Chapter 19
Zuzana Vlasáková
Introduction
The following text deals with various manifestations of debts and claims captured in archival sources reflecting everyday life of chamber estates Pardubice, Kolín, and Poděbrady in the early modern period. Bohemian Chamber dominium belonged to the ruler of the Kingdom of Bohemia and it was meant to provide resources for the needs of the monarch (from 1526 member of Habsburg Dynasty), his family, and the court. As we will see later, the ruler established a sophisticated system of control and administration of chamber-goods with the Court Chamber (Hofkammer, Dvorská komora), central financial authority of the monarchy on the top, and Bohemian (Royal) Chamber (Böhmische Kammer, Česká komora) as a subordinate agency (Hochedlinger, Maťa & Winkelbauer 2019, Tb 1, pp. 382–5, Tb 2, pp. 825–55, 896–902). Among other things, the Bohemian Chamber coordinated the administration of chamber estates belonging to the Czech lands and represented the main authority for patrimonial apparatus and local authorities such as town councils, headmen, and village officers. Branched systems of administration gave birth to various types of archival records including instructions, orders, relations of visitation commissioners, accounting books, biannual accounts, land registers, report from land books as well as ‘regular’ correspondence between central authorities, estates and its communities. Those that have been preserved show us that aspects such as debt, claims or remarkable ‘phenomenon’ of large arrears steadily visible in biannual accounts (in very blunt terms called embezzlement) represented important parts of patrimonial as much as town and rural economy. The chapter is largely based on the analysis of these sources, placed mostly in National Archives in Prague (Národní archiv, NA) and State Regional Archives in Zámrsk (Státní oblastní archiv Zámrsk, SOA Zámrsk) but deals also with published edition of archival sources (Černý 1930), (Kalousek 1905) and literature related to the topic (Maur 1966, 1975, 1976 et al.), (Beránek 2004, 2005), (Pešák 1929, 1930, 1933).
Bohemian chamber estates and its administration
Definition and structure of the dominium
Before we come to the theme of the chapter itself, I consider it important to introduce the dominium of Bohemian chamber estates, its genesis, and the system of administration. Only with this brief excursion could we fully understand the complex (and sometimes even complicated) relations within particular estates, the circulation of money and therefore also the dynamics of debts and claims. In the strictest sense of the term, Bohemian chamber estates after 1526 meant the property purchased (or confiscated) by Ferdinand I or his descendants and was considered as private property of the sovereign. He could thus manipulate them without supervision of the Bohemian noblemen (and traditional land institutions in which they usually had a key word). The revenues generated from the estates (camerale) were intended to finance the court and the administration of the estates (Hledíková, Janák & Dobeš 2005, p. 107).
In the course of the 16th century, thanks to original and newly associated territories, two chamber complexes were established. The smaller part consisted of estates Zbiroh, Točník, Králův Dvůr, Křivoklát with Krušovice, and Přísečnice and it was well known for forestry and iron deposits. However, the core of the dominion laid along the river banks of the Elbe, expanding from Brandýs in the west through Přerov, Lysá (Beránek 2004), (Beránek 2005), Poděbrady, and Kolín to Pardubice in the east. Even after some territorial losses, which the dominium suffered at the end of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, with its length of 116 km and the size of 2580 km2, it occupied a considerable part of the Czech lands (Maur 1966, pp. 151–2).The largest estate was Pardubice (745 km2) which, in the middle of the 17th century, consisted of an eponymous administrative centre Pardubice, town Přelouč, five other small towns, and approximately 130 villages or its parts (Šebek 1990, pp. 184, 202). Just for a point of comparison, the size of Poděbrady estate (at the same period consisted of two towns and 47 villages) was 315 km2 and estate Kolín 118 km2 (Maur 1976, pp. 15–17).
Administrative hierarchy
As already stated, the owner of chamber–goods was the ruler of Kingdom of Bohemia, i. e. in the early modern period representative of the Austrian branch of the Habsburg family. Ferdinand I, brother of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, ruler of the Habsburgs’ Austrian hereditary lands and (from 1526) king of Bohemia and Hungary, established new bureaucratic apparatus to centralise and rationalise the administration of these territories and its finances. Also, as previously mentioned, regarding Bohemian chamber-goods, on the top of the hierarchical pyramid stood Court Chamber (Hofkammer, Dvorská komora) supreme financial authority of the monarchy (Volf 1980, pp. 62–109) and then Bohemian (Royal) Chamber (Böhmische Kammer, Česká komora), the superior authority and administrator of the estate (Pešák 1929, pp. 58–68), (Pešák 1930), (Pešák 1933, pp. 66–178, 195–216, 279–96). Last but not least, both chambers had departments that took care of accounting books (Buchhalterie, hlavní účtárna) and those which collected money from particular estates – Rentamt, in Bohemia called úřad mistra komory, later rentmistrovský úřad (Kubátová 1975). Both offices also regularly sent visitation commissions (vizitační komise). The designated commissioners were given instruction (or instructions) indicating not only which estates they should visit but also which fields and topics they should investigate. Instruction and relations of visitation commissioners from the second half of the 16th century, 17th and 18th century can be found in (NA, SM, karton 1707) or (NA, SM, karton 2260–2265).
Beside these central authorities, each chamber estate also had its officers who should administrate and take care of the area. That meant constantly try to improve economic conditions of the estate, propose ideas that could help to increase income, record all income and expenses, and also guaranteed judicial and executive acts (edited instructions for officers Kalousek 1905, pp. 366–481; original texts for Pardubice in SOA Pardubice, Vs Pardubice, kniha 169–173 or NA, ČDKM IV–17/4–18/1, 18/1–2, 1–3, karton 37 and 39, for Kolín, Poděbrady NA, ČDKM IV–K, ČDKM IV–P, karton 107 and 180). Members of apparatus were also entrusted to collect taxes as well as help with recruitment and other claims of state, etc. Hejtman stood at the head of the majority of all estates and represented the main authority on the estate. Sometimes he had ‘a deputy’ (místohejtman) who helped him with some tasks, especially those that required travelling and therefore longer absence from residence of the estate. This person took on some responsibilities relating to financial agenda as well. It applies partly in regard to burgrave (purkrabí), a person who was entrusted to care about the main residence of the estate as well as manor farms belonging to the ruler. Estates in question also had their tradition in forestry and therefore each of them had its forest management for which the representative was called forstmistr (lesmistr). Likewise, fish pond farming was a very important part of the estate´s economy so it was provided with its own administrative ‘unit’ with an appointed fishmistr (fišmistr) at the head (‘personal’ information and lists of officers for Kolín NA, NM, karton 367, for Pardubice NA, NM, karton 592–603, 624 and for Poděbrady NA, NM, karton 646–649).
Very important and also quite numerous parts of the administrative machinery were represented by local offices of scribes. They were responsible for bookkeeping as well as for dealing with correspondence of the office (or – if they were asked and usually against payment – of inhabitants of the estates), for recording all income and expenses in the ‘section’ they were entrusted to supervise. They also had to regularly (instruction demanded once a week) make total sums of income and expenses, submit it for control, and defend the treasuries against trespassers during the entire period of time. The main accountant and bookkeeper of the estate (důchodní písař) had to send biannual accounts to Bohemian Chamber and handed revenues from the estate (references about different instructions for scribes in NA, SM, karton 1647, b.f). It means he was also responsible for controlling other scribes, their accounts and cash in their treasuries. Second ‘persona’ responsible for very important ‘resort’ was the scribe that took care of the property of the estates’ orphans (sirotčí písař). There were also scribes who took care of the finances and accounts of landlord breweries (útratní písař), those who recorded cereal crops (obroční/obilní písař), transfers and sales of real estates or composed wedding contracts, testaments, and inventories of the property that belonged to the lately departed inhabitants (písař pojezdný), etc. (Růžková 2013, pp. 86–113) In the context of this chapter, it is important to emphasize that most of them (and especially the ‘main’ scribes and those who dealt with orphaned properties) were instantly in contact with money (or other resources of ‘wealth’ from the estate), thus they were also first ‘suspects’ if some discrepancies in the accounts were found.
Monarch, nobles, burghers, and sefs as debtors and creditors
All revenues from the overhead economy and hereditary taxes coming from inhabitants of the estate were meant to flow to the hands of the ruler. Originally, treasuries of the estates were supposed to finance the court of the monarch and his family as well as administration of estates and his lands. In fact, a large majority of resources was used to redeem his debt to other people and subjects – to representatives of aristocracy as well as ‘lower’ nobility royal and patrimonial towns and its burghers, serfs or Jewish communities (Volf 1947/1948, pp. 110–71). The amount of the debts (as well as amounts of unpaid interests) was still increasing during the early modern period, and even members of Habsburg family sometimes used the phrase ‘forests of debts’ for describing the situation (Kohler 2003, pp. 72an). House of Habsburg was even sometimes forced to pawn some estate (or rather its profits) to their creditors, mostly to merchant houses like Fugger, Welser, Henckel, and others (Volf 1947/1948, pp. 119–27). Monarchs therefore constantly demanded from both chambers, visitation commissioners as well as hetmans and other officers to find ways how to increase revenues of the dominion. They also – again and again (and with the same, virtually zero result) – forbade loans from both patrimonial treasury and orphan’s treasury. It was very common praxis (especially with regard to orphan’s money) that different subject were granted loans from treasuries and rulers repetitious prohibitions issued in the course of 16th, 17th and 18th centuries had not change that. After all, even the ruler himself did not keep his own commands and he was often the one who owed large (or even the largest) sums of money to orphan’s treasuries – both dominical as municipal (Chocholáč 2003, pp. 43–8).
Orphan’s treasuries were a great temptation for representatives of different groups within the estates, not only as orphan’s book, but also as other records (testaments, patrimonial accounts, records of municipal courts, etc.) prove. Manorial officers or town council (existed only in towns entitled to have their own treasury and evidence of town orphans and their property) provided a great amount of loans with interests, (based on cash deposited in treasuries) and remarkably wide clientele took advantage of it. Not only the Habsburg sovereign and some of his patrimonial officers themselves, but also local noblemen, usually representatives of ‘lower’ nobility, burghers (or burghers with coat of arms), and serfs were among them. Orphans were promised to gain some extra sum to the amount of their funds and those who obtained a loan could use it to his (or even her) profit. In case the debtor would not be able to repay the debt (during his life or by his family members after his death), there should be some person (or persons, rukojmí) who were able to guarantee (usually with their property) that they could possibly repay it themselves. Unfortunately, despite all of these arrangements, large amount of loans remained unpaid for a very long time, some of them even for eternity. That was a big problem which sometimes escalated to complaints, pauperism, and even escape of newly adult orphans (NA, SM, karton 1646, b. f.).
Not only orphan books, but also other documents of central, patrimonial as well as ‘local’ (town and village) authorities, presented us with different types of credit operations. Trade with homestead money and different other aspects visible within the rural space and small towns are described in detail in other chapters of this monography. Yet, it would be useful to point out some general information about debts and claims and its manifestations within the estates in question. Firstly, it is obvious that loans served specifically to cover the basic needs of debtors – in the case of serfs for buying food or other basic needs, investment into equipment or staff needed for agriculture or craft, for paying different taxes, in the case of burghers and noblemen, furthermore also for representation, extending their property, and (especially in the families of patrimonial and town officers) for paying for the education of their children. Thanks to a variety of records, we could assume it was more common to take/provide loans among people who had history – they usually knew each other and trusted each other (Siglová 2016, pp. 42, 47). Therefore, it is quite likely that our knowledge about debts in the area is not complete because some of them were never recorded. We know exactly only about those that are specified in sources like the aforementioned orphans book, testaments or court protocols (in case a creditor or debtor ask the authorities to judge their dispute regarding some aspect of the debt). The next point worth mentioning is that debt and claims were one of those aspects that crossed the borders – both physical and social. It meant that we could see a burgher as a creditor and a noble person as a debtor and vice versa. They both had the same duties which should lead to one conclusion – to pay their debt. It should happen (just as with orphan’s money) personally (in money or by other ways), by members of family or by his guarantors. Last but not least, in case of a deceased debtor, all instructions and ordinance required payment firstly of all arrears to patrimonial (and then town) treasuries, then came debts to other creditors. The remainder of property was preserved for heirs (as transcripts of testaments as well as orders of hetmans prove, e.g. NA, SM, karton 1646, b.f., et al.).
Arrears (‘rest’) of the patrimonial officers as neuralgic part of the administration
References to different type of arrears (‘rests’) are often found in the archival sources recording (not only) administration of chamber estates. Rest essentially meant the difference between the expected profit, specified by comparing all incomes and expenses recorded in the accounting books, and the real amount of money deposited in patrimonial treasuries at the time of comparison (Stejskal 1995, pp. 6–8). The largest arrears were usually detected during biannual controls of accounts and revenues or thanks to inspections and visitations conducted by the Bohemian chamber. Sometimes, one of the officials pointed to the unfair practices of other members and that launched an investigation. It can be tempting to assume that all of these amounts of money (attributed to individual officials and in particular to the ‘main’ scribe, důchodní písař) can be clearly identified as embezzlement. However, references in accounting books, correspondence or visitation reports prove that it is not that simple because different items were included among ‘rests’ (at least at the beginning of the control). Firstly, all sums that (according to the proclamations of the scribe or other officer in question) were given to the Chamber officer, commissioners, envoies of ruler, merchant houses or Habsburg creditors but cannot be proven with quittance (kvitance) were counted in. The fact that the Bohemian Chamber did not withdraw money only twice a year, but sometimes also during visitation or control of other persons authorized by Bohemian as well as Court Chamber, did not help to clarify the situation. All expenses that exceeded the limits of financial and natural resources earmarked for manorial office (deputát) and were not approved by the Bohemian chamber beforehand were also classified as arrears (discussions about deputát NA, SM, karton 2261, pp. 1 or karton 1707, pp. 37an). Last but not least, Chamber officers counted in also the debts of merchants and other persons who did not pay for the goods purchased from chamber estates – for example, Pardubice and Poděbrady provided great amounts of fish for Prague burghers (Maur 1975, pp. 53–114).
Only when the Chamber’s ‘accounting department’ deducted these sums, the remaining arrears was considered as a personal debt of the officer and he was obliged to foot the amount in arrears. Czech historian Václav Černý once wrote that after revelation of any machinations of the manorial officer, ‘the person in question was punished and replaced by a new officer who usually received a new instruction’ (Černý 1930, p. 14). However, the reality, as archive sources show, was different. It is clear that disproportions between accounts and cash (or quittances) did not have to lead to immediate punishment. Firstly, the official had been given a certain period of time during which he had to justify the deficiencies. And even if he did not manage to prove that he was not the one who should have been blamed, the penalties were in most cases limited to (sometimes only temporary) deposing the person from his position and pay the arrears. The officer was not forbidden to continue with his ‘career’ in the future and his honor was not questioned. Nevertheless, the ruler and both his Chambers did not turn a blind eye to this problem and tried repeatedly to prevent such behavior by fixing salaries and fulfilling material needs of manorial staff, by emphasising permanent vertical and horizontal control, by ordering hetmen and other officers to lead parallel accounts (beside those who were recorded by scribes) and checking them periodically, etc. Yet, large amounts of arrears appeared continuously throughout the period as well as complaints of officers that their services were not sufficiently appreciated (more about this topic Vlasáková 2019, pp. 37–59).
It can be assumed that all of the circumstances mentioned above together with the disorderliness of officers, often criticised in correspondence and other sources, contributed to the confusion in both accounts and treasuries. But they could also create some space for the conscious machinations of officials and for what we can actually define as embezzlement (even with our contemporary terminology).
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to present the chamber estates as the place where debts and claims were an indisputable part of day-to-day life of almost every inhabitant of the dominion including serfs, burghers, local nobility, manorial officers and, last but not least, Habsburg’s ruler himself. Firstly, genesis of Bohemian chamber dominium and structure and hierarchy of the administration were presented because, without this step, it would be difficult to understand the financial flows, credit operations, and relationship within the estates and its inhabitants. Then, it is focused on different manifestation of debts and claims, how representatives of various social groups dealt with credit operations, and whether it is possible to track some patterns in their behavior, in the mechanism of giving loans, treating money lent at interest or repaying debts. The last part deals with the topic of officers’ arrears and warns against marking them automatically as embezzlement, without closer examination and analysis of wider archival sources, as such an approach proved itself incorrect in the past research.
Funding
This chapter has been prepared thanks to the support of a specific project of University Pardubice called SGS_2019_008 Support of scientific and presentation activities of students of the doctoral program History and the master program of Cultural History (Podpora vědeckých a prezentačních aktivit studentů doktorského programu Historie a magisterského programu kulturní dějiny’).
References
Archival sources
Národní archiv (NA), České oddělení dvorské komory (ČDKM), IV– Čechy – 17/4–18/1, karton 37.
Národní archiv (NA), České oddělení dvorské komory (ČDKM), IV– Čechy – 18/1–2, 1–3, karton 39.
Národní archiv (NA), České oddělení dvorské komory (ČDKM), IV– Čechy –K, karton 107.
Národní archiv (NA), České oddělení dvorské komory (ČDKM), IV– Čechy –P, karton 180.
Národní archiv (NA), Nová manipulace (NM), sg. K35/4, karton 367.
Národní archiv (NA), Nová manipulace (NM), sg. P 9/1, karton 592–6.
Národní archiv (NA), Nová manipulace (NM), sg. P9/2. karton 597–603.
Národní archiv (NA), Nová manipulace (NM), sg P9/11, karton 624.
Národní archiv (NA), Nová manipulace (NM), sg. P26/1, karton 646–9.
Národní archiv (NA), Stará manipulace (SM), sg. P 70/5–13, karton 1646.
Národní archiv (NA), Stará manipulace (SM), sg. P 70/30, karton 1647.
Národní archiv (NA), Stará manipulace (SM), sg. P 100/5I, karton 1707.
Národní archiv (NA), Stará manipulace (SM), sg. S 195/3–11, karton 2260–5.
Státní oblastní archiv Zámrsk (SOA Zámrsk), Velkostatek Pardubice (Vs Pardubice), inv. č. 165–169, kniha 169–73.
Literature
Beránek, V. (2004). Osedlé obyvatelstvo na komorních panstvích Brandýs nad Labem, Přerov nad Labem a Lysá nad Labem v předbělohorském období. In Svoboda, M., ed. Pax bello potior. Sborník věnovaný doc. PhDr. Rudolfu Andělovi, CSc. Liberec: Technická univerzita v Liberci, pp. 115–25.
Beránek, V. (2005). Proměny dvorového hospodářství na komorních panstvích do prvních let třicetileté války (panství Brandýs nad Labem, Přerov nad Labem a Lysá nad Labem). Časopis Národního muzea. Řada historická, 174(1–2), pp. 23–55.
Černý, V. (1930). Hospodářské instrukce. Přehled zemědělských dějin v době patrimonijního velkostatku v XV.–XIX. století. Praha: Nákladem Československé Akademie Zemědělské.
Hledíková, Z., Janák, J. & Dobeš, J. (2005). Dějiny správy v českých zemích od počátků státu po současnost. Praha: NLN.
Hochedlinger, M., Maťa, P. & Winkelbauer, T., eds. (2019). Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie. Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen. Band 1, Teilband 1.-2. Wien: Böhlau Verlag.
Chocholáč, B. (2003). Sirotčí truhlice. In Dvořák, T., Vlček, R. & Vykoupil, L., eds. Milý Bore: profesoru Ctiboru Nečasovi k jeho sedmdesátým narozeninám věnují přátelé, kolegové a žáci. Brno: Historický ústav AV ČR: Historický ústav FF MU: Matice moravská, pp. 43–8.
Kalousek, J. (1905). Řády selské a instrukce hospodářské, Archiv český XXII. Praha: Domestikální fond království Českého.
Kohler, A. (2003). Ferdinand I. 1503–1564. Fürst, König und Kaiser. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Kubátová, L. (1975). K otázkám ústřední a české zemské finanční správy v 16. až 19. století. Sborník archivních prací, 25(1–2). Praha: Archivní správa Ministerstva vnitra ČSR, pp. 95–142.
Maur, E. (1966). K utužení feudálních vztahů na komorních statcích v době pobělohorské. In Fiala, Z., ed. Z českých dějin. Sborník prací in memoriam prof. dr. Husy. Praha: Univerzita Karlova, pp. 151–69.
Maur, E. (1975). Český komorní velkostatek a trh v druhé polovině 17. století. Sborník historický, 24, pp. 53–114.
Maur, E. (1976). Český komorní velkostatek v 17. století. Příspěvek k otázce ‘druhého nevolnictví’ v českých zemích. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et historica. Monographia 59. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
Pešák, V. (1929). Hospodářství a správa komorních panství v Čechách za Maxmilliána II. Časopis pro dějiny venkova, 16, pp. 58–68.
Pešák, V. (1930). Dějiny královské české komory od roku 1527. Část 1. Začátky organisace české komory za Ferdinanda I. Sborník archivu ministerstva vnitra republiky Československé, 3. Praha: Archiv ministerstva vnitra republiky Československé.
Pešák, V. (1933). Studie k dějinám královské české komory, Sborník archivu ministerstva vnitra republiky Československé, 6. Praha: Archiv ministerstva vnitra republiky Československé, pp. 66–178, 116–34, 195–216, 279–96.
Růžková (Vlasáková), Z. (2013). Mezi kladivem a kovadlinou. Vrchnostenský aparát pardubického panství v letech 1560–1630. Master’s thesis. Univerzita Karlova v Praze.
Šebek, F., ed. (1990). Dějiny Pardubic I. Pardubice: Městský národní výbor.
Siglová, T. (2016). Dluhy a zadlužení poddanského obyvatelstva na příkladu městeček pardubického panství v 16. a 17. století. Východočeské listy historické, 35, pp. 35–49.
Stejskal, A. (1995). Nedoplatek a zpětná dotace – sociálněekonomické kategorie rožmberských velkostatků (1550–1611). Časopis Národního muzea v Praze. Řada historická, 164(1–4), pp. 6–39.
Vlasáková, Z. (2020). Defraudace jako neuralgický bod raně novověké vrchnostenské politiky (nejenom) na příkladu polabských komorních panství v 16. a první polovině 17. století. In Jílková, M., Macková, M. & Valová, E., eds. Jak se u nás podvádělo: za monarchie i za republiky. Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice, 2019, pp. 37–59.
Volf, M. (1947/1948). Královský důchod a úvěr v 16. století. (Příspěvek k historii českých státních financí). Český časopis historický, 48–9 (1947–1948), pp. 110–71.
Volf, M. (1980). Dvorská komora a české finance před Bílou horou a po ní (1610–1640). Sborník archivních prací, 30(1), pp. 62–109.