| for
him as a remuneration or “salary” for such assistance; Particular
descriptions of such situations, dating mostly froin the times when this
System was well ahead on its way to oblivion, include lands held in
indivision by “ho-mines... pertinentes ad beneficium dapiferi mense nostre”
(CDBIV! 1 : 159 pp. 261-262, year 1249) or “homines nostri ad nostram mensam
spectantes... qui hoztinzi vulgariter vocantur” (CDB Vjl : 378, 561 : 27—31,
year 1263). One of the clauses of manuscript B of the foundation charter of
the LitomSrice chapter of canons of the end of I2th Century indicates that
some subordinates of the dukes were entitled to hold land by virtue of their
Services: if the duke withdrew his donation of a land to a servant, he had to
compensate him by providing another tract of land (CDB 1:55, 58: 3 — 9). Some
of the uncultivated and unoccupied land also belonged to the dukes (CDB I:
48, 51 : 1— 15 = FRBIl p. 244, duke Oldfich, 1012 to 1035; also CDB I : 387,
387 : 10- 11). The last named instance, which must be mentioning uncultivated
land as in those times hop was not cultivated in Bohemia but gathered as a
wild plant shows, by the specification that the donation is given from
“terram, que pertinet ad ducem”, that such land could be held by other
possessors than the paramount. Other cases [in point include a private gift
of a “pars silvae” to the Benedictine monastery of Kladruby (CDB 1: 390, 400
: 6) or reference to a “silva Uribete et Zdezlai” (both are personal names)
in a foundation charter of the Benedictine house of Opatovice (CDB 1: 386, p.
370). The dukes mobilized also for their use parts of surplus produced by
both peasants (CDB II: 350, 361 : 12—14, text confected at the end of 13th
Century but containing reliable earlier Information: “...duos heredes ad
vexilliferum pertinentes”) and craftsmen (CDB 1: 55, 54:34—39, 1 Ith
Century). In denoting the obligations of the population of Bohemia towards
the dukes, the Charters use the term “ius” or “ius quod spectat ad usus
principum” (CDB II : 286, 281:10 — year 1226 but ascribed to duke Vladislav
I, beginning of 12th Century; CDB 1: 292, 261 : 1- 3, year 1180, CDB II: 59,
54 : 2- 3, year 1207), alluding thus to an idea likely to have been
universally acknowledged as “lawful” and hardly imposed by force. On the
other hand, differences in the Status of non-elite population groups
concerning their obligations to the paramount are indicated by the expression
“servi-tutes reales et personales”, used by some Charters (CDB II: 379, 423 :
40, second half of 13th Century). This con-tradiction between “ius” and
“servitus” may well reflect Status variations between “free” and
“subservient” strata of the population, as will be shown below. Our sources
give some evidence on the manner by which the dukes of Bohemia acquired their
estates: inheritance (CDB 1: 300, 270 : 12, year 1183; CDB 1: 402, 418 :
17-19, year 1183?), purchase (CDBI: 115, 120:10, year 1131; ibid. 390, 397:4—
5, confected at the end of 12th Century on reliable older evidence; ibid.
289, 255:15—17, year 1174—1178; ibid. 402, 419: 1—2, year 1183?), exchange
(CDB 1: 287, 252:23, year 1178) as well as “alii iusti modi secundum iudicium
nobilium seniorum Boemie” (CDB 1:246, 217:5-8, year 1169). The foundation
charter of the Kladruby monastery is unusual in empha-sizing the fact that
the duke did not donate anything which would have been acquired in an unjust
or violent manner |
but only that what had been
allowed to his ancestors to give to holy men according to the customs of the
land {CDB 7:390, 394:26—29). Though there are several possibilities of
Interpretation (first case of a more extensive donation of landed property to
an ecciesiastical Institution, or emergence of deeper understanding of
Chris-tianity, or alternatively purely personal motives on behalf of the
duke), a conspicuous parallel with one of the texts of the so-called
Opatovice homiliary, the first text of its kind from Bohemia dating from the
incipient 12th Century {Hecht 1863, Sermo on pp. 61—62 fol. 155a—156b
com-paring with CDB 7 : 390, 394 : 23 — 25) cannot be over-looked. |
| Studies
concerning non-ducal property in PfemysI-dynasty Bohemia are considerably
hampered by the scar-city and heterogeneity of the existing evidence. In this
case we shall have to resort not only to written sources but also to the
linguistic phenomena. At first, Iet me take up the case of persons active in
the ducal court who have the best Chance to appear in written sources. The
text of the most ancient chronicle of Bohemia, that of Cosmas the canon,
written between 1119 and 1125 {Br et-holz 1923) lists 120 names of persons of
the ducal retinues. Among these, 21 are referred to only by name, and 69 turn
up in various designations employing kinship terms (to be precise, those of
sons, fathers, first ancestors, grand-sons, brothers, uncles without specification,
“relatives” and sons-in-law). Finally, 30 names bear “Professional” titles (a
“headman”, a servant, a castellan, a warrior, a priest, a chamberlain, a
“governor”, a messenger, a councillor, an administrator, an “elder of the
castle”). In the chronicle of the anonymous Canon of Vysehrad (Ist half of
12th Century), the same ratio is 7 :11 : 3; among the kinship terms employed
the names for a son and an uncle without specification occur, Professional
titles include those of warriors. The chronicle of the Monk of Säzava of the
same time lists 9 personal names including 4 cases of names only and 5
functionally specified ones (messengers, a warrior, a “headman”). Virtually
no data on personal property of these persons are available in the written
sources (cf. infra for the scanty exceptions). It is now generally assumed
that they held various functions in the ducal administration which entitled
them to revenues either from the tributes and Services due to the dukes or
from service holdings assigned to them for maintenance and as appurtenances
of their Offices. The above mentioned data indicate clearly the intimate
connection of this elite Stratum of population with Services in the ducal
administration, as well as the simplicity of kinship (erminology employed in
connection with them, limited frequently to the barest essentials of
nuclear-family and matrimonial ties, and a strong male bias prevalent among
them. Such societies, the members of which frequently trace back their
origins in the male lines, usually to one single male ancestor (a feature
characteristic even for the Proto-Indo-european kinship Systems), frequently
assume the garb of groupings of individuals rivalling one another with a
marked role of material riches and short-term power alliances. The male
domination in them is usually accom-panied by strong Connections among
fathers and sons and by the importance of warrior ethics; a feature that may
appear in this connection is the Separation of male |
|