When the Town Right Includes a River
With the extinction of the Counts von Lindow-Ruppin in 1525, Wolfgang Redorf, a councilor of the Electorate of Brandenburg with a doctorate, prepared a register of the county, which had reverted to Brandenburg, on behalf of his sovereign Joachim I. With regard to Wusterhausen (Dosse), the register states the following: “die von Wusterhausen sind Zoll frey allerley Zoll zu Wasser vndt Lande, gleichmessig den anderen merkischen Städten” (“the people of Wusterhausen are free to pay all kinds of customs on water and land, equal to the other mercantile towns”).[1] This testifies that Wusterhausen was not an insignificant town within Brandenburg. On the contrary, the local citizenry received the Magdeburg law around 1232, which was possessed by many other municipalities in the Mark Brandenburg, Berlin, Cölln and Frankfurt an der Oder. This significant law was primarily associated with communal self-government, meaning that a municipal community was allowed to decide its own affairs. However, it also granted the town economic freedoms, including, in particular, market trading and customs exemptions.
Wusterhausen had not received its town law directly from Magdeburg but through the mediation of Stendal. This is important insofar as it is the reason for the transfer of a number of important trade and market rights, which thus also applied in Wusterhausen. The relations to the Altmark remained beyond the time of the assumption of the town rights. This concerned trade and shipping, which also led from Wusterhausen to the area left of the Elbe, as will be shown.
Fig. 1: View of the Town Hall in Wusterhausen (Dosse).
First, however, another look at Redorf’s register, which continues with regard to the citizens of Wusterhausen: “sie haben frey den Fluss an der Dosse, Das man den flus nit Verpauen muess mit fischwehren, auch Kein Kain darauff haben magk, allein die von wusterhausen muegen einen Kain daruf haben vndt fischen: es mues auch kain steg darueber gemacht werden umb befestigung willen des Landes, Auch von wegen des freyen flusses zu den mollen, die des orths allendthalben gelegen sein.“ (“they have free the river at the Dosse, that the river must not be blocked with fish weirs, nor may any boat be placed on it, only the citizens of Wusterhausen may have a boat on it and fish: there must also be no bridge made over it for the sake of fortification of the land, also because of the free flow to the piers, which are located at the site everywhere).
On the basis of these explanations, various rights can be identified that Wusterhausen owned with regard to the river. By far the most important regulation was that the Dosse was to remain free, i.e. it was not to be obstructed or blocked with hydraulic engineering structures. Explicitly mentioned are fish weirs, which were often built into waters by mooring them in the bottom or on the bank. This often made it impossible for boats and barges to proceed. For this reason, in many other cases, so-called half-weirs were erected, which did not block the whole river. Another way of reconciling fishing and navigation was to keep channels clear for ships to pass through. This worked at best on larger rivers and lakes. For the small Dosse, such measures were out of the question, which is why it is not surprising that this river should be completely free of fish weirs. Consequently, fishing here was probably mainly done from the shore or from a barge.
Fig. 2: Wusterhausen’s position in the river-based network of paths between the Elbe and Havel rivers.
Wusterhausen had also succeeded in acquiring the sole exercise of fishing from a barge. However, it is doubtful that this regulation applied to the entire Dosse, as the register states. Too much evidence suggests that other parties also fished on the river. What the register of Wolfgang Redorf probably wants to say is that in the urban area of Wusterhausen, i.e. within its Weichbild (municipal area) and the borders of its Feldmark (parish land), no other party was allowed to fish. Another important privilege stated that no footbridges and bridges were allowed to be built over the Dosse, which, of course, again served the navigation but also the free run of the water for the mills. Thus, in Redorf’s register, the extensive rights of Wusterhausen regarding the Dosse were recorded in a compressed form. The impression emerges of a lively use of the river, which included shipping, fishing as well as milling economy.
From the register, it can also be inferred that there was “ein saltz Kisten” (“a salt box”) in Wusterhausen. The term refers to the salt deposit in the town, as already noted by the well-known town historian Karl Altrichter in 1888.[2] It is possible that this salt came from the area around Lüneburg, but Halle and the Magdeburg area around today’s Bad Salzelmen also come into question as suppliers. Around the salt trade, again some legal forms of organization developed. Not least the Dosse may have been used for the transport of the salt. Gerd Heinrich assumes that it may have been stapled directly at the river in Wusterhausen.[3]
In Redorf’s register, there is another important remark concerning the salt deposit, according to which no foreign salt carrier – meaning carriers not living in Wusterhausen – was allowed to bring the salt as far as the river Temnitz. This directive, inconspicuous at first glance, only gains relevance through the knowledge that this small river formed the border of the so-called land of Wusterhausen. In this encoded formulation, the obligation to bring the salt to Wusterhausen and not to pass it is hidden behind the wording. An additional regulation deserves attention here. It stated that the bypass was “auch nicht vmbher vfs Landt” (“also not permitted around on the countryside”). This allows the supposition that the Dosse was later used as a so-called salt road, and thus, Gerd Heinrich must be agreed with. The course of this waterway led directly into the town of Wusterhausen, which is still commemorated today with the street name “Schifffahrt” (“Shipping”).
Fig. 3: The “Schifffahrt” (“Shipping”) in the historic town center of Wusterhausen; this is where the shipping traffic that entered the town ended in the Middle Ages
It is not possible to say with certainty how long Wusterhausen’s legally secured shipping ventures lasted. Traffic on smaller rivers, such as the Dosse, often came to a standstill as early as the transition to the 16th century. In addition, at about the same time, the Brandenburg sovereign intensified his efforts against connections to the Hanseatic League, from which the Brandenburg towns had profited since the Middle Ages. However, the fact that the waterway still played an important role for Wusterhausen in the 15th century is evidenced by a customs regulation that was established around 1440. Specifically, it concerned the town of Werben on the Elbe, which was very important for shipping and shipbuilding. The mentioned customs regulation applied to Arneburg, more precisely to the altar of St. John in the chapel there, into which financial resources from land and water traffic were to flow. Numerous Brandenburg towns are mentioned in this context. It illustrates that these passed through the municipality of Werben mainly by water. In addition to Kyritz, Pritzwalk, Perleberg, Lenzen, Wittenberge, Havelberg, Brandenburg, Spandau, Rathenow and Nauen, Wusterhausen is also referred to and considered obligated to pay the “scheptolles und bodemtolles” (currencies). Among other things, leather, cloth, herring, oil, salt, wool, beer from Zerbst and millstones are mentioned as goods to be cleared. Consequently, the Elbe and its tributaries were actively used in the mid-15th century, and towns located on small rivers, such as Wusterhausen, were also involved.
In summary, the example of Wusterhausen highlights the extensive legal, logistical and infrastructural aspects associated with the town law, which included the Dosse River in particular. It was an essential subject of legal agreements and regulations beyond the Weichbild (municipal area). Wusterhausen had such an impact on its surrounding region as was typical for medieval towns, provided they had privileges and power that allowed such encroachments.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow, Wusterhausen (Dosse). When the Town Right Includes a River, 08.12.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/wusterhausen-dosse/
Footnotes:
[1] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 4, Berlin 1844, no. 107, pp. 151–184.
[2] Cf. Karl Altrichter, Geschichte der Stadt Wusterhausen an der Dosse, Wusterhausen 1888, pp. 17-18.
[3] Cf. Gerd Heinrich, Wusterhausen, in id., Handbuch der historischen Stätten Deutschlands, vol. 10: Berlin und Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich, Stuttgart 19953, pp. 399–400, here p. 400.
Images:
Fig. 1: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0), photo: Clemensfranz
Fig. 2: cartography: Ellen Franke, Berlin
Fig. 3: photo: Erik-Jan Ouwerkerk
A Brandenburg Oppidum with a Vivid Legal History
The history of Werneuchen, located about 30 km northeast of Berlin, is characterized by a typical development within the late medieval small-town period. In 1300, the settlement was named oppidum when the altar of St. Mary and St. John in the parish church of Eberswalde was assigned income from Werneuchen’s farm rent.[1] At that time, the small town was owned by Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg, who called it oppdi nostri Warnow. As has been assumed within Brandenburg town history research, the founding of Werneuchen was connected with the intention of its development into a complete town in the legal sense.[2] In fact, Werneuchen remained limited to a small-town character, and it repeatedly appears in various 14th-century sources as an oppidum.
Fig. 1: Town Hall of Werneuchen. In 1865, Werneuchen was once again elevated to the status of a town, after urban development had been severely repressed in the early modern period.
Economically, Werneuchen profited from its favorable location on intersecting roads leading to Pomerania, Silesia and Mecklenburg. A documented customs office testifies to considerable traffic.[3] Here, an agreement concluded between Werneuchen and neighboring Strausberg in 1315 deserves attention. In it, both towns agreed on a joint collection of customs duties.[4] In this context, eight councilors from Werneuchen are mentioned by name, in addition to those from Strausberg, which provides evidence of a council constitution for the town. Presumably, Werneuchen was guided by the customs of the Brandenburg town law or the closely related Strausberg town law, whose origins lie in Magdeburg law. Nevertheless, the councilors of the larger town of Strausberg may have been important supporters of Werneuchen and helped in civic as well as legal matters. In the aforementioned customs agreement, Werneuchen is referred to as civitas, i.e. town, on an equal footing with Strausberg. Although there were great differences between the two locations in terms of urban development, this terminology testifies to Werneuchen’s claim to want to be a town.
The legal development of Werneuchen, however, led in a different direction. The Landbuch (state book) of the Mark Brandenburg from 1375 indicates that Werneuchen had, in the meantime, been given by the margrave as a fief to the Schenken von Sydow. The latter had sub-loaned Werneuchen to the civil family Trebus, who now also possessed the lower and higher jurisdiction as a fief.[5] On this basis, further development into a town was not possible. Therefore, Werneuchen remained a small town or a hamlet until the early modern period, although its constitution as a town council remained intact. Thus, as late as 1646, two mayors and six councilors are mentioned.[6]
Judicial decisions within the town of Werneuchen, however, remained dependent on the lordship, as an interesting case from the 16th century proves. Thus, in 1557, an innkeeper named Curt Mönchehoff appeared before the town court of Werneuchen. In the meantime, the town court belonged to the powerful von Krummensee family living in the Barnim region. There Mönchehoff complained that numerous horses and other livestock had perished for him for inexplicable reasons. However, he was unable to accuse anyone of anything, and so the only option left to him was to claim that he had bought the animals from evil people.
Fig. 2: Redrawn coat of arms of the von Krummensee family. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the family, which was very affluent in the Barnim region, owned the town court of Werneuchen.
Shortly afterwards, something outrageous happened: a stranger, “an henden und fussen lam” (“lame at the hands and feet”), came crawling into town and publicly accused the innkeeper’s neighbor, named Brederekin. She, together with her daughters and other women, had poisoned the animals. In court, the “cripple” claimed that he could use his crystal and a magic spell to make Mrs. Brederekin and the other accused women, on a day determined by him, rush to court dressed only in a shirt and carrying the said poison in eggshells. The lords of the court, Albrecht and Wilhelm von Krummensee on Altlandsberg, complied with his suggestion and asked the old man to practice his magic art before the court. However, when they “waited long enough for it, nothing came of it” and the accused women did not appear in court. The “crippled” man, however, declared that the crystal had been stolen from him by the accused Mrs. Brederekin, and that, as a result, he could not practice his art. The Brederekin family, for their part, pleaded before the judges to have the man captured and interrogated.
Driven into doubt by the mysterious incidents, the two Krummensee brothers refrained from interrogation for the time being and first asked the aldermen of the city of Brandenburg for advice on the matter. The latter left no doubt that the events that had occurred in Werneuchen were a matter of sorcery. Their answer was: because “he [the man] had gone around with the crystal […], he should be executed with the fire from life to death because of his devilish art […]”. The denounced neighbor of the Werneuchen innkeeper was acquitted for the time being.[7]
The case heard in court in Werneuchen reveals very vivid insights into the views of the people of the 16th century. For a Werneuchen town citizen who knew about the events surrounding the dead animals of Curt Mönchehoff or even attended the public announcement of the “crippled man”, the events must have been extremely significant. From the church service, from the Christian history of salvation, and not least from the colorful pictures in the churches, he knew about miracles, magic, and the evil, ever-shrewd devil who tempts people. Numerous folk legends also told of the deeds of mysterious sorcerers and nefarious magicians.
Especially in emergency situations and times of crisis, explanations had to be found that not infrequently ended up in the numinous. How else, if not by the devil, could it had happened when suddenly a number of animals died out of the blue? Such explanations played an important role within the legal life. This is proven by the reply letter of the Brandenburg board of aldermen, which speaks of devilish art and whose content was probably made known to every citizen of Werneuchen by an exclamation.
Fig. 3: Depiction of the devil with the hell-mouth, woodcut, Augsburg 1473. The devil tempting people was a pattern of explanation often also used in court in criminal trials.
The actual background of the incidents in Werneuchen can hardly be reconstructed. What motives the “crippled man” pursued, whether and to what extent he cooperated with the innkeeper Curt Mönchehoff, must be left to speculation.
From the descriptions, as it were, the special judicial conditions in Werneuchen become evident, which were not determined by the council of the small town but by noble lords of the court. The legal customs of the Brandenburg board of aldermen provided an important guideline that lent legitimacy to the decisions made locally.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow: Werneuchen. A Brandenburg Oppidum with a Vivid Legal History, 08.12.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/werneuchen/
Footnotes:
[1] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 12, Berlin 1857, no. 3, pp. 284-285.
[2] Cf. Felix Escher and Wolfgang Ribbe, Städtische Siedlungen im Mittelalter (= Historischer Handatlas von Berlin und Brandenburg, Nachträge 3), Berlin/New York 1980, pp. 9-10.
[3] Werner Vogel, Werneuchen, in Handbuch der historischen Stätten Deutschlands, vol. 10: Berlin und Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich, Stuttgart 19953, p. 388.
[4] Same as note 1, no. 3, pp. 68-69.
[5] Ernst Fidicin, Die Territorien der Mark Brandenburg, part 2, Berlin 1885, p. 258.
[6] Same as note 3, p. 388.
[7] Adolf Stölzel, Urkundliches Material aus den Brandenburger Schöppenstuhlsakten, vol. 1, Berlin 1901, p. 332.
Images:
Fig. 1: Wikimedia Commons, photo: Kvikk
Fig. 2: Wikimedia Commons, drawing: LeoDavid
Fig. 3: Wikimedia Commons
A Brandenburg Immediate Town with Extensive Rights
“The history of Osterburg is admittedly only a monotonous one, like those of all small Altmark towns; however, the noteworthy is at least not completely missing.”[1] What Hermann Dietrichs and Ludolf Parisius noted in their “Bilder[n] aus der Altmark” (“Picture[s] from the Altmark”) in 1883 is viewed critically today, since it is left to the perspective cast on the town’s history in each case as to what is noteworthy about it. From the point of view of legal history, Osterburg has some interesting facets that had a lasting influence on its municipal development.
Osterburg is already mentioned among the places for which the market settlement of Stendal was granted duty-free status by Albrecht the Bear in the middle of the 12th century. Still called “urbs” in this context, Osterburg is described as an “oppidum” in 1208.[2] The settlement benefited from a convenient location and, therefore, also functioned as a customs point. In addition, the inhabitants could use the adjacent river Biese to power mills, for fishing and for shipping [3] After the extinction of the Count of Osterburg-Veltheim in 1242, the Margrave of Brandenburg was able to take full possession of Osterburg. The town then remained sovereign and expanded its autonomy in the course of the 14th century.
Fig. 1: The ramparts around Osterburg protected the town in the Middle Ages and were an important symbol of the citizenry’s will to defend themselves. Postcard from the 1930s.
With regard to their town law, the councilors of Osterburg, who were mentioned for the first time in 1345, oriented themselves on Magdeburg law, whereby very likely a transfer of law via Stendal had taken place.[4] In the same year, a judge and aldermen (Judex et Schabini in Osterborch) are also mentioned in a document, who together issued a certificate regarding the property of the still underage Dietrich von Krusemark.[5] Thus a separation between council and aldermen within the communal constitution of Osterburg, which is typical according to the Magdeburg model, can be proven. In addition, a Vogt (praefectus, bailiff) is documented for the year 1344, who acted as a representative of the sovereign within the town and was an important political mediator.[6] This office was not necessarily in competition with the citizenry. Thus it becomes evident that Hennig von Hohenhausen, a citizen of Osterburg, had taken over the feudal guardianship for the children of the deceased Vogt Paris in 1344. The latter was apparently well integrated into the citizenry and had a ready network of partners and friends here.
A self-confident attitude of the Osterburg citizenry is encountered in a privilege issued by the false margrave Woldemar in 1348, according to which the town was allowed, among other things, to judge offenders “na der stat rechte” (“compliant with the town laws”). In addition, the margrave was forbidden to build new fortifications as long as the towns did not agree. Thus, he was required to promise not to divide the land. In addition, Osterburg was allowed to enter into alliances with other towns to protect its rights. Although the false Woldemar could not hold on politically, Osterburg continued to expand its rights, taking advantage of the general weakness of the Brandenburg sovereignty. Thus, in 1390, Osterburg succeeded in acquiring the town court from Margrave Jobst of Moravia, which included high jurisdiction, i.e. decisions on life and limb.[7] Osterburg also made extensive use of its right to ally itself with other towns. In 1392, for example, Osterburg joined forces with Stendal, Gardelegen, Tangermünde and Werben against attacks by ecclesiastical courts. The towns promised each other mutual assistance if their citizens were accused. Stendal had an important position in this, as its councilors were to be informed without being asked. If a legal dispute finally arose, each town council was to send an emissary to Stendal for consultation. All costs resulting from a lawsuit were divided among the towns according to individual rates, with Osterburg having to pay one mark.[8] The belief that Stendal acted as a high court for Osterburg is based on this basic decree.[9]
Fig. 2: The Old Town of Osterburg. It is characterized by historic half-timbered buildings.
A close orientation to the legal customs of the town of Stendal is also indicated by a contract concluded by the councilors of both towns in 1442:[10] if a citizen of Stendal received an inheritance in Osterburg, he was to pay the Osterburg council six shillings and the scribe’s fee. In the opposite case, a citizen of Osterburg had to pay fifteen shillings and the scribe’s fee for an inheritance in Stendal. This schedule of fees was legitimized by municipal customs, which both parties promised to uphold “ewichliken” (“for ever and ever”).
In the 15th century, Osterburg was able to assert its extensive rights. Margrave Friedrich II confirmed jurisdiction, customs rights and ownership of the castle rampart to the local councilors in 1449.[11] At that time, about 1,500 inhabitants may have lived in Osterburg.[12] Farming, brewing and long-distance trade to the Hanseatic area revived the town’s economy. In the transition to the 16th century, several fires devastated the town. The municipal documents were lost in this way. This circumstance made it necessary to redraft important regulations in writing. Thus, in 1536, Elector Joachim II renewed an old order of aldermen, which, among other things, fixed the number of aldermen at seven, confirmed them an altar with an ecclesiastical fief in the parish church and the ownership of several gardens. At the same time, the aldermen were granted a separate alderman’s seat known as a “garden”. Also significant was the definition of who was allowed to become a lay assessor. According to the rules of the aldermen, only honest, righteous, prudent and pious men from the ranks of former or active aldermen were to be elected.[13]
From the 16th century, a council order has also been preserved, which regulated the coexistence within Osterburg according to the medieval model. The statutes published in 1580 deal, among other things, with the prevention of fires, and they prohibit loud shouting in the streets, set times for brewing beer, determine modalities of animal husbandry and make selling outside the town gates a punishable offense. The fact that the Brandenburg sovereign is mentioned first before the council as a punitive authority in the event of violations of the town’s customs speaks for the reestablished rule of the Brandenburg sovereign at that time.[14]
Fig. 3: The coat of arms of Osterburg with a red eagle above the town wall, gates and towers. The image refers to medieval models and the former affiliation of Osterburg to the Mark Brandenburg.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow, Osterburg. Eine brandenburgische Immediatstadt mit umfänglichen Rechten, in Das Magdeburger Recht. Baustein des modernen Europa, 17.11.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/osterburg/
Footnotes:
[1] Hermann Dietrichs and Ludolf Parisius, Bilder aus der Altmark, vol. 1, Hamburg 1883, p. 172.
[2] Berent Schwineköper, Osterburg, in Handbuch der Historischen Stätten Deutschlands, vol. 11, Stuttgart 1987, pp. 356-357, here p. 357.
[3] Sascha Bütow, Jeetzel – Aland – Stepenitz. Gedanken zur wirtschaftlichen Nutzung kleiner Flüsse im sogenannten hansischen Hinterland während des Spätmittelalters, in Biuletyn Polskiej Misji Historycznej, Bulletin der Polnischen Historischen Mission 14 (2019), pp. 387–409, here p. 397.
[4] Heiner Lück, Stadtrechte in der Altmark, in Sachsen und Anhalt 32 (2020), pp. 41–78, here p. 73.
[5] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 16, Berlin 1859, no. 24, p. 326.
[6] Ibid., no. 23, pp. 325-326.
[7] Ibid., no. 35, p. 335.
[8] Ibid., vol. 6, Berlin 1846, no. 147, pp. 105-106.
[9] Peter P. Rohlach (reviser), Historisches Ortslexikon für die Altmark (= Historisches Ortslexikon für Brandenburg 12), Berlin 2018, p. 1602.
[10] Same as note 5, no. 60, p. 352.
[11] Ibid., no. 72, p. 361.
[12] Same as note 2, p. 357.
[13] Same as note 5, no. 100, pp. 380–382.
[14] Ibid., no. 107, pp. 389–391.
Images:
Fig. 1: zeno.org
Fig. 2: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0), photo: Nephantz!
Fig. 3: Wikimedia Commons
Under Monastic Authority from Village to Small Town
In the Middle Ages, the present-day district town of Luckenwalde was not one of the important towns in the Fläming region but was overshadowed by larger municipalities such as neighboring Jüterbog. Nevertheless, its location in the border region between the archbishopric of Magdeburg, the Mark Brandenburg and Lower Lusatia enabled a growing market traffic in the late Middle Ages. Luckenwalde was a stage point on the route between Berlin and Leipzig, which led via Wittenberg, Zahna, Jüterbog, Luckenwalde and Trebbin.[1] This route, however, was in competition with a second road running via Rietz, Treuenbrietzen, Beelitz and Saarmund so that Luckenwalde benefited only to a limited extent from the medieval traffic flows (fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Luckenwalde’s location within the transport network of the Fläming region. Treuenbrietzen and Jüterbog, among others, were strong competitors for economic development.
Nonetheless, a certain prosperity developed within the town, which had belonged to the Zinna monastery since 1285,[2] in the 15th century, based on market activity and trade. In this context, the inhabitants of Luckenwalde received a significant privilege from Archbishop Günther of Magdeburg in 1430, according to which they were allowed to brew beer and engage in trade and crafts. Luckenwalde thus enjoyed important municipal rights, but this brought it into conflict with the Jüterbog council, which intended to prevent brewing in the area of the Zinna monastery in favor of its own municipal market. The lawsuit brought by Jüterbog before the archbishop of Magdeburg led to the result that the abbot of Zinna was still allowed to brew, but the villages under his rule were not. An explicit exception was the “dorff” (“village”) Luckenwalde, with the reference that its inhabitants were allowed to brew and sell “wenne sie wollen” (“if they want”). In addition, the village was allowed to have “handtwerglüte In allermasse als [es] In Steten” (“craftsmen, as was the case”) in towns in the surrounding area.[3] This comparison with the surrounding towns demonstrates very clearly that Luckenwalde was in the process of leaving behind its settlement status as a village. As research emphasizes, this development seemed to be important to the monastery of Zinna.[4] Finally, in 1471, mayor, council and aldermen are mentioned, and in 1480, even a town hall.[5] This clearly indicates that in the late medieval Luckenwalde there was a council-like constitution typical for towns.
Fig. 2: The Market Tower in Luckenwalde remains a landmark of the town to this day. Since the Late Middle Ages, the adjacent parish church of St. John has used it as its bell tower; its oldest parts date back to the 12th century.
Not least, due to Archbishop Günther’s comparison with the privileges of neighboring towns, the assumption is obvious that the inhabitants of Luckenwalde oriented themselves to the regulations of Magdeburg law. This also suggests an undated legal dispute of the widow Hedwig Palm about money payments of Hans Schwueck, who lived in Luckenwalde, against the background of which the aldermen of the town of Luckau, who were oriented towards Magdeburg law, were involved in seeking help.[6] Although a town law privilege has not been handed down, Luckenwalde appears in the transition to the 16th century as an oppidum, i.e. small town, endowed with important municipal rights, as the fragmentary chronicle of the Zinna monastery attests.[7] Linen weavers seem to have been particularly important for the settlement, as is attested by the formation of a corresponding guild, which is documented for the year 1493.[8] It is, at the same time, evidence of the Wendish inhabitants, who lived in Luckenwalde in large numbers and possessed their own rights as elsewhere.
The municipal development of Luckenwalde can also be seen a little later in a will written in 1540 by the Zinna abbot Matheus, with which “alle Erbarckeit, zucht und guter wandel” (“all honesty, discipline and good moral conduct” were to be maintained.[9] In this source, Luckenwalde is referred to as a “Flecken”, which means a small-town settlement with market traffic and trade. The abbot’s will was written against the background of the spreading Reformation and out of authoritative power in consensus with Archbishop Albrecht of Magdeburg. Accordingly, it mainly contains regulations concerning worship and the retention of the Catholic faith.
Fig. 3: Game board for the “Game of Fortune,” dating from 1583, from the Bavarian National Museum in Munich.
In this context, the Luckenwalde community must also be examined more closely. Thus, among other things, the will reports about bakers and grocers, i.e. small traders, who were to refrain from offering their goods for sale during church services and masses under penalty. Furthermore, brewers and innkeepers are mentioned, who were supposed to stop the pot game (topffelspiel) in their inns and taverns. For this game, also known as “Glückshaus”, popular in the late Middle Ages, people used cards or dice and played for money, which is why it was stigmatized, especially by clergymen (fig. 3). With regard to the constitution of Luckenwalde, the regulation that the landlords had to report gambling to the council, whereupon the gamblers were to be seriously punished by the council lords, deserves attention. The latter had the power to penalize within Luckenwalde and collected the fines in the form of money payments. A bailiff appointed by the monastery was allowed to intervene in the punishment of violent criminals and agitators. The council, for its part, was assisted in the supervision of the municipal regulations by “Stadt Knechte” (“town bailiffs”) whose task was, among other things, to teach strangers the customs and regulations in Luckenwalde.
After the dissolution of Zinna Monastery in 1553, Luckenwalde remained under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg and was administered by a governor. He took over the high jurisdiction from the monastery, while the Luckenwalde council retained the lower jurisdiction, which had already been confirmed by Archbishop Günther in 1430.[10] The population of Luckenwalde increased in the 16th century, as can be seen from the expansion of the Jüterboger Vorstadt in the mid-16th century in a southwesterly direction and later from the emergence of the Trebbin suburbia in the north.[11] Despite the manorial transformations, older economic branches of the monastery, such as wine-growing, were preserved. It was continued by a wine lords’ guild founded in 1556 under municipal sponsorship.[12] Beer brewing also remained an important part of Luckenwalde’s economy, as evidenced by the mention of the brewers’ guild in 1608. This clearly demonstrates the continuity of the urban development of Luckenwalde, which finally fell to Brandenburg in 1680, from the Middle Ages to the early modern period.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow: Luckenwalde. Under Monastic Authority from Village to Small Town, 29.06.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/luckenwalde/
Footnotes:
[1] Sascha Bütow, Verkehrsraum Fläming in überlandschaftlichen Konturen. Spätmittelalterliche Wegelenkung, Straßenbaumaßnahmen und historische Kartographie, in Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 151 (2015), pp. 275–290, here p. 277.
[2] Fritz Geisthardt, Luckenwalde, in Handbuch der historischen Stätten Deutschlands, Vol. 10: Berlin und Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich, Stuttgart 19953, pp. 271–273, here p. 271.
[3] Magdeburg, Landesarchiv Sachsen-Anhalt Abt. Magdeburg, Rep. A 2, no. 988, fol. 7v.
[4] Oliver H. Schmidt and Dirk Schumann, Zinna. Zisterzienser, in Brandenburgisches Klosterbuch. Handbuch der Klöster, Stifte und Kommenden bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, vol. 2, edited by Heinz-Dieter Heimann, Klaus Neitmann and Winfried Schich, Berlin 2007, pp. 1359–1384, here p. 1367.
[5] Same as note 2, p. 272.
[6] Rudolf Lehmann (reviser), Quellen zur Geschichte der Niederlausitz, part 2, Cologne/Viena 1976, annex no. 3, p. 110.
[7] Cf. on this the entry in the fragmentary handed down chronicle of the monastery Zinna by Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series D, vol. 1, Berlin 1862, no. 12, pp. 296-297.
[8] Willi Hoppe, Eine mittelalterliche Leinewebergilde in Luckenwalde, in Forschungen zur brandenburgisch-preußischen Geschichte 24 (1911), pp. 529–546.
[9] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 11, Berlin 1857, no. 259, p. 472.
[10] Peter P. Rohrlach (reviser), Historisches Ortslexikon für Brandenburg. Part X: Jüterbog-Luckenwalde, Weimar 1997, p. 312.
[11] Same as note 2, p. 272.
[12] Roland Fröhlich, Die Zisterzienser und ihre Weinberge in Brandenburg, Berlin 2010, p. 191.
Images:
Fig. 1: Magdeburg, Zentrum für Mittelalterausstellungen, Section of the map “Long-distance trade routes in central Germany from the 13th to the 16th century”.cartography: G. Pápay
Fig. 2 and 3: Wikimedia Commons, photo: Jörgen Kosche
Fig. 4: Wikimedia Commons, photo: Knorrepoes
Town Law and Constitutional Development between Town Fire and Beer War
Gardelegen, which was founded in the west of the Altmark east of the Milde River, had an important position within the medieval trade traffic. Brunswick, Lüneburg, Magdeburg, Salzwedel and Stendal were the nearest major trading partners, through which further connections led to the Hanseatic, Central and East German regions. The crossroads formed in this way in Gardelegen allowed the local market traffic to flourish and favored the emergence of an urban community. It remains unclear when exactly this community was constituted and at what point in time it received its town law However, the manorial circumstances suggest that the Ascanians played an important role as promoters since Gardelegen belonged to them after 1160.[1]
More meaningful sources on the town’s legal history are only available from the time of the 13th century. As can be traced back to the year 1241, Gardelegen had been ravaged by a town fire, which had led to severe destruction. Thus, among other things, the town hall, which was also used as a trading store, had to be rebuilt with shacks and sales stalls. The margraves Johann and Otto, known in the history of Brandenburg as founders and sponsors of towns, then granted Gardelegen various privileges such as exemption from customs duties and free logging. As part of their privilege, they also addressed legal concerns by having suing citizens bring their concerns before the town bailiff, who then had to decide according to Gardelegen’s town customs (consuetudines ciuitatis).[2] With this, a reference is made to the town law valid in Gardelegen, the character of which, however, is not elaborated at this point. However, another document, with which the margraves Johann, Otto and Konrad confirmed the Magdeburg law to the town of Prenzlau in 1278, brings clarity regarding the customs applicable in Gardelegen. Thus, in the Prenzlau document, it is emphasized that the local citizens may use the same rights as the citizens of Stendal and Gardelegen had. As it is added, the latter were guided by the customary legal practices in Magdeburg.[3] This explicit description regarding the two Altmark towns of the transfer of the town law to Prenzlau is only understandable if one assumes that settlers from Stendal and Gardelegen participated in this in a decisive manner.[4]
Fig. 1: Stendaler Straße in Gardelegen. In the Middle Ages, numerous legal ties existed between Stendal and Gardelegen (postcard from the 1930s).
The town law of Gardelegen, which is called “jus Ciuitatis Gardelege”[5] in another document from 1290, may have had a close relation to the law of the town of Stendal. This is supported not only by the Prenzlau document mentioned above but also by the fact that the Gardelegen council used a template from Stendal in 1327 when drafting legal statutes for the guild of furriers.[6] This was probably preceded by an agreement between the two towns. There was also a reference to Stendal in 1316 when Margrave Woldemar transferred the sovereign Schulzengericht (sheriff court) to the Gardelegen council.[7] The fundamental principles associated with this were to be determined by the modalities prevailing in Stendal: “eo modo, quo in Ciuitate stendal tenetur et regitur.”[8]
In addition to Stendal, the other larger towns of the Altmark remained important allies for the Gardelegen council throughout the late Middle Ages. This was particularly apparent in 1321, when uncertain times dawned with the extinction of the Brandenburg Ascanians. For this reason, the town of Gardelegen, together with surrounding nobles, margravial vassals, the town’s aldermen and the entire citizenry, participated in an alliance with the towns of Stendal, Salzwedel, Tangermünde, Osterburg, Seehausen, Werben and all other estates of the Altmark. The aim of the agreement was to protect the legal security of all partners involved – a task originally belonging to the sovereign. This alliance was followed by other alliances, such as an agreement concluded in 1392 between Stendal, Gardelegen, Tangermünde, Osterburg and Werben, which opposed the influence and power of ecclesiastical courts. This was intended to bring justice to every citizen of the above-mentioned towns who had been unjustly accused, which in the case of an appeal could even go so far as to have a delegated councilor of each town ride to Stendal to advocate a settlement of the legal dispute there.[9]
Fig. 2: A Roland figure in Gardelegen is first mentioned in 1450. A wooden version may have existed as early as the 14th century. A Roland figure made in Königslutter am Elm was destroyed in 1526 and re-erected in 1564. This figure was also destroyed in a town fire in 1727. The present statue was unveiled in 2002.
In order to protect its civic and municipal rights, Gardelegen thus integrated itself into a mutual network of Altmark towns characterized by declarations of loyalty and support. However, the raids and robberies on the trade routes, which had been increasing since the end of the 14th century, posed a great challenge to these urban alliances. For example, a report sent to the Lüneburg council in 1394 by the knight Heinrich von Veltheim as the legally appointed escort lord of Bodenteich states that two noblemen had attacked a convoy of wagons from Gardelegen, shot several horses and finally stolen significant quantities of merchandise.[10] Furthermore, a report made in 1436 testifies to the fact that in the whole Altmark there were raids, robberies and pillages on the roads, which caused especially merchants and pilgrims to suffer. In the same year, Gardelegen renewed its alliance with the towns of the Altmark. They swore to each other that they would not harbor the peace-breakers but that they would use all their forces to get them. Since this mutual assurance “vp des rikes vnd vser hern strate” was to apply to merchants, pilgrims and pious people[11], it becomes evident that the community of towns herewith clearly claimed for itself sovereign and royal duties to secure the peace of the land. Without a doubt, this is clear evidence of the demand for autonomy of Gardelegen and the other Altmark towns, which was typical for the time. The lack of power of the king and the Brandenburg sovereign allowed such a civic evolvement.
Fig. 3: Town Hall of Gardelegen.
On the other hand, the councilors of the town of Gardelegen were also made aware of the limits of their manorial aspirations. Like all urban municipalities in the Middle Ages, Gardelegen also sought to expand its possessions outside of its own town precincts. This succeeded, for example, with the acquisition of a grove near the village of Berge in 1337, which Hein von Rochow, as a vassal of Duke Otto von Braunschweig, ceded to the town.[12] However, this property was contested by a vassal of the von Alvensleben family named Harneyd Melk in the middle of the 15th century, since he owned the village of Berge as a fief and claimed the right to have grass mowed on the grove of the town of Gardelegen. After lengthy disputes with the vassal, the councilors of Gardelegen turned to the Magdeburg aldermen with the request for a legal ruling. They thought that they had a very good chance of winning the case by presenting the deed of sale issued in 1337 to the magistrates. The Magdeburg verdict confirmed the possession of the grove to the town of Gardelegen but, at the same time, emphasized that the citizens had not forbidden the feudal lord of the village of Berge to mow the property for more than thirty years and therefore had a right to use it. As long as Harneyd Melk did not break the law, he was allowed to continue mowing the grass. The Magdeburg aldermen, however, prohibited him from using the wood, which was to remain unrestrictedly with the town of Gardelegen.
The aldermen’s verdict received from Magdeburg also yielded no success in other respects. It did not succeed in bringing about an agreement between the parties to the dispute. On the contrary, the conflicts with Harneyd Melk continued under his son Werner and could only be legally settled in 1488 with the involvement of the von Alvensleben family.[13] This also reveals a characteristic of the Magdeburg aldermen’s verdicts. Their implementation was anything but self-evident. The question whether they were actually complied with depended much more on the willingness of the parties to the dispute to reach a consensus and to cooperate.
Towards the end of the 15th century, Gardelegen’s citizens also came into conflict with the Brandenburg sovereign, which was not without constitutional consequences. The background to this was the so-called Beer War, a dispute over the excise tax (Bierziese) levied on beer by Elector Johann and the Landtag (state parliament). Especially the towns in the Altmark region, including Gardelegen, feared heavy economic losses and unlawful paternalism and therefore put up armed resistance against the sovereign.[14] However, the rebellion was unsuccessful so that in Gardelegen, too, tempers calmed down, and the local citizens, including the mayor and council, agreed to a consensus with Elector John. The compromise that was reached, however, gave the Brandenburg sovereign the permanent right to “einen Newen Rat alhie zu Gardelege szu setzenn” (“appoint a new council in Gardelegen”) in case he did not agree with the town’s own choice of candidates.[15] Thus, the citizens of Gardelegen had to accept a severe restriction of their self-government rights. Nevertheless, this reflects a typical tendency of the elector’s urban policy in late medieval Brandenburg, which strove to integrate the civic communities more closely into the emerging sovereignty of the state.
Fig. 4: Salzwedel Gate in Gardelegen, part of the town’s historic fortification ring.
In this way, the reference of the local legal history also remained closely connected with the Brandenburg elector. This is also illustrated by an interesting document from 1505, according to which there was displeasure in Gardelegen about the filling of the municipal council seat. The council was keen to recruit reliable people for this position. However, when the selection was made, it often turned out that the candidates in question refused and withdrew, “dadurch die gericht geschwecht vnnd dem gemeynen Nutz nachteyll vnnd schad entsteht” (“thereby harming the court and the common good”).[16] Apparently, the Gardelegen council itself did not have sufficient means of power to prevent this, so that it only had a request for help to Elector Joachim and his brother Albrecht. The latter, by virtue of their power as margraves of Brandenburg, determined that the aldermen elected in Gardelegen had to exercise their office and were not allowed to resist. In case of a refusal, both princes threatened them with the loss of their civil right.
Fig. 5: Elector John of Brandenburg, engraving from Brandenburgischer Ceder-Hein (1682) by Johann Wolfgang Rentsch.
Between the early town fire in the 13th century and the civic revolt against the Brandenburg elector displayed towards the end of the 15th century in the context of the Beer War, many exciting legal-historical facets can be observed in Gardelegen, which should be given more attention in future research.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow: Gardelegen. Town Law and Constitutional Development between Town Fire and Beer War, 11.12.2020, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/gardelegen/
Footnotes:
[1] Cf. Lutz Partenheimer, Albrecht der Bär. Gründer der Mark Brandenburg und des Fürstentums Anhalt. 2nd edition Potsdam 2016, p. 193.
[2] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 6, no. CXV, Berlin 1846, p. 87.
[3] Ibid., vol. 21, no. VIII, Berlin 1861, pp. 93–94.
[4] On the foundation of Prenzlau with the participation of possible settlers from the Altmark cf. Schich, Winfried, Prenzlau von der Stadtwerdung bis zum Ende der Askanierherrschaft (von der zweiten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts bis 1320), in Geschichte der Stadt Prenzlau, edited by Klaus Neitmann and Winfried Schich, Horb am Neckar 2009, pp. 27–62.
[5] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 6, no. CXVII, Berlin 1846, p. 89.
[6] Ibid., no. CXXVIV, pp. 96–97.
[7] Heiner Lück, Stadtrechte in der Altmark – ein Überblick, in Sachsen und Anhalt 32 (2020), pp. 41–77, here p. 71.
[8] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 6, no. CXXV, p. 94.
[9] Cf. ibid., no. CXLVII, pp. 105–106.
[10] Hans Friedrich Georg Julius Sudendorf (ed.), Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Herzöge von Braunschweig und Lüneburg und ihrer Lande. Vol. VII: Vom Jahre 1390 bis zum Jahre 1394. Hannover 1871, p. 317.
[11] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 6, no. CLXVIII, pp. 120–121, here p. 120.
[12] Adolf Parisius, 4 Urkunden aus dem Ratsarchiv der Stadt Gardelegen, in Jahresbericht des Altmärkischen Vereins 20 (1884), pp. 11-22, here no. 3, pp. 17–18.
[13] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 6, no. CCXIV, pp. 152–153.
[14] Felix Escher, Die Mark Brandenburg unter den frühen Askaniern. Eine historische Einführung, in: Die Mark Brandenburg unter den frühen Hohenzollern. Beiträge zu Geschichte, Kunst und Architektur im 15. Jahrhundert. Edited by Peter Knüvener and Dirk Schuhmann. Berlin 2015, pp. 17–34, especially p. 33.
[15] Riedel, Adolf Friedrich (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 6, no. CCXII, pp. 149–151, here p. 149.
[16] Ibid., no. CCXX, pp. 157–158, here p. 157.
Images:
Fig. 1: zeno.org (gemeinfrei)
Fig. 2: Wikimedia Commons (Attribution-Share Alike 3.0), photo: Dr. Minx
Fig. 3: Wikimedia Commons (Attribution-Share Alike 4.0), photo: J.-H. Janßen
Fig. 4: Wikimedia Commons (Attribution-Share Alike 4.0), photo: Spreepaula
Fig. 5: Magdeburg, Kulturhistorisches Museum, Bibliothek, Sig. G 0254
Medieval City Development – Bridgehead, Seat of Power and Resolute Civic Community
In historical retrospect, the small town of Fürstenberg, located on the Oder River, is often overshadowed by the immediately neighboring Eisenhüttenstadt, which was systematically created in the mid-1950s as the first socialist planned city. Fürstenberg, which had been independent for centuries, was then incorporated as an urban district into the new and larger settlement. However, this modern development should not hide the fact that in the Middle Ages, Fürstenberg held an important position in the middle Oder region as a market town with customs and other municipal rights. The following explanations would like to take a look at the resulting role of Fürstenberg as a bridgehead and seat of power and also include the development of a resolute civic community according to Magdeburg law.
Fig. 1: Fürstenberg an der Oder. Since the Middle Ages, the town’s location on the river has been a cornerstone of its economy. The townspeople benefited from shipping, fishing, customs duties, and ferry services (detail from a postcard, 1903).
Fürstenberg, which was already small in the Middle Ages, is located about 30 kilometers south of Frankfurt (Oder). Thus, the settlement had a connection to an important traffic route because the Oder formed one of the most important trade routes for the traffic coming from Brandenburg, Lusatia and Silesia into the Hanseatic area. The resulting trade relations attracted especially the Pomeranian Szczecin. Numerous traffic tensions arose over this, which thus also made Fürstenberg an important stage point of the Oder traffic. However, the urban community, which had been gradually forming since the second half of the 13th century, could not prevail against the powerful Frankfurt, which held the dominant position in the middle Oder region. Nevertheless, it is very likely that already in Slavic times, there was a fortified complex or castle in Fürstenberg, which underlined the importance of the settlement.[1] From there, the monitoring of the traffic by land and by water took place.
Moreover, through sovereign privileges, a central traffic location was created in Fürstenberg in a typical manner. In early urban times, the margraves of Meissen from the Wettin dynasty were responsible for this process. A customs office originating from them is documented for the first time in 1286.[2] 40 years later, a customs officer working in Fürstenberg was documented to have illegally charged the merchants of Guben with customs payments. This resulted in a serious admonition from Brandenburg’s Margrave Johann and his mother, Duchess Anna of Breslau, as the merchants from Guben were able to invoke customs exemptions.[3] The fact that a ferry was located here also speaks for the great significance of Fürstenberg in the history of transportation. According to a document dating from 1335, this important infrastructural facility was “der stat rechte gut”[4] (“the justified right of the state”). which is a reference to the town law of Fürstenberg. This was based on the legal norms of Magdeburg, as a document from 1331 indicates. According to the text of the document, the citizens of Fürstenberg asked their town lord Abbot Johann von Neuzelle to confirm the validity of the Magdeburg law. As can be deduced, this had been valid in Fürstenberg since ancient times (ab antiquo). However, the citizens insisted on a deviation from the usual regulation in Magdeburg concerning the extent of the inheritance of a widow, which is only mentioned in general terms in the document. With regard to Heiner Lück’s research, this may well be considered typical, for it was, as in Fürstenberg, above all the law of inheritance that “was shaped in the city laws in a manner specific to the location.”[5]
Fig. 2: Neuzelle Abbey. From 1316, the abbot and convent held the town of Fürstenberg. They were forced to sell it to Emperor Charles IV in 1370 and sought to reacquire it in 1406.
All in all, the regulations of the Fürstenberg town charter provided the basis for the town to be a compulsory point of traffic, which applied mainly to those who did not have the corresponding customs exemptions. The town thus had an effect on the surrounding countryside via its rights, and in doing so it focused in particular on river traffic. There is no doubt that Fürstenberg was very attractive. It offered its owner the possibility of access to the Oder and a by no means insignificant marketplace, where a considerable amount of customs revenue flowed together. Not least from this perspective, the acquisition of the small town by the Neuzelle monastery in 1316 can be comprehended. The connection to the traffic on the Oder and a market for the surpluses generated within the own manor were, therefore, also for the monastery of Neuzelle important intentions connected with the acquisition of Fürstenberg. The monks also ensured free passage from one bank of the Oder River to the other for themselves and their tenants in Fürstenberg.[6] During the course of the 14th century, the Fürstenberg citizenry, for its part, advocated an expansion of municipal rights and privileges. In 1350, for example, they obtained further exemptions from customs duties in the Margravian region from Margrave Ludwig of Brandenburg.
Thus, from an infrastructural point of view, Fürstenberg was anything but a “tabula rasa” when Karl IV very probably urged the Neuzelle monastery to sell him the “stetyl” (“small town”), as it was called, in 1370. This acquisition of Fürstenberg is documented on the one hand by a deed, but also by the chronicle of Benesch von Weitmühl. In the latter, it says about the year 1370 that Karl bought a small town on the Oder in the Lusatia region, which was called Fürstenberg and was located near Frankfurt. There, he built a castle very close to the river and also fortified the town. In addition, Karl had a bridge built over the Oder. During all these construction measures, the emperor himself was in Fürstenberg to inspect their progress.[7]
If one assesses these statements of the Bohemian chronicler, it must first be noted that Karl by no means had a castle built from scratch. As already mentioned, there was already a fortified manorial site there. On the contrary, Karl seemed to have made extensions and changes. The aforementioned bridge construction did not seem to have been massive either since this structure is not being referred to after Karl. At least, however, it seemed to have actually existed. This is indicated by a document of the ruling margrave Otto von Wittelsbach from 1371. In this document, the Brandenburg sovereign complained that Karl IV had broken his word and his covenant and, to make matters worse, had built a bridge, by which he meant the one in Fürstenberg. The margrave made it unmistakably clear that this was “wider vnszern vnd vnszer Lande willen” (“against our will and our country’s will”).[8] This clearly indicates that in 1370/71, the Brandenburg side was observing the events in Fürstenberg very closely. For Karl, this all but inconspicuous place offered an important bridgehead through which he could reach the Mark from Bohemia and Silesia. At the same time, he snubbed the powerful city of Frankfurt, which in its history had several times acted against competing Oder crossings to protect its own staple and city rights. Karl apparently consciously exploited this situation in terms of power politics by exerting pressure on Brandenburg with the increasingly expanding Fürstenberg, the acquisition of which was becoming ever more obvious to him and which he actually succeeded in acquiring a little later. Thus, Fürstenberg became anything but quiet. The place remained significant for Karl. Still, in 1371, after the acquisition of the town, he had confirmed the rights of the citizenship in a typical way. In 1374, for his part, he endowed the Fürstenbergers with trading and traffic rights by waiving customs and escort duties “in navigio vel curribus” (“by ship and wagon”) for their goods to be transported through the Mark Brandenburg.[9] The sovereign interests in Fürstenberg were represented by a captain appointed by Karl, who is still mentioned in 1390 in the context of a dispute about the borders running between the town and the village of Vogelsang.[10]
Fig. 3: Monument to Emperor Charles IV in Tangermünde. The renowned Luxembourg ruler developed Fürstenberg as part of his efforts to acquire the Margraviate of Brandenburg. Following his purchase of the margraviate in 1373, he shifted the focus of his rule to Tangermünde for a time.
If, on the other hand, one takes a final look at what Karl left behind in Fürstenberg after his death, it is striking that the Neuzelle monastery obviously made a sustained effort to reacquire the town. Under the rule of Margrave Jobst of Moravia, this succeeded in 1406[11], again opening the door for new local planning. As already mentioned, nothing else is known about the bridge erected by Karl in the 15th century. From the Neuzell inheritance register, which was compiled in the first half of the 15th century and has been handed down in fragments, it can be discovered that the monks had secured the Oder crossing located at Fürstenberg “ane mite” (“at the middle”) and “ummesuͤst” (“for free”) on the basis of old conventions, which suggests a continued operation of the ferry, which was under municipal law.[12] The customs in Fürstenberg, on the other hand, became an object of manorial commercialization at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries. Thus, half of the fees to be paid went into the hereditary possession of Nickel Krebs, a citizen of Guben, with the right to resell the customs.[13] The father of Nickel Krebs had already possessed a similar right. This illustrates the great influence of the city of Guben on the Oder trade leading to Pomerania.
Thus, Fürstenberg remained an important stage for this trade even after Karl. As can be seen from a confession of the Sprottau council from 1483, the local merchants also played an active role in this trade.[14] The merchants had confirmed that they embarked their goods in Crossen on the Oder according to old traditions and transported them either overland or further by water to Pomerania. In this connection, they had always paid the usual customs duty not only in Frankfurt but also in Fürstenberg. The legal city, which was organized according to the Magdeburg model, thus inserted itself beyond the Middle Ages as an important marketplace into the network of urban communities of the middle Oder region.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow: Fürstenberg (Oder). Medieval City Development – Bridgehead, Seat of Power and Resolute Civic Community, 27.07.2020, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/furstenberg-oder/
Footnotes:
[1] Lehmann, Rudolf, Fürstenberg a. d. Oder, in Handbuch der historischen Stätten, vol. 10: Berlin und Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich. 3rd edition Stuttgart 1995, pp. 192–193, here p. 192.
[2] Theuner, Emil (ed.), Urkundenbuch des Klosters Neuzelle und seiner Besitzer, Lübben 1897, no. 7, p. 7.
[3] Ibid., no. 20, p. 15.
[4] Ibid., no. 41, p. 27.
[5] Lück, Heiner, Stadtrechte in der Altmark – ein Überblick, in Sachsen und Anhalt 32 (2020), pp. 41–77, here p. 63.
[6] UB Neuzelle (same as note 2), no. 41, p. 29.
[7] Bütow, Sascha, Die Hanse im Blick. Verkehrsplanung und Wegelenkung Karls IV. im Umfeld der Erwerbung der Mark Brandenburg im Jahr 1373, in Karl IV. Ein Kaiser in Brandenburg, edited by Jan Richter, Peter Knüvener and Kurt Winkler, Potsdam 2016, pp. 61–65.
[8] Riedel, Adolf Friedrich, Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series B, vol. 2, no. MCXV, pp. 509–511, here p. 509.
[9] UB Neuzelle (same as note 2), no. 69, p. 49.
[10] Ibid., no. 77, pp. 53-54.
[11] Ibid., no. 86, pp. 59-60.
[12] Ibid., annex no. 1, p. 117.
[13] Ibid., no. 137, p. 89.
[14] Ibid., no. 113a, pp. 115-116.
Images:
Fig. 1: zeno.org
Fig. 2: photo: Peter Kuley, 2012
Fig. 3: Zentrum für Mittelalterausstellungen, photo: Martin Müller
Of Miracle Blood and Town Fires – Beelitz in the Middle Ages
Even though the asparagus town of Beelitz may rank among the oldest cities in the Mark Brandenburg, much about its medieval history remains obscure. Many important sources on the town’s history fell victim to fires that ravaged the town, especially in the 15th and 16th centuries. The development of the settlement can thus only be traced in outline. And yet it becomes evident that there is more to Beelitz than the famous asparagus and the infamous sanatoriums.
The first recorded mention of Beelitz is a document issued by Emperor Otto III in 997, in which the Burgward Belizi was transferred to the Archbishopric of Magdeburg. For a long time, it was disputed whether this was Beelitz or Belzig, which is about 30 kilometers away. Both communities still claim this mention on their websites. Researchers have long held the view that the document refers to Beelitz, and recent archaeological excavations have provided evidence of a castle – previously only assumed – within the Slavic settlement of the early Middle Ages directly on the banks of the Nieplitz. With this material proof, the identification of Belizi with Beelitz can be considered certain. The location of the Burgward in the immediate vicinity of the river also fits the place name, which comes from the Slavic and means something like “settlement in a swampy area”.
The fate of the castle and the settlement remains unknown for the next 200 years after the first reference. Beelitz is mentioned a second time only in a document of the year 1216, which, however, does not concern the Slavic settlement and the castle but a newly developed settlement north of it. The ground plan of this new settlement under the old name can still be seen today in the townscape. The old town, located in the south of the present municipality, has the shape of an irregular rectangle, which is frequently observed in founding towns of the late 12th and early 13th centuries. It is also completely enclosed by the “Mauerstraße” (“Wall Street”), whose name refers to the former existence of a town wall on this site. Neither this nor the gates mentioned in various documents have survived to the present day.
Fig. 1: Town layout with Mauerstraße. The medieval structures are still recognizable today (Map: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Städte mit historischen Stadtkernen des Landes Brandenburg, Working Group of Towns with Historic Town Centers of the State of Brandenburg).
Which political actors were behind the emergence of the “new” Beelitz cannot be said with certainty. It is assumed that initially, the Counts of Belzig exercised rule over the town and were responsible for the establishment of the new settlement. It is claimed that around 1200, the archbishopric of Magdeburg came into possession of Beelitz, and about a hundred years later Beelitz came under the rule of the Ascanians. However, these are assumptions of the research. It is attested that there were connections between Beelitz and Magdeburg, and that at the end of the 13th century, the town was in the ownership of the Brandenburg Ascanians, who were also margraves at that time.
With the extinction of this Ascanian line in 1320, a turbulent period of changing rulership began for Beelitz, as for the entire Mark. An interregnum was followed by margraves from the houses of the Wittelsbach, Luxembourg and Hohenzollern; conflicts arose in which Beelitz was naturally also involved. Thereby, the town and its citizens acted self-confidently, indeed, for example, in the episode about the false Woldemar. In the middle of the 14th century, this charlatan claimed to be the Margrave of Ascan, who had supposedly died 50 years earlier and claimed the rule over the Mark Brandenburg for himself. Many towns and even the Emperor believed him or at least pretended to believe him and recognized his claims – but not Beelitz, which remained as one of a few towns on the side of the incumbent Margrave Ludwig!
How the town would have developed if it had not fallen victim to frequent conflagrations can hardly be guessed. It was first set on fire in 1478 by Brandenburg troops, who wanted to liberate the town conquered by armies of John II of Sagan, and then, especially in the 16th century, there were repeated major fire catastrophes. These left their mark on the urban topography and destroyed a large part of the written, recorded documentation – another reason why little can be said about the history of the town of Beelitz in the Middle Ages, and why this epoch has hardly been preserved in the townscape.
Fig. 1: Town layout with Mauerstraße. The medieval structures are still recognizable today.
Only the town church of St. Mary and St. Nicholas, the core of which dates back to a 13th-century building, is an exception here. At the same time, it is closely connected with the probably most famous episode of medieval history in Beelitz, the so-called Miracle Blood. According to a document dated 1247, there had been a host desecration followed by a miracle caused by God. Blood leaked from the desecrated host, and this divine sign became the starting point of a regionally significant pilgrimage. Every pilgrim who would visit the town on the feast day of the Assumption was promised an indulgence of 40 days. A building was specially erected at the scene of the event, the so-called Miracle Blood Chapel. Although it was located in the immediate vicinity of the town church, it was initially structurally separate from it, but today, after various building conversions, it forms the northwest corner of St. Mary and St. Nicholas. The pilgrimage to the Miracle Blood in Beelitz existed until the Reformation. According to research, the beginnings of the pilgrimage are not to be placed in the middle of the 13th century, as the document, which is a later forgery, but they must be dated probably about 100 years later.
At the same time, the Miracle Blood episode directs the attention to the internal conditions of the town of Beelitz in the Middle Ages. Since, for later historians, it was certain that only Jews could have committed the host desecration, more recent research deduced that there must have been a Jewish community in Beelitz in the middle of the 13th century. This, in turn, led to the conclusion that the town must have had some economic importance because otherwise no Jews would have settled here. This thesis cannot be sustained, and a Jewish community is only reliably documented in the 18th century.
But what can be said at all about the economy and trade in the town of Beelitz in the Middle Ages? Surprisingly little, one will find out. Guilds of craftsmen, for example, are not testified for the Middle Ages, even though there were certainly various trades in the town. The town’s citizens seemed to have lived primarily from agriculture, and there were many feudal citizens who may have belonged to the town’s upper class. Beelitz seems to have been important as a trading town only in a regional context, although it had a lot of potential from the point of view of traffic topography. Its location on essential traffic routes may even have been the reason for the advancement of the town in the 12th and 13th centuries: A west-east route, which led from Belzig via Beelitz to Trebbin and possibly influenced the establishment of the new settlement. A little later, however, Beelitz became important as a staging post on a travelway connecting Berlin and Leipzig. The citizens of the town were not only responsible for the maintenance of the roads and the safety of the travelers, but there were also stipulations that travelers had to stop in Beelitz. Despite this exposed location, Beelitz did not develop into a place of trade of supra-regional importance, and there remained just a street market that fulfilled local needs. The holding of a large and small fair in the town is recorded in documents.
Similarly, little can be said about the internal urban conditions. The preserved documents – many testimonies that would have provided deeper insight have probably fallen victim to the various destructions of the city – indeed reveal the constitution but not concrete processes. Councilors, attested since the early 14th century, and mayors, first mentioned in 1373, only appear as representatives of the town in major political situations, such as town confirmations, on the occasion of tributes, and in alliance, legal and financial matters. More details, for example about the persons or their activities in the town, are not to be found. The same applies to the law in force and spoken in Beelitz. In the documents, the old rights and customs of the town are confirmed more often, but what exactly they consisted of is not clear. The existence of a Schulz (sheriff), who was responsible for the town’s jurisdiction, is attested, but no example of his work has been handed down. It is known that in 1463 the town court was transferred to the bailiff of Trebbin – certainly a bitter loss for Beelitz – but this does not allow any insight into the legal reality. The validity of Magdeburg law in Beelitz is also not explicitly testified, but general observations, such as the change of councilors, and the relations that existed between Beelitz and Magdeburg in the Middle Ages, indicate this.
Fig. 2: Protestant town church of St. Mary and St. Nicholas in Beelitz
Thus, the medieval history of the town of Beelitz becomes evident in many areas only in outlines. The picture that emerges testifies to a settlement that was concerned about the preservation of its rights and its privileges and in which a citizen community developed that positioned itself independently and self-confidently. What life was like in the town itself during this period, on the other hand, is hard to discern, and most of the information about it has probably fallen victim to the flames that too often ravaged the town.
Author: Michael Belitz
Citation:
Michael Belitz, Beelitz. Of Miracle Blood and Town Fires – Beelitz in the Middle Ages, 09.12.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/beelitz/
Further Reading:
Helmut Assing, Beelitz im Mittelalter, in 1000 Jahre Beelitz – 750 Jahre Stadt Beelitz, edited by Stadtverwaltung Beelitz, Mering 1997, pp. 26-47.
Sascha Bütow, Verkehrsraum Fläming in überlandschaftlichen Konturen. Spätmittelalterliche Wegelenkung, Straßenbaumaßnahmen und historische Kartographie, in Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 151 (2015), pp. 275–290.
Dieter Hoffmann-Axthelm, Das Wunderblut von Beelitz, in Die Wilsnackfahrt. Ein Wallfahrts- und Kommunikationszentrum Nord- und Mitteleuropas im Spätmittelalter, edited by Felix Escher and Hartmut Kühne (= Europäische Wallfahrtsstudien 2), Frankfurt on the Main 2006, pp. 199–233.
Tilo Köhn and Lutz Partenheimer, Beelitz und Belzig im Streit um eine Tausendjahrfeier. Ein Beitrag zur Ostpolitik Kaiser Ottos III. im Jahre 997, Potsdam, Fichtenwalde 1996.
Lutz Partenheimer, Beelitz, in Städtebuch Brandenburg und Berlin, edited by Evamaria Engel et al. (= Deutsches Städtebuch, new edition, vol. 2), Stuttgart, Cologne, Berlin 200, pp. 26–30.
Images:
Fig. 2: Wikimedia Commons, photo: A. Savin
A small town in rigorous noble hands
In the first half of the 13th century, the two margraves Johann I and Otto III, known within Brandenburg’s regional history as founders of towns, intensified their rule in Barnim, located northeast and east of Berlin. In particular, this included the patronage of towns, as the so-called Margrave’s Chronicle (Chronica Marchionum Brandenburgensium) from the end of the 13th century states: “[…] Berlin, Strausberg, Frankfurt, Neu Tangermünde (Angermünde), Stolpe, Liebenwalde, Stargard, Neubrandenburg and many other places were built by them. Among the latter was Altlandsberg, which was originally in Margravial hands and is first mentioned indirectly in 1257 by the naming of Landsberg at the Warthe (Landisberch Nova) as the older of the two towns of the same name.”[1] With the Margravial city rule, Altlandsberg had very likely adopted the Brandenburg law related to the Magdeburg law, which provided a basis for establishing connections with other cities.
Fig. 1: Well-fortified tower of the medieval Strausberger Gate in Altlandsberg
In this way, the Altlandsberg council participated in alliances of towns that concerned mutual protection, the preservation of municipal rights, and the safety of the roads. The coalition of 23 towns in Brandenburg and Lower Lusatia, which was founded in Berlin by delegates from Altlandsberg, became important after the Ascanian Margraves died out in 1321.[2] With this alliance, the towns took responsibility for the cohesion of Brandenburg against the weakening Margravial power and swore to protect it and each other. This is a clear indication of the urban autonomy of Brandenburg towns in the 14th century, which also applied to Altlandsberg.[3] Another right that the council and citizens received from Margrave Ludwig the Roman belongs in this context. He ordered that the citizens of Altlandsberg could no longer be accused before foreign courts, as had often happened before in uncertain times but only before the municipal court.[4] This privilege supported the self-confident attitude of the Altlandsberg council, which, however, it had to forfeit again at the beginning of the 15th century.
The reason for this was the sale of the town by Margrave Jost to the von Krummensee family in 1409. Thus, the latter also came into possession of the nearby Margravial castle, so that the von Krummensee family was henceforth considered to be castle-owning, which gave them an important position within Brandenburg’s noble society. For the town of Altlandsberg, on the other hand, the change of rulership signified a mediatization, in that it was no longer directly subject to the Margrave but to a noble family that was strongly branched out in the Barnim region and beyond. The members of this family often appropriated civic and communal properties with no regard to municipal rights. Several representatives of the von Krummensee family also lived in the town, accessing its woodlands and agricultural land, but without sharing in municipal expenses and duties. In addition, numerous conflicts developed between the members of the family living in and around Altlandsberg, which also caused significant damage to the citizenry and its rights.
Fig. 2: Coat of arms of the von Krummensee family, used in the 16th and 17th centuries (redrawing: Alexander Giertz)
Around 1500, the conflicts culminated in a legal dispute that could only be settled with the help of the Brandenburg sovereign. The town of Altlandsberg had been deprived of important municipal buildings such as the bathhouse and the oven. They were to be returned to the citizenry. In addition, it was agreed that members of the von Krummensee family could no longer acquire municipal goods and houses without the consent of the citizenry so that “dat Stedichen nicht geschwecht werde” (“The small town should not be weakened”).[5] Furthermore, Altlandsberg was to be protected in its rights and privileges. No violence was to be done to its inhabitants. Rather, the nobility was ordered to behave in a friendly and conducive manner towards the citizenry.
However, the relationship between the town and the noble family remained tense. In the wake of the Reformation, the von Krummensee intensified their rule, which now became apparent primarily in ecclesiastical matters. They concluded a contract with the provost of the Premonstratensian monastery of Gramzow, who was the patron of the Altlandsberg church, which allowed them to access the church revenues as well as the church land. On the basis of this contract, individual family members illegally extended their access to church lands and dues. As a result, a farm of the parish in the extent of four hectares came into the possession of the von Krummensee. They also occupied the rectory.[6] Nicolaus Leutinger, who was called to Altlandsberg by the electoral councilor Hans von Krummensee in the course of the Reformation, found out as the new Lutheran pastor that the church received “hardly the fifth part of the income”. His son, Nicolaus Leutinger the Younger, reported that “the Krummensees had illegally appropriated the remaining parts”, and it was only at the risk of his life that he [Nicolaus Leutinger the Elder, S.B.] had “regained” them.[7]
Fig. 3: Epitaph of Nikolaus Leutinger the Elder
Nevertheless, the council and citizens of Altlandsberg still had opportunities to articulate and enforce their legal claims. One way was through the Brandenburg sovereigns, who granted the town essential privileges. These included the right, granted in 1421 and confirmed again in 1481, to hold two large fairs, one 14 days before St. John’s Day (June 24) and the other 14 days before St. Martin’s Day (November 11).[8] In addition to this market right, the town of Altlandsberg was allowed to collect the so-called Damm- und Deichselpfennig (dam and drawbar penny) from transients, confirmed in a document in 1545 by Elector Joachim II. It was also he who, four years later, confirmed all rights and privileges to the council, the documentary evidence of which had been lost in a devastating town fire.
The cause of constant conflicts between the council and the city authorities continued to be public buildings in Altlandsberg, to which the von Krummensee laid claim. The council itself was partly to blame for this. For example, with the secularization of the Servite monastery located in the city in 1545, the council had made direct efforts to purchase the associated real estate, but had not acquired the monastery building itself.[9] Therefore, it was possible for Elector Joachim II to enfeoff Hans von Krummensee with the old monastery building. He also allowed him to purchase the property that had once belonged to the monastery, which led to a new legal dispute with the city. As a result, Arnd von Krummensee came into possession of the monastery site in 1570 and, having nowhere to live in Altlandsberg, converted it into a residential property.
In this way, Altlandsberg’s rights were further restricted in the 16th century. Disputes existed between the von Krummensee and the town council, especially regarding jurisdiction, the election of council persons and the use of wood. Since both parties were again unable to come to an agreement, the von Krummensee family tried to impose their interests by force. Under the pretext that the town was on the verge of open revolt, they attacked Altlandsberg in 1556 “together with 100 horsemen and a number of lansquenets”.[10] The disputes continued in the following period, so that Elector Joachim II issued a recess in 1568. In this, the council was granted the free election of the mayor or the councilmen “without a special request by the Junker [the von Krummensee family]”.[11] Independently of this, the von Krummensee family claimed upper and lower jurisdiction in the town. As far as access to the use of wood was concerned, the Elector ruled that the von Krummensee “should not need the wood of the town any differently than another citizen of Landsberg.” This put a stop to the unrestricted use of wood by the nobles. The family did not accept the provisions of the recess and again acted wantonly against the town by cutting down trees in the Landsberg heath. Thus, the von Krummensee repeatedly set narrow limits to the council’s policy, increasingly curtailing the city’s freedom.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow: Altlandsberg. A small town in rigorous noble hands, 30.06.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/altlandsberg/
Footnotes:
[1] On this Lutz Partenheimer, Die Entstehung der Mark Brandenburg, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2007, p. 11.
[2] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series B, vol. 1, no. 562, pp. 467-468.
[3] Cf. Jan Winkelmann, Die Mark Brandenburg des 14. Jahrhunderts. Markgräfliche Herrschaft zwischen räumlicher »Ferne« und politischer »Krise« (= Studien zur Brandenburgischen und vergleichenden Landesgeschichte 5), Berlin 2011, p. 171.
[4] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 12, Berlin 1857, no. 22, p. 498.
[5] Ibid., no. 15, pp. 60–63, here p. 62.
[6] Liselott Enders (editor), Historisches Ortslexikon für Brandenburg, vol. 6: Barnim, Weimar 1980, p. 301.
[7] Cited after J. Karl Fr. W. F. Gähde, Geschichte der Stadt Altlandsberg, Halle 1857, p. 288.
[8] Same as note 4, no. 4, pp. 50-51.
[9] Matthias Friske, Altlandsberg. Serviten, in, Brandenburgisches Klosterbuch. Handbuch der Klöster, Stifte und Kommenden bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1, edited by Heinz-Dieter Heimann, Klaus Neitmann and Winfried Schich, Berlin 2010, pp. 89–95, here p. 90.
[10] Alexander Giertz, Bausteine zu einer Geschichte des Barnim. Sowie seiner Dörfer Petershagen und Eggersdorf, Chronik nach Quellen, vol. 3: Nachbarorte, Petershagen 1903–1905, p. 8.
[11] Hansjoachim Alberts, Altlandsberg, in Zwischen Schorfheide und Spree. Heimatbuch des Kreises Niederbarnim, edited by Max Weiß and Max Rehberg, Berlin 1940, p. 315.
Images:
Fig. 1: Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons License 3.0)
Fig. 2: Alexander Giertz, Alt-Landsbergs Werdegang, der Servitenorden und sein einstiges märkisches Kloster in Alt-Landsberg, in Archiv der Brandenburgia 13 (1911), p. 332.
Fig. 3: Wikimedia Commons (Creative Commons License 3.0), photo: Marcus Cyron
A Small Town, which is Older than We Thought
Vetschau, which is located in the Spree Forest, does not exactly offer a multitude of sources that allow a precise tracing of the town’s legal history in the Middle Ages and beyond. This circumstance led to striking misconceptions within the history of the town, which have not been entirely dispelled to this day. The development of the marketplace Vetschau to a town, as far as the available sources allow it, is hereby illuminated anew.
Within the local history of Vetschau, the year 1548 is gaining increasing importance as the date of the supposed receipt of municipal rights. The basis for this is a document rediscovered[1] in 2005 issued by the Roman-German King Ferdinand, who was also King of Bohemia and thus also Margrave of Lower Lusatia. The powerful ruler granted Vetschau a new coat of arms after a previously suffered fire together with the right to hold a fair, which was to take place from now on Sundays after Ursula (October 21). It is an illuminated document, which contains in the middle a drawing of the coat of arms described in the text, but it is not quite accurate. This document, severely affected by bad storage, has been interpreted in the history of the town and the country as a municipal legal privilege, which is said to have taken place in 1548.[2]
Research in the current main statutes of Vetschau, among others, points to another year, namely 1543, in which Vetschau is supposed to have received the “formal town right”.[3] This information, however, lacks any source basis and is probably due to an error in the Historisches Ortslexikon für die Niederlausitz (Encyclopedia of Historical Places of Lower Lusatia). Here the mentioned document of Ferdinand is brought in connection with this date.[4] However, the editor of the work, Rudolf Lehmann, probably did not intend this because, in the contribution to Vetschau in the Handbuch der historischen Stätten (Handbook of Historical Places), which he also edited a little later, he does not repeat the year 1543. At this point, Lehmann rather affirms that Vetschau had assumed “town character” under the rule of the von Zabeltitz family in a period between the beginning of the 15th century and the middle of the 16th century.[5] This is another serious difference to the statement reproduced above that the granting of town rights had taken place in 1548.
The contradiction between a rather process-like becoming of a town on the one hand and the unique act of granting town rights, on the other hand, can be resolved with a view to a document-critical contribution by Werner Heegewaldt. On the occasion of the rediscovery of the already mentioned document of King Ferdinand, he pointed out that it was a “misinterpretation” to understand the coat of arms letter of Ferdinand as a privilege of town rights.[6] This judgment has to be agreed with because the text of the document does not refer in any way to a town right which the citizenry of Vetschau was supposed to make use of. Usually, in known grants of town rights, various individual rights, comparisons, specifications or deviations from adopted regulations of other municipalities are also addressed. Such remarks are also not found in the Vetschau document.
Vetschau’s emergence as a town must rather have developed gradually over a more extended period of time in the sense of Lehmann. This can be concluded from the coat of arms privilege of King Ferdinand himself. Thus, the text of the document already assumes an existing council and an existing municipality.[7] Municipal structures typical of a town were, therefore, already in place. However, Heegewaldt correctly pointed out that the term “town” is avoided in the document. Instead, the royal chancellery used the term “market”, which was widespread, especially in southern Germany, to designate the legal status of Vetschau.[8] Nevertheless, town-like structures can by no means be ruled out. Settlement forms designated as market usually had distinctive community structures and organs arising from them, such as a council, sheriffs or elders, who formed a legal community through appropriated privileges. This settlement type, which is related to towns, differs from villages but often had a lower degree of rights and autonomy than towns and was also smaller than them.[9]
These criteria apply to medieval Vetschau. Since its earliest mention at the beginning of the 14th century, the place was part of a noble landlordship, whose owners changed quite frequently and had their seat in Vetschau, among other sites. At that time, the appearance of the settlement was probably made up of village structures.[10] However, Vetschau’s location on the busy road running between Magdeburg, Cottbus and Breslau may have contributed to an economic boom. In 1371, a dispute arose between the local residents and the remote town of Calau over the course of this route, also known as the “Salt Road”, as the latter attempted to direct trade traffic to itself.[11] In this context, it was affirmed that the route to and from Magdeburg had to lead via Vetschau, not Calau, among others.
Without a doubt, this influenced the further development of Vetschau, where in the course of the 15th century, a respectable market traffic must have prevailed. This favored the establishment of local trades, the earliest traces of which date back to 1414, when Vetschau cobblers and tanners were granted the right to purchase raw leather and calfskin.[12] This provision secured the sales and market traffic operated by both trades, most of which may have taken place directly in Vetschau. However, the loss of meaningful medieval sources does not allow any closer conclusions. But the fact that Vetschau developed into a small town with corresponding legal customs within the 15th century is undisputed on the basis of various indications and evidence. Rudolf Lehmann already mentioned the contacts between the Luckau aldermen’s office and Vetschau. Specifically, this concerned two legal disputes connected with Matthias Starasta, a native of Vetschau whose surname betrays a Sorbian origin. Both cases date from the end of the 15th century and concern matters of inheritance law.[13] In this case, it is crucial that the Luckau aldermen were very likely asked by the Vetschau council for help in these inheritance law matters.[14] According to the “Luckoschen rechte” (“Luckau law”), which was related to the Magdeburg law, they made their judgments and summarized them in writing. In addition, the Luckau aldermen refer to the Vetschau “stat felde” (“town field”) and the “stat gericht” (“town court”). They also mention a “stat büch zcu Fetczschow” (“town book of Vetschau”) which is lost today and which could have proved the claims of both parties to the dispute.[15] All in all, these facts prove typical urban structures in Vetschau and a local orientation towards Luckau law, which means that the market town can be assigned to the circle of municipalities constituted according to Magdeburg legal customs.
However, this by no means guaranteed per se the same degree of freedom, self-government and autonomy as other towns in Lower Lusatia, such as Luckau, Beeskow or Guben, had. In contrast to these, the mediate Vetschau possessed a noble town lord until the 19th century, who integrated it into his landlordship and could undoubtedly intervene in the affairs of the municipality. This lordly framework is expressed, for example, in a feudal charter of the Brandenburg Margrave Friedrich from 1450, which he issued in the role of a bailiff of Lower Lusatia to the brothers Christoph and Hans von Zabeltitz zu Vetschau. Here Vetschau is distinctly called “stettichen” (“small town”), around which noble property extended, which also included the villages Lobendorf and Suschow as well as rights in the Lübbenau Spree Forest and in Weißagk.[16]
A strong dependence of this kind on the town lord is also reflected in the document of King Ferdinand from 1548, mentioned at the beginning of this article. The driving force behind the issuance of this document was Eustachius von Schlieben, who purchased Vetschau from the von Zabeltitz family in 1540. As Heegewaldt comprehensibly describes, von Schlieben used the diplomatic negotiations between Brandenburg and Bohemia in the context of the Schmalkaldic War, which he influenced, to ask King Ferdinand in an indeterminable way for the issuance of the Vetschau coat of arms privilege.[17] His influence even went so far that he himself determined the shape of the Vetschau coat of arms. Against the background of his marriage with Katharina von Schapelow, it incorporated parts of the coats of arms of both spouses: a bar in a blue and silver chess pattern as a sign of the von Schlieben family as well as a greyhound with a golden collar for the von Schapelow family. Of course, this served the prestige of the town lord, whose family symbols became, as it were, those of the town. In an original and impressive way, Eustachius von Schlieben knew how to record the memory of his person and rule locally. In doing so, he took advantage of unique situational opportunities, which did not initiate Vetschau’s becoming a town, but were always based on older communal structures.
Author: Sascha Bütow
(English translation: Uli Nickel)
Notes:
[1] Destinata Literaria Et Fragmenta Lvsatica, series 1, vol. 8, Lübben 1738, no. V, pp. 815–822. On the rediscovery cf. Sensationsfund auf Boden in Vetschau, in https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/luebben/sensationsfund-auf-boden-in-vetschau-36469702.html [last retrieved 10.08.2020].
[2] Some representative examples are Wilhelm Braunsdorf, Aus der Vergangenheit der Stadt und Herrschaft Vetschau, in Der Gebirgsfreund 18 (1906), pp. 7–11, here p. 10; Gertraud-Eva Schrage, Vetschau, in Städtebuch Brandenburg und Berlin, edited by Evamaria Engel et al. Berlin 2000, p. 529; Manfred Niemeyer (ed.), Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch, Berlin/Boston 2012, p. 652.
[3] This is how it is formulated, for example, on the town’s website: https://stadt.vetschau.de/startseite/stadtplan.html [last retrieved 10.08.2020]; similarly also at https://www.augias.net/2005/07/14/anet4644/ [last retrieved 10.08.2020]. The main statutes of the town of Vetschau also use this date as the date of the attainment of the town law.: “§ 1 Gemeinde
(1) Die Gemeinde besitzt seit dem Jahr 1543 das Stadtrecht und führt ab dem 01.01.1997
den Namen ‘Vetschau/Spreewald’”. The main statutes are published online and can be accessed at: http://www.vetschau.de/cms/upload/people/download_Satzungen/Hauptsatzung.pdf [last retrieved 12.08.2020].
[4] Rudolf Lehmann (ed.), Historisches Ortslexikon für die Niederlausitz, vol. 1, Marburg 1979, p. 390.
[5] Rudolf Lehmann, Vetschau, in Handbuch der historischen Stätten, vol. 10, Berlin and Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich, 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1995, p. 385.
[6] Werner Heegewaldt, Ein ungewöhnlicher Dachbodenfund – Das Wappenprivileg König Ferdinands I. für Vetschau 1548, in Brandenburgische Archive 24 (2007), pp. 5–11, here p. 9.
[7] Destinata Literaria (same as note 1), p. 817.
[8] Heegewaldt (same as note 6), p. 9.
[9] On the legal distinction between a marketplace and a town cf. Albrecht Cordes and Alexander Krey, Marktflecken, in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 3, Konfliktbewältigung – Nowgorod, 2nd edition, Berlin 2016, col. 1319–1320.
[10] Lehmann (same as note 5), p. 385.
[11] Woldemar Lippert, Cottbus als Knotenpunkt von Handelsstraßen im 14. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Verkehrs in der Niederlausitz, in Niederlausitzer Mitteilungen 3 (1893/94), pp. 73–85, here no. 3, pp. 80–84.
[12] Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv, rep. 37, Vetschau no. 250.
[13] Rudolf Lehmann (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichte der Niederlausitz, part 2, Cologne/Vienna 1976, p. 13.
[14] Ibid., no. 67 a, pp. 94–95.
[15] Ibid., no. 68 a, pp. 95–96.
[16] Lehmann (same as note 13), part 1, Cologne/Vienna 1972, p. 225.
[17] Heegewaldt (same as note 6), pp. 9–11.
Cite as:
Sascha Bütow, Vetschau: A Small Town, which is Older than We Thought, in: Magdeburg Law. A building block of modern Europe, 02/07/2024, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/vetschau/
Lenzen an der Elbe: Town Law with Hanseatic References
Lenzen, which is favorably situated for shipping traffic between the Elbe and Elde rivers directly on the Löcknitz, adopted the law of the town of Salzwedel in the Middle Ages. When exactly this act of transfer took place cannot be determined with certainty. From the available written sources, however, the time period can be narrowed down. In 1219, the Brandenburg Margrave Albrecht II (r. 1205–1220) gave Lenzen as a fief to Count Heinrich von Schwerin († 1228), with which he intended to secure his allegiance and military support.[1] Already in 1237, Lenzen was in possession of the two counts Heinrich (r. 1233–1237) and Bernhard von Dannenberg (r. 1227–1266), who in that year exempted the citizens of Lübeck from trade taxes in their entire dominion, with the exception of the usual customs duties. This happened with explicit mention of Lenzen, Dannenberg and Dömitz.[2] At this time, a considerable settlement with market traffic must have already formed around the castle of Lenzen, which received municipal rights either still under the counts of Schwerin or only from the Dannenbergers. When, at the latest in 1252, the Margrave of Brandenburg, now Otto III (r. 1220–1267), again came to Lenzen, the place was named civitas, i.e. town, in the confirmation document of the same year.[3]
Otto III conceded the same rights to the citizens of Lenzen as all other Brandenburg towns had, including exemption from customs duties in his margraviate territory. In addition, the town was to enjoy the same rights and all freedoms with regard to the rivers Elbe and Elde as it already had under the counts Günzel von Schwerin († 1274) and Bernhard von Dannenberg. Both counts can thus be credited with promoting the urban development of Lenzen. Finally, Margrave Otto confirmed another privilege that was obviously significant for the citizens of Lenzen, according to which the town was allowed to follow the legal customs of Salzwedel and to seek legal advice there.
In this way, it becomes evident that the citizens of Lenzen made use of the Salzwedel law for themselves. Presumably, the majority of the town’s inhabitants came from the Altmark region around Salzwedel and thus advocated the adoption of the town’s legal customs there. A striking difference to the Magdeburg law existed above all with regard to inheritance law regulations and legal principles concerning trade. The connection to Salzwedel also resulted in close contact with cities of the Hanseatic League, such as Hamburg, Lübeck and Rostock, and Lenzen citizens possessed far-reaching networks. The Hamburg debt book of 1288 illustrates this fact[4] since it contains a number of entries, which are connected with money transactions of Lenzen citizens. Accordingly, for example, the trade contacts of Johann von Gorne from Lenzen resulted in family ties to the important Hamburg family Miles, whose members were often active in the town council.[5]
Business relationships and family connections were inextricably interwoven. Salzwedel law also provided a significant basis for contacts, as it had many references to the town laws of the Hanseatic towns on the North Sea and Baltic Sea. In mutual exchange, the towns could rely on similar legal customs, which enabled a higher degree of consensus in everyday dealings with each other and facilitated agreements. For example, through clever policies of their council, Lenzen citizens possessed extensive selling and trading rights in the Hanseatic area. An important commodity shipped there was oak wood, which was cut in the so-called Kuhblank near Lenzen and transported as wagenshot sawn wooden planks (lignorum wagenshot).[6] In addition to wood, Brandenburg grain was an essential commodity shipped north from Lenzen on the Löcknitz, Elde and Elbe rivers. Among the business friends of the citizens of Lenzen in Hamburg were merchants from Flanders. The already mentioned Johannes von Gorne, for example, was in business relations with Jacob von Wedde from Utrecht and promised him the repayment of a monetary debt on July 21, 1295.[7]
Beyond their preferred market town of Hamburg, citizens of Lenzen were in contact with other Hanseatic towns, acquired goods here and sometimes settled there. This often resulted in legal transactions that required settlement between the towns, as can be seen from a document from 1414 preserved in the Tallinn city archives. It states that Claus Ditleves, a citizen of Lenzen, was the brother and heir of Heinrich Ditleves, who had died in Lübeck and was a citizen of Reval, now called Tallinn, and had legitimate claims to property in Reval. In order to be able to take them over, the Lenzen council turned to Reval and confirmed the origin of Claus Ditleves with the request to give him the possessions of his brother.[8] In a typical way, here it is demonstrated that regulations of inheritance processes were an important competence of medieval town councils.
Whether Lenzen, like Salzwedel, oriented itself more strongly to Stendal or Brandenburg law in the late Middle Ages in the course of the consolidation of rule within the margraviate of Brandenburg is not proven due to the lack of sources, but it is obvious, especially since the connection to the Hanseatic League also loosened significantly in the transition to the 16th century.
Author: Sascha Bütow
(English translation: Uli Nickel)
Notes:
[1] Verein für mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde (ed.), Mecklenburgisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 1: 768–1250, Schwerin 1863, no. 251, p. 251.
[2] Ibid., no. 466, p. 463.
[3] Adolf Friedrich Riedel (ed.), Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series A, vol. 25, Berlin 1863, no. 3, p. 2.
[4] Erich von Lehe (reviser), Das hamburgische Schuldbuch von 1288 (=Veröffentlichungen aus dem Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg 4), Hamburg 1956.
[5] Cf. Erich von Lehe, Hamburgs Verbindungen zu Kaufleuten der Prignitz in der frühen Hansezeit, in: Prignitz-Forschungen 1 (1966), pp. 57–71, here p. 62.
[6] Sascha Bütow, Die brandenburgische Binnenschifffahrt auf Klein- und Nebenflüssen im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert, in: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Prignitz 11 (2011), pp. 5–92, here p. 82.
[7] Erich von Lehe (reviser), Das hamburgische Schuldbuch (same as note 4), p. 89.
[8] Tallinn, Magistratsarchiv, TLA.230.1I. 529.
Cite as:
Sascha Bütow, Lenzen an der Elbe: Town Law with Hanseatic References, in: Magdeburg Law. A building block of modern Europe, 04/12/2023, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/lenzen-elbe/
