Karel starší ze Žerotína a Karel I. z Lichtenštejna. Provázané osudy dvou moravských politiků bělohorské doby

Abstract

Charles the Elder of Ĺ˝erotĂ­n and Charles I of Liechtenstein are considered by modern historiographers dealing with early modern times to be important figures in Moravian, Czech and Central European history. Reflections on issues of status and proto-parliamentarism as well as the rise of new princely elites, issues of freedom of faith and cultural and artistic patronage are relevant to them. Interest in Charles the Elder of Ĺ˝erotĂ­n at the present time has led to the publication of his newly discovered correspondence, to an appreciation of his language, epistographical style, political and legal education and, last but not least, his moral values. The personality of Charles of Liechtenstein, on the other hand, has become the subject of polemic and controversy. On the one hand, Liechtenstein used to be presented as an upstart. Emphasis was placed on his conversion, his role in the currency consortium, his participation in the defeat of the Bohemian Uprising and in the punishment of its supporters. On the other hand, it is possible to encounter a defence for him when Liechtenstein is portrayed as an aristocrat seeking compromise and protecting the emperor’s enemies, emphasizing his role as the founder of a major princely dynasty, an expert on architecture, a patron of artists and a collector of works of art. A study of Ĺ˝erotĂ­n and, to a limited extent, Liechtenstein sources indicates that the relationship between the two representatives of the White Mountain became more intense at a time when Ĺ˝erotĂ­n and Liechtenstein came into closer contact for personal or political reasons, or can be described as socially tense. Leaving aside the period of their shared studies in Moravia and Western Europe, there are the period of Liechtenstein’s tenure of the office of governor of Moravia, the Moravian resistance against Emperor Rudolf II, his period as governor of Ĺ˝erotĂ­n, the period of the Bohemian and Moravian uprising, and at the same time Liechtenstein’s „Bohemian mission” as imperial viceroy. The irregular frequency of their mutual contacts and the destruction of documents do not make it possible to find out what happened in the „interim periods”. All this has led historians dealing with the aforementioned issues to attempt reconstructions of sources and interpretations, and consequently to construct various historical myths.