1. Schlesisches Urkundenbuch, ed. Appelt, Heinrich and Irgang, Winfried, 4 vols. (Graz and Cologne, 1963–1988)Google Scholar [hereafter S.U.] 1: no. 45 (1175), pp. 26–29 (Lubiąż); no. 77 (1202), pp. 49–51 (Lubiąż); no. 83 (1202–3), pp. 54–58 (Trzebnica); no. 115 (1208), pp. 80–85 (Trzebnica); for the discussion of these sources, see Appelt, , “Die Echtheit der Trebnitzer Gründungsurkunden (1208/18),” Zeitschrift des Vereins fur Geschichte Schlesiens 71 (1937): 1–50Google Scholar; Die Urkundenfälschungen des Klosters Trebnitz (Breslau, 1940); “Zur schlesischen Diplomatik des 12. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 2 (1953): 568–80. In the following notes all the original sources are in Latin and the translations are my own.

2. The monastery of Lubiąż had been founded after 1163 by Henry's father, Bolesław the Tall (1163–1202); Bolesław confirmed the foundation in 1175 in a long charter. After 1194 Duke Henry in turn founded the community of the Cistercian nuns at Trzebnica. On the historical context of these two monasteries, see, among others, Kłoczowski, Jerzy, “Les Cisterciens en Pologne du Xlle au XlIIe siècle,” Cîteaux 28 (1977): 111–34Google Scholar; Lekai, Louis J., “The Germans and the Medieval Cistercian Abbeys in Poland,” Cîteaux 28 (1977): 121–32Google Scholar; Korta, Wacław, Rozwój wielkiej własności feudalnej na Ślųsku do połowy XIII wieku [The development of feudal great property in Silesia until the mid-thirteenth century] (Wrocław, 1964)Google Scholar; Gottschalk, Joseph, St. Hedwig, Herzogin von Schlesien (Cologne-Graz, 1964)Google Scholar; Strzelczyk, Jerzy, ed., Historia i kultura Cystersów w dawnej Polsce i ich europejskie związki [History and culture of the Cistercians in Poland, and their European connections] (Poznań, 1987)Google Scholar, especially the following contributions: Heinrich Grüger, “Die Beobachtung der Statuten von Cîteaux bei den Zisterziensern in Schlesien,” pp. 163–79; Jerzy Rozpędowski, “Opactwo pań cysterek w Trzebnicy” [Abbey of the Cistercian nuns in Trzebnica], pp. 263–81; Brygida Kürbis, “Cystersi w kulturze polskiegio średniowiecza: trzy świadectwa z XII wieku” [The Cistercians in Polish medieval culture: three twelfth-century sources], pp. 321–42; Hoffmann, Richard C., Land, Liberties, and Lordship in a Late Medieval Countryside: Agrarian Structures and Change in the Duchy of Wroclaw (Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 13–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Górecki, Piotr, Economy, Society, and Lordship in Medieval Poland, 1100–1250 (New York, 1992), pp. 45–114Google Scholar; Bartlett, Robert, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950–1350 (Princeton, 1993), pp. 113, 131, 153–54Google Scholar; Górecki, , Parishes, Tithes, and Society in Earlier Medieval Poland (Philadelphia, 1993), pp. 27–28, 30, 32–34, 36–39, 41–44, 46–48, 65, 78–79, 85, 125.Google Scholar

3. S.U. 1: no. 77 (1202), p. 50.

4. Ibid., no. 83 (1202–3), p. 56.

5. Ibid.

6. “Dispute” is here defined as a conflict in which one party makes a claim against another concerning some specified matter. For general discussions, and the criteria for distinguishing disputes from other types of conflict, see: Stein, Peter, Legal Institutions: The Development of Dispute Settlement (London, 1984)Google Scholar; Roberts, Simon, “The Study of Dispute: Anthropological Perspectives,” in Bossy, John, ed., Disputes and Settlements: Law and Human Relations in the West (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 1–24Google Scholar; Comaroff, John L. and Roberts, Simon, Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of Dispute in an African Context (Chicago, 1981).Google Scholar For medieval Europe, see: Constance Bouchard, Brittain, Holy Entrepreneurs: Cistercians, Knights, and Economic Exchange in Twelfth-Century Burgundy (Ithaca, N.Y., 1991), pp. 129–35Google Scholar; Tabuteau, Emily Z., Transfers of Property in Eleventh-Century Norman Law (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1988)Google Scholar; White, Stephen D., Custom, Kinship, and Gifts to Saints: The Laudatio Parentum in Western France, 1050–1150 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1988)Google Scholar; Davies, Wendy, Small Worlds: The Village Community in Early Medieval Brittany (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988)Google Scholar; Rosenwein, Barbara H., To Be the Neighbor of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny's Property, 909–1049 (Ithaca, N. Y., 1989)Google Scholar; Davies, Wendy and Fouracre, Paul, eds., The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duby, Georges, “The Evolution of Judicial Institutions: Burgundy in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in The Chivalrous Society, ed. Postan, Cynthia (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1977), pp. 15–58Google Scholar; Duby, , La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise (2nd ed., Paris, 1971), pp. 223–34.Google Scholar

7. For the recurrence of this problem in medieval Europe, see Tabuteau, Transfers, pp. 113, 334.

8. In this essay, I use the term “finality” in a technical sense; finality is achieved when potential claimants against a change in rights in land become so unlikely to prevail that it is unreasonable for them to raise their claims in the future, either because they have clearly lost on the merits and the legal system does not permit them to raise the claim thereafter, or because the judicial resolution has reached a deadlock and the matter has been resolved by compromise, or for some combination of these reasons.

9. By “Poland” in this period I mean the lands that were ruled by Piast dukes who traced their descent to Bolesław III the Wrymouth and through him to the legendary Piast, to Mieszko I, and to Bolesław I the Brave; for the basis and limitations of this working definition, see Górecki, Economy, pp. 11–17, 29, n. 1, and Górecki, Parishes, p. 7, n. 24.

10. Throughout this essay, I use the terms “familial estate,” “inheritance,” “inherited estate,” and “patrimony” interchangeably to mean the estate that heirs expect to inherit from their male ancestors. The written record usually identifies such estates as hereditas, sometimes as patrimonium. This working definition is not entirely satisfactory because there was considerable uncertainty about which particular estates were inheritable, that is, classifiable as patrimony, and about whether estates acquired through ducal service, purchase, or gift were subject to expectations of inheritance. Nevertheless, most sources take inheritability of estates for granted, and I simply follow them in this respect.

11. In addition to, or instead of, the approaches described in this essay, the donors, recipients, and their supporters used several other strategies to prevent dispute, including perambulation of the boundaries of the alienated estates; ducal intervention; invocation of the past; invocation of norms; testation; adoption of fictive or preferred heirs; recognition, and anticipation, of the right of familial retraction (retrait lignager); and, in the course of the later Middle Ages, participation by substantially broader groups of coheirs (equivalent to what White calls laudatio parentum, but this term does not appear in the Polish sources). My working hypothesis is that no particular approach or set of approaches—including those discussed here—served as a guarantee of finality, or was in some sense typical or preferred to others; see Tabuteau, Transfers, pp. 114–15. In a longer monograph on the prevention and settlement of disputes in medieval Poland, I shall explore these approaches in full and relate them, as reconstructed, to the changing detail, routine, and quality of the written record.

12. See White's reconstruction of the range of the familial groups that took part in the laudatio parentum, in Custom, Kinship, and Gifts, especially pp. 86–129; and Tabuteau, Transfers, pp. 175–79.

13. This belief has been thoroughly reassessed and revised by Polish historians (with varied results) but retains a ghostly presence in Western-language comparative historiography that touches on East Central Europe; see Gaudemet, Jean, Les communautés familiales (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar, cited in Poland by Bardach, Juliusz, Historia państwa i prawa Polski [History of the state and law in Poland] (Warsaw, 1964), p. 289Google Scholar, and now reiterated by Sedlar, Jean, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500 (Seattle, 1994), pp. 58–59, 85.Google Scholar The belief harks back to the nineteenth-century “kinship theory” of the basic structure of Slavic societies, which is now largely outdated—see Ihnatowicz, Ireneusz, Maczak, Antoni, and Zientara, Benedykt, Społeczeństwo polskie od X do XX wieku [Polish society from the tenth to the twentieth century] (Warsaw, 1979), pp. 25–28Google Scholar; Koczerska, Maria, Rodzina szlachecka w Polsce późnego średniowiecza [The noble family in Poland in the later Middle Ages] (Warsaw, 1975), pp. 102–3Google Scholar; Lesiński, Bogdan, “Prawne problemy własności ziemskiej w średniowiecznej Polsce” [Legal issues of landed property in medieval Poland], Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 23 (1971): 183–205, at 194–95Google Scholar; Adamus, Jan, Polska teoria rodowa [Polish kinship theory] (Łódź, 1958).Google Scholar New Polish studies of size, structure, and significance of kin and quasi-kin groups include, above all, Janusz Bieniak, “Rody rycerskie jako czynnik struktury społecznej w Polsce XIII–XIV wieku (Uwagi problemowe)” [Knightly kindreds as a factor of the social structure in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Poland (Research issues)], in Łowmiański, Henryk, ed., Polska w okresie rozdrobnienia feudalnego [Poland during the period of feudal fragmentation] (Wrocław, 1973), pp. 161–200Google Scholar; “Clans de chevalerie en Pologne du XlIIe au XVe siècle,” in Duby, Georges and Goff, Jacques Le, eds., Famille et parenté dans l'Occident médiéval (Rome, 1977), pp. 321–33Google Scholar; “Knight Clans in Medieval Poland,” in Gasiorowski, Antoni, ed., The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages (Wroclaw, 1984), pp. 123–76Google Scholar; “Jeszcze w sprawie genezy rodów rycerskich w Polsce” [More on the origins of knightly kindreds in Poland], in Kuczyński, Stefan K., ed., Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej [The society of medieval Poland], vol. 5 (Warsaw, 1992), pp. 43–55.Google Scholar See also Cetwiński, Marek, Rycerstwo śląskie do końca X/II wieku: Pochodzenie-gospodarka-polityka [Silesian knighthood until the end of the thirteenth century: origins, economy, politics] (Wrocław, 1980)Google Scholar; Rycerstwo śląskie do końca XIII wieku: Biogramy i rodowody [Silesian knighthood until the end of the thirteenth century: biograms and genealogies] (Wrocław, 1982)Google Scholar; and the literature in note 14.

14. On the family groups that effected alienations, and the holdings subject to the alienations, see Rymaszewski, Zygfryd, Prawo bliiszości krewnych w polskim prawie ziemskim do końca XV wieku [Law of proximity of the kindred in the Polish common law through the end of the fifteenth century] (Wrocław, 1970)Google Scholar; Waldo, Barbara, Niedzial rodzinny w polskim prawie ziemskim do końca XV wieku [The familial undivided estate in the Polish common law through the end of the fifteenth century] (Wroclaw, 1967)Google Scholar; Bardach, Juliusz, Leśnodorski, Bogusław, and Pietrzak, Michał, Historia państwa i prawa polskiego [History of the Polish state and law] (Warsaw, 1979), pp. 137–40Google Scholar; Bardach, Historia, pp. 279–319; Bardach, “L'indivision familiale dans les pays du centre-est européen,” in Duby and Le Goff, eds., Famille, pp. 335–53. On women's rights in landed estates—and dower, dowry, and inheritance—see, above all, Lesiński, Bogdan, Stanowisko kobiety w Polskim prawie ziemskim do polowy XV wieku [The position of the woman in Polish common law until the mid-fifteenth century] (Wrocław, 1956), pp. 29–39, 43–74, 90–133Google Scholar, and the response by Adamus, Jan, “O prawie dziedziczenia nieruchomości przez kobiety w najdawniejszym prawie polskim” [On the rights of inheritance of immovable property by women in the earliest Polish law], Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 11 (1959): 125–44Google Scholar; both works reassess the issue of whether women could inherit landed estates before the early fourteenth century, when the earliest evidence confirming that right appears. Most recently, see Koczerska, Rodzina, pp. 43–44.

15. Goody, Jack, The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goody, , “Inheritance, Property, and Women: Some Comparative Considerations,” in Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan, and Thompson, E. P., eds., Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200–1800 (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 10–36.Google Scholar

16. On intrafamilial control over estates as an aspect, and symptom, of gender relations, see Wemple, Suzanne F., Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900 (Philadephia, 1985)Google Scholar, especially pp. 97–123; Gold, Penny Schine, The Lady and the Virgin: Image, Attitude, and Experience in Twelfth-Century France (Chicago, 1985), pp. 116–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McNamara, JoAnn and Wemple, Suzanne, “The Power of Women through the Family in Medieval Europe, 500–1100,” in Elder, Mary and Kowaleski, Maryanne, eds., Women and Power in the Middle Ages (Athens, Ga., 1988), pp. 83–101.Google Scholar

17. In addition to the abbreviations given in note 1 above and note 25 below, I use the following: K.K.Kr.: Kodeks dyplomatyczny katedry krakowskiej ś. Wacława, ed. Piekosiński, Franciszek (Kraków, 1874Google Scholar, repr. New York, 1965); K.Maz.: Codex diplomaticus et commemorationum Masoviae. Zbiór ogólny przywilejów i spominków mazowieckich, ed. Korwin-Kochanowski, Jan Konrad (Warsaw, 1919)Google Scholar; K.Mp.: Kodeks dyplomatyczny Małopolski, ed. Piekosiński, Franciszek, 2 vols. (Kraków, 1876–1886, repr. New York, 1965)Google Scholar; K.Wp.: Kodeks dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski, ed. Zakrzewski, Ignacy and Piekosiński, Franciszek, 4 vols. (Poznań, 1877–1908).Google Scholar

18. Polish documents issued prior to the mid-thirteenth century vary quite widely in their formal elements, especially in the detail and arrangement of their narrations and dispositions and in the formulas of their invocations, salutations, sanctions, corroborations, and other formal elements. Although the earliest written documentation in the first Piast dynasty is presumed to be modeled on the German imperial chancery, the formal and paléographie influences upon specific documents from the twelfth and earlier thirteenth centuries vary, presumably with the background and training of particular officials of ducal chanceries, dictatores, and scribes. With the expansion in production and use of written documents in the course of the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the documents became increasingly standardized in form and substance; their narrations and dispositions became increasingly stereotyped and thus somewhat less informative about individual cases. See Maleczyński, Karol, Bielińska, Maria, and Gasiorowski, Antoni, Dyplomatyka wieków średnich [Medieval diplomatics] (Warsaw, 1971), pp. 122–35, 139–46, 192–200Google Scholar; Maleczyński, , Studia nad dokumentem polskim [Studies on the Polish document] (Wroclaw, 1971)Google Scholar, especially “O kanclerzach polskich XII wieku” [Polish chancellors in the twelfth century], pp. 37–54, “Wpływy obce na dokument polski w XII wieku” [Foreign influences on the Polish document in the twelfth century], pp. 89–115, and “O formularzach w Polsce w XIII wieku” [Formularies in Poland in the thirteenth century], pp. 189–221; works by Kürbis and Dobosz cited below; and, for a comparative context, Guyotjeannin, Olivier, Pycke, Jacques, and Tock, Benoît-Michel, Diplomatique médiévale (Turnhout, 1993), pp. 63–102.Google Scholar

19. As elsewhere in Europe, the documents do not always clearly distinguish among these three types of alienation. Thus in some cases it is difficult to classify a particular alienation as a gift, sale, or an exchange; this problem is comparable to that discussed by Tabuteau, Transfers, p. 14. However, documents usually record the meaning of alienations through appropriate Latin terms or through descriptions of the circumstances.

20. Some of the charters record the last in a series of alienations, invariably in favor of an ecclesiastical recipient. Prior to these final alienations, the holdings may have been subjected to earlier transfers that involved earlier alienors and recipients, including the duke; the Trzebnica documents are a good example of this type of record. Since these earlier transactions have little relevance to the two strategies that are the subject of this essay (most notably the nature of the role of the duke in the alienations), I have limited my sample to the final transactions in each chain of alienations.

21. “Private” and ducal alienations are sometimes quite difficult to distinguish because of the active role of the dukes in alienation and dispute settlements. In this essay, I identify the agent of the transaction as the person who attributes to him- or herself the act of the alienation—or to whom another author of a document attributes that act—with or without an active role by others, on the face of the record. Accordingly, following Guotjeannin, Pycke, and Tock, “on entendra par ‘acte privé’ toute acte émanant d'une personne privée, ou d'une personne publique agissant pour le compte d'une personne privée” (Diplomatique, p. 104). The charters that record “private” alienations in this sense are: K.Wp., no. 9 (1144), pp. 14–15; no. 18 (1153), pp. 23–24; no. 23 (1178), pp. 29–30; K.Maz., no. 117 (1185–86), pp. 112–23; K.Wp., no. 27 (1186), p. 33; no. 28 (1188), pp. 33–34; S.U. 1: no. 77 (1202), pp. 49–51; no. 83 (1202–3), pp. 54–58; no. 86–88 (1203), pp. 59–61; K.Maz., no. 167 (1206–27), pp. 154–56; K.Wp., no. 63 (1208), pp. 61–62; S.U. l:no. 115 (1208), pp. 80–85; K.Maz., no. 172 (1210), p. 162; K.Wp., no. 69 (1211), pp. 67–68; K.Mp. 1: no. 9 (1212), pp. 14–15; K.Wp., no. 82 (1214), p. 79; no. 88 (1216), p. 83; S.U. 1: no. 152 (1216), p. 110; no. 159(1217), p. 115; no. 181 (1218), pp. 131–35; K.Maz., no. 202 (1219), pp. 196–97; no. 210 (1221), pp. 207–8; no. 223 (1223), p. 230; no. 225 (1223), pp. 233–34; no. 228 (1223–24), p. 236; S.U. 1: no. 278 (1216–27), pp. 202–3; K.Mp. 2: no. 395 (1228), pp. 38–39; no. 397 (1229), pp. 40–41; S. U. 1: no. 305 (1229), pp. 225–26; no. 315 (1230–31), pp. 231–32; K.Maz., no. 291 (1230), pp. 328–29; K.Mp. 2: no. 400 (1230), pp. 45–46; K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14;no. 128(1230), pp. 115–16; no. 130–31 (1231), pp. 117–18; S.U. 2: no. 24 (1232), p. 13; K.Mp. 2: no. 404 (1232), pp. 50–51; S.U. 2: no. 32 (1233), pp. 18–19; no. 36 (1233), p. 24; K.Mp. 2: no. 407 (1233), p. 52; S.U. 2: no. 73 (1234), pp. 46–47; no. 85 (1234), pp. 55–56; K.Mp. 1: no. 18 (1235), p. 24; 2: no. 412–13 (1235), pp. 57–58; K.Wp., no. 186 (1236), p. 161; no. 190 (1236), p. 163; no. 193–94 (1236), pp. 165–67; no. 197–98 (1236), pp. 168–69; K.Mp. 1: no. 21 (1237), pp. 26–27; 2: no. 414 (1237), p. 59; K.Wp., no. 205 (1237), p. 174; K.Mp. 1: no. 22 (1238), pp. 27–28; K.Wp., no. 215 (1238), p. 182; K.Mp. 1: no. 24 (1239), pp. 30–31; 2: no. 416 (1239), p. 61; K.Wp., no. 221 (1239), pp. 186–87; S.U. 2: no. 170–71 (1239), pp. 110–11; K.Wp., no. 225 (1240), pp. 189–90; S.U. 2: no. 223 (1241), pp. 134–35; K.Mp. 2: no. 421 (1242), pp. 68–69; 1: no. 26–27 (1243), pp. 31–33; S.U. 2: no. 299 (1245), pp. 179–80; K.Wp., no. 244 (1245), pp. 206–7; no. 252 (1246), pp. 212–13; S.U. 2: no. 404 (1250), pp. 254–55; no. 413 (1250), pp. 259–60; 3: no. 11 (1251), pp. 21–22.

22. I treat documents issued on their face by the donor (or donors) identified in the first person as documents issued by the donor and documents that refer to the donor (or donors) in the third person and issued by a duke (or some other authoritative party) as ducal (or other) documents—realizing, of course, that not all documents issued in the voice of a donor were in fact in any sense compiled by that donor. During the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries substantial numbers of charters were actually compiled by the ecclesiastical recipients or third-party (usually ecclesiastical) intermediaries. See, for example, the discussion of Zbylut's charter of 1153 below and, in general, Maleczyński et al., Dyplomatyka, pp. 96–98, and Guotjeannin et al., Diplomatique, p. 228.

23. K.Wp., no. 33 (1176), pp. 40–42; K.Maz., no. 123 (1187), pp. 117–18; K.Mp. 1: no. 8 (1212), pp. 13–14; K.K.Kr, no. 8 (1212), pp. 12–13; S.U. 1: no. 200 (1220), p. 148; K.Maz., no. 212 (1222), pp. 210–11; K.K.Kr., no. 13–14 (1224), pp. 17–22; S.U. 1: no. 311–12 (1230), pp. 229–30; no. 314 (1230), pp. 230–31; 2: no. 5 (1231), p. 3; K.Mp. 2: no. 403 (1232), pp. 48^19; K.Maz., no. 328 (1233), pp. 376–77; S.U. 2: no. 80 (1234), pp. 51–53; K.Mp. 1: no. 19–20 (1236), pp. 25–26; K.Wp., no. 211 (1238), pp. 178–79; S.U. 2: no. 178 (1240), pp. 114–15; K.Mp. 2: no. 420(1242), p. 67; K.Wp., no. 253–54 (1246), pp. 213–15; S.U. 2: no. 375 (1249), pp. 237–39; K.Mp. 1: no. 33 (1250), p. 39; K.K.Kn, no. 30 (1250), pp. 38–39; K.Mp. 2: no. 448 (1255), 102–3.

24. S.U. 1: no. 77 (1202), pp. 49–51; no. 83 (1202–03), pp. 54–58; no. 115 (1208), pp. 80–85; no. 181 (1218), pp. 131–35; K.H., chap. 58–61, pp. 124–25; chap. 71–72, pp. 128–29; chap. 85, p. 135; chap. 106, p. 143.

25. Gródecki, Roman, ed. and tr., Księga henrykowska. Liber Fundationis claustri sánete Marie Virginis in Heinrichów (Poznań and Wrocław, 1949)Google Scholar; reissued without change, though with a new preface by Józef, and Matuszewski, Jacek as Liber Fundationis claustri sánete Marie Virginis in Heinrichów, czyli Księga henrykowska (Wrocław, 1991)Google Scholar [hereafter abbreviated as K.H., with page references to the 1991 edition]. For extensive commentary on the authorship, structure, literary composition, and reliability of this source, see Matuszewski, Józef, Najstarsze polskie zdanie prozaiczne: zdanie henrykowskie i jego tło historyczne [The oldest Polish sentence in prose: the sentence of Henryków and its historical background] (Wrocław, 1981).Google Scholar For the social, economic, and political contexts of this document, see the literature cited in note 1, as well as: Grüger, Heinrich, “Das Patronatsrecht von Heinrichau,” Ctteaux 28 (1977): 26–47Google Scholar; Grüger, , Heinrichau: Geschichte eines schlesischen Zisterzienserklosters, 1227–1977 (Cologne and Vienna, 1978)Google Scholar; Grüger, , “Das Volkstum der Bevölkerung in den Dörfern des Zisterzienserklosters Heinrichau im Mittelschlesischen Vorgebirgslande vom 13.–15. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 27 (1978): 241–61Google Scholar; Górecki, , “Viator to ascriptitius: Rural Economy, Lordship, and the Origins of Serfdom in Medieval Poland,” Slavic Review 42 (1983): 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am grateful to Dr. Sławomir Gawlas of the University of Warsaw Institute of History for making the 1991 edition of the K.H. available to me.

26. Grants: K.H., chap. 21, pp. 116–17; chap. 29, p. 118; chap. 32, p. 119; chap. 38, p. 120; chap. 45, p. 121; chap. 65–67, p. 126; chap. 69, p. 127; chap. 72, p. 128; chap. 80, p. 132; chap. 84, p. 135; chap. 86–87, pp. 135–36; chap. 98, pp. 139–40; chap. 101, pp. 140–41; chap. 109, p. 145; chap. 114, p. 148; chap. 116, pp. 149–50. Disputes: K.H., chap. 58–61. pp. 124–25; chap. 71–72, pp. 128–29; chap. 85, p. 135; chap. 106, p. 143.

27. Bouchard, Holy Entrepreneurs, pp. 129–35.

28. K.Wp., no. 9 (1144), pp. 14–15; no. 27 (1186), p. 33; no. 69 (1211), pp. 67–68; no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 198 (1236), p. 169; K.Mp. 2: no. 414 (1237), p. 59; K.H., chap. 93, p. 137; chap. 120, p. 152.

29. K.Wp., no. 9 (1144), pp. 14–15; no. 27 (1186), p. 33; no. 69 (1211), pp. 67–68; no. 82 (1214), p. 79; K.Maz., no. 167 (1206–27), pp. 154–56; no. 291 (1230), pp. 328–29; K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; K.Mp. 2: no. 404 (1232), pp. 50–51; no. 407 (1233), p. 52; S.U. 2: no. 85 (1234), pp. 55–56; K.Mp. 2: no. 412 (1235), p. 57; K.Wp., no. 193 (1236), pp. 165–66; no. 198 (1236), p. 169; K.Mp. 1: no. 21 (1237), pp. 26–27; 2: no. 414 (1237), p. 59; 1: no. 24 (1239), pp. 30–31; 2: no. 416 (1239), p. 61; 1: no. 27 (1244), pp. 32–33; S.U. 2: no. 299 (1245), pp. 279–80; K.H., chap. 86, pp. 135–36; chap. 113, pp. 147–48; chap. 120–21, pp. 152–53.

30. K.H., chap. 119, p. 152.

31. K.Wp., no. 9 (1144), pp. 14–15 (heredes; posteriores nostri et alieni); K.Maz., no. 167 (1206–27), pp. 154–56 (cognati; cognati mei); K. Wp., no. 252 (1246), pp. 212–13 (filii sui … vel alii … consanguinei sive attinentes); K.H., chap. 1, p. 109 (successores); chap. 19–20, p. 116 (quisauam hominum; quis hominum); chap. 26, p. 117 (quisquam hominum); chap. 93, p. 138 (adversarii); chap. 112, p. 147 (cognatio heredum; heredes; quisquam ex ipsis); chap. 119, p. 152 (affines; heredes vel consanguinei).

32. K.Maz., no. 291 (1230), pp. 328–29; K.Mp. 2: no. 412 (1235), p. 57; K.Wp., no. 193 (1236), pp. 165–66; K.Mp. 1: no. 21 (1237), pp. 26–27; K.Wp., no. 252 (1246), pp. 212–13; K.H., chap. 86, p. 135; chap. 112, pp. 147–48.

33. K.Wp., no. 9 (1144), pp. 14–15; K.Mp. 2: no. 404 (1232), pp. 50–51; no. 407 (1233), p. 52; K.Wp., no. 193 (1236), pp. 165–66; K.Maz., no. 167 (1206–27), pp. 154–56; K.Mp. 1: no. 27 (1244), pp. 32–33; K.Wp., no. 69 (1211), pp. 67–68.

34. K.H., chap. 1, p. 109; chap. 19–20, p. 116; chap. 26, p. 117; chap. 52, p. 123; chap. 86, pp. 135–36; chap. 89–91, pp. 137–38; chap. 93, p. 137; chap. 112, pp. 147–48; chap. 119–21, pp. 152–53.

35. Active participants include persons (and groups) who are expressly documented as having furnished the donors or recipients of the alienated holding with counsel, consent, confirmation, promise of protection, consent, mediation, and other practical steps intended to enhance the finality of the potentially controversial legal transaction. It is recorded as past actions by particular persons or groups. In this essay I do not consider the composition of witness lists or the role of witnesses. Although the distinction between active participants and witnesses is sometimes difficult to draw in particular charters—see Tabuteau, Transfers, pp. 142–96, and Gold, Lady and Virgin, pp. 116–44—and although in the Polish evidence the active participants and the most important witnesses were usually the same persons (or the same categories of persons), the documents distinguish active participants from witnesses rather precisely.

36. On a few occasions, duchesses played these roles, but they always identified themselves as widows implementing the will of their deceased husbands. K.Mp. 2: no. 395 (1228), pp. 38–39; K.Maz., no. 291 (1230), pp. 328–29; K.Mp. 2: no. 403 (1232), pp. 48–49; S.U. 2: no. 80 (1234), pp. 51–53; K.Mp. 1: no. 24 (1239), pp. 30–31; no. 26 (1243), pp. 31–32; S.U. 2: no. 404 (1250), pp. 212–13.

37. K.Mp. 1: no. 9 (1212), pp. 14–15; 2: no. 395 (1228), pp. 38–39; K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; S.U. 2: no. 85 (1234), pp. 55–56; K.Wp., no. 180 (1235), p. 156; no. 194 (1236), pp. 166–67; no. 205 (1237), p. 174.

38. K.Wp., no. 82 (1214), p. 79; K.Maz., no. 225 (1223), pp. 233–34; K.Mp. 2: no. 395 (1228), pp. 38–39; S.U. 1: no. 315 (1230–31), pp. 231–32; K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; K.Mp. 2: no. 412–13 (1235), pp. 57–58; K.Wp., no. 193–94 (1236), pp. 165–67; K.Mp. 2: no. 414 (1237), p. 59; K.Wp., no. 221 (1239), pp. 186–87; no. 252 (1246), pp. 212–13; S.U. 2: no. 413 (1250), pp. 259–60; 3: no. 11 (1251), pp. 21–22. One (evidently unusual) charter notes a sister in that capacity; K.Mp. 1: no. 24 (1239), pp. 30–31.

39. K.Wp., no. 126(1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; K.Mp. 2: no. 413 (1235), pp. 57–58; K.Wp., no. 193 (1236), pp. 165–66; no. 221 (1239), pp. 186–87.

40. Wives: K.Maz., no. 202 (1219), pp. 196–97; K.Mp. 2: no. 397 (1229), pp. 40–41; K.Maz., no. 291 (1230), pp. 328–29; K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; no. 190 (1236), p. 163; no. 194 (1236), pp. 166–76. Mothers: K.Mp. 1: no. 17 (1234), p. 23; K.Wp., no. 190 (1236), p. 163; S.U. 2: no. 170–71 (1239), pp. 109–10; K.Wp., no. 225 (1240), pp. 189–90; K.Mp. 1: no. 27 (1244), pp. 32–33; K.Wp., no. 252 (1246), pp. 212–13. Sons: K.Wp., no. 63 (1208), pp. 61–62; K.Maz., no. 228 (1223–24), pp. 233–34; K.Wp., no. 167 (1234), pp. 143–44; K.Mp. 1: no. 21 (1237), pp. 26–27; 2: no. 416 (1239), p. 61. Brother-in-law: K.Mp. 1: no. 24 (1239), pp. 30–31.

41. K.Maz., no. 202 (1219), pp. 196–97; K.Mp. 2: no. 397 (1229), pp. 40–41; K.Maz., no. 291 (1230), pp. 328–29; K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; no. 190 (1236), p. 163; no. 194 (1236), pp. 166–76.

42. In this definition of the stem family as a group spanning a range of two generations, I follow Lutz K. Berkner, “Inheritance, Land Tenure, and Peasant Family Structure,” in Goody et al., Family and Inheritance, pp. 84—85; I do not, of course, wish to imply that the family groups I discuss here were, or were not, coresidential.

43. S.U. 1: no. 77 (1202), p. 50. Bartholomew is identified as a “deacon” (diaconus). The implications of his clerical status for the validity of his marriage and the legitimacy of his offpring are unclear. If his marriage was void and his offspring were illegitimate because he was a cleric, his estate would not devolve upon his sons through inheritance, and this case would be irrelevant to strategies of disinheritance available to Poles at the turn of the thirteenth century. I use the case because of considerable contemporary evidence that clerical marriage was not effectively prohibited in the Polish duchies until some time in the fourteenth century and that prior to this period clerical marriage did not delegitimate its offspring. See Vetulani, Adam, “Nowe źródło do historii staropolskiego prawa małżeńskiego” [A new source for the history of Old Polish marriage law], in Vetulani, , Z badań nad kulturę prawnicza w Polsce piastowskiej [Studies on the legal culture of Piast Poland] (Wrocław, 1976), pp. 35–74, at 44–47Google Scholar; for Europe in general, Brundage, James A., Law, Sex, and Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago, 1987), pp. 218, 315, 342–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a discussion of the succession between Bartholomew and Bogdan, specifically with respect to the question of Bogdan's legitimacy, see Kolańczyk, Kazimierz, Najdawniejsze polskie prawo spadkowe [The earliest Polish law of inheritance] (Poznań, 1939), pp. 36–37, 41 n. 3.Google Scholar

44. S.U. 1: no. 69 (1200), p. 46.

45. Ibid., no. 77(1202), p. 50.

46. Ibid., no. 69 (1200), p. 46: “Bartholomeus diaconus de Boriov … confessus est … donationem omnium rerum suarum mobilium et immobilium quas dudum ecclesie … de Lubens contulerat, relinquens in arbitrio dicti abbatis quam velie misericordiam faceré cum pueris et muliere.” Because Jarosław clearly referred to omnia res sua mobilia et immobilia, without specification of place or named estate, I assume that Bartholomew's gift affected all of his holdings, rather than all of his holdings in a particular locality.

47. Ibid.: “Affuit etiam Bogdanus filius iamdicti diaconi ratam habens paternam donationem et sue renuntians porcioni si quam ipsum ex rebus iamdictis contingeret.”

48. Ibid., no. 77 (1202), p. 50.

49. See Dawson, John P., Gifts and Promises: Continental and American Law Compared (New Haven, 1980), pp. 30–31, 34–35Google Scholar; White, Stephen D., “Inheritances and Legal Arguments in Western France, 1050–1150,” Traditio 43 (1987): 55–103, at 90–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chénon, Emile and Olivier-Martin, François, Histoire générale du droit français public et privé (Paris, 1929) 2: 230–31, 235–36Google Scholar; Olivier-Martin, , Précis d'histoire du droit français (Paris, 1951), p. 185Google Scholar; Olivier-Martin, , Histoire du droit français (Paris, 1951), p. 273Google Scholar; Falletti, Louis, Le Retrait lignager en droit coutumier français (Paris, 1923), p. 22Google Scholar; de Laplanche, J., La Réserve coutumière dans l'ancien droit français (Paris, 1925), pp. 87–88Google Scholar; Pollock, Frederick and Maitland, Frederic William. The History of the English Law, 2d ed., reissued with introduction by Milsom, S. F. C. (Cambridge, 1968), 2: 308Google Scholar; Bardach, Historia, p. 290, 296–97, 306; Bardach, Leśnodorski, and Pietrzak, Historia, p. 142.

50. On these issues, see Comaroff, and Roberts, , Rules and Processes (Chicago, 1981).Google Scholar I shall explore the significance of this particular norm to the security of alienations in the longer monograph on dispute prevention and settlement.

51. S.U. 1: no. 77 (1202), p. 50.

52. Ibid.

53. The grant recording the gift from Zbylut himself was compiled in 1153 in two identical charters. Later in the century a scribe wrote on one of these charters additional information about the gifts from Zbylut's wife, sons, other relatives, and other donors; this is the document edited as K.Wp., no. 18 (1153), p. 23. Finally, in the 1180s or 1190s, well after Zbylut's death, another scribe made a copy of this expanded charter with the supplementary information on familial gifts expanded somewhat. These documents are discussed, edited, and reproduced in facsimile by Józef Dobosz, “Dokument fundacyjny klasztoru Cystersów w Łeknie” [The foundation document of the Cistercian monastery in Łekno], in Wyrwa, Andrzej M., ed., Studia i materiały do dziejów Pałuk [Studies and materials on the history of Pałuki], vol. 1 (Poznań, 1989), pp. 53–83Google Scholar; Dobosz's edition of the charters is at pp. 52–55 and facsimiles are at pp. 56–58.

54. K.Wp., no. 63 (1208), p. 62; no. 88 (1216), p. 83; no. 167 (1234), p. 144. For the identifications of the members of Zbylut's family, see Semkowicz, Władysław, “Ród Pałuków” [The Pałuka clan], Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności—Wydział Historyczno-Filozoficzny, 2d series, vol. 24 (Kraków, 1907), pp. 151–268Google Scholar, especially 206–11, 265; Dobosz, “Dokument,” pp. 72, 78. (I have not had access to M. Anyszko, “Ród Pałuków w świetle nowszych badan” [The Pałuka clan in light of new research], a University of Poznań 1983 master's thesis.) For further discussion of these sources, see also Józef Dobosz, “Dokumenty” [The documents], in Cystersi w średniowiecznej Polsce—kultura i sztuka (Katalog wystawy) [Cistercians in medieval Poland—culture and art (Catalogue of the exhibition)] (Warsaw and Poznań, 1991), pp. 17–18; Kürbis, “Cystersi,” pp. 328–35, 338–39; Kozłowska-Budkowa, Zofia, Repertorium polskich dokumentów doby piastowskiej [A repertory of the Polish documents of the Piast period], vol. 1 (Kraków, 1937), pp. 58–60Google Scholar; Karol Maleczyński, “O wpływie szkoły pisarskiej leodyjskiej na dukt dokumentów łekneńskich z r. 1153” [The influence of the scribal school of Liège on the ductus of the Łekno documents of 1153], in Maleczyński, , Studia nad dokumentem polskim [Studies in the Polish document] (Wroclaw, 1971), pp. 77–88.Google Scholar

55. K.Wp., no. 18 (1153), p. 23; Dobosz, “Dokument,” p. 54. The charter was almost certainly dictated and compiled by the archbishop of Gniezno, John, not by Zbylut; see Kürbis, “Cystersi,” pp. 328–30. Thus, strictly speaking, its direct sense reflects the official ecclesiastical perception of his role in the grant, not his own voice. However, before the later thirteenth century, this is typical of a substantial (though uncertain) proportion of all the documents issued on the donors' behalf in the first person, so it is meaningful to compare the relative stress placed by the authors of the documents on the rotes of the different family members in particular alienations.

56. K.Wp., no. 18 (1153), p. 23; Dobosz, “Dokument,” p. 54. Since the subsequent argument depends on a particularly careful documentation of the estates alienated by Zbylut and his family and of the terms with which the donors described these estates and their alienations, I cite the original language here and below: “ego Zbilud … patrimonii mei liberi portionem, villas scilicet has: Erglzko cum lacu integro et Ztrassowo, Pogengroza, et in Lokna forum cum taberna … Deo ad glóriám et laudem … contradidi, et … in una conscriptarum villarum, Lokne videlicet, domicilium Deo … instituí.”

57. K.Wp., no. 63 (1208), p. 62; Dobosz, “Dokument,” p. 54. For the subsequent identifications of Zbylut's relatives, affines, and other persons concerned with the early history of the monastery at Łekno, see Semkowicz, “Ród,” pp. 207–8. Ogier was not a relative of Zbylut but in all likelihood an affine through marriage to one of Zbylut's nieces; see also Dobosz, “Dokument,” p. 78.

58. K.Wp., no. 82 (1214), p. 79. Peter was a son of one of Zbylut's nephews.

59. Ibid., no. 18 (1153), p. 24; Dobosz, “Dokument,” p. 54: “Notum sit omnibus quod dux Bolezlaws frater Mesiconis contulit … villám nomine Manthev, Predzlaus pater Chebde Glovicov, Prandota Vereniz, Predwoy Loscuniam, Brodislaus Olesno, uxor Zbyluti Gostizlave et Kasckov, filii eius Corpvice, Mocrhonoz: Zlavnicus, Petrus, Ogerius.”

60. Ibid.

61. K.Wp., no. 82 (1214), p. 79: “Petras monachus comitis Zlavenici filius … resignavit et contulit has hereditates, videlicet Raccove et Gromadno, quas in divisione inter alios suos fratres iure hereditario iuste percepit.”

62. Ibid., no. 88 (1216), p. 83. Here is Swietosfaw's description of the different portions of the estate relevant to the subsequent discussion: “Uxori vero mee partem de Lukna que me attinet, Sedlez, Balosliw habebit, ut pro illis anniversarium mee depositionis singulis annis usque ad finem vite valeat observare. Post obitum ipsius, filii fratram meorum ipsas villas dividant. Radgost vero nullo impediente libere pro se habebit, et reliquas villas post fluvium qui Uvira vocatur iacentes pueris Drogomiri fratris mei senioris longe postea [sic] dabit, qui, seu filii ipsorum, cetera inter se dividant. Denique famíliám meam, prout usque commisimus, uxor in memoria habeat.”

63. K.Wp., no. 167 (1234), p. 144. The date of this document had been debated, but it was undoubtedly compiled substantially after 1234; the participants, adults here, are recorded in other sources as parties before Duke Władysław Łokietek in 1297. Semkowicz therefore implies that the document was compiled in 1284 and that the scribe omitted part of the date; oddly, he also refers to it as compiled in 1248 (perhaps through a misprint of his own). See Semkowicz, “Ród,” p. 209.

64. K.Wp., no. 167 (1234), p. 144: “commutano inter dominům abbatem de Lukna et filios meos videlicet Petriconem et Vincentium, de Bukosz et Bukowe meo consensu et voluntate rationaliter existit ordinata.”

65. Ibid: “et quia in divisione hereditatum dictante iustitia quilibet filiorum meorum portionem sibi cedentem a me recepit et possedit, ad dictas hereditates scilicet Bukosz et Bukowe nullus ex his aliquem habeat respectum aut facultatem requirendi.”

66. We have no dates for the births or deaths of anyone within the family who can be traced back to Zbylut and who endowed the Łekno monastery, and the family's reconstruction is further complicated by the recurrence of a small set of personal names (Slawnik, Peter, Drogomir, Swiętoslaw, and Zbylut) over several generations. For Swietostaw's brothers, see Semkowicz, “Ród,” p. 208.

67. See note 62 above.

68. For Bronisz and his grants, see Koczy, Leon, “Bronisz,” Polski Słownik Biograficzny (Kraków, 1935–), 1: 473–74Google Scholar; Kolańczyk, Najdawniejsze polskie prawo, p. 21; Górecki, Economy, pp. 222–27; Bartlett, The Making, pp. 142–43. For Przybigniew, see Górecki, Economy, pp. 110–11, 219, 235.

69. K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16.

70. Ibid., no. 194 (1236), pp. 166–67; no. 196 (1236), pp. 165–66; no. 198 (1236), p. 169; no. 225 (1240), pp. 189–90; S.U. 2: no. 73 (1234), 46–47.

71. Ibid., no. 190(1236), p. 163.

72. K.Wp., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; no. 194 (1236), pp. 166–67; no. 196 (1236), pp. 165–66; no. 198 (1236), p. 169; no. 225 (1240), pp. 189–90; S.U. 2: no. 73 (1234), 46–47.

73. Ibid., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16; no. 193 (1236), p. 165; no. 198 (1236), p. 169; no. 225 (1240), pp. 189–90.

74. Ibid., no. 126 (1230), pp. 113–14; no. 128 (1230), pp. 115–16.

75. Ibid., p. 114: “locum proprietatis mee qui dicitur Gostekovve … a nobis et ab heredibus nostris mero et pleno iure conferuntur et collata confirmantur.”

76. Ibid., no. 128(1230), p. 115.

77. Ibid. Here is Bronisz's description of the different portions of the estate relevant to the subsequent discussion: “post mortem meam et uxoris mee omnia bona mea et uxoris mee mobilia et immobilia, et omnes hereditates meas que paterno et hereditario iure michi cesseront cum omni iure et utilitate sicuti ego possedi …, eodem iure quo et prima videlicet Gostichovo …; familiam meam et uxoris mee, iumenta quoque et peccora, supellectilem, et si que sint alie vel emergere possunt utilitates que hic non specificantur universe et universaliter omnes—prenominate abbacie videlicet Paradyso … a me et ab uxore mea pleno iure conferuntur et confirmantur.”

78. Ibid.: “ego Bronissius fundator Paradysi presens scriptum sigilli mei inpressione duxi roborandum.”

79. Ibid., no. 190 (1236), p. 163: “ego Pribigneus et mater mea nomine Woicecha et uxor mea nomine Zdislava … communi consensu et pari voto contulimus … fratribus de Paradyso … locum quendam nostre hereditatis nomine Rusenove.”

80. Ibid., nos. 126, 128 (1230), pp. 113–15.

81. S.U. 2: no. 73 (1234), 46, lines 43–44: “locum proprietatis sue qui dicitur Gostecove accedente consensu fratris sui Sandevvoi contulit et assignavit.”

82. K.Wp., no. 194(1236), p. 166: “claustro cuius ipse fundator est, post mortem ipsius et uxoris sue, contulit”; and in another passage: “piene et universaliter contulit omnia bona sua et uxoris sue post mortem eorum et omnes hereditates suas supradictis fratribus … eodem iure quo et prima scilicet Gostichovo contulit, contulit et confirmavit universa.”

83. “Bronissius Dei gracia comes et fundator claustri”: ibid., no. 193 (1236), p. 165; no. 198 (1236), p. 169; no. 225 (1240), pp. 189–90.

84. K.Maz., no. 124 (1190), pp. 119–20.

85. Ibid., p. 119, lines 21–23.

86. Ibid., lines 21, 23–24: “trado … bona mea in hune modům.”

87. Ibid., lines 25–27.

88. Ibid., lines 27–31: “Si … aliquando diuina mediante clemencia in prefato loco habitům religionis suscipere uoluerit ut mihi sub iuramento quandoque promisit, omnes hereditates meas ei do,” which Dzierżko then enumerates.

89. Ibid., line 32–p. 120, line 2: “Si autem in alio claustro habitum suscipere uoluerit de his omnibus supra dictis hereditatibus et de familia de ceterisque bonis nichil penitus sibi detur preter uestes quibus tegitur, sed omnia non frater meus episcopus Vitus immo fratres et sorores supradicte religionis perpetuo iure obtineant.”

90. Ibid., p. 120, lines 7–10.

91. Lesiński, however, considers Dzierżko's will in its entirety as an example of the use of widows as mediators in their husbands' grants of estates to the institutional Church (Stanowisko, p. 111, and n. 231). Unlike the will itself, he does not distinguish between the different scenarios for the size of her estate. He clearly implies that, under all circumstances, Dzierżko's estate would eventually revert to the monastery—which, however, seems to me not to account for Dzierżko's (admittedly ambiguous) expectations of what Vitus might or might not do.

92. K.Maz., no. 124 (1190), p. 120, lines 2–7.

93. Ibid., no. 167 (1206–27), pp. 154–56.

94. Ibid., p. 154, line 33–p. 155, line 1; the full clause states: “Ego getco … protestor … quod ataws noster Woycszlaus ex atauia nostra filia Kelconis que fuit prima vxor eius genuit auos nostros ianusonem et troianum.”

95. Ibid., p. 155, lines 1–6: “Post hec accepit secundam uxorem dobechnam filiam Kiliáni de qua cum non suscepisset aliquam prolem nec speraret se suscepturum, contulit ei omnes villas quas habet ecclesia sánete Marie in plocsk que de nomine eius uocatur ecclesia Woyzlave ut de eis facérét quidquid uellet, siue uenderet siue daret illas libere cuicunque uellet.”

96. Ibid., lines 6–10.

97. Ibid., p. 155, line 15—p. 156, line 2: “ego presenti scripto profiteor … coram … duce, presente petre [gap in text] troiani … quod ego in eadem ecclesia non dominor ut heres quia πec ego πec cognati mei omnes habent aliquid ius.” My identification of the relationship of Peter to Trojan, Wojsław, and Gedko is based on the clause presente petre[ ]troiani, and the clause cited in n. 94 above. The editor, Korwin-Kochanowski, notes the gap on the parchment of the original document (ibid., nn. 6, e), without substantive comment; could the gap record a loss of familial memory of which Gedko's reconstruction itself was a partial remedy?

98. Ibid., p. 156, lines 2–3: “uniuerso iure in episcopum et maiorem ecclesiam plocensem collato per dobechnam que in nullo cognata nostra fuerit.”

99. Lesiński, Stanowisko, pp. 43–56; Adamus, “O prawie dziedziczenia,” pp. 132–42; Koczerska, Rodzina, pp. 43—44; the arguments go back to Winiarz, Alojzy, “Polskie prawo dziedziczenia kobiet w wiekach średnich” [The Polish law of inheritance by women in the Middle Ages], Kwartalnik Historyczny 10 (1896): 756–812Google Scholar—substantially a consensus view, despite the date.

100. Lesiński describes Wojslaw's (and Dzierżko's) estate squarely as “the husband's estate” (majątek mężowski), without explaining why; Stanowisko, p. 111, n. 231.

101. Women are on record as heirs of movables and slaves (perhaps the “households” recorded by Bronisz and Dzierżko) and as donors, codonors, buyers, and sellers of landed estates (which cannot be identified as their own or their relatives' inheritances); Lesiński, Stanowisko, pp. 29–40, 100–102.

102. Lesiński, Stanowisko, p. 111.

103. K.Maz., no. 167 (1206–27), p. 156, lines 2–3: “ne post decursum longioris temporis cognati mei atemptent hoc ius avellere a kathedra plocensis episcopi et ecclesie sicut aliquando frater meus per violentiam atemptauit.”

104. For this variant of the donatio, see Chénon and Olivier-Martin, Histoire générale 2: 127—28. Perhaps, as in Abraham, Władysław, Zawarcie Małżeństwa w pierwotnem prawie polskiem [Entrance into marriage under the earliest Polish law] (Lwów, 1925), p. 46Google Scholar, n. 2, Wojstaw's gift to Dobiechna was a dower (dobra wienne); however, after her death, a dower would presumably revert to the husband's family, that is, Wojslaw's descendants—including Gedko, directly contrary to his rationale; see Chénon and Olivier-Martin, Histoire 1: 103.