Conflict Resolution and Punishment in Hungarian Medieval Lawsand in Practice

Tomáš Gábriš1

Introduction

In previous scholarship it was often supposed that theregulations comprised in the statutory law of Árpádian rulersactually represent a valid legal practice of conflictresolution during the first three centuries of the existence ofHungarian Kingdom (1000 – 1301 AD). However, modern scholarshiprealized that the first legislative attempts may not haveserved to regulate actual situations, but were rather onlymeant to follow the general medieval patterns of “what aChristian ruler should do” – namely to issue a code of law.Extant charters as sources on actual legal practice namely showa different picture of the practice of conflict resolution andpunishment in comparison with the laws of the first rulers ofHungary. They report a higher number of extrajudicialsettlements and lack of any corporal punishment, which is inharmony with the outcomes of research of scholars from theWestern Europe.

It is true, however, that information is only availablefor the free layer of feudal Hungarian society. Information islacking on what happened in the proto-towns and villages andamong slaves and bondsmen of the period.

We assume that prevalence of extrajudicial conflictresolution and the lack of corporal punishment were also causedby a special status of the emerging Hungarian nobility with itsbroad autonomous rights. As the immediate superior authority ofthis social group was the King whose court was far away,freemen (later nobles) had to settle their disputes bythemselves within their autonomous organizations, counties,which evolved since the beginning of the thirteenth century. Inthis situation of a relatively equal position of an offenderand a victim, corporal punishment was not a solution. Instead,

1 Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovak Republic, Faculty of Law, Department of Legal History.The paper was written within the project „Cultural and religiousdifferences, migration and human rights“, no. 1/0507/12, financed by theVEGA Slovak Republic.

1

compository payment was imposed with the aim to restore peaceand justice.

1. Sources

As a basis for this research, reports on differentpunishments in statutory law and in practice were used, imposedby both official judges and other persons (such as arbitratorsand mediators) who intervened in the process.

1.1 Primary Sources

The contribution is based on several types of primarysources. It is mainly (1) charters derived from the activity oftrustworthy places (a type of notarial office in medievalHungary), royal court or offices of highest officials, (2)Register of Oradea (Várad) as a source of information on thepractice of ordeal by hot iron, (3) chronicles and legends asnarrative sources, and finally (4) law codes from the period ofÁrpádian Hungary.

Secondary literature, which was used, provides arelatively comprehensive overview of mainly English and German-speaking bibliography on this subject, which gave us atheoretical basis for research of primary sources, and alsooffered us broad comparative material.

When researching the charters, we used Wenzel´s edition ofcharters,2 Szentpétery´s registry of charters for the period ofÁrpádian kings,3 Slovak collection of charters issued by R.Marsina,4 and a digital collection of charters kept with theHungarian National Archives (MOL).

Wenzel´s edition contains a total of 3,858 charters,mostly of official provenance. This is about a fifth of thetotal 14,718 documents surviving from the period of Árpádian

2 WENZEL, Gusztáv (ed.): Codex diplomaticus arpadianus continuatus, vol. 1-13. Árpádkori ÚjOkmánytár 1-13. Pest, 1860-1874. Reprint Pápa, 2001 (hereinafter referred toas „CDAC“). 3 SZENTPÉTERY, Imre: Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. I. Budapest,1923; SZENTPÉTERY, Imre – BORSA, Iván: Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. II/2-3. Budapest, 1961; SZENTPÉTERY, Imre – BORSA, Iván: Regestaregum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. II/4. Budapest, 1987 (hereinafterreferred to as „RRSA“).4 MARSINA, Richard (ed.): Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae. I, II. Bratislava :VEDA, 1971, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as „CDSl“).

2

Hungary. The authenticity of the charters used in this paperwas verified using the edition of R. Marsina, registry of I.Szentpétery, and digitalized documents in the collections ofthe DL-DF MOL. We have thus reached a point, where a part ofthe Wenzel´s charters can be regarded as confirmed andreliable, and on the other hand, the rest of documents that wefailed to identify in Marsina´s edition, in the Registry ofSzentpétery, or in the collections of DL-DF MOL, represent asecond set of documents which, although quoted and used in thiswork, raise doubts on their relevance. In case of documents theauthenticity of which has been verified, this is specificallynoted in the footnote, with reference to the relevant record inMarsina´s edition, Szentpétery´s registry or inventory numbersin the DL-DF MOL. In case of the second group of documents,there is only a reference to Wenzel´s edition included. Despitethe use of quantitatively restricted editions, further narrowedby the critical approach to individual documents, we believethat even such limited analysis allows us to reveal the basicfeatures of the practice of conflict resolution among membersof the free layer of society during the Árpádian period ofHungarian history.

The Register of Várad from the years 1208 – 1235, used asanother primary source, represents Europe-wide a valuablesource of knowledge on the so-called God's courts, i.e.ordeals. For this analysis, we used an older, but respectededition by J. Karácsonyi and J. Borovszky.5 It not only recordsthe course of the ordeal, but sometimes even the whole dispute,including the outcome (which is rather rare, though). Of the389 entries,6 only 20 cases do not contain a report of anydispute.

Attention was devoted to the Register by numerous authors,including Czech and Slovak authors, but this literature israther old,7 with a recurring idea of ordeals being used5 KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.): Regestrum Varadinenseexaminum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum descripta effigie editionis A. 1550 illustratumsumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit. Budapešť : Hornyánszky, 1903.6 Out of which in 348 cases, ordeal by hot iron was used according toBartlett´s calculation. BARTLETT, Robert: Trial by Fire : The Medieval Judicial Ordeal.Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1999, p. 63.7 E.g. RAUSCHER, Rudolf: O registru varadínskem - k dějinám božích soudů vUhrách. In: Bratislava, 3, 1929, p. 307-326. ZAJTAY, Imre: Le registre deVarad : Un document judicaire du XIIIe siècle. In: Revue d´histoire du droit, 4,32, 1954, p. 527-562. Overview of literature was offered in 1933 by J.Kapras: KAPRAS, Jan: Soudy boží vodou a ohněm v českém právu. In: Sborník věd

3

already in the pre-Hungarian period, which is not surprising,by the way, should one consider that the ordeals were practicedalso by the Charlemagne. The Czech Chronicle of Dalimil (from1309) also mentions ordeal in the context of Great Moravianprince Svätopluk (9th Century), namely speaking of “evidence bythe sword”, i.e. trial by duel.8 Unlike domestic scholars,foreign scholarship is still interested in the Register.Recently, attention was paid to the Register by Brown,9

Bartlett,10 Caenegem,11 Sweeney12 and others.13 They only exploredsome specific aspects of this rare source, though. Brown thusnotes that the crimes that are mentioned in the Registerindicate backward economy compared with other areas of Europe,where the ordeal in this period has gradually ceased to bepracticed.14 Bartlett also correctly notes that it isimpossible to say unequivocally whether the number of caseswritten down in reported years (1208-1235) is high or low,since there is nothing to compare with. No other similar recordsuch as Register exists. There are, however, incidental records– e.g. in English sources. On the basis of references in theDomesday book, Bartlett thus voices a basic difference in thatthe ordeal was used in England only exceptionally in case ofproperty disputes,15 while in Hungary it was a very common way

právních a státních, XXXIII, 1933.8 DAŇHELKA, Jiří et al.: Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila. Chapter 26.Prague : Academia, 1988.9 BROWN, Peter: Society and the Supernatural: A Medieval Change. In: Societyand the Holy in Late Antiquity. Ed. Peter Brown. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1982, pp. 302-332.10 BARTLETT, Robert: Trial by Fire, pp. 63, 128-129.11 CAENEGEM, Raoul C. van: La preuve dans le droit do moyen âge. In: Recueilsde la Société Jean Bodin pour l´histoire comparative des institutions, 17, 1965, p. 691-753.Tr. James R. Sweeney and D. A. Flanary as Methods of Proof in WesternMedieval Law. In: Academiae Analecta, Medelingen van de Koniklijke Academie voorWetenschappen, Letteren en schone Kunsten van Belgie, 45, 1983, pp. 83-127.12 SWEENEY, James R.: Innocent III, Canon Law and Papal Judges Delegate inHungary. In: Popes, Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages. Ed. James Ross Sweeneyand Stanley Chodorow. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1989, p. 51.13 HYAMS, Paul R.: Trial by Ordeal: The Key to Proof in Early Common Law.In: On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thorne. Ed. Morris S.Arnold et al. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1981, pp.90-126. 14 BROWN, Peter: Society and the Supernatural: A Medieval Change, p. 324 ff.Quoted in BARTLETT, Robert: Trial by Fire, p. 63, footnote 87.15 Bartlett calls attention to BIGELOW, Melville M.: Placita Anglo-Normannica.London : Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1879.

4

of resolving property disputes. Using statistical methods,Bartlett also points to the decline in the use of this methodof dispute resolution in Hungary during the 13th Century.16

Legends and chronicles are another significant source ofknowledge of dispute resolution practice, although mostly theyonly contain references to the conflicts in relation to thesovereign, therefore, describe only one type of disputeresolution – the vertical one. This is understandable giventheir goal – glorification of the (holy) Ruler. Other reportedcases – of horizontal conflict resolution – are only limited innumber. In this paper, we used a shorter legend of King St.Stephen.17

When analyzing the Hungarians laws, we used the bilingualLatin-English edition prepared by a team led by János M. Bak.18 For the period of Árpádian Hungary, particularly the firstvolume of this edition is relevant, which contains codes anddecrees of the first Árpádian kings. It remains doubtful,however, to what extent the rulers were able and willing toenforce the application of these laws in daily practice. Wehave no evidence on their actual use. At least in the royalcourt they remained known, though, as evidenced by latermonarchs´ reference to these laws. Confusingly, however, theyoften report paragraphs which are not found in the survivingtexts of these laws. Explanation is only possible by theexistence of different versions of these laws.

1.2 Critique of the Primary Sources

Regarding the individual types of sources used, one mustconclude that the investigated sources on actual practice(charters and Register) show no similarity with any code oflaws of the Árpádian period, perhaps with the exception of thefact that also in practice there occurs the death penalty,fines, and punishment of shaved head, respectively of cuttingthe hair. Even from a linguistic point of view, there does not

16 BARTLETT, Robert: Trial by Fire, p. 129.17 Translations into Slovak language: MARSINA, Richard (ed.): Legendystredovekého Slovenska. Budmerice : RAK, 1997.18 BAK, János M. – BÓNIS, György – SWEENEY, James R. (ed. et tr.): The Laws ofthe Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Vol. 1, 1000-1301. Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae. Tom.1, 1000-1301. The Laws of Hungary Series I: 1000-1526. Vol. 1: 1000-1301.The Laws of East Central Europe. 2nd rev. ed. Idyllwild, CA : CharlesSchlacks, Jr., 1999.

5

seem to be any linguistic or terminological impact of laws onthe practice as reported in the Register and charters. Laws arenot at all invoked in the charters or in the Register. Even ifone comes across the term “statuta Regni”, its content does notcoincide with any extant laws. Only very rarely, in the caseno. 317/1220,19 reported in the Register, an edict of KingAndrew II. is mentioned, concerning the restoration of occupiedland. The original wording of the edict is, however, notpreserved, and in the process of resolving this dispute, theedict was not used at all in the end.

Therefore, it seems one can not infer actual practice fromthe wording of laws, but only from the sources on realpractice, i.e. from charters and the Register. Legends andchronicles can serve only to illustrate the overall image. Thisis the approach of the so-called new historicism thatconcentrates on actual practice rather than on the major worksfrom royal and archbishop´s courts. It is also the approach weare using in this paper, since we take for granted that theimportance of laws (and chronicles) was overestimated in theresearch of the 19th and 20 Century, being considered assources of knowledge on actual practice. Actual practice,however, in fact did not follow the wording of laws, andrepresented a somewhat separate system, which is the subject ofour research in this paper. Perhaps one could speak ofreconstruction of a customary system as an expression of valuesthat were repeatedly reflected in the actual dispute resolutionof the period.

Legislative efforts of the Árpádian Kings, introducing newrules of behaviour, stand in opposition to the tradition andstability of “the good old custom”. Laws of the first Kings areindeed largely characterized by discontinuous and revolutionarychange in the traditional patterns of behavior. This was doneby a transposition of foreign legal models. In particular, thelaws of St. Stephen (based upon an analysis by LeventeZávodszky from the early 20th Century20) show numerous examples

19 Dating is probably incorrect, since the edict is from 1221, but the caseis written down under 1220: „anno Dominicae Incarnationis mille CC XXI cum esset edictuma rege Andrea, quod terrae castrorum, a quocunque violenter occupatae castris restituentur…“KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.): Regestrum Varadinenseexaminum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum descripta effigie editionis A. 1550 illustratumsumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit.20 ZÁVODSZKY, Levente: A szent István, szent László és Kálmán korabeli törvények és zsinatihatározatok forrásai. Budapesr : Szent-István-Társulat Tud. És Irod. Osztálya,

6

of borrowing legal institutions from abroad. These are mainlythe canons of the Synod of Mainz (847), of Meaux (845), ofIngelheim (948) of Rome (1078), chapters of Pope Hadrian I.(785), false pseudo-isidorian decretals, decree of the kingChildebert (596), capitularies of the Charlemagne (789), Saxoncapitularies, capitulary de Missis (802), the conclusions ofthe council of Chalcedon (455), of Trullo (691-692), of Mainz(888), of Coyanza (1050), Melfi (1090), standards of LexBaiuvariorum, Rothar´s edict, or the Lex AlemannorumCarolina.21

Based on this, it is appropriate to question whether thelaws were designed to actually influence the Hungarianpractice, or whether in fact it was only a specific literarygenre the promulgation of which was considered necessary inassociation with Christian rulers of the period, building theChristian empire. The laws´ primary mission may have beenmerely to enshrine the fundamental values, expressed in acasuistic manner, since the contemporary way of thinking wasnot used to abstraction. This would explain the apparentdiscrepancy (but in fact a harmony in values) between the lawsand daily practice as reflected in the charters and in theRegister.

2. The Objects of Disputes – Values Protected in Laws and inPractice

The core of each dispute comprises particular issues andvalues, such as property, human life and health, public orderand morality, etc. Although the daily practice as reconstructedfrom the Register and from the charters shows a different worldfrom the one laid down in laws, what they share in common isthe protected interests, hence the values behind the disputes.

2.1 Property

Protection of property interests takes a prominent placein the sphere of conflict resolution. A classic example ofprotecting the proprietary interests is the liability for thedamage caused. Expression of this liability in cash either as a1904. 21 Cf. BAK, János M. – BÓNIS, György – SWEENEY, James R.: The Laws of theMedieval Kingdom of Hungary 1000-1301. Authors have identified many more sourcesand patterns.

7

fine (birsagium), or in the form of a compositional payment(homagium, wergeld), points to the importance attached to theownership and property – both as a protected interest, and as ameans of punishment and compensation for offenses – in the formof land, servants, animals and money.

It was already the King Stephen I., who imposed fines(pecuniary penalties) in case of theft committed by a freeman22 or a married woman.23 Similarly, in the case of propertydamage caused by arson, a house was to be rebuilt and theoffender had to pay compensation expressed in animals andmoney.24

King Ladislas I., from whom the second group of Árpádianlaws originates, protects in his laws the property evenstricter than St. Stephen. He even anticipated death sentencesin cases of theft,25 or in case of buying and selling stolenproperty.26 In other cases, he foresaw the corporal punishmentof cutting the nose off for theft perpetrated by dependentbondsmen27 or by a married woman.28 From other examples,Ladislas imposed the penalty of blinding upon a thief broughtfrom asylum in the church,29 or blinding a fled slave.30 UnlikeSt. Stephen, Ladislas thus did not punish property offensesonly by property penalties, but on the contrary, often assumedthe corporal punishment and the death penalty. However, itseems that the practice tended more to the sanctions in theform as assumed by Stephen I., i.e. expressed in property.

The laws of King Coloman continued in the moderate way –the punishment for unauthorized usurpation of a foreignproperty was forfeiture of one´s own object of property of thesame value, and a fine on top of it.31 Coloman also imposedfine for selling fled slaves below their value, or selling abag of grain at a price lower than five pensae.32 Residents of a

22 Stephen II: 7.23 Stephen I: 31.24 Stephen I: 32.25 Ladislas II: 1, Ladislas II: 2, Ladislas II: 12, Ladislas II: 14,Ladislas III: 8, Ladislas III: 10.26 Ladislas II: 7.27 Ladislas II: 2, Ladislas II: 10,.28 Ladislas III: 6.29 Ladislas II: 12.30 Ladislas II: 13.31 Coloman: 32.32 Coloman: 44.

8

village, where a horse was lost,33 had the collectiveliability34 for damage, once they did not reveal the actualperpetrator. Thus, in Coloman´s laws, again the concept ofproperty penalties dominates.

Examination of charters shows that from among the crimesenvisaged in the laws of the first kings, in practice one canencounter particularly the arson – for instance the Chapel ofSt. James was burnt down and further damage was caused in 1220,where a judge ordered the offender to pay a compositorypayment.35

A rare parallel to Árpádian laws may be identified also inthe case of disputes concerning social status, which couldbring a material loss to the landlord. Based on a charter from1237, the Palatine (deputy of the King), condemned the servantsfighting for their liberty in a dispute against the abbot, tohave their heads shaven.36 This punishment is also found in theColoman laws.37

Similarly, the Várad Register contains a reference underwhich a person convicted of theft was punished by being soldinto slavery with his family, for 10 talents,38 which is a typeof punishment laid down already in Ladislas´ and Coloman´slaws.

Slaves were also protected as an object of property – theVárad Register under no. 343/1220 refers to a case when Stephencaught his lost slave named Morodech in the household of Bensain the village of Tura. Bensa claimed Morodech was a slave ofhis sister. Dispute was to be resolved by the arbitrators –count Dominic and Beluš. When neither party managed to presentsufficient evidence, the appointed judges (sic!) sent the

33 Coloman: 63.34 Collective liability is a typical feature emerging also in Polish andRussian laws of the period.35 „…adiudicavimus secundum comparationem terre Abbatis, de terra illorum assignari tantundem, sihaberent; et si non haberent, pro illa terra et talionem et pro dampnis illatis in ipsa terra, de rebus velde personis eorum redderentur XXX et V marcae…“ CDAC, vol. 1, 1220, charter no. 92.36 „...condemnavimus eos ad abrasionem capitis eorum, et pro dampnis maioribus illatis eidemAbbati per ipsos udvornicos condemnavimus eos in decem marcis, medietatem pristaldo nostroDyonisio de Toh; et per eum ipsas terras metis certis distingui praecepimus saepe dicto Abbati SanctiMartini.“ CDAC, vol. 2, 1237, charter no. 36.37 Coloman: 41.38 54/1213; the same is true for case no. 257/1220. KARÁCSONYI, Joannis –BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.): Regestrum Varadinense examinum ferri candentis ordinechronologico digestum descripta effigie editionis A. 1550 illustratum sumptibusque capituliVaradinensis Lat. rit.

9

parties accompanied by a pristaldus named Albert to a trial byhot iron in Várad. There, the parties agreed that Stephen willpay to the said Bensa 22 pondera, and Bensa will give him backthe slave and not ask from Stephen anything of the slave´sdescendants and kin.39

From among many other cases of property disputes, whichare recorded in the Register of Várad, one may specificallymention frequent occurrence of theft of domestic animals (oxen,sheep, horses, pigs), but also robbery, looting and arson. Forexample, in case no. 2/1208, Simon sued Medea, Farkas andLuduger that they used violence and kidnapped his two maids –Mary and Daraga (“expensive”), 8 oxen, 30 sheep and one horse.Tumpaica, count of the king's messengers, estimating the valueof looted property at 10 talents, and sent the disputingparties accompanied by a pristaldus Duntia, to the ordeal byhot iron. There, the parties agreed that Medea, Farkas andLuduger pay 1.5 talents to Simon, and also pay the judge. Onthe other hand, Simon was to pay to the pristaldus.40

To conclude, the importance of property is expressed andbroadly protected by the laws of the first kings, and at thesame time it is also protected in practice.

2.2 Human Life, Liberty and Physical Integrity

Human life, health and social status were extensivelyprotected in the laws of the first Hungarians kings.

King Stephen in his laws, just like in case of theprotection of property interests, also in laws protecting humanlife and health, applied the mirror-based punishments. E.g., heimposed the death penalty for murder by sword41 or the attempt

39 „Stephanus de villa Thepa, cepit servum suum fugitivum, nomine Morodeku, apud Bensam de villaTura. Qui Bensa respondit eundem servum fuisse sororis suae, novercae ipsius Stephani coramarbitris scilicet: Dominico comite et Belus. Sed cum neutra pars sufficiens testimonium possetadducere, nominati iudices per pristaldum, nomine Albertum, ad examen ferri candentis miseruntWaradinum, ubi talis inter eos facta est conventio, quod praefatus Stephanus praefato Bensa daretviginti et duo pondera, Bensa vero et servum fugitivum redderet, et nichil de cognatione servi illiusa Stephano requireret.“ Ibid.40 „Simon de villa Siptul, impetiit Medeum, Forcasium et Ludugerum, de villa Botcu, dicens, quodduas pedisequas eius, scilicet Mariam et Daragam, et octo boves aratores et triginta oves et unumequum violenter ei abstulissent. Tumpaica curialis comes praeconum regis, ablata decem marcisappretians, misit illos per pristaldum nomine Duntia de villa Chegyen ad iudicium ferri candentisWaradinum; ubi taliter convenerunt, quod Medea, Forcasius et Ludugerus darent Simoni marcam etfertonem, et iidem iudici satisfacerent, partem autem pristaldi Simon persolveret.“ Ibid. 41 Stephen II: 11.

10

of murder.42 On the other hand, in the first book of his laws,and also separately in case of murder performed in other waythan by sword, he proceeded more moderately: for the murder,110 pensae43 were to be paid, out of which 50 were to be paidinto the royal treasury, 50 to the relatives of victim, and 10to arbitrators and mediators. In contrast, mutilation assumedmutilating punishment,44 but again, if the wounds were causedby a sword, only a payment of the composition in an amountequal to murder (i.e., 110 pensae) was to be paid.45 Apparentlyit was assumed that the murders and injuries by the sword wereperpetrated by higher social classes, which should not bepunished by mutilation but rather by financial penalty.Finally, in case of an attack against the social status of aperson, Stephen imposed only a pecuniary penalty.46

Saint Ladislas proceeded again stricter than Stephen – e.g. attacking people searching for lost or stolen property wasto be punished by a death penalty.47 On the other hand, murderby a sword (by a person of higher status) was not to bepunished by death penalty – a murderer who used a sword, shouldhave been imprisoned and his property should have been dividedinto three parts. Two-thirds were to be given to the relativesof the victim (representing a composititory payment) and theremaining one third should have been given to the spouse andchildren of the perpetrator.48

Finally, King Coloman did not introduce any originalprovisions protecting life and physical integrity, respectivelythere is no major difference in comparison with the previouslaws.

As far as the charters reporting disputes about life, bodyand social status are concerned, one may find many examples ofsuch disputes – as an example one can offer the case ofdestruction of property, theft, kidnapping and murder from1297. Count Bither in this case alleged that count Stephen,along with accomplices attacked Bither´s village with armedhand, caused him property damage of 50 talents, and kidnappedtwo iobagiones Petrik and Encik, who have been murdered

42 Stephen I: 16.43 Stephen I: 14.44 Stephen II: 3.45 Stephen II: 16.46 Stephen I: 22.47 Ladislas II: 5, Ladislas III: 13.48 Ladislas II: 8.

11

subsequently. Moreover, Stephen´s accomplices returned to thevillage and took by force everything that was left.49

To sum up, life, liberty and bodily integrity wereprotected both in laws and in practice.

2.3 Public Order

The concept of public order represents an interest inavoiding public disorder, brawls, robbery in the roads, andmoral trespasses. Public order in the Árpádian Hungary shouldhave been secured primarily by the individual communities, andonly if these were not able to enforce the order, or the breachwent beyond the boundaries of the community, a higher authorityshould have intervened.

Public order on the whole-country-level could have beendisrupted e.g. in the case of an attack against the sovereignor against the interests of the country – this was called anoffense of infidelity (nota infidelitatis).50 E. g., St. Stephenenvisaged death penalty for the betrayal of the king andkingdom,51 and for any intrigues against the count as the royalofficer.52 A specific example of a breach of public order, inwhich damages were sought by redress to the sovereign, ismentioned in the Shorter legend of King St. Stephen:

“Sixty men (Pechenegs), which I mentioned earlier, crossed the border from Bulgariato Pannonia with carts loaded with gold, silver and various other objects. But manyevil servants of the king stopped them, pierced some of them by a sword and tookthem all, leaving them dead and half-dead. Those who remained alive, trusted the49 „Damus pro memoria, quod Comes Bither filius Miko personaliter astando contra ComitemStephanum filium Martini similiter personaliter comparentem, in figura iudicii egerit coram nobis talimodo: Quod hoc anno feria secunda proxima post festum Pasce Domini idem Comes Stephanus cumGuda, Thoma de Sancta Cruce, Paulo, Welich, Mathe et Gold, servientibus suis ad villam suam Zilnavocatam armatis manibus veniendo destruxisset, dampnum quingentarum marcarum in ipsadestruccione eidem faciendo, duos etiam iobagiones suos, scilicet Petrik, et Enchik vocatus in eademvilla captivasset, captivatosque secum abduxisset, occidi eosdem faciendo; adiecit etiam, quod incrastino facta destructione iidem Guda, Thomas, Paulus, Welich, Mathe et Gold revertentes, omnia,quae in ipsa villa post destructionem eorumdem remanserant, violenter recipiendo abstulissent.“CDAC, vol. 5, 1297, charter no. 120.50 These crimes were later listed in the decree of Matthias Corvinus andsubsequently in the Stephen Werbőczy´s Opus Tripartitum I:14. Cf.LACLAVÍKOVÁ, Miriam – ŠVECOVÁ, Adriana: Pramene práva na území Slovenska I. Odnajstarších čias do roku 1790. Trnava : Typi Universitatis Tyrnaviensis, 2007, pp.209-210. 51 Stephen II: 2. 52 Stephen II: 12.

12

(righteous) justice of the king and continued the journey to him (to tell him), whatthey suffered, and when they came to him, they fell to their knees. When (the king)saw this, he asked what bad had happened. "Our Lord," they said, "we, yourservants, we have done nothing wrong, we come to hear your judgment and decision(because) by hands of some (bad people) without any reason, we have been deprivedof money that we have carried with us. In addition, some were killed and we, barelyalive, come to you to report on this." A wise king restrained from threatening by sightor words, but keeping how it is written, wise spirit, "kept (it) continuously" … andquickly sent for the commander, under whose command were (the mentioned badpeople), and ordered that on the appointed day all the men come before him,(responsible) for the misdeed. Then he addressed them, saying, "Why do you haveexceeded the law and commandments of God, you were not merciful, and sentencedto death innocent men? For not those who obey the law, but those who transgress it,should be punished. How did you do, so let the Lord do with you today by me." Aftera judgment has been promulgated in the whole region, two and two were hanged atcrossroads. This should be understood by everyone, that if not satisfied with a fairjudgment of the Lord, one must expect consequences. Residents of the territorieshave heard the judgment, which was pronounced by the king, and they were seizedby fear.”53

The proper functioning of judiciary may also be understoodas a public interest and a part of the public order. This wasensured by laws such as that introduced by St. Ladislas, onpunishment by shaving the head (and selling) a person whomissed a third convocation before a judge,54 or a punishment ofbeating a judge if the judge did not decide the dispute within30 days.55 False, respectively, judges with no jurisdiction,should have restored the double of the amount in dispute andpay 10 pensae to the competent judge.56

Coloman also protected the proper administration ofjustice by marking the cheeks of a perpetrator with hot objectin the form of the cross, for offense of false testimony.57

Searching for an example from the practice, in the VáradRegister, a rare case of false accusation of theft is reported

53 MARSINA, Richard: Legendy stredovekého Slovenska, p. 69.54 Ladislas III: 26.55 Ladislas III: 24.56 Ladislas III: 23.57 Coloman: 83.

13

in the year 1235,58 where the act was punished by enslavementof the perpetrator along with his wife and children.

In charters, one may come accross the sanction of burningas a punishment for falsification of public charters.59

As regards the protection of public morality, offensesagainst morality and human dignity (offenses against religion,human sexuality, etc.) were rather rare in the Árpádian lawsand in practice.

To conclude, despite the fact that in practice not much

evidence can be found on the impact of law codes on theeveryday practice, the unifying element of both the laws andpractice is the protection of certain values. Somewhat limitedset of values protected in practice in relation to a broaderset of values found in laws may have been caused by the limitednumber of extant sources on the actual practice, as well as bya degree of evolution of the society, not corresponding to thelevel presupposed by the laws transplanted from abroad. Ingeneral, however, the values identified in practice wereprotected also in laws, even though their wording in laws wasdifferent.

3. Judicial and Extrajudicial Conflict Resolution

Another way to compare the laws and the actual practice isto concentrate on the ways the disputes were settled – both inthe procedural and in material (i. e. penalties) sense.

The judicial settlement of disputes was not the only, andprobably also not the most common way of solving disputes.Despite the fact that in case of amicable settlement no writtenreport on settlement was necessarily drawn up (it was usuallydrawn up in cases of property transfer as a part of compositionreached between the parties), still, there is plenty of

58 388/1235. KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.): RegestrumVaradinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum descripta effigie editionis A.1550 illustratum sumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit.59 „quia iidem in exhibitione falsarum litterarum tanquam falsarii in suis defensionibus omninodefecerunt, iuxta statuta Regni in eorum personis igne cremandos et morte debita condempnandoseosdem sententialiter decrevimus tamquam destructionum et violentiae perpetratores, prout superiussunt expressa, et possessiones eorum universas, haereditarias et alio quoquo modo habitas etpossessas, tam in terra Zurchuk, quam alias existentes, duabus partibus in manus nostras tanquamiudicis, in tertia vero parte in manus domine Regine partis actricis et executricis huius causae seunegotii devolvendas…” CDAC, vol. 5, 1299, charter no. 154 (MOL DF 259837).

14

evidence of alternative dispute resolution, more than ofjudicial conflict resolution.

Trevor Dean argues that the amicable settlement ofdisputes was more common than judicial, because the disputingparties preferred it since it was faster and cheaper than courtproceedings, there was a lower risk of corruption, and this wayof conflict resolution offered a guarantee of highercompensation and of genuine reconciliation between theparties.60 In fact, for the period of Hungarian history underreview, i.e. Árpádian Hungary (1000 - 1301 AD), there is aconsiderable lack of reliable information on judicialcorruption, on the speed of the court or arbitrationproceedings, nor is there any evidence to suggest that thecompensation accorded within arbitration would be higher thanin the court trial. There is also no difference in the natureof the litigation process. Property disputes as well as acts ofviolence (e.g. murder) were both alike resolved by judges,arbitrators, mediators, and even the parties themselves withoutany intermediaries.

The references in the charters testify that the partiesprimarily sought an amicable settlement of dispute, and only ifthere was no settlement possible, it was necessary to resolvethe dispute otherwise – through judicial sanction.

In terms of organization and staff of judicial resolutionof conflicts in Árpádian Hungary, at the highest level,judicial functions were performed by the King, Palatine (deputyof the King), and the Judge Royal. Palatine exerted justicealso in the countryside – within the so-called Palatinalcongregations, usually taking place for two or more counties.Since the 13th Century, there emerged special royal judges,referred to as biloti (bilochi) regales. At the same time, emergingnoble county started to establish their own judicial bodies –county congregation first, and then special judicial seat(sedes iudiciaria) with noble magistrates (iudices nobilium). On theother hand, colonists and emerging towns, based on theirprivileges, were subject to their own judicial authorities, andnot to the county judges. This system of autonomous judiciarywithin counties and towns was however not in full effect yet bythe 13th Century.

60 DEAN, Trevor: Crime in Medieval Europe. Harlow : Pearson Education Ltd., 2001,pp. 100-101.

15

Thus, in the Árpádian Hungary, there existed scarcejudicial authorities, the official function of which has beenthe resolution of disputes – usually only upon delegation ofthe case by the sovereign. Delegation often took form of anoccasional ad hoc mandate to resolve a specific dispute.Otherwise, the function of the judge could have resulted fromthe high administrative or church position.

In order to differentiate between the judges, arbitratorsand mediators, it is important to note that arbitrator hadbasically no state-given or sovereign-given jurisdiction orcompetence to resolve the disputes between the parties. He wascompetent only based on a consent and request of the parties.It is documented in the charter of Bishop Kosmas of Rab, who“by the will and consent of the parties” served in theirdispute as an arbitrator and reached the dispute settlement.61

Voluntary decision to submit a dispute to the arbitrator couldbe reconstructed from a source from Czech lands, namely fromBrno urban law books, where the arbitrators before thepronouncement of the verdict asked the parties whether theyhave really chosen them as arbitrators, then asked them toshake hands as a sign of good will and peace, and asked them totreat each other as good friends in the future. Only afterwardsthe arbitrators acceded to the declaration of the awarditself.62

The parties which have initially agreed to entrust theirdispute to arbitrators, were bound to respect the decision ofthe arbitrator – as proven by a charter of the Chapter of Rabfrom 1258.63 Otherwise, the parties were liable to fines, oftencontracted in advance.64

The recurrent references in the charters also point to thefact that the parties to the dispute used to bring their ownarbitrators in order to have the dispute settled. This issuggested by a reference in the charter of Pécs Chapter, whichnotes an arbitrator representing one party, and another

61 „Tandem utriusque partis voluntate et assensu inter ipsos nos ut arbiter existens talem fecimuscompositionem...“ CDAC, vol. 1, 1219-1222, charter no. 107.62 MALANÍKOVÁ, Michaela: Rozhodčí a smírčí řízení jako součást brněnskéhoměstského práva. In: Rituál smíření : Konflikt a jeho řešení ve středověku. Ed. MartinNodl, Martin Wihoda. Brno : Matice moravská, 2008, pp. 222-223.63 „...partes compromisissent in arbitros, obligando se eorumdem sententiam irrecusabilitertolerare...“ CDAC, vol. 2, 1258, charter no. 212 (MOL DF 207050).64 „...si ad locum arbitrii non accesserit, vel arbitrium non assumpserit, Magistro Aladario solveretenebitur tres marcas ante litem...“ CDAC, vol. 10, 1296, charter no. 148.

16

arbitrator, representing the other party.65 They were tonegotiate instead of the parties and come to the final decisionon the basis of compromise and agreement. Judge Royal,Lawrence, in his charter from 1262, even speaks of sixarbitrators – three of them brought by one party, and three bythe other one,66 but at the same time this charter challengesthe rule of an even number of arbitrators, when it acknowledgesthat the dispute may be resolved by three or four of thearbitrators.67 Similarly, a charter from 1295 speaks of two orthree arbitrators.68 In these cases, however, still, an evennumber of arbitrators is admitted – of four or two arbitrators.

The arbitrators are mentioned in some cases also inconnection with execution of the decision – for example, in acharter from 1272, the arbitrators remained present until theboundary stone was erected on the disputed land.69 Because ofthe stability, arbitrators could have insisted on having thedecision written down.70

Position and function of mediators is as unclear as thatof arbitrators and is hardly distinguishable from those ofjudges and arbitrators. The term “mediante” occurs in thecharters very often, sometimes really in the meaning ofmediation, such as in the charter from 1252, which states thathonest men managed to bring the parties to a peacefulsettlement of their dispute.71 Often the charters simply note65 „Et si omnes arbitri interesse non possent, unus ab una parte, et alter ab alia, qui praesentesfuerint, sufficiant ad arbitrium faciendum; et si qua partium de arbitrio resiliret, iudicium solvereteneatur.“ CDAC, vol. 10, without a year, charter no. 293.66 „...submiserunt se arbitrio sex nobilium, videlicet Laurencii Comitis filii Hendrici, Benche filiiBenche, et Alexandri filii – vocatorum de parte Petri et fratrum suorum; item Johannis filii Isip,Gregorii filii Gyl, et Gregorii filii Iharos de parte adversa adducendorum...“ CDAC, vol. 8,1262, charter no. 25.67 „...quod si omnes arbitri interesse non possent, arbitrio trium vel quatuor ipsorum causapartium finaliter deciretur...“ Ibid.68 „...quod si praedicti arbitratores ipsi arbitrio omnes interesse non possent; extunc duo ex eisdemvel tres sufficient arbitrari.“ CDAC, vol. 10, 1295, charter no. 134.69 „...praesentibus dictis arbitris, Iudice, Iuratis de contrata Latina Regalis Civitatis Strigoniensis adfinem Villae Sancti Pauli accessimus, de ripa parvi Danubii directe exeundo ad litus ipsius aquae inipso litore in latere ipsius litoris iuxta unam viam antiquam, quae gregum via dicitur, venientemdirecte de Villa Sancti Stephani ad parvum Danubium, ereximus iurantes unam terream metam, incuius medio unum erectum lapidem fecimus imponi; deinde...“ CDAC, vol. 12, 1272,charter no. 67.70 „...voluerunt dicti arbitri nostri, ut super praedicta concordia et erectionibus metarum ipsisdomino Philipo Archiepiscopo et suo Capitulo Strigoniensi in huiusmodi testimonium nostras litterasprivilegiales cum nostro pendenti sigillo daremus.“ Ibid.71 „...permittente domino Bela Rege Hungarie et aliis probis viris mediantibus talis facta fuitcompositio inter partes...“ CDAC, vol. 2, 1252, charter no. 151 (published also

17

that the composition between the parties was reached through“arbitrators”. It therefore seems that the arbitrators couldalso act as mediators,72 respectively that their mission was toreach settlement in general, regardless of the differencesbetween the categories of dispute resolution authorities. Inline with this, it is mentioned in some charters that disputewas decided with final binding effect by mediators, which isusually only in the competence of arbitrators.73 Clearly,therefore, the use of these terms did not follow any rule.

The problem is, however, the conceptual distinctionbetween judicial decision-making on the one hand andarbitration and mediation on the other. G. R. Evans on thebasis of contemporary treatises distinguishes between themedieval “arbiter” in terms of a judge, whose competence is notestablished by contract, but it comes “from the law itself,”and on the other hand, “arbitrators.”74 The difference is thusseen in terms of arbiter and arbitrator. Evans is quoting fromthe late 12th Century work of John Bassianus, who definedarbitration as something close to today's mediation orconciliation.75 In the Czech lands, nonetheless, both functionswere often combined as “arbiter et arbitrator”,76 and in Hungary, theuse of this terminology in the documents is not at alluniform.77 A charter from 1266, in contrast, clearly speaks ofthe arbitrators delegated by the king, suggesting theirofficial judicial competence.78 Therefore, the distinctionbetween judicial and extra-judicial dispute resolution is veryvague. The research of primary sources makes it clear that thetask of a judge was, as it is in the case of an arbitrator ormediator, only to allow for the composition between theparties, and only where necessary to impose binding decision by

in CDSl II, under no. 386, dated as of February 18, 1252).72 „...mediantibus probis arbitratoribus, taliter concordassent...“ CDAC, vol. 8, 1270,charter no. 218.73 „Qui mediatore, videlicet Comes Farcasius, Comes Jacobus et Comes Georgius, sic sententiaverunt,ut...“ CDAC, vol. 1, without a year, charter no. 48.74 EVANS, Gillian R.: Law and Theology in the Middle Ages. London : Routledge, 2002,pp. 163-164.75 Ibid., p. 163.76 MALANÍKOVÁ, Michaela: Rozhodčí a smírčí řízení jako součást brněnskéhoměstského práva (Arbitration and conciliation as a part of the urban law ofBrno). In: Rituál smíření : Konflikt a jeho řešení ve středověku, p. 218.77 „...arbitros vel arbitratores, et amicabiles compositores...“ CDAC, vol. 6, 1233,charter no. 341 (published also in CDSl I, under no. 402). 78 „...arbitri deputati per dominum Regem...“ CDAC, vol. 8, 1266, charter no. 111.

18

virtue of their official capacity. The final decision did notdiffer much from the settlement reached by parties on their ownor through an intermediary. Even the disputes decided wereusually the same in nature. Therefore, there could indeed beconfusion and overlapping of responsibilities and terminology.Judges, just like arbitrators invoked no legal standards79 (forexample, the laws of first kings) in the proceedings and theirdecisions in most cases involved only granting of financialcompensation in favour of one of the parties without imposingany other punishment.

On the other hand, disputes resolved by judges, weresometimes cases that would probably not be eligible to end upbefore an arbitrator, either because they were directed againstthe king, or threatened public order and had a wider than localimpact. The particularity of judicial dispute resolution isalso a high number of death sentences and some defamatingsentences, e.g., cutting the hair, which seem not to be appliedwithin the amicable out-of-court settlement.

Generally, the court minutes and charters with judicialsentences, where a judge decided the dispute authoritatively,are extant in very low numbers in contrast to settlementsreached by the parties with the potential help ofintermediaries. This is surely not caused by absolutereplacement of judicial dispute resolution by settlements outof court – both forms existed side by side.80 It is also nottrue that the court minutes and judgments were subsequentlydestroyed during the following centuries in a greater extentthan charters on extrajudicial settlement of disputes. The mainreason is in fact the predominant nature of conflict resolutionin this period – the Western authors suggest that maintenanceof accurate minutes from a court proceeding requires in thefirst place the existence of a stable judicial system, andsecondly, it also requires a special character of theseprocesses. Namely, such a process, where the judges interruptthe proceedings and the judge needs to recall the previoushearing on the second and each subsequent hearing.81 Preserved79 ECKHART, Ferenc: Magyar alkotmány és jogtörténet. Reprint. Budapest : Osiris2000, p. 154. 80 BROWN, Warren: Konfliktaustragung, Schriftlichkeit und persönlicheBeziehungen in den karolingischen Formelsammlungen. In: Rechtsverständnis undKonfliktbewältigung. Ed. Stefan Esders. Köln : Böhlau Verlag, 2007, p. 50.81 WETZSTEIN, Thomas: Prozessschriftgut im Mittelalter – einführendeÜberlegungen. In: Als die Welt in die Akten kam. Prozessschriftgut im europäischen Mittelalter.

19

records from the Western countries namely show that judgesusually dealt with a number of disputes at the same time, theshorter and easier were decided in the intervals betweenhearings more complex cases.82 It should be noted, however,that the Western authors lean more on the urban sources,83 andways of resolving disputes in towns may have been differentfrom the dispute settlement system in the countryside. Whethersuch a system of judicial operation was present in Hungary, cannot be verified at the moment. It is possible that the officialjudges decided fewer disputes in Hungary, did not oftenpostpone the hearings, did not address a high number oflawsuits at once, or at least did not need to write down thecourse of the previous hearing. Exceptions are only records ofnames and testimonies of witnesses that were submitted to thejudge in writing. This recording was usually performed by aChapter, respectively a trustworthy place. They kept all thedocuments in their archives, including charters on theenforcement of judicial decisions (referred to as litteraeexecutoriae – instruments of execution), providing us at leastfragmentary information on judicial practice in Hungary of theÁrpádian period. Without these we would have even lessinformation on the judicial process in Hungary.

Since there are only few extant judicial decisions, it ispossible that the decision itself was not so important as thewritten evidence of the execution thereof. The reason why theexecution documents were produced, is quite simple. The paymentof a sum of money awarded by the court as a compositionalpayment also usually took place before the trustworthy place,which at the same time produced a reliable documentaryevidence.84

4. Judicial Dispute Resolution and the Types of Penalties

Ed. Suzanne Lepsius, Thomas Wetzstein. Frankfurt am Main : VittorioKlostermann, 2008, p. 23.82 BLATTMAN, Marita: Beobachtungen zum Schrifteinsatz an einem deutschenNiedergericht um 1400: die Ingelheimer Haderbücher. In: Ibid., pp. 75-76.83 LORD SMAIL, Daniel: Aspects of Procedural Documentation in Marseille(14th – 15th Centuries). In: Ibid., p. 139 ff.84 ŠVECOVÁ, Adriana – GÁBRIŠ, Tomáš: Riešenie konfliktov v Uhorsku napodklade stredovekej listinnej praxe 13. a začiatku 14. storočia. In:Právněhistorické studie, 40, 2009, pp. 359-377.

20

Concerning the ways the case was finally settled in frontof a court, Ákos Timon in the beginning of the 20th Century,tried to categorize the penalties used in feudal Hungary, anddistinguished the following judicial penalties:

(1) death sentences,(2) corporal punishment, either in the form of mutilation, orapplied to the skin and hair,(3) deprivation of liberty in the forms of enslavement,imprisonment, or expulsion from the community,(4) pecuniary penalties, either as compository payments (“diecompositionale Vermögensstrafen”), fines (not paid to the victim ortheir relatives, but rather to the judge), redemption ofcorporal punishment (“die Straflösungssummen”), or finally asforfeiture of assets (total or partial).85

Another well-known Hungarian legal historian, FerencEckhart, in his classical work distinguished between:

(1) death penalty,(2) mutilating punishments,(3) deprivation of liberty,(4) pecuniary penalties and(5) shaming punishments.86

It is clear that while making these categorizations, theauthors leaned mainly on the Árpádian lawbooks. This has theconsequence that if the scheme applies to the real situationreflected in the extant charters from the period of ÁrpádianHungary, a number of inaccuracies and shortcomings of thesecategorizations appear. Not all penalties were namely in factapplied in practice. On the other hand, in laws and in thecharters one may find other types of punishment, that neitherTimon nor Eckhart included within their categorizations. Inparticular, it is the punishment by deprivation of office,deprivation of privilege, or deprivation of the noble status.

We will now briefly dwell on the different types ofpenalties in order to identify the penalties actually appliedin practice, and to compare them with the penalties presupposed85 TIMON, Ákos von: Ungarische Verfassungs- und Rechtsgeschichte mit Bezug auf dieRechtsentwicklung der westlichen Staaten, Berlin : Puttkamer und Mühlbrecht, 1904,pp. 429-440.86 ECKHART, Ferenc: Magyar alkotmány és jogtörténet, p. 154.

21

by the laws and with the penalties imposed by arbitrators (i.e. property compensation).

4.1 Death Penalty

The capital penalty, death penalty, was regularlyconnected to the loss of property in the laws. Laws of KingStephen and Ladislas imposed this penalty e. g. for a betrayalof the king and kingdom87 and for the intrigues against thecounts.88 In addition to this protection of public interests,capital punishment was anticipated also in matters of privateinterest, such as the murder by sword89 or attempt of thisoffense.90 Similarly, stealing,91 buying and selling stolenproperty92 or attacking a person searching for lost or stolenproperty93 was to be punished by the death penalty.

Surviving charters show that the death penalty in practicetook form of hanging. Charters mention hanging only marginallyin other contexts, for example, when discussing the forfeitureof assets by Royal fisc (i.e. the death penalty in connectionwith the forfeiture of property). This property was usuallysubsequently donated by the king to another donee, while in thedonation charter the previous owner of the property and hisfate were mentioned.94

Capital punishment by hanging is associated with loss ofproperty e.g. in 1239.95 In another charter from 1262, thejudge imposed the death penalty (“effusio sanguinis”, meaning infact hanging) upon the perpetrator and forfeiture of propertyupon the accomplices and participants in the crime.96

87 Stephen II: 2. 88 Stephen II: 12.89 Stephen II: 11.90 Stephen I: 16.91 Ladislas II: 1, Ladislas II: 2, Ladislas II: 12, Ladislas II: 14,Ladislas III: 8, Ladislas III: 10.92 Ladislas II: 7.93 Ladislas II: 5, Ladislas III: 13.94 E.g.: „…terram Gurbuse filii Miconis, existentem in Comitatu Zaladiensi ultra Dravam, que admanus ipsius Stephani Bani fuerat devoluta, eo quod idem Gurbuse culpis suis exigentibus finivit inpatibulo vitam suam, contulisset Sceme filio Pouche servienti suo pro suis servitiis“ CDAC, vol. 7,1258, charter no. 341 (MOL DL 478).95 „Pousa et Laurencius contra Rekam et Bolosey in examine duelli pro furti crimine sunt convicti, quiPousa suspendio condempnatus, Laurencius vero fugiens ecclesiam introivit, et sic sanguinis evasiteffusionem, totaque eorum possessio tam ad manus partis adversae, tam ad nostras (palatineDionysius) fuit devoluta.“ CDAC, vol. 7, 1239, charter no. 51 (MOL DF 252591).

22

It is interesting in this context that in 1299, burning ofthe perpetrators according to “statuta Regni” is mentioned.97 Inthe extant laws of Árpádian rulers, however, such a method ofcapital punishment is not mentioned at all.

One may conclude that the death penalty, which accordingto Western authors was used less frequently than fine,98 occursin our sources quite often. Up to 16 articles of the lawsissued in this period require the death penalty. This penaltywas applied only within the judicial settlement of disputes,though – as opposed to settling the disputes out of court. Thisdifference arises from the fact that the arbitrators or theparties themselves did not have the competence nor the will todecide about life and death, and also from the fact that thedeath penalty cases were mostly public offenses such as treasonagainst the sovereign or notorious criminal activity, and thedisruption of public order. Such cases were usually notaddressed by arbitrators and mediators.

4.2 Corporal Punishment

Corporal punishment in the laws of the first kings and thesubsequent law-making until the year 1301 can be divided intopenalties on the skin and hair (i. e. shaming penalties) andmutilating penalties.

The first category includes, for example cutting the hairand beating those who remained at home on Sunday instead ofparticipating in the mass,99 whipping and cutting the hair of

96 „Sank interfecisset fratrem eorum nomine Zomoyn, cum adiutorio istorum quinque hominum,scilicet Pauli, Dees, Nicolai, Tyrvani et Romani. E converso autem respondit praefatus Sank, quodipsum hominem ipse non interfecisset in culpa sua; responderunt etiam iidem quinque homines, quodimmunes essent in morte illa, et adiutorium sibi non dedissent… Sank vero et iidem quinque hominespraenominati non comparuerunt, nec pugilem adduxerunt. Ideo autem decrevimus (Palatine H.),quod idem Sank, ubicunque inventus fuerit, impediatur, et ad iudicem ducatur ad sanguiniseffusionem, et apud quem inventus fuerit, ille non audeat eum retinere; praenominatis autemquinque hominibus non decrevimus fieri effusionem sanguinis, sed quidquid habent, tam inpossessionibus, quam in aliis totum amittant.“ CDAC, vol. 8, 1262, charter no. 32.97 „...iuxta statuta Regni in eorum personis igne cremandos et morte debita condempnandoseosdem sententialiter decrevimus tamquam destructionum et violentiae perpetratores, prout superiussunt expressa, et possessiones eorum universas, haereditarias et alio quoque modo habitas etpossessas, tam in terra Zurchuk, quam alias existentes, duabus partibus in manus nostras tanquamiudicis, in tertia vero parte in manus dominae Reginae partis actricis et executricis huius causae seunegotii devolvendas…“ CDAC, vol. 5, 1299, charter no. 154 (MOL DF 259837).98 DEAN, Trevor: Crime in Medieval Europe, p. 130. 99 Stephen I: 9.

23

an adulteress,100 flagellation of witches,101 shaving, tying andflagellating a person who interfered with the privacy ofhome,102 shaving half of the head of a fled slave103 etc.

Generally, one can say that these sanctions had eitherconsequences of only short duration – such as beating,whipping, cutting the hair or shaving the head, or long-term orpermanent effects – such as burning marks.

Doubts may arise in connection with a shaven head. Theanglo-saxon Alfred's laws in Art. 35 imposed the punishment ofshaving the head as a sign of humiliation, respectively as adegrading punishment. However, cutting the hair in Hungarysometimes seems more a sign of ecclesiastical serfs and not apunishment.104 For example, the charter of 1092 from the periodof reign of King Ladislas, indicates that some families havetried to change their status to “dvorník/udvarnok” (somewhatprivileged direct royal subjects),105 but the judge before whomthe dispute was resolved, decided to return the families totheir original ecclesiastical landlord and cut their hair.106 Itis thereby unclear whether this sentence of cutting the hairwas a punishment or the expression of their dependent status.

The charters make also mention of another practice, whichwas likely to have embarrassing effects, but it is notmentioned in the laws. It had the form of a public act ofpenance, walking barefoot with a number of retinue with bareswords.107 Its origin seems to be rooted in the Church penance.

The second category of corporal punishment (i.e.mutilating punishment) represents a talionic (“eye for an eye”)mutilation of the body of the offender,108 e. g. loss of tongue

100 Stephen I: 28.101 Stephen I: 34.102 Ladislas II: 11.103 Coloman 41.104 More on ecclesiastical serfs (Hung. torlók or dusnokok) cf. HUNYADI, Zsolt:Signs of Conversion in Early Medieval Charters. In: Christianizing Peoples andConverting Individuals. Ed. Guyda Armstrong and Ian N. Wood. Turnhout : Brepols,2000, p. 112.105 „...quidam diabolico instintu voluerunt praedictas familias a servitio supradictae ecclesiaesubtrahere, et in ministerio udvornicorum subiugare...“ CDAC, vol. 1, 1092, charter no.9.106 „…servorum Regis… capita tonsa sunt iussu Sar Comitis.“ Ibid.107 „item idem E. cum duodecim hominibus consimilibus sui, nudis pedibus, gladiisque evaginatis inmanibus eorum positis, debet supplicare praetaxato M. Magistro et excessus suos luere…“ CDAC,vol. 2, 1239, charter no. 58.108 Stephen II: 3.

24

for intrigues,109 or cutting off the nose of bondsmen110 or of amarried woman111 for theft, and others.

Such penalties, however, can not be identified in thecharters reporting the actual practice. Only one documentmentions the possibility of a talionic mutilation of hands ofthe offender, who injured the hand of a victim, but here itseems it was just a way of exerting pressure on the offender toprovide financial compensation,112 since the conflict wasfinally settled by the payment of an amount agreed upon by“discrete men.”

One could argue that the reports on mutilations arelacking only due to the fact that there was no reason the havethe mutilating punishment written down. However, not even theRegister of Várad, containing outcomes of trials by ordeal andsometimes also subsequent judicial sentences, reports anymutilating punishments. Western scholars were also not able toidentify the actual practice of mutilating punishments in thisperiod yet, thus we take for granted that these were lackingalso in the Hungarian actual practice, even though they wereoften mentioned in the laws.

In general, mutilation of the body of offender ismentioned only in chronicles, when writing about rebellionagainst a legitimate ruler. That is the case also with blindingof Vazul, Álmos a Belo113 in Hungary and other similar cases.Challenging the authority of the ruler was in fact very oftenpunished by blinding – being a sanction used against rebelliousmembers of the royal family and others who have committedtreason, in order to make them unfit to rule.114

109 Stephen II: 14.110 Ladislas II: 2, Ladislas II: 10.111 Ladislas III: 6.112 „…frater ipsorum contra eum extendisset gladium, manum eius dextram detruncando. Ubiiudicatum est: Si Mischa Comes cum fratribus suis Michaele et Absa coram Capitulo Wesprimiensisuper hoc facerent sacramentum, in ultionem unius dextere praefatorum virorum quatuor manustruncarentur. Cumque deventum ad hoc fuisset, et M. Comes cum fratribus suis probare iuxta formamiudicii illud promptus extitisset, praesente pristaldo Regis Luca nomine filio Abbe de Sucorov; fratresnostri, ne sanguinis fieret effusio, cum aliis viris discretis se interponentes in hunc modumcomposuerunt: Ut Villemirus praefatus et alii tres fratres eius praenominati traderent omnes terrassuas et vineas, praeter solam terram, quam Villemirus in villa Kenese habuit, Misce Comitipossidendas.“ CDAC, vol. 6, 1227, charter no. 284 (MOL DL 104878).113 Vazul was a cousin of Stephen I., Álmos was a younger Brother of kingColoman, and Belo (later King Belo II. the Blind) was the son of Álmos. 114 BÜHRER-THIERRY, Geneviève: Just Anger or Vengeful Anger? The Punishmentof Blinding in the Early Medieval West. In: Anger’s Past. Ed. BarbaraRosenwein. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1998, pp. 75- 91.

25

To conclude, as in the case of the death penalty, it seemsthat corporal (shaming) punishment was imposed only by judges,not by arbitrators or mediators. Mutilating corporalpunishment, even though mentioned in the laws of the firstkings, began to appear in practice increasingly only from the14th and 15th Century onwards, when Europe was inspired by thesanctions contained in the revived Roman law, and described inhagiographic legends.115

4.3 Loss of Liberty

Another penalty that judges were to impose according tolaws of Árpádian rulers, was loss of liberty (freedom). Thelaws distinguished between two types of such sentences –imprisonment and enslavement. It is to be noted, though, thatalthough sources speak of the slaves in Hungary up to the 13th

Century, we do not have much information on the nature of thisslavery.

Imprisonment was presupposed in laws of King Stephen e.g.for non-observation of feast days, and for eating meat onFridays.116 Ladislas´ laws imposed this sanction e.g. in case oftheft from one´s own noble relatives.117

As far as practical cases of imprisonment are concerned,the issue of prisons in the Middle Ages was not answeredsatisfactorily yet.118 It is mostly claimed that prison in theMiddle Ages was used only as a means of detention. A Frenchstatute from as late as 1430 states that “Carcer non fueritintroductus ad poenam, sed ad custodiam.”119 Trevor Dean, however,pointed out that the monasteries had their own prisons tocorrect the monks from the earliest times and in the 12th

Century, bishops had their own prisons.120

The Hungarian legal history seems to have understoodprison just as “custodia”, in which the offender was waiting foranother penalty. Although the prison (carcer) was mentioned

115 KLABOUCH, Jiří: Staré české soudnictví (jak se dříve soudívalo). Prague : Orbis, 1967,p. 263.116 Stephen I: 10; Stephen I: 11.117 Ladislas II: 9 .118 Cf. GELTNER, Guy: Medieval Prisons: Between Myth and Reality, Hell andPurgatory. In: History Compass, 2006, 4, no. 2, p. 261-274.119 CARRIER, Nicolas: Une Justice pour rétablir la concorde. In: Le Règlementdes Conflits au Moyen Âge. Paris : Sorbonne, 2001, p. 241.120 DEAN, Trevor: Crime in Medieval Europe, p. 121.

26

already in the laws of the first kings, and also in laws ofAndrew III.,121 there are only few references to the actualexistence of prison. Regestrum Varadinense mentions prison (carcer)and its guards in the 13th Century,122 however, based on thisbrief report, one can not say what was the real nature andpurpose of this carcer – namely whether it was a prison or onlya means of detention. In another case,123 Regestrum mentions thattwo iobagiones were to be kept in carcer for as long as it wouldseem appropriate to the count. It thus seems that this was apunishment. One could also draw attention to the punishment ofa pagan priestesses Rasdi, which is mentioned in the ChroniciHungarici Compositio saeculi XIV. During the pagan uprising in Hungaryin 1046, the pagan priestess Rasdi was kept in prison for solong that she has eaten her own feet out of hunger before shedied.124 Even in this case, however, it is not clear whether theimprisonment was a punishment, or merely a detention in whichRasdi was waiting for a trial.

The second type of loss of liberty, enslavement, occurredin the laws much more frequently than prison: a free manfornicating with a bondswoman, should have been sold intoslavery, just like in case of fornicating bondspeople.125

Special situation was the enslavement connected to forfeitureof property – according to the laws of Ladislas, if a thiefescaped from the hands of the person who took over theguarantee for him, both were to be sold by the judge intoslavery and their property was to be forfeited to the royalfisc.126

An example of enslavement is to be found in the Registerof Várad, where an offender forfeited into slavery along withhis wife and children as a punishment for false accusation of

121 MEZEY, Barna: Der Kerker in der ungarischen Rechtsgeschichte. In: A bonisbona discere: Festgabe für János Zlinszky zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. Orsolya Marta Peter aBéla Szabó. Miskolc : Bibor Verlag, 1998, pp. 389-391.122 Case no. 223/1219. KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.):Regestrum Varadinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum descripta effigieeditionis A. 1550 illustratum sumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit.123 Ibid., case no. 341/1222: „Nominati autem duo iobagiones carcerem intrare tenereturibi, quoadusque vellet comes, moraturi.“ 124 „…Rasdi capta fuit et tamdiu in carcere fuit reclusa donec recomederet pedes proprios, ibidemquoque moreretur…“ Chronici Hungarici Compositio saeculi XIV. In: ScriptoresRerum Hungaricarum, vol. 1. Ed. Emericus Szentpétery. Budapest : Magyartudományos akadémia, 1937, p. 338.125 Both in Stephen I: 28.126 Ladislas II: 1.

27

theft in 1235.127 In charters, on the other hand, the loss offreedom in either form – imprisonment or enslavement – ismentioned only rarely.

To sum up, while ensalevement occurs in practice even inthe first half of the 13th Century, the actual use ofimprisonment in practice is to be answered yet.

4.4 Deprivation of Office, Deprivation of Privileges and ofNoble Status

Deprivation of office was imposed in the laws of the firstkings as punishment for a count, who would allow to sell andbuy horses at the borders of the kingdom,128 or should heviolate a royal decree.129 In the laws from the 13th Century itwas a punishment for Palatine, who would mismanage the affairsof the king and kingdom.130 Judge, in turn, should lose officeshould he arrest a nobleman.131 In practice, in charters, wefound only one isolated case, when the count Lawrence wasremoved from office for his offenses.132

Concerning a similar sanction of deprivation of privilege,this was also a very rare punishment, which was mentioned onlyin the article 15/1298. It was specifically the loss of theprivilege to hold a market, as a punishment for restricting thefree circulation of silver coins. In practice we have notidentified any actual example.

Similarly, the loss of noble status was regulated in theÁrpádian laws only once. It was in the same decree, Art.1/1298, for a failure to restore the occupied property.However, it is important to note, that in this period thenobility was only slowly emerging and there were no clear rulesas to the acquisition or loss of nobility. Probably thereforewe found no example of such a judicial sanction neither in thecharters, nor in the Register.

127 388/1235. KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.): RegestrumVaradinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum descripta effigie editionis A.1550 illustratum sumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit.128 Ladislas II: 17.129 Ladislas III: 15.130 Art. 1/1231.131 Art. 13/1298.132 „…Laurentium filium Ompud Comitem in Gerha primo statuissemus, non ut probus in eo aliquidlucri fecit, se tanquam malus mala intulit, de quo Comitatum hunc denuo abstulimus, penam, utmeruit inferentes…“ CDAC, vol. 1, 1228, charter no. 151.

28

4.5 Ecclesiastical Penalties

Excommunication and other ecclesiastical penalties(fasting, penance, interdict) represent a specific type ofpunishment. In general, these penalties had both sacral as wellas disciplinary aspects, renovating the grace of God towardsthe sinner.133 Árpádian laws imposed ecclesiastical penaltieseither as a separate punishment or in conjunction with anotherpenalty, which clearly indicates the understanding of anoffense as a sin.134

The excommunication started to be increasingly invoked inthe Árpádian laws from the 13th Century onwards, although ithas been known already in the Article 74 of the early 12th

Century Synod of Esztergom as exclusion from the community ofbelievers for a conspiracy against the king. Excommunicationshould have also been a punishment for the king, who would notact in accordance with the laws contained in the Golden Bull(1222), guaranteeing the rights of the emerging nobility, andin the confirmations of Golden Bull from 1231 and 1298 (Article16/1298). It was also to be imposed for not returning theoccupied property,135 for failure to notify robbery,136 forproviding alms to excommunicated monks or for the protectiongiven to these monks,137 and the like.

Fasting as another ecclesiastical penalty under theÁrpádian laws used to be imposed for manslaughter,138

especially slaughter of one´s own wife,139 but also for theconsumption of meat on Fridays and during Feast days,140 forviolation of an oath,141 and also as a punishment for witches.142

133 MCNEILL, John – GAMER, Helena M.: Medieval Handbook of Penance. New York :Columbia University Press, 1990, p. 15. More on penance, cf.: HAMILTON,Sarah: The Practice of Penance, 900-1050. Woodbridge : The Boydell Press, 2001. Onpublic penance: MANSFIELD, Mary C.: The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance inThirteenth-Century France. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1995.134 On the use of new religion in order to prevent blood feud, cf. BAK,János M.: Signs of Conversion in Central European Laws. In: ChristianizingPeoples and Converting Individuals, p. 118. 135 Art. 1/1298.136 Art. 3/1298.137 Art. 4/1298.138 Stephen I: 14.139 Stephen I: 15.140 Stephen I: 10, 11.141 Stephen I: 17.142 Stephen I: 33.

29

In charters which we analyzed, from among theecclesiastical sanctions, excommunication was used the most –imposed either by the Pope himself, his legate, or by theArchbishop of Esztergom.

Pope punished the Bishop of Csanád by excommunication forimprisonment of the abbot and monks of the monastery ofBistra.143

Papal legate Jacob from Praeneste excommunicated knightFabian because of his contumacy in their case,144 but Fabian asa member of the House Hont-Poznan, whose brothers lived in thecourt of King Andrew II., apparently did not worry much aboutthe excommunication.145

In another case, Archbishop of Esztergom, Vladimir,excommunicated Master John, governor (banus) Nicholas and countHenry146 for damage caused to the Zagreb chapter by violatingits ecclesiastical freedoms, namely by the destruction ofchurch property, unauthorized collection of tithes, etc.147

4.6 Pecuniary Penalties

Finally, as the last type of penalties, pecuniarypenalties in the laws can be divided into those redeemingcorporal punishment (offender could choose between paying thefinancial penalty or suffering corporal punishment), thepenalty of loss of property (partial or complete), fine, andcompositional payment.

The first category, the category of redeeming sanctionsmay have included redeeming the forfeiture into slavery in caseof fornication committed with a female slave,148 or theft

143 CDAC, vol. 7, 1236, charter no. 8.144 „…propter suam multiplicem contumatiam…“ CDAC, zv. 1, 1234, listina č. 200(also in CDSl I, under no. 426 and 427).145 „…non videatur curare de excommunicatione praedicta…“ Ibid.146 CDAC, vol. 12, 1281, charter no. 281.147 „…eosdem Magistrum Johannem, Nicolaum Banum et Comitem Henricum ac ipsorum sequaces infesto Annunciacionis Beate Vinginis proxime preterito, in Wereuce, apud ecclesiam Fratrum Minorum,que in honore Beate Virginis Marie est constructa, publice excommunicavimus in scriptis etdenunciavimus excommunicatos, pulsatis campanis, candelis accensis et extinctis, et ab omnibusartius evitandos, ac totam terram ipsorum ecclesiastico supponimus interdicto, donec de premissisexcessibus et commissis dampnis et iniuriis illatis Deo, Ecclesie et nobis, ac fratribus nostris, Capitulovidelicet Zagrabiensi, satisfaciant…“ Ibid.148 Stephen I: 28.

30

committed by a married woman – she was to be redeemed by herhusband. 149

Another type of pecuniary penalty is forfeiture ofproperty or things. According to Stephen I: 8, the one whoworked on the Lord's day, should lose the oxen he used. Sale ofa horse in the border areas, in turn, was to be punished byconfiscation of the horse.150 The lie on the title ofpossession, namely in case of claiming that the title ofownership is gift, the liar was to forfeit the thing.151 In alater law no. 15/1298 forfeiture of landed property wasassumed, for illegal minting of coins.

From among the examples from practice, one may mention acase of loss of property for infidelity against the king – in1287.152

Another form of pecuniary penalty is fine. Certainpayments as punishment are mentioned in numerous articles oflaw, however, often the statutory framework does not sayexpressly to whom the payment was to be provided, thus it issometimes difficult to distinguish between compositionalpayment (paid to the victim) and fine (payable to the judge).More or less convincing is an example of fine in the form ofpayment provided for by Stephen I. in case of a person who hadenslaved a free man. The perpetrator of this deed had to pay 50(or 12, depending on social status) young oxen and the fine wasto be divided between the king and counts.153 In practice (incharters), however, examples of penalties payable to the kingor counts are rare to find.

The combination of fine and damages (compensation) wascommon in the laws. A typical example is the combination of afine or compositional payment (depending to whom the amount wasto be paid) with restitution – in the laws of King Stephen,154

in case of arson – the offender had to rebuild the house andpay 16 young oxen, worth 40 solidi.155

149 Stephen I: 31.150 Ladislas II: 6.151 Stephen II: 11.152 „…praedium filiorum Henrici Modur vocatum, situm in Comitatu Posoniensi, cum suis pertinentiis,attinenciis et utilitatibus universis, propter infidelitates suas manifestas ab ipsis filiis Henriciauferendo…“ CDAC, vol. 12, 1287, charter no. 378 (from January 25, 1287,published in RRSA II/2-3 under no. 3420).153 Stephen I: 22.154 Stephen I: 27.155 Stephen I: 32.

31

The charters examined and the Register show that mostconflicts were resolved by judges through payment of damagesand possibly compositional payment. The Register offers fourcases in which we have a mention of the sentence imposed by ajudge.156 From among these, in the case from 1234, acompositional payment of eight talents and ten pensae ismentioned.157 The charters offer another example where a judgeordered a compositional payment as a punishment for burningdown the chapel of St. James and causing further damage in1220.158 In another case from 1226, the amount of compensationwas later moderated by the intervention of the bishop.159

In the interest of efficiency, offender was sometimes evenallowed to pay in instalments according to a pre-agreed paymentschedule. Thus one may find the distribution of payments forspecific days of the church calendar. For example, in a casefrom 1277, concerning payment of 58 talents, the amount wassplit into instalments of 20 talents, due on Dominica IudicaSunday (March 13), Pentecost (May 16) and the remaining 18talents on the octave of St. Lawrence (August 10).160

Similar agreements are to be found in the Register aswell. There are various payment dates set for the feast of MaryMagdalene (July 22), birth of Mary (September 8) and All Saints156 Altogether 26 judicial decisions are mentioned, but the punishments arenot reported.. 157 374/1234: „…secundum sententiam praedicti iudicis…condemnatus est…octo marcas et decempensas, totaliter persolvit, nobis praesentibus…“ KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY,Samuelis (eds.): Regestrum Varadinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologicodigestum descripta effigie editionis A. 1550 illustratum sumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit.158 „…adiudicavimus secundum comparationem terrae Abbatis, de terra illorum assignari tantundem,si haberent; et si non haberent, pro illa terra et talionem et pro dampnis illatis in ipsa terra, de rebusvel de personis eorum redderentur XXX et V marcae…“ CDAC, vol. 1, 1220, charter no.92.159 „…habito iobagionum nostrorum consilio et assensu ad examen duelli iudicavimus exequendum.Et quia dictus Muterinus ad terminum praedictum non venit nec misit, ipsum in CC marcis tam proprivatione oculorum, tam pro dampnis que sibi, intulerat, condempnavimus…“ CDAC, vol. 11,1226, charter no. 129 (RRSA I, no. 579).160 „…solverent sexaginta marcas minus duabus marcis in terminis assumptis coram nobis; vigintimarcas scilicet solverent in dando decem pensas Viennenses pro qualibet marca, aut quinque pensasdenariorum Banalium, partim vero in estimatione condigna; item viginti marcas solverent in octavisPentecostes modo supradicto; residuas vero decem et octo marcas solverent in octavis Sancti Laurentiimartiris modo superius annotato, ita tamen quod medietatem solutionis denariorum deberent facerein denariis Banalibus, medietatem vero in Viennensibus, sicut superius est expressum. Tali poenainterposita, quod si primum terminum obmiserint in solvendo, incurrent dupli poenam; si verosecundum, amittent pecuniam prius persolutam; et si tertiam solutionem facere non curaverint,pecunia in prioribus duobus terminis persoluta amittetur eo ipso.” CDAC, vol. 9, 1277,charter no. 128.

32

(November 1).161 Generally, the payment of fines or othermonetary penalties could take many years. There are even caseswhere the amount was only paid by the children of theperpetrator.162

It can be concluded that fine and compensation were indeedused in practice as the most widely used way of judicialconflict resolution.163 At the same time, it may have also beenthe only way to reach a real compromise in case of disputebetween parties of the same social status in a situation of asociety where state institutions were significantly moredistant to everyday life.

Conclusions

To conclude, from among the various types of sanctions,which were used in practice according to the extant sourcesfrom the period of Árpádian kings, the most frequently usedjudicial penalty was pecuniary penalty. If one compares thissystem with the practice of sanctions imposed in theextrajudicial dispute resolution process, then generally it isto be noted that there are no major differences between thedecisions of the judges, mediators and arbitrators,respectively between judicial and extra-judicial settlement ofdisputes, since also the extra-judicial dispute resolutionmostly ended in pecuniary compensation.

The amount of compensation has always been unique, it didnot follow any pattern, as opposed to the rules set in laws ofthe first kings, which used numerical models, as analyzed byBálint Hóman in the early 20th Century.164 If, however, one triesto quantify the amount of the compensation usually provided,the surviving charters and Register usually report compensation

161 Case no. 213/1219. KARÁCSONYI, Joannis – BOROVSZKY, Samuelis (eds.):Regestrum Varadinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum descripta effigieeditionis A. 1550 illustratum sumptibusque capituli Varadinensis Lat. rit.162 „…Mark comes confessus est viva voce, quod cum ipse movisset causam contra Endre etStephanum predictos, requirendo ab eisdem, ordine iudiciario, duo iudicia, super quibus pater eorumdictus Ledegerus contra eundem Markum Comitem fuerat convictus…“ CDAC, vol. 7, 1260,charter no. 383 (MOL DL 67612).163 Cf. DEAN, Trevor: Crime in Medieval Europe, p. 130. 164 HÓMAN, Bálint: Magyar Pénztörténet. Budapest : Magyar Tudományos Akadémia,1916, p. 157-158. He identified a system of penalties based on the numbers5, 10, 50, 100 with addition as a reward for the judge, which leads tonumbers 6, 12, 55 and 110.

33

in the amount of one-third or one-fourth of the estimateddamages.

Thereby we confirmed the findings of Western authors, thatthe dispute resolution in Árpádian Hungary did not pursueformal legal patterns as set in laws and that the practice wasdifferent from the wording of laws. Thus, the question shouldbe answered, of whether the laws were designed to actuallyinfluence the practice at all, or whether it was only aspecific literary genre, the issue of which is necessarilyconnected with the Christian rulers of the period, or whetherits primary mission was only to enshrine the basic fundamentalmoral values, expressed in a casuistic way, since the societywas incapable of thinking in an abstract way yet. The latterproposal could be plausible, since despite the seemingdiscrepancy between laws and practice, the basic protectedvalues were still the same both in laws and in practice –property, life, physical integrity, social status, and publicorder.

Above all, the overarching principle and value both inlaws and in practice was that of peace, order and justice,albeit being strived for through different methods (differenttypes of punishment) in laws and in practice. The method inpractice was not to punish in order to protect the society, butrather to reconcile the offender and victim, respectively thelitigants – there seems to be a major methodological differencebetween the laws counting on state authority, and the actualpractice of “stateless society”.

34