Much of the literature about material culture and consumption in the early modern period is based on the consumption patterns and material possessions of people of some means.  They are the ones who collected art and precious objects, and they are the ones who left testaments, and whose possessions were inventoried by notaries after their deaths.

Criminal records, to a certain degree, allow us a glimpse into material possessions and consumer desires of those of lesser means, even though most of the time they stole from places and individuals who were relatively wealthy. 

The document presented here is a decree from the Lithuanian Tribunal.   Since the 1560s, there were two parallel legal systems in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:  one for the Crown part of the Commonwealth, roughly the western part of the country, and one for the Great Duchy of Lithuania.  Each had a tribunal, a court of highest instance.   The Crown Tribunal, created in 1578, was the court of highest instance for the Crown part of the Commonwealth, while the Lithuanian Tribunal, created in 1581, was the court of highest instance in the Great Duchy of Lithuania.  The Lithuanian Tribunal met in Wilno and Minsk. Both courts were appeals courts dealing with appeals from the land courts, castle [grodzkie] courts, and from the chamber [podkomorskie] courts. Creation of these courts stems from the weakening of royal power and authority to the advantage of the nobility.

The decree presented here involves two Jews, Wulf Iewłowicz and Izrael Wulfowicz, who had robbed a tomb of a noble woman in 1717 in Brzesc. 
It illustrates certain broader early modern phenomena and attitudes toward material goods in the premodern period (not necessarily “early modern” specifically), although as such it is not representative of criminal activities by Jews. 

This decree, along with the additional texts here, the trials from Lublin and Jewish sources (a responsum by Benjamin Slonik and two takkanot of the Council of Lithuania) highlight patterns and habits of possessions among premodern poorer people.  The examples selected here also demonstrate ambiguity of clothing patterns and exchange of clothes between Jews and Christians.

↑ Back to top