Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:33:16.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viator to Ascriptitius: Rural Economy, Lordship, and the Origins of Serfdom in Medieval Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Piotr Gorecki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In loving memory of Angle Arvidson (1961-1982)

Over a decade ago, Georges Duby wrote his account of the development of the European economy between the seventh and twelfth centuries. The essential change he described was the transition from a society ruled by an elite of warriors, accumulating wealth through conquest, booty, and hoarding, to a society ruled by an elite of landholders, accumulating wealth through economic investment in land and places of production and exchange — workshops, markets, and fairs. The social groupings became increasingly complex. The simple societal divisions — between warriors and peasants, and between the free and the slaves — were replaced by complex and fluid structures of lordship and service. The resulting social arrangements and their language varied in different parts of Europe. Poland completed the transition from an economy based on force and warfare to one based on intensive agriculture and craft specialization in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. This essay describes the structure of rural services and tributes resulting from this transition in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The first part describes village settlements and division of labor; the second part examines the concept of lordship and in particular the origins of involuntary services rendered by the peasants to the lords — “serfdom” — in Poland during the first decades of the thirteenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 1983 , pp. 14 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Georges Duby, Guerriers et pay sans, VIF-XII’ siicle. Premier essor de I'iconomie europienne (Paris, 1973).

2. Georges Duby shows the increasingly blurred distinction between the free and the unfree in Frankish society in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries in his La sociiti aux XI’ et XII' siecles dans la rigion mdconnaise (Paris, 1953), pp. 201 ff., subsection on the “disparition des titres francus et servus.“

3. For the purposes of this essay, I adopt a narrow working definition of serfdom, recognizing that other definitions have been voiced and accepted elsewhere. “Serfdom” will be denned here as peasant service under the following legal conditions: (1) the absence of choice on the peasant's part to leave the service, and the lord's corollary ability to dictate its duration, and (2) the absence of the peasant's effective recourse against the lord in the monarch's courts, particularly on the issue of the services he owes. This definition fits the Polish evidence best, in the sense that it distinguishes the servile groups from the others. The definition of freedom and unfreedom accepted for early German society by Karl Bosl in his Fruhforrnen der Gesellschaft im mittelalterlichen Europa (Munich and Vienna, 1964) — that the only “fully free” members of society are the highest nobles, and that other groups are on varying levels of servility — strikes me as too broad for Polish society, because it does not distinguish between some clearly servile nonaristocratic groups and the others. The definition of freedom in terms of performance of particularly dignified forms of service or of public functions appropriate to a freeman (participating in the Carolingian mallus, for instance), accepted by Georges Duby for Frankish society before the year 1000 in his Sociiti mdconnaise, seems inapplicable to an early Slavic society where the abstract distinction between “public” and “private“ functions was blurred.

4. Some of the works discussing the entire historiography are: Russocki, Stanisław, “Z zagadnień spornych wolności kmiecej na Mazowszu od XIII do XVI w.” [Matters of controversy on peasant freedom in Masovia from the thirteenth through the sixteenth century], Przeglqd history czny, 49 (1958), pt. 2 Google Scholar; Kazimierz, Tymieniecki, Historia chłopów polskich [The history of Polish peasants], 1 (Warsaw, 1965): 5–25 Google Scholar; Oskar, Kossmann, “Zur Geschichte der polnischen Bauern und ihrer Freiheit” Historische Zeitschrift, 205 (1967): 15–45 (particularly nn. 1-9)Google Scholar; idem, Polen im Mittelalter. Beitrdge zur Sozial- und Verfassungsgeschichte (Marburg/Lahn, 1971) (discussion of specific categories of the peasantry found in the documents); vigorously polemicizing with Kossmann is the leading Polish authority on the peasantry, Buczek, Karol, in “O chlopach w Polsce piastowskiej” [The peasants of Piast Poland], Roczniki historyczne, 40 (1974): 50–105, and 41 (1975): 1-79Google Scholar (German summary, pp. 74-79); in response to Buczek, Oskar, Kossmann, “Altpolnisches Bauerntum in neuem Licht. Zur Kritik von Karol Buczek” Zeitschrift fiir Ostforschung, 25 (1976): 193–247Google Scholar. A recent, highly balanced and clear outline of the historiography is provided by Benedykt Zientara in Ireneusz Ihnatowicz, Antoni Mączak, and Benedykt Zientara, Spoleczeństwo polskie od X do XX wieku [Polish society from the tenth through the twentieth century] (Warsaw, 1979), pp. 39-44. My essay does not discuss the relevant but by 1200 small group of royal slaves and servants, or peasants holding land in servile tenure of the king. The most prominent of these groups is comprised of royal slaves working the land and organized into groups of ten under the earliest Piast monarchy, but there are other groups as well. Each such group has spawned the usual gamut of controversies. The leading, generally definitive article on the decimi is Danuta Poppe's “Ludność dziesi?tnicza w Polsce wczesnoSredniowiecznej” [The decimi of early medieval Poland], Kwartalnik historyczny, 64 (1957): 3-31. Oskar Kossmann's Polen im Mittelalter and Karol Buczek's “O chlopach” both include discussions of these specialized rural groups.

5. Cf. his recent synthesis of the earliest Polish political and economic structure, Organizacja gospodarcza panstwa piastowskiego, X-XIII wiek [Economic organization of the Piast state from the tenth through the thirteenth century] (Wroclaw, 1975). An early version of Modzelewski's thesis is his “La division autarchique du travail á l'échelle d'un Etat. L'organisation ‘ministeriale’ en Pologne médiévale,” Annates. Économies, sociétés, civilisations, 19 (1964): 1125-38. As is the case with the work of many brilliant yet controversial scholars, it would be unfair to characterize Organizacja merely with a synopsis of its stark and extreme thesis; the work is carefully nuanced, far broader than its title suggests, and a superb point of departure for future work on any one of the many aspects of the political and economic structure of the early Polish kingdom which it describes. For a similarly monarch-centered study by the leading German expert on Polish peasants, see Oskar Kossmann, “Zur Geschichte der polnischen Bauern,” and “Bauern und Freie im Heinrichauer Griindungsbuch und in der ‘Elbinger Handschrift,'” Zeitschrift fiir Ostforschung, 19 (1970): 263-302. For attempts at forging new lines of analysis of early medieval rural stratification in the West, see Karl Bosl, “Potens und Pauper. Begriffsgeschichtliche Studien zur gesellschaftlichen Differenzierung im Friihen Mittelalter und zum ‘Pauperismus’ des Hochmittelalters,” in his Friihformen, pp. 106-34; idem, “Über soziale Mobilität in der mittelalterlichen ‘Gesellschaft.’ Dienst, Freiheit, Freizügigkeit als Motive sozialen Aufstiegs,” Frühformen, pp. 156-79. Cf. also Rodney Hilton, “Freedom and Villeinage in England,” Past and Present, 31 (July 1965): 3-19. Among Polish scholars offering elements of new syntheses of the medieval rural life are Karol Buczek, “O chlopach,” pt. 1, p. 53 and elsewhere; Benedykt Zientara, Spoieczenstwo, Jerzy Dowiat, Polska państwem średniowieczne] Europy [Poland as a state of medieval Europe] (Warsaw, 1968). The great pioneers in pursuing social and economic explanations for the structure of Polish medieval society are Stanislaw Smolka, Mieszko Stary i jego wiek [Mieszko the Old and his age] (Warsaw, 1881, reprinted 1959); Roman Grodecki, “Książęca włość trzebnicka na tie organizacji majątków książęcych w Polsce XII wieku” [The ducal estate in Trzebnica in the context of the organization of ducal holdings in twelfth-century Poland], Kwartalnik historyczny, 27 (1913): 1-63; and Kazimierz Tymieniecki, whose huge output is listed in his major multivolume work of the 1960s and 1970s, Historia chłopów polskich, 1: 538-40. In recent years, the paradigm of the centralized, royal organization of the economy has come under scrutiny in Poland; Karol Modzelewski tentatively responds to that criticism in his “Organizacja grodowa u progu epoki lokacji” [Royal fort organization on the eve of the epoch of urban franchise], Kwartalnik historii kultury materialnej, 28 (1980): 329-40 (French summary, pp. 338-40).

6. The main, though not the only, sources of eleventh-century evidence are two chronicles. One, contemporary with Boleslaw I the Brave, is by the German cleric Thietmar of Merseburg, who provides vivid contemporary information on the king's reign, effectively summarized by Jerzy Dowiat in Chrzest Polski [The baptism of Poland] (Warsaw, 1961). Excerpts from the chronicle are compiled in Monumenta Poloniae Historica [hereafter M.P.H.], vol. 1 (Lwów, 1864, reprinted Warsaw, 1961), pp. 231-318. The other chronicle is by an anonymous chronicler of the court of Boleslaw III the Wrymouth (1102-38), the so-called Gallus, written between 1110 and 1117, and containing the lives of the early Piast kings, particularly Boleslaw I the Brave, and Gallus's contemporary and patron, Boleslaw III. Thietmar intensely dislikes the early Piast kingdom and stresses the brutal aspects of Boleslaw's kingship, while Gallus edifies it and treats it as a Polish golden age. Gallus's chronicle is published in its entirety in M.P.H., 1: 379-483. Karol Modzelewski provides a masterly discussion of its value as a historical document in the first chapter of his Organizacja.

7. The king collected the tribute at “stations” (stationes) located in a network of forts, which Gallus alternately calls castra and civitates. The forts were located at centers of population; the density of settlement in and around them is the greatest, generally consisting of polynucleated villages. The complexes are centers of agricultural and specialized production and exchange, administration, and ritual. Consistently with Gallus's western terminology, the fort combines the defensive and policing functions of the western castle with the administrative and economic functions of the early medieval western town.

8. M.P.H., 1: 408.

9. M.P.H., 1: 409-10.

10. Cf. Duby's discussion of Boleslaw's monarchy as part of “FEurope sauvage,” in his Guerriers et pay sans, pp. 143, 145-48.

11. Despite their diametrically opposed biases, Thietmar and Gallus agree on the widespread fear and awe of the earliest Piast kings, particularly Boleslaw I. In several well-known passages, Gallus compares the lot of all persons who are out of the king's favor to that of prisoners; and Thietmar describes the swift and brutal punishment against the populace for breaking the fast at Lent (knocking out the teeth) and for adultery (public mutilation of the genitals). These vivid vignettes are well summarized by Jerzy Dowiat in his Chrzest Polski.

12. M.P.H., 1: 516-20.

13. All documents are published in Heinrich Appelt (ed.), Schlesisches Urkundenbuch (hereafter S.U.), vol. 1 (Vienna, Cologne, and Graz, 1971), no. 83 (1202), pp. 54-58; no. 93 (1204), pp. 63-66; no. 97 (1205), p. 70; no. 110 (1207), p. 77; no. 114 (1208), p. 79; no. 115 (1208), pp. 80-85. Synthetic attempts to reconstruct the society from this remarkable series of documents include: Roman Grodecki, “Książęca włość trzebnicka“; Kazimierz Tymieniecki, “Najdawniejsza polska ustawa dworska” [The oldest Polish household edict], in Studia z historii społecznej i gospodarczej poświęcone prof. F. Bujakowi [Lwów, 1931); idem, “Społeczeiistwo slaskie na podstawie dokument6w trzebnickich z lat 1203, 1204 i 1208” [Silesian society on the basis of documents of Trzebnica of 1203,1204, and 1208], in Studia spoleczne i gospodarcze (Warsaw, 1925); polemicizing with Tymieniecki, with characteristic attention to detail, is Karol Buczek, “W sprawie interpretacji dokumentu trzebnickiego z r. 1204” [Concerning the interpretation of the document of Trzebnica of 1204], Przegląd historyczny, 58 (1957): 38-77; Tymieniecki's vigorous defense against Buczek in his “O interpretację dokumentów trzebnickich” [For an interpretation of the Trzebnica documents], Roczniki historyczne, 25 (1959): 143-71.

14. Grodecki, Roman (tr. and ed.), Księga henrykowska. Liber fundationis claustri sanctae Mariae virginis in Heinrichow (Poznań-Wroclaw, 1949)Google Scholar (hereafter K.H.). Virtually all attempts at a synthesis of the Polish rural medieval society have used this rich source, including Buczek in “O chlopach,” Tymieniecki in Historia chłopów, and Kossmann in various writings. The German scholar specializing in this monastery's history from its foundation to the present is Heinrich Grüger; his writings include “Das Volkstum der Bevölkerung in den Dörfern des Zisterzienserklosters Heinrichau im Mittelschlesischen Vorgebirgslande vom 13.-15. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift fur Ostforschung, 27 (1978): 241-61; “Das Patronatsrecht von Heinrichau,” Ctteaux. Commentarii cistercienses, 28 (1977): 26-47; and a broad historical survey of the monastery since its foundation,Heinrichau. Geschichte eines schlesischen Zisterzienserklosters 1227-1977 (Cologne and Vienna, 1978). The last work includes several maps of the monastic estates and plans of the monastery.

15. Assembled in Jan Korwin Kochanowski (ed.), Codex diplomatics et commemorationum Masoviae generalis. Zbiór ogólny przywilejów i spominkdw mazowieckich (hereafter K.M.) (Warsaw, 1919).

16. Cf. A. Małecki, “Ludność wolna w ksi?dze henrykowskiej” [The free population in the book of Henryk6w], Kwartalnik historyczny, vol. 8 (1894), on the early expression of this view.

17. The terms ascriptitius and, to a lesser extent, liber are occasionally in use before the early thirteenth century; the meaning of such early use has long been a source of controversy, which I cannot resolve here. A cursory reading of the documents suggests that the dynamics described in this paper occurred much earlier in the estates of a few great lay and ecclesiastical lords, including the monarch. In these situations, the term ascriptitii was used to describe those population groups which, for undocumented reasons, were traditionally compelled to perform services to the great lords. For an extremely careful attempt to trace the use of the relevant legal terms in the evidence, see Wlodzimierz, Wolfarth, Ascriptitii w Polsce [Ascriptitii in Poland] (Wroclaw and Cracow, 1959)Google Scholar.

18. M.P.H., 1: 408.

19. Cf. A. Bogucki, “Komes w źródłach średniowiecznych” [The comes in medieval sources], Roczniki Towarzystwa Naukowego w Toruniu, vol. 76 (1971), pt. 3

20. M.P.H., 1: 408.

21. Cf. Heinrich Grüger, Heinrichau, pp. 1-10, and map in pocket.

22. This comparison is based on Georges Duby, Socété mâconnaise, p. 41 — French rural social structure before the period of rapid growth, that is, at the end of the tenth century.

23. The exact meaning of this term has been a source of controversy among historians trying to load it with definite and complex proprietary meanings, including Kossmann in “Bauern und Freie“ (n. 9 above), and Buczek in “O chłopach.” As used in the documents the term simply means the heirs of the original founders, to whatever rights the founders had in the land

24. There is, in other words, no division into a familial mansus and outlying appendicia, as there is in the medieval West before the onset of rapid economic growth; compare Georges Duby, Société mâconnaise, pp. 38-43.

25. The most definitive work on the Polish sors and greater units of settlement and land cultivation is Zona Podwihska's Zmiany form osadnictwa wiejskiego na ziemiach polskich we wcześniejszym średniowieczu. Źreb, wieś, opole [Changes in the forms of rural settlement in Poland in the earlier Middle Ages. Sors, village, district] (Wroclaw, 1971).

26. K.H., c. 36, pp. 254-55.

27. K.H., c. 34, p. 253.

28. K.H., c. 36, p. 254.

29. Ibid.

30. K.H., c. 36, p. 255.

31. Evidence on Glab: K.H., c. 82-85, pp. 276-79; evidence on Boguchwal: K.H., c. 113, p. 299.

32. Since the material quoted is controversial, I provide the original Latin here and in the next footnote, dealing with Boguchwal. K.H., c. 82, p. 276: dux antiquus Bolezlaus … diversis in locis suis rusticis terram distribueret, dedit hanc silvam cuidam rustico suo propria, Glambo nomine.

33. K.H., c. 113, p. 299: in diebus antiquis, cum domini huius Slesiensis provinciae duces diversis in locis nobilibus et mediocribus hereditates et praedia distribuerent, erat quidam Boemus nomine Bogwalus. Hie servivit domino duci Boleslao… . Hie idem dux dedit… iam dicto Bogwalo de terra ad quattuor boves.

34. Oskar Kossmann argues for Glab's unfreedom, and the unfreedom of all ducal peasants, in all of his works cited above; Karol Buczek, in “O chłopach,” also classifies Glab as unfree and Boguchwal as free, perhaps a small knight. Tymieniecki, in the opening chapters of his Historia chłopów połskich, adheres to the view that the distinction between them, if any, was legally blurred. These views are representative of old controversies awaiting detailed resolution; confronted with the choice, I agree with Tymieniecki.

35. See n. 56 below for the evidence.

36. K.H., c. 85, p. 278: quia hii erant rustici proprii ducis.

37. The subsequent information on Glab is contained in K.H., c. 82, pp. 276-77.

38. The subsequent information on Boguchwal is contained in K.H., c. 113, p. 299.

39. Karol Buczek has noted the significance of this economic factor in his “O chlopach,” in passing.

40. K.H., c. 113, p. 299.

41. Ibid.

42. See n. 44 above: quia hii erant rustici proprii ducis et divites.

43. K.H., c. 36, pp. 254-55.

44. This essay deliberately avoids the strictly legal question of the exact title of the duke to the lands of the peasants and the lands conferred on the monastery; this issue leads straight back into controversies which cannot entirely be resolved here. The significant element of tenure for the purpose of this essay is that all parties concerned had a justiciable right to the land, and that the duke was the highest arbiter of the various rights. For attempts to disentangle these rights thus far, see Karol Buczek, “Uwagi o prawie chlop6w do ziemi w Polsce piastowskiej” [Remarks on the rights of peasants to land in Piast Poland], Kwartalnik historyczny, 64 (1957): 93f.; Heinrich Griiger, “Das Patronatsrecht von Heinrichau,” and materials in the standard textbook of Polish legal history in the Middle Ages, Bardach, Juliusz's Historia panstwa i prawa Polski [History of the state and law of Poland], vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1957)Google Scholar.

45. K.H., c. 83, p. 277.

46. K.H., c. 32, p. 252.

47. The definitive treatment of the Polish peasant's military role in the Middle Ages is Stanisław Marian Zajączkowski's Slużba wojskowa chłopów w Pobce do polowy XV wieku [Military service of peasants in Poland until the mid-fifteenth century] (Łódź, 1958). Zajączkowski focuses on peasant participation in actual military campaigns rather than on their defense of their settlements. For an example of a group of lumberjacks defending the area they are clearing against trespassers, see K.H., c. I l l , p. 297.

48. K.H., c. 83, p. 277.

49. Ibid.

50. K.H., c. 32, p. 253.

51. The mos Polonorum is similar to the customary “folk” laws of Germanic tribes in the sense that it prevails unless amended by a deliberate initiative of the monarch or another agent of authority. (Of course, it is different in its content from the specific customs of other large ethnic groups.) A useful analogy may be made with another society which developed outside the ambit of Roman or Roman-inspired legal traditions — early Anglo-Saxon England. The lands held in the customary tenure there were referred to as folkland and are comparable to Polish lands held according to the mos Polonorum; lands granted immunity were held as bookland; and the lands held in feudal tenure (rare in both societies) were held as laenland. This comparison is based on Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1952)Google Scholar.

52. The resulting groups are strongly reminiscent of the estate laborers described by Postan, M. M. in his “The famulus. The estate labourer in the Xllth and XIHth centuries,” Economic History Review. Supplement 2 (London, 1954)Google Scholar.

53. Because the evidence is not entirely clear on the units of settlement — particularly on some distinctions between sortes and villae, and on some uses of proper names — these statistics ought to be treated somewhat tentatively.

54. Cf. materials in M.P.H., 1: 518-19; S.U., no. 93, p. 64; and treatment in Zofia Podwińska, Zmiany, pp. 104-224.

55. M.P.H., 1: 518. The original of this difficult passage reads as follows: [Q]ue omnia [iura] eidem Ecclesie a Bolezlao Rege et Juditha Regina concessa esse prefatus dux testabatur et a se et a omnibus auis proauis suis reuerenter custodita testabatur, apostolica Auctoritate decretali concessione firmamus quidquid habet et tenet, uel futuro tempore iuste acquisierit. Id est… omnibus ministris curie Regis competentibus cum omni castellatura ab omnium impedimanto defensis, tarn pistoribus, Lagenariis, quam Cocis et Camerariis, piscatoribus et pecorariis et omni constancia muniuit.

56. Ibid.

57. In his “Książęca włość trzebnicka,” Roman Grodecki considers them to be simply cooks.

58. See n. 5 above.

59. Karol Modzelewski's theory has been incorporated into Sylvia Thrupp's survey of “Medieval Industry 1000-1500,” in Carlo Cipolla (ed.), Fontana Economic History of Europe, vol. 1: The Middle Ages (London and Glasgow, 1972), pp. 221-73, and bibliographical note, p. 272.

60. M.P.H., 1: 518.

61. Cf. K.H., c. I l l , p. 298, on camerarii helping to trace out the just-adjudicated border between two holdings.

62. K.H., c. 165, p. 341.

63. In a meticulously compiled map of hundreds of settlements with names of craft specializations, Modzelewski shows (at the end of his Organizacja) that such settlements were indeed grouped near the stationes described by Gallus and elsewhere in later sources. But all other settlements, not shown on the map, were also clustered in the same parts of the country — these regions were simply the most populated.

64. M.P.H., 1: 518.

65. M.P.H., 1: 519.

66. S.U., no. 93, p. 65.

67. Ibid.

68. 5.1/., no. 93, p. 64.

69. Cf. ibid.: Boris et Zband, … debent per annum claustro, si VI boves vel equivalens habuerint, LXXX rotas ambo. Si MI boves, uterque LX. Si duos, XXVIII. Si alienis bobus arat vel propriam [terram] possidet, XVI rotas. Si alienos vel nullos, XVI quilibet. Similiter Piruos … et Mazech … rotas debent similiter (sic).

70. These are specially skilled craftsmen who have almost certainly acquired their craft by service in the ducal household; they include several winemakers, a mason, a ducal falconer, and some others. (Danuta Poppe has described the mason effectively in her “Ludność dziesiętnicza.“) Some of these people are receiving land for the first time in the monastic estates being formed at Trzebnica. There are fewer than a dozen of them. Their individualized economic activity is important because it shows the extent and nature of the direct ducal activity in the economy. This activity is quantitatively smaller than the royal “command” theory suggests, but it occurs in specialized and often technologically innovative sectors. A detailed study of this narrow population is therefore a good way to begin a balanced reassessment of the direct role of the court in the economy.

71. S.U., no. 93, p. 64.

72. This phrase recurs in the conferral clauses cited in K.H.: a sors is “hire hereditario possidenda.” (K.H., c. 70, p. 267; c. 85, p. 278; c. 95, p. 285, and later.)

73. K.H., c. I l l , p. 297.

74. Ibid.

75. Cf. Karol Buczek, “O chłopach,” pt. 2, p. 27, n. 83. The standard syntheses of immunities in Poland are: Roman, Grodecki, Początki immunitetu w Polsce [Origins of the immunity in Poland] (Lwow, 1930)Google Scholar; Z., Kaczmarczyk, Immunitet sqdowy i jurysdykcja poimmunitetowa w dobrach kościoła w Polsce do koftca XIV wieku [Judicial immunity and the post-immunity jurisdiction in the goods of the church in Poland until the end of the fourteenth century] (Poznan, 1936)Google Scholar; J., Matuszewski, Immunitet ekonomiczny w dobrach kościoła w Polsce do r. 1381 [Economic immunity in the goods of the church in Poland until 1381] (Poznan, 1936)Google Scholar.

76. M.P.H., 1: 517.

77. The latest definitive treatment of the legal evolution of villeinage is Hyams, Paul R.'s Kings, Lords, and Peasant in Medieval England. The Common Law of Villeinage in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar.

78. S.U., no. 93, pp. 64, 66. Because of the ambiguity of the final clause, I quote it here: Insuper omnibus, qui volunt et possunt Trebnic inhabitare, dux contulit libertatem. Et hoc factum nostra littera cum sigilli munimine roboravimus. Nullus igitur in posterum de dictis ministerialibus ab indicto eis officio presumat removere, ut nostra donatio inconvulsa in perpetuum valeat stabilita permanere. I follow Roman Grodecki's translation of the quoted parts of this passage, in his “Ksiazfca wlo£5 trzebnicka.“

79. Cf. Grodecki.

80. See literature in n. 75 above; for western immunity charters, see, among other literature, Georges Duby's Société mâconnaise, pt. 1, Cowdrey, H. E. J., Cluniacs and the Gregorian Reform (Oxford, 1970), chap. 1Google Scholar, and in general M., Kroell, L'lmmuniti franque (Paris, 1910 Google Scholar).

81. M.P.H., 1: 517.

82. S.U., no. 93, p. 66.

83. Both charters in K.M. (see n. 16 above).

84. Cf. Jerzy Kłoczowski, “Klasztory na ziemiach polskich w średniowieczu” [Monasteries in Poland in the Middle Ages], in J. Kłoczowski (ed.), Kościół w Polsce, vol. 1 (Cracow, 1966). Offshoots of each of the major western monastic movements penetrated Poland relatively late, and hence their organization often did not correspond to the specific religious orientation of the original orders. The Cistercians at Trzebnica, Henryków, and elsewhere did not found pioneering granges in the wilderness (though parts of the K.H. show that such pioneering origins constituted as important a part of their ideology in Poland as elsewhere in Europe), but obviously settled in areas already partly or entirely cultivated. Likewise, the canons at Czerwińsk took on the organization and endowment of a major rural monastery, instead of leading austere lives on a relatively modest endowment. Canon houses, and other new orders ostensibly devoted to modest living or outright poverty, lost their distinction from older, wealthy monasteries. Hence the language for describing the hierarchies within the new orders — “priors,” “abbots” — became blurred. Kłoczowski himself, in an English abbrevation of his work, calls the canons’ houses “Augustinian monasteries.” (Cf. the collective work in English, French and German, Poland's Millenium of Catholicism. Millenaire du catholicisme en Pologne [Lublin, 1966].)

85. K.M., 1:75.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. K.M., 1:211.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid.