Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilL’Atelier du CRH30The Přemyslid « State », Feudalis...

The Přemyslid « State », Feudalism, and Feudo-Vassalic Relations in Modern Czech Historiography

Jan Zelenka

Résumés

Cet article traite du problème de la recherche sur le féodalisme, ou plutôt sur les « relations féodo-vassaliques » (Lehnswesen) dans les études médiévales en Tchéquie. Le thème du féodalisme n'a jamais été un sujet d'étude essentiel dans la recherche historique tchèque moderne sur le haut Moyen Âge et le Moyen Âge central. Il constituait plutôt un aspect secondaire d'autres thèmes, notamment la question de la structure et du fonctionnement de l'« État » tchèque médiéval, la nature du pouvoir souverain, les relations entre la dynastie régnante des Přemyslides et les empereurs allemands, les élites locales, etc. L'approche adoptée par l'historiographie tchèque à l'égard du féodalisme et des « relations féodo-vassaliques » s'est développée et continue de se développer en grande partie à partir de la manière dont les chercheurs interprètent la nature et la forme de l'« État » des Přemyslides du xe au début du xive siècle. C'est pourquoi cette étude s'attache à retracer le contexte plus large dans lequel les concepts de féodalisme et de « relations féodo-vassaliques » ont été utilisés dans l'historiographie tchèque au cours du xxe siècle et explique ainsi l'état actuel de la recherche.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 François Louis Ganshof, Qu'est-ce que la féodalité ? Bruxelles, Office de publicité, 1944.
  • 2 Heinrich Mitteis, Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt. Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen Verfassungsgesch (...)
  • 3 François Louis Ganshof, Feudalism, Third English Edition, New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1964, p. xvi (...)
  • 4 Already in the second half of the 1950s, Wilhelm Ebel, professor of legal history at the University (...)

1In the mid-1940s, François Louis Ganshof conceived a question in the title of his renown work1 that researchers are still working with today. The problem with its solution is not just in the state and interpretation of the surviving sources. The complexity of the approach to the given topic is effectively mirrored in the way the name of the publication was translated into other languages. While the German edition was called « Was ist das Lehnswesen ? », the English version had the simple one-word title « Feudalism ». Ganshof’s research significantly overlapped with the approach used by German legal history professor Heinrich Mitteis shortly before in his influential work « Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt ».2 The German translation of Ganshof’s book thus rather loyally reflected not just the original title, but especially its intellectual content. Both authors focused on a certain section of the topic, which in Ganshof’s words was : « Feudalism only in the narrow, technical, legal sense of the word. [...] as a body of institutions creating and regulating the obligations of obedience and service – mainly military service – on the part of a free man (the vassal) towards another free man (the lord), and the obligations of protection and maintenance on the part of the lord with regard to his vassal ».3 On the contrary, the English title of Ganshof’s work maintained a wider meaning that also recalled the broader understanding of the phenomenon of a feudal society. What may seem like simple word play actually reflected rather fundamental conceptual and methodological differences that are related to the terms Feudalism – Lehnswesen and concurrently create a certain dividing line between the research methods used, especially in Anglo-Saxon and German historiography.4

  • 5 František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě I/1, Praha, Nákladem knihkupce F. Tem (...)
  • 6 E.g. Jiří Štaif, Historici, dějiny a společnost. Historiografie v českých zemích od Palackého a jeh (...)

2Czech historiography was significantly influenced by the approaches and methods used in German research since its modern beginnings in the 19th century. Moreover, the problems associated with the political and cultural emancipation of the Czech nation within the Habsburg monarchy and the complicated relations with ethnic Germans in the Czech lands strongly influenced purely scientific topics. These phenomena largely persisted even after the creation of an independent Czechoslovak state in 1918 that had a large German minority and German neighbours. « Extra-scientific » influences on Czech historiography were even further strengthened by the Nazi occupation, World War II, and the post-war rise of the communist regime. The question of Feudalism could not avoid these influences. In the second half of the 19th century, the founder of modern Czech historiography František Palacký explained the « age-old » struggles between Czechs and Germans using the differences between the nature of Slavs and Germans. For Palacký, the arrival of the « German feudal customs » that chiefly began in the second half of the 13th century signalled the death knell for native Slavic equality and justice.5 Despite Palacký’s ideas being proven to be completely wrong, the relationship to the German neighbour maintained an important place in the interpretation of Czech medieval history.6 This was probably most visible in the question of whether Přemyslid Bohemia was part of a medieval empire and if so what position it had in that order. Tumultuous and often strongly nationally-tinged polemics about the interpretation of individual dealings between Czech and imperial sovereigns, about the importance of tributes, battles, treaties, and the position of Přemyslid rulers or Prague bishops as imperial princes continued to be published up to the second half of the 20th century. This was not the only topic where the comparison of mutual relations and developmental trends played an important role. The thematization of the German neighbourhood and its influence on Czech conditions affected economic, legal, and cultural history, as well as the history of literature.

  • 7 See below.

3The topic of feudalism itself never became a fundamental, independent subject of study in modern Czech historical research into older medieval history.7 It was more a secondary part of the above-mentioned topics, especially the question of the structure and functioning of the medieval Czech « state », the character of sovereign power, relations between the ruling Přemyslid dynasty to the German emperors, domestic elites, etc. The approach taken by Czech historiography to feudalism and feudo-vassalic relations has developed and continues to develop in large part in how researchers interpret the character and form of the Přemyslid « state » from the 10th to the beginning of the 14th century. The basic interpretational outline is formed by three related questions : The relation of the ruler to the land and the population, the elite’s (the magnates) share of power, and the issue of their « private » landed property, which are marked by long-term continuity. Therefore, a broader excursion is necessary to understand the state of research in the second half of the 20th century as well as current discussions.

The Peisker/Lippert debate and the « Central European Model »

  • 8 Johann Peisker, Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen. Eine Streitfrage der böhmischen Socialgeschichte. Gegen (...)
  • 9 Julius Lippert, « Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen », Bohemia, n° 1, 3, 10, 13, 16, 35, 36, 55, 1890.
  • 10 Johann Peisker, Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen…, op. cit., p. 80.

4The origins of the two fundamental interpretational directions were formed at the end of the 19th century. In 1890, Johann Peisker (who later became a professor of social and economic history at the Prague university) published the brief work Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen [Serfdom in Bohemia].8 Peisker was reacting to a series of articles by renowned cultural, social, and economic history expert Julius Lippert published the same year in the periodical Bohemia. A conflict erupted between the authors about the position of the Přemyslid dukes and their relationship to their territory and its population. Lippert spoke of unimpeded sovereign power over the land and people, and even compared the Přemyslids to all-powerful Tartar rulers that decided everything and everything belonged to them.9 On the contrary, Peisker argued the sources show hereditary and free ownership of land by peasants (heredes, rustici) and other private landholders. He certainly did not agree with Lippert’s vision of a complete lack of freedom, and in a reference to the Tartar parallel ironically noted the Přemyslids could not have even dreamed of such power.10

  • 11 František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě I/2, Praha, Nákladem knihkupectwí J.G (...)
  • 12 Hermenegild Jireček, Slovanské právo v Čechách a na Moravě. Do konce X. století., Praha, Sklad Karl (...)

5Peisker basically defended the opinions of František Palacký to whom he dedicated his publication. Palacký attributed nearly unlimited power to the Přemyslids, which allowed the dukes to make subjects and officials of what were originally tribal elites. At the same time, however, he did not doubt the existence of hereditary private holding of land, even entire domains ; and some significant « noble » houses should have even traced their origins to the tribal aristocracy.11 Palacký’s conclusions then influenced the subsequent research. Legal historian Hermenegild Jireček, who in the 1860s focused specifically on « Slavic law », also considered the dukes to be powerful « leaders of the nation » who « owned » most of the land. However, he went even further than Palacký in accentuating the significance of the nobility. He reckoned on the survival of the original tribal elite possessing « powerful » landed property and the emergence of a new « court and administrative nobility » during the 11th century. Both groups were to form an « estate » of magnates who were placed into important administrative positions. Furthermore, the sovereign would make legislative and judicial decisions based on consultations with them. Regarding property, Jireček envisioned the existence of a private domain held by the Přemyslids and the private landed property of hereditary owners from various social positions – « heirs » (heredes). The largest share of assets belonged to so-called « crown estates » that the author claimed were significantly comprised of sovereign administrative centres (« castles », « towns », « manors ») and associated estates, border forests, some interior forests administered by hunters, chamber incomes in the forms of taxes and fines, customs duties, tolls, etc. Furthermore, the sovereigns could only administer or « alienate » crown estates with the approval of the magnates.12

  • 13 Lippert referred to Peisker's work only minimally without any extensive polemic with it, cf. Julius (...)
  • 14 Julius Lippert, Social-Geschichte Böhmens, op. cit., esp. p. 170-190 ; p. 238-263 ; p. 327-337 ; p. (...)

6As early as a series of articles from 1890, Lippert announced the preparation of a larger work on Czech medieval social history. The result were two extensive volumes published in the second half of the same decade. Lippert did not substantially answer Peisker’s objections in the text, but criticism of his ideas most probably compelled him to use more careful statements and adjust certain conclusions.13 However, he did not leave any doubt in the readers’ minds that he stood against the opinions of Palacký and his followers. He rejected the idea of the transformation of the tribal aristocracy, specifically stating the question was irrelevant because it was only the favour of the sovereign that ennobled individuals and was the basis for their further growth in power and prosperity. Lippert had a similar approach to private property, which he did not deny, but the decisions about social standing and rises and falls remained solely in the hands of the dukes. To counter Jireček’s argument about the rights of magnates and their participation in important decisions, he claimed there is only one proven case where a judicial decision by the magnates can be documented before the mid-13th century. In general, Lippert described the Přemyslid « state » literally as a « manor » (in Germ. Hofgut) of the ruler, where the « administrative » aristocracy was gaining an increasing share of power and property, but the sovereign dictated law and other decisions deep into the 13th century.14

  • 15 We have seen, however, that a similar theoretical concept was worked with by H. Jireček. Moreover, (...)

7The publication of Lippert’s work definitively established a framework in the historiographic discourse that still resonates in the Czech medieval research to this day. However, the quantity of individual topics that formed the image of the political structure and functioning of the Přemyslid « state » was not delineated in the research on a direct Palacký (Jireček, Peisker)-Lippert axis, but also differed in the understanding of particular phenomena. For example, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Josef Šusta accepted that it was the Přemyslid dynasty that basically « made » domestic history in the 10th-12th centuries. However, referring to Peisker he also did not doubt the large amount of landed property held by church and nobles already in the 11th century that had the form of « Western European manorial estates ». Šusta also introduced the concept of separating sovereign’s reigns into « dominium speciale » and « dominium generale » in Czech historiography. Neither the terms nor the vaguely defined construct are based in medieval Czech sources. Šusta used theoretic concepts to describe two different areas of royal rights : « general » (generale), where the sovereign was dependent on the consent and cooperation of the nobility (esp. the general land tax, the operation of the administrative bodies, military matters) ; and « special » (speciale), which specifically included the administration of his own private property and regalia in general.15

  • 16 Cf. Rudolf Koss, Zur Frage nach der Entstehung und Entwicklung des böhmischen Herrenstandes, Prag, (...)

8A certain level of syncretism between Jireček’s and Lippert’s opinions noticed especially by Šusta remained in the historiography. On the one hand, researchers supposed the holding of private hereditary land by the nobility with the more or less careful admission of its « pre-state/tribal » origin, but on the other hand considered that the duke was the majority landholder. The ruler basically exercised absolute power and the rise or fall of individuals or noble families was primarily associated with holding posts in the ducal administration. The nobility was to gain greater share in decision-making and land tenure in the 12th century because of regular discord among members of the Přemyslid dynasty.16

  • 17 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum, Bertold Bretholz (dir.), MGH SS rer. Germ., N. S. II, Berlin, W (...)
  • 18 Dušan Třeštík, « K sociální struktuře přemyslovských Čech », Československý časopis historický, n°  (...)

9The set discourse did not change in the second half of the 20th century. In 1971, historian Dušan Třeštík published an article about the social structure in Bohemia under the Přemyslids. The author focused on describing the absolutist rule and the unlimited ownership of people and land as described in the chronicle by Cosmas of Prague (†1125).17 Třeštík noted there is no evidence for the continued prominence of part of the tribal nobility and its extensive land tenure. Despite admitting the nobility had significant political influence, he considered service to the duke and donations as the main source of their land holdings, which begins to appear markedly only in the 12th century. Contrary to older research, however, Třeštík closely focused on the term « ownership ». Referring especially to German legal historiography and Scandinavian analogies, he noted the differing understanding of medieval ownership of land. The consolidation of ducal power and the creation of a Přemyslid « state » at the beginning of the 10th century should have been accompanied by an extermination or marginalization of possible competitors from among the tribal elites. Encumbering the free inhabitants with levies and burdens was also understood as a form of being a subject, which was also reflected in the understanding of the category « ownership ». By collecting taxes and services related to the land of the « heirs », the duke became a joint holder and its formal « owner » without violating ownership rights or the options to freely use the property by its actual holders.18

  • 19 The so-called « service organisation » was to be formed around castle centres or ducal courts where (...)
  • 20 Dušan Třeštík, Josef Žemlička, « O modelech vývoje přemyslovského státu », Český časopis historický(...)
  • 21 This characteristic used Stanislaw Russocki, « Vznik vládního systému a způsob panování v patrimoni (...)
  • 22 Cf. David Kalhous, Anatomy of a Duchy. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemysl (...)

10An abstract model of several levels of land ownership relations enabled an interpretation of the contradictory testimonies in the sources, which on the one hand showed the « dominance » of the Přemyslid dukes and their « ownership » of the realm ; but on the other they also testified to the importance of the magnates and their « ownership » rights to landed property. Třeštík’s conclusions became widely accepted. In a sense, they became the basis of the significant interpretational approach formed at the time : the so-called « Central European Model » that used Bohemian-Hungarian-Polish analogies to explain the creation, development, and operation of the aforementioned « states » and their differences from the Western European environment. However, even the « Central European Model » basically didn’t diverge from the current research to that point. Besides efforts to better understand the concept of « ownership » and a greater emphasis on the legacy of Great Moravia, it significantly overlapped with previous research. The concept was based in the fundamental similarities in the structure and functioning of the Přemyslid realm in Bohemia, of the Piasts in Poland, and of the Árpads in Hungary. Great Moravia was considered to be the hypothetical origin of these similarities, which allegedly preserved the Carolingian model of « state » administration that was then used in surrounding territories. While the sovereigns’ main political and military tool was the « state retinue », economically and administratively the entire structure relied on a system of castle centres and a so-called « service organisation ».19 In the words of the model’s proponents : « The state here ruled over a personally free but burdened with various benefits and services people, which resulted in the idea of the sovereign’s supreme ownership or co-ownership (as we would express it in modern terms) of all land and people in the country ; after all, he received the benefits from them in the form of taxes. Nowhere was there any trace of large non-principal landed property [...] The aristocracy lived primarily on shares of the state’s revenues as its officials. »20 In other words, it was « patrimonial monarchy » characterised by the dominance of the rulers over all social classes and the close interplay between the « private » and « public » spheres and relations.21 Despite the concept of the « Central European Model » being mostly comprised of particular individual studies – which were not free from contradictions and partial changes in interpretations – and never being developed in a comprehensive monographic form, it became the dominant approach to the topic of the early Přemyslid state for decades to come.22

  • 23 Libor Jan, Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci, Brno, Knižnice Matice moravské 2006, esp. p. 13- (...)

11The dominant discourse was fundamentally affected by historian Libor Jan’s book published in 2006. Despite the focus of the work in the second half of the 13th century, the author also described previous developments and their roots. He argued against the idea of Přemyslid « ownership » of the country. On the contrary, he emphasized the free/allodial land tenure of the magnates, which was a defining characteristic of the nobility. It was private landholding that also represented one of the main sources of noble power : The ability to « establish » law that bound even the Přemyslid sovereigns. The author also differentiated a « crown » domain whose core were the sovereigns’ castles with a public function headed by a constable (castellanus), and the narrower private domain held by Přemyslid rulers administered by their representatives (villicus/steward). Constable posts were thus not just offices/honours that came with substantial income and power, but more of a benefice – a « fief » with associated landed estates. In Jan’s view, the emphasis on noble land tenure returned into the historiographic discourse once again, as did the weight of their judicial/advisory role, the delimitation between « crown lands » and the private domains of the Přemyslids, and feudo-vassalic relations.23

Feudalism and Feudo-Vassalic Relations in Czech Historiography

  • 24 Bruno came from an old North German noble family. In 1245, the Pope appointed him Bishop of Olomouc (...)

12As stated above, the topic of feudalism and feudo-vassalic relations was not fundamental in the study of the Czech early and high medieval period. Results of research were primarily diverse studies published at great intervals, which did not form a coherent or interconnected body. There is a certain exception for the attention given to the feudal system within the Olomouc bishopric established during the episcopate of Bruno of Schauenburg at the beginning of the 1250s. The collection of charters left by Bishop Bruno (1245-1281) and his successor Theoderich of Neuhaus (Dětřich z Hradce, 1281-1302) offer a detailed view of the operation of the feudal system within the bishopric. At the same time, it’s a complete anomaly not just in the number of documents, but their contents and the appearance of feudal terminology significantly contrasts with other surviving domestic sources. We only very rarely encounter a certain asset described as a feudum or as the bestowed iure feodali outside the Olomouc diocese in the 13th century sources, and not at all in the previous period.24

  • 25 Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Die Entstehung des böhmisch-mährischen Lehnwesens im Lichte der germanischen (...)

13The beginning of interest into a more detailed interpretation of the domestic feudal or more appropriately feudo-vassalic relations falls into the beginning of the 20th century. Wilhelm Weizsäcker, a legal historian at the German University in Prague, dealt with the topic from the perspective of contemporary German studies on the question of « Lehnswesen ». Although he noted feudo-vassalic relations entered Bohemia as a developed legal institution, especially in the 13th century, he saw a certain analogy to the Frankish environment in previous domestic developments. In general, the term beneficium in Czech sources should originally have referred to « a subsidy » (in Germ. Unterhalt) provided by the sovereign to his men in various ways. The author included various forms of gifts and goods earned through service among these benefices. Another of the important meanings of beneficium (or in the Old Czech Latinized form suppa) related to a wide range of ducal offices from which the holder (beneficarius) received various forms of incomes as a reward. Despite certain parallels with the Frankish environment, Weizsäcker did not see an equivalent to a fief in any of these categories as it was defined in contemporary German research. The slow entrance of feudo-vassalic relations into the Bohemian environment was supposed to begin toward the end of the 12th century.25

  • 26 František Graus, « Lenní právo v Čechách », Český lid, n° 39, 1952, p. 67-73.

14František Graus built on Weizsäcker’s article at the beginning of the 1950s with his own research that was under the influence of domestic Marxist historiography. Graus first criticized his predecessors, especially Weizsäcker and the « German school » in general who he accused of legal formalism and mixing the phenomenon of « Lehnswesen » with feudalism in its broader meaning. At the same time, Graus objected to German authors (both domestic and foreign), who were supposed to associate social, cultural, legal, and social changes in Bohemia with the decisive influence of the German milieu. According to Graus, who referred to Lenin and Soviet historiography, there were no doubts the early Přemyslid state should be understood as feudal. At the same time, he also sought the answer to the question whether feudo-vassalic relations can be discussed in this period as he did not agree with the existing opinions that emphasized the 13th century and the aforementioned German influence. He reached the conclusion that a feudo-vassalic system of domestic origin developed in the 10th-12th centuries without any extraneous influence. The entire text is notable for its brevity and the minimal use of primary sources. With regard to the conclusion presented, Graus considered the terms beneficium, miles and beneficiarius found in domestic sources of the 12th century as sufficient evidence to identify them as fiefs and vassals. However, he did not provide any analysis to support this statement, nor did he discuss W. Weizsäcker’s conclusions. It’s also notable that Graus chose this form of « research » despite being well-oriented in the debate about feudo-vassalic relations and feudalism in Europe at the time as shown by references to the works of German historiography as well as M. Bloch and F. L. Ganshof.26

  • 27 Cf. the discussion contributions printed in Český lid, n° 40, 1953, p. 83-87, 146-157, the quoted c (...)

15Graus’s text was written at a time when the only comprehensive debate on the problem of feudalism, or rather on the problem of the feudal character of the Great Moravian « state » of the 9th century, was taking place in Czech historiography. Fully under the influence of Marxist ideology, it primarily attempted to resolve the question whether Great Moravia could be considered a feudal state formation. Although Graus noted the current state of knowledge prevented any resolution of this issue, the contrary opinion that supposed « feudal relations dominated in this territory » was adopted by most. Like Graus’s previous article, this discussion was also marked by a great deal of theory with minimal use of sources, and it completely avoided the question of how this « feudal system » functioned.27

  • 28 Jaroslav Bakala, « K počátkům lenního zřízení v českém státě », Slezský sborník, n° 57, 1959, p. 37 (...)

16It was only at the end of the 1950s that Jaroslav Bakala returned to the topic of feudalism and like Weizsäcker, with whom his results practically agree, he also focused on a more detailed examination of the terminology. According to Bakala, Přemyslid sovereigns equipped the official apparatus of the castle organization with estates whose character corresponded to « Western European fiefs » dubbed Burglehen – feudum castrense. These were usually goods of temporary use that provided the user with profit and whose holding was conditioned with performing an office. However, the honours and the related assets are conflated in the sources in the term beneficium. The holders of these benefices were called beneficiarius. At the same time, Bakala noted the problematic interpretation of « feudal » terminology using the terms miles and ministerialis, which cannot be automatically understood as vassals as the domestic sources primarily used these terms for fighters or nobles in the former case and servants in the latter. Bakala reached the conclusion that the feudal system of the early Přemyslid state was of native origin and « did not have any significance for the direct organization of ownership relationships up to the end of the 12th century, but more for the organization of the state and other administration. » Further development came only in the 13th century based on the acceptance of « Western European feudal legal norms ».28

  • 29 František Kavka, « Západoevropský lenní institut jako nástroj vnitřní královské politiky za posledn (...)
  • 30 Krzysztof Kowalewski, Rycerze, włodycy, panosze. Ludzie systemu lennego w średniowiecznych Czechach(...)
  • 31 Stanislaw Russocki, « Z badań nad czeskim systemem beneficjalnym », Czasopismo Prawnohistoryczne, n (...)

17Bakala’s article ended the discussion about the existence and nature of a feudal system in Bohemia up to the 12th century to a significant extent. The following period only saw the addition of studies about specific questions, primarily the Olomouc bishopric. Despite the « Central European Model » overlapping in many ways with Weizsäcker’s and Bakala’s interpretations in relation to administrative benefices, the historiography had a reserved relationship to references of feudal relations as such. To a significant extent, there was a return to the theories presented in the second half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. The institution of fiefs was seen as a 13th century import as noted by historian František Kavka in an article on the end of the Přemyslid reign and the beginning of Luxembourger rule, saying it played only a peripheral role in the relationships between the last Přemyslids and the nobility.29 The same conclusions were presented by Polish researcher Krzysztof Kowaleski, who primarily focused on a later period. He considered the institution of fiefs a novelty and the first domestic organization of territory on feudal-vassalic principles was attributed to Bruno of Schauenburg.30 Another Polish researcher, Stanislav Russocki, proposed in the 1970s that research into the end of the 12th century avoid the term fief, nor should it speak of feudo-vassalic relations, but instead suggested the term « beneficiary system ». Russocki also saw parallels between the Merovingian and Carolingian milieu and the administrative systems used in Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary. However, this was based on a similar level of social development more than direct inspiration and acceptance of models.31

  • 32 Libor Jan, Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci, Brno, Knižnice Matice moravské, 2006, p. 184, 18 (...)
  • 33 Libor Jan, « Budování monarchie českých Přemyslovců. Postřehy a úvahy », in Martin Wihoda, Lukáš Re (...)

18The work of Libor Jan offers quite a different interpretation. According to him, the term beneficium cannot only be understood as a share in income in relation to castle and other « public » offices, but a « quasi-fief » associated with the tenure of land (or this could be individually bestowed landholdings). In general, the author reached the conclusion that administrative benefices were closely related to fiefs, but lacked the hereditary nature and there is no evidence to a vassal oath taken by the holders. There is also a clear shift in the author’s approach. Whereas in the older works he speaks more of the Frankish/Carolingian benefices (with reference to Weizsäcker),32 his later works speak of fiefs and a system similar to that in Western Europe (referring mainly to Mitteis).33

19This brief overview of the research makes it clear how the overall interpretation of the political structure of the Přemyslid « state » and the use of references to a (quasi)-vassal relationship have been influenced. It’s certainly not a coincidence that authors who most significantly differentiate between the private Přemyslid domain and « crown estates » accept the « feudal » interpretation. The theoretical differentiation of the sovereign’s reign into the realm of special (dominium speciale) and general (dominium generale) rule indirectly offers the interpretation that while elements of manorialism (Grundherrschaft) were applied in the former, the second primarily used principles from feudalism or more precisely Lehnswesen. On the contrary, the more the research was inclined to see strong sovereign power delegated to others through a network of offices/honours offering their holders rewards from ducal/« state » revenues, the less space remained for feudo-vassalic relations.

20Both directions of research have several fundamental problems. First, this is an effort to find an ideal or at least a dominant typology that would clearly define the form and nature of Přemyslid reign. The question of whether this is even possible based on the surviving sources (to what extent we are able, for example, to follow the possible (dis)continuity of administrative and political mechanisms, and whether, on a theoretical and methodological level competing principles could not in fact have coexisted without problems) has remained ignored. Another and even more pressing problem is the terminology used and the work with theoretical concepts that were formed using foreign source materials. Basically, the only author that attempted to explain the functioning of the Czech « feudal » system and the terminology used through a deeper analysis of domestic sources was W. Weizsäcker at the beginning of the 20th century, who was partially followed by J. Bakala.

21Most other authors, however, only referred to other works, mostly German historiography, instead of providing a basic definition of terms such as fief or (Carolingian/Frankish) benefice, etc., which played a fundamental analytic role in their interpretations. This does not demand a clear and objective definition, but basic information about how the researcher understood the terms and how they subsequently worked with them in their concept. Simple references to foreign work, which in some cases were rather old, amplifies the problem as the image of the feudal system and the meaning of the terms underwent and continues to undergo transformations. The use of terms such as « quasi-fief, quasi-feudo-vassalic relations etc. » is also a bit unfortunate. First, it introduces an unnecessary a-historic term into an already complicated debate about terminology. Second and more importantly, the term on its own lacks any analytic value. Certain elements of « feudal relations » are present in all hierarchic social structures. We can thus dub any relationship between two differently positioned entities based on holding any asset or right in return for loyalty or specific services (theoretically also the relation of the holder of a prebend to an ecclesiastic institution) as « quasi- feudo-vassalic ».

  • 34 The fact that neither Western Europe nor the neighbouring « regnum Teutonicum » represented homogen (...)

22It’s also noteworthy, that the second half of the 20th century saw a gradual disappearance of mentions of feudalism and the domestic literature predominantly used the term « feudo-vassalic relations » (Lehnswesen). The works cited and referred to most often remained Mitteis and Ganshof. The conceptual criticism included in the work of E. Brown and especially S. Reynolds did not cause any direct reaction in Czech medieval studies and practically only began to be felt when a fundamental debate began in German historiography. Even with a partial reflection of the newly opened discussion, research continued to follow the approach basically established in the 19th century primarily based in the question of whether the Bohemian milieu more-or-less corresponded to imperial or Western European conditions, or whether it had significant specificities. Instead of a critical rethinking of the heretofore approach to the topic, the literature still reflected an image of a certain universal « Western European fief » that was compared to information in Czech sources. However, it is typical that none of the authors clearly defined what that « Western European fief » or « Western European feudal system » were.34 Only the accompanying references make it clear that the concept of fief or feudo-vassalic relation was not taken primarily from medieval sources, but from their secondary interpretation mostly found in works of German legal historiography.

The question of the sources

  • 35 Jana Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen, Köln, Böhlau, 2007.
  • 36 Only an overview of charters currently exists for the 1283-1297 period, Dalibor Havel, Katalog list (...)

23To avoid any misunderstandings, the purpose of the preceding summary was not a simple criticism of Czech medieval studies, but a brief explanation of the heretofore state of research into the topic. Czech historiography’s approach can be understood as not just the outcome of historical influences and contexts, but also a logical reaction to the condition of the surviving domestic sources. Western European and German medieval studies can rely on continual series (though with gaps of course) of various types of sources beginning in the early Middle Ages. The medieval history of the Czech lands (and this reality is basically true for the entire East-Central European area), basically begins in the 10th century if we exclude Great Moravia and archaeological finds. The oldest period is primarily captured in hagiographic works. The first domestic chronicle dubbed Chronica Boemorum, which is a fundamental source for the 11th and the beginning of the 12th centuries, was written by Prague dean Cosmas in 1119-1125. A series of subsequent chronicles are available for the period up to the end of the 12th century. However, for the 13th century we must primarily rely on disconnected and significantly gapped sets of narrative works probably compiled in the 1280s known as The Second Continuation of Cosmas’ Chronicle. Another extensive chronicle, the Chronicon Aulae regiae then continually captured the end of the Přemyslid epoch and the rise of Luxembourger rule at the beginning of the 14th century.35 The surviving charters especially cover the period from the mid-12th century while there is more significant growth in the production of documents only from the beginning of the next century. Diplomatic material is collected in the Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae (further CDB) series published since the beginning of the 20th century, which fulfils all the characteristics of modern editions including an analysis of the authenticity of the charters. Unfortunately, the work has only advanced to the year 1283 thus far.36 The remaining documents from the Přemyslid period are collected in the older Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae edition or in the Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae (further RBM).

24The corpus of surviving sources exerted and still exerts significant influence on the topic at hand and the questions asked. Put simply, the chronological delimitation, types, and quantity of Czech sources do not offer many opportunities to research more general topics, which certainly include questions about feudalism and feudo-vassalic relations. It is therefore understandable that Czech medieval studies primarily relied on the results provided by foreign researchers in this respect. Considering the suggested interconnections between Czech and German historiography, it’s not surprising the conclusions reached by German legal historiography offered a logical and rather easily understood interpretational guide at first glance. However, it’s necessary to admit this approach remains fully dependent on accepting the paradigms that basically predetermine the interpretations of domestic sources and thus the results of the research itself.

  • 37 Cf. Dirk Heirbaut, « The Dangers of Using Latin Texts for the Study of Customary Law : The Example (...)

25Probably the only fitting solution for the current state of research that has seemingly found itself in a vicious circle is a return to the sources themselves. Their interpretation should not rely on a preprepared interpretational framework. Research into the form and way the feudal system operated in the Czech Lands should primarily be based on the source base. Only after that should the acquired image be placed into its wider European contexts. However, even this suggested and initially meaningful starting point has its problems. First, the extent of the information to be examined must be defined. In the absence of legal sources such as law codes, the contemporary terminology is of primary interest, especially terms such as beneficium, feudum, vassalus, fidelitas, homagium, etc., which play a pivotal role in the topic. This terminology, its contexts, and any transformations create a traditional part of research as the historiographical concept is based on a specific accepted terminological framework. The terms used represent an objective historical reality in themselves, and their meaning(s) can be verified and better defined through the use of quantitative analysis. This analysis can be based on a wide range of various sources either in the purpose of the text or its origin because the primary goal of the research is to create the widest possible « meaning field » of terms in question. Unfortunately, we cannot turn to surviving sources written in the vernacular for the given period. We are thus left with testimonies from Latin sources that by themselves could be to some extent distorted as the formal and formalized language used in the documents may not have wholly overlapped with the described realities.37 Furthermore, we are also limited by the appearance of the corresponding terminology in basically randomly surviving sources where the insufficient quantitative representation of the mentioned terms complicates attempts at their qualitative evaluation.

  • 38 Jan Zelenka, Vom Beneficial- zum Lehnswesen. Eine vergleichende Analyse sächsischer und böhmischer (...)

26Despite the suggested limitations, the historic semantic method does offer the opportunity to observe the terminology and together with it the given phenomenon in the broader semantic context, including its possible (dis)continuity and transformations. The irrefutable advantage of this approach is the fact that the terminological « dataset » compiled in this way can be rather easily compared with any other similar research. The legitimacy of this method is clear if the topic of the Czech feudal system is not selectively understood, but if we focus on the terminology continually throughout the Přemyslid period of the 10th-14th centuries. For example, the level of representation of the terms beneficium and feudum in the sources and the systematics of their meaning fields already offers a certain form of testimony. We encounter the term feudum and its variants to a very limited extent, only appearing beginning in the 1220s. Moreover most of the uses (over 70 %) are found in charters from the Olomouc bishopric. The difference between the use of the term in documents from the Olomouc bishops and other issuers is truly significant.38

  • 39 Ibid., p. 132-145.
  • 40 Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Das deutsche Recht der bäuerlicher Kolonisten Böhmens und Mährens im XIII. un (...)

27Throughout the Přemyslid period, we can observe stable meaning fields for the recorded terms that we can separate into four « groups ». The first three are based on the term beneficium, which appears most often in association with a prebend. However, it was also used for lay honours/offices and their holders in the beneficiarius/beneficus/beneficiatus forms. The term beneficiarius was used in the sources only in relation to administrative honours and positions. None of the surviving documents label a church official utilizing a prebend nor the holder of individual estates granted in beneficium/feudum with this term, nor are the goods belonging to the office described in the sources as a beneficium or feudum. It is always only defined in relation to the given honour (ad beneficium venatoris pertinente ; terre beneficiis ... attribute etc.). The office’s estates continued to be at the disposal of the sovereign (e.g. for gifts), just as he could dispose the holder of the office. The nature of the administrative benefice and the position of the holder thus correspond to the characteristics of a prebend to a significant extent. The third group is where the term beneficium meant a specific estate held by a layperson. This was entirely marginally represented, however. The last group is made up of assets bestowed as feudum or iuris feudali. We do not encounter transformations or even a formal definition of the terminology in the period in questions, such as the appearance of the term « true fief » that we know from the German milieu of this time. References to ministerial law or castle fiefs only appear in the charters from the Olomouc bishops. These relations between the aforementioned terminological groups are noteworthy because the suggested boundaries of using the listed terms are probably not a coincidence and have deeper roots. If we omit church prebends, we see that on the one side is the administrative apparatus attached to variations of the term beneficium. On the other, from the 13th century, stands the term feudum that was used in a range of relationships, but it does not appear that its use underwent any fundamental development or expansion. It appears more likely to be a new element replaceable by other eventualities.39 The reasons were probably associated with a wider social context and development trends. Economic and social transformation visible throughout East-Central Europe fully manifested themselves in Bohemia during the 13th century. The settlement of new areas, founding of towns, new legal traditions, and cultural trends significantly affected the physical and mental landscape. Many of the changes were contingent on domestic developments, a stable political situation, demographic circumstances, and the colonization activities of ecclesiastic institutions and noble families, with other influences coming from abroad. German names of villages or telling nicknames reminiscent of their founders (e.g. Otto Tevtonicus) began to appear at the outset of the 13th century in the near-border area. At the end of the 1220s we encounter the term ius Teutonicum in the sources for the first time. This Latin phrase does not point to some geographically defined law of the Germans, but a wider collection of legal traditions that are known in other parts of Europe under various names, and they were reciprocated in Bohemia throughout the German regions. The « Law of the Germans » and its associated forms that appeared as emphyteusis in Czech sources brought a new quality into relations between the owner and holder/leaser of the estate. Similar expectations were gradually created by the granting of immunities to ecclesiastic institutions in the previous period, but a broad qualitative transformation of legal norms is only documented from the 13th century.40

  • 41 Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Das deutsche Recht », art. cité, p. 492sq.
  • 42 RBM II, Josef Emler (ed.), Praha 1882, n° 2024 : « [...] nobis non liceat dictam villam vel curiam (...)

28In general, the new norms were seen as « better law » based on clearly defined conditions and obligations, as well as a guarantee of stable possession and inheritance. At the same time, inhabitants of these localities were relieved of older obligations as was the case with immunities. This severed the ties to the original administrative centre, courts, and older obligations in the form of levies and services. That is the reason for the option to found a new location or newly legally define an existing location under emphyteutic or « German » law as a privilege provided by the owner. In the opposite cases, we encounter specific prohibitions to newly « found » bestowed estates under some of these laws.41 An example is the document by Beneš the Older of Vartenberg from 1305. The noble admits that he received a village with a manor farm (curia) from the Břevnov Monastery for his use for life. After his death it would return to the monastery. Besides an economic levy, Beneš also obligated himself to not sell the property or to « re-establish » it according to « German » law.42

  • 43 CDB II, Gustav Friedrich (ed.), Praha 1912, n° 329.
  • 44 CDB IV/1, Jindřich Šebánek, Sáša Dušková (dir.), Praha 1962, n° 144 : « […] nos igitur Ienzo de Sch (...)

29Mentions of feudal law come shortly after the sources first mention « German » law. The first surviving charter to use the terms ius feodali describes an act that is repeated in a series of documents throughout Europe in various forms. The Vyšehrad Chapter gave a certain Henry the Saxon and his successors (successoribus) estates in the village of Zdenice near Prachatice iure feodali. Henry accepted the property in homagium, he was forgiven from paying levies for a period of five years, and he was to pay the agreed upon annual rent only after that. Henry also obligated himself to set up two villages whose inhabitants were freed of obligations for a period of 10 years and then should have paid an annual fee according to the one paid by the people of Prachatice.43 The document captures an attempt to economically cultivate a microregion that should have provided the Vyšehrad Chapter with stable income. The originally foreign « guest » (as shown by Henry’s sobriquet « the Saxon »), took upon himself the colonization project whose difficulty and risks corresponded to the acquired benefits. Despite the terminology used, we can hardly call him a vassal of the Vyšehrad Chapter. The document basically describes an act known in the Bohemian milieu as emphyteusis. This is not an isolated case. Documents with similar formulations are also present in the following periods. An explanation of this phenomenon is offered by Moravian nobleman Jenza of Šumperk, who in 1281 bestowed two « laneum » upon his loyal servant Horina and his heirs. The documents state the property was given to Horina « under feudal or emphyteutic law, which is commonly called Burgrecht ».44

  • 45 RBM II, n° 1456 : « […] quod villas easdem vel aliquam portionem earum vendere vel infeudare aut ob (...)
  • 46 Examples of the description of emphyteusis or German law by reference to hereditary possession are (...)

30There is no doubt that « feudal » and « German » (emphyteutic, Burgrecht) laws were understood as connected norms, at least interchangeable to a certain extent. The causes of this interchangeability clarify cases where especially ecclesiastic institutions blocked the bestowment of estates in feodum, or equated these efforts to « stealing » estates into ownership. An example can be seen in a charter from 1282 where the brothers Smil (II) and Oldřich of Lichtenburg acquired two destroyed villages (desolatas villas) from the Vilémov monastery that they promised to populate. However, they received the villages on loan for their lifetime and were prohibited from selling, further granting any part (infeudare), mortgaging them, or otherwise alienating them.45 The purpose of this provision was to assure the return of the estates to the monastery after the deaths of the brothers. The granting of the fief thus comes to the forefront as a method of bestowment that would prevent or minimally complicate the monastery’s future access to the property. This is the same principle we saw above in the case of Beneš of Vartemberg. All mentioned ecclesiastic institutions did not emphasize the form of obligation that came from the agreement. They were chiefly interested in the method how the bestowment in feodum (or under jus theutonicum) modified current property rights. Ius feodali was clearly not wholly understood as a defined range of rights of armed vassals creating a political hierarchy ; but more as a flexible tool to establish various types of relationships and assuring various needs. This of course does not mean all the mentioned legal norms were considered completely identical. Their intersections, however, had to be considerable for domestic observers. The most important aspect was probably the innovative potential within the quality of the possession of the bestowed property. It’s thus not a coincidence these relations were also described using the terms hereditas/ius hereditarium.46

  • 47 CDB V/2, Jindřich Šebánek, Sáša Dušková (ed.), Praha 1981, n° 571 : « [...] in omnibus regni benefi (...)
  • 48 Josef Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige 1, Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1959, p. 60(...)
  • 49 RBM II, n° 1841 : « [...] quod predictus Dietoch et homines ipsius predicti eo vivente coram nullis (...)

31There is no room here for a more extensive source analysis. It can be said an analysis of the terminology in the wider period of the 10th-14th centuries confirms the conclusions presented by W. Weizsäcker with two fundamental differences. The first is the continuity of the operation of the beneficiary administration to the end of the Přemyslid period. In this respect, the privilege granted by Ottokar II of Bohemia to the Vyšehrad Chapter in 1268 are worthy of note. The sovereign decreed that in all the « royal benefices » (regni beneficiis), whatever their name is, the chancellor (the position of chancellor was held by the provost of Vyšehrad from the beginning of the 13th century), should have a messenger for the needs of the chancery.47 The term regni beneficiis did not refer to « royal fiefs ». The goal of the regulation was not to add a bonus in the form of a messenger to every granted estate. The goal was to assure closer contact between the chancellor and the beneficiaries in administrative centres. At first, this is reminiscent of the Frankish missi, but a single example cannot be used to build a clear analogy, especially when the meaning and range of activities carried out by Carolingian missi significantly exceeded the missions of a simple messenger.48 The passage from the Vyšehrad charter, however, fits in well with the image of the administrative hierarchy related to the terms beneficium/beneficiarius. It’s also clear testimony to the sovereign’s efforts to strengthen his control and centralization. In 1299, the noble Dětoch of Třebelovice received the privilege from King Wenceslas II that neither he nor his people should be judged by local officials, but only by the highest crown officials in Prague.49 This approach would not have been necessary if the old administrative system was falling apart and was being replaced by new forms of exercising authority, bestowing property, and rights. Together with efforts for greater centralization with the help of the chancery, this more likely testifies to the continuing importance of beneficiary administration.

32The second problematic point is associated with the narrow understanding of the feudal system in general. A feudo-vassalic relationships in 13th century Bohemia are only documented within the Olomouc diocese. The other evidence of using feudal terminology do not fit into a thus narrowed interpretational framework. Their testimonial value is not reduced in anyway, however. The key to understanding is most probably based in the proven relationship between « feudal » and « German/emphyteutic » law and the way this « new » laws were viewed from the perspective of property relations.

  • 50 Or, from another point of view : the gradual introduction and extension of Roman-legal practices is (...)
  • 51 Jan Zelenka, Vom Beneficial- zum Lehnswesen. Eine vergleichende Analyse sächsischer und böhmischer (...)

33If we look at the issue of the terminology from a certain distance, we should consider the role played by the development of a « philosophy of ownership » in the whole process. On the one hand, we find a group of offices (with associated estates and properties) referred to as a beneficium, whose characteristics essentially corresponded to church benefices. At the opposite end, we can see the growing significance of private ownership of land guaranteed by law, community, and institutions such as the Land Court throughout the 13th century. A category of dependent property holding was forming between these two and the incorporated « legal » attributes of both. The granting of fiefs had its place within this framework. The feudum itself, however, was far from being a clearly defined estate held by an armed vassal. The purpose (whether economic, military, or other) of the bestowment was secondary. For contemporaries, what mattered most was the quality of « ownership » that fiefs – like emphyteutic tenure – offered to their holders. What we see in general is a socioeconomic process where different legal forms of tenure were taking shape based on a different level of « ownership ».50 This was not at all a specific Czech development. A similar, or rather identical process can be observed in neighbouring Saxony at the same time. The general term beneficium that up to the beginning of 13th century had represented various types of dependent tenure was limited to church benefices and replaced in secular holdings by the term feudum in the second half of the century. The feudum itself was further referred to as a heterogeneous set of holdings burdened with various types of services, payments, etc. Again, it seems to be no coincidence the use of the term beneficium regarding granted holdings was gradually becoming restricted to church prebends. The clergy’s entitlement was limited not just temporally (for their lifetime), but also in terms of the goods bestowed upon them, which made the holder merely a user of the usufruct. In contrast, recipients of fiefs became « owners » with extensive rights their heirs and relatives could claim. The semantic divergence of the terms beneficium and feudum may therefore reflect an increasingly strong need to express a fundamental difference that was primarily related to the quality of the « ownership » of the two different categories of tenure.51

Conclusion

34The example of Czech sources and the approach of domestic historiography can be used to accurately depict the repeatedly documented problem of studying feudalism that is related to the excessive attention paid to feudo-vassalic relations. The fault does not lie with authors such as Mitteis and Ganshof, who legitimately opened the discussion into part of a broader phenomenon. What is controversial is the role of the subsequent research, which has often used their approach and results as a universal tool to interpret the medieval sources without considering the limitations and methodological issues. The appearance of new « feudal » terminology in the Czech sources of the 13th century was certainly not only connected with the need to establish a new form of political relations or to recruit vassals. It was a broader trend resulting from a deeper transformation of the social system. The terminological analysis also points out the problems associated with understanding complex phenomena that defy an exact typology. The political, administrative, and socioeconomic system in the Kingdom of Bohemia showed clear continuity from the previous period. Newly developing mechanisms can theoretically be understood as an expression of discontinuity, but in reality the newer structures complemented instead of replaced or stood in clear contradiction to the older ones. Finally, the analysis of the medieval terminology may not just bring results in the field of historical research. It’s clear the terms used complicate the current international debate as well. Because of the nature of the topic, comparative studies basically continue in the results reached at the national or regional level. However, the comparative framework was always primarily the German environment in the East-Central European point of view, which is also true in terms of language. Put simply, the results of East-Central European research can be rather well communicated on a joint platform using the German language as there are significant overlaps both in terminology and in the described phenomena. If we go one level further to comparisons in the wider European milieu, it’s clear this comprehensibility gradually disappears. That is obvious, and this text is proof that if we move to the thematically identical debate in the English-speaking world, the only hope is that as little as possible remains « lost in translation ». Here too, a research method based on historical semantics has the potential to fill this gap and offer a certain basic framework for pan-European comparative studies that are desired and proclaimed, but the reality of which still remains well behind statements.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Jaroslav Bakala, « K počátkům lenního zřízení v českém státě », Slezský sborník 57, 1959, p. 378–388.

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemie II, Gustav Friedrich (ed.), Praha 1912

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemie IV/1, Jindřich Šebánek – Sáša Dušková (edd.), Praha 1962

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemie V/2, Jindřich Šebánek – Sáša Dušková (edd.), Praha 1981

Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum, Bertold Bretholz (ed.), MGH SS rer. Germ., N. S. II, Berlin 1923.

Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum/Cosmas of Prague, the chronicle of the Czechs, Janos M. Bak – Pavlína Rychterová (edd.), Budapest – New York 2020.

Jürgen Derndorfer, « Zur Einleitung », in : Jürgen Dendorfer – Roman Deutinger (Hrsg.), Das Lehnswesen im Hochmittelalter. Forschungskonstrukte – Quellenbefunde – Deutungsrelevanz, Ostfildern 2010, p. 11-39.

Roman Deutinger, Königsherrschaft im ostfränkischen Reich. Eine pragmatische Verfassungsgeschichte der späten Karolingerzeit, Ostfildern 2006.

Wilhelm Ebel, « Über den Leihegedanken in der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte », in : Theodor Mayer (Hrsg.), Studien zum mittelalterlichen Lehenswesen, Vorträge und Forschungen 5, Lindau – Konstanz 1960, p. 11-36.

Josef Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige 1, Stuttgart 1959.

François Louis Ganshof, Qu’est-ce que la féodalité ? Bruxelles 1944.

François Louis Ganshof, Feudalism, Third English Edition, New York 1964.

František Graus, « Lenní právo v Čechách », Český lid 39, 1952, p. 67-73.

Dalibor Havel, Katalog listin a listů k VII. dílu Českého diplomatáře I. Zpracování diplomatického materiálu pro období květen 1283-květen 1297, Brno 2011.

Dirk Heirbaut, « The Dangers of Using Latin Texts for the Study of Customary Law : The Example of Flemish Feudal Law during the High Middle Ages », in : Matthew W. McHaffie et al. (Eds.), Law and Language in the Middle Ages, Leiden 2018, p. 165-195.

Libor Jan, Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci, Brno 2006.

Libor Jan, « K počátkům české šlechty. Družina, beneficium, pozemkové vlastnictví », in : Martin Nodl – Martin Wihoda (edp.), Šlechta, moc a reprezentace ve středověku, Praha 2007, p. 45-52.

Libor Jan, « Skrytý půvab ‘středoevropského modelu’« , Český časopis historický 105, 2007, p. 874-902.

Libor Jan, « Budování monarchie českých Přemyslovců. Postřehy a úvahy », in : Martin Wihoda – Lukáš Reitinger a kolektiv, Proměna středovýchodní Evropy raného a vrcholného středověku. Mocenské souvislosti a paralely, Brno 2010, p. 117-136.

Libor Jan, « Hereditas, výsluha, kastelánie. Několik poznámek k terminologii a metodologii současné historiografie přemyslovského období », Časopis matice moravské 128, 2009, p. 461-472.

Libor Jan, « Zur Frage der Entstehung des böhmisch-mährischen Adels und der Entwicklung großer Herrschaftskomplexe in Grenzgebieten », in : Klaus Birngruber – Christina Schmid (Hrsg.), Adel, Burg und Herrschaft an der « Grenze » : Österreich und Böhmen, Linz 2012, p. 107-117.

Dalibor Janiš, « Lenní systém olomouckého biskupství za episkopátu Dětřicha z Hradce (1281-1302). K problematice lenních a lokačních listin », Časopis Matice Moravské 116, 1997, p. 325-346.

Hermenegild Jireček, Slovanské právo v Čechách a na Moravě. Do konce X. století., Praha 186.

Hermenegild Jireček, Slovanské právo v Čechách a na Moravě. Od počátku XI. do konce XIII. století., Praha 1864, p. 22sq.

Brigitte Kasten, « Beneficium – zwischen Landleihe und Lehen – eine alte Frage, neu gestellt », in : Dieter R. Bauer – Rudolf Hiestand – Brigitte Kasten – Sönke Lorenz (Hrsg.), Mönchtum – Kirche – Herrschaft 750-1000, Sigmaringen 1998, p. 243-260.

David Kalhous, Anatomy of a Duchy. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia, Leiden - Boston 2012.

David Kalhous, « Velká Morava v představách poválečné české historiografie a archeologie. Sonda do problematiky pojetí státu a společnosti », in : Red. H. Kóčka-Krenz, M. Matla, M. Danilewski. Tradycje i nowoczesność. Początki państwa polskiego na tle środkowoeuropejskim w badaniach interdyscyplinarnych, Poznań 2016, p. 71-91.

František Kavka, « Západoevropský lenní institut jako nástroj vnitřní královské politiky za posledních Přemyslovců a za Jana Lucemburského », Český časopis historický 88, 1990, p. 225-251.

Jan Klápště, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation, Leiden - Boston 2012.

Rudolf Koss, Zur Frage nach der Entstehung und Entwicklung des böhmischen Herrenstandes, Prag 1920.

Krzysztof Kowalewski, Rycerze, włodycy, panosze. Ludzie systemu lennego w średniowiecznych Czechach, Warszawa 2009.

Barbara Krzemieńska – Dušan Třeštík, « Hospodářské základy raně středověkého státu ve střední Evropě (Čechy, Polsko, Uhry v 10. - 11. století) », Hospodářské dějiny 1, 1978, p. 149-230.

Julius Lippert, « Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen », Bohemia no. 1, 3, 10, 13, 16, 35, 36, 55, 1890.

Heinrich Mitteis, Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt. Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen Verfassungsgeschichte Weimar 1933.

Jana Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen, Köln 2007.

Rostislav Nový, Přemyslovský stát 11. a 12. století, Praha 1971.

František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě I/1, Praha 1848.

František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě I/2, Praha 1854.

František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě II/1, Praha 1875.

Johann Peisker, Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen. Eine Streitfrage der böhmischen Socialgeschichte. Gegen Herrn Julius Lippert, Prag 1890.

Otto Peterka, Rechtsgeschichte der böhmischen Länder I., Reichenberg 1923.

Tomáš Petráček, Power and Exploitation in the Czech Lands in the 10th-12th Centuries. A Central European Perspective, Leiden - Boston 2017.

Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaris regni Bohemiae et Moraviae II, Josef Emler (ed.), Praha 1882.

Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted, Oxford 1994.

Stanislaw Russocki, « Z badań nad czeskim systemem beneficjalnym », Czasopismo Prawnohistoryczne 23, 1971, p. 33-46.

Stanislaw Russocki, « Vznik vládního systému a způsob panování v patrimoniálních monarchiích střední Evropy : (několik diskusních poznámek) », Československý časopis historický 78/3, 1980, p. 399-414.

Pavlína Rychterová, « Aufstieg und Fall des Přemyslidenreiches : Erforschung des böhmischen Früh- un Hochmittelalters in der gegenwärtigen tschechischen Mediävistik », Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 34, č. 4, 2007, p. 629-647.

Miloslav Sovadina, « Lenní listiny biskupa Bruna », Sborník archivních prací 24/2, 1974, p. 426-460.

Attilio Stella, The Libri Feudorum (the ‘Books of Fiefs’). An Annotated English Translation of the Vulgata recension with Latin Text, Leiden - Boston 2022.

Jiří Štaif, Historici, dějiny a společnost. Historiografie v českých zemích od Palackého a jeho předchůdců po Gollovu školu 1790-1900, Sv. I., Praha 1997.

Josef Šusta, « Otroctví a velkostatek v Čechách », Český časopis historický 5, 1899, no. 1, p. 34-43, no. 2. p. 86-97.

Josef Šusta, Dvě knihy českých dějin I. Poslední Přemyslovci a jejich dědictví 1306-1308, Praha 1917,

Josef Šusta, České dějiny II/1. Soumrak Přemyslovců a jejich dědictví, Praha 1935.

Dušan Třeštík, « K sociální struktuře přemyslovských Čech », Československý časopis historický 19, 1971, p. 537-567.

Dušan Třeštík – Josef Žemlička, « O modelech vývoje přemyslovského státu », Český časopis historický 105, 2007, p. 122-164.

Václav Vaněček, Základy právního postavení klášterů a klášterního velkostatku ve starém českém státě (12.-15. stol.), II. Pozemková vrchnost. Imunita hospodářská, Praha 1937.

Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Das deutsche Recht der bäuerlicher Kolonisten Böhmens und Mährens im XIII. und XIV. Jahrhunderte », Mitteilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 51, no. 4, 1912/1913, p. 476-542.

Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Die Entstehung des böhmisch-mährischen Lehnwesens im Lichte der germanischen Forschung », Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereines für Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens 21, 1917, p. 207-238.

Lisa Wolverton, Hastening toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands, Philadelphia 2001.

Jan Zelenka, Vom Beneficial- zum Lehnswesen. Eine vergleichende Analyse sächsischer und böhmischer Quellen des 10.-14. Jahrhundert, Berlin-Münster etc. 2019.

Stanislav Zháněl, Jak vznikla staročeská šlechta, Brno 1930.

Josef Žemlička, « Die Deutschen und die deutschrechtliche Kolonisation Böhmens und Mährens im Mittelalter », in : J. M. Piskorski (Eds.), Historiographical Approaches to Medieval Colonization of East Central Europe. A Comparative Analysis against the Background of Other European Inter-Ethnic Colonization Processes in the Middle Ages, New York 2002, p. 107-143.

Josef Žemlička, Přemysl Otakar II. Král na rozhraní věků, Praha 2011.

Josef Žemlička, Konec Přemyslovců. Skladba a fungování jejich pozdní monarchie, Praha 2020.

Haut de page

Notes

1 François Louis Ganshof, Qu'est-ce que la féodalité ? Bruxelles, Office de publicité, 1944.

2 Heinrich Mitteis, Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt. Untersuchungen zur mittelalterlichen Verfassungsgeschichte, Weimar, Böhlau, 1933.

3 François Louis Ganshof, Feudalism, Third English Edition, New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1964, p. xvi-xvii ; cf. Heinrich Mitteis, Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt…, op. cit., p. 130sq.

4 Already in the second half of the 1950s, Wilhelm Ebel, professor of legal history at the University of Göttingen, was highly critical of the use of the « Lehnswesen » concept in German historiography. His criticism and conclusions, however, did not significantly influence the prevailing discourse, Wilhelm Ebel, « Über den Leihegedanken in der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte », in Theodor Mayer (dir.), Studien zum mittelalterlichen Lehenswesen, Vorträge und Forschungen 5, Lindau-Konstanz, Jan Thorbecke, 1960, p. 11-36, esp. p. 12-15, 36 ; cf. Brigitte Kasten, « Beneficium – zwischen Landleihe und Lehen – eine alte Frage, neu gestellt », in Dieter R. Bauer, Rudolf Hiestand, Brigitte Kasten, Sönke Lorenz (dir.), Mönchtum – Kirche – Herrschaft 750-1000, Sigmaringen Thorbecke, 1998, p. 243-260, esp. p. 246. An overview of contemporary German research offers Jürgen Derndorfer, « Zur Einleitung », in Jürgen Dendorfer, Roman Deutinger (dir.), Das Lehnswesen im Hochmittelalter. Forschungskonstrukte – Quellenbefunde – Deutungsrelevanz, Ostfildern, Thorbecke, 2010, esp. p. 14-23 ; in a broader European context, most recently Attilio Stella, The Libri Feudorum (the ‘Books of Fiefs’). An Annotated English Translation of the Vulgata recension with Latin Text, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2022, p. 1-5, 46-52. In the following text, I use the phrase « feudo-vassalic relations », which I borrowed from the work of Susan Reynolds as an equivalent to the term « Lehnswesen », cf. Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994.

5 František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě I/1, Praha, Nákladem knihkupce F. Tempského, 1848, p. 16 ; Ibid., II/1, 1875, p. 5-6.

6 E.g. Jiří Štaif, Historici, dějiny a společnost. Historiografie v českých zemích od Palackého a jeho předchůdců po Gollovu školu 1790-1900, Sv. I., Praha, Univerzita Karlova, 1997, esp. p. 142sq.

7 See below.

8 Johann Peisker, Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen. Eine Streitfrage der böhmischen Socialgeschichte. Gegen Herrn Julius Lippert, Prag, in commission von Fr. Rivnàč, 1890.

9 Julius Lippert, « Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen », Bohemia, n° 1, 3, 10, 13, 16, 35, 36, 55, 1890.

10 Johann Peisker, Die Knechtschaft in Böhmen…, op. cit., p. 80.

11 František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého w Čechách a w Moravě I/2, Praha, Nákladem knihkupectwí J.G. Kalve, 1851, esp. p. 230sq.

12 Hermenegild Jireček, Slovanské právo v Čechách a na Moravě. Do konce X. století., Praha, Sklad Karla Bellmanna, 1863, esp. p. 119sq. ; Hermenegild Jireček, Slovanské právo v Čechách a na Moravě. Od počátku XI. do konce XIII. století., Praha, Bellmann, 1864, p. 22sq, on the differentiation between ducal and crown estates with their list p. 141-154.

13 Lippert referred to Peisker's work only minimally without any extensive polemic with it, cf. Julius Lippert, Social-Geschichte Böhmens in vorhussitischer Zeit I, Prag-Wien-Leipzig, F. Tempsky-G. Freytng, 1896, p. 191, 193, 199.

14 Julius Lippert, Social-Geschichte Böhmens, op. cit., esp. p. 170-190 ; p. 238-263 ; p. 327-337 ; p. 340-350 ; with regard to the issues of serfdom and slavery and the lower social strata of the population in general, cf. more recently Tomáš Petráček, Power and Exploitation in the Czech Lands in the 10th-12th Centuries. A Central European Perspective, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2017 ; Jan Klápště, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2012.

15 We have seen, however, that a similar theoretical concept was worked with by H. Jireček. Moreover, there is still an ongoing discussion as to how this concept can be applied not only to the testimony of 13th century sources, but especially to the earlier period. Cf. Josef Šusta, « Otroctví a velkostatek v Čechách », Český časopis historický 5, n° 1, 1899, p. 39nn ; Josef Šusta, Dvě knihy českých dějin I. Poslední Přemyslovci a jejich dědictví 1306-1308, Praha, Česká akademie věd a umění, 1917, p. 171-173 ; Josef Šusta, České dějiny II/1. Soumrak Přemyslovců a jejich dědictví, Praha, Jan Laichter, 1935, p. 524sq ; for an overview of the discussion on Šusta´s concept, see Josef Žemlička, Konec Přemyslovců. Skladba a fungování jejich pozdní monarchie, Praha, Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2020, p. 181sq.

16 Cf. Rudolf Koss, Zur Frage nach der Entstehung und Entwicklung des böhmischen Herrenstandes, Prag, J.G. Calve'sche Universitätsbuchhandlung Robert Lerche, 1920 ; Otto Peterka, Rechtsgeschichte der böhmischen Länder I., Reichenberg, Gebrüder Stiepel, 1923 ; Stanislav Zháněl, Jak vznikla staročeská šlechta, Brno, Vlastním nákladem, 1930 ; Václav Vaněček, Základy právního postavení klášterů a klášterního velkostatku ve starém českém státě (12.-15. stol.), II. Pozemková vrchnost. Imunita hospodářská, Praha, Bursík a Kohout, 1937, esp. p. 13-26 ; Rostislav Nový, Přemyslovský stát 11. a 12. století, Praha, Nakladatelství Univerzita Karlova, 1972 ; on 12th century Bohemian history, succession disputes, and the growth of magnate power cf. Lisa Wolverton, Hastening toward Prague. Power and Society in the Medieval Czech Lands, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

17 Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum, Bertold Bretholz (dir.), MGH SS rer. Germ., N. S. II, Berlin, Weidmann, 1923, I/5, p. 14 ; in a mirrored Latin-English edition Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Bohemorum/Cosmas of Prague, the chronicle of the Czechs, Janos M. Bak - Pavlína Rychterová (dir.), Budapest-New York, CEU Press, 2020, p. 26-29.

18 Dušan Třeštík, « K sociální struktuře přemyslovských Čech », Československý časopis historický, n° 19, 1971, p. 537-567 ; on the understanding of medieval ownership esp. p. 548-552.

19 The so-called « service organisation » was to be formed around castle centres or ducal courts where the (non-free) population was settled and obliged to perform certain services or to hand over their products. In this way, entire villages were to be populated by specialized artisans who provided for the needs of the « state » apparatus and elites with their products or services. Barbara Krzemieńska, Dušan Třeštík, « Hospodářské základy raně středověkého státu ve střední Evropě (Čechy, Polsko, Uhry v 10.-11. století) », Hospodářské dějiny, n° 1, 1978, p. 149-230 ; cf. Tomáš Petráček, Power and Exploitation in the Czech Lands in the 10th-12th Centuries. A Central European Perspective, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2017, p. 82sq. ; Jan Klápště, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2012, p. 344sq.

20 Dušan Třeštík, Josef Žemlička, « O modelech vývoje přemyslovského státu », Český časopis historický, n° 105, 2007, p. 122-126.

21 This characteristic used Stanislaw Russocki, « Vznik vládního systému a způsob panování v patrimoniálních monarchiích střední Evropy : (několik diskusních poznámek) », Československý časopis historický, n° 78/3, 1980, p. 399-414, esp. p. 410-411.

22 Cf. David Kalhous, Anatomy of a Duchy. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2012, p. 11sq. ; Pavlína Rychterová, « Aufstieg und Fall des Přemyslidenreiches : Erforschung des böhmischen Früh- un Hochmittelalters in der gegenwärtigen tschechischen Mediävistik », Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, n° 34-4, 2007, p. 629-647.

23 Libor Jan, Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci, Brno, Knižnice Matice moravské 2006, esp. p. 13-22 ; 168-252 ; Libor Jan, « K počátkům české šlechty. Družina, beneficium, pozemkové vlastnictví », in Martin Nodl, Martin Wihoda (dir.), Šlechta, moc a reprezentace ve středověku, Praha, Filosofia, 2007, p. 45-52 ; Libor Jan, « Budování monarchie českých Přemyslovců. Postřehy a úvahy », in Martin Wihoda, Lukáš Reitinger a kolektiv, Proměna středovýchodní Evropy raného a vrcholného středověku. Mocenské souvislosti a paralely, Brno, Matice moravská, 2010, p. 117-136 ; Libor Jan, « Hereditas, výsluha, kastelánie. Několik poznámek k terminologii a metodologii současné historiografie přemyslovského období », Časopis matice moravské, n° 128, 2009, p. 461-472.

24 Bruno came from an old North German noble family. In 1245, the Pope appointed him Bishop of Olomouc and Bruno soon became a leading advisor and diplomat to Czech kings Wenceslas I and especially Ottokar II of Bohemia. There is no doubt Bruno attempted to implement a concept he knew from his Saxon homeland within the diocese he was entrusted, which can probably be classified as so called « Auftragslehen » (essentially the precarium). However, it is not evident the bishop's efforts had a greater influence on the situation beyond the boundaries of the Olomouc diocese in Bohemia. Moreover, there is a consensus among scholars that fief organisation and the relatively strict principles introduced by Bruno of Schauenburg began to loosen and disintegrate rapidly after his death. Miloslav Sovadina, « Lenní listiny biskupa Bruna », Sborník archivních prací, n° 24-2, 1974, p. 426-460 ; Dalibor Janiš, « Lenní systém olomouckého biskupství za episkopátu Dětřicha z Hradce (1281-1302). K problematice lenních a lokačních listin », Časopis Matice Moravské, n° 116, 1997, p. 325-346.

25 Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Die Entstehung des böhmisch-mährischen Lehnwesens im Lichte der germanischen Forschung », Zeitschrift des deutschen Vereines für Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens, n° 21, 1917, p. 207-238.

26 František Graus, « Lenní právo v Čechách », Český lid, n° 39, 1952, p. 67-73.

27 Cf. the discussion contributions printed in Český lid, n° 40, 1953, p. 83-87, 146-157, the quoted conclusion on p. 157. In the 1960s, the issue of the feudal character of Great Moravia essentially disappeared from the discussion, cf. David Kalhous, « Velká Morava v představách poválečné české historiografie a archeologie. Sonda do problematiky pojetí státu a společnosti », in Red. H. Kóčka-Krenz, M. Matla, M. Danilewski. Tradycje i nowoczesność. Początki państwa polskiego na tle środkowoeuropejskim w badaniach interdyscyplinarnych, Poznań, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2016, p. 71-91

28 Jaroslav Bakala, « K počátkům lenního zřízení v českém státě », Slezský sborník, n° 57, 1959, p. 378-388.

29 František Kavka, « Západoevropský lenní institut jako nástroj vnitřní královské politiky za posledních Přemyslovců a za Jana Lucemburského », Český časopis historický, n° 88, 1990, p. 225-251.

30 Krzysztof Kowalewski, Rycerze, włodycy, panosze. Ludzie systemu lennego w średniowiecznych Czechach, Warszawa, Neriton, 2009.

31 Stanislaw Russocki, « Z badań nad czeskim systemem beneficjalnym », Czasopismo Prawnohistoryczne, n° 23, 1971, p. 33-46 ; Stanislaw Russocki, « Vznik vládního systému a způsob panování v patrimoniálních monarchií ch střední Evropy : (několik diskusních poznámek) », Československý časopis historický, n° 78-3, 1980, p. 399-414.

32 Libor Jan, Václav II. a struktury panovnické moci, Brno, Knižnice Matice moravské, 2006, p. 184, 188-189, 250, 257-258 ; Libor Jan, « K počátkům české šlechty. Družina, beneficium, pozemkové vlastnictví », in Martin Nodl, Martin Wihoda (dir.), Šlechta, moc a reprezentace ve středověku, Praha, Filosofia, 2007, p. 48-50 ; Libor Jan, « Skrytý půvab ‘středoevropského modelu’ », Český časopis historický, n° 105, 2007, p. 888-890.

33 Libor Jan, « Budování monarchie českých Přemyslovců. Postřehy a úvahy », in Martin Wihoda, Lukáš Reitinger a kolektiv, Proměna…, op. cit., p. 130-131 ; Libor Jan, « Hereditas, », art. cité, p. 469 note 35 ; Libor Jan, « Zur Frage der Entstehung des böhmisch-mährischen Adels und der Entwicklung großer Herrschaftskomplexe in Grenzgebieten », in Klaus Birngruber, Christina Schmid (dir.), Adel, Burg und Herrschaft an der « Grenze » : Österreich und Böhmen, Linz, Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum, 2012, p. 109.

34 The fact that neither Western Europe nor the neighbouring « regnum Teutonicum » represented homogeneous entities in terms of the functioning of social, economic, political, or cultural structures and mechanisms with which such a superficial comparison would be possible was completely ignored.

35 Jana Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen, Köln, Böhlau, 2007.

36 Only an overview of charters currently exists for the 1283-1297 period, Dalibor Havel, Katalog listin a listů k VII. dílu Českého diplomatáře I. Zpracování diplomatického materiálu pro období květen 1283-květen 1297, Brno, Matice moravská, 2011.

37 Cf. Dirk Heirbaut, « The Dangers of Using Latin Texts for the Study of Customary Law : The Example of Flemish Feudal Law during the High Middle Ages », in Matthew W. McHaffie et al. (dir.), Law and Language in the Middle Ages, Leiden, Brill, 2018, p. 165-195.

38 Jan Zelenka, Vom Beneficial- zum Lehnswesen. Eine vergleichende Analyse sächsischer und böhmischer Quellen des 10.-14. Jahrhundert, Berlin-Münster etc., LIT Verlag, 2019, p. 129sq.

39 Ibid., p. 132-145.

40 Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Das deutsche Recht der bäuerlicher Kolonisten Böhmens und Mährens im XIII. und XIV. Jahrhunderte », Mitteilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, n° 51-4, 1912/1913, p. 476-542 ; Josef Žemlička, « Die Deutschen und die deutschrechtliche Kolonisation Böhmens und Mährens im Mittelalter », in J. M. Piskorski (dir.), Historiographical Approaches to Medieval Colonization of East Central Europe. A Comparative Analysis against the Background of Other European Inter-Ethnic Colonization Processes in the Middle Ages, New York, Boulder, 2002, p. 107-143 ; Jan Klápště, The Czech Lands in Medieval Transformation, Leiden- Boston, Brill, 2012, p. 212sq.

41 Wilhelm Weizsäcker, « Das deutsche Recht », art. cité, p. 492sq.

42 RBM II, Josef Emler (ed.), Praha 1882, n° 2024 : « [...] nobis non liceat dictam villam vel curiam vendere aut alicui alteri homini exponere vel thevtonico jure locare ».

43 CDB II, Gustav Friedrich (ed.), Praha 1912, n° 329.

44 CDB IV/1, Jindřich Šebánek, Sáša Dušková (dir.), Praha 1962, n° 144 : « […] nos igitur Ienzo de Schonberch tam presentibus quam futuris innotescere cupimus universis fidelem nostrum Horinam famulum et dilectum suosque heredes duobus laneis cum suis attinenciis investivisse iure feodali seu eciam emphyothetico, quod in vulgari burchrecht nuncupatur ».

45 RBM II, n° 1456 : « […] quod villas easdem vel aliquam portionem earum vendere vel infeudare aut obligare sive alienare a dominio prefati monasterii non licebit nobis ullatenus ».

46 Examples of the description of emphyteusis or German law by reference to hereditary possession are given e.g. Josef Žemlička, Přemysl Otakar II. Král na rozhraní věků, Praha, NLN, 2011, p. 72-73, esp. p. 82 ; Krzysztof Kowalewski, Rycerze, włodycy, panosze. Ludzie systemu lennego w średniowiecznych Czechach, Warszawa, Neriton, 2009, p. 9-10.

47 CDB V/2, Jindřich Šebánek, Sáša Dušková (ed.), Praha 1981, n° 571 : « [...] in omnibus regni beneficiis, quocumque nomine censeantur, dictus cancellarius habeat suum nuncium vel druhonem ad iura cancellarie districcius ac diligencius requirenda. »

48 Josef Fleckenstein, Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige 1, Stuttgart, Anton Hiersemann, 1959, p. 60sq. ; Roman Deutinger, Königsherrschaft im ostfränkischen Reich. Eine pragmatische Verfassungsgeschichte der späten Karolingerzeit, Ostfildern, Thorbecke, 2006, p. 165sq.

49 RBM II, n° 1841 : « [...] quod predictus Dietoch et homines ipsius predicti eo vivente coram nullis aliis beneficiariis, judicibus vel officialibus provincialibus seu aliis quibuscunque, quocunque nomine censeantur, preterquam coram beneficiariis Pragensibus citari debeant vel etiam judicari. »

50 Or, from another point of view : the gradual introduction and extension of Roman-legal practices is also a topic of discussion within Czech medieval studies. However, a question remains whether focus should be placed on the law itself and evidence of domestic knowledge of the Digest or other « classical » texts or rather on the fact that an essentially urban civilisation was slowly developing during the 13th century, even in the part of Central Europe originally outside the Roman « limitis », that was showing similarities to its Roman predecessor, including the gradual, although never completely finished and unambiguous forming and defining of the sphere of public and private law.

51 Jan Zelenka, Vom Beneficial- zum Lehnswesen. Eine vergleichende Analyse sächsischer und böhmischer Quellen des 10.-14. Jahrhundert, Berlin-Münster etc., LIT, 2019, p. 59sq.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jan Zelenka, « The Přemyslid « State », Feudalism, and Feudo-Vassalic Relations in Modern Czech Historiography »L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques [En ligne], 30 | 2025, mis en ligne le 06 octobre 2025, consulté le 19 janvier 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/acrh/31953 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15611

Haut de page

Auteur

Jan Zelenka

L’auteur est chercheur associé et directeur adjoint chargé de la recherche à l’Institut d’histoire de l’Académie tchèque des sciences. Ses recherches portent sur l’histoire du haut Moyen Âge et du Moyen Âge central, en particulier en Europe centrale, en mettant particulièrement l’accent sur les relations féodales et sur l’histoire sociale, culturelle et économique de cette période, ainsi que sur l’historiographie médiévale tchèque. Il est l’auteur ou le coauteur d’ouvrages sur le développement des relations féodales en Bohême médiévale, la culture de la cour et l’histoire de l’enfance, ainsi que de nombreux articles scientifiques. Il mène également des recherches sur les études tchèques du xviiᵉ siècle portant sur le féodalisme et sur leur apport potentiel aux études médiévales.
Institute of History of the CAS (IH) - department
Jan Zelenka (0000-0003-2009-5898) - ORCID

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search