Thus, at least in the light of the chronicles, there are no grounds for maintaining, stating, writing or repeating that Bolesławiec received municipal rights according to German models ("such as it has") in 1251. The information conveyed to us by Wernicki about the intervention of fifteenth-century municipal scribes obviously imposes an obligation—for how eloquent is the memory, preserved through centuries and generations, of the sources of the rights possessed, replacing written evidence and documents—but neither can it be linked exclusively to Bolesław Rogatka. Admittedly, another date from the period of his rule here cannot be ruled out. But when the chroniclers show no awareness of such a date, one that would seem so important in the history of the town, and encyclopedias give only the single unconfirmed date of 1251, then one must also take into account the connection of this event with the founding of the town through the agency of Bolesław Wysoki, as Holstein states, around 1190.
Following Wernicki’s opinion expressed above, it cannot be said that the thesis would be unrealistic: that the settlement expanded beneath the stronghold, fortified and surrounded by walls, had already acquired the character of a town (oppidum) at that time and, over the years, adopted “new” urban and self-government forms of administration and customs from other towns equipped with Western law, and that this became established in the memory of subsequent generations. Such emancipation of the town, as we have already said, would not have been an isolated occurrence in Poland. In the twelfth century, a very active settlement movement was developing, among other places, in Silesia, encouraging the creation of settlements with an urban character, which could have led to the development of a certain self-governmental organization. Admittedly, under feudal conditions this could not, in principle, take place without the ruler’s consent. Everything belonged to him: both the land and the people. Thus, a constant struggle took place between him and society over the expansion and preservation of possessions. The only certain legitimization of concessions obtained from the duke, in the face of the ruler’s greed, consisted of documents granting rights and privileges. Hence the frequent demands by towns and villages that successive rulers confirm the rights and freedoms they had obtained. No duke would have given up the opportunity to extract tribute from a town in exchange for the privilege of municipal rights. A concession by the ruler was never selfless. Each granting of a privilege diminished the feudal ruler’s sphere of authority, while the granting of municipal rights placed an organized community between him and his subjects—something he could, in principle, tolerate only for a specified price.
A more liberal view of this issue in our case is permitted by the specific socio-political character of the situation—a kind of interregnum in Silesia after the death of Bolesław Krzywousty—which favored the independent, autonomous emancipation of Bolesławiec, the capital, after all, of the Bobrzanie tribe. To this settlement spontaneously developed on the western outskirts of the country, surrounded by numerous villages and situated at the crossroads of routes to Lubań and Zgorzelec, and onward to Leipzig, Bolesław I Wysoki could have granted certain rights around 1190, legalizing the self-government that had previously arisen here.
Bolesławiec could therefore indeed have possessed a kind of municipal rights—that is, a more or less independent self-government—from the time of Bolesław Wysoki, and could have authenticated them, since Henryk I was in no hurry to “sell” him those rights. But the town may also have been too poor for this at that moment; it must be said that in terms of wealth, Lwówek had already surpassed it. The duke may also have counted on the town applying for confirmation of those rights, and, wishing to force it to do so, deliberately failed to refer to its rights in the 1233 document concerning Nowogrodziec. It nevertheless seems beyond doubt that the most important reason for Bolesławiec’s being ignored at that time—despite unquestionably surpassing Nowogrodziec in importance—was the fact, respected by the duke, that it functioned under Polish law, whereas Nowogrodziec was obtaining German law. It was different from that of the more important Bolesławiec, in relation to which the location of this new town was defined. True, this was 30 years later (1265), which nevertheless does not alter the substance of the matter.
As for the Polish law of that period, it initially consisted of the ruler’s will and later, until the so-called Sachsenspiegel was adopted, of privileges, foundation documents and, above all, custom sanctioned by the ruler’s will and secured by state coercion. Within this framework, every town or township, once it had in this sense freed itself from the castellan’s direct authority, had its own law, although in reality these laws derived from a common basis.
Jan G. Bergemann, who, besides the 1829 chronicle of Bolesławiec, also wrote a chronicle of Lwówek, a history of Grodziec and other works, is harshly criticized by Wernicke, who accuses him of writing “fabricated things.” An analysis of his chronicle based on Polish historiography—for example, in the section covering the history of the rulers of Bolesławiec from Mieszko I onward—nevertheless makes it possible to establish his factuality, objectivity and consistency with historical facts. His scholarly apparatus is admittedly inferior to that of Dr Wernicke, who is also objective but for whom the memory of generations is not an argument, unlike documents that can be found. The objectivity of both authors is subordinated to different points of view. While Bergemann writes from the position of a Silesian, Wernicke represents the viewpoint of a German, expressed, for example, in the belief that granting a town German law—or, in reality, law based on the German model—constitutes and makes that town a German town. Hence, for the latter, the history of Bolesławiec begins with the first written documents, although he too does not deny the Polish character of Silesia before German colonization. Bergemann’s work is also based on “all works published in print, a great many manuscripts, documents and other unpublished sources.” There can be no doubt that this work is scholarly in character.
According to this author, one should accept, “on the basis of reliable historical accounts” (B. 1, 23–24), that the former ducal stronghold or castle in Bolesławiec was built by Bolesław I Chrobry between 1018 and 1025. A settlement developed beside the stronghold, in which, in 1205, Duchess Jadwiga, the wife of Henryk I Brodaty, built a church in front of the Upper Gate. At first it was not a castellan stronghold, since even the document of Pope Hadrian IV from 1155, confirming the extent of the Wrocław bishopric, does not mention a castellany in Bolesławiec (cf. H. 13)'"' although Bolesławiec itself may be sought there under the mysterious name “Szobolezke,” among the strongholds on the Bóbr, something Bergemann, like the others, does not take into consideration.
- cf. Franciszek Lenczewski, Studies on the Problems of Silesian Towns up to the End of the Sixteenth Century, Opole 1965, p. 12
- “Sachsenspiegel,” a private compilation of Saxon law made approximately between 1215 and 1235, which Kazimierz Wielki granted binding force in Poland in 1356, when he deposited its manuscript in the higher court of German law that he had established at Kraków Castle; cf. Stanisław Kutrzeba, History of the Sources of Old Polish Law, Lwów–Warsaw–Kraków, Ossoliński National Institute Publishing House, vol. 1, p. 204
- Stanisław Kutrzeba, op. cit., p. 200
- According to Prof. Kutrzeba, the law applied in Polish towns was referred to as German law, or more precisely as Magdeburg (Środa), Chełmno or Lübeck law (cf. op. cit., p. 199). The designation itself is misleading, even when referring to the literal text of such law, and it underwent substantial modifications. Such a text, together with the instructions accompanying it, became Polish law when it obtained the ruler’s consent and sanction for its application, along with direct or implied state coercion. This is what happened, for example, when in 1261 the Silesian dukes Henryk II Pobożny and Władysław recognized, with certain reservations, the instructions from Magdeburg as binding law for Wrocław (ibid., p. 207).
- Abbreviation (H...) for the title and page of the book: Haude, Gocke, Heimatbuch des Kreises Bunzlau, Bolesławiec 1925 (called the Bolesławiec Almanac by the translator).
- cf. G. Labuda, Studies on the Beginnings of the Polish State, vol. 1.1, Poznań 1989, p. 226