Van des keisserlichen Lübischen Rechtes wegen Circumstances of Criminality in Medieval Reval

Va n des keisserlichen Lübischen Rechtes wegen
Circumstances of Criminality in Medieval Reval
Erik Somelar
The most outstanding characteristic of everyday life in medieval Tallinn (hereafter Reval
in accordance with medieval usage) was the duality of the town population. The crucial
term for understanding everyday life in medieval Reval is undeutsch. It was used to
denote the natives of the land, to draw the line between them and the German
conquerors. The closest English translation – „Ungerman“ – is incapable of wholly
transmitting the meaning of this word. The negative prefix un- appears to describe
Ungermans as opposites of the Germans in any possible conjunction, condemning the
whole culture. In the tradition of Ostkolonisation. mixing with the original population
could cause the loss of privileges of personal freedom. Remernhering that the conquerors
considered themselves to be at a superior stage of cultural development, it is no surprise
that no integration took place in medieval Livonia. The Germans (actually the
Westfalians and the Rhinelanders – the often crucial distinction carefully maintained by
the division of spoils) developed their own cultural milieu, which was almost entirely
determined by the export of Hanseatic conditions This export was crucial to Reval’s
medieval effiorescence.
Sources1
The most important legal imports for this paper are the codes of Lübeck law until 1 5 86
and the code of Riga law for Reval.
2
The original Lübeck codes
3
lacked instructions on
the subject of dealing with the Ungerman population. Interestingly enough, this subject
1 J.L.Müthcl. Handbuch der livläntilschen Crtmmalrechtslehre. Dorpat: 1827. F.G.v.Bunge, Bettrtige
zur Kunde der ltv-. esth- und curldndtschen Rechtsquellen. Riga und Dorpat: Frantzen 1832.
F.G.v.Bungc. Geschichte des Gencht􀄀wesens und Gertehisverfahrens in Liv-, Est- und Curland. Reval:
Franz Kluge 1874. F.G.v.Bunge . .. Nachrichten ubcrdas alle Archiv des Rathes zu Reval.“ ln: Arch iv .ftir
die Geschichte Liv- . Esrh- und Curlands iii (Hrsg. v. F.G. von Bunge). Dorpat: Franz Kluge 1844.
2
Reval 1282 = Codex des tabischen Rechts von 1182. Hrsg. v. F.G.v.Bunge. Die Quellen des Rcvaler
Stadtrechts i. Dorpat 1842. Reval 1257 = Codex des lübischen Rechts von 1257. Hrsg. v. F.G.v.Bunge.
Die Quellen des Re,·aler Stadtrechts i. Dorpat: 1842. Reval 1347 = Codex des Iabischen Rechts von 1347. Hrsg. v. F.G.,· Bunge. Die Quellen des Re,·aler Stadtrechts i. Dorpat: 184􀄌 Riga-Reval = Codex
des rig ischen Rechts filr Reval. Hrsg. v. F.G.v.Bungc. Die Quellen des Revaler Stadtrechts i. Dorpat:
1842.
3 W.Ebel. Ltihtsches Rechr. Bd. i. Lübcck: 197 1 . A.L J.Michelsen, Der ehemalige Oberhof zu Li.tbeck
und seine Rechtssprüche. Altona: 1839.
79
remained virtually unattended to in most of the other legal sources of medieval Reval as
weil. One of the few known exceptions is the decree of Queen Margaret of Denmark
from August 29, 1273, affirmed by King Erik Klipping of Denmark. It sets the fine and
the damages for wounding somebody inside the pax civitatis at two marks of silver and
two öres of pences. If the wounded person happened to be an Ungerman. the fine was
only one mark and two öres. The same applied when the felon was an Ungerman.4
Dictae of the town Magistrate (Bursprake)
5 and the statutes (Skra. Schrag) of
the corporations (Zunft) of local craftsmen and merchants were also called Lübeck law.
Whether it was done so as not to spoil the good standing with the Lübeck Magistrate or
to confer more authority to the dictae, or both. is hard to determine.
Addi:ionally there exists one more source, the significance of which has hitherto
not been fully recognised. The extracts from the „old court proceedings“ (dating from
1457 to 1 555), made by the Magistrate secretary Herbers,6 have been seen just as a
chronicle of crimes committed in Reval in these years. Considering the existence of only
one copy, carefully kept in the Magistrate archive, the notion of its being sensational
reading seems unlikely. The document contains formulas for opening a jury session,
outlawing a person, and swearing an Urfehde. The formula of Urfehde has been altered
several times so that it would address the current ruler. Likewise is the description of the
procedure for the body of a suicide (Da findest du wie man mit denen. so sich selbst
erhängt. procediret. ../ appropriate for a lawyers‘ handbook rather than a chronicle.
Additional sources for investigation of legal practices in medieval Reval might be
various town books: the Denke/buch, Wackenbuch des Sankt-Johannis-Siechenhauses
and several account-books (Kämmereibiicher). 8 Regretfully in the so-called
Geleitsbiicher9 (accounts of the persons applying for safe conduct) the persons from
4 LECUB = Ln•-. Esth- und Curländisches Urkundenbuch 1 – vi. Hrsg. v. F.G.v.Bungc. Dorpat,
Re\’al: 1853 – 1875. ii: 436. 437.
5 Revalcr Bursprake ca. 1400. LECUB ii, 1516 Revalcr Bursprake von 1360. LECUB 11, 981. Revaler
Bursprakc von Ende 14. n1. LECUB 11 982. P.Johansen, H. von zur Mühlen, Revalcr Bursprake ( I . und
2. Jahrzehnt des 15. Jahrhunderts). Deutsch und Undeutsch im miuelalterhchen und fnJJmeuzeuhchen
Reval. Köln Wien: Böhlau 1973. Llbn de d1vers1s art1cuhs 1333 – 1374. Hrsg. v. P.Johansen.
Publikationen aus dem Re,·aler Stadtarchiv viii. Reval: 1935. Das Revaler Ratsurteilsbuch (Reg1ster van
affspraken) 1515 – 1 55-I. Hrsg. v. W.Ebcl. Göttingen: 1952. W.Amdt. „Die Willküren und Burspraken
des Rathes zu Reval.“‚ ln: Areluv flir die Gescl11chtt Llv- , Esth- und Curlands 111 (Hrsg. \. F.G. von
Bunge). Dorpat: Franz Kluge 1844.
6 „Aus alten Gerichtsbücher ein kurzer auszugck (Herbcrssche Auszug)“. E.v. Nottbeck (Hrsg.), Die alte
Criminalchromk Revals. Re\’al: 1884.
7
E. v. Nottbeck, Die alte Criminalchronik Revals. Reval: 1884, p. 54.
8 Die ältesten Kammembücher der Stadt Reva/ (I 363 b1s I 374). Hrsg. v. 0. v Greiffenhagen.
Publikationen aus dem Revaler Stadtarchiv iii. Re\’al: 1927. Kammereibuch der Stadt Reval (1432 –
1-1631. Hrsg. v. R. Vogclsang. Quellen und Darstellungen zur hansischen Geschichte 22/1 and 22/2.
Köln. Wien: Böhlau 1976.
9
Das Revaler Geleitsbuch 1515 – /626. Hrsg. v. P.Johansen. N.Essen. Publikationen aus dem Revaler
Stadtarchiv ix. Reval: 1939.
80
rural areas dominate. Last, but not least, the notes made by sheriff Grymmert10 throw
some light on court practice and criminal statistics.
Verbal determination of crime
Due to the particularities ofEstonian history, evidence about word usage by Ungermans
is practically non-existent, while evidence as to the terminology used by German
conquerors is abundant. Medieval Revalian terms did not exactly correspond with those
known from Centrat European territories. Ungericht, the popular German term to denote
the crime as such, is also hardly to be found in Revalian sources. Friedensbruch, another
common term, is used rather infrequently. The most common terms in Reval are the
Middle Lower German expressions Schuld die an den Hals geht
1 1 and broke.
12 The
latter is also widely used in the meaning of a fine to be paid for a crime. Thus it seems
that Revalian word usage was inspired by crime and its punishment rather than any law
code. This is particularly manifest in the term Schuld die an den Hals geht, in which the
vox populi has already determined the punishment for a misdeed.
The abundant use of corporal and capital punishment is as characteristic of
medieval Reval as it is of any Hanseatic town. Stigmatisation of the offenders was also
quite common. It is also apparent that the range of the misdeeds that were subject to
punishment is considerably discordant with the range we are used to today. Numerous
smaller, in our paradigm civil, transgressions, like a row between marketwomen. were
reproved by corporal punishment. There is nothing to indicate that police justice, and
swift execution of the raseals and vagrants (landschlidliche Leute) were seen as
something other than usual exertion of justice.
Criminality and culpability
The evidence points to the conclusion that criminality was considered a property of an
individual. There is no data as to the understanding of how and why an individual tumed
criminal. It was apparently not considered hereditary, since this notionwas missing in the
medieval paradigm. ln two cases (in 146413 and 1 502 14) the sentenced women were
allowed to give birth to their babies before being executed.
Closely tied with the question of criminality is the question of culpability. In the
German tradition everything that could move (e.g. a falling beam) could be accused of ill
will. Immutable objects (e.g. a weil or a fence) could not. The owner was held liable,
except in the case of ceding the accused thing or animal to the family ofthe injured i5 In
10
„Der revalsche Gerichtsvogt und seine Protokolle von 1􀅝36 und 1􀁢37.“ Hrsg. v. E. von Nonbeck, In:
Belfrage rur Kunde Ehst-, Liv- und Kurlands 1ii. RC\·al: 1887.
11
Approximately meaning capital crime – „guilt that goes at the neck“. see Reval 1282: 100.
12
Litera! translation would be „to break“.
13
E. v. Nottbeck. Criminalchronik. p. 52.
14
E. v. Nottbeck. Cr􀃨mmalchronik, p. 69.
15
R.His. GeschiChte des deutschen Strafrechts b1s :ur Karolina. München und Berlin: R. Oldenbourg
1928.
81
Reval, falling beams and similar accidents were seen as mishaps and as such
irredeemable. 16 One of the results of such an accident could be the surrendering of the
object to the injured. Generally the negligence was not punishable: the guilty had only to
pay the injuries. 1 7 Anybody who was not careful enough himself, had no right to
compensation, for example, for being bitten by a dog in its „own“ hause. 18 If the sarne
happened on the street, the owner was liable, except if they abandoned the creature.19
The (assumed) intentions of the accused played a significant part in devising the
punishment. A fairly clear distinction was made between crimes which were
premeditated, those caused by anger and those caused by negligence. It is unclear
whether the children and other dependants could be accused of crime in Reval; and
nothing is said about culpability of mentally ill
Vorsate
Anybody who prepared the crime weil in advance, made hirnself guilty of Vorsate.
Vorsare was no small misdemeanour: it was liable to a I 0 mark fine – as much as the
original wergeld, the fine for manslaughter – and a barre! of wine. The reason for such
harshness was that since the states position was never secure, the order that would
ensure peaceful coex.istence between individuals (the state’s monopoly of violence) had
to be re-established every day. For these reasons any premeditated offence was seen as a
grave crime. Vorsafe was never presumable: only real estate owners with an unblemished
reputation could testify to its existence 20
It has been said repeatedly that the judgement had to consider not only the
outcome, but also the intentions of a criminal. Thus, the intentions had to have somehow
been obvious The appearance of the individual, and previous knowledge about him – or
the Iack thereof – were primarily capable of transmitting this kind of image. A good
example of that is the institution of the oath-helpers (Eidheljer) – the people who
supported the oath of some friend or relative. For doing so, no knowledge of the actual
case was needed· oath-helpers only certified the reliability of the person in general. The
existence of a willingness to testify under these circumstances presupposes quite
extensive trust towards the person in question. The oath-helpers had to be confident that
social control over the person they testified for was functioning.
Legal environment: historical roots and sources
The first statute Reval had was probably the so-called Weichbildrecht, ius civitatis. Its
essence was probably contained in the privileges donated by Waldemar II to his
stranghold and its settings. The charter of donation is not conveyed to us, but it must
16
Reval 1257: 59: Reval 1282: 65.
17 Reval 1257: 59: Rev·al 1282: 65.
18 Reval 1257: 60: Reval 1282: 68.
19 Reval 1257: 61; Reval 1282: 69.
20
Reval 1282: 1 10.
82
have been intrinsic for requesting the right to use Riga (essentially Hamburg) law 21 The
code sent in response to this request is known to be the oldest manuscript of R.iga law 22
The endorsement of Waldemar’s privileges by Erik IV Plogpennig of Denmark also
confirms the existence of these privileges. The actual use of Riga law has been doubted
by Nottbeck, but the existence of a Ietter to the Magistrate of R.iga and the existence of
the manuscript (regretfully of indeterminable age) cannot be doubted. The main
argument of Nottbeck – that in this code a princeps figured as a ruler, and therefore it
must have been created after the interregnum of the Order (1227 – 1238) is vitiated, if
one assumes that the code originated in the time before the interregnum. The proof can
be found in the text of the treaty of Stenby (1238) – the words munitio et civitas
Revaliensii3 suggest that Reval did already have a town constitution.
On May 1 5, 1238 Erik IV Plogpennig conferred on the Revalians the right to use
Lübeck law. The original document has been lost, but a transcription (TrariSSUmt) of alt
royal Danish privileges given by the provincial Burchard von Dreileben to the Magistrate
ofReval on February I, 1 347, contains a transcript 24
The document establishes the justices for the cases of injuries. These should be
the Magistrate and homines nostri 25 The meaning of the latter term is somewhat
unclear: usually it simply means a vassal, which might not be the case here. It might refer
to the castle sheriff. The real extent of the powers of these homines nostri is unknown:
they might have been just the formal announcers of a verdict or autarchic judges who
consulted the Magistrate only pro forma. lt must be noted, however, that there is no
evidence of actions by any judges but the town sheriff and the Magistrate. The
Magistrates‘ sole responsibilities were initially civil suits, communal affairs, mercantile
and community policing. It had the right to impose fines up to I 0 marks and a barret
(Fuder) ofwine – the usual fine for scheming to break the law. The Magistrate dealt with
the insults to the magistrates and feuding 26 It also had the right to Iet outcasts back into
the town.27
On September 16, 125728 Christoph I affirmed the town rights of Reval.
Respanding to his request and to Stress the standing of Reval as a fi1ial town, the
Magistrate of Lübeck sent a Latin transcript of all Lübeck codes of private, criminal and
processual law (altogether 103 articles) to Reval as early as 1257.
21 F.G.v.Bunge. Das Herzogthum Estland u11ter den Kt>mgen von Danemark. Gotha: Fricdrich Andreas
Perthes 1877. p. 146.
22 LECUB i: 77.
23 LECUB i: 160.
24
LECUB ii: 869; Tallinn City Archives (TI..A): F. 230 n 1-1. Urk. 168.
25 F.G.v.Bunge. „Zur Feier des Gedlichtnisses des am 15. Mai 1248 der Stadt Reval verliehenen
lübischen Rechts.“ ln: Arch1v jilr die Gesch1chte Llv- . Esth- und Curlands 1v (Hrsg. v. F.G. von Bunge).
Dorpat: Franz Kluge. p. 68. 26 Reval 1257: 77. 88.
27 Reval 1257: 80.
28
LECUB i: 315.
83
The code of 1282, written at the request of King Erik Klipping. his mother
Margaret and the Magistrate of Reval, is the oldest known vemacular reception of
Lübeck law. The Lübeck law of 1347 was formally a German translation of the 1257
code, though they were far from identical. All these, as weU as the Burspralren imply that
the sheriff (Vogt) was solely responsible for combating crime 29
As a representative of the sovereign the sheriff originally had the greatest powers
in most German towns. However. the Magistrates gradually succeeded in their struggle
for more power.
Reval, unlike the older Hanseatic towns, did not emerge slowly, but was founded
by its conquerors (the speculated dike of the Estonians cannot be seen as analogaus to
European towns). Therefore the town sheritf was almost never a political figure. The
castle sheriff. a royal appointee and thus generally a political figure, had virtually no
power in the town.
In the course of its development, criminal justice in older Hanseatic towns tended
to be based on the appropriation of the Magistrate as the highest power rather than on
law codes. It could almost be said that the Magistrate did not need to judge offences: the
citizens had already done that themselves in giving the citizens‘ oath. The Magistrate just
stated the breaking of the oath and netted out the punishrnent implicit in it. Thus the
Magistrate did not actually need prosecutors. defenders or, for that matter, formal laws.
The Revalian Magistrate obtained the right to nominate candidates for the
sheriffs oftice in 1265 30 The sheriff remained the most imponant oftic:at dealing with
crime, even more so when he had the backing of the Magistrate. He was Richter unter
dem Königsbann, i.e. he had power over life and death.
To the full quorum of the criminal court there also belonged, besides the town
sheriff (Stadtvogt, Cerichtsvogt), the patrician sheriff (Herrenvogt) and undersheriff
( Untervogt). The patrician sheriffwas often a former town sheriff, which was evidently
quite imponant for the continuity of legal practice. The distinction of the jury was
completed by the presence of police orderlies (waltbodef, walbode, bodef, praeco, hecht
– the last word originally signified thejail house) and, ifneed be, ofthe executioner. Until
the middle ofthe fifteenth century an old German institution of Urteilsfinder still ex.isted.
Originally he was the representative of the community, by this time, however, he
confined hirnself rather to pronouncing some ritual phrases. 31 Apparently replacing the
Urteilsfinder, in 1479 two affiuent citizens are for the first time referred to as taking part
in the Sessions. The sessions mostly took place in the office of the sheriff, sometimes also
in the Magistrate chapel or outside the town (mainly in the port).
The sheriffwas not only the most important but also the most visible defender of
order. He had to deal with most ofthe transgressions personally. He played active role in
the community affairs, presiding over sessions of the Ding (echteding, echt Ding, also
Vogt-Ding): in German law area usually a body consisting of alt citizens, deciding three
times a year questions of inheritance, real estate and conferring about dictae of the
29
Reval 1257: 2, 3.
30
LECUB i: 390.
31
TLA. A.a. 7. Denkelbuch der Stadt Reval. p 23r. See also: O.Schmidt, „Rechtsgeschichte Liv-, Estund
Curlands.“ In: Dorpater Juristische Stud1en ii1. Dorpat: 1894. p. 176.
84
Magistrate and other communal affairs. Later it was practically abolished with the sway
passing over to the Magistrate. While it took place, the opening ceremony
32
consisted of
the sheriff proclaiming hirnself the representative of the sovereign, town and law, judge
and plaintiff; and also the single decision maker. The threefold drawing of the sword
following the ritual reply ofthe answering solicitor (vorsprake) obviously symbolised the
sheriff’s power over life and death.
The sheriff was equipped with far-reaching authorities: he had the right to
intervene in individuals‘ Jives at almost any time and in any place, except in the cases of
adultery.
33
He had the right to commandeer every inhabitant of the town to help him.
Anybody who did not respond, de sculde nicht weten, wo hoghe he dat beteren
schulde 34 In our terms, that constituted rigorous social control, which, however, did not
prevent the really obstinate going about their (criminal) business. The German verb
hehiiten, it should be remarked, has other shades of meaning besides controlling.
Medieval Revalians were not only controllt!d, they were also protected by the officials.
That they were not always fond oftheir officials. is an issue for itself.
The means to defend order
The medieval Revalian practice to defend order consisted of five kinds of measures.
These were the death penalty, pecuniary punishment, corporal punishment, the
deprivation of honour and rights and the loss of freedom.
The death penalty cannot be seen as one with corporal punishment: instead of
causing bodily sufferings, it ended them – and delivered the society from the crirninal at
minimal cost and to maximum public relations effect.
Similarly, the corporal punishments were not primarily aimed at torturing the
guilty. Severing of limbs was employed only in cases of really heavy abuse. Every
punishment seems to have had some exemplary as weil as communicative significance.
Cutting the hair, or severing the ears or nose had the practical purpose of making the
offender discernible and thus somewhat less dangerous.
Deprivation of freedom was usually not a punishment in itself, rather it was a
preventive measure. lt was used against delinquents who were likely to flee, suspicious
characters roaming the streets at night, and convicts awaiting being bailed out or
banishment. At the same time it was not entirely without elements of corporal
punishment: cold, darkness, and the proverbial bread and water. Banishment can also be
seen as a form of deprivation of freedom. The banished were no Ionger free to choose
the place oftheir residence. Clearly it was more practical than the jail: the honest citizens
did not have to pay for the upkeep of the criminals.
Pecuniary punishments are most numerous Their scale was long and diversified.
They can be divided in Buße and Wedde. Buße, bote in the wider sense is any monetary
punishment and as such correspondent to broke;ßriiche. In the narrower, proper sense
32
ln the end of Aus a/ren Gerichtsbücher ein kur:er auszugck (Herberssche Auszug).
33
Reval 1282: 122.
34 W.Amdt. „Beitrage zur Geschichte des Raths zu Reval.“ ln: Arch1v fur d1e Gescluchre Liv-. Esrhund
Cur/ands ;;, (Hrsg. v. F.G. von Bunge). Oorpat: Franz Kluge 1844, p. 83.
85
buße (emenda, emendatio, satisfaclio, compositio) is any kind of concession aiming to
mend (beteren) the darnage caused by the transgression. This money was to be used
exclusively for these ends, so Lübeck law fo rbade the creditors of the vi ctim from
making any claims on this money. Wedde (excessus) was paid, tagether or without buße
to the judge (sherift) for disregard of justice. Whereas the sources do not distinguish
between these two (usually simultaneously used) types, the proportians ofthe division of
the lump sum between injured, town and judge are given. The sum of the fines was
related to Wergeld. The exact amount depended on the gravity of the deed, not the
standing ofthe victim. The highest amount in Lübeck law for Reval – 100 silver marks was
due fo r the misapprehension of inheritance regulations.
35
Confiscation of the whole
estat e was only appropriate fo r high treason. Even then there was the possibility of
repentance and restoration of rights. The renouncement of confiscation in fa vour of fixed
penalties was clearly more in the interests of the ruling strata: the affiuent could pay the
fine and forget the issue, the impecunious did not get away with giving up all their wealth
which could have been smaller than the fine, but had to pay the entire fine or fo rswear
the town. In the last case the Magistrate could show mercy and reverse the sentence
36
The scale of punishments for lass of honour and rights in medieval Reval seems
fa irly wide, reaching from making fun of somebody to very serious deprivation of rights.
Honour and rights were denoted by the same word recht and were taken very seriously.
Those who had lost their honour had hardly any rights. Y et in some cases certain kinds
ofhumour appear to have been adding piquancy to the punishments, as it is the case with
the punishment fo r adultery (see below). Adultery seems, however. not to have been
serious transgression for the medieval Revalians. So the humour seems quite appropriate.
The deprivation of honour and rights was, according to the very influential
Sachsenspiegel, not a proper punishment, but something that became effective
immediately upon committing the crime
37
Revalian codes hardly mention it; presumably
there was no necessity to state the obvious. Article 165 of the 1282 code states casually
that anyone who had perjured, robbed or stolen, de ne seal nicht hebben so gvt recht als
en ander gvt vnbesproken mann. This seemingly quite vague announcement refers to the
presumably self-e xplanatory (for medieval Revalians) term of recht. Yagueness may have
been deliberate to give more latitude to law enforcement (which at the same time was the
law … ). The holder of the unrestrained recht was considered perfect. blameless –
inculpatus. bonus vir, biderber, guter mann.
38 As a consequence of a crime, the person
lost it partially or totally. In the first case he had no right to give oath, testify, deputise,
to be a judge or Recht!>jinder, in the second case he became an outlaw. Whether or not
the deprivation of rights was arranged like some ceremony is not clear. Herbers‘ excerpt,
however, contains a fo rmula for declaring a murderer to be outside of the law. The
sheriff pronounced (apparently on some kind of a ceremony): Mine heren, so sla ick hir
van des keisserlichen Lübischen Rechtes wegen vnd lege fr edelos den dotschleger [ —]
dat he keinen frede haben schall [ —] beth he sin recht geleden heft na Lübischen
Rechte.
35
Reval 1257: 18: ReYal 1282: 9.
36
Reval 1257: 80.
37 E.v.Repgow. Der Sachsenpiel!el. Zürich: Manesse 1984. II 13. §I; I 38. §I.
86
The crimes
Theft
39
The laws of medieval Reval do not define theft. The word „thief“ was in medieval Reval
besides its proper sense used to denominate criminals in general, it was an expression
condemning the whole modus vivendi. Apparently some quite universal mental image of
the subject matter did exist, otherwise it would not have developed in widespread
slander. Reval codes spelled the word itself differently: deeff, dej, dhej, dief, defjie,
deijie, dhuue, dhm·e, dhvue, duve. The Modern German pleonastic term „Diebstahl“
appears for the first time in the Bursprake of 1560. The 1anguage does not make a
distinction between theft and 1oot.
40
Thus the most viable course appears to determine
theft through its object, as, according to the evidence, did medieval Revalians
themselves.
Usually the object of theft was movable property. Article 2 1 of the Riga-Reval
law mentions also the theft of persons, newer sources do not mention it anymore. Real
estate does not usually figure as object of theft, apart from cases where theft of the
objects marks the perimeter of a plot. Abuse of trust is equated with theft,
4 1
as is the use
of false measure
42
Simple fraud is not understood as a separate crime, so that the Reval
Magistrate was obliged to seek the advice of the Lubeck Magistrate in determining the
status of a certain misdeed.
􀈦3 Theft of objects belonging to the thief hirnself was possible
– if they were given as collateral.
The binding matter of all these deeds is clearly causa lucri faciendi, the wish to
pro fit. Certainly this alone makes no thief, the wish has to be fulfilled in a certain way.
An important feature of theft was its deliberateness. For taking by mistake the
tem1 misgrepe 44 was used. Retuming of the goods to the original owner was essential
for the deed to be seen as misgrepe, otherwise a fine of 60 shillings was to be paid
45
Punishment for false measure, selling falsified merchandise and buying wreck (Strandgut)
could be avoided only by those who could prove their unwittingness by bringing two
oath-helpers (Eidhelfer). Using without permission has escaped the attention of both
‚8 Rc,·al 1257: 􀁢5. 􀂘8: Reval 1282: 178, 201.
39 C.J.Paucker. „Die Strafe des Diebstahls 2 .. nach Land- und Stadtrechten der Ostsce-Provinzcn,
historisch beleuchtet I . nach Landrechten des 13. Jh.“ ln: Archiv für dte Geschichte Ltv- . Esth- und
Curlnnd.< iv (Hrsg. v. F.G. von Bunge). Dorpat. Franz Kluge. 18􀂘5. S.l-20.
40 RC\·al 1282: 37. 175.
41
Bursprakc 1560: 10.
42
Reval 1257: 􀅞2. Rcval D4 7: 􀁢2.
4′ E. \‘.NOtibcck. (rimmnlchrnnik. p. 78.
44 Re,·al l282: 128.
45 Re,·al 1282· 129.
87
laws and court. A high fine – 60 shillings – was to be imposed for taking the arrested
goods without the sheriff’s permission 46
Seemingly no less important in the mental image of theft was its deplorability.
The most significant constituent of deplorability of the theft in medieval Reval was its
secrecy. Estonian and Middle Lower German, like English, feature a connection between
secrecy and theft: dieftik in Lower German and vargsi in Estonian both denote a stealthy
manner of action.
Thus the sources camprehend the theft as secret dispossession of movable
property with the intention of material gain. If the goods are moved from their place, it
constitutes theft proper, the most common of property delicts. Thefts can be divided in
ordinary and specific. Specific thefts fall into the categories of qualified and privileged,
ordinary thefts can be divided into the categories ofbig and small ordinary theft. The first
kind of specific thefts, qualified thefts, are identifiable through the place, manner or
object of their perpetration. The second kind of specific thefts, privileged thefts, are
determinated through their object. The theft of food and other essentials belang in this
category.
Ordinary theft
Ordinary theft has no special, either burdening or mitigating, circumstances, be it in
regard to the object, time, place or way of comrnitting. The division depends on the
value ofthe stolen items. Both the law of 1257 and its translation from 1347, place the
margin at 8 shillings 47 In practice this division is not always consistent, indeed a man
guilty of the theft of 24 shillings received bare flogging on the kaak, 48 possibly due to the
intervention of proteges.
Big ordinary theft was usually punished by hanging 49 Pro honore muliebri the
warnen were buried alive. Understanding of the honour of warnen in this connotation
deserves a separate treatise. This measure is known to have been used in 146450 and
I 503 s1
The theft ofhorses was always considered big theft and punished accordingly, as
in the case of 1439 s2 This case is also characteristic for the image of the crime, because
not taking the horse but trying to sell it was decisive in sentencing a certain Janes
(obviously an Ungerman) to death. lt appears that the owner waited a certain amount of
time for the horse to be given back before initiating judicial action. Besides the value of a
horse, the significance of the horse in given cultural context probably played a roJe in
placing this theft into the capital offence category. The origin of the significance of pigs
46 Re\’al 1282: 123
47
Reva1 1257: 37: Reval 1347 : 37.
48 E.v.Nottbeck, Cnminnlchronik. p. 58.
49 Reva1 1257: 37.
50 E.v. Nottbeck, Criminalchronik. p. 52.
51 E.v.Nottbeck. Criminnlchronik. p. 69.
52
E.v.Nottbeck. Criminnlchronik. p. 45.
88
in medieval Reval is unclear, but stealing them was supposed to effect the same
punishment.
Small theft was punished an Hau/ und Haar, that is by flogging and shearing as
weil as occasional mutilation. The laws differ slightly concerning the exact details. The
judges seem to have had considerable discretion in setting the punishment. Therefore in
1465 Matthias Sussy (an Ungerman name) was flogged and banished, after having had
his ear cut ofT for the (small) theft of an axe, shovel, schepes dsi tel and a bracelet or
clasp. 5′ in 1498 two men received a fine of only four marks and four weeks in jail for the
(big) theft of four hens. 54
Specific theft
Theft in pacified places was as a rule considered specific theft. In Reval the church, wine
cellar, bath and castle were considered to be pacified places. The most harmful place to
steal from was a church. There could be two models: theft from people in the church and
theft of church property. The latter appeared as theft either with or without break-in.
Reval codes do not comment on this kind of theft. That means neither that it was not
performed nor that it went unpunished. The Herbcrs excerpt refers to the breaking on the
wheel of a man and burying alive of his wife for theft from the church 55 A pickpocket
caught in the church was hanged56 in the same way as a big theft – which pocket-picking
was usually not considered to be. In 1439 the break-in and theft of pearls from a statue
of Virgin Mary was punished by hanging 57 Thus, theft in church was not a qualified
theft in the codes. but it had to be a qualified theft in the opinion ofthe policymakers.
The objects qualifying a theft were multitudinous. Stealing wreck (Sirandgul),
for example, belonged to the category of the theft of lost/found property. Buying and
selling it, as it was considered to be property of the town, was seen as theft 58
Counterfeited wares were considered qualified theft: a fine of 1 0 shillings and the buming
of the goods was the punishment due59 lmporting falsified pelts was supposed to result
in fines of 60 shillings 60 Paying with „bad silver“ was punished in the sarne fashion. If
the coin cast was found, the owner was to be punished in the same way as a thief caught
red-handed (manua/i senlenlia I ordeil dar handhaftigen),61 the code of 1282 defines it
as ordel de hanl. There has been some discussion about the meaning of these terms: the
Latin one could mean both the severing ofthe limb and the punishment for a thief caught
red-handed. I am inclined to see these words as a reference to recent crime, because
53 E.\·.Nottbeck. Criminnlchrnnik. p.53.
54 E.Y.Nonbcck. Cmmnnlchronik. p. 66.
55 E.Y.Nonbeck. Crimmn/chromk. p. 61.
56 E.\ .Nonbcck. Crmtinnlchromk. p. 54.
57
Es.Nottbcck. Crimmnlchronik. p. 56.
58 Reval 1282: 292.
59 Re,al 1282.
60 Reval 1282: 193.
61 ReYal 1257: 33: ReYal 13􀃳7: n
89
none of the known falsifiers has lost his hand. On May 6, 1458, the goldsmith Jakob
Rese was decapitated for counterfeiting, the original intention was even to burn him at
stake62 In October 1 490, a Russian was boiled to death on the market square for
distributir.g false shillings 63
Neither Roman nor older German law distinguished between falsifYing coins and
using them as a tool of fraud. This is understandable: from a theoretical viewpoint:
counterfeiting money is to falsifY objects of public trust with criminal intention. This
intention can be fulfilled only by actual distribution of false coins. Y et everyone who
minted coins without license had to be punished: it was assumed that there could be no
other intention behind minting coins than future distribution. The notion of vorsate, the
notion ofbeing able to see a person’s motifs. becomes apparent again: payment with bad
silver – the actual fraud – was not punished as harshly as the ownership of coin casts.
The Bursprake of 1400 (article 20) also prescribes the punishment ofthe thieffor
persons who conceal from the Magistrate the personal effects of the person who died
under their roof
Theft qualified by the way of accomplishment is today in most cases defined as
an abuse of trust. In I 554, a captain who had diverted 22 bags of salt was hanged as a
thief The man had told the rightful owner that the bags were thrown overboard because
of a leak.64 The use of the wrong measures belongs to the same category. The Iaw
decreed a 60 shilling fine for this offence. In addition the measures were to be placed on
the kaak. kicking out the bottoms of the hollow measures 65 Also the use of the right
measure could Iead to a penalty of half a mark – if it was not filled properly 66 Whoever
took with the right and gave with the wrong measure, was to be treated like a thief67
The Bursprake of I 560 speaks even of credit fraud: Der Gut kauft / und damit flüchtig
wurde · Man solls halten fiir Diebstah/ 68 There is no evidence of the occurrence of this
crime.
Revai-Riga law does not treat theft ofvictuals and other essentials as a theft. The
decision over punishment was left to the discretion of the judge, 69 usually it came down
to a fine or the shearing of hair. This attitude is also obvious in article 37 of the 1282
code, relating to the procedure in the case of the theft of wood. The stumps were
checked as to their fitting to the wood in question, and the loser of the dispule had to
pay 60 shillings. The considerate attitude to the accused is evident here. The Plaintiff did
62 E.v.Nollbeck. Criminnlchronik. p. 49.
63 E.v.Nottbeck. Criminalchronik. p. 62.
64 Reval 1282: 320.
65 Reval 1282: 44, 45. 1282: 177.
66 Re\·al 1282: 45.
67 Reval 1282: 177.
68 Article I I .
69 Riga-Reval: 42.
90
not get any remission: 60 shilling were almost a mild punishrnent for a theft, but the usual
fine for a false accusation 70
A separate term for accessories to the theft was not known in medieval Reval.
Accomplices as weil as recipients were punished like thieves 71 The buyer in good faith
had to return the goods or to be treated like a thief, the recipient of a presumed gift had
to produce the giver in 1 4 days or face the punishment of a thief 72
Reval codes do not explicitly distinguish attempted theft from accomplished
theft. Still there are some articles that seem to deal with attempted theft. The Riga law
for Reval decrees a 3 marks‘ fine for opening a closed door and 6 öre for entering as weil
as for leaving a house with the door open 73 Leo Leesment sees also the connection
between attempted theft and the article ofthe 1400 Bursprake that orders everyone seen
on the street after nine to be jailed or brought to his master 74 Such rules would have
been troublesome but for the widely accepted stereotype of a wrongdoer. Apparently
there was an accepted way to distinguish thieves from honest people. It can be assumed
that wealthy burghers did not generally walk around late at night. Other people did: the
night was the best time for thieves. Thus the stereotype, according to which only thieves,
servants and apprentices roam in the dark, emerged. People on the streets after nine, if
not known to be otherwise, were presumed either to have a master or to be thieves. It is
hard to believe that a respectable citizen would have been brought to jail only because of
walking home late or entering his friend’s house. Certain outward signs and, first of all,
knowledge of individual persons seem to have made the distinction possible.
Robbery
The number of articles associated with robbery is small. Unlike in the case of theft, the
action – nif.f – and the goods redistributed – rover gudt – are distinguished in the
language. The first characteristic of robbery was again the wish to profit, the second its
unlawfulness. Under certain circumstances, like in war or feud, activities that otherwise
would have constituted robbery were legal, though not considered fair 75 Presumably
only movable property could be the object of the robbery. More important than in the
case of the theft was the depossessing of the object. Delicts, where the depossession did
not take place immediately,76 like extortion, were also seen as robbery. Untypical,
nevertheless, robberies are also robbery by the owner of the goods (for example from a
creditor) and unfair exchange under the threat of violence. Violence or the threat of
violence also belong to the characteristics of a robbery. Unlike theft, robbery was a
public crime. Thus, robbery is understood in Reval codes as public depossession of
70 Rcval 1282: 33. 34.
71 Re,·al 1282: 292.
72 Reval 1282: 􀁜54.
73
Revai-Riga: 􀃦 I . 74
L.Leesment. „Die Verbrechen des Diebstahls und des Raubes nach Rechten Livlands im Mittelalter.“
ln: Eesu I „aharti[!i Tartu t’Jikooli toimetused. B XXIV. Tartu 1931. lk. 115.
75
See Rauh in: Frhr. von Schwerin. /,exicon der germanischen ..1/terrumskunde.
76
Re,·al 1257: 62: Reval 13􀁜7: 62.
9 1
goods with the aim of material gain. Robbery can be either ordinary or specific. Specific
robbery is usually determined by the place of its performance. Separate categories are
highway robbery. church robbery, piracy (Seeraub), seashore robbery (Strandraub) and
house robbery (Stubenraub).
Robbery as a more or less public crime was held worthy of more honourable
punishment than theft. Here Reval law held up an early German attitude, which almest
did not see robbery as a crime. The usual punishment for robbers, according to Revalian
law as weil as practice, was decapitation.77 In some cases the culprit was only fined 78
Highways and public roads, blood vessels of the society, were highly pacified. There is
no indication of special punishments for highway robberies, the laws, however, always
underline the special status of this crime. Piracy has traditionally been an important issue
in Livonia. The preoccupation of the original population with this activity was allegedly
one of the motives of the tour de force christianisation of the land. Somewhat
surprisingly Reval codes do not mention it. Prudently – there was hardly an issue more
confused than this. Principally the distinction between piracy as a robbery performed on
the sea and piracy as a sea-based enterprise founded upon apolitical acts of violence
could be made „State-sponsored“ piracy adds confusion to the issue, considering that
the substance of the state was far from clear in Middle Ag es. One of the most prominent
cases of state-sponsored piracy in medieval Livonia was the feud between the Bishop
von Damerow of Dorpat and the Order. In his Ietter of May 12, 1292 to the proctor of
the Order, Wennemar von Brüggeneye writes about 1 500 pirates (Vitalienbrüder)
prepared to attack the Reval diocese 79 He mentions a certain Kule (a general term for
Ungermans) as one of the gangleaders. In the Revalian town book of the 16th century
we find more piracy endorsed by the state.80 Private piracy is mentioned in 1382 81
When the rulers were able to punish the pirates (which was not always the case) they
were decapitated.
Premeditated robbery is featured separately in the Revalian codes of 1257 and
1347, sta:ing that, in addition to usual punishrnent (determined by the sheriff), the
robbers should pay I 0 marks and a barre! ofwine to the Town Council for vorsate
82
Crirnes of violence
For the purpese of this paper, only crimes without the evident desire of material gain
qualify as crimes of violence. They are usually directed either against persons or their
property. Occasionally violent crimes could be directed against no one in particular, but
77 E.v. Nottbcck. Crimmalchronik. pp. 43. 46. 48.65.
78 Das älresre Wackenbuch des Revaler Sankr-Jahannis- Siechenhauses 1435 – 1507. Hrsg. v. Paul
Johansen. Publikationen aus dem Revaler StadtarchiY. Bd. 9. ReYal 1939. p. 35.
79
T.Schiemann. „Die Vitalienbrüder und ihre Bedeutung fiir LiYiand.“ In: Baltische .1/onatsschrifi, B.
31, p. 312.
80 G.v.Hansen. Regesren aus zwer }.flssivbachem des )(VI Jh. rm Revaler Stadrarchn• I. 123.
81
LECUB iii: 2915.
82 Rcval 1257. 134 7: 62.
92
harming someone’s interests is even in these cases vinually inevitable. Another irnponant
characteristic of crimes of violence is their wilfulness.
Homicide could be said to have been the most prominent crime of violence. Its
treatment was to a great extent the model for dealing with similar crimes. Penalties for
crimes of violence in Reval codes were based on the ancient German institution of
wergeld Like German law in general, Reval codes did not explicitly discriminate
between manslaughter and murder, this issue was regulated through the institution of
vorsate. Homicide was originally followed up only on the request of the interested. The
codes of 1257 and 134783 as weil as that of 128284 allowed the settlement outside the
coun under the condition that the case was not heard by a coun previously. However, if
the incident took place in public, the sheriff had to step in as an ex ofjicio prosecutor. In
the middle of the fifteenth century the sheriff functioned as plaintiff in the case of the Iack
ofthe interested party, so that no homicide went unheeded.85
Every case of unnatural death was investigated, mostly on the spot. Investigation
included medical examination, and eventually the interrogation of the witnesses. If the
evidence proved violent death the criminal was outlawed. lf evidence was not conclusive,
the action was postponed until new evidence emerged. 86 That did not mean that the case
could subside quietly: in 1484 a homicide 20 years old was punished 87 There was,
however, also a case when a killer was jailed for only 15 days, since the homicide had
taken place 20 years earlier. 88
The penalty for homicide in Reval changed substantially during the medieval
period. Bishop Alben had set the wergeld for manslaughter at I 0 marks in the year
121 I .8 9 According to the statute of the Kanut guild it was I 0 marks in silver or 40 marks
in pfennigs.90 lt is not clear if it was in addition to the death sentence, as was the case
later. The same statute gives the members ofthe guild a choice between avenging a dead
brother and receiving their share ofwergeld, which was 3 marks 91 The law presumes the
flight of a homicide, who is then outlawed. Flight was apparently a wise decision for any
homicide The prohibition of the feud, manifested in all codes, was evidently not very
efficient. The statute of the Kanut guild requires that the members help their brothers,
involved in homicide. to escape or go and bail them. If homicide took place in self-
83 Rc,·al 1257. 1347: 71.
84 Articles 60. 1 12. 166.
85 E.v.Nottbeck. „Der revalsche Gerichtsvogt und seine Protokolle von 1436 und 1437.“ In: Beitr(lge zur
Kunde Ehst-, L1v- und Kurlands. Band 111, Reval 1887, p. 49.
86 E.v.Nottbcck. Cmnmalchromk, pp. 56. 61. 65.
87
Ex.Nottbcck. Criminalchronik. p. 58.
88 E.\‘ Nottbeck. Cnmina/chronik, p. 86.
ß9 LECUB i: 20.
90 LECUB iii: 1519.
91 LECUBiii: 1519.
93
defence, the guild had to pay the wergeld. Similar articles could be found in the statutes
of other guilds. 92
My general impression is that death penalty was not always as consequently
enforced as in 1530, when the Council did not agree to exonerate a homicide even at the
request of a virgin prepared to marry him.93 Herbers reports two occasions when the
parties involved came to an agreement outside court 94 Like in Hanseatic towns ofNorth
Germany.95 in Reval people went unpunished if they went voluntarily to ja: I for 14 days
(jardage) – ifthe victim did not die during this time 96 The accused was pardoned also in
the case ofthe victim dying, had the latter refused medical treatment 97 Homicide in the
heat of passion was not excused, but the execution took place in the market and not at
the gallows.98 Homicide in self-defence was not punished 99
The Riga code refers to the most usual crime of violence – bodily harm: manum
pro manu, pedem pro pede, pro oculo autem solventur XX marce.
100 Later codes are
more lenient: the code of 1257 remains unclear about the penalty, 101 the code of 1282
102
prescribes for blau und blutig (blue and bloody) maltreatment or ripping the clothes a 60
shilling fine. If bodily harm reached the dimensions of grievous, crippling somebody, I 0
marks for the victim were added to the basic fine. In the case of insolvency the culprit
had to be jailed for I 0 days and exiled. Return was possible with the consent of the
victim. 103
If, following a conflict, somebody made preparations to harm the opponent or
supported such preparations, he made hirnself guilty in vorsate.
104 The same rule applied
in Situations where the opponents already in conflict previously attack (with a club, as the
source would have it) each other on meeting. The rule is effected only from the moment
of the beginning of the violence. Until then, or if there has been no previous conflict, the
law sees no vorsate. 105
The common delict of drawing a sword or knife was not
considered vorsate, the fine was nevertheless considerable: 2 – 3 marks. 106 Carrying a
92 LECUB i: 593.
93 E.v.Nottbcck. Criminalchronik. p. 83.
94
E.v.Nottbeck. Criminalchronik. pp. 50. 85.
95
K.Schiller. A.Lübben. Mtllelmederdeutsches IV 96 E.v. Nottbeck. Criminalchronik, pp. 57. 83.
97 Es. Nottbeck, Crrmina/chronik, p. 85.
98
E.v.Nottbeck. Criminalchronik. pp. 62, 85.
99
E.v.Nottbeck. Criminalchromk, p. 82.
100
Revai-Riga: 7.
101
Artic1es 30, 3 1 .
102
Article 161.
103
Reva1 1282: 53.
1 04
Reva1 1257: 30, 3 1 ; Reva1 1282: 70, 162.
105
Reva1 1257: 3 1 , Reva1 1347: 3 1 .
106 Reva1 1282: 1 1 0.
94
weapon was perfectly usual (though subsequently forbidden for Ungermans) behaviour in
medieval Reval, and, unlike fetehing a mighty club, did not need any premeditation.
Wounds inflicted with sharp weapons cost the guilty from I mark to 3 marks and 2 öre
each. 107
Arson is not mentioned in the codes. The sources of court practice mention only
one case from 1500. The criminal was burned on a stake for setting the house of the
Blackheads on fire. 108
Forced entry was seen as a delict against the authorities. According to the Riga
code it deserves a fine of 3 marks for the town and 6 marks for the owner of the house –
if there was no damage. In the case of darnage to anybody or anything the share of the
owner rose to 1 2 marks. 3 marks to the town was the usual fine for the breaching of high
peace. If a burglar killed anybody in the house, the double wergeld for the kin of the
victim and 6 rnarks (twice the fine for breaking the peace) for the town were due. A
burglar caught red-handed was executed i09 The code of 1 2 5 7 Iet the sheriff set the
penalty for break-in. 110 The sheriffbad apparently quite a free hand in doing this: in 1492
a soldier from the castle forced his way into the house of the sheriff Marquardt von der
Molen and assaulted hirn. Respanding to the pleas of influential citizens, von der Molen
Iet the brawler get away with only 1 8 days ofjail, lifelong banishrnent and Urfehde. 1 1 1
Offences against the authorities
Revalians swore their oath both to the town and the sovereign. The citizens‘ oath set out
the relations of the state and its citizens on the basis of free will. The oath already
contained a sentence for its breaking. The code of 1282 threatens, for joining the enemy
and harming the town, the 1oss of rights and the heir’s inheritance ofthe estate – until the
darnage is compensated. 112 Revalian sources do not document any cases oftreason unti1
the middle ofthe 1 6th. century.
For organising a rally with the aim to break the order, in the code of 1282 a fine
of l 00 marks in pfennigs is prescribed. 1 1 3 Until the payment of this amount the culprit
had to stay in jail. For unfurling a flag pro lite provocanda a fine of 40 marks was
threatened in the Riga code. 1 14 Hindering a Magistrate on official business meant 60
shi!ling buße, halfa pound (Reval 1 257 10 shillings) to every Magistrate and 3 marks to
107 LECUB i: 435.
108 E.v.Nottbcck. Criminalchronik. p. 68.
109 Rcval – Riga 8.
1 10 Re,·al 1257: 86.
I I I E.v.Notlbcck. Crimitwlchrunik. p. 63.
1 12 ReYal 1282: 152.
1
t:1 Rcval 1282: 1 52.
1 14
Rcval -Riga: 39.
95
the town. 1 1 5 Albrecht Giselmann from Greifswald was jailed in 1474 for abusing the
Magistrate verbally. He had to do Urfehde after his release.
1 16
For undeserved maltreatment (male tractatus indebite I sonder sine schult oele
gehandelt) of the police orderlies of the town double of the normal fine was due.
1 17
Notable is the allowance of the possibility of the deserved maltreatment: the citizens
obviously had right to resist injustice. Whoever was unable to pay the fine for the
hindering ofthe sheriff and the police, had to spend time in jail. 1 1 8 l f the resistance to the
authorities was aimed at fi’eeing the criminals or arrested persons, the guilty was to be
decapitated.
119
Recurrent offence amounted to challenging the authority of the judge, showing
ingratitude and arrogance against the official, who had given a person a rare chance to
mend his ways. Herbers reports the hanging of a thief, who had stolen only 6 guilders,
but had previously been exiled and marked. 120
Herbers remarks that the man was hanged
for retuming to the town.
F eud was understood as a deed against the authorities already by the Riga
code.
121
Tt is understandable that the state was very eager to monopolise the violence. It
is also evident that the people did not want to rely on the state in this case. One of the
reasons for the inefficiency of this prohibition was the conception of revenge as a
„gentleman’s crime“. More specifically, it was not a crime, but a man’s duty, his right.
Feud was usually announced publicly and could be directed against the individuals as
weil as groups or the whole state substances. The Lübeck code of 1257 permits it in the
case of homicide, with the reservation that the duel had to take place on the spot of the
homicide and no more people could be challenged than the dead body had wounds. 122
In 1360, the Magistrate prohibited any self-justice, feud and revenge.
123
That did
not prevent feuds, some of them directed against the Magistrate itself, for example by
Clawes Doeck in 1418.
124
In 1439, the soldiers of Dönhof Kalle performed quite a few
acts of violence against Revalians. After some conflict with the town they escaped to the
castle hill, called vryhyt – fi’eedom – because of its exterritorial status. There they made
preparations for hostile actions, arming themselves with crossbows. Downtown again,
they forced their entry in Heinrich Kruse’s hause, with whom they apparently had some
score to settle. The latter escaped behind the sturdy doors. So the gang beat up a poor
innocent man and wounded his shoulder. After regrouping on castle hill again, they shot
1 1 5
Reval 1257: 77; 1282: 89.
1 16 E.v.Nottbcck. Cruninalchronik, p. 55.
1 17
Reval 1257: 53.
1 18
E.v.Nottbeck, Crunina/chromk. pp. 55. 60, 63, 82.
1 19
E.v.Notlbcck, Criminalchromk, pp. 56, 62.
120
E.v.Nottbeck, Criminalchronik, p. 53.
1 2 1
Revai-Riga: I .
122
Reval 1257: 49.
123
LECUB ii: 981. p. 2: 982. p. 2: 983, p. 3.
124
LECUB iii: 2266.
96
into the crowd with the crossbows. Additionally they broke into the town’s boat-house
and stole oxen and lambs from the town pasture. The two greatest evildoers were
decapitated. 125 There is no explicit statement about the whole affair being a feud, but the
character of the deeds leaves little doubt about it. The house-owner and juror of the
Manngericht (rural jury), Kalle, deemed hirnself apparently important enough to take it
up with the town. He was certainly important enough to prevent the deserved
punishment of alt his soldiers. Tn 1 526, a certain Olfert escaped the punishment, bringing
the evidence that he broke the peace in the course of a feud.
126
Squabbles in highly pacified places were forbidden. Breaking this rule was an
offence against the authorities. God’s peace (Gollesjrieden)127 devalued increasingly as a
result of the authorities‘ striving to create the biggest possible amount of pacified time –
at times Iasting from Wednesday evening to Monday. Riga code counts pacified places:
the churchyard/graveyard, market, baths and the home (privata). 128 A formula at the end
of Herbers‘ excerpt counts them again as the places, where an outlawed criminal should
not have rest until suffering his punishment: .. .in kerken oder k/usten, noch in allen
gadeshusen, 111 den hatschouen, noch up sinem eigenem bedde .. . The Lübeck codes add
to the Iist the Magistrate’s house, the court and the wine cellar. For crimes committed in
such places, double punishment was due. Police orderlies and sheriff were pacified
persons.
129
False oath or testimony was offensive to the authorities as weil as to the person
damaged by them. They resulted in the removal of rights, 130 Iogether with the death
sentence for severe offences like, for example, seashore robbery. 1 31 In 1 505, Bemd
Horense was burned for „falsifying documents.“ 132 He claimed, supported by a Ietter
from a M(mster judge, that Heinrich Grasdick (Grasdingk, Grasdinck) owed 643 guilders
to him. The Revalian Heinrich Grasdick was, though, not the one seen tho dem
beuergern by the witnesses of the Munster judge. After Horense had confessed that he
knew this fact, but nevertheless proceeded, he was executed, though it would have been
possible to Iet him go with the usual fine of 60 shillings.
Dobbe/n, dobbelspiel, a sort of gambling, was formally also an insult to the
authorities; it was very common in medieval Reval and forbidden by several acts – by the
Bursprakes of 1360133
, at the end of the fourteenth century,134 and of approximately
125
E.\ .Nottbcck, Cmmnalchromk. pp. 47, 48.
126 E. \·.Nollbcck. Crmunalchronik. p. 75.
127
Reval 1257: 64. 1282: 74.
128
LECUB i: 77: 3 1 .
129 Reval 1257: 53.
130 Reva1 1282: 165. 131 LECUB i: 518. 132 E.v.Nottbcck. Cmmnalchronik. p. 72.
133 Artic1c 13.
134
Anicle 16.
97
I 400.135 It was punishable by a 3 marks fine. The proprietor of the place of gambling
(usually a wine cellar) had to pay one mark. In the same breath, giving credit to the
customers of a pub was prohibited: in den kalk sal man nicht betalen. This was evidently
introduced according to the wishes of the church. Nevertheless the pastime remained
very popular. lt is very probable that the patricians engaged in it as much as anyone eise –
though not necessarily in wine cellars. Furthermore, the fine was never high, so there
must have been some understanding on the part ofthe authorities.
Offences against religion and morals
Reval got thejus episcopale quite early. Yet that right did not become official until the
Reformation. On October 28, I 524 the Magistrate forbade poking fun at the Protestant
preachers u6
Hans Natelkoper, who called Luther a dog and compared preaching to the
barking of the dogs, was jailed for two and a half weeks. After that he had to bark,
standing on a chair and go to exile. 137 An Ungerman declaring that the only difference
between the old and new confessions was permission to eat meat on Friday, was flogged
injail. 138
There is little evidence of the prosecution of witches prior to the arrival of the
„pure evangelical“ creed. In the beginning of 1494 (apparently about the camival time)
two men were jailed. They were roaming the streets in the night, carrying unusual
weapons and magical Ieiters supposed to give invisibility. 139 After some imprisonrnent
and the Urfehde they were set free. In I 526 two prostitutes were flogged for trying to
increase the sales of beer by using the clothes of a hanged thief The same penalty
affected the provider of the clothes – a helper of the executioner. 140 A classic magical
deed seems to have been the attempt to win back a Iover, trying to poison his wife. The
guilty escaped with corporal punishment l41
The Lübeck codes pronounce a peculiar penalty for adultery. The woman had to
Iead the man with whom she committed adultery down the streets by his penis ( 1257: per
veretrum suum; 1282: per Priapum; 1347: by siner schemede)
l42 Dishonourable this
punishment may have been – but not exactly severe. There is no evidence as to the
frequency of this punishment. Later Revalians seem to have feit that this was not an
entirely appropriate punishment. Herbers‘ excerpt speaks of a boatowner, Roland, who
135
Anicles 20, 2 1 .
136
E.v.Nottbeck, Cmmnalchromk, p. 22.
137
E.v.Nottbeck, Cnminalchronik, p. 80.
138
E.v.Nottbeck. Criminalchronik, p. 80.
139
E.v.Nottbeck, Criminalchronik, p. 63.
140
E.\‘.Nottbeck, Crimina/chronik, P- 75. 141
O.Steiger. G.Hcinsohn. Die Vernichtung der we1stn Frauen. Hcyne. München 1989.
142 RC\·al 1257: 40; Reval 1282: 39.
98
was jailed and made to swear Urfehde for this transgression. 143 The same happened to
the scribe of a Lübeck ship. 144 The code of 1586 introduces even harsher penalties.
Polygamy was considered a more serious transgression. Older codes prescribed a
1 0 mark fine, for the impecunious the shoving from the Schuppstuhl (shame chair). 145
Additionally the second wife was entitled to the half ofthe assets ofthe man as weil as to
her dowry. She was to be abandoned. In 1524 a man had to sit in the shame chair (kaak)
for two hours, give away half of his property as weil as return the dowry. The sheriff
ordered the man. who by then had abandoned both wives, to live together with the first
wife 146
Rape as a crime figures first in the 1586 code, which prescribes decapitation, if
the guilty does not marry the victim. Punitive practices existed earlier. In 1487, a
housemaid petitioned the court to punish her employer Godke Schutte, who had tried
repeatedly to rape her, disregarding the sherifl’s orders. The merchant had to marry the
housemaid. 147 The existence of a juridical basis for court action is evident here. At the
same time, the sheriff clearly tried not to Iet the case get to the court, but rather solve it
with his own authority.
Unnatural sexuality was probably too embarrassing to be written down in the
codes. Similar reasons seem to have prevented the facts about male homosexuality from
reaching us We can speculate that the monosexual communities of this time
(monasteries) were capable of keeping thelr scandals to themselves For example, if a
monk in worldly clothes was seen in a brothel, he was to be delivered back to the
monastery, 148 where the brothers obviously punished him themselves. Nothing is,
logically, known about the repercussions. Lesbian Iove was, however, considered a mere
misdemeanour. A Magistrate’s decree from 1 403 149 mentions it between other police
matters· J ‚an den megeden. de up syck sulver liggen. Varietur. stands beside Va n den
losen wyven, de ber tappen. The Bursprake from about 1400 says: Welk meget, de up
sek selves lirh. de sal schoren tmde wacken tmde alle borgere recht tun. bi 3 mark unde
nen smide11 to dregende.
150
Bestiality was considered the most repulsive sexual crime. All three occasions
documented in the records were investigated very closely. 1484 a certain Mathias,
tagether with the cow involved, was burned at the stake. 151 The case of 1494 became
one of the triggering moments of the Russian-Livonian war The buming at the stake of a
14·1
E.\ Nollbcck. Crmunalchromk. p. 54.
144
E ,. Nollbcck. Crmunalchromk. p. 83.
145
Re,al 1257 55: Reval l282: 6 1 .
146 E v.Nollbeck. Crtminalchronik. p. 84.
147 E.\ . Nonbeck. Crimmalchromk. p. 60.
148 E.v.Noltbeck. Cnminalchronik. p. 55.
149 TLA. A.a. 7. Dcnkelbuch der Stadt Reval, 1: 23p. Sec also: O.Schmidt. „Rechtsgeschichte Liv-, Estund
Curlands.“ p. 161.
150 Rc\’alcr Bursprakc ( I . und 2. Jahrzehnt des 15. Jahrhundcns): 72.
1 5 1
E.\‘.NOIIbcck. Cmmnalchronik. p. 58.
99
Russian called Vassili was preceded by scrupulous investigation. Under oath the
sodomite confessed that he was involved in these activities for a Ionger time already, and
that it was not unusual in Russia.
152
In 1554 both the sodomite and the beast were
executed secretly on Meddejerwe (a certain place, where waste and suicides were
disposed of).
153
The extermination of the animal and the deviant both were, according to
the canon law, meant to prevent the event being even remembered. The German folk
tradition saw it as a way of preventing the birth of the were-beasts.
Parricide and infanticide, like suicide, were treated especially due to their
violation of the rules of the church as weil as of these of the worldly authorities. A
certain Elsebed and a maidservant Catherine were both burned at stake for infanticide,
the form er in I 490, the latter in I 5 I 6 154 These were qualified punishments for qualified
crimes, requiring the testimony oftwo real-estale owning citizens.
Suicides· bodies were brought to Meddejerwe after rituals, presumably of
purification.
155
Suicide did not cause any unpleasantness to the heirs.
1 56 If the suicide
was mentally ill, he was buried honourably.
157
People who had drunk themselves to
c!eath were to be handled in the same manner as the suicides.
158
Crimes against freedom and honour
The most widespread of those was without doubt the insult. An insult to individuals
could be either ordinary or accusatory (slander). An ordinary insult could be verbal or
non-verbal. Slander, calling somebody a thief murderer, forger, was according to the
Lübeck law fined by 60 shillings.
159
The same sanction was used in the case of declaring
somebody to have been beaten before the court.
160
The same amount was due for
forgery and false accusations in the proper sense. Quite high fines show that slander was
no petty vice. This view is represented also by the ruling that mutual slander was not
counted out. Instead, both slanderers were disciplined.
Women, who had expressed false and vilifying views about the sexual morality of
other women, were disciplined in a different manner, since the money of the family
normally belonged to a man, i.e. innocent person. Thus the women, escorted by the
swineherds had to carry the „shame stone“ : two stones, connected by a chain and
decorated by repulsive gargoyles.
161
152
E.v.Noubcc k. Criminalchronik, p. 64.
153
E.v.Noubeck. Criminalchronik, p. 85.
154
E.v.Nollbcc k. Criminalchronik. pp. 61. 71.
155
E.v.Nottbeck, Criminalchronik, pp. 54, 60. 85.
1 56 E.v.Noubeck, Crimina/chromk, p. 54.
157
E.v.Nottbeck, Criminafchronik, p. 85.
158
E.v.Nottbeck. Criminalchronik. p. 95.
159
E.v.Nottbeck, Criminalchronik, p. 55.
160
Rcval 1282: 138.
161 E.v.Nottbeck. Crimina/chronik. p. 55.
100
For slapping, pulling the hair and shoving, a fine of 12 shillings was applied.
162
Insults in the presence of the judge were seen as insults to the judge as weil as to the
direct object of the action. The fines were accordingly substantial: slapping cost 3
marks.
163 False oath in ecclesiastical coun brought about a I 0 mark fine to the benefit of
the town treasury. An impecunious offender was shoved from the Schuppstuhl and
banned. 164
Whoever denounced a woman or a maid as having had carnal Iove and being
betrothed or married to him, had to pay 40 marks in silver: one third for the town and the
judge, the rest for the woman; in the case of insolvency half a year in jail, Schuppstuhl
and banishment. 165
A shipper Peter Goslilf, became the victim of a pasquil, written by his own crew
and cannonier. The denunciators spread by the doors of the churches and guild houses
notices that called the man a dog and threatened him. Two of the denunciators were
jailed, the rest escaped to the castle hill. The sheriff took the role of the mediator and the
accusations were taken back. 166
In the case of a direct assault on freedom, like chaining somebody on mere
suspicion, being unable to prove the guilt of the chained, a wedde was to be paid. Sixty
shillings were multiplied by the number of times of opening and closing the chains. 167 In
1 482, 60 shillings for every wasted workday had to be paid. 168 It was possible that the
offender had to spend the same amount of time in jail as his victim.
169
Threatening with
violence was also an attack on the freedom of the target of this attack. The threatened
person had a right to compel the villain to set the bondsmen (Dräubiirgen – cautio non
offendendo), who were responsible for the threats not becoming real. Such a case is
known from 1 5 1 9, when Hans Droneken, a butcher, threatened the Magistrate Hessels.
All three guilds in town pleaded on the behalf of the butcher, and he came away with a
relatively lenient sentence. 170
Conclusion
It could be said that on the one hand the town authorities seemed to consider every
misdeed as directed against them. However, it seems that the terrn „authorities“ is here
appropriate with cenain reservations only. The town council ’s power in the late medieval
162
Re“al 1 282: 161.
163
Rc,-a1 -Riga 3 1 .
164
RC\’31 1282. 2.
165
Re\’a1 1282: 168: LECUB ii: 933.
166
E.v.Nottbeck. Crmunolclrronik. p. 61 · 62.
167
Re\’a1 1282: 148.
168 E.\‘.Nottbeck. Crtmmo/chronik, p. 57.
169
E.v.Nottbcck. Cmmnalchromk. p. 69.
170
E.\‘.Nottbeck. Cnmmnlclrromk. p. 73.
1 0 1
period of Reval was as yet indisputable. Thus, every violation of peace was in a sense a
challenge to the Magistrate, an attempt to dispute its power. On the other hand, town
authorities lacked the means to respond to every challenge with suprrior power. A
considerable amount of conflicts had to be resolved by the means of non-adjudicated
dispule sett!ement, of which Urfehdm are only one of the most discernible forms. Town
government had to preserve the social harmony in town rather than to crack down on
crime mercilessly. The cases of the assault of sheriff von der Molen bears testimony to
that
171
lt seems that the sheriff frequently tried to solve the case without letting it go to
court, even if the offence was pretty clear, as the cases of Godke Schutte
172
or Peter
Gostitf73
show. One ofthe reasons for that might have been the relative irreversibility of
coun rulings.
There were cenain cases when decisive action was required. It seems that to
some extent the borderline in cases, between where the authorities had to turn a blind eye
on an offence and where they had to act vigorously, was determined to a cenain extent
by public opinion. The comparison between the punishments for theft and robbery shows
that the crimes considered more „disgusting• by the public were as a rule also more
severely punished. In doing so, the authorities were in a sense the representatives of
townspeople and were as such equipped with far-reaching powers. However, the
townspeople had apparently some right to resist the authorities, if they thought them
unjust.
174
Moreover, in spite of regulations, 175 townspeople had the possibility to take
justice in their own hands without risking too much. Sometimes even the most
unjustifiable feuds could go without punishment, as in the case of Ciawes Doeck.
176
To summarise, it could be said that the preserving of order and justice in
medieval Reval was frequently a case of maintaining the fragile social balance rather than
enforcing the law.
171
E.v.Nottbcck. Cmmnnlchromk. p. 63.
172
E.\·.Nottbeck. Crmunnlchronik. p. 60.
173
E.v.Nollbeck. Cmnma/chronik. p. 61 • 62.
174 Re,·al 1257: 53.
175 LECUB ii: 981. p. 2: 982. p. 2: 983. p. 3.
1 76 LECUB iii: 2266.
102
QUOTIDIANUM ESTONICUM
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND V
QUOTIDIANUM ESTONICUM
ASPECTS OF DAIL Y LIFE IN MEDIEV AL
ESTONIA
EDITEDBY
JÜRI KIVIMÄE
AND
JUHANKREEM
KREMS 1996
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER
KULTURABTEILUNG DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Cover lllustralion: Compilation from sketchcs in the margins of accoum books
of the Town Magistrate of Rcval (TLA. Ad. 26 and 32)
– ISBN 3 901 094 08 3
© 1996 by Medium Ae\1Jm Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen Kuhur des Millclallers,
Körnennarkt 13, A – 3500 Krems. Austria – Printcd by Kopitu Ges.m.b.H.,
Wiedncr Hauptstraße 8-10. A-1050 Wien
Inhaltsverzeichnis!fable of Contents/Sommaire
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . . . ….. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Jüri Kivimäe, Medieval Estonia. An Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Juhan Kreem, „ultima germonorum & christianomm prouintia“. Outlines ofthe Image
ofLivonia on Maps from the Thirteenth to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century … 14
Marek Tamm, Les miracles en Livonie et en Estonie a l’epoque de Ia christianisation
(fin XIIeme- debur Xllleme siecles) …………… ……… . . ………………………… 29
Erik Somelar. Va n des keisserlichen Liibischen Rechtes wegen. Circumstances of
Criminality in Medieval Reval. ……………………………………………………………………. 79
Tiina Kala, The Church Calendar and Yearly Cycle in the Life ofMedieval Reval. . . . . . . . . . 103
Mihkel Tammet, Some Aspects ofHerbal Medical Treatment on the Example
of Medieval Reval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Inna Pöltsam. Essen und Trinken in den livländischen Städten im Spätmittelalter . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Katrio Kukke, Les lois somptuaires de Reval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5
Preface
The idea to publish a special Estonian or Baltic issue of Medium Aevum Quotidianum has been
discussed already for a couple of years with Gerhard Jaritz and Christian Krötzl. lnitially the
idea was based on the first experience of studying medieval everyday life and mentalities in a
small seminar-group at Tanu University. This optimistic curiosity of discovering a new history
or actually a history forgotten long ago, has been carried on. The research topics of Katrin
Kukke, lnna Poltsam and Erik Somelar originate from this seminar. However, all contributions
of Quolidianum r:.womcum were written especially for this issue.
Besides that, this collection of articles needs some comments. First, it must be admitted
that the selection of aspects of everyday life published here is casual and represents only
marginally the modern Situation of historical research and history-writing in Estonia. The older
Baltic German and Estonian national scholarship has occasionally referred to the aspects of
everyday life. Yet the ideology of ‚histoire nouvelle‘ has won popularity among the younger
generation of Estonian historians only in recent years. These ideas are uniting a srnall informal
circle of historians and archivists around Tallinn City Archives, represented not only by the
above mentioned authors but also by the contributions of Tiina Kala, Juhan Kreem, Marek
Tamm and Mihkel Tarnmet Secondly, we must confess the disputable aspects of the title
Quolldianum Eswmcum Medieval Europe knew Livonia but not Estonia and Latvia which
territories it covered over 350 years There may be even reproaches tOwards the actual
contents that it is too much centralised on Tallinn/Reval, but it can be explained with the rich
late medieval collections available at Tallinn City Archives.
We wish above all to thank Eva Toulouse, Monique von Wistinghauscn, Hugo de
Chassiron, Tarmo Kotilaine and Urmas Oolup for the editorial assistance. Our greatest debt of
gratitude is to Gerhard Jaritz, without whose encouragement and suppon this issue could not
have been completed.
Jüri Kivimäe, Juhan Kreem, editors
7