Inheritances
At first sight, inheritance may appear to be a straightforward matter, as long as the will of the deceased has been written down properly or custom makes it clear who the beneficiaries are to be.
Actual practice can be much more complicated, and high fees of lawyers are indicative of the stakes in the interpretation of rights. Inheritances concern property rights related to immovable and movable property, including money. For the purposes of this chapter, it is not the �content’ of the inheritance that is of interest, but rather the manner of handling it. Inheritances were contested and the proceedings were carefully documented. This documentation forms a large part of conflict management sources which have survived in urban archives in northern Europe. Also, the richness of the sources has resulted in a large body of literature on inheritances, with recent rising focus on the position of women and minors. The relevant scholarship is concerned with both the system and institutions pertaining to inheritances, that is to say the (local) law and customs, as well as the agency of various groups pursuing their rights to an inheritance or challenging testaments and family members.32 It must be highlighted that the analysis of sources on inheritances is not always straightforward, and can even be frustrating if one wants to learn more about how a conflict proceeded. Sometimes, the references are quite brief: agreements could be reached before legal proceedings were needed, and it often sufficed simply to register the outcome in municipal books. Using an abstract example: Peter and John came to the court and testified that they had resolved the issues concerning the inheritance from their uncle. All persons were burghers in Danzig, and the property was located there, as well.33 By contrast, more complex cases involving heirs from various cities can show that more communication was necessary and therefore more written explanation was produced. In addition, diplomatic intervention was sometimes necessary, which sheds further light on the matter.What is quite striking when studying such cases is that there was apparently a well-developed understanding that inheritance laws varied in northern Europe – or in Europe in general, for that matter. There were at least two main policy lines, which took the form of laws and customs: on the one hand there existed the idea that (a part of) property should not be divided, that is to say that patrimony should remain secure. Property could be gendered, which resulted not only in favouring sons in inheriting land, but also connecting specific possessions to women.34 On the other hand, ideas were developed that movable and immovable property, for instance jewellery and land, respectively, should be divided among family members, including women. For instance, according to the Scandinavian tradition, which was transmitted in part to England, daughters got half of the value of the land that sons received – though this was not the case in all the English counties.35 To make it more complicated, the definitions of movable and immovable could vary and develop over time, as Martha Howell has shown by the example of Ghent. Also, the two general policy lines could be translated into a myriad of specific forms of legal and social practice. This could mean that in concrete cases, land could for instance be seen as legally movable, that is alienable, while a jewel had to remain in the family. Both inheritance policy and inheritance practice could thus be flexible notions in Europe in the late middle ages and the early modern period, at a time when commercial connections and migration increased.36
The case of Danzig, which was at the same time part of Royal Prussia (an autonomous region within the Polish Crown) and a member of the Hanse, is interesting from the point of view of inheritance policy and practice. Both policy lines come to the fore in Royal Prussia.37 The notion that the most substantial part of a property, especially land, should be passed on to one main heir was present among the nobility.
It pertained mostly to male family and kin, as women had limited rights to inherit.38 In contrast, laws in a commercial city like Danzig did allow the division of both movable and immovable property. Within the city borders, houses and their location were the most valuable possession. Daughters, widows and other surviving female kin were entitled to a share of an inheritance as well as to the protection of courts and custodians. Scholars have repeatedly underlined that this was an influence of Flemish law.39 Tracing the roots and transfer of laws has long been a domain of legal history. What is more interesting in this context is the fact that apparently the urban setting prompted the adaptation, and above all the use of law which created space for women. Clearly, Hanseatic magistrates regularly heard women or their guardians in court. Such adaptation seems to have been quite a logical step in an area of high mobility of merchants and skippers: a legal practice which protected not only men, but also their spouses and children probably instilled a greater sense of stability. One of the cases presented below will illustrate this dynamic. In other words, it could be seen as one of the measures to decrease risk in the Hanse.40 A question which cannot be addressed here, but which could be explored further, is to what extent the continuation of businesses after a husband died, depended on women. This would shed further light on how inheritance – and private property – mattered in the context of trade networks.Differences in legal practice ran not only along lines of social status. When looking at the area in which Hanseatic merchants operated, it is clear that there were differences between cities, for instance between Lübeck and Antwerp. Inhabitants of these cities were well aware that the precise division of inherited property between kin could vary depending on the location and its legal jurisdiction, as it still does now. This division could take into account the dowry brought in to a marriage, children from various marriages, the status of new spouses, the handling of debts incurred and so on and so forth.
When an inheritance case crossed over different jurisdictions between cities, knowledge of the local law as well as practices was key. In the Hanse area, the high mobility of merchants, skippers and craftsmen, for shorter periods and also for longer periods of settlement abroad, led to complications. Family ties extended across the Baltic Sea and North Sea, and so could the property which was to be inherited. Thorough documentation of ownership was therefore essential, often supplemented by additional proof. This was one of the factors behind the culture of extensive written communication in the Hanse.41 When inheritance matters could not be resolved at the level of individuals and their families, the possibility of intervention by the home cities of potential heirs and even by rulers and their governments loomed in the background.Once again, specific examples serve to illustrate these more general points. In a first example from 1551, a lengthy inventory was made of the possessions of Jacob Kempe in Danzig. We made a brief acquaintance with him in the case mentioned earlier, when he stood surety for Hinrick Berner in the Portuguese-Scottish ship drama.42 During his lifetime, Jakob Kempe was a commercial agent for King Gustav I of Sweden, and he traded with Portugal, Lübeck and Amsterdam, among other places. Already during his lifetime, he was called â€?the very rich Jacob Kempe’.43 The inventory shows that he had indeed amassed great wealth: the long list contains several houses in prime locations in the city as well as storage rooms on the granary island which was the commercial heart of Danzig. On top of this, there was extensive movable property. It was all a marker of the economic and social position of Kempe as merchant, for traders like him, channelling the grain from the hinterland through Danzig to Western Europe, were among the most wealthy and influential inhabitants of the city. Moreover, his connections become apparent when we see among his heirs the members of the Ferber family, one of the leading families in the urban council, which also provided several consecutive burgomasters.44 There were also many heirs residing in places outside of Danzig.
The file is very large and still awaits a proper analysis, an exercise which goes beyond the scope of this chapter. What may be said, however, is that the untangling of this inheritance took several years. Moreover, it is striking that the Polish king intervened twice with letters on behalf of some of the heirs. Other cases have indicated that securing the intervention of a ruler in this way was a possible route to try to speed up the process, especially when foreigners were involved.45 In one of such letters the king once expressed bewilderment that the city was so slow in handling matters of non-denizens, as this could be detrimental for trade.46A second case, also from Danzig, shows how family ties could suddenly become more important once inheritance was in play, and what role city councils could have in handling such a situation.47 In 1562, a woman from Groningen called Grete van Essen filed a request to choose new custodians for her daughter. The girl had moved from Groningen to Danzig to live with a great aunt, and after several years became her sole heir. The type and size of inheritance is not specified in the sources, but it must have been substantial enough to raise the issue with Danzig’s magistrate. Considering the ensuing request of the mother to have it brought to Groningen, it was probably movable property. In this new situation, the mother wrote that her heart could not bear to be separated from her child any longer, nor to let her live in a foreign country surrounded by foreign people (in Low German: �ys myn moederlycke herte tot mynen kynde beweghen gheworden dat myn kynt aldaer in vremde landen onder vremde luyden solde verkeren’). Consequently, she wanted her daughter (and the inherited property) to come to Groningen with a new custodian. She added that it was more natural for a child to be with her mother than in a foreign country, especially because it was a girl (�de nature eschet dat kynt nutter en beter by syn moeder dan yn vremde landen tho syn besunderlynghe soe het eyn dochter en gheen soen ys’).
Of course, until then neither the distance between Danzig and Groningen nor the fact that her child was a daughter appears to have hindered the arrangement. But she may have feared that the inheritance would be contested, especially because the heir was a girl. The letter shows that Grete sought the support of the magistrates of her home city, Groningen, for her claim. It also shows that she received this support. The document is as much an example of urban diplomacy as of legal proceedings, illustrating that the boundary between them was fluid. City magistrates were, as this example shows, willing to serve as intermediaries in inheritances matters, including when it was a case involving women only.Finally, the case of Hinrick van Resen may be considered.48 This Danzig citizen had been an administrator in the Bruges Kontor, which means that he was an experienced and respected member of the Hanseatic community. In the 1520s, during a conflict between Hansards, Hollanders and Danes, a ship was seized by Danzig privateers.49 Reprisals followed. Among other issues, the goods of Hinrick were arrested and he himself was imprisoned and put to trial before the Great Council of Malines. Danzig and other Hanseatic cities made great diplomatic efforts to free him (and silence him, as he continued to flood authorities with letters, which in this case were counterproductive). The Polish king, the regent of the Netherlands and the emperor all became involved. It was a lengthy case, which was never properly resolved, but in the context of this chapter it is important to point out that it also resulted in a very messy inheritance case, which again continued for a couple of decades. How should one approach the matter of property rights of goods which had been arrested and never returned? And how should debts be treated which had been incurred by Hinrick while in prison, not because of his own actions but because of the political moves of other Hansards? Ownership of Hinrick’s goods had already been contested, but that of his heirs was even more tricky. In 1535, legal proceedings were conducted before the Danzig council between heirs of Hinrick van Resen (and his brother Willem) on the one hand, and a burgher from Antwerp called Hinrick Wolf on the other hand. The proceedings proper were destroyed or lost during WWII, but correspondence surrounding the case has survived and there is also a summary of the perished sources. Some of Hinrick Resen’s property was apparently kept in the Bruges Kontor, while another part was in the hands of the council in Antwerp. Eventually, it was the emperor who again intervened in the matter, which by then had evolved into an altogether new conflict.50