My Saints: “Personal” Relic Collections in Bohemia before Emperor Charles IV

My Saints: „Personal“ Relic Collections in Bohemia
before Emperor Charles IV1
Katefina Hornickovci
Charles IV, the Holy Roman emperor and king of Bohemia (died 1 3 78), is
generally seen as a person, whose personal effort made Prague into an important
religious and pilgrimage centre of Central Europe.2 Since his retum to Bohemia
from France in 1 333, the scale of his collecting of and personal interest in the
power of relics distinguished him among his contemporaties. Within his concept
of sacred kingship/ he visioned Prague, his residential city, to become second to
Rome and Paris in the possession and use of relics of saints.4 The weight of his
political position, his extensive travels around the Empire. Italy and France, and
long-distance contacts put him in good position to develop the city’s cultic topography,
which he began in the late 1 340s. His project5 included building and
rebuilding of churches, distributing hundreds of relics around Prague’s religious
houses, and was culminating in the last quarter of the century, when in reaction,
1 This contribution is part of the Krems subproject “The Visual Representation of Saints –
Closeness, Distance, Tdentification, and Tdentity, l2’h – 16’h Centuries“ being part of the
international ESF EUROCORECODE project „Symbols that Bind and Break Communities:
Saints‘ Cults as Stimuli and Expressions of Local, Regional, National, and Universalist
ldentities.“
2 Hartmut Kühne, Ostensio reliquiarum. Untersuchung über Entstehung, Ausbreitung, Gestalt
und Funklion der Heiltumsweisungen im römisch-deutschen Regnum (Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter, 2000), I 06-32; Ralf Lützelschwab. „Prag – das neue Paris? Der französische
Einfluss auf die Reliquienpolitik Karls IV.“, in Wallfahrten in der europäischen
Kultur/ Pilgrimages in Europeon Culture, ed. Danicl Dolezal, and Hartmut Kühne,
Europäische Wallfahrtsstudien Series 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006), 201-19;
David Menge!, „Bones, Stones and Brothels: Religion and Topography in Prague under
Emperor Charles IV ( 1 3 46-78)“ (PhD Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, Indiana,
2003), Katefina Horni􀛚kova, ‚·In Heaven and on Earth. Church Treasure in Late Medieval
Bohemia“ (PhD Dissertation, Central European University, Budapest, 2009).
3 Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Medieva/ Political Theo/ogy
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 48.
4 Cf. Katei’ina Kubinova, lmitatio Romae. Kare/ IV. a !Um (lmitatio Romae. Charles IV and
Rome]. (Prague: Artefactum 2006); Lützelschwab, „Prag – das neue Paris?“.
5 Menge!, „Bones, Stones and Brothels,“ 263-371, Hornitkovä, „in Heaven and on Earth,“
esp. 82-127.
50
the reform thinkers among the Prague university masters began to cnttc1se
exaggerated cult practises and put forward the arguments used later by the
theologians ofthe Hussite religious movement.6
Although Emperor Charles IV and the circle of church officials around
him played a decisive role in the influx of relics to the country, he was not the
first person in Bohemia, who realised the potential of relics‘ possession for the
deepening of one’s cultic experience. 1 would like to draw the reader’s attention
to other important founeenth-century figures, whose contribution – albeit
comparatively with lesser cultural, social and spatial impact – either pre-dates or
complements the emperor’s own effo1t. 1 see the process of growing religiosity
in fourteenth-century Bohemia not as the work of one man, but rather an effort
of a group of individuals from different strata of the Bohemian elites. They were
mutually interconnected through the family and social networks, but did not
always share the same means or motivation for collecting relics. By looking at
interests, pious donations, contacts, and travels of several individuals from a
„vider royal circle, I would like to demonstrate that travel and personal contacts
– both local and long-distance – were important conditions for the implementation
of „modern“ religious practises, including intensified cult ofrelics.
The popularity of new object-mediated devotion through presentation7
changed the whole cultic Iandscape of fourteenth-century Bohemia. Although
the gradual devclopment of the country’s cult topography was rather slow taking
over four centuries since around 1000, it significantly accelerated during the
second half of the fourteenth century. The later period was marked by a growing
m1mber of cult objects (relics and images – the latter towards the end of the
century) in the churches of Praguc and its surroundings, in the urban centres,
residence sites, and the churches tied to the monasteries. The „institutional“
relics were shown to pilg1ims at the main Christian feasts and special occasions.
For the coLmtry, which, by the virtue of its Christianisation process, had only a
limited possession ofrelics, at least in comparison with othcr Western European
centres, and whose Christian cultic tradition at the turn of the thitteenth and
fourteenth centuries was still relatively young, the role of the elites‘ networks
became vital for obtaining cult objects and redistributing them over the sacred
sites.
Around 1 300, the last male members of the Pfemyslid dynasty followed
the pattem of traditional royal piety with monastic foundations and donations to
the ecclesiastical treasuries. King Wenceslas 11 Pfemysl was confronted with the
fact that the royal and metropolitan treasuries were lost or plundered after the
death of Pfemysl Ottakar 1 I in 1 278, and subsequently during the country’s oc-
6 Hornickova, „ln Heaven and oo Eanh,“ 127, 192, 195,196.
7 Arnold Angencndt, Heilige uund Reliquien. Die Geschichte ihres Kultes vom Frühen
Christentum bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: C.H.Beck, 1994), 160. Anton Legner, Reliquien
in Kunst und Kult. Zwischen Antike und Erklärung (Dam1Siadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 1 72.
8 Menge!, „Bones, Stones aod Brothels,“ 267.
5 1
cupation in 1279-809. Wenceslas‘ li donations tried to compensate for the Iosses
and his generaus donations of relics and reliquaries were praised by hjs
contemporary and admirer Peter of Zittau in the Chronicon Aulae Regiae. 1 0 In
spite ofthe critical assessment of Peter’s pro-Premyslid views, the king’s rule is
generally perceived as the last culmination of Premyslid piety growing out ofthe
contemporary taste for royal dignity and representation.11 In his time, the
metropolitan, royal (attached to the royal chapel?) and Zbraslav monastery
treasuries, the main ecclesiastical collections in Bohemia, still functioned as a
royal financial reserve and depositories of relics and reliquaries, from where the
objects could be rernoved for financial, rnilitary and political purposes.
Wenceslaus‘ donations feil victim to the political and economical turmoil after
the murder ofhis son, Wenceslaus III (died 1 306).12
In the period before the ascension of Charles I V to the throne, three
Piemyslid female royals related to Wenceslaus II, who cover the first thirty-five
years of the fomteenth centll1-y, helped to popularise the cult of relics and new
piety in Bohemia. Their effort runs parallel to the religious excitement at this
time at the courts of Western Europe, referred to by scholars as devotio
moderna, the spiritual movement that stressed the role of individual religious
experience against official cultic practices and performances, fastered new
forms of presentation of the sacred to the faithful, and intensified the personal
contact with the sacred. This modern piety echoed in the activity of the three
warnen, who were in the later stages of their Jives marked by a ce1tain degree of
independence and were acting separately and semi-privately. The three warnen
were Wenceslaus‘ Il sister Cunigunde (Kunhuta), the wife of the Mazovian ruler
and later abbess of Prague’s St. George monastery, his daughter Queen
Elisabeth, wife of John of Luxembourg and the mother of Charles IV, and
Wenceslaus‘ last wife Elisabeth-Richenza o f Polish descend. Their collection of
relics for personal use or further distribution anticipated Charles‘ IV collecting
and the popularity of relics in the second half of the fourteenth centm-y.
9 Antonin Podlaha and Eduard Sittler, Chramovy poklad u sv. Vita v Praze. Jeho dijiny a
popis [The cathedral treasure of St. Vitus in Prague, its history and description] (Prague:
Nakladem Dedictvi sv. Prokopa, 1903), 9; Hornickova, „In Heaven and on Earth,“ 66-67.
10
Josef Emler, ed., Petri Zittaviensis Cronica Aulae regiae [Peter of Zittau. Chronicle of
Zbraslav monastery] in Fonres Rerurn Bohemicarum, vol. 4 (Prague, 1 884), cited after the
web edition: http://www.clavmon.cllclavis/FRRB/chronical PETRl %20ZITT A VlENSlS.
11 htm, cap. XLIV and cap. LXXIV (accessed February 2, 20 12).
E.g., Jaromir Homolka, „Ume1ecke i’emeslo v dobe pos1ednich Pi’emyslovcü,“ [Art crafts in
the time of the last Pi’emyslids], in Urnen! doby poslednich Pi’emyslovcu, ed. Jii’i Kuthan
(Roztoky u Prahy: Sti’edoceske museum v Roztokach u Prahy a Stfedisko statni pamatkove
pece a ochrany pfirody Stfedoceskeho kraje, 1982), 1 24-26.
12 Cronica Francisci Pragensis, ed. Josef Emler, in Fonfes rerum Bohemicarurn, vol. 4,
(Prague. 1884), 347-456, cited after the web edition: http://www.clavmon.cliclavis/ FRRB!
chronica/CRONfCA%20FRANCISCI%20PRAGENSfS.htm, cap. XIX, XXIII, (accessed
February 2, 2012).
52
The importance of royal female religious patronage for the spreading of
the cult of relics in Bohemia is shown by the fact that. as early as the I 270s, the
first Bohemian treasury inventory was compiled for the parish church in the
queen ’s dowry town of Melnik, north of Prague. 13 The treasury lists six caskets
with relics, a plenary (plenare unum), a silver-covered panel (tabula argentea), a
golden cross, two ivory combs, twenty-six liturgical manuscripts and many
liturgical vessels (six chalices, a golden cup), and textiles.14 The reason for inventoring
the treasury was probably a donation of precious and liturgical
objects. The presence of six reliquary boxes (a typica! way of keeping personal
relics), ivory combs, golden cup and Byzantine fabrics points to a royal person
as the donor of the treasury objects. It was most likely Queen Cunigunde of
Hungary (Bohemian queen from I 26 I to 1285), the granddaughter of Beta IV
and mother ofboth Wenceslaus II and Abbess Cunigunde of Pi’emyslid. In terms
of its content, this parish treasury was clearly not a common one – it had the
same nurober of chalices, considerably more relics and reliquaries, and twice as
many books as the Augustinian Hermit monastery in Susice some seventy years
later.15
Cunigunde, the first of the three women dealt with in this article, was an
exemplary case of !ate medieval female piety. Following her widowhood, she
entered St. George monastery in Prague Castle, a Benedictine convent with
close ties to the ruling dynasty. She donated relics to the monastery, lifted the
body of Saint Ludmilla – the Pfemyslid female dynastical patron and her
ancestor – from her grave, arranged the body upon the altar, and ordered a silver
hcad reliquaty for the relic to be exhibited there. 16 The Dominican Kolda of
Koldice wrote the well-known Passionale for her, a mystical treatise compiled in
the Eckhartian tradition, aiming at the participatory compassio in Christ’s
suffeting. 17 Although the impact of her cult innovations may have been to a
great extent restricted to the Benedictine convent (so far one does not know
13 Ferdinand Lehner, Dejiny umeni nciroda ceskeho (Art history of Czech nation], vol. 1.3,
(Prague: Unie 1 907), 499, and 557-8. lvan Hlaväcek, Stfedoveke soupsi y knih a knihoven v
dobe pfedhusitske [Medieval lists of books and libraries in the pre-Hussite time]. Acta
Universitatis Carolinae – Philosophica et Historica Series Monographia 9 ( 1 965) (Prague:
Universita Karlova 1966), 5 1 , cat. no. 63.
14 Textiles: 3 altarcloths, 3 solemn ve/la for chalices, 3 festive and 3 common chasubles, 5
festive and 9 common albs, 3 festive stoles, a diacon vesnnent, 4 choir mantles and several
hangings, covers, and other textile decoration for the church interior, some reportedly of
Byzantine origin (greco apere, greca).
15 Jaroslav Kadlec, ed., Codex Thomaeus. Das Augustinerkloster Sankt Thomas in Prag,
(Würzburg: Augustiner Verlag 1985), 201 (edition on p. 201-02, no. 60).
16 Homickovä, „In Heaven and on Earth,“ 68. The reliquary bust is in the possession of the
National Gallery in Prague.
17 Texi!IS de Christi passione etc. (Passionale quod dicitur Cunegundis abbatissae), National
Library of the Czech Republic, sign. XIV.A. l7; http://www.manuscriptorium.com/apps/
main/index.php?requesr=show record _num&param=3&client=&ats= 132 76738 8 1 &mode=
&testMode=&sf_queryLine=Kunhuty&qs_field=7 (accessed January 27, 2012).
53
about public access to the shrine, but the contacts with the ruling house might
have led to a !arger cultural impact among pat1s of the elite), her piety
influenced her niece Elisabeth, who spent her young years with her aunt in the
monastery. There the latter might have begun her relic collection with a particle
ofSaint. Ludmilla’s relics.
Elisabeth of Premyslid ( died 1 330), queen of Bohemia, who man-ied Jolm
of Luxembourg in 1 3 1 0, inherited the religious ambitions of her father and
grandfather. Towards the end of her life, after having fallen out of her husband’s
favour and being in Bavartan exile in 1322-25, the politically estranged queen,
suffering from a difficult lung disease, concentrated her efforts into two directions:
towards restoring the chief Bohemian collections of relics, the metropolitan
treasury in Prague and the royal one in Zbraslav, and to continuing her
own collection of relics. She made an effort to regain the relics belanging to her
father Wenceslaus II that were lost after her brother’s death in Olomouc in 1306.
Upon the gift of a gold reliquary panel set with gems with which she supported
her request in 1327/8 the pope urged the abbots of Tfebic and Louka monasteries
as weil as the provost of Kounice monastery to help the queen to get the
items back from the Olomouc St. Wenceslaus chapter that had retained part of
them. 19 The relics had apparently belonged to the Pi’emyslids treasury, which
Wenceslaus l i i had taken with him on his mission to Poland.
Among the relics that Elisabeth demanded from the Olomouc chapter i n
1327 was the skull o f St. Anne. I n the same year she asked for the retum of
another piece – the head of St. Margaret, possibly enclosed in a reliquary20 and
probably taken from Olomouc earlier and pawned by Peter (of Aspelt),
archbishop of Mainz. This may have been the relic donated to St. Vitus by
Premysl Otakar Il and taken from there by Rudolf of Habsburg in 1306-1 307.21
Her (royal) collection also contained the relics of St. Ignatius, originally from
the Cistercian monastery in Osek, and the reliquruy of St. Lucy and Clara that
came down to her son, Charles IV, who gave them later to thc metropolitan
treasury. In her supplication to the pope, she reminded him of her father’s good
18 Cronica Aulae Regiae, cap. XIX.
19 Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae [Charter regests of
Bohemia and Moravia], ed. Josef Emler et al., vol. 4, annorum 1333-1346 (Prague, 1892),
20 537, no. 1370 (heuceforth RBM).
RBM, vol. IH, 538, no. I 3 7 1 : „caput s. Margaritae“. Peter of Aspelt, archbishop of Mainz,
visited the Olomouc chapter in 1 3 16, RBM, vol. TI!, 133. It was taken among other jewels
from the St. Vitus treasury by Rudolf of Habsburg in 1 3 06-1307 (possibly having been
pawned to the Olomouc chapter?); Tomas Sekyrka, „Inventare kosteinich pokladü v
pi’edhusitske Praze“ [Inventories of church treasuries in pre-Hussite Prague] (MA thesis,
Prague. Charles University, 1991), 152, no. 150. Jana Zachova, ed. Franciscus of Prague.
Chronicon Francisci Pragensis, Fantes Rerum Bohemicarurn, series nova, tomus 1
2 (Prague: Nadace Patriae and Historicky Üstav A V CR, 1997), IV, 374. 1 Peter of Aspelt was charged between 1 3 1 1 and 1 3 1 8 with the administration of Bohemia;
he might have pawned the object out of financial need; Cronicon Francisci Pragensis, cap.
XIX (accessed February 2, 2012)
54
custodianship and devotion of relics – in return she received from the pope
another group ofrelics.22
Meanwhile, the queen was keenly collecting relics through her international
contacts.23 The existence of a royal collection of relics in the 1 33 0s-
1 340s is confirmed by the first donations of Charles to the metropolitan treasury,
recorded in the first St. Vitus inventory?4 l n spite of her limited means,
Elisabeth’s personal relic collection must have been remarkable, as only a part
of it donated in her will to the Cistercian monastery of Waldsassen in today’s
Bavaria counts more than 1 02 pieces. The bequest included a priest’s garment,
relics of the Apostles in a crystal nave-shaped reliquary, five reliquaries with
relics ofthe Apostles, St. George, and St. Valentine, a crystal pyxis, a relic of St.
Bartholomew, and other numerous relics in three ivory caskets. In the first
casket, there were mostly the relics of saintly virgins as weil as of St. Peter and
St. John the Baptist. The second and third caskets contained I1Umerous martyr
and Apostel relics, and memorial relics of Chtist and the Virgin (relics of
manna, pannum, the cradle of Jesus, the Flagellation colurnn, a tunic, bed, and
the Sepulchre of Clu·ist, the Holy Cross, stones from the Calvary and Mow1t of
Olives, and the Virgin’s milk, hair and veil, stained with Christ’s blood). She
made some effort to wrap her relics in new reliquaries, however, the vast
majority of the Waldsassen relics remained bare, without a reliquary. lt has also
been suggested that these relics may have originated from Bavaria and came to
her collection during her stay there.25
Elisabeth also became the second royal in Bohemia after her grandfather,
who received from the French king a relic of the Crown of Thoms in 1326; it
was this piece which she gave at her deathbed to her step-brother Jan Volek,
provost of Vy􀑖ehrad and later bishop of Olomouc. The arrival of the relic was
welcomed by a procession of Prague clergy on October 28, 1327, and it was
added to the royal treasury, referred to in the chrOilicle as „the queen’s relics“,
which confirms the existence of such a collection at this date.26 The following
year, in an eff01t to support the canonisation of Agnes of Bohemia, her greatgrandaunt,.
Elisabeth sent part of the relic to Pope John XXII in a golden
reliquary adomed with precious stones The relic possibly remained in Vysehrad
22 RBM, vol. Tll, 537-538, no. 1370-1.
23 Cronica Aulae Regiae, cap. XIX.
24 Pod1aha, and Sittler, Chramovj poklad, 2 1 , n. 2 and 13 mentioned the re1ics of the head of
St. Ignatius and a srnall re1iquary of St. Lucy and C1ara. Tbe Martyro1ogy of Prague’s St.
Vin1s Church, Archive of Prague Cast1e, Chapter Archive, inv. 110. C 5, has 011 the head of
St. Ig11atius: cuius caput Elysabeth … in monasterio Osek … obtinuit et eidem Karolo, fllio
suo dedir. .. quod ipse postmodum ecclesiae Pragensi donavit et voluit ac ordinavit, ut hoc
festurn sub dup/ici officio cum propulsatione veneraretur.
25 Zdenka Hledikovä, „Zävet‘ Elisky Pfemyslovny•· [Testament of Elisabeth of Pfernyslid], in
KralovsJcY Vysehrad 3, ed. Bofivoj Nechvätal (Koste1ni Vydfi: Karme1itänske
nak1adate1stvi, 2007), 1 3 3 .
26 Chronica Aulae Regiae, cap. XVII (here dated 1326, correct date 1327, Sekyrka,
„Inventare, “ p. 229, no. 344.), RBM, vol. lll, 537-538.
55
between 1 328 and 1 3 3 5, in Volek’s ownership. Later, Jan Volek donated it to
his monastic foundation in Pustimer in southem Moravia and in 1 346-9
provided for it the exquisite silver gilded reliquary with the statue of the Man of
Sorrow, now in the Baltimore Walters Art Gallery.27
Elisabeth played a vital role in the growth of piety to Corpus Christi in
Bohemia. She met with the mystical theme probably already in her youth, whilst
in close contact with the circle around her aunt Cunigunde. Her personal interest
in this form of piety is also reflected in the wall decoration of her palace in the
Old Town Square with murals showing the Arma Christi and the Man of
Sorrows. In 1 3 12, a miracle with a consecrated host was reported from the
southern Moravian town of IvanCice, where the host during Communion grew
!arge in the mouth of a doubtful local person, and later bled. Elisabeth asked to
be given the miraculous host and between 1 3 1 9 and 1 3 2 1 brought it to Prague,
where she ordered an ostensory for it and exhibited it in the Zbraslav
monastery?8 lt is probably not a coincidence that already in 1328 (only five
years after the first Corpus Christi feast and procession had taken place in Paris),
at the time of her residence in Vysehrad in the house of Jan Volek, who just had
retumed from A vignon on her behalf, the first chapel of Corpus Christi in
Prague was founded with the donation of a certain canon Eric in Vysehrad. Was
the foundation of this chapel possibly prompted by the arrival of the Thom
relic?
The queen’s initiatives reflected new tendencies in devotional practices.
She reportedly attended church services daily, tried to foster the cannonisation
of her ancestor Agnes of Bohemia, and organised and led a procession with
relics in Prague during the time of the plague, which caused the infection to
stop.29 She herself was met by a procession of Prague priests carrying relics,
when she arrived back at Prague from her „exile“ in Bavaria in 1325. The royal
entre meant that she was recognised as queen of Bohemia and was a mark of
respect given to her as heiress of the Piemyslid dynastic tradition. Through the
ties to the queen’s circle, the Cistercian monasteries in Zbraslav, and Vysehrad
enjoyed the position of important religious centres that participated in
introducing the modem practices to Bohemia. Since the eleventh century a place
of memory of the Pfemyslid dynasty, Vysehrad was supported by the queen
herself, who donated expensive silk vestments and a breviary, as weil as by
other important court individuals. The chapter church was directly subordinated
to the Holy See and this position defined its particular position in Prague and
Bohemia – later, it played a role in Charles‘ IV concept as a parallel to the
27 Baltimore, The Walters Art Museum, inv. no. 57.700, Kare! Otavsky, „Reliquiar fur einen
Dom von der Domenkrone Christi,“ in Jifi Fajt, ed., Kar/ 1V. Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden.
Kunst und Repräsentation des Hauses Luxemburg 1310-1437 (Munich – Berlin: Deutseber
28 Kunstverlag, 2006}, 152, cat. 41 .
Joseph Neuwirth, Geschichte der Bildenden Kunst in Böhmen vom Tode Wenze/ 111. bis zu
den Hussitenkriegen (Prague: J.G. Calve, 1 892), 148, years 1 3 19-21.
29 Cronica Aulae Regiae, cap. XX.
56
Vatican in Rome.30 In Zbraslav monastery, the Cistercians established the Holy
Crown feast, and kept the miraculous Ivancice host. Their pro-active approach
might have been the reason why, in her later years, Elisabeth shifted her original
support from thc Dominicans to the Cistercians, who then became the prime
beneficiaries of her donations. The last ten years of the queen ’s reign marked a
formative period for new devotional practices in Bohemia, with public
processions, ceremonies, and a growing public veneration of relics, as weil as
the enrichment of church treasuries and formation of private collections of
relics. The potentials of the cult of relics became a source of inspiration for the
later cultural policy of Charles IV who made use of the treasury that Elisabeth
had put together. Charles continued Elisabeth’s legacy in royal representation
through acts of piety and elaborated upon her role in the introduction of new
forms of piety to Bohemia. This piety was closely linked to the growth of church
treasures.
Elisabeth’s competitor for the political and cultural ptimacy in Bohemia
was another Elisabeth, originally Richza or Richenza (died 1 335), the young
queen-widow of two Bohemian kings, Wenceslas I! and Rudolf of Habsburg, as
weil as Iover of the nobility league Ieader Jindfich of Lipa (died 1 329). The
economically independent queen made pious donations in benefit of the
Cistercian monastery Aula Sanctae Mariae founded by her in 1 323 at Stare
Brno, Southem Moravia. With her daughter Agnes, she undertook a long
journey to the imperial cities in the Rhineland and their shrines in the summer of
1 333 to obtain relics for her monastery, designed as her and her last pattner’s
burial place. Like Charles IV twenty years later, she reckoned the genuineness
and value of the region ’s relics and the willingness of the authorities to concede
them to her for her monastery.
Three charters provide us with – rather limited – information about their
journey.31 The queen and her daughter visited first the nuru1ety of the ElevenThousand
Virgins in Cologne, where, with the help of the town representatives
(magistratus Coloniensis), she managed to convince the abbess of the convent to
concede them the whole body of one of the virgins from St. Ursula’s entourage
(unum verum integrum corpus de praefatis sanetarum undecim milium
virginum). Then they visited the church of St. Gereon in Cologne, where the
deacon and the chapter gave them relics of the Theban Iegion. In a charter,32 the
deacon and the chapter of St. Gereon testified that „the heads (capita) and the
relics given 10 Elisabeth, queen of Bohemia, were venerated as the relics of SS.
Martyrs of Thebes, Gereon and his company,“ before they were sent to
Bohemia. Then the queen turned to the Augustinian nunnery of the Virgin in
3° Kubinovä, lmitatio Romae. Kare/ !V a Rim, 2 8 1 , 283-84.
31 RBM, vol. Ill, 785, nos. 2017-2018. Abbatissa rotumque capitulum secularis ecc/. S.
Undecim mi/ium virginum in Co/onia profitenwur, se ad preces fervenres magisn·atus
Colonienssi et ob respectum Elisabeth, … unum verum integrum corpus de praefatis sanetarum
undecim milium virginibus … donavisse.
32 RBM, vol. III, 785, no. 2019.
57
Trier accompanied by the Wolfram, archbishop of Cologne, visited the relics
there, and asked for being given some.33 Suppo1ted by Wolfram, she overcame
the convent’s reluctance and obtained a flask with oil of St. Catherine. In all
cases, Elisabeth requested charters as a testimony of the authentic origin of the
relics. Such a „critical“ attitude in requiring authentication we see in Charles‘ IV
approach to relic collection as weil. The possession of relics of „good“,
authorised origin not only should enrich the Brno nunne1y’s treasu1y and make
the monaste1y a regional religious centre, but it should also support Elisabeth’s
chances of salvation at the Last Judgment.
Sometimes with limited means, the Pfemyslid queens saw relic collecting
as an appropriate sphere for their more active social and cultural roJe, including
public appearances, demenstratians of piety, tradition and memory, as weil as
the pursuit of personal spiritual aims. The queens, however, were not the only
public figures, who collected relics. Among the proteges of Elisabeth of
Pfemyslid was Andreas of Pabenice, scholastic official and lawyer, the administrator
of the Prague diocese ( 1 3 2 1 – 1 325?) in the absence of bishop John of
Drazice (absent 1 3 1 8- 1 329), and since 1 3 3 0 abbot of the Cistercian monaste1y
of Sedlec34 (a monk there since 1327?) that kept ties to the Zbraslav, and
Waldsassen monaste1ies, as weil as Vysehrad. In the period between 1 326 and
1328, he actively collected relics, using the opportunity of his position during
the episcopal absence.35 Unfortunately, we have no info1mation about the
purpese of his collection o f more than 89 relics of 63 saints from numerous
re1igious institutions and persans in Bohemia. Was it for his private interest, as it
would seem from the Iack of other information about this collection? Or was
tbere another purpose, for example, to secure his candidature in Sedlec with a
major contribution of relics? lt may not have been a coincidence that the two
mentioned queens and Andreas were all benefactors of the Cistercians or
personally connected with them.
At any case, his fonner administrator’s position opened him many doors
to church treasuries and interesting relics. There was even a miracle-making
particle of the Holy Rood set in a small silver cross among them. Andreas‘ relics
came from the main religious institutions in Prague, that is, the Cathedral of St.
Vitus, the Benedictine nunnery of St. George, Augustinian monaste1y of St.
Themas, Premonstratensian monastery of Strahov, the commend of the
Cruciferous Knights in Zderaz, and St. James of the Franciscans, as weil as the
33 RBM, vol. HI, 786, no. 2021. Praepositus … s. Mariae in Treveroyde ordinis s. Augusti
cupimus fore notum, quod d Elisabeth, bis regina Bohemiae cum Agneta, filia sua, ducissa
Poloniae, devotionis causa reliquias sanctomm nostrae ecclesiae duxerit visitandas et –
sibi de praedictis reliquiis aliquid postulaverit inpartiri nos igitur precibus d. Wab·ami,
archiepiscopi Coloniensis. et eamndem inc/ni ati unum vas vitreum, impfeturn de sacro oleo
s. Catharinae, quod de ossibus eiusdem mim1tis profluxit et emanavit, duximus largiendum.
34 Hledikova,“Zavet‘ Elisky Pfemyslovny,“ 132.
35 Testimonium de reliquiis sanetarum ab Andrea jurisperito de Praga collectis . . . , charter no.
1722, year 1330, in RBM, vol. III, annon1m 1 3 1 1 -1333, 672-673.
58
monasteries of Postoloprty (Benedictine) and Horazd’ovice (Cruciferous
Knights). Other sources were the Prague parish churches of St. Benedict, St.
Egidius, and the Virgin on the Pond, and several private persons, mostly
ecclesiastical officials. In one case, the donor was even a layman, to whom the
relics descended via the inheritance after his brother, a former chaplain of King
Wenceslaus II, who was said to have travelled to Rome and other places. The
private donors were impo1tant persons with international contacts. Among them
were Queen Elisabeth’s chancellor Nicolaus, Wemher, the cannon of St. Vitus
Cathedral, Friedrich of Pemstejn, the archbishop of Riga, a Czech residing in
A vignon, and a certain deacon from Passau in Bavaria.
As Elisabeth-Richenza, Andreas insisted on the authenticity of his relics
and requires a written, legally-valid confirmation by the issuing authority. Tf
possible, Andreas was even personally present when the patticle was cut from
the respective relic. The charter listing his relics was compiled as a legal
document testifying the origin of the relics. For „his collection“, he clearly
preferred well-known and „reliable“ relics of local saints, such as those of the
Czeeh patrons, and from institutions to be trusted.
The least known is the share of the laity in the influx of relics to Bohemia.
Lay donations of relics and images are recorded only after the accession of
Charles IV to the throne, and came from laypeople with ties to the court and to
the members of the Church elite. Although this field has not been systematically
studied, the sources offer us some interesting examples of lay relie donations.
The Prague merchant Henslin Meinhardi (known in the sources since 1 340) of
the Olbramowic family gave his collection of relies to the St. Thomas chureh of
the Augustirre monastery in Prague in 1362, following a donation by Emperor
Charles IV to the same institution.36 Both donations were probably propelled by
the eelebration of the second jubilee year (annus iubileus), when the septennial
festive showing of relics took place in Prague’s St. Vitus‘ Cathedral. More than
fifty relies from Henslin ‚ s donation were exhibited publiely in a transparent
ehaliee-shaped (erystal?) ostensory at the altar in a chapel of the monastery on
certain feast days.37 This was probably demanded by Henslin hirnself to foster
his and bis family representation and prospective Salvation. The Olbramowic
family ranked among the riebest and most influential burgher families of Prague
and enjoyed close personal ties to King John of Luxembourg, as weil as
Emperor Charles IV. In his donation, Henslin may have been inspired by bis
emperor’s example. ln any case, it shows that patrician merchant families with
international contacts were yet another potential souree ofrelies for Prague.
As a parish chureh of a respeetable community of Old Town German
merehants, St. Gastulus owned a rieb treasury in 1 3 79- 1 3 80, with six reliquaries,
36 At this time, there were more than hundred relics in the twemy-two reliquaries nn St.
Thomas monastery, including Christ’s me1norial and St. Pancratius‘ relics, which, some
twenty years later, in 1380, perfonned healing miracles. Hornickova, „In Heaven and on
Earth,“ 103. Codex Thomaeus, 376-380, pag. 189.
37 Codex Thomaeus, 48.
59
including two bowls carved of precious stones, and at least two images of saints,
St. Sigismund and Margaret. The latter were donated by the mother of Archbishop-
elect John of Jenstejn, but were kept together with the treasury’s
reliquaries in a ehest in her house, fearing allienation.38 The image of St.
Sigismund is especially interesting in this respect, for it demonstrates the active
participation of lay elites around the archbishop (the mother of Jan Jenstejn was
also a relative of the former Archbishop Jan Ocko of Vlasim, a close person to
Charles IV) in festering the popularity of a „new“ official Prague cathedral cult
– the body of St. Sigismund was brought to Prague by Charles IV only 15 years
before, in 1365 – through a visual medium rather than a relic.
The 1 390 inventory of St. Gallus parish church in Prague reveals in the
introduction the fear by some distinguished urban donors for the loss of the
treasure. No wonder, this unusually rich parish church treasmy contained fortyfour
largely elaborate reliquaries, and many more relics, including numerous
relics of Christ’s Passion and the Virgin/9 proving that Henslin Olbramowic’s
example was eagerly followed by his fellow merchants.
The new cult practices arrived to Bohemia approximately at the same time
as the chroniclers complained about new fashion and self-presentation among
the elites.40 Although it is generally thought that the cult reform in Bohemia was
the result of Charles‘ IV personal effo1t, I have demonstrated that more
individuals from his circle and his mother’s family took part in it. They came
from different social Ievels of the elites: female royals, educated clerical
officials, and Prague burgher families, but all showed close ties to the royal
house of the Pfemyslids and the Luxembourgs. Tn all cases the patrons were
educated individuals with either religious background or high social position,
often with international as well as local contacts. They shared the interest in the
new religiosity and power of relics, and were keen to support new cults by
donating relics to the church treasuries. Jn Bohemia, the growth of treasuries and
38 After her death, Archbishop John, at that time bishop of Meissen, rejected to retum the
treasury to the cburch. Displaying responsibility and independence, the visiting diocese
adrninistrator insisted on the restitution of the objects to the treasury, Protocollum
visitationis archidiaconatus Pragensis annis 13 79 – 1382 per Paulum de Janowicz
archidiaconum pragensem factae [Visitation protocol of the archdeaconate ofPrague 1379-
1382 by Pavel of Janovice, archdeacon of Prague), ed. lvan Hlaväcek and Zdei’ika
Hledikovä (Prague: Academia, 1973), 88, no. 16.
39 Part of the relics probably came from Prague‘ s metropolitan and royal relic collections, as
implied by the choice of saints and the initial imperial donation of the namesake relic to the
church. Homickovä, „In Heaven and on Earth,“ 1 07; Inventarium de rebus Ecclesiae parochialsi
ad S. Gallurn Pragae a Joanne Pomuk plebano consriptum registro cancellariae
Aepalsi inseritur, 19 August, 1390, in K.Jement Borory, ed, Libri erectionum archidiocesis
Pragensis saeculo XIV et XV, tom. IV, (Prague: J. G. Calve 1875-1 889), 1, no. 256.
40 Martin Musilek, „Odraz dvorske kultury v mestskem prosti’edi ve 13.-14. stoleti,“
[Reflection of court culture in rban space in the l31h-141h centuries], cited after the internet
edition http://www.dvory-a-rezidence.cz/soubory/DRII!Mus%C3%ADlek.pdf, 481-2, accessed
January 18, 2012.
60
the dissemination of new piety practices were intertwined processes
implemented „from above“, by people linked in various ways to the court.
Monastic treasuries profited most from the influx of relic donations. The
attention that the relics attracted among the laity was often feit as unfair
competition by the parish clergy. Clashes berween the parish and monastic
clergy occurred frequently in Prague. In the second half of the fourteenth
century, the royal and clerical collectors of relics were followed by rich lay
donors, who used relics for the (public) presentation of their piety and made
their donations to comply with the overall impe1ial concept. Relics were
distributed to several distinguished Prague parish churches – m exactly at the
time, when the influx of „exaggerated“ cult practices was criticised by the
reform-oriented Prague university masters.
6 1
MEDIUM AEVUM
QUOTIDIANUM
64
KREMS 2012
HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DERKULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
KULTUR rn NIEDERÖSTERREICH .•
Titelgraphik Stephan J. Tramer
ISSN 1029-0737
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der
materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 1 3 , 3500 Krems, Österreich.
Für den Inhalt verantwortlich zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche
Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. –
Druck: Grafisches Zentrum an der Technischen Universität Wien, Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8-10, I 040 Wien.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Francesca Battista, Umotismo, satira e parodia nelle lettere erotiche
di Enrico di Isernia ………………………………….. ………………….. 5
Jan Odstrcilik, The Effects ofChrist’s Coming into the Soul.
A Case Study on a Group of Anonymous Treatises
in Ms. Cambtidge, Corpus Christi Library 524 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
Katefina Homickova, My Saints: „Personal“ Relic Collections
in Bohemia before Emperor Charles IV . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Elisabeth Vavra, Totentanz a la mode . .. . . . . . …. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . …. .. . . …. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 62
Ievgen A. Khalkov, Everyday Life and Material Culture
in the Venetian and Genoese Trading Stations ofTana in the 1430s
(Based on the Study ofNotarial Documents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….. 84
Irina Savinetskaya, „Othering“ a Neighbour: Perccptions
of the French Body in the Early Modern German Lands . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Buchbesprechw1g . . . .. . ……. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . 104
Anschriften der Autorinnen und Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 08
Vorwort
Die vorliegende Ausgabe von Medium Aevum Quotidianum soll neuerlich die
Breite vermitteln, in welcher Bereiche des mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen
Alltags in der Quellenüberlieferung unterschiedlichster Inhalte, Autoren,
Datierung, Provenienz und sozialer Gmppierungen auftreten können.
Wärend sich Francesca Battista mit „erotischen“ Musterbriefen des Heinrich
von lserna aus dem dreizehnten Jalu·hundert beschäftigt, konzentriert sich
Jan Odstrcilik auf anonyme Texte böhmischer Herkunft in einer Handschrift des
vierzehnten Jahrhunderts aus der Corpus Christi Library in Cambridge, welche
sich mit dem Eintritt Gottes in die menschliche Seele auseinandersetzen. Auch
Katei‘.ina Hornlekova widmet sich Lebensäußerungen im böhmischen Raum und
zwar den Reliquiensammlungen von Angehörigen der Prager Eliten bereits vor
dem Zeitraum und den diesbezüglichen Bestrebungen Kaiser Karls IV.
Elisabeth Vavra untersucht Totentanz-Darstellungen des deutschsprachigen
Raumes aus dem fünfzehnten und sechzehnten Jahrhundert und kann feststellen,
dass die in diesen auftretenden Kleidungsdarstellungen der wiedergegebenen
Protagonisten zur Kenntlichmachung der Standeszugehörigkeit derselben
dienen sollten und nicht, um visuell auf deren standestypische Verfehlungen
hinzuweisen. Tevgen A. Khalkov untersucht die letztwilligen Verftigungen der
Bewohner der Venezianischen und Genueser Handelstationen von Tana am
Schwarzen Meer aus den Dreißigerjahren des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts hinsichtlich
ihrer Aussagen zur materiellen Kultur und weist auf die herausragende
Stellung des Kleidungswesens hin. lrina Savinetskaya liefert Ergebnisse ihrer
Forschungen zur Konstruktion des Fremdbildes von Franzosen in deutschen
Quellen des fünfzehnten und sechzehnten Jahrhunderts und deren Verhältnis zur
Selbstbeurteilung der Deutschen.
Damit liefern die sechs Beiträge wichtige Ergebnisse zu Alltag, spiritueller
und materieller Kultur von Angehörigen unterschiedlicher sozialer Schichten
profaner und klerikaler Provenienz. Sie können dadurch mithelfen, die komparative
Erforschung mittelalterlicher und frühneuzeitlicher Lebensgestalttung
erfolgreich voranzutreiben.
Gerhard Jaritz
4