Charles IV. Holy Roman Emperor

The Restoration of the Czech "Montsalvage". The Question of Karlštejn's Restoration in 60.-80. of the 19th Century
This study should present the way of perception of the castle Karlštejn in Czech milieu of the sixties and eighties in 19. century, in time of expressive public political and cultural emancipation of the Czech society. The castle is possible to present in wide context. In that time new political programm of the Czech land representation is created. One of their new political conception basic requirement was confirmation of historical rights of Czech Kingdom. A symbolical confirmation of Czech rights should have been the coronation of Austrian monarch by St. Wenceslaus crown. The sanctity of the crown that should be the most important in the ceremony was transferred to the castle which was meant to be built as a home for the Czech coronation jewelry.  But the bad condition of Karlštejn could not allow to take it as historical symbol of the Czech kingdom. The coronation and restoration of the castle could have been started at the end of eighties of 19th century, when there was a better political and economical situation. The project of the restoration made architect Friedrich Schmidt from Vienna. There was a fight about the ethnic origin of a founder or a builder of the castle during dealing about the castle restoration. We can find nationalist motives on both sides, the Czech a the German too. The perception of the castle Karlštejn in time before his restoration presents special symbolical meaning that has the castle in historical consciousness of a new forming society.

The Emperor and King Charles IV (1316-1378) represents today an untouchable monument in Czech history, carved into the marble of admiration and clichés. Although a new and thorough study of his reign is yet to be written, it is nevertheless useful to introduce Charles IV from a new perspective. In many regards, historical research has already brought new findings, and thus we are now able to shed new light on both his life and his reign. This book interprets the actions of Charles IV as a ruler in the context of his era, allowing us to see, to a great extent, the course of his reign in a different light, considering the impossibility of judging a historical figure by contemporary moral standards. The historian’s task, as was already aptly expressed by Marc Bloch, is not to judge the historical players, but to try to understand their actions in the context of their epoch.

The first part of the book is framed as a chronological description of Charles’ life, contextualizing the analysed topics in the broader Luxembourg era. The second part offers a closer look into Charles IV’s style of government while focusing on phenomena which, we argue, reveal more about his conception of the exercise of power, allowing us to better understand his reign and historical legacy.

History represents a constant dialogue between the present and the past, and it is precisely in this context that we must observe the current image of Charles IV, considered both by historians and the public to be a very successful statesman. Researchers have lately tended to present the Luxembourg sovereign in a purely positive, practically non-problematic light, particularly in the narrative of 14th century art history, which has been portrayed as a story of a cultural flourishing which emanated from the centre, i.e. the imperial court. This book instead critically examines this relatively well-established conviction, revealing the different forms of Charles IV’s self-presentation which strongly affect the popular and expert interpretations of his rule to this day. The individual chapters thus concentrate on essential and symptomatic topics of this sovereign’s reign.

The advantage of elaborating on Charles IV’s life and reign is the fact that many documents have been preserved from this era. This is especially true of works written at his court or personally commissioned by him, reflecting not only Charles’ positions and political views, but most importantly, openly expressing the ideology of his royal court. We possess more sources on Charles IV and his reign than on any other medieval king of Bohemia, a fact which is convenient for the historian, but also naturally raises his suspicion and requires his caution; many of these sources have obviously been created especially to convince the reader of Charles IV’s exceptional role in history. Therefore, it is only with great caution that we refer to them, while trying to discover the context of their creation.

The book does not only represent a new biography of the medieval sovereign; it is rather a study of the key elements of Charles’ life and reign, revealing a great deal about the ideas on which his programme was based. However, we must not forget the fact that Charles’ reign is not only a chronicle of success and elaborate political developments, but on many occasions included failure and strategic change. Thus, this book focuses on the most characteristic manifestations of Charles’ execution of royal power, already established as symbolic of his personality in his own lifetime.

The spectrum of interpreting Charles’ rule and its symbolic dimension extends from particular decrees to the very delicate nuances of public self-presentation which gave his reign an indispensable effect. Our observations of Charles IV as emperor and king are contextualized within his broader life and reign, a perspective which reveals the changes and nuanced accents over the course of his rule. This is the monograph’s key contribution to a better understanding of the environment in which the idealised image of the Emperor and King Charles IV, surrounding us even today, was constructed.

In the Old Royal Palace in the Middle Ages and early Modern Age cycles of rulers evolved, the idea of which was to confirm the legitimacy of the ruling monarch.
Around 1360 Charles IV, after being crowned Emperor in Rome in 1355, had a large cycle of world rulers placed in the Throne Room. Two inscriptions found on the south side designated the panel paintings of Emperors Leo IV and Charles III the Fat. According to this it is possible to determine that the cycle ran clockwise and probably began next to the entrance to the hall on the north side. The basis for its compilation was probably a list, stored now in the Třeboň archive (A 7). The panels, possibly 104 in all, were of a similar size to the panel paintings in the Holy Cross Chapel at Karlstein Castle and possibly also executed by Master Theodoricus and his workshop. During the construction of the Vladislav Hall the cycle vanished, but a new one was created elsewhere, evidently in 1502 by a painter named Hans, perhaps Hans Elfelder. The cycle was placed in the antechamber of the Royal Apartment in the west wing of the Palace and represented Czech rulers, beginning with Přemysl the Ploughman. It perished following the fire in 1541, but we know of it from the codex created by order of Jan Zajic of Hazmburk (ONB, Cod. 8043). In 1548 Paolo della Stella, the architect and sculptor of King Ferdinand I, proposed the renovation of this cycle in the Vladislav Hall, where the cycle was to be bordered by the symbols of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The splendid design, comprising forty rulers and a hundred figures in the vaulting, was not adopted for financial reasons and in its place a greatly reduced cycle was started in 1561, consisting of perhaps only seventeen monarchs on the west facade of the wing of the New Office of the Land Rolls. Because of improper technique, the work was stopped before it was even completed and the paintings were whitewashed over. Subsequent proposals for the interior of the Old Diet were not realised either and so the Palace remained without its cycle of rulers. It was not until the arrival of Rudolf II in the new Castle Palace that there were several cycles, but these comprised emperors only.

The University Library in Bologna possesses a plan dated circa 1626, by the Florentine architect and military engineer Giovanni Pieroni, concerning proposed fortification with a contemporary survey of Vyšehrad castle, drawn in particular detail in the area of the ruined former royal acropolis prior to its Baroque redevelopment to a fort, providing a valuable glimpse of the earlier constructions. Additionally the plan depicts elements not revealed from the archaeological excavations, comprehensively published in 2004–2015. Also prospects by the Dutch draftsmen, Roelandt Savery and Paulus van Vianen, who worked in Prague at the court of Rudolph II, are equally valuable for the topography of Vyšehrad. These documents help to interpret other known iconographic sources, mainly the two Sadeler’s prospects from 1606, and depict the royal acropolis in greater detail. They also bring new knowledge of its layout in the period of Charles IV and Wenceslas IV, especially regarding the questions about its gates and palaces.

St Vitus' s Cathedral, founded in 1344, is a prime example of 14th-century cathedral Gothic, a product of the cooperation between the ingenious architect Peter Parler and his patron, Emperor Charles IV. The unusual layout consisted of a pair of choirs set side by side in the eastern section of the cathedral, an arrangement inspired by the earlier Romanesque double-choir basilica. One was dedicated to St Vitus and was used by the canons, the other to the Virgin Mary and operated by the mansionars. The royal and imperial necropolis was placed in the latter of the two choirs, with Charles IV's tomb-chest protected by a sculptured canopy and surrounded by the cenotaphs of deceased family members and later kings and queens. The form of two choirs is probably the result of an extensive rearrangement of the earlier project completed in the 1350s, when initial plans to locate the royal burial ground in the canons' choir were abandoned. The main choir contained a tabernacle of remarkable design, dating from c. 1365. There may originally have been plans for a third choir to be built around the tomb of St Adalbert located in the middle of the nave, the work on which was initiated in 1392.

Charles IV was born at a time when the worst ever famine of the last
millenium peaked. His life and reign were dominated by an unprecedented burden imposed upon European society by a worsened climate, crop failures, frequent floods, desolation of the countryside and the Black Death. At the same time, the Czech Lands experienced a remarkable cultural blossoming, primarily under the baton of the sovereign and his court, alongside a phase of territorial acquisitions and a stabilisation of his political power. The author searches for an answer to this seemingly contradictory nature of those times and outlines what the contemporaries had to say about it. Indeed, Charles IV might seemingly have led his life isolated from the crisis-ridden day-to-day normality of his times. Yet, he was repeatedly a direct witness to extreme natural events, which shook the society of his time to the core and posed unusual and extraordinary challenges to it. This study merges the findings from the fields of political history, cultural history and the history of piety with the results of scientific and climatic research. It, thus, aims to give us an insight into the somewhat contradictory personality of Charles IV.

"The deepest degradation of the imperial authority to an empty title by the promises of its head to seek the approval of his person by the Pope before his entry into Italy, to appear in Rome for the coronation for only one day, but then to leave the city and never enter again a country of the Church, aroused the contempt of all people still thinking great," Ferdinand Gregorovius summed up over 100 years ago the results of the Italian policy of Charles IV in a devastating way.
Two elements justified the judgement of the great Italian researcher of the second half of the 19th century: on the one hand the disdain for Charles, on the other hand the idea that in the Late Middle Ages the monarchical top of the empire in Italy, in contrast to the heyday of the High Middle Ages, no longer played a role.
The negative image of Charles IV as "Pfaffenkönig" has been largely revised in the meantime, which is by no means a claim for the second element. The Italian policy of the late medieval Roman-German rulers is still a little cultivated field of research with many open questions and problems.
Unlike in the High Middle Ages, especially among the Ottonians and Staufern, this country played only a marginal role in imperial politics since the interregnum around the middle of the 13th century. This is the prevailing opinion. The rulers usually only visited it once for the coronation of the emperor, and apparently they no longer pursued long-term political concepts there.  Even the Italian trains themselves are difficult to see through. Continuities, parallels and sometimes fascinating insights only emerge on closer inspection.
***
„Die tiefste Entwürdigung der Reichsautorität zu einem leeren Titel durch die Zusagen ihres Hauptes, vor seinem Eintritt in Italien die Billigung seiner Person durch den Papst nachzusuchen, in Rom nur einen Tag lang zur Krönung zu erscheinen, dann aber die Stadt zu verlassen und kein Land der Kirche jemals wieder zu betreten, erregte die Verachtung aller noch großdenkenden Menschen“, so vernichtend resümierte Ferdinand Gregorovius vor über 100 Jahren die Ergebnisse der Italienpolitik Karls IV.
Zwei Elemente haben das Urteil des großen Italienforschers der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts begründet: zum einen die Geringschätzung Karls, zum anderen die Vorstellung, im Spätmittelalter habe die monarchische Spitze des Reichs in Italien im Gegensatz zu den Glanzzeiten des Hochmittelalters keine Rolle mehr gespielt.
Das Negativbild Karls IV. als „Pfaffenkönig“ ist inzwischen weitgehend revidiert, was man für das zweite Element keineswegs behaupten kann. Die Italienpolitik der spätmittelalterlichen römisch-deutschen Herrscher ist nach wie vor ein wenig beackertes Feld der Forschung mit vielen offenen Fragen und Problemen.
Anders als noch im Hochmittelalter, besonders unter den Ottonen und Staufern, spielte dieses Land seit dem Interregnum um die Mitte des 13. Jh. in der Reichspolitik nur noch eine marginale Rolle. So lautet die herrschende Meinung. Die Herrscher suchten es meist nur ein einziges Mal für die Kaiserkrönung auf, langfristige politische Konzeptionen verfolgten sie dort scheinbar nicht mehr. Auch die Italienzüge selbst bergen sind schwer zu durchschauen. Erst bei näherer Betrachtung ergeben sich Kontinuitäten, Parallelen und bisweilen faszinierende Einblicke.

A gloriously illustrated volume that looks at the remarkable armor of a key Habsburg commander and its relationship to contemporary Renaissance fashion

This sumptuously illustrated book celebrates a curious masterpiece of German Renaissance art--the Landsknecht armor of Wilhelm von Rogendorf (1523). Recently conserved to its original glory, this magnificent suit of armor, made for a trusted courtier, diplomat, and commander of infantry units for the Habsburgs, deceives the eye: the steel sleeves drape in graceful folds, with cuts in the surface, suggesting the armor is made from cloth rather than metal. The author of this fascinating volume explores the question: why does the armor look this way?

Stefan Krause delves back five centuries to the political, social, and cultural context in which von Rogendorf lived. Among other key venues in the Holy Roman Empire, this story takes the reader to the court of Emperor Charles V in Spain and to Augsburg, the leading center of armor making, where Rogendorf was introduced to the court armorer of Charles V, Kolman Helmschmid (1471-1532). Helmschmid was famous for his inventive and masterfully sculptured works, and this book elaborates on his unique contributions to the history of armor, and how and why von Rogendorf's suit was informed by contemporary fashion.

The book is avaiable in English (Sept. 2017) and in German:
http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300230864/fashion-steel
https://shop.khm.at/shop/detail/?shop[showItem]=100000000030726-1901-0&cHash=ce7a904dd48e30fb9200ec2ab2fc8349

Anne of Bohemia died in 1394, and her husband Richard II and the kingdom of England mourned her loss.  At her grand funeral in August of that year, there was a physical altercation between the Earl of Arundel and Richard II, resulting in the King spilling blood on holy ground.  The funeral had to be stopped and the sanctuary purified.  Yet, out of all the chroniclers to remark upon her funeral, only Thomas Walsingham reports this dramatic incident.

Historians have never considered Anne of Boehmia to be a political queen.  Her marriage and her occasional role as intercessor caught the attention of chroniclers, but she lived a relatively silent life.  Ironically, in Walsingham’s works, Anne’s funeral became a flashpoint of the political conflict between her husband and his nobles.  This conveys the impression that the queen’s absence had more effect on the political scene than her living presence.  This paper will explore the life of Anne of Bohemia in surviving narratives and financial documents and attempt to place her and her role as queen in the context of her time.  The Queen’s dead body had no power to enact her agenda, but an inability to act did not render her inert or something easily ignored.  The disparity between the coverage of the living Anne’s political side and the politicization of the exequies for her corpse must be investigated.

"This study analyses the chapters on the journey of the emperor Charles IV to Paris (1377-1378), which are part of the Grandes Chroniques de France. It follows the critical insights offered by Heinz Thomas, Françoise Autrand and Anne D. Hedeman, putting
forward specific objectives of this source. The approach regarding these chapters as a “protocol fiction” and a highly political document emphasizing the grandeur of France against the Holy roman Empire, makes possible to distinguish the perspective of the Emperor from that of the French Court, to reconstruct Charles's attitude to some specific events (i.e. his entry to Paris, festivities of the Epiphany, oaths of allegiance) and to establish a more equilibrated image of the Emperor's visit to France."

Bauch, Martin, Hegemoniales Königtum jenseits von Politik- und Verfassungsgeschichte. Zur sakralen Herrschaftspraxis Karls IV., in: Reinle, Christine (Hg.), Stand und Perspektiven der Sozial- und Verfassungsgeschichte zum römisch-deutschen Reich. Der Forschungseinfluss Peter Moraws auf die deutsche Mediävistik, Affalterbach 2016 (Studien und Texte zur Geistes- und Sozialgeschichte des Mittelalters, 10), S. 97-110.

The Monastery of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre in Zderaz in Prague, was one of Prague's oldest monasteries. At the same time, however, due to its destruction in 1420 it is one of the least preserved and thus the least known about. The Order originated in Jerusalem, where after the conquest of the city by the Crusaders in 1099, the Duke of Lorraine, Godfrey of Bouillon, appointed a chapter of canons at the church of the Holy Sepulchre whose purpose was to protect and worship the Holy Sepulchre. This was transformed into a regulated order by the Patriarch Arnulf of Chocques in 1114 and governed by the Canons Regular. Soon afterwards the order began to spread to Europe, where it gained favor as well as richly endowed houses, one of the more significant of which was the monastery founded in Miechów near Krakow in 1163. Its layout, with the convent located on the northwest corner of the monastery church, evidently influenced such a similar arrangement in Prague.
Due to relatively rich surviving written sources, several of the Zderaz monastery's construction campaigns can be explored. The monastery was founded around 1190 at the church of St. Peter by the members of the North Bohemian Hrabišic family, the brothers Kojata and Všebor. Kojata bequeathed his considerable fortune before his death to the monastery in 1227, as did Všebor sometime before 1238, when the two church altars were consecrated. The establishment of the altars was probably related to the construction realized through Všebor's bequest, probably carried out earlier and finally drawn up in 1238. From 1256 there are dated documents conferring numerous indulgences for the benefit of the monastery; the income from these indulgences was associated with further construction which culminated in 1276 with the consecration of the new chorus together with the altar under the name of the Holy Sepulchre and St. John the Baptist. Relics of the Holy Cross and the Holy Sepulchre were placed into the altar of the choir, which in 1270 was referred to as a costly work. Given that the church had been dedicated to St. Peter, the dedication of the new choir to the Holy Sepulchre may be interpreted as for a new choir, on the west side.
According to Baroque historians, the sacristy and a fragment of the presbytery from the church still stood in 1715, in the vicinity of the cloister which lay to the west of the church, which supports the presumption of the western orientation of the choir. A western orientation and the dedication to the Holy Sepulchre, the only one in medieval Bohemia, would have reflected the Order's focus on homage to the location proving the resurrection of Christ. In the 1390's, the church was apparently repaired from damage that occurred around 1278 or 1286. This may be the period of origin for stone fragments found in the Baroque church which was demolished in 1904–1905. Around 1361, the monastery cloister was rebuilt, inside which the chapel of Corpus Christi was located. The chapel was mentioned in 1391, when a stonemason named Henzlin was referred to as a witness and who might have participated in the construction of some part of the monastery. Another event relating to the monastery church, which in 1410 was mentioned as "decrepit with age", was probably completed in 1415, when the altar of Corpus Christi and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, founded in the year 1408, was moved to the newly built part of the church. Since the brotherhood caring for the construction of the chapel of Corpus Christi on Karlovo náměstí had a close relationship with the Zderaz monastery, in which the decision was made in 1382 to build that chapel, it is not impossible that the reconstruction of the monastery church took place with the participation of the builder of the chapel, consecrated sometime before 1408. From the entire complex, today a part of the northern wing of the cloister is preserved, incorporated into the dwelling house No. 275/II as three very narrow arcade arches. Research in 1954–1955 revealed brackets of former groin vaults which have parallels in the adjacent Benedictine monastery Na Slovanech which was built at the same time. A noteworthy detail of the vaulting were dividing ribs of semi-circular profile, perhaps as an imitation of an older model from the c. 1238 construction campaign. Until 1905, a part of the adjacent eastern wing of the cloister and a great portal from the 14th century still existed, the latter now preserved only in fragments, facing northwards from the cloister, perhaps towards the former church. A closer comparison with the preserved church of the women's branch of the order in Světec near Bílina does not provide unequivocal results, neither does an analysis of the alleged medieval appearance of the Zderaz church published in 1797.
The community followed the liturgy, introduced in the early 12th century directly at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, as illustrated by a manuscript dating from around 1385, preserved in the University Library in Wroclaw (I Q 175). The manuscript belonged to a monastery in Silesian Nysa which was subordinated to Zderaz before the Hussite wars and to where the Prague community took recourse, which is how the manuscript got to Poland. The calendar of the manuscript, containing many feast days of the Bohemian patron saints, was written sometime around 1385 and was used in Bohemia even in the 90's, when newly announced feast days were added. The manuscript is the latest known version of a number of similar liturgical books compiled after the fall of Jerusalem (1187) in Acre and during the 13th and 14th centuries in Europe for the monasteries of Canons of the Holy Sepulchre. These religious houses followed the liturgy preserving the situation of Jerusalem during the Crusades in detail, as demonstrated by the rubrics determining how to carry out the celebrations of Palm Sunday and the Easter festivities, including the play of the Visit to the Tomb (Visitatio Sepulchri) in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, counting with a visit to Calvary. This play, staged at Zderaz apparently in the western choir, thus extends the list of known performances played in medieval Prague (St. George, St. Vitus, Knights of St. John Monastery). The significance of the finding that the manuscript was used in Prague also lies in the fact that it was apparently this unusual Jerusalem liturgy which inspired the Emperor Charles IV to found the Benedictine monastery, following the old Slavonic liturgy, in the very vicinity of the Zderaz monastery, supplemented later by the monastery of the Milan Benedictines, which followed the (also unusual) Ambrosian liturgy.

Unlike studies that base their interpretation of a work on the representational and power strategies of a sovereign or ruler, this article focuses on a structure's liturgical function. It nevertheless begins by outlining the structural history of the Frauenkirche and its builder. An analysis of written sources, the building, and the iconography of its decorations reveals that research has to date overestimated the emperor's role. This is in no way inconsistent with the fact that the structure's architectural layout and the function of its individual elements point to a long tradition of imperial representation. This is especially true of the entrance hall, which, when considered in connection with the emperor's coronation tour in 1355, can be regarded as a unique medieval citation of a Classical triumphal arch. These symbolic elements are consistent with the kind of representational strategies that were employed by imperial cities, which were naturally focused on the person of the emperor. The chapel can be interpreted as a project that reflects both Charles IV's interest in Nuremberg and the political and cultural identity of the city's patriciate. This study also examines the chapel's decorations from the perspective of their function in the sacred space and concludes that the church represents a textbook example of decorations being determined by liturgical rules. However, it also has an original and multi-layered, theologically conceived iconographic programme. Its central theme is the arrival of Christ and it operates on two levels: first, the figures of the first human couple, the Israeli kings, and patriarchs and prophets on the outer portal and the allusion to Christ's origin, with the figures of Joachim and Anna and Mary and Joseph, combined with the representation of the story of his birth on the inner portal serve to situate the Advent of Christ within the history of salvation. Second, the relief depicting the Sacrifice in the Temple makes it possible to form a direct link between the image and a ritual act. At the centre of this liturgy is Christ's arrival in the temple. The symbolic advent of Christ, the Eternal Sovereign, could thus in the eyes of townspeople act as a reference to the ceremonial arrivals of Holy Roman King and, from 1355, Emperor Charles IV. And the same associa- tion could also then certainly work in reverse.

Celem niniejszej pracy jest przedstawienie relacji i samego stosunku Karola IV Luksemburskiego do ogółu czeskiej szlachty. Za punkt wyjściowy i główne źródło posłuży nam autobiografia cesarza, w polskim wydaniu zatytułowana Liber de Gestis Meis.

Bauch, Martin, Der schwarze Reiter. Die Funeralzeremonie Karls IV. im europäischen Kontext, in: Ders.; Burkhardt, Julia; Gaudek, Tomáš; Žůrek, Václav (Hgg.), Heilige, Helden, Wüteriche. Herrschaftsstile im langen Jahrhundert der Luxemburger, Köln; Wien 2017 (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J.F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii, 41), S. 43-60.

This volume celebrates the remarkable scholarly career of medieval historian John Van Engen with eighteen exceptional essays contributed by Van Engen’s colleagues and former doctoral students, a group that includes some of the best established scholars of the Middle Ages as well as leading younger ones. Together, their work reflects the wide-ranging but coherent body of John Van Engen’s own scholarship.

In a section on Christianization, Ruth Mazo Karras explores medieval marriage, Lisa Wolverton offers a new model of the Christianization of Bohemia, R. I. Moore examines the historiography of the Cathars, and Christine Caldwell Ames links the inquisition with medieval and modern concepts of popular religion. Under the rubric of twelfth-century culture, Maureen C. Miller uses eleventh-century Roman frescoes to rethink reform, Jonathan R. Lyon unpacks Otto of Freising’s notions of advocacy and tyranny, Rachel Koopmans traces testimonial letters associated with the cult of Thomas Becket, Dyan Elliot deliberates on the importance of what she calls counterfactual, or alternative, realities in twelfth-century thought and literature, and Giles Constable traces manifestations of the cross in monastic life.

Three essays study Jews and Christians in society. Susan Einbinder probes the connections between martyrdom, politics, and poetry in thirteenth-century Castile, William Chester Jordan traces anti-Judaism in the Christina Psalter, and David C. Mengel highlights the significance of urban space for Jews in fourteenth-century Prague and Nuremberg. Lastly, contributors explore topics in late medieval religious life, a special focus of Van Engen’s scholarship. Walter Simons edits and analyzes a letter defending beguines in the Low Countries, William J. Courtenay traces the effects on pastoral care of papal provisions to university scholars, and James D. Mixson reinterprets the fifteenth-century treatise Firefly. An essay by Marcela K. Perett looks at vernacular anti-Hussite treatises, Daniel Hobbins employs a fifteenth-century Italian story about Antichrist to consider hearsay, belief and doubt, and Roy Hammerling contemplates Martin Luther’s understanding of himself as a beggar.

“Christianity and Culture in the Middle Ages: Essays to Honor John Van Engen is a thrilling collection, both wide-ranging and informative. The contributions are well-structured, well-argued, and comprehensive in bibliography and source materials—a welcome volume to celebrate the work of John Van Engen." — Anthony Lappin, National University of Ireland, Maynooth

“Christianity and Culture in the Middle Ages is a fitting tribute to one of America’s leading medievalists by his former students and other distinguished colleagues in the fields that Van Engen has investigated. The essays are wonderfully conceived and well executed to show the wide-ranging influence Van Engen has had on the interpretation of medieval Christianity and Judaism from the twelfth-century context of his early work to the late medieval world of his recent studies. The volume has an unusual unity and compelling narrative flow for a collection of essays by different authors." — Paul Freedman, Chester D. Tripp Professor of History, Yale University

“The editors of Christianity and Culture in the Middle Ages: Essays to Honor John Van Engen have succeeded in producing a very fine volume. Most of the contributions honor John Van Engen by referring in various ways to his work. A remarkably large number are well written, original, thoughtful, and trenchant.” — Robert E. Lerner, Peter B. Ritzma Professor in the Humanities, Northwestern University

“Here is a collection as multifaceted as the scholar it honors. John Van Engen came to prominence as a force for renewal in the study of medieval religious and intellectual culture. How well he succeeded is written on every page by luminaries of his generation to rising stars of the future, many his former students. Every medievalist will find something of value here. Highly recommended.” — James Murray, the Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University

ISBN: 978-0-268-03533-4
E-ISBN 978-0-268-08686-2
552 pages
Publication Year: 2014

Die Existenz des Wenzel-Kultes bei der vom Kaiser Karl IV. zu 1355 gegründeten Marienkapelle kann sowohl durch schriftliche Quellen, als auch durch Bildwerke belegt werden (Allen voran ist die monumentale Statue des heiligen Fürsten im Presbyterium der Kirche zu nennen). Dennoch begegnen wir in der entsprechenden Sachliteratur vielen Unklarheiten oder sogar Kontradiktionen. Zunächst wenden wir uns der Frage des Patroziniums des Wenzel-Altars zu. Der Konsekrationsurkunde zufolge wurde dieser Altar am 25. Juli 1358 zu Ehren des St. Wenzel geweiht, darüber hinaus der Heiligen Georg, Veit, Vinzenz, der Zehntausend Märtyrer, Maria Magdalena, Barbara, Margarete, Katharina, Helene und der Elftausend Jungfrauen. Durch die Nennung des St. Wenzel an erste Stelle ist die übliche Benennung des Sakralbaues geklärt. Schon seit Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts trat aber der Name des böhmischen Heiligen allmählich zurück; gleichzeitig kommt ein bislang nicht erwähnter Altar zu Ehren der St. Barbara vor. Viele Forscher zogen daraus den Schluss, dass es um zwei verschiedene Altäre geht. Diese Vermutung hielt eingehendem Studium der schriftlichen Überlieferung nicht stand (Besitz des Patronatsrechts zum Altar), wir konnten im Gegenteil zeigen, dass es sich lediglich um einen Altar handelt.
Gerade von diesem Altar berichtet die Urkunde vom 21. April 1361, wo wir der einmaligen Formulierung begegnen: danach sei die Kapelle gegründet und ausgestattet zum Lob der erlauchten Maria und zu Ehren des heiligen Märtyrers Wenzel (ad laudem gloriose virginis marie et ad honorem sancti martiris Wenceslai fundata et dotata.). Aufgrund dieser Quelle kommt manchmal im Namen der Kapelle das Wenzel-Patrozinium neben dem marianischen vor. Diese Erwähnung kann aber unmöglich als Beleg eines verbündeten Wenzels- und Maria-Patroziniums gedeutet werden, denn eine solche Wendung kommt weder in der Gründungsurkunde, von in den sonstigen Kaiser, Bischofs- oder anderen Urkunden vor. Aus dem Zusammenhang der Urkunde (hier wird die Begründung des Vikariats bei dem Wenzel-Altar bestätigt) ergibt sich, dass der Name des St. Wenzel an dieser Stelle als der Name des Patrons eines der Kapellenaltäre vorkommt.
Die Blüte des Wenzel-Kultes hängt mit der Person Karl IV. eng zusammen, vor allem mit der Geburt seines Sohnes, des künftigen Königs Wenzel IV., am 11. April 1361 in Nürnberg. Es dauerte aber nicht lange an. Schon in den letzten Jahren der Regierung des Kaisers begann das Ansehen des böhmischen Heiligen in Nürnberg zu sinken. Einen beredeten Ausdruck dieses Wandels stellt auch die Umbenennung des Wenzel-Altars auf Barbara-Altar dar.

Untersuchung der Darstellung heiliger Könige auf Burg Karlstein mit Fokus auf der Frage, ob dort vier Heilige Drei Könige dargestellt werden. Erste Überlegungen, ob sich die Beobachtung durch den hl. Erik von Schweden oder eine Darstellung des Priesterkönigs Johannes lösen lässt. Bitte diskutieren Sie auf dem BLog mit!

Small paper asking if in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Karlstejn Castle, there are depicted four of the Magi - and discussion of possible explanations of this, involving St. Erik of Sweden and Prester John. Feel free to join the discussion on the blog!

The paper uncovers the role of trial by poison in the representation of the power of the Luxembourg dynasty. After the death of Emperor Henry VII, the contemporaneous sources reported poisoning a few days after the Emperor had passed away, with a great outrage. In my study, I intend to explore how the death of Henry VII affected the dynastic memory and
the representation of the family. Furthermore, I also intend to focus on how Holy Roman Emperors Charles IV and Sigismund of Luxembourg reflected on the attempts on their lives and what was the role of trials by poison in their representation of power.

Ve svém příspěvku bych se ráda zaměřila na jeden aspekt maleb emauzského cyklu, který v mé knize 1 nebyl dostatečně akcentován, a to na vztah námětů maleb a případně jejich rozmístění k liturgii. Tímto neodmítám předchozí ikonografické výklady či interpretace vztahu maleb a fundátora kláštera. Ale naopak se pokusím dokreslit komplexní vyznění koncepce celého cyklu a zejména jeho fungování v rámci klášterní komunity. Jak jsem se již pokusila dříve ukázat, zcela podstatné pro interpretaci cyklu je jeho umístění v křížové chodbě kláštera. 2 Tato část kláštera patřila do klauzury a měla pro život komunity naprosto zásadní význam. Ambit je totiž spojnicí a hlavní komunikací mezi jednotlivými částmi kláštera, kudy mniši museli během dne mnohokrát procházet. Avšak nejen to. V ambitu samém se odehrávala řada činností. Mohly to být úkony všední, jako praní prádla či umývání. Což souviselo s obvyklou přítomností studny v rajském dvoře. (Bohužel v Emauzech nemáme archeologicky studnu doloženu, ač víme, že v podloží kláštera jsou přítomny prameny.) Ale v ambitu se mohly odbývat i jiné pracovní úkony. Ambit díky dobrým světelným poměrům mohl být také místem povinné mnišské četby, modlitby či cestou, kudy procházela různá liturgická procesí. Jak tomu bylo v Emauzském klášteře konkrétně, nevíme. Bohužel žádný konsuetudinář se nezachoval. Obecně se samozřejmě i emauzští hlaholáši řídili řeholí svatého Benedikta. 3 Nemusili ji mít přeloženou, neboť byli jistě bilingvní a mohli dobře používat i originální latinskou verzi. 4 Překlad do církevní slovanštiny známe jen z chorvatské redakce, uvažuje se však i o tom, že jiný překlad mohl vzniknout také na Sázavě v 11. století, ale doklady o tom nejsou. 5 Co se týče mešní liturgie, mniši se řídili římským misálem, respektive jeho variantou užívanou v pražské diecézi. Jasným dokladem této praxe je Remešský evangeliář

in: Bütow, Sascha; Riedel, Peter; Tresp, Uwe (Hgg.), Das Mittelalter endet gestern. Studien zur Landes-, Kultur- und Ordensgeschichte. Heinz-Dieter Heimann zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2014 (Studien zur brandenburgischen und vergleichenden Landesgeschichte, 16), S. 144-161

Book synopsis: At a congress in Prague in 2006 during the exhibition about Charles IV, more than 40 international academics presented a panorama of court art and culture from Paris to Krakow, from the German Empire to northern Italy, Avignon and Castile, covering a period from around 1300 to 1440.

Bauch, Martin, Et hec scripsi manu mea propria – Known and unknown autographs of Emperor Charles IV as testimony of self image and intellectual profile, in: Barret, Sébastien; Stutzmann, Dominique; Vogeler, Georg (eds.), Ruling the Script in the Middle Ages: Formal Aspects of Written Communication, Turnhout 2016 (Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy, 35), Turnhout 2017, S. 25-46.