Material Culture and Daily Life in the New City of Prague in the Age of Rudolf II.

MATERIAL CULTURE AND DAILY LIFE
IN THE NEW CITY OF PRAGUE
IN THE AGE OF RUDOLF II
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND VI
James R. Palmitessa
MATERIAL CULTURE & DAILY LIFE
IN THE NEW CITY OF PRAGUE
IN THE AGE OF RUDOLF II
KREMS 1997
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER KULTURABTEI LUNG
DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Cover illustration: Detail of the New City of Prague from the Sadeler
engraving of 1 606. The nine-part copper etching measuring 47.6 x 3 1 4 cm.
is one of the largest of any city in its day. It was a cooperative project of a
three-person team belonging to the !arge and sophisticated group of artists
at the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague. Aegidius Sadeler, the imperial
engraver, commissioned the project and printed the copper-etching which
was executed by Johannes Wechter after drawings by Philip van den
Bosche. In the center of the illustration are the ruins of the Church and
Cloister of Mary of the Snow (item no. 84). The broad thoroughfare Na
pfikope (•im Graben􀈖), item no. 83, separates the Old City (to the left) from
the New City (to the right). To the right of the Church and Cloister of Mary
of the Snow is the long Horse Market (today Wenceslaus Square), item no.
88. The New City parish church Sv. Jind.ficha (St. Henry) can be located just
above the church and cloister (item no. 87).
-ISBN 3-901094 09 1
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung
der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters. Körnermarkt 1 3 , A-3500 Krems,
Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren
ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht
gestattet ist. Druck: KOPITU G.m.b.H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8- 10. A – 1 050
Wien.
Table of Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1. Introduction . . . … … . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. The New City of Prague . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 26
1.3. The Structure & Function of the New City Prague
Burgher Hausehold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.4. The Range and Hierarchy of Choice . . … . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . 78
1.5. The Bohemian Renaissance on the Horse Market . . . . . . . . 110
1.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 137
11. The Anatomy of House & Horne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
II. 1. Reconstruction of Physical Structures and the
Street Landscape . . . . . …. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143
II.2. Localization of Households and Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
II.3. Reconstruction of House 1nteriors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
II.4. Figures . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . . 176
Il.5. Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . … . . . . . 190
Abbreviations . . . ….. …. . . . . . . …. …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . .. . 273

Foreward
This study is a shortened version of a doctoral dissertation
accepted by the Department of History, New York University, in
the Spring of 1995, entitled House, Home & Neighborhood on the
Eve of White Mountain: Material Culture and Daily Life in the New
City of Prague, 1547-1611.
Research and writing of th1s dissertation were supported by
grants from the International Research and Exchanges Board
(IREX) and the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS).
I would like to thank R. Po-chia Hsia, my mentor, to whom I
owe my largest intellectual debt. Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann
provided continuous feedback, especially from the perspective of
the history of art and architecture. Christopher R. Friedrichs and
Miriam Usher Chrisman read earlier drafts and gave constructive
criticism. Virginia Reinburg has provided long-time encouragement.
Richard van Dülmen met with me early on in my research,
once in Prague and once in Saarbrücken, to discuss my sources
and perspectives. Winfried Eberhard supported my attendance at
a conference in Berlin after I had written drafts of the first
chapters which helped me pull tagether my ideas.
In the Czech Republic, I was graciously received and provided
general support by the Department of Czech and Slovak History,
and the Department of Archival Studies at the Charles University
in Prague; and the Historical Institute and the Institute for the
History and Theory of Art of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
Zdenek Hojda provided continual assistance, advice and
intercession of various kinds, which were invaluable to foreign
scholars, such as me, doing research in Prague. Jiii Kudela gave
me paleography lessons and corrected many of my transcriptions,
supposedly in exchange for English lessons (which never took
place), at frrst as a staff member of the City Archive and
continuing into the period after he joined the Office of the
President of the Czech Republic, Väclav Havel. Josef Peträii and
Jaroslav Pänek both shared with me on a nurober of occasions
their extensive knowledge of Bohemian history of the Pre-White
7
Mountain period. Lubos Lancinger provided me with files of the
State Office of Landmark Preservation as weil as access to his
handwritten notes, and assisted me through some of the tricky
tacks of historical house reconstruction. Vä.clav Buuk offered
constructive criticism on drafts of earlier chapters drawing on his
own work in material culture. In addition to these individuals, I
also benefited from discussions with Josef Janä.cek, Josef Vä.lka,
Jifi Kejf, Jifi Mikulec, Jifi Pesek, Vä.clav Ledvinka, Zdenka
Hledikovä., Noemi Rejchrtovä., Karel Maly, Zdenek Benes, Thomas
Fröschl, and Karl Vocelka.
This dissertation was undertaken between moves and places,
partly amidst the transformation and chaos following the socalled
Velvet Revolution. A sense of community was created by a
network of friends and family in the United States, Germany and
the Czech Republic: four generations of Bings (KappelGrafenhausen),
the Leibfrieds (Heidelberg and Seattle), Friedrich
and Irmgard Thiessen (Frankfurt/ Main and Buchschlag),
Stanislav and Judita Ülovec (Planä. u Mariä.nskjch Läzni), John
and Joanne Concato (New York and New Haven), the Tamirian
family (Allendale), and my parents and sister (Cliffside Park).
My wife, Gabriela Ülovcovä.-Palmitessovä., put up with my
charts, graphs, and constant complaining. Little did she know
when she frrst met me that she would be forced to leave the idyllic
setting of her native Bohemian forest to go to Brooklyn, Flint and
beyond.
Lastly, I would like to give special thanks to Gerhard Jaritz of
the Institute for the Study of Material Culture of the Middle Ages
and Early Modem Period who made it possible for this
dissertation to be published in the series Medium Aevum
Quotidianum.
8
1.1. Introduction
1. 1 . 1 . PRAGUE IN THE LATE 1 6 th AND EARLY 1 7th CENTURIES:
HABSBURG RESIDENCE, URBAN COMPLEX OF FOUR CITIES,
BILINGUAL AND MULTI-CONFESSIONAL POPULATION
During the 16th century, Prague underwent a transformation
from a small town an the eastem border of the Holy Roman
Empire to the largest city in all of central and eastem Europe, an
important Habsburg residence, and a major center of late
Renaissance culture. This transformation was initiated by the
residence in the city beginning in 1 547 of Archduke Ferdinand,
the son and regent of Ferdinand I (who had been elected frrst
Habsburg King of Bohemia in 1 527); and culminated in 1 583 with
the arrival of Emperor Rudolf II and the imperial court from
Vienna (where they remairred until 1 6 1 2). In reality, Prague was
not one but a complex of four legally independent, economically
linked cities: the Castle Hili and Small Side an the left bank of the
Vltava river, the site of the royal/imperial castle and noble
palaces; and the Old and New Cities an the right bank, the center
of commercial and artisanal life. [See fig. II.4. 1 . ] In addition to
its political stature and distinctive administrative and
topographical structure, Prague was bilingual and multiconfessional,
with native German and Czech speakers, Catholics,
Lutherans, Calvinists, Jews, Utraquists and the Bohemian
Brethren (the latter two being descendents of the Hussites).
1. 1 .2 . RUDOLFINE PRAGUE & „PRAGA CAPUT REGNr:
TWO HISTORICAL PARADIGMS OF SOCIETY & CULTURE
As with most large European cities, there is a vast secondary
Iiterature an Prague, embedded in local tradition and in national
and nationalist historiographies. Most of the Iiterature is in
Czech, but there are also important English and German
language works. Amidst the vast literature, two paradigms of the
city during the late 16th and early 1 7th centuries stand out. Seen
by contemporary chronicles and memoirs of burghers and nobles
whose stories were later integrated into the Czech national
historical tradition, Prague was Praga caput regni („Prague Capit-
9
al of the Bohemian Kingdom“), a phrase that was gilded on the
windows of the Old City Hall. As capital of the kingdom, Prague
was the central stage of events in a growing national struggle
which began in the mid- 1 5th century in the wake of the Hussite
Revolution, and which led to the defeat of the Bohemian Estates
at the Battle of White Mountain in 1621.1
The city’s central political status as capital has served as an
important framing concept for cultural developments as weil. In
the late 19th century, Zikmund Winter, the father of Czech
cultural history, wrote a series of cultural historical studies
focusing on education, commerce, industry, and church life in
Prague and other Bohemian cities in the 15th and 16th centuries.2
According to Winter, the 16th century represented „The Golden
Age“ of Czech cities, at whose head stood Prague. This golden age
was characterized by a reflourishing of guild life by Czech
artisanal masters after a century of Stagnation caused by the
dispelling of German masters in the Hussite Revolution. 3
In the same encyclopedic style and scope of Winter is the
multi-faceted and dense, twelve-volume survey history of Prague
by Winter’s contemporary, Väclav Vladivoj Tomek. Three volumes
of the Tomek history deal with the period from the Hussite
Revolution to the Thirty Years War.4
• J. Janäcek, Ceske dejiny. Doba pfedbelohorskä [Czech History. The PreWhite
Mountain Period), two volumes, Praha 1968 & 1984; W. Eberhard,
Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478-1530, München 198 1 ;
Monarchie und Widerstand. Zur ständischen Oppositionsbildung im
Herrschaftssystem Ferdinands I. in Böhmen, München 1985; J. Pänek,
Stavovskä opozice a jeji zäpas s Habsburky 1547-1 577 [Estate Opposition
and the Conflict of the Estates with the Habsburgs 1547-1577. Towards an
Understanding of the Political Crisis of Feudal Classes in Pre-White
Mountain Czech State], Praha 1982.
2 Z. Winter, Kulturni obraz z XV. a XVI. stoleti [Cultural Pictures from the
15th and 16th centuries], Praha 1889; Zivot cirkevni v Cechäch. Kulturnehistorickj
obraz z XV. a XVl. stoleti [Church Life in Bohemia. Cultural
Historical Pictures from the 15th and 16th centuries], I & li, Praha 1895 &
1 889; Remeslnictvo a zivnosti XVl. veku V Cechäch [Artisan and Trade Life
in Bohemia in the 1611′ century), Praha 1909; Ceskj pnimysl a obchod v XVI.
veku [Production and Commerce in Bohemia in the 16th century], Praha
1 9 13 .
3 Z . Winter, Zlatä. doba mest ceskjch [The Golden Age of Czech Cities],
reprint, Praha 1 9 9 1 .
4 V . V . Tomek, Dejepis Mesta Prahy (The History of Prague], Tom. 8- 12,
Praha 1883-190 1 .
10
In his day, Zikmund Winter became the center of a major
scholarly debate over competing methodologies of political and
cultural history, similar to the one in the German-speaking world
over Jakub Burkhardt. Winter and Tomek have both been
criticized for their arbitrary and ad hoc choice of sources. Their
descriptions of customs and habit seem static to us today.
Nevertheless, their work is important because of the wealth of
information and breadth of perspective they provide, drawing on
extensive sources, many of which are no Ionger available.
Contemporary Czech cultural historians, such as Jifi Pesek and
Zdenek Hojda have followed in the same path as their 19thcentury
forebears, investigating many of the same themes, but
through systematic, critical study of sources.5
Alongside the perspective of Praga caput regni and its
emphasis on Prague as the center of the nation, „Prague of Rudolf
II“ represents a second perspective of the city in the late 16th and
early 1 7th centuries. The key theme of this perspective is the
dominant influence that the imperial residence exerted on the
society, politics, religion, economy, and culture of the city. The
arrival of the imperial court in 1 583 is implicitly given as the
singular explanation for the transformation of Prague into a
cosmopolitan city and an international center of late Renaissance
culture.
The first mention of Rudolfme Prague as an important center
dates back to a small book, Pictures from the Life of Rudolfine
Prague, published in 1958, by the Czech historian Josef
Janäcek. 6 Although the book was meant more for the wider
reading public than for the professional historian, it is interesting
because of the !arger view of the city it portrays. Based on
protocol books of the professional coachmen’s guild, Janäcek
recounts stories of the men who eamed a living transporting
goods and people in and out of Prague, and portrays the city as a
vibrant and bustling community of artisans and traders who
supply the residence of the Holy Roman Emperor. In a number of
5 A summary of Jifi Pesek’s extensive studies appearing in periodic Iiterature
can be found in Mesfanske vzdelenost a kultura v pfedbelohorsky-ch
Cechach 1547-1620 (Vsedni dny kulturniho zivota) [Education and Culture
in Pre-White Mountain Urban Bohemia 1547-1620 (Daily Cultural Life)J,
Praha 1993. See note 12 for citations of Zdenek Hojda’s work.
6 J. Janacek, Obrä.zek ze zivota rudolfinske Prahy [Pictures from the Life of
Rudolfine Prague], Praha 1958.
11
scholarly studies of commerce and trade life in 1 5th and 16th
century Prague and other Bohemian cities, Janäcek pointed to
the important commercial ties of Prague with the large Southwest
German cities, especially Nurnberg.7 In Pictures from the Life of
Rudolfine Prague, Janäcek implicitly made a connection between
the imperial residence, its booming economy, and its bustling life.
While the frrst mention of Rudelfine Prague in the secondary
Iiterature is attributed to Janäcek, it was the work of the British
intellectual and cultural historian R.J.W. Evans that was seminal
in establishing „Rudolfme Prague“ as an irnportant historiographical
concept. In Rudolf II and his World, published in 1973,
Evans drew attention to the court of Rudolf II in Prague as a
major cultural center of its day.8 Evans explained the interest
and investigations into astronomy, astrology and alchemy at the
court as characteristic of a Central European, late Renaissance
culture, challenging the views of 19th-century historians who saw
these pursuits as the eccentric interests of the mentally-disturbed
Ion er, Rudolf. 9
Evans‘ book immediately brought tagether under a common
banner research in a nurober of disciplines and sub-disciplines.
Art historical research into the painting, sculpture, architecture,
and applied arts of the Bohemian Renaissance, which had been
carried out at least for the last twenty years by scholars at the Art
Historical Institute at the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences,
irnmediately found a common home at the Court of Rudolf n.10
Rudolfs Kunstkammer, located in the Prague castle, the largest
art and curiosity collection of its day in Central Europe, became a
7 J. Janäcek, Dejiny obchodu v pfedbelohorske Praze [The History of
Commerce in Pre-White Mountain Prague], Praha 1955; Remeslnä ryroba ve
ceskjch mestech V 16. stoleti, [Artisanal Production in Bohemian Cities in
the 16th century], Praha 196 1 ; „Prag und Nümberg im 16. Jahrhundert
( 1489- 1618), Der Aussenhandel Ostmitteleuropas 1450- 1650, Ingomar Bog
(Hrsg.), Köln & Wien 197 1 .
8 R.J.W. Evans, Rudolf II and his World, Oxford 1973.
9 A. Gindeley, Rudolf li. und seine Zeit 1600- 1 6 1 2, Prag 1 862-68; J.B.
Noväk, Rudolf II. a jeho pad (Rudolf II and his Fall], Praha 1935.
10 Works are too numerous to cite. See the following surveys: J. Hofejsi et
al., Die Kunst der Renaissance und des Manierismus in Böhmen, Hanau
1979; E. Fucikovä, B. Bukovinskä & I. Muchka, Kunst am Hofe Rudolf II.,
Praha 1988. See also T.D. Kaufmann (ed.), Bibiliography to Art and
Architecture of Central Europe. An annotated bibliography, Boston 1988.
12
topic of international scholarly interest.11 Other scholars investigated
the special role of the court in fostering developments in
music and science, including pioneering discoveries in astronomy
by Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe under Rudolfs patronage.l2
By the end of the 1980s, an international Rudolfine
scholarship had emerged. In 1987 appeared Josef Janäcek’s Rudolf
Il and his Day, in its breadth of perspective the most
ambitious work of Rudolfine scholarship.13 A year later, the
international conference „Prague in the Year 1600“ was convened,
bringing together scholars in the fields of history, and the history
of art and architecture;14 and the publication of two surveys of
the history of art of the period.l5
I.l.3. TRANSFORMATION OF THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF
HOUSE & NEIGHBORHOOD AS PRAGUE BECOMES RESIDENCE
CITY: DIFFUSION OF RENAISSANCE STYLES AND MüDES?
Despite the difference in focus, both perspectives have viewed
the widespread cultivation of various innovations in art,
architecture, and interior design, as the primary manifestation of
a fundamental transformation in the material culture of home
and neighborhood which accompanied the transformation of
11 T.D. Kaufmann, Variations on the Imperial Theme in the Age of
Maximilian !I and Rudolf li, New York 1978; T.D. Kaufmann, The Mastery of
Nature. Aspects of Art, Science and Humanism in the Renaissance,
Princeton, 1993, chapter 7; E. Fucikovä, „The Collection of Rudolf II at
Prague. Cabinet of Curiousities or Scientific Museum,“ The Origins of
Museums, 0. Impey & A. Macgregor (eds.), Oxford 1985.
12 Z. Horsey, Kepler v Praze, Praha, 1980; R. Lindell, „Relations between
Musicians and Artists at the Court of Rudolf II,“ Jahrbuch der kaiserlichen
Sammlungen Wien, 15/86, Sonderheft Nr. 327; J. Pesek, Mesfanske
vzdelanost a kultura (note 5); Z. Hojda, „Hudebnici Rudolfova dvora v
ubytovaci knize Male Strany a Hradcan z roku 1608“ [Musicians at the
Rudolfine Court in the Quartermaster Book of the Small Side and Castle
Hili!, Hudebni veda, 24, 1987, p. 162-67.
13 J. Janäcek, Rudolf I!. a jeho doba, Praha [Rudolf II and his Agel, Praha
1987.
14 Conference papers are collected in E. FuCikovä (Hrsg.), Prag um 1600.
Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs !I., Freven 1988
15 E. Poche et al., Praha na usvitu novych dejin. Architectura, socharstvi,
malirstvi, urnelecke femeslo ;Ctvero knih o Prazej [Prague on the Dawn of
the Modern Age. Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Artisanal Work (Fourth
Book on Prague)l, Praha 1988; E. Fucikovä et al., Kunst am Hofe Rudolfs I!
(note 10).
13
Prague, as a whole, into a Habsburg residential city. One scholar
has even talked about a symbiosis which took place in the 16th
century between the material cultures of the different Iandscapes
of the cities.l6
To explain the dynamic of these changes in material culture, a
diffusion model is commonly put forth. According to this model,
Renaissance and other innovative styles and modes were first
transmitted from Italy to Bohemia at the end of the 1 5th century
via the Hungarian court of Mattbias Corvinus. At that time,
Väclav Jagellon, then King of Bohemia, was also elected King of
Hungary. King Väclav became acquainted in Buda with the
Renaissance art of his predecessor (Corvinus), and introduced
these styles at the Prague court. During the course of the 1 6th
century, the early Habsburg rulers – Ferdinand I, Ma.ximilian II
and Rudolf II – intensively patronized and cultivated these styles
and they, subsequently, became passed on or diffused to the
nobility and then to burghers and other city dwellers. Central to
the diffusion process is the notion that city dwellers adopted or
cultivated styles and modes of the court and the nobility as a way
to compete or compensate in the changing political and socioeconomic
environment brought on by the introduction of
Habsburg rule.l7
1 . 1 .4. THE HISTORICAL AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL TENSION
BET WEEN THE CITY AND THE CASTLE
Between these two perspectives, wide differences of focus are
evident in the explanation of the nature of cultural change and its
relationship to political centralization. Rudolfme scholars have
pointed to a number of innovations in art, architecture and
interior design in noble palaces and in the homes of burghers, as
evidence of the Habsburg court’s central, almost dominant role in
the society, politics and culture of the city. These innovations
include Renaissance style windows, portals and gables; sgrafitti,
16 K. Hettes, „0 hmotne kultuze praiskeho mest‘ 16. veku􀈖 [On the Material
Culture of the Prague Cities in the 16th Century], Kniha o Praze, 1964, p.
1 97-2 14.
17 J. Bialostocki, The Art of the Renaissance in Eastern Europe, Ithaca 1976;
F. Seibt (Hrsg.), Renaissance in Böhmen, Münster 1985; T.D. Kaufmann,
Court, Cloister, and City: The Art and Culture of Central Europe 1450-1800,
Chicago 1995.
14
fashionable Italian geometric patterns on facades; furniture
enlayed with expensive wood; portraits; gold and silver jewelry
and dishware; and items from nature and the exotic. Other
cultural historians, informed by Czech national historiography,
have pointed to cultural activities originating from within the
cities, such as a thriving printing industry, book collections, the
university, parish, school and literary societies.1s Implicitly they
make the argument for an urban culture influenced by, though
largely independent from the court.
The difference in focus and explanation can be seen as arising
both out of natural, disciplinary interests, as well as from less
overt national-ideological inclinations. It is to be noted that the
predominant research on late 16th and early 17th century Prague
has been undertaken by intellectual cultural historians, such as
R.J.W. Evans and Jifi Pesek, and art historians, such as Thomas
DaCosta Kaufmann and Eliska Fucikovä. To R.J.W. Evans and
Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, „Rudolfine Prague“ is important
because it represents a special fusion of cultural elements that
were present across Central Europe. To most Czech art bistorians
and some cultural historians, „Rudolfine Prague“ is
interesting primarily because it represents a developed expression
of the inclusion of Bohemia into the culture of the West.
The inclusion of Bohemia into western European culture filled
a deep need in normalized Czechoslovakia, and cosmopolitan
Prague of 1600 affered itself as an enticing scholarly refuge to
Prague of the early 1970s. Foreign interest in the city and its
culture, by scholars such as R.J.W. Evans and Thomas DaCosta
Kaufmann, served to strengthen Bohemia’s ties to the West. This
may help explain the compatibility of these two directions, despite
the tension between them, and the galvanizing effect that the
work of the Englishman R.J.W. Evans had when it came out in
1973. Czech cultural historians, such as Jifi Pesek, rejecting the
cosmopolitanism of Rudolfine Prague affered by Anglo-American
scholars, found their refuge in another area: university and book
culture.
These disciplinary and ideological inclinations are not mere
personal footnotes to the Iiterature but go a long way in
explaining the fragmented state of schalarship of the city and the
tension between the culture of the castle and the culture of the
18 J. Pesek, MeSfanske vzdelanost a kultura (note 5).
15
cities, which should be seen as both an historiographical as well
as an historical problem.
The allure of the city during this period has contributed, in
large part, I believe, to the acceptance of a number of generalizations,
and to some extent exaggerations, of the impact of the
Habsburg court in the city; in particular, to a tao-ready
acceptance of the diffusion model of material culture. While we
know much about the art and architecture of the castle complex
and noble palaces – that is where the primary focus of research
has been – there exists no comparable picture of art and cultural
innovations associated with burgher homes to support the
diffusion model or any other model of cultural change. For art
associated with noble palaces, for example, much of the material
culture has survived; beyond that we also know about its function
and use. Beyond mere accumulations of the valuable, we know
that objects were collected, organized and displayed in banquet
halls, silver chambers and libraries.19 For burgher homes,
nothing close to that picture exists. The argument for cultural
diffusion to burgher homes has been based mostly on anecdotal
or incomplete evidence: descriptions of Prague by foreign
visitors;20 the appearance of Renaissance elements on a few
surviving buildings, and in panoramas and broadsheets of the
period;21 and from the studies of the distribution of a few cultural
objects, such as books and paintings, in probate inventories.22
19 See F. Seiht (Hrsg.), Renaissance in Böhmen (note 17) .
20 The two major travel diaries of foreigners in Prague are (in recent Czech
translations): Tfi francouzsti kavalifi v rudolfinske Praze [Three French
Cavaliers in Rudolfine Prague], Praha 1989; Fynes Morison, John Taylor,
Cesta do Cech [Fynes Morison’s & John Taylor’s Travels to Bohemia], Praha,
1977. On how they have informed our view of the city, see E. FuCikovä,
„Prag zur Zeit Rudolfs II.,“ Kunst am Hofe Rudolfs !I (note 10).
21 In particular, the panorama of Prague from 1606 printed by the imperial
engraver Aegidius Sadeler, available from Odeon reprint 15, 96 1 , VI, 1979.
See E. FuCikovä, „Prag zur Zeit Rudolfs !I.,“ Kunst am Hofe Rudolfs II (note
10).
22 See Iiterature in J. Pesek, MeSfanske vzdelanost a kultura (note 5).
16
1 . 1 .5. MATERIAL CULTURE & DAILY LIFE OF A
NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WINDOW TO STUDY THE
TRANSFORMATION OF PRAGUE INTO A HABSBURG
RESIDENTIAL CITY
This study pursues a new approach to the history of Prague in
late 16th and early 17th centuries by studying the material culture
of housing and daily life in the sixty-year period before the
outbreak of the Thirty Years War. It attempts to deepen our
understanding of Prague and its culture in this important period
as the city became a Habsburg residential city: geographically, by
shifting the focus of attention from the castle to the burgher
hause and harne (though without losing sight of the castle); and
thematically, by considering broad aspects of culture and cultural
experience in addition to „high culture.“ It seeks a different
vantage point from which to view the major theme of the city’s
history during this period: the tension between the castle and the
city.
Specifically, this dissertation explores the extent to which the
imperial court served as a unifying cultural force in the cities of
Prague below the imperial castle by examining the transformation
of the material culture of homes located in one New City Prague
neighborhood, as the city, as a whole, underwent a
transformation into a residential city. The core of the study is a
reconstruction of this section of the city based on an in-depth
computer analysis of written sources – including probate
inventories, civic wills, marriage contracts, building disputes and
hause price series corresponding to the section of the city under
study.
In terms of its general approach, this is a neighborhood study.
It shares with two recent studies of European neighborhoods in
the early modern period – Jeremy Boulton’s study of Southwark
London in the 1 7th century and Dale and Frances Kent’s study of
the district of the Red Lion in lSth-century Florence – the fact that
the object of attention is a small area of the city.23 It shares with
the Kent study and some other urban studies an informal
understanding of neighborhood; namely that neighborhood could
mean something more than just an administrative jurisdiction,
23 J. Boulton, Neighbourhood and Society. A London Suburb in the
Seventeenth Century, Cambridge 1987; D.V. & F.W. Kent, Neighbours and
Neighbourhood in Renaissance Florence, Locust Valley, NY 1982.
17
but also the broader stage on which many of the events of a
person’s life were acted out with relatives, neighbors, and
friends.24 It differs from these two works, however, in its focus.
Although Jeremy Boulton prefaces his study by stating that a
small section of the city was studied „in order to shed new light
on 17th century London society as a whole,“ in reality, his sole
focus is the neighborhood. This study of Prague is interested in
the small area of the city less as a society in itself than as a
window through which to view Prague society as a whole.
In terms of its methodology, the dissertation combines aspects
of structural history, social cultural history, and urban politics.
In doing so, it attempts to bridge a gap between a narrow, microanalytical
approach whose ultimate value lies solely in the
understanding of a small neighborhood, and the sweeping, broad
generalizations of a macro-analytical approach which often
glosses over smaller though meaningful structures and
experiences. It also seeks to highlight links, where they exist,
between aspects of short-term political and religious change, and
long-term social-economic processes. Sometimes the links are
explicit, sometimes implicit, other times just suggested.25
Material culture and daily life serve as a useful conceptual
focus because of their breadth of perspective, their special
importance for Prague, and because of the availability of sources.
Material culture and daily life are understood in a broad, nondialectic
sense, embracing all the material objects that are in a
man’s environment (including clothes, fumiture, ceramics, food,
and all types of building structures) and the spaces in which they
are located.26 It includes objects of ordinary life as well as those
24 J.-P. Gutton, La Sociabilite villageoise dans J’ancienne France, Paris 197 1 ;
R . Schneider, Public Life in Toulouse 1463-1 789, Ithaca & London 1989;
N.Z. Davis, „Sacred and the Body Social in Sixteenth-Century Lyon,􀑰 Past
and Present 90 ( 1 980): 40-70; C. Klapisch-Zuber, Women, Family and Ritual
in Renaissance ltaly, Chicago 1985.
25 J. Kocka, „Sozialgeschichte zwischen Strukturgeschichte und Erfahrungsgeschichte,
􀊨 Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland. Entwicklungen und Perspektiven
im internationalen Zusammenhang, W. Schieder & V. Sellin (Hrsg.),
Band I, Die Sozialgeschichte innerhalb der Geschichtswissenschaft,
Göttingen 1986, pp. 67-87.
26 Some of the most fruitful discussions within the enormaus Iiterature on
material culture can be found in the multi-volume series published by the
Institute for the Study of Material Culture of the Middle Ages and Early
Modern Period of the Austrian Academy of Seiences in Krems, Austria. See
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen des
18
of „high“ culture. The approach to material culture in this
dissertation differs from some earlier studies in two important
ways. First of all, it situates material culture within a .political
context. To Femand Braudei and other scholars influenced by
the Annales school, material culture was a level of historical
reality which responded least quickly to change, and then only in
the long duration. It is part of the repetitive quality of daily life.27
This dissertation views politics, both formal and informal, as an
integral part of the history of daily life. 28 Second, this dissertation
is not only interested in material culture as products but also as
ways of interacting, consuming, and experiencing objects.29
While material culture represents a central aspect of any
society, it is a topic of special importance in the history of Prague
in the late middle ages and early modern period. More than
merely a setting for the activities of daily life, the Prague burgher
house, church, street and square were central objects of social,
political, and religious tension and conflict. In the mid – 1 4th
century, when Emperor Charles IV chose Prague as his residence,
Instituts für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit,
Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische
Klasse (=Sb. Ak. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl.). On historical housing and
living styles, I have been informed by K. Bedal, Historische Hausforschung,
Eine Einführung in Arbeitsweise, Begriffe, Literatur, Münster 1978.
27 This perspective is reflected in three recent works – D. Rache, The People
of Paris, Berkeley 1987; The Culture of Clothing, Cambridge, 1 994; N.J.G.
Pounds, Hearth & Horne. A History of Material Culture, Bloomington 1993.
28 P. Borscheid, „Plädoyer für eine Geschichte des Alltäglichen,“ Ehe, Liebe,
Tod. Studien zur Geschichte des Alltags, Münster, 1983, p . 6-7;
„Alltagsgeschichte – Modetorheit oder neues Tor zur Vergangenheit,“ Soziales
Verhalten und soziale Aktionsformen in der Geschichte, Band Ill,
Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland, Göttingen 1987; H. Medick, „Missionäre im
Ruderboot? Ethnologische Erkenntnisweisen als Herausforderung an die
Sozialgeschichte,“ Geschichte und Gesellschaft 10, 1984, p. 295-3 14; D.
Harmening & E. Wimmer, Hrsg., Volkskultur-Geschichte-Region, Würzburg
1990.
29 H.-W. Goetz, „Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Alltags,“ Mensch und
Objekt im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (= Sb. Ak. Wien, phil.-hist.
Kl. 568/ 13), Wien, 1990; „Vorstellungsgeschichte: Menschliche Vorstellungen
und Meinungen als Dimension der Vergangenheit. Bemerkungen zur
einem jüngeren Arbeitsfeld der Geschichtswissenschaft als Beitrag zu einer
Methodik der Quellenauswertung,“ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 6 1 /2, 1979,
p. 253-271; Christoph Daxelmüller, „Das Dilemma der ’signalements.‘
Quellen zur vorindustriellen Sachkultur im Spiegel der Perzeptionsforschung,“
Volkkultur-Geschichte-Region, Hrsg. D. Harmening & E.
Wimmer (note 28).
19
he rebuilt the city based on a symbolic design of imperial power.
Fifty years later, Prague was the center of a learned debate about
the use of images and symbolism that lay at the heart of the
Hussite movement. Twice within a two hundred year period,
during the Hussite Revolution and the Thirty Years War, Europe’s
two most destructive upheavals prior to the 20th century, Prague
was the site of defenestration and destruction of property. 30
I.l.6. OBJECT OF STUDY
The area selected for intensive study is a core section of the
New City, located approximately two kilometers by foot from the
Prague castle, which is comprised of the lower end of the Horse
Market (today Väclavske nämesti – Wenceslaus Square –
Wenzelsplatz), the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow, part
of Sirokä Street („Broad Street“ – today Jungmann Street), and Na
pfikope („In the Moat“), the broad thoroughfare located just
outside of the walls of the Old City. [See figs. II.4.1 & 2.] In
terms of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, this area was divided between
the two parishes of the New City – part was located in the parish
of St. Henry (Sv. Jindficha), part in St. Stephen’s parish (Sv. Stepana).
I. 1. 7. SOURCES
The area was chosen on the basis of the nurober and variety of
extant sources, including archival sources, manuscripts, rare
books, and published and unpublished government records.
The major body of sources, the basis for the structural
reconstruction, include the following records of communal
government: probate inventories, civic wills, marriage contracts,
building disputes and house price series.
In addition to sources of communal government, a !arge
variety of other sources have been drawn on which provide rich
qualitative information about this area of the city. Pietonal
sources include woodcuts and etchings of the city’s panorama,
including the engraving of the city from the year 1606, one of the
largest panoramas of any European city, printed by Aegidius
30 H. Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte, Frankfurt/Main
1975.
20
Sadeler, the imperial engraver at the court of Rudolf II.3t
Although not specially related to the pre-White Mountain period,
the woodcuts from Orbis Sensualium Pi.ctus Quadrilingius by the
humanist Johannes A.mos Comenius, offer important insight into
the period. 32 Pictorial information on the material environment of
metal workers is provided by De re Metallica libri Xll (1556) by
Georgius Agricola, a great work of early modern technology.33
1.1.8. METHODOLOGY
The study rests on the following working assumptions: frrst,
salient aspects of material culture can be reconstructed from an
analysis of written sources, the most important being probate
inventories. Second, the study of the distribution of individual
objects of high culture through an analysis of inventories and
other sources, as has been done, does not sufficiently explain or
support the diffusion process or any other model of cultural
change; it supports only the diffusion of objects but does not
explain the reasons, mentality and motivations of the city dwellers
who adopted them. To approach an understanding of how city
dwellers conceptualized and responded to the innovations
introduced by the court, it is important to go beyond a study of
the distribution of individual objects of high culture, and examine
the full range of innovations within the larger setting of the
material culture of the burgher house – looking at the context
where people and objects interacted, what has been described as
the nexus of person, object and situation.34 One important way
to capture this nexus, and with it determine the function and
conceptualization of material culture to contemporaries, is to
examine the setting and organization of objects. Elisabeth
Scheicher has underscored the importance of setting and
organization in her study of the Kunstkammer of Archduke
31 See Note 2 1 above.
32 J .A. Comenius, Orbis Sensualium Pictus Quadrilinguis, original edition
1685, reprint, Praha 1989.
33 G. Agricola, De re Metallica libri XII, 1556.
34 G. Jaritz, “ Seelenheil und Sachkultur. Gedanken zur Beziehung MenschObjekt
im späten Mittelalter,“ Europäische Sachkultur des Mittelalters (= Sb.
Ak. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 374/4), Wien 1980, pp. 57-8 1 ; „Mittelalterliche
Realienkunde: Quellenbefund und Quelleninterpretation,“ Erforschung von
Alltag und Sachkultur des Mittelalters. Methode – Ziel – Verwirklichung
(=Sb. Ak. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 433/ 6), Wien 1984, pp. 33-44.
2 1
Ferdinand which Ferdinand established in the Tyrol after leaving
Prague.35 The organization of Emperor Rudolfs Kunstkammer has
been a major issue of debate with art historical scholarship.36 It
is argued here that setting and organization can be useful in
understanding art and other manifestations of material culture in
burgher homes as weil.
Location, organization and function of material culture are the
central themes examined in the structural reconstruction. In
methodological terms, this was accomplished by the location of
individual sources with specific house parcels in the city, followed
by the location of individual objects and structures listed in the
sources within different parts or sections of the house.
I.l.8.1. LOCALIZATION OF SOURCES
The frrst step of the localization process was the identification
of a number of interesting building disputes and inventories with
parcels in a specific location of the city – Sirokä Street („the Broad
Street“) in the New City. This was accomplished by matehing
names and dates of neighborhood pairs in these sources with
those of house owner series and house parcels that had been
compiled by the State Office for Landmark Preservation
(SÜRPM0).37 Mter this initial match, further matches were sought
for the surrounding area. A total of ftfty-six households,
corresponding to ftfty-two probate inventories of ftfty-one
individuals, were successfully matched with forty-six burgher
houses. These households can be located on the Jüttner plan of
1815, the oldest map of Prague showing individual parcels. [See
fig. II.4.2.]
35 E. Scheicher, „The Collection of Archduke Ferdinand li at Schloss Ambras:
Its Purpose, Composition and Evolution,“ The Origins of Museums, 0. Impey
& A. MacGregor (eds.), note 1 1, pp. 29-38; Die Kunst- und Wunderkammern
der Habsburger, Wien 1979.
36 T.D. Kaufmann, „Remarks on the Collections of Rudolf li: the
Kunstkammer as a form of Representatio,“ Art Journal 38, Fall, 1978; E.
FuCikovä, „The Collection of Rudolf II in Prague. Cabinet of Curiousities or
Scientific Museum,“ The Origins of Museums, 0. Impey & A. MacGregor
(eds.), note 1 1 .
37 With the assistance of Lubos Lancinger of SÜRPMO.
22
1 . 1 . 8.2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMPUTER DATA BASE &
LOCALIZATION OF OBJECTS WITHIN THE HOUSE
A computer data base was then set up for the inventories,
listing every object, room by room, storage location by storage
location. A separate data base was set up for the building
disputes, listing names, occupation and other personal
information of the parties, type of dispute, location of dispute,
and outcome.
The inventory data base was used to study the frequency and
distribution of different types of objects among the different
households and among different locations within individual
households. By using the data base in this way, it was possible
to study the structure and function of the hausehold and the
different locations which comprised it.
1 . 1 . 8.3. THE STUDY OF FUNCTION:
OBJECT-DISTRIBUTION THEORY
The key to understanding the functional structure of burgher
households is to identify those locations where the distribution of
clusters of objects of related use are found. For example, the
cooking area can be found where there is a combination of
heating and cooking sources and cooking utensils. 38 [See chart
II.5. 1 1 .]
The process of determining the function of a location is not a
simple one, as the distribution of objects among locations is a
complicated phenomenon. Most objects can serve various
functions – a knife can be used in cooking or eating or as a work
tool; a jug can be used to cook, to carry hot water to wash, or
keep the bed warm. Other objects have primary or nearly
singular functions; for example, a spit is primarily or only used in
cooking. Another complicating factor is that objects can be found
in various locations in the hause. Also, locations usually serve
more than one function; a room can be used for sleeping and
eating. The names of objects and locations usually are not the
same as those of their modern equivalent; for example, a „cellar“
in the 16th century was not the same type of room as it is today.
38A three-tiered structural model for the study of the pre-modern house –
embracing structure, function, meaning, was proposed by K. Bedal in
Historische Hausforschung (note 26).
23
Some locations that sound like rooms may instead be sections of
rooms. Lastly, the linguistic differentiation of different types of
objects does not always mean that the objects themselves were
distinguished.3 9
While the multi-functional character of objects and locations
complicates, it does not preclude a study of the function of
households. The identification of one particular object in a
location does not alone determine the function of a location. The
proper methodological approach consists of delineating areas of
single and multiple functionality through the study of the
distribution of groups or constellations of name-designated
objects among the various named locations of a household.40
1.1.8.4. USING STRUCTURAL DATA AS A
SOURCE FOR THE STUDY OF CHANGE
Beyond the study of function, which is largely a repetitive,
non-changing feature over the short duration of half a century,
the structural component of the study provides the basis for the
investigation of cultural change. It does so on two Ievels: one, by
its identification of cultural innovations in the home (objects and
design of objects); two, by providing a breadth of contrasts that
embrace the ordinary and the exceptional, the high and the low,
which is necessary to appreciate innovations fully; that is,
Renaissance elements within the larger setting of specific
households. Sturlies that concentrate on exceptional objects
present a skewed picture. On the identification of objects as
Renaissance innovations, the dissertation draws on the rich
Iiterature of the history and art and architecture of Rudolfme
Prague described earlier.41
The study is divided into two major parts. Part I contains the
main text of the study. Chapter 2 introduces the New City and
39 On the changing functionality of objects in various situations, see H.-W.
Goetz, „Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Alltags,“ (note 29). On the relationship
of object names and objects, see R. Schmidt-Wiegand, Neue Ansätze im
Bereich ‚Wort und Sachen,‘ Geschichte der Alltagskultur, Münster 1 980.
4° K. Bedal in Historische Hausforschung (note 26).
41 On the methodogical issue of identifying „innovations,“ see R.-E.
Mohrmann, Alltagswelt im Land Braunschweig. Städtische und ländliche
Wohnkultur vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Band I, Münster 1990, pp.
25fl.
24
the neighborhood under study, describing the heritage left to
material culture by Emperor Charles IV and the Hussite
Revolution, physical and spatial configuration of houses, social
topography, and wealth and property statistics. Chapter 3
examines the structure and function of the New City Prague
burgher household. Chapter 4 explores the range and hierarchy
of choices which were available and chosen by residents of the
New City in fashioning and constructing the living spaces of
house and neighborhood. Chapter 5 studies the impact of the
Renaissance in the neighborhood. Part II – the structural reconstruction
– is presented as both a text summary („The Anatomy of
House and Street“) and a series of figures and charts.
25
1.2. The New City of Prague
We went into the New City and saw beautiful streets there, all inhabited
by Hussites. There they speak only Czech, in cantrast to the inhabitants of
the other cities where German is just as common.1
Pierre Bergeron’s description of the New City of Prague in the
year 1600 is an exaggeration. Not all of its streets were beautiful,
and it was not a Czech-speaking enclave. Though perhaps less so
than the Castle Hili and Small Side, the New City was also a
diverse, mixed-use area where burghers and noblemen, artisans
and office-holders lived side by side and both German and Czech
were spoken. Over a century earlier, the New City had been the
center of the Hussite Revolution which left its mark on the city’s
monumental streets and squares. Just as important for the city
as the Hussite Revolution was the reign of Emperor Charles IV
which preceded the Revolution. In order to understand Prague in
the late 16th centur y, especially the New City, it is important to
understand this dual legacy of imperial rule and revolution.
1.2.1. THE LEGACY OF CHARLES IV AND
THE HUSSITE REVOLUTION TO THE URBAN LANDSCAPE
The area bordered by Vodickovä and Sirokä streets, the
southwestem end of the Horse Market, and the thoroughfare Na
piikope was originally known as „on the gravel“ (na pisku). [See
figs. II.4.1 & 2.] It was one of many communities in the loose but
coherent band of settlement on the right bank of the Vltava river
which ran from the bend of the river in the North to the Vysehrad
in the south. It was four kilometers long and six hundred meters
wide, and encircled the Old City.2 It lay just west of the walls of
the Old City, opposite the parish church of St. Martin-at-the-Wall.
To the southeast of this area lay the „Jewish Garden,“ a cemetery
where all Jews who died in Prague in the Middle Ages were
1 Tfi francouzsti kavalifi v rudolfinske Praze (Three French Cavatiers in
Rudolfine Prague), Praha 1989.
2 On the early development of the New City see V. Lorenc, Nove mesto
praiske [The New City of Prague), Praha 1973, especially, pp. 1 8 1 fT; Staleta
Praha [Prague Through the Centuries) IX (1979); V.V. Stech, Z. Wirth & V.
Vojti8ek, Stare a Nove Mesto s Podskalim [The Old and New Cities of Prague
and the Podskali Cliffs), volume 1 , Zmizela Praha, Praha 1945.
26
buried. To the north, lay the village of Chodobice and the
properties which had been accumulated by the Order of the
Knights of the Red Cross since the 12th century. The most
important of these properties was the settlement of German
colonists and their descendants araund the Church of Peter and
Paul.
In 1346, the year he was elected Holy Roman Emperor,
Charles IV chose to make Prague his residence and the center of
a revived Holy Roman Empire. The founding of the New City was
a key element of his renovatio imperii. Within twenty years, these
loosely organized settlements outside of the Old City were
transformed according to a grand plan of design into an
independent urban entity, characterized by uniformity and
orderliness both in administration and in physical form.3
Charles became acquainted with govemance and city planning
during his education as a youth at the French royal court in Paris
and later in extensive travels throughout the Holy Roman Empire,
northem Italy, Poland, and Hungary. During a prolonged
residence in papal Avignon at the beginning of 1344, a city which
had become a bustling center due to the recent arrival of the
papal court, Charles consolidated his long accumulated ideas for
a renovatio imperii and discussed them with his earlier tutor and
friend, Pope Clement VI. 4
Central to Charles‘ concept of renovatio was to make Prague
the imperial capital, the center of worldly power on the Christian
earth, as Jerusalem and Rome had been in the past, and which
Avignon had recently become. Charles had observed that, although
magnificent buildings had been constructed for the papal
3 On Charles IV and his plans for a renovatio imperii, see J. Spevacek, Kare!
IV. Zivot a dilo 1 3 1 6- 1378 [Charles IV. His Life and Work], Praha 1979; F.
Seibt, Hrsg., Kaiser Kar! IV. Staatsma1·1n und Mäzen, München 1978; and P.
Moraw, „Kaiser IV / 1378-1978/, Ertrag und Konsequenzen eines Gedenkjahres,“
Giessener Festgabe für Frantisek Graus zum 60. Geburtstag, H .
Laudat und R . Christoph (Hrsg.), Köln & Wien 1982, pp. 224-318. Lorenc
provides the most important treatment of the plan, design, and execution of
the New City (note 2). See also V. Kotrba, „Nove Mesto Praiske. ‚Karlstadt‘ v
universalni koncepci cisafe Karla IV“ [The New City of Prague. „Charles‘ City
in Charles IV’s Concept of Universality“], Z tradic slovanske kultwy v
Cechä.ch, Praha, 1975, pp. 53ff.; and v.v. Stech et al, Stare a Nove Mesto s
Podskalim (note 2). For a concise overview in German, see W. Brosche, •zu
einem Modell der Prager Neustadt,“ Kaiser Kar! IV. Staatsmann und Mäzen,
F. Seibt (Hrsg.), see citation above, pp. 242-49.
4 V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), p. 185.
27
court, Avignon lacked adequate residential and commercial space.
While in Avignon, Charles conceived detailed plans for the
transformation of Prague into a residential city; the expansion of
the city was a key element in the plans.
The realization of Charles‘ plans began in 1 346 after his
election to Holy Roman Emperor following the death of his father.
On April 3, 1347, an official announcement was made declaring
that „after much advice and thought“ Prague was to become the
chief residential city of the Holy Roman Empire and that the city
was to be expend. On March 8, 1348, an imperial majesty was
issued, legally founding the New City.5
Three characteristic features of the Iandscape of the New City
– its spatial patterns, its administrative institutions and jurisdictions,
and the organization and layout of ecclesiastical
institutions – were direct products of this imperial design.
Already a year before the founding of the New City, a grid of
major streets and squares were laid out and measured, beginning
with north/ south and eastfwest axes. The major directional
spaces in the New City became Dlazdeni street (today Hybemska
street), Jeena street, and the Horse Market. Dlazdeni and Jeena
streets were laid out east to west. The Horse Market was placed
Northwest, at a right angle to the Havel Market in the Old City.
This intimate joining of the two markets served to make the Old
and New Cities into one physical entity. [See fig. II.4.3.]
The parceling and distribution of properties took place in two
phases. The frrst phase began immediately in April 1348. The
properties on the lower Horse Market (House nos. 695-699-II) and
major adjacent thoroughfares, such as the street Na pfikope
(House nos. 846-859-II) and both sides of Vodickovä Street
(House nos. 695-699-II, 703, 707-709, 7 1 1-7 15-II), were among
the frrst to be parceled out in the New City during this frrst
phase. 6 Construction of houses followed within eighteen months. 7
Sirokä Street and the southwest corner of the square in the front
of the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow were laid out in
5 Texts (in original Latin and in Czech translation) of the Majesty and
relating founding documents can be found in V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske
(note 2), pp. 201-205.
6 V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), p. 100.
7 The construction of houses within eighteen months was a Stipulation in
the original localization plan to avoid speculation. Within the first year,
some 180 residential structures were built; by 1351, there was a total of 600
houses in the New City. V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), p. 98
28
the last two decades of the l4th century during the second phase
of parceling. Sirokä Street was initially part of the cloister
garden. The southwest corner of the square was laid out on the
edge of the cloister’s garden and cemetery.s
The creation of administrative bodies and jurisdictions
following the foundation of the New City established a pattern of
control over these landscapes. At the time of the frrst localization,
the whole territory that would make up Vodickovä, Palacey, and
Sirokä streets, including a section of the Horse Market, became
the property of the Church and Cloister of Saint Mary of the
Snow, one of nine ecclesiastical institutions in the New City that
were given extra-territorial status before the end of the 14th
century.9
The Church and Cloister were officially founded the day after
Charles IV’s coronation as King of Bohemia (September 3 , 1347).
Charles is said to have donated wood to the order from the
tribunal built on Havel Market for his coronation ceremony. Of
the properties within the church’s jurisdiction, all were subject to
various aspects of its administration, but only a few fully
subjected to its courts, and required to pay tithes (Hause nos.
740-750 and 75 1 ) . 10 The owners of the other houses were
subjected to some aspects of extra-territorial law; however, at the
same time, they were also citizens of the New City and subject to
its jurisdiction.
A crucial feature of Charles IV’s design of the New City was the
reorganization and expansion of ecclesiastical institutions. Before
the founding of the New City, nine parish churches served the
settlement in the area along the Vltava river. In 1350, two new
churches were founded – the churches of St. Stephen (Sv. Stepana)
and St. Henry (Sv. Jindficha) in the upper and lower
8 Tomek, Dejepis Prahy [The History of Prague], II, Praha 1883, p . 246;
SÜRPMO pasport domu cp. 75 1 -1!.
9 The nine institutions with extra-territorial status in the New City are the
following : the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow, St. Catherine’s, The
Cloister of the Slavonic Benedictines, St. Apolinaris, the Karlov Monastery,
the cloister on Zderaz hill, St. Benedict’s, St. Peter at PofiCi, and the Bfevnov
cloister at Pofici. M . Svobodovä -Ladovä, „Zvlästni mistni präva v Praze“
[Special territorial law in Prague], PSH 8 ( 1973), p. 1 19; V. Lorenc, Nove
mesto pra.Zske (note 2), p. 100.
w V. Waage, „Mestslcy pozemkovy majetek a postranni prävo kläStera Panny
Marie Snezne“ [Urban Property Holdings and Extra-territorial Law of the
Church of Mary of the Snow], Diplomova präce, Filosofickä fakulta UK,
Katedra pomocnych ved historiclcych a archivnictvi, 1978, p. 1 19.
29
sections of the New City respectively . 1 1 They became the sole
parish churches in the New City.
A total of eight cloisters and monasteries were founded in the
New City during Charles‘ reign, including the collegiate canon
church, St. Apolinaris‘ (Sv. Apolinate}, and the only female order,
St. Catherine’s (Sv. Katefiny). 12
Through patronage or design, many of these institutions commemorated
Charles‘ rise to imperial power or embodied the idea
of imperial renewal.
On one of the cliffs overlooking the Vltava river, a Benedictine
cloister was founded where the Slavonic liturgy could be used.
The site chosen for the cloister was next to the former Podskali
parish church of SS. Cosmos and Damian, whose Eastern
martyrdom was revered by 12th-century Premyslide prince
Vä.clav, one of Charles‘ predecessors. Charles IV probably
became acquainted with the Benedictine order of the Slavonic rite
in his earlier travels in Croatia or as Markgraf of Moravia, where
the legacy of Saints Cyrill and Methodius, the ninth-century
apostles to the Slavs, were still active. The foundation of the
Benedictine cloister created a mythological bond between the
Slavonic past and the Holy Roman Empire and strengthened
political ties with the states of Central Europe.13
Exactly one year to the day after Charles IV’s coronation as
King of the Romans, the Church and Cloister of Mary the
Assumption and Charles the Great was founded ( 1 350). The
church and the cloister dedicated to Charlemagne, the frrst Holy
Roman Emperor, became Charles‘ personal patronage. 14 The
church’s octagonal shape is reminiscent of the imperial chapel in
Aachen, and its location on the highest hill in the New City
I I V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), p. 104
12 St. Mary of the Snow ( 1 346) for the Carmelites; Slavonic Closter ( 1346) for
the Benedictines; Church and Cloister of Mary the Assumption and Charles
the Great ( 1350) for the Lateran Augustinians; St. Catherine’s ( 1 355), the
only female monastery in the New City, for the Augustian Hermites; St.
Ambrosius‘ ( 1 355), founded in commemoration of Charles IV’s coronation as
King of Lombardy in Milan on St. Ambroglio’s Day (January 5); Our Lady of
the Annunciation na Trä.vnickovä., known as Marie na Trä.vnicka or na Slupi
( 1 360) for the Servite order; and St. Apolinaris‘ ( 1 362), a colleagiate canon
church.
13 V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), p. 9 1 .
14 The church and cloister complex is commonly referred to as Karlov
(possessive noun form of Kar!). This term will be used throughout the text of
the dissertation.
30
testified to its function as a symbol of imperial renovation and the
Augustan concept of princely rule.
As a Counterpart to the Karlov monastery, in the lower part of
the city, the cloister of St. Ambrosius was founded in commemoration
of Charles IV’s coronation as King of Lombardy in
Milan on St. Ambroglio’s Day (January 5, 1355).
One of the most unique ecclesiastical institutions in the city,
the Chapel of the Body of Christ (BoZi telo), was constructed in
1382 in the center of the Cattle Market. The chapel served as the
side for the display of the imperial reliquaries, including those of
Charlemagne, which Charles had received in 1350. The reliquaries
were normally deposited in Kar1stein Castle, located outside of
Prague, which was also build by Charles IV. Every year during
the market fair, Charles had the reliquaries marched into the New
City as a display of imperial power. lS
The foundation of ecclesiastical institutions in the New City
took into consideration not only the location of individual
institutions but their relation to each other and to the Iandscape
as a whole. Representation, idealism, and symbolism were key
concepts invoked to express the imperial idea in urban design.
With the exception of the Church and Cloister of Mary of the
Snow and the Monastery of St. Ambrosius, all of the monastic
institutions were located in the upper part of the New City. The
Karlov Monastery was situated on the highest hill in the New City,
followed by the Monastery of the Slovanic Benedictines (Na
Slovanech) on the second highest. Karlov, the Monastery of the
Slovanic Benedictines, St. Catherine’s, Mary’s-on-the Lawn (Marie
na Triwnicka), and St. Apolinarius, form a cross, reflecting the
importance attributed to symbolism in medieval design. These
institutions spatially link the Castle Hili with Vysehrad,
integrating the former loose terrain into the Iandscape of the rest
of the city. Integration and linkage were also created symbolically.
The high tower of the St. Jacob’s in the Old City, and St.
Stephen’s and the tower of St. Catherine in the New City are all
located at 32 degrees 5′ 3 1 “ from the meridian. 16
The design and construction of the New City was one of the
greatest projects of urban design in the Middle Ages. In its
1s J . Kropä.cek, “ K fundacim Karla IV. na Novem Meste pra.Zskem“ [Charles
fV’s Ecclesiastical Foundations in the New City of Prague], Starä. Praha IX
(1979), p. 240.
16 V. Lorenc, Nove mesto pra.Zske (note 2), pp. 67 & 73; Kropä.cek, „K
fundacim Karla IV“ (note 15), p. 242.
3 1
physical dimensions and the speed of construction, it greatly
exceeded other large programs of urban founding in the Middle
Ages, such as those in Avignon and Florence. Within twenty
years, the city walls were built, the major thoroughfares laid out,
and the first stages of parceling and construction undertaken.
Only a half of a century after Charles IV had founded the New
City and redesigned the Iandscape of Prague, the center of the
New City became a center of a city-wide learned discussion about
images and symbolism and later itself became an object of
destruction in a number of popular religious and iconoclastic
revolts associated with the Hussite Revolution.
Formal opposition to the use and display of images arose in
Prague in the late 14th century. Pre-Hussite reformers, such as
Milic of Kromefice and Mataus of Janov, called for an aesthetic
spirituality that questioned the use of images, reliquaries, and
symbolism, the very concept embraced by Charles IV in his
renovatio imperii and propagated in the annual procession from
Kar1stein Castle to the Cattle Market. By the beginning of the
15th century, a battle against images had already begun in
Bohemia and was a characteristic theme of the reform movement
centered around Master Jan Hus at the University and at the
Bethlehem Chapel in the Old City, where he preached,l7
Although the seeds of the Czech reform movement are to be
found in the Old City, it is in the New City that the revolution
began.18 More specifically, it was at the Carmelite Church and
Cloister of the Mary of the Snow that a radical reform movement
had formed. The Carmelites were outspoken critics of Hus and
made themselves an easy target for attack. In 1 4 1 2 , the frrst of
many attacks on the cloister took place, personally attended by
Jerome of Prague, a Hussite Ieader. After the burning of Jan Hus
at the Council of Constance, the cloister was attacked a second
time. Following this, most of the Prague Carmelites left for
Vienna; those who stayed behind were killed.t9
Beginning in 14 14, the cloister became the site of speeches by
the „preacher of the poor,“ Jan Zelivsk,Y. On May 5, 1 4 1 9 , Jan
17 H. Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte. Bilderkämpfe von der
Spätantike bis zur Hussitenrevolution, Frankfurt/Main 1975, p.242; Josef
Macek, Jean Hus et les traditions Hussites (XVeme-XI.Xeme siecles), Paris
1973, pp. 2 10- l .
1 8 See B . Kopickovä, „Zelivskeho Praha􀄀 IPrague i n Zelivsey’s Age] FHB 3
( 1981): 103-104.
19 V. Waage, 􀄀Mestsey pozemkov:Y majetek􀄀 (note 10), p. 52.
32
Zelivskj gave his famous sennon in the Church, followed by the
march to the New City Hall and the defenestration of the
magistrates from its tower – the frrst radical, violent acts of the
reform movement, the beginning of the revolution.
The initial revolt and subsequent attacks of the Hussite
Revolution seemed to possess a symbolism of their own, quite
distinct with respect to the symbolism of Charles IV. Mter Zelivskj’s
sermon, he led the people in a procession, he hirnself
carrying the consecrated eucharist in a monstrance and at least
some of his followers canying pikes, swords, and clubs.2o The
procession moved to the parish church of St. Stephen. The priest,
who was inside celebrating the mass, locked the doors and
refused to open them. The group smashed the door and entered
the church, and Jan Zelivskj celebrated mass and gave
communion „in both kinds“ („sub utraque specie“), according to
the Hussite custom.
From St. Stephen the procession moved on to the tower at the
New City Town Hall. Inside the Town Hall were the Burgomaster,
the Magistrate, three town councilors, one of the Magistrate’s
assistants, and five burghers of the New City, all anti-Hussite.
The Hussites demanded that their fellow citizens who had earlier
been imprisoned by the magistrates for having promoted
communion in both kind should be released. The magistrates,
speaking from one of the windows, refused. One contemporary
account of the incident says that they abused the Hussites,
another that someone inside threw a stone at the priest carrying
the monstrance. In any case, the Hussites were enraged. They
broke into the Town Hall, assaulted those inside, and then threw
thirteen of them out of the window. Those who were not killed in
the fall were finished off by the Hussites in the street and their
bodies beaten. The dead were not looted; their hats and chains of
office were left on their bodies. During the violence, Jan Zelivskj
stood by in the street, holding up the monstrance and urging his
followers on.
The Prague defenestration was the chief catalyst in the
transformation of Prague „from impotent passivity to Hussite
militancy.“21 During the four years following the revolt, Prague
became a center of the revolutionary movement. The city was
20 On the sequence of events, I am following H. Kaminsky, „The Prague
lnsurrection of 30 July 1419,“ MedievaJia et Humanistica XVII (1966): 106-
126.
11 H. Kaminsky, „The Prague Insurrection of July 30 1419“ (note 20), p. 126.
:n
subjected to three waves of attacks.22 The frrst attack was by a
radical alliance of burghers, peasants, and the poor (JulySeptember
14 19); the second, a ransaclcing by troops of the
Taborites, a radical Hussite sect that had established itself in
Southern Bohemia (May 20-22, 1420); and third, a counteroffensive
of Prague burghers and nobles (beginning of 1 4 2 1 –
Spring 1422). In all three of the attacks, many paintings,
sculptures, and buildings were destroyed.23
On May 8, 1 4 19, the Church and Cloister of Mary of the Snow
was ransacked.24 In the subsequent battles, the cloister was
heavily destroyed, including, above all, the tower-bell that was
rung to call the poor to pay dues and fight against enemies.2s On
August 1 7 , 1 4 1 9 , one day after the death of King Väclav, Charles
IV’s son and successor, many churches and bordeilos were
destroyed, beginning with the Carthusian Cloister on the left of
the Vltava river opposite the New City which was burnt to
ashes.26 In October 1 4 19 , after the royal forces left the city,
cloisters in the Old City were attacked by Taborites. During the
attack, the Strahov monastery was burned down and the monks
brought to capture in the New City. On November 1 , 1420, the
same day that city troops took Vysehrad in the counter-offensive,
mobs ransacked the church, attacking pictures, altars, the organ,
and the choir stalls. On the following day, mobs attacked houses
of the clergy, took down the wall araund the cloister, and stole
everything that they could carry and took it all back into the city.
On June 1 0 , 142 1 , the castle was taken.27
In the spring of 1422, the radical movement was pushed out
of communal government. In March of that year, ZelivskY was
arrested and killed, and order was restored to the city.28
Nevertheless, with the expulsion or voluntary departure of the
King, the Archbishop, and the religious orders, Prague had ceased
to function as a residential city.
22 On revolts in Hussite Prague, in addition to Kaminsky and Bredekamp
(pp. 23 1ft); see J. Macek, Jean Hus (note 17), pp. 2 10- 1 1 ; Täbor v husitskem
revolucnim hnuti [Tabor in the Hussite Revolutionary Movement], I & II,
Praha 1956; in volume I, pp. 206a, 23 1-33; in volume li, pp. 122- 1 23 .
23 H . Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte (note 17), pp. 2 6 1 –
262.
21 V. Waage, „MestskY pozemkovj majetek“ (note 10), p. 53.
2s V. Waage, „MestskY pozemkovj majetek“ (note 10), p. 54.
26 H. Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte (note 17), p. 262.
27 H . Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte (note 17), p. 267.
28 H. Bredekamp, Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte (note 17), p. 267.
34
The Hussite Revolution inflicted large-scale physical destruction
on the center of the New City, tumed its adminis-trative and
legal jurisdiction on its head, and placed the area in control of the
moderate Hussite elite, which came to power following the
execution of Zelivslcy.
Whether the initial revolt and subsequent mob attacks were
planned or developed spontaneously, the acts themselves clearly
were iconoclastic. The iconoclasm manifested itself not only in the
attack against pictures but also against images and symbolism in
the broadest sense, including an attack on physical structures
and interiors and the urban landscape itself. Destruction,
defenestration and expulsion represented powerful symbolic
actions over the structures and spaces of power. 29 Charles IV’s
plan of imperial Prague and Hussite Iconoclasm can be seen as
two different, yet related, relationships to the urban landscape,
which left a significant, though ambivalent, mark on the city, that
lasted into the sixteenth century; one of design and order, and
another of destruction and disorder.3o
1 . 2 . 2 . THE NEW CITY PRAGUE BURGHER HOUSE
In addition to the larger spatial aspects of the urban
landscape, houses made up a significant part of the living spaces
of residents of the New City. The physical structures of houses
helped to define the street landscape and physically created a
division between the inside and outside. Most of the houses
within a two-block radius of the lower Horse Market – those on
Sirokä. Street, Vodickovä. Street, and the broad thoroughfare
outside of the wall separate the Old and New Cities (Na pfikope) –
can be seen as a product of the imperial plan even though they
were not directly a product of imperial design. They were among
29 According to Bredekamp (Kunst als Medium sozialer Konflikte, note 17, p.
270), it is not possible to determine a ritual scheme to the attacks. Some of
the violence was indeed random. For example, in the initial revolt on the
New City Town Hall, the document founding the city was destroyed (V.
Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske, note 2, p. 98). Other acts, however, were clearly
ritualistic, such as defenestration, and the canying ofT of looted property.
30 Horst Bredekamp presents the thesis that the relationship between the
realization of Charles IV’s plan of imperial Prague and Hussite Jconoclasm is
not just casual but represents a medieval manifestation of an intellectual
and social debate about production and negation of images that dates back
to late antiquity.
35
the first built in the New City in the frrst half of the century
following its founding in 1348.
Most of the houses in the center of the New City were
constructed of stone quarried outside of the city.31 Hauses that
were built later, in the 1 5th and early 16th centuries, probably
utilized more wood; they were of a frame type construction, in
cantrast to houses of Fachwerk construction that proliferated in
southem German areas and westem Bohemia.32 Two burgher
hause configurations commonly found in the New City and in
other Central European cities in the late 16th century were the
row hause and the Gothic Hall-type hause (sifi.ovy dümj.33 The
row hause was characterized by a narrow street width (a row of
twa to three windaws) , great height, and great depth from its large
street facade inward. The Gothic hall-type hause was characterized
by its large, simple reetangular shape; walled staircases; and
camplicated raam structure.
The hall-type hause originated in the mid- 15th century and
remained comman thraugh the beginning af the 1 7th century. A
surviving hause with this configuration is number 462-1, located
an Celetnä Street in the Old City. The Hause „At the Golden Bear“
(Hause na. 475-II), located on the comer of Melantrich Street
(Melantfichova) and Tanner’s Alley (Koiena ulice) in the Old City,
was not of reetangular shape but was similar ta the hall hause in
its basic configuration.
A hause configuratian particularly camman on the Harse
Market, and other major squares in the New City was the sacalled
„market hause. „34 The Market hause was characterized by
a wide front and wide entrance gate in the center that led ta a
large courtyard. It met the needs af artisan households serving
31 V. Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), pp. 1 0 1 & 104.
32 On the Fachwerkhaus, see G.U. Grossman, Der Fachwerkbau, Köln 1986;
G. Binding, U. Mainzer & A. Wiedenau, Kleine Kunstgeschichte des
deutschen Fachwerkbaus, 4. Auflage, Darmstadt 1989.
33 On the physical-spatial disposition of Bohemian burgher houses, see V.
Mencl, •Mesfansk:Y dum ceskeho stfedoveku“ [The Czech Burgher Hause of
the Middle Ages], Zpravy pamatkove pece 13 (1953): 1 6 1 – 192; v.
DraZai1,“Gotick:Y a Renesancni mestsk:Y dum z jiZnich Cech a Moravy,“ [The
Gothic and Renaissance Burgher Hause of Southem Bohemia and Moraviaj,
Zpravy pamatkove pece 10/5 ( 1950): 129-160; Felix Haas, •Cesk)i‘
mesfansk:Y dum pozdni gotiky a renesance,“ [The Bohemian Late Gothic and
Renaissance Burgher Hause], Sbomik vysokeho uceni technickeho V Bme
2-3 ( 1964): 97 – 135.
34 See V. Lorenz, Nove mesto praiske (note 2), pp. 102-107.
36
large markets from the mid-14th century, when they were frrst
built, through the 17th century. The front facade of a Prague
market house is captured in an illustration from the early 17th
century based on a drawing by the Flemish artist Roelandt
Savery.
Houses of similar configuration (though not in the same
characteristic proportions) dating from earlier periods, such as
house no. 463-I in Melantrich Street from the late 16th century
and house no. 181-I on Celetnä Street, have survived in the Old
City.35 With respect to its basic configuration, the New City
Prague Market House resembled more the southern,
Mediterranean-style market house than those in German,
Flemish, French, or English cities. Houses of the same
configuration type were also found in Budapest, some of which
have survived to this day.36
Market houses located on corners had two large entrance
gates, one leading onto the market or main street and the other
onto the side street. The corner market house in the New City was
a huge structure that stood on a parcel whose size measures
2,920 square meters on the average and 5,100 square meters in
exceptional cases. 37 This was the configuration at least of one
house on the west corner of Sirokä Street, the house on the
corner of Sirokä Street and Na pfikope (House No. 36-11), and six
on various corners of the Horse Market. 38
The houses on the east side of Sirokä Street were a
combination of market and row houses of the basic configuration
described above. Although the houses on Ionger exist, their
parcels have retained their original size (House nos. 7 4 7-7 5 1 -II).
Widths vary from 6.5 meters (House nos. 749a-II, 749-II) to
almost 14 meters (House nos. 747-II, 748-II). Building disputes
before the Six-Man Councils provide evidence that the block
making up the west side of Sirokä Street around Charvatskä
Street, however, was much more complicated. The houses were
3s V. Mencl, „Mestanskj dum ceskeho stfedoveku“ (note 33), pp. 170-7 1 .
36 V . Lorenz, Nove mesto pra.Zske (note 2), p. 102.
37 V. Lorenz, Nove mesto pra.Zske (note 2), p. 102.
38 House nos. 832-11 (west corner of Jindfisskä. Street and Horse Market),
846-II (north corner of Horse Market and Na pfikope), 791-II (west corner of
Vodickovä. street and the Horse Market), 792-II (east corner of Vodickovä.
Street and the Horse Market), 795-II (west corner of Kvetonskä. Street, today
Stepä.nska Street, and the Horse Market), the house of Jan KfiZ (u Skrabku)
on one of the corners of the Horse Market.
37
neither simple row nor comer houses. Nine houses adjoined each
other in various configurations.
The earliest houses built in the New City were two stories in
height, consisting of a ground floor and frrst floor. During the
1 5th and early 16th centuries, one or two floors were added on to
them. The Sadeler engraving shows that the houses on Na
pfikope and the northwest side of the Horse Market were two,
sometimes three stories in height. Only the frrst few houses on
Sirokä Street are visible on the engraving.
Depending on the house size and configuration, each floor of
the houses in the center of the New City contained anywhere from
five to twelve rooms. Hauses with up to twenty-three rooms on
the frrst floor, such as House no. 1 8 1 -I in the Old City, were
probably not as common in the New City as they were in the Old
City.
A characteristic structural feature of burgher houses in
Bohemia and other areas of Central Europe in the 15th and 16th
centuries was their balconies, constructed of wood and located
mainly in the courtyard. Same had only a railing, others were
partially or fully enclosed, serving as a separate room. Other
structures that were connected to or located on the same property
of the main structure of the New City Prague burgher hause were
stables, bams, and sheds of all sizes and shapes.
1.2.3. PROFILE OF THE NEIGHBORS & THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The center of the New City, made up of the lower Horse Market
and Sirokä Street, represented a diverse, mixed-use area,
inhabited by artisans, merchants, and patricians, rich and paar,
similar to many sections of large European cities of the period,
less so to other Bohemian cities that were much less economically
diversified.39 In terms of social topography, some sections were
characterized by pattems of long-term continuity. One fmds, for
example, members of the ruling elite who were descendants of
Jan Zelivsk.Y in March of 142 1 . Other areas exhibited signs of
changes which were related to the transformation of Prague into a
residential city; they included estate office holders, members of
39 F. Kavka, „Majetkovä, sociälni a tfidni struktura ceskjch mest V prvni
polovine 16. stoleti ve svetle knih a rejstfiku mestske dävky“ [Property,
Social and Class Structure of Bohemian Cities in the First Half of the 16th
century], Historickj sbomik VI (1959).
38
the imperial court, and wealthy merchants with ties to the longdistance
market economy. 40
While members of the imperial court were primarily
concentrated in enclaves an Castle Hill and the Small Side, 150 of
them lived an the right bank of the river, mostly as harne owners
in the busy squares and axes of the Old City.41 Same chose to
settle in the New City. The imperial guard (trabant), Thomas
Kyndrmon, owned a hause an the corner across from the New
City Hall, near the imperial watchmatcher Kundrat Steffanaur,
also a hause owner. At the time of his death, the royal builder
Bonifacius Walmut lived across from the bell tower of the parish
church St. Stephen (Sv. Stepana).
A small enclave of office-holders of the lower nobility lived an a
block on the east side of Sirokä street. These included Rehof
Pätek and his neighbor Pavel Cerhovsey z Ruretina, who were
both notaries at the Appellate Court; Jan Kubis z Bytysky, a
noble; and Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke, a noble who was a notary at
the Office of the Chamberlain of the Castle. 42 This was not,
however, a homogenaus enclave. Martin Jan, Nejedly’s next-door
neighbor araund the corner on the thoroughfare Na pfikope, was
a burgher.
Sirokä Street, in general, especially the west side of the street,
had retained its traditional character as a metal-working district.
At least a quarter of the hause owners belonged to one of the eight
guilds in which metal workers were organized in the New City:
40 On estate office holders, see J. Pänek „K uloze byrokracie pfi pfechodu od
stavovskeho k absolutni monarchii“ [On the Problem of Bureaucratization
during the Transition from Estate to Absolute Monarchy], AUC Philosophica
et Historica 3, Studia Historica XXXVI, pp. 75-86. On members of the
imperial court, see Z. Hojda, „Dvür Rudolfa !I. na Male Strane a Hradcanech
podle ü.dajü ubytovaci knihy z roku 1608“ [The Court of Rudolf I!. on the
Small Side and Castle Hili according to Quartermaster Books from 1608],
unpublished manuscript; „Der Hofstaat Rudolf I!.,“ Prag um 1600, E.
Fucikovä (Hrsg.), Freven, 1988, pp. 1 18-123. On merchants, see J. Janäcek,
„Kupeckä dynastie rudolfinske Prahy“ [Merchant Dynasties of Rudolfine
Prague] Veda a Zivot 32 ( 1 987): 553-57.
41 z. Hojda (note 40).
42 On the social status of the nobility, see V. Press, „Adel in den
österreichisch-böhmischen Erblanden und im Reich zwischen den 15. und
17. Jahrhunderten,“ Adel im Wandel. Politik-Kultur-Konfession, Wien 1990;
V. BÜZek, „Niisi slechta V pfedbelohorseych Cechäch (Prameny, metody,
stav a perspektivy bädäni)“ [The Lower Nobility in Pre-White Mountain
Prague (Sources, Methodology, State and Perspectives of Research)], CCH
Cislo 1 , 9 1 / 1993: 37-53.
39
those for smith, kettlesmiths, knife makers, swordsmiths,
goldsmiths, locksmiths, cartrights, and lathe-makers.43 The
bellmaker Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperka owned four houses on the
east side of Sirokä Street. Markyta Kotläfka, one of Brikci’s nextdoor
neighbors, took over the metalworking shop of her husband
Buryan Kotläf, a long-time smith and house owner on the street.
Some of these artisans were members of the city council. Many
had also received the privilege to carry an honorific, heraldic title,
such as „z Cimperku“ (corresponding to the German „von
Cimperg.“) Such burghers were called erbovnici („herald bearers“)
in Czech.
In the late 15th century, in the row of nine to ten houses in
front of the Church and Cloister lived a medley of sword and gun
makers.44 In the late 16th century, at least six trade groups were
represented among the house owners, including painters and
cloth traders.
The lower Horse Market, like Sirokä street, retained continuity
in some areas. As a whole, it was a diverse, mixed-use area, as it
always had been. At the beginning of the 15th century on the
southwest side of the Market lived artisans representing thirtythree
different trades, a third of them purse and luggage makers.
This side of the lower Horse Market retained its diversity into the
16th century. In the center of the block in the middle of the 16th
century lived Jifik Lesar, a modest candlemaker. Across from his
house on the Horse Market were the stalls where bread was sold.
Down and across the street on the corner of the Horse Market
with the boulevard that ran along the border of the Old City (Na
pfikope) lived Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin, who was royal judge
(rychtäf) in the years 1555 and 1557 before he was raised to
noble status. 45
By the end of the 16th century, a small area of prominent
burghers – a corner of prestige, if you will – had established itself
on the corner of the Horse Market with Vodickovä and DläZdeni
13 z. Winter, Remeslnictvo a zivnosti XVI. veku V Cechäch (Artisan and Trade
Life in 1 61ll century Bohemia], Praha 1909, p. 727; J. Janäcek, Remeslnä
vyroba ve ceskjch mestech V 16. stoleti (Artisanal Production in Bohemian
Cities in the 1 6tll Century], Praha 196 1 , pp.174-175; 192.
44 Pasiii, mesenici, and tobolecnici according to Tomek as reported by V.
Lorenc, Nove mesto praiske (note 2}.
15 F. Roubik, „Krälovsti rychtäii V praiskjch i jinych mestech V letech 1547
aZ 1783“ (Royal Judges in Prague and other Royal Cities in the Years 1547
to 1783], SPDMHP VI (1930}: 265-355, p. 350.
4 0
(today Jindfisskä Street) . They lived from the fruit of their
properties in the city or just outside of the city (wine and beer), as
well as through office holding. In mid-century, the hausehold of
Väclav Haldecey in hause no. 832-II, just off the corner, was quite
modest. 46 Jan Rimsey z Kosmacova, who lived next to Haldecey’s
(Hause no. 833-II) one generation later, was a member of the
New City Councel ( 1 6 1 2) and held an estate office (komomik pfi
deskach zemskych). 47
Araund the corner from the Horse Market on DläZdeni (today
Jindfisskä) lived Daniel Svik z Lukonos, who was a member of the
estate court (Soud nejvyssich Purkrabstvi pra.Zskeho). Svik was
royal judge (rychtaf) from 158 1 -84.48
On the corner on the other side of the street lived leading
councilors (primator) of the New City: Mataus Zluticey z
Bernarecku;49 and Jilji Perger z Castalovic.5o Mataus Zluticey z
Bernarecku followed Daniel Svik z Lukonos as royal judge
(rycht6.f} from 1 584- 1 586.51 Daniel Svik’s son, Jiiik married Anna
Zlutickä z Bernarecku.52 Jifi Svik z Lukonos served at least once
as a member of the City Council ( 1 6 1 2).53
The center of the New City was not a Czech-speaking enclave,
if book collections are any indication. German-language books
were in collections of half of the households whose inventories
provide indication of the language of books.54 Bonifacius Wolmut,
the imperial builder, and Thomas Kyndrmon, the imperial guard,
􀁽6 AMP 2208, p. 350.
􀑯7 AMP 2 146 f. 248a-269a; K. Navrätil, Pameti hlavniho kostela farniho, fary
a skoly Sv. Jindficha a Sv. Kunhuty V Novern Meste Praiskern [Records of
the Main Parish Church, Parsonage, and School of SS. Henry and Kunhuta
in the New City of Prague], Praha 1869.
􀄊s F. Roubik, „Krälovsti rychtäfi (note 451, p. 350.
􀄋9 Burghornaster (Prirnatorl in 1592; AMP 2 146 f. 24 1 b.
50 Burghornaster (Primatorl in 1 6 1 1 and rnernber of council in 1612;
reported in K. Navrätil, Pameti kostela Panny Marie na nebevzete a sv. Karle
Velikeho a byvaleho krälovstveho klästera reholnickich kanovnikü
Lateranslcych sv. Augustina, nyni rnestske chorobnice, na hoi’e Karlove v
Novern rneste Praiskern [Record of the Church of Maria the Annunciation
and St. Charles the Great and the former Royal Cloister of the Order of the
Lateran Canons of St. Augustine, now Birthing Hospital, on the Karlov Hili
in the New City of Prague], Praha 1877.
s•F. Roubik, „Krälovsti rychtäfi (note 451, p. 350.
s2 AMP 2 146 f. 241b.
53 Navrätil, Pameti hlavniho kostela farniho, fary a skoly Sv. Jindficha (note
471.
s􀁽 Ten out of twenty.
4 1
both native German speakers, had only German language books.
Although this may be an indication that they were literate only in
German, it does not preclude the possibility that they had some
oral proficiency in Czech. Same proficiency in Czech was likely
considering that they lived in the New City rather than in other
areas of Prague that had a higher concentration of native German
speakers. The patrician Martin Masapust seemed to have only
Czech language books; likewise, he may have had some oral
proficiency in German. Masopust’s neighbor across the street,
Jilji Perger z Castalovic, also a patrician, had about as many
Czech as German books. The bellmaker Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku on Sirakä Street and his neighbor across the street,
Anna Pätkovä, wife of Rehof Pätek, a natary at the Appellate
court, had an equal number of Czech and German books.
In cantrast to language use, confession was a more elusive
phenomenon. In the late 16th century, confession could and did
quickly fluctuate. Book collections are of little help here, ather
than to verify that literate residents of the center of the New City
had access to a wide variety of works of a theological and
confessianal, polemic nature. 55 Other records merely document
fleeting associations. Ciprian Lopatskj, for example, who lived in
the Jewish Garden, was a delegate from the New City to the
Estate Diet, which debated and introduced the Czech
Confession. 56 Records af hause confiscation following the Battle
af White Mountain provide evidence of canfessional affiliation in
the second decade of the 17th century (which was not necessarily
the same far individuals a few decades earlier) . Daniel Svik z
Lukonos, san or grandson of the royal judge of the same name,
went inta exile as an Utraquist. Jan Rimskj z Kosmacova the
Younger, of the same generatian as Danial Svik z Lukonos and
whose grandfather was the neighbor of Lukonos‘, kept his hause
as an ardent Catholic.
Praperty holdings pravide an illustration of the upper range of
wealth in the New City during the period. The patrician Jifik Svik
z Lukanos had the mast extensive praperty holdings af the
individuals in the study. At the time af his death he awned six
houses, two fields, two gardens, a vineyard, and a hop garden.
55 See chapter 5 for discussion of books and other cultural objects with a
religious theme.
56 Z. Winter, Zivot cirkevni v Cechach. Kultume-historickj obraz z X. a XVI.
stoleti [Church Life in Bohemia. Cultural-Historical Pictures from the 15th
and 16th Centuries], li, Praha 1899.
42
His neighbor across the street, Jilji Perger z Castalovic, patrician
and long-time councilor, owned four houses, one field, one
garden, one vineyard, and two hop gardens. The bellmaker and
city councilor, Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, likewise owned four
houses bur no other properties. Down along the center of the
southwest side of the Horse Market, the gingerbread baker
Buryan Pemikäf owned two houses. Adam Tatek who owned one
house nearby on the Horse Market, also owned four storage
cellars on Havel Market in the Old City.57 [See chart II.5.7.)
The sale prices of the houses on Sirokä Street and the
southwest and of the Lower Horse Market resemble those of other
Prague houses of the period, which at the beginning of the 1 7th
century ranged from 2 1 50-4300 kop Czech groschen to 1 1 ,000
Czech groschen (or 10-20,000 Roman gold pieces.)58
The average sale price of the frrst seven houses on the east
side of Sirokä Street remained steady (approximately 100 kop
Czech groschen) until the beginning of the 17th century, when a
rapid rise took place. Individual house sale prices from year 1 500
to 1600 remained under 200 kop Czech groschen; from the year
1600 to 1620, the sale price of house no. 748 rose to 1000 kop
Czech groschen, house no. 749 to 1800 Czech groschen, and
house no. 747 to 200 kop Czech groschen. [See figs. II.4.5 & 6.)
On the west side of the street, the average house sale prices
experienced a mild rise in the 1560s and 1570s, and a rapid rise
after 1 600. Individual house sale prices from 1500 to 1 550 also
remained under 200 kop Czech groschen, with the exception of
house no. 36b, sold at 1400 to 2000 kop Czech groschen. From
1600 to 1620, house no. 35b sold at 1400to 2000 kop Czech
groschen, and house no. 35a for 1200 kop Czech groschen. [See
figs. II.4.7 & 8.)
On the southwest side of the Lower Horse Market, the average
sale price of the frrst nine houses (house nos. 773-785-II) from
1500- 1 580 ranged between 100 to 200 kop Czech groschen,
about the same as Sirokä Street. From 1580 to 1600, the average
house sale price rose steadily to 600 Czech groschen. Individual
house sale prices were more variable but much less than those on
Sirokä street. In the second half of the 1 6th century, house no.
774b sold for 500 kop Czech groschen, and house no. 782 for 800
57 Adam Tatek was the only individual in the New City sample who owned
property in the Old City as weil.
58 J. Janacek, Rudolf II a jeho doba [Rudolf II and his Age], Praha 1987, p.
209
43
Czech groschen. The hause with the highest sale price on the
block, hause no. 773b, sold in 1607 for 900 Czech groschen. [See
figs. Il.4.9. & 10.)
The arrival of the court certainly played a role in the rise in
hause prices, but other important factors included the general
price revolution in the 16th century, which Bohemia also experienced;
the price of the parcel on which the hause locates: the
hause structure itself (material, construction techniques, special
features, such as vaulted ceilings) ; gardens (which were not
always included in every hause price) ; debts; taxes; and especially
mortgage installments. 59
59 M. Belohlä.vek, M. KoSfä.l & J. Tomä.S, „K problematice cen nemovitosti v
1 5 . a 16.stoleti do doby pfedbelohorske“ [On the Problematic of Real Estate
Prices in the 15th and 16th Centuries until the Pre-White Mountain period],
Zä.pisky katedry es. dejin a archiv. studia, FFUK, rocnik VI ( 1962); Lu bos
Lancinger, „K otäzce studia cen mestskjch domü v Cechäch do konce 18.
stoleti (Ceny domü V Novem Meste nad MetujW [On the Price of Burgher
Houses in Bohemia until the end of the 18th Century (House Prices in New
City on the Metuji)], AUC-Philosophica et Historica 1 : 15- 12 1 .
44
1.3. The Material and Spatial Worlds of
Artisans, Merchants, Nobles, and Imperial
Servants
in the N ew City
A discussion of the ongms, construction, general physical
features and spatial configuration of the street landscape and
burgher house, as was provided in the previous chapter,
represents a mere descriptive background to the material and
spatial world in which the residents of the New City lived in the
late 16th and early 1 7th centuries. These worlds were many and
multifarious, and so was the interaction between them and
between the people who lived within each.
For the resident of the New City, the central focus of life was
the burgher house. Much more complicated socially and
functionally than modern urban housing, the late medieval and
early modern burgher house was both home and workplace for
one or a number of families, sometimes also for their servants
and apprentices. It was also a place to entertain and a forum for
both the formal and informal practices of politics.1 lt was a rich
and colorful world, fllled with a wide variety of objects, including
ordinary items for daily use, such a cleaning, washing, cooking,
and eating; specialized tools and objects for trade and commerce;
and exceptional and valuable objects, including a wide variety of
artistic and cultural objects.2
‚ „Burgher house“ is utilized as a descriptive term to refer to those
structures that served primarily as main places of residence and work for
the majority of inhabitants of pre-modem European cities, as distinguished
from urban palaces, castles, buildings for religious worship, communal
buildings, and market structures. The use of the term „burgher house“ does
not imply that they were residences of burghers only. Burghers alone could
own houses, but not all residents of houses were burghers.
2 For a comparative discussion of urban material culture, as presented in
this chapter of the New City of Prague with other Bohemian cities of the
period, see the following two groups of studies which adopt a similar
approach (i.e. they study many features rather than single object classes): V.
Buiek & J. Stejskalovä, „Interiery domü v jihoceskjch pfedbelohorslcych
mestech (Zivotni styl mesCanü v dobe pozdni renesence a manyrismu)“
(House Interiors in Southern Bohemia Cities in the Pre-White Mountain
Period (Burgher Living Styles in the Late Renaissance and Mannerist Age)),
JSH 1990/LIX/3; 1 13-137; „Mestske domäcnosti v pfedbelohorskjch jiinich
Cechäch (Prameny, metody, stratifikace)“ (Urban Households in Southern
45
In the „visual world“ of Jan Comenius, the hause “ . . . is divided
into rooms (komory or Gemächer), which are the atrium (Pitvor or
Vorgemach), the svietnice (or Stube – no English equivalent),
kitchen (kuchyft or die Küche), the larder (spiZima or SpeissKammer),
the eating room (vecefadlo or Ess-Saal), the chamber
(komora or Gewolbe), and the sleeping chamber (spaci komora or
Schlaff-Kammer) with a built-in bathroom (zdchod). Baskets cany
objects back and forth. Chests, which are opened with a key,
store objects. Under the roof is a firm floor; in the courtyard are
the wall, the tables, and the baths. Under the hause is the beer
cellar (pivnice).3 The Svietnice (or Stube) in the most distinguished
room of the hause, the chamber (komora) the most utilitarian.
„The Stube and Kammer are decorated from the ceiling to the floor with
pictures, and are lit through the window and warmed by the oven. The
objects of the Stube are benches, shelves, and tables with their main frames
and feet and upolsteries. Tapestries are also hung up. ..T he Schlaffkammer
is for rest; the bed was laid out on the frame on a sack of hay with sheets
and blankets. The head lies under the bed’s head with the covering. The
spittoon serves to clear the passages. 􀁾4
In the hause described by Comenius in the second half of the
17th century, there is a place for everything and for every place a
purpose. The comforts were not the same as in the modern
hause, but the hause resembled the modern hause in its
organization. There were rooms especially designed for cooking,
Bohemia in the Pre-White Mountain Period (Sources, Methods,
Stratification)], JSH 1990/LIX/2: 65-80; J. Mikulec, 􀆅Hmotnä kultura na
Starern Meste Praiskem v dobe Pfedbelohorske (Domy a domäcnosti na
krälovske cestej• [Material Culture in the Old City of Prague in the Pre-White
Mountain period (Houses and Households on the Royal Road)], Diplomova
präce, Filozofickä fakulta UK, Katedra ceskoslovenskjch dejin,1986. To
compare the discussion of burgher houses with an urban noble palace, see
V. Ledvinka, „Düm pänü z Hradce pod Stupni (Pfispevek k poznäni geneze a
funkci renesancniho slechtickeho paläce V Praze)“ [The Palace of the
Neuhaus Lords under the Steps (Towards an Understanding of the Genesis
and Function of a Renaissance Noble Palace in Prague], FHB 10 ( 1 986): 269-
3 16; „Renesance feudälniho velmoie v pfedbelohorske Praze (Praiske sidlo
pänu z Hradce v 2. polovine 16. Stoleti)“ [The Residence of a Feudal Magnate
in Pre-White Mountain Prague (The Prague Residence of the Neuhaus in the
Second Halfof the 16th century)], DP LX./11/ ( 1991): 1 13-134.
3 J.A. Comenius, Orbis Pictus Sensualis. Die Sichtbare Welt. A1ätha Viläg.
Svet Spatfujici, Original edition 1685, Reprint, Praha 1989, LXXI/pg. 144.
4 J.A. Comenius, Orbis Pictus Sensualis (note 3), LXXI/pg. 144.
46
eating, sleeping, entertaining guests, and for various work
activities.
The New City Prague burgher hause had many of the same
features, furnishing, and comforts that the Comenius hause had.
Parts or locations of the New City Prague burgher hause, however,
as named in inventories of the period, were more numerous than
those in the Comenius hause. Although Prague was a bilingual
(German- and Czech-speaking) city, the names have come down
of Prague City government from the Hussite Revolution to the
beginning of the Thirty Years War. 5
The locations making up the New City Prague burgher hause,
as named in inventories of the period, are the „kitchen“ (kuchyfl.),
„larder“ (spi.Zima}, „chamber“ (k.omora, komorka), „cellar“ (sklep),
„hall“ (sifl.}, pokoj (today having a general meaning, such as
„room“), pokojicek (linguistic diminutive of pokoj), and general
room designations for which there are no appropriate English or
German equivalents, such as svietnice (German Stube), mdzhaus,
and its diminutive mdzhausek.
Same of the location names in New City Prague inventories are
the same as those in the Comenius hause, such as kitchens,
larders and chambers; while others are different, such as cellar
and pokojicek, mdzhaus, mdzhausek. Since Comenius‘ visual and
sensual world dates from approximately a half century after the
New City houses ( 1 685), the differences in location names may
relate to a functional change that developed during the 17th
century or may merely indicate that a new name developed for a
previously existing loca tion. 6
5 J. Pesek, „Praiske knihy ksaftü a inventäi’ü (Pfispevek k jejich strukrufe a
ryvoji v dobe pfedbelohorske)“ IPrague Civic Will and Iuventory Books
(Contribution towards their Structure and Development in the Pre-White
Mountain Periodl], PSH XV (19821: 63-92; M . Urbanovä, „Sestipänske ufady
na Starern a Novem Meste Praiskem v letech 1547-1628“ IThe Six-Man
Councils of the Old and New Cities of Prague in the years 1547- 1 6 1 1 ) ,
Diplomovä präce, Filozofickä fakulta UK, Katedra pomocnych ved
historick,Ych a archvniho studia, 1979, 23-84.
6 Since the Comenius house has a name designation for a bedroom and the
New City houses do not, this might be an indication that a bedroom, as we
understand it in the modern sense – a room specifically designated for one
or more people containing personal objects in addition to a bed – had
developed semetime between the late 16th and mid- 1 7lh centuries. On the
other hand, it might mean that a name had developed for a particular type
of location which had existed earlier. In some cases, locations for parts of a
house used by city dwellers in the past are a great linguistic heritage. They
represent an important source, just as surviving walls and windows, in the
47
The modern city dweller walking into a New City Prague
burgher house in the late 16th century would be surprised at
some of the things he or she would fmd in a particular room! The
defming characteristic of the material and spatial worlds that
made up the burghers house and of the large landscape of street
and city in which they were embedded was their multi-functional
organization.
1.3 . 1 . KITCHEN („KUCHYN“)
The kitchen in the Comenius house was a large room
fumished with a large stove outfitted with a chimney and an open
frre, a large table, and a wall shelf, on which all sorts of cooking
instruments were hung.
The head cook enters from the larder bringing the cook food . . . [after
preparing the birds, hares , and other meats] . . .It is cooked in large and
small pots on the flre, and the slime is removed with the spoon. The cooked
food is flavored with spices, which are crushed in the mortar or shredded on
the grater. It is grilled on the spit, on the grill, or on the pan on the tripod.
Cooking utensils include the ox’s crutch {hi’eblo ofechj, the blood pan,
cooking aids on which large and flat bowls are washed, pincers, the clever,
drainer, basket, and broom.7
Cooking arrangements in New City Prague burgher houses
varied in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. „Kitchens“ – i.e.
locations where cooking was exclusively performed – can be
identified in twenty-four households in the center of the New City
during this period. In only fourteen of them, however, are these
locations named kitchens. The other ten locations which functioned
as „kitchens“ are named (komora), cellar (sklep}, larder
(spi.Zima}, svietnice, and mazhaus.
It is not clear whether these locations named as kitchens, or
which functioned as kitchens, were independent rooms with a
cooking source of their own or part of other rooms. Heating and
cooking sources represented one of a central group of objects
reconstruction of past living spaces. One must be cautious, however, for
alone they provide just a clue, not confmnation, for how a room or space
was used. See R. Schmidt-Wiegand, „Neue Ansätze im Bereich Wörter und
Sachen,“ Geschichte der Alltagskultur. Aufgaben und Neue Ansätze,
Münster 1980.
7 The „oxes crutch“ and „blood pan“ are objects of unknown construction
and use.
48
determining the function of a household. The earliest European
burgher houses, compromised of one or two rooms, were
organized araund an open frre that served as both a heating and
cooking source. During the Middle Ages and early modern period,
both burgher houses and heating and cooking objects became
more complicated. Hauses grew from two rooms to many, fires
became enclosed, chimneys were installed, and there arose a
separation of heating and cooking sources.8
An illustration of a 16th-century Bohemian kitchen in the frrst
printed Czech cookbook, dating from the year 1535, shows a large
stove with an open frre on top with a chimney.9 The technology of
the stove is similar to the one in the Comenius hause. In terms of
date and geography, however, it is closer to late l 6th-century New
City burgher kitchens than is the Comenius kitchen.
Stoves and ovens are the most common cooking and heating
sources identified in New City households. Stoves were located
primarily in the location called svietnice. While no defmitive
statement can be made concerning the distribution of stoves and
ovens and the identification of cooking areas, the most reasonable
explanation for the fact that svietnice was the location where
stoves were most commonly found is that in many varieties of
cooking spaces, the kitchen was an independent room with its
own cooking source, while in others, the kitchen was a part or
section of the svietnice, which used the stove as both cooking and
heating source.
Two building dispute cases appearing before the Six-man
Councils, one from the New City and one from the Old City,
describe a third type of cooking arrangement in late l6th-century
Prague.
8 On the development of heating and cooking sources in Central Europe, and
their importance in the function of the household, see K. Bedal, Ofen und
Herd im Bauernhaus Nordostbayerns, München 1972; J. Schepers, „Ofen
und Kamin,“ Vier Jahrzerrte Hausforschung, Sennestadt 1973, pp. 75ff; J.
Tauber, „Herd und Ofen im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur Kulturgeschichte
am archäologischen Material vornehmlich der Nordwestschweiz (9.-
14. Jahrhundert),“ Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie
des Mittelalters 7, Olten-Freiburg i.B. 1980, pp. 69ff; V.Pra.Zä.k, „Vjvojove
epochy a stupne topeniSf v ceskem a slovenskem lidovem obydli“
(Developmental Stages of Heating Units in Czech and Slovak Housesj, Cesey
Iid, rocnik 53, cislo 6 ( 1 966): 321-348.
9 Kuchafstvi, 0 rozlicnych krmech (Cookbook. About Various Foodsj, Praha
1535.
49
[on Thursday after St. Jacob the Apostle 1548) Väclav Hasyk the
painter that [accused)… his brother [and next-door neighbor]
Kiystof . . . regarding a kitchen which stood in the garden joined to the
property of Kiystof. . . [Väclav showed the Six-Man Council that
Kiystof] . . . broke down the top surface [of their common kitchen) although the
bottom frame and the floor were still good . . . [and then) tore down and sawed
beams from the wall… [Kiystof states that he) . . . dismantled the bottom part
because it was bad and that when the top fell down, he destroyed it too … 1o
Jan Zvunk accuses his neighbor Anna Hfebenäfka of
building „an oven fpecj next to a wooden structure [Iepenice]
. . . [causing] great danger . . . since it once bumt there . 1 1
The outdoor „kitchens“ describe above a s having a n enclosed
grill as their main components markedly differ in both
construction and method of cooking from indoor kitchens.
Outdoor kitchens did not necessarily represent a cooking
arrangement of the poor. Krystof Malli, the painter and owner of
the outdoor kitchen in the New City mentioned above, was of very
modest means bur not poor. This is indicated in his own civic
will, as weil as by the fact that he was named the lieutenant of
the will of Buryan Kotläf, a wealthy smith from Sirokä Street. l2
The documentation of outdoor kitchens by these building
disputes, which is not found elsewhere, lends support to the
notion of a variety of cooking arrangements in late l 6th-century
Prague. In some households, cooking was performed outdoors.
In others, cooking took place indoors in a multifunctional room on
a fire source that also served as heating unit or in a room
specially designated for cooking with a frre source of its own (i.e. a
kitchen).
Outdoor kitchens may, however, have been dying out in
Prague during this period. In the case of Väclav and Krystof, the
Six-Man Council decided that the complaint was not justified,
. . .b ecause the kitchen was not attached to Väclav’s house . . .V äclav
should build a kitchen of his own . . . and not according to the old style . . . but
1o AMP 2 149 f. 80a-b.
n AMP 473 f. 8 1b.
12 In his civic will of 1554, Kiystof Malif left his tin dishware and 225 kop
groschen to his wife Martha, 10 kop groshen each to his daughters Anna
and Petra, 10 kop groschen to Michala Byrek, and 10 kop groschen to the
Church of St. Stephen (AMP 2207 34 1a) . He is named as lieutenant in
Buryan Kotläf’s civic will (AMP 2207 f. 361a).
50
with a window from which no water or cleanliness should flow into Krystors
garden …a nd the window should be covered with glass and bars.J3
Anna replied to the complaint against her that
an oven and fireplace had been at this spot for may years . . . and if [he
doesn’t like it he can] build a wall up, as long as it doesn’t interfere . . . 14
The kitchens in the Severin cookbook and in the Comenius
house were fairly large rooms with extensive equipment. An exact
picture of kitchens in burgher houses in the center of the New
City remains unclear. Kitchen furnishings described by the
inventories ranged from one item (i.e., a pot in the kitchen of
Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif) to the large kitchen of the cloth merchant
Adam Tatek. The wide range of kitchen furnishings probably
reflects more the particulars of inventory practices than the
kitchens themselves.1s
Disregarding the kitchens of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif and
others that do not contain even the most rudimentary of
equipment, the kitchens described in these inventories, if
generally representative of New City burgher house kitchens, have
similar types of utensils to those found in the Comenius and
Severin kitchen but are more modest in their variety and smaller
in numbers. The most basic equipment included grills, spits,
pots, and frying pans.
1.3.2. THE LARDER OR PANTRY („SPIZiRNA“)
We are not provided with an illustration of the larder in the
Comenius house, from which the head cook entered with the
food. „Larders“ can be identified in seven out of futy-six
households located in homes within the center of the New City.
They were not, however, a storage area exclusively for food, but
served as a storage area for general hausehold items, including
cooking objects. In two households, the „larder“ functioned as a
cooking area (i.e., kitchen). In the house of Jifi Svik z Lukonos,
the „larder“ served as a combination kitchen and general storage
13 AMP 4149 f. 80a-b.
14 AMP 473 f. 8 l b.
15 For example, kitchen equipment may have been considered the property
of the head woman of the hausehold rather than the house owner for whom
most of the inventories in this study were drawn. Unfortunately, this cannot
be verified for these houses owing to the Iack of adequate comparative data.
5 1
area. The Larder was one of many locations in the late 16thcentury
New City Prague burgher house where one could fmd
almost anything.
1.3.3. THE WASHROOM AND BATHROOM
Locations designated as baths can be identified in only three
of flfty-six households located in the center of the New City. One
of them was a storage area for bathtubs that were produced in
the workshop of Markyta Kotläfka, a smith who specialized in
their production. Baths probably existed in other households as
well but were not listed in the inventories because of their sparse
furnishings. In New City Prague houses that had locations
named as baths, „bath“ seemed to designate a location where this
activity was commonly performed rather than a facility specially
designated and used exclusively for this purpose. Markyta
Kotläfka’s next door neighbor Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had a
„Bath“ with no furnishings off of his courtyard. The inventory of
Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke mentions a „bath“ but does not describe
its contents. Anna Steffkovä z Cichanova’s bath consisted of a
large pot and a stove located somewhere on her frrst floor.
Tubs were produced by some metal workers, such as Markyta
Kotläfka, who specialized in their production. Markyta Kotläfka
sold some of hers to the imperial court . 16 Very few of them,
however, appear in houses in the center of the New City. One
exception was Kotläfka’s neighbor, Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku,
who had a tub in one of the bedrooms of his house, perhaps given
to him by or bought from his neighbor. In other New City
households the most common objects for cleansing were the
wash-basin and corresponding bowl, commonly made out of tin
and stored in a cabinet in a bedroom that housed the stove.
New City burghers washed at home with these simple objects
but probably bathed in one of the many public baths in the city.17
Many were located along the riverbank in the New and Old Cities.
The records of the Six-Man Councils name two public bath: the
„Selenov:Y baths“ in the New City and the Old City. 18 Closer to the
center of the New City, right around the corner from Sirokä Street
in the Jewish Garden off Charvartskä Street next to the house of
16 This is indicated in her inventory (AMP 1 2 1 1 .2 1a).
17 See Z. Winter, „V Läznich“ (In the Baths,] Historicke Arabesky, in Sebrane
Spisy VII ( 1 890), pp. 177-214.
18 AMP 2 149 f. 85b; AMP 473f. 230a.
52
Ciprian Lopats:ky lived the bath owner (lazebnik), Jakub Kucera.
A dispute between Kucera and Ciprian Lopats:ky from the year
1564 over a „water pump . . . that [Kucera] rents out to his
neighbors to assist them in transporting wood from the river“
provides evidence that not all public baths were located on the
water bank.19
Public bathing was widespread not only among burghers. An
ongoing dispute in 1580 before the Six-Man Council of the Old
City over uncleanness entering the „New Baths“ because of the
digging of a fish pond on the river bank mentions that members
of the royal court had to leave the bath because of the sme11.2o
These commercial bathing houses represent one example of the
functional division between house and city that was characteristic
in Prague during this period; communal institutions often shared
with individual houses some of the same function (in this case,
bathing) .
For the same reason that baths do not appear in inventories
(i.e., because of their sparse fumishings), toilets also do not
appear. Fortunately (or unfortunately) , we do not have any
illustrations of that what l 6th-century toilets looked like. They
must have been of poor, simple construction. Shared bathrooms
appear as a major object of dispute in cases appearing before the
Six-Man Council of the Old City. One of the major complaints
was „uncleanness that seeps through the wall [and ] . . . that brings
smell with it.“21 Bathrooms in New City houses must have been
of the same poor quality. The fact that not a single bathroom
dispute case exists before the Six-Man Council of the New City
from 1 547 to 1 6 1 1 most surely relates to the small nurober of
bathrooms shared between neighbors, an infrequency due to the
difference in house occupancy pattems.
1.3.4. THE BEDROOM AND SLEEPING QUARTERS
The „sleeping chamber“ (Schlaff-kammery in the Comenius
house is a room fumished sparsely with bed fumiture. One of
the beds (poste􀁞 is larger and sturdier than the other (Zoze) .
Inventories of New City Prague households of the late 16th and
early 17th centuries distinguish four types of beds. The most
19 AMP 2 149 f. 136-137b.
20 AMP 473f. 230a-232a.
21 AMP 473 f. Sb & AMP 473f. 134a.
53
common were the postel and lou, followed by the lüZko and
post!]lka. The loze and lüZko were probably of more simple
construction, in contrast to the poste[, which was raised on legs.22
Forty-three percent of all beds, including loze and lüZko, were
canopied many were decorated with colored curtains. New City
Prague households had cradles for infants and children’s beds,
described as a children’s bunk or children’s bed (detske lou,
lüZko post!]lka), or in one case as an oval bed.
In only one of flfty-six households in the center of the New
City, that of the bell maker Brikci Zvonaf z Ci.mperku, was there
a room that actually was called a bedroom. Three quarters of all
sleeping locations in New City houses were in locations called
chambers (komora) and cellars (sklep), nine percent in mazhaus,
and a small number in svietnice and workshop locations.23 In
nineteen of the ftfty-six households, sleeping locations were
designated for speciflc individuals, such as the deceased or his or
her spouse; female cooks, and apprentices. Not all of these
sleeping locations, however, were bedrooms in the strict sense,
i.e., a room that primarily and exclusively functions as the
sleeping location of one or more individuals and where personal
objects of daily use are also kept.24
Four different types of sleeping arrangements can be identifled
in New City Prague burgher houses of the Period. The frrst type
was a location that had a number of functions, including sleeping
area. The „cellar at the steps across from the svietnice“ in the
house of Väclav Vodicka on the Horse Market was a sleeping and
22 L. Soukupovä., „Lüzko a postel (Pokus o semioticko-funkcni anaJyzu)“
[Bunk and Bed (Attempt at a Semiotic-FunctionaJ Analysis)] Pocta Josefu
Peträitovi, Praha 199 1 , pp. 1 13-136; Z. Winter, „0 staroceske posteli“ [The
TraditionaJ Bohemian Bed], Sebrane Spisy III.
23 These rooms are the locations where beds are found. While in some areas
of pre-modern Europe the location of bed does not serve as an accurate
guide to where people slept, two things would suggest that in pre-White
Mountain Prague the location of beds does suggest sleeping locations: one,
many are canopied and curtain beds, which are difficult to store away in
another room; and two, bed linen is aJways located in the same location as
or adjacent to beds, according to the inventories.
24 The emergence of the Mbedroom“ in the early modern period has been
proposed as a centraJ element in the construction of the private sphere; R.
Chartier (ed.), Passions of the Renaissance, volume Ill, The History of Private
Life, P. Aries & G. Duby (eds.), Carnbridge, Mass. & London 1989.
54
cooking area furnished with a bed (posten, four pots, funnels, a
strainer, and a roasting spit. 2s
Ciprian Lopatskj’s bedroom in an upstairs komora in his
house on Charvatska Street in the J ewish Garden served as a
personal bedroom, kitchen, and storage area.
Table 1.3.1 Upstairs Chamber in the household of Ciprian Lopatskj
in the Jewish Garden – Bedroom, Kitchen and Storage Area26
„Simple“ bed, a ehest on legs, containing clothes, bed linen, an herbal book,
and an old bible; a smaller ehest of eypress, which eontained a gilded silver
goblet, two silver spoons, ten silver eoins, and loose pieees of silver; two
!arge pots for cooking fish; five smaller pots; one !arger kettle; a small „spiee“
ehest eontaining three strainers, a mortar, six spits, two small kettles, a
frying pan, five grills; and another red ehest eontaining a pillow, an old
tapestry, clothes, a buteher’s hatehet, and a seale.
The second type of sleeping arrangement found in households
in the center of the New City was a single function sleeping area
containing a bed and perhaps some linen, such as the SchlaffKammer
in the Comenius hause. The „upstairs chamber“ in the
hause of Väclav Vodicka an the Horse Market, which was
furnished with a bed (postel), bed linen, and a wash basin, was
also of this type.27
The third type of sleeping arrangement was a more
sophisticated arrangement consisting of a bed and personal items
and some clothes, books, etc., linking the location to a specific
person. This is the private bedroom, which appears more and
more frequently in European homes during the 16th and 17th
centuries. The „cellar under Bartolomej’s room“ in the hause of
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku represents a bedroom resembling those
of today. It contains a bed (loze); bed linen; a bench; a ehest
containing tin and brass dishware; another ehest with clothes,
tablecloths, napkins and towels; and a third ehest containing
documents; a fourth, smaller ehest with five tapestries; and,
strangely, a bathtub.28
The fourth sleeping arrangement found in New City Prague
burgher houses of the period was the bedroom area that also
25 Sklep u sehodü proti svietnice (loeation 2) in house of Vaclav Vodicka.
26 Komora kde neboztik lihal (loeation 3) in house of Ciprian Lopatsey.
rt Komora hofejsi (loeation 3) in house of Vaclav Vodicka.
2s Sklep pod pokoj Bartolomej (loeation 10) of House no. 747-II of Brikci
Zvonaf z Cimperku.
55
served as a storage area for many personal items not necessarily
relating to daily use, such as art objects.
Table 1.3.2 „Dry cellar“ in the Household of Jiii Svik z Lukonos
in houae no. 792-II, „in which tbe deceued alept“29
. . . a !arge canopied bed; a writing desk with drawers containing documents;
a small box containing documents („majestaty“) bestowing coat-of-arms and
a few pieces of crystal; a standing armoire containing twenty-three pieces of
clothes; sixty-one weapons, including swords and firearms, two of which
were gilded; a ehest with wooden cruvings containing linen. Napkins and
tablecloths, clothes (men’s, women’s, and children’s); jewelry; coins; fortyfour
pieces of tin dishware; a pillow; two small empty chests. One black and
the other icon; a piece of a well; and an iron chain for a carriage.
The bedroom of Jiiik Svik z Lukonos’s wife, Anna Zlutickä z
Bernarecku, as described in her husband’s inventory, was the
„Small room (pokojik) in which the deceased [female) slept.“ It
contained a canopied bed with green curtains, a cot (post!)lka},
nine pieces of bed linen, four drinking glasses, large and small,
nine pewter mugs with covers, and a gun in holster.30
The hausehold of Jilji z Castalovic was one of two in the center
of the New City whose inventory locations were designated by the
names of the children who occupied them. The upstairs „room
where the child sleeps“ was furnished with a green canopied bed
(postel}, and second (postel}, a cradle, two pieces of bed linen, a
table with „miscellaneous objects [on it] used for healing,“ and a
clothes rack with pieces of „Children’s bed linen“ on it (detinske
podupacky}.31 The „room where [his) son sleeps,“ also located on
the frrst floor, probably next to the communal weapons chamber,
was furnished with a bed (ltiZko), „a few personal objects,“ three
long rifles, and two pistols. „32
The most common sleeping arrangement for cooks was an
impersonal location without any personal belongings, for example,
the „chamber where the cooks lie“ in the hause of Markyta
29 Sklep suchny v nem.Z NeboZtik lihal (location 5) in house no. 792-II of Jiftk
Svik z Lukonos.
30 Pokojik V nem.Z Nebozka leiela (location 7) in house no. 792-ll of Jiiik Svik
z Lukonos.
31 Pokoj kde dite lihä (location 14) in house of Jilji Perger z Castalovic (house
no. 791-ll).
32 Pokoj kde syn lihä (location 10) in house of Jilji Perger z Castalovic (house
no. 791-ll).
56
Kotläfka, which consisted of a bed (loze) and two feather
blankets.33 Somewhat more elaborate but still of the same type is
the „chamber off the mazhaus where the cook lied“ in the house of
Väclav Vodicka on the Horse Market, which was furnished with
two beds (luzko}, one of them a green canopied bed; two chairs; a
black bench; a writing desk; a small ehest with sheets; two other
chests, one small and one large; a leather pillow; two table cloths;
a wooden pipe; and two iron spigots for beer.34 The presence of
the V�T􀅄 iting desk is interesting but it is not clear whether it was
used by the female cooks themselves or whether it was used by
other house occupants and just stored in the cook’s room.
Apprentices in artisanal households in the center of the New
City bad sleeping arrangements the same as those of cooks, i.e. ,
an impersonal sleeping location rather than one of the bedrooms.
In the hausehold of Markyta Kotläfka, the sleeping quarters of
her metal-working apprentice, which consisted of four beds, was
located in an upstairs room („the chamber where the apprentice
lies“) next to the female cook’s quarters.35 The „chamber where
the apprentices lie“ in the house of Jan Zlacy, also on Sirokä
Street, consisted of two beds. 36
1.3.5. THE TRADITIONAL BOHEMIAN SITTING-ROOMS
(„SVIETNICE“ AND „MAzHAUS“)
In the earliest burgher households, furniture was of a few
simple varieties. A standard collection included tables, benches,
chests, and perhaps a cabinet. Furniture pieces served a nurober
of purposes at the same time – as a surface on which to sit, cook,
wash, place objects, or store dishware, other hausehold objects,
or art objects. As the burgher house grew in size and complexity,
additional types of furniture developed to take on more specific
functions. 37 In addition to beds, other types of furniture found in
33 Komora kde kuchafky lihaji (location 3) of house no. 748 or 746-11 of
Markyta Kotläfka.
34 Komora na Mazhaus kde kuchafka lihavala (location 16) in House no.
846-11 of Vaclav Kamaryt z Rovin.
35 Komora tovaryse nahofe (location 2) of house no. 748 or 746-11 of Markyta
Kotläfka.
36 Komora kde lihaji tovarysi (location 6) of house of Jan Zlacy.
37 On the history of Central European furniture and interior design, see H .
Kreisel & G . Himmelheber, Die Kunst des deutschen Möbels. Möbel und
Vertäfelungen des deutschen Sprachraums von den Anfängen bis zum
Jugendstil, Band 1,Von den Anfängen bis zum Hochbarock, München 1968;
57
the New City Prague burgher house were tables, benches, chairs,
cabinets, chests, and desks.
Most of the tables found in New City Prague burgher houses
were of a sturdy type common throughout the Middle Ages,
available in standard (still) or small (stolicek) variety, constructed
of wood or stone. Most common was the standard table found in
eighty percent of the households in the center of the New City,
while the shorter variety was found in only forty-three percent.
Even less numerous than tables were benches, distinguished in
the inventories as stolice and lauice, found in thirty and fourteen
percent of the households, respectively.
One of the most distinguishing features of late 16th- and early
1 7th-century households in the New City was the low ratio of
chairs to tables and, more generally, the limited number of chairs
at all in the household. Chairs distinguished in inventories in a
standard (Zidle) and smaller variety (Zidlicka}, were found in only
forty-three and thirty-eight percent of the households in the
center of the New City. Most were of simple, sturdy design. A
third of the chairs were of two design types: the long chair
(dlouh.a), and the double, or two-seater, chair (dvojita).
Chests, cabinets, and armoires were the most common pieces
of furniture in the New City Prague burgher houses. Inventories
distinguish between two types of cabinets – the standard almara
and the smaller almarka- and three types of chests – the standard
truhla, and the smaller truhlicka and truhlice. Many cabinets and
chests were simple construction and design, constructed of wood
or iron. Some were decoratively painted or carved .38 They served
as a place of storage for all types of objects, including dishware,
cooking utensils, clothes, bed linen, books, and art objects. The
cabinet frequently served as holder for wash basins; it often
contained drawers and sections.
In the Comenius houses, benches, shelves, and tables,
together with the stove and paintings, were defming
characteristics of the Stube, the central living area of the house.
Together with chairs and cabinets, they were a standard
fumishing of the banquet hall. In burgher houses in the center of
S . Hinz, Innenraum und Möbel. Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Berlin
1 980.
3815% and 14% of almara and almafka respectively were painted, and 32%,
20% and 30% of truhla, truhlicka, and truhlice, respectively. On color
motifs in popular material culture, see W. Brückner, „Farben als Zeichen,“
Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 78 ( 1 982): 14-27.
58
the New City, there were numerous general living areas. Not all of
these areas were called the Stube. Svietnice, mdzhous, pokoj and
sifi also served as central living areas. It is in these areas that
one fmds a combination of general fumiture, furnishings such as
antlers, candlestick holders, paintings, and the oven.39
In cantrast to other rooms, svietnice were areas where one
might bring guests. They were what one might call representational
or presentational. For many of these locations, the actual
distinction between these two qualities „presentational“
corresponding to a general, traditional feature of decor, and
„representational“ relating to a particular, individualistic display is
not clear.40 The fmdings from the study of New City Prague
inventories call into question conceptual terminology found in the
literature of vemacular architecture and the history of
architecture, which have associated these rooms with specific
spatial locations. 41 The inventories remind us that room
functions are very specific to time and place and change over
time.
As a whole, rooms named svietnice in New City Prague
burgher houses resembled the Stube in the Comenius hause; a
general living area where one most often found the stove, general
furniture, and a few paintings. Individual svietnice varied,
however. The traditional Bohemian svietnice was, in reality, a
multi-functional location in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
Seven general variations can be distinguished.
Two svietnice in the center of the New City resembled the
Stube in the Comenius hause and can be seen as a central living
area with a presentational or representational quality. In the
hause of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin, the svietnice was fumished
with a stove; a canopied bed; two !arge tables; a small table; one
bench; a cabinet; a glass lamp; a mirror; and twenty-five
39 In the New City Prague burgher house, tables and chairs are found, in
descending order of frequency, in svietnice, mäzhaus, sklep, pokoj and sifl,
cabinets in svietnice, sklep, mäzhaus, komora, sifl, and pokoj; and chests in
sklep, komora, and svietnice.
40 I am borrowing this conceptual distinction from S. Kinser, „Presentation
and Representation: Carnival at Nuremberg, 1450-1550,“ Representations
13 (Winter, 1986): 1 – 4 1 .
41 According to Vä.clav Mencl, mazhaus was a !arge central hall, located
mainly in the major living area of the house from which in an earlier stage in
the development of eating and cooking stages, the stove was removed to an
adjacent location; V. Mencl, Lidova architektura v Ceskoslovensku
[Vemacular Architecture in Czechoslovakia], Praha 1980.
59
paintings, large and small.42 Similar was the upstairs svietnice of
Jilji Perger z Castalovic which contained two large tables, two
small leather tables, three cabinets filled with books and precious
objects, and seventeen framed pictures. 43
The svietnice could also function as a kitchen.
Table 1.3.3 Lower „Svietnice“ in the household of Vaclav Vodicka
ou the Horse Market – Kitchen44
. . . eight bowls, nine tin dishes, four tin mugs, three tin salt bowls, a pot for
cooking fish, two roasting spits. A copper pot, a knife in a pouch, and a
!arge pot for washing clothes.
A third type of svietnice functioned as a bedroom, eating room,
and general living area. In the household of Sirneon Polidor z
Balbinus on Vodickovä Street, the „children’s bedroom“ was
furnished with two beds (luzko}, one of them in bars; a wash
basin; five tin plates; five tin mugs; three goblets; a candle stick
holder; and a mortar. 45
A fourth type of svietnice served as a sleeping and general
living area. The svietnice of Magdalene Hvezdovä in house
no.782-II on the Horse Market was furnished with a stove, a
white cot (post-ylka}, two small cabinets, a tin wash basin with
draws, a large and a small table, two simple chairs, a long bench,
a small chair, and a coat rack. It was decorated with a picture of
the birth of Christ, another of his baptism, and a third picture. 46
The „upstairs svietnice“ of Magdalena Grafeus in the Jewish
Garden was furnished with a stove, a canopied bed (luzko) with
green curtains, two large tables, one small table, a small copper
wash basin, a small pot to carry water, three jugs, eight goblets of
various types, four plates, nine bowls, two salt bowls, silver pieces
on a string. And a silver coin with a figure of Paul, and a silver
coin with eight small figures in silver. 47
42 Svietnice (location 17) in house no. 846-II of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin.
„�3 Svietnice nahofe (location 5) in house no. 790-II of Jilji Perger z Castalovic.
« Svietnice dolejsi (location 7) in house of Väclav Vodicka.
45 Detinskä svietnice (location 6) in house no. 698-II of Sirneon Polidor z Balbinus.
46 Svietnice (location 1) in hause no. 782-II of Magdalena Hvezdovä.
„�7 Svietnice nahofe (location 1) in house of Magdalena Grafeus in Jewish
Garden.
60
A flfth suietnice was one that served as a general work and
storage areao The „upstairs suietnice“ of Matej Brzobohacy was
furnished with two tables, a large pot for washing clothes, three
pieces of bed linen, six ice cleavers, a piece of horse-riding
equipment, a piece of armor, and six firearmso4s
A sixth type of suietnice was a general living and eating areao
The „large upstairs suietnice“ in the house of Mikuläs Ruze z
Orlicne was furnished with a stove, three tapestries, six antlers,
one large table, three smaller tables, three armoires, one chair, a
wash basin, a candlestick holder, a salt shaker, and a poto49
Lastly, in six households, the suietnice represented an
indistinguishable living area, furnished with only a wash basin
and pot.
The mazhaus, found in half of the houses in the center of the
New City, like the suietnice, was also a multi-functional location
where one commonly found furniture and bedso Individual
mazhaus varied much more than the suietniceo Nine variations are
distinguished 0
The frrst is the mazhaus that served as a generat living area
with representational character. This can be identified in only
one house in the center of the New City of the period: the
mazhaus of Jilji Perger which was furnished with a marble table,
eight framed pictures, and a cabinet filled with thirteen
weaponso50
The second variation in the mazhaus was a mixed area with
representational quality, such as the mixed sleeping,
representational area of the „large mazhaus“ in Anna Zlutickä z
Bernarecku’s hausehold in house noo 792-IIao This room was
furnished with fourteen miscellaneous pictures, antlers, one bed
(lü.Zko}, two large and three small tables, one leather table with a
white leather pillow, three large red chairs, one small chair, five
cabinets, one small red cabinet, and another small standing
cabineto s1 Another example is the mazhausek in the new
structure of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku, furnished with antlers,
48 Svietnice nahafe (lacatian 4) in hause nao 1056 ar 1 057-11 af Matej
Brzabahatyo
49 Velka svietnice dale (lacatian 17) in house noo 853-11 of Mikulas Ruze z
Orlicneo
so Mazhaus (lacation 7) in house nao 790-11 af Jilji Perger z Castalovico
s1 Mazhaus veley (locatian 2) in hause noo 792-II of Anna Zluticka z
Bernarecku 0
6 1
a stone table, two beds, a suit of armor, seven weapons, and
equipment for serving beer.52
Third, the rruizhaus could be a hausehold work area, as it was
in the hausehold of Markyta Kotläfka in hause no.748 or 746-II,
which consisted of two large boiling pots for washing, twelve large
copper pots. One large brass pot, two additional copper pots, one
frying pan, and one striking clock. 53
Fourth, it could be a simple sleeping location, as in the
hausehold of Anna Patkovä, which held a canopied bed and four
empty chests. 54
The mazhaus could be a storage room for general households
items, such as in the hause of Jan Zlacy.55
It could be a kitchen, as in the „upper mazhaus“ of Jan
Kalvoda, which contained one table, six pots for cooking fish, one
stew pot, four spits, two grills, and one empty white cabinet.56
A seventh variation of the milzhaus is a cooking and eating
area, such as the „middle mazhaus“ of Jan Kalvoda, in which lay
two large tables; two small tables; three benches for four; and
three cabinets, one green and two red, one containing a mortar,
stew pot, and small box. 57
It could be a general dining room area, as in the hause of
Adam Tatek, which consisted of two large tables, one small table,
and one chair.58
The mazhaus could also be a location with indistinguishable
function as was the „upstairs mcizhaus“ in the hause of Brikci
Zvonaf, which was furnished with two tables, a yellow ehest
containing fourteen sheets of bed linen, and a horse bridle
hanging on the wall. 59
1.3.6. THE COMMON AND UNCOMMON CELLAR („SKLEP“)
The „cellar“ was perhaps the most enigmatic room in New City
Prague burgher houses. Looking at all cellars in the center of the
New City as a whole, the cellar was a location with no
52 Mazhausek (location 6) in nove staveni of Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku.
53 Mazhaus (location 5) in house no. 748 or 746-II of Markyta Kotiäi’ka.
54 Mazhaus (location 2) in house of Anna Patkovä.
55 Mazhaus (location 5) in house of Jan Zlacy.
56 Mazhaus horejsi (location 9) in house of Jan Kalvoda.
57 Mazhaus prostredni (location 7) in house of Jan Kalvoda.
58 Mazhaus (location 12) in house no. 783 and 784-ll of Adam Tatek.
59 Mazhaus nahore in house no. 747-II of Brikci Zvonar z Cimperku.
62
recognizable function. It could serve a number of functions, one of
which corresponds to its modern use as a place for storage.
Twenty-eight sklep were storage areas for particular objects,
including the so-called „wet“ (mok,Y) cellar for wine and beer, and
„dry“ (such!)) cellar for dishware, wood, food, and horse-riding
equipment, tools, artisanal objects, bed linen, and clothes. Three
were mixed wet and dry storage areas for wine and other items.
Eleven were mixed dry storage areas for a wide selection of items,
including art objects. Seventeen cellar were mixed, dry storage
areas for a wide selection of item without art objects. Fifteen
cellars were bedrooms; an additional fifteen were bedrooms where
large numbers of personal items were also stored.
1 . 3 . 7 . THE BALCONY OR TERRACE („PAVLAC“)
A terrace or balcony araund part or all of one or more of the
upper floors of the hause, overlooking either an inner or rear
courtyard and in some cases facing the street, opened or
enclosed, was one of the most distinctive features of Central
European houses. Inventories identify them on only eight of the
fifty-six houses in the center of the New City but more of them
probably had them. Six of the eight terraces in the New Cities
were used as storage. The most interesting was the terrace in the
hause of Jan Kalvoda.
Table 1.3.4 The Balcony (pavlac) of Jan Kalvoda60
„New“ armoire containing three eoats; another armoire with doors eontaining
six pieces of clothes; five ehests eontaining old bed linen; a bib ehest
eontaining clothes, among them a cloth belt („vinek“?) with silver buttons; a
small ehest eontaining a silver belt, a gilded silver jug, gilded silver goblet
with a cover, two hats, table cloths, and a prayer book of Jan Haberma; a
medium-sized ehest containing collar, shirt and vests of the deeeased, warn
women’s shirts and vests, bed linen; a „lang“ box with H ungarian golden
coins; another small, yellow ehest containing rolled-up clothes.
While the New City Prague burgher house of the late 16th and
early 1 7th centuries shared many of the features, furnishing, and
comforts that the Comenius hause had, it contrasted with it in its
complexity. Whereas the Comenius house had a kitchen, a
bedroom, a general living area, etc., many burgher houses in the
60 Pavlac (loeation 3) in house of Jan Kalivoda.
63
center of the New City had a nurober of areas for living, working,
sleeping, etc. A more important difference than their complexity
was their organization, or functional disposition of space. In the
Comenius house, each room had a major function and every
function a room. Many rooms and areas of the New City Prague
burgher house, in contrast, were multi-functional, and many
functions took place in different areas of the house.61
In some households, cooking took place in a specific room, in
others in a general living area. Eating and cooking, which in
many modern households take place in the same location, were
spatially separated in the New City Prague household. In New
City Prague burgher houses in the late 16th and early 17th
centuries, eating was an activity that could and often did take
place in many areas of the house. Some individuals slept in their
own bedrooms, where they also kept some of their personal
belongings. Cooks, apprentices, and other members of the
household, including relatives of the house owner, slept in
undefmed sleeping locations. Some locations of the house were
specifically designated for storage, many more than in the modern
household. Some areas of the house appear less as traditional
storage than as places where things are just laid.
While multi-functionality of the burgher house was the
distinguishing characteristic of New City burgher homes, it was
not a feature limited to burgher homes. An engraving of the
Vladislav Hall of the Prague castle from the year 1607 by Aegidius
Sadeler provides evidence of multi-functionality at the Prague
castle as weil. The room that had been built at the beginning of
the 16th century as a horse parade room for ceremonial occasions
and that served the imperial court of Rudolf II as a reception
room for foreign dignitaries and other important visitors also
functioned as a market place for articles such as popular prints.
Was there an order to this multi-functionality or was it a
disorganized heap?
In a small hausehold consisting of four to six rooms, it is not
surprising that one cooks, eats, and sleeps in a single room or set
of rooms located around the cooking and heating sources the few
61 One of the few mentions of multi-functionality as an important feature of
household organization is R.-E. Mohrmann;Städtische Wohnkultur in Nordwestdeutschland
vom 17. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (aufgrund von
Inventaren),“ Nord-Süd Unterschiede in der städtischen und ländlichen
Kultur Mitteleuropas, Münster 1985, 89-155. See also R.-E. Mohrmann,
Alltagswelt im Land Braunschweig, 2 volumes, Münster 1990.
64
precious objects that one owns along with ordinary hausehold
objects, creating a „cluttered“ environment. Special rooms for
representational purposes do not come into question. With a
limited amount of space at one’s disposal, multi-functionality was
a necessity, and no explanation needs to be sought for a
particular pre-modem European spatial organization pattem.
Beds, bed linen, and cooking equipment were kept in both
locations of the two-room ground-floor hausehold of the imperial
builder Bonifacius Wolmut, which was located across from the
bell tower of St. Stephen’s Church. The garden was used as a
storage area.62 The central living area of Jiiik Lynder’s threeroom
hausehold on Sirokä Street was made of the svietnice, the
side where a stove was located, and „the cellar across from the
svietnice,“ furnished with five beds and cooking utensils.
In the six-room, two-story hausehold of the painter Baptista
and Mandalena Grafeus, which was located in the Jewish
Garden, the upstairs pokoj and adjacent komora served tagether
as the central living space of the house.63 In the komora,
furnished with cooking utensils and two beds, one slept and
stored cooking utensils; in the pokoj, furnished with an oven and
two tables, one caoked, ate, and prabably generally amused
oneself.
The same type of arrangement can be seen in the six-roam,
two-stary hausehold af Jiiik Fric an the lower Horse Market. The
komora „aff the milzhaus“ was furnished with a bed, bed linen,
and cooking equipment. The adjacent svietnice, furnished with a
stove and dishware, was the locatian where one ate and generally
came together. Two additional beds were located in the upstairs
parch (laube).
While multi-functianality in smaller househalds should be seen
as a spatial necessity, multi-functional organization of larger
hauses or househalds is another matter. With more available
space, there are mare chaices an how ta organize ane’s living and
work space. The availability of certain locations of the home as
representational space, thus, becomes a real option. Another
important factor in the spatial arganizatian af ane’s harne, in
62 Wolmut’s inventory identifies three locations, one of which is „the space in
the garden.“
63 The inventory of Baptista Grafeus identilies four locations; that of his wife
Mandalena six. From this it is to be assumed that the hausehold was made
up of at least six rooms.
65
addition to available space, was social occupational requirements
and demands.
In considering the organizational structure of households, it is
important to distinguish the contributing factors to the problern
(how a hausehold could be organized) and the solution to that
problern (how a hausehold ultimately was organized).
Occupational requirements and socio-economic limits were
important factors which shaped the functional-spatial
organization of the household. The house was the physical
environment where the local and market economy was translated
into the daily life of home and work. At the same time, however,
it is not possible to show that these factors went beyond a general
influence to actually determine the functional spatial organization
of the burgher house.
The presence of the hearth, for example, was indeed an
important factor in a house’s functional structure, particularly
with respect to cooking. However, in the large, complex
environment of the burgher house of the late 16th and early 17th
century, it was not the center of house and home, as it was in the
beginnings of urban society in one-floor houses composed of two
or three rooms. It is difficult to identify the center of some of
these large houses where multi-functionality is the principle of
organization. That is not to say, however, that there are no
patterns.
This study contends that no socio-economic factors can be
identified that predetermine the organizational layout of specific
households. Each hausehold in the center of the New City
represents a particular multi-functional solution based on a cross
of prototypes, which correspond to a particular requirement or
demand: residential, artisanal workshop, merchant, and rentieragricultural.
What follows is a presentation of the functional organization
structures of a few households from the center of the New City.
They are classified according to the dominant prototype.
1.3.8. LARGE ARTISANAL HOUSEHOLD: BRIKCf ZVONAR Z
CIMPERKU (BELLMAKER, COUNCILOR) – 1550- 1 602
The hausehold of Brikci z Cimperku, master bellmaker and
New City councilor, located in the two-story „Bell House“ on
Sirokä Street, took up more than thirty locations. [See fig.
II .4 . 1 1 .] He resided and worked in the house from his birth in
66
1 550 to his death in 1602. Right before his death, the household
consisted of Brikci himself, his second wife AlZbete z Volfenburgu,
his son Bartolomej, Bartolomej’s wife Katefina and their son
Brikci Jan, Ludmila, who was the widow of Brikci’s son Brikci,
Jr., their child Jan Kristof, two female cooks, and three
apprentices.64
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku was a member of the city council,
but he probably spent much of his day in the workshop that his
grandfather had inherited in the frrst quarter of the 16th
century.65 Brikci’s workshop took up seven locations around the
courtyard on the ground floor. Sirokä Street had remained in the
16th century the metal-working district of the city that it had
become after the founding of the New City in the mid- 14th
century. Mining and metalwork were at a sophisticated level in
Bohemia and metalwork had become a highly specialized and
diversified trade.66 Urban metal-working shops like Brikci Zvonaf
z Cimperku’s were comprised of an area in a house where
material culture was both used, as tools, as well as produced, as
fmished products.67 Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku’s bellmaking
workshop on Sirokä Street in the New City was one of the most
elaborate in the city.
In addition to the foundry (Jw.t:), which was only on the west
end of Sirokä Street, the workshop included four storage areas for
raw materials and finished products, and additional storage areas
for miscellaneous items affiliated with the workshop. Adjacent to
these work areas was a mixed-storage area and a wine storage
area.
M Brikci was married twice, first with Vorsile, and later with Alzbeta z
Volfenburgu. With Vorsile he had four children: Bartolomej, Brikci Jr.,
Simon, and Anna. The oldest child, Bartolomej, married Katefina in 1602
and they had a child: Jan Brikci. Brikd Jr. was married twice and had a
son: Jan Kristof. Sirnon married Anna Stefkovä z Cichanova. Anna married
Ondfej Kociur z Votina. Z. Winter, „Zvonafove z Cimperku“ !The Bell Makers
of Cimperg], PA XVII ( 1896-97): 444-49.
65 On the material world of artisans, see Handwerk und Sachkultur im
Spätmittelalter (=Sb. Ak. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 5 13/ 1 1) , Wien 1988.
66 On iron mining and iron technology in Bohemia during this period, see R.
Pleiner et al., Dejiny hutnictvi v Ceskolovensku !The History of Mining in
Czechoslovakia], dil 1 , Praha 1984.
67 On the artisanal work of workshops such as Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku,
see D. Starä, Cin. Z dejin konväfstvi. Katalog rystavy v NM z Praze !Tin.
From the History of Bohemian Metalwork. Exhibition Catalogue of the
National Museum in Prague], Praha 1972.
67
In spite of its sophistication , its operations and equipment
were simple. The bellmaking process involved melting down metal
that had been mined and produced elsewhere, pouring the malten
metal into molds, and frnish shaping and decorating the product.
Of the three major types of faundry used in the period – reduction
frre, „frne“ oven (zkujfwvaci) and shaft fumace – the type that
Brikci had is unknown.68 The tools of the trade included weights
and small shovels, to measure and move raw material, hammers
to work the metal, saws, and cutting knives (radlice, kro.ftdlo).
Acid was used in cutting and engraving the metal. The raw metal
came in different sizes and shapes: tin, small and large brass
balls; and iron pieces of various types, including rails (sinü) and
an unknown type (klygerasü). The products of Brikci’s workshop
included cow bells, cymbals, bells, and small and large shovels.
Next to the workshop, which was located on the ground floor
off of the courtyard, was a bedroom containing one bed and a
sleeping location fumished with three beds, a bath, and a wine
storage. These locations may have been for apprentices or other
servants. Some apprentices slept in a room on the frrst floor
specially designed for them, which was fumished with a bed.
Brikci’s wife had a bedroom of her own on the frrst floor
fumished with two beds. Adjacent to her bedroom were two
additional locations, each containing two beds and a storage area
for clothes. One of them was probably the room where Brikci’s
son Bartolomej slept. A cooking Storage area „in front of the room
where the windows lie“ and a „kitchen“ were also on the frrst floor.
A ehest belanging to Brikci’s wife is found alone in a nearby
„room“ (pokoj).
Brikci hirnself probably slept in the „large upstairs svietnice“
containing one bed and decorated with a portrait of the emperor,
a map of Vienna, and a map of Moravia. Adjacent to the svietnice
were other rooms of representational character. One room (pokoj)
was decorated with twenty-eight pictures. A location of a wash
basin in the room indicates that Brikci probably washed up here
in privacy when he did not wish to wash in the „bath“ located in
the courtyard. The „large svietnice,“ decorated with eight
pictures, had a desk that contained books and art. Across from
the „large svietnice• was a „gentlemen’s room“ (pansky pokoj or
Herrenzimmer). The room off the balcony was fumished with two
large tables and a small table.
68 R. Pleiner et al., Dejiny hutnictvi (note 66), pp. 7 1 -80.
68
A few important things to note in this hausehold are, on the
one hand, how few bedrooms it had relative to the total size of the
house, and, on the other hand, the presence of separate
bedrooms for the head of the hausehold and his wife. Brikci’s
oldest son, Bartolomej, and Bartolomej’s wife and child lived in
the house, but there does not seem to have been a bedroom for
them nor is there a specifically named location for where they
slept. While bedrooms are few, representational rooms are more
numerous.
The most striking feature of his hausehold was its relative
functional and physical orderliness. While neither individual
rooms nor floors can be described as having a particular function,
specific „blocks“ of the house seem to be related to specific
individuals, i.e., the workshop, the servant’s block, Brikci’s block
and Brikci’s wife’s block.
1 . 3 .9 . MEDIUM-SIZE ARTISANAL HOUSEHOLD:
MARKYTA KOTLARKA (SMITH), 1 537-1 580
The smith Markyta Kotlä.fka was Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku’s
next door neighbor. She kept two households on Sirokä. Street.
The eleven-location, two-story residence in hause no. 748 or 746-
II was her main residence and a central work area for her metal
workshop.69 [See fig. 11.4. 1 2 .]
The main hausehold was made up of five rooms on the
ground-floor and five on the frrst floor araund a courtyard (hence,
eleven locations) .
The courtyard served as the workshop area. While Brikci
Zvonaf z Cimperku’s production specialized in bells, Markyta
produced the ubiquitous and versatile pots and kettles of various
sizes (kotly, kotliky, hmce, and hmicky) , made out of brass and
copper, that were found in large quantities in New City
households and used for cooking, bathing, and washing; she also
made tubs, which were less common in New City households.70
69 She and her busband Buryan Kotläf bought the house in 1537 (SÜRPMO
pasport cp 748-11). After Buryan’s death in 1562, she lived there with her
second busband Tomäs KrumlovsJcy until her death in 1580. Buryan Kotläf
probably died shortly after registering bis Civic Will in 1562 (AMP 2207.f.
403a); Marketa died in 1580 (AMP 2208 f.498a).
70 D. Starä, Cin. z dejin konväfstvi (note 67).
69
Other locations on the ground floor included a kitchen; a
„second kitchen“ and „larder“, both of which served as storage
areas for kitchen utensils; a „!arge svietnice“ furnished with a
stove, six tables, three chairs, and a bed; and a bedroom
furnished with two beds and two chests containing clothes and
books.
On the second story were an empty „upstairs chamber;“ „the
chamber where the female cooks sleep,“ furnished with one bed;
„the chamber where the apprentices sleep,“ furnished with four
beds; the mQ.zhaus, which functioned as a tool storage room; and
„the upstairs cellar“ containing one bed and eleven chests fllled
with dishware and objects of applied art.
Also on Sirokä Street was a seven-room, two-story household,
which served as Kotläfka’s second residence and workshop
storage area. The second hausehold was made up of three
locations on the ground floor and three on the frrst floor araund a
courtyard. On the ground floor was a svietnice furnished with a
stove; a „rear svietnice,“ also furnished with a stove; and „the
bath,“ which served as a storage room for fmished bath tubs. On
the frrst floor were a „cellar“ furnished with a stove; another
„cellar“ which served as a mixed-storage area; and an „upstairs
chamber“ containing bed linen.
What is striking about this second hausehold is the !arge
percentage of rooms that were devoted directly or indirectly to the
workshop – including the two sleeping locations and the storage
location on the second floor, the cooking and eating facilities on
the ground floor, and almost the entire second hause.
1.3. 10. MEDIUM-SIZE RENTIER-AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD:
MARTIN MASOPUST – UNTIL 1 592
The eleven-location, two-story hausehold of Martin Masopust
located on the corner of the Horse Market and Nove DlciZdeni
(today Jindfisska street), was exactly the same size as Markyta
Kotläfka’s household. [See fig. 11.4. 13.] Martin Masopust lived in
the hause with his wife Dorota and daughter Eva until his death
in 1 592_71
Martin Masopust, a member of the New City Council, earned a
living from his agriculture holdings. From these agricultural
holdings, Masopust produced and served beer. By the Iate 15th
7t AMP 2209 f.77a; AMP 2 146 248a-249a.
70
century, beer brewing had developed to a profitable economic
activity in Bohemia and an issue of dispute between the nobility
and the royal cities, at whose head stood Prague. In the capital
city, beer brewing was not practiced as an organized trade, nor
was the right to brew beer open to all burghers or to house
owners. Only a few houses held the privilege of beer brewing,
such as the Masopust house. 72
Since beer brewing was not a trade, those engaging in it did
not take on apprentices, as did smiths, such as Markyta
Kotläfka, with medium-sized workshops. Nevertheless, Martin
Masopust’s household illustrates that beer brewing and beer
serving in the home also demanded a major percentage of space
just as the meta! working trade did.
In the Masopust house, the process of beer production, which
involved the production of malt from barley, as well as the
brewing process, were performed in the barn where the barley
was stored, the „malt room“ (hvozda) and the „chamber on the
balcony.“ The serving of beer, an additional economical activity,
took place in the hall (sifi), which was furnished with eight tables
and three chairs, and in the „downstairs svietnice, “ which was
furnished with a stove and four tables. 73
At the time an inventory was taken, nineteen chairs were
located in the „cellar that Iead from the [downstairs] svietnice.“
Although these chairs were placed there at that time, they
probably belong to the svietnice. This cellar served primarily as a
bedroom and was furnished with three beds and a picture. In the
adjacent „second svietnice“ were located two tables and a picture.
Cooking in the Masopust house was performed in the room
called „the larder.“ The adjacent or semi-adjacent „large svietnice“
probably was one of the centrat living areas of the household
where the family ate. As was true with the Kotläfka house, the
72 On the history and economics of beer brewing in the Pre-White Mountain
period, see J. Janäcek, Pivovarnictvi v ceskjch krälovskjch mestech v 16.
stoleti [Beer Brewing in the Royal Cities of Bohemia in the 16th Century],
Rozpravy CSAV, rada S, rocnik 69, 1959, sesit 1 . On the history of beer, in
general, see J. Stanek, Blahoslaveny slädek. Kapitoly z dejin piva. [The
Blessed Brewer. Chapters in the History of Beer,] Praha 1984.
73 On the technology of beer brewing, see J. Danek, P. Ferkl & S. Prochäzka,
Technologie pro 4. rocnik SPS potravinäfske technologie-obor kvasnä
technologie [Technology for Fourth-year Level Studies in Food TechnologyBrewing
Technology] Praha, 1982.
71
Masopust hause had a bedroom (furnished with three beds) along
with a ehest, which contained clothes, art, and jewelry.
1.3. 1 1 . MEDIUM-SIZE MERCHANT HOUSEHOLD:
ADAM TATEK (CLOTH MERCHANT) – 1582
The cloth merchant Adam Tatek owned a fourteen-room, twostary
hause on the lawer Horse Market, which provides a further
example of a medium-size household. In the last years before his
death, Tatek lived in the hause with his children Viclav, Eva, and
Salamena (a minor). 74 [See fig. II .4 . 14 .]
Although he lived in the New City, Tatek probably sold his
gaads in the Old City because he owned three storage cellars on
Havel Market. 75 He must have been fairly successful in his
business activities. In cantrast to his artisan and patrician
neighbors, he had, in addition to a caok who slept in an upstairs
chamber, a number of other servants (pacholici) who slept in two
beds in a „chamber under the roof‘ which was located adjacent ta
the female cook’s room.
In Tatek’s hause, cooking and eating probably taok place in
the same upstairs „kitchen.“ The four rooms adjacent to the
„kitchen“- the „large suietnice,“ the“mazhaus,“ the „svietnice next
to the kitchen,“ and the „room“ (pokoj) – were furnished with
multiple tables and chairs, suggesting that these were rooms
where guests were served. Given the absence of beer or wine
storage, the presence of such large numbers of rooms for this
purpose appears curious.
An additional characteristic feature of the Tatek hause, in
cantrast to the medium-size artisanal and patrician households of
Markyta Kotläfka and Martin Masopust, is the large nurober of
bedroams. In addition to the locations on the ground floor where
beds were located, two of these locations (the svietnice and „the
cellar on the stairs“) were sleeping locations furnished with beds
and chests, one containing art objects and clothes, the other
containing art objects and bed linen. The mazhaus on the ground
floor contained two cabinets in which dishware was stored.
71 AMP 2208 f. 228b.
75 This is provided by his inventory.
72
1.3. 1 2 . LARGE-SIZE MERCHANT HOUSEHOLD („AT THE
GOLDEN BEAR“): LORENC STORK Z STORKENFELSU
(CLOTH MERCHANT – OLD CITY)
The hausehold of the cloth merchant Lorenc Stork z
Storkfelsu in the still surviving house „at the Golden Bear“ on the
Tanner’s Alley (Kozena ulice) in the Old City (House no. 475-I)
provides an interesting Counterpart to Adam Tatek’s.76 The Stork
house is interesting not only because of its large site and curious,
irregular shape. The four-story comer house with two
subterranean basement rooms would be even more imposing in
the more spatial environment of the New City than in the
crowded, narrow landscape of the Old City. But the household
represents one of the most enormous storage spaces of any cloth
merchant’s house in any of the Prague cities of the period.
With the exception of six or seven rooms on the top floor, all
the rooms in this house containing over flfty rooms were devoted
to the cloth trade. Among the business areas of the house were
three or four offices (Schreibstuben). Storage took over the rest of
the house. This is not the case in the house of cloth merchant
Adam Tatek in the New City, because Tatek stored the bulk of his
stock in two cellars in the Old City. Stork’s interior, which was
literally stuffed from floor to ceiling with cloth, boldly contrasted
with the exterior that had undergone trendy Renaissance
renovation.
1 . 3 . 13. MEDIUM-SIZE ARTISAN HOUSEHOLD:
BURYAN PERNfKAR (GINGERBREAD BAKER)
While the home cloth trade could result in a particularly
crowded environment, the home as storage facility was not limited
to this trade. The main residence of the gingerbread baker
Buryan Pemikäf in house no. 778-II on the lower Horse Market is
another example of a large storage area in a living area. In this
case, the major household and bakery were located in eleven
rooms. 77 Cooking and sleeping were performed in the svietnice,
76 The inventory of Lorenc Stork z Storkenfelsu is AMP 1 175. Fol. 79.;
inventory of previous owner, Jan Netter z Glauchova and followers in J.
Teige, Zä.klady starehe mistopisu Praiskeho [Foundations of the Historical
Topography of Praguej, Praha 1910.
77 The three locations of the second adjacent house are the balcony,
courtyard and cellar.
73
and cooking utensils were found in „the space before the kitchen“
rather than in the kitchen. Honey was found in a total of five
other locations, including the bakery and the room where the
cook sleeps! (The bakery of Martin Cukräf, which engaged the
related, more general baking field, located in his home on the
south end of the street.)
1.3. 14. LARGE-SIZE RENTIER-AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD OF
THE LOWER NOBILITY: TOBlAS NEJEDLY Z vYSOKE
Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke owned and lived on two properties on
the comer of Siroka Street and Na pfikope. His main residence
was the twenty-seven location „Stmada House“ (house no. 36b-II).
In the adjacent „Caltovskj house“ (house no. 37a?-II), Nejedly
inhabited four ground-floor locations. In size, the Nejedly household
in the „Stmada house“ was one of the larger households on
the street and was comparable to the household of the „Bell
Makers of Cimperku.“ In its organization, however, it differed.
Unlike many of his artisan neighbors, Nejedly was a member of
the lower nobility.
The kitchen and the adjacent „cellar“ were the areas of the
house where cooking and eating, respectively, took place. A
„larder“ located next to the kitchen served as a storage place for
kitchen utensils. Fumished with a stove , a bed and three tables,
the svietnice also served as sleeping location, eating room, and
place to gather. The adjacent „cellar“ with one bed and „second
cellar“ with three beds served as additional sleeping locations.
Five „chambers,“ including two across from the stables and two
underground were storage locations for wine.
Six locations on the frrst floor served as sleeping locations:
„chambers“ (one of them „where Jindfich slept“), the „room (pokoj)
on the balcony“ and the „second svietnice, “ and an additional
adjacent „chamber“ as a storage room for bed linen.
Tobiäs hirnself slept in a „cellar [of the Caltovskj house] which
led from the Stmada house.“ Next to this room was a „second
cellar“ that served as eating and washing room and a svietnice
with five tables that probably also served as an eating room.
Tobiäs also had wine stored in an „underground cellar“ of the
Stmada house.
74
1.3 . 1 5. LARGE-SIZE RENTIER-AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD OF
THE LOWER NOBILITY: VACLAV KAMARYZ Z ROVIN
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin the Younger was a member of one of
the most distinguished families in the New City. With its twentytwo
locations, his hausehold in the Strabachovslcy hause on the
north comer of the Horse Market and Na pfikope was closer in
size to the hausehold of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku. In its
organization, however, it resembled more the hausehold of Martin
Masopust.
Like Masopust, Kamaryt’s income was based on agriculture
holdings. In cantrast to Masopust, he translated this income into
wine rather than beer. Since the mid- 14th century when Emperor
Charles IV ordered the frrst vineyards planted outside of the city,
Prague and the rest of Bohemia became bi-alcoholic (beer and
wine drinking) in addition to being bilingual (German and Czechspeaking)
.78 If one were to draw borders in Europe according to
beverage, Eastem Europe would begin in Poland, where the wine
border ends and the vodka border begins. Bohemia lies firmly in
the part of Central Europe where beer and wine intermingle. In
the heart of the New City of Prague, beer and wine intermingled
among the houses and inns.
Wine production is a much simpler process than beer brewing.
The crushing of the grapes often took place in the vineyard
outside of the city. Väclav Kamal}rt z Rovin stored his wine in the
stables and in the „cellar on the courtyard on the left side under
the upper svietnice.“ Wine would have been served in the
Kamaryt hause in the downstairs „svietnice,“ the „large
downstairs svietnice, “ in the „svietnice of deceased,“ the „large
mazhaus, “ or „the big chamber off the milzhaus, “ which were
fumished, respectively, with a table and two chairs; four tables
and three chairs; one large table; three small tables, three
benches and a bed (luzko); one large table, two small tables, and a
bed (loze); and two small tables, two benches, and six beds
(postel).
It is not possible here to distinguish between wine serving
rooms meant as a source of income and drinking rooms meant to
serve private guests. It is interesting to note here not only the
7s On the planting of Prague vineyards, see M .Vä.lkova-Fryzova, „Üfad
perkmistra praiskjch vinicnych hor“ [The Office of the Master of the Prague
Vineyardsj, SPDMHP IV ( 1 930): 1 -48.
75
relatively large nurober of rooms meant to receive guests but also
the presence of beds in these rooms, and the large nurober of
rooms in which beds are found (seven rooms).
The „svietnice of the deceased [Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin]“ was
fumished with a bed, a large table, three small tables, and three
benches and is much less a bedroom and much more equipped to
receive guests than Brikci’s bedroom . Like Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku’s room, however, it too was decorated with a large
picture collection (twenty-five large and small). This room, along
with the „mäzhaus in front of the svietnice of the deceased,“
fumished with a table and two paintings, could be seen as a
much smaller, though nevertheless personal block within a much
more open, public household . The female cook in the Kamaryt
household, as in the hausehold of Brikci Zvinaf, resided on the
frrst floor, but in much closer proximity to Kamaryt’s personal
block than Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku’s cook did.
1 . 3 . 1 6 . LARGE-SIZE RENTIER-AGRICULTURAL HOUSEHOLD:
ANNA ZLUTICKA Z BERNARECKU & JIRfK SVIK Z LUKONOS
Across the street from the Masopust house on the southwest
and southeast comers of the Horse Market and Vodickova Streets
were some of the most important patrician households in the New
City – respectively, the hausehold of Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku
and her husband Jifik Svik z Lukenos in the Zlutick)r house, and
the hausehold of Jilji Preger z Castalovic in house no. 791-Il.
Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku and her husband Jifik Svik z
Lukonos had two adjacent houses: the comer house (house no.
792-II) and the „new structure.“ Unlike the two houses of
Markyta Kotläfka on Sirokä Street in which one was primary and
the other secondary, these houses were functionally and perhaps
also spatially joined. The inventories indicate that Ann Zlutickä z
Bemarefku’s hausehold in the „new structure“ had twenty-seven
locations and the hausehold in house no. 792-II six locations.
Jilik Svik’s inventory in house no. 792-II shows eight locations
and the „new structure“ eleven.
Jilji Perger z Castalovic’s hausehold is perhaps the most
complex, the most revealing, and the most interesting in the
center of the New City. Perger, like Kamaryt, was of a distinguished
family and had served as a prominent councilor of the
New City. The hausehold of Jilji Perger can be described as a
combination of the three prototype homes: rentier-agricultural,
76
host, and communal. House no. 79 1-II, the physical structure in
which Jilji Perger z Castalovic’s household was located, served at
the same time as his home, a location of wine and beer
production, wine and beer sale, as well as a proxy city hall.
In the basement floor were two storage rooms for wine. On
the ground floor, one location was devoted to beer brewing;
another was a bedroom and storage area for an extremely large
collection of art, books, and clothes; one room was a
representational living area fumished with a marble table, a
cabinet with weapons, and eight pictures; and another was a
representational room „where office was held.“
On the frrst floor were a room where tools and equipment only
were stored; a room „where children sleep;“ a room „where the
son sleeps,“ a bedroom containing thirty-two beds and a large
collection of art, books, and clothes in storage; and a chamber for
weapons in an amount that suggests that they were for civic
rather than personal use.
In this chapter, multi-functionality was presented as a major
characteristic of household and street organization. While it was
not an exclusive feature of the New City or even of Prague as a
whole, it manifested itself in a particular way in the New City.
The layout of the Market House; the sharing of bathing and
cooking activities between the house, street, and communal
institutions; and the division between residential areas of the
house and those devoted to beer brewing, wine making, and
artisanal work met the specific local needs of New City artisans,
merchants, and those engaged in agricultural-rentier activities.
Together with the dual heritage of earlier imperial rule and
revolution, multi-functionality helped to shape the particular
nature of the landscape of the New City in the second half of the
16th century, into which the artisan, merchant, or noble was bom
or moved.
7 7
1.4. The Range and Hierarchy of Choice
In contrast to the Bohemian nobles who in the wake of the frre
of 1 54 1 increasingly set up residence in Prague’s Castle Hili and
Small Side, residents of the New City did not have much choice
on the basic Iayout of their streets, or the size and configuration
of their houses. And they possessed a significantly smaller piece
of their wealth in the kingdom.1 But even with these limitations,
they had a similar set of options available to them in fashioning
their homes and neighborhoods.2
House construction, renovation, changes in interior design,
and investment in expensive jewelry, dishware, clothes, and art
objects can be identified with households in the center of the New
City during the second half of the 16th century. Many of these
activities testify to the wide diffusion of Renaissance styles and
modes within the city beyond royal/imperial and noble circles.
Others provide evidence of the participation by residents of the
New City in the renewal of the ecclesiastical landscape. What
distinguished the cultural activities of the city dweller, as they
related to Renaissance styles and modes and a new approach to
the material culture of the sacred associated with Catholic
reform, was the piecemeal, hodgepodge way they were
appropriated. This piecemeal approach must be seen as part of a
!arger characteristic relationship to material culture relating to
the multi-functional setting of the city and Hussite traditions.
1 After the Hussite Revolution, approximately 90% of the total real estate of
the Kingdom was in the hands of the nobility. The royal cities together
possessed only 5%, the church also approximately 5%. F. Seibt,
„Renaissance in Böhmen,“ in Renaissance in Böhmen, F. Seibt (Hrsg.), München
1985, p. 16.
2 The relationship between art and economics is an age-old theme. Two
recent works address the theme as it relates in particular to European cities
in the early modern period. Richard Goldwaithe’s Art and Wealth in
Renaissance Italy (Baltimore, 1993) is a sophisticated elaboration of his
thesis of conspicuous consumption first put forth in The Building of
Renaissance Florence, Baltimore 1980. Many key problematic issues are
also raised in B. Roeck, K. Bergholt & A.J. Martin (Hrsg.), Venedig und
Deutschland in der Renaissance: Beziehung zwischen Kunst und Wirtschaft,
Sigmaringen 1983.
78
I . 4 . 1 . WCATION OF RESIDENCE – NEW HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION, RESIDENCY PATTERNS, HOUSE SALE
FREQUENCY
Foreign vtsttors to Prague during the period noted that the
Settlement on the right bank of the Vltava was much denser than
that on the Castle Hili and Small Side. Space was available,
however, in the Old City and even to a greater extent in the New
City for burghers wishing to build new houses. The Sadeler
engraving shows the wide open areas that still existed within the
walls of the New City at the beginning of the 1 7ili century.
Even in densely built up areas, it was possible to fmd room for
new construction at sites where existing houses did not take up
the whole plot. Surviving examples of new houses dating from
the mid – 1 6th century in the Old City are the hause of Jakub
Granovsk:y z Granova, located off the courtyard of the church of
Maria-on-the-Teyn near the Old Town Square; and Hause no.
463-1 in Melantrich Street.3 Granovsk:y’s father received the plot
from Ferdinand for his loyalty during the Uprising of 1547.4
Approximately twelve-hundred new residential houses were
constructed on the right bank of the Vltava river during the
second half of the 1 6th century: 950 in the Old City; 250 in the
New City.s
On the lower Horse Market and west end of Sirokä Street,
areas that had been parceled out and built up during the late 14th
and early 1 5th centuries, only one new house construction can be
documented for the late 16th century: the „new structure“ (nove
staveni) adjacent to the Zlutick:y house (house no. 792-II) on the
corner of the Horse Market and one of its major cross streets,
Vodickovä Street. This structure was the site of the households
of Anna Zlutickä b Bernarecku and Jifik Svik z Lukonos,
husband and wife.
3 D. Libal, „Bürgerliche Architektur in Prag zur Zeit Rudolfs II.,“ Prag um
1600. Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolf II, E. FuCikovä (Hrsg.),
Freven 1 988, pp. 1 7 1 -75.
4 E. Samänkovä, Architektura ceske renesance [Architecture of the
Bohemian Renaissance], Praha 196 1 , p. 67.
5 F. Dvors:ky, „0 poctu domu v Praze a krälovseych mestech v Cechäch v
16.-19. stoleti,“ [On the Nurober of Houses in Prague and other Royal Cities
in Bohemia from the 16th to the 19’11 Centuries], CCM LV ( 1 88 1 ) : 478-494 &
LVII ( 1882): 57-73.
79
Hause sale pattems suggest that there was a prestige of living
in the densely built areas araund the Horse Market despite the
availability of open land in many areas of the New City. For some
areas, a partial explanation for residency pattems can be found
in both necessity and tradition. Sirokä Street, for example, was
the only area of the city where metal-working could be
undertaken. Many metal-workers chose the street, however, not
only for their main place of residence and work (which they were
required to do) but for additional property investment as well.
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku owned three houses on Sirokä Street,
at least two of them on the west end of the street. Markyta
Kotläfka had two houses, each of which bordered on one of
Brikci’s houses. In effect, within the provided limitations,
metalworkers such as Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku and Maryta
Kotläfka used the trade restriction to their advantage, building
influence through acquisition of property in local neighborhoods.
Moreover, even in other areas where there were no trade
restrictions, hause sale pattems support the notion that people
tended to choose their residence in one specific area, sometimes
even their second or third hause on the same block or side of the
block. Three residential sub-districts can be identified in the
center of the New City for the second half of the 16th century:
metal-workers on the west end of Sirokä Street, a small enclave of
estate office houses on the east side of Sirokä Street, and a group
of influential families on the comer of the Horse Market with
Vodickovä Street and DlaZdeni (today Jindfisska ulice).
The large intersection of the Horse Market with Vodickovä
Street and DlaZdeni was a natural, strategic location. The
attraction and development of the enclave of hause holders to the
east of Sirokä Street is not so clear. Hause ownership pattems do
not provide any revealing information. Perhaps the frrst officeholder
landed there by chance and the others came through ward
of mouth. Also, it is not clear why the imperial guard Thomas
Knydrmon chose to live across from the New City Hall and the
imperial architect Bonifacius Walmut across from the parish
church of St. Stephen (Sv. Stepana). In any case, however, hause
ownership pattems do demonstrate that the New City presented
itself as an attractive location for both natives and newcomers to
the city.
The frequency of house sales in the center of the New City was
high, and the length of occupancy correspondingly short. [See fig.
11.4.4.) As interesting as these figures are in dispelling the notion
80
of long, intergenerational ties to particular houses, they can also
be deceiving. The quick turnaraund of houses is not necessarily a
sign of major changes in social topography. First of all, it is
important to note that the rate of change of individual houses
varied. Some owners and their families did live for decades in a
single house. Bartos Beraunsey, the grandfather of Brikci Zvonaf
z Cimperku, took over ownership of the „Bell House“ (House no.
747-II) on Sirokä Street in 1 528, when he married the widow of
the previous owner. It remained in the hands of the „Bellmakers
of Cimperku“ until 1602, when Brikci’s estate was divided into
three parts a year after his death.6 Mikuläs Rüie z Vorlicne
likewise took over ownership of the house „At the Black Rose“ (u
ceme RüZe – House no. 853-II) on Na pfikope in 1 542 by marrying
the previous owner’s widow. He remained owner and lived in the
house until 1 583.7 Furthermore, as has been mentioned above,
in many cases, people sold one house just to buy another in the
same area or bought multiple houses in one area.
I.4.2. HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND HOUSEHOLD
OCCUPANCY PATTERNS
Whether one owned or rented a house did not automatically
determine one’s living space. In one extreme, one could own a
house and live in only one small part of it; in the other, one cauld
rent a whole house.
Hause occupancy sizes in the center af the New City tended ta
be larger than 7 to 10, which is the range estimated far the city as
a whole.s House occupancy generally followed one of three
madels.
Occupancy of the whale space af the hause by the owner’s
hausehold is the madel for only seven of flfty-six New City
6 SÜRPMO pasport domu cp 747-II; Z. Winter, „Zvonafove z Cimperkuw !The
Bell-Makers of Cimperg] , PA XVII ( 1896-1897): 444-49.
7 SÜRPMO pasport domu cp 853-II.
s The estimate of the occupancy figure of 7 – 1 0 for pre-White Mountain
Prague has been put forward by A. Mika, „Pocet obyvatelstvo zvlä.ste
mestskeho V ceskjch zemich pfed tri. Valkou,w [The Size of the Urban
Population in the Czech Lands before the Thirty Years War!, Demografie 1 4
( 1972): 194. Ladislav Zilka believes that the figure is high er; L. Zilka,
„Hospodafeni tynske farnosti na Starern Meste praiskem koncem 16. a
zacä.tkem 17. stoleti“ [The Administration of the Teyn Parish in the Old City
of Prague at the end of the 16th and the Beginning of the 17U• Century],
diplomovä. prä.ce, Filozofickä. fakulta UK v Praze, 1988.
8 1
households that can be identified with particular houses in the
center of the city. Among these were the households of Brikci
Zvonaf z Cimperku, Jilji Perger z Castalovic, and Väclav Kamaryt
z Rovin. I n these cases, households were made up of the house
owner (drZitel); his wife and children; sometimes the wife and
children of one of his sons; his widowed or divorced daughter and
her children; servants (pokojnici, domovnici); perhaps a few
tenants (najemnici); and, in the case of artisan households,
apprentices (tovaryse). In the last ftfteen years of the 16th
century, the hausehold of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku in the „Bell
House,“ which Brikci had inherited from his father, consisted of
at least twelve persons, including his wife and the family of his
older son.9
The most common model of house occupancy was occupancy
by two households. In these cases, the owner’s hausehold
occupied one portion of the house, and the remaining space was
rented to another household.
Table 1.4.1 Number of Locatious occupiecl by
Selected Households in Prague, 1547- 1 6 1 110
Hause Size Class I ( 1-5
Locationsl
Kaspar Albrecht Hause no. 837-1! ( 1 583)
Hause Size Class I! {6- 1 0}
Jifik Fric (painter) Hause no. 785/442-II
( 1 587)
Hause Size Class 1II {10-16}
Markyta Kotlätka (kettle smith) Hause no. 748 or 746-II
( 1580)
Martin Masopust (patrician) Hause no. 832-!1 ( 1 592)
Adam Tatek (cloth merchant) Hause nos. 783-784-II
( 1 582)
Hause Size Class IV (17+}
J ilji Perger z Castalovic Hause no. 791-Il ( 16 13)
(patrician)
Väclav Kamaryt t Rovin Hause no. 846-11 ( 1 595)
(patrician)
Mikuläs Ruie z Vorlicne Hause no. 853-II ( 1 583)
(patrician)
9 Z. Winter, „Zvonafove z Cimperku􀑬 (note 6).
3
6
1 1
1 1
1 4
2 1
22
24
10 House-size classes were selected as meaningful classifications based on
the data selection of this study. No other classification system is known.
82
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (bellmaker)
Lorenc Stork z Storkenfeltu
(cloth merchant)
House no. 747-11 ( 160 1) 30
House no. 475-1 ( 1 6 1 8) 50
+
Martin Masopust occupied only eleven locations in the house,
representing less than a half of the total house space. 1 1 The
hausehold of the painter Baptista Grafeus and his wife
Mandalena and the hausehold of the imperial builder Bonifacius
Wolmut consisted of five rooms located on the first and ground
floors of their respective houses. While their houses may not
have been as large as market houses, they were probably larger
than the five rooms identified in their inventories.
A third model of house occupancy in the center of the New
City was occupancy by one or more households, all of which
rented from the owner. Pavel Cerhovsey z Ruzetina, a notary of
the Appellate Court, rented quarters in Charvatskä Street in the
house next to Rehof Pätek, likewise a notary at the Appellate
court, who was a house owner. Pätek’s other neighbor, Jan Nysl,
likewise rented rooms.
House occupancy may have been an important option
available to someone choosing to live in a prestigious area but
unable to afford a large house for his or her single household .
In addition to the nurober of locations that were available for
one’s household, the burgher or city inhabitant had a wide variety
of other options in fashioning that space. High among these was
reconstruction of exterior or interior structural features of the
house.
1.4.3. EXTERIOR HOUSE RECONSTRUCTION
As opposed to the isolated cases of new house construction,
reconstruction of existing houses was widespread.12 Most of the
1 1 Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku’s row market house on Siroka Street (House no.
747-11) contained a minimum of thirty locations. Martin Masopust’s comer
market house on the Horse Market must have contained at least as many.
12 On structural changes to Prague burgher houses in the 16th century, see
0. Pollark, „Studien zur Geschichte der Architektur Prags 1520-1600,“
JKSAK XXIX, Heft 2 ( 1 9 10): 12-170; D. Libal, „Bürgerliche Architektur zur
Zeit Rudolfs II.,“ Prag um 1600, E. Fucikova (Hrsg.), note 3, pp. 1 7 1-5; E.
Samankova, Architektura ceske renesance (note 4); V. Kotrba, „Die
nachgotische Baukunst Böhmens zur Zeit Rudolfs II.,“ Umeni 18 no. 3
(1970): 298-332.
83
dispute cases appearing before the Six-Man Councils involved
reconstruction, over one-third involving structures on the hause
exterior, such as walls, roofs, and windows.I3
Exterior structural changes can be identified through building
dispute cases on six houses in the center of the New City under
study.
Table 1.4.2 Exterior Structural Changes on New City Prague Houses
documented in Bullding Contract and Dispute Cases
Jilji Perger z Castalovic (House no. 791 -II) – three windows in his gable over
the „svietnice“ ( 1 6 12) .14
House no. 890-11 – the widening of four windows ( 1606).15
House no. 772-II – the widening of windows and construction of a chimney
( 1607).16
Jifik Fric (House no. 775/442-II) – upstairs Ioggia (Iaube nahofe). 17
House of Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku on the Horse Market – the widening of
the kitchen windows.1s
Dorota Nejedly z Skolska – „improvements• („zlepseni“) of the Castovskj
House (House no. 37a?-11) involving placing wood on the wall.19
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku’s house (House no. 747 -li) – construction of eaves
{pfistfesek) in which two chimneys were installed ( 1 556).20
Windows in the late medieval Prague burgher hause commonly
consisted of a small hold in the wall, covered perhaps with a
wooden board or a piece of animal skin. The widening of windows
and the installation of window frames on burgher houses,
described in a detailed fashion by building contracts, such as the
one below, was an innovation of the 16th century –
Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku (the brother of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku
who lived in Kvetonska Street, today’s Stepanska Street in the New City
(and] . . .J ifik Taupel. . .a greed that in the place where there was a window that
let in light into the kitchen of Zikmund Zvonaf, which Iooks into the
13’J’hirty-four percent of the building disputes in the New City and thirtyseven
percent in the Old City related to the house exterior; these cases
represent only a small fraction of reconstruction cases. See Part li of this
study for a detailed structural breakdown of building contract and dispute
cases.
14 AMP 2 149 f. 284a.
1s AMP 2 149 f. 256a.
16 AMP 2 149 f. 259b-260.
17 Documented by his inventory; see index for reference.
1s AMP 2 1 49 f. 158b- 1 59a.
19 AMP 2 149 f. 2 1 2a-2 13a.
20 AMP 2 149 f. 98b.
84
courtyard of Jifik Taupel. . .Z ikmund may expand and renovate this window
and secure it with iron gates and glass . . . 2 1
The „widening of the windows“ that lay at the heart of many
building dispute cases referred, in most cases, to the installation
of simple, elegant Renaissance windows. The installation of these
windows often meant, however, the installation of new frames, not
necessarily frames with sheet glass. Until the late 16th century,
burgher houses with glass windows used an ordinary type of glass
known as green glass, which consisted of a sheet of small glass
balls, which was common throughout Central Europe. 22 Sheet
glass windows could be found in some burghers houses in the
15th century, but they were expensive. Only beginning in the
middle of the 16th century did it become a common feature on
some noble palaces and burgher houses. A detail of the Sadeler
engraving of the Vladislav Hall at the beginning of the 17th
century shows that even its delicate, Renaissance windows had
glass with small balls rather than sheet glass.
The installation of new window frames often but not always
was accompanied by their redesign into a symmetric scheme. A
photograph of the Masopust hause (Hause no. 832-II) taken at the
end of the 19th century when it still stood, shows its Renaissance
gables and windows arranged assymetrically. In 1600-01 the
neighboring hause (Hause no. 833-II) underwent massive
reconstruction in which two reetangular windows, two circular
windows, and an arbor (altan) were installed, and a wall was
repaired .23 Renaissance gables and windows can also be seen on
a drawing of the facade of hause no. 783-II before its
reconstruction in 1804. An old photograph capturing a corner
section of the Perger hause (Hause no. 79 1-II), taken at the turn
of the 20th century before it was destroyed, identifies this
structure as a tower with Renaissance gables.
Other common reconstruction features documented by
building disputes were the installation of Italian-style loggia,
which included in some cases the replacement of traditional
terraces and balconies (pavlac), as weil as roofs, gables, eaves,
and overhangings. Building disputes identify loggia on two
lt AMP 2 149 f. 1 58b- 1 59a.
22 Z. Winter, V mesfanske svetnici starodavne. Kulturni studie o patnäctem
a sestnäctem stoleti [In the Traditional Urban Svetnice. A Cultural Study
about the 15th and 16th Centuries], Praha, no date, p. 12.
2 3 AMP 2 149 f. 223a-224a.
85
houses beside the Horse Market.24 The first building in Prague to
have Italian-style loggia was the Belvedere in the gardens of the
Prague castle. After 1550, loggia began to appear on burgher
houses as well, such as the house „At the Golden Bear“ (u zlatych
medviku) and the Granovsey house, both located in the Old City.2s
These exterior renovation features, including new Renaissance-
style window frames, a new symmetric ordering of
windows, gables, and loggia, brought about a major visual
transformation of the house and street landscape and can be
seen, therefore, as indications of pretension. New facade
decoration, known as sgrafitto, and new stone portals, also
Renaissance innovations, many of which have survived to this
day, appear neither in inventories nor in building dispute cases
but should be considered, nevertheless, together with the other
innovations as important signs of pretension.26
1.4.4. INTERlOR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Interior structural innovations were just as frequent in New
City Prague burgher houses as exterior renovations. In almost all
cases, the interior renovations were the contruction of vaulted
ceilings, a Renaissance innovation.27
Table 1.4.3 lnterior Structural Renovations in New City Prague Houses
as documented by Building Disputes and lnventories
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-II) – a new room; „pokoj novy v sini
pfed svietnice“ (location 9).
Vaclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-!1) vaulted study; „kancelar klenuty“
(location 18).
Mikulas Sklenar – a „structure“ built in his home along the comrnon wall to
House No. 34a-II of Magalena Jilovska ( 152 1 ) .28
24 The beginning of the nine folio-page dispute reads „In response to a
dispute between Lev Vokaty and his neighbor Markus Meyzl. . . Lev Vokacy
shows the officers [of the Six-Man Councilj . . . the Ioggia and arcade under the
house of Markus Meyzl. . . and in the place where there had been one
window . . . there were now thirteen windows . . . which Meyzl had built.“ AMP
2 149 f. 284a.
25 The Granovskj house added on a Ioggia in 1 559-60; E. Samankova,
Architektura ceske renesance (note 4), p. 67
26 On burgher portals, see 0. Pollark, „Studien zur Geschichte der Architektur
Prags (note 12).
27 E. Samankova, Architektura ceske renesance (note 4), p . 44.
28 AMP 2 1 49 fl. 169b.
86
Magdalena Hvezdovä (House no. 782-11) – raom with vaulted ceiling;
„svietnice klenutj“ (lacatian 3).
Jan Slon (Hause no. 777-Jl) – roams with vaulted ceilings; „sklipek klenucy
na schadich“ (location 3) and co-adjacent „sklep klenuty proti svietnici dale v
sin“ (location 5)
Jifik Fric (Hause no. 775/442-11) – vaulted roam; „sklipek klenucy na dvafe“
(lacation 5) and „Iaube nahafe.“
Katefina Vodickovä (Hause na. 699-II) – vaulted roam; „svietnice malä v
klenucy jda pa schodily na dvafe“ (lacatian 10)
Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysake (The Caltavskj House – House na. 37a?-II) –
canstruction of a vaulted room (1582).29
Vaulted ceilings represented as significant a visual change in
the interior of burgher houses as windows, gables, and portals
repre sented on the outside. As such, they too can be seen as
signs of pretension.
In short, for nearly every house beside the lower Horse
Market, inventories and building disputes document an interior
or exterior structural change in the second half of the 16th
century. The center of the New City, like Prague as a whole,
underwent a face-lift. The Sadeler engraving shows extensive
Renaissance fa cades in the Old and New cities in the year 1606.
Popular pamphlets of the execution of the leaders of the Estate
Rebellion of 1618 on Old Town Square in the year 1620 show
Renaissance fa cades on the houses on the entire north side of the
square. These fa cades provide just the surface of the widespread
visual transformation Prague and other Central European cities
underwent during the period .
Renaissance architecture became fa shionable in the whole
city, including in the castle of Rudolf II, noble places and in
burgher houses of Catholics and Utraquists . Six-Man Council
records describe the extensive Renaissance fe atures on the large
house that was owned by Markus Meyzl, son of the famous rabbi
Mordecai Meyzl on the Wide Street in the Old City.30 This house
illustrates that Renaissance fe atures extended beyond Catholic
and Utraquist circles to Jews as weil . Meyzl’s house was
comparable in its grand scale and widespread Renaissance
structural fe atures to burgher houses in the New City, such as
the Masopust house on the Horse Market.
29 AMP 2149 f. 170 a & b.
30 AMP 473 f. 89a- 107b.
87
!.4.5. DECORATING THE INTERIOR OF THE NEW CITY
BURGHER HOUSE: EXCEPTIONAL FURNITURE, WALL
DECORATIONS
In addition to exterior and interior structural changes to the
burgher house, a number of innovations can be identified in the
interior of burgher houses that were similar to those undertaken
by nobles in the city. The most frequent innovations were the
acquisition of exceptional or valuable pieces of furniture, wall
furnishings, paintings, and maps.
Exceptional tables can be identified only in a handful of
burgher homes in the center of the New City. Exceptional tables,
described by New City inventories, were those that were
constructed of expensive materials, such as marble, or those that
were designed with a non-reetangular top or an arehing of the
undertable between the legs, both Renaissance innovations.31
Table 1.4.4 Exceptional Tables in New City Prague Burgher Homes
Kaspar Albrecht (House no. 837-II) – marble table.
Väclav Karnaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-II) – small circular table („stolicek“)
Martin Masopust (House no. 832-II) – small blue table („stolicek􀈖) – the only
blue piece of fumiture in the whole group.
Jilji Perger z Castalovic (House no. 791-11) – marble table.
Adam Samec (House no. 843-II) – marble table.
Anna Steflkovä z Cichanova (Sirokä Street) – oblong-shaped tables.
Väclav Vodicka (Horse Market) – marble table.
Sirneon Polidor z Baubinus (House no. 698-II) – granite table and a pull-out
table („vytahovan)r“)
Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku (House no. 792-II & new structure) – a marble
table.
Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku (Kvetonskä Street) – table made of grained
wood.
„Desks“ and „writing tables,“ which developed out of the
writing pult of medieval cloisters and chanceries, represent new
pieces of furniture that begin to appear in Prague and other
31 In „V mesfanske svietnice starodavne􀊨 (note 22) Zikmund Winter
discusses exceptional fumiture in 15th and 16lll century Bohemia on the
basis of archival sources; regarding tables, see pp. 30fT. For comparison
with furniture in German Iands during the period, see H. Kreisel & G.
Himmelheber, Die Kunst des deutschen Möbels. Möbel und Vertäfelungen
des deutschen Sprachraums von den Anfängen bis zum Jugendstil, Band 1 ,
Von den Anfängen bis zum Hochbarock, München 1968.
88
European homes in the 16th century.32 Seventeen pieces of
furniture designated as desks are found in ten New City Prague
burgher houses of the period. Ten are designated by the German
term srybtys (Schreibtisch written in Czech) , five as kanceld.f, and
two as kanceld.fka (diminutive of kanceld.f}.
Table 1.4.5 Desks (kanceW, kancelüka, irybtyi) in New City Prague
Burgher Homes
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-11) – „kanceläf,“ „kanceläfka,“ and
„srybtys“ in
three different house locations.
Väclav Vodnanskj (House no. 698-11) – three „srybtys“ (two large and one
small) in
one house locationl
Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku (House no. 792-11) – one desk.
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (House no. 747-11) – two „kancelaf“ in
two house locations.
Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke – two „srybtys“ in the Strnada House (House no.
36b-11), and
a third in the adjacent Caltovkj House (House no. 36a?-II).
With the exception of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku’s desk,
described as „done in the style of a pretty piece of cabinet work,“
the inventories do not provide any details on the design and
quality of the desks.
The fact that different names are utilized in different locations
for desks – i.e. kanceld.f and srybtys – suggests that the
distinguishing of names refers not just to a notary’s convention
but to a distinguishing of furniture types as weil. Further
indication that the terms kanceld.f and srybtys refer to objects of
different use (if not different in design) is provided by their
contents. The srybtys contained documents only – various
registers, letters of de bt, privileges, etc. 33 In con trast, kanceld.f
contained a wide variety of objects.
32 On the development and construction of desks, see H . Kreisel & G.
Himmelheber, Die Kunst des deutschen Möbels (note 3 1 ) , p. 57.
33 One of Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke’s srybtys contained a register of debts
owed him and „miscellaneous“ other documents; a second contained the
privileges granting nobility with an emblem, bestowed on his father by King
Vladislav; a „Ietter of counsel“ (ratbryff) from the Holy Roman Emperor; and
89
Table 1.4.6 Contents of „Kancehü“·type Desks in New City Prague
Burgher Homes
One of Vaclav Kamaryt z Rovin’s (House no. 846-II) „kanceläf“ contained two
pairs of pants, two jackets, and a small ehest containing shirts, pants,
socks, towels, and tablecloths.
One of Zikmund Zvonat z Cimperku’s (House no. 1 074-11) „kanceläf“
contained clothes, a musical instrument (czytara), four guns, a sword, and a
copy of the Bohemian estate constitution.
Anna Zluticka z Bernarecku’s (House no. 792-II) „kanceläf“ contained, in
addition to a debt Iist, spits, two pots for cooking fish, other cooking
utensils, four bibles, a gilded silver goblet, silver spoons, bed linen, and a
towel.
One of Brikci Zvonat z Cimperku’s (House no. 747-11) „kanceläf“ contained a
suit of armor; a second contained a debt register, various Czech and
German books, including a „wine cookbook“ (vinna kuchäfka), his silver
seal, keys and a small box containing two documents relating to the status
of his garden, one from the Emperor and the other from the Archbishop,
documents from communal offices and from the Church of St. Stephen.
Not all kancelaf were large pieces of fumiture. One of
Zikmund Vodak’s kancelat, which contained three books and
various documents relating to wine, was itself located within a
larger cabinet.
Some surviving cabinets, armoires, chests, and trunks in
museuro collections testify to the high quality of workmanship
and highly decorate character of many of these pieces of the
period. None of the tables in burgher houses were probably as
elaborate as the table with a Florentine mosaic in the collection of
the Prague Museum of Applied Arts.34
The inventories of pre-White Mountain households generally
do not contain any additional description of fumiture beyond an
indication that up to a third of pieces were painted . The most
popular colors were green and white, the next yellow and red.
Painted wooden chests and armoires represent a traditional
decorative feature rather than a Renaissance innovation. The
bright colors may perhaps be seen as a kind of personal
expression not allowed in clothing, which was controlled by strict
a Ietter of assurance üistota) from the Emperor to Nejedly’s underage
children.
34 See photographs Nos. 173-4 in Renaissance in Böhmen, F. Seibt (Hrsg.),
note 1 , p. 229.
90
sumptuary laws.35 The inscriptions such as „fortitude,“ which
was found on a piece of fumiture owned by Anna Zluticka z
Bemarecku, can be seen as a Renaissance innovation.
The possession of desks both in the New City and in other
Central European cities can be seen as an indication of the
affiliation of its owner with an important social transformation: as
a sign of the participation of its owner in the leadership activities
of his age either as a prominent merchant, artisan, or council. 36
Tapestries and antlers were the fumishings most commonly
found in the burgher household. Antlers (mostly deer), were
found in more than half of the households, primarily in
svietnice.37 Tapestries were found as main decorative fumishing
items (i.e. they were not stored) in eleven households.3S With the
exception of the tapestries of Jilji Perger z Castalovic’s larder
(spiZima) and the svietnice of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin and
Mikuläs Rüre z Vorlice, all the tapestries were located in groundfloor
„cellars“ (sklep) near the entrance to the hause.
Many of the tapestries were described in inventories as „old“ or
„plain“;39 a few were of higher quality.
Table 1.4.7 Exceptional Tapestrles in New City Prague Burgher Homes
Jifik Svik z Lukonos (nove staveni) – live Turkish tapestries.
Anna Zlutickä. z Bemarecku (House no. 792-11) – three Turkish tapestries.
Jilji Perger z Castalovic (House no. 79 1 -11) – three Turkish tapestries.
Matej Brzobohacy (House No. 1056 or 1057-11) – two Turkish tapestries.
Jan Slon (House no. 777-II) – one leather tapestry.
Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif (Na blati:) – one Turkish tapestry.
Vä.clav Vodicka (Horse Market) – one multi-colored Turkish tapestry.
Leather tapestries such as Jan Slon’s were common in noble
palaces of the period.40 In the burgher households, tapestries
which covered tables and chests were more common than
35 W. Brückner, 􀑭Farben als Zeichen,“ Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 78 ( 1 982):
14-37.
36 H. Kreisel & G. Himmelheber, Kunst des deutschen Möbels (note 3 1) , p. 57.
37 24 of 56 (42%).
38 1 1 of 56 (20%).
39 Stary, prosty.
40 The Rosenberg palace, for example, had leather tapestries; J. Krcä.lovä.,
􀑮Palä.c pä.nu z Roirnberka,“ !Palace of the Rosenbergs] Umeni 1 8 ( 1 970): 469-
85. See also J. Kybalovä., „Innenraum und Kunstgewerbe,“ Renaissance in
Böhmen, F. Seiht (Hrsg.), note 1 , pp. 205-244.
9 1
hanging tapestries. This feature was found in almost half of all
the households under study. The tapestries were rather
traditional furnishings, but the antlers perhaps may be seen as
serving as an innovation adopted from the nobility.
!.4.6. ART IN THE BURGHER HOUSE INTERIOR: PICTURES
Against the backdrop of fairly traditional furnishings spiced
up with a few pieces of exceptional furniture, some burgher
houses in the center of the New City could boast more than
modest collections of pictures. A total of two hundred four
pictures, designated in the inventories as figura, kontifekt, tabule,
and obraz, were found in twenty-one of the ftfty-six households
(thirty-eight percent).41 This represents a much larger figure than
for the New City as a whole (only twenty percent of whose houses
had pictures) .42 Four of the households contained over twentyfive
pictures; the remaining possessed fewer than ten.
Table 1.4.8 No. of Pictures in the Lugest Picture Collections
In New City Pragne Burgher Homes
No.
Anna Zluticka z Bernarecku (House no. 792-11 and new 39
structure)
Jilji Perger z Castalovic (House no. 79 1 -11) 37
Vaclav Karnaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-11) 33
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (House no. 747-II) 28
Jifik Svik z Lukonos (House no. 792 and new structure) 1 2
The portrait, a dassie Renaissance genre, was found in a
nurober of New City Prague burgher houses. Portrait themes
were either the owners or family members or Emperor Rudolf II.
Burgher portraits were in the houses of Ladislav Gallus z
Rajstejna, Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (of Tobiäs and his frrst wife
Vorsile), Ciprian Lopatsey (of Jan Romanis), and Jifik Svik z
Lukonos. Portraits of Rudolf II were found in the homes of Anna
41 Four were described as „wood,“ four as painted on canvas (na platne), and
three as „illuminated.“
42 Pictures were found in approximately 20% of the inventories in the city as
a whole during the period 1570-1620; J. Pesek, „Inwestycje kulturaljne
miesyczan praskich przed 1620 r. stan I wyniki badä.n nad inwentarzarni
spadkowymi I testarnentami“ (Cultural Investments of Prague Burghers
before 1620. The State and Development of Research on Probate Inventories
and Civic Wills], Sztuka miast i miszczanstwa XV-XVIII w. w Ewropia
srodkoworschodniej, Warszawa 1990, p. 337.
92
Zlutucka z Bernarecku (two portraits) and Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku. The portrait in the inventory of Bartolomej Zvonaf,
entitled Caesarius, is perhaps the same portrait of Rudolf li as
that owned by his father Brikci.
In addition to paintings, maps were also found in New City
Prague burgher houses. Although not a Renaissance stylistic
innovation, they perhaps indicate a heightened interest in
topography following the Habsburg ascent to the Bohemian
throne. With the exception of the map of Sirneon Polidor z
Baubinus entitled Europa segerintri, all of the maps in burgher
homes in the center of the New City had Bohemian or Austrian
themes. Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku possesed a picture of the city
of Vienna and a map of Hungary. His son Bartolomej had a
framed map of Moravia. Anna Zluticka z Bernarecku had a map
of the Kingdom of Bohemia.
It is interesting to note the number of maps and pictures with
associations to Habsburg rule, such as portraits of the Habsburg
Emperor and maps of Habsburg lands or cities in Habsburg
lands. lt should also be noted that historical and topographical
themes other than Central European were also found in Prague
during the period. For example, the Old City patrician Ludvik
Korälka z Tesin, who was a contemporary of Anna Zluticka z
Bernarecku and Brikci and Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku, had
maps in his home of Venice and Jerusalem.43 The paintings and
maps in New City homes with Central European themes could be
seen as an expression of political affiliation. The map of Vienna,
for example, is a direct affiliation with the recent joining of
Bohemian with the Habsburg Crown (in 1527). The maps of
Bohemia, on the other hand, are somewhat ambiguous. They
could be a symbol of anti-Habsburg sentiment or just a symbol of
local pride without necessarily being anti-Habsburg.
!.4.7. COLLECTIONS OF ARTISANAL WORK
OF EXCEPTIONAL QUALI1i‘
In addition to exceptional pieces of furniture, tapestries, and
paintings, burghers and other city dwellers in the center of the
43 J. Pe5ek, „Veduty v praisk)rch interierech doby pfedbelohorsk)rch,“
IVedutas in Prague lnteriors in the Pre-White Mountain Period], Umeni 3 1
(1983).
93
New City accumulated in their homes artisanal “ ork of high
artistic quality, such as clocks, decora tive dish’􀃚 R re, jewelry,
other decorative clothing accessories, and other art ob_wcts.44
Clocks were found in the New City only in a few households of
prominent burghers and wealthy artisans.
Table 1.4.9 Clocks in New City Prague Burgher Homes
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-11) – clock hung in a closet.
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (House no. 747-11) – a „striking“ („bici“) clock with
two cymbals.
Bartolomej z Cimperku (House no. 747-11) – a gilded watch hanging from a
string.
Markjta Kotlä.fka (House no. 746) – a „striking“ clock.
Väclav Vodicka (Horse Market) – a „striking“ clock and an alarm („budici“)
clock.
The low frequency of clocks is surprising in view of the fact
that clocks were not rare in Prague during the period . A large,
elaborate astronomical clock with figures that came out on the
hour stood in the tower of Old City Hall. 45 In the second half of
the 16th century, imperial clock-maker Kundrat Steffanaur lived
near the City Hall in the New City. His works, clocks of all types,
filled up almost every room of his house.46
The types of exceptional dishware found in New City Prague
burgher homes included silver and gold spoons, chalices; cups
(koflik), goblets (Ciska}, and mugs (iejdlik); some „in pairs of two“
14 For brief, contemporary surveys of artisanal artwork in Bohemia of the
period, see B. Bukovinskä, „Umelecke femeslo“ (Artisanal Artwork), Umeni
na dvofe Rudolfa II, E. Fucikovä et al., Praha 1988, pp. 1 4 1 -77; J. Kybalovä,
„Innenraum und Kunstgewerbe“ and R. Distelberg, „Gold und Silber,
Edelstein und Elfenbein,“ in Renaissance in Böhmen, F. Seibt (Hrsg.), note
1 , pp. 205-244, 255. For a comparison of these New City collections with
those of Old City residents, see J. Studihradovä, „Kulturni uroven
staromestskjch domäcnosti pfedbelohorskeho obdobi /Umelecke femeslov
mestanske domäcnosti V Prazej“ [The Cultural Niveau of Old City
Households in the Pre-White Mountain Period (Artisanal Artwork of
Bourgeois Households in Prague)], diplomovä präce, Filozofickä fakulta UK,
Katedra ceskoslovenskjch dejin, 1982.
45 Z. Horskj, Pra.Zskj Orloj (The Prague Astronomical Clockl, Praha 1988; S.
Michal, „Hodinä.fstvi a technika mefeni casu“ (Clockmaking and the
Technology of Measuring Time) in Dejiny technice v Ceskoslovensku do r.
1800, Praha 1974, pp. 555-62; VYvOj hodinä.fstvi V cesk)’C’h zemich (The
History of Clockmaking in the Bohemian Lands), Praha 1976.
46 See Steffanaur’s inventory: AMP 1 2 1 4 f. 198.
94
(dosebe vchcizejici), „in the style of a glass“ (na spil.sob sklenice}, or
with covers (s pfikryvadlem). Many silver objects were gilded on
the inside, outside, or both. Wooden spoons were also gilded.
Martin Masopust, had a large silver cup with up to two hundred
inlaid stones!
Many of the objects may have come from Prague workshops,
such as the workshop of Fillip Junger, which was located next to
Martin Masopust on the Horse Market. 47 Some households also
had work by foreign artisans. Matej Brzobohacy, for example,
had two gilded cups (kojlik) identified as originating from the
Seven Mountain region, an area located in today’s Romania.
Dishware with monograms and engraving were found in four
households. Zikmund Vodak owned twelve silver spoons engraved
with the initials „RF,“ an additional twelve with the initial „R,“
and four with the initials „HR.“ Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku
owned a gilded cup, under which was written „Krystof Freylich z
Frandenfelzu,“ relationship unknown. Ladislav Gallus z Rajetejna
owned thirteen silver spoons with his seal on them.
The noble Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke had two tin services,
including plates, bowls, and jugs, one with the coat of arms of his
second wife Dorota and himself, and the second with that of his
frrst wife Marta and himself. Their location in the kitchen and
adjacent rooms indicate that they served as objects for everyday
use as well as for special occasions.
Glass dishware and other hausehold objects were rare in New
City Prague inventories of the period , Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin
had a glass table, glass lamp (sk/ena lucema}, thirteen small and
large glasses, and a mirror.4s This is surprising considering that
common glass of the plain type found in Central Europe, called
„green glass,“ had been produced in Bohemia since the Middle
Ages. By the end of the 16th century, the exhaustion of silver
mines contributed to investment in a domestic glass industry that
developed in Northern Bohemia. In the late 16th century,
Bohemian artisans developed innovative techniques in glass
workmanship, such as glass cutting. At the court of Rudolf II,
artistic glass work reached a high quality, represented by the
47 On goldsmiths associated with the imperial court, see 8. Bukovinskä, „Zu
den Goldschmiedearbeiten der Prager Hofwerkstätte zur Zeit Rudolfs II.,“
Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek (1992), pp. 7 1 -82; R. Distelberg, „Gold und
Silber, Edelstein und Elfenbein􀄀 in Renaissance in Böhmen, F. Seibt (Hrsg.),
pp. 255-89.
48 Svietnice (location 17).
95
work of Kaspar Lehman. No explanation for the infrequency of
glass objects in New City households has yet been found.
Jewehy and other valuable clothing accessories were common
among residents of the center of the New City, found in forty
percent of the households.49 The major types of jewehy were
rings, long and short necklaces {fetez, feti.Zek), pins (zapona},
earrings, and a few unknown items, such as pentik. Many of the
rings were in gold and silver, and inlaid with precious gems and
stones, such as sapphires, rubies, diamonds, and some unknown
stones (sekryt, hfezokyt, hyacinth).
The largest jewelry collections were those of Väclav Kamaryt z
Rovin, Jan KfiZ, Zikmund Vodak, and Jifik Svik z Lukonos.so
Jan KfiZ’s jewelry collection consisted of a golden circle and
fourteen rings, including a gold one with sapphires, two with a
„red stone in the manner of a sekryt, “ two with a sekryt, one with
a hfezokyt, one with a hyacinth, one with a ruby, and one with a
diamond.
Two households had medium-size collections: those of Anna
Zlutickä z Bernarecku and Mikuläs Rure z Vorlicne. Anna
Zlutickä z Bernarecku possessed a golden comb with a garnet
and twenty-five rings. Mikuläs Rure z Vorlicne had two gold
rings, one with a stone and one without, and twenty-three rings
„on a string.“
Small collections consisting of one or only a few items were
found in the households of the Utraquist administrator Daniel
Rubin ze Zvovif and imperial guard Thomas Kyndrmon. Daniel
Rubin ze Zvovif owned one golden necklace, one ring with a pearl,
and one ring with a ruby. Thomas Kyndromon owned three rings:
two gold ones with supply (unknown gern), and one broken, gold
one with a ruby.
Clothing accessories other than jewehy containing gold, silver,
or rare gems and stones are found in twenty-three households in
the center of the New City. The most common pieces were belts
made of silver, owned by Jan Kalivoda, Thomas Kyndrmon,
49 24 of 56, or 43%.
50 The scale used for the size of jewelry collections was chosen as
appropriate for the data of this study. No other classification system is
known. It is a relative scale arising out of the comparison of collections of
individuals in the study. It is not based on any absolute numerical values.
„Large“ refers to the largest collection in the sample along with those similar
to it, etc. Considering the exceptional nature of the workmanship it seemed
reasonable to use a relative rather than an absolute scale.
96
Martin Masopust, Väclav Vodicka, or belts made of cloth with
omamental pieces of gold or silver, such as a „belt with a silver
chain with a golden apple on it“ owned by Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif,
Jan KiiZ, and Jifik Svik z Lukonos. Matej Brzobohaty had a „belt
with pearls and a copper lock“ and a „gilded silver belt with small
clocks on it.“
Other accessories in New City homes were coats with twentyfour
silver buttons, owned by Matej Brzobohazy and Väclav
Kamaryt z Rovin and omamental hats, such as „the pearl hat
with gold“ owned by Jifik Svik z Lukonos. Mikuläs Ruze z
Vorlicne possessed an „old bag (ta.Ska) with silver buttans and
stones.“
Women’s clothing accessories were either more decorative
than men’s or were at least described that way. The collection of
Maryanna Pergerovä, wife of Jilji Perger z Castalovic, consisted of
a silver belt with golden locks, a silver belt with thirty-one golden
dots (puklickami), a silver belt with thirty-four silver dots, two
smallers belts with silver dots, a pearl hat with fifty-four golden
dots, and four colared hats with gold. Her neighbor across the
street, Anna Zlutickj“ z Bemarecku, owned a „cloth belt with a
gilded silver chain with apples and decorated with garnet,“ a
„silver belt with silver blade and knife,“ and another „silver belt
with a silver blade and two knives.“
Burghers and other city dwellers who lived in the center of the
New City of Prague collected pieces of art with styles, motifs, and
objects from nature and the exotic . Jan Knz owned a „silver
apple;“ Jilji Perger z Castalovic had „a gilded silver apple.“ Väclav
Kamaryt z Rovin owned „a pear in silver.“ Martin Masopust
owned two corals. Zikmund Vodak had an „ivory comb“ and a
„crystal stone. “ Jan KiiZ owned a nurober of pearl necklaces.
Exotic nuts and shells fashioned with silver, gold, and gems in
omamental drinking vessels, common pieces in the Kunstkammer
of the emperor and noble circles, were in two New City
households. Jifik Svik z Lukonos possessed „an Indian nut in
gilded silver with a cover“ and „a nutmeg fashioned into silver.“
Matej Brzobohaty had two large vessels made out of ostrich eggs.
Other items include circles made of gold and silver and coins.
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had a silver seal. Väclav Kamaryt z
Rovin had „two groschen with pictures of the deceased Kamaryt
the Eider, one silver, one gold.“
97
1.4.8. BOOKS
Books represent a special kind of cultural commodity. Their
primary value relates not to their economic worth or rarity, as
printed books could be quite inexpensive, but rather to their link
to written culture. In addition to this intellectual value, books
could also be valued for their workmanship.
Many residents of the New City had books but only a fraction
of these can be classified as libraries; in other words, a collection
of books in a specially allocated space.51 In burgher houses in
the center of the New City, books were located in thirty-eight
(sixty-six percent) of ftfty-six households. A quarter of the
households had only a handful of books (one to three books);
approximately half had small collections (four to twenty-six
books).52 Four households had medium-sized book collections
(twenty-six to one hundred books). Three households had largesized
book collections (more than one hundred books).
Table 1.4.10 Large and Medium-size Book Collections in New City
Homes
Hausehold
Vä.clav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no.
846-11)
Anna ZlutickY z Bernarecku (House no.
792-11 & the New Structure)
Jifik Svik z Lukonos (House no. 792-11
& the New Structure)
Mikuläs Ruie z Vorlicne (House no.
853-11)
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (House no.
747-11)
Väclav Vodicka (Horse Market)
Jilji Perger z Castalovic (House no.
79 1-11)
No of Books
148
123 tot.; 34 in House no. 792-
11, 89 in the New Structure
1 1 1 tot.; 60 in House no. 792-
11, 5 1 in the New Structure
88
56
4 1
28
stJifi Pesek uses the tenn „library“ to refer to an individual’s books. I fmd it
more useful to make a distinction between „book collections“ and „libraries“;
„book collections• are just what the name designates; ‚libraries“ refer to a
collection found in a specific location. See J. Pesek, „Inwestycje kulturalne
mieszczan praskich przed 1620 r.“ (note 42), pp. 335-342.
s2 For the size of the book collection, I adopt the scale used by Jifi Pesek:
small collection (4-25 books), medium (26-100), and large (100+). See J.
Pe8ek, „Inwestycje kulturalne miesyczan praskich przed 1620 r.“(note 42), p.
335.
98
As a whole, the book collections in this section of the city
corresponded in size with those of the city as a whole for this
period. The !arger individual collections in the New City, however,
tended to be small. As a comparison, two Utraquist pastors of
this period had book collections three tim es as !arge. 53 The
conservative Utraquist administrator, Väclav Dacickj who lived in
the New City settlement around St. Clement’s Church, had one of
the largest book collections in the city: 349 printed books.
Mikuläs Rejskj z Hennanova Mestce, pastor of St. Aegidius (Sv.
Jilji) in the Old City, had 302 books when he died in 1602. In
contrast, Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif, administrator of St. Henry (Sv.
Jindficha) in the New City, had only four books.
Also, there were ten-percent more medium-size and tenpercent
fewer small book collections in this section of the New
City than in Prague as a whole during this period.54
Half of all the books (forty-eight percent) in New City Prague
burgher homes had religious themes. 55 The religious books
included bibles (New and Old Testaments) and books of psalms,
prayers, and sermons. At least four percent of the books dealt
with historical topics, two percent with law, and a handful with
medicine or healing.56 The most common law books are
collections of „urban law“ (pravo mestske) and estate law (ziizeni
zemske).s1
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin’s book collection, the largest in the
center of the New City (one hundred forty-eight books total) ,
consisted of more than eighty books having a religious theme,
saJ. Pesek, „Knihovny praiseych pfedbelohorseych faräfü“ [Libraries of
Prague Ministers in the Pre-White Mountain Periodj, DP IX ( 199 1), p. 4 18.
54 In this part of the city, 8% of all the inventories bad book collections
!arger than 100. For the city as a whole in the period 157 1 – 1620, the figure
is 7%. J. Pesek, „Inwestyce kulturaljne miesyczan praskich przed 1620 r.“
(note 42), p. 335.
55 28% have religious titles; approximately another 22% are identified in the
inventories along with other books. Information about book subjects are
provided by approximately two-thirds of the books in the study.
56Qn healing and medical book collections of the period, see J. Pesek,
„Zdravotni Jiteratura V praiseych mesfanseych knihovnä.ch pfeiomu 16. a
17. stoleti“ [Medical Literature in Libraries of Prague Burghers on the
Tuming-Point of the 16th and 17th Centuriesj, DP VII/ 1 : 236-252.
57 A more extensive breakdown of book collections by themes can be found
in Part II of this study. For a comparison of book collections in the New City
of Prague with Strasbourg of the period, see M . Chrisman, Lay Culture,
Leamed Culture: Books and Social Change in Strasbourg, 1480- 1 599, New
Haven & London, 1982.
99
included the works of Augustine (the City of God), Martin Luther,
and Hussite and Bohemian Brethren authors; works on urban
law; two historical calendars; and an herbal book. Anna Zlutickä
z Bemarecku’s book collection (one hundred twenty-three books)
included a Czech bible, an „everyday“ Evangelium , five „prayer
and other“ books, and twenty-seven calendars.
The book collection of Jifik Svik z Lukonos, Anna’s husband,
was comparable in size (one hundred eleven books total) to that of
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin, but varied more in theme. It included
forty books of „various classical authors,“ and two school books.
The modest book collection of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif,
administrator of the Utraquist parish St. Henry (Sv. Jindficha),
consisted of one song book of the Bohemian Brethren, one
medical book, and two books of unknown theme.
Among the small collections, religious books were the most
popular. Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke possessed nine books: three
bibles, one song book (in Czech), one book of Spangenberg’s
sennons, three books on estate law, and an additional book on an
unknown topic. Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna, who lived in the
house across the street from the Nejedly house, also possessed
nine books: one Czech bible, four books of sermons (in German),
a book of Spangenberg’s sermons (in Czech), a book entitled
Gulden Areh (in Gennan), a book of estate law, and a book of
urban law. Jan Kalivoda’s collection of nine books included one
book of Master Jan Habennan’s sermons (in Czech) , another book
of sermons by an unknown author (in Czech), the prolegomena of
the dissertation of Petrus Codicillus, and a few miscellaneous
books. Mandalena Grafeus, the wife of the painter Baptista
Grafeus, possessed five books: three books of prayers, one book of
songs, and the New Testament (in Czech).
Of those who had only a handful of books, the books were
almost all religious in theme, usually a bible. Jan Brzobohaty
possessed only two books: a bible and a book of psalms (both in
Czech); Ciprian Lopatskj, a bible and an herbal book; Katefina
Vodickovä, a Czech bible and a book of Spangenberg’s sermons;
Martin Hranickj possessed one book, a Czech bible; Vit Vodicka,
a Czech bible printed by Melantrich.
In a few cases, the book design was also described. Katefina
Vodickovä possessed a Czech bible „in red leather;: Jan Kalivoda
a book of Czech sermons „in white leather.“ Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku possessed a Czech bible „bound in black silk with
silver“ and a German bible decorated „with silver studs.“ Account
100
and debt registers were sometimes decorated in a similar fashion.
Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku had three registers (two of them beer
registers) in red leather.
1.4.9. NEW CITY RESIDENTS – RELIGIOUS ART & RENOVATION
OF CHURCH STRUCTURES
In addition to books with religious themes, indications of
religious piety can be found in other material objects with
religious motifs.
Art objects with religious motifs include Anna Zluticey z
Bernarecku’s „golden cross shaped into a key.“ Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku had a silver cross and silver heart. Bartolomej Zvonaf
z Cimperku possessed five crucifxl es. Jifik Svik z Lukonos had a
silver cruciflx and a „large coral necklace with a groschen coin
with a passion motif and a pearl.“ Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif had „a
silver heart with a passion motif on it“ and a „golden groschen
with cruciftx motiv on it.“ Vit Vodicka had a „golden groschen
with the passion motif and pearl on it.“
For reasons that are unclear, only flfteen percent of paintings
and other works of art had religious motifs, as opposed to twothirds
of all books in Prague inventories of the period. 58
Six of the pictures owned by individuals in the study from the
New City had a religious theme. The noble Tobiäs Nejedly z
Vysoke possessed one picture of Adam and Eve. The burgher
Magdalena Hvezdovä had one of the birth of Christ and one of
Christ’s baptism. Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had three paintings
of saints, including those of SS. Väclav and Adalbert (Vojtech in
Czech), two patron saints of Bohemia. Zikmund Zvonaf z
Cimperku, Brikci’s brother, possessed one of the Virgin Mary.59
While books, paintings, and art with religious themes and
motifs do demonstrate a widespread interest in religious among
58J. Pesek, „Vytvarna dila s nabozenskou tematikou V pra:Zseych
pfedbelohorseych interierech“ [Artisanal Work with Religious Themes in
Prague lnteriors of the Pre-White Mountrun Period], Umeni 30 ( 1982): 263-
267.
59Jn a breakdown of pictures and other works of art with a religious theme
according to property ownership of collectors, Jifi Pesek noted that the
largest group of collectors of this genre owned only one house or slightly
more; see J. Pesek, „Vytvarna dila s nabozenskou“ (note 58), p. 265. In the
group under study, Magdalena Hvezdova and Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku
each had one house but Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had four houses, and
Tobias Nejedly z Vysoke had three houses.
1 0 1
residents of the New City, they do not reveal confessional
affiliation or the support of Prague residents for Catholic renewal.
For these areas one needs to look elsewhere.
In 1 59 1 , the administrators of St. Adalbert (Sv. Vojtecha)
complained to the Six-Man Council of the New City that Jindfich
Tichy took bricks from the roof and carried them to a structure
that he was building in his garden without the permission of the
administrators. Besides his removing the bricks, they complained
further that the garden on which he was building had been given
to the settlement by an earlier hause owner.60 Jindfich Tichy’s
removal of bricks might be explained as self-serving or less than
„pious.“ His relationship to church structures, however, may not
have been significantly different from that of his neighbors.
Only 3.3% of all New City burghers for whom civic wills are
extant for the period 157 1 to 1620 left gifts to ecclesiastical
institutions, hospitals, or parish literary brotherhoods. 61 Only six
were inhabitants of the center of the New City for whom property
and other information is available.
Table 1.4. 1 1 Gifts to Ecelesiastieal lnstitutions in Civie Wills
of lnhabitants of the Center of the New City
Individual
Krystof Hasik62
Magdalena Hvezdovä63
Kateiina Kobiska64
6o AMP 2 149 f. 189a.
Institution
St. Stephen
St. Stephen
New City
Council
St. Lazarus
Chapel of the
Body of Christ
St. Peter on
the Poiiö
St. Martin-inthe-
Wall
Amount Purgose
(Groschen)
10 kop Wine
70 kop Re pair
Meissen
400 kop Poor in
Meissen Hospitals
100 kop Re pair
Meissen
100 kop Decoration of
Meissen Interior
200 kop
Meissen
100 kop
6128 out of 835; J . Pesek, „Pra.Zske knihy ksaftü a inventäfü. Piispevek k
jejich struktufe a vyvoje v dobe pfedbelohorske [Prague Civic Will and
Inventory Books. Contribution to their Structure and Development in the
Pre-White Mountain Period), PSH 1 5 ( 1982), pp. 73-76.
62 AMP 2207 f. 361a.
63 AMP 2209 f. 150a.
64 AMP 2209 f. 343a.
102
Jan Kfii65
J iiik Lesnru«>
Rehof PäteJ<67
No gifts – 1 1
individuaJs.68
St. Henry
St. Stephen
Karlov
Monastery
St. Stephen
St. Martin-inthe-
WaJI
St. Jakub in
the city of
Pfibram
50 kop Campletion of
Meissen tower
100 kop
Meissen
20 kop Construction
Meissen of Chapel St.
Marketa
50 kop Construction
Meissen of bell
29 kop
Czech
(where
parents are
buried)
Of these six residents of the center of the New City who left
gifts to ecclesiastical institutions, four allocated funds for repair
or renovation of structures; specifically, for the repair of the tower
of St. Henry’s (Sv. Jindficha}, and the bell tower of St. Stephen’s
(Sv. Stepana}, and for the construction of the Chapel of St.
Marketa in the Karlov Monastery.
A new tower was installed on St. Henry’s (Sv. Jindficha) in
1585. The Sadeler engraving of 1606 provides a pictorial
representation of this tower, showing the Gothic elements that it
retained in its upper portion. 69 The tower was evidently placed
slightly off mark, because it feil off on the day after its ceremonial
lowering onto the church, causing darnage to the rectory before
landing on church grounds. The repair of the new tower was
supervised by Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif, administrator of the parish.
It involved the support of leading citizens of the New City. Jan
Facilis Boleslavskj, the then current pastor, recorded in the
parish records the names of the New City burghers who assisted
6s AMP 2209 f. 125a.
66 AMP 2209 f. 27 1a.
67 AMP 2209 f. 223b.
68 Martin Cukräf, Baptista Grafeus, Väclav Hradecey, Martin Hranicey,
Buryan Kotläf, Markyta Kotläfka, Martin Masopust, Anna Steflkovä, Adam
Tatek, Brikd Jan z Cimperku, Bartos Zvonaf z Cimperku.
69 K. Navrätil, Pameti hlavniho kostela farniho, fary a skoly Sv. Jindiicha a
Sv. Kunhuty v Novem Meste Praiskem [Records of the Main Parish Church,
Parsonage, and Schools of SS. Henry and Kunhuta in the New City of
Prague], Praha 1869, p. 94.
103
in the total repair of the tower. 7° Four of the benefactors were
prominent residents of the New City: Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin,
Daniel Svik z Lukonos, Martin Masopust, and Daniel Ru bin ze
Zvovif. The renovation of the tower dome with copper was
undertaken by the smith Tomäs Krumlovs:ky of Sirokä Street for
35 kop Meissen groschen. The star was constructed by a
locksmith named Sirnon for one kop groschen. 71
In 1 59 1 , the tower underwent additional repairs during which
a new bell was also installed which carried the inscription: „this
bell was cast in the year of the lord 1591 by me, Vavfinec Hodinäf
[the bell maker] in the New City of Prague. „72 Being a bellmaker,
Vavfinec probably lived in Sirokä Street with Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku and Tomäs Krumlovs:ky.
In addition to gifts for upkeep and repair, parish records
document twenty-five monetary gifts for unspecific purposes to
St. Henry (Sv. Jindficha) for the period 1 550- 16 1 1 . The gifts were
modest in size, ranging from 2 to 80 kop groschen (with one
exceptional gift of 100 kop groschen). None of the gift givers were
residents of the New City in this study. 73 Only four of these
individuals left monetary gifts for unspecified purposes in their
civic wills.
The widespread presence of religious motifs and themes in
literature and art in New City Prague burgher houses in the late
7rku (l lousc no. 747-11).
„‚ Komora (location 27) and Svit’tnice vclki nahoiT (locat ion I) of Brikci
Zvonnf z Cimpcrku (Housc no. 747 -11).
‚“ 0. Ranum. „Thl‘ Rt>fuges of lntimac.v.“ Passions of the l􀃇cnaissancc. R.
Chartkr (cd.). volume 3. A History of Private Lifc. l’hillipc Arii’s &. Gcorgcs
Du by (cds.), Cambridgc, Mass 1989. pp. 207-263. especially pp. 217ff.
129
for personal items, such as clothes, books, and art objects. The
New City Prague bedroom on the eve of the Battle of White
Mountain appears to be the location where small blocks of
privatization developed within the multi-functional environment
that still retained some public functions. It suggests that privacy
in the hausehold developed, at the very least alongside, if not as a
result of the development of other forms of collecting.
Searching for occasions and modes of display is one, but not
the only, path to understanding the purposes of art collections in
the New City. Display was only one of a nurober of functions and
meanings that New City art collections could have served.
Cultural objects and collections could have had a symbolic
quality, even if they were not formally displayed.77 This might be
the case for most of the households in the center of the New City
that did not have rooms with exceptional representational
character.
In many cases, the distinctive storage pattems of art objects
in burgher houses can perhaps best be understood as their being
placed „out of circulation“ for later use by the owner or at the
bequest of the owner.78 This use is suggested by gifts left by
burghers to friends and relatives in the handful of civic wills
which are available. Anna Steffkovä z Cichanova, for example,
left Vorsile four silver belts, three gold belts, other jewelry
including rings with stones, clothes, and bed linen.
In some cases where objects were placed out of circulation,
they served a function similar to that of money; that is, one
bequethed an object for its monetary value. In other cases,
objects were left for one’s family and friends not as a financial
bequest but as an act of memorial. Daniel Svik z Lukonos left his
son Jifik two golden goblets „in memory of [his] grandfather Jifik“
and a ring on which was engraved „in memory of [his] grandfather
Mikuläs Karyta z Rezna.“ Objects left as memorials served a
function similar to that of tombs and gravestones. Unfortunately
only a few gravestones from this period have survived in Prague;
such as the tom bstone of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe in
the church of Mary-on-the-Teyn and a few graves outside of the
parish church St. Henry (Sv. Jindficha) in the New City .79
77 K. Pomian, Collectors and Curiousities, pp. 7-9 (note 3).
78 K. Pomian, Collectors and Curiousities, pp. llf (note 3).
7 9 On the function of gravestones and tombstones as acts of memorial, see
K. Pomian, Collectors and Curiousities (note 3), pp. 16ff and 79ff. None of
130
Civic will bequests of material culture provide information on
the hierarchy of choice and burgher conceptions of the
exceptional and the ordinary. The two general principles of
bequest with regards to material culture were: first, that a person
left behind what he or she had; second, one bequeathed objects in
decreasing order of their importance. Wealthier burghers left gold
and silver; those who did not have gold and silver left pewter and
kitchen items. Väclav Haldeckj, who was of more modest means
than his neighbor, Martin Masopust, left Jan Vgyf (relationship
unknown) his tin dishware and kitchen utensils, including an old
copper mortar; and his servant Sibille the wash basin which was
in the upstairs svietnice.
The sweet baker Martin Cukräf left his house and its contents
to his wife Vorsile, with the exception of a large amount of pewter
dishware (measured by weight) to his daughter Lidmile.so As
Lidmile’s inventory indicates, she was left with more than a
modest collection of art objects. Either Vorsile’s art was her own –
which would provide an interesting example of gender
differentiation of art collecting or of large wealth differences
according to gender – or Lidmile, her daughter, may have been
cheated (i.e. her mother received the gold and she the pewter).
Martin did possess gold and silver and could have left his
daughter at least one gold piece. Jifik Svik z Lukonos‘ father,
who left him two gold goblets, was more generous.
Some burgher art collections were, thus, meant for display,
though not in rooms specially designed for that purpose; while
other collections were meant for other purposes. If the purposes
of collecting varied among the residents of the New City, what
about the motives of collecting? This brings us back to a question
raised at the beginning of the last chapter. Considering the
piecemeal, hodgepodge composition of the collections of art and
cultural objects of residents of the New City, and their quite
distinctive setting and organization, how would one classify the
the sUiviving gravestones outside of the Church of St. Henry (Sv. Jindficha)
in the New City seem to be those of New City burghers in this study.
Epitaphs of these gravestones are printed in K. Navrätil, Pameti hlavniho
kostela famiho, fary a skoly Sv. Jindficha a Sv. Kunhuty V Novem Meste
Praiskem [Records of the Main Parish Church, Parsonage, and Schools of
SS. Henry and Kunhuta in the New City of Praguej, Praha 1869.
so One centjf of tin dishware was left.
131
owners of these collections: Harmless eccentrics? Wiley
spectators? Weil endowed family men and women?S1
!.5.6. CHARACTERISTIC STYLE OF ORGANIZATION –
CHARACTERISTIC STYLE OF APPROPRIATION:
THE BOHEMIAN RENAISSANCE ON THE HORSE MARKET
Not one of the prototypes used to classify the modem art
collector can alone explain the composition and organization of
collections, and the motives for collecting of New City Prague
residents in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Some residents
of the New City who have been considered in this study were
members of wealthy, weil established families, but wealth and
prestige represent only a partial explanation for the composition
of collections and the motives for collecting. Eccentricity and
amateur connaisseurship are equally inadequate, as they fail to
duly take into account the characteristic organization of
collections. Residents of the New City were neither mere
spectators nor passive agents of the diffusion of Renaissance
styles and modes or the new approach towards the material
culture of churches and monasteries. Although many of the new
ideas, styles and modes in art and architecture were initiated by
noble and royal/ imperial circles on Castle Hili, residents of the
New City did not passively adopt them but appropriated them on
their own terms and for their own reasons.
A style of appropriation characteristic of city dwellers, as
opposed to the Emperor and the nobility, is reflected in the setting
and organization of architectural features and collections of art
and cultural objects in burgher houses in the center of the New
City. Literate city dwellers could and did have access to leamed
debates about religion, law, and other subjects, and the
composition of their book collections demonstrates their interest
in them, but book collections did not translate into a library or
place of study or refuge. The Renaissance style of portraiture,
windows, gables, its treatment of nature and the exotic, as weil as
the maintenance and renovation of churches and monasteries,
did attract residents of the New City, but did not translate into
Kunstkammer, painting galleries, new house structures, or church
endowment.
81 K. Pomian, Collectors and Curiosities (note 3), p. 1.
132
The lack of painting galleries and Kunstkammer and the
piecemeal renovation of houses and ecclesiastical structures can
be associated, on one Ievel, with a partial, rather than a full
adoption of new styles and modes. In other words, while the
diffusion of Renaissance styles and a new approach to the sacred
was a widespread phenomenon, it did not result in their
wholesale adoption as a system. Such a statement, while
descriptive, provides no explanation for why art collections,
architectural elements, and other features of material culture
were organized or not organized in a particular way. An
explanation for the characteristic setting and organization of art
and cultural objects and for the motives for collecting requires a
differentiated model of social compensation and aesthetics.82
The adoption of new features of material culture by residents
of the New City can be explained as a complicated action of social
and political competition and compensation among social groups
(city residents, nobles, and the Emperor) or among city residents.
The different composition, setting, and organization of new styles
and modes among individuals reflect a broad spectrum of
responses and meanings.
For many city dwellers, new styles of art were merely a new
type of material culture for old purposes. ln these cases, the
setting and motive remained the same as for the objects they were
replacing. Instead of collecting tin, silver and gold in old shapes
and sizes, one collected more tin, silver and gold in new shapes
and sizes to use as money, memorial, or decoration. One did not
necessarily need to display them. In the case of architectural
structural elements, such as the construction of new windows,
tables, portals, and vaulting ceilings, the setting did not change,
but the mere presence of the new features served to act in a new
powerfully pretentious manner. This style of appropriation,
characterized by apish copying, pretension, and conspicuous
consumption, can be attributed to a large majority of the
s2 Gerard Turner presents an interesting, differentiated explanation. He has
proposed that private collections and cabinets served a three-fold purpose:
self advertisement (i.e. individual family and prestige}, economic
advancement and utility, and intellectual satisfaction. According to Turner,
the economic advantage behind the cabinets was used and seen as a means
of development, the raw material of trade and prosperity. See G. Turner,
„The Cabinet of Experimental Philosophy,“ The Origins of Museums, 0.
Impey & A. MacGregor (eds.), note 1, pp. 214-222.
133
inhabitants of the New City – those of modest means as weil as
some of the wealthier.
The appropriation of new styles and modes in art and
architecture by residents of the New City often represented a
highly ambivalent form of compensation and competition, related
both to traditional social, cultural and political systems and to
new ones. Often, city dweilers did not simply copy or adopt a
style or mode to gain influence or compensate for lass of prestige
at the expense of the nobility, but to reassert their position over
that of their peers in a changing environment. Martin Masopust,
for example, a member of the old order in the New City, changed
ail of his windows in the late 16th century – an ultimate sign of
pretension – but the interior design of his hause remained the
same, with traditional parlors but no truly representation rooms
for the display of art.
To the bellmaker Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, compensation
was all at once conspicuous consumption, pretension, as weil as
a process of deeper, inner commitment. The reconstruction of his
roof must be seen as a pretentious act, but his office retreat and
his maps and pictures with Habsburg themes represented neither
a copying of styles to reassert hirnself among his peers in the New
City, as Martin Masopust seems to have done, nor simple
compensation for his status and competition with nobles on
Castle Hill. Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku embodied a style of
cultural appropriation characterized by a willingness to partake in
the acculturation process brought forth by the reintroduction of
Habsburg rule in the city.
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin the Younger, Jilji Perger z Castalovic,
and Jifik Svik z Lukonos adopted new styles in a broad and
complicated fashion. They did not merely accumulate gold and
silver, they coilected them along with items from nature and the
exotic, and ordered them into Kunstkammer, albeit in their own
way. These were individuals who had extensive ties within the
local neighborhood all the way up to the castle. Two of them,
V äclav Kamaryt z Rovin and J ifik Svik z Lukonos, were from
upwardly mobile families who chose to make a future with the
Habsburgs; Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin was even elevated to noble
status.
The importance of an individual’s relationship to the Habsburg
presence in Bohemia bare on the extent to which he or she
adopted new styles and modes and appropriated them in an
134
orderly, organized fashion. This is strongly suggested by the case
studies of residents of the New City and is supported by the cases
of two Old City residents, Jakub Granovskj z Granova and
Markus Meyzl, individuals who were introduced in previous
chapters. Both were associated with farnilies whose social and
political fortunes were tied to the Habsburg cause. Jakub
Granovskj z Granova’s father had received frorn Ernperor
Ferdinand I a building plot strategically located off the courtyard
of the Church of Mary-on-the-Teyn off Old Town Square for his
loyalty during the Uprising of 1 547. Markus Meyzl’s father, the
farnous rabbi and philanthropist Mordecai Meyzl, was a
confidante of the Emperor. Both of these individuals appropriated
Renaissance features into their homes in an extensive
fashion that included not only new windows, but also the
construction of Italian-style loggia.
The cornparison of these New and Old City case studies brings
to the foreground the issue of confession. Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku, Jifik Svik z Lukonos, Jilji Perger z Castalovic, and
Markus Meyzl, all individuals who appropriated new Renaissance
styles and rnodes in an extension fashion and showed an interest
in the renovation of ecclesiastical buildings, did not see a problern
with the fusion of Bohernian local pride and Utraquisrn (Zvonaf,
Svik and Perger), or of Bohernian local pride and Judaism (Meyzl),
with Habsburg intemationalisrn (which used Catholic reform as a
tool of centralization). Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had no problern
being a parishioner at the Utraquist parish church of St. Stephen
(Sv. Stepana}, a rnernber of the literary circle of St. Henry (Sv.
Jindficha), and an agent to the Catholic Petr Vok z Rozrnberka;
just as his grandfather did business with Habsburg King
Ferdinand I and rnade a deal with the Archbishop over his
garden. Sirnilarly, Markus Meyzl’s father was a rnajor patron of
synagogues and Jewish cornrnunal buildings but had no problern
in dealing with the Habsburg Ernperor. These cases represent, at
the very least, the fluid and arnbiguous confessional situation of
the late 16th century. In such an environrnent, any links between
culture, politics, and confession rnust be seen as accidental. The
apparent similarities in cultural appropriation rnay illustrate the
material ernbodiment of what has been described as „the third
path“ – the conscious atternpt by rnany conternporaries to avoid
135
the sectarianism brought forth by the Reformation. 83 If so,
similarities in cultural appropriation may be common approaches
to material culture among such apparently different figures as the
Habsburg Emperor, a Catholic, the Utraquist artisan, and the
rabbi’s son.
83 F. Heer, Die dritte Kraft. Der europäische Humanismus zwischen den
Fronten des konfessionellen Zeitalters, Frankfurt/Main 1959.
136
1.6. Conclusion
The New City shared in the transformation of Prague, as a
whole, into a Habsburg residential city. Its residents adopted
Renaissance styles and modes introduced by the Habsburg court
and the Bohemian nobility, and participated in the renovation of
the material culture of the sacred associated with Catholic
reform. In the New City, the adoption of Renaissance styles and
modes and Catholic Renewal brought about a silent
transformation of home and neighborhood, characterized by the
slow refurbishing of house, street and parish church. At the
same time, a detailed study of these innovations has shown that
as widespread and pervasive as this transformation was, it is a
gross oversimplification to state that Prague society underwent a
cultural symbiosis in the late 16th and early 17th centuries,
whereby different groups began to assimilate their styles and
tastes, as has been proposed.1 The case of the New City shows
that the transformation of Prague into a Habsburg residential city
was a complex process.
First of all, Renaissance styles and modes throughout the 16th
century represented just one of a number of cultural systems
drawn on by city residents to conceptualize and orient themselves
in the material and spatial worlds of the city. In addition to
Renaissance styles and modes, there were those associated with
the long, accumulated tradition of the material culture of housing
which dated back centuries, as weil as others of the more recent
past associated with the Hussite movement. Renaissance styles
and modes did not replace but joined other traditions. The
adoption of Renaissance features and other innovations by
burghers and city dwellers involved the redefinition of earlier
styles, models and practices in the face of new ones, and the
adaptation of new Renaissance styles in contact with traditional
ones.
Secondly, and more importantly, burghers and others city
dwellers adopted many Renaissance and other innovations in a
hodgepodge, piecemeal fashion. Art in New City burgher homes
differed from those on the Castle Hili and the Small Side in four
important ways: in the composition and range of innovations, and
I K. Hettes, ·o hmotne kultufe praiskeho mesf 16. veku“ [About the
Material Culture of the Prague Cities in the 16th Century] , Kniha o Praze
( 1964): 197-214.
137
in their setting and organization. An important fmding to come
from this study was the identification of multi-functionality as the
primary feature of burgher households, relating both to the
overall organization as well as to storage patterns. Multifunctionality
has been noted before in the literature;2 the case of
the New City of Prague suggests that we devote more attention to
it, not just in burgher homes but in other landscapes as well.
This study has pointed to the importance of multi-functionality as
a setting and style of organization for burgher art; it would make
sense to consider it an important factor shaping other art
collections, burgher and noble, in Prague and elsewhere.
The limited compos1t10n, multi-functional setting and
organization of art and cultural innovations in the New City
burgher homes point to a model of cultural change going on in
the cities of Prague in the 16th century which can best be
described as appropriation rather than diffusion; and this
appropriation was part of a larger, complex acculturation process
which was introduced by the arrival of the Habsburgs on the
Castle Hill. For most city residents, the style of appropriation can
be described as apish copying and pretension, and is identified by
the limited nurober of innovations which were distributed or
stored in no recognizable patterns. To only four out of futy-six
individuals studied can an intensified style of appropriation be
attributed. This style of appropriation can be characterized by a
new mode of collecting and display which is identified not just by
new types and a broad range of innovations, but also by their
distinctive setting and organization.
The appropriation of new styles and modes in art and
architecture of residents of the New City should be viewed as a
highly ambivalent form of compensation and competition which
crossed linguistic and confessional lines, embracing both the
Czech and German speaker, Catholic, Utraquist, Lutheran, and
Jew; and which can be related as much to values and motives
rooted in the neighborhood as it was to those introduced by noble
and royal/imperial circles.
2 R.-E. Mohrmann, „Städtische Wohnkultur in Nordwestdeutschland vom
17. bis 19. Jahrhundert (aufgrund von Inventaren),“ Nord-Süd Unterschiede
in der städtischen und ländlichen Kultur Mitteleuropas, G. Wiegelmann
(Hrsg.), Münster 1984, pp. 89- 1 55; Alltagswelt im Land Braunschweig,
städtische und ländliche Wohnkultur vom 16. bis 20. Jahrhundert, Münster
1990.
138
The identification of a style or styles of cultural appropriation
with Prague burghers and city dwellers, as this study has done, is
not to say that they are distinctive to burghers and city dwellers
in an absolute sense, but merely characteristic of those
individuals studied. The characteristic style of appropriation of
Prague burghers should not be seen as indicative of a mentalite
distinctive to burghers per se, but a manifestation of cultural
practices which are best understood in association with the
specific artisanal, rentier-merchant environment of the New City.
An area of potential fruitful future research would be to study
other areas of Prague and other cities.
The forms of appropriation identified by the study present us
with a few enigmas. The frrst enigma relates to the overall
character many city dwellers appropriated innovations. It is
easier to identify new objects and innovations than it is to
distinguish them from older, traditional forms of expression. For
example, with respect to its interior furnishings and design, the
burgher hause possessed an expression of status or prestige that
was independent of the individual Renaissance innovations
present. This study has borrowed the distinction between
„presentation“ and „representation“ as a useful concept; however,
only in a few homes, was it possible to identify a mode of
expression that can be called representational rather than
presentational. In most cases, the Renaissance appears to have
provided new ways of expression, not a new language of
expression.
Another enigma revealed by this study is the relationship
between the organization of households and the introduction of
Renaissance styles and modes. As discussed in this study, the
multi-functionality of hausehold organization was a feature
associated with early European development (i.e. the Middle
Ages), whereas Renaissance styles and modes were innovations of
the 16th century. However, those households that exhibited the
most Renaissance features, possessing rooms with a pronounced
representational character resembling Kunstkammer and special
galleries, were largely disorganized. The two most organized
households differed from each other with respect to Renaissance
features and all other factors.
Neighborhood studies often raise more problems that they
solve, and one needs to remind oneself that their conclusions rest
ultimately on the community under study. At their best, local
139
studies suggest links between meaningful structures and
processes and other !arger issues. The study of this small
microcosm of Prague on the eve of the Thirty Y ears War suggests
some interesting links between !arger developments in politics,
society and culture which can be further explored in other
studies.
Recent schalarship on the social history of the Reformation
has shown how both Catholicism and Protestantism assisted
state-building in the late 16th and 17th centuries by serving as
tools of „social disciplining,“ both from above and below. To say
that Catholic reform served as a tool of Habsburg
confessionalization and that the diffusion of Renaissance styles
and modes was intensified and accelerated with the Habsburg
presence, as has been proposed in the secondary literature, does
not make a connection between Catholicism and the Renaissance.
As the experience of the New City demonstrates, Utraquists and
Jews embraced the Renaissance as strongly as Catholics. I
believe that there is evidence to suggest that Renaissance cultural
innovations patronized and cultivated by the Habsburg court
could also be seen in a similar light, as a cultural medium, for
different elements of society to – subtly – accommodate to some of
the challenges introduced by the Habsburgs. The material
culture of housing was not just a reflection of these larger
developments, but a focal point where the residents of the city
could integrate new styles and modes with those of their
traditional value systems rooted in neighborhood and commune.
One interesting link revealed by this study is one between an
individual’s embracing of new innovations and his or her’s
identification with the new sense of order which the Habsburg
regime presented; not with confession, as one might believe.
While one explanation for the multi-confessional embrace of
Renaissance styles and modes and the Habsburg cause might be
sought in viewing it as a cultural manifestation among city
dwellers in the search for a „third way“ between the polarization
of confessional boundaries that was underway in the late 16th
century, a more sober one lies in seeing them as manifestations of
the „peaceful coexistence“ (though not necessarily tolerance) of
different confessional groups that was characteristic for Rudolfme
Prague.3
3 Josef Välka, „Tolerance Ci koexistence? (K povaze souziti rüznych
naboiensk,Ych vyznä.ni v ceseych zemich v 1 5 . a 17. Stoleti)“ [Tolerance or
140
The New City of Prague presents a wonderful Iabaratory in
which to view the series of complicated changes going on during
the period known in Czech national history as „the Pre-White
Mountain“ period. The case study of the New City shows that this
period represents, on the one hand, a period of continuity of
important structures and processes with the post-Hussite period;
though, on the other hand, also one of innovation, especially in
the areas of politics and religion. These features of continuity and
innovation seen tagether point to the usefulness of viewing the
early years of Habsburg rule in Bohemia’s central city as a period
in its own right characterized by the intimate interplay of politics,
society and religion. 4
Coexistence? (Some Thoughts Concerning the Coexistence of different
Religious Confessions in the Bohemian Lands from the 1 5th to the 17th
Centuries)], Studia Comeniana et Historica, 18, 1988, Cislo 35pp. 63-75.
4 Heinz Schilling, „Die Konfessionalisierung im Reich. Religiöser und
gesellschaftlicher Wandel in Deutschland zwischen 1555 und 1620,“
Historische Zeitschrift 246 ( 1 988): 1-45; Wolfgang Reinhard, „Zwang zur
Konfessionaliseriung? Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des konfessionellen
Zeitalters,“ Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 68 ( 1 977): 226-52).
141
II. The Anatomy of House & Street
This part of the study presents a detailed, summary
reconstruction of salient features of the material culture of daily
life in the New City of Prague in the late 16th and early 1 7th
centuries, based on the critical analysis of two major overlapping
bodies of written sources: probate inventories and building
contracts and disputes, supplemented by civic wills and marriage
contracts. [See the introduction for a discussion of the sources
and methodology .]
The reconstruction is divided into five sections:
Section 1 presents a reconstruction of major features of
physical structures and of the street Iandscape by providing an
overview analysis of all the cases that appeared before the SixMan
Councils of the New and Old Cities of Prague in the years
1547- 1 6 1 1 , with a more in-depth analysis of the contract and
dispute cases for the years 1 566 to 1583. Of the total number of
cases in the New City, thirty-one (3 1 ) correspond to houses
located in the center of the New City; specifically, within a twoblock
radius of the lower Horse Market (today’s Wenceslaus
Square).
Section 2 introduces ftfty-six (56) households corresponding to
forty-six (46) burgher houses in the New City. All but eight of
these houses were located in the center of the New City. Fourteen
of the households were subjects of building contract and dispute
cases; the remaining were in houses adjacent or almost adjacent
to houses corresponding to these cases.
Section 3 represents a reconstruction of the material and
spatial features of house interiors. It presents a structural proflle
of these ftfty-six households according to typology of locations and
objects, distribution of key objects, and the spatial functional
division of the households.
Sections 4 and 5 consist of a series of figures and charts.
They represent a key element of the reconstruction. They do not
just document material covered in the frrst three sections.
142
II. 1 . RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE
AND THE STREET LANDSCAPE
II. l . l . CASE BOOKS OF THE SIX-MAN COUNCILS, 1547- 1 6 1 1
Building contract and dispute cases were drawn from the case
books of the Six-Man Councils of the Old and New Cities of
Prague for the period 1 547 to 16 1 1 , and the book of appeals from
the Six-Man Council of the New City to the New City Council
(covering the years 1603 to 1 6 1 1 ) . 1 The case books provide
almost continuous docuroentation during the period (with the
exception of the years 1 583 to 1 6 1 0 for the Old City) .
The case books contain a total of 407 entries for the Old City
and 854 entries for the New City for the period 1 547 to 1 6 1 1
(including a few additional ones for the period froro 1 6 1 1 to
16 13). Contracts and disputes over building and property roake
up 45% of the total entries for the Old City and 50% for the New
City. The rest are transactions of the rent or sale of roarket
stalls, vineyards, and hop fields; records of debt; a sroall nurober
are records of on-site visitations of the Six-Man Councils; and a
few are civic wills and roarriage contracts. (See chart II.5 . 2 .]
The total nurober of contract and dispute cases for this period
are 182 for the Old City and 425 in the New City. Seen in the
context of the total nurober of houses, this equates to, on the
average, 10-22% of all houses in the Old City and 20-26% in the
New City that caroe to the attention of the Six-Man Councils in
the period 1 547 to 1 6 1 1 .2
The book of appeals froro the Six-Man Council of the New City
contains 97 appeals for the period 1603- 1 6 1 1 .
Of the 182 contract and dispute cases in the Old City, five
cases involved ecclesiastical institutions; nineteen involved Jews.
Of the 425 contract and disputes cases in the New City, five
involved ecclesiastical institutions, four hospitals, and a Jew. Of
the 97 appeals of decisions of the Six-Man Council of the New
1 For the Old City, Sign. AMP 473, 474, 2 154; for the New City, Sign. AMP
2 149 and 2 1 50. The Book of Appeals for the New City is Sign. AMP 52 1 .
2 The estimates of the total number of houses are as follows: in 1562, 8 1 6 in
the Old City and 1607 in the New City; in 1605 1766 houses in the Old City
and 1908 in the New City; F. Dvorskj, „0 Poctu domü v Praze a v
krälovskjch mestech V Cechach V 16.-19. stoleti“ (On the Number of Houses
in Prague and other Royal Cities in Bohemia from the 16u‘ to the 19th
Centuries] CCM LV ( 1881): 478-494 & LVII ( 1 882): 57-73.
143
City to the city council, four involved ecclesiastical institutions,
one hospital, and three J ews.
Information on estate is provided for only 7% of the
individuals (66) appearing in cases of the Six-Man Council of the
New City and for only one individual in the Old City. More than
two-thirds (44) of the New City individuals were citizens of the
New City, ten were nobles, and two were knights.
Trade and profession was provided for 6% of the individuals
(23) involved in cases in the Old City and 8% (72) in the New City.
I n the Old City, they included 1 8 artisans, two doctors from the
university, a servant, a merchant, and an estate office holder.3 In
the New City, they included 41 artisans, 16 imperial officials and
servants, 5 government office holders, 2 royal judges (rychtaf), a
sheriff (Hejtman}, 2 servants of the commune, two chamber
servants, a caretaker, a parish administrator, and a teacher.4
11. 1 .2. CLOSE-UP STRUCTURAL PROFILE OF CONTRACT
AND DISPUTE CASES ( 1 566- 1583)
In the years 1566 to 1583, 78 cases appeared before the SixMan
Council of the Old City, 74 cases in the New City. These
figures represent 19% and 22% of the total entries for the Old
and New Cities, respectively, for the period 1547 to 16 1 1 .
Types of Cases: For the years 1566-1583, almost all cases in
the Old City were recorded as disputes.5 In the New City, most of
the cases were recorded as contracts.6 [See chart II.5.5.]
Parties in Contract and Dispute Cases: For the years 1 566 to
1 583, almost three-fourths of the cases in the Old City (7 1 cases),
3 The eighteen artisans were broken down as follows: three masters of an
unknown trade, two carpenters, two masons, one apothecary, one barre!
maker, one wheel maker, one miller, one baker, one jeweler, one goldsmith,
one bagmaker, one weaver, one second-hand dealer, and one vackäf (?).
4 The forty-one artisans break down as follows: five millers, five bakers, four
carpenters, three smiths, two goldsmiths, two masons, two tanners, two
rope makers, two dyers, one bell-maker, one weaver, one tawer, one soap
maker, one coachman, one leather dyer, one bath attendant one gingerbread
baker, one painter, one gardener, one brew master, one master of an
unknown trade, one rohoznik (?) and one klobaue (?).
5 Of the total of 78 cases for this period, 76 were disputes, one was a
contract following an agreement, another was of another type.
6 Of the total of 74 for this period, 47 were recorded as contracts following
disputes, 13 as contracts following agreement, one dispute, and thirteen of
another type.
144
and more than half in the New City (53 cases) involved residential
houses. One case was a building dispute between a Jew and his
neighbor, the Church of the Holy Cross in the Old City.
Site: Between 1 566 and 1583, a quarter to a third of the cases
involved structures of the exterior of the house (37 cases in the
Old City, 32 in the New City), and approximately a third (2 1
cases) with residential sites distinguished from the house but
other than the garden or courtyard. Eleven percent (8) of the
cases in the New City involved communal property. [See chart
I I . 5 .6.]
Structure: In more than a quarter of the cases in the New
City (20), the wall was the structure in question, followed by
windows ( 1 1 %/ 1 2 cases), walls with other structures (8%/ 6
cases), roofs and other structures (5%/4 cases), gutters and
fences (each 4%/3 cases), and a well. (See chart 11.5.6.]
11 . 1 .3. LOCALIZATION OF THE BUILDING DISPUTES
Of the total nurober of cases in the New City, thirty-one (3 1 )
involved houses that were located within a two-block radius o f the
lower Horse Market (today’s Wenceslaus Square). [See chart
11.5. 1 . & fig. 11.4 . 2 . ]
11.2. LOCALIZATION OF HOUSEHOLDS & INDIVIDUALS
For the center of the New City, the area where thirty-one
building disputes were localized, inventories were identified for
flfty-six households. The fltl y-six (56) households correspond to
fll ty-two (52) probate inventories of flfty-one ( 5 1 ) individuals who
resided in forty-six (46) houses. [See chart 11.5. 1 . & fig. 11.4.2.]
The flfty-two inventories span the period 1 577 to 1627: 4 date
from the decade 1570-79, 1 2 from 1 580-89, 1 3 from 1 590-99, 1 3
from 1600-1609, 8 from 1 6 10- 16 1 9 , one from the year 162 1 , and
two from 1627.
For eight houses, two inventories are available from two
different individuals;7 for one, two inventories are available from
7 House nos. 698-II (1609 & 1627), 747 (1599 & 1601), 79 1 ( 1 6 1 3 & 1637),
792 (1604 & 1 6 13), the 􀆙New Building“ (nove staveni) adjoining House no.
792 ( 1 604 & 16 13), the Grafeus house near the Jewish Garden ( 1588 &
145
the same individual.s In five cases, one inventory describes the
contents of two houses belanging to one individua1.9 ln numerous
cases, series of inventories correspond to adjacent (i.e. next-door)
and co-adjacent houses, or houses across the street from one
another. In four cases, inventory pairs do correspond to real
next-door or across-the street neighbors.1o
Among the flfty individuals whose inventories were selected
are two painters, the wife of a painter, two bellmakers, a
goldsmith, a kettlesmith, a locksmith, a butcher, a baker, a
gingerbread baker, the wife of a confectioner, a candlemaker, a
cloth merchant, the wife of a secretary of the Appellate Court, an
imperial guard, and the imperial architect. Two were nobles. 1 1
Inventories of five individuals identify them as heraldic burghers
(erbovnici), burghers who had acquired the right of a predicate
name similar to that of the nobility.12 Seven others are identified
as heraldic burghers in the secondary literature or in records of
the State Office for Landmark Preservation (SÜRPM0) . 1 3 At least
four had served as members of the New City Council;14 one
1601), Brzobohacy house near Pofici Gate (1577 & 1 6 17), and „u Kfizü􀆅
(1584 & 1603).
s House no. 36b or 37a-11.
9 House no. 669-11 and a second, adjacent house (Katefina Vodickovä.);
House nos. 748 or 746 and a second house on Sirokä. Street (Markyta
Kotläika); House nos. 792 & „new structure􀆅 (Anna Zlutickä. z Bernarecku);
House no. 778 and a second house (Buryan Pernikäi); House nos. 780 and
78 1 (Jifi Smolik). In the case of the Smolik inventory, it is not clear if the
inventory corresponds to one or both of the houses.
1o The first and second houses of Brikci Zvonat z Cimperku and Markyta
Kotläika, both in Sirokä Street, were next door to each other; the first were
probably house nos. 747-11 and 748-11. Rehof Pätek and Jifik Lynder were
across-the-street neighbors; Adam Samec and Mikuläs Rüie z Vorlicne
(House nos. 852-11 and 853-II), Jan Brzobohacy (House no. 1056-11 or 1057-
11) and Tomäs Vodicka z Radkova (House no. 1057-11 or 1058-II) were nextdoor
neighbors.
1 1 Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke and Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin.
12 Martin Masopust, Väclav Vodicka, Vit Vodicka, MikuläS Rüie z Vorlicne,
and the bell-maker Brikci Zvonat z Cimperku.
13 Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku, Barolomej Zvonat z Cimperku, Zikmund
Zvonat z Cimperku, Jilji Perger z Castalovic, Anna Steffkovä z Cichanova,
Jifik Svik z Lukonos, and Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif.
14 Jilji Perger z Castalovic, Mikuläs Rüze z Vorlicne, Vit Vodicka, Brikci
Zvonat z Cimperku. This was indicated in their own or other’s inventories.
No Iist of New City Council members has been compiled for the pre-White
Mountain period.
146
served as burghomaster (primas), and one as chancellor. 1s [See
chart Il.5.7.]
All but three of the fifty individuals were house owners. 16 One
owned six houses; 17 two owned four houses; 1s four owned three
houses; eleven owned two houses; and twenty-nine owned one
house. One was the wife of a house owner;19 one was the son of
a house owner;20 and one was a servant.21 All the houses in
Prague in this study were located in the New City.22 The
households described by the inventories refer in most cases to the
principal residential house of the period; in a few cases, they refer
to adjoining houses as well. [See chart I I . 5 . 7 . ]
Four inventories were identified with four houses located on
the east side of Siroka Street; one each of the father and son bellmakers
Brikci and Bartholmej Zvonaf z Cimperku from the years
1 599 and 160 1 , respectively, with House no. 747-11; one inventory
of their next-door neighbor, Markyta Kotäfka, a kettlesmith
(kotlaf), from 1 580, relating to two houses (House no. 746 or 747-
I I , as weil as an additional house on Siroka Street adjacent to a
second house of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku; and one inventory
from Ladislas Gallus z RajStejna ( 1601) with House no. 749-11.
Five inventories were identified with five houses on the west
side of Siroka Street or Charavatska Street: one of Anna Patkova
( 1 6 1 0), the wife of Rehof Patek z Freytok, a secretary of the
Appellate Court (sekretaf pfi apelacich); one of their neighbor
across the street, Jifik Lynder, a carrier (forman) from 1 597; one
of the goldsmith Jan Nysl ( 16 0 1 ) with House no. 35a-II; and two
inventories of Tomas Nejedly z Vysoke ( 1 583 & 1 585) with House
no. 36b and 37(a)-II, located on the west comer of Siroka Street
and Na pfikope.
15 Jilji Perger z Castalovic served as burghomaster, Mikulas Ruze z Vorlicne
as chancellor.
16 In the cases of multiple-house ownership, the inventories describe one,
sometimes two, of the houses, usually the major place of residence.
11 Jifik Svik z Lukonos.
18 Jilji Perger z Castalovic and Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku.
19 Maryanna Pergerova.
20 Barolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku.
21 Jan Nysl in the house of Jifi Zygl.
22 Two of the house-owners in the study also owned property outside of the
New City. Adam Tatek owned cellars on Havel Market in the Old City;
Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna owned a house in the city of Pisek in Southem
Bohemia.
147
Four additional inventories correspond to four unidentified
locations on Sirokä Street: one each of the locksmith Melichar
Fayfr ( 1 599); the baker Jan Zlacy ( 1 583); Anna Steffkovä z
Cichanova ( 1 6 2 1 ) ; and Vorsile, the wife of the deceased
confectioner Martin Cukfäf ( 1 605).23 Three inventories correpond
to two houses located just southeast of Sirokä Street in the
Jewish Garden: one each of the painter Baptista Grafeus ( 16 0 1 )
and his wife Mandalena ( 1 588) at a hause „near the Jewish
garden;“ and one of Ciprian Lopatskj ( 1 604) at a hause „in the
Jewish Street.“
Nine inventories were identified with nine houses on the
southwest side of the lower Horse Market: one of the candlemaker
Jifik Lesnar ( 1604) at the hause „u Vovsü“ (Hause no. 775-II); one
of Jan Slon ( 1 607) at Hause no. 777-11; one of the gingerbread
baker Buryan Pemikäf from the year 1 595 at Hause no. 778-II
and the adjoining hause; one of Jifi Smolik ( 1 582) at Hause no.
780-II; one of Magdalena Hvezdovä ( 1 599) at the hause „u
Hvezdü“ (Hause no. 782-II); one of the cloth merchant Adam
Tatek ( 1 582) at Hause nos. 783 and 784-11; one of the painter
Jifik Fric ( 1 587) at Hause no. 785/442-II; one each of Jilji Perger
z Castalovic ( 1 6 13) and Maryanna Pergeroval AlZbeta Svikovä (his
wife and daughter) from the year 1627 at Hause no. 79 1-11.
Four inventories were identified at four houses on the
southeast side of the Horse Market: one of Anna Zlutickä z
Bemarecku ( 1604) at the hause „u Zlutickjch“ (Hause no. 792-II)
and the „new structure“ (nove staveni) adjacent to it; two of Jifi
Svik z Lukonos, one from early 1 6 1 3 at the Zlutickjch hause
(Hause no. 792-II), and another from December 1 3 , 1 6 1 3 at the
„new structure;“ and one of Lidmila Makalka ( 1 579) at Hause no.
795-II.
Three inventories were identified with three houses located on
the northwest side of the lower Horse Market: Kaspar Albrecht
( 1 583) at „the Winters‘ hause“ (u Winteni) (Hause no. 837-11);
Martin Masopust ( 1 592) at „the Masopust hause“ (u Masopustü)
(Hause no. 832-II); and Väclav Kamaryz z Rovin the Younger
( 1 595) at Hause no. 846-11. The inventory of Martin Hranickj
( 1 59 1) was identified with the hause located at Jindfisskä Street
adjacent to the hause on the northwest comer of the lower Horse
Market (Hause no. 902-II). Two inventories corresponded to
23 In the accornpanying charts she is referred to as Vorsile po Martinu
Cukäfovi [„after Martin Cukrar.“]
148
houses at unidentified locations on the Horse Market: one of
Väclav Vodicka ( 1 6 1 0) ; and one of Jan Kii.Z ( 1 596) at the house „u
Skrabu.“
Three inventories were identified with three houses on
Vodickovä Street: one each of Väclav VodnanskY ( 1609) and
Sirnon Polidor z Baubinus ( 1 627) at the house „u Klobouku“
(House no. 698-II); and one of Katefina Vodickovä ( 1 593) at
House no. 699-II and an adjoining house.
Two inventories were identified with two houses on na Pfikope:
one of Adam Samec from the year 1 578 at the house „u Haliru“
(House no. 852-II); and one of Mikuläs Ruze z Vorlicne from the
year 1583 at „the House of the Black Rose“ (u ceme rüze), House
no. 853-II.
Seven inventories were identified with six houses located in
the northern section of the New City: one of Daniel Rubin ze
Zvovif from the year 1 599 at „the Rubin house“ (u Rubinit) on Na
blate; one of Zikmund Vodak from the year 1596 at the house „u
Broznov“ (House no. 1074-II); one of Jan Eustachious Brzobohatj
( 1 6 1 7) at a house na PofiCi.; one each of Jan and Matej Brzobohaty
(father and brother of Jan Eustachius) from the years 1 577 and
1 6 1 6 , respectively, at House no. 1056-II or House no. 1057-II
located across from Pofici gate; and one of their next-door
neighbor Tomäs Vodicka z Radkova ( 1 606) at House no. 1057-II
or House no. 1058-II.
The inventory of Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku (brother of
Brikci and uncle of Bartholomej) from the year 1 58 1 ,
corresponding to a house on Kvetonskä Street (today’s Stepänskä
Street) ; one of the imperial guard (drabant) Thomas Kyndrmon
from the year 1 6 18, corresponding to a house located „near City
Hall on the corner.“ In the settlement around St. Stephen (Sv.
Stepana) correspond: one inventory each of Magdalena KfiZovä
( 1 584) and Jan Kalivoda ( 1 603) at „the KiiZ house“ (u KHZU)
located „opposite the parish house of St. Stephen on the corner;“
one from the year 1579 of Bonifacius Wolmut, the imperial
architect, at the house „opposite the Bell Tower of St. Stephen.“
The inventory of the butcher Vit Vodicka ( 1603) corresponds to a
house at an unidentified location in the New City.
149
II.3. RECONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE INTERIORS
11.3. 1 . TYPOLOGY OF LOCATIONS
The items contained in the inventories include a wide variety
of objects including fumiture, cooking and eating utensils, other
general hausehold objects, tools, clothes, book, paintings, and
gold and silver objects. An inclusive list of all items listed in these
inventories does not exceed 200.24 [See chart II.5 . 10.]
The inventories provide information on the specific number of
objects as well as, in many cases, their size (small, medium or
large) and color. A number of items are represented by specific
types. For example, four varieties of beds and three types of
tables are distinguished. Same of the object varieties are
designated as linguistic diminutives of other objects. In some
cases, they refer to real, small-size versions of an object.
II.3.2. FREQUENCY OF KEY OBJECTS
AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSEHOLD
Il.3.2 . 1 . Heating and Cooking Sources – kamna (stoves) , ohniSte
(frre) , and ohfi.vadlo (heaters)
38 kamna, 3 ohni.Ste, and 2 ohfi.vadlo are identified in 28 of the
New City households. In three households, three kamna are found
(Hause nos. 780 & 78 1 , Vit Vodicka, 36b-II); in five households,
two. In two households (Jan Kalivoda, Markyta Koläfka’s second
hause), two kamna and one ohni.Ste are identified; in two other
households (Thomas Kyndrmon, Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku) ,
one kamna and one ohfi.vadlo. I n the hausehold of Tobiäs Nejedly
z Vysoke are identified three kamna and one ohniste.
11.3 . 2 . 2 . Knives, Forks, and Eating Utensils
Knives are found in only eleven of the households; in three
cases, in the locations where the cooking location is identified.
Spoons are found in ten households; in all but two cases in
cooking locations. Salt boxes are found in 1 3 households; in
24 An extensive, nearly comprehensive list of all objects found in New City
Prague burgher homes comes to 175.
1 50
three cases where cooking was identified, and in all other cases in
a location adjacent to where cooking was identified. Dishes are
found in 14 households; in four cases in cooking locations, in
three cases in adjacent cooking locations, and in three cases in no
proximity to the cooking locations. [See chart II.5 . 1 2 . ]
II.3 . 2 . 3 . Objects of Personal Hygiene – vana, vanicka, umyvadlo,
medenice
Tubs (vana, vanicka) appear in very small numbers. The most
common objects for cleansing were the umyvadlo (wash basin)
and the medenice (copper pot). As small objects, Umyvadlo and
medenice could be moved around, but inventories identify them in
fairly regular locations. Umyvadlo are almost always found in a
room where the heating source is located; medenice where beds
are found.
II.3.2 .4 . Tables – stül, stolicek
A total of 29 1 stül are located in forty-five (80%) of the
households. Further description is provided for only fourteen
percent of the tables. Most tables found in Prague burgher
households in the late 16th century were probably an
undistinguished, study type common in Europe throughout the
Middle Ages, constructed of wood or stone.25 Nine percent were
painted.26 Only a handful of tables are indicated as being
exceptional. Marble tables were owned by Albrecht Kaspar, Jilji
Perger z Castalovic, and Adam Samec. Sirneon Palidar z Baubinus
possessed a table decorated with gamets and a pull-aut
table (vytahovany). Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku had a table
described as „ringed“ or „grained“ (fladrovy).
A total of 1 1 4 stolicek (diminutive of stül) are found in 24
(43%) of the households. They too are mostly plain.27 Information
is given for the use of a number of the tables. Jiii Smolik
had a stolicek for reading; Sirneon Polidor z Baubinus had two
2s Seven tables are described as „old,“ live as „simple“ (proste), two as „not
line“ (nedobn!), and one as broken. Seven were described as „stone,“ two
„wooden,“ and one „oak.“
26 Twelve are described as white, live red, four green, one yellow and one
black.
27 Two are described as made of iron.
1 5 1
tables „for instruments.“ A children’s table (detinsky) was found
in the house of Jan Kalivoda. Stolicek could be of a more
complicated construction than still. Jilji Perger z Castalovic had
five stolicek with draws; Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna had one.
Two of the stolicek had non-reetangular tops. Väclav Kamaryt
z Rovin had a circular stolicek; Anna Steffkovä z Cichanova had
an oblong one. A fourth of them were painted.28 Martin Masopust
possessed a blue stolicek, the only blue piece of furniture in
the whole neighborhood. [See chart II.5.20.)
II.3.2.5. Chairs (Zidle, Zidlicka)
A total of 107 Zidle are located in 24 households; a total of 98
Zidlicka (diminutive of Zidle) in 2 1 households. Only a third of the
Zidle and none of the Zidlicka are described in the inventories in
any further way; most were probably of simple design. A third of
the Zidle were constructed in two design variations: the long
(dlouhe) and the double or two-seater (dvoje, dvojata, dvojnasobna).
29 Only sixteen percent of the Zidle and twenty-three
percent of the Zidlicka were painted.30 [See chart II . 5 . 20.)
II.3.2.6. Benches (stolice, lavice)
Less common than tables in New City Prague burgher houses
were benches. A total of 83 stolice were located in 16 households;
8 lavice were located in 4 households. They were used to sit or
lay something on. The stolice were ordinarily made of wood or
stone. Only 16% of the stolice were painted;31 none of the lavice
were. More than a quarter of the stolice were upholstered with
leather; one with a plain, another with a knitted, piece of textile.32
The only exceptional pieces were two low benches (lavice}, one
covered with marble (owned by Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku), and
28 32 of 1 14, or 28%, were painted; 2 1 were green, seven black, two wbite,
and two red.
29 Of 107 total zidle, Courteen are long and seventeen are double.
30 Of the seventeen painted zidle, eleven were red, four green, and two wbite;
of the twenty-tbree zidlicka, seventeen were green and six were red.
31 Seven were painted red, tbree green, and three black.
32 22 of 83, or 27%, were covered witb leatber; Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin bad a
stolice covered with cloth; Katefina Vodickovä bad a stolice covered with a
knitted clotb.
152
a glass stolice owned by Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin. [See chart
II.5.20.]
1!.3.2.7. Cabinets & Armoires (almara, almarka)
One of the most common pieces of furniture in New Prague
burgher homes was the cabinet or armoire, named in the
inventories as almara and its diminutive almarka. A total of 166
almara were located in forty-four households. A total of 35
almcirka were located in thirteen households. They could be of
simple construction and design, serving as a holder for the wash
basin (umyvadlo or medenice) and for storage for all types of
items, including dishware and cooking equipment, clothes, books,
art objects, and more. They were placed against the wall in the
middle of the room, in the corner, or stood alone (stojata).33 As a
piece of Storage furniture, they often contained drawers and
sections enclosed by doors.
Fifteen percent of the almara and fourteen percent of the
almcirka were painted.34 These pieces of furniture were a
traditional (starodavna) part of the burgher households, as many
of the inventories indicate. Two pieces were exceptional. Anna
Zlutickä z Bernarecku had an almara on which was painted
„Fortitudo.“ Anna Pätkovä had an almara which was described as
„in the style of a desk fsrbtysj.“ [See chart II. 5 . 1 9 . ]
II.3.2.8. Chests (truhla, truhlicka, truhlice)
Chests and trunks were the most common pieces of furniture
in New City Prague burgher houses. They are identified in the
inventories as truhla and its diminutives truhlice and truhlicka. A
total of 280 truhla were located within forty-eight households; 1 38
truhlice in forty-two households; and 70 truhlicka in twenty-two
households. 35 They were used for storage of all types of items.
Approximately one third of the truhla and truhlice, and one flfth of
the truhlicka were painted. [See chart Il.5. 19.]
J s Five almara are described a s „corner,“ eight „standing.“
34 Of the 25 painted almara, eight were green, four red, four white, five
yellow, and one described only as „painted.“ Of the 5 painted almä.rka, four
were green, and one was red.
Js The hausehold of Jifik Lynder was the only one in the neighborhood
without a truhla, truhlice, or truhlicka.
153
II.3.2.9. Desks (kancelaf, srybtys)
Seventeen pieces of furniture designated as desks were found
in ten New City Prague burgher houses of the period. Ten were
designated by the Gennan term srybtys (Schreibtisch), five as
kancelaf, two as kancelafka in three different rooms. V äclav
Kamaryt z Rovin had a kancelaf, kancelafka and srybtys in three
different locations. Tobiäs Nedjedly z Vysoke had two srybtys in
the Strnada hause, and a third in the adjacent Caltovskj hause.
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had two kaneeldrin two locations of the
hause. Väclav Vodiianskj had three srybtys (two large and one
small) in one location!
With the exception of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku’s desk,
described as „done in the style of a pretty piece of cabinet work,“
the inventories da not provide any details an the design or quality
of the desks.
The contents of these two rooms suggest that they were
objects for different uses, if not of different design. The srybtys
all contain documents (and documents only) : various registers,
debt registers, privileges, etc. In cantrast to srybtys, the kancelaf
contained a larger variety of objects. 36
1!.3 . 2 . 1 0 . Beds (loze, luzko, postylka)
Beds are indicated in the inventories according to four named
designations: postel and loie and their respective diminutives,
postylka and lü.Zko. A total of 373 beds were located in 194
locations within the ftfty-six households. The most common were
the postel ( 1 24) and loze ( 1 38), followed by the lü.Zko (76) and the
postylka ( 1 8) . The name designations appear to be used rather
freely, making it difficult to determine whether they designate
actual differences or are synonymaus terms used at the whim of
the notary.
Half of the beds are covered beds that were difficult to store
away. Seventy-two of the loie (52%), thirty-two luzko (42%), and
fifty-eight postel (4 1 %) were „canopied“ (pod Nebesy). Many of the
canopied beds had curtains. One loze, three postylka, and eight
36 See discussion in chapter 1.4, pp. 79-8 1 .
154
loze were identified as children’s beds. 37 One cradle (kolibka) is
listed. 38 Many other beds were further described as „simple,“
„old,“ „rising“ (vstlane – fold-up?), or „broken.“
Many beds were plain, but some were decorated. One fifth
(78) were decoratively painted: 38 green, 34 gold, 14 white, and
two listed simply as painted. 39 In addition to being painted, beds
were decorated with colorful curtains. Green was the most
popular color of curtains found on covered beds in eleven
households. 40 Covered beds with red curtains were in the
households of Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna and Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku. Thomas Kyndnnon had a covered bed with white
curtains. Curtain material was ordinary linen or hara.Sovy (?) .
Jifik Fric had a bed „beautifully inlaid and painted gold.“ [See
chart II.5. 18.]
II.3.2 . 1 1 . Wall Furnishings
Tapestries (koberec) and antlers (rohy) were the most
commonly found wall furnishings in the burgher household.
Antlers, mostly from deer, were found in twenty-four (42%) of the
households, mostly in svietnice. Tapestries are found as main
furnishings in eleven housholds. With the exception of the
tapestries in Jilji Perger z Castalovic’s spiZima, and the svietnice
of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin and Mikuläc Rure, all the tapestries
were located in ground-floor cellars (sklep) in proximity to the
entrance to the house.
Many of the tapestries were „old“ or „plain.“ Yet a few were of
more exceptional quality. Jan Slon had a leather tapestry.
37 The children’s beds were located as follows: one loze in the house of Jan
Nysl (House no. 35a-II) in the komora, one luzko in the house of Jifik Lynder
in the sklep, three luzko in the house of Jifik Smoli, (House no. 780 & 781-
11) in the komora, one luzko with bars in the house of Anna Zlutickä z
Bemarecku (House no. 792-II) in the sklep, three luzko kolovate in the
house of Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke (House no. 36b-II) in the second sklipek,
one poscylka with bars in the upstairs sklep, and two postylka in another
sklep in the house of Martin Masopust (House no. 832-II).
38 Cradle („kolibka») in location 14 (pokoj kde dite lihä) in House no. 79 1-II of
Jilji Perger z Castalovic.
39 78 out of 373, or 2 1%.
40 Baptisa Grafeus (2 beds), Mandalena Grafeus, Thomas Kyndrmon, Martin
Masopust, Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku, Vorsile Cukräfka, Jilji Perger z
Castalovic (3 beds), Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, Jifik Svik z Lukonos,
Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna, and Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif.
1 55
Turkish tapestries were found in six households: Jifik Svik z
Lukonos had five in the new structure, Anna Zlutickä z
Bemarecku three in House no. 792-11, Jilji Perger z Castalovic
three, Matej Brzobohacy two, Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif one, and
Väclav Vodicka one multicolored.
In the burgher households, much more common than hanging
tapestries are tapestries that covered tables and chests. This
feature was found in twenty-one households.
11.3. 2 . 1 2 . Pictures and Maps
A total of 204 pictures (figura, kontifekt, tabuZe and obraz) were
found in twenty-one of the fifty-six households (38%) .41 Four
maps (mapa) are found in four households. 42 This represents a
much higher figure than that for the New City as a whole (20%).43
A third of the pictures and one of the maps were framed. 44
Four of the households contained more than twenty-five
pictures: Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku had thirty-nine; her
neighbor across the street, Jilji Perger z Castalovic, had thirtyseven;
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin thirty-three; and Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku twenty-eight. Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku’s husband,
Jifik Svik z Lukonos, possessed twelve pictures. The remaining
households with pictures possessed fewer than ten.
Themes are provided for only 20% of the pictures. The
portrait was a popular genre. Burgher portraits were in the
houses of La.dislav Gallus z Rajstejna, Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku
(of TobiäS and his fi.rst wife Vorsile), Ciprian Lopatskj (of Jan
Romanis, relationship unknown), and Jifik Svik z Lukonos (of
himself; his wife Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku, which is not listed
in her inventory; Mataus Zlutickj, his father-in-law; and others) .
41 Four of them were described as „wood,n four as painted on canvas („na
platnen), and three as illuminated.
42 Since the exact nature of the objects is not known, the term map (closest
term to the original Czech) rather than „vedutan is being used. See J . Pesek,
„Veduty v praiskjch interierech doby pfedbelohorskjch,n [Vedutas in Prague
lnteriors in the Pre-White Mountain Period], Umeni 3 1 (1983): 52 1-22.
43 Pictures are found in approximately 20% of the inventories in the New
City as a whole during the period 1570-1620; J . Pesek, „Inwestycje
kulturaljne miesycyan praskich przed 1620 r.,n [Cultural Investments of
Prague Burghers before 1620], Sztuka miast I mieszczanstwa XV-XVIII w. w
Ewropia srodkoworschodniej, Warszawa, 1990, p. 337.
44 55 of a total of 204, or 27%.
156
Portraits of Rudolf II were in the homes of Anna Zlutickä z
Bernarcku (two portraits) and Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku. The
portrait entitled Caesarius, listed in the inventory of Bartolomej
Zvonaf z Cimperku, Brikci’s son, who lived in the same hausehold,
is perhaps the same portrait as his father’s.
Whereas religion was the theme of two thirds of all books in all
Prague inventories of the period, it represents only 1 5% of those
of pictures and other works of art. 4s Six of the pictures owned by
individuals in the study from the New City had a religious theme.
Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke possessed one picture of Adam and Eve,
Magdalena Hvezdovä one of the Birth of Christ and one of Christ’s
baptism, Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku three paintings of saints
including SS. Väclav and Adalbert (Vojtech) , and Brikci’s brother
Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku one of the Virgin Mary.46
History and geography were the themes of two of the pictures
and three of the maps. Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku possessed a
picture of the city of Vienna and a map of Hungary. His son
Bartolomej had a framed map of Moravia. Anna Zlutickä z
Bernarecku had a map of the kingdom of Bohemia. Sirneon
Polidor z Baubinus possessed a map designated as Europa
segerintri. lt is interesting to note that, with the exception of the
map of Sirneon Polidor z Baubinus, they are all of Bohemian or
Austrian themes. Old City patrician Ludvik Korälka z Tesin, a
contemporary of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku and the Zvonaf
family, had maps of Venice and Jerusalem in his home.47 (See
chart II. 5. 3 1 . ]
1s J. Pesek, „Vytvamä dila s näbozenskou tematikou v praiskych
pfedbelohorskych interierech,“ [Artisanal Work with Religious Themes in
Prague Interiors of the Pre-White Mountain Periodj, Umeni 30 ( 1982): 263-
267.
‚�<> In a breakdown of pictures and other works of art with a religious theme
according to property ownership of collectors, Jifi Pesek noted that the
largest group of collectors of this genre owned only one house or slightly
more; in the New C ity, 80%. See J. Pesek, „Vyzvamä dila s näbozenskou
tematikou,• p. 265 (see note 45 above). In the New City under study,
Magdalena Hvezdova and Zikmund Zvonaf z Cimperku each had one house,
but Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had four, and Tobias Nejedly z Vysoke three.
47 See J. Pesek, „Veduty v praiskych interierech doby pfedbelohorskych“ (see
note 42 above).
157
II.3.2 . 1 3 . Jewelry
Jewelry is found in forty percent of the households.48
Individual items are rings, lang and short necklaces {fetez,
fetizek}, pins {zil.pona}, earrings, and a few objects of an unknown
type (such as sekryt). Many of the rings are gold and silver, inlaid
with precious gems and stones.
The largest collections were those of V äclav Kamaryt z Rovin,
Jan KiiZ, Zikmund Vodak, and Jiii Svik z Lukonos. Jan KiiZ’s
jewelry collection consisted of a golden circle and fourteen rings,
including one gold one with sapphires, two with „red stone in the
manner of a sekryt, “ two with a sekryt, one with hfezokyt (?), one
with hyacinth (?), one with a ruby, and one with a diamond.
Two households, those of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku and
Mikuläs Rure z Vorlicne – had medium-size collections. Anna
Zluticey z Bernarecku possessed a golden comb with garnets and
twenty-five rings. Mikuläs Rure z Vorlicne had two gold rings,
one with a stone, one without, and twenty-three rings „on a
string.“
Small collections consisted of one to a few items. Daniel
Rubin ze Zvovif owned one golden oru.mpant (?) necklace, one ring
with a pearl, and one ring with a ruby. Thomas Kyndrmon owned
three rings: two golden ones with suplety (?) and a broken, golden
ring with a ruby. [See chart II.5.32.)
II.3.2. 14. Decorative Dishware
None of the New City Prague burgher households had any
ceramics, but many had modest collections of gold and silver
dishware, and much !arger amounts of tin, pewter and copper.
The inventories are silent on the quality and decoration of the
objects. The exception is the collection of the noble Tobiäs Nejedly
z Vysoke. He had two tin services of plates, bowls, and jugs; one
with the coat of arms of his wife Dorota and himself, and the
second with that of his wife Marta and himself. The location of
these objects in the kitchen and adjacent rooms, rather than in
storage with art and cultural objects, suggests that they may have
been objects for everyday use.
1s 24 of 56, or 43%.
158
Il.2 .3. 1 5 . Glass
Glass, common or exceptional, is not heavily represented in
inventories of New City Prague burgher households. Väclav Kamaryt
z Rovin had a glass table, a glass lamp (sklenci lucema},
thirteen small and large glasses, and a mirror.49
Il.3 . 2 . 1 6 . Clocks
Clocks and watches were found in only six of the New City
households. Väclav Kamaryz z Rovin had a clock hung in a
closet. Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku had a „striking“ (bici) clock with
two cymbals; his son Bartolomej a gold-plated watch on a chain.
Their neighbor Markyta Kotläfka had a striking clock. Väclav
Vodicka had a striking clock and an alarm (budici) clock.
II.3.2. 1 7 . Books
Books were located in 38 (66%) of all households. A quarter of
the households had only a handful of books (one to three books);
approximately half had small collections (4-26 books) .so Four
households had medium-size book collections (26- 100 books):
MikuläS Ruze z Vorlicne (88 books), Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (56
books) , Väclav Vodicka (4 1 books), and Jilji Perger z Castalovic
(28 books). Three households had large book collections: Väclav
Kamaryz z Rovin ( 1 48 books), Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku ( 1 2 3
total; 3 4 books in Hause no. 792-11 and 89 in the new structure),
Jifik Svik z Lukonos ( 1 1 1 total; 60 in Hause no. 792-II and 5 1 in
the new structure).
The book collections in this section of the city correspond in
size with those of the city as a whole for the period. The three
largest book collections tended towards the small side. Daniel
Rubin ze Zvovif, administrator of St. Henry (Su. Jindficha) in the
New City, had only four books. Also, there were ten percent more
49 Svietnice (location 17) of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-II).
so For the size of the book, I adopt the scale utilized by Jin Pe5ek in
„Inwestyce kulturaljne miszczan praskich przed 1620 r.,“ p. 335 (see note 43
above).
159
medium-size and ten percent fewer small-size collections in this
group than in the city as a whole.51
For approximately two thirds of the books in the study,
infonnation is provided by the inventories on the books‘ title,
author, or theme; in some cases, the language (Czech, Gennan,
or Latin). About half of all the books (48%) possessed by those in
the study had religious themes; at least four percent dealt with
historical topics, and at least 2% with law.52 The religious books
include bibles (New and Old Testaments) , books of psalms,
prayers, and sennons. The most common law books are
collections of „urban law“ (pravo mestske) and estate law (zfizeni
zemske).
Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin’s book collection, the largest in the
study ( 1 48 books), consisted of more than eighty books having a
religious theme (including works by St. Augustine, Martin Luther,
Hussite and Bohemian Brethren authors) ; works on urban law;
two historical calendars; and an herbal book. Anna Zlutickä z
Bemarecku’s book collection ( 1 23 books) included a Czech bible,
an „everyday“ Evangelium, five „prayer and other“ books, and
twenty-seven calendars. The book collection of Jiiik Svik z
Lukonos, Anna’s husband, was just as !arge ( 1 1 1 books) but more
varied in theme. It included forty books of „various classical
authors,“ and two school books. The modest book collection of
Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif, administrator of the Utraquist parish St.
Henry (Sv. Jindficha), consisted of one song book of the Bohemian
Brethren, one medical book, and two books of an unknown
theme.
Among the small-size collections, religious books were the
most popular. Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke possessed nine books:
three bibles, one Czech song book, one book of Spangenberg’s
sennons, and three books on estate law. Ladislav Gallus z
Rajstejna, who lived in the house across the street from the
Nejedly house, also possessed nine books: one Czech bible, four
sennon books in Gennan, a book of Spangenberg’s sennons in
􀵒 􀵓 In this part of the city, 8% of aiJ the inventories hac1 uook coiiections
!arger than 100; for the city as a whole in the period 157 1 – I (>20, the figure
is 7%; see J. Pesek, „Inwestyce kulturaljne miszczan praskich przed 1620
r.,“ p. 335 (sec note 43 above).
􀵑2 28% are directly religious, and approximately another ‚2‘2% are identifiec1
in the inventories along with othcr books. The figu res for t he ::1mounts of
books with historical and legal themes wiiJ be higher. n s t hey too are
containect in mixed-theme coiiections.
160
Czecb, a book in German entitled „Gulden Areb,“ a book of estate
law, and book of urban law. Jan Kalivoda’s collection of nine
books included one book of Master Jan Haberman’s sermons,
another book of sermons of an unknown author (also in Czecb),
the prolegomena of Petrus Codicillus‘ dissertation, and a few
miscellaneous books. Mandalena Grafeus possessed five books:
three prayer books, one song book, and tbe New Testament in
Czecb.
Of those wbo bad a handful of books, the books were almost
all religious in theme, usually containing tbe bible. Jan
Brzobobacy possessed only two books: a bible and a book of
psalms, both in Czecb. Ciprian Lopatsey bad a bible and an
berbal book. Katefina Vodickovä bad a Czecb bible and a book of
Spangenberg’s sermons. Martin Hranicey possessed one book, a
Czecb bible. Vit Vodicka had a Czech bible in an edition by the
Prague printer Melantricb.
In a few cases, the book design is designated in the inventory.
Katefina Vodickovä possessed a Czecb bible „in red leatber;“ Jan
Kalivoda a book of Czech sermons in „wbite leather.“ Brikci
Zvonaf z Cimperku possessed a Czecb bible „bound in black silk
with silver studs“ (v aksamite cemym svazena s puklami
stfibmymi) and a German bible „with [silver] studs“ (s puklami).
Business registers were often decorated in a similar fashion.
Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku bad three registers in red leather;
two of tbem debt registers from the brewing business. [See cbart
11.5.30.]
11.3.3. DISTRIBUTION OF KEY OBJECTS BY LOCATION &
FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF LOCATION
II.3.3 . 1 . Distribution of Beds
All except seven bousebolds bad beds. 53 Tbree quarters of all
the beds were located in komora (143) and sklep ( 1 32).
Approximately nine percent of the beds were located in mazhaus
53 The following households did not have beds: Jan Kfiz, Tomas Vodicka z
Radkova, Vä.clav Vodnanslcy (House no. 698-11), Maryanna Pergerova and
A!Zbeta Svikovä (House no. 790-II), Caltovslcy House of Tobiäs Nejedly z
Vysoke (House no. 37a?-II), and the second houses of Katefina Vodickovä.
and Markyta Kotläfka.
161
(33). Small numbers were also distributed among svietnice, verkstat,
dfevnice, and laube. In most of the households, beds were
distributed among one-third to one-half of all the rooms in the
house. [See chart II.5. 1 8 . ]
II.3.3.2. Sleeping Locations and Bedrooms
Among all the rooms in all the households (543 in number),
only one was specifically named a bedroom: the „second bedroom“
(druhO. loze) in the house of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (House no.
747-II).54 In nineteen households, twenty-five sleeping locations
were designated for specific individuals; such as the deceased, a
spouse, cooks (all female), or apprentices.
11.3.3.3. Kitchens {kuchyfi., kuchyiika) and Larders (spiZima)
Sixteen rooms are designated as kitchens ( 1 5 kuchyfi. and one
kuchyiika) in fourteen households (House nos. 846 and 748 or
746-II each have two kitchens). In seven cases, the kitchens were
located near heating or cooking sources or both. In House no.
748 or 746-II, two adjoining kitchens were located adjacent to the
kamna which is located in the svietnice. In House no. 780/78 1 ,
House no. 846, and House no. 853-11, the kitchen is adjacent to
the kamna which is in the svietnice. In the Kalivoda and
Kyndrmon households, the ohniste and ohfivadlo, respectively, are
located directly in the kitchens. In eight cases, the kitchens were
not identified in locations adjacent to the indicated heating and
cooking sources.
A summary breakdown of the contents of the sixteen locations
designated in kitchens, as a whole, as well as that of individual
kitchens, show that kitchens were made up almost exclusively of
cooking-related (but not eating-related) objects. [See chart II.5.
1 2 . ] Individual kitchens varied i n their composition (i.e. types
and amounts of items). The kitchen of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif
listed one item: a pot. Adam Tatek’s kitchen was the largest. In
all but two of the households that had kitchens, the kitchens
were the main locations where there was a constellation of
primary cooking-related items: rost, rozeii, pekac, and rendlik –
5􀝁 Despite the fact that this room is named „second bedroom, n no other
rooms in the inventory are named as bedrooms.
162
with secondary cooking-related objects – hmec, kotlik, kotlicek,
mozdff, stauda, and nalevky.SS
A location with a similar composition to the kitchen was the
sp!Zima. A summary breakdown of the contents of the seven
spi.Zima, as a whole, shows a composition similar to, but broader
than, the contents of the kitchens. The composition of individual
spi.Zima varied between locations identical to those of kitchens
(i.e. constellations of primary and secondary cooking-related
items) and locations with various kitchen and other hausehold
utensils, though not necessarily in a combination to defme a
cooking area. In three of the households that had spi.Zima (House
nos. 749, 832, and 790-II), there was no designated kitchen. In
two (House nos. 749 and 832-II), the spi.Zima had combinations
similar to those of kitchens. In House no. 790-II, the spi.Zima was
both the main location of cooking-related objects as weil as a
location of more general household objects. The spi.Zima in two
households (House no. 749 and the new structure of Jiiik Svik z
Lukonos) contained a wide variety of objects. The spi.Zima in the
new structure of J iiik Svik z Lukonos is especially broad in
composition and differed the most from those of all of his
neighbors; it included not only cooking utensils and general
household goods, but also a !arge amount of dishware, a bed,
clothes, and many other items.
Three households had locations designated as kitchens and
spi.Zima (House nos. 36b, 748 or 746, and the new structure of
Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku). In House no. 748 or 746-II, there
were two kitchens adjacent to each other, which together served
as the main location of cooking-related objects, and a spi.Zima
containing more general cooking and household items. Similarly,
in House no. 36b-II (Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke), there was one
kitchen which was the main location of cooking relating objects,
and a spi.Zima which had more general items. In the hausehold of
Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku (new structure) , there was both a
55 The exceptions were the kitchens in the houses of Bartolomej Zvonaf z
Cimperku (House no. 747-II) and Vaclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-II).
Both were sparse for households of their size. In the Kamaryt house,
location 20 was the location with the largest amount of cooking-related
utensils but not in a combination to defme it as a cooking area. In the
house of Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku, cooking utensils were located in a
kitchen (location 9) and in a sklep (location 19), also not in a combination to
define these locations as central cooking areas.
163
kuchyfika (location 2) and spi.iima (location 3) adjacent to one
another; however the location of primary and secondary cookingrelated
items was a sklep (location 10).
In another eight households, there was neither a kitchen nor a
spi.iima designated. In these households, however, one can
identify a constellation of primary and secondary cooking-relating
objects at a number of other locations: in an upstairs komora
(location 3) in the house of Matej Brzobohaty, in the komora na
mazhausu (location 2) in the Fric house (House no. 785/ 442-11), in
the komora v sini (location 2) in the house of Baptista Grafeus, in
the mazhaus (location 4) in the Lesnar house (House no. 775-11),
in the sklep across from the downstairs svietnice in the Pätek
house, in the sklep at the stairs across from the svietnice (location
2) and the downstairs svietnice (location 7) in the house of Väclav
Kamaryt z Rovin, in the komora na mazhause in the Zlazy house,
and in the komora opposite the svietnice (location 20) in the house
of Magdalena KiiZovä.
In the following eleven households, there was neither a
kitchen, spi.iima, nor a location in the house where there was any
noteworthy constellation of cooking-relating objects: the households
of Väclav Vodiiansky- and Sirneon Polidor z Baubinus
(House no. 698-II), Jan Slon (777-11), Magdalena Hvezdovä (782-
II), Adam Samec (852-11), Jan Brzobohazy ( 1 056 or 1057-11),
Zikmund Vodak (House no. 1 074-II), Mandalena Grafeus, Ciprian
Lopatsky-, Anna Steffkovä z Cichanova, and Vit Vodicka.
II.3.3.4. Baths (lazefi, l<iznicka)
In all the households, one location is designated as a lazefi (in
the house of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku) and two are designated as
laznicka (in Markyta Kotäfka’s second house and in the house of
Anna Steffkovä z Cichanova). From the contents of the lazefi –
two tubs (vana) and one barrel (stauda) – it is not clear whether
this is a storage facility for fmished products or a bath house.
Markyta Kotläfka’s l<iznicka, composed of a large kettle or boiler
(kotel) and a stove (kamna) represents a modestly equiped bathing
facility.
164
II.3.3.5. Stall, Shed, Barn, Wood Shed (marstal, kolna, stodole,
dfevnice)
Nine households had stalls (marstal), six had sheds (kolna),
four had barns (stodole), and one had a wood shed {dfevnice). All
of these locations served a similar function as a Storage facility.
All contained tools, supplies, and grain; some also served as the
primary storage for a specific commodity.
The stall (marstal) housed the horses, riding equipment, and
carriages (kocarek and vilZ), and served additionally as a storage
facility for wood, grain, and tools. The stall of the new structure
of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku contained beer for delivery and
wood used in the process of beer brewing. The stall of Väclav
Kamaryz z Rovin (House no. 846-II) stored 14 barreis of wine.
The wood shed (dfevnice), location 8, in the house of Väclav
Kamaryz z Rovin (House no. 846-II) was exactly what the name
designated: a storage room for wood of various types (boards,
„pieces fused together,“ etc.).
The barn (stodole) serve primarily as a storage area for food
and grain (meant for eating and brewing beer). Väclav Vodiiansey
(House no. 698-II) stored building materials (wood beams and
stone) in his barn. Zikmund Vodak (House no. 1074-II) housed
his horse, cow, riding accessories, and grain in his barn.
The shed (kolna) was almost identical to the barn, but tools
predominated. The komorka (locations 5 and 6) in the new
structure of Jifik Svik z Lukonos served as a storage area for
flour and various iron tools and objects. [See chart II.5.28.]
11.3.3.6. Beer Brewing locations (sladovna, hvozda)
Fifteen locations in eleven households were specifically
designated for beer production. These include seven malting
houses (sladovna) in seven households, four malting kilns
(hvozda) in four households, three spilec (?) in three households,
one malting chamber (sladkova komora), and one malting
courtyard (sladovn{J dvür). The bouse of Ciprian Lopatsey bad a
malting house and a spilec. Tbe house of Magdalena KiiZovä bad
a malting bouse and malting cbamber.
Malting kilns, malting bouses, and malting chambers were
name-designated locations for the production of malt, a central
process in the production of beer; bowever, their contents testify
165
that these were the locations where other processes, such as the
brewing and storing of the finished product, took place. These
were the only locations in the households where one fmds a
constellation of beer ingredients (hops, barley, wheat, and malt),
wood (used to roast grain into malt and to make barrels), various
tools, barrels, and beer.
In addition to these name-designated locations for beer
production, a nurober of households had other named locations
that are identified for beer production by their contents: druhti
komora in the hause of Magdalena KiiZovä, komora in the hause of
Ciprian Lopatsey, komora in Hause no. 795-II of Lidmila Makalka,
siii and komora in Hause no. 832-II of Martin Masopust, and in
the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku.
Different name locations do not necessarily distinguish
different functions. With one exception, households had either a
malting room or malting kiln, not both. In those households that
have two locations specified for beer production, one of the
locations was the main one, and the second served as a storage
area for various tools, wood, and barrels. [See chart II.5.28.]
II.3.3.7. Artisanal Workshops (verkStat, pekama, lud)
Seven locations in five households were specifically named as
artisanal workshop areas: a bakery (pekama) in the hause of
Buryan Pemikäf in Hause no. 778-II, a workshop (verkstat) in the
hausehold of Melichar Fayfr, a „chamber where sugar is made“
(komora kde se cukr delal – location 4) in the hause of Vorsile
Cukräfka, a „foundry“ (hut:) and two „cellars where tin dishware is
made“ (sklep kde cinoveho nadobi dela – locations 1 1 & 16) in the
hausehold of Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku (Hause no. 747-II),
and a faundry in the hausehold of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku
(Hause no. 747-II).
The contents of five additional locations identify them as sites
of artisanal activity: a komora (location 4) in the hause of Vorsile
Cukräfka, the dlllir in Hause no. 748 or 746-II of Markyta
Kotäfka, and a sklep (location 5), dlllir and laznicka in Markyta
Kotläfka’s second hause on Sirokä Street.
Buryan Pemikäf’s bakery (pekama) contained flour and
twenty-five gingerbread forms (formy na pemiky). Vorsile
Cukräfka’s komora contained „a tub in which one carries sweets
to the market“ and „a cone and various other shapes of sugar.“
166
Sirokä Street was the center of the metal-working trade since
the founding of the New City in the mid – 14th century. The
workshops in this street in the late 16th and early 17th century
represented the full scale of operations and specialization in this
trade at this time. Melichar Fayfr’s verkStat, which had hammers,
other tools, iron and tin, was a small metal worker’s shop that
served a small dientele and the home economy of the city.
Markyta Kotläfka’s middle-size work areas specializing in pots,
pans, tubs, and chicken stalls served a larger urban market, as
well as making an occasional tub for the imperial court. The
foundry (hut:) of Bartolomej and Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku was
perhaps the largest metal-working operation on Sirokä Street,
offering a specialized product – bells – to a wider dientele across
all of Bohemia. (See chart II.5.28.]
II.3.3.8. Balcony or Terrace (pavlac)
Eight locations are identified as balconies or terraces at eight
houses.56 The balcony of Zikmund Vodak served as a bedroom
which contained, in addition to a bed (postylka}, two small chests
filled with clothes, four frrearms, and a pot. 57 The balcony of the
house of Mikuläs Rüre z Vorlicne lists no furnishings.ss The
remaining six balconies served as storage areas.
II.3.3.9. Svietnice
Based on the distribution of individual objects, the svietnice,
as a whole, was the location in the burgher house where one most
commonly found stoves (kamna) and paintings; ten percent of all
beds were also found there. Individual svietnice were largely
multi-functional locations.
56 Location 7 in the house of Matej Brzobohacy (House no. 1056 or 1057-11),
location 3 in the house of Jan Kalivoda, location 3 in the house of Buryan
Pernikäf (druhy düm), location 2 in the house of Zikmund Vodak (House no.
1 074-11), location 7 in the house of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku (nove
staveni), location 7 in the house of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku (House no.
747-II), location 14 in the house of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-
11), and location 7 in the house of Mikuläs Rüie z Vorlicne (House no. 853- 11).
57 Pavlac (location 2) of Zikrnund Vodak (House no. 1074-11).
ss Pavlac nahofe (location 7) of Mikuläs Rüze z Vorlicne (House no. 853-11).
167
Seven different variations can be distinguished. Suietnice
could serve as a cooking area;59 a general living, eating, and
sleeping area;6o a general living and eating area;61 a general living
and sleeping area;62 a general living area;63 or a general work area
for washing clothes and keeping guns.64 Lastly, in a number of
households, the suietnice represented an indistinguishable living
area, made up only of wash basins (umyuadlo) and pots (hrnec).65
A number of suietnice in the study were of exceptional individual
character.66 [See chart 1!.5. 1 5 . ]
59 Dolejsi svietnice in the house of Väclav Vodicka.
oo Location 1 in the house of Jan Kalivoda, svietnice nahofe in House no.
775-11 of Jiti Lesnar, location 1 in the house of Bonifacious Wolmut, and
detinskä svietnice (location 6) in House no. 698-II of Sirneon Polidor z
Baubinus.
61 Velkä svietnice dole in House no. 853-ll of Mikuläs Rüre z Vorlicne.
62 Svietnice (location 1 ) of Magdalena Hvezdovä, svietnice (location 1 ) in the
house of Vorsile Cukräfka, svietnice nahofe V poslednim stok (location 1 ) in
House no. 747-II of Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku, svietnice velkä nahofe
(location 1) in House no. 747-II of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, svietnice
(location 1 ) in House no. 36b-II of Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke, svietnice
(location 1 ) in the house of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif, and svietnice nahofe in
the house of Mandalena Baptista.
63 Svietnice velkä (location 1 ) in the house of Matej Brzobohacy (House no.
1056 or 1057-II), velkä svietnice hofejsi (Jocation 1) in House no. 792-II of
Jifik Svik z Lukonos, and svietnice nahofe in House no. 749-11 of Ladislav
Gallus z Rajstejna.
64 Svietnice nahofe (Jocation 4) in the house of Matej Brzobohaty (House no.
1056 or 1057-II).
65 Velkä svietnice dole (Jocation 6) in the house of Martin Masopust (House
no. 832-II), the svietnice nahofe (location 1) in the house of Ciprian
Lopatskj, the svietnice (location 1) of Lidmila Makalka (House no. 795-II),
the velkä svietnice (location 1) in House no. 780 & 78 1 -II of Jifi Smolik, the
hofejsi svietnice (location 3) in the house of Väclav Vodicka, and the
svietnice (location 4) in House no. 37(a or b?)-II.
66 The svietnice (location 17) in the house of Väclav Kamaryz z Rovin (House
no. 846-II). This represented a central Jiving area with a representational
quality: a stove, canopied bed, two large tables, one small table, a bench,
cabinet, glass lamp, mirror and twenty-five Jarge and small tables. Similar
was the upstairs svietnice (location 5) of Jilji Perger z Castalovic (House no.
790-II) which contained one !arge table, two small leather tables, three
cabinets with books and precious objects, and seventeen framed pictures.
168
II.3 .3. 10. Komora
Forty-seven served as bedrooms;67 eleven were bedrooms
where large amounts of personal items were stored;68 eleven were
locations where only bed linen was stored;69 ten stored varied
items;70 eight were mixed-use areas;71 five were other areas
67 Komara kde Adam lehä. (lacatian 3) in Hause na. 1056 ar 1 057-11 af Jan
Brzobahacy, lacatian 2 in the hause af Jan Eustachius Brzbahaty, kamara
nahafe kde detske lihä.ji (lacatian 6) in Hause na. 1056 ar 1057-11 af Matej
Brzobahacy, lacation 3 in the hause af Melichar Fayfr, lacatian 2 in House
na. 785/442-II of Jifik Fric, lacatian 4 in Hause na. 902 af Martin Hranicey,
lacatian 5 and kamara nahofe kde kuchaiky lihä.ji (lacation 1 1) in the hause
af Jan Kalivada, lacations 2 and 3 in House na. 748 ar 746-II af Markyta
Katlä.fka, kamara nahafe (lacatian 6) in druhy dum af Markyta Katlä.fka,
lacatian 5 in House na. 775-11 af Jifi Lesnar, lacatians 4, 5, and 7 in Hause
na. 795-11 af Lidmila Makalka, kamara kde kuchä.fka lihä. (lacatian 7) in
Hause na. 778-II of Buryan Pernikä.f, kamara na dvafe kde kuchaika lihä.
(lacatian 8) in hause af Varsile Cukrä.fka, lacatian 5 and kamara kde
kuchä.fke lihä. (locatian 8) in Hause nas. 780 & 7 8 1 -II af Jifi Smalik, lacatian
3 in the hause af Anna Steffkavä. z Cichanava, lacatians 5 and kamara pad
kravem kde pachalici lihä.ji (lacation 8) in Hause nas. 783 & 784-11 af Adam
Tatek, lacatians 3 & 4 in House no. 1074 af Zikmund Vodak, lacatian 6 in
Hause na. 699-II of Katefina Vadickavä., lacatians 5, 16 & 20 in the new
structure af Anna Zlutickä. z Bernarecku, komara nahafe kde tavaryse lehä.ji
(lacatian 3) in Hause na. 747 af Bartalamej Zvanaf z Cimperku, lacatian 3 in
the hause of Zikmund Zvanaf z Cimperku, lacatian 7 in Hause na. 749-11 af
Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna, lacatians 7 and 1 3 in Hause na. 853-11 af
Mikulä.s Ruaie z Varlicne, lacatians 18 and 26 in House no. 36b-ll af Tabiä.s
Nejedly z Vysake, lacatian 8 in the hause af Daniel Rubin ze Zvavif, and
kamara kde lihäji tavarysi (location 6) in the house af Jan Zlacy.
68 Locatian 16 in Hause na. 846-II af Vä.clav Kamaryt z Ravin, lacatian 7 in
Hause na. 748 or 746-II af Markyta Katlä.fka, lacatian 5 af Thamas
Kyndrman, lacatian 2 in House na. 35a-ll af Jan Nysl, lacatian 7 in the
hause af Anna Pä.tkavä., lacatians 2 and 9 in the house af Varsile Cukä.fka,
lacatian 4 in Hause na. 747-II af Bartalamej Zvanaf z Cimperku, lacatian 4
in the new structure af Jifik Svik z Lukanas, and lacatian 20 in Hause na.
36b-ll af Tobiä.s Nejedly z Vysake.
69 Locatian 4 in Hause na. 1056 ar 1 057-11 af Jan Brzabahacy, lacation 3 in
Hause na. 902 af Martin Hranicey, kamora nahafe (lacatian 4) af Hause na.
748 ar 746-11 af Markyta Katä.fka, lacatian 7 in Hause nas. 783 & 784-II af
Adam Tä.tek, lacatian 6 in Hause na. 747-11 af Bartalamej Zvonai z
Cimperku, lacatians 14 and 1 5 in Hause na. 853-11 af Mikulä.s Rure z
Vorlicne, and lacatians 19, 2 1 and 22 af Hause na. 36b-ll af Tabiä.s Nejedly z
Vysake.
10 Locatian 2 in the hause af Magdalena Kiiiovä., lacatian 6 in the house af
Vit Vadicka, lacatians 23 and 24 in the new structure af Anna Zlutickä. z
Bemarecku, lacations 4 and 9 in Hause no. 792-11 af Anna Zlutickä. z
169
related to the domestic household;72 four were only storage
locations for personal items;73 four were locations where food and
grain were stored;74 four were beer-brewing areas;75 three were
locations where wine was stored;76 three were sleeping and
cooking areas;77 two were cooking areas;78 two were storage areas
for cooking items;79 one was a storage area for weapons;80 one
was a storage area for horse-riding equipment;81 one was a „living
room;“82 one was related to communal activities;83 and one was a
sleeping loca tion. 84
Bemarecku, location 10 in House no. 853-II of Mikuläs Ruze z Vorlicne,
locations 10 & 1 2 in House no. 36b-II of Tobias Nejedly z Vysoke, and
location 7 in the house of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif.
11 Location 2 1 in House no. 846-IJ of Väclav Karnaryt z Rovin, komora hofejsi
(location 4) in the house of Magdalena Kfizovä, locations 3 and 5 in the
house of Ciprian Lopatskj, location 6 in House no. 795-IJ of Lidmila
Makalka, komora dolejsi (location 8) in the house of Anna Pätkovä, location
2 in the new structure of Anna Zluticka z Bernarecku, and location 22 in
House no. 747-II of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku.
72 Location 12 in the house of Ciprian Lopatskj, location 9 in House no.
795-IJ of Lidmila Makalka, location 9 in House no. 790-IJ of Jilji Perger z
Castalovic, komora kde se cukr delal (location 4) in the house of Vorsile
Cukrä.fka, and location 17 in the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z
Bernarecku.
73 Komara kde veci sve vdova mä (location 9) in House no. 1056 or 1057-IJ of
Matej Brwbohatj, location 2 in House no. 775 of Jifik Lesnar, location 2 of
House no. 778-IJ of Buryan Pemikä.f, and location 27 in House no. 747-II of
Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku.
74 Location 13 in the house of Ciprian Lopatskj, and locations 9, 2 1 and 22
in House no. 853-II of Mikulas Rüre z Vorlicne.
75 Locations 9 and 10 in the house of Magdalena KfiZovä, location 1 1 in
House no. 832-II of Martin Masopust, and location 8 in the house of Daniel
Rubin ze Zvovif.
76 Location 1 4 in House no. 747-II of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, and
locations 9 and 1 1 in House no. 36b-II ofTobias Nejedly z Vysoke.
77 Location 2 in house of Baptista Grafeus, location 20 in House no. 846-II of
Väclav Karnaryt z Rovin, and location 2 in House no. 782-II of Magalena
Hvezdovä.
78 Komora nahofe (location 3) in House no. 1056 or 1057-II of Matej
Brzobohatj and location 6 in House no. 778-II or Buryan Pernikä.f.
79 Location 1 0 in House nos. 783 and 784-II of Adam Tatek and location 4 in
the house of Jan Zlatj.
8° Komora hofejsi (location 4) in the house of Väclav Vodicka.
81 Location 8 in House no. 853-II of Mikuläs Rüze z Vorlicne.
82 Location 1 in the house of Anna Pätkovä.
83 Location 1 1 in House no. 790-II of Jilji Perger z Castalovic.
8 4 Locations 2 and 6 in the house of Mandalena Grafeus.
170
Il.3.3. 1 1 . Sifl.
Three appear to be locations for serving guests;85 one appears
to be a living room-type area;86 two were locations serving the
domestic hausehold economy;87 one was a cooking location;88 two
suggest an eating area;89 one suggests a washing room;90 one
suggests a location where clothes were washed;91 one was a food
storage area;92 one was a storage area for clothes;93 three were
bedrooms with personal objects;94 one was a bedroom with
tools;9s two were storage areas for personal objects;96 and three
contain isolated pieces of furniture, providing no indication of
function.97
II.3.3. 1 2 . Sklep
The sklep was a location that could serve a number of
different functions, one of which corresponds to its modern
meaning of storage. Some were storage areas for one exclusive
group of objects, others held interesting mixtures of different
types.
85 Location 8 in the house of Jan Eustachius Brzobohacy, location 7 in
House no. 832-II of Martin Masopust, and location 20 in House no. 790-II of
Jilji Perger z Castalovic. 86 Location 1 in House no. 846-II of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin.
87 Location 18 in the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku and
location 9 in House no. 1074-II of Zikmund Vodak.
88 Location 3 in the house of Jifik Fric.
89 Location 5 in the house of Anna Steflkovä and location 4 in the house of
Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif.
90 Location 4 in the house of Vit Vodicka.
91 Location 6 in the house of Thomas Kyndrmon.
92 Location 10 in House no. 778-II of Buryan Pernikäf.
93 Location 7 in the house of Vorsile Cukräfka.
94 Location 3 in House no. 699-1 of Katefina Vodickovä, location 3 in the
house of Magdalena Kffiovä, and location 4 of House no. 782-II of
Magdalena Hvezdovä. 95 Location 3 in the house of Jiiik Lynder. 96 Location 3 in the house of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif and location 8 in the
house of Jan Zlacy.
97 Location 4 in the house of Mandalena Grafeus, location 3 in House no.
795-II of Lidmila Makalka, and location 2 in House no. 699-II of Katefina
Vodickovä.
171
Thirteen sklep were locations where only wine was stored;98 in
three additional sklep, wine was stored with other items;99 one
sklep was a storing location for beer only. 100 Three sklep were
storage areas for pots, pans, and dishware only. 101 One was a
wood storage area; 1o2 another was a storage location for horseriding
equipment. 1o3 One location was a food storage area . 104
One was a storage area for workshop tools. 105 One was a storage
area for artisanal products. l06 In four sklep, only bed linen was
stored. l07 Two sklep were storage areas exclusively for clothes or
linen. 108 Eleven locations served as storage areas for mixed
items, including art objects. 109 Seventeen locations were storage
areas for mixed items with no art objects. 1 1o
9s Sklep podzemi (location 1 ) in the house of Kaspar Albrecht (House no.
837 -li), sklep podzemi (location 3) in the house of Thomas Kyndrmon, sklep
vinny (location 4) and sklep podzemi (location 2 1 ) in House no. 790-I of Jilji
Perger z Castalovic, sklep v dvofe (location 9) in House nos. 780 & 78 1-ll of
Jifi Smolik, sklep na dvofe (location 6) in House no. 1074 of Zikmund
Vodak, location 5 in the house of Vä.clav Vodnanskj (House no. 698-II),
sklep podzemi (location 1 1) in the new structure of Jifik Svik z Lukonos,
location 12 in House no. 749-II of Ladislav Gallus z Rajstejna, location 24 of
Mikulas Ruie z Vorlicne, sklep podzemi (location 14), adjacent sklep
(location 15), and additional sklep podzemi (location 27) in House no. 36b-II
ofTobias Nejedly z Vysoke.
99 Location 4 in House no. 846-ll of Vaclav Kamruyz z Rovin, podzemi sklep
(location 15) in House no. 747-ll of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, and sklep
pozdemi (location 3) in House no. 37(a or b?)-ll of Tobias Nejedly z Vysoke.
100 Location 12 in House nos. 780 & 781 of Jifi Smolik.
101 Location 7 in the house of Ciprian Lopatskj, sklep na dvofe in House no.
699-II of Katefina Vodickova, and location 4 in House no. 36b-ll of Tobias
Nejedly z Vysoke.
102 Location 1 in House no. 902-ll of Martin Hranicky.
103 Location 7 in the house of Jan Eustachius Brzobohatj.
104 Sklep na dvofe (location 6) in the house of Jan Kalivoda.
105 Location 5 in druhy dum of Markyta Kotlä.fka.
106 Sklep cinoveho nadobi delaneho (location 16) of House no. 747-II of
Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku.
107 Locations 6, 7, 1 1 and 1 2 in House no. 853-II of Mikulas Ruze z Vorlicne.
108 Locations 3 in House no. 853-II of Mikulas Ruze z Vorlicne and location 1
in House no. 37(a or b?)-II of Tobias Nejedly z Vysoke.
109 Location 5 in House no. 782-ll of Magdalena Hvezdovä., location 1 1 of
House no. 778-II of Buryan Pernikä.f, sklep nahofe (location 1 ) in House no.
748 or 746-II of Markyta Kotä.fka, location 1 in House no. 790-II of Jilji
Perger z Castalovic, location 5 in House no. 1074-II of Zikmund Vodak, sklep
u schodu in house of Vaclav Vodicka, location 1 in House no. 792-ll of Anna
Zluticka z Bernarecku, locations 5 and 18 in House no. 747-II of Bartolomej
Zvonaf z Cimperku, location 5 in House no. 853-II of Mikulas Ruze z
172
Four sklep served exclusively as sleeping locations. 1 1 1 The
contents of futeen sklep – including beds, small amounts of
clothes, and, in some cases, books and art objects – identify these
locations as bedrooms personally identified with a specific
individual, in cantrast to indistinguishable sleeping locations.1 12
Fifteen sklep were bedrooms that served additionally as storage
rooms for large amounts of personal belongings, including books
and art objects. 113 One sklep served as a sleeping location and a
storage area for personal items used in beer production.1 14
Vorlicne, and tocations 1 and 7 in House no. 36b-II of Tobias Nejedty z
Vysoke.
110 Location 6 in House no. 782-11 of Magdatena Hvectovä, sklep na pavtaci
(location 4) in the house of Jan Kativoda, sklep podzemi na dvofe (location 6)
and tocation 19 in House no. 846-II of Väctav Kamaryt z Rovin, sklep dole
(location 6) in House no. 775-II of Jifik Lesnar, sklep dole (location 4) in
House no. 852-II of Adam Samec, tocation 3 in the house of Vit Vodicka,
tocation 4 in House no. 699-11 of Katefina Vodickovä, Iocation 1 in druhy
dum of Katefina Vodickovä, Iocation 3 in the house of Bonifacius Wolmut,
Iocation 27 of the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku, Iocation 4
in House no. 747-11 of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, location 5 in House no.
792-II of Jifik Svik z Lukonos, location 7 in the new structure of Jifik Svik z
Lukonos, location 4 in House no. 853-II of Mikulas Rure z Vorlicne, and
locations 5 and 14 in the house of Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif.
1 1 1 Location 2 in the house of Anna Steflkovä z Cichanova, Iocation 5 and 6
in the house ofVit Vodicka, and Iocation 3 in House no. 792-11 of Jifik Svik z
Lukonos.
112 Location 3 in House no. 837-II of Kaspar Albrecht, Iocation 6 in the house
of Jan Eustachius Brzobohacy, sklep dole (location 6) in the house of Ciprian
Lopatskj, location 2 in the house of Jifik Lynder, Iocation 2 in House no.
795-II of Lidmila Makalka, Iocation 3 in House no. 832-11 of Martin
Masopust, Jocation 1 in druhy dum of Buryan Pemikäf, sklep nahofe
(location 2) of House no. 852-II of Adam Samec, location 1 1 in the house of
Katefina Vodickovä, location 5 in the House no. 698-IJ of Sirneon Polidor z
Baubinus, location 2 1 in the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z Bemarecku,
location 10 in House no. 747-Il of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku, location 16 in
House no. 853-II of MikuläS RÜZe z Vorlicne, location 2 in the house of
Daniel Rubin ze Zvovif, and location 2 in the house of Jan Zlatj.
1 13 Location 1 in House no. 1056 or 1 057-II of Jan Brzobohaty, sklep dole
kde noboztik lihat (location 2) of House no. 1056 or 1057-II of Matej
Brzobohacy, location 2 in the house of Thomas Kyndrmon, sklep nahofe
(location 4) in House no. 832-II of Martin Masopust, sklep skrze svietnice
dolejsi (Iocation 10) in the house of Anna Pätkovä, tocations 2, 8 and 15 in
House no. 790-II of Jilji Perger z Castalovic, location 1 in the house of Anna
Steffkovä z Cicanova, locations 1 and 4 in House no. 783-II of Adam Tatek,
sklep dolejsi pfizemi (Iocation 1 ) in the house of Väctav Vodicka, location 2
173
1\vo sklep served as workshop areas.ll5 1\vo sklep, which
contained writing desks (srybtys), resembled studies.1 16 1\vo
sklep, which contained cooking and other items, resembled
kitchens. l l7 One location contained only a fireplace (ohniste).1 18
[See chart II . 5 . 1 4 . ]
11.3.3. 1 3 . Mazhaus
Mazhaus are found in approximately half of the households in
the study (22 out of 56). They were multi-functional locations
where one commonly found furniture and beds.
Mazhaus varied more widely than svietnice. One can distinguish
between eight variations. Mazhaus served as a living
room containing tables, chairs, pictures, and often candlestick
holders;u9 a hausehold work area; 120 a bedroom;121 a bedroom
and storage room for mixed goods, including those of the home
economy; l22 a storage room; 123 a personal bedroom; 124 a storage
room for cooking equipment and other items; 125 and a storage
in the house of Vit Vodicka, location 3 in House no. 698-1! of Sirneon Polidor
z Baubinus, location 1 in House no. 853-11 of Mikuläs Rüre z Vorlicne.
111 Location 1 4 in House nos. 780 & 78 1 -11 of Jifi Smolik.
115 Locations 3 and 6 in House no. 747-II of Brikci Zvonaf z Cimperku.
116 Location 2 in House no. 698-1! of Väclav Vodiiansey and location 2 in
House no. 37(a or b?)-1! of Tobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke.
1 1 7 Location 10 on the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku and
sklep v dvofe (location 20) in House no. 853-II of Mikuläs Rüze z Vorlicne.
1 1 s Location 7 in second house of Markyta Kotläfka.
1 19 The mäzhaus nahofe (location 2) in the house of Kaspar Albrecht,
location 1 3 in the house of Väclav Kamaryt z Rovin (House no. 846-II),
location 2 in the house of Ciprian Lopatsky-, location 7 in the house of Jilji
Perger z Castalovic, and location 3 in House no. 749-II of Ladislav Gallus z
Rajstejna.
120 Clothes were washed in location 5 in House no. 748 or 746-1! of Markyta
Kotläfka. Hausehold work areas of a more general type are location 4 in the
house of Jifik Lesnar (House no. 775-II) and mäzhaus nahofe (location 7) in
the house of Vit Vodicka.
121 Location 2 in the house of Anna Pätkovä.
122 Mäzhausek (location 6) in the new structure of Anna Zlutickä z
Bernarecku.
123 Location 5 in the house of Jan Zlacy.
124 Location 2 in House no. 792-II of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarecku.
125 Location 3 in the house of Jan Eustachius Brwbohacy, location 5 in the
house of Anna Pätkovä, location 3 in the house of Adam Tatek, location 2 in
174
room for clothes.l26 Two mazhaus resembled cooking areas; 127
three resembled eating locations. 128 Two locations were mixeduse
areas of indistinguishable use: one was rather ordinary;129
the other more interesting. 130 One location cantairred only a
table. 131 [See chart II .5. 1 7.]
11.3.3. 1 4 . Kancelaf
One location is designated as a study (kancelaf}, the frrst
location in the hause of Sirneon Palidar z Baubinus. Its contents
confrrm its function as a study: one larger table, two smaller ones
(„[one] which one writes“), two cabinets, a ehest made of gold, and
six chairs.
The sklep proti suietnice (location 2) in the hause of Vaclav
Vodilanskj had two srybtys and appears to have served the
function of a study.
House no. 747 -II of Bartolomej Zvonaf z Cimperku, and location 25 in House
no. 35b-II ofTobiäs Nejedly z Vysoke.
1 26 Mäzhausek (location 5) in the house of Anna Zlutickä z Bernarcku, and
locations 2 and 4 in House no. 792-II of Jifik Svik z Lukonos.
127 Locations 7 and 9 in the house of Jan Kalivoda.
128 Location 1 in the house of Jan Kalivoda, location 2 in the house of Jiii
Smolik, and location 1 2 in the house of Adam Tatek.
129 Mazhaus nahore (location 23) in House no. 747-II of Brikci Zvonaf z
Cimperku.
130 Location 18 in the house of Väclav Kamaryt: z Rovin (House no. 846-11).
131 Location 4 in the house of Jink Fric.
175
Il.4. & 11.5. FIGURES AND CHARTS
Figure 11.4.1. The Royal Cities of Prague
Witb Location of tbe Center of the New City
Eng.fish
New City
Old City
Small Side
Castle Hili
Czech German
Neve Meste die Neustadt
Stare Meste die Altstadt
Mala Strana die Kleinseite
r ot lhe New City:
$iroka SI . . Horse Marke/
& Na pNkop(!
Hradcany der Hradschin
Source: Schematic map drawn by Väclav Fred Chvätal based on map in Viiern Lorenc, Nove
mesto pra.Zske [The New City ofPrague] (Praha, 1973).
176
Figure 11.4.2. The Center of the New City
with Location of House Parcels
Jüttner Plan of 1815
Source: Vaclav Liva, Praiske mesta. Berni rula 3 [The. Prague Cities. Tax roll 3 ] (Praha,
1949)
1 77
Figure 11.4.3. The Design of the New City
Mao · r Oirectional ::;c;aces
1 Dlazdenr
II Horse Market
111 Jeenä Street
imensions of the New itv
End of the 13th Century
After 1348
Dimensions
4 km long/600 km Ylide
5 km long/ 80Q-1200km wide
::;quares & Markeis
A Old City Square
B Havel Market
C Cattle Market
Area
100 hectares
243 Hectares
(all four cities 7.5 hectares)
Source: Schematic map drawn by Väclav Fred Chvätal based on map in Viiern Lorenc, Nove
mesto pra.Zske [The New City ofPrague) (Praha, 1973)
178
..“
0 1 .:10􀜾 …. 1 2 0%
􀜸 1 0 0 :t 2 JO 8 0 %
c
„“ 6 0􀜹
•J·
:.􀜿􀝀 .:10%
<>::J 2 0􀜺
..::: 0 􀜼
-0􀜽• I
•=>
0
IJ)
•:Tl
a
I (]\
o _
U) U“)
– IJ“) –
Figure 11.4.4. House Sale Frequency
in tbe Center ofthe New City, 1500- 1 6 1 9
I •::J (]> ·􀵐 ,,, u-, U)
–
I ·􀜻 0’• •.J:I 􀌶 􀌷
Decede
I f’Tl
‚=‘ ·:0 􀌵 ll1
• S1roka Street Eest D Swoka Street ·w·est li) LO‘.·ver Horse Market
1 79
‚2
Cl)
.&; ..0􀌴.
Cl
.&;
u
Cl)
N u
a.
0
􀜴
Cl)
u
·c:
Cl.
Figure 11.4.5. House Sale Price Series
Siroka Street (East), 1500- 1 6 1 9
2000 •
1 800
1 600
1 400
1 200
1000
800 0
600
400 6
200
• •
0
0
0
0.o o􀜵o0ec•􀜶Do􀜷••• • .•
iI I II 1 111+111,.11 11111 11111I II II 11111. 11
U‘) 0 U‘) 􀃚 U‘) 􀃙 0 N N …,
0 􀃛 …, IJ“) IJ“) 1′- CO Cl‘> 0 􀃙
IJ“) IJ“) U‘) U‘) U‘) U‘) U‘) U‘) U) U)
Date
• House 0 House • House 0 House
Nr. 747- Nr. 748- Nr. 749- Nr.
II II II 749a-ll
􀀽 House 6 House • House
Nr. Nr. 750- Nr. 7 5 1 –
749b-ll II II
180
·–· 􀵍·—· -·- –
0 0 8 0 0
0 0 0 (‚
‚:? „‚ Cl) ,_ 1…
1 8 1
– ·-·-
0
0
„‚
– „‚ – – l-
0
0
0
0
T „‚
6 l 9 L·O l 9 l
609l-009l
66S L·OGS l
6BS L-OBS l
6LS L·OLS l
69S l·09S l
“
„C
u“‚ 􀌳 6SS L-OSS l
6l>S I-Ol>S l
6f:S L-OES l
62S l·02 S l
6 l S l·O lS l
60S l-OOS l
0 0 0
0 S? N
2000
1 800
…… 1 600
00
tv 1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
VI
„“
VI
Figure 11. 4.7. House Sale Price Series
Siroka Street (West), 1530- 1 6 1 9
• • •
􀵊
•
. A. .. ?
..
􀵇 Cl {). 0 •
0 #􀵎l •
o o o 􀵏 o • o o o o
o
o o • o . a o
• •
• •
􀵋‘ + ( I I I Q I Q I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
􀁺 􀵉 o – 􀵈 v 􀅡 N 􀀐 m 􀁺 M 􀅡 􀁺 􀀐 m o N m – 􀁹 m –
􀵆 • 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀐 􀀐 w w 􀵌 􀁹 􀁹 m m m m m o o o –
􀅢 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀅢 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀁 􀀐 􀀐 􀀐 􀀐
Date
• Hause Nr. 34a􀀠l O Hause Nr. 34b􀀟l • Hause Nr. 34x-ll o Hause Nr. 35a􀀡l .. Hause Nr. 35b􀀢l
ö Hause Nr. 36a􀀟l • Hause Nr. 36b􀀟l o Hause Nr. 42-11
6 l9 l-Ol9l
609l-009l
66Sl-06S l
69S l-09S l
GLS l-OLS l
69S l-ü9S l
“
„0
u.. 􀌲 6SSl-üSSl
6t-S l-üt-S l
GESl-üESl
62S l-üZS l
6 l S l-ülSl
60S l-OQS l
8 N 8 0
0
183
900
􀃘 800 c:
􀜳0 700
e soo „‚
„5 500 Q)
t: 400 a.
…… 􀈖 300
00􀀋 .0.g . 200 100
0 …..
N“‚
0
Figure 11.4.9. House Sale Price Series
Lower Horse Market, 1520-1620
6
•
“
n 0
.< X
. ..
0
.. .
0
0
..
6 0
X
..
•
IJ o n [) u 0 0 O tJ o • •
•
• •
•
•
•
…. „‚
„“ „“
„‚ „‚
+–t–l–1–.-t-·-t–t-+–+-t-t–t— ,…….. t-+–+-t
0.. .. „‚N „.‘.. . „‚“‚ CXl“‚ N.. … V) -11
• Hause Nr. 783-11
Ll Hause Nr. 7731>-11
.. Hause Nr. 7778·11
o Hause Nr. 784·11
• Hause Nr. 77 41>-11
6 Hause Nr. 782·11
x Hause Nr. 785/442·
II
X X
X X
•
N …..
;:; ;:;
X
0
CXl
;:;
6 L 9 L -O L 9 L
609L-009L
66S L-OGS L
69S L-OBS L
6LS L-OLS L
09S L-09S l
6 S S L – O S S L
6ESl-QES l
0 2 5 l -O l S l
60Sl-QOS l
0 R 0 8
1 85
Figure 11.4. 1 1 . Structurai-Functional Plan of Household of
Brikci Zvonar z Cimperku (Beii-Maker)
in the Bell House (House No. 747-11)
r-·- ———————,
I
15 I
!J ( N( & TOO.. STORAGE . I
BEOROOM 81\TH IROtJ
STO􀁩AGE
10 12 5
ON!: BEO FOUNORY IRON – — —— STORAGE – – – — – – – – 9 COURTYARD 8 6 :f3s;.e V I Ni: t1 f )l(0 I RON I FION
STORI\GE STCR. STORAGE STORAGE
11 14 4 3 2
THREE BEOS
19 lOTHE COOl< .
STOR. EOVIP,
TUO BEOS 16 17 STOR. 21 18 HtO BEOS TuO BEOS
23 20 􀜰—!􀜱L.:.􀜲. ‚—„17
vd‘ ‚
,_ _ _ _ _
;,�
9EO t..INEN PANSKY
STORAGE POt<OJ'“‚ 22 tq 26
24! 􀁇27
23 􀆈wo tables, ehest w1th Bed linen. Rid1ng equipment
24 – Chest belong to wife
27 One Bed, Books & Art
29 – Bench. Children’s dishware
30- Desk. books. art
–
(eight pictures)
Top: Basement floor
Middle: Ground floor
Bottom: First floor
Source: Floor plan drawn by Milan Koza
186
‚
30 29
1
ONE BED
OESK
J PICTURES
28 <FOUR
P ICTURESI
Figure 11.4.12. Structural-Functional Plan of Household of
Markyta Kotlarka (Kettle Smith)
in House No. 748 or 746-11
•vHERE FEHAlE VHERE A PPRENT I CES
1 COOI II CHESTS
3 2 STORAGE
OF APPI.. JEO
ART
•
ONE 8EO I. BEOS OI SHVARE
TOOL STORAGE
4 5
SECONO I< I J ChEN 8EOAOOH
„‚“‚
􀌱 ……. <;
Top: Ground floor
Bottom: First floor
Source: Floor plan drawn by Milan Koza
10
K ITCHE:N
. 9
187
6 7
HIO BEDS
ONE 8EO TVO CHESTS
11
8
STOVE
ONE 8EO
6 TABLES
3 CI-4AIRS
Figure 1 1.4.13. Structurai-Functional Plan of
Rentier-Agricultural Household of Martin Masopust
in the Masopust House (House No. 832-1 1 )
2
P!CTURE
2 I ABLES
1 8f0R0011 5
COURTYARD
3
3 BEOS
STOvE 19 CH-‚IRS
t Tf COOKING „“l T -HOUSE 8ARN
Top: Ground floor
Bottom: Firstfloor
8
7
B 1 ABLES
J (HAIRS
Source. rloor plan drawn by Milan Koza
9
1 88
10
OCOROOt1
3 BEOS 4 OE:ST fCl.OHfES,
AR T , JE UEL.ERY I
6
STOVE
SEEN
8REUING
11
Figure 11.4.14. Structural-Functional Plan of
Adam Tatek (Cloth Merchant) in House No. 783-11
g,<><! BEOROOM 9EOROOM
!br.J‘
5 L. 2 1
,.,.<! TVO 9EOS FOUR BEOS OllE 9EO
,.o ART I N CHEST II II AlU IN CHEST
V I T H CLOTHES 11111111 IIII u TH BEO LI NEN
6 3 12 ?
lt-fREE TASLES
TvO BEOS TUO CA81NETS VI tH OISH\IARE STORAGE TVO CHAIAS
8EOROOI1
􀵅<,,“
SLEEPING LOCAf!ON
,, – SI.EEPING LOCATION OF H.MALE COCK.
Top: Ground floor
Bottom : First floor
IV“
10
13
THREE T ABtES
TVO CHA IRS
Source: Floor plan drawn by Milan Koza
7
K I TCHEN
•
EATING
LOCA T ION
9
1 89
CF SERVANTS.
8 1L.
TVO SEOS
S I X TABL(S
FOUR CHA IRS
11
TVQ J A8LES
TUO CABINETS
STOYE
–
‚-!)
0
Chart 11.5.1. Mastrr llit of lndi,·iduals. ln\entoriH. Civk \\’ills. MarriaJ!t Contracts, BuildinJ! (‚untract.s & Disputts
(AJI s1gnacu􀵄 rcfer to sourcc’i m the Arch1ve ofthc Capual Cif) ofPraguc _ AMP)
lllWl!.Q.Q: ln.Y.ro!!:!LX 􀁫􀁫􀄇 􀄇 .ll.l!Jis!lU 􀄈
􀄉 􀄊 lli!!!� 􀀤 􀄆
Albrecht Ka􀂑par 837-11 u Wmteria 1 583
Bazilovß. Maryann:e 835-11
Bat1laus. Tom3S 835-11
Bnobohatj, Jan 1056 01″ 1057-11 1 577
Brzobohatj. Jan Eustach1u’li Na pofi􀂌i. bct“een Kullkö 1617
and Oanacl Emden huuscs
ßrmbohary, Matfj 1056 or 1057-11 1616
Cukrof. Martin
Fayfr. Melichnr Sirok:’i Strect. on corncr 1 599
opposite MikuiiB Jordan
fne. Jth􀵃 785.’442-11 1587
Grafcu!t. Baptisto. near thc Jew1sh Garden 1601
Grafeu􀃕. Manda1cna neat thc JC\\’aSh Garden 1 588
Haldccky, Väclav 833-11
Hastk. Kry􀂍tof
Hron1ck)‘. Martin 902-11 1 591
llvb.dovlt, Magdsiena 782-11 u Hvt7..<:h‘ 1 599
Jilkuvsk􀀾. Magdalena .l4a-ll
Junger. f1hp 8JJ-II u LlutnikU
Kahvoda. Jan on lhe corner, across from u Kfit.ö 160.1
pansh hou.se of St Stephen
Kobt!ky. Kateftna
Kopac. Vilclov 772-11
Kot10f. fluryan
Knth\fb. M:uL.:–ta 748 nr 746-11 1580
KotiM􀃔n. Mork􀵂1a SiroL:a SI . <;eeund hllU\C 1580
nc'<1 to houscs of ßnL.c1
J.,onai z Cimperk.u
Krumlovsl.}·. TomäS 748-11
Klit. Jan 896-11 u Skrabkü 1 596
Kfit.uv(l. Magdalena on lhe comer. across from u Kli:UI 1584
parish housc ofSI Stcphcn
Sii 􀀤 􀜮
121 0.36o
1208 4b
1208 213h
1 208 198
2209 201b
1213.173h
1 2 1 1 88a
1213 182 1599 2209.148b
1 2 1 3 7 1a
2209 446b
1554 2207.361•
1210.91b 1609 2209.337b
1 2 1 0 152• 1 599 2209.1 50a
121 1 209b 1602 2209 228a
1609 2209.343a
1562 2207.403a
1 2 1 1 20a 1 580 2208.49Sa
1 2 1 1 20a I 580 2208.498•
1210.1 22a 1598 2209.1 25a
1 2 1 1 .72b
Contn,ct l Date Contract Sn.:. 􀜭
1600
159<>. 1597
1560
1581
2149.221a
2149 2003. 207a
2149 JJ5a
214􀂒 I ‚Ob
2149.210b
2149 169b
1600. 1601. 1607 2149 223a. 229b. 262b
1607 21 49.259a
I 556 21 49.98b. 125b
1569 2150.1.17a
2149 225a. 2 150.2.l2o
􀄋􀄋 􀁫􀜯.M.i!m.lu:l: Mill:IJm. .ll.!!ili!uu: Jlui.J.ilill&
CW!!.n l.!llli.K..& IIQUSC �3fll� lli!s Sii. 􀀤 :ilit. Cgntract Date Cootract Sjg. Ojspute Date 􀄆
Kyndrmon. Thomas Ncar Cit} I lall. on oorncr 1 6 1 8 1 214.122b
l.csnar, J1fik 775-11 u Vov􀀦(l 1604 121 1 225a 1604 2209 271•
l.oparsky, Ciprmn 2:idovska Strcct 1604 121 3.202b 21 46.229a 1564 2149.136b
LuktH, Jan CharvalSk:l Strect 1604 2149.239b
l.ynder. Jifik oppositc Rehof Pätck 1597 1 2 1 .1 155b
Macek. Mal􀁆J 773-11 1607 2149 259a
Mal;alka. Ltdnula 795-11 1579 1 2 1 1 15b
Masopust. Martin 8.l2-ll u Maspust\1 1592 1210.95b 1592 2209.88a 2146.248a 1560 2 1 49.130b
Nysl. Jan J5a-11 Housc of Jifi 1602 1 2 1 3.200b
Zygel
Pätkov:i.. Anna Charvatska Strcct 1610 1 2 1 4.55b 1580. 1601 2149.1 65b, 227b
Piuek. Rehof Chan•atskO Street 1604 2209.223b 1580. 1601 2149.165b. 227b
PergcroviJ.. Maryanna 791-II 1627 1 2 1 2.14.la
& Al􀂒la 􀂓viknvo
Pernikäi. Buryan 778-11 1595 1 2 1 1 l.l2b
Pentil.äf. ßuryan second housc 1595 1 2 1 1 l.l2b
…… f’Kl Martinu Cukf8nw1. Vo􀁦1lc Siroka Strect · bctwecn 1605 1214 12a
\!) houses of Kautimsk)’ch
…… and Michal Rozyly
Ry<;hterova. Annn 790 or 796·11 1 6 1 2 2149 284a
S:uncc:. Adam 852·11 u llalifli 1578 1 2 1 1 .1Jh 1564 2149 UJb
Sklent.r·. M•l.wlM 􀁥1rokä Strcet 1581 2149.169b
Slon. Jan 777-11 1608 1 2 1 2 4 1 a 521 .28a
Smolik. J11’i 78MBI-II 1582 1 2 1 1 58a
Strn::ada. Mana 749-11 1556 2149.98b
Tntek. Adam 78.l & 784-11 1 582 1 2 1 1 .48b I 584 2208.228b
Vcjvodka. Anno 42-11 u Vcjvodkt’• 2149.166b
Vodük. Z.ikmund 1074-11 u Uro7.nm• 1596 1 208 92a
Vod1􀃺ka. V:iclav flom: Markt! 1610 1210 1893 2149.99a, 21501 86•
Vod,tb. Vit Bctween hou\e.., of Kr􀀧tof
Rychter and Motfj Bilyn•ki 1603 1 2 1 1 216b 21 49.204b
Vod1Cktwl. Katetimt 699-11 159.l 1 2 1 1 1 1 8b
Vod•Ckoni. Katcfina :-.econd hou-;c 1593 1 2 1 1 . 1 18b
Vodnon\L:􀃻. Vt.cla\‘ 698-11 u Kloboult1 1609 1 2 1 2 45b
Wolnun. Bo•ul3ctU’\ OppoSite the Bell Tower“‚ 1579 1 2 1 1 17h
St Stcphcn
l=nl2n 􀜫 􀜬 lliaDYill M!mm Maniage 􀄈 .lli!Jl!I.Jni
􀄉 􀄊 !:12!!3�8� 􀀤 Sli. 􀀤 Sli. Contract Pate Contract Stg. Ptsoutc Qate 􀜩
z. Daubmus. Simeön Pohdor 698-11 u Kloboukü 1627 1214 187a
z Bcmaretku, Ann Z.lutick8 792-11 u Zlutickych 1604 1 2 1 2 8a 2209 248b 1 592 2146 241b
z Bcmar􀄫ku. Ann ‚-lntickä Ncw Structure Ncw Structure 1604 1 2 1 2 8a 2209 248b 1592 2146241b
(novC staveni) (novC stavcni)
z Byty!ky. Jan Kubil 35a-11 1581. 1604 2149.166•. 239.b
z Cimpcrku, Bartolom􀄨J Z“onar 747-11 düm ZvonafskY 1601 1 2 1 1 198b 1581 2146 210•
z Cimperku. Brikci Jan 1606 2209 294b
z Cimperku, Brikci Zvonnf 747-11 döm Zvonafsky 1599 121 1 182a ?. 1560. ., 2149.108b, 125b. 127.b
?.?. 1569 167a. 158b. IJ7a
z Cimpcrku, Jan Krylt<>f 1607 2209 .1 12a
z Cimpcrku, Zikmund Zvon:�f Kv􀜪tonskä Strcct 1581 12 1 1 .33b 2149.1581>
z Castalovic, Jilji Perger 791-11 1613 1 2 1 2.83• 1612 2 149.284a
z CichanovA. Atum StcfThov3 Siroka S1ree1 1621 1214 52b 1608 1585 2149.?
z Javora. Manin Jon 371>-11 1582. 1598 2149.1 70a. 212n
z KosmaWva. Jon RimskY 834-11 düm Charovsk)‘ 1592 2146248a 1596, 1597. 1600 2149.200a. 207a. 221a
……. düm KlatovskY 1600. 1601. 1607 223a. 229b. 262b
1.0 1. Lukonos. Daniel Svlk 749-11 159′) 2209 251b tV z Lukonos. Jii’ik Svik 792·11 u Ztul!ck)’ch 1613 1 2 1 2 72a 1592 2146.24 1 b
z Lukonos. Jifik Svil Ncw Structurc New Structure 1613 1 2 1 2 82• 1 592 2146241b
(novC staveni) (nO\i sla\eni)
z Radkova. Tom:IJ Voclttka 1057 \)f 1058-11 1606 1 208 1493
z Raj􀂺ICJIIB. Ladoslav Gallus 749-11 1601 1 2 1 2 108a
z Rovin. V3clav Kamo.ryt ml 846-11 dUm 1 595 1 210.140b
StrabachovsL:Y
z Rufetma. Pnvcl terhovsky 34·b 1601 2149 227b
z Skalka, Dorom Ncjcdlä 36a?·ll düm Caho“sky 1598 2149 212•
z Vorhce. M1luhB 351>-11 düm Mlyna fsl;i 1581 2146.198b 1 580. 1581. 1581 21􀄩9 165b. 166a. 16􀄪b
z Vorlofne. MokuläS Rute 853-11 u CcrnC: Rid.c I 583 1 2 1 0 27• 1 549. ‚I. 1563 2149 87a. 97a. J .Hb
1. Vysokc. To boa􀂻 NeJedly .161>-11 u Strandt’l & 1585 1213 41a I5 &2. 15\18 2149 170u. 212o
z Vysoke. Tobia! Nejcdly 37(a?)-11
dlam Calto\sk\
dUm Caho\’sli:􀂼 1585 1 2 1 3 41n I 582 2149.170a
1. Vysoke. Tobi&! NcJedly 36b or 37a-11 1593 1 2 1 1 125•
ze Zvovif. Daniel Rubin Na blot􀁮 u Rubini1 1599 1208 1 1 4b 2149.171a. 222a
Zlaly, Jan Sirokö Strect 1583 1 2 1 1 60n
Zvonaf. ßarto􀂽 1530 2095 3 1 1 b
Charl 1 1.5.2. Structural Brt>akdown of Cases before tht> Six-Man Councils, 1547- 1 6 1 1 / 1 6 1 3
Tr ansactions othet than Buildniq Contracis & Disputos
Qatea Contracts & Tolal MalnQr At§! 􀜧 􀜨 Markot
Researched 􀜢 Other Entriet 􀄅 􀄅 T ransactions Contract 􀜤 􀜥
􀜦
AMP 473 1566·1683 88 9 97 97 91 9
AMi‘ 474 1610·1613 34 0 34 34 34
AMP 2154 1547·1674 60 216 276 60′ 48′ 124 82
Tolal 162 225 407
…..
1.0
(..U 􀜣
Allfi‘ 2149 1547·1611 386 0 366 366 343 302 1 1 9 8
AMP 21 50 1 547·181 1 59 330 389 19’1 1 1 ‚
Allfi‘ 521 1603·1811 NA NA 99 NA NA
TolaJ 425 330 854
• ropreaonts bulkling contrac1 and diopules only
I plus an additional forty „permlsslon lo use commuMI spaca“ cases
Chart 11.5.3. Gender of Parties in Building Contract and Disputes Cascs, 1566-83
First Part’i Second Part’i
0/d C/ty New Cil’i Old Cil’i
Nr. Cases Percentaga Nr. Cases Percentaga Nr. Cases Percentaga
Men 62 79% 59 80% 61 78%
Women 1 3 17% 6 15% 12 15%
Two Men 2 0 2
Man & Woman 0 3 1
…… Two Men & Women 0 0 2
\0 .J:> City Council 0 1 0
Six·Man Councll 0 2 0
Ecclesiastlcal 1 0 0
Other 0 3 0
Total 78 74 78
New Cil’i
Nr. Cases
49
9
0
7
0
1
5
0
3
74
Chart I I .S..t. Relationship betwecn Parties in Huilding Contract and Dispute Cases, 1566-83
0/d Cit’i New Cit’i
Nr. Gases Percentage Nr. Gases Percentaga
Next-door Neighbors 35 45% 26 35%
ln-House Neighbors 3 3% 0
Next-door/ln-House Neighbors 27 35% 25 34%
Partners 2
Other 1.0 8 14
(Jl Unknown 3 8
Total 78 74
Chart 11.5.5. Types of Building Contract and Dispute Cascs, 1566-83
Nr. Old Cit􀁅 Nr. New Cit􀁅 % 01d Cit􀁅 % New Cit􀁅
Contract following Agreement 1 1 3 1 % 18%
Contract following Dispute 0 47 0% 64%
Dispute 76 1 97% 1 %
Other 1 1 3 1 % 18%
Total 78 74
,. (19% of total (22% of total
…0
0′ 182 cases) 330 cases)
Chart 1 1 .5.6. lssues and Localization of lssues of Contract and Dispute Cases, 1 566-83
Slte Structure lssue
QJ.9…Q.!!y New Clly Old City New Citv Old City
Hause lnterlor 10 1 Wall 12 20 Construction 9
Hause exterlor 29 25 Fence 0 3 Reconstruction 22
8oth 5 0 Wlndow 5 8 Darnage 23
Garden 2 0 Door 0 0 Access/Use 27
Courtyard 0 1 Roof 1 0 Sm elf 6
Other Proparty 17 21 Gun er 5 3 Uncleanllness 6
Hause exterlor & Courtyard 0 0 Welf 1 1 Water/Seepage 9
…… Streei/Market 2 0 Bathroom 1 0 1 Record 1
\0
-…J Other Communal 1 8 Cellar 2 1 Debt 2
Other 3 9 Kllchen 1 0 Other 0
Unknown 9 9 Other Room 0 1
Olher 30 23
Kllchen & Other 1 0
Wall & Cellar 1 0
Wall & Other 1 6
Roof & Othar 3 4
Wall & Wlndow 0 1
Unknown 5 2
Total 78 74 78 74 105
Chart ll.S.7. Pt·opet·ty Ownership
Nr ol
pe11on Estate 􀜠 􀜡
Atwec:N. K&Spar I
ßtZobohaly Jan 2
OuObohaty Jfn Eus􀃚aehlus 2
&:Qbot)ity Matt-1 3
Fayfi.Mnchll lockSI!’IIIh I
Fnt J􀃘1k pa1111er I
Graleus Dapt•stll pantet 1
Grateus MiYldalena pa1nttr (spOun) I
……
1.0 Hr.-cllj.MJI1n I 00 H•tldOYt MlgoMNI I
KaJvoda J.., I
KoUI’IIa Markyl.1 t:ellle·smlh 2
Kill J.“ bu</-e< I
Klllova. 􀵁9d*’N 2
Kyncttnon TtiOtnas I’Tlltnal O“abanl I
ltsnat . .Ulk c􀃙e:nlolke􀃛 I
lopatsky, c.“-..an I
Lyndet,JIIk .- 1
Maka“‚a. l..lctnla I
Muopust, Marlln ht’f.O:.CbU’rj’W:l 2
r.���􀊛 􀈕s �‘:“.,;'“,ds ;ira0:n�op �!r:,’e’ur
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 I 0
0 0 I 2 ml b􀃗uu m“.ktl
sra•s (21
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 u 0
0 0 0 I 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 I .,..
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 I 0 0 0
2 2 3 0 0
w:.�nlory
01Al111S83
OUHI1571
01􀁲111617
OUH11616
OI.UI/1:)􀁳
OIJOifl567
01.()111601
0110111S88
01.QIJI591
UI.QII1􀁴99
01AlH1603
01.0111540
01Al111S96
Ot()tnse<� 01.0111618 01.(>111604
OIAlll\604
01,{)1/1591
01All11579
0 1 .0 111592
Nr of Nr of Nr of Nr of N‘ or hoe Olher real ��1:ntory
person Estate 􀜞 􀜟 􀜝 gardens Y“i’iiiiärds qardens esiale
Nysl Jan goldsmrth 0 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111602
Patkova_ Ama secretary ol t’ppelate CO\ß(spou$01
1 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111610
􀃋􀃌􀃍􀃎v􀃏a111􀃐0􀃑’larna & �Pu:r􀂒! 􀂓a􀂔􀂕-
0 0 0 0 0 0 01.01/1627
Peor.� 􀂘􀂙e below) gngerDead-mo:�ker 2 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111595
eo M.artii“‚J c … ralo\11 OIS .. conlechCNlet fSpotJSe) 1 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111605
Samec Adam 1 0 1 0 0 0 01.0111578
Slon Jan bugt’ef 1 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111608
SmOII< Jt/1 bu</Y’f 3 0 0 1 1 0 01.0111582
Tatek. Adam bughol cloth merch,,, 1 0 0 0 0 ce•ars on Havel 0Ul111582
Markel (4)
VOdak. ZrloT’IUld 1 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111596
……. Vodttka Vaclav h .. oldlcburghe< 2 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111610
10
10 Vodrtka. VII her aldtc burgher, butcher 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 .0111603
councl
VoOek011􀃒 Katehna 2 • 0 1 1 0 OU)I/1593
Vodflansk)‘. vactav 1 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111609
Woin..rt. Bont1acrus royalbl.l’der 1 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111579
z Batbr.us. Smeon Pokklr 1 0 0 1 0 0 01.0111627
z Bemaretku. Anna Zllllcka lletaldic Wg“ler
(spouseJ
2 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111604
z ZvCor’laIO’Ipf crku. Banolom􀃓l
he1aldic buiCJh'“ belinaker 0 0 0 0 0 0 01.0111601
z C􀀯u. BrlL1ghet 1 1 0 1 0 0 Olo0111581
Nr of Nr. or Nr. of Nr of Nr ol h o,Q Olher real �:1�ntory
person 􀜜 Trade houses !.!.!ili!! gardcns vtneyards qardcns e slate
z Castatovic. Ji‘ Perge1 heraldc bugher.
bulghomasler
4 I I I 2 I Ol.ot/1613
􀌯 Cichanov a. Anoa I 0 0 0 0 0 OUJI/1621
etlkova
z Luk0110s Jilk 􀁛vlk 􀵀·aldoC bugl“‚ 6 2 2 I I 0 01.()1/1613
z Radleova Toma􀁎 Vodltka 2 2 0 0 I 0 01.1)1/1606
z AaJ􀁏I􀁐na Ladrslav Galus I 0 0 0 0 hause rn Plsek OIA:ll/1601
z Rovn V􀁜clav Kama1yt
„“ noble I 0 0 2 0 0 OIA:ll/1595
z Vor1rtn􀁝 Mrkula$ Aule he< aldlc bugher 2 0 0 I 0 0 01.1)1/1583
z Vysok􀁞. Tobi.\S Nejedly noble 3 0 0 0 0 0 OIA:ll/1585
ze Zvovll Oarl;el Rubin he< aldic bUrgher I I J I 0 0 01.1)1/1599
tv Zlaly. Jan baker I 0 0 0 0 0 OIA:ll/1583 0
0
Chart 11.5.8. Names of Locations within New City
Prague Burgher Houses and their English Equivalents
Original Czech Approx. English Equivalent
drevnice wood sheed
dtnn
dvtlf
hut
hvozda
kancelar
kolna
komora
komorka
kram
kuchyn
kuchynka
Iaznicka
Iaube
hizen
loze
marstat
mazhaus
mazhauzek
misto
nove staveni
pavlac
pekama
pokoj
pokojicek
pokojik
sin
sklep
sklipek
sladovna
spilec
spizima
stodole
svietnice
verkstat
zahrada
house
courtyard
iron foundry
malting kiln
study, writing desk
shed
chamber, room
chamber (dim.)
shop
kitchen
kitchen (dim.)
baths (dim.)
arcade, Ioggia
baths
bedroom, bed
stables
[no equivalent]
[dim. mazhaus – 110 equivalent)
place
new structure
porch, veranda
bakery
room
room (dim.)
room (dim.)
hall, room
cellar
cellar (dim.)
malting house, kiln
?
pantry, larder
bam
[ no equivalent]
workshop [gennanicism]
garden
201
Chart 11.5.9. Frequency and Distribution of Location Names
#of Rooms in # of HQuseholds
Name AQQrox. English 􀆇uivalent (of total 543) {of total 56)
komora chamber 1 1 1 41
sklep cellar 1 1 0 46
svietnice room 87 48
pokoj room 29 1 8
mazhaus [location designation] 27 22
siii room. hall 24 22
dvur courtyard 1 9 19
kuchyii kitchen 1 5 1 5
marstal stables 9 8
pavlac porch, veranda 8 8
sklipek cellar (dim.) 8 7
stadovna malting house, room 7 7
kolna shed 6 6
spizirna pantry 7 7
stodole barm 4 4
hvozda malting-kiln 4 4
pokojik room (dim.) 4 3
kram shop 3 3
spilec ? 3 3
hur iron works 2 2
komorka chamber (dim.) 2 1
läzniCka baths (dim.) 2 2
mazhausek [location designation (dim.)] 2 1
pokojicek room (dim.) 2 2
dfevnice wood shed
kanceläf study
kuchyiika kitchen (dim.)
Iaube arcade, Ioggia
lazen baths
loze bedroom
pekama bakery
verkStat workshop 1
zahrada garden 1
misto other unnamed 39 N/A
202
Chart 11.:‘. 1 0. 􀁏am􀁐s of Objects within New City Prague
Burghl’r lloust:’s aml thl’ir English Equivalents
Ori“illul C::ech
almara
alnHirka
cedidlo
chmt:l
chOillOlll
cimbalk‘
credt:nc.:
cruciti-;
dzb<in
dZbr111ek
figura
tlas<:!
tl;-tsl<:!
fonna 11n pcrniky
grosek
hi·ebicek
h<ik
hodiny
hmec
hruska
indiansk􀁛· oi“ech
jablicko
jecmen
kfizek
k<id
kalisek
kamna
kanceläf
kancelarka
kbelik
kladivo
kieste
klir
kniha
Avpmx. English Eauivalent
cabinet. annoire, cupboard
cabinet ( dim. ), cupboard
strainer
hops
horse collar, harness
cymbals, gongs (dim . )
drcsser, sideboard
crucifix
pileher
pitcher (dim.)
piclure
boHle
boHle (gennanicism)
g.ingerbread fonns
groseben
cloves
hook
clock
pol
pear
indian nut
apple ( dim. )
barley
small cross
tub, val
egg cup
stove
study, writing desk
desk
pail , bucket
hammer
forceps, pincers
wedge
book
203
Original C::::ech
knoflik
kos
koi’eni
koberec
koflicek
koflik
konev
kontrkfekt
konvicka
konvice
koral
kord
kost
kote!
kotlicek
kotlik
kozlik
krabicka
krabice
kropac
krouzek
kunstuk
lzice
litzko
lavice
listina
loze
lopata
luk
mnze
mapa
mata
mec
misa
miska
mlyn
mozdif
Avvrox. English Eauimlent
bullon
basket
sp1ce
carpet, tapestry
cup (dim . )
cup (dim )
can
portraiture
pitcher, jug ( dim. )
picture, jug
coral
sword
bone
cauldron, boiler, kettle
kettle (dim.)
kettle
andiron
box (dim.)
box (dim.)
sprinker, watering can
small ring
m1 object ( gennanicism)
spoon
bed
bench
document
bedroom, bed
shovel
bow
grill
map
mint
sword
bowl, plate
bowl (dim )
mill
mortar
204
Original C:::ecli
muskat
muskatovy kt’tlka
musket
medenec
medenice
llllZ
nüz.kv
midoba
midobi
nalevka
necicka
nozicka
noznice
ohfivadlo
ohniste
oves
psenice
pimev
papir
pas
pefina
pefinka
pecet
pekac
penize
perkik
pila
pilka
pilnik
pistola
plVO
poduska
police
polStäf
polstafka
postylka
postel
Approx. E11gli.\h Eautmle/11
nutmeg.
whole nutmeg
musket
copper cauldron
copper pol
knife
scissors
vesseL crock
dishware
funnel
?
foot (dim.)
‚)
heater. wann er
fire. fir.::place
oats
wheat
ti·ying pan
paper
belt
bcd comforter. quilt
bed comfo11er. quill 1 d i m . )
scal
baking pan
money
sledge hammer
saw
sav. (dim.)
small tile. saw
pistol
beer
cushion. pilltm. hassock
shelf
pillow. cushion
pillow. cushion (dim.)
bed (dim.). cot
bed
205
Original C:ech
povlak
prosteradle
pytlik
rapir
rendlik
rozen
rost
mcnicka
rucnice
rucnik
sala, sale
salicek
sek}’r
sekäcek
sekacka
sekera
servitek
sklenice
skopek
stad
slänka
smideisen
snl’lr
srdicko
stauda
stlikacka
stül
stocek
stok
stolicek
stolice
stn1hadlo
sraubstuk
srybtys
SV!Cen
talii‘
tesai’ka
Apvmx. E11glish Eauimlenl
bed linen, covering
bed sheet
sack
rapier, sword
saucepan
spit
grill
?
rille
towel
bowl, plate (gennanicism)
bowl, plate (dim.)
hatchet. ax
cleaver
reaper, mower
hatchet, ax
napkin
glass
tub
malt
salt shaker
smith’s iron (gennanicism)
string, necklage (gennanicism)
small heart
barre I
synnge
table
bott le, decanter
hop plant, butt
table (dim.)
bench
grater
screw (germanicism)
desk (germanicism)
candlestick
plale
[ carpentry tool]
206
Original Czech
tesäk
trdlo
truhla
truhlicka
truhlice
trychtyi·
ubrus
urn)1vadlo
vazek
svajnspis, svejnspis
vana
vanicka
var
vino
zazvor
zbran
zbroj
zejdlicka
zejdlik
zito
zidle
zidlicka
zrny
zvonani-na
Ap,vrox. English EquiFalent
bowie knife
wooden roller
ehest
ehest (dim.)
ehest (dim.)
funnel (gennanicisrn)
table cloth
wash basin
small scale
spit (gennanicism)
tub (gennanicism)
tub (dim.)
boiling pot, keltle
w111e
gmger
weapon
annor
pint, goblet, jug (dim.)
pint, gohlet, jug
rye
chair
chair (dim.)
gramdes
small bells (?)
207
Chart 11.5 . 1 1 . Location·Object Distribution Model
f,:t::AI:j _
Olho< N•trgg komora(chamber) sJUep(cellst) morttal (stallte ) dievnice {M>Od roorn &hed)
hvolda (ITOII -l’ro<rS<l)
sladovna (malt llouse)
spolec (?)
t.oc:aiJOru s’f’ietnice (?)
komora(cllarOOCr)
slfl (llall)
•klcp(cetlat)
roSl (griM)
ro1ell(&pil)
0
Othor oOjects
linl<J to.!e (bod, coach)
tüll kocaret< (carriago)
VÜZ(waggoo)
oo..e-riding llqUiplmenl
wood
cllmel (hops)
stad (malt)
208
&pi!lrna (tarder)
komota(-r)
milliaus
„““‚““‚
·-
-utal (wo<l)
dill’lll i::e (-llop)
larJbe (an:ade)
-(bom)
kolna (shed)
stodolo (barn)
kolna (shed).
0
lvnec: (pol)
kollllc (kettlo)
k-(k-c!On)
rro.tdt (rnorlal)
n.1le>ll (pots, pans, dis-)
lood
gram
wood
lood
graln wood SÜd (llarTof}
kat’I’WI (stove, own)
painbngs
lumieu.e
Chart 11.5.12. Contents of Kitchens, Larders, and Distribution of
Cooking-related Objects
COII’I..,Itof
􀴭 U!S.!!J. lR!l!
􀴮 l!!lsl!.!!!! 􀴯 􀴷n li 112S:!fi2!lll
&12!.. – 􀴲
– 􀴰 I!UIIssl1 l!u!m!l 􀴱 􀅠 Td•ttObtd!
– 10
…. „““‚ “
taf.ll.l -· 15
„“‚“ „“‚ „‚ 15 „“
IN „““‚ „‚
…. , ……
‚“‚“““ HJ’tllll. 􀴵:Y 12
·􀴶· ‚“‚““ 2
……. •.:tt(clm.) 7
….. . …. „‚ .. 230
‚““““‚ „““
lluctl..,…tntt.d! coolclrovt …. ll “ ..
,“,. „“““ 11 •• eo
m/Jo …
„“““‚
— „““‚““““‚ “
– diWIMre „‚ ……. 215 1457.5
… , …… 27
…. .., „““‚“ 13
c::f\1\’ltlldlo ,… … ,
…….. …
-· „“““ „““
– .. …., _ “ „‚
pcldepk pn.t)C,j C’Oo’ttto?
– …
rwd•- _.,.n ..
…. ……
……. … . ., .. . ..
… . .. 13 .. IST
R.tr*t.l,ubi’VcfJ,urv:ttö „t1aln.-! ..
. ., .. U.1 hket „‚
– „“““““““ “
….. „““ 3
„““‚“ …. ..
􀴹lr:6p’weln.try •ttot�«“ .. “
lo.IT.􀴽O w.-ht»sn
……. …..
.. _ ., .
……. .. mtf
209
􀴳
􀅠
l7SCMt9f
171,t»r2.6􀴻
32!01!“\)’ftl􀴺
.001􀴴 35C’Ml􀴸
Chart 11.5.13. Contents of Chambers f“Komora“) – 1 1 1 total locations
Objec1 Nr. Oblects Nr. Locations
􀜚
Or!SI,ne.t Czech 􀂡og!l!:!t J; gulv 􀜙 Nr Locatlons
almara cablnel 16 1 1
– botUe 2 t
– botllo 2 2
hodlny clock t t
hmec pol 8 6 – chaJr 7 5
– cholr
karma ctow 1 t
l koberec carpel tapectry 8 5
kontrfektligurl a pdure 13 2
kotel bOder, ketne 7 6
kotleek kettle 4 2
koU!k kente 62 9
krahi&a box 7 5
krablce box 31 5
kuchynol<6 näladl oooking utensiJs: 2 2
t!ice „“““‚ 9
tistina do<:unonts t7
lote bed 48 21
IÜ!Ito bed 23 12
Iom! 􀂐 bodlinen 643 63
motdll rnort4t 7 5
ri-.6d.lnec oopper pol 5
rt’llld6nice oopper pol 6 4
nädobl dishwaie 165 13
n6sboj lnctrument 19 7
nUt knile 10 1
odÖvnl dopi)’N odÖvy c!olhes 421 48
pelole beklng pan 8 5
penze money 94
plvnlnlhdl lern& for trewing 65
poli)e •• 5 2
polsläl pillow 14 5
postel bed 69 32
poct)1ka bed 3
pytli< cack 783
rondlll< sauce pan 3
roha anllera 13
rote􀂢 oprt 28
rOOI grill 12 5
rOO!ik towell 122 36
otoliilok lalll o 22 8
slolice bonch 6 5
siUt labte 7 4
suroviny drygoods 7 3
s’k:en ca-k 2
teldj cloth 70 10
1nllla cMsl 42 27
tnllliet – ehest 41 22
Lm61oct<6 piedmoly art olljects 170 8
umyvadlo wash basin 2 3
vana tub 3 2
llino wine 16
zllm􀂣 weapon 51
zbroj annor 33
le•n6slnicU nälacf artisanal m.:derial 26
ikopol< lub 4 􀜛 – 210 Chart ll.5.14. Contents of Cellars („Sklep“) – 1 1 0 total locations Q!!I.!S 􀃻 Nr Locatia,.; – 􀴢 􀴣 􀴤 􀴥 ……. callino1 32 22 ……… cabl\&1 ….. 0 .,,..,., 12 …. -· 1. ….. – 10 – dcdo 1 1 „“““ pol 221 21 ….. „‚““ 13 2 – ‚“““ 22 -· „“‚* 12• Zl ,, ca�Pft,\lo.slry .. ,. kO’IIrteictßlgura ……. ,. …. tx:llar.II.O. , . ……. . … 3 ‚““ ….. 112 ‚“““‚ _. . …….. box – … 22 ICL.Ctl􀴩tntt.dl 􀴪ut–11 12 ,. … „“““‚ • ,,.,. …,.., 13 ·- -.“..,,. „‚ 1S …. ‚*‘ .. „“ l(,llo ‚*‘ “ 10 ……….. ‚*'“““ 1:!01 .. „““““ „“““‚ ‚“ “ m6o0noe „““‚“‚ „“‚ • ‚ mkltnice .., … 07 1. .. dan … r. .. .. .1 Nfitl“qa inoWmonl 331 8 Al> .,..,. 10 •
„‚“““-„‚“‚ d􀴁.a:.s „“‚ 14
„“““ d- ·- ..
…. … ““
„“‚- ……
….. boqpon
…… mcnoy 12
p–nfMiad .wns rcr tnoMt11iJ e 3
…. …. 10
pof pofoU/ .. – .. 1S
-· ‚*‘ .., Zl
IX*􀴨-· ‚*‘
„““ …,, “
.-. ….. _ 2
….. .. …
– „“‚ 32
„“‚ .,.
„“““‚ …… … ..
…… .., „“‚“‚
…… .. 􀴦. 13
– „“““ •
..,. .. 􀴧. 13
….“.,, ….. „“““ 10
…… <*’ldllaaek „‚ ..
‚“““ d““‚ 011 “
…… ., 103 …
IMJ;fu ., :n ,.
‚“““““ …… „‚ 22
��n61ec:U􀴫tntty art􀴬ectt 30
\l’nyY.clo ,.,.““ 30 13
……. … 7 •
„““ “
_, — 100 15
„“‚ • 3
feoftMr.:x• Mf3d art“. m.at.�•s ·
2 1 1
Chart 11.5.15. Contents of Svietniee – 87 total locations
Ob!ec:t Hr. Ob!ects Nr. Locatlons
􀴚
􀴛 􀴜 􀴝 Nr loeatlons
-· – !i1 37
– ……. 19
codkllo – 2
lla&e bonle
lla!lt. … 7
tübc:o … ,. 15
b!rinM.si bedbn 117 21
.. map 3 3
mo> _ ..,., .., 30
..“., .. IUO
\ridtll!:ka IOJk ., 17
:oran• – 25 10
„““‚ „“““‚ 12 7
ltm6nuc:tc6n.31􀁗 at11sat\aJioob 28 5
􀀪 ….
2 1 2
Chart 11.5.16. Contents of Pokoj – 29 total locations
Object Nr. Objects Nr. locations
􀜘
Q!jg!n!!l Czech !;!!glish Eguiv. Nr. Qbjects Nr. LQcalions
almara cabinet 5 3
aJrnarka cabinet 4 2
H􀂹ka bottle , ,
hmec pol 5 5
!idle chair 6 3
kamna stove 5
!idlieka chair 1
kniha book 49 4
koberec carpet, lapestry 3 2
konb1ek1/figura picture 28 3
kotel boiler, kettle ,
koten I spices 2
krabice box 3
lavice bench 1 1
listina documents 7 2
lo!e bed 3 1
lu!ko bed 9 7
lo!nl näladl bed linen 26 7
􀴙nice copperpol 1 1
nädobl dishware 98 2
􀂺I doplyflky clothing acces. 4 2
odl!vy clothes 3 2
penize money 38 2
postel bed 2
postylka bed 1
roha antlers 1
yflko ‚“““““
.. ube –
􀴘,.“ ……
„“““‚ bolr.
tot• —
marttal ltlbltl
tV ………. 27
– …. _ ….. 2
(Jl ‚“““ „‚““‚ 30 2 1 10 • . ‚ .,
…… „“““‚ • I I ‚
„.. . .,. Nktry I
polcoj „“““ 20 3 I • • 2 I I I 15
pole*“ room 2 I I
polcojl< rcom • I I ‚
‚“ „“ 2< 3 1 2 I 3 1
ol …… colOr • • 2 • 2
..do. _ molllngroom 7
„“““‚ 7
t’lodOII –
,“., 87 7 • 18 15 • • • 3 33 28
v.rkttll — I
t8hl􀴗 got<lOn
tpltima I“““
Tooal 5-13 138 58 78 .. 141 ,. <8 13 3/3 …
lotald3T3bedt., 19410cMO’JJ
t\:)
…….
„‚
Chart 11.5. 19. Distribution of Storage Furniturr
tocatlon
t.l!l!!2!.
Or!glnal Ct!!Ch 􀜒 rv. locallont
cMlr OOUI1VIId 19
dlevn􀀾 wooel ahed
hll loondry
hi’Oldo malng ·klln
kanoeW tludy
·- al\ed
kom komOOCa chamber 2
kram Shop 3
kU<:Ilyl\ kllchen 15
kuc:hyflke lS 20 12 64 25
I I • 4 2 2 3
20 10 2 I 17
35 20 279 105 70 36 136 65
􀁆!
ii
j􀁶
mi
.. I! :..
E IZ
„‚
..
􀜇
􀜈
<,;) ….. 0 j􀁵 -􀈇 ..Q .E „‚ 0 0 „‚ 􀌫 t: I „‚ u I ;,! 􀀟 N – – – 􀴎 !!I M 0 􀴒 – Niif 􀴑 I lil – 2!! 􀃕 􀴌 ll – ! 􀴏 >l !
􀀠 .., .- .- N …. .,. :!!
>I N ;; – 10 􀴔-N::!- !!
t 􀴕-1″1 g … – 􀃖 … – ;; –
L M• .. 􀴓-… R 􀴍 – 􀜊 N
!􀀜 •N••O􀀝NM􀀞•••N·􀀟􀀠N􀀡O-􀀢N.􀀣􀀤O􀀥M·􀀦–􀀧
I i
j
i 􀈉i􀈊􀈋􀈌 p ii- •• 91 ·t•an – – E ti 􀈈 J 􀈍􀈎􀈏:􀈐 􀈑􀈒􀈓􀈔􀀵􀀵}iiii . :i „““ • • • … e ‚2 ‚2 .u !. 2!!e􀜑! .i􀌭􀌮
I – = J = t • •
􀜏; • 􀅟􀅟 = ! i 􀜌l 􀜍􀜎 􀜉 • ji􀜐 i!i:li􀀗􀀘􀀙􀀚􀀚j 􀀛!􀀜ii􀀝iii{&i􀀞t!􀀟llii􀀠􀀡
217
􀴐
􀜆
ll
0
􀜋
􀌬
..
!
Chart 11.5.21. Distribution of Paintings
􀜅 Nr. Objects N r . locations N r . Households
􀄃
Original Czech English Eguiv.
dvür COUrtyard
dievnice wood shed
hut‘ foundry
hvozda mahing ·kiln
kancelar study
kolna shed
komora chamber 13 2
komorka chamber
kram shop
kuchyn kitchen
kuchynka kitchen
Iaube Ioggia
läzen baths
läznicka baths
lote bedroom
marStat stables
mazhaus 30 5 4
mäzhausek
mfsto place
pav1ac porch
pekama bakery
pokoj room 28 3 3
pokojK:ek room
pokojlk room
slfl hall 6 1
sklep cellar 1 8 5 5
sklfpek cellar
sladovna mahing room
spilec ?
stodole barn
svietnice 1 08 17 1 6
verkStat workshop
zahrada garden
spitima larder
Total 204 34 31
2 1 8
Chart 1 1.5.22. Paintcd Furniture
􀂨 !!….!.2!!!.
lurnlture object 􀜂 blaek 􀂭 green yellow blue unknown color palnted painted 􀜃
􀜄
Qrlglnal CZ!!!; h Engli�h Egulv.
slul Iabia 12 1 5 4 1 3 26 9 291
sloiiOOk table (dlm.) 2 7 2 21 1 33 26 1 1 4
tidle ehalr 2 1 1 4 17 16 107
tldlleka ehalr (dlm.) 6 17 23 23 96
slolice bench 3 7 3 13 1 6 83
lavlce bench 6
alrnara cabinel 4 3 4 6 5 1 25 15 166
alrnarka cablnel (dim.) 1 4 5 14 35
t’V truhla ehest 29 6 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 86 32 260
…….. truhll(:ka ehest (dlm.) 2 3 3 4 2 14 20 70
1.0 truhlice ehest (dlm.) 9 5 2 13 7 5 41 30 138
postel bed 6 16 6 34 24 141
pos!Yika bad 1 2 3 16 17
lote bed 2 7 3 1 13 9 136
IUtko bed 3 1 1 13 1 28 37 76
Total 74 30 47 128 80 1 23 363 1762
% Total Palnled 20.39% 6.26% 12.95% 35.26% 16.53% 0.26%
% Total 4.20% 1.70% 2.67% 7.26% 3.41% 0.06%
Chart 11.5.23. Storage of Books
􀜁 Nr. Obiects Nr. Books Nr. Loeations Nr. Households
􀄃
Qriginal Qzech Engli􀃙 Egulv.
almara eabinet 1 5 335 1 5 1 3
almarka eabinet (dim.) 3 6 2 2
truhla ehest 1 0 3 1 1 0 8
truhlil:ka ehest (dlm.) 2 3 2
truhliee ehest (dim.) 14 133 14 1 2
kaneeläf desk 1 28
lavlee beneh 1 40 1
poliee shelf 7 32 3 3
IV
IV
0 Total 53 608 48 41
Total alone 2 1 1 (37%)
Charl 1 1 .5.2-‚. Storagt‘ of .lt’wt’lry
Object Nr. Obiects Nr. Pieces Nr. Locations Nr. Househoids
􀁪
Origini!l Czech English Eguiv.
almärlla cabinet (dim.)
almara cabinet 2 4 2 2
jine other 1 8 1
kancelar desk 1 2 1 1
krabil‘:ka box (dim.) 3 33 3 3
krabice bix 3 4 3 3
lavice bench
police shelf
1-.:l 1-.:l pytllk sack 1 3 1 1
…… truhla ehest 9 87 9 8
truhlll:ka ehest (dim.) 2 2 2 2
truhlice ehest (dim.) 7 44 7 7
Total 29 187 29 28
Total alone 53 (28%) 1 0 9
Chart 1 1.5.25. Storage of Valuable Clothing Accessories
Obiect Nr. Obiects Nr. Pieces Nr. Locations Nr. Households
Approx.
Qrgi in;ä lQz�h I;ng; l􀃚i h Eguiv.
almarka eabinet (dim.)
almara cabinet 4 5 4 4
jin􀃛 other
kancelai‘ desk 1 1 1 1
krabi􀃜ka box (dlm.) 2 3 2 2
krablce blx 2 5 2 2
laviee beneh
police shelf tQ
tQ py11rk sack
tQ truhla ehest 17 54 1 6 1 5
truhli􀃜ka ehest (dim.) 3 5 3 3
truhllce ehest (dim.) 8 53 8 8
Total 37 126 36 35
Total alone 8 (6%) 4 4
Chart l l.5.26. Storage of Dishwar·e in Gold ancl Silver
Object Nr. Object􀆆 Nr. Pi􀂷es Nr. Locations Nr. Households
􀁪
Original Cz􀂷h Engli§h !;guiv.
almarka cabinet (dim.)
almara eabinet 8 87 8 7
jine other
kaneetar desk
krabltka box (dim.) 1 82 1 1
krabice bix 2 1 9 2 2
lavice bench
poliee shell
pytllk sack 1 1
tv tv truhla ehest 19 332 18 18
V> truhlitka ehest (dim.) 9 77 9 7
truhlice ehest (dim.) 1 3 107 13 12
Total 54 706 53 49
Total Alone 1 65 (23 %) 13 1 1
Chart 11.5.27. Storage of General Art Objects
Table I I . 27 Storage of General Art Objects
Object Nr. Obj�ts Nr. Pi�!:lli Nr. locations Nr. Households
􀁪
Qriginal QZ!ilQh Englil!h Eguiv.
almärka cabinet (dim.)
almara cabinet 7 24 7 6
jine other 2
kancelär desk 2 4 2 4
krabll:ka box (dim.) 6 28 6 2
krabiee bix 2 1 5 2
laviee bench
􀀢 􀀢 poliee shelf
􀛮 pytlfk saek 1 1
truhla ehest 15 94 1 4 13
truhlicka ehest (dim.) 6 36 5 5
truhlice ehest (dim.) 8 31 8 8
Total 47 233 45 41
Total alone 37 ( 1 6%) 1 2 1 2
􀀣
􀀣
(Jl
Ch: u·t 11.5.28. Household Functional Structure
􀅞
Al>rechl, Ka􀃊par
hoyse number lg��1ii��-s �on
837-11
DrzObOhaly, Jon 1056-11 01 1057-11
Brzobohalj‘, Jan Eustachlus Na politl- „between the
houses called Kulikü end lhe Laie Oenle􀛘 Errdcn
lying on bolh sldes“
Bllobohaly. Mal􀃋)
Fa)1r. Mellchar
1056-11″‚ 1057-11
Suoka steet • ·on lhe corner
oppos11e Mkula􀃌 Jot’dan·
3
6
12
􀈄-3 \=.r.:,m‘
2 (upste!rs},
6 (lo..,sl)
1. 2 (on lhe sllcel)
1. 2 (do-.lalrs).
3. •. 6. 10 (upslalrs)
3 (upSia.rs)
����:�􀈳 ����7Pon
11
E􀃍
-􀛿–
5 (manlng)
8 (Ia< guesls)
Othor
p••’n , d !l!ll!!J!!l
11 (brewlng) 12 (slables)
2 (WOrkshop)
I2J.!..l.2.!
F1ie, Jllll<
Oralous, Bapltsla
Graleus. MandaM!na
tv
tv
􀂦
Hrnnlcky, Martln
Hv&zdoyjl, Mag<lalena
house number
785/442·11
·near lhe Jewtsh Garden·
•noar lhe Jewtsh Garden·
902-11
782-11
􀛼􀛽
6
6
�on
6 (upslails)
1. J lupslaiiS). 4 downslalls)
1. 2. 3, “ 1upstairs), 2 ln llonl o1 1),
6J ((udndowen• slhtaelr s•o) ol)
4J (1OneCIxOSl l$o II2o)m, 2). 5 „““‚“ lhe lool)
2 !one ge4S IO K IIom 1),
4 111 honl ol 3),
!:iW.!!!lL!!L 􀈃 SOüiCO“ 􀛻 l<I.!!.!>JL iocaiion 􀌩 􀌪
2, J
I, 3
I 1 1 1 1
2 61 2?
2?
E􀌨conomic O!2W!.2l􀌧lhe• -l
6 (Ioggia)
ll.I.Ll2.ll
KoNvodl, Jan
Ko1161ko, Mork)1o
Kotl61ko, Morkyto
IV
IV
‚I
Kill, .Ion
KNiovt. Mogdeteno
noutt nurober 􀁳 FfoW!fclßon
„ICiotl lrorn lht porlsh
house ol SI. Sl01>htn on
lhtC<ll..,..
13
748·11 01 748-11 1 1
„seccnd-on Skot<6 7 Slroet nm lo lht ltoUOI Br1llo1htn on
lht ……..
1 tlrontol2).
4, 5 ! on
? 3)
87, 9. 10, I e““‚entIeo<k)s, )
8 (..-lht rool)
I, 2, 4 (upsloh)
4 ,, .. ,,
8 („“‚Ioks)
„“““‚“
2 elrorn 1),
4 ), 5 hlghtsl),
9 (on lht ccurtyord)
!W.!F.!2.!l F.%l�l8� 􀀒
2. 10, 12 12. 7, 9 27 1?
8 9, 10 ?
I, 4, 7 ? ?
􀀊
I I (􀁑)
2!=““· 5 cotter ,
3 (‚bolht“ll
8 (b< …. ng), 9 e(brheewlng-) . 10 (2nd ehe-/ boer) •·d 3 („bolhl“)) j I !.rijL I ,. o__- … d 􀀜 ..􀀝. 􀀝 ft _ 􀃔 .., ��- 􀇿 􀀞.I l dir 􀛷 J … u :;:u u .. §u n .., … …. ., _.,_… 􀀖 … .. :! 􀛸 􀛹 8 : n 􀌦􀁲 I.i 􀈀 J !: ;;; 􀈁 I!! J “ … ß I 􀀛 l 􀛺 • • ! J •. I 228 tV tV \0 Rl112ll MIIOI>UII, Mirtin
Nyol, Jon
P81kori, Ann1
􀇾=t..􀇽 ·
Per,.,..r.􀀦n
bOUII numbtr
832·11 􀁳 P.WP?:J:Hon mh􀁴 􀁃􀁄􀁅 I I
350·11 • „ln lhe hause ol JUI 2
Zygor
ChervetaU streel 10
791·11
778·11 11
1 (boloW)
2 \loods lrom21).
4 …“roks)
1 (upslolrt)
1 􀀕rott IIom 2). 􀅝
3 1n lronl ol lRUf on 1too porch),
7 llle lhe 1001 1). 􀌡 our.J’=tllool) 10 r.cros• trom 4 be6ow}
􀌢a )􀌣bolow r5􀌤), 􀌥;
9 ..-lhe oleps),
11 (in 10?)
10
I, 3, .
7 t-). 􀅝 rewlng),
1o t5n).
l i ehe-/
1)
5 (bok…“ )
IVw 0
U!l2!l Pern1<61, Butyon houto numbtr secondhouse 􀀴 r&VP!:CIRo.
po Mlrtlnu Cokr61ovl. Vorllle Slrokt “'““‚ · „llel….,n lhe 9
􀇼:􀇶’lc􀇷􀇸􀇹􀇺􀇻h)
Samec. Adem 652·11 14
Slon. Jon 777-11
s.-. JIII 780/761-11 14
23 (OIJPO<􀴋O I) (under lhe rool),
C lon lhe po<ch)
6 ln 71
9 in lhe cour1yard)
2 )'“ lronl ol 1 ).
􀂬6 (IOwe:rl :l;., 12 (upsla rs))
21″‚ 1)
3 on lhe slep5)
5 downsloh OllPO!IIe 4)
c􀇴:::, 2J1
7 (undar lhe rool)
9. 14 (ln lhe courtyard)
13 (belorelhe houta)
􀁱􀁰 k Un n 1 lh !W!!2!l –􀇵 M\!Po’lcl 􀁂
1, 3. 4
4 rroorn on
lhe bllcony
wtlere sugar is
_,
6 (sloblel.
&-12. 14
(lenants)
11 (OI’donl 1 (lor 1…,
gues1o).
IW12!l
Tolell. Mom
Vodak. ZAPOI lho KOI 􀌠· PQf ), 56 odown lhoi’IS IcOoIoISr1)y, 1ud)
I loWOI s;ound iloorl,
2 (􀌟 e 3 ol lhe SIOC>SI, 3, 4 I IQhorl .
5 (Undel lho lool),
e (IJI)OIIIrll,
7 (lowetl
2 {ICIOII from 1 ),
􀇯7· 9 /:,lup 􀇰s/;.lo l!eou<ts) yordl. 1 I“‚ 21. 36 (olno l4he. c ounyard), 8 /opposfte 71. 910 ;golng l(lSIOirS on lhe slepsl. (golng on lho sleps 10 lho u:11om71 Ir 􀈂 􀀒 􀀊 Iod 􀁁 I I 9 10?, 1 1 7 :􀂬l=)lc.), 12? 1 57 ? 8‘ We“rn““} „�I􀁐· 7 2. 7 n 1, 8. 9 13 (barn) j i 􀴈 – II ? 􀛳 .. d : fi it�J􀀍 I 􀌜 .! Ii I 􀁮􀁯 􀀎!! ;:- ,;;; I h 􀴉 .. .! .2􀛵 n l S- 􀛴,g e jjg 􀇭 .., .. „‚ „‚ 􀀖 .. ., 15 I Ii ! ;l 􀛯 lo; :i ,;. .. . iil „‚ ::e i 􀌝 Q. ;:j >
j J 􀌞
.!1
􀛲
< >
i 􀛰
I 􀛱
i I :! 􀇮 I
232
IWWl hPUit numbtr
z llemeretku. AMO Zlulltkt new stn..ldure
(novt lla .. nl)
z􀄗u. Ba􀄘ol<>rnel 747·11
z..,.,.r
t-:1 z Orrc>orku, Brllorku. Zlk““rd ZYOIIOI Kv61onakt slroo4
z C.slalovtc, Jolll P••ll“‚ 791-11
􀇨 �Wtfc:6on
27
19
30
4
21
24 !lrom 25 lo lhe kHchenl.
27 no•l 10 26)
1. 3 (upslalrs on lhe losl ltoo r).
2 (in /ronl ol 1)
􀇪7 l=on lhe :-�<01􀇩111 )􀂼. bohl oo 8), 14 ln lhe back ), 11 (lrom 16) 1 IUQSIIkl). 5 -·· 8). 14 !l>ohlnd 5
7)
,
17 ecro11 lfom 18),
19 htgher on lhe stroatl).
21 from 23 on lhe elreet),
27 acroulrom 28),
29 under lhe botconvl
1 (upslaks)
2 (noJCt lo I )
3 (u.-gra<nl) 7 (in front o1 5), II lunder lhe rool), 12 ln lronl ol 101. 13 downslalrs). 1!. rrom IS). 19 -1 !2U!Ir!2!I –􀀒 7 10 7 7 97, 197 97 7 2 5 7 1 7 7 16 167 􀀊 11 (llo!HI), 12 rhed). 13 spllec 7), 14 maHtng), 15 browtng) 17 chent>or/
_,,
1A IM􀄖\
1 1 („cellor
-to lhetln
dlshwafe wu
mado“),
l􀇬l!=l 􀄙relln
ttkhWrMt•
8 (loundry),
13 􀇫Shed) 14 cherrt>o</
wtne)
9 (hll)
9 (cha.-r)
18 (maltng).
20(drlnktng)
•·d
12 !bllh),
26 ·men’l
room1
5 („whero ha
hold oll lto“))
l l (woopons)
!‘-.)
(.V
􀛬
Rl112!l hOUII numb!l
z Clchenove, Anne Stenkcw‘ Slrok.6 slreet
z lul zLul 792·11
new s1rut1ure
(nov6 olo .. nl)
z Rodkovo,To“,.t VOC!Ieko 1057·11 01
1058·11
z Atjt16no, Udlslav Golus H9-11
.!B!…!l!…. 0foV“ „:‘:R 􀛭 f• rlc on
9
11
13
1 (higher)
5. 6 lundor the rool),
r1 ,.:f..􀇦􀇧rrd)
1 llrom 3 on lhe rlghl oldo),
2 “““‚UJ· 4 rrom3,
5 ln Ir o1 􀴇).
8 under lhe loof$),
10(-)
􀁴 􀁭 􀇥 M�fPon 􀀊 ��Qfltd
ll?
57 6 (spl tee 7) 7(-elhe
…. ushop
IS).
8 (belhe)
e�:,-,􀄚r/ 10 (tlablot)
8 (mollng) .
ll (mollng
cou􀄛􀄜ord),
10?, 11 8 (chember) 11 (lltbles)
liW.2Jl I!SIU.III DYmlillt
z Aovln, Vlclliw Kerner)“� m1 848-11
z Vofllen6. M4􀴾uW!S A:lte 853·11
z: V)“‚Ok6. 1 00″1; Nejltdf􀂪 36b·ll
tQ
w
(Jl
l Vysotut Tob􀴆l NalediY 37(11)·11
l Vysok6. JOOI!It Neledl’f 36b 01 371·11
Zl Z-wo..-U, OINel AUJin Na blel•
Za.tj, Ja,n SMOUatuset
􀇡 mem“ 􀀘􀀙 􀀚 22
2•
27
5
I
16
6
1, 2 ldo􀂩ltlrt), 2. ,, • 12 ·=􀌕􀌓􀌔
21 ‚upstetra undet the rool)
2 ln t lo the housl on lM •n1. I r 1110 NI on lho IoD), 11 5 ne1110 4),
8 upsllllfl), ,, r·“‚ lo 10).
11 clownstatt1),
20 on lhe (I)Uftyttd)
! \‘;!􀌒. 1),
1, s. 17,24 ‚ \““““51. 8 o long 8 .
2􀇢7: ,􀇣.􀇤,.. , .. gtoundl: loto )
, 􀌙􀌚s,;�:::,􀌛,. 10 ‚
3(undetQIOUf’dl
1 (ln the bad! I
􀂫 􀌎􀌏􀌐 on U\e ,.“ hand). I
7 (\4)SIIirS).
8 1 acroS1 lrom 7),
t4 (urrJergtound)
15 (ln hont ot the hQuse)
2 􀁬on SI.
3 1n hont 01 11.
4 on S)
I I ?. IS? ?
18120
IQ720? 17. 18
5 4, 24
1 27
‚ 41
􀇠 􀁀 􀌖􀌗􀌘·.tood) 5 (tlebiH}
23 (ltoed)
13 (meiUr’IQ) 8 Ctlab‘-t),
1 7 (1Q0m
ebow IN� bttht)
8 (chetrOerl
….. )
10 (c.hlrrotr/
…. .. )
9C􀌑“ 12, 13
““btel)
II IShed),
16 {barn)
Chart 11.5.29. Distribution of Furniture-�etd
N r Nr. Nr. Nr. Nr.
lo��ßo n l!!!l2!l h2UI!! nymtlS!‘ ��,TJ� ß�Wion �\’1t� 􀁨..!!S..!..L 􀁩!2a!!2!!. 􀛫􀁪 pn,!2W.!l􀁫toll.!l ��\,Ion �“�n
Albrechl. Ka􀄲par 837-11 2 3
Brzobohaly, Jan 1056·11 or 1057-11
Brzoboholy, Jen
Eustachius
Na polltl – „belween lhe
houses catkfd Kutlkö arld
I. 4. 5. 8 2, 2, 2, 4 I, 4 12, 3 I, 3. 6 2. I, 2
lhe Iaie Oaniele Emclen
lylng on bolh sides“
Brzobohel)‘. Mal&l 1056-11 or 1057-11 I. 4, 8 3 2. 25 I. 7 2. 10 I, 2. 3. 5 I. I. 2. I 2 6 􀁔w 0\ Fa)’fr, Molk: her Sl1ok* sleet · „on 1he 3 6
corner OllPOSne MII<Uiat
Jordan“
Frte.JIIIk 7851442-11 I, 4 3, I I 2 I. 2 5. I 5 3
Oraleus, Bapllsla ·near the Jewtsh Garden• I 2 I, 4 I, I 2, 3 3. I 2. 3 I, 5
Graletrs. Mandalena ·near lhe Je-Msh Garden“ I. 5 6 I 4 1 6 2
Hranlcky, 􀄳rlln 902-11
Hv6zoova, Magdalena 782·11 1 3 I, 5 2, 3 3, 4, 5 2, 1, 2
labte rlta‘.�gNr 􀀾 􀁞 NF“‚r t“‘ Nr. Nr 􀀿 l!.l!..l.IU! house number locallon !.Q.il.l!.2!!.􀄂 􀀹􀁦􀀹􀁧f􀛥h•n ���·: Pot\,ton !2a!.!!l!l
KaMvoda, Jen ..a cross ltom lhe parlsh 1, 2. 4. 7, 1 , 10, 1 , 1 , 2. 1 1 2, 1 1 , 1 2, 3, 4, 7, 6, 2. 1, 3, 3, 4, 7 4, 4, 1
llou5o of SI. Slephen on 9, 10 3, 1, 1 9 1
lhecorner“
, Kot,.fl Kot􀃟fka, Marky1a „socond hause on Suok6
Slreel next 1o lhe houes
1, 4 1, 2 5 2
o1 Brrkclho Zvonar
Km. Jan 896-11 1 2 1 1 1 3
IV
(;.)
—l
Kfllovtl, Magdalena ·across hom lila parish
llouse of SI S1ephen on
lhecorner“
1, 3, 4, 5 3. 1, 1, 1 1 1 1 . 3. 4, 5 3. 1, 1. 2 3. 4 2. 4
Kyndrmon, Thomas „near lht 01y Hall on 1ht
amr“
1, 5 4, 4 1, 5 1, 2 1, 2 2. 1
Lesnar. JVIk 775·11 I, 3. 4 2. 1, 1 1 1 2, 6 2. 3
Lopa1sky, Ci!lrlan Zidovsk6 slreel 1, 2, 4 5, 3. 4 1, 4 2, 1 1, 2. 3, 4, 2, 1 , 2. 1 , 3. 7 7, 1
5 1
lynder, Jilfl< „Ojlp9$rte Aehol P6iek· 1 4 1, 3 1 , 1
Makalka. Lldmlla 795·11 1, 3 7, 4 2 3 2, 3 2, I
l!l!!2.!! house number 􀁜!2l !!!!l!.!
Nr 􀁝!.! !a!!2!l
M Nysl. Jan 3Sa-ll · 1n the hause o1
Jill Zygel“
Palkov􀆱. Anna Charvatsk􀆲 streel 1, 7. 8. 10 12. 2. 2. 2
􀆳r;�:􀆵t:�k􀂖z-oma & 791-11
tv w Petnlk61, Buryan 118·11 (1J
PetnlkAI.Iluryan second house
􀌍o rM􀆴l Samec. Adam 852·11 1, 5 1. 3
Slon. Jan 111·11 1. 4 8. 3
Smollk. Jlll 780/781-11 1. 2. 3. 4. 9, 2. 2. 1. 11 1
􀇟!2W.!2.! l
3. 6. 1
1
2
1 2. 1 1
Nr. Nr. F“‚􀄂\t 􀀹􀁨 􀀹F:r·•·‘ 􀛦􀁪
19. 5. 3 4, 6 2. 2 4
1, 2
1 3. 4, 5 3, 2, 2 1, 2. 3. 4, 8. 9. 10
2. 6, 11
2 1 1, 2. 3
1 1. 1 1. 1 1. 2. 6. 1
1 1 3. 4
1. 2. 3 2. 1. 1 2. 3
1. 1, 1 14
􀀾 ����Ion l􀁛o􀈅W 􀈆n
22
‚ · ‚
2. 1. 2. 1,
1, 1, 1
2, 1, 2
2.1, 5
4, 9. 1. 4
2. 2
2. 1
tv
(.V
. MlkuiU
Rute
z Vysok6. r 􀄁􀛣
Nejedly
l Vysok􀂤. TobiU
NeJediY
1 Vysok6. r obl6􀂥
NejediY
housa number
84&11
8S3·11
36b-ll
37(8?)·11
36b or 378·11
ze Zvovll. Danlei AOOio Na blat6
Zloty. Jan Skok6 slreel
ro\\1ßon
I. 2. 3.
10, 13.
116A. t1O7 .?n
Nr
T!ta’HJ�
2. 4. I. I,
I. I. 5. 4.
2. 2
2. 17, 18 I. 2. 2
I, 2. 13. 3. I, I, I ,
17. 24. 2S 2 . I
1. 4. 7 4. 2. 2
3
Nt. Nr. Nr. !<!l!!r.. Cliilrst Cab tnet f“‚lr • ‚•‘ k!lHL pne􀌊1 s1 !2a!.!.2!l 􀌉 􀌈 oca on !2.ä!!2h !.2S.!.!.!2!l
2. 10. 16, 3. 2. 2. I I, 2, 13. 2. 3. 2. 2. 4. 6. 10. 1, I. 2. I.
18 17, 18. 19 4, 2 II, 18, 17, 3, I. 2. 15.
1 7 I. 2 , 1 7 2. 3. I
􀌋􀌌· 19, 20. 1, 4
I, 2. 3, 16 I I , 4, I, I
�\,Ion
2. 17. 18
I, 2, 4,
13,25
3, 2, 1. 1 , 1 , 2 , 4 . 7 2, 1 , 9, 1 . 2, 4
I. 4
I 21 ,22 I, I
2. 2
I, 2 4. 3
3
2. 3. 4, s. 10, 2. I, 4.
8 2
Nr. rmu:n 1, 1, 1
2. I
2l!!12!! hS!l!!! n!;!mbtr 􀁟 􀛧
Nt. lltaW�􀀳 Nt. !.2.a.!􀁞!2.!! !l!l􀁠!l!.!!l!
Nt. Nt. 􀛨􀁡􀁢􀛩 􀁣􀛪 􀁤n �W.,ion Nt. 􀁥,r:“ 􀂗naretku, Anna new slructure 1 , 6, 8, 10 1, 1 , 3, 1 1. 8. 10 6.7, 1 22, 25, 26 2, 1, 1 8, 10, 21. 3, 2, 3, 1. lekd (nov6 stavenf) 22, 23. 27 1 , 1
l CI““IGtku, BMolotnej 747-11
Zvonar
1, 2, . 4, 1, 1 1 3 1, 2. 7 1. 3, 1 •• 5, 7, 18 6, s. 2, 1
l CI““JGtkU, Brlkcl 747·11 1, 19, 23, 2, 1, 2. 2 2. 21, 28 1 , 1 , 1 2 . •. 10, 3, •. •. 2. 30
Zvonal 28 1 1 17, 21, 2. 1, 1 , 3, 1
24, 27, 30
z 0fTC)efkU, Zikmund
Zvonal
Kv61onska streel 4 • 1. 2 1 , 1
z Caslalovic, Jlljl Perger 791·11 S, 6. 7, 8. 2. 1, 1. 6. 8, 19, 20 4, 13, 5 1, 2, 5, 6. 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 , 2, 8, e. •. 1. 1 .
1 2 . 13, 2. 1 , 1, 9. 7, 13, 1 6 1 , 1 , 1 12, 13, 15 2. 6 14, 1 9 , 20 6
􀂯 6-chanova. Anna
1eHkov􀂘
S.okd s1teel 2. •• 5, 7 1, 1, 6. I I. S 10, 1 1, 3 1 , 1 1, 2 6, 3
tv
􀁩
0 z Lu•onos. Jllll< Svll< 792·11 1, 8 3. 1 2 I 1, 2 . •. s. 1, 1 , 1 , 1 . 2 . •. 5, 6 1, 1, 6, 9
6 1
z Lukonos. Jllll< Svll< new structure 3 1 1, 2 2. 1 1, •. 7 3, •• 5
(nov6 slavenl)
z Radl Vodltka 1058·11
z Raj$16na, LBdlslav
Genus
749·11 3. 6. 10 1, 2, . 1, 6, 10 2, 6, 1 1, 2 1 , 1 2, 5 7, 1
l1!l12..!!
Tatek. Adam
Vodak. Zlkmund
Vod􀆶ka, Vk\av
Voditka. VII
IV VodiCkovil, Kalellna
􀁩
…….
Vod1Ckov6 Kalollno
Vodflansky, V*ttav
Wofmut, ßonltaclus
l 6aublnus. Slmoot1 Poldar
􀆻naretku, Anoa d<6 house number loW&!2a! !2!! 783·11 & 784·11 I, 1 1 , 12, 13. 1 4 1074 II 1 Horse Markel 3 ‚“lhe hause lylng bo1ween 1, 2. 7, 8, lhe houses o1 K;xflol 9 !:�>’chlor and Mal lli lynskr
699·11 1, 2. 3, 7,
8, 10
second hou3e 3
698·11
􀇚op􀆷􀇙􀆸􀇘􀆹=n
􀆺ll tower
698·11 1, 2. 4
792·11 2, 3. 6
Nr. f61
.
y s /
􀛢
3, 2. 3, 3,
6
4
1
3. 1. 1, 2,
1
1 1 , 1 , 1 ,
1, 1, 1
1
3. 1, 2
5. 4, 4
􀁞!2.U!.!l !!l
1 1 , 12.
13, 14
2. 8. 9
1, 10
3
1, 4
2. 6
Nr 􀴅f. 􀇛 Cablne1 􀇜􀇝 !..2.a!.!Q.!l iocalion !.Q.U.!.!2!!. oca on
4, 1, 2. 4 3, 4, 10, 2. 1, 2. 2 1, 2, 4
11
1. 5 1 , 1 2, 5
3, 7 1 , 1 1, 2
1, 1, 1 1, 2. 3 2. 1, 2 2. 3. 5. 6
2, 2 1, 3, 4, 7 2. 1, 2, 1 3. 4, 8
6, 5 1, 2 2, 1
4. 3 1, 2. 3. 4. 2, 10. 3. 3. ‚· 2. 4. 5
5. 6 2. 2
Nr. Nr. ��w Po%\􀇞 Ion �“�“
5, 1, I
2. 8
1, 5
5. 6. 1, 1
3, 13, 1
6. 2, 6. 1 6
Chart Jl.5.30. Master Book List by Household
l!l!..l.2.!l house number Tolal Nr. Books 􀁚oo ks Book theme Book locallon Book aloraae lvoe
Albrechl. KMpar 837·11
Brzobollal)‘. Jan 1056·11 or 1057·11 2 2/0 Ae11glous=2 3. 6 o10ne /aiOne
8rzobohatY. Jan Eustachlus Na poiiCI • ‚l>etween 1he
houses called Kulikü and
lhe late Danlele Emden
Brzobohaty. Mat&l 105&11 or 1057·11 4 Other=4 10 „“““‚
􀀣
􀜀
t…:> ra)fr. Meileher SlfOkl!i steet · „on lhe OOtner
oppos􀃺a Mlkula􀃻 Jordan“
FriC.JIIIIc 785/442·11 25 412 AeHglous=10, Other:10,
flistory=J. Law=2
1 cablne1 (excluslve)
Grateus, Baptlsta •near lhe Jewish Garden􀃼 10 0ther:10 3 alone
Orafeus. Mandalena ‚“near lhe Jewtsh Garden• 5 110 Aellgl0us:4, Other= 1 5 alone
Hranicky, Manln 902-11 1 110 Aeliglous=t 4 ehest (dlshware. bedllnen)
l!.l!.llUl houst number Total Nr. Books 􀁚oo ks Book lheme Book toeallon Book stor•ae tvoe
Hv6zdo“‚. Magdalene 782·11
Kalivoda. Jan ..a cross from the pedsh 9
..,.,.., o1 SI Siephon on
thecorner“
.10 Aellglous:5. Olt>or:4 2. 3 .• ��I’=· (:KJ::r…) I
ehest (e•etuslve)
Kotlafka. Markyta 748·11 or 746-11 I I Olher•11 1 ehest (olt>or)
Koii!Uka. Markyte „seoond housa on Skok‘
Streel next 1o the houes o1
Br11oZvonel“
!\:)
Krl!. Jan 896·11 26 26126? Aellgtousst4. Ml•ed=1 2 1 sh8n (e•ctuslva)
.J:>w
Ktl!ova. Magdalene „across rrom the parlsh
house ot SI. Slephan on
lhecorner“
3 Olhor=3 5 eabtnel (a•cluslve)
Kyndrmon. Thomas •near lt>o Oly Hall on lhe
oamer“
5 012 Aellglous=2. Olhor•3 1 . 2 cablnel (a•ctuslve) I
ct>osl (a􀄒. documanlsJ
Lasnar, JWik 775·11
Lopalsky, Clprlan Zldovsk6 streel 2 Muted wtlh AeligJous=-2 3 ehest (clolhes. bed IInon)
2!!!2!!. hQ!ill! nymt!!‘ Total Nr. BQQkJ: �oks Book lheme !!gok locellon Book storaae tvoe
lynder, Jllllc ·oppoono Aeoor P61ok“
Makalka. lkfmllo 795·11
Masopusl. Mar11n 832·11 4 110 Rehglous•2. Olher:2 3 ehest (excluslve). alone
Nvsl. Jan 35a·ll · „ln lhe oouse ot 17 2115 Aellglous=6. Hlslory:IO, I olone
Jlll Zyger Olher:l
Palko’/6. Anna Charvalskll slreel 15 212 Aellglous:4, Hlslory: I, 3, 4, 7, 10 ehest (documents)l ehest (lools)
Olher:IO lolone 1 ehest (dlahware)
􀁔􀀋 :􀇔·􀇕􀇖􀇗“:?'““““ & 791·11 􀀋
Pe<n•6r. Buryan 778·11 5 510 Aelrgious:5 2 ehest (toots, textiles)
Pe po Ma􀆼lnu Cukr61ovl, Vor$11e Slrok6 stroet • „botween 15 419 Aellglous=3. Hlslory=1. 1, 2 coblnot (oxcluslve) I cllesl
lhe oouses (u Oltoer=1 (elolhes. jewelry, clolhes acces ..
Kou/1msk’ichl and of a􀀱). alone
􀅞 hause number Tolal Nr. Booka 􀁚oo ks Book theme Book locallon Book storaae typo
Samec, Adam 852·11
Slon. Jan 777-11 6 011\01•6 2 s(wheeallp (ooxncsl)us lvo). ctresl
Smohk, Jill 7801781·11 I 110 AeligiOUS•I 5 alone
lalek. Adam 783-11 & 784-11
Vodak. Zlkmund 1074-11 5 1. Mixed Aellglous•3. wllh l1W•1
1, 5 cablnal (desk. documoniS) I
olone
t-..)
􀀱
(Jl Vod;tko. V6clav Horse t.’efket 41 Olhor•41 2 alone
VOO;tka. VII „Tho hause lylng bolween
􀆚c􀆛e‘:’􀆜“‚ 􀁙:Xflol
1 AeligiOUS•1 2 alono
Voditkov6. Kaletina 699·11
Vodltkov􀆝. Kaietins second hause 2 Aellglous•2 2 elone
l!.t!.!SW. house number Tot􀅥 SQQkJ
Vodllans􀅦y. V6claY 696·11
Wolmul. Bontloclus „opposole lhe belllower ol 1
SI Stephan“
z Baublnus. Sirneon Polldo< 698·11 z Bernarocku. Anna Ztulle􀴄A 792·11 J.4 z llcrnarocku. Anna Zluttcka new structure 89 (nov6 stavenl) t..;) .f;:. l C1mperku, Bart􀛡t 741·11 19 0\ Zvonal z Clrr!>erku. Brrl z Crfll)efku. Zlkmund Zvonal Kv61onsk6 street
z Castelovlc, Jil1l Perger 79HI 28
􀁚oo ks Book 1 heme Book locatlon
013 Olher•7 3
261201 Rellgtous•21. Mixed wtlh I , 3, 4, 6
Aetiglous:2, HISIO<y:1,
Olher=10
1910 Mixed wllh Religlous.67. 22, 23, 25, 26
Hlstory=1 . Olher•21
110 ReUgiOus-17, Other-2 1 , .
3138 Aetiglous:39. ltrSIO 6/10 AeliglouS•I4. Mixed w􀅪h t. 2, 5, 13. 15
Rellgious•3. Law= 1.
Olher:10
Book stor•ae tvDe
ehest (exetusiva), ehest
(exeluslve)
���u􀇇􀇈􀇉􀇊􀇋􀇌􀇍􀇎􀇏􀇐􀇑p‘:/;􀇒􀇓1 dlshware)
ehest / ehest (elolhea) 1 cablnel
(documents) I cabtnet (ueloetve)
alone I t::he$1 (􀅧•et􀅨􀅩lv‘!t)
ehest (elolhes) 1 shel !“““=· atone 1 atone 1 desk
doc: s. Jeweky)
ehest (elolhe5. art) 1 atone 1
cabinet (household obj .
dishware, a􀇆 I cebtnet
(household dlshwaro. art,
documents) I atone
􀀋tv -..]
Q.lli2.!l house numbe•
z Cchanova. Anna Steflkovt\ s.rou street
z Lukonos. Jlffk hfk
z lukonos. Jitrk Svf\1:
792·11
n(neowv 6s lrsulactvuernel )
z Radkova.TomU Vod􀆞ka 11005578··1111 Of
z Ra􀆟l􀂓na. Ladlslav Galus 749·11
z Aovin. V6ctav Kama1y1 ml 846·11
z Vorlien􀂓. Mlkul;l􀆠 Aüle 85J·II
z Vysok􀆡. T􀄁􀛤 Ne,edly 36b·ll
z Vysok􀇅. T oblM Nejcdly 37(a?)·ll
Tolol Nt. Books Ö�r�!�“‚i�oks Book themo Book locollon
2 210
60 110
51
9
148 2210
88
Olher=2
LRaeWllg:ioS,u Os•lhSe. rH:r4s1i O<y•9.
Reilglous•2, Other=49 1. 2. 4
RellgOOUS•6, LOW•2. Olher=1 2. 4
Relgoous 43, Mixed wilh 17, 16, Rellglous:103. fliSIO
I i
li‘ !􀛟
-􀴃 ,!ll u .!.
„‚
„‚
„‚
l
c5
j SI> 􀌃
􀌄 …
;; 􀌅 ‚J: .. .!1 z „‚
j 􀌇 􀛝
‚S 0
0 .!! >
,;. „‚
;; :!! ;:;
248
Chart 11.5.31. Master Pielure List by Household
􀴂 h2UI! numb§t TQttl Nr. Plctur11 Plctyre 12cat1on �e Oenfe
AltHecht. Ke􀆤par 837·11 • 2 Other::4
Bllobohaty. Jan 1056·11 01 1057·11
Br robohaty, Jan Eustachlus Na pol’l:l . 􀆥twecn lhe 6 1 Olher=6
houses catled Kulll<ü end lhe ltlle Oanlele Emden lvlno nn both sk19S“ Bl1obohaty. Mal6j 1056-11 01 1057·11 Faytr, Molichor Sirotl6 sloot · ·on lho corner ()j)j)OSIIO MkulaS JO«Ian‘ tv ..j:>1.0
Fr􀁐.JK1k 785/442·11
Orolous. Bapllsla ·noer the Jewtsh Garden· 7 3 Olher=7
Oralous. Mandaten& ·near lhe Jewish Garden“
Hranlcky. Marton 902·11
tlv61oova Magdalena 782·11 3 1 Aollglous=2. Olher= 1
KRIIvoda. Jan „ocross hom the parlsh
hoose ol 51 Siephon on
thecornel“
Kottalka. Marky1a 748·11 or 746-11
IWI2!l hoult nurober Total Nr. Plcturos Pielure tocellon Plcture Genre
Ko!llllka. Marky1a ·second house on S􀃓ol<•
Street neld to the ooues ol
Brtkcllo zvonar
Kilt. Jan 896·11
KlltoVII. Magdalena „across trom the parlsh
hOuse ot SI Slephan on
lheC<Mner“
Kyndrmon, Thofres ·neor lhe Clly Hall on lhe
cunll“
Lesnar. JWII< 775·11
􀁔 Lopatsky. Clprlan ZldoY’Sk6 street 2 • Por1ral:1
<.11
0
Lynder. Jllll< •opposKe Aehol P61ek·
Makatka. Lldmila 795·11
Masopust. Martln 832·11 3 2. 3 HlsiI, 01her=2
Nysl. Jan 35a·ll • •tn the house ot Jrll
Zyger
PalkovA. Anna Charvalsk• street
􀆽􀆾􀆿􀇀􀇁’tYA<􀂖.z“nna a 791·11
2!!!ll!1 ho“’se numi;!!U Total Nr. Plctures Pietore locatlon Plcture Gente
Pe<nilclll, Buryan 778·11
Pe<nll 􀌁 Ma􀂷lnu CukrGiovl. Siroki\ slreel · ‚“be1ween lhe
Of􀂸ilfl houses (u Koulimskych)
and ol Mrchal AozyiV“
Samac. Adam 852·11
Sloo, Jan 777·11
t-.::1
(J1 Srnolrk, JWI 780/78HI
–
Tatek. Adam 783·11 & 784·11
Vodak, Zrkmund 1074·11
Vodrtka. Vllclav florse Markel I 3 Other:l
Vod1t:ka, VII �:;e=: 􀀺􀀻􀀼;.􀀽,n Aychler ond Mol 1 Bolynskr
Voditk.ovA, Katetins 699·11 2 I Olher=2
Vodrtkovol, Kalellno second hause
I!!!.1J!!l hou�;e numb§:r TgJII Nr PICI!.!’II Pielure locallon Plcture Genre
Vodhansky, V6cla• 698·11
Wolmul. ßonilaclus „opposrte the bell tower ot
SI Stephan“
7 3 Other=7
z Baubinus. Sirneon PoUdor 698·11 6 2 Hislorlca1=6
1 Bemaretku, Anna Zlullck6 792·11 39 2. 3. 6 Hlstorlcal … 2, Other•37
1 Bemaretku. Anno Zlotlck‘ new structure
(nov6 slavenl)
tv 1 Omperku, Bartolom6j 747·11 I I 􀁢Ofk:el.::l
U1 Zvonar
tv
1 Clrr(lerku. Brlkcl Zvonal 747-11 28 I, 21. 27, 28, 30 Aelglous•3. Hls1orlca1=
2. Potrah,, Other•21
z Cil’l1)elku. Zlkmund Zvooal Kv61onska street I 2 Aetlglous•l
z Castalovoc. Jlljl Perger 791·11 37 5, 7, B. 13 Other=37
􀂯 Ck::hanova, Anna S.roi teflkov6
z Lukooos, Jilll< hll< 792·11 12 I Portra􀆦=l2
z Lukonos, Jl/11< Svlk new struchxe
(nove slavenf)
􀀢
CJ1
w
person house number
z Radkova,TomM VOO!tka 1057·11 or
1058·11
I RaiM􀛾na. Ladlslav Gallus 749-11
l novtn. V􀃺clav Kamaryt ml 846·11
z Votlil:n6, MlkuiM Rü!e 853-11
I Vysok􀃻. Tob􀁐t Nejedly 36b·ll
I Vysok􀃼. To blät Nejedly 37(a?)·ll
l VV“Ok􀃽. Tob􀁐t Nejedly 36b 01 J7a·ll
ze Zvovft. Danlei RUbin Na blali!
Zlat)‘. Jan Sirokä slteel
Total Nr. Plctures Plcture locallon Plcturo Genre
POf1raM=1
33 13, 17. 18, 19 01her=33
01her=2
3 1 , 2 RellgloUS=1, 01her=2
Charl 11.5.32. Size of Art & Cultural Object Collections by Household
R.t!1.2!! hSH!U nym!ll‘ „f!o�’Jt Pr;r�,:; 􀁧 􀛚􀋽
Ar I
OliTiwaro 􀁨
Albfecht. KaSpar 837·11 4 small
BrtobohatY. Jan 1056-11 or 1057·11
8f zobol\atj. Jen
Eust&ehlus r::=:􀋾􀋿=􀌀u 6 Stnlllll
and „“‚ lole Danlele
Brlobohat)‘, Mallt) 1056-11 Of 1057·11 4 smaM Standard medium medium
Foyfr. Mellchrlf Slro«4 tteet · 􀄗on the
comer opposlle Mlk\Aal
Jordon·
Frie. Jlllk 78S/.o42·11 25 smatl amall small atNIII
Grereus. BapUsla aoear lhe Jewtsh 10
tv
Genie<>“
(J1 Graleus. Mandalena „near lhe Jewish s smaM lmlll ..!)> Garden“
Hranlck)‘. 􀄘111n 1102·11 I small smaN
Hv6rdov6. Magdaleno 782·11 3 smatl small
Katlvoda. Jan ·across ltom the parlsh 9 small smatl sma11
house of SI SIOI>hen
ontheoorner“
Kol􀄙fl Kon&tka Markyla 􀄚secoocJ houSe on swou
S1reec ne111 to the hOUet
o1 Brilrcllo zvonar-
Kilt, Jan 896-11 26 „“go sman smaA Iargo
Klllov6. Magdalono •ecross hom the perlsh 3
hause ol SI. Stephan
on the ocuner“
small small sman
IWJ.2.!l h2WU numl!l‘ 􀇃 !!l!2ll Kyndrmon, Thotres ·lhneecaomr lheer“‚ O ty Hai on 5
Lesner . ..WJk 775·11
Lop•Usky, Clprian bdO’t’Sk􀴀 stfoel 2
lyndor. – ·oppoSIIe f’ehol P•tek·
Mska••· Lldmlla 7G511
Masopust. Meftln 832·11 •
Nysl, Jan 35a·ll • ,n lhe hoose of 17
Jilf Zygel“
􀀢
Ul Patkod. Anne Chatvetskj slreet 15
Ul
􀃢r:�‘:�‘:z•nne , 79•·••
Pemlk6t. Buryan 778·11 5
Pernlu1t. Buryan second housO
􀋼or Msuaer tlnu Cukr“ovl, tShleto hoktli ossterees (tu • „‚belwene 15 Kauflmsk)’ch) end of
Sarnec. Adam 852-11
Slon. Jan 777·11 6
s..-. 􀃣• 7(!1)/781-11
lt-Y�r�,:�· 􀁧 smell
2
3 smell
smell
small
���·:!;a small
slandard
aUandard
small
Afhtware 􀁨
small smon
……
modlum …..
small
small smell
smatt
medium medium
sman
boWt �r�rJ,;; m!!U X�%t:!“A Ar I IW.Wl h2�U „!.l!I!blt OTiJIW ifO 􀁨
Tatek. Adam 783·11 & 784·11 smatl ‚““‚“
VOOak. Zlkmund 1074·11 5 lo VOO!eka, V4clav Hotse 􀁞tket .. I smalt small med•um small
Vod.ela VII ihe hause tytng 1 small
bet􀂸n the hOuses ol
Kry$1ol Aychler and
Vodltk0\’6 Katefine 699·11 2 smau
voc:Uekov• KateUni 580000 house 2 small sma􀂹
t..J VOOI\ansk)‘, V􀂺lev 698·11 (J1
0′-
Walmut Bonifac1us 􀋻T􀋺􀋹􀋸n
􀂻l tower 7
z Baublnus. Strreon Polidol 698·11 6 smatl smaU small
􀁟rn.aretku AIV\ll 792·11 3< 39 medoum slaMard lalge lolve oc:U i:’na•etku. Anna newslrucluu‘ 89 􀅜·a jnov‘ slavenl) z Otroe•ku Barlotom&j 7.tl7·11 Zvonar 19 I small small small Z C•rrc>e:rku, Bnkcl Zvonar 747·11 56 28 smatt small small smal1
z Otr()erttu. Zl kmund z.,.,..,
Kv(tlonsk• $11HI I small small smatl Sm& II
z Clstetovk. Jilll Perger 79HI 28 37 small standerd medium· smalt large
I!J!!.J.IU! h2!,!U: nyml;utr 􀇄 �f�p�,;!· 􀁧 􀇂 All Oi’i’flware 􀛙 􀂮 ClchAnova, AUM Sno•u’isllnnt 2 • &n\Qtl smelt tettkovt
1 Lukonos. Jlt• hfk 792 II 60 12 1afge eacephonat lafge 1afge
1 lukonos . ..Wik Svfk new strutture 51
(nov6 slave“‚)
1 A8ftk0’118, I omM HY.»l·IIOf smal SrMII Vodlt-􀀰a 10􀀲8 11
l AajSttna. ledlstav
Gallus
149 II 9 1 standald med.,m
tV
c.n l Aovln. Vklav 846-11 148 33 1afge sma• medium 1afge
…..:] Kamary1 mt
z Votller4, Mlltuft.S
nü􀂨e
853·11 88 2 medium staro&ld medtum smatl-medlum
, vvso� NelediY ewceptional
r Vysol NeJedly
J7(a’HI
r Vysoi Nejedly
36b or 37a II • ……
te Zvovtt. Denlet Atbln Na bCat• • small stardafd medium medlum·ltllge
Zlaty, Jan Suokisheet
􀀣
Ul
00
Chart 11.5.33. Location of Art & Cultural Object Collections by Household
QJll1i!!
Alm�chl. t<eSpor
Br1obohaty, Jen
Buobohaly . Jen
Euslachlus
OIIODOnaty, Mal&l
ravtr. Meüchlr
rrtt, Jltlk
Gr􀁟feus. ßaptlsla
Gra.leus. M;)ndatena
tloyse number
831·11
1056·11 01 1057·11
Na pollel . …. “
the nouses c-alled
Kuelkö end the lale
Danlele Emden lylng on
bolh sldes•
1lb611 Of 1􀀳/·11
SkoU sleet . ·on lho
C’Ofntf OQPOSII!
Mllcutat Jordan·
78􀀴•U2·11
􀁠near lhe JeMSh
Garden·
·near the Jewtsh
Gs•<ll!n “
m:- Art Art
JOMI!.V Pot;;:r· ll“ii“nolol 􀛶 􀋷 n􀋶􀂩
2. • 2. 9
lw.,ton Storage loctllon
1 1w1no1
1. 3 1 (personet & art)
2. s. 6 􀇀=’l,􀇁“ plus).
2. s. 6. 8. 10 􀆿==I & 0111.
2. 6
1. 2. 3. 6
t-.;)
(.J1
\()
ll.t!.!..2.!l
lttlllllckV.􀳾rtln
house number
902· 11
ttv􀳿zctoo4. Magdalena 782·11
Kallvoda. Jen
KoiiAika, Marltyta
KoU61􀂛•. MelkY’a
Kill. Jen
Kllto\1􀂜, Magda􀂝ne
Kyndm’OO, lll()rneS
·acro5s IIom the perlsh
house ot SI SIIJI)han
on the ooroetR
148·11 Of 746·11
?.‘:61.􀋴􀋵 to
lhe houeS of B<ilXedl
: I�’\“‚·
1 (mb:ed & artl
s (10015)
2 (mlxed)
2 (personal & ar1 ).
3 („Mne)
􀀉 􀆼 Alt 2.!!!5Ul hoUJt numb!J !.W.!􀁔!2!l t􀂪““‚TI’• !l!l􀆽!l!.!!l! F!2S.I!fi“ !2.!l !2S.I!􀀳!2.!l �Ion Stortp! loc1110n
lesnar. JiiJt 775·11 2 ‚· 2 3. 5. 6 􀇱􀇲􀇳:;-·•·
l opalsky, Clpflan ZldovskA street 3 3 . ‚ 3 . •. 5. 6 1 (dishware).
13 (tood & {lllln)
lynder, J1tlk „OI)C)()Site Aehol P6tek‘ 2 2. 3
Makalka, lldm41a 795·11 8 2 2. •. 5. 6. 7
IV
0\
0
MMOOUSI. Mat11n 832·11 • • • • • 3 . • • {persOMI & art)
Nysl, Jan 3Sa·ll · 1n the hause of Jlll ZmP.r
P81kOv6 AMI CharvalsU sueee ‚ 1. 3. 10 11.0 2 . 6. 7. 8. 􀂅J�:􀂆:.‘:!.c:or. l plus).
􀂇�=!$�􀂌001& 7i1·11
2!!.!Q!l house numbet 􀂫􀁒􀀉 􀁓􀂬 Pe4olk,l, Bl.M’yan 778·11
PernKc61. Buryan second hoose
e‘; Martlnu Cukräfovl. Sirol or􀃠ile -ootwoon lhe nouses
􀃡aufimskYChl and ol
f’lal Aozyly􀃢
Sn.nP.(‚;. Ad<\m 85?·11
tV
0’1
…….
Slon. Jan 777-11
Snl(‚lllk. Jllf 700/7fll-ll
1Atek. Adam 163·11 & 784·11 •
Vodak. Zlkmund 107•HI 2. s s
Mh Art 􀀲 Giöetal 􀂬 iocailon
1 1 1 1
1 . 2 . 9 1. 2. 9
‚· ‚ •
5 5
��g�r�%�
2
‚· 2
1, 2. 1
3,
“
I. 2, 5
�Ion Storage Jocatlon
1, 7 2 (personal).
;􀃞􀃟��& arl)
1. 2. 6. e 7 (clolhos)
1. 3, 4 -4 (mb:OO)
… 5o. 7. 8. 1 4 9 (wlne) .
12 (b061}
I, 2, 4. S, 6, 1 (personal & art).
8 4 (personal & ar1},
10 (cookongobjeciS)
2. 3. 4, s 5 (mlxed & or1),
6 (wlne)
IW.12!l
Vodltka, VActav
Vodttk&. VII
VOdltkov•. Kalehna
VodltkovA, Katetlna
tv
()\
tv Vodhan,ky, Vk\av
Wolmut. Bomlaclus
z Bau􀃒nus, Slll’lleOn POIIdor
􀋱 Bernetetku, Anna
<.<ickrl
house number
Horse Mßrke1
„T he house tylng
between lhe houses ol
Kry$1ol Ry<:hler ond Mal􀃑i Bltynskr 699 11 secend house 698·11 „Opt>OS“e lhe beM
tower ol SI Stepnan•
696·11
192·11
!l!al!l!􀁔􀀉!l 􀁕• n
‚ ‚
3
7
I. 3 ‚
efh. All !l!a!􀁖!2!! 􀁗“
‚ ‚· 2
6
•
3 3
7 7
I, 3. 6 I
!l!al!l!􀁘!l ‚· 2
2
•
2
3
3
I, 5
Wotlon Storeae toc•Uon
2. 3 , 4 . 5, 6 􀋰 􀋲�:.“:‘ :rtrn). 5 (weopon<) 2, 3, 5. 6 􀆶 􀆹􀆺􀆻::l1& art), 3, 5. 7, 8, 9, 4 (mlxod), “ 6 (dlshwate) I (mlxod) 5 (wkle) I 3 (mi>O<ll
3. 5. 6 3 (personal & art)
I, 2, I (mhced & al1)
:􀆷:i􀆸·, 9 (rrUed)
􀳽 house nurober 􀀹 􀂫 tJ’c‘;tl�� 􀀷􀀲·I 􀀸n r
!!!l!!!.l!.l! 􀂭􀀳 �Ion Sol rtge locellon 􀌰lemaretku. Anna newsltueiure 21, 23. 21 5. 6. 8. 16. 23 t•ed) 􀅜 … (novt staveol) 20.21 24 mlxed).
27 ml•ed)
z Clmperku. &rtolom!t 747·11
Zvonal
4. 7 s. I I I. 1 8 4, 5. 7 I, .’l, <4. S. 14 2 (OOOkong oi>Jecls ptos).
5 (mlxed & „“l·
18 (mlxed & er1)
1 Qn>c>etku. 8ukcl
Zvooar
7U·II 27 :JO 27 27, 30 10. 1 1 . 17, 21 1. 10. 1 1. 16. 4 (mbed).
19. 21, 27 􀆳; 1􀆴􀆵=1PiusJ. 23
27 (personal)
z Qrroerltu. Zlkmund
lYOMf
K􀂌onsk6 street
1-..)
0’1
w
z Casta’o“‚c:. Jllll Pecge. 79 Hl 1 I, 13, 15 1, 5. 13, 15 I, 6 I, 2. 15 2. 6. 8. 10.
14, 15
1 (mlxed & •“!. 2 (personal & art).
• ( ….. ). 8 (personof & lrl).
tS (personal & art). 21 (w1ne)
􀂮 CIChaf\0\la. Anna SuOkt\slleel g
leffkOYi
g 1, g 1, 2. 3 1 (Pt110081 & ert)
z I ukonos. JUI’k hlk 192·11 5. 6 5. 6 6 5. 6 5, 6 3. 5. 7 2 (CioffM!S). 􀆲 \:!::i).
z lukooos . .MHk Svfk newsuuctUte 7
(nove Sla..,nl)
1, . 1 , 4 7 (rnnced),
1 1 (w.ne)
l!l!!1l!.!! tlOUJt numbtr 􀁔􀀉 􀂭􀁓 z RadlO U
Noiedl’l
360 01 311-11
ze ZvovU. Denlei Rubin Na blal􀂕 2 2. 3
Zlalj, Jan Skoki slreet 8
afh. Arl l2S.I!􀁐!2!! !.!F􀁑“‚ !S.!l!2!! !l!S.􀋮!.Il!2!
2 2
17. 19 H. 19 16, 17, 19
I, 5 I I
•. 5 1, 4, ?3
7 3 1, 7
2. 3 2. 3 2. 8
8
�Ion Storeoe locellon
1, 2, 4, 1 12 lwlnel
818 .􀳻 i 91,6 2o 1. 72 1 4 (wlno plusl.6 (mlxedl. 18 (tnxedl‘ 19 (tnxedl
1. 4. 16, 18 1 (pefSONI & art), 31Ck)ehes I llnen), 4 (ml•edl. 5 (mlxed & ool). 6 (bed = &7 ‚:=,�(�􀁚!t;,. ‚􀁘(􀁙l g
Wnen). 1 􀋯 (bed ‚“““J· 21 (lood & oralnl 22 uooa a oteJnt 2 f’Mnl‘
I18, .2 .1 93., 12. 1 {ml•ed & art), 3 (>Moe plusJ. 4 22. 23. 2024.. 2t1 (!􀂑dlshWBI:J,s /· 7 (tnxod I artl. (wlne). ;..:,:,I,“;S“/􀂒c!;.􀂓􀂔t!<,1114
pJusl. 27 cwlnel
1 (clolhns 1- .. non)
I, 5. 7, 8 1 1􀂖::::: 14 (mlxed)
2. 6 • (cooklng Oblocts).
s
!:V
0’1
(}1
Chart 1 1.5.34. Gifts of Material Cnltur·e
person
CukrM. Martin
Grafeus. Baptista
Hasik. Krystof
Hv􀂪1.dova. Magdalcna
Kalhoda. Jan
Kobisky. Katciina
Kotl:if. Buryan
Kotlatka. Mark)ta
Gifts of Material Culture
half a ccn􀛗·t of pe111er dishwarc tobe given to Ludmila (daughter) by Vor􀂫ile (wifc)
none
all pewtcr dishware to Manha ,.who serwd mc and 111) wife long years“. tableiS to write on to Master Jan
Sturpanslcy
cveryday clothes. two goblets. two rings to Katefina (daughtcr of Mattj Br1.obohaty)
c1cryda􀀩 clothes from former mfc to my daughtcrs in cqual pans. cash. clothcs and tin and copper dishware to wife
and childrcn. sihcr (daughtcr) .. in order that she remembers her mothcr“. Iirearms to Danicl and Ondicj (sons)
none
1 2 centyt ofhoncy 10 Adam (son). sihcr goblct 10 Anna (Adam·s daughter). fur coat to Man in Kaudclek in Caslav
nonc
tv
0’1
0’1
nerson
Kfif. Jan
Lesnar, Jilik
Masopust. Martin
Svik, Dartief
Tatek. Adam
Gifts of Material Culture
silver ru/ich, all evcryday clothcs. golden ring witlt herald of Jilik Skrabka. tluee flutes, two violins to Adam (son of
Anna Sausova), drcss. engildcred witllin and -..tthout 10 New City burgher Jifik Brocet. goblct newly cngildcred
witlun and “􀄋thout to Vaclav Kundrat, two silver belts to A. Appolena. Justinc and Ludmile (childrcn of Jan
Talkmer), golden ring with onyx stonc to Zdentk Brodsky z Ti’ebon, golden chain and thrce other itcms 10 Lidmila
BrodskY
see real estate
none
two golden goblers in mcmory of my grandfather MikuiM Karyra L Rczna ro Jilik, spoons to Joharma, and two golden
goblets. a pear given to mc by Mikula􀀺 Karyta, and a third goblet given to my by Mandalenus z Tannifclda
sec real cstate
z Cimpcrku, Barto􀀺 .,largc bell wluch Imperial Prince Karl ordcred for 1000 kop Meissen·· to wifc
z Cimperku , Brikci Jan two silber goblets, cnglildered ring 10 Vor􀀺ile (daugh1er of latc Sirneon Strejc); 12 silver spoons 10 Jan Kamaryl z
Rovin (my ward). o1her cngildcred items to othcr unspeeified peoplc
z Cimperku, Jan Kry􀀺lof vest and small glass goblct to Ondfej KnoOirek (guardian)
l Cichano‘ a. Anna Stefikoni three gold belts. four silver bells. gold nccklacc. and other je\\clry including rings with stoncs (sec description).
clothes. bedlinen to Vor􀄌ile: bedlinen on large and small bcd in „komom·· across from svictnice“. bedlincn in ,.upstairs
svtetnice“. and in rooms whcre children sleep to Stefan (son of TobiM): golden chain and fur coat to Lidmila
(daughter ofTobia􀄍): two engildcred silver mugs to Oldnch RaMtcjnskY z tichanova
Chart ll.5.35. Number and Distribution of Beds by Household
R.!!!.2!l hQ!:!U! [!Umb!r 􀀇 Bod locatlon Nr Bgs;!!11QCIII2n i:;.�m�m· ���:��e;tocation
AIJf8Chl. Katper 837·11 3 3 3 3
B<lobohaly, Jan 1056-11 or 1057·11 9 I, 3 3. 6 1 3 (Adam)
BnobohatY. Jan fustachlus Ne pollc!l • ‚balween lhe
houses called t<:ue.ü end
7 2. 5. 6 2. 2. 3 6
lhe Iaie Danlele Emden
Brzoboholy, Moi•J 1056·11 or 1057·11 8 2. 5. 6. 8. 10 2. 1, 3. 1, 1 2. 6 2 (deceased),
6 (children)
(\.) Fayfr. Melichar Skol<6 s1eet · ·oo lhe corner
„‚
opposl(a Mtkula􀃬 Jordan‘
…..:)
Frlc!. J􀃭lk 785/442·11 3 2. 6 1. 2
Graleus. BapUsta ·near lhe Jew+sh Garden·
Graleus. Mandalena ·near lhe JeWish Garden“‚ • ‚· 2. 3. 6 1. 1 . 1, 1
Hranlcki‘, Martln 902-11 5 •. 5 3. 2
Hv􀃮zdov6. Me(ldalena 782-11 • ‚· 2. 3 . • 1, 1. 1, 1
KaUvoda. Jen •acmss trom the perlsh 7
I’Ml •. S, 10, 1 1 2 . 2 . 1, 2 5. 1 1 1 1 (rernele cook1)
lheawnef‘
·eadroom • 􀛖 􀀇 Nr. Beds/ locll lon !2W!2.!l Sleeping locatioo
􀅛 housa number Btd loctllon
2. 3. 7 2 (apprenlices). K 3 {female cooks)
Ko11<11ka. Mork)’la „second house on Skoi<1 1o 1he hooes ot
Bnt Kill. Jen 896·11
Klllova. Magdatena ·across lrom lhe parfsh 5 3. 4 2. 3
hoose ot St. Stephan on
lhocorner“
Kyndrmon. Thomas ·near fhe CHy Half on the 5 1. 2. 5 1. 3. t 2. s
comor“
Lesnar. JWII< 775·11 5 1. 2. 3. 5. 6 \. 1, 1. 1, 1 􀀣
0\
():)
itdovsk• sueer Lopatsky. Clprtan 4 3. 4. s. 6 1, 1, 1, 1 6 3 (docoosed)
Lyndor • .lilA< ·-·· Aohol p, …. s 2. 3 2 3 2. 3
Mokolko. Udmlla 795·11 14 2. 4. 5. 6. 7 t. 1 ••. 3. 5 2 ••. 5. 7
Masopusl, Mertln 832·11 6 3 .• 3. 3 3 .•
Nyst. Jan 35a·ll • ·., the housa ot Jttt 3
zygar
􀀇 􀆨m· 􀁶
IW..l.2.!!. hSHa!ll nym�l‘ �!!i! 12§11120 Nr B!�IIISBilll2n Sletninq location
Petkov6, Anna Chervatsk6 ttreet 8 1, 2, 6, 7, 8. 10 2. 1, 1. 1, 1, 2 7, 10
:􀆪􀆫r􀆬. •􀆩 Anna & 791·11 0
Petnl<61. Butyan 778·11 2 1, 7 1 , 1 7 7 (COOle)
Pemlk61. Butyan second house
po Mattinu CuluAfovl. VCMSite SlrokO slreel · „between the .C 􀆭:􀆮=􀆯􀆰􀆱h)
1 , 2, 6, 8 1, 1, 1, 1 2, 8 8 (COOle)
tv Samec. Adam 852·11 10 1. 3 . .c 3. 2. 5
0’1
\0
SIQrl. Jan 777·11
Smot•. Jill 780/ 781-11 I I 4 5 7, 8. 14 1, 3, 5, 1, 1 5. 8 8 (COOleS)
Tatek, Aelam 783·11 & 784·11 13 1, 2. 4. 5. 6, 8 1 4 2 2. 2 2 1 . •. 5 8 7 (cook).
8 (pachol).
Vodek. z􀃹mund 1074·11 5 2. 3, 4, 5 1 1, 1. 2 3 4
Vodltka. vaclev Horu Morket 7 2. 3, 4, 5 6 1. 1, I, I, 3
􀅛 h§:Hi!l! nymt!lr 􀀇 Bed !ocallon Nr IU!�JIIQC1t12n 􀆦􀆧 􀛕 􀁟jnq Jocation
Vod􀁓ka. VQ 􀋬:;eoo􀋭 􀋫􀁏􀁝􀋪􀁞en 5 2. 3. 5. 6 I, 2, I, I 2
rlychter end Met J Btlvnskr“‚
Vodil!kovt. Kaletina 699-11 16 3. 5. 7, 8. 9, I I 3. 2. I , 3, 5. 2
3. 5, 8, 9. 11 s (lomole cooks)
VoditkovA. lerku, S.rt-j Zvooal 7<7·11 12 I , 3, 4, 5, 14 I, 4, 4, 2, I 3 . • 3 (apprenllces) z ClrTOerku, Brlkcl Zvonat 7H·II 12 1. 10, II, 16, 19, 21, 27 1, I, 3, 2. 2, 2, I 10 z Cirrc>erku. Zlkmund Zvonal KvAtoosk6 streel 2
􀀇 Bad locatfon i:ce�•,g�m· 􀁶
l!.!!..l.2.!). h2�1‘ n!.!mb!r Nr. B�dl:f12,1ll2n �lbRi!:!9 IS!S:!Uon
z Casla\ovtc, Jlql Perger 791·11 42 ‚-· 6. 8. 10, 14, 15 2. 1, 3, 1, 2, 32 2. 8. 15 10 (son),
14 (children)
1 behanova. Anna SteNkov‘ Sirok6sueet 5 1. 2. :! 2. 1, 2 1 3
t lul 7 (deceased·s wife)
1 luloonos Jlllk sv• new SlfUCIUfl 5 1, 4 3. 2
(novtll sl&venU
z Aadkova,Tom6l Vodltka 1057·11 „‚
1058·11
l RAJ$t6na. ladlslev Gallus 749·11 8 I, 2, „· 7 I, 2, I. 4
tv-.:)
……
l Aovln. VACI&Y Kemary1 mt 846·11 23 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 2, 1 , 2, 1 , 1 , 6, 6, 4 16 16 (1omale cook)
z Vo“ltn8. M11 16 (children)
1 VysoU. Toblai Nejedly 36b·ll 21 I, 2. 3, 12, 18. 19, 20. 22. 23. 24, 26 I, I, 3. I, 1, 4, 2. 1 , 2. 2, 2 I, 7, 13, 16 22 (Jindlk:h)
1 Vysok6. Tobl4t Ne)edly 37(17)·11 0 18, 20. 26
z Vysok •. Tobllll Ne)edly 36b or 37a·ll I 1 1 1 (dec .. sed)
ze ZvovN. Oanltl Albln Na blatA 8 I 5 7. 8 3. 2. I. 2 8
ZJatY. Jan Suouslrcel 5 2 6 3 2 2. 6 6 {appt“entices)
Abbreviations
AMP – Archiv Hlavniho mesta Prahy [Archive of the Capital City of PragueJ
APH – Archiv Praiskeho hradu [Archive of the Prague Castle]
AS – Apelacni Soud [Appellate Court]
AUC – Acta Universitatis Carolinae
BVNWD – Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland
CAFJVSU – Ceskä akademie cisafe Frantiska Josefa pro vedy, slovesnost a
umeni [Czech Academy of Emperor Franz Josef for Science, Belle Letres and
Art]
CCH – Ces! CCM – Casopis ceskeho musea !Journal of the Czech Museum]
CSCH – Ceskoslovens! CSAV – Ceskoslovenskä akademie ved [Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences)
DP – Documenta Pragensis
FHB – Folio Historica Bohemica
JKSAK – Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses
JSH – Jihoces! NM – Närodni muzeum v Praze [The National Museum in Prague)
PA – Pamätky archaeologicke a mistopisne [Archaeological & Topographkai
Monuments)
PSH – Prais! SAP – Sbornik archivni präce [Journal of Archival Studies]
Sb.Ak.Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. – Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse
SC – Snemy ceske [Proceedings of the Bohemian Diet]
SPDMHP – Sbornik pfispevku k dejinäm hlavniho mesta Prahy !Journal for
Contributions Towards a History of the Capital City of Prague]
SÜA – Stätni ustfedni archiv V Praze [Central State Archive in Prague]
SÜA RA Fran. Praha – SÜA Rädovy archiv Frantiskänü Praha [Archive of the
Prague Chapter of the Franciscan Religious Order in the Centrat State
Archive]
SÜRPMO – Stätni ustav pro rekonstrukci pamätkovych mest a objektÜ [State
Office for Landmark Preservation]
UK – Univerzita Karlova v Praze [The Charles University in Prague)
VIEGM – Veröffentlichung des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz.
Abteilung für Abendländische Religionsgeschichte.
272
Select Bibliography1
I. Manuscript Sources
1 . 1 . Archive of the Capital City of Prague (Archiv hlavniho mesta
Prahy) – AMP
AMP 473, 474, 2 1 54 – Sestipänskj ü.fad Stan!ho Mesta Praiskeho, Knihy
nälezu ( 1 566-1 582, 1 6 1 0- 16 1 7, 1537- 1 574).
AMP 2 1 49, 2 1 50 – Sestipänskj ü.fad Noveho Mesta Praiskeho, Knihy ü.fadu
( 1 537-1722, 1536- 1 7 1 5)
AMP 5 2 1 – Sestipänskj ü.fad Noveho Mesta Praiskeho, Kniha zprav do rady
a k apelacim
AMP 1208- 1 2 1 4 – Knihy inventä.fu Noveho Mesta Praiskeho
AMP 1 175 – Kniha inventaru Stareho Mesta Praiskeho
AMP 2207-2 2 1 0 – Knihy testamentu Noveho Mesta PraZskeho
AMP 2 1 46 – Kniha svatebnich smluv Noveho Mesta Praiskeho
I.2. State Office of Landmark Preservation (Statni ustav pro rekonstruci
pamatkovych mest a objektU) – SÜRPMO
Pasport domu cp 475-I; 35-II, 36, 747-75 1 , 773-777, 782-785, 792, 832,
890, 89 1 (unpublished typewritten manuscripts)
House owner series for cp 633-636-11, 697-704, 793-95, 822-838, 897-904,
1045-50, 1 073-77 (handwritten notes).
1.3. Printed Sources
Comenius, Johannes Amos. Orbis Sensualium Pictus Quadrilinguis.
Original edition 1685. Reprint, Praha, 1989.
FuCikovä, Eliska, ed. Tfi francouzsti kavaJifi v rudolfinske Praze. Jacques
Esprinchard, Pierre Bergeron, Fran􀆚ois de Bassonpierre. (Three French
Cavaliers in Rudolfme Prague. Jacques Esprinchard, Pierre Bergeron,
Fran􀆚ois de Bassonpierre.) Praha, 1989.
1 This bibliography contains a complete list of manuscript and printed
primary sources, but only a select list of printed secondary sources. See
footnotes for a complete list of sources used in the study.
273
Morison, Fynes & John Taylor. Cesta do Cech. [Travels to Bohemia of
Fynes Morison and John Taylor.] Praha, 1977.
Kuchafstvi. 0 rozlicnych knnech. [Cookbook. About various food.] Praha,
1535.
Lancinger, Lubos. „Z mistopisu Noveho Mesta Praiskeho v 15.-19. stoleti.
Hybemskä ulice I.“ [On the Topography of the New City of Prague from the
15th.. 19th Centuries.] PSH 20 (1987): 138- 180.
—. •z mistopisu Noveho Mesta Praiskeho v 15.-19. stoleti. Hybemskä ulice
I.“ PSH 2 1 (1988): 84- 123.
—. „Z mistopisu Noveho Mesta Praiskeho v 15.-19. stoleti. Na pfikope II.“
PSH.
Liva, Väclav. Praiskä mesta. [The Prague Cities.J 3. Bemi rula. Praha,
1949.
Mendelovä, Jaroslava, ed. Matrika narozenych kostela Sv. Jindficha na
Novem Meste Praiskem ( 1 584-1600). [Parish Records of the Church of St.
Henry in the New City of Prague ( 1 584-1600).] Praha, 1992.
z Dalmanhorstu, Ondfej Klatovskj. KniZka v ceskem a nemeckem jazyku
slozenajkterakby Cech nemecky a Nemec cesky cisti, psati i mluviti uciti se
mel. [A Book in the Czech and German Languages about How Czechs and
Germans Should Leam how to Read, Write and Speak Each Other’s
Languages.] Olomouc, 1564.
Il. Published Secondary Sources
Bedal, Konrad. Historische Hausforschung. Eine Einführung in
Arbeitsweise, Begriffe und Literatur. BVNWD 8 . Münster, 1978.
Belohlävek, M., M. Kosfäl & J . Tomäs. „K problematice studia cen
nemovitosti v 15. a 16. stoleti do doby pfedbelohorske.“ [Problems in the
Study of Real Estate Prices in the 15th and 161ll Centuries to the Pre-White
Mountain Period.] Kolokvium o dejinäch cen a mezd v 16. a 17. stoleti.
[Colloquium on the History of Prices and Wages in the 16th and 17th
Centuries.] Praha, 1962.
Bialostocki, Jan. The Art of the Renaissance in Eastem Europe. HungaryBohemia-
Poland. Ithaca, 1976.
Blaschitz, Gertrud, H. Hundsbichler, G. Jaritz, & E. Vavra, Hrsg. Symbole
des Alltags. Alltag der Symbole. Festschrift für Harry Kühne) zum 65.
Geburtstag. Graz, 1992.
274
Borscheid, Peter. „Alltagsgeschichte – Modetorheit oder neues Tor zur
Vergangenheit.“ Soziales Verhalten und soziale Aktionsformen in der
Geschichte. Band III. Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland. Entwicklungen und
Perspektiven im internationalen Zusammenhang. Hrsg. Wolfgang Schieder
& Volker Sellin. Göttingen, 1987. 78-100.
„Plädoyer für eine Geschichte des Alltäglichen.“ Ehe, Liebe, Tod.
Studien zur Geschichte des Alltags. Münster, 1983.
Boulton, Jeremy. Neighbourhood and Society. A London Suburb in the
Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, 1987.
Brosche, Wilfried. •zu einem Modell der Prager Neuzeit.“ Kaiser Karl N.
Staatsmann und Mäzen. Hrsg. von Ferdinand Seibt. München, 1978. 242-
9.
Burke, Peter. Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. New York, 1978.
Buzek, Väclav. „Domäcnosti nizsi slechty V predbelohorsk)ich Cechäch
(Pokus o typologii).“ [Households of the Lower Nobility in Pre-White
Mountain Prague (Towards a Typology).[ Acta Universitatis Purkynianae.
Philosophica et Historica I. Opera Historica I ( 1992): 42-64.
„Kaidodenni kultura jihoceseych mesfansk)ich domäcnosti V
pfedbelohorske dobe.“ [The Culture of Daily Life of Burgher Households in
Southern Bohemia in the Pre-White Mountain Period.] Opera Historica 1
( 199 1 ) : 43-73.
—. „Mezi dvorem, rezidencnim mestem a rytifskou tvrzi (Domäcnosti rytifü,
meSfanu a cirkevnich hodnostarü V rozmbersk)ich sluzbach).“ [Between
Castle, Residential City and Knightly Citadel (Households of Knights,
Burghers and Ecclesiastical Functionaries in the Service of the Rosenbergs.)]
Opera Historica 3 ( 1 993): 287-3 1 3 .
—. „Nizsi slechta v pfedbelohorsk)ich Cechäch (Prameny, metody, stav a
perspektivy bädäni).“ [The Lower Nobility in Pre-White Mountain Bohemia
(Sources, Methodology, State and Perspective of Research).] CCH 9 1 / 1993
cislo 1 : 37-54.
Buzek, Vädav, H. Buzkovä & Jana Stejskalovä. „Interiery domu v
jihocesk)ich pfedbelohorsk)ich mestech (Zivotni styl mesfanu V dobe pozdni
renesance a man)iTismu).“ [Horne Interiors in Southern Bohemia in the PreWhite
Mountain Period (Burgher Living Styles in the Late Renaissance and
Mannerist Age) .] JSH 1990/LIX/3: 1 1 3- 137.
„Mestske domäcnosti v pfedbelohorsk)ich jiinich Cechäch (Prameny,
metody, stratifikace).“ [Urban Households in Southern Bohemia in the Pre-
275
White Mountain Period (Sources, Methods, Stratification).] PSH
1990/LIX/2: 65-80.
Chartier, Roger, ed. Passions of the Renaissance. Vol. 3. A History of
Private Life. Eds. Philippe Aries & Georges Duby. Trans. Arthur
Goldhammer. Cambridge, Mass. & London: 1984.
Chrisman, Miriam Usher. Lay Culture, Learned Culture: Books and Special
Change in Strasbourg, 1480- 1 599. New Haven & London, 1982.
Daxelmüller, Christoph. „Das Dilemma der ’signalements.‘ Quellen zur
vorindustriellen Sachkultur im Spiegel der Perzeptionsforschung.“
Volkskultur-Geschichte-Region. Hrsg. Dieter Harmening & Erich Wimmer,
1990.
Davis, Natalie Zemon . „Glaube und nachbarschaftliehe Beziehungen. Die
Steine von Ste. Croix.“ Frauen und Gesellschaft am Beginn der Neuzeit.
Studien über Familie, Religion und Wandlungsfähigkeiten des sozialen
Körpers. Frankfurt/Main, 1989.
—. „The Sacred and the Body Social in Sixteenth-Century Lyon.“ Past &
Present 90 ( 1 980): 4 1 -70.
Denkstein, Vladimir. „Stavebni historie klä.sterniho kostela Panny Marie
Snezne.“ [The Building History of the Cloister Church of Mother Mary of the
Snow.) Rocenka krucha po postovä.ni dejin umeni za rok 193 1 . Praha,
1932.
Dillon, Kenneth. Kings and Estates in the Bohemian Lands, 1526- 1 564.
Etudes presentees a Ia Commission internationale pour l’histoire des
Assemblees d’etats LVII. Brussels, 1976.
DraZan, Vlastmil. „Gotick.Y a renesancni mestsk.Y dum z Jiznich Cech a
Moravy.“ [The Gothic and Renaissance Burgher House in Southern
Bohemia and Moravia.) Zprä.vy pamä.tkove pece 10 ( 1950): 129-160.
Dvofä.kovä., Vlastmil & H. Machä.kovä.. „Malovanä. prüceli ceske pozdni
gotiky a renesance.“ [Painted facades of the Bohemian Late Gothic and
Renaissance.) Zprä.vy parnä.tkove pece 14 ( 1 956): 33-73.
Dvorsey, Frantisek. ·o poctu domü V Praze a V krä.lovseych mestech V
Cechä.ch v 16.- 19. stoleti.“ [On the Number of Houses in Prague and other
Royal Cities in Bohemia from the 16th to the 19th Centuries.j CCM LV
( 1 88 1): 478-494 & LVII ( 1 882): 57-73.
Eberhardt, Winfried. Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478-
1530. Veröffentlichung des Collegium Carolinum, Band 38. München,
198 1 .
276
Monarchie und Widerstand. Zur ständischen Oppositionsbildung im
Herrschaftssystem Ferdinand I. in Böhmen. Veröffentlichung des Collegium
Carolinum, Band 38. München, 198 1 .
Edelmayer, Friedrich & Alfred Kohler, Hrsg. Kaiser Maximilian li. Kultur
und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert. Band 19/ 1992. Wiener Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Neuzeit. München & Wien, 1992.
Erforschung von Alltag und Sachkultur des Mittelalters. Methode-ZielVerwirklichung.
Veröffentlichung des Instituts für Realienkunde des
Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Sb. Ak. Wien, phil-hist. Kl. 433. Band
6. Wien, 1984.
Europäische Sachkultur des Mittelalters. Veröffentlichung des Instituts für
Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Sb. Ak. Wien, philhist.
KI. 537. Band 4. Wien, 1980.
Evans, R.J.W. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550-1700. Oxford,
1979.
—. Rudolf II and his World. A Study in lntellectual History 1576- 1 6 1 2.
Oxford, 1973.
Evans, R.J.W. & T.V. Thomas, eds. Crown, Church and Estates. Central
European Politics in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. New York,
199 1 .
Fucikovä, Eliska, Hrsg. Prag um 1600. Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am
Hofe Rudolfs II. Freven, 1988.
FuCikovä, Eliska, Beket Bukovinskä & Ivan Muchka. Umeni na dvofe
Rudolfa II. [Art at the Court of Rudolf II.] Praha, 1988.
Gindeley, Anton. Rudolf I!. und seine Zeit 1600- 1 6 1 2 . Prag, 1862-68.
Goetz, Hans-Werner. „Geschichte des mittelalterlichen Alltags.“ Mensch
und Objekt im Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Leben-Alltag-Kultur. Wien,
1990.
—. „Vorstellungsgeschichte: Menschliche Vorstellungen und Meinungen als
Dimension der Vergangenheit. Bemerkungen zu einem jüngerem Arbeitsfeld
der Geschichtswissenschaft als Beitrag zu einer Methodik der
Quellenauswertung.“ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte Band 6 1 , Heft 9 ( 1979):
253-27 1.
Goldthwaite, Richard. Art and Wealth in Renaissance Italy. Baltimore,
1993.
The Building of Renaissance Florence. Baltimore, 1980.
277
Haas, Feli.x. „Ceskj mesfanskj dum pozdni gotiky a renesance.􀊙 [The Late
Gothic and Renaissance Bohemian Burgher House.) Sbomik vysokeho
uceni technickeho V Bme 2-3 ( 1964): 97- 135.
Handwerk und Sachkultur im Spätmittelalter. Veröffentlichung des Instituts
für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Sb. Ak. Wien,
phil-hist. Kl. 5 13 . Band 1 1 . Wien, 1988.
Harmening, Dieter & E. Wimmer, Hrsg. Volkskultur-Geschichte-Region.
Band li. Quellen und Forschungen zur Europäischen Ethnologie. Hrsg.
Dieter Harmening. Würzburg, 1990.
Heer, Friedrich. Die dritte Kraft. Der europäische Humanismus zwischen
den Fronten des konfessionellen Zeitalters. FrankfurtjMain, 1959.
Hettes, Kar!. „0 hmotne kultufe praiskeho mesf 16. veku.“ (About the
Material Culture of the Prague Cities in the 16th Century.) Kniha o Praze
( 1964): 197-2 1 4 .
Hojda, Zdenek. „Dvur Rudolfa 11. n a Male Strane a Hradcanem podle üdaju
ubytovaci knihy z roku 1608.“ [The Court of Rudolf 11. on the Small Side
and Castle Hili Based on Quartermaster Books from 1608.] Unpublished
manuscript. Undated.
—. „Hudebnici Rudolfova dvora v ubytovaci knize Male Strany a Hradcan z
roku 1608.“ [Musicians at the Rudolfine Court in the Quartermaster Book
ofthe Small Side and Castle Hili of 1608.] Hudebni veda 24 ( 1 987): 162-67.
Hofejsi, Jifina, J. Krcalovä, J. Neumann, E. Poche. Die Kunst der
Renaissance und des Manierismus in Böhmen. Hanau, 1979.
Hsia, R. Po-chia. Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe
1550- 1 750. London & NewYork, 1989.
Huml, Väclav. „Archeologicke poznämky k dejinäm konskeho trhu na
Novem Meste pra.Zskem.“ [Archaeological Notes about the History of the
Horse Market in the New City of Prague.] Staletä Praha IX ( 1976): 1 58-1 73.
—. „Vodovodni sit na Väclavskem nämesti v Praze v 15.-17. Stoleti.􀊚 [Water
Supply System on Wenceslas Square in Prague from the 1 5th..17th
Centuries.) Ceskj Iid 62 ( 1975): 223-230.
„Z novych objevu stfedovekjch studni na Novem Meste pra.Zskem.“
[Recent Discoveries of Medieval Wells in the New City of Prague.)
Vlastivedny vestnik moravskj, pfiloha XXI, 1970, 47-67.
278
Impey, Oliver & Arthur MacGregor, eds. The Origins of Museums. The
Cabinet of Curiousities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe.
Oxford, 1985.
Janäcek, Josef. Ceske dejiny. Doba pfedbelohorskä. [Czech History. The
Pre-White Mountain Period.] Kniha I. Dily 1 & 2. Praha, 1968 & 1984.
—. Dejiny obchodu v pfedbelohorske Praze. [History of Commerce in PreWhite
Mountain Prague.] Praha, 1955.
—. „Hranice mezi Pra.Za.n.y.“ [Borders between Praguers.] Kniha o Praze
( 1 965): 245-263.
„Kupecke dynastie rudolfinske Prahy.“ [Merchant Dynasties of
Rudolfine Prague.] Veda a zivot 32 ( 1 987): 553-57.
Obräzek ze zivota rudolfinske Prahy. [Pictures from the Life of
Rudolfine Prague.] Praha, 1958.
Pivovarnictvi V ceslcych krälovslcych mestech V 16. stoleti. [Beer
Brewing in the Royal Cities of Bohemia in the 16th Century.] Rozprävy
CSAV, fada xv, rocnik 69, 1959, sesit 1 .
„Prag und Nürnberg im 16. Jahrhundert ( 1 489-16 18).“ Der
Aussenhandel Ostmitteleuropas 1450-1650. Hrsg. Ingomar Bog. Köln &
Wien, 1 97 1 .
Remeslnä vyroba ve cesicych mestech v 16. stoleti. [Artisanal
Production in Bohemian Cities in the 16th Century.] Praha, 196 1 .
—. Rudolf Il. a jeho doba. [Rudolf Il and his Age.] Praha, 1987.
Janäcek, Josef, ed. Dejiny Prahy. [The History of Prague.] Praha, 1964.
Jancärek, Petr. „Populacni vyvoj V cesicych zemich V pfedbelohorskem
obdobi a problematika jeho studia.“ [Problems in the Study of Population
Development of the Czech Lands in the Pre-White Mountain Period.]
Historickä demografie 12 ( 1 987): 125-136.
Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. Introduction to „Special Issue: The Culture of
the Holy Roman Empire, 1540-1680.“ Central European History 18 ( 1985):
4 – 13.
—. The Mastery of Nature. Aspects of Art, Science and Humanism in the
Renaissance. Princeton, 1993.
—. „Remarks on the Collections of Rudolf li.: The Kunstkammer as a Form
of Representatio.“ Art Journal (Fall 1978).
279
The School of Prague. Painting at the Court of Rudolf Il. Chicago &
London, 1988.
—. Variations on the Imperial Theme in the Age of Maximilian li and Rudolf
!I. New York, 1978.
Kent, Frances W. & Dale V. Kent. Neighbours and Neighbourhood in
Renaissance Florence: The District of the Red Lion in the Fifteenth Century.
Locust Valley, 1982.
Kinser, Samuel. „Presentation and Representation: Carnival at Nuremberg,
1450-1550.􀈑 Representation 1 3 (Winter 1986): 1 -4 1 .
Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. Women, Famiiy and Ritual in Renaissance
Italy. Chicago, 1985.
Kocka, Jürgen. „Sozialgeschichte zwischen Strukturgeschichte und
Erfahrungsgeschichte.“ Sozialgeschichte in Deutschland. Entwicklungen
und Perspektiven im internationalen Zusammenhang. Hrsg. Wolfgang
Schieder & Volker Sellin. Band I. Die Sozialgeschichte innerhalb der
Geschichtswissenschaft. Göttingen, 1 987. 67-87.
Kolokvium o dejinäch cen a mezd v 16. a 17. stoleti. [Colloquium on the
History of Prices and Wages in the 16th and 17th centuries.] Zäpisky katedry
ceskoslovenskjch dejin a archivniho studia. Rocnik VI. Praha, 1962.
Köstlin, Konrad & Hermann Bausinger, Hrsg. Umgang mit Sachen. Zur
Kulturgeschichte des Dinggebrauchs. Regensburg, 1983.
Kotrba, Viktor. „Die nachgotische Baukunst Böhmens zur Zeit Rudolfs n:
Umeni 18/3 ( 1 970): 298-332.
—. „Nove Mesto Praiske. Karlstadt v univerälni koncepci cisafe Karla IV.“
[The New City of Prague. „Charles‘ City in Charles IV’s concept of
Universality.] Z tradic slovanske kultury v Cechäch. Praha, 1975.
Kramer, Karl-Sigismund. „Das Haus als geistiges Kraftfeld im Gefüge der
alten Volkskultur.“ Rheinisch-Westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 1 1
( 1964) : 30-42.
Kratochvil, Milos. „Sestipanske ü.fady V Starern a Novem meste praiskem do
r. 1547 a jejich knihy.“ [The Six-Man Councils in the Old and New Cities of
Prague to 1547 and their Records.] SPDMHP VI ( 1930): 149-264.
Krcälovä, Jarmila. „Italsti mistii Male Strany na pocatku 17. Stoleti.“
[Italian Masters of the Small Side at the Beginning of the 17 Umeni 18/6 ( 1 970): 565-58 1 .
280
„Die Rudolfinische Architektur.􀄋 Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek
(1982): 27 1-309.
—. „Paläc pänü z Rozmberka.􀅉 [Palace of the Rosenbergs.) Umeni 18/5
(1970): 469-85.
Kreisel, H. & G. Himmelheber. Die Kunst des deutschen Möbels. Möbel
und Vertäfelungen des deutschen Sprachraums von den Anfängen bis zum
Jugendstil. Band 1 . Von den Anfängen bis zum Hochbarock München,
1968.
Kropäcek, Jifi. „K fundacim Karla IV. na Novem Meste praZskem.“ [Charles
IV’s Ecclesiastical Foundation in the New City of Prague.) Staletä Praha IX
(1979).
Kropäcek, Zdenek. „Vjvoj praZske kanalizace.“ [The Development of the
Prague Sewage System. ) PraZslcy sbornik vlastivedny ( 1962): 223-30.
Kubicek, Alois. „RozmberskY paläc na PraZskem hrade.􀅉 [The Rosenberg
Palace at the Prague Castle.J Umeni 1 / 1 [1953): 308- 18.
Lancinger, Lubos. „K otäcze studia cen mestslcych domü v Cechäch do
konce 18. stoleti.“ [On the Price of Burgher Hornes in Bohemia to the End of
the 18°• Century.J AUC Philadophica et historica 1 ( 197 1 ) : 15-12 1 .
Ledvinka, Väclav. „Düm pänü z Hradce pod Stupni (Pfispevek k poznäni
geneze a funkci renesancniho slechtickeho paläce V Praze). [The Palace of
the Neuhaus Lords under the Steps (Towards an Understanding of the
Genesis and Function of a Renaissance Noble Palace in Prague).) FHB
( 1986): 269-3 16.
—. „Rezidence feudälniho velmoze v pfedbelohorske Praze (PraZske sidlo
pänü z Hradce v 2. Polovine 16. Stoleti).􀄋 [The Residence of a Feudal
Magnate in Pre-White Mountain Prague (The Prague Residence of the
Neuhaus in the Second Half of the 16th Century).) DP IX./II ( 199 1): 1 13-
134.
Lorenc, Vilem. Nove mesto praZske. [The New City of Prague.) Praha, 1973.
Lüdke, Alf. Alltagsgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen
und Lebensweisen. Frankfurt/Main, 1989.
Medick, Hans. “ Missionäre im Ruderboot? Ethnologische Erkenntnisweisen
als Herausforderung an die Sozialgeschichte.􀄋 Geschichte und Gesellschaft
10 (1984): 295-3 14.
Mencl, Väclav. „Mesfansk.Y düm ceskeho stfedoveku.“ [The Bohemian
Burgher House of the Middle Ages.) Zprävy pamätkove pece 1 3 ( 1953): 161-
192.
281
Mendelovä, Jaroslava. „Svatojindfisska matrika 1 584- 1 600 jako
demograficey pramen.“ [The St. Henry Parish Records as a Demographie
Source.] DP 2 ( 1981): 1 14- 189.
Mensch und Objekt im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. Leben-AlltagKultur.
Veröffentlichung des Instituts für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und
der frühen Neuzeit. Sb. Ak. Wien, phil-hist. Kl. 568. Band 13. Wien, 1990.
Merhout, Cyril, A. Novotny, E. Poche, V.V. Stech, V. Vojtisek, H. Volakova, &
z. Wirth. Zmizela Praha. Stary obraz Mesta a jeho pamatek znicenych v
druhe polovici 19. a 20. stoleti. [Vanished Prague. Old Pictures of the City
and its Monuments Destroyed in the Second Half of the 19tl• and 20th
centuries.j Svazek, 1-6. Praha, 1945-48.
Mika, Alois. „Pocet obyvatelstva zvlaste mestskeho v ceseych zemich pfed
tfi. vä.lkou.“ [The Size of the Urban Population in the Czech Lands before
the Thirty Years War.] Demografia 1 4 ( 1 972): 194.
Mikulec, Jifi. „Hmotna kultura na Starern Meste Pra.Zskem v dobe
pfebelohorske (Domy a domacnosti na krä.lovske ceste).“ [Material Culture
in the Old City of Prague in the Pre-White Mountain Period (Houses and
Households on the Royal Way).] Diplomova prace, Filozofickä fakulta UK,
Katedra ceskoslovenseych dejin, 1986.
Mohrmann, Ruth-Elisabeth. Alltagswelt im Land Braunschweig. 2 Bände.
Münster, 1990.
„Städtische Wohnkultur in Nordwestdeutschland vom 17. bis 19.
Jahrhundert (aufgrund von Inventaren).“ Nord-Süd Unterschiede in der
städtischen und ländlichen Kultur Mitteleuropas. Hrsg. von Günter
Wiegelmann. Münster, 1984. 89-155.
Navrätil, Kare!. ParneU kostela Panny Marie n a nebe vzate a sv. Karla
Velikeho a b:Yvaleho krä.lovskeho klastera feholnich kanovnikü
Laternanseych sv. Augustina, nyni mestske chorobnice, na hofe Karlove v
Novem meste Pra.Zskem. IRecords of the Church of Maria the Annunciation
and St. Charles the Great and the former Royal Cloister of the Order of the
Lateran Canons of St. Augustine, now Sirthing Hospital, on the Karlov Hili
in the New City of Prague.] Praha, 1877.
Noväk, Jan Bedfich. Rudolf ll. a jeho päd. [Rudolf II and his Fall.] Praha,
1935.
Pänek, Jaroslav, ed. Ceskä mesta V 16.-18. stoleti. [Bohemian Cities from
the 1 6th.. 18th Centuries.] Prace historickeho üstavu CSAV Miscellanea C-5.
Praha, 199 1 .
282
—. „Das Ständewesen und die Gesellschaft in den böhmischen Ländern in
der Zeit vor der Schlacht auf dem Weißen Berg (1526-1620).“ Historica 25
( 1 985): 73-120.
—. Stavovskä opozice a jeji zäpas s Habsburky 1547-1577. K paliticke
krize feudälni tfidy v pfedbelohorskem ceskem stäte. (Estate Opposition
and the Estates‘ Conflict with the Habsburgs 1547-1577. Towards an
Understanding of the Political Crisis of Feudal Classes in the Pre-White
Mountain Czech State.) Praha, 1982.
Pesek, Jifi. Mesfanske vzdelanost a kultura V pfedbelohorslcych Cechäch,
1547-1620 (Vsedni dny kultumiho zivota). (Education and Culture in PreWhite
Mountain Urban Bohemia, 1547-1630 (Aspects of Daily Cultural
Life).) Praha, 1993.
Peträii, Josef. Dejiny hmotne kultury. Kultury kaZdodenniho zivota od
praveku do 15. stoleti. (A History of Material Culture. The Culture of Daily
Life from Antiquity to the 1 5th Century.) I/ 1 & 2. Praha, 1985.
Poche, Emanuel. Praha na üsvitu norych dejin. Architectura, sochafstvi,
malifstvi, urnelecke femeslo. /Ctvero knih o Praze./ (Prague on the Dawn of
the Modem Age. Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Artisanal Art (Fourth
Book of Prague).) Praha, 1988.
Poche, Emanuel & Pavel Preiss. Praiske paläce. [Prague Palaces.) Praha,
1977.
Poctu Josefu Peträiiovi. Sbomik präci z ceskYch dejin k 60. narozenmam
prof. Dr. Josef Peträne. (In Honor of Josef Peträii. A Collection of Studies
from Czech History to Commemorate the 60th Birthday of Josef Peträii. ]
Eds. Zdenek Benes, Eduard Maur & Jaroslav Pänek. Praha, 1 99 1 .
Pollak, Oskar. „Studien zur Geschichte der Architektur Prags 1520- 1600.“
JKSAK Band XXIX, Heft 2. Wien & Leipzig, 19 10.
Pomian, Krzysztof. Collectors and Curiosities. Paris and Venice, 1500-1800.
Trans. Elizabeth Wiles-Portier. Cambridge, 1990.
Preiss, Pavel. Italsti umelci V Praze. Renesance, Manynsmus, Baroko.
[Italian Artists in Prague. Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque.) Praha, 1987.
Press, Volker. „Adel in den österreichischen-böhmischen Erblanden und im
Reich zwischen dem 15. und dem 17. Jahrhundert.“ Adel im Wandel. Politik-
Kultur-Konfession, 1500-1700. Wien, 1990.
Reinhard, Wolfgang. „Gegenreformation als Modernisierung? Prolegomena
zu einer Theorie des Konfessionellen Zeitalters.“ Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 88 ( 1977): 226-52.
283
„Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung?“ Zeitschrift für historische
Forschung 1 0 ( 1983): 257-77.
Scribner, Robert W. „Symbolizing Boundaries: Defining Social Space in the
Daily Life of Early Modem Germany.“ Symbole des Alltags. Alltag der
Symbole. Festschrift für Harry Kühne! zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von
Gerhard Blasehitz et al. Graz, 1992.
Seibt, Ferdinand, Hrsg. Renaissance in Böhmen. Geschichte, Wissenschaft,
Architektur, Plastik, Malerei, Kunsthandwerk. Münster, 1985.
Stech, v.v., z. Wirth v. Vojtisek. Stare a Nove Mesto s Podskalim. [The Old
and New Cities and the Podskala Settlement.) Vol. 1 . Zmizela Praha. Eds.
Cyril Merhout et al. Praha, 1945.
Studihradova, Jitka. „Kultumi uroveii staromestskjch domacnosti
pfedbelohorskeho obdobi /Umelecke femeslov mesfanske domacnosti V
Praze/ .“ [The Cultural Niveau of Old City Households in the Pre-White
Mountain Period (Artisanal Artwork of Burgher Households in Prague).]
Diplomova prace, Filosofickä Fakulta UK, Katedra ceskoslovenskjch dejin,
1982.
Tomek, Vaclav Vladivoj. Dejepis Mesta Prahy. (The History of Prague.]
Tom. 8-12. Praha, 1883- 190 1 .
Trexler, Richard. Persans in Groups: Social Behavior as Identity Formation
in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Binghampton, NY, 1985.
—. Public Life in Renaissance Florence. New York, 1980.
Urbanova, Miroslava. „Sestipanske Ufady na Starern a Novem Meste
Pra.Zskem v letech 1547- 1628.“ [The Six-Man Councils of the Old and New
Cities of Prague in the Years 1547- 1 6 1 1.] Diplomova prace, Filozoficka
fakulta UK, Katedra pomocnych ved historickjch a archivniho studia, 1979.
—. „Sestipanske Ufednici Stareho a Noveho Mesta Pra.Zskeho v letech 1547-
1 628.“ (The Administrators of the Six-Man Councils of the Old and New
Cities of Prague in the Years 1547-1638.] DP I (1980): 102-125.
Välka, Josef. „Pfedbelohorska kultura a spo1ecnost.“ [Pre-White Mountain
Culture and Society.] Studia Comeniana et Historica 3 1 ( 1986): 5-25.
—. „Tolerance ci koexistence? (K povaze souziti rütnych nabozenskjch
vyznäni v ceskjch zemich v 15. a.Z 17. stoleti).“ [Tolerance or Coexistence?
(Some Thoughts Conceming the Coexistence of Different Religious
Confessions in the Bohemian Lands form the 15th to the 17th Centuries.]
Studia Comeniana et Historica 18, 1988, cislo 35, pp. 5-25.
284
van Dülmen, Richard. Kultur und Alltag in der frühen Neuzeit. 2 Bände.
München, 1991 & 1992.
Vocelka, Kar!. Rudolf I!. und seine Zeit. Köln & Wien, 1984.
Vyskocil, Jan Kapistran. Sesti stoleti kostela a klästera u Panny Marie
Snezne. [Six Centuries in the History of the Church and Cloister of Mary of
the Snow.] Praha, 1947.
Waage, Vladimir. 􀊥Mestskj pozemkovy majetek a postranni prävo klästera
Panny Marie Snezne.􀊦 [Urban Property Holdings and Extra-Territorial Law
of the Cloister of Mary of the Snow.] Diplomovi präce, Filozofickä fakulta
UK, Katedra archivnictvi, 1978.
Warmbrunn, Paul, Zwei Konfessionen in einer Stadt: Das Zusammenleben
von Katholiken und Protestanten in den paritätischen Reichsstädten
Augsburg, Biberach, Ravensburg und Dinkelsbuhl von 1548 bis 1648.
VlEGM 1 1 1 . Wiesbaden, 1983.
Wiegelmann, Günter, Hrsg. Geschichte der Alltagskultur. BVNWD 2 1 .
Münster, 1980.
—. Kulturelle Stadt-Land-Beziehungen in der Neuzeit. BVNWD 9. Münster,
1978.
—. Nord-Süd Unterschiede in der städtischen und ländlichen Kultur Mitteleuropas.
M ünster, 1985.
Winter, Zikmund. Ceskj prumysl a obchod V XVI. veku. [Production and
Commerce in Bohemia in the 16th century.] Praha, 1 9 1 3 .
—. Kulturni obraz z XV. a XVI stoleti. [Cultural Pictures from the 15•Ja and
16th Centuries.] 2 dily. Praha, 1889.
􀆄o staroceske posteli.“ [The Traditional Bohemian Bed.] Sebrane Spisy
III.
Remeslnictvo a zivnosti XVI. veku V Cechäch. [Artisan and Trade Life in
16th-Century Bohemia.] Praha, 1909.
V meSfanske svetnici starodävne. Kulturni studie o patnäctem a
sestnäctem sto1eti. [In the Traditional Urban 􀆄svietnice.“ A Cultural Study
about the 1 5th and 16th Centuries.] Praha, no date.
—. Zivot cirkevni v Cechäch. Kulturne-historickj obraz z XV. a XVI. stoleti.
[Church Life in Bohemia. Cultural-Historical Pictures from the 1 5th and 1 6th
Centuries.] I & II. Praha, 1895 & 1889.
285
Zlatä doba mest ceskjch. (The Golden Age of Czech Cities.] Praha,
1 99 1 .
—. „Zvonafove z Cimperku.• (The Beli-Makers of Cimperg.] PA XVII ( 1 896-
1897): 444-449.
Zinn, Hermann. „Entstehung und Wandel bürgerlicher Wohngewohnheiten
und Wohnstrukturen.• Wohnen im Wandel. Beiträge zur Geschichte des
Alltags in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Wu ppertal, 1979.
Zschunke, Peter. Konfession und Alltag in Oppenheim: Beiträge zur
Geschichte von Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft einer gemischtkonfessionellen
Kleinstadt in der frühen Neuzeit. Wiesbaden, 1984.
286