The Prague Nuncios and Their Relationship to Non-Catholics at the Turn of the 16th and 17th Centuries
Abstract
In the second half of the sixteenth century, Emperor Rudolf II moved the imperial court to Prague, thus transforming the city into a centre of international diplomacy and the seat of representatives of various powers. Among these were permanent papal nuncios appointed to the imperial court to act on behalf of the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church and the sovereign ruler of the Papal States. During their long and continuous presence in the capital of the Kingdom of Bohemia, nuncios were constantly reminded of the predominantly non-Catholic character of the city, where, moreover, one of the confessions even enjoyed full legal protection of the state. Based on correspondence of the nunciature and other related sources within the context of the development of the Czech lands, the study analyses the ways in which these papal diplomats reflected their immediate surroundings with respect to confessional differences. Primarily, however, it examines whether or not there were certain acceptable attitudes towards non-Catholics and to what degree it was possible to maintain contacts with them. Contrarily, it also identifies areas of their diplomatic activities in which, on principle, confessional boundaries could not be crossed. The study thus shows that, on the one hand, it was not realistically possible to eliminate contacts with non-Catholics altogether, and in some cases negotiations with them were even considered necessary, important or at least acceptable. On the other hand, we have witnessed efforts to clearly define and separate oneself from different confessional trends and their adherents, especially if the surrounding society could possibly interpret the contacts in an incorrect or inappropriate way, thus jeopardizing the credibility of the papal nuncio’s position as the pope’s diplomatic representative.
References
Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Fondo Borghese, serie II, 152.
Archivio di Stato Roma, Fondo Santacroce 87.
Die Hauptinstruktionen Clemens VIII. für die Nuntien und Legaten an den Europäischen
Fürstenhöfen (1592–1605), bearb. Klaus Jaitner (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1984).
Epistulae et acta Antonii Caetani 1607–1611. Pars V. Julius 1609 – Februarius 1611, ed.
TomášČernušák (Pragae: Academia, 2017).
Epistulae et acta Caesaris Speciani 1592–1598. Pars I (Mai 1592–Dezember 1592), ed. Alena Pazderová (Pragae: Archivum Nationale, 2016).
Epistulae et acta Johannis Stephani Ferrerrii 1604–1607. Pars I (1604), ed. Zdeněk Kristen (Pragae: Institutum historicum, 1944).
Instruktionen und Relationen für die Nuntien und Legaten an den europäischen Fürstenhofen von Sixtus V. bis Innozenz IX. (1585–1591), bearb. Klaus Jaitner (Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder, 2021).
Le istruzioni generali di Paolo V. ai diplomatici pontifici 1605–1621, a cura di Silvano Giordano (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2003).
Nuntiaturen des Orazio Malaspina und des Ottavio Santacroce. Interim des Cesare dell‘Arena (1578–1581), [Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland III/10], bearb. Alexander Koller (Berlin– Boston: De Gruyter, 2012).
Nuntiatur Giovanni Dolfins 1575–1576 [Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland III/8], Daniela Neri (bearb.) (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1997).
Blet Pier, Histoire de la Représentation Diplomatique du Saint Siège des origines à l’aube du XIXe siècle (Città del Vaticano: Archivio Vaticano, 1982).
Černušák Tomáš et al., The Papacy and the Czech Lands. A History of Mutual Relations (Prague: Institute of History; Rome: Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, 2016).
Černušák Tomáš, Marek Pavel, Gesandte und Klienten. Päpstliche und spanische Diplomaten im Umfeld von Kaiser Rudolf II. (Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter, 2020).
David V. Zdeněk, Finding the Middle Way. The Utraquists’ Liberal Challenge to Rome and Luther (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).
Eberhard Winfried, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478–1530 (München–Wien: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1981).
Feldkamp F. Michael, La diplomazia pontificia (Milano: Jaca Book, 1995).
Fejtová Olga, „Já pevně věřím a vyznávám...“. Rekatolizace na Novém Městě Pražském v době předbělohorské (Praha: Scriptorium; Ústí nad Labem: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, 2012).
Just Jiří et al., Luteráni v českých zemích v proměnách staletí (Praha: Lutherova společnost, 2009).
Kavka František, Anna Skýbová, Husitský epilog na koncilu tridentském a původní koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Čech. Počátky obnoveného pražského arcibiskupství (Praha: Universita Karlova, 1969).
Kettering Sharon, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
Koller Alexander, Imperator und Pontifex. Forschungen zum Verhältnis von Kaiserhof und römischer Kurie im Zeitalter der Konfessionalisierung (1555–1648) (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2012).
Luhmann Niklas, Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (Konstanz– München: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, 2014).
Macek Josef, Faith and Piety of the Jagiellonian Age (Prague: Argo, 2001).
Misztal A. Barbara, Trust in Modern Societies. The Search for the Bases of Social Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).
Ohlidal Anna, “Präsenz und Präsentation. Strategien konfessioneller Raumbesetzung in Prag um 1600 am Beispiel des Prozessionswesens”, in: Formierung des konfessionellen Raumes in Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Evelin Wetter (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2008), 207–217.
Pieper Anton, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ständigen Nuntiaturen (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder‘sche Verlagshandlung, 1894).
Ăíčan Rudolf, The History of the Unity of Brethern. A Protestant Hussite Church in Bohemia and Moravia (Bethlehem: Moravian Church in America, 1992).
Stloukal Karel, Papežská politika a císařský dvůr pražský na předělu XVI. a XVII. věku (Praha: Filosofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, 1925).
Vetrauen. Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts, hrsg. Martin Hartmann, Claus Offe, Frankfurt a. M. – New York: Campus Verlag, 2001).
Walf Knut, Die Entwicklung des päpstlichen Gesandtschaftswesens in dem Zeitabschnitt zwischen Dekretalenrecht und Wiener Kongress (1159–1815) (München: Max Hueber Verlag, 1966).
Černušák Tomáš, “Nunciatura u císařského dvora v prvních letech vlády Rudolfa II. a české země”, Český časopis historický 111 (2013): 728–742.
Janáček Josef, “Italové v předbělohorské Praze (1526–1620)”, Pražský sborník historický 16 (1983): 77–118.
Marek Pavel, “Cardinal Purple for Maximilian of Pernstein. A Contribution to Aristocratic Women’s Political Communication”, Theatrum Historiae 23 (2018): 97–111.
Stloukal Karel, “Počátky nunciatury v Praze. Bonhomini v Čechách v letech 1581–1584”, Český časopis historický 34 (1928): 1–24, 237–279.
Tremml-Werner Birgit, Goetze Dorothée, “A Multitude of Actors in Early Modern Diplomacy”, Journal of Early Modern History 23 (2019): 407–422.
Vácha Štěpán, “Sub utraque, sub una: eine Quelle zur sakralen Topographie des rudolphinischen Prag (zum Jahre 1618)”, Studia Rudolphina 12–13 (2013): 116–133.
Copyright (c) 2022 Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
