Defenestration as Ritual Punishment: Windows, Power, and Political Culture in Early Modern Europe

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeDefenestration as Ritual Punishment: Windows, Power, and Political Culture in Early Modern Europe*Daniel JütteDaniel JütteNew York University Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreOne of the most cataclysmic wars in European history began at a window. On May 23, 1618, Bohemian insurgents pushed two imperial regents and a secretary out of a window of Prague Castle. This act spurred a chain reaction of military events that initially played out only on a local level but would soon prove consequential for all of Europe in what became known as the Thirty Years' War (1618–48).1 In the decades preceding the war, Europe was already riven with bitter religious controversies and battles for political supremacy. The Defenestration of Prague therefore was not the reason for the length of the war—but it was the spark that ignited the powder keg.Why exactly did the Bohemian Protestants decide to throw their imperial opponents out the window, of all things? Faced with this question, historians tend to offer relatively laconic answers. In popular accounts, the defenestration of 1618 is often portrayed as a protest that went out of control, or a case of mob justice.2 Some historians have even described it as a "comic accident" or as an anachronistic curiosity better suited to the Middle Ages: a "tragi-comic charade … by medieval means."3 Other scholars have pointed out that there existed a specific tradition of defenestration in Prague. From this perspective, the events of 1618 have been described as a "peculiarity of Prague's judicial culture."4 In a similar vein, and with similar vagueness, the defenestration of 1618 has been called a "ritual."5 But what exactly is the meaning of this ritual? There are, to my knowledge, only two small studies that have explicitly addressed this question. The first of these essays, by Milo Kearney, linked defenestration to the religious and magical connotations of the "literal fall," especially as reflected in medieval and early modern lore.6 The second, by James Palmitessa, convincingly situated the Prague defenestration in the context of Bohemian history, foregrounding its connections to rituals of "popular and local politics and protest."7This article takes cues from these two insightful studies, but it also seeks to provide a more extensive and detailed analysis of this ritual, using the events in Prague as a starting point for a broader investigation of the phenomenon of defenestration in early modern political culture. It will systematically discuss how defenestration, as a carefully staged ritual of punishment, drew on a wide range of theological, legal, and visual traditions—some of which have been overlooked by historians. At the same time, the phenomenon needs to be embedded in a larger European context. While the defenestration of 1618 might be the most well-known case, it was by no means the only one in premodern Europe; nor was defenestration the only form of punishment carried out at windows. Time and again in this period, windows became a location for trial and punishment. As the final part of this article will show, this tradition can be understood only in the context of another little-studied phenomenon: the increasing significance of windows as a setting for political activity, ceremonial events, and the public display of power. Windows might, at first, seem to be an unlikely topic of historical study; a closer look, however, reveals that their material history and symbolism is closely tied to the history of shifting representations of political power and concepts of sovereignty. Defenestration and other window-related forms of punishment that emerged in this period represent a dark chapter in this history.8 They raise broader questions about the interrelation of the history of architecture and material culture, on the one hand, and political symbolism and culture, on the other, in early modern Europe.The Defenestration of 1618: A Closer LookLet us begin with the events of 1618. In the first months of that year, the decades-old tensions between the majority Protestant population and the Catholic Habsburg rulers intensified dramatically.9 News of the decreed closure and demolition of Protestant churches spread like wildfire throughout the country, as these measures flagrantly contradicted the right to religious freedom that Emperor Rudolf II had conceded to the Protestants in the so-called Letter of Majesty of 1609. In the spring of 1618, this led to an official complaint from the Protestant estates to Emperor Matthias in Vienna. The emperor, however, brusquely dismissed the complaint and forbade the delegates of the Protestant estates to assemble for any political council in the future. Bohemians reacted indignantly to this news, suspecting that the forces desiring the re-Catholicization of the Kingdom of Bohemia had gained the upper hand among the Habsburgs. Fears of this nature had been festering for some time. Disregarding the ban on assembly, the representatives of the Protestant estates gathered in Prague to discuss their course of action. After two days of deliberations, on May 23, 1618, a group of roughly 200 estate representatives set out for Prague Castle, the center of Habsburg rule in Bohemia.The march to Prague Castle was not the result of long planning, but it was not completely spontaneous either. A few days earlier, imperial regents had officially instructed the representatives of the Protestant estates to gather at the Hradčany, where news from the emperor would be conveyed to them. Before they set out on May 23, the protesters had prepared a written statement in which they declared that they would "all stand together as one man and remain firmly resolute, one for all."10 In the castle, they were met by two Catholic imperial regents—Jaroslav Bořita Martinic and Vilém Slavata—who were widely considered the masterminds behind the recent attack on religious freedom. Assembled in the chamber of the Bohemian council, the Protestant representatives read out their protest message. The two regents then had the opportunity to defend themselves and, predictably, they rejected the grievances. But their spurious arguments, which were little more than delaying tactics, did not convince the Protestants, who immediately proceeded to an ad-hoc trial. The verdict was that Martinic and Slavata should be "brought to justice" (schon Recht verfahren).11 Years later, the two condemned men would record their memories of this moment, and from these accounts in particular we are well informed about how subsequent events unfolded.12 Martinic and Slavata expected to be taken into custody, but instead, they were led across the room to one of the council chamber's windows.13 Martinic, who had started to pray, was first in line. He later recalled that the protest leaders dragged him "in his black canvas cloak, with sword and dagger, but without his hat … and with uncovered head to the window and thrust him wretchedly out the window down a distance of 30 cubits onto the stony castle ditch."14 Next came Slavata, whose defenestration was even more of an ordeal because he put up a fight and clung to the window ledge in an attempt to save himself; as a result, "they first beat and bloodied the fingers of his right hand, with which he was steadying himself, and then flung him through the same window, without a hat, though with his black velvet coat and rapier."15 Lastly, the protesters proceeded to defenestrate the secretary, Philip Fabricius, about whose experience we have less information.16All three men survived the fall. Considering the drop of roughly 18 meters, this was astonishing, and historians will probably never find an entirely satisfying explanation.17 One theory holds that the defenestrated men landed relatively gently in a dung heap in the ditch, but this explanation should probably be relegated to the realm of legend, even though it is attested in contemporary sources. Suffice it to say that Martinic recorded landing in the "stony castle ditch" (steinerigen Schloßgraben), and we also know that Slavata suffered considerable injuries. The most convincing explanation is that the wall below the window, which can still be seen today, slopes slightly and could have allowed the men to slide along rather than suffer an unbroken fall.18 The cloaks that the victims were wearing on that day may also have helped to soften the impact.19The chances of survival would have been far slimmer had the protesters opted to rid themselves of the regents in a different way. There were many such options. Just one look at the best-known illustration of the events—a copper engraving by Matthäus Merian the Elder from the 1640s—reveals enraged protesters carrying swords and arms, yet moving directly toward the window (fig. 1). Historical accounts by eyewitnesses support Merian's portrayal: when the protesters in the council chamber realized that the defenestrations had not been lethal, some used their firearms to shoot through the window at the victims, but without success.20 Soon after, in a letter that was disseminated across his realm, the emperor condemned not only the defenestrations but also the shots fired at the men in the ditch, who "survived, against all hope and due to especial mercy and divine intervention."21Fig. 1. Matthäus Merian the Elder, The Defenestration of Prague. From Theatrum Europaeum, oder Außführliche und Warhafftige Beschreibung aller und jeder denckwürdiger Geschichten (Frankfurt: Hoffmann, 1643) (1st ed. 1635), 1:16. H 1245.90.20, Houghton Library, Harvard University.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointClearly, then, the protesters could simply have used their firearms or their swords to carry out the executions.22 Nonetheless, they deliberately opted for defenestration. In an interrogation three years later, some of the Protestant rebels testified that they had agreed upon this form of punishment prior to the event.23 Whether that was true or not, assassination plans had circulated for a while and their enactment was considered inevitable by some of the Protestant leaders. Rumors that evil plans were afoot had even reached the regents, who later regretted having dismissed them.24 As for the method, the protesters must have agreed on it once they were inside the council chamber at the very latest, for the defenestration was carried out in a rather "orderly" fashion.25 First, the two regents were sentenced in an on-site trial. Other Habsburg men who were present in the chamber but not considered masterminds of the anti-Protestant policies were spared the last stage of the trial and led out of the chamber shortly before the defenestrations took place.26 The execution of the sentence was neither rushed nor erratic; in fact, the protesters took the time to remove the victims' hats. This had no practical significance, but it certainly heightened the humiliating nature of the punishment.27 Before carrying out the sentence, the protesters are said to have announced that "an Apologia would be published afterward, so that the entire world might see that we have acted entirely lawfully and appropriately."28 This first Apologia—a second one followed the year after—did indeed appear two days after the event and was immediately sent on to the emperor.29 In this document, the protest leaders emphasized that the defenestrations were not meant as a threat to the emperor. Instead, the punishment—the protesters spoke euphemistically of an "act of defense" (Defension-Werck)—was carried out specifically against the "destroyers of justice and of the general peace" (zustörern des Rechtens und allgemeinen Friedens); in other words, it was aimed only against individuals who were thought to have acted without authorization and against the emperor's will. The protestors expressly stated that "no harm was inflicted on any other person, either clergy or layman, during these proceedings" and that the punishment was carried out without any upheaval (Auflauff).30 From the protestors' perspective, defenestration was inevitable: "It was neither appropriate nor possible to do anything else" (anderst und weniger zu thun nit gebühret noch möglichen gewesen).31 But why did the Prague protesters have no choice other than defenestration, at least in their view?One answer can be found in Bohemian history, which reveals the defenestration of 1618 to have been but one iteration in a long tradition.32 We do not know exactly when this ritualized form of punishment first emerged in Bohemia, but as early as the second half of the fourteenth century it was sufficiently familiar for preachers to mention it in public.33 The earliest dated case of defenestration in Bohemia that I have found so far occurred in 1414. In that instance, residents of the Bohemian town Kutná Hora (Kuttenberg) threw one of the king's messengers out the window after he demanded certain taxes. Little is known about how this defenestration was carried out, but the resulting local conflict did become the subject of a folk song.34 Five years later, in 1419, Prague would see a similar though far more serious incident, which became a prelude to the Hussite Wars.35 Led by the preacher Jan Želivský, the Utraquists—devotees of a generally moderate strain within the Hussite movement—celebrated Mass and then marched to the New City Hall to demand the release of their co-religionists imprisoned there. Supporters of the Catholic party, including several city councilmen, watched the gathering from the windows of the City Hall; some sources also report that the Catholics threw stones at the Utraquists. Soon enough the situation escalated: the Utraquists stormed the City Hall and threw the burgomaster, two councilmen, and seven other people out of the windows. These defenestrations did prove deadly: the victims were thrown into the crowd, and, where necessary, their demise was completed by blows from daggers and cudgels. The Utraquists, up to this point, had concealed their weapons under their cloaks, which is another indication that the violence was planned in advance. In the autumn of the same year, the Catholic camp took revenge not by defenestration but by a different kind of free fall: several hundred Utraquists met their deaths by being thrown down mine shafts in the town of Kutná Hora.36 A few decades later, in 1483, Prague saw more defenestrations when Hussites claimed to have discovered a conspiracy among the city councilmen. Amid the unrest that broke out in the city, several councilmen were killed and then thrown out of the windows.37 On other occasions in Bohemian history, defenestration was threatened but not carried out—for instance, during a coup in Prague in 1524.38 Similarly, during the religious conflicts at the beginning of the seventeenth century, Bohemian Protestants time and again threatened radical Catholics and members of the House of Habsburg with defenestration.39The perpetrators of 1618 drew on this long tradition as they carried out their own deed. In the Apologia sent to the emperor, they stated that the three men were "thrown out of the window according to the old custom."40 In the so-called Grosse Apologia, which appeared in print a year after the event, the protesters returned to this argument and emphasized that the emperor's three men had been "thrown out the window according to old custom and following examples of the same, of which there have been many in this Kingdom of Bohemia and in Prague."41 The same explanation appeared in Bohemian broadsheets from shortly after the events, which likewise justified the defenestrations as "old Bohemian custom" (in Czech: po staročesku).42 In the course of the Thirty Years' War some of the ringleaders of 1618 would continue to call for the defenestration of Catholics.43 Even members of the Protestant elite were threatened with this punishment when they did not cooperate.44Here arises what seems to be a paradox: defenestrations were considered an "old custom," but they were never codified in writing as an established form of punishment.45 I am not aware of any mention of defenestration in Bohemian legal documents. This also holds true beyond Bohemia. Early modern penal codes—for example, the well-known Carolina—are compendia of grisly punishments, among which we can find impalement, drowning, or breaking by the wheel.46 Being thrown out the window, however, is not mentioned in any of these texts. Indeed, the initiators of the Prague defenestrations of 1618 admitted that "the motivation for this deed comes from neither Bartolus nor Baldus, still less from hair-splitting rhetoric, but rather from heroic and noble impetus."47 Thus, codified law—epitomized here by Bartolus and Baldus, famous legal commentators of the fourteenth century—did not serve as justification for the defenestrations. Instead, this form of punishment was considered an "old custom." But where did it gain its legitimacy and meaning? And why was it considered "heroic"?The Religious MeaningTo find to these we must a closer look at the In II we find the of the of the of who from a The enraged later became some of the who were to out the he they threw and some of was on the and on the and he under to the then there was from "the and the and the of It should be that in this the setting for the is a and it is that the defenestration is not an act but rather a and, by punishment. The even grisly to be the of a divine As is the of evil in the are, of between from the window and the defenestrations of the early modern period, in particular that in the it is a who this But one with many of the later they were all of violence inflicted upon of Indeed, among one was especially from a to the Kingdom from true and toward This of the with early modern who between religious and against religious In this the of and punishment particular we can look to a of early modern and The was also in such as the so-called a from Hall in which and probably to the the most visual of is Matthäus Merian's engraving from only a few years after the events of Prague (fig. is it was the same Matthäus Merian who the most famous illustration of the Prague defenestrations. Merian's on the like by many other early modern from medieval of the same subject in that it from the window rather than on the Matthäus Merian the Elder, The Defenestration of From (Frankfurt: Houghton Library, Harvard University.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointClearly, many premodern people were familiar with the of many of would have had a of fall. This was certainly true in Bohemia, where religious even before the one another of the who the was the But this was not to Bohemia. the of the Catholic preachers of were up in when the and his a with the in In their the preachers did not from Majesty and the to and from the the many of and the preachers pointed out that it very for This was also in the another by a religious conflict between Catholics and in the Jan that the of as well as being by the of all out of from the into a are by the of and by the same of against as in a of the Protestant against the Catholic the of And in the case of Prague in 1618, the of the by Protestants a call to the of the same form of punishment that was on This is by a of the Bohemian sources. In the Grosse Apologia of the rebels explicitly stated that they to an of the imperial regents, the same as in the divine and in the case of who This was more than a argument it very with an established tradition in which the punishment of defenestration was even members of the of the leaders the defenestration and the of Habsburg the same the Prague the defenestration of 1618 in a in which he described the of the Catholic regents in directly taken from In other words, of the Habsburg king's not him from as the Protestants an with the defenestration of as it was with an against rule and religious defenestration a specifically religious legitimacy as a form of punishment. Indeed, the Prague defenestration of 1618 was not the last nor did it to religious in We for instance, that similar plans were in other by religious such as the city of In a certain there when he to the events in the Catholic should be "thrown out the A few years later, in the addressed the of whose leaders had declared the Thirty Years' War religious and called on to defenestrate their only Catholic In other riven by religious such were not the of the In for instance, enraged killed and then defenestrated the Catholic of in This in contemporary was not by Catholics as we have the a of their This might be one of the as part of a larger the Catholics to defenestrate the and they as a threat because of his on the the It however, the was or still at the time of his defenestrations of not to A case in point is the so-called an of the population against the in As visual representations of the events this conflict the defenestration of at least one different but still in the context of religious we even find a case in in the of a the a Catholic who had and examples us that defenestration may two as it can be inflicted on victims as well as on The seems to have been more in the medieval example, among the used defenestration as punishment for and political would be killed before We also know that members of the first in their of in the would their victims first and then throw out a There certainly was a of in such It into this that medieval allowed the of a out the custom that was still and in the early modern period and that the according to the had a of the defenestrations mentioned however, The of was certainly present in these but there were of and this us to the religious connotations of this form of punishment. Indeed, the of was not the only defenestration mentioned in the in the Middle and of the a from the of which a of to The as The meaning of this to this Modern of the tend to the as either or The from the one to his own and should they through a they do not the the most of all medieval as in his of this through the they upon the weapons and as this same the to windows in the same chapter led him to of an with On the went even In his he understood specifically to and the in the of a later among of in the fourteenth century, found Other however, the and to of this to a window. example, in his on the of the medieval known as of that through windows without to any He that this should be understood and that windows could be as of divine From this he that "the and men through these windows because they themselves before the in their they are not in but rather and do not know how many people read but in any case his a particular of defenestration that was popular in as early as the Middle the that or his and can save people or that have been into a for example, out of a tied in with folk and One well-known of this of can be found in of which the of a due to from the of a (fig. appear on and well into the early The in and divine in of can be linked with The New