4 the Structural Framework of Governance

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 Medievalists have withdrawn to large extent fromstudyingconstitutionalandlegalmatters, leavingsuchtopicsbehindassomesort of anachronistic holdover of positivistic methodology.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 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">69 </li><li style="flex:1">was only a command to the Budyšin garrison. It would not be amiss to add here </li></ul>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

4 the Structural Framework of Governance

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support