Historický ústav akademie věd České republiky, v. v. i.

ročník 118
č. 4/2020

s. 861-1268 + I-XX


PÁNEK Jaroslav
Bílá hora ve stínu Mariánského sloupu … s. 867

In 2020, the 400th anniversary of the Battle of White Mountain (a defeat of the Protestant Bohemian estates by the armies of Emperor Ferdinand II and the Catholic League, 8 November 1620) intersected with the erection of the renewed Marian Column on Old Town Square in Prague (the original Baroque column was demolished after the fall of the Habsburg monarchy on 3 November 1918). These two events were marked by a significant resonance in the media. The article evaluates how the Catholic, Protestant and Hussite Churches or the journalism not tied to the ecclesiastical structures reacted to these controversial events. It demonstrates the impact of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th century on contemporary religious controversies and on ecumenical endeavours, media propaganda and historical consciousness in the 21st century.

Keywords: Bohemian Revolt – Battle of White Mountain 1620 – Historical Consciousness – Czech Republic – Catholics – Protestants – Hussites – Ecumenism

In the second decade of the 20th century, a large number of events took place in the Czech Republic, which commemorated the “milestone” anniversaries of significant events and personalities. Selected (jubilee) topics from history from the Middle Ages to the 20th century, including their relationship to the present, were illuminated from various perspectives in the form of books, popularisation treatises, lectures, television, radio and film programmes. The aim was not only to popularize history and new historiographical perspectives, but also to prevent the decline of elementary knowledge of the past, which is happening as a result of unsatisfactory teaching of history in primary and secondary schools and the declining interest of younger generations in systemic reading. In 2020, an exceptional situation arose, not only for the reason of the pandemic and the subsequent limitation of public events and contacts. The combination of two controversial topics was essential. The first of them was the 400th anniversary of the Battle of White Mountain (the defeat of the Protestant Bohemian estates by the armies of Emperor Ferdinand II and the Catholic League, 8 November 1620) and with it also the complex of problems connected with the onset of a harsh government course by the Habsburgs and the violent re-Catholicization of the majority of the population of the Czech lands. The second, entirely current event was (immediately after the issuance of an official permit from 23 January 2020) the erection of the renewed Marian Column on Old Town Square in Prague, where the original Baroque column had stood in 1650–1918, which was demolished as a symbol of Habsburg rule on 3 November 1918. These two events were marked by a significant media resonance, into which diverse religious and political positions, prejudices and old as well as newly arising stereotypes were projected.
The article analyses the opinions, which came from the milieu of the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren and the Czechoslovak Hussite Church; it, however, also takes into account journalism, which is not connected with denominations or ecclesiastical structures. The most significant negative response was on the part of the Evangelicals, whose predecessors (Unity of Brethren and the Neo-Utraquists) were most affected in the period around 1620 and who see humiliation, shame and even the danger of a new wave of re-Catholicization in the renewed Marian Column.
The Catholic party, which achieved a significant success through the erection of the column – after many years of unproductive negotiations – sought to avoid triumphalism in its official speeches; however, even in the calls for reconciliation, it was clear that considerable differences persisted in the interpretation of religious symbolism and the meaning of its presentation.
The Czechoslovak Hussite Church took a moderate mediating stance. The members of the Ecumenical Commission for Czech History of the 17th Century came closest to mutual understanding. On the fringes of discussions about the anniversary of White Mountain, however, interesting stimuli were born for research into the history of the 17th century, coming mainly from the social sciences.
The Berection of the new Marian Column in the Centre of Prague enabled the Catholic Church to control part of the public space in a highly exposed place, where the symbols of non-Catholics had gained dominance during the 20th century. At the same time, it complicated the relationships between the Churches, which was also reflected in the contradictory interpretations of the conflict history. The Jubilee events in 2020 demonstrated that the struggles between the Catholics and Protestants in the 17th century still have a strong influence on the current religious controversies and limited ecumenical efforts, media propaganda and historical consciousness in the 21st century. It is apparent that the two basic lines of the interpretation of Czech history – essentially a Protestant and Catholic one – are alive and invoking their claim to presentation in public space.

Zahájení „české války“ v kontextu vládního bankrotu roku 1615 … s. 893
(The Beginning of the „Bohemian War“ in the Context of the Government Bankruptcy of 1615)

This study deals with the issue of the new tax law, which was adopted by the Bohemian Provincial Assembly in 1615. In the older literature, this is interpreted as a strategic mistake and weakness of the Bohemian estate opposition, which voluntarily gave in to the emperor’s request and approved the collection of high taxes to repay the monarch’s debts for 5 years (1616–1620). Based on the preserved sources, the author arrives at a different interpretation and considers the decision of the Provincial Assembly a form of state bankruptcy, which devalued part of the credit assets of a wide range of the monarch’s creditors who did not have Bohemian citizenship. The Provincial Assembly, as the state body controlled by the estates, seized the monarch’s land and established its own central tax office, whose task was to collect current taxes and older arrears (since 1597) and subsequently to use this money independently of the monarch’s financial institutions in accordance with budget appropriation of taxes. As a result, the royal court was cut off from most revenues from Bohemian taxes, which until then formed a decisive part of the court’s income. The author considers these circumstances to be one of the main reasons that led the elected heir to the throne, Ferdinand of Styria, to begin a military campaign in Bohemia in the summer of 1618. His main goal was to control financial resources; the religious-political crisis and the defenestration of the Bohemian governors in May were a suitable pretext for this intervention aimed at the control of economic resources of the Czech Lands.

Keywords: Kingdom of Bohemia – 1615 – Tax System – State Bankruptcy – Indebtedness – Thirty Years War – 1618

Based on surviving sources, the author concludes that the main goal that led the elected heir to the throne, Ferdinand of Styria, to begin a military campaign in Bohemia in the summer of 1618, was to control the country’s economic resources. The religious-political crisis and the defenestration of the Bohemian governors in May 1618 were a suitable pretext for this intervention aimed at the control of economic resources. Taking into account the development over a longer time span, the author formulates arguments for setting this new interpretative paradigm. It dates back to 1615, when a major economic reform took place in Bohemia. The author calls this „government bankruptcy“, because in connection with the change in the budget allocation of taxes, part of the credit assets of many sovereign creditors who did not have Bohemian citizenship were devalued. The Provincial Assembly, as the state body controlled by the estates, seized the monarch’s land and established its own central tax office, whose task was to collect current taxes and older arrears (since 1597) and subsequently to use this money independently of the monarch’s financial institutions in accordance with budget appropriation of taxes. As a result, the royal court was cut off from most revenues from Bohemian taxes, which until then formed a decisive part of the court’s income.
Around 1615 there was a very intensive struggle for control of the Bohemian tax system. Both sides were well aware of its significance; this is also evident from the introduction of new complex control mechanisms. Complex administrative measures, which were tied to the possibility of payouts from tax revenues, also demonstrate a deep distrust in the management of collected taxes even among the estates (or among its interest groups), where in previous years there were large frauds and never explained losses. The new methodology of payouts, secured by several levels of control, was supposed to remedy the situation.
The approval of the new form of the tax system for a longer period in this form clearly declared the intention of the estates to stabilize the broken credit system, not allow further hidden indebtedness of the country and to completely prevent the outflow of funds from Bohemia abroad.
The hidden intention was to ensure the payment of receivables to a selected group of creditors, in the form of an extraordinary tax burden on all classes of the population. In 1615, representatives of the entire political spectrum of politically influential personalities (for the most part also the monarch’s creditors) regardless of confession were able to agree on this. However, without more detailed economic analyses it is not yet possible to say whether the contemporary Bohemian economy was able to bear such a high tax burden in the long run.
The struggle for economic resources in Bohemia in the years 1616–1618 was as intense as clashes of religious denominations. With the establishment of a new tax office controlled by the estates as a permanent institution in 1615, the connection of the tax system to the main royal tax office (Bohemian Department of the Court Chamber) was effectively removed and the institutions controlled by the estates took full control of both tax collection and the subsequent distribution of tax revenue. The collection of newly approved taxes was primarily intended for the repayment of „land debts“ (which arose in the past as a result of decisions of the Provincial Assembly), followed by the payment of part of the claims of the monarch’s creditors. However, the circle of these creditors was limited to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Some of the eligible creditors were to be repaid in successive instalments in years 1616–1620, the rest of the creditors sometime later in the future. Repayment of receivables from other persons outside the Bohemian environment was refused by the Provincial Assembly. The proceeds from the sovereign estates continued to be dedicated to repayment of the monarch’s domestic debts, and the monarch rights to dispose with these assets were limited until all debts were paid. The author calls these relatively drastic economic measures „government bankruptcy“. After this decision of the Provincial Assembly, a substantial part of government bonds remained without any guarantees of financial performance and temporarily became a worthless piece of paper or
This temporary situation was understandably mandated by the current political situation. In the years 1616–1618, the situation began to deteriorate fast. So far, the main attention was dedicated to the confessional circumstances of this struggle, i.e. the efforts to unify the religious denomination of the Bohemian territory, as this process took place in the neighbouring Roman-German Empire. In this, the pre-White Mountain Bohemian environment refused to adapt to the imperial conditions. The Bohemian Charter on Religious Freedom was conceived differently; its ideas were not compatible with the principles of Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinist confessionalization.
So far, it has not been the subject of systematic research to what extent the contemporary significant increase in tensions in the Czech society caused general pressure to collect high taxes, and to what extent it was an internal struggle for control of these economic resources between religious and political groups. The resolution of the Provincial Assembly of 1615 was used by the opposition estates as a tool to completely control the country’s credit and monetary system. Most estates considered the admission of Archduke Ferdinand to the Bohemian throne in 1617 to be less of a danger than the threat of direct confrontation, which was already then threatened by Spain in the event of the rejection of Habsburg succession. Ferdinand’s pre-election promises to preserve the rule of law were considered by the opposition to be a sufficient guarantee of the long-term preservation of the status quo. The current legal situation guaranteed the Bohemian estates not only unusually extensive religious freedoms (the Charter of 1609), but also long-term control over the national budget policy and tax revenues (new tax system of 1615).
In the author’s opinion, it is necessary to fundamentally reconsider the interpretation of the 1615 decision of the Provincial Assembly on taxes, by which it gave up its main political instrument – approval of taxes. This is considered by the current domestic and foreign historiography as a positive gesture towards the ruler. On the contrary. With a well-thought-out setting of the budget appropriation of taxes and control mechanisms, the Bohemian estate community gained a powerful economic tool, which it used immediately after the political crisis of 1618. This was possible precisely because already in 1615 the Assembly approved a decision, according to which the Bohemian estates could use all the tax revenue of the country (without any exception) to finance the estates‘ military.
The author also takes these circumstances into account in the broader interpretation of the causes of the military escalation of relations between Ferdinand of Styria (as the elected heir to the Bohemian throne) and the opposition Bohemian estate community during the summer of 1618. That is, at a time when, after defenestration, the Bohemian estate community (with the contribution of international diplomacy at the level of electors and other imperial princes) tried to reach a diplomatic solution to the contemporary political crisis, which was sought by the power group around the emperor led by Melchior Khlesl.
However, for Ferdinand of Styria the political agreement with the Bohemian estates in 1618 made no sense. Even after a possible diplomatic solution to the disputed religious issues, which escalated in 1618 by defenestration, the Bohemian estate opposition would continue to fully control the decisive economic resources of the kingdom and almost no money would flow from Bohemia to the Habsburg treasury.
The successor to the throne, Archduke Ferdinand, who had dominated Habsburg politics since the coup d‘etat at the Vienna court in July 1618, opted for a military solution, even though at that time the Bohemian estates were at a power advantage. However, this action has a certain logic. If a political agreement was reached in the current situation and Ferdinand of Styria would eventually take over the Bohemian royal crown after Matthias, the country would continue to be governed by the opposition estates. They controlled all the main sources of royal income: taxes, sovereign property and the production of money. Ferdinand II would only be the titular king, who would receive from Bohemia only as much as given as a benevolence by the estates. This certainly wouldn’t be much, because the debts of the Matthias era would have to be repaid for many more years. This was „insured“ by a resolution of the Provincial Assembly of 1615.
By overthrowing the governor’s government, the Bohemian estate opposition provided Archduke Ferdinand with a sufficient pretext to try to take control of the economic resources of the Kingdom of Bohemia by power intervention. It was a great risk, but with the knowledge of Spanish political and material support, he took it. This is because it has become possible to relatively quickly solve a problém that he would otherwise have to face for a very long time in the future: The problém was the long-term sovereign credit crisis, on whose solution the Bohemian estates refused to participate. Ferdinand of Styria opted for a military intervention, whose primary aim was to control economic resources, not an intention of recatholicization. It was decided upon much later.
The fact that it was a fairly well-thought-out project is proven by the speed with which changes were made in the country’s monetary and property structure after the defeat of the estates, that is the changes in property came before the denominational changes. This was fully demonstrated in the form of a fundamental change in the proprietary and monetary situation in 1621–1623, in which the older debts of the royal chamber were annulled (with the exception of a small number of creditors who during the war were clearly on the side of the Habsburgs), the property of the real and suspected opposition was confiscated (land assets and credit assets) and the monetary system was devalued by artificially induced high inflation.

BŮŽEK Václav
Falcká diplomacie mezi Heidelberkem, Mnichovem a Prahou na počátku českého stavovského povstání … s. 964
(Palatinate Diplomacy between Heidelberg, Munich and Prague at the Beginning of the Bohemian Revolt)

The opponents of Catholicism in the Holy Roman Empire already took an interest in the religious opinions and political positions of the non-Catholic nobility in the Kingdom of Bohemia in the first decades of the 17th century. Among them, the Electors of the Palatinate occupied a decisive place, who transformed their seat in Heidelberg into a centre of Calvinism and leading the Protestant Union. A few years before the outbreak of the Bohemian Revolt, the Elector of the Palatinate Frederick V sought to ensure that his diplomats established personal ties with the main representatives of non-Catholic estates in the Kingdom of Bohemia, because he expected them to support the Union’s anti-Habsburg policy. After the Prague defenestration, he used his diplomats to find a non-violent solution to the religious conflict between the Bohemian non-Catholics and the Habsburg monarch. The decisive role of power in his diplomatic considerations was played by the Duke of Bavaria Maximilian I. Although he temporarily disbanded the Catholic League, his residence in Munich remained a solid pillar of Catholicism in the Holy Roman Empire. Before the outbreak of the Bohemian Revolt, the political communication between Heidelberg, Munich and Prague was most significantly influenced by the governor of Upper Palatinate Christian I of Anhalt-Bernburg, whose steps were followed by Ludwig Camerarius and Achaz von Dohna. Despite the gaps in the preserved sources, it was possible not only to recognise the individual steps of the mentioned Palatinate diplomats and their influence on
the political decision-making of the main representatives of the non-Catholic estates of the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Duke of Bavaria but through a discursive and semantic analysis of the diplomatic documents also to look into their thought-world.

Keywords: Palatinate – Bavaria – Kingdom of Bohemia – Bohemian Revolt – Diplomacy – Political Communication – Christian I of Anhalt-Bernburg – Ludwig Camerarius – Confessionalization – Political Thought

The diplomatic task of Christian I of Anhalt-Bernburg in the years before the Bohemian Revolt was to establish personal ties to the main representatives of the non-Catholic estates in the Kingdom of Bohemia, from whom the Elector of the Palatinate Frederick V expected support for the anti-Habsburg policies of the Protestant Union in the Holy Roman Empire. However, due to differences of opinion in the concept of the right to resist a monarch who violated the general good in the country, the intended cooperation of the governor of the Upper Palatinate, the last Rosenberg ruler and other representatives of the Czech non-Catholic states ended in failure. As a consequence, approximately three years before the Prague defenestration, their communication network disintegrated. The former intelligence role of the courtiers, scholars and preachers of a Calvinist mind was subsequently taken over by professional diplomats and agents of the Elector of the Palatinate with their own information channels.
After the Prague defenestration, the effort of the Palatinate and the hesitant Protestant Union was to prevent a violent solution to the religious conflict between the Bohemian non-Catholics and the Habsburg ruler. The Elector of the Palatinate feared the spread of unrest from the Kingdom of Bohemia to the Holy Roman Empire, where the fragile religious balance was based on the still valid principles of the Augsburg Peace. In search of ways to a non-violent settlement of the religious affairs in the Kingdom of Bohemia, he sought allies in his blood-relative, the Duke of Bavaria, who had temporarily disbanded the Catholic League two years before the outbreak of the Bohemian Revolt. After the Prague defenestration, he closely monitored the movement of military units on the Bohemian-Bavarian border, because, like the Elector of the Palatinate, he did not hide his fear that the appearance of non-Catholic estates of the Kingdom of Bohemia would escalate into a war in the Holy Roman Empire. A possible religious war would disrupt the “deutsche Libertat”, confirming to the imperial estates the independent exercise of a number of ancient rights in the territory of their power without the consent of the emperor, including the free decision of faith. Despite the mutual confessional differences, Frederick V long promoted Maximilian’s possible imperial election, because he saw in his political actions after the outbreak of the Bohemian Revolt a power guarantee of a compromise solution of the conflict and the protection of the peace in the Holy Roman Empire.
In line with the foreign policy of the Palatinate and the Protestant Union, the efforts of Palatinate diplomats between Heidelberg, Munich and Prague after the Prague defenestration aimed to seeks ways to prevent a violent resolution of the religious conflict between the Bohemian non-Catholics and the Habsburg monarch, in which precisely the Duke of Bavaria played one of the decisive power roles. From the spring of 1618, reports of the Palatinate diplomat Ludwig Camerarius addressed to Wilhelm Jocher came to his Munich residence. The secret council of the Duke of Bavaria compiled written background materials from his relations, which he passed on to Maximilian I.
Ludwig Camerarius repeatedly tried to explain to Wilhelm Jocher the complex religious causes of the Prague defenestration from a non-Catholic point of view. The detailed explanations of the roots of the multi-denominational milieu in the Kingdom of Bohemia, the legal framework of freedom of faith and fears of the outbreak of religious war in the Holy Roman Empire were in terms of argumentation based on his profound knowledge of Bohemian church history, the Letter of Majesty and texts of both apologies of the non-Catholic estates. The form of religious polemics selected by the two humanistically educated lawyers differing in confession clearly revealed the main feature of Camerarius’s political thinking, which was the natural right of man to free choice of faith, which no ruler can destroy by force. With these views he was close to the Dutch humanist, lawyer and theologian Hugo Grotius. In several letters addressed to Wilhelm Jocher, he based his arguments on Latin references to his theoretical considerations in clarifying the reasons leading to the non-Catholic estates of the Kingdom of Bohemia to conflict with the Habsburg monarch, who suppressed their legally confirmed religious freedom.
Based on current knowledge of the sources, it can be assumed that Camerarius’s views on the religious nature of the Prague defenestration and its consequences sent to Wilhelm Jocher were the main source of knowledge about the attitudes of Czech non-Catholic estates for Maximilian I. Although he probably did not understand their actions very well, because he could not perceive the differences in the legal frameworks of freedom of faith applied in the Holy Roman Empire and the Bohemian Kingdom, he ruled out at the beginning of the revolt Bavaria’s direct interference in the conflict between Bohemian non-Catholics and the Habsburg ruler. Despite political pressure from the Viennese court and the King of Spain, who urged him to take military action against the non-Catholic estates in the Kingdom ofVBohemia and their foreign allies, he insisted on his original position unless the appearance of Bohemian non-Catholics weakened Catholicism in the Holy Roman Empire and threatened the local religious balance. His lack of interest in diretly interfering with the conflict between non-Catholic estates and the Habsburg monarch in the Kingdom of Bohemia coincided with the goal of Palatinate foreign policy after the Prague defenestration, which Ludwig Camerarius clearly advocated in his letters to Wilhelm Jocher.
As soon as Frederick V unexpectedly accepted the St Wenceslas Crown, Maximilian I did not hide fears of strengthening the influence of the Protestant Union, so he decided in October 1619 to renew the activity of the Catholic League to protect the Catholic faith in the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy. Alongside the newly elected Emperor Ferdinand II, he was preparing for a military campaign against the non-Catholic estates of the Kingdom of Bohemia, whose conflict with the Habsburg monarch had grown beyond its original religious dimension to the political level after the removal of the elected king. When the Palatinate idea of its non-violent solution fell apart, the first stage of Palatinate diplomacy between Heidelberg, Munich and Prague was concluded in November 1619. At the same time, the correspondence between Ludwig Camerarius and Wilhelm Jocher was ended.

Prestiž, násilí a zápas o veřejný prostor. (Konflikty při slavnostech Božího Těla v rudolfínské Praze roku 1605) … s. 1000
(Prestige, Violence and the Struggle for Public Space. /Conflicts at the Corpus Christi Celebrations in Rudolphine Prague in 1605/)

The testimonies of several eyewitnesses of the conflict over the prestigious role of the baldachin bearer during the liturgical procession of the Feast of the Corpus Christi, which took place between two Italian nobles in 1605 in Prague, allow a detailed analysis of its course. Its interpretation is placed in the context of the importance of public space, which at the beginning of the 17th century in the multi-confessional milieu of the city with the imperial seat became a place of a struggle for influence between the Catholic minority and the non-Catholic majority.

Keywords: Nuncio – Confessionalisation – Prague – Public Space

The Feast of Corpus Christi on 12 June 1605 in the Prague Church of St. James led to an unpleasant event. Two Italian aristocrats, Giovanni Ambrosio Doria and Giovanni Antonio Spinola, came into a conflict with one another over who would carry one of the poles of the baldachin in the liturgical procession over the head of the celebrant of the Mass, who was the papal nuncio at the imperial court. The mall dispute over honour, which ended with an injury to one of the actors on the cheek and a general panic in the church, came to be in a number of letters from foreign diplomats and other reporters. A significant negative news valence was added to this event by the circumstances that accompanied it, because it took place in a sacred space during an extraordinary church celebration, and moreover in the presence of the then Catholic social elite, including a number of foreign diplomats. Detailed information on the course of the conflict and its causes is revealed in newly found interrogation protocols, taken with the individual witnesses of the event. These make it possible not only to accurately reconstruct the genesis of the conflict and its course, but also to identify the roles and motivations of the main actors. The event is well grasped not only in itself, but also in a broader context with the perception of public space. The extraordinarily festive celebrations of the Feast of the Corpus Christi played a significant role in this. At the beginning of the 17th century, they served both as an important self-identification and selfpresentation festivity of the Catholic minority and as its important means in the struggle for influence in public space in multi-confessional Prague.

Role šlechty v utváření evangelické církevní organizace v Čechách a na Moravě před rokem 1620 … s. 1018
(The Role of the Nobility in Shaping the Evangelical Church Organisation in Bohemia and Moravia before 1620)

Based on the edited accessible Evangelical church orders issued between 1520 and 1620 for the Bohemian and Moravian noble estates, the study analyses the role of the nobility in both crown lands in the shaping of the evangelical church organisation. It deals with the building of a higher level of evangelical ecclesiastical administration on the estates of reformminded aristocrats. It devotes greater attention to the role of the nobility in the efforts for the constitution of the new evangelical organisations, which emerged in some parts of Moravia in the last third of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries and affected a wider territory. The impulse for these endeavours in Moravia was the decline of the power of the Prague Utraquist consistory. In the case of the Kingdom of Bohemia, the study notes the efforts of the non-Catholic estates to renew supervision over the consistory, which they had lost in the middle of the 16th century and were only able to regain in 1609.

Keywords: Kingdom of Bohemia – Margraviate of Moravia – Reformation – Nobility – Ecclesiastical Administration – Evangelical Church Orders

In those territories of the Holy Roman Empire where the princes joined the Lutheran Reformation, new evangelical churches were formed in close connection with the monarch’s government. On the contrary, the Habsburg rulers were Catholics, who in both crown lands sought to prevent the spread of corrective religious ideas and efforts to reform the church. For that, they utilised also supervision of the Utraquist consistory, which had been the highest body of the Utraquist ecclesiastical administration since the Hussites, and which they by gradual steps managed to gain in their influence in the middle of the 16th century. The Bohemian non-Catholic estates reacted to that with efforts to return to their traditional rights, which included a share in the election of the administrator or the appointment of the estates’ defensors as defenders of the consistory, which they only managed to do in 1609.
The text of the ecclesiastical order prepared for the renewal of the consistory, which built on the earlier norm written down in connection with the struggles for a Bohemian confession in 1575, also reflected the situation when their noble owners in fact decided on the religious conditions on the aristocratic estates, hence on approximately three-quarters of the Kingdom of Bohemia, because the sovereigns in Bohemia managed until 1609 to defend the consistory from the influence of the estates and prevent its transformation into the central organisation of evangelical administration, but only at the price of resignation on the possibility to influence the conditions on the estates of the aristocratic supporters of the Reformation.
It was precisely in the boundaries of their estates that some Bohemian and Moravian aristocrats built a higher level of evangelical ecclesiastical administration, which stood above the individual parish priests and was subject to a clergyman labelled as an elder, superintendent or dean. In Moravia, where the influence of the Prague consistory declined at the latest at the turn of the second and third thirds of the 16th century, several attempts were made to constitute new regional evangelical organisations, which had the ambition to cross the borders of the individual aristocratic domains and integrate the supporters of the Reformation from a wider territory. The study focuses on the experiments of deans in Uherský Brod and Velké Meziříčí, who tried to create such an organization in the last quarter of the 16th century. An important role in this process was played by the nobility, whether it was the owner of the estate, on which the centre of the deanery lay, or the surrounding domains, where clergy who belonged to such an organisation worked. Evangelical church orders and other sources counted on the support that the nobles would provide to the organisation, and at the same time relinquish some of their competencies arising from the possession of patronage law (these passed to the dean and the variable number of elders who together embodied a higher level in the hierarchy of such an organisation).
Before the radical transformation of the religious conditions in both lands, which took place after 1620, there were three such organisations in southeast, southwest and north Moravia for various lengths of time; they depended on the support of the aristocratic owners of the estates on whose territory they operated, but at the same time they sought to build the formal independence of the evangelical church structures from secular power.


Echoes of the Revolt of the Bohemian Estates 1618–1620 at the Courts of Pomeranian Dukes … s. 1064
(Ohlas českého stavovského povstání 1618–1620 na dvorech pomořanských vévodů)

The article aims to show the reaction of Pomeranian dukes of the Griffin dynasty (Francis I, Philipp Julius and Bogislaw XIV) to the revolt of the Bohemian estates in the initial phase of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1620). The paper deals with the diplomatic conditions in which Pomeranian dukes operated and which they had to take into account, and with the internal problems of Pomerania, which strongly influenced the decisions made by the last Griffin dukes. The article presents the Griffins’ position on the Bohemian-Habsburg conflict.

Keywords: Thirty Years’ War – Bohemian Revolt 1618–1620 – Pomerania – Griffin dynasty

Článek je věnován vztahu pomořanských vévodů z dynastie Griffinů, reprezentujících linii štětínskou (František I., Bogislav XIV.) a wolgastskou (Filip Julius), k českému protihabsburskému povstání. Pomořanští vévodové se dozvěděli o povstání velmi brzy, neboť první zprávu o událostech v Praze dostali již v červnu 1618. Z českého hlediska jim situaci osvětloval list českých stavů, kteří zdůrazňovali náboženský základ konfliktu s Habsburky. Griffinové se snažili zachovat v počínající válce neutralitu, ale zároveň se připravovali (zvláště František I.) na možný širší konflikt a posílili stálé pomořanské vojsko na 8000 pěších a 1500 jezdců.
Obavy pomořanských vévodů byly posíleny patenty císaře Matyáše z 27. října 1618 a 19. února 1619, které jednoznačně obviňovaly české stavy z narušení řádu v římsko-německé říši. Smrt císaře Matyáše v březnu 1619 a narůstající strach ze vstupu Rzeczypospolité do války na straně Habsburků zvyšovaly pocit vnějšího ohrožení Pomořanska. Griffinové byli zpraveni o součinnosti českých povstalců se sedmihradským knížetem Gáborem Bethlenem a o operacích českého a sedmihradského vojska v Rakousích. Nekompromisní stanovisko císaře Ferdinanda II. k českým poddaným, obviněným ze vzpoury a zrady (císařské patenty z 27. listopadu a 3. prosince 1619) přesvědčily pomořanské vévody o nevyhnutelnosti války na říšském území. Stále komplikovanější vojenská a politická situace, spojená s odporem pomořanských stavů proti placení daní na udržování stálé armády, přinutily jak Františka I., tak i Filipa Julia zachovat v česko-habsburském konfliktu neutralitu.
Přesto Griffinové jakožto protestanti zůstali horlivými stoupenci mírového a kompromisního řešení konfliktu, které by respektovalo stavovská práva a autonomii českých zemí v rámci habsburské monarchie, stejně jako náboženskou svobodu. Pomořanští vévodové dokonce rozvinuli vlastní diplomatickou iniciativu, směřující k smírnému řešení české otázky. Avšak nekompromisní pozice císaře Ferdinanda II. a přestoupení saského kurfiřta Jana Jiřího I. na katolickou stranu zbrzdily tuto mírovou iniciativu (léto 1620). V nové situaci, se zřetelem k propuknutí války mezi katolíky a protestanty na říšském území, se pomořanští vévodové snažili za každou cenu zachovat neutralitu, aby uchránili svá území (vévodství Štětín a Wolgast) a své poddané před ničivými důsledky války.

České stavovské povstání v německých tištěných novinách z let 1618–1620 … s. 1079
(The Bohemian Revolt in German Printed Newspapers from 1618–1620)

In the study, the image of the Bohemian Revolt in newspapers, anonymously issued in the vicinity of Frankfurt am Main by the influential postmaster Johann Birghden, is analysed. He endeavoured to print reliable reports, and therefore drew not only from the relations written down by the reporters residing in Prague or Vienna but also in the letters of those who were staying in Česke Budějovice, Rudolfov or directly in the field camps of the enemy armies. He modified the messages he obtained only minimally. Thanks to this, the original version was preserved in them, in which some informants identified with the emperor’s policy, while others praised the approach of the Bohemian estates. From a thematic perspective, the bulk of the reports focused on the preparation, conduct and consequences of the war operations, whereas another important group of news described civil policy, which included diplomatic and parliamentary negotiations, the conclusion of alliances, as well as significant events at the sovereign courts.

Keywords: News of the 17th Century – Printed Newspapers – Communication in the Early Modern Period – Bohemian Revolt – Battle of White Mountain – Saxon Elector John George I

The study is devoted to the image of the Bohemian Revolt in a series of printed newspapers, which have been preserved in the collections of the Saxon State Archive in Dresden (Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden). The newspapers themselves are introduced first, which are remarkable for the regularity with which they were issued as well as the amount of reliable information that they made available to their readers. Although they came out anonymously and did not even state the place of their publication in 1618–1620, the author was able to identify their originator, who was Johann Birghden. This postmaster began publishing newspapers in Frankfurt am Main as early as 1615, but for several years he could not fully claim them due to disputes over the privilege of printing them. However, he still managed to gather very knowledgeable news from Europe’s leading news centres.
Although Johann Birghden attempted to inform the readers about events in all the parts of Europe, in 1618 he noticed the interest with which the Bohemian Revolt was observed. He therefore began to reserve extraordinary space for it in his printed newspapers and printed reports from informers residing not only in Vienna or Prague but also in Česke Budějovice and Rudolfov or directly advancing with the armies. Two editions of this newspaper from 1618 have been preserved in the former archive of the Saxon electors in Dresden. Both came from the autumn of 1618 and offered several different views of the ongoing uprising. Whereas the reporters from Vienna expressed the opinion that the rebellious Bohemian estates leaned towards some agreement with the Habsburg monarchs, the Prague observers did not deal with the peace negotiations at all and described the military operations in Austria.
The preparation and conduct of the military campaigns also became the crucial themes of the reports in 1619. Practically every newspaper provided reports on the movements of the armies and their further plans. The second important topic of the printed reports was the diplomatic negotiations, in the description of which it however came out that the Bohemian non-Catholic lords had long managed to hide their plan to elect Frederick of the Palatinate King of Bohemia. Only the third, relatively marginal theme of the newspapers of Johann Birghden was the various sensational tales and stories. The newspapers examined maintained the same palette also in 1620, in which the study focuses predominantly on the period round the Battle of White Mountain. It proves that before this decisive battle many expected a serious conflict to come soon, but they underestimated its reach. The printed newspapers brought a great deal of information about the Battle of White Mountain and especially about the occupation of Prague, which the period observers considered crucial. The vast majority of the information came from the victors, who emphasised their success. However, Johann Birghden also printed several reports from those who were deeply discouraged by the development after the Battle of White Mountain and believed that there could still be some reversal of fortunes.


Recenzní článek

Historický atlas měst České republiky – 25 let práce, 30 vydaných svazků. (Ohlédnutí a zamyšlení nad dvojím jubileem) … s. 1112
(Historical Atlas of the Towns of the Czech Republic – 25 Years of Work, 30 Volumes Issued. /Looking back and Thinking about the Double Jubilee/)

The treatise recapitulates the origin and twenty-five-year history of the publication of the Historical Atlas of the Towns of the Czech Republic, appreciates the work of its editorial board and scientific editorial staff. It evaluates the thirty volumes published in the context of a pan-European project of the historical atlases of towns coordinated since 1968 by the International Commission for the History of Towns. It considers the conception and perspective of the Historical Atlas of the Cities of the Czech Republic in the next stage of its publication.

Keywords: History of Towns – Cartography – Czech Republic – Historical Atlas of the Towns of the Czech Republic – Commission for the History of Towns

In 2019, the Historical Atlas of the Towns of the Czech Republic (Czech acronym: HAM ČR) reached its thirtieth volume. This volume devoted to the town of Polička was issued precisely 25 years after the Czech Republic was included among the states that had joined the pan-European project of historical atlases of towns, initiated by the International Commission for the History of Towns in 1968. This was made possible by a change in the political conditions after 1989, and previous efforts for international cooperation in the field of urban history and for the publication of an atlas of cities had no chance of success in the conditions of the totalitarian regime. Since the establishment of the atlas series in 1995, the issuance of HAM ČR has been guided by the editorial board in its unchanged composition (Peter Johanek, Eva Semotanová, Lubomír Slezák, František Šmahel, Josef Žemlička) and the editorial staff group has been just as stable headed by Eva Semotanová. The members of the editorial staff group Josef Žemlička and Robert Šimůnek are also members of the Atlas Working Group (AWG) at the CIHV/ ICHT, which ensures the compatibility of the Czech atlas series with the pan-European project. The continuity and dynamics of the publishing (at least one volume of the atlas is published each year) means HAM ČR is in the group of successfully implemented national atlas programmes. This is proved by an overview of published volumes (see Table 2 in the text) as well as a brief comparison with the programmes of the town atlases in Germany, France, Austria or Poland. In 2012, the HAM ČR received international recognition at the conference of the European Association of Urban History (EAUH) and at the simultaneously held General Assembly of the CIHV/ICHT in Prague. The accompanying exhibition of the atlas works then enabled a direct visual comparison of the town atlases from more than a dozen European countries. However, thirty published volumes of HAM ČR (for their overview, see Table 3 in the text), made cartographic, geographical and iconographic sources accessible only for a small part of historically important cities in the Czech lands. The editors of the atlas series face a conceptually, methodologically and technically demanding task of making available the source files of dozens of other municipalities, including the capital city of Prague, the Moravian provincial cities of Brno and Olomouc, the city and industrial centre of Ostrava and many others. Making the most efficient use of the possibilities of modern digital and electronic technologies and publishing atlas works via internet map portals seems to be a viable way to master this task. However, not even the almost limitless possibilities of modern technology will relieve the archivists, historians and historical geographers of the burden of demanding heuristics and nor will it replace the necessary fundamental share of their inventive and conceptual thinking.


Dějiny Španělska … s. 1130
(Sixtus Bolom-Kotari)

Ladislav HLADKÝ et al.
Czech Relations with the Nations and Countries of Southeastern Europe … s. 1133
(Ondřej Vojtěchovský)

Samantha KAHN HERRICK (ed.)
Hagiography and the History of Latin Christendom, 500–1500 … s. 1139
(Peter Bučko)

Michal TÉRA
Kyjevská Rus. Dějiny, kultura, společnost … s. 1143
(Martin Šenk)

Śląski mikrokosmos. Studia nad Księgą henrykowską … s. 1146
(Vratislav Vaníček)

Jan Lucemburský. Otec slavného syna … s. 1152
(Zdeněk Žalud)

Der Kaisersohn und das Geld. Freigebigkeit und Prachtentfaltung König Johanns von Böhmen (1296–1346) … s. 1156
(Lenka Bobková)

Der Kaisersohn und das Geld. Freigebigkeit und Prachtentfaltung König Johanns von Böhmen (1296–1346) … s. 1161
(Ivan Hlaváček)

Nürnberg als Kunstzentrum des Heiligen Römischen Reichs.
Höfische und städtische Malerei in der Zeit Kaiser Karls IV. 1346–1378 … s. 1165
(Ivan Hlaváček)

Andrzej MARZEC
Pod rządami nieobecnego monarchy. Królestwo Polskie 1370–1382 … s. 1168
(Martin Nodl)

Dariusz WRÓBEL
Na pierwszym planie. Możni i szlachta polska wobec bezkrólewia
po śmierci Ludwika Andegaweńskiego … s. 1168
(Martin Nodl)

Jan Žižka. Život a doba husitského válečníka … s. 1174
(Pavel Soukup)

Martin HOLÝ – Michaela HRUBÁ – Tomáš STERNECK (Hg.)
Die frühneuzeitliche Stadt als Knotenpunkt der Kommunikation … s. 1178
(Olga Fejtová)

Obraz šlechtického panství v Čechách 1500–1750 … s. 1183
(Jiří Kubeš)

Biblický humanismus Jana Blahoslava.
Překlad Nového zákona z roku 1564/1568 a jeho kontext … s. 1187
(Eliška Baťová)

Nadine AKKERMAN (ed.)
The Correspondence of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia … s. 1190
(Jaroslav Pánek)

Tumulte – Excesse – Pogrome.
Kollektive Gewalt gegen Juden in Europa 1789–1900 … s. 1196
(Daniel Baránek)

Brigitte MAZOHL – Christof AICHINGER (ed.)
Die Thun-Hohenstein’schen Universitätsreformen 1849–1860.
Konzeption – Umsetzung – Nachwirkungen … s. 1201
(Jiří Pešek)

Jindřich DEJMEK a kol.
Československo. Dějiny státu … s. 1204
(Antoine Marès)

Die Stunde der Laien? Katholische Aktion in Deutschland im europäischen Kontext 1920–1960 … s. 1208
(Jaroslav Šebek)

Vítězslav SOMMER a kol.
Řídit socialismus jako firmu. Technokratické vládnutí v Československu, 1956–1989 … s. 1211
(Jan Slavíček)

Václav BŮŽEK (ed.)
Dílo Josefa Petráně a současná historická věda.
Pocta Jihočeské univerzity českému historikovi … s. 1215
(Svatava Raková)

Jaroslav PÁNEK a kol.
Český historický ústav v Římě. Stav a perspektivy ediční činnosti … s. 1219
(Alena Pazderová)

Zprávy o literatuře … s. 1224

Z vědeckého života | Chronicle

Knihy a časopisy došlé redakci … s. 1251

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků … s. 1251