Household composition in medieval Bohemia

Household composition in medieval Bohemia

The description of the traditional or pre-industrial family as large and extended, a legacy of Frederic

Le Play and his followers,

persists in many quarters. Although Le Play thought he was describing the traditional family of all of Europe, nineteenthand early twentieth-century historians of Czech

The typical late medieval household in Bohemia was simple in structure and small in size. Most wives and husbands established their households apart from siblings, parents and kin. Only between one to three of their children survived into adolescence and adulthood. Or+ rarely did siblings or other kin try to restrict their relatives’ freedom to dispose of properp. These conclusions arise from a numerical anal3,sis of dowry contracts, last wills and other proper[y transactions in two modest sized towns in Bohemia. The anabsis shows that while the normalfamily was small and simple, people had close feelings for grandparents and grandchildren and to adult siblings where these were present. In addition people had ties of sentiment and caredfor non-kin-related who shared living space. The household alas both a social and an economic unit. Frequently wives played an important role in the household’s craft or enterprise. In general the Bohemian household xas similar to those in regions further Lelest.

society assumed the extended family was a unique Slavic feature. It turns out neither was accurate. The following study of last wills, dowry arrangements and property transactions indicates that the medieval Bohemian family was a small conjugal unit and that ties with adult siblings and their extended kin were weak. In Bohemia the legal principle governing inheritance among the urban and noble classes gave all the children a right to the parental inheritance [de’dina], though not necessarily in equal shares. Family property was a unit [rodinnj nedil] and after an individual had taken his or her share from it s/he had no more claim to it. The dynamics of pan-Slavism and Czech nationalism prevailing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries led many to conclude that the term rodinn); nedil reflected social forms identical to those among the south Slavs especially the zadruga. Karel Kadlec (1898) thought he saw similarities between the medieval Bohemian family and the extended family living units of the South Slavs and Russians and decided that their origins were in the ancient past when all Slavs lived as a common race. Scholars such as Kadlec based themselves on late medieval legal documents such as the ill fated Majestas Carolina of Charles IV ( 1346-78) and summaries of the law by Andrew of Duba, a late fourteenth-century nobleman and of Viktorine of Wehrad

Journal of hledirnl 0304-4181/90/$3.50

(Sortlr-Holland)

John Klassen

History I6 (19901 55-75 0 1990-EElse\ier Science Publishers

B.\..

55

(1460-1520), a townsman sance-humanistic education

with a renaisat the Univer-

sity of Prague (VanEEek 1970:90-8, 171-2). Laws however, are written to take care of any possible contingency including one which might arise only rarely. They do not necessarily reflect what most people were doing nor the way the majority organized their families. Kadlec felt that terms such as nedil, spolek, hromada, nedilni brat% or u?2io or frntres indiztisi were synonyms of the south Slavic zadruga’ (Kadlec 1898:73-4; compare Halpern 1967). He admits that from the eleventh and twelfth centuries there are numerous reports showing the existence of the “simple Slavic family”, by which he meant the modern nuclear family consisting of parents and unmarried children. He argues howe\rer, that the compound or extended family outnumbered the simple farnil) (Kadlec 1898: 75). This extended family union or association [rodin@ nedil] restricted its members from disposing of property, including dowry gifts and property held jointly with one’s wife, without the consent of the others. It required them to act together in an)- business affecting common propert)- and gave competent male kin preference over females when it came to questions of inheritance (Kadlec 1898:8 l-5). This family economic association, he wrote, characterized most levels of society including the nobilit)-, although for them this union did not necessarily mean that they lived together in one household ( 1898:75, 79). According to Kadlet, “in earlier times” alienation or division from this union vvas not permitted and he “who despite this separated himself from the family group (rodin@ Zdru&nzJ alienated himself totally from his erstwhile kin and

56

stood against them as an absolutely foreign member” (Kadlec 1898:9 1). He concluded that the extended family union lasted well into the sixteenth century (Kadlec 1898:100-2). According to AndEla Kozakova (1926:17-18),

in

Bohemian

as

in

other

Slavic law, the familyjointure or communal family unit [nedi’l] was the basis of all property relations. A woman could bc its head though almost alwa)-s it lvas the father who administered it and represented it in court. KozakoL.5 used the term zn’druha vvhich she defined as an economic association or social unit present in all levels of free society in former times (1926:41-2). Other scholars likewise accepted the extended family unit as the basis of all propert)- relations even though not all gave it such extensi1.e povvers as Kadlec did (Gz) hlarz 1883: l-4). Kapras (1908:7-10) wrote that the family union broke up with the death of the father or b) mutual agreement. In other words each generation started anew. But he vvas so tied to the model of the extended family that he continued to write that the Czech famil>union vvas like the zadruga of the South Slavs. This form, he said, was the earliest family type among Slavs, one which declined o\:er time and eventually disappeared. Jan Peisker (1888:241, 245-7) also used the south Slavic zadruga as his starting point and then looked at the division of land in the \-illage of Domanovice (actuall). in Silesia) \vhich he called the 0x11>-pure Slavic village untouched by Germanic law. Despite his inabilitx- to determine “the size and parts” of the land parcels \vith any degree of precision, he argued that a description of the land arrangements shoed wide and ex-

Figure

1. Joseph

and

tensive units which, he argued, fully agree with the z&A&a scheme of things. Julius Lippert (1896: 191-4) also saw the Huuscommunion as a feature unique to Slavic society and took the description of the south Slav zadrugn gilTen by the nineteenth-century Serb, Vuk Stefanovic, as true for medieval Bohemia. In other words the tasks and property of the family members were assigned to them by the head. The familyhad one hearth but only the immediate family (Sonderfamilie) of the head slept here. The rest slept in huts around the main house to which they came only on cold winter nights. Lippert referred to the VrSovice gens in 1108 as consisting of 3000 members under one patriarchal chief. More recently, J. Bardach (1977:339-40, 353) also described the medieval Czech family as an extended one (communaufb famiales), albeit with three

his family

arri\Te

in Egypt.

forms: (1) composed of father and his sons and grandsons; (2) the brothers and their offspring; (3) the largest group, which included also more distant parents and sometimes even admitted strangers. This system, he argues began to decline in the thirteenth to the fourteenth century. His source is the work by Kadlec cited earlier. The eastern European household is assumed to have been complex, containing a variety of kin beyond the head’s conjugal unit (Plakans 1987: 165). Plakans prudently sidesteps the question of where to draw the line between eastern and western Europe. The data even from the medieval Balkans does not point clearly to large families as the norm (Hammel 1980:259-6 1; 1972:35865). In any case the following preliminar) investigation will show that insofar as household size is a distinguishing feature

57

between East and West, families and households in medieval Bohemia resembled those of western Europe. When examining the composition of the

arrangement that people saw as temporary and meeting certain pressing needs. Laslett’s terms apply to Bohemia although the data before the sixteenth century

late medieval family and household of Bohemia we find one that resembles that of

are not complete enough to do the comparative analysis he called for. The Bohemian

the rest of Europe.

household was a spatially by blood or by economic

Laslett

describes

three

main types of family household. First there was the simple family or conjugal family unit consisting of a married couple [or widow/widower] with its offspring. This was the most common form of co-resident Secondly the extended domestic group. namely the conjugal family household, couple with the addition of relatives [grandchild without parents, siblings or nephew] other than offspring. Thirdly multiple family households where more than one conjugal unit is co-resident. For example when two siblings and their spouses or a couple with parents of one of them lived together. All categories may or may not have had servants present (Laslett and \Vall 1972:2830). Recently 1cI. blitterauer (1987:63-71) has argued that there is no basis to the idea that particular household types were linked to specific ethnic groups. He believes however that there were two basic family types: complex and simple. He argues that the complex forms occurred more often in the country than in town, especially in middle and eastern Europe where the economies were not yet commercialized and in those lands where the law ga1.e all family- members rights to inheritance. I should like to suggest that there has been only one family type in European history; that is the simple model. \Yhen people lived in more complex households it was not an institution rooted in a particular culture or economy. but an

58

related group tied needs. There are

some who worked for a householder as servants and apprentices, and as part of the household obeyed the head. They ate, slept and lived in the same space as the master and his family. In addition there were foster children in a household who might or might not have been related by blood to the householder. The simple conjugal family unit was the most common in Bohemia. The small town family7 also resembles the integrated economic unit that HowTell (1986:9-21) has described as characteristic of northwestern Europe. Archeological evidence from peasant houses in southern Bohemia shows that indoor li\;ing space vvas small. There was little room for parents and children let alone others. Dwellings near Tabor ranged from those measuring about 6.5 metres by 7.3 to the smallest which was 3.6 by 3.8 meters (Krajic 1983-4:50 II 15). This space also had to store vegetables, grains, and other foodstuffs. It vvas sometimes also used for M.ork. In one household the open hearth served heating, cooking and smithing purposes (Krajic 1983-4:52). There is no reason to assume houses in to\vn were much bigger than the cramped quarters that marked neighbouring lands (Hundsbichler 1984:258). Yet the descriptions of the living quarters of some of the better off in Plzeii lvere extensive and provided privacy for its residents. 11:enceslas

PabGnek

in Plzefi in 1404 gave instructions

for the care of his mother

and described

rooms

These

she was to have.

the

were likely

the secondary quarters in the household, but even if not, they suggest rather extensive living space. His mother Anna should have

start

any study of the Czech

volume Bohemia

nobility.

His

12, which covers southeastern where the gentry were particularly

numerous, offers us a look at this class at the beginning of the fifteenth century. For the barons, F. Kavka’s study of the royal party during the Hussite revolution is use-

It is likely that a systematic examination of Bohemian records’ would throw considerable light on the family life of peasants and nobility. Randomly selected information from a sample of the tax and rent payers of the town of Louny in the fifteenth century shows that of the forty-nine taxpayers taxed in the term of St Martin in 1450-5 1 forty-seven were simple families with one proprietor. Two had joint ownership, for example Nicholas Ssebkonis with his brother and a mother with her sister [Nicholas Ssebkonis cum fratre, &later cum sorore] (VaniS 1979: 186-89). Similarly peasants of five villages paying rent to the town in 1491

ful. Its backbone was the upper nobility around Plzefi. All these sources suggest that the low survival rate of family members in all social classes, dictated small family size. There were 160 gentry estates in the &islav district in southeastern Bohemia at the beginning of the fifteenth century described by SedlEek (1936). In forty-eight estates, that is thirty percent, the owners had at least one brother alive. This did not mean that they held one residence or even the property jointI)-. In five cases we are told that individual brothers owned separate estates and sometimes their own fortress or small castles (SedlBEek 1936:22, 98, 116, 223, 304). nlore work will have to be done before M-e can describe the nature of the family ties among the gentry. This preliminar) sounding from SedlAZek’s work suggests that at the beginning of the fifteenth centur) more than seventy percent of the gentry had no brothers with whom

lived in simple households. In total 136 tenants were listed. Of these 133 were sole tenures and three were joint. Two of the joint households were listed as holding the land with their brother and one was a widow with her son (VaniS 1979: 1OS@. For the nobility we are indebted to the efforts of the nineteenth-century researcher, August SedlG?ek whose fifteen-volume history of the Czech nobility and their castles is at our disposal. His work needs to be refined and corrected but it is a good place to

they could hold property jointly, let alone set up a common household. The situation among the barons was apparently similar. Kavka collated his material on the barons according to family not estate or castle. In the Plzefi region there were twenty-three baronial families, fifteen of which had only one survivor into adulthood. Seven families had two adult brothers and one had three (Kavka 1947:80-6). In other words sixty-five percent had only one adult survivor. Baronial families mostl)

these rooms for her lifetime, namely a sitting room in the house, the bower built next to the street? in which she now li\rcs, the cellar below, her servants room nest to the cutter’s shop. a larder in the court nest to the stable and a kitchen built on the right side of the court facing the house (Strnad 1905:225).

59

Figure

2.

Pharaoh

gix,es Asmath,

Potiphar’s

daughter

owned several castles so it is doubtful that they shared a residence. In the modest sized towns of Plzefi and Bydiov [3000-4000 population] the \rast majority of the households were headed b>. a father and a mother, a conjugal unit. Ties to extended family were weak. Rarely did siblings, let alone uncles, interfere with an individual’s right to dispose of property. Only a minority even had living kin who could either help or interfere. Fe\v grandparents survived to share households with their children let alone grandchildren. There were joint households or property jointures between blood related people but they served the same temporary, mostl) economic purposes as when formed in lands further west (Maschke 1980:61; Le Ro) Ladurie 1966:33-35). On the other hand,

60

to Joseph

as wife. Joseph

Lvith his two sons.

in a minority of households, non-kin such as servants, apprentices, foster children and wards shared living space. Sometimes nonkin renters and tenants developed close relations to heads of households. The property transactions and last wills and testaments recorded in tolvn books for Bydiov and Plzen give indirect and partial eLiderice on family size and composition. The)- reflect conditions among those who had enough propert)- to register in the town books or to give away. Furthermore when children or siblings are listed we cannot be certain that all were included though most times the context suggests that all were. In Bydiov man); of the transactions were dowr). enactments some of which describe families at the beginning of married life when the household was formed and no

Table I. NumhelB!-diO\ Number children

of

Kumher of households 131 l-42 1343574 1375-1406 1407-38 14311-70 Totals Sw_~rce:Kapras

0

of children

1-2

3-4

per

4+

household

or

family:

Number children

unspecified Total’

23 106 104 54 27 314

14 26 48 20 33 141

6 10 13 6 I2 47

I I 0 I 1 4

I 3 45 27 13 91

Tahlc 2. Kumher

41 148 195 103 74

of

Numhcr of households 1337-46 1347-76 13ii-1406 140-36 1437-66 1467-96 149ip1526 Total

0

of childrrn: 1-2

Plzer? 1317-1.526 3-4

4+

unsprcified Total

4 7 23 13 20 46 62 175

1 2 16 7 16 41 53 136

I

0

I

7

5 5 4 3 7 14 39

1 1 0 2 1 3 8

0 1 2 5 23 34

14 46 26 46 118 166

(1907) Source:

children had been born. However many dowry agreements were reconfirmed or changed in later life and so give clues as to the family’s composition. The data in any case makes clear that spouses, either individually or together, disposed of property free from family interference. Those transactions which mention children suggest strongly that families and households were small in size. This is not surprising since the material conditions of scarcity coupled with wars and epidemics did not differ from the rest of Europe, although Bohemia escaped the worst effects of the Black Death (Smahel 1985:20-l). The information on Table 1 shows that, in Bydiov 141 of 283 households, where offspring are mentioned, had from one to two children, forty-seven had from three to four and four had more than four. Ninetyone mentioned children without specifying the number, nor whether they were alive or whether they were merely expected sometime in the future. In Plzeii the figures (Table 2) reflect the size of the family at or near its end when the parent was drawing up his or her will.

Strnad

( 1895; 1905 I

The picture is similar. The typical will or testament of Plzen suggests a small nuclear family with two parents and their two to three children. \There the number of children is specified there were rarely more than four, mostly two or three. nlany parents never had children who survi\,ed into adulthood. Only a few households in both towns had grandparents present so the extended three generational family was rare. An examination of adult siblings shows that Laslett’s (1972:28-30) simple family household was the norm. Furthermore rarely were brothers and sisters present at property transactions, either as joint owners, granting or withholding consent, setting conditions or making their own claim to the property. Extended family ties were rare. In only 81 or 15.3 percent out of 526 Bydiov household-family units were there siblings, sisters and brothers, mentioned in connection with the action. Most of these did not try and control the disposition of the property- in any way. Thirty-three were simply recipients, generally secondary after children, of siblings’ bequests or last wills.’ One

61

placed a bond on txhalf of a hmther gi\-ing a dmvr)- to his wil and se\‘en sil)lings ~\‘cr‘c mcntionccl rncrcl\, as r&erences identif\.ing a part) as \vhen hlartin, making llis son a gift. \vas identified as the brother of\‘ochek (Kapras 1907:41). Eighteerl persons puhlicl? renounced for the benefit ofsiblings any right to tile farnil> inllrritancr. This reflpcts that the)- had wceivcd their sliaw of‘ their parents legaq. ‘l’his public renunciation was ~vliat legal historians havr called thr llreaking up of‘ tlir farnil>- association (Kadlcc 18X3:91: Kapras 1908:27, 35). An example orsihlings cscrcising control o\rer propei~t~ transactions occui red in 137 1 u,licn tlircc hrotllc’rs stipulated that their yister’s l~uslx~~~d could not sell the l~mlx~~~ on \~.hicll her domy. liar1 been registc,ryd during her lif~tinie

6%

\\,itliout

their const‘nt (Kapms 1907:62j. only. t\vcnt).-tivo of 526 cases did l~col~lr mvrcisc control over their siblings prop?rt! Fourtrcn ~VCI‘C‘ joint ralcs or pwchases and eight indi\.iduals stated that thrir conwit 12x5 i-cquircd hcforc an)’ f‘uture In

action nas taken to alienate the propert). in qur5tion. In otlicr \t-ords in onl>- 4.1%) of‘ tllc propel-t)transac.tions rccordccl in the town council’s Imoks. a hrotlirr or sister \vas in a position of‘sharing sonic rigllts c)\.cr tlic propert)-. Tlic situation \vas similar in thr 356 households in Plzrd f‘or \vhich ivc have wills. OnI\ srvrnt\.-t\vo nicntion brothers or sistws. Onl) ant hrotl1t.r r-cquircd his consent to tlic propert)action in question. Ttm rcflectcd .joint o\\nership (A‘ the farnil) propcrt!.: in eiglitwn cases Lverc‘ sit)liii,qs the

Figure

-1. Joseph’s

brothers

fail to comfort

will primarh recipient of the donor’s (Strnad 1891:73-5, 78-9, 91-2. 139-40, 140-1, 198, 266~-7, 276-7; 1905:9-10, 69-70, 100-1, 242, 261-2: 273, 274, 298-9, 357-8, 467, 555, 579, 697-g). In thirty-nine cases the), were the secondary recipients. Only in two cases Lvere siblings named as primaqr guardians and in another two as sccondar\.. In cle\ren cases where a sibling was ali\,e,‘a non-kin was named executor giving him or her important powers o\rer- the inheritance. All of this shove that only rarely did members of the estended family, such as a.dult brothers and sisters, exercise control over farnil) property. The possessions of the afIluent burghers of small town Bohemia were seen as fi-eel!, disposable by the individual without restraint fi-om family members. 1

their

mourning

father

Further evidence of the kvcakness of the sibling ties shod\-s up when individuals ga\‘e propert!to church or communit)e\‘en though the)- had brothers li\ing. For esampie, ,John Hrdule in 1432 excluded his brother from his will and ordered that his propel-t). \vas to be used for masses should his children or his niece die as minors (Strnad 1891:339+&l). Perhaps his brother Leas older and matcriall!. ~,ell established and he f‘elt no need to make him a gift. One \toman specificall>- excluded a brother 01 other relative from changing the terms of a w.ill \,vhere the main recipient had been the church (Strnad 198 1:200; compare Strnad 1905:9-l 0). Such exclusions of living siblings fi-om wrills shop that it was not important to gi\,e to members of the extended farnil>-.

63

\\hen

siblings

lived

together

it

was

mostly because one of them was a minor needing care. In 1523 a brother was placed in the custody of his sister. Her husband, the boy’s brother-in-law, included a sum of money in his will for the boy and added that if he will obey her she can add to the bequest [a bude-li ji poslu’chnti, mu02 mu llpe utle’lati] (Strnad 195:717, 183). One man preferred his sister to his wife as executor of his will and guardian over his daughter (Strnad 1905:50-l). It was felt that siblings ought to look after each other although they did not always do so with great relish. In 1387 in Bydiov, the lord of the town the nobleman CenEk of Vartemberk, committed a minor to the care of his married sister. Her nonchalant approach to his security is illustrated in her words that should she die before he comes of age “the property of the orphan shall devolve to him, to whom the right belongs, and shall be possessed by him peacefull! and quietly” (Kapras 1907: 132, compare 166). In another case the arbitrators required a widow to accept her husband’s brother, a priest named Martin, into her home. The) ga1.e her first choice of the property and instructed the brother hlartin. as uncle to the orphans, to do what he could to care for them adding that “Martin is to be allowed to livre in this [her] house on the [town] square in a sitting room (21sce’t?zicr) for two years from the time of this agreement without an)- obstructions” (Strnad 1905:227; 1891:327-30). And in 1505 1t’enceslas the draper, after giving his whole estate to his wife instructed that his own brother Kubik “should be here with his wife, earn his living from her and help her.” If they could not

64

bear him

to live together then she should give his 3000 groschen (Strnad 1905:5 10,

compare 603). Similarly in 1432 AnniEka, widow of John Chudoba, was to “administer the household with care and freedom and with the counsel of the executors honourably to maintain the priest

. . . and Simon

[one of the executors], give him his bodil). needs, doing him no wrong.” She was to do the same for Chudoba’s brother
Figure

5. Reuben

long

lvith

as ,Jagurtha,

mained have

alive,

faithfully,

her

Clara,

to and

are

council

were

obligated her

along

authorized

that Jagurtha Persons

nearing brother,

that

person

in

were

the

these

came

Joint

Most

their

children

in order

number

that

and the

and

see to it (Kapras

death the

and

welfare

sister

feeling

ap-

of a farnil!.

or Lvife, stipulated

be given

a place fi-om

1eaL.e.

of resi-

which

Situations

the). like

up all o\‘er Europe. people

with

his sons,

with did

parents not

set up their

live

for their

short

were

households.

also

and Jacob.

men

to their

and estate

maintain

children.

(Strnad

notary

ga\‘e his estate

1905:402). that

up to her death. “the).

“his

so that

1493

the tit!.

to his t\vo sons

to give

with

her

not li\-e with 2400

.Zleis.relz

plus bed and bedding

she now sleeps

in a cottage

up to

the end of her life”

(Strnad

Another

his wife the executor

man

house

made

and

until

he

up to her

his Mife live kvitll them

groschen [ 1200 Czech] in kvliich

In

If she could

were

\vhich

In a ver>-

bequeathed

honourably

death“

them

li\in,g arrangc-

to his son Jacob

his mother

buried

in the houses

will in 1499 a butcher

house

Isaac

made

widows

they bequeathed

the estate long

Esnu

of cases

ments

the instruction

to

households

rare.

re-

for her

mayor

any lvrong

household

espectin,g

Isaac

cvith her kin and friends

about

member, dence

The

Bilhah.

children

to care

to supervise

268-9).

prehensive

daughter

needs

not suffer

1907:10-11,

this

sick

po\.erty.”

town

concubine,

Paul and their

provide

she not sufrer

his father’s

the master

1905:315,

457). of

[hos~o~~&‘] of the

his

son

reached

At that

time

“if she x\Ghes to sta\-

after

majority.

In a

in the house

the

age

he was to give her a room

of that

65

1311-42 1343~74 137jS1406 1407-38

1439-70 Total Sourer:

Kapras

0 1 2 4 6 13

0 2 6 10’ llR 29

0 3 8 14 17 42

0 2 4.3 16.6 24.6 7.9

2 4 10 5 4

5 6

7 IO

25 9.6

I !P “9 5 I0

18

3”

7

13.1

Ii

(1907)

1317-46 1347-7h 1377-14OCi 1407-36 1437-66 146i-96 149-I 526 Total

0

0

0

0

1

I

0 0 3

0 0 6

1 2 2 4

0 3

7 8

II 10

2 3

19

I I ‘$1” 2

26 [43 or 12.6X]

\Tenceslas of SkEenEz and his son AntuS’s arrangement was a case of the extended family described in the literature rep-

theit grandparents (compare Laslett 1973:103-104). In B>-diov only 7.9% of the families had grandparents living though not necessarily in the household (Table 3 columns 5 and 6). In Plzeii it ivas 12.6% or 45 out of 336 (Table 4). There Lucre thirteen grandfathers and twenty-nine grandmothers present in the 526 households. In fi\re of the houseliolcls both grandparents were li\?ng so the total number of families Lvith grandparents present \vas 37. again less than one percent. Grandparents thought fondl>- of their grandchildren and the feeling was most likely mutual. Thomas of $titn$ was an earl>- fourteenth-century kvriter influenced by preachers such as Berthold of Regensburg. He recalled how his grandmother had taught him as a youth. He added that

resented by Kadlec. In 1413 they entered into jointure on all their property with their wives and the children [number not gi\.en] of AntuS. Any party could leave the association having received his or her portion (Kapras 1907:215, see also 229, 230). The data on Tables 3 and 4 suggests frw grandparents lived With their children and grandchildren; few grandchildren knew

people have an obligation to help their grandchildren, especially, if the)- are orphaned (Simek 1956:77, 82). An example of kind sentiments grandparents had for children is in the will of Andrew Bcrn%ek. In 1495 he gave some jekvelry and precious objects including silver cups and chalices. fourtren gold rings some with sapphires and a diamond [dinma~f] to his children, because

pleases her” (S trnad 1905:664, compare 690, 706, 723). In 1519 a man made his sons his heirs but added that his wife should have her apartment upstairs in the cottage and a room until she rernarried (Strnad 1905:682; see also 1891:195-7, 235> 369, 383-4; 1905:412--13, 454, 457, 459, 712, 743). In these cases the testators had large enough houses to gi\rc their surviving spouses their own living quarters attached to those of their heirs. This meant they had their help when needed but could also get away for privaq. if they wanted to.

66

“the old deceased Bern&k and the drceased lad>- BernGkovA \,jrere close to his children” [k &iefll jeho to c@/ili] (Strnad 1905347). Byclhv grandparents acted gcnerousl) to\vards cautious efTecti\.e

their grandchildren M,hile being in their gifts, either making them after their o\vn clcaths or rcquiririg

that the ofhpring protect them and pro! icle for them until death (Kapras:j, 10-l 1, 36, 167-8, 177, 181-2, 196. 205-6, 214, 223, 230, 231, 232, 233, 232: 256, 238-9, 260, 26 1, 265, 266, 267. 27 1. for people including their grandchildren in becluests). In 1442 a \t-idow. ~1-110 had marl,ied thirt)--t\vo )-ears earlier, felt enough confidence in her grandson to give him some land “henceforth rc-

taining

nothing

tp la\v \\.hat

for llerselfand she owxed

1907:2 10. 246).

Another

and

relinquishing llcld”

\voman,

(Kapras after

ha\,-

ing bequeathed her house to her son, ordered that he not sell the house nor burden it I,vith debts so as keep it free for his own use and that of his heirs, her ,qrandchildren (Strnad 1891:227). El-en bvllere people sur\,i\-cd to know thei grandcllildrcn the). ma). not have Ii\-cd ivitll them. For examl~lc in 139-l \Vcnceslas, a citizen of B!.d?o\, transferred a court and an inn in Pleskov to his wife as her doLt r), to his children and his father. ?‘his threegenerational familv had a choice of residing in tb.0 places (Kailras 1907:lGlL2j. In PlzeG there is also little e\-iilencc of

three-generation mother, Ursula son,

Viilf,

households. One grandHladkova and her grand-

developed

close

ties

after

she

quarrelled with her son John Hladek in 1481 over her husband’s estate. \l:hen she made her own will in 1487 she ignored her son, giving all to her sister and to Volf (Strnad

1905:218-19,

242-3).

Despite the hardships of life people survived and grew old and at some point needed the help of others. Lacking birth records we do not know to what age people lived. One couple, Nicholas[son] of Johanka” and Vichna were married for at least twenty-five )-ears. He gave his wife her first dowry of 3000 groschen in 1403 added 600 in 1418 and consolidated it in 1428 (Kapras 1907:185, 231, 236). &lost people held on to their possessions until old age. If the)- felt death was near they drafted wills giving avvay their possessions but they specified that their heirs maintain them until their death (Strnad 1905:95). \Yidows were of course taken care of either by their dowry or by getting the whole estate (Klassen 1987). \Yhere there were elderly grandparents children took steps to care for them. Thus in 1441, after receiving his inheritance, Prfica promised honourably to @,ocfiz@) care for his father, \l’enceslas i’vlandelik until death. Earlier \\‘enceslas had provided for two other sons and a married daughter and her children that is, his own grandchildren (Kapras 1907:239, 243-4). Similarly a man in Bydiov in 1386 tried to insure his mother’s material security. He registered 240 groschen to his mother on his house adding that he expected her to live with his wife and children after his death. If the)could not 1iv.e together, his vvife was to give

68

his mother her money (Kapras 1907: 13 I, 240). In 1455 John K niiek and his wife became guardians of their grandchildren. Then in 1459, not knowing whether he would

live until

they reached

their age of

majority, he prudently made the town council guardian of the orphans (Kapras 1907:255, 267). Other old people, more distantly related or no kin at all, were also the recipients of bequests. Thus in 1497 one man who had given his wife the bulk of the estate added that she was “honestly to take care of his old kinsvvoman” [tu ba’bu pfietelnici jeho] up to her death” (Strnad 1905:373). In 1520 a woman made her husband and daughter her heirs and instructed her husband to gi1.e “the old hlargaret 240 g~oschen and maintain her until her death and that she [Margaret] should be diligent towards their daughter and take care of her (Strnad 1905:691). One man was able to find a place with a priest for \vhom he worked, even though he had a living brother to whom he bequeathed part of his estate. It is probable that the priest allowed him to sta)- in exchange for wages owed him (Strnad 1905:694-5). Lastly a widow gave her estate to her nephew and then instructed him to maintain and feed an old servant of hers until his death (Strnad 1905:752). Between thirt)- and fortj- percent of the households were headed by single or widowed people (Tables 5 and 6). Frequently these established living relationships with tenants, servants or apprentices. In other words, ties of loyalty similar to those between family members extended to non-kin living in the household. A number of single women vvlio were tenants left their landlords the bulk of theii

Tahlc 5. Typrs

of households:

l311L42 134574 13i5~1406 1407-38 1439%70

of rrcorded

household

These

Bydim

I

2

3

4

5 I5 13 8 14

8 27 21 19 19

28 104 t(i1 76 41

41 146 186 84 69

or farnil> unirs. It may not equal the

possessions. For example in 1490 a woman, identified simply as Margaret Kogtova, gave her vineyard to her brother living in another town. She gave her bed clothes, bedding and household effects to her landlord, John Lelek, with whom she lived up to her death. Lelek had a wife, children and father still alive (Strnad 1905:273, also 2989, 423, 662; compare Kapras 1907: 19). One woman went to live with another couple after her husband’s death and made her landlord her executor of the will and gave a small gift to his wife (Strnad 1905:284-5, 369). Similarly, John the butcher made a small bequest to his landlady, called the head of the household or hosporlqlne’(Strnad 1905:501). Ties to non-kin household members were sometimes stronger than those to kin in another household. For example in 150 1, Katherine, the old seamstress, gave a small gift to her sister Mandelena but all the rest of her personal effects and her business [ostatek vfech surchkuozj a &ho hospo&%tuie] she gave to her landlord [hosbodn’?j (Strnad 1905:424).

most

ties between

likely

contracts

reflect

in which

landlords

and tenants

some sort of retirement people

promised

to be-

queath property to younger persons who in exchange agreed to care for them in old age. In England, among the peasantry, the lord or community leaders compelled the incompetent-aged, and probably those without kin, into contracts with non-related parties. If there were voluntary contracts they were with family members (Hanawalt 1986:22831). There is no evidence of compulsion in the relationship between Plzen residents who lived with landlords or landladies. Individuals sometimes established close ties with their wards and foster children. In 1490 a woman gave 300 groschen plus her bed clothes to her female ward [schouanice] and her daughter got the rest (Strnad 1905:276, 329, 723). A man gave 300 grosthen each “to two children given to me in Nuremberg, if they will obe),” (Strnad 1905:288). A man in 1495 gave bed clothes, chest and 900 groschen to his ward as well as 180 groschen to the ward of his mother (Strnad 1905:339-40, 411-12). Some made bequests even after a ward was married indicating a lasting relationship (Strnad 1900:426). One woman gave a meadow, some cash and other items to “‘John, whom she has raised since childhood” (Strnad 1905:7 16; for Bydiov see Kapras 1907: 153). In 1453 a wealth!, single woman, Margaret Berbetova, gave one small house to her sister and her cousin but the rents on another in which she grew up, she gave to an apparently unrelated male with property in Plzen. She authorized her brother, Procop PeS [who otherwise got nothing] to be the executor and gave his son a small bequest. In addition three young girls unrelated to

69

‘I‘ablc ii. T\ pes of l~r,uscl~kls:

Religious

Pl~~il

‘I‘ol:il

\\-ido\~5/\illgl~~ C:olq’lr\ F hl 1

”

13 1i-16

tancr

on

order

to keep

marriage

also put great

obcdicncc

within

the

it functioning.

a man

impor-

farnil>-

emphasized

and a

in

In discussing

of !?titnf

Thomas

to he llapp),

7

1

moralists

~vcmm~

that seek

mast

7

2

i

11

1 i/i-11ot,

I ‘2

0

Ii

I IO;-:36

.J

I

I6

313 ” L’

and lvife o~j’e each

ll3Xiti

8

II

IX

37

cmphasizc

I I(iTXxj

13

2.5

.5X

‘iii

119T-15%

YI

“1

OT

11”

Ne\,ertheless.

he said:

in marriage

the man

must

~&moc]

his wife and

children

l.ili-ici

please

to

3,X

each the

control

(Simck

Jacob’s her,

lived

with

her in the

bequest

perhaps

or in response

for services

case judging kvere stronger Obedience keeping thorit\,

(Strnad

social

stretched farnil), were

brothers

lvere b)

expected

to

live

to obe),

orders

so that and

together and

and

verses

keep

express

in a faxnil).

the husband

was

acceptable

for a man

self

as his

it:

but

trouble

70

not like to be guest

hvhere the \voman there

(Feifalik

rules.

1862:81-2,

servants

can

run

a wife should

pendence. llumilit~ band tress

and

her

and

an d bvill

run

ser\‘ants

also of’ the

farnil)-.

farnil>.

mar-

show

obcdicnce. love, up

a

happy

her

bus-

good

mis-

good the

moralit).

Children

and

master

[hos-

taught

much

that

rnore

Spouses

gratitude,

and diligence

ing to nlake

for indc-

and ab0L.e all The

Stitn<

required

mutual

forbearance

oly~

better.

She must

to\\ards

household.

must

\vomm

affairs

the children

the

Simpl) a

her desire

1956: 102-6).

to rule

wife.

and honour,

\\.ill teach

and

to trouble.

obedience

(Simek

gentl)

hIany

olvn

curb

it only. leads

hierarchical

is onl) 108).

she

him-

in a housc-

There

thinks

He

his right

good \t.as not enough.

happy

put

show

muIjt

wisdom.

and proceed

children,

pod&]

It

lvith

over

rule.

poet

and

being

notions

before

example

s11ow f‘aithfulness

learn

to describe

As one Czech

ing her beaut>- from the sun. ‘I’lie man

But

to-

the

should

in tile remi\.-

anger

famil>.‘s

current

is the moon

lie must

it. Popular

lo\se’s ser\.ant

not after.

does

one

hold

lad)-

the

augment

a5 \vas Jacob

is the

Yet

It \vas

children,

sun

the mistress

master

avoid

children

the)- would

that

riage

Both the head.

dream.

slo\vl).

obedience

es-

1~). anal-

The

b)

of

Joseph’s

the master

imagery

should

and

was kept

that

responsibl!,

property songs

to teach

household

cspeciall>.

in

If the

sister

and

\\‘a~

account

in ,Joseph‘s

\vitll the

and

pobver.

Sitnf

Biblical

Hc described

og)’

dream

did not

of

the household the

au-

to pro\:ide

adult

of obedience. were

follow

ability

an

The

public

took it; place.

important

especiall?, heirs,

its

dead

ties

servants

\Yitll

b>.

periences.

position

91).

f:nmily

lead

M’as important

order. in

to the children. and

In an)

1903:9-10).

members

parents

gether

got a

rendered.

to the elder

up

peace;

and

b)- material bequests her ties to the unrelated girls than to

o\vn brother

her

house

a5 an act of’ charit)

all a husband

love. Stitn$

male’s

1936:60,

influenced

;Iho\.e

other

\\‘llen discussing

SOUKY:S~IXKI i 18!).5:19Oi I

small

other.

a

than

need

service

to and

in tirnes of‘sufl‘erhousehold

(simek

1936:101-121). \\‘ills reflect

this concern

for obedience

to

Figure 7. Josrph serves in Potiphar‘s

house.

the head of the family. The ivill of Thomas Andrlik is instructive. In his farnil)-. ties bet\veen grandchildren and grandparents were strong. His own father had given a house to his grandchild, Thomas’s daughter. Thomas himself included his granddaughter AniCka in the estate “if she got married and obeyed her father and mother and treated her husband fairly”. In his own case he showed that fair treatment meant the wife obeyed because he cut his wife out of his will, except for a small gift, because she had not been obedient. His brother-inlaw lvas instructed to “govern and lead his children like a true father [&I 012 sue’ de’ti s/wavoval c1 vedl ,jnko re?r@ otec]” (Strnad 1905:55-7). The fear was that children ivould dissipate the inheritance. To avoid this, submis-

His w3e

tries

to seducr

Josrph

and

takrs

his coat

sion ivas important, as \4as geographic pro”imit)- and a shared religious faith. ‘I’he cormcc tion betkveen obedience and the sur\-i\ral of the family inheritance can be seen in the resolution in 1418 of a lengthy dispute between a mother Ursula Hladko1.A and her son, John. The arbitrator gave the estate to the mother but gave the so11 15,000 gxx\cherl. He could inherit the rest at her death. HoM.e\.er, “if [the son] should LVaste the 13,000 ~roschen given him and spend them 011 vanities and not appl>- them to the good of his 01~11li\,elihood, and this can bc pro\‘en, then he first loses his honour, his faith and his right to the inheritance“ (Strnad 1905:2189). Testators tried to control whom their 1leirs married, instructed sons to obe\ their mothers and their older brothers or sisters

71

(Strnad 1905:716). In most cases one can assume these were minors who were to obe) although in one case a will specified that the mother was to rule the household and a son and his wife were to obey (Strnad 1905:381-2,

see also 26-7,

193-4,

279, 285,

(except for small gifts) to his daughter Katherine. The executors of the estate were also to “watch over the child Katherine, raising her in good morals” (Strnad 1905:102-3). In Bydiov in 1375 a priest, Henry of the nearby village gave his house

288, 310, 362, 529, 639, 656). Family authority could also be used to

to his maid (domestica) and her son (Kapras 1907: 113-14). It is possible that the child

compel religious orthodoxy. The Hussite revolution had attracted some away from the faith of their parents. People tried to pressure their children to come back by making bequests subject to the recipient returning to the Catholic faith (Strnad 189 1:382-3). Others made bequests subject to the person returning to Plzefi and settling down (Strnad 1905: 159). Obviously a person could not administer property from a distance. In Stitnq’s writings both children and servants, especially in their younger “years had similar obligations in the farnil!, (Simek 1956: 120-l). Servants were part of the family for which he used the term &led’ whose derivatives in modern Czech, for example c’eledin, means serv.ant or labourer. The vvills also reflect that people developed close and warm ties to servants, boarders and other care givers. In 1435 a man made cash bequests of 900 groschen to a male and female servant instructing the female to stay in the

may also have been his.

house with his widow and “provide for her needs”. If the two could not live together the maid was to get her cash and be fret to go (Strnad 1891:382; see also 413; 1905:9, 572). In 1464’Simon Vackovic’s vvill called for the sale of his house from which he gave 240 groschen plus some specified bedding and clothing to his cook Jana and a similar gift to Katherine, the foster mother ($stu’na). He gave two breweries and all other propert)

i2

People made gifts to those who had taken care of them in illness. One man gave 300 groschen Meissen [ 150 Czech] to KZa, “who looked after him when he was sick, . ..‘* and a woman gav’e clothing to another who had tended her (Strnad 1905:269). A widow gave her cook and her sons 600 groschen (Strnad 1905:335). Servants were appreciated even after they vvere gone. Thus the widow Margaret Penizkova in 1495 ga1.e one former servant 60 groschen and 180 to “George who also once was vcitli me” (Strnad 1905:345; also 1891:390; see 1905:45-6). In 1496 Peter a master brickla)-er gave small sums to his servant, whom he also called a friend [kinsman?], as well as to “the ph)-sician vvho had healed this servant” (Strnad 1905:361). One vvoman in 1498 gave her tenant and her sister some money and fur coats (Strnad 1905:387). Henzel, a carrier or waggoner, who had living brothers, had apparentl! stronger ties to his apprentice, \t-horn he gave his kvaggon, horse and other equipment. For this he vvas to sta)’ with his wife and help her harv.est the field (Strnad 1905:588). In 15 18 a man gave 600 groschen to a man vvho was to stay in the house with his wife as long as she desired it (Strnad 1905:674). One man, a bricklayer, gave half his house to his apprentices and the other half to his son-in-lavv (Strnad 1905:610).

The late medieval and early modern household was also an economic unit. The

the craft” (Strnad 1905:504). In addition a butcher gave his shop to his wife “to have

whole family and household,

and to administer” (Strnad 327-8, 288; 1891:214-15).

husband,

wife,

children and servants participated in varying ways in production and in running the enterprise (Hajnal 1965; Mitterauer 1987). Howell (1986:9-14) wrongly restricted this “family production unit” to the European North and North \l’est. In this unit women tended to work inside the house and men outside although exceptions were frequent. \Voman had important economic responsibilities such as planning expenditures for food, clothing and materials needed in production. The), also at times supervised the plans and oversaw the work (Howell, 1986:ll). Evidence of the household as an economic unit in which especially husband and wife both participated is present also in Plzen wills. Kot all wills describe woman’s work but those that do show women had high levels of administrative and organizational responsibilities. Several men stipulated that their wives should receive beehives suggesting that honey making was the work of women. Dorothy, the wife of \\:enceslas the draper had apparently acquired experience in running her husband’s business. In his will in 1400, he stated that “his dear wife Dorothy should be the mistress in authority of my house, receiving the profits and from these repairing and making changes, receiving and paying out moneys as it please her without giving account . ..” (Strnad 1891: 213). In 1507 Erhard the draper gave his wife the tools of his trade as did John the cooper in 1509 even though he had sons from an earlier marriage. And in 1505 George the cooper offered his wife his tools, “if she wanted to continue practising

The

wife

of the

1905:572,

town judge

was

601, also

closely involved in his work. The office was inherited and in two generations passed on to a daughter whose husband for public purposes held the offtce and sat on the town council. In 1435 Regina, on her death bed, bequeathed the local judgeship which she had received from her father as her inheritance and “which she had with all full rights and with everything pertaining to this judging, excluding nothing,” to her husband, Andrew, to be shared with her male cousin (Strnad 1891:377-g). In 1450 Andrew bequeathed this office [richtn’htvie] and a “small court, land, meadows, woods, a fish pond and all appurtenances from years past” to his minor daughter Lucy, making his second wife, hIargaret, the executor. All letters and papers given him in public trust, that is those having to do with the office, he entrusted to hlargaret with appropriate instructions. The office of the judge involved overseeing a large amount of detail ranging from collecting customs from merchants wishing to sell their products, each of which had a different rate, to supervising public morality. It also included caring for the recording of last wills and testaments, correct weights and measures and the business activities of the Jewish population (Strnad 1905:79-83, 89-93). The wife of the judge had to be a competent administrator. She participated in the paper work of the office and was abreast of office affairs including his debts as well as those he supervised (Strnad 1905:91, 438-9). Plzen women were also frequently re-

73

sponsible for book-keeping among the rentier families and creditors. Thus u~hen Andren the cooper drew up his will in 1492 he listed some loans owed him and added “there are other loans lvhich lie cannot remember but about which his wife knows” (Strnad 1905:303, compare man wrote in his will “she

295-6). Another [his wife] knows

the status of the loans as well as he.” Another wrote “his wife knows ho~v much money he had in the house.” And one wrote “about these debts and others and about the loans his ivife knowx best” (Strnad 1905:3’73> 658, 724: for others see 1905:363, 395, 528-9, 611, 614, 633, 737, 738). Matters of monc)and currcnc)were if not ghostly at this time iii)-sterious (Cipolla 1967:42-3). That \vomcn \vcre responsible for kno\\-ing the state of the farnil), enterprise’s finances is therefore striking. \Ve do not know whether the Plzeli \vomcn were doing more tllan simpl>. counting and guarding coins. They must have been using some kind of bookkeeping techniques, whether similar to those being de\,clopecl in Ital>- is not known. In an)- case men left to their \vi\-es the painstaking hut x-er)’ important task of keeping track of outstanding loans and debts and of the mane)- in the family It

houxhold turns

Bohemia,

out

business. that

pcoplc in medieval ,just as in the rest of Europe li\,cd

in small and simple households. The COIIjtlgal unit of hushand and Mife. \v,itll 0111~.a few children surviving to adulthood, \vas at the core of the family in the middle ages. At the same time people lived tvith brothers. parents, grandparents as well as sisters: witI1 unrelated persons such as wards, ser\,ants. renters \\~llen this suited the needs of one or hot11 parties. Thr simple household

‘74

and family, however, ivas the norm. An> arrangement that departed from the conjugal nuclear unit was not permanent. It was either an ad hoc set-up in which the core or one member of it cared for a needy part) such as minor siblings, older parents and non-kin members to n,hom one had grokvn attached, or it \vas a pro\.ision in \vhich two or more people, mostly related by blood, pooled their resources until the>, could survive hard times and make it on their own.

ATo tes

Literature