MICHAŁ SŁOMSKI

URZĘDNICY I PERSONEL

ZAMKU ARCYBISKUPÓW

GNIEŹNIEŃSKICH W ŁOWICZU

(XIV W. – 1531 R.)

INSTYTUT HISTORII PAN

WARSZAWA 2017

Recenzja wydawnicza
prof. dr hab. Alicja Szymczak

prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Ożóg

Redakcja i korekta
Jolanta Rudzińska

Indeksy
Michał Słomski, Jolanta Rudzińska

Opracowanie graficzne i projekt okładki
Dariusz Górski

© Copyright by Michał Słomski
© Copyright by Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk

ISBN 978–83–65880–01–7

Publikacja dotowana ze środków publicznych Ministerstwa Nauki
i Szkolnictwa Wyższego

Projekt współfinansowany przez Łowicki Ośrodek Kultury

Wydanie I, Warszawa 2017
Instytut Historii PAN
Rynek Starego Miasta 29/31
00–272 Warszawa

22 831 02 61–62, w. 44
www.ihpan.edu.pl
http://ksiegarnia-ihpan.edu.pl
[e-mail]

Druk i oprawa
Fabryka Druku

SPIS TREŚCI

Wstęp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Źródła . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Stan badań . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Konstrukcja pracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

R o z d z i a ł 1. Łowicz, zamek i dobra łowickie do początku XVI w. . . . . . 19
R o z d z i a ł 2. Centralny zarząd dobrami kościelnymi (arcybiskupi i kapituła)

oraz zarząd w czasie wakansu na stolicy arcybiskupiej . . . . 34

R o z d z i a ł 3. Zarząd dobrami i zamkiem w XIV w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
R o z d z i a ł 4. Starostowie łowiccy (XV w. – 1531 r.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Pierwsze wzmianki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Terminologia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Geograficzny zakres władzy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Urzędnicy skierniewiccy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Charakter nadania – „do wiernych rąk”, arenda, zastaw? . . . . . . . . . . 97
Przysięga wierności . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Kompetencje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Zarząd nad dobrami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Funkcje policyjno-wojskowe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Funkcje sądowe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Wpływ na miasto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Wpływ na skład rady miejskiej i ławników . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Kontrola nad miastem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Starostowie a kapituła łowicka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Zarządzanie zamkiem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Uposażenie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Zakończenie pełnienia funkcji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

R o z d z i a ł 5. Starostowie łowiccy jako grupa społeczna.

Próba charakterystyki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Związki rodzinne i rodowe z arcybiskupami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Geografia pochodzenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

6

SPIS TREśCI

Wiek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Inne funkcje i urzędy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

R o z d z i a ł 6. Pozostali urzędnicy zamku w Łowiczu i ich obowiązki . . . . 150

Burgrabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Sędzia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Poborca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Pisarz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

R o z d z i a ł 7. Kapelani i personel zamkowy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Kaplice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Kapelani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Personel zamkowy – rzemieślnicy oraz osoby związane z organizacją życia
i obrony zamku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Castrenses i familiares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Bractwo przy kościele św. Jana Chrzciciela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Służba zamkowa rekrutująca się ze wsi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Inne posługi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Zakończenie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Aneks. Urzędnicy i personel zamku arcybiskupów gnieźnieńskich w Łowiczu
do 1531 r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Wykaz skrótów . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Bibliografia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Indeks osób . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Indeks nazw geograficznych . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE CASTLE

OF GNIEZNO ARCHBISHOPS AT ŁOWICZ

(14TH CENTURY–1531)

ABSTRACT

The castle at Łowicz was built in a town being the centre of archbishops’

estates which made part of the archbishops endowment as early as 1136. The

development of the town and the settlement in its neighbourhood resulted

from activities of successive ordinaries: Jakub Świnka, Janisław and Jarosław

Bogoria Skotnicki. In consequence of the economic policy of the archbish-

ops followed around the town, which was chartered before 1298 or even ca.

1286, in 1359 the archbishop’ estates near Łowicz had already 114 places of

settlement, and by the early sixteenth century the number grew to almost

130. The castle at Łowicz was one of five castles belonging to Gniezno

archbishops, for they had strongholds at Uniejów, Opatówek, and Kamień

Krajeński, and in the fifteenth century bought a castle at Wenecja near Żnin.

We do not know when exactly the construction of the castle complex was

finished, but it appears as a castrum in a document from 1359. The year of

1355 referred to in the scholarly and popular science literature on the sub-

ject does not find confirmation in sources. Most probably, the complex was

a genetic continuation of the archbishops’ mansio mentioned in 1242 and

domus referred to in 1339. The dimension of the first one, square in plan,

were 33×34×31×31 m. In time, the castle was extended. In the early six-

teenth century it was made of two parts: the upper castle (arx superior), com-

bining representative and residential functions, and the lower castle which

probably developed out of the outer ward (castrum inferior), and was serving

as the auxiliary service area. Apart from the castle at Uniejów, Łowicz castle

was most important for the archbishops.

The administration of the Łowicz estates did not lie solely in the hands

of the castle officials, who in large part only executed decisions made by

the archbishop and the Gniezno Chapter. The archbishop cooperated with

the Chapter which influenced decisions of the ordinary and supervised

his actions towards the so-called table lands (Polish: dobra stołowe, Latin:

mensa archiepiscopalis). The participation of the Chapter members in the

275

ABSTRACT

administration of the archbishops’ estates was most important during the

periods of vacancy in the archiepiscopal see. At such times, canons took

over the management of individual demesnes, thus becoming administrative

officials. This prerogative is presumably of an old origin; and although the

first references to it date to the 1380s, it is well evidenced as late as in the

fifteenth century. One crucial aspect of the relationship between archbish-

ops and the Chapter was the practice of entrusting the management over

the castles to the lay administration. From time to time the Chapter had to

remind that the ordinary should hand over the strongholds and demesnes

only to ecclesiastics. This sparked off disputes between the canons and arch-

bishops, such as one of the most heated under Archbishop Władysław of

Oporów in the mid-fifteenth century. It was probably at that time that the

administrative dualism developed, and both the members of the Cathedral

Chapter and the laypersons designated by the archbishops were appointed

to the offices of Łowicz starosta (and occasionally also of Uniejów – but this

requires further study). The first post was known as principal starosta (capi-

taneus principalis), the latter simply as starosta (capitaneus).

It seems that the management system in the fourteenth century differed

from that of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. It is not an easy task to

define the powers and responsibilities of the administrators of the bishops’

estates in the fourteenth century both because of the scarcity of sources for

that century and of the semantic ambiguity of the term “prosecutor” (procu-

rator), most often used to describe bishop’s estate managers. The term could

have denoted either an administrator of the estate, or a court official, and

a person delegated to fulfil a specific task. It is hard to perceive the scope

of authority of fourteenth-century prosecutors in the preserved sources,

for in their majority they dealt with economic and financial matters. It is

probable, however, that they exercised some type of judicial jurisdiction

over the archbishop’s subjects, although it was by no means the rule. The

reference to a  judge of the poor (iudex pauperum) associated with Łowicz

makes us consider the possibility of distinction between the two scopes of

authority. The first Łowicz prosecutors appear in the sources around the

mid-fourteenth century. But it is difficult to tell who they were, for the

majority of references are to be found in lists of signatures of the witnesses

to archiepiscopal documents. It is possible that usually they were clergymen,

although some cases from other estates could have indicated that it was not

necessarily so. And it is equally hard to tell whether the management of the

castle was within the authority of fourteenth-century prosecutors. It occa-

sionally happened, but in that case the official was called “the prosecutor

and castellan” (procurator et castellanus) of Łowicz. There are also to be found

Łowicz castellans without any references to their prosecutor functions. The

276

ABSTRACT

first known administrator of the castle was Mszczuj of Strońsk (1361). The

powers and responsibilities of the officials termed as “Łowicz castellan” are,

in fact, unknown. We may assume that he was responsible for the security

of the Łowicz castle and estates; he might have had some power in reference

to the property, but I am unable to tell whether it resulted from the scope

of his authority or from the combination of his administrative positions.

It is probable that at the turn of the fifteenth century there were some

changes in the system of property administration, presumably on the model

of similar transformations made in the management of the estates belong-

ing to the Church.

From the early fifteenth century on, there appear in the sources pertain-

ing to the Gniezno Church persons called starosta (capitaneus) and burgrave

(burgrabius). It was in 1414 that the Łowicz administrator was called starosta

for the first time, and it was Marcisz of Wrocimowice; but already in 1411

there was a reference to a burgrave of Łowicz – and it probably was the

same Marcisz. From the early 1410s on, there are other people described

with the same terms. On the examples taken from other estates, however,

it is possible to establish that the changes in terminology could have been

influenced by the chancellery vocabularies used by archbishop’s or Chap-

ter’s clerks. In some bishoprics those administrators were still called procu-

rators, with the addition of other terms, such as the most popular tenutarius.

Łowicz starostas exercised their power over the estates north of the state

administrative boundary line between the Rawa and Sochaczew districts of

the Rawa province. The lands south of that line were under the authority

of officials residing in Skierniewice, the second town of the Łowicz estates,

chartered in 1457. First archiepiscopal officials designed with the possessive

attribute “of Skierniewice” (Sqwierniewicensis) appeared several years before

the town was chartered; at the same time the first references to the Skier-

niewice district (districtus Sqwierniewicensis) could be found, and canons of

the Gniezno chapter in documents of the register made a clear distinction

between the demesnes of Łowicz and Skierniewice.

In actual fact it is uncertain on what grounds the administration over the

castle and estates was handed over to starostas in the fifteenth century. The

silence of sources in this matter is both problematic and puzzling. But there

are in that century certain references to the buying out of castles from the

hands of starostas after the ordinary’s death, which might suggest that it was

a certain form of pledge or lease. The best evidenced example of 1441 taken

from the Kazimierz estates belonging to the Bishopric of Lebus reveals that

the system of property lease was in practice, although the fact that it was

used mainly by bishops from outside the territory of the Polish Kingdom

makes us wonder whether it was not the main factor. More information

277

ABSTRACT

about lease contracts and attempts to give the demesnes as a pledge are to

be found in the sixteenth century, but it is hard to tell exactly why. Maybe

a part of the estates was leased out, and other was given out on different

terms. The practice of putting in pledge of royal lands or leasing parish

incomes and benefices within the Church at that time gives us reasons to

look for a similar system in regard to the property of the Church. There

have been some attempts made in the literature to search for this system

with the help of terminology used to describe officials of the archiepiscopal

administration as tenutarii, and demesnes as tenuta. This, however, is certainly

not conclusive and requires further detailed study.

Newly appointed administrators of the estates and castles swore an oath

of allegiance. And again, we do not know how deeply rooted in the past

this duty was. For the Gniezno archbishopric, the first references to those

oaths appear in the 1380s. In the fifteenth century the oaths were more

frequent, but mainly to the middle of the century. The main point of each

oath was the promise made by the newly appointed starosta to serve faithfully

the archbishop and to give back the leased castle and lands upon the arch-

bishop’s order or the order of the Chapter after the ordinary’s death. Later

on, other duties were added, such as the settling of disputes to the best of

their knowledge and judgement, and the promise not to reduce in any way

the lands or possessions of the castle. It seems that from the mid-fifteenth

century the oaths must have been presented in the written form, but such

documents had been occasionally prepared before that time.

The scope of the authority of Łowicz starostas was probably quite broad,

even if they had to consult their decisions with the archbishop or the Chapter,

or present documents prepared by them to the approval of the ordinary and

canons. Most likely, however, they carried out tasks assigned to them by the

archbishop, such as granting of land, measurement of fields, attendance at

boundary delimitations between villages belonging to other people or insti-

tutions, the supervision of the works done by peasants, probably mainly in

the estates situated in different villages of the Łowicz district, or the control

of rents paid by the peasants. They also registered and authorised real estate

trading. Presumably they had also the duty to protect the estates, but more

information on the subject is related to the Łowicz burgrave. Another duty

of starostas was to hear and sentence in cases brought up by inhabitants of

Łowicz and the archbishop’s villagers, for whom the starosta’s court func-

tioned as an appellate instance, and to adjudicate cases of Łowicz’s wójt (a

head of commune) and heads of villages (sołtys and wójt) for whom he served

as a court of first instance. Starostas also controlled the everyday life of the

town, including their influence on the composition of the town council and

the wójt court of justice, and they approved candidates to the Łowicz Chapter.

278

ABSTRACT

The least documented are operations of starostas at the castle. But we may

be justified in believing that they were responsible for its staff and smooth

functioning of the stronghold. Their income included a part of payments

made by the archbishop’s subjects; they also charged some part of the rent

paid to the archbishop when they legalised contracts of lease, but exact terms

of this arrangement remain unclear.

Most often the office of starosta was entrusted to people related to the

archbishop in one way or another, such as his close family members, brothers

or brothers’ sons, much less frequent stepsons or sisters’ sons. Occasionally

it were persons associated with ordinaries of Gniezno through some financial

matters and businesses in the broad sense of the term. Appointing close family

relatives to the office of starosta served several purposes; with the exception

of moral duty to raise the status of the own family, there were other factors

at play, mainly financial ones. In general, however, material careers of such

families were not permanent and usually they ended sooner or later after their

patron-archbishop’s death. We should not diminish the importance of the

question of trust and confidence in close family relations or members of the

family thus favoured. Most often, starostas arrived to the castle with the arch-

bishops, which suggests that they came from other, distant parts of Poland:

Little Poland (Małopolska), Great Poland (Wielkopolska) or even Red Ruthenia

(Ruś Czerwona). What is interesting is the fact that until 1531 there was no

starosta from Mazovia. But it is hard to tell, how old they had to be to qualify

for the appointment. Probably there was no strict rule, although the experi-

ence in managing economic affairs was gained with age. Most frequently, the

administrator of the Łowicz estates fulfilled other functions either as a state

official or a clergyman with numerous benefices and duties. Only in excep-

tional cases was the position of Łowicz starosta the peak of the personal career.

Apart from starostas, there were other officials at the castle responsible

for the proper administration of the estates. A natural deputy of the starosta

was a burgrave whose authority overlapped that of his superior. He might

have been responsible also for the organisation of a forest guard. A collector

supervised and conducted (although we do not know whether he had to do

it in person) the collection of fees and payments from the archbishop’s sub-

jects, maybe with the inclusion of the tithes, although there is information

from other archbishops’ demesnes about sellers of tithes which prevents us

from ascertaining the fact with certainty.

The judge and clerk had to attend court sessions held in villages. The

clerk probably had to register all cases heard by the starosta, and maybe he

also was responsible for preparing all documents of the starosta.

Apart from these officials, there were other personnel at the castle essential

to its everyday functioning, including chaplains. In the early sixteenth century

279

ABSTRACT

chaplains were paid by the castle, although there were times where the mass

was celebrated by a Dominican from the Łowicz convent. Most information

about chaplains dates to the first decades of the fifteenth century. It is pos-

sible that the legal matters pertaining to the chaplaincy were not regulated

until the mid-sixteenth century, when Archbishop Mikołaj Dzierzgowski

defined the chaplain’s duties and his endowment. The location of the chapel

within the castle complex is known for the middle of the sixteenth century

– it was situated in the gate tower leading to the courtyard of the upper cas-

tle. Probably it was its older place, maybe from the early fifteenth century.

The castle staff also included people responsible for its weapons and

armament: a gunsmith, an armourer and a smith. Doubtless, the latter carried

out other works of his trade necessary for the castle’s life. The castle staff

included the inhabitants of the borough (castrenses) and the members of the

castle household (familiares). But determining their status can be problem-

atic. On the one hand the term castrenses could have been used to denote,

for example, cooks of the castle kitchen or porters. On the other, however,

especially in the fourteenth century, it could have meant the castle guard.

It is equally difficult to say who familiares were. Most probably it was the

nobility associated in one way or another with the archbishop or starostas

of Łowicz. Maybe the same persons were termed alternatively castrenses or

familiares? They probably formed the entourage of the starosta or burgrave and

followed him in the field. Also peasants from the villages belonging to the

archbishop were coming to the castle, for they had specific duties to fulfil

there, like to guard the castle at night, work in the castle bath, provide fish

for the castle (the village of Małszyce), bake bread (the village of Klewków),

work in the castle kitchen (the village of Łaguszew), supervise the pantry

(the village of Wierznowice) or to heat the castle chambers and guard the

horses and carts laden with things during the archbishop’s stay (the village

of Strzelcew). Apart from that, peasants had to care for the condition of the

moat both in summer and winter (the villages of (Ostrówek-Szczudłów,

Otolice, Ostrówek-Skrobaczów, Stroniewice), and to remove waste and

ordure (the villages of Pilaszków and Pczonów). In addition, population of

all estates around Łowicz was obliged to maintain and repair assigned sec-

tions of the bulwark and bridges, to bring to the castle timber and levies in

kind, in the form of cocks, chickens, eggs and cottage cheese.

The presented image of the administration of great Church estates and

of the functioning of the castle sheds some light on one of the little known

aspects of the management of the Church properties and everyday life of

castles in Poland at the turn of the early modern period.

Translated by Grażyna Waluga