Henning II. von Kleist, auf Muttrin

Erich Gritzner in Steglitz.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I m 32nd volume of the yearbooks has the Geh. Archivist Dr. Lisch occasionally undertook other research on the basis of the four first volumes of the Meklenburg Document Book and the Codex dipl. Pomeraniae Kosegartens to bring light into the darkness of the prehistory of the von Pritzbuer family, which is often interwoven with legends. But a few erroneous punctuations, which caused him difficulties, and a preconceived notion from which he was unable to free himself, prevented the otherwise astute researcher from gaining a clear picture of the somewhat complicated circumstances. In addition, since the year in which Lisch's essay was published (1867), the Pomeranian Document Book has introduced partly improved readings of already known documents and partly completely new documents.

It will therefore be worthwhile to review the entire material again and to compare and correlate it with the new material, and that will be the purpose of the following study. Perhaps a more favorable conclusion can now be drawn from the source material about the oldest story of von Pritzbuer.

The name Pritzbuer appears for the first time in Meklenburg in the form Priceburh in a document dated May 1, 1262 (MU=B. II, No. 947). Here a squire of the name appears as a witness in the entourage of the Prince of Werle. In a second one dated September 25, 1270 (No. 1199), he appears as "miles", a knight, together with a brother who is also a knight, but is left without a name ("Priscebure et frater suus"). In the joint appearance on April 16, 1273 (No. 1283), the latter receives the first name "Johannes" and both the addition "dicti de Robele", ie living in Röbel; in the same year on April 23rd (No. 1284) both are called "filii domini Jeroslai" (a name that will be linked to later), and furthermore on April 29, 1273 (No. 1285) they are simply called "Priseburius et Johannes frater suus". 1274, January 13th (No. 1314) Priscebur appears alone in Röbel without his brother. - So far I agree with Lisch. The next document alone puts me at odds with his view: this document, dated Röbel, June 5, 1274 (No. 1327), only handed down in the Havelberg copy book, leads Lisch to assume that that the Prizbur mentioned here is not identical to the one above: because here next to him as "frater eius" "Sabellus de Redichsdorp" is mentioned. - Now compare this connection (Prizbur et frater eius) with the others in the line of witnesses: it is directly in front of it: "Henricus et frater eius de Holdorp." Here the brother's name has been omitted, as was the case in document number 1199 (1270): "Priscebure et frater suus. 1 ) Lisch is only convinced of his wrong opinion by Wigger's impression Document dated June 5, 1274 in the Meklenburg Document Book (II, 1327), where incomprehensibly the words "Prizbur et frater eius, Sabellus de Redichsdorp" in Wigger's template, the Codex dipl. Fire. Riedel's standing comma was omitted. If you put the comma back in, Lisch's assumption also falls that we are dealing here with another knight by the name of Pritzbur, a member of the older von Restorf family.

Lisch now goes on to say in the treatise cited, after noting that the brothers Pritzbur and John 1 ) (according to document no. 1284) are the sons of the knight Jeroslaus, the latter being a brother of the knight Unislaus, and all of these could probably be attributed to the von Havelberg family. These last two claims are certainly contestable. The register for volumes 1 - 4 of the document book already raises a question mark about the designation "brother" for Unislav and Jeroslav and also about their membership in the von Havelberg family. Like Lisch from the coincidental juxtaposition of Unislav and Jeroslav and probably also from this, It is incomprehensible that both castellans are from Röbel and that it can be concluded that there is a family relationship between the two, where there is no other documentary evidence. A sure proof to the contrary is the fact that, while until 1244 Unislav came first, from 1249 Jeroslav was mentioned first. Brothers are always named in the order of age. The fact that Lisch assigned the people listed to the von Havelberg family can only be explained by the fact that he in no way identified those in No. 377 transsumed document from 1230 was considered inauthentic, although serious reservations had already been raised about the year at that time. From this forgery, Lisch took the three brothers Pritzbur, Johann and Gerslav as "heeten Havelberge". 2 ) The latter, Gerslav, cannot be identified anywhere else at this time. The name is due to the apparent mutilation of the real text by constricting the line of witnesses from that of Dr. Wigger (II, No. 1284 note) rightly regarded as a model document (No. 1284) of April 23, 1273 probably through the passage "filii domini Jeroslai", while the "heten Havelberge" is taken from the family name of the brothers Heinrich and Berthold von Havelberg who followed immediately. Nevertheless, in the note to the document (No. 1284), Wigger describes the document from 1230 (No. 377) as an obvious forgery of the Broda monastery has been characterized and convincingly proven, and well-known other researchers (Klempin, Pomm. U.=B. I, p. 214 and Kratz, Gesch. des Geschl. v. Kleist I, p. 721) have agreed with this judgment ,With this the affiliation of the brothers Prizbur and Johann to the von Havelberg family is no longer valid, the old claim can still be found in almost all recent works dealing with the von Pritzbuer family: that the Pritzbuer and Havelberg are related. 1 )

Once we have hopefully finally taken the brothers Prizbur and Johann and their father Jeroslaus away from the von Havelberg family and saved them as ancestors of the von Pritzbuer family, the question arises as to whether this family can be traced further in Meklenburg beyond Jeroslaus. However, it cannot be avoided that we leave the secure ground of documentary evidence somewhat and move into the area of ​​conjectures, but they are still such conjectures,

Jeroslaus first appeared in 1239 (document no. 499) with the Prince of Werle in Meklenburg, was referred to as "miles de Robele" in 1241 (document no. 523) and as "castellanus de Robele" in 1242 (document no. 541). From this very responsible position of the castle team and from the fact that he was called a knight in the third year of his appearance in Meklenburg, one can probably conclude that Jeroslaus was already older, especially since he no longer appeared after the year 1257. Before 1239, however, there was no trace of a squire of Jerolaus in Meklenburg. Against it G. Kratz (in his history of the Geschl. v. Kleist 1873) already pointed out that this Jeroslaus may have only immigrated to Meklenburg and is identical to a man of the same name in Pomeranian documents. This Pomeranian Jeroslaus or Jaroslaus was first mentioned in 1224 as a witness to Duke Barnim I (Klempin, Pomm. U.=B. I, No. 219) together with his father Prisnobor and can be found there together with him in 1229, 1234 and 1235 (Pomm. U.=B. I, No. 257, 302, 311). From this time onwards the father Prisnobor (also Priznibor, Prisnibor,

G. Kratz rightly points out that at this time the traffic between the areas of Stettin, where Father Prisnobor was based, and Röbel, where Jaroslaus first appears in Meklenburg in 1239, was very busy, and that many noble people soon arrived Pomerania, will soon appear in Meklenburg (as the example of the Lippold brothers, Theodericus and Harnith Behr documents this). But the guiding thread for identifying the two Jaroslaus, who appear one after the other in Pomeranian and Meklenburg documents, Etc. .), and especially the form Priscebur (MU=B. I, No. 401; Pomm. U.=B. I, No. 264). Since the eldest son of Jaroslaus is called Priscebur in Meklenburg and it was common practice at that time to give the eldest son the name of his father's grandfather, it necessarily follows that the younger Priscebur must have a grandfather of the same name. Since there is no documented evidence of such a thing in Meklenburg before 1239, but one appears in Pomeranian documents, I believe that 1 )

Jaroslaus' father, Prisnobor, is named as camerarius of Duke Bogislaw II of Pomerania in 1219 (Pomm. U.=B. I, No. 196); in a document from almost the same time in Stetin (ibid. No. 197). In 1228 he appeared twice with the addition of de Stetin (ibid. no. 250, 251), and in 1235 and 1236 he appeared again as camerarius de Stetin (ibid. no. 311, 328).
Only once does he appear to us around 1232 in an original document from the Schwerin archives as Priscebur castellanus de Stetyn (Pomm. U.=B. I, No. 264; MU=B. I, No. 401), while another time in 1235 is referred to as vir nobilis in Stetin. It appears without any further designation in 1220 (No. 199), 1235 (No. 312), 1237 (No. 339) and 1240 (No. 373). After this year it is no longer mentioned, but 1267 (Pomm. U.=B. II, No. 843) and 1268 (Pomm. U.=B. II, No. 862) called "filii Prisnibori" the knights Pribislaus and Dubeslaus in the entourage of the Pomeranian dukes, which G. Kratz in his story. of the conclusion of Kleist tried to prove that he was the ancestor of the von Kleist and von Woedtke families. Without going into this explanation in more detail, I refer you to the work in question. 1 )

Prisnobor now always appears without any indication of his descent, but, analogous to the above discussion, his son Jaroslaus, as his eldest, could be claimed to have a grandfather Jaroslaus. Such a person is now mentioned, albeit only once, on November 13, 1175 (Pomm. U.=B. I, No. 66) in Treptow as "camerarius" to Prince Casimir of Pomerania. If you consider that Prisnobor was once given the then rare designation "vir nobilis" (Pomm. U.=B. I, p. 244), then in 1220 as the first lay witness and among all witnesses from the noble class, the "Zupanen", and he himself held the important office of chamberlain and castellan, then his father must have already occupied an outstanding position at the Pomeranian royal court. The chamberlain Jariszlav from 1175 (who can also be easily matched with Prisnobor in terms of time, in that he must have been born around 1175 - his eldest son Jaroslav appears as a witness in 1224!) now has this outstanding position like his son.
It would probably be impossible to go beyond this chamberlain Jarislav.
After we have found the progenitor and the origin of the lineage, we want to trace the lineage downwards from the first of the names Priscebur in Meklenburg, from which the investigation began.

We last saw that the brothers Priscebur and Johannes, the sons of the knight Jaroslaus, appeared together in 1277 (MU=B. No. 1437). After this time, Johannes is no longer mentioned, so if he did not emigrate following his father's example, he may have died quite young. On the other hand, the "dominus" Priscebur (Pritzebur) still appears frequently, for example in 1282, 1284, 1285, 1292 and 1293, in the last year as the leader of an escort that was provided by the Prince of Werle to a Brandenburg vassal Conrad Wolf. After this year, however, the knight no longer appears. Because in my opinion he cannot, as Lisch suspects, be identical with the knight Hinricus Pryssebur named last in the line of witnesses on October 13, 1299 (MU=B. No. 2576) (NB. the first, who comes from the first name Priscebur made a proper name!), also with the knight Pryscebur de Kelle, mentioned on July 6, 1300 (No. 2618), who is also in last place. Rather, these two young knights, who may have served as squires in the service of other masters, can without a doubt be described as his eldest sons. The last of these will probably be identical to the knight Priscebur, who is always listed among the last of the witnesses in the documents of September 1, 1302 (No. 2819), June 9 (No. 2938), June 22 (No. 2939 ) and September 24th (No. 2959) of the year 1304. Another, third son is undoubtedly Prissebur, who appears in the document (No. 3024) of September 20, 1305 first as a princely marshal and first among the squires, who (in No. 3064) in 1306 was the last among the knights, and still in the capacity of marshal. He will also be the knight Pritzebur in the document (No. 3178) from August 9, 1307. Perhaps you can also, as the eldest son, who is named after his paternal grandfather in the same way as above, the 1291 (No. 2110) knight Jerizlaus appeared in Röbel with the Prince of Werle as the son of the knight Priscebur the Elder. Ae. to add. He only appears once, so he apparently died young, perhaps in the war. After 1307 we hear no more about these four presumed sons of Priscebur the Elder; They therefore appear to have died soon afterwards; Because the document (No. 3680) dated March 17, 1314, which is extremely important for further research, no longer mentions it. In this document, the Princes of Werle confirmed the sale of properties near Poppentin to the Malchow Monastery by Gertrud, widow of the knight Priscebur. This widow can only be that of Priscebur the Elder, who died after 1293, because she has two adult sons Johann and Vicco, squires. These also have two "patrueles", a name that can probably be correctly translated into German as "nephew" for this time. The older of these patrueles is a squire, but must still be very young, since the pet form of the name Priscebur - Prisceko - is attached to it (compare a similar case below); the second appears to be a minor, as his name is not even mentioned. I now believe that Johann and Vicco are the youngest sons of Priscebur the elder and Gertrud and their patrueles are the later sons of one of the three eldest brothers. The summary table at the end provides an overview of what has been learned so far. a same case below); the second appears to be a minor, as his name is not even mentioned. I now believe that Johann and Vicco are the youngest sons of Priscebur the elder and Gertrud and their patrueles are the later sons of one of the three eldest brothers. The summary table at the end provides an overview of what has been learned so far. a same case below); the second appears to be a minor, as his name is not even mentioned. I now believe that Johann and Vicco are the youngest sons of Priscebur the elder and Gertrud and their patrueles are the later sons of one of the three eldest brothers. The summary table at the end provides an overview of what has been learned so far. that Johann and Vicco are the youngest sons of Priscebur the elder and Gertrud and their patrueles are the later sons of one of the three eldest brothers. The summary table at the end provides an overview of what has been learned so far. that Johann and Vicco are the youngest sons of Priscebur the elder and Gertrud and their patrueles are the later sons of one of the three eldest brothers. The summary table at the end provides an overview of what has been learned so far.
A large gap in further research in the period from 1314 to 1333, in that the name Pritzbur does not appear once, increases the already significant difficulties in achieving completely reliable results. It raises the suspicion that during this period the last sons of the old knight Priscebur, the aforementioned squires Johann and Vicco, who (according to No. 3715) as fratres dicti Pritzebur last appeared as witnesses to the Princes of Werle on October 2, 1314 appear in Güstrow, departed with death, leaving behind only children of the most youthful age, along with those of the three older brothers. At least this is the most likely explanation for the complete absence of the name Pritzbur from the witness lists of Mr. von Werle. As I said, it was not until the year 1333 (document no. 5386 from January 2nd) that we became acquainted with a number of family members again. Gerslav von Walow, Pryscebur von Karghow (Karchow), Pryscebur von Kelle and Dubeslaus von Kelle sell fishing rights in the Kölpinsee, and among the witnesses are the squires Prysceko de Grabenisze and the brothers Hinricus and Hennekinus Priscebur de Poppentin. The sellers owned the rights as a whole and are therefore probably, if not all brothers, at least cousins, and certainly all of them belong to the later von Pritzbuer family. 1 ) The two residents of Kelle, Pryscebur and Dubeslaus, can undoubtedly be attributed to the knight Pryscebur von Kelle as sons, and are they perhaps identical to Prysceko and his unnamed brother who appeared in 1314; Gerslav von Walow and Pryscebur von Karghow perhaps to Marshal Prissebur. Because for the brothers Heinrich and Henneke Pritzbur on Poppentin I would like to assign the knight Heinrich Pryssebur as the father for several reasons: 1) the old knight Pryscebur already owned Poppentin, as can be seen from the sale of his widow. At least according to his appearance, Henry was probably the eldest son, if we ignore the knight Jeroslaus, who was assumed to have died very young and childless, as the eldest son, and will have inherited this main property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father. At least according to his appearance, Henry was probably the eldest son, if we ignore the knight Jeroslaus, who was assumed to have died very young and childless, as the eldest son, and will have inherited this main property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father. At least according to his appearance, Henry was probably the eldest son, if we ignore the knight Jeroslaus, who was assumed to have died very young and childless, as the eldest son, and will have inherited this main property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father. If we ignore the knight Jeroslaus, who is assumed to have died very young and childless, as the eldest son, he will have inherited this main property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father. If we ignore the knight Jeroslaus, who is assumed to have died very young and childless, as the eldest son, he will have inherited this main property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father. and will have inherited this principal property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father. and will have inherited this principal property to his sons; 2) the eldest of the Poppentine brothers mentioned in 1333 and also his son who appeared in 1358 bear the name Heinrich, from which one can probably conclude that a bearer of this name, which continues in the branch, is the father.
The squire Prysceko von Grabenitz, who is characterized as still youthful by the pet form (as above), has called himself Priscebur von Grabenitz since 1344 and later in 1346 and 1347 (No. 6722) the brother of a Heinrich Priscebur von Grabenitz and he again in the same document from 1347 a son of deceased squire Vicco von Grabenitz. In addition, a squire Johann (Hennekin) Priscebur von Küz has appeared since 1345 as the son of Vicco's older brother Johannes and as the stepson of a Hanna von Vietgest. All mentioned, With the exception of Gerslav von Walow, Pryscebur von Karghow, who did not appear again, and Dubeslaus, who was only mentioned again in 1335 with Pryscebur von Kelle, they call themselves "patrui" in the following documents. At this time, this term, like the expression “patrueles” above, should not be interpreted in the strictly classical meaning of “uncle”. Rather, it means a very changing family relationship and is most often used for the sons of brothers, i.e. cousins ​​(a word, which is of a tribe with "patruus"). For our consideration, this degree of relationship fits perfectly when applied to the individual family members if, according to the above explanation, they are all descended from brothers.

Some conjectures may still be made about the women of the last generation. The second wife of the squire Johannes Pritzebur, Hanna de Vitegast (No. 6591) or morans in Vitegast (No. 6618) is already mentioned. According to these documents, her stepson is Johannes Priscebur de Kuz. This now appears in a document dated April 23, 1346 (No. 6646) among the "amici" ie relatives of Gotemar Gamm, who, with their consent, sold assets from his Goldewin estate on that day, Namely, the above John is the only one not belonging to the Gamm family among these “compromissors” of the seller. Furthermore, in another document dated February 16, 1347 (No. 6727) he is among the "amici" and "compromissores" of Heinrich, son of Zubbekin Gamm, who also sells uplifts from Goldewin. These close relationships with the Gamm make it seem likely that Henneke's mother, the first wife of the squire Johannes Pritzebur, came from the Gamm family. Furthermore, in another document dated February 16, 1347 (No. 6727) he is among the "amici" and "compromissores" of Heinrich, son of Zubbekin Gamm, who also sells uplifts from Goldewin. These close relationships with the Gamm make it seem likely that Henneke's mother, the first wife of the squire Johannes Pritzebur, came from the Gamm family. Furthermore, in another document dated February 16, 1347 (No. 6727) he is among the "amici" and "compromissores" of Heinrich, son of Zubbekin Gamm, who also sells uplifts from Goldewin. These close relationships with the Gamm make it seem likely that Henneke's mother, the first wife of the squire Johannes Pritzebur, came from the Gamm family. Son of Zubbekin Gamm, who also sells uplifts from Goldewin. These close relationships with the Gamm make it seem likely that Henneke's mother, the first wife of the squire Johannes Pritzebur, came from the Gamm family. Son of Zubbekin Gamm, who also sells uplifts from Goldewin. These close relationships with the Gamm make it seem likely that Henneke's mother, the first wife of the squire Johannes Pritzebur, came from the Gamm family.

Another family relationship can be identified between the brothers Pritzbur de Grabenitz and the squire Conrad Bune, whose compromissor was the elder Grabenitzer
October 21, 1346 (No. 6685) appears. On the other hand, Conrad Bune also appears as a compromissor in the sales deed of the younger Heinrich Priscebur von Grabenitz, Vicko's son, (No. 6723) dated January 26, 1347, here in the middle of other members of the Pritzbur. We can therefore assume that the mother of these two Pritzbur auf Grabenitz and the wife of the squire Vicko Pritzbur de Grabenitz is a daughter of the Bune family.

We can look for a third family connection between the older Priscebur de Grabenitz, who died before February 24, 1358, here first given the first name Hennekin, and the squire Heyno Pinnowe, alias dictus Wagel (No. 8459 and 8471), who was appointed guardian of his underage children , so that this latter was the brother-in-law of the deceased, and the mother of his ward was a Pinnow called Wagel.

The overall genealogy up to the year 1360 would appear to be approximately as shown in the table at the end.

Finally, if we briefly summarize the results, we see: the difficulty in researching the prehistory of the family lies only in the fact that, according to Wendish usage, the family did not have an actual family name until the middle of the 14th century. So you have to rely solely on analogical conclusions, which are at least able to give a fairly correct picture. It can therefore be considered certain that the family came from Pomerania, then moved to Meklenburg,

Since it can no longer be assumed that there is a document that has so far been overlooked in the Meklenburg and Pomeranian document books that could provide further clarity about the prehistoric times of the family, the researcher has to be content with the little that he has by happy coincidence, and read from it what can be read. Let's hope this study comes a little closer to the truth.