148 The Origins of the Thirty Years War and the Revolt in Bohemia, 1618
troops, one of their first acts after the defenestration, whileConscripsit
Apologiam cum Aliisrefers to the fact that he, with others, then wrote the
firstApologiawhich the rebels swiftly published to justify their actions.
Suleuauit Incolasindicates that he ‘encouraged the inhabitants’, presum-
ably a reference to seeking popular support for the revolt, andJurauit
personaliterrelates to him swearing an oath, probably the one which
the new directors took upon appointment. The second part of the note,
on the next page and equally brief, continues to list further offences
chronologically, including Budowetz’s part in the Bohemian attempts to
obstruct the election of Ferdinand as emperor in Frankfurt, his breach
of his own feudal vow by voting for Friedrich as the replacement king of
Bohemia, and his support for Thurn’s invasion of Imperial territory and
siege of Vienna. The note concludes with a summary of his proposed
sentence.
The vital passage, and the only one to which Gindely could have been
referring, isFatetur se Coniurasse cum Turno et Smirzickio tamen non alio
respectu quam Religionis in Turri Smirzicki Domus. This means: ‘He admits
that he made an alliance with Thurn and Smiˇrický, however in no other
respect than religion, in the tower of Smiˇrický’s house.’ According to
the Oxford Latin Dictionary the verb used can indicate that the alliance
was made between enemies, appropriately enough given that Budowetz
and Smiˇrický were both Calvinist activists, whereas Thurn was firmly
Lutheran. There is no suggestion that this compact had any connec-
tion with a plot to carry out the defenestration, and indeed the stress
that it was ‘in no other respect than religion’ effectively rules that out.
Moreover Lobkowitz lists the findings against Budowetz in chronolog-
ical order, in accordance with the strictly chronological interrogations
carried out at the rebels’ trials, so that this meeting would have taken
placeafterthe defenestration, and there is nothing in the wording to
support Gindely’s assertion that it was on the day before.
Gindely’s work in the archive at Raudnitz has itself been the subject of
research, establishing that after his visit there in March 1860 he wrote to
leading Czech historians to report that he had found long-sought infor-
mation about the deliberations in Vienna over the sentences proposed
for the Bohemian rebels. This was the Lobkowitz document discussed
above, the key part of which Gindely cited in his history nine years later,
in 1869. After a further eight years, in 1877, when Gindely was working
on his fourth volume, including details of the punishments meted out
to the leaders of the revolt, he wrote to the Raudnitz archivist asking
for the document to be sent on loan to him in Prague. He had, he said,