Firewood and timber. The meaning of the forest common rights in the everyday life of peasants in Austrian Galicia

ABSTRACT

This article sets forth an exhaustive analysis of the importance of natural resources in the daily lives of peasants in nineteenth-century Austrian Galicia during a period of socio-economic upheaval. These resources included firewood and timber, and were gathered by peasants under their common rights to access manorial forests. Against the background of a changing Galician countryside, the everyday existence of peasants dependent on these resources was transformed. Forest resources symbolised wealth, and at the same time the goal of meeting the existential needs of peasants. By giving a direct voice to the rural population, as contained in unique manuscripts, it was possible to recreate and reconstruct this part of life, seen through the eyes of the poorest social group struggling with the trials of everyday life, such as poverty, hunger, shortages of fuel for cooking and heating and maintaining basic hygiene in dilapidated buildings.

Keywords:

• Natural resources, common rights, Austrian Galicia, peasants, natural resources, everyday life

INTRODUCTION

Forest common rights, as they operated in the Polish lands, were directly linked to the system of serfdom. They allowed peasants the benefit of the natural resources located on manorial land. Common rights operating throughout Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were based on the Roman-law servitutes praediorum. As land ownership could be held by the monarch, clergy or nobility, the definition was modified. Feudal serfs, bound to the land they tilled and subjected to the landlord both personally and judicially, were allowed to avail themselves of manorial land by extracting natural resources and grazing their cattle. Peasants — by virtue of common rights: gathered firewood, construction wood, forest litter, and other forest products; grazed cattle on pastures, fallows, and in forests; fished; watered their cattle in rivers, lakes and ponds; access to rights of way and the right to drive cattle; and extracted minerals from the ground. After the incorporation of a part of the Polish lands into the Habsburg monarchy in 1772, with the decline of the Commonwealth, the operation of the majority of common rights did not change (see further Popek 2021a and 2021b).

This article focuses on the daily life of the peasant population within part of the Austrian partition of Poland in the nineteenth century. Known as the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (Fig. 1), these Polish lands were incorporated into the Habsburg monarchy as one of its ‘crownlands’ with the demiseof the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth near the end of the eighteenth century (Grodziski 1971; Kalinka 1853). The Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, colloquially referred to as Galicia, was part of Polish lands in Central and Eastern Europe, which — as a result of the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth among Russia, Prussia and Austria — found itself under Habsburg rule from 1772 to 1918. It initially incorporated nearly 82,000 square kilometres of land and 2,600,000 inhabitants. Being a typical agricultural province, it struggled with economic under-development and social inequality. Inhabitants were from a myriad of ethnic origins and religious denominations. Having access to uniquely rare handwritten sources involving peasants, who had themselves for the most part been illiterate, permitted a historical reconstruction of life in the Galician countryside. Archives older than the earliest peasant memoirs are particularly rare material (Slomka 1912; Krzywicki 1935–6; Deczyński 1907; Drygas 1913; Magryś 1932). Forests, meadows, and pastures symbolised the source of basic needs in the everyday life of peasants. Accordingly, the significance of natural resources collected from forests via the exercise of common rights, such as firewood and construction wood, marks the main research problem. However, this article also deals with other, indirect, aspects of common rights, including the links between common rights and feudal labour, or the conditions for work in the forest and the transportation of wood.

Fig. 1. The Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria in Austria-Hungary in the second half of the nineteenth century (Created by the author in QGIS 3.16.9).

Moreover, it presents a voice in the debate on the functionality of forests and their management, as well as the roles played by local manorial administration and the latter’s impact on natural resources and the environment in the feudal system and in the new realities following the abolition of serfdom throughout the Habsburg monarchy in 1848. The general idea behind the article was to look for and find the place taken by Galician peasants in the changing reality of the terminal phase of serfdom, which had wrought the destruction of centuries of peasant tradition, as well as the practice of collection and use of natural resources, and the utilitarian perspective on the forest (Dudek & Zięba 2018; Ślusarek 2014).

The main role in the determination of facts and conclusions belong to archive sources. Research studies — particularly in the Central State Historical Archives in Lviv — permitted the discovery and processing of a rich source base, which now largely sees its first use in this article. Archive complex no. 146/64 (land and forest common rights in Galicia) with its more than 12,000 files was the main subject of analysis. Each of these files refers to localities (towns or villages) with common rights abolished or regulated in the second half of the nineteenth century. Each file contains numerous types of sources frequently referencing earlier periods and confirming the nature and terms of operation of common rights in a given locality. This type of documentation primarily includes the record of conflicts between peasants and landlords (nobility), as well as details of liquidation proceedings in Galicia. Among the latter, transcripts from peasant hearings are prominent. The goal of investigations held by the territorial administration was to determine from when, and on what terms, common rights had functioned in a given locality. Transcripts of hearings are an invaluable source of information, for they constitute a direct record coming from the largely illiterate serf population. Those appearing before the commission had to swear to tell the truth, and affix their signatures at the end of the document in the form of a cross sign. Officials taking the testimonies usually noted them down in a form similar to the language spoken by the testifying person. This was the case with Polish or German peasants (e.g. colonists), while the testimonies of Ukrainian peasants, as a rule, were translated into Polish or German on the spot. This observation is substantiated primarily by the language of the documentation of the commissions of inquiry, referring to the testimonies given by the population living in eastern Galicia (including village representatives) (CSHAUL Vol. 4822, 10058, 11793, 11858).

Summoned peasants would testify in two parts — general and specific. In the general part they would state their biographical details (date and place of birth, family, place of residence, religious denomination, occupation, the farm owned, and any criminal record). The specific part, on the other hand, comprised information about common rights, that is the full picture of the use of natural resources located on manorial land (forests, meadows, pastures) (CSHAUL cor. 146/64, Vol. 1–12109; Ślusarek2015).

The topics are arranged on the basis of problems. The main section incorporates an analysis of the significance of the forest in the context of meeting demand for firewood and construction wood. It highlights the extent of the peasants’ dependence on manorial forests, the destination and classification of firewood, the value of natural resources in everyday life for cooking meals and providing heating for rooms, as well as the circumstances of wood gathering (starting from entering the forest and moving around), conditions for the use of tools and transportation, and ultimately the role of the various official and unofficial forms of reciprocity. In the case of construction wood, attention was focused more on its intended use and the administrative procedures involved in its gathering. Its importance is primarily cast against the background of life conditions, i.e. the construction and renovation of peasants’ cottages and farm buildings, as well as the construction of the most important tools (harrows and ploughs) and farm facilities (well casings, feeding troughs, wooden hoardings, and other sorts of fences). The importance of firewood and construction wood taken from manorial forests in the life of peasants is approached from two perspectives — the lowlands and the highlands, where custom and everyday life was adapted to the terrain and more challenging weather conditions.

The article deals with a research field which has not yet been fully and comprehensively evaluated. Some publications from the latter half of the nineteenth century (Krzeczunowicz1862; Henke 1846; Kochanowski1923; Woyzbun1869; Wodzicki 1867), which usually possessed a reflective character, attempted to resolve the problem of the protracted process of liquidation of common rights with the attendant mass-scale conflict. The tone struck by works published under the Second Polish Republic (1918–39) was similar, albeit the majority pertained to the abolition of common rights in the territories of the former Russian partition (Gilczyński 1921; Ludkiewicz 1921; Miklaszewski 1928; Janicki 1918; Kawecki 1939; Malinowski 1921; Strzelecki 1901; Szczerbowski 1907). Later, the peasant question fell within the scope of interest of the historians of the Communist era (pre-1989). The context of common rights, however, was invoked as a tool to confirm the theory of class conflict (i.e. between the working class and large landowners) (Stankiewicz 1958; Brodowska 1956; Mazurek 1957). Texts written in that period did not, therefore, delve into a comprehensive discussion of the importance of natural resources to peasants’ livelihoods, nor were there at any point any studies into the administrative procedures for the abolition or regulation of common rights throughout Galicia. The state of knowledge did not change after 1989. Although common rights in the Austrian, Prussian and Russian partitions persisted as a recurrent issue, the problem was approached only from a partial or general perspective (Amato 2020; Blum 1978; Király 1971; Stauter-Halsted 2001; Ślusarek 2002, 1999; Kargol 2016; Warciński 2013; Kozaczka 1994; Guzowski 2016).

Research on common rights in Galicia and Russia was also undertaken by Ukrainian scholars. However, this direction consisted in synthesising problems or embedding threads related to the use of natural resources in a broader thematic context, e.g. the history of the peasantry or the Ukrainian national movement (Himka 1988; Петреченко 2010; Zayarnyuk2007).

The need for a thorough study of those common rights that had been part of the feudal system in the Polish lands also gains especial importance in the context of disparity and interest in the issue of commons in Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Norway, or Germany (De Moor et al. 2002; French 2003; Clark & Clark 2001). Furthermore, indirectly, the article touches upon historical debate on Second Serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe (Ogilvie 2016, 2005; Cerman 2012). Accordingly, it will contribute to a more in-depth examination of the agrarian and social transformations and the everyday life of peasants in the multi-ethnic Habsburg monarchy. Within it, economic development varied from one province to the next. Austrian Galicia itself was often referenced as the poorest part of the entire monarchy, or even of Europe.

RESULTS

the forest. a symbol of wealth or the existential needs?

To Galician peasants the forest symbolised a source of natural resources to meet the existential necessities of their everyday lives. As part of their common rights, peasants collected firewood and construction wood from forests, and extracted minerals. They also grazed cattle and swine. Additionally, forest areas provided shelter for herdsmen and animals from hot temperatures or heavy rainfall. Moreover, they were a source of fruit, mushrooms, acorns, beechnuts, herbs, moss, as well as broadleaf and coniferous forest litter. The manorial system, lasting until 1848, governed the right to hold land, including forests. Galician serfs did not own the land they cultivated (and so they could not dispose of it without the nobleman’s consent) and were barred from so-called major landowning. Vast estates could only be in the hands of the nobility, clergy or the monarch.¹

In this regard, the feudal dependency of the serfs on their landlords was heavily pronounced, and the minerals taken from manorial forests were of existential importance for the functioning of peasant farms and the livelihood of peasant families. Not having their own forests, they frequently relied on common rights. Where the latter were restricted or outright disregarded, the only way out was to purchase the resources, which required money, of which the peasants rarely had much (Dąbkowski 1911.

Table 1 shows the general distribution of profit- able farmlands in particular villages throughout Galicia. Here, the source base was the Josephinischer Kataster (metrykajózefińska) — the first cadastre commissioned by Emperor Joseph ii in the 1780s. It accounted for every single locality for tax purposes. The summary provides the most important information, that is the total acreage of manor farms (M) and serf farms (S) with estimated income. The Austrian cadastre clearly shows who owned the forests in Galicia and the extent of the peasants’ dependence on this type of manorial property. A similar trend could also be seen after the abolition of serfdom in 1848 as most of the private forests (about 90 per cent) were in the hands of the nobility (Frank 2007, p. 39).The table reflects the general state of affairs in Galicia, with the peasants, for the most part, not owning any forest land.² These villagers relied on common rights for their timber requirements, as attested by the voluminous files of the abolition procedure accomplished in the latter half of the nineteenth century (CSHAUL).³

TABLE 1. FARMLAND STRUCTURE IN VILLAGES LOCATED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF GALICIA NEAR THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY (Source: CSHAUL, cor. 19/I, Vol. 96; 19/IV, Vol. 116, 133; 19/V, Vol. 51; 19NI, Vol. 175, 225; 19NII Vol. 31, 337-348; 19NIII, Vol. 75, 135; 19/IX, Vol. 36, 114; 19/XII, Vol. 13, 15; 19/XIII, Vol. 131; 19/XIV, Vol. 194; 19/XVI, Vol. 68, 244; 19/XVII, Vol. 190; 19/XVIII, Vol. 21, 37; 19/XIX, Vol. 139).

Lower Austrian morgen (approximately 0.5755 ha or 1.4221 acres) contained 1,600 fathoms. Ihnatowicz 1967. Vademecum do badań nad historią XIX i XX wieku, p. 39.

firewood

One of the most important resources collected by peasants from manorial forests — by virtue of common rights — was firewood. This was used almost every day throughout the year — for cooking, baking, drying fruit, mushrooms and herbs, curing meat, and preparing hot washing water. In winter months, on the other hand, firewood was required for heating homes (usually a single room). Thus, for the most part, the peasants collected firewood for their own needs. Only in some places in Galicia (mainly state-owned manors) could the inhabitants sell what they had gathered (Rozdolski 1962; Pączewski 1924; Strzelecki 1874).

As a rule, the firewood collected by peasants from manorial forests underwent general and detailed classification. The distinction was usually between ‘light gathering’ (drobnazbiórka) and ‘heavy gathering’ (grubszazbiórka). Most often, the former included materials of inferior quality, mostly used by peasants and of no interest to the landlords due to their low value. Because of the diversity of terms on which common rights functioned throughout Galicia, classifications and naming conventions were not clear everywhere. Nonetheless, four types of firewood can be distinguished among the so- called ‘light gathering’:

1. So-called ‘tops’ (wierzchy) and fresh branches — that is leftovers from the usual tree cropping (most often during the felling of timber), fit only for fuel due to its low quality or thickness and the large number of knots. These fresh branches were mainly taken from soft trees, no more than a couple of inches thick, as were so-called ‘tops’, that is the uppermost and thinnest layer of a felled tree.⁴

2. So-called leżanina — all sorts of coarse wood debris — not fit for use as construction material, including thick pieces of bark.

3. Standing dead trees (‘snags’) — dry, rotten, eaten by worms, or decayed, not fit for construction use. Peasants usually collected this type of fuel in the winter season, when felled branches were covered by snow. This category includes the cutting of dwarf trees and so-called podsuszki, that is dead young trees (one-year or two-year old), no more than several inches thick and easy to pull from the ground. After cutting down such a tree or digging it out with roots, the peasants were required to cover the hole and level it with forest litter.

4. So-called karpyor pniaki (stumps) — the part of a tree remaining in the ground after the tree was felled, along with the main root system. Fresh stumps just after cutting were usually difficult to extract, and the peasants were not always allowed to do so. As a rule, they dug out older and decayed karpy (rootstocks) with their main root systems by prizing them out with a wooden stick (szlagaor kula: CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 1960–1), or by exposing the main parts of the root system with a hoe and chopping off the branches with an axe. In some manors, the custom was to dig out only those stumps which could not be pulled out with bare hands. In other villages, by contrast, such stumps were left in the earth to form organic humus. Pine rootstocks were an exception, as they provided a valuable resource from which to make tar.⁵ Peasants were rarely given permission to extract, make or sell tar, which was often a separate and independent common right. Karpy, however, were usually extracted by manorial servants, later to be sold to tar makers (maziarze). Alternatively, the right to excavate was awarded directly to the craftsmen. For other species, such as fir, spruce, beech or oak, the extraction of fresh stumps with root systems was no easy task. Due to the heavy labour required, no attempts were usually made to extract them unless there was a serious firewood shortage.

The second category of firewood, that is ‘heavy gathering’, extended to all species of trees, usually freshly fallen branches, having suffered damage during forest work (zerwiska) or overturned by strong winds (wykroty). It also included thick podsuszki — dry dead trees unfit for construction purposes. Thick branches requiring an axe for chopping and preparation for transport also belonged to this category. In the majority of cases, the collection of ‘heavy gathering’ from manorial forests necessitated the payment of an additional fee. The value of thicker wood was significantly greater, whether for sale or for the internal purposes of manorial management.⁶ In some estates, the custom was that only the most well-deserving serfs were awarded permission to gather thick wood (for example as a reward for having no feudal labour arrears or for rendering additional services to the manor). Moreover, ‘heavy gathering’ was given to the peasants on an individual basis on various family occasions such as weddings and christenings (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 6454).

Demand for firewood varied by season (Table 2). Average room dimensions provided the basis for the calculation of the volume of fuel for winter months and general demand for cooking wood. The selection of tree species was usually grounded in custom reflecting the forest’s wealth. For the most part, however, peasants would gather soft wood such as spruce, fir, larch, pine, poplar, or alder. In estates enjoying a good relationship between the serfs and the manor, a specific system was adopted. The manor would allocate a given number of trees of particular species to each unit of peasant farmland, such a niwa, łan, or the whole of an individual farmer’s landholding. In such circumstances, the peasants received fresh wood and needed not to worry about firewood the whole year long. This system prevailed in villages such as Przegonina, where the kmiecie⁷— peasant farmers — received two beeches and two firs each in the autumn of every year. The guiding principle was to cut down such trees as were thick enough for a single beech to provide approximately twenty horse carts’ worth of timber and five carts from a fir (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 2025).

TABLE 2. AVERAGE DEMAND FOR FIREWOOD IN VILLAGES OF THE ORDYNACJA ŁAŃCUCKA¹ — FEE-TAIL ESTATES HELD BY THE POTOCKI FAMILY MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY (Original study. Source: CSHAUL 146/64 vol. 5282).

1. Ordynacjarodowa (fideicommissum, fee-tail estate, similar to a majorat or fideicommis) — a complex of landed estates governed according to a founding charter, the purpose of which was usually to prevent fragmentation by establishing primogeniture or some other specific form of inheritance (Zielińska 1977. pp.

17–30).

2. 1 fathom — a unit of length divided into 6 feet, that is 1.8966 metres (see: Baczkowski 2019, p. 11).

3. 1 chord (or cubic fathom) — a spatial unit of measurement applicable to wood and divided into 8 feet, that is approximately 4 m3 (see: Ślusarek 2018, p. 235).

The conditions for gathering firewood or otherwise entering manorial forests were a most important aspect in the everyday life of a Galician peasant. The use of forests could be free and unrestricted, but such situations were rare. The terms on which common rights could be exercised usually changed when estates were divided or the whole estate changed hands, or when the authorities passed a legal amendment (for example statutory limitations on the number of internal forest tracks available to peasants near the end of the eighteenth century) (Edicta Et Mandata 1782, X. 168; Biegelmajer 1858, p. 134). However, the passing of the estate into private hands, or specific reforms such as the abolition of serfdom in 1848, did not necessarily have to change the way the rights operated. In numerous villages the peasants enjoyed uninterrupted use of manorial forests on a stable basis. This was the case, among others, in the village of Dominikowice, the inhabitants of which retained their common rights until formal abolition in the 1860s (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 1960–1.28). Analysis of archive sources shows that major estates with larger forest areas had clear, specific regulations for the gathering of wood, use of tools, conduct in, and movement around the forest. Most often, the use of a specific forest district was a consequence of belonging to whatever manor farm to which the peasants provided feudal labour. In this way, they were subordinated to the authority of a specific manorial official who knew whether a given farmer had arrears in service or had performed additional labour in the field or forest. In well-managed manors, the terms of forest use evoked scarcely any emotion and rarely led to conflict. On set days, in the morning hours, the peasants gathered at the forest tollgates and handed in written assignations, that is permits allowing entry and the collection of firewood to the manor’s servants. Such a document could include the peasant’s given name and family name, place of residence, house number, signature from the manor farm administrator or the owner of the estate, and the authorised number of cartloads. The peasant sometimes provided additional work at the forester’s post at his request. That practice was met with no opposition, for in return the peasants could be allowed to gather more valuable wood or be awarded some other privilege. After handing in the assignation to the forester, each farmer received the so-called ‘forest stamp’ (znaczeklasowy), that is a wooden plaque or piece of paper containing an impression of the landlord’s seal. The purpose of such a document was inspection by forest wardens. After the tollgates were opened, the manorial servants would lead groups of peasants with carts inside and toward appointed forest districts, and later supervise the collection. One manorial employee could supervise several, or several dozen, carts (sometimes as many as 200 peasants entered the forest). The head forester’s task was to provide general management and supervision and designate forest districts. In the forest’s planned economy, such a district could also be a type of logging site — zręb — that the peasants cleared by removing fresh branches and tops. After leaving the tollgates, the peasants had to submit to a search by the manorial servants, so as to verify that only authorised wood was being removed in keeping with the permits. The cargo was also inspected for any forbidden tools such as saws or axes. Any farmer caught committing such an offence (or cutting down a healthy tree) was ordered to unload the entire cargo and go back home with an empty cart (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 52750.

Different terms governed the gathering of firewood in the mountains, where the terrain and heavy rainfalls made movement and transport more difficult. In those cases, the rule was to adapt to the season. The gathering intensified in autumn, with provisions being made for the winter. Sometimes written assignations were not used in that season and all farmers were instead allowed to enter the forest. In smaller estates the proprietor himself marked specific trees for felling or forest areas for firewood gathering and could be present with the peasants. At a time of intensive work in the field (summer months), only in extraordinary situations did the peasants go to the manor for permission to gather wood. Scheduled gathering usually began after harvest time or during the potato harvest (usually from September to December). If anyone lacked firewood for the winter, the large distances, terrain, rainfall, and shorter days turned gathering into a significant challenge (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 1964).

For collected firewood, horse or ox-drawn carts were the principal mode of transport. The number of animals pulling the cart was not usually restricted, though carriages or, in winters, sleighs, pulled by two oxen or two horses were the most common. When trees were chopped in winter, the peasants could use larger sleighs, capable of holding more material. In extraordinary situations, units pulled by three or four horses were used. That was the case, for example, during spring thaws, when roads were in a miserable condition. The volume was usually measured in fury (plural of fura), that is traditional carts or peasant wagons. Kmiecie, that is farmers in possession of a full unit of land (rola) were allowed to remove anywhere between twenty and forty cartloads of firewood yearly, solely for their own needs. Poorer farmers (for example zagrodnicy,⁸ chałupnicy,⁹or komornicy)¹⁰ would carry firewood on their backs, in bundles wrapped in linen or strapped with rope. That, however, was rare, as it was the mode of transport for poorer resident (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 5275, 1960–61).

As with the transport of wood, the conditions of working in the forest could be extremely onerous. The collection of the ‘light gathering’ was not comparatively a hard task; clearing the logging sites, however, or cutting fresh trees for fuel, or digging out tree stumps, could become very difficult, especially in the winter. Occasionally, the distance between farms and the forest areas allotted for firewood gathering posed a challenge. In some situations, farmers living a dozen or more miles away from the forest had to spend two days bringing one cartload of firewood back home (spending the night in the forest). Another problem directly affecting work in the forest was the condition of access roads, as well as the condition of manorial forest highways. With its heavy rainfall, the spring-thaw season sometimes made roads inaccessible to man and horse alike. The greatest difficulty, however, from the peasants’ perspective, often sparking conflict and outrage, was the ban on tools. The conditions for bringing axes and saws into the forest and using them there depended on local custom and the manor’s rules. In some villages (for example in Nowy Targ district) firewood could be chopped and processed on-site with the use of a wide array of tools — axes, saws and wedges for cleaving thicker stumps.

Elsewhere, however, axes were banned altogether, thus preventing the peasants from collecting the ‘heavy gathering’. Major estates had several access roads, with tollgates guarding each. Any peasant trying to enter the forest had to submit to a search by manorial servants — ‘Before entering the forest the serfs were searched by the forester with servants to make sure they were not carrying any axes. These were searched for below the outer garments and under the belt. Sacks and carts were searched, and if any axe was found, it was taken away and deposited in a guard post before the entrance to the forest’. Depending on the relations between the village and the manor, axes could be confiscated or temporarily kept in the building at the forest and returned upon leaving. The smuggling of tools was usually punished with a fine, though the peasants, if familiar with the supervisor or the forester, resorted to bribing them with petty gifts or additional work at the forester’s hut. The use of tools could also have the landlord’s permission. This happened in extraordinary circumstances involving major works in the forest. At such a time, rather than looking for hired hands, the landlord would seek an arrangement with the peasants (for example in Klimkówka in Jasło district), whereby in exchange for felling trees and transporting the wood to the sawmill, they were allowed to keep the leftovers, that is the thicker branches and tops (Fig. 2). Another such circumstance could involve clearing logging sites (oczyszczaniezrębów). In some places in Galicia the custom was for the peasants, prior to clearing the logging site, to deposit all of their axes on a single cart. This was to prevent unauthorised straying during the passage and to keep the whole company together. Thereafter they had their tools returned to them and were allowed to collect fresh fuel. Moreover, at the proprietor’s or head forester’s order, peasants sometimes cut out so-called podrosty (saplings),¹¹ referred to as kurdaczki in the countryside. This possibly occurred several times a year. It is worth emphasising that in their relations with foresters and other manorial officials, villagers followed the principle of limited trust, which meant they did not always blindly accept whatever the forester had said or ordered. If tools were banned, they went directly to the landlord, relaying the forester’s ordinances. At such times it might turn out that foresters had abused their positions for material gain. The most frequent grievance was the increasing demands imposed by manorial servants, such as ever larger bribes for the return of confiscated axes.¹² In some other villages, on the other hand, all such graft was in consideration of more valuable firewood, such as trees overthrown by stronger winds and storms, thick dry pieces or pine stumps, rich in tar, for making torches (szczapy).¹³ Small gifts (eggs, hens, capons, millet, and other agricultural produce) for forest servants were something natural in villages. During hearings, the peasants took these for granted, with no fear of having committed an offence against the landlord. In Bielanka, a village in Nowy Sącz district, one of the farmers stated clearly: ‘such was the state of things that if any of the farmers wanted any fallen branches, overturned or rotten, for fuel, he would then bribe the forester, and foresters would allow farmers to remove such thicker wood (…) in return for gifts of some kind.’ (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 1944, 1963–1964, 5275).

Fig. 2. Forest common areas in Klimkówka in Jasło district (Created by the author in QGIS 3.16.90).

Small bribes for manorial officials and other forms of graft belonged to the category of unofficial reciprocation for being allowed to gather more valuable firewood. These also included small services rendered by the peasants to a given manor farm or forester’s hut. In the majority of cases, firewood was gathered from manorial forests free of charge, while the minor services provided by the peasants were regarded as a gesture of goodwill, cultivating a proper relationship with the forester or bailiff (of which the landlord was not necessarily informed). Providing ash was regarded as one such service.¹⁴ In manorial management, ash had several uses. First of all, it was a soil fertilizer. A single peasant farm was regarded as being capable of yielding a dozen or so bushels¹⁵ of purified ash throughout the year. Larger estates had workshops making soap from ash. This raw material was, as a rule, collected in a specific month. At that time all of the farmers of a village would gather in one place and bring all the ash to the manor farm or the forester’s post or directly to the workshop. Before removing the ash from the sacks, the manorial servants would inspect it for quality, purity and fitness for soap production. The peasants also used ash themselves for cloth washing and for canvas whitening, the latter using a process referred to as blichowanie (bleaching).¹⁶ In some manors, such as those in Limanowa Powiat, the custom was for the peasants to draw a cartload of firewood, burn it in their hearths or stoves and bring the ash back to the manor, to be handed the permit for another cartload. Occasionally, at the forester’s request, the peasants would go to the forest to gather pine-cones or other cones for forest nurseries. Similar measuring conventions applied as in the case of ash. The work was not hard. Large quantities of cones could be picked up by children, and thus show greater favour to the manor. Moreover, cones were usually returned by those peasants whose farms lay the closest to the manorial forests or by farmers particularly desirous of some individual benefit or improved relations with the landlord (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 2035, 11774). The form of reciprocation (official or unofficial) usually depended on whatever was the established custom. The so-called kolęda (carol) tradition in a village called Podleszany could serve as an example here. This was related to Christmas, around which time the peasants exercised their common rights by collecting firewood from manorial forests, in return bringing eggs, lard, sausages, yarn, and grain to the foresters. The foresters usually kept the kolęda for themselves (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 11798).

construction wood

Common rights allowing the peasants to gather construction wood in manorial forests operated on completely different terms. Construction wood was universally used by peasants in the construction or renovation of houses and farm buildings, making farm tools and kitchen utensils, as well as building facilities and infrastructure such as fences and timber casings. Thus, the gathering of construction wood was an extraordinarily important matter in the lives of peasants. Access to this construction material affected the quality of everyday life. It defined the basic living standard, that is the residential conditions and the material condition of cottages and other peasant buildings, such as stables, cowsheds and barns. It was usual for peasants and animals to live under the same roof. This is attested, for example, by the words of a peasant from West Galicia, who testified that ‘before 1846, few peasants had stables; the cattle and themselves stayed under one roof ’ (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 11798). Any restrictions on access to construction wood, compounding the peasants’ poverty and want, affected the material condition and basic hygiene of their dwellings. As buildings were usually made of fresh wood, they succumbed faster to decay, rot and insects. The lack of the most necessary renovations often contributed to a dramatic deterioration of living conditions, as demonstrated by the following words of a peasant grievance from the mid-nineteenth century: ‘The peasants have to live in sinking and stinking buildings, keep their cattle in similar pens, and this has the worst effects on human public health, with uncountable [loss] given the level of poverty and disease prevailing today.’ (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 6450).

It was rare for peasants to gather construction wood from manorial forests without the landlord’s permission. A villager who needed construction materials, for example for renovation, had to follow the manor’s rules. First, he should approach the manor and provide a detailed statement of requirements and quantity. A detailed account of his living standard and wealth was sometimes necessary. The peasant had to give his name, residence, occupation, extent, and form of feudal labour provided, his specific requirement for wood, the condition of his house, cowshed or barn. Thereafter, the landlord (or, in major estates, a head forester or bailiff) would order the servants to make the relevant assessments, that is go to the petitioner’s farm and assess the need on site, that is the quantity, value, species, and dimensions, for example of roof or wall beams needed. If the manor’s servants lacked such experience, the local carpenter was asked to assist. Later, the forester would go to the forest in the peasant’s company and mark (a process known as cechowanie)¹⁷ the trees to be cut. Farmers themselves were responsible for felling and transporting wood to their farms. The leftovers, that is branches and tops, were usually removed for their own use. This rigorous approach to the provision of firewood acted as a sort of control system for the use of wood — trees were marked to be felled either on an individual basis or during scheduled clearing as part of a planned forest economy (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 9291, 6450, 1964).

Technical estimates of the demand for con- struction wood, made for the purposes of common- rights abolition proceedings in the latter half of the nineteenth century, were based on manorial documentation from the feudal period (including types and quantities of wood issued from the forest) kept by foresters, bailiffs, administrators, or landlords themselves. The construction of a house, stable or barn was a costly investment that included a payment to the manor for the construction material (usually in the form of labour), the transport of heavy materials and the construction work itself. As a rule, wood was given to the neediest, such as the victims of natural disasters (for example fires or floods) or people whose buildings were on the verge of collapsing. Manorial indicative estimates expected a residential building (peasant cottage) to last approximately seventy years. Two renovations — a major and a minor one — were usually undertaken during its useful life. For peasant buildings, the most important items were sill plates (przyciesie), wall beams, roof beams, rafters, patches, and sawn wood. Technical estimates and reports made by manorial officials indicate a diversity of size and purpose among peasant dwellings (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 1964, 1966, 5268). In some parts of Galicia there was a general system of several categories of buildings and structures (Table 3):

1. Stand-alone houses, barns, stables and cowsheds.

2. Houses and stables under one roof with a stand- alone barn.

3. Smaller houses and stables under one roof with a small stand-alone barn.

TABLE 3. AVERAGE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION WOOD IN THE VILLAGE OF HADLESZKLARSKIE IN THE MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY (Original study. Source: CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, vol. 2971).

1. Sill plates (podwaliny, przyciesie) -thick wood beams set horizontally on the foundation and carrying the wall framing. Oskar Kolberg, Lud. ]ego zwyczaje, spos6b iycia, mowa, podania, przyslowia, obrz dy, gusla, zabawy, piefni, muzyka i tance (Warszawa, 1867), p. 78.

2. Top plates- planks set horizontally on ceiling beams. Irena Nizinska, Budownictwo wiejskie we wsi Ciche, pow. Nowy Targ (Wrodaw, 1966), 27.

3. Dyle- thick wooden beams. Linde, Slownik Hzyka polskiego, I, 114.

4. Lower Austrian fathom= 6 feet. 1 foot= 12 inches. Ihnatowicz 1967, Vademecum do badan, p. 35.

The demand for construction wood also extended to all types of household and farm utensils, such as kitchen utensils. Without a fee this type of material was, however, usually given to large farmers who provided feudal labour using their own animals and tools. The wood for carts, sleighs, ploughs, harrows, hoes, and other tools depended on the exact species available in the forest, though beech was the most prevalent. Materials for cattle-feeding troughs were a separate group, with firwood being used. In the case of the agricultural tools used for feudal labour, the materials were issued free of charge at regular intervals, which was also in the manor’s own interest. This was directly attested by the administrators of the various manor farms when questioned on the subject. One said:

Peasants who did feudal labour with horses were given wood for the betterment of their ploughs and harrows on account of that service, for one who had not had that tool in good order would not have been able to do good service on the fiscal field. The manor was, therefore, motivated by its own interests to support those peasants doing their feudal labour with their own horses in the keeping of their ploughs and harrows in fit order (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 5275).

The life cycle of tools depended on work intensity. Sometimes it only took three years before the peasants needed to repair or replace a tool. Depending on the estate, the manor farm administrator made a schedule of demand for each farmer every couple of years. During that time, he was allowed to inspect farms to estimate what was needed and assess the condition of the worn tools. When done, the schedule went to the forester, who, in turn, issued the peasants with ready wood. This was similar to wood intended for feeding troughs. That wood was usually given to those peasants who provided feudal labour with their own animals, i.e. the more valuable form of feudal labour, and, for example, the residents of villages in which military units were stationed or frequently passing through (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 5275, 8753).

From the peasants’ view, construction also had its other uses. Individual inhabitants, groups of them or entire villages requested the manor for free wood for well casings,¹⁸ cranes, winches, and buckets. Where the water intake was intended for the use of a larger number of inhabitants or for watering the cattle used as beasts of burden in feudal labour, the landlords were more inclined to help. Contrariwise, if the well was for the use of a single farm, the farmer could expect to be denied or charged a fee (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, vol. 2025). Whether the wood was to be provided from the manorial forests free of charge or for a fee, the peasant had first go to the landlord. In some estates this was no easy task, for the only way was to submit a written petition. Illiterate peasants thus had to pay the village scribe to draw up the document without having any guarantee that the request would be granted. Such was the custom of the major estates, but otherwise it was not prevalent. Take the case of Alojzy Popiel, the proprietor of the village of Rohizno in Sambir district in East Galicia. His rule was that each and every peasant farmstead had to be neat and well fenced. Manorial servants were required to provide every farmer with forest litter and material for fences. Any farmer failing to abide by Popiel’s ordinances by not exercising the proper care of his belongings could be fined (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 8753).

Where peasants were provided with construction wood by virtue of their common rights, official reciprocations (that is fees) usually applied. If the serfs lacked sufficient funds, they could repay the debt by providing labour to the manor: for example during infrastructure works (digging ditches, cleaning discharges and canals, reinforcing dykes, erecting border mounds in forests, or assisting in hunts as runners or beaters). In some estates, the manorial servants kept special ledgers recording what part of a road, embankment or ditch was dug by whom and what firewood was provided in return. Official payment was not necessarily the entire expense. Sometimes peasants also had to reimburse the forester for assessing wood for the construction or renovation of a building and going to the forest to designate a tree for cutting. An example could be found in the village of Rychwałd, where the inhabitants, in the first half of the nineteenth century, had to pay the forester approximately 6 kreutzers for this exertion (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, Vol. 8753). Moreover, by way of unofficial reciprocation, the forester could task the peasants with minor forest works. These included repairs on manorial forest highways, rolling wood to the sawmill, repairing fences at forester posts and manor farms, transporting and chopping firewood, cutting the chaff, and mowing the grass on forest clearings. While refusing to provide such labour had no bearing on the pending decision about the wood, the peasants tried to be in good relations with the forester, which could have its own tangible benefits (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, vol. 2035, 5269, 5275).

DISCUSSION

Economic change in the second half of the nine- teenth century remodelled the functioning of forests. The new policy supported by government circles in Vienna had the goal of converting feudal forests into production enterprises. In some parts of Galicia, private owners engaged in outright over- exploitation, devastating forests. Such was the case when the vast woods in the Tatra Mountains (the region of Zakopane and Białka) were held by the Homolacs, then Eichborn, and then, after 1881, the Peltz families (Nowak 1986). The state authority were not supportive of forest over-exploitation, but they did support the landlords to free their properties from peasant common rights, so that landlords could engage in a planned production economy (Broda 2000). Furthermore, in the latter half of the century, the importance of timber increased, leading to more intensive exploration of manorial forests entering the path of industrialisation. Conversely, the importance of direct profits from the sale of wood in a general wood economy waned. Instead, greater attention was paid to the increasing demand for wood in industrial plants (processing of agricultural produce in modern distilleries, grinding mills and sugar plants, and of forest materials in sawmills; non-agricultural plants near mineral sites, such as foundries, mines and refineries) (Kargol 2010). The abolition of serfdom brought with it changes toward a capitalist economy, also how the functionality of the forests was perceived. Granting peasants the ownership of the land they had tilled, and abolishing their common rights throughout Galicia, meant that peasants ended up with a wholly different way of supplying themselves with the natural resources they needed in everyday life. The process of abolition and regulation of common rights commenced in 1857, and led to the creation of communal forests and land co-operatives, spun off from manorial forests by way of compensation for the abolished rights. Where the buyout was for money, part of the communes decided to use the funds received (along with contributions from the inhabitants) to purchase appropriate forest areas. This was done in the villages of Mazury and Zielonka in the 1880s (SAP, cor. 1057, vol. 4). As a result, villagers holding an interest in a landowning co-operative or inhabitants of entire communes gaining the possession of forests through one of the above avenues could avail themselves of forests or pastures on the basis of the resolutions of their own communal councils and co-operatives. The inhabitants of a village that decided against the purchase of suitable property or did not have its rights recognised and compensated had to take the only remaining path — that was outright purchase from manorial forests.

In the eyes of the representatives of ‘scientific forestry’ — landowners and the governing elites in Galicia or in Vienna — common rights on lands and forests were identified with the archaic feudal system, an ineffectual form of forest management and exploitation, and a harmful impact on the forest culture and vegetation. The above arguments, of which the purpose was to affirm the merit of the idea of fully freeing the manorial land of common rights, also resounded in the minds of the local officials from the commissions investigating common rights. In the opinions of the commissions’ experts, the multi-purpose forest had to change, meet the requirements of a modern economy, and serve the interests of landowners. In one of the proceedings before the local commission in Nowy Targ, the officials found that:

The forest, or the forest enterprise incorporated in the estate, ought to be the main axis of business; and if until now, due to the lack of industrialisation, there had been little demand for timber and little value in it, this will change for the better as relations change. Now, the proprietor, unbound by any common rights, will be able to manage the enterprise skilfully and guided by his own best interest. He will conduct the enterprise rationally according to certain principles and rules, which may have a general beneficial impact on the national culture. (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, vol. 1966).

This is what the majority of the experts and officials working in local commissions believed, as well as those on the central level in Lviv. It was the main argument in favour of redemption for an equivalent in the form of spinning off some forest areas from the manorial forests and transferring them to the commune.

Numerous conflicts about common rights demonstrated the growing polarisation in society concerning the function to be played by the forests — whom they were meant to serve and how. Social tensions and the overtly hostile relations between the peasants and the nobility, known from the 1846 peasant revolt, manifested themselves in two polar-opposed perspectives — that of the peasants, to whom forest products were a means of satisfying their basic existential needs, and the landowners, to whom the forest was a source of income. The purpose of arguments alleging a harmful impact of common rights on the natural environment, raised by landowners and the representatives of ‘scientific forestry’, was to facilitate and expedite the acquisition of manorial land minus peasant common rights. As compared to the arguments in favour of the need to change the way forests worked in Galicia, the peasant voice could only resound far less forcefully (mainly heard in the deliberations of the National Diet in Lviv in the latter half of the nineteenth century).²⁰

Natural resources taken from forests, and manorial resources providing maintenance for farm animals, as objects of common rights, played a vital role in the lives of Galicia’s peasant population. On the one hand, they fulfilled some of the farms’ most important functional needs, such as the preparation of meals, heating of rooms, construction and repair of farm buildings and tools, as well as the maintenance of farm animals for field cultivation and provision of feudal labour for the landlord. This article refers primarily to the perception of the forest by, and its significance to, the peasant population. This bottom- up perspective makes it possible to highlight the value of the wood used in almost any activity, the various customs, as well as conflicts and the attending emotions forming an inseparable part of everyday life. Historical changes (such as agrarian reforms and the progress of industrialisation) ruined the villagers’ perception of the forest built over generations. Confronted with the new realities after the abolition of serfdom in 1848, the majority of peasants did not accept the discontinuation or restriction of common rights. On the other hand, the idea of the abolition of rights, proposed in the imperial patent of 1853, was accepted by the peasants with disappointment and reluctance, as they remained eager to keep the status quo ante.

acknowledgements

This article arose from the research project ‘The Conflicts of Easements in Galicia in the Second Half of the 19th Century. The Process of Redemption and Regulation of Easements in the Area of Middle Galicia’, as part of the SONATINA 1 competition (No. 2017/24/C/HS3/00129) funded by Poland’s National Science Centre.

Notes

1 There were deviations from the general rule. For example, the highlanders (gorale) of Zakopane, a town at the foot of the Tatra Mountains, owed no feudal labour and were allowed to own, among other lands, the mountain pastures — hale, similar to the Alpine tundra — on which they grazed their sheep (for example Hala Gąsienicowa) (Eljasz-Radzikowski 1895).

2 So-called commons could be an exception, attributed by the cadastre to the specific party (the village assembly or the manor) paying taxes for them. The right to use the commons (forests, meadows or pastures) could belong to serfs from one or more localities, clergy and landowners (Bujak 1908).

3 CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, vol. 145; 814–816; 954– 1015; 1705–1711; 1878–1890; 3589–3598; 4692– 4704; 4816; 5747–5758; 6267–6276; 6322–6323; 7080–7083; 71058–7187; 7358–7360; 7971–7976; 8875–8882; 10127–10133; 10426–10430.

4 So-called fascines (faszyny) formed an exception — forest litter, the thinnest elements of branches with leaves or needles. In times of greater demand (for example river flooding or spring thaw) these were not handed over to peasants but used for repairs on public and manorial roads, as well as for the reinforcement of riverbanks, dykes and canals (Thieriot 1856, pp. 69–70).

5 Tar — pitchy product of the distillation of timber (most often pinewood), used in human and veterinary medicine, as well as the maintenance and conservation of farm tools. It was a significant export product (Reinfuss 1990, p. 36).

6 Thicker firewood was issued to inns, schools, manorial officials, and so-called gracjaliści — grace pensioners, usually the manor’s former (for example retired) employees no longer fit for work and receiving their sustenance from the landlord. In larger estates, such as the Potocki holdings in Lviv and Łańcut districts, a retired gamekeeper or forest warden in the 1860s received an annuity of 105 guilders, firewood, and hay for cattle.

7 Kmiecie — husbandmen holding a full rola, that is more land than others, and with it the highest social standing in the peasant class (at least relative to landholding) (Rozdolski 1962, Stosunkipoddańcze, p. 272).

8 Zagrodnicy — peasant farmers holding less land and usually rendering their feudal labour on foot (no cart) (Rozdolski 1962, Stosunkipoddańcze, p. 277).

9 Chałupnicy — peasants with just a cottage and very little land, for example only a garden (Rozdolski 1962, Stosunkipoddańcze, p. 277).

10 Komornicy — peasants having neither land, nor a cottage. They usually lived with and worked for wealthier farmers or at the manor farm (Rozdolski 1962, Stosunkipoddańcze, p. 277).

11 Young trees (shorter than ½ metre), usually self- seeding.

12 Such was the case with Khyrivska Posada (Posada Chyrowska in Polish) in 1831, near what is now StaryiSambir in Ukraine. The peasants complained to the Austrian authorities against the increasing amount of unpaid feudal labour, such as water deliveries for grazing cattle, wood chopping, canvas spinning, carpentry works, stump digging, chaff cutting, and grain laying (CSHAUL, cor. 146/64, vol. 11857).

13 Łuczywo, szczapy, szczypy — coniferous wood parts (usually pine) with resin. Used, among other purposes, for providing light in peasant houses and farm buildings or lighting furnaces, stoves and hearths (Hołubiec 1990, pp. 18–21).

14 Wood ash was a significant export product. Back in the era of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, its importance was paramount. Under the feudal economy, the burning of ash, pitch or brown coal was very popular. The situation changed in the latter half of the nineteenth century with the development of railways (primarily the Kraków-Lviv mainline) and progressing industrialisation of the countryside (Broda 2000, p. 62)

15 Galician bushel — 1 bushel contained 32 garnce (1 bushel = 32 litres; 1 garniec or 1 Old Polish gallon = 3.8437 litres) (Ihnatowicz 1967, Vademecum do badań, p. 43).

16 Blichowanie — bleaching — a process for the whitening of cloth with the use of ash (for example fir ash). (Rocznik 1852. III. 109).

17 Cechowanie — the process of marking trees with an axe or special hammer for felling (Sylwan, 21, 1845, pp. 33–4).

18 Casing or timbering — reinforcement of the walls of wells or other water tanks (Barzycki 1907, p. 13).

19 Until 1858, the basic currency unit was the gulden (referred to in Galicia as the Rhenish guilder). During this period, the fractional unit was the kreutzer, of which there were 60 in a guilder (Ihnatowicz 1967, Vademecum do badań, p. 91).

20 Sprawozdania stenograficzne z posiedzeń Sejmu krajowego galicyjskiego we Lwowie odbytych od dnia 15. do 26. kwietnia 1861 r. (1861), pp. 298–367.