City Foundation with Infrastructure Planning – Frankfurt an der Oder and the Berlin City Law
In 1253, Frankfurt an der Oder received the Berlin, actually, Magdeburg law, about which numerous accounts with different focuses have been published.[1] It must be emphasized that Frankfurt’s city charter reveals comprehensive infrastructural planning, the effects of which are still tangible today. If one follows the text of the charter, which is available in several editions, the inhabitants, under the direction of Gottfried von Herzberg, had the task of establishing a market, on which the construction of a merchant’s or city hall was allowed to take place. This included other buildings such as stalls, benches, and shacks, which were to serve as sales stalls. Another building in the planning stage was the bridge over the Oder River. Its construction undoubtedly cost the town’s founders a great deal of effort, both in terms of material and labor. The expenses were borne solely by the emerging citizenry. However, in return, the Brandenburg Margrave Johann allowed the levying of a toll, which could be collected from every user after the completion of the bridge. This constituted the material basis of a do-ut-des (I give so that you give) principle, according to which the efficiency of transport infrastructures was to be guaranteed. Although, in reality, such revenues were often misappropriated, the duty must by no means be reduced to a mere “trade charge”.
The buildings, which were important from an infrastructural point of view, also included mills, which the city’s school superintendent was allowed to build and which tied the surrounding area to Frankfurt in a lasting way. In the vicinity of the planned bridge, the inhabitants built a harbor, which – contrary to what the term suggests – probably consisted of several landing places where ships could sail onto the shore. With these and other rights, the infrastructural and economic basis of the new market city on the Oder River was established. In addition, Frankfurt, which was erected in cooperation between the margrave and his subjects, served to develop and map the area, as the merited regional historian Winfried Schich has pointed out on several occasions.[2] With Frankfurt, the Brandenburg margrave intended a lordly permeation and consolidation of his power. If this was to succeed, the settlement had to become a fixed point of traffic by means of appropriate support, thus demonstrating in Frankfurt the fundamental connection between the founding of the city and its influence on the development of the road network.[3] The success of this planning can be illustrated by the road map drawn by Erhard Etzlaub in 1501, which impressively depicts Frankfurt’s position within a Europe-wide traffic route network with over 800 cities.[4]
It is from this perspective that Frankfurt’s situation must be understood: Until the end of the Middle Ages, sovereign support and the commitment of the city council had created a compulsory point of traffic. Rights of way, customs and staple rights extended far into the surrounding countryside and directed traffic toward Frankfurt. To reduce this to urban egoism alone, as has often been done in research, would at the same time mean ignoring the origins and development of these structures back to the granting of city rights. In fact, the actions of the Frankfurt council went beyond mere self-interest, as evidenced, for example, by the alliances of cities concluded several times between 1308 and 1438. The legal powers of the Frankfurt council had gradually extended to the surrounding countryside. In 1399, for example, the city of Frankfurt committed itself to ensure the safety of traffic routes “vnsen gnedighen heren vnde syne lande zu ghude” (“benefiting our gracious lord and his country”).[5]
This aspiration was indeed followed by action, in that peacebreakers and highwaymen were pursued. Often, after their capture, they were interrogated and sometimes judged in Frankfurt. One example is Hans von Bomsdorff, who was beheaded in Frankfurt on June 12, 1503, after being sentenced by the council and the aldermen.[6] His older brother Andreas subsequently feuded with the city of Frankfurt on several occasions from his ancestral seat of Grano near Guben. From the year 1505, for example, we learn that he attacked the son of the Frankfurt mayor Nikolaus Kune on a trip to Lübben and captured a large sum of money.[7] In many cases, Frankfurt, together with other cities, but also in alliance with princes, instigated a proper trial against the perpetrators. In 1506, Andreas von Bomsdorff and some of his allies were finally convicted in this way. Their trial took place in Sagan (Żagań) in Silesia, where the Frankfurt council sent several representatives to witness the reaching of the verdict and the subsequent beheading of the offenders.[8]
Fig. 1: Recolored woodcut of a view of the city of Frankfurt an der Oder dating from 1548. With the participation of Berlin citizens, Frankfurt was transferred the Berlin law in 1253, which was based on the general Brandenburg city law and had its origin in Magdeburg. In the 16th century, Frankfurt was one of the wealthiest cities in the Margraviate of Brandenburg.
Although these examples certainly underscore Frankfurt’s influence on the traffic route network and its users, the city was hardly as selfish as is often claimed. This includes the fact that the city’s staple right was by no means binding on every transport route user, either because they simply ignored it or because they enjoyed corresponding freedoms. The important Berlin Oder trade, for example, very often bypassed Frankfurt and instead headed for Oderberg or also Schwedt.[9] The same can be observed with regard to the Oder shipping, for which the city council was also hardly able to comprehensively enforce the staple right. Thus, the Frankfurt city scribe Nikolaus Teymler reports in his records of transhipment operations on the river to the detriment of the staple rights of his hometown.[10] But the Frankfurt council itself also granted various people the privilege of free passage, such as Hermann Palitz, a citizen of Greifswald, who sailed to Guben in 1372.[11]
In summary, it can be stated that the power of the Frankfurt council was definitely limited. In 1509, for example, Elector Joachim I clearly reserved the right to decide for himself all disputes “von engerung oder verpawung des freyen stroms und der Scheffart uff der oder” (“concerning the narrowing or damming of the free river and the shipping on the Oder”), although he acknowledged the city’s share of responsibility.[12] This important role of Frankfurt was based to a considerable extent on the city charter received in 1253, which took local infrastructure planning with its effect on the surrounding area into account from the very beginning.
Fig. 2: Since the Middle Ages, the city of Frankfurt profited from the Oder trade. An important means of transport was the barge, the design of which hardly changed over the centuries. Postcard from around 1900.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow, Frankfurt a. d. Oder. City Foundation with Infrastructure Planning – Frankfurt an der Oder and the Berlin City Law, 16.12.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/frankfurt-oder/
Footnotes:
[1] On the discussions about the Frankfurt City Letter, cf. most recently Monika Kilian-Buchmann, Frankfurt (Oder) im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Bevölkerungsstruktur und Siedlungsentwicklung, Jacobsdorf 2008 (Frankfurter Jahrbücher 2008/2009), pp. 113-114.
[2] Recently on this Winfried Schich, Von Frankfurt an der Oder nach Landsberg an der Warthe. Die Anfänge der markgräflichen Städtegründungen in der Neumark unter Johann I. und Otto III., in Landesherr, Adel und Städte in der mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Neumark, edited by Klaus Neitmann. Berlin 2015, pp. 183–212.
[3] In general on this Dietrich Denecke, Straßen und Weg im Mittelalter als Lebensraum und Vermittler zwischen entfernten Orten, in Mensch und Umwelt im Mittelalter, edited by Bernd Herrmann, Stuttgart 1986, pp. 203–219, especially pp. 206-207.
[4] Sascha Bütow and Benjamin Schwuchow (reviser), Die Nieder- und Oberlausitz im Bild historischer Karten, edited by Heinz-Dieter Heimann and Klaus Neitmann, Berlin 2014 (Studien zur brandenburgischen und vergleichenden Landesgeschichte 15), pp. 14–15.
[5] Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis. Sammlung der Urkunden, Chroniken und sonstigen Quellenschriften für die Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg und ihrer Regenten, edited by Adolph Friedrich Riedel, series A–D, 41 volumes, Berlin 1838–1869, here series A, vol. 24, no. XCVI, pp. 393-394, here p. 393.
[6] Richard Jecht, Görlitzer Acheldemach aus den Jahren 1498-1513, in Neues Lausitzisches Magazin 85 (1909), pp. 108–216, here p. 167.
[7] Ibid., p. 132.
[8] Ibid., p. 139.
[9] Herbert Helbig, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft der Mark Brandenburg im Mittelalter (Veröffentlichungen der historischen Kommission zu Berlin 41), Berlin, New York 1973, pp. 92-93.
[10] Same as note 5, series A, vol. 23, no. CDXVII, pp. 380–422, here p. 383.
[11] Ibid., no. CLIX, p. 111.
[12] Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis Continuatus, edited by Georg Wilhelm von Raumer, 2 volumes, Berlin, Stettin, Elbing 1831–1833, here vol. 2, no. XXII, p. 235.
Images:
Fig. 1: zeno.org (in the public domain)
Fig. 2: wikimedia commons, photo: Willi Wallroth
Site of the State Parliaments of the Lower Lusatian Estates
The district town of Lübben (Spree Forest) is located in Lower Lusatia and is part of the official settlement area of the Sorbs or Wends. It can look back on an important history, which one can hardly guess in today’s cityscape.
In the course of the 15th century, the town established itself as the capital of Lower Lusatia and remained so until 1815, when the majority of the state parliaments were held in Lübben.
Conveniently located regarding transport facilities between the Upper and Lower Spree Forests, the area was first settled about 12,000 years ago. Protogermanic peoples of the “Lusatian culture” can be traced back archaeologically as well as later Germanic and Slavic tribes.
In the Nienburger Bruchstück (Nienburg Fragment), the inventory of the Nienburg monastery created around 1150/1180, the castle town of Lübben is mentioned for the first time with the urbs lubin.[1]
The granting of Magdeburg town law is believed to have taken place between 1210 and 1220; no document has survived.[2] Soon after, the Sachsenspiegel, a law book of Saxony, was written down by Eike von Repgow. In Lower Lusatia, both laws were applied side by side; they complemented each other. The Sachsenspiegel regulated, among other things, questions of coexistence between Germans and Slavs. In Lower Lusatia, the latter represented the majority of the population for several centuries. The legal principles were certainly implemented even before they were written down. In the Sachsenspiegel, there was no specification of a town law; instead, land law and feudal law were dealt with. Therefore, the granting of the Magdeburg town law closed a gap.
Around 1300, Lübben changed hands. The Nienburg monastery gave it to the Dobrilugk monastery (today Doberlug-Kirchhain). This, in turn, passed the town and the castle (castrum et opidum Lubbyn) on to the Saxon Duke Rudolf I as early as 1329. Due to the often peripheral location of Lower Lusatia, many other changes of dominion followed in the subsequent decades and centuries, often through pledges.
After protracted disputes between the Brandenburg Margrave and Elector Otto V and Emperor Charles IV, which were settled by the Treaty of Fürstenwalde on August 18, 1373, the town fell to the Emperor, who assigned it to the Kingdom of Bohemia. However, Saxon princes remained the town rulers until 1422.
The transfer of Lower Lusatia to the Bohemian crown established a division of the courts into two parts. The bailiff was responsible for the high court, and a tribunal of the estates decided civil disputes.
In 1402, a judge for Lübben is mentioned for the first time. His competencies are not specified. In the first decades, he ruled on disputes concerning family law issues such as payment obligations and inheritance matters. In the case of manslaughter (1429), the mayor and council of Lübben decided on the payment of a wergeld (atonement fee) without corporal punishment.
From 1461 onwards, there are records of court sessions consisting of a town judge and a sitting council. Sessions were held at Easter and Christmas.
Later, Lübben was ruled by bailiffs who had received the lordship over the town from the Bohemian king.
In the 15th century, Lübben developed into a sovereign town. On October 18, 1448, the town of Lübben was seized by the Brandenburg margrave Friedrich II Eisenzahn. The bailiffs were only poorly compensated with 10,000 Rhenish florins. [Fig. 1]
Fig. 1: The occupation of the town, romanticized in a painting in the Lübben Heraldic Hall by August Oettken.
Only 14 years later, from 1462, Lübben was again Bohemian and thus fell to the Habsburgs in 1526. In 1463, the Bohemian king put the Germans and Sorbs on an equal legal footing.
In 1538, the court of the estates was given its own district court order; it was arranged between the municipal court of aldermen and the district bailiff. In 1549, the city of Lübben acquired the “Free Court”. In this way, the town judge, who was selected by the sovereign, was replaced by the supreme mayor and confirmed by annual election.[3]
In 1598, Emperor Rudolf II. confirmed Lübben’s indigenate (the right by the place of birth) and the right of presentation, and only men born in Lower Lusatia who had been proposed to the Emperor for the office by the estates were allowed to become bailiffs.
In 1665/1666, the jurisdiction was again changed. Christian I of Saxony-Merseburg, the constructor of Lübben Castle in its present form, established a governing college consisting of the Oberamtspräsident (senior council president) and four Oberamtsräten (senior councilors). Indigenate and the right of presentation were still determining factors in the allocation of these offices. At the same time, the town council was reduced in size in order to secure a higher salary.
In 1623/1635, Lusatia became Saxon and was to remain so until 1815. The provisions of the Congress of Vienna assigned the Margraviate of Lower Lusatia and its capital Lübben to Prussia and its province to Brandenburg. With this decision, Lübben lost its outstanding importance as the capital within the region; competencies had to be handed over to Frankfurt/Oder and Berlin.
Until 1815, the bailiff of Lower Lusatia had his seat in Lübben, where the majority of the regional assemblies of the Lower Lusatian estates were held. In Lübben, some of the former meeting places of the estates still exist, such as the fortified tower, which today belongs to the municipal museum, as well as in the direct vicinity of today’s district administration office, where the district council of the state of Dahme-Spreewald meets.
Despite the annexation to Prussia, the estates were able to retain special rights for a long time – or at least they tried to. This was even mentioned in the Berliner Morgenpost. Under the headline “Another piece of the Middle Ages in Prussia”, the newspaper reported that members of the estates met in Lusatia and took their seats at various tables. A gentlemen’s table, a knights’ table and a town table were mentioned, with the comment that this did not fit into a modern democracy.
Questions about the dissolution of the municipal estate-based alliance were put on hold during the Second World War, and there were no efforts to revive the alliance after the end of the war.
Author: Marianne Wenzel
Citation:
Marianne Wenzel: Lübben (Spreewald) / Lubin (Błota). Site of the State Parliaments of the Lower Lusatian Estates, 23.07.2021, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/lubben-spreewald/
Footnotes:
[1] Cf. Gertraud Eva Schrage, Die Niederlausitzer Besitzungen des Klosters Nienburg an der Saale. Ein Beitrag zur mittelalterlichen Siedlungsgeschichte, in Struktur und Wandel im Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Eine Bestandsaufnahme aktueller Forschungen zur Germania Slavica (= Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa 5), edited by Christian Lübke, Stuttgart 1998, pp. 241–255, here p. 249.
[2] Klaus Neitmann, Kathrin Schröder and Kärstin Weihrauch, „Ist Zierde des Landes gewest“. Lübben (Spreewald) im Spiegel archivalischer Quellen, Berlin 2006, p. 28.
[3] Ibid., p. 173.
Images:
Fig. 1: Stadt- und Regionalmuseum Lübben
A Weichbild is becoming a Small Town
In cultural tourism, Peitz is mainly known for the impressive buildings of its early modern fortress, created by the two fortress builders Francesco Chiaramella di Gandino and Count Rochus zu Lynar († 1596) in two phases between 1559 and 1595.[1] Both of them were also involved in parallel for the construction of the famous fortress of Spandau, commissioned by the Elector of Brandenburg, and in this way, they combined fundamental construction knowledge in both places. The building measures did not remain without consequences for the small urban community in Peitz, which was gradually enclosed by the mighty defensive structure around 1580. Unlike the history of the fortress, the connections of the citizenry, which constituted itself in the Middle Ages, to Magdeburg’s legal customs are hardly known.
The first mention of the town of Peitz dates back to 1301, in connection with the sale of the Mark of Lusatia to the Archbishopric of Magdeburg by Margrave Diezmann (Dietrich IV) (r. 1291–1303).[2] Immediately afterwards, Archbishop Burchard of Magdeburg (held office 1307–1325) – now as feudal lord – enfeoffed Dietzmann with the same Mark, which he had bought from him before. In 1336, Archbishop Otto of Magdeburg (held office 1327–1361) made another enfeoffment, which was now received by Ludwig von Wittelsbach (r. 1323–1348), who ruled in Brandenburg. In the enumeration of numerous places and possessions in the document, Peitz appears again, which is now called “wybilde” (“Weichbild”).[3] This term, which comes from Low German, shows that Peitz was perceived as a town-like settlement with its own municipal rights.[4]
Peitz probably experienced an economic boom during this period, thanks to the important traffic route between Cottbus and Frankfurt (Oder) that passed through the town. The fact that the transport route had to lead through Peitz was legally established during the reign of Emperor Charles IV (1355–1378) in 1371. The corresponding document refers to Peitz as a “stetel” (“small town”), in which customs duties or escort had to be paid by those passing through.[5] Thanks to these traffic and trade taxes, the lordship based at Peitz Castle received significant revenues. However, the more influential citizens living about 12 kilometers south in Cottbus obtained an exemption from the Peitz customs and escort. This may well have carried some weight.
Until the middle of the 15th century, Peitz changed the assessor several times, who was also the town lord.[6] An inheritance dispute survives from this time, which Margarete Cruczmanns led against Jakob Wulf over a field located near Peitz. Since the Peitz judges and aldermen were unable to decide to whom the piece of land claimed by both parties should rightfully belong, they asked the aldermen of the town of Luckau for advice and judgment in 1441. The latter complied with the request and communicated their decision according to “Lugkowisschen rechte” (“Luckau laws”). Accordingly, it is obvious that the citizens of Peitz oriented themselves on the customs of Luckau law, which showed a close relationship to Magdeburg law.
However, the citizenry of Peitz did not develop a comparable self-administration and autonomy in the Middle Ages as other nearby towns, such as Beeskow, Luckau or Guben, for a time. When the Brandenburg margrave received Lower Lusatia as a pledge, “sloß Pytz herlichkeyt mit dem stettichen” (“magnificent Peitz Castle with the little town”) came into the possession of Reinhard von Cottbus for life in 1445.[7] With the Peace of Guben in 1462, Peitz finally belonged entirely to the possession of the Margrave of Brandenburg, who transformed the town into a sovereign office and entrusted it to faithful captains.
Under the new lordly structures, there were repeated interventions in the affairs of the town, as was, indeed, quite typical for official towns. An instrument used by medieval towns in the sense of their self-administration, such as the town order or arbitrariness, thus became dependent on the town lord residing at the Peitz Castle/Fortress. An example is the “Ordnungk im Städteleinn Peize” (“Order in the Small Town of Peitz”), written in 1600, which was decreed by the captain Casper von Löben and declared legally valid with his “Pezschafft” (seal).[8] The Peitz council was obliged to obey and had to “strictly supervise and enforce the provisions of this order”.[9] Its own leeway was thus severely limited, although it may have had a share in shaping the individual provisions. The mere fact that not the council but the Peitz captain acted as the issuer of the town order illustrates the limited autonomy of the Peitz town fathers. The council was also controlled by the captain in financial matters and had to present him the account books with revenues and expenditures every year. Nevertheless, it was not a will-less instrument. Within the town, the council still had room for maneuver, watched over the observance of the municipal ordinance and made decisions at its own discretion, as was typical of early modern rule. Thus, also in Peitz, forms of communal structures can be seen that were characteristic of towns under Magdeburg law.
Author: Sascha Bütow
(English translation: Uli Nickel)
Anmerkungen:
[1] Ralf Gebuhr, „Peitz, das lausitzische Mantua, hat nur als Festung eine Geschichte.“ Fragen an die Geschichte eines Ortes, in: Von Vestungen. Die brandenburgisch-preußischen Festungen Spandau, Peitz und Küstrin, edited by Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Spandau, Berlin 2001, pp. 60–77.
[2] For more information on the history of the event, see Rudolf Lehmann, Geschichte des Markgraftums Niederlausitz, Dresden 1937, pp. 31–35, on Peitz and the surrounding towns, pp. 48–49.
[3] Adolf Friedrich Riedel, Codex Diplomaticus Brandenburgensis, series B, vol. 2, no. 728, p. 112–114, here p. 114: „wybilde tzu Pyzne“.
[4] On this https://magdeburg-law.com/de/magdeburger-recht/glossar/weichbild-recht-und-saechsisches-weichbild/ [last retrieved 13.08.2020].
[5] 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. 2, pp. 78–79.
[6] Rudolf Lehmann, Peitz, in: Handbuch der historischen Stätten, vol. 10, Berlin und Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich, 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1995, pp. 307–308.
[7] Rudolf Lehmann (ed.), Quellen zur Geschichte der Niederlausitz, part 1, Cologne/Vienna 1972, p. 211.
[8] Reprinted at Franz Groger, Urkundliche Geschichte der Stadt und ehemaligen Festung Peitz, Peitz 1913, attachment 36, pp. 393–394.
[9] Ibid., p. 394.
Cite as:
Sascha Bütow, Peitz. A Weichbild is becoming a Small Town, in: Magdeburg Law. A building block of modern Europe, 04/12/2023, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/peitz/
Municipal Legal Development in Close Relationship to Town Rule
In the case of Lübbenau, from a large village in the Middle Ages, a market settlement emerged, which is mentioned for the first time in 1315 as oppidum (fortified settlement).[1] This reference is due to an extensive property transaction, which Bodo the Elder of Ileburg, as a seller of the castle Lübbenau to the knight Christian Lange the Elder, undertook.[2] The development of the settlement of Lübbenau, which was included in this divestment, was strongly dependent on the respective landlords and town lords who resided at the castle.[3] These changed quite frequently from the 14th to the 16th century and belonged to well-known noble families in Lower Lusatia such as the Köckeritz, Kracht, Polenz and von der Schulenburg.
Fig. 1: In the Middle Ages, a moated castle was located on the site of today’s Lübbenau Palace, which was rebuilt into a palace around 1600. The building received its present appearance between 1817 and 1820. The town lord of Lübbenau resided in the castle or palace.
Not least in legal terms, these landlords exerted an influence on the town’s constitution, as can be seen particularly clearly in an entry in the Lübben Schöffenbuch (Book of Aldermen). For the year 1490, it is stated here that judges and aldermen had to provide information about “was wir vor gerechtigkeit in dem stetchin L.[übben] hetten und das durch den gestrengen unßern lieben erbhern von Palenck und Peter von Polenck irwirben haben” (“what we had in justice in the small town of L.[üben] and that we had to obtain through the strictness of our dear patrons von Palenck and Peter von Polenck”).[4] Hereby, it becomes evident that the two Polenz had previously granted Lübben an extension of the town’s rights. It is unlikely that it was they from whom Lübben received the town charter per se. The granting of the town rights may rather have already been done by the family of Ileburg, which is indicated by three stars used in the oldest Lübben seal, which are also included in the coat of arms of this noble family. [5]
From a legal point of view, the citizenry of Lübbenau was far less able to make its mark than the towns directly subordinate to the sovereign, such as Luckau or Guben. Nevertheless, the Lübbenau council also strove to preserve its acquired rights and, if possible, to expand them. This could only be done in close coordination with the town authorities, as the above-mentioned negotiations about the Lübbenau city rights held in 1490 between the judge, the aldermen and the city government illustrate. As the Schöppenbuch states, in addition to the judge and aldermen, representatives from the citizenry, “poor and rich”, appeared before Hans von Drauschwitz as captain and deputy of the town lord to testify to the traditional rights of Lübbenau. This included the herding of pigs and cows granted by the lordship. Furthermore, the town owned a Rain, which probably meant a firmly defined area of land. The aldermen of the town were also allowed to judge minor offenses such as drawing knives, stealing or using wrong measurements without involving the lordship. In these cases, however, proportional amounts of the fines to be paid by the convicted persons had to be paid to the town lord.[6] With this, Lübbenau had the competence of the lower jurisdiction. The high jurisdiction, which also decided on life and limb, was reserved for the town lord.
Fig. 2: Church of St. Nicholas in Lübbenau. The present building dates back to the 18th century.
A mayor is first mentioned in the year 1483.[7] Only gradually was it possible to increase the importance of this office, so that in the course of the 16th century, the sequence “mayor, judge and aldermen” began to prevail in notarizations.[8] However, even this representative office was not spared the influence of the town lord, as can be observed in the case of Adam Bagge, who was appointed mayor of Lübbenau in 1660, after originally being the trumpeter of the town lord Johann Siegmund Graf von Lynar.[9] The aldermen were also usually appointed to their office by the town lord. There were usually close relations between the councilors and the aldermen so that sometimes the same persons were represented in both municipal institutions.[10] This mixing of offices was not infrequently viewed critically in other towns under Magdeburg law, so that, as in Jüterbog, councilors were forbidden to be aldermen or town officials at the same time.[11] Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Lübbenau followed the customs of Magdeburg, since entries in the Book of Aldermen prove that legal information was obtained from the aldermen of Magdeburg.[12] In addition, the Aldermen’s Court in Luckau, which was closer to Lübbenau, was called upon, as the Book of Aldermen preserved there illustrates with two entries from the 15th century.[13] In these cases, the customs adopted from Magdeburg were implemented in their adjusted form of the “Lugkowsche recht[s]” (“Luckau law”).
The economy of Lübbenau was characterized by trades such as linen weavers, shoemakers, bakers and blacksmiths. In addition, the citizens and other inhabitants were obliged to perform court services for the town lord and had to accompany him on military campaigns, which clearly shows Lübbenau’s status as a mediate town. This also included an effort of the town lord to observe and enforce the rights of Lübbenau against third parties. Particularly with the town of Lübben, there were sometimes fierce disputes in the 15th and 16th centuries about various rights of use in the Spree Forest, in the negotiation of which the town lord of Lübbenau acted as mediator. In this process, the inhabitants of the town of Lübbenau sometimes developed claims that went far beyond their municipal rights. For example, in February 1550, the Lübben council complained to the bailiff of Lower Lusatia that residents of Lübbenau, together with people from the villages of Ragow, Krimnitz, Zerkwitz, Radensdorf and Zauche in the Spree Forest, had cut wood in an area belonging to Lübben Castle and rafted it away from there. In return, the delinquents accused of robbery invoked the Spree Forest rights of Georg von der Schulenburg of Lübbenau, the exercise of which they also claimed for themselves as his subjects.[14]
Fig. 3: The Spreewald (Spree Forest) between Leipe and Lehde. Since the Middle Ages, there have always been legal disputes between Lübben and Lübbenau about the use of this important area.
Compromises brokered by the bailiff Albrecht Graf von Schlick did not endure so that further legal disputes followed. Under Joachim II von der Schulenburg, the situation escalated to such an extent that Lübben residents were seized in the Spree Forest by Lübbenau. In addition, the Lübben council complained that its inhabitants were beaten, captured and taken to Lübbenau Castle while working in the Spree Forest.[15] During these conflicts, which were often violently carried out, the citizens of Lübbenau were closely connected with their town lords and supported their position. Neither the Bohemian kings as rulers of Lower Lusatia nor their deputies were able to resolve this legal dispute over the Spree Forest permanently. The quarrels that grew in the late Middle Ages thus continued well into the 16th century.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow: Lübbenau. Municipal Legal Development in Close Relationship to Town Rule, 01.07.2022, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/lubbenau/
Footnotes:
[1] Lehmann, Rudolf, Art. >Lübbenau<, in Handbuch der Historischen Stätten Deutschlands. Vol. 10: Berlin und Brandenburg, edited by Gerd Heinrich. Stuttgart. 3rd edition 1995, pp. 274-275, here p. 275.
[2] The document is printed in the Destinata Literaria et Fragmenta Lusatica. Vol. II. part. I, Lübben 1747, pp. 17–19.
[3] Czech, Vinzenz, Die Herrschaft Lübbenau, in Marksteine. Eine Entdeckungsreise durch Brandenburg-Preußen. Edited by Haus der Brandenburgisch-Preußischen Geschichte beim Museumsverband des Landes Brandenburg e.V., Berlin 2001, pp. 263-264.
[4] Cited after Lehmann, Rudolf, Das älteste Stadtbuch (Schöppenbuch) der Spreewaldstadt Lübbenau, in FS für Walter Schlesinger. Vol. 1, edited by Helmut Beumann. Cologne/Vienna 1973, pp. 382–405, here p. 385.
[5] Fahlisch, Paul, Geschichte der Spreewaldstadt Lübbenau, Berlin 1877, p. 42.
[6] The rights are published in translated form in ibid., p. 53.
[7] Lehmann, Rudolf, Das älteste Stadtbuch (same as note 4), p. 388.
[8] Fahlisch, Paul, Geschichte der Spreewaldstadt Lübbenau (same as note 5), p. 128.
[9] Bagge had saved his lord’s life at the Battle of Leipzig in 1642. Cf. Czech, Vinzenz, Die Herrschaft Lübbenau (same as note 2), p. 263.
[10] Lehmann, Rudolf, Das älteste Stadtbuch (same as note 4), p. 392.
[11] Rohrlach, Peter P., Historisches Ortslexikon für Brandenburg. Part X: Jüterbog-Luckenwalde (= Veröffentlichungen des brandenburgischen Landeshauptarchivs 26). Weimar 1997, p. 226.
[12] Lehmann, Rudolf, Das älteste Stadtbuch (same as note 4), p. 393.
[13] Lehmann, Rudolf (reviser), Quellen zur Geschichte der Niederlausitz. Part II (= Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 68/II). Cologne/Weimar 1976, no. 38a, p. 64, and no. 43b, p. 71.
[14] Potsdam, Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv Rep. 8 Lübben 12/1, fol. 156r.
[15] Ibid., fol. 232r.
Images:
Fig. 1-2: Wikimedia Commons, photo: A. Savin
Fig. 3: Wikimedia Commons (Creative-Commons-Lizenz 3.0), photo: Rentner55
Medieval Urbanization between Ecclesiastical and Secular Lords
If one takes a look at the urban development of Brandenburg an der Havel, the medieval settlement picture is characterized by a versatility that can hardly be found in any other municipality in the Mark Brandenburg region. This is not least due to the interests of various actors who tried to gain a foothold in Brandenburg in connection with the medieval land development east of the Elbe. For ecclesiastical and secular lords alike, the advancement of municipal development was an important instrument of lordly penetration of the space they claimed. The medieval urban development in Brandenburg an der Havel vividly reflects the intentions, planning and measures associated with this.
The foundation of Brandenburg was by no means from wild roots. Rather, the urban development was based on Slavic settlement structures, at the top of which was the later so-called Pribislav Castle, named after the last Slavic prince to reign here, which had its place on today’s Dominsel (Cathedral Island). When Pribislav died in 1150, he had already found his final resting place in a Christian chapel connected with the castle.
Fig. 1: The Rathenow Gate Tower, completed around 1320, is one of the medieval fortifications of Brandenburg’s old town.
Now the burgraves expressed their claims more and more offensively, intending to exercise lordly power over the Dominsel and beyond in the name of their lord – the Roman-German king. However, with the Ascanians, who from 1157 onwards rose to become margraves of Brandenburg, they encountered powerful competitors who pursued their own lordly ambitions in the vicinity of the Dominsel. In fact, older Slavic rights extended beyond the local castle, since four settlements were connected with the seat of power, which persisted through the Slavic period and around which the settlement pattern gradually changed. These are the small and large Domkietz (Cathedral Neighborhood) on the Dominsel, the altstädtischer (Old Town) or Wendkietz in the area of the Altstadt (Old Town) Brandenburg and the neustädtischer (New Town) Kietz in front of the Neustadt (New Town) on the Mühlendamm (Mill Dam). These designations trace back to settlement structures that developed with the influx of newcomers from the region of the Elbe and Saale rivers in the 12th century. The earliest settlement of the immigrants was Parduin (pronounced pardūn), which was established on royal territory around 1160 and later developed into the Altstadt of Brandenburg. The first traces of this settlement are documented in the surroundings of the church of St. Gotthard, where a group of Premonstratensians from Leitzkau had already settled around 1147.
Fig. 2: Town Hall of Brandenburg’s Old Town, with the 15th-century Roland statue in front of the building. The statue was moved here from Brandenburg’s New Town in 1946.
The reform-oriented monks were intensively engaged in Christian missionary work and pastoral care, far beyond Parduin. Especially the new settlers working as merchants moved to their vicinity, and St. Gotthard served them as a parish church. Soon the Bishop of Brandenburg, Wilmar, appointed the convent of the Premonstratensians to cathedral chapter. Their relocation to the Dominsel followed in 1161. Four years later, the construction of the cathedral began, which was to replace an older cathedral church located near the castle. St. Gotthard developed into the parish church of the settlement Parduin. Its name comes from an old branch of the Havel of the same name, which can be translated into Dutch as “strong mooring rope”, and refers to the important role of water in the local urban development. The Havel, namely, marked the lordly border between the royal territory belonging to Havelland, on which the settlement of Parduin was located, and the Zauche, which belonged to the Ascanian estate. Around 1170, a new settlement was established here on the other bank of the Havel on parts of the Stutzdorf/Deutschendorf district, which was first mentioned in documents under the name Neustadt Brandenburg in 1197. This first municipality, founded east of the Elbe by the margraves of Brandenburg, began to outstrip the Altstadt, as it was called from then on, in economic terms through targeted promotion. This was achieved not least with the help of a systematic expansion of urban infrastructure, which can still be seen today in the town’s layout. As in other municipalities in the Mark Brandenburg, a Mühlendamm was raised during the first half of the 13th century, which connected the Neustadt with the Dominsel. This structure dammed the Havel River to be able to drive water mills. In addition, the Mühlendamm was an important transport route that bridged several Havel islands and reached solid land at Krakau, a district that is now incorporated into the town. A large part of the land transport between Magdeburg and Berlin (Spandau) or further in the direction of Posen and Silesia, which was directed to the Neustadt of Brandenburg with the help of the Mühlendamm, passed through here. The medieval layout of the town is characterized by a conspicuous crossroads, which converged from four directions directly at the Neustadt market. Thus, the main street offered a connection to the Altstadt in extension over the Lange Brücke (today’s Jahrtausendbrücke, Millennium Bridge), which probably dates back to the 10th century, and from there on to Rathenow.
Fig. 3: Brandenburg an der Havel with the Millennium Bridge, an important landmark of the city. Inaugurated in 1929 to commemorate the city’s millennium, it stands on the site of the Lange Brücke, a bridge whose history dates back to the Middle Ages (photo: 2015).
The Sankt-Annen-Strasse, for its part, conveyed traffic into the Zauche, while the Steinstrasse received the country road leading from the Elbe and Magdeburg. The layout of the Neustadt clearly shows the pattern of a town laid out according to plan in the Middle Ages, with a concentration on trade and commerce. The citizens of Neustadt had their own parish church, St. Catherine. From 1286, St. Paul’s Church was built on the site of a margravial farm, which belonged to the monastery of the Dominicans who had moved to the town shortly before. Not least, the existence of this mendicant order marked the economic success of the Neustadt, whereupon the town foundation planned by the Archbishop of Magdeburg in Wusterwitz stagnated. The development of the Altstadt of Brandenburg was also outstripped by the Neustadt. Only when it was able to eliminate the influence of the competing burgraves in the 1240s did the Brandenburg margraves begin to specifically promote the Altstadt by allowing a planned expansion of the Altstadt area. This was followed in 1249 by a transfer of the villages of Luckenberg, Blosendorf and Kallenberg to the Altstadt, with the population living there being declared citizens of the town. During the expansion of the town, the settlement house of the Franciscans, who had been living there since 1234, and their St. John’s Church, which was under construction, were also integrated into the Altstadt. The incorporation of Brielow and Wendkietz followed in 1290 and 1308, respectively. With the support of the Ascanians, the Altstadt, with its parish land, had extended itself as far as Lake Quenz. The Neustadt, which initially did not have a parish land, was also able to extend its influence to the surrounding area and take possession of the villages of Planow, Stenow, Kietz Woltitz, Krug Krakow, Gröben, Schmölln, Wendgräben and Duster-Reckahne.
Fig. 4: The Steintor Tower in Brandenburg’s New Town, built in the first half of the 15th century.
The fortification of both towns, which began in the first half of the 14th century, with its buildings that still characterize the townscape today, such as the Steintorturm (Stone Gate Tower) and the Mühlentorturm (Mill Gate Tower) in the Neustadt and the Rathenower Torturm and Plauer Torturm in the Altstadt, visibly marked for every medieval contemporary the narrower boundaries of municipal law, which was exercised in Brandenburg according to the Magdeburg model. Even more, they illustrated the defensive character of both town councils, which had separately meeting town councils and town halls built on the respective market squares. For shared interests, however, a common town hall existed, similar to that in the twin city of Berlin-Cölln, which was first mentioned in 1360 and stood on the Lange Brücke. The Neustadt, however, remained the more important of the two municipalities. This can be seen not least in the fact that under Margrave Johann it was appointed the highest thing town in his dominions in questions of interpretation of the town law. In the course of the 14th century, this resulted in a claim to validity for the entire Brandenburg Margraviate, which was intended to prevent Magdeburg’s aldermen from giving information and passing judgment.
The aforementioned water mills between the Altstadt and Neustadt Brandenburg were indispensable for the trade of both towns. Ultimately, shipping on the Havel also had a lasting impact on Brandenburg’s urban development. Already with the construction of the Mühlendamm, the building of a flood channel began, which directed the shipping traffic in a generous curve around the Neustadt. Here, customs duty had to be paid, a procedure that can be found in the documents with the paraphrase “etwas zu verrönnen” (“something to channel through”). The shipping route, which still exists today with the Jakobsgraben (Jacob’s Ditch), only gradually lost its importance in the middle of the 16th century with a new expansion of the Havel and the construction of the Kammerschleuse (Town Lock). The developments of the medieval city of Brandenburg, which are only mentioned here in broad outline, can still be found today during attentive walks through the historic town center.
The article is a slightly revised version of the essay by Sascha Bütow, Urbanisierung zwischen geistlichen und weltlichen Herren – zur Entwicklung der Stadt Brandenburg an der Havel im Mittelalter, in Die Mark Brandenburg, no. 111 (2018), pp. 10–15.
Author: Sascha Bütow
Citation:
Sascha Bütow, Brandenburg an der Havel. Medieval Urbanization between Ecclesiastical and Secular Lords, 21.09.2020, https://magdeburg-law.com/historic-city/brandenburg-havel/
Further Reading:
Harald Bodenschatz and Carsten Seifert, Stadtbaukunst in Brandenburg an der Havel. Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Berlin 1992.
Friedrich Ebel, Brandenburg und das Magdeburger Recht, in Beiträge zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der Stadt Brandenburg im Mittelalter, edited by Winfried Schich, Berlin 1993, pp. 157–174.
Joachim Müller, Brandenburg an der Havel. Von der Frühstadt zur Planstadt, in Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchäologie im Hanseraum, vol. X, Vorbesiedlung, Gründung und Entwicklung, edited by Manfred Gläser, Lübeck 2016, pp. 321–338.
Joachim Müller, Brandenburg an der Havel. Altstadt und Neustadt, in Führer zu archäologischen Denkmälern, vol. 37, Potsdam, Brandenburg und das Havelland, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 230–237.
Winfried Schich, Die Bedeutung von Brandenburg an der Havel für die mittelalterliche Mark Brandenburg, in Wie die Mark entstand. 850 Jahre Mark Brandenburg, Fachtagung vom 20. bis 22. Juni 2007 in Brandenburg an der Havel, edited by Joachim Müller, Klaus Neitmann and Franz Schopper, Wünsdorf 2009, pp. 431–451.
Images:
Figs. 1–4: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (Fig. 4: Lienhard Schulz).
