¹ Fuchs, Friedrich, “Die Kirchen von Sulzbach-Rosenberg,” in Eisenerz und Morgenglanz: Geschichte der Stadt Sulzbach-Rosenberg, 2 vols., ed. Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Stadt (Amberg: Oberpfalz, 1999), 2:777Google Scholar. For Charles's patronage, see note 128.

² Tobler, Gustav, ed., Die Berner-Chronik des Diebold Schilling 1468–1484, vol. 1 (Bern: Wyss, 1897), 386Google Scholar; also see Sieber-Lehmann, Claudius, Spätmittelalterlicher Nationalismus: Die Burgunderkriege am Oberrhein und in der Eidgenossenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 49–54Google Scholar.

³ Denton, Jeffrey H., Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, 1294–1313 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Cuttler, S. H., The Law of Treason and Treason Trials in Later Medieval France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 47Google Scholar.

⁵ For a striking instance, see Boulton, D'A. J. D., “The Order of the Golden Fleece and the creation of Burgundian national identity,” in The Ideology of Burgundy: The Promotion of National Consciousness, 1364–1565, ed. Boulton, D'Arcy Jonathan Dacre and Veenstra, Jan R. (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 21–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rare but important skeptical voices, warning against overstating the ubiquity, importance, and comprehensibility of visual symbols in late-medieval polities, include Binski, Paul, “Hierarchies and orders in English royal images of power,” in Orders and Hierarchies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Europe, ed. Denton, Jeffrey (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999), 74–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watts, John, “Looking for the state in later medieval England,” in Heraldry, Pageantry and Social Display in Medieval England, ed. Coss, Peter and Keen, Maurice (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2002), 243–67Google Scholar. Malcolm Vale's observation that, “later, anachronistic assumptions about an equation between royal or princely power and an ‘official,’ centrally determined and dictated court art, are out of place,” is applicable to the subject matter of the present article; see Vale, Malcolm, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe, 1270–1380 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 252Google Scholar.

⁶ Summarized in Seibt, F[erdinand], “Karl IV.,” Neue Deutsche Biographie, vol. 11 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1977), 188–91 (esp. 190)Google Scholar.

⁷ Lemberg, Hans, “Der Kaiser und König im tschechischen Geschichtsbild seit 1945,” in Kaiser Karl IV.: Staatsmann und Mäzen, ed. Seibt, Ferdinand (Munich: Prestel, 1978), 414–17Google Scholar. Representative of this tradition is the monumental, unfinished biography by Šusta, Josef, Karel IV.: Otec a syn, 1333–1346 (Prague: Laichter, 1946)Google Scholar; Za císařskou korunou, 1346–1355 (Prague: Laichter, 1948)Google Scholar; for the Communist era, see Spěváček, Jiří, Karel IV: Život a dílo, 1316–1378 (Prague: Svoboda, 1979)Google Scholar.

⁸ Generalisation is difficult, however, since the most detailed studies were often by Bohemian Germans and Austrians, who identified patriotically with Charles or regarded his composite realm as prefiguring that of the Habsburgs. See Beat Frey, “Karl IV. in der älteren Historiographie,” in Seibt, ed., Kaiser Karl IV., 399–404.

⁹ For an admittedly extreme example reflecting the values of the National Socialist era, see Pfitzner, Josef, Kaiser Karl IV. (Potsdam: Athenaion, 1938), esp. 106–7Google Scholar.

¹⁰ An exception is Jarrett, Bede, The Emperor Charles IV (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935)Google Scholar. No general, book-length study of Charles has since been published in English.

¹¹ Early signs of this shift, including a trend toward locating Charles approvingly within “European” contexts, are traced in Moraw, Peter, “Kaiser Karl IV. 1378–1978: Ertrag und Konsequenzen eines Gedenkjahres,” in Politik, Gesellschaft, Geschichtsschreibung: Gießner Festgabe für F. Graus (Cologne: Böhlau, 1982), 224–318 (esp. 269–86)Google Scholar.

¹² Seibt, Ferdinand, Karl IV.: Ein Kaiser in Europa 1346 bis 1378 (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1978)Google Scholar.

¹³ Seibt, ed., Kaiser Karl IV. Exhibitions dedicated to Charles's reign were held in 1978, in Nuremberg and Prague, with another, concentrating on the emperor's court artists, the Parler family, in Cologne. Subsequent major exhibitions with Charles as their theme took place in New York and Prague in 2005–2006, and in Prague and Nuremberg in 2016–2017. Charles's court painter, Master Theodoricus, was the subject of a Prague exhibition in 1998. Caroline artifacts have featured prominently in major exhibitions dedicated to the visual culture of the medieval western Empire more broadly, such as those staged in Aachen in 2000 and Magdeburg in 2006, as well as in numerous, more local and thematically specific exhibitions.

¹⁴ Fajt, Jiří and Langer, Andrea, eds., Kunst als Herrschaftsinstrument: Böhmen und das Heilige Römische Reich unter den Luxemburgern im europäischen Kontext (Berlin: Deutsche Kunstverlag, 2009)Google Scholar; Rosario, Iva, Art and Propaganda: Charles IV of Bohemia, 1346–1378 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000)Google Scholar. On Charles's reliance on “Propaganda und Repräsentation,” see Němec, Richard, “Kulturlandschaft und ‘Staatsidee’: Architektur und Herrschaftskonzeption Karls IV.,” in Böhmen und das Deutsche Reich: Ideen- und Kulturtransfer im Vergleich (13.–16. Jahrhundert), ed. Schlotheuber, Eva and Seibert, Hubertus (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2009), 67Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Briggs, Charles F., The Body Broken: Medieval Europe 1300–1520 (London: Routledge, 2011), 111Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Crossley, Paul, “The politics of presentation: the architecture of Charles IV in Bohemia,” in Courts and Regions in Medieval Europe, ed. Jones, Sarah Rees, Marks, Richard, and Minnis, A. J. (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2000), 99–172Google Scholar. Crossley borrowed his title from Ferdinand Seibt.

¹⁷ Kuthan, Jiří and Royt, Jan, Karel IV. Císař a český král—vizionář a zakladatel (Prague: Universitas Carolina Pragensis, 2016)Google Scholar; Němec, Richard, “Herrscher—Kunst—Metapher: Das ikonographische Programm der Residenzburg Lauf an der Pegnitz als eine Quelle der Herrschaftsstrategie Karls IV.,” in Die Goldene Bulle: Politik—Wahrnehmung—Rezeption, 2 vols., ed. Hohensee, Ulrike, Lawo, Mathias, Lindner, Michael, Menzel, Michael, and Rader, Olaf B. (Berlin: Akademie, 2009), 1:369–401Google Scholar; Fajt, Jiří, “Brandenburg wird böhmisch: Kunst als Herrschaftsinstrument,” in Die Kunst des Mittelalters in der Mark Brandenburg: Tradition, Transformation, Innovation, ed. Badstübner, Ernst et al. (Berlin: Lukas, 2008), 202, 210Google Scholar. The importance for Charles's image-program of his concern with control and spatial domination is emphasized in Schlotheuber, Eva, “Der Ausbau Prags zur Residenzstadt und die Herrschaftskonzeption Karls IV.,” in Prag und die großen Kulturzentren Europas in der Zeit der Luxemburger (1310–1437), ed. Jarošová, Markéta, Kurthan, Jiří, and Scholz, Stefan (Prague: TOGGA, 2008), 601–21 (esp. 609–13)Google Scholar; idem, “Der weise König: Herrschaftskonzeption und Vermittlungsstrategien Kaiser Karls IV. (†1378),” Hémecht 63, no. 3 (2011): 265–79 (esp. 274–75)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Wolfgang Schmid, “Vom Rheinland nach Böhmen: Studien zur Reliquienpolitik Kaiser Karls IV.,” in Hohensee et al., eds., Die Goldene Bulle, 1:431.

¹⁹ The term is used in Fajt, “Brandenburg wird böhmisch,” 210. On Charles sponsoring “a uniform aesthetic that was consistently employed in the service of imperial authority and dynastic policy,” see idem, “Charles IV: towards a new imperial style,” in Prague: The Crown of Bohemia 1347–1437, ed. Boehm, Barbara Drake and Fajt, Jiří (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 10Google Scholar.

²⁰ Fajt, Jiří and Hörsch, Markus, “Karl IV. und das Heilige Römische Reich: Zwischen Prag und Luxemburg—eine Landbrücke in den Westen,” in Karl IV.: Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden. Kunst und Repräsentation des Hauses Luxemburg 1310–1437, ed. Fajt, Jiří (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2006), 372–77Google Scholar; Fajt, “Charles IV,” 16.

²¹ For “de-centered” forms of political agency in the Middle Ages more generally, see Titone, Fabrizio, “Introduction: the concept of disciplined dissent and its deployment: a methodology,” in Disciplined Dissent: Strategies of Non-Confrontational Protest in Europe from the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century, ed. Vari, Autori and Titone, Fabrizio (Rome: Viella, 2015), 7–22Google Scholar.

²² The term is used in Němec, “Kulturlandschaft und ‘Staatsidee,’” 100.

²³ Pertz, Georg Heinrich, ed., Annales Veterocellenses, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), Scriptores, vol. 16 (Hannover: Hahn, 1859), 45–46Google Scholar.

²⁴ Quoted in Lindner, Michael, “Kaiser Karl IV. und Mitteldeutschland,” in Kaiser, Reich und Region: Studien und Texte aus der Arbeit an den Constitutiones des 14. Jahrhunderts und zur Geschichte der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, ed. Lindner, Michael, Müller-Mertens, Eckhard, and Rader, Olaf B. (Berlin: Akademie, 1997), 126Google Scholar.

²⁵ Seibt, Karl IV., 268–79; Hoensch, Jörg K., Die Luxemburger (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 155–76Google Scholar.

²⁶ For background, see Seibt, Ferdinand, “Die Zeit der Luxemburger und der hussitischen Revolution,” in Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, vol. 1, ed. Bosl, Karl (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967), 349–568 (esp. 362–82)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Eberhard, Winfried, “Ost und West: Schwerpunkte der Königsherrschaft bei Karl IV.,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 8, no. 1 (1981): 21–22Google Scholar.

²⁸ For Charles's aims and acquisitions, see Hofmann, Hanns Hubert, “Karl IV. und die politische Landbrücke von Prag nach Frankfurt am Main,” in Zwischen Frankfurt und Prag: Vorträge der wissenschaftlichen Tagung des Collegium Carolinum in Frankfurt/M. am 7. und 8. Juni 1962, ed. Carolinum, Collegium (Munich: Robert Lerche, 1963), 51–74Google Scholar; Lindner, “Kaiser Karl IV. und Mitteldeutschland,” 102; Harriet M. Harnisch, “Königs- und Reichsnähe thüringischer Grafenfamilien im Zeitalter Karls IV.,” in Lindner, Müller-Mertens, and Rader, eds., Kaiser, Reich und Region, 189.

²⁹ Eberhard, “Ost und West,” 15.

³⁰ A sample of his chancery documents found that 27 percent were addressed to urban recipients; see Peter Moraw, “Vom Raumgefüge einer spätmittelalterlichen Königsherrschaft: Karl IV. im nordalpinen Reich,” in Lindner, Müller-Mertens, and Rader, eds., Kaiser, Reich und Region, 77.

³¹ Moraw, Peter, Von offener Verfassung zu gestalteter Verdichtung: Das Reich im späten Mittelalter 1250 bis 1490 (Berlin: Propyläen, 1985), 245Google Scholar; Seibt, Karl IV., 361–67; Wolfgang von Stromer, “Der kaiserliche Kaufmann—Wirtschaftspolitik unter Karl IV.,” in Seibt, ed., Kaiser Karl IV., 63–73.

³² Eberhard, “Ost und West,” 19; Moraw, “Vom Raumgefüge,” 77.

³³ Moraw, “Vom Raumgefüge,” 75.

³⁴ MGH Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperatorum et Regum, vol. 11, ed. Fritz, Wolfgang D. (Weimar: Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1978–1992), 209 (no. 390)Google Scholar.

³⁵ Seibt, Karl IV., 115–20, 179–85.

³⁶ See Hegel, C., ed., Chronik des Jacob Twinger von Königshofen (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1870), 484–85Google Scholar.

³⁷ For Charles's known writings and their bearing upon his political conceptions, see Schneider, Reinhard, “Karls IV. Auffassung vom Herrscheramt,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte des mittelalterlichen deutschen Kaisertums, ed. Schieder, Theodor (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1973), 122–50 (esp. 124–25)Google Scholar; Hergemöller, Bernd-Ulrich, Cogor Adversum Te: Drei Studien zum literarisch-theologischen Profil Karls IV. und seiner Kanzlei (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1999), esp. 221–413Google Scholar.

³⁸ On Charles's chancellor writing to inform him in detail about the abilities of a particular painter, see Fajt, “Charles IV,” 9. For a description of St. Vitus Cathedral as “self-conscious architecture of rule” (bewusste Herrschaftsarchitektur), conceived and planned in detail by Charles himself, see Olaf B. Rader, “Aufgeräumte Herkunft: Zur Konstruktion dynastischer Ursprünge an königlichen Begräbnissen,” in Hohensee et al., Die Goldene Bulle, 1.:427.

³⁹ See, more generally, Crossley, “The politics of presentation”; Rosario, Art and Propaganda.

⁴⁰ For Karlstein, see Kavka, František, “The role and function of Karlštejn castle as documented in records from the reign of Charles IV,” in Magister Theodoricus: Court Painter to Emperor Charles IV, ed. Fajt, Jiří (Prague: National Gallery, 1998), 15–28Google Scholar. For evidence of awareness far beyond Bohemia (in Cologne) of Prague's importance as a center of sacral-monarchical display, see Sprandel, Rolf, ed., Die Kölner Weltchronik 1273/88–1376 (Munich: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 1991), 108–10Google Scholar.

⁴¹ See Bogade, Marco, Kaiser Karl IV.: Ikonographie und Ikonologie (Stuttgart: Ibidem, 2005)Google Scholar; Suckale, Robert, “Die Porträts Kaiser Karls IV. als Bedeutungsträger,” in Das Porträt vor der Erfindung des Porträts, ed. Büchsel, Martin and Schmidt, Peter (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003), 191–204Google Scholar.

⁴² Crossley, “The politics of presentation,” 126–31; Paul Crossley and Zoë Opačić, “Prague as a new capital,” in Boehm and Fajt, eds., Prague, 59–73 (esp. 71). For the ritual construction of urban space in the Middle Ages, see, more generally, Ritual and Space in the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the Harlaxton Symposium 2009, eds. Andrews, Frances (Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2011)Google Scholar.

⁴³ Crossley and Opačić, “Prague,” esp. 63–66.

⁴⁴ Fajt, “Charles IV,” esp. 10, 13–16; idem, “Magister Theodoricus—court painter to emperor Charles IV,” in Fajt, ed., Magister Theodoricus, 217–77.

⁴⁵ Upon Charles's accession to the Bohemian throne, only 77 relics are attested in Prague (though there were doubtless others); by the time of his death, 605 can be shown to have been present in the city (though, again, this cannot be a complete figure); see Bauch, Martin, Divina favente clemencia: Auserwählung, Frömmigkeit und Heilsvermittlung in der Herrschaftspraxis Kaiser Karls IV. (Cologne: Böhlau, 2015), 317Google Scholar; see also Schmid, “Vom Rheinland nach Böhmen.”

⁴⁶ For what follows, see Kavka, František, “Karl IV. (1349–1378) und Aachen,” in Krönungen: Könige in Aachen—Geschichte und Mythos, 2 vols., ed. Kramp, Mario (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2000), 2:477–84Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Jiří Fajt, “Karl IV.—Herrscher zwischen Prag und Aachen: Der Kult Karls des Großen und die karolinische Kunst,” in Kramp, ed., Krönungen, 2:495–96.

⁴⁸ For Aachen and Nuremberg, see Fajt and Hörsch, “Karl IV. und das Heilige Römische Reich,” 358–59, 364–65; for Tangermünde, see Evelyn Wetter, “Die Lausitz und die Mark Brandenburg,” in Fajt, Karl IV. Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden, 346–48.

⁴⁹ An example is the Church of St. Nicholas in the town of Luckau in Lower Lusatia. It was the recipient of an important Caroline relic (part of the skull of St. Paulinus), but the small bust figures on the north choir portal (probably of Charles and his queen and created, in all likelihood, in connection with the gift) seem too modest to be courtly commissions; see Favreau-Lilie, Marie-Luise, “Von Lucca nach Luckau: Kaiser Karl IV. und das Haupt des heiligen Paulinus,” in Vita Religiosa im Mittelalter: Festschrift für Kaspar Elm zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Felten, Franz J. and Jaspert, Nikolaus (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), 901Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ One scholar, for example, warns against overstating the political motivations behind Charles's funerary sculptural program in St. Vitus; see Schwarz, Michael Viktor, “Felix Bohemia Sedes Imperii: Der Prager Veitsdom als Grabkirche Kaiser Karls IV.,” in Grabmäler der Luxemburger: Image und Memoria eines Kaiserhauses, ed. Schwarz, Michael Viktor (Luxembourg: CLUDEM, 1997), 129Google Scholar.

⁵¹ For what follows, see, more generally, Frey, Beat, Pater Bohemiae—Vitricus Imperii: Böhmens Vater, Stiefvater des Reichs. Karl IV. in der Geschichtsschreibung (Bern: Peter Lang, 1978), esp. 18–34Google Scholar.

⁵² For Charles's irregular election and coronation “sine consueta pompositate” (without the customary display), see Potthast, Augustus, ed., Liber de Rebus Memorabilioribus sive Chronicon Henrici de Hervordia (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1859), 275Google Scholar. For the claim that the imperial banner fell into the Rhine and was lost while Charles was being acclaimed king at Bonn in 1346, see Leidinger, Georg, ed., Chronica Ludovici Imperatoris Quarti, in Bayerische Chroniken des XIV. Jahrhunderts (Hannover: Hahn, 1918), 137Google Scholar.

⁵³ The Strasbourg chronicler Twinger thus recounts how, on Charles's return from imperial coronation in Rome in 1356, his queen was abducted into a brothel by the Pisans, and also how the imperial couple had to flee an angry mob in Siena through a window dressed only in their nightshirts; see Hegel, ed., Chronik des Jacob Twinger, 482; for Charles's hasty post-coronation retreat from Italy (“pauca de re publica imperii ibidem disponens,” or “doing little to address the state of the Empire there”), see Sprandel, Die Kölner Weltchronik, 98–99.

⁵⁴ For a hostile view from Augsburg, see Frensdorff, F., ed., Chronik von 1368 bis 1406 mit Fortsetzung bis 1447, in Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte: Augsburg (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1865), 42Google Scholar. On Charles's taxation, more generally, see Moraw, Von offener Verfassung, 252–53; on visual symbolism in imperial towns, see Reichszeichen: Darstellungen und Symbole des Reiches in Reichsstädten, ed. Wittmann, Helge (Petersberg: Imhof, 2015)Google Scholar; Kah, Daniela, Die wahrhaft königliche Stadt: Das Reich in den Reichsstädten Augsburg, Nürnberg und Lübeck im späten Mittelalter (Leiden: Brill, 2018)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Heinrich Dapifer de Diessenhoven 1316–1361, in Fontes rerum Germanicarum: Geschichtsquellen Deutschlands, vol. 4, ed. Huber, A. (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1868), 116Google Scholar. For the claim that Charles “Pragam magnificavit in duplo” (exalted Prague to twice its size), see Hofmeister, Adolf, ed., Die Chronik des Mathias von Neuenburg (Berlin: Weidmann, 1924–1940), 442Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Hofmeister, ed., Die Chronik des Mathias von Neuenburg, 444, 456–57, 470; Hegel, ed., Chronik des Jacob Twinger, 491. For the allegation that Charles transferred imperial lands to the Bohemian crown, “minorando regnum Romanorum, augmentando Bohemiam” (diminishing the kingdom of the Romans, augmenting Bohemia), see Wattenbach, W., ed., Annales Matseenses, in MGH Scriptores, vol. 9 (Hannover: Hahn, 1851), 836Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ For Charles and the nobility, see Seibt, “Die Zeit der Luxemburger,” 397–99.

⁵⁸ Haupt, Ernst Friedrich, ed., Jahrbücher des zittauischen Stadtschreibers Johannes von Guben (Görlitz: Heinze, 1837), 16Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ For the role of everyday, often unnoticed, images and symbols in nurturing common identity in modern societies, see Billig, Michael, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Haupt, ed., Jahrbücher, 23 (“…. wen wir habin leyder eynen swerren herren …”).

⁶¹ Ibid., 18.

⁶² Ibid., 3–4, 52.

⁶³ For what follows, see, more generally, Grotefend, Siegfried, Die Erwerbungspolitik Kaiser Karls IV.: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur politischen Geographie des deutschen Reiches im 14. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Eberling, 1909), 21–54Google Scholar; Wild, Karl, “Baiern und Böhmen: Beiträge zur Geschichte ihrer Beziehungen im Mittelalter,” Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins von Oberpfalz und Regensburg 88 (1938): 90–128Google Scholar; Herrmann, Erwin, “Karl IV. und Nordostbayern,” Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg 118 (1978): 173–87Google Scholar; Heribert Sturm, “Des Kaisers Land in Bayern,” in Seibt, Kaiser Karl IV., 208–12; Seibt, Karl IV., 276–79; Schmid, Alois, “Städte und Märkte in der Oberpfalz: Grundzüge ihrer Entwicklung im späten Mittelalter und in der beginnenden Neuzeit,” in Städtelandschaften in Altbayern, Franken und Schwaben: Studien zum Phänomen der Kleinstädte während des Spätmittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Flachenecker, Helmut and Kießling, Rolf (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1999), 113–51Google Scholar; Jiří Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz—ein neues Land jenseits des Böhmischen Waldes,” in Fajt, Karl IV. Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden, 327–35; Fuchs, Bernhard, Die Städte und Märkte der nördlichen Oberpfalz unter Kaiser Karl IV. (Regensburg: Vulpes, 2012)Google Scholar; Maria Rita Sagstetter, “Sulzbach im ‘neuböhmischen’ Territorium Kaiser Karls IV.,” in Stadt Sulzbach-Rosenberg, ed., Eisenerz und Morgenglanz, 1:61–82.

⁶⁴ See the details in Grotefend, Die Erwerbungspolitik, 21–54. The Bohemian chronicler Beneš Krabice summarized the extent of Charles's acquisitions, claiming that they reached “a silva Boemicali usque ad muros civitatis Nuremberg, Pebenberg” (from the Bohemian forest to the walls of the city of Nuremberg and to Bamberg); see Emler, Josef, ed., Kronika Beneše z Weitmile, in Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 4 (Prague: Nákladem Musea Království českého, 1884), 517Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Fritz, ed., MGH Constitutiones, 11:208–18 (no. 390). On the canon law concept of incorporation, see Bülow, Hedwig Sanmann-von, Die Inkorporationen Karls IV. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Staatseinheitsgedankens im späteren Mittelalter (Marburg: Elwert, 1942)Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ See Schneider, “Karls IV. Auffassung,” 128; Bobková, Lenka, “Bayern und die Oberpfalz in der Politik Karls IV.,” in Bayern und Böhmen: Kontakt, Konflikt, Kultur, ed. Luft, Robert and Eiber, Ludwig (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007), 40–41Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Hrubý, Venceslaus, ed., Archivum coronae regni Bohemiae, vol. 2 (Prague: Sumptibus Ministerii Scholarum et Instructiones Publicae, 1928), 368–69 (no. 298)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Seibt, Karl IV., 279–85.

⁶⁹ Fuchs, Die Städte, esp. 22, 25–26; for the region's place within Charles's broader schemes for trade networks, see Herrmann, “Karl IV. und Nordostbayern,” 173–75.

⁷⁰ For a statistical overview of the development of towns and markets in the region, see Schmid, “Städte und Märkte,” 117; for Charles's interventions to stimulate trade, see Fuchs, Die Städte, esp. 48–50.

⁷¹ For Charles's role in developing communications routes between Bohemia and Bavaria in the region to the south of the Upper Palatinate, see Erkens, Franz-Reiner, “Karl IV. Ein Kaiser in Europa und der Weg durch den Wald,” Passauer Jahrbuch 59 (2017): 89–108 (esp. 99–101)Google Scholar.

⁷² Hergemöller, Bernd-Ulrich, ed., Maiestas Carolina: Der Kodifikationsentwurf Karls IV. für das Königreich Böhmen von 1355 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1995), 50 (cap. vii.)Google Scholar.

⁷³ See the details in Schnelbögl, Fritz, ed., Das ‘Böhmische Salbüchlein’ Kaiser Karls IV. über die nördliche Oberpfalz 1366/68 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1973)Google Scholar. The Bohemian chronicler Beneš Krabice emphasized the strong fortifications that Charles constructed at the settlements he acquired, “que fecit cingi muris fortissimis” (which he encircled with very strong walls); see Emler, ed., Kronika Beneše z Weitmile, 517.

⁷⁴ Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 71; Herrmann, “Karl IV. und Nordostbayern,” 179–80; Schnelbögl, ed., Das ‘Böhmische Salbüchlein’, 28–35.

⁷⁵ For local offices and servants, see Fuchs, Die Städte, 52–53; Klier, Richard, “Tschechische Dienstmannen auf den Burgen der Luxemburger in Neuböhmen?,” Mitteilungen der Altnürnberger Landschaft 12, no. 1/2 (1963): 1–14Google Scholar; Kunstmann, Hellmut, Die Burgen der östlichen Fränkischen Schweiz (Würzburg: Schöningh, 1965), 379–91Google Scholar; Herrmann, “Karl IV. und Nordostbayern,” 179–81. In 1365, Pope Urban V granted, at Charles IV's request, permission for priests in Rothenberg, Sulzbach, and Neustadt to hear confession in Czech. Though firm evidence of their presence is limited, some Czech speakers settled, no doubt, in Bavaria, particularly as members of the households of Bohemian royal officials (who were themselves probably mostly bilingual); Klier's prosopographical study of Charles's castellans found a predominance of local men.

⁷⁶ Schnelbögl, ed., Das ‘Böhmische Salbüchlein’; more generally, see the catalogue entry by Machilek, Franz in Kaiser Karl IV. 1316–2016: Erste Bayerisch-Tschechische Landesausstellung: Ausstellungskatalog, ed. Fajt, Jiří and Hörsch, Markus (Prague: Národní galerie v Praze, 2016), 472Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ For contrasting sums owed by different communities, see Fuchs, Die Städte, 54, 61–62, 84.

⁷⁸ For the region as a sphere of particularly intensive Caroline image politics, see Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 127; Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 329. On Charles's “future-oriented representation-strategy” in the region, see Němec, “Machtinszenierung,” 475. Also see Staber, Josef, “Die Oberpfalz und Niederbayern im Kulturprogramm Kaiser Karls IV.,” Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg 109 (1969): 51–62Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ On Lauf more generally, see Schnelbögl, Fritz, “Die ‘Pfalz’ Lauf,” Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 19 (1959): 389–93Google Scholar; Kraft, Wilhelm and Schwemmer, Wilhelm, Kaiser Karls IV. Burg und Wappensaal zu Lauf (Nuremberg: Spindler, 1960)Google Scholar; Němec, “Herrscher—Kunst—Metapher,” esp. 399–400, which stresses Charles's agency and the castle's contribution to his “master-plan”; Němec, Richard, Architektur—Herrschaft—Land: Die Residenzen Karls IV. in Prag und den Ländern der Böhmischen Krone (Petersberg: Michael Imhof, 2015), 87–147Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Němec, “Herrscher—Kunst—Metapher,” 378–79; for details of the armorial program, see Kraft and Schwemmer, Lauf, 44–92.

⁸¹ Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 332; Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 127. The imperfect fit between statue and niche suggests that the figure was not made for its present location. That Wenceslas's shield here repeatedly bears the Bohemian lion, rather than his more common device of a black eagle on white, may have reflected a desire to mark this frontier point with the most unambiguous signs of Bohemian lordship; see Němec, Architektur—Herrschaft—Land, 136.

⁸² Němec, “Herrscher—Kunst—Metapher,” 389–90; idem, “Machtinszenierung,” 473.

⁸³ Růžek, Vladimír, “Neue Erkenntnisse zum Laufer Wappensaal: Bemerkungen zur Steinmetzhütte, Datierung und zum Wappenprogramm,” in Burg Lauf a.d. Pegnitz: Ein Bauwerk Kaiser Karls IV., ed. Großmann, G. Ulrich (Nuremberg: Wartburg Gesellschaft zur Erforschung von Burgen und Schlösser e.V., 2006), 74Google Scholar. A Prague connection has also been claimed for sculpture in the parish church of St. John the Baptist in the settlement of Lauf, which was raised to a town in the 1350s; see Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 332.

⁸⁴ Note that broad comparisons can be drawn with the painted genealogies and galleries of rulers known to have been displayed in the Caroline palaces in Prague, Karlstein, and Tangermünde; see Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 331. For theories about the armorial chamber's function, see Barbara Schock-Werner, “Die Burg Karls IV. in Lauf als Mittelpunkt eines geplanten neuen Landes,” in Großmann, ed., Burg Lauf a.d. Pegnitz, 19–24 (esp. 19–21); Němec, Architektur—Herrschaft—Land, 140–46.

⁸⁵ What is known about Charles's stays at Lauf is summarized in Lenka Bobková, “Die Oberpfalz und die Burg Lauf in den territorial-dynastischen Plänen Karls IV.,” in Großmann, ed., Burg Lauf a.d. Pegnitz, 32–33.

⁸⁶ Schnelbögl, “Die ‘Pfalz’ Lauf,” 392; Daniel Burger and Michael Rykl, “Die Raumordnung der Burg Karls IV. in Lauf,” in Großmann, ed., Burg Lauf a.d. Pegnitz, 63.

⁸⁷ For the idea that the armorial program was inspired in particular by the gathering of leading figures from the Empire in nearby Nuremberg for the baptism of Charles's heir, Wenceslas, in April 1361, see Růžek, “Neue Erkenntnisse,” 78; Němec, “Kulturlandschaft und ‘Staatsidee,’” 96.

⁸⁸ Fritz, ed., MGH Constitutiones, 11:209 (no. 390).

⁸⁹ For what follows, see Němec, Richard, “Die Burg- und Kosteranlage Oybin,” Burgen und Schlösser 44, no. 4 (2003): 241–51Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Haupt, ed., Jahrbücher, 18.

⁹¹ Despite his description of Oybin as “karolinische Propaganda,” the difficulties are made clear in Němec, “Die Burg- und Kosteranlage” (quote on 247).

⁹² Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 129; Wetter, “Die Lausitz,” 342.

⁹³ The phrase is by Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 335. Other royal sites also raise conundra; for uncertainties about the role and importance of the palace at Tangermünde under Charles, see Němec, Richard, “Machtinszenierung Karls IV. Profane Architektur in den Ländern der Corona regni Bohemiae: Böhmen 1333—Obere Pfalz 1353—Mark Brandenburg 1373,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 74, no. 4 (2011): 476–77Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ See Görich, Knut, “BarbarossaBilder—Befunde und Probleme,” in BarbarossaBilder: Entstehungskontexte, Erwartungshorizonte, Verwendungszusammenhänge, ed. Görich, Knut and Schmitz-Esser, Romedio (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2014), 9–29Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ For patronage links between court and urban patriciate in Nuremberg, see Jiří Fajt, “Was ist karolinisch an der Hofkunst Karls IV.?,” in Hohensee et al., eds., Die Goldene Bulle, 1:362–64; for Prague, and for the lesser Caroline center of Luckau in Lower Lusatia, see Bauch, Divina favente clementia, 354, 414–15.

⁹⁶ Scholz, Hartmut, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien in Mittelfranken und Nürnberg extra muros (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 2002), 217–40Google Scholar; Fajt, “Charles IV,” 6; idem, “Die Oberpfalz,” 328, 333; idem, ed., Karl IV. Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden, 336–39 (cat. no. 118, with an essay by Hartmut Scholz).

⁹⁷ Regesta Imperii records only one Caroline diploma that names Hersbruck as its place of issue, perhaps during a brief pause in Charles's travels; see Huber, Alfons, ed., Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Kaiser Karl IV. (1346–1378): Regesta Imperii (RI), vol. 8 (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1877), 216 (no. 2648, May 10, 1357)Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ It might be noted that the burghers enjoyed rights of self-government and low justice, though the town was subject to a Bohemian local agent (voit); see Fuchs, Die Städte, 25; Schnelbögl, ed., Das ‘Böhmische Salbüchlein,’ 32.

⁹⁹ Fuchs, Die Städte, 76–77. The precise date of Hersbruck's elevation to a town is unknown, but it probably occurred in the period 1359–1364; see Scholz, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien, 218; also see Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 129.

¹⁰⁰ Hartmut Scholz, “Prag oder Nürnberg? Die Luxemburger Fensterstiftungen in Nürnberg und Franken und die Frage ihrer künstlerischen Verortung,” in Fajt and Langer, eds., Kunst als Herrschaftsinstrument, 221–33.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 221. On burgher co-patronage, see Bauch, Divina favente clemencia, 397–98.

¹⁰² Sturm, “Des Kaisers Land,” 209; Bobková, “Die Oberpfalz und die Burg Lauf,” 26.

¹⁰³ Fajt and Hörsch, eds., Kaiser Karl IV., 587 (cat. no. 16.3).

¹⁰⁴ For the remarkable number of foundations named after Charles, esp. in Bohemia, see Widder, Ellen, “Mons imperialis, Baldenau, Karlstein: Bemerkungen zur Namengabung luxemburgischer Gründungen,” in Studia Luxemburgensia: Festschrift Heinz Stoob zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Fahlbusch, Friedrich Bernhard and Johanek, Peter (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1989), 233–84Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ On the idea that Charles deliberately pursued a different approach to naming in his Bavarian lands, see ibid., 258–60.

¹⁰⁶ See Bogade, Marco, “Kulturtransfer im späten Mittelalter—Die böhmischen Landespatrone Wenzel, Sigismund und Ludmilla und ihre Bildtradition in Süddeutschland,” in Ztracená Blízkost: Praha—Norimberk v Proměnách Staletí, ed. Fejtová, Olga, Ledvinka, Václav, and Pešek, Jiří (Prague: Scriptorium, 2010), 85–121Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 130; Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 330, note 13.

¹⁰⁸ Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 67–68.

¹⁰⁹ For the Sulzbach hospital sculpture, see Bogade, “Kulturtransfer,” 94. The surviving figure dates from the fifteenth century, but may have had a predecessor. Its presence above the church portal was noted in the late eighteenth century in [Thomas Leinberger], Die Beherrscher der Stadt Sulzbach durch achthundert Jahre, vorgestellt an dem Jubeltage des durchlauchtigsten Kurfürsten von Pfalz und Bayern Karl Philipp Theodors funfzig Jahre regierenden Herzogens von Sulzbach (Den 20sten Julius im Jahr 1783) (Sulzbach: n.p., 1783), 34. For the St. Wenceslas bridge, see Zimmermann, Gerd, “Die Verehrung der böhmischen Heiligen im mittelalterlichen Bistum Bamberg,” Bericht des Historischen Vereins für die Pflege der Geschichte des ehemaligen Fürstbistums Bamberg 100 (1964): 232Google Scholar. For coins, see Bobková, “Die Oberpfalz und die Burg Lauf,” 33; Deuerlein, Ernst G., “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ‘neuböhmischen’ Münzstätte zu Auerbach,” Mitteilungen der Altnürnberger Landschaft 13, no. 1/2 (1964): 26–32Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Schneider, Reinhard, “Karolus qui et Wenceslaus,” in Festschrift für Helmut Beumann, ed. Jäschke, Karl-Ulrich and Wenskus, Reinhard (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1977), 365–87 (esp. 382–83)Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Bogade, “Kulturtransfer,” 88. The term was coined in Franz Machilek, “Privatfrömmigkeit und Staatsfrömmigkeit,” in Seibt, ed., Kaiser Karl IV., 87–101.

¹¹² See Klaniczay, Gábor, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; for sainthood and identity-formation, more generally, see Bauer, Dieter R., Herbers, Klaus, and Signori, Gabriela, eds., Patriotische Heilige: Beiträge zur Konstruktion religiöser und politischer Identitäten in der Vormoderne (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 2007)Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Graus, František, Lebendige Vergangenheit: Überlieferung im Mittelalter und in den Vorstellungen vom Mittelalter (Cologne: Böhlau, 1975), 160–76Google Scholar; Wolverton, Lisa, Hastening Toward Prague: Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 165–73Google Scholar; for St. Wenceslas as Bohemia's military helper, see František Graus, “Der Heilige als Schlachtenhelfer: Zur Nationalisierung einer Wundererzählung in der mittelalterlichen Chronistik,” in Jäschke and Wenskus, eds., Festschrift für Helmut Beumann, 341–48. Wenceslas's cult in Bohemia is viewed in broad historical perspective in Samerski, Stefan, ed., Wenzel: Protagonist der böhmischen Erinnerungskultur (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁴ See Schwinges, Rainer Christoph, “‘Primäre’ und ‘sekundäre’ Nation: Nationalbewußtsein und sozialer Wandel im mittelalterlichen Böhmen,” in Europa slavica—Europa orientalis: Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Grothusen, Klaus-Detlev and Zernack, Klaus (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1980), 490–532 (esp. 519–20)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ The chronicler Francis of Prague recounts, for the year 1338, the story of a German craftsman struck dumb for mocking St. Wenceslas as a “rustic.” Francis added that, on account of this miracle, “Deinceps Theutonici patronum nostrum in maiori reverencia habuerunt” (Henceforth the Germans held our patron saint in greater reverence); see Zachová, Jana, ed., Chronicon Francisci Pragensis (Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1997), 168Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Zimmermann, “Die Verehrung,” esp. 219; Bogade, “Kulturtransfer,” 89. Other Bohemian saints, notably Sigismund (whose cult Charles IV promoted), also enjoyed some local veneration in Franconia; see Zimmermann, “Die Verehrung,” 226; Machilek, Franz, “Sigismund,” in Die Landespatrone der böhmischen Länder: Geschichte—Verehrung—Gegenwart, ed. Samerski, Stefan (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2009), 229–30; also see note 118Google Scholar. There seems to be no evidence, however, for Machilek's claim that Charles IV donated a Sigismund-relic to Sulzbach.

¹¹⁷ Graus, František, “Böhmen zwischen Bayern und Sachsen: Zur böhmischen Kirchengeschichte des 10. Jahrhunderts,” Historica 17 (1969): 22–24Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ The cult of St. Sigismund—whose veneration at the small settlement of Seußling an der Aisch (Bamberg diocese) focused on the church dedicated to him, and is first attested in the later fourteenth century—seems similarly to have flourished there without any involvement from Charles IV's court. The local tradition—according to which Sigismund's arm relic, preserved in the church, had remained in Seußling as a result of a miracle that occurred at the time that the saint's remains were transported to Prague—is unlikely to be historically accurate. That only serves to underline, however, the capacity of local communities to link themselves imaginatively to the Bohemian court and its cults, and to generate supporting collective memories without any direction from the “center.” See Bogade, “Kulturtransfer,” 102–4; Bauch, Divina favente clementia, 284.

¹¹⁹ Bogade, “Kulturtransfer,” 95–99; Fajt and Hörsch, “Karl IV. und das Heilige Römische Reich,” 65–67. For the close ties between southeast German and Bohemian monastic houses, see Karl Richter, “Die böhmischen Länder im Früh- und Hochmittelalter,” in Bosl, ed., Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, 293–300; Moraw, Peter, “Das Mittelalter,” in Böhmen und Mähren, ed. Prinz, Friedrich (Berlin: Siedler, 1993), 102–9Google Scholar. The archbishop of Prague exercised a perpetual legateship, renewed in 1365, over the bishoprics of Bamberg and Regensburg; see Zimmermann, “Die Verehrung,” 211.

¹²⁰ There appears to be no evidence of conflicts between local populations and members of the Czech entourages of Bohemian officials.

¹²¹ Novotny, Václav M., ed., Jana Husi Korespondence a Dokumenty (Prague: Nákl. komise pro vydávání pramenů náboženského hnutí českého, 1920), 212–14 (no. 93; Nuremberg, Oct. 24, 1414)Google Scholar; Baron, Bernhard M., “Der Zug des Magisters Jan Hus 1414 durch die Obere Pfalz,” Oberpfälzer Heimat 37 (1993): 75–80Google Scholar.

¹²² Seibt, Karl IV., 279. Since this relies on surviving documents issued in Charles's name, the total amount of time that he spent there is likely to have been considerably greater.

¹²³ RI, 154 (no. 1928), 179 (no. 2207); Pelzel, Franz Martin, Kaiser Karl der Vierte, König in Böhmen, vol. 1 (Prague: Hagen, 1780), 400Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ It was there that, on August 1, 1354, Charles reached a final reconciliation with Ludwig of Brandenburg and his Wittelsbach kinsmen; see RI, 151–52 (nos. 1899–1907).

¹²⁵ See Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 63–67; Fuchs, Die Städte, 70–72; Piendl, Max, Herzogtum Sulzbach, Landrichteramt Sulzbach (Munich: Kommission für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, 1957), 72Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 74.

¹²⁷ Ibid., 69; Bauch, Divina favente clemencia, 419–20. Charles's supplications may also have resulted in grants of indulgences for chapels in the town.

¹²⁸ Fuchs, “Die Kirchen von Sulzbach-Rosenberg,” 777, 780–81; Bauch, Divina favente clemencia, 420; Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 331; Chotébor, Petr, “Kostel Panny Marie v Sulzbachu v souvislostech karlovského uměni,” Uměni 51, no. 6 (2003): 506–9Google Scholar. Scholars have discerned in the new fabric evidence of stylistic and workshop connections to both Prague and Nuremberg.

¹²⁹ Eckert, Alfred, ed., Nordgauchronik von Johannes Braun Pastor und Superintendent zu Bayreuth, Anno 1648 (Amberg: Oberpfalz, 1993), 107Google Scholar; Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 69–70.

¹³⁰ This interpretation is revisited in Metz, Fritz, “Karl IV. oder der hl. Wenzel,” Die Oberpfalz 53, no. 6 (1965): 132–34Google Scholar.

¹³¹ For what follows, see Schnelbögl, Fritz, “Kaiser Karl IV. oder der hl. Wenzel?,” Oberpfälzer Heimat 6 (1963): 33–38Google Scholar.

¹³² On St. Wenceslas iconography, see Royt, Jan, “Ikonografie Svatého Václava ve středověku,” in Svatý Václav: na památku 1100. výročí narození knížete Václava Svatého, ed. Kubín, Petr (Prague: Univerzita Karlova z Praze, 2010), 301–24Google Scholar; Kletzl, Otto, “Typen der Wenzelsdarstellung,” Slavische Rundschau 2, no. 8 (1930): 496–507Google Scholar. The sword that the Sulzbach figure currently holds dates from a modern repair, though a sword may already have been substituted for Wenceslas's lance in a seventeenth-century restoration; see Die Kunstdenkmäler von Oberpfalz und Regensburg, vol. 19: Sulzbach, ed. Hager, Georg and Lill, Georg (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1910), 89Google Scholar. For the use of rose motifs to designate martyrs in fourteenth-century German figure sculpture, see Jacobs, Hans-Joachim, “Das Bild Karls des Großen in der Stadt Frankfurt im 14. Jahrhundert,” in Karl der Große als vielberufener Vorfahr: Sein Bild in der Kunst der Fürsten, Kirchen und Städte, ed. Saurma-Jeltsch, Lieselotte E. (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994), 83 (with note 80)Google Scholar.

¹³³ Schock-Werner, “Die Burg Karls IV.,” 22; Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 332. For affinities with the figures on Nuremberg's market fountain, the Schöne Brunnen, datable to the 1380s-1390s, see Hager and Lill, eds., Die Kunstdenkmäler, 89. For a dating of the Sulzbach figure to c. 1380, with reference to the later style of armor in comparison to Prague (St. Vitus) and Nuremberg (Frauenkirche) Wenceslas figures (both probably of two decades earlier), see Bräutigam, Günther, “Gmünd—Prag—Nürnberg: Die Nürnberger Frauenkirche und der Prager Parlerstil vor 1360,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 3 (1961): 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The late date and a Nuremberg origin are supported in the catalogue entry by Heinz Stafski in Legner, Anton, ed., Die Parler und der schöne Stil 1350–1400: Europäische Kunst unter den Luxemburgern, 3 vols. (Cologne: Museen der Stadt Köln, 1978), 1:364Google Scholar.

¹³⁴ Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 330, note 13.

¹³⁵ The seventeenth-century chronicler Johannes Braun noted specifically that the statue faced the market and the Rathaus; see Eckert, ed., Nordgauchronik, 107.

¹³⁶ Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 330.

¹³⁷ Eckert, ed., Nordgauchronik, 107 (an origin in Charles's initiative is nevertheless assumed by Bobková, “Die Oberpfalz und die Burg Lauf,” 28). The same chronicler, Johannes Braun, also claims that the Wenceslas statue at Sulzbach's hospital-church was a local commission, undertaken in gratitude for Charles's favor towards the town; see ibid., 105.

¹³⁸ Jana Gajdošová, “The Charles Bridge: ceremony and propaganda in medieval Prague” (PhD diss., Birkbeck College, University of London, 2015), 40, 137, 142; also see idem, “The Lost Gothic Statue of St. Wenceslas at the Old Town Bridge Tower,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 80, no. 3 (2017): 315–28Google Scholar.

¹³⁹ Michael Viktor Schwarz, “Wenzel in der Welt,” in Fajt and Langer, eds., Kunst als Herrschaftsinstrument, 187; but see also Hlobil, Ivo, “Die Wenzelsstatue mit Peter Parlers Zeichen im Veitsdom,” Uměni 47, no. 5 (1999): 385–88Google Scholar. Jana Gajdošová has proposed that the statue may originally have been located near the Old Town Bridge Tower—another location in outdoor, public space; see Gajdošová, “The Charles Bridge,” 143–45. For the Wenceslas chapel and its decoration, see, more generally, Lucy Ormrod, “The Wenceslas chapel in St Vitus’ cathedral, Prague: the marriage of imperial iconography and Bohemian kingship” (PhD diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, 1997).

¹⁴⁰ Bláhová, Marie, “Die Kult des heiligen Wenzel in der Ideologie Karls IV.,” in Fonctions sociales et politiques du culte des saints dans les sociétés de rite grec et latin au Moyen Âge et à l’époque modern: Approche comparative, ed. Derwich, Marek and Dmitriev, Michel (Wrócław: Larhcor, 1999), 228, 232Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ It has been argued, based on evidence from Prague, that support for Wenceslas's cult was waning around the time that the statue was made; see Mengel, David C., “A holy and faithful fellowship: royal saints in fourteenth-century Prague,” in Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku: Sborník přípěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, ed. Doležalová, Eva, Novotný, Robert, and Soukup, Pavel (Prague: Filosofia, 2004), 145–58 (esp. 156–57)Google Scholar; Bauch, Divina favente clementia, 293–94. That he nevertheless retained his salience in Sulzbach seems to underline the importance of local and constitutional considerations.

¹⁴² It would not be the only instance of the visual assimilation of monarch to saint: for example, the seated figure of Charles on the Old Town Bridge Tower in Prague, which dates from the 1370s, incorporates iconographic motifs for representing St. Wenceslas; see Rosario, Art and Propaganda, 78, 80. Another suggestive parallel is with the sculpture of Charlemagne located on Frankfurt am Main's Galgentor (1365), which, scholars have suggested, evoked both St. Wenceslas and Charles IV; see Jacobs, “Das Bild Karls des Großen,” 84; Saurma-Jeltsch, Lieselotte E., “Karl der Große im Spätmittelalter: Zum Wandel einer politischen Ikone,” Zeitschrift des Aachener Geschichtsvereins 104/105 (2003): 430–35Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ See Hilger, Hans Peter, “Die Skulpturen an der südlichen Querhausfassade von St. Marien zu Mühlhausen in Thüringen,” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 22 (1960): 159–64Google Scholar; Richter, Christa, Die Thomas-Müntzer-Gedenkstätte Marienkirche zu Mühlhausen (Mühlhausen Thomas-Müntzer-Stadt: Zentrale Gedenkstätte “Deutscher Bauernkrieg,” 1990)Google Scholar; Boockmann, Hartmut, “Der Deutsche Orden in Mühlhausen,” Sachsen und Anhalt 21 (1998): 9–35Google Scholar; Andreas Puth “‘Christus Dominus de hoc Seculo’: Charles IV, Advent and Epiphany on the south transept façade of St Mary's in Mühlhausen,” in Fajt and Langer, eds., Kunst als Herrschaftsinstrument, 515–33; Bühner, Peter, “Das südliche Querhausportal der Marienkirche—ein monumentales Gerichtsportal?,” Mühlhauser Beiträge 26 (2003): 134–39Google Scholar; also see the essays by Peter Findeisen and Ernst Ullmann in Legner, ed., Die Parler, 2:560–61.

¹⁴⁴ Richter, Marienkirche, 18, note 19; Boockmann, “Der Deutsche Orden,” 28 (with note 84). The evidence is from the early eighteenth century.

¹⁴⁵ Boockmann, “Der Deutsche Orden,” 30–31.

¹⁴⁶ The burghers of Donauwörth, for example, placed an image of Charles's son Sigismund (r. 1410/1411–1437) on their fortifications in gratitude for his aid to the town against the duke of Bavaria; see Olaf B. Rader, “Zwischen Friedberg und Eco: Die Interpretation von Urkundentexten Karls IV. oder Vom Gang durch die Säle der Erkenntnis,” in Lindner, Müller-Mertens, and Rader, eds., Kaiser, Reich und Region, 269–270.

¹⁴⁷ Saurma-Jeltsch, Lieselotte E., “Zeichen des Reiches im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert,” in Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation 962 bis 1806: Von Otto dem Grossen bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters: Essays, ed. Puhle, Matthias and Hasse, Claus-Peter (Dresden: Sandstein, 2006), 342Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁸ See, more generally, Saurma-Jeltsch, Lieselotte E., “Das mittelalterliche Reich in der Reichsstadt,” in Heilig—Römisch—Deutsch: Das Reich im mittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Schneidmüller, Bernd and Weinfurter, Stefan (Dresden: Sandstein, 2006), 399–439Google Scholar; von der Dunk, Thomas H., Das Deutsche Denkmal: Eine Geschichte in Bronze und Stein vom Hochmittelalter bis zum Barock (Cologne: Böhlau, 1999), esp. 45–50Google Scholar. In Frankfurt an der Oder in the Mark Brandenburg, the portal of the Marienkirche (a royal project), with imperial, Bohemian, and Brandenburg armorials, faced the Rathaus; see Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 129–30.

¹⁴⁹ Masschaele, James, “The public space of the marketplace in medieval England,” Speculum 77, no. 2 (2002): 399CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ This seems to have been the late-medieval fate of the equestrian statue, probably representing the emperor Otto I (r. 936–973), set up in the market place in Magdeburg by the town's archiepiscopal ruler in the thirteenth century, as witness to the imperial privileges by which he ruled; see Schubert, Ernst, “Der Magdeburger Reiter,” Magdeburger Museumshefte 3 (1994): 5–42Google Scholar; von der Dunk, Das Deutsche Denkmal, 57–60. On the negotiated character of medieval urban space more generally, see Howell, Martha C., “The spaces of late medieval urbanity,” in Shaping Urban Identity in Late Medieval Europe, ed. Boone, Marc and Stabel, Peter (Leuven: Garant, 2000), 3–23 (esp. 18–19)Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Trusen, Winfried, “Rolandsäulen,” in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 4, ed. Erler, Adalbert and Kaufmann, Ekkehard (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1990), 1102–6Google Scholar; Munzel-Everling, Dietlinde, “Rolandfiguren und Kaiserrecht: Zum rechtshistorischen Hintergrund der Erichtung von Rolanden,” in Rolande, Kaiser und Recht: Zur Rechtsgeschichte des Harzraumes und seiner Umgebung, ed. Pötschke, Dietrich (Berlin: Lukas, 1999), 133–57Google Scholar.

¹⁵² Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 330 (with note 18). The identification of one of the eagles with St. Wenceslas is supported by Johannes Braun's observation, in 1648, that the Sulzbach Wenceslas statue bore on its shield a (recently renovated) “black imperial eagle”—surely in origin, given its location, the saint's own (similar) device; see Eckert, ed., Nordgauchronik, 107; Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 70. For a different interpretation of the two house-façade eagles, see Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 124, note 23. A broadly comparable armorial program was placed on Charles's likely accommodation in Breslau—which also faced the Rathaus; see Romuald Kaczmarek, “Schlesien—die luxemburgische Erwerbung,” in Fajt, ed., Karl IV., 311–12.

¹⁵³ On the houses of leading burghers as places of stay for traveling late-medieval emperors, see Schenk, Gerrit Jasper, Zeremoniell und Politik: Herrschereinzüge im spätmittelalterlichen Reich (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003), 381–82Google Scholar; for the marking of Charles IV's accommodation (in Passau in 1348) with his (imperial) armorial, see Saurma-Jeltsch, “Zeichen,” 342; for the practice more broadly, with numerous examples, see Kraack, Detlev, Monumentale Zeugnisse der spätmittelalterlichen Adelsreise: Inschriften und Graffiti des 14.-16. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997)Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ Excavations during the 1990s revealed that the Schloß, previously regarded as a largely postmedieval structure, had already attained appropriately regal proportions in Charles IV's day. References in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century documents to a Kaiserstube and a Kaysser Garten there suggest the place of stay of an emperor—who could only have been Charles; see Elisabeth Vogl, “Das Sulzbacher Schloß,” in Stadt Sulzbach-Rosenberg, ed., Eisenerz und Morgenglanz, 2:759. That Charles ever stayed at the house “Zur Krone” appears to have no evidential basis beyond local tradition, supported by the house's armorial decorations; for the claim that it was his “vorzüglichste Herberge und der Absteigort” (principal lodging and stopping place), see Thomas Leinberger, Die Beherrscher der Stadt Sulzbach, 34. Archaeological evidence of fire damage at the Schloß, probably still under repair in the early 1350s, does support, however, the likelihood that his early stays in Sulzbach were in a townhouse; see Vogl, “Das Sulzbacher Schloß,” 760–61.

¹⁵⁵ The earliest reference to the existence of a document obliging the householder to maintain the armorials appears to be [Carl Christoph Adolph von Seidel], “Historische Denkwürdigkeiten des ehemaligen Herzogthumes Sulzbach,” Wochenblatt der Stadt Sulzbach (Sept. 25, 1844): 315; see also Gack, Georg Christoph, Geschichte des Herzogthums Sulzbach (Leipzig: Weigel, 1847), 92Google Scholar. Commemorating the monarch's stay by means of an ephemeral armorial, painted on a building façade, was a far more common practice; for marking Charles's (and his son Wenceslas's) visit to the town of Rothenburg ob der Tauber in this way, see Bojcov, Michail, “Ephemerität und Permanenz bei Herrschereinzügen im spätmittelalterlichen Deutschland,” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 24 (1997): 102, note 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁶ Batzl, Heribert, Geschichte der Stadt Hirschau (Kallmünz: Laßleben, 1968), 44–45Google Scholar; Seitz, Reinhard H., “Hirschau: Eine Stadtgründung Kaiser Karls IV. an der Goldenen Straße?,” Oberpfälzer Heimat 16 (1972): 69–82Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ The possibly nonroyal origin of some armorials is conceded by Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 129. For arguments in support of a centrally directed Caroline image-program in Bavaria, see Němec, “Herrscher—Kunst—Metapher,” 395.

¹⁵⁸ Fajt, “Die Oberpfalz,” 329. For what follows, see Sturm, “Des Kaisers Land,” 210–11; Fuchs, Die Städte, 80–81; Zelenka, Aleš, Böhmische Stadtsiegel aus der Sammlung Erik Turnwald (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1988), 9Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁹ Sagstetter, “Sulzbach,” 66–67. For the Bohemian armorial on seals from the crown lands, see Bobková, “Corona regni Bohemiae,” 130.

¹⁶⁰ Fröhlich, Johann Baptist, “Der böhmische Löwe in Weiden und Neustadt,” Oberpfälzer Heimat 11 (1967): 102Google Scholar; Batzl, Geschichte der Stadt Hirschau, plates between pp. 8 and 9 (seals from the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries).

¹⁶¹ Fröhlich, “Der böhmische Löwe,” 102. For other late local survivals, see ibid., 103.

¹⁶² Kaiser Karl IV., ed. Fajt and Hörsch, 592 (cat. no. 16.8, with essay by Jana Knejfl). The glove appears to be too small for an adult.

¹⁶³ Ascherl, Heinrich, “Neustadt WN unter Karl IV.,” Oberpfälzer Heimat 23 (1979): 70Google Scholar; Fuchs, Die Städte, 70; Sturm, Heribert, Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Weiden, Gemeinschaftsamt Parkstein, Grafschaft Störnstein, Pflegeamt Floß (Flossenbürg) (Munich: Kommission für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, 1978), 117–35Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁴ Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Stadtarchiv B13 Ratsprotokoll 1686–97. I am grateful to Ursula Wiechert for her guidance on this, and, more generally, on the postmedieval fortunes of Charles's glove and Neustadt's woodcutting rights. Around 140 householders (the so-called Corporation) retain these rights today; their annual mass remembers Charles IV. See also Christoph, Rainer, “Kaiser Karl IV. und die Oberpfalz,” Oberpfälzer Heimatspiegel 40 (2015): 68Google Scholar; Wiechert, Ursula, “Neustädter Handschuh kehrt heim,” Oberpfälzer Heimatspiegel 42 (2017): 62–64Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁵ For this occasion, with evidence for its popularity, see Bauch, Divina favente clementia, 365–80.

¹⁶⁶ Watts, “Looking for the state.”