. The compromise of the Compacts was made possible by the fact that both the Council Fathers and the Hussites understood them as the renewal of unity. This did not of course solve the problem theologically. It was only postponed— by a hundred years. But with a view to the specific state of power relationships created in Bohemia and Moravia during the Hussite wars, the political solution could not be postponed. What was being negotiated here was whether unity of belief and of worship would be restored in Bohemia and Moravia (for which the Basel Compacts had been approved) or whether the Land would be divided between the Roman Catholic and the Utraquist population. After the collapse of the efforts of both sides to humiliate the “enemy”, the question of the unity of belief and worship became the subject of endless negotiations which from time to time were threatened by the outbreak of a new military conflict between the parties and created a tense and stormy situation, especially in the cities.8

6 Joseph Lecler, Histoire de la tolerance au siècle de la réforme, 2 vols. (Paris: Aubier, 1955). 7 Robert Kalivoda, Husitská ideologie (Prague: ČSAV, 1961); Ferdinand Seibt, Hussitica. Zur Struktur einer Revolution (Cologne and Graz: Böhlau, 1965); František Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách (České Budějovice: Růže, 1971); Robert Kalivoda, Manfred Becker, and Alexander Kolesnyk, Das hussitische Denken im Lichte seiner Quellen (Berlin: Akademie, 1969). 8 For the example of Prague: František Šmahel, “Epilog husitské revoluce, Pražské povstání 1483” in Acta reformationem bohemicam illustrantia. Přispěvky k dějinám utrakvismu, ed. Amedeo Molnár (Prague: Kalich, 1978), 15–128. Tolerance or Co-Existence? 189

The Hussites were battling for freedom of belief and conscience through the Article about “freedom of preaching”, but there were also politicians—both municipal councillors and Utraquist nobility. It was these politicians who from the beginning insisted on unity of worship being maintained in Bohemia and Moravia; that is, Communion in both bread and wine would be obligatory in both lands and the unity of worship and church organisation would be guaranteed by an Utraquist archbishop with competence for Bohemia and Moravia. In the given political situation it was absolutely the correct idea and the only possible one. (It is from this point of view that one also has to judge the siege of Pilsen before the closing of the Compacts, considered by many historians of Hussitism to be a fatal mistake. It was on the contrary an act through which the Hussites intended to preserve the unity of the land in the future.) After a time of bloody wars and revolts, the Hussite politicians were quite simply afraid of the division of the faith, symbolised by a different worship. Future historical development in which the Roman Catholic parties were systematically used by the Papal Curia as an instrument of restoration is evidence that their fears were not unfounded. It was not until after the Poděbrady wars that a solution to internal co-existence was found in Bohemia and Moravia—the co-existence of two different religious confessions and methods of worship. These were the Kutná Hora agreements of the Roman Catholics and Utraquists in 1485 for Bohemia, and the Land or Estate Law as formulated by Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk for Moravia.9 These documents are truly unique, and both sides showed great foresight and courage; the Catholics maybe even more than the Hussites. In the context of the two lands of the Crown of Bohemia, Bohemia and Moravia, an attempt to legalise two religious denominations and to create legal prerequisites for their co-existence in one country-state, was put into effect for the first time in European history. The Czechs were the first in Europe who legally, politically, and undoubtedly even intellectually, broke through the one great mediaeval barrier obstructing co-existence and tolerance: the idea of the unity of the faith as a guarantee against political chaos. They accepted the two denominations as equal confessions. (We have of course to acknowledge that a condition of this was the very close teaching and the very similar worship of the Catholics and the Utraquists—this legalisation did not extend to the Unitas Fratrum and other sects.) This legal basis of co-existence was created at the time when the power of the Estates was at its greatest and royal power at its weakest, and its

9 AČ IV, 508–516; Ctibor Tovačovský z Cimburka, Kniha Tovacovska: aneb Pana Ctibora z Cimburka a z Tovacova Pamet obyceju, řdu, zvyklosti starodavnych a řzeni prava zemskeho v Mar. Mor.: kriticke vydani, ed. Vincenc Brandl (Brno: self-published, 1868), 120–121. 190 válka political base was the Land Peace [landfrýd] agreements and the legislative competence of the Estates. It is a situation insufficiently appreciated in historical scholarship, and it has not made the impression on our historical awareness it deserves. On the contrary, the religious compromise was often interpreted as religious laxity, a betrayal of original ideals, a “policy of compromise,” and in particular a mercenary approach to faith. The fact is that in the second half of the fifteenth century an intellectual and political model of Central European religious co-existence was created which really did develop into tolerance. This practice of tolerance originated on the basis of religious agreements which became part of the Land Ordinance. We find it expressed in the main regulations of civil law, but more than anywhere in the attitudes and everyday life of the high feudal aristocracy. The legal prerequisites for co-existence and its maturing into tolerance were created by the fact that the Hussite revolution in Bohemia and Moravia immeasurably limited the field of canon law. The Europe-wide process of the weakening of canon law in the fifteenth century acquired radical forms in the environment of Bohemia. For example, mixed marriages could take place under the Land Ordinance, which would never have been allowed under the superiority of canon law. Conditions for co-existence and tolerance were of course far more favourable in the aristocratic environment than at other levels of society. This phenomenon had its own socio-cultural basis and would require amplifica- tion, for which we have no room here. Another feature of legal co-existence growing into actual tolerance in the fifteenth century is the unusual generosity of the Land Ordinance in religious matters with regard to serfs. The Peace of Kutná Hora and the Moravian Land Ordinance—which here apparently takes on the formulation of the Kutná Hora contracts—guaranteed serfs not only freedom of belief but even choice of worship, without regard to their master’s religion. And what is important, the parish priests of the two confessions were obliged to carry out ceremonies according to the wishes of the parishioners by whom they were supported. Baptisms, weddings and the last rites were considered to be a service by the priest for his parishioners, for which he was paid. The priest was obliged to provide this service according to the wishes of the parishioner. The only exception was the Holy Eucharist, where the priest did not have to provide a service according to the wishes of the client and could insist on his own confession—again proof of the key importance of the Eucharist in theological thinking in the Bohemian Lands in the fifteenth century. For Holy Communion the client could (or must) go to a priest of his own confession Tolerance or Co-Existence? 191 on another domain or into the city.10 But a number of priests celebrated Communion either way, with bread only, or with bread and wine. It is only through a sociological view of religious practice, in which the sacraments functioned at a legal level in the most important ceremonies of life, that one can understand all the paradoxes of Bohemian religious life in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and rid this sphere of traditional religious and moral- ist deposits. I believe that the legal programme and the practice of co-existence had its own intellectual and theological outcomes in the Bohemian environment. It had a fruitful encounter with the advance of Humanism, which in the second half of the fifteenth century infiltrated both religious parties of Bohemian society. It is in Bohemian aristocratic circles of the second half of the fifteenth century that one finds that non-dogmatic humane Christianity for which the Humanists were calling. I cannot introduce any theological discourse for this, but there are a number of statements by Bohemian nobles who openly supported this form of Christianity; for example, statements about faith from a very powerful and typical representative of that time—William of Pernštejn. These men did not write or even read tracts, but they held power in their hands; not only over their own domains, but in their Lands. And this power linked with the non-denominational Christianity of its bearers (which is how we can best describe this form of Christianity) created the preconditions for the co- existence of not only Catholics and Utraquists but also the sects which did not explicitly fall under the articles of the Land Ordinance. The Unitas Fratrum which consciously abandoned the idea of the unity of Christendom, benefited from this legal, but especially intellectual, situation—as did the Anabaptists and those eighteen sects which it is said existed in Moravia in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain.

The Situation in the Sixteenth Century

At the time when it was being determined whether the Reformation would destroy church unity and divide Europe into irreconcilable camps or whether the unity of Christendom would be preserved, an attempt was made to fore- stall a rift through using the Bohemian model of co-existence of various

10 Josef Válka, “Ctibor Tovačovský z Cimburka—O právě duchovním (K církveně-politickým důsledkům husitské revoluce na Moravě),” Z kralické tvrze XI (1984), 9–13. 192 válka confessions. Ferdinand I, King of Bohemia and adherent of Erasmianism, tried to enforce this possibility in his religious policy. The work of František Kafka and Anna Skybová has clarified the fate of this model and the efforts made at the Tridentine Council.11 However, it was not possible to implement the Compact model because the variances between the Reformation and Roman Catholicism were already theologically insurmountable and had acquired a European dimension into which power struggles entered under religious slo- gans. Both sides rejected the Bohemian path and formulated their own: the Roman Catholic party, a return to rigid obedience to the Pope, to the internal centralist reform of the church and to the “Spanish” reconquista; the Protestants to the control of worship by secular power and to the basic cuius regio eius religio. In most European countries the problem of the unity of religion was resolved by having a state religion and the principles of one faith, one law and one king within the state. In Germany an unstable balance was reached after 1555 at the price of the division of the Empire into Catholic and Protestant principalities. The door to the political unity of the Empire was definitively closed. In France and the Netherlands the Protestants organised themselves into military and political parties and wars of religion broke out. A third situation was created in central Europe. France, the Netherlands and central Europe were regions where the questions of co-existence and tolerance had again to be decided, because the Protestants in France and the Netherlands had not been militarily extinguished, nor the Protestants in central Europe politically. The Bohemian Lands lost their exclusiveness but maintained their unique- ness. Above all, the conflict in the Bohemian Lands was resolved through political rather than military means, which up until the second decade of the seventeenth century spared the Lands the horror of war. There was moreover a legal basis for two legalised confessions and the tradition of what we described as the non-denominational Christianity of the feudal aristocracy still in power. The reigns of Ferdinand I and Maximilian II, adherents of Erasmianism and Utraquism, was a time when the Bohemian tradition of co-existence, merging into tolerance, continued to function. It survived even the stumbling block of defeat in the uprising of the Protestant Estates in Bohemia in 1546–7. This method of co-existence had its analogy in the Austrian Lands, in Poland, and in Hungary, and thus acquired a central European scope. Roman Catholics and Protestants did not organise themselves into military leagues and unions; they fought for the freedom of their religion and for its legalisation in assemblies and in municipal councils. Freedom of belief became a part of the political

11 František Kavka and Anna Skýbová, Husitský epilog na koncilu tridentském a původní koncepce Habsburské rekatolizace Čech (Prague: UK, 1969). Tolerance or Co-Existence? 193 freedoms of the state of the Estates, and mechanisms of co-existence were created on a regional basis. In central Europe this situation was not done away with even by the decrees of the Tridentine Council or the onset of the “Spanish” party during the reign of Rudolf II. In central Europe the decrees of the Tridentine Council had just as little weight as the decrees of the Council of Constance once had in the Bohemian Lands. The mechanism of co-existence always overlapped with real tolerance and the original re-Catholicising fervour of Rudolf II gradually became blunted by co-existence with central Europe and by the influence of the Humanist and Mannerist culture of his court.12 Through the whole of the second half of the sixteenth century in the Bohemian Lands, both sides of the religious front demonstrated an apprehensive effort to keep religion out of politics and to consider the whole struggle merely as a struggle for political freedom and rights. The principle “one faith, one law, one ruler” was here disputed. The state of the Estates, however, was a conglomerate of various laws and independent administrative configurations. For example, the Land Ordinance, where the freedom of belief and of worship were implemented and defended, did not hold sway within the city walls. The religious struggle was being played out somewhat differently in the cities, where there was a different concept of co-existence and tolerance. When it came to the religious conditions in the cities, there were also great differences between Bohemia and Moravia. From the beginning of the struggle, what concerned the royal cities in Bohemia was the Basel Compacts, and then co-existence with the Utraquist nobility; they had already won political freedom for themselves in the time of the Hussite revolution, and participated in the royal Land privileges as a free Estate. The Bohemian royal cities were divided as early as the fifteenth century into Utraquist cities (most of the cities of Bohemia) and Roman Catholic cities (Pilsen, České Budějovice). Inside the city walls, with the exception of Prague, the unity of belief and worship of either Catholic or Utraquist inhabitants ruled in the main, and the sects had a very difficult life. The city could allow division in faith still less than the countryside. The inhabitants of the great Moravian royal cities remained Roman Catholic for the most part, until the beginning of the German and European Reformation. In the first half of the sixteenth century most (Jihlava, Znojmo) or a large part (Brno, Olomouc) of the inhabitants reformed, but they could not share in the religious freedoms of the Land. The cities were the property of the King; in Moravia they were not even considered to be fully-fledged political states

12 Robert J.W. Evans, Rudolf II and his World. A Study in Intellectual History 1575–1612 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). 194 válka and did not have any institutionalised ties to the Moravian Protestant nobility because Moravia did not have an Utraquist Land organisation. Ferdinand I had offered it to the Moravian Protestants but the Lutherans in the cities had refused it just as firmly as the Protestant nobility. The Roman Catholic Church held a good position and most of the church institutions, especially in Brno and Olomouc as well as the Olomouc bishop, stood fully behind the Catholics. The bishopric also exerted a claim to oversight over religious conditions in the whole Land and succeeded in spoiling every attempt at the legalisation of a Protestant Land confession in place of the Compacts (in which the Moravian Protestants were less interested than the Bohemian) and at the introduction of Protestant preachers to Brno, Olomouc and other cities. In the Moravian royal cities there was not even a trace of the co-existence and tolerance that reigned in the countryside and among the nobility. During the whole of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century there was a protracted contest about the freedom of the Protestant worship between most Protestant communities in the Moravian royal cities and the Roman Catholic Church administration supported by the bishop, capitulars and monasteries, Jesuits and Catholic vice-chamberlains.13 The cities led this struggle alone, without the help of the Protestant nobility and the institutions of the Land. Their isolation was so strong that at the beginning of the seventeenth century voices were heard saying that the Moravian cities should be declared imperial cities and obtain their religious freedoms this way. It was not until the eve of the uprising that elements of Protestant solidarity across the Estates appeared. This struggle lasted up until 1619 and the Catholic party was extremely successful in it.14 If, in the time before the Battle of the White Mountain, the Moravia of the Land Ordinance could be spoken of as the promised land of religious freedom, the situation in the royal cities was completely different. Before the Battle of the White Mountain, the Moravian cities were areas of unyielding religious struggle and a field of very active counter-Reformation.

13 Stanislav Zela, Náboženské poměry v Olomouci za biskupa Marka Kuena (1552–1565) (Olomouc: self published, 1931); Vladimír Burian, Vývoj náboženských poměrů v Brně 1570– 1618 (Brno: ÚNV zemského hlavního města Brna, 1948); Bohumil Navrátil, Biskupství olo- moucké 1576–1579 a volba Stanislava Pavlovského (Prague: Jubilejní fond Královské české společnosti nauk, 1909). 14 František Hrubý, “Luterství a kalvinismus na Moravě před Bílou horou,” ČČH (1935): 1–40, 237–268. Tolerance or Co-Existence? 195

This situation in the cities was amazingly unchanged even when Moravia joined in the rebellion against Rudolf’s government, and when in 1608–1615 Charles of Žerotín the Elder became Land hejtman.15

This man is still a mystery from many points of view. My opinion is that insofar as his church policy and concept of religion is concerned, he was ruled by two basic principles:

1) The principle that matters of belief and political matters and wars must never be connected. Žerotín was certainly an adherent to the Protestant faith but in matters of belief fundamentally refused to be in revolt against the ruler: “Up till now no one has convinced me that I can take up weapons against the ruler in religious matters, unless an old law or common law was involved somewhere,”16 he wrote in 1608, and explains the revolt of the Moravians and his share in it thus: “. . . when we took up weapons against the emperor we never pretended it was about a religious issue but rather maintained that it was about the breaking of laws.”17 It has to be added that after the Battle of the White Mountain, Žerotín, unlike all the other Protestants in the Bohemian Lands (and maybe the whole of Europe), did not consider it to be an intervention into matters of religion and belief to forbid the public pursuance of Protestant worship, for instance in the cities. That explains why he was so lax in the pursuance of Protestant services in the Moravian royal cities. His concept of faith and religion was “apolitical” and in this sense a century ahead of his time. 2) Žerotín then refutes the ideologization of religious denomination. The principle is admittedly modern, but one which demobilized the Estates and was, as it turned, out politically fatal in the time of the “religious wars” Žerotín tried—most consistently of Czech politicians—to maintain and renew the practice of religious co-existence, based on the func- tioning of Land Ordinance, freedom of the Estates, and the general consensus in religious matters which reigned in the sixteenth century. Therein lies the Don Quixote-style tragedy of his religious and political attitude. The only way to preserve the positive features of early times would have been to develop the particular elements of social reality from which they originated. This reality was the Estates and its democratisa- tion. Žerotín however was not an Estates democrat and did not have

15 Otakar Odložilík, Karel starší ze Žerotína 1564–1636 (Prague: Melantrich, 1936). 16 Karel starší ze Žerotína, Z korespondence, ed. Noemi Rejchrtová, 256. 17 Ibid., p. 256. 196 válka

much instinct for cooperation with that element of society which became the social bearer of modern religious co-existence and tolerance, the burgher community of the capitalist type. As the cases of the Netherlands and of England show, tolerance was battled for in Europe through the bonding of this social group with a radical reformation of the Calvinist type. However, Žerotín did not know how to introduce any other system of government than an oligarchy of the nobility, such as there had been in Moravia till that time. In this he was more conservative than the Bohemians, who established this cooperation, and his cousin Ladislav Velen who advocated the coalition of the Protestant nobility and the bourgeoisie (obviously of the old type) in Moravia after the May uprising of 1619.18

I would therefore correct the thesis about exemplary religious freedom and tolerance in Bohemia and Moravia in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain maybe as follows: in the Bohemian Lands the summit of co-existence blending into de facto tolerance occurs in the last quarter of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century. The unique legal authenti- cation of two confessions had a fruitful encounter with the development of Humanism in an Erasmian direction and resulted in the non-confessional Christianity of the noble aristocracy, the effective government in both Bohemia and Moravia. The impact of the German Reformation followed by the post- Tridentine Counter-Reformation and the principle of cuius regio, eius regio changed the religious climate in the Bohemian Lands. These were principles and currents foreign to the Czech tradition of co-existence, and transformed co-existence into a hard religious and ideological struggle. The advances of the Counter-Reformation can be explained only through the relinquishment of the Czech post-Hussite tradition, the Lutherization and Calvinization of Utraquism and unity, and Spanish intolerance, which put pressure on the Compact tradition of Czech Roman Catholicism. This is especially the case in Moravia, where before the uprising almost half the parishes were Catholic and where the administration of the church and the municipality in the two major cities (Brno and Olomouc) was Catholic. In this situation the Bohemian uprising appears as an act defending the Protestant Estates against the danger that their freedom and their status would be destroyed.

18 Josef Válka, “Morava ve stavovské konfederaci riku 1619 (Pokus o vytvoření paralelních církevních a politických struktur v Čech8ch a na Moravě),” Sborník prací filozofické fakulty brněnské university, C 34, 1987. CHAPTER 8 On a Case of Sexual Abuse and Rape of a Child before a City Court

Petr Kreuz

The study of crime records to explore social and political relationships is an active area of historical scholarship on the late Middle Ages and early modern period in England, France, Italy, and Germany. While court records are not as numerous and continuous for the Bohemian lands as in other countries, legal historians in Czechoslovakia and later the Czech Republic have systematically and critically analyzed laws and existing crime records to expand our knowledge of the lives of burghers and other city residents. In this article, Petr Kreuz examines cases of sexual abuse and rape of children before courts in Nymburk, Žatec, Mladý Boleslav, the Old City of Prague, and other Bohemian cities in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Kreuz notes that accusations are extremely rare. For example, one case appeared before the court of the Old City of Prague between 1479–1541, which curiously was an accusation against Brikcí Kouřímský of Licska (1488–1543), the compiler of one of the first urban law codes in Bohemia. The court finally decided that the four-year-old girl was the victim of a sexual crime; however, the fact that she had identified her attacker only as Master Brikcí, the judges did not see as a positive identification. Kreuz goes on to explore aspects of why Brikcí might have been accused and why he was let go. A copy of the trial is included as an appendix. Petr Kreuz is a legal historian and archivist at the Archive of the Capital City of Prague. He studied at the Department of Archival and Auxiliary Sciences of the Charles University of Prague. He is the author of Postavení a působnost komního soudi v soustavě českého zemského tresního soudnictví doby předbělhorské v letech 1526–1547 [Status and Role of the Chamber Court within the Estate Judicial System in the period before White Mountain 1526–1547] (Prague: Karolinum, 2000) and co-editor, along with Ivan Martinovský, of Vladislavské zřížení zemské a navažující prameny Edice [Edition of Vladislav Land Ordinance and Accompanying Sources] (Prague: Scriptorium, 2007).

Original Place of Publication and Permission: “K projednávání deliktu pohlavního zneužití a znásilnění dítětě před městským soudem předbělohorských Čechách (zároveň příspěvek k životpisu Mistra Brikcího Kouřímského z Licsa” [On Sexual Abuse and Rape of Children before City Courts in the Pre-White Mountain Period (And a Contribution to the life of Master Brikcí Kouřímský of Licsa)] in Nardi Aristae: Sborník k 70. Narozením Ivana Martinovského (Ůstí nad Labem: Albis, 2007), 33–55. This chapter appears by permission of the author and the publisher, Albis International.

The crime of sexual abuse or rape of a child (stuprum violentium infantis) was one of the sexual offences least frequently dealt with by Bohemian courts in the Early Modern period. In terms of the number of cases, this crime was less frequent not only than the most common sexual offences (and offences against marriage) fornication and adultery; it also lagged behind relatively infrequent offences that were more serious in nature, such as bigamy, incest, rape (of an adult), procuring (prostitution), abduction of another man’s wife, and sodomy—which took the form of bestiality (sexual practices with an animal) or homosexuality (sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex).1 Court records show that the number of cases involving the latter offences dealt with by Bohemian courts in the Early Modern period run to double figures; cases involving sexual abuse or rape of children are sporadic and isolated.2 The only type of sexual offence less commonly dealt with by the courts, and of at least equal gravity, is trans-sexuality.3

1 For the most recent study of this issue see Jindřich Francek: Zločin a sex v českých dějinách. Manželské spory a sexuální kriminalita v raném novověku (Prague: Rybka, 2000), especially 92–130. See also Karel Malý, Trestní právo v Čechách v 15.–16. století. 2nd edition (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1989), 231–246. 2 My research of sources has shown only one case involving the rape of a child; it happened in 1553 in the city of Nymburk, where a local burgher, a baker named Urban (Urbánek), was accused of raping and injuring a girl named Mandaléna. The result of the court case is not known—see Petr Kreuz, “Hrdelní soudnictví města Nymburka v době předbělohorské,”. Diploma thesis at the Department of Auxiliary Sciences of History and Archive Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, 1989, 126 and 369. 3 By this term I do not mean cases in which the perpetrators of various property-related crimes wore the clothes of, or otherwise pretended to be, members of the opposite sex; neither do I mean cases in which women masqueraded as men in order to perform exclusively male professions or in an attempt to gain higher social prestige. The term refers to a sexual crime On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 199

Despite its sporadic occurrence, the rape of a child (a girl who had not yet reached adulthood) was classified as an offence in its own right in article M. XXXIV of Koldín’s municipal legal code.4 While Koldín stipulated (in article M. XXXII) that the perpetrator of a ‘simple’ rape (i.e. the rape of an adult woman) was to be either beheaded with a sword or broken on a wheel,5 the preferred penalty for a man who raped a pre-adult girl was the more drastic of the two forms of execution: “. . . such an act should be punished by breaking on a wheel, or at least, by the sword”;6 the rape of a child was thus considered to be the more serious offence.7 A pre-adult girl was defined as a girl up to the age of 12.8 In this connection I deliberately leave to one side the question of how much the low number of court cases concerning sexual abuse or rape of children (in which the perpetrator was almost exclusively an adult man and the victim a girl) was influenced by the difficulty of proving this offence, on the one hand, and parents’ fears of the loss of honor by the victim, on the other hand; this loss of honor could affect the entire family.

Despite the above-mentioned infrequency of cases involving the sexual abuse and rape of children, study of an extensive body of verdicts by the municipal

(which was considered a form of sodomy) in which the perpetrator, on a long-term basis and evidently impelled by sexual motives, pretended to be a member of the opposite sex. The only case of trans-sexuality known to me in Early Modern Bohemia apparently took place in 1590 in the city of Mladá Boleslav, and is described in the Žatec chronicle—see Marie Tošnerová, ed. Paměti města Žatce (1527–1609) (Žatec: Regionální muzeum, 1996), 25–26. See also Francek: Zločin a sex, 69. In this case a girl, pretending to be a boy, married the orphaned daughter of her master and mistress after their death. The real identity of the ‘husband’ was discovered by the bride only several weeks after the marriage. The perpetrator was sentenced to death by being buried alive. This case is not described in Smolná kniha města Mladé Boleslavi z let 1584–1775 (Státní okresní archiv Praha—Státní okresní archiv Mladá Boleslav, collection ‘Archiv města Mladé Boleslavi’, sign. 958); unfortunately the records for the 1590s have not survived in their entirety. 4 Josef Jireček, ed. Codex juris bohemici. Tomi IV. pars III.: Monumenta juris municipalis. Sectio II., exhibens Mag. Pauli Christiani a Koldín Jus municipale regni Bohemiae una cum compendio ejusdem juris (Prague, 1876), 310. 5 Ibid., 309. 6 Ibid., 310. 7 See Malý, Trestní právo, 244–245; and Francek: Zločin a sex, 112–113. 8 See Malý, Trestní právo, 244. 200 kreuz court in Prague’s Old City between 1479 and 1611 (recorded in the Prague Old City’s books of sentences—libri sententiarum)9 has revealed one such case.10 The case dates from 1541 and would be remarkable in its own right purely due to the nature of the crime. However, it is even more interesting due to the detailed manner in which it was reported, covering a total of 9 pages (or 5 folios). However, the most remarkable feature of the case is the fact that the accused was one of the most prominent Prague citizens of the time, a former councilor of the unified cities of Prague, later the council scribe in Kutná Hora, and subsequently the scribe at the governors’ and cameral court of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Master Brikcí Kouřimský of Licsko (ca. 1488–November, 16, 1543). Brikcí is still known today, at least to students of history and law, as the author of a book on municipal law (1536), and—with justification—as one of the most important Czech lawyers of the Jagiellonian and pre-White Mountain era (alongside Viktorin Kornelius of Všehrdy, Pavel Kristián of Koldín and Albrecht Rendl of Oušava). In the autumn of 1541 Brikcí of Licsko was accused of having committed “a disgusting and sodomite act” against Mariana, the 4½ year-old daughter of his cook Dorota.

Although scholars (especially in the last third of the 19th century) have devoted considerable attention to the far from monotonous life of Master Brikcí of Licsko (reporting on several relatively unimportant disputes in which Brikcí became embroiled), the above-mentioned case from the autumn of 1541 has not yet been analyzed in detail in the literature.11 I do not feel the need to sus-

9 AMP manuscripts nos. 1128–1130, 2129, 990–991 and 1131–1141. 10 AMP, MS no. 1130, fol. 494v–498v (483v–487v)—see Appendix. 11 Especially Josef Jireček, “Životopis M. Brikcího z Licka,” M. Brikcího z Licka Práva městská, eds. Josef and Hermenegild Jireček (Prague: Právnická jednota, 1880), V–XXV; Jireček, Rukověť k dějinám literatury české do konce XVIII. věku, vol. I. (Prague: B. Tempský, 1875), 99–102; Hermenegild Jireček, Právnický život v Čechách a na Moravě (Praague and Brno: Self-published, 1903), 330–338; Jaromír Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu mistra Brikcího z Licska,” ČČM 54 (1880): 489–502; Čelakovský, “O právech městských m. Brikcího z Licska a o poměru jich k starším sbírkám právním,” ČČM 54 (1880): 721–736, 757–774, 794– 808 and 829–837. Čelakovský, “Pohnutky M. Brikcího při vydávání “Práv městských z r. 1536 tiskem,” Právník 20 (1881) 145–153 and 181–188 Čelakovský, “Brikcí z Licska,” Ottův slovník naučný, IV (Prague: Otto, 1891),. 680–681; Antonín Rezek, “Dodatky a opravy k bio- grafiím starších spisovatelů českých”, ČČM 52 (1878): 154–162, especialy 158–159; Josef Vítězslav Šimák, “Drobné příspěvky,” ČČM 89 (1915): 77–81, esp. 81; Josef Janáček, “Nově nalezený právní sborník M. Brikcího z Licka,” ČsČH 5 (1957): 136–139; Rukověť humanis- tického básnictví v Čechách a na Moravě, vol. 3 (Prague: Academie, 1969), 161–162; Josef On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 201 pect Jaromír Čelakovský and especially Josef Jireček, who were the most thorough and systematic scholars of Brikcí, of omitting this case because it did not fit into their description of Brikcí’s turbulent life, and so I must trust that this event, from the last years of Brikcí’s life, genuinely escaped their attention.

Master Brikcí Kouřimský (later of Licsko) was born around 1488 to a burgher family in the royal city of Kouřim as the son of the draper Jiřík and his wife Marie. It was probably in 1506 that he began his studies at Prague University, where he was awarded his baccalaureate in September 1508. The rank of ‘Master’ was awarded to him in April 1513, after which he began to lecture at the university. In 1515 or 1516 he left the university and took up the office of the council scribe of Prague’s New City. Around this time he married Anna, the widow of Jan, a son of Ondřej from Prague’s Horse Market. Brikcí came into considerable wealth through this marriage, and bought a house on the Horse Market. After the Old and New Cities of Prague were merged in September 1518 he relinquished the office of scribe, and was elected to the 18-strong municipal council of the unified cities of Prague as a representative of the New City.12 Brikcí served as a councilor for just under six years. He was removed from his post on August 9, 1524 (while also serving as Burgomaster) after a coup by Jan Pašek of Vrat, when the last four representatives of the Lutheran group of Prague councilors (led by Jan Hlavsa of Liboslav) were removed from the council and arrested at the Old City Hall.13 Brikcí was not only a supporter of Hlavsa; he was also his son-in-law, as he had just married for a second time, taking as his wife Hlavsa’s daughter Catherine.14 After his arrest, Brikcí and the other members of the pro-Hlavsa faction were imprisoned for six months and eventually banished from Prague in February 1525. Brikcí had to leave Prague in early March. He settled in Kutná Hora, where he was made a burgher in 1527. Brikcí’s first job in Kutná Hora was as a court orator. He did not accept the post

Hejnic, “K latinské literární činnosti M. Brikcího z Licka,” Zprávy Jednoty klasických filologů 9 (1967): 5–10. After submitting this paper for print my attention was drawn to the fact that the 1541 record from the Old City book of court verdicts (AMP, MS no. 1130), which forms the Appendix to this paper, had been published in extenso but without any commentary by Josef Teige, Základy starého místopisu Pražského (1437–1620), Oddíl I, Díl II (Prague: Obec královského hlavního města Prahy, 1915), 21–24. (For this information I thank my friend Dr. Jiří Francek.) 12 See esp. Jireček, “Životopis,” pp. V–VIII; Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu,” 490–192. Also see the previous footnote. 13 Jireček, “Životopis,” VIII–IX; Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu,” 492; Václav Ledvinka and Jiří Pešek, Praha (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2000), 286. 14 Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu,” 492; Antonín Rezek, “Dodatky a opravy,” 158. 202 kreuz of the third council scribe until October 1529, on condition that he would not be elected to the city council.15 During his time in Kutná Hora, Brikcí experienced a major personal setback when his wife Catherine eloped with an ennobled burgher of Kutná Hora, Petr Škrovad of Vrbice, taking with her all of his money and other valuables. Škrovad was at the time married to Apolona, the daughter of Bartoš of Práchňany and the sister of Mikuláš of Práchňany, whom he had also previously ‘abducted’, marrying her in Čáslav in 1519 against her family’s will.16 For four years Brikcí negotiated the return of his wife with Škrovad, before bringing the matter before the (probably provincial) court in the autumn of 1532.17 King Ferdinand I became personally involved in the dispute on at least three occasions (November 1532, May 1533 and August 1536).18 As far as the result of the dispute is concerned, the only information known from a document of Ferdinand I dated August 19, 1536 is that Škrovad was sentenced by the provincial court to torture for unspecified offences (“unchristian acts”), and the provincial court was to decide whether to impose the death penalty. These offences certainly included the abduction of Brikcí’s wife and the theft of a large part of his property, as the King—in the same document—ordered the municipal council of Prague’s Old City to return Brikcí’s wife and property to him, as the wife and property were currently in the care of the court.19 When Ferdinand I removed Jan Pašek from his post and annulled the unification of the Old and New City in September 1528, Brikcí was able to return to Prague, though the dispute between the Hlavsa and Pašek factions was not con- tractually settled until May 1532.20 In the late 1520s Brikcí became close to the Vice-Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia, a close confidant of Ferdinand I, Jiřík Žabka of Limberk. In 1529 he was ennobled and was able to use the pred- icate ‘of Licsko’ (‘z Licska’).21 He relinquished the office of council scribe in Kutná Hora in November 1531 and returned to Prague that same year.22

15 Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu,” 493. 16 Ibid.; Rezek, “Dodatky a opravy,” 158; Jireček, “Životopis,” X. 17 Rezek, “Dodatky a opravy,” 158; J.V. Šimák, “Drobné příspěvky,” 81. 18 Šimák, “Drobné příspěvky,” 81. 19 Ibid.; Rezek, “Dodatky a opravy,” 158. The record of the hearing at the Prague Old City municipal court (see Appendix) nevertheless contains no mention of Brikcí’s wife, which leads to the conclusion that in the autumn of 1541 he was not married or his wife was not living with him. 20 See for details Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu,” 496–500. 21 Jireček, “Životopis,” XI–XII. 22 Čelakovský, “Příspěvky k životopisu,” 494–495. On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 203

After his return to the capital, Brikcí became the scribe at the court of the highest governors of the Bohemian Kingdom (the governors’ court). On May 8, 1536 he was granted burgher’s rights in the Old City, and on the same day he bought a house on the corner of Platnéřská street and an area of open land called Na louži; he owned the house until his death.23 When the governors’ court was disbanded in 1534 (to be more precise, it was merged with the cameral court),24 Brikcí became the scribe at the cameral court, filling a vacancy left by the death of Václav Trčka of Vítěnec.25 He worked in this capacity for several years. In the 1530s the cameral court dealt with two cases concerning violent conflicts in which Brikcí was personally involved. In late 1533, Brikcí filed a complaint against the knight Jan Mičan of Klinštejn and Roztoky, claiming that the knight had physically assaulted him on the square in Prague’s Malá Strana (Small Side). In 1537 a complaint was filed against him by one Barbora Kantorová, who accused him of having beaten her without reason.26 From the 1530s onwards, Brikcí also became a prolific writer. Besides his best-known work—Municipal Law, printed in 1536 in Litomyšl—he also authored a valuable and much-used directory of the Bohemian nobility (1534, dedicated to Jiřík Žabka), the first printed publication of its type in the Czech language. His preface to the chronicle by Václav Hájek of Libočany (1541) is also worthy of mention. Brikcí also compiled a Czech-Latin collection of legal say- ings and quotes about justice, which was first published in 1540 in Prague and appeared twice more posthumously in Olomouc in 1558 and 1563.27 He was also the author of at least two occasional poems in Latin.28 Brikcí spent approximately the last four years of his life partly in Čáslav. He died on 16 November 1543, probably at his house at Na louži in Prague’s Old City.29

23 Ibid., 500; Jireček, “Životopis,” esp. p. XVIII; Teige, “Základy starého místopisu,” 21. 24 Petr Kreuz, Postavení a působnost komorního soudu v soustavě českého zemského trestního soudnictví doby předbělohorské v letech 1526–1547 (Prague: Karolinum, 2000), esp. 94–95. 25 Šimák, “Drobné příspěvky,” 81. 26 Rezek, “Dodatky a opravy,” 158–159. 27 For details of Brikcí’s literary production see esp. Jireček, Životopis, XII–XXII; Jireček, Rukověť k dějinám literatury české; Čelakovský, “Pohnutky;” Rukoveť humanistického bás- nictví 3; Hejnic, “K latinské literární činnosti.” 28 Hejnic, “K latinské literární činnosti.” 29 See especially Jireček, “Životopis,” XXII–XXIII. See also František Wenig, “Dodatky a opravy k biografiím starších spisovatelů českých a k starší české bibliografii,” ČČM 55 (1881): 535–537, esp. 537–558. 204 kreuz

The case dealt with here, from the autumn of 1541,30 thus dates from the final years of Brikcí’s life. The formal plaintiff in the case was his cook Dorota, but the complaint itself was submitted by the Prague burgher Jeroným Božický of Božice,31 who represented the plaintiff throughout the proceedings. The accusation was that Brikcí had, in the absence of the cook Dorota, committed “a disgusting and vile act of sodomy” against her daughter Mariana, who was four and a half years old—in other words, he had either sexually abused or raped the child. Dorota apparently did not discover what had happened until the following day, when she found that her daughter’s clothes were dirty (blood? semen?) and that her “lap” was swollen. Asked by her mother what had happened, the daughter allegedly replied that Brikcí had put her on a table and poked his fingers into her sexual organ. Word of what had happened probably reached Jeroným Božický three days after the event; acting on behalf of Dorota, he submitted a complaint against Brikcí to the municipal court of Prague’s Old City. Brikcí of Licsko vehemently denied the dangerous and lurid accusations from the outset. He declared that the child was an entirely unreliable witness, and cast doubt on the circumstantial evidence that had been submitted. He also expressed the suspicion that the complaint had been made purely out of “envy and malice”, as he was not prepared to retain Dorota in his service any longer “due to several thefts”. Brikcí emphasized his unblemished record and pointed out that the witness lacked veracity, as she was a person “of loose morals”, an unmarried mother, and that her child had been born out of wedlock and was “a product of pleasure”. Jeroným Božický replied by emphasizing that the complaint had been brought not out of hostility toward Brikcí, but out of pity for the child, which had been the victim of “a shameful act”. Božický also pointed out the existence of circumstantial evidence, and stated that Brikcí had evidently concealed certain potential pieces of evidence (a sheet) from the vogt, or had tampered with the evidence. Above all, Božický emphasized that Mariana was beyond all doubt the victim of the crime investigated by the court; this was confirmed by a report written “by honourable, trustworthy female persons qualified to do

30 See Appendix. 31 I was unable to find more information on Jeroným Božický of Božice. From the late 1540s a certain Jeroným Bozický (possibly the same person) was one of the Moravian friends of the Klatovy humanist Šimon Ennius (see Rukoveť humanistického básnictví v Čechách a na Moravě, 2. díl (Prague: Academia, 1966), 103—however this publication has no separate entry on Božický). Teige, Základy starého místopisu, 21–24, gives the name as Božický, the same orthography as in the source. On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 205 so”, who had examined the child. Božický also categorically rejected Brikcí’s argument that the mother was of loose morals and thus dishonorable (as was therefore also her child). His statement in this regard was somewhat emotive, yet it was surprisingly enlightened, and it displays a belief in natural justice: “no child, however it may have come into the world, deserves violence and sodomy and shame . . . For often bad parents have good children, and good parents bad children”; in other words, no child, not even if born out of wedlock, should be subjected to crimes such as these with impunity. Božický also reported that Master Brikcí had come to his house after the complaint had been filed, and had attempted to persuade him not to pursue the matter through the court, in order that the case should not become public knowledge; Božický stated that this behaviour had surprised him, as it should have been in Brikcí’s interest to appear before the court and clear his name. In addition, Brikcí allegedly sent for Dorota several times after the child had been examined, but she refused to see him. Brikcí’s reaction was to dismiss the entire case as a malicious plot, stating that “the entire case must be a conspiracy against him”. He also vehemently protested against the fact that he, as a person of unblemished record, facing a charge brought by a “person of loose morals”, should have take an oath of innocence before the court. He also pointed out that the claim had not been proved, as the court only had at its disposal the statement of the child (i.e. Mariana) and one “person of loose morals” (i.e. Dorota). He referred to the principle of Roman law Actore non probante reus absoluitur (Codex Iustinianus 4, 19, 23)32 and asked the court to acquit him fully in view of the overall lack of evidence. He underlined this categorical demand with the statement: Quod iudex secundum allegata probata iudicare debet.33 Brikcí also pointed out that the provisions of the provincial code dealing with the protection of widows—which was being cited by Božický—applied only to “honorable and unblemished women”. He noted that the child could have received its “injury” at an earlier date and at a different place than in his home, for example when walking alone in the street, playing with other children or carrying wood.

32 Jaromír Kincl, Dicta et regulae iuris aneb právnické mudrosloví latinské (Prague: Karolinum, 1990), 37. See also Karol Rebro, Latinské právnické výrazy a výroky (Bratislava. Obzor, 1986), 27. 33 The author of an analogous statement, Iudicis est iudicare secundum allegata et probata partium, is the French representative of humanistic jurisprudence Dionysius Gothofredus (Denis Godefroy) (1549–1622)—see Jaromír Kincl, Dicta et regulae, 136; Karol Rebro, Latinské právnické výrazy, 143; Michael Stolleis, ed., Juristen. Ein biographisches Lexikon. Von der Antike bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1995), 240. 206 kreuz

Božický’s reply invoked several earlier judgments (evidently some from the Old City municipal court and others from the provincial or cameral court), and underlined once more the exceptional gravity of the crime, which had clearly been committed by someone. Brikcí then proceeded to cast doubt on the relevance of most of the judgments cited by Božický. He again vehemently denied the allegations and asked the court to acquit him, clear his name and assert his honor. He also demanded that the plaintiff be punished for her false accusation. In its judgment of November 17, 1541, the municipal court of the Old City came to the unambiguous decision that Mariana, the daughter of the plaintiff, had indeed been the victim of the crime in question, and that as she had always claimed that Master Brikcí was the perpetrator, and as Brikcí could not prove that she was not in his home at the time in question, the court ordered Brikcí to swear an oath of innocence to the court within two Sundays, or face sanction. On December 15, 1541, Jeroným Božický, acting for the plaintiff, exempted Brikcí from this duty to swear an oath of innocence.

It is very difficult to answer the question whether Brikcí of Licsko actually committed the crime in question in any form, or whether the accusation was a false one, or whether there was indeed a conspiracy against him. The potential evidence for Brikcí’s guilt is clear, and is recorded in the court report (which in some parts is rather suggestive in its in tone).34 The evidence against Brikcí consisted of the statements given by the plaintiff (the cook Dorota) and the victim herself (her daughter Mariana). That the girl had been a victim of sexual abuse or rape was proved beyond all doubt by four women of unquestioned veracity (named in the judgment), who had examined Mariana. The act had very probably taken place in Brikcí’s house in the absence of the child’s mother. Furthermore, Božický had accused Brikcí of having tampered with potential evidence before it could be taken away and examined by the vogt and his men. Looking at Brikcí’s personal life (especially his marriage), the possibility cannot be discounted that he was somewhat sexually frustrated, or even deprived. He first married at the age of about 28; his bride was a rich widow who was probably older than him. It is not known how many years separated them, but she may have been considerably older. His second marriage, when

34 In this connection it is a pity that the Old City books of witness statements have not been preserved for the period 1527–1564; see by Jiří Čarek et al., Městské a jiné úřední knihy Archivu hlavního města Prahy (Přehled) (Prague: AMP, 1954), 50. On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 207 he was in his thirties, was with Catherine, the daughter of Jan Hlavsa, leader of the Lutheran faction in the council of the united Prague cities and a former royal court judge—one of the most prominent burghers of Prague. Although Brikcí’s second bride was undoubtedly younger than him, the motivation for the match may have been highly pragmatic. Moreover, Catherine ran away from Brikcí after just a few years of marriage, absconding with his money and property, and did not return to him until eight years later (involuntarily). There is no mention at all in the court report of Brikcí’s wife, yet it is clear from the text that he had employed the cook himself, so it is likely that at the time of the dispute, in the autumn of 1541, Brikcí was unmarried or his wife was not living with him.35 Both marriages were evidently childless, as there are no records of any offspring. On the other hand, I do not consider it possible to interpret Brikcí’s later long-term stays in Čáslav in the last years of his life as a consequence of the case; it is clear that the case was effectively dealt with at the Old City court and did not grow into a public scandal. Additionally, it remains a moot point whether even the most intense sexual frustration could have driven Brikcí (who was over fifty years old at the time) to commit such an act, especially against a person whom he considered to be dishonorable. In my view, only two pieces of circumstantial evidence support Brikcí’s claim of a conspiracy against him: The first, paradoxically, can be found in the evidence given by Jeroným Božický himself; Božický claims that he was a guarantor “for Škrovad”—i.e. Petr Škrovad of Vrbice, with whom Brikcí’s second wife eloped and with whom Brikcí was involved in a long drawn-out dispute. It can clearly be deduced from Božický’s statement that Škrovad was in breach of the conditions guaranteed by Božický, and that Brikcí could thus demand recompense (probably in the form of money) from Božický. Given this situation, relations between Brikcí and Božický had clearly been tense for quite some time. It is possible that Božický’s quick decision generously to release Brikcí from his duty to swear an oath of innocence was in fact motivated by the fact that Božický had not achieved his aim in submitting the complaint—that is, to destroy, dishonor, or at least damage the interests of Brikcí—and that he eventually settled for a form of unofficial financial compensation. Secondly, it cannot be overlooked that Brikcí evidently had many enemies in Prague. The first, and probably the most dangerous, group of enemies was formed during the dispute within the council of the joint cities, between the factions supporting Jan Pašek and Jan Hlavsa. This dispute culminated in 1525 in the entirely unprecedented expulsion of Hlavsa and his main supporters

35 See also footnote 17 above. 208 kreuz

(including Brikcí) from Prague. However, just a few years later the accession of a new king led to the removal of Pašek from his post, enabling the gradual return of those who had been expelled. Their return was evidently followed by long and complex negotiations to settle the dispute between the two groups; this settlement was only achieved in 1532 through a series of contractual (“ami- cable”) agreements evidently brokered and imposed with the involvement of the king himself. Of course, such agreements could not remove all animosities or right all wrongs, whether real or perceived. In addition, Brikcí’s legal text (Municipal Law), published in 1536 and originally dedicated to the council of Prague’s Old City, was very negatively received in the city, attracting many objections. This led Brikcí to attribute his work to King Ferdinand I instead. In the view of J. Čelakovský, Brikcí, by presenting in his work a translation of a legal text by the Brno scribe Jan as the law of the Prague Old City, was attempting to achieve not only a unification and codification of municipal law in Bohemia, but also to strengthen the king’s power.36 It is therefore necessary to ask the question whether Brikcí of Licsko, as the scribe of the Old City cameral court, may have been viewed with suspicion in Prague’s Old City due to his attempts to strengthen royal power at the expense of municipal power; in other words, as a person who acted and spoke publicly against the interests of the municipal corporation. It is also a matter for consideration whether Brikcí’s case may be supported by the fact that the entire case—a matter of considerable gravity—was dealt with by the Old City court without major publicity; in fact, the case was so low- profile that it has escaped the attention of most scholars to this day. Whether this is true or not, it speaks against Brikcí’s conspiracy theory, as Božický did indeed comply with at least part of Brikcí’s request—“that the accusation should not be spoken of widely and word of it not be spread among the people”. Božický would surely not have acted in this manner if his main goal had been to cause a public scandal and impeach Brikcí’s honor. (On the other hand, Božický was uncompromising in his insistence that the case be heard by the Old City court, meaning that it would inevitably become public knowledge.) It would be interesting to ask how a similar case, given a similar evidentiary situation, would be dealt with by a present-day Czech court acting on the basis of current criminal legislation. The court would have at its disposal one (not particularly reliable) piece of direct evidence—the statement of the witness. It would also have taken into account several pieces of circumstantial evidence (the presence of the victim and the accused in the house at the time when the crime was committed, and the probable tampering with potential items of

36 Čelakovský, “Pohnutky M. Brikcího.” On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 209 evidence). In such a situation, a court today would probably have ordered the victim to be examined by an expert witness or witnesses (psychologists or psychiatrists),37 and the court would have taken the experts’ report into account when ruling on the guilt or innocence of the accused.38 In the case of Brikcí, the role of psychologist was taken over by the court, which declared the statement against Brikcí to be reliable, on the grounds that the victim did not change her statement (“. . . the child, before the court and elsewhere, accused Master Brikcí, the owner of the house, of this act”). In conclusion, it would perhaps be possible to express the following opinion: it is probable that some incident (evidently involving some form of sexual abuse or even rape) did indeed occur between Brikcí of Licsko and Mariana, the daughter of the cook Dorota, in Brikcí’s house. Dorota evidently did not submit a complaint against Brikcí to the municipal court, nor did she report the incident to the municipal vogt. Nevertheless, the case came to light three days after the incident (which evidently occurred on a Thursday afternoon, as Dorota discovered her daughter’s injuries on the Friday morning and Božický found out about the matter on Sunday “after lunch”). Dorota took her daughter and left Brikcí’s house (according to Brikcí’s statement this was not until the Sunday), and informed Jeroným Božický (possibly merely taking advantage of Božický’s interest in her case). Božický, who was certainly no friend of Brikcí, immediately submitted a complaint on Dorota’s behalf to the municipal court of the Prague Old City, and ensured that the necessary investigations were undertaken. Whether he did this purely out of pity for the victim, as he claimed before the court, is highly debatable . . .

37 The earliest involvement of psychiatrists as experts in criminal proceedings—including their status after the introduction of direct evaluation of evidence by judges, and also indirectly several general issues connected with the relation between and role of judges and psychiatrists and the role of expert witnesses in criminal proceedings—are dealt with in an interesting study by Ylwy Greve, “Richter und Sachverständige. Der Kompetenz über die Beurteilung des Unzurechnungsfähigkeit im Strafprozeß des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Kriminalität und Abweichendes Verhalten. Deutschland im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, eds. Helmut Berding, Diethelm Klippel, Günther Lottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 69–104. 38 The criminal offence of sexual abuse is covered by Section 242 of the Czech Republic’s Penal Code (Act no. 140/1961 Sb. as subsequently amended); rape of women under 15 years of age is covered by Section 241, Subsection 2c) of the Penal Code. For information on this point I thank my sister Lenka Kreuzová, an internal doctoral student at the Institute of Czech History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague, and also the staff of the Prague law office of Dr. Jiří Taišl. 210 kreuz

Appendix

AMP, manuscript no. 1130, fol. 494v-498v (483v-487v)

November 17, 1541 (15 December 15, 1541)

A written accusation was brought by Hieroným [fol. 495r] Božický z Božic, and then a personal verbal application was made to the Burgomaster and the lords of the court, concerning Mariana, a girl of four and a half years of age, the daughter of Dorota, former cook to Master Brikcí, to the effect that a disgusting and sodomite act has been committed against the girl. The girl, standing before the court, made this accusation against Master Brikcí. The following statements were presented to the lords of the court regarding this shameful act:

As Mariana is a young girl and does not yet possess the reason of an adult, her mother exercised her duty and right to bring this complaint to the court on her behalf. Representing Dorota and speaking on her behalf, Hieroným Božický described to the court how Dorota was engaged as a cook by Master Brikcí for one week, and how two weeks ago, on the orders of the Master, who was her employer at the time, she left her child in the house and went to the river to wash clothes. When she returned to the house, the girl ran to her crying that she was in pain. At the time she took little notice; she went home and, assum- ing that the child was crying from hunger, she gave her a piece of bread and put her to bed. On the following morning, when she woke the child and was getting her out of bed, she saw a dirty, unpleasant stain on her clothes, and saw that the child’s lap was so swollen and bruised that she could not even walk. Seeing this, she was most surprised, and asked the child what had happened: the child replied that Master Brikcí had taken her and put her on a table and had poked his fingers into the place that was swollen. Her mother was filled with an abominable [sic!] pity. She was not permitted to tell anybody else about it, but she arranged for somebody to take her place in Brikcí’s house, then left immediately and refused to stay in his house any longer. As she was acquainted with the servants in the house of Jeroným Božický, on Sunday she reported to Božický everything that had happened to the child. When Božický learned of the incident, he immediately wrote to the court and is now standing before the court on behalf of the mother and her child, in order for this disgusting and vile act of sodomy against the Lord God and human nature to be investigated and then justly dealt with according to the law. On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 211

Master Brikcí of Licsko, the accused, replied through his representative that this serious accusation brought against him, which is more in the manner of gossip than certain facts, is lacking in reasonable proofs and is also against the principles of law, as everything is based merely on the statement of the child, and it is well known how well a child’s statement can be believed, as a child could give a different statement if so instructed or if given a small reward. However, given that this grave accusation brings his honor and his life into danger, [fol. 495v] he states that he committed none of the acts against the child that are attributed to him, and that he denies the accusations. The plaintiff, the mother of the child, had been employed in his house for a week, and due to several thefts he had informed her that he was releasing her from his employment, and she had then resolved to take revenge on him in this way. However, according to legal procedure, if such a thing had happened to the child, she should have reported it immediately without delay, or at least informed him, as her employer. And if the incident had indeed happened, the stain should have been on the girl’s undershirt rather than on the sheet, as the plaintiff claims. As the scene was inspected on her request and with the permission of the Burgomaster by the vogt and his men, who took the sheet from the bed, undoubtedly their findings will be reported to the Burgomaster and the court. The only other explanation is that this case, which is against all reason and conscience, is being pursued against the accused through the plaintiff, by somebody bearing envy and malice against the accused. The accused swears to the Lord God and on his conscience that he knows nothing of it and is entirely innocent, and that whoever is behind the dishonorable accusation could easily have pursued his goals in another manner. But he Master Brikcí has always, when holding high offices in this city, conducted himself in an honorable manner, as befits a good and honorable man. And this accusation against him is untrue, unnecessary, groundless and based more on malice than on truth. According to the law it is clear that De actionibus criminum et malefi- ciorum, quod sit considerandum, qualis sit persona actoris et rei and thus in such cases it should be taken into account who is accusing and who is accused. Because the accusing party is unmarried and a person of loose morals, and her child was a product of pleasure, whereas he is of unblemished character, the accused requested that the Burgomaster and the lords of the court give no credence to the accusation, but instead acquit him as innocent. The plaintiff replied as follows: Although the accused claims that the accusation is mere gossip and that the act should have been immediately reported, it is clear that this woman, as a servant of the accused, was not able to act in this way against her master or to entrust the task to another; and lacking knowledge of these matters, although she should have behaved differently 212 kreuz from a legal point of view, she was unaware of this fact and therefore she did not behave differently. Jeroným Božický first found out about the incident [fol. 496r], according to his statement, when on Sunday after lunch the woman, who was acquainted with his cook, came to his house with her child and notified his cook of the matter. And he, sitting in a chair in his chamber, in ill health and unable to walk, heard his cook speaking of the matter, called her and, wishing to know the truth, instructed her to uncover the child. And when the child was uncovered, he saw her shameful swelling. And, in great pity, he asked the child how she had injured herself in this way. The child answered that she had not injured herself, but that Master Brikcí had done it to her. Moved by pity, he wrote to the Burgomaster and the lords of the court and notified them of the matter, in such a delicate manner that the letter made no mention of the names of those involved. Although Master Brikcí claims that the accusation against him was made out of malice and enmity, and that Božický was allegedly attempting to acquire his property, Božický claims as God is his witness that he bears no enmity towards the accused, and that he has no reason to act in such a way against him, nor has he never done so. And therefore he brought the case not out of enmity, but out of pure pity due to such a shameful act committed against the child; that was the reason why he wrote to the court and took on the case. Božický stated that if he had judged or known that the woman was taking this action against him on behalf of another party, as the accused claims, he would never have helped her in any way, nor would he have taken on her case. As far as the girl’s clothing is concerned, which would have borne some marks etc., he states that in view of the vile and obscene nature of this act, nothing at all was concealed. The vogt found only the blanket, and with no doubt as to what he saw upon it, he made his report; however, the sheet on which the child had lain was not found. As the Master clearly does not lack intelligence, he saw what would happen and decided to conceal the sheet, so that the sheet which was brought by the vogt and had been on the bed was not the one on which the child had lain, but was the Master’s own sheet—it was embroidered, quite tattered [sic!] and creased, and had been moved from another place. And because the child was examined by honorable, trustworthy female persons qualified to do so, who found that the act had indeed been committed and made their report to this effect, and because he [Brikcí] had been alone with the child in the house, it is his legal duty to show what happened to the child on that day to cause the shameful swellings. For the child stated that he only let her go when she began crying. Božický apologized and said that he would like to retain a certain reticence in his language, but that the case could not be pursued and spoken of in any other way, and so he asked the Burgomaster and the lords of the court not to hold this against him, and to On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 213 believe what he reported in simple words. Responding to the allegation that the person and thus her child were of loose morals, he stated that no child, however it may have come into the world, deserves violence and sodomy and shame, and so she should not have been violated. For often bad parents have good children, and good parents bad children. He would also like to state that he has held office and has behaved with honor, and that thus in this dispute his word cannot be doubted. And that a widow, if without means or witnesses, is subject to the protection of the provincial code. Additionally, Božický stated that Master Brikcí came to his house three times one day and found him sitting in the chair in the chamber to which the child had previously been brought, and that he said to him: “I do not know what your purpose was in writing about me to the Burgomaster and the lords of the court in connection with this act of which I am accused, but I am not guilty in the slightest.” The reply was that whosoever had committed this act would not escape God’s revenge. He [Brikcí] did not reply immediately, but eventually referred to Božický’s debt to him in his capacity as guarantor for Škrovad. When Božický replied to this, Brikcí had no reply but a few incoherent words. He admitted to nothing, yet he asked Božický to ensure that the accusation should not be spoken of widely and word of it not be spread among the people, and that the woman be persuaded to drop her accusations against him. However he was informed that such a course of action would not be possible, as the case had already been submitted to the Burgomaster and the lords of the court. Master Brikcí replied: “It would be possible if she did not take the witness stand.” However, the Master, faced with such a serious allegation against him, should in fact welcome the opportunity to prove his innocence before the court. He [Brikcí] sent for the woman several times to have the child examined, but she refused to see him or have any other dealings with him. Replying to her claim that, being in the service of the Master, she was not permitted to notify anybody of the event, the Master replied that even though she was in his service, due to the gravity of the matter she should nevertheless have reported the incident at the time, as nobody is in anybody else’s service as far as the soul is concerned. Additionally, as her period of service was terminated on the Friday, she was no longer in his service, yet she remained at his house as requested until the Sunday, when she spread the malicious rumors about him. [fol. 497r] He added that the entire case must be a conspiracy against him, that the accusation is against human reason and legal process, and it cannot be believed that he would commit such an act among his neighbors, so the injury must have happened before the child came to his house. He denied that the act had happened in his house. He had already engaged the services of a different cook, because seeing what kind of a person the woman was, he did not 214 kreuz want to employ her for a long time. And when he sent her away, she took her revenge on him through this conspiracy. Nothing from the bed or the clothes had been moved or changed, and the Master had touched nothing whatsoever. All the accusations against him, baseless and arising from mere speculation, were intended to force him to swear an oath of innocence. Because it would be seriously detrimental to persons of good character and with unblemished records if they had to swear their innocence on the basis of any accusations raised by a person of loose morals, and such cases would be frequent in these cities, he requested that the court not impose this burden on him. In response to the statement that it is his legal duty to show who was guilty of the act, he replied that this was not his duty, and that it is against legal principles for him to have to do so given that nothing has been proved against him. He stated that the law is clear on this matter: Actore non probante reus absoluitur in re criminali. It is important that people retain their good name and are not over- whelmed by those of no merit. He stated that the female persons who carried out the examination of the girl could not rightly claim that Master Brikcí was guilty of the act. As to the provisions of the provincial code for the protection of widows, Brikcí stated that these provisions applied only to honorable and unblemished women, which was far from the reality in this case. He stated that it is against all reason for an oath of innocence to have to be sworn on the basis of evidence solely given by a child and a person of loose morals. He added that the injury could have happened when the child was in the streets, playing with other children, or carrying wood, or the injury could have happened elsewhere. In such a case there was no harm in the Master going to visit Jeroným Božický, nor could there be, because he, knowing that a complaint had been made concerning him, went to Božický to find out more information about the matter, because as Božický himself had stated, Brikcí [fol. 497v] admitted to nothing and requested nothing. He concluded his speech by stating that his honor had been gravely impeached, yet nothing had been proved against him, and that as the law states Quod iudex secundum allegata probata iudicare debet, he requested on his honor that justice be done in the matter. The plaintiff replied that it is better that each defendant be represented by a counsel than that that he defend himself. He admitted to the Burgomaster and the lords that he had once gone against this principle and defended himself, and that his manner of speech had thereby become widely known. He stated that a similar case had occurred in the New City of Prague when a woman accused a man of doing her harm—although the man proved his innocence with the help of many witnesses—and the act had been committed half a year previously. The court found that as she had been his wife, she had not been able to report the alleged incident during that period. Concerning the conten- On a Case of Sexual Abuse & Rape of a Child before a City Court 215 tion that Brikcí removed the sheets, it is not possible to give credence to his simple words, as according to the law this must be proved by oath. A similar case occurred between the butcher Měčín and Piram Kapoun; a simple written statement was insufficient, and the party in question was required to swear an oath. The same happened to Bernart Knobloch in the case against Razický, who had also to swear an oath. The act in the current case is so shameful that it can only be denied to God himself. And yet Brikcí is not willing to take an oath, but is against it. At the very least the Burgomaster and the lords of the court should rule that justice be done in this manner. The plaintiff also referred to the case of Amcha who was accused of murder, who stated where he had been on that day and what he was doing, and yet he was required to take an oath; the same applied to Pětipeský, who stated that Amcha had not been there, however Amcha had to swear an oath and the other party had to swear likewise. The plaintiff concluded by stating that the case did not concern a person of reason, but a child—who, as the law recognizes, could not defend herself. He stated that it was unlikely that the child had been instructed to give this statement, because she stands by her original statement, and people, if they are instructed [fol. 498r] to say particular things, often make mistakes and change their statements. The plaintiff then requested, given the gravity of the sodomite act and the obvious effects that it had had on the child, that the Burgomaster and the lords extend just protection to the child according to the law. Master Brikcí replied as follows: although the plaintiff claims that his [Brikcí’s] word should not be believed, he states that he is more credible than the plaintiff, and as he is a good man with an unblemished record, he speaks according to his own conscience. As far as the alleged removal of the sheets is concerned, and the matter of the oath: as no evidence has been presented against him, he is not duty bound to prove anything, nor to take an oath. As far as the previous judgments cited by the plaintiff are concerned, they are irrelevant to this case: between Měčín and Kapoun the case concerned property which he had in his possession and with which he had been seen, and for this reason he had to swear an oath. Amcha had insufficient evidence in his defense, and enough evidence against him to show that he, at a pond, fired a shot and the servants stopped him running there, and he was thus required to swear an oath. Concluding his defense, Brikcí stated that according to the law, if somebody accuses another person of an act but the defendant’s guilt is not proved, the accuser is liable to the same punishment that the guilty party would have received if found guilty. And given that he had not been proved guilty, and he had always denied committing the act, and still denied it, and asserted his innocence, he requested the Burgomaster and the lords to confirm his innocence and good name according to the law. 216 kreuz

The Burgomaster and the council, taking account of the accusation written by Jeroným Božický concerning the act committed against the girl Mariana, daughter of Dorota, former cook to Master Brikcí, and also considering the evidence given by Dorota, the mother of the child, against Master Brikcí, in addition to the report written by the old and honorable women Catherine Silvestrová, Markéta Rechková, Catherine Plzeňská and Catherine Brdečková, who examined the girl, and taking all of this evidence into account in the light of municipal law, issued and recorded the following verdict: Mariana, a minor having not yet reached adult age, the daughter of Dorota, at the time employed in the household of Master Brikcí, was subjected to a shameful act of sodomy. With the girl suffering pain and the mother taking great pity on her, they announced this shameful act publicly and had the girl examined, and they then submitted a legal complaint and asked for the matter to be dealt with. The child, before the court and elsewhere, stated that Master Brikcí, the owner of the house, had committed the act. The Burgomaster and the lords requested a committee of honorable city women of unblemished record to examine the girl Mariana. The women saw, as the child stated before the court, that there was indeed a terrible injury to her lap and that she had indeed been violated. The law cannot allow such a shameful act against God and human nature to be passed over without due investigation. The victim, an innocent child, has always maintained her accusation against Master Brikcí as the perpetrator of this crime within his house. Master Brikcí was unable to provide any legal evidence proving that the child was not present in his house when the crime was committed. And on these grounds, the Burgomaster and the lords of the court hereby rule ordering Master Brikcí to swear an oath of innocence to the court within two Sundays. If he does so within the stipulated time limit, he shall thereby clear his name. If he fails to do so, the Burgomaster and the lords of the court shall take appropriate action on this basis according to the law. Actum feria 5. post Briccium. Magistro ciuium Domino Georgio Komedkone. Anno 1541.

Jeroným Božický of Božice, acting on behalf of Důra, mother of the girl Mariana, as their legal executive and representative, released Master Brikcí from the duty to swear the oath. The court released Master Brikcí from this duty on the same day. Actum feria 5. post Luciam Virginem. Magistro ciuium Domino Veceslao Duha a Czastrovia. Anno 1541. chapter 9 Culture, Politics, and Law in the Lives of Charles of Žerotín the Elder and the Moravian Nobility

Tomáš Knoz

Historical scholarship on the Margraviate of Moravia, one of the constituent territories of the Bohemian Crown Lands, has seen a renaissance in the last few decades. This scholarship expands our knowledge of the history and historiography of the Bohemian Crown lands and and challenges us to better appreciate the importance of regionalism, even, in relatively small socieites like the Czech Lands, but also shows the rich source material that exist in the Czech Republic. This chapter contains two excerpts from a 2008 monograph by Tomáš Knoz on Charles of Žerotín the Elder (1564–1636), one of the most important Moravian nobles in the early modern period. Žerotín was raised in the faith of the Unity of the Brethren and became one of its major supporters. He studied law, theology, and languages, was proficient in Latin, Italian, French, and German, travelled across Europe, and built up extensive domains in Moravia. One excerpt on Charles’s library introduces the rich intellectual cultural life of a noble and the other discusses the legal and political system of Moravia. Tomáš Knoz (1965–) is a Professor of History at the Historical Institute of the Masaryk University in Brno. After studying history and art history at the Masaryrk University, and one year at the Johann-Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, he worked at the Moravian Region Museum. In 1992, he accepted his first teaching position at the Historical Institute of Masaryk University. Since 1995, he sits on the board of the Matice moravská [The Moravian Historical Society] a 150-year-old society dedicated to supporting knowledge and study of the past in Moravia, the Czech Lands, and Central Europe. Among its activities is the publication of the Časopis Matice moravské, one of the major regional historical journals in the Czech Republic. In addition to Karel starší ze Žerotína: Don Quijote v labyrintu světa [Charles of Žerotín the Elder: Don Quixote in the Labyrinth of the World], other major works of Knoz include Pobělohorské konfiskace. Moravský průběh, středoevropské souvislosti, obecné aspekty [Post-White Mountain Confiscations. The Moravian Course of Events, Central European Connections, General Aspects] (Brno: Matice moravská and Masarykova Univerzita, 2006) and

Državy Karla staršího ze Žerotína po Bílé hoře: osoby, příběhy, struktury [The Domains of Charles of Žerotín the Elder after White Mountain: People, Stories, Structures] (Brno: Matice moravská and Masarykova Univerzita, 2001). Place of Original Publication and Permission: “Knihovna jako duchovní inspirace” [The Library as Spiritual Inspiratiion] and “Právo a politika” [Law and Politics] in Karel starší ze Žerotína: Don Quijote v labyrintu světa [Charles of Žerotín the Elder. Don Quixote in the Labyrinth of the World,) (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2008), 183–197, 199–230, 323–326. These excerpts appear by permission of the author.

1 Libraries as a Source of Spiritual Inspiration for Charles of Žerotín the Elder

For many noblemen of Žerotín’s generation, collecting books and building up large or small libraries at their chateaux was an important part of their lives. Some of them were content to buy books individually, either depending on what took their fancy or guided by their own particular area of interest. Other noblemen built up extensive collections of books, often acquired through large-scale purchases at book fairs abroad or inherited from relatives. Some chateau libraries were quite universal in their coverage, including basic titles from all fields of human knowledge, depending on the renown of the authors or the popularity of the subject matter among the early modern nobility. Most libraries thus included texts on art and architecture, politics and theology, travel writing, works of Classical literature, medical texts, and legal works. Some owners built up more specialized collections, reflecting their own particular interests and profession. The Central European nobility tended to take a particular interest in legal texts, though some collections were based on theology, medicine or travel writing. Of course, the presence of a particular book in a collection did not necessarily mean that its owner had read it and absorbed knowledge from it. The fact that a book was indeed read can sometimes be seen from the reader’s notes on the binding or small jottings in the text itself. These notes reveal which page was reached by the reader on a particular day. Various notes written on the pages show the impression that the book made on its reader. Renaissance aristocrats often wrote their opinions as a form of message to be passed on to the next generations. However, in other cases information on the reading of a book has to be sought elsewhere: in the nobleman’s correspondence or other writings. These sources reveal much about the breadth and depth of the reader’s education, and the extent to culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 219 which books represented a source of spiritual inspiration for him. The case of Charles of Žerotín the Elder is no exception.1

Books at Moravian Renaissance Chateaux When Charles of Žerotín the Elder returned from his travels—during which he had worked out detailed plans for managing his estates, building new chateaux and pursuing a political career—he decided to establish an extensive and valuable library at his family’s homes. He was able to draw inspiration not only from the libraries that he had seen on his journeys through Italy and France, but also from the collections owned by many Bohemian and Moravian noble houses. The first aristocratic libraries in the Czech lands were established under the influence of the Humanism cultivated at the Hungarian court of Matthias Corvinus at the turn of the 16th century, The first example of this type of library was the valuable collection at the court of the Bishop of Olomouc, Stanislav Thurzo, and his successors. Moravian noblemen with links to the Olomouc Bishopric (and thus also to the Hungarian royal court) soon began to build up libraries at their own chateaux. Among the most important collections belonged to Ladislav of Boskovice at the chateau in Moravská Třebová and his contemporary Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk, at Tovačov. It is no coincidence that these two men were also the most important representatives of Italian Humanism in Moravia, major local figures in Renaissance art and architecture. Ladislav of Boskovice owned a beautifully illuminated text on architecture by Leon Battista Alberti. Ctibor Tovačovský was also a Humanist writer, and his legal text customarily known as The Book of Tovačov remained a model for the legal works of Charles of Žerotín the Elder even a hundred years after its publication. Thanks not only to the libraries of Moravian monasteries, but also to the collections at the chateaux of the Moravian nobility, we have at our disposal documents dating back to the earliest years of printing—a technology that was to bring revolutionary changes throughout European culture during the following century.2 Around the middle of the 16th century, the culture of books began to take on new dimensions among the Czech aristocracy. One major stimulus for this development was the fact that Bohemian and Moravian nobles had undertaken

1 The problematic of noble, but also cloister and burgher libraries of the early modern period has been received close attention in modern historiography. The most recent summary of the rich research on the Rosenberg library is by Lenka Veselá, Knihy na dvoře Rožmberků (Prague: Knihovna AV ČR and Scriptorium, 2005), especially 23–36. 2 František Hrubý, “Knihovny na moravských zámcích ve století 16. a 17.,” Bibliofil 9 (1932), 107– 116, 141–147. 220 Knoz journeys to Italy, where they had read works of Classical literature and texts on art. The second stimulus was the German Reformation, which penetrated into the Czech lands by means of printed leaflets and tracts on polemic theology. These texts soon became a forum for disputes between orthodox Lutherans and followers of Philipp Melanchthon. Jesuits, who arrived in Moravia not long after the middle of the 16th century, soon began to respond to these polemics in their own texts. Meanwhile the library of the Olomouc Bishops was growing rapidly thanks to figures such as Stanislav Pavlovský of Pavlovice, reflecting the general atmosphere within the Catholic Church following the Council of Trent. With the acquisition of these theological disputations, the libraries of the nobility began to grow in both quantity and quality. However, despite the religious divisions within society, the core of the aristocratic libraries remained the same, regardless of their owners’ confession. These libraries reflected the similar education and shared interests of the Renaissance noblemen, which transcended religious boundaries. In Moravia, new libraries were established by members of the nobility. Some of these collections were still quite small, with just a few hundred volumes mainly acquired or purchased individually. However, other libraries soon grew to include thousands of titles, making them comparable in size with the largest chateau libraries in Central Europe. These collections were usually the fruit of the interests and activities pursued by several generations of the same family; they covered various fields of knowledge, and contained texts written in various languages. In some cases the books were not acquired individually, but en masse by inheritance or through large- scale purchases. Albrecht Černohorský of Boskovice followed in the footsteps of his relative Ladislav, a keen collector of books, while the library belonging to Jetřich of Kunovice—at his chateau in Uherský Brod—also grew rapidly. A particularly interesting collection of texts could be found in the library of the Brtnickýs of Valdštejn at Brtnice. The collection of the Moravian hejtman Hynek Brtnický included works by Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon and other important religious thinkers of the time. The number of libraries in Moravia grew, with new collections started by Ferdinand Hofmann of Grünpüchl in Rýmařov and Jan Václav Vencelík of Vrchoviště in Třešť. The library belonging to George Zikmund Prakšický of Zástřizly at the castle of Buchlov served as a direct inspiration for Charles of Žerotín the Elder—especially when Prakšický acquired a large part of the collection formerly belonging to Theodore Beza, which included books printed in almost all countries of Western Europe. Charles of Žerotín the Elder attempted to persuade Prakšický to donate at least some volumes to him, though without success.3

3 Ondřej Jakubec, Kulturní prostředí mecenát olomouckých biskupů potridenské doby (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2003), especially 41–96; Hrubý, “Knihovny na moravských culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 221

By the turn of the 17th century there were two exceptionally large libraries belonging to Moravian noble families: the collection of Charles of Žerotín the Elder, and the library of Franz of Dietrichstein, kept at the family seat in Mikulov. The Dietrichstein library had been amassed over several generations; the core of the collection consisted of volumes acquired by Franz’s father Adam. Adam of Dietrichstein was one of the foremost Catholic aristocrats in Moravia. In addition to maintaining close contacts with the imperial court of Rudolf II, he had also developed a close affinity with Southern European culture while serving as an envoy in Madrid. The Mikulov library grew steadily in the years preceding the White Mountain, making it something of a Catholic counterpart to the library of Charles of Žerotín the Elder. In many ways Cardinal Franz of Dietrichstein behaved more like an aristocrat than a prelate, building up his collection at the family’s chateau in Mikulov, yet he was still able to take advantage of his Episcopal office—and later his political office—to acquire books. In the pre-White Mountain period his collection was swelled by several large-scale acquisitions—as in 1616, when he acquired the books belonging to the monastery in Žďár. After the Battle of the White Mountain, the library in Mikulov soon became the largest collection of books in Moravia, as the Cardinal received all the books confiscated from the Moravian Protestant nobility and several disbanded non-Catholic religious institutions, adding them all to the collection at his chateau. Dietrichstein needed a good librarian to take care of such a large quantity of books, and so he hired the Jesuit Georg Dingenauer to carry out this task; Charles of Žerotín the Elder later appointed Pavel Hronovský as his librarian. Both large Moravian collections, each estimated to have contained several thousand volumes, met with the same fate, regardless of the Cardinal’s political success as a proponent of the Counter- Reformation. The collection belonging to Charles of Žerotín the Elder was removed from Moravia at the end of the 1620s, when the former Provincial Governor was driven into exile. However, not even the incumbent Governor Dietrichstein was able to enjoy his newly acquired books for very long. One disadvantage of large-scale acquisitions—whether purchased, inherited or confiscated—was that the new owner of the books generally did not have time to read them, or perhaps never intended to do so. Cardinal Dietrichstein died in 1636; in view of his many commitments during the final years of his life,

zámcích,” 107–116, 141–147. A similar comparative method can be found in Otto Brunner, “Österreichische Adelsbibliotheken” in Anzeiger der philosophischen-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1949), 109–126. The most recent discussion of central European and noble libraries in Czech scholarship can found in the important monograph by Lenka Veselá, Knihy na dvoře Rožmberků, 23–36. 222 Knoz he probably never even had time even to look at many of his books. In any case, his entire library fell into Protestant hands less than ten years after his death, when it was confiscated by the invading Swedish forces and taken to Scandinavia along with other valuable items.4

Inheritances, Purchases, Dedications The library of Charles of Žerotín the Elder was built up over many years in a number of different ways. Žerotín acquired books by inheritance from his father and other relatives, through planned purchases, as donations from aristocrats in the Czech lands and abroad, and also by direct dedication from the authors.5 The main source of Charles the Elder’s collection was undoubtedly the inheritance from his father, John the Elder of Žerotín, who established the library in Náměšť and quite possibly also at the chateau in Rosice. Some of Žerotín’s books bore the mark of John the Elder of Žerotín—either his coat- of-arms or the initials ISZZ. In some cases the emblem on the binding (known as the supralibros) was accompanied by an inscription on one of the book’s first pages. The inscription sometimes contained John’s initials, sometimes a dedication to him, and sometimes even his own notes and manuscript glosses written in the book. Charles’ brother Jan Diviš died in 1616, and his books also passed into Charles’ ownership. The shelves of Charles’ library at Náměšť included books acquired or read by Jan Diviš—for example his school diaries from his travels in Italy and Germany. With his acquisition of the Židlochovice estates, Charles of Žerotín the Elder also acquired the book collection of the former Moravian Provincial Governor Fridrich of Žerotín, plus several books originally belonging to other families within the circle of Fridrich’s family. In this way the Žerotíns gained access to the property of the Lords of Kunovice; Charles the Elder chose to enrich his collection with a beautiful gold-printed university disputation from the library of Bernard of Kunovice. From John of Kunovice (again by inheritance via Fridrich of Žerotín and Charles’ brother Jan

4 Veselá, Knihy na dvoře Rožmberků, 34–35; Veselá, “Knihovna Františka z Ditrichštejna v dob- ovém, kontextu” in Kardinál František z Ditrichštejna a jeho doba: XXIX. mikulovské sym- pozium, 11–12 října 2006, eds. Emil Kordiovský and Miroslav Svoboda (Brno and Mikulov: Moravský zemský archiv, Státni okresní archiv Břeclav se sídlem v Mikulově, and Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, 2006), 227–238. 5 The identification of the books in the Vratislav library has been studied by Małgorzata Turowska. See also Tomáš Knoz and Małgorzata Turowska, “Mezi Rosicemi a Vratislaví. K současnému stavu výzkumu knihovny Karla staršího ze Žerotína ve Vratislavi,” in Per saecula ad tempora nostra: Sborník prací k šedesátým narozeninám prof. Jaroslava Pánka., eds. Jiří Mikulec and Miloslav Polívka (Prague: HÚ, 2007), vol. I, 466–476. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 223

Diviš), Charles acquired Stoefler’s calendar with notes on the family and mete- orological remarks added by John himself. Both above-mentioned sources of library acquisitions are probably connected with Charles’ thorough and persistent efforts to acquire prints that were held at the chateaux of his circle of relatives and friends.6 An important part of Charles’ library consisted of books that he had brought back from his European travels in the 1580s and 1590s. Even at the time of his early study visit to Italy, the young Charles mentioned the subject of book- collecting in his correspondence, and he also purchased books for his relatives while there. His time in Italy awoke in him an interest that would eventually grow into a lifelong passion for collecting books. He acquired new titles in several ways. Some he purchased at the book fair in Frankfurt am Main. His acquisitions at Frankfurt—the most prestigious book fair of its time—took several forms. Among the volumes later found in his library in Wrocław were a number of Frankfurt book catalogs dating from 1702 onward, which probably served as a source of information regarding possible future purchases. It was probably in Frankfurt that he acquired a large set of books published mainly between 1600 and 1605, which were then taken to Moravia and sent to the Žerotíns’ preferred master bookbinder, Daniel Škop, in Lukovec—a small village on a hill under the castle of Lukov in eastern Moravia. Škop bound the books in a uniform style, usually in red or green dyed parchment, and entered a handwritten record on the flyleaf of each volume. It was evidently no coincidence that the vast majority of these ‘Frankfurt’ books were contemporary religious polemics written in Latin or German and published in the Holy Roman Empire. It was in the period around 1605 that Žerotín built up the core of his library—a period in which Charles took an intense interest in his family’s history and oversaw an extensive programme of chateau-building and economic development on his estates. These books remained at the heart of the library, with additions made to the collection during the course of the subsequent years. It was thus in this period that the Žerotín library acquired its typical thematic structure.7

6 Zdeněk Tobolka, Žerotínská knihovna (Prague: Spolek českých bibliofílů, 19260, especially 13–16; Johannes Stoefler, Ephemeridum opus (. . .) . . . a capite anni (. . .) M.D.XXXII in altos XX proxime subsequentes (. . .) elaboratum (Tübingen, 1531); a copy of this book is in the Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 394569. 7 Catalogi librorum Germanicorum alphabetici, das is Verzeichnuß der teudischen Bücher unnd Schrifften (. . .) so seyther Annos 1500, biß auff die Herbstmeß Anno 1602 außgangen (Francfort am Meyn, 1602). A copy of this book is located in the Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddzial starych druków, sign. 387851. Nevertheless the book collection of Charles of Žerotín the Elder contained a large number of catalogue from Frankfurt which were ordered up until 1631. The primary overview of the books in Charles of Žerotín the Elder’s library remains 224 Knoz

Another important source of acquisitions for the Žerotín library were donations and dedications from authors. Various writers—above all contemporary theologians and authors of religious tracts—maintained contacts with Charles due to his role as Provincial Governor and his generosity as a patron of their work. These authors would add handwritten dedications to their books, generally expressing their gratitude to ‘the Vice-Margrave of Moravia’ for his support. It did not matter if the book also contained a printed dedication to somebody else—though in many cases the printed dedication was to Charles himself. In such cases, the author usually added insignia or a prose preface expressing his gratitude to his benefactor.8 Charles of Žerotín the Elder continued to collect books for two decades prior to the Battle of the White Mountain. It is evident that some of the purchased volumes were brought to Moravia from Frankfurt am Main or other book fairs. These books dealt primarily with religious themes, and Charles had them bound in a uniform style. The most typical styles of binding used for Žerotín’s books (though not the only styles) involved either a simple, red-painted parchment binding with a serial number on the spine, or binding in light-colored parchment with gilded embossed lettering. Charles’ library continued to grow after 1620, but at a much reduced rate, restricted to individual acquisitions by purchase, donation or dedication. This decline in activity can be explained as a reflection of the precarious personal situation in which Charles found himself after the events of the White Mountain. Nevertheless, despite his difficulties, he still managed to acquire several important texts, including the above- mentioned dissertation of his Italian godson Carlo Andrea Orchi or even the renowned Labyrinth of the World by John Amos Comenius. He even acquired several texts describing and analyzing the Estates’ Rebellion and the fate of the defeated nobles. Generally, however, the 1620s was a decade marked by losses from the library, undoubtedly caused by the complicated relocation of Žerotín’s collection to Wrocław.9

the inventory of the Moravian historian Beda Dudík, which he put together on the basis of his research in Wrocław in the 1870s; Beda Dudík, Karl‘s von Žerotín böhmische Bibliothek in Breslau (Prague: Königliche böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1877), 210–267. 8 Among them for example was the book by Johann Ravisius, Heinrich Bullinger (in the translation by Daniel Adam of Veleslavín), Johann Leunclavius or Amandus Polanus; Moravský zemský archiv Brno, G 11, Sbírka rukopisů Františkova musea, inv. No. 696. Johann Peter Cerroni, Dedicationen gelehrter Männer älterer Zeit an verschiedene ausgezeigte Personen in Mähren, manuscript. 9 Národní knihovna sign. XVII E 75: Jan Amos Komenský, Labyrint světa a lusthauz srdce, manuscript, kol. 1623 (this was a manscript meant for Charles of Žerotín the Elder which in the past was part of Žerotín’s collection in Vratislav in the 1950s was moved to the National Library culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 225

The last records of the origins of Žerotín’s books are connected with the relocation of the library when Charles was forced into exile; it is likely that an inventory of titles was drawn up. A document from this time states that any losses should be carefully recorded, and that important titles should be replaced by being purchased in Frankfurt. Available sources do not indicate whether this actually happened. Charles of Žerotín the Elder returned to Moravia in 1631 and spent the final years of his life at his chateau in Přerov. However, he was no longer able to read or catalog his books, which remained in Wrocław permanently.10

Among the Library Shelves Charles of Žerotín the Elder must have felt at home among the shelves of his library. The family correspondence contains references proving that he devoted intense attention—to an extent that was unique among the early modern nobility—to reading and building up his collection. He evidently drew inspiration not only from George Zikmund of Zástřizly at Buchlov, but also from Petr Vok of Rožmberk and his Austrian friends Reichard of Starhemberg and Georg Erasmus of Tschernembl. Their extensive library collections comprised several thousand titles. Many of them were similar in subject matter and confession to the Žerotín collection. Thanks to Charles’ contacts with other aristocratic bibliophiles in Central Europe, he acquired a book originally belonging to Petr Vok’s library in Třeboň. The head of the House of Rožmberk gave the book to his courtier Jindřich of Semanín, who was later employed by Žerotín and probably presented the volume to his new master. Charles had a good knowledge of the contents of his library. Many of the books he had actually read, as is shown by his notes and comments inside them, and some of them he had ordered to gain information on a particular issue or field of knowledge. In some cases, having read a particular book, Charles would write to its author asking for an explanation of unclear terms and concepts, and sometimes a correspondence would begin. If an author made a particularly strong impression on Charles, he would even provide financial support. Probably the most typical case of

in Prague; Carlo Andrea Orchi, Theses ex universa peripatetica doctrina. Quas Carolus Andreas Orchius Comensis defendendas proponit (Mediolani, 1620). A copy of this book is located in the Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 391223; Knoz and Turowska, “Mezi Rosicemi a Vratislaví”, 466–476. 10 Hrubý, ed., Moravkské korespondence a akta, z let 1620–1636, vol. II, (Brno, Země Moravskoslezská, 1937), 112–114. The last publication of the letter was in the popular edition by Noemi Rejchrtová; Rejchrtová, ed., Karel starší ze Žerotína. Z korespondence (Prague: Odeon, 1982), 342–343. 226 Knoz this kind involved Otto Casmann, a theologian from the north German port of Stade, to whom Charles wrote after reading his books. Žerotín not only funded the theologian’s writing career, but also made him his advisor in theological matters.11 Charles was well aware of how to care for his books and had clear ideas on how they should be arranged in the chateau library. Concerning the care of books, he wrote that he would rather incur damage to his clothes than to his books, which he referred to as “particularly treasured and rare property”. When buying books individually, he had them wrapped in cloth for trans- port. When moving large numbers of books he used sealed trunks and barrels, which prevented the books from becoming damp and protected them from damage. In accordance with the custom of the time, he expressed his personal attachment to his books by having selected titles expensively bound in orna- mented leather, with his emblem and initials on the binding. The quality of the binding was as important to him as the quality of the text itself. He personally ensured that a new matrix of the Žerotín coat-of-arms was delivered to the family’s bookbinder in Přerov at regular intervals. Other books were sent to the binder Daniel Škop in Lukovec, where they were bound in simple yet ele- gant red or green dyed parchment. Žerotín also took care to reduce or prevent losses of books, and so he kept a personal record of loans from his collection. He generally lent his books to friends, such as Reichard of Starhemberg, or courtiers, such as the doctor Matyáš Timin. Nevertheless, losses could not be entirely eliminated: some books were lent out but never returned, and others were mislaid during the forced relocation of the collection to Wrocław. Despite his precarious personal and financial situation at the time, Charles the Elder decided to replace the lost books by purchasing new prints at the book fair in Frankfurt.12 In a letter to his librarian Pavel Hronovský dated 2 June 1628, Charles instructed Hronovský to order his books both according to language and subject matter. He also set up a special section of the library reserved for his Czech-language manuscripts and prints, as can be seen in the catalog dating from 1644, by which time the fomer Žerotín library had become part of the library held by the Church of St Mary Magdalene in Wrocław. With regard to

11 Brunner, “Österreichische Adelsbibliotheken,” 109–126. The letter dealing with the work of Otta Casmann and his contacts with Žerotín are in “Dopisy Karla st. z Žerotína,” ed. František Dvorský, AČ 27, 178–179, 217–228, 319–325. 12 Ivan Vavra, “Knižní vazby bratrské dílny ivančicko-kralické (1562–1620)” in Historická knižní vazba 5–9 (1966–1970), 86–160; Pavlína Hamanová, Z dějín knižní vazby od nejstarších dob do konce XIX. století (Prague: Orbis, 1959), especially 105–107. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 227 subject matter, Žerotín instructed Hronovský to order the books as follows: “Theological works together, historical works likewise, philosophical works likewise, and so on for others, each in its place and in different repositories.” It is evident from different sources that “others” included legal or medical works. At the time it was customary to arrange books on the shelves according to size, but for Charles this was a less important consideration. He stated that the works were to be ordered according to author, and also according to the date of writing: “Augustine should not come before Ambrose, Gregory before Augustine et sic consequenter. In the same way, more recent books should come after older books: first the patres and their followers, then the theologians of our time.” From time to time he was given assistance by other librarians, either members of the nobility or from the Unity of Brethren (Unitas Fratrum). The correspondence mentions the Polish nobleman Julian Poniatowski in the early 17th century; in the late 1620s the task of managing the library was entrusted to Pavel Hronovský (to whom Charles’ instructions on ordering the books had been addressed), probably in connection with the relocation of the collection to Wrocław. Although Hronovský’s work ultimately focused on preparing the library for its journey into exile, he was originally assigned the task of compiling a detailed modern catalog, which was probably intended to resemble that compiled by Václav Březan at the Rožmberk library. Perhaps in connection with an existing or planned catalog, the individual volumes in the Žerotín library had serial numbers attached to their spines. Even if the catalog was not completed while the books were still in Moravia, it is likely that John Amos Comenius attempted to make at least a simple list of the books awaiting relocation to Silesia.13

A Perceptive Reader Domenico Scandella, a miller from Friuli in northern Italy, only read a few books during his lifetime, yet on the basis of his limited reading he created his own spiritual world, which even attracted the attention of the Inquisition shortly after 1600. Like Scandella, Charles of Žerotín the Elder lived in a world defined to a large degree by his reading and literary interests. Žerotín himself stated that he would devote all his time to his books if he could. “If only I had not had to contend with such difficulties, which at that time were serious and considerable,” he lamented in one of his letters, recalling a period when he was unable to devote as much time and attention to reading as was his custom. If a book captured his attention, he would resolve to read it from cover to

13 Noemi Rejchrtová, ed., Karel starší ze Žerotína. Z korespondence (Prague: Odeon, 1982), 342–343. 228 Knoz cover without stopping. He tried to read every day, and some of his favourite books he read several times. He often recommended these titles to his friends and acquaintances, having the texts copied for them or lending them his own print.14 Charles was capable of extracting a broad range of knowledge and wisdom from his books. This is proved by countless references in his correspondence, in which he frequently quoted from Classical authors, modern literature and various passages of the Bible. When writing of the death of his friend Pavel Katarýn of Katar, he quoted a phrase by the Emperor Tiberius, immortal- ized by Tacitus, according to whom “by his death, he escaped his enemies”. He also quoted from Xenophon, Cicero and Plutarch. His readings of modern authors included the Heptameron by Margaret of Navarre or Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered. In the field of law, he read the famous text Politica methodice digesta by Johannes Althusius, which advanced the notion of the state as a form of social contract. Žerotín’s interest in traveling and foreign lands was reflected in the text Journey from Prague to Venice by Oldřich Prefát of Vlkanov or Siegmund of Herberstein’s account of his diplomatic mission to Moscow. However, Charles did not belong among those Humanists—common at the time—who merely desired to draw attention to their own erudition through extensive citations. His reading always focused on spiritual matters, reflecting his desire to find answers to fundamental questions of the meaning of life. For this reason, the references to books and quotations found in his correspondence are not a direct reflection of the books that were found in his library and that he read during his life.15

14 Carlo Ginzburg, Sýr a červi: svět jednoho mlvnáře roku 1600 [The Cheese and the Worms. The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller,] trans. by Jiří Spáček (Prague, Argo, 2000), espeically 61–119. The quote about reading comes from Žerotín’s letter to Otto Casmann from October 18, 1602 in which Charles of Žerotín the Elder express thoughts about the meaning of books of the German theologian and his own reading; Rejchrtová, ed., Karel starší ze Žerotína, 165. 15 Generally Hrubý, “Knihovny na moravských zámcích,” especially 114–116, 141–143. Pavel Katýrn’s death certification was published in Rejchrtová, ed., Karel starší ze Žerotína, 119. Among the books in Žerotín’s collection which are now in the university library in Wrocław, is a whole line by antique authors. For example, Xenophon, Xeniphontis (. . .) quae extant opera, in duos tomos divisa, a Ioanne Leunclavio tertia cura in Latinum ser- monem conversa (Francofurti, 1595), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 173355; Xenophon, Cyri Paedia. Hodnověrná starožitná historia: O chvatliteb- ném ve všelikých knížecích ctnostech vyčvičení a zvedení. O slavných skutcích vítezných válkach a právé heroickém šlechetném životu Cýra staršího, prvního monarchy Perského (Prague, 1žéř), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddziałstarych druków, sign. 395894; culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 229

Influenced by his teachers and his experiences of traveling, Charles of Žerotín the Elder expanded his horizons far beyond Moravia itself, and his religious reading focused mainly on texts by Swiss and German authors: Philippists, Calvinists and reformist Protestants. However, this did not prevent him from following the custom of his contemporaries among the Bohemian and Moravian aristocracy and also reading texts by Czech theologians and philosophers from the Unity of Brethren. No library belonging to a member of the Brethren could omit texts written by Lucas of Prague, one of the most prominent reformers of the time, in a period when the Brethren were moving closer toward Lutheranism and Wittenberg. Žerotín also owned several texts by Matouš Konečný from Mladá Boleslav, the center of the Brethren in Bohemia. Naturally, the most important place in his library was reserved for books by Moravian members of the denomination, printed by the Brethren first in Ivančice and later (from 1578 onwards) in Kralice nad Oslavou, which in 1572 had become part of the Žerotín estates in western Moravia. In Žerotín’s library, writings by Lucas of Prague and Matouš Konečný sat side by side with the works of Jan Blahoslav and all the subsequent Kralice authors. Charles the Elder followed the example set by his father John, who one day decided to stop reading the Latin Bible and instead to publish a six-part Czech translation at Kralice—thus making the leap from reader to patron, and possibly also publisher of religious literature, which naturally found its way into the Žerotín library.

Between 1583 and 1620, under the patronage of Charles of Žerotín and his brother Jan Diviš, the printing press at Kralice not only continued to publish further volumes of the six-part Bible translation, but also published a single- volume version in 1596. Under the management of Zachariáš Solín, Izaiáš Cibulka, Samuel Sylvestr and Václav Elam, the Kralice press also published many other books, mainly for the purposes of the Brethren: postils, doctrinal commentaries, catechisms, and hymns. The Kralice print of Matouš Konečný’s Truth Prevailing (Pravda vítězící) was elegantly bound for the family library, featuring the Žerotín coat-of-arms. John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion was published in Kralice between 1612 and 1614 under the title Pobožná duše,

Plutarchus, Plutarchi Chaeronenesis quae exstant omnia (Francoforti, 1599), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddziałstarych druków, sign. 553072. Additional Antique authors are in Beda Dudík, “Über die Bibliothek Karls von Zierotin in Breslau,” Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk 1877 (1879), especially 237–239. 230 Knoz jenž ke známosti hoříš Boha (‘Pious soul, that longs to know God’), reflecting the spiritual orientation of the printing house’s patron.16 The beginning of the 17th century was a time of intense theological debates and disputes—not only between the Catholic and Protestant camps, but also among the various denominations and tendencies within the Protestant world. Historian sometimes speak of a second wave of the Reformation, mainly in connection with the theologians Johann Arndt, Johann Valentin Andreae and Johann Heinrich Alsted. Scholars and theologians presented strong and diverse opinions on various aspects of Christian doctrine, disseminating their ideas through printed sermons and polemic theological tracts. In reality, these doctrinal disputes tended to lead to a weakening rather than a strengthening of faith. The polemic texts were generally saturated with speculative philosophy which left even an educated reader such as Charles of Žerotín the Elder somewhat disorientated, while the religious content of the texts was relegated to a secondary role. This, in conjunction with the attractive benefits offered by the Jesuits and other Catholic Counter-Reformational orders, was one reason why many people converted to Catholicism, or at least began to harbor doubts about their faith—a feeling which was also experienced by Žerotín. Charles the Elder attempted to keep up with current developments in theological polemics, and so he purchased almost every available text on the subject from the Frankfurt book fair. He followed with great interest the dispute between two German preachers—Urban Pierius of Dresden and Philipp Nicolai, the pastor of the Church of St Catherine in Hamburg. As in other cases, he took an active role in the dispute, earning him a dedication from the Dresden author, who inscribed one book “Illustrissimo heroi ac Domino, domino Carolo Zerotino.”17

16 Among Lukáš Pražský’s writings which are in Vratislav’s university library one could introduce for example Lukáš Pražský, Sepsání dávní učiněné ve jméno Páne od Bratři starších (No place of publication, no date), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 331290; Lukáš Pražský, O puovodu cierkve svaté (Mladá Boleslav, 1522), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 392484; Lukáš Ptažský, Spis tento o pokání (Mladá Boleslav, 1523), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 392480. Žerotín owned many more books of this Brethren reformer. Further writings include Matouš Konečný, Právda vítezící (Kralice, 1614), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddziałstarych druków, sign. 392488; Jean Calvin, Pobožná duše, jež ke známosti hoříš (Kralice, 1612–1614), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 371312. In general see Ivan Vávra, Kralická tiskárna, 65–80. 17 Rudolf Řícan, Dějiny Jednoty bratrské (Prague: Kalich, 1957), for example, 351–354. Urbanus Pierius, Examen und Erleuterung der in Leichpredigt (Bremen, 1602), Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, Oddział starych druków, sign. 330891. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 231

Žerotín was plunged into a personal crisis of faith by his reading of theological texts and his experience of the realities of confessional society. This crisis spurred him to write to the theologian Otto Casmann from the north German town of Stade. Žerotín had received one of Casmann’s texts as a gift from Václav Budovec, and the German scholar’s approach to religious faith and the world in general made a deep impression on him. Charles took advantage of his long-term friendship with the Stade burgher Johann Calandrini, whom he had met in 1591 while waiting for a ship to France, and wrote a letter to Casmann setting out his doubts and outlining his views. He also sent a large sum of money—200 gulden—to support Casmann’s writing career. This sparked a vigorous correspondence between Žerotín and Casmann; Žerotín was currently entrenched in a complex religious and political dispute with Siegmund of Dietrichstein, which had risen as high as the imperial court, and so his correspondence with Casmann performed a powerful psychothera- peutic function. Žerotín expressed his inner thoughts so openly in the letters that after Casmann’s death in 1607 he had to ask his acquaintances in Stade— Calandrini and Becher—to retrieve his letters from among Casmann’s papers so that they would not fall into the wrong hands, which could potentially have discredited him. Other works by Casmann found their way into the Žerotín library during the pair’s acquaintance, including a text dealing expressly with religious doubts, entitled Schola tentationum. After reading this work, Žerotín wrote to Budovec praising it highly and describing Casmann as one of the few theologians of the time who “provided medicine to those whose consciences are injured and sick, and gave them strength: those who have experienced this struggle know it and agree with me, as they have learned to distinguish between those weak writings which appeal easily to sentiment, and those which penetrate deep into the heart and move the whole man.” This sentence can also be viewed as a general statement of Charles’ view of the importance of reading books and collecting them for his library.18

2 Law and Politics in Moravia

In the early modern social system—stratified into separate estates—law and politics were inextricably linked. Pre-White Mountain Moravia lacked the highest level in the social hierarchy, which was usually represented by the monarch. The decisive role in society was therefore shifted to a broader group—the

18 Dvorský, “Dopisy Karla st. z Žerotína,” 178–179, 319–325; Rejchrtová, Karel starší ze Žerotína, 150–232. 232 Knoz privileged classes. As a consequence of the political developments of the previous two centuries, these privileged classes consisted primarily of the wealthy, politically experienced nobility. Instead of being focused on a single royal court, influential discussions regarding the legal system and the political direction of the province took place at several chateaux belonging to the most influential representatives of the Moravian aristocracy: the Lords of Lipá in Moravský Krumlov, the Bishops in Kroměříž, the Dietrichsteins in Mikulov, the Lords of Hradec in Telč, the Liechtensteins in Lednice, the Osovskýs of Doubravice in Třebíč—and of course, also the Žerotíns in Rosice. However, Moravian political life was centered around the Dominican convents in Brno and Olomouc; these were designated for the purpose by the provincial statutes, and they were converted into assembly halls to house sessions of the Provincial Assembly and the courts. These assembly halls, together with Moravia’s aristocratic chateaux, were the scene of high-level discussions that shaped the province’s policy towards the imperial court, the neighboring territories, the ruling classes and the subject classes. However—as Charles of Žerotín the Elder was all too aware throughout his political career—the political life of the Moravian estates concealed a very dark side.19

The Light and Dark Sides of Political Life in the Moravian Estates “His Grace the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Hungary, Bohemia, etc., our most gracious Lord, is pleased to confer upon all four estates of the Margraviate of Moravia, his loyal and treasured subjects, his Imperial and Royal grace and best wishes in recognition of the fact that they, as his loyal and treasured subjects, have appeared here in such rare numbers, in obedience and subordination, at this General Assembly convened by His Grace the Emperor here in the city of Brno, and they are hereby informed that they are received here with gratitude and grace.” This imperial missive marked the start of proceedings at a Provincial Assembly session held in 1612 and presided over by the Provincial Governor Charles of Žerotín the Elder. The 1612 Assembly would ultimately come to be known as one of the most important political events of the Moravian estates in the pre-White Mountain period. The text

19 [1] Josef Válka, Dějiny Moravy, vol. II (Brno: Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, 1995), see especially 19-34; Válka, “Morava ve struktuře a historii českého lenního a stavovského státu (Nástin problematiky)” in Moravský historícký sborník: Moravica historica, eds. Antonín Verbík and Karel Blažek (Brno: Blok, 1986); 22–25; Válka, “Morava, země v srdci střední Evropy,” in V zrcadle stínů. Morava v době baroka 1670–1790, ed. Jiří Kroupa (Brno and Rennes: Moravská galerie and Musée des Beaux-Arts, (2002), 15–35; Tomáš Knoz, “Světla a stíny moravského stavovství,” DaS 25,3 (2003), 17–22. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 233 signed by the Habsburg Emperor Matthias of Austria creates the impression that the estates system in the Margraviate of Moravia functioned smoothly and had no problems to contend with. It implies that the dualistic relationship between the monarch and the estates was not marred by any disputes, but existed on a basis of “obedience and subordination”, and that the relationships among the Moravian estates (and among the various political groupings within each estate) were harmonious. However, all of the delegates—despite having recourse to the conventional legal formulas of the day—were well aware of the clouds gathering over the Moravian estates.20 The knights’ hall at the Brno assembly hall is a commemorative room featuring a gallery of coats-of-arms dating from the golden age of the estates, the 1580s. The gallery is a reflection of the entire legal and political system of the period. The provincial officials basked in the reflected glory of the estates as an institution, and had stone coats-of-arms carved to preserve their names for posterity. The most prominent place in the gallery was reserved for those who had built the assembly hall, who represented the four estates of the Margraviate of Moravia: the lords, the knights, the prelates and the cities. The knights’ hall contains the coat-of-arms of Fridrich the Elder of Žerotín (who would later become the Provincial Governor), the knight Jan Munka of Ivančice at Troubsko, the abbot of the Premonstrates’ monastery in Zábrdovice Kašpar Schönauer, and the Brno council scribe Jan Mencl of Kolsdorf. The knights’ hall also contained the coats-of-arms of all major representatives of the Moravian aristocracy, including that of Charles’ father, John the Elder of Žerotín.21 The estates system was designed to protect rights and freedoms within the province. When the later Provincial Governor Charles of Žerotín the Elder returned from his travels around Europe in the 1580s, he had already decided to pursue a career in provincial law and public administration. Careers as provincial officials and legal experts were considered natural choices for members of the Moravian nobility. Žerotín and his contemporaries were keen that their activities should not be seen as mere social gatherings, but rather as an essential part of running the province and helping to solve the problems affecting its people. This attitude was reflected in the activities of the Provincial Assembly and the courts, whose procedures were rooted in long-established legal tradition and codified in legal texts and provincial statutes, while also allowing

20 [2] The quote comes from a communication of Mathias Habsburg to the Moravian Diet which was held in Brno in 1612; Moravský zemský archiv Brno, A.3, Stavovské rukopisy, Památky sněmovní 7, fol. 2. 21 [3] Jaroslav Dřímal, Zemský dům v Brně (Brno: ÚNV Zemského hlavního města Brna, 1947), 46–47. 234 Knoz for the specific details of individual sessions to be modified depending on the situation and the needs of the moment. The delegates discussed the activities of the provincial authorities, the content of the provincial statues, the tax and minting system, various details of the provincial court system, the situation of the individual estates, defense and internal security, and the situation among the subject population. Pomp and circumstance formed an integral part of these meetings: this included oratory in “the Moravian language” and in “ornamental language”, for which Charles of Žerotín the Elder praised his brother Jan Diviš, or the almost religious devotion with which the Assembly’s documents and records were handled and transported between Brno and Olomouc. All documents and prints published by the estates were produced with the utmost ostentation, often on rare parchment with high-quality illuminations of the coats-of-arms and portraits of the provincial officials. Great care was taken to ensure that the documents were not damaged. Both assembly halls were rebuilt so that elaborate ceremonial acts could be held there. The meeting rooms of the Provincial Assembly and the courts were richly decorated before each session, their walls luxuriously upholstered. The Provincial Governor Charles of Žerotín the Elder always arrived very early in the morning before the sessions to check that everything was in place. Burgraves and beadles were posted outside to ensure that the sessions were not disrupted in any way.22 However, the Moravian estates system was beginning to show signs of strain even before the crisis of the White Mountain. It was becoming clear that power, though formally distributed across a complex structure, was in fact concentrated in the hands of just a few of the most powerful families, who ruled the province as oligarchs. Around 1600, many Moravian nobles ceased to view participation in the Assembly and the courts as an essential component of their own personal and political prestige, instead giving preference to careers in the legal profession or in the military. Some wrote to high-ranking provincial officials excusing their absence on grounds of ill health, while others made no attempt to disguise their attitude. The result was that the only nobles who attended the Assembly and court sessions were those who needed to deal with some personal business. The provincial court had to be adjourned on several occasions due to absences. In 1617 the Provincial Governor Ladislav

22 [4] František Kameníček, Zemské sněmy a sjezdy moravské: jejích složení, obor působností a význam od nastoupení na trůn krále Ferdinana I. až po výdání Obnoveného zřízení zem- ského 1526–162á (Brno: Zemský výbor Markrabství moravského, 1900–), especially part I, 1–91 on land diets; Dřímal, Zemský dům v Brně, especially 51–53; Vicenc Brandl, ed., Karel ze Žerotína, Sněm držaný léta 1612 (Brno: Antonín Nitš, 1864), especially introduction with VII–XXXI praised the “ornamental speach” of Jan Diviš of Žerotín, 81. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 235 of Lobkovice wrote to the Emperor Matthias to complain that “only eleven persons were present, and some of us were unable to come to the court due to ill health, having notified us of their absence in advance. However, others who did not arrive gave no decent reason preventing them from doing so, and so it was not possible for us to open the proceedings and hold court.” Similar complaints can be found in letters from Lobkovice’s predecessor, Charles of Žerotín the Elder. The more important sessions were attended mainly by those members of the estates who, amid an increasingly tense political and confessional climate, were keen to promote their own interests and political ambitions. Naturally, this situation made Žerotín’s task an unenviable one. In fact, it appears that the sessions of the Provincial Assembly and the courts in the pre- White Mountain period were less welcomed by the estates themselves than by accommodation providers, traders and businesses in both provincial capitals, to whom the temporary influx of large numbers of wealthy people represented an excellent business opportunity. The gatherings were also a boon to some lawyers and officials, who were beginning to take advantage of the process of bureaucratization to become involved in corrupt dealings.23

From the Book of Tovačov to the Re-established Provincial Code In 1594 Charles of Žerotín was requested to suspend his participation in the Hungarian military campaign after being nominated as a member of the provincial court. This appointment heralded Charles’ entry to the Moravian political and legal scene. Now he had the opportunity to prove his knowledge and experience in a role for which he had been preparing for a decade.24 Provincial law in Moravia had grown out of the tradition of the estates, which had its roots in the growing power of the nobility in the post-Hussite, Poděbrady and Jagiellonian eras and whose foremost representatives were William of Pernštejn and Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk. While Pernštejn is associated with the growing prestige of the office of Moravian Provincial Governor (a role representing the interests of both the monarch and the Moravian estates), Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk, in his book Disputation Between Truth And Lies, set out the fundamental maxims of the ‘society of two orders’. Tovačovský’s late legal text, dating from the end of the 15th century and customarily known as The Book of Tovačov, outlines the basic roles of the two most important institutions of the estates: the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Court, as well as a large number of general descriptions of legal

23 [5] Národní archiv Praha, 17/2, fond Morava, inv. no. 6057, January 9, 1617; Knoz, Světla a stíny moravského stavovství, no. 3, 20. 24 [6] Hrubý, Karel starší ze Žerotína, 199–209. 236 Knoz relationships within Moravian society, including relationships between members of the ruling classes and their subjects. Although the Book of Tovačov, like the Book of Drnovice (published at a later date), was no more than a compilation of legal regulations and probably never came into general legal force, during the hundred years following its publication it served as an important source text for provincial legislation, including several stipulations issued by the Provincial Assembly during the pre-White Mountain period. Charles of Žerotín the Elder expressed his great respect for the Book of Tovačov even a century after it was written; he viewed it as a model and an inspiration for his own work on legal codification.25 The constitutional tradition of the 16th century was based on collections of legal norms known as ‘provincial statutes’, collectively referred to as the Moravian Provincial Code. Updated versions of these norms were printed some time after the relevant ruling of the Provincial Assembly, whenever it was considered necessary to issue a new version of the Code reflecting the changes that had occurred since the publication of the last version; these changes were also recorded in the minutes of Assembly sessions. In early modern Moravia new versions of the Code were issued in 1516, 1535, 1545, 1562 and 1604; the pre-White Mountain tradition of statutes was at least formally revived after the White Mountain in the ‘Re-established Provincial Code’, whose title deliberately emphasized this historical continuity after seventeen years of rule by imperial decree. The work of drawing up a new version of the Code was entrusted to a specially nominated committee consisting of representatives of all four estates in the Margraviate, all of whom had to be knowledgeable and experienced practitioners of provincial law. Of course the new version of the Code had to be approved by the monarch; nevertheless, to take one example, the 1545 Code reflected the estates’ opposition to the Habsburgs.26 At the turn of the 17th century Charles of Žerotín the Elder began to play an active part in creating provincial legislation. Soon after his appointment to the provincial court in 1594, he started to take a critical view of the activities of Moravia’s official bodies. In addition to the official minutes compiled and issued by the estates, he therefore also began to write his own accounts of the

25 [7] Dalibor Janíš, eds., Právo a zřízení Markrabství moravského z roku 1545: (pokus moravských stavů o revizi zemského zřízení): historický úvod a edice (Brno: Matice moravská, 200ř), especially 15–25; František Čáda, “Kniha zvaná Drnovská,” Studie o rukopisech 11 (1972): 5–40. 26 [8] František Čáda, ed., Zemské zřízení moravské z r. 1535, spolu s tiskem roku 1562 nově výdaným (Prague: Česká akademie věd a umění, 1937), VII–LXX; Knoz, “Poddaný v právních normativních pramenech předbělohorských Moravy,” ČMM 111 (1992): 31–52. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 237 sessions of the Provincial Assembly and courts. Charles had already proved his legal credentials at the Brno Assembly of 1594, when he attempted to impose order and logical structure on the wording of the Assembly’s articles. This caused him to become embroiled in a legal and political conflict not only with Emperor Rudolf II, but also with his own uncle Fridrich, who at the time held the office of Provincial Governor. The bone of contention was the rights conferred on the delegation sent by the Moravian estates to the General Assembly in Prague, which was to decide on the conduct of the campaign against the Turks. The Emperor, supported by Fridrich the Elder of Žerotín, proposed that the delegates should have the right to decide freely how to vote at the Assembly. Charles of Žerotín, on the other hand, adhered to the letter of the law when insisting that the delegation should be given detailed instructions on how to vote in Prague: legally, the decision-making power would thus rest with the Moravian Assembly and the Moravian estates as a whole. Žerotín’s view prevailed in this case, but the dispute brought him into conflict with some highly influential figures at the imperial court in the very early stages of his career. On the other hand, it helped to establish his credentials as a legal authority, and he gained the respect of many members of the Moravian estates, who thereafter began to turn to him with requests for advice and legal opinions in various matters; even Cardinal Dietrichstein asked Žerotín to review his last will and testament.27 An excellent example of Charles’ legal thinking can be found in his notes on the Moravian Provincial Code of 1562 and his analysis of the Code, probably carried out in connection with the preparations for the next version. Taking the medieval Italian glossators as his model, Charles appended his commentaries, opinions and evaluations of individual legal norms to the original volume, assessing the current importance of each norm and its suitability for inclu- sion in future versions of the Code. Leaving aside genealogical notes detailing Charles’ relationship with certain mentioned persons from the Žerotíns’ family circle, and discounting the headings added by Charles to help him navi- gate among the individual articles of the Code, his glosses and commentaries concern the following areas. Sometimes he merely explained the origin of certain legal norms or concepts. For example, he explains the concept of půhon sluneční [Translator’s note: literally ‘sunlight accusation’, referring to a type of lawsuit that could be brought by a member of the public against another] as

27 [9] Vincenc Brandl, ed., Spisy Karla staršího z Žerotína. Oddělení druhé, Listové psání jazykem českým (Brno: Matice moravská, 1870–72), I, 97–119; Brandl, ed. Karla staršího z Žerotína. Oddělení první, Žerotínovi zápisové o soudě panském (Brno: Matice moravská, 1866), I, XIV–XLVI. 238 Knoz follows: “Some parties think that these are so called because in the past, officials would be on hand to receive these accusations until sunset, while others think that it was only possible to deliver such an accusation until sunset, but not afterwards; I concur with this explanation.” Some of Žerotín’s comments were additions to and specifications of the text itself. For example, in an article devoted to a specific type of legal process known as posudky [Translator: literally ‘judgments’], he added that “judgments are held twice a year in each region: 1. on the Friday before St George in Olomouc, and on the Friday after St George in Brno, and the second session on the Friday before St Martin in Olomouc, and on the Friday after St Martin in Brno.” The text on ‘royal accusations’—another type of lawsuit—is accompanied by Žerotín’s note stating that it is not the King himself who summons the accused to court, but that he does so via a court official. The third group of commentaries offer specific assessments of the accuracy and validity of the individual articles of the Code. For example, there was an article stating that matters relating to women should be given priority by the provincial court, so that women “would not congregate at the court”. Charles considered this stipulation to be unworkable: “Absoletum. To be repealed. Although parties may request that the set order of proceedings be followed, others cite this stipulation that the cases of widows, wives and maidens must be heard before the other cases according to law. But if the other cases are also of this type and are heard before the case in question—whether the woman is the plaintiff or the accused—then this stipulation is of no service to them.” The final group of Charles’ commentaries comprises ironic comments on his political adversaries—for example, when he notes the difference between the genuinely ancient, long-established noble families in Moravia and the families named by the Emperor Ferdinand as ‘ancient’ houses.28 During his tenure of various offices, Charles’ legal authority continued to grow. In the changed political situation of the 1620s, even Cardinal Franz vof Dietrichstein acknowledged that without Charles’ contribution it would not have been possible to produce such fundamental legal documents as the confiscation order or (several years later) the Moravian version of the Re-established Provincial Code. Charles was forced to excuse himself on grounds of ill health and old age in order to avoid participating in the creation of legislation that de facto abolished the dualist political system and heralded the end of an era of religious tolerance. His withdrawal from the legal scene was reminiscent of the

28 [10] Zemské zřízení moravské, Znojmo 1562 (copy in the Biblioteka uniwersytecka Wrocław, sig. 510479). See also Čáda, ed., Zemské zřízení moravské z r. 1535. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 239 actions of those noblemen whom he had previously criticized so vehemently for their avoidance of participation in public life.29

A Bitter Chalice In the fall of 1600, Charles of Žerotín the Elder, on a visit to Prague, became involved in an incident that could well have sealed his fate. The incident was to become a symbol not only of an ongoing legal dispute in which Charles was defending himself against charges of insulting the Emperor, but also of the entire political situation—a situation characterized by a breakdown in tolerance and portents of the approaching radicalization that was to grip the lands of the Bohemian Crown. In the Bohemian capital Charles was present at a banquet also attended by the imperial Field Marshal Hermann Christoph Russworm. When the time came for the customary toasts, Russworm challenged Žerotín to drink to the health of Emperor Rudolf II. Charles refused to raise his glass, and remarked—according to a comment in one of his later letters—that he would rather pray for the Emperor, as the Emperor truly needed it. Russworm then threw his wine glass at Žerotín.30 Russworm’s act was interpreted quite unambiguously by Žerotín, as well as by other eyewitnesses and subsequent historians. They concur that Russworm’s behavior was more than a mere impulsive act provoked by the boisterous atmosphere and the wine consumed. It was in fact a double provocation by the imperial Marshal, who was a typical military commander figure of the time—a Saxon convert and a man who constantly moved on the very margins of the law. His attempt to provoke Žerotín into drinking a toast to the Emperor, despite the ongoing dispute over the alleged lese-majesty, was intended to mock Charles, the head of the Moravian non-Catholic faction. If Charles had refused to drink the toast—despite his duty to and respect for the Emperor—such a refusal could have provided further ammunition against him in the ongoing court case. By throwing the wine glass, Russworm was attempting to provoke a duel which would either have led to Žerotín’s immediate death or would have breached the Emperor’s ban on dueling—which again would have constituted an insult to the Emperor’s authority. Charles of Žerotín the Elder was thus placed in a very dangerous situation. Although the artifi- cially provoked conflict did not play out as Russworm had intended, Charles’

29 [11] Knoz, Pobělohorské konfiskace. Moravský průběh, středoevropské souvislostí, obecné aspekty (Brno: Matice moravská and Masarykova Univerzita, 2006), 218–257. 30 [12] Pavel Michna, “Hrdelní proces Karla staršího ze Žerotína,” Vlastivědný věstník moravský 48, 4 (1996): 354–369. 240 Knoz personal and political position became yet more precarious. Russworm’s wine glass came to symbolize Žerotín’s own bitter chalice.31 Even before Žerotín arrived in Prague, and before the Russworm incident, the political landscape in Moravia had been changing radically. Several important representatives of the Moravian estates from the ranks of the non- Catholic nobility had died—including Jan of Lipá, Fridrich the Elder of Žerotín, and Hynek Brtnický of Valdštejn. Other Moravian Protestant nobles, headed by Charles of Liechtenstein, had opted for a religious (and also political) conversion. The right of free movement within the lands of the Bohemian Crown— which meant that nobles could change their place of residence without being obliged to apply for a new ‘incolat’ (a form of estate citizenship)—attracted a large group of radical Czech Catholics and supporters of the Spanish cause to Moravia. These newcomers quickly rose to high office in their adopted province. A leading role among the new arrivals was played by Ladislav and Kryštof of Lobkovice, Ladislav Berka of Dubá and Siegmund of Dietrichstein. The radical political stance adopted by this group was supported by the Counter-Reformation measures introduced by Siegmund’s brother Franz vof Dietrichstein, who became Bishop of Olomouc following the death of Stanislav Pavlovský. The more moderate, compromise-inclined group of Catholics, such as Joachim Haugwitz of Biskupitz or Adam of Šternberk, suddenly found themselves in the minority. Although Charles of Žerotín the Elder was no longer the young radical who had been prepared to offer military assistance to Henry of Navarre ten years earlier, he became the main target of attacks by the radical Catholics. Perhaps they were piqued by his principled defense of provincial law and established procedures, which made it difficult to push through sweeping changes to the political and social situation. However, Žerotín’s ongoing dispute with Emperor Rudolf II was undoubtedly an important motivation for their enmity.32 The radicals found a pretext for a decisive attack on Žerotín after the arrest of the Italian Giovanni Battista Pierio, an act authorized by Charles the Elder in 1598 in his capacity as the supreme provincial judge on the basis of an order by the Provincial Governor Fridrich the Elder of Žerotín. However, Pierio was the bearer of an imperial decree conferring immunity upon him, which was intended to prevent such treatment. Although the incident may appear quite banal, the Hofmeister Kryštof of Lobkovice and Siegmund of Dietrichstein ensured that Žerotín’s arrest order

31 [13] Rejchrtová, Karel starší ze Žerotína, 138–140; Michna, “Hrdelní proces,ˮ 361. 32 [14] Válka, Přehled dějin Moravy; určeno pro posluchačhe fakultet filozofické a pedagogické, vol. II (Brno: SPN, 1987), 192–205. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 241 was interpreted as an insult to imperial authority. According to this interpretation, by arresting a person enjoying imperial immunity, Charles had not only gone against an order from a higher authority, but he had symbolically arrested the Emperor himself. In the summer of 1599 Siegmund of Dietrichstein filed a suit against Žerotín, and in the fall of the same year Žerotín was instructed by the imperial authorities to explain his conduct. The court case began in Prague. Traveling to the capital, Charles faced not only his court case, but also a precarious personal situation. In letters to his friends—including Václav Budovec of Budov, Heinrich of Eberbach and Hartwig of Stitten—he wrote that none of the arguments in his defense were accepted by the court—not even his argument based on Pierio’s unsuitable behavior (which had provoked the arrest in the first place), the Italian’s unacceptable conduct when bearing arms, or the fact that Žerotín knew nothing of Pierio’s decree of immunity— which the Italian was unable to produce at the moment of arrest. The prosecu- tion attempted to steer the case in a direction which would ensure Žerotín’s conviction—thus not only precipitating the confiscation of his estates and his imprisonment, but quite possibly leading to his execution. In view of the conviction of George and Ladislav of Lobkovice just a few years earlier, there can be no doubt that Emperor Rudolf II would have been willing to impose a stiff sentence on Žerotín. That Žerotín was in genuine peril is also evident from the length of the court proceedings, which dragged on until 1601, as well as from some of the preliminary measures imposed by the court. For example, Charles was stripped of his legal guardianship of Pertold Bohobud of Lipá and was no longer permitted to administer Pertold’s estates in Moravský Krumlov. The final verdict was due to be pronounced in a session in early December 1601, after the case had dragged on for over two years. The prosecutor, Siegmund of Dietrichstein, had added two further items to the charges against Charles: the heretical worship that had taken place at the Žerotín chateaux and Charles’ earlier military campaign in France. Charles the Elder apparently delivered an excellent speech in his own defense, not only displaying his legal and rhe- torical talent, but also mocking Siegmund of Dietrichstein before the entire court. He enjoyed similar success in a further session of the court in March 1602, by which time Siegmund had fallen ill and had been replaced by Zdeněk Vojtěch Popel of Lobkovice, the highest-ranking chancellor in Bohemia. Due to the judges’ unwillingness to pronounce a verdict exonerating Charles, the trial continued to drag on, and the sessions—originally held at approximately six-monthly intervals—became increasingly sporadic. The trial was never officially brought to a conclusion, though it was de facto terminated by the fra- ternal dispute between Emperor Rudolf II and the Hungarian King Matthias Habsburg as well as by the Moravian estates’ uprising against the Emperor. 242 Knoz

This development led to Charles’ adversaries losing their power for a time, and he unexpectedly rose to hold the highest office in Moravia—that of the Provincial Governor.33

Charles as Provincial Governor According to the letter of the Provincial Code, the Provincial Governor was the highest-ranking official in Moravia in the early modern period. Since the death of the Luxembourg Jobst of Moravia in 1411, the post of Moravian Margrave had as a rule been held by the Bohemian King, and from 1526 the Bohemian King was also the Holy Roman Emperor. Given this situation, it was rare for the Moravian Margrave to be present in the province. This meant that the Governor of Moravia—the Margrave’s representative—played a crucial role in the political life of the province. Although the Governor was appointed by the monarch, he was elected by the Assembly of the provincial estates. The Governor—an elected representative of the nobility and the gentry, as well as of important ecclesiastical institutions and the deputies of the royal towns, also represented the privileged classes in the province and, on a general level, the entire population—as subjects could also submit complaints and grievances to the Governor. Because the office of Provincial Governor united both strands in the dualistic power structure, the conduct of the Governor’s office varied widely depending on the identity of the incumbent—which family he came from, and which political and religious groups he represented. At the end of the 16th century and in the first two decades of the 17th century, the office of Provincial Governor was held by members of various political groupings—reflecting a political situation that was becoming increasingly unstable. After Fridrich of Žerotín, a member of the Czech Brethren, the office was taken over by the tolerant Catholic Joachim Haugwitz of Biskupitz, who in turn was replaced in 1604 by the pragmatic politician Charles of Liechtenstein, a recent convert. In 1608 the post was briefly held by Ladislav Berka of Dubá, who belonged to a radical Catholic faction; Berka was then replaced after the Peace of Libeň by Charles of Žerotín the Elder—a representative

33 [15] Peter Chlumecky, Carl von Zierotin und seine Zeit 1564–1615, I–II (volume two is the edition of correspondence), (Brno: A. Nitsch, 1862), 43–50; Pavel Michna, “Hrdelní proces Karla staršího ze Žerotína,” Vlastivědný věstník moravský 48 (1996), 359–365. The trial with Charles of Žerotín the Elder was a rule viewed through his correspondence but the perspective of the other side is also extant; Moravský zemský archiv Brno, A 140, Rodinný archiv Dietrichsteinů, kart. 351, inv. No. 1450, Spor Zikmunda II. z Dietrichsteina s Karlem st. ze Žerotína a křívé obvinění před sněmem a u císaře. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 243 of the non-Catholic estates who had declared their support for Archduke Matthias. However, after the fall and death of Rudolf II, Matthias no longer needed the support of the non-Catholics, and the see-saw tipped over to the opposite side with the appointment as Provincial Governor of Ladislav of Lobkovice, a supporter of the Spanish cause. Ladislav held the office of Governor up to the Estates’ Rebellion, which brought the radical Protestant Ladislav Velen of Žerotín to power. In 1621 the tide turned yet again when Franz of Dietrichstein was appointed as Governor; he would go on to hold the office for sixteen years.34 The governorship of Charles of Žerotín the Elder is often described as the golden age of the Moravian estates. In reality, however, it was a period of deep political crisis, in which Žerotín vainly attempted to exercise a moderating influence, bringing together political rivals and re-instilling in the estates a respect for the provincial law as the highest authority in Moravia, an authority which even—to some extent—exceeded that of the monarch. Evidence of these attempts is provided by the fact that Charles did not assume the position of Governor by the standard process, not did he relinquish it in the usual peaceful manner. His candidacy and election to the post of Governor was a calculated risk, contingent upon the eventual confederation of Austria and Hungary, which significantly restricted the powers of the Emperor Rudolf II in favor of his brother. In return for the Moravians’ military backing for Matthias’ attack on the Emperor, Matthias gave them an oral promise that they would receive similar rights and freedoms as those that were granted to Bohemia and Silesia just a year later by Rudolf in his ‘Majestätsbrief’. The appointment of Charles as Governor is also associated with the secession of Moravia from the other Czech lands and the province’s de facto (though temporary) personal union with Hungary. All of these steps taken by the Moravians, combined with the lack of activity on the part of the Bohemian estates, caused a souring of relations between the political elites of both core provinces of St Václav Crown—Moravia and Bohemia. This tension was also reflected in the different stance taken by the two provinces to the Estates’ Rebellion of 1618. When Charles submitted his resignation from office in 1614—a document which entered into force the following year—he also did so under the pressure of political circumstances. The Catholic faction had regained its former power, partly because Matthias—under pressure from the Bishops Khlesl and Dietrichstein—had broken his original promises of religious freedoms. When

34 [16] František Kameníček, Zemský sněmy a sjezdy moravské, VoI. I, 128–145; Válka, Dějiny Moravy II, 32–33, 90–98. 244 Knoz a new Provincial Governor was elected in 1615, only one of the electors demon- stratively cast his ballot for Žerotín—Charles’ brother-in-law Pertold Bohobud of Lipá. In any case, the entire election process was carried out under the strict control of the pro-imperial factions, and the future Governor Ladislav of Lobkovice collected all of the ballot papers, including the voters’ signatures, and sent them to the Emperor for inspection.35 The period between 1608 and 1615 was one of intense and hectic activity for Charles of Žerotín the Elder. He wrote hundreds and hundreds of pages of letters and various other texts on high politics—including dissertations on the monarch or the estates of the neighboring lands—as well as on the provincial legal system and the activities of the estates’ institutions. Shortly after his election, he wrote to his Austrian friend Georg Erasmus Tschernembl complaining of his hectic schedule, which was to last for his entire seven-year term of office: “Since you left us, I have not had a single free day, and after returning home I was appointed to the office of Vice-King, known as ‘hejtman’ in our language.” This was despite the fact that Žerotín was well prepared to undertake his role; shortly before his election he had studied and summarized all relevant legal aspects of the Governor’s role in the relevant passages of his work De iure nostro. Even so, Žerotín suddenly became a major player in Central European politics, and he attempted to take advantage of his newly acquired influence to safeguard political and religious freedoms and to preserve the traditional legal system of the estates. In order to do so, this intellectual man, an opponent of military conflict, did not hesitate to raise a Moravian provincial army. Perhaps thanks to this step, Moravia was not attacked in 1611, when Bohemia and Prague were invaded by forces led by the Bishop of Passau. Within Moravia, Charles attempted to achieve a certain political balance, writing letters to leading Catholics (including Charles of Liechtenstein or even Cardinal Franz of Dietrichstein) persuading them of the advantages of an alliance with Matthias and the Moravian Protestant estates. It was during this period that Žerotín most vehemently propagated the idea that the

35 [17] Knoz, “Světla a stíny moravského stavovství”; Knoz, Mecenáš Labyrintu. Karel starší ze Žerotína 1564–1636” in Osobnosti moravských dějin, ed. Libor Jan (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), 203–218, here 214–216; Válka, “Karel starší z Žerotína (1564–1636),” Z kralické tvrze 13 (1986): 1–7; Válka, Věrnosti a zrady Moravanů, DaS 25, 3 (2003), 1–6. On the selection of the land hejtman one can only speak figuratively. For the perspective of the ruler, the election by estate rulers was not legally binding and only have an advisory character. About this see Marek Starý, “Jmenování moravského zemského hejtmana v roce 1578,” ČMM 127, 2 (2009), 441–453. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 245 interests of the province were more important than the interests of any one political grouping, and that a man’s confession should be a private matter rather than a political declaration. However, Charles’ everyday duties as Provincial Governor were much wider in scope. His office carried with it the role of ‘director of provincial finances’, which involved the collection of taxes and the supervision of various loans to the estates. For several years after abdi- cating from the post of Governor, Charles continued to fight his successor for control of this post. As the Governor he also had to chair meetings of the Assembly, which discussed issues relating to estate residency and citizenship, the re-establishment of the Provincial Code, road tolls, matters relating to subjects, illegal behavior by members of the estates, the settlement of disputes among members of the estates, and a broad range of other complex questions. As the Provincial Governor he was also charged with protecting the widows and orphans of aristocratic families, and with ensuring the welfare of all members of the estates—including intervention in their personal matters if necessary. For example, in 1612 he was forced to intervene in the case of one Jan Čejka of Olbramovice, who had unilaterally decided to leave his wife—ten years his elder. The Provincial Governor defended not only the abandoned wife, but also the honor of the entire nobility, uttering the words: “What has become of your promise, made before God and his Church as part of your marriage vows, that you shall love her, protect her, and not abandon her till death do you part?” Administrative and legal cases of this type were not in short supply, and so the Žerotín chateau in Rosice became one of the most important official centers of the Moravian Margraviate.36 The zenith of Charles’ political career in Moravia came at the famous Brno Provincial Assembly held in 1612, at which Žerotín managed to implement a large number of his ideas on how the province’s legal and political system should be run. The 1612 Assembly had a clearly defined agenda, including the approval of provincial taxes, questions of estates citizenship and residence, and matters pertaining to subjects. Charles attempted to ensure that Moravian law and established procedure—most recently codified in the Provincial Code of 1604—was adhered to throughout the proceedings. Nevertheless, the Assembly could not remain aloof from the ongoing social and political crisis wracking Moravia. Symptoms of the crisis include Žerotín’s legal dispute with

36 [18] On the writing De iure nostro see František Čáda, Nález právní knihy Karla staršího ze Žerotína (Zvláštní otisk ze Studií o rukopisech (Prague: Archiv ČSAV, 1962). In recent times this problematic is studied intensively by Jana Janišová. Rejchrtová, Karel starší ze Žerotína, 245–246, 289–294; Kameníček, Zemské sněmy a sjezdy moravské I, 128–145. 246 Knoz

Maximilian Lev of Rožmitál, which was rooted in in the deepening influence of the Catholic radicals at the turn of the century; the re-opening of the dispute at the 1612 Assembly can be interpreted as Žerotín’s attempt to gain revenge for his former humiliation. Another similar dispute discussed at the Assembly— one which heralded the serious divisions that were later to wrack Moravian society—was the trial of Mikuláš Sarkander for treason. Sarkander, the Dean of Opava, was accused of having committed this crime in 1609 by organizing the recruitment of armies to fight against Moravia. When Charles ceremoni- ally launched proceedings at the Assembly—in the presence of Archduke Maximilian of Habsburg and other “high-ranking officials and lords” of the Moravian Margraviate—he was well aware of these conflicts, both open and hidden. Why else would he have decided to take down his own records of the proceedings, when everything was officially minuted as a matter of course? Žerotín’s records include the following words: “These records of the Assembly have been compiled by me in order to preserve for the future a record of the methods and forms observed at Assembly sessions, especially such notable sessions as this one, in order that my successors will be able to follow these methods and forms, and also in order that it be known what differences exist between what actually happened at the Assembly and what was printed as a matter of record after the Assembly.”37 Charles already knew that he would not be able to play the role of a mediator between the Emperor, the Moravian Catholics and the Protestant estates for much longer in his position as Governor. In 1613 he wrote to Jan Jakub Grynaeus complaining of the problems he had encountered in office: “As far as my public activities are concerned, in my view I have the same chance of success as those who long ago were entrusted with the health of Babylon, when Babylon itself was not concerned with its own health and recovery: that is how much can be achieved by attempts to cure a country that is already tired with sickness. A black man does not lose his color even when he washes, and the same applies to those with whom I have to work—some are apathetic, others treacherous, and when dealing with them one urges the first to greater activity while warning off the second, and with little success in either case. It would be more or less bearable if some results were visible, but either no

37 [19] Vincenc Brandl, ed., Karel st. ze Žerotína, Sněm držaný roku 1612. The quote about Žerotín’s doubts about official Diet materials are on page 1. On the legal action of Marximilán Lev of Rožmitál see Martin Číhalík, “ ‘Sněm držany roku 1612’ Rozbor jed- nání moravského zemského sněmu na počátku 17. století,” Diplomová práce, Filozofická fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity, Brno, 1997, 51–71. culture, politics, and law in the lives of charles of žerotín 247 results at all can be seen, or only short-term success, or success comes only at the cost of great difficulties.” In 1614 Charles of Žerotín the Elder submitted a request to be relieved of the office of Moravian Provincial Governor, and his abdication entered into force on 26 February 1615. Although his successor, the newly elected Governor Ladislav of Lobkovice, encountered similar problems to Žerotín, he evidently had no intention of following in Charles’ footsteps.38

38 [20] Rejchrtová, Karel starší ze Žerotína, 296–298. chapter 10 The Transformation of Bohemian Religious Brotherhoods in the Early Modern Period

Jiří Mikulec

Jiří Mikulec has systematically studied, over the past fifteen years, both Utraquist and Catholic brotherhoods, confraternities, parish literary and choral societies in the early modern period. These groups had been a subject of marginal interest in earlier Czech historiography, especially from Catholic historians whose aim had been to glorify the Church Militant in Bohemia in the age of the Counter-Reformation. In this 2005 article, Mikulec, an historian without confessional affiliation, brings together a summary of his major findings from his book Barokní náboženská bratrstva v Čechách [Religious Brotherhoods of the Baroque Age in Bohemia] (Prague: Knižnice Dějin a současnosti, 2000) with new work on this topic. After describing the type, locale, social composition, economic support, and aims of these societies, he traces important changes in religious practice from the multi-confessional society of the late sixteenth century into the Catholic Baroque Age of the late seventeenth century. Mikulec’s work represents the full integration of the Counter-Reformation, which had eschewed by most nineteenth- and twentieth-century historians and rendered taboo by the communists, into the narrative of Bohemian history. It also shows the promise of rich source collections that exist in the Czech Republic. Jiří Mikulec (1962–) studied History and Czech at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague. In 1988 he received the doctorate and in 2005 his second doctorate (Habilitace) for his work on religious brotherhoods. Since 1987 he works as a researcher at the Historical Institute of the Czechoslovak (since 1993 Czech) Academy of Sciences and between 1997 and 2013 served as the Director of the early modern section of the Institute. In 2005 he also became a docent in early Bohemian history at the Charles University in Prague, and periodically lectures at the Charles University and the University of Pardubice. Other major works of Jiří Mikulec, in addition to Religious Brotherhoods of the Baroque Age in Bohemia, include the monograph studies, Leopold I. Život a vláda barokního Habsburka [Leopold I. The Life and Reign of a Baroque Habsburg] (Prague: Paseka, 1997), 31.7. 1627. Rekatolizace šlechty v Čechách: čí je země, toho je i náboženství [The Recatholicization of the Nobility in Bohemia:

Cuis regio eius religio] (Prague: Havran, 2005) Náboženský život a barokní zbož nost v českých zemích. [Religious Life and Baroque Devotion in the Bohemian Lands (Prague: Grada, 2013); co-edited works such as Mikulec et al., eds., Církev a společnost raného novověku v Čechách a na Moravě [Church and Society in the Early Modern Period in Bohemia and Moravia] (Prague: Grada, 2013); and numerous chapters in larger works, such as Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české [The Large History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown], vols., 8 and 9, eds. Ivana Čornejová et al. (Prague: Paseka, 2008–2011). Original Place of Publication and Permission: “Proměny náboženských bratrstev v Čechách v raném novověku” [The Transformation of Religious Brotherhoods in Bohemia in the Early Modern Period] in Bratrstva. Světská a církevní sdružení a jejich role v kulturních a společenských strukturách od středověku do moderní doby (Sborník příspěvků z III. pardubického bienále, 29–30. dubna 2004), eds. Tomáš Jiránek and Jiří Kubeš (Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice, 2005), 19–35. This article appears by permission of the author.

Religious brotherhoods established and controlled by the Catholic Church underwent major changes from the 16th to the 18th century. Naturally, these changes also affected the brotherhoods of Bohemia; this article traces the transformation of these institutions during the early modern period. The brotherhoods were lay institutions, established and controlled by the Catholic Church. Not only were they an integral part of ecclesiastical and religious life, but they also played an important social role. The brotherhoods therefore reflected all the transformations which affected society and the Church during the early modern era. This article does not aim to present a complete assessment of all the changes that occurred within the brotherhoods during the early modern period compared with the Middle Ages; such a task would require more space than is available here, and a genuinely exhaustive survey would need a team of authors applying an interdisciplinary approach, as well as extensive comparative studies. The sole aim of this article is to outline the development of the brotherhoods and to draw attention to several topics which are worthy of future attention.

1 The Essential Context and Development of Brotherhoods in the Early Modern Era

The 16th century brought radical changes to the medieval structures of the Church. Western European Christianity experienced a definitive schism as a result of the German Reformation, giving rise to what became known as the 250 Mikulec era of confessionalization in European society.1 Clearly formulated and dog- matically defined confessions began to play an important role in ecclesiastical and religious life. These confessions served as ideological foundations for all Christian churches, and they became the central factor determining the religious affiliation not only of individuals, but also of states. The principle ‘cuius regio, eius religio’, accepted during the negotiation of the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, expressed the strength of the bond between confessions and state institutions. During the process of confessionalization, the political elites of individual territories declared allegiance to one or another of the confessions, and this often directly determined the religious orientation of the state. In countries where the state did not form a close bond with any one particular confession during the 16th century (as was the case in the Czech lands), religious and political tensions began to emerge, which could easily develop into open conflict. Not even the Catholic Church was able to avoid the process of confessionalization. The Catholic faith remained one of the most prominent confessions, but the religious environment had changed, forcing the Church to implement internal reforms in order to adapt to the new circumstances. The Catholic Church differed from the Protestant churches in that it was an international organization with a centralized structure. Despite this difference, however, Catholic confessionalization proceeded along similar lines to the parallel process in the Protestant churches. An important role was played by the Council of Trent, which reformed the organization and doctrine of the Catholic Church and accepted the ‘professio fidei Tridentina’ (Profession of the Tridentine Faith)—the Catholic confession. One of the important consequences of these changes was a stronger emphasis on the active participation of lay people in religious life. In the Catholic Church, a major role was played in this regard by religious brotherhoods. The

1 On Confessionalization see: Heinz Schilling, “Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche, Staat und Gesellschaft—Profil, Leistung, Defizite und Perspektiven eines geschichtswissenschaftli- chen Paradigmas,” in Die Katholische Konfessionalisierung, eds. Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling (Güterloh: Güterloher Verlagshaus, 1995), 1–49. Schilling, “Das konfessionelle Europa. Die Konfessionalisierung der europäischen Länder seit Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts und ihre Folgen für Kirche, Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur” in Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa. Wirkungen des religiösen Wandels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert in Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur, eds. Joachim Bahlcke and Arno Strohmeyer (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1999), 13–62. An introduction to the confessionalization problematic from a Moraviam perspective see Rudolf Zuber, Osudy moravské církve v 18. století, vol. II (Olomouc: Česká katolická charita, 2003), 375–378. A summary of some aspects of the confessionalization debate was undertaken by Jiří Pešek, “Reformační konfesionalisace v Německu 16–17. stoleti,” ČČH 96, 3 (1998): 602–610. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 251 aim of these organizations was to recruit members from all strata of society, to encourage people to form a strong bond with a particular cult, to bring greater intensity to their religious life, and to offer a forum for collective rituals. Naturally, the members of the brotherhoods gained a certain degree of social prestige from their participation; this prestige was directly proportional to the importance of each particular brotherhood and its status in the local area. The confraternities of the early modern period can be characterized as examples of institutionalized piety—that is, associations whose primary aim was to organize religious life for the lay community, whether with regard to public religious events (participation in acts of worship, brotherhood festivals, funeral services for deceased members, acts of Christian charity, etc.) or private religious observance (prescribed prayers, religious devotions, the collection of indulgences, etc.). The brotherhoods can thus be understood as tools for activating the faithful, though they also served as a way of imposing religious discipline on the lay community.2 The everyday life of the brotherhoods also reflected other features of confessionalization in early modern society. One of the foundations of the Catholic faith was the honoring of saints, as well as the Marian cult in all of the many guises which it assumed in the various Marian confraternities. Many of the brotherhoods were dedicated to the cult of the Eucharist; this cult formed one of the essential pillars of the Catholic confession, as it enabled the Church to respond to the Protestants’ denial of the real presence of Christ in the sacra- mental bread and their rejection of the sacrificial character of the Mass.3 A further aspect of confessionalization that found its reflection in the brotherhoods was the belief in purgatory, which was accompanied by a growing use of the practice of indulgences. In the early modern era, following the reforms of the Council of Trent, this form of ‘remission of temporal punishment’ lost its former scandalous association with profiteering that had discredited the practice in the Middle Ages, and indulgences instead became an important way of motivating people to carry out religious acts. (The brotherhoods frequently allowed their members to obtain indulgences in return for various religious

2 Nicholas Terpstra and Ignatius Confratello, “Confraternities as Modes of Spiritual Continuity in Early Modern Society,” in Early Modern Catholicism. Essays in honour of John W. O’Malley, S.J., eds. Kathleen M. Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel (Toronto: Unversity of Toronto Press, 2001), 163–182. 3 On cult practices connected to Recatholization and local Habsburg piety see Anna Coreth, Pietas Austriaca. Österreichische Frömmigkeit im Barock, second edition (Vienna, 1982); Karl Vocelka, “Habsburská zbožnost a lidová zbožnost (K mnohovrstevnatosti vzahů mezi elitní a lidovou kulturou), FHB 18 (1997): 225–240. 252 Mikulec deeds that formed an integral part of their festivals and rituals.) Additionally, the religious brotherhoods sometimes functioned as a direct means of Catholic resistance against adherents of other faiths—as for example in the tense confessional disputes that afflicted Provence in the mid-16th century.4 The most striking feature of the development of religious brotherhoods during the early modern era—one which is obvious even after the most cursory examination of religious life during this period—is their rapid growth in numbers. Although the development of the brotherhoods was closely connected with Catholic confessionalization (and in a sense it was a direct result of confessionalization), the growth in their numbers actually took place some time after the corresponding developments in ecclesiastical life. Confessionalization in Europe was concentrated mainly within the second half of the 16th century, yet the expansion of the brotherhoods came between 100 and 150 years later. The brotherhoods are mentioned only very infrequently in the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and this is often cited as undeniable proof that they played a marginal role in the Church’s plans during the mid-16th century.5 It was not until 1604, when Pope Clement VIII issued the Constitution ‘Quaecumque’, that the Church finally responded to the growing number of confraternities.6 However, the mass expansion of the brotherhoods only came about as part of the development of Baroque Catholic devotionalism in the second half of the 17th century and the first half of the 18th.7 In Bohemia, a clear and incontrovertible milestone in the development of the brotherhoods during the early modern period was the defeat of the Bohemian estates’ rebellion in 1620 and the fluctuating religious situation in the lands of the Bohemian crown during the Thirty Years’ War. It was Recatholicization that enabled the brotherhoods to flourish in Bohemia. Nevertheless, the development of these lay organizations during the post-White Mountain period indicates that Bohemian society—especially in urban centers—needed institutions that combined religious and social functions. The brotherhoods that

4 Marc Venard, “Völksfrömmigkeit und Konfessionalisierung,” in Die Katholische Konfession alisierung, eds. W. Reinhard and H. Schilling, 258–270, here 266–267. 5 See Bernard Schneider, Bruderschaften im Trierer Land. Ihre Geschichte und ihr Gottesdienst zwischen Tridentinum und Säkularisation (Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1989), 106–108. 6 See Jiří Mikulec, Barokní náboženská bratrstva v Čechách (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2000), 41–43. 7 See Bernhard Schneider, “Kirchenpolitik und Volksfrömmigkeit: Die wechselhafte Ent wicklung der Bruderschaften in Deutschland vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Saeculum 47 (1996): 89–119. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 253 existed in Bohemia during the 16th and early 17th centuries were established in three separate periods. The first were old confraternities which had survived since the Middle Ages. These had mainly been established in the 15th century or at the beginning of the 16th century, before the German Reformation and the confessionalization of European religious life. However, these confraternities were few in number; the development of Bohemian brotherhoods was disrupted by the Hussite Reformation and the subsequent religious situation, in which Utraquism predominated. As far as we are currently aware, only seven of the old pre- Reformation Bohemian brotherhoods survived into the early modern period (or were re-established in the 17th or 18th centuries with a clear awareness of historical continuity).8 The second, much larger group of brotherhoods existing in 16th-century Bohemia were literary confraternities (literary choirs), originally associations of church choristers. In the pre-White Mountain period, these brotherhoods drew their membership from urban elites in Utraquist and Catholic areas. Besides their musical activities, the literary choirs also played an important social role. A relatively small number were established toward the end of the 15th century, and it is likely that more choirs were founded in large and medium-sized urban centers within Bohemia in the years up to 1520.9 A further expansion of the literary confraternities can be observed during the period of confessionalization, in the second half of the 16th century. However, unlike other brotherhoods, these choirs were not bound to any one

8 I take this number based on the catalogue of medieval brotherhoods in Bohemia, which was published by Hana Pátková in “ ‘Bratrstvie ke cti Božie,’ ” in Poznámky ke kultovní činnosti bratrstev a cechů ve středověkkých Čechách (Prague: K.L.P., 2000), 111–120. It deals with the rosary brotherhoods in Kadaň, Teplé, and Ústí nad Labem (all three of which are known up to 1473), the Brotherhood of the Holy Body of Our Lord and the Assumption of Mary in Most (1411); the Tachov Confraternity of Mary and St. Jakob (evidently 1504), the Brotherhood of the Body of Christ from Ústí nad Labem (founded in 1490, which H. Pátková also adds the Marian consecration, 19, 120, and the Brotherhood of St. Jacob in Pilsen (1948). It is possible to support the existence of all these brotherhoods in the 17th and 18th century. In 17th and 18th century sources we find the continuous trail of some of them but cannot reliably prove that these insitutions were also active in the 16th century. 9 Pátková, “ ‘Bratrstvie ke cti Božie,’ ” 36–37, proposes the existence of literary brotherhood in the 1480s and 1490s. in Žlutice, Jindřichův Hradec, Ústí nad Labem, Kouřím and in the New City of Prague at the Church of St. Henry. A few other choirs, whose origins are affirmed by tradition back to the Middle Ages, butfor which no sources exist (such as Nymburk). Pátková points to the upsurge of these institutions between the beginning of the sixteenth century and 1520. 254 Mikulec confession; in view of the predominance of Utraquism (later neo-Utraquism or Lutheranism) in Bohemia’s urban centers, most literary confraternities in the pre-White Mountain era were non-Catholic. While the old brotherhoods and some of the literary choirs dating from the late Middle Ages and the pre-Reformation period had no connection with the confessionalization of the early modern period, the last main group of pre-White Mountain brotherhoods emerged as a direct consequence of this process. These confraternities were established at a time of increasing religious and political tension in the lands of the Bohemian crown, and they formed an integral part of the Church’s Counter-Reformation strategy in the final third of the 16th century and the first two decades of the 17th. This group comprised several brotherhoods established in the towns of Prague or on estates owned by Catholic noblemen. It is highly likely that they were founded as part of the Church’s attempts to swell its ranks and motivate its adherents to greater activity. The most important of these confraternities were the Jesuit Marian congregations, of which the first Bohemian example was founded in 1575. In the pre-White Mountain period these sodalities were founded in four towns that were home to Jesuit colleges: Prague’s Old Town, Český Krumlov, Jindřichův Hradec and Chomutov.10 Many of the new brotherhoods set up in the late 16th and early 17th centuries displayed close links with monastic orders; besides the Jesuit congregations, several other brotherhoods affiliated with various orders were founded in Prague—the Discalced Augustinians at St. Thomas in the Small Side, the Dominicans at St. Mary Magdalene also in the Small Side, the Capuchin Order at Castle Hill (the Prague Castle district), and the Benedictines at St. George.11

10 Prague—Old City: 1575 Latin congregation of the Immaculate Conception, 1578 congregation of the Annunciation of Virgin Mary (merged in 1581 as the congregation of Virgin Mary, later showing up as patrocinium Annunciation, in the 17th and 18th century this congregation carries the designation “congregatio latina maior”, around 1575—the congregation of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Italian), 1611—Birth of Virgin Mary (“congregatio latina minior”); Český Krumlov: 1592—Latin congregation of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary; Jindřichův Hradec: 1602—Latin congregation of the Annuncation of the Virgin Mary; Chomutov: 1602—Latin congregation of the Annuncation of the Virgin Mary. This and other information of individual religious brotherhoods I drew from the Catalogue of Religious Brotherhoods in Bohemia 1620–1783. 11 The Brotherhood of the Body of Christ at St. Thomas originated in 1580, the rosary brotherhood at St. Mary Magdalene in 1608, from 1604 came the flagelant confraternity at the new Capucine Cloister on Prague Castle Hill, under the jurisdiction of the Cloister of St. George came the Church of the Holy Spirit in the Old City of Prague which developed the parish brotherhood of St. Otilia in 1616. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 255

The defeat of the estates’ rebellion, and the subsequent Recatholicization of Bohemian society after 1620, enabled these brotherhoods to flourish. New brotherhoods began to spring up alongside those founded in the Middle Ages or dating back to the period of religious conflict at the turn of the 17th century. The most strongly represented were the Marian congregations at the Jesuit colleges. New congregations were set up both at the old pre-White Mountain colleges and at newly established colleges (until the mid-17th century the Jesuits were able to expand rapidly throughout the Czech lands, and in 1623 an independent Bohemian Jesuit Province was established).12 These congregations were focused mainly in urban centers; in addition to Latin student congregations, all of the Jesuits’ colleges had Marian brotherhoods consisting of local burghers, and in some places there were congregations of St. Isidore, organized for rural subject populations. A further important role in the post-White Mountain development of the brotherhoods was played by the literary choirs. Following the first wave of state-controlled Recatholicization during the Thirty Years’ War, the old choirs became involved in Catholic religious life, while also retaining their original musical and social functions. New choirs also began to spring up, because choral singing in churches was of great practical importance to the Church in the aftermath of the White Mountain. However, the existence of the choirs was profoundly affected by the development of Baroque devotionalism, and above all by the growth of other types of brotherhoods, which was at its strongest over a period of about a hundred years between the mid-17th and mid-18th centuries. Hundreds of these new brotherhoods sprang up, providing competition for the existing choirs. Many literary confraternities responded by attempting to emulate their newly founded rivals, and the choirs embarked on a process of transformation which would see them become increasingly similar to the standard brotherhoods.13 The members of the literary choirs received indulgences, and the choirs began to focus on other Catholic cults, offering their existing members similar conditions for the development of personal and collective devotion as were available in those brotherhoods founded outside the choral tradition. Of a total 169 literary choirs that are documented

12 On the Post-White Mountain development of the Jesuit Order in the Bohemia Lands see Tomáš Bílek, Dějiny řádu Tovaryšstva Ježíšova a působení jeho vůbec a v zemích království Českého zvláště (Prague: František Bačkovský, 1896), 489–515; Alois Kroess, Geschichte der böhmischen Provinz der Gesellschaft Jesu, vol. II/1–2 (Vienna: Opitz, 1927 and 1938); Ivana Čornejová, Tovaryšstvo Ježíšovo. Jezuité v Čechách (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1995), 111–119. 13 Mikulec, Barokní náboženská bratstva, 14–17. 256 Mikulec as existing in Bohemia during the period 1620–1783, just over a quarter of them (45) underwent this type of transformation. The final characteristic feature of the development of religious brotherhoods during the post-White Mountain period has already been mentioned— the rapid growth in the number of these institutions. A catalogue of Bohemian brotherhoods currently being compiled is almost complete, and to date it lists a total of 852 associations that can be classified as religious brotherhoods.14 Some were established in the Middle Ages, others in the 16th century, while others included Baroque confraternities, literary choirs, and Third Order Franciscan or Capuchin brotherhoods. Of the total number, only 70 brotherhoods can reliably be shown to have existed before the White Mountain. Although we encounter some problems with lost sources or inadequate documentation, it is nevertheless likely that a sizeable majority of brotherhoods existing in the post-White Mountain period were established after 1620. If we examine information on the foundation of the brotherhoods (though this information is unfortunately not available for all of the listed brotherhoods), it can be reliably established that 475 brotherhoods were founded or received their papal briefs of indulgences in the period 1620–1783.

2 The Context of the Growth in Numbers of Brotherhoods

The development of the brotherhoods, and above all their rapid growth in numbers, naturally influenced their role in Bohemian religious life. They became an integral part of society; there was at least one confraternity in almost every royal town, as well as in most large subject towns, many smaller subject towns, and even in several villages. By 1768, thirty-eight percent of parishes within the Archdiocese of Prague had at least one brotherhood.15 Baroque brotherhoods, where they existed, became particularly popular. Numbers of members swelled, and in certain social strata—particularly among councilors and officials—membership of the local religious brotherhood came to be seen as an almost integral part of their high social status. Naturally, the brotherhoods played a major role in the religious life of local communities. They brought an element of pomp and circumstance to festivals and funerals, organized their own religious services and festivals, held processions, took part in pilgrimages, and so on. To their members they provided that which the ordinary religious

14 On the demarcation of brotherhoods, ibid., 9. 15 The Prague Archdioceses without Kladsko had a total of 1070 parishes in the year 1768, in which 410 had brotherhoods. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 257 life of the parish could only offer to a limited extent—strong support in the case of death and guidance in the question of the afterlife.16 The growth in the number and membership of brotherhoods during the Baroque period was partly due to the fact that the early modern confraternities generally displayed a greater openness to the outside world. This characteristic can be observed in the brotherhoods that were founded during the second half of the 17th century and the first half of the 18th century. These organizations strove to recruit as many members as possible, and their rules were designed so as not to impose too many burdens on their members. There was an evident effort to reach a compromise between the heightened intensity of spiritual life promoted by the brotherhoods on the one hand, and on the other hand a realistic approach to members’ duties. Such a compromise was not ideal, and the spiritual leaders of the brotherhoods were mostly well aware of this fact.17 In order for each brotherhood to grow and gain new members, it was essential for it to acquire social prestige. To this end the brotherhoods organized festivals, decorated their altars and purchased valuable liturgical items. Important, high-ranking figures were also registered as members—though they were generally members on paper only. Some of the albums compiled by important brotherhoods contain lists of members including bishops and archbishops, important noblemen, and influential provincial officials. The most prestigious members of all were the monarch and his family. The most important of the brotherhoods either took advantage of the Habsburg monarchs’ rare visits to Bohemia to request their signatures, or they sent their albums directly to the court in Vienna.18

16 For a comparision of the composition of these Baroque brotherhoods, see Rupert Klieber, Bruderschaften und Liebesbünde nach Trient. Ihr Totendienst. Zuspruch und Stellenwert im kirchlichen und gesellschaftlichen Leben am Beispiel Salzburg 1600–1950 (Frankfurt am Main,: Peter Lang, 1999), 130–134; Mikulec, “Pražská barokní bratrstva a smrt,” Documenta Pragensia 20 (2002): 115–126. 17 Mikulec, Barokní náboženská bratstva, 72–75. 18 For example, the ruler along with his closest family members decorated with their signatures the membershiip list of the first Nepomuk Brotherhood in the world (which originated in 1696 and in 1706, twenty-three years before Nepomuk’s canonization, formally constituted and received papal exemption under the title of the Brotherhood of the Virgin Mary for furthering respect for the holy Jan Nepomuk). On the title page of the register signed in 1707 Emperor Josef I, his wife Amalie Wilhemina, Emperess- Widow Eleonora Magdalena and Josef’s brother and future successor Karl (see SÚA, NB, manuscript 3404. It deals with the intention to form a high prestige brotherhood from the very beginning, the fouding registger was probably sent to Vienna to the court. It was frequently the cease that a ruler’s visit to a country was used to enter him into the 258 Mikulec

One of the ways in which the early modern brotherhoods could boost their prestige was by book-printing. Of course this tool was not available to the medieval confraternities, but even the brotherhoods of the 16th century (and some in the 17th century) made relatively scant use of the technology. (Of course, it is advisable to be cautious when evaluating the role of printing in the life of the brotherhoods, because we are reliant solely on those printed sources which have been preserved—whereas most sources, especially everyday prints, have not survived.) Nevertheless, it was not until the second half of the 17th century that the Bohemian brotherhoods began to take full advantage of the possibilities offered by printed texts, including ornamental graphics in the case of the wealthier brotherhoods (rulebooks, membership certificates, prayer books), and also special publications such as lists of newly elected members of the presidium, lists of deceased members, new year greetings, reports and descriptions of festivals, and so on. However, the growing number of confraternities, and the rise in membership numbers (which was encouraged by most of the brotherhoods), also brought with it a negative phenomenon: the risk that the brotherhoods would become commonplace and lose their cachet of exclusivity. If a particular brotherhood was the only one in its area, it was able to retain its status as an exclusive institution. However, a typical feature of the development of brotherhoods in the early modern era was the existence of more than one confraternity in the same town,19 often based within the same church. However, this situation could lead to a dilution of the exclusivity that had been enjoyed by medieval brotherhoods and those dating back to the pre-White Mountain era. The sources do not generally give direct information on this loss of exclusivity, but it should certainly be taken into account as a possible phenomenon when analyzing the social influence wielded by the Baroque religious brotherhoods. Moreover, the available information on the 17th- and 18th-century Bohemian brotherhoods lends some support to the hypothesis that the existence of several confraternities in the same place threatened to undermine their social prestige; the brotherhoods resorted to a number of methods in an attempt to conserve this prestige.

membership book of a brotherhood which had already been institued. For example, Emperor Leopold I, who came to a short visit to Bohemia in 1673, slept in Jindřichův Hradec, where he wasa entered into the membership book of the Bohemian Marian congregation (SÚA Praha, NB XV/16). 19 Baroque brotherhoods which have now been recorded in the Bohemian Kingdom (total 582) existed in 512 localities. A third of them had two or more brotherhoods (with the extreme example being the four Prague cities where 90 confraterrnities were active). the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 259

One such method was applied by the Jesuits. They offered the faithful a broad spectrum of brotherhoods which co-existed but did not compete with each other. The (already mentioned) Marian congregations were one type; they were relatively insular in their approach, and placed relatively large demands on their members’ discipline and personal participation. Up to the mid-18th century these congregations were intended to be closed to women (although female members can be found among the membership lists—both as ‘bene- factors and supporters’ and as members of the upper classes, who were often included in the albums of the Latin sodalities).20 However, the Jesuits offered a wide selection of different congregations: Latin congregations (for intellectuals, noblemen, clerics, students, and high-ranking town officials), burghers’ congregations (Czech, German, mixed), and peasants’ congregations (targeted at rural subject populations). In addition to these congregations, the Jesuits founded another type of brotherhood, based at their churches: this type was known as a coetus (association). The coeti were far more similar to standard Baroque brotherhoods than were the Marian congregations. Their members were subject to less stringent demands than those of the sodalities. The coeti were open to women, and they were not affiliated with the Roman congregation of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. (Congregations were commonly affiliated with this congregation, which meant that they were automatically covered by the papal brief of indulgences.) The coeti also cultivated different cults—mostly not Marian cults, but instead the cults of several saints and above all the cult of the dying Christ. They placed a strong emphasis on death and the afterlife, and in the first half of the 18th century they began to affiliate themselves with the Roman coetus Bonae mortis—which not only lent them its name, but also conferred upon them its papal brief of indulgences.21 A second way of offering members a high level of social prestige included the foundation of closed confraternities—brotherhoods which after reaching a certain number of members ceased to accept any more; new members could only join when a current member died. These brotherhoods were attractive due to their inaccessibility, but this placed them at odds with the openness

20 On the question of female memberhip in Marian congregations in the 17th century see Mikulec, “Jezuitská bratrstva v Chomutově,” in Comotovia 2002. Sborník přispěvku z konfer ence věnované výročí 750 let první písemné zmínky o existenci Chomutova (1252–2002), ed. Petr Rak (Chomotov: Albis, 2003): 102–114, here 103. 21 The publication of the founding document (Erectio Primariae congregationis vulgo nun- cupatae Della Buona Morte in ecclesia domus professae Societatis Jesu . . .) and other writing about this brotherhood are located in the Roman archive of the Jesuits, Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Rome 148. 260 Mikulec that was the most fundamental characteristic of Baroque brotherhoods. This is perhaps the reason for the very small number of these closed confraternities.22 The third way of maintaining prestige—one which represented a certain compromise—was chosen by several large, prestigious brotherhoods in Bohemia and other European Catholic countries. These organizations created brotherhoods within brotherhoods.23 These new brotherhoods had limited numbers of members. They formed separate communities within a larger confraternity, and were founded by wealthier members enjoying higher social status. Their members paid higher dues and performed more requiem masses for deceased members. A new member was only admitted when one of the existing members died. As has already been mentioned, at the heart of the early modern brotherhoods was the effort to recruit as many members as possible, and so most of the Bohemian confraternities of the 17th and 18th centuries were uninter- ested in the prestige of their membership. In a way this problem solved itself, because each brotherhood with a standard organizational structure was able to ensure that at least its most important members enjoyed greater respect and enhanced social prestige. This was achieved by means of the internal hierarchy of members, including a presidium consisting of lay members. The presidium was a group of people within the confraternity who ranked higher than the other members and therefore enjoyed higher social prestige. During the 18th century the number of members and officials in the lay presidia of several large brotherhoods grew to several dozens. The multiplication and growth of the brotherhoods in the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th century brought with it a phenomenon that had previously been quite rare in Bohemia—when one person was a member of more than one brotherhood simultaneously. In the pre-White Mountain period this multiple membership can only be observed in places with more than one literary choir.24 However, the growth of the Baroque brotherhoods meant that it was common for a single town to have more than one brotherhood, and multiple membership became a widespread phenomenon. A very important factor in the development of the brotherhoods in the 17th and 18th centuries was the typically Baroque emphasis on quantity. It is not merely a glib cliché to state that in Baroque religious life, quantity in fact represented

22 Mikulec, Barokní náboženská bratrstva, 108. 23 Ibid., 109–110. 24 On membership in Pre-White Mountain literary choirs see Zikmund Winter, Život Církevní v Čechách, vol. II (Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1896), 944–990. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 261 a form of quality.25 For Baroque worshippers, it was very important how many prayers they said, how much time they spent at mass, how many religious acts and duties they performed, how many indulgences they collected, and—for some people—how many days and years they spent repenting for sins that had already been forgiven (a practice known as ‘indulgence accountancy’). Priests kept a careful record of the number of masses they had served, the number of pilgrims whose confessions they had heard, and the number of miracles associated with pilgrimage sites. In the case of the brotherhoods, this emphasis on quantity was manifested in the stipulations for their members’ various duties, the number of masses served for the deceased, or the number of prayers that all members were required to say for their deceased former brethren. Viewing Baroque confraternities as institutions which played a major role in organizing and regulating lay devotionalism, the quantitative aspect of their activities is very prominent: the brotherhoods strove to recruit more members, people tended to be members of several brotherhoods, and so on.

Types of Brotherhoods Early modern brotherhoods placed considerable emphasis on their patron saints. However, this applied primarily to the Baroque period, after the White Mountain, when the only brotherhoods that developed within Bohemia were Catholic. In pre-White Mountain Bohemia, when most of the brotherhoods were non-Catholic literary choirs, the confraternities paid little attention to patronage; this was a natural consequence of the Reformation’s unwillingness to embrace saintly cults. In the Catholic Baroque brotherhoods, by contrast, patronage was of great importance. Not only did this patronage represent a chosen cult—helping to determine the brotherhood’s activities—but it also functioned as an important external feature distinguishing one brotherhood from the others in the local area. The patronage served as a form of ‘shop sign’, clearly signaling a particular brotherhood’s orientation and in some cases its ties to a monastic order. This function of patronage was adopted by many of the choirs during their transformation into standard brotherhoods, when they chose one of the cults and incorporated it into their title. In any case, without this patronage they would not have been eligible to receive a papal brief of indulgences, which crowned their transformation. One of the features of early modern brotherhoods is the important role played by monastic institutions in the foundation of these organizations, and to some extent in running their operations. Brotherhoods were frequently

25 The Enlightented presented a sharp contrast to this picture of Baroque piety; see Mikulec, Barokní náboženská bratrstva, 126. 262 Mikulec established on monastic premises. Most importantly, however, a growing number of monastic orders began to establish their own versions of brotherhoods, some based at parish churches. Whereas in medieval Bohemia the predominant brotherhoods of this type were Dominican rosary confraternities, the advent of the early modern era (especially the Baroque period) saw the foundation of many new brotherhoods with monastic links. There has already been mention of two types of Jesuit brotherhoods; others engaged in huge programs of expansion included the Carmelite scapular confraternities, the Servite brotherhoods of Our Lady of Sorrows, the Trinitarian confraternities of the Most Holy Trinity (which raised ransoms to pay for the release of Christians taken hostage), the Augustinian brotherhood of Our Lady of Consolation and the confraternity of the Belt of St. Monica, or the brotherhoods of St. Francis Seraph founded by the Franciscans and Minorites. A typical feature of the Baroque brotherhoods, not only in Bohemia but throughout Catholic Europe, was the wide variety of types. This was partly due to the existence of many brotherhoods propagated by monastic institutions, the large number of literary choirs, and Third Order Franciscan institutions. Variety was also increased by the wide range of cults that were celebrated in the titles of the confraternities. On the other hand, there was a decline in profession-based brotherhoods compared with the situation in the Middle Ages. Medieval confraternities frequently combined professional and religious functions. In the 17th and 18th centuries, however, these two roles became strictly separated; profession-based brotherhoods are rare in this period. We currently know of the existence in Baroque Bohemia of the (already mentioned) congregations of St. Isidore for rural populations,26 as well as a brotherhood of cooks in Prague,27 which met in the Church of St. Lawrence on the Petřín hill and

26 We know of five brotherhoods in Bohemia with a patrocium or joint patrocium of St. Isidore. Jesuit congregations were in Jindřichův Hradec (founded 1640, renewed 1677), in the Old City of Prague at the Bethlehem Chapel (1655, congregation for wine makers from Prague surroundings), in Křesetice (1675) and in Tuchoměrice (1676). Another brotherhood of St. Isidore existed in Potěchy. 27 The request for the ratification of the brotherhoods through the Prague Consistory was submitted in 1732, the request was formulated “pro aprobatione confoederationem coco- rum Pragensium,” SÚA Praha, APA, B 39/B, f. 342r. The papal indulgence privilege for the brotherhood altar from 1733, the papal Cum sicut from 1735 and the arcibishoprical confirmation from 1736 for all brotherhoods are located in the SÚA Praha, APA, Bullarium B 16/11, f. 187v; B 16/12, f. 41v–42v. Not a single document however gives the occupation orientation of the brotherhood, in the papal brief Cum sicut is standard formulation “con- fraternitas . . . non tamen pro homimibus unius specialis artis . . .” The role of the cook’s guild in the founding of this confraternity and in the dispute about the mass founda- the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 263 was of course named after Lawrence, the patron of cooks. The brotherhood of St. John of Nepomuk, based at the Episcopal seminary in Hradec Králové, can also be categorized as a professional confraternity, as its members were all priests receiving their training at the seminary.28 The last brotherhood which probably had a connection with a guild was the confraternity of Saints Crispin and Crispinian, the patrons of cobblers, which was based at the Church of St Mary on the Teyn in Prague’s Old Town Square (where the cobblers’ guild maintained an altar dedicated to the two patrons). In this case, however, the only available source is a papal brief of indulgences; there is no other evidence of the existence of this brotherhood.29 The growth in the number and variety of brotherhoods in the early modern period was accompanied by another characteristic feature: their penetration into purely rural areas. In 16th-century Bohemia religious brotherhoods were almost exclusively an urban phenomenon, existing mainly in important towns and cities. However, in the second half of the 17th century increasing numbers of confraternities were established in small rural towns and village parishes. Of a total 852 Bohemian brotherhoods currently listed in the above- mentioned catalogue for the period 1620–1783, altogether 186 were based in villages (almost 22 percent of the total). However, if we take as our measure the places where brotherhoods were based, the villages account for an even larger number: they existed in 172 villages (around 33 percent of the total 512 places where brotherhoods were based). However, it should be pointed out that the rural brotherhoods differed from their urban counterparts in their degree of prestige and importance, though not in their patronage. As we have seen, the rural cult of St. Isidore in Bohemia failed to take root, despite the Jesuits’ best efforts.30

Tendencies Toward Unification Although the early modern religious brotherhoods underwent a rapid expansion and displayed a wide variety of different types, we should nevertheless

tion in the year 1733 were addressed by Antonín Novotný, Z Prahy doznívajícího baroka (Prague: Atlas, 1947), 79. 28 SOA Zámrsk, BK HK—book 281. 29 The papal induldgence privilege received in 1725. SÚA Praha, APA, Bullarium B 16/9, f. 143r–144v, 144v. 30 See Pavel Štěpánek, “Sv. Isidor Madridský,” Posel z BUdce 11 (1996), 14–16; Mikulec, “Kult svatého ISidora sedláka v českých zemích. K působení církve v prostředí venkova v 17. a 18. století,” in Kultura baroka v Čechách a na Moravě. Sborník příspěvků z pracovního zasedání 5.3.1991, ed. Zdeněk Hojda (Prague: HÚ, 1992), 65–84. 264 Mikulec bear in mind the existence of a tendency toward the unification of the brotherhoods’ formal structure and the standardization of their founding documents. This trend formed part of a more general tendency affecting society and thus also the Church, as the early modern era brought a growth of bureaucracy and an increasing preference for written codification. The religious brotherhoods were primarily governed by the papal Constitution ‘Quaecumque’. An important manifestation of the standardization of written documents was the production of standardized papal briefs with the incipit ‘Cum sicut accepimus’, which were used to confer indulgences on brotherhoods from around the mid- 17th century onward. Around the same time, the papal Curia began to produce special books of regesta compiling all briefs issued by the Pope in the second half of the 17th century and throughout the 18th century.31 In the second half of the 17th century there was also a standardization of the documents issued by the Archbishop of Prague to confirm the individual brotherhoods within his Archdiocese. During the 17th century the individual monastic orders propagat- ing their own types of brotherhoods gradually settled on standardized forms for their documents of foundation, confirmation and aggregation.32 Of course, the brotherhoods themselves could hardly resist the prevailing trend toward growing standardization. During the Baroque era, a type of confraternity was established within the Catholic Church which transcended the boundaries of individual states, so that these brotherhoods were comparable at least within Central Europe, if not in all Catholic countries. The fundamental attribute of this type of brotherhood was the standard papal brief ‘Cum sicut accepimus’; most of these brotherhoods also received confirmation

31 The secret Vatican archive contains a total of eight books of these privileges for the period 1641–1800, see Archivio segreto Vaticano, Sec. Brev., Indulg. Perpet., book no. 2–9. For the historical research of the brotherhoods only books 4–9 can be used, books books 2–3 (period 1641–1667) were composed unsystematically to the point of being chaotic and besides the indulgence privileges also contains a number of other texts which do not relate to the brotherhoods and their indulges. Moreover, it is to be assumed that that entries in these books are not complete. Only with book 4, beginning July 6, 1667 (a few days after the book of the pointificate of Pope Clement IX) do the entries have a single form and keep in such a number and sequential order that it is possible to depend on their completeness. There are a total of six books for the years 1667–1800, containing 29, 902 prvileges for brotherhoods in the entire Catholic world. Since the books do not contain a register, their use is highly problematic. 32 The writings which came to the Prague Archdiocesis from the ecclesiastical circles (papal privileges and founding documents of brotherhoods), just like archbishopric confirma- tions, can be studied in the copies of papal bulls (Bulliaria), which are located in the Archive of the Prague Archbishopric—SÚA Praha, APA, B 16/1-B 16/15, B 17/1-B 17/3. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 265 from their local bishop. For brotherhoods propagated by monastic orders, the foundation document was issued by the order’s superior. The Constitution ‘Quaecumque’ was the main legal norm for the establishment of religious brotherhoods in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it laid down the basic parameters for their existence—above all the leadership of a Catholic priest, with supervisory duties performed by an ordinary, who also confirmed the confraternities.33 The Baroque confraternities had a similar organizational structure, with the lay presidium playing an important role. Their internal statutes or rules were generally quite similar, and they were closely connected with the brief of indulgences (so that if a member of the brotherhood obeyed the internal rules, he also thereby complied with the conditions enabling him to receive indulgences).34 In the second half of the 17th century and the 18th century, this standard Baroque model was also adopted by older, longer- established brotherhoods. This process was particularly noticeable in the case of the literary choirs as they underwent their transformation into standard brotherhoods. These tendencies toward unification were also reflected in the question of patronage. We have already noted the wide variety of types of Baroque brotherhoods, dedicated to a broad range of patrons. Nevertheless, certain limitations had to be observed. Most of the patronages chosen by the confraternities were popular Catholic cults, widespread throughout the Catholic world. Provincial saints occupied a marginal place in the names of the brotherhoods. This applied not only to Bohemia, but to the whole of Central Europe. There was only one exception—St. John of Nepomuk. However, brotherhoods dedicated to this saint became widely popular in Bohemia (and beyond) not due to his status as a Bohemian provincial patron, but rather because he was a recently canonized and widely popular saint, the first martyr of the Seal of the Confessional.35 A major contributing factor in the unification of the brotherhoods was the existence of two systems which became widespread during the 17th and 18th centuries. The first was the system by which monastic orders established brotherhoods to propagate their own cults. These orders possessed a

33 Jean-Marie Mayeur, Charles Pietri, Luce Pietri, André Vauchez and Marc Venard, eds., Die Geschichte des Christentums. Religion-Politik-Kultur, vol. 9 (Freburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998), 903. 34 See Mikulec, “Náboženská bratrstva v procesu pobělohorské rekatolizace,” in Rekatolizace v českých zemích, ed. Jindřich Francek (Jičín, Turnov, and Pardubice: Městský úrad v Turnově, Pekařova společnost Českého ráje, and Historický klub, 1995), 39–48. 35 Mikulec, Barokní náboženská bratrstva, 44–48. 266 Mikulec papal brief for their particular type of confraternity, not only allowing them to establish brotherhoods wherever they considered it desirable, but also granting indulgences to the new brotherhoods. A variation on this system was the model applied by the Jesuits: the Jesuit brotherhoods were affiliated with a central arch-brotherhood (in the case of the Marian congregations this was the Roman congregation of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary), and each individual brotherhood thus automatically received all of the indulgences collected by this arch-brotherhood over the years. The second system was the mechanism of ‘parent’ confraternities and their subsidiaries. This was used, for example, by brotherhoods based at important pilgrimage sites. Pilgrims from the local area or from more distant places became members of the parent confraternity. When they returned home, they would establish a subsidiary there.36

Early Modern Religious Brotherhoods as Model Institutions When tracing the development of religious brotherhoods through the early modern period, we should point out one final characteristic of these organizations which remains somewhat obscure, yet which had a certain importance for the society at the time. The rapid expansion of the confraternities at all levels of early modern society, accompanied by the standardization and unification of their formal structure, helped them to establish themselves as a universal type of organization or association during the 17th and 18th centuries. The brotherhoods were ideal institutions of their time, based on the voluntary principle and bringing together people from many strata of society to engage in shared activities. The other types of ‘social’ institutions that existed at the time were much less accessible. Some of them required their members to be involved in a particular profession, or they were restricted to just one social class (e.g. guilds, burghers’ shooting associations). Other, more modern organizations were high-prestige associations with very selective mechanisms for the recruitment of new members (e.g. Masonic lodges). Compared with these organizations, the religious brotherhoods were very widespread, accessible to practically all social classes, and—very importantly—most of them were open to women as well as men. The thread that united all of these brotherhoods and

36 A vivid example of such a brotherhood in Bohemia is the Confraternity of the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, Joseph) at Prague Loreta, adminstered by the Capuchins of Prague Castle Hill, to which in the course of the 18th century a number of affiliated brotherhoods arose (up until now the relationship can be reliabily proven with the bratherhoods and patrocium in Strýčice, Ústí nad Orlicí, Vimperk, Všeruby, Záblatí and Zlonice. However there should be more examples since we can identify a total of 24 brotherhoods with this patrocinium in Bohemia. the transformation of bohemian religious brotherhoods 267 their members was the Catholic faith. Of course this is a very broadly defined area of interest, because at the time the vast majority of the population of the Czech lands adhered to the Catholic confession. When society began to feel the need for another type of association based on different principles, people naturally turned first of all to the model embodied in the religious brotherhoods, adapting this structure according to their particular needs. In other words, the form of the religious brotherhood began to be applied to activities only tangentially connected with religion. For example, the association of European Catholics, established in 1620 to support the struggle of Emperor Ferdinand II against the Protestant Union, was modeled on the structure of the religious brotherhoods.37 The ‘Sodalitas christianae defensionis’ was founded in May 1620 by Archduke Albrecht, sov- ereign of the Spanish Netherlands and brother of the deceased Bohemian kings Rudolf II and Matthias. This association (which Ferdinand II attempted to introduce into Bohemia in 1623, without much success) was formally inspired by religious brotherhoods, though its aim was not to strengthen and propagate Catholic devotionalism, but to raise funds for the struggle against Protestantism by collecting donations from Catholics throughout Europe. When the Enlightenment began to inform the thinking of the Habsburg monarchy, there was an interesting proposal for the foundation of a brotherhood whose main aim was to be the promotion of the Czech language. This proposal came from the archivist and surveyor Petr Kašpar Světecký of Třeboň, who in the 1750s—with the help of a brotherhood dedicated to St. Martin and St. Elizabeth—planned to support the establishment of schools in Bohemia, the teaching of the Czech language, and the writing and publication of Czech- language books.38 His proposal drew on provincial patriotism accompanied by a strong interest in language; it was the product of the thinking of a Baroque patriot influenced by Enlightenment practicality, with an emphasis on a ratio- nal approach to problems. The content of the proposal is not particularly interesting; various ideas for the promotion of the Czech language and school- teaching were mooted well before this time. However, the proposal is notable for its form—that of a religious brotherhood which was to act as a cover for an association pursuing an entirely different aim.

37 Mikulec, “ ‘Sodalitas christianae defensionis’ a obraz katolictví na počátku třicetileté války” in Úloha církevních řádů při pobělohorské rakatolizacI. Sborník příspěvků z pra covního semináře konaného ve Vranově u Brna ve dnech 4.–5.6.2003, ed. Ivana Čornejová (Prague: UK, Ústav dejin UK, Archiv UK, and Scriptorium, 2003), 25–34. 38 František Mareš, “Petr Kašpar Světecký,” Časopis Muzea Království českého 53 (1879): 424– 429; JAN Nedoma, “Petr Světecký a Jan Kazimír hrabě NetolicKý,” ČČH 2 (1896), 378–81. 268 Mikulec

Světecký’s proposal for a linguistic brotherhood never came to fruition. However, a different proposal applying the same principle did become a reality soon afterwards, and it ultimately led to the complete abolition of the religious brotherhoods. It was a charitable institution known as ‘Bruderschaft der thäti- gen Liebe des Nächsten’, which was intended as a replacement for all existing religious brotherhoods during the era of Josef II.39 This institution took over the brotherhoods’ model, and in 1781 one of the first such associations on the Buquoy estates was actually granted the standard papal brief of indulgences, Cum sicut accepimus (under the title The Virgin Mary of Good Advice or Love Thy Neighbor).40 However, the intention of the association’s founder, Count Johann Nepomuk Josef Buquoy, drew on the Enlightenment concept of piety taking the form of Christian charitable work and helping the needy. (This was the same impulse that inspired Josef II in his support for these charitable institutions soon afterwards.) The initiative had nothing in common with the Baroque brotherhoods apart from its formal attributes. In 1783 all religious brotherhoods in the Habsburg monarchy (including literary choirs and Third Orders) were abolished by state decree. They were seen as being out of place in the new era. By the end of the 18th century, their form of devotionalism was no longer viewed as relevant by Catholic intellectuals and the adherents of Josephinism, while Enlightenment attitudes found it difficult to accept their privileged status within parish municipalities.41 The abolition of the brotherhoods brought to an end attempts to apply their formal attributes as models for other types of institutions with different purposes. The new era gave rise to new models of social institutions, so that when confraternities began to flourish again in Bohemia in the second half of the 19th century, they did so in a society that had developed a culture of social association based on purely secular foundations.

39 Eduard Winter, Josefinismus a jeho dějiny (Prague: Jelínek, 1945), 188–190; Mikulec, Barokná náboženská bratrstva, 128–131; Magarete Buquoy, “Das Buquoysche Armeninstitut— Herzstück einer bahnbrechenden Sozialreform. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der katholischen Aufklärung” in Archiv für Kirchengeschichte von Böhmen-Mähren-Schlesien VI (1985), 279–289. 40 For the Lordship Nové Hrady—Archivio segreto Vaticano, Sec. Brev., Indulg. Perpet., book 9, f. 373v. 41 On the position of Enlightenment intellectuals for the brotherhoods see Zuber, Osudy moravské církve, II, 303–306. chapter 11 Migration of the South Bohemian Population Before and After the Thirty Years War

Josef Grulich and Hermann Zeitlhofer

In this article Josef Grulich and Hermann Zeitlhofer trace long-term migration patterns between approximately 1550 and 1650. It is based on a study of serf lists from 1585 to 1607 and church records from 1641 to 1682. One of their findings is that while there was a connection between the scope of migration and the opportunity to find work or a spouse for all villages and towns, there were no differences between the migration of serfs before and after the Thirty Years War. This close collaborative, micro-historical work between Grulich, a Czech scholar who lives in the southern Bohemian city of Třeboň, and Zeitlhofer, an Austrian who lives in Vienna, just a bus ride away from each other, would have been unthinkable before the Velvet Revolution. Beyond the personal dimension, their collaboration brings together Grulich’s attempts to expand the scope of demographic studies in the Czech Republic to embrace new interests in social-economic history in Central Europe. This article also demonstrates the rich resources available in the Czech Republic for the study of social-economic history. Josef Grulich (1968–) is a docent at the Historical Institute of the Southern Bohemian University in České Budějovice. After his studies is history and Czech language at the Southern Bohemian Universites he pursued his doctorate at the Institute for Czech History at the Charles University in Prague. He joined the faculty of Historical Institute of the Southern Bohemian University in 1995. Among his major works are Populační vývoj a životní cyklus venkovského obyvatelstva na jihu Čech v 16. až 18. století [Population Development and the Life Cycle of the Rural Population of Southern Bohemia from the 16th to 18th centuries,] MH 10 (České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2008); Migrace měs tského a vesnického obyvatelstva. Farnost České Budějovice 1750–1824 [Migration of the Urban and Rural Population. The Parish of České Budejovice 1750–1824),] MH 13 (České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2013). Hermann Zeitlhofer (1965–) is a social historian and librarian. After receiving his doctorate at the Institute for Economic and Social History at the University of Vienna he worked on a number of funded research projects on the history of migration in the pre-modern period in rural regions of the

Habsburg monarchy. Among his publications are Markus Cerman and Hermann Zeitlhofer, Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen. Ein regionaler Vergleich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Gutsherrschaften, 16.–19. Jahrhundert (Vienna and Munich: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik and Oldenbourg, 2002); Zeitlhofer, “Die Erwerbstätigkeit im Alter zwischen eigenem Besitz und den Zwängen einer ‘Ökonomie des Auskommens,’ ” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte/Economic History Yearbook 1 (2008): 11–33; “Land, Family and the Transmission of Property in Southern Bohemia, 1651–1840,” Continuity & Change 22, 3 (2007): 519–544. Orignal Place of Publication and Permission: Josef Grulich and Hermann Zeitlhofer, “Migrace jihočeského obyvatelstva v období před třicetiletou válkou a po jejím ukončení” [The Migration of the Southern Bohemian Population Before and After the Thirty Years War,] originally published in HD 22 (1998): 79–105. The text in this volume is a version updated by the authors and appears by permission of the authors.

Introduction1

South Bohemia, on whose territory the earliest Czech registers of population have been preserved, has become an increasingly frequent object of interest for historians and demographers. The earliest lists of the local population, compiled for the dominium of the Rožmberks, the most powerful Bohemian noble family in the period under study:2 for the Vimperk estate in 1577, for the

1 This article arose in conjunction with the international research project “Social Structures in Bohemia from the 16th to 19th centuries” which took place from 1992–1999 with the financial support of the foundation Volkswagen-Werk (Hannover). Scholars from the following institutions contributed to the collective research projects: Institute of Economic and Social History at the University of Vienna, Faculty of Economics and Politics of the University of Cambridge, The Institute of Czech History of the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles Uniaversity in Prague, the Historical Institute at the Southern Bohemian University in České Budějovice, and the Central State Archives in Prague. Parts of this research were published in Markus Cerman and Robert Luft, eds., Untertanen, Herrschaft und Staat in Böhmen und im “Alten Reich,” Sozialgeschichtliche Studien in Frühen Neuzeit (Munich, Oldenbourg, 2005); Markus Cerman and Hermann Zeitlhofer, eds., Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen. Ein regionaler Vergleich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Gutsherrschaften, 16.–19. Jahrhundert (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 2002). 2 The most recent work on the Rožmberk domains is Václav Bůžek et al., Světy posledních Rožmberků (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011). migration of the south bohemian population before and after 271 town of Prachatice in 1585, and for part of the Třeboň estate in 1586, have no counterpart in other Czech regions.3 They were made not merely to check the size of the serf population, but also with the aim of restricting the movement of serfs. In spite of repeated urging from the Land Diet for records of population movement on Bohemian territory, no one except William of Rožmberk actually paid any attention.4 In the light of the fact that in 1607 a fourth list of population was put together, this time of Rožmberk property, the Libějovice estate,5 it can be assumed that records of the serf population which also contained information about the place of origin and domicile of individuals, at least had an overview of the migration of serfs. However, the actual structure of the source is remarkable quite apart from the circumstances of its origin. It makes it possible to follow migration as well as some demographic characteristics. Despite the fact that the movements of the population also influenced the origins of the lists, historians have devoted little attention to this aspect in their research. They focused instead on ascer- taining the size of the population and its demographic and social structure, which is already relatively well known.6 The basic differences between the

3 The earliest lists of population are kept in the following archives: město Prachatice—Státní okresní Archiv Prachatice, Archiv města Prachatice, Rapiář městského písaře Jeronýma Strachotínského, part 1, fol. 452a–484a; část třeboňského panství—SOA Třeboň, Velkostatek Třeboň, shelfmark I B 5 AU No1. The Vimperk population list (1577) was not evaluated as it did not include the age of the persons listed—published: František Teplý, Z dějin boubínského podlesí (do roku 1650) (Strakonice: Novina, 1940), 45–55. 4 Josef Petráň, Poddaný lid v Čechách na prahu třicetileté války (Prague: ČSAV, 1964), 188–208. 5 SOA Třeboň, VS Libějovice II 5 AU 1k—B1 No 765. 6 Attention has been paid to the Prachatice list in the following studies: Zikmund Winter, “Popis Prachatic r. 1585,” Zvon 7 (1907), 64; Otto Placht, Lidnatost a společenská skladba českého státu v 16.–18. století (Prague: ČSAV, 1957), 30, 33, 37; Václav Starý, “Soupis obyvatel města Prachatic z roku 1585,” Archivum Trebonense VI (1986), 70–109; Josef Petráň, “Pohyb poddanského obyvatelstva a jeho osobní právní vztahy v Čechách v době předbělohorské,” ČsČH 5 (1957): 407, 443; Petráň, Poddaný lid, 165, 201-203, 210–211, 215, 329; Eliška Čáňová, Pavla Horská, and Eduard Maur, “Les listes nominatives de la Bohème source de données pour l´histoire sociale et la démographie historique,” Annales de démographie historique (1987), 296. The surviving part of the Třeboň list was used for the study of the following issues: a) migration and number of inhabitants—Petráň, “Pohyb,” 26–58, 399–447; Petráň, Poddaný lid, 210–211, 330–331; b) demographic structure—Eliška Čáňová, “Population of the Třeboň dominion. An Analysis of the List of Subjects of 1586,” HD 13 (1989): 33–58; Čáňová. Horská, and Maur, “Les listes,” 297; Jan Horský and Markéta Seligová, Rodina našich předků (Prague: Lidové noviny, 1997), 63–66; c) domestics—Jan Horský, “Příspěvek ke studiu venkovské poddanské čeledi v 16.–18. století (panství Třeboň–sonda),” Archivní Časopis 43 (1993): 145–165; Horský, “Příspěvek ke studiu rodinných struktur v Čechách v 16. století (panství Třeboň–sonda),” JSH 62 (1993), 272 Grulich and Zeitlhofer previous use of these sources and the current one can be seen on the one hand in the change of issue, and on the other in the use of modern computer technology, which has made the research a great deal easier.7 Although up to now most research was limited to an analysis of the structure of the population as a whole or of its parts, of households and of families, the new aim of study is the geographic mobility of the population. Part of the international program “The Social Composition of the Population of Bohemia in the 16th–18th centuries” was an analysis of the source. The data from all the lists under examination was provided by scholars from the Institute of History of the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice.8 Representatives of the Institute of Economic and Social History of the University of Vienna also shared in the analysis.9 The linkage of the study of the geographic movement of people in the České Budějovice parish in the years 1750–1824 with the analysis of migration in the South Bohemian region culminated in the monograph Migrace městského a vesnického obyvatelstva [The migration of urban and rural populations] published in 2012. The migrations of the rural and urban populations in the last third of the sixteenth century and the whole of the seventeenth were considered from several inter-connected viewpoints. An important factor was the size of the localities under examination and their economic significance and administrative standing. This often limited not just the possibility but also the need for the geographical mobility of the individual. The research assumed that a place of origin would be identified for all the persons mentioned in the list, including the classification of individual localities in the local hierarchy of settlements (city–town–village) and the classification according to production

50–56; d) family structures—Jan Horský and Miloš Sládek, “Rodinné, sociální a demografické poměry v poddanských vsích na panství Třeboň v letech 1586 a 1651,” HD 17 (1993): 71–109. The Libějovice list was partially evaluated and published in these works: R. Kryl, “Poměr pohlaví na českém jihu před 350 lety,” Časopis lékařů českých 30 (1958). 960; Petráň, Poddaný lid, 241– 247; Jaroslava Kalserová, “Populační vývoj jihočeské vesnice v 17. století a v první polovině 18. století,” HD 1 (1967): 31–32. 7 The first comparative research of family forms in the south of Bohemia in the last third of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century took place in 1997 on the basis of all three lists with the help of the computer program Microsoft Excell. The results of this research were published by Josef Grulich and Hermann Zeitlhofer in “Leben, Wohnen, Heiraten. Untersuchungen zu den Lebensformen in Südböhmen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert,” JSH 66–67 (1997–1998): 26-50. 8 Data was collected on computer based on the separate sources: S. Holubová, L. Kovandová (municipality of Prachatice 1585); J. Antlová, I. Kremláčková (part of the Třeboň estate 1586); H. Arnoštová, B. Čermáková (Libějovice estate 1607); J. Grulich (Chýnov estate 1640–1680). 9 Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Universitäts Wien. migration of the south bohemian population before and after 273 type (proto-industrial–agricultural). This allowed a study of the possible range of the mobility and structure of the migrants. The example of villages on the Libějovice estate showed that migration should be judged not only according to the size or importance of individual localities, but also with regard to the territorial scope of the whole estate, on which the intensity of movement of persons across its borders depended. The lists recorded not only persons who were resident in cities, towns and villages on the estate at the time the list was made, but also those who at this time were living elsewhere but were in servitude to the lord. Because of the nature of the source, it could not be determined for sure whether this indicated permanent resettlement or only temporary migration. While in the case of older members of the town or country estate one could suppose it meant permanent resettlement, in the case of younger persons, especially farmhands, it was clear that only one of their peripatetic visits was recorded here. It could also be assumed that migration connected with marriage was usually of a permanent nature, while mobility with regard to a search for a suitable position or a journey connected with work was more likely to be temporary. All the information in the lists about individuals was used for the analysis: gender, position in the family and in the household or in contemporary society, age, place of origin (possibly birthplace) and place of residence (domicile at that particular time). However, it could not always be determined how long individuals had been in the place of their most recent residence, and therefore could not therefore be determined how old they had been when they moved. Particular attention was paid to the possibility of employment opportunities based on a change of residence. Geographic mobility was judged from the point of view of the strategy of individuals and from that of whole families. Migration in which the particular movement of individuals was influenced or directly determined by the needs of some social or professional group (for example, millers) was also kept in mind. It was only in the case of orphans that the individual migration of persons younger than fifteen years was recorded. The research therefore concentrated in detail only on the migration of persons older than fifteen. Even within this age group spatial movement could be researched only when the place of origin or of residence was known. Like most similar lists of serfs, not even the lists studied are quite complete. In some cases, some of the information is missing, and not simply information about the place of origin or the current residence of absent persons. In the case of some people their age, position in the family or in the household, etc. is missing. Despite all the limitations, the resulting findings can be considered representative. 274 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

It is recorded in the list of serfs that in the city of Prachatice and its suburbs there were, all told, 835 persons; in 16 villages of the Třeboň estate 1582 persons; in the town of Veselí nad Lužnicí 508 persons; in the town of Lomnice nad Lužnicí 691 persons; on the Libějovice estate 2725 persons in 33 settlements. Of these, only some were actually present while others were elsewhere when the list was made. However, all the inhabitants were included in the analysis, so that the circle of persons followed could be expanded. The territory under examination was diverse in terms of the composition of the population according to their predominant source of livelihood was concerned: in Prachatice crafts and trade dominated, on the Třeboň estate the cultivation of cereals, on the Libějovice estate cattle rearing. This diversity was also advantageous for research into the mobility of the population. Because no comparative source for the period after the Thirty Years War was available, we used as a substitute an analysis of migration from the church documentation of weddings from a slightly different territory, from the Chýnov estate for the period 1640–1680.10 The Chýnov estate was comparable from the point of view of ecotypes.11 All the territory belonging to the Vřesce administrative region (Vřesce, Ratibořice, Podolí and Malenín) in the second half of the seventeenth century was used for growing cereals and raising cattle. For the towns in their environment not only trade linked with the pursuance of crafts (Chýnov) was important, but also the mining of silver (Ratibořské Hory).12 In the Chýnov region 214 records of marriages were used for the study of migration. It was possible to gain the necessary information about the place of origin and the place of residence in the cases of 1361 persons—not only of the couples, but also of their witnesses. So it was

10 SOA Třeboň, Sbírka matrik Jihočeského kraje, Farní úřad Chýnov no. 2. 11 Concepts of what were known as ecotypes were treated by Michael Mitterauer in “Formen ländlicher Familienwirtschaft. Historische Ökotypen und familiale Arbeitsorganisation im österreichischen Raum,” in Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation in ländlichen Gesellschaften, eds. Josef Ehmer and Michael Mitterauer, (Vienna: H Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1986): 185–323; David Gaunt, “Pre-Industrial Economy and Population Structure,” Scandinavian Journal of History 2 (1977); Michael Anderson, Approaches to the History of the Western Family, 1500–1914 (London, 1992), 65–84 (The Household Economies Approach). They were presented for the first time in the Czech context in Jan Horský, Iva Sedláčková, Markéta Seligová, “Ein einheitliches ‘altes demographisches Regime’ oder die Bindung eines demographischen Verhaltens zu ‘Ökotypen’?,” HD 20, 57–91. 12 Roman Cikhart, “Z minulosti Ratibořských Hor,” Český jih 56 (26.5.1928), 1; Josef Grulich, “Hospodáři na Chýnovsku v druhé polovině 17. století,” JSH 63 (1994): 44–54; Václav Kůstka, Z pamětí města Chýnova (Tábor, 1905). migration of the south bohemian population before and after 275 possible to know the extent of people’s contacts in the period after the Battle of the White Mountain period as well.13 A study of the range and intensity of migrations in the periods before and after the Thirty Years War is important mainly in the light of the assumed changes of Bohemian rural society in the seventeenth century. It should also verify the hypothesis as to whether one can deem the Thirty Years War a historical landmark which brought about a radical curtailment of population movement in the countryside. At the same time the research traced the extent to which members of rural and urban society were tied to a certain territory, for it is not clear whether, at the end of the sixteenth century or during the seventeenth, one can speak of mutual isolation or an interconnectedness of the separate seats and larger territories. In order to reach a satisfactory clarification of all the circumstances of migration, an examination was made as to how far people could fulfill themselves in their original home, and at what point migration became advisable or even necessary to ensure their future existence. At the same time, one must keep in mind the possibilities of moving across the borders of the estates and Lands. Research was limited to legal migration which came about through getting married or carrying out a particular profession. The extent of illegal and pen- dular migration was not determined, since it is not mentioned in the sources.14 Where the distance between individual localities was concerned, we measured their distance according to how the crow flies, thus avoiding the difficulties involved in changes to local communications which occur over time. We chose

13 On population development and the problematic of family structure in Chýnov estate see Josef Grulich, “Besitztransfer und regionale Mobilität der untertänigen Bevölkerung (Südböhmen 16.–18. Jahrhundert),” in Untertanen, Herrschaft, und Staat, eds. M. Cerman and R. Luft, 127–151; Grulich, Populační vývoj a životní cyklus venkovského obyvatelstva na jihu Čech v 16. až 18. století, MH 10 (České Budejovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2008); Grulich, “Rural Society in Bohemia—The Estate of Chýnov and South Bohemia. The Factors Influencing Property Transfers in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Historica, Historical Sciences in the Czech Republic, Series Nova 13 (2008): 75–107. 14 The following studies are devoted to illegal migration—the problem of absconding serfs: Bedřich Šindelář, “K otázce zběhlých poddaných u nás. Přehled opatření proti pod- danským zběhům od 13. do 18. století,” Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností českých 57 (1949): 163–175, 214–227; Bedřich Šindelář, “Zbíhání poddaných v českých zemích po třicetileté válce (Několik poznámek a dokumentů),” ČMM 100 (1981): 101–126; Miroslav Toegel, “Zbíhání poddaných na pardubickém panství v druhé polovině 17. století,” Sborník historický 7 (1960): 191–226. 276 Grulich and Zeitlhofer the kilometer as the unit of measurement, to avoid problems which arise when converting measurements of that time.15 One of the main aims of this study is the determination of the range of migrations between the rural and the urban population, and of the differences in the range and intensity of these migrations. It tries to clarify, on the basis of a knowledge of specific social ties, the connection between migrations and an individual’s economic or personal interests, and to find out whether they can be considered a part of their daily life, or an exceptional act. Even though the lists used for the study were compiled on a one-off basis on a certain date, on their basis one can monitor the migration distances which were on the one hand considered normal and on the other exceptional, depending on how their nature reflects the lifestyle of the separate layers of the urban and rural population. The study presented can therefore be considered a contribution to the clarification of some aspects of the daily life of rural people which are often understood only as a manifestation of social, economic or cultural development.

Migration of the Urban and Rural Population

Research showed the existence of direct connections between migrations on the one hand and the economic and personal activities of the population on the other. The urban population was much more mobile in comparison with the rural population. People living in the country did not on average distance themselves from their birthplace (if we can count as that their place of origin) by more than 5–9 kilometers, as the values ascertained on both the Třeboň estate and the Libějovice estate are evidence. On the other hand, the inhabitants of Prachatice, Veselí and Lužnice and other towns in the Třeboň region found themselves on average at a distance of between 12 and twenty kilometers.

15 Giving distances in kilometers even for earlier periods when this measurement was not used is usual not only in Czech studies (Petráň, “Poddaný lid”) but also in German ones on the issue of geographical mobility: e.g. Ernst Manfred, “Migration in Giessen und Umge bung auf Grund von Herkunftseintragungen bei Heiraten und Sterbefällen,” in Historis che Demographie als Sozialgeschichte (Gießen und Umgebung vom 17. zum 19. Jahrhundert), vol. 2, ed. Arthur E. Imhof (Darmstadt and Marburg: Historische Kommission für Hessen, 1975), 639–707; T.G. Sauders, Familie, Fortpflanzung und Bevölkerungsentwicklung im Hunsrück. Eine historisch–demographische Untersuchung der Lebensverhältnisse und gesellschaftlichen Strukturen in Kirchberg, Kastelaun und Gemünden 1650–1800 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995), 215–230. migration of the south bohemian population before and after 277

This basic difference between the population of cities and villages was also confirmed by the maximum distance observed to which the inhabitants moved or from which they were moved. At the same time, the situation in Prachatice was quite exceptional, where a distance as far as 1,400 kilometers was noted, which confirmed it as an important trading center on the “Golden Route”.16 Local merchants were active on the whole territory of Bohemia and Moravia as well as fruitfully engaged in trade in neighboring Bavaria and nearby Austria. The list records dozens of them that found themselves in the Tyrol, in Italy and in Silesia, while some of them travelled as far as Poland or even Russia. Economic activity and the whole extent of the migration of Prachatice tradesmen were beyond the context of the everyday possibilities of most of the population of subject towns. That is also confirmed by the data about the extent of the movement of the population of cities and towns on the Třeboň estate, where the inhabitants did not venture so far even in connection with crafts or trade. The maximum distance recorded for other cities and towns, and especially villages, (200–550 km—Table 1) were an exception, as evidenced by

Table 11.1 Average, median and maximum distance between place of origin and place of residence in the case of persons older than 15 (where it has been possible to ascertain the data) on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %)

Estate, year, locality Number of Distance between place of origin and place of persons residence (in km)

average median maximum

Prachatice, 1585 – town 268 53.8 18 550 – suburbs 179 54.0 16 1400 Třeboň. 1586 – Lomnice nad Lužnicí 204 27.4 12 400 – Veselí nad Lužnicí 172 32.3 20 220 – small towns 73 48.1 15 400 – villages 424 15.9 9 350

16 Miloslav Volf, “Boj o solný monopol v Čechách v 17. a na počátku 18. století,” ČČH 39 (1933): 505–539; František Gabriel, Obchod se solí v Čechách v době od 17. do počátku 19. století (Prague: ČSAV, 1967). 278 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

median values. The Prachatice values of the maximum extent of migrations were never matched there. In the country the lowest average distance ascertained was on the Libějovice estate where the maximum distance recorded was 150 km, whereas in the Třeboň region and the countryside migration of 350 km was ascertained— in this case too it was unique. While in the villages people moved at a lesser distance, the urban population relocated themselves at a greater distance. Nevertheless, at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries one cannot consider the population of the towns or of the countryside as a closed society belonging to a particular estate. A relatively dynamic society evidently existed in both the urban and the rural environment whose contacts were all the more extensive in that there was a greater need for geographical movement.

Table 11.2 Persons older than 15, according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %)

Estate, year Locality Distance in km No. of 0 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100+ Not total persons known

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad 37.6 11.1 8.0 10.8 10.0 2.9 2.4 17.3 100.0 452 Lužnicí—town – Veselí nad Lužnicí— 19.9 7.6 7.6 8.2 18.4 6.9 3.3 28.1 100.0 331 town – small towns 12.2 6.9 4.2 2.1 6.6 2.1 3.5 62.5 100.0 288 – villages 15.0 9.9 15.4 10.8 8.4 1.5 0.7 36.1 100.0 908 Prachatice, 1585 43.9 7.3 6.5 13.8 9.2 5.7 8.8 4.8 100.0 522 – city – suburbs 32.6 7.7 13.7 11.2 10.5 6.4 7.7 10.2 100.0 313 Li Libějovice estate, 91.6 3.7 2.2 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 100.0 1506 1607—villages

Moves to a distance of twenty kilometers were the most frequent by inhabitants of towns and country areas (Table 2). Due to the limited possibilities of economic activities and personal contacts which would lead to a choice of spouse outside the place of origin, the lowest numbers of migrants were in migration of the south bohemian population before and after 279 the villages of the Libějovice estate. That was because these were in essence relatively closed residential units in which migration to a distance of twenty kilometers was demonstrable in the case of only 7% of the inhabitants. Almost 92% of the rural population of the estate, a quite abnormal percentage, remained in their place of origin, while only 1% reached a distance of more than twenty kilometers.17 There was also a relatively low number of persons migrating to a distance of more than twenty kilometers in small towns on the Třeboň estate, where they represented only 13% of the whole number of the local population, in the case of both identifiable. This Proportion was, as in the case of persons migrating to a distance greater than twenty kilometers (12% of the population), influenced by the relatively high number of people in whose case neither the place of origin nor the residence (62.4% of the population) was ascertained. Quite evident differences between the situation in the countryside and in the towns were identified in the extent of population movements to a distance of more than twenty kilometers. While in most of the towns it measured approximately a quarter of those recorded, in the villages of the Třeboň estate only one tenth of the population was involved. That could have been caused by the small choice of employment opportunities and the limited nature of the territory where it was possible to establish personal relations. Even so, it can be attested that the ongoing migration of the population at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries influenced the lives of most people regardless of the nature of their place of origin. Whether in the time before the Thirty Years War a change of residence took place in connection with work or as a consequence of getting married, it was quite a usual phenomenon both in the town and in the countryside. It further showed that the inhabitants of the towns migrated at the end of the sixteenth and seventeenth century on average to a smaller extent than the rural population, caused by the much stronger bond of the town populace to fixed property which made itself evident in the more stable tenure of urban dwellings. At the same time one has to take into consideration the fact that in the countryside it was usual to send children outside the parental home to master further skills and gain experience in service, of which they could subsequently make good use when they embarked on an independent existence. Even in urban surroundings it was usual for children to be sent outside the parental home to learn a trade or perfect themselves in one. However, the

17 Only in the example of the villages of Chelčice and Nebahovy does Josef Petráň draw attention to the ten kilometers extent of serf migration on the Libějovice estate in 1607; Petráň, Poddaný lid, 244. 280 Grulich and Zeitlhofer consequent intensity of migrations was not as great as in the countryside. At the same time it has to be kept in mind that both in the countryside and in urban surroundings in the south of Bohemia, Bohemian inheritance law was valid, on the basis of which it was assumed that the paternal homestead could be inherited only by one of the siblings.18 If there were more children in the family, all they could do was to leave the parental home and find work somewhere else. The consequences of this were apparent especially in the countryside in the increase in the number of the landless—farm hands who could not anticipate acquiring their own homestead. Therefore migrations over a shorter distance were especially frequent on rural estates, while movements to a greater distance were more typical for the town. The varying intensity of migrations can be deduced from the proportion of persons older than fifteen years in whose case it was stated that they originated from the same place as that in which they were recorded at the moment the list was made (while it was not possible to consider if some of them could after a shorter or longer stay “abroad” return to their birthplace). The proportion was somewhat larger in Prachatice (almost half) than in the subject small towns and villages of the Třeboň region (around one eighth—table). Even here it was shown that rural inhabitants, just like people from the subject small towns with an agricultural background, moved in much greater measure than the inhabitants of the larger towns. In regions with developed crafts and trade, a higher number of people permanently connected with the place of their origin was recorded. Thus in the towns migration chiefly concerned selected groups of persons for whom travel was important from the point of view of carrying out their business profession. In the light of the greater interconnectedness of separate social and professional groups, it can be assumed that migrations connected with getting married were usually in much smaller measure in towns than in villages. Another circumstance was the number of places of residence: whereas the majority of Bohemian villages in the period before the Battle of the White Mountain were made up of 15–20 homesteads, in Prachatice there were according to the list roughly in both the city and suburbs 208 houses; the rural population therefore had to search for a spouse from a wider area in order to avoid inbred marriages, at that time also subject to the supervision of the Church.

18 Karl Grünberg, Die Bauernbefreiung und die Auflösung des gutsherrlich-bäuerlichen Verhältnisses in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1894), 65–66; Vladimír Procházka, Česká poddanská nemovitost v pozemkových knihách 16. a 17. století (Prague: ČSAV, 1963), 477–478. migration of the south bohemian population before and after 281

Unlike the villages and small towns in the Třeboň region, the Libějovice estate can be regarded as exceptional. A full 92% of inhabitants was recorded on its territory who remained living stably in the place of their origin without even temporary changes. However, it is an exceptional case of a closed rural society which probably with regard to the nature of local agricultural production (cattle rearing combined with cereal growing) maintained long-term a relatively stable character and a closed nature. The given state also reflects the fact that individual localities could, in spite of basic features in common, have had a somewhat different development given by specific local conditions.

Migration of Persons According to Gender At the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the figurehead of the farmer was the main guarantee of the running of a family farm and the securement of material means for all members of the family. A number of entries in the Land Registers clearly correspond to this statement. It is evident that the man was considered the major stabilizing element of rural society, both before and after the Battle of the White Mountain. A woman at the head of the household represented an exception, for she would soon be replaced by a son or son-in-law, or find a new spouse. Men and women were also distinct as far as geographic mobility was concerned. In every area, many more women than men remained permanently in their birthplace. This did not change, despite the fact that it was usually they who followed their husband to a new home (Tables 3a and 3b). One can assume from this that not only in the countryside but also in the towns women represented a more settled and stable element of the local population. We also investigated the ratio between men and women according to the difference in distance between their places of origin and of residence. It turned out that on the whole more women than men migrated to a distance of five kilometers from the place of origin, whether the reason for their move was to do with employment or to follow their spouse (table). Most migrations of village women involved going into service in the towns. As the distance between the place of origin and that of residence increases, the proportions of migrants by gender and the nature of the settlements gradually equal. Once the distance is greater than twenty kilometers, the relationship of men to women turns in favor of the men, both in the subject villages and the individual towns. This suggests that while women migrated shorter distances more frequently than men, whether in connection with marriage or service, moves of a greater distance were more usual for a man, especially in the towns. Even in the case of men the intensity of migration began to decrease as soon as a distance of fifty kilometers from the place of origin was reached. 282 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Table 11.3a Men older than 15, according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %)

Estate, year Distance in km No. of Locality 0 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100+ Not total persons known

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad 37.6 11.1 8.0 10.8 10.0 2.9 2.4 17.3 100.0 452 Lužnicí—town – Veselí nad 19.9 7.6 7.6 8.2 18.4 6.9 3.3 28.1 100.0 331 Lužnicí—town –small towns 12.2 6.9 4.2 2.1 6.6 2.1 3.5 62.5 100.0 288 –villages 15.0 9.9 15.4 10.8 8.4 1.5 0.7 36.1 100.0 908 Prachatice 1585 43.9 7.3 6.5 13.8 9.2 5.7 8.8 4.8 100.0 522 – town –suburbs 32.6 7.7 13.7 11.2 10.5 6.4 7.7 10.2 100.0 313 Libějovice estate, 91.6 3.7 2.2 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 100.0 1506 1607—villages

Distance in km 0 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100+ total

70 17 11 21 29 9 9 166 29 10 13 11 29 14 6 112 15 8 4 3 9 3 8 50 69 38 57 54 43 9 1 271

92 8 17 26 23 18 32 216 38 11 14 13 17 16 19 128 687 35 19 10 7 2 2 762

42.2 10.2 6.6 12.7 175 5.4 5.4 100.0 25.9 8.9 11.6 9.8 25.9 12.5 5.4 100.0 30.0 16.0 8.0 6.0 18.0 6.0 16.0 100.0 25.5 14.0 21.0 19.9 15.9 3.3 0.4 100.0 42.6 3.7 7.9 12.1 10.6 8.3 14.8 100.0 29.7 8.6 10.9 10.2 13.3 12.5 14.8 100.0 90.2 4.6 2.5 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 100.0 migration of the south bohemian population before and after 283

Table 11.3b Women older than 15, according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on the South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %)

Estate, year, Distance in km Locality 0 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100+ total

Numbers of women Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad Lužnicí— 100 33 25 28 16 4 2 208 town – Veselí nad Lužnicí—town 37 15 12 16 32 9 5 126 – small towns 20 12 8 3 10 3 2 58 – villages 87 52 83 44 33 5 5 309 Prachatice 1585 – town 137 30 17 46 25 12 14 281 – suburbs 64 13 29 22 16 4 5 153 Libějovice 692 21 14 10 2 – 3 742 estate, 1607—villages

Of 100 women migrated to a given distance

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad Lužnicí— 48.0 15.9 12.0 13.5 7.7 1.9 1.0 100.0 town – Veselí nad Lužnicí—town 29.4 11.9 9.5 12.7 25.4 7.1 4.0 100.0 – small towns 34.5 20.7 13.8 5.2 17.2 5.2 3.4 100.0 – villages 28.2 16.8 26.9 14.2 10.7 1.6 1.6 100.0 Prachatice 1585 – town 48.8 10.7 6.0 8.9 4.3 4.9 100.0 – suburbs 41.8 8.5 18.9 14.4 10.5 2.6 3.3 100.0 Libějovice 93.3 2.8 1.9 1.3 0.3 – 0.4 100.0 estate, 1607—villages 284 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

The intensity of migration and the differences according to gender are also connected with the business orientation of the region and with the range of economic activities of the migrants. While in the countryside only a negligible number of men and women moving to a distance greater fifty kilometers from the place of origin emerged (on the Třeboň estate 4% of men and women, on the Libějovice estate less than 1% of men and women), in the towns the differences were much bigger; in Lomnice nad Lužnicí it was 11% of the men and 3% women, in Veselí nad Lužnicí 18% of the men and 11% of the women, in other small towns on the Třeboň estate 22% of the men and 9% of the women. Similarly as in the case of the distance on which the migrants set out and the business orientation of the region, it is evident here too that the inhabitants of Prachatice were among the most active in reaching a distance of more than fifty kilometers from the place of origin. Here too was the greatest difference between men and women: almost a quarter of the townsmen travelled the longest distance, while of the women less than one tenth; in the suburbs the proportions were similar—only 6% of the women against 27% of the men. This confirmed not only the increased professional activity of the Prachatice traders but also the considerable range of territory over which they searched for a spouse. However, despite the fact that compared with other localities women here shared in the mobility over longer distances more than anywhere else, a higher intensity of migration among men was quite apparent. The extent of migrations according to gender can perhaps generally be characterized as follows: in all the social groups followed, women represented the more settled element of the population. Not only in the countryside but also in the towns, the individual’s habitat was demarcated as the place of origin (birthplace) and place of employment, and the place to which they were followed by their husband (wife). While staying in the place of origin or following a partner was probably of a more permanent nature, the place of employment (which at that time most frequently meant in service) could change annually.

The Extent of Migration According to Position in the Household and Professional Classification

In spite of the fact that in the south of Bohemia, inheritance law stipulated one heir out of a number of siblings, the householder did not always originate from the place where he was recorded at the time of the list. Not every farmer had a son who would take over the family property and so a son-in-law was often substituted or, where the children were underage, the widow’s second husband, often from a different place. It must be assumed that in addition to migration of the south bohemian population before and after 285 marrying into the family, property could also be acquired through purchase from a stranger, even though according to the lists of serfs it is not possible to determine accurately the method or specific circumstances of obtaining the leading role in the household. The intensity of these movements can be deduced from the ratio of those who remained the head of the household (without regard to gender) and had the same place of origin and residence. Even in this case the larger places (Prachatice, Lomnice nad Lužnicí), where up to half of the heads of households originated from the same place, differed significantly from the smaller towns and villages, where they were less than a quarter (Table 4). Migration over shorter distances predominated, as a rule to within twenty kilometers from the place of origin. It was further established that in towns which were centers for certain crafts and trades it was more usual for women to get married in the place of their origin (between a half and two thirds). By contrast, in villages, small towns or towns with an agricultural background, young women were less likely to remain in the same locality after their wedding (only around one third). However, that too was connected with the size of the settlement and the number of homesteads. In the countryside it was more frequently the case that a young man had to look for his bride from another village (even if that was not very far away). The choice of a spouse was in many cases also limited by where the young people were serving, or where they found themselves in the course of their employment. On the other hand, one has to remember that the choice of a partner in the place of residence was often influenced by the interests of local professional or social groups. Naturally, there were children belonging to individual households. However, since they usually lived with their parents until they were old enough to go into service or elsewhere, we did not pay any close attention to them. The fate of orphans would naturally be of interest, but the sources used mentioned only a few of those in childhood, so a representative probe was not possible. The domestics were numbered among the members of individual households.19 In every type of locality monitored, domestics appeared to represent a highly migrating element of the population. It most cases they were people who originated from a completely different place from the one in which they were working. Evidence of this is the large proportion of people living in domestic service outside the place of their origin—at least three-quarters (Table 5). Just as in the case of the choice of spouse, domestics usually worked up to

19 Keith Snell, “Parish registration and the study of labour mobility,” Local Population Studies 33 (1984): 29–43; R.S. Schofield, “Age-Specific Mobility in an Eighteenth Century Rural English Parish.” Annales de démographie Historique (1970), 261–274. 286 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Table 11.4 Persons older than 15, according to position in households and according to distance between place of origin and place of residence on South Bohemian estates at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (in %)

Estate, year Distance in km No. of Locality 0 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100+ Unknown total persons

Of 100 persons standing at the head of the household migrated to a given distance Number

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad 52.0 10.9 7.7 9.5 11.3 3.6 3.6 1.4 100.0 221 Lužnicí—town – Veselí nad 24.3 11.4 10.8 5.9 24.3 7.6 4.9 10.8 100.0 185 Lužnicí—town – small towns 16.3 8.1 4.6 1.2 8.1 2.3 4.6 60.5 100.0 172 – villages 21.7 11.6 20.3 12.0 11.0 1.1 0.8 21.5 100.0 474 Prachatice 1585 – town 50.4 3.6 3.6 12.1 8.9 8.9 11.2 1.3 100.0 224 – suburbs 34.4 10.9 10.9 10.9 8.6 7.0 12.5 4.7 100.0 128 Libějovice 99.8 0.1 0.1 – – – – – 100.0 904 estate, 1607—villages

Of 100 farmhands migrated to a given distance Number

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad 31.5 11.2 10.1 15.7 14.6 3.4 3.4 10.1 100.0 89 Lužnicí—town – Veselí nad 27.8 3.7 5.6 13.0 16.7 7.4 3.7 22.2 100.0 54 Lužnicí—town – small towns 11.9 9.5 4.8 7.1 4.8 – 4.8 57.1 100.0 42 – villages 19.0 12.7 13.9 13.9 8.9 4.4 0.6 26.6 100.0 158 Prachatice 1585 – town 42.2 7.5 6.5 15.7 12.0 6.0 13.3 7.2 100.0 83 – suburbs 19.8 7.9 18.8 12.9 16.8 8.9 4.0 10.9 100.0 101 Libějovice 75.8 12.5 6.2 2.4 1.0 0.7 1.4 – 100.0 289 estate, 1607—villages migration of the south bohemian population before and after 287

Estate, year Distance in km No. of Locality 0 1–4 5–9 10–19 20–49 50–99 100+ Unknown total persons

Of 100 domestic staff migrated to a given distance Number

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad 20.8 27.1 14.6 20.8 12.5 2.1 – 2.1 100.0 48 Lužnicí –town – Veselí nad 17.2 6.9 6.9 24.1 24.1 10.3 – 10.3 100.0 29 Lužnicí—town – small towns 5.9 5.9 – – 17.6 11.8 – 58.8 100.0 17 – villages 17.6 16.9 17.6 19.5 9.1 2.6 – 15.6 100.0 77 Prachatice 1585 – town 21.2 16.9 13.6 22.0 11.9 1.7 3.4 9.3 100.0 118 – suburbs – 13.3 13.3 26.7 20.0 6.7 6.7 13.3 100.0 15 Libějovice ...... estate, 1607—villages*

* There was no domestic staff given for individual farmsteads in the lists.

twenty kilometers from their place of origin. In Prachatice that was 52% in the town and 53% in the suburbs, in Lomnice nad Lužnicí 62%, in the countryside 54%; that is, no essential difference between the town and the countryside was recorded. From a comparison of the books of serfs and orphans it is also plain that the domestics did not specialize in service only in the towns or only in the villages. In cases where several places of employment were recorded for one person, it was not unusual for them to alternate between service in the town and in the village. In connection with the employment of strangers in a household, one must not overlook the relatively large group of farmhands. Without regard to gender, their case proves a similar migration to that of domestics. The only difference is the long-term nature of their employment. Even in the case of farmhands it can be proved that they were mostly employed outside their place of origin (Table 5). It seems that in some cases younger siblings without inheritance became farmhands. However, it should be noted at the same time that the employment of a larger number of siblings on the father’s farm was in the given time not very probable. 288 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Table 11.5 Population older than 15, according to position in households and according to place of origin on South Bohemian estates in 1585 and 1586

Estate, year, Farmers Housewives Male Female Domestic staff Others* farmhands farmhands

Locality PO NM PO NM PO NM PO NM PO NM PO NM

Třeboň estate, 1586 – Lomnice nad 109 51.4 109 54.1 31 25.8 49 40.8 47 21.3 14 64.3 Luž.—town – Veselí nad 84 23.8 81 30.9 15 33.3 27 37.0 26 19.2 2 – Luž.—town – small towns 39 33.3 39 38.5 6 16.7 12 33.3 7 14.3 4 – – villages 186 27.4 186 28.0 47 23.4 69 27.5 65 21.5 25 36.0 Prachatice 1585 – town 113 42.5 108 60.2 39 28.2 48 50.0 107 23.4 26 53.8 – suburbs 67 22.4 55 52.7 33 45.5 57 28.1 13 – 18 33.3

* Journeymen, apprentices, relations and others. PO—Total number of persons NM—Proportion of persons finding themselves in their place of origin (Proportion of persons born in their places of residence)

In spite of the fact that in all the localities followed women predominated among the farmhands, the intensity of migrations connected with employment outside the birthplace according to gender did not change too much; farmhands moved most frequently within twenty kilometers of the place of origin. If they were not employed directly in their dwelling place, they only looked in the not far surroundings. Where there were records of journeymen or apprentices who formally belonged to the households of masters of their craft in the towns, their place of origin was usually not stated. We have therefore not dealt with them in greater detail, as in cases of other related persons living in the households. On the Libějovice estate we studied not only mobility according to profession, but also employment opportunities according to place of origin in the context of the estate. To this contributed the favorable circumstance, that with one exception the place of origin was given for all the inhabitants of the estate. In spite of the fact that the Libějovice estate represented one of the most closed migration of the south bohemian population before and after 289

regions of all the areas followed—only 19% of the sons, 20% of the daughters older than fifteen, 30% of the male farmhands and 19% of the female farmhands were employed outside their birthplace—a range of migration-related employment was recorded. From the whole number of 247 persons (55% men; 45% women) who moved in connection with going into service, 88 persons (36%) were located

Table 11.6 Population of the Libějovice estate, according to position in households and according to place of origin in 1607

Farmers Housewives Sons Daughters Male Female Others farmhands farmhands

Number of persons 455 453 151 97 136 153 59 Total NM 99.6 100.0 80.8 80.4 69.9 81.0 91.5

NM—Proportion of persons born in place of residence

Table 11.7 Persons in service ( farmhands and domestic staff ), according to sex and place of residence and of origin on the Libějovice estate in 1607

From this the number of persons in service finding themselves:

No. of In place of origin In another parish of On another estate inhabitants the estate village men women men women men women

Újezd 104 4 2 2 1 3 6 Blanice 31 – 2 2 – – – Bor 79 1 1 5 2 – 2 Čelen 51 1 – – – – – Černěves 116 – 5 3 3 1 3 Černovice 82 – – 1 – 2 – Hláska 1 – – – 1 – – Hlavatce 139 2 1 – 5 2 3 290 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Table 11.7 (cont.)

From this the number of persons in service finding themselves:

No. of In place of origin In another parish of On another estate inhabitants the estate village men women men women men women

Hracholusky 281 1 2 12 3 5 3 Hvožďany 79 – 1 1 – 2 1 Chelčice 119 3 1 3 0 2 1 Kralovice 54 1 – – 3 – – Krtely 121 1 1 0 3 2 0 Křepice 37 – 1 – – 3 2 Lažišťka 42 – – 2 – – – Lék. Lhota 8 – – – 2 – – Libějovice 78 2 1 5 3 1 1 H. Malovice 96 2 3 2 3 2 – D. Malovice 91 7 2 4 2 1 1 Mlýny 11 – 1 – – – – Nebahovy 116 1 1 1 1 – – Nestanice 94 2 3 – 1 – 2 Olšovice 50 4 – – 1 – – Pašice 33 – – 1 1 – 1 Plástovice 137 3 4 2 1 1 – Protivec 54 – – – – – – Sedlec 68 – – 6 – – – Skály 30 2 – – – – – Strpí 48 3 – 1 1 1 – Truskovice 108 6 1 3 – 1 1 Svojnice 63 1 1 – – – Šipouň 66 – 1 1 1 – – Vitějovice 237 1 5 2 5 – 1

Total 2 725 48 40 59 43 29 28 in % 100.0 19.4 16.2 24.0 17.4 11.7 11.3 migration of the south bohemian population before and after 291 in their place of origin, while another 102 persons (41%) remained in domestic service or laboring outside their place of origin, but still on his or her estate. Given that an additional 57 persons (23% of the total) could work outside the estate, it is clear that in the early seventeenth century the frontiers of the aristocratic domain did not have to be fully respected where the employment of an individual was concerned. It was relevant particularly if the serfs were living on the borders of the estate.20 In connection with employment it was not the boundary of the aristocratic domain that was decisive so much as a local offer of employment. That is also confirmed by the origin of the lists themselves, the main purpose being to compile a record of everyone belonging to the estate, even those who were not there at that moment.

Migration and Marriage We must not overlook migration caused by marriage in connection with geographical mobility.21 Especially where domestic staff and travelling journeymen were concerned, it was not exceptional for the place of temporary or permanent residence to rely not only on employment but also on the choice of spouse. The choice could also be quite intentional, arising from the personal or professional interest of the individual.22 Research has confirmed that in some social and professional groups marriages usually took place on the same social level, both at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and after the

20 The acquittal letters which made it possible to leave the estate legally with the agreement of the local authorities are an important source for the study of migration. The following studies have arisen based on research into them: Gustav Hofmann, “Migrace poddaných na panství Kout-Trhanov v letech 1791–1807,” Výroční zpráva Okresního archivu Domažlice za rok 1986 (Horšovský Týn, 1987), 110–119; Jaroslav Kubák, “Přesuny poddaných na statcích města Českých Budějovic v druhé polovině 18. století,” JSH 33 (1964): 73–75. 21 For a comparison of the marriage rate relying on the place of origin from the point of view of geographic mobility, see Pat Hudson and Steven King, “A Sense of Place: Industrializing Townships in Eighteenth Century Yorkshire,” in Proto-Industrialization Recent Research and New Perspectives, ed. René Leboutte (Geneva: Droz, 1996), 198–200; Saunders, Familie, 215-230; Gisela Winkler, Bevölkerungsgeographische Untersuchungen im Martelltal (Munich: Wagner, 1973), 84–92; Ernest Troger, Bevölkerungsgeographie des Zillertales (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1954), 48–61. 22 In connection with the choice of life partner, the following is a useful work from the point of view of research into life strategies: Marianne Friese, “Familienbildung und Heiratsstrategien im Bremischen Proletariat des 19. Jahrhunderts. Dienstmädchen und Tabakarbeiterinnen im Vergleich,” in Familie und Familienlosigkeit: Fallstudien aus Niedersachsen und Bremen vom 15. bis 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Jürgen Schlumbohm (Hannover: Hahn, 1993), 217–234. 292 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Thirty Years War. From the urban population these were primarily tradesmen and craftsmen, from the rural, millers and farmers, who looked for a spouse without regard to geographical distance, but in harmony with the interests of their own social group. As was already mentioned, since villages in Bohemia in the Early Modern Age were so small, the choice of spouse most frequently came from outside the place of origin of one or other of the partners. However, this was valid for the town as well. In Prachatice, three quarters of married couples did not have the same place of origin, and in the villages as many as four fifths (Table 8). It was not therefore unusual for marriages to take place not only between persons from different localities on one estate, but also between serfs of different estates. The most frequent place for people from different parts of the estate to meet was the parish church, for in the Early Modern Age church ceremonies accompanied a person virtually from birth to death. People from various parts of the estate also met each other at markets and on pilgrimages and processions. People from opposite ends of the estate met in pubs and mills. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the significance of domestic service and employment. It was not so much the shorter meetings in the parish church or at a fair which led to marriage, as, in both the countryside and the towns, the long-term relationships established in service, in the workshop or in the shop.

Table 11.8 Homogamy of married couples according to place of origin on the South Bohemian estates in 1585 and 1586 (in %)

Proportion of couples in which the partners come from:

Estate, year, locality the same place a different place

Prachatice, 1585– town 24.5 75.5 – suburbs 16.9 83.1 Třeboň, 1586– Lomnice n. Luž. 23.2 76.8 – Veselí n. Luž. 10.4 89.6 – small towns 62.5 37.5 – villages 21.0 79.0 migration of the south bohemian population before and after 293

We have examined in detail the example of the Libějovice estate and the place of origin of married couples. Research confirms that marriage between people from the same villages was something of an exceptional event at the beginning of the seventeenth century—of 426 married couples coming from 33 localities only 8% had the same birthplace. In 45% of married couples, at least one of the partners resided in his or her birthplace even after the wedding, yet approximately more than half of them (total of 24%) entered matrimony with a person from a different estate. Members of 47% of other married couples came from different villages from those they were in at the time of the list, both husbands and wives. It is interesting that 59% of the couples had at least one member from another estate. (Table 9.) It would seem then that the beginning of the seventeenth century the borders of the Libějovice estate did not limit the movements of its subjects too much.23 Even though migration due to marriage in comparison with migration for work made the permanent acquisition of a discharge paper more possible, and at the same time permission to form a married union, there were no problems involved in the areas mentioned. This may probably have been because owners of the separate estates usually exchanged serfs on the basis of reciprocity.24 Comparative research of migrations which came about in connection with marriages was also carried out for the period of the Thirty Years War in the Vřesice administrative region for the Chýnov estate in 1640–1680. The results show that there were no evident divergences in the extent of migration for the periods before and after the Thirty Years War. There were differences only in the distances to which people moved, which derived from the distinctive economic and administrative importance of the localities being examined, which were subject small towns and villages.

23 So called “acquittal” (zhostné) and discharge (propouštěcí) letters issued by offices of authority provide evidence of legal departure from estates, which guaranteed migration to another estate without penalty. For more on this see Grulich, “Migrace českobudějovického obyvatelstva ve světle propouštěcích listů (1756–1770),” Historae Historica. Profesoru Lumíru Dokoupilovi k sedmdesátninám, ed. Milan Myška, Acta Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Ostraviensis 12, Sborník Ostravské univerzity 219 (2005), 55–72. 24 Blanka Štěrbová, “Sňatečnost a sňatková migrace ve farnosti Střelské Hoštice v letech 16čř-1890,” JSH 58 (1989): 125–136; Štěrbová, “Vývoj sňatečnosti v lokalitě Novosedly nad Nežárkou v letech 1686–1910,” HD 11 (1987): 9–140; Kalserová, “Populační vývoj,” 33; Jiří Záloha, “Die Bevölkerungsemigration zwischen der Herrschaft Český Krumlov (Krumau, CSFR) und Oberösterreich im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,” Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichisches Musealvereins 135 (1990): 135–140. 294 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Table 11.9 Homogamy of married couples according to place of origin on the Libějovice estate, according to village in 1607

Number of married couples, in which the partners were:

Village both one from the one from both from one from both from village, the other the village, the estate, another village from the from another the other but from on the estate, another same village on the from another different the other from estate village same estate estate villages another estate

Újezd – 4 3 1 4 – Blanice – – 1 3 1 1 Bor 1 7 2 1 2 3 Čelen – 2 3 1 3 2 Černěves 1 4 2 4 4 1 Černovice – 4 3 1 6 5 Hláska – – – – 3 – Hlavatce 2 – 2 3 3 7 Hracholusky 6 10 13 2 3 3 Hvožďany – – 4 2 3 2 Chelčice 1 5 5 1 5 1 Kralovice 1 1 2 – 2 3 Krtely – – 3 9 4 3 Křepice – 5 – – 2 – Lažišťka – 1 4 – 3 2 Lék. Lhota – 1 – – – – Libějovice – 1 1 2 4 1 H. Malovice 1 2 3 4 1 1 D. Malovice 3 – 2 3 5 1 Mlýny – – – – – 1 Nebahovy 5 2 10 – 3 2 Nestanice 2 6 3 3 1 – Olšovice – 3 1 1 4 – Pašice – 1 2 – 1 1 Plástovice 1 4 6 2 3 8 Protivec – 1 2 2 3 – Sedlec – 2 – 1 5 3 Skály – – 3 – 1 2 Strpí – 1 1 2 3 – migration of the south bohemian population before and after 295

Number of married couples, in which the partners were:

Truskovice – 5 2 3 2 2 Svojnice 1 5 4 1 1 – Šipoun – 3 6 – 1 1 Vitějovice 8 8 9 – 3 5

Total 33 89 102 52 89 61 in % 7.8 20.9 23.9 12.2 20.9 14.3

In villages only 13% of the married couples came from the same place, and three-quarters from places between which there was a distance of no more than twenty kilometers. A distance of more than twenty kilometers between the engaged couple was somewhat exceptional. Here too the extent of migrations connected with marriages directly corresponds with the number of domestic servants, this being a region devoted above all to crop production and sheep-rearing. There was a diametrically opposed situation in Chýnov, where the estate was central, and in the mining town of Ratibořské Hory. Most partnerships in these places were composed of individuals coming from the same place. In Chýnov it was 45% of couples, in Ratibořské Hory 58%. In both towns it was, from the point of view of family strategy or the interests of social or professional groups, usual for marriages to take place between members of the same social classes, which could mean looking for a partner from further away. It is plain in Ratibořské Hory, where the interrelatedness of mining families even from relatively distant places is demonstrated in the fact that the Proportion of betrothed couples did not change too much according to the increasing distance of places of origin from the town, and remained at the high level of 5–8%. On the other hand in Chýnov, which was a craft-agrarian center, the situation was analogous to that in the countryside—50% of married couples were made up of persons between whose places of origin the distance was not more than twenty kilometers. 296 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Table 11.10a Betrothed couples according to distance between their places of residence on the Chýnov estate in 1640–1680

Villages of the Vřesce Distance in km Rychta Chýnov Ratibořské Hory Úhrn

For 100 marriages the following distances occurred

0 12.9 44.8 58.5 34.1 1–4 32.3 20.7 7.7 21.5 5–9 24.7 13.8 6.2 15.4 10–19 17.2 15.5 4.6 13.6 20–49 3.2 – 4.6 2.8 50–99 6.5 3.4 7.7 7.0 100 and more 2.2 1.7 6.2 3.3 Unknown 1.1 – 4.6 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total no. of marriages 93 56 65 214

Table 11.10b Bridal couples and their witnesses according to distance between places of residence on the Chýnov estate in 1640–1680

Villages of the Vřesce Ratibořské Distance in km Rychta Chýnov Hory Aggregate

For 100 cases the following distances occurred

0 24.5 64.7 84.1 58.0 1–4 30.1 5.9 7.3 12.5 5–9 24.9 18.9 2.4 15.5 10–19 12.4 5.1 2.4 7.1 20–49 2.0 3.8 – 2.3 50–99 3.6 0.3 1.7 2.3 100 and more – – – 0.1 Unknown 2.4 1.3 2.1 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total no. of cases 248 371 289 933 migration of the south bohemian population before and after 297

To illustrate the possibilities of a study of the mobility of the population, this time only short-term, we looked to see from what circle the betrothed couple chose their witnesses. Unlike the betrothed, for one of whom the wedding was at the same time a change of permanent habitation (and usually the place of residence), the witness’s participation in the ceremony—even if he came from a distance—was only a journey limited in time (more of an excursion). The results thus tell us more about an individual’s range of contacts rather than of migrations in the sense of a removal or longer residence, as in other cases. Very similar facts became apparent. In general, it is possible to say that in the case of witnesses it was more usual even than with betrothed couples for them to have come from the same place as the witnesses at their wedding. A relatively high Proportion of persons who lived in the same place as one of the betrothed is evidence of the fact that as witnesses the betrothed persons chose people they knew because they worked with them or were friends. This reflects the high proportion of witnesses who came from a distance of up to twenty kilometers from the place of origin of the betrothed couple. In the villages these formed two-thirds of all the witnesses, but in Chýnov only one third. In the mining region of Ratibořské Hory the solidarity of people in the place of residence and consequently in relation to mining regions in the whole of Bohemia is apparent. The extent of migration reached in the course of the seventeenth century in connection with marriage was thus essentially identical with the situation at the end of the sixteenth century. While in the towns there was clearly a firmer connection to the local environment, in the villages the range of professional and personal contacts was more relevant at a greater distance and made itself felt up to twenty kilometers from the place of habitation (a walk of maybe four to five hours there and the same back, manageable in one day). Above this distance ties quickly grew weaker. In the same way, one can set out a range of professional, personal and social ties shaped by interpersonal relationships at the time.

Conclusion

Research has shown that the extent of migration of the urban and rural population usually depended on the employment and activities of private individuals. While migrations in rural areas were more numerous over shorter distances, movement over larger distances was more typical for townspeople, although in aggregate in a lesser intensity than in the countryside. The distances which the inhabitants of Prachatice travelled for trade were quite exceptional. 298 Grulich and Zeitlhofer

Not only in the last third of the sixteenth century but during the seventeenth century it was usual for people to move most frequently up to twenty kilometers from the place of birth or from their previous dwelling place. The distance to which individuals temporarily and permanently moved was connected not only with their employment but also with the number of their personal contacts. Most frequently it was a matter of moving to a neighboring village. Only in localities of an urban type was it unexceptional for a quarter of the inhabitants to move to a distance greater than twenty kilometers from their place of origin. With the exception of the Libějovice estate, people everywhere found employment mainly in the immediate vicinity of their place of origin. Domestic staff in particular, changing their work place relatively often, were in the period under observation the most frequently migrating element of society. They tended to look for employment in the town or country without regard to the environment they originally came from. Farmhands also found employment in the service of strangers. Compared with domestic staff, their working relationship was more stable. As with domestic staff, it was usual for them to find employment somewhere other than in the place of their origin. This was connected with inheritance law in Bohemia, which gave preference to a single heir over a larger number of siblings. Otherwise, insofar as they were unsuccessful in improving their position by purchase or by marriage, they were ranked with the landless and thus among the farmhands. In looking for employment they often left their father’s farm and the village of their birth, and with the domestic staff represented that part of rural society whose further employment depended on changing their dwelling place. At the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries women migrated less often than men, even though at a shorter distance (up to five kilometers), the frequency of female migrations was greater than of men, whether it concerned employment or marriage. The influx of female service personnel from the countryside was also apparent in the town centers. While women migrated more frequently over shorter distances, in the case of men from the towns, movements to a distance of between twenty and fifty kilometers were not unusual. In the case of domestic staff and farmhands, the place of temporary or permanent employment was often also where they chose a spouse. Both before and after the Thirty Years War, there were groups in society and the professions whose members married only between themselves without regard to the distance between the places of origin of the betrothed couple. Therefore in the migration of the south bohemian population before and after 299 case of the towns it was not exceptional for a marriage to take place between partners from relatively distant localities. It can also be understood as proof of the fulfillment of particular personal, family or professional strategies. On the basis of research of migration connected with marriage, we have been successful in proving that there was no demonstrable difference in the situation before the Thirty Years War and after it had finished. In spite of the stated restriction of movement in connection with the “period of darkness”, it has been shown that in Chýnov in 1640 until 1680, just as in 1585 in Prachatice, in 1586 on the Třeboň estate and in 1607 on the Libějovice estate there were no settlements which would have been isolated and out of touch with their surroundings. Among betrothed couples there was a predominance of partners from different places. Marriages between couples not only from different parishes but even from different estates were not exceptional. The wide circle from which witnesses came to participate in wedding ceremonies is evidence of the extent of personal contacts across the boundaries of estates. It is further possible to affirm that rural society in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was mutually dependent not only on the basis of personal ties but also on professional relationships. The extent of migration of the rural population was not dependent only on the economic or administrative importance of separate localities. The evidence shows that it was to a certain measure dependent also on households, on the family position and on social standing. Other circumstances were also important—the deepening of personal ties between individual members of society by means of being godparents or sharing in the wedding ceremony as witnesses. Whatever the direction, quality or course of migrations was influenced by any of these factors, the main role in the spatial shift was always played by the individual without being influenced by local overlordship. The overlords were only interested in migration if it was illegal and/or damaged the prosperity of the estate. For a considerable portion of the rural population migration was linked with important moments of their life on the one hand, and everyday duties on the other. The rural population in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is therefore to be understood not as a static but rather as a dynamic part of contemporary society to which the consequences of the Thirty Years War and the subsequent emancipation did not make too much difference. chapter 12 The Exile

Lenka Bobková

In this essay Lenka Bobková, the author of an acclaimed prosoporaphic study of Bohemians who emigrated from Prague and northern Bohemia to the nearby German city of Pirna in the decades following the Battle of White Mountain, presents a broad overview of Bohemian emigration during this period to all areas, including Saxony, Poland, Hungary, the Low Countries, and Sweden. Whereas earlier Czech historians viewed the post-White mountain period as a low point in Bohemian history and exaggered its negative effects, Lenka Bobková provides a balanced perspective of this exile, addressing economic, familial, cultural, and other factors. Lenka Bobková (1947–) is a Professor of History at Historical Institute of the Charles University in Prague. She studied history and Czech language at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University. After her studies, she worked first as a secondary-school teacher and then as a staff member in the Regional Gallery in Liberec. In 1974 she received her doctorate on the property politics of the Luxemburg dynasty. Since 1993 she teaches at the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague and, since 1999, is also a researcher at the Historical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Lenka Bobková is the author of Územní politika prvních Lucemburků na českém trůně [The Property Politics of the First Luxemburgers on the Bohemian Throne] (Ústí nad Labem: Pedagogická fakulta Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, 1993), Exulanti z Prahy a severozápádních Čech v Pirně v letech 1621–1639 [Exile from Prague and Northern Bohemia in Pirna in the years 1621–1639] (Prague: Scriptorium, 1999), Česká koruna na rozcestí: k dějinám Horní a Dolní Lužice a Dolního Slezska na přelomu středověku a raného novověku [The Czech Crown at the Crossroads: On the History of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Lower Silesia at the Turn of the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period] (Prague: Casablanca, 2010). She is also co-editor of a number of collections; including, along with Michaela Neudertová, Cesty a cestování v životě společnosti [Travel and Travelling in Societal Life] (Ústí nad Labem: Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, 1997); and, with Jan Konvičná, of Náboženský život a církevní poměry v zemích Koruny české ve 14.–17. století [Religious Life and Church Relations in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown from the 14th–17th Centuries] (Prague: Filozofická fakulta uk and Casablanca, 2009).

Original Place of Publication and Permission: “Exulant” [The Exile] in Člověk českého raného novověku, eds. Václav Bůžek and Pavel Král (Prague: Argo, 2007), 297–326. The chapter appears by permission of the author.

“I put my hope in the Lord, I do not despair in bad times, God’s might helps me in all things.” Litolt Kozelka of Hřivice, Pirna, 16 August 1629

“Tempora mutantur et Nos mutamur in illis.” Bořek Dohalský of Dohalice, in exilio in Zittau, 5 January 1630

Since the dawn of human history, some people have always been forced to leave their native country—leaving behind their family tradition, culture, and material certainties. Often the threat of expulsion has been used by the authorities as a means of silencing individuals or groups of people who rebel against official norms, champion alternative political or religious convictions, and who are therefore an inconvenience. The phenomenon of emigration still retains its relevance in the contemporary world, and the problems that accompany large-scale population shifts continue to awake interest in past waves of emigration. Today’s emigrants have much in common with their historical counterparts; their experiences and patterns of behavior are shared with all those who have been forced to seek a new life in a foreign country. One of the most remarkable exoduses in European history occurred as a consequence of political turmoil in a continent convulsed by the seemingly endless Thirty Years’ War. In the 17th century, attempts at confessionalization—the imposition of a homogeneous religious doctrine by force—drove families and entire communities onto the dusty roads of Europe. Those who fled the Kingdom of Bohemia for religious reasons occupy a special niche among the victims of this conflict, and are known in Czech as ‘exulanti’ (‘exulant’ in the singular form). This was the term coined by the post-White Mountain exiles to describe themselves; it was also appropriated by their descendants many generations later, in the 19th century, when scholars began to take a close interest in the wave of emigration from Bohemia following the events of 1621. When the army of the Bohemian estates was defeated at the White Mountain, the aftershocks were felt throughout Bohemian society. Active participants in the Bohemian nobles’ insurrection against the Habsburgs in 302 Bobková

1618–1620 were subjected to concerted reprisals. Not only were the movement’s leaders executed; there were also extensive confiscations and edicts, all pursuing one ultimate aim: that of making Roman Catholicism the sole legally permissible faith in the realm. These measures affected the whole of society, whether directly or indirectly. The plan to Recatholicize Bohemia was implemented in stages. It began with the expulsion of the non-Catholic clergy and teachers—Czech-speakers in 1621, followed by German-speakers a year later. Those who remained in Bohemia became outlaws, and had to go into hiding. In 1624 an edict was issued requiring all burghers to become Catholics. In 1627 this requirement was extended to the nobility, who (like the burghers) were given an ultimatum: either convert to Catholicism, or leave Bohemia by the end of March 1628. This process of Recatholicization culminated in the introduction of Renewed Land Ordinances—for Bohemia itself in 1627, and for Moravia in the following year. Many people, from all strata of society, decided to leave the Czech lands during this period. Their emigration had a major impact on population levels, which are estimated to have fallen by as much as thirty percent. What fate awaited those who left their home for the sake of their religious faith? Where did they most often seek asylum? How did they deal with their new situation, from both the spiritual and material points of view? How were they received by their host countries? What was the mindset of the Czech exiles? These are the key questions which, if answered, can help to provide an insight into the situation and status of those who were driven out of their Bohemian homeland. The post-White Mountain exiles are frequently viewed through a prism distorted by stereotypes and clichés; sometimes glorified, other times condemned. Popular ideas of life in exile are often distorted too. Contrary to popular belief, most of the exiles did not bid a tearful farewell to their beloved native soil, convinced they would never see it again. In fact, the war continued even after the imposition of the Recatholicization edicts, stok- ing the exiles’ hopes that they would eventually be able to return to Bohemia. They remained in contact with their homeland, and the hardships of exile would undoubtedly have caused them constantly to weigh up whether it was better to preserve the faith of their fathers, or to renounce that faith and return to their homes. The tense situation that prevailed in the aftermath of the White Mountain caused many to leave the Czech lands as soon as possible: those living close to the border (often with relatives, friends or business associates living in the neighboring country), those who owned land outside Bohemia, and those who were German-speakers. Many of these people had played no part in the insurrection; the only thing they had in common was their non-Catholic faith. A classic example was the situation on the Bohemian-Saxon border, where many the exile 303 families began preparing to emigrate at the start of 1621. They included the lords of Bünau (the owners of the Děčín and Jílové estates), who had not participated directly in the uprising. Jindřich of Bünau rented a house in the nearby Saxon town of Pirna as early as 12 January 1621. A relative of the Bünaus, Lady Šlejnic did the same, rent- ing a house together with her daughter, while the wife of a different North Bohemian lord, Volf of Salhausen (who had in fact been involved in the uprising, and was wanted by the authorities), hid some valuables in a house in Pirna. The same course of action was taken by the merchant George Beuttel of Děčín. The executions in Prague’s Old Town Square persuaded most of the victims’ families and relatives to flee the country. The ranks of the refugees swelled as the Recatholicization edicts took effect. However, up to 1627–1628 many still hoped that the situation might change, or at least that the authorities would take a more benign approach. For this reason, it was often only the male members of families who left Bohemia; the women only joined them when the authorities in their home region began to implement the repressive new measures with full force, making life there unbearable. Such a situation was described by Václav Nosidlo of Geblice, who in March 1626 left his pregnant wife behind in Litoměřice/ Six weeks after giving birth, “with great suffering, in quite harsh cold, and facing great dangers, she was forced to leave her ungrate- ful homeland, no longer able to bear the military oppression and the lack of religious freedom.” Nosidlo’s wife was accompanied on her journey by several other women whose husbands had already found accommodation in Pirna. The wives who remained in Bohemia generally attempted to keep hold of their property—at least their own personal possessions—and, if possible, to sell it, either for a lump sum or with the proviso that the sum would be paid in regular installments, which would provide some income to fund their life in exile. Sometimes these attempts were successful: in 1629 the wife of Pavel Skála of Zhoř, Anna née Hošťálková, managed to sell her property in Žatec with the help of her brother-in-law Bohuslav Strial, who stayed in the town and continued to serve on the municipal council. Families were frequently split up, with one sibling remaining in Bohemia or only the parents emigrating. Sometimes those who stayed behind managed to adapt quickly to the new order, rising to become part of the local elite or even to command regiments in the imperial army. A burgher of Prague’s Old Town, Jan Petráček of Vokouštejn the Eldest, emigrated to Pirna with his second wife, the widow Anna Lopatská of Liběchov, plus an unknown number of children and grandchildren, and died there in 1639 at the age of almost eighty. He wrote that his life in exile was financed by his son, also named Jan Petřáček, to whom (along with his brother Václav) he had transferred his entire assets before emigrating. However, his 304 Bobková son—a Catholic—prospered, eventually becoming one of the richest burghers in Prague. In 1629 he became a member of the municipal council, and ten years later he was appointed to the office of vogt. Anna Lopatská of Liběchov had two sons by her first marriage, each of whose lives took a very different course after the White Mountain. Václav Lopatský remained in Prague, while his brother Šimon and sister Regina (married name Vindtová) accompanied their mother into exile. Varying fates also awaited the family of the executed Burgomaster of Žatec, Maximilián Hošťálek. His widow Dorota remained in exile for only a short time, returning to Žatec and remarrying in 1629. One of Hošťálek’s sons joined the imperial army, while his two brothers fought under the banners of Sweden and Prussia. Dozens of similar cases could be found. Especially in the immediate aftermath of the White Mountain, the exiles mainly headed for areas bordering on the lands of the Bohemian Crown— Saxony, Poland and the Hungarian lands. The possibility of settling in other nearby lands of the Crown—Silesia and Upper Lusatia—depended on political and military developments and on the strength of the Habsburgs in those states. Upper Lusatia became a favored destination for refugees as early as 1622, when it was pledged to the Prince-Elector of Saxony. It became even more popular after the Peace of Prague in 1635, which handed the province to the Electorate of Saxony. Silesia was a more problematic destination, as the ruling families in its individual Duchies varied widely in their religious affiliation. During the Thirty Years’ War the Habsburgs—and thus Catholicism—gained increased territorial and political dominance in Silesia, which also led to a wave of emigration. Nevertheless, the treaties of 1635 guaranteed the right to worship according to the Augsburg Confession to the inhabitants of the duchies of Brzeg, Legnica, Oleśnica) and Ziębice, plus the city of Wrocław. This religious freedom was eventually enshrined in the Peace of Westphalia. The exodus from Bohemia after the White Mountain affected Hussites, members of the Unity of Brethren, Lutherans and Calvinists—in other words, all non-Catholics who had lived side by side in the Kingdom of Bohemia for centuries. However, their new host countries generally took a different approach to religion, based on the principle cuius regio, eius religio. The emigrants therefore chose their destination according to its official confession. This applied not only to exiles from Bohemia and Moravia, but also to refugees from Silesia, Austria, Salzburg and the Rhineland-Palatinate. A range of other considerations undoubtedly played a role in the exiles’ deliberations where to go—including any contacts they may already have had with people living outside Bohemia, whether relatives, friends, or business associates. There may also have been long-term contacts among students at Europe’s universities. Some Czech nobles were known at the courts of the exile 305 neighboring regions (Saxony, Palatinate and Brandenburg), where they had spent time gathering experience to launch a political or military career. People who were still undecided whether to leave Bohemia or not would also have been affected by the example of the clergy, who were forced to leave at the outset of the Recatholicization process and who were able to influence their former parishioners—whether directly or indirectly—from their new homes. It is also clear that a secret synod of the Unity of Brethren, held in Doubravice in the Giant Mountain [Krkonoše] in March 1625, also discussed the question of emigration, concluding that it was necessary to explore the possibilities. The synod decided that it was necessary to seek out new homes for Bohemian exiles in Poland, and for Moravian exiles in the Hungarian lands, and that letters should be dispatched or envoys sent to visit members of the clergy in those countries. This was the purpose of the visit by Jan Amos Comenius to the Polish town of Leszno later the same year. John George I, the Elector of Saxony, was one of the leading Lutheran dukes in the Holy Roman Empire, but he stopped short of opposing the Habsburgs publicly. He did not support the Bohemian uprising in any way; he evidently felt insulted that in 1618 the leaders of the movement had offered the Crown of St Václav to the Elector Palatine, the Calvinist Frederick V, rather than to him. Saxony remained neutral throughout the conflict. John George did not oppose Ferdinand II, and even consented to the extradition of his former teacher Joachim Andreas of Schlick, who was executed in Prague’s Old Town Square just a few weeks later. On the other hand, John George did not prevent Bohemian exiles from settling in Saxony. He merely issued an order that the new arrivals should be registered and their religious observance monitored; he was not prepared to tolerate any faith other than Lutheranism in his Electorate. The confessional situation in Poland was more complex. Lutheranism and Calvinism had put down roots mainly in urban centers, while rural Poland remained predominantly Catholic. Until 1632 the Polish throne was occupied by a Catholic, Sigismund III Vasa, who was then succeeded by the more tolerant Władysław IV. However, the Polish nobility wielded considerable political power, and so the situation varied in different regions of the country depending on the stance of the local aristocracy. Members of the Unity of Brethren had already settled in Poland—mainly in the town of Leszno—when they had first suffered persecution in 1547, and many of the local Polish- and German- speaking population converted to their faith. By the turn of the 17th century the most powerful man in the region, Count Rafael Leszczyński, was also a member of the Brethren. Leszno offered a favorable climate for the exiles, as many of its inhabitants were Lutherans and Calvinists. There had been a high school in the town since the mid-16th century, which was converted into a 306 Bobková reformist school in 1628; Leszno was therefore a logical choice for members of the Brethren fleeing Bohemia after the White Mountain. Leszno was a sizeable center of population; in the 1620s it had around 12 000 inhabitants, including an estimated 1 000 exiles from Bohemia and Moravia, the vast majority of whom belonged to the Unity of Brethren. The largest group of exiles arrived in Leszno in April 1628. They were preceded in early February by the senior cleric Jan Cyrill and his son-in-law Jan Amos Comenius, who travelled to Poland with the families of George Sádovský and the Zárubskýs of Hustiřany (on whose estates in the Krkonoše foothills Comenius and his family had been staying in the previous months). Apart from clergymen and nobles, Leszno was also a popular destination for tradesmen and many women travelling alone. Throughout the Thirty Years’ War the town remained one of the main centers of exile. For many years it was the home of leading members of the Brethren, including Comenius himself. The renowned Kralice printing press was brought to Leszno, where it was operated by Daniel Vetter-Strejc. The Brethren community in Leszno thrived until the town was burned to the ground in April 1656, during the Swedish-Polish War. Despite this setback, the Brethren re-established their presence in the town in the following years, though the community never again reached the same size or achieved the same renown as in the years before the fire. The Hungarian lands had successfully defended their religious freedoms as early as 1619. The first refugees came to Hungary shortly after the defeat at the White Mountain, when most of the Hungarian lands were controlled by the Prince of Transylvania Gabriel Bethlen. In early 1621, Count Jindřich Matyáš Thurn visited Bethlen at his court in Trnava [Hungarian Nagyszombat] and asked for military help to defeat the Habsburgs. The territory of today’s Slovakia [Upper Hungary in that time period] offered a safe haven to refugees of two different confessions, depending on the faith of the local nobility. Utraquists, whose faith was close to the tenets of Lutheranism, found many supporters among the Lutheran nobility and in urban centers. Their numbers swelled in the Nitra and Trenčín areas, but they also settled in the east and north-east of the country. Members of the Unity of Brethren settled mainly in the western and north-western regions of Upper Hungary, where there were like-minded Calvinist communities. The most important centers for the Brethren were Púchov and nearby Lednica, which was under the protection of the Rákoczi family. Some Brethren went to Markušovce in the Spiš region. Besides the non-Catholic exiles, the remaining Anabaptists from Moravia also found refuge in the western part of Upper Hungary. The Recatholicization did not affect Hungary until the discovery of Ferenc Wesselényi’s conspiracy in 1670 and during several subsequent anti-Habsburg rebellions. The persecution the exile 307 of non-Catholics in Hungary lasted almost twenty years, during which several Lutherans left the country for Saxony or Brandenburg. After 1687, however, Hungary once again provided sanctuary to a wide variety of refugees escaping religious persecution. The exiles also sought refuge beyond the western borders of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Initially they went to the Upper Palatinate region, which consisted of several small territories. Some of these territories were ruled by the Calvinist Counts Palatine of the Rhine, while others were controlled by related families who were mainly Lutherans. This was the case of the Palatinate of Sulzbach, which belonged to the Count Palatine Augustus. Several exiled families from western Bohemia fled to Sulzbach in May 1628. According to John George Harant of Polžice and Bezdružice, the refugees originally intended to settle in the border town of Vohenstrauss. However, they soon encountered pressure to convert to Catholicism, exerted by Duke Maximilian of Bavaria after his victory in the Palatine War. Emperor Ferdinand II awarded Maximilian the lands of Elector Palatine Frederick V, the Rhineland-Palatinate (including the Electoral Palatinate), and estates in northern Bavaria (the Upper Palatinate). There he was joined by the Count Palatine Wolfgang Wilhelm, who converted to Catholicism and began to impose the Roman faith throughout the Sulzbach estates. Faced with this situation, in the summer of 1628 the Czech exiles travelled north into the Vogtland, reaching the nearby town of Hof, which belonged to Christian of Hohenzollern (from the Ansbach-Bayreuth branch of the family). As in Hohenzollern-controlled Brandenburg, the prevailing confession in this region was Calvinism, which made it an ideal place for members of the Unity of Brethren. Bohemian exiles were also present at the Brandenburg court of Georg Wilhelm, the brother-in-law of Elector Palatine Frederick V. For example, Berlin was home to Ladislav Velen of Žerotín and Jan Oldřich Dobřenský, who became a Privy Councillor and was chosen as the Hofmeister to Frederick’s daughter Henrietta Maria, who enjoyed a brief marriage to Sigismund Rákoczi. Their marriage, in 1651 in Sárospatak, was blessed by Jan Amos Comenius. Some exiles found refuge in more distant countries. In the early years of exile, most were drawn to their new homes by military service, studies or political motives. Later, however, the choice of host country came to depend more on professional factors and the opportunities for building a new life. Some of the former Bohemian nobles remained close to their deposed king. The exile court of Frederick V in The Hague hosted many important politicians and military men, but also writers and intellectuals. Among these were the traveler Daniel Vetter-Strejc, a member of the Unity of Brethren, who taught the Czech 308 Bobková language to Prince Frederick Henry, the heir to the throne. Other residents in the Dutch city included Andreas of Habernfeld, a physician and author of the tract Bellum Bohemicum, and the astrologer and physician Šimon Partlic (Simon Partlitz), the Preceptor of the Princes Palatine. The Netherlands—The Hague, Leiden and Amsterdam—was also home to other exiles, becoming a particularly important Bohemian center after the arrival of Comenius. In 1658 a Czech Brethren printing press was built in Amsterdam, operated by Jan Paskovský and Jan Teofil Kopidlanský. A large number of the exiles joined the Swedish army, and some were active at the court of the Swedish monarchs, where Comenius again left his mark. Jindřich Matyáš Thurn was permitted by the King of Sweden to settle in what is now Estonia, and Sweden was also home to Jan Rájek-Raicus. From 1629 to 1635 Sweden held part of coastal Prussia, including the cities of Gdańsk, Memel [Lithuanian Klaipėda] and Elbląg. Elbląg was home to Václav Clemens Žebrácký, the author of a celebratory poem dedicated to King Gustav Adolf of Sweden; Žebrácký maintained his contacts with the Swedish monarchy even after relocating to Leiden, from where he eventually went to England, having fallen into dire financial straits. England was a popular destination among exiles hoping to gain support for change in the Kingdom of Bohemia. They failed to garner effective backing, but some young men from the Unity of Brethren were given financial support to study at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and a few settled in England permanently—including George Sádovský of Sloupno, the doctor Jan Svatoš, and Master Jan Sictor, a somewhat controversial figure. A large question mark remains over the total number of post-White Mountain exiles. Generally, lists of exiles drawn up in Bohemia include only those who owned property or were important figures in other ways. These documents tend not to list family members, and they never mention the reti- nues of servants who accompanied wealthy families into exile. Determining the exact numbers of exiles is also complicated by the fact that they moved around frequently. Sources outside Bohemia offer scant information, as they are widely scattered, incomplete or have been lost entirely. One exception is the thousands of documents held by the Saxon Provincial Archive in Dresden. The Saxon court kept detailed records of the exiles, listing them by name in areas with large exile populations. Their applications for residence permits or passports were also carefully filed. Thanks to these materials, we know that the wave of emigration included not only the servants of wealthy families, but also large numbers of widows with their children, lone women and other individuals with very little in the way of assets, who soon found themselves living in penury. We can assume that the situation was similar in other exile the exile 309 destinations throughout Europe. In many respects the above-mentioned sources still await detailed study and assessment, as the refugees in Saxony are still largely overshadowed in the public consciousness by the exiled Brethren. The living conditions and status of the exile communities must have been very similar in all of the other countries which offered asylum to large groups of Bohemian refugees. For this reason the Saxon sources could provide a basis for more general insights into the lives of the post-White Mountain exiles. The refugees mainly crossed into Saxony via the mountain passes in the Ore mountains or along the Elbe river, seeking out places to stay close to the border. The majority went to Freiberg, Pirna and Dresden. Over the centuries, the border regions of Bohemia had built up strong commercial, social and cultural ties with neighboring Saxony. Pre-White Mountain Bohemia was home to many German Lutheran preachers, who were permitted by an edict of the Prince- Elector (issued on 13 December 1622) to settle in Saxony without obtaining special permission. Czech members of the clergy and other emigrants were also allowed to join them, but they had to request permission to reside in Saxony. The authorities in Dresden did not view the exiles’ applications as a mere for- mality, but attempted to monitor the refugees’ final destinations, as far as that was possible. The Prince-Elector’s residence—which was also an important fortress—helped to prevent the influx of undesirable immigrants. John George refused to allow poor and unimportant families to settle in the city; permits were generally only issued to wealthy and respected nobles who had enough assets to be of use to the Saxon treasury—which swallowed up much of the refugees’ valuables and money. A close relative of Wallenstein, William Vchynský of Vchynice, was one of the nobles who settled in Dresden. Back in Bohemia, Ferdinand II had treated him with leniency, and he had even been allowed to keep his Bohemian estates. Once installed in the Saxon capital, Vchynský purchased two houses and lived in considerable luxury. Other nobles in Dresden included August Václav Kaplíř of Sulevice, Dorota Catherine of Žerotín, and Countess Magdaléna Caretto of Millesimo, née Vřesovcová. Houses were also purchased by Alžběta Hrzánová of Harasov, Catherine Kaplířová and Jan Habart Kostomlatský of Vřesovice. In 1629 a total of 58 exile households were registered as residents in the Saxon capital. This number began to grow rapidly after 1639, and especially after the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Dresden became the main religious center of the exile community—a community that still survives today, though there has been no Czech-speaking preacher in Dresden since the mid-19th century. Burghers and the nobility also settled in large numbers in Freiberg and Pirna, as well as in smaller towns such as Königstein, Bad Schandau and Hohenstein. Freiberg, in the Erzgebirge mountains, was a relatively large and wealthy 310 Bobková

mining town close to the border with Bohemia. It was a favored destination for refugees from northern Bohemia, especially from Žatec but also from Duchcov and Most, whose burghers maintained strong commercial and cultural links with Freiberg. The town also became the home of several exiles from Austria. The first refugees arrived in Freiberg during 1621, and by January 1629 a total of 528 were registered as living there. Besides the burghers, the exile community also included several noblemen, such as Bohuslav Hodějovský of Hodějov, Felix Častovec Kaplíř of Sulevice, and Bohuchval Sekerka of Sedčice. One of the most prominent new Freibergers was a former burgher of Žatec, the author Pavel Skála of Zhoř, who wrote part of his Ecclesiastical History in the town. In many ways the town of Pirna is comparable to Leszno in Poland: it became the temporary home of many nobles, important burghers (especially from Prague and Litoměřice), university-educated scholars, and ordinary people— including the poorest sections of the community. The main advantage of Pirna was its close proximity to the Bohemian border and to Dresden, as well as its easy accessibility via the Elbe river. Many surviving records contain information on the Bohemian exile community in Pirna, providing detailed insights into everyday life there. At the turn of the 17th century Pirna had just over 3 500 inhabitants. The first refugees reached the town in the spring of 1621, and after the executions in the Old Town Square their numbers were swelled by the families of the victims. They included the relatives of Kašpar Kaplíř of Sulevice, the widow of Valentin Kochan of Prachov, the son of the executed Jindřich Kozel of Peclinovec, and (somewhat later) the son of Nathanael Vodňanský of Uračov, the son of Tobiáš Štefek of Koloděje, and the widow of Bohuslav of Michalovice. In 1627 Jan Theodor Sixt of Ottersdorf (who had been granted a pardon at the last moment before his execution, when already on the scaffold) moved to Pirna, and the town was also home to Father Jan Rosacius Hořovský, who administered the Last Rites to the condemned before their execution and described the terrible scene in the widely circulated text The Undying Crown of the Czech Martyrs [Koruna neuvadlá mučedníků českých]. In February 1626 twelve burghers of Litoměřice submitted a joint application for asylum, followed in the next two years by many more burghers and nobles. Many of the refugees were not particularly wealthy: one Charles Pfefferkorn, in his own words, set out “in the month of June with my mother and with Adam Matyáš, my younger brother, to the province of Meissen (. . .) although I had no more money to pay for the journey than fifteen hundred score of Meissen groschen”. People with a university education—clergymen, teachers and artists— represented a special group within the emigrant communities. Many lived in Pirna, conferring on the town’s exile community a certain gravitas. One of them the exile 311 was the last Protestant Rector of Prague’s university college Mikuláš Troilus Hagiochoranus. A student of Hagiochoranus—the author and historian Pavel Stránský—also began his exile years in Pirna; in 1631 he went to Dresden, later moving to Leipzig and Freiberg and eventually (in around 1637) settling in the Polish city of Toruń (Thorn), where he became a burgher. In 1647 Stránský was appointed a teacher at the city’s Lutheran high school. His best-known work in Latin, entitled On the Bohemian State, was published (in two editions) by the Elsevier publishing house in Leiden, as Respublica Bohemiae (1634) and Respublica Bojema (1643). The doctor of philosophy and medicine Doncanus Andersen, who also bore the title Comes Palatinus Philologus, appears to have served his apprenticeship among the exile community in Pirna. A total of 23 university graduates passed through the town, including Master George Colsinius-Kavka, Master Jan Černovický of Libá Hora, and Master Jan Chebďovský of Felzov. A major contribution to the life of the Pirna community was made by other intellectuals, including the Litoměřice author Václav Nosidlo of Geblice (who wrote a notable chronicle of the life of the Pirna exiles), the Mladá Boleslav chronicler George Bydžovský Kezelius, and the already mentioned Jan Theodor Sixt of Ottersdorf. Many of these scholars brought their libraries with them, and some helped run the Czech printing press—which had belonged to Kryštof Megander and was brought to Pirna from Bohemia. In 1632 Jan Ctibor Kbelský, a burgher of Prague’s Old Town and a printer by trade, was put in charge of the press. The painter Matyáš Crocinus of Slaný also lived in Pirna for several years; he later became famous in the town of Bautzen, where he died in 1653 at the age of seventy. The religious services held in Pirna also necessitated the presence of musicians, especially organists. The leading position in the Pirna exile community was occupied by the capable and highly ambitious Master Samuel Martinius, who had previously accompanied Count Jindřich Matyáš Thurn on a journey through Europe. Martinius had close connections with the Dresden court. It was mainly thanks to him that the authorities looked favorably on the exiles’ request for permission to hold Czech-language church services in 1628. The request was granted, on one crucial condition: the Augsburg Confession was to be strictly maintained. A superintendent from Pirna was appointed to ensure that this condition was upheld. Martinius was also responsible for the Pirna Book of Heraldry, which served as a chronicle of the community’s life and gives information on the commencement of Czech-language worship in Pirna. The book’s main content is a catalogue of the coats-of-arms and mottos of the Bohemian exiles; it also records financial donations from the nobles to the community, noting the purpose of the donation in each case. Often these records state that the money was intended “for the poor people” or as “alms to poor Bohemian exiles”. 312 Bobková

In January 1629 the authorities ordered a census of the exile community in Pirna, which put their numbers (both in the town and in the surrounding communities) at an amazing 2123, living in 594 separate households in 293 houses. In 1631 this figure had fallen to 1962, and by 1636 the community numbered just 1610 people. The censuses only list one member of each household. A household may have been a complete family, an incomplete family, or a person living entirely alone; other members of the household were not mentioned by name, but were merely counted. These ‘nameless’ family members included children, adult sons and daughters, relatives and servants. However, only a few wealthy families employed staff; the majority of households had no servants. In any case, servants may actually have been more of a burden on the family budget than an effective source of assistance. We do not know whether these servants went into exile out of loyalty to their masters, or whether the masters felt responsible for the livelihoods and welfare of their servants. The gradual decline in the number of emigrants was caused by natural mortality rates, pre- mature deaths of women and young children, and deaths in military conflicts. Pirna was also hit by a plague epidemic in 1632, and some of the exiles simply left the town to go elsewhere. The huge number of emigrants put a huge strain on the town’s ability to accommodate so many people, and rents would certainly have increased. Houses in Pirna, especially in the central part of the town, were by no means small, but they were still not capable of providing comfortable accommodation for so many people. It was common for several families to live in the same house. The range of accommodation is described by Václav Nosidlo of Geblice, who wrote that in 1626 he, together with two former neighbors from Litoměřice, had moved into a house belonging to one Jan Funcke on the town square, in which they had “a dwelling (. . .) in the top central rooms, that is two living rooms and four small chambers”; for this they paid 24 imperial thalers. Václav Nosidlo occupied a position slightly above the middle of the social hierarchy. A similar description of a dwelling is given by John George Harant of Polžice and Bezdružice, who—during his first stay in Vohenstrauss—obtained permission from the Count Palatine Augustus to rent a house for 15 broad thalers per year. When he arrived in the town of Hof, he lived in the house of a wheelwright named Stefan near the city gate. He did not write how many rooms the family had at its disposal. Wealthier families naturally enjoyed more spacious accommodation. This can be inferred from the account given by Charles Pfefferkorn, who recalled the sad death of his mother with none of her children (or any relatives at all) at her bedside. Her sons were away serving in the army, and her daughter (married name Elsnicová), in whose household Rosina Pfefferkornová lived, was the exile 313 in the neighboring room, confined to bed after giving birth. Alexandr Kaplíř of Sulevice undoubtedly had several rooms at his disposal; he was accompanied by his wife, her three unmarried sisters, and two of her sons from a previous marriage, plus a preceptor, three page-boys, three servants and five other staff. By contrast, Jan Myška of Žlunice had to content himself with less luxurious surroundings—a shack in a garden, where he lived together with his wife, two servants and two maids. In 1636, six members of the family of William Jestřibský of Rýzmberk lived all together in a single room containing their entire worldly possessions. Poor families or those living alone had to contend with even more cramped conditions. For example, in 1631 a single house in Pirna was inhabited by 24 people, and one house in an outlying village had 28 occupants. Families who slept under one roof were often related, or knew each other well from their original homes in Bohemia. In 1629, one Jonáš Zomp lived in the same house as Catherine Belvicová of Nostvice, née Satanýřová, and her unnamed brother with his wife, plus another of her brothers, Mikuláš Satanýr, with his wife and his young son, Mrs Magdaléna Kaplířová, her sister Eva Častolarová (formerly Pětipeská), plus an unidentified girl from Ottevice and two young men named Kaplíř and Pětipeský. Together with their retinue of servants, the household comprised a total of 23 people. The knight Bořek Mateřovský of Mateřov (the author of a notable memoir) went into exile when already at an advanced age, with his wife and their adult children. The number of family members (plus servants) living in his house in Pirna fluctuated between 11 and 16 depending on whether his sons and son-in-law were at home or away serving in the Swedish army. The living standards of the emigrants, especially in the first years of their exile, depended on the amount of property they had been able to bring with them from Bohemia. However, the popular image of the exiles fleeing their homeland with only what they could carry is far from the reality. The refugees would have taken with them all of their cash, valuables, bed linen and blankets if possible, while tradesmen would have taken any tools that could be carried. By staying in contact with their former homes, exiles (or at least those whose property had not been confiscated) would have been able to generate income or sell their property; this was common among those who had received a dowry or inherited property from their parents. Naturally they were sometimes forced to accept a lower price, but nevertheless their property in Bohemia represented a useful source of income. For many exiles this situation changed in 1632, when there was a further wave of confiscations targeted at those who had re-entered Bohemia with the invading Saxon forces in the hope of regaining the the homes and estates that they had abandoned years before. 314 Bobková

An interesting source of information on the financial situation of the exiles is contained in their last wills. These documents, drawn up in Saxony, are written not only in German and Latin, but also in Czech, which was often then translated into German. Most of the inventories of inheritable assets consist of Bohemian estates. When a woman died, her property would go to her husband and children. In many cases, however, the will was little more than a sad reminder of former wealth now lost. This is probably the case of the will left by Ondřej Šimeček of Cejnov in 1630, which mentions estates left behind in Litoměřice, some of which had since been (illegally) sold. Šimeček left the estates to his wife Dorota out of gratitude for her fidelity and in recognition of all the good deeds she had done for him, “bringing a sum of cash with her when she came to my home at the beginning of our marriage, and now, when I am old and grey, deprived of my homeland, taking care of me and supporting me even with her own assets, as I have been forced to leave behind almost everything in my homeland, even as an old man, in order to preserve my faith, and be supported by her”. The inventories also list money, sometimes rather large amounts, and various valuables. In 1630, Dorota Kuklová from Tauenperk left “a silver gilded beaker with a lid to Jan Sixt, my son, and all my clothes to the daughters of the above-mentioned Jan Mostník, my brother, and then to Anna my gold necklace, to Dorota a gilded bracelet, to Lidmila a silver bracelet and my scissors, and to Rejnka also a bracelet and a bag with silver buttons”. Not only family members, but also servants were remembered in many wills. In 1630, Alžběta Služská of Chlum stated in her will that she was releasing her maid Anna from servitude, as the maid “has been with me since her youth and has behaved well”. Alžběta left to her maid “twenty ducats, ten thalers, bed linen and blankets, and a silver bracelet”. Exiles on their deathbeds frequently thought not only of their own souls, but also of the Bohemian church. In his will of 1639, the Pirna exile Mates Vorel-Adler—who had become a burgher of the town—wrote off his debts to his friends in Lovosice and left 20 thalers “to the fund for the maintenance of the church, and for the children”. In 1651, Jan Jindřich Myška of Žlunice left “fifty thalers to the fund for the maintenance of the Bohemian church in the Dresden fortress” and the same sum to the church in Marienberg, where his brother was buried alongside his two daughters. Some exiles left money to fellow exiles in material need: in 1630 Alžběta Služská of Chlum stipulated that “40 broad thalers be fairly distributed among the poor people from Bohemia who have no means of income”. The last will of Anna Dorota Robmhápová of Suchá, dated 1655, is somewhat cautious in this respect: she left 50 thalers “to Bohemians living in poverty who are in dire need of this money”, yet she also requested of her heirs that they ensure the exile 315

“that the 50 thalers be given as alms only to those who need the money, who have no source of income, and not to those who do not need it”. The poor were also remembered in the will drawn up in Dresden in 1664 by Lidmila Licková of Rýzmburk, who asked that 30 imperial thalers should be used to create epi- taphs and coats-of-arms of her deceased father and husband, which would then be displayed in remembrance in the parish church of Pirna. She also required 50 imperial thalers to be loaned at three thalers interest per annum; the three thalers would be given to the poor every Christmas. This provision was to remain in force “for as long as the Czech nation continues to exist”. More information on the finances and assets of the Saxon exiles is given by the official registers of population. The Dresden authorities wanted to know not only how large the families were; they were also keen to find out about the social status of the exiles. Concerning burghers, the authorities wanted to know whether they had originally been merchants or tradesmen, and whether they were still involved in their original line of business. They also asked whether the emigrants owned horses, and if so for what purpose, and where they travelled on their horses. Václav Nosidlo records that the officials who drew up the lists also asked the burghers of Pirna how long a particular exile had been living with them, how the exile behaved, and whether there had been any complaints against the person in question. The burghers were also forbidden to take on any more new refugees—even those who had lived with them in the past. The officials collected information on how the exiles supported themselves financially. These records reveal that they mainly lived on cash reserves; only in exceptional cases did they draw income from unspecified estates or other sources. The exiles evidently supplemented their income by selling goods in Bohemia and by inheriting property. For example, John George Harant wrote in 1641 that messengers from Bohemia had arrived in Hof bringing some money to his family. Surviving records contain large numbers of repeated requests to the Bohemian authorities for assets to be released for sale; frequently these requests are accompanied by letters of recommendation from the Prince-Elector, who was often asked for help by the exiles. Many people had very little cash, and lived in poverty. Some of the exiles scraped a modest living through manual labor, and only a tiny proportion were involved in small-scale trading. Not many tradesmen had the opportunity to carry out their trades in exile; the local tradesmen were hostile and unwilling to accept the new arrivals into the local guilds, and so those exiles who did manage to pursue a trade generally had clients only among the exile community. Some of the locals’ complaints seem comical to us today: in 1640 the bakers of Freiberg complained about Czech women selling foreign-style cakes. The town’s council 316 Bobková solved this problem by forbidding the baking of cakes containing curd cheese, yet the emigrants were allowed to continue baking other types of Bohemian- style cakes. Only a few exiles attempted to become burghers in their new homes. It was not a lack of funds that prevented them from doing so, but rather their conviction that their exile was only temporary, and their resulting unwillingness to tie themselves to any particular place. However, this meant that the exile communities were not subject to the various fees and taxes levied on the local burghers, which generated resentment among the local citizens. Again Pirna can serve as an example: by 1629 only eleven exiles had been made burghers of the town, of whom three were originally from the German parts of the Empire and had settled in Bohemia in order to pursue their trades. By 1636 there were 21 Bohemian burghers of Pirna; six of them were women. Only ten exiles owned houses, while the rest continued to live in rented accommodation. The situation in other towns was similar. Some of the house-owning exiles offered accommodation to fellow countrymen in need. A particularly noteworthy case is that of Mates Vorel, a former burgher of Prague’s Old Town, who used the Germanized form of his name—Adler—when in a German environment. (‘Vorel’ and ‘Adler’ are both derived from the words meaning ‘eagle’.) Vorel/ Adler purchased a house in Pirna soon after arriving in the town; his tenants in 1629 were one Mikuláš Hofman of Šenhof (originally from Prague) and his wife, their child, a groom and two maids. In 1631, Vorel had different tenants: five widows (two with one child each) and one apprentice. The 1636 list shows that Vorel had a wife, a daughter and one maid; his tenants were the family of one Hans Demerich (his wife and five children), one widow with two children, and an elderly maid named Anna. It appears that Vorel’s Pirna house—listed in his will as the house ‘At The Green Frog’—was used as a temporary home for homeless exiles; Vorel had offered the same service at his former house in Prague. In places with large numbers of Bohemian exiles, the refugees formed more or less closed communities, bound together not only by their shared faith, but also by their language, culture and unenviable fate. Many of the exiles made no real attempts to integrate into their host communities; the more elderly among them often did not learn any German. This close-knit community spirit was reflected in the large number of marriages within the community; first- generation exiles almost exclusively married other exiles. Godfathers were also almost always selected from the Bohemian community. Weddings and chris- tenings were among the very few joyful occasions offering an opportunity for celebration and meeting with friends who lived elsewhere. Though most of these ceremonies were modest, one christening—frequently mentioned in the the exile 317 literature—represents a notable exception. In 13 November 1632 Petr Kelbel the Younger of Geising brought his son Václav Otta to the Pirna church in Königstein to be christened, inviting 79 guests to the ceremony. The christening of the son of Haubolt Paust of Liebstadt on 26 February 1646 provided the occasion for an interesting gathering of Paust’s neighbors and relatives originally from the region around the Bohemian towns of Děčín (Tetschen) and Ústí nad Labem (Aussig), who came to Pirna as godfathers and witnesses. They had evidently fled Bohemia to escape the marauding Swedish armies in the border areas (there was still a Swedish garrison in Děčín in the spring of 1649). After returning to their Bohemian estates, they all became loyal Catholics. Such conversions were common among the Bohemian population in the mid- 17th century, physically and spiritually exhausted by the war. The difficulties experienced by the exiles were also reflected in pamphlets published at the time. One such publication was a small leaflet dated 1628, entitled Rew Kauff or The Miseries of Departure. The aim of the pamphlet was to warn those still undecided whether to emigrate about the dangers that awaited them in foreign lands, where life was far worse than in Catholic Bohemia. The text masquerades as writings by a non-Catholic burgher originally from Prague’s Old Town, sending a missive from Pirna to the Bohemian capital. This fictitious author complains of the lack of fruit, meat and fish (only roach were available) and laments the hostility of the townspeople and the greed of the Saxon authorities, who had stripped many Czech nobles of their assets through unrecoverable loans. The pamphlet gives a detailed account of the ways in which the authorities enforced compliance with the Augsburg Confession, and criticizes the restrictions on preaching in Czech; it claims that each homily had to be sent to Dresden in a German or Latin translation to be approved by Dr Matthias Hoë of Hoënegg, who was the court preacher, the Prince-Elector’s chief advisor, and a fervent defender of the Lutheran faith. It is clear that these measures would prevent Calvinists—and therefore also members of the Unity of Brethren—from continuing in their ‘heretical’ behavior; the author suggests it might be better for them “to return to their homeland and become Catholics”. Rew Kauff is of course pure propaganda. Nevertheless, the exile communities did experience some confessional difficulties, and faith-based differences eventually soured relations among the individual centers of Bohemian exile. The Saxon refugees’ attempts to gain the right to worship in Czech was accompanied by official demands for strict Lutheran observance. For example, Samuel Martinius only managed to obtain permission to worship in Czech by becoming an ardent advocate of Lutheranism. However, his fellow exiles from the Unity of Brethren criticized him for being too willing to accede to the demands 318 Bobková of the Prince-Elector and his court preacher. George Kavka-Kezelius, in his chronicle of Mladá Boleslav, recalls the Lutherans’ hostility toward the Brethren. As a cautionary example he cites the pauper’s funeral given to the clergyman Zachariáš Bruncvík in August 1634; Bruncvík was suspected of Calvinism, and so he was interred by the cemetery wall, in the place reserved for those who had died unsaved. The hostility between Samuel Martinius and some members of the Bohemian ecclesiastical community in Pirna and Dresden eventually culminated in 1635 with open conflict. Seventeen people suspected of prac- ticing Calvinism were summoned to appear before the Dresden Consistory, where they were instructed to worship in line with the Augsburg Confession and undertake a reconciliation with Martinius. As a result, several exiles left Pirna—including Master Pavel Stránský and George Colsinius-Kavka. The Brethren experienced similar difficulties elsewhere in Saxony; in 1631 Václav Smiřický of Smiřice was buried in Freiberg without the customary ceremony. These conflicts within the Saxon exile community became widespread knowledge, sparking an extensive polemic between Samuel Martinius and the community of Brethren in Leszno, headed by Comenius. The polemic was launched when Martinius wrote a text entitled Thirty-five reasons why all Bohemian Protestants must be united, published in Pirna by Ctibor Kbelský in 1635. Martinius attempted to demonstrate that the Bohemian confession did not differ significantly from that of Augsburg. He labeled the Unity of Brethren a sect, describing it as a disruptive influence on the unity of the exiles. Jan Amos Comenius replied in his work entitled Declaration in response to the text against the Unity of Brethren by Master Samuel Martinius of Dražov, claiming that it was in fact Martinius who was being a disruptive influence. Martinius replied in his Preface as a defense, completed by the end of 1636. Martinius was also criticized by George Colsinius-Kavka in verse; Colsinius-Kavka had previously written a text entitled The Protestant Church weeps over the death of Gustav Adolf. The dispute continued when Jan Felin of Leszno wrote the Refutation of Samuel Martinius’ ‘defense’, which characterizes Martinius’ personal quali- ties in highly unflattering terms, mocking his boasts and fiercely criticizing his attitudes and opinions, claiming that “whatever he does—whether speaking, slandering, defaming, presuming, professing piety, confusing, spreading false- hoods and lying, flattering and pandering to vanity—he does without shame. His ‘defense’ consists of these doings. And this is the supposed victim, a man who is not ashamed to stand at the altar in the house of God, who sees everything and judges everything.” A second response to Martinius’ polemic was evidently written by Comenius himself, and is entitled The road of peace. This text is entirely different in tone. It is not addressed directly to Martinius, but to “all those members of the Czech nation who, for their faith in Christ’s gospel, are the exile 319 now scattered around the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdoms of Poland and Hungary, and elsewhere”. Comenius emphasized the need for confessional reconciliation among the Bohemian exiles, calling on them “instead of disputes over the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament” to “themselves be true and worthy limbs of Christ’s body”. Despite these conflicts, Martinius remained the leading figure in the Saxon exile community until his death—which occurred before the eventual collapse of the Pirna community. He died in February 1639 at the age of 46. In an oration at the funeral, Matěj Krocínovský praised Martinius as an excellent clergyman who had experienced great tribulations, a man “whose departure from this world has caused all pious men to shed many tears of grief here in the town of Pirna and in the fortress of Dresden, knowing that a firm pillar of our Bohemian Church of Pirna has fallen down”. Krocínovský also emphasized that Martinius was a practitioner of “the unchanged Augsburg Confession (. . .) and its Bohemian sister”. The exiles’ faith that the Thirty Years’ War would take a positive turn, enabling them to return home, was strengthened by the emergence of various prophecies which spread rapidly through the Bohemian communities. These predictions were also believed by Comenius, who at the beginning of his exile took into his family Kristina Poniatowská, the daughter of the librarian Charles of Žerotín the Elder in Rosice. He believed her prophetic visions that a fortu- nate turn of events would favor the anti-Habsburg forces. Another reassuring prophet was Kryštof Kotter, a currier from Šprotava in Silesia. In the final stages of the Thirty Years’ War, and in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, a frequent source of prophecies was Mikuláš Drabík, a somewhat problematic and uneducated figure from Strážnice. Drabík had been Comenius’ fellow student and friend, and now lived in Lednica in the Kingdom of Hungary. Comenius translated the visions of all three prophets into Latin, publishing them under the title Lux in tenebris. Various prophecies of changes affecting the European political scene were also contained in the writings of the doctor Šimon Partlic, the theologian Pavel Felgenhauer, and Andreas of Habernfeld. These visions are also mentioned in many memoirs written by exiles, who mainly described small-scale miracles which they had encountered—usually involving the sudden appearance of drops of blood. People of all ages left their homeland due to religious persecution. The generation aged between 50 and 60 in the mid-1620s died out almost entirely in the following twenty years. Their children were already of productive age when they left Bohemia, and most were already married. It was this generation that bore the heaviest burden of exile, including the responsibility for their current or future families. It was not always easy to opt for permanent 320 Bobková emigration. Military service, hardships caused by war, epidemics and sheer exhaustion all led to high mortality rates, even among this middle-aged generation. The relatives of the deceased—often children—found themselves in a very difficult situation. They may not have felt such a keen responsibility to maintain the faith of their parents, as they had not experienced religious freedom and its subsequent suppression. Many knew only hardship and poverty, disputes within and among the exile communities, and the dilution of religious ideals under the manifold pressures of wartime life. Members of this generation, if they had not built a good life for themselves abroad, evidently found it quite easy to return to Bohemia if they had inherited property there. The fate of the exiles was governed to a decisive extent by the Thirty Years‘ War. During the conflict, a large majority of exiles continued to believe that they would soon be able to return home. Many attempted to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the war by serving in the anti-Habsburg armies. They expected much from the entry of Saxony into the war, which flared up again in mid-1630 when the Swedish armies penetrated into northern Germany. The Prince-Elector John George wavered for several months before finally sending his units into battle; he was eventually swayed by the Swedish victory at the battle of Breitenfeld on 17 September 1631, where two of the Swedish regiments were commanded by a Bohemian exile, Count Jindřich Matyáš Thurn. The Saxon forces, commanded by Hans Georg of Arnim-Boitzenburg, marched through Lusatia to Bohemia. Soon afterwards the army reached Prague, and the city surrendered without a fight on 15 November 1631. The Saxon Prince-Elector arrived in the Bohemian capital just a few days later. John George Harant of Polžice expressed his distaste for the wavering Wettin, writing that he had left his armies without supplies in the plundered region of Lusatia, so that when the soldiers “reached Bohemia and found good quarters, they gorged themselves so much that some even died, and the army was thus greatly weakened. And if the people of Bohemia had known that there were no Swedes in the army, Prague would not have surrendered without a fight.” Harant’s positive attitude to the Swedes can be explained by the fact that his son Jan Ratolt was in the Swedish army. However, most exiles saw the Saxon involvement in a positive light, although the military men among the exile communities felt that they had not been sufficiently informed of the march on Bohemia and were disappointed that they had not been entrusted with the command of the operation. The emigrants’ faith in a positive outcome of the war led many of them to take a decisive step by joining the Saxon regiments in the hope of regaining their property and former prestige. However, once back in Bohemia, they were not always as welcome as they had hoped. They arrived with a foreign army in a the exile 321 country that was exhausted by war, with a population wracked by fear and suspicion. They had experienced great hardships in exile, but the Bohemian population had also suffered terribly. The gap in experience drove a wedge between neighbors, causing the returning exiles to become foreigners in their own land. Although not even the Prince-Elector of Saxony was prepared to mount sustained opposition against the Habsburgs and restore Bohemia to its pre-1621 state, Prague in particular saw many important changes. The returnees took over their former churches, drove out the Jesuits, occupied the university and reinstated the Council of Directors. On the first Sunday of Advent in 1631 they held a memorial ceremony for the lords executed in 1621, removing their heads from the tower and interring them in a Christian burial ceremony. The crowd was addressed by Samuel Martinius, who had become an administrator and a high official of Prague’s university. However, there was no return to the pre-White Mountain state of affairs, and the confiscations were not repealed; such steps were evidently not in the interests of the Saxon Prince-Elector. The initial enthusiasm of the returnees lasted only a few months before the situation again took a turn for the worse, with further losses of property and many fleeing the country for a second time. The Saxon involvement in the war was brought to an end by the peace treaty signed in Prague in 1635 by the Prince-Elector John George and the Emperor Ferdinand II. In return for this peace, John George was given the Bohemian Crown lands of Upper and Lower Lusatia. It was these lands—especially the towns of Bautzen (Budyšín) and Zittau (Žitava)—which became the new favored destination for the refugees, who moved to Lusatia from Silesia, Bohemia and Saxony. The exiles were also dealt a further serious blow. If members of their families or relatives had fought in the Saxon and Swedish armies in 1631–1632, they had been fighting for allied forces. However, if they remained in these armies after 1635, they became enemy combatants. In the light of this fact, it is no wonder that when officials were drawing up a report on the military activities of Pirna exiles and their family members, one of the respondents, Eva Častolarová, replied that she did not know in which army her son was serving. A further disappointment came in 1632: not only were the Saxons driven out of Bohemia, but the Swedish King Gustav Adolf fell in the battle of Lützen on 16 November of that year. Soon afterwards, the former King of Bohemia, and probably the most prominent exile of all, Frederick V, died at Mainz. The constantly changing situation at the front, combined with large-scale troop movements, posed a permanent threat to large parts of the Holy Roman Empire, and had a major impact on the exiles. The small amount of property they had managed to salvage suddenly came under threat from the looting and pillaging of armies—regardless of which armies they were. The constant 322 Bobková necessity to flee from marauding troops placed the exiles under huge physical and psychological pressure. The situation is described by Jan George Harant of Polžice and Bezdružice, living in the town of Hof, which during 1633 was occupied in turn by Swedish, Saxon and imperial troops. All three armies looted and pillaged with equal intensity. It was a bitter irony that the imperial units were commanded by Jan Karel Příchovský, whose uncle Václav, another exile, lived in Hof. Of course, this did not save the town from the marauding of the imperial troops. They even looted Václav Příchovský’s house, where other exiles had stored their valuables in the naïve hope that they would be spared the pillage. Two months later the scenario was repeated, again by the imperial troops. Harant describes various acts of violence, including a case when “Lieutenant Kelkovic forced the girl Markéta Anna Reitenbachka to come with him, taking her away from her father and sisters because she was the prettiest. The father and daughters gathered together their jewels, money and clothing, worth 1 500 (. . .), and the Lieutenant took these things (. . .) but he did not release the girl, and took her with him anyway.” In the spring of 1638 the Swedish armies again advanced into Saxony. At the battle of Chemnitz they defeated the allied Saxon and imperial forces, advancing through Freiberg to Pirna. The Bohemian exiles found themselves facing a dilemma. It was just as difficult to refuse to fight for their host country as it was to resist an army which they regarded as their main hope of changing the situation in their home country—an army in which they had relatives and friends. It is known with certainty that the Swedish forces that reached Pirna included Colonel Matěj Jizbický of Jizbice and General Zdeněk Hodický of Hodice. Moreover, for strategic reasons the Saxon forces had demolished the houses around the ‘Bohemian’ Church of St Nicholas, which had caused great hardship to the Bohemian families who had been living there. The exiles attempted to maintain a certain degree of neutrality, and refused to take part in the defense of the town. This naturally provoked the ire of Pirna’s burghers, who began to view the Bohemians as allies of the Swedes. This opinion remained unchanged even when the town was taken, and the armies looted and pillaged the homes of the exiles and the natives in equal measure. According to an account by Jan Theodor Sixt of Ottersdorf, the pillaging claimed 38 lives and 157 people incurred serious injuries, including Theodor’s son Vratislav. The Czech printing press was also destroyed, as was Sixt’s extensive library, which he had been collecting for many years. Charles Pfefferkorn also suggests a reason why the exiles suffered so heavily, stating that “they caused it themselves through the sin of pride. If only we could admit this to ourselves and live a more penitent life, to quench the anger of the Lord.” The leitmotif of humility before God and the exile 323 patience in enduring hardship runs through all the writings of and about the exiles. Their unshakable faith and humility became the only point of stability in their lives, a place to find sanctuary amid their sufferings. In the spring of 1639 the Swedes advanced into Bohemia, joined again by Bohemian exiles—including some from Pirna, who in the words of Charles Pfefferkorn no longer “had anything to eat, as the soldiers had taken everything, and they dragged us with brute force to the fortress, tired and almost dead with hunger, and so we set out on our terrible journey”. Pfefferkorn himself, old and exhausted, decided not to risk the journey to Bohemia after his experiences of 1632. Instead, he took his wife, one groom and a small amount of property in a knapsack, and went to Zittau. Even there he did not find the peace he was looking for, and so in 1651—though gravely ill by this time—he left for Dresden. Once in the Saxon capital, on his deathbed, he was tended to by his fourth wife Markéta, twenty-six years younger than him, the daughter of Václav Svatkovský of Dobrohošť. In 1639, exiles from other regions returned to Bohemia under the protection of the Swedish armies. Kryštof II of Redern returned from Upper Lusatia to his estates in Frýdlant, which had been occupied by the Swedes. However, not even these events brought lasting change; in the spring of 1640 the Swedish army once more retreated from Bohemia. A few of the exiles decided to stay—including the chronicler of Mladá Boleslav, Master George Bydžovský Kezelius—but most fled yet again, mainly into Lusatia and Saxony, but not to Pirna, which refused to accept the returnees. The last Swedish invasion of Bohemia, in 1648, ended in a fiasco. Times had changed. The Peace of Westphalia had destroyed all hope of changing the situation in Bohemia. There was no prospect of a return to religious freedoms which would have enabled the exiles to come home. Twenty long years passed, during which each exile had to make a crucial decision: to remain abroad permanently, or to return home? The first option required the refugees to accept exile as a permanent state of affairs, and to build a new life in a new home. The majority took this option, and settled in all non-Catholic countries of Europe. The second option required the former exiles to adapt to the changed situation in the Kingdom of Bohemia and to attempt to regain their former assets and status. This was not a simple task. Those who had never left Bohemia and those who had lived abroad for several years were divided by their different experiences and fates. They had to adapt to living together. It would certainly be interesting to carry out more research into the lives of these returnees, including their financial situation and their reintegration into Bohemian society. Even the end of the Thirty Years’ War did not bring a complete halt to migrations across Bohemia’s borders. In the 1650s there was a rise in emigration 324 Bobková by subjects from the estates bordering on Upper Lusatia. Historians of the 19th century held the opinion that these refugees were Bohemian exiles, but modern German historians dispute this theory. They contend that most of these refugees were German-speaking subjects from border villages, who migrated for economic reasons rather than due to religious persecution. Of course their departure could have been motivated by various factors, and it is necessary to bear in mind their social status and the prevailing circumstances at the time when they left. It is certain that some of those who left Bohemia in the 1620s did so as a way of escaping personal problems. One such case is that of Jan Hippius Vodňanský, the bursar of Prague University, who had become involved in some dubious financial operations and had failed to rectify the situation even after several warnings. Nevertheless, it is certain that in the 1620s, for Hippius and for the majority of other exiles, it was religious belief that represented the primary motivation for their decision to leave Bohemia rather than to convert. However, in the 1650s the situation was entirely different. A new generation had grown up, many estates in Bohemia and Moravia had been occupied by new owners, and the falling population was damaging the economy. It is also necessary to bear in mind that hereditary subjects never had the freedom to choose their religion. In the second half of the 17th century these emigrations were particularly damaging, as many estates were experienc- ing severe economic difficulties. Several Bohemian nobles complained to the Saxon authorities in Dresden that Saxony was offering asylum to their subjects, who had left Bohemia not for religious reasons, but as economic migrants. It is not possible to determine whether material or religious considerations were of greater importance for individual refugees. In any case, Czech exile communities continued to live abroad after 1648—and Upper Lusatia and Saxony were no exceptions. Small numbers of non-Catholics remained even in Bohemia and Moravia, especially among the subject class in rural areas. In the 18th century these secret Protestant communities gave rise to a renewed wave of emigration—this time not spurred on by any particular event or edict, but by the desire to worship according to their convictions. The fates of the post-White Mountain exiles differed widely depending on various circumstances. Some families were keen to become integrated into their host communities, while others consciously cultivated the idea of exile- dom for centuries. The notion of ‘homeland’, the land where they and their parents had been born, formed a unifying thread connecting the entire first generation of exiles from the Kingdom of Bohemia—whether from Bohemia itself, Moravia or Silesia. However, for the children of this generation, the notion of homeland—meaning the land of their ancestors—became increas- the exile 325 ingly abstract. They retained an awareness of a close inner connection not with a land in which they had often never set foot, but with the shared fate of people connected by history. In time, the exile communities ceased to identify themselves even with the Czech language. The severed ties with their homeland were replaced by new ties binding them to a specific community—a community cultivating cultural and spiritual values which had led its ancestors to leave their estates, homes, fields and businesses and to settle in foreign lands. Many described their true homeland as the kingdom of heaven—a land which belongs to all true Christians. From the economic point of view, life in exile was probably most difficult for those in the middle of the social hierarchy, who gradually lost their original status and frequently descended into penury. Wealthy individuals were more easily able to overcome the difficulties they faced at the outset. By contrast, poorer exiles were presented with an opportunity to rise above their previous social status and build a new life for themselves. It was only after the end of the war that the host communities began to realize the importance of Bohemian tradesmen for economic development; by this time, the exiles had become a recognized part of the local society. Eventually, their role in rebuilding Saxony, Poland and Hungary after the war years was openly appreciated. One example is the unusually rapid growth of the previously insignificant village of Johanngeorgenstadt in the Erzgebirge mountains. The Prince-Elector of Saxony had allowed the Bohemian exiles to settle there and carry out their businesses and trades. He granted the town mining rights, and by 1699 it had 2 616 inhabitants. Similar growth was experienced by Neusalz near Spremberg, where the local landowners had deliberately ‘planted’ Bohemian exiles from 1670 onwards. Eventually the community grew to form half of the local population. Most arrived from Upper Hungary, where they had been targeted by a renewed Recatholicization drive instigated by the Habsburg authorities. Štefan Pilárik, who had previously been based in Zittau, was summoned to Neusalz to carry out pastoral duties. The Neusalz church held services in Czech until the first third of the 18th century. Many post-White Mountain exile communities remained active and cohesive for a long time. In some places they were replenished or replaced by communities formed during the emigrations of the 18th century. Some— especially in Poland—retained not only their religious identity, but also their language and cultural traditions well into the 20th century. There is still an exile community in Dresden, based at the Lutheran Erlöser-Andreas-Kirche. The community was formed in 1650 at the Church of St John, and had its own Czech-language preacher until 1845. The community’s archives include a range 326 Bobková of carefully preserved that which survived the 1945 air raids on Dresden and reach back to the first years of the post-White Mountain exile. Among these relics is a historic chalice and the Pirna Book of Heraldry.

Literature

Asch, Ronald. G. “Das Problem des religiösen Pluralismus im Zeitalter der “Konfes sionalisierung.. Zum historischen Kontext der konfessionellen Bestimmungen des Westfälischen Friedens.” Blätter für deutsche Landesgeshichte 134 (1998): 1–32. Bahlcke, Joachim. “Religion und Politik in Schlesien. Konfessionspolitische Strukturen unter österreichische und preußischer Herrscahft (1650–1800.” Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 134 (1998): 33–57. Bahlcke Joachim, Strohmayer Arno, eds. Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa. Wir kungen des religiösen Wandels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert in Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1999. Bečková, Marta. Jan Amos Komenský a Polsko. Prague: Academia, 1983. Bednařík, Karel and Věra Havelková. “Česky psané závěti z fondu Státního archivu v Dráždanech.” SAP 34 (1984): 439–511. Bílek, Tomáš V. Dějiny konfiskací v Čechách po roce 1618. Prague: František Řivnáč, 1882–1883. ———. Reformace katolická neboli obnovení náboženství katolického v královstí českém po bitvě bělohorské. Prague: F. Bačkovský, 1892. Bobková, Lenka. Exulanti z Prahy a severozápadních Čech v Pirně v letech 1621–1639. Prague: Scriptorium, 1999. Daniel, David P. “Uhorský exil v Nemecku v 17. storočí.” Česko-slovenská ročenka 1999, 41–41. Dílo Jana Amose Komenského—Johannis Amos Comenii Opera omnia. Ed. Antonín Škarka. Prague: Academia 1969–1992. Fukala, Radek. Role Jana Jiřího Krnovského ve stavovských hnutích. Opava: Ústav historie a muzeologie Filozoficko-přírodovědecké fakulty Slezské univerzity, 1997. Gross, Reiner. “Johann Georg I. und seine Residenz im Dreißigjährigen Krieg.” Dresdner Hefte 56 (1998): 13–20. Herzig, Arno. Der Zwang zum wahren Glauben. Rekatholisierung vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Holinová, Anna. “Povzdechy českých exulantů z roku 1629–31.” ČČM 83 (1909): 138–41. Hrubá, Michaela, ed. Víra nebo vlast? Exil v českých dějinách raného novověku. Ustí nad Labem: Albis International, 2001. Kamper, Zdeněk, ed. Kronika Mladoboleslavská od Mistra Jirího Bydžovského sepsaná. Mladá Boleslav: Nakladatelství městské rady, 1935. the exile 327

Kumpera, Jan. Jan Amos Komenský. Poutník na rozhraní věků. Ostrava: Svoboda, 1992. Líva, Václav. “Studie o Praze pobělohorské. Emigrace.” SPDMHP 6 (1930): 357–419. ———. “Rekatolizace.” SPDMHP 7 (1933): 1–121. Loesche, Georg. “Die böhmischen Exulanten in Sachsen.” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus im ehemaligen Österreich 42–44 (1923). Morawek, Carl Gottlob. Geschichte der böhmisch-evangelischen Exulantengemeinde in Zittau sowie ihrer Prediger und Jugendlehrer von 1621–1847 treu nach böhmischen und deutschen Quellen bearbeitet. Zittau, 1847. Mrva, Ivan. “Uhorsko, azylová krajina v období novoveku.” Česko-slovenská ročenka 1999. 17–25. Odložilík, Otakar. “Ze zapásů pobělohorské emigrace.” ČMM 56 (1932), 1–58; 57 (1933): 369–388. Pánek, Jaroslav. “Víra i chléb (K otázce vystěhovalectví východočeských evangelíků do Braniborska.” Sborník k 70. narozeninám doc. PhDr. Jaroslava Kašpara, CSc. Prague, 1999. 175–184. Pescheck, Christian A. Die böhmischen Exulanten in Sachsen. Leipzig: bei S. Hirzel, 1857. Petráň, Josef. Staroměstská exekuce. Prague: Mladá fronta, 1985. Pohl, Franz. Die Exulanten aus der Herrschaft Friedland im Sudentenland. Görlitz: C.A. Starke, 1939. Polišenský, Josef. Komenský, muž labyrintů a nděje. Prague: Academia, 1996. ———. Třicetiletá válka a český národ. Prague: Svoboda, 1970. Polišenský Josef and Eduard Petrů, eds. Historie o válce české 1618–1620. Výbor z his- torického spisování Ondřeje z Habernfeldu a Pavla Skály ze Zhoře. Prague: Státní nak- ladatelství krásné literatury a umění, 1964. Rezek, Antonín. Dějiny saského vpádu do Čech /1631–1632) a návrat emigrace. Prague: I.L. Kober, 1889. Roedl, Bohumír. Žatecká rodina Hošťalků z Javořice. Žatec: Regionální muzeum K.A. Polánka, 1997. Ruhland, Volker. “Böhmische Exulanten in Kursachsen und der Dreißigjährigen Krieg.” Dresdner Hefte 48 (1996): 11–19. Rybička, Antonín. “Vácslav Nosidlo z Geblic.” ČČM 38 (1864): 92–95. Saulle-Hippenmeyer, Immacolata. “Gemeindereform—Gemeindekonfessionalisierung in Graubünden.” Gemeinde, Reformation und Widerstand. Festschrift für Peter Blickle zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica, 1998. 261–280. Schindling Anton and Walter Ziegler, eds. Die Territorien des Reichs im Zeitalter der Reformation und Konfessionalisierung. Land und Konfession 1500–1650. Münster: Druckhaus Aschendorff, 1989–1996. Schmertosch von Riesenthal, Richard. Adelige Exulanten in Kursachsen nach Urkunden des Dresdner Hauptarhives. Berlin, 1902. 328 Bobková

———. “Die böhmischen Exulanten unter der kursächsischen Regierung in Dresden.” Neues Archiv für Sächische Geschichte und Altertumskunde 22 (1901): 291–343. Schnabel, Werner Wilhelm. Österreichische Exulanten in oberdeutschen Reichsstädten: zur Migration von Führungsschichten im 17. Jahrhundert. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1992. Schröter, Carl Christian. Merkwürdige Exulanten-Historie darinnen besonders um des reinen Evangelii willen Vertriebener Prediger und Schul-Lehrer ihre Lebens-Geschichte enthlaten. Bautzen: Richter, 1715. Štěříková, Edita. Země octů. Z historie a ze vzpomínek k 50. výročí reemigrace potomků českých exulantů. Prague: Spolek exulantů, 1995. ———. Z nouze o spasení. Česká emigrace v 18. století do Pruského Slezska. Prague: Kalich, 1992. Stránský z Zapské Stránky, Pavel. Český stát—Okřik. Ed. Bohumil Ryba. Prague: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1953. Tieftrunk, Karel, ed. Pavla Skály ze Zhoře Historie česká od roku 1602 do riku 1623. Prague: I.L. Kober, 1865–1870. Tropper, Peter. G. “Emigriert—missioniert—deportiert. Protestanten und Geheimprotestantismus in Österreich und Salzburg zwischen Gegenreformation und Toleranz.” Rottenburger Jahrbuch für Kirchengeschichte 13 (1994): 179–189. Urbánek, Vladimír. “Patriotismus pobělohorského exilu.” Historické listy 4 (1995): 3–6. Volf, Josef. “Čeští exulanti ve Freiberce v l. 1620–40.” Věstník Královské učené společnosti nauk 20 (1911): 1–142. ———. “Genealogické příspěvky k rodu Pfefferkornů z Ottopachu.” Památky archeo- logické 23 (1908): 333–338, 587–590. ———. “Tragedie perenská ve zprávách českých exulantů.” Sborník Jednoty potomků pobělohorských exulantů-pokutníků a přátel rodopisu v Praze 2–2 (1931): 16–31; 7–2 (1935), 20. Wäntig, Wulf. “ ‘Exulanten’ aus dem böhmischen Niederland in den angrenzenden Gebieten Kursachsens und der Oberlausitz.” Víra nebo vlast? Exil v českých dějinách raného novověku, ed. Michaela Hrubá. Ustí nad Labem: Abis International, 2001. 107–116. ———. “Rekatholisierung, Alltag und Migration in der Frühen Neuzeit. Exulanten im böhmisch-sächsischen Grenzraum im 17. Jahrhundert.” Doctoral Dissertation, Technical University of Chemnitz, 2003. [Subsequently published as: Grenzer fahrungen: böhmische Exulanten im 17. Jahrhundert. Konstanz: UVK Verlags gesellschaft, 2007.] Winkelbauer, Thomas. “Sozialdisziplinierung und Konfessionalisierung durch Grundherren in den österreichischen und böhmischen Ländern im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 12 (1992): 317–358. Winter, Eduard. Die tschechische und slowakische Emigration in Deutschland im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1955. Select Bibliography

Altschuler, David, ed. The Precious Legacy. Judaic Treasures from the Czechoslovak State Collections. New York: Summit Books. 1983. Baczkowski, Krysztof. Walka Jagiellonów z Maciejem Korwinem o koronę czeską w latach 1471–1479. [The Jagellonian War of Matthaus Corvinus for the Bohemian Crown in the years 1471–1479.] Cracow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1975. Bahlcke, Joachim. Regionalismus und Staatsintegration im Widerstreit. Die Länder der Böhmischen Krone im ersten Jahrhundert der Habsburgerherrschaft (1526–1619). Schriften des Bundesinstituts für ostdeutsche Kultur und Geschichte. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994. Bahlcke, Joachim, ed. Geschichte der Oberlausitz. Herrschaft, Gesellschaft und Kultur vom Mittelalter bis zum Ende des 20. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2001. ———. Historische Schlesienforschung. Methoden, Themen und Perspektiven zwischen traditioneller Landesgeschichtsschreibung und moderner Kulturwissenschaft. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2005. ———. Die Oberlausitz im frühneuzeitlichen Mitteleuropa. Beziehungen-Strukturen- Prozesse. Leipzig and Stuttgart: Verlag der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig im Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, 2007. Bahlcke, Joachim, Hans-Jürgen Bömelburg and Norbert Kersken, eds. Ständefreiheit und Staatsgestaltung in Ostmitteleuropa. Übernationale Gemeinsamkeiten in der politischen Kultur vom 16-18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 1996. Bahlcke, Joachim and Volker Dudeck, eds. Welt-Macht-Geist. Das Haus Habsburg un die Oberlausitz 1526–1635. Görlitz and Zittau: Oettel, 2002. Bahlcke, Joachim and Arno Strohmeyer, eds. Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa. Wirkungen des religiösen Wandels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert in Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1999. ———. Die Konstruktion der Vergangenheit: Geschichtsdenken, Traditionsbildung und Selbstdarstellung im frühneuzeitlichen Ostmitteleuropa. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002. Bahlcke, Joachim, Karen Lambrecht and Hans-Christian Maner, eds. Konfessionelle Pluralität als Herausforderung. Koexistenz und Konflikt im Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Winfried Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2006. Balcárek, Pavel. Kardinál František Ditrichštejn 1570–1636: Gubernátor Moravy. [Cardinal František Dietrichšejn 1570–1636: Governor of Moravia.] České Budějovice: Veduta, 2007. Barteček, Ivo and Jaroslav Reska, eds. České země a Španělsko, Z dějin česko-španělských vztahů. Sborník textů přednesených dne 5. října 1994 na odborném sympoziu konaném 330 Select Bibliography

v rámci Dnů španělské kultury v Ostravě. [The Bohemian Lands and Spain. On the History of Bohemian-Czech Relations. A Collection of Texts presented at a Symposium held October 5, 1994 in Conjunction with Spanish Cultural Days in Ostrava.] Ostrava: Filozofická fakulta Ostravské Univerzity, 1996. Bartoš, František Michálek. The Hussite Revolution, 1424–1437. Trans. by John M. Klassen. New York: Eastern European Monographs and Columbia University Press, 1985. Bartlová, Milena and Michal Šroněk, eds. Public Communication in European Reformation. Artistic and other Media in Central Europe, 1380–1620. Prague: Artefacum, 2007. Bečková, Marta, Tadeusz Bieńkowski, Dagmar Čapková. Znajomość dzieł Jana Amosa Komeńskiego na ziemiach czeskich, słowackich i polskich od połowy XVII w. do czasów obecnych, [Works of Jan Amos Comenius in the Bohemian, Slovak and Polish Lands from the Middle of the Seventeenth Century to the Present.] Warsaw: Instytut Historii Nauki PAN, 1991. Bein, Werner. Schlesien in der habsburgischen Politik: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Dualismus im Alten Reich. Sigmarinen: Thorbecke, 1994. Beneš, Zdeněk. Historický text a historická skutečnost. Studie o principech českého humanistického dějepisectví. [Historical Text and Historical Reality. Studies of the Principles of Bohemian Humanist Historiography.] AUC Philosophica et Historica, Monographia CXLI. Prague: UK, 1992. Beneš, Zdeněk, Eduard Maur, Jaroslav Pánek, eds. Pocta Josefu Petráňovi. Sborník prací z českých dějin k 60. narozeninám prof. dr. Josefa Petráně. [In Honor of Josef Petráň. Essays on Bohemian History submitted on the 60th Birthday of Prof. Dr. Josef Petráň.] Prague: HÚ, 1991. Bérenger, Jean, Václav Bůžek et al. “Familles nobles, châteaux et seigneuries en Bohême, XVIe–XIXe siècles.” Histoire, Economie & Société époques moderne et contemporaine 3 (2007): 7–20. Bílek, Tomáš V. Dějiny konfiskací v Čechách po roce 1618. [The History of Confiscation in Bohemia after 1618.] 2 vols. Prague: František Řivnáč, 1882–1883. ———. Reformace katolická neboli obnovení náboženství katolického v království českém po bitvě bělohorské. [The Catholic Reformation or the Renewal of the Catholic Religion in the Bohemia Kingdom after the Battle of White Mountain.] Prague: F. Bačkovský, 1892. Bireley, Robert. Religion and Politics in the Age of the Counter Reformation: Emperor Ferdinand II, William Lamoraini, S.J. and the Formation of Imperial Policy. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1981. Blahová, Marie et al. Velké dějiny zemí koruny české. [The Large History of the Bohemian Crown.] Vol. 6 (1437–1526), eds. Petr Čornej and Milena Bartlová. Vol. 7 (1526–1618), ed. Petr Vorel. Vol. 8 (1618–1683), eds. Ivana Čornejová et al. Prague: Paseka, 2005–2008. select bibliography 331

Blekastad, Milada. Comenius. Versuch eines Umrisses von Leben, Werk und Schicksal des Jan Amos Komenský, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969. Bobková, Lenka. Česká koruna na rozcestí: k dějinám Horní a Dolní Lužice a Dolního Slezska na přelomu středověku a raného novověku. [The Czech Crown at the Crossroads: On the History of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Lower Silesia at the Turn of the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period.] Prague: Casablanca, 2010. ———. Exulanti z Prahy a severozápadních Čech v Pirně v letech 1621–1639. [Exiles from Prague and Northern Bohemia to Pirna in the years 1621–1639.] Documenta Pragensia Monographia Volumen 8. Prague: Scriptorium, 1999. ———. Územní polika prvních Lucemburků na českém trůně. [The Property Politics of the First Luxembourgers on the Bohemian Throne.] Ústí nad Labem: Pedagogická fakulta Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, 1993. Bobková, Lenka, ed. Život na šlechtickém sídle v 16.–18. století. Das Alltagsleben auf einem Adelssitz im 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert: Sbornik přspevku z konference na pedagogicke fakulte Univerzity J.E. Purkyně v Usti nad Labem 30.–31. řjna 1991. [Life at Noble Courts from the 16th–18th Centuries. Contributions from a Conference at the Pedagogical Faculty of the J.E. Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem October 30–31, 1991.] Ústí nad Labem: Pedgogická fakulta Univerzity J.E. Purkyně, 1993. Bobková, Lenka, Luděk Březina, and Jan Zdichynec, eds. Horní a Dolní Lužice. [Upper and Lower Lusatia.] Ústí nad Labem: Libri, 2008. Bobková, Lenka and Jana Konvičná, eds. Náboženský žívot a církevní poměry v zemích Koruny české ve 14.–17. století. [Religous Life and Ecclesiatical Relations in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown from the 14th–17th Centuries.] Korunní země v dějinách českého státu IV. Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK and Casablanca, 2009. Bobková, Lenka and Michaela Neudertová, eds. Cesty a cestování v životě společnosti. [Travel and Travelling in Societal Life.] Ústí nad Labem: Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, 1997. Bobowski, Kazimierz, Ryszard Gładkiewicz, and Wojciech Wrzesiński, eds. Stan i potr- zeby śląskoznawczych badań humanistycznych. [State and Needs of Silesian Human ist Research.] Wrocław: Volumen, 1990. Bondy, Gottlieb and Franz Dworsky, eds. Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620. 2 vols. Prague: G. Bondy, 1906. Borák, Mečislav, ed. Slezsko v dějinách českého státu. Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference pořádané po záštitou prezidenta České republiky Václava Havla u příležitosti 50. výročí Slezského ústavu Slezského zemského musea v Opavě. [Silesia in the History of the Bohemia State. Contributions of a Scholarly Conference sponsored by Václav Havel, President of the Czech Republic, on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Silesian Institute of the Silesian Museum in Opava.] Opava: Tilia, 1998. 332 Select Bibliography

Boubín, Jaroslav. Česká ‘narodní’ monarchie: k domácím zdrojům a evropskému kontextu království Jířího z Poděbrad. [The Czech ‘National’ Monarchy: On the Domestic Sources and the European Context of George of Podebrady.] Prague: HÚ, 1992. Bretholz, Bertold. Neuere Geschichte Böhmens. Vol. I. Gotha: F.A. Perthes, 1920. Breuer, Mordecai. “Modernism and Traditionalism in Sixteenth-Century Jewish Historiography: A Study of David Gans’ Tzemach David.” In Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, edited by Bernard Dov Cooperman. 49–88. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983. Brock, Peter. The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries. ‘S-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1957. Bůžek, Václav. Ferdinand Tyrolský mezi Prahou a Innsbruckem. Šlechta z českých zemí na cestě ke dvorům prvních Habsburků. [Ferdinand of Tyrol between Prague and Innsbruck. Nobility in the Bohemian Lands on the Path to the Courts of the First Habsburgs.] MH 7. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2006. ———. Nižší šlechta v politickém systému a kultuře předbělohorských Čech. [The Lower Nobility in the Political System and Culture of Pre-White Mountain Bohemia.] Prague: HÚ, 1996. ———. “Stand, Tendenzen und Perspektiven der frühneuzeitlichen Regionalforschung in der Tschechischen Republik.” In Regionalgeschichte in Europa. Methoden und Erträge der Forschung zum 16. bis 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Stefan Brakensiek and Axel Flügel. 67–94. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2000. ———. Úvěrové podnikání nižší šlechty v předbělohorských Čechách. [Credit Trade of the Lower Nobility in Pre-White Mountain Bohemia.] Prague: Ústav českosloven ských a světových dějin ČSAV, 1989. Bůžek, Václav, Katrin Keller, Eva Kowalská and Géza Pálffy. “Společnost zemí habsbur- ské monarchie 1526–1740 v české, maďarské, rakouské a slovenské historické vědě posledního desetiletí.” [Society of the Lands of the Hapsburg Monarchy 1526–1740.” ČČH 104, 3 (2006): 485–526. Bůžek, Václav, ed. Ein Bruderzwist im Hause Habsburg (1608–1611). OH 14. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2010. ———. Světy posledních Rožmberků. [The Worlds of the Last Rožmberks.] Prague: Lidové noviny, 2011. Bůžek, Václav and Jaroslav Dibelka, eds. Člověk a sociální skupina ve společnosti raného novověku. [The Individual and Social Group in Early Modern Society.] OH 12. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2007. Bůžek, Václav, Josef Hrdlička et al. Dvory velmozů s erbem růze. Všední a sváteční dny posledních Rožmberků a pánů z Hradce. [Courts of the Lords of the Rose. Everyday and Ceremonial Life of the Last Rožmberks and Lords of Hradec.] Prague: Mladá fronta, 1997. select bibliography 333

Bůžek, Václav, Josef Hrdlička, Pavel Král, Zdeněk Vybíral. Věk urozených. Šlechta v českých zemích na prahu novověku. [The Gentle Age: Nobility in the Bohemian Lands on the Eve of the New Age.] Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2002. Bůžek, Václav and Pavel Král, eds. Člověk českého raného novověku. [The Early Modern Bohemian.] Prague: Argo, 2007. ———. Slavnosti a zábavy na dvorech v rezidenčních městech raného novověku. OH 8. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2000. Bůžek, Václav et al., eds. Šlechta raného novověku pohledem českých, francouzských a španělských historiků. [The Nobility in the Early Modern Age from the Perspectives of Czech, French, and Spanish Historians.] OH 13. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2009. ———. Společnost českých zemí v raném novověku. Struktury, identity, konflikty. [Society in the Bohemian Lands in the Early Modern Period.] Prague: Lidové noviny, 2010. Carlebach, Elisheva. The Death of Simon Abeles. Jewish-Christian Tension in Seventeenth- Century Prague. The Third Annual Herbert Berman Memorial Lecture. November 7, 2001. Center for Jewish Studies, Queens College, City University of New York. Catalano, Alessandro. La Boemia e la riconquista delle conscienze. Ernst Adalbert von Harrach e la Controriforma in Europa centrale (1620–1667). Temi e testi 55. Tribunali della fede. Rome: Edizione di storia e letteratura, 2005. Catalano, Alessandro and Katrin Keller, eds. Die Diarien und Tagzettel des Kardinals Ernst Adalbert von Harrach (1598–1667). Vienna: Böhlau, 2010. Čechura, Jaroslav. Broumovská rebelie. [The Broumov Rebellion.] Prague: Lidové noviny, 1997. ———. Kriminalita a každodennost v raném novověku: Jižní Čechy 1650–1770. [Crime and Daily Life in the Early Modern Age. Southern Bohemia 1650–1780.] Prague: Argo, 2008 ———. Zimní král aneb české dobrodružství Fridricha Falckého. [The Winter King or The Bohemian Adventures of Frederick of the Palatinate.] Prague: Rybka Publishers, 2004. Cerman, Markus. Villagers and Lords in Eastern Europe, 1300–1800. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Chaline, Oliver. La bataille de la Montagne Blanche (8 novembre 1620). Un mystique chez les guerriers. Paris, Noêsis, 2000. Čechy a Sasko v proměnách dějin—Sachsen und Böhmen im Wandel der Geschichte. Sborník příspěvků z konference—Sammelband von den Beiträgen der Konferenz, 10.– 11.11.1992. AUP-Slavogermanica II. Ústí nad Labem, 1993. Cerman, Markus and Robert Luft. Untertanen, Herrschaft und Staat in Böhmen und im “Alten Reich.” Sozialgeschichtliche Studien in Frühen Neuzeit, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2005. 334 Select Bibliography

Cerman, Markus and Hermann Zeitlhofer, eds. Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen. Ein regionaler Vergleich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Gutsherrschaften, 16.–19. Jahr hundert. Vienna and Munich: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik and Oldenbourg, 2002. Chocholáč, Bronislav, Libor Jan, and Tomáš Knoz, eds., Nový Mars Moravicus aneb sborník příspěvků, které věnovali Prof. Dr. Josefu Válkovi jeho přátelé a žáci k sedm- desátinám. [The New Moravian God of War or a Collection of Contributions dedicated to Prof. Josef Válka by his Friends and Students on His Seventieth Birthday] Brno: Matice moravská, 1999. Chocholáč, Bronislav, Libor Jan, Tomáš Knoz, and Jiří Malíř, eds. Dějiny Moravy a Matice moravská. Problémy a perspektivy. [The History of Moravia and the Moravian Historical Society. Problems and Perspectives.] Brno: Matice moravská, 2000. Cohen, Gary and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds. Embodiments of Power: Building Baroque Cities in Europe. New York: Berghahn, 2008. Conrads, Norbert Schlesien in der Frühmoderne: Zur politischen und geistigen Kultur eines Habsburgischen Landes. Cologne: Böhlau, 2009. Čornejová, Ivana. Tovaryšstvo Ježíšovo. Jezuité v Čechách. [The Society of Jesus. Jesuits in Bohemia.] Prague: Hart, 2002. Čornejová, Ivana, ed. Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy. [The History of the Charles University.] Vol II (1622–1802). Prague: Karolinum, 1996. ———. Uloha cirkevnich řdu pri pobelohorske rekatolizaci: sbornik přspevku z pracovniho semináe konaneho ve Vranove u Brna ve dnech 4.–5. 6. 2003. [The Role of Ecclesiastical Orders in the Post-White Mountain Recatholization: Contributions of a Working Seminar held in Vránov near Brno, June 4–5, 2003.] Prague: UK, Ustav dejin UK, Archiv UK, and Scriptorium, 2003. Čornejová, Ivana, Michal Svatoš, Petr Svobodný, eds. A History of Charles University. Volume I (1348–1802). Prague: Karolinum, 2001. Cornellissen, Christoph, Roman Holec, and Jiří Pešek, eds. Diktatur, Krieg, Vertreibung: Erinnerungskulturen in Tschechien, der Slowakei und Deutschland seit 1945. Essen: Klartext, 2005. David, Zdeněk V. Finding the Middle Way. The Utraquists’ Liberal Challenge to Rome and Luther. Woodrow Wilson Center Press and The Johns Hopkins University Press: Washington, D.C., Baltimore and London, 2003. ———. Realism, Tolerance & Liberalism in the Czech National Awakening. Legacies of the Bohemian Reformation. Washington, D.C. and Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and the Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. David, Zdeněk V. and David R. Holeton, eds. The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice. Vols. 1–6. Prague: Main Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech select bibliography 335

Republic, 1996-2007. Vols. 7 and 8 published as special issues of Filosofický časopis and under the auspices of the Collegium Europaeum, Prague, 2009 and 2011. Denis, Ernest. Fin de l’Indépendance bohême. Vols. 1–2. Paris: A. Colin, 1890. Deventer, Jörg. Gegenreformation in Schlesien. Die habsburgische Rekatholisierungspolitik in Glogau und Schweidnitz 1526–1707. Neue Forschungen zur Schlesischen Geschichte 8. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 2003. Dillon, Kenneth. King and Estates in the Bohemian Lands (1526–1564). Études presen- tées à la Commission internationale pour l’histoire des Assemblées d’états. Vol. LVII. Brussels: Les éditions de la librairie encyclopedique, 1976. Dmitrieva, Marina and Karen Lambrecht, eds. Krakau, Prag und Wien. Funktionen von Metropolen im frühmodernen Staat. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2009. Doležalová, Eva et al. Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku. Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi. [Europe and Bohemia and the End of the Middle Ages. Contributions dedicated to František Šmahel.) Prague: Centrum medievistických studií and Filosofia, 2004. Ducreux, Marie-Elizabeth, Xavier Galmiche and Vít Vlnas, eds. Baroque en Bohème. Villeneuve-D’Ascq: Université de Charles de Gaulle-Lille III, 2009. Dworzaczkowa, Jolanta. Bracia Czescy w Wielkopolsce w XVI i XVII wieku. [The Czech Brethren in Greater Poland in the 16th and 17th centuries.] Warsaw: Semper, 1997. Eberhard, Winfried. “Die deutsche Reformation in Böhmen 1520–1620.” In Deutsche in den böhmischen Länden, edited Hans Rothe. 103–123. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 1992. ———. “Entwicklungsphasen und Probleme der Gegenreformation und katholischen Erneuerung in Böhmen.” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 84 (1989): 235–237. ———. “Ernst Denis’ Konzeption der böhmischen Geschichte und ihre Funktion in der tschechischen Geschichtswissenschaft.” In Frankreich und die böhmischen Länder im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zum französischen Einfluss in Ostmitte leuropa, edited by Ferdinand Seibt and Michael Neumüller. 49–66. Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1990. ———. Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478–1530. Veröffentlichungen des Collegium Carolinum 38. Munich and Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1981. ———. Monarchie und Widerstand. Zur ständischen Oppositionsbildung im Herrschaft ssystem Ferdinands I. in Böhmen. Veröffentlichungen des Collegium Carolinum 54. Munich: R.Oldenbourg Verlag, 1985. ———. “Zur reformatorischen Qualität und Konfessionalisierung des nachrevolution- ären Hussitismus.” In Häresie und vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter, edited by František Šmahel. 213–238. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997. 336 Select Bibliography

Eberhard, Winfried, Hans Lemberg, Heinz-Dieter Heimann, and Robert Luft, ed. Westeuropa, Ostmitteleuropa. Vergleiche und Beziehungen. Festschrift für Ferdinand Seibt zum 65. Geburtstag. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1992. Eberhard, Winfried and Aldred A. Strnad, ed. Humanismus und Renaissance in Ostmitteleuropa vor der Reformation. Forschungen und Quellen zur Kirchen—und Kulturgeschichte Ostdeutschlands 28. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 1996. Edelmayer, Friedrich and Alfred Kohler, eds. Kaiser Maximilian II: Kultur und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1992. Engel, Evamarie, Karen Lambrecht and Hanna Nogossek, eds. Metropolen im Wandel. Zentralität in Ostmitteleuropa an der Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit. Berlin: Akademie, 1995. Evans, R.J.W. “The Habsburg Monarchy and Bohemia, 1526–1848.” In Conquest and Coalescence: The Shaping of the State in Early Modern Europe, edited by Mark Greengrass. 134–54. London: Arnold, 1991. ———. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1500–1700. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. ———. Rudolf II and His World. A Study in Intellectual History 1576–1612. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Evans, R.J.W. and T.V. Thomas, eds. Crown, Church and Estates: Central European Politics in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991. Fajt, Jiří, Markus Hörsch, and Evelin Wetter, eds. Die Länder der böhmischen Krone und Ihre Nachbarn zur Zeit der Jagiellonenkönige (1471–1526). Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia. Band 2. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004. Fejtová, Olga. “Praha/Vratislav, vzajemné vztahy v období raného novověku.” [Prague/ Wrocław, Mutual Relations in the Early Modern Period.”] ČČH 106, 1 (208): 54–79. Fejtová, Olga, ed. Prazske mestske elity stredoveku a raneho novoveku: jejich promeny, zazemi a kulturni profil [The Prague Urban Elite in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period: Developments, Background and Cultural Profile.] Sbornik přspevku z 21. vedecke konference Archivu hlavniho mesta Prahy, uspořdane . . . ve dnech 1. a 2. řjna 2002 v Clam-Gallasove palaci v Praze. Prague: Scriptorium 2004. Fejtová, Olga, ed. Ztracena blizkost: Praha—Norimberk v promenach. [Lost Closeness: Prague—Nuremberg Metamorpheses.] Stati a rozšiene přspevky z 27. vedecke konference Archivu hlavniho mesta Prahy, uspořdane ve spolupraci se Stadtarchiv Nurnberg, Lehrstuhl fur Geschichte Ostmitteleuropas am Institut fur Geschicht swissenschaften der Humboldt-Universitat Berlin a Institutem mezinarodnich studii Fakulty socialnich ved Univerzity Karlovy ve dnech 7. a 8. řjna 2008 v Clam- Gallasove palaci v Praze. Prague: Scriptorium, 2010. Fejtová, Olga, Václav Ledvinka, Jiří Pešek and Vít Vlnas, eds. Barokní Praha—Barokní Čechie 1620–1740. [Baroque Prague—Baroque Bohemia 1620-1740.] Sbornik select bibliography 337

přspevku z vedecke konference o fenomenu baroka v Cechach, Praha, Anezsky kláter a Clam-Gallasuv palac, 24.–27. zár 2001. Prague: Scriptorium, 2005. Fialová, Ludmila, P. Horská, M. Kučera, E. Maur, J. Musil and M. Stloukal, M. Dějiny obyvatelstva českých zemí. [History of the Population of the Bohemian Lands.] Prague: Mladá fronta, 1996. Fichtner, Paula Sutter. Emperor Maximilian II. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001. ———. Ferdinand I of Austria: The Politics of Dynasticism in the Age of the Reformation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. ———. The Habsburg Monarchy, 1490–1848. Attributes of Empire. Houndmills, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. ———. “When Brothers Disagree: Bohemia, the Habsburgs, and the Schmalkaldic Wars, 1546–1547.” Austrian History Yearbook 11 (1975): 67–78. Floss, Pavel, ed. Historicko-filozofické dílo Roberta Kalivody. Mezinárodní kolokvium pořádané u příležitosti 10. výročí úmrtí Roberta Kalivody, 1.–2. prosince 1999 v Olomouci. [The Historical-Philosophical Work of Robert Kalivoda. International Colloqium organized on the Occasion of the 10th Anniversary of Robert Kalivoda’s Death, December 1–2, 1999 in Olomouc.] Olomouc: Aluze, 2000. Forbelský, Josef. Španelé, Říše a Čechy v 16. a 17. Století: osudy generála Baltasara Marradase. [The Spanish, the Empire, and Bohemia in the 16th and 17th centuries: The Fates of General Baltasar Marradas.] Prague: Vyšehrad, 2006. Francek, Jindřich. Zločin a sex v českých dějinách. Manželské spory a sexuální kriminalita v raném novověku. [Crime and Sex in Bohemian History. Marriage Dispute and Sexual Crime in the Early Modern Period.] Prague: Rybka, 2000. Francek, Jindřich, ed. Hrdelní soudnictví v českých zemích 16.–18. století. [Capital Punishment in the Judiciary of the Czech lands from the 16th to 18th centuries.] Sborník příspěvků z konference konané v Pradubicích 21.–22.1995. Pardubice: Východočeské muzeum a Historický klub, 1996. ———. Rekatolizace v českých zemích. [Recatholicization in the Bohemian Lands.] Sborník příspěvků z konference v Jičíně dne 10. září 1993. Jičín, Turnov, and Pardubice: Městský úrad v Turnově, Pekařova společnost Českého raje, and Historický klub, 1995. Fučíková, Eliška, ed. Prag um 1600. Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II. Freren: Luca Verlag, 1988. ———. Rudolf II and Prague: The Imperial Court and Residential City as the Cultural and Spiritual Heart of Central Europe. Prague, London, Milan: Prague Castle Administration, Thames and Hudson, Skira, 1997. Fudge, Thomas A. Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia. London: I.B. Tauris, 2010. 338 Select Bibliography

———. The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998. ———. The Trial of Jan Hus. Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Fukala, Radek. Stavovská politika na Opavsku v letech 1490–1631. [Estate Politics in the Opava Region from 1490–1631.] Opava: Slezská univerzita, Filozoficko-přirodovědecká fakulta, Ústav historie a muzeologie, 2004. Fukala, Rakek et al. Slezsko v dějinách českého státu. Vol. II. Prague: Lidové noviny, 2012. Gindely, Anton. Dějiny českého povstání 1618. [History of the Bohemian Uprising of 1618.] Vols. I–IV. Prague: Bedřich Tempský, 1870–1880. ———. Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. 2 Vols. Reprint of Second edition, 1861. Osnabrück: Biblo Verlag, 1968. ———. History of the Thirty Years’ War. Trans. Andrew Ten Brook. 2 vols. First published, 1885. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1972. ———. Rudolf II. und seine Zeit 1600–1612. Prague: C. Bellmann, 1862–1868. Gmiterek, Henryk. Bracia Czescy a kalwini w Rzeczypospolitej, Połowa XVI-połowa XVII wieku. Studium porównawcze. [The Czech Brethren and Calvinists in the Polish Commonwealth. Middle of the 16th to Middle of the 17th centuries. A Comparative Study.] Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie Skłodowskiej, 1987. Gmiterek, Henryk. Związki intelektualne polsko-czeskie w okresie Odrodzenia. [Polish- Czech Intellectual Contacts in the Age of Renaissance.] Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie Skłodowskiej, 1989. Gmiterek, Henryk and Wojciech Iwańczak, eds. Polacy w Czechach. Czesi w Polsce. X– XVIII wiek. [Poles in Bohemia and Czechs in Poland, 10th-18th centuries.] Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie Skłodowskiej, 2004. Graciotti, Sante. Italia e Boemia nella cornice del Rinascimento europeo. [Italy and Bohemia in the Age of the European Renaissance.] Firenze: L.S. Olschiki, 1999. Graham, Barry Fl. Bohemian and Moravian Graduals 1420–1620. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Greenblatt, Rachel L. To Tell Their Children: Jewish Communal Memory in Early Modern Prague. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014. Grulich, Josef. “Historická demografie a dějiny rodiny v Evropě a v České republice po roce 1950.” [Historical Demography and the History of the Family in Europe and the Czech Republic since 1950.] HD 26 (2002): 123-146. ———. Populační vývoj a životní cyklus venkovského obyvatelstva na jihu Čech v 16. až 18. století. [Population Development and the Life Cycle of the Rural Population of Southern Bohemia from the 16th to 18th centuries.] MH 10. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2008. select bibliography 339

———. “Zkoumání ‘maličkostí’ (Okolnosti vzniku a významu mikrohistorie).” [The Study of ‘Small Things’ (On the Emergence and Significance of Microhistory.] ČČH 99, 3 (2001): 519–547. Halama, Ota. Otázka svatých v české reformaci. Její proměny od doby Karla IV. do doby České konfese. [The Question of Saints in the Bohemian Reformation. Their Transformation from the Age of Charles IV to the Age of the Bohemian Confession.) Edice Pontes Pragenes 19. Brno: L. Marek, 2002. Hanzal, Josef. Cesty české historiografie 1945–1989. [Paths of Czech Historiography 1945– 1989.] Prague: Carolinum, 1989. ———. “Rekatolizace v Čechách—její historický smysl a význam.” [Recatholization in Bohemia. Its Meaning and Importance.] Sborník historický 37 (1999): 37–91. Harder, Hans-Bernd and Hans Rothe, eds. Studien zum Humanismus in den Böhmischen Ländern. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1988. ———. Später Humanismus in der Krone Böhmen 1570–1620. Dresden: Dresdner Universitätsverlag, 1998. Hausenblasová, Jaroslava. Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II: Eine Edition der Hofstaatsver zeichnisse 1576–1612. Prague: Artefacum, 2002. Hausenblasová, Jaroslava and Michal Šroněk.eds. Gloria et Miseria 1618–1648. Prague during the Thirty Years War. Prague: Gallery, 1998. Hausenblasová, Jaroslava, Michael Šroněk, and Paul Sinclair, eds. Urbs aurea. Prague of Emperor Rudolf II. Prague: Gallery, 1997. Havelka, Miloš. Spor o smysl českých dějin 1895–1938. [Dispute over the Meaning of Czech History.] Prague: Torst, 1995. Heymann, Frederick G. George of Bohemia. King of Heretics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Heřman, Jan. “The Conflict Between Jewish and Non-Jewish Population in Bohemia Before the 1541 Banishment.” Judaica Bohemiae 6 (1970): 39–53. Himl, Pavel. Die ‘armben Leüte’ und die Macht. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 2003. ———. Zrození vagabunda. Neusedlí lidé v Čechách 17. a 18. století. [The Birth of a Vagabond. Unsettled People in Bohemia in the 17th and 18th centuries.] Prague: Argo, 2008. Hirn, Josef. Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol. Geschichte seiner Regierung und seiner Länder. 2 vols. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1885 and 1888. Hlaváček, Petr. Čeští františkáni na přelomu středověku a novověku. [Bohemian Franciscans at the Turn of the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period] Prague: Academia, 2005. German edition: Die böhmischen Franziskaner im ausgehenden Mittelalter. Studien zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte Ostmitteleuropas. Studien zur Kultur der östlichen Mitteleuropa. Vol. 40. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011. 340 Select Bibliography

———. “Národnostní a jazykové rozpory v českém vikariátě františkánů-observantů na přelomu 15. a 16. století (Příspěvek k nacionálnímu partikularismu ve středoev ropském prostoru).” [Ethnic and Linguistic Disputes in the Bohemian Vicariate of the Franciscan-Observant Order in the 15th and 16th centuries,] In In omnibus caritas. K poctě devadesátých narozenin prof. ThDr. Jaroslava Kadlece, edited by Milada Mikulicová and Petr Kubín. 181–292. Prague: Karolinum, 2002. Hlaváček Petr, ed. Intelektuál ve veřejném prostoru: vzdělanost, společnost, politika. [The Intellectual in the Public Sphere. Scholarship, Society, and Politics.] Prague: Academia, 2012. ———. (In)tolerance v evropských dějinach / (In)tolerance in European history. Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK and Filosofia, 2011. ———. O felix Bohemia! Studie k dějinám české reformace. [O felix Bohemia! Studies in the History of the Bohemian Reformation.] Europaeana Pragensia 5. Prague: Collegium Europaeum, 2013. Hlaváček, Ivan, Jan Hrdina, et al., eds. Facta probant Homines. Sborník příspěvků k životnímu jubileu Prof. Dr. Zdeňky Hledíkové. [Facta Probant Homines. Contributions to the Jubileum of Prof. Dr. Zděnka Hledíková.] Prague: Scriptorium, 1998. Hledíková, Zděnka and Jaroslav V. Polc, eds., Pražské arcibiskupství 1344–1994. Sborník statí a jeho působení a významu v české zemi. [The Prague Archbishiopric 1344–1994. Collection of Studies on its Structure, Role, and Importance in the Bohemian Lands.] Prague: Zvon, 1994. Hlobil, Ivo and Eduard Petrů. Humanismus a raná renesance na Moravě. Prague: Academia1992. Expanded edition in English translation with Marek Perůtka: Humanism and the Early Renaissance in Moravia. Olomouc: Votobia, 1999. Hojda, Zdeněk. Kultura baroka v Čechách a Moravě. Sborník příspěvků z pracovního zasedání 5.3.1991. [Baroque Culture in Bohemia and Moravia. Contributions of a Conference on March 6, 1991.] Prague: HÚ, 1992. Holeton, David R. La communion des tout-petits enfants: étude du movement eucharistique en Bohême vers la fin du Moyen Âge. Rome: C.L.V.-Edizioni liturgiche, 1989. Holý, Martin. Ve službách šlechty. Vychovatelé nobility z českých zemí (1500–1620). [In the Service of the Nobility. Educators of the Nobility in the Bohemian Lands (1500– 1620).] Prague: HÚ, 2011. ———. Zrození renesančního kavalíra. Výchova a vzdělávání šlechty z českých zemí na prahu novověku (1500–1620). Prague: HÚ, 201é. Holý, Martin and Jiří Mikulec, eds. Církev a smrt. Institucionalizace smrti v raném novověku. [The Church and Death. The Institutionalization of Death in the Early Modern Period.] FHB Supplementum I 2007. Prague: HÚ, 2007. Horský, Zdeněk. Kepler v Praze. [Kepler in Prague.] Prague: Mladá fronta, 1980. select bibliography 341

Hrdina, Jan, Hartmut Kühne and Thomas T. Müller, eds. Wallfahrt und Reformation. Pouť a reformace. Zur Veränderung religiöser Praxis in Deutschland und Böhmen in den Umbrüchen der Frühen Neuzeit. Europäische Wallfahrtsstudien 3. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007. Hrdlička, Josef. Hodovní stůl a dvorská společnost. Strava na raně novověkých aristokrat- ických dvorech v českých zemích (1550–1650). [The Banquet Table and Court Society. Food at Bohemian Courts in the Early Modern Period (1550–1650).] MH 1. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2000. ———. Víra a moc. Politika, komunikace a protireformace v předmoderním městě ( Jindřichův Hradec, 1590–1630). [Faith and Power. Politics, Communication, and the Counter-Reformation in the Pre-Modern City (Jindřichův Hradec, 1590–1630).] Habilitace. České Budějovice, 2009. Hrejsa, Ferdinand. Česká konfese—její vznik, podstata a dějiny. [The Bohemian Confession. Its Origins, Essence, and History.] Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1912. ———. Dějiny křesťanství v Československu. [The History of Christianity in Czechoslovakia.] Vol. 5: Za Ferdinanda I (1525–1654), Počátky protireformace [During the Reign of Ferdinand I (1525–1654), the Beginnings of the Counter Reformation.] Vol. 6: Za krále Maximiliána II 1564–1576 (České konfese) [During the Reign of Maximilian II 1564–1576 (Bohemian Confession). Prague: Husova českoslo venská evangelická fakulta bohoslovecká, 1948 and 1950. Hroch, Miroslav and Josef Petráň. 17. století. Krize feudální společnosti? Prague: Svoboda, 1976. German translation: Das 17. Jahrhundert: Krise der Feudalgesellschaft. Trans. Eliška und Ralph Melville. Hamburg: Hoffman and Campe, 1981. Hroch, Miroslav and Anna Skýbová. Králové, kacíři a inkvizitoři. [Kings, Heretics, and Inquisitors.] Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1988. Hrubá, Michaela, eds. Víra nebo vlast? Exil v českých dějinách raného novověku. [Faith or Homeland? Exile in Bohemian History of the Early Modern Period.] Ústí nad Labem: Albis, 2001. Hubková, Jana. Fridrich Falcký v zrcadle letákové publicistiky. Letáky jako pramen k vývoji a vnímání české otázky v letech 1619–1632. [Frederick of the Palatinate as Portrayed in Pamphlet Literature. Pamphlets as Source for the Development and Perception of the Bohemian Question in the Years 1619–1632.] Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK, 2010. Husa, Václav. Tomáš Münzer a Čechy. [Thomas Münzer and Bohemia.] Prague: ČSAV, 1957. Husa, Václav and Josef Petráň. “Mezinárodní studium dějin cen a mezd 16. a 17. století.” [International Study of the History of Prices and Wages in the 16th and 17th Centuries.] In Zápisky katedry československých dějin a archivního studia IV. 7–76. Prague: UK, 1962. 342 Select Bibliography

Hýbl, František. ed. Morava na prahu nové doby. Sborník příspěvků z konference konané 22.–23. června 1994 u příležitosti 500. výročí úmrtí Ctibora Tovačovského z Cimburka. [Moravia on the Eve of a New Age. Contributions from a Conference held on June 22–23, 1994 on the 500th Anniversary of the Death of] Ctibor Tovačovský of Cinburk.] Přerov: Muzeum Komenského v Přerově, 1995. Ingrao, Charles. The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Jakubec, Ondřej. Kulturní prostředí a mecenát olomouckých biskupů potridentské doby. [Cultural Landscape and the Patronage of the Bishops of Olomouc in the Po-Tridentine Age.] Edice Memoria Artis. Svazek 1. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2003. Janáček, Josef. České dějiny. Doba předbělohorská. [Czech History. Pre-White Mountain Age.] Kniha I., 1526–1547. Books I and II. Prague: ČSAV, 1968–1984. ———. Dějiny obchodu v předbělohorské Praze. [History of Trade in Pre-White Mountain Prague.] Prague: ČSAV, 1955. ———. “Italové v předbělhohorské Praze 1526–1620.” [Italians in Pre-White Mountain Prague 1526–1620.] PSH XVI (1983): 77–118. ———. Pád Rudolfa II. [The Fall of Rudolf II.] First edition, 1973. Prague: Brána, 1995. ———. Řemeslná výroba v českých městech v 16. století. [Artisanal Production in Bohemian Cities in the 16th Century.] Prague: ČSAV, 1961. ———. Rudolf II. a jeho doba. [Rudolf II and His Age.] Prague: Svoboda, 1987. ———. Valdštejn a jeho doba. [Wallenstein and His Age.] First edition, 1978. Prague: Epocha, 2003. ———. Valdštejnova pomsta. [Wallenstein’s Revenge.] Prague: Edice Spirála, 1992. ———. Ženy české renesance. [Women of the Bohemian Renaissance.] Prague: Česko slovenský spisovatel, 1987. Janáček, Josef et al. Dějiny Prahy. [The History of Prague.] Prague: Nakladatelství poli- tické literatury, 1964. Jiránek, Tomáš and Jiří Kubeš, eds. Bratrstva. Světská a církevní sdružení a jejich role v kulturních a společenských strukturách od středověku do moderní doby (Sborník příspěvků z III. pardubického bienále, 29.–30. dubna 2004). [Brotherhoods. Secular and Religious Groups and their Roles in Cultural and Societal Structures from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age. (Contribution of the Third Biennale in Pardubice, April 29–30, 2004.] Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice, 2005. Jíšová, Kateřina and Eva Doležalová, eds. Pozdně středověké testamenty v českých městech. Prameny, metodologie a formy využití. [Late Medieval Wills in Bohemian Cities. Sources, Methodology and Practices.] Prague, 2006. Just, Jiří. 9.7.1609. Rudolfův Majestát. Světla a stíny náboženské svobody. [July 9, 1609. Rudolf’s Majesty. The Light and Shadow of Religious Freedom.] Prague: Havran, 2009. select bibliography 343

Kalivoda, Robert. Husitská epocha a J.A. Komenský. [The Hussite Age and J.A. Comenius.] Prague: Odeon, 1992. ———. Husitské myšlení. [Hussite Thought.] Prague: Filosofia, 1997. ———. “Husitství a jeho vyústění v době předbělohorské a pobělohorské.” [Hussitism and its Legacy in Pre- and Post-White Mountain Bohemia.] SCetH 25, XIII (1983): 3–44. ———. Husitská ideologie. [Hussite Ideology.] Prague: ČSAV, 1961. German edition: Revolution und Ideologie. Der Hussitismus. Trans. by Heidel Thorwart and Monika Glettler. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1976. ———. “Seibts’ ‘Hussitica’ und die hussitische Revolution.” Historica XIV (1967): 225–246. Kaminsky, Howard. A History of the Hussite Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. ———. “The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419.” Medievalia et Humanistica XVII (1966): 106–126. Kann, Robert and Zdeněk V. David. The Peoples of the Habsburg Lands, 1526–1918. History of East Central Europe, vol. 6. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1984. Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. Court, Cloister and City. The Art and Culture of Central Europe 1450–1800. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Kavka, František. Bílá hora a české dějiny. [White Mountain and Bohemian History.] Second edition. First edition, 1962. Prague: Garamond, 2003. ———. Ohlédnutí za padesáti lety ve službě českému dějepisectví [Reflections on Fifty Years in the Service of Czech Historiography] Prague: Karolinum, 2002. ———. Vláda Karla IV. za jeho císařství (1355–1378): země České koruny, rodová, říšská, a evropská politika. [The Administration of Charles IV during his Imperial Reign (1355–1378): The Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Ancestral, Imperial, and European Politics.] 2 vols. Prague: UK, 1993 Kavka, František and Anna Skýbová. Husitský epilog na koncilu tridentském a původní koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Čech: Počátky obnoveného pražského arcibiskupství 1561–1580. [The Hussite Epilogue at the Council of Trent and the Original Concept of the Habsburg Recatholization of Bohemia: The Beginnings of the Renewal of the Prague Archbishopric 1562–1580.] Prague: UK, 1969. Kejř, Jiří. Husův proces. [Hus’s Trial.] Prague: Vyšehrad, 2000. ———. Právní život na husitské Kutné Hoře. [Legal Life in Kutná Hora.] Prague: ČSAV, 1958. Kesternberg-Gladstein, Ruth. Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den böhmischen Ländern. Schriftenreihe des Leo Baeck Instituts 18/1. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1969. Kieval, Hillel J. “Czech Landscape, Habsburg Crown: The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia to 1918.” In Languages of Community: The Jewish Experience in the Czech Lands, 344 Select Bibliography

edited by Hillel J. Kieval. 10–36. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2000. Klassen, John. M. The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution. New York and Boulder: East European Quarterly and Columbia University Press, 1978. ———. “The Rhetoric of Domestic Morality in Last Wills and Testaments in Sixteenth- Century Prague.” Sixteenth Century Journal XLIV/2 (2013): 367–389. ———, Warring Maidens, Captive Wives and Hussite Queens. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Klassen, John M., ed. The Letters of the Rožmberk Sisters. Noblewomen in Fifteenth- Century Bohemia. Trans. by John M. Klassen with Eva Doležalová and Lynn Szabo. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2001. Klik, Josef. “Národnostní poměry v Čechách od válek husitských do bitvy bělohorské.” [Relationships between Nationalities in Bohemia from the Hussite War to the Battle at White Mountain.] ČČH 27 (1921): 8–73, 289–352. Knoz, Tomáš. Državy Karla staršího ze Žerotína po Bílé hoře. Osoby, příběhy, struktury. [The Domians of Karel the Elder of Žerotin after White Mountain. People, Events, Structures.] Brno: Matice moravská and Masarykova Univerzita, 2001. ———. Karel starší ze Žerotína: Don Quijote v labyrintu světa [Karel the Elder of Žerotín. Don Quixote in the Labryinth of the World.] Prague: Vyšehrad, 2008. ———. Pobělohorské konfiskace. Moravský průběh, středoevropské souvislosti, obecné aspekty. [Post-White Mountain Confiscation. The Moravian Story, Central European Connections, General Aspects.] Brno: Matice moravská and Masarykova Univerzita, 2006. Knoz, Tomáš, ed. Morava v době renesance a reformace. [Moravia in the Age of the Renaissance and Reformation.] Brno: Moravské zemské muzeum, 2001. Kohler, Alfred. Ferdinand I. 1503–1564. Fürst, König und Kaiser. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003. Koldinská, Marie. Kryštof Harant z Polžic a Bezdružic. Cesta intelektuála k popravišti. [Kryštof Harant of Polzice. Path of an Intellectual to Execution.] Prague: Paseka, 2004. Komlosy, Andrea, Václav Bůžek and František Svátek, eds. Kulturen an der Grenze. Waldviertel-Weinviertel-Südböhmen-Südmähren. Vienna: Promedia, 1995. Konečný, Lubomír, Beket Bukovinská, and Ivan Muchta, eds. Rudolf II, Prague and the World: Papers from the International Conference, Prague, 2–4 September 1997. Prague: Artefactum, 1998. Kořalka, Jiří. František Palacký (1798–1876) Životopis. [František Palacký (1798–1876): A Biography.] Prague: Argo, 1998. Král, Pavel. Mezi životem a smrtí. Testamenty české šlechty v letech 1550 až 1650. [Between Life and Death: Last Wills of the Bohemian Nobility in the Years 1550 to 1650.] MH 2. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2002. select bibliography 345

Kras, Paweł. Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce. [Hussites in Fifteenth-Century Poland.] Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1998. Křen, Jan. Bílá místa v našich dějinách. [White Spots in our History.] Prague: Lidové noviny, 1990. Kreuz, Petr. Postavení a působnost komorního soudu v soustavě českého zemského trest- ního soudnictví doby předbělohorské v letech 1526–1547. [The Role and Work of the Chamber Court in the Criminal Justice System of the Bohemian Estates in the Pre- White Mountain Period 1526–1627.] Prague: Karolinum, 2000. Kreuz, Petr and Ivan Martinovský, eds. Vladislavské zřízení zemské a navazující prameny (Svatováclavská smlouva a Zřízení o ručnicích) Edice. [Vladislav’s Land Ordinance and Related Sources (St. Václav’s Day Agreement and Rifle Ordinance) Edition.] Prague: Scriptorium, 2007. Kroess, Alois. Geschichte der böhmischen Provinz der Gesellschaft Jesu. Vols. I, II/1–2. Vienna: Opitz, 1910–1927. Krofta, Kamil. Bílá hora. (Kurs šestipřednáškový). [White Mountain. (A Six-Lecture Course.)] Prague: J. Otto, 1913. ———. “Boj o konsistoř podobojí v letech 1562–1575 a jeho historický základ.” [The Struggle over the Utraquist Consistory in the years 1562–1675 and its Historical Foundations.] ČČH XVII (1911): 28–57, 178–190, 270–282, 383–420. ———. Listy z náboženských dějin českých. [Papers from the Religious History of Bohemia.] Prague: Historický klub, 1936. ———. Majestát Rudolfa II. [Rudolf II’s Letter of Majesty.] Prague: Historický klub, 1909. Kroupa, Jiří, ed. V zrcadle stínů. Morava v době baroka. [In the Mirrow of Shadows. Moravia in the Baroque Age.] Brno and Rennes: Moravská galerie and Musée des Beaux Arts, 2002. Kučera, Jan. P. 8.11.1620. Bílá hora. O potracení starobylé slávy české. [November 8, 1620; On the Loss of Bohemian Glory.] Prague: Havran, 2003. Kučera, Karel. Historie & Historici. [History and Historians.] Prague: UK, 1992. Kulka, Otto Dav. “Comenius and Maharal: The Historical Background of the Parallels in their Teachings.” Judaica Bohemiae 27 (1991): 17–30. Kumpera, Jan. Jan Amos Komenský. Poutník na rozhraní věků. [Jan Amos Comenius. Pilgrim at the Turning Point of an Age.] Ostrava and Prague: 1992. Kutnar, František and Jaroslav Marek. Přehledné dějiny českého a slovenského dějepisectví. First editions, 1973 and 1978; Prague: Lidové noviny, 1997. Lambrecht, Karen. Hexenverfolgung und Zaubereiprozesse in den schlesischen Territorien. Neue Forschungen zur Schlesischen Geschichte 4. Cologne, Vienna and Weimar: Böhlau, 1995. 346 Select Bibliography

Lášek, Jan Blahoslav, ed. Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi. Sborník z mez- inárodního sympozia, konaného 22.–26. září 1993 v Bayreuthu, SRN. [Jan Hus between Epochs, Nations, and Confessions. Papers from an International Symposium, September 22–26, 1993 in Bayreuth, Germany.] Prague: Česká křesťanská akademie ve spolupráce s Husitskou teologickou fakultou UK, 1995. Langer, Andrea and Georg Michels, eds. Metropolen und Kulturtransfer im 15./16. Jahrhundert. Prag-Krakau-Danzig-Wien. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001. Ledvinka, Václav. “Dům pánů z Hradce pod Stupni. (Příspěvěk k poznání geneze a funkcí renesančního šlechtického paláce v Praze).” [The House of the Lords of Neuhaus under the Steps. (A Contribution to Understanding the Genesis of a Renaissance Noble Palace in Prague).] FHB 10 (1986): 269–316. ———. Úvěr a zadlužení feudálního velkostatku v předbělohorských Čechách. Finanční hospodaření pánů z Hradce 1560–1596. [Credit and Debt of a Feudal Estate in Pre- White Mountain Bohemia. The Finances of the Lords of Neuhaus 1560–1596.] Prague: Ústav československých a světových dějin ČSAV, 1985. Ledvinka, Václav and Jiří Pešek. Praha. [Prague.] Prague: Lidové noviny, 2000. Leeb, Rudolf, Susanne C. Pils, and Thomas Winkelbauer, eds. Staatsmacht und Seelenheil. Gegenreformation und Geheimprotestantismus in der Habsburger monarchie. Vienna and Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007. Lenderová, Milena. “Dějiny žen mezi women’s a gender history.” [The History of Women between Women’s and Gender History.] Historica Olumucensia 37 (2010): 43–57. Lenderová, Milena, Božena Kopičková, Jana Burešková, and Eduard Maur, eds. Žena v českých zemích od středověku do 20. století. [Women in Czech History from the Middle Ages to the 20th century.] Prague: Lidové noviny, 2009. Lesiuk, Wiesław, ed. Śląsk za panowania Habsburgów. Slezsko v době panování Habsburků. Schlesien unter der Herrschaft der Habsburger. Opole: Instytut Śląnsk, 2001. Líbor, Jan and Bohuslav Chodáč, eds. Dějiny Moravy a Matice moravská. Problémy a perspektivy. Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference konané ve dnech 24.–25. Listopadu 1999 v Brně. [The History of Moravia and the Moravian Society. Problems and Perspectives. Contributions from a Scholarly Conference held November 24–25, 1999 in Brno.] Brno: Matice Moravská, 2000. Louthan, Howard. Converting Bohemia: Force and Persuasion in the Catholic Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Louthan, Howard, Gary B. Cohen, and Franz A.J. Szabo, eds. Diversity and Dissent: Negociating Religious Diversity in Central Europe, 1500–1800. New York and Oxford: Berghan Books, 2011. select bibliography 347

Luft, Robert and Ludwig Eiber, eds. Bayern und Böhmen. Kontakt, Konflikt, Kultur. Veröffentlichung des Collegium Carolinum, Band 111. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2007. Macek, Josef. Jagellonský věk v českých zemích. [The Jagellonian Age in Bohemian History.] Four volumes. Prague: Academia, 1992–1999. ———. “K zahraniční politice krále Jiřího.” [About the Foreign Policy of King George of Podebrady.] ČsČH 13 (1965): 19–39. ———. Tři ženy krále Vladislava. [Three Women of King Vladislav.] Prague: Mladá fronta, 1991. ———. Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku. [Faith and Piety in the Jagellonian Age.] Prague: Argo, 2001. Macek, Josef, Ernő Marősi, and Ferdinand Seibt, eds. Sigismund von Luxemburg. Kaiser und König in Mitteleuropa 1387–1437: Beiträge zur Herrschaft Kaiser Sigismunds und der europäischen Geschichte um 1400: Vorträge der internationalen Tagung in Budapest vom 8.–11 Juli 1987 anlässlich der 600. Wiederkehr seiner Thronbesteigung in Ungarn und seines 550. Todestages. Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1994. Malý, Karel. Trestní právo v Čechách v 15.–16. století. [Criminal Law in Bohemia in the 15th and 16th centuries.] 2nd edition. Prague: UK, 1989. Malý, Karel and Florian Sivák. Dějiny státu a práva v českých zemích a na Slovensku do r. 1918. [The History of State and Law in the Czech Lands and Slovakia to 1918.] Jinočany: H & H, 1993. Malý, Karel. ed. Městské právo v 16.-18. století v Evropě. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference uspořádáné právnickou fakultou UK ve dnech 25.–27. září 1979 v Praze. [Urban Law in Europe form the 16th-18th centuries. Contributions from an International Conference organized by the Law Faculty of the Charles University, held on September 25–27, 1979 in Prague.] Prague: UK, 1982. Malý, Karel and Jaroslav Pánek, eds. Vladislavské zřízení zemské a počátky ústavního zřízení v českých zemích (1500–1619). [Vladislav’s Land Ordinance and the Beginning of Constitutional Administration in the Bohemian Lands (1500–1619).] Prague: HÚ and Ústav právních dějin Právnické fakulty UK, 2001. Marek, Jaroslav. Společenská struktura moravských královských měst v 15. a 16. století. [The Societal Structure of Moravian Royal Cities in the 15th and 16th centuries.] Prague: ČSAV, 1965. Maťa, Petr. Svět české aristokracie (1500–1700). [The World of Bohemian Aristocracy (1500–1700)] Prague: Lidové noviny, 2004. Maťa, Petr and Thomas Winkelbauer, eds. Die Habsburger Monarchie 1620 bis 1740: Leistungen und Grenzen des Absolutismusparadigmas. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2006. 348 Select Bibliography

Matějek, František. Morava za třicetileté války. [Moravia during the Thirty Years War.] Prague: HÚ, 1992. Maur, Eduard. Český komorní velkostatek v 17. století. Příspěvek k otázce ‘druhého nevol- nictví’ v českých zemích. Bohemian Chamber Estate in the 17th Century. Contribution to the Question of the Second Serfdom in the Bohemian Lands.] Prague: UK, 1976. Měšťané, šlechta a duchovenstvo v rezidenčních městech raného novověku (16.–18. století). Bürger, Adel und Klerus in den Residenzstädten der frühen Neuzeit. Prostějov: Muzeum Prostějovska v Prostějově e Rakouským ústavem pro východní a jihovýchodní Evropu, pobočka Brno, 1997. Míka, Alois. “Národnostní poměry v českých zemích před třicetiletou válkou.” [Relations between Nationalities in the Czech Lands before the Thirty Years War.] ČsČH (20 (1972): 207–229. ———. “Z bojů o náboženskou toleranci v 16 století.” [Of the Struggles for Religious Toleration in the 16th Century.] ČČH 18 (1970): 771–782. ———. Poddaný lid v Čechách v první polovině 16. století. [The Subject Population of Bohemia in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century.] Prague: ČSAV, 1960. ———. “Sociálně ekonomická struktura českých zemí před třicetiletou válkou.” [The Social Economic Structure of the Czech Lands before the Thirty Years War.] Sborník historický 21 (1974): 41–74. ———. Stoletý zápas o charakter českého státu 1526–1627. [A Century of Struggle over the Character of the Czech State 1527–1627.] Praha Prague: SPN, 1974. Mikulec, Jiří. Barokní náboženská bratrstva v Čechách. [Religious Brotherhoods of the Baroque Age in Bohemia.] Prague: Knižnice Dějin a součastnosti, 2000. ———. Náboženský život a barokní zbožnost v českých zemích. [Religious Life and Baroque Devotion in the Bohemian Lands. Prague: Grada, 2013. ———. “Pobělohorská rekatolizace: téma stále problematické.” [Recatholization after White Mountain: A Continuing Problematic Theme.] ČČH 96 (1998): 824–830. ———. Poddanská otázka v barokních Čechách. [The Subject Question in Baroque Bohemia.] Prague: HÚ, 1993. ———. 31.7.1627. Rekatolizace šlechty v Čechách. Čí je země, toho je náboženství. [July 31. 1627. The Recatholicization of the Nobility in Bohemia. Cuius regio, eius religio.] Prague: Havran, 2005. Mikulec, Jiří, Miloslav Polívka, eds. Per saecula ad tempora nostra. Sborník prací k šedesátým narozeninám prof. Jaroslava Pánka. [Per saecula ad tempora nostra. Proceedings to the Sixtieth Birthday of Prof. Jaroslav Pánek.) 2 vols. Prague: HÚ, 2007. Mikulec, Jiří et al. Církev a společnost raného novověku v Čechách a na Moravě. [Church and Early Modern Society in Bohemia and Moravia.] Prague: HÚ, 2013. Miller, Jaroslav. “Snový svět idejí a syrovost skutečnosti: městská historiografie raného novověku jako utopie?.” [A Dream World of Ideas and Harshness of Reality: Early Modern Urban Historiography as a Utopia?] ČČH 106, 2 (2008): 261–287. select bibliography 349

———. Urban societies in east-central Europe, 1500–1700. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Mout, Nicolette. Bohemen en de Nederlanden in de zestiende eeuw. [Bohemia and the Netherlands in the Sixteenth Century.] Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1975. Mout, Nicolette and Josef Polišenský. Komenský v Amsterodamu. [Comenius in Amsterdam.] Prague: SPN, 1970. Neher, André. David Gans, 1541–1613: disciple du Maharal, assistant de Tycho Brahe et de Jean Kepler. Paris: Klincksieck, 1974. ———. Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century: David Gans (1541–1613). Oxford: Oxford University, Press, 1986. Nodl, Martin and František Šmahel, eds. Rituály, ceremonie a festivity ve střední Evropě 14. a 15. století. [Rituals, Ceremonies and Festivities in Central Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries.] Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 12. Prague: Filosofia, 2009. Novák, Jan Bedřich. Rudolf II. a jeho pád. [Rudolf II and his Fall.] Prague: Zemský výbor, 1935. Odložilík, Otakar. The Hussite King. Bohemia in European Affairs, 1440-1471. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965. Ogilvie, Sheilagh. “ ‘So That Every Subject Knows How to Behave’: Social Disciplining in Early Modern Bohemia.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 48, 1 (January 2006): 38–78. Ondo Grečenková, Martina and Jiří Mikulec, eds. Církev a zrod moderní racionality. Víra—pověra—vzdělanost—věda v raném novověku. [The Church and the Birth of Modern Rationality. Faith—Superstition—Learning—Science in the Early Modern Age.] Prague: HÚ, 2008. Palacký, František. Dějiny národu českého v Čechách a v Moravě. [The History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia.] 5 vols. Prague: J.G. Calve and B. Tempský, 1848–1872. Palmitessa, James R. “Arbitration of Neighbourhood Ties and Honor. Building and Property Disputes before the Six-Man Councils of Prague, 1547–1611.” Sixteenth Century Journal XXXIV/1 (2003): 123–145. ———. “City and Reformation: The Prague Experience.” Berichte und Beiträge des Geisteswissenschaftlichen Zentrums Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropa e.V. 2 (2001): 100–128. ———. Material Culture and Daily Life in the New City of Prague in the Age of Rudolf II. Krems: Medium Aevum Quotidinaum, 1997. ———. “The Reformation in Bohemia and Poland.” In A Companion to the Reformation World, edited by R. Po-chia Hsia. 185–204. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. ———. “Send the Traitors through the Window!: Emotion, Performance, and Ritual in the Prague Defenestration of 1618.” In Emotions and Material Culture. International Round Table-Discussion Krems an der Donau October 7 and 8, 2002, edited by Gerhard Jaritz. 85–99. Vienna: Österreischische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003. 350 Select Bibliography

Pánek, Jaroslav. “Das politische System des böhmischen Staates im ersten Jahrhundert der habsburgischen Herrschaft 1526–1620.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für öster- reichische Geschichtsforschung 98 (1989): 53–82. ———. Jan Zajíc z Házmburka: Sarmacia aneb Zpověď českého aristokrata. Prague: Scriptorium, 2007. ———. Poslední Rožmberk. Životní příběh Petra Voka. [The Last Rosenberg. The Life Story of Petr Vok.] First edition, 1996. New enlarged edition, Prague: Vyšehrad, 2010. ———. Poslední Rožmberkové. Velmoži české renesance. [The Last Rosenbergs. Magnates of the Bohemian Renaissance.] Prague: Panorama, 1989. ———. Stavovská opozice a její zápas s Habsburky 1547–1577. K politické krizi feudální třídy v předbělohorském českém státě [Estate Opposition and the Conflict of the Estates with the Habsburgs 1547 to 1700. [On the Political Crisis of Feudal Classes in the Pre-White Mountain Bohemian State.] Prague: Academia, 1982. ———. Vilém z Rožmberka. Politik smíru. Prague: Academia, 2011. ———. Výprava české šlechty do Itálie v letech 1551–1552. [Travel of the Bohemian Nobility to Italy in the years 1551–1552.] České Budějovice: Veduta, 2003. Enlarged Italian edition: Boemia e Italia nella metà del XVI secolo. Il viaggio della nobiltà boema a Genova nel 1551 e l’assimilazione della cultura italiana in Boemia. Rome and Prague: Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma and HÚ, 2012. Pánek, Jaroslav, ed. Česká města v 16.–18. století. Sborník příspěvků z konference v Pardubicích 14. a 15. listopadu 1990. [Bohemian Cities from the 16th to 18th centuries. Papers from a Conference in Pardubice on 14-15 November 1990. Prague: HÚ, 1991. Pánek, Jaroslav, Miloslav Polívka, and Noemi Rejchrtová, eds., Husitství—Reformace— Renesance. Sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela. [Hussitism-Reformation- Renaissance. Commemorative Volume for the 60th Birthday of František Šmahel.] Vols. 1-3. Prague: HÚ, 1994. Pánek, Jaroslav and Miroslav Polívka, eds. Jan Hus ve Vatikánu: Mezinárodní rozprava o českém reformátoru 15. století a jeho recepci na prahu třetího tisíciletí. [Jan Hus in the Vatican. International Conference on the Bohemian Reformer of the 15th Century and His Reception on the Eve of the Third Millennium.] Prague: HÚ, 2000. Pánek, Jaroslav, Statava Raková and Václava Horčáková. Scholars of Bohemian, Czech and Czechoslovak History Studies. 3 vols. Prague: HÚ, 2005. Pánek, Jaroslav, Oldřích Tůma et al. A History of the Czech Lands. Translated by Justin Quinn, Petra Key, and Lea Bennnis. First Czech edition, 2008. Prague: Karolinum, 2009. Pánek, Jaroslav and Petr Vorel, ed. Lexikon současných českých historiků. The Lexicon of Contemporary Czech Historians. Prague: HÚ, Sdružení historků České republiky, and Východočeské muzeum, 1999. select bibliography 351

Patočka, Jan. Komeniologické studie [Comeniology Studies.] Vols. I–III, Ed. Věra Schifferová. Prague: Oikomenh, 1997–2003. Pekař, Josef. O smyslu českých dějin. [On the Meaning of Czech History.] Prague: Rozmluvy, 1999. Pěkný, Tomáš. Dějiny Židů v Čechách a na Moravě. [The History of Jews in Bohemia and Moravia.] Prague: Sefer, 2001. Pešek, Jiří. Měšťanská vzdělanost a kultura v předbělohorských Čechách 1547–1620 (Všední dny kulturního života). [Urban Education and Culture in Pre-White Mountain Bohemia 1547–1620 (Aspects of Everyday Cultural Life.] Prague: UK, 1993. Pešek, Jiří, ed. VIII. Sjezd českých historiků. Hradec Králové 10.–12. září 1999. [VIII Meeting of Czech Historians in Hradec Králové 10–12 September 1999.] Prague: Scriptorium, 2000. Pešek, Jiří and Václav Ledvinka, eds. Žena v dějinách Prahy. [Women in Prague History.] Documenta Pragensia XIII. Scriptorium: Prague, 1996. Pešek, Jiří and Oldřích Tůma, eds. O dějinách a politice: Janu Křenovi k sedmdesátinám. [On History and Politics: Festschrift to Jan Křen on his Sixtieth Birthday.] Ústí nad Labem: Albis, 2001. Petráň, Josef, České dějiny ve znamení kultury (Výběr studií). [Culture in Czech History (Selection of Studies).] Eds. Jaroslav Pánek and Petr Vorel. Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice, 2010. ———. Poddaný lid v Čechách na prahu třicetileté války. [The Subject Population in Bohemia on the Eve of the Thirty Years War.] Prague: ČSAV, 1964. ———. Problémy cen, mezd a materiálních podmínek života od 16. do poloviny 19. století. [Problems of Prices, Waves and Material Aspects of Life from the 16th to 19th Centuries.] AUC Phil. et Hist. 1 and 3. Prague: UK, 1971 and 1977. ———. Staroměstská exekuce. Několik stránek z dějin povstání feudálních stavů proti Habsburkům v letech 1618–1620. [The Execution in the Old City. A Few Pages on the History of the Uprising of the Feudal Estates Against the Habsburgs in the Years 1618–1620.] Prague: Mladá fronta, 1971. Petráň, Josef et al. Dějiny hmotné kultury. [The History of Material Culture.] I–II. Kultura každodenního života od 16. do 18. století. [Culture of Everyday Life from the 16th to 18th centuries.] Prague: SPN, 1985–1997. Polišenský, Josef. Anglie a Bílá hora. [England and White Mountain.] Prague: Filozofická fakulta UK, 1949. ———. Komenský, muž labyrintů a naděje. [Comenius. Man of the Labyrinths and of Hope.] Prague: Academia, 1996. ———. Nizozemská politika a Bílá hora. [The Politics of the Low Countries and White Mountain.] Prague: ČSAV, 1958. 352 Select Bibliography

———. The Thirty Years War. Trans. R.J.W. Evans. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971. First edition. Prague: Třicetiletá válka a evropské krize 17. století. Prague: Svoboda, 1970. ———. Tragic Triangle: The Netherlands, Spain, and Bohemia 1617–1621. Prague: UK, 1991. Polišenský, Josef and Josef Kollmann, eds. Wallenstein: Feldherr des Dreissigjährigen Krieges. First Czech edition, 1995. Cologne: Böhlau, 1997. Polišenský, Josef and Frederick Snider. War and Society in Europe, 1618–1648. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Polišenký, Josef and Josef Kollmann. Valdštejn. Ani císař, ani král. [Wallenstein. Neither Emperor nor King.] Prague, 1995. German edition: Wallenstein. Feldherr des Dreissigjährigen Krieges. Cologne: Böhlau, 1997. Polívka, Miloslav and František Šmahel, eds. In memoriam Josefa Macka (1922–1991). [In Memory of Josef Macek (1922–1991). Prague: HÚ, 1996. Pošvář, Jaroslav. Politický vývoj ve Slezsku v letech 1471–1526. [Political Development in Silesia in the years 1491–1526.] Opava: Slezský ústav ČSAV, 1960. The Pre-White Mountain Age. Special Issue on Bohemian History 1526–1620. FHB 11 (1987). Putík, Alexander, ed. Path of Life. Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel (1529–1609). Prague: Academia and Židovské muzeum v Praze, 2009. Rataj. Tomáš. České země ve stínu půlměsíce. Obraz Turka v raně novověké literatuře. [The Bohemian lands in the Shadow of the Crescent: The Image of the Turk in Early Modern Czech Literature.] Prague: Scriptorium, 2002. Rejchrtová, Noemi. Václav Budovec z Budova. [Václav Budovec of Budova.] Prague: Melantrich, 1984. Rejchrtová, Noemi, ed. Směřování. Pohled do badatelské a literární díly Amedea Molnára provázený příspěvky domácích i zahraničních historiků a teologů. [Convergences. Scholarly and Literary Works of Amedeo Molnar with Contribution of Czech and International Historians and Theologians.] Prague: Edice Kalich, 1983. Říčan, Rudolf. A History of the Unity of Brethren: A Protestant Hussite Church in Bohemia and Moravia. Trans. C. Daniel Crews. First Czech edition, 1957. Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Church in America, 1992. Royt, Jan. Obraz a kult v Čechách 17. a 18. století. [Image and Worship in Bohemia in the 17th and 18th centuries.] Prague: Karolinum, 1999. Ryantová, Marie. Památníky aneb štambuchy, to jest alba amicorum. Kulturně historický fenomén raného novověku. [Memorial Books or Alba Amicorum. A Cultural Historical Phenomenon of the Early Modern Period.] MH 8. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2007. Seibt, Ferdinand. Hussitica. Zur Struktur einer Revolution. Cologne: Böhlau, 1965. ———. Bohemica. Probleme und Literatur seit 1945. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1970. select bibliography 353

Seibt, Ferdinand, ed. Bohemia Sacra. Das Christentum in Böhmen 973–1973. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1974. ———. Die Juden in den böhmischen Ländern: Vorträge der Tagung des Collegium Carolinum in Bad Wiesee vom 27. bis 29. November 1981. Munich and Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1983. ———. Jan Hus. Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1997. [Czech edition: Jan Blahoslav Lášek, ed., Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi. Prague: Česká křesťanská akademie, 1995.] ———. Renaissance in Böhmen. Geschichte, Wissenschaft, Architektur, Plastik, Malerei, Kunsthandwerk. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1985. Seibt, Ferdinand and Winfried Eberhard, eds. Europa 1400. Die Krise des Spätmittelalters. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984. ———. Europa 1500. Integrationsprozesse im Widerstreit: Staaten, Regionen, Personen verbände, Christenheit. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1987. VII. Sjezd českých historiků. Praha, 24.–26. září 1993. [VII Meeting of Czech Historians in Prague, September 24–26, 1993.] Prague: Historický klub, sdružení českých, moravských a slezských historiků, 1994. Seipel, Werner. Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503–1564. Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie. Vienna and Milan: Kunsthistorisches Museum and Skira Editore, 2003. Šindelář, Bedřich. “Čarodějnictví a jeho pronásledování u nás do roku 1526.” [Witchcraft and its Persecution in the Bohemian Crown Lands to 1526.] Sborník prací filosofické fakulty brněnské univerzity C 28 (1981): 177–206. ———. Hon na čarodějnice. Západní a střední Evropa v 16. a 17. století. [The Hunt for Witches. Western and Central Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.] Prague: Svoboda, 1986. Sixtová, Olga, ed. Hebrew Printing in Bohemia and Moravia. Prague: Academia and the Jewish Museum in Prague, 2012. Skutil, Jan. ed. Morava a Brno na sklonku třicetileté války. [Moravia and Brno towards the Close of the Thirty Years War.] Prague: Societas, 1995. Slezsko v dějinách českého státu. Stav a úkoly výzkumu. [Silesia in the History of the Bohemian State.] Opava: Slezský ústav ČSAV, 1991. Šmahel, František. “Basilejská kompaktáta, jejich zpísemnění a ratifikace.” [The Compactata of Basel, their Drafting and Ratification.] Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 1, no. 2 (2009): 187–229. ———. Cesta Karla IV. do Francie 1377–1378. [The Journey of Charles IV to France, 1377– 1378.] Prague: Argo, 2006. ———. “Epilog husitské revoluce. Pražské povstání 1483.” In Acta reformationem Bohemicam illustrantia. Příspěvky k dějinám uktrakvismu, edited by Amedeo Molnár. 45–128. Prague: Kalich, 1978. ———. Humanismus v době poděbradské. [Humanism in the Podebrady Age.] Prague: ČSAV, 1963. 354 Select Bibliography

———. Husitská revoluce. [The Hussite Revolution.] 1-4. Prague: UK, 1993. German edition: Die Hussitische Revolution. Trans. by Thomas Krzenck. Vols. 1–3. Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften 43. Hannover: Hansche Buchhandlung, 2002. ———. “The Hussite Critique of the Clergy’s Civil Dominion.” In Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, edited by Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman. 83–90. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ———. “The Hussite movement: an anomaly of European history?” In Bohemia in History, edited by Mikuláš Teich. 79–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. Idea národa v husitských Čechách. [The Idea of the Nation in Hussite Bohemia.] First edition, 1972. Revised critical edition. Prague: Argo, 2000. ———. La révolution hussite, une anomalie historique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1985. ———. Mezi středověkem a renesancí. [Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.] Prague: Argo, 2002. ———. “Pražské povstání.” [Prague Uprising.] PSH XIX (1986): 35–102. Šmahel, František and Martin Nodl. “Kutnohorský dekret po 600 letech. Bilance dosa- vadního bádání.” [The Kuttenberg Decree 600 Years Later. A Survey of Research to Date.” ČČH 107, 1 (2009): 1–45. Šmahel, František, ed. Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Internationales Kolloquium Prag 5.–10. Oktober 1998. Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 12. Prague: Centrum medievistických studíi and Filosofia, 1999. ———. Häresie und vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Kolloquien 90. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997. ———. František Palacký 1798/1998: Dějiny a dnešek. [František Palacký 1798/1998: In History and Today. Contributions from a Jubileum Conference.] Sborník z jubilejní konference. Prague: HÚ, 1999. Štefanová, Dana. Erbschaftspraxis, Besitztransfer und Handlungsspielräume von Untertanen in der Gutsherrschaft. Die Herrschaft Frýdland in Nordböhmen, 1558–1750. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2009. Svatoš, Michal, ed. Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy. [History of Charles University.] Vol. I. 1347/48–1622. Prague, 1995. Tarajło-Lipowska, Zofia and Jarosłav Malicki, eds. Wrocław w Czechach, Czesi w Wroclawiu: Literatura-Język-Kultura. [Wrocław in Bohemia. Czechs in Wrocław: Literature-Language-Culture.] Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 2003. Teich, Mikuláš, ed. Bohemia in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Teufel, Helmut. “Of wine growers, vintners and wine dealers: Jews in agriculture and viticulture in Moravia during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” Review of the Society for the History of Czechoslovak Jews 6 (1993–1994): 119–131. select bibliography 355

———. Zur politischen und sozialen Geschichte der Juden in Mähren vom Antritt der Habsburger bis zur Schlacht am Weissen Berg (1526–1620). Dissertation, University of Nürnberg-Erlangen, 1971. Tomek, Václav Vladivoj. Dějepis města Prahy. [The History of Prague.] 12 vols. Prague: František Řivnáč, 185511901. Třeštík, Dušan. Mysliti dějiny. [Thinking about History.] Prague: Paseka, 1999. Urbánek, Rudolf. Věk poděbradský. [The Age of Poděbrady.] 4 vols. České dějiny, vol. 3. Prague: Laichter, 191911962. Urbánek, Vladimír. Eschatologie, vědění a politika. Příspěvek k dějinám myšlení pobělohorského exilu. MH 9. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2008. Válka, Josef. Česká společnost v 15.-18. století. [Bohemian Society in the 15th to 18th Centuries.] Two volumes. Prague: SPN, 1972–1983. ———. Dějiny Moravy [History of Moravia.] Vol. II: Morava reformace, renesance a baroka. [Moravian Reformation, Renaissance and Baroque.] Brno: Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, 1995. ———. “Historiografie před koncem tisíciletí.” [Historiography before the End of the Millenium.] ČČM 99 (2000): 429-467. ———. Hospodářská politika feudálního velkostatku na předbělohorské Moravě. [Economic Politics of the Large Feudal Estate.] Prague: SPN, 1962. ———. Husitství na Moravě - Náboženská snášenlivost - Jan Amos Komenský. [Hussitism in Moravia—Religoiius Tolerance—Johannes Amos Comenius.] Brno: Matice moravská, 2005. ———. “K otázkám úlohy Moravy v české reformaci.” SCetH 15 (1985): 67–81. ———. “Morava ve struktuře a historii českého lenního a stavovského státu. (Nástin problematiky).” [Moravia in the Structure and History of the Bohemian Feudal and Estate State. (An Outline of the Problematic.] In Moravský historický sborník: Moravica historica, edited by Antonín Verbík and Karel Blažek. 22–45. Brno: Blok, 1986. ———. Myšlení a obraz v dějinách kultury. Studie, eseje, reflexe.[Thought and Image in the History of Culture. Studies, Essays, and Reflections] Brno: Matice moravská, 2009. ———. “Předbělohorská kultura a společnost (Poznámky k interpretaci a hodnocení).” [Pre-White Mountain Culture and Society (Notes on Intepretation and Assessment).] SCetH 31, XVI (1986): 5–25. ———. “Tolerance či koexistence? (K povaze soužití různých náboženských vyznání v českých zemích v 15. až 17. století).” [Tolerance or Coexistence? (Consideration of the Relations between Different Confessional Groups in the Bohemian lands from the 15th to 17th Century).] SCetH 18, 1988, č. 35, přiloha, 63–75. Vaněček, Václav. Dějiny státu a práva v Československu. [The History of the State and Law in Czechoslovakia.] Prague: Orbis, 1964. 356 Select Bibliography

Veselá, Lenka. Knihy na dvoře Rožmberků. [Books at the Rožmberk Court.] Prague: Knihovna AV ČR and Scriptorium, 2005. Vlnas, Vít. Jan Nepomucký. Česká leganda. [Jan Nepomuk. A Bohemian Legend.] Prague: Mladá fronta, 1993. Vlnas, Vít, ed. The Glory of Baroque Bohemia: Art, Culture, and Society in the 17th and 18th centuries. Prague: Národní galerie v Praze, 2001. Vocelka, Karl. Habsburgische Hochzeiten 1550–1600: Kulturgeschichtliche Studien zum manieristischen Repräsentationsfest. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Neuere Geschichte Österreichs. Vienna, Cologne and Graz: Böhlau, 1985. ———. Die politische Propaganda Kaiser Rudolfs II (1576–1612). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981. ———. Rudolf II. und seine Zeit. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1974. Vorel, Petr. Páni z Pernštejna. Vzestup a pád rodu zubří hlavy v dějinách Čech a Moravy. [The Lords of Pernstein. The Rise and Fall of the House of Head of the Bison in the History of Bohemia and Moravia.] Second edition. Prague: Rybka Publishers, 2012. Vorel, Petr, ed. Stavovský odboj roku 1547: první krize habsburské monarchie. Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference konané v Pardubicích 29.–30.9.1997. [Estate Revolt of 1547. Contributions from a Scholarly Conference in Pardubice, September 29–30, 1997.] Pardubice and Prague: Východočeské muzeum and Ústav českých dějin filo- zofické fakulty UK, 1999. Vybíral, Zdeněk. Bitva u Moháče. Krvavá porážka uherského a českého krále Ludvíka Jagellonského v boji s Osmany 29. srpna 1526. [The Battle at Mohács. The Bloody Defeat of the Hungarian and Czech King Ludvík Jagiellon in Baltt with the Osmans on August 29, 1525.] Prague: Havran, 2008. ———. Politická komunikace aristokratické společnosti v českých zemích na počátku novověku. [Political Communication within Aristocratic Society in the Bohemian Lands at the Beginning of the New Age.] MH 6. České Budějovice: HÚFFJUČB, 2005. Weber, Matthias. Das Verhältnis Schlesiens zum Alten Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit. Neue Forschungen zur Schlesischen Geschichte 1. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna, 1992. Weber, Matthias and Rabe Carsten, eds. Silesiographia. Stand und Perspektiven der historischen Schlesienforschung. Festschrift für Norbert Conrads zum 60. Geburtstag. Würzburg: Verein für die Geschichte Schlesiens, 1998. Wetter, Evelin, ed. Die Länder der Böhmischen Krone und ihre Nachbarn zur Zeit der Jagiellonenkönige (1471–1526.) Kunst-Kultur-Geschichte. Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia 2. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004. Winkelbauer, Thomas. Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht: Länder und Untertanen des Hauses Habsburg im konfessionellen Zeitalter. Vienna: Ueberreuter, 2003. Winkelbauer, Thomas. ed. Kontakte und Konflikte. Böhmen, Mähren und Österreich: Aspekte eines Jahrtausends gemeinsamer Geschichte. Waidhofen an der Thaya: Waldviertler Heimatbund, Horn, 1993. select bibliography 357

Winter, Zikmund. Český průmysl a obchod v XVI. věku. [Bohemian Production and Trade in the 16th Century.] Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1913. ———. Děje vysokých škol pražských od secessí cizích národů po dobu bitvy bělohorské (1409–1622). [History of Institutions of Higher Education in Prague from the Secession of Foreign Nations to after the Battle of White Mountain. (1409–1622).] Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1897. ———. Dějiny řemesel a obchodu v Čechách v XIV. a XV. století. [The History of Artisanal Work and Trde in Bohemia in Bohemia in the 14th and 15th Centuries.] Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1906. ———. Kulturní obraz českých měst. Život veřejný v XV. a XVI. věku. [Cultural Picture of Bohemian Cities. Public Life in the 15th and 16th Centuries.] 2 vols. Prague: František Řivnáč, 1890–1892. ———. Řemeslnictvo a živnosti XVI. věku v Čechách. [Artisanal Work and Occupations in 16th-Century Bohemia.] Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1909. ———. O životě na vysokých školách pražskzých: kulturní obraz XV. a XVI. století. [Life at Institutions of Higher Education in Prague : A Cultural Portrait from the 15th and 16th Centuries.] Prague: Matice česká, 1899. ———. Život a učení na partikulárních školách v Čechách v XV. a XVI. století. Kulturně- historický obraz. [Life and Teaching at High Schools in Bohemia in the 15th and 16th centuries. Cultural-Historical Picture.] Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1901. ———. Život církevní v Čechách. Kulturně-historický obraz z XV. a XVI. století. [Church Life in Bohemia. Cultural-Historical Picture from the 15th and 16th Centuries.] 2 volumes. Prague: ČAFJVSU, 1895–1896. ———. Zlatá doba měst českých. [The Golden Age of Bohemian Cities.] First edition, 1913. Prague: Odeon, 1991. Zeman, Jarold K. The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia (1526–1628). Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1969. ———. The Hussite Movement and the Reformation in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia (1350-1650). A Bibliographical Study Guide (With Particular Reference to Resources in North America). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1977. Ιndex

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Bauzen 3, 311, 321 5, 43, 64, 95, 120, 166, 248, 300 Bavaria 2, 59, 77, 90, 99, 102, 113–4, 125–6, Act of Confederation 4, 10, 47, 53–61, 76, 85 144, 196, 277, 307 Albert (Albrecht) of Wallenstein 33, 166, Berkas of Dubá 140; Aleš 138; 309 Ladislav 139, 240, 242; Petr 127; Ambras 128 Zbyněk 8, 136, 175; Zdislav 130 Andreae, Johann Valentin 183, 230 Bethlehem Chapel 7, 262 Andreas of Habernfeld 308, 319 Bethlen, Gabriel 58, 306 Anthony of Leipzig 107–10, 112–13 Bishops, of Olomouc: Stanislav Thurzo 219, Apology (Apologia) of the Bohemian Estates: Wilhem Prusinovský 8, 138; Stanislav First 10, 53; Second 10, 53, 54 Pavlovský 8, 88, 220, 240; Franz Cardinal Archbishops of Prague 4, 8, 41, 150–5, 162–6, of Dietrichstein 2, 221, 237–8, 240, 242–4 174–5, 189, 257; seat of archbishopric 3, 5, Blahoslav, Jan 229 12, 34, 41, 54, 149, 152–5, 159, 254; Utraquist: Bobková, Lenka 33, 42, 86, 147, 300–28, 331 John of Rokycany 78, 81; Roman Bohemia. See Bohemian Crown Lands Catholic: Brus, Antonín of Mohelnice 8, Bohemian Crown lands viii, 1, 3, 7, 49, 57, 141; Martin Medek 8; Zbyněk Berka of 94, 121, 135, 189; early state formation Dubá 8, 175; Charles of Lamberk 8 2–3; estates 4, 10–11, 43–4, 54; Habsburg Archdiocese, of Prague 264 rule 6–12; historiographical traditions Arcimboldo, Giuseppe 9, 127 12–17; kingdom of 1, 108, 121, 162, 189; Articles: of Brno Assembly of 1594 237; origin of word 1; post-Hussite of Act of Confederation 4, 53–7, 76, 85; period 5–6, 46–8; officials 6–7; royal of faith 159; Four Prague Articles 4, 76, cities 49–53, 197. See Brethren, 85; of Moravian Code of 1562 237–8; Bohemian Confession, Supreme Burgrave, Utraquist 159 Supreme Chancellor Augsburg 21, 123, 126–7, 145, 147, 164; Bohemian Brethren. See Brethren Confession of 56, 304, 311, 317–9; Diet Bohemian Confession 9–10, 23, 56, 318 of 148, 160–1, 164; Peace of 164, 250 Bohobud of Lipá, Pertold 241, 244 Austria 1, 14, 19–20, 36, 40, 47, 56–61, 94–5, Bonaventure de Longueval, Charles, Count of 97–102, 113, 116–8, 121, 123, 129, 133–4, 139, Bucquoy 46 156, 159, 243, 277, 304, 310; Austrians 225, Božický of Božice, Jeroným 204–10, 212–4, 244, 269; estates 9, 14–5, 21, 47, 60–6; 216 historians of 19–20, 121. See Habsburgs Brahe, Tycho 9 Brandenburg 11, 305, 307 Bartoš, František M(ichalek) viii, 28, 79, 85, Bratislava 151, 205 92, 163, 202, 330 Brtnices 220. Brtnický, Hynek of Basel 81; Compacts of (Compactata), 4–6, Valdštejn 220, 240 18, 23, 46, 48, 64, 150, 154–5, 188, 193; Brethren, Unity of the (Unitas Fratrum) Council of 4, 82, 99, 150–2, 154, 188 5–7, 10–11, 20–1, 28, 34, 45, 50, 60, 106, Battles: Breitenfeld 320; Chemnitz 322; 108–9, 157, 180, 182, 217, 227, 229–30, 261, Lipany vii, 4, 44, 65, 82, 85–6, 89; 304–9, 317–8 Lützen 321; Mohács 6; Mühlberg 161; Březan, Václav 148, 167, 170, 207 White Mountain vii, 10–11, 20, 23, 25, 27, Brno 8, 97–8, 100, 104–7, 113–5, 182–3, 193–4, 33, 40, 42–3, 45–7, 50, 65, 185, 191, 194–6, 196, 208, 217, 232–4, 236–40, 242, 245 221, 224, 275, 280–1, 300 Brotherhoods 248–68, 342–8 ιndex 359

Brtnický of Valdštejn, Hynek 220, 240 Compactata. See Compacts Bruntálský of Vrbno, George 177 Confederation, Act of 4, 53–7, 76, 85 Brus of Mohelnice, Antonín (Archbishop of Confession; Augsburg 56, 304, 311, 317–9; Prague) 8, 141 Bohemian 9–10, 23, 56, 318 Buda. See Budapest Confiscation 11, 217, 238, 241, 302, 313, 321, Budapest 151–154 330, 344 Budovec, Václav 50, 231, 241 Confraternities. See Brotherhoods Burgrave. See Supreme Burgrave Constance, Council of 3–4, 32, 82, 89, 155, Bůžek, Václav ix, 10, 15, 31–2, 35–40, 120–48, 164, 193 330, 332–3, 344 Councils: Basel 4, 82, 99, 150–2, 154, 188; Constance 3–4, 32, 82, 89, 155, 164, 193; Calixtines 69–70, 74, 76–7, 79–81, 83–91. See Fifth Lateran 152; Pisa 152; also Utraquists Trent 149–50, 152–3, 157–62, 164, 220, Calvin, John 187, 229, 230 250–2, 343 Calvinists 9, 34, 47, 60–61, 182, 196, 229, Counter-Reformation 14, 34, 94, 171, 176–177, 304–7, 317–8 183, 194, 196, 221, 230, 240, 248, 254, 341 Cambrai, Treaty of 158 Court Chamber (Hofkammer) 6, 131 Campeggio, Lorenzo 153–5, 159 Court War Council (Hofkriegsrat) 6 Capuchins 266 Courts of law 9, 32, 41, 121, 197–216, 232–41, Čáslav 66, 103–104, 106, 112, 202–3, 207 345 Catherine of Ludanice 172, 180 Cracow 72, 98–100, 102, 115, 335, 346 Catholics. See Roman Catholics Čechura, Jaroslav 11, 32, 33, 333 Dačický of Heslov, Mikuláš 176 Čelakovský, Jaromír 200–3, 208 Danube 1 Český Krumlov 7–8, 31, 254, 293 David, Zdeněk V. viii, x, 12, 13, 15, 33, 35, Chalice 64–5, 76, 80, 85, 92, 153–8, 161–4, 334–5 239–40, 326. See Calixtines and Utraquists Defenestration: of 1419 of 1483; of 1618 Charles IV Luxembourg 3, 9, 64, 76, 78, 86, Diets: Bohemian 5–6, 19, 71, 77, 87, 151–3, 93, 149, 339, 343, 353. See Luxembourgs 158–9, 163, 271; Hungarian 151; Charles: Charles IV; of Liechtenstein 240, Imperial 153, 158, 160–1; Moravian 242, 244; of Žerotín the Elder 41, 60–1, 233–4, 246 178–81, 183–4, 195–6, 217–47, 307, 309, 319, Della Stella, Paolo 128 344 Dietrichstein, Lords of 221: Adam 221; Cheb (Eger) 33, 97, 311 Franz (Bishop of Olomouc) 2, 221, Chancellor: Supreme 6, 138, 241; Vice 138, 237–8, 240, 242–4; Siegmund 231, 240–1 147, 202 Dobřenský, Jan Oldřich 307 Charles University. See Prague, University of Dominicans 40, 232, 254, 262 Chelčický, Petr 84 Dresden 230, 308–11, 314–5, 317–9, 323–6, Chomutov 7, 66, 146, 254, 259 328 Chrudim 70, 85, 113–5 Dynasties. See Habsburgs, Jagellonians, Chýnov 147, 272, 274–5, 295–7, 299 Luxembourgs, Nobles, Premyslids Comenius, Jan Amos (Jan Amos Komenský), 11, 20, 26, 38, 43–44, 46, 183–4, 224, 227, Eberhard, Winfried ix, 13, 139, 329, 335, 336, 305–8, 318–9, 330–3, 343, 345, 349, 351, 355 353 Communism viii, 24–35 Eck, Johannes 7 Compacts (Compactata): of Basel 4–6, 18, Elbe 1, 173, 309 23, 46, 48, 64, 150, 154–5, 188, 193; of Erasmus, of Rotterdam 184; ideas of Jihlava 4, 64, 150 Eramus 157, 183–4, 192, 196 360 Ιndex

Estates: Austrian 9, 60–1, 139; Habsburgs; ascent to the Bohemian Bohemian 4–8, 10–21, 25–7, 43–50, 52–8, throne 6; arrival of Archduke Ferdinand 61, 72, 76, 122, 133, 151, 153–5, 159, 161–2, 168, of Tyrol to Bohemia 120–48; royal offices 189–90, 192–6, 224, 254–5, 335, 345, 350–1, in Bohemia 6, 121–4, 130–5; policy in Hungarian 9; Moravian 60, 133, 139, Moravia 233, 236, 241, 246; 231–48, 252; Silesian 60 Recatholization efforts 6–7, 149–65, 251, England 1, 21, 26, 49, 58, 196–7, 308, 351 267–68, 270, 301, 304–6, 319. See also Evangelical Theological Faculty (Komenského Hofburg, Hofkammer, High Steward, Evangelická Bohoslovecská Fakulta) 28 High Chamberlain; Supreme Evans, R.J.W. viii–ix, 14, 26, 29, 193, 336, Chamberlain; Supreme Equery [ch.4], 352 Kochmeister; See also Charles V; Ferdinand I; Ferdinand of Tyrol; Matthias, Federico II (Duke of Mantua) 126 Maximilian I, Maximilian II, Rudolf II; Ferdinand I Habsburg 6–9, 13, 19, 40, 49, 53, Ferdinand II 120–2, 124, 126, 128–43, 145, 147, 157, 160, Hájek of Libočany, Václav 45, 203 162, 165, 184, 192, 194, 202, 208, 337, 341, Hanzal, Josef 17, 30, 339 344, 353 Haugwitz of Biskupitz, Joachim 240–2 Ferdinand II Habsburg 20, 43, 52, 267, 305, Hausenblasová, Jaroslava 33, 133, 140, 339 307, 309, 321, 330, 339 Havel, Václav 35 Ferdinand of Tyrol Habsburg 7–8, 40, Hejtman: Land hejtman 6, 195, 220, 244; 120–48, 332 Supreme hejtman 6; Royal hejtman 6, France 17, 21, 63–4, 125, 131, 152, 155–6, 158, 55–6, 170 164–165, 182, 197, 219, 231, 241, 353 Hlaváček Petr 40, 94–119, 339–40 Franciscans 94–119, 256, 262, 339, 340 Hlavsa of Liboslav, Jan 201–2, 207 Franceso III (Duke of Mantua) 125, 127 Hofburg 122–4, 129 Franz of Dietrichstein (cardinal) 2, 221, Hofkammer 6, 123, 131 237–8, 240, 242–4 Hofstaatsordnung (Court Executive Frederick Barbarossa 2 Order) 6 Freiberg 309–11, 315, 318, 322 Holeton, David R. viii, 12, 15, 35, 96, 334, 340 Frederick V 11, 305, 307, 321 Holy Roman Empire 12, 14, 17, 72, 82, 99, 113, Fudge, Thomas 12, 32, 337 114, 118, 123, 125, 153, 155–6, 162, 165, 233, 305, 319, 321 Gabriel of Verona 97–101 Horažďovice 105 Gans, David 35, 332, 339 Hradec, Lords of 31, 109, 113, 121, 176, 232, Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum 332, 140, 142: Adam 175–6; Anna 143; Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas Ignác 113, Jáchym 142–3; Peter 113, (GWZO) 13, 349 Hrejsa, Ferdinand 28, 341 Germans 1–2, 7, 18, 52, 57–61, 63–93, 95–119, Hungary 1–2, 6, 9, 14, 40, 56–8, 61, 96–9, 305; German lands 1, 17, 19, 61, 88; 103–4, 108, 112–4, 122, 156, 192, 232, 243, 300, German historians and historiography 306–7, 319, 325 viii–ix, 13, 17–19, 24, 36, 40, 63, 67, 324; Hus, Jan 1, 3–4, 7, 12, 32–3, 35, 81, 89, 154, German language 12, 13, 15–16, 28, 40, 69, 237–8, 346, 350, 353. See Hussite 75, 79, 87–88, 110 Hussite: Hussite Wars 4–5, 18, 23, 28, 40–1, Gindely, Anton 20–1, 23, 338 67, 188; Hussite Revolution 3, 7, 12, 19, 25, Goll, Jaroslav 21, 23, 74 28, 34, 38, 41, 43–62, 64–71, 89, 94, 149, 188, Golden Bull 3 190, 330, 343–4, 354; Hussites 4, 48, 61, Grulich, Josef 12, 27, 37, 41, 269–299, 338 63, 65, 68, 73, 76, 81, 188, 190, 193, 304, 345 ιndex 361

Innsbruck 120–5, 128, 130–1, 133, 125, 164, 332 Křivoklát 145–146, 148 Italy 1, 85–6, 88, 90, 96, 101, 103, 107–8, 110, Kunstkammer 9 113, 115, 152, 159–60, 165, 167, 175, 197, Kutná Hora (Kuttenberg) 27–53, 66–7, 85, 219–20, 222–3, 227, 277, 338, 350 200–2, 343; Peace of 5, 9, 11, 23, 50, Ivančice 229, 233 189–90

Jachým Ondřej of Šlik (Joachim Andreas of Ladislav of Boskovice 219 Schlick) 55 Ladislav the Posthumous 77, 91 Jachýmov 9 Land Ordinance 6, 11, 53–5, 197; Renewed Jagiellonians 13, 66, 72, 74, 96, 200, 235, 329, Land Ordinance 11, 302. See Law and 336, 356; Anna 6, 122, 124; Louis II 6; Vladislav Land Ordinance Vladislav II 5, 150 Laurence of Březová 76 Jan of Jesenice 27 Law: Book of Drnovice 236; Book of Jan of Lipá 240 Tovačov 235–6; Law of God 188; Jan Theodor Sixt of Ottersdorf 310–11, 322 Provincial code of Moravia 255–38, 242, Janáček, Josef 7, 25–26, 28–30, 33, 41, 51, 245; Renewed Land Ordinance 302; 66–8, 122, 166–81, 200, 342 Roman 205; Urban Law of Pavel Jemnice 98, 104, 109 Kristián of Koldín‘ Vladislav Land Jesuits 7, 34, 41, 165–8, 171–2, 174–6, 180, 194, Ordinance 32, 315, 347. See Land 220, 230, 255, 259, 263, 266, 321, 334 Ordinance Jihlava 4, 193; Compacts of 4, 64, 150 Leszno 188, 305, 310, 318 Jindřichův Hradec 8, 104, 108–11, 113, 176, Liechtenstein, Lords of 232; Charles of 240, 184, 253, 256, 258, 262, 341 242, 244 Jireček, Josef 45, 199–203 Leo of Rožmital 153 John George I 305 Letter of Majesty 9–11, 49–50, 52–3, 345 Jülich-Cleve 125–56 Leipzig 1, 124, 311; Disputation of 7 Lev of Rožmitál 88–90, 141, 153 Kalivoda, Robert 40, 43–62, 65, 183, 188, 337, Libějovice 271–4, 276–9, 281–90, 293, 298–9 343 Librairies: of Charlesl of Žerotín the Kaminský, Howard 3, 12, 83, 343 Elder 217–31; of George Lokšan of Kavka, František 33, 51, 86, 149–65, 192, 343 Lokšany 147; in exile 311, 319, 322 Kavka–Kezelius, Jiří 318 Limberk, Lords of; Burian Žabka 142; Jiřík Kepler, Johannes 9, 340, 349 Žabka 202–3 Kejř, Jiří 27, 32, 67, 343 Lipany, Battle of vii, 4, 44, 65, 82, 85–6, 89 Kladsko 105, 115, 256 Lobkovice, Lords of 137–8, 140, 172, 174; Klassen, John vii, 12, 28, 37, 38, 330, 334 Bohuslav Popel 138; Bohuslav Felix Klik, Josef 65–6, 70, 344 Hašistějnský 146, 151; George 172, 241; Knoz, Tomáš 41, 183, 217–47, 334, 344 George Popel 138; Jan Hasištenský 139; Koldín, Pavel Kristián of. See Pavel Kristián Jan the Younger 142–143; Jan of Koldín Popel 138–9; Kryštof 240; Kolovrats 136–8, 147 Ladislav 234–5, 240, 243–4, 247; Ladislav Konečný, Matouš 229–30 III Popel 139; Zdeněk Vojtěch Kouřimský of Licsko, Brikcí 41, 197–216 Popel 241 Kralice nad Oslavou 229 Loew, Judah Ben Benzalel (Maharal) 34, Křen, Jan 25, 345, 351 345, 349 Kreuz, Petr ix, 32, 41, 197–216, 345 Lomnice nad Lužnicí 274, 277–8, 282–8, 292 Krofta, Kamil 22–4, 53, 155, 159, 345 Louis II Jagiellon, Louis II 6 Kolín 66 Low Countries. See Netherlands Kornelius of Všehrdy, Viktorin 200 Lucchese, Giovanni 128 362 Ιndex

Lutherans 7, 13, 19, 34, 59–61, 70, 115, 125, Moravská Třebová 219 152–153, 155–158, 160, 194, 196, 201, 207, 220, Morée, Peter 35 229, 254, 304–7, 309, 311, 317–8, 325, 334; Müntzer, Thomas 7, 341 Martin Luther 7, 124, 152–153, 158, 220 Lusatia 1–3, 6–7, 11, 36, 40, 56, 300, 304, Náměšť 222 320–1, 323–4, 331 Neměcký Brod 66 Lützen 321 Netherlands 1, 11, 25, 51, 59, 122–5, 131, 136, Luxembourgs; Charles IV 3, 9, 64, 76, 78, 86, 173, 192, 196, 267, 300, 308, 349, 351–2 93, 149, 339, 343, 353; John 3; Nobles. See Hradec, Lords of; Lobkovice, Sigismund 4–5, 7, 71–2, 80, 150, 347; Lords of; Pernštjen, Lords of; Rožmberk, Václav IV 3–4 Lords of; Žerotín, Lords of Lužnice 276 Nuncio (Papal) 158, 160, 162–3, 165, 169, 171; Giovanni Moroni 158, 165; Prospero Magyar. See Hungary Santa Croce 162–3 Malý, Karel 27, 31–2, 198–9, 347 Mantua, Dukes of 125, 127; Federico II 126; Olomouc 8–9, 88, 108, 113–114, 160, 193–4, Francesco III 125, 127; Guglielmo 125 196, 203, 219–20, 232, 234, 238, 240, 250, Maria Habsburg 122, 124–5, 176 342. See Bishops of Olomouc Martinice, Lords of 8; George Bořita 138; Ottomans 187 Jan Bořita 145 Martinius, Samuel 311, 317–9, 321 Palacký, František 17–19, 22–3, 25, 63, 68, 72, Marxism. See Communism 78, 135, 147, 150, 344 Masaryk, Tomáš Garrique 22; Masaryk Paltinate 11, 32, 58–9, 61, 304–5, 307, 333, University (Masarykova Univerzita) in 341 Brno 182, 217–8, 239, 246 Pánek, Jaroslav x, 2, 8, 11, 25–6, 30–2, 35, Matthias Corvinus 103, 219, 329 38–9, 64, 66, 86, 121–2, 129, 147–8, 166, 182, Matthias Habsburg 9, 104, 108, 233, 235, 241, 263, 327–30, 347–51 234–43, 267 Pardubice 8, 248 Maximilian I Habsburg 122–5 Pašek of Vrat, Jan 201–2, 207–8 Maximilian II Habsburg 9, 126–7, 138–40, Paul of Moravia 102, 104–7 143–4, 176, 192, 336–7, 341 Pavel Kristián of Koldín 27, 199–200 Maximilian Lev of Rožmitál 246 Peace: of Augsburg 164, 250; of Prague Melanchthon, Philipp 220 11, 304 Mičan of Klinštejn and Roztoky, Lords Pekař, Josef 21–3, 351 of 140; Jan 203; Oldřich 138 Pernštejn, Lords of 8, 31, 140, 142, 174, 177–8, Migration 18, 41, 66, 269–328 180, 356; Jaroslav 135–6, 142, 144; Mikulec, Jiří ix, 33–34, 41, 54–5, 178, 222, Polyxena Rožmberk of Pernštejn 41, 248–68, 340, 348–9 166–81; Vojtěch 135–6; Vratislav 130–1, Mikulov 139, 221, 232 139, 143; William 191, 235 Mohács, Battle of 6, 356 Pešek, Jiří 16, 24, 29–30, 34, 36–7, 146, 201, Molnár, Amadeo 28, 184, 188, 352–3 250, 334, 336, 346, 351 Moravia 1–3, 6, 8–9, 11, 18, 28, 36, 40–1, 52, Peter of Hlohovec 103–4 56, 59–61, 65–8, 70, 77, 86, 90, 93, 98–9, Petráň, Josef 14, 26–7, 29, 31, 271–2, 276, 269, 102–7, 112–6, 125–6, 133–4, 136, 139–40, 177, 327, 330, 341, 351 179, 182–6, 188–91, 193–7, 204, 217–47, 250, Petráňová, Lydia 29–30 277, 302, 304–6, 324, 329, 334, 338, 340, Pilsen 98, 103–5, 107–9, 111, 115, 118, 147, 189, 342–9, 351–7. See Brno, Moravská Třebová, 193, 253 Olomouc, Tovačov Pirna 300–1, 303, 309–19, 321–3, 326, 331 ιndex 363

Poland; Polish historians and historiography Franciscans, Jesuits, Utraquists, 36, 40, 330–8; historical developments 2, Re-Catholization, Roman Catholics 45–6, 72–84, 85, 99–103, 116, 118, 227, 305–6, Rendl of Oušava, Albrecht 200 311; Polish language 1, 74, 101, 116 Renewed Land Ordinances 11, 302 Polish. See Poland Restitution 8, 54–44 Poděbrady 145; Age of 49–50, 70, 79, 81, Revolts 110, 189; See Revolutions, Uprisings, 86, 189, 235, 253, 355; George of 5, 48–9, Wars 69, 71, 75, 78, 80–5, 88, 90–1, 332, 347 Reformation 7, 10, 12–15, 17–18, 20, 23–8, Polišenský, Josef viii, 14, 26, 33, 57, 327, 349, 33–5, 38, 43–5, 47, 49–50, 52, 59, 61, 64, 66, 351–2 70, 84, 94, 115, 119, 155–6, 171–2, 176–7, 183, Popes 3–4, 75, 81, 108, 150–2, 154, 158: 186–8, 191–4, 196, 220–1, 230, 240, 248–9, Clement VII 153, 158; Clement IX 264; 253–4, 261, 327–8, 330, 334–41, 344, 346, Eugene 152; Hadrian VI 153; John 349, 350, 353–4, 355, 357. See Hussites, Paul II 35; Julius II 152; Julius III Protestants, Utraquists, Brethren 163–4; Marcellus II 164–5; Paul III Revolutions; See Hussite Revolution, Revolts, 158–64; Pius II 4, 79, 81, 91, 93, 100, 102, Uprisings, Velvet Revolution, Wars 150, 192 Říčan, Rudolf 28, 84, 230, 352 Population 1, 7, 9, 11, 26–27, 34, 37, 39, 66–7, Rokycana, Jan 69, 74, 78–9, 81, 83–5, 87, 92 71, 78–9, 90, 188, 234, 255, 269–329, 337–9, Romano, Guilio 125–7 348, 351 Roman Catholics: Brotherhoods 248–68, Poznań 97–8 342–8; Roman curia 108, 150, 153, 165, Prachatice 271–2, 274, 276–8, 280, 282–8, 189, 265. See Archbishops, Bishops, 292, 297, 299 Capuchins, Councils; Dominicans; Prague 2–4, 7–10, 14–15, 19, 21, 28–9, 31, Franciscans; Nuncia, Popes, Counter- 33–41, 43, 49–50, 55, 69–70, 73, 76, 78, 81–3, Reformation, Re-Catholiization 85, 91, 98, 102, 105, 107–8, 115–8, 120–1, Rome 17, 23, 35, 81, 84–5, 87–8, 152–3, 155–6, 125–7, 129–30, 132–5, 140–1, 143–6, 150–1, 158–9, 163, 165, 171, 175; Sack of 158 162–5, 167–71, 173–5, 193–207, 203–4, Rosice 222, 225, 232, 245, 319 207–9, 214, 237, 239–41, 244, 254, 256, Roudnice 115, 169–70, 172–5, 177 262–4, 269, 303–5, 310–11, 316–7, 320–1, Rožmberk, Lords of 8, 31, 121, 141–2, 153, 324, 336, 340, 342–3, 346, 353–4, 357. See 166–81, 219, 221–2, 227, 270, 332, 344, 350, Archbishops of Prague, Archdioceses of 356; Anezka 3–7, 38; Anna Hradecká Prague, Peace of Prague 143; Jindřich the Elder 144; Oldřich 69, Prague Spring viii, 25, 27, 64, 149 87; Perchta 37–8; Petr Vok 31, 50, Prakšický of Zástřizly, George Zikmund 220 166–81, 225; Polyxena Rožemberk of Premyslids 3 Pernštejn 41, 166–81; Vojtěch 135–6; Pressburg (Bratislava). See Bratislava William 31, 41, 126, 141–3, 166–81, 271 Privy Council (Geheime Rat) 6, 307 Rožmitál, Lords of: Lev 88–90, 141, 153; Protestants 1, 17, 35, 47, 155, 158–61, 164, 168, Maximilian Lev 246 175, 177, 192, 194–5, 229, 251, 318. See Rudolf II Habsburg 9–11, 14–15, 20–1, 28–30, Lutherans, Utraquists, Brethren 40, 46, 49–50, 53, 120, 126–30, 133, 140, 166, 193, 195, 221, 237, 239–41, 243, 267, 336–9, Re-Catholization 72. See Counter- 342, 344–5, 349, 356 Reformation and Roman Catholics Russworm, Hermann Christoph 239–40 Religion: brotherhoods; religious conflict, religious relations; religious toleration. See Saint Václav‘s Day Agreement 345 Archbishops of Prague, Bishops of Saxony 11, 59, 300, 304–5, 307, 309, 314, 318, Olomouc, Brethren, Dominicans, 320–5. See John George I 364 Ιndex

Schmalkaldic War 7, 10, 13, 19, 120, 145, 149, Thomas of Čáslav 103, 104, 106, 112 159, 161–162, 335 Tovačov 219; Book of Tovačov 235–6. See Schreibersdorf of Teutschenstein, Ctibor Tovačovský of Cimburk Mikuláš 170–174 Tovačovský of Cimburk, Ctibor 189, 191, 219, Schwarz, Ernst 66 235, 342 Seibt, Ferdinand viii, 13, 47, 51, 63, 65, 188, Tomek, Václav Vladivoj 19–20, 23, 150–1, 154, 335, 335, 343, 347, 352–3 159, 161, 355 Sforza, Bianca Maria 122–3 Toruń 311 Sigismund of Luxembourg 4–5, 7, 71–2, 80, Trautson, Hans 139 150, 347 Třeboň 31, 225, 267, 269, 271–2, 274, 276–84, Sigismund III Vasa 305 286–8, 292, 299 Silesia 1–3, 6–7, 9, 11, 36, 40, 56, 60, 75, 78–9, Trent, Council of, Trent 149–50, 152–3, 94, 97–101, 103–4, 112–7, 140, 227, 243, 277, 157–62, 164, 220, 250–2, 343 300, 304, 319, 321, 324, 331, 352–3 Sixt of Ottersdorf 311–22 Uherský Brod 220 Skála of Žhoř, Pavel 55–6, 303, 310 University of South Bohemia 31, 272 Skýbová, Anna 41, 149–65, 192, 341, 343 Uprising: of 1419 3; of 1483 49–50, 107, 354; Šmahel, František 5, 12, 62–93, 85–6, 89–90, 1546–1547 7, 13, 49, 120, 149, 162, 192; 96, 188, 349, 353–4 of 1604 241; of 1618 10, 21, 32, 44–50, 54, Smiřický of Smiřice, Lords of 140; 61, 194, 196, 303, 305, 338, 351. See Revolts, Jaroslav 148; Václav 318 Revolutions, Wars Spain 26, 51, 59, 90, 161, 164–5, 176–8, 330, Urbánek, Rudolf 70, 72, 74, 76–79, 81–2, 352 84–9, 91–3, 355 Spatio, Giovanni 128 Utraquist 4–7, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33–34, 41, 49, Spranger, Bartholomeus 9 52–3, 55, 69, 72, 77, 79–84, 88, 91, 107, Šternberks, Lords of 137–8: Adam 168; 151–60, 162–5, 182, 185, 188–9, 191, 193–4, Felix 113; Jan 137; Ladislav 137–8, 148; 248, 253, 306, 334–45. See Calixtines William 131; Zdeslav 112 Strada, Jacopo 126–7 Václav (Duke) 2 Stránský, Pavel 311, 318, 328 Václav IV Luxembourg 3–4 Supreme Burgrave (Supreme Burgrave) 6, Válka, Josef 25–27, 30, 36, 38, 41, 51, 182–96, 169, 171–2, 175, 234 232, 240, 243–4, 334, 355 Supreme Steward (Hofmeister), 124, 130–4 Velvet Revolution vii, 25, 30, 32–5, 269 Švamberk, Lords of 141: Jan George 175; Veselí nad Lužnicí 244, 277–8, 282–4, 286–7 Jindřich the Elder 143–4; Kristina 87; Viceroy (Statthalter) 7, 40, 121–2, 127, 131–8, Kryštof 137, Václav 144 140, 143–4, 146–8 Sweden 300, 304, 308 Vladislav II Jagiellon 5, 150 Vladislav Land Ordinance 32, 315, 347 Taborites 4, 65, 81, 83, 188 Vltava 1–2 Terzio, Franceco 127 Vorel, Peter 7, 31, 122, 130–3, 135–6, 145–6, Thurn, Lords of 138: Ambrož 137; 330, 350–1, 356 Franz 134, 136; Jindřich Matyáš 50, Vřesce 274, 296 60–1, 306, 301 Tschernembl, George Erasmus 47, 60, 225, Wallenstein. See Albert of Wallenstein 244 Wars; Hussite 4–5, 18, 23, 28, 40–1, 67, 188; Thirty Years War 10–14, 18–19, 21, 26, 33, 252, Schmalkaldic 7, 10, 13, 19, 120, 145, 149, 255, 269, 269–70, 301, 304, 306, 309, 319–20, 159, 161–2, 335; Thirty Year, ?????. See 323, 338–9, 348, 351–3 Revolts, Revolutions, Uprisings ιndex 365

Warsaw 27, 98, 100 Žerotín, Lords of 140: Charles the Elder 41, Welser, Phillippine 137–8, 146–8 60–1, 178–81, 183–4, 195–6, 217–47, 307, 309, White Mountain, Battle of, vii 10–11, 20, 23, 319, 344 ; Jan Diviš 222, 229, 236; Fridrich 25, 27, 33, 40, 42–3, 45–7, 50, 65, 185, 191, the Elder 139; John the Elder 222, 233; 194–6, 221, 224, 275, 280–1, 300 Ladislav Velen 196, 243, 307 Winter, Zikmund 26, 67, 70, 185, 260, 271,317 Zittau 3, 301, 321, 323, 325, 327 Władysław IV 305 Žižka, Jan 4 Wrocław 3, 9, 228, 336, 354 Znojmo 104–5, 108, 115, 193