Rabbinic Theology and Jewish Intellectual History

The Great Rabbi Loew of Prague

Meir Seidler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781138109476
• eBook ISBN: 9781135700751
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Jewish Theology

Rabbi Loew (the Maharal) of Prague remains one of the most influential and prolific Jewish thinkers of his time. Widely considered one of the fathers of Hassidic thought and a harbinger of Modern Jewish philosophy, his life and work have retained their influence and remain prevalent today.

Adopting a multi-disciplinary approach, this book ranges from an analysis of the historical background to Maharal's thought, to examining the relevance of this thought in the modern era, before addressing the popular cultural and folkloristic reception of Maharal's impact on modern, Western culture. This book presents a new understanding of familiar material and will be an invaluable asset to students and scholars of Modern and Early-Modern Jewish History and Intellectual thought.

Part I

Netivot Olam – paths of the world

The historical background

1 An emperor at the Prague Castle

Cosmopolitan society, politics and culture in Bohemia during Rudolf II's reign

Jaroslav Pánek

From the sixteenth to the twentieth century, the judgements passed on Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia and Hungary (r. 1576–1611/1612) were highly contradictory – ranging from uncritical adulation of the highest representative of Christendom and great defender against Ottoman expansion to a ruthless branding as a madman on the throne, incapable of carrying out his duties as sovereign, whose extreme subjectivism helped to bring to a head the conflicts in Central Europe on the eve of the Thirty Years’ War. Attention focused mainly on the personality of the emperor, the ruler over a conglomeration of Central European countries and, in recent times (after the publication of the famous monograph by Robert J. W. Evans),¹ on the great patron of the arts, on the central personality of the intellectual milieu of Prague Mannerism.²

Seen from the perspective of Rudolf II's residential city and core land, historians exploring detailed aspects of Czech history rather than his biographers were interested in Rudolf II – King of Bohemia. Yet, already in the first half of the seventeenth century, Czech Protestant writers fully integrated Rudolf II within Czech history. The most excellent representatives of the Czech intelligentsia – the poet Mikuláš Dacčický, the historian Pavel Skála, the physician and diplomat Jan Jessenius and the lawyer Pavel Stránský – highly appreciated Rudolf II, most likely influenced by the events during the first years after his death, signs of mounting tensions in the both local and international political situation which foreshadowed a major armed conflict. These men saw Rudolf 's reign in Bohemia as a period of peace – they estimated even the military invasion of foreign troops to Bohemia in 1611 (inspired by the ruler!) to be an almost negligible episode after several years. They described Rudolf II as a ‘wise’,³ ‘calm and quiet’ lord⁴ ‘endowed with subtle judgement’,⁵ as a peacemaker whose sole mistake was – in the spirit of the usual monarchic patriarchalism – that he entrusted the affairs of state to ‘unworthy’ servants.⁶ His greatest claim to undying fame was his Letter of Majesty of 1609, which for a time brought religious freedom to Protestants (i.e. members of the Utraquist, Brethren, Lutheran and Calvinist churches). The bloody seventeenth century, so it would seem, assumed a similar attitude towards Rudolf II as towards some of his aristocratic contemporaries, whether Catholic or Protestant.⁷

Modern historiography's attempt at a more comprehensive view included the definition of the most outstanding problems of Rudolf 's reign and an appraisal of his personality with a strong emphasis on his health. Some historians (e.g. Anton Gindely and Karel Stloukal) tended to overestimate the significance of this illness,⁸ while others – among them Felix Stieve and Josef Matoušek – quite rightly disagreed.⁹ Convinced that practically throughout his reign Rudolf II had remained politically active, capable of decisions, although periodically affected by his serious illness, they emphatically demanded a critical unbiased evaluation of the tendentious contemporaneous reports, unfavourable to the emperor. In line with this approach are the more recent monographs by Robert John Weston Evans (Oxford),¹⁰ Karl Vocelka (Vienna)¹¹ and the late Josef Janácček (Prague),¹² although with varying stress on the consequences of the emperor's illness for the course of public affairs. What is important is that they removed the odium of an irresponsible crank from Rudolf II, emphasized his intellectual powers, his ability to steer favourably his highly demanding patronage of the arts and sciences, and, if need be, to carry out his state duties. Nevertheless, many questions concerning Rudolf II and his time have remained to this day open and should be thoroughly probed.

Who, then, was Rudolf II as King of Bohemia, key political personality of a state which he ruled for a full 35 years? This matter has several facets. Perhaps we may arrive at some valid conclusions by breaking up the issue into three questions which in my mind are cardinal:

1 On what grounds did Rudolf II decide to transfer the main Habsburg residence to Prague?

2 Which and who were the political appointments and people in his entourage – what was the background of Rudolf 's power in the Bohemian Crown?

3 Which were the king's decisions in critical situations of the Kingdom of Bohemia in 1576–1611/1612?

The first point hinges on the fundamental requisite for the establishment of the Rudolfine power, political and cultural centre in Bohemia (i.e. the transfer of the sovereign's court to Prague). After several visits to this city, Rudolf II decided in 1583 to move his residence from Vienna to the capital of the Bohemian Kingdom. In the context of this decision, on 18 November 1583 he asked the Land Diet (the Parliament of the Bohemian Estates) for an exceptional financial subsidy to facilitate the reconstruction of the royal residence to make it worthy of the most powerful ruler in Central Europe.¹³ In its ruling, the Diet ‘most gratefully’ welcomed the king's decision. In contrast to other taxes, the Bohemian Estates willingly approved a special three-year levy to be raised on royal towns and tributary houses.¹⁴ The parallel taxation of the Jewish population of Bohemia represented a specific type of financial contribution to the royal chamber of Rudolf II.¹⁵

Naturally, the reasons that moved Rudolf II to this decision may be interpreted in several ways, with varying stress on the aesthetic (Prague's charm), family (the emperor's desire to be out of the reach of his relatives who remained in Vienna), economic (the favourable economic situation of the Prague agglomeration) and social (contacts with Czech noblemen) aspects. To this day, there has been some uncertainty as to why Rudolf II moved from the ‘centre of the monarchy’ to its periphery. On this point, inadequate attention has been paid to the main genuinely contemporaneous source unburdened by speculations which explains at some length the emperor's intensions (i.e. the actual Royal Proposal of November 1583).¹⁶ Interpreted in the light of the experience of Rudolf II and of his two predecessors on the Bohemian throne, this proposal helps us to understand many serious and carefully weighed grounds for the move.

The reason mentioned in the introduction to the proposal – the sovereign's liking for Bohemia and the Czechs (‘As also His Imperial Highness gracefully and paternally has no intention [ … ] of hiding before the Estates his particular sympathy for the glorious Bohemian Kingdom and the Czech nation [ … ]’)¹⁷ could be taken as simple politeness at first glance. It reflects, however, a much deeper reality. The Kingdom of Bohemia, together with the incorporated lands (Moravia, Silesia and Lusatia), represented the most important foundation of Rudolf II's political and financial power. The other two parts of the Central European conglomeration of three states were of lesser significance. Hungary, continually threatened by Ottoman expansion, was an eternal source of problems and swallowed up a major part of the Habsburg's military and financial potential, whereas, because of dynastic family politics, Rudolf no longer had direct overlordship over the Habsburg's hereditary Austrian lands. Following the death of Ferdinand I (1564), his two younger sons – Ferdinand and Charles – assumed sovereignty over Tyrol and Inner Austria; after the death of Maximilian II (1576), the remaining two hereditary lands – Upper and Lower Austria – came under Archduke Ernst and, after him, under Matthias. Given this layout of the territory, Prague was approximately in the middle of the north–south axis of Rudolf II's possessions, somewhat eccentrically displaced westward (an excellent gateway to the Holy Roman Empire), whereas Vienna remained a frontier town not far from the Habsburg–Ottoman border. In his strategic considerations of the foundations of his reign, the young Emperor had an excellent reason to grant the Kingdom of Bohemia and its inhabitants a key role in the entire monarchy.¹⁸

Moreover, Rudolf II recalled the promise he made at the beginning of his reign in the Bohemian Kingdom ‘to reside with his entire court [ … ] at Prague Castle as much as possible’.¹⁹ It was a euphemistic allusion to the systematic pressure exerted by the representatives of the Bohemian Estates already on Rudolf II's father Maximilian II to move to Bohemia or, at least, to prepare his heir apparent for it by an appropriate education; as a result, the young prince Rudolf always had in his closest entourage two lords and two knights whose duties were to initiate him not only into the mysteries of the Czech language, but also into Bohemian administration and law in order to promote closer ties between the future king and the Bohemian Estates. Soon after Rudolf II's ascension to the throne, some Czech noblemen established much better relations with the new sovereign than there had been in the past with Maximilian II. In addition, the move to Prague was a logical consequence of Maximilian's and early Rudolf 's reign.

As his grounds for the move of the Habsburg residence to Prague, Rudolf II gave the wider Habsburg interests in Central Europe. He no doubt had in mind – in relation to the Bohemian Crown, the entire Habsburg monarchy and the Holy Roman Empire – his strategy and tactics towards western and eastern neighbours. He began his activities as ruler with negotiations within the empire and he realized that both personal communications and intelligence with the German north and south were incomparably easier from Prague than from Vienna. Rudolf II was inclined towards a new type of government, not only because of the relatively stable conditions, but also in view of his mental disposition. He gradually abandoned the ‘rotating’ type of government of his lands, as practised by Ferdinand I and Charles V and, in part, also by Maximilian II. His preferred choice was to rule from one fixed centre, as exemplified by King of Spain Philip II and, to some extent, in light of experience of his father Maximilian II. For such a concept, Vienna was a great disadvantage, being permanently menaced by the Turks (the first siege of 1529 was far from forgotten) and situated not far from Raab/Györ, where in 1566 (during the Habsburg–Ottoman war) Maximilian II had a severe mental breakdown – in front of the aristocracy from all his lands he lost a significant part of his personal authority. The reasons of military strategy and of political tactics spoke decisively for Prague.

Last, but not least, Rudolf II also presented ‘ecological’ arguments for his decision in his proposal: ‘as also this Prague Castle, preferred seat of His Imperial Highness, is situated in such a fortunate and appropriate, most lovely spot and bracing, healthy climate’.²⁰ His wording is really remarkable, since only a year earlier (1582) the Bohemian capital was struck by a devastating epidemic called ‘the big plague of Prague’; its toll in this agglomeration, according to most certainly exaggerated reports, was set at 30,000 persons.²¹ Rudolf II magnanimously overlooked this fact (actually...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Netivot Olam – paths of the world The historical background
• Part II Gur Aryeh – in the Lion's Den: Maharal's Weltanschauung
• Part III Or Chadash– new light: Anticipating the birth pangs of modernity
• Part IV Derekh HaChayim – the way of life: Maharal, alias Rabbi Loew, in modern Western Culture
• Name index
• Subject index