Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:37:21.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prague Uprising of 1611: Property, Politics, and Catholic Renewal in the Early Years of Habsburg Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

James R. Palmitessa
James R. Palmitessa
Affiliation:
Western Michigan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1618, members of the Bohemian estates threw Habsburg officials out of a window of the Prague castle. The Prague defenestration, which has been viewed as the catalyst for the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, is one of the best known acts of uprising in early modern Europe. Less well known is an earlier popular uprising that took place below the castle in the Old and New Cities of Prague on Carnival Tuesday, 15 February 1611. In the midst of a bizarre diplomatic and military episode during which foreign troops led by the Bishop of Passau invaded the city, mobs plundered cloisters and monasteries and, in a few cases, threw members of religious orders from church towers.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 299 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. On the Habsburg Empire and the developments leading up to the Thirty Years’ War see: Koenigsberger, Helmut C., The Habsburgs and Europe 1516–1660 (Ithaca & London, 1971);Google ScholarEvans, R. J. W., The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700 (Oxford, 1979);Google ScholarPolišenský, Josef, The Thirty Years’ War (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1971);Google ScholarParker, Geoffrey, ed., The Thirty Years’ War (London, 1984).Google Scholar

2. Accounts of the invasion of Prague by the Passau Army focus on the attack of the “foreign” troops and defense of the city by patriotic “local” forces; only brief mention is made of the uprising in the Old and New Cities; Novák, Jan Bedřich, Rudolf II. a jeho pád [Rudolf II and his Fall] (Prague, 1935), 161–67;Google ScholarJanáček, Josef, Obrázek ze života rudolfinské Prahy [Pictures from the Life of Rudolfine Prague] (Prague, 1958), 203–8;Google Scholaridem, Rudolf II. a jeho doba [Rudolf II and his Age] (Prague, 1987), 477–78;Google ScholarPávová, Eva, “Pražané v boji proti Pasovským” [The Burghers of Prague against the Passau Army] Kniha o Praze (1960), 169–83;Google ScholarKoldinská, Marie, “Vpád pasovských a soudobé české myšlení” [The Prague Invasion and Contemporary Czech Thought] Dějiny a součastnost 6 (1991): 15–20.Google Scholar

3. Lang, Peter Thäddeus, Die Ulmer Katholiken im Zeitalter der Glaubenskämpfe: Lebensbedingungen einer konfessionellen Minderheit (Frankfurt am Main, 1977);Google ScholarWarmbrunn, Paul, Zwei Konfessionen in einer Stadt: Das Zusammenleben von Katholiken und Protestanten in den paritätischen Reichsstädten Ausburg, Biberach, Ravensburg, und Dinkelsbühl von 1548 bis 1648 (Wiesbaden, 1983);Google ScholarZschunke, Peter, Konfession und Alltag in Oppenheim: Beiträge zur Geschichte von Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft einer gemischtkonfessionellen Kleinstadt in der frühen Neuzeit (Wiesbaden, 1984).Google Scholar

4. On the St. Bartholomew’s Massacre see: Davis, Natalie Zemon, “The Rites of Violence,” in her Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, 1975), 152–88;Google Scholar and Kingdon, Robert M., Myths about the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacres, 1572–76 (Cambridge, Mass., 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar On religious-iconoclastic revolts in the Low Countries: Freedberg, David, Iconoclasm and Painting in the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1566–1609 (New York, 1988);Google Scholar and Scheerder, Josef, De Beeldenstorm (Bussum, 1974).Google Scholar On iconoclasm in other areas of Europe during the period: Christensen, Carl C., Art and the Reformation in Germany (Athens, Ohio, 1979);Google ScholarPhillips, John, The Reformation of Images: Destruction of Art in England, 1533–1660 (Berkeley, 1973);Google ScholarWarnke, Martin, ed., Bildersturm: Die Zerstörung des Kunstwerkes (Munich, 1973);Google ScholarScribner, Bob, ed., Bilder und Bildersturm im Spätmittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (Wiesbaden, 1990);Google Scholar and Wandel, Lee Palmer, Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel (New York, 1994).Google Scholar

5. The Hussite Revolution has deeply penetrated into modern Czech historiographical consciousness as no other period; the literature is too vast to even give a schematic bibliography. A good introduction in English is offered by the following: Zeman, Jarold K., The Hussite Movement and the Reformation in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia (1350–1650): A Bibliographic Guide (Ann Arbor, 1977);Google ScholarEberhard, Winfried, “Bohemia, Moravia and Austria,” in The Early Reformation in Europe, ed. Pettegree, Andrew (Cambridge, 1992), 23–48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarKavka, František, “Bohemia,” in The Reformation in National Context, ed. Scribner, Bob, Porter, Roy & Teich, Mikulá š (Cambridge, 1994), 131–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. The Czech national school of history in the nineteenth century first introduced the idea of viewing the period from the Hussite Revolution to the Thirty Years’ War as a unified period characterized by a growing struggle; modern Czech scholarship has focused on what is called the “Pre- White Mountain” period. See Janáček, Josef, České dějiny: Doba předbělohorské [Czech History: The Pre- White Mountain Period], dily I & II (Prague, 1968 & 1984).Google Scholar Some scholars see many areas of continuity between estate conflict in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Eberhard, Winfried, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen (Munich, 1981);Google ScholarEberhard, Winfried, Monarchie und Widerstand: Zur ständischen Oppositionsbildung im Herrschaflssystem Ferdinand I. in Böhmen (Munich, 1985). Other historians see 1547 as an important date, as it marks the beginnings of estate opposition to Habsburg rule;Google ScholarPánek, Jaroslav, Stavovská opozice a její zápas s Habsburky 1547–1577 [Estate Opposition and the Estates’ Conflict with the Habsburgs 1547–1577] Studie ČSAV 2 (Prague, 1982).Google Scholar

7. In the eighteenth century Friedrich Schiller chose this theme for a play entitled “der Bruderzwist Habsburg.” See also Vocelka, Karl, “Matthias contra Rudolf: Zur politischen Propaganda in der Zeit des Bruderzwistes,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 10 (1983).Google Scholar

8. Pávová, , “Pražane,” 169–83.Google Scholar

9. The so-called Passau Army was ethnically and confessionally mixed; foot soldiers were primarily Germans and Czechs, the horse soldiers primarily French from Wallonia; Ibid., 170.

10. Ibid.

11. české, Sněmy [Proceedings of the Bohemian Diet—henceforth SČ] 15/1, no. 97, 123–24.Google Scholar

12. Pávové, “Pražané,” 174.

13. Relatio/Außführlicher Bericht/was sich mit den Passawi//schen Kriegswolck von dem Monat December//deß abgewichen auff den 21. Mar=//tis dises 1611. Jahrs und welter in der Cron Boeheimb verlassen/alles//in historien und Kupferr geordnet und für Augen gesteilt.//durch Wilhlem Peter Zimmermann von Augspurg//dieses 1611 Jahrs.

14. SČ 15/1, no. 136, 170–73.

15. “Summarischer inhalt des rechts aufruhrs und gehaltenen blutbades, geschehen des 15. Februarii anno etc. 1611 zwischen Leopoldo, bischof zu Passau und den Pragern,” reprinted in SČ 15/1, no. 203, 254–56.

16. Zimmermann, Relatio.

17. SČ 15/, no. 136, 170.

18. Ibid., no. 203, 254–56.

19. Ibid., no. 136, 171.

20. Ibid., no. 175, 220–21.

21. Zimmermann, Relatio.

22. From “a short note” (“Kratkého poznameni”) dated 15 February 1611 in a digest entitled “Snesení ob. 1581” originally deposited in Domažlice, reprinted in SČ 15/1, no. 137, 173.

23. Ibid.

24. Zimmermann, Relatio.

25. SČ 15/1, no. 137, 174.

26. Zimmermann, Reltio.

27. SČ 15/1, no. 136, 172.

28. Ibid.

29. Zimmermann, Relatio.

30. SČ 15/1, no. 136, 172.

31. Ibid.

32. SČ 15/1, no. 136, 172–73.

33. Zimmermann, Relatio.

34. SČ 15/1, no. 136, 173.

35. Ibid.

36. Rak, Jiří, “Vývoj utrakvistické správní organizace v době předbělohorské” [The Development of Utraquist Church Organization in the Pre- White Mountain Period,] Sborník archívní préce 31, no. 1 (1981): 179–206.Google Scholar

37. Kamil Krofta, “Boj o konsistoř podobí v letech 1562–1577 a jeho historický základ” “Battle over the Utraquist Consistory in the Years 1562–1577 and its Historical Foundations,] Český časopis historický (1911); Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Dějiny křest’anství v Československu [The History of Christianity in Czechoslovakia,] vols. 5 & 6 (Prague, 1948 & 1950);Google ScholarWinter, Zikmund, Život církevní v Cechách: Kulturně-historický obraz z XV a XVI století [Church Life in Bohemia: Cultural-Historical Pictures from the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries] (Prague, 1885 & 1889);Google ScholarTomek, Václav Vladivoj, Dějepis města Prahy [The History of Prague,] vols. 8–12 (Prague, 1883–1901).Google Scholar

38. The renewal of ecclesiastical institutions in the sixteenth century is discussed in passing by Václav Vladivoj Tomek, Zikmund Winter and Ferdinand Hrejsa (See note 37 above) and as a topic of highly specialized scope for a few individual institutions; František Cigánek, “Postranní právo sv. Jiří na Hradčanech v XVI. v první polovniné XVII. století” [Extraterritorial Law of St. George on the Castle Hill in the Sixteenth and First Half of the Seventeenth Century,] Diplomová práce, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze, 1957; Jiří Hloch, “Postranní právo Panny Marie pod řetězem—konec mostu (1547–1669),” [The Extraterritorial Law of Mother Mary at the End of the Bridge,] Pražský sbornik vlastivědný (1962): 97–114; and Vilimková, Milada, “Urbanistický vývoj maltézské jurisdikce” [The Urban Development of the Maltese Jurisdiction, Pražský sborník historický 3 (1966): 72–85.Google Scholar The first study to highlight the importance of extraterritorial law within a broader political-historical context is Svobodová-Ladová, Milada, “Zvláštní místní práva v Praze” [Special Territorial Law in Prague,] Pražský sborník historický 8 (1973): 95–179.Google Scholar See also Kulejewska-Topolska, Zofia, “Ze studiow nad zagadnieniem duchownych postranních práv v Pradze” [The Study of Extraterritorial Ecclesiastical Law in Prague], Czasopismo prawnohistoryczne 16, zeszyt 2, 1964.Google Scholar

39. Kavka, František & Skýbová, Anna, Husitský epilog na koncilu tridenském a původni koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Cech: Počátky obnoveného pražského arcibiskupství [The Hussite Epilogue at the Council of Trent and the Original Conception of Habsburg Re-Catholization of Bohemia: The Beginnings of Renewal of the Archbishopric of Prague] (Prague, 1969).Google Scholar

40. On the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow: Vyskočil, Jan Kapitrán, Šest století kostela a kláštera u Panny Marie Sněžně [Six Centuries of the Church and Cloister of Mother Mary of the Snow] (Prague, 1947);Google Scholar Vladimír Waage, “Měský pozemkový majetek a postranní právo kláštera Panny Marie Sněně” [Urban Property Holdings and Extraterritorial Law of the Cloister of Mary of the Snow], diplomová práce, Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze, Katedra archívnictví (1978); Kristen, Zdeněk, “Snahy o uvedení Karmelitánů do Prahy” [Attempts of the Franciscans to Move to Prague] Sborník J. B. Nováka, zvláštní otisk ze sborníku k 60. narozeninám Prague, date unknown;Google ScholarDenkstein, Vladimir, “Stavební historic klášterního kostela Panny Marie Sněžzně” [The History of the Construction of Mother Mary of the Snow] Ročenka kruhu pro pěstování dějin umění za rok 1931 (Prague, 1932).Google Scholar On the St. Agnes Cloister, see Soukupová, Helena, Anežský klášiter v Praze [St. Agnes Cloister in Prague] (Prague, 1989).Google Scholar

41. Státní ústřední archiv, Radový archiv Františkánů Praha [Archive of the Prague Chapter of the Franciscan Religious Order in the Central State Archive in Prague—henceforth SúA ŘA Fran. Praha] inv. číslo 2585 karton 111.

42. Not until 1549 (in a document mentioning the sale of fish to the cloister) is there a record that the cloister was actually inhabited; and only beginning in 1556 is there mention of a prior; Waage, “Městský pozemkový majetek.”

43. SÚA ŘA Fran. Praha inv. člo 2585 karton 111.

44. The “Brief” granted to Wenzel Zimmermann was in German, the others are in Czech. This name is the German equivalent of Václav Tesař, mentioned above. This may or may not be the same person. Archiv Kapituly Sv. Víta L-30 (Jiřík Kulhavý); SÚA ŘA Fran. Praha inv číslo 2585 karton 111 (Jan Trojan and Wenzel Zimmermann); additional house sales are in SÚA ŘA Fran. Praha list. 189 and SÚA ŘA Fran. Praha inv. číslo 2585 karton 111.

45. SÚA ŘA Fran. Praha inv. číslo 2585 karton 111.

46. The donation was granted for a fee of 100 Gulden, half of which was to go to the royal coffer, the other half for the repair of the cloister; M. Svobodová-Ladová, “Zvláštni místní práva,” 146.

47. Soukupová, Anežský, 213–37.

48. Kavka, František & Skýbová, Anna, Husitský epilog.Google Scholar

49. On ecclesiastical landholdings in pre-Hussite Prague see Lorenc, Václav, Nové Město Pražské [The New City of Prague] (Prague, 1973);Google Scholar and Štech, V. V., Wirth, Z. & Vojtíšsek, V., Staré a Nové Město s Podskalím [The Old and New Cities and the Podskalí Settlement], Zmizelá Prahy 1 (Prague, 1945).Google Scholar

50. The social composition of the house owners in the late sixteenth century can be found in Palmitessa, James R., Material Culture and Daily Life in the New City of Prague in the Age of Rudolf II (Krems, 1997), 31–36.Google Scholar

51. House prices on the property of the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow were considerably less than those on neighboring Široká Street and the lower Horse Market. House prices for the property of the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow are quoted in Waage, “Městsý pozemkový majetek.” House prices for neighboring Široká Street and the lower Horse Market can be found in Palmitessa, Material Culture and Daily Life in the New City of Prague, 35–36, 147–52. Houses are referred to by the numbering system which was developed in the eighteenth century and is still utilized in some form today. In this system, all houses are assigned a “counting number” which consists of an Arabic number designating the parcel followed by a Roman number designating the city (I for Old City, II for New City).

52. Svobodová-Ladová, “Zvláštní místní práva,” 145.

53. Archiv Kapituly Sv. Víta [Archive of the Capital St. Vitus] in the Archiv Pražského hradu [Archive of the Prague Castle—henceforth APH], Signature KA LI–33.

54. APH KA LI–33.

55. SÚA ŘA Fran. Praha 162 f. 53a.

56. Brikcí Zvonař z Cimperku was affiliated with the two Utraquist parish churches in the New City; he was a parishioner at St. Stephen’s (Sv. Stěpána) and a member of the literary society at St. Henry’s (Sv. Jindřicha); Winter, Zikmund, “Zvonařové z Cimperku” [“The Beilmakers of Cimperk,”] Památky archaeologické a místopisné 17 (1896–1897): 444–49. The agreement was ratified by the archbishop and the emperor in two documents listed in Brikcí Zvonař z Cimperku’s probate inventory (Archiv HlavnIho mésta Prahy—Archive of the Capital City of Prague—Signature 1211 f. 182a): listina od Arcibiskupa Antonína na smiouvu pana Přelatem Marie Snězně na osvobození zahrady; list od JMC Majestat na osvobození zahrady při domˇ).Google Scholar

57. Winter, Život církevní, 710–11.

58. On the early years of the Jesuit College in Prague see Kroess, Alois, Geschichte der böhmischen Provinz der Gesellschaft Jesu, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1910).Google Scholar

59. On iconoclasm during the Hussite Revolution, see Bredekamp, Horst, “Bildersturm und Bildpropaganda in der Hussitenbewegung,” Tendenzen 97 (1974) & Bildende Kunst 3 (1975);Google ScholarBredekamp, , Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte: Bilderkämpfe von der Spätantike bis zur Hussitenrevolution (Frankfurt am Main, 1975).Google Scholar

60. On the defenestration of 1419, see Kaminsky, Howard, “The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419,” Medievalia et Humanistica 17 (1966): 106–26.Google Scholar

61. Heinrich Hiesserle von Chodav, Raiβ-Buch//und Leben//darinnen//begriffen was ich Hein//rich Hiesserle von Chodav seiner://Anno 1586 angefangen und gefuret//Somit Figuren hierneben gezieret, vnnd//zetzt aufs Neu abgescriben worden, im//1612.

62. SÚA Karlov LIV, no. 2525.

63. Josef Janáček, Obrázek ze ž ivota rudolfinské Prahy, 217; Janáček, Rudolf II a jeho doba, 477–78; Petráň, Josef, “Pohyb poddanského obyvatelstva a jeho osobní právní vztahy v Čechách v době předbělohorské” [The Migration of the Rural Subject Population in Bohemia and their Personal Legal Ties in the Pre- White Mountain Period,] Československý časopis historický 5 (1967): 25–58;Google Scholar Pokračovaní [continuation], 339–447.

64. Zimmermann. Relatio.

65. SČ 15/1, no. 138, 174–75.

66. Válka, Josef, “Tolerance či koexistence? (K povaze soužití různých náboženských vyznání v českých zemích v 15. až 17. století)” [Tolerance or Coexistence? (Some Thoughts On the Coexistence of Different Religious Confessions in the Bohemian Lands from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries),] Studia comeniana et historica 18, čislo 35 (1988): 63–75.Google Scholar

67. Heinz Schilling has proposed that confession served as a crystallization point for political, economic, and societal change in the early seventeenth century in “Die Konfessionalisierung im Reich: Religiöser und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in Deutschland zwischen 1555 und 1620,” Historische Zeitschrift 246 (1988): 1–45, esp. 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres also took place around carnival time. See Davis, “The Rights of Violence.”

69. In this sense it reflects a renewal of important features of late medieval society rather than early modern; see Brady, Thomas A. Jr., Oberman, H. & Tracy, J. D., eds., Handbook of European History, 1400–1600, esp. vol. 1 (Leiden, 1994), xiii–xxiv, 437–66; vol. 2 (Leiden, 1995), 349–84.Google Scholar