Parish of Zbuczyn, łukowski county.
Town or village — what the card index says
The card index calls Zbuczyn a small town („MP – miasteczko – seat of the starosty”; O83 lists a town hall), but at the time of these rolls it was a town NO LONGER: the town rights granted by Władysław Jagiełło were taken away by August III in 1750 — a quarter of a century before the oldest of them. The name stuck out of habit and because of how the place was built. On the map it carries the symbol of a village that is the seat of a parish, not the symbol of a small town.
Offices: Cieszkowski Krzysztof (castellan of Liw (kasztelan liwski)
More than five hearths in one hand: Cieszkowski Krzysztof (49)
Extracts from outside the registers
Records under sigla which the card index does not expand. They give no hearths, so they enter no total.
MPcard 2)MP – miasteczko - siedziba starostwa;
note: The siglum „MP” is from outside the list of sources (S87, V48, T75, T90, O83, T89, T94, T089), and so it does not enter the reckoning of hearths — just as „Ls.89” at Baranek and Kot Wiśniowski. The note is, however, of key importance for this village: it is the ONLY place in the whole card index where Zbuczyn is called outright a LITTLE TOWN (miasteczko) and the SEAT OF A STAROSTY. This agrees with the „ratusz”, the town hall, from O83 on the same card, and with the fact that T89 speaks of a „dzierżawie zbuczyńskiej”, the leasehold of Zbuczyn, and the O83 of Rowce (card 1) of a „starostwie zbuczyńskiem”, the starosty of Zbuczyn. The line is written in the same black hand, at the foot of the card, below the O83 extract.
St.89card 3)St 89 – star. Zbuczyńskie w pos. Cieszkowskiego, kaszt. liwskiego - obejm.: wsie: Zbuczyn, Rowce, Karcze; w całym star. 41 l. żyd. (22 m; 19 k.); w tym arend. (1 m., 1 k., 2 cór.); kom., kramarze i krawcy: (4 m., 4 k., 3 syn., 4 cór.); handlujący i kramarze: (6 m., 6 k., 6 syn., 4 cór.). w Zbuczynie: 201 l. (103 m., 98 k.); w tym gosp.: (19 m., 20 k., 32 syn., 26 cór.); zagr.: (8 m., 8 k., 9 syn., 2 cór.); kom. szewce, kuśnierz i kowal (13., 14 k., 16 syn., 21 cór.); sołtysi: (3 m., 4 k., 3 syn., 3 cór.);
note: The siglum „St.89” (on the card written „St 89”, with the „89” lowered) is from outside the list of sources and does not enter the reckoning of hearths — the same was done at Rowce, where „St.89 … 76 l.” was left outside the list. THE FOURTH ATTESTATION OF THE POSSESSOR: „w pos. Cieszkowskiego, kaszt. liwskiego”, again WITHOUT A FORENAME; the forename Krzysztof is given solely by T90 on card 1). The composition of the starosty is the same as in T90 and T89: Zbuczyn, Rowce, Karcze. THE RECKONING OF THE POPULATION OF ZBUCZYN CLOSES TO THE SINGLE PERSON: householders 19+20+32+26 = 97, smallholders (zagrodnicy) 8+8+9+2 = 27, lodger-craftsmen (komornicy-rzemieślnicy) 13+14+16+21 = 64, village headmen (sołtysi) 3+4+3+3 = 13; together 97+27+64+13 = 201, in accordance with the figure given, „201 l.”; the men (m + syn.) 51+17+29+6 = 103 and the women (k + cór.) 46+10+35+7 = 98 agree with the given breakdown „(103 m., 98 k.)”. This agreement confirms the reading of all sixteen figures, including „103”, where the zero is flooded with an ink blot, and „32 syn.”. A DISCREPANCY WHICH I DO NOT SMOOTH AWAY — THE JEWISH PART: the sum of the components agrees (leaseholders (arendarze) 1+1+2 = 4, lodger-stallholders-tailors 4+4+3+4 = 15, traders and stallholders 6+6+6+4 = 22; together 41, in accordance with „41 l. żyd.”), but the breakdown by sex does NOT: from the components there come 20 men (m + syn.: 1+0, 4+3, 6+6) and 21 women (k + cór.: 1+2, 4+4, 6+4), while the card gives „(22 m; 19 k.)”. A difference of two persons each way. The reckoning would agree to the one, if in the group of the leaseholders there stood „2 syn.” instead of „2 cór.” — but there stands „2 cór.”: checked under eightfold magnification and set beside the model „3 syn.” and „4 cór.” from the next line of the same hand; the letter „c” with the stroke over the „o” is unambiguous. I do not therefore bend the reading to the reckoning, and I record the discrepancy. In the group of the lodger-craftsmen at Zbuczyn the first figure stands without an abbreviation („13.” instead of „13 m.”) — the abbreviation „m.” is simply not on the card in that place. THE NUMBER OF JEWS: 41 in the whole starosty according to St.89 (1789) against 78 in S87 (1787, the parish/village itself according to card 1) — two different figures from two different sources and from two different years; I do not merge them and do not explain them, I record the discrepancy.
spellings on the cards: Zbuczyn, Zbuczyn cum attinentis
district of łukowski · parish of Zbuczyn · cards 1), 2), 3)
a little town — the seat of a starosty [MP]; a royal village in the life possession of Cieszkowski, castellan of Liw (kasztelan liwski), in the deanery of Łuków; the parish church at the end of the village towards the north-west, built with its front to the east; a windmill and a horse mill; the chapel of St Anne; a manor house; a hospital (szpitkal); the altarage of the Guardian Angels; the Rosary altarage; a town hall [O83 (IX)]; a wooden parish church of St Stanislaus the Bishop, newly built in the year 1735, a chapel, a hospital for 12 poor, 12 pupils [V48]
| Year | Source | Entries | Hearths |
|---|
| T75 | Hearth tax register 1775 | 1 | 108 |
| T89 | Hearth tax register 1789 | 2 | 61 |
| T90 | Hearth tax register 1790 | 4 | 63 |
Without an extract for 1794 — no card of this village carries that tariff. It is a missing extract in the card index, not a gap in the numbering of the cards.
These years count more here than the locality itself: 1775 — the whole Zbuczyn leasehold — Zbuczyn, Rowce and Karcze. Such a figure must not be set beside the other years as two measurements of the same locality — these are different units of account, not a loss of hearths.
Caveats on the years' registers (5)
What the compiler noted beside the entry itself, and what the table above does not show:
- T89 — THE RECKONING DOES NOT CLOSE, AND THAT IS A FINDING, NOT AN ERROR OF READING. Both entries of this card have their own underlined partial totals, which agree to the single hearth: the village of Zbuczyn 1 + 1 + 5 + 20 + 8 + 10 + 4 = 49 (the card: „= 49 dymów”), the parish priest's settlement (osiadłość plebańska) 1 + 1 + 8 + 2 = 12 (the card: „= 12 dymów”). Together this gives 61, while the card below the rule writes „Razem 76” (the figure underlined). The difference amounts to 15 — exactly as much as T89 gives for ROWCE (card 1): „= 15 dymów”), the second village of the same leasehold, named in the heading of this very extract. Everything indicates, therefore, that „Razem 76” is the total of the LEASEHOLD, not of the card, and that it takes in Zbuczyn with the parsonage (61) plus Rowce (15). The third village of the leasehold, Karcze, does not close with it, for T89 gives it 9 hearths (card 1) — 61 + 15 + 9 = 85, not 76; why Karcze is not in this total the card index does not explain, and I do not resolve it. In accordance with the rule: the total from the card is left empty, and the figure from the card goes to the total written on the card. The reading „76” checked under fourfold magnification — it is neither „61” nor „16”.
- T₀89 — A list of 1789 WITHOUT HEARTHS (the hearths figure everywhere empty) — and, what is singular for this village, WITHOUT A SINGLE SURNAME: in an ordinary part-holding village T₀89 enumerates the possessors of the holdings by forename and surname, whereas here it enumerates only ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICES AND POSTS at the parish church in Zbuczyn. None of these persons does the card index name, and so the list of persons are everywhere empty and I add no one. The entries are separated on the card by semicolons; the numbering 1–7 is editorial, the card does not number them. The extract occupies the last two lines of the card and ends at the lower edge of the card.
- T90 — An extract written in blue ink. Built in two stages: entry 1) is the heading of the leasehold with the possessor, broken into three sub-entries a), b), c) closed by the intermediate total „razem – 51”; entry 2) is the parsonage; beneath both a long rule and the final total „Razem – 63 dymów.” (the figure underlined twice). 51 + 12 = 63 — the card's reckoning closes. In the line with the possessor's office one word is HEAVILY STRUCK OUT (with several horizontal strokes, illegible — by the shape of the first letter it may have been „łukowskiego”), and beneath it the correction „liwskiego” has been added; immediately after the striking out there stands a second, short crossed-over (hatched) mark, likewise illegible. I read the office, therefore, as „kasztelan liwski” — after the correction, not after the word struck out; three further, unstruck occurrences of the same office confirm it: T89 and T₀89 on card, O83 on card 2) and St.89 on card 3).
- O83 — The fullest description of a village in this whole file — five lines, whereas in the neighbouring villages O83(IX) fits into a single line („cząstki szlacheckie” at Tarcze, „wioska królewska, do starostwa zbuczyńskiego należąca” at Rowce). The numeral in brackets I read as the Roman „IX”, just as at Rowce, Karcze and Tarcze. The extract gives no hearths.
- V48 — THE V48 EXTRACT IS HERE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN AN ORDINARY VILLAGE. In the part-holding villages of this card index (for example Tarcze, card 1), Rowce, card 1) V48 is a single line with the name of the village alone. Here, in the seat of a parish, the name of the village is set apart as a centred title „Zbuczyn.”, and beneath it runs a three-line description of the PARISH CHURCH and of the institutions attached to it. The extract gives neither hearths nor persons.
The card-index entries
Every extract for this locality in the wording of the cards, year by year. One block is one occurrence: this person, in this year. At a collective item the same card text stands beside every person named — because the card names them together and they must not be separated. The hearths given at a collective item are an equal division among those named, not a reading.
1789 T89Hearth tax register 1789
CieszkowskiKrzysztofcastellan of Liw (kasztelan liwski)
T8949 hearthsleaseholder for lifepossessorT89 – dzierżawa zbuczyńska, dożywotna Cieszkowskiego (kasztelana liwskiego); należą do niej Zbuczyn, Rowce, Karcze; Zbuczyn – wieś – dwór, karczma, 5 dymów żydowskich, 20 chał. o 1 gosp., 8 chał. z ogrodem, 10 dymów rzemieślniczych, tamże 4 sołtysie chał. o 1 gosp., = 49 dymów.
I DELIBERATELY LEAVE THE the breakdown of buildings FIELD UNFILLED: the card's breakdown does not consist of buildings alone. The components are these: dwór (1) + karczma (1) + 5 Jewish hearths + 20 chał. o 1 gosp. + 8 chał. z ogrodem + 10 craftsmen's hearths + 4 village headmen's cottages with 1 householder = 49; two of them („dymy żydowskie”, „dymy rzemieślnicze”) are categories of taxation and not kinds of building, so to enter them in the breakdown of buildings would be over-interpretation. Beside „dwór” and „karczma” the card sets no numeral — the ones I take from the reckoning, which closes at 49, and not from the reading. THIS EXTRACT GIVES NO FORENAME FOR THE POSSESSOR (only „Cieszkowskiego”); the forename Krzysztof stands in T90 on card 1) and there I recorded it — here I do not add it, because the years are not merged. The lease is FOR LIFE („dożywotna”) — an item of information about the title of possession which T90 does not have.
1790 T90Hearth tax register 1790
CieszkowskiKrzysztofcastellan of Liw (kasztelan liwski)
T9046 hearthspossessorpossessorT90 – 1) dobra król., dzierżawa Zbuczyn w poses. Krzysztofa Cieszkowskiego kasztelana [wyraz skreślony] liwskiego; należą do niej wsie: Zbuczyn, Rowce i Karcze. — a) wieś Zbuczyn – 46 dymów wiejskich 2giej klasy;–card 1)
The person of the possessor stands in the heading of entry 1) and takes in all three sub-entries a), b), c) — I enter him HERE ONLY, so as not to count Cieszkowski three times. The office I read following the correction added beneath the striking out: „liwskiego”, that is castellan of Liw (Liw in Mazovia), and not of Łuków. THE CLASS OF THE HEARTHS: „2giej klasy”. The sign before „giej” I checked separately at sixteenfold magnification, because at the first moment it looked like a one (a pennant at the top); setting the same place beside the T90 line on the card of Rowce (card 1), „15 dymów wiejskich 2giej klasy”), written in the same hand, shows the same arrangement of strokes — an upper arc, a descent to the left and a horizontal foot running into the „g” — that is, a two. The reading agrees also with Karcze (card 1), „8 dymów wiejskich 2giej klasy”): all three villages of the Zbuczyn leasehold have the same class in T90. In lines b), c), „razem” and 2) the formula „dymów wiejskich 2giej klasy” is repeated with marks of repetition (commas), not with words.
O83 O83A description of 1783 [the expansion of the siglum to be confirmed]
CieszkowskiKrzysztofcastellan of Liw (kasztelan liwski)
O83leaseholder for lifepossessorO83(IX) – wieś królewska w dożywotniej posesji Cieszkowskiego, kasztelana liwskiego, w dekanacie łukowskim; kościół par. na końcu wsi ku półn. zachodowi, Facjatą na wschód zbudowany; młyn wietrzny i koński; kaplica św. Anny; dwór; szpitkal; altarja Aniołów Stróżów; altarja Różańcowa; ratusz.card 2)
THE THIRD ATTESTATION OF THE POSSESSOR, and again without a forename: only „Cieszkowskiego, kasztelana liwskiego”. The forename Krzysztof is given by T90 on card 1) alone; I do not merge the years, so here I do not add the forename. The office „kasztelan liwski” comes out here for the third time and for the third time without erasures — this settles the doubt from card 1), where the word before the correction is blotted. THE MILL: „młyn wietrzny i koński”, that is a windmill AND a horse mill (driven by a horse gin) — two kinds of drive in one village; from T90 on card 1) we know that beside the windmill stood the miller's cottage, counted as 1 hearth. The the annotations dictionary does not know a marker „młyn”, so this remains in the text of the extract and in the note. THE ORIENTATION OF THE CHURCH: „na końcu wsi ku półn. zachodowi, Facjatą na wschód zbudowany” — „Facjatą” written with a capital letter, the reading certain [F-a-c-j-a-t-ą]. „szpitkal” I record literally, in this archaic form, and not as „szpital” — so it stands on the card. THE TOWN HALL closes the list and is — beside the MP note — the second testimony to the urban character of Zbuczyn. Both altarages („Aniołów Stróżów”, „Różańcowa”) agree as to their names with T₀89 on card, where they are written „Altarya”, here „altarja”. Apart from the possessor the extract names nobody.
