Zeitschri des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische Rechtsgeschichte Rechts Rggeschichte

Rechtsgeschichte

www.rg.mpg.de

http://www.rg-rechtsgeschichte.de/rg13

Zitiervorschlag: Rechtsgeschichte Rg 13 (2008)

http://dx.doi.org/10.12946/rg13/025-046

Rg132008 25 – 46

Olga Kozubska-Andrusiv

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus' (Rotreussen)

Dieser Beitrag steht unter einer

Creative Commons cc-by-nc-nd 3.0

Abstract

This article focuses on the ius theutonicum Mag-deburgense, its meaning and functions, attempting to understand what ius theutonicum meant for con-temporaries. It starts with the present interpreta-tion of the term. This is followed by a detailed anal-ysis of the available medieval privileges for Magde-burg law issued for towns in Galician Rus’. The result was not an identification or »reconstruction« of a particular »law« or combination of different »laws« adopted in town courts of Galician Rus’ under the term ius theutonicum. It was rather the recognition that the notion called ius theutonicumin medieval documents was an adaptable pattern applicable to different conditions, a model with many variants or a general set of principles which was filled with real content and adapted to con-crete circumstances.

□×

German Law in MedievalGalician Rus’ (Rotreussen)The Galician-Volhynian Principality (the westernmost part of

Kievan Rus’) was possibly the only land in Rus’ where the ius theu-tonicum was adopted: the first signs of the new »law« belonged tothe thirteenth century, the time of Prince Daniel of Galicia (died1264). The process greatly intensified after the territory was in-corporated into the Polish kingdom in the mid-fourteenth centuryand when most of the territory of Galician Rus’ was organized in alarge administrative unit called the Rus’ Palatinate (»RotreussischeWojewodschaft« or »Rotreussen« in German).

German law (or more precisely the ius theutonicum Magde-burgense) mentioned in privileges from Galician Rus’ was assumedto be a special form of urban law, perhaps the law of Magdeburgadapted and applied in local settlements. A grant of ius theuto-nicum – in oral form or in the form of a privilege – dated theformation of »a town in a legal sense.« When a new »law« wasbeing granted (proclaiming also the withdrawal of old »laws«) onemust ask what it consisted of. However, primary medieval sources

25

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, by Paul Robert Magocsi, Seattle,London 1993, p. 21.

collected for this research did not give, at first glance, any idea ofthe »normative« content of the new »law«: assuming that »law«should be a certain set of »norms« and rules, ideally a codified set.1

It was generally accepted that »German law« was brought bysettlers and subsequently denoted as ius theutonicum.2 Accordingto Schubart-Fikentscher, one has to think that, especially at thebeginning, it meant customary law (»Gewohnheitsrecht«), with-out implication of any concrete town law.3 Some authors saw it asa combination of the »Sachsenspiegel« with Magdeburger townlaw.4 In this way ius theutonicum, being presumably imported byGermans themselves, was implicitly or explicitly identified with akind of German ius scriptum, or with combinations of certain iura.The term ius theutonicum was translated directly as »DeutschesRecht« or »German law«, and modern researchers have workedpredominantly with a translated version of the term (as »law«).However, as often happens, a linguistic change turns into a changein modern understanding.5

The secondary literature revealed how scholars had solvedsimilar problems in other regions; they first looked at the sourcesfor the law of Magdeburg , and then tried to find similar sources intheir own region, searching the contents of town law books andother legal manuscripts. This method did not work in the case ofGalician Rus’, however, because the legal manuscripts with whichthe new »law« supposedly spread are practically absent. Still, arelatively high number of preserved medieval privileges for towns»under Magdeburg law« (several dozens), and an even highernumber for villages (also founded with the same »law«) is surpris-ing and forces one to find another explanation. The impossibility ofconducting research based on traditional written sources forMagdeburg law points to the need for clarification of the termius theutonicum, of the meaning and functions associated with it inmedieval Galician Rus.

Historiography

The volume of writings dealing with the subject of ius theuto-nicum is enormous. Studies written by Polish and German authorsare especially numerous.6 The present overview is focused mainlyon Ukrainian historiography which is seldom included in interna-

26

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

1 The oldest document associatedwith the law of Magdeburg is aprivilege Bishop Wichmanngranted to this town in 1188.A great deal of the law of Magde-burg consisted of legal teachings(»Rechtsmitteilungen«) addressedto other towns founded accordingto »the law of Magdeburg«: toWrocław/Breslau (1261, 1295),Görlitz (1304), Chelmno/Kulm(1338), and Halle (1364). See:Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 4,Munich 1999, 856.

2 For instance, Menzel wrote thatGerman law was »von den Sied-lern mitgebracht und kurzum alsius theutonicum bezeichnet.« See:Josef Joachim Menzel, Dieschlesischen Lokationsurkundendes 13. Jahrhunderts, Würzburg1977, 229.

3 Gertrud Schubart-Fikent-scher, Die Verbreitung der deut-schen Stadtrechte in Osteuropa,Weimar 1942, 38.

4 Rolf Lieberwirth, Das säch-sisch-magdeburgische Recht alsQuelle osteuropäischer Rechts-ordnung, in: Sitzungsberichte derSächsischen Akademie der Wis-senschaften zu Leipzig, (Philolog.-histor. Klasse), Bd. 127/1, Berlin1986, 5.

5 D. Willoweit aptly commented onthis: »es ist wenig wahrscheinlich,dass dieses gedankliche Substratder rechtshistorischen Germanis-tik eben jenes ius theutonicum ist,das 600 Jahre früher die Urkun-denaussteller und Kanzleischreiberbeschäftigte.« See Dietmar Wil-loweit, Das deutsche Recht im

Osten – vom Kulturvergleich zurRezeptionsgeschichte, in: Die His-torische Wirkung der östlichenRegionen des Reiches, hg. vonHans Rothe, Köln, Weimar,Wien 1992, 72.

6 The most recent book providing aprofound review of the literatureon »Ostkolonisation« is J. Pis-korski (ed.), HistoriographicalApproaches to Medieval Coloni-zation of East Central Europe,

New York 2002. Among otherworks on German law in histori-ography see Johannes F. Fech-ner, Deutsches Recht in Polen. EinÜberblick über die Forschungslagein Deutschland, in: DietmarWilloweit and WinfriedSchich (Hg.), Studien zur Ge-schichte des sächsisch-magdebur-gischen Rechts in Deutschlandund Polen, Frankfurt am Main1980.

tional discussions and surveys, and has been developing in iso-lation until the present day.

One can distinguish at least three periods in Ukrainian scholar-ship. Representatives of the first period, dated from the second halfof the nineteenth to the early twentieth century, being concernedwith writing a »national history« tried to evaluate the role ofGerman law in the history of Ukrainian towns and Ukrainian landsin general. One of the most renowned legal historians of that time,Vladimirskiy-Budanov, saw the adoption of German law as thereason for the decay of towns in Polish and Lithuanian lands:»privileges were the reason for the collapse of the nobility’s state;similarly the main cause of urban decay was attributed to privilegesand special rights of towns.«7 His contemporary Antonovychargued that urban decay was caused by social differentiation,and German law aimed to be a remedy in such conditions, al-though without success. Kistiakivskyi, writing in 1879 about theeighteenth-century law book Prava, za yakymy sudytsia maloro-siyskyi narod (Laws According to which Ukrainian People JudgeThemselves), dedicated one chapter to the history of German lawand its codifications.8 Another scholar, Bahaliy, who first pub-lished his study on Magdeburg law on so-called Left-Bank Ukraine(that is, Ukrainian lands on the left bank of the Dnipro/Dneprriver) in 1892 (and later in a Ukrainian translation in 1904),stressed that the fundamental feature of the law was to separatetown dwellers into a closed group. In his opinion, this was suitablefor the social order of Poland, but the Ukrainian folk could notaccept this organization because it contradicted Ukrainian histor-ical traditions and was, therefore, alien.9 A general conclusion inthese studies suggested that German law was perceived as a foreignconcept transmitted mechanically to Ukraine and therefore it couldnot be fully accepted by the »Ukrainian town folk.«10

The idea of German law as being alien and artificial inUkrainian lands also prevailed in scholarship at the beginning ofthe twentieth century. These views were present in the works ofHrushevsky, particularly in the fifth volume of his History ofUkraine-Rus’ (first published in 1905) dealing with the socialand political histories of Rus’ territories from the fourteenth tothe seventeenth century.11 In his opinion, urban communitiesformed under the foreign, »ready-made« law, isolated from eachother and unable to cooperate with each other, were made helpless.

27

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

7 Mikhail Vladimirskiy-Buda-nov, Nemetskoye pravo v Polshe iLitve (German law in Poland andLithuania), Zhurnal Ministerstvanarodnogo prosveshchenia 8(1868) 467–554; 9 (1868) 720–806; 11 (1868) 519–586; 12(1868) 773–833.

8 Olexandr Kistiakivsky, Prava,po kotorym syditsia malorossiy-skiy narod (Laws according towhich people of Lesser Russia

judge themselves), Kyiv 1879, 83–110.

9 Dmytro Bahaliy, Magdeburzkepravo na Livoberezhniy Ukraini(Magdeburg law in Left-BankUkraine), Lviv 1904).

10 Volodymyr Antonovych, Izsle-dovaniye o gorodakh Yuho-Za-padnogo kraya (Investigation oftowns in the southwestern region),Monografii po istorii Zapadnoy i

Yugozapadnoy Rossii, vol. 1, Kyiv1885.

11 Mykhailo Hrushevsky, IstorijaUkraijni-Rusi L’vov 1905–1907,vol. 5, 98.

Moreover, foreign ethnic groups occupied the main urban centersof Rus’, reducing the autochthonous population there to minoritystatus. Thus, in his view, the history of urban society organizedaccording to German law was, with a few exceptions, a history ofdecline and decay.12

However, another Ukrainian scholar, Jakowliw, revised theattitude from negative to positive: writing abroad and publishinghis work in German in Leipzig (1942), he saw »German/Magde-burg law« as a direct import from German lands incorporated intoUkrainian legal traditions. Magdeburg was perceived as a directmodel for Ruthenian towns (and villages), and its law importedthere in »full dimension«,13 although no one knows »the fulldimension« of Magdeburg law, since it had never been recordedin its »full dimension.« Denying the importance of Poland’smediation in the process of adoption, he saw the Polish Kingdomas responsible for all the negative effects, while the adoption ofGerman law (in a form of the law of Magdeburg) had a positiveinfluence on urban life.14 Similarly, this point of view was greatlyinfluenced by the author’s contemporary political situation.

Generally, these studies concentrated mostly on the evaluationof the adoption of German law »from a Ukrainian point of view,«regarding the influence it had on Ukrainian population, which wasseen as a passive recipient (if not a victim). The view of ius theu-tonicum as a »ready-made« foreign law imposed from above onthe indigenous people of Rus’ implies that German law was oftenunderstood as a rigid set of rules and regulations imported in aprocess similar to modern law transfer.

During the Soviet era (the second period), research on »Ger-man law« or medieval urban self-government was unwelcome ortreated negatively, likewise seeing German law as »aggression«from outside.15 At the same time, some historians considered itnecessary to counterbalance the flourishing of Western urban lifein the Middle Ages with local examples. Following this idea, aUkrainian scholar, Otamanosvky, denied that towns in a legal senseappeared in Ukraine only with the reception of German law.He emphasized that codices of Old Rus’ law (»Rus’ka Pravda«)served as the legal grounds for urban organizations in Kievan Rus’from the eleventh to the thirteenth century, and stressed that Polishkings conducted a policy of annihilation of this specific form oftown by introducing German law.16 The very attempt to create an

28

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

12 Ibid., 222–223. Instead, Hrushev-sky praised urban life and the sys-tem of town and hinterlandrelationships in Kievan Rus’ be-fore the adoption of German law:»the town was a centre of political,economic and cultural life of theland; but the town was not sepa-rated from the land – it repre-sented the land and contained allstrata and components of society.«See: Hrushevsky, Istorija (nt. 11),vol. 5, 223.

13 This is, for instance, how Jakow-liw explained it: »Es handelt sichhier vielmehr um das nämlicheMagdeburger Stadtrecht, dessenUmfang und Wirksamkeit blossden besonderen Lebens- und Da-seinsbedingungen des Dorfes unddes Bauerntums durch Kürzungund Modification angepasstwurde. Eine viel wichtigere Rollehatte in Polen, Lithauen und derukrainischen Ländern das deut-sche Stadtrecht in seinem vollenUmfang, in Form des Magdebur-ger Munizipalrechtes, gespielt.«See: Andrij Jakowliw, Dasdeutsche Recht in der Ukraine undseine Einflüsse auf das ukrainischeRecht im 16.–18. Jahrhundert,Leipzig 1942, 53.

14 Jakowliw, Das deutsche Recht(nt. 13).

15 Alexandr Rogatschewski,Übersicht über das sowjetischeSchrifttum der 1970 und 1980er

Jahre zur Geschichte des Magde-burger Stadtrechts, in: Zeitschriftder Savigny-Stiftung für Re-chtsgeschichte, 1 (1992) 390–399.

16 Waleriy Otamanovsky, Razvi-tiye gorodskogo stroya na Ukrainev XIV–XVIII vekakh i Magde-brgskoye pravo (Developmentof urban organization in Ukrainein the fourteenth-eighteenth cen-turies and Magdeburg law) in:Voprosy Istorii 3 (1958) 122–135.

For more on the subject of Mag-deburg law in Ukrainian towns seeP. Sas, O kharaktere samouprav-lenia po magdeburzkomu pravu vhorodakh Ukrainy (XV-60 godyXVI) (On the character of self-government under Magdeburglaw in towns of Ukraine [the fif-teenth to the 60s of sixteenth cen-turies]) in: Aktualnyie voprosyistoricheskoi nauki Kyiv (1984)18–19.

»urban law« out of »Rus’ka Pravda« (when in reality this sourcedid not even distinguish between »urban« and »rural«) demon-strated how artificial and biased research was when it came toquestions of comparative legal history. The artificial characterof many Soviet »official« ideas and theories, as well as the necessityto apply these »official« ideas in regional studies, often causeddistortion and misunderstanding of historical phenomena.

The third period in legal-historical research is associated withthe time when Ukraine obtained the status of an independent statein the early 1990 s. Communist historiography in Ukraine hasbeen transformed into national historiography without a struggle.The ideas of Soviet times were easily replaced with ideas connectedto the national paradigm, although the carriers of those ideasremained the same. The carriers, authors, adapted to the newsituation simply by changing colors from red (communist) to blue-and-yellow (national), and proclaiming the previously forbiddenM. Hrushevsky the new classic instead of Marx or Lenin.17

During the last fifteen years of Ukrainian statehood, the spreadof ius theutonicum has become a »trendy« subject, though ideo-logical concerns have played a certain role in this revival of interest.Some recent studies on the adoption of »German law« were aimedat identifying »democracy and progressive traditions« in Ukrainiantowns (in contrast, for instance, to Russian ones). On the otherhand, this interest has resulted in new investigations, publicationsof source material, and scholarly forums to discuss matters ofurban self-government.18 Magdeburg or German law is mentionedin the most recent handbook on Ukrainian history; it is seen as asynonym for »town law« and positively evaluated as a factorleading to urban independence.19 Scholars of younger generationshave also turned to the subject of German law. For instance, Zayatshas studied the process of town foundations under Magdeburg lawin Wolhynia.20 Another person who has contributed to Germanlaw scholarship in Ukraine is Hoshko, who has concentrated bothon the history and the historiography of Magdeburg law.21 Sheinterpreted the process of adoption of ius teutonicum in Ukrainianlands as »integration into European legal space,« although shedoes not provide an explanation of what »European legal space« inthe Middle Ages meant.22

Indeed, the presence of modern notions in works on medievalhistory is striking; another example is a statement that Magdeburg

29

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

17 Serhii Plokhy, Imagining EarlyModern Ukraine: The »ParallelWorld« of Natalia Yakovenko,Harvard Ukrainian Studies 25(2005) 3–4.

18 Among the latter one can mentionat least two conferences dedicatedto urban self-government: »Cur-rent Questions of Urban Develop-ment and Urban Self-Govern-ment« (held in Rivne in 1993) and»Self-Government in Kyiv: His-

tory and the Present. Internationalconference dedicated to the 500thanniversary of the MagdeburgLaw grant for Kyiv« (held in Kyivin 1999). A publication enterprisefrom 2000 – A Corpus of Magde-burg Law Charters for UkrainianTowns: Two Editorial Projects inthe 20s and the 40s of the Twen-tieth Century – reveals a storyfrom 1942–1943, when Nazisinitiated a search for Magdeburg

law privileges in the Kyiv CentralArchives in order to transportthem to Germany (in fact, docu-ments relocated to Germany weresaved, in contrast to those thatremained in Kyiv). See Volody-myr Andreytsev, Vasyl Ulia-novskyi and Viktor Korotkyi,Korpus magdeburzkikh hramotukrainskym mistam: dva proektyvydan’ 20–40-x rokiv XX st.(Corpus of Magdeburg law char-ters for Ukrainian towns: Twoeditorial projects in the 20s –40sof the twentieth century), Kyiv2000.

19 Natalya Yakowenko, An Out-line History of Medieval and EarlyModern Ukraine, Kyiv 2005,127–131.

20 Andriy Zayats, »Do istorii pra-vovoyi lokatsii volynskykh mistXVI – pershoi polovyny XVII: lo-katsiyni pryvileyi v Lytovskiy IVolynskiy (Ruskiy) Metrykakh«(Concerning the legal »location«of Volhynian towns in the six-teenth – first half of the seventeethcenturies: »Location« privileges inthe Lithuanian and VolhynianMetricas), Archivy Ukrainy 4–5(2001): 83–98; Urbanizatsiynyiproces na Volyni v XVI – pershiypolovyni XVII stolittia (The ur-banization process in Volhyniafrom the sixteenth to the middle ofthe seventeenth century), Lviv2003.

21 Tetiana Hoshko, Istoriohrafich-ni problemy magdeburzkoho pra-va v Ukraini (Historiographicproblems of Magdeburg law inUkraine), Ukraina v mynulomu, 4(1993) 40–63; Magdeburzke pra-vo v Ukraini: istoriohrafiya prob-lemy (Magdeburg law in Ukraine:historiography of the problem), in:Materialy zasidan’ Istorychnoi taArcheohrafichnoi komisiy NTSh uLvovi, Lviv 1994, 16–19.

22 Tetiana Hoshko, Essays onHistory of Magdeburg Law inUkraine, Fourteenth – Early Sev-enteenth Centuries, Lviv 2002.

law »promoted … the strengthening of democratic tendencies,legal culture, and was one of the most important agents of inte-gration of Ukrainian society into European civilization.«23 Suchpassages demonstrate an inability to speak about this epoch interms appropriate to it and may signify that some historicalphenomena are still explained insufficiently or inadequately, de-spite rejecting negative attitudes that were typical for Soviet andpre-Soviet studies. A lack of understanding of the nature of me-dieval customary laws on the one hand, and uncritical use of con-structs and terms of secondary literature on the other, has led tomisunderstanding and misinterpretation of the ius theutonicumquod est ius Magdeburgense mentioned in privileges.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to interpret ius theutonicumfrom a new perspective and to consider more closely writtenprimary sources (mainly royal privileges) from Galician Rus,’whose references have been used as a basis for the issue of iustheutonicum Magdeburgense. At the same time, this will not be asearch for the »universal meaning« of ius theutonicum. Even anunchanged, coherent system functioned differently under differentregional conditions; and a system which is not necessarily coherentchanges in time and is probably understood and used in differentways during different periods.

Ius theutonicum as a New Systemof Settlement Organization

A privilege typically explained ius theutonicum as an alter-native to the existing order. This term emerged by the thirteenthcentury in the western Slavic territories neighboring the Germanlands and should be, therefore, understood as a mark of separationfrom the ius of indigenous Slavic populations and identified withthe special position of German settlers there.24 It signified a safe-guarded legal standing, a set of rights and exemptions granted toGermans.

In Silesian documents from the thirteenth century, applied herefor comparative purposes, the two terms held the key position:locare (sometimes collocare) and ius theutonicum. Thus, a villagewas usually iure teutonico locata (1251); but one could also talkabout villam … iure teutonico populandam (1264), literally »a vil-

30

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

23 Hoshko, Essays (nt. 22) 196.24 Rudolf Kötzschke, Die

Anfänge des deutschen Rechtes inder Siedlungsgeschichte des Os-tens (Ius theutonicum) in: Veröf-fentlichungen der SächsischenAkademie der Wissenschaften,phil.-hist. Klasse No. 93 (2),Leipzig 1941, 15 ff.

lage to be populated according to ius theutonicum,« which meantthat people were settled there according to »German law«.25 It isnecessary to keep in mind the variety of meanings of the Latin wordlocare. It was used in privileges to define two possible acts: the actof foundation of a new settlement and the act of renting alreadyexisting settlements.

Abandoned local law was often defined through gravamini-bus, angarias et perangarias iuris polonici, which was the reasonto interpret ius theutonicum as a form of liberty or freedom.However, libertas teutonicorum was a relative freedom, becausethe act of liberation from local burdens26 was usually followed bythe list of iura et servicia coming ex dicto iure Teutonico. In thisway, the privileges were dealing not so much with freedoms andrights as such, but rather with replacing one type of obligationswith another, so freedom was, in fact, only the release from olderburdens.

Privileges for ius theutonicum issued for villages and towns inGalician Rus’ also declared freedom from local »laws« and typi-cally contained the phrase: … de iure Polonico, Ruthenico et quo-vis alio in ius Theutonicum transferimus, removentes ibidem omniaiura Polonicalia, Ruthenicalia et quovis alia. Such privileges weregranted to old settlements as well as to new ones, founded a cru-do radice. But, contrary to the declaration in charters, in realitythis legal »transfer« often did not totally eliminate older systemscalled ius Ruthenicum or ius Polonicum. For instance a »Ruthe-nian village« Nowosielce (known since 1390) was transferred toius theutonicum in 1426,27 but still preserved institutes of »Ruthe-nian law« such as servilis.28

Organizations of medieval royal estates (as well as privateones) apparently required the preservation of the old system (laborservices or payment in naturals) in some of the villages, and evenfoundations of new settlements according to ius Ruthenicum.29

The apparent necessity to settle people under »Ruthenian law« wasevident from sources: Phyl, a servant from the village Kostarowce(first mentioned in 1390), sold his land property (agrum servilem)into »German law« to a certain Lawr in 1446, promising to freethis estate from obligations regarding the castle of Sanok; never-theless, the court of Sanok castle declared this transaction invalidand ordered Phyl to come back and serve more Ruthenico or tosettle someone who could do it instead of him.30 These examples

31

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

25 Menzel, Die schlesischen Loka-tionsurkunden (nt. 2), Urkunden-texte no. 1, 358; no. 64, 401.

26 In some documents, these obliga-tions were mentioned: Extraximusautem illam villam … ab omnibusangariis et podvorove et stroza etab aliis gravaminibus iuris polo-nici … (1252). See: Menzel, Dieschlesischen Lokationsurkunden(nt. 2), Urkundentexte no. 9, 362.

27 villam nostram Ruthenicale No-vosyelcze dictam … super laneosfranconicos dimensurare et iureTeutunico Maydebrgensi … pronobis collocare … ipsam de iurePolonico, Ruthenico et quovis alioin ius Theuthonicum … trans-ferrimus … removentes ibidemomnia iura Polonica, Ruthenica etquevis alia … Acta castrensia sa-nocensia in Central State Histori-cal Archive in Lviv, after: Adam

Fastnacht, Osadnictwo Ziemisanockiej w latach 1340–1650,Wroclaw 1962, 231.

28 The inventory of 1565 mentionedfive of them. After: Fastnacht,Osadnictwo (nt. 27) 232.

29 Fastnacht, Osadnictwo (nt. 27)270.

30 … de ipso [agro]servire moreRuthenico vel saltem sessionarevulgariter ossadzicz [a settler] ag-rum premissum homine tal, quiposset labores et servicia congrueReginalia exhibere mre consueto.AGZ, vol. XI, no. 2296.

draw our attention to the fact that the term ius theutonicum(similarly to iura Polonicalia vel Ruthenicalia) used in privilegeshad very much to do with the determination of the system accord-ing to which a settlement had been organized (or certain peoplesettled), defining the type of relationships between owners andsettlers. In this context, »German law« pointed to a different sys-tem of relationships.

Why were rights and duties coming from »German law« moreattractive than those of iura Polonicalia vel Ruthenicalia? The mainright was certainly the hereditary use of land (»Erbzinsrecht«) and,consequently, the main obligation was the yearly rent payment,census or census hereditarius. As a rule the rent for burghers wascalculated in coin, while the taxed unit was measured in mansifranconici. The payment varied (e.g., one marc, three fertones,twenty-four grossi) depending on the town and its economicpotential, taking into account inflation as well as the time of issu-ing of the privilege. Sometimes no concrete sum was indicated, butit mentioned the rent prout alie nostre civitates in terra Russiesolvere (a privilege for the town of Zhydachiv, 1393) or accordingto censo nostro regio (a privilege for the town of Horodok, 1389).The date of payments was usually fixed – die Sancti Martini(November 11) – the most widely accepted time for payment alsoin German territories and in Silesia. Often, especially in a newfoundation, burghers were freed from paying rent for a certainperiod of time calculated from the date of the privilege. The longestliberation was given for clearing woods (up to twenty years), whilein the »old« fields (in antiquis agris) it was usually six years.

What attracted attention in the study of privileges was thatthey explicitly introduced a uniform right of land use for everysettler and that the taxed unit was always the same. This equalsettling right and ascription to a specified court (i.e., a local courtestablished according to »German law«) signified the emergence ofan autonomous community, settled under ius theutonicum andsubjected to the local court [of the landlord]. Therefore, iustheutonicum could be interpreted also as a strategy for establishingcommunities, urban or rural.

Membership in the community and a share in the settlement’scommodities, land first of all, were closely interrelated. In this waya settlement under ius theutonicum represented legally and phy-sically closed and delimited space; it had defined borders in con-

32

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

trast to settlements existing under ius Ruthenicale or Polonicale.A special right directly related to it was the so-called »Bannmeile«– a prohibition to build a tavern or organize an enterprise in theradius of one mile of the town, securing the town’s monopoly andjurisdiction over that area.31 Among other rights and freedomsshared by members of a community was the right to exploit naturalresources such as woods for building and heating, fishing rightsand communal use of land free from rent.

Terms of relationships between settlers and the owner, espe-cially regarding census payments, were included in almost everyprivilege or contract. These documents did not convey all possiblefields of interactions. Quite important »freedoms« such as anannual market, exemptions from tolls in other royal towns, or astaple right were specified in additional charters.

Thus the transformation coming from ius theutonicum man-ifested itself not in diminishing burdens but rather in rationalizingand standardizing them. In general, a broad range of obligations,duties and services, usual and eventual, were replaced with a fixedrent payment paid (in coin and/or grain) on a specified date.

Questions of Law and Jurisdiction and Legal Reality

As follows from the documents, ius theutonicum was definedas antagonism to existing local customs and at the same time asliberation from them, and therefore as a variant of immunity. Asalready mentioned, the transfer to ius theutonicum inevitablymeant the withdrawal (at least partial) of duties and obligationscoming from older local »laws.« It meant also immunity from thejurisdiction of intermediary officials and protection from summonsbefore any court other than the seigniorial. Compared with theSilesian document from the thirteenth century that exempted»only« ab omni iurisdictioni nostri castellani et ab aliorum iudi-cum et officialium, late medieval charters from Galician Rus’presented an extensive list of different officials who, from nowon, had presumably no authority over privileged burghers.32

Liberation from the jurisdiction of castellani et palatini became ausual element in the immunity clauses of the charters in the secondhalf of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. In the seconddecade of the fourteenth century, with the spread of »land courts«

33

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

31 This is how it was expressed in theprivilege for the town of Ryma-now in 1376: ut nullus terrigena-rum, religiosorum, civitatensiumaut aliarum personarum locet,limited aut edificet thabernam velthabernas per unum miliare men-suratum ab eadem civitate dis-tantem. See: ZDM, vol. 1, no. 149.

32 Eximimus insuper, absolvimus etperpetui liberamus omnes et sin-gulos, cives et incolas ipsius civi-

tatis nostrae ab omni iurisdictioneet potestate omnium regni nostripalatinorum, castellanorum, capi-taneorum, iudicum et subiudicumet quorumvis officialium et minis-terialium eorundem …

(»Landgericht«, Polish – »sąd ziemski«) and its officials – iudices etsubjudices – these two soon found their place in the clause as well.The office of the starost (capitaneus) emerged during Kasimir III’sreign (1333–1370); therefore some privileges started to mentionalso this authority in immunity clauses. Thus, the formulary gavean impression that a privilege totally excluded recipients from thelocal jurisdiction.33 However, the reality was certainly different:while the judicial activity of castellani et palatini gradually declinedby the end of the fourteenth – beginning of the fifteenth centuries,34

it was hardly possible that other types of courts (land courts orcourts of capitanei), operating according to the Polish land law,were restrained from judging »Germans.« In spite of the statementof immunity clauses, cause magne, capital sentences or cases con-nected to bloodshed (cause majores, cause graviores or in causissanguinis) were typically reserved to the competence of the sover-eign all over medieval Europe. No doubt, a similar situation wasalso in Lesser Poland.35

Moreover, quite unreal appeared to be any exemption from thejurisdiction of the capitaneus, especially in the case of royal estates:at the turn of the fourteenth century, every royal town or villagewas under the authority of a certain capitaneus. In that case, theliberation from his authority would mean freedom from control ofthe king as the owner.36

Contradictions between the existing land law and the immun-ity formula were due to the anachronism of the latter. Theformulary had been developed since the early thirteenth centuryand corresponded to a different reality (i.e., to Germans coming tosettle in Polish duchies). Conditions for the adoption of ius theu-tonicum in Lesser Poland during the fourteenth-fifteenth centurieswere different, but the formulary was not adequately adapted tothose changes.37

Still, although clauses or formulae might not adequately cor-respond to reality, one could not deny the effectiveness of theimmunity according to »German law« and the benefits flowingfrom it. First of all, immunities created the basis for an autonomouscourt: self-judgment was another important element of ius theuto-nicum, and privileges emphasized jurisdiction and competence ofsuch a court.

Exemptions were usually followed by a formal permission forthe advocatus to judge, and by further definitions of his compe-

34

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

33 Stanislaw Kuras, Przywilejeprawa niemieckiego miast i wsimałlopolskich XIV–XV wieku,Wroclaw, 119–120.

34 Kuras, Przywileje (nt. 33) 121.35 For instance, the statutes of Kasi-

mir the Great, in paragraph 50,stated: »ut accusati de crimine in-cendii, sive exustionis et inventi incivitatibus aut villis Theutunicali-bus extra forum ipsorum trahan-tur et in iure Polonico … tenebun-tur respondere.« See: Statuty Ka-zimierza Wielkiego (The Statutesof Kasimir the Great), ed. O. Bal-zer, Poznan 1947.

36 Kuras, Przywileje (nt. 33) 132. Atthe same time, not every formularygave that exemption, for instancethe privilege issued for Krasnys-taw in 1394 reflected jurisdictionsmore adequately: [cives et incolecoram suo advocato, advocatusvero] coram nobis (i.e. the king)aut nostro capitaneo, qui fuertitpro tempore … See: ZDM, vol.VI, no. 1598.

37 Kuras, Przywileje (nt. 33) 132.

tence. The most elaborated formulary in privileges for »Germanlaw« issued for towns of Red Rus’ (and Lesser Poland in general)during the second half of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,expressed in the following way: In causis autem criminalibus etcapitalibus advocato eiusdem civitatis corrigendi, iudicandi, pu-niendi, plectendi et condempnandi plenam damus et omnimodamconferimus facultatem, prout dictum ius Theutonicum Maydebur-gense in omnibus suis punctis, condicionibus, clausulis, articulis etsentenciis postulat et requirit, iuribus tamen nostris regalibus inomnibus semper salvis (from the privilege granted to Lezajsk,1397).38 As is known, the competence of the court according »toGerman law« was much more limited in reality; and these limitsimplied also the conclusion of the clause, forbidding encroach-ments on royal rights (regalia).

Was the passage referring to the ius theutonicum and its»articles, paragraphs, etc.,« evidence for the above-mentioned»materielles Recht«? Or was it an explicit reference to thosenumerous legal codices that presumably spread together with iustheutonicum? Probably the earliest reference to »books of Mag-deburg law« appeared in the privilege of Kazimir III the Great,concerning the establishment of Ius supremum Theutonicum castriCracoviensis in 1356: libros iuris Maydeburgensis ordinavimus etin thezauro nostro castri Cracoviensis deposuimus, and, referringto them as »our books«, the king ordered ius et sentenciaspostulare de libris nostris predictis iuris Maydeburgensis.39 Inthese books, obtained directly from Magdeburg, »MagdeburgerSchöffensprüchen« were collected.40 Another manuscript pre-served in Krakow from the second half of the fourteenth century(provenance: the town council of Krakow / Ius supremum …)contained among others »Sächsische Landrecht,«41 usually seenas one source for »sächsisch-magdeburgisches Recht.« Thus, themost important texts of German ius scriptum existed in medievalKrakow and, one can assume, this fact was known to royalnotaries responsible for writing privileges.

However, the formulary for numerous charters (i. e., 173 intotal, one of them for Rus’) issued during the late thirteenth –fifteenth centuries in Poland emphasized total ignorance of thegranter in terms of »German law«: quoniam iura Theutonica (iuraMagdeburgensea / Srzedensia / Novi Fori / Culmensi) sunt nobisprorsus (penitus) incognita (ignota). This so-called »ignorance

35

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

38 ZDM, vol. VI, no. 1622.39 Ludwik Łysiak, Ius supremum

Maydeburgense castri Cracovien-sis 1356–1794. Organisation,Tätigkeit und Stellung des Kra-kauer Oberhofs in der Rechtspre-chung Altpolens, Frankfurt/Main1990, 171, Annexe 1.

40 In the first part of the privilege theking spoke about emendis senten-ciis a scoltetis in Maydeburg pernovem fertones latorum grosso-

rum Pragensium et nonullas sum-mas pecuniarum pro expensisexigent et extra regnum nostrumin Maydeburg pro predictis sen-tenciis emendis transmittunt …See: Łysiak, Ius supremum May-deburgense (nt. 39) 171, Annexe1.

41 This fourteenth-century manu-script contained the following:Privilegium iuris Teutonici pro-vincialis supremi castri Craco-

viensis constituit (1356); Registerüber Land- und Weichbildrecht;Weichbildchronik (Auszüge);Weichbildrecht (Art. 6–15); Sächs.Landrecht in 364 Artikeln; Ex-travagantes des Sachsenspiegel;Conrad von Oppeln, Weichbild-recht mit Extravaganten in 112Artikeln; Andreae Czarnischa,Nota de reliquiis in ecclesia Vir-ginis Mariae habitis; Gregor IXDekretalen (Art. 3, 52, 2); Justi-nian, Codex (Art. 8, 17, 12); Ver-sus de latitudine ac longitudinemansi Franconici; Biblia sacra(Joh. I 1–15); Formula iuramentiscabinorum; Eid der Schöffen(deutsch). See: U.-D. Oppitz,Deutsche Rechtsbücher des Mit-telalters, vol. 2: Beschreibung derHandschriften, Köln, Wien 1990,612–613.

formula« was a typical feature of privileges originated in theecclesiastical chancelleries of Great Poland (i.e., the majority –140 – from the chancellery of the Archbishop of Gniezno), whilethe chancellery of Kasimir III (the Great), for instance, used it onlythree times; and, moreover, the clause was not known in the firstperiod of the reception of »German law.«42 Again, taken literally,this clause might speak about certain samples of »norms« for»German law« in its particular version (i.e., that of Magdeburgor Neumarkt), which was not familiar to the ruler. However, theprovenance of the charters, containing this clause (i.e., ecclesiasticalchancelleries) suggested no real relation to any »law« of the men-tioned towns. Simply, the ecclesiastical notary, who certainly hadsome knowledge of canon and, possibly, Roman law, applied theterminology of »scholarly laws« without paying much attention toits suitability. As was convincingly proven by J. Matuszewski, theorigin of the clause was certainly »das gelehrte Recht«: taken fromPaulus (regula est, iuris quidem ignorantiam cuique nocere, D. 22,6.9 pr.) this passage on ignorantia iuris was probably transmittedvia Gratian’s Decretum (item, ignorantia iuris alia naturalis, aliacivilis. D. 2 c. 1. qu. 4 § 2), while a notary created ignorantia iurisTheutonici out of it.43 Mentioned ornatus causa in order to showthe notary’s awareness of ignorantia iuris, this formulary was in-flexibly repeated for centuries and should not be taken as evidenceabout real knowledge in the contemporary Polish elite concerningius theutonicum. To a great extent, the presence of legal terminol-ogy demonstrated a certain stage in the reception of the »scholarlylaw«, but not that of »German law.« At this point the reception wasno more, but not less, the transfer of abstract thoughts into writingpractice and the introduction of terminology learned by one scribefrom another, more experienced one, or at a university.

As noticed by S. Kuraś, the quality of a document sometimesreversely corresponded to the education of the notary: the moreeducated he was the more abstract, ornate and sometimes inad-equate documents he produced.44 Generally, chancellors andnotaries in the royal chancellery had some knowledge of iusutrumque,45 but were not familiar with the administration andlegislation of towns. This passage, like the »ignorance formula«,was only a conventional clause of the chancellery serving as onemore confirmation of the durability of legal formulae used throughcenturies.46

36

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

42 Jósef Matuszewski, Die Igno-ranzklausel der Schultheissprivile-gien, in: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte Ger-manische Abteilung 92 (1976)165.

43 Matuszewski, Die Ignoranzklau-sel (nt. 42) 180–81. It is alsoworth mentioning that the firstLatin translation of »Sachsenspie-gel« in Polish territories was or-dered in the second half of thethirteenthcentury by the bishop ofWroclaw who felt the necessity tohave a copy of German ius scrip-tum. Thus, it was known to Polishclerics, but, characteristicallyenough, no locatio charter re-

ferred to Speculum Saxonum. See:Matuszewski, Die Ignoranzklau-sel (nt. 42) 169.

44 kuras, Przywileje (nt. 33) 132.45 For instance, one privilege was

ended with Datum per manus byreverendi … domini Johanni epis-cope Wladislawiensis, Regni Po-lonie cancelarii, as well as vene-rabilis Wladislai de Oporowdecretorum doctoris prepositis. Floriani, eiusdem regni vicecan-

cellarii. Halych 1429, ZDM, vol.VII, no. 2041.

46 For comparisons in France andEngland, see: Ecrit et Pouvoir dansles Chancelleries médiévales: Es-pace français, Espace anglais, ed.by Fianu Kouky and De Lloyd J.Guth, Louvain-la-Neuve 1997,especially Guth, Introduction:Formulary and Literacy as Keysto Unlocking Late Medieval Law,1–12.

A granter was always concerned that the court would be or-ganized iuxta omnem observanciam atque ritum, que prescriptumius Meydburgense.47 This was the »Schöffengericht« and theprivilege for Kolomyia (1424), which contained a rare referenceto local [advocatus et] scabini proving it.48 What, however, cannotbe explicitly seen in privileges is »die Anwendung materiellendeutschen Rechtes« mentioned by Menzel in his study on Silesiandocuments.49 Establishing a new system of justice, the granternevertheless did not regulate the question of law to be used there.At least it was not obvious from medieval privileges. A relevantparallel served here the example of »die Kulmer Handfeste«studied by Willoweit: for the Teutonic Order, granting this priv-ilege, it was not important what law was used in the court, but how(according to which »law«) it was organized, that is, its function-ality.50

Dealing with the history of legal reception required clear dis-tinctions: organization of the court (»Gerichtsverfassung«) accord-ing to ius theutonicum, and laws or customs used in that court(»Entscheidungsregeln«), represented two different subjects andshould, therefore, be treated separately. Concerning the latter, wedo not have information on how much of the »Schöffensprüchen«from Magdeburg were incorporated in jurisprudential practice inconcrete settlements established according to »German law« inGalician Rus’. Also, we have almost no information on howmedieval manuscripts were used there and where they were used.Since Schöffen’s sentences were based on personal jurispruden-tial experience (»Rechtskenntnis«), where this experience was ob-tained was certainly important for the content of their sentences.Whether the judge was a German, who obtained his »knowledgeof law« in his home land, or a Pole – in Poland – appeared to besignificant for their judgments. It was not necessary that a settle-ment with Polish or Ruthenian inhabitants would turn to Germancustomary law while solving internal disputes after the grant of iustheutonicum.

Privileges establishing a local system of justice in towns andvillages under ius theutonicum did not regulate which law shouldbe used in the court. When ius theutonicum in medieval Ruthenianprivileges was first of all a definition of a type of settlement and itsspecific rights and obligations, then ius theutonicum Magdebur-gense in the case of Ruthenian towns had no direct relevance to the

37

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

47 Referred to the town of Sambor,1390. See: AGZ, vol. VI, no. 2.The privilege of the town of Sanok1366 also implied that the rulerwas concerned with the type andform of the court: In causis autemcriminalibus … memorato advo-cato iuxta formam iuris Thewto-nici Maydburgensis iudicandi,sinandi, condempnandi et punien-di plenam concedimus facultatem.See: AGZ, vol. III, no. 15.

48 Extunc non alibi solum im Colo-mia coram advocato et scabinisipsorum nec aliter quam ipsorumiure Theutonico Maideburgensi dese querulanti respondere tenebun-tur et debebunt, nisi hec specialis-sima requiret consuetude, extunciure ipsorum Theutonico similiterMaideburgensi et non alio in alyscertis locis contra ipsos procede-tur. AGZ, vol. IV, no. 67.

49 Menzel, Die schlesischen Loka-tionsurkunden (nt. 2) 271.

50 »Für das Gericht wird die Freiheitder Richterwahl gewährt und dieUrteilfindung nach MagdeburgerRecht angeordnet. Der DeutscheOrden unternimmt also gar keinenVersuch, das Gerichtverfahrenund die Urteiltragenden materi-ellen Entscheidungsregeln in ir-gendeiner Weise zu beeinflussen.Wichtig scheint dem Orden nurdie Funktiontüchtichkeit über-haupt, und diese schien durch dieÜbernahme eines bewährtenMechanismus gewährleistet.« See:Dietmar Willoweit, Das deut-sche Recht im Osten – vom Kul-turvergleich zur Rezeptionsge-schichte, in: Hans Rothe (Hg.),Die Historische Wirkung deröstlichen Regionen des Reiches,Köln, Weimar, Wien 1992, 75.

actual law of Magdeburg (symptomatically, the adjective Magde-burgense was not mentioned in thirteenth-century documents), andeven to a »family« of this law (in contrast to Polish and Silesiantowns that had direct contacts with Magdeburg).

Advocatus and Problem of Town Freedom

Privileges for ius theutonicum showed a prominent position oforganizers of settlements – locatores – known subsequently asadvocati in towns and sculteti in villages. The advocatus acted as amediator (»Zwischeninstanz«) between the owner and settlers: herepresented a community before the lord and was himself a lord’srepresentative for settlers, being at the same time relatively inde-pendent from both sides. Due to the fact that most existing chartersfor ius theutonicum were agreements between the settlement ownerand the advocatus, terms and conditions of the advocatus’s dutiesand rights were given the central position. He secured this out-standing position ratione locationis, that is, due to his efforts,resources and experience invested in the organization of a newsettlement. Advocati were the main authority in the community.Among the rights granted to the advocatus/scultetus the mostimportant was the right of hereditary possession of advocacia,with permission for alienation.51 Additionally there were usually:a share in the court fee (1/3) and in the yearly rent (1/6), certainmeasure of land free of tax (up to six mansi), fishing and huntingrights, and a possibility to establish taverns, mills, ponds, shopsand workshops. Although rights of the advocatus were listed indetail, they all showed a great deal of similarity and were oftenreferred to in documents as ius or mos scultetorum.52

Starting from the late thirteenth century, a privileged groupcomprised of advocati and sculteti with a distinctive set of rights(iure scultecie/iure advocacie) emerged in Polish medieval society.They had a great freedom, at least until the mid-fifteenth century,in managing their possessions and positions, much greater thandominium utile would allow.53 Distinctiveness of possessions ofthese medieval ventures from other types of estates was emphasizedin decisions of Ius supremum Theutonicum castri Cracoviensis.54

This separate standing gradually deteriorated in the second halfof the fifteenth century, because the Polish nobility were actively

38

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

51 Etiam ipsam Advocaciam venden-di, donandi et commutandi ac prosua suorumque posterorum vo-luntate quovis titulo alienacionislibere convertendi. See: Codex

Diplomaticus Poloniae Minorum,I, no. 294.

52 This phenomenon was recognisedby Ludwik Łysiak, who identifiedpassages huiusmodi laneos ipso-rum iure advocacie possideant oriure scultecie sibi pleno reservatowith a typical set of rights con-nected to the possession of thescultetia or advocatia. Acknowl-edging these rights as a separateius proved their special position

in the Polish social system. See:Łysiak, U podstaw formowaniasię polskiego stanu sołtysiego [Lesorigines de la formation du groupesocial des maires de villages (scul-teti) en ancienne Pologne] in:Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne,t. XVI, 1(1964) 231–251.

53 Łysiak, U podstaw formowania(nt. 52) 237–38.

54 Łysiak, U podstaw formowania(nt. 52) 237–38.

buying possessions and positions of advocatus and scultetus. As aresult, more and more cases connected to settlements according to»German law« went to the land law courts, while the supremecourts of ius theutonicum increasingly lost their competence anddeclined, except in Krakow, during the second half of the sixteenthcentury.55

Initially, every settlement established according to ius theuto-nicum was under the leadership of advocatus (or scultetus in caseof a village). Therefore, the foundational process »according toius theutonicum« did not free a town from its owner. The grant ofius theutonicum did not automatically mean self-governing free-dom for a town, any more or less than for a village; and it did notmean withdrawal of traditional holders. Urban self-governmentwas not implicit for German law, rather it represented a certainstage of development of town foundations; and limits of obtainedautonomy differed from case to case.56 The level of freedom inevery town was defined by the owner; as a rule royal towns hadmore freedom than private ones.

At the same time, the institute of an advocatus could enhancethe formation of organs of self-government. Richer urban com-munities were able to buy the office of advocatus, limiting theinfluence of a land lord and took themselves all duties connected toexternal and internal policy. Gradually a town council, a repre-sentative organ of an urban community, developed and this wasinterpreted as a sign of urban self-government.57 Unfortunately,there is no information from the medieval period concerning howtown councils of Rus’ were elected and functioned, but sourcesfrom the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as well as parallels toother Polish towns demonstrated that this institution was tradi-tionally concerned with organization and regulation of trade andproduction in towns.

Motivations for Adoption of ius theutonicumand Royal Policy

Motives for a grant of ius theutonicum were expressed inprivileges schematically. Nevertheless, formulary used to expressthe motives reflected general expectations, political programs andgoals connected with such a grant. As a rule, documents connected

39

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

55 Łysiak, Małopolskie dokumentylokacyjne w praktyce sądowejXIV–XVI wieku [Les documentsde location dans la pratique judi-ciaire du XIV–XVI s. dans la Pe-tite Pologne] in: CzasopismoPrawno-Historyczne, t. XVI, 2(1964) 48.

56 Zygfryd Rymaszewski,Miejskosć czy wiejskość prawaniemieciego w Polsce [Urbanity orrurality of German law in Poland]

in: Zeszyty naukowe universytetuLódzkiego, I/69 (1970) 69.

57 Rymaszewski, Miejskosć (nt. 56)69.

to the grant of ius theutonicum from thirteenth-century Silesiadefined the motives plainly: … cupientes meliorationem terre; quiacupimus … de deserto fructum aliquem … percipere; considerantesstatum terre et cupientes bona et res nostras in amplius reformari;etc.58

Charters for Ruthenian towns issued at least a century laterdemonstrated a development in the formulary used by the chancel-lery, but fewer changes in motives. Almost every privilege forGerman law stressed the process of reformation and re-organi-zation, while expressing the motivations for a new foundation:cupientes terram nostram Russie per civitatum locacionem maiori-bus utilitatibus reformare.59 The right to found a town belongedexclusively to kings, being a part of regalia; therefore, initially mosttowns were founded on the royal domain; their foundations anddevelopment were important agents in re-structuring and re-or-ganizing the economic basis of the state.

Famous for his foundational activity, Kazimir III (the Great)conducted intensive reforms on Ruthenian lands after they wereincorporated into the Polish Kingdom. In fact, most of the im-portant Ruthenian urban centers here were re-chartered or trans-ferred to Magdeburg law during his reign (1349–1370). Further-more, the majority of foundations of that period were royal ones.The foundational policy in Poland changed greatly during the reignof Wladyslaw II Jagiello (1387–1434); along with the emergenceof royal towns, private foundations took place more and moreoften. In general, the royal initiative in Poland was dominantduring the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when royal estateswere developed and re-organized. An increase in private founda-tions became prominent in the fifteenth century, along with thedevelopment of private landed estates and the strengthening ofthe position of the nobility in the Polish Kingdom at the expenseof royal power. At the same time, the volume of ecclesiasticalfoundations was quite meager in the context of urban developmentof Galician Rus’.

In spite of the division of »motivation statements« accordingto the rulers who issued the privileges, they dealt with similarmotives and often with similar formulary to express them. Theadoption of ius theutonicum was recognized as an appropriate wayto augment revenue for the kingdom and its inhabitants (or forthe Roman Church in ecclesiastical foundations), to cultivate and

40

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

58 Menzel, Die schlesieschen Loka-tionsurkunden (nt. 2) 184–185.

59 A privilege for the town Rymanowissued by Wladyslaw of Opole in1376. See: ZDM 1, no. 149.

populate the land »because no profit comes from a desert«, toincrease incomes of the royal treasury and the king himself, and torestore wellbeing and create good conditions. These aims weresupposed to be reached through foundations of new villages andtowns, as well by reforming and populating already existingsettlements by granting ius theutonicum. Moreover, for alreadyexisting towns, this grant was perceived as compensation for lossesand destructions experienced from enemies, as an increase ofprosperity and the possibility to get more benefits, to attract newdwellers. For that reason the royal grant of ius theutonicum wasalways a sign of gracia specialis. It was described as remunerationfor industrious and faithful service, when granted to a lay man, oras a mark of the King’s religious piety when granted to the RomanChurch. Consequently, ius theutonicum could be rightly inter-preted as something profitable and desirable, often granted adpeticiones.

In general, economic motives dominated grants of ius theuto-nicum: regardless of the region, »German law« was seen as aremedy for financial shortage, a suitable means to improve con-ditions to attract new settlers and to organize the land. However,the terminology used in the declared motivation drew attention todeeper reasons. The kings were concerned with reforming res etbona nostra, terra nostra, regnum Poloniae. In general, that meantthey were aiming at re-forming and re-organizing possessions andincomes, their realm and finally the territory of the kingdom,establishing their influence and power over the economy and lawin their domain.

References to Local Practice and its Meaning

The formula expressing the transfer to ius theutonicum fre-quently referred to local examples of already »located« towns,mentioning either a concrete town or the general practice inGalician Rus’. The privilege of duke Wladyslaw of Opole, estab-lishing a town in the villages Czysna et Lezin in 1376, had thefollowing declaration: volumus, quod omnes incole et inhabita-tores dicte nostre civitatis omnia iura et consuetudines nobisfaciant, prout cetere nostre civitates terre Russie facere consue-verunt.60 The expression iura et consuetudines facere gave one

41

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

60 ZDM, vol. I, no. 149.

more proof that the ruler, while granting ius theutonicum, expectedhis town not only to enjoy freedoms but also to perform antici-pated duties and services similar to those of other towns in the land.Founding a town of Nowotaniec according to »German law« inthe village with a similar name in 1444, Kasimir IV pointed outthe transfer in ius theutonicum, quod Maidburgense dicitur, quoalie civitates in regno nostro sibi vicinate gaudent et fruuntur.61

Often the privilege indicated a specific town as a model: iure Teu-tonico Maydeburgensi, quo gaudet civitas nostra Sanocensis. Inthis charter, Sanok was ordered to be a model for the newlyfounded town of Tyczyn in districtus Sanocensis.62 Lviv / Lembergoften served as a regular model for other foundations in GalicianRus’ territory: iure Teutonico Maydeburgensi, quo civitas nostraLeona alias Lwow utitur – is stated in the privileges for the townsof Horodok and Peremyshl.63 In one case, the privilege explicitlystated that the newly chartered town of Zhydachiv (1393) shouldturn for judicial help ad civitatem nostram Lemburgensem.64 Oneprivilege contained a unique reference to the urban statute, »Will-kür«, which meant that not only »outer« but also »inner« rulesand regulations of the town should be taken as a model.

At the same time, there was no evidence that any town ofGalician Rus’ turned to Magdeburg for legal advice. What is more,while establishing Ius supremum Theutonicum castri Cracoviensisin 1356, Kasimir the Great forbade any judicial consultation thatwent beyond his realm. In this way, he terminated the access to thesupreme court of »Schöffen« of Magdeburg as a source of law.Taking into account these facts, as well as constant references to thelocal practice in the process of adoption of ius theutonicum, it ishardly possible to suppose that Ruthenian towns obtained »dasnämliche Magdeburger Stadtrecht,« as stated by Jakowliw.65

Already in the second half of the fourteenth century, to whichthe earliest Ruthenian privileges belonged, references to ius Mag-deburgense or Culmense as specific variations of ius theutonicumbecame conventional clauses; they turned to termini technici, usedto indicate the type of a settlement, its organization as well asrelated freedoms and obligations, and not to the »Stadtrecht« ofMagdeburg. In late medieval and early modern times, which »law«– ius Magdeburgense / Culmense / Sredense – was mentioned in the»transfer« might depend more on the formulae and terminology ofthe royal chancellery than on concrete circumstances and require-

42

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

61 AGZ, vol. III, no. 109.62 CDPM, vol. I, no. 294.63 ZDM, vol. VI, no. 1561; AGZ,

vol. V, no. XIX. Further referencesto Lemberg: Et quilibet incolarumde quolibet manso tantum solvetet eodem termino pro censu, deci-mis et aliis solutionibus, quantumet quo tempore homines de Lem-burga solvere sint soliti (Belz1377): ZDM, vol. IV, no. 1034;Volentes ipsa civitas Lubaczow etomnes ipsius inhabitatones omni-bus et singulis iuribus, gratiisquequibus civitas nostra Lamburiensiset incolae eius uti consueverunt,potiri debeant et gaudere (Liu-bachiv 1376): ZDM, vol. IV,no. 1028; omnia iura, quibus

civitam nostra Lembergensis frui-tur ab antiquo … (Sudova Vysh-nia 1368): KDM, vol. III, no. 812;Item mensuris et librarum ponde-ribus ipsis incolis uti et gaudericoncedimus, prout Leopolis et alienostrae civitates in terra Russiepotiuntur et fruuntur. Item Wiel-kircz eisdem incolis more et con-suetudine aliarum urbium con-ferimus observandum … (Stryi,1431): ZDM, vol. VII, no. 2088.

64 Si autem ab advocato et scabinisin iudicio contigerit provocari etappelari pro iure supremo consu-lendo et habendo, non alias pre-terquam ad civitatem nostramLemburgensem recurrere debentprovocantes civitatis nostre Zi-daczoviensis predicte. See: ZDM,vol. VI, no. 1589.

65 Jakowliw, Das deutsche Recht(nt. 13) 53.

ments of a »transferred« settlement.66 It is more reasonable to seean actual prototype in references to local practice: that is, byidentifying the capital town in a district or in the whole land (»aland« or terra as a separate administrative unit) as the model for anew foundation.

References to the local practice, or naming the main town inthe administrative district (in our case – Lviv) a model for the newfoundation, also implied the unification policy of the ruler, for-mation of a regional variant of ius theutonicum and the localpractice for organizing and re-organizing settlements. In this way,the granter of ius theutonicum Magdeburgense referred in hisprivileges to »laws« used by burghers in neighboring towns (e.g.,Lviv/Lemberg or any other town in the Polish Kingdom) and notto those of burghers of Magdeburg. Similarly as in Silesia a cen-tury ago, German law in Galician Rus’ was in the first place animitation of the tenurial, jurisdictional, and status arrangementsoperating within the particular earlier settlements establishedaccording to German law.67 Specified localities provided stand-ardized models for particular elements, or combinations of ele-ments of German law.

Conclusions

A study of privileges led to the conclusion that the translationof the medieval term ius theutonicum as »German law« inspiredscholars to look for normative sources (for manuscripts with»Entscheidungsregeln«) which chartered settlements supposedlyreceived together with the grant of ius theutonicum. The receptionof such a »law« cannot be proven on the basis of medievalprivileges, however. The privilege did not refer to any set of legalcustoms brought by German settlers which were to operate in thisnew system of justice. On the contrary, it was of no particularimportance for the grantor what »laws« were used in the courtorganized according to ius theutonicum.68

Considered generally, privileges for ius theutonicum regulat-ed two major sets of questions: hereditary land use and jurisdic-tion, the two constant elements of every settlement under »Germanlaw« (both rural and urban). The new order found itself in clearopposition to local customs: a settlement under »German law« was

43

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

66 Stanislaw Kuras gave an example,when the settlement of Biała re-ceived the privilege for ius civileCulmense, videlicet Magdebur-gense. See: Kuras, Przywileje(nt. 33) 149.

67 Piotr Górecki, Economy, Soci-ety and Lordship, New York1992, 257–258.

68 One cannot deny that in courts of»German law« German legal cus-toms were in operation, especially

when settlers were Germans.However, it was not a collectionof »Entscheidungsregeln« that therulers in Eastern Europe were sowilling to adopt, anticipating eco-nomic prosperity and re-organi-zation of the land.

seen by historians as an »island« separated by its special statuswithin the »sea« of »local laws.« As such, these »legal islands«needed a clear boundary and it was one of the characteristicfeatures of the »new town«: a clearly defined boundary, in contrastto the old one.

The set of questions regarding hereditary use of land as well asrights and obligations associated with ius theutonicum were, as arule, discussed in detail. A characteristic feature was that theserights and obligations were equally applied to every member of asettlement. Equal, at least in theory, legal status and subjection tothe same jurisdiction of local courts created the basis for establish-ing an autonomous community, whether urban or rural.

The questions of jurisdiction and of establishing an auton-omous court were treated schematically: withdrawal of the ju-risdiction of institutions operating under the Polish / Ruthenian»laws«; establishing a new autonomous system of judging, accord-ing to ius theutonicum (»Schöffengericht«); connecting it directlyto the highest authority often defined as the king himself but, inreality, to the specified courts or the courts of »German law«. Themajor concern of the grantor in this regard was the effectivefunctioning of the new judicial system, created according to iustheutonicum. The structure of justice and administration should be»as ius theutonicum prescribed.« Therefore, one of the majordistinctions of the settlements under »German law« was the changein its internal organization (»Verfassungsordnung«), in the admin-istration and jurisdiction which in medieval times were closelyconnected. The grant of ius theutonicum did not mean autonomycomparable to that of Western towns: the level of freedom in everytown was defined by the owner; as a rule royal towns had morefreedom than private ones.

Ius theutonicum represented a flexible model, a blueprint, or ageneral set of principles, which was then filled with actual contentand adapted to local circumstances. This term defined a particulartype of settlement, the status of its inhabitants and relations to alandowner. It was no a collection of »Entscheidungsregeln« or acodified set of norms, but a new model of economic and legalrelationships that the rulers in Eastern Europe were so willing toadopt, anticipating economic prosperity and re-organization ofthe land. Frequently, a practice that proved to be successful inone place attempted to be reproduced in others, thus contributing

44

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008

to formation of local »types« of ius theutonicum, showing theirown features in its reception. In such a situation, references to iuraTheutonicalia (iura Magdeburgensea / Srzedensia / Novi Fori / Cul-mensia) in the fourteenth-fifteenth century Galician Rus’ signifiedmerely technical terms and did not imply any connection toMagdeburg itself, in contrast to Silesian towns and even Krakow,where legal contacts were evident.

As was seen, a variety of matters were settled by a privilegein connection to ius theutonicum. In order to refer to all of themin one word, one had to find an abstract definition, a term thatwould draw together everything connected to the new system.At that time, Poland was in the process of reception not only of»German law« but also of scholarly / »learned« law (»gelehrtesRecht«). The reduction of diverse social situations and expect-ations to one basic type (»deutschrechtliche Siedlung«) and theinvention of an abstract term to define them indeed indicated thenecessity to see the history of »German law« as a »Rezeptions-problem.«69 Ius theutonicum as a technical term could be seen asthe first sign of jurisprudential reflections in royal chancelleries ofEastern Europe.

Instrumentalization of ius theutonicum was a part of a broaderprocess of establishing efficient lordship (»Herrschaftsintensivie-rung«) in Eastern Europe, when the structure of government ofa whole kingdom was under the influence of rational ordering.At this point it became even clearer why the chancellery wasputting so much emphasis on reforming and re-organizing theregnum, expressed in the motivation clauses of privileges.

The process of urban foundation according to »German law«was an important component in a policy that aimed at furtherdevelopment of centralized seigniorial power, which once morepoints to the importance of the ruler’s initiative. Both princes ofGalician Rus’ and later Polish kings regarded towns as means oftheir advance. Privileges showed how, by granting a broad im-munity from local »laws,« rulers introduced the new order. It wasthis order, the model for re-organization of settlements, but also ofre-establishing lordship, which the documents called ius theutoni-cum. Speaking about regnum, terra, utilitas, bona et res nostra, inthe motivation parts/arengas of privileges, kings were not onlyconcerned about economic benefits. They were concerned withorganizing their possessions, their realm and finally their territory.

45

Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv

Rech

erc

he

69 Willoweit, Das deutsche Rechtim Osten (nt. 50) 74.

By adopting ius theutonicum, the rulers were establishing theirown legal space with the king at the top of the jurisdictionalhierarchy and not integrating at all into something that historiansmight call today »European legal space.«

Olha Kozubska�Andrusiv

46

German Law in Medieval Galician Rus’ (Rotreussen)

Rg

13/2

008