History of the vicarage

Village of Smolnice is situated in an old cultural area of the Lower Ohře River Basin, where also a Slavic settlement penetrated in very early times. The first written reference indeed originates from "as late as" 1337; however, it reveals that the village belonged to the widespread estates of the Prague diocese, created early during the princely era. In the first quarter of the 13th century, the Prague bishops were the initiators of a great reform of the ecclesiastical administration, part of which was the replacement of then a sparse large-scale parish system with an intensively developed and dense network of local parsonages (vicarages). It is beyond doubt that they started with the realization at their estates first. In the mentioned year of 1337, the bishop Jan IV of Dražice exchanged several north Bohemian villages, including Smolnice, with the Monastery of Augustinian Canons at Roudnice. Part of the transfer was also a right of patronage to the church in Dolín, while no mention of such exists in Smolnice [reg.IV, p.193]. Nonetheless, a parish church undoubtedly existed here; however, the right of patronage to it and thus a benefaction over the objects, including the residence of the pastor, belonged to and until the Hussite Wars remained with the archdeacons of Žatec, who were mostly at the same time the canons of the Metropolitan Chapter at St. Vitus in Prague. Because the patron of the church and the parish nobility belonged to the ecclesiastical class, their adequate care for the parish objects may be assumed as well. Even the parish benefice had a decent endowment, although not the most profitable one [Štědrý, Method XXVII, p.92; XXVIII, p.9].
The pastors in Smolnice were documented via confirmatory and judicial books of the Prague Consistory during the times from 1355 until the beginning of the 15th century. At the end of the 14th century, some of the pastors were pluralists, they did not live at a vicarage and they kept a chaplain there. Among the patrons were also some renowned personalities, like the personal annalist of Charles IV, the manager of St. Vitus Cathedral construction Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, or only three years before his ignominious death the archbishop general vicar Doctor Johánek of Pomuk (John of Nepomuk), a yet to come saint [lib.conf. I-1, p.5; I-2, p.22; II, p.82; III, p.64; V, p.40,288,292,316; VI, p.129,130,201; F.Tadra, SA, 3, p.301; 4, p.56; 5, p.68; AČ 31, sp.257, no.5; Štědrý, Method XXVIII, p.8].
During the times of the Hussite Wars, the entire region was controlled by the town of Louny and no larger combats were documented in these times. The Utraquists annexed the vicarage and the church and controlled them until the Battle of White Mountain. In the Hussite Wars the patron was presumably the Hussite captain Matěj Louda of Chlumčany and from 1443 to 1547 the Utraquist town of Louny. Since 1548, regarding the sale of the village to Šebestián of Weitmile, even a church patronage has been in reference, valued at 1 threescore of groschen (60 groschen) [DZV 8, lit.P 21b; 47, lit.I 3b]. Even under the later nobilities, Catholic or tolerant ones, the vicarage was still occupied by the married non-Catholic pastors and their families (Štědrý, Method XXVIII, p.9). The care for the parish taken by these nobilities was documented by the casting of a large bell in 1512 at the honorable bell-caster Bartoš in Prague, and in 1597 by the completion of a tinny baptismal font at the no-less renowned Prague bell-caster Bartoloměj of Cymperk [Matějka, Soupis, p.80].
After the Battle of White Mountain, the non-Catholic pastors were expelled and in the last decade of the Thirty Year War, during the Swedish invasions, the village was devastated and partly burned, along with the other ones in the vicinity. Under the general lack of priests, no pastor was found for the depopulated parish. If the abandoned vicarage was not burned during the war, it just deteriorated due to the prolonged lack of use. Religious services were from time to time provided by the town of Louny or the surrounding monasteries. When in 1669 the imperial counsel and the president of the court chamber Count Jiří Ludvík of Sintzendorf bought the Postoloprty and Toužetín estates from the indebted Michnas (1630 – 1669), only the "parish and filial churches" were mentioned cursorily at the estates [DZV 318, lit.E 14]. At that time, since 1660, the church at Smolnice has been already administered by the permanent pastor in Vrbno, as his branch church. In 1666 the Vrbno pastor stated in the consistory questionnaire when answering the question no. 34 about the status of the parish that his vicarage Vrbno was comfortable; however he did not mention the situation with the two filial churches [APA I, ref. B 12/13, no.10].
In 1692, the imperial secret counsel and the highest court marshal Ferdinand Prince of Schwarzenberg bought from Count Jiří Ludvík of Sintzendorf all his north Bohemian estates, heading with Postoloprty and Toužetín. Smolnice was not mentioned in a fairly comprehensive list of these estates, much less the filial church in the village. The parish church of St. Bartoloměj was mentioned only together with a separate estate of Želenice [DZV 401, lit.P 5,8]. Nevertheless, the new owner and his major interest in the intensification of the spiritual administration in Smolnice appeared very soon.
In 1691 when Toužetín estate sale finished there is an evident interest in the parish court and a barn in Smolnice. A layer of clay was laid to barnyard and it was trample down by vassals, thresholds were underpinned with a mason (VST, III Kđ 2/3 Kirchen Rechnung 1691). Since the beginning of 1695, an extensive correspondence between the prince and a marshal Hrdlička on the way of marketing of a new parish benefices (VST, ref. III Kđ 3a) have been preserved. In the same year, a supply of 42 double yards of a broken building stone and wood for the scaffolding was delivered and local cottars were paid 13g. 20cr., "when they tore down the old walls in the parish" (VST, III Kđ 2 / 3 Kirchen Rechnung 1691). One can only speculate on the extent of the demolition and on the status of the original parish house. It is possible to suppose at least a maintenance of most of the foundations, if not visibly too shallow. The occurrence of the disorder about a hundred year later would be proof of that.
On July 15, 1697, a marshal Th. E. Siebert wrote to Mikuláš Sontago, a marshal at Postoloprty, that a mason master Michael Fortini, member of the large family of Italian masons, who had been serving for several generations to Schwarzenbergs, applied at him at Mšec. He asked for a contract for "permitted construction of Smolnice parish”. It is said that Siebert himself suggested the prince to pay the masons daily according to the measured work and to pay an architect de Maggi a "discretion" of 12 thalers. Jakub de Maggi, a settled citizen of Hluboká, was a court architect of Prince Ferdinand. He conducted the majority of changes of the castle in Český Krumlov and other sites at the end of the 17th century. But when, Siebert continues, the work is given to Fortini, he should be paid by yard, which rate is 1g. 10 cr. regardless whether it is masonry in the foundation, above ground, arch or pise (obiger Lahn). This seemed acceptable to Siebert, so he would add a barrel of beer, 2 strikes of rye, one strike of barley and a half strike of pea (VST, ref.III Kđ 3c/4). Even in that age, there had to be a project. An unsigned and undated plan of the ground floor of a residential building was preserved. It captures the long one-tract with 5 rooms with entrance hall and one vaulted room of adjacent dependency. Three rooms are equipped with fireplace and there is a toilet in the wall thickness of the two unheated rooms (VST, ref. III Kđ 3c/ 3). According to data of marshal Siebert, the author seems more likely to be Jakub de Maggi, but also Michael Fortini could supply with his own construction plan.
In December 13, 1697, a joiner Johan Geiger endorsed a salary of 45 g. 37 cr. for further unspecified delivery to Smolnice parish. A ticket that lists necessary wood for parish shed i.e. 170 large and small wood, 240 "floors", 300 lathes and 45000 shingles (ibid., 3c / 5,7) probably dates back from the same period .
The carcassing was probably done in the third quarter of 1697 and was completed at the beginning of the following season. On June 12, 1698, Kryštof Sontag, an administrator of Toužetín, submitted "Measurements of Smolnice parish made by architect Michael Fortini from Mšec, who was paid accordingly." Elaborate contains the following items measured in probably Czech yards (1.777 m) and ells (0.592 m), possibly square yards (3.1606 m2):
"The length of the parish in Toužetín side is 16 yards, height on the side including the 4 yards base, is 72 [sq] yards .. 84 g.
The other side in the yard also 16 yards long and 4 yards high, is 72 yards .. 84 g.
Lower side of the vault (Gewölbl), length 8 yards, height 4 yards, is 36 yards .. 42 g.
Edge wall (Eckhmawer) of vault, length 4 yards and height 4 yards, is 18 yards.. 21 g.
Opposite wall (neben mawer) of vault, length 2 yards and height 4 yards, is 10 yards.. 11 g.40 cr.
Lateral wall (Gezwerchsmawern) in light (in Liecht) 4 each 13 ells long and 12 ells high, is 69 yards 3 ells.. 80 g.53 cr. 2 day.
Wall by the kitchen, length 8 ells and height 4 yards, is 10 yards 6 ells.. 12 g.26 cr. 4 day.
Back lateral wall (Gezwerchs Mawer), length 5 yards 1 ell and height 4 yards, is 24 yards.. 28 g.
Molding all around 29 yards.. 34 g.50 cr.

Cellar, over which is vaulted, lateral wall (Gezwerchs Mawer)at the lower cellar, length 13 ells and height 6 ell, is 8 yards 6 ells.. 10 g. 6 cr.4 day.
Arch at the cellar is 7 [sq.] yards.. 8 g.
Arch in kitchen measured in ells, is 8 yards.. 9 g.20 cr.
In vault or room [arch] 9 yards.. 10 g. 30 cr.
Total 373 [sq.] yards 6 ells.. 435 g.56 cr.4 day."
Next: New stairs to the cellar with 14 levels and 1 in wall door jambs for 6 g., 1 chimney for 4 g., 6 [sq.] yards of paving in the first hall for 1 g.30 cr., 13 yards in the room for 3 g. 15 cr., 7 yards in vault [room] for 1 g.45 cr., 5 yards in the kitchen for 1 g.15 cr., 14 yards in front room for 3 g.30 cr., 10 yards in little hall for 2 g.30 cr., 11 yards in a small room for 2 g.45 cr., fireplace for 1 g.30 cr., stove masonry in the parson's room 2 g., the same in the big room with stove under-filling (Bachoffen) 4 g., 2 lights (Leichten) 1 g., 2 outlets (Durchlauf) and 2 toilets for 4 g.
In total Fortini billed for the entire residential parish building 474 g.56 cr.4 day. (VST, ref.III Kđ 3C/8).
On November 17, 1698 Toužetín officer Kryštof Sontag submitted "Measurement of Smolnice parish barns and sheds, then other following construction activities, drawn up by architect Michael Fortini from Mšec, who was paid accordingly." Elaborate includes the following items:
"Barn length 16 yards and height 3 yards including base, is 48 yards.. 43 g.12 cr.
Other sides in the court of the same length and height.. 43 g.12 cr.
5 lateral walls (Gezwerchs mawern) 4 yards wide and 3 yards high, is 60 yards.. 54 g.
Shed length 5 yards and height 3 yards.. 13 g.30 cr.
Lateral walls at outbuild 2 yards long and 3 yards high, is 6 yards.. 5 g.24.cr.
Door with molding 2 yards wide and 3 yards high, is 6 yards.. 5 g.24.cr.
Gable or fire wall 5 yards wide and 2 yards high, is 10 yards.. 9 g.
Wall in yard 8 yards long 5 ell high, is 13 yards 1 ell.. 12 g.
Side wall 9 yards long and 8 ell high, is 24 yards.. 21 g.36 cr.
"Flickerei" 5 yards.. 4 g.30 cr.
Entrance gate 4 yards long and 3 yards high, is 14 yards.. 12 g.36 cr.
New wall next to the gate 7 yards long and 2 yards high, is 14 yards.. 12 g.36 cr.
Door to cemetery is 3 yards.. 2 g.42 cr.
Molding at the gate 5 yards.. 5 g.50 cr.
Shed at barns 22 yards.. 25 g.40 cr.
2 outlets (Durchlauf) from two toilet houses of 4 yards.. 3 g.36 cr."
In total Fortini billed for the farm building 274 g.48 cr. (VsT, ref.III Kđ 3c/10).
During the completion of construction work of the parish premises, the Prince Ferdinand issued an instrument to determine permanent income and benefits of Smolnice parish benefices on March 29, 1698. On June 20, 1698, the Archbishop Jan Josef hr.Breuner issued a documentary instrument for managing a separate residential parish in Smolnice (VST, ref. III Kđ 3a). Immediately in 1700 newly-appointed pastor P. Jiří Haysser answered in consistory questionnaire the question No. 34: "There is no parish house at the other churches, I truly have a nice home at mine, it is separated from menials and the parish is adjacent to the cemetery (APA I, ref.B 13/14, Smolnice).
After this essential new equipment of the parish benefices, there was no need of major alterations after more than a quarter of a century.
The reigning prince ordered in a rescript of September 12, 1724 to a major at Postoloprty to build a stone wall on the clay instead of the existing rotten wooden fence around the parish garden in order to save the requiem forest, which is strongly devastated by continuous mining. On July 2, 1730, the repair proposal included the new shingle roof cover on one side of residential building and barn and on more places of the shed using 16,800 new shingles. Furthermore, on the parson request, thatch ceilings should be done in his two rooms in order to improve the heating costs 30 g., the parson should cover half price from his private funds. The joist ceilings probably remained in other non-vault rooms.
In early 1738, the parson of Smolnice wishes to extend a residential building with two rooms, which he would again partly cover from his own funds. Negotiations on financial issue took a long time, so the implementation at the cost 311 g.r. occurred in the second half of 1739. Whitewash and 4300 bricks were given by parish. Drawing and financial breakdown were not preserved (VST, ref. III Kđ 3c; III Kđ 2/12 Kirchen Buch 1739). This event was interpreted by J. Sommer in his topography of Bohemia from 1845 so that during 1741-4 "also the parish house was newly built" (XII, p.81, No.2).
In 1764 according to the report from the following year, 6 roof spars and 19 nine-ell slotted planks should had been changed on the parish building. In 1767, very decrepit state of the parish barn was stated and it was reconstructed during 1768. According to the list of performed work by the Toužetín administrator Bönisch, the masons “at first part partly demolished the leaning walls of the parish barn, after digging a solid base they newly highlighted the main lateral wall with half pointed fire gable (die Haubtquermauer scarpirter mit einen halbgebrochenen Feuergiebel), and then 2 adjacent lateral walls, which is in total 160 [sq.] yards; the other walls were covered with whitewash from inside and outside and last [i.e. outside] was smoothed; a defective cellar was controlled in the parish house and a new stove (Backofen) and one bad chimney were build " . Total consumption was 16 yards of quarry stone, 1105 bricks, 57 strikes of whitewash. A carpenter Jiří Wimmer made the whole barn roof, he replaced part of the rafters, implemented 2 new wall beams, bound a new roof to a "half broken fire gable," repaired the barn doors and gates; the middle part of the roof of the residential building was covered with 4485 shingles.
In 1780, a carpenter Wimmer covered closely unnamed roof in the parish yard with 4200 shingles. In January 17, 1785, he filed report on necessary repairs in the parish yard. The rotten the main gate was about to repair, to change and underpin rotten rafter in outbuild, to add a new barn door and the shed roof. Two beams were about to change above the stables and the "floor" to be repaired (maybe the ceiling as the floor of hayloft) with ten aspen trunks. In the residential building there were rotten window frames "and wheels about to fall off, also the kitchen window frame was rotten and the wheel glued together with paper". On this basis, on January 31, 1785, an added estimated budget of the necessary work was drawn. It indicates the construction of new entrance gates to the yard and the new gate to the barn, for fixing dilapidated sheds, barn and pigsty, restoration of shingle roofs. Moreover, it states "performance on the rock against the Smolnice village about 24 yards very inclined (hinausgesunckter) wall", then the repair of the kitchen fireplace and other stoves, covering the cracked decrepit walls of the parish yard." Estimated usage of 20 yards of quarry stone, 600 bricks, 30 strikes of whitewash, 15 rafters and 18000 shingles was calculated.
For lack of funds in the church treasury, the implementation was being postponed from one year to the other and new budget further defines nature of detected defects. Undated elaborate probably from 1789 states: "The builders underpin basis around the entire building of the parish yard (das gantze Pfarrhofsgebäude) as well as the main corner, because the bad old stones fall apart because of the frost and rain." Furthermore, 3 new beams were about to replace the old ones and the whole roof of parish to change. Estimated usage of material was calculated for 30 yards of stone and 60 strikes of whitewash, 3 beams, 2 walls (two-side hewn stones), 8 aspen for lining and 13,800 shingles. Another undated "Progecht" by Czech craftsman dating back probably to 1790 says, that "the masonry work is around the whole parish, it is at the building excluding garden, underpin the base and the main edge at the parish, because it stands on bad base and it moves". According to another elaborate, the exposed corner was about to undercover to the native rock in a length of 5 yards [now in Vienna yards i.e. 1.896 m], height of 2 yards and the thickness of 3 yards (0.94 m). Other main walls were about to underpin in the length of 45 yards, height of 63/4 yards (2.13 m) and thickness of 3/4 yard (O.23 m). Carpenters had to repair on tract of parish roof of length of 30 yards and a width of 4 yards, using 11,400 shingles.
According to the cited characteristics, the defects were serious and their removal had to be done by the end of the century. The evidence however, is missing in extant writings. Neither book of church accounts from 1760-1819 does not provide information resulting from a change in the way of charging expenses.
There are no extant sources from the first half of the 19th century. So called new part of Toužetín estate in the period after 1798 until the 20th century includes only a fragment of the patron files without documentation of construction nature. After the government reform in 1849, supervising and approval authority in construction matters of ecclesiastical buildings was grant to political administration bodies, in the lowest instance to district offices or marshal, but those returned the basic documentation to relevant patronage after decision making. The writings from 1848 to early 20th century about construction activity in Smolnice are kept in district authorities in Louny.
On October 23, 1848 a protocol on inspection of parish buildings was drawn and it showed up:
a) In living rooms of parson, the summer and winter windows and three doors are worn and these need to be "renewed and according to current needs in the wooden door frames". The current, apparently tiled stove, is useless and must be replaced with iron one.
b) In the menials room (Gesindszimmer), there are three windows in poor condition. Is it necessary to divide it with partition "from the entrance to the exit door into the hall" (von der gegen die Eingangsthür Ausgangsthür Vorhaus in the day) and the separated room to adjust for the housekeeper.
c) In the guest room and the chaplain room facing the east, the windows should be replaced and adjusted so that the two wings come to internal and 2 wings to external side. In the guest room, the existing two windows should be secured with bars. Poor eastern wall of the guest room should be protected against the danger of fall and adjusted reliably. Furthermore, a plank floor should be changed in this room.
d) The window in the adjacent hall to guest room should be larger and secured with bars.
e) The stove in the kitchen should be in usable condition.
f) In both halls, partly rotten beam ceilings should be changed and filled with reed. Due to a fire danger, the wooden attic stairs should be transferred into food store area and made of stone.
g) Torn corner of a barn should be fastened and repaired.
h) Both gates to [shed] outhouse are completely useless. One gate should be made new; the other is useless so it should be bricked in.
i) Entrance gate to the parish yard must be also made new. The same thing is to happen to the door facing the village as well as to the door facing the cemetery.
k) The stable door, cow and sheep barn door and feeding room door must be made new using wall stones torn from parson‘s rooms. The stable is missing part of wooden floor. A drying room in the parish park should be repaired.
On August 29, 1849, the corrections, budgeted on February 9 and approved by Prague province on May 19 of the same year, were inspected. They concerned primarily with the church and only the new floor in the guest room and an iron stove in the parson's room are mentioned in the parish area. The other previously listed defect handling is not known. Some works were done in 1853 or 1854, the writings of the district authorities only register a dispute between the parson and Toužetín patronage and the Provincial Construction Directorate (PCD), which firstly approved the sent project, but then sent delayed own costly counterproposal. Since the PCD documents are not preserved, data cannot be specified (OÚ L f.150, ref.V 18-1).
Inspection of parish buildings on January 23, 1879 showed their "really decrepit condition ", and necessity of proposed, unfortunately, further unspecified repairs by patronage. Participants considered necessary only to emphasize in case of farm buildings that "the western wall of the barn had to be secured to prevent falling down". The barn door frames are broken, windows are rotten, masonry is in some places very poor and the wall coat falls down. On February 25, 1881, the required unspecified repairs to parish buildings were inspected without any comments.
In 1895, it was required to re-build the fallen wall of the garden. In August 22, 1901, adjustments of the parish kitchen were inspected in protocol. New stove and new floor were implemented and some nooks were bricked in. Chimneys were raised with metal attachments with little roofs. A part of the damaged garden wall was re-built (OU L, f. 149 ref. V 18-18).
In 1925, the roof covering was repaired with no doubt on a residential building of the parish. Roofing type is not stated (OÚ L f.156, ref. V S/8). Later documents on Smolnice parsonage are not included in the fund of the district authorities. More recent source has not been found in the collections of heritage management authorities or church paper of the national committees (after 1949).