DOCSLIB.ORG

4 the Structural Framework of Governance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

4 The structural framework of governance

The last few decades of historical research have been focused on social interactions as a key issue in the research on the past. Medievalists have withdrawn to large extent fromstudyingconstitutionalandlegalmatters, leavingsuchtopicsbehindassomesort of anachronistic holdover of positivistic methodology. It seems, however, that there is no way for a study of political issues to abandon questions of the structural means of power – as defined in Chapter 1 – as an important element of the instrumentarium of particular players on the dynamic chessboard of the European High Middle Ages. These means, including changes and redefinitions of the legal status of the province under study, were an indispensable counterpart of the ad hoc political and personal measures related to in the previous chapter.

4.1 Marchia Milzania: the status of Milsko in the structure of the Ottonian and early Salian Empire

The starting point for considerations about the formal status of Milsko as part of the Empire should be the assertion from Chapter 3 that between 1004–1007, Milsko for the first time became a territory administered by an individual appointed by the German king as comes, Herman I. Herman’s status as a royal administrator is illustrated in several sources. The most significant of these is a charter by Henry II from January 1, 1007 (DH II, no. 124) confirming the donation by the king of three ringforts (castella) in Milsko along with their districts (burgwards) to the Bishopric of Meissen. The strongholds specified in this document were located directly in comitatu Herrimanni comitis, demonstrating that Herman’s rule in Budyšin was the normal rule of a comes and not, as one might conclude from reading the appropriate passage in Thietmar’s of Merseburg chronicle about the events of a few months before, that it

  • 69
  • was only a command to the Budyšin garrison. It would not be amiss to add here

that in the context of these events, Bolesław the Brave’s offensives in the spring and summer of 1007 as well as the siege of Budyšin, that Count Herman was in Thietmar’s

70

of Merseburg chronicle explicite called by the functional designation marchio. In the sentence in question, the chronicler does not dot the proverbial “i” in that he did not name Herman the Margrave of Budyšin or Milsko, which has prompted some researchers to doubt the link between Herman’s title of marchio and the hillfort on the Spree. Herman’s title of margrave in the context of the events of 1007 would have been anachronistic, acting in anticipation of a later state of affairs (1009) when Ekkehard’s

69ꢀThietmar, VI, 34 (MGH SS rer. Germ. NS 9, 314: …Budusin civitatem presidio Hirimanni comitis munitam socer invidus [scil. Bolizlavus] possedit. 70ꢀThietmar, VI, 34 (MGH SS rer. Germ. NS 9, 316: Venit marchio H[erimannus] ad Magadaburg...).

88ꢀ

ꢀThe structural framework of governance

son replaced Gunzelin in Meissen (see Knothe 1874, 276, fn. 7; Jedlicki ed. 1953/2005, 343, annot. 176). It must be emphasized, however, that this hypothesis is based only on an a priori assumption of the principle that Herman’s title of margrave could have only been received from Meissen. In reality, the most logical explanation for the relevant paragraph in Thietmar’s chronicle is that Herman was a margrave where he acted as a comes, which was precisely in Budyšin.

Figure 4.1: Sculptures of Herman I and his wife Regilindis in the Cathedral Church in Naumburg. Source: Wikimedia Commons, photo by user Linsengericht (own work), license CC BY–SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5520294, here reproduced under the same license.
Marchia Milzania: the status of Milsko... ꢀ

ꢀ89

Not only was Herman I called a comes, but also Milsko was named a march in one of the scarce sources. It was namely in the life of Henry II by Adalbold of Utrecht that the future Upper Lusatia appeared in the context of the events of 1002–1003 as

71

the marchia Milzavia. This citation is unfortunately the only one where Milsko was

72

explicitly called a march, and thus there are doubts as to its credibility – these seem, however, to be incorrect. Adalbold, a contemporary of the events, most likely knew exactly what he was writing, just like Thietmar of Merseburg calling count Herman a margrave. If any doubts could be raised about the respective passage of the Vita s. Heinrici II Imperatoris, these would have nothing to do with the text itself, but rather with the meaning of the term marca before the mid-eleventh century, which was, according to a study by Andrea Stieldorf (2012), far from precise. The same should be said about the designation marchio, in the beginning of the eleventh century it was generally still synonymous with the denomination comes. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that both the names marchio and marca were used in various sources dating from that period in relation to Milsko, which at least allows the hypothesis that this region was among the “candidates” for institutionalization as margraviates, which came up, according to Stieldorf (2012), roughly in the second half of the eleventh century.
It can be surmised that in recovering Milsko in 1031 from Mieszko II, Conrad II had great latitude when it came to the possibility of the further development of the fate of those lands. In light of the deductions presented in the previous chapter (section 3.2.1), he chose an extremely cautious solution: to return power in Budyšin to one of the Ekkehardines, but not the one who was actually in charge of the castle in Meissen. Milsko therefore gained the same status that it had enjoyed before it was acquired by Bolesław the Brave in 1007, namely that of a comitatus separate from Meissen. In the political sense, this status did not last long, since Ekkehard II received the Saxon Eastern March in 1034 and the March of Meissen in 1038. One could suppose, however, that despite becoming part of a larger conglomerate of lands that were the domain of Ekkehard II, Milsko (consisting of the former lands of the Milčane and Besunzane) retained some autonomy. This is clearly supported by the reference in the previously discussed Annales Altahenses Maiores concerning the division of the Ekkehardine inheritance in 1046. This shows that until the extinction of the Ekkehardine dynasty, Milsko was autonomous from the other parts of their dominion.

71ꢀAdalboldi vita Heinrici II. imperatoris, c. 22, MGH SS 4, 689: Milzaviam quoque, Saxoniae et Poloniae interiacentem marchiam, insidiis, quibus edoctus erat, suae infelicitati subicit. According

to Jerzy Nalepa (1996, 157) the name Milzavia should be actually read as Milzania. Andrea Stieldorf (2012, 173, 179–180) stressed the territotial rather than institutional meaning of the word marchia in the above quoted passage. 72ꢀRentschler 2012, 41, 408, 496. A different judgement was passed by Walter Schlesinger (1953, 8). See also below, sub-chapter 5.2.

90ꢀ

ꢀThe structural framework of governance

In seeking the causes of this state of affairs, it is necessary to point out two circumstances. Firstly, in connection with the short-lived existence of the autonomous comitatus of Herman I (1005–1008) and then of Ekkehard II (1031–1034) in Budyšin, Milsko had a certain tradition of autonomy from Meissen. Secondly, the Ekkehardines, because of their kinship with the House of Dobromir and presumably some succession agreement concluded between the latter and Ekkehard I, were able to rely on a title to power in Budyšin that was not given by the king. It seems that this is where one should look for the key to the situation, which is reflected in the notes of the chronicler of Niederaltaich: Ekkehard II simply had to pay to preserve Milsko’s autonomy even after he took the offices of Margrave of Saxon Eastern March and Meissen, since he had a better claim to this area than the others he ruled. This attitude perfectly fits in with the policy conducted by the Ekkehardines, which Hans Patze (1962, 110–124) and Gabriele Rupp (1996, 192) were entirely correct in describing as an early attempt to build different pillars of dynastic power comparable with later examples of building semi-independent territories in the political framework of the Empire. It seems, however, that in comparing the means for building territorial power utilized by the Ekkehardines, these authors underestimated the importance of dynastic politics for this family (cf. Ludat 1971, 25–27, 31–32, passim).
To justify the claim that Ekkehard II could have boasted particularly strong rights to Milsko, one more argument could be mentioned that thus far has not been taken into account in the scholarship. I am speaking here of the fate of the castle districts in the eastern part of Upper Lusatia – Niedów and Dolgowitz (with its center in the hillfort upon the Rotstein Mountain) – which at some undetermined time after 1031 found themselves in the possession of the Bishop of Meissen. Despite the widespread – and erroneous (cf. below, section 5.4.1) – identification of Dolgowitz with Ostrusna (the latter being mentioned in the 1007 charter of Henry II: MGH DH II, no. 124), the gifting of these burgwards to the Bishop of Meissen did not have anything in common with the donation made by Henry II in 1007 (see more on that topic below, in section 5.4.1.). This event was rather associated with the reign of Conrad II or Henry III, when whole burgwards were still bequeathed to the Bishopric of Meissen (MGH DH III, nos. 59, 156). Henry IV was already limited to transmitting at most several mansi or several settlements to this church institution (cf. CDS 2–1, no. 28; MGH DH IV, nos. 80, 212, 227, 246, 410). It is thus characteristic that insofar as Henry II’s donations in Milsko and Henry III’s outside Milsko were confirmed by documents issued by the chancelleries of these rulers, the slightest trace of a diploma from Conrad II or Henry III, even in the form of a description or register, that would have transferred the ringforts in Niedów and on Rotstein Mountain along with their pertinences to the Bishop of Meissen is not known.
The lack of royal documents, despite the fact that the Meissen archives are not the worst preserved, concerning Niedów and Dolgowitz, or even forgeries replacing them, makes it more puzzling that probably either immediately upon the transfer of these two former burgwards to the bishopric, or just afterwards, there likely was

The status of Milsko in the years 1046–1081ꢀ

ꢀ91

a change of borders for these domains (see below, sub-chapters 5.4 and 5.6). The Bishop of Meissen thus would have had every reason to procure a royal confirmation of the gift and its territorial reach. Since he did not do so, it should be inferred that he simply did not need royal ratification for either (the gift) or both (the gift and the border changes) of the legal acts on the basis of which the burgwards of Niedów and Dolgowitz came into the possession of the bishopric. In other words, the competent instance to transfer ownership of these two (former) ringfort districts was probably not the king, but the margrave.
As Eastern Upper Lusatia was probably to large extent depopulated after 1015 and the only power that could lead the process of resettlement of this area was Margrave Ekkehard, it is quite probable that he received carte blanche from the kings Conrad II and Henry III. After all, Ekkehard was even allowed to transfer the Bishopric of Zeitz into his allodial possession in Naumburg, an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of Germany (cf. Schlesinger 1962, 92–95; Wolfram 2006, 216–217; Boshof 2008, 71). It seems possible, therefore, that he also could have transformed Eastern Upper Lusatia into his allodial holdings with the full acceptance of the Salian kings (more on that topic: below, sub-chapter 5.6). After all, a very similar practice, turning benefices into allods, was a normal way of displaying grace to faithful subjects still under the Liudolfings (cf. Althoff 2005, 232); a model example of such a practice was no one else but Ekkehard I, father of Ekkehard II (cf. Thietmar V 7, MGH SS rer. Germ. NS 9, 228–229; cf. Schlesinger 1953, 19–20).

4.2 The status of Milsko in the years 1046–1081: from a separate

marca to a distant pertinence of other comitatus

The death of Ekkehard II and the transfer of his march to other comites brought about a change in the status of Milsko. From a territory perceived as an autonomous component of a conglomerate of estates and entitlements of the Ekkehardines, this country became a “pertinence”, but not, as commonly assumed, of the March of Meissen, but of the Saxon Eastern March (cf. above, section 3.2.2). The status of Milsko should be interpreted similarly in the period when it constituted a part of the March of Meissen under Egbert II as its legal (1068–1076) and de facto (1076–1081) governor. One could say, therefore, that Milsko lost the status of a separate territory designated as a march during this very time, when other structures of this type solidified and started the path towards institutionalization (cf. Stieldorf 2012, 151–154, passim).
As with the Ekkehardine era, under the rule of successive margraves up to 1071 one thing did not change – the chronic lack of mention of Milsko in royal documents. In light of this, the situation in Milsko most likely was quite similar to the state of affairs known from neighboring Lower Lusatia. At the same time, there is no lack of diplomas from the times of Conrad II, Henry III and Henry IV for different laypeople and Church institutions in other areas administered by these comites but located to

92ꢀ

ꢀThe structural framework of governance

the west of Milsko and Lusatia. This situation applies equally to the times of Ekkehard II (cf. working overview of sources: Patze 1962, 110–111; Rentschler 2012, 620–623), as well as for the periods when Dedi II ruled (cf. Rentschler 2012, 583–586) and Egbert II (cf. Rentschler 2012, 607–612). This strange contrast between Milsko and Lusatia, and the lands located further to the west leads one to surmise that both of these frontier lands were considered to be special domains by the comites governing them, where their power was, in principle, limited to a lesser extent by monarchal interference than elsewhere, which goes in line with the common assumption of historiography that the position of margraves was generally better than of other counts (cf. Kötzschke 1920/1961, 78; Sprandel 1994, 135–136, 145). This conclusion would correspond perfectly with the border situation of the two lands, requiring a stronger concentration

73

of power in the hands of the counts ruling them.
Respecting the margraves’ special powers did not contradict with the monarchs’ building of local bases for their power, particularly in 1046 when the extinction of the Ekkehardines made the German King Henry III the sole owner of Milsko. The evidence for their position is the previously-mentioned document by Henry IV of December 11, 1071 regarding the part of the benefice confiscated from Ozer (MGH DH IV, no. 246). On the one hand, it confirmed that this knight held the property in question from the hand of the king, not the margrave; on the other hand, however, it clearly indicates that it was situated in comitatu Eggeberti marchionis. It thus seems that in 1046, Henry III had not neglected to convert the part of Ekkehard II’s bequest into a royal demesne, but at the same time dispensed it as a benefice to the knights, which was a typical practice at that time (cf. Heusinger 1922, 104). Simultaneously, however, the monarch did not exempt his holdings, but left the margraves with a superior range of power over them – this is at least how the phrase in comitatu should be interpreted (cf. Heusinger 1922, 106; Schlesinger 1953, 24, fn. 3; see also comments of von Salza 2013, 88–89, without, however, relation to DH IV, no. 246). This presumably did not extend to judicial power, whether over the population (over whom jurisdiction was probably wielded by the beneficiaries) or over the knights having benefices (which they received directly from the king). Thus, for the parts of Upper Lusatia belonging to the royal demesne, the designation comitatus meant some kind of military and/or economic prerogative for the margrave, resulting from his obligations as a comes of a frontier territory. By creating this rather complicated, but for medieval social relations typical, entwining of competences, the king maintained elements of control over the territory, without creating too-large a power break vis-à-vis margravial rule in a border region.

73ꢀAn opposite thesis, that Milsko (and the land of Nižane) as a whole was treated as a special dominion of the kings, was proposed by Wather Schlesinger (1941, 243). This concept, however, was based only upon the mention of Milza and Nisana in the Registry of Royal Table Estates (Königliche Tafelgüterverzeichnis), which, as later research has shown, should not be understood literally (cf. Kobuch 1996, with further ref.).

The question of the legal status of Milsko 1081–1126ꢀ

ꢀ93

4.3 The question of the legal status of Milsko 1081–1126

The transfer of Milsko to Vratislav II by Henry IV apparently changed little in the legal status of this country; if so, it was to its advantage. Although it was no longer administered by a royal comes, it nevertheless came into hands of a neighboring ruler bearing the hereditary title of duke. In practice, however, in Vratislav’s realm Milsko became a distant province located beyond the mountains. It appears that the marriage of Judith to Wiprecht certainly was for the Duke of Bohemia an excellent occasion to rid himself of an inconvenient acquisition and both contracting parties, the apparently generous father-in-law and the son-in-law trying to establish himself, struck a good deal. In Wiprecht’s dominion, the position of Milsko underwent a twofold change. On one hand, the new possessor of Milsko was neither a count nor a duke in 1084. On the other hand, however, Budyšin became the residence of Princess Judith, which to a certain extent must have distinguished this castle within the holdings of the Lord of Groitzsch.
The disconnection of Milsko from the March of Meissen and its subsequent transfer first to Vratislav II by Henry IV and then by the former to Wiprecht II makes one wonder what exactly the formal status of this area was after 1081. The question of the legal framework, in which Milsko was held by subsequent landlords between 1081–1126, presents significantly greater difficulties than the narrative history of this period, but, as I attempt to demonstrate in this sub-chapter, this problem can be unraveled by combining the information from the available source material. The question what the legal status of Milsko after 1081 was is a reasonable one, as after its separation from the March of Meissen, Milsko and the land of Nižane, with, one would assume, the approval of Egbert II and the Saxon nobles, were at the full disposal of the emperor, who therefore could give them to Vratislav on terms that could only be considered appropriate.
The tradition written down in the family foundation of the Groitzsch family, the Pegau monastery, displays the course of events as if the claims of Wiprecht II to Upper Lusatia and the land of Nižane were from the very beginning of allodial and hereditary nature. According to the Annales Pegavienses, Vratislav II dealt with his newly-obtained holdings as with his allodial properties, since he passed them on to

74

Wiprecht as part of his daughter Judith’s dowry. Furthermore, in the notes of the Annales Pegavienses reporting on the death of Princess Judith, her seat of Budyšin

74ꢀSee Annales Pegavienses, MGG SS 16, 241: Provinciae vero illius partem quam rex in dotem filiae suae delegaverat, accipere recusavit, sed extra hanc pagos duos, Nisen scilicet et Budesin, pro hac

exidens impetravit. G. E. Schrage (2004a, 59–60) erroneously called those properties a Morgengabe (i.e. a part of the dower); in the Polish translation of the same book chapter (by Marek Słoń), however, the right noun was used (posag): Schrage 2007, 74.

94ꢀ

ꢀThe structural framework of governance

75

was explicitly designated at the patrimonium of the deceased. Unfortunately, even these rather strong statements by the chronicler of Pegau are not clear enough to resolve the issue of the legal status of Milsko and the land of Nižane under the rule of Vratislav II and later Wiprecht II because of divergent statements in other sources; in fact, it was normal at that time that terminology of different sources followed different patterns in describing the same legal act (cf. here e.g. Ziegler 2011, 484, fn. 3765, about Rochlitz). Furthermore, both the political constellation of 1081, in which Henry IV sought to reconcile the warring parties by dividing the area of the March of Meissen in a way that would satisfy all concerned, as well as the paucity of sources allow various interpretations of the legal status of Milsko and the land of Nižane between 1081 and 1112. In order to determine which of them is the most likely, it might be useful to begin by eliminating the least justifiable.
Without any major problems, one can rule out the possibility that a new comitatus or marches were formed as a result of the separation of Milsko and the land of Nižane from the March of Meissen. Although it seems that such a step would be logical, since these lands were compensation for the two marches originally entrusted to Vratislav and then given back to the young pretenders (Henry of Eilenburg and Egbert II), there is not a single trace in the sources that the king created an institution of this type. In fact, Wiprecht of Groitzsch bore the title of count only from 1106 and this was certainly not connected with either Milsko or with the land of Nižane. Further attention should be devoted to the concepts articulated by various scholars whose common denominator is that, apart from the rights of Wiprecht II of Groitzsch to the land of Nižane and to Milsko obtained through his marriage to Judith, the right of the Přemyslids to these lands existed the entire time between 1084–1135.
Unfortunately, the majority of scholars relying on this assumption have not even tried to define the legal framework that would have made it possible for Wiprecht to possess both regions and the Přemyslids to maintain a range of rights to them. Only Carl Gautsch (1880, 13–14) presented a rather explicit statement that Judith’s husband Wiprecht II of Groitzsch was likely entitled to dispose of her dower (Leibgedinge), which included the possession of and reaping the benefits (ger. Niessbrauch, lat. ususfructus) from Milsko and the land of Nižane, but the right of ownership to both territories remained with the Přemyslids. This interesting concept is, however, based on a series of mistakes. From the notes of the Annales Pegavienses it is known that Milsko and the land of Nižane were parts of Judith’s dowry (Mitgift). Thus, one cannot see the reasons for which, as cited by the author, the lifelong dower for Judith would have been set up in her dowry and not, as was practiced in Saxon law (cf. Sydow 1828, 253–357, 284; Schröder 1874, 350), in the property or at least in a benefice of her

Recommended publications
  • A Detective Story: Meissen Porcelains Copying East Asian Models. Fakes Or Originals in Their Own Right?

    A Detective Story: Meissen Porcelains Copying East Asian Models. Fakes Or Originals in Their Own Right?

    A detective story: Meissen porcelains copying East Asian models. Fakes or originals in their own right? Julia Weber, Keeper of Ceramics at the Bavarian National Museum, Munich he ‘detective story’ I want to tell relates to how the French mer- fact that Saxon porcelain was the first in Europe to be seriously capable of chant Rodolphe Lemaire managed, around 1730, to have accurate competing with imported goods from China and Japan. Indeed, based on their copies of mostly Japanese porcelain made at Meissen and to sell high-quality bodies alone, he appreciated just how easily one might take them them as East Asian originals in Paris. I will then follow the trail of for East Asian originals. This realisation inspired Lemaire to embark on a new Tthe fakes and reveal what became of them in France. Finally, I will return business concept. As 1728 drew to a close, Lemaire travelled to Dresden. He briefly to Dresden to demonstrate that the immediate success of the Saxon bought Meissen porcelains in the local warehouse in the new market place copies on the Parisian art market not only changed how they were regarded and ordered more in the manufactory. In doing this he was much the same in France but also in Saxony itself. as other merchants but Lemaire also played a more ambitious game: in a bold Sometime around 1728, Lemaire, the son of a Parisian family of marchand letter he personally asked Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and of faïencier, became acquainted with Meissen porcelain for the first time whilst Poland, to permit an exclusive agreement with the Meissen manufactory.
  • The Japanese Palace in Dresden: a Highlight of European 18Th-Century

    The Japanese Palace in Dresden: a Highlight of European 18Th-Century

    都市と伝統的文化 The ‘Japanese Palace’ in Dresden: A Highlight of European 18th-century Craze for East-Asia. Cordula BISCHOFF Dresden, seat of government and capital of present-day federal state Saxony, now benefits more than any other German city from its past as a royal residence. Despite war-related destructions is the cityscape today shaped by art and architecture with a history of 500 years. There is possibly no other place in Germany where to find so many exceptional artworks concentrated in such a small area. This accumulation is a result of the continuosly increasing significance of the Dresden court and a gain in power of the Saxon Wettin dynasty. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was a conglomeration of more than 350 large and tiny territories. The 50 to 100 leading imperial princes struggled in a constant competition to maintain their positions. １） In 1547 the Saxon Duke Moritz（1521-1553）was declared elector. Thus Saxony gained enormous political significance, as the seven, in 18th century nine electors, were the highest-ranking princes. They elected the Roman-German emperor and served as his innermost councils. The electors of Saxony and of the Palatinate were authorised to represent the emperor in times of vacancy. At the same time in 16th century Saxony rose due to its silver mining industry to one of the richest German territorial states. ２） In the second half of the 17th century the Saxon court even counted among the most important European courts. A peak of political power was reached under Frederick August（us）I.
  • Modern, Elegant and Wonderfully Versatile

    Modern, Elegant and Wonderfully Versatile

    MODERN, ELEGANT AND WONDERFULLY VERSATILE. MEISSEN® COSMOPOLITAN CHANGES THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT DINING SERVICES. WWW.MEISSEN.COM 1 AM-000076 TABLEWARE MEISSEN® COSMOPOLITAN STAATLICHE PORZELLAN-MANUFAKTUR MEISSEN GMBH 2 3 ABOUT US Meissen Porcelain Manufactory Meissen porcelain was born out of passion. Augustus the Strong (1670- 1733), Elector of Saxony, zealously pursued the so-called white gold after becoming struck with “Maladie de Porcelaine.” It was for him that alchemist Johann Friedrich Böttger (1682-1719) created the first European porcelain in 1708. At MEISSEN, this storied passion remains the fundament of the manufactory’s masterful works up to this day. More than 300 years of tra- dition and exquisite craftsmanship, unbounded imagination and an avowed dedication to modernity come together to create a timeless aesthetic that can be lived and experienced – every piece handmade in Germany. In 1710, Augustus the Strong decreed the founding of the Meissen porce- lain manufactory, making it the oldest in Europe. The signet of two crossed swords has been the unmistakable trademark of Meissen porcelain since 1722. The swords represent the uncompromising quality, unsurpassed craftsmanship and cultural heritage to which MEISSEN remains committed to this day: from the purest raw material sourced from the manufactory’s own kaolin mine, the world’s largest and oldest trove of moulds, models, patterns and decorations spanning centuries of artistic epochs, to the 10,000 proprietary paint formulas created in the on-site laboratory. And last but not least, they stand for the unsurpassed handicraft, experience and dedication of the manufactory’s artisans, lending every Meissen piece its one-of-a-kind beauty.
  • Meissen Porcelain: Precision, Presentation, and Preservation

    Meissen Porcelain: Precision, Presentation, and Preservation

    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2011 Meissen Porcelain: Precision, Presentation, and Preservation. How Artistic and Technological Significance Influence Conservation Protocol Nicole Peters West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Peters, Nicole, "Meissen Porcelain: Precision, Presentation, and Preservation. How Artistic and Technological Significance Influence Conservation Protocol" (2011). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 756. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/756 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Meissen Porcelain: Precision, Presentation, and Preservation. How Artistic and Technological Significance Influence Conservation Protocol. Nicole Peters Thesis submitted to the College of Creative Arts at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Art History Approved by Janet Snyder, Ph.D., Committee Chair Rhonda Reymond, Ph.D. Jeff Greenham, M.F.A. Michael Belman, M.S. Division of Art and Design Morgantown, West Virginia 2011 Keywords: Meissen porcelain, conservation, Fürstenzug Mural, ceramic riveting, material substitution, object replacement Copyright 2011 Nicole L.
  • Parish of Skipton*

    Parish of Skipton*

    294 HISTORY OF CRAVEN. PARISH OF SKIPTON* HAVE reserved for this parish, the most interesting part of my subject, a place in Wharfdale, in order to deduce the honour and fee of Skipton from Bolton, to which it originally belonged. In the later Saxon times Bodeltone, or Botltunef (the town of the principal mansion), was the property of Earl Edwin, whose large possessions in the North were among the last estates in the kingdom which, after the Conquest, were permitted to remain in the hands of their former owners. This nobleman was son of Leofwine, and brother of Leofric, Earls of Mercia.J It is somewhat remarkable that after the forfeiture the posterity of this family, in the second generation, became possessed of these estates again by the marriage of William de Meschines with Cecilia de Romille. This will be proved by the following table:— •——————————;——————————iLeofwine Earl of Mercia§=j=......... Leofric §=Godiva Norman. Edwin, the Edwinus Comes of Ermenilda=Ricardus de Abrineis cognom. Domesday. Goz. I———— Matilda=.. —————— I Ranulph de Meschines, Earl of Chester, William de Meschines=Cecilia, daughter and heir of Robert Romille, ob. 1129. Lord of Skipton. But it was before the Domesday Survey that this nobleman had incurred the forfeiture; and his lands in Craven are accordingly surveyed under the head of TERRA REGIS. All these, consisting of LXXVII carucates, lay waste, having never recovered from the Danish ravages. Of these-— [* The parish is situated partly in the wapontake of Staincliffe and partly in Claro, and comprises the townships of Skipton, Barden, Beamsley, Bolton Abbey, Draughton, Embsay-with-Eastby, Haltoneast-with-Bolton, and Hazlewood- with-Storithes ; and contains an area of 24,7893.
  • The Schottenklöster in the World: Identity, Independence and Integration*

    The Schottenklöster in the World: Identity, Independence and Integration*

    chapter 16 The Schottenklöster in the World: Identity, Independence and Integration* Diarmuid Ó Riain Introduction One of the central concerns of the original Enclaves of Learning, Religion, Ideology and Practice working group was to examine the multifaceted connec- tions between the “enclave” and the surrounding world and to illustrate how texts produced within these communities served to both record and reinter- pret this interaction as well as having the potential to change the underlying relationships.1 This approach essentially treats of the physical, legal or other factors underpinning the identification as an enclave of learning, religion, ideol- ogy and practice within the broader context of the institution’s social relations, thereby seeking to redress the potentially problematic semantic implications of the term “enclave”. The focus of my paper will be the so-called Schottenklöster or Irish Benedictine monasteries, which were established between the later 11th and early 13th centuries in modern-day southern Germany and Austria. That the monasteries of medieval Europe were deeply embedded in the wider social environment rather than detached islands goes, of course, almost with- out saying.2 This reality coexisted, however, with what Hallinger called the traditional gegenweltliche instincts of monasticism, and the rhetoric of with- drawal from the world would always remain prominent, particularly in the context of the emergence of new monastic movements.3 What makes the Schottenklöster an especially interesting case-study with regard to the interplay between idealized detachment and actual integration is the issue of ethnicity; the Irish identity of the monasteries was their sine qua non, and, accordingly, had a profound influence on the level of independence and integration they * The research for this article was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): F42 Visions of Community.
  • SCHLOESSERLAND SACHSEN. Fireplace Restaurant with Gourmet Kitchen 01326 Dresden OLD SPLENDOR in NEW GLORY

    SCHLOESSERLAND SACHSEN. Fireplace Restaurant with Gourmet Kitchen 01326 Dresden OLD SPLENDOR in NEW GLORY

    Savor with all your senses Our family-led four star hotel offers culinary richness and attractive arrangements for your discovery tour along Sa- xony’s Wine Route. Only a few minutes walking distance away from the hotel you can find the vineyard of Saxon master vintner Klaus Zimmerling – his expertise and our GLORY. NEW IN SPLENDOR OLD SACHSEN. SCHLOESSERLAND cuisine merge in one of Saxony’s most beautiful castle Dresden-Pillnitz Castle Hotel complexes into a unique experience. Schloss Hotel Dresden-Pillnitz August-Böckstiegel-Straße 10 SCHLOESSERLAND SACHSEN. Fireplace restaurant with gourmet kitchen 01326 Dresden OLD SPLENDOR IN NEW GLORY. Bistro with regional specialties Phone +49(0)351 2614-0 Hotel-owned confectioner’s shop [email protected] Bus service – Elbe River Steamboat jetty www.schlosshotel-pillnitz.de Old Splendor in New Glory. Herzberg Żary Saxony-Anhalt Finsterwalde Hartenfels Castle Spremberg Fascination Semperoper Delitzsch Torgau Brandenburg Senftenberg Baroque Castle Delitzsch 87 2 Halle 184 Elsterwerda A 9 115 CHRISTIAN THIELEMANN (Saale) 182 156 96 Poland 6 PRINCIPAL CONDUCTOR OF STAATSKAPELLE DRESDEN 107 Saxony 97 101 A13 6 Riesa 87 Leipzig 2 A38 A14 Moritzburg Castle, Moritzburg Little Buch A 4 Pheasant Castle Rammenau Görlitz A72 Monastery Meissen Baroque Castle Bautzen Ortenburg Colditz Albrechtsburg Castle Castle Castle Mildenstein Radebeul 6 6 Castle Meissen Radeberg 98 Naumburg 101 175 Döbeln Wackerbarth Dresden Castle (Saale) 95 178 Altzella Monastery Park A 4 Stolpen Gnandstein Nossen Castle
  • Pedigree of the Wilson Family N O P

    Pedigree of the Wilson Family N O P

    Pedigree of the Wilson Family N O P Namur** . NOP-1 Pegonitissa . NOP-203 Namur** . NOP-6 Pelaez** . NOP-205 Nantes** . NOP-10 Pembridge . NOP-208 Naples** . NOP-13 Peninton . NOP-210 Naples*** . NOP-16 Penthievre**. NOP-212 Narbonne** . NOP-27 Peplesham . NOP-217 Navarre*** . NOP-30 Perche** . NOP-220 Navarre*** . NOP-40 Percy** . NOP-224 Neuchatel** . NOP-51 Percy** . NOP-236 Neufmarche** . NOP-55 Periton . NOP-244 Nevers**. NOP-66 Pershale . NOP-246 Nevil . NOP-68 Pettendorf* . NOP-248 Neville** . NOP-70 Peverel . NOP-251 Neville** . NOP-78 Peverel . NOP-253 Noel* . NOP-84 Peverel . NOP-255 Nordmark . NOP-89 Pichard . NOP-257 Normandy** . NOP-92 Picot . NOP-259 Northeim**. NOP-96 Picquigny . NOP-261 Northumberland/Northumbria** . NOP-100 Pierrepont . NOP-263 Norton . NOP-103 Pigot . NOP-266 Norwood** . NOP-105 Plaiz . NOP-268 Nottingham . NOP-112 Plantagenet*** . NOP-270 Noyers** . NOP-114 Plantagenet** . NOP-288 Nullenburg . NOP-117 Plessis . NOP-295 Nunwicke . NOP-119 Poland*** . NOP-297 Olafsdotter*** . NOP-121 Pole*** . NOP-356 Olofsdottir*** . NOP-142 Pollington . NOP-360 O’Neill*** . NOP-148 Polotsk** . NOP-363 Orleans*** . NOP-153 Ponthieu . NOP-366 Orreby . NOP-157 Porhoet** . NOP-368 Osborn . NOP-160 Port . NOP-372 Ostmark** . NOP-163 Port* . NOP-374 O’Toole*** . NOP-166 Portugal*** . NOP-376 Ovequiz . NOP-173 Poynings . NOP-387 Oviedo* . NOP-175 Prendergast** . NOP-390 Oxton . NOP-178 Prescott . NOP-394 Pamplona . NOP-180 Preuilly . NOP-396 Pantolph . NOP-183 Provence*** . NOP-398 Paris*** . NOP-185 Provence** . NOP-400 Paris** . NOP-187 Provence** . NOP-406 Pateshull . NOP-189 Purefoy/Purifoy . NOP-410 Paunton . NOP-191 Pusterthal .
  • Ambassadors to and from England

    Ambassadors to and from England

    p.1: Prominent Foreigners. p.25: French hostages in England, 1559-1564. p.26: Other Foreigners in England. p.30: Refugees in England. p.33-85: Ambassadors to and from England. Prominent Foreigners. Principal suitors to the Queen: Archduke Charles of Austria: see ‘Emperors, Holy Roman’. France: King Charles IX; Henri, Duke of Anjou; François, Duke of Alençon. Sweden: King Eric XIV. Notable visitors to England: from Bohemia: Baron Waldstein (1600). from Denmark: Duke of Holstein (1560). from France: Duke of Alençon (1579, 1581-1582); Prince of Condé (1580); Duke of Biron (1601); Duke of Nevers (1602). from Germany: Duke Casimir (1579); Count Mompelgart (1592); Duke of Bavaria (1600); Duke of Stettin (1602). from Italy: Giordano Bruno (1583-1585); Orsino, Duke of Bracciano (1601). from Poland: Count Alasco (1583). from Portugal: Don Antonio, former King (1581, Refugee: 1585-1593). from Sweden: John Duke of Finland (1559-1560); Princess Cecilia (1565-1566). Bohemia; Denmark; Emperors, Holy Roman; France; Germans; Italians; Low Countries; Navarre; Papal State; Poland; Portugal; Russia; Savoy; Spain; Sweden; Transylvania; Turkey. Bohemia. Slavata, Baron Michael: 1576 April 26: in England, Philip Sidney’s friend; May 1: to leave. Slavata, Baron William (1572-1652): 1598 Aug 21: arrived in London with Paul Hentzner; Aug 27: at court; Sept 12: left for France. Waldstein, Baron (1581-1623): 1600 June 20: arrived, in London, sightseeing; June 29: met Queen at Greenwich Palace; June 30: his travels; July 16: in London; July 25: left for France. Also quoted: 1599 Aug 16; Beddington. Denmark. King Christian III (1503-1 Jan 1559): 1559 April 6: Queen Dorothy, widow, exchanged condolences with Elizabeth.
  • FORMS of COERCION in PEACEFUL CHRISTIAN MISSIONS Marius Ščavinskas

    FORMS of COERCION in PEACEFUL CHRISTIAN MISSIONS Marius Ščavinskas

    LITHUANIAN historical STUDIES 16 2011 ISSN 1392-2343 PP. 119–141 FORMS OF COERCION IN PEACEFUL CHRISTIAN MISSIONS Marius Ščavinskas ABSTRACT The article analyses forms of coercion employed in so-called peaceful Christian missions. Two forms of coercion are distinguished: so- cial, implemented by the ruler towards his subjects, and political, imposed by a conqueror. However, the fact that on certain occasions missionaries employed both social and political forms of coercion is also taken into consideration. These occasions were cases when missionaries who faced a polarised nobility lacking a strong political leader (the nobility and/or the ruler would be the backbone of a successful mission) would undertake the formation of political structures, thus absorbing secular functions as well. This happened to the first bishops who worked among the Prussians and Livonians (Christian, Meinhard, Berthold and Albert). On the other hand, the analysis revealed that peaceful missions, as they have been perceived in historiography, contained certain forms of coercion defined by the term ‘social coercion’. Thus the logical question arises: what kind of missions can be qualified as military/coercive which in historiography are most frequently named ‘Schwertmission’? The article suggests the conclusion that, in their nature, Schwertmission were different from the so-called ‘sword missions’, yet were loaded with social coercion. Hence, Schwertmission and Crusade are not identical concepts, though they are still used as such in historiography. 1 In the early 1930s, the German historian H. Achterberg, who ana- lysed the spread of Christian missions in the Germanic (and other) tribes, suggested that Christian missions should be grouped on the basis of their work methods: Wortmission (verbal missions), Tat- mission (action missions) and Schwertmission (sword missions).
  • The Elizabethan Court Day by Day--1587

    The Elizabethan Court Day by Day--1587

    1587 1587 At GREENWICH PALACE, Kent. Jan 1,Sun New Year gifts. Gift Roll not extant, but Lord Lumley gave the Queen ‘A book wherein are divers Psalms in Latin written, the boards great, enclosed all over on the outside with gold enamelled cut-work, with divers colours, and one little clasp’. Works: ‘Setting up a table 40 foot long in the Privy Gallery to lay the New Year’s Gifts for her Majesty to see them...Setting up the banquet-table’. Also Jan 1: play, by the Queen’s Men.T John Pigeon, Jewel-house Officer, went to the goldsmiths for a present for ‘Monsieur Bellièvre, Ambassador from the French King’.T The French had planned to leave on December 30, but ‘when we were all ready and booted’ the Queen sent two of her gentlemen to ask them to wait another two or three days. Jan 1: Another conspiracy to murder the Queen discovered. William Harrison’s description: ‘Another conspiracy is detected upon New Year’s Day wherein the death of our Queen is once again intended by Stafford and others at the receipt of her New Year’s gifts, but as God hath taken upon him the defence of his own cause so hath he in extraordinary manner from time to time preserved her Majesty from the treason and traitorous practices of her adversaries and wonderfully betrayed their devices’. [Chronology, f.264]. The conspiracy is described in notes by Lord Burghley, February 17, as ‘a practice betwixt the French Ambassador and a lewd young miscontented person named William Stafford, and one Moody, a prisoner in Newgate, a mischievous resolute person, how her Majesty’s life should be taken away’.
  • Collegium Medievale 16

    Collegium Medievale 16

    • t Ii j COLLEGIUM MEDIEVALE Tverrfaglig tidsskrift for middelalderforskning Interdisciplinary Journal of Medieval Research Volume 16 2003 Published by COLLEGIUM MEDIEVALE Society for Medieval Studies Oslo 2003 Study into Socio-political History of the Obodrites Roman Zaroff Artikkelen be handler de polabiske slaviske starnrnene som bodde i omradet mellom elvene Elbe-Saale og Oder-Neisse, i perioden fra slutten av 700-tallet til 1100- tallet. Artikkelforfatteren gar imot det hevdvunne synet om at disse slaverne forble organisert i sma, lokale stammer. Tvert imot men er forfatteren a kunne belegge at disse polabiske slaveme pga. sterkt ytre press i perioden organiserte seg i en storre sammenslutning over stammeniva, sentrert rundt obotritt-stammen. Denne sammenslutningen var en politisk enhet pa linje med samtidige tyske hertugdommer og markomrader og de skandinaviske landene. Introduction The Western Slavs once occupied the territory more or less corresponding to the former state of East Germany that is the area roughly between the Oder-Neisse and Elbe-Saale rivers. They are usually called the Polabian Slavs or Wends. They were the westernmost group of the Western Slavs (which includes the Czechs, Poles and Slovaks) who settled the region between the sixth and seventh centu­ ries. 1 The Polabian Slavs are usually divided into three branches: the Sorbs, who occupied roughly the southern part ofthe former East Germany; the Veleti in the northeast of the region; and the Obodrites in the northwest.2 Most of the Polabian Slavs were germanised in the course of time, and only a small Sorbian minority in southeastern Germany retains its linguistic and cultural identity until the present day.' 1 Dvomik 1974:14; and Gimbutas 1971:124-128; and towmianski 1967:98, 221; and Strzelczyk 1976:139-154.