Chapter 11
Marie Buňatová
Introduction
Under the reign of the Emperor Rudolph II (Bohemian king from 1576 to 1611), Prague was an important Central European centre of power and culture and also a metropolis in which the capital of domestic and foreign companies and financiers was active. The population of the Prague agglomeration, which consisted of three royal towns – the Old Town, the New Town and Malá Strana, along with the town of Hradčany and the town of Vyšehrad, increased rapidly over several decades, rising from 25,000 at the beginning of the 16th century to 60,000–70,000 in the last third of the same century. Prague experienced an economic boom during this period, one which was boosted by the transferral of the imperial court to the city in 1583. This resulted not only in an overall increase in population, but also in the formation of a sufficiently strong group of consumers from among the courtiers, court officials, nobles, and wealthier burghers, who not only were interested in luxury goods from abroad, but also had the money to purchase them. Business opportunities attracted to the city more merchants, who chiefly came from neighbouring countries and from the north of the Apennine Peninsula, and subsequently from Holland or other parts of Western Europe at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. They all strove to supply the court, as well as the nobles and burghers, with desired goods of Italian, Western European, and overseas provenance (Ledvinka & Pešek 2000, pp. 336–9).
There had been Jews in the city since medieval times and their community had a population of around 8,000–9,000 during the Rudolphine period. Among them, there was also a large group of financiers, wholesalers, and smaller merchants, whose activities were not limited to just Jewish customers and the boundaries of the Jewish quarter, but co-created and influenced the entire nature and scope of trade in Prague. The economic elite consisted of families who we know resided in Prague from at least the end of the 15th century or first decades of the 16th century, such as members of the broader Horowitz-Munka, Sachs, Weisswasser, Weisel, and Impresor families. Marek Mordechai Meisel, the Mayor of the Jewish community and the emperor’s banker, held a very privileged position (Buňatová 2011; Vilímková 1993). Wealthy and smaller businessmen and financiers were also recruited from among Jewish immigrants who arrived here from the 1570s onwards from German lands, Poland and Italy. Moses Frankfurter, the Wechsler family, rabbi Jacob Kalman, the Italian Jews Abraham Sacerdoti, rabbi Ventura de Bacchi, and the brothers Samuel and Jacob Bassevi from Verona were particularly distinguished as businessmen and financiers with extensive foreign contacts (Buňatová 2019, pp. 257–63).
The legal conditions for trade in early modern Prague
Separate commercial law did not exist in the early modern age and was included in private law at the time. In the Czech environment, the foundations of commercial law were embodied in estates law codified at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries (Jireček & Jireček 1882; Kreuz & Martinovský 2007; Malý & Pánek 2001), and were also included in municipal law (Jireček 1876; Malý & Šouša 2013). Along with the Common Law of the Land and municipal law, the legislative terms for the business activities of Christians and Jews in Prague were also formed by the privileges granted by the rulers, instructions from the municipal governments of individual Prague towns, and the regulations of guild corporations (Buňatová 2013, pp. 52–100).
An important legal standard that influenced business life in Prague, with varying intensity, from the medieval ages to the 17th century was the so-called guest law (Gastrecht). During the 13th and 14th centuries this developed in all economically advanced cities in Europe where it regulated the terms under which foreign merchants were able to trade there. In Prague, this law was codified in 1304 by the Bohemian King Wenceslaus II (1278/83–1305) and was subsequently amended several times during the 14th century (Buňatová 2013, pp. 54–9; Čelakovský 1886, pp. 19–21). Merchants from the Old Town had this law confirmed once again in 1498 by the Bohemian King Vladislaus II (1471–1516). The privileges were also confirmed by subsequent rulers and, for the last time, by Emperor Leopold I in 1671 (Urfus 1959, pp. 60–2).
Without going into a detailed analysis of Prague guest law, this was the most important restriction placed on foreign merchants (guests) in the 16th century because it prohibited retail sales. Guests, which included everyone who was not a Prague burgher, were only able to sell goods wholesale in Prague and were prohibited from selling goods ‘in small quantities’ directly to customers (apart from annual markets). Only burghers from Nuremburg, who were the main suppliers of foreign goods in Prague, were exempt from this prohibition on the basis of the Prague-Nuremburg Trade Agreement dating from 1488/89 (Buňatová 2016a, pp. 663–6; Janáček 1959, pp. 209–13).
Jews were also officially forbidden from conducting retail sales (outside the territory of the Prague Jewish Town) for many years. It was only Rudolph II who granted them the privilege of selling furs and leather in small quantities in 1585 but this more or less legalised the actual state of affairs because Prague Jews had been selling small quantities of various goods long before this despite the prohibitions (Buňatová 2013, pp. 87–8).
Credit in light of the Land Constitution
Towards the end of the 15th century, European society’s perception of money lending underwent a transformation, whereby Church authorities were forced to accept the constantly increasing money lending activities of Christians and gradually moderate the doctrine that prohibited Christians from performing this activity (Denzel 2010; North 1991). These changes also affected the Bohemian lands and the situation required new legislation at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries (Urfus 1975, p. 65). Money lending and the related indebtedness at all levels of society, from nobles to subjects, was becoming a society-wide problem in Bohemia towards the end of the 15th century, one which Bohemian Diets and the Land Court repeatedly attempted to resolve. However, this task was not simple because, at that time, a number of burghers and nobles were openly lending money (Bůžek, 1989). In their resolutions, the Bohemian Diets attempted to regulate money lending by Christians and Jews by: (a) legalising maximum interest rates applied by Christian and Jewish creditors; (b) defining the legal and prohibited forms of money lending; and (c) defining the legal methods for securing loans and recovering debts (Buňatová 2011, pp. 105–36).
In 1484, the Bohemian Diet legalised money lending by Christians in Bohemia and permitted them to apply interest to loans at a rate of 10%. This principle was adopted in the Vladislaus Land Constitution in 1500 (Palacký 1862, pp. 190–1). The 10% interest rate on loans provided by Christians applied until 1543 when it was reduced to 6% (Sněmy české I, 1877, p. 565). This reduction is usually interpreted as an attempt to reduce the difference between the profits generated from lending money and the proceeds from farming on a noble estate (Ledvinka 1985, pp. 29–33) or as an attempt to approximate the terms of the financial market in Spain (with an interest rate of 5–7%), and in the Lutheran environment (with an interest rate of 6%) (Vorel 2005, p. 164). An interest rate of 5%, that is 1% lower than in Bohemia, was set in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire in 1577 by the Imperial Police Ordinance (Reichspolizeiordnung). From the time of codification of the Vladislaus Land Constitution, the Common Law of the Land gradually also defined the individual permissible and prohibited forms of money lending and determined the sanctions for failure to adhere to these terms. The term usury (sedlání or lichva) was used to identify the actions of a creditor who demanded a higher rate of interest from a debtor than that permitted for money lending, either publically or secretly, or demanded other services in addition to the interest (e.g. the gift of an item) (Jireček & Jireček 1882, pp. 345–6, 655).
The rapid increase in financial transactions during the last quarter of the 16th century resulted in an expansion of the register of various illegal forms of money lending which were intended to hide the actual interest rate imposed by the creditor. The Common Law of the Land underwent further amendments after this phenomenon became a society-wide problem. The punishments for sedlání were initially made stricter in 1575, and the guilty party would not only lose all his property but also own life (Sněmy české IV, 1886, pp. 288–90). This strict punishment was temporarily tempered in 1608 to just the forfeit of twice the loaned amount but, because the number of illegal cases of money lending did not fall, the Diet adopted new legislation in 1610. This described in detail the legal and particularly the illegal methods for arranging a loan (partita), and the punishments were again made stricter (Glücklich 1936, pp. 360–7). This regulation was adopted in the Renewed Land Constitution dating from 1627 (Jireček 1888, pp. 370–8).
The legislation concerning money lending by Jews underwent more complicated development during the 16th century when there were conflicts of interest between the monarch and the nobility. While the monarch was interested in making as much profit as possible from the Jews’ business activities, the interests of the nobility were influenced by their concerns over not just the increasing indebtedness of their subjects, but also of the nobles themselves. The chief principles under which Jews were able to provide financial loans were stipulated by Vladislaus II in the Vladislaus Jewish Code dating from 1497 (Bondy & Dworsky 1906a, pp. 173–80). It permitted Jews to lend money against a lien on an item (e.g. jewels), and also allowed them to secure their loans by simple debt certificates (schuldbrief) or register their loans in official ledgers kept at town halls. Jewish creditors in Prague were also permitted to register their receivables in the Register of the Prague Burgravate whose court was competent to recover these debts. The permitted interest rate for Jewish creditors ranged between 20% and 24.76%, depending on the value of the loan.
Subsequent legislative developments in Bohemia were more regressive during the 16th century with constantly worsening terms under which Jews were able to lend money because the Bohemian Diets and the influential governments of the Prague towns regularly endeavoured to restrict the options of Jewish financiers as much as possible. As a result, the entire period until 1623 is characterised by worsening terms (with minor fluctuations) under which Jews were able to lend money and by the Jews’ efforts to achieve the terms codified in 1497 as closely as possible.
The terms under which Jews were able to lend money worsened in the individual Bohemian royal towns, including Prague, during the first two decades of the 16th century. For instance, interest rates were reduced to 12.38% in the Old Town in 1515 and Jews were only permitted to lend money against a lien on items (Bondy & Dworsky 1906a, pp. 222–3). According to the legislation in the Land Constitution from 1530 (Jireček & Jireček 1882, p. 89), the text of which was incorporated in the amendments of the Land Constitutions from 1549 and 1564, Jews were prohibited from registering any loans in official (municipal) ledgers, or executing debt certificates with debtors, and were only permitted to lend money against a lien. It was only in the Rudolphine period that Jews were again permitted to conclude at least simple debt certificates with debtors.
The Diet resolution from 1596 brought about temporary legislative improvements for several years. According to this resolution, Jews were again able to recover their receivables before the court of the Prague Burgravate (Bondy & Dworsky 1906b, pp. 697–8); however, this was again forbidden in 1601, along with the possibility of securing loans by debt certificates. But, in practice, we know that financier Mordechai Meisel and other wealthy Prague Jews did recover their receivables before this court from at least the turn of the 1580s and 90s (Buňatová 2016b, p. 40). The Diet resolution from 1615, according to which Jews were able to conclude simple debt certificates for loans up to the value of 1,500–2,000 threescore of Meissen groschen and were again able to recover their receivables before the court of the Prague Burgravate, brought about another positive change (Bondy & Dworsky 1906b, p. 860). Other qualitative changes for Jews were the result of a privilege granted by Emperor Ferdinand II in 1623, in which he confirmed the interest rate of 24.76% (Čelakovský 1886, pp. 516–23). This rate was reduced to the level of Christian loans (6%) by a declaration in 1642 by Ferdinand III who conceived his order as an amendment to Article M XI of the Renewed Land Constitution from 1627 (Buňatová 2013, pp. 90–1).
Credit practice by Christians and Jews in Prague
The general shortage of cash in the early modern society meant that loans were also an important pillar of the economy in Bohemia during the Rudolphine period. They were essential for wholesalers, who needed capital (cash) to purchase goods abroad, and also for medium-sized and small merchants who conducted business on the local market. The nobles were the ones most often interested in a loan in Prague (Bohemia) because their demanding lifestyle, court appearances, and construction of Renaissance residences as well as the every-day running of their households resulted in their constant need for money which they were often unable to fulfil using just the income from their estates. The monarch and his government apparatus were permanent clients requiring loans, the needs that increased after new military conflicts with the Turks flared up.
There were a number of moneylenders among the Christians and Jews in Prague whose services differed depending on their social standing and wealth. Some Prague burghers (both men and women) also lent money and mostly provided smaller loans to their neighbours – craftsmen or merchants – for their trade. These loans, up to a maximum of several tens of threescore of Meissen groschen, were usually registered by means of simple debt certificates (cedule řezané) or were possibly registered in the relevant municipal ledgers. However, there were also more ambitious individuals among these burghers, capable of providing very large loans to interested parties in the value of hundreds of threescore of Meissen groschen. Such loans were provided in the Old Town by, for example, Mikuláš Černohorský of Horoměřice († after 1588) or Magdalena Šípařová († 1579), the wife of the jurist Pavel Kristián of Koldín (1530–1589).
Other people who were interested in increasing the value of their money were the holders of various court and land offices. These included the imperial councillor and regional council president of the Old Town Jan Václav Popel of Lobkowicz (1561–1608), imperial councillor Jan Vchynský of Vchynice (†1590), and the Lord Chamberlain of the Bohemian Kingdom Bohuslav Felix Hasištejnský of Lobkowicz (1517–1583). Another group that had money were the imperial courtiers and general members of the monarch’s court. Money lending provided them with the opportunity to increase their finances. This business was conducted by, for example, the court archivist and manager of the Rudolphine collections, Ottavio Strada Senior (1550–1606), his wife Barbora, and also by court architect Ulrico Aostalli de Sala (1525–1597), court gem cutter Ottavio Misseroni (1567–1624), and the most important artist of the Rudolphine court – Bartholomeus Spranger (1546–1611) (Buňatová 2011, pp. 164–6). Their clients were often also Prague Jewish merchants and financiers. Some of them certainly needed cash for trading on foreign markets. However, other cases indicate more speculative financial transactions in which these creditors from among court, land officials, and courtiers were involved together with the Jews.
From the end of the 15th century, the participation of Christians and Jews in financial transactions was the subject of legislative regulation that endeavoured to restrict them in their activities as effectively as possible by implementing prohibitions. In practice, this collaboration had various forms and degrees of participation by individual persons in the profits from money lending. This concerned various financial operations, the true content of which was often hidden in official (municipal) ledgers and masked by various fictional entries about debts or the purchase of goods. One model of a so-called prohibited collaboration was described in detail in the Diet resolution from 1601 (Bondy & Dworsky 1906b, pp. 749–50). This consisted of a Christian who had cash available and provided a Jew with funds at a 6% interest rate which the Jewish financier then lent to someone else at an interest rate of 24.76%. If we calculate in this model example that the Jew was able to legally apply an interest rate of up to 24.76% and equally divided the profits with his Christian associate, then the Christian’s profits would be higher than if he had lent the money directly at the legal 6% interest rate.
This method, during which the Jewish financier conducted business using not only his own capital, but also the money he borrowed from nobles or wealthy burghers, was also practiced by Jews in Krakow in the 16th and 17th centuries (Bałaban 1912, pp. 168–70). This was an advantageous partnership for both parties. On the one hand, there was a group of Christians who had cash but sometimes lacked the necessary business experience or familiarity with the environment to appreciate their money suitably and safely. On the other hand, there were enterprising Jews on the Bohemian financial market with contacts; they were capable of quickly finding suitable parties interested in a loan but lacked the necessary cash to provide it. In these cases, both groups collaborated and participated in the profits from the loan (Buňatová 2011, pp. 167–8).
Money lending was also an important element in the business portfolio of Prague wholesalers who increased their income from the wholesale of foreign goods in this manner. This particularly concerned the wealthiest Prague merchants who were often first- or second-generation immigrants from Lutheran, German-language regions. For instance, Jan Nerhof senior of Holterperk († 1607), Valentin Kirchmajer of Reichvice († 1595), Tomáš Hebenštreit of Streitenfels († 1604), and his daughter Estera Teuflová († 1624) with her husband Jan Teufl of Zeilberk († 1607). They provided large loans to members of leading Bohemian noble families, to whom they also supplied foreign goods, but we can also find them among the creditors of Bohemian rulers. For example, in 1587 Emperor Rudolph II owed the merchant Tomáš Hebenštreit 9,142 threescore of Meissen groschen and owed Valetin Kirchmajer 2,000 threescore of Meissen groschen (Sněmy české VII, 1891, p. 149ff).
The financiers whose loans also helped cover the growing state expenditure of the Habsburg monarchy included a Prague wholesaler of small goods Lorenc Štark of Starkenfels († 1617) who managed his company for unbelievable 43 years. By 1617, he had lent the court treasury (Hofzahlamt) an amount of around 44,580 threescore of Meissen groschen which was secured by the Bohemian land tax and was also gradually paid off using the collected taxes. After his death, he left receivables owed by 140 debtors with a total value of over 123,219 threescore of Meissen groschen as well as other assets. Some of these debts were owed for supplied goods, some for loans provided mostly to noble clientele (Buňatová 2019, pp. 182–3).
The situation among Jews developed along similar lines. However, their legal options for providing loans were significantly constrained throughout the 16th century. They chiefly loaned money to the monarch who took advantage of the situation as Jews were considered servants of the royal chamber (servi camerae) from a legal aspect and were forced to pay the monarch for their protection. These enormous loans, which were free of interest in the best case and were of the nature of non-repayable loans in the worst case, were provided to monarchs by the Prague Jewish community as a whole.
Emperor Rudolph II also found a reliable loan provider in the banker Marek Mordechai Meisel (1528–1601). He provided financial services to members of the monarch’s family as early as the 1580s. However, Meisel’s loans to the emperor increased massively in 1597–1598 when he lent the court treasury (Hofzahlamt) a total of 126,000 Rhenish guilders, always at an interest rate of 24.76%. This money was intended for covering war expenses during conflicts with the Turks.
Banker Meisel was rewarded for his services with a number of privileges which His Imperial Majesty summarised in 1598 (Bondy & Dworsky 1906b, pp. 714–17). These rights concerned finance and the goods trade, the court jurisdiction applying to Meisel and his wife Frumet, and the privilege to execute a free will. The freedoms granted to Meisel were very close to those that the so-called court Jews (Hofjuden) enjoyed. To name a few of the privileges granted: when providing a loan, Meisel was permitted to execute a debt certificate with the debtor (schuldbrief), to which the debtor was required to affix his seal (if he had one) and his personal signature. In other specific cases the debtor also had to have a guarantor. Meisel was also able to have his receivables registered in the ledgers of the Prague Burgravate and also potentially recover them before its court. However, the fickleness of the emperor’s favour and of the privileges he granted is demonstrated by the fact that immediately after Meisel’s death in 1601, all the privileges he had been granted were withdrawn and his property was mostly confiscated at the emperor’s orders (Buňatová 2011, pp. 148–58).
While Meisel was chiefly involved in financial activities, there were a number of other Jews who combined money lending with trade. This was also the case of his father-in-law Isaac Rofe or, for instance, the branching Impresor, Altschul or Weisel families. They imported goods from abroad but were also active as buyers of agricultural crops from noble estates. They also lent money to the owners of these estates and provided them with other services. They sought out other customers interested in products from the estates (e.g. wool, grain, butter) with whom they negotiated the entire transaction and also arranged the relevant legal matters. The sale of these products was usually arranged under a business loan, which was interest-free for the first six months. Jewish brokers also prepared the text of debt certificates, negotiated the business terms with both parties, arranged the signatures of both parties, collected potential deposits, and subsequently also transported the crops to the customer at the arranged destination (Buňatová 2016b, pp. 44–8).
Jewish immigrants who moved to Prague at the end of the 16th century from Italy were also very enterprising. This was the case of Abraham Sacerdoti who conducted extensive transactions between Italy and Central Europe and utilised his contacts at the courts in Innsbruck, Mantova, and his familiarity with the commercial environment in Verona, Bolzano, and Prague during his activities. The wholesalers rabbi Ventura de Bacchi and Israel Porta, who had settled in Prague, also had extensive business contacts with the Gonzago family in Mantova and at the Rudolphine court.
The notional successor to Mordechai Meisel in the role of banker to the Habsburg rulers was Verona native Jacob Bassevi (1570–1634) who was two generations younger and was the first Jew in the Habsburg monarchy to be granted noble status with the predicate von Treuenburg. He settled in Prague in 1611 but he had already been granted the position of court Jew (Hofjude), along with his brother Samuel, in 1590 by Rudolph II. He then provided financial services to Rudolph’s successors, Matthias of Austria (1611–1617) and Ferdinand II (1617–1619, 1620–1637).
Conclusion
Rudolphine Prague was a populous metropolis which attracted a number of foreign merchants in the last third of the 16th century, a time when significant entrepreneurs also emerged from the group of local merchants. The broad range of types of loan operations, which local merchants and financiers used and which the legislation was subsequently required to react to, also corresponded to the economic prosperity of the city. The repeated need to define illegal methods of money lending in the Common Law of the Land and municipal law indicates that money lending was a very common entrepreneurial activity and loans were an every-day matter of life in Prague society. The less advantageous legal conditions for money lending by Jews demonstrates the fact that Jews were strong competition which specific involved groups tried to eliminate in this manner. This meant that although Jews were able to apply an interest rate of up to 24.76% on their loans, they simultaneously had no way to sufficiently secure these loans which made them uncertain and difficult to recover. One explanation for the fact that Jews were able to lend money at such high rates, while Christians were only allowed to apply 6% interest to their loans after 1543, may be that the high interest rate permitted to Jews was supported by the monarch because Jewish taxes and loans were essential income for the state treasury. This interest was also shared by some nobles and burghers who were involved in the monetary transactions of Jews in the role of silent partners. On the other hand, there were the interests of owners of estates who were concerned about the constant indebtedness of their subjects and also the interests of Christian merchants and guilds for whom the Jews were strong and unwelcome competition. These two forces continued to oppose each other throughout the period when decisions were made about permitted and prohibited forms of money lending by Jews throughout the 16th century.
Funding
The study was done within the research project Lumina quaeruntur LQ 300151901 Migration and Mobility in Prague’s Jewish Community at the Transition of the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period.
References
Bałaban, M. (1912). Dzieje Żydów w Krakowie i na Kazimierz, T. 1 (1304–1655). Kraków: Izraelicka Rada Wyznaniowa w Krakowie.
Bondy, G. & Dworsky, F., eds. (1906a). Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620, 1 (906–1576). Prag: Gottlieb Bondy.
Bondy, G. & Dworsky, F., eds. (1906b). Zur Geschichte der Juden in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien von 906 bis 1620, 2I (1577–1620). Praha: Gottlieb Bondy.
Buňatová, M. (2011). Die Prager Juden in der Zeit vor der Schlacht am Weissen Berg. Handel und Wirtschaftsgebaren der Prager Juden im Spiegel des Liber albus Judeorum 1577–1601. Kiel: Solivagus Verlag.
Buňatová, M. (2013). Pražští kupci na cestách. Předbělohorská Praha a středoevropské trhy. Praha: Mishkezy.
Buňatová, M. (2016a). Obchod mezi Prahou a Norimberkem v první polovině 16. století. Český časopis historický, 114 (3), pp. 652–76.
Buňatová, M. (2016b). Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen Prager Juden zum Adels in den böhmischen Ländern an der Wende vom 16. zum 17. Jahrhundert. In Hirbodian, S. & Torben, S., eds. Juden und ländliche Gesellschaft in Europa zwischen Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (15.–17. Jahrhundert). Kontinuität und Krise, Inklusion und Exklusion in einer Zeit des Übergangs. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 33–49.
Buňatová, M. (2019). Hedvábí, sklo a koření. Obchod mezi Prahou a Itálií (1500–1620). Praha: NLN.
Bůžek, V. (1989). Úvěrové podnikání nižší šlechty v předbělohorských Čechách. Praha: ČSAV.
Čelakovský, J., ed. (1886). Codex iuris municipalis regni Bohemiae, Tomus I. Praha: Grégr.
Denzel, M. A. (2010). Handbook of World Exchange Rates 1590–1914. London: Routledge.
Glücklich, J., ed. (1936). Nová redakce zemského zřízení království českého z posledních let před českým povstání. Brno: FF MU.
Janáček, J. (1959). Dějiny obchodu v předbělohorské Praze. Praha: ČSAV.
Jireček, H., ed. (1888). Obnovené právo a Zřízení zemské dědičného království Českého. Verneuerte Landes-Ordnung des Erb-Königreichs Böhmen 1627. Praha.
Jireček, J., ed. (1876). M. Pavel Krystyan z Koldína. Práva městská Království českého a Markrabství moravského spolu s krátkou jich summou. Praha: Všehrd.
Jireček, J. & Jireček, H., eds. (1882). Zřízení zemská Království českého XVI. věku. Praha: Všehrd.
Kreuz, P. & Martinovský, I., eds. (2007). Vladislavské zřízení zemské a navazující prameny. Praha: Scriptorium.
Ledvinka, V. (1985). Úvěr a zadlužení feudálního velkostatku v předbělohorských Čechách (Finanční hospodaření pánů z Hradce 1560–1596. Praha: ČSAV.
Ledvinka, V. & Pešek, J. (2000). Praha. Praha: NLN.
Malý, K. & Pánek, J., eds. (2001). Wladislawské zřízení zemské a počátky ústavního zřízení v českých zemích (1500–1619). Praha: HÚ AV ČR; Ústav právních dějin PF UK.
Malý, K. & Šouša, J., eds. (2013). Městské právo ve střední Evropě. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní právnické konference “Práva městská Království českého” z 19.-21. září 2011. Praha: Karolinum.
North, M. (1991). Kredit im spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Europa. Köln – Wien – Wiemar: Böhlau.
North, M. (2000). Kommunikation, Handel, Geld und Banken in der Frühen Neuzeit. München: Oldenbourg.
Palacký, F., ed. (1862). Archiv český čili Staré písemné památky české a morawské, V. Praha: Výbor zemský v království Českém.
Sněmy české od roku 1526 po naši dobu, díl I (1526–1547), (1877). Praha: Královský český archiv zemský.
Sněmy české od roku 1526 po naši dobu, díl IV (1574–1576) (1886). Praha: Královský český archiv zemský.
Sněmy české od léta 1526 až po naši dobu, díl VII (1586–1591), (1891). Praha: Královský český archiv zemský.
Urfus, V. (1959). Zdomácnění směnečného práva v českých zemích a počátky novodobého práva obchodního. Praha: ČSAV.
Urfus, V. (1975). Právo, úvěr a lichva v minulosti. Uvolnění úvěrových vztahů na přechodu od feudalismu ke kapitalismu a právní věda recipovaného římského práva. Brno: Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.
Vilímková, M. (1993). Židovské město pražské. Praha: Avicenum.
Vorel, P. (2005). Velké dějiny zemí koruny České, VII. (1526–1619). Praha–Litomyšl: Paseka.