The south Bohemian city of Cesky Krumlov, the main center of the former Krumau domion of southern Bohemia, is revered today by travelers, architects and historians. Due to care and preservation of form and buildings over several centuries, Cesky Krumlov has remained much as it was in the 15th century. It is so unique that it has earned status as a UNESCO World Heritage site, which you can read about here. However, this famous small urban center was not just due to the care of the nobles who reigned for many centuries, or the stonemasons and carpenters who built or repaired the buildings, it is also, and perhaps more importantly, due to the serfs of the domain who provided free labor and goods to the estate over the course of centuries. This blog post will explore the free labor, known as robot, robota or corvee, contributions of one such serf, Mathias Havel, to the Krumau domain in and near the year 1773.
 |
| Cesky Krumlov, present time Courtesy of: Gena Roisum |
When doing genealogy most of the time you may get nothing, and you treasure the surprises. Undertaking a deeper dig into some of what you have can lead to insight on the life of our ancestors. As noted this post will specifically deal with his robot labor obligations of Mathias Havel, my fourth great grandfather. Subsequent post(s) will give an idea of life experiences for Mathias and his family through other obligations to the Krumau domain, such as taxes paid and goods provided. Information for Mathias and his robot obligations used for this post comes from an Urbarium record of 1773. (Put in to time perspective, that is three years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress in what is now the United States.)
 |
| Cesky Krumlov, present time Courtesy of Gena Roisum |
Mathias Havel was born 10 September 1740 in the village of Ratiborova Lhota. His father was Mathous, who was also born in Ratiborova Lhota, and his mother Agnete Winisch who hailed from a nearby village. He was born at what would come to be known as house #15, the same house in which his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were born, and perhaps even his 2nd great grandfather. He was at least the fifth generation to farm the land in this small southern Bohemian village. Known in German as Melhutka the village was typical to other rural villages in the region. Little change for this village can be noted when comparing present time air photos to the maps produced by the Stabile Cadastre completed in the first part of the 1800's. Mathias would marry Marie Panusch (also seen as Panus), who hailed from the same village, in 1765. Two years after his marriage to Marie, Mathias' father would pass away, and he would then acquire the farm operation and obligations his father held as a farmer and serf. Robot, or free labor to the domain, a staple of the second serfdom (see note 1), was performed by him, his ancestors, and some of his descendants, most often under grueling and trying circumstances. This labor obligation was required before work on any holdings under his control.
 |
| Mathias Havel, birth and baptismal record Source: Trebon Archives |
Before I delve into the robot obligations of my ancestor, some background on robot is in order. Many theories, abound as to how it came about, class struggle, urban power, royal strength, and other societal variables have been put forth as to why their was this preponderance of serfdom in central Europe. Klein (2017, with Oglivlie, and 2019) used available information and performed a quantitative, mainly regression, analysis of a variety of factors and concluded, that the findings show that "economic fundamentals prove paramount." Further he notes that "The comparative value of labor and land (the Domar hypothesis) do indeed affect institutions." It was, he claims, a matter of economic and labor characteristics that shaped serfdom. Like much else, money ruled. Yet, there must have been some level of agglomeration, as it is noted that "in villages with only a few serfs, coerced labor obligations were not severe." A serf was worse off in having to perform the free labor when the village was mainly serfs. This makes sense in that when labor is required a few serfs would not get the job done and they turned to paid labor. In the end, if Klein, who undertook the 2017 study with Ogilvie is correct, the main factor leading to serfdom was economics. It was, however, individual decisions, and land (controlled by the 18th century version of today's high-tech oligarchs) to labor that led to serfdom. This is where my ancestors come in, not as a lord, but as a Bohemian serf.
 |
| 1776-1777 Seigniorial Register showing Mathias Hawel and Famly Source: Trebon Archives |
In Bohemia, which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, there were lords or dukes who ruled large estates, with most rural villages containing serfs. Bohemia was predominantly a rural agrarian population to the later part of the 19th century. Prior posts discussed some of the rules of serfdom. What is interesting is that change, whether or not the lords liked it, was coming. It was slow, but was coming. The year 1773 followed floods of 1770 and 1771, famine, and even peasant unrest. To their credit, Empress Maria Theresa and her son Josef (later ruled as Josef II) recognized the situation, but the seigneurs often ignored the varied decrees. First driven by need for income, in part to fund a war due to invasion of the Empire by Frederick of Prussia, analysis showed that all was not well with the Bohemian Serfs. The floods of 1770 and 1771 destroyed much of the crops and famine set in. William Wright, in his book Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign, (pp 42-43) noted that Josef traveled to Bohemia to find out why such a rich land was so struck with famine where 250,000 died of starvation and disease at that point in time, and even some by eating inedible fibers placed in baked goods by some bakers. Many tactics and decrees were attempted by the state to reduce the burden on the serfs. Maria Theresa, in 1770 banned common seigneur practices such as selling of produce and grains before peasants were allowed in the market. Yet, during the famine, seeing money to be made, the seigneurs sold grain that was originally set aside for famines outside the realm. There were plans for famines, but the crop loss was so widespread they decided to make extra cash by selling outside of the realm, since sales at exorbitant prices were prohibited inside the realm.
The lords, in some areas, recognized that this free labor, which lacked incentive, was generally not of good quality, yet the lords ignored the varied robotpatents as they did not wish to part with such labor or see the Empire dictate matters. As an example, Himl (2003) in his review of the Krumau estate found this quote in an estate document: "The robot labourers perform their work badly...." The estate even acknowledged that robot labor was less efficient than the paid farmhands and day-laborers. Maria Theresa summarized the situation thus: “The peasants were pushed to the extreme by the excesses of the seigneurs. Those gentlemen have known how to arrange things in such a manner that there was not way of seeing them clearly, and the subjects were always under the same oppression.” (Wright, p. 34) Wright, in talking about enforcement of the decrees (p. 52) noted, "It was an uphill struggle for the county officials to overcome the massive tradition-bound inertia of a system generations old.” No one needed to tell Mathias Havel about institutional lethargy, as he lived and experienced it first hand with decrees of the Empire being ignored by the powerful and entrenched nobility.
 |
| Cesky Krumlov, present time Courtesy of Gena Roisum |
Put simply, the robot system was inequitable. In 1718, over 12% of the peasants in the Krumau domain were not subject to the robot system (Himl) This left 2,399 taxable subjects, with about half of those, per Himl, due to age, occupation, or circumstance not subject to robot labor. In 1718 only true farmers, who had draft horses or oxen, were required to provide draught robot. Why? Because they had the animals and wagons. Small farmers and others would have been required to provide manual robota. Those serfs doing draught robot (also known as zugrobat) would see these hauls not only punish their animals, but also stress their carts or wagons. I am sure it was easy on the teamster, either. As early as 1680 Leopold II issued a Robotpatent that in part required the lord to pay serf expenses for this robot haulage and that the time traveling was part of the required robot time. Given that this was repeated in later decrees it is easy to say the requirements of the realm, in this regard, were probably not followed by the seigneurs. It is into this situation that we find Mathias Havel.
 |
| Ratiborova Lhota in 1826 Source: https://ags.cuzk.cz/archiv/ |
In 1773, when this Urbarium is dated, Mathias was just a few years into his operation of the Havel farm, which he took over near or following the death of his father in 1767. He would still be feeling the effects of the flood and greed induced famine which hit Bohemia in 1770 and 1771. Of the eleven known farms in that small village, the Havel farm may have ranked seventh in terms of area of farm and was eighth in terms of land tax (see note 2). This was a decade that would see change (or, attempts at change) in the robot system, although the new patents were not usually recognized by the lords. The lords held say over their subjects in a variety of ways. For example, it was not until the patent of 1781 issued by Josef II that serfs did not need to seek the permission of the lord to marry, nor to pay the lord a fee to marry. It was then they could choose where to live. That was also the first year they could learn and engage in a trade or craft without the permission of the lord. To say the least, before the 1781 "emancipation", Mathias did not have a great deal of freedom to exercise. He was bound to the Krumau domain.
 |
| Detail of Havel House #15 on Indication Map, 1826 Source: Richard D' Amelio |
The 1773 Ubarium provides a record of Mathias' "Customary Robot" to the Krumau dominion. This record clearly indicates that "He is obliged to perform a weekly quota of 2 draught Robot days with 2 horses or 4 oxen throughout the year." This would total 104 days, or basically, one-third of a six day work week. Ten of the eleven farms in his village were required to perform Zugrobot (draught robot), with Mathias and seven others of the ten providing two days. One person was required to provide three days and and two persons one day of the free labor. The person with manual labor was required to provide three days of service. Plus, the decrees allowed for "extraordinary" situations, where more than the prescribed labor (typically three days) could be required. Richard D' Amelio, who has over ten years of experience with the land records of Bohemia, and provided the transcription and translation of the record for me, concluded that Mathias was among the so-called half farmer, but still a Sedlack within the village. Mathias, although in the lower portion of land holdings for village farmers, still had sufficient land to use draught animals. The record indicates that Mathias was called upon not only to work in his fields, but also do work for the domain. The domain work took precedence. The 1805 sale from Mathias to his son Johann Havel notes a land area of about 25 acres, and if the values in the Urbarium are in area Mathias would have owned just over 17 acres. Hence, the figures in that first part of the Urbarium may be volume and not area.
Other sources I have seen, and earlier writings I made about forced labor noted robota was about a week. Here it is clear it was much more. The labor obligations varied between domains and even in domains. Mr. D'Amelio has noted to me that one thing about the Krumlov Estate was inconsistency in its labor requirements. To the left of the Customary Robot entry in the Urbarium is an entry that is crossed out. This crossed out requirement read, "Obligation to render Robot labor service throughout the year: Weekly -- days of draught labor and -- days of manual labor." This crossed out reference was not well defined in days of robot labor required. It is possible the notation to the right and not crossed out, was an amendment made to the labor requirements due to the 1775 patent. But, we don't know for sure.
 |
| Present time Ratiborova Lhota Source: Google maps |
We know from the Urbarium that Mathias had a requirement to provide two horses and a wagon, or four oxen and a wagon to serve the domain for his prescribed draught robot of two days a week. At this point in time, I am not sure if he owned horses or oxen, or even perhaps both. Further in the record is an explanation of what type of work was likely to occur. His village, Ratiborova Lhota, was one of six villages that made up what is referred to as the Zahori Court. The Urbarium identifies eight tasks that "The draught and manual labor quotas which subjects of the court of Zhori are obliged to perform...." Five of the eight tasks specifically use the word haulage. Since Mathias was required to haul, I will first focus on those five aspects.
The first haulage task is for firewood and seasoned timber to Netolice, including that "which is destined for barrel making." Present day, Netolice is currently about six miles from Ratiborova Lhota, a trip that could be made in a day assuming use of horses which pull a cart about two to four mph. Using a mid range of three mph, that is about a two hour trip one-way. Yet, the hills and valleys and road conditions could considerably slow the trip. And, of course if it was a team of oxen it would be much slower. It is documented that the farmers did not like to undertake haulage in the winter due to stress on animals and equipment.
 |
| Urbarium Record for Mathias Havel, part 1 |
The trip to Netolice was a short trip, other obligations involved much longer travel. Three haulage requirements related to taking goods to the main urban area of the domain--Cesky Krumlov. With a present day distance of about 20 miles it is not likely that this trip could be comfortably made in one day, particularly in winter and the shoulder seasons of spring and fall when roads were probably much more treacherous than in summer. Think of traveling on packed snow forming ice, and having you , much less an animal keep its footing. Or, getting mired in mud so thick the axles were near buried. I doubt one could rule out these conditions. Or, a shot fired in the distance scaring the animal. Specifically noted as haulage to Cesky Krumlov were barley destined for malting/beer, which I am sure he was probably proud, and maybe even glad, to haul. The other products to haul were much less delightful in smell. The second item to the urban center, was haulage of fish caught in the area from the manorial authorities fishermen. This was probably a very timely duty as fish could go bad quickly if not properly cooled or preserved. Another obligation also referenced the haul of deputat fish from other court districts, in proportion, to Cesky Krumlov. This appears to have involved hauling fish from outside his immediate area or court district of six villages. Neither of these two hauls would please the sense of smell.
 |
| Urbarium Record for Mathias Havel, part 2 |
If the smell of fish was not enough to task the senses, there was hauling manure either to the Chlum meierhoff (farm) or the pine plantation. However, there is a note that "this is no longer customary." Given that such a chore was no longer customary, it was probably not a frequent occurrence.
The record is clear that there was an agreement to the two days of haulage. A later annotation appears in the record to indicate that the "subjects here opted for 'customary' robot obligations not the new 'patent moderated' conditions." This is because the subjects were better off with their customary labor. However, Richard D' Amelio has studied the Krumlov domain and believes that the manorial authorities "appear to have later increased the quota with an extra day per week of draught labor and 1 day of manual labor, thus matching the maximum level as legislated for the 1775 patent (i.e. three days of draught labor and 1 day of manual labor matching Mathias' tax band). As he goes on to note, this means that Mathias had 156 days of draught and 52 days days of manual labor every year. Wright notes that in 1775 "The serf had a choice between his previous conditions and that stipulated by the patent, but his choice had to be completely one way or the other--he could not mix conditions. (p. 51) It appears Mathias, as others in the village, chose the earlier condition, but there apparently was nothing holding the domain back from instituting more than what was previously required, showing how estates manipulated the decrees. Mathias would have undertaken the labor himself, or if he had a farmhand had the farmhand do the work. But, Mathias was a half farmer, and he may not have been able to afford a farm hand. No farmhand appears to live with Mathias and his family in the mid 1700 Seignorial Register. If he had sufficient money he could have hired the labor to a day laborer. As his sons aged, like my 3rd great grandfather Frantisek, they may have undertaken the labor.
Mathias may now have had an obligation to not just haul goods, but to also perform manual robot. The manual labor would have involved, according to the Urbarium, burning and clearing the Melheidl Jura meadow, showing that our ancestors understood the importance of control of invasive species, trees and weeds into the meadow. He may also have had to perform the dangerous work to clear the millrace/streams at one or more of the four mills that served the area. Most manual labor was likely used for "the reaping of grain, mowing of meadows and haymaking." Mathias would have grown grain on his land holdings, too, but recall that when it came to this forced labor the domain would get its first pick of when it wanted its work done. If Mathias' grain was ready to harvest, he may just have had to wait, putting the crop at risk of spoilage in the fields, and weather events, such as the floods that destroyed so much of the grain crops in 1770 and 1771.
 |
| Urbarium Record of Community Robot Obligations |
Was all of the robota actually performed? Himl suggests that only about 30% of robot days were required and carried out. I wonder if Himl is correct. If the Krumov manor only used 30% of the required robot, why would they have increased the obligations of serfs by adding 1 more day of haulage a week and 52 of manual labor? Was it simply to show their power? Or, was it to assure they had the labor available when required? Even at 30% of the Urbarium stated 104 days the required labor is onerous. If Mathias by chance performed at 30% of the 104 days that is still a full month of labor out of a year. And, if it was the 156 plus an additional manual labor of 52 for 208 days of robot labor that is four days a week. Thirty percent of 208 days is over two full months of work spread over one year for the domain. Yet, the domain may have demanded four days at the busiest time of year--harvest season. Adding to this logic of days added to the labor obligation is an 1802 land transfer record of Mathias' interests (he died in 1802) to his son Johann. Richard D'Amelio, in comparing varied aspects of the 1773 Urbarium to the 1802 land transfer, had this comment: "Robot is more-or-less the same after factoring the “sublevation” of the extra day a week making a total of three days a week (from 1773 urbar). In 1802, quoted as “156 Zugtäge” [days of draught service] with a 2-horse team, and "13 Handtäge" [days manual labour]." (Email of 26 April 2022) The main difference is that the manual labor requirement is less. Given the 1802 land record, it is apparent the domain did add in more robot service, much to the chagrin of the serfs.
We really don't know how much robot labor Mathias provided each and every year. It may have been about 30%, or it could have been more. I suspect the distance to Cesky Krumlov from Ratiborova Lhota required more days of at haulage. A trip to Cesky Krumlov and back for many of the required tasks probably took two days. The tasks would have been split by the villages in his court district. Haulage would not have been easy, particularly in bad weather and with the major market town Ceksy Krumlov a good distance away more trips would have been required to get the necessary raw materials to the market town. Richard D' Amelio notes that his ancestors, in northwest Bohemia, were provided forage for the livestock, and a meal of oat gruel, barley, dumplings and milk, and some bread and beer. Hence, it is likely that the seigneur at least recognized the part of the robotpatents that required them to provide or pay the expenses incurred by the serf for long hauls. How generous of them. The seigneur probably did not let the serf forget that "generosity".
 |
| Cesky Krumlov, present time Courtesy of Gena Roisum |
Mathias, and my other ancestors may not have laid a stone for a building, or fixed a roof in Cesky Krumlov, but they provided crucial services for that city to function. Stop making beer and a citizen revolt would be on hand. This free, no-perk labor allowed the manor of Krumau to save money from paying labor. At least, in part, they put the savings from the serf slave-like labor to some good use by building and repairing the buildings in Cesky Krumlov that many treasure today. If I ever have a chance to visit Cesky Krumlov I am sure my first thoughts will turn to Mathias, and my other ancestors who gave so much in terms of robot labor to the Krumau domain, and for so little in return.
Note 2: When first interpreting the Urbarium record, Mr D'Amelio thought certain indication of values were related to land area, but realizing its dependance on the Theresian Rustical Cadastre later noted that it may not have been area, but amount of grain. A "strich" is both a measurement of area and of volume. One needs to interpret what is meant. The Theresian Cadastre led him to believe it was volume.
D'Amelio, Richard of Boheimb Research Services. April 2022, varied correspondence. (Many thanks to Richard for a great deal of information on this subject.)
D'Amelio, Richard of Boheimb Research Services. Transcription to German and then translation to English of the Urbarium records. (His services were engaged by the author.)
Himl, 2003 Die 'armben Leute und de Macht' Portion of this work translated and provided by Richard d' Amelio of Boheimb Research Services (April 2022)
Klein, Alexander and Sheilagh Ogilvie 2016, "Occupational Structure in the Czech lands under the second serfdom." Economic History Review, vol 69.
Klein, Alex, 22 Jan 2019 Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society-"Was Domar Right? Serfdom and Factor Endowments in Bohemia" (This newsletter report was based on a 2017 work Klein did with Oglivie of the same name.)
Velkostatek Český Krumlov, Urbarium, Ordinal 31, 1773 found at: https://digi.ceskearchivy.cz/134537/1/2651/814/78/0 (varied images)
Wright, William E. 1966. Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth Century Bohemia, University of Minnesota Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment