Maria Legut‑PintalTowns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław

208

The Duchy of Nysa emerged from the castellany of Otmuchów, owned by the bishops of Wrocław from the beginning of the 12th century. During the 13th century, as a result of conflicts with Silesian dukes, bishops gained full authority over the Nysa and Otmuchów territory. In 1344, by buying the Grodków district, Bishop Przecław of Pogorzela acquired the right title himself a duke. Until the end of the 15th century, the Duchy of Nysa expanded and covered the territory from Grodków in the north to the Pradziad mountain in the south. The duchy comprised towns of different origin and organisation: Otmuchów, Nysa, Głuchołazy (Ziegenhals), Paczków, Vidnava, Jesenik (Frywald), Grodków, Zlate Hory (Zuckmantel) and also Javornik and Žulova (Frydberg) temporarily mentioned as towns. Different types of liege lords' defensive seats functioned in these towns: castles founded by dukes and bishops, vogts’ courts and minor knights' seats. This paper sets out to define different models of the relationship between castles and towns, and to explain their role in the economy of the medieval duchy of Wroclaw bishops.

Keywords/klíčová slova Castle and town relationships/vztah hradu a města – vogt’s court/fojtský dvorec – Duchy of Nysa/Niské knížectví

The Duchy of Nysa, covering southern parts of central Silesia, has its origin in the castellany of Otmuchów, owned by the bishops of Wrocław from at least the first half of the 12th century (Wółkiewicz 2008). In the 13th century, as a result of arguments between the dukes of Wrocław, the bishops managed to gain control over the Nysa and Otmuchów area. This fact was confirmed by the great privilege granted by Henryk Probus in 1290 (Silnicki 1953; SUb 5, 452). In 1344 Przecław of Pogorzela expanded the domain by purchasing the Grodków weichbild from the duke of Brzeg. The ownership of this land gave the bishops the right to use the duke title (CDS 14, 165–167). Until the end of the 15th century the duchy’s territory covered the area from Grodków in the north to the Pradziad mountain in the south (Orzechowski 1986).

Colonisation in the Otmuchów castellany started by the bishops at the beginning of the 13th century by bringing in settlers from the western lands (Pfitzner 1926). Locations established by the bishops were subject to the Flemish town law, not clearly distinguishable from the German law variants functioning in later periods. The dukes of Wrocław also had a strong influence on the economy of the towns in the Nysa and Otmuchów area until the granting of the grand-ducal privilege.

A variety of defensive features of different origin and function was erected in towns and their surrounding areas (Fig. 1). Taking a closer look at the examples of how the castles and towns functioned in the bishops’ territory might significantly increase the knowledge about the models of the castle–town cooperation and functions in Silesia and Central Europe.

Duchy of Nysa

Fig. 1Duchy of Nysa in the 15th century – location of the main towns (by L. Legut).

Maria Legut‑Pintal Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław

209

Only two buildings in the Nysa and Otmuchów territory can be classified as bishops’ residences (Wółkiewiecz 2010). The main residential seat of the bishops of Wrocław until the second half of the 15th century was the Otmuchów castle. After the Hussite wars, due to the damage done to the buildings, this function was transferred to the Nysa court.

OtmuchówThe Otmuchów stronghold was a centre of the bishops’ territory. The first mentioning of Otmuchów appears in the papal bull of Hadrian IV from April 23, 1155 describing the property of the Wrocław bishopric (castellum Otomochov cum pertinentiis; KDS 1, nr 35). The shape and size of the first stronghold have not been detected by archaeological surveys. Its central part was probably located on a hill above the valley of the Nysa Kłodzka river, later covered by castle buildings. Several pottery fragments that were found on the castle hill slopes are dated back to the 10th–12th centuries (Kaźmierczyk et al. 1977, 370–371).

The bull of Pope Innocent IV from August 9, 1245 mentions castrum Otmuchov cum foris, villis et omnibus partinenciis sius (UGBB, 7). It is not clear if this castrum can be interpreted as a stone castle. Frequent visits of the bishops to Otmuchów and signing a document in so-called nostra caminata in 1261 may suggest the existence of a stone building in Otmuchów in the second half of the 13th century. It is certain that such a castle was there by the end of the 13th century, which is proved by the documentation of a lawsuit concerning ducal demands to destroy the castle’s fortifications (SUb 5, nr 133). Moreover, in a document from May 4, 1287 the bishop and the chapter are complaining about Duke Henry IV who destroyed the castle. At that time, the castle consisted of four wooden and stone residential buildings and fortifications in the form of a moat (UGBB, 234). The buildings were again destroyed in the last decade of the 13th century and rebuilt, presumably by Prince Bolko I of Świdnica (Goliński 2005, 47; Boguszewicz 2010, 121–122).

The form of the 13th century castle is not possible to determine due to insufficient archaeological research at the site and the dismantling of a significant part of the stronghold in the 19th century. What has survived, however, is an archive plan of the castle from before the dismantling, enabling the reconstruction of the ground floor and the first floor. Architectural research was conducted in the surviving part of the castle in the 1970s (Medeksza 1974). A stone house, preserved to the height of the third floor and located in the south-east corner, was interpreted as the oldest one. A more probable version is that the oldest phase contained a residential part located in the north-west wing, dismantled because of its unsuccessful repair at the beginning of the 19th century. The early origin of this part can be deduced from the thickness of the walls marked on the plan. There was also a building divided into three chambers, one of which was a chapel. The spatial division of the building corresponds to three other Silesian bishops’ courts from the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century – Ostrów Tumski in Wrocław, Jelcz and Milicz (Chorowska 2003, 65–67, Fig. 17). Such correlation may prove a pattern of a bishop’s residence emerging in Silesia. As a result of rebuilding in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Otmuchów castle acquired a form of a three-wing construction with omnidirectional buildings and an inner courtyard with two towers (Fig. 2).

Bishops’ town castles

Fig. 2Castle and town Otmuchów in the 18th century (after Wernher).

Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław Maria Legut‑Pintal

210

Below the early medieval stronghold, and later the castle, there probably existed a suburbium along with a trading settlement that became a subject to the Flemish law (jus Theutonicum Flamingicum) in 1347, during the reign of Przecław of Pogorzela (Urk, 591–592). This late establishment indicates the subordination of the settlement to the castle and a long-lasting ducal law. After the granting of the Flemish law, the vogt’s position was still staffed by the bishop. That situation only changed after the purchasing of the vogtei by the town council in 1511 (Steinborn 1982, 10).

In the 1360s the expanded castle was connected with the town by defence walls (Steinborn 1982, 25–29). A collegiate church was founded as well. The Hussite wars that caused enormous damage to the town and castle had a major impact on the slowing down of the town’s economy and resulted in moving the bishops’ capital to Nysa. In the modern age the castle periodically operated as a bishop’s seat, but its significance was low in relation to Nysa. After moving the court to Nysa, the role of the Otmuchów town council increased, which resulted in the purchase of the vogtei, the building of a town hall and the development of masonry and stone buildings. Nevertheless, the close proximity of Nysa and Paczków, the already developed agglomerations, did not allow a major economic growth of Otmuchów.

NysaNysa, as mentioned in written sources, is one of the oldest towns in Silesia (Fig. 3). The first mentioning of the bishop’s vogt Walter (advocato nostro in Niza) who at that time established another town in the bishops’ territory, is dated May 25, 1223 (SUb 1, nr 25). It is not clear whether the centre of the first establishment was within the area of the Old Town (Altstadt) or in the place of the present main square. Neither the time of location of Nysa nor the shape of the first settlement have been researched with satisfactory results. The problem seems impossible to resolve without archaeological excavations.

Although the initiative to establish the town of Nysa came from bishops, the Wrocław dukes ruled the town, which is proved by numerous privileges granted by them (SUb 2, nr 297; SUb 3, nr 350). The rule of the dukes over the Nysa and Otmuchów territory came to an end after arguments lasting for years at the end of the 14th century (Wółkiewicz 2007, 302).

In the aforementioned document from May 25, 1223 it is stated that the bishop reserves an area for his court in the newly established town of Ujazd (SUb 1, nr 25). It is possible that a similar situation took place during the division of Nysa, where the part owned by bishops was situated between the Old and New Town. A court and a church were erected on the bishops’ land (Wółkiewicz 2007, 305). Inserting a private area of Prince Henryk I the Bearded (Brodaty) into Wrocław caused a stir among the inhabitants (KDS 2, nr 147), but in a small town like Nysa their influence was negligible.

The first mentioning of the bishop’s court comes from a document signed by Bishop Thomas I in 1259 (SUb 3, nr 290), regarding the construction of two mills, one of them circa curiam nostram in Niza . In 1260 Prince Henry III issued a document in Nysa in domo episcopali (SUb 3, nr 306). In 1292, a court apud Nyzam is mentioned (SUb 4, nr 70), presumably identical to the bishop’s allodium outside the town, destroyed in 1284 (allodio nostro ante predictam civitatem Nyzam; SUb 4, nr 143; Goliński 2005, 44–45). The wording used in the document might mean that the bishop’s court was not functioning yet within the town walls. 14th century documents do not give much information about the functioning of the court in Nysa. In the light of written sources, a significant reconstruction of the building took place during the reign of Jodok of Rozemberk, when Nysa became his main seat in the bishop’s duchy. A document from 1467 mentions a newly built stuba majoris (Wółkiewicz 2007, 304). 1)

Thanks to iconographical material it is possible to reconstruct the appearance of the bishop’s castle only at the beginning of the modern age, after its reconstruction following a great fire in 1525 (Wółkiewicz 2007, 303; Fig 3). The bishops’ court was located in the south-west part of the town, within the town walls, but separated by a moat and a curtain wall. The court consisted of a series of outbuildings and residential buildings. Its central part was a four-wing construction bearing traces of multiple reconstructions, surrounded by a moat and a wall with bastions. Until today, only the outbuildings have survived, along with two towers dated to the 14th century (Chrzanowski – Kornecki edd. 1963, 130–133).

Written sources describe arguments between the bishops and the town, caused by, among others, the building of a gate leading directly to the castle (Wółkiewicz 2007, 311–312). Expanding the castle must have threatened the safety and sovereignty of the local inhabitants. Despite their economic and political strength, the town and its people were frequently forced to concede to the bishop in various matters.

A characteristic feature of the bishops’ duchy was an important role of vogts in the town administration. The vogt had a very similar role to ducal clerks in other Silesian towns. 2) The role of vogts as bishop’s clerks was enforced by the bishop’s authority, thus this position could last longer than in other secular duchies where the ducal authority lost its importance to the town council, especially after passing to the Czech suzerainty. The increase of the importance of the council and purchasing of the vogteis took place from the 16th century onwards and may be also interpreted as a result of the Reformation.

The vogts’ seats were vogts’ courts that conceptually corresponded to the idea of a town castle in the bishops’ territory. The vogteis were especially important in towns that did not have bishop’s seats but were related to bishop’s castles in Nysa and Otmuchów.

Głuchołazy is one of the oldest towns in the bishops’ territory (Fig. 4). Information about gold mining in the area of today’s Głuchołazy appears in written sources in 1224, regarding the occupation of “gold pits” by the Margrave of Moravia (CDS 7, 281 a). It is improbable, though, that an urban centre functioned there at that time. In 1249 a forest inter Waldov, et Morauiam, Cynghals et villam comitis Iaxe was given by Bishop Thomas to Knight Smilo in order to perform colonization according

1) The form of the court buildings is impossible to reconstruct due to the lack of any preserved architectural elements and archaeological research.

Vogt courts

2) The subject of vogt’s courts in neighbouring Lesser Poland, including comparison to Silesian examples, was widely described by Załęska in 2005, more literature can be found in this work.

Maria Legut‑Pintal Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław

211

to the German law (SUb 2, nr 380). In a document from August 23, 1263 Głuchołazy was called civitas (SUb 3, nr. 449). A parish church is dated to the third quarter of the 13th century (Świechowski 2009, 85–88). The urban plan also suggests that the division was made around the mid-13th century.

The functioning of a bishop’s or ducal castle inside the town raises doubts. A document from 1344 mentions a defensive tower existing in Głuchołazy, which is interpreted as a knight’s seat functioning within the town area (Eysymontt 2009, 304). A construction called a Głuchołazy castle appears in a document from 1455 (Wółkiewicz 2010, 92). This information should be probably interpreted as regarding the vogt’s court in Głuchołazy. In 1472 the buildings of the vogt’s court contained a tower called Neuhaus, and an undefined building called Balwergk. The vogtei then belonged to the Girlach family (Kopietz 1898, 30–33; Wółkiewicz 2010, 92).

The vogt court was located in the eastern part of the town, north of the church (Fig. 5). Its location near the curtain wall indicates its defensive character. The main building was presumably a residential tower that, after the renaissance reconstruction and addition of an attic, is depicted in the parish church (Chrzanowski – Kornecki 1963, Fig. 273).

There was no bishops’ castle in Vidnava, thus the administrative and defensive function must have been performed by the vogt’s court. The town itself was established in the second half of the 13th century, as a centre of new settlements south of Otmuchów. A document issued by Bishop Thomas II confirming the vogt’s privileges is dated July 26, 1291 (SUb 5, nr 462). The town did not develop enough for the town council to be able to purchase the vogtei . The vogt’s court in Vidnava, as separate property, operated throughout the modern age (Then 1933).

The vogt’s seat was located, like in Głuchołazy, near the church, by the town wall. The form of the court is not known due to insufficient research and later reconstructions. What remains is a renaissance court in the form of an elongated two-floor building with two corner turrets (Fig. 6).

3) The problem is discussed further in Rutkowska-Płachcińska 1965; Jurek 2002.

Fig. 3Nysa in the 18th century with bishop’s court (after Wernher).

Grodków, along with the whole district, was purchased by the bishop and the chapter in 1344. As a ducal establishment it was still subject to middle law, in contrast to the other towns in the bishops’ duchy. The issue of the location of the town and the functioning of a defensive feature within its boundaries in the 13th century is rather complicated. Grodków, as one of a few towns in Lower Silesia, was a magnate foundation. 3) Mroczko of Pogorzela issued documents there, thus a knight’s seat must have existed in Grodków. An illegally established town was taken over by the prince and this meant the end of the existence of a magnate’s court. A document issued by Prince Henry IV on September 22, 1278 describing the property of the vogt of Grodków mentions a court – curia que Machow dicitur (SUb 4, nr 342). In the town’s chronicle from 1809 it is also mentioned as Machehof, Kuttelhof, Schlachthof (Viebahn 1867, 13). Its location and further history are unknown. There is also no knowledge of the later history of the Grodków vogtei , for example, the date of its purchase by the town council.

Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław Maria Legut‑Pintal

212

The latest research shows that a castle in Grodków functioned from at least the mid-15th century, when Bishop Piotr Nowak made a deal with Mikołaj Chotuliński concerning the right of its lifetime use (Wółkiewicz 2010, 92). The existence of the castle is also confirmed by a decree from 1455 regarding the acceptance of the service of Wacław Nowak due to the threat to the castles in Grodków and Głuchołazy (Wółkiewicz 2010, 92). The form and location of the building are not known, it might be presumed that it was situated in the 13th century court Machow. However, this subject requires further research and archaeological evidence.

The town law was granted to the settlement in Jesenik before July 14, 1295. From that day comes a document confirming the vogt’s privileges (Urk, nr. 95). The town was probably established by bishop’s administrator Curiso in the 1170s or 80s (Kouřil et al. 2007, 260). The town presumably emerged as an administration and economy centre for the settlements located in the valleys of Jesenik, related to iron ore mining and smelting. The economic background was not sufficient for the town to develop in the Middle Ages and it was not surrounded by a curtain wall.

The court in Jesenik was built not far from the main square, east of the church. In the light of recent research, it was established in the first half of the 14th century (ca. 1328). Archaeological research has not proved the existence of any earlier wooden building (Kouřil et al. 2007, 261). At the time of the establishment, the bishop’s vogt was most probably Lutherus. The court had the form of a stone rectangular tower, located in a small square surrounded by a moat. In 1374 the building was definitely not in the hands of a vogt, since Przecław of Pogorzela granted Petr of Ledlow castellaniam nostram in fortalicio nostro Freyenwalde (NLB, 83, nr 465). The connection between the vogtei and the castellany is unclear. Registrum Wratislaviense censuum issued ca. 1420 mentions Freyenwalde opidum, in quo dominus episcopus habet fortalicium (RWC, 253–254). The building was probably not damaged during the Hussite wars and in the mid-15th century was expanded and rebuilt in the form of a rectangular house with a courtyard surrounded by a wall (Kouřil et al. 2007, 265).

Apart from buildings related to the settlement events performed by bishops, there were also castles founded on the initiative of the Silesian and Moravian dukes and even the Czech king in the territory of the bishops’ duchy. Some of them were connected with settlements that were later transformed into towns.

Small settlements in Javornik and Žulova (Frydberk) functioned in the Middle Ages as trading centres, temporarily called towns, as the term oppidum (Friedberg in 1358 r.) mentioned in documents suggests. This is also confirmed by the mentioning of the vogts stationing there (Javornik – 1373, Frydberk – 1377, 1380; Zuber 1972, 65).

The castle was located on a hill above the town and its establishment might be related to the origin of a customs office in the nearby Krutwald (now Travná) by Prince Bolko I (Kouřil et al. 2000, 199, Boguszewicz 2010, 130). In 1348 Bolko II, the heir of Bolko I, made a deal with Przecław regarding the castle in Jawornik (UGBB, 304–305). In the second half of the 14th century the castle was damaged during the Hussite wars and rebuilt in the second half of the 15th century. A large reconstruction took place during the reign of Jan Turzon and the building was converted into a bishop’s residence (Kouřil et al. 2000, 199–200; Szewczyk 2009, 139–142).

In a register from ca. 1420 Javornik appears as villa sub castro with 60 lans (RWC, 239), but Liber Fundationis gives only 40 (CDS 14, 21–22), which might indicate an unsuccessful establishment of a trading centre (Fig. 7).

Ducal castles

Fig. 4 Głuchołazy (Ziegenhals) in 18th century (after Wernher).

Fig. 5 Building of the old vogt’s court in Głuchołazy (by M. Legut-Pintal).

Maria Legut‑Pintal Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław

213

In the light of Liber fundationis episcopatus Vratislaviensis, the Friedeberg castle was built within the area of a village called Sestrechowitz by Jan Wüstehube (Sestrechowitz habet XXIIJ mansos, sed Johannes Wisthub fecie castrum nomie Vridebergk ; CDS 14A, 21–22). According to a recent theory, Jan Wüstehube might have been acting by the will of Bolko 1, which would justify the connections of Jan with the dukes of Fürstemberg, mentioned in the prince’s documents (Boguszewicz 2010, 128–129). In a document regarding the purchase of the castle by Przecław of Pogorzela, an opido et domibus prope castrum is mentioned (LBu, 219–223). It is possible that the neighbouring highly developed urban centres in Vidnava, Głuchołazy and Jesenik and the insufficient rural background did not allow this area to develop.

The growth of both these centres was inhibited by many conflicts regarding location of their borders, and by the proximity of other towns: Paczków, Otmuchów and Vidnava. The urban layout of Javornik and Žulova in the Middle Ages might have corresponded to the rural settlement layout, and market squares were established in the modern age when the centres developed economically and regained town rights. The areas did not have a typical medieval urban layout and were not surrounded by curtain walls. In both cases, a dominant castle with bergfried was located above the town (Fig. 8).

A specific situation occurred in the town of Paczków that was presumably planned to have neither a castle nor a fortified vogt’s court (Fig. 9). A castle called Paczkov that appears in documents was located far from the town and was a ducal establishment. It can be identified with the remains of a feature situated in the village Chałupki (Goliński 2005, 50–51). The castle was situated on the other side of the river Nysa Kłodzka, ca. 2.5 km north of the town.

The castle appears in documents issued by Bolko I of Fürstenberg from October 1, 1295 as castrum Novum , and on June 30, 1299 as castrum Pacxkov (SUb 6, nr 217; SUb 6, nr 393.) It was probably erected along with a military campaign of Bolko I in the area of Nysa and Otmuchów, aimed to take over Paczków (Boguszewicz 2010, 121–122). The castle’s name, the same as the nearby town’s, given to it by Bolko I and used by his heirs, must have had a symbolic meaning, relating to the pretentions of the dukes of Fürstenberg to the rule over the Nysa and Otmuchów territory (Goliński 2005, 52–53). Despite the symbolic meaning, there were no other correlations, including economic, between the castle in Chałupki and the town of Paczków. In the bishops’ documents the castle is

mentioned by its first name – Castrum Novum – Neuhaus , not connected with the town. The purchase of the settlements related to the castle by the bishops was made only in 1416 (LBu, 243–245). While in the possession of the bishops, the castle did not influence the economic growth of a fully developed town.

The town Zlate Hory (Zuckmantel) along with the dominant castle Edelstejn was held by the bishops of Wrocław only temporarily. It was incorporated into the duchy permanently in the second half of the 15th century, when the castle was no longer in use (Fig. 10). It is presumed that the Edelstejn castle might have been founded by Przemysław Ottokar (Kouřil – Wihoda 1998, 351). The castle was made over to Bishop Tomas II in 1281 by Duke Mikołaj of Opawa as a retribution for the damage caused to the bishops’ property by Otton de Lynauia (SUb 4, nr 425). A document issued on September 6, 1281 mentions a stone castle castro lapideo, quod Edelsteyn dicitur along with suburbium Zuckemantel. During the conflict between Tomas II and Henry IV, the castle was taken over by the prince and then, under unclear circumstances, it became the property of Mikołaj of Opawa and his heirs (Kouřil et al. 2000, 71–85). The castle is located ca. 3 km from the centre of Zlate Hory, at 690 m a. s. l. (Kouřil – Wihoda 1998). Both the elevated location and the distance were the reason why the relations between these constructions were strictly political and economic. The location of the castle above the town was a symbol of its superiority over the territory.

The urban layout analysis of Zlate Hory indicates that the core of the medieval settlement was the axis determined by the route leading from Nysa to Moravia. A broad street in the town centre confirms its trading character. The main factor stimulating the growth of the town was mining and trade related to it. On the other hand, nearby Głuchołazy was an important competition in this aspect. As stated in, unfortunately, not preserved documents, the origin of Zuckmantel was related to the activities of Duke Mikołaj of Opawa (Pfitzner 1924, 30–31; Kouřil – Wihoda 1998, 357). Zlate Hory was permanently incorporated into the bishops’ territory by its purchase in 1467 (Orzechowski 1986, Kouřil – Wihoda 1998, 360).

Several different models of the relationship between towns and castles emerged in the territory of the bishops’ duchy, depending on the origin of the urban centre and the castle, terrain, road network, development of the town, civic and political conditions. With the analysis of the aforementioned examples, a conclusion may be drawn that it was not specific for bishops’ domains to perform urban colonisation based on town castles, as was typical of the dukes. In the case of towns in bishops’ domains, the role of vogts as their administrators was especially important, probably a result of the incorporation of the Flemish town law.

In the bishops’ duchy, castles are located only in residential towns – Otmuchów and Nysa – and in settlements temporarily transformed into urban centres (Jawornik, Zulova). In the early period centres such as Głuchołazy, Grodków, Paczków, Vidnava and Jesenik had no castles. Their role was performed by vogts’ courts, substitutes of castles in other Silesian towns. The issue of determining the form, plan and development of a typical vogt’s court in small Silesian towns appears interesting and promising research material.

Fig. 6 Layout of the vogt’s court in Vidnava (after Weinelt 1936).

Fig. 7Jawornik castle and town (after Wernher).

Summary

Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław Maria Legut‑Pintal

214

Looking closer at the examples from the domain of the bishops of Wrocław, several models of the functioning of a castle within a town at different levels of development can be distinguished. In the case of small urban centres of the Duchy of Nysa, in the early stage there was always a vogt’s court inside the town, but always separated, both spatially and legally (Fig. 11A). If reinforcement of defence was needed, a vogt’s court was transformed into a castle separated by fortifications (moat, wall, earthwork), like in the case of Głuchołazy, Jawornik and presumably Grodków and, partially, Vidnava (Fig. 12C).

In the case of castles built in the early phase of towns’ development, when towns did not have their own line of defence, castles functioned outside unfortified towns (Fig. 11E). This is most probably the case of Otmuchów and Nysa before the incorporation of the castle into the town’s defence system. The same model was applied when a castle was built near a rural settlement, turning it into a trading centre (Žulova, Javornik). This stage could last long if the settlement by the castle never developed and did not acquire town walls (Javornik, Jesenik, Žulova). When a town developed sufficiently to form its own fortifications, the castle was included in the line of defence. The way in which it was incorporated depended on different factors, such as the terrain, distance and other topographic relations. When a town was in close proximity of the castle and the area was relatively flat, the castle and the town were surrounded by a single, ordinary line of defence (Fig. 11B). The castle was situated by the town walls and was separated from the town by its own defence system – a moat or a wall. In the case of more difficult terrain conditions, the castle walls were connected with the town walls, but the two constructions functioned separately (Fig. 11C). This is the case of Otmuchów. A similar situation can be observed in other Silesian towns where a castle was built and a town wall had already existed.

When the distance or height differences between a castle and a town were too large, both buildings had to function separately (Fig. 11D). The Edelstejn castle and Zlate Hory is a good example. This was also the situation between Paczków and the Neuhaus castle where the relationship was purely political.

The form of a relationship between a castle and a town was also influenced by transformation factors. In the bishops’ duchy, the following transformations can be observed. A stronghold or its part transformed into a castle where there was previous colonisation, as well as a town established in the place of a suburb or a trading settlement (Fig. 12A). In the case of the Nysa and Otmuchów area, earlier settlements only functioned in Otmuchów. The other towns were founded on a green field or in the place of open settlements. In these cases, a castle related to the settlement was built in a distance from the main square and was not subject to the town’s law (a castle outside the town like in Nysa). As the town expanded, the castle was incorporated into it and connected with the town by ordinary fortifications (Fig. 12B).

The existence of a castle with strong supremacy inside a town restricted the development of the town’s autonomy and its economic and urban growth. Various analysed cases from the bishops’ domains confirm this relation. Otmuchów did not grow until the bishops appeared. The settlements connected with the castles Javornik, Frydeberg and Edelstejn were merely suppliers and economic background of the castles. In other towns, this role was played by vogt’s courts, but the power of vogts was weaker than that of ducal and bishops’ castellans, which influenced the economic growth potential in Głuchołazy, Paczków, Vidnava and Grodków. The reason for the unusual growth and increase in autonomy of Nysa might have been, among many other factors, the fact that it became the main residential town of bishops only after the mid-15th century. The towns that developed a strong autonomy tried to dispense with the unwanted authority by purchasing the vogtei by town councils or by getting into conflicts with liege lords.

Fig. 8 View of Žulova with Friedeberg castle (by M. Legut-Pintal).

Fig. 9 Paczków in 18th century (after Werhner).

Fig. 10Zlate Hory (Zuckmantel) in 18th century (after Wernher).

Maria Legut‑Pintal Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław

215

Fig. 11 Scheme of relations between castle and town: A – unfortified court inside the town, B – fortified castle inside town’s fortifications, C – castle connected with town’s fortifications, D – independent town and castle, E – castle and unfortified town (by L. Legut).

Fig. 12Scheme of transformations of castle and town: A – transformation of early medieval stronghold with villa forensis into castle and town, B – transformation of castle and unfortified town into castle connected with town’s fortifications or castle inside the town, C – transformation of unfortified vogt’s court into a castle (by L. Legut).

The analysis of the aforementioned examples clearly shows that different factors influenced the relationship between towns and castles, even in the cases of relatively small urban centres such as the towns in the Duchy of Nysa, and that matters of politics and economy are difficult to reconstruct. The models presented in this paper probably do not cover all possible relationships between castles and towns in the Middle Ages but they present a novel and comprehensive perspective that can be employed in further studies.

CDS 7 Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae T.7, Regesten zur schlesischen Geschichte. Theil 1 . Bis zum Jahre 1250, Grünhagen, C. (ed.), Breslau 1884.

CDS 14 Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, T.14 Liber Fundationis Episcopatus Vratislaviensis, Markgraf, H. – Schulte, J. W. (edd.), Breslau 1889.

KDS 1Kodeks Dyplomatyczny Śląska, Tom I obejmujący lata 971–1204, Maleczyński, K. (ed.), Wrocław 1951–56.

KDS 2 Kodeks Dyplomatyczny Śląska, Tom II obejmujący lata 1205–1220, Maleczyński K. – Skowrońska, A. (edd.), Wrocław 1959.

LBu Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstentümer im Mittelalter, Theil 2, Grünhagen, C. – Markgraf, H. (edd.), Leipzig 1883.

NLB Quellen zur Geschichte des Neisser Bistumslandes auf Grund der drei altesten Neisser Lagerbücher, Engelbert, K. (ed.), Würzburg 1964.

RWCRegistrum Wratislawiense censuum, Koop, G. (ed.), Breslau 1907.

SUb 1Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, Herausgegeben von der Historischen Kommission für Schlesien, Band: 1. Lieferung 971–1216, 1963; 2. Lieferung 1217–1230, 1968; 3. Lieferung Falschungen und Register, 1971; Appelt, H. (ed.), Wien–Köln–Graz 1963–1968–1971.

SUb 2 Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, Herausgegeben von der Historischen Kommission für Schlesien, Band 2. 1231–1250, Irgang, W. (ed.), Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., Wien–Köln–Graz 1977.

Sub 3 Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, Im Auftrage der Historischen Kommission für Schlesien Band 3, 1251–1266, Appelt, H. – Menzel, J. J. – Irgang, W. (edd.), Köln–Wien 1984.

SUb 4 Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, Im Auftrage der Historischen Kommission für Schlesien, Band 4, 1267–1281, Appelt, H. – Menzel, J. J. – Irgang, W. (edd.), Köln–Wien 1988.

Archive documents and collections

Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław Maria Legut‑Pintal

216

BOGUSZEWICZ, A. 2010 Corona Silesiae. Zamki Piastów Fürstenberskich na południowym pograniczu księstwa jaworskiego, świdnickiego i ziębickiego do połowy XIV w. Wrocław.

CHOROWSKA, M. 2003Rezydencje średniowieczne na Śląsku. Zamki, pałace, wieże mieszkalne. Wrocław.

CHRZANOWSKI, T. – KORNECKI, M. (edd.) 1963Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce. Powiat nyski. Tom VII, zeszyt 9. Warszawa.

EYSYMONTT, R. 2009Kod genetyczny miasta. Średniowieczne miasta lokacyjne dolnego Śląska na tle urbanistyki europejskiej. Wrocław.

GOLIŃSKI, M. 2005Książę, biskup i zamki. In: Chorowska, M. – Różycka-Rozpędowska, E. et al. (edd.), Nie tylko zamki. Szkice ofiarowane profesorowi Jerzemu Rozpędowskiemu w siedemdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin, Wrocław, 41–53.

JUREK, T. 2002Trzynastowieczne lokacje w dobrach Pogorzelów. In: Buśko, C. – Klápště, J. – Leciejewicz, L. – Moździoch S. (edd.), Civitas et Villa, Miasto i wieś w średniowiecznej europie środkowej, Wrocław–Praha, 89–98.

KAŹMIERCZYK, J. – MACEWICZ, K. – WUSZKAN, S. 1977Studia i materiały do osadnictwa Opolszczyzny wczesnośredniowiecznej. Opole.

KOPIETZ, J. A., 1898Beitrage zur altesten Geschichte des Neisser Landes und der Stadt Ziegenhals. T. 1 . Ziegenhals.

KOUŘIL, P. – KOVAČIK, P. – PRIX, D. – WIHODA, M. 2007Tvrz a město Jeseník ve středověku, Archaeologia historica 32, 239–268.

KOUŘIL, P. – PRIX, D. – WIHODA, M. 2000Hrady Českého Slezska. Brno–Opava.

KOUŘIL, P. – WIHODA, M. 1998Hrad Edelštejn v sídelní a mocenské struktuře západního pomezí Moravy a Slezska, Castellologica Bohemica 6, 341–362.

KOUŘIL, P. – WIHODA, M. 2004„… Johannes Wisthub fecit castrum nomine Vridebergk …“ Die Burg und ihr Hinterland am Beispiel der schlesischen Materie, Castrum Bene 7, 105–134.

MEDEKSZA, S. 1974Studium historyczno-projektowe zamku w Otmuchowie. In: Z badań architektury Śląska, Prace Naukowe IHASiT nr 8, Studia i Materiały nr 2, Wrocław, 19–52.

ORZECHOWSKI, K. 1986Dzieje i ustrój księstwa biskupiego na Śląsku, Szkice Nyskie 3, 7–42.

PFITZNER, J. 1924Die alteste Geschichte der Stadt Zugmantel im Schlesien, Zeitschrift des Verein für Geschichte Schlesiens 58, 4–16.

PFITZNER, J. 1926Besiedlungs-, Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte des Breslauer Bistumslandes, T.1. Bis zum Beginne der böhmischen Herrschaft. Reichenberg i. B.

RUTKOWSKA‑PłACHCIŃSKA A. 1965Strzelin, Ścinawa i Grodków: nieudane możnowładcze założenia targowe XIII wieku, Studia z dziejów osadnictwa 3, 59–65.

SILNICKI, T. 1953Dzieje i ustrój Kościoła katolickiego na Śląsku do końca w. XIV. Warszawa.

STEINBORN, B. 1982Otmuchów Paczków. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź.

ŚWIECHOWSKI, Z. 2009Katalog architektury romanskej w Polsce. Warszawa.

SZEWCZYK, A. 2009Mecenat artystyczny biskupa wrocławskiego Jana V Thurzona (1506–1520). Wrocław.

THEN, F. 1933Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stadt und Vogtei Weidenau in Schlesien. 2. Band. Freiwaldau.

VIEBAHN, G. 1867Chronik der Stadt Grottkau: mit Benutzung amtlicher Quellen. Grottkau.

WEINELT, H. 1936 Probleme schlesischer Burgenkunde, gezeigt an den Burgen des Freiwaldauer Bezirkes, Darstellungen und Quellen zur Schlesischen Geschichte Bd. 36, Breslau.

WÓłKIEWICZ, E. 2007Rezydencja biskupów wrocławskich w Nysie. In: Bobková, L. – Konvicná, J. (edd.), Korunní země v dějinách ceského státu 3. Rezidence a správní sídla v zemích České koruny ve 14.–17. století, Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, 301–318.

Bibliography

SUb 5 Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, Im Auftrage der Historischen Kommission für Schlesien Band 5, 1282–1290, Appelt, H. – Menzel, J. J. – Irgang, W. (edd.), Böhlaus Verlag Hermann Nachf., Köln–Weimar–Wien 1993.

SUb 6Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, Im Auftrage der Historischen Kommission für Schlesien 6, 291–1300, Appelt, H. – Menzel, J.J. – Irgang, W. – Schadewaldt, D. (edd.), Köln–Weimar–Wien 1998.

UGBB Urkunden zur Geschichte des Bisthums Breslau im Mittelalter, Stenzel, G. A. (ed.), Breslau 1845.

UrkUrkundensammlung zur Geschichte des Ursprungs der Stadte, Tzschoppe, G. A. – Stenzel G. A. (edd.) Hamburg 1832.

WERNHER, F. B.„Silesia in Compendio seu Topographia das ist Praesentatio und Beschreibung des Herzogthums Schlesiens, Pars I, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wrocławiu.

Maria Legut‑Pintal Towns and Castles in the Medieval Duchy of the Bishops of Wrocław

217

WÓłKIEWICZ, E. 2008Patrimonium Sancti Iohannis. U początków władztwa biskupiego w ziemi otmuchowsko – nyskiej. In: Kolenda, J. (ed.), Milicz. Clavis Regni Poloniae. Gród na pograniczu, Wrocław, 225–233.

WÓłKIEWICZ, E. 2010Curia episcopalis. Organizacja rezydencji biskupów wrocławskich w późnym średniowieczu. In: Pauk, M. – Saczyńska, M. (edd.), Dom, majątek, klient sługa – manifestacja pozycji elit w przestrzeni materialnej i społecznej Europy (XIII–XIX wiek), Warszawa, 81–110.

ZAłĘSKA, M. 2005Wójtostwa dziedziczne w miastach małopolski w późnym średniowieczu. Warszawa.

ZUBER, R. 1972Osídlení Jesenicka do pocátku 15. století. Opava.

Města a hrady ve středověkém knížectví wroclawských biskupů

Niské knížectví leželo ve Slezsku, poblíž jižních hranic země. Jeho původ je spojený s tvrzí Otmuchów, zmíněnou v dokumentu papeže Hadriána z roku 1155. Výnosy z tvrze a s ní spojené půdy patřily biskupům z Wrocławi. Ve 13. století získali biskupové rozsáhlá privilegia vcetně jurisdikce a práva stavět hrady. Kromě růstu právních privilegií se biskupské knížectví rozšiřovalo i po stránce územní. Na zacátku 13. století zacala kolonizace jižní a východní cásti země. V roce 1344 koupil biskup Przecław z Pogorzela újezd Grodków od knížat z Brzegu, což umožnilo biskupům užívat knížecí titul. Roku 1474 byly ke knížectví připojeny Zlaté Hory a okolí, které asi od roku 1220 patřily opavským knížatům.

Na základě příkladů z knížectví wroclawských biskupů lze navrhnout několik modelů vztahu města a hradu. Prvním typem jsou hrady situované uvnitř městských hradeb. Tento druh vztahu je možné pozorovat v případech fojtských dvorců, ze kterých se staly městské hrady v Głuchołazech, Grodkówě a Widnavě. Druhý model je popsán jako městský hrad oddělený od města vlastním opevněním, hradbami nebo vodním příkopem. Tento model fungoval i v Nise. Třetím případem je hrad ležící vně města, avšak sdílející jeho obranný systém, což byl obvykle výsledek přizpůsobení se terénu. Příkladem tohoto vztahu je hrad a město Otmuchów. Vztahy typu Paczków–Neuhaus a Zlaté Hory–Edelstein lze oznacit jako hrady spojené s opevněným městem, avšak ležící v urcité vzdálenosti od něj. Pokud se město nerozvinulo tak, že mělo své vlastní opevnění, objevuje se typ hradu situovaného vedle města. Obvykle se jednalo o první stádium vývoje vztahu hradu a města. Tento model se uplatnil v Javorníku, Jeseníku a Žulové a v pocátcích Nisy a Otmuchówa předtím, než byla tato města opevněna.

Typ vztahu mezi hradem a městem ovlivňovala řada faktorů. Hlavním a nejvýznamnějším z nich byl původ hradu a města a jejich vývoj. V případě Otmuchówa se z pevnosti stal hrad a z trhové osady město. Pokud bylo město založeno na zelené louce, hrad většinou ležel vně města a později, během procesu rozšiřování města, byl připojen k jeho obrannému systému. Dalším významným faktorem byl reliéf terénu. Hrady postavené na kopci obvykle zůstaly vně města a byly s ním spojené pouze běžnou linií opevnění. Systém a síť komunikací měly na vztah mezi městem a hradem jen malý dopad, ale casto ovlivnily formu a územní plán měst. Posledním důležitým faktorem byly politické a právní podmínky. Analýza tohoto faktoru je nejobtížnější a je založena výhradně na písemných zdrojích. Z těchto dokumentů vyplývá, že vztahy mezi městy a hrady v biskupském knížectví byly široce ovlivněny vztahem mezi biskupem a knížetem.

Popisy obrázků Obr. 1Niské knížectví v 15. století – poloha hlavních měst (vyhotovil L. Legut).

Obr. 2Hrad a město Otmuchów v 18. století (podle Wernhera).

Obr. 3Nisa s biskupským dvorem v 18. století (podle Wernhera).

Obr. 4Głuchołazy (Ziegenhals) v 18. století (podle Wernhera).

Obr. 5Budova fojtského dvorce v Głuchołazech (foto M. Legut-Pintal).

Obr. 6Půdorys fojtského dvorce ve Vidnavě (podle Weinelt 1936).

Obr. 7Hrad a město Javorník (podle Wernhera).

Obr. 8Pohled na Žulovou s hradem Freideberg (foto M. Legut-Pintal).

Obr. 9Pačkov v 18. století (podle Werhnera).

Obr. 10Zlaté Hoty (Zuckmantel) v 18. století (podle Wernhera).

Obr. 11Schéma vztahů mezi hradem a městem. A – neopevněný dvorec uvnitř města, B – opevněný hrad uvnitř městských hradeb, C – hrad spojený s městskými hradbami, D – samostatné město a hrad, E – hrad a neopevněné město (vyhotovil L. Legut).

Obr. 12Schéma transformace hradů a měst. A – transformace pevnosti z raného středověku s villa forensis na hrad a město, B – transformace hradu a neopevněného města na hrad spojený s městskými hradbami nebo na hrad uvnitř města, C – transformace neopevněného fojtského dvorce na hrad (vyhotovil L. Legut).