Church and Secular Courts in Upper Hungary (Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century)

CHURCH AND SECULAR COURTS IN UPPER HUNGARY
{FOURTEENTH TO SIXTEENTH CENTURY)1
Blanka Szeghyowi
Wbile studying urban judiciary and judicial practice in sixteentb
century in Upper Hungarian (today eastern Slovakian) towns, I was
puzzled by the relation of these secular courts to cburch courts and about
tbeir division of jurisprudence.2 According to tbe law, churcb courts, apart
from tbe jurisprudence over tbeir own people and church matters, bad tbe
right to decide in some secular fields, such as marital property Iitigation,
dowry, marriage gifts, tbe daugbter’s quarter, cases of widows and
orphans, false oatbs, usury, and titbe.3 On tbe otber band, from the urban
judicial records in tbe sixteenth century, it is clear tbat all serious offences,
including matrimonial and sexual, and some offences tbat were previously
judged by tbe cburcb courts, were tried in front oftbe secular courts.4
From the studied material I have tried to find some evidence that would
elucidate the development of the secular and cburcb courts, the division of their
jurisdictions, their co-existence, co-operation, and possible conflicts and ways of
resolving the controversies between them. This research – at the moment still in
the initial stages – may also serve for comparative studies concerning local laws
and courts, on the one band, and the necessity to approacb the Penitentiary, on
the other band.
I will not focus on intemal problems of the cburcb and its members, but
rather on matters that concemed both ecclesiastical and lay people, and on the
1 I wish to thank the ‚Europa Institut‘ and ‚Domus Hungarica‘ in Budapest for the scholarships
that allowed me to write this paper.
2 Blanka Szeghyovä, „Sudnictvo a sudna prax v mestich Pentapolitany v 16. sto􀒀i“ [Judiciary
andjudicial practice in the towns ofthe Pentapolitany in the sixteenth century], PhD
thesis (Bratislava: Historical Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences, 2003).
3 According to law n. 3 from 1462 and n. 45 from 1492, in: Jänos M. Bak, György B6nis and
James Ross Sweeney, Ir. and ed., The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Decreta
Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae, 1458-1490, vol. 3 (Los Angeles: Charles Schlacks, 1997),
17; Dezsö Märkus, Corpus Juris Hungarici 1 : 1000-1526 (Budapest: Franklin Tärsulat,
1 899), 508-510.
4 Compare with the situation in England, where matrimonial and sexual cases were tried in
ecclesiastical courts; see Martin lngram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England.
1560-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), passim.
1 5 1
relations of cburcb and secular courts in practice. Because of the scarcity and
cbaracter of the arcbival material in this study, this paper is only a collection of
introductory remarks and observations rather than a comprehensive study of the
topic. Examples are taken mostly from the town arcbives ofBratislava (Pozsony,
Pressburg, Possoniwn), Bardejov (Bartfa, Bartpba) and Pre§ov (Eperies) from
the fourteenth to the sixteenth century.
There is little judicial material from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
in tbe town arcbives. However, there is some evidence that tells about the combined
activities of urban authorities and ecclesiastical institutions. The Bratislava
chapter bad an agreement with the town authorities about the election of
the parisb priest. Other towns also bad the right to elect parish priests, that being
one ofthe privileges granted to free royal towns.5
The co-operation between parish priests, preacbers or other churcb
authorities, on the one band, and town authorities, on the other, can be demonstrated
by the practice of penitential or expiatory pilgrimages. In the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, such pilgrimages were widely used as a punishment for
those who bad committed murder or bomicide. Although it was a religious form
of penance, sending a culprit on a penitential pilgrimage to Rome or to some
other shrine was a common practice of the town authorities, wbo used it predominantly
as an alternative to a stricter punishment. A precondition for the pilgrimage
was reconciliation between the culprit and the closest kinsmen of the
victim, usually mediated by the arbitrators, and the culprit’s inability to pay
blood money. Penitential pilgrimages can be seen as a substitute for paying such
blood money to the closest relatives of the victim. Part of the penitential procedure
was the public act of asking pardon before the family of the victim. The
culprit, dressed in traditional pilgrims‘ clothes and usually followed by bis closest
relatives, appeared in front of the bereaved family and asked for the remission
of bis sin.
This kind of punishment was not used generally, but it seems that some
urban communities preferred it to other forms of punishment. For example, as
Enikö Csukovits sbows, most of the cases of penitential pilgrimages came from
two Upper Hungarian mining towns, Selmecbänya and Besterczebänya (Banskä
Bystrica and Banskä Stiavnica), and only a few cases are known from otber
towns, such as Bratislava, Sopron or Zagreb.6 Around 1416, the town council of
5Darina LehotskA, D. Handzovä, V. Horvath, L. Hrabu§§ay, V. Kendeffy, V. Merglova and H.
Pet’ovskä, Inventar stredcvekjch listin, listov a injch prlbuznjch pisomnostf [Inventory of
medieval charters, letters and other related documents], Archiv mesta Bratislavy (Prague:
Archfvni spräva Ministerstva Vnitra Praha, 1955) (hereafter Lehotskä, „Inventar“), 20-22,
74, 123; Cubomir Juck, Vjsady miest a mesteeiek na Slovenslcu (1238-1350) [Privileges of
towns and little towns in Slovakia (1238-1350)] (Bratislava: Veda SlovenskA Akademia
vied Bratislava, 1 984).
6 Enikö Csukovits, „Blin es biinhödes. Vezeklö zarändoklatok a közepkori Magyarorszägon“
[Crime and Punishment. Expiatory Pilgrimages in Medieval Hungary], Szazadok 1 36, no. 2
(2002), 303-326; eadem, BOn es bf1nh6des. Kozeplwri magyar zartindolwie [Crime and
!52
Bratislava wrote to the archbishop of Esztergom about the murderer Jakub
Gorgcher, who had to go on pilgrimage to Rome.7 The practice of penitential
pilgrimages as punishment for murder and homicide ceased in the sixteenth
century as town authorities increasingly imposed more secular forms of punishment
on the guilty party such as the pillory, banishment or the death penalty.
However, the co-existence of church and secular institutions was not always
peaceful. They had several conflicts during the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, for instance, over the privilege of not paying taxes for the houses of
ecclesiastical people and institutions in the town’s territory, the right to sell _
wine, the unlawful extortion of tolls from burghers by the chapter, and matters
of property and tithes. 8
Some of the conflicts had to be resolved by the king or other higher
authorities. For example, in 1307 the conflict over the administration of the
hospital in Bratislava between the town authorities and the Order of St. Anthony
was resolved and the final agreement made in front of the chapter ofBratislava.9
In 1364, the resolution of a conflict between Bratislava’s mayor and a parish
priest from Geley involved the high royal official ofthe tavernicus and the court
of the palatinus, the highest administrative dignitary in Hungary. The tavernicus
was also involved in a conflict between Bratislava’s mayor and the abbot of
Pannonhalma in 1372.10 Similarly, in 1498 King Wladislas li ordered that
Bratislava’s town council should transfer the case of the canon Martin
Nyethaymer to the court of the tavernicus.1 1
Sometimes, the conflicts went so far that the church authorities threatened
to excomrnunicate the town council, and in a few cases they put the threat into
practice. Such a case happened in 1397, between the vicar of Esztergom and
Bratislava’s town council; the controversy originated from the fact that the
council kept a cleric in prison.12 Coincidentally, later in the same year, King
Sigismund commanded the town council not to prosecute a certain Jakub Gyngenher
(Syngenher?) who had accidentally killed the imprisoned cleric.13
Another excommunication is known from 1416, when the vicar general of
Esztergom excomrnunicated three burghers of Bratislava because they had
Punishment. Medieval Hungarian Pilgrimages], Hist6ria Könyvtir monogräfiäk 20 (Budapest:
Magyar Tudomänyos Akademia, Törtenettudomänyi intezete, 2003), 204-206.
7 Municipal archive ofBratislava (hereafter AMB), lad. 34, n. 5 1 47. Lehotskä, Inventar, 126.
8 AMB, lad 10, n. 594, 595; lad 7, n. 314, 330; lad. 9, n. 544; lad I 1 , n. 761, 763, 76; lad. 22,
n. 2253-2255, 2296; lad. 29, n. 3368; lad 14, n. 1020; lad 15, n. 1 109, 1223; lad. 19, n.
1796; Lehotskä, Inventar, 32, 56, 59, 94, 126-127, 129, 207, 230, 280,445.
9 AMB, lad. 2, n. 24; Georgius Fejer, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecc/esiasticus ac civilis
10 8, n. 1 (Buda: Typis universitatis, 1829-1830), 620-622 (hereafter Fejer, Codex).
11 AMB lad 5, n. 193, 195; lad 6. n. 272, 273; lad. 29, n. 3260. Lehotskä, Inventar, 37, 49-50.
AMB, lad. 22, n. 2197. See also lad. 22, n. 2 1 85, 2 1 94, 2 1 9 5 . Lehotskä, Inventar,
5 5 1 , 553.
12 AMB, lad. 9, n. 532; Lehotskä, Inventar, 92.
13 AMB, lad. 9, n. 540; Lehotskä, Inventar, 93; Fejer, Codex 10, n. 3, 195-196.
153
attacked some ofthe town’s clerics in Pyspekfalva (Podunajske Biskupice). The
case later appeared before the king, who admonished them not to trouble clerics.
14 In a case from 1436, the archbishop of N ovohrad demanded that two canons
from Bratislava coerce the town council to pay their debts to a parisb priest
from Kremnica, under the threat of excommunication. 15
However, excommunication was probably only the last resort, wben they
could not reach agreement otherwise, and before choosing this option they used
other means. For example, in 1400 the archbishop ofEsztergom demanded in a
letter that the town authorities sbould not imprison his subjects travelling to
Bratislava, and in 1428 he demanded that the town council should release his
sub 􀂐.e cts fro m pn.s on. 16
On the other hand, town authorities and local priests co-operated in cases
that led to the excommunication of some town inhabitants. For example, in
1500, on the request of the judge and the town council of Pre􀂑ov, the parish
priests from the nearby towns of Ko§ice (Cassovia, Cascha, Cassa), Bardejov,
Sabinov (Cibinium, Kisszeben) and 􀂒ari§ (Saros) excommunicated Elizabeth
Krausz, because she did not pay 24 gutden to St. Elizabeth’s churcb in Ko§ice.17
The heirs of Paulus Moderer were excommunicated in 1470 because they had
failed to appear in court in a Iitigation in which even the pope had intervened.18
The controversy or hone of contention that can best elucidate the problems
over jurisdiction of secular and church courts during the fourteenth, fifteenth
and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries is, however, that over the
privilege of sanctuary. This old privilege, dating back to ancient tim es and also
adopted by Hungarian law, caused many controversies between the church and
the town authorities. This is evident in the example of Bratislava, the town in the
immediate neighbourhood of the chapter, which, as an ecclesiastical institution,
bad the right of sanctuary.
As early as 1359, Louis the Great was forced to address the problern after
he was informed that criminals, after they had comrnitted their crimes, often
sought asylum in churches, monasteries, and cemeteries of Bratislava. In his
decree, the king ordered that they should be removed from the sanctuaries and
brought to the town court, where they should be tried and sentenced for their
14 AMB, lad. 1 1, n. 745, 747, 748, 749, 750; LehotskA, l1n1entar, 125-127. A year later, there
was yet another argument between clerics from Bratislava and the town council: AMB, lad.
29, n. 3370; Lehotskä, Inventar, 128.
u AMB, lad. 32, n. 4380. 16 AMB, lad. 29, n. 3312, 3437. Lehotsk.ä, l1n1entar, 91, 152.
17 Regional archive of Pre§ov, Collection of Municipal records (hereafter AMP), n. 334 and
480. Bela Ivänyi, Eperjes szabad kiralyi varos leveltara. Archivum liberae regiaeque civitatis
Eperjes 1245-1526, vol. 1-2 (Szeged, A2 Egyetem es a Rothermere-alap tamo18
gatasaval, 1931 ), 817.
AMB, lad. 20, n. 1935. See also lad. 20, o. 1887, 1888, 1900. Lehotskä, lnventar,
478, 483, 492.
154
crimes, according to the custom rite et racionabiliter, although under the condition
that the clergy and other ecclesiastical persons were not against it. 19
At the beginning of the fifteenth century, tbe controversy resumed again.
The judge Ulrich (Ulrichus dictus Wenwarder) and tbe town notary Konrad
complained at the royal court about the behaviour of people belonging to the
cbapter (familiares et iobagiones praepositi, canonicorum et capituli ecclesiae
sancti Martini sexus utriusque … ). These people, falling under the jurisdiction
of tbe chapter, quarrelled with the burghers and inhabitants of Bratislava and
allegedly committed robberies, murders, and violence (nonnullae intricationes,
rixae, brigae, spolia, hominum interemtiones, mutilationes, et quam plurima
mala opera patrarentur) in the territory of the town. Their crimes, however,
remained unpunished, because they would return and seek asylum in the bouses
of the provost, chapter, and canons. These buildings were next to the churcb and
included in the protection area.20
After baving consulted the prelates and barons (maturo prealatorum et
baronum nostrorum habito consilio ), King Sigismund decided that if anyone
belonging to the cbapter, familiares or jobagiones, regardless of their status or
sex, committed a crime in the territory of the town (in dicta civitate, in eius districtu,
tenutis et territoriis), they should be tried in front ofthe municipal court,
that is, the judge and the members of the town council. Should they hide in the
houses of the provost, canons or in the chapter, the town magistrates were fully
authorised to remove them, bring them into the town court and punish them.
The cbapter appealed against the decision to the general vicar of the
archbishop of Esztergom. The vicar decided in favour of the chapter, although
be was subsequently (in 1418) ordered by King Sigismund not to deal with the
complaints of the chapter any Ionger because the king would do it personally.
Moreover, he ordered the archbisbop of Esztergom to band over criminals wbo
were hiding in the bouses ofthe canons in Bratislava?1
It was probably the connection with this matter that induced King Sigismund
in bis charter of 1419 to forbid anyone to summon inhabitants of Bratislava
to a court outside of Hungary, particularly the Roman curia.22 In 1436, the
town council asked the king for the right to enter canonical houses, wbere
criminals were seeking asylum?3
19 AMB, lad. 5, n. 147; LehotskA, Inventar, 29. Daniela Hrnl!iarovä, K otazke vzniku a vjvoja
azyloveho prtiva do lwnca 16. storocia. (Z pohfadu jeho uplatfwvania v cirkVI) [On the
question of the origin and development of asylum right until the end of the sixteenth century
(from the perspective of its practice in the Church)], Diploma thesis (Bratislava:
Comenius University, 1999) (hereafter Hrnl!iarovä, K ottizke vzniku).
22°1 Fejer, Codex 10, n. 4, 400-402.
AMB, lad. 1 1 , n. 765; Lehotskä, Inventar, 129; Fejer, Codex 10, n. 6, 189. Hrnl!iarovä, K
ottizke vzniku, 50-51.
22 AMB, lad. 12, n. 782; Lehotskä, Inventar, 35; Fejer, Codex 10, n. 6, 203.
23 AMB, lad. 22, n. 2250; Lehotskä, Inventar, 206.
155
Nevertheless, before long the cbapter complained again, tbis time accusing
tbe town autborities of infringing on tbeir rigbts. According to tbe cbapter,
tbe council unlawfully removed two tbieves, wbo bad robbed a salt camerarius
and bis escort of money and guns, from a parisb cburch in tbe possession of tbe
chapter and (in ecclesiam parochialem in possessione Pyspekfalva existentl) bad
tbem executed.24
Tbe conflicts between the Bratislava chapter and the town council also
continued during tbe rule of King Wladislas II. In 1 503, Provost Nicolaus complained
about tbe judge and a town magistrate wbo, at nigbt, witb arms in tbeir
hands, hurst into tbe bouse of tbe provost, abducted a certain Jobannes of Nitra
and imprisoned him. According to tbe town magistrate, Johannes, who was a
familiar of tbe provost, had committed several brutal deeds, but tbe provost bad
failed to punish him. Tbat was wby tbe judge, and also by some otber burgbers,
urged by the busband of a woman wbo bad died after being attacked by Johannes,
decided to capture tbe offender. Tbe king summoned tbe town autborities to
bis court to explain tbeir behaviour, but tbe result ofthe incident is not known.25
Wladislas li also intervened in a case from Pre􀂒ov in 1501. In tbat year be
repeatedly ordered tbe vicar of Eger to transfer tbe Iitigation between a burgher
from Pre􀂒ov and tbe canon of Eger over a house in tbe town of Pre􀂒ov from the
churcb court to tbe curia‘ (tbat is, tbe royal court)_
26
Tbe relationship of tbe town council witb tbe parish priest and preacbers
was of bigbest importance for tbe everyday life in an urban community. Tbey
were tbe ecclesiastical people with wbom tbe town council and inhabitants oftbe
town came into contact most frequently. If on good terms witb tbem, tbe town
council would even defend a priest, if necessary. In 1 526, a preacher was
criticised for saying tbat it was allowed to eat butter, cbeese, and eggs during a
period of fasting and was ordered to eitber take back what he had said or come
to the vicar of Eger and defend bimself, because tbe church autborities were not
so benevolent to tolerate preaching against the true faitb. Tbe town council of
Ko􀂒ice wrote a Ietter in favour of tbe preacher to tbe vicar of Eger, explaining
tbat be only said tbat pregnant women, children, elderly, and tbe sick could do it
witb tbe permission of tbeir priest?7
Despite tbe rigbt of cboice of parisb priests, town autborities were not
always lucky in selecting tbem. At tbe beginning of tbe sixteentb century, the
town autborities of Bardejov did not get on witb tbeir parisb priest, Johannes, at
all. Tbe first evidence of animosity comes from 1502, when Johannes bad some
24 Hrn􀃋iarovä, K otazke vzniku, 5 1 .
25 Hrn􀃋iarovä, K otO.zke vzniku, 52. 26 AMP, lad. 12, n. 21 822.
György B6nis, Szentszeki regeszttilc. Jratok az egyhtizi birtiskodas törtenetehez a közeplwri
Magyarorszagon [The Regesta of the Holy See. Charters for the history of clerical jurisdiction
in Medieval Hungary] (Szeged: J6zsef Attila Tudomänyegyetem Allam- es Jogtudomänyi
Karänak Tudomänyos Bizottsäga, 1997), 664, n. 4371.
156
controversy with several burghers and with the whole guild of brewers. According
to the citation issued by the town notary Janos Boson at the request of
the papal prothonotarius Filip de Sarginedis, and a jud􀀿e delegated by the apostolic
see, the case was supposed to be solved by Filip. 8 A year later, the case
was brougbt before Cardinal Peter, a papal legate?9 King Wladislas intervened
and reproacbed Jobannes for turning to tbe papal legate and admonisbed bim to
turn to the town council instead in cases of minor controversies?0 In bis letter to
the town, the king informed them that he had intervened in their behalf before
the papal legate and admonished them to live in peace with the parish priest in
the future.31
Nevertheless, six months later, Johannes was still not at peace with them,
because the king, after receiving a complaint from the burghers of Bardejov,
wrote another letter to him saying that since the time he had been selected as a
parish priest he bad been harassing the town council with quarrels and litigations
that cost them a lot of money. Wladislas admonished bim once more to try to
live in peace with them.32 We do not know whether peace was achieved, but
even if it was, it definitely did not last long. Two years later, in 1505, the
burghers ofBardejov complained to the king again, tbis time because of the Johannes‘
refusal to provide the schoolmaster and chaplains with food at bis own
table. Tbis was an obviously old custom that the priest did not want to comply
with. He probably resisted the king’s order because tbere was a second admonition
ofthe king in tbe same matter two months later?3
One of the possible causes of the animosity between Johannes and the
people of Bardejov might have been bis engagement in tbe campaign of the
canon of Eger against those executors of last wills who concealed and appropriated
the money or property bequeatbed to religious fratemities, hospitals, poorhouses
and for charity. On many occasions, Johannes urged those guilty of such
misuse to return unlawfully appropriated possessions within a month, otherwise
tbey would be excommunicated. 34
One hears again about Johannes in 1514.35 Tbis time, tbe magistrate of
Bardejov wrote to the bishop of Eger about bim, not surprisingly complaining
about bis conduct. On St. Stephens’s day, after the elevation of the chalice, he
bad made a personal public announcement before the gathered congregation in
the church. He had accused some of the people present that they bad talked
28 Regional archive in Bardejov (hereafter AMBJ), Collection of municipal records, n. 3706.
Beta Ivbyi, Btirtfa szabad kiralyi varos Ieveltara 1319-1526 [Archives of the Town of
Bartfa, a free royal town] (Budapest: Athanaeum, 1910).
29 AMBJ, n. 3706.
30 AMBJ, n. 3707.
31 AMBJ, n. 3719.
32 AMBJ, n. 3748.
33 AMBJ, n. 3885, n. 3895.
34 AMBJ, n. 3702.
35 AMBJ, n. 4459.
157
about him in the pubs in a dishonourable and scandalous way, suggesting that he
should be executed. Moreover, he gave his interpretation of the letter he had
received from the king, stating that it was not he who wanted to quarrel and have
Iitigation, but that he was actually pushed into them. Also, it was not his fault if,
as a result, the burghers were burdened by heavier taxes; thus, he warned them
not to be tricked. The town council believed that, with this and other
proclamations, Johannes was trying to incite revolt and spread unrest among the
people; therefore, they asked the bishop to put a stop to it.
In several municipal judicial cases, it is apparent that local church
authorities tried to intervene in favour oflaymen in trials in front oftown courts.
It is not always clear how these cases were brought to the attention ofthe cburch
authorities. However, it is likely that it was the initiative of either the accused or
the victim, if they were not satisfied with the procedure of the town court and
tried to influence or change the municipal court verdict by intervention of the
higher, ecclesiastical authorities.
In 1508, Georgius, bishop of Pecs and at the same time royal chancellor,
wrote to the council of Bardejov that, with authorisation from the church in
Eger, he bad absolved a certain Stephanus Ruswalth, accused of homicide. According
to Stephanus‘ deposition, his horse startled while he was sitting on it
and rushed towards a fence. A man standing nearby was hit on the head by a
stick that accidentally feil from Stephanus‘ band. The impact was so strong that
the man died. Since then, Stephanus bad been continuously botbered by the son
of the deceased man, who demanded blood money.36 According to the bishop,
he was not entitled to blood money, because it was an accident and not intended
homicide. He urged the town council to see to it that the son ofthe deceased did
not bother Stephanus any more.
Another case brought to the attention of the church authorities was that of
Elizabeth Jakcho, wife ofPaul from Pre§ov. In 1499, the town council of Pre§ov
accused her of slander and disgraceful insult of the town authorities, arrested
her, confiscated her property and condemned her to banishment. Elisabeth was
not a woman who could come to terms with her lot and give up easily. In the
following four years, she wrote numerous complaints and appealed to several
church authorities, including the bishop ofEger, two cardinals, and papal legates
and, after that failed, she appealed to the king. On the latter’s request, high
church authorities delegated four local parish priests to re-examine the case and
hear the witnesses. After a lengthy procedure, also hindered by Elizabeth’s occasional
failure to appear in court, the delegated parish priests from Ko§ice and
Pre§ov, due to the lack of new evidence, resolved the case by forbidding Elizabeth
to continue with her accusations against the town authorities of Pre§ov and
confirming the original verdict ofthe latter.
And what did Elizabeth do or say to be accused of slander and condemned
to banishment in the first place? She publicly accused a pregnant woman of
36 AMBJ, n. 4023.
158
adultery, stating that, ifthe baby were a boy, the father was Thomas Plawniczer,
the judge of Preäov, and if it were be a girl, the father must be Stephanus Sartor,
a burgher from the same town. 37
After the defeat at Mohäcs in 1526, when the Catholic hierarchy was
decimated, many of the lower clergy were won over by the Protestants. By the
middle of the sixteenth century, the new faith prevailed in most Hungarian
towns. Stirnulated by the ideas of the Protestant theologians, town authorities
turned their attention to farnily life, sexual behaviour, and the conduct of ordinary
people, trying to enforce what they saw as basic standards of Christian morality.
It is in this period that urban justice became extremely severe, with the
town authorities increasingly irnposing the capital penalty for a broad range of
crimes such as murder and homicide, violent behaviour in public, sacrilege
(stealing from churches), adultery, bigamy and incest. Town courts often dealt
with cases of fornication and did not hesitate to force the couple that fornicated
to marry in prison. The promise to take a girl for a wife was taken seriously and
almost impossible to be taken back.
Nevertheless, it seems that the church courts and jurisdiction were not
completely forgotten, even in the period when the Reformation was at its highest
in Hungary. Apart from cases that can be seen as controversies or clashes
between creeds or followers of the Catholic and Protestant faith, such as the excommunication
of priests as heretics or because they bad concubines or were
married, other cases illustrate the existence and functioning ofthe church courts.
In 1 572, Barbara, the daughter of Johann Raimensattl, a burgher of Bratislava,
was violated and deprived of her virginity by the blacksmith Andreas
Horn. The man at first denied her allegations, but after investigation and interrogation
of witnesses, he confessed. The victim claimed that, apart from that he
bad done her no harm, he wanted to marry her. The town council, perhaps at a
loss as to how they should decide, and not certain whether the case belonged to
the church court or not, finally transferred it to the chapter of Bratislava.38 1t is
not known how the church court resolved the case, though.
Similarly, in the 1587 case of Joannes Rewez the verdict of the court is
unknown. All that is known is that Joannes appealed to the church court of the
Bratislava chapter to get a separation from bis wife, Anna Zenthkiraly, because
of her animosity towards him and her attempt to kill him by magic. 39
Several aspects of division of jurisdiction between ecclesiastical and
secular urban courts still remain unclear, as there is only limited evidence in the
municipal archives. In an undated Ietter from the end of the fourteenth century,
the archbishop of Esztergom announced to the urban community of Bratislava
37 AMP, n. 809, 824, 826, 848, 8 5 1 , 855, 856, 865, 866, 870.
38 Slovak National Archives in Bratislava, Private archive of the Bratislava cbapter, Privata
Capsa 25/1/42.
39 Ibidem, Capsa 84/1 1 .
159
that in spiritual matters it was the court of the chapter that should decide.40 How
this rule was reflected in practice, however, is a subject for further research .
• • •
In conclusion, it seems that both church and town courts claimed
jurisdiction in cases where an ecclesiastical person was involved in Iitigation on
a secular matter. The power of the church courts reached its peak in the middle
of the thirteenth century. From then onwards, the kings (Sigismund, Mathias
Corvinus and Wladislas II) slowly and gradually limited the jurisdiction of the
church courts in favour of the secular courts by exempting some matters from
church authority.41 In general, the kings tried to favour secular courts and Iimit
church jurisdiction. As a result, the number of cases with questionable
jurisdiction increased and the k.ing bad to intervene, as was demonstrated by the
examples of conflicts noted above, especially between the town council of
Bratislava and the Bratislava chapter. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
there were many areas where both secular and church courts thought it fit to
handle the matter. Similarly, a plaintiff or an accused, if not satisfied with the
process or result of a Iitigation, would not only turn to the local secular
authority, but also to church courts and church authorities, sometimes even royal
courts and the king, or to the papal Penitentiary, in the hope that these other
courts or authorities would be better disposed to bis or her interests.
40 AMB, n. 6517. Lehotska, Inventar, 101.
41 Eugen Bidovslcy, „Orgäny stredovekeho sudnictva V Uhorsku 1000-1526“ [Institutions of
medieval judiciary in medieval S1ovakia (1000-1526)], SlovenskQ archivistilw 19, n. 2
(1976), 1 51-176.
160
The Long Arm ofPapal Authority
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein J.ergensen. Kirsi Salonen
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XIV
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung
des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung
nlederösterreicll kuHur
CEU MEDIEV ALIA 8
TheLongArm
of Papal Authority
Late Medieval Christian Peripheries
and Their Communication
with the Holy See
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein J0rgensen, K.irsi Salonen
Bergen · Budapest · Krems
2004
Copy Editor: Judith Rasson
Cover lliustration: Pope Pius II, Hartmann Scbedel, World Cbronicle (Nuremberg, 1493), fol. 250
Joint Publlcation by:
Centre for Medieval Studies (CMS)
University of Bergen, P.O.Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
Telephone: (+47-55) 58 80 85, Fax: (+47-55) 58 80 90
E-mail: post@cms.uib.no, Website: http://www.uib.no/cms/
ISBN 82-997026-0-7
􀀔
Department of Medleval Studies
Central European University
Nädor u. 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3024, Fax: (+36-1) 327-3055
E-mail: medstud@ceu.hu, Website: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/
ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDlEY ALIA
‚􀆦 􀁝 􀁖CE U PRESS … 􀆥
Central European University Press
An imprint of the Central European University Share Company
Nädor u. 11, H-1 051 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1)327-3138, 327-3000, Fax: (+36-1)327-3183
E-mail: ceupress@ceu.hu, Website: http://www.ceupress.com
and
400 West 591b Street, New York NY 10019, USA
Telephone: (+l-212)547-6932, Fax: (+1-212) 548-4607
E-mail:mgreenwald@sorosny.org
ISBN 9-63 86569 5 6
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
A CIP catalog record for this book is available upon request.
Medium Aevum Quotidianum
Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters
Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems an der Donau, Austria
Telephone: (+43-2732) 847 93-20, Fax: (+43-2732) 847 93-1
E-mail: imareal@oeaw.ac.at , Website: http://www.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/maq/
ISBN 3-90 1094 17 2
© Editors and Contributors 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systerns, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publisher.
Printed in Hungary by Printself(Budapest).
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations related to the collections of the Vatican Secret Archives . . ….. … 7
Preface . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . . . 8
Piroska Nagy, Peripheries in Question in Late Medieval Christendom . . ….. .. . 11
Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary under Pope Pius TI. The Supplications
and Their Provenance . . . . . . … . . . . . . . .. … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Torstein Jergensen, At the Edge ofthe World: The Supplications
from the Norwegian Province of Nidaros . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . … . … 29
K.irsi Salonen, The Supplications from the Province of Uppsala.
Main Trends and Developments . . . .. . .. . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . . . . 42
Irene Fumeaux, Pre-Reformation Scottish Marriage Cases
in the Archives of the Papal Penitentiary . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Jadranka Neralic, Central Europe and the Late Medieval Papal Chancery . . … 71
Etleva Lala, The Papal Curia and Albania in the Later Middle Ages . …. . . . . . . . 89
Piroska N agy and Kirsi Salonen, East-Central Europe
and the Penitentiary (1458-1484) ……………………………………. 102
Lucie Dolezalova, „But if you marry me“: Reflections
on the Hussite Movement in the Penitentiary (1438-1483) ………….. 113
Ana Marinkovic, Socia1 and Territorial Endogamy
in the R.agusan Republic: Matrimonial Dispenses
during the Pontificates ofPaul li and Sixtus IV (1464-1484) ……….. 126
Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller, Rodolfo Gonzaga (1452-1495):
News on a Celebrity Murder Case . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 145
5
Blanka Szegbyovä, Church and Secular Courts in Upper Hungary
(Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 151
Ludwig Schmugge, Penitentiary Documents
from Outside the Penitentiary . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. : …………… 161
Gerhard Jaritz, Patternsand Levels ofPeriphery? ………………………….. 170
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 173
6
ABBREVIATIONS RELATED TO TBE COLLECTIONS OF THE
V ATICAN SECRET ARCHIVES
ASV = Archivio Segreto Vaticano
Arm. = Armadio
Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Ap. = Congrega zione dei Vescovi e Regolari,
Visita Apostolica
Instr. Mise. = Instrumenta Miscellanea
Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div. = Penitenzieria Apostolica, Registra
Matrimonialium et Diversorum
Reg. Vat. = Registra Vaticana
Reg. Lat. = Registra Lateranensia
Reg. Suppl. = Registra Supplicationum
Reg. Aven. = Registra Avenionensia
RPG = Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum
7
PREFACE
The present publication contains selected papers from two international
conferences: the first was held at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of
Bergen (Norway), in October, 20031 and the second at the Department of Medieval
Studies, Centrat European University, Budapest (Hungary), in January,
2004.2 The purpose of these meetings was to gather researchers interested in the
history and significance of the papal curia and, in particular, the Apostolic Penitentiary,
in the later Middle Ages. The main emphasis was placed on a comparative
approach and on the role of peripheral areas of Western Christendom in
their communication with the Holy See.
There are various kinds of centre-and-periphery hierarchies.3 There are
geographic, social, economic, and cultural peripheries and centres.“ The generat
textbooks … address materials from the geographical and social peripheries of
privileged cultures only as adjuncts to their central narrative …. The history of
Scandinavia and Eastern Europe become excursus to a central narrative.'“‚
However, conceming the communication of the Holy See with various areas
of Christendom in the Middle Ag es, the irnpact of ‚peripheries‘ has attracted
a new interest in recent years. Since the opening of the archives of the Apostolic
Penitentiary to researchers in 1983 relatively few scholars have exploited the
sources, but recently their number has increased. Most of them have studied the
supplications to the Penitentiary of petitioners from their own home countries
and edited material on a national basis. The German Historical Institute, under
the leadership of Ludwig Schmugge, has already published several volumes of
entries concerning German-speaking territories. Also, the Norwegian and Icelandic
material has recently been released by Torstein Jßi’gensen and Gastone
Saletnich. Sirnilar enterprises are in process in several other countries: Poland,
Denmark, Sweden and Finland, England and Wales. The examination of territo-
1 „The Lote Middle Ages and the Penitentiary Texts: Centre and Periphery in Europe in the
Pre-Refonnation Era.“
2 „Ad Confines. The Papal Curia and the Eastern and Northern Peripheries of Christendom
in the Later Middle Ages(l41h
– 151h c.).“
3 For this and the following, see Teofilo F. Ruiz, „Center and Periphery in the Teaching of
Medieval History,“ in Medieval Cultures in Contact, ed. Richard F. Gyug (New York:
Fordham University Press, 2003), 252.
4 Ibidem, 248.
8
ries on the geographic peripheries in their relation to Rome has been a main focus
in these studies.
The archival material of the Penitentiary and the communication of the
papal curia with the various regions of late medieval Europe should, however,
not be studied only on national Ievels. There is an increasing need for such
studies to be supplemented by comparative searcbes for differences and analogies
in how Christians from different corners of Europc used the papal offices
and were treated by them. It is well known that even though the regulations of
canon law were in theory the same for everyone, regional differences in interpreting
and applying them emerged in the Late Middle Ages. The need to turn to
the papal authority in matters of canon law varied depending on the role of local
bishops and the presence or absence of papal Iegates or collectors, who often
bad the power to deal with similar matters in partibus. Also, people in the
centml territories of Christendom bad different opportunities for turning to the
papal curia with their requests than those living on the peripheries of the
Christian world.
Questions like these played the central role in the discussions of the two
conferences noted above. In this book we will render an overview of the present
status of this new field of research. As an introduction, Piroska Nagy deals with
the question of how to apply centre-periphery models to a comparative analysis
of the sources. Kirsi Salonen uses the Penitentiary registers from the period of
Pope Pius II to analyse the supplications, their provenance, and the role of peripheries.
Two peripheral parts of late medieval Europe and their significance concerning
the communication with the Holy See represent the main part of the
publication: Northem Europe and East Central Europe. Comparative analyses of
Scandinavian and Scottish source material from the Penitentiary Registers are
made by Torstein Jsrgensen, Kirsi Salonen, and lrene Fumeaux. The studies on
East Central Europe are introduced by an inquiry concerning the general importance
of the area for the papal curia (Jadranka Neralic), and an overview of the
communication of the Holy See with Albania (Etleva Lala). Piroska Nagy and
Kirsi Salonen offer a quantitative analysis of East Central Europe and the Penitentiary
(1458-1484), followed by contributions on individual territories, such
as the Czech Iands (Lucie Dolezalova) and Dalmatia (Ana Marinkovic). The
contribution by Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller indicates that in any
studies of the roJe of peripheries one must not neglect the more central areas.
Blanca Szeghyova and Ludwig Schrnugge show that local archives and their
contents are an indispensable additional source for comparative analyses.
Many friends and colleagues have helped in preparing this book for print.
We are pleased to thank the personnet of the Penitenzieria Apostolica, especially
Padre Ubaldo Todeschini, for reading the manuscript and suggesting useful corrections.
We are also much obliged to the skilled staff of the Sala di Studio in
the Vatican Archives, who patiently brought us volume after volume of the reg-
9
isters and helped with other problems. Judith Rasson from Central European
University deserves our gratitude for copyediting our text.
Finally, we wish to thank the academic institutions which in a more direct
way have promoted this project: the Centre for Medieval Studies at the
University of Bergen, the Department of Medieval Studies at the Central
European University in Budapest, the Institut filr Realienkunde of the Austrian
Academy of Seiences and the Academy of Finland, and the Department of History
at the University ofTampere.
Bergen, Budapest, and Tampere, November 2004
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein Jergensen, Kirsi Salonen
10