Economy and population of an Early Modern village: Milčice — home of the most famous Bohemian peasant F. J. Vavák

Economy and population of an Early Modern village: Milčice— home of the most famous Bohemian peasant F.J. Vavák* Tomáš Klír— dana vodáková The aim of the study is to provide basic socio-economic and demographic characteristics of Milčice in the 18th century, and thus create the prerequisites both for an adequate interpretation of Vavák’s Memoirs and for the study of these aspects of the peasant past, which other sources do not explain in similar complexity. KEYWORDS: Central Bohemia; Early Modern Period; 1700–1800; Agrarian History; Demography; Peasant Economy 1. INTRODUCTION The Memoirs of František J.Vavák is asource that is unique in Europe and as yet seldom evaluated for knowledge of traditional peasant communities in the pre-industrial period.1 Unlike the predominant types of sources, it opens adirect and exceptionally detailed approach to the past of amilieu, the members of which usually did not have the need or the opportunity to document their life for along time in writing. We can hence only with difficulty find for Vavák’s Memoirs, in fact having the character of systematic and long-kept journals, an adequate comparison, even in the wider European measure.2 Whereas, in other European countries, monographic micro studies into the * The article was produced as part of the research projects Landscape of Medieval Prague (16-20763S) and Rural Settlements in Bohemia in the Age of Transition (14th to 16th century) (P405/12/P715) supported by Czech Science Foundation. Chap.1–4 and 6 by T.Klír; chap.5 by D.Vodáková. English by Sean M.Miller. 1 Jindřich SKOPEC (ed.), Paměti Františka J.Vaváka, souseda arychtáře milčického zlet 1770–1816 [Memoirs of František J.Vavák, Neighbour and Reeve of Milčice from 1770–1816]. KnihaI/1 (1770–1780); I/2 (1781–1783), II/1 (1784–1786); II/2 (1787–1790); III/1 (1791–1794); III/2 (1795–1797); III/3 (1798–1801), IV (1802–1806), V(1807–1810), Praha 1907–1938 (herein after only as Vavák I/1, II/1 etc.); Stanislava JONÁŠOVÁ (ed.), Paměti Františka Jana Vaváka, souseda arychtáře milčického zlet 1770–1816. Kniha VI–VII (1810–1816), Prameny kdějinám českého myšlení 11, Praha 2009 (prepared for publication by Martin Kučera). 2 Cf. Klaus-Joachim LORENZEN-SCHMIDT— Bjørn POULSEN (edd.), Bäuerliche Anschreibebücher als Quellen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Neumünster 1992; IDEM (edd.), Writing Peasants: Studies on Peasant Literacy in Early Modern Northern Europe, Kerteminde 2002; Jan PETERS (ed.), Mit Pflug und Gänsekiel. Selbzeuignisse schreibender Bauern. Eine Anthologie, Selbstzeugnisse der Neuzeit 12, Böhlau 2003. Other texts by Czech peasants are not diOPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 107 world of traditional peasant communities have to rely usually only on external official written evidence, Czech historiography has asource, which illuminates otherwise hard-to-know parts of past reality.3 In this place, we plan to present the basic socio-economic and demographic characteristic of Milčice, and thus create the prerequisites for afurther systematic study of one of the many aspects, which Memoirs opens to us, specifically ageneral knowledge of peasant economy and families.4 František J.Vavák began to write his journal records in the early spring of 1770. From that time almost until his death in 1816, he relatively systematically recorded the weather fluctuations, seasonal course of agricultural work, the growth and harvest of the crops, the course of the grazing of the cattle and also the prices of agricultural products at the local and regional markets.5 He then interspersed this basic, routine and more or less stable in content skeleton with other records of adiverse character and size.6 What is substantial is that Vavák’s notes mediated aview of peasrectly comparable with Vavák, because they do not achieve his systematic nature and depth or are later and further already from the period of traditional agriculture. Cf. the contributions by Zdeněk Beneš, Marek Fapšo, and others in this issue. 3 Of many, at least Rainer BECK, Unterfinning. Ländliche Welt vor Anbruch der Moderne, München 2004. Abasic synopsis of the other foreign micro-studies, see e.g. Eva ČERNÁ— Tomáš KLÍR, Osídlení Krušných hor vmladším středověku araném novověku: kontext acíle interdisciplinárního výzkumu [Settlement in the Ore Mountains in the Later Middle ages and Early Modern Period: Context and Aims of Interdisciplinary Research], in: Ivana Boháčová— Petr Sommer (edd.), Středověká Evropa vpohybu: kpoctě Jana Klápště, Praha, pp.105–118 (here Fig. 1). 4 On the economic aspects preliminarily, see also Tomáš KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd vmladším středověku araném novověku [Settlement of Agriculturally Marginal Lands in the Later Middle Ages and Early Modern Period], Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque, Praha 2008, pp.62–69. Further cf. František KUTNAR, František Jan Vavák, Postavy české minulosti 3, Praha 1941, pp.94–125. 5 On the agricultural cycle and economy of the Milčice peasants, cf. T.KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.62–69; on the records of the weather, see, e.g. Rudolf BRÁZDIL— Oldřich KOTYZA, Současná historická klimatologie amožnosti jejího využití vhistorickém výzkumu [Contemporary Historical Climatology and the Possibility of its Use in Historical Research], in: Bronislav Chocholáč (ed.), Historie ainterdisciplinární výzkum, Brno 2002, pp.17–59; on Vavák’s records of the price relations, cf. Josef PETRÁŇ, Ceny obilí atržní okruhy vČechách v18.apočátkem 19. století [Price of Corns and Market Circuits in the 18th and Beginning of the 19th Centuries], Acta Universitatis Carolinae— Philosophica et Historica 3 (1977), 1979, pp.9–49 (here pp.19–20, 31–33). 6 On the assessment of Vavák’s Memoirs, cf. F.KUTNAR, František Jan Vavák; Luděk ŠMÍD, Lidoví kronikáři středního Polabí I.Franěk Jan Vavák— typ selského autodidakta aregionálního kronikáře [Folk Chroniclers of the Middle Elbe River Basin I: Franěk Jan Vavák— Type of Rural Autodidact and Regional Chronicler], Práce Oblastního muzea vPoděbradech B/1, Poděbrady 1967; Stanislava JONÁŠOVÁ-HÁJKOVÁ, Vavák ajeho pojetí českých dějin [Vavák and his Conception of Bohemian History], Český časopis historický 35, 1929, Nr.2, pp.325–380, 548–602. On the life of Vavák, cf. also EADEM, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka [Autobiography of F.J. Vavák], Středočeský sborník historický 13, 1978, Nr. 2, pp.225–258, 14, 1979, Nr. 1, pp.123–155. OPEN ACCESS 108 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 ant economy before and after the onset of radical Early Modern reforms. From the Memoirs, or also from the Description of the Village Milčice and Autobiography it arises that Vavák still stood fully in the earlier socio-economic and demographic traditions with adeep-reaching continuity, and his journal entries reflect in such anoteworthy way the conflict of traditional and new-coming epochs.7 We first briefly characterize the village of Milčice, its ecological conditions, agricultural system and socio-economic and demographic structure of the peasant community. It will be important in that to determine what Milčice’s relative position was on the imaginary socio-economic ladder of villages located in the Elbe River Basin (Czech: Polabí). We then confront the achieved determination with Vavák’s description of Milčice, events and position with the aim of indicating new perspectives for the research of peasant communities. 2. MILČICE (1778/1785) 2. 1. GEOGRaPHIc cOnTEXT Early Modern Milčice lay on the chamber Poděbrady estate, which in the period after White Mountain included at first 47 villages and the subject township of Poděbrady and Sadská, the number of villages rose to 58 after the closure of the manorial lords’ courts and draining of the ponds during Raabization (the agrarian reform transformed the forced labour services of serfs to monetary payments to the overlord; 1777–1780/1783).8 The territory of the estate was divided by the flow of the Elbe River (Czech: Labe) into two parts, on the slightly larger right-bank part with Poděbrady and the smaller left-bank part with Sadská (Figures 1–3).9 Milčice was located in the 7 Vavák’s description of Milčice (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”) from 1796 was published along with the second part of the third book of the Memoirs (Vavák III/2, pp.70–88); abiography from the same year was issued by S.JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, esp. pp.123–129 (1979). 8 Cf. Lenka MATUŠÍKOVÁ, Die Entwicklung der Wirtschaftsund Sozialstrukturen in der Herrschaft Poděbrady, in: Markus Cerman— Hermann Zeitlhofer (edd.), Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen. Ein regionaler Vergleich von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Gutsherrschaften, 16.–19. Jahrhundert, Sozialund Wirtschaftshistorische Studien 28, Wien— München2002, pp.59–69; Lenka MATUŠÍKOVÁ— Alena PAZDEROVÁ, Regionen mit kommerzieller Landwirtschaft und in agrarischer Randlage im Vergleich: die Herrschaften Poděbrady und Rychnov nad Kněžnou, ibid., pp.126–144; Lenka MATUŠÍKOVÁ, Hospodářské asociální poměry na panství Poděbrady po třicetileté válce [Economic and Social Relations at the Estate Poděbrady after the Thirty Years’ War], Středočeský sborník historický 22/23, 1996/1996, pp.51–70; EADEM, Rozvoj řemeslné výroby na panství Poděbrady v17. a18. století [Development of Craft Production at the Estate Poděbrady in the 17th and 18th Centuries], Historická demografie22, 1998, pp.69–78. 9 On the Poděbrady estate within the chamber manor estate, Eduard MAUR, Český komorní velkostatek v17. století [Bohemian Chamber Manor Estate in the 17th Century], Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et Historica, Monographia 59, 1975, Praha 1976; IDEM, OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 109 neighbourhood of Sadská and also protruded to the southwest edge of the estate, to the neighbourhood of the Radim, Kostelec nad Černými lesy and Přerov estate. An important route from Prague to Silesia ran through the estate as well as the so-called Leipzig highway, connecting Vienna directly with Dresden and Leipzig, the importance of which dropped, however, after the middle of the 18th century. The economy of the serfs was oriented for the most part on market agriculture, with the natural sales market being the Prague metropolis and in amediated way also the mountainous areas. Anumber of synthetic and regional studies has been to various degrees devoted to the economic and social relations on the Poděbrady estate in the Early Modern Period, and the estate was as included as arepresentative of the lower grain area in the extensive research project “Rural Social Structures in Bohemia in the 16th–19th Centuries”, but Vavák’s records have never been consistently used in this regard.10 2.2. naTuRaL cOndITIOnS and aGRIcuLTuRaL SYSTEM While the Poděbrady estate was in the agro-climatically exceptionally favourable lowlands of the Elbe River Basin, the productivity of the agricultural production of the individual villages was diverse through the influence of uneven soil conditions (Figures 1–2). Both villages located on optimal black-earth soil (soil quality classes 2–4 of the Theresian Cadastre) and villages with one of the weakest of mineral soils at all, which lay on the wind-blown sands along the Elbe River (classes 7–8) were represented at the estate.11 Milčice extended precisely on the boundary, which economically advantaged it in many regards also against the villages with hinterland entirely on loess black-earth soils. The partial natural disposition of Milčice was not inherently extremely favourable, but the crucial advantage was precisely the ecological diversity and possibility to combine suitably corn growing and the breeding cattle, effectively spreading the work capacity and also the fertility risk.12 The arable area of Milčice is composed of two contrastingly different places (Figures 4–5). First, from the south part situated on the higher Elbe River terrace, the black-earth brown soils of which were more easily tillable and provided relatively high and stable yields. Second, from the north part, which took alower position, covZemědělská výroba na pobělohorském komorním velkostatku vČechách [Agricultural Production at the post-White Mountain Chamber Manor Estate in Bohemia], in: Prameny astudie 33, Praha 1990, pp.3–129. 10 Cf. above. See further, Josef PETRÁŇ, Poddaný lid vČechách na prahu třicetileté války [Serfs in Bohemia on the Verge of the Thirty Years’ War], Praha 1963; Markus CERMAN— Eduard MAUR, Proměny vesnických sociálních struktur vČechách 1650–1750 [Transformations of Village Social Structures in Bohemia, 1650–1750], Český časopis historický 98, 2000, Nr.4, pp.737–774; M.CERMAN— H.ZEITLHOFER (edd.), Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen. 11 Aleš CHALUPA et al., Tereziánský katastr český, sv. 1 a2, Rustikál (kraje A–CH aK–Ž) [Theresian Bohemian Cadastre, Vols.1 and 2, Rustic (Regions A–CH and K–Ž)], Praha 1964/1966; on that, cf. Eduard MAUR, Český tereziánský katastr, review, in: Acta Universitatis Carolinae— Philosophica et Historica 3, 1972, pp.127–131. 12 In more detail, see T.KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.62–69. OPEN ACCESS 110 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 ered mainly by sediments from the Brooks Šembera and Milčický, which were tillable only with three-to-four draft animals and provided extremely instable yields. What is important is that (1) both parts of the arable land were complementary, hence crop failure in one part of the arable land was usually accompanied by agood crop in the second part; (2) also the agricultural cycle in both parts of the arable land was shifted, and so seasonal work was possible to spread effectively over alonger time period; (3)each of the two parts of the arable land offered optimal conditions for other corns, or other agricultural products. Moreover, Milčice did not suffer from alack of meadows and pastures, hence aweakness, which usually affected other villages lying on quality soils, the whole hinterland was drawn into arable farming and fallow system (Figure 6).13 We do not find this advantage, which also Vavák emphasized with the apt formulation “After all the pastures and breeding of cattle make this village lucky”, to asimilar extent with any other village in the Poděbrady estate.14 The agricultural system of Milčice had all of the traditional features: it was characterized by athree-field fallow system; the cultivation of the traditional spectrum of corns, legumes and flax; non-systematic fertilization; ploughing dependent on the favourable physical features of the soil; ploughing the seedbeds and harvest by sickles. In terms of the breeding of livestock, cattle and sheep were not permanently in stalls and in the course of the year they grazed outdoors if possible (communal grazing); the supplies of forage were not large and before the winter and in crisis situations the cattle had to be slaughtered. Also the spread of the agricultural work during the year had atraditional character, which varied depending on the course of weather. The serfs were burdened with corvée obligations (forced labour of serfs to the overlord) only until 1777, when corvée was shifted to monetary payments within Raabization of the chamber estates.15 2.3. SOcIO-EcOnOMIc STRucTuRE Size of farmsteads The basic socio-economic structure of Milčice remained relatively stable from the middle of the 16th to 18th centuries, until Vavák’s childhood. For all of this period, the village was comprised of 12 peasant and 2 smallholder farmsteads/holdings (Czech: selská / chalupnická usedlost), the extent of the rustic arable land was always given in aconversion of around 350 ha (Figure 7). The peasant farmsteads were not the same size, but large farmsteads with an area of 1–2½ hides (9×, i.e. 75%) dominated.16 13 Ibid., pp.62–67; Vavák III/1, pp.79–82; S.JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, esp. pp.123–129 (1979); Národní archiv v Praze [National Archive in Prague, hereinafter NA Prague], Josefský katastr [Collection of the Josephine Cadastre], Milčice with the incorporated village of Pečky, fasse and documents, inv. Nr. 1188. Cf. also Vavák III/2, pp.79–81 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”). 14 Vavák III/2, p.82 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”); see on that also Vavák III/1, p.100 (1793). 15 T. KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp. 62–69; Vavák III/1, pp. 79–82; S.JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, esp. pp.123–129 (1979). 16 The measures used in the Early Modern Poděbrady estate are summarized, e.g. by August SEDLÁČEK, Paměti adoklady ostaročeských mírách aváhách, Rozpravy České akademie věd OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 111 Three farmsteads were smaller, because their furnishing reached ½–¾ of ahide. The normed area of the two smallholder farmsteads did not surpass ⅛ of ahide (Table 1). The village also had abutchery and pub, common shepherd’s hut and smithy. Besides the urbarium and cadastral registries, there were several independent buildings of the landless, inmate-lodgers or Jews.17 The social structure did not change dramatically even during Vavák’s life in the 2nd half of the 18th century, when the number of smallholder (from 2 to 3) and peasant farmsteads (from 12 to 15) slightly increased.18 As aconsequence of the division, the difference slightly decreased in the furnishings of the large peasant farmsteads.19 At the end of the 18th century farmsteads with ¾–1½ hides of fields (9×) dominated in the village, there further followed medium large farmsteads with ½ to ¾ of ahide (4×) and on the other end of the spectrum two exceptionally large two-hide farmsteads had survived (Table 2). Raabization did not affect Milčice very much, only afew farmsteads were expanded by 1–3 measures of meadows from the parcelled common land (asquare measure— Czech: měřice; 2/3 of arod = 1918.2 m2).20 Corn production and work demands— general remarks The square or sowing size in and of itself informs only on the minimal work demands of the farmstead, not on the real economic possibilities, because those were depenaumění I/66, Praha 1923, pp.25, 62, 73, 77–79, 221–225. Payment: 1 hide (Czech: korec, strych) = 10 threescore seedbeds (Czech: záhon) = approx. 18.1 ha; 1 hide = 60 or 72 Bohemian rods (see rod, perch or pole); 1 Bohemian rod = 0.28773 ha. 17 Státní oblastní archiv Praha [State District Archive in Prague, hereinafter SDA Prague], Velkostatek Poděbrady [Collection of the Manor Poděbrady], inv. Nr. 2, urbarium of the estate from 1553 (Registra Urbur[ni] aneb Sprawni [Pan]stwi Podiebra[dskeho]), fol.38v–40v; SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 3, urbarium of the estate from 1553 1590 (Urbur panstwi J.M.C. podiebradskeho zalozzen Letha Panie 1590), fol.18r–21r; Václav PEŠÁK (ed.), Berní rula 12. Kraj Hradecký I, Praha 1951, pp.39–40. SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 553, revisitation of the excise tax rule from 1679 (Recalculace rustikálního katastru 1679); NA Prague, Tereziánský katastr [Collection of the Theresian Cadastre], Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 719, documents; NA Prague, Collection of the Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse. 18 Situation for 1178: Situation for 1778— SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 16, Geometrische Realausmessungs= Tabelle A, all of the rustic plots, which the serfs “held from time immemorial”, pag. 279–298. Situation in 1785: Situation for 1785— NA Prague, Collection of the Josephine Cadastre, Milčice with the incorporated village of Pečky, fasse and documents, inv. Nr. 1188. 19 The number, which we list in this article, correspond to the first official numbering from 1771, which was used also for the Raabization plan from 1778, but there was are-numbering of the farmsteads still during Vavák’s life, at the beginning of the 19th century, which essentially has remained valid to this day. 20 SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, Geometrische Realausmessungs= Tabelle A, inv. Nr. 16, pag. 279–298; NA Prague, Collection of the Josephine Cadastre, Milčice with the incorporated village of Pečky, fasse and documents, inv. Nr. 1188; Vavák I/1, p.85; Vavák III/2, p.78 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”). OPEN ACCESS 112 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 dent on the productivity of the soil. Therefore, the crucial questions are: How distinct could the market orientation of the Milčice farmsteads be? To which extent could the family of the farmstead holder cover the work demands and when was it already necessary to integrate permanently other manpower such as farm workers, maids and inmate-lodgers? With how large an economic risk were the farmsteads burdened? What were the differences between the individual farmsteads? The approximate answer can be found in acritical analysis of the data of the Theresian (the national tax register compiled 1713–1757) and Josephine Cadastre (compiled 1785/1789), which registered the extent of the arable/sown areas, the level of the long-term average yields, the size of the meadows and pastures. The Theresian Cadastre also recorded the number of draft animals and other cattle. The first crucial indicator is utility, hence the relation of the net annual yield of bread corn and the ideal annual consumption of an adult individual. The second indicator are the work demands, which were dependent mainly on the size of the arable areas and the number of cattle raised. Firstly, according to the utility, we can approximately determine the relation of the subsistence and market production of the farmstead. Secondly, according to the level of the work demands then how much workforce of the farmstead is needed for its operation, hence when it could be still self-sufficient in terms of work and when it was already necessary to integrate more permanently the servants (Czech: čeleď) or inmate-lodgers (Czech: podruh). Naturally, the interpretation importance of the values listed in the cadastres, the method of the calculations and indispensable simplification require the broad discussion, which we summarize in another place— for traditional agriculture and three-field fallow system.21 In terms of the utility, we consider six measures of bread corn per person, hence about 18 measures for abiological family (2 adults and 2–3 children), as the boundary limit (agrain measure = 61.49 l; Czech: měřice). The amount of the potential surpluses, which could head for the market in some form, was then determined by the difference between the utility and the number of the people sustained on the farmstead. Large farmsteads had greater yields, but usually also required larger workforces. Naturally, the yields fluctuate from year to year, and so even smaller farmsteads could sometimes supply corn to the market, and on the other hand in bad years not even the large farmsteads had to have market surpluses. The influence also had acontemporary demographic composition of the farmsteads and anumber of other economic and non-economic factors, which we will leave aside here. Farmsteads with alower net yield than 18 measures could naturally be self-sufficient if they combined the food sources to be able to get by with asmaller amount of bread corns. Therefore, mainly the relative and contrast differences are important in the interpretation of the determined utility. It is difficult to determine the labour demands of the farmstead, because the farmstead ensured its own operation but in the form of corvée also shared in the operation 21 Tomáš KLÍR, Agrarsysteme des vorindustriellen Dorfes. Zur Interpretation mittelalterlicher Ortswüstungen im Niederungsund Mittelgebirgsmilieu, in: Claudia Theune et al. (edd.), Stadt— Land— Burg. Festschrift für Sabine Felgenhauer-Schmiedt zum 70. Geburtstag, Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria 34, Leidorf 2013, pp.139–157. OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 113 of the manorial economy. Based on various factors, we consider the boundary to be the extent of 12–18 rods (i.e. ⅙–¼ hide), hence the usual boundary between smallholder and peasant farmsteads and often also between farmsteads with and without apaired team of draught animals. The operation of farmsteads with less land was still taken care of by asingle biological family, further manpower was not inevitably necessary; the less plots the farmstead had, the greater free labour capacity it had. The operation of afarmstead with asize around 12/18–36/54 of rods could still be handled by one biological family, but the integration of other manpower grew towards the upper boundary; one team was sufficient for tilling the plots, nevertheless it was usually necessary to maintain other draught and manpower because of the demands of the manorial lord. Farmsteads larger than 36–54 rods (½–¾ of ahide) could hardly have been self-sufficient in terms of work, they had to maintain more than one team and integrate more manpower. It would similarly be possible to derive the work demands from the number of cattle raised, as several Austria studies show.22 We therefore in principle separate them into three main categories of serf farmsteads, namely (1)farmsteads with free work capacity (garden and cottage), (2)in terms of work more or less self-sufficient farmsteads (12/18–36/54 rods) and (3) farmsteads that were not self-sufficient in terms of work.23 In fact, the boundary was between the necessary and optimal number of manpower shifted to the farmsteads, namely 1–3 persons, because the historical evidence and economic-anthropological models consistently show that the farmstead holder and his closer family tried for anumber of reasons to move the workload onto the servants and inmate-lodgers. If the low productivity of the agricultural soil did not block that, e.g. demographic-cultural factors, the farmsteads integrated more manpower than was necessarily, namely also with figuring in the corvée obligation.24 Milčice farmsteads The aggregate data of the first fasses and ocular visitations of the Theresian Cadastre from 1714/1715 show that in the good years the ideal utility of the Milčice arable land was 743 people, still 376 people in the bad years.25 The visitation of 1726 adjusted the 22 Michael MITTERAUER, Formen ländlicher Familienwirtschaft, in: Joseph Ehmer— Michael Mitterauer (edd.), Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation in ländlichen Gesellschaften, Wien— Köln— Graz 1986, pp.185–323 (here Taf. 2). 23 On atypology of settlement understood this way in the Early Modern Period, c.f. in more detail Tomáš KLÍR— Michal BERÁNEK, ASocial-Economic Interpretation of the Layouts of Deserted Villages. An Example of aDeserted Village at the “VŽáku” Site in Klánovice Forest in Prague, in: Jaromír Žegklitz (ed.), Studies in Post-medieval Archaeology 4, Prague 2012, pp.289–364 (here pp.352–354); Tomáš KLÍR, ASocial-Economic Interpretation of the Regular Village Layouts in Bohemia and Moravia, in: Jan Klápště (ed.), Ruralia IX, Hierarchies in Rural Settlements, Turnhout 2013, pp.447–462. 24 E.g. M.MITTERAUER, Formen ländlicher Familienwirtschaft, p.202; T.KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.186–195. 25 NA Prague, Collection of the Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse 1714/1715 (Bekanntnistabella vom Jahre 1714 und Visitationsbefund vom Jahre 1715 der Herrschaft Poděbrad, ungültig), fol.48–51. OPEN ACCESS 114 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 individual values and the utility of the Milčice arable land in the long-term mean can be estimated at 453 people (Figure 7).26 We can reach surprisingly similar values by an analysis of the data of the Josephine Cadastre, according to which the long-term utility of the arable lands fluctuated around 425 people (Figure 8).27 Considering the number around 160–170 serfs (without servants), the subsistence of the Milčice farmsteads as whole was not threatened by anything in the long term and usually there were high market surpluses. Asubsistence crisis was arare event, which could affect mainly the numerous sub-peasant strata. From the perspective of the labour demands, alarge part of the serf farmsteads was distinctly not self-sufficient (1715–1726/1757). The trio of the largest peasant farmsteads required the presence of at least about 8 adults, other peasant farmsteads then around 4–6 adults. Only three farmsteads could have been self-sufficient in terms of work, including two smallholder farmsteads (Table 3). Milčice thus showed all of the typical characteristics of avillage with commercially oriented agriculture. The group of 12 peasant families also had to be complemented by ahigh amount of permanently integrated manpower— male servants, maids and inmate-lodgers. The data of the Josephine Cadastre (1785/1788) are available for the extent of agricultural production in Vavák’s period.28 We can complement the specific states of the cattle according to Vavák’s Memoirs, to which he copied areport discharged to the suzerain office in connection with acattle disease on 24 March 1799.29 Acomparison shows that the extent of the grain production and livestock as against the Theresian Cadastre still did not appreciably change (Table 2; Figure 9–11). In the long-term perspective, all of the peasant farmsteads provided alarge market surplus. Each of the largest farmsteads could feed besides itself around 15–30 other people in good and bad years, i.e. provide surpluses of around 90–180 measures ayear at the market. Even the smallest of the Milčice peasant farmsteads would have apotential surplus covering the needs of another 5 people (30 measures) in good years. Asignificant surplus can be proved also in animal production.30 The two smallholder farmsteads were focused rather on subsistence, of them, the larger one— Vavák’s— could also have market surpluses in some years. 26 NA Prague, Collection of the Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse (ocular visitation from 1726), fol.48–52. 27 NA Prague, Collection of the Josephine Cadastre, Milčice with the incorporated village of Pečky, fasse and documents, inv. Nr. 1188. On the criticism of the data of the Josephine Cadastre for Milčice, cf. T.KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.196–197. 28 NA Prague, Collection of the Josephine Cadastre, Milčice with the incorporated village of Pečky, fasse and documents, inv. Nr. 1188. 29 Vavák III/3, p.76 (1800). 30 NA Prague, Collection of the Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse 1714/1715 (Bekanntnistabella vom Jahre 1714 und Visitationsbefund vom Jahre 1715 der Herrschaft Poděbrad, ungültig), no fol., farmstead Nr. 215–228. OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 121 The village Chotouň had the same number of farmsteads, approximately the same size of arable land and similarly productive corn growing like Milčice, but it differed in the absence of meadows and only asmall share of pasturelands in its hinterlands (5%).53 The socio-economic structure of both villages was however diametrically opposite. Whereas in Milčice awide range of variously large peasant farmsteads from half-hide to two-hide were relatively equally represented, Chotouň was strongly polarized and as opposed to 6 two-hide farmsteads there stood four very small farmsteads, and the interval between them was filled by only two farmsteads. Around the middle of the 18th century, five peasant farmsteads with apub were bought by one holder, and this economic whole, although formally still divided, was maintained for all of the 2nd half of the 18th century in diverse modifications.54 There is astriking dramatic change in the demographic structure of Chotouň between 1745 and 1770, namely in all social categories (Table 6). The number of serfs doubled (103 → 210), where this growth was caused by the increase of the cottagers and inmate-lodger families and their members. The number of peasant families remained more or less the same, but the number of children and free sons and daughters decreased significantly. The share of peasant and smallholder families dropped in total number from 48% to 29%.55 The socio-economic structure of Kostelní Lhota was relatively balanced; the village was composed of alarge amount of variously sized farmsteads, among which the group of one-half to one-hide farmsteads predominated.56 The low size polarization of the farmsteads in Kostelní Lhota can be explained in the long-term perspective that the growth of the area did not bring the farmsteads any significant market surpluses, because the increase of surplus production was accompanied by acorresponding increase of manpower, which then used it. It was thus advantageous to maintain asubsistence extent of agricultural production with only slight overproduction.57 It was not that way in Chotouň and Milčice where the increase of tilled area meant arise in market production and the possibility to shift the work to wage labourers; the limit naturally was the optimal connection of the individual means of production.58 The data of the Theresian and Josephine Cadastre distinctly differed for Kostelní Lhota. According to the Theresian Cadastre, the village was comprised of farmsteads on the border of subsistence, according to the Josephine some farmsteads were already divided into smaller ones and the productivity shifted to higher 53 For the areal size of the meadows, cf. NA Prague, Collection of the Josephine Cadastre, Chotouň, fasse and documents, inv. Nr. 1189. 54 See in detail Vavák I/2, 25 (1781); II/1, pp.5–10 (1784); II/2, pp.72–74 (1787). 55 SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 544, Register of the building of orphans and all serfs 1745 (Kniha Syrotcz[i] Kral: Panstwi Podiebradskeho Za Rok 1745), fol.127r–133v; SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 545, Register of the building of orphans and all serfs 1770, pag. 85–99. 56 For more detail on Kostelní Lhota, see T.KLÍR, Agrarsysteme des vorindustriellen Dorfes, pp.148–152; IDEM, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.57–61. 57 For its model, see e.g. ibid., pp.186–195. 58 On that, see e.g. T.KLÍR— M.BERÁNEK, ASocial-Economic Interpretation, pp.299–300. OPEN ACCESS 122 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 market surpluses. With the number of serf families, Kostelní Lhota was the largest village on the left-bank side of the Poděbrady estate (Table 7). Between 1745 and 1770, the number of registered serfs still increased, namely by 50% (281 → 429), but unlike Chotouň it was the influence of the dramatic increase of peasant families (18 → 32), with amore or less constant number of inmate-lodgers. It was recorded for 14 serfs in 1770 that they serve in other villages.59 In the overall comparison, the socio-economic and demographic structure of Milčice approached the model type of village of fertile corn-producing areas.60 In this regard, it had the more distinctive form of nearby Chotouň. Large peasant farmsteads dominated in both villages, the number of which remained the same, or lowered even more, and which used inmate-lodgers and wage labourers abundantly. In the neighbourhood of Milčice avillage of adifferent type also lay on the windblown sands— Kostelní Lhota, where the number of peasant families increased, the size of their land furnishing approached the subsistence boundary and the workload thus lay on the family of the farmstead holder. 4. AMIRROR OF VAVÁK’S MEMOIRS 4.1. MILČIcE aS aMISERaBLE vILLaGE In the Memoirs, the exceptional agricultural potential of the Milčice farmsteads is not overemphasized anywhere, but some passages prove that Vavák was very aware of it.61 He usually mentioned the priority position of Milčice indirectly namely by repeated enumeration of all the possible negatives, which it entailed— especially the high burden of the contributions (state taxes) and corvée payments.62 Vavák’s Memoirs thus show us how one-sided the view was built only on the excise tax declarations and documents, which on the one hand registered the high economic potential and successfulness of the Milčice serf farmsteads but on the other hand were an instrument for lowering their affluence. The high economic potential of Milčice thus was not subjectively evaluated very high by the peasant, instead they excessively 59 SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 544, Register of the building of orphans and all serfs 1745 (Kniha Syrotcz[i] Kral: Panstwi Podiebradskeho Za Rok 1745), fol.85r–99v; SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 545, Register of the building of orphans and all serfs 1770, pag. 112–137. 60 On that synoptically, see M.CERMAN— E.MAUR, Proměny vesnických sociálních struktur, pp.742–770. 61 Vavák II/2, p.138 (1790)— other than Milčice Vavák included also Velim, Pečky, Bobnice, Chleby and Rašovice among the villages with good soils and also large farmsteads. 62 Synoptically, see Vavák III/2, p.85 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”); Vavák I/1, pp.78–79 (1776); II/1, p.92 (1786); II/2, pp.69, 88–90 (1789), 120, 138–139 (1790); III/1, pp.97–100, 112 (1793); III/2, p.81 (1796). The corvée payments, also called urbarium payments, were paid by the serfs to the chamber estates after the cancellation of corvée within “Raabization” (1777/1783). OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 123 harshly perceived the negative aspects, which it brought. Milčice therefore appears in places in Vavák’s Memoirs not as the agriculturally most effective village on the Poděbrady estate, but rather as one of the most pathetic and oppressed, whether by the authority, the state or fire and other natural catastrophes. Nevertheless, the high burden of the land Milčice farmsteads was not only the subjective feeling of the holders but had also areal impact. As aconsequence of the interplay of several unfavourable events, including devastating fire and hail, Vavák’s father burdened by debts had to sell his peasant farmstead of more than two hides, from which however he managed in time to separate with the consent of the authority asmallholder farmstead with asignificant property area of 18 rods (Nrs.3–4).63 During the crop failures and famine in 1770–1771, it was again two of the three largest Milčice farmsteads (Nrs.1–2), which found themselves in critical danger, so that still before it was ripe their holders reaped green rye for need.64 In the end, one of these farmsteads was confiscated for debts and divided (Nr. 1).65 Decline affected another farmstead (Nr. 13) in the 1780s.66 On the other hand, in favourable years these farmsteads had high market surpluses, their holders had the highest social status in the long term and the members of their families were marked by social mobility.67 The complaints about the extremely high burden of Milčice in Vavák abound after 1787, when the long-term average fertility of the Milčice fields was increased by officials by one-third as against the data provided by the peasants during the preparations of the Josephine Cadastre.68 In the two subsequent places in the Memoirs, it is possible to find also amodel balance sheet of the expenses and incomes of apeasant farmstead, which attempts to prove the unfortunate situation of the holders. In this balance sheet, Vavák always concealed income from livestock production, since they were not directly taxed, and other sundry income from the application of the vacant capacity e.g. for bound wood and other transports, but it also arises from his balance sheet that Milčice farmsteads could afford demanding operation, maintain the relevant capital means and above all to transfer workload from afamily of landlords to wage labourers. What burdened Vavák’s mind was rather the awareness how many means were escaping from the farmstead than emergency or existential threat. The complaint from the peasants from neighbouring Kostelní Lhota, left to their own work and living in the risk of starvation, would probably sound completely different. In relative terms the vast majority of villages in the Poděbrady estate came out worse than Milčice, namely in all of Vavák’s mentioned items. The contributions and corvée payments were set relatively dependent on the gross yield of the fields, but considering the nonlinear dependence of the net yield on the soil quality Milčice came out the best of all the villages. The costs for the operation of the farmsteads then did not depend on the incomes of the farmsteads but the extent of cultivated 63 S. JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, pp.239–240 (1978). 64 Vavák I/1, p.19 (1771). 65 Vavák I/1, p.88 (1777); III/1, pp.112–113 (1794). 66 S. JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, pp.136–140 (1979). 67 Vavák III/2, pp.75–76 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”). 68 Vavák II/1, pp.111–112 (1786); II/2, pp.20–21, 36–39 (1787). OPEN ACCESS 124 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 area, which favoured Milčice even more. On the other hand, the heavy burden calculated according to the long-term average yields could truly be financially ruinous, if several negative factors coincided in the form of local crop failure, natural catastrophes, the demographic constellation and the unfortunate character of the holder. It arises from Vavák’s records that the loss of the farmstead was perceived as afamily disgrace, which explains why he devoted so many places in his texts repeatedly to the sensitive topic of the sale of his father’s farmstead.69 The real economic power of Milčice appears in Vavák’s Memoirs indirectly, e.g. in March 1771. At that time, alarge part of the village and serf farmsteads suffering from ashortage of grain and the land languished in afamine, in Milčice 245 measures of surplus corn were registered, the most on the entire estate. Just before the harvest when the prices peaked, some Milčice peasants could still trade with corn in secret.70 Therefore, Vavák could describe the crop failure and famine in 1770–1772 rather as an outside observer, and if he described the horrors then, they concerned the surrounding economically weaker villages, particularly neighbouring Kostelní and Písková Lhotas. In these neighbouring villages, people reaped less they had sown, and rumours even said that they dug up and ate carrion during the famine. The epidemic also took the most victims there.71 4.2. THE MaRKET InTEGRaTIOn OF THE FaRMSTEadS Milčice farmsteads had the potential to produce long term high corn and livestock surplus. Farmstead Nr. 16, which František Vavák managed from 1778, had according to the Josephine Cadastre an average three-year net yield of winter crops, i.e. bread grains, of around 578 measures. If we subtract the demands of 6 adults (36 measures per year), there still remained annually on average around 160 measures (107 rods), of which alarge part was necessary to sell at the market. Similarly, also asignificant part of the spring crops, especially barley, and livestock products had to head for the market. It is therefore not surprising that for all of his life Vavák systematically followed and recorded the price range at the local and regional markets, which he often placed even in exceptionally interesting causal relationships (Table 8–10; Figure 20a–e).72 We do not plan to provide acomplete analysis of the whole range of price records here, but we will focus only on some aspects and only on the first half of the year (1770–1794). In the studied segment of 25 years, Vavák recorded price ranges 309 times, of which the vast majority concerned the local market. Several times, Vavák independently provided the prices at the market in Prague, Jičín, or in other places.73 The 69 On the disgrace of the indebted peasant, cf. S.JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, pp.136–140 (1979); Vavák III/2, p.21 (1795). 70 Vavák I/1, pp.10–11, 18 (1771). 71 T. KLÍR, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.54–55; Vavák I/1, pp.22–23 (1771), 33–34 (1772). 72 On that, see also J.PETRÁŇ, Ceny obilí atržní okruhy vČechách, pp.32–33. 73 For the village of Milčice, the Theresian Cadastre mentioned the market centres in Prague, Chlumec nad Cidlinou and Hradec Králové. Also the foremen from the Liberec district OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 125 density of the price records strikingly increased after 1778, when it stabilized at 10–20 annually. In terms of the systematic accumulation of information, Vavák acquired it second hand both from coachmen and the surrounding peasants riding to the market places.74 Vavák systematically recorded the prices of basic grains (wheat, rye, barley and not always oats), which he relatively often complemented with the prices of peas and millet, later also hay and straw. The mentioned spectrum reflects the crops, which the peasants most often and to the greatest extent took to the market— hence bread grains, barley for malt and fodder. Vavák recorded the prices of other crops— beans, vegetables, fruit and at atime of high volatility also meat and other commodities rather seasonally and only some years. Vavák usually recorded the prices from the perspective of the purchaser and at the upper limit of the price bracket even mentioned several times sarcastic remarks like: “… barley 2 Gulden 15, instead of 2 Gulden 30 Kreuzers— misers even wanted 3 Gulden.”75 The real rile of the peasants as sellers is nevertheless regularly documented in his records, e.g. the beginning of 1787: “… Iwas in Prague … barley 1 Gulden 54 Kreuzers … and also 2 Gulden 12 Kreuzers; at this last agreement Iwas the only one to sell barley.”76 Naturally, also peasants could be forced to buy grain, e.g. if they lacked it for sewing, or if the old ran out at the beginning of the summer and the new had not yet been harvested.77 Milčice peasants sold bread grains for the most part directly, or through coachmen, who mediated the connection between the lowlands and the mountainous regions. The weather and the current state of the routes therefore had an influence on the price, because if they were not passable and the coachmen did not travel, demand was lacking and the prices of grain stagnated. If it was convenient, Milčice peasants took the bread corns themselves to the Prague market, where, however, thanks to the good accessibility they faced strong competition coming from other fertile regions. For that reason, grain prices in Prague were mainly similar to the local ones and it did not pay off to speculate with small differences considering the transport costs. Only of the price difference surpassed the boundary of 15–20 Kreuzer per rod, or 10–15%, did it pay to transport them to the Prague market (1787).78 Vavák quite often were to buy the corn. This generalizing record, which only partially corresponds to Vavák’s records, is repeated with most of the villages of the Poděbrady estate. Cf. Milena BORSKÁ– URBÁNKOVÁ, Obilní trhy aceny vČechách v18. století [Grain Markets and Prices in Bohemia in the 18th Century], in: Acta Universitatis Carolinae— Philosophica et Historica 3 (1977), 1979, pp.109–138. 74 Vavák I/1, p.128 (1779); I/2, p.160 (1783); II/2, p.61 (1788). Generally, J.PETRÁŇ, Ceny obilí atržní okruhy vČechách, pp.27–28. 75 Vavák I/1, p.96 (1778). 76 Vavák II/2, p.1 (1770). 77 E.g. Vavák I/1, p.19 (1772); II/2, p.145 (1790); III/1, pp.14, 20 (1791). 78 Cf. the data on tolls and the deduction on the profit from each mile, which Vavák presented according to the Josephine Cadastre; Vavák II/2, pp.21–22 (1787). On that, see also J.PETRÁŇ, Ceny obilí atržní okruhy vČechách, pp.20–21. OPEN ACCESS 126 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 recorded the prices also in Jičín, which were usually higher than the Prague and local ones, and on the contrary he only exceptionally mentioned those from Chlumec, which were usually lower and for which the seigniorial administration would redeem them in necessary cases.79 Also the more distant price ranges and data on the trade with grain also ended up in the Memoirs, if they had aperceptible influence on the local and Prague markets, or on the activities of the coachmen.80 Milčice peasants transported mainly barley directly to the Prague market, then fodder for cattle, fruit and vegetables, the prices of which there were usually substantially higher than at the local market. Vavák’s mentions of cooperation between the peasants are unique, who joined in the transport and sale of goods.81 Fundamental differences between the rather subsistence and market-orientated peasants arise from some records. Vavák, representing the second group, had free work capacity also in the course of some season jobs, could speculate with grain and personally transport to market places like Prague. Not even aslight blanket crop failure did not hurt him, but thanks to the rise of prices rather the opposite as proved by his record: “… if those spring freezes had not killed the shoots abit and the granaries not taken, perhaps they would have paid aTolar (thaler) for rye and aGulden for barley, which would not have brought many good things to peasants.”82 In contrast to that, the subsistence-orientated peasant was directly threatened by every drop in the crop, lost even the very low market surpluses and therefore could not take advantage of the high prices. He also could hardly free himself from agricultural jobs, thanks to which he was dependent on the local market. 5. THE BUILT-UP AREA AND SOCIO-TOPOGRAPHY 5.1. BuILT-uP aREa We can evaluate the layout of Milčice for the first time in detail from the Raabization plan from 1778 and Vavák’s description from 1796 (Figure 21).83 The village then comprised 20 house numbers including 15 peasant and 3 smallholder farmsteads with pubs, ageneral forge and common shepherd’s hut. The majority of the farmsteads were arranged around arelatively small rectangular green (135 x 85 m). There were dwellings of the inmate-lodgers and several small craftsmen in the village, the situation of which fluctuated and were complemented by members of the peasant families. These dwellings were usually built on the courtyard area of the farmstead. 79 E.g. Vavák I/1, pp.90–91 (1777); I/2, p.123 (1782). 80 On that in more detail also J.PETRÁŇ, Ceny obilí atržní okruhy vČechách, pp.19–20. 81 E.g. in September 1784 Vavák along with another peasant transported barley to the Prague market, which we know about only thanks to the accidental encounter with Emperor Joseph II; Vavák II/1, p.40. 82 Vavák III/1, p.20 (1791). 83 Vavák III/2 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”), pp.75–82. OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 127 The built-up area was spread on the slope, which separated the upper and lower Pleistocene terraces (192–198 m a.s.l.), where the southern row of farmsteads copied the upper edge of the slope (ca 200 m a.s.l.) and the northern row its foot (ca 190 m a.s.l.). The three largest peasant farmsteads had the most distinctive buildings in terms of mass, moreover situated on the dominant and higher placed southern side of the green (Nrs.2–3 were especially massive). The building constructions of the peasant farmsteads were already stone in the 18th century, with the exception of the barns. In the 16th–18th centuries, the village several times burnt down entirely or partially, where these events were most reflected in the appearance of the built-up area of the green.84 Several residential buildings might have been two-storeyed originally, but in the second half of the 18th century already lowered and ground floor. Milčice differed from anumber of surrounding villages with its abundant stone constructions, where entirely wooden buildings dominated and fires caused greater damages.85 5.2. dIvISIOn OF THE PEaSanT cOMMunITY The length of Vavák’s Memoirs fluctuated in individual years (Figure 22). There was adramatic increase in pages after 1780, at the time of the culminating Josephine reforms. Asubstantial part of his records then was devoted to the issue of non-Catholics and the division of the Milčice peasant community into catholic and protestant parts, which was accompanied by squabbles, which Vavák likely describes as scarier than what really happened.86 Interesting aspects come out if we project the socio-economic and socio-topographic context onto Vavák’s dramatic story. In terms of the social status and size of the farmsteads, only two of the traditional Milčice farmsteads (including one “reeve house”; Czech: rychta), one new peasant farmstead, one cottage and the common smith, who held atotal of 20% of the ploughed land claimed the protestant faith at first. The situation changes after afew weeks, when two more holders converted, including the holder of the most prestigious and largest of the peasant farmsteads (Nr. 2). After these conversions, the Protestants held almost 40% of the arable land. That explains the great effort, which the catholic side led by Vavák placed on achange of the decision of the holder of Nr. 2. Ayear later, however, they had failed to avert the conversion of another young holder from the prestigious and formerly also a“reeve” farmstead Nr. 17.87 In the aggregate total, 84 SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 2, urbarium of the estate from 1553 (Registra Urbur[ni] aneb Sprawni [Pan]stwi Podiebra[dskeho]), fol.38v–40v; SDA Prague, Estate Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 3, urbarium of the estate from 1590 (Urbur panstwi J.M.C. podiebradskeho zalozzen Letha Panie 1590), fol.18r–21r; V.PEŠÁK (ed.), Berní rula12. Kraj Hradecký I, pp.39–40; Vavák III/2 (“Vypsání vsi Milčic”), pp.83–84. 85 Vavák III/3, p.114 (1801). 86 Synoptically, see F.KUTNAR, František Jan Vavák, pp.26–28. 87 Non-Catholic positions, the course of conversion, the roles of individual persons and families, various squabbles and disputes, cf. Vavák I/1, pp.44–45 (1774); I/2, pp.3 (1781), 26–30, 34–35, 50, 53–65, 107, 109, 113, 117–121, 126 (1782), 164–168, 175–180, 192 (1783); II/1, pp.38–39 (1784), 52–53 (1785). OPEN ACCESS 128 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 the Protestants had in the end athird of the farmsteads, approximately athird of the arable land and included half of the tradition, prestigious and “reeve” farmsteads. If also farmstead Nr. 2 were to convert permanently, the situation in Milčice would be balanced. In terms of the number of individuals, atotal of 22 men and women, hence approximately only 13% of the serfs, converted to the protestant faith permanently.88 The shift to the protestant faith thus concerned rather the socially well situated peasant families, less so the inmate-lodgers. On the other hand, we know thanks to Vavák that anumber of people worse situated in terms of status stopped observing catholic traditions, but for tactical reasons remained formal Catholic.89 It is aquestion to which extent religious and social convictions can be seen from the division of Milčice peasants into protestant and catholic part, or areflection of the internal tension of the peasant community. Conversion then would not have been such an expression of conviction but an active means by which the complicated relations between the peasant families were transformed. From this point of view, the topographic context is also interesting. After the announcement of the patent of tolerance three of the five farmsteads located in the north, lowest placed row and two farmsteads in the eastern row on the slope gradually converted. On the contrary, none converted permanently from the southern farmsteads, which dominated the entire village in size and height. The centre of the non-Catholics first lay in the farmstead neighbouring Vavák, then from 1783 Vavák was surrounded by aprotestant farmstead also from the other side, from which several comic situations naturally arose.90 6. CONCLUSION Milčice was atypical representative of avillage in afertile lowlands area, with market-orientated grain and livestock production and with exceptionally good sales possibilities.91 Vavák’s Memoirs specify in avaluable way the method of economic 88 The list from 1787 presents the number of 22 people: SDA Prague, Collection of the Manor Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 536, the list of conversions to the evangelical faith (Individual Consignation […]). The ongoing list from the end of the winter 1782, including 28 persons, is provided by Vavák I/2, p.34. 89 Vavák I/2, p.53 (1785). 90 E.g. Vavák’s unwanted meeting with evangelical pastors in 1791; Vavák III/1, p.40. 91 On the general concept of the different social-economic development of individual Bohemian regions (production areas): J.PETRÁŇ, Poddaný lid vČechách; more recently M.CERMAN— E.MAUR, Proměny vesnických sociálních struktur; M.CERMAN— H.ZEITLHOFER(edd.), Soziale Strukturen in Böhmen; Markus CERMAN— Robert LUFT (edd.), Untertanen, Herrschaft und Staat in Böhmen und im “Alten Reich”, Sozialgeschichtliche Studien zur Frühen Neuzeit, Veröffentlichungen des Collegium Carolinum 99, München 2005; most recently Alexander KLEIN— Sheilagh OGILVIE, Occupational Structure in the Czech Lands under the Second Serfdom, Economic History Review Volume 69, 2016, pp.493–521. Of the earlier studies, e.g. also Josef PEKAŘ, České katastry 1654–1789 [Bohemian Cadastres 1654–1789], Praha 1932, p.353 (references to the differences of mountains and regions); Aleš CHALUPA, Venkovské obyvatelstvo vČechách vTereziánských katastrech (1700–1750) OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 129 connection on the regional level with the mountainous regions and Prague as well as on the local level with the neighbouring township of Sadská.92 The pronounced, although relatively stable socio-economic and demographic structure, with apredominance of large farms and the high representation of inmate-lodgers and servants, corresponded to the productive and commercial agriculture. With the aid of Vavák’s entries and the birth, marriage and death registries, we can reveal aclose group of interconnected peasant families and the ways they dominated the entire village. At the same time, there was tension among them and individuals, including Vavák, who activated diverse tools to make their position stand out, to maintain it, or to change it. Abroader comparison confirmed that the Poděbrady estate was exceptionally heterogenous and aconsiderable part of the villages followed adifferent developmental trajectory than Milčice.93 As aconsequence of the less favourable conditions, agriculture in many villages surpassed the subsistence level only with difficulty and their socio-economic structures, dynamics and demographic behaviours approached the model known in large part from the so-called transitional, or mountainous, areas. An analysis of approximately twenty villages in the vicinity of Milčice showed several important connections, of which it is possible to point out the strong negative correlation between their demographic and agricultural potentials. The fundamental differences between the economically thinking of the subsistence and market orientated peasants are often in conflict in Vavák’s entries. The first for instance perceives the weather and course of agricultural jobs very sensitively and worries about agood harvest, while the second on the contrary revels in the spring freezes, which potentially reduce the yields but increase the price of corn and the profits from it. Or is happy about the crop failure forcing the surrounding peasants to make their servants redundant, which then happily enter service in Milčice even for alower wage. As adevout peasant, he is sorry for the poor, who suffer hardship during the times of high prices; on the other hand, he is somewhat disappointed when prices do not increase according to his optimistic expectations despite aweaker crop and trips through the area by the army. He also records the price range from the view of the purchaser, and has the successful salesman therefore as amiser, but himself is happy when he manages to sell it more expensively than the others. The burden of the land tax and corvée payments subjectively weigh on him greatly, because they lower his prosperity, but forgets in his indignation that the peasants in the neighbouring village have to sell not the work of the servants and inmate-lodgers but their own and as areward still have to face the risk of starva- [Rural Populace in Bohemia in the Theresian Cadastres (1700–1750)], Sborník Národního muzea vPraze, Řada A– Historie 23, 1969, pp.197–378. 92 On the question of the economic ties of the individual parts of Bohemia, cf. J.PETRÁŇ, Ceny obilí atržní okruhy vČechách, pp.34–44. More recently e.g. A.KLEIN— S.OGILVIE, Occupational Structure. 93 On the internal differentiation, see also L.MATUŠÍKOVÁ, Die Entwicklung der Wirtschaftsund Sozialstrukturen, pp.59–61; EADEM, Hospodářské asociální poměry, p.52; M.CERMAN— E.MAUR, Proměny vesnických sociálních struktur, p.754. OPEN ACCESS 130 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 tion every year. We can naturally find the merger of different thought worlds also on other than economic levels with Vavák. It is enough to mention that apeasant and avid reader, appearing before emperors, bishops and canons, high officials and maintaining relations with Bohemian revivalists and the enlightened, did not hesitate to believe in witches changing into frogs, water goblins in fishponds and imps in pastures.94 Vavák was among the large peasants with free labour capacity, which he devoted not only to market activities but many other activities, including exceptionally productive writing, thanks to which we also know him. If we were to seek how his peers used this free time, we would find apartial answer in his Autobiography (1796): “And already then [1762] observing many people rich or proud and otherwise handsome, Iconsidered them to be stupid, Idid not hold anything with them and warned them as well as all of those equal to me, youths— friends etc., who went for music to the pubs, for cards, bowling, on Sunday and holidays they wandered here and there and wasted time wickedly. Ibore ill will against that and never learned any such game, but always read something or wrote or drew, putting something into myself or writing something, drawing etc.”95 Thus, by acoincidence asource unique in Europe was created in Milčice in the form of journal entries of atraditionally managing peasant, in the end covering one half- -century and having the length of several thousand pages. The skeleton of the journals comprised systematically kept entries on the weather, agricultural activities and economic decision-making, which were so routine, mass and cyclic, that their actors or other contemporaries normally did not record them. Precisely in these entries, with the nature of long series, we see an exceptional source of information for research of the Early Modern rural family and serf communities. Instead of the entries specifying the testimony of the traditionally available written sources of the state and patrimonial administration, they allow astudy of the peasants as active individuals, purposefully utilising or on the other hand exceeding the social, economic and cultural rules at the turn of the epoch. 94 Vavák I/1, pp.115–116 (1779); III/2, p.13 (1795). 95 S. JONÁŠOVÁ–HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F.J. Vaváka, p.248 (1978). OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 137 Fig. 3.Milčice, Kostelní Lhota and its environs on the so-called Map of Cultures of the Kingdom of Bohemia (1837–1843). NB: Central Archive of Surveying and Cadastre, Prague, Collection Stable Cadastre, inv. Nr. 51, Culturensquellete k.k. Mappierungs Inspektorats…, district Poděbrady (Nr. 23) and Kouřim (Nr. 52). Fig. 4.Milčice— usage of cultivated land and the characteristic of the arable areas (1778). Data of the Raabization plan put on the background material according to the plan of the Stable Cadastre (1842). NB: Raabization plan Milčice— SDA Prague, Collection Manor Estate Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 4535 and 4536, Grund-Ris des zur Kaiser-Konigl. Cammeral Herrschaft Podiebrad gehorigen Dorfs Miltzitz (colourised and non-colourised versions). Plan of the Stable Cadastre— Central Archive of Surveying and Cadastre, Prague, Collection Stable Cadastre, imperial fingerprints of the plans of the Stable Cadastre, Nr. 4641. The plan of the Stable Cadastre was digitised by A.Augustinová. OPEN ACCESS 138 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 Fig. 5.Milčice— the distribution of plots of land belonging to the smallholder farmstead Nr. 4 and peasant farmstead Nr. 16 (1778). Data of the Raabization plan put on the background material according to the plan of the Stable Cadastre (1842). NB: The plan of the Stable Cadastre was digitised by A.Augustinová. Fig. 6.Usage of the hinterland in Milčice, Chotouň and Kostelní Lhota according to the Josephine Cadastre (1785/1788). NB: NA Prague, Collection Josephine Cadastre, Milčice with incorporated village Pečky, fasse and files, inv. Nr. 1188. For Kostelní Lhota— T.KLÍR, Agrarsysteme des vorindustriellen Dorfes, pp.148–152; IDEM, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.57–61. OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 139 Fig. 7.Utility, work demands and subsistence level and market production of the farmsteads in Milčice, Chotouň and Kostelní Lhota. According to the Theresian Cadastre (1726). The boundaries of subsistence reflect the jumping growth of the work forces with the increasing extent of arable areas. Nr. 3— family farmstead of F.J. Vavák. NB: NA Prague, Collection Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse (ocular visitation from 1726), fol.48–52. Fig. 8.Utility, work demands and subsistence level and market production of the farmsteads in Milčice, Chotouň and Kostelní Lhota. According to the Josephine Cadastre (1785/1788). The boundaries of subsistence reflect the jumping growth of the work forces with the increasing extent of arable. Nr. 4 and 16— smallholder and peasant farmstead of F.J. Vavák. NB: NA Prague, Collection Josephine Cadastre, Milčice with incorporated village Pečky, fasse and files, inv. Nr. 1188. For Kostelní Lhota— T.KLÍR, Agrarsysteme des vorindustriellen Dorfes, pp.148–152; IDEM, Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd, pp.57–61. OPEN ACCESS 140 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 Fig. 9.The amount of draught force at the serf farmsteads in Milčice, Kostelní Lhota and Chotouň (1715). The farmsteads in each village are arranged in descending order according to the number of horses and oxen. In terms of interpretation, the absence of bulls in Chotouň is significant, and on the contrary their high representation in Kostelní Lhota. NB: NA Prague, Collection Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse 1714/1715 (Bekanntnistabella vom Jahre 1714 und Visitationsbefund vom Jahre 1715 der Herrschaft Poděbrad, ungültig). OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 141 Fig. 10.The amount of cattle at the serf farmsteads in Milčice, Kostelní Lhota and Chotouň (1715). The farmsteads in each village are arranged as in Fig. 9. The high number of cattle in Milčice is striking as against the low number in Kostelní Lhota. OPEN ACCESS 142 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 Fig. 11.The amount of the flock at the serf farmsteads in Milčice, Kostelní Lhota and Chotouň (1715). The farmsteads in each village are arranged as in Fig. 9. The high number of the flock in Milčice is striking as against the low number in Kostelní Lhota. OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 143 Fig. 12.Serfs at the peasant farmsteads in Milčice, without servants of non-Milčice origin. According to the registers building of orphans and all serfs from 1770. NB: Nr. 1: one of the inmate-lodgers was the son of the previous holder, who had to sell the farm for debts (cf. Register 1745, fol.119r); Nr. 3: orphans did not have ademonstrable relationship to the holder; the holder was the son of the holder from Nr. 10; Nr. 6: the female holder of the farmstead was married asecond time to the holder of farmstead Nr. 10 (Registry Skramník 05, married on 11 January 1762; cf. also Vavák I/I, p.15); Nr. 7: its own building, standing on the courtyard’s open area, was tied spatially to the farmstead (Vavák I/2, pp.24–25). This building was held hereditarily by the brother of the holder, listed in the registers 1770 among the inmate-lodgers, labelled in the registers 1745 as aweaver. Another of the inmate-lodgers had as his wife the daughter of this inmate-lodger, who thus was also the niece of the farmstead holder (Registry Skramník 05, married on 7 January 1766); Nr. 10: the holder had ason at farmstead Nr. 3; Nr. 11: alame relative of the holder (nephew?) at the farmstead as an inmatelodger; Nr. 12: to the family of the holder see VavákI/1, pp.136–137; Nr. 13: to the family S. JONÁŠOVÁ– HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F. J. Vaváka, pp.137, 148–149; Nr. 15: to the family Vavák I/1, p.45; Nr. 16: the farmstead of Vavák’s father-in-law (to the family S.JONÁŠOVÁ-HÁJKOVÁ, Vlastní životopis F. J. Vaváka.; Vavák I/1, p.93); Nr. 17: to the family Vavák I/2, pp.178–179. OPEN ACCESS 144 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 Fig. 14.The effectivity of the agricultural production at Estate Poděbrady according to the Raabization operators (1778). The individual villages are arranged in ascending order according to the index, which expresses the share of corvée payments and total arable area. NB: SDA Prague, Collection Manor Estate Poděbrady, inv. Nr. 16, Geometrische Realausmessungs = Tabelle A: all of the rustic plots which the serfs had held “since time immemorial”. Fig. 13.Serfs at smallholder farmsteads in Milčice, without servants of non-Milčice origin. According to the registers building of orphans and all serfs from 1770. NB: Nr. 4: farmstead of F.J. Vavák; Nr. 14: The inmate-lodgers tied to Nr. 14 were relatives— the elder (I.) was the father-in-law of the younger (II.) (Registry Skramník 05, married on 13 January 1762); Nr.18: the inmate-lodger was the son of the female holder and heir of the farmstead. The female holder was the aunt of F.J. Vavák; Number (19): the building cannot be safely identified. OPEN ACCESS TOMÁš KLíR— dana vOdÁKOvÁ 145 Fig. 15.Average amount of land necessary to sustain one person in ayear with agood or bad crop— left-bank part of the Poděbrady Estate (1714/1715). Milčice shows the best characteristic. NB: NA Prague, Collection of the Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse 1714/1715 (Bekanntnistabella vom Jahre 1714 und Visitationsbefund vom Jahre 1715 der Herrschaft Poděbrad, ungültig). Fig. 16.Large peasant farmsteads with sowing density over 60 rods in Bohemia (1757). The map provides ageneral overview on the level of commercialization of agricultural production. Cadastral territory according to the Stable Cadastre (1842). Compare the cut-out with Fig. 15. NB: Soil-quality evaluation according to A. CHALUPA et al., Tereziánský katastr. The vector data for the cadastral territory was provided by the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre, Prague. The map was created by T.Vojtěchovský. OPEN ACCESS 146 HISTORIE — OTÁZKY — PROBLÉMY 1/2017 Fig. 17.Milčice and environs— large peasant farmsteads with asowing density over 60 rods (1757). NB: Soil-quality evaluation according to A. CHALUPA et al., Tereziánský katastr. The vector data for the cadastral territory was provided by the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre, Prague. The map was created by T.Vojtěchovský. Fig. 18.The relationship between the demographic and subsistence potential— the left-bank part of the Poděbrady Estate (1770). NB: Number of serf families— SDA Prague, Collection Manor Estate Poděbrady, inv. Nr.545, register of the position of orphans and all serfs 1770. Utility— NA Prague, Collection of the Theresian Cadastre, Estate Poděbrady, Nr. 788, fasse 1714/1715 (Bekanntnistabella vom Jahre 1714 und Visitationsbefund vom Jahre 1715 der Herrschaft Poděbrad, ungültig). OPEN ACCESS