Origins of Noble Landed Property in Premsyslide Bohemia

JOSEPH M CKA
Origins of Noble Landed Property in Premyslide Bohemia
ST CT
This paper exp res the Iran ormations ofBohemian (and Moravian) elites om arc ic tribat lea rship through „retainer aristocracy“ ofthe early Premysli rulers to landed nobility ofthe high M le Ages. Detailed information on secular ndownership is available only om 11 onward, but it is su cient to establish that the magnates, who obtainedjurisdiction over cast -estates om the dukes only gradually tried to tran orm these into hereditary n d property. great landowners kept using their position as o cers ofthe crown and their income om their share of ducal revenues parallel to building up their family estates. This process is investigated on several e mples, such as the growth ofseigneurial as op sed to ducal cast/es, and the connection between inter l colonisation and growth of landed estates. author argues that this „roundabout way“ of the emergence ofsecular ndownership was inevitab because ofthe limited resour­ ces ofthe land and the strength ofthe ducal power based partly on the confiscated estates ofrival duces. Only a er the e nsion ofcultivated nd, increase ofservile dues, and e cient estate management was the nobility able to shed its o cial character and become a more or less indepe ent economic, social, and-gradu­ ally-also political, force.
e origin of medieval nobility in Bohe a and Moravia has en studied by many historians. Franti�ek Palacky assigned a major role to the nobility under the Pfemyslide and Luxemburg dynasties. However, be argued that legally differentiated estates and what he called „feudal“ society emerg only after 1250 A.D. (Palacky 1876, 15-17). Other historians saw in nobiles, primates, comites maiores natu-whom I shall can magnates, faute de mieux-a major force in shaping country’s history d, since the thirteen century. inde ndent and organized litical factor (e.g.Lip rt 1896-1898; Bachmann 1899; Bretholz 1912; Novotny 1912-1937.).
8 st and S iety 2
In its develop ent to elite of the high Middle Ages, the nobility went through two fundamental transfonnations. The rst followed the foundation of the P e yslide o­ n cby at the t of the ninth to tenth centuries. This arked the end of the old tribal arist racy wbicb bad been, ever sin the early ninth century, cballenged by the autocratic atte pts of n erous duces. Tbeir military retinues were syste atically e nated b y the Pfe yslide rulers (e icka 1989, 697-7 ). Althougb co plete obliteration of the traditi­ onal ivileged groups (ass d by Graus 19 , 134-146; Fiala -61) see s unlikely, for individualchiefsofleansorsu uedduceswerein so ecasesintegratedintothee erging ducal retinues ( e icka 1989, 709-710), the overall continuity of the elite was interrupted. During the tenth to twelfth centuries pe ent positions within tbe nascent group of the new „well-bo ones“ were cupied by those serving in the ducal retinue and by holders of offices at tbe court of tbe du es ofBohemia and in tbe provinces (Novotny 1912-1913; �l1930;Vogt 1938, 65-1 ). Me rs of the ducal retinue oved to leading political and s ial sitions not by vi ue of tbeir individual land pro rty but througb tbeir rsonal relationship to the dynasty. The eles of the du es were provided for by offices and nefices connected to tbe network of ducal castles coverlog the entire country (s Map I, on p.ll), and exacting dues and services om the non-privileged pulation (Tie�t -Kne e ska 1967; Tie�t 1971; Idem 1979; Novy 1972, 94-1 ; K emie ska­ Tie�t 1978: e icka 1978).
The second transfonnation t k place in the course of the thirteen century. The later years ofVenceslas I (1230-1253) and tbe reign ofOt ar II P emysl (1253-1278) saw the ascent of a nu r of f ies of Iords whose social and econo c sition allowed them inde ndence from royal favor. This was a true „landed“ nobility, fundamentally different from the preceding „office-holder“ (or „beneficiary“) nobility. Its significant features included the rigbt to inberitance. This process completed the development from pre­ Pfemyslide magnates via the „retainer aristocracy“ to the nobility of the high Middle Ages, as Du� T �t (Tie�t 1c-Polfvka 1984, 99-111) put il. There are many studies on the nobility as a wbole (Pr bno 1961; Russocki 1971: ldem 1973; Novy 1976; Fritze 1982; Uhl 1985;Vanicek 1991) and on selected families aldstein-Wartenberg 1966;Vanicek 1981; e icka 19 a), but this pr ess oftransformation has not been given due attention. My project is to explore one of its n t issues: the development of noble landed pro rty.
*
The needs of early Pfemyslide retinues were satisfied from war b ty, various laxes (es cially the so-called tributum pacis), regalia revenues (coinage, market, customs), fines, and services extract through the network of ducal castles. In addition, the leading retainers received income from of ces and benefices. Their pro rty was increased by gifts from members of tbe dynasty. Duchess Ludmilla (+921), for example, accused her murderers, Tunna and Gomon, of retuming her“gifts of gold, silver and sumptuous clothcs“ in evil (Christian 37). One of the legends lists among the virtues of St.Venceslas (+935)
mlicka: Origins of N le nded Pro y 9
that „he provided not only but also the best of robes to bis warriors“ (Crescente 184). The „inunense treasure,“ plundered in 1108 by the conquerors ofLibice, held by the Vrsovci family (Cosmas 192), might have been accumulated from b ty, gifts and long-term office holding. A magnate n ed Sezema received „a quantity of sumptuous gifts“ from king VIadislas and bis queen in 1165 (Vincencius 458). 1189, Hroznata of Peruc stipulated that if bis wife lived Ionger than he and remarried, she may claim „gold, silver and other domestic appurtenances“ (CDB INo. 323 p. 297).Herds of horses or sheep, or a nuro r of serfs were other com nents of the weallh of the magnates which casionally t up
in the sources ( e� ‚k 1971, 560;CDB INo. 124 pp. 129-131,No. 358, p. 326). Detailed data on the landed pro rty of magnates are available only after 11 A.D. Features of these holdings, referred to variably as substantia, patrimonium, possessiones or praedia may gleaned from such transactions as the so-called donation ofNemoy, the foundation of a chapter of canons at unetice by a certain Zbynev, the gift of Asinus to the Benedictine abbey of Ostrov, the foundation of theCistercian ab y at Sedlec by Miroslav, and the provisions for the Premons atensians at Strahov (Prague) by bishop John I. of these date from the flrst half of the twelfth cenlury (CDB INo. 1 , pp. 105-1 ,No. , pp.l 29-131, pp. 154-155, No. 155, pp. 155-157, No. 156, pp. 157-161). They usually contain granls of 5-10 villages, frequently not entire settlements, usually not in one bl k. In the forming of these holdings the relalion of the nobiles, primates or their ancestors to duke and dynasty was of p importance (Novy 1972, 105-110; Cechura 1982, 41-44). Apparently, magnates were free to donate lheir possessions to the church. Duca! consent seems to have a mere formality.The known holdings were th f y ssessions and
new acquisitions, by purchase or through ducal generosity.
The exact origin of these gnates‘ possessions is not weil own. However, it ap ars that besides a certain continuity from traditional arist ratic holdings, they e to the magnates in the flnal phase of the creation of a political elite by cPiemyslide monarchy as ducal gifts. Grants for life tended to come hereditary ssessio.,s (Tie�ti 1971, pp. 562-563; contrary to Vanecek 1938, pp. 5-7). lt seeins that Moravia offered the st conditions for ·such land transactions. When duke Oldrich (Ulrich) conquered it in 1019/1020 from itsPolish overlords and gave it to bis son Bretislav (Krzemienska 1980), the P myslide ducal administ tion was en usted to Bohemians. Replacing the local elite they supplied a significant part of high medieval Moravian nobility: in the course of the twelfth century the Bohemians in Moravia became Moravi (Zemlicka 1991).
The most important part of archaic magnate holdings were serfs and an s. By calling these estates „holdings“ or „possessions,“ attention should be drawn to the fact they were usually not full-fledged all ial p&o rties.They y very weil have consisted of a set of rights to collect revenues and services from diverse f t eads or other so ces. A magnate could own various types of pro rty by different titles.We may assume that lhey consist of a combination of tolls and customs, market revenues and various components of the
10 History and Society 2 ducal fisc, to ecclesiastical domains for which we have more ample sources (Van ek
1933-1939; Tfest 1979).
*
After 1150, until which time magnate holdings did not constitute extensive territorial units, a radical change curred. In addition to the traditional ways of acquisition-ducal favour and purchase-the dynastic succession troubles affered new possibilities. Above , offices at the ducal court or in ducal castles affered g chances to obtain wer and property.
The pr ess of formation of a privileged elite from the core of lhe ducal retinue (Zhanel 1930, 148-175) was well on its way already in the eleventh century. Jn uential sitions of fathers were Iransmitted to sons who remained nobiles even if they did not rise Ia prominence. Change of rsans inlended Ia prevent ent occupation of the lucrative benefices tended to slow down. Lang-term, even life-time office-holding (Vincencius 414) became usual. This o ned the possibilities for alienation of ducal property, nominally „entrusted“ to dignitaries. The difference tween „ducal“ and „private“ pro rty vanished more quickly in times of intemal strife and decline of central wer. This be observ in the years 1172-1197 when several rival branches of P emyslide dynasty-sons of Sobes1av I (1125-1140) and Vladislav II (1140-1172), and theMoravian P emyslides-were fighting with each other.
Powerful magnates connected to ducaJ castles, gan to establish permanent residences in the vicinity. For example, the castellan’s office at castle Bilina affered the foundation of the north Bohemian boldings of the noble family of Hrabisici, high chamberlains since lhe end of tbe twelflb ntury (Vanfcek 1982; Zemlicka 1990a). The beginnings ofthe Iords of Litice and Pottejn can t ced Ia Drslav, araund 1160 castellan of Pizen (Kalista 1928, 55- ). The cbamberlainship at Pizen was probably used by Ratmir of Skvirin, ancestor of lhe Sv berk f ly, for gaining pro rty after 1220 (CDB II No. 252, p. 242, No.332, p. 341). A major factor in the expansion of the holdings of a f ly wbose members were Blab, castellan at Litomerice, Hroznata, known as a founderof a Premonstratensian chapter of canons at Tepla (d. 1217), and the brothers Hroznata and Mesek of Peruc, was the administration of the Litomerice castle which was in tbe hands of the f ly for most of the twelfth centu . The pro rty of this family was situated mainly araund Litomerice d araund Tepla (Tomas 1966, 29-33, 41-43; Zemlicka 1979). It seems likely that for the better part of the twelfth century the ducal castles Zatec/Saaz (Bubenik-Ubl ova 1977, 194-196) and Kladsk Kl zko (CDB I No. 323, p. 197, No. 357, p. 323, No. 411, p. 445) were held by mem rs of single f ilies. The family of theMilbostici, lhe boldings of which known from a grant to the propo��d Cistercian foundation at Mastov in westem Bobemia, ay bave enlarged their properlies when, araund 1175, Peter, Milhost’s brother, held the castellan’s office at Drevic (CDB I No. 278, p. 244). Since the end of the twe1fth century, tbeMarkvartici f ly (in German: Markwartinger) attempted to have their own candidates placed in the office of tbeMlada Boleslav/Jung Bunzlau castellany. They bad been residing
2emlicka: igins of N le Landed Pro y 11
in the vicinity for some time and they u1timately acquired the Decin etschen castellany (Waldstein-Warten rg 1966, 35-57). In the some way, the castellany ofZitava ittau and Budysin!Bautzen (today in Ge y) helped the rise of Ronovici (Hrone) clan (CDB III. 1 No. 23, pp. 21-22, No. 176, p. 219).
The oldest stratum of seigneurial ca tles in the north and west of Bohemia (Menclova 1972, 133-167) confimts the close relationship tween c tle office-holding and noble pro rty. The castcllans‘ office at Mlada Boleslav held by the Markvartici enabled the branches of this family (the Jater Iords of Lem rk, Michalovice,Zviretice, Varten rk and Valdstejn) in 1230-1250 to found the castles Lemberk and Michalovice. The administration of the castle at Decin by the Markvartici supplied the resources to the construction of the!r castle Ostry. The castellany of Zitava held by Ronovici (the later Iords of Lichtenburg, Ronov, Duba and Lipa) led to the foundation of Frydlant and Ronov. The old office holding position of the Hrabasici in the Bilina region was connected to the beginnings of seigneurial castles Reisenburk and Borschenstein, built by the Iords of Reisenburk. The noble families who served as casteilans at Pizen founded a line of early seigneurial caslles in west Bohemia, such as Liticc, Pottejn, Zbiroh and Bor ( Map 1, on p.l2).
Castellanies or ducal offices as departure points for social ascent can be observed in Moravia as weil.The first documented membcr of the well-known Pemstejn family. Stepan of Medlov, was an official at Devicky in southem Moravia in 1222-1223 (CDB II No. 234, p. 225, No. 245, p. 237). J eramus, son ofEtley, was burgrave at castleZnojmo in the first d ades of the thirteenth century (CDB II No. 28, p. , No. 109, p. 104, No. 110. p. 106, No. 205, p. 1 , No. 2 , p. 191, No. 222, p. 208, No. 232, p. 221, No. 233, p. 222, No. 253, p. 244). Milic I of Sva nice, mem r of a family which g s back to the second quarter of the thirteenth century, held several of ces including a castellany at Hradec nad Moravici and possibly elsewhere as weil (CDB II No. 287, p. 287; CDB III. 1 No. 50, p. 51). A number of other families followed s ar trajectories although precise genealogies cannot established for all of them (Hosak 1936-1938)
Even the rotation of ducal of eials did not come to a complete ha!t, ny castellanies and other important benefices tended to remain in the possessions of a few families. This opened them the way to further increasing their own landed pro rty. Gradually, the different titles by which they held their various estates-from family possessions to tem rarily entrusted Iands-fell into oblivion. At the end of the twelfth century, the gnate Milliost intended to endow his proposed monastic foundation with a pieceland which his father had received from the duke. Although they might have been only temporarily entrusted to the fanuly, Milhost claimed to hold them hereditario iure. It seems that from his much more extensive property, Milliost chose to give up just those which were liable to revindication by the duke. Actually, the foundation was not completed, because Milliost did not reach an agreement with the monks (Cechura 1978).
The composition of the p rlies of an influential member of an clite family, the Hrabisici, is shown by the testantent of Kojata of Most/Brux from 1227. Kojata disposed
{,
N- !. TION OF DU OLDEST SEIONEU L
,_ , Pfemyslide monarchy the time of Otakar I Pfem (1197-1 0) • du e, te any
i eurial tle
s
�
· N
\I
\ , ,
•

.
OV

P
„,
0
‚\-�, u .
,,

k
e li�ka: igins of N le nded Pro y 13
of almost sixty ite s concentrated mainly in northwestem and wesle Bohemia (seeMap 2, on p.18). Place-n es suggest the various nners by which they fell into the hands of Hrabisici. So e of tbe were originally appurtenances of ducal castles, others point to assarting around castle Bilina (Hrabisin, present-day Ducbcov, Kojetice). Kojata’s villages inMoravia are likely to bave en originally ducal estates en usted to tbe family and later not revindicated. We also know that in addition to the boldings listed in bis test ent, Kojata beld six sites in the district of tbe Zatec castle. According to another source, these later escbeated to tbe king: tbeir affiliation to the crown was obviously fresh enougb in public memory as to prevent Kojata from disposing of them (Kloss s.d. 191-192; Novy 1972, 112-113; Kincl l 978; Zemlicka 19 a).
In spite of the growth of Ianded noble property after 1150, fully fledged landed estates did not emerge for some time. Several magnate boldings, originally held by the duke, retained their administrative affiliations to „their“ castles for quite a while. The ex ple of the cburcb played an rtant roJe in losening tbese ties (Bobacek 1975). Ecclesiastical initiatives propagated those immunities by which Cburch pro rty was exempted from the „care“ of ducal officials even if the founders‘ rights of patronage limited their inde ndence (Novotny 1928, 435-449; V �ek 1933-1939; Matuszewski 1936; Zemlicka 1981).
Beginning in tbe late twelftb century casteilans and otber o cials, expected to guard tbe
interest of the dukes used their delegat autbority to expand and consolidate their private estates. They resented interference with „their“ holdings by the authorities once their term of office was over. The character of such interventions is eloquently illustrated by charters issued for ecclesiastical institutions. They referred to „violence and tyranny“ or „sh eful extorsion“ by castle officials. These sdeeds may have conce ed the middle and lower strata of office-holders who bad little chance to create private holdings and bad to live on l ited revenues from their rather small „offices“ and „bene ces“. Tbcchief culprits may have en ch rlains, forest guards, customs officials, watchmen, lesser administrators, bailiffs, and warriors. From a ut 12 , their elbow-r m narrowed considerably as not only the Church but also the ascending landed nobility managed to acqui inununities for their holdings, exempting them from the castle adminis ation. Even if tbe „liberty“ supposed to have been obtained in 1218 by Stepan ofMedlov inMoravia remains somewhat spurious, immunities of later date e authentic (CDB II No. 278, p. 272, No. 373, p. 408; CDB III. 2 No. 195, p. 249, cf. also usta 1917, 151-152). Expansion and consolidation of landed pro rty suggests deep-reaching transformations in the intemal ructure of the Piemyslide monarchy. During the tenth to twelfth centuries, duca1 revenues (cla ed in kind or in services) were redistributed ong the noble retinue. This caused a merger of the administrative elite with the nobiles comites. After 12 A.D., enterprising noble f ilies left the protecting umbrella of ducal patronage and laid the bases of their own estates. The mediating role of the ruler c e to an end. Inslead of a recognized sh in taxes, contributions and services, the nobility a ed at unl ited rights over land and people. At the same time, the nobility gan to emerge as an autonomaus litical force.
1 4 Hist and S iety 2
is long-term pr ess was es ially enhanced in the es of the political upheaval d even the reform of the monarchy by Otakar I P emysl (1197-1230) was unable to bring back the „good old ways“. The early medieval castle system feil aport and the crown bad to I k for new support (emlicka 1990b).
Parallel this, the nobility split into two. The tradi onal officials- neficiaries saw the gu ntee of their future in the conservation of the early medieval situation and the preservation of the rights of castle officers. The second oup was the inchoate landed nobility of the high medieval ty . They worked to Iimit the jurisdiction of castle offices in order to come sole owners of their land and the ople on it. Their extensive landed estates emerged as a kind of „privatization“ of what was originally ducal property. As this new nobility did not need the castle system for its existence, the early medieval set-up lost its historical sense and came parasitical. True, its survival made the ansition to the full land holdings of the nobility and the Church ever more complicated.
This pr ess, inconspicuous and difficult to pin int in the sources, also implied the development of new kinds of rsonal de ndence. The earlier m el, do nated by the mediating role of the castle system, was to replaced by a more exible lord-serf relationship. The in oductory fommla of the Statutes of Comad Otto of 1189 may have ed at the protection of noble landed property (CDB li No. 234, p. 223, cf. mlicka 19 b, 53-55). Consolitation of rights to land implied consolidation of rights over sedentary asants. A asant endowed with land on the one side and a nobilis who was subject only to the ruler on the other represented the two opposite les in the development of high medieval s iety. Some asants might have sought the protection of their werful neigh urs or the Church ( aus 1953, 193-195) in the ho of diverting endless extorsion by a host of castle officers.
The exspansion and consolidation of landed estates was one of the as cts of medieval colonization. Noble f lies established rmanent connections with particular regions in which their holdings were concentrated. This trend of the so-called territorialization of nobility may be traced its initial stage-in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries-by the growth of fortified residcnces ( ste 1989, 14-15).During the high of the assarting peri in the later thirteenth ccntury, the direction of expansion was indicated by stone-buill seigniorial castles. Such castles are im rtant indicators of th domains. Several studies have shed light on this process es cially in the case ofMoravia, where settlementexpanded from the southem plains to the north (Hejna 1979; Bolina 1986; Placek 1986; Idem 1988).
As early as the second half of twelfth century, noble f lies holding high castle offices in border regions promoted asserting activities. This was the case for example with the f y of Blah, castellan at Litomerice, the brothers Hroznata and Mesek of Peruc and another Hroznata, founder of the Premonstratensian chapter at Tepla. Long-term tenure of the Litomeri castellany and possibly of other benefices in this im rtanl provincial may bave allowed acquisilion of a considerable number of new villagcs established in thc Centrat Bohemian mountains by different branches of the family. Casteilan Blah’s Iineage
mlicka: igins of N le nded Pro y 15
used its exceptional status in theLitomerice region for private goals. In the ri of decline of ducal wer at the end of twelfth century it gr ually app priat the freshly territories and usur d seigniorial authority over the recently arrived settlers (Tomas 19 , 31-33; Zemlicka 1980b, 97-99).
We may asswne a si lar story with the Hrabisici f ly, attached to the Bilina castle and subsequently to the im rtant office of high cham rlain. The Hrabisici holdings, develo­ ped out of the original core by intense settlement activities the Krusne Hory region, spilled over the frontier deep into the Saxon side of the mountain range. At the ginning ofthe thirteenth century, Kojata ofMost, scion of the Hrabisici f ly, initiated an asserting project financed by bis own funds in the vicinity of Bezdruzice (Ge Weseritz), northwest ofPizen (seeMap 2, on p.18). Kojata belonged to a senior branch of the Hrabisici family. This branch died out fore 1250 but the cadet Iine continued under the n e of the Reisenburk Iords to the end of fifteenth century. Hrabisici ssessions were the basis of the endowment in 1198 of a family abbay at Osek, one of the wealthiest Cistercian houses in Bohemia (Charvatova 1979; Zemlicka l 9 a).
A slightly different form of private enrichment was the systematic establisbment of new Settlements in the fo sts, the so-called ujezdy, or circuitions. If their rders were determined with su icient imprecision, additional ducal land could be seized and assarted. In this manner, the nobilis Hroznata settled hisministeriales in the wo land region around Tepla, not far from Pizen (CDB I No. 357, p. 324). Assarting activities thrived also on the holdings of Zbraslav, son of Vchyna, cupbearer of the king, in the piedmont area of the Krkonose mountains. His testament, dated 1238, Iogether with some other d wnents, shows the origin, rise, and decline of a noble domain at the beginning of thirteenth century. In his desire to enlarge his holdings, Zbraslav resorted to transactions of different kinds: he purchased, sold, exchanged, and inherited land, but es cially, he founried new villages. A p t of his pro rlies was „merited“ (qu hereditarie deservivi a mini rege) from the king, i.e., received as a hereditary grant (CDB III. I No. 181, pp. 225-22 7 Zemlicka 1983).
Assarting activities were by no means confined to rich and established noble f ies.
Assarting and cultivation pro r was carried out by those elements of s iety which subsequently bec e-in contrast to the Iords (domini, barones, pani)-the lower nobility (clientes, milites, v dykove). Ever since the later twelfth century, members of the lower nobility participated in substantial numbers in the cupation of territories along the ddle course of the river Vltava, assarted previously by the dukes and monasteries. In comparison with this earlier phase, the later activities were much ore intense; the massive woodland complexes surrounding the rivers Vltava and Sazava were broken up by them. In addition to lesser noble families, so e Iords, such as the Vitkovci or Benesovici, joined in, but their extensive holdings cru bled and melted away fore the end of the thirteenth century (Bohac 1978).
Another, even more conspicuous involve ent of the lower nobility may rceived around Litomerice. In the eleventh century, the dukes or their delegates at theLito erice
16 Hist and S iety 2
castellany settled a group of various servants in the vicinity of the river Ohre ger. In a riod of demographical pressure and social change, when rcserves of the traditional settlement zone along the Ohre river were running thin, people looked at the pro sing perspectives of the adjacent Centrat Bohe an mountains. New means of subsistence, new areas of cultivation as weil as more secure social and legal sitions were to be found there. A series of nor colonization activities gan as early as the later twelfth century: cupation of the adjacent valleys and slo s. This movement continued until the fourte­ enth century. Holdings of the lesser nobility, however dis rsed, show clear affiliation to the lower-Ohre region ( icka 1980, 93-105, 122-126).
Colonization also stinmlated new relationships within medieval society. For a landed nobility the crucial issue was to have serfs who pay rents. In the areas of traditional setUement the nobility and the Church bad to ansfer the asants‘ obligations from the castle-system to themsclves. In the freshly assartcd areas where Iandlords owned the land servile conditions cmerged more directly. All settlers, whether serfs endowed with land or hospices from the ranks of former ducal free peasants, enter into de ndence to the landlords. Demands of the castles, if at all claimed, where disregarded. The obstacle placed by the castle system tween the emergent landed nobility and „their“ scrfs, was thus removed (cf. also Novy 1984; Lowmianski 1985, 399-576; Modzelewski 1987).
*
Considering all these changes, the composition of the nobility around 1250 was rather cbeckered. The main representatives of the landed nobility bad acquired private pro rty through high offlces in the ducal administration. The ducal character of these „of cials en route to sergneurs“ survived for a considerable time. The relationship between them and lesser castle offleials and beneficiaries was everything but cordial. The consolidation of the landed nobilities‘ privileges limited the revenucs of middle and lower ranking bencfi­ ciaries. The jurisdiction of castle offleials was also li ted by towns and new royal castles founded the second quarter of the thirteenth century and later. An additional l tation was im sed on their authority by tbe strengthening of the central, Prague-based organs as a consequence of the conflict between king Otakar I P emysl and Bisbop Andrew of Prague
( icka 1981, 726-729).
The surviving elements ofthe castle system resented the erosion of their earlier privileges.
However, they were of no use to the ruler because the new model of society did not leave space for their existence. These beneficiaries served only their own purposes, baving been tumed into a strata of parasites. They were an obstacle to the landed nobility and to ecclesiastic overlords and, by their ncver-cnding demands for obsolete contributions and tributes, a nuisance to the serfs. Tens1ons between groups of old ca tle offleials and the new landed nobility reached a peak in 1248-1249, the so-called rebellion of Crown Prince Pfemysl. The division line between the opposing groups was somewhat blurred. Still, the camp ofKing Yenceslas I included powerful „landed“ Iords who, however, also beld offlces
m cka: Origins of N le nded Pro rty
at court. His rival, the heir apparent, who later reigned as Pfemysl li Otakar headed a rathe heterogenaus array of malcontents. A number of these seem to have been motivated by th· desire for renewing the traditional privileges of the castle officialdom.
Tbe consequences of capitulation of Pfemysl before bis father accelerated the transfor mation process. Great families, such as the Markvartici and Ronovci, consolidated thei positions. It is hardly a coincidence that the main phase of seigneurial castle building begru inunediately after the revolt. The continuous Obliteration of privileges of the castle office also gained momentu of the second half of the thirteenth century. Some of the lowe echelons ong castle offleials managed to obtain meager holdings of land, others joine4 powerful lords as clients, again others found their future in royal service as ministeriale� Ont of these s ata emerged the lower nobility (clientes, milites, v dy ve)in the thirteentl and fourteenth centuries (Zemlicka 1985, 583-585).
One of the fundamental characteristics of „landed“ nobility was the establishment o fortified residences. Beginning with 1160 the predicates of nobility frequently derived fron these seigneurial castles (Vogt 1938, 114-115). This move was tenned an „invasion ofth• countryside by the nobility“ (T t 1971, 560). The new landed nobility left the duca court, left ducal castles and moved to the midst of its holdings. Noble predicates based 01 the residences be e tbe norm in tbe tbirteenth century. However, they frequently wen combined with titles of major o ices, as is indicated in a charter of 1235, issued by Zaui subcamerarius regis deNechanic (CDB IJI. 1 No. 105, p. 125).
The frrst seigneurial stone castles were erected around 1230 in Bohemia and somewha later in Moravia. These were usually modelled on the more elaborate royal structures. J solid castle of stone was a convincing display of the standing of its proprietor, while th• lesser nobility bad to be content with more modest residences or with fortified manorhouse in the centers of villages (Durdik 1984; Plaeek-Pr ha a 1986; Merfnsky-Plaeek 1988)
These differences in the forti ed residences suggest considerable social differentiatio1 within thirteenth··century nobility. Its up rmost echelons the best. known. In the cours• of the fourteenth century, tbey b ame an aristocracy: the Iords (domini, barones, pani) This group included f ilies which held high courtly and castle of ces for Ionger peri already before the thirteenth century. Modem historiography refers to them by collectiv• n es derived from the name of the fr t own ancestor such as: Hrabisici, Ronovici Markvartici. The only conte porary reference of this kind seems to have been to th• Vitkovci (descendants of Vitek, in German, Wiligonen), attested to in the fo of Vitko nides in 1276 (Letopisy 302).
The landed property of the Ronovici, Markvartici and other families was considerable a the beginning of thirteenth century. For instance, Kojata of Most held some sixty estate before bis death araund 1229 (see Map 2, on p.18). The fact that bis brother Vsebor als• owned si ble ssessions and other evidence suggest that the property of their fathe Hrabise (d. 1197/1198) might have included more than one hundred items, he1d by variou

/—- -,_ –
2. TIIE PROPERTY OF KOJATA OF MOST (1227) • Kojaia’s residence
,_ \I
\- ,e }
BUOYSfN
/
I �� .CHRUDI � I a .PU� I
\\
‚\
PRACHEN • •
• CHYNOV P�ROV
1″�
f

\

“
BRNO
_I
‚, • B OV
//
·
Q
\- N OLICE ‚
ZNOJMO VRANOV-
\
1
\
–
I

J “ AA
m “’1“1
I

, \
_ ,_, •} A
ZITAVA \ ‚ – I
\ –� • ducal castle, castellany
, ‚ ‚, MLADABOLESIAV •
KlA.DSKO ‚,_ — HRADEC KRA.LOVE
\
\
\
‚,‘
AKO!IM • . � I•
\
VRACIAV
HR EC
\
.
settled before 1!50
colonization region
‚ ,
DfVICKY � /‘
‚ \
__ _“ –;ODIV(N s E CLA V

f k
‚

‚,___ _ _
g · �N
HODONIN //
mlicka: igins of Noble nded Pro rty 19
titles. And this was not even the entire fortune of the family; at least as much longed to the branch of Slavko, the chamberlain (Zemlicka 1990b, 187-188).
However, other members of nobility, even well-to-do ones, bad to be content with no more than a few villages.This was the case of the elis baro Roman of Tyn who bequeathed his three villages to the Cistercian abbey of Plasy in west Bohemia in 1230 (CDB li No. 342, pp. 350-352). Even this baron, bowever, must bave bad a feeling of su riority as most of bis neigbbours were obviously below bis Ievel.
The most numerous component of thirteenth century nobility was a rather heterogenaus
stratum of landowners with modest holdings. In addi on to the survivors of the atropbi castle system, many of the formerly free ducal asants, and various minister les rose to this rank which also accomodated the p rer branches of powerful lineages. The lower Iimit of this s atum remained fluid and some es it is questionable how far the term nobility is appropriate at all. A num r of these gentle en preserved their relative independence and were subject to the king only, others sougbt secure positions with powerfullords whose service they entered. They ght have rfo ed retainer functions in exchange for modest estates. Ifsuch contracts were terminated, they were free to leave but bad to give up the holdings, rhaps in re of a com nsation. Of course, Ionger service te brought permanent advantages. Some servientes and clientes of Kojata of Most were thus rewarded with land. Zbraslav, son of Vchyna, cupbearer to the king, reme bered his nisterials in his testament of 1238. Es cially magnates holding influ­ ential offices had good apportunilies to attracl the lower ecbelons of the disintegrating castle of cialdom(cf. CDB INo. 357, p. 324; CDB IINo. 303, p. 301; CDB III. 1 No.l81, pp. 225-227).
*
The Iransformation of the early medieval nobiles and, in general, of bigher-standing Rohemenses into landed nobility was thus a pro ss neither simple nor short.Wby did medieval Bohemian and Moravian society not travel along a straigbter trajectory? Was it not possible to avoid a see ingly redundant interveninglink, under which the elite siphoned offaproportion ofducalrevenues,butwasunabletoleanontheirprivatelandedpro rlies and collect rent from direct subjects? Was the historical process substantially slowed down by these facts?
The answerto these questions is unequivocal: no.lt bas been demonstrated that this m el was not only based on specifis features ofthe preceding developments but also that it was typical for all the monarchies oftenth to twelfth centuries east-central Europe: P emyslide Bohe a, Hungary and Piast Poland. It was a consequence of the l ited econo c potential of the nascent early medieval state which had to provide for the central and local administration as weil as for the privileged elite. This elite bad to rely on the dominant power of the ruler capable of mobilizing the obligatory con ibutions and r istributing them based on bis role as the owner of almost all land and authority over the population.
20 History and Society 2
Land confiscated to the ginning of tenth century from the subdued non-P emyslide duces were retained by the dukes as their own estates cultivated by servile groups.This was the raison d‘ e e of the castle system and of the o ices and benefices to which prestations from state revenues were tied.
Once the sition of the ruling elites was strong enough and the economic situation made the protective role of the duke su rfluous, the conditions for this regulated central model began to change. Increase in the volume of agricultural production and development of both crafts and the trade offered a certain affluence even to holders of m est-sized landholding. The objective conditions for significant private Ianded property emerged. Growth of these landed properties was enhanced by colonization in the course of which overlord-serf relationship could be established without conflict with the old obligations to castles and their officials. Unity tween the central power and the e erging hereditary and landed nobility lived on, constituting the base of state structure, but the development was in favour of partnership. As a s ial group, the nobility was shedding its one-time official or half-official condition ( es k 1979, 139-1 ; Zemlicka 1990b, 35-39).
In addition to economic and political aspects, we should not neglect aspects of social mentality. Magnates of the early Middle Ages, Ieading a predatory existence and subsisting on their sbares of the state revenues, were transfo ed into overlords of Ianded property. They bad to see to the pr uctivity of their holdings, to their expansion and consolidation, they bad to invest in the residences of their lineages and to cultivate g d neighbourly relationsbips. Their own future and the future of their descendants were now in their own hands. This required more res nsibility but entailed a greater measure of freedom which was s n to manifest itself in tbe growth of litical consciousness.
Translated by Petr Charvat
References
(The icle was submitt still in 1992, before the new system of notation was adopted. We a logise for the inconsistency.)
Bachmann, Ado1f 1899: Geschichte Böhmens 1 (bis 14 ), Gotha.
Boh �. Zdenek 1978: Dljiny osfdlenf stfedniho Povltavi v dobl pfedhusits [Settlement history of thecentral part of the V1tava-river basin in the pre-Hussite peri ], Prague.
Bohä�. Zdenek 1982: Ot zky terminologie dejin osidleni a kolonizace feudalismu [On thc problems of the terminology of Settlement and Colonization), in: Historiografie celemk budoucnosti, Prague.
Boha�ek, Miroslav 1975: Einflüsse des mischen Rechts in Böhmen und Mähren (lus Romanum medii aevi V.ll, 3-162), Milan.
m cka: igins ofN le nded Pro rty 21
Bolina, Pavel 1986: K problematice kolonizace a catkö hradu na severov9chodni Morave ve 1 3 . stoleti [On the problems ofcolonization and the origin o fcastles i n north-eastem i n the 1 3 t h century], ceskoslovens c opis historic 34, 565-584.
Bretholz, Bertold 1 9 1 2 : Geschichte Böhmens und Mährens bis zum Aussterben r Pfemysliden ( 1 306), Praguc.
Bubenik, Jozef-Uhl ova, Olga 1977: K catköm mes Zatce [On the origins ofthe towns of ZatedSaaz],Pamatkyarcheologic 68, 193-218.
CDB-Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae I, ed. Gustavus Fri rich, Prague 1904- 1907; , ed. G. Friedrich, Prague 1912; .1, . G. Fried ch,Prague 1942; lll.2, edd. G. Friedricb
et Zdenek Kristen, Prague 1962.
Cosmas-DieChronikderBöhmendesCosmasvonPrag, hrsg.vonBertoldBretholz,in: Monumenta Gennaniae historica- Scriptores rerum Gennanicamm, Nova series , Bcrlin 1923.
Crescente-Crescentefidc, .JosefEm1er,in:Fontes remmBohemicammI,Prague 1873, 183-190.
Cechura, Jaroslav 1978: Pocatky oseckeho khBtera-mni�ska kolonie v Ma�tove [The origins of the Osekmonastery-themonks’colonyatMastov],Pamat -pfiroda-ivot. VlastivldnyctvnletnikCho­ murovska 10, 53-60.
Cechura, Jaroslav 1 982: Hospodarsky vyvoj s l keho kl tera do roku 1346 [Economic develop­ ment of the Sedlec ab y until 1 346), Muzeum a soucasnost 5, 39-72.
Charvat, Petr 1985: Poznamky k nemecke kolonizaci vychodnich Cech [Notes on German coloni­ zationofeasternBohemia],Archaeologiahistorica 10,75-81.
Charvatova, Katerina 1 979: Osecka kl tcrni dr�ava do loviny 14. stoleti [The Osek monastic domain until the middle of the 14th ntury), Hisroricka geogra e 18, 307-350.
Charvatova, Katerina 1985: Vyznam cistercicakebo radu pro osidleni Cech [The importance of the Cistercian order for the settlement of Bohemia], Archaeologia hisrorica I 0, 4 1 5-42 1 .
Christian-Legenda Christiani. Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile, ed. Jaroslav Ludvikovsky, Prague 1978.
Durdik, Tomas 1984: Ceske hra [The castles of Bobemia], Prague.
Fiala,Zdenek 1975:PfemyslovskeCechy. Ceskfstaraspolelnostvletech995-1310,[Przemyslide Bohemia. The Czech state and society 995- 1 3 10)] second edition, Prague.
Fritze, Wolfgang H. � 982: Corona regni Bohemiae. Die Entstehung des böhmischen Königtums im 12.Jahrhundert im Widerspiel von Kaiser, Fürst und Adel, in: FritzeW.H., Frühzeitzwischen Ostsee und Donau. Ausgewählte Beiträge zum geschichtlichen Werden im östlichen Mitteleuropa vom 6. bis
zwn 13.Jahrhun rr, hrsg. von Ludolf Kuchenbuch und Wifried Schieb /Germania Slavica , Berlin, 209-296.
Graus, Frantisek 1 9 5 3 : Dljiny venkovskeho lidu v Cech h v dobl pfedhusitske I [History of the rural people of Bohemia in the pre-Hussite peri 1), Prague.
Graus, Frantisek 1966: Adel, Land und Herrscher in Böhmen vom 10. bis 13.Jahrhundert, Nach­ richtenderGiessenerHochschulgesellschaft35, 131-153.
Hejna, Antonin 1979: Hrad Vi burk a oblast severovychodnich C h v e 1 3 . stoleti [The castle of Vi burk northeastem Bohemia in the 1 3th century1 Folia Historica Bohemica 1 , 193-208.
Hosak, Ladislav 1936-1938: Pffs vky k staremu r opisu moravskemu [Con ibutions to old
genealogies of Moravia]. Casopis Spolelnosti pfatel staro itnosli ces slovens ch 44-46. Kalista, Zdenek 1928: Kralovsky komo i Cemin 1 1 97- 1 2 1 2 [Cernin. chamberlain to
1 1 9 7 – 1 2 1 2 ] . C a s o p i s Spo l e l n o s r i p f a r e l s r a r o i r n o s r f C e s y c h 3 6 , 4 9 – 6 1 .
the king
22 History and Society 2
Kincl, Jaromfr 1978: Ova testamenti sl hticeKojaty [Two testaments of tbe noble Kojat.<], Acta Universitatis Carolinae, luridica 3, 301-320.
Klap�te, Jan 1988: K nekterym problem m s edoveke kolonizace [On some problems of the medieval colonization], Studia Mediaevalia Pragensia 1 , 93- 1 1 1 .
Klap�te, Jan 1 989: Ceska arch logie a studium problematiky 1 3 .stoletf [Czech archeology and studies of the problems of tbe 13th century], Archeologia historica 14, 9-17.
Klapste, Jan – Zemlicka, Josef 1979: Studium dejin osfdlenf v Cechäch a jeho dalf perspektivy [Studies of Settlement history in Bohemia and their persp tives], Ceskoslovensry casopis historid 27. 884-906.
Kloss, Ferdinand s.d.: Das räumliche Bild r Gru herrscha in Böhmen bis zum Ende des 12.1ahrhundert, Gablonz a.N.
Krzemie ska, Barbara 1980: Wann erfolgte der Anschluss Mahrens an den böhmischen Staat?
Historica 19, 195-243.
Krzemie ska, Barbara – TfeWk, Du�an 1978: Hospodafske zaklady rane s ovekeho statu ve
stf nfEvrope. Cechy, Polsko, Uhry v 10. a 1 J .sto1etf [Economic foundations of the early medieval state in Cen al Europe. Bohemia , Poland, Hungary in tbe 10th-1 1th Century]. Hospoda ke deji 1′ 149-230.
Letopisy-Letopisyceskeodroku 1 196doroku 1278[TheannalsofBohemia from 1196 to 1278], ed. Josef Emler, in: Fantes rerum Bohemicarwn , Prague 1 874, 282-303.
Lippert, Julius 1896- 1 898: Sozial-Geschichte Böhmens in vorhussirischer it I-li, Prague-Vienna­ Leipzig.
o wmia ski, Henryk 1985: Poczatki Polski [The ori gins of Poland] VI, Warsaw.
Matus wski, J6zef 1936: lmmuniret ekonomiczny w dobrach Koseiota w Polsee roku 1381 [Economic immunities of clesiastical domains of Poland uniil 1 3 8 1 ] , Pozna .
Menclova, Dobroslava 1972: Ceske hra [Bohemian castles] I, Prague.
Mennsky, Zdenek 1982: Studium dejin osidlenf na Morave a ve Slezsku [Studies of settlement history in Moravia and Silesia], Archaeologia historica 7, 1 13-156.
Mennsky, Zdenek 1985: Cfrkevnf instituce na Morave a jejich u1oha ve vyvoji hos darstvf a osfdlenf IO.stoletf do pfedhusitskeho obdobf [Ecclesiastical institutions of Moravia and their roJe in the development ofeconomy and settlement from the 10th century until the pre-Hussite period], Archaeologia historica 10, 375-393.
Merfnsky, Zdenek – Placek, Miroslav 1988: Nastin vyvoje hradmf architektury vrcholneho s edo­ veku na Morave a ve Slezsku do obdobf husitskych valek [A sketch of development of castle architecture ofthe high Middle Ages in Moravia and Silesia until the Hussile wars], Archaeologia historica 13, 217-249.
Modzelewski, Karo! 1987: Chl6pi w monarchii wczesnopiastowskiej [Peasants in the early Piast monarchy], Wroclaw-Warsaw-Crakow Gda sk 6di.
Novotny, Vaclav 1912-1937: Ceske dejiny !.1-4 [A history of Bohemia I. l-4j, Prague.
Novy, Rostislav 1972: P emislovsJy. stat 11. a 12.stoletf [The Pfemyslide state ofthe 1 1 th and 12th century), Prague.
Novy, Rostislav 1976: K pocatk m feudalnfmonarchie v Cechach I. Sigillum commune regni (On the origins of feudal monarchy in Bohemia I. Sigillum commune regni], Casopis Narodniho muzea-Historickemuzeum 145, 144-164.
2emlitka: Origins of N le Landed Pro rty 23
Novy, Rostislav 1984: Vznik poddanskeho obyvatelstva jako spolecenske t idy v ceskych zemich [Emergence of the viiiein pulation as a social class in the Iands ofBohemia], in: Strukrurafeud&ni spolecnosti na uzemi Ceskoslovenska a Polska p elomu 15. a 16.stoleti, red. Jan cierny. Frantiek Hejl, Antonin Verbik, Prague, 213-240.
Palacky, Frantisek 1876: Dlji ndrodu ceskeho v Cechdch a v Moravl 1.1 (A history of the nation ofBohemia in Bohemia and Moravia 1.1], 3rd edition. Prague.
Placek, Miroslav 1986: Hrady v hom v i Svratky [Castles in the up r part of the Svratka­ riverdrainagearea].Archaeologiahisto ca II, 189-2 .
Placek, Miroslav: K vyvoji hradu v vodi Svitavy [Development of castles in the Svitava-river drainage area], Archaeologia historica 13, 307-320.
Placek, Miroslav – Proch�zka. Rudolf 1986: K problematice o vnenych sfdel p elomu raneho a vrcholneho feudalismu na Morave [On the problems of fortified residences of the transition of early and mature feudalism in Moravia], Archaeologia historica I I, 159-170.
Prochno, Joachim 1 96 1 : TerraBohemiae, Regnum Bohemiae, Corona Bohemiae, in: Corona regni, hrsg. von Manfred Hellmann, Weimar. 198-224.
Russocki, Stanislaw 1 9 7 1 : Z bada nad czeskim systemem beneficjalnym [Some investigations of the Bohemian neficiary system], Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 23, 33-46.
Russocki, Stanislaw 1973: Protoparlamentaryzm Czech do poczqtku XV wieku [Bohemian proto­ parliamentarism until the ginning of 15th century]. Warsaw.
Susta, Josef 1917: PosledniP emys/ovci ajejich dldictvi [The last Pi’emyslides and their heritage], Prague.
Tomas, Jin ich 1966: Pocatky mesta Litome c [Origins of the town of Litomerice], Sbomik Severoceskeho muzea, Spolecenske vldy-Historia 5, 15-64.
T est , Du�an 1971: K socialnf struktu e p emyslovskych C h. Kosmas o kniecim vlastnictvi pudy a lidi [On the social structure of Premysl-dynasty Bohemia. Cosmas the chronicler on ducal ssession of land and opleJ. CeskostovenskY casopis historickj 1 9 , 537-567.
Ti’es , Dusan 1979: Promeny ceske s lecnosti ve 13.stoleti [Transformations of Bohemian society in the 13th century], Folia Historica Bohemica 1 , 1 3 1 -154.
T dt , Dusan – Krzemienska, Barbara 1967: Zur Problematik der Dienstleute im fruhmittelalter­ lichen Böhmen, in: Siedlung und Veifassung Böhmens in r F hzeit. hrsg. von Frantisek Graus und Herbert Ludat, Wiesbaden, 70-98.
Tfest , Dusan – Polivka, Miloslav 1984: NMtin vyvoje ceske l hty do konce 1 5.stoleti [Sketch of the development of Bohemian nobility until the end of 15th century]. in: Stmkrura feuddlni spoleenosti u emf Ceskoslovenska a Polska p elom11 15. a 16.stoletf, r . Jan Cierny, Frantisek Hejl, Antonin Verbik, Prague, 99-133.
Uhl , Zdenek 1985: Pojem zemskc once v tzv. Kronice Dalimilove jako z�ladnf prvek jeji ideologie [The notion of the land community in the so-called Dalimil chronicle as a basic elcment of its ideology], Folia Historica Bohemica 9, 7-32.
Vanecek, Vactav 1933- 1939: ady prdvnfho postavenf kldsteru a kldstemiho velkostatku ve stan!m ceskem stdtl [Foundations ofthe legal Situation of the monasteries and monastic estates in the old state of Bohemia] 3 vots., Prague.
Vanecek,Vaclav 1938: Dvlstudiekotd ceprdvnfhopostavenikldsteniakl temfhovelkostatku ve starem ceskem stdte [Two studics on the question of legal situation of the monasterics and monastic estatcs in the old state of Bohemia], Prague.
24 History and Society 2
Vanf�ek, Vratislav 1981: Vftkovci a �esky stat v letech 1169-1278 [The Vftkovci family and the state of Bohemia in 1 169-1278], Ceskoslovens casopis historic 29, 89-110.
Vanf�ek, Vratislav 1982: is vekkproblematice studia feudalni tffdy v premyslovskycb C hach.
Rozmacba klesroduHrabi�icuv 11.-13.stoletf[Acontributiontotheproble ofstudyofthe feudal class in Pfemysl-dynasty Bohemiae. Climax and decline of the Hrabisici family in the 1 1tb-13thcentury], in: Genealogia-Problemymetodyczne wb aniachnadpolskimspoleczenstwem sredniowiecznym na tle por6wnawczym, red. Jacek Hertel, Torun, 1 6 1 – 1 7 1 .
Vanf�ek, Vratislav 1991 : P ed klady a formovanf lechticke „obce Ceskebo k lovstvi“ [Prerequi­ si s for the noble „community of tbe kingdom of Bohemia“ and its emergence], Mediaevalia HistoricaBohemia 1, 13-55.
Vincencius-Letopis Vincencia [The annals of Vincencius], . Josef Emler, in: Fontes rernm Bohemicarwn , Prague 1874, 407-460.
Vogt, Karl 1938: Die Burg in Böhmen bis zum Ende des 12.Jahrhunderrs, Reicbenberg-Leipzig.
Waldstein-Wartenberg, Berthold 1966: Die Markwartinger. Geschichte einer böhmisc n Familie im italter derP emysliden Gräfelfing bei Munchen.
2emli�ka, Josef 197’8: Pfemyslovska hradskä centra a p ätky mcst v C hach [P emyslide castle cen es and the origins of towns in Bobemia], Ceskoslovenskj casopis historic 26, 559-586.
Zemlicka, Josef 1979: Litomc icka kastelanie a jeji stavenf v ranc stf ovckycb Cechacb [The Litomcrice castellany and its situation in early m ieval Bohemia], Litoml icko 15, 37-52.
Zemlicka, Josef 1980a: Bezdezsko-„kralovske uzemi“ P emysla Otakara . [The Bezdez region­ „royal territory“ of P emysl Otakar ], Ceskoslovenskj casopis historickj 28, 726-751 .
ZemliCka, Josef 1980b: Vyvoj osidleni dolniho Pooh i a Ceskiho st e ho i do 14.stoleti [Deve­ lopment of settlement of the lower Oh Eger-river basin and the Ceske-s oho f mountains in the 1 4th century]. Prague.
ZemliCka, Josef 1981: S r P emyslaOtakara I. s praskymbiskupem Ondfejem [Con ict between P emys1 Otakar I and Ond ej, bishop of Prague], Ceskoslovenskj casopis historic 29, 704-730.
Zemlicka, Josef 1983: Kralovsky cfn Zbraslav a jeho dMictvf [Zbraslav, cupbcarer to the king, and bis beritagc], Historickd geografie 21, 1 1 7-132.
Zemlicka, Josef 1985: Odboj kralevice P emysla v letech 1248-1 249 a jeho s ialnf zazemf [Rebellion of the prince P emysl in 1248- 1249 and its social background], Ceskoslovenskj casopis historic 33, 564-586.
Zemlicka, Josef 1989: „Duces Boemanorum“ a vznik p emyslovske monarchie („Duces Boemano­ rum“ and the emergence of the P emyslide monarchy], Ceskoslovenskj casopis hisrorickj 37, 697-72 1 .
Zemli&a, Josef 1990a: K pocatkum a rozrodu Hrabiicu [On the origins and the lineage o f the
Hrabisici family], Folia Historica Bohemia 1 3 , 7 -4 1 .
Zemlicka, Josef 1990b: P emysl Otakar 1. Panovnfk, stdt a ceskd spolecnost prahu vrcholneho
feudalismu [P emysl Otakar I: Rul , state and Bohemian s iety on the tbreshho1d of mature feudalism], Prague.
ZemliCka, Josef 1991: „Moravane“ ‚ casnem stfedovcku [„Moravians“ in the ear1y Middle Ages], in print.
Zhanel, Stanislav 1930: Jakvznikla staroceskd lechra. P splvekknejstarsimpoliric ma socialnfm dljinam ceskjm [How the o1d Bohemian nobiliyt emerged. A ntribution to the carliest litica1 and social history of Bohemia], Brno.
HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
2
MEDIUM VUM QUOTIDIANUM 29
Nobilities in Central and Eastern Europe:
Kinship, Property and Privilege
edited by
Janos M. Bak
Hajnal lstvan Alapltvany Medium vum Quotidianum
Budapest
Gesellschaft
Krems
1994
PRINTED IN NGARY Neotipp Bt., Budapest
HISTORY & SOCIETY IN CENTRAL EUROPE
together wi
Medium vum Quotidianum
BTK G g- es Tar dalomtörteneti Tanszek Buda st 1 0 5 1 , V. ker. arista köz 1 . Hung
Tel.: (36)-( 1 )- 1 1 -80-966/325
QUOT IA GESELLSCH Kö ermarkt 1 3 , A-35 Krems Austria
Tel.: (34-2732) 84793
Josef Zemlicka
Contents
Origins of Noble Landed Property in Piemyslide Bohemia 7 Eiemir Malyusz
Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania (1986) 25 Erik Fügedi
Kinship and Privilege (1990) 55 Kiril Petkov
Boyars and Royal Officers 77
Jan Pakulski
The Development of Clan Names in Mediaval Poland 85
Karin J. MacHardy
Social Mobility and Noble Rebellion in Early Mode Austria
Istvan M. Szijan6
Relatives and Miles
Istvan Hajnal
From Estates to Classes
97
1 4 1
163
Authors ofthe volume:
Erik Fügedi ( 1 9 1 6–1 2)
Istvan Hajnal (1892-1956)
Elem�r MMyusz (1898-1989)
Karin J. MacHardy (Dept. of History, Univ. of Waterloo, Ont. N2L 3GJ, Canada) Jan Pakulski (Inst. Historii Arhivistyki, Cope icus-Univ., Plac Teatralny 2/a
PL 87-1 Torun, Poland)
Kiril Petkov (Univ. Veliko T ovo, lvailo 1 1 , 43 Karlovo, Bulgaria)
Istvan M. Szijart6 (Gazdasag- �s Tarsadalomtörteneti Tansz�k. EL , 1151 Piaristaköz 1., Buda st, Hungary)
Josef Zemlicka (Jnst. of Hist., Academy of Sc. of the Czech Rep., Visehrad�ka 49., 1 2826 Praha 2, Czech Republic)
LECTORI SALUTEM!
Theaimoftheeditorsandpublishersofthisseriesof casionalpa rs istopresentrecent results of research in social history to the inte ational public. In the spirit of the Hungarian historian of Euro , Istvan Hajnal (1892-1956), we lieve that the history of „small nations“ may highlight aspects of general development that are 1ess visible in the life of major civilisations.
The volumes in this series will address s cific aspects of s ial development in medieval and m e central Euro . We intend to f us on the region between the German Iands and the Byzantine-Russian world, an explore similarities and differences in this area. Instead of arguing the validity of the term, we shall publish studies that may enable our readers to decide to what extent is „central Euro “ a historical reality or merely a dream of intellectuals and politicians. at is why we chose a medieval map for our cover: it emphasizes the centuries-old connecting function of the great rivers but contains no ephemeral political boundaries.
It is also our hope to contribute to the understanding of present developments and upheavals in a region a ut which few critical analyses are available in the English-spea­ king world. At the same time we should like to foster mode methods and approaches in social history, for so long neglected in our countries .
The present volume appears in close cooperation with the Medium Acvum Quotidianum Society and contains studies mainly on medieval and early mode nobilities of the region. The pa rs of two recently deceased Hungarian medievalists as weil as articles of a Cz h, a Polish and a Bulgarian historian discuss the s ial history medi val nobilities. Two articles, on Hungarian and Austrian nobles of the ancien regime I k at social mobility and estate in e seventeenth and eighteenth centu es. The volume closes with an essay by Istvan Hajnal on the end of the noble-corporatist world in nineteenth-century Hungary. With publishing three articles of the generations preceding ours, we wish to bow tho tho who taught us, without wanting to hide that their questions and answers are not necessarily ours. By printing pa rs of younger scholars, in t , we hope to present recent research in the area on topics that are discussed among social historian everywhere.
The volume editor wishcs to express his gratitude to those friends and colleagues who assisted in the – often almost unsormountable – task of translating and editing the Czec , Magyar and Polish contributions: Catherine Allen, Si on Came, Tamas Domahidy, Vera Gathy, Ryszard Grzezik, and Paul Knoll. Needless to say thal he alone feels responsible for the remaining shortcomings, which are, probably, many. May , we shall publish once a volume only on the intricacies and pilfalls of translating medieval and medievalist texts.
H&S
is a series of casional pa rs publish by tbe Istvm Hajnal S iety of Historians, in c ration with the Medium vum Quotidianum S iety (Krems, Austria), the Spo1ec­ nost hos rsky dejiny [S iety For Economic History] in Prague.
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung
i rs:
Vera BAcskai, ELTE Btk, Bud st, . 107, H-1364.
Jmos M. Bak, Dept. of Medieval S dies, Central Euro an University,
Huvösvölgyi ut 54, 1021 Buda st
GerbardJaritz (forM Q), Kö ermarkt 13, A-35 Krems
itorial consultants:
John B nar (Chicago, ), Peter Burke (Camb dge), Josef Ehmer (Vienna), Tamas Farag6 (Miskolc), Susan Glanz (Br klyn, NY), Monica Gleuler (Munich), Heiko Hau­ mann (Basle), TamAs Hofer (Buda st), Gerbard Jaritz (Vienna), Charles Kecskem�ti (Paris), B�la K.Kiraly (HighJand Lakes, NJ), György Köv�r (Bu st), Ludolf Kuchen­ buch (B hum), Ja slav Unik (Prague), Hans Medick (Göttingen), Walter Pietzsch (Wiesbaden), Martyn C.Rady (London), Hennan Re l (Tucson, ), Helga Schulz (Berlin), Julia Szalai (Bud st), Heide Wunder (Kassel).
Manuscripts and inquiries (including adve ising) should addres d to AndrAs Csite, Managing Editor HISTORY & S IETY c/o: Hajnal lstvrut kör, EL BTK, Budapest . 107, H-13 . E-mail: csite@osiris.elte.hu
Sale: Single copies in Hungary Ft3 ; abroad: $ 15. or DEM 20. Sales for North and South America are handled by Susan Gl z (1550 E 9th Ave., Br klyn, NY 1 1 230, USA; for Hungary and all otber regions by the Managing Editor.
BN 3-04-2014-7
Coverpage idea by György Köver
Computer setting and formatting by GAbor Kelemen
Cover design Csilla MAtrai based on the Ebsdorf Map undi. © Hajnal IstvAn Kör, Buda st, 1994.