Silesian Duke Charles I of Münsterberg and Oels and His Power Aspirations

Silesian Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg and Oels and His Power Aspirations Radek Fukala1 ABSTRACT Although Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg and Oels has been vastly overlooked or even negatively judged by Czech historiography, he was one of the crucial and most distinct political figures of the Bohemian state at the threshold of the modern era. The offspring of the Podiebrad family and grandson of the Bohemian King George of Podiebrad both noticeably influenced events occurring under the Jagiellonian reign and the Central-European events following the 1526 arrival of the Habsburgs to the Bohemian throne. The historical stage marked by his birth and death was one of the most turbulent periods of the Bohemian Kingdom, Silesia and European history. KEYWORDS Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg and Oels; the Bohemian Estates’; the Jagiellonian reign; the lands of the Bohemian Crown; Silesia Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg and Oels certainly holds an eminent position in the pantheon of the most notable Silesian political figures.2 The offspring of the Podiebrad family and grandson of the Bohemian King George of Podiebrad both noticeably influenced events occurring under the Jagiellonian reign and the Central-European events following the 1526 arrival of the Habsburgs to the Bohemian throne. The 1 Radek Fukala, Department of History, Faculty of Arts, University Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, Pasteurova 13, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic, [email protected] 2 The publication of the present study was made possible by the financial support provided to the 2017 institutional research of the Philosophical Faculty of Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem. It follows on and departs from the authorʼs previous essays focusing on Duke Charles of Münsterberg and Oels and his kin: R.FUKALA, KarelI. Minsterberský— politik příležitosti ačinu, in: V.WOLF (Ed.), Od Žižky kPoděbradům, Acta Universitatis Reginaehradecensis, Facultatis Studiorum Humanorum, Historica I, Hradec Králové 2006, pp. 189–200; R.FUKALA, Minsterberští bratranci ve víru jagellonské politiky, in: O.FELCMAN— R.FUKALA (Eds.), Poděbradové. Rod českomoravských pánů, kladských hrabat aslezských knížat, Praha 2008, pp. 139−161 (where also see more bibliography); R.FUKALA, Karel I.Minsterberský aepitaf Kristus na Olivetské hoře, in: B.CZECHOWICZ (Ed.), Ziębice— miasto św. Jerzego. Dzieje ikultura dawnej stolicy książęcej, Wrocław 2010, pp.63–75. 48 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 historical stage marked by his birth and death was one of the most turbulent periods of the Bohemian Kingdom, Silesia and European history. The influence of humanism and Renaissance on the lifestyle, new religious and power and political fights and, last but not least, overseas discoveries had revolutionary significance for European Christian civilization. At this eventful time, the Münsterberg duke quietly grew in power and did not hesitate to establish various religious and political corporations and beneficial relations with prominent European dynasties of dukes, mainly the Piasts, Wettins and Hohenzollerns— and it must be noted that he was quite successful in this. His politics were already not so straightforwardly assertive but rather, conciliatory and more diplomatic. The dukeʼs gradual estrangement from the Czech milieu clearly shows how the political and religious atmosphere changed in Prague and Bohemia. It was he who unambiguously moved to Silesia and was interested in imperial and Central-European events, at the same time striving for the country’s larger political independence. Although Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg and Oels has been vastly overlooked or even negatively judged by Czech historiography, he was one of the crucial and most distinct political figures of the Bohemian state at the threshold of the modern era. This Silesian duke not only occupied fore positions in the Bohemian Estatesʼ society but also held very important offices in the lands of the Bohemian Crown. He was mainly the supreme district administrator of Silesia and supreme bailiff of Upper Lusatia and, last but not least, life-time district administrator of the Great Glogau (Głogów) Duchy. During his lifetime, he held the titles of Silesian Duke of Münsterberg and Oels, Duke of Troppau (Opava) and Count of Glatz (Kłodzko). He ranked among the close counsellors of the Jagiellonian rulers and was apowerful aristocrat and patron who consciously pampered the prestige of his Podiebrad dynasty also in the sphere of fine arts.3 He certainly was amaster of deceit, corruption, clientelism, political stratagems and diplomatic dodges and aMachiavellian to his adversaries, but his closest ones towards the end of his life perceived him as of amoderate, restrained, equable and calm nature, who could mainly boast his royal origin. 4 When Charlesʼ cousin, Bartholomäus of Münsterberg and Troppau, tragically died in the troubled waters of the Danube in the beginning of the restless year of 1515, Bautzen and Prague came to face the pressing issue as to his substitute. King Wladis3 The most recent and most precise information on the patronage and cultural interests of Charles Iof Münsterberg was provided by B.CZECHOWICZ, Dwie drogi? Fryderyk II Legnicko-Brzeski iKarol IZiębicko-Oleśnicki oraz ich siedziby w Legnici iZąbkowicach Śląskich, in: Szkice Legnickie, XXVIII, 2007, pp. 23–54; B.CZECHOWICZ, Książęcy mecenát artystyczny na Śląsku uschyłku średniowiecza, Warszawa 2005, pp. 122–160. 4 Very traditional and very unfavourable standpoint towards Duke Charles Iwas taken by the prominent Czech historian J.MACEK, Jagellonský věk včeských zemích (1471–1526), 2: Šlechta, Praha 1994, pp. 24–25; similarly gloomy portrait of the duke was drawn by, e.g., J.FRANCEK, 24.10.1517. Svatováclavská smlouva. Urození versus neurození (Dny, které tvořily české dějiny), Praha 2006, p.77. Amore objective approach, on the contrary, came from P.ČORNEJ, Poděbradové. Úvaha na okraj monografie ojedné větvi šlechtického rodu, in: Český časopis historický, Vol.107, 2009, pp. 152–159, esp. p.156; P.ČORNEJ, Slezsko, in: P.ČORNEJ— M.BARTLOVÁ (Eds.), Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, VI: 1437–1526, Praha— Litomyšl 2007, p.583. RAdEK FUKALA 49 las II Jagiello in no way concealed that it should again be one of the Podiebrad family. The only ones taken into consideration were the descendants of Duke Henry the Elder of Münsterberg, the founder of the new dynasty of the Münsterberg dukes in Silesia.5 The choice in this case was quite simple. Henryʼs first-begotten son, Albrecht, had died four years ago and, in contrast to his siblings, never strikingly asserted himself in the political arena. Yet another of Henryʼs sons, George, shared asimilar fate, also being no great political protagonist, and his negative experiences from the Glogau War (1488–1489) moreover made him prefer to passively watch the events from his seat in Oels (Oleśnica) as late as to his premature death in 1502.6 No wonder that the relatives had since turned their big hopes to the smart and diligent Charles who soon proved to be one of the most competent Podiebrads.7 Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg and Oels was born in Glatz on 4 May 1476 as the fifth child to Henry the Elder of Münsterberg and Margravine Ursula of Brandenburg. There is no sound information as to his childhood and youth. We only know about his politically motivated marriage, closed on 6 January 1488 in Glatz with the underage Duchess Anna of Sagan (Żagań) and Glogau (1483–1541), daughter of the Piast Duke John II the Mad.8 The husband and wife, however, began sharing common household as late as in 1495, when they reached maturity in the contemporary opinion. All available signs seem to suggest that the life of the couple was happy, and Anna bore 12 children to her husband, remaining his only lifetime partner. Charlesʼ fate can be more precisely followed in the historical sources only from the early 16thcentury when he established closer contacts with his relative, Duke Bartholomäus.9 His first 5 Let us only mention the crucial work dealing with the genealogic relations: S.GŁOGOWSKI, Potomci krále Jiřího zPoděbrad. Genealogie knížat zMinstrberka, Ostrava 1989, and its Polish edition: S.GŁOGOWSKI, Genealogia Podiebradów, Gliwice 1997. 6 On the fights for the Glogau inheritance, comp. H.SZCZEGÓŁA, Koniec panowania piastowskiego nad Środkową Odrą, Poznań 1968; R.FUKALA, Potomci krále Jiřího zPoděbrad ajejich zápas ohlohovské dědictví, in: Kladský sborník 7, 2006, pp. 53–84 (where also see earlier editions of sources and literature); these dramatic events were most recently summarized by Martin Šandera in his paper Jindřich starší zMinsterberka aválka ohlohovské dědictví, in: B.CZECHOWICZ— M.KONOPNICKA (Eds.) Glogovia Maior. Wielki Głogów między blaskiem dziejów icieniem ruin, Głogów— Zielona Góra 2010, pp. 111–120. 7 On the activities of the Münsterberg and Oels dukes, see, most recently, M.NIENAŁTOWSKI, Podiebradowie w dziejach księstwa ziębicko-oleśnickiego 1495–1647. Zarys, Oleśnica 2013, pp. 17–35. 8 On this last Glogau-Sagan Piast, see, most recently, B.TECHMAŃSKA, Niespokojny księżę Jan II Żagański, Kraków 2001. The fundamental source to the Piast-Podiebrad agreements is the so-called Glogau Annals; on this, comp. H.MARKGRAF (Ed.), Annales Glogovienses bis z. J. 1493 nebst urkundlichen Beilagen, in: Scriptores rerum Silesiacarum, 10, Breslau 1877, pp. 50–51, while its last Polish edition was provided by W.MROZOWICZ, Próba wprowadzenia potomków Jerzego zPodiebradów do księstwa głogowskiego (1488) w świetle Roczniku głogowskiego, in: W.WRZESIŃSKI (Ed.), Dolny Śląsk. Monografia historyczna, Wrocław 2006, pp. 159−160. 9 The collection of the hitherto most crucial Podiebrad documents is held in the archives of the Archiwum Państwowe Wrocław (hereinafter, APW), Księstwo Ziębickie (1492–1882), Rep. (Repatriata) 30, old signatures I5a–I5n, new signatures 5–12; Księst- 50 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 limelight appearance arrived with the disputes between the Silesian Estates and the Breslau (Wrocław) Chapter. At that time, the young duke signed and sealed the socalled Kolowrat Agreement of 4 February 1504, being accompanied by three other distinguished personalities and, at the same time, royal referees: Albrecht of Kolowrat, Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Prince Sigismund of Jagiello, and Silesian District Administrator Kazimierz II of Teschen (Cieszyn). The text of the agreement ruled that no one born outside the lands of the Bohemian Crown could be elected aBreslau bishop and no clerical offices and feudal estates could be passed onto foreigners.10 Duke Charles entered the political scene of the Bohemian-Hungarian Jagiellonian statehood in the turbulent era when his cousin Bartholomäus opened abig game and became aleading personality of the township union. In 1509, Charles participated in the ceremonial coronation of the kingʼs son, Louis of Jagiello, where he was introduced to King Wladislas and other prominent guests via Duke Kasimir II of Teschen and Bartholomäus.11 The variegated society of the Jagiellonian royal court allured him with irresistible strength. Bartholomäus vividly outlined to him the chances and the financial prospects of aroyal courtier and official. The duke, sunk in debts inherited from his father, left Silesia with no delay and decided to attempt some lucrative job at the Bautzen court. His ears would cherish the jingle of the so desperately desired coins for all his life— since he and his siblings had had to sell the native Glatz region to his relative, Count Ulrich of Hardegg, already in 150112 and since other unfavourable circumstances forced him to forfeit the Münsterberg Duchy to the wealthy Duke John II the Good, the last member of the Oppeln (Opole) branch of the Piasts, in wo Oleśnickie (1324–1862), Rep 33 F (Oels), I7u Rep. 132c (Dep. Oels–Urkunden), esp. Nos. 512–641 and 756. 10 Listinář Těšínska, 1496–1526. Codex diplomaticus Ducatus Tessiensis, III, ed. Emerich Němec, Český Těšín 1961, Nos. 363, 364.— As concerns the Kolowrat Agreement, the personality of the Silesian district administrator Duke Kasimir II of Teschen is especially worth attention; on this, comp. the biography D.PINDUR, Těšínsko za vlády piastovského knížete Kazimíra II (1477–1528), in: Práce astudie Muzea Beskyd, společenské vědy, No.14, Frýdek-Místek 2004, pp. 1–93; D.PINDUR, Książę czasów przełomu. Kazimierz II Cieszyński (1450–1528) ijego władztwo, Wrocław 2010. 11 F. PALACKÝ, Dějiny národu českého, V, Praha 1968, p.358; also comp. one of the most important narrative sources for understanding the Bohemian history of the given era, J.PORÁK— J.KAŠPAR (Eds.), Ze starých letopisů českých, Praha 1980 (hereinafter, SLČ), p.313, where also see information about the presence of Charles Iof Münsterberg in the St Vitusʼ Cathedral on 11 March 1509. 12 On the regest, see A.HAAS (Ed.), Archiv koruny České, 6.Katalog listin zlet 1438–1526, Praha 1958 (hereinafter, AKČ), p.153, No.298; on the basis of the document of 16 August 1501, Albrecht, George and Charles of Münsterberg surrendered Glatz with its entire amenities and rights to Count Ulrich of Hardegg; also comp. other documents, pp. 154–155, Nos. 301, 302, 304 and 305; C.GRÜNHAGEN— H.MARKGRAF (Eds.), Lehnsund Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter, Bd. II, Leipzig 1883, No.35, pp. 190–193. The document concerning the sale was most recently made available via F.MUSIL— P.PREGIEL (Eds.), Chrestomatie kdějinám Kladska, Hradec Králové 2002 (Kladský sborník: 3.supplementum), pp. 100–103, No.63. RAdEK FUKALA 51 1509.13 And although he took the entire Silesian property base of the family over after the death of his brother Albrecht in 1511, his financial situation even worsened. In addition, his debts were publicly discussed at the general assembly of the lands of the Bohemian Crown, held in December 1512 in Glatz.14 The experienced and influential Bartholomäus, although also being in serious disputes and troubles with the Breslau patriciate, would not deny him social support at that time. This determined standpoint, including certain favouritism, influenced Charlesʼ future power orientation to such an extent that he could not be persuaded by the offers of the Bohemian lordly oligarchy who tried to recruit him to their own camp as the arbiter between the disunited camps.15 Charles thus secretly supported Bartholomäusʼ military performance in Hungary, launched on 27 November 1514, already at the Bautzen assembly, and followed on his assumed political course since 1515.16 Duke Charles Ialso enjoyed some favour from the Jagiellonian royal siblings − the older Wladislas II and the younger Sigismund − and later from the Polish ruler Sigismund the Elder. Especially after the 1515 Viennese Congress, the patronage of the Polish King Sigismund the Elder and Emperor Maximilian steered him to the position of royal counsellor and catapulted his diplomatic career in the service of the Bautzen court,17 so substituting for the late Bartholomäus was without further problems. In addition, his credit on the Central-European political scene gradually grew because he was the one and only male offspring of the Podiebrads in the lands of the Bohemian Crown, while the memory of the King George would open every single door to 13 Duke John the Good ranked among the wealthiest Silesian dukes. He forfeited the Münsterberg Duchy from Charles Iand, after the death of the last Troppau and Ratibor Přemyslid, Valentin the Humpback, also acquired the entire Ratibor region. It, however, was aforfeit of the Münsterberg Duchy instead of its straightforward sale, as the professional literature would sometimes claim. The forfeit equalled the considerable amount of 25,000 Hungarian guldens. On this, comp. W.WATTENBACH— C.GRÜNHAGEN (Eds.), Registrum st.Wenceslai, Codex diplomaticus Silesiae (hereinafter, CDS), VI, Breslau 1865, p.168, reges 505. 14 F.PALACKÝ, Dějiny národu českého, V, pp. 398–399. 15 Charles at that time closely cooperated with Duke Kasimir II of Teschen who, in turn, complotted with Zdeněk Lev of Rožmitál in the matter of the rich Oppeln and Ratibor regions against yet another person interested in the two territories, Margrave George of Brandenburg and Ansbach. Comp. the regests CDS VI, pp. 168–171. On the entire dispute, see R.FUKALA, Zápas oopolsko-ratibořské dědictví amocenské aspirace slezských knížat na prahu raného novověku, in: Slezský sborník 100, 2002, pp. 81–102 (where also see earlier bibliography); R.FUKALA, Hohenzollernové vevropské politice 16.století. Mezi Ansbachem, Krnovem aKrálovcem (1523–1603), Praha 2005, pp. 40–85; on this, also see, most recently, M.HOLÁ, Panovník, čeští stavové aJiří Braniborský ve sporu okonfirmaci braniborsko-opolsko-ratibořských nástupnických smluv vletech 1528−1531, in: L.BŘEZINA— J.KONVIČNÁ— Jan ZDICHYNEC (Eds.), Ve znamení zemí Koruny české. Sborník kšedesátým narozeninám prof. PhDr. Lenky Bobkové, CSc., Praha 2006, pp. 97–111. 16 On the positive appraisal of Charlesʼ arrival to Bohemian politics after the late Bartholomäus, comp., e.g., F.PALACKÝ, Dějiny národu českého, V, p.444, esp. p.450. 17 A.REZEK, Příspěvky kdějinám českým za králů Vladislava aLudvíka, in: Časopis českého Musea 56, 1882, pp. 217–218. 52 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 him. No wonder that the Münsterberg duke subsequently climbed up to the top of the career ladder rather swiftly.18 An embarrassing, but paradoxical occurrence which brought Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg to the heart of the Central-European events was the death of King Wladislas II, who died on 13 March 1516 in Bautzen. It was settled in the gloomy atmosphere of the court, where the aging and ill king was humbly getting ready to leave the mundane sorrows behind, that Duke Charles— along with Zdeněk Lev of Rožmitál and Břetislav Švihovský of Rýzmberk— would be the guardians of the tenyear old King Louis II in the framework of the lands of the Bohemian Crown.19 Ayear later, the ambitious Charles was summoned to the office of royal counsellor, being re-confirmed in it by the young Jagellonian ruler. The eventful life at the Bautzen court and the official duties resulted in yet more financial troubles for the lavish Podiebrad. Alongside the array of Hungarian courtiers and aristocrats, he above all cherished luxury and was totally void of economic sense, moreover suffering from adelayed royal treasury cash-flow. So there again were heard the sound voices of the creditors, and Charles began contemplating further sale of his Silesian property in order to avert the ensuing legal consequences and threatening notices. In 1517, he sold the Steinau (Śćinawa) and Wohlau (Wołów) regions, i.e. the areas recently inherited from the unfortunate John II the Mad, to the quite wealthy brother of the Breslau bishop, John Thurzó.20 No matter how inevitable, the given measure seriously harmed the prestige of the dynasty of the Münsterberg Podiebrads. Simply put, Duke Charles did not possess the investment talents of the Liegnitz-Brieg and Oppeln-Ratibor Piasts, and definitely did not enjoy as considerable successes in any of the mining enterprises as the Thurzas and the Jägendorf (Krnov) Hohenzollerns did. His activities in the economic sphere and management were almost non-existent; he instead lingered within the spirit of the medieval noble mentality and passively maintained the hitherto acquired property conglomerate which was far from being as interlinked as in the case of his neighbouring Silesian dukes. And it was exactly this zero sense of enterprise and overtaking various debts which brought his family to the verge of disaster. True, Charles succeeded in retaining the entire Münsterberg Duchy towards the end of his career and successfully reinstalled the Podiebrad power there, but his sons remained trapped in the unceasing fights with their creditors and were left to keep resisting the unceasing demands. Their stringency alone allowed them to save the Oels region, while they forever lost 18 On Charlesʼ frequent participation in the political events in Bohemia, comp. SLČ, 1980, pp.387, 390–397. 19 King Louisʼ most important guardians and protectors were his uncles Sigismund the Elder and Emperor Maximilian as well as Margrave George of Brandenburg and Ansbach and, on behalf of the Hungarian side, János Bornemisza and Cardinal Tamás Bakócz; comp. F.PALACKÝ, Dějiny národu českého, V, p.457; see the Latin extract from the testament of King Wladislas II, AKČ, 6, p.189, No.390. 20 The two purchases were countersigned by the ruler in 1518, AKČ 6, No.409, pp. 197–198; on this sale, see AKČ 6, esp. No.403, p.195; also comp. CDS, Bd. XX, Breslau 1900, No.358, p.201; Lehnsund Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter, Bd. I, Leipzig 1881, No.17, pp. 289–291, Bd. II, Leipzig 1883, No.99, p.118. RAdEK FUKALA 53 the inherited Münsterberg except for the formal title. The dream of George of Podiebrad, envisaging apowerful basis on the Bohemian-Silesian borderline— in the very heart of the lands of the Bohemian Crown— thus faded as fast as spring snow during Charlesʼ generation.21 Let us now return to the stirred society of the Bohemian Estates to where the Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg soon moved and which was soon exposed to the pitting of power clashes, both between the nobility and the towns and among the particular religious camps. This restlessness moreover included threats in the form of provincial social riots, violent attacks in the towns and echoes of the German peasant war in the borderland, as well as the fear of similar rebellious outbursts which had previously been seen in Hungary. Neither the underage king nor his guardians had the powers to intervene in the political, religious and social conflicts and to consistently forge the interests of the Jagiellonian dynasty. In the meantime, there was the increasing resistance against Rožmitálʼs predatory rule, which already several fore noblemen opposed. The fear of amajor uprising along with some noblemenʼs prudence eventually forced the two disunited Estates to negotiate in amore constructive way, the result of which was the 1517 St Wenceslas Agreement— alias the first amendment to the Land Ordinance. It was signed at the St Wenceslas Assembly and was made part of the Land Registers on 24 October 1517 without the ruler’s consent. The agreement was codified as alaw, but its character was that of acompromise: the royal towns finally proclaimed the Land Ordinance valid and counterbalanced the approval of their assembly vote by consenting to the freedom of town markets and the development of aristocratic enterprise, thus giving up their own privileges. It indeed contemporarily defended its own position, but at arather high cost.22 During the next stage of the power and political fights, the Bohemian opposition circles scored in pulling Duke Charles to their camp and made every effort to reinstall his royal authority in the country upon the approval of King Louis.23 21 On the APW debts, see Rep. 30, signs. 8, 9, 10, 12.— On the general overview of the activities of the Silesian dukes, see R.FUKALA, Silesia. The Society of Elites. Silesian Dukes and Estates (1437–1740), Ústí nad Orlicí 2008, pp. 30–62 (where also see earlier literature on the economic activities of the dukes); also comp. N.CONRADS, Książęta istany. Historia Śląska (1469–1740), Wrocław 2005, pp. 57–94. 22 K.MALÝ, Svatováclavská smlouva, třídní kompromis mezi šlechtou aměsty zr. 1517, in: Universitas Carolina, Philosophica 1, 1955, pp. 195–222; J.FRANCEK, 24.10.1517. Svatováclavská smlouva, where esp. see the edition of the agreement, pp. 91–116; the most recent view of the events, conflicts and mainly legal conditions of the Jagiellonian period, provided by historians and historians of law, is part of the miscellany K.MALÝ— J.PÁNEK (Eds.), Vladislavské zřízení zemské apočátky ústavního zřízení včeských zemích (1500–1619), Praha 2001, where esp. comp. the fundamental contribution by Petr Kreuz, pp. 267–289, with significant references to literature and sources; last but not least, see the edition of three crucial sources to the Jagiellonian period, P.KREUZ— I.MARTINOVSKÝ (Eds.), Vladislavské zřízení zemské anavazující prameny (Svatováclavská smlouva aZřízení oručnicích), Dolní Břežany 2007. 23 The essay which is rather important to this day as concerns the followed dramatic events in Bohemia is J.PEŠEK— B.ZILYNSKYJ, Městský stav vboji se šlechtou na počátku 16.století, in: Folia Historica Bohemica, 6, Praha 1984, pp. 137–161; see also J.MACEK, Jagellonský 54 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2018 When Charles spoke to the young king on behalf of the above-mentioned group of opposition figures from the ranks of nobility and burghers in January 1523, his social credit increased dramatically. He was also backed up by Habsburg diplomacy and supported by the energetic Queen Mary whose influence on her husband, and thus also the administration within the lands of the Bohemian Crown, was undoubted. This time, the Podiebrad diplomatic offensive triumphed. The king resolutely intervened in the Bohemian political scene by forcing Zdeněk Lev of Rožmitál and other land officials to resign, and the land assembly then appointed new officials, faithful to the Jagiellonian dynastic politics. With Louisʼ blessing, the supreme administrator of the Bohemian Kingdom became the adept and energetic Duke Charles of Münsterberg and Oels, who ranked among the respected Estatesʼ politicians and, according to Queen Mary of Habsburg, could even become adecisive link in Louisʼ way to power. Yet another important aspect was that he was aleading and politically experienced member of the Silesian dynasty of dukes.24 The royal governor Charles of Münsterberg was quite aware of his crucial position in the Central-European diplomacy as well as on the scales of Bohemian politics, and was moreover perfectly capable of employing it for the sake of his own profit and power. He was unscrupulous in choosing his means in order to pursue his own goals, also in Prague. He was often thinking mainly of himself. Having taken alesson from the non-effective activities of his father and uncles, he realized that neither military service nor the protection of state interests would equal rapid financial profit from along-term perspective, and thus began seeking adifferent way to his familyʼs prosperity. Acertain role-model to him was the Podiebradʼs opponent, ex-burgrave Zdeněk Lev of Rožmitál, the devilish instigator of political plots and inspirer of economic contrivances and, last but not least, corruption affairs. His point of departure became the new family relations which brought both local and foreign diplomatic contacts on everyday basis. He would easily adapt to the new conditions and religious and cultural tendencies in the early Renaissance milieu of Bohemia and Silesia, and was also fond of frequently ignoring the contemporary ethical principles and the customary aristocratic manners. Clientelism and corruption served him to avert his countless financial troubles and debts. Everything was arranged to be paid for, which is also proved by Charlesʼ surviving bills and claims with the rulers.25 His acts and věk včeských zemích (1471–1526), 3: Města, Praha 1998, pp. 322–372; on the most recent evaluation of the events, see P.ČORNEJ— M.BARTLOVÁ (Eds.), Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, VI: 1437–1526, Praha— Litomyšl 2007, pp. 472–596, where also see references to other literature and sources. 24 The duke is sometimes mentioned as the “Supreme Governor and Lord Chamberlain of the Bohemian Kingdom”. On his titles, see, e.g., Bartoloměj Paprocký of Glogol, Zrcadlo slavného markrabství moravského, Olomouc 1593, fol. XVIIIa, SLČ, pp. 440–449, AKČ, 6, p.209, No.441. 25 Duke Charles had had all travelling expenses relating to his diplomatic missions and various services confirmed. His own calculations state that King Louis owed him 19,070 Hungarian guldens, 16 Bohemian groschen and 15 Hungarian hellers over the span of six years. For more details on this, see A.REZEK, Diplomatické služby Karla Minsterberského ukrálů Vladislava aLudvíka aúčty za ně (1515–1521), in: Zprávy ozasedání Královské české společnosti nauk vPraze, Vol.1882, Praha 1883, pp. 405–410. RAdEK FUKALA 55 moves were, nevertheless, always circumspect and he was adept in winning many supporters at the court as well as among the Bohemian Estates who craved having him in the leading position in the existing statehood. As soon as Duke Charles was entrusted the position of the royal representative in Bohemia (or, respectively, the supreme district administrator of the Bohemian Kingdom), he wasted no time cumulating many other strategically significant offices. Already from 1519, he controlled developments in Upper Lusatia as its supreme bailiff. He also fortified his political status in his domestic Silesia, where he became the Lower-Silesian district administrator in 1524 and, in the same year, was appointed lifetime district administrator of the Glatz Duchy, receiving all the relevant annuities and pensions (this probably was some compensation provided to the Jagiellonians for defaulting on the contract of inheritance after the Sagan and Glatz Duke John II the Mad).26 Thus, the actual power in the lands of the Bohemian Crown came to rest in the hands of this master of compromise and abright politician who perfectly learned how to get along in the muddy waters and was well orientated in the unstable conditions of Jagiellonian statehood. Duke Charles of Münsterberg, nonetheless, did not hold his positions for long, since the attacks from the Rožmitál side continued with unabated strength. Aflood of various court summons and complaints of the disunited camps landed on the bumped-up district administrator, while the crucial issue became the dispute for the Rožmberk inheritance backed up by the all-powerful Rožmitál, which could be of catastrophic consequences to the majority of Rožmberks.27 King Louis appointed aconciliation board with Charles of Münsterberg, along with Bishop Stanislaus Thurzó, Adam of Hradec and Vojtěch of Pernštejn, playing the decisive roles, but the solution of the case was endlessly postponed. The disunited sides armed against each other and King Louis, quite unfamiliar with Bohemian affairs and religious fights, yielded to the pressure of intrigues. In January 1525, he reappointed Zdeněk Lev of Rožmitál to the position of supreme burgrave and his allies were moreover appointed to the leading land offices. Dark clouds began gathering over Duke Charles, but he was able to tactically withdraw and retain the position of the supreme Lord Chamberlain, which he held from 1523 to the death of King Louis in 1526, when he was replaced by Vojtěch of Pernštejn.28 The duke, however, also was in trouble with Silesia and the two Lusatias, i.e. regions experiencing outbursts of social and religious discon26 In 1514, the Bohemian king passed his feudal rights to the Krosen region (i.e., the Brandenburg part of the Glogau region) to Duke Charles Iof Münsterberg who arranged the sale of these rights to the Brandenburg Elector Joachim Ithe Nestor for 6,000 gulders on 20 October 1517. This actually separated the most northern part of the Silesian territory from the Bohemian state and definitely passed it on to the Hohenzollern hands. This was yet another case when Charlesʼ money-craving prevailed over the overall state interests. For more on this, see Lehnsund Besitzurkunden, I, pp. 261–263. 27 For more details, see J.V.ŠIMÁK, Spor odědictví rožmberské 1523–1528, in: Časopis Českého Musea, 70, 1896, pp. 81–112, 308–322, 419–441; J.ŠEBÁNEK, Příspěvek ke konci sporu odědictví rožmberské, in: Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností 33, 1925, pp. 89–102. 28 The author who most recently dealt with the complex personality of Vilém of Pernštejn (Wilhelm of Pernstein) was P.VOREL, Páni zPernštejna. Vzestup apád rodu zubří hlavy vdějinách Čech aMoravy, Praha 1999, pp. 93–139.