Testaments and Testimonies. Orality and Literacy in Composing Last Wills in Late Medieval Hungary

Testaments and Testimonies.
Orality and Literacy in Composing Last Wills
in Late Medieval Hungary
Katalin Szende
The development and regulation of testamentary practice
„In namen des herrn amen. Hienach ist vermergkt mein, Agnesen, Mathis
Kogel gelassen wittiben geschefft und Ietster will, So ich in pejiwesen der erberen
menner mit namen Sigmund Mawrach, Hansen Plangken und Mathes Pallner
mundtlich verordent und awßgesprochen mit beger, das dergestalt aufgl eschriben,
verfertigt vnd nach meinem ableyben durch gemelt mein geschefftiger vollaist
beweyst vnd sonst von menigklich allso gehallten werdt. “ Thus runs the introductory
forrnula of the last will made by Agnes, widow of Mathes Kogel, citizen
of Bratislava (Pozsony, Preßburg) on 23 September, 1 520. 1 In using these expressions,
she followed a tradition which had been prevalent for more than a century in
her home town, and even Ionger in other towns of Europe, and among other
groups of medieval society.
Late medieval testamentary practice was the result of a gradual development
of several legal systems which were made to fit the needs and interests of various
social groups, and therefore often Contradieted each other. The significance of this
process from our point of view is that from a very early phase, orality and literacy
were both present in making wills, but even if the rote of literacy increased, it
never became exclusive. Oral forms and practices were maintained in the formulation
and execution of last wills up to our times. Therefore, testaments can
provide a good example for investigating the coexistence and combined use of
oral and written communication in a Situation which was extreme and inevitable
for the individual – the testator, and crucial for the community – the survivors.
Some questions to be asked in this context can be f01mulated as follows:
What was the role of literacy and in which fields or ways did it replace the oral
transmission of dispositions? Was there any difference between the probative
value of oral and written testimonies or instructions? Whose interest did it serve to
put the wills in writing? As in most medieval topics, the scope of our research is
limited by the fact that practically all our knowledge about orality comes from
1 Archiv mesta Bratislavy, Protocollum Teslamemorum I. B 4n- l , also available in the photocopy
collection ofthe National Archives ofHungary, DF 277056 (henceforth: PT), fol. 397v.
50 KATALJNSZENDE
written sources: hints, references or „irregular“ details of fonnulation, although
more recent comparative material, especially conceming rural wills, may provide
more direct evidence. The primary area of investigation of this article is the
medieval kingdom of Hungary, but the general remarks apply to a wider region of
Central Europe.
The development of medieval and modern testaments has been analyzed by
legal historians in a variety ofways since the end ofthe nineteenth century? In the
last few decades, social historians and anthropologists have contributed to the
research from their points of view.3 Instead of recapitulating the results achieved
so far, I would here only like to point out those elements of the testamentary
practice which are connected to the roJe of orality.
The most archaic element of any medieval legal system was common law. In
its original form (of which we have only indirect evidence) it was fully based on
oral actions and settled the conflicts within the community without written codebooks.
This applied to the inheritance customs as weil, where the ties of l ineage
were the principal regulating forces in redistributing movable and immovable
property of the deceased, who had little say in questions concerning the time after
their death. The loosening of tribal and family ties, however, made it necessary to
provide guidelines for cases when the traditional system of inheritance did not
apply or was insufficient.4
The first model was provided by Roman law, in which the expression „testament“
also originated. But apart from the word itself, medieval wills had very Iittle
in common with their Roman counterparts, since they did not nominate one
general heir for the whole property, but listed selected items that were bequeathed
to various persons. The influence of canon law on the system of medieval bequests
2 On the legal development see Paul Baur, Testament und Bürgerschaft. Alltagsleben und
Sachkultur im spätmittelalterlichen Konstanz, (Konstanzer Geschichts- und Rechtsquellen, 3 1 )
(Sigmaringen: Thorbeckc, 1989), pp. 1 1 -13, with the older German literature. On medieval
Hungary sce Katalin Szende, „A magyarorszägi värosi vegrendeletek helye az cur6pai
joggyakorlatban. Sopron, Pozsony es Eperjes peldäja“ (The place of testarnents from Hungarian
towns in the European legal practice. The cxamples of Sopron, Bratislava, and Pre􀆄ov),
Soproni Szemle, 53 (1 999), pp. 343-356, also with references to some other Central European
countries.
3 For an overview of the Iiterature on wills see e.g. Märia Lupcscu Mak6, „‚Item lego . . . ‚ Gifts
for the Soul in Late Medieval Transylvania,“ Annua/ of Medieval Studies at CEU, 7 (2001),
pp. 1 6 1 – 185, esp. notes on pp. 162-164.
4 The following assumptions are based on my PhD dissertation „Otthon a värosban. Urbanizaci6,
tärsadalom es mindennapi clet a kesö-közepkori Sopronban es Pozsonyban,“ (At home in
town. Urbanisation, society, and everyday life in late mcdieval Sopron and Bratislava), Eötvös
Loränd University, Budapest, 2000 (to be published in 2001). Questions of orality are not
discussed specifically in that work. For a more detailed overview on the legal development in
English see K. Szende, „From Molher to Daughter, from Father to Son? Intergenerational Patterns
of Bcqueathing Movables in Late Medieval Bratislava,“ Annual of Medieval Studies at
CEU, 7 (2001), pp. 209-232, esp. pp. 2 1 0-216.
TESTAMENTS AND TESTIMON!ES 51
was more decisive because the Church claimed authority over legal matters
concerning birth, marriage, and death. Also, since Hungary was outside the territory
of the Holy Roman Empire, it was canon law, rather than Roman law that
could transmit the influences of European legal development.
The third most important element m the development of wills was town
laws which evolved fi·om the privileges granted by the king or other Iandlords and
the customary law of the comrnunity. The latter was often based on the rights of
the native or foreign settlers who constituted the population of a given community.
Their autonomy was emphasized by, among other things, the freedom to make
their own wills. In Hungary, the most important towns, which forrned the basis of
the urban network o f the country, got their privileges during the thirteentb century.
In the next phase o f tbeir legal development, around 1 440, a codex ofthe so-called
tavernical law (the law of the seven free royal towns used at their common court
Iead by the magister tavernicalis) was compiled, which, among other issues,
contained regulations of testamentary practice.5 The codification of the comrnon
law of the country by the jurist Stephan Werböczy in 1 5 1 7 also devoted some
paragraphs to the consequences o f making or not making wills,6 and the conditions
were also treated in the synodal decrees, among which the decrees of the Veszprem
diocese represent an example from the beginning of the sixteenth century.7
The spread of literacy for noting down legal regulations was parallel to the more
frequent use of writing in the legal actions to which these laws referred.
Once they had adapted the custom of making formalized wills, the comrnon
point of the legal systems was what is also emphasized by the etymology of the
Latin (and consequently, the English) word testamenturn or testament: something
that is testified. What, how, and, not least, by whom it was testified was already
subject to different requirements and involved the extensive use of orality. The
expressions denoting various phases of making a will also often referred to originally
oral actions, even if we come across only their written manifestations:
mundtlich verordent und awßgesprochen, zu zeugen gerue.fft/gepeten, (an)
widersprechen/widerred, and so on.
What did these expressions really refer to? What happened by the testator’s
bedside? Did the standardized and formulaic legal texts provide a chance to ex-
5 Codex authenticus iuris tavernicalis, ed. Martinus Georgius Kovachich (Buda, 1803), pp. 22 1 –
235; see also Stefania Mertanova, Jus tavemicale. Studie o procese formovania prava
tavernickych mies/ V etapoch vyvoja tavernickeho sudu V Uhorsku (Studios on the process of
legal development of tavemical towns in the period of thc formation of the tavemical court in
Huogary) (Bratislava: Tatran, 1985).
6 Istvao Werböczy, _
Tripartitum opus iuris consuetudinarii inc􀉇yti regni Hungariae, eds. S.
Kolosväri and K. Oväri (Budapest: n. p., 1 990; reprint of thc edition and translation published
in the series Corpus Iuris Hungarici (Budapest: Franklin, 1 897), see e.g. Part I Titles 1 1 4,
1 19., Part II Tide 52, Part lll Title 30).
7 Uszl6 Solymosi (ed.), A veszpremi egyhaz /515. evi zsinati hatarozatai (The synodal descrees
of the Veszprem diocesc from 1 5 1 5 ) (Budapest, 1 997), esp. pp. 9 1 -94.
52 KATALINSZENDE
press personal choices? This is what we shall try to trace first, mainly on the basis
of urban wills from Late Medieval Hungary, then extending our analysis to other
social strata i n the same period.
The act of making a will
Legal regulations were precise in describing the conditions of making wills,
defining who was entitled to make an authentic will, when, how, and in front of
whom.8 However, real life produced more varied circumstances than foreseen in
the laws and the authorities implementing the laws usually showed greater
flexibility than those who had made them. The testaments themselves often give
insight into the procedure which took place in the presence ofthe testator. Wills in
medieval Hungary were usually composed only shortly before the testator’s death,
or in some few cases in critical situations or before risky enterprises like going on
a pilgrimage, giving birth, or joining a military campaign. The last of these
instances was the most frequent. For example, several noblerneo made their wills
in August, 1 526, before the fatal battle of Mohacs. Otherwise it was not usual to
formulate a will at a certain age or stage of life, several years before one’s death,
without any special reason, as e.g. the most prominent citizens of Douai
consciously arranged everything weil before their death, entering their wills into a
special protocol set up by the local council.9
In Hungary, especially in the urban context, significant time-gaps between
the date of a will and the death of the testator can only be observed when the testator
recovered or retumed safely from a dangeraus voyage, but then the original
wills were usually annulled. The most typical scene of making a will, therefore,
was on one’s sick- or deathbed. As the parallel datings from urban protocols indicate
(datum des Cesehefis – actum des Einschreiben), wills were entered into the
relevant town-book shortly after their composition, usually only some weeks or
months Jater.
If we try to imagine the scene of making a will as it was depicted in some
illustrations of late medieval manuscripts, 10 we can usually assume the presence of
the following persons: the testator, family members, sometimes listed by name,
1 1
a
8 One of the most detailed examples !Tom Centrat Europe is Alexander Gäl (ed.), Die Summa
legum brevis, /evis et utilis des sogenannten Dr. Raymundus von Wiener Neustadt (Weimar:
Böhlau, 1 926), esp. eh. XLIV ff.
9 Marlha C. Howell, „Fixing Movables: Gifts by Testament in Late Medieval Douai,“ Past and
Present I SO ( 1996), pp. 3-45, esp. pp. 8-9.
10 See e.g. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Hs. 2773, fol. 97v and Hs. 3085, fol. 40r, reproduced
in Harry Kühne! (ed.), Alltag im Spätmittelalter, 3rd ed. (Graz, Yien.na, and Cologne:
Styria, 1986), figs. 159 and 160 (pp. 135 and 137).
11
This was important when the testator and the witnesses wanted to emphasize that none of them
disputed the will, c.g. in Elzbeth. Erhart Stabin’s will (27.10. 1434): “ . . . do bey gegenwurtiklich
gewesen sint Hanns Bakahwtel mein pruder und Agles mein swester und vnß dreyer geTESTAMENfS
AND TESTIMONIES 53
priest (the parish priest or the testator’s confessor), two or more witnesses, the
executors of the will, 12 and sometimes a scribe. Most of these people were not
only passive spectators, but took part, mainly through their words, in the act of
mak.ing the will. In an exceptionally dramatized case we can read about the whole
scene when the testator sent out his father-in-law (otherwise his main heir) to have
some words with his wife in private.13 The explanation for the unusually detailed
quotation of the conversation is probably that the testator and the witnesses (who
of course stayed in the room during the whole scene) wanted to put a special
emphasis on the wife’s promise and the father-in-law’s obligation to support her
and her son. In another case14 it was noted that the testator’s brother arrived the
day after his sister had made her will, but while she was still alive, and talked to
the future executors (Gesche.fltsherren) of the will and expressed his consent. Here
swistrait mueter, die alt Bakahwtlin, und die meiner orderung und geschaftes kein widersprechen
nicht haben getan, des wigen meines geschaftes und guetes.“ (PT fol. I 12 3r).
The executors were usually different from the witnesses, as it is clear from e.g., the Buda town
law (c. 309. „Von den geschefft herren . . .“ ). This paragraph obliges the executors to be present
at the making of the will, but as far as we can judge from the wills, this order was not always
followed. See Kar! Mollay, Das Ofner Stadtrecht. Eine deutschsprachige Rechtssammlung aus
dem XV. Jahrhundert (Budapest: Akademiai and Weimar: Böhlau, 1 959), pp. 1 61 – 1 62. According
to Howell, „Fixing Movables“ p. 36, note 68, in Douai the executors also served as
witnesses.
13 Nielas Gutgesell ’s will (21 . 1 2 . 1 436.) „ltem so sprach der Guttgesell zu seinem sweher dem
Lachutlein und pat in er solt hin auz treten, er wolt sich mit seiner hawsfrawen bereden, und
auch mit den gescheftheren also trat der Lachutlein hin awz, do das geschach also.
ltem do er sich nu hett besprochen mit seiner hawsfrawen und auch mit den geschaftherren, do
hies er seinen sweher wider hin ein treten, also sprach der Gutgesell zu seiner hawsfrawen
Walpurg, ob sy das wolt willig und und gehorsam sein, was er dann schuff. Do sprach sy, sy
wolt des geschefts als willig und gehorsam sein, an alle wider red, und das alles stet zu haben.
Also sprach aber der Gutgesell, Gib meinem sweher deinem vater und den gescheftherren des
dein trew, das du das alles stet habst, das tet sy und gab irem vater dem Lachutlein und den
gescheftherren ir trew alles, das stet zu haben, das da vor und hernach geschriben stet.
Item also sprache der Gutgesell, Ieber sweher, so schaff ich euch all mein gut, das ich hab, und
emphilh euch wider ewr tochter und mein sun auf ewr trew, als unser herr dem lieben Sannd
Johanns sein liebe mutter emphalch, als ich euch träw und tut den armen Jewten auf dem dorff
gutleich, da von wert ir gut nucz haben.
Item da sprach der Lachutlein ayden, ir soll melden, das ich meiner tochter morgengab
auzgericht hab, also sprach er ya, und die fraw sprach auch es wer ir wo! wissentlich, das er in
geben hiet funfhundert gulden, da sprach der Lachuetlein und di uberrnazz, die ich mer awsgeben
hab, das werden wir wo! finden.“. (PT fol. 20v-21 r).
14 Margaretha, Wolfgang Albringerin’s (geb. Schoendl) will (03. 1 0 . 1 483): “ . . . ltem und des
ann.der tags nach datum des gescheffts ist mein brueder Cirfus Schoendl herkomen und ich
noch in leben und guter vemuft gewesen bin, hat er vor den geschefftlewten geredt und
gesprochen, daz er über das so im geschaft ist worden weiter hinfur zu unnser guten nymmeiner
wie die genant sey, nicht zwer zusprechen weil, noch meinem hawswirt in nichte darumb
angelanngen in dhainerlay weiß.“ (PT fol. 2 1 1 v-212r).
54 KATALINSZENDE
again, the purpose of the detailed, almost word-for-word quotation of the
conversation was to strengthen the probative value of this part ofthe will.
The most important participants of the will-making were those who were
theoretically no relations of the testator: the witnesses. Since most testators were
illiterate, or at least unable to put their dispositions i n writing on their deathbed,
the witnesses were responsible for the authentic transmission or even interpretation
of the testator’s words. Therefore their persons were both defined by law
and chosen in practice with the greatest care that the circumstances allowed. In
medieval urban law the testator’s signature or an autograph manuscript of a last
will had no legal validity. It was the testimony of the witnesses, the seals put on
the document and/or the entering in a town book that made a will valid.
A guarantee of the witnesses‘ credibility was that they had a sociaJ standing
at least similar to that of the testator. In towns, the choice of witnesses was also a
token of the autonomy of the place: preferably they were members of the local
council, although in case of an emergency, the testimony of „any two honest
settled men“ (i.e. houseowners) was accepted. 15 The witnesses were, according to
the words of the wi lls, asked by the testator to perform this duty (“ bey dem
geschafi gewesen sein und mit vleis darzu gepeten“16) Nevertheless, the frequent
occurrence of the same persons in the same year shows that the members of the
local council probably divided the tasks between themselves, so the testators had a
limited choice which was influenced by the testators‘ social standing as weil. The
Ieaders of the town: the mayor, the judge, the notary, the members of the council,
and those who had held those offices earlier during their lives usually asked the
acting mayor and judge to appear as witnesses; citizens living inside the town
walls invited members of the council, while inhabitants of the suburbs had to be
content with the testimonies of their neighbours or other acquaintances. Although
women were not excluded from appearing among the witnesses in theory (only
wills testified exclusively by women were not accepted), they seldom appeared in
that roJe. The few cases we know are rather from the rural than from the urban
context. As a rare and in every respect irregular example we can quote an instance
where the testator asked his molher to testify the will and to put her seal on the
document. 11
The roJe of the circumstances in the choice of witnesses can be illustrated
by those cases when two or more wills by the same testator have survived, the
later ones being supplements to the original text. fn none of these cases can we
15 Jenö Häzi: Sopran szabad kiralyi varos törtenete (The history of the free royal town of Sopron
[Source publications)), vol. 11/1 (Sopron: Szekely es tärsa, 1930) (henceforth: Häzi 11/1.), pp.
159-160: „das sachen zu gach und zu pald wem, so mag man nemen zwen oder mengem erber
gesessen leüt zu demselben geschcfft.“
16 Will of Katherina, Bart! Scharrach’s wife (30.09.1433, PT fol . 7v).
17 Gothart Hertel’s will (25.0 l . l 466) “ . . . hab ich gebeten den erben mann Hanns Zwentendorffer
mitburger zu Prespurg und Barbara [/sein leip/) mein leipliehe muter zu gezewgnus ir betschat
darauf druken in und im erben anschaden.“ (PT fol. 1 2 1 v).
TESTAMENI’S AND TESTIMONIES 55
find the same set of witnesses, even i f the second disposition followed the first
with only one day’s delay. Usually the witnesses of the additional wills had a
Iower social standing than those who testified the first time. Nevertheless, the testators
found it important to have at least one person (in most cases a cleric) who
was present on all occasions, whatever the difference in time between the wills.
Let me quote some examples: The cloth-merchant Niklas Leinbater from
Bratislava asked the mayor and a councilor to testify his first will on 28.05. 1 44 1 ; a
day later he made an additional will in the presence of a different councilor and
another citizen, while a canon of the col!egiate chapter of the town was present on
both occasions. 18 Hans Pagendorfer, also from Bratislava, made his first will on
3 . 1 0. 1462, in the presence of five men, and supplemented it four years later in
front of four witnesses from whom only one, Wolfgang Puechler, had listened to
the first will as wel1. 19 In the town of Sopron the merchant Michel Leinbater made
his first will on 12.07.1 476, in the presence of the parish priest of the town and
three members of the council, while five years later the same priest and a different
councilor were present.20 Another Sopron merchant, Hans Neuhoffer, emphasized
that one ofthe witnesses, Caspar Kramer, was asked especially because he knew a
great deal about the testator’s business and was present at the making ofthe will of
his first wife.21 Finally an example conceming more than two wills: Hans
Rechnilzer alias Graff, a wealthy merchant from Bratislava, made three wills
within only two days, 22. and 23.1 1 . 1467, ten days after his wife’s testament. The
first two, as weil as the wi fe’s will, were testified by the same canon. Beside him
in the first case there was a councilor whom the testator could not get (nicht
gehaben macht) for the second time, so – as he explained in the will – he asked his
confessor instead. But in the third instance, which took place on the same day as
the second, there was a different set of witnesses again: a Franciscan friar and
three citizens who had not been involved before. Of course, this time the testator
made generous bequests to the friary and the friar as well.22
One of the main considerations of urban legislation in connection with last
wills was to restriet the intluence of the church over the property of the citizens,
even if actions related to the inhabitants‘ death would have concerned the
ecclesiastical authorities. The question of witnesses was part of the rivalry between
town and church, and of the measures taken to protect the urban tax basis.
Town councils insisted that wills testi fied only by priests should not be considered
valid – as formulated in an ordinance of 1 4 1 8 from Sopron.23 As we shall see be-
1 8 PT fol. 37v-38r and 40v.
1 9 PT 20 fol . l 25v- 1 26r.
Häzi ll/1 , pp. 186-187 and 202-203 resp.
21 “ • • • nachdem der vorgemeldt Caspar Khramer vormall vill wayss meines handel und auch pey
meiner ersten hausfraun geschaffi ist gewesen.“ The testator also asked Caspar Kramer to give
22 advice to his wife on business and to be the guardian ofhis son. Häzi JI/1 . pp. 248-25 1 .
PT fol.l35r-1 40r.
23 See note I 5.
56 KATALIN SZENDE
low, the anxiety of the towns that the testators might be influenced by their
confessors or other priests on their deathbed was not without grounds, but the
same could be done by others present as weil: by their family; by the neighbours,
who were also often used as witnesses since they were familiar with the testator’s
circumstances; by their fel low-craftsmen, who were often present not only out of
compassion, but to represent the interests o f their guilds, and so on.
The initiative to make a will, since it was a voluntary arrangement, was
generally taken by the testator, but it probably happened more often than we hear
about it that he or she was instructed by Jaymen or clerics („habm si mich
untterweist die ersamen und geistlichen herren „) to do so.24 It was even more
usual to influence the course of will-making, for instance by asking the testator
whether he or she would like to leave something to a given person or institution.
In most of the documented cases the testators showed remarkable determination
not to change their original decision. For instance, Nielas Gutgesell (the same
testator who wanted to talk to his wife in private) refused to give anything to the
church, shifting the responsibility to his father-in-law to whom the property was
bequeathed through the will.25 A similar excuse was used i n the same year by
another testator as well.26 In another case the testator was reminded to give something
to her relatives, to which she answered that she deliberately wanted to will
her property away from the rest of her family.27
This recurring stubbomness28 may awaken our suspicion that mainly the
„unsuccessful“ cases were noted down in a way which was fairly close to the
24 The quotation comes from the inventory ofBälint Alföldi, who was a merchant and royal taxcollector
and owned houses both in Györ and Sopron. The quoted expression appears in the
middle of a Iist of movable and immovable property, explaining that he had to have an
overview of his property beforc bequeathing it. (Häzi II/I, pp. 233-235). The final text of the
will has not survived.
25 „Item also manten in die geschefftherren und der Lachutel zu dem paw zu Sand Mertin und zu
unser frawn in das tal oder zu andem paw, also anttvrort der Gutgesell, er hett ims nu geschaft
und vergeben seinem sweher so er wer sein nymer mochtig, was er da mit nu tuet oder tun
wolt, das stünd zu ain und wer auch sein guter will.“ (PT fol. 21r).
26 Martine Pemhertel’s will ( 1 1 .09.1 436) „ltem zu dem ander mal manten wir obgenante
gescheftherren den Martine, ob er ich wolt schaffen zu Sannd Merten oder anderswo hin, do
anttwurt er uns auf meinen herren den Lachutlein der würd wo I wissen, was er da mit thun so I,
der so I sein gantz mugig sein, was er da mit thun wirt.“ (PT fol. 24v).
27 Will of Katherina, Michel Stainbrecher’s wife (20.04. 1495): „ltem in besonderhait ist sy
verrnandt worden ob sy ymants mer wolt schaffen im freundten oder wem sy wollt, dorauf sy
kurtzlich geantwort hat Alles das uber das aber geschafl geschafft worden ist ledigklich frey
irm hausswirt Michel, hauss weingerten, varundhab und andern, damit zethun als er pillich sol,
und alle meine freundt dauon enterbt. (PT fol. 244v). 28
A case similar to the ones quoted above is mentioned from Vienna by Gerhard Jaritz, „Die
realienkundliehe Aussage der sogenannten ‚Wiener Testamentsbücher‘,“ in Das Leben in der
Stadt des Spätmiue/alters (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Mittelalterliche Realienkunde
Österreichs, 2. = Sb. Ak. Wien, phil-hist. Kl. 325 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977), p. 185: in 1 4 1 9 the Vienncse burgher Rudolf AngervelTEST
AMENT’S AND TESTIMON!ES 57
original conversation by the deathbed. The aim was probably to prove that the
witnesses had not neglected their duties, and that it was due to the testator’s obstinacy
that the will did not contain more of the expected bequests. Putting
pressure on the testator by reminding him ofhis duties must have been much more
common, but if the reminders proved successful it was enough to mention the
bequests themselves. Here again, rendering the will as closely as possible to the
oral form seemed to be a useful way of clearing the witnesses or members of the
family ofany suspicion of negligence.
In other cases, reference to conversations during or accompanying the
making of the will was intended to strengthen the probative value of the will. For
instance, in a butcher’s will his son ’s promise that the latter would pay half of his
father’s debts was quoted in detait.29 In another will the moral and material duties
of the executors were emphasized by a mother „speaking out“ to secure their care
for her children.30 A third example shows a saddler’s wife asking everyone present
at her will-making to convince the council that her busband was not guilty of
causing her death, and that they should not urge him to execute her will because
she knew that he was not able to do it at once.31 The custom of reading out the will
formulated by the bedside to the testator, to confirm that everything was noted
down accurately, appears sporadically from the second quarter of the sixteenth
century, but was made compulsory by law only in 1 7 1 5.32
The modern reader of these wills would naturally be interested to know
whether the details of oral culture in the wills really preserve the very words of
medieval people, but we shall never be able to answer this question accurately. It
is more important, however, to understand why contemporaries found it necessary
or useful to create an impression of live conversation. In some cases quoted above
der was asked three times if he wanted to leave something for the remedy of his soul,
apparently with a negative answer.
29 Georg Jandle the butcher’s will (29.03 . 1 508) „ltcm meinen sun Wolfganng Janndel den hab
ich zeredt gesetzt und dar.we durch frumm Jewt gefragt Als nemblichen vor her Wolfgang
Schäffler die zeit predigcr zw Sanndt Lorentzen und herr Peter Vasehang und Maister
Pangratzen Riemer ob er mit mir woll bezallen die geltschuldt die ich schuldig bin nach dem
als mir sein mueter auch geltschuldt gelassen hat als auffLXV f1 nach dem als er ererbt hat das
halb haws und denn halben weingarten als vormallen bemelt ist des hat er sich verwilligt
haJben taill der geltschuldt mit mir bezallen.“ (PT fol. 320r-v).
30 Anna, Wolfgang Phaffsteterin’s will ( 1 6.03. 1 5 1 1/02.05 . 1 5 1 1 ) „Auch ir viilieben geschefft
Herren bit ich euch mit vlcissigen gebeth last euch durch den willen Gottes meine liebe kinder
In trewen auff das allerpesst beuolhen sein dy armen waisen und all ding meines geschäffts
darzue ich euch In sonderhait geruefft und umb Gots willcn gebeten hab etc.“ (PT fol . 332r).
31 Will of A􀆖anna, Gilig Satler’s wife, 1 9. 1 1 . 1 502, Hazi ll/1, pp. 280-2 8 1 .
32 One o f the earliest examples from Bratislava comes lrom Steffan Päßler’s will ( I 0.02 . 1 530):
„solhen meinen letzten willen, wie es beschriben ist hie oben von wort zu wort vor mir
verlesen haben lassen“ Archiv mesta Bratislavy, Protocollum Testamentorum II. B IN-2, fol.
13r. For the later regulation see article 27: 1 7 1 5 in the C01pus Juris Hungarici (Budapest:
Franklin, 1 897).
58 KATAUNSZENDE
a likely reason could be suggested. We shall gain further insight into the use of
orality in the wills by examining how the procedure continued after the testator’s
death.
It was the duty of the witnesses and the closest relatives of the deceased to
report to the town council that a will had been made, usualty within a month after
the death. There were three main ways of doing so: by giving an oral account of
the testator’s dispositions,33 by formulating the will with the use of some written
notes made by the bedside; or to present a sealed document which was put into
writing in the testator’s presence or shortly after the event. The first volume of the
Protocol/um Testamenforum in Bratislava ( 1 4 1 4-1 529), which is even more
homogeneous than the so-called Testamentsbücher from Vienna since only wills
were entered into it, preserves several changes in the formal elements of testamentary
practice. To follow the shifts in the distribution of the three main ways of
reporting listed above, I have chosen three years from the beginning, the middle
and the end ofthe volume.34
1434 was the first year when the number ofwills entered was above ten. Out
of the fifteen wills from that year, five belonged to the „oral report“ type, five
were copies of sealed documents, and in the remaining five the formulation
suggested that the witnesses relied on some sort of written notes, so we may term
it a „transitional“ type. The choice between these formal variants was independent
of the gender or the family status of the testator: among those whose will was
reported in the oral form we can find a married woman, a widow and a married
man. The differences probably had more to do with the testator’s social standing
and need for literacy: the sealed charters reported in that year contained the wills
of two merchants, two councilors‘ wives and a canon, whereas among others the
will of Andre Zimmermann, the carpenter ofthe town, belonged to the transitional
type.
About half a century later, in I 4 8 1 , which was also a weil documented year
with 22 wills, the practice was much more unifonn. There was only one will based
on the oral presentation of the witnesses; in another case no seals were mentioned,
but with all the others, the texts of sealed charters were copied into the town book,
although some irregularities conceming the number and status of the witnesses
can be observed.
33 An example for the typical intoductory fonnula of such wills runs as follows. (will of
Katherina, Bartholome Scharrach’s wife, 30.09.1 433): „Es sint in unsenn ratt auf gestanden
die erbem weisen herrcn Martine Dynnan Burgennaister, Jost Lasport und Jorig Twrs, die zeit
all geschworen purger der Stat zu Prespurg, und habent uns offenlieh in bechant, das sy bey
dem gescheft gewesen sein und mit vleis darczu gepetcn der erbem frawen Katherina, des
ehern mans Partel Scharrach hawsfrawen . . . •·
34 Even if my intention was to choose years which werc probably representative because of a
relatively high number of wills, a more precise line of development can be demonstrated only
after a thorough, year-by-ycar analysis.
TESTAMENTS AND TESTIMONIES 59
Our last example comes from 1 5 2 1 , from the end of the volume. Surprisingly,
the process of standardization did not continue. In ten cases out of the eighteen
wills from that year, the formulation showed that the originals of the wills copied
into the book were sealed by the witnesses, but in seven cases there was no
mention of seals, even if otherwise these texts were not different from the other
ones. One sealed will has survived as an original and was not copied into the
Protocollum.35 Among the wills entered into the town book from this year, it is
worth noting that the mayor Friedrich Voyt wrote his testament hirnseif and sealed
it with his own sea1,36 whereas Mattha Reysnerin’s will Stands out because of its
exact dating: beside the date she also noted that her will was made at I I o’clock in
the moming.37
In our quest for the role of orality, the verbs and personal pronouns used in
the wills may also be worth examining. Our first impression is, however, that the
use of the two main variants, the first or third person singular was not completely
consistent. Therefore our remarks in this field can only be tentative and can rather
give ideas for a later, more thorough, linguistic analysis of the wills than any final
conclusions. The main trend seems to be that the first person singular, formulating
the will „in tbe testator’s own words,“ was used especially up to tbe 1 440s, when
the witnesses or the scribe formulated some notes by the testator’s bedside. From
the second half of the fifteenth century, the first person singular was in use rather
in wills of the „sealed charter“ type, and if only notes were made on the spot, the
final wording was made in the third person singular. The same formulation was
the most common also when the witnesses gave an oral presentation of the will, in
a form resembling indirect sp_eech. But very often the two forms were mixed. In
the first variant of this, the introductory and closirJg formulas are in the first
person singular and the main body of the will in the third person. The other way
was to compose an introduction, naming the testator, the witnesses, and the
circumstances in the third person, as if the scribe or notary formulating the will
was speaking, while afterwards the testator „took over the word“ in the first person.
This latter version was very frequent, for example, around the turn of the
fifteenth and sixteenth century in the town of Sopron, where all the wills from this
p eriod were preserved as separate charters.38
After someone’s death opening a will that was written, sealed, and
sometimes read out before sealing in the testator’s presence could be a moving experience.
Therefore it is understandable also from the emotional point of view that
the survivors tried to copy this by composing texts in the name of the deceased,
although this act could be somewhat paradoxical. ln some cases it resulted in quite
35 The will of Anroa, Hans Haberknapp’s wife, National Archives of Hungary, DF 243486.
36 PT fol. 398v-401r.
37 PT fol. 407r-v.
38 The two parallel series of town books of mixerl contents, into which the wills were also
entered from 1393 onwards, ceased to contain wills from the 1 480s. See Hazi lVI. passim.
60 KATALIN SZENDE
grotesque formulations when the testator was obviously „speaking after bis or her
death.“ For instance, in one of the examples quoted above the Iady whose brother
arrived the day after her will was rnade, was supposed to have said that he came
„while I was still alive and conscious.“39
The vocabulary of the wills presented as the testators‘ words also calls for a
more thorough analysis. lt is apparent that several phrases used in the texts are so
eloquent or so far from the spoken language that they could never have been uttered
by the testators, especially not on their deathbeds, often in severe pain and full
of concem.40 Even given the general tendency of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
century to prolong the formulaic parts of the wills – a trait pointing towards
the richness in words of all genres of baroque Iiterature – we can distinguish
degrees of elaborateness in the composition. The most likely explanation for these
differences is that the fonnulas were in accordance with the rank and wealth of the
testator – rnoreover, they were meant to reflect and record it for the future. The
services of the scribe or the notary could be bought,41 just like the number of
priests, schoolboys, or poor people who joined the procession of the testator’s
earthly remains. This is why so many pious prayers or theological thoughts were
put into the testator’s mouth in the arenga or the eschatocollum of the will. These
fonnulas, however, even if they were composed in the first person singular, could
hardly have been considered, even by contemporaries, as records of the testator’s
very words. In these parts of the wills the purpose of an obviously fictitious orality
was not to increase the validity of the text as a legal document but to enhance the
reputation ofthe person who was supposed to have uttered them.
Entering the wills into the town book or depositing and reading the original
document in front of the town council meant more than handing over the text for
safekeeping. As a consequence of the town’s autonomy and authority to proceed
in cases connected with the wills, the council assurned responsibility for their
execution. As part of this duty, the notaries sometimes entered into the same book
details of handling the case: the fulfillment of the dispositions or the eventual
disputes and the decisions about those. This led to further oral deeds being
recorded, which often became part of court cases – also an abundant source of the
39 Margaretha, Wolfgang Albringerin’s (geb. Schoendl) will (03.1 0.1483), see above note 14.
40 See, e.g., the closing fonnula ofa Michel Ernst, the baker’s will from Bratislava ( 1 4.04.1503):
„Dorumb pitt ich mein gescheft herren durch die lob dess pittem Ieidens Ihesu Cristi und durch
die ere und glory der Jungfraw Marie das sie meinen lesten willcn und gescheft nach Irer
vemuft und gewissen verfertigen alß sie dann belont worden von got in ewigkhait amen.“ (PT
fol. 294r-v).
41 The fees for noting down various kinds of documents were fixed by the local code-books, and
thosc who demanded more were fincd. E.g. chapter 50 ofthe Buda town 1aw (compiled around
1405) stated that the notary could demand 100 denars for putting a will into writing. Mollay:
Das Ofner Stadtrecht, p. 79. Still, it was always possible to bequeath something on top of this,
e.g. a silver spoon or other gifts, to secure better service. Also, the notary could find it more
appropriate to honour the Ieaders ofthe town with special care in the fonnu1ation.
TESTAMENTS AND TESTIMONJES 61
spoken ward in the Middle Ages and after, but which is outside the scope of the
present article.42
Orality and literacy in non-urban wills
The right of the nobility to dispose over their property by their own free will
goes back much further in time than that of the burghers, namely to the eleventh
century, the first century of Hungarian statehood. Nevertheless, because of the
stability of customary law, putting their wills into writing started to increase
among the nobles only from the late fifteenth century, but it never became as
widespread as among the burghers. As far as the form of the wills was concemed,
the most significant difference was that those of the nobility were much less standardized
and consistent than their urban counterparts. There was no local tradition
or established form they had to refer to, only the regulations of canon law were
kept in mind, but were seldom followed very strictly.
According to an analysis by Andras Kubinyi based on fifty wills from the
last decades of the medieval Hungarian state, the Jagellonian period ( 1 490-
1 526),43 there were very few wills issued as a charter by a body with an authentic
seal, and employing public notaries for this task was not common either. Often the
testators issued their will under their own seals. Signatures became more widespread
after 1 500: they appear on nine wills altogether (I 8%). The language used
was mostly Latin, with which the testators usually needed some assistance. From
the 1 5 1 Os onwards we also have some examples of the vemacular (Hungarian),
which could render the actual words of the testator more accurately. Witnesses
also played a less significant roJe than in urban wills: they were mentioned in less
than half the examined cases – more frequently in women’s wills than in men’s.
They were usually relatives, neighbours,fami/iares (noblemen of lower rank in the
service of aristocrats) and even servants or warnen, and especially clerics – but
hardly ever of higher rank than the testator. Their nurober was not controlled too
strictly: theoretically canon law would require seven persons, but for instance the
synodal decrees of the Yeszprem bishopric (Western Hungary) from 1 5 1 5
prescribed three, and i f a testament contained only pious bequests, two persans
were enough.44
Beside the witnesses, the testators also appointed executors who were
responsible for distributing the bequests, and tutors or protectors whose duty was
42 For a survey of the possibilities provided by legal records sce e.g. Adam Fox, „Oral and Iiterale
culture in early modern England: case studies from legal records,“ in Selvi Sogner (ed.), Fact,
Fielton and Fore11sic Evidence. The potential ofjudicial sources for historical resem·ch in the
early modern period. Tid og Tanke. Skriftserie fra Historisk institutt, Universitct i Oslo Nr.
211997′ pp. 35-52.
43 Andräs Kubinyi, „Föuri es nemesi vegrendeletek a Jagell6-korban“ (Wills of aristocrats and
nobles in the Jagellonian period), Soproni Szemle, 53 ( 1 999), pp. 3 3 1 -342.
44 See note 7.
62 KAT ALIN SZENDE
to defend the wills with their authority. Executors are also mentioned in urban
wills, but the protectors are unknown: in such cases the community as a whole
exercised protection over the wills. The protectors named by noblerneo were of
higher rank than the testators: aristocrats named the king, the queen, one or more
bishops, or the highest lay dignitaries of the country, while members of the lower
nobility appointed aristocrats for this task. These people were usually not present
when the will was made so they did not participate in the oral proceedings, but
were involved only through writing. So far no references have been discovered
that would indicate any real tasks connected with the protection of a will, although
the protectors were given precious bequests. It seems that this title was rather
meant to strengthen the political connections of the testator and his surviving
family with the leading circles of the country. Noblewomen, except for one
widow, did not follow this custom.
The majority of noble wills (60%) were written in the first person singular.
Some of these were, as the texts themselves indicate, formulated in the testators‘
name by confessors or other clerics, but with most testaments we do not know who
put them in writing, and sometimes it is even uncertain whose seal was put on the
document. Some wills were later transcribed by public notaries or chapters and
convents entrusted with notarial functions (loca credibilia), showing that the heirs
wanted to have a proper legal document at hand. 45
Wills of noblerneo and women were practically always formulated before
the testator’s death: we do not hear of cases of oral wills being put into writing
afterwards on the basis of witness testimonies. However, there were probably
some purely oral wills from which no traces are left unless they resulted in a court
case where the documents were recorded and preserved.46 Court cases over noble
wills were decided by ecclesiastical courts, which also collected the evidence,
basically oral testimonies of eye-witnesses ör those who knew something about
the deceased person ’s intentions, even if they were not present when the will was
made. Therefore these records are sources of „double orality,“ firstly what the
testator expressed as his or her will, secondly what the witnesses knew about the
will and its circumstances. The analysis of such documents would be worth a
separate study. Altogether we can see that in cases of noble wills both orality and
literacy were less standardized and regulated, unless they concemed landed
property acquired through inheritance or donation, the bequeathing of which
required royal consent.47
In the rural context – which, beside peasants‘ wills, involved inhabitants of
45 Kubinyi, „Föuri,“ pp. 3 3 1 -334.
46 An instructive examp1e: Andräs Kubinyi, „Egy kesö közepkori förangli hölgy vegrendelkezesenek
tanulsägai“ (The lessons of the will-making of a late medieval aristocratic Iady),
Törtenelmi Szemle, 39 ( 1 997), pp. 401-410.
47 György B6nis, Hüberiseg es rendiseg a közepkori magyar jogban (Feuda1ism and corporation
in medieva1 Hungarian law) (Ko1ozsvär (Ciuj], n.y. [ 1947)), p. 262 and Werböczy,
Tripartitum, Part II Titlc 1 3 .
TESTAMENTS AND TESTIMONIES 63
market towns who had a more urban Iifestyle, but the same legal standing as the
peasants, and to some extent the petty nobility whose economic basis did not exceed
a single plot in a viiJage – the oral tradition was much stronger than among
the nobles and institutionalized in a similar way as literacy was among the burghers.
Theoretically, villeins without any direct descendants were allowed to
dispose over only half of their acquired property, while the plots which they
farmed themselves and the other half of their properties reverted to the Jandlord.48
In practice, peasants could dispose over their property after having paid a certain
sum (mortuarium) to the Iandlord and to the church. If no will bad been made, and
there were no natural heirs, everything reverted to the owner of the village.
The custom of putting a will into writing reached the rural population
sporadically from the end of the fifteenth century and only a few wills survive
from individual settlements even from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In
written wills from rural areas it is much more difficult to make similar distinctions
as among the urban ones conceming the degree of orality. The two basic types
were the ones written on the spot and those compiled later on the basis of an oral
will. Nevertheless, in most instances, even if the will was reconstructed after the
testator’s death on the basis of oral testimonies, the formulation followed so
closely that of the primarily written ones that it is impossible to distinguish the
two unless the text contains a clause about the circumstances.49
Practically all the wills use the tirst persolo singular and forumlas which
would indicate that the text was following the testator’s words as closely as
possible. This pursuit of accuracy explains rhe important rote of the witnesses and
the precise records about them. Early modern examples from Western Hungary
show that at least three witnesses were always present, but their number was
usually higher, between five and seven, sometimes even up to eleven. All of them
were trustworthy local people, but many of them were illiterate, except for the
clerics, schoolmasters, or notaries who put the wills into writing. The witnesses
usually sealed the document with their own or a borrowed seal, while signatures
appeared only very sparsely and from the eighteenth century. Even towards the
end of this century witnesses often only put a cross on the paper as a sign of their
consent.50
The practice of putting primarily oral wills into writing after the testator’s
death continued in the countryside until modern times, but we can safely assume
that most of the oral wills were never written down. Even if we keep in mind that
part of the peasantry never acquired enough property to make it necessary to leave
a written will, we must calculate with a high proportion of oral testaments.
48 Werböczy, Tripartitum, Part III Titles 29 and 30.
49 J6zsefHorvath, „A falusi vegrendeletek forrnai es tartalmi sajatossagai a Nyugat-Dunantulon a
17-18. szazadban“ (Form and contents of rural wills in Western Transdanubia in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), Soproni Szemle, 53 ( 1 999). pp. 356-369.
50 Horvath, „A falusi,“ pp.359-363.
64 KAT ALIN SZENDE
Ethnographical research on mainly nineteenth- and early twentieth-century rural
wills has pointed out that oral testaments were considered just as valid as written
ones. This way of thinking was strengtherred by the fact that even around 1 900
about half of the rural population of Hungary was illiterate. Beliefs connected to
the dead, namely that if someone’s will was not followed, that person’s soul would
retum from the other world to take revenge, also supported this view.51 Parallel to
this, even written wills may contain curses upon those who do not act according to
the testator’s wish.
Sources from court cases also indicate that oral promises of bequests were
considered binding, and in case the survivors altered something about them, the
prospective heirs went to court over it.52 Such cases coincide with the Observations
from the market town of Kiskunhalas (on the Hungarian plain) from the 1930s
where most of the inhabitants, not feeling comfortable with fixed formulations,
used frequent oral repetition to dispose over their properties.53
Conclusions
The custom of making written wills in Hungary was an adaptation of preexisting
European pattems. Beside the long-term processes which resulted in the
spread of this custom, discussed in the first part of this article, which resulted in
the spread of this custom altogether, there were several practical and personal
factors which defined the actual implementation of the general principles: the
increasing bureaucracy in local administration; the experiences gathered by clerics
and lay notaries during their studies abroad; commercial family contacts with
regions with a more developed legal system; the growing wealth and more
differentiated material culture which resulted in more items to bequeath and more
prospective heirs expecting bequests. These and many other features combined to
produce the written wills which we can study today. In their complex form developed
over the centuries, they serve as the basis for answering the questions put
at the beginning of our survey.
Firstly, as far as the replacement of orality by literacy is concemed, the
examples quoted above show that the appearance of written wills did not obliterate
or even discredit their oral counterparts. The relationship between orality and literacy
was rather complementary than competitive. The growing demand for literacy
51 Emö Tarkäny Szücs, Magyar Jogi m!pszokasok (Hungarian folk customs in legal matters)
(Budapest: Gondolat, 1 9 8 1 ) , pp. 726-57.
52 Horväth, „A falusi,“ p. 360 quotes a case from the eightcenth century when György Sändor
from the village of Vörösbereny promised to bequeath a vineyard to the Franciscans. Later his
widow remarried to a Calvinist who sold this property after the woman’s death, but three men
from the village protested against the transaction, referring to the earlier oral deed „which one
ofthem had heared frequently.“
53 Läszl6 Papp, Kiskunhalas nepi jogelete (Legal customs of thc peasants of Kiskunhalas)
(Budapest, 1941 ), pp. 39-40.
TEST AMENI’S AND TESTIMONIES 65
in certain circles of a still mainly illiterate society was only one side of the coin.
Even if the testator’s wish was to put his or her will into writing, several oral
actions had to be performed both before, during, and after formulating the will in
order to have it executed. Furthermore, a great nurober of wills existed only in the
oral form. What writing replaced or extended was basically the scope of human
memory, especially when it came to testifying and controlling the testaments.
Secondly, as to the probative value of the spoken word, from the material
examined so far it seems that throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modem times
oral wills were accepted and fol lowed on a par with the written ones, provided that
enough trustworthy people knew about them. Moreover, there was not only one
kind of orality involved in connection with the wills. In the first place there were
the completely oral wills which we hear about only if a coun case arose over their
execution. Then, in the written wills there can be direct quotations of the words
uttered by the testator or other people by the bedside. Finally, in many cases the
wording of the wills reflects a sort of fictitious orality. Those who formulated the
wills often wanted to follow the model of live speech, to keep the written will
close to the oral version. ßoth of these latter forms prove the validity that contemporaries
attributed to the spoken word. We have seen above that the function
of inserting small dialogues into tbe will was to relieve the witnesses from any
accusation of acting negligently when the will was made. Similarly, being
formulated in the testator’s name after bis or her death also increased tbe
credibility of the will and gave the impression that the witnesses‘ report was
complete and correct.
Thirdly, defining whose interest the choice of formulation served requires a
brief consideration of the circumstances. The legal definition of a will is „a
unilateral and revocable disposition.“ The initiative for making a written will
certainly came from the testator, although · social patterns or pressure from the
prospective recipients, especially from the church, often played a rote as weil. lt
must have been a relief for the testator to know that the will was being put into
writing, and that the spiritual and the material contents of the dispositions were
safely under the control of the ecclesiastical or local administration. On the other
hand, maintaining the fiction of orality was rather in the interest of the survivors,
who by benefitting from the credibility given to the words of the deceased hoped
to avoid future disputes.
This article, with its limited geographical and chronological scope, can only
be a first tentative approach to the complex topic of orality and literacy in
medieval wills. Several studies have been devoted to the formal elements (the
outward appearance, the formulaic parts, etc.) and the legal background of testaments,
but the authors seidem extend their investigation to include the mentalities
behind the choices of formulation. Since wills were a universal phenomenon in
medieval Europe, it would be possible, and worth the effon, to make comparative
66 KATAUN SZENDE
studies in this field – to reveal both regional characteristics and individual attitudes.
54
54 I am greatly indebted to Finn-Einar Eliassen for improving the clarity of the text and for
expressing some ofhis doubts conceming its contents.
ORAL HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES
THE SPOKEN WORD IN CONTEXT
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XII
=
CEU MEDIEV ALIA
VOLU1vfE 3
Oral History of the Middle Ages
The Spoken W ord in Context
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
Krems and Budapest 200 1
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER ABTEILUNG
KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICIDSCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
niederästerreich kultur
copy editor: Judith Rasson
Cover illustration: The wife of Potiphar covets Joseph: “ … erat autem Joseph pulchra facie et
decorus apectu: post multos itaque dies iecit domina oculos suis in Ioseph et ait donni mecum.“
(“ … And Joseph was (a] goodly fperson], and weil favoured. And it came to pass after these
things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. „), Gen. 39:
6-7 (KJV). Concordantiae Caritatis, c. 1350. Cistercian abbey of Lilienfeld (Lower Austria), ms
151, fol. 244v (detail). Photo: Institut fiir Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit
(Krems an der Donau).
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 Hl94 15 6 (Krems)
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, without the permission of the Publishers.
Published by:
and
– ISBN 963 9241 64 4 (Budapest)
-ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA
Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung
der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-
3500 Krems. Austria,
Department ofMedieval Studies, Centrat European University,
Nador utca 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary.
Printed by Printself, Budapest.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………….. 7
Michael RICHTER, Beyond Goody and Grundmann ………. . . . . . . ………. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Tom PETTIIT, Textual to Oral: the Impact ofTransmission
on Narrative Word-Art …………………………………………………………………….. 1 9
Elöd NEMER!<.ENYI, Fictive Audience. The Second Person Singular in the Deliberatio ofBishop Gerard of Csanäd …………………………………………….. 3 9 Katalin SZENDE, Testaments and Testimonies. Orality and Literacy in Composing Last Wills in Late Medieval Hungary ……………………………. 49 Anna ADAMSKA, The Kingdom of Po land versus the Teutonic Knights: Oral Traditions and Literale Behaviour in the Later Middle Ages …………… 67 Giedre MICKÜNAITE, Ruler, Protector, and a Fairy Prince: the Everlasting Deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas as Related by the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites ………………………………… 79 Yurij Zazuliak, Oral Tradition, Land Disputes, and the Noble Community in Galician Rus‘ from the 1440s to the 1 460s ……………………………………… 88 Nada ZECEVIC, Ai􀃭tc; yA.uKeia. The Importance ofthe Spoken Word in the Public Affairs ofCarlo Tocco (from the Anonymous Chronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 108 lohn A. NICHOLS, A Heated Conversation: Who was Isabel de Aubigny, Countess of Arundel? …………………………… 1 1 7 Tracey L. BILADO, Rhetorical Strategies and Legal Arguments: ‚Evil Customs‘ and Saint-Florent de Saumur, 979- 1 0 1 1 …………………….. 1 28 Detlev KRAACK, Traces of Orality in Written Contexts. Legal Proceedings and Consultations at the Royal Court as Reflected in Documentary Sources from l21h-century Germany ……… 1 42 6 Maria DOBOZY, From Oral Custom to Written Law: The German Sachsenspiegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Martha KEIL, Rituals of Repentance and Testimonies at Rabbinical Courts in the 151h Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 64 Michael GOODICH, The Use of Direct Quotation from Canonization Hearing to Hagiographical Vita et Miracula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77 Sylvia ScHEIN, Bemard of Clairvaux ’s Preaching of the Third Crusade and Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Michael BRAUER, Obstades to Oral Communication in tbe Mission offriar William ofRubruck among the Mongois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Elena LEMENEVA, From Oral to Written and Back: A Sermon Case Study . . . . . . . . 203 Albrecht CLASSEN, Travel, Orality, and the Literary Discourse: Travels in the Past and Literary Travels at the Crossroad of the Oral and the Literary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 217 Ulrich MÜLLER and Margarete SPRJNGETH, “Do not Shut Your Eyes ifYou Will See Musical Notes:“ German Heroie Poetry („Nibelungenlied“), Music, and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Jolanta SZPILEWSKA, Evoking Auditory Imagination: On the Poetics of Voice Production in The Story ofThe Glorious Resurrection ofOur Lord (c. 1580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Jens T. WOLLESEN, SpokenWords and Images in Late Medieval Italian Painting . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 257 Gerhard JARTTZ, Images and the Power of the Spoken Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Preface Oral culture played an instrumental role in medieval society.1 Due to the Iack of any direct source evidence, however, research into the functions and importance of oral communication in the Middle Ages must confront a number of significant problems. Only indrect traces offer the opportunity to analyze phenomena that were based on or connected with the spoken word. The ‚oral history‘ of the Middle Ages requires the application of different approaches than dealing with the 201h or 2 151 century. For some decades Medieval Studies have been interested in questions of orality and literacy, their relationship and the substitution of the spoken by the written word2 Oral and literate culture were not exclusive and certainly not opposed to each other.3 The ‚art of writing‘ was part of the ‚ars rhetorica‘ and writing makes no sense without speech.4 Any existing written Statement should also be seen as a spoken one, although, clearly, not every oral Statement as a written one. Authors regularly wrote with oral delivery in mind. ‚Speaking‘ and ‚writing‘ are not antonyms. It is also obvious that „the use of oral conununication in medieval society should not be evaluated … as a function of culture populaire vis-a-vis culture savante but, rather, of thc communication habits and the tendency of medieval man 1 For the late Middle Ages and the early modern period, cf. Willern Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne i1 Ia fin du moyen äge et a l’epoque moderne: reflexions de theorie et de methode,“ in Kommunialion und Alltag in Spätmillefalter und fniher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 24: „La plupart de gens vivait encore pour l’essentiel dans une culture orale et !es procedes d’appropriation des idCes passaient de prefcrence par Ia parolc dite et ecoutee, quand bien memc on ctait capable d’une Ieelure visuelle plus ou moins rudimentaire.“ 2 See Marco Mostert, „New Approaches to Medieval Communication?“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), pp. 15-37; Michael Richter, “Die Entdeckung der ‚Oralität‘ der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft durch die neuere Mediävistik,“ in Die Aktualität des Miue/alters, ed. Hans-Werner Goetz (Bochum: D. Winkler, 2000), pp. 273-287. 3 Peter Burke calls the constrnct of „oral versus literate“ useful but at the same time dangerous: idem, „Mündliche Kultur und >Druckkultur< im spätmittelalterlichen Italien,“ in Volkskultur des europäischen Spätmittelalters, eds. Peter Dinzelbacher and Hans-Dieter Mück (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1987), p. 60. 4 Michael Clanchy, „lntroduction,“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), p. 6. 8 to share his intellectual experiences in the corporate framework.“5 Oral delivery was not „the sole prerogative of any socioeconomic class. „6 For all these reasons, it is important to analyze the extent of and context, in which ’speech acts,‘ auditive effects, and oral tradition occur in medieval sources .7 Research into the use of the spoken word or references to it in texts and images provides new insight into various, mainly social, rules and pattems of the communication system. 1t opens up additional approaches to the organization and complexity of different, but indispensably related, media in medieval society, and their comparative analysis.8 The spoken word is connected with the physical presence of its ’sender.‘ Speech may represent the authenticity of the given message in a more obvious way than written texts or images. Therefore, the use of ’speech acts‘ in written or visual evidence also has to be seen in context with the attempt to create, construct, or prove authenticity. Moreover, spoken messages contribute to and increase the lifelikeness of their contents, which may influence their perception by the receiver, their efficacy and success. Being aware of such a situation will have led to the explicit and intended use and application of the spoken word in written texts and images- to increase their authenticity and importance, too. lf one operates with a model of ‚closeness‘ and ‚distance‘ of communication with regard to the Ievel of relation of ’senders‘ and ‚receivers,‘ then the ’speech acts‘ or their representation have to be seen as contributors to a ‚closer‘ connection among the participants of the communication process.9 At the same time, however, Speech might be evaluated as less official. One regularly comes across ‚oral space‘ 5 Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei. Commwzication in the Middle Ages (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 19. 6 Ibidem, p. 21. Cf. also Jan-Dirk Müller, „Zwischen mündlicher Anweisung und schrifilicher Sicherung von Tradition. Zur Kommunikationsstruktur spätmittelalterlicher Fechtbücher,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 400: „Offensichtlich sind schriftliche und nichtschriftliche Tradierung von Wissen weiterhin relativ unabhängig voneinander, nachdem die Schrift längst dazu angesetzt hat, lnseln der Mündlichkeil oder praktisch-enaktiver Wissensvermittlung zu erobem. Die Gedächtnisstütze kann die Erfahrung nicht ersetzen, sendem allenfalls reaktivieren. Sie ist sogar nur verständlich, wo sie auf anderweitig vermittelte Vorkenntnisse stößt.“ 7 􀆿f. W.F.H. Nicolaisen, ed., Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages (Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1995). 8 See, esp., Horst Wenzel, Hören und Sehen, Schrift und Bild. K ultur und Gedächtnis im Mittelalter (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1995), passim. 9 See also Siefan Sonderegger, „>Gesprochen oder nur geschrieben?< Mündlichkeil in mittelalterlichen
Texten als direkter Zugang zum Menschen,“ in Homo Medietas. Aufsätze zu Religiosität,
Literatur und Denkformen des Menschen vom Mittelalter bis in die Neuzeit. Festschrift
for Alois Maria Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Claudia Brinker-von der Heyde and
Niklaus Largier (Bem e\ al.: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 665: „Jedenfalls darf man sich bewußt bleiben,
daß auch in den Texten des deutschen Mittelalters die Reflexe gesprochener Sprache eine
bedeutende Schicht ausmachen, die besonders dann immer wieder hervortritt, wenn es um
einen direkten Zugang zum Menschen geht, um einVerstehen aus unmittelbarer Partnerschaft
heraus … “
9
that has become institutionalized or more official by the application of ‚written
space.‘ 10 Simultanous employment of such different Ievels and qualities of
messages must often have had considerable influence on their efficacy.11
The papers in this volume are the outcome of an international workshop that
was held in February, 2001, at the Department ofMedieval Studies, Central European
University, Budapest. Participants concentrated on problems of the occurrence,
usage, and pattems of the spoken word in written and visual sources of the
Middle Ages. They dealt with the roJe and contents of direct and indirect speech in
textual evidence or in relation to it, such as chronicles, travel descriptions, court
and canonization protocols, sermons, testaments, law-books, literary sources,
drama, etc. They also tried to analyze the function of oral expression in connection
with late medieval images.
The audiovisuality of medieval communication processes12 has proved to be
evident and, thus, important for any kind of further comparative analysis of the
various Ievels of the ‚oral-visual-literate,‘ i.e. multimedia culture of the Middle
Ages. Particular emphasis has to be put on methodological problems, such as the
necessity of interdisciplinary approaches,13 or the question of the extent to which
we are, generally, able to comprehend and to decode the communication systems
of the past.14 Moreover, the medievalist does not come across any types of sources
in which oral communication represents the main concem.15 lnstead, she or he is
confronted, at first glance, with a great variety of ‚casual‘ and ‚marginal‘ evidence.
We would like to thank all the contributors to the workshop and to this
volume. Their cooperation made it possible to publish the results of the meeting in
the same year in which it took place. This can be seen as a rare exception, at least
in the world of the historical disciplines. The head, faculty, staff, and students of
the Department of Medieval Studies of CentTal European University offered
various help and support. Special thanks go to Judith Rasson, the copy editor of
10 This, e.g., could be weil shown in a case study on thc pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela:
Friederike Hassauer, „Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeil im Alltag des Pilgers am Beispiel der
Wallfahrt nach Santiago de Compostela,“ in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher
Neuzeit, eds. Gerhard Jaritz and Barbara Schuh (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1992), pp. 277-316.
11 Cf. Bob Scribner, „Mündliche Kommunikation und Strategien der Macht in Deutschland im
16. Jahrhundert,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed.
Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1992), pp. 183-197.
12 Wenzel, Hören rmd Sehen, p. 292.
13 Cf. Ursula Schaefer, „Zum Problem der Mündlichkeit,“ in Modernes Miuelalter. Neue Bilder
einer populären Epoche, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Insel Verlag,
1994), pp. 374 f.
14 Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne,“ p. 25: „Sommes-nous encore en mesure de
communiquer avec Ja communication de jadis?“
1􀅄 Michael Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur mündlichen
Kommunikation in England von der Mit te des elften bis zu Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts
(Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1979), p. 22.
10
this volume, who took particluar care with the texts of the many non-native
speakers fighting with the pitfalls of the English language.
Budapest, Krems, and Constance
December 200 I
Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter