Hammer city law

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The founding privilege of the city ​​of Hamm is recorded in a document from the city's founder, Count Adolf I. von der Mark , which dates to the beginning of November 1213. This document traces the hammer city law back to the Lippstadt city law , which in turn refers to the Soest law . Due to a number of inconsistencies, some historians believed the document to be a forgery . A possible consequence of this assumption is that Hamm did not, as generally assumed, have city rights from the start, but only obtained them later on the basis of fraudulent machinations. This representation can now be considered refuted, since the grandson of the city founder, Count Eberhard I. von der Mark , confirmed the hammer city law in 1279 with express reference to the document from 1213. An error or a deception by the count about such an important matter is as good as impossible.

Founding privilege for the “opidum in Marca”, today Hamm

Discrepancies in the document from 1213

seal

A document from 1213, which actually goes back to Count Adolf von der Mark, would have to show his older seal , which he kept until around 1225. There is such a seal on the document in question, but there are doubts as to whether it was there from the start. The parchment ribbon of the real seal is cut and the loose seal is only connected to the certificate by glued-on silk threads. Overmann and Philippi assume that the seal was cut off or torn from another document. They substantiate this mainly by the fact that the loose fastening by the colored silk threads was loosened upon closer examination of the document, which would have been impossible with the original fastening without damaging the seal or the silk threads. The document is thus formally proven to be a forgery which, by attaching a seal from another document, gives the impression that it was actually made by the city's founder, Hamms.

Kewer contradicts this. If the document were a forgery, the forger would have cut the belt-shaped parchment ribbon, which was pulled through horizontal clasp-shaped incisions in the document and sealed with its open ribbon ends in the seal, on one side only on the back of the double-stacked ribbon and then after drawing it into the document to be forged stuck together in order to prevent the forgery from being recognizable as such at first glance. Such an amateur forgery would otherwise have been useless to him. In fact, the unusual condition of the seal can be explained by the fact that such seals were folded to protect against damage when they were put away in a shrine so that they lay with the seal surface on the document and were protected by other documents placed on it. This led to a fold in the parchment band of the seal, which became brittle over time, so that the seal could easily be torn off there. Such a tear in the sealing tape is clearly recognizable. A dutiful actuary then attached the torn seal to the certificate with silk cords so that it was not lost and was recognizable as belonging.

There is also no discernible motive for such a forgery. The Counts of the Mark had their own extensive records of the rights and obligations to which they were entitled, which were meticulously recorded by their officials. If a forged document of such significance had been presented to a successor to Count Adolf, he or one of his officials would have recognized this without any problems on the basis of his own records. Both the count himself and his officials were also fully informed about these rights, especially with regard to the city ​​of Hamm, which is located in the immediate vicinity of the sovereign residence .

The decisive factor, however, is that the content of the disputed document in its full wording was confirmed by Count Eberhard I. von der Mark (1277–1308) on March 21, 1279 , in the context of a document that is to be considered unequivocally authentic . Eberhard explicitly refers to the document from 1213 and confirms the hammer town charter as the law of Lippstadt, just like our grandfather, Count Adolf (1198-1249), and our father, Count Engelbert (1249-1277) to have had to us .

A mistake by Count Eberhard can be ruled out. Count Adolf's reign was just 30 years ago. There were therefore almost certainly records of what went on at the time. Count Eberhard was more likely to have confirmed the hammer town charter from his own knowledge. It can therefore be regarded as certain that he was not deceived by the submission of a primitively forged document. Against this background, it is also conceivable that it was Eberhard's scribe who attached the seal to the document again in 1279, because silk cords were also used to attach the seal of the confirmation document from 1279.

Further evidence of a possible forgery

  1. In all accessible Brandenburg documents from the 13th century there is no parallel to the conspicuous phrase “date in Marcha from Adolfo comite” . At that time, documents were only sealed, but not signed.
  2. When the privilege was included in the deed of March 21, 1279, with which Count Eberhard I. von der Mark confirmed the founding privilege, some text passages were changed: In § 8, instead of "domino contradicente", the more precise "domino suo contradicente" is used , which makes it clear that the city lord has no right of objection. In § 14 it says instead of “opidales in Marca… per consensum domini comitis Adolfi et suorum coherendum” : “oppidales in Hammone per nostrum consensum” . The city is no longer called "Stadt Mark" , but "Stadt Hamm" .

Creation of the certificate at a later date

A number of facts also suggest that the document was not made in 1213, or at least not completed in that year:

  1. A lot of space was left between the actual document text and the signature, which contains the time determination and witness signatures, on which additions could be made. Such an addition can be seen quite clearly at the end of the text. Invocatio , Eschatokoll and the last paragraph of the text, § 19, are written in a different ink and font than the rest of the text. § 14 marks a clear conclusion of the text. The following paragraphs follow badly and sometimes have a different grammatical structure. According to Mensing, the document shows at least three layers of urban law development: The middle layer up to and including § 14 corresponds to the first record and deals with court and inheritance law. The second layer, §§ 15-18, normalize the oldest market law originally presumably set orally, the third layer is formed by § 19 and the dating. On the other hand, Stoob, who analyzed the document with the help of text exegesis, comparative writing and drawing on contemporary sources, came to the conclusion that only Article 1 (assignment of the Soest law in the version of Lippstadt and the freedom to think of a better one or to be found), 15 (regulation of the interest rate of the main squares), 16, 17, 18 (market regulations) are originally and the other legal principles are later interpolations.
  2. “Mark” can be found in two different spellings: “Marca” in the text, “Marcha” in the date. The word “Marca” is spelled differently in numerous documents from the 13th century, but always the same when repeated within a document.
  3. The text speaks of “opidales” and “proconsules”, in the eschat protocol only “consules”. The term "consules" used in the series of witnesses appears in Soest for the first time in 1213, in Lippstadt a little later.
  4. A witness, Bruno Marscalus, finds an echo in the list of witnesses in Engelbert von der Mark's document of July 15, 1263 in the name of Andreas filius Marescali and Ludolfus filius Marescali.

Deviations from Lippstadt city law

The document from 1213 contains a compilation of legal provisions of Lippstadt law, which the first settlers with the permission of Count Adolf von der Mark are said to have chosen as city law. The norms of the two documents tend in principle in the same direction, but in their concrete version they differ from each other in some remarkable ways. The order of the standards is also different. In addition, there are provisions in both city laws that do not appear in the other city law at all. Of the sixteen articles of Lippstadt law, only seven have a correspondence in the Brandenburg document, while, conversely, nine of the nine articles of Brandenburg law have no origin in Lippstadt law. A comparison of the two documents shows that there is no direct connection between the two documents.

However, the Brandenburg document itself reveals that the citizens of Hammer were free to make regulations that differed from the original law and to choose “something better”. The Lippstadt law, which is said to be taken from the old Soest law, does not exactly match it either. It can therefore be assumed that the representatives of the citizenry presented their wishes to Count Adolf as the founder of their city and were advised by experts on Lippstadt law. The result of the negotiations is the recorded document.

In addition, according to Overmann, the law of Lippstadt on which the document is based was only available in writing after around 1220. He also sees this as a sign that the certificate was only made at a later date. Against the background of Philippi's remarks, this conclusion is possible, but not mandatory. A later production of the document would only be proven beyond doubt if it made clear and verbatim reference to a document that can be shown to be written down later. But this is clearly not the case, since the correspondence between the Brandenburg document and the Lippische document, which was written after 1220, is rather low. One could just as well have relied on an earlier version unknown today or even on oral traditions of Lippstadt law.

Appointment of a no longer officiating Pope

The founding privilege names Pope Celestine as the reigning Pope for November 1, 1213 . This can visually not correspond to the facts, since Celestine III. died in 1198. In 1213 the Pope heard the name Innocent III . Innocent also brought about significant changes for Westphalia, so it is unlikely that fifteen years after he took office there could not have been heard from. If the document was actually drawn up later, it would hardly have been referring to Pope Celestine IV , who was only in office for seventeen days (October 25 to November 18, 1241) and therefore was hardly noticed in Westphalia.

Together with the very unusual and rare objective formulation "date from Adolfo comite" at the time, the mix-up between the popes could indicate that the signature was given too much later, namely at a time when Engelbert or Eberhard was the incumbent count of the mark was. The document would not have been signed until after Adolf's death, i.e. after 1249; the confusion between the popes would at least be more explainable after a gap of around fifty years. However, the document, which would then itself contain the reference to its belated origin, would certainly no longer be credible as a forgery to deceive Count Engelbert.

The naming of the wrong Pope can be explained with some probability from the fact that the date was added much later than 1213 by a scribe who was wrongly of the opinion that in 1213 Pope Celestine III. have officiated. The error has obviously never been corrected. This assumption is consistent with the statement that the signature and witness were subsequently made in different ink and writing. It is also plausible because the Lippstadt town charter itself was created in a very similar way.

Foundation of a "City of Mark"

The Brandenburg document also raises the problem that there is no mention of a city of “Hamm” in it. Rather, she speaks of the fact that Count Adolf wanted to build a city in (the) Mark ("oppidum in Marca volens construere") .

Different dating of the foundation date

According to the chronicler of the Counts von der Mark, Levold von Northof , who was born on February 5, 1279 and in the service of Count Engelbert III. of the Mark , the city of Hamm was only founded on Ash Wednesday (i.e. on March 4th) of the year 1226. This contradicts the founding of a city as early as 1213.

Explanatory approaches

Deed from 1213

If one assumes that the document from 1213 is actually a forgery, one could easily be tempted to understand this as an explanation for the inconsistencies and to deny it any accuracy of the content. However, Kewer has shown that this is not so easy here. Formally, the forgery would have been too primitive and too obvious to seriously deceive a Count von der Mark and all his officials. Not to mention its weaknesses in terms of content, the naming of a false pope and the formulation of a recognizable reference that the document was only created after the death of Count Adolf (if you want to interpret the questionable signature in that way). Overmann concludes that the Brandenburg document must have been drawn up before 1279, but after 1220, since Lippstadt law had not previously existed in a written version. However, this conclusion is not mandatory either, since there is little agreement between the two written versions and it is therefore entirely possible that they have relied on oral transmission or provisional formulations.

However, it can be considered certain that the certificate was drawn up in several steps. The declaration with Philippi can be seen in the fact that the citizenship first negotiated with the sovereign and sought advice from legal experts before deciding step by step on certain regulations that, according to their right of free choice of law, come closer to Lippstadt law were sometimes further away from him. The origins of the document can very well be in 1213, even if it was only completed at a later point in time. Research has also shown that in the Middle Ages it was not uncommon for legal acts to be written down months, years or even decades after their execution and the year of negotiation and not that of production was entered as the date of the document. The manuscripts on the document show all the characteristics of comparable manuscripts from the first half of the 13th century. It is also important to note that Count Adolf is referred to in the document as comes de Altena et in Marca , i.e. as Count of Altena and in the Mark. You have to know that Count Adolf deliberately discarded the old tribe name "von Altena" in 1225. His cousin and competitor, Count Friedrich von Altena-Isenberg , played a leading role in the killing of Cologne Archbishop Engelbert I of Cologne . Adolf von der Mark demonstratively sided with the Cologne church and against his cousin. Since he had the tribe name "von Altena" in common with Friedrich and the latter had fallen into disrepute due to the bloody act, he demonstratively put it down and since 1225 only called himself "Graf von der Mark". Count Adolf therefore had the name Altena replaced by Marcha on his younger seal. Since Adolf appears on the document as Count von Altena, it can be assumed that it could only have been written before 1225. So there is nothing to prevent the document from being correctly dated to the year 1213. With Kewer it should also be noted that a forgery of such scope would have been recognized by Count Eberhard I. von der Mark or his ministerials in 1279 and would not have been signed. Instead, Eberhard clearly knew exactly what he was certifying. He explicitly referred to the document from 1213 and even made or had updates made to the status of 1279 in two passages of the text. According to Kewer, there are therefore good reasons to assume the authenticity of the document and not to consider it to be a forgery. But even Philippi, who assumes a formal forgery, sees no reason to question its accuracy.

Mensing's theory would also be conceivable that Count Eberhard was not deceived but was compelled to grant Hamm town rights. After the unfavorable peace with Siegfried von Westerburg in 1278, Hamm was the only fortified city that Eberhard remained, as Kamen and Iserlohn were stripped of their city fortifications. At the same time, he had to take Lüdenscheid as a Cologne fiefdom, combined with the threat that the walls would be put down there too. At the same time, Eberhard found himself in financial embarrassment. In 1277 he confirmed the privileges of Iserlohn with reference to an annual sum of 24 marks to be paid around Michaelmas. In addition, according to the agreements in the Cologne Peace of 1278, he had to repay the ransom for Provost Wickeboldus that Hermann de Loin had received. However, if the citizens of Hammer had wanted to take advantage of Count Eberhard's predicament in order to win the town charter, which had not been granted until then, there would certainly not have been a need for a forged and backdated document.

City in the Mark

It is more difficult to clarify the question of which settlement the founding privilege originally referred to and how it became Hamm's founding deed. First of all, it should be noted that the Count von der Mark's wish to found his own city is plausible even at this early point in time. In the first decades, almost all of the dynasts in Westphalia founded cities based on their residential castles and to strengthen the same cities. The ecclesiastical dignitaries of the time, bishops and abbots, proceeded in a very similar manner. It was their endeavor to secure their lands by fortifying the cities and at the same time to use their economic power. If the sovereign set up farms on his property, he could only expect little income. If, on the other hand, he ensured that there were apartments in which the people could pursue urban trades, they would sell their goods on markets set up especially for this purpose, which the sovereign could charge with customs and taxes. The expected profit was therefore much greater. The political situation also made it necessary to have one's own defense facilities. The Westphalian nobility, including Count Adolf and his family, were drawn into the German throne dispute between Otto IV , the Guelph Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, who was banned by the Pope , and the later Emperor Friedrich II of the Staufer dynasty. This dispute split the entire empire in general and the Bergisch-Altenaisch-Brandenburg families in particular around 1213. All the princes, especially the Lower Rhine Counts, with whom Count Adolf was closely related, took sides with one of the two competitors and tried to get as much as possible for themselves in the ensuing turmoil. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Count Adolf tried during these years to secure the property around his castle Mark , which was built in 1198, by founding a town and to make it usable. There was all the more reason to do so when his cousin Friedrich von Isenberg owned his own castle complex and a connected town, Nienbrügge, in the immediate vicinity of Count Adolf's ancestral castle . With this, Friedrich expanded his own sphere of influence step by step into the areas south of the Lippe, i.e. into the areas that Count Adolf claimed for himself. Even in the days of her parents, the two branches of the family had not always been on the best of terms; Adolf's father Friedrich von Berg-Altena and Friedrich's father Arnold von Altena had divided the Altenaic estates between them in a hitherto unique division of inheritance around 1175/1180. The competition between the Mark and Isenberg parts of the family was continued by the next generation. Since the German controversy for the throne was not decided until 1214 by the Battle of Bouvines and Nienbrügge remained a serious competitor for Burg Mark until Frederick's assassination attempt on Archbishop Engelbert in 1225, Count Adolf's wish to found a town in 1213 is more than likely . Count Adolf's political situation at that time almost made it necessary to settle people in Mark in order to protect his castle, who strengthened his military as well as his economic power and, in particular, were available as defenders of his castle in order to consolidate his own position against Nienbrügge.

The document from 1213 suggests that he also succeeded, but this is by no means certain. The fact that the document was written down in full long after the specified date already speaks against this. But even if the city in the march to which the document refers actually existed, the question arises as to which city it was.

One possibility would be that Count Adolf granted town rights to the settlement, the village of Mark, located in the vicinity of his castle and his own church . The Mark remained an independent village until 1939 and was only then incorporated into Hamm. Another alternative would be a town of Mark, which was different from both the village of Mark and Hamm. Both possibilities bring with them the most varied of imponderables. The city would then have disappeared without a trace, as there are no archaeological finds in the march itself or in the nearer and further surrounding area that would prove a settlement the size of even a small town. In addition, this would have been a unique special case. The city Mark was the only city of the counts that are not at the seat of Goger othing has been established. Such an exception would have to find an explanation, which is not evident here. A weighty reason that speaks against the establishment of such a city is also the proximity to the possessions of Friedrich von Isenberg and his neighboring city of Nienbrügge. They undeniably offered Friedrich an important strategic advantage which Adolf had nothing to oppose for a long time. To want to found a city in the immediate vicinity of Nienbrügge against Friedrich's will was an almost hopeless endeavor, especially since the city would have been in his geography. There is also the question of where the city's population would have come from so suddenly. The events of 1226 would also be completely unlikely. Adolf I von der Mark would first have destroyed Friedrich's city of Nienbrügge, then let his own city of Mark go under in order to ultimately unite the populations of both cities and found a third city elsewhere. This hardly fits in with the historical picture of Adolf von der Mark, who has shown himself to be a determined, energetic and forward-looking ruler throughout his life. The fact that there ever was a town of Mark that was different from Hamm can hardly be credited.

There remains the possibility that Count Adolf founded the city of Hamm as early as 1213 and not, as Levold von Northof reports, in 1226. This thesis is a.o. a. supported by a find in the walls of the western gate. This calls the year 1215 as the year of construction. There are also reports that the city of Hamm was affected by a fire disaster in 1225. From this it was concluded that it must have been built beforehand. However, reports from a catastrophic fire in 1225 relate clearly more to the castle and town Nienbrügge that Count Adolf in 1225 after the murder by Adolf's cousin Frederick of Isenberg at the Cologne Archbishop Engelbert I of the mark at the behest of his successor Henry of Molenark destroy let. If Friedrich von Isenberg's influence already knew how to prevent a town from being founded in the Mark area, this was all the more true for the angle between the Lippe and Ahse rivers , the Hamms site, which is in the immediate vicinity of the Nienbrügge site. Both cities would inevitably have gotten into each other. At that time, every urban settlement required a spacious field mark , an extensive, communally used arable, pasture and logging area. The name of the count, which is derived from the Feldmark surrounding the village of Mark, is impressive evidence of this. A Hamm founded before 1225 would inevitably have challenged Nienbrügge for the Feldmark. The militarily far superior Friedrich von Isenberg would certainly have stopped this immediately. In conclusion, the founding of the city of Hamm in the corner between Lippe and Ahse would have been inconceivable at this early point in time.

Basically, this only allows one conclusion: if Adolf von der Mark set out to found a town near Burg Mark as early as 1213, his plans at that time have most likely failed. This also goes well with the fact that the document was only completed much later and then backdated. In fact, the earliest possible point in time when Adolf could even think of successfully founding a town was in 1225. Because of his involvement in the killing of Cologne Archbishop Engelbert I of Cologne, Friedrich von Isenberg, who had been banned from the Reich, had to go to prison who have run away. He traveled to Rome to plead his innocence to the Pope, but the Pope did not believe him. On his return, Friedrich was picked up and transferred to Cologne, where he was braided onto his bike as a punishment for his crime. After his death, Adolf von der Mark succeeded step by step in acquiring Friedrich's inheritance. In 1243, after the Isenberg turmoil had been settled , a partly armed dispute between Adolf von der Mark and Friedrich's son Dietrich von Altena-Isenberg , Adolf von der Mark held almost all of the former Altenaische properties in his hands, which had previously been in the division of the estate 1175/1180 had been split into the two branches of the family. Dietrich received only remnants, essentially the small county of Limburg , while most of the areas north of the Lippe fell to the Duchy of Münster . It was only after November 7th, the day of the attack, that Adolf von der Mark was able to seriously consider founding a town in the corner between Lippe and Ahse. By demonstrating on the side of the Cologne church, he was instructed to destroy Nienbrügge. Adolf did as he was told and asked the now homeless citizens of Nienbrügges to move into the newly founded town of Hamm under his rule.

Esselen suggests another solution. The space that Hamm occupies could have been partially built up as early as the beginning of the 13th century. A small village could have formed there by 1213, which Count Adolf granted certain rights, but not city rights until 1226. A kind of unifying solution to the various theories that would largely explain most of the imponderables.

This finally gives the picture that Count Adolf tried with some probability as early as 1213 to found a town of Mark without being able to put these plans into practice, and that he then, when he saw the changed political situation of 1225 finally the opportunity to do so, which had already been pre-formulated in the document of 1213 transferred town charter from Mark to the town of Hamm.

Levold von Northof reports that Count Adolf built and fortified a city between the confluence of the Lippe and Ahse rivers, which was called Hamme and the construction of which began on Ash Wednesday of 1226 (March 4th). There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Levold's report. The content and language of his chronicle show Levold to be a scholar of scientific diligence and reliability. As the educator of the sons in the Grafenhaus, he was very well informed about its history. In addition, at the time of his birth in 1279, Hamm was founded just fifty years ago. Historical tradition, archaeological finds and the conclusions drawn so far support Levold's view of things. In view of the history of the city's founding, the killing of Archbishop Engelbert, the choice of Ash Wednesday as the founding day is extremely obvious. In this way, a day of penance for the population of the outlawed city of Nienbrügge became an opportunity for a new beginning. There is therefore no doubt that Hamm was founded on Ash Wednesday, March 4, 1226, an information that was also passed down in an old record about the origins of the city of Hamm, which was previously kept in the town hall. With the legal confirmation of Count Eberhard I on March 21, 1279, the authenticity of which no one doubts, it is also clear that the town charter documented in the document of 1213 was already valid as a hammer town charter during Count Adolf's lifetime.

Completion of the document around 1226 seems plausible for various reasons. On the one hand, Lippstadt law was already fully formulated at that time. In addition, the naming of the “opidales” as those who choose their own town charter would be astonishing for people from the Mark or from an “opidum in Marca” that arose next to Nienbrügge. However, if you imagine the former citizens of Nienbrügges underneath, the name becomes understandable. The document would therefore have been made in 1225 at the earliest, at the latest in 1226, because it is very likely that Hamm already bore his name at that time (1235 at the latest). The phrase “volens construere” also indicates that a concrete plan for building the city had already been drawn up. A project also explains the strange attachments. For an existing city, forgetting the legal and financial issues would have been a curiosity; perhaps the addition could have been interpreted as a sign of a change in the existing legal situation. It is much more likely, however, that the winter was spent planning hastily and giving the planned settlement a temporary privilege so that the residents of Nienbrügge do not migrate. Only when the exact location for the construction of the city was determined in the spring, detailed questions were then determined, such as the right to which the citizens should own their Solstätten here, namely as a hereditary interest loan at four pfennigs per year.

The inconsistency of the certificate leaves the impression of a short-term projected, somewhat inexperienced company; Paragraphs 16–18 seem to be the compilation of a market organization, possibly first granted orally in individual points. All of this fits in with Levold's report, which describes a rapid intervention by Count Adolf in 1225/1226. The text of the deed fits better with the foundation from wild roots described by Levold than with a foundation based on an existing foundation.

Content and meaning of the first city law

Count Bernhard II zur Lippe had already given the citizens of Lippstadt the opportunity to choose their town charter themselves. The people of Lippstadt had opted for the partially amended Soest law , which was then recorded as Lippstadt law . Count Adolf von der Mark also granted former citizens of Nienbrügge and new citizens of Hamm with Article 1 of the founding charter the opportunity to determine their town charter themselves. The Hammer decided in favor of Lippstadt law, which was also adapted to the conditions in the new city. This made it clear that the inhabitants of the city were not serfs of the sovereign. Although Hamm was never raised to the rank of a Free Imperial City , a development that had already begun in the 11th century and which took into account the cities' increased prosperity, self-confidence and military influence through trade and commerce continued: the citizens gradually freed themselves from the complete control of the city lord and the oppressive burdens associated with it. By the time Hamm was founded, the free choice of law had already become common practice.

However, Count Adolf reserved important rights. In accordance with Article 15 of the deed of incorporation, he received an annual fee, the word interest, of 4 pfennigs for every piece of land (so-called word) in the city. Article 3 leaves him with jurisdiction over wounds with weapons, robbery and theft, supplemented by homicides (Lippstadt law Article 4). Associated with this were income from peace money and exemption fines, which the perpetrator had to pay to the lord of the city in addition to compensation to the injured or to the family of the killed (wergeld). However, according to Article 4, the mayor of the city had the right to approve the appointment of the sovereign judge. He also had the right to investigate death-worthy crimes among citizens of the city before the injured person or his family could go to the court of the city master (Article 5). The judge of the city lord by accepting a guarantee from a citizen of the city only with the consent of the city lord (Article 7). This was particularly important in the case of guarantees for high peace funds, ban fines and wergelder. According to Article 6, contrary to usual practice, the movable property and the house of a citizen who had committed a homicide were not confiscated, but passed on to his heirs, while he himself was convicted as guilty. The death penalty and body punishment were usually redeemable by paying a fine (peace and wergeld) set by the court.

The mayors and councilors, however, had jurisdiction over bread, beer and other goods, wounds without weapons and over matters of the common good . This important jurisdiction enabled the council to set quality standards for the goods traded (including weights and measures), to put an end to ruinous competition, and to prevent usury in times of inflation. It was only then that the city was in a position to ensure its own economic boom. The income from the fines (frictions / values) imposed by their own jurisdiction went to the council.

Article 19 set a fee framework for the judge, who at that time did not receive a salary but had to live on the fee income, provided that he had no other income. If a citizen was sentenced to pay 4 shillings from a surety, the judge was not allowed to take more than 6 pfennigs in fees, which corresponds to one eighth of the fixed sum.

In order to favor the influx from outside, for example that of serfs in the area (especially those who were subject to the sole disposal of the Counts of the Mark), the first city law made appropriate regulations. If a serf entered the citizenry against the objection of his master, he only had to pay the payment owed (interest or its redemption), provided that he recognized serfdom. Incidentally, he could no longer be prosecuted by his previous master. If he denied his serfdom, he could free himself from serfdom alone (without an oath helper) by taking the oath not to be a servant of a possibly contradicting master. Nor was it allowed that blood relatives testified against him as witnesses under the pressure of their own serfdom. If a serf who had joined the citizenry died, his property did not fall to his master, as was otherwise customary, but only the personal belongings of the deceased; in the case of a man, the "army clothing" (clothes, weapons, horse, armor, table, bed, chair, box, personal tools), in the case of a woman the "straight line" (personal clothing, jewelry and household items). The rest of the property, on the other hand, fell to his biological heirs as with a free person (Article 9).

According to Article 12, a payment was due for joining citizenship, which was used according to the will of the fellow citizens. The amount of this so-called "citizen's money" is only mentioned from Prussian times, namely from a report by the city to the royal Prussian government of January 5, 1719. According to this, a foreigner had to pay 8 Reichstaler for himself when entering the citizenry Pay another 6 Reichstaler to the magistrate and 4 Reichstaler for his wife. The inept people received an estate because they wanted to attract citizens from these circles.

The city offered its merchants and craftsmen good opportunities to acquire and trade thanks to the market rights mentioned in the first city law; During this time, sales of goods took place mainly in the markets. At the same time, the markets generated municipal revenue through customs duties and taxes. According to Article 16, Hamm had weekly markets from the start, which resulted in an unusually extensive trade for the time. Participation in the market was associated with safe conduct for every individual. He could not be prosecuted in civil or criminal matters unless he was banned or ostracized or committed an unusual excess during the local market (Article 16). Sundays (Article 17) and, in the case of annual fairs, the two preceding and two following days (Article 18) were also under the same escort.

With regard to market traffic and the arable and pasture farming carried out in front of the city gates, the first city law standardizes increased property protection for city residents. According to Article 11, no foreigner was allowed to take away any goods from someone who was in the city (regardless of whether they were citizens or guests), not even those to which they were entitled. In order to legitimately take something away, he had to rely on the help of the city administration or the city court.

Development of the hammer city law up to the incorporation of the county of Mark into Brandenburg-Prussia in 1609

The Counts of the Mark as city lords exercised their sovereign power and their rights as lords of the land through their ministerials. The administration was incumbent on the bailiff, whose powers also included the judicial power in the ruler's bridge court and whose jurisdiction extended to the entire area of ​​the Hamm office located in the city of Hamm and its Feldmark . In the Middle Ages he was also called Gaugraf (Gogreve) and from the 16th century on Droste.

The sovereign financial administration was carried out by the rent master , who collected the city lords' income.

Privileges

For centuries, the city of Hamm, like the other cities in the Duchy of Kleve and in the County of Mark , was only externally incorporated into the state association. Everywhere there was extensive self-government based on privileges (exercised in Hamm by the mayor and city council). This enabled the cities to be highly independent. The most important privileges of the city of Hamm included:

  • 1213: Count Adolf I von der Mark grants a town of Mark a founding privilege based on Lippstadt town charter.
  • 1226: Count Adolf I. von der Mark transfers the founding privilege for a town of Mark from 1213, based on Lippstadt town charter, to the town of Hamm.
  • May 1, 1243: Count Adolf I. von der Mark grants the city the right to fortify the city.
  • 1268/69: The city of Hamm acquires the right to mint through Count Engelbert I von der Mark .
  • March 21, 1279: Count Eberhard I. von der Mark confirms the founding privilege of the town of Hamm, which was founded in 1213 by Count Adolf I. von der Mark and based on the Lippstadt town charter for a town .
  • 1288/89: After the Battle of Worringen , the Brandenburg cities, including Hamm, receive full fortification rights .
  • 1331: Count Adolf II von der Mark grants the citizens of Hammer the right not to be summoned before a foreign court.
  • In 1358 Hamm's citizens were given by Count Engelbert III. Von der Mark had the privilege of redeeming the pension burden by paying twelve times the amount. In this way you can largely free yourself from the burdens of the city.
  • In 1363 Engelbert III pledged. from the mark against payment of 100 gold coins the fishing privileges in the Ahse to the city.
  • August 4, 1373: Engelbert III. Von der Mark grants the citizens of Hamm the privilege that the count's judge has to hold court immediately upon request of the citizens. In addition, all goods imported and traded in Hamm are exempt from customs duties through the Count's Lands .
  • July 18, 1376: The city of Hamm acquires the right to freely elect a council from Engelbert III. from the mark.
  • April 27, 1380: The citizens of Hamm received, documented by Count Engelbert III. von der Mark, the privilege that neither they nor their property may be detained or seized in the area of ​​the count's lands.
  • March 14, 1419: Count Gerhard von der Mark zu Hamm grants the city of Hamm the right not to have to accept Jews in the city. This right was confirmed in 1447 and 1462.
  • November 13, 1419: Count Gerhard von der Mark zu Hamm promises the citizens to leave the elected council unchanged.
  • November 21, 1421: Count Gerhard von der Mark zu Hamm grants the city of Hamm two new free annual markets of six days each in addition to the existing markets, one on St. Martin's Day and one on St. Thomas Day .
  • 1444: Count Gerhard von der Mark zu Hamm grants the town's bakers and brewers the commercial monopoly for beer and bread in the Hamm office .
  • 1471: Hamm is admitted to the Hanseatic League this year at the latest . (Frequent alternative information: 1469).
  • 1484: Duke Johann II von Kleve-Mark grants the city the right to levy a tax ( abzise ) on bread and beer . This tax was later extended to wine, brandy, grain, coals, cloth, groceries and others.
  • 1495: Duke Johann II of Kleve-Mark grants the city of Hamm the right to receive inheritances freely and to raise the tenth pfennig on inheritance.
  • 1503: The Roman-German King Maximilian I freed Hamm from all Westphalian free courts and other foreign courts.
  • In 1549 Hamm, together with Unna, was elevated to the status of a Hanseatic principal city above the small Hanseatic cities in the Mark.

In a document from 1631 it is documented that the city had the right to collect road money. The city also had the right to hunt and fish in the Lippe. Hamm was also allowed to hold a number of annual fairs, the Annunciation of St. Mary (March 25th), St. John the Baptist's Day (June 24th), St. Michaelis (September 29th) and St. Thomas Day (December 21st) ) took place.

The privileges - and thus the right to self-government of the city and the city ​​council  - were confirmed by the new sovereign with every change of regent. This happened among others under Count Eberhard I. von der Mark (1279 and 1280), under Count Adolf II. Von der Mark (1328), by Count Engelbert III. von der Mark (1346), under Count Adolf III. von der Mark (1392), under Count Dietrich II. von der Mark (1393), by Count Gerhard von der Mark zu Hamm (1421, 1427 and 1430), by Duke Johann I (Kleve-Mark) (1462) Duke Johann II of Kleve (1481), under Duke Johann III. von Kleve (1522) and under Duke Wilhelm von Kleve (1540). A confirmation of the privileges by the last Klevian duke, Johann-Wilhelm , has not survived. This is presumably related to his mental illness, which led to a councilor taking over government in his place. The city of Hamm felt secure in its privileges, the court council limited itself to the most essential government business.

In 1462, Duke Johann I von Kleve-Mark refrained from confirming the privileges granted to the city of Hamm by Count Gerhard von der Mark. Gerhard had received the county of Mark after a long, sometimes armed conflict, and made far-reaching concessions to the citizens in order to ensure their support. After his death, the county fell back to the Duchy of Cleves. Johann agreed with the city that Count Gerhard's documents would only be valid during his lifetime. To compensate, Johann gave our dear city of Hamm the previous free annual markets of six days each for eternity . He combined this with the right to move the days on a church holiday to the following working day. The city's right to open weekly markets was also confirmed by a document dated March 11, 1464 with this addition. Johann granted the city freedom of Jews only upon revocation.

As a result of the Reformation (from 1517) and the Peasants' War (1524–1526), ​​in the course of which the people had rebelled against the ruling class, absolutist efforts by the nobility to rule grew stronger in the 16th century . At the same time, the emerging economic system of mercantilism weakened the economic importance of cities. Duke Johann von Kleve, Mark and Ravensberg used a dispute between bakers and linen weavers around 1530 as a pretext to deprive the city of Hamm of the privilege of free council elections. The bakers' guild provided mayors and councilors . The linen weavers and their masters, whose craft was considered dishonest, although they played a major role in the city's prosperity, had neither a seat nor a vote in the town hall. After a brawl between the harvestmen and the baker boys, the linen weaver's guild master submitted a petition to the sovereign in this matter. This used the pretext, found the city of the privilege of free council elections to be unworthy and denied it. With this, Hamm's independence began to wane and gave way to the burgeoning absolutism of the sovereigns and mercantilism, which advanced into the power vacuum.

The end of the 17th century is considered to be a time of decline in urban life. Since the beginning of modern times, the late medieval power position of the cities has shown clear signs of decline. In addition to the above, there were other causes. The discovery of America from 1492 and the associated changed situation of world trade, which moved the northern and central European trade routes to the edge of political and economic events, but also the extensive destruction of Europe in the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) Spain against the Netherlands as well in the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) and the resulting impoverishment of entire regions led to the decline of the Hanseatic League and the cities belonging to it. With the Hanseatic League, the urban prosperity also disappeared. The cities were no longer impregnable fortresses, as the invention of gunpowder greatly reduced the protective effects of city fortifications.

Hammer self-administration

For the details of the Hammer self-administration and the development of city law in Prussian times, see City Council Hamm .

The hammer town charter was later adopted by many Brandenburg cities.

Translation of the original Latin text of the Brandenburg document from 1213 to Stoob

“In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity ! The grace of the Holy Spirit is with us!

Everyone now and in the future (living) should know (made) that I, Count Adolf von Altena and in Mark , willing to create a city in (the district of) Mark , have given the residents the choice of their rights. You then chose the right of the Lippstadt residents as follows:

  1. First, they have a free city. Then they choose the law of the Soester if they do not think up or find a better and more suitable one for themselves.
  2. Furthermore, all rights are sayings about bread , beer and corresponding ( food ) as well as without weapons resulting wounds and concern for the common good of the councilors of the city and the mayors leave his.
  3. However, those wounds caused by weapons, the (cases of) street robbery and theft are left to the rulings of the city rulers.
  4. Furthermore, the city lord will appoint his (city) judge with the consent of the mayor.
  5. Furthermore, no fellow citizen should bring the other to the high court without an investigation by the mayor beforehand .
  6. Furthermore, if a fellow citizen has killed, his property should not be confiscated, his house should not be laid down, but should fall to the heirs; but he is personally to be condemned as the guilty party.
  7. The Sadtrichter should recognize guarantees from its fellow citizens after approval by the mayor.
  8. Furthermore, no one who has come to the city despite objections (his) (body) man should be forced to perform anything other than that he voluntarily finds himself willing to pay the interest owed, or that he contradicts (the demand) and swears by oath (without helper) from (alleged) bondage; Under no circumstances can he be convicted by relatives (taking a group oath).
  9. Furthermore, if a self-employed man who admits to being a slave should die, the (body) man is granted the right to his army equipment (weapons, combat dress, horse) for men, and the right for women (certain parts of household items); All the rest of the property falls to the (personal) heirs and not to the (body) master. Also, everyone can give what they want to whoever they want during their lifetime.
  10. Furthermore, if a stranger comes into the city and dies there without the presence of an heir , the inheritance should be administered for the year and day. If the alleged heir arrives in the meantime, he should receive it according to city law; but if no one comes to claim the inheritance, it falls to the lord of the city. During his lifetime, however, the stranger can give his belongings to whoever he wants.
  11. Furthermore, no one should remove any or any inner-city goods outside of the city.
  12. Furthermore, if someone wishes to become a fellow citizen, everything that he (for) imposes should be invested according to the will of the citizens.
  13. Furthermore, if there is a change of ownership such that one sells a house to the other, the buyer, not the seller, is to give the city lord 12 denarii .
  14. The citizens of (the district of) Mark have given themselves these rights with the consent of their lord, Count Adolf and his co-heirs, as well as all other rights that are still valid for the Lippstadt residents.
  15. Furthermore, one should know that the house spaces have been given to the individual (citizens) at 4 deniers a year (em hereditary interest).
  16. Furthermore, the market days should offer everyone safe passage every week in such a way that they are not obliged to answer to their creditors in court, nor to stand up for other claims, provided they are not banned or ostracized, unless , someone has committed unusual crimes in this location and must be punished there.
  17. We also recognize that not all Sundays are given the same freedom.
  18. We also permit the annual fairs to be held two days before and two days after with the same sponsorship.
  19. Furthermore, if a fellow citizen is judicially sentenced to 4 shillings (fine) in surety (ss), the (city) judge should not exceed the sum of 6 denars upon receipt (of the fees).

Given in (the castle) Mark by Count Adolf, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord in 1213, on November 1st, when Celestine was Pope. Witnesses of the (right) process and first councilors of the city mentioned are: Hermann, the baker, Dietrich, the baker, Walther, the baker, Heinrich, the baker, Wernher, the blacksmith, Bruno, the Marschalk, Heinrich, the winemaker, Sigebod , the shoemaker, Heinrich vom (Wirtschafts) Hofe, Wulfhard, the (count's) estate manager, Wilhelm vom Unterhofe, Heinrich von Hewingdorf (not localized). "

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Philippi, p. 43.
  2. ↑ Overmann, p. 69.
  3. ↑ Kewer, pp. 161-163.
  4. ↑ a b c d Mensing, p. 29.
  5. ↑ a b Philippi, pp. 44, 47-48.
  6. ↑ Mensing, pp. 28-29.
  7. ↑ a b c Kewer, p. 164.
  8. ↑ a b Mensing, p. 28.
  9. ↑ a b Overmann, p. 71.
  10. ↑ Overmann, p. 67.
  11. ↑ a b Philippi, p. 44.
  12. ↑ a b Kewer, p. 161.
  13. ↑ a b c Mensing, p. 31.
  14. ↑ Overmann: Die Stadtrechte der Grafschaft Mark, Volume 1, Lippstadt , pp. 106 ff.
  15. ↑ a b c d Kewer, p. 163.
  16. ↑ Levold von Northof : The Chronicle of the Counts of the Mark , 1357/1358.
  17. ↑ Philippi, pp. 45-46.
  18. ↑ Mensing, p. 32.
  19. ↑ a b c Esselen, p. 37.
  20. ^ Philippi, p. 46.
  21. ↑ Kewer, pp. 164-165.
  22. ↑ Kewer, pp. 165-167.
  23. ↑ Kewer, p. 167.
  24. ↑ Theodore Front Tree: autonomy, centralism and self-government. The Westphalian municipal constitution and its application in Hamm from the end of the Old Prussian period to the introduction of the revised city ordinance (1700–1835) . In: 750 years of the city of Hamm. Ed .: Herbert Zink, Hamm 1976, p. 256.
  25. ^ Kewer, on different pages.
  26. ↑ Esselen, pp. 38–42.
  27. ↑ Kewer, p. 175.
  28. ↑ Esselen, p. 39.
  29. ↑ Kewer, p. 177.
  30. ↑ a b Vormbaum, pp. 255–256.
  31. ^ Fritz Brümmer: 750 years of Hamm and how it went on. A cheerful city chronicle , Hamm 1975/1987, pp. 28–29.
  32. ↑ Stoob, pp. 11-12.

literature

  • MF Essellen : Description and brief history of the Hamm district and the individual localities in the same . Goth in commission, Hamm 1851.
  • Ludolf Kewer: From the legal history of the city of Hamm in the Brandenburg-Klevian period 1226–1609 . In: Hebert Zink (Ed.): 750 years of the city of Hamm . City of Hamm, Hamm 1976, pp. 161-208.
  • Roman Mensing: The Arnsberg and Brandenburg city network in the 13th century . In: Herbert Zink (Ed.): 750 years of the city of Hamm . City of Hamm, Hamm 1976, pp. 23-38.
  • A. Overmann: The town charter of the county of Mark . Volume 2: Hamm . With a facsimile of the oldest city law, the Merian city view from around 1647 and a city map. Aschendorff, Münster 1903, ( publications by the Historical Commission for Westphalia, legal sources, Westphalian city rights 1, 2).
  • F. Philippi: The "founding document" of the city of Hamm . In: 700 years of the city of Hamm (Westphalia). Festschrift to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the city . Published by the city council of Hamm (Westphalia). Reprint of the original edition from 1927. Stein, Werl 1973, ISBN 3-920980-08-5 , pp. 43–48.
  • Heinz Stoob: The (developed) founding privilege of the city of Hamm. Text and translation by Heinz Stoob . In: Hebert Zink (Ed.): 750 years of the city of Hamm . City of Hamm, Hamm 1976, pp. 9-12.