Swine for Pearls? Animals in the Thirteenth-Century Cistercian Houses of Henryków and Mogiła

50
Swine for Pearls?
Animals in the Thirteenth-Century Cistercian Houses
of Henryków and Mogiła
Grzegorz Żabiński (Katowice)
The Cistercian houses of Henryków (Lower Silesia) and Mogiła (Little
Poland) showed striking differences in the development of their economies in
the thirteenth century. Around 1300, Henryków’s economy was mainly based on
incomes from neighbourhood demesne (courts), while Mogiła’s incomes predominantly
included peasant tithes and rents, with demesne income being of
secondary importance.1 This suggests that the role animals played in the economies
of both houses differed considerably as well.
Husbandry as part of monastic economies
Mogiła
Mogiła (c. 8 km east of Cracow) was founded in the 1220s by two members
of the nobility’s clan of Odrowąż: Wisław and his cousin Iwo Bishop of
Cracow.2 Foundation benefices were concentrated in two core areas: in a complex
around Prandocin (c. 25 km north-east of Cracow) and in Mogiła (where
the house was relocated from an initial site in Kacice on the Prandocin estate).
In order to assist the building works, Iwo gave a grant to be paid out over the
1 The structures of monastic economies were analysed by Grzegorz Żabiński, “Mogiła and
Henryków: A Comparative Economic History of Cistercian Monasteries within their Social
Context (up to the End of the Thirteenth Century),” unpublished PhD thesis (Budapest:
Central European University, 2005).
2 For basic data about the monastery see Tomasz Kawka and Hugo Leszczyński, “Kacice-
Mogiła,” in Monasticon Cistercience Poloniae [henceforth as: MCP] 2, eds. Andrzej Marek
Wyrwa, Jerzy Strzelczyk and Krzysztof Kaczmarek (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie,
1999), 98-112; Maciej Zdanek, ”W sprawie procesu fundacyjnego opactwa w Mogile” (On
the foundation process of the abbey in Mogiła), Nasza Przeszłość 94 (2000): 85-118; id.,
“Proces implantacji opactwa cystersów w Mogile” (The process of implantation of the
Cistercian abbey in Mogiła), Nasza Przeszłość 96 (2001): 515-549.
51
first three years: apart from money, salt, honey, grain and iron, it also included
40 oxen, 40 cows and 300 sheep with 300 lambs.3
As can be seen, animals were significant part of the monastic foundation
benefices. This was not uncommon at Cistercian foundations. A similar grant
was made in 1194 by a Hungarian nobleman Dominic Bors to his Cistercian
foundation in Borsmonostor (apart from villages, money and men, 100 oxen, 50
cows and 1000 sheep were donated).4 The monastery of Sardaigne, founded in
1205, was granted 200 horses, 50 cattle, 2000 swine, 300 sheep and 1000 goats.5
The monastery of Santa-Maria della Paludi in Sardinia, founded in the same
year, received 10,000 sheep, 2000 swine, 1000 goats and 5000 cattle.6 Concerning
the provenance of animals, husbandry was an important component of the
Odrowąż clan estates, as can be seen at the estate of Końskie (the local name
comes from koń-“a horse”), which was in all probability one such husbandry
centre.7 Although an intention to support monastic building works was stated by
the donor, the grant in all probability was also meant to launch a permanent monastic
husbandry economy. Since it may have required a specialised centre with
qualified labour force, it was in all probability located in a monastic court. The
presence of a demesne economy was testified to in Kacice in the Prandocin estate
and in Mogiła.8 From the point of view of the surrounding environments,
3 See the charter by Bishop Iwo from 1222, Eugeniusz Janota, ed. Diplomata monasterii Clarae
Tumbae prope Cracoviam [henceforth as: DMCT] (Cracow: Nakładem C.K. Towarzystwa
Naukowego Krakowskiego, Drukarnia C.K. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,
1865), No. 2: 2-3; the transfer of patronage was confirmed in 1223, DMCT, No. 3: 3-4;
Zdanek, “W sprawie procesu,” 96; about the relocation of the house from Kacice to Mogiła
see also a forged charter from 1225, DMCT, No. 4: 4-5. This charter was based on the
charter of Duke Bolesław the Shy of Kraków from 1273, see ibid., No. 32: 25-26; the relations
by Jan Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum Dioecesis Cracoviensis [henceforth as: LibBen]
3, in Joanni Długosz Opera Omnia 9, ed. Aleksander Przeździecki (Cracoviae: ex
Typographia Kirchmaieriana, 1864), 420-421, and id., Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni
Poloniae, 5-6 (Warsaw: PWN, 1973), 245-246; Karol Górski, “Ród Odrowążów w wiekach
średnich” (The clan of Odrowąż in the Middle Ages), Rocznik Towarzystwa Heraldycznego
8 (1926/27): 84-85; Zdanek, “W sprawie procesu,” 93-106; Słownik historyczno-geograficzny
województwa krakowskiego w średniowieczu (The Historical-Geographical
Dictionary of the Woivodship of Kraków in the Middle Ages) [henceforth as: SHG], eds.
Janusz Kurtyka, Jacek Laberschek, Zofia Leszczyńska-Skrętowa, Franciszek Sikora (Polska
Akademia Nauk. Instytut Historii) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1989), 2.2, 349-352.
4 Louis J. Lékai, “Medieval Cistercians and Their Social Environment. The Case of Hungary,”
Analecta Cisterciensia 32.1-2 (1976): 256.
5 Josef Hermann Roth, “Die Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Cistercienser,” in Die Cistercienser.
Geschichte-Geist-Kunst, ed. Ambrosius Schneider ( Cologne: Wienand Verlag, 1977), 564.
6 David H. Williams, The Cistercians in the Early Middle Ages (Trowbridge: Cromwell Press,
1998), 346.
7 DMCT, No. 2: 2-3; Stanisław Trawkowski, “Prędota Stary” (Prędota the Old) in Polski
Słownik Biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary) 28: 445-447 (Wrocław: Ossolineum,
1984-1985) and Górski, “Ród Odrowążów,” 11-15, 20-23.
8 Apart from the afore-mentioned charters, see a German law grant to the Prandocin estate
from 1278, DMCT, No. 34: 27-28; in 1283, two hides (ca. 50 ha) of demesne cultivated by
52
both monastic courts may have provided good conditions for husbandry as situated
in the stream valleys of rivers, possessing an abundance of meadows and
pastures.9
Different features may be noted in the grant by Duke Henryk the Bearded
of Silesia and Cracow from 1238. The Duke granted Mogiła part of the village
of Czyrzyny (c. 5 km north-west of Mogiła) and rights to trap beavers in the
Dłubnia river within the borders of monastic estates there.10 Beavers were
considered as especially precious and the right to trap them belonged to Ducal
regalia. Therefore, the grant fits well into the special favour enjoyed by Mogiła
from this ruler and his son, Henryk the Pious.11
Another issue is the general economic importance of husbandry for
Mogiła. This monastery was situated close to the important market of the capital
town of Cracow. The house ran two butcher stalls there. The one might have
been acquired in the foundation process12 and the other was obtained between
1244 and 1273.13 Moreover, as the Prandocin estate was relocated on the German
law in the 1280s, the locators were later to establish two butcher stalls
monastic familia in the complex and monastic meadows in Kacice were mentioned, ibid.,
No. 35: 28-29; in 1286, monastic demesne in Mogiła was mentioned, ibid., No. 61: 48-50;
Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,” 523-527, 534-535.
9 On topographical conditions of both sites see Adam Gorczyński, “Pogląd na położenie
Mogiły” (A view on Mogiła’s location), in Monografia opactwa cystersów we wsi Mogile
(A monograph on the Cistercian abbey in the village of Mogiła) (Cracow: Towarzystwo
Naukowe Krakowskie, Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1867), 1-4; Iwo
Kołodziejczyk, Mogiła. Opactwo cystersów (Mogiła: the Cistercian Abbey) (Cracow,
1992), 3; Władysław Łuszczkiewicz, Wieś Mogiła przy Krakowie, jej klasztor cysterski,
kościółek farny i kopiec Wandy (The village of Mogiła at Kraków, its Cistercian monastery,
the parish church and the hill of Wanda) (Cracow: W Drukarni “Czasu”, 1899), 6-8, 12; Jacek
Poleski, “Besiedlungshinterland des frühmittelalterlichen Krakau”, in Centrum i
zaplecze we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie Środkowej (Centre and hinterland in early
medieval Central Europe), ed. Sławomir Moździoch (Wrocław: Werk, 1999), 185-186;
Długosz, LibBen 3: 422-423; Zbigniew Pęckowski, Ziemia miechowska. Zarys dziejów
osadnictwa do końca XVIII wieku (Land of Miechów. A sketch of settlement to the end of
the eighteenth century) (Cracow: “Secesja,” 1992), 11-12; Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,”
527, states that the court in Kacice was oriented toward animal husbandry.
10 DMCT, No. 15: 12; Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,” 519, 526.
11 This was in all probability related to a political support by the monastery to political plans
of those Dukes in Little Poland. For other charters of Silesian Henryks to Mogiła see
DMCT, No. 13: 11, No. 17: 13. For the context see Benedykt Zientara, Heinrich der Bärtige
und seine Zeit. Politik und Gesellschaft im mitttelalterlichen Schlesien (Schriften des
Instituts für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa. Bd. 17) (Munich:
R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2002), 257-258, 286-287, 300-303, 308-309; Górski, “Ród Odrowążów,”
21-23, 34, 45, 74, 85; Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,” 518-519, 525, 530.
12 DMCT, No. 4: 4-5; Zdanek, “W sprawie procesu,” 101.
13 DMCT, No. 20: 15-16, the charter by Bishop Prędota of Kraków stating a monastic possession
of one stall and ibid., No. 32: 25-26, the charter of Duke Bolesław the Shy of Kraków,
mentioning two stalls; compare the point of view of Zdanek, “W sprawie procesu,” 101-
102; id., “Proces implantacji,” 521-522, 524, 532.
53
there. However, this task was probably not completed. The same concerns the
attempted organisation of two fishponds on the estate.14 Furthermore, in 1291,
the monastery received market rights for their estates, which was especially
relevant for the Prandocin complex.15 Finally, in 1299, Mogiła possessed a court
in Cracow.16 Therefore, the monastery disposed over many facilities to put its
husbandry production into the market, with special reference to the capital town.
There is no reason to assume that this was not done at all; however, based on the
scarcity of mentions in the sources it can be said that husbandry was not of any
special prominence in the monastic economy.
The reasons for this seem to have been various. First, the monastery received
rich foundation benefices, which chiefly comprised well-organised villages
and incomes. Those estates were located in well-populated areas.17 In the
entire period in question Mogiła was favoured by the rulers in Cracow, bishops
of Cracow and people of their entourage. Thanks to this, it enjoyed new grants,
mainly consisting of populated estates, tithes and exemptions. Starting from the
1270s, the monastery commenced to re-organise its estates based on the German
law. The role of demesne economy and colonisation of wasteland was secondary.
Around 1300 monastic estates consisted of 12 villages, 2 courts (demesne),
7 pieces of land, tithes from 27 estates, 1 right of patronage, 1 parish, 3 urban
enterprises (butcher stalls and a court in Cracow), 1 mayor’s office and 1 market-
place in Prandocin. Out of a gross income of about 500 Marks, roughly 80
Marks only was yielded by demesne while c. 355 Marks came from tithes and
ca. 65 Marks came from peasant rents.18 Therefore, as the monastic foundation
14 DMCT, No. 35: 28-29 and ibid., No. 59: 46-47; Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,” 547.
15 DMCT, No. 4: 4-5; Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,” 537, 539.
16 Stanisław Estreicher, ed., Antiquum registrum privilegiorum et statutorum civitatis
Cracoviensis, Wydawnictwa Komisji Historycznej PAU 82 (Cracow: PAU, 1936), No. 1:
1; Zdanek, “Proces implantacji,” 540.
17 For early settlement of areas where the most important part of monastic estates were located
see Poleski, “Besiedlungshinterland,” 185-193; Andrzej Żaki, Archeologia Małopolski
wczesnośredniowiecznej (Archaeology of early medieval Little Poland) (Polska Akademia
Nauk Oddział w Krakowie. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej 13) (Wrocław: Ossolineum,
1974), 274, fig. 225 ab, 284, 286, fig. 238, 289, fig. 241 ab, 293-299; Elżbieta Dąbrowska,
“Osadnictwo wczesnośredniowieczne na terenie powiatu krakowskiego” (Early
medieval settlement in the district of Cracow), Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Prace Archeologiczne UJ 4 (Cracow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego,
1962), 47-48, 91-96, 107-108, 117; id., Studia nad wczesnośredniowiecznym osadnictwem
ziemi wiślickiej (Studies on early Medieval settlement of the territory of Wiślica) (Instytut
Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk) (Wrocław-Warsaw-Cracow: Ossolineum,
PAN, 1965), passim; Renée Hachulska-Ledwos, ”Wczesnośredniowieczna osada w
Nowej Hucie-Mogile” (An early medieval settlement in Nowa Huta-Mogiła), Materiały
Archeologiczne Nowej Huty 3 (1971): 7-210; Pęckowski, Ziemia miechowska, passim.
18 For foundation benefices, property development and the relations between the house and its
entourage see DMCT, Nos. 2-30, 32-37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 61: 2-35, 48-50; Estreicher, ed.,
Antiquum registrum, No. 1: 1; Długosz, LibBen 3: 420 ff; Wojciech Kętrzyński, ed.,
Chronicon monasterii Claratumbensis Ordinis Cisterciensis auctore fratro Nicolao de
54
benefices were rich and the house was constantly supported with new grants,
there was probably no need for Mogiła to develop a broad scale market-oriented
husbandry. Moreover, as demesne economy was of secondary importance, husbandry
in order to secure draught beasts for monastic estates, was not necessary,
either.
Henryków
Henryków (c. 55 km south-east from Wrocław) was founded on the initiative
of Mikołaj, a notary of Duke Henryk the Bearded of Silesia.19 Although
Mikołaj transferred patronage rights to the Dukes and his son Henryk the Pious,
foundation benefices for the house were scarce. Their core, concentrated on
various small estates by Mikołaj, was located in the neighbourhood of Henryków.
It constituted a sparsely populated estate (c. 690 ha) with a sort of demesne,
the village of Nikłowice, and a forest (the Bukowina, c. 50 great hides or
1250 ha) with a meadow along the Morzyna stream. Thanks to the initial concentration
of activity by Mikołaj, German law re-organisation, organisation of
efficient demesne and implementation of a regular three-field system were made
possible. The estate offered an abundance of pastures and meadows for draught
beasts, indispensable for intensive cultivation with better agricultural tools.
However, all these features needed to be complimented by investments and
people who could cultivate the land. Other benefices included forest areas and
four villages in more distant parts of Silesia, in Great Poland and Little Poland.20
Cracovia (Monumenta Poloniae Historica 6) (Cracow: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności,
1893), 435-442; Zdanek, “W sprawie procesu,” passim; id., “Proces implantacji,” passim;
Kawka and Leszczyński, “Kacice-Mogiła,” 98-102; a summary of Mogiła’s estates and a
tentative calculation of income (based on the afore-mentioned sources) quoted after Żabiński,
Mogiła and Henryków, 155-158.
19 For basic data on the monastery see Stanisław Kozak, Agata Tarnas-Tomczyk, Marek L.
Wójcik, “Henryków,” in MCP 2: 64-78; Heinrich Grüger, Heinrichau. Geschichte eines
schlesischen Zisterzienserklosters 1227-1977 (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1978);
Stanisław Trawkowski, Gospodarka wielkiej własności cysterskiej na Dolnym Śląsku w
XIII wieku (The economy of the great Cistercian property in Lower Silesia in the thirteenth
century) (Instytut Historii Polskiej Akademii Nauk) (Warsaaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, 1959).
20 On the foundation process and benefices see DMCT, No. 1: 1; Józef Pater, ed., Liber fundationis
claustri Sancte Marie Virginis in Heinrichow czyli Księga Henrykowska (… or the
Book of Henryków) [henceforth as: Pater, LF], 2nd ed. (Wrocław: Muzeum Archidiecezjalne,
1991), Book I.1: 109-117, 120-121; Book I. 2: 118-121, Book I. 3: 123,
Book I. 5: 126-127, Book I. 6: 129-130, Book I. 8: 133-137, Book I. 9: 138-141, Book I.
10: 148-149, Book II. 4: 169, Book II. 5: 175, Book II. 7: 189-196; Ordinatio Wratizlaviensis
ecclesiae episcoporum, in: Pater, LF, 194-199; the foundation charter from 1228, Schlesisches
Urkundenbuch [henceforth as: SU] 1.2, ed. Heinrich Appelt (Graz, Vienna and Cologne:
Böhlau 1968), No. 290: 213-214; SU 1.2, No. 210: 153-154, No. 252: 184-185, No.
253: 185; SU 1.3, ed. Heinrich Appelt (Vienna, Cologne and Graz: Böhlau, 1971), No. 371:
295-296; SU 2, ed. Winfried Irgang (Cologne, Vienna and Graz: Böhlau, 1977), No. 138:
55
The monastic site lay in a highland area between the Bystrzyca and the
Oława rivers, c. 20 km north from the main ridge of the Sudety mountains. It
was situated in the loess valley of the Oława river (crossed by several small
tributaries of that river), covered with small “islands” of deciduous forest. The
region of Henryków was settled relatively late, that is, in the second half of the
twelfth and the first half of the thirteenth centuries. Therefore, it was not densely
populated, and the extensive agriculture run by local petty nobles with their few
dependants and free Ducal peasants was still on the level of single household
farms or small hamlets. Extensive agriculture together with inheritance divisions
often led to “chessboard” fields, standing in the way of more efficient land cultivation.
Well-organised great land property was rare in this area. Concerning
husbandry, some landholders undertook deforestation work (e. g., in the Bukowina
forest or at Brukalice) in order to secure fodder for draught beasts.21 A
90, No. 196: 124; SU 3, ed. Winfried Irgang (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1984), No. 448:
294-295, No. 452: 298-299; Grüger, Heinrichau, 2-5, 8-11, 16-19, 122-123; Kozak, Tarnas-
Tomczyk, and Wójcik, “Henryków,” 65-66; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 34, 37-39, 49;
Dariusz Karczewski, “Nieznany dokument księżnej krakowskiej Grzymisławy z roku 1228.
Przyczynek do najwcześniejszego uposażenia klasztoru cystersów w Henrykowie (An unknown
charter of Grzymisława, Duchess of Kraków from 1228. A contribution to the oldest
benefices of the Cistercian monastery in Henryków),” in Venerabiles, nobiles et honesti.
Studia z dziejów społeczeństwa Polski średniowiecznej. Prace ofiarowane Profesorowi
Januszowi Bieniakowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestopięciolecie pracy
naukowej (Venerabiles, nobiles et honesti. Studies on the society of medieval Poland. Articles
presented to Professor Janusz Bieniak on the occasion of his seventieth birthday and
the forty-fifth anniversary of his scholarly work), eds. Andrzej Radzimiński, Jan Wroniszewski
and Anna Supruniuk (Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 1997), 91-99.
21 On topographic conditions and early settlement see Pater, LF, Book I. 2, I. 3, I. 4: 118-124,
Book I. 5: 126, Book I. 7, I. 8: 132-135, Book I. 9: 140, Book I. 10: 147-148, 150-152,
Book II. 1: 156-157, Book II. 2, II. 3, II. 4: 162-169; Ordinatio, in: Pater, LF, 195-196; SU
2, No. 138: 90; Regesten zur schlesischen Geschichte [henceforth as: SR] 1316-1326, eds.
Colmar Grünhagen and Conrad Wutke, in Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae [henceforth as:
CDS] 18 (Breslau: Max, 1898), No. 3766: 73, No. 3848: 102, No. 4152: 189; Trawkowski,
Gospodarka, 34-38, 68, 71, 80; Grüger, Heinrichau, 4, 26, 34, 114, 143; id., “Die slawische
Besiedlung und der Beginn der deutschen Kolonisation im Weichbilde Münsterberg,” Archiv
für Schlesische Kirchengeschichte 21 (1963): 1-37; Kozak, Tarnas-Tomczyk, and
Wójcik, “Henryków,” 64; Lech Tyszkiewicz, “Ze studiów nad osadnictwem wczesnofeudalnym
na Śląsku” (Studies on early feudal settlement in Silesia), Sobótka 12.1 (1957): 2-3,
6-7, 9, 11-12, 18, 22-26, 29, 32-40, Appendix, 41-50, No. 26, 36, 37, 242; Jerzy Lodowski,
“Osadnictwo a zalesienie Dolnego Śląska we wczesnym średniowieczu” (Settlement and
forest areas of Lower Silesia in the early Middle Ages), in Ziemia i ludzie dawnej Polski
(Land and people of the Old Poland), eds. Adam Galos and Julian Janczak (Prace
Wrocławskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego Seria A, No. 179. Wrocław, Ossolineum, 1976),
68-72, 78; Lech A. Tyszkiewicz, “Śląsk przed lokacją i kolonizacją na prawie niemieckim”
(Silesia before location and colonisation on German law), in Księga Jadwiżańska. Międzynarodowe
Sympozjum Naukowe “Święta Jadwiga w dziejach i kulturze Śląska”. Wrocław-
Trzebnica 21-23 września 1993 roku (A Book of Jadwiga. An international scholarly colloqium
“St Jadwiga in the history and culture of Silesia”) (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Wrocławskiego, 1995), 19-20, 24.
56
similar early stage of settlement may be seen in another area where the monastic
estates were later concentrated, that is, in the Góry Sowie mountain region, c. 20
km south-west of Henryków.22
There are numerous references to husbandry in the history of economic
development of Henryków up to c. 1300. In 1236, Paweł Bishop of Poznań
granted the house the village of Dębnica in Great Poland (c. 9 km north-west of
Gniezno) together with a horse herd of 38 mares. Apart from the pious intention,
the donor aimed to support the poor monastery founded by his relative Notary
Mikołaj.23 A sort of parallel to foundation grants to Mogiła may be noted here.
Bishop Paweł was deeply engaged in the foundation process of Henryków.
Thus, it is no wonder that bearing in mind the reluctance of the Silesian Dukes
to help the foundation, he intended to support the opus vitae of his relative.24
The number of mares suggests the existence of a horse-breeding centre there, in
all probability organised as demesne based on the necessity of employing a specialised
labour force.25
The importance of pastures for monastic husbandry is notable at the estate
of Jaworowice at Henryków. Granted to the monks in 1243 by Duke Bolesław II
Rogatka, it was then confiscated by Duke Henryk III. As the monks feared that
the house would be deprived of building sand reservoirs and pastures for cattle,
they decided to re-purchase it, even bearing in mind that they had to indebt the
house for this purpose and offer “gifts” to the Duke and his officials. In this estate,
with an area of 16 small hides (c. 240 ha), the demesne was organised later,
but part of it may have remained within the peasant economy.26
From 1254, there are data on the monastic demesne in Nikłowice, exchanged
with a local nobleman for a piece of land in the valley of the Oława
river. Its size may be estimated at c. 70 ha. Cultivation within it took the form of
the three-field system; c. 46.6 ha was available annually. There were 20 cattle
22 Pater, LF, Book I. 9: 138-147; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 40; Lodowski, “Osadnictwo,” 75;
Tyszkiewicz, “Ze studiów,” 8-10, 13, Appendix, 48, No. 210; Zientara, Heinrich, 176-179,
196, the map, 364-365; Josef Joachim Menzel, “Schlesien zur Zeit der Heiligen Hedwig,”
in Księga Jadwiżańska, 32-41.
23 SU 2, No. 124: 81-82; Grüger, Heinrichau, 20, 116. In the same year the bishop made another
grant upon the monks’ request in order to alleviate their poverty, ibid., No. 123: 80-
81; Grüger, Heinrichau, 20, 116.
24 Pater, LF, Book I. 1: 112-114, 116, 117, 120, Book I.10: 150-151; SU 1.2, No. 252: 184-
185, No. 290: 213-214; Karczewski, “Nieznany dokument,” 91-99; SU 3, No. 179: 123;
Kozak, Tarnas-Tomczyk, and Wójcik, “Henryków,” 65-66; Grüger, Heinrichau, 9-18;
Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 49;
25 A court is mentioned in 1318, see SR 1316-1326, No. 3802: 83-84 and Lambert Schulte,
“Heinrichau und Münsterberg,” in id., Kleine Schriften (Darstellungen und Quellen zur
schlesischen Geschichte 23) (Breslau: Hirt, 1918), Appendix 6: 144-149; Grüger, Heinrichau,
24-26, 116.
26 Pater, LF, Book I. 6: 129-131, Book II. 6: 185-186; SU 2, No. 241: 145; SU 3, No. 150-151:
106-107; Wilhelm Wattenbach, ed., Das Formelbuch des Domherrn Arnold von Protzan, in
CDS 5 (Breslau: Max, 1862), 166-168; SR 1316-1326, No. 3552: 4-5; Grüger, Heinrichau,
3, 85, 108-109, map 2; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 116-118, 141-142.
57
and 30 swine within the demesne. Combined with mentions of plows kept at the
court, this means that 5 teams with 4 oxen in each were needed to cultivate the
total demesne area. In other words, one team was able to work c. 14 ha of land
(including 2/3 or c. 9.3 ha available annually and 1/3 or c. 4.6 ha being left
fallow).27 This monastic deal may have also signalled an intention to secure
additional pasture land, which (as can be seen in the afore-mentioned story of
Jaworowice) was a crucial issue for the house at that time.
Monastic interest in husbandry resulted in the establishment and acquisition
of trading posts. In 1276, the monastery was granted the right to establish a
free tavern and settle two smiths, two shoemakers, two bakers and two butchers
in Rychnów (Lower Silesia). They were permitted to freely sell their products in
the village.28 In 1291, the monastic possession of a tax-free butcher stall in the
town of Reichenbach (c. 45 km north-west of Henryków and c. 22 km north of
the monastic village of Schönwald, where the stall may have been supplied
from) was confirmed.29 Before 1291, the monastery owned a butcher stall in the
neighbouring town of Münsterberg, and in that year the house was granted another
butcher stall and a rent from another stall there.30 Another butcher stall in
that town was acquired in 1297.31 In the same year, the monastery received confirmation
of its possession in the town of Strzelin (20 km north of Henryków),
which comprised a tax-free butcher stall and a tax-free shoe stall.32 Strzelin, Reichenbach
and Münsterberg formed a triangle encompassing the monastery as
well. Thus, the house acquired access to the most important markets in the
neighbourhood.
Another important branch of the monastic animal husbandry was fish. The
exchange of Nikłowice for land along the Oława river opened the way for monastic
expansion there. In order to secure water for monastic needs (including
mills), the monks undertook irrigation and dug a new river-bed for the Oława
river. The original river-bed was then called antiquus meatus Olauie.33 A
27 Pater, LF, Book I. 7: 132-133, SU 3, No. 124-125: 89-91; ca. 70 ha seems to be quite typical
for Cistercian demesne in Silesia, see Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 63-80; Grüger,
Heinrichau, 90, 107; Henryk Dąbrowski, Rozwój gospodarki rolnej w Polsce od XII do
połowy XIV w. (The development of agriculture in Poland from the twelfth to the midfourteenth
century) (Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej, Studia i
Materiały z Historii Kultury Materialnej 11, Studia do Dziejów Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego
5.1) (Warsaw: PWN, 1962), 52-59, 106, 114.
28 SU 4, ed. Winfried Irgang (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 1988), No. 301: 203-204; Rychnów
and the neighbouring village of Quolsdorf were exchanged by the house in 1293 for
the village of Wiesenthal in the monastic vicinity, see Pater, LF, Book II. 4: 169-173, SU
6, ed. Winfried Irgang (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 1998), No. 91: 77-79.
29 Ibid., No. 39: 33.
30 Ibid., No. 24: 20-21.
31 Ibid., No. 299: 239-240; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 166.
32 SU 6, No. 308: 246-247; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 165-166.
33 SU 3, No. 587: 373-375; SU 4, No. 67: 58-59, No. 95-96: 75-76; Wattenbach, Das Formelbuch,
in CDS 5, 166-168; SR 1316-1326, No. 3552: 4-5; on further monastic expansion
58
monastic antiqua piscina on the Morzyna stream in Stary Henryków at
Czesławice (a neighbouring estate, acquired by the monks at the turn of the
thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries) was mentioned at the beginning of the
fourteenth century.34 In 1300, another monastic fishpond (later known as Altteich)
with a plot of 0.5 small hides within the estate of Zobkendorf (part of
Skalice) was mentioned.35 All this shows the growing monastic interest in securing
their own fish resources.36
The monastic animal-related economy also included sheep husbandry.
In 1282, the house acquired the estate of Muszkowice (south-west of Henryków).
It was probably around 500 ha and had been re-organised by the house
as a demesne specialised in sheep husbandry. It must have been a considerable
holding, based on the fact that in 1302 a single sheep-fold there with 313 selected
sheep (that is, animals giving better quality wool) was burnt down by a
heir of the previous owners. Other components of the estate included a meadow
and a grove, subsequently turned into arable land, a small village of “gardeners”
(ortulani – dependent peasants whose chief duty was labour on the demesne
land) and a hop-garden.37 As the monastic estates expanded further in this direction,
the monks enlarged the demesne in Muszkowice by incorporating part of
the neighbouring village of Czerńczyce (6.5 great hides or c. 162.5 ha). Although
deforestation had been begun there by previous owners, the monks decided
to let the forest grow again on part of this land (3 ha). The other 3.5 hides
were cultivated and contained a field (campus) called “the Animals’ Garden”
(Ortus Ferarum).38 The new piece of forest was designed to provide additional
pasture area within the demesne. The “Ortus Ferarum” was probably an enclosure
for sheep within the arable land, when the land was left to fallow. Moreover,
in 1300-1303, the house acquired the neighbouring estate of Nietowice
(7.5 small hides or c. 112.5 ha). It was joined to Muszkowice: in all probability,
the 2.5 non-settled hides were used to enlarge the size of pastures or demesne
there after 1300 see Pater, LF, Book II. 6: 185-189; Grüger, Heinrichau, 22, 25, 80, 109-
111, 125-128, 133; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 68-71, 101-102.
34 Pater, LF, Book II. 7: 188-192, see also SU 6, No. 292: 233-234; Grüger, Heinrichau, 26,
113-114, 129.
35 Pater, LF, Book II. 3: 165-168; SU 6, No. 437: 339; Grüger, Heinrichau, 25, 111-112.
36 Ibid., 102-103, 111-112, 129-130.
37 Pater, LF, Book II. 1: 157-162, SU 5, ed. Winfried Irgang (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna:
Böhlau, 1993), No. 13: 12-13, No. 14: 14-15; Grüger, Heinrichau, 24, 112; the neighbouring
town of Münsterberg also had interests in the estate, probably related to the fact that
sheep husbandry had also been practiced earlier in the monastery. The burghers may have
feared an intensification of monastic clothmaking to the detriment of craftspeople in the
town; see Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 93-94; on the organisation of Muszkowice see ibid.,
80-81, 86-87, 91-92, 102, 107-108, 118. This author states that the price of a “selected”
sheep in the mid-thirteenth century was usually around 6 gr, twice the amount as for a
“usual” sheep.
38 Pater, LF, Book II. 2: 162-165, SU 5, No. 370 and 371: 292-293, SU 6, No. 368: 290;
Grüger, Heinrichau, 25, 80, 112, 122-123, 143; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 81, 87-88; Dąbrowski,
Rozwój, 101-102.
59
arable land, and 5 settled hides were connected to the “gardeners” village.39
Sheep husbandry was in all probability related chiefly to monastic clothmaking.
Its scope was no doubt considerable, as monastic weaving and selling
cloth retail was mentioned as being especially onerous in a complaint by the
burghers of Münsterberg from 1293. A compromise was arrived at in which the
monks were permitted to carry out all handicrafts. The monks were permitted to
run two looms. One loom was to work from Christmas to Easter, while the other
could function continuously. The monks were only permitted to sell twenty rolls
of cloth (white or grey) in retail. The surplus could be sold wholesale in the
monastery or in the towns.40 It is notable that handicrafts and especially
clothmaking was directly related to market access: apart from towns, the monks
also organised a sort of market-place at the monastery itself.
The market orientation of monastic animal-related economy may also be
seen in a trade privilege from 1293, granting the monks a toll-free passage for
salt, grain and other commodities for monastic needs, transported from Cracow
to Silesia or back. This trade was carried out at least to a degree by the house itself.
41 Salt is mentioned in first place, which may be related to monastic interest
in butcher stalls and fisheries.
Market orientation can also be seen in the monastic German law estates.
When Henryków acquired the neighbouring village of Wiesenthal in 1293, the
benefices of the village’s mayor included a tavern, a butcher, a baker and a fishpond.
The village was of considerable size (more than 31.5 great hides or c.
787.5 ha), which also meant profits from market enterprises there. Thus, it is not
surprising that the monks bought the office soon after 1300.42
Based on the afore-mentioned, the importance of various branches of
husbandry for Henryków is evident. The economic development of Henryków
proceeded in very different ways compared to Mogiła. Foundation benefices
were scarce and further property acquisitions were indispensable in order to se-
39 Pater, LF, Book II. 3: 167-168; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 81; Grüger, Heinrichau, 25,
112-114.
40 SU 6, No. 117: 97-98, No. 123: 104-105; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 93-94, 97-99, 121-122,
says that sheep-shearing could take place once or twice a year (in spring and autumn), although
the quality of autumn wool is inferior. Thus, the monastery, in order to assure quality,
probably relied rather on the spring shearing. On the other hand, due to a shorter growing
period on the Sudety Plateau (demanding intensification of agricultural work), the
preparation of wool for weaving probably took place in autumn. Thus, in winter the monastery
had the greatest wool resources, which explains why the other monastic workshop only
operated in winter. As the cloth produced by the monks could only be either white or grey,
the monastery probably did not have a dying workshop; Grüger, Heinrichau, 95, 132, also
underlines the charity aspect of Henryków handicrafts.
41 SU 6, No. 113: 95; Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 128-129, 163-164; Grüger, Heinrichau, 114-
115; in 1320 Duke Władysław of Bytom confirmed the monastic right of free trade for monastic
needs throughout his land. The charter mentions horses, cattle, salt, lead as well as
other commodities, SR 1316-1326, No. 4059: 162-163.
42 Pater, LF, Book II. 4: 169-175; SU 6, No. 91: 77-79, No. 257: 208, No. 265: 212-213; SR
1316-1326, No. 3120: 165; Grüger, Heinrichau, 4, 25-26, 114.
60
cure monastic existence. Due to the reluctant attitude of the Dukes of Wrocław
towards the house (support lent by bishops of Wrocław could not compensate
for it), Henryków could not count on many grants and had to acquire new estates
chiefly by its own monastic means. Moreover, the lack of Ducal protection exposed
the house to conflicts with local nobility. On the other hand, the progressive
economic decline of numerous landowners in the monastic vicinity facilitated
the property expansion of the house. The land acquired by the house in the
neighbourhood of Henryków was not densely populated and those acquisitions
consisted of relatively small and scattered pieces of land which needed to be
concentrated into a coherent estate. Moreover, due to an initial scarcity of monastic
financial resources, the house had to direct its settlement and colonisation
investments to more distant forest estates in Lower Silesia in order to turn them
into profitable villages. All this contributed to the fact that around 1300 the core
of the monastic estates was concentrated in the vicinity of Henryków and was
organised within the demesne economy. The house’s property in the vicinity of
Henryków included 6 to 8 courts (demesne): in Henryków, Stary Henryków,
Cienkowice, Muszkowice (with pastures and sheep-folds; a total area of c. 700
ha with c. 75 ha of forest), Brukalice, Neuhof (with pastures) Reuental and
Czesławice. There was also 1 village (Wiesenthal), 1 piece of peasant land
(Skalice), a shoe mill (Schimmelei), 2 looms and other workshops in Henryków,
2 fishponds (Altteich in Skalice, antiqua piscina or Alter Fischteich in Stary
Henryków), a market-place in Henryków, and the forest area of the Bukowina
(c. 1500 ha) with a meadow. This was complemented with tithes from 9 estates.
In Lower Silesia, c. 20 km from Henryków, the house also held a village. In
more distant areas, the house held 8 villages (one in Upper Silesia, 3 in Little
Poland, 4 in Great Poland), 2 courts (one in Little Poland and one in Dębnica in
Great Poland with a horse-herd), tithes from one estate (in Great Poland). Urban
possessions included 6 stalls and one source of income in the vicinity towns
(one butcher stall in Reichenbach, 3 butcher stalls and a rent from another stall
in Münsterberg, one butcher stall and one shoe stall in Strzelin). Out of a total
area of monastic demesne of c. 2300 ha (c. 2150 ha for the immediate vicinity),
probably c. 580 ha (roughly 23 great hides; c. 370 ha or roughly 15 great hides
in the monastic vicinity) only were plowed. The number of monks around 1300
was c. 40, laybrothers: c. 25 and familiares c. 29. Thus, as at least 92 men were
needed to cultivate the court land (4 men per hide), the chief labour force in
monastic courts, apart from laybrothers and familiares, were dependent peasants.
Out of approximately 735 Marks gross income of the house around 1300,
c. 425 Marks comprised demesne income, c. 56 Marks came from the vicinity
non-demesne land, c. 131 Marks from non-German law villages, c. 70 Marks
from German law villages, c. 35 Marks from tithes and c. 18 Marks from urban
stalls.43
43 For monastic estate development, organisation, labour force and the context see Pater, LF,
Book I. 2-10: 118-153, Book II. 1-7: 156-192; Ordinatio, in Pater, LF, 195-199; SU 1.2,
61
In order to develop an efficient demesne economy (which was practically
the only way for monastic vicinity estates), the monastery had to secure sufficient
resources of draught beasts. As a team of 4 oxen was needed to cultivate c.
14 ha (2/3 arable land and 1/3 fallow), c. 166 oxcn (c. 42 teams) were needed for
a monastic demesne of 580 ha. This feature definitely necessitated developments
in monastic husbandry. Moreover, as the house could not have counted on external
support, the monks had to make use of various opportunities to secure the
No. 210: 153-154, No. 252: 184-185, No. 290: 213-214; SU 1.3, No. 371: 295-296; SU 2,
No. 123-124: 80-82, No. 138: 90, No. 167: 107-108, No. 172: 110-111, No. 196: 124, No.
241: 145, No. 270: 162, No. 323: 190-191, No. 392: 249, No. 429: 271-273, No. 431: 274-
275; SU 3, No. 46: 41, No. 58: 48-49, No. 97: 71-72, No. 124-125: 89-91, No. 141: 99-100,
No. 150-151: 106-107, No. 179: 123, No. 251: 166-167, No. 281: 186-187, No. 298: 197,
No. 418: 277, No. 419: 278, No. 424: 280-281, No. 437: 288, No. 448: 294-295, No. 452:
298-299, No. 482: 311-312, No. 586-587: 372-375; SU 4, No. 48-49: 43-47, No. 67-68: 58-
60, No. 78: 65-66, No. 84: 68-69, No. 95-96: 75-76, No. 190: 135, No. 301: 203-204, No.
320: 214, No. 348: 230-231, No. 350-351: 232-233, No. 364: 242, No. 398: 266, No. 409:
274; SU 5, No. 1: 1, No. 13-14: 12-15, No. 22: 19-20, No. 23: 20-21, No. 25: 22, No. 27:
22-23, No. 59-60: 49-50, No. 90-91: 70-72, No. 93: 72-74, No. 158: 127, No. 217: 174-175,
No. 261: 206-207, No. 267: 210-211, No. 287: 223-227, No. 292: 230-232, No. 317: 250-
251, No. 370-371: 292-293, No. 453-454: 348-350; SU 6, No. 14: 13-14, No. 65: 51-54,
No. 91: 77-79, No. 109: 193, No. 113: 95, No. 117: 97-98, No. 123: 104-105, No. 173: 139-
140, No. 248-250: 199-200, No. 257: 208, No. 260: 209-210, No. 265: 212-213, No. 282:
226-227, No. 292: 233-234, No. 299: 239-240, No. 308: 246-247, No. 368: 290, No. 418:
320-324, No. 437: 339, No. 444: 345-346; Wattenbach, ed., Das Formelbuch, 166-168;
DMCT, No. 31: 24-25, No. 41: 33, No. 43: 34, No. 50: 39, No. 61: 48-50; Schulte,
“Heinrichau und Münsterberg,” Appendix 6: 144-149, Appendix 7: 149-153; SR 1301-
1315, eds. Colmar Grünhagen and Conrad Wutke, in CDS 16 (Breslau: Max, 1892), No.
3477: 283; SR 1316-1326, No. 3552: 4-5, No. 3802: 83-84; Liber Vite Sancte Marie Virginis
in Heinrichow, Biblioteka Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Ms. IV F 219, 2 r-5 v, 6 v-
10 v, 11 v-61 r; Kozak, Tarnas-Tomczyk, and Wójcik, “Henryków,” 65-66; Grüger,
Heinrichau, 3-5, 9-30, 79-80, 84-92, 94-95, 99-116, 122-130, 132-133, 138, 140-141, 143;
id., “Der Nekrolog des Klosters Heinrichau (ca. 1280 – 1550) T. 1,” Archiv für Schlesische
Kirchengeschichte 31 (1973): 48-52, 54-59; Rościsław Żerelik, “’Wspólnota zmarłych’ w
świetle najstarszych wpisów do Nekrologu Henrykowskiego” (The “community of the
dead” in light of the oldest records unto the Necrologue of Henryków), in Klasztor w
społeczeństwie średniowiecznym i nowożytnym (A monastery in the medieval and modern
society), ed. Marek Derwich and Anna Pobóg-Lenartowicz (Institutum Historicum
Universitatis Opoliensis, Institutum Historicum Universitatis Wratislaviensis. Opera ad
historiam monasticam spectantia, S. I, Coll. 2, ed. Marek Derwich) (Opole, Wrocław:
LARHCOR, 1996), 199-210; Grzegorz Żabiński, “Die Einträge der “zweiten Hand” zum
Heinrichauer Totenbuch.” Archiv für Schlesische Kirchengeschichte 61 (2003): 257-265;
Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 37, 49-59, 63-81, 86-88, 91-94, 102, 107-111, 116-126, 128-
129, 141-142, 152-156, 158-159, 163-166; Dąbrowski, Rozwój, 18, 23-24, 33-41, 52-59,
68-86, 95, 100-102, 104-111, 113-114, 120, 124-125; Andrzej Wyczański, “Gospodarka
wiejska w Polsce XIV wieku w ujęciu liczbowym (próba oceny)” (Rural economy in fourteenth-
century Poland in a quantitative approach (an attempt at estimation), Roczniki Dziejów
Społecznych i Gospodarczych 62 (2002): 169, 172; a summary of Henryków’s estates
and a tentative calculation of income (based on the afore-mentioned data) after Żabiński,
Mogiła and Henryków, 225-235.
62
existence of the house. Husbandry represented one such possibility which was
additionally facilitated by good topographic and settlement conditions, such as
an abundance of pastures and meadows or a relatively low level of population.
Furthermore, a well-developed husbandry opened up new economic opportunities,
like clothmaking. On the other hand, to succeed it required a development
of market access points: as it was shown above, Henryków secured trading posts
in the neighbouring towns and organised a sort of market-place at the monastery
itself.
Monastic animals as gifts and objects of exchange
In 1234, Henryków reimbursed a local nobleman 28 Marks for a battle
charger, offered by the latter to the Duke, Henryk the Bearded. It was part of a
compromise reached over the monastic part of the Bukowina forest, seized by
the Duke and then granted to the nobleman. In order to get the forest back, the
monks had to reimburse the nobleman for his gift.44
Of interest is the high price of such a horse. In the afore-mentioned story
of the monastic redemption of Jaworowice in 1255, the monks donated three
horses worth 10 Marks each to the Duke and his officials.45 Thus, the charger
offered to Henryk the Bearded was no doubt a specially bred and trained animal.
The role of animals as objects of exchange is also notable in the monastic
acquisition of Brukalice in the 1250s–1260s. This estate was held by a Polish
petty noble family and its total size was 9 small hides (c. 135 ha). Due to inheritance
divisions it was probably fairly difficult for the nobles to make it profitable.
Thus, they exchanged their land with the monks for monastic estates in
Great Poland and Upper Silesia. The land given by the monks was also accompanied
with gifts in commodities, including livestock. In the first exchange deal
from 1253, the two nobles, Bogusza and Paweł, exchanged their 3 small hides
(c. 45 ha) in Brukalice for an equal quantity of land in Great Poland. They also
received 2 horses worth 3 Marks, 4 oxen worth 2.5 Marks, 2 cows worth 1
Mark, 5 pigs worth 6 gr each, and 8 measures of rye worth 1 Mark. Apart from
that, they received 1 Mark for their first trip to Great Poland and were leased 2
carts with 8 horses for 2 Marks for the other trip with their families.46 In 1259,
after Bogusza and Paweł sold their land in Great Poland back to the monks, the
two nobles exchanged their newly inherited share in Brukalice (1.5 small hides
or ca. 22.5 ha) for twice as much monastic land in Upper Silesia. Again, they
44 Pater, LF, Book I. 8: 133-137; SU 1.3, No. 371: 295-296.
45 Pater, LF, Book I. 6: 131; SU 3, No. 150: 106.
46 Pater, LF, Book I. 10: 147-153; the charter from 1253 see also SU 3, No. 97: 71-72; the
charter from 1256 ibid., No. 179: 123; the charter from 1257 ibid., No. 251: 166-167;
Trawkowski, Gospodarka, 68, 71; Dąbrowski, Rozwój, 104-108; Grüger, Heinrichau, 11-
15, 21, 111.
63
were also given a horse worth 1.5 Mark each, a cow with a calf, two oxen, five
sheep, and five pigs.47
Due to inheritance divisions among the heirs of Brukalice, the amount of
available land diminished and efficient estate organisation impeded. Thus, it
would have hardly been possible to implement a regular three-field system. Due
to a lack of pastures and meadows, it was not possible to increase livestock
numbers. An insufficient number of draught beasts rendered the use of better
cultivation tools impossible.48 When Bogusza and Paweł first traveled to Great
Poland in 1253, they received 2 horses and 4 oxen. For their travel to Upper
Silesia in 1259, they received 2 horses and 2 oxen. Counting 4 oxen or 2 horses
for one plow-team for c. 14 ha, one gets to a plowing capacity of c. 28 ha for the
livestock received in 1253 may be calculated. This would have been sufficient to
plow c. 30 ha available annually out of c. 45 ha which they had received in both
cases.49 This suggests that both nobles possessed very little livestock in
Brukalice. As they were offered both land and livestock (the other was probably
a conditio sine qua non) in exchange for their share in Brukalice, they probably
considered such a deal to be very beneficial. Furthermore, mentions of prices
become interesting when compared to previous data concerning the Bukowina
and the Jaworowice affairs. The variety of horse breeds is notable: a battle
charger worth 28 Marks, a riding-horse worth 10 Marks and a draught horse for
only 1.5 Marks.
Conclusions
The afore-mentioned features of monastic economies are part of a broader
phenomenon. Husbandry was generally a very important part of Cistercian
economies. This was followed by the particular interest of the monks in acquiring
pastures.50 In some cases, land was even re-forested by the Cistercians in order
to secure additional pasture for livestock.51 Sheep husbandry and its natural
outcome, that is, wool trade and textile production, were a core branch of the
economies of several Cistercian monasteries. This was especially relevant for
some Flemish, French and English houses, where the number of sheep could
47 SU 3, No. 298: 197, for further deals concerning the estates see also ibid., No. 418-419:
277-278, No. 424: 280-281; Grüger, Heinrichau, 14, 21, 111, 115;
48 Dąbrowski, Rozwój, 41, 54-58, 68-78, 83.
49 Pater, LF, Book I. 10: 148-149; SU 3, No. 97: 71-72, No. 298: 197; Dąbrowski, Rozwój,
100-101, 106, 114.
50 Louis J. Lékai, The Cistercians: Ideals and Reality (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University
Press, 1977), 319-320; Coburn V. Graves, “The Economic Activities of the Cistercians in
Medieval England 1128 – 1307,” Analecta Sancti Ordinis Cisterciensis 13 (1957): 14-15.
51 Wolfgang Ribbe, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der Zisterzienser im Mittelalter: Agrarwirtschaft,”
in Die Zisterzienser. Ordensleben zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit. Katalog zur
Ausstellung des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland, ed. Kaspar Elm (Rheinisches Museumsamt,
Brauweiler. Schriften des Rheinischen Museumsamtes 10) (Cologne: Rheinland
Verlag, 1981), 210.
64
have even been as high as 2000-4000 animals, and wool-related incomes played
a crucial role in monastic budgets.52 Another important component of Cistercian
economies was fish. Apart from serving the houses’ own needs, the market orientation
of monastic fisheries is also notable in numerous cases.53 All this was
complemented by the involvement of Cistercian houses in trade, the acquisition
of urban courts and trading posts as well as the organisation of monastic marketplaces.
54 Thus, the monastic animal-related economy was intertwined with other
aspects of Cistercian economic activities.
52 Lékai, The Cistercians, 312-315; Graves, “The Economic Activities,” 19-32; Roth, “Die
Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” 559; Williams, The Cistercians, 207-209, 346-351, 355-361; Constance
H. Berman, Medieval Agriculture, the Southern French Countryside, and the Early
Cistercians. A Study of Forty-Three Monasteries (Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 76.5) (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1986), 95-97;
Ribbe, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der Zisterzienser im Mittelalter: Agrarwirtschaft,” 209-
210; Werner Rösener, “Grangienwirtschaft und Grundbesitzorganisation südwestdeutscher
Zisterzienserklöster vom 12. bis 14. Jahrhundert,” in Die Zisterzienser. Ordensleben zwischen
Ideal und Wirklichkeit, 150; Winfried Schich, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der Zisterzienser
im Mittelalter: Handel und Gewerbe,” ibid., 220-230; James Eugene Madden,
“Business monks, banker monks, bankrupt monks: the English Cistercians in the 13th
century,” Catholic Historical Review 49.3 (1963): 342 ff.
53 Ribbe, “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der Zisterzienser im Mittelalter: Agrarwirtschaft,” 210-
211; Lékai, The Cistercians, 318-319; Graves, “The Economic Activities,” 16; Roth, “Die
Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” 557-558, 566; Winfried Schich, “Die Gestaltung der Kulturlandschaft
im engeren Umkreis der Zisterzienserklöster zwischen mittlerer Elbe und Oder,” in
Zisterzienser. Norm. Kultur. Reform–900 Jahre Zisterzienser, ed. Ulrich Knefelkamp (Berlin
and Heidelberg: Springer, 2001), 189; Williams, The Cistercians, 365-370; Richard C.
Hoffman, “Medieval Cistercian Fisheries, Natural and Artificial,” in L’espace cistercien,
ed. Léon Pressouyre (Ministère de l’Enseignment supérieur et de la Recherche. Comité des
travaux historiques et scientifiques. Mémoires de la section d’archéologie et d’histoire de
l’art 5) (Paris: Editions du CTHS, 1994), 401-414.
54 Winfried Schich, “Zum Problem des Einstiegs der Zisterzienser in den Handel im 12. Jahrhundert
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Ordensstatutes “De nundinis”, in Historia i
kultura cystersów w Polsce i ich europejskie związki (History and culture of the Cistercians
in Poland and their European relations), ed. Jerzy Strzelczyk (Poznań: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza, 1987), 45-57; id., “Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der
Zisterzienser im Mittelalter: Handel und Gewerbe,” 220-228; id., “Der Handel der
rheinischen Zisterzienserklöster und die Einrichtung ihrer Stadthöfe im 12. und 13.
Jahrhundert,” in Die niederrheinischen Zisterzienser im späten Mittelalter: Reformbemühungen,
Wirtschaft und Kultur, ed. Raymund Kottje (Zisterzienser im Rheinland 3.
Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag, 1992), 49-73; id., “Die Gestaltung der Kulturlandschaft,” 190-
192; Wolfgang Bender, Zisterzienser und Städte. Studien zu den Beziehungen zwischen den
Zisterzienserklöstern und den großen urbanen Zentren des mittleren Moselraumes (12.-14.
Jahrhundert) (Trierer Historische Forschungen 20) (Trier: Verlag Trierer Historische Forschungen,
1992), passim; Lékai, The Cistercians, 311, 320; Williams, The Cistercians, 385-
395; Rösener, “Grangienwirtschaft und Grundbesitzorganisation,” 151-152; Roth, “Die
Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” 558-559, 564; Reinhard Schneider, “Stadthöfe der Zisterzienser:
Zu ihrer Funktion und Bedeutung,” Zisterzienser-Studien 4 (1979): 11-28; Berman, Medieval
Agriculture, 4, 82-83, 102, 120-125; Constance Brittain Bouchard, Holy Entrepreneurs:
65
From the point of view of the present paper, the most important point is
the relationship between the general orientation of a house’s economy (in this
case, rent- or demesne-based one) and its animal-related activities. As has been
demonstrated for Southern France, the importance of livestock and pastoralism
was crucial for monasteries based on demesne economy (as for Henryków).
Animal husbandry provided monasteries with financial resources especially in
the initial phase of their existence. Moreover, as husbandry supplied the necessary
draught beasts to monastic granges, it played an essential role in the monastic
demesne economy keeping it superior to that of local small landholders.55
Therefore, development of monastic husbandry and organisation of efficient
demesne were features which doubtlessly mutually conditioned each other.
Cistercians, Knights, and Economic Exchange in Twelfth-Century Burgundy (Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1991), 112-114; Graves, “The Economic Activities,” 12-13;
55 Berman, Medieval Agriculture, passim, with special reference to 75-117, 144-147 and
appendix II; from one point of view, the Silesian house of Kamiemiec could be another interesting
example. This house, originally an Austin Canon foundation taken over by the
Cistercians in 1248-1249, was (like Henryków) situated in a sparsely populated highland
borderland. The monastery held rich tithes (one of the most important source of monastic
revenues), but foundation land estates were rather poor. Although the majority of land estates
were peasant villages, the house developed a system of demesne in the monastic
neighbourhood. Husbandry played an important role in the monastic economy as a source
of draught beasts for demesne. Of special prominence was sheep husbandry, which gave
rise to a development of monastic weaving. This was complemented with numerous monastic
acquisitions of trading posts in vicinity towns and with organisation of a marketplace;
see Heinrich Grüger, “Schlesisches Klosterbuch. Kamenz,” Jahrbuch der Schlesischen
Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität zu Breslau 21 (1980): 84-87, 93-94, 97, 98-99;
Stanisław Kozak, Agata Tarnas-Tomczyk, and Marek L. Wójcik, “Kamieniec,” in MCP 2:
113-118; Franciszek Lenczowski, “Zarys działalności gospodarczej cystersów kamienieckich
na Śląsku w wiekach średnich” (A sketch of the economic activity of the Kamieniec
Cistercians in the Middle Ages), Kwartalnik Opolski 9.2 (1963): 25-37.
ANIMAL DIVERSITIES
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz and Alice Choyke
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND XVI
ANIMAL DIVERSITIES
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz and Alice Choyke
Krems 2005
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER ABTEILUNG
KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Cover illustration:
The Beaver,
Hortus Sanitatis (Strassburg: Johannes Prüm the Older, c. 1499),
Tractatus de Animalibus, capitulum xxxi: Castor.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 1094 19 9
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A–3500 Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich
zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck,
auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. – Druck: Grafisches Zentrum an der Technischen
Universität Wien, Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, 1040 Wien.
Table of Contents
Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Aleksander Pluskowski, Wolves and Sheep in Medieval Semiotics,
Iconology and Ecology: a Case Study of Multi- and Inter-disciplinary
Approaches to Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past …………… 9
Alice M. Choyke, Kyra Lyublyanovics, László Bartosiewicz,
The Various Voices of Medieval Animal Bones ………………………………. 23
Grzegorz Żabiński, Swine for Pearls?
Animals in the Thirteenth-Century Cistercian Houses
of Henryków and Mogiła ………………………………………………. 50
Krisztina Fügedi, Bohemian Sheep, Hungarian Horses, and Polish Wild Boars:
Animals in Twelfth-Century Central European Chronicles ……………….. 66
Hilary Powell, Walking and Talking with the Animals:
the Role of Fauna in Anglo-Latin Saints’ Lives …………….……………. 89
Gerhard Jaritz, Oxen and Hogs, Monkeys and Parrots:
Using “Familiar” and “Unfamiliar” Fauna
in Late Medieval Visual Representation …..………………………………… 107
Sarah Wells, A Database of Animals in Medieval Misericords …………….. 123
Zsofia Buda, Animals and Gazing at Women:
Zoocephalic Figures in the Tripartite Mahzor ………..…………………. 136
Taxiarchis G. Kolias, Man and Animals in the Byzantine World ………..…. 165
Ingrid Matschinegg, (M)edieval (A)nimal (D)atabase:
a Project in Progress ………………………………………………..… 167