SUMMARY
The Starosty of Olsztyn
from the 14TH Century to Mid-17TH Century
Owing to the insufficient source material, especially the material concerning
the tenancy (tenuta) of Olsztyn, it appears to be somewhat difficult to
reconstruct the structure of the office of the starost in the Middle Ages. It is
not until the modern era, starting with the first half of the 16th century, that
the task has become feasible. A number of issues referring to the Middle Ages
was reconstructed by virtue of the retrogressive study.
The opole1 of Mstów was the oldest settlement or perhaps the oldest form
of government in that part of Poland confirmed in 1263. A few settlements
belonging later to the starosty of Olsztyn could have been its part. Taking
into account the frontier-location of the afore-mentioned opole, in the lands
of Krakow and Sieradz, it may be assumed that it was formed even before
the partition of the Piast monarchy. There are as well strong source premises
enabling us to state that at the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries there was no
large complex of properties of the ruler in the environs of Olsztyn. The sources
preserved indicate that in that part of Lesser Poland (Polonia Minor) a group
of properties of the Krakow bishopric was established. The original fortress
on Góra Zamkowa in Olsztyn, confirmed as castrum Premilovicz, could have
initially been a bishop’s castle playing the role of the centre of one of the parts
of the properties of the Krakow’s church.
The erection of the complex of the monarchical property in the borderland of
the lands of Krakow and Sieradz needs to be ascribed to the two last crowned
monarchs of the Piast dynasty (Vladislaus the Elbow-high and Casimir the
Great). Prior to 1341 they took possession of the Przemiłowic castle (most
probably it was already Vladislaus the Elbow-high) and transformed it into
the fortification named Olsztyn, and subsequently they founded the castle
area (districtus) run by a burgrave. The range of the territory that comprised
the districtus of Olsztyn before 1370 is somewhat difficult to determine, the
area of competence of the burgrave of Olsztyn likewise, which is resultant
upon the insufficient source material as well as the absence of the research
1
Pol. opole (Latin vicinia), local community, the smallest unit of settlement or perhaps
administration in early mediaeval Poland [footnote by translator].
565
Summary
on the territorial administration of Lesser Poland. Nonetheless, based on
later sources of 1370–1391, we may propose a hypothesis that the districtus
of Olsztyn comprised, apart from royal properties, nearby settlements of the
nobility and the church, while the burgrave in charge had a high authority
over administrative, judicial and military power not only with reference to
the subjects from the royal lands, but also the nobility. The view that it was
Vladislaus of Opole (after he had received the castle in Olsztyn in the form of
fiefdom) who enlarged the district of Olsztyn with settlements not belonging
to the ruler has been questioned. Observations made on Olsztyn enable us to
put forward a hypothesis that during the reign of the last two crowned Piasts
in Lesser Poland, or most probably in the whole Kingdom, castle districts
(districtus) performed the role of the units of the territorial government, while
the officials at its head (burgraves) wielded wide administrative, judicial and
military power. Castles with the dependent districts would substitute in that
respect the place of the old system based on castellanies and castle districts.
There are strong premises to assign the castles erected by Casimir the Great
not only the military and symbolic role, but also the administrative one. Above
all, costly investments the king made were to strengthen the monarchical
power, rather than serve as the symbolic demonstration.
Olsztyn played a prominent role also in the so-called duchy of Wieluń,
founded by Vladislaus of Opole in the terrain of the Kingdom of Poland
adjoining the duchy of Opole, which he obtained as fiefdom in 1370 from
king Louis of Anjou. Against the common belief, at the beginning of his
reign over the fiefdom Vladislaus of Opole did not effect major structural
transformations. An essential difference lay in subordinating castle districts
to the starost general of Opole. First structural transformations were brought
about in 1379 at the latest, when the duke bestowed the Bobolice castle upon
Andrew Schony. The Bobolice district was dissolved while its territory was
incorporated into the district of Olsztyn. Further transformations occurred
already in the 1380s. There is every likelihood that in 1385 the burgraviate
of Olsztyn was transformed into the starosty, and a separate general starosty
was established for the duchy of Wieluń. We may as well infer that George of
Zwóz and Pawonków, the first starost of Olsztyn, was undoubtedly the starost
general of Wieluń at the same time. He was given the considerable judicial
power over the nobility. He took advantage of the officials appointed probably
by Vladislaus of Opole, a judge, a sub-judge (subiudex), an administrator
(procurator), whose authority extended over the area of the district of Olsztyn.
After the resignation of George of Zwóz from the post of the starost the status
of the starosty of Olsztyn changed, and it became one of the three equal
starosties, along with newly established starosties of Krzepice and Wieluń.
Henceforth, the starost of Olsztyn had the district (districtus) of Olsztyn
within his jurisdiction. While determining its territorial range after 1379 it
566
Summary
was assumed that it could reach no further than to the Bąkowiec castle.
A new north-east border of the district different than the one existing so far
in the literature was proposed (both for the reign of Casimir the Great and
Vladislaus of Opole). The border went eastward close to future Przyrów, and
northwards deep into the future voivodeship of Sieradz. The terrain furthest
to the north within the jurisdiction of the castle, confirmed by the sources,
reached as far as the town of Żytno in the land of Sieradz. In the 14th century
the district of Olsztyn included the terrain in the borderland of Krakow and
Sieradz. Royal settlements of the terrain of the later district of Radomsko were
under the jurisdiction of the castle of Olsztyn, the evidence of which could
still be traced in the 16th century. It could as well be postulated that the royal
and church properties constituted the part of the castle district. Nevertheless,
it remains unresolved whether the border character of the districtus of Olsztyn
was connected to the earlier administrative division.
New arguments have been disclosed confirming the hypothesis formulated
by Jacek Laberschek that the location of Częstochowa was effected by Casimir
the Great, rather than Vladislaus of Opole, as most historians accept. The
intensive colonization undertaken in the 1350s in the so-called settlement of
Częstochowa required the location of the town. A model of settlement defined
in the literature as Stadt-Land-Kolonisation was adopted. Additionally, rare
dedication to St. Sigismund for the church founded in the town may as well
evidence Casimir the Great who worshipped that saint greatly.
Depriving Vladislaus of Opole of the rights over the duchy of Wieluń and
the incorporation of the Olsztyn castle to the Kingdom of Poland by king
Vladislaus Jagiello in 1391 was related to the transformation of the starosty
of Olsztyn into the non-jurisdiction starosty (tenuta), which henceforth
comprised exclusively royal properties. The above-mentioned transformations
occurred in 1399 at the latest. From the end of the 14th century to the partition
of the Kingdom of Poland the starosty of Olsztyn functioned as the non-jurisdiction starosty2. The tenancy of Olsztyn of the royal bestowal was in
charge of the non-jurisdiction-starosts, who generally did not administer it
in person but via their deputies, specifically burgraves until the end of the
15th century, and under-starosts (vicecapitanei) from the beginning of the
16th century. From the end of the 14th century to mid-17th century a one-man office of the vice-starost functioned, the residential centre of whose was
Olsztyn. The jurisdiction of the burgraves and under-starosts were in line
with the powers of the starosts and encompassed administrative control of
the properties subject to the castle, military authority over the crew of the
fortress, as well as the jurisdiction over the population inhabiting the starosty.
2
Non-jurisdiction starosty – a starosty in which starosts did not possess judicial authority
over the nobility [footnote by translator].
567
Summary
Notwithstanding, starosts, witness other non-jurisdiction starosties, acted as
a court of appeal against the sentence of the burgrave or under-starost. By
all means they must have influenced numerous other matters in the starosty.
The non-jurisdiction starosts (tenutarii) who resided in the castle were Paul
Olsztyński of Szczekociny and Joachim Ocieski. However, their activity
concerned primarily the economic maintenance of that royal land.
Non-jurisdiction starosts (tenutarii) profited from the income the monarch
provided for the starosty, and its scope was dependent upon the legal title of
the bestowal. For the whole of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries
the starosty of Olsztyn was held as a lien (antichresis) by the non-jurisdiction
starosts. Burdening the properties of Olsztyn with the mortgage bonds for the
benefit of the Szczekocki family (starting with the mortgage bond for John of
Szczekociny in 1406) increased repeatedly in the first half of the 15th century
resulted in practically permanent exclusion of that tenancy from the ruler’s
possession. The act of incurring such an enormous debt went beyond the
capabilities of the royal treasury, especially due to the fact that numerous other
royal lands were in a similar position. Cession of the rights to the starosty to
a different person, which could be enacted by virtue of the permission to redeem
the starosty with the private money, was the only solution. To wit, John Albert
in 1496 or 1497 permitted John Trnka of Raciborzany to redeem Olsztyn from
the heirs of Paul Olsztyński of Szczekociny. A subsequent redemption of the
starosty of Olsztyn was effected in 1502 by prince Sigismund Jagiellon (later
Sigismund the Old), who received antichresis from his brother king Alexander
Jagiellon in exchange. When Sigismund was crowned king of Poland, the
chance came on the way to take an absolute control over the properties of
Olsztyn by the royal treasury. Although the monarch attempted to restore
the realm, he proceeded differently towards Olsztyn pledging the starosty to
his associate – Nicolaus Szydłowiecki – in 1508 for the period of life. After
the death of that starost in 1532, it is somewhat easy to discern that the king’s
actions aimed to strengthen the control over the starosty and explicitly specify
the income generated by the tenancy. By way of illustration, the starosty was
entrusted ad fideles manus to Peter Opaliński, and subsequently transformed
into the lease (arenda). However, in 1548 the successor of Sigismund the
Old, Sigismund Augustus, changed the form of governance by the starost
Opaliński into life usufruct and after his death in 1551 he granted the lease
again, though for the period of life, bestowing it upon the vice-chancellor
(soon the chancellor) John Ocieski. Despite the execution of the properties,
Ocieski managed to assemble a number of royal lands, some of which, among
other things the starosty of Olsztyn, were inherited in the form of succession
by his sons. John Ocieski, son of the chancellor, leased the starosty until 1583,
when he ceded it to his brother Joachim. In 1593, though, king Sigismund III
changed the legal title into life usufruct. After the death of Joachim in 1613
568
Summary
the starosty was handed over in the form of life usufruct to the royal marshal
Nicolaus Wolski, and in turn after his death pursuant to the agreement the
above-mentioned tenancy was bestowed to treasurer Hermolaus Ligęza. He
was granted the starosty in the form of pledge (extenuatio) to be held for
the period of thirty years with the clause of life tenancy for him and his wife
and the right of succession of the pledge for his heirs. In consequence, from
1631 the starosty of Olsztyn was administered by the Ligęza family, and in the
second half of the 17th century as a result of the marriage of his granddaughter
it came into possession of the Lubomirski family. The inspection of the legal
titles of the starosts of Olsztyn enables us to state that in fact only in the years
1532–1548 and 1551–1593 there was an attempt to subject those properties
to the tighter financial control, and accordingly earn income for the royal
treasury. Nevertheless, even in the above-mentioned periods they constituted
only partial income which could be generated from the starosty of Olsztyn.
As a consequence, the fact of putting the tenancy into lien (antichresis), lease,
and especially life usufruct resulted in the wasteful economic policy of the
non-jurisdiction starosts, and in effect, gross negligence of the starosty.
From the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries to the half of the 17th century
the borders of the royal properties belonging to the castle underwent only
minor changes. Therefore, it may be assumed that the borders of the non-jurisdiction starosty of Olsztyn I described here and marked on the map
correspond to the whole period examined, notwithstanding late sixteenthand seventeenth-century sources facilitated its reconstruction. A problem of
settlement in the terrain of the starosty of Olsztyn appears to be different, for
between the beginning of the 15th century and the first half of the 17th century
a number of settlements in the area of the tenancy of Olsztyn increased by
27 or 28. A dynamic increase of the process of settlement was brought about
especially in the second half of the 16th century and first half of the 17th century
when 19 new settlements were established. Principally, the south-west area of
the starosty, covered in forests during the mediaeval times, and situated at
the border of duchy of Siewierz and duchy of Opole, became inhabited at that
time. Logging of the forests for the ironworks comprising the so-called basin
of Częstochowa had an influence on development and colonization processes
of that terrain. The fact of setting up farms or forges which were only later to
be transformed into villages was characteristic of the modern settlements in
the area of the starosty. In c. half of the 17th century, owing to the development
of the settlement in the modern era, the starosty of Olsztyn became the royal
land with the greatest number of villages in the voivodeship of Krakow.
The personnel of the starosty of Olsztyn was similar to the one employed
in other jurisdiction and non-jurisdiction starosties of the terrain of the
Kingdom of Poland. Apart from non-jurisdiction vice-starosts, burgraves and
569
Summary
under-starosts in charge of the starosty there were many more other persons
maintaining the premises. Some of them were associated with the castle, still
some performed their duties in the field. Among the so-called castle family,
i.e. the persons living there permanently, we can distinguish three major
groups: starost officials, people performing military duties and household
servants (inter alia artisan-specialists and people in charge of delivering and
preparing food). Out of the people working in the field we need to enumerate
the personnel of the manor farm and the remaining officers, such as foresters.
Two administrators, of Zarębice and of Poczesna, who were in charge of the
internal territorial units of the starosty played the leading role.
A key issue to understand the role the starosty of Olsztyn and other complexes
of the crown properties in the Kingdom of Poland performed is the form
of administration. The tenancy of Olsztyn from the time it was organized
during the reign of Vladislaus Jagiello at the close of the 14th century to
c. half of the 17th century was administered centrally by the vice-starost –
burgrave (until the end of the 15th century), and later by the under-starost.
The afore-mentioned official resided in the Olsztyn castle, which throughout
the whole period was the centre of the starosty. Within that complex of the
realm minor units were distinguished, principally a group of settlements. At
the earliest, probably in the first half of the 15th century, the Zarębice unit,
and later, either in the second half of the 16th century or in the first half of
the 17th century the Poczesna unit was established. Both of these settlements
had their administrators, nonetheless, they were subject to the burgraves and
under-starosts of Olsztyn. Changes were implemented not until the half of
the 17th century as a result of the decline of the importance of the castle.
Despite the fact that the knowledge we possess about the organization of
the starosty is primarily grounded in the modern sources, there is no doubt
that such an organism constitutes a characteristic product of the mediaeval
relations. The fact of attributing the defence function to the castle against the
nearby territory could be ascribed to the two last crowned Piasts. Moreover,
the rulers of the Jagiellon dynasty were aware of the strategic location of the
fortress, i.e. next to the border with Silesia. Crown lands subject to the fortress
constituted its economic base, while the income earned was to serve, above
all, as the source of financing the cost of maintenance of the castle premises
and personnel of the starosty (including the military personnel). Only part of
the income was sent to the royal treasury or collected by the non-jurisdiction
starosts.
It may be evidenced by the modest level of the real income of the starosty.
Additionally, the royal court earned its income from the starosty in a different
form, specifically via the execution and consumption of the station services.
Stations in Olsztyn and Częstochowa functioning in the terrain of the
570
Summary
starosty of Olsztyn were used by the monarchs until the 17th century. We
need to agree with Anna Sucheni-Grabowska that the income presented in
the registers were substantially underestimated in relation to the factual state,
which in turn was resultant upon the inaccurate calculation of the value of
the grain production in the manor farms. On the other hand, the calculation
of the income of the starosty, not including mass agricultural production in
the manor farms, correspond to the realities of the Middle Ages. It may be
surmised that along with the spread of the farm economy the income from
the crown lands rose. It strikes us that in the accounts of the starosty drawn
at the outset of the 1530s most inflows were used to meet basic needs of the
starosty, including the sustenance of the personnel, necessary repairs and
investments. In such distribution of the income from the properties subject
to the castle we can discern an operational plan of the monarchs to build
units of the local administration around the royal castles, which on the one
hand were to guarantee an effective administration of the royal estate and
maintain the castle buildings and facilities in a good condition, but on the
other, ensure the security to the subjects.
It is justified to maintain that the castle and the adjacent properties formed
a self-regulating system – the castle administered and defended the territory
and its inhabitants against the potential danger, while its subjects via rents
and tributes paid for the maintenance of the building as well as his personnel.
Aside from that, part of the population of the starosty, such as sculteti, most
probably some peasants, and even the local nobility, helped to defend the castle
during the wartime. Accordingly, owing to that military duty of the people
of the starosty, we can explicate the reasons for such an insignificant number
of the military personnel in the starosty (in the first half of the 16th century it
amounted to 11-12 people). An avid interest which the monarchs evinced for
castles, e.g. ordering the starosts to repair them even when the starosties were
put into pledge, appears to confirm that opinion. It is as well noteworthy that
Sigismund the Old in 1509 and 1522 exempted numerous under-starosts of
the terrain of Poland from taking part in wars so that they could protect the
castles.
Inconsistence of the rulers themselves in entrusting the starosty to the non-jurisdiction starosts led to the destruction of such reasoned form of the
administration of the royal estate. Kings used starosties as an instrument for
conducting politics, they entrusted starosties to the dignitaries to secure their
support, consequently they failed to deliver proper care to the properties.
Instead of granting the most profitable legal title, i.e. administration based on
loyalty, kings bestowed the tenancy of Olsztyn in the form of antichresis or
life usufruct, which, in turn, led to gross negligence.
Until the castle served its military function its leading role in the starosty was
preserved. The organization of the starosty, established in mediaeval times,
571
Summary
and grounded in the central role of the castle as the home of power, functioned
with minimal changes for the whole 16th and first half of the 17th centuries.
Along with the development in the domain of military technology that purely
mediaeval fortress was gradually losing its military importance, until in the
first half of the 17th century it fell into ruin. The outcome of the decline of the
castle was the administrative transformation of the starosty. Simultaneously,
the growing farm economy in the modern era caused that the economic
profile of the starosties commenced to come to the fore. In the c. half of the
17th century decentralization followed resting upon the transformation of
the tenancy into three separate groups (units) of properties (of Olsztyn,
Zarębice and Poczesna), each administered by its own under-starost. The sole
link between that new structural complex of properties and the old one was
its name – the starosty of Olsztyn, which was retained until the partition of
the Kingdom of Poland.
572