Villages in Eastern Pomerania following the Thirty Years’ War

Stolp in the 30 Years' War



Death of King Gustavus Adolphus in the Battle of Luetzen



Author: G. Sellke

(Published in Ostpommersche Heimat, supplement of the newspaper for Ostpommern, Nos. 35-39, 1936)


[Translator’s Note: The German names Pommern will be used for Pomerania, as well as Vorpommern for West Pomerania and Hinterpommern
for East Pomerania, also known as Ostpommern. A collection of historical notes is included at the end of this translation to assist
the reader in understanding the events and agricultural terminology of the period.] [INTRODUCTION]
During the early years of the Thirty Years’ War, Pommern was spared the turmoil of war, although troops traveled along its borders and also
touched parts of Pommern’s territory. In mid-October of 1627, a crossing of Pommern was granted to the Duke of Holstein, who took 13
days to travel from Lauenburg via Stolp, Schlawe, Köslin, Plathe and Stettin. The commissioners who accompanied him procured food and
housing, although their great demands were not always met.
At the end of 1627 the Emperor [Ferdinand II] requested military housing in Pommern from the Duke of Pommern [Bogislaw XIV]. After
lengthy negotiations the request was granted. With these imperial lodging requests began hardships that lasted three years. In 1627
cavalry troops appeared on the road from Köslin to Stolp. People in the villages watched from church towers, ready to ring the bells as they
approached. In April of the following year the troops settled down for a longer stay in our area [see endnote 1]. A brief statement in the
church register of the village Eventin in the Rügenwald Synod illustrates the events of those days: “How the people have been
punished, beaten, martyred and executed by the imperial horsemen, as well as robbed of their livelihoods by the soldiers of Captain Dulian.
People were severely beaten and even hauled out of their beds with burning torches. They would rather have been pulling Turkish plows than
live the life they were living.” (Ref.: Bartholdy, W. (1910, Delmanzo): O Stolpa, du bist ehrenreich…)
In order to meet monetary demands for food and housing due to frequently changing billeting and often exorbitant additional demands,
Hinterpommern was divided into sections which were headed by commissioners appointed by the Duke. The size of contributions grew
with the increasing burdens of housing the troops, especially since soldiers in those days traveled with a great baggage train that included
wives and servants. Non-payment was punished by having to lodge Tribuliersoldaten [soldiers who forcibly collected taxes, etc.]. In the
mid-1630s the imperial troops left Hinterpommern under pressure by the Swedish Army.
Supposedly having arrived as friends of Pommern, the Swedish troops did not behave as allies at all. Demands for money and
food-stuffs increased. As the theater of war relocated to the south [of Pommern], the occupation decreased. The last Dukes of Pommern died in
1637. Although the state of Brandenburg made known its old demands for Pommern, the Swedes were the lords. The Swedish General Johan Banér
stopped in Pommern in 1637/38 following his retreat from southern Germany. Again a harsh oppression began, perhaps the toughest yet,
because the memories of those times remained in the minds of the people for many years afterwards.
The Pommern historian Micraelius writes: “How can this country be so like a desert when it used to be full of people? Pommern is like a
widow who previously was a princess and is now a servant. None of her friends comfort her. All of her neighbors despise her and have
become her enemies. . . The Swedish Field Marshall Johan Banér and the entire Swedish Army were still in Pommern at the beginning of
1638. The misery and utter destruction of the fatherland cannot be expressed in words. The soldiers acted as they pleased. Since the
contributions were not regulated by commissioners anymore, each officer and soldier acted on his own in procuring the things they
wanted. If a town or the local nobility was unable to comply, they arrested and held the individuals until the demands were met. The
soldiers sought to replenish their losses of horses and other items that had occurred during the retreat from Meissen near Torga; and were
determined to do so in Hinterpommern. The area was so depleted that one could barely find a farmer or nobleman still living there.” During
the next years, the constant demands from the few remaining troops in Hinterpommern required contributions from the people.
In the year 1643, the imperial Colonel Joachim von Krockow of Bohemia advanced against Swedish-occupied Pommern and relayed his
demands through his officials [see endnote 2].
As a result of the Peace of Westphalia, the Elector [Friedrich Wilhelm] claimed Hinterpommern for the state of Brandenburg.
Vorpommern, Stettin, and the Oder Estuary with a strip of land remained in Swedish hands. Not until 1653/54 did Brandenburg’s
administration begin in Hinterpommern, while the remaining lands of Pommern remained under foreign [Swedish] rule for over half a century
and even one and a half centuries. 2.
The land was depopulated. Some inhabitants had left their villages during the chaos of war and fled to Lauenburg and Bütow (see Wehrmann,
M.: Pommersche Heimatpflege 1932, Vol. 5 - In 1310 the lands of Lauenburg and Bütow became property of the Teutonic Knights [Deutscher
Orden]. In the mid-15th century, these were purchased by Duke Erich II of Pommern. After 1500 they were granted to the Dukes of Pommern as
Polish fiefdoms. In 1637 Poland acquired the regions. In 1657 the Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg ended the foreign rule with a
treaty: Lauenburg and Bütow became part of Brandenburg).
One or other of the inhabitants may have returned, others stayed away forever, yet others were settled in Pommern from other areas. The
original inhabitants of the homeland were destroyed. A report from the village of Glowitz mentions that citizens were executed because of
murder. Did they try to defend themselves against plundering soldiers, or did they try to defend the rights of a mistreated family
member? In another village the billeted soldiers were raided and robbed by neighboring villagers. The soldiers retaliated by burning
down the village. 1.
After the war farming was performed in a makeshift manner or had to be restarted. Farmsteads were empty, desolate and deteriorated.
Here and there they were reoccupied if the estate owner was lucky enough to find people to work the land. At times Kossäten [see endnote
3] were settled to work the fields that had not yet gone wild. They usually were paid by the estate owners. There were also Instleute [see
endnote 3] who worked the fields of estates in return for food. Acreage which had been farmed before the war had become meadow land. As
a result, the size of farms was often reduced, especially if the farmsteads received new owners. (For example, prior to the war the
documentation about field sizes was already inaccurate in Pennekow.) Some farms which were resettled suffered damage from
drifting sands, although this complaint was already mentioned in the tax statements of 1628 of individual villages (Vietzke, Marsow). Along
the coast, wandering dunes were the probable cause. Wood was scarce in many areas, probably as a result of the demands of war and
unauthorized cutting of trees. Even before 1600 some estate owners complained about the destruction of the forests and as a result,
individual farmers were denied the harvesting of wood. Cheap wood gathered from collapsed and empty houses was available in the cities.
It stands to reason that the reports by estate owners mentioned below in the year 1655 contained quite dry data since they were not
intended to describe the misery suffered by the population, but only to list taxable land.
In the village of Reddentin in Kreis Schlawe, for instance, only the number of farmers was counted without specifying whether they were
Bauern [see endnote 3] or Kossäten. But a comparison with the time before the war (based on other sources) shows that one farmstead had
disappeared. Did the owners abandon it, were they killed and did the farm deteriorate for want of workers? Did the fields become meadows
and were turned back only later into farm land under the rule of [King] Friedrich Wilhelm I or [King] Friedrich the Great? In the
village of Gatz in Kreis Stolp, a section of the village with five farms and all of its people disappeared during the war. New names
appear after the war.
Reports of other villages and sections of villages tell stories of despair about their condition, the difficulty of working the fields, and
the decay of empty farmsteads as a result of wartime conditions. The cruelties, the plundering, the suffering, and the fear endured in
these villages during the war, as well as in the villages not mentioned here, can only be imagined. It took strength and love of
homeland to weather these 20 to 25 years of war, as well as the decades after the war. For instance, in the previously-mentioned
village of Gatz, two families survived this time. In the village of Reddentin two (or three) families survived. In each of these villages,
one farmer’s family name survives from those days to this day [i.e., the 1930s] - one may call it a dynasty now!
Decades after the war the devastation was still apparent. In 1600 a farm in Gatz, mentioned as one of the two best, had 10 horses, 4
foals, 7 dairy cows, 2 calves, 18 sheep, 10 pigs, 8 geese, and 12 chickens. One hundred years later that farm had 4 horses, 1 foal, 2
steer, 2 cows, 1 bull, 3 sheep, and 2 pigs. (On top of that, the work that farmers were required to perform for the estate owner was
probably less in 1600 than in 1700.) The livestock was half of what it was before the war - in spite of decades of peace after the Thirty
Years’ War! These years of peace with their conditions of poverty could not overcome the losses, just lessen the effect. In the
previously-mentioned section of the village of Gatz, which lists five Bauern family names in 1655, there were completely new families
sixty years later.
It is not surprising that there is no information about the villages of Gatz, Reddentin, Symbow, and Medenick for those years and
decades which in any way would point to the reclamation of fields and grazing areas, although this probably occurred in a minor way. Only
in the years after 1700, at the time of [King] Friedrich Wilhelm I, does one find the first reports of expansion of fields and grazing lands
as well as an increase in sowing. This was encouraged by estate owners and pastors based on their improved economic position. Under
[King] Friedrich the Great that work (and the settling of new farmers) was expanded even further. 3.
The reports (or rather excerpts!) mentioned herein were written by the estate owners in different parts of [what became] Kreis Stolp, Kreis
Rummelsberg and Kreis Schlawe, who held the overall ownership of the land [the concept of Obereigentum, see endnote 4] and pertain mostly to
sections of villages. Often a farm village (consisting of multiple farmsteads) was split, with the overall ownership of the village being
held by different estate owners, some belonging to members of the same family, some to different families. Therefore the data presented
in a given report does not include all farmers of a given village. Only some village reports mention a second or third section of a
village. If these second or third sections are mentioned only in summary form, it shows that the conditions in them were close to those
in the first section. Surely, some of these descriptions are presented in too bleak of terms. These reports, or excerpts, of
conditions 300 years ago illustrate that the destruction affected city and countryside, nobility and farmers equally! First, a glimpse of
the villages that lie in the region in the northwest, west and southwest of Stolp, largely along the Kreis border, was the subject of
these reports. The extended excerpts dealing with the majority of the villages existing in this region after the Thirty Years’ War will
also give a glimpse of the war years.
[Translator’s Note: These reports represent some the landowners’ responses to an order issued by the Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of
Brandenburg on 14 Apr 1655 which required each landowner to identify his current taxable holdings and state the basis of his previous tax
assessment during the Duchy period. All of the statements received have been collected into three volumes and are presently stored at the
Szczecin State Archives (Rep. 4 Pars I Tit 97 Nr. 218a). As stated above, Sellke’s article includes parts of these reports for
approximately 41 villages. Only reports for villages within Kirchspiel Glowitz in Kreis Stolp (see endnote 5) are translated below.] GLOWITZ
“Firstly, I have a poor, small courtyard (Ackerhof) with an old home and am at the village of Glowitz with two neighbors where each is
understood to have the third part [see end notes 6 - 8]. I have another four marginal Bauern who perform no more than three days of plow
service [for me], and craftwork by one person for another three days. They have no hay-making to advertise, so they seek such on
foreign fields. One Bauer Martin Kresse (name unclear) has told me this year that the Huf, where I want that he should live, I have to
underwrite him with horses, seeds and bread. Third, I have three Kötner who perform one person’s daily court service and craftwork for
me; one is Kötner Claus Brocke [whose dwelling] burned to the ground this year at Christmas Eve with great danger to my Hof and burned his
two good rooms; because before this can become a Bauernhof, he has to receive his wife and children and seedcorn and also have the room
built at my expense ... thus I have a small Katen [cottage] where brewing is permitted, because it is a Kirchdorf [parish village, see
endnote 5], also a third part of the mill. For the fifth, I have to contribute for 8½ Hakenhufen, but have occupied no more than five.
Sixth, we have to complain politely to others, that during the quartering of Banér’s troops in the past, because the Fourth Company of
the Wislobian Regiment was situated in our village for ¾ of a year, and made us as well as our people poorer, so that we could not come back
jubrode [?] for a long time. Also, my subjects and those of my cousin had two people judged [guilty and executed] for one-half
homicide, and because both of my great expenses remain and kontionieren us with [a debt of] 200 Reichstaler on which we must pay
daily interest. For the seventh, again during the Krokow disturbance [in 1643], because I feared even more evil, I had a slight
abundance, which I had saved in Poland during the time of Banér ... brought to the Hof of Marten Döring v. Krokow [see endnote 9], which
rose in flames shortly afterwards …” RUMBSKE
[Translator’s Note: Prior to the 30-Years’ War, Rumbske was the Hauptgut of Steffen Stojentin, whose fief included six other villages in
Kirchspiel Glowitz: Dochow, Grossendorf, Rowen, Warbelin, Zedlin and Zipkow, as well as two villages in Kirchspiel Dammen (Lojow and
Viatrow). According to the 1628 Hufenmatrikel of Hinterpommern, the Rumpfske fief of Steffen v. Stojentin consisted of 104½ Hakenhufen, 12
Cossaten, 2 Mühlen, 1 Schmiedt, 3 Schäffer, and 2 Schäffer Knecht. The group had been in bankruptcy since 1583; emerging from debt during
Obereigentum after marriage of Barbara Maria Stojentin to Kaspar Otto von Podewils in 1686. In the village summaries that follow, the
first represents the previous tax assessment (from 1628), the second gives the numbers and categories of families upon which the assessment
was based, and the third lists the actual status in 1655. For completeness, the Besitzer in 1655 has been added in brackets. Source:
Einwohnerverzeichnisse von Hinterpommern nach den Steuererhebungen vor 1655 und 1666, by W. von Schulmann (1966, Böhlau-Verlag, Köln)] ZIPKOWITZ (ZIPKOW) [Georg v. Stojentin]: 18 Hufen, 2 Katen; had 17 Bauern, 2 Kätner; now 15 Bauern, 2 (?) Kätner; WARBELIN [Georg v. Stojentin]: 5½ Hufen, 1 Katen; had 5 Bauern, 1 Kätner (Kossät); now 5 Bauern; ROWEN [Georg v. Stojentin, Andreas v. Rexin]: 7 Hufen, 2 Katen; had 5 Bauern, - Kätner; now none to declare; SEDLIN (ZEDLIN) [Georg v. Stojentin]: 29 Hufen, 2 Katen; had 13 Bauern, 2 Kätner; now 11 Bauern, 2 Kätner; VIATROW [Georg v. Stojentin]: 16 Hufen, 1 Katen; had 7 Bauern, 1 Kätner; now 5 Bauern, 2 Kätner; LOJOW [Georg v. Stojentin, Lorenz v. Puttkamer, Sel. Paul v. Rexins Witwe, Jürgen v. Rexin der Ältere]: 4 Hufen, - Katen; had 4 Bauern; now 3 Bauern, 1 Kätner; RUMBSKE [Jürgen v. Stojentin]: 10 Hufen, 2 Katen; had 10 Bauern, 2 Kätner; now 9 Bauern, 1 Kätner.” VIXOW
“… the Steuermatrikel of 1625 has stipulated that his fief Vixow be taxed 3½ Hakenhufen and 2 Katen with the following composition: 2
Bauern, so each one has a Hakenhufe are occupied together and so poor that I must help out almost every year with wheat- and corn-seed.
One Bauer has been burned off and run with his family to the next Hofwehr, so I alone must pay tax on this Hufe, even though more than
half of it lies as meadow. The fourth Hufe is at the Kossäten [who] left this country. ¼ of the mill.”
“We are entitled as sub-designatees to half of the village of Vixow. During the accommodation of Banér’s troops our two Höfe
[courtyards] were cremated, which had been built during the old Rittersitze [knighthood possession period], and one remains in ashes
even today … every Höfchen, Claus Stojentin on the old site, Casper Ernst Stojentin on a deserted Bauernstelle, during Banér’s accommodation
we burned two Bauern and two Kossäten, where a Bauernhof … still lies in ashes. We have been taxed from time immemorial on eight
Hakenhufen and two Katen. So every one of our five Hufen have Hakenhufen, making eight together. We are taxed even on half of a mill
... which grinds infrequently, because of a big lack of water and can itziger [?]. Millers from the mill have not made their living and
is expecting it to be deserted. We both have viertehalb [three and a half ?] even poor Bauern occupied and two cottagers. Of the deserted
Hufen we are taxed from our Höfen [farms]. We have anitzo shepherds, because we suffered major damage through the ruin and fire
damage, lost our cattle, horses and sheep and itzo [??] with even little animals ... therefore we have the shepherd some sheep on
half-wages and want our field not to entirely become a dunghill or lie deserted.”
[Translator’s Note: Sellke’s article ends with a paragraph from Die Politik Pommerns während des dreissigjährigen Krieges by M. Bär (1896, Leipzig)] HISTORICAL END NOTES
1. The diary of a soldier who fought in the Thirty Year’s War was recently discovered in the Berlin archives and published: see Peters, J.
(1993, Akademie Verlag, Berlin), Ein Söldnerleben in Dreissigjährigen Krieg: Eine Quelle zur Sozialgeschichte. An English
translation of this material as it relates to Gonzaga’s march through Pommern is given below. Taken from: Helfferich, T. (2009,
Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis), The Thirty Years War: A Documentary History. “After this we moved with our company to Stendal,
where we also had good quarters. In this year, 1629, Lieutenant Colonel [Annibale] Gonzaga, prince of Mantua, took 2000 men from the
regiment (for it had become 3500 men strong), moved us to Pommern, and encamped before Stralsund … From Stralsund we all traveled up the
river that is called the Swine, crossing the water in two ships and passing into the area of the Kashubians - a very wild land, but splendid
livestock breeding of all kinds. Here we got tired of eating beef and had to have geese, ducks, or chicken instead. Wherever we camped
overnight, the head of the household had to give us a half-thaler, but it was for the best, since then we were satisfied with him and let
him keep his livestock in peace. Thus we marched here and there with 2000 men, every day fresh quarters, for seven weeks. At
Neustettin, we stayed encamped for two days. Here the officers provided themselves nicely with cows, horses and sheep, for there were
plenty of each.” (p. 281)
2. In Sep 1643, 3000 Imperial troops under General Joachim Ernst von Krockow (a Pommern native, previously in Swedish and Prussian
service under Banér, but now converted to the Catholic faith), invaded the Swedish headquarters at Belgard (occupied mainly by
soldiers’ wives and servants), roaming the vicinity and extracting large contributions. The cities of Neustettin, Schivelbein, Körlin and
Köslin were also taken. Köslin is approximately 62 km southwest of Stolp. The Swedes responded immediately by sending their General Hans
Christoph Königsmark, who stood near Leipzig, to Pommern. Königsmark quickly recaptured the outposts at Körlin and Köslin and then
began the siege and bombardment of Belgard. Shortly before daybreak on 12 Nov 1643, Krockow retreated from the city.
3. The term “farmer” or “peasant” covers a wide variety of categories in Europe prior to the 20th century. Specifically in Pommern
at the time discussed in the present article, and basically until the end of the Kingdom of Prussia, farmers fell into three main
categories. In all cases, the farmer did not own the land he worked. He had the right to use it. In return, however, he owed his
lord some form of tribute, be it in money and/or farm products and/or labor. (In modern times, the farmer owed taxes to his lord.)
(a) Bauer, plural Bauern - These were farmers whose land was sufficient to support the needs of their families. At times they might
even have a few farm workers. Usually that meant that the Bauer and his family had one Hufe, which was defined as land that could be worked
with one team of horses and that would feed one family. In Pommern, a Hufe was usually 30 Morgen, which in turn is 17.3387 hectares (1
hectacre = 2.471 acres). The farmer and his family lived in the village and his fields surrounded the village.
(b) Kossät, plural Kossäten - These were farmers who did not have enough land to feed their families. Part of their tribute usually was
in the form of labor on estate lands, sometimes also for a Bauer. Such labor would be done by all members of the family. Some Kossäten
were skilled laborers.
(c) Instmann, plural Instleute - These were farm laborers, the entire family, who were given a small house on an estate in return for
their labor. They might have a garden, but basically they were totally dependent on the estate owner for food. Unlike the Tagelöhner
[day-laborers], these farm laborers had fixed work contracts. Note that there are also quite a few variations for this term, including
Kötner [cottager].
4. Obereigentum [higher level ownership] - In 1653 Friedrich Wilhelm, the Elector and Margrave of Brandenburg (1640-1688), gave his
nobles in the Duchy of Brandenburg the absolute ownership of their lands. This ended the practice of nobles holding their lands as feudal
fiefs in what was to become the Kingdom of Prussia (1701). Thus, all the lands and villages discussed in Sellke’s article belonged to
individual noble families. These noble families parceled out the land they owned to a variety of farmers and farm workers in return for
some form of tribute. Note that the margrave, later King, also had his own [royal] lands and that major cities were independent of the
nobility, reporting for taxation directly to the margrave/king.
5. Kirchdorf - The parish [Kirchspiel] of Glowitz served 14 villages: Dochow (*), Giesebitz, Glowitz, Grossendorf (*), Klenzin (Ampt
Schmolsien), Rowen (*), Rumbske (*), Ruschütz (Ampt Schmolsien), Schorin, Vixow, Warbelin (*), Zedlin (*), Zemmin and Zipkow (*).
Asterisk (*) designates villages included in the Rumbske fief and addressed in this translation. In 1628: Giesebitz (Barteldt Stojentin;
5 H, 2 C and Hans Stojentin; 4 H, 1C and Peter Stojentin; 6¼ H, 2 C and Marx Stojentin; 1 H), Klenzin and Ruschütz (Lucas Lettow, a
Bandemer; 12 H, 1 C, 1 Kr, 1 Sff), Ruschütz (Jacob Kleist; 18 H, 2 C, 1 Sff, 1 Kn), Scherrin (Hans Stojentin; 2 H and Jurgen Stojentin; 2
H), Vixsow (Claus Stojentin; 3½ H, 2 C, 1 Sff and Schwantes and Ernst Stojentin; 4 H, 2 C, 1 M and Claus Erben; 8 H, 2 C, 1 Sff), and
Zemmin (Lorentz Stojentin; 10 H, 2 C). Zemmin was inherited by Albrecht v. Puttkamer in 1634 from Martin v. Stojentin.
6. Due to continuing complaints about unfair or excessive taxation, the Hinterpommern government issued a directive to the clergy (i.e.,
Pröpsteien oder Synoden) of the country on 15 Mar 1666 requiring their Kirchspielpfarrer (parish priests) to submit detailed descriptions
of their parish and to state the Grundbesitzer (landowners), Bauern and Kossäten. Thus this second survey is considered more complete since
it lists the entire population of each village. The pastors’ reports have also been collected and are stored at the Prussian Secret
State Archives in Berlin-Dahlem (GStA PK, Rep. 30 Nr. 83b). A listing of names in the two surveys (i.e., landowners’ and pastors’
reports) was first provided by von Schulmann, W. (1942, Der Reichsbauernführer), Hinterpommersche Bauernlisten aus dem 17.
Jahrhundert, in Band 36. The Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission für Pommern subsequently republished this document as: von
Schulmann, W. (1966, Köln), Einwohnerverzeichnisse von Hinterpommern nach den Steuererhebungen von 1655 und 1666. Although von Schulmann’s
book provides a complete list of the Besitzer (landowners) in 1655, the Einwohner list is extremely sparse. For example, only one Bauer
(Marten Krusse) and one Kossat (Claus Brocke) are mentioned in Kirchspiel Glowitz and no information is included for 1666. For
completeness, the composition of Glowitz in 1628 and its Ritterschaft in 1628 and 1655 are given in endnote 7. The language
spoken by the villagers is addressed in endnote 8
7. Glowitz - According to the 1628 Hufenmatrikel des Herzogthums Pommern-Stettin [Hinterpommern], the village of Glouitz consisted of
three landed estates held by: (1) Schwantes Putkammer; 7 Hakenhufen, 2 Cossaten, 1 Mühle [mill], and 2 Krug [brewery], (2) Jurgen
Erben [heir]; 8 Hakenhufen, 2 Cossaten, 1 Schmiedt [blacksmith], 1 Schäffer [sheep farm], and 1 Weberstelle [weaving place] and (3) Claus
Erben [heir]; 3 Hakenhufen and 2 Cossaten. For taxation purposes, a Cossat or Caten = Weberstelle = ½ Hakenhufe and Mühle = Krug = Schmiedt
= Schäffer = 1 Hakenhufe. In 1655, the three landed estates constituting the village of Glowitz were held by: (1) Schwantes v.
Puttkamers Erben [heir], (2) Woizlaff v. Puttkamer, and (3) Martin Ernst v. Puttkamer. Because the owner’s report after the Thirty Years’
War mentions that he is being taxed for 8½ Hakenhufen, including a Krug, it is apparent that this part of the village was that held by
Schwantes Putkammer in 1628.
8. The language spoken by the native inhabitants of Glowitz during that time (and in the surrounding villages as well), was Kashubian
[Kaschubische, a West Slavic language subgroup]. Because the noble families of the Hinterpommern duchy had accepted the Lutheran faith, its
people gradually became isolated from their Kashubian “cousins” in the neighboring Pomerelian duchy, who had retained their Catholic faith
and a degree of semi-autonomy within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since 1569. Over the next three centuries, their language
evolved into a Kashubian dialect, and they became known as Slovincians or Lebakaschubians. Glowitz was considered to be the chief
Kirchdorf of the Lebakaschuben. It is noteworthy that the concurrent period of Germanization, or assimilation, following creation
of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701, was not completed in Glowitz until after the German Empire had been (re)established in 1871.
Communion attendance figures for the Glowitz congregation, as recorded in the Glowitz Kirchenbücher, give clear evidence of the
declining use of the Kashubian language and the acceptance of German: in 1713 only 559 German-speakers attended communion services
compared to 3,152 Kashubes. Over a century later, in 1829, it was 1,551 German-speakers and 3,284 Kashubes. By 1850 the balance had
shifted as there were 3,752 German and only 1,370 Kashubian-speaking communicants. The last time that church services in Glowitz were
conducted in the Kashubian language was in 1886. The Slovincian dialect became extinct in the early 20th century.
9. In 1655 the holdings of Döring Jakob v. Krockow included 7 villages within Propstrei Belgard: Langen and Retzin (Ks. Arnhausen),
Buslar and Lutzig (Ks. Polzin), Kollatz (Ks. Poplow), Brämstadt (Ks. Reinfeld) and Bolkow (Ks. Woldisch Tychen). He also held 8 villages in
Propstrei Schlawe: Nitzlin, Paalow, Peest, and Thyn (Ks. Peest) and Franzen, Kummerzin, Runow and Schlönwitz (Ks. Schlönwitz).