Government and Law in Medieval Moldavia Transylvania and Wallachia

GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN MEDIEVAL MOLDAVIA, TRANSYLVANIA AND WALLACHIAGOVERNMENT AND LAW IN MEDIEVAL MOLDAVIA, TRANSYLVANIA AND WALLACHIA Edited by MARTYN RADY AND ALEXANDRU SIMON School of Slavonic and East European Studies UCL UCL SSEES. Copies of this publication and others in the School’s refereed series can be obtained from the Publications Office. The contributors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright. WC1H 0BW. Front Cover: The Battle of Posada (1330). Birstall.GOVERNMENT AND LAW IN MEDIEVAL MOLDAVIA. London. 16 Taviton St. 11 ISBN: 978-0-903425-87-2 © Contributors. Interchange. from the Chronicon Pictum. Designs and Patents Act 1988. TRANSYLVANIA AND WALLACHIA EDITED BY MARTYN RADY AND ALEXANDRU SIMON Studies in Russia and Eastern Europe No. Typeset and printed in Great Britain by Flexpress 6 Coal Cart Road. 2013 All rights reserved. Leicester LE4 3BY . piscinis et piscaturis: The Utilisation of Water Resources in the Banat in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods Livia Magina From Custom to Written Law: Ius Valachicum in the Banat Adrian Magina Changing Legal Procedures in the Context of Social Transformation: The Settlement of Disputes in Sixteenth-Century Wallachia Mariana Goina From Wallachia to Dacia: International Politics and Political Ideology v 21 29 37 43 55 65 71 79 .Acknowledgements CONTENTS vii ix 1 15 Contributors viii Abbreviations used for Commonly Cited Sources Historical Introduction Martyn Rady Constitutional Thought and Institutions in Medieval Transylvania Romulus Gelu Fodor Regnum Transilvanum: The Transylvanian Congregatio Nobilium and its Role as a Legal Community at the End of the Thirteenth Century Tudor Sǎlǎgean From Legislation to Practice: Some Aspects of Military Service in Medieval Hungary and Transylvania Florin Nicolae Ardelean Written Rules and Privileges: Fiscal and Military Obligations of the Transylvanian Saxons in the Middle Ages Liviu Cîmpeanu German Law and Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia Laurenţiu Rǎdvan Legal and Administrative Aspects of the North Transylvanian Road System in the Middle Ages Oana Toda Molendinis. in the Last Decades of the Fifteenth Century Alexandru Simon A Late Fifteenth Century Controversy on the Moldavian–Wallachian Frontier: An Incident Analysis Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman Further Reading Index 91 101 120 123 vi . which have been collected together under the broad theme of Government and Law in Medieval Moldavia. The editors are grateful for the assistance in preparing this volume of Christine Fernandes of the UCL SSEES Publications Office. and this preponderance is reflected in the topics that they address. was remarkable on account of the large number of mainly younger Romanian scholars who participated. nevertheless. The publication of this volume has been funded by the Research Council of Romania. TE 356/2010. not only an introduction to some of the themes of medieval Romanian history but also an indication of current trends in Romanian historiography and of the accomplishments of a new generation of historians. Transylvania and Wallachia. The present collection of essays provides. held at Leeds in 2012. This volume contains a selection of their papers. Project no. Martyn Rady Alexandru Simon August 2013 vii .Acknowledgments The International Medieval Congress. together with several others. The majority of the contributors come from Transylvania and the Banat. Alexandru Simon is a Researcher at the Romanian Academy. Marian Coman is a Researcher at the Romanian Academy. Tudor Sălăgean is Director of the Transylvanian Museum of Ethnography. George Bariţiu Institute of History. Cluj-Napoca. Reşiţa. Cluj-Napoca.Contributors Florin Nicolae Ardelean is a Researcher at the Romanian Academy. ClujNapoca. Cluj-Napoca. Bucharest. Bucharest. Liviu Cîmpeanu is a Researcher at the Romanian Academy. Nicolae Iorga Institute of History. Adrian Magina is a Researcher at the Museum of the Mountainous Banate. George Bariţiu Institute of History. Martyn Rady is Professor of Central European History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Centre for Transylvanian Studies. Moldova. Ovidiu Cristea is Director of the Nicolae Iorga Institute of History of the Romanian Academy. Iaşi. Livia Magina is a PhD student at the Romanian Academy. Cluj-Napoca. Centre for Transylvanian Studies. Laurenţiu Rădvan is Associate Professor at the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University. Cluj-Napoca. Mariana Goina is Fellow of the Academic Fellowship Program of the Open Society Institute at the World History Department in Chisinau. Centre for Transylvanian Studies. viii . Romulus Gelu Fodor is a PhD student at the Romanian Academy. University College London. B. Budapest. ed. 1875 etc. Sibiu. Zsigmond Jakó. 1997 etc. Transilvania. C. Bucharest. János M. B. DRMH  Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae. Relaţii între Ţarile Române. etc. DPIR  Documente privitoare la istoria românilor. culese de Eudoxiu de Hurmuzaki. Moldova. A. ed. 1966 etc. EO  Erdélyi okmánytár. A. ix . Budapest. Ţara Românească. Sándor Szilágyi. 1989 etc. MCRT  Monumenta Comitialia Regni Transilvaniae (Erdélyi Országgyűlési Emlékek). 1876 etc DRH  Documenta Romaniae Historica. ed. CA. 1892 etc. Bakersfield.ABBREVIATIONS FOR FREQUENTLY CITED SOURCES DIR  Documente privind istoria României. Transilvania. Bucharest. Ţara Românească. Bucharest. UB  Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. Moldova. 1951 etc. Bak. C. D. . In 1918–20. Its medieval territory enclosed the slopes of the Carpathians and extended to. The Dobruja. that the north-eastern portion of Moldavia. equally subject to flux. In 1859 Wallachia and the main part of Moldavia were united. The three historic units addressed in this volume do not coincide. In 1991. the River Dniester. although they often acknowledged the suzerainty of the kings of Poland and Hungary. and the territory was re-joined to the Hungarian crown at the end of the seventeenth century. Bessarabia and northern Bukovina gained independence under the title of the Republic of Moldova (which is the Romanian name for Moldavia). which lies east of Wallachia and includes the Danube Delta. was also contested between the medieval rulers of Wallachia and their Tatar and Bulgarian rivals. often called Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. Transylvania separated from the kingdom of Hungary. the territory of modern-day Romania principally consisted in the Middle Ages of three parts. which was established around 1300. and occasionally beyond.Historical Introduction Martyn Rady Like Caesar’s Gaul. Transylvania’s border with the main body of the Hungarian kingdom was for much of the Middle Ages uncertain and interstitial territories remained. becoming an independent principality. followed in the modern period its own trajectory. which occupied a plateau surrounded on three sides by the arc of the Carpathians. Both Moldavia and Wallachia were independent principalities. however. To the south of Transylvania. with its own elected ruler. 1 . therefore. however. In the sixteenth century. We should note. Turkish power was weaker in Transylvania. Individual portions of the three principal territories might also be reassigned. but passed under Turkish control in the fifteenth century. although also too recognising the Sultan’s authority. It nevertheless retained a considerable degree of self-government under the authority of a royallyappointed voivode. Transylvania constituted a part of the Hungarian crown lands. and from the fifteenth century. being variously occupied by Russia (1812–1918) and the Soviet Union (1940–1991). occupying the plain between the Carpathians and the Danube was the principality of Wallachia. the overlordship of the Turkish Sultan. From no later than the eleventh century. East of Transylvania and north of Wallachia lay Moldavia. in 1881. although a part of the newly independent state broke away to form an independent and unrecognised unit known as Transnistria. Medieval frontiers were. although a portion of Transylvania briefly returned to Hungarian rule during the Second World War. with current political boundaries. subsequently becoming independent of the Ottoman Empire and. Transylvania was joined to Romania. the kingdom of Romania. which was founded in the mid-fourteenth century. In the west lay Transylvania. Bulgarian. ‘On the Origin of the Moldavian Csángós’.2 Although in the Middle Ages the densest concentration of Romanian-speakers lay in Transylvania.4 Moldavia and Wallachia were more homogeneous. which lay in Hungary just across the south-western edge of Transylvania. later known as the Banat. most obviously Romanians and Hungarians but also. far beyond the reach of the old Roman limes frontier. . and intersected by rivers and extensive marshland. which invites an obvious confusion with the population of the principality of Wallachia. and Tatar settlement. 167–206. 43–53 (Laurenţiu Rădvan). 1986. 170. was subsequently replaced by a network of interlocking castles and districts that were variously assigned to local chieftains. however. which for long periods belonged to the rulers of Wallachia. Bucharest. Transylvania included a notable medley of different population groups. which contributed to its splintering into separate political units. A block of territory. 3 Robert Lee Wolff. there were pockets of East Slavonic. 24. 57–8. was organised separately under the royally-appointed captain or ban of Severin (Szőrény). As one of the contributions to this volume indicates. 65–9 (Adrian Magina and Livia Magina). The Banat itself was split between highland and lowland zones. On this account. The name of Vlach was. Slavonic and East European Review.3 Many of these Romanians were transhumance pastoralists. there was also a sizeable German community living in the nascent urban centres of Moldavia and Wallachia. Bucharest. both of which are now in Ukraine.1 Nor do medieval boundaries coincide with national groups. 1980. pp.’ Nevertheless. Speculum. 37–8. 5 See below. 1997. p. 75. 1949.5 There was additionally a Hungarian minority in Moldavia. 658–80. The medieval area of Romanian settlement extended. they were sometimes known in the Middle Ages as ‘the two Vlachias.2 Introduction such as Făgăraș and Almaș in Transylvania. See below. The Romanians are the descendants of a mainly Thracian population. which was Latinised at the time of the Roman Empire. on which account the historical name of Vlach might refer in the Middle Ages and later either to a Romanian-speaker or to a shepherd. who were known (misleadingly) as Saxons. Brătianu. Romanians were present in large numbers in the territory of the old Roman province of Moesia and were instrumental in the foundation of the Second Bulgarian Empire in the late twelfth century. 6 Robin Baker. frequently rendered as ‘Wallachian’. 2 Victor Spinei. Gheorghe I. their numbers were augmented by Hungarian 1 See below. Moldavia in the 11th–14th Centuries. pp. 4 The history of Saxon settlement is discussed in this collection by Liviu Cîmpeanu. German migrants. pp. ‘The “Second Bulgarian Empire”: Its Origin and History to 1204’. pp. pp. whose civic institutions were modelled on those found in the Transylvanian Saxon towns. 71–7. and is. reaching northwards from Thessaly as far as the principality of Halych and the Crimea. known as the Csángós. Traditia istorica despre intemeierea statelor romanesti [The historical tradition of the establishment of the Romanian states]. pp. lords (ispáns) of neighbouring Hungarian counties and the rulers of Wallachia. substantial groups of Romanians lived outside the historic boundaries of the three territories. from the twelfth century.6 In the later fifteenth century. This area. Moldavia and Wallachia. Transylvania and Wallachia as separate entities. cultural and political continuities.7 There was certainly. indeed. it is perhaps inevitable that national narratives should seek to impose a deterministic framework upon events that were neither predetermined nor continuous. 1963. but also a growing Landespatriotismus that fostered a sense of regional belonging. Even today. 98–9 (Alexandru Simon). pp. before the advent of the Romanian state. Gesammelte Abhandlungen u. Munich. 2011. 88–9. ‘Jiskra. The advent of nationalist historiography in the nineteenth century sought to obliterate distinctions that rested on criteria other than nationhood and to present the peoples of the region as ‘state-forming’ elements. but instead after the regions that existed historically. 9 Karl Kurt Klein. there was certainly a sense of solidarity with the Hungarians who lived farther to the west. awareness that the Romanians who lived in Moldavia. By addressing Moldavia. Transsylvanica. Nevertheless. and the nation’s role in founding or adapting institutions so as to comport with its mission to achieve statehood. ascribing their arrival in the region to the Pied Piper or to a lineage that went back to the Goths and even the ancient Dacians. legal status. In view of the contemporary association of state with nation. which was ascribed to their descent from Roman colonists of antiquity. and a Romanian that stresses the primacy of settlement and the struggle of a national community over time to forge a modern nation state. national identity was only one category of several and it competed with affiliations that rested on confession. it is plain that neither Transylvania. It is only by putting the nation state aside that the dynamics governing social relations and relations of power in the Middle Ages can be liberated from nationalist teleology. It is for this reason that the present volume is not called after Romania or the Romanian lands.8 The Saxons of Transylvania.und Siedlungsforschung der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. Even so. It was. One way of escaping the constraints of the national narrative is to break down the object of enquiry into its constituent political and geographical elements and to analyse these in terms of regional history. Hussitism and Slovakia’. driven by a deep historic commitment to reify the nation as a political community.9 Among the Hungarians of Transylvania. the history of their institutions. Prague. The Roman ancestry of the Romanians became a recurring motif among humanist historians. 11. 8 See below. Confession and Nation in the Era of Reformations. even in the Middle Ages. 102–8. Wallachia and Transylvania shared a common language. pp. likewise. in 1466. Aufsätze zur Sprach. The eastern arc of the Carpathians and the lands that ran from their slopes towards the Dniester and the Danube were characterised for much of the Middle Ages by 7 Martyn Rady. recalled their German descent. Martyn Rady 3 Hussites fleeing persecution. Moldavia nor Wallachia yield the most appropriate starting point from which to investigate the early history of the region. and loyalty to a common ruler. competing national schools developed that variously attempted to demonstrate the progress of the nation from antiquity to the modern day. As a consequence. in (eds) Eva Doležalova & Jaroslav Pánek. pp. . there are two histories of Transylvania—a Hungarian that is primarily concerned with institutional. and acquired a political significance in the late fifteenth century. membership of a privileged community. government and laws may be discussed in a less procrustean and deterministic fashion. in Moldavia that the first Hungarian translation of the New Testament was completed. They seem to have belonged to the Orthodox faith— one of their number was baptised in Constantinople. on the edge of what would become Wallachia. and the findings press-released on 5 August. Suceava and Cetatea Albă (Akkerman.11 Several of these duchies were specifically recorded as being populated by Romanians or Vlachs. Farkas and the voivode Lynioy. On account of their strategic and commercial location.’ while the bands of forest. although the names of the chieftains contrastingly suggest a Hungarian and Slavonic admixture. The mountain valleys and wooded fastnesses of the Carpathians encouraged ‘cantonisation. and. Elsewhere in this region. much of the whole region lay on the frontier of empires—the Avar khanate (sixth to ninth centuries). Partly this arose from geographic circumstances. the Hungarian kingdom.10 About a century later. principalities were formed in the shadow of fortified trading centres such as Khotyn. however. Kievan Russia. which was in origin a Turkic title. the Bulgarian khanate and kingdom (eighth to tenth centuries).4 Introduction fragmentation. built according to a Bulgarian Orthodox ground plan. the southern part of Transylvania belonged to the Bulgarian khanate and empire. The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century. The names of their chieftains—Tatos. c. dependencies and dwarf principalities. 73–6. Cuman tribes occupied a large part of the Wallachian plain. The centre of Alba Iulia was also the site of a substantial church. several small political formations were established on the Lower Danube. the principality of Halych. 12 The excavations were led by Daniela Marcu Istrate. after which their domains were incorporated in a territory that was apportioned to a royal officer who was variously known as a princeps 10 Victor Spinei. the names of which are recorded in a charter of 1247—a terra Lytva (Litovoi) and a terra of the voivode Szenelaus. The territory east of the Olt River was subsequently known by the name of Cumania. we learn of territories belonging to short-lived fragments of peoples—Birlads. which flourished in the interstices of power. minor duchies were founded. Berends and remnants of the old Khazar empire. 2011. the white or stone castle of Gyula). 950. Beyond this. pp. which was subsequently renamed Alba Iulia or Gyulafehérvár (literally. There was an equal shattering of authority in Transylvania. these places were contested by Byzantium. He and his descendants are recalled in the surviving sources by the name of Gyula or Gylas. . from which they launched assaults both into Transylvania and deep into the Balkans. the Pecheneg and Cuman tribal federations (ninth to thirteenth centuries). On its northern fringe. from the eleventh century. in what would later become Moldavia. The centre of their power was most probably the old Roman city of Apulum. Leiden & Boston.12 The family of the Gyulas was overthrown by St Stephen (1000–1038) at the beginning of the eleventh century. Around the end of the eleventh century. but its ruler was ousted by a Hungarian chieftain towards the end of the tenth century. The advance and retreat of empires threw up shards of short-lived statelets. Farther north. Originally. 1. Brodniks. the Genoese and the Tatars. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi). p. waterways and flood plains that intersected the lowlands of Moldavia and Wallachia were an equal impediment to political growth. 11 UB. 119. and several princedoms (called kenezatus) variously belonging to Johannes. Sesthslav and Satza—may be variously interpreted as disclosing a Turkic or Romanian heritage. the leader of one of these. See in particular. 21–8. mainly from the Rhineland and Low Countries.18 The term regnum might thus still be employed as an alternative to 13 This identification is disputed.15 the military orders of the Teutonic Knights and Hospitallers. and the accuracy of his account is contested. which makes it possible to consider Transylvania as a distinct territory within the complex of the Hungarian crown lands. which is Hungary’s earliest extant chronicle. which was several centuries after the events he described. ‘Deposedări şi judecaţi in Banat pe vremea Angevinilor şi ilustrarea lor prin procesul Voya (1361-1378)’. however. 61–6). by degrees. the Hungarian rulers encouraged the territory’s settlement by colonists. 35 (Florin N. the core of which comprised the Esztergom—Visegrád—Székesfehérvár triangle. therefore. have a sense of regional identity. Possibly. contribute to the establishment of the independent Transylvanian Principality of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 17 See the contribution to this collection by Tudor Sălăgean. one or more formerly self-governing principalities were by degrees brought under the sway of the Hungarian ruler. and communities of Romanians. 15 The Szekels are discussed briefly below. 16–17. 14 For some of these international trading links. they organised warrior folk to guard Transylvania’s defiles. but we should add to their number the Szekel communities on Transylvania’s eastern edge. both an important entrepôt for trade and a border zone that needed defending. pp. duke of the Vlachs. its territorial organisation was intersected by a medley of privileged communities. from the late thirteenth century Transylvania was referred to as a ‘realm’ or regnum. Of these. Transylvania was distant from the heart of the Hungarian kingdom. 1962. a certain Gelou. see below pp. 57–8 (Oana Toda). 5. See Florin Curta. 18 See the contribution of Romulus Gelu Fodor to this collection. and divided into counties headed by a lord or ispán. Studii şi materiale de istorie medie. whose agricultural and commercial expertise might advance the region’s prosperity and its international trade. Europe around the Year 1000. pp. The communities that were thus gathered were granted special privileges. 57–131 (esp. both as incentives to settlement and as rewards for the loyalty that they demonstrated. in (ed. 45–6 (Liviu Cîmpeanu). pp. Ardelean). Transylvania was. Martyn Rady 5 or voivode.14 On the other. but also including in the earlier period the locatores who founded settlements). the German Saxon community is the best known. The notion of Transylvania as a regnum and of its political community as a subject of right survived into the earlymodern period. p. these did. Warsaw.16 Although Transylvania was administered after the manner of the Hungarian kingdom. pp. In token of its separate institutional and governmental arrangements. The literature on knezes is extensive. . Maria Holban. centred upon the Danube bend. 2001. pp. however. organised under their own voivodes and knezes (variously translated as chieftains and headmen. On the one hand. pp. In respect of their sense of belonging. Conceivably. his power was located in what would later become Dăbâca County. 16 The role of locatores is discussed more generally below. Farther to the north. ‘Transylvania around AD 1000’.) Przemysław Urbańczyk. 141–65. Set at the westernmost limit of the Silk Road. is reported in the Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus.17 This apprehension of distinctiveness would in the later Middle Ages make itself felt in terms of an institutional connectedness and.13 Anonymus composed his account around 1200. The decline of the Mongol-Tatar empire in Central Asia during the fourteenth century split the Silk Road and had as its immediate consequence the economic decline of Transylvania—construction of the new Saxon church of Sebeșul Săsesc (Szászsebes. The Laws and Customs of Medieval Croatia and Slavonia: A Guide to the Extant Sources. Cluj Branch. In fact. called Oltenia. below. after a family that would gather the principality around itself and contribute over centuries to the ruling line. See also below. 21 Vladimir Hanga. there were several Romanian princedoms already established in the territory of Wallachia by the end of the thirteenth century. whereby Romanian chieftains left Transylvania and the kingdom of Hungary. Box 7. In fact. 47–8. 1635). 1988. as opposed to being ceded by princely grant. p. Melnbach) was thus halted midway—but it also left a political vacuum on the western steppe and on the Lower Danube. Les institutions du droit coutumier roumain. Both descriptions are of later provenance and may be regarded as mythological. Fond 389 (Arhivă familiei Matskási). edited by Martyn Rady. 22 See here the contribution of Laurenţiu Rădvan. and a second around the city of Argeş in the area of Muntenia. 62. The dismounting into Wallachia was thus described as having been organised by a Romanian prince. as having been acquired by alleged right of original occupation. over which Cuman and Tatar lordship was only registered in the occasional payments of tribute. which occupies the central part of Wallachia. there were many families or kindreds in each of these territories. The foundations of Wallachia and Moldavia were explained in later chronicles as the consequence of two ‘dismountings’ or descents. 19 National Archive of Romania. It is likely that this rebellion was prompted by Louis’s attempts to enforce Catholicism upon the mainly Orthodox Romanian population. Plainly also. who came across this land while hunting for aurochs. pp. Later histories would explain the emergence of separate polities in the lands that would later become Moldavia and Wallachia in dynastic fashion.21 The contest between the noblemen or boyars of Wallachia and Moldavia and the princely houses of these two lands would be a persistent political theme right through to the eighteenth century. . unusual in the later Middle Ages—the same trajectory and the vocabulary of rights based upon the concept of regnum may also be discerned in contemporary Slavonia.6 Introduction Principatus. 19 (Romulus Gelu Fodor). 3. which involved the uprising of already settled population in the terra moldauana. Their rights in land were subsequently acknowledged as allodial. London. For its part. the descent of Dragoş into Moldavia was preceded by a struggle on its border between the allies and adversaries of Louis the Great of Hungary. p. any one of which might have provided the princely house.20 The territory of Wallachia and Moldavia comprised before the fourteenth century a medley of petty principalities. from Făgăraș. 2013. in or around the last decade of the thirteenth century. there was for a time around 1300 a substantial Hungarian presence in the vicinity of Câmpulung in Muntenia.19 This move towards a territorialised notion of political community was not.22 Likewise. moving into the territory of what would later become the two principalities. Radu Negru. no 722 (letter of George I Rákóczi. however. 20 Damir Karbić & Marija Karbić. p. and thus prior to Radu Negru’s descent—most notably the voivodate of Litovoi in the western part of the region. the descent into Moldavia was supposedly led in the mid-fourteenth century by a certain Dragoş. Bucharest. Nicholas Alexander. p. Bogdan’s successors. effective power in Wallachia was held by a certain Basarab. in pursuing a pro-Polish policy. briefly embraced Catholicism. holding their power ‘by God’s grace. subsequently extracting the title of autocrat from the Byzantine Patriarch as well as a metropolitan see at Suceava. even to the extent of supporting Catholic missionary activity in the region. the ruling prince became the vassal of the Polish king. in (eds) Florin Ardelean. Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians. 2013. 1330). and overthrew the captains appointed by Louis of Hungary in the marches of Moldavia. located at Argeş. 1. As a consequence.24 In 1365. so the earliest rulers of Moldavia looked towards Poland. of the Hungarian ruler. he renewed his commitment to the Orthodox confession. Frankfurt a/M. observe that during the fourteenth century. the establishment of which freed Wallachia from outside interference in its ecclesiastical affairs. 12 (1369). at least in name. where he had previously led a revolt. To begin with. however. ‘Témoignages sur les relations de suzeraineté-vassalité polono-moldaves à la fin du règne du premier roi Jagellon’. Basarab relied for support upon the king of Hungary. Martyn Rady 7 We may. which replaced Siret as the Moldavian capital. As in Wallachia. In both principalities. Hungarian authority was weak. See DRH B. Louis I of Hungary. thus defined himself in his Latin intitulatio as Ladislaus dei Gratia et regis Hungariae gratia vajvoda Transalpinus. sought to counteract Hungarian influence by allying both with the Bulgarian despot of Vidin and with the Tatars that controlled the mouth of the Danube. which was the original capital of Moldavia. but he was opposed in this by the diplomacy of Charles Robert’s successor. the princes gave lavishly to the church. founding monasteries and new sees. Charles Robert’s successor was able to press the Wallachian ruler into an act of homage. . pp. A second metropolitan see was established a decade later at Severin. possibly to minister to the Orthodox population of the Banat. Charles Robert marched into Wallachia. however. ‘regnal communities’ emerged in the lands of Wallachia and Moldavia. who was probably of Cuman origin. Christopher Nicholson & Johannes Preiser-Kapeller. 157–76. and that they achieved some hegemony over the chieftains and princes who had formerly held sway in these territories. ecclesiastical relations with Constantinople were used to cement the power of the ruling dynasty. but his army was destroyed in an ambush by Basarab as it struggled through the southern Carpathians (the battle of Posada. Having failed to capture Basarab’s palace. at first sought to obtain recognition of Wallachia as a self-governing realm from Avignon. Basarab’s heirs continued to define themselves as vassals.23 Just as Basarab relied upon Bulgaria and the Tatars as a counterweight to Hungarian power. son of Thocomer. Nicholas Alexander had won patriarchal recognition of an independent ‘metropolitan of all Ungrovlachia’. Vladislav. Basarab. the written 23 Nicholas Alexander’s son. Moldavia followed the Catholic rite for only fifteen years. Although in 1387. more stable. By 1359. Basarab’s successor. in return for which they received anointment as rulers. Charles Robert. a ‘notoriously faithless’ rebel. During the 1320s. fled the Hungarian county of Maramureş.’ In consequence of the embrace of Orthodox Christianity. see now Ioan-Aurel Pop & Adinel Ciprian Dincă. Although a dozen years later. Charles Robert retreated northwards. Even so. Bogdan. besieging Basarab’s capital at Argeş. 24 On this subject. obtaining from the Pope an episcopal see at Siret (1371). however. London. Transnistria. The voivodes spent little time in Transylvania. ‘the Impaler’. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. and occasionally too by the Sultan’s Hungarian and Moldavian adversaries. in (ed.) Haynes. As a consequence. The rapidity of their movement partly had its origin in the royal fear that the voivodes would accumulate too great an independent power. gospodin). of the two principalities’ location between more powerful kingdoms and empires. or like Alexander the Good of Moldavia. however. 26. and an equal confusion of reigns in Moldavia. for they were usually landowners in Hungary and counted among the ruler’s most important councillors. The arrival of the Turks on the Danube. much of 25 See below. whose rulers were replaced at will by the Sultan. who in the last decades of the fifteenth century emerged as the corner-stone of an anti-Ottoman. like Mircea the Elder of Wallachia. the Polish-Lithuanian). During the course of the fifteenth century. shared among seventeen rulers. Wallachia was converted from a contested territory to a satellite. if so. and eventually to accept the Sultan’s overlordship and the payment of tribute. who managed to balance the external forces ranged against them. autocrat. but it was also due to their office constituting a reward for service. however. upset the uneasy balance of power relations. p. who owed his appointment to the Turkish destruction of his predecessor. and voivode—the rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia had insufficient authority to lend continuity to their rule. which resulted both in political interference from abroad and in rivals and malcontents enlisting foreign support for their designs. Thereafter. Bessarabia. or by election and. particularly under its prince. Moldavia held out longer against the Turks.26 The voivodes of Transylvania were appointed by the kings of Hungary. . explaining his dynasty’s unbroken descent from the mythical Dragoş. and finally by an assassin’s knife. Moldova. but also ‘chosen prince’. which encouraged Hungary’s rulers to distribute its fruits more equally. who committed themselves thoroughly to one side (in his case. pp. at the beginning of the fifteenth century. was composed. often returning after a few years to wrest power from their successors. they frequently held office for one or more decades at a time. altogether twenty-five voivodes held office during the fifteenth century. then by the Sultan in 1462. by whom. there were thirty-six separate periods of rule in Wallachia. sometimes bloodily. By degrees. was obliged to cede Chilia and Cetatea Albă. however. The nimbus of historical tradition compensated for the precariousness of princely power. regional alliance. 26 Rebecca Haynes. 91–100 (Alexandru Simon). of Wallachia. was overthrown three times—first by the Hungarians in 1448. The most enduring rulers were those. Notwithstanding the titles that they held—most often lord (domn. and in return received extensive assistance over decades. in 1476. Princes were overthrown with bewildering frequency. 2003. ‘Historical Introduction’. written in the Cyrillic script.8 Introduction language of government used in the princely chancelleries of Moldavia and Wallachia was principally Old Church Slavonic. Stephen the Great. It was also the consequence. The infamous Prince Vlad III. their periods of appointment were much shorter. gospodar.25 Even he. Partly this circumstance arose from uncertainties in the order of succession—whether by primogeniture or seniority within the ruling house. It was during Stephen’s reign that the earliest chronicle account. What began as a ‘fraternal union’ was thus converted by degrees into a congregatio generalis. 51–2. pp.28 Thereafter. 1355. Not only did these assemblies depend upon the prince’s summons. they tended to languish. 86–9. On occasions. History of Romania: Compendium. Bucharest. 2010. there was a princely council. 71–8. Torda and Cluj Counties thus had over the course of the fifteenth century. ‘Romanians in the 14th–16th Centuries: From the “Christian Republic” to the “Restoration of Dacia”’. pp. the development of representative institutions was muted to a degree that still needs to be determined. even to the extent of disregarding royal legislation. but urged on by the ruler as a way of coordinating military and fiscal policy. Les Institutions du droit coutumier roumain. which drew upon a much smaller membership. the purpose of which was tractatus and colloquium in respect of its members’ mutual affairs. new taxes. however. matching contemporary developments in Hungary. Szekel and Saxon communities. It is hard. this new body was meeting at least annually and demanding for itself an increased share in the province’s governance. 1410 etc).27 Although a rapid turn-around of power-holders was characteristic of Moldavia. 21–8 (Tudor Sălăgean). 30 Ioan-Aurel Pop.30 27 See thus András W. who. From the 1430s onwards. Transylvania and Wallachia. representative institutions reappeared. 28 See below. By the beginning of the sixteenth century. Martyn Rady 9 the routine administration of affairs was handled by their deputies. the administration of government and justice in the localities was reapportioned to new office-holders. 1358. like the lords of the Transylvanian counties and castellans of the major forts. Az erdélyi vármegyék középkori archontológiája. 229–30. They were replaced by judicial assizes.29 The assembly of the union of the three nations would subsequently become the diet of the independent Transylvanian Principality. Cluj. in (eds) Pop & Ioan Bolovan. with ‘general assemblies’ of the province being held only intermittently (1322. to see these bodies as operating in the manner of representative institutions that stood in a dualistic relation to the ruler. Certainly. forged originally out of a defensive alliance between the nobility. Where business was contentious. As a consequence. which lent the ruler advice in matters of government and justice. Cf Vladimir Hanga. but they also met too infrequently to constitute an institution as opposed to an event. were appointed by the voivodes. summoned mainly for the purpose of extirpating brigandage. With each change of voivode. however. pp. Kovács. . thirty-five different sets of lords between them (usually two were appointed simultaneously to each county). the council might after 1421 be reinforced with noblemen from the countryside and with representatives drawn from individual villages. Representative institutions appeared in Transylvania in the last decades of the thirteenth century. and our list is plainly incomplete. 1988. institutional growth proceeded at a different pace. election of the prince’s successor during his lifetime. and extraordinary assemblies of one or more counties. it made sense to broaden consultation and seek consensus. 29 See below. with autarkically-derived rights that were considered self-generating and thus independent of the princely will. pp. 2006. These ‘assemblies of all the land’ (adunări a toată ţara) were summoned mainly when matters of weight needed deliberation—defensive measures. p. 1347. Cluj. 18 (Romulus Gelu Fodor). Moldavia and Wallachia inherited a model of authority that borrowed from the political theology of Byzantium. and so on. representative and judicial functions. In the struggle to make good their will. most obviously of village communities and local arrangements of political brokerage and dispute resolution. pp. vol.31 Similar institutions of counsel and consent also emerged in the castellany and district of Făgăraș. These frequently generated expressions of Landschaft that was set against the authority or Herrschaft of an appointed office-holder. 169. pp. but also in the semi-militarised districts on Transylvania’s frontier. From the early sixteenth century.32 The extent to which analogous representative bodies met at a local level in Moldavia and Wallachia is disputed. may well therefore have propelled the nobles into active participation in the principality’s politics. 93. 109. 110–1 (Ovidiu Cristea & Marian Coman). the authority of the Tripartitum rested on 31 See below.33 As regnal communities. and subsequently his son. as the ruling princes. shaping the content of the law as well as determining its applicability to concrete cases. through the establishment of counties or districts. with an English translation and apparatus. The collision circa 1480 between Stephen the Great of Moldavia and the nobles or boyars of eastern Wallachia. . the district assembly of Făgăraș drew up the earliest extant body of local regulations to have survived from the medieval Hungarian and Transylvanian countryside. which provided counsel and consent as well as discharging judicial functions. The Moldavian and Wallachian rulers possessed only a veneer of power. a part of the law followed by the nobility of Transylvania derived from the text of Werbőczy’s Tripartitum opus iuris (1517). prompting in turn further collective activity. who had hitherto been a marginal force in Wallachian affairs. in the sense that it developed out of non-statutory rules. thus gathered in the shadow of local royal officers. there was little distinction between governmental. 1885. was not codified and was to a large extent orally transmitted. where an assembly of Romanian chieftains and warriors met to treat with the royally-appointed lord. Assemblies might in particular perform all three tasks. eds Sándor Kolosvári & Kelemen Óvári. 35 Published as DRMH 5. Moldavia and Wallachia had been constructed more recently and rapidly than their Polish and Hungarian neighbours and their institutional development lagged behind. The development of these local organisations of administration and justice in the territory of the Banat is discussed in one of the contributions to this volume. Political exchange generated in its turn an enlarged sense of political cohesion. the princes were thus often compelled to negotiate. Beside its division into counties. In Transylvania. 32 Corpus Statutorum Hungariae Municipalium. Transylvania included a number of districts and castellanies. which purported to describe the laws and customs of Hungary. were resisted. 1. not only in the historic counties and through the institution of the congregatio generalis. In 1508. pp.35 To the extent that its content never received the ruler’s formal approval. even in the pages of this collection. The law that was followed throughout this whole region was customary. 71–7 (Adrian Magina). 33 See thus the comments below of Alexandru Simon and of Ovidiu Cristea & Marian Coman. representative assemblies. which rested on top of older structures. p. Radu VII (1535–45). Attempts to impose administrative cohesion from above. Budapest. 34 See below.10 Introduction Representative institutions also emerged lower down the political ladder. resulting a few decades later in the events that installed Vlad VII (1532–35).34 In the Middle Ages. Throughout the region. a judgement to be effective needed the approval of three courts. all of which had the purpose of forcing a retrial. a court decision might be revisited and a double number of compurgators summoned to overturn a previous verdict.36 For most of the medieval period. the law was not guided by textual instruments. that these ever passed into formal use in the courts. We may note that in the medieval principalities. ohaba and uric were generally considered to be allodial. p. 38 See below. 37 See below. the effectiveness of this procedural recourse. Although the principles of noble land holding originally only applied to the noble elites.39 Property was considered to belong to the extended family of male landowners. in all three territories they became the norms of peasant inheritance. ocina. by communal norms. however. Publication of these texts was primarily intended to advertise the legitimising claim put forward by individual rulers that they stood in the Byzantine theocratic tradition. In Wallachia and Moldavia. Secondly. The substantive law was determined. however. First. 77 (Adrian Magina). and uric in Moldavia (the term probably derives from the Hungarian örök). Nevertheless. 39 See below. which often meant the court assuming a midway position between contending claims. 36 See below. and thus to belong to their owners by right of ancestral occupation. the substantive law retained considerable stability. ocina and ohaba in Wallachia. it had built-in procedures for the remedy of unjust decisions. while the procedural law followed in the tradition of the ecclesiastical courts. Restrictions on who might serve as a compurgator limited. 86 (Mariana Goina). 76 (Adrian Magina). who might hold it undivided or partition it among themselves. instead. This permitted in Transylvania a range of measures for review. In the districts of the Banat. as well as mechanisms for the transmission and appeal of cases. p. therefore. Even where the land was not farmed collectively. Thus. p. only land that had been specifically ceded by the prince was revertible (although in practice. although some of their content may have influenced individual court decisions. Land passed equally to male heirs. The law was. where legal review was seen as an essential device to protect all concerned. and the daughters received a share of the inheritance. relatives retained concurrent rights of ownership in respect of its inheritance through collateral branches and through rights of pre-emption. Land that was passed down within the family was called haereditates in Transylvania. it was concerned with establishing remedies to complaints.37 In Wallachia. all haereditates were deemed ultimately to derive from the ruler’s gift and were revertible in cases of treason or of default of heirs. however. several Byzantine legal codes were published under the names of various princes. The Tripartitum was supplemented in the seventeenth century by two (heavily edited) collections of legislation that had been passed by the Transylvanian diet after 1541. rulers often seized allodial estates). remedial in a twofold sense.38 Although the law was for the most part unwritten and court procedures remedial in purpose. Martyn Rady 11 its customary use in the courts and in litigation. p. It is doubtful. usually in movables (although the proportion differed from place to place). . In Transylvania. basic elements in the law of property and inheritance remained for the most part fixed in common practice. 79 (Mariana Goina). In Transylvania.45 The partition of noble estates among heirs meant that many noblemen were reduced economically to a material condition that differed little from the peasantry—these became the squireens or ‘seven plum-tree nobles’ of Transylvania and the ‘petty boyars’ (boiernaşii) of the principalities. maiores terrae or potentes viri in Wallachia and Moldavia. Stahl.41 In addition. until the early-modern period.12 Introduction differences remained in respect of the condition of the peasantry. Wallachia and Moldavia went through an analogous process of legal Verwissenschaftlichung as affected rural communities in Central Europe more generally. particularly in respect of military service. Ardelean). Although technically noble rank depended in Transylvania upon the ruler’s gift. Cambridge. much of the road network in Transylvania constituted noble property and even sections of ‘royal roads’ were commandeered by unscrupulous nobles. 41 See below. and boyars. Noble wealth rested mainly in Transylvania and the Banat upon the cash revenue that derived from privilege and not from the possession of land.44 Society in Moldavia. however. landowners retained in Transylvania and the Banat a monopoly over such vital resources as watermills. . many free villages were unable to uphold their rights against avaricious noblemen and clergy. p.40 Seigneurial jurisdiction seldom extended to the more serious criminal cases. As a consequence. many villages in Moldavia and Wallachia were ‘free’ in the sense that the land that was farmed belonged to the peasants and that did not have to provide rents or dues for it. the peasantry were deemed to hold their property in usufruct from their lords. however.42 The power of landlords to dispossess their tenants in Transylvania was circumscribed by customary law to the extent that peasant tenements were effectively mortmain. pp. local standing often meant that commoners were treated as noble on the say-so of other noblemen and so came to 40 See below. The status of nobility was hereditary and conveyed not only privileges in respect of jurisdictional rights but also legal obligations. p. 42 See below. 34–6 (Florin N. The villages were administered through their own communal assemblies. Traditional Romanian Village Communities. but villages might come together. p. pp. Although the authority of landowners over the tenant peasantry was defined earlier in Transylvania than in Hungary. 43 Henri H. permeable. they owed their lords services and were in their affairs subject to his seigneurial jurisdiction. 26 (first published in 1969). instituting regional confederations with their own ‘republican’ institutions.43 During the course of the sixteenth century. 62–3 (Oana Todor). 18 (Romulus Gelu Fodor). 44 See below. These were called nobiles in Transylvania. The written word and proofs that rested on writing now tended to trump recollection and customs that had been orally transmitted. who often established illegal tolls. Nevertheless. 2008. it was generally less complete. Transylvania and Wallachia was dominated by the nobility. which were instead usually moved before the county courts. In contrast to Transylvania. On this account. and the dues payable in service and kind that noble proprietors might exact were similarly restricted. 68 (Livia Magina). and their peasants were by degrees converted into servile tenants. in token of service. 85–9 (Mariana Goina). pp. while still remaining noblemen. Noble status was. 45 See below. however. who held their estates directly of the prince. Readings of history that have as their starting point the development of the state and the nation over time are often compelling but they also act as a distorting lens on the distant past. The grant of nobility more Walachorum allowed the recipients the right to judge by their own law and to administer their affairs in their own assemblies. The exclusion of adherents of the Orthodox faith from Transylvania’s most important political institutions became a source of contention in nationalist historiography from the late eighteenth century onwards. a similar lack of precision meant that the ranks of the nobility were also fluid in their composition. Bucharest. 48 Ioan Drăgan. of giving them unimpeded access to the courts of the king and voivode or a role in the counties and in the emerging Transylvanian diet of the three nations. Accordingly. 218. The consequence is a range and depth of scholarly enquiry that is neither reliant on grand. over-arching ideas nor so microscopic in its field of study as to be without any comparative significance. 47 The process is described by Ioan-Aurel Pop. 16. language and locality—including townscapes. It fell short. noble status generally depended upon the acceptance of Catholicism. By converting their free property into land held ostensibly by donation of the ruler. as we know from a later period. Transylvania and Wallachia to be understood in a fuller. but with a concern for the larger circumstances in which they arose. Fond 3 (Protocollum Marchalis Congregationis). comprising both large landowners and the hereditary chieftains. forming in several counties an absolute majority of the noble population.47 Because the ranks of the nobility were relatively porous. fol. the personal affirmation of noble descent was sometimes considered of itself sufficient proof of status. Others are predicated on understanding terms as they were used at the time and on the local organisation of government and the law. 8v (1808).48 In the areas subject to the Hungarian crown. which gave more circumscribed rights in return for defined services. . The present collection of essays suggests the ways in which history may be written without recourse to a teleological framework. many Romanian chieftains and others were able to acquire noble status in Transylvania and the Banat. Nobilimea românească din Transilvania. As a consequence. p. watermills and roads—are thus foregrounded as subjects of investigation and analysed in their own terms. 46 Romanian National Archive. Text. ‘Romanians in the 14th–16th Centuries’. the present volume may serve not only to introduce contemporary Romanian scholarship to a larger audience but also to enable the medieval history of Moldavia. however. Indeed. European context. Some of the essays included here are concerned with institutions and with the close reading of a specific set of sources.46 In Moldavia and Wallachia. 1440–1514 [Romanian nobility in T. Martyn Rady 13 acquire the rights of gentlemen. p. 2000.] . men of petty means were able to advance into the ranks of the Moldavian and Wallachian nobility. Cluj Branch. most Romanians received the status of ‘conditional nobles’. headmen and knezes. no. 331. . I. the Hungarians represented the shield and bastion of Christianity. eds & trans. 3 [7]. On account of his expertise and political connections. Péter Banyó and Martyn Rady (=DRMH 5). no 490. p. ‘The Prologue to Werbőczy’s Tripartitum and its Sources’. 4 Tripartitum. the identity of the monarch rested upon his election by the community and was not determined by hereditary succession. Werbőczy went on to explain that the king and the political nation of the nobility were united by their membership of the Holy Crown. 3 Pál Engel. I. I. 2 [1]. According to Werbőczy’s scheme. each member of the nation had been free and all had been possessed of equal rights. The English Historical Review.Constitutional Thought and Institutions in Medieval Transylvania Romulus Gelu Fodor The ideology that for many centuries underpinned the legal. however. while ‘Scythia’ constituted the ancestral mother land. Budapest & Idyllwild. 2005. Istoria Ungariei Medievale 895-1526 [The Realm of Saint Stephen: History of Medieval Hungary]. 121. of their failure to attend the martial summons.2 Among all nations unsurpassed in bravery. The Customary law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary: A Work in Three Parts (Tripartitum). as envisioned by Werbőczy. 2006. Werbőczy presented this at the diet of 1514 and published it. which embodied the kingdom and thus the political 1 Martyn Rady. 5 Ibid. which in turn owed its allegiance not to him but rather to the Holy Crown. 2006. and thus lacked the status of statute law. 2 Stephen Werbőczy.1 Werbőczy himself came from the common nobility of the kingdom. 6 Ibid.5 Because the community was the true owner of the Crown. On account. and it became very much the ‘Holy Bible’ of the Hungarian nobility. Cluj. Bak.3 Werbőczy maintained that according to Scythian law. many Hungarians were condemned to servitude and became separated from the elite of noblemen.6 In the noble republic. the king was little more than the agent of the noble estate. CA. legal framework for noble hegemony and promoted the idea that the government of the kingdom rested with the noble estate. Werbőczy was proficient in Roman and Canon Law as well as in the largely unwritten customary law of the kingdom. the Tripartitum rapidly acquired a customary authority.4 From this starting-point. János M. in Vienna in 1517. 366. pp. I. 4 [1]. Although it never received the royal seal. historical and political thought of the Hungarian nobility was rooted in Werbőczy’s Tripartitum. he was commissioned to compose a compendium of Hungarian law. at his own expense. 15 . He was also a well-known politician who was active in the diet. His work reflected his origins insofar as it created the formal. Regatul Sfântului Ștefan. 104–5. the nobility represented the Hungarian natio. 3 [1]. 16 Constitutional Thought and Institutions community of the realm. From this it followed that the king was not empowered to make legislation on his own, but only with the agreement of the nation, to which all legislative acts had to be referred.7 In this way, Werbőczy elaborated the mutual dependence of king and nobles, as embodied in the Holy Crown, and the rights that belonged to the political community or ország to select the ruler and to participate in government through the institutions of the noble county and the diet.8 The legal ideas contained in Werbőczy’s Tripartitum were expressed through the political mechanisms that were put in place by the Hungarian diet and by the diet in Transylvania. Werbőczy’s Tripartitum additionally granted Transylvania, along with Croatia and Slavonia, a special status within the kingdom. These lands operated autonomously within the kingdom and Werbőczy recognised that their laws and customs might diverge from those practised elsewhere in the realm.9 In respect of Transylvania, we should note that this part of the kingdom evolved differently from the rest of the kingdom, as a consequence of which it enjoyed a measure of self-government. Transylvania was conquered in stages and over a prolonged period. Under the rule of St Stephen (who died in 1038), the Hungarian conquerors advanced as far as the River Someș in Transylvania. Then, during the reign of St Ladislas (1077– 1099), they advanced further to the valleys of the Mureș and Târnava. The last phase of the conquest took place during the reign of Géza II, around the middle of the twelfth century, when the southern part of the country was incorporated in Hungary.10 In order to fully occupy this natural stronghold, the Hungarian kings had to resort to colonisation; hence the Szekels were established in the south-eastern part of Transylvania beside the Carpathian mountain rim, where they kept their ancestral rights and autonomy. Similar rights were granted by the Hungarian kings to the Transylvanian Saxons, a population brought from different regions of Germany, first as agriculturalists and later as craftsman and merchants. The earliest Saxon group was established in Transylvania around the mid-twelfth century by Géza II.11 Saxons, Szekels and nobles worked together to preserve their rights from royal interference, which eventually impelled them towards political union. The weakening of the Hungarian central power after the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century, and especially that of 1241, gave the Transylvanian nobles in particular and the estates in general the opportunity to strengthen their power and to constitute a congregatio, separate from the Hungarian diet. Since Transylvania already constituted an autonomous territory, the emergence of representative organs corresponded with its developing institutional identity.12 The term of regnum that attached to Transylvania at this time reflected the growth of the Transylvanian noble estate as represented through 7 Ibid, II. 3 [3]. 8 Robert W. B. Gray, Land Reform and the Hungarian Peasantry c. 1700-1848, unpublished PhD thesis, London UCL, 2009, p. 22 (online versions). 9 Ioan Drăgan, Nobilimea românească din Transilvania 1440-1514 [Romanian nobility of T.], Bucharest, 2000, p. 60. 10 (eds) Ioan-Aurel Pop & Thomas Nägler, Istoria Transilvaniei [History of T.], 1, Cluj, 2003, pp. 212–213. 11 UB, 1, p. 34. 12 Gheorghe I. Brătianu, Adunările de Stări în Europa și în Țările Române în Evul Mediu [Estates Assemblies in Europe and the Romanian Lands in the Middle Ages], Bucharest, 1996, p. 208. Romulus Gelu Fodor 17 the congregatio.13 It was this term that was later picked up by Werbőczy and included in the Tripartitum. The Transylvanian estates first met at the end of the thirteenth century, under the name of the congregatio generalis nobilium regni Transilvaniae. As elsewhere in Europe, the congregatio or diet consisted of the privileged orders, and it was summoned by the king or voivode, mostly for purposes of counsel and consent, especially in regard to such general matters as taxes, local administration and justice. The Transylvanian diet also had the right to legislate in matters affecting the territory, thus deepening the sense of Transylvanian identity and hastening a difference of political discourse. Although the diet exercised its legislative function only sporadically, for most important decisions were still taken by the king or the Hungarian diet, the idea that the Transylvanian diet might discharge a role in law making was a decisive factor in its subsequent development.14 The first gathering of the Transylvanian nobility took place in 1288. On this occasion, the diet was summoned by the vice-voivode, in the name of the voivode, Roland Borșa.15 In March 1291, the last Árpád king, Andrew III, summoned a diet in Alba Iulia, in which, for the first time those called to attend the assembly were described as universis nobilibus, Saxonibus, Syculis et Olachis in partibus.16 The summons of 1291 enumerated the groups that would subsequently constitute the political nations of Transylvania—the nobles, Saxons and Szekels. Alongside these, the charter of summons also mentions Romanians as participants. Because of their Orthodox confession, Romanians would, however, be subsequently excluded from the high political and judicial life of the country. The institutional and jurisdictional development of the Transylvanian estates took a further step with the rebellion of the unprivileged peasantry in 1437. The three nations (as they became known)—the nobles, the Saxons and the Szekels—initially joined forces in a union against the peasantry and the Turks, but then extended their confederation into a mutual defence pact in 1459. In 1467, this alliance formed the backbone of the Transylvanian noble revolt against Matthias Corvinus.17 This union of the three nations was designated a fraterna unio and was consolidated in the following century under the weak Hungarian kings of the Jagiello dynasty.18 The fraterna unio, which was later called the unio trium nationum, acquired increasing power and authority, and provided the basis of the reconstituted diet of Transylvania. During the second half of the fifteenth century, the diet of Transylvania emerged as a unicameral but triune parliament, being attended by delegates drawn from the three political nations of the territory. The diet of the three nations became in the sixteenth century the parliament of the independent principality of Transylvania (although after 1544, the diet was also attended by representatives of the several Hungarian counties that lay west of Transylvania). 13 Tudor Sălăgean, Transilvania în a doua jumătate a secolului al XIII-lea. Afirmarea regimului congregațional [Transylvania in the second half of the thirteenth Century. The instauration of the congregational regime], Cluj, 2003, pp. 235–237. 14 Pop & Nägler, Istoria Transilvaniei, p. 259. 15 Ibid, p. 258. 16 Ibid, p. 259. 17 Drăgan, Nobilimea românească, p. 89–90. 18 Vladimir Hanga, Ioan Ceterchi (eds), Istoria Dreptului Românesc [Romanian legal history], Bucharest, 1980, I, p. 266. 18 Constitutional Thought and Institutions Transylvanian politics was dominated by two trends. On the one hand, forces ranged around the king sought to hem in the nobility and privileged orders, and thus the independence of the diet. On the other, the Transylvanian estates attempted to carve out a political space and thus to constitute the regnum as not only a constitutional but also a territorial entity. Certainly, much of the business of the diet was humdrum regulation, affecting the courts, taxation and administration. Nevertheless, the legislative capacity of the diet was acknowledged in matters affecting Transylvania, even to the extent that it might modify a statute issued with the authority of the Hungarian diet.19 Thus, for instance, a congregatio that took place in 1342 under the presidency of the voivode gave the nobility of Transylvania the right to judge and punish their peasant tenants, even though this right exceeded the powers generally granted at this time to noblemen in Hungary.20 In 1463, King Matthias Corvinus authorised a general mobilisation (exercitus generalis) across the kingdom to meet the Turkish challenge and instructed Transylvania’s compliance. 21 Nevertheless, the three privileged nations of Transylvania gathered in their own diet and modified these measures in the sense that landless nobles and Hungarian peasants (jobbagiones Hungarici sanguinis) should remain behind in order to guard the territory’s castles and protect the homes of the nobility.22 In 1494, the Transylvanian diet refused to levy the additional taxation instructed by Wladislas II, obliging the king to come personally to Transylvania and summon a diet at Sibiu, at which he presided.23 The readiness of the Transylvanian diet and of its privileged orders to defy the king and to promote a separate legislative agenda illustrates the degree to which the idea of self-government had become entrenched in Transylvanian responses, even to the extent of spilling over into defiance. In this respect, the creation in the sixteenth century of an independent Transylvanian principality was not an event born out of a chance constellation of circumstances but the outcome of political and institutional developments that took place over several centuries. If we compare the relationship of the estates to royal power in the kingdom of Hungary during the course of the Middle Ages, we can strongly assert that political life was dominated by the estates. With some exceptions during the reign of a few powerful rulers, like Charles Robert, Louis the Great and Matthias Corvinus, the political and legislative initiative rested with the nobility.24 Royal authority repeatedly foundered on the shoals of noble power and representative institutions were able to carve out a space of their own. This was the context in which the Transylvanian institution of the diet developed and consolidated its power and special character within the kingdom of Hungary. The weak dynasty of the Jagiellos, which ruled over the last decades of medieval Hungary, facilitated and consolidated the power of the estates as the ruling 19 Drăgan, Nobilimea românească, p. 98. 20 Gheorghe Bichicean, Congregațiile generale în Transilvania voievodală [General congregations in medieval T.], București, 2008, p. 333; DIR C, p. 86, doc. 82; EO, 3, no 91. 21 Ioan Lupaș, ‘Individualitatea istorică a Transilvaniei’ [The historical individuality of T.], in Scrieri Alese [Selected Writings], 1, eds Ștefan Pascu & Pompiliu Teodor, Cluj, 1977. 22 DPIR, 2, p. 147, doc.126. 23 Bichicean, Congregațiile Generale, p. 391; Lupaș, ‘Individualitatea istorică’, p. 48. 24 Drăgan, Nobilimea românească, p. 99. had developed over the course of the preceding centuries. these ideas would come to the fore. Romulus Gelu Fodor 19 class. His ideas were rapidly taken up in Transylvania where a similar drive towards republicanism. In the principality of Transylvania that emerged during the course of the sixteenth century. On the one hand. . on the other. however. constitutional thought in the principality promoted the notion that political authority rested with the privileged orders. based on the rights of Transylvania’s three privileged communities. existing within and yet set apart from the noble republic of Hungary. In so doing. was carried into Transylvanian legal and constitutional thought. In this way. In this way. No wonder that Werbőczy’s own rhetoric emphasised the superior authority of the noble estate and was predicated on the principles of noble republicanism. The Tripartitum recognised the separate political status not only of Croatia and Slavonia but also of Transylvania. it conceived that the right to determine the prince rested with the estates. the doctrine of the Holy Crown. Werbőczy’s noble republicanism applied not only to Hungary. as a symbol of the political community and of the estates’ right of election. His account thus recognised Transylvania’s political divergence and the separate constitutional course that it had taken over the preceding centuries. he confirmed the power of the estates and thus the right that adhered to the nobility to elect the ruler. to each of which Werbőczy attached the title of regnum. Werbőczy recognised that Transylvania also constituted a noble republic. . more or less every year. some of the extant sources refer to Transylvania as a regnum. state-like entity or. Certainly. duke of Transylvania. It functioned as both an assembly for receiving petitions and as a court of law. the Hungarian diet languished in the period after 1300. further references to the regnum Transilvanum from 1288 to 1291 have no connection whatsoever to the voivode Roland Borşa and his territorial authority. the Transylvanian congregatio continued to meet frequently. Until recently. the Saxon rebellion (1277–79) and the domination of 21 . by Hungarian historians. issued by the ‘young king’ (iunior rex) Stephen. as evidence of the ‘oligarchic’ power exerted by the voivodes Roland (Lorand) Borsa and Ladislas Kán in the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The congregatio of Transylvania operated in a manner akin to its counterpart in Hungary. the domination of the Csák kindred (1274–77). the expression regnum nostrum Transsilvanum.Regnum Transilvanum: the Transylvanian congregatio nobilium and its role as a legal community at the end of the thirteenth century Tudor Sălăgean In the late thirteenth century. The history of Transylvania between 1272 and 1282 may be divided into four main stages: the rule of Nicholas Geregye as voivode (1272–74). a part of it. the bishop of Transylvania and representatives of church institutions were present. It might be attended by all noblemen. As we will argue. The difficulties in interpretation diminish once we eliminate the ideological misconceptions that underlie them and review the description of regnum in its contemporary sense. Whereas. Nevertheless. however. which was also combined with the increased role that Transylvania played in the politics of the kingdom. but usually they appointed delegates. unmistakably refers to a distinct political unit subordinated to the Transylvanian voivode. this term was understood by Romanian historians as disclosing a territorial. apparently different from regnum Hungariae but. The earliest reference to a congregatio is from 1288. the milieus that sustained them belonged not to the voivodal chancellery. but to the Transylvanian noblemen’s congregatio. the structures of which started to crystallise in exactly the same period. In addition to the nobility. as given in a document of 1266. The re-establishment in 1257 of the ducal institution in Transylvania (ducatus Transilvaniae) under the authority of the heir of the Hungarian crown marked the beginning of a decisive period for the social and institutional history of the region. nonetheless. or ország in Hungarian. people. Szekel and Romanian communities. including the areas of Saxon and Szekel settlement. who was voivode on four separate occasions during the course of the 1270s. the second is the date when used. we give three columns. Matthew Csák. Ladislas IV.22 Regnum Transilvanum the Aba kindred (1279–82). vested with an authority of its own. It is far more plausible that the term. the term of regnum amplified the separate status that Transylvania was considered to have within the Hungarian kingdom. In his fight against the domination of the aristocratic kindred. Along with elements recruited from Cuman nomads. historical traditions. and from the emerging noble congregatio of Transylvania. The first is the author of the term. was connected to the emergence of the noble congregatio. it cannot be that the regnum Transilvanum. . Acting as dukes in all but name. as deployed between 1288 and 1291. mentioned in the sources of this period. Roland Borsa was installed in 1282 as voivode of Transylvania. Land or Landschaft. In view of Borsa’s weakness in the face of the political might that Ladislas had gathered. customs and institutions. Not only was Borsa’s authority insufficient to justify the term of regnum. was the rhetorical counterpart of Borsa’s own territorial lordship. but the term was also never used in relation to the power he discharged. scions of the house of Aba exercised full control over all of Transylvania. which otherwise reached only to Transylvania’s seven historical counties. During these years. The political community of the Transylvanian nobles increasingly saw itself as a subject of right. the Aba kindred reconstructed the political system of the dukedom without re-establishing the institution itself. they supported the king’s party in the last years of his reign (1287–90). as he faced double competition from the ruler. In this way. historians have understood the term in the directly opposite sense in which it was intended—as an expression of political community. having its own recognisable space. thus extending their power beyond the confines of the voivode’s authority. attempted to formally restore the Transylvanian dukedom as his own patrimony. In what follows. A few years later. analogous to a legal country. Borsa’s position was weak. to which the Latin term of a regnum was now attached. Following the eclipse of the Csák and Aba kindreds. By imagining regnum as an indication of oligarchic lordship. and the third is the expression itself. We can go further. which Ladislas spent almost exclusively in Transylvania and in its surrounding areas. King Ladislas sought allies from among the Transylvanian lesser nobility as well as from the ruling families of the Saxon. 1. Michael comes. 434–436.2 23 Ladizlaus vicevoyouoda transsiluanus Andreas (III. part 1.. EO. we have thrown out territorial lordship as the instrument of its birth. The exceptions were Croatia (which was a kingdom) and Slavonia (which was not. to the regnum occur in the context of judicial functions discharged by noblemen on behalf of the congregatio (June 8. In 1279.. As a consequence. 2 Fejér. 479.. nobiles regni nostri et Saxones Transilvani predia tenentes et more nobilium . none. Codex diplomaticus. none of these references has anything to do with the territorial lordship of Roland Borsa.4 This legal construction leaves out. in the other territories controlled by the Borsa kindred in the last two decades of the thirteenth century. vol 7. pp. . The royal diploma of King Andrew III concerned measures adopted at the 1290 assembly in Buda. we would subscribe to Martyn Rady’s view that the meaning of regnum should be located in the legal community of the Transylvanian nobles.. we must necessarily ask what the bonding agent of the regnum was. nobiles regni nostri et predicti Saxones regni Transilvaniae . as represented in the congregatio nobilium. 4 Martyn Rady. part 3. and as an expression of the Doppelpoligkeit that is typical of the medieval polity.) rex Hungariae Comes Benedictus gerens vices Ladizlai vicevaivode Transsiluani Nicolaus de Gumbas et Gregorio de Sancto Rege comitibus per regnum Transsilvanum iudicibus deputatis . pp. part 1. 11 vols in 40 parts. Buda. vol. 1291 May 8. part 2. May 8. Legal communities analogous to the one in Transylvania existed throughout the Hungarian kingdom. in (ed. Certainly. UB. pp. 5. pp. although always treated as one). however. there is ample evidence of representative institutions at work—in Bihor (Bihar) and the other six neighbouring counties. 1291) or with rights and duties associated with the noble status (February 22. 1291 Petrus de Nyr. DPIR. ‘Voivode and Regnum: Transylvania’s Place in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary’. comes de Kulus. no. filius Laurencii. pp. moreover. 178–179. Historians and the History of Transylvania.1 . 1291). Boulder & New York. 172–176. EO. Plainly. no. 1. Moreover.) László Péter. iudices per regnum Transsilvanum constituti .. earned the description of a regnum.. Békes. 1288 February 22. however. 87–101. which were put the next year before the congregatio in Alba Iulia. [Petrus comes?] filius Muron. 437.. The two diplomas of the vice-voivode Ladislas and of his deputy Benedict were issued during sessions of the congregatio. vol 6. . 3 Fejér. regnum may be considered in terms of a political community and constitutional subject of right.. Crasna.. 123 Tudor Sălăgean June 8. 1. closely bound up with the operation of the Transylvanian congregatio. Sătmar (Szatmar). no. pp. however. pp. 1288. therefore.. et comes Petrus. 1829–44. 470.. Once. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. DPIR. 1. Zarand and Szabolcs.. 474–475 (hereafter: HD). 139–147. 1992. Codex diplomaticus.3 All the references. and an 1 Georgius Fejér. so that they might obtain concurrent legal authority in Transylvania. All are. Solnoc. EO. 163–164. noblemen from these seven counties met together to deliberate with Borsa on their common concerns. part 1. filius Clementis. an important part of the historical equation. as may be illustrated by the following examples: 7891011 121314 Bela.11 Et cum Ladyzlaus woyuoda et Jula frater eiusdem venissent cum Cumanis contra nos ad partes Transsilvanas . 32–33.. 1231 1243 1256 1263 1267 1267 1278 1285 . eds Kristó Gyula et al.. cum fidelem nostrum Laurencium vaivodam post conflictum Tartarorum ad partes Transsilvanas misissemus.. Codex diplomaticus. destrueremus.. pp. 2. 1. vol. porcionem suam de terra Hasadad ipsum contingentem in partibus Transsilvanis existentem .. In 1317 Dózsa Debreceni held at Sălacea an assembly of the counties of Bihor. pp. possessiones avi sui Julae magni in partibus scilicet Transsilvanis existentes . század) [Early Hungarian hist . EO. rex Hungariae .. DIR C. 14 DPIR. 13 DIR C.14 This selection of documentary sources makes clear that Transylvania was understood as being in some way separate from the rest of the Hungarian kingdom. iunior rex Vngariae.. 406. pp. positi in Transilvanis partibus.. 1 pp. 276. EO. unacum Gylnuchbana et terram Nyr ultra partem de Tyzael usque ad partem Transsilvanam contra nostram regia maiestatem potentialiter ocuparent . to put it another way. 271–273. EO. 21–23. Transylvania was. quasdam terras udvarnicorum nostrorum in Transsilvanis partibus existentes. 52–53. 54–55. Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus. The region functioned instead as an integral part of the regnum Hungariae. inutiles et superfluas donationis . Szabolcs. pp.. 452–459. pp. DIR C. 394–395.. DIR C. DIR C. Pest–Budapest.6 (Or. 89–90. part 3. pp. pp.. however. Sătmar.7 . p. 12..24 Regnum Transilvanum assembly of this type lingered on into the next century. pp.5 The region shared a prehistory. 1994. 6 Ferenc Makk.13 ... no.. 163.. rex primogenitus Bela IV. no... part 2. 250–253. EO. Codex diplomaticus.12 . . 2.. DIR C. pp. 158–159. 1279. 2. 98–100. different. 1.. pp. no. pp. in partibus Transilvanis sunt hec . in Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. vol. 1.10 . Nonetheless.. pp. 4. 2. 2. lexicon (9th to 14th c)]..8 Possessiones . no.. p. 10 Fejér. In the first decades of the 14th century the configuration of the ‘province’ was still almost unchanged. 241 11 UB. 407–410. DIR C. See Fejér. 262. EO. Budapest. its territory was never considered sufficiently integrated to qualify as a regnum. part 1. Its population 5 An early general congregatio of the nobles living in these counties is mentioned on January 30.. 1860–78. 261. 4. 97–98. EO. cum Lorandus filius Mark per suam infidelitatem terram nostram Scepusiensem. 1. 8 UB. Codex diplomaticus. 261.. pp. part 3. Its separate status and identity was part and parcel of administrative discourse. 12 Fejér. UB. 1. no. 528. 1. without ever acquiring a separate legal identity. See Gusztáv Wenzel (ed. 494–496.. 196–197.. in the sense that its parts broadly formed the ducatus Byhariensis that is mentioned in Hungary’s earliest chronicle as having an existence at the time of the Magyar conquest. vol. dux Transilvaniae Idem Idem Capitulum ecclesie Varadinensis Ladislaus IV. the region was at least sufficiently delineated around 1200 for it to be thought by the chronicler that its parts might have had a common past).. 1.. 51–52.. 9 DIR C. 7 UB. 8. no. pp. 12 vols.). 2.. 280–281. Solnoc and Crasna. 3. 195. pp.. 70–71. 1.. rex Hungariae Bela IV rex Hungariae Stephanus.9 . 94–95. pp.. 5. vol. 1. Not only was the Transylvanian space and identity considered different. 2.. 21 Fejér. 1910. EO... but it was sometimes even counter-posed to Hungarian: 15 UB. eum naturalem terre dominum cognoscentes17 . fideles hospites nostri Theutonici Ultrasilvani. contra Gyan filium Alardi in partibus Transsilvanicis pro conservatione incolarum partis illius . The rise of the Transylvanian nobles’ individual and group identity. Saxonibus. part 4. 1. pp. 383–384.. milites nostros Saxones Ultrasilvanos . pp. members of the political elite and landowners. no. DIR C. 1. pp. 32–33.. and ibid.. with a status of their own as ‘Transylvanians’: 151617181920212223 Andreas II. 19 DPIR. DIR C.. 271–273.. EO.. DIR C. 211–213.16 .. vite detestabili. together with their aim to constitute a distinctive noble order and an assembly of their own. pp.20 . DIR C. 163. Syculis et Olachis in partibus Transilvanis apud Albam Jule pro reformatione status eorundem congregationem cum eisdem fecissemus . archiepiscopus Strigoniensis Andreas III rex Hungariae 1285 1285 1289 1288 1291 The ‘Transylvanians’ mentioned in the first five examples belonged to the category. Saxones et alii homines regionis Transsilvane ad patrem redierunt. 406. 32–35.. no.. 1. EO. 457–460. 44.15 .. no. of German colonists who had settled after the middle years of the twelfth century.. 22 Századok [Centuries]. 254–255. pp. starting with the reign of Ladislas IV.. Tudor Sălăgean 25 was similarly conceived of as constituting a distinct people. The increasing number of references to ‘Transylvanian nobles’. 1. for the same apprehension also guided the developing Saxon identity.19 Insuper cum nostros homines fideles Transsilvanos unacum Cumanis nostris contra Dormanum et Bulgaros misissemus... 325. pp. 1.18 .. 306–308.21 .. 23 DIR C. pp. which equally drew on notions of a separate Transylvanian belonging. 7.. pp. 16 UB. quidam Saxo. EO. They were not alone in sensing this. 23–27.. 54–55. pp. 1.. EO. no. rex primogenitus Ladislaus IV. no. Syculis et Volachis de Cybiniensi et de Burcia comitatibus Transil(v)anis. pp. .... no. is connected to their threefold function as warriors. 509. DIR C. quas universi Nobiles partis Transsilvaniae tunc in ipsa expeditione nostra nobiscum existentes . 447–448. pp. 351. EO. 1. no. . 4. Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus. rex Hungariae Bela. vol. cum nos universis Nobilibus. 1.. 1... rex Hungariae Stephanus archiepiscopus Colochensis 1224 1231 1273 1277 . 18 EO. Codex Diplomaticus.23 Ladislaus IV. 17 Wenzel. 1. 208–210. 452–459. 436. pp. part 1. 8–11.. 2. nobilibus Ungarorum. part 1.. pp. DIR C... 296–299. 394–395. part 3.. nomine Gaan filius Alardi /. 369. 405. pp./ congregata multitudine sue nationis novissime de partibus Transsilvanis. 1. 1.22 . universos gentis Vngarice in ducatu commorantes Transsilvano in quibuscumque latibulis .. 455.. 2. 20 DPIR. rex Hungariae Idem Idem Lodomerius. no 477. were underpinned by their sense of difference... 2. EO. magistrum Georgius exercitus capitaneum preficientes . 2. 1. Saxonibus. DIR C. no.. There are.. 220.. by introducing the antithesis of regnum Hungariae.. Stephen coupled the region’s separate status with its distinct governmental organisation... 2728 Andreas (II. German colonisation had been long underway in Hungary and so the designation of the newcomers as primi hospites regni most probably.. 4. 213–215. no. 29 Thomas Nägler. pp.29 Any possible uncertainty in this matter is dispelled by the diploma of the ‘young king’ Stephen (1266). which is depicted as one of the countries belonging to the Hungarian crown. quite separate from it.. 1. pp. Aşezarea saşilor în Transilvania [Settlement of the Saxons in Transylvania]. 108–110. pp. iunior rex Vngariae. 368.occupatione. a distinct ‘country’ that was on the one hand inside of Hungarian kingdom but. 79–80... Even if not defined explicitly as a regnum. an implicit indication of Transylvania’s status as such. 24 Fejér.. 405–407. moreover. that explicitly recognise Transylvania as having the quality of a regnum. DIR C. 164. 260. rex Hungariae Stephanus. dictum patrem nostrum de suo regno miserabiliter ad partes Transilvanas effugasset26 Transylvania (or the ‘Transylvanian parts’) is. refers to the regnum of Transylvania.. Ighiu and Romos.. tam in hoc regno. pp. 96–98. EO. EO. on the other. no. quam in parte Transylvana.. as Thomas Nägler has argued. Crapundorph et Rams. 2. avus noster carissimus . pp. 368–369. dux Transilvaniae 1206 1266 . 1. 1.28 In respect of the first charter. Moreover. pp. 2. part 2. pp.. dux Transilvaniae Ladislaus (IV.. monasterii Sancti Benedicti de Grana . EO. 9–10. . DIR C. 1.primi hospites regni de tribus villis Ultrasilvanis Karako videlicet.. these examples suggest.). a number of charters issued by the royal chancellery. p.).26 242526 Regnum Transilvanum Conventus Monasterii beati Hypoliti Martyris de Zobor Stephanus. 31–32. in this charter. according to these sources. Its neat and explicit assertion is testimony to the existence of a regnum nostrum Transsilvanum. no. 28 UB. 137–139.24 et cum ipsum castrum (Feketeuholm // Codlea) . EO. iunior rex Vngariae. iurium. 26 UB. pp. 1.. cum dominus rex Bela.27 ipsum vaivodam debita sollicitudine invigilantem defensionem et remediis regni nostri Transsilvani . rex Hungariae 1256 1268 1279 . who traditionally represented the monarch in Transylvania. 25 DIR C. exivissemus. 273.. 1. et paulatim ad nostrum regnum accessissemus domino permittente25 .. the regnum referred to here is unlikely to have been the regnum Hungariae.. 27 UB. which actually precede those dating from 1288–91. given to the German settlers of Cricău. 1981. vol. 2. 1. Codex Diplomaticus. apportioning its defence to the voivode.. 1. who functioned as a royal locumtenens. Notwithstanding Charles Robert’s violent subjugation of Transylvania in the wake of Ladislas Kán’s death in 1315. but was underpinned by a much longer process that affected its institutions and determined the outlook and identity of its population. whereby the nobility asserted their independence and endeavoured to combine together to thwart aristocratic intrusions. Gyula. contributing to the construction of a special body of customary law. for over three generations his family had amassed property there and built up a strong body of local support. exercising. this quality would spill over to affect the laws of the region. thereby broadening the notion of regnum and rendering it no longer exclusively noble. . It would also manifest itself in political acts. we come close to the formulation of Ştefan Pascu.30 Transylvania’s development in this direction had nothing. By the earliest years of the fourteenth century. In time. Bucharest. The right of self-government implicit in this arrangement is signalled by Andrew III’s separate treatment in 1290–1 of Transylvania in the matter of legislation. in the early eleventh century as a clash of regna—and ‘he joined to the regnum of Transylvania to the monarchy of Hungary’ 30 Ştefan Pascu. 421. with the two institutions interacting in such a way as to promote Transylvania’s autonomy. ‘Voivode and Regnum’. The lordship that the voivode exercised had its counterpart in the noble congregatio. Voievodatul Transilvaniei [The Voivodate of Transylvania]. the sense of Transylvanian noble identity was sufficiently strong for Ladislas Kán to present himself as the leader of Transylvania in his struggle against the Angevin Charles Robert. ‘the exceptions in Hungary were rules in Transylvania. Even in the fourteenth century. To the side of the noble congregatio came representatives of the Romanian. As part of this evolution. who conceives of regnum in the sense of an ‘autonomous state formation’.’31 The counterpart of the voivode’s authority was the congregatio. Tudor Sălăgean 27 In our analysis. His status was in some ways similar to that of the Palatine in Hungary proper or of the ban of Slavonia. however. lending the authority of the past to more recent political developments. however. The emergent sense of Transylvanian separateness and its distinctive quality as a regnum further affected its institutional character. administrative and judicial matters on this territory. At the heart of this development lay the office of the voivode. The Hungarian chronicles of this time thus recorded the victory of St Stephen over the Transylvanian duke. as a representative of the sovereign. p. Once having been summoned into existence. Saxon and Szekler communities. in the sense of a ‘legal country’. to do with Roland Borsa. We will note that many voivodes increasingly staffed their administration with Transylvanian noblemen. Transylvania’s separate and distinct identity became increasingly a part of political discourse. control over military. 4. The unique legal status enjoyed by Transylvania is well summed up by Elemér Mályusz’s formulation. 1989. Transylvanian ‘exceptionalism’ began to garner its own mythic history. its traditions of self-government survived. thereby embedding still further its quality as a regnum set both within and apart from the kingdom of Hungary. 31 Martyn Rady. the congregatio rendered the nobility a political community and gave the title of regnum a new meaning. 88. a juridical community with its own privileges and the right of collective self-government. His claim was plausible. p. Scriptores rerum hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis arpadianae gestarum. . 1938.32 In this way. 32 Imre Szentpétery. p. 36. the ideology of Transylvanian statehood acquired not only a political but also a literary formulation that would be built upon in the centuries that followed. Budapest. 2.28 Regnum Transilvanum (et ipsum regnum Erdewel monarchie Vngarie adiunxit). the different elements of the army so as to counter the threat posed. unpublished PhD Thesis. are less frequently mentioned in the legislation of the period. The estates also had an interest in this matter. in order to join the banner of the Transylvanian voivode. Transylvanian nobles regularly joined the royal army in the Wallachian and Moldavian campaigns. p.16–17.2 For example. manned by permanent garrisons. From the end of the fourteenth century. 2005. as quickly as possible. 118. fought inside the borders of kingdom. 29 . Going to war. the most urgent concern was to muster. including those referring to the military obligations of the nobility. eds Hervé Coutau-Bégarie & Ferenč Tóth. mostly at their own expense.3 This particular case shows that in practice the privilege of the nobility to fight only in defensive wars was ignored both by the king and by the 1 László Veszprémy. Paris. the Transylvanian noble Nicolas of Giula. Voievozii Transilvaniei şi evoluţia instituţiei voievodale până la începutul secolului al XV–lea [The voivodes of T. some of its articles were often ignored. 52. the nobility was compelled to join the army only in the event of defensive campaigns. On the eve of the 1368 campaign in Wallachia. in La pensée militaire hongroise à travers les siècles. p. ‘Les premières traces de la pensée militaire hongroise avant la bataille de Mohács (1526)’.From Legislation to Practice: Some Aspects of Military Service in Medieval Hungary and Transylvania Florin Nicolae Ardelean Military service and other aspects of military organisation had a special place within the legal framework of medieval Hungary. 2 András W. Other issues. Since 1222. was a costly endeavour. there was increasing interest in matters of military organisation as the Turkish menace became more pressing. mobilisation. Some of the most common military aspects established by royal decrees were recruitment. Although the content of the Golden Bull was confirmed several times during the next centuries. Kovács. especially outside the borders of the kingdom. during the reign of Louis I. such as supplying and disciplining the army. 3 DRH D. but their position was not always the same as the king’s. war taxes and weapons. had to pledge two of his estates for the sum of eighty florins. 1. 29 doc. If they chose to follow the king on foreign campaigns they were supposed to receive payment from the royal treasury. and the evolution of the institution of voivode from the fifteenth century]. Sigismund of Luxemburg and his successors were concerned mainly with the defence of the kingdom through a system of border fortresses. All Hungarian monarchs were faced with the problem of recruiting and organising their armed forces. University of Bucharest. 2011. when the Golden Bull was issued by Andrew II.1 When the borders of the kingdom were attacked by an enemy. pp. Gunpowder. p. caused by the increasing Turkish threat. M. peasants in Hungary were not unfamiliar with the use of weapons. New York. there are several decrees referring to the recruitment of a militia in the territories of the Hungarian kingdom. due to illness or old age. 8 Moreover. War and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Hungary. he had to send a replacement. Mallett & J. the matter of noble obligations at time of war was once again brought up. 127. 22. 350–363. If a noble was unable to attend the campaign personally. Ibid.5 The recruitment of a militia from among the inhabitants of noble estates was also established at the Timișoara diet. See DRMH. Oxford. and Permanent Armies’. Venice. 1999. 119–122. in From Hunyadi to Rákóczi. probably recruited from amongst the peasants living on their estates. p.E. . This has always been considered an important innovation. see András Borosy. 1400 to 1617. In principle at least. 1999. Similar provisions were issued in a decree from 1454. 93. 1984. D. Every noble was expected to bring one archer for every twenty peasants living on his property. Király.6 In this respect. p. Oxford. 1982. For the evolution of this military structure. pp. the so-called militia portalis should probably be seen as an example of an existing custom becoming an official form of recruitment. 1962. If two or more brothers shared a common residence (curia). who took this opportunity to increase their social standing or to gain access to an important office as a reward for their fidelity. ‘The Changing Scene: Guns. A document from 1368 referring to two Transylvanian nobles. Medieval Warfare: A History.4 The noblemen’s commitment to ‘rise up’ (hence the term ‘insurrection’ or insurrectio) was also more sharply defined. European history in the late medieval and early modern history offers several examples of peasant militias. 3. only one of them had to join the army. James Casey. The defence of Belgrade in 1456 was principally undertaken by an army of crusaders recruited mostly from among 4 5 6 7 1397: 6.7 The efficiency of this military structure has often been questioned by historians. Although in respect of Hungary there is no clear evidence for the presence of these peasant soldiers on the battlefield. pp. At the diet of Timișoara in 1397. established by a royal decree. but there is evidence that Hungarian nobles were accompanied in previous centuries by auxiliary archers. p. the nobles maintained their right to fight only in defence of the country. 24. in (ed.30 Aspects of Military Service nobles themselves. therefore. 283–284. pp. eds János M. Military Obligation in Medieval England. The advance of the Ottomans in South-Eastern Europe compelled Hungary’s rulers to radical measures. DRH. mentions that they were leading sixty heavy horsemen (in the document simply referred to as armatos) and the archers (pharatrariis) that usually accompanied them. to recruit levies from among rural or urban communities—as the examples of England.R Hale. 2. 53. Early Modern Spain: A Social History. 75–79. Bak & Béla K. doc. London & New York. The Military Organization of a Renaissance State. Cambridge. Maurice Keen. During the fifteenth century and at the beginning of the sixteenth. Although it is not always clear whether these soldiers were actually peasants living on the estates of the nobility or mercenaries employed by the officials of the county. 8 See thus Michael Powicke.) Keen. It was not uncommon. France and Spain demonstrate. 167. but King Sigismund suspended this privilege for the length of the Turkish war. it is obvious that they were conceived as an auxiliary force to be mobilised in cases of extreme necessity. ‘The Militia Portalis in Hungary Before 1526’. See DRMH. Venice c. pp 9–10). quiver and bow.12 In addition to their obligation to provide banderia made up of their retainers. p. meaning a banderium apiece with a specified number of lances (a basic military unit consisting of ten soldiers). An exception applied to nobles living on ecclesiastical land. The conscripted soldier fought on horseback with sword. Matthias tried to diminish the power of baronial banderia. Bucharest. 12 1459: 3 (DRMH. 2012.]. Oxford. clipeo. in alliance with Bosnia. From a tactical point of view. Abbots. . 125– 40. 13 1459: 4 (DRMH 3. Ecclesiastical possessions were also subject to the same conscription. Ioan Drăgan. p. pp. All boroughs and royal possessions were obliged to supply the royal banderia with one soldier for every twenty peasants. p. The soldiers raised from their lands were organised in county contingents. 14 1459: 5 (DRMH 3. they were punished with payment of their man price (homagium). but also able to contribute to firepower. The captains were directly named by the king. The connumeratores. and with the detailed regulation of conscription and of conscript armies. The recruits were instructed to join the army of the county in which they were conscripted. 10). These were led either by the lord of the county (comes) or by a royallyappointed captain. known as praediales ecclesiastici. 11). Nobilimea Românească din Transilvania [Romanian Nobility of T. 108–117. which were harder to control by central authority. chapters and convents also had to comply with the proportional recruitment of peasant soldiers. gladio. or lance— cum uno armigero equite bene armato. a king otherwise well known for his mercenary army. 153. p. pp. Budapest. were instructed to collect fines of up to fifty marks from those who failed to respect the measures imposed by the royal decree. who were expected to perform their traditional military duties by personally accompanying the royal army. and instead endeavoured to create a royal army led by royal officials that would be more responsive to his will. on the same ratio as royal possessions. Crusading and the Ottoman Threat 1453–1505. 10 Gyulá Rázsó. If the captains or the connumeratores were found guilty of bias in applying the rules. ‘The Mercenary Army of King Matthias Corvinus’.15 The lesser nobility was also obliged to 9 Norman Housley. Florin Nicolae Ardelean 31 Hungarian peasants. not in the county where their landlord had his main residence.14 The articles of the diet were also very specific about the way in which conscription should be made.11 The recruitment was planned with great thoroughness and drew in a large part of society. from his loyal supporters.10 The Szeged diet (which concluded on 5 of January 1459) was concerned mainly with an anti-Ottoman campaign project. pharetra et arcu vel lancea fulcito exercituare teneantur. 2000. The high clergy also stuck to their usual military obligations. chosen from the county nobility. the barons were obliged to furnish troops gathered from their estates on the ratio of one warrior for every twenty peasants. shield. 2008. 68. Nobles were also punished if they sent insufficient soldiers or if these were not properly armed. in From Hunyadi to Rákóczi.13 By this measure. p. capable of deployment in hand-to-hand combat. Matthias Rex. 9). 3. 15 1459: 14 (DRMH 3. the conscript army was intended as an autonomous fighting force.9 Conscription was also a common method of recruitment during the reign of Matthias Corvinus. and who should be in charge of the process. but the soldiers recruited from the church’s land fought under the flags of their lords. 11 András Kubinyi. the draft level regarding the militia portalis was doubled. 135). pp.16 The rules of conscription also applied to Vlachs. Nobles who had more than ten peasant tenants living on their estates had to prepare at least one horseman for the conscript army. . the conscripted peasants had to fight alongside their lords. We should additionally note that the royal banderia grew significantly in size at this time owing to the increased size of the royal and private domain inherited by Matthias (it represented about ten per cent of the kingdom’s land mass). Exemptions also applied to magistrates. This sum was at the time sufficient for three months’ wages for a horseman and about five months’ wages for a foot soldier. 17 1457: 23–5 (DRMH 3. We can estimate the sum paid by the nobles at about nine florins as the monthly wage of an ordinary horseman was at least three florins. 38. 134) (hereafter GVU). p. Tatars and Ruthenes living inside the kingdom’s borders. and to officials in the royal service. the militia portalis was. moreover. in effect. A new round of reorganisation followed in 1464. one baron.32 Aspects of Military Service participate in the conscription by means of association. 19 1463: 4 (GVU. These connumeratores had to count the peasants on each estate.17 This ample legislation referring to the conscript army shows the king’s intention to organise an army that was independent of the military structures dominated by the nobility.19 When compared to the provisions of 1459. Unlike the other parts of the army. eds György Bónis. This military regulation was issued in the context of the Ottoman campaign in Bosnia. p. bringing with them banderia and lances appropriate to their status. after which they inspected the weapons and equipment of the conscripts. In 1463. but they had to send a well-armed mercenary at their own expense. Those who were unwilling to send their peasants to war could pay instead ten florins for every recruit. Geszetze und Verordnungen Ungarns 1458–1490. p. Matthias Rex.20 In each county. and Jazygs (Philistei) were exempted from the conscription in return for performing their traditional military obligations.18 The inhabitants of the towns and other royal possessions were included in the system of conscription but all ecclesiastical landowners had to go to war according to earlier arrangements. 18 1463: 2 (Decreta Regni Hungariae. Matthias avoided a pitched 16 Kubinyi. 153). 20 1464 (Supplementum): 1 (GVU. p. The ratio of peasants to conscripts was now fixed at one horseman for every twelve peasants. Saxons. 11–12). The conscripted troops were. The soldiers of the conscripted army were thus paid like mercenaries. the decree of 1463 demonstrates a retreat on the part of royal government. reabsorbed within the military structures dominated by the nobility and their contribution to the king’s own army was accordingly diminished. Budapest. Géza Érszegi & Zsuzsanna Teke. imposing penalties where necessary. thus establishing the number of recruits expected from each member of the nobility. only the Cumans. one prelate and one representative of the county nobility were chosen to supervise the conscription. in 1463. 1989. In contrast to the 1459 decree. These were released from having to join the army in person. expected to follow the king in external campaigns. A group of poorer nobles had to unite their efforts in order to provide one horseman for every twenty peasants as well as an amount of money sufficient to pay the soldiers’ wages for three months. 21 The remainder of the nobility formed the so-called exercitus generalis that was gathered only at the express order of the monarch. p. pp. Nevertheless. 132. the high clergy and the main office-holders. thus subverting the idea of a royal militia portalis.23 21 1498: 20-22 (DRMH 4. Moreover. this system of mobilisation was not very efficient. By the end of the fifteenth century. Matthias sought to play these two interests off against one another. were far from able to reach these standards. As in 1464. . charging representatives of both groups with the task of listing obligations and working out the number of troops that each landowner was expected to provide. they also had to bring at least two retainers (familiares) armed in the same manner. The examples analysed above demonstrate the interest of both king and estates in the matter of military conscription. helmet. a collar. From a military point of view. 22 1463: 12 (GVU. One of the main achievements of Matthias in this respect was the enlargement of the recruiting base. They all had the right to raise their own private armies. 111. the Hungarian nobility was divided into two main groups—the barons and the county nobility. such as in 1521 or 1526. Nobility. maximising the size of the contingents that they sent to war. ‘Military Reform in Early Fifteenth Century Hungary’. Usually each county received a direct order of mobilisation. The great lords continued to try and take control of the system. Martyn Rady. waiting for the winter to drive back the Ottoman soldiers. the Hungarian king was unable to muster his full strength. 136). 11. Florin Nicolae Ardelean 33 battle with the superior Turkish army. the Hungarian king captured the northern parts of Bosnia and the main fortification at Jajce. both the possessionati. who formed the exercitus generalis. In similar fashion. the counties endeavoured to maintain their own autonomy. András Kubinyi. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények [Journal of Military H. 23 Joseph Held.22 The lesser nobles. Basingstoke & New York. 146. 2000. With the main Turkish force out of the way. there remained a weakness in the system of recruitment. 405. Land and Service in Medieval Hungary. p. In spite of the numerous decrees that requested the nobles to be always ready to join the king’s army. Only those with more than fifty peasants on their estates were expected to wear chain mail. When faced with a large-scale Turkish offensive. p. The royal decree of 1463 makes a clear distinction in this matter. the so-called banderia. The troops gathered under these circumstances lacked proper equipment and homogeneity. ‘Politika és honvédelem a Jagellók Magyarországában’ [Politics and Defence in Jagiello Hungary]. conscription applied to all. making the soldiers levied through the ratio from their estates serve in their own retinues and banderia. p. 2000. breastplate. In most of his decrees. conscription included the burgeoning royal domain and sometimes also church property. which included barons and common nobles. 1977. East European Quarterly. shield and lance. although it was acknowledged that not all were able to arm themselves in the same manner. the military retinues of the lay and ecclesiastical aristocracy comprised (at least on paper) around 22. those noblemen who held only a single plot.000 light and heavy cavalry. In the fifteenth century they were often so impoverished that some contemporary observers compared them to a bunch of beggars rather than a proper army. 101-5). and the unisessionati.]. The barons included the largest landowners. The nobility usually performed their military duties as heavy cavalry. were aimed at reducing the damaging impact of the army on the rest of the population.25 Another major problem was that at the end of campaigns groups of armed soldiers refused to disband and acted as brigands. The insurrection of both peasants and nobles was conceived as an almost general insurrection (per capita). but not according to the same rules as the rest of the kingdom. 15). 128). rape. if they failed to do so they had to pay a fine four times greater. they fought mostly on horseback. 27 1454: 13 (DRMH 2.26 Leaving the royal army before the end of the campaign was considered treason and was punishable by death in the case of commoners or by the confiscation of all property in the case of a nobleman. Those found guilty had to show up personally when the royal court was in session and pay for the damage they had caused. p. but all other inhabitants of the kingdom were supposed to accommodate soldiers passing through their region. ed. Nobles whose estates were menaced had the right to arm their peasants in order to defend their property or. although inconsistently laid.28 Nobles were also obliged to conscript peasants from their estates. 26 1486: 31 (DRMH 3. which maintained several particular features including a distinct military organisation. The Transylvanian nobility was mobilised usually for defensive purposes or for campaigns into the neighbouring regions. Endre Veress. pp 55–6). In 1427 King Sigismund of Luxemburg had tried to enforce procedures for remedy in respect of abuses committed by soldiers. its army reflected the particular social structure of the territory.34 Aspects of Military Service Some measures.000 Transylvanian ‘men-at-arms’ mustered for a major confrontation with the Turks and we must suppose that a good number of these comprised noblemen.27 In practice these royal decrees were hard to apply. they could ask for the assistance of the county officials. p. Nobles and priests were exempted from giving shelter to members of the royal army. if the soldiers were lacking food supplies or fodder for their horses they had to buy them at a fair price from the local population. An account from the second half of the fifteenth century mentions about 10. p. Such a case is provided by the Transylvanian voivodate. if necessary. pp. but apparently they often failed to do so. 31). . Like their peers elsewhere in the Hungarian kingdom. The soldiers were allowed to request shelter only during winter. Provisions were to be sold according to a pre-established price list. 1492: 23 (DRMH 4. Most of the problems were caused by billeting and provisioning. 33–34 (doc. 1914. 58). 25 1427 (a): 7 (DRMH 2. 28 Fontes Rerum Transylvanicarum. In 1463 King Matthias Corvinus issued a specific regulation concerning the obligations of the nobility and also the conscription of peasants in this province. Since the defence of Transylvania was achieved mainly through local resources. Cluj. were sentenced to death.24 Normally. or were found guilty of plundering churches or noble estates. When the Transylvanians were summoned to join the royal army a fifth 24 1463: 13 (GVU. as the defensive necessities of this border area were very demanding. p. 136). Those who had suffered any kind of damage at the hands of a royal soldier were supposed to call two noble judges who had to assess the value of the damage done and estimate the compensation due. One of the reasons for this was that they sometimes contradicted local customs or even written privileges and local regulations. 4 (Acta et Epistolae Relationum). Those who committed homicide. 33 András Kubinyi. As an important office holder of the kingdom. the Szekels mostly provided light cavalry for the Hungarian royal army. Structuri juridico-militare și sociale la secui în evul mediu [Military. 30 Károly Vekov. p. p. ‘L'organisation militaire de la nation sicule à la fin de Moyen Âge’. Az erdélyi magyar társadalom a középkorban [Transyl. performed their military duties in the same manner the other nobles of the kingdom. . Paris. Settled in the south-eastern parts of Transylvania. The responsibility for conscripting and mustering the troops was given to the lords (comites) of each county. ‘Despre numirea voievozilor Transilvaniei’ [Appointments of the Transyl. constituting the social and military elite of the Szekels.33 The voivode Andrew Báthory. The other two groups constituted light horsemen and foot soldiers. pp. 1989–1993.30 Before the fifteenth century. but other weapons were accepted as well. thus broadening the voivode’s military authority. for which he received 15. At least some of the peasants were expected to have guns. The voivode had the authority to proclaim a general insurrection in Transylvania by sending a written order or. p. especially for those taking place in neighbouring Wallachia and Moldavia. Hungarians and Habsburgs in Central Europe: The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Advance. London 2000. where one third of the nobility was left behind to protect the frontier. Hung. with special military obligations. p. 2011. in eds Géza Dávid & Pál Fodor. p.000 florins for the first year of his office. on horseback or on foot according to their means. Drăgan. maintained a similar number of soldiers (200 cavalry and a hundred infantry). Ottomans. Society in the MA]. it is likely that the Transylvanian voivodes were able to muster considerably larger forces under their personal command as they were usually chosen from among the great landowners of the 29 Károly Szabó. 31 Nathalie Kálnoky. 2003. Three distinct military groups emerged within their community. ‘Despre numirea voievozilor’. they were exempted from most taxes in return for special military duties. 26–30. 196–199. Nobilimea. his retinue was listed as including 225 lancers. Cluj. Szekely Okleveltar 1211–1519 [Szekel Documents] . lófők). 71–75. Elemér Mályusz.32 According to a document issued in 1513–14 by the royal treasury on the military expenses of the kingdom. the office of voivode was merged with that of Count of the Szekels. After 1462.31 Transylvanian troops fought under the command of the voivode. no 2. During the reign of Mathias Corvinus their military organisation changed. 53. pp. by sending round a bloodied sword (ense cruento. Acta Musei Napocensis. The lesser nobles owning a single land plot (nobiles unius sessionis) personally joined the army. They were partially mobilised for external campaigns as well. Budapest. going to war as armoured cavalrymen. The leaders (primipili. Voivode]. 1872. 32 Sigismund Jako. legal and social structures of the Szekels in the MA]. 38. Their main role was to protect the south-eastern border. 1988. primores. Florin Nicolae Ardelean 35 of all peasants and a quarter of the nobles were left behind to defend the borders. 377–378. 42. An exception was made in the case of Hunedoara County. eds Hervé Coutau-Bégarie & Ferenč Tóth. p.34 In fact. invested by Ferdinand of Habsburg in 1552.29 The Szekels (Siculi) constituted a distinct natio of its own in Transylvania. 34 Jako. or gladio sanguine tincto). the voivode was entitled to a small retinue of mercenaries paid for by the central royal treasury. Cluj. During the second decade of the fifteenth century. ‘The Battle of Szávaszentdemeter–Nagyolaszi (1523): Ottoman Advance and Hungarian Defence on the Eve of Mohács’. in a more traditional and symbolic manner. 31–32. 84. the banderium of the Transylvanian voivode consisted of 300 horsemen. in La pensée militaire hongroise à travers les siècles. 1. Crusading and the Ottoman Threat. . In matters of military service and recruitment. but it is safe to assume that the banderium of a Transylvanian voivode usually consisted of several thousand mercenaries and familiares. although their military capacity was much less. we might consider him an exceptional character in an exceptional situation. The lesser nobility also kept a certain degree of authority in regard to the conscription and mustering of troops.108–109. pp. hire mercenaries.000 men. Conclusion The ability of Hungary’s kings to recruit and mobilise armed forces was very much dependent upon the good will of the estates. In spite of the many divergences of practice found within the same kingdom. three basic forms of military service or methods of recruitment may be distinguished—military service as feudal obligation (or in other words military service based on privileges and tax exemptions). In practice the methods mentioned above were often combined as it was not uncommon for nobles to receive wages in return for service.36 Aspects of Military Service kingdom. for a determined period of time) and conscription (meaning in theory a partial or general levy of the non-privileged strata of the society). 35 Housley. Hungary was not very different from other European states. mercenary service (meaning soldiers hired for money. It was estimated that in 1456 John Hunyadi was able to field around 10. or even be hired themselves as mercenaries.35 Of course. The responsibility for the defence of the kingdom was divided between the king and the most influential members of the aristocracy. who were also the main office holders. Historische Stätten. The administrative and juridical evolution of Sibiu and its province in the Middle Ages]. p. 37 . 4 By the end of the twelfth century other German groups had established new settlements in the Rodna (Rodenau) valley. UB. and that in the end of the same century they had a praepositus and thus their own church organisation. 1 2 3 4 Konrad Gündisch & Mathias Beer. Nuremberg. pp. 29–33. Munich. Nösnerland und Reener Ländchen. the administrative centre of the Germans in this part of Transylvania moved to the settlement of Bistriţa (Bistritz. Weimar & Vienna. 5 Konrad Gündisch. 1. p. After this event. no other information is given regarding the early settlement of the Transylvanian Saxons. Géza II. 154. in the north-eastern part of Transylvania.3 Unfortunately. The main settlement of Rodna was destroyed by the Mongols in 1241. 24. Harald Roth. Geschichte der Nordsiebenbürger Sachsen. 1.1 The first group of German settlers arrived in Transylvania around the mid-twelfth century.2 The main charter given to the Transylvanian Saxons was issued by King Andrew II in 1224 (the so-called Andreanum) and it attests to the German settlers as having been summoned by the Andrew’s grandfather. 9–10. not only in the territory of Saxony but also in Silesia and Bohemia. Das Patriziat Siebenbürgischer Städte im Mittelalter. ‘De la comitat la scaun principal. but were of diverse composition. Liviu Cîmpeanu. pp. no 2. Cologne. Michael Kroner. in Acta Musei Napocensis. which was able to pay important amounts of money as tax to the king. Ibid. Most came from the region of the Lower Rhine but some were from France and Italy. Noesen)5. 81–90. 2010. Siebenbürgen und die siebenbürger Sachsen. 1993. Evoluţia administrative-juridică a provinciei aferente în Evul Mediu’ [From royal county to main seat. p.. The name of Saxon thus had in medieval Transylvania a legal meaning rather than indicating a distinct cultural or linguistic group. 2003.Written Rules and Privileges: Fiscal and Military Obligations of the Transylvanian Saxons in the Middle Ages Liviu Cîmpeanu Although known as Saxons. The name of Saxon was attached to them because the newcomers were initially vested with the rights belonging to Saxon settlers and miners. having been called in by the Hungarian king. 47. Several documents from the beginning of the thirteenth century indicate German communities in the southern part of Transylvanian. A document from 1206 mentions the first hospites regni as established in three settlements in the southern part of Transylvania. pp. Stuttgart. gen. the Germans of Transylvania did not originate in Saxony. Siebenbürgen. 2009. 2005. mainly situated in the royal county of Sibiu. Géza II. pp. 47–48. 34. ed. We do know that in the second half of the twelfth century they were already organised in a powerful community. The king gave to his hospites the right to elect their priests and judges. Aus den Beziehungen des Jagiellonenkönigs mit seinen siebenbürgisch-sächsischen Untertanen am Anfang des 16. centred upon the settlement of Sibiu. which theoretically belonged to the king. which ended with the Order being banished. issued by Andrew II in 1224. pp.M. which would later become the Saxon capital. confirms the existence of a royal county of Sibiu. from the ranks of his courtiers.7 First. 249–50. The knights’ possessions were occupied by the king’s men. these rights and duties were extended to all Saxons of Transylvania. which included all German settlements around it. UB. 315–6. in Eastern and Central European Studies. This was the so-called Burzenland or Ţara Bârsei. who were invited by King Andrew II in 1211 to secure the borders of the realm against the raids of the Cumans. They also had the right to use their German customary law (which was in fact based on the law of the Saxon miners of Silesia and Bohemia). Frankfurt a. lakes and neighbouring lands. The charter of privileges. salt from the king’s salt mines. which implied recognition of its corporate right of self-government. ‘König Vladislav II. a new wave of settlers entered the region. 2. more or less every year. A royal count of Sibiu is first mentioned around 1210.6 As may be observed from this sketch. where they began a policy of German colonisation. placing them under his direct authority. the king recognised the local autonomy of the German settlers of Sibiu. a third region of Transylvania was colonised by newcomers. The most important right granted to them was the liberty to trade free within the whole realm. 4.. who were in the main also Germans. Volume 2: Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians. . pp. eds Christian Gastegeber & Alexandru Simon. Soon after their departure. Also. 164–5. but which were at that time inhabited by Romanians and Pechenegs.’. der Kronstädter Distrikt und die Törzburg. 7 The relevant privileges are given in UB. situated in the south-eastern part of Transylvania in the vicinity of the Carpathian Mountains. The Saxons were additionally empowered to petition the king for redress should he alienate any of their lands. if possible. They defeated the Cumans and pushed southwards across the Carpathian rim.. manu militari. the earliest Saxon settlements were founded in the southern part of Transylvania. 2013. The county of Sibiu was permitted use its own seal. 1. The charter of 1224 lists the main privileges and obligations of the hospites Theutonici of Sibiu.38 Obligations of the Transylvanian Saxons At the beginning of the thirteenth century. who founded what would later become the city of Braşov (Kronstadt). the German settlers received the right to freely extract. UB. from the realm. pp. who also discharged an administrative authority. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. over the Carpathians. 48–53. as mentioned above. The founders of the German settlement in this part of the country were the Teutonic Knights. He exercised his authority upon his German subjects through a royal count who was subsequently appointed. and the Ţara Bârsei was put under the authority of the royal count of the neighbouring Szekels. pp. taking over the region previously vacated by the Teutonic Order. The knights established a commandery in the Ţara Bârsei. The main part of the German population remained in Ţara Bârsei. see Liviu Cîmpeanu. They might also use several forests. Berlin etc. once a year. and to expand them eastwards. 6 For a brief synthesis of this theme and the main bibliography. they were directly subject to the Pope) led to a political confrontation. The increasing power of the knights and the self-government to which they aspired (although still bound to the ruler by the obligation of fidelitas. Jh. others moved voluntarily to the towns or other counties of Transylvania. Das Patriziat. Those free communities which lay outside the authority of the Graeven also had the obligation to maintain and send men-at-arms to the king’s army. 101–120. which subsequently contributed to their community’s commercial and material success. Later on. Although it is plausible 8 See the charter of Andrew II for the Transylvanian Saxons. against the Mongols. As an example. mentioning only the great army of the king. Some of the Graeven perished without heirs and their lands were redistributed. We do not know for certain whether the five-hundred German men-at-arms joined King Béla IV’s army in 1241. in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. yet still valid study of Georg Eduard Müller. and the older. in UB. they were obliged to send under the banner of the king five-hundred men-at-arms. either becoming citizens or joining the ranks of the Hungarian nobility. It was they who led the settler groups into Transylvania. pp. 11 For the Mongol invasion. the German communities of Transylvania freed themselves from the authority of the nobles. pp. Secondly. at the battle of Sajó. pp. Anselm von Braz. and to send them under the king’s banner. the German nobles from the terra Saxonum had commitments of their own. Cologne. but only if the king headed the army personally. If the king’s army was led inside the borders of the realm by one of his commanders. 101–104. 10 Ibid. There is no historical evidence that the newcomers actually provided troops for the king’s army. Weimar & Vienna. that these obligations remained only on paper. p. had to arm and maintain four armoured horseman. These German nobles. One such nobleman is known by name. Liviu Cîmpeanu 39 without paying any taxes or tolls. Some of the Graeven families were banished by their communities. esp.8 Apart from the military obligations that were laid on the free settlers. 1979. In exchange for these privileges the king imposed some very specific obligations on the hospites of Sibiu County. a detailed commentary is given in Gündisch & Beer.9 We do not know if these Graeven gathered together with the other settlers under the banner of the king to form the five-hundred men-at-arms mentioned in the 1224 privilege or whether they formed a separate unit. Siebenbürgen. see James Chambers. They were obliged to pay a tax of five-hundred silver marks a year (mark refers here not to a coin but to a unit of weight). . 119–125. the Saxons had to send only a hundred men-at-arms and if the army undertook a campaign outside the borders of the realm they had to send only fifty. Die Gräven des Siebenbürger Sachsenlandes. pp. Sibiu. however. who were called Graeven or comites. pp. were originally members of the lesser nobility of the German Empire and ministeriales. see also Dirk Moldt. 9 Gündisch. who benefited from the same privileges. 1. 38–43. issued 1224. which were imposed upon them according to the principle of auxilium et consilium. 1931.10 It is possible.11 The Hungarian chronicles of the time do not specifically record any participation by Transylvanian Saxons at the event. three free communities. 120. Deutsche Stadtrechte im mittelalterlichen Siebenbürgen. After the arrival of the German settlers in Transylvania these noble locatores continued to retain leadership over the newcomers. The Devil’s Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe. within the borders of the realm. 2009. 32–35. acting in the capacity of locatores. who sold his lands in the Ardennes to settle in Hungary together with his sons. Türkenabwehr. Gustav Gündisch. in Philippi. Kronstadt. Studii în onoarea profesorului Victor Spinei [The Romanians in Medieval Europe (between the Byzantine East and the Latin West). p.12 Nonetheless. p. Sigismund of Luxemburg issued several orders to build the fortification around the city of Braşov (1422.S. although these were less detailed and less generous than those awarded to Sibiu. ‘Die ersten Türkeneinfälle in Siebenbürgen’. ‘Siebenbürgen in den Türkenabwehr’. 1. The district of Bistrița (Bistritz or Noesen) or Noesnerland also received the rights. 1987. Enjoying analogous privileges. and the officer responsible for tax collection. the German count of Rodna. Cologne. footnote 7. Ariscaldus. Brăila. there is only one known charter of donation rewarding Saxons for their role in the fighting.13 The German settlers in the Ţara Bârsei. pp.]. pp. with their capital in the city of Sibiu. Mediaş. 14 Tudor Sălăgean. Heidelberg. The districts of Mediaş (Mediasch) and Şeica Mare (Grossschelk) received in 1315 and 1318 respectively the same privileges and obligations. Against the backdrop of the Ottoman invasions of southern Transylvania. in the south-eastern part of Transylvania. eds Dumitru Ţeicu and Ionel Cândea. 43. pp. ‘Weltgeschichtliche Ereignisse im Jahre 1241’. 15 Maja Philippi. The count of Sibiu was first 12 UB. 271–282. in Românii în Europa Medievală (între orientul bizantin şi occidentul latin). Gündisch. the four smaller regions of self-government (Ţara Bârsei.16 At this time. the inhabitants had to pay four-hundred silver marks but no military obligations were laid. in particular in the defence of Rodna. in Zimmermann. 13 Harald Zimmermann. 84–87.40 Obligations of the Transylvanian Saxons to think that the Saxons of Sibiu took part at the disaster. 4. 102–113. Siebenbürgen und seine Hospites Theutonici. which were modelled on those previously given to Sibiu. 1996. p. joined the Mongol side. 2008.15 Braşov received its own privilege in 1422. In the wake of the invasion. Studies in honour of Professor V. pp. 70–71.14 Other areas of Saxon settlement were also invested with corporate rights. 17 G. they recognised the comes of Sibiu as their supreme judge. 162. The two Germans for whom it is given are. however. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Berichte. The charter mentions that military services be performed and certain taxes be paid. ‘Transilvania şi invaza mongolă din 1285’ [Transylvania and the Mongol Invasion of 1285]. 1432)17. Gündisch &Beer. 1996. Weimar & Vienna. 43–45. Aus Geschichte und Kultur der Siebenbürger Sachsen. recorded as serving under the banner of the Transylvanian voivode. King Béla IV reorganised the defensive system in Transylvania. p. Following the town’s capture. which extended to the Ţara Bârsei. led by Nogai and Tula Buga. their political deputy in public affairs. German hospites were drawn into the contest with the Mongols. in Gündisch. 36–6. Siebenbürgen. the Saxons of Transylvania had by the fifteenth century become a mighty judicial community. Laurentius. These strongholds proved their worth on the occasion of the Mongol invasion of 1285. Cologne & Vienna. Vorträge und Forschungen zur südostdeutschen Geschichte. UB. 16 See back. building a series of royal castles that were garrisoned with so-called ‘castle warriors’ (iobagiones castri). were too weak to oppose the Mongols. privileges and obligations of the county of Sibiu. . Şeica Mare and the Noesnerland) kept their own financial and administrative competencies. The warriors intercepted the Mongol army and destroyed it almost entirely. in 1366. Although. contributing six-hundred men-at-arms who plundered the neighbouring settlements. In exchange. . The Crusade of Varna. Teză de doctorat [The Transylvanian-Saxon University and the Romanian districts under its jurisdiction in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Age. 1941. for example. 52. Georg Hecht. Thesis]. ed. pp. 2006. the Saxons sent troops to all the major military encounters of the fifteenth century. 2011.18 In performing their military obligations. 21 and again in 1491 in Braşov in what is Transylvania’s first surviving siege statute. H. See Colin Imber. during the events of the mid-16th century. 176 (I used the town accounts of the Bran domain. from the second half of the 16th century). Once their settlements had acquired permanence and developed into towns. 22 Published by August Ludwig Schlötzer in Kritische Sammlungen zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen.24 Even some villages are known to have had their own militias. Trabanten (footmen) and gunners. the Transylvanian Saxons were also bound to secure their fortified towns. The newcomers were given privileges that permitted selfgovernment and which were aimed at developing the areas of settlement commercially. University of Cluj. belonging since 1498 to the city of Braşov. p. In this respect. although the number of soldiers in each was in the sixteenth century usually less than half a dozen. they began therefore to organise their own urban militias. Siebenbürgen. Cologne & Vienna. Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde. 76–80 23 Ibid. . 26 Gündisch & Beer. ‘Bistritz um die Mitte des 16. it is surely no accident that the inscription of Sibiu’s seal reads. they became the capitals of royal counties and districts. 167–180.19 and the battle of Brodefeld-Câmpul Pâinii in 1479. 25 Liviu Cimpeanu. 19 Hans Mägest told the story of the campaign to Michael Beheim. the German subjects of the Hungarian 18 Georg Eduard Müller. Sibiu. freely elected by them. p.20 In addition to the obligation to send men-at-arms to serve under the king’s standard. Liviu Cîmpeanu 41 appointed by the king but. after a rebellion of the Saxons of Sibiu in 1324. pp. They consisted of Reissigen (armoured horsemen). pp. 20 Gündisch & Beer. Auf Grund eines Rechnungbuches für die Jahre 1547 bis 1553‘. Stühle und Distrikte als Unterteilungen der Siebenbürgisch–Deutschen Nationsuniversität 1141–1876. Zimmermann. The first Transylvanian Saxon militia is mentioned in 1432 during the Turkish siege of Braşov. Universitatea Saxoă şi districtele româneşti aflate sub jurisdicţia ei în Evul Mediu şi Epoca Modernă. Unpublished PhD.22 The urban militias were formed out of craftsmen of the guilds and mercenaries. p. next in 1438 on the occasion of the Turkish-Wallachian siege of Sebeş (Mühlbach). out of their ranks. facsimile edition of the 1795 edition.25 Conclusion Hungary’s kings called in German settlers to defend and expand the borders of the realm. walls and gates. the case of the militia of Bistriţa. He was also the supreme commander of the Saxon militias. 63. Jahrhunderts. 21 See the extract in ibid. drummer and commander to the gathering place of the royal army. Aldershot. where the Saxons were led by their Count. p. 24 See. 21. 62. 1887. In exchange for these privileges. 1979. including Varna in 1444 (their presence is attested in the account of the Transylvanian Saxon Hans Mägest). in Friedrich Kramer. Siebenbürgen. ad retiendam coronam26. As the settlements developed into cities. The militiamen had to ensure the watch of the towers. 54–62.23 The militias were also sent along with banner. the interest of the ruler had been the defence of the kingdom (hence the invitation to Teutonic Knights in 1211). of the Saxons were not. until the last decades of the nineteenth century. the Saxons organised urban militias and they continued to serve in the royal army. Whereas at first. therefore. Nevertheless.42 Obligations of the Transylvanian Saxons king had well established obligations towards their sovereigns. military obligations were commuted to payment. fixed in stone but were adjusted according to circumstance throughout the medieval period. in order to defend their space. at least in part. in time the economic contribution of the Saxons came more to the fore. however. Often. however. . Andrew II’s privilege of 1224 remained in force. The obligations. especially in fiscal and military matters. Historians have been reluctant to accept that this was so. N. These historians accepted the presence and the significant role played in urbanisation by those German settlers whom we may consider to have been the carriers of a specific pattern of organisation. typical of Central Europe as a whole. ed. Victor Spinei. Ștefan S. 1982. CNCS UEFISCDI. P. 1994. embraced the idea that German law did have a role. Bucharest. Bucharest. unsurprisingly. Opere economice. 83–84 . ed. a self-declared supporter of the theory of the foreign origin of Romanian towns. some historians. Iorga. Panaitescu. wrote: ‘We are nowadays certain that our towns were not established by Romanians. 1993. pp. foreign colonists arrived in the regions south and east of the Carpathian Mountains.’1 Iorga’s ideas were further developed by Petre P. Nicolae Iorga. Istoria românilor. Panaitescu. laying the foundations for some of the oldest towns in the country. 2 P. ‘Negoțul și meșteșugurile în trecutul românesc’ [Trade and Craftsmanship in Romanian History].German Law and Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia Laurenţiu Rădvan The assumption that German law (or elements of it) was adopted in medieval towns in the Romanian principalities is generally rejected in Romanian historiography. The settlers introduced elements of administrative. in Iorga. arguing an insufficiency of evidence. Gorovei and Maria-Magdalena Székely. 1 N. project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0562. who emphasised the role of foreign colonists in promoting trade in the region’s emerging towns before the rise of the Romanian principalities. pp. legal and economic organisation specific This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research. vol. pp. Georgeta Penelea. 3.2 Historians of this school argued that. eds. Once we take into account that some researchers claim the towns in the Romanian area to have developed along a path of their own—the so-called ‘autochthonist’ theory. 141–149. 43 . Bucharest. 137–139. with the support of the kings of Hungary or of the rulers of the Romanian principalities. which. mainly before the Second World War. found many supporters in the Communist era—it is not hard to understand why German law has not found a place of its own in studies of urban history over the past century. Interpretări românești. Iorga. Even so. which did not even allow for discussion of the presence or absence of elements of German law in the towns of the Romanian principalities. Emil Lăzărescu. Bucharest. although the extent to which they were self-governing communities was debated. vol.). and so they had to be created by outsiders. Marxist interpretations became paramount. The idea that medieval towns had a foreign origin was apparently unacceptable to the ever-growing nationalist bias of the Romanian Communists. 1957. 437–501. Istoria României. ‘Din sigilografia Moldovei și Țării Românești’ [Sigillography in M. 2000. safe from outside influences. pp.]. Knoll. 1962. the inhabitants of these settlements. 4 A. CA. Romanian historians were expected to draw their inspiration from Soviet historians. 263–275. In short. ed. and its related archaeological and historical problems]. D. nos1–2. 186–187.). 4. Bucharest. C. it supported a perspective which assigned a fully local character to the entire medieval society in the Romanian principalities and to the towns as well. German historians grounded their theories in a definition of the town as a self-reliant settlement with a foundation charter. pp. pp. Instead. with Particular Reference to Krakow’. Studii și cercetări de istoria artei [Studies and Investigations in Art History].44 Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia to Central Europe.4 In the past years. As a starting point. the adoption of the German law called for the adoption of a system of rules that sought to organise the community as a whole and to ensure a degree of autonomy for it as well as a status that differed from other groups. 70. a new trend in Polish historiography argued that towns predated the arrival of the Germans and functioned as centres of trade. Berkeley. pp. whose fundamental thesis was that the Middle Ages was a period fraught with feudal dissension and intense class struggle. The Communist regime favoured interpretations which detracted from. 1937. pp.5 After the war. For the trend in historiography that discards any possible continuity between towns before the German colonisation and those afterwards. ‘The Urban Development of Medieval Poland. 5 Paul W. de L. and W. P. Introducere. Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Iași. I consider it to have been a mistake to conceive of references to German law as indicating only a narrowly legal phenomenon. ever since the twelfth century. see also Pavel Binder. no 1. 289–290. Studii și cercetări de istoria artei. 124–126. 9. ‘Din nou despre comes Laurentius de Longo Campo’ [Once more on Count L. 2. 1976. and probably visitors as 3 Emil Vîrtosu. Oțetea (ed. 1956.3 After the Second World War. see Richard Koebner. In fact. considered that. 22. 1975. pp. which had apparently evolved on their own path. . pp. 7. I have begun to review the evidence anew. Bucharest. pp. 547–567. Acta Poloniae Historica. series Artă plastică. 57–60. p. legal difference arose out of a sense of communal exceptionalism that rested on the separate identity of the newcomers. the importance of foreign settlers in the emergence of towns. or even refuted. in Bariša Krekic (ed. ‘Despre piatra de mormânt a comitelui Laurențiu și câteva probleme arheologice și istorice în legătură cu ea’ [The tombstone of Count L. 6 Benedykt Zientara. there were no towns. in the 14th to 19th c.6 Some Polish historians.]. in Documente privind istoria României. Ciurea. 2. 34. This may serve as an explanation of why research into the process of urbanisation took a different path. Annales d’Histoire économique et sociale. P. until the Germans arrived in Poland as part of their vast colonisation of the East. Introducere la istoria culturii românești. Problemele istoriografiei române. ‘Socio–Economic and Spatial Transformation of Polish Towns During the Period of Location’. however. 1970. Urban Society of Eastern Europe. 64. The pre-war German school emphasised that. 22–23. A similar debate to the one in Romania also took place in Poland over the meaning of German law. ‘Noi contribuții privind orașele și târgurile din Moldova în secolele XIV–XIX’ [New contributions on the towns and markets of M. Panaitescu. vol.]. 1987. Dan Horia Mazilu. ‘Dans les terres de colonisation: Marchés slaves et villes allemandes’. ‘Socio–Economic and Spatial Transformation’. Targi i miasta na prawie polskim (okres wczesnośredniowieczny). Agrarian Structures and Change in the Duchy of Wrocław. Xe–XIIe siècles. Warsaw. Les origines des villes polonaises. 1959. Land.’ but also of ‘renting. Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo. Newcomers were granted vast privileges. Aleksander Gieysztor et al. 7 Alexander Gieysztor. [Markets and towns following Polish law (in the MA)]. 11 György Györffy. ‘Les origins de la ville slaves’. received certain rights under the provisions of a certain market law (mir = ‘peace’) enacted by the duke.10 Hungary was in a relatively similar situation. as part of a larger process of German colonisation. wishing to ensure a better economic environment for incoming foreigners. Buda’s law gained the upper hand. pp. however. 62–66. 78–80.11 If we take as our basis the situation in Poland and Hungary.) Pierre Francastel. 62–73. ‘Villes de droit polonais’. Magdeburg or Lübeck laws. pp. no. Spoleto. but there was considerable variety throughout the kingdom. which would change when a deed of settlement was granted by the sovereign to an enterpriser (scultetus. ‘The Urban Development’. 1964. settlers were unable to take up residence on a site already occupied by the local population). (eds). advocatus). since this mode of evolution. 1969. Later on. Settlers were granted the right to found a settlement (locatio civitatis). 8 Zientara. (3) the legal status of the settlement. pp. 12. in (ed. 10 An interesting case study is provided by Richard C.9 The complex process of locatio is not specific only to Poland. Philadelphia. 83–84. in La citta nell’alto medioevo.7 Other historians focused on the significance of the moment when local dukes supported the introduction of German law in these settlements. Wrocław. 6. Cahiers de civilisation médiévale. no. Hoffmann. pp. Magdeburg law was eventually adopted in Banská Štiavnica. The Latin locare has two meanings: that of ‘locating. The settlement then shifted from being subject to ducal jurisdiction to being governed by German law. Liberties. (2) the layout of the settlement. regularised according to a pattern already established between the Elbe and the Oder. PA. 1979. which imitated the rights of a ‘mother town’. and Lordship in a Late Medieval Countryside. This multi-faceted term led Zientara to claim that locatio had three separate meanings in Poland: (1) the actual foundation of a settlement (in most cases. Further details are given in Karol Buczek. pp. 1960. 9 Ibid. but only partially in Buda. both urban. Paris & The Hague. 2. (2) topographic principles: the townscape was planned. as well as rural. is encountered all across Central Europe. Knoll. ‘Les débuts de l'évolution urbaine en Hongrie’. Gerard Labuda. 298–301. 1989. 144–145. pp. and to obtain a reliable source of income. pp. (1) legal principles: the inhabitants enjoyed personal freedom and the right to organise their community as they saw fit.’ It was thus possible to have the new settlement on the ‘rented’ and resized site of an older settlement.8 German and Polish historians use the term locatio civitatis to refer to the foundation of towns between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. it was the king who took the lead in bringing settlers from Western Europe. relationships with the ruler were regulated. 71–73. Benedykt Zientara has seen the legal emergence of the towns as starting with the grant of autonomy to foreign traders who came to the burgeoning commercial centres. which involved a status of autonomy relying on the same German law. 76. 67–69. Whereas Poland and Bohemia adopted the Nuremberg. 53–67. pp. Here. . Laurenţiu Rădvan 45 well. in Hungary the model most often invoked was at first the one introduced by Walloons at Székesfehérvár. as well as privileges. we can arrive at the following principles of urban organisation. History of Poland. as well as the right to hold a market or fair. the community (universitas) would yearly elect a judge (judex/iudex. catastif. since those granting the foundation charters took into account the aspirations of the settlers and the specifics of the place. maior villae or villicus) as its representative. who was (at least to begin with) subordinated to the duke and often appointed by him. Society. we see that the settlement was headed by a scultetus (Germ. see Ioan Răuțescu. Warsaw. made up of one hundred or so members. 236–261. London & New York. Vogt. ‘German Law Within the Polish Duchies: Variation and Routine’. having no obvious counterpart in the countryside. ‘Socio–Economic and Spatial Transformation’. Monografie istorică.46 Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia usually with a rectangular square in its centre and plots of land surrounding it.]. which took over the right to pick the judge and sworn men. Pol. 32. which appointed its own administrative and representative body. Also. the city council. 1943. 15 In 1747. some towns instituted a larger or ‘outer’ council. p. New York & London. This leads us. 1965. . Zientara. pp. especially. in Piotr Górecki. Conditions obviously varied between communities. Only one complete privilege survives for any town in Wallachia or Moldavia. Afterwards. wójt). In Hungary. only a handful of documents illustrating urban organisation exist for the period of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. while the local comes (lord or ispán) lost all jurisdiction over the townspeople and the land granted to them. No ‘town books’ (Rom.14 We have digressed into this comparative investigation in order to pick out the most salient features of German law. The council was the first exclusively urban institution. Câmpulung– Muscel. however. The exception mentioned is however notable and relates to the town of Câmpulung in Wallachia.15 The provisions of this privilege had two main components. east of the Carpathians. at Prince Nicolae Mavrocordat’s behest. pp. 895–1526. legal and 12 For a detailed study of this topic.12 The award of these charters did not necessarily lead to complete selfdetermination for those communities. 2001. In Poland. and Lordship in Medieval Poland. in La Pologne au XIIe Congres International des Sciences Historiques a Vienne. Economy. ‘From Forum to Civitas: Urban Changes in Poland in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’. By this method we will be able to demonstrate the contention that German law was also present south and. pp. see Piotr Górecki. sołtys) or advocatus (Germ. The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary. 76–77. 23–24. all the documents of this town that still existed were gathered and copied on a scroll that ran several meters in length: Pânza orașului Câmpulung [Roll of the town of C. the townspeople elected a council made up of twelve sworn men (iurati). (3) economic principles: tax exemptions were instated. Schultheiss/Schulze. with 39 documents. cartea orașului) have been preserved from this period either. Câmpulung–Muscel. 251–253. 1100–1250. Pol. pp.13 An institution closer to the inhabitants than to the duke was ‘the citizens' community’ (communitas civium). although some villages later aped its organisation. mainly by reducing the capacity of the duke to interfere in the internal affairs of the town. 1992. The combined authority of the two institutions extended over all matters affecting the legal and administrative affairs of the community. to a major problem faced by every researcher interested in the history of towns in the Romanian principalities—the state of the sources. 13 Aleksander Gieysztor. Along with the judge. 14 See Pál Engel. The council sought to extend urban self-government. although they do survive for later centuries. 250. Laurenţiu Rădvan 47 financial. 25. who was elected annually. If any townsman died without heirs. became in its turn a model for all other towns. each of whom held office in tandem with a council made up of 12 pârgari (derived from Germ. If he died in debt. as identified in documents surviving from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. no. in the days of those old rulers. p.16 The privilege includes. 157. 262. 18 DRH B. The inhabitants had the right to full control over the town and its domain: ‘only the townsfolk are to use as they see fit these places. no ford for a mill. no parcel in a field. implanted directly by the Saxons in Câmpulung.’18 On the basis of all this. Save for these few elements. Bucharest. some very ample provisions and we may ask whether there is any connection between this document and the presence in the town of a large group of Germans. or as a house or plot in the field or vineyard. 2. A confirmation of the privilege of Câmpulung. 19 Istoria Țării Românești. no. C. who crossed the mountains. eds. except for some topographical information. The Chronicle of C. p.’ Prădalica (the local version of the jus spolii) did not apply in the town or on its domain. p. Bürger). his share was transferred to the town. by the custom of old. such as Târgoviște. we believe that the Câmpulung privilege to have been granted in relation to the settling of Saxon ‘guests’. The legal component states that: ‘and their trials shall be so conducted that no one mingle with them. the sources betray little else. just across the mountains. no house. 25. introduced and retained inside their communities structural elements typical of this law. from 1636. but such cannot be taken to mean that German communities were present in each town that adopted this scheme. stated that. Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc [Hist. therefore. p. 1960.]. ‘no boyar and no subject of mine are to ask of me the places or domain of these townsfolk. The 16 DRH B. we may assume that members of their group. Judex). Argeș or Râmnicul Vâlcea. stated specifically that: ‘none of our noblemen should ever dare to claim any village or parcel from the Royal Majesty’.’ This guaranteed that the trials took place in the town and that they might follow a law separate from the rest of the country. 1. 469. This situation was unique in Wallachia. 17 DIR C. but let the townsfolk employ these domains as they see fit. These reveal that they were led by a judeţ (coming from Lat.17 making it clear that Hungarian noblemen were not entitled to property in the Saxon land. It is more likely that the pattern from Transylvania. In respect of taxation. being adopted by other communities with the prince's consent. Simionescu. no vineyard. Unfortunately. Grecescu and D. his creditors might only sell off his goods to other townspeople. of W. no. 1290–1690. granted to the Saxons in 1224 by King Andrew II.19 Since the Saxons from Transylvania followed German law. 425. as domain in the town. . who arrived in Wallachia from the kingdom of Hungary in the latter half of the thirteenth century. no privileges survive but only small fragments relating to the internal organisation of these towns. various exemptions were granted to the citizens. The correspondence we have highlighted is even more striking when we look at the status of Germans in Transylvania. This type of organisation seems to have prevailed throughout Wallachia. no land in the town. The Andreanum. We should expect to find the same in other communities south of the Carpathians (where Germans also settled). 210. but all the law and their judicature are as their covenant earlier. nothing whatsoever. 23 Previously. Interpretări românești. Weimar & Vienna.21 Other historians contended that the sources did not support this. p. Bucharest.). Moldavian towns were multi-ethnic in structure. D. pointing to the existence of a ‘law of the place. not following any specific layout. 1977. Dan Slușanschi. . Târgoviște. eds. 196–197. which borrowed from their older counterparts a generic system for organising the community. 158–159. Bucharest. vol. each nation uses and abides by the laws and its customs of their own choosing. Dimitrie Cantemir. we find that the sources paint a much better picture.’20 The large number of settlers in Moldavian towns led Nicolae Iorga to believe that Magdeburg law was early on in force in such towns as Siret. 137–138. from the 10th to mid-16th c. Nuremberg etc) is hard to pin down. 2007. Ciurea had agreed that Magdeburg law was applied in Moldavian towns as well. Not accepting the numerical significance of such communities in older Moldavian 20 Călători străini despre țările române [Foreign travellers in the Rom. ‘with several deviations from the traditional statute’ (D. towns and cities in M. as a sixteenthcentury account confirms: ‘[in Moldavia]. We may conclude that there were differences between older towns—where German settlers brought components of the German law—and newer towns. Constantin C. Bucharest. ed. Iorga. and a central marketplace flanked by a church). If we turn our attention to Moldavia. p. Târguri sau orașe și cetăți moldovene din secolul al X–lea până la mijlocul secolului al XVI–lea [Markets. 1956. Ciurea. Negoțul și meșteșugurile. 1981. Studii și Cercetări Științifice [Studies and Scientific Investigations]. in Heinz Stoob (ed. By contrast. Valentina Eșanu & Andrei Eșanu. later. The vast presence of non-local elements in some towns was reflected in their control over the leadership and representation of the town. ed. 193. p.]. it is evident that some features of German law were present here.23 Even so. Cologne. Greeks settled in the Moldavian towns. Armenians.]. Iorga. 83. 245–247. 115. Hugo Weczerka. ‘Noi contribuții’. Râmnic and Pitești seems to have been regulated. although their place of origin (Magdeburg. Bucharest. 1997. each national community kept its own method of organisation.48 Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia central area of such towns as Câmpulung. Germans. 22 Panaitescu. Other towns display in their arrangement a more organic evolution. Suceava. and on the powers of those elected as representatives of the community. With the ruler’s consent. 7. pp. pp. of the Romanians through travellers]. vol. Adrian Anghelescu. Along with the indigenous Romanian population. Hungarians. 297.’ which allegedly combined elements of local and non-local origin. Die Mittelalterliche Städtebildung im Südöstlichen Europa. 1968. pp. 2. and Roman. Ruthenians (called ‘Russians’ in the local sources) and. pp. ‘Die Stellung der Rumänischen Stadt des Mittelalters im Europäischen Städtewesen’. later. p.’ ‘[…] each group or people follow its rites and laws as they see fit. 25). Descrierea stării de odinioară și de astăzi a Moldovei [Description of the previous and current state of M. p. there is no significant evidence for the existence of a specific ‘Romanian law’ being applied in Moldavia’s late medieval towns. Giurescu. 21 N. 169–170. Maria Holban. he only accepted the existence of some ‘elements in the life of the Polish towns’ in Moldavian towns in the 15th century (Ciurea. ‘Sigiliile medievale ale orașelor din Moldova’ [Medieval Seals of Moldavian towns]. Istoria românilor prin călători [Hist.22 while others preferred a compromise. Lands]. 1. Their arrangement is similar to towns in Transylvania (parallel streets. The rich historiography on the towns east of the Carpathians is fraught with misconceptions on the status of the settlers that resided here. ed. Civilizație urbană medievală românească.26 We will also find this term applied in towns outside the context of the Armenian community. The representative of the Armenians is usually called a voit. they became a natural part of the town. p. Central European University. some Romanian historians attempted to explain them away.27 Where Saxons and Hungarians were more numerous. Olha Kozubska-Andrusiv.)]. The term prevailing in local documents is that of șoltuz. Huși. 1974. 1971. Where different ethnic communities were roughly equal. unpublished PhD dissertation. 15. sec.’ but rather as ‘from Moldavia. in 14th to 16th c. Rady. while religion and ethnicity came only second. After a generation or two.’ Moreover. Bucharest. pp. urban history (M. ethnic communities are only foreign when arriving and settling in Moldavian towns. Instituții feudale din Moldova. Contribuții (Suceava până la mijlocul secolului al XVI–lea) [Romanian Urban Civilization in the MA. p. 366. Outcomes were determined by material status and prestige. Organizarea de stat până la mijlocul sec. Bucharest.]. 210–213. 26 N. Boulder & New York. Iași. pp. the notion of equal membership as citizens of a privileged community prevailed. to the mid-16th c. Istoria Clujului [Hist. 64–65. The leaders of the townspeople were supposedly ‘recruited from among the foreign merchants and artisans in the town administration.’ reflecting the economic power that the non-Romanian minority held. Studii de istorie orășenească medievală (Moldova. Matei. Cluj. In towns such as Bacău. a similar situation prevailed in towns where the Romanian element predominated. Contributions (S. local terms were used. Grigoraș. 27 DPIR. Vizitarea generală a tuturor bisericilor catolice de rit roman din Provincia Moldova. 1985. see Martyn C. For a similar situation in Hungary or Transylvania. 25 Marco Bandini. 174. Medieval Buda: a Study of Municipal Government and Jurisdiction in the Kingdom of Hungary.]. Târgoviște. Adjud and Trotuș. the chances were that the leader of the community would be selected from among their number.25 Once elected. showing 24 Mircea D.’24 There are several difficulties with this. in Buda and Cluj. Codex.]. part 1. and the next from among the Romanians. Matei. XIV– XVI) [Studies of med. pp. 2006. If the Saxons were more numerous and richer.)]. a compromise was sometimes reached. 106–109. irrespective of religion or nationality. Mircea D. the leader of the townspeople was elected one year from among the Hungarians. Budapest. Laurenţiu Rădvan 49 towns. 103. 320–321. Traian Diaconescu. 203. 95. 2004. being thus only ‘a reflection of the place that their ethnic communities of origin held in the economic life [of the town]. In Lviv’s documents. (ed. I. a term derived from a Polish word as well. which entered via Poland and is remotely related to the Latin scultetus.: Organisation of the state to the mid-18th c. German merchants from Suceava or Siret are not mentioned as ‘Germans. 152. 92. 2007. al XVIII–lea [Feudal institutions in M. 1646–1648 [General visitation of all the Roman Catholic churches in the province of M. pp. which transcended ethnic divisions. The annual election of the townspeople’s representatives was done by all the members of the national groups. 132. Urban Development and German Law in Galician Rus’ during the Thirteenth– Fifteenth Centuries. p. 1989. A spirit of solidarity pervaded the town community. 43–54. First of all. no. The names lent by the sources to representatives of the town communities vary from one ethnic group to the other.) Ștefan Pascu. with its root in the Latin advocatus or possibly the German Vogt. . the leader was under the obligation to consider equally all the townspeople's interests. pp. of C. 29 In Latin documents. acknowledging the grant of an inheritance by the municipality there. Documente privitoare la istoria orașului. 642. 365. no. 69. A.]. 24. p. with several exceptions. 376. less frequently Greben for Saxons. no. 158. 31 DPIR. 40 DPIR. vol. p. 113. 751. 469. 15. in 1527. Miron et al. Al. 5. 364. part 1.39 In Trotuș. DPIR. 751. 1192. Lviv. Suceava. 200. 222. 7. eds. 108. 147. vol. p. pp. 203. The first documented șoltuz is from 1421. He probably acted as deputy to the șoltuz. Cotnari. scabini or consules. 1454. 203. 34 Grigoraș. . 331. 4. 1192. Documente moldovenești de la Ștefăniță voievod (1517–1527) [Mold. Bucharest. vol. no. 55.34 Grand pârgari have been so far identified in Baia. Iorga. Baia. 366. 109.30 In respect of the pârgari. no. 133. p. They are mentioned as a group and. of S. vol. p. whose duties are not all too clear. 30 DPIR. Iași. p. 108. no. p. Studii și documente. 292. 2. 715. A. Documente moldovenești de la Ștefăniță. no. even goes as far as to 28 Akta grodzkie i ziemskie z Czasów rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z archiwum tak zwanego bernardyńskiego we Lwowie [Deeds relating to the city and land of Cz. 5. no. XCV. 35 Iorga. 5. 365. Iorga. XVI. p. 55.31 while German ones as Geschworenen Bürger or Purger. 10. 4.33 The only feature specific to Moldavian towns is the emergence of a grand pârgar. Suceava. XVII.]. 2. 38 DPIR. Iorga. Instituții. of the Romanians]. no. 39 Alexandru Băleanu. p. vol. p. part 1. 1454. Constantinescu. 535. 1932–1933. 368. 80. p. no. 238.37 On some occasions. part 1. p. ‘Documente moldovenești din secolele XV–XVII’ [Mold. 15. p. Documents of the Voivode S. 1. town headmen were called iudex or advocatus. 642. of the town]. 119. mentions the townspeople gathering before the ‘seat’ of the șoltuz to decide on a matter that was significant for the community. no. LIV. Gorovei. no. no. Surete și izvoade.]. 21. Suceava or Vaslui.]. no. 31. DIR.50 Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia their oral use: Graf / Groff. 23. D. XCV. no. 203. no. Neamţ. no. 82. Ghibănescu. no. 454. no. no. p. no. 290. p. 1943. 222. no. no. Studii și documente. DPIR. the voits and the twelve pârgari held office for a year. p. 3. 52. 304. Bucharest. the pârgari were always twelve in number. 72. Bacău. 1314. 323–324. 15. 32.40 A document passed by the șoltuz and the pârgari in Baia. p. p. p. Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie Iași. 120. A. 39. p. p. 338. DIR. 7. no. 203. no. no. Ghibănescu. p. File de istorie. 126. 1989. 1388–1918. p.36 As in Wallachia. 567. p.32 and Hungarian ones as polgar. 534–535. 75. no. 1944. 5. XVII. Ștefan S. p. 293. 15. 226. their individual names are not given. 4. 32 Iorga. Bucharest. N. people came before the ‘seat’ (Old Slav. 134. 15. A. p. p.38 Unlike Wallachia. 5. 4. 366. p. 54. Anuarul. 535. vol. no. XVI. Studii și documente. p. 1908. Scrisori românești din Arhivele Bistriței (1592–1638) [Writings in the archive of B. Bucharest. 483. vol. 23. no. 33 DPIR. 126. 16. no. 78. 239. p. p. part 1. part 1. when the șoltuz and the pârgari in Baia wrote to Lviv. [S.28 and biró for Hungarians. 331. Historical materials. 15. 239. Documents on the hist. 1970. 374. 36 Akta grodzkie. 1873. Suceava. p. p. part 1. 64. ‘Note de istorie suceveană’ [Notes on the hist. no. Vasile Gh. 1913. they are collectively designated by the German Rat (council). no.]. 255. p. p. p. a later document from the early seventeenth century. p.]. 8–9. Studii și documente cu privire la istoria românilor [Studies and Documents relating to the hist. no.35 The șoltuzes. no.. Documents of the 15th to 17th c. 158. no. no. In Șcheia. 408. p. p. Cotnari. 120. no. no. 15. part 1. 37 DIR. all of which initially had substantial colonist communities. 293. 29 DPIR. no. p. pp. 71. Latin documents refer to them as cives jurati. Roman. vol. Studii și documente. p. 567. Cercetări istorice. Trotuș. 292–293. Mihai Costăchescu. p. no. File de istorie. 3. 78. vol. 113. stol) of the șoltuz and the pârgari. 103. no. ‘Documente și regeste moldovenești’ [Documents and Registers of M. 1983. 197. 15. p. Richter and. 378. Gh. several documents make explicit reference to an assembly place for the townspeople. vol. p. 3. 203. p. 113. 310. Rosetti. of the Polish Commonwealth in the Bernardine archive in Lv. part 1. no. 135–136. Botoșani. no. no. no. Costăchescu. p. vol. 23. Surete. p. fiscal. Gorovei. p. we must rely on later documents. 45 Ghibănescu. 151. 41 Suceava. their privileges were granted at this time. This right was probably a concession to the Saxons who settled here in the fourteenth century and may have been included in a formal privilege. 48 Rady. Murderers. and the well-to-do in Bacău and Trotuș judging cases of theft. Dicționar [Feudal institutions in W. it could refer to the house of the șoltuz or to a separate building. Conceivably. The Realm of St Stephen. but it could also mean a town hall. Carpica. 2006. They arbitrated all matters regarding the townspeople. pp. Surete.] Iași. XVII.45 In these cases. pp. Glossary]. 1988. 49.46 These sources confirm that șoltuzes in some towns were allowed to judge offences. vol. 43 DIR. 5. Lege și fărădelege în lumea românească veche [Law and lawlessness in Old Rom. unless they were instructed by the prince to perform a specific function on his behalf (determining boundaries. ‘La începuturile orașului Bacău’ [Origins of the town of B. vol. 42 Ștefan S. compensation was usually sought to cover the loss. 19–20. p. 64. 124–125. Medieval Buda. no. 33. their power over life and death hints at a right conveyed by privilege. they performed legal. 24. passing the death penalty (ius gladii): ‘we led him to perdition. 203. less serious than murder.48 A point of interest is that the towns we have mentioned all lay west of the Siret river. Within the town.’ We do not know whether all the șoltuzes in Moldavia’s towns had this right. 119. no. 80. 112–113. Instituții feudale din Țarile Române. Ghibănescu. in the area that belonged to Hungary in the mid-fourteenth century. p.41 In its primary meaning. 267. p. but it only covered the community they ruled. by the law of the country and how it well becomes a thief. however. 1986– 1987. but still liable to capital punishment. no. administrative. 299–300. 45. File de istorie. A. Nicolae Stoicescu (eds). Engel. and military duties. and that of a Gypsy horse thief. One phrase in the document refers to an exceptional right held by the șoltuz.43 Seventeenthcentury sources reveal that the șoltuz in Baia was invested with the power to judge the most serious matters. p.47 Still.44 A 1660 document shows the șoltuz and the pârgari in Baia even using restraints (‘we shackled him’) when investigating a Gypsy accused of theft. pp. 1. 26. 44 Bandini. Laurenţiu Rădvan 51 mention the German name of the ‘seat’—Stuhl. undated (but probably from the seventeenth century) reveal the șoltuzes. To clarify their legal authority.]. A șoltuz in Trotuș presided over the case of a woman who gave birth to a child out of wedlock. hearing a will etc). whether they were cases involving the town or its domain. . Two later documents. 46 Dan Horia Mazilu. might be sent to be tried by high officials of the ruler or even by the ruler himself. the pârgari. The legal duties of the șoltuzes were extensive. They also intervened on behalf of the townspeople in any commercial disputes they had with foreign merchants. 47 Ovid Sachelarie. no. no.42 The șoltuz or the voit and the pârgari council had ample authority. 34. They had the right to confirm sales and purchases made by townspeople in town. pp. as a ‘seat of judgement’. 133. namely. p. 119. Codex. Surete. 133. Bucharest. perhaps similar to the ones granted to royal towns in Hungary and Transylvania. Bishop Marco Bandini relates that a privilege still existed in the town archive and included a special provision—the right to commute the death penalty laid on criminals who had taken refuge in the town cemetery. 218. 251–252. 18–19. as many fields this begets them: for eight souls. ed. but sometimes the șoltuzes abused their rights and called in people who had exemptions from service or who were part of monastic communities. but they might not turn it into a tavern and brew beer and mead or into a butchery or bakery. We emphasise the fact that the oldest seals have a Latin legend and belong to towns with substantial Saxon and Hungarian communities: Baia. 2. 501. 4. Renate Möhlenkamp. 50 DRH. no. 55 DRH A.50 Its name comes from the Latin vigilia. pp. a ban which prevented foreigners from doing business or building a tavern on a one-mile radius outside the town. 39. 49 Suceava. the Polish merchants were ‘allowed to keep a house in Suceava’. XV–XVII’ [Organisation of border guards in W. all the towns in Moldavia had seals. 630. 1960. the șoltuz and the pârgari oversaw the safety of the town by managing the town watch. p. eight fields. Niccolò Barsi recounts that ‘when the time to sow comes. Documentele moldovenești înainte de Ștefan cel Mare [Moldavian documents before S. 1978. p. p. in 15th to 17th c. Van de Kieft. p. C. no. no. 342. 23–24.51 As the number of Saxons and Hungarians decreased. 5. Gorovei.53 The town authorities distributed the taxes they took from the townspeople according to their wealth. provided that ‘they paid with the town. 44. Instituții feudale. Magazin istoric. 5. Costăchescu. and. Stoicescu. 51 J.’58 As in Wallachia. 1932. . Niermeyer.52 Medieval Towns in Moldavia and Wallachia Along with the officials of the ruler. p. F.’56 This provision is very similar to the Bannmeile. 29.52 All townspeople were expected to take part in the watch.1981. 2. 82. while ‘they paid with the town’. 80. 5. 475–476. Urban Development. pp. p. 53 DIR. including the right to collect the impost on wax. pp. no. pp. ‘Die Ältesten Siegel Moldauischer Städte’. 215. File de istorie. ‘Despre organizarea pazei hotarelor în Țara Românească în sec. Grigoraș. 461–465. 2. called in Romanian strajă or priveghi. the term viglu was later replaced by paza or straja. 1976. Roman. XVII. leading to complaints and interventions by the prince. 48. but they were lost and the legend later inscribed into Old Slavonic or Romanian. 143. 59 Vîrtosu. They carried out the public division of land for agriculture.].57 The șoltuzes and the pârgari also had duties on the town domain. no. Instituții. p. 58 Călători străini. Leiden. 193. 1100–1101. 54 Călători străini. 121. 35–36. p. 56 M. 1. A. Ștefan S. no. 3.54 They are even mentioned levying duties. ‘Am pus pecetea orașului’ [I put the seal of the city]. 337–365. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Ost Europas. p. p. p. 12. 1. 52 N. no. 272. ‘Din sigilografia’. no. Iași. 88. 57 Kozubska-Andrusiv. Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus. as many souls are there in a house. The right to hold seals was usually given by the ruler at the same time as a grant of privilege. It is typical of Poland and Ruthenia and is a notable feature of communities that rested on German law. Sachelarie & Stoicescu. which otherwise designated the night spent by monks in prayer or in watch over the dead. Studii și materiale de istorie medie. the Great].55 They were also committed to managing the town marketplace. p 108. B.49 This duty was named viglu in Wallachia and usually applied to the night watch. A trade privilege from 1408 tells us that. granting authenticity to the documents issued by the authorities.59 It is likely that other towns had Latin seals. 176. all the townsfolk go out on the field and the șoltuz along with the pârgari divide the fields. 75. Neamţ and Cotnari. As everywhere in Central Europe. exemptions. p. the rulers continued to force the inhabitants to labour for them and pay more taxes. Foreign merchants were allowed to have a dwelling in Suceava. torgovschim obîceaem. 140. Town autonomy was. the lord was the prince. The two privileges mention the law (Old Slav.’ (Old. there were limits to the self-government that the towns were allowed to enjoy. a council of pârgari. the fact that a law is specifically mentioned shows that a special status pertained. but was later extended to include the rest of the population in those settlements. but only fragments from confirmations of property and of tax exemptions that were granted for the two towns of Bârlad and Vaslui. and permitted the towns to organise themselves separately. 2. and not the town. to full ownership over lands in the town. in contrast to Poland. Even though it refers to the fortress at Hotin. blunted and. vol. Wishing to have stable sources of income or even workers in their residence. towns continued to rely on their lord.61 Our conclusion is that there was a law specific to the towns of Moldavia. we will not notice here the establishment of ‘outer councils’ of a hundred or so citizens. The ‘custom’ is also mentioned when the privilege granted to Polish merchants by Petru Aron was renewed in 1456. There were however limits to the introduction of this new order. Slav. with a șoltuz. provided they observed the same ‘custom of the town. . The law was initially applied to the groups of settlers. 60 Costăchescu. Even though the rulers of Moldavia had fostered the adoption of German law. no. The inhabitants and the ruler were familiar with it and took it into account. and so on. which have to do with how Moldavia evolved along its political and economic lines. obiciai) of old. Documentele moldovenești înainte. p. Laurenţiu Rădvan 53 No full privilege survives in Moldavia. 61 DIR. 1. 231. A. 202. the right to trial. therefore.60 One later document mentions the ‘law of the fortress of Hotin’ in 1604. no. XVII. a Latin seal. and in this case. 788. The system of organisation in the towns prove that this law definitely had elements of German law. with the above-mentioned Bannmeile provision) as the other townspeople. zakon) or the custom (Old Slav. . no formal attempt to classify routes or to impose a specific terminology on the different types of road in use. unlike elsewhere. medieval charters referring to the donation of estates and of tollcollection points. Bistriţa-Năsăud and Mureş. under project number POSDRU/107/1. yield valuable information on the legal and administrative aspects of roads in the northern counties of Cluj. Budapest. Thesis. pp. Much of what we know about roads in general in Europe derives from accounts relating to the passage taken by armies and pilgrims.D. Dăbâca. unpublished Ph.2 This work was made possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Program for Human Resources Development 2007–2013.5/S/76841. various other factors. 41–4. 55 . co-financed by the European Social Fund. for in Hungary there was. the economic changes of the Late Middle Ages also shaped the establishment of routes. Inner Solnoc and the Bistriţa District. Nevertheless. 1 Their former territory is nowadays divided between the Counties of Sălaj.1 The archival information relates to such matters as the ownership of roads. This sort of enquiry is vital for our understanding of the hierarchy and legal classification of routes. Cluj. their maintenance. with the title ‘Modern Doctoral Studies: Internationalization and Interdisciplinarity’. Central European University. One particular problem that complicates research is that Transylvania had no designated military roads or routes of pilgrimage. see Magdolna Szilágyi. Sachsenspiegel and Coutumes de Beauvaisis). and criminal offences committed on them. contributing to our understanding of roads and the ways in which they may be grouped. 2012. Nonetheless. commercial privileges and the records of judicial disputes between various ecclesiastical and secular owners. such as administrative structures. 2 For a discussion of Western European rules dealing with roads from the 11th to 12th centuries (Leges Henrici Primi. While the geographical features of the region (mostly comprised by the water catchment areas of the two Someş Rivers) contributed to the evolution of some major communication arteries. also contributed to the way the road network developed.Legal and Administrative Aspects of the North Transylvanian Road System in the Middle Ages Oana Toda Introduction We will not understand regulations related to medieval traffic flow in northern Transylvania without taking into account both the geographical and economic context of the area. by integrating them into the developing system of settlement. Árpád Period Communication Networks: Road Systems in Western Transdanubia. 56 North Transylvanian Road System Almost all the communication routes and road tracks of northern Transylvania have been recorded from the Angevin period onwards. For the preceding period, the records are much thinner. Nevertheless, it is possible to establish that the roads first mentioned in the extant sources represented the ‘spinal cord’ of the area’s late medieval communication network. These were mostly related to the extraction and transportation of salt,3 from Dej, Sic (Szék) and Cojocna (Cluj County), and silver4 from Rodna (Bistriţa-Năsăud County). In the centuries that followed, there is a rapid growth in the number of documents attesting to the existence of roads, crossing points and settlements, a few of which evolved into market towns or major centres of trade, production or extraction. With the development of trade, the toll-collection system of the area becomes more visible and so do the communication routes, thus allowing one to look into the various legal and administrative aspects of the road system. Mostly following the course of rivers and streams, or moving from one area to the other through low depressions, river chutes and mountain passes, these roads often turned out to be of regional importance, and sometimes long-distance trade routes. This circumstance favoured the later economic rise of certain settlements, located at vital crossing points or near crossroads, such as Huedin, Dumbrava, Cluj and Turda (Cluj County) in the south, Bonţida, Gherla and Buza (Cluj County) in the central part, Bistriţa, Teaca (Bistriţa-Năsăud County) and Reghin (Mureş County) in the east, and Zalău (Sălaj County), Dej and Rodna in the north.5 Some not so fortunate locations have, in time, proved to be fatal for early territorial centres, leading to their decay. This was the case with the fortifications of Dăbâca6, along with the presumed early medieval 3 For information on the medieval salt trade of the region, see Alexandru Doboşi, ‘Exploatarea ocnelor de sare din Transilvania in evul mediu (secolele XIV-XVI) [Exploitation of salt mines in T. in the MA (14th to 16th c.)]’, Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Medie [Studies and Investigations in med. hist.], 2, no 1, 1951, pp. 125–166; Petre Iambor, ‘Drumuri şi vămi ale sării din Transilvania în perioada feudalismului timpuriu’ [Roads and salt tolls in T. in feudal times], Acta Musei Napocensis, 19, 1982, pp. 75–85; Cornelia Măluţan, ‘Drumurile sării în Transilvania’ [Salt roads in T.], Acta Musei Porolissensis, 8, 1984, pp. 249–255; István Draskóczy, ‘Só a középkori Maghyarországon’ [Salt in med. H.], in (eds) András Kubinyi, József Laszlovszky, Péter Szabó, Gazdaság és gazdálkodás a középkori Magyarországon: gazdaságtörténet, anyagi kultúra, régészet [Economy and Exploitation in medieval Hungary: economic history, material culture and archaeology], Budapest, 2008, pp. 150–4. 4 See: György Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza [Historical Geography of Árpád Hungary], 1, Budapest, 1987, pp. 555, 562; Thomas Nägler, ‘Transilvania între 900 şi 1300’, in (eds) IoanAurel Pop & Thomas Nägler, Istoria Transilvaniei, 1 (până la 1541) [Hist. of T. (up to 1541)], Cluj, 2003, pp. 220–1. 5 For a systematic outline of the medieval roads in northern Transylvania see for example: Otto Mittelstrass, Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte Siebenbürgens im Mittelalter, München, 1961, pp. 48–50, or the works of Györffy György (Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza, 1987, 1, p. 555; 2, pp. 55–7; 3, pp. 337, 508); Radu Boc (Vămile şi legislaţia vamală în trecutul românesc [Tolls and legislation on tolls in med. Rom], unpublished PhD. Thesis, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj, 2010, pp. 96–7, 76–80) and Paul Niedemaier (Habitatul medieval in Transilvania [Med. Environment in T.], Bucureşti, 2012, pp. 259–262, 264, 269–272). 6 Adrian A. Rusu, Castelarea carpatică. Fortificaţii şi cetăţi din Transilvania şi teritoriile învecinate (sec. XIII-XIV), [Carpathian Castle: Fortifications and forts of T. and its neighbouring territories (13th to 14th c)], Cluj, 2005, p. 336. Oana Toda 57 salt road it controlled,7 Moldoveneşti, which was superseded by the castle of Liteni8 and, possibly, from the later Middle Ages Unguraş, which was in the sixteenth century demolished and used as building material for the castle of Gherla.9 From an administrative point of view, two main types of appellation pertaining to the legal character of the road and its importance can be retrieved from medieval charters10. Caution must, however, be observed since some medieval road names hold various meanings and a road might, moreover, fulfil several functions. TYPES OF ROADS Distance and hierarchy Long distance Regional Local Legal aspects Public Common Private Illegal MEDIEVAL APPELLATIVES - via/strata publica/regia, via magna, Sahtusuth (‘salt road’) - via forensis, Vasorosuth (‘market road’), Zaazwut (‘Saxons’ road’), Zekulhuth , (‘Szeklers’ road’), Bleschenweg (‘Romanians’ road’) - semita, via graminosa/mediocris, Wagaaswuth (‘cross-cut road’), Várút (‘castle’s road’) - via magna/publica/libera/regia/Woyadauta (‘Voivode’s road’) - via communis - via/strata privata - via/semita falsa/illicita/sinistra; ant. recta Hierarchy of roads With respect to distance coverage and the general hierarchy of roads, one can clearly identify long-distance routes such as the roads connecting the urban centre of Cluj to Oradea (1377)11 in the west, Turda (1411)12 in the south, and Sânnicoară (1381)13 in the east, which are called viae publicae. These small segments and many others that are mentioned formed part of the network of main roads that connected Transylvania to some of the continental trade routes. The term magna, which normally refers to long-distance routes (thus placing them at the top of the hierarchy), seems nonetheless to have been extensively used. This may be because variations in the route were also given the same appellation as the main route itself. One road in the north-eastern part of our area was not just magna but a magna via regalis. It connected the town of Cluj to eastern Hungary and is mentioned several 7 Ştefan Pascu, Mircea Rusu, Petre Iambor, Nicolae Edroiu, Paul Gyulai, Volker Wollmann & Ştefan Matei, ‘Cetatea Dăbâca’ [The fort of D.], Acta Musei Napocensis, 5, 1968, p. 157; Tudor Sălăgean, Ţara lui Gelou. Contribuţii la istoria Transilvaniei de nord în secolele IX-XI [Lands of G. : Contributions on the hist. of northern T. in 9th to 11th c.], Cluj, 2006, p. 151. 8 Sălăgean, Ţara lui Gelou, pp. 133–4. 9 Rusu, Castelarea Carpatică, p. 541. 10 A complete outline of the medieval terms used for the roads of western Hungary is given by Magdolna Szilágyi in Árpád Period Communication Networks, p. 38, table 1. 11 DRH, C, 15, no 157, pp. 214–227. 12 Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában [Historical Geography of Hungary in the Hunyadi Period], (ed.) Dezső Csánki, 5, Budapest, 1913, p. 305. 13 UB, 2, pp. 544–6. 58 North Transylvanian Road System times after 1283 as being in the vicinity of the village of Sumurduc.14 The magnae viae certainly held great importance. Many of those mentioned during the Middle Ages may also be found on one of the earliest detailed cartographic representations of Transylvania, published at the end of the seventeenth century by Morando Visconti.15 During the later Middle Ages, the term publica was also used for roads that ran along these main routes, suggesting that magna and publica may have been synonymous.16 The regional routes of northern Transylvania were called by such terms as Vasorosuth,17 Zaazwut18 and Zekulhuth.19 Some of these, however, are also referred to in official records as magna. This may be because they linked into the long-distance routes or because they were regarded as ‘great’ by the people who lived in their vicinity. Either way, it demonstrates that there was no exactness in the vocabulary applied at the time. The use of such terms as ‘market road’, as for instance the Vasorosuth that connected the villages of Măcicaş, Deuş and Chinteni to Cluj, suggests both how the road was perceived by the local population and the economic pull exerted by the city of Cluj. The local importance of some routes is most often suggested by the recurrence of the common name via/strata. This is the form by which a striking majority of roads were recorded in charters. Far less frequent were terms that described the road’s insignificance—its narrowness (semita),20 its second-rate character (mediocris),21 the growth of vegetation on its surface due to under-use (graminosa),22 or the poor way it had been maintained (possibly thus the Sahrusuth or muddy road, near Vârşolţ). 23 Another suggestive name (Wagaaswuth) was given to a local connection joining the magna via regalis at Măcicaş to the village of Deuşu in the east, probably referring to a shortcut between the two settlements.24 In some cases, the economic importance of a road contributed to its name, even though the road itself only served the local population. Such examples can be found among agricultural roads, which connected villages to pastures, fields, fishponds and other places of exploitation. In northern Transylvania, we know of the ‘millers’ road’ (via molendinatorum), which was used as a landmark for the borders of Jucu and Bărăi 14 ‘…magna via, quae videlicet, via regis vocatur…’, see: Georg D. Teutsch & Friedrich Firnhaber, Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte Siebenbürgens (hereafter UBSieb), 1, Vienna, 1857, pp. 132–4; DIR C, XIII, 2, no. 185, pp. 251–3. Another reference using the same terminology (viam magnam regalem) dates back to the year 1379 (see: DRH C, 15, no. 442, pp. 685–8). 15 ‘Mappa della, Transilvania, e Provintie contique nella qualesivedano li Consini dell’ Ongaria eli Campam fatti dall’ Arpate Cesaree in quelte ultime guere’, Sibiu, 1699, scale 1:350 000, in (ed.) Annamária Jankó, Az Osztrák Császárság, az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia és Magyarország térképei a Hadtörténeti Térképtárban 1566-1918, Budapest, 2008, DVD 1, B IX a 487/15. 16 ‘…strata publica de Gyalow in Zuchak...’: Csánki, 5, p. 304 (1391). 17 Csánki, 5, p. 375 (1418). 18 DIR C, XIV, 3, no. 195, pp. 326–7 (1334). 19 DRH, C, XIII, no. 422, pp. 636–642 (1369). 20 UBSieb, I, p. 94 (1269); DRH C, 15, no. 368, pp. 571–5 (1379); András W. Kovács, A Wass család cegei levéltára , Cluj, 2006, no. 354, pp. 318–9 (1419). 21 As mentioned in the perambulation of Cluj from 1377, which listed all the roads reaching the town and distinguished between them both by making topographical reference to physical features and in several cases using a specific terminology. See DRH C, 15, no. 157, pp. 214–227. 22 Ibid. 23 DRH C, 14, no. 415, pp. 566–8 (1375). 24 Csánki, 5, p. 375 (1435). called a magna et publica via in 1377 (DRH C. Györffy. 214–227. 319. 162. 27 See for example. ibid. Conceivably. which was intended for easy access to woodland lots. 172.33 but it might also indicate that the road belonged to several owners. Omaggio a Dinu Adameşteanu. 31 DRH C. certain road segments or features. such as the crossing points. no. p. p. 1979. The first of these is well represented in documents. Árpád Period Communication Networks. p. due to the large-scale donation of estates and the granting of privileges. for exploitation. iacentem ad plagam septentrionalis infra ad unum montem. it is plain that the term held several meanings. It can be broadly stated that all roads were at some point the property of the king. 5. the common roads and the private roads. pp. in the sector between Gilău and Căpuşul Mare (see: Csánki. Cluj.29 Use of the term regia for roads has been interpreted as meaning that the ruler guaranteed their open and safe character. . pp. 170–4: ‘…Infra ad supradictum berch. Voievodatul Transilvaniei [Voivodate of Transylvania]. Oana Toda 59 estates (Cluj County). It was mostly used to demonstrate that the use of the road might not be legally impeded—hence from a charter of 1377. no. 46. 241–4. 1996. or the route connecting Cluj to Huedin and eastern Hungary. no.) Marius Porumb. who were in return bound to maintain them in a good state. ad guandam viam. 3. 214–227).30 The unusual term. however. in (ed. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza. each of 25 Ştefan Pascu. 29 DRH C. ‘Pons Augusti nel Medioevo’. Woyadauta. Its public character is also emphasised by the word magna used for it in fourteenth-century perambulations. Nonetheless. well known that this route was one of the area’s main communication arteries. and magna because they occupied the top place in the hierarchy of the kingdom’s roads. 28 Szilágyi. 337. mentioned in a late fifteenth century charter as ‘via communis et publica […] de Hacsak versus Zazwaras’. Árpád Period Communication Networks. 120. que vocatur Woyadauta. 98. pp. p. As a result one can distinguish three legal categories of communication ways in the territory of Transylvania—the public roads. 33 An obvious example is that of the road connecting south-eastern Transylvania to Banat. Cluj. pp. 30 Szilágyi. See Adrian A. 157. 304). pp. which emphasises their legal aspect. no. 157. recorded as a publica et magna via in the year 1501. The main highways were publica and magna. 15. 26 DRH C. pp. the road connecting Cluj to the nearby settlement of Gheorgheni. since the voivode acted as the king’s representative. Rusu.27 They were publica because they were open to all the king’s subjects. it is a variation on regia.26 Proprietorship and legal aspects of roads The terminology applied to roads provides the best evidence available for proprietorship. no. 45. 32 DRH C. fell into the hands of his subjects.25 Another charter documents the opening of a new road at Cozma (Mureş County). no. 28 The public character of these types of route is also expressed by the adjective libera. 2. Or it might refer to the road’s original military function. p. qui apelatur <Vajda>hegefee…’.31 could hide several meanings related to the authority of the Transylvanian voivode. 13. 15. mentioned in 1366 for the road connecting the settlements of Cluj and Turda. ille via semper et ab antiquo tute et libere fuissent ac secure. 15. Despite the lack of information relating to the roads that were described as ‘common’ or communis.32 It is. It could be simply a synonym for public. 255–8 (1377). 15. 152–4. 252. p. a charter established the two lawful trade routes of Cluj towards the east: DRH C.37 These roads were private property and might therefore be alienated by their owners.60 North Transylvanian Road System whom enjoyed a right in common to its use. pp. 431–3. Indeed. 353–4 (1359). no. so that both landlords might have equal entry using the same road. C. see DRH C. We imagine that this legal situation applied to most roads on private estates. were maintained. 120. pp. 14. 241–4. no. 36 ‘… per mediam eiusdem silve per lingorum exstirpaciones quandam viam fecissent…’. ibid. ibid. 445–6. n. Nevertheless. which had been divided among the heirs. We know of a case from the village of Deuşu. a new access way was opened by cutting through the middle of the initial lot. 11. pp. 42 In 1361.ille vie semper et ab antiquo tute libere fuissent ac secure…’ (1377). were the property of the landlords through whose estates they ran. 41 ‘. pp. 37 DRH C. 356. where agricultural roads were together with their adjacent lots leased out as part-payment on a debt incurred by their owner. with the exception of the public roads that lay under royal jurisdiction. 453. pp.39 Nonetheless. This was particularly the case with what were called illegal roads that were a way of bypassing toll-collection points or of moving illicit goods and merchandise.42 Such interventions were often related to toll collection and the monitoring of traffic flows. in Wass Levéltára. no. pp. thus falling under his jurisdiction.36 Medieval written sources relating to this part of Transylvania often mention local roads crossing from one estate to another. for the roads connecting Cluj to Huedin and Almaşu. 53. 152–4. 62. we thus learn of the construction of a common road with two owners. 152–4. 10. 378–9. ‘…nunquam in eadem possessione supradicta (Bogata de Sus. Illegal roads and the toll collection system The authorities often encountered difficulties on account of misuse of the traffic system. 46–7. 470 (1360). no. 328 (1429). p. 35 DRH C. they sometimes indicate that sections belonged to a local proprietor. 14. DRH... . no. Cluj County) sinistra via fuisset ad tributa Rethegh et Ewr…’. pp. even though terms such as via/semita falsa/illicita/sinistra occur but rarely in northern Transylvania.38 or from the disregard shown by genuine toll collectors for privileges of exemption. 354. 40 DRH. awarded either to individuals or to whole communities. 390. no. Problems also arose out of the creation of fake toll-collection points. 12. Tolls were not only an important source of revenue for the authorities but also provided the economic wherewithal by which bridges and ferries. 241–5. no. as well as the road’s surface. 144. 194–5. no. no. pp. 38 DRH C. 534–5. pp. no. C. no. 288. pp. DRH C. no. 46–7. 15. 39 DRH C. 11. although they are seldom explicitly called private roads. p. 162.40 Royal or county officers might issue letters pointing out that such and such a road had a public character. there are some documents that use the opposite term (the so-called viae rectae) for the routes that should be followed for trade purposes. 62.35 In order to reach a woodland lot. it is likely that all roads.41 or was the most legally suitable for moving goods between centres. pp. 120. pp. 512. 15. DRH C. as recorded in an agreement between the heirs of the Cozma estate in 1377. 15. 12.34 In the territory of the medieval county of Cluj. 305. Árpád Period Communication Networks. 34 Szilágyi. no. pp. 2. 195. Cojocna–Turda. 2I. 64 UB. 4678. Bonţida. has been extensively used in Romanian historiography for all road segments that sustained the medieval salt trade (Cluj–Huedin–Bologa.59 Răscruci (1405). They are sometimes referred to with the name Sohtusuth (salt road). Unguraş). Margaret Convent a part of the salt toll revenues collected at the Meseş Gate: DIR C. Adrian A. no. Rusu. 61 UB.60 Şomcuţa (1412). 1. 51 EO. 34. 57 DRH C. thus indicating the direction of travel and trade. Cluj. 373–4. 19–20. Bologa) or of the Hungarian kingdom (Rodna. 15. XIV. toll points are indicated at Meseş (1165)43 and Zalău (1281).49 Additional collection points were later reported at Bistriţa (1287). no. 12.44 Hidig-Lompirt (1217). Var). pp. 1. Meseş. See DRH C. 15. 62 Ibid. 83. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte. 53 DIR C. Zimbor. p. 14. 48 UBSieb. 337. 1. p. ed. 390.58 Bologa (1377. 157–8. 13. 171. Oana Toda 61 The first records of toll collection points in northern Transylvania are closely related to the development of salt extraction and its trade. 49) 60 Mittelstrass. 194–5). no. The routes of the salt trade continued to provide the backbone of Transylvania’s long-distance roads during the later Middle Ages. This consequently led to the development of regional and local trade centres. Gherla. no.. XIII. Bonţida. see also. Reteag. 571–5 (1379). no. 49 1326: ‘…perveniet ad viam magnam dictam Sahtus…’. 54 DRH C.47 and Dumbrava (1296). Zsigmond Jakó. p. 1445). pp. no. or Cojocna–Cluj–Zimbor. C. Crişana şi Maramureş [Encyclo. 282. ibid. pp. 134–135. no. 11. C. doc. placing the collection point at Zalău. 1. 1990. pp. 534–5. no. Others were situated at river crossings (Apahida.56 Baciu (1371). 530. pp. 525. no. 84–88 (1351). pp. but it is difficult to tell if it is identical with the one mentioned in 1291. Crasna. 368. pp. no. Budapest. Dicţionarul mănăstirilor din Transilvania. no. no. pp. Gilău (1486)64 and Var (1492). pp. 12. 63 Wass levéltára. 180–1. B. no. Baciu. 59 Tolls were collected near Huedin during the fourteenth century (DRH. pp. 55–7 (1376). pp.45 Crasna (beginning of the thirteenth century). Cluj–Dej–Bobâlna– Meseş. See UBSieb. ed. 7. 431–3. Târguşor. 354–5.57 Turea (1373). Răscruci. pp.48 All of these were connected to the salt trade. and Sic–Bonţida). 3. XIV. 46 Gyula Kristó. no. 50 UB. I. DRH C. 44 During the 12th and 13th centuries two documents make reference to the same toll.]. For the period of the Árpád rulers. 2806. p. 144. XIV. p.. 62. see also DRH C. 535–6. no. 4. The term. 51. ‘salt roads’. 2004. 45 EO. DRH C. 58 Ibid. & M. at crossroads (or in contiguous villages: Sânnicoară. located 43 King Stephen III was the first to grant the St. Crasna. 45.51 Românaşi (1310).65 Many toll-collection points were placed next to or in the immediate vicinity of castles (especially the royal ones at Bologa. Bistriţa). 1. 328. no.61 Rodna (1412).53 Zimbor (1360). 65 A kolozsmonostori konvent jegyzőkönyvei. 32–3. pp. 56 This seems to have been a market toll collected at Târguşor for the castle of Unguraş. 1. p.55 Târguşor (1368). 390. 288. pp. no. 90. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte.. p. 52 DIR C. 2. while for the next century one document locates the collection point in suburbiis castri Sebes (Bologa) (Mittelstrass. p. DRH C. 123–4. 512. see also Csánki. no. 159. 55 DRH C. 358 (1363). Banat. 2 (1289-1556).]. 549. p.52 Bonţida (1321). 514. 49. 46–7. 8.46 Dej.54 Sânicoară (1361). see DIR C. 10. Szeged. pp. . of the monasteries of T. pp. Floreşti. 2000. and on the political border of Transylvania (Lompirt. p.62 Reteag and Urişor (1429)63. 361. Unguraş.50 Apahida and Cluj-Mănăştur (1296). 526–7. 5. XV. Ardealul timpuriu (895-1324) [Early Trans. Gherla (1291). no. 47 DIR C. Var). 214–227). 1397: 58. The local economic function of the road connecting the village of Pata to Cluj is suggested by the toponym Wasarrew (‘market ford’) (DRH C. 14. 62. Offences of this type were recorded at Turea. 10–12. See. it frequently happened that the economic interests of merchants and cities were damaged by abuses perpetrated by individual noblemen or local royal officers. respectively. 12. no.73 All these measures were aimed at removing nonsensical and abusive toll-collection points and culminated in the establishment of assemblies of sworn men who were tasked with periodically 66 Such as the one connecting the settlement of Măcicaş to Cluj. should pass by the toll collection point of Sânnicoară. no. 86 (1439: 31).67 This sort of guidance was intended to benefit the Saxon community and to foster the continued commercial development of the Saxon cities. 288. the reigns of King Béla IV and King Stephen V. The most important of these belong to Louis the Great. 46–7. at Sânnicoară.66 There were sometimes attempts by the crown to direct traffic in a certain direction. 26. the authorities issued two orders compelling merchants from Cluj to pass by the toll points of Baciu and Huedin on their way to the Great Hungarian Plain. the via recta was set through Bonţida. 106–13 (1498: 29–37). 67 This document was meant to ease the difficulties of making a detour through Bonţida. and they often required direct royal intervention on behalf of the plaintiffs. 70–1 (1495: 28). . no. 71 DRMH 1. 15. 16–7 (1492: 27). 2. pp. 360–1).62 North Transylvanian Road System on the main routes. Zimbor or Sânnicoară. 69 The control point from Sânnicoară had been abolished by King Sigismund in 1405 due to complaints being raised against the royal toll collectors (UB. It was only during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that detailed regulations were issued by the ruler that laid down the obligations of toll collectors and merchants on the major royal roads. 27 (1464: 9. 74–76 (1351: 7. in order to reach the central and eastern parts of Transylvania. 24. pp. which is a charter conjointly issued by the bishop of Oradea and the voivode of Transylvania ordering the king’s subjects to abide by his decree. It was also laid down that their routes to and from the market towns of Buza. 261–2. thus creating a more advantageous taxation point near Cluj. Nevertheless. and to the emergence of secondary roads that connected market places and market towns to neighbouring villages. we can refer in this context to the orders given by Ladislas IV70 and Andrew III71 that sought to abolish all new toll places established since. 157. 2. pp. no.72 Their provisions were often repeated more or less verbatim in subsequent legislation. Sigismund of Luxemburg and Matthias Corvinus. 70 The existence of such instructions often has to be inferred from descriptive sources. 15. DIR C. DRMH 3. while. pp. 68 In 1360 an illegal toll was levied by a nobleman on this episcopal estate. 51 (1290: 11. 72 DRMH 2. of excessive dues being charged. 1435: 20–21). See DRH C.68 Huedin. for example. Teaca. There are complaints of illegal tolls being exacted. pp. pp. 46. DRMH 4. 102 (1444: 20). 298. 1471: 25). See DRH C. In the Árpád period.69 These abuses were sufficiently widespread to prompt several laws and regulations on the establishment of tolls and their collection. 15. During the fourteenth century. 17. when going to Bistriţa. 431–3. pp. 73 See thus DRMH 2. pp. Reghin and Târgu Mureş. 1298: 9). and of a disregard for privileges that exempted the holders from payments on roads or in markets. XIII. pp. pp. 3. Idyllwild. Series Historica. and settle judicial matters. the roads carved in the mountain bedrock around Râşnov Castle (Braşov County. especially at river crossings. in order to bring clarity to the confusion of rights. pp. 79 A paved street was mentioned in 1403 in the town of Bistriţa. Gerla (-hida). unpublished PhD. János M. ones that did not support a bridge or ferry). 75 Stephen Werbőczy.74 Special emphasis was put on ‘dry tolls’ (namely. 141–162. Iobăgia în Transilvania în secolul XVI. Some streets within towns were kept in repair. Oana Toda 63 inspecting all the tolls in operation in any one county. CA. See DRH C. See also David Prodan. no 1. Discussed in Oana Toda. pp.78 and the private road at Cozma. Floods and Long-Term Water-Level Changes in Medieval Hungary. thesis. the toll might be regarded as no longer relevant to circumstance and thus an abusus. 156–7 (1500: 40–41). 2. eds & trans. See UB. pp. 15. 204. Budapest. Bonţida. pp. Péter Banyó & Martyn Rady . II: 9 [1]. 78 Andrea Kiss. pp.]. 319–320. 74–6 (1435: 20–21). The Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary: A Work in Three Parts (Tripartitum). Annales Universitatis Apuliensis. 80 The toponymic evidence points to the existence of bridges at Cluj (platea pontis. pp. these assemblies were entitled to verify the legal basis for proprietorship over toll locations. II. 237–41 ( I: 9 [5]. which we mentioned previously. [Serfdom in T. Some scattered references are all we have—the obligation of nearby villagers to repair the road leading up to a hill south of Cluj.80 or where they had a strategic importance or were located on steep slopes. 2. 10 [1–4] (DRMH 5. Even then. 10. no. porta pontis). Bak. DRMH 4. Since the legal existence of these often rested on customary use rather than a charter. 16. increasing interest was shown in organising traffic on the other major routes in Transylvania and in integrating this into the long-distance trade routes. 2011. 239). 734. on the ground there was a lack of control. 77 In 1377 local villagers were exempted from paying the twentieth in exchange for repairing the public road going up the Feleac Hill. 12 [3]). Special chapters were introduced into the law code of 1517. 119 (1445: 22).81 Conclusion The royal interest in the road network was first demonstrated in respect of the salt trade and the arteries of this commerce continued to play an important role in shaping the road network. 1968. southeastern Transylvania). 2012. prompting the establishment of 74 First established under the rule of King Sigismund. Central European University. Bucharest. p. their upkeep and construction.76 Only a little information survives relating to the physical condition of the roads. in the 16th c. 296–7. ‘Reconstructing historical landscapes: The road network of Râşnov castle’. the Tripartitum.79 We can cautiously assume that the same applied to other routes. pp. the north Transylvanian counties lack the sort of detail later given in the account books of urban magistracies. 76 Werbőczy. the amount of fees collected and the existence of lawful or unlawful roads. 57. See DRMH. During the late medieval period. 81 See for example. p.75 Attempts to reconcile matters in such a way as to protect the interests of nobility and clergy were often thwarted by the royal grant of new privileges. p. . in 1403 (in via lapidea sicut de foro transitur ad beatam virginem). it was often difficult to prove whether the toll was authorised. which seem to have been particularly problematic. Hida (all of them bearing names derived from the Hungarian word for bridge: híd).77 a bridge devastated by a flood at Var (in 1496). Tripartitum. Nevertheless. Apahida. and that they benefited from at least some basic construction and maintenance. The salience given in the surviving material to the socalled great or royal roads suggests the confluence of royal and commercial interests. & Budapest. For the medieval period. 331–2. 2005 (=DRMH 5). The actions of government were not always sufficient to halt these adverse developments.64 North Transylvanian Road System illegal tolls and other abuses. Map: Medieval regional routes of northern Transylvania . mill location. The CustomaryLlaw of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary: A Work in Three Parts (Tripartitum). Mills and potential sites of mills (molendinis et molendinorum locis) had sufficient economic significance to be mentioned in the standard formulae recording royal grants. 2 MCRT. is a source of contention right through to the present day. human intervention upon the aquatic landscape took the form of adjustment rather than transformation.2 In 1657. 1. 65 . who would become Transylvania’s first prince. stipulated that the mill should support the miller and pay tax beyond a certain threshold. where sources of energy were finite. by János M. fishponds. and millers enjoyed a higher status than simple peasants. waters channels. Piscinis et Piscaturis: The Utilisation of Water Resources in the Banat in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods Livia Magina The Banat is an island among rivers and the gift of water has been historically controlled by technology. therefore. mills and sites of mills […] . the human impact upon the hydraulic environment became more profound. The value of any estate increased with the potential energy of the waters that it possessed from rivers. Péter Banyó & Martyn Rady. pp.1 Not only mills but also millers had an important function in the community. 24 [8]). The importance of waters. 82–3 (I. CA. pp. fish weirs. 2005 (=DRMH 5). Thereafter. town. ponds and fishponds. fishponds and fish weirs can be found in Stephen Werbőczy`s Tripartitum of 1517: ‘under the word “appurtenances” is commonly meant and included everything that belongs to a city. Before the seventeenth century. A very great number of charters recording gifts or sales note. being marked on the one hand by a more systematic exploitation of resources. or village: such as […] waters. since these were considered an important economic resource. the utilisation of aquatic resources was obvious. ponds and fish pools. on account 1 Stephen Werbőczy. the presence of mills. eds & trans. Bak. however. and on the other by laws on water utilisation. 408. The distinction between working hand in hand with the natural environment and controlling it. In the medieval context. the miller was generally a tenant. In 1542 and 1552. springs and even floods. During the Middle Ages.Molendinis. however. towns or even peasant communities were an important asset. piscaturis or molendinis. rivulets. mills. 87. Described in the extant records as piscinis. but they also represented a significant investment. not the owner of the mill. the laws published under the name of John II Sigismund. and the types of channel that might be constructed. rivers. the Transylvanian diet regarded the miller as enjoying a usufruct of the resources that he had. Mills belonging to nobles. these also conveyed a financial boon to their owners. Idyllwild. & Budapest. involving in the main the construction of mills. On the other hand. Banatica. On the Chery estate alone. 13. Documente privind istoria comitatului Timiş şi a oraşului Timişoara/Oklevelek Temes vármegye és Temesvár város történetéhez. pp 85–86. An overshot mill. eds Livia Magina & Adrian Magina. two of them being specifically noted as stone buildings. Stone buildings are very much a nineteenth-century phenomenon. One of the most important resources of Banat was water. Mori medievale din Banat [Medieval mills in the Banat].66 Water Resources in the Banat of which he should pay three talers: two for the right to use water and one for the mill house. no 1. vol. since it suggests that the others were made of wood—the territory lacked quarries. which relied upon a horizontal axle. An estimate of the number of mills operating in the Middle Ages in just the highland and piedmont parts of the Banat. 8 Tripartitum. and where grain predominated. for example) were valued at fifty marks. p.3 A few years later. 13. the law of 1661 provided that millers were bound to contribute in taxes a certain amount of wheat. p. new edition).5 For the lowland area. pp. 7 For the different types of mills. suggests the presence of about a hundred such establishments. The value of these mills was based on their seasonal functionality. being a miller had certain advantages. sometimes called the Danube type. So an undershot mill which worked at times of drought was considered more productive and estimated at ten marks. This meant either altering the course of the river. carriage and blacksmithing. in the vicinity of Timisoara. but no vestige of their history is left in the archaeological record. 6 Frigyes Pesty. including even pigs and other animals fattened with the leftovers of milling. These floating mills. 9 MCRT. 527. for example. One which did not dry out cost ten marks. where the rivers present a larger flow but a slower slope. was estimated at five marks and the site of a mill at between one-and-a-half and three marks. 4 Ibid. 349–369.6 This is an important observation. were used not only on the Danube and Tisa rivers but also on the Mureş. The same criteria applied to fishponds. 12. or mills built on boats. pp. 1981–1983. 319. because its force and grinding capacity was less. According to the water flow and the utilisation techniques involved. 5 Octavian Răuţ. ‘Malomtipusok és a molnár mestersége a XIX. 25–43. századi Magyarországon’ [Types of mills and the milling craft in 19th-century Hungary]. p. They were in time abandoned and replaced either upstream or downstream. A Magyar Mezőgazdasági Múzeum Közlemenyei [Proceedings of the Hungarian Agricultural Mus.8 The obligation to clean these ponds was often fastened on the tenant peasantry. . leading us to suppose that we should double or triple the number of mills overall. as for instance on the private estates of the princes of Transylvania. 278 (forthcoming.9 In the mountainous areas. or 3 Ibid. see Zsófia Vajkai.]. Many millers made a fortune selling products of the mill. mills were supplied by water that was diverted along specially dug channels or ieruga.4 They were additionally obliged to pay out of their own income for maintenance. but one that did not was estimated at only six marks. 18. no. We should reckon that this contributed to the mills’ ephemeral quality.7 Flood-water utilisation gave rise to mills that were specially built and worked only during periods of heavy rain. milling needs were greater. 2 (1430–1470) [Charters concerning the history of Timiş county and town of Timişoara]. The big fishponds on the important rivers (the Danube or Tisa. twenty-two mills were registered in 1459. 220 (I. 123 [36–41]). mills might be vertical-axle mills or so-called spoon-paddle mills. 1993. but one that did was worth half as much. involving dykes and adjustments to the river bed. I. 35. should it be proved 10 Constituţiile aprobate ale Transilvaniei 1653 (The Approved Constitutions of the Transylvanian Principality). when these alterations led to royal intervention. The construction of pools moved a part of the river off its bed and. but plainly it did. Mills that produced stagnant water or caused damage to plough land. both upstream and downstream. V. Herlea. without any flow at all. translated by Al. The idea. the old course of the river might become either a swamp or ox-bowed. Likewise. Cluj. Liviu Marcu. slowing its course and contributing to silting or even converting that part of the river into a dead-end. Let us give the example of Remetea estate belonging to the nobleman.10 In the Banat. 1997. Mill building involved bank clearing. An older historiography considered that the building of a mill did not disturb the local ecological environment. they cut a road. A typical example is furnished in Caransebeş. 11 Răuţ. P. 137. The council decided that Basarab had the right to destroy Dragna’s mill. see art. 40. as may be noted in 1408 and 1414. Francisc Basarab appeared before the city council of Caransebeş and claimed that George Dragna intended to build a mill that would rob water from his mill. The diverting of the water course is also mentioned in respect of the Bârzava River in Gherteniş area. in 1376. ed. where the stream was only partly diverted. at least as far as the hydraulic environment is concerned. Livia Magina 67 digging a parallel channel. the inhabitants of Căvăran dug a ditch from the Timiş River to the Mâtnic valley in order to assure their mills’ continued operation. and problems of flooding. cutting a road to the mill house. One such case in which an old mill was threatened by another built upstream is mentioned in 1588. On mills. digging a channel or diverting part of the river’s course. III. on the lower course of the Bârzava. of a harmonious relationship between man and nature in the Middle Ages does not fit the facts. where twenty-four mills worked in 1408 on a length of seven kilometers between Bocşa and Gherteniş. Şotropa et al. raising dams and the construction of a weir and sluices to feed the pool. Stefan Himfy. or exploiting a tributary in such a way as to bring water to the mill. converted some of the terrain into islands and eyots. Alongside the channel. bridges and roads by overflowing their banks might be pulled down. Mori. mill pools have to be churned lest they become marshy. where a supply channel or ieruga that was frequently mentioned in documents of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has survived (albeit covered in part by a modern road). it collects and renders fertile ground a swamp. in what may be considered an integrated scheme of water-management and communication. pp.. Thus. albeit temporarily. therefore. tit. Resistance was punished with a 200-florin fine. the works connected to building a mill generated larger changes in the landscape. p. In places.11 We may imagine how the river and its bank were changed. the building of ponds also required the digging of supply channels. otherwise. . Water diverted to the mill has to return to the river. 28–29. have an adverse effect lower down the river. For its part. swamping was severely fined. In the seventeenth century. The construction of new mills might. moreover. 351 14 Sándor Takáts. tit. 16 Whirlpools were made by diverting part of the channel down a drop. exchanged information and communicated their concerns. new statutes recognised that peasants might also be proprietors. liminality and possible conflict. 2 vols. 134. Timişoara. particularly important where grain was cultivated intensively. pp. p. Bucharest. 3.12 In order to avoid misunderstanding. the imperial administration sought to regulate the income due from mills. thieves or vagabonds. The water energy that moved the wheels might also be used for the grinding of beech nuts. 141–160. 12 Andrei Veres. 36. Juhász Kálmán.. Münster. 268–270. although the surviving information from the Middle Ages relates only to the plain. Banatica. The mill is a place to meet. Together with the church and fortress. P. An unsuitable place to dwell in given its construction.14 The importance of mills for the local economy and sustenance is shown by the occasions on which enemy troops set them on fire. filling the bellows of smithies. p. it should. pressing seeds for oil. The first complexes of mills are recorded in the Tisa area at the beginning of the fourteenth century. They were of such significance to the local economy that the fate of individual mills could set in train complicated lawsuits. Die Stifte der Tschanader Diözese im Mittelalter. and elsewhere. 15 Lajos Bároti. to socialise. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte und Kulturgeschichte des Banats. 1931. the mill anthropologically became a place of concourse. beating hemp. The large number of mills in the territory of the Banat indicates significant agricultural production and the major consumption of cereals. On the status of lakes. especially in the Banat. M. Malomtipusok. p. who caused the establishment to be seen in the community as a place of passage.18 Following the Banat’s incorporation in the Habsburg Empire (1718). 41. 1927. however. vol. but from the beginning of the eighteenth century. of course. 17 Adrian Magina.17 In the Principality of Transylvania. Mills were. The mill was also a crossing place for travellers. Two parts of the fine went to the plaintiff and one part to the officer of the court. 236–249. news may also be circulated. Mills and pisciculture were interlinked. see p. 1. 119–121.13 Mill ownership was a noble monopoly from the view point of legislation. the theft of fish from fishponds was punished by law with a twelve-florin fine and compensation. Adattár Délmagyarország XVIII. but ones based instead on a mixture of barley. vol. Câteva documente privind comitatul Torontal în prima jumătate a secolului al XV-lea [Some documents on the county of T. 62. . 1907. 2012. 22. Although most mills were valued at only twenty florins. oats and rye. washing wool.]. századi történetéhez [Material on the history of southern Hungary in the 18th century]. cloth manufacture (for example. Here people spoke. In respect of nutrition. be noted that peasants did not consume pure wheat products.16 The mill enters mental geography with a strongly sacral and symbolic sense. as they are used in making cloth. pp. Some mills were eliminated or forced to close by taxation. however. Documente privitoare la istoria Ardealului. Századok [Centuries]. 18 Constituţiile aprobate. pp. 185. The number of whirlpools (busnita) can also be an indicator of woollen industry. sawing wood. and W. Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti [Documents concerning the history of Trans. the cloth factory in eighteenth-century Caransebeş)15 and in mining industry. ‘A magyar malom’ [The Hungarian mill]. 1893–1904. strangers. it was decided to measure the flow of water.68 Water Resources in the Banat damaging to his property. in the first half of the 15th century]. as while grinding grain. the mill is a sheltered place. III. 13 Vajkai. so that the water pounded the cloth in the pool below. especially in those places where electric power was unavailable. Their presence had an effect upon the environment. which was exploited by mills or for pisciculture. both on the Mures River. however. 455–456. pp. 1. including flooding. lists of potential obstacles were drawn up. In 1727. many of these were permitted to continue operating. At the present time. Watermill in the Banat. the destruction of the mills on the River Bega was ordered so that ponds for fish and turtles could be built. . The traditional mill. Inventories drawn up in the 1950s indicate that complexes of mills were still operating in the highland part of the Banat. new building regulations came into force. but their number subsequently went into decline during the nineteenth century. the dam. and the terms imposed could be onerous.22 In view. or even 150 florins. because they interfered with the transport of salt. had in order to obtain the necessary permit. requiring that before a mill could be built. the other at Neudorf by Lipova. there was a stipulation that mills should be anchored in such a way as not to disturb navigation. p. Up until the eighteenth century. 23 Dumitru Ţeicu. to agree to buy the land adjacent to the mill. 1744. and the type and size of the mill wheel. In the nineteenth century. plus a twentyfour-florin tax should the mill be sold.21 The removal of floating mills and of fish weirs was often also requested. 2012. Vienna also sought to regulate arrangements of fishing. 2. 1. 22 Ibid. and pay for the construction of roads to the mill. as they were serious impediments to navigation. of their economic importance. several hundred mills and ponds are reported in the area of the Banat. 20 Ibid.20 The Austrian administration ordered in 1719. there are no mills working on the Banat plain. The establishment of new mills required permission. 1743. In order to clarify what sort of hindrances to shipping there were. 19 Bároti. Two mills were demolished in 1750. Brăila. however. Adattár. 21 Ibid. 567.19 Even within the articles of Karlowitz Treaty of 1699. p. The administration of Vrsac registered in 1774 the existence of ninety-one mills and two whirlpools in the area. More than half. and a further fifty or seventy florins. the supply channel. but was considerably less than modern interventions. the owner had to provide documentation detailing the technical aspects of the mill house. had disappeared by the 1980s. one at Chesinţ. called Weber. up to a distance of a hundred yards. 2. and 1750 that the floating mills be demolished and forbade that new ones be built or the old ones repaired without the authorities’ agreement. these new arrangements served. to limit the building of new mills. 238–239. lost ground in the face of modernisation. pp. and only a dozen or so in the Banat highlands that maintain their original function. Although regulating water use. Livia Magina 69 taxes were still imposed at a rate of six florins for a whirlpool. A prospective miller from Medveş area. depending upon its production. as well as the impact that the mill was likely to have on the local environment. nevertheless. which was considered economically more important. 123. however. 528. 1734.23 To conclude: water constituted a precious resource in the Banat. . being orally transmitted. Romanian customary law was passed on orally. influenced to a degree by Bartolus of Sassoferrato.From Custom to Written Law: Ius Valachicum in the Banat Adrian Magina During the course of the fourteenth century. unwritten law—custom or customary law (consuetudo)—coexisted with the written law (as communicated in royal decrees). which state that a particular issue was resolved by the principles of Romanian law. the expression appears in documents issued in Hungary. Martyn Rady. Cluj-Napoca. János M. 4. ed. 2 Quoted by Ştefan Pascu. 71 . and was accordingly applied in the courts. 1989. a circumstance that continued beyond the Middle Ages. For the impact of Werbőczy’s work. published in 1517. lex or more valachicum or valachorum. it recognised the importance of custom alongside the written law. The classic exposition was given in Stephen Werbőczy’s Tripartitum. In reality. customary law had even more impact on legal practice than the written laws of the kingdom. and it rapidly became one of the most investigated topics in the medieval history of the Romanians in Hungary. & trans. 1 For Werbőczy’s Tripartitum.1 Romanian legal and historical writing was particularly interested in the issue of the old law used by the Romanian population of medieval Hungarian kingdom. ed. Bak. CA. 2005 (=DRMH 5). but these were modelled on South Slavonic and Byzantine legislation. of the Romanians living in the Hungarian kingdom. unwritten. Idyllwild. A Romanian jurist from the inter-war period defined customary law as a legal norm that was not a part of the written law. Voievodatul Transilvaniei (The Voivodate of Transylvania). see The Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary: a work in three parts. had the same authority. Tripartitum. & Budapest. see Custom and Law in Central Europe. p. Bak. This systematised the legal customs of the kingdom and. Péter Banyó & Martyn Rady. In respect. with an introduction by János M. 135. but obeyed by all the inhabitants of an area and recognised by them as normative.2 In its essence. referring to a type of law followed by the Romanian population in the kingdom. The presence of this term aroused at an early stage the interest of Romanian historians. This type of law consisted of a system of rules of conduct and social life that were intended to provide a framework for social organisation. 2003. Sources of Romanian law In the medieval Hungarian kingdom. The only information on the content of the ius valachicum comes from documents issued by various authorities of the kingdom. it necessarily follows that no corpus or collection of legal texts may be found. ius. It was only in the seventeenth century that the first law codes were printed in Wallachia and Moldavia. therefore. Cambridge. Romanian customary law is connected to the presence of the so-called Romanian districts (districta Valachorum). pp.4 The spread of Romanian customary law References to Romanian law occur in both Moldavia and Wallachia. For the most part. Bucharest.5 By the sixteenth century. 4. Les institutions du droit coutumier roumain. 4 Vladimir Hanga. being encountered throughout the kingdom. the Banat and Zarand. using mostly documents relating to Wallachia and Moldavia. given away to members of the Hungarian elite or absorbed into the counties. although not integrated into Hungarian law. On the outskirts of the kingdom: the Banat region The Banat covers an area of ​​ approximately 28. where people might use Romanian customs and customary law.500 km2. from the legal scholar. Romanian law. The area is currently divided between Romania (60%). which is geographically situated between the River Mureş to the north. Serbia (39%) and Hungary (one per cent). Cases adjudicated according to the ius valachicum are more common in the marginal areas of the kingdom: Transylvania. the Tisa on the west. Many were. In the Middle Ages. 5 The historiography on the districts is summarised by Stefan Pascu. after which they become more visible in the extent record. In his book. 4. Romanian historians have been content to itemise the districts rather than investigate their institutional content. Vladimir Hanga. being administratively divided 3 Ştefan Pascu. the Danube in the south. Voievodatul Transilvaniei (The Voivodeship of Transylvania). as well as among the Romanian population of the Hungarian kingdom. Maramureş. 13–68. and the Carpathian Mountains to the east. however. depending upon context. however. it can be said that Romanian districts were those areas that had some sort of legal autonomy. thereby losing their self-governing status and legal exceptionalism.Voievodatul. An older Romanian historiography over-exaggerated the importance and salience of these rules in order to demonstrate the endurance of Romanian legal autonomy in the kingdom. Voievodatul. Districts themselves are not specific to a Romanian population. The first Romanian districts are mentioned in the fourteenth century. Hanga systematised and synthesised all aspects of customary practice. . pp.3 The most complete presentation of customary law came. which is an indication that the ius valachicum was seen as constituting a set of normative rules. Certain cases where Romanians were directly involved were thus judged ‘according to the ancient and recognised law of Romanians’ (iuxta antiquam et aprobatam legem valachorum).72 Ius Valachicum in the Banat It is on the basis of these stray references that legal historians have attempted to establish the content of the ius valachicum and its contribution to the development of Romanian society in the Hungarian kingdom. Nevertheless. was admitted in legal practice and acknowledged in the courts. however. although the term differed in its meaning. This trend was exemplified by Ştefan Pascu in his book. the territory lay at the southern limit of the medieval Hungarian kingdom. published in the late 1980’s. 1988. which were also those parts of Hungary where the Romanian population was most dense. the only area where they survived and were able to preserve their rights was in the Banat. l34–148. the act stated that the eight districts would remain together (and not be alienated piecemeal). only the king had the right to judge them. arguing that based on custom. when the area was conquered and occupied by the Turks. Torontal and Caraş counties (later Severin). Although the names changed. Mehadia. Almaj. the Romanian community of Banat was probably trying to organise itself as a single political community or universitas. In brief. 1991. pp. It is also from this region that we have the most cases being judged according to the ius valachicum. the area south of the Mureş is recorded as having altogether some thirty-three districts. Bârzava. It was they 6 The nobility of some districts refused to recognise the authority of Teutonic knight. the Banat of Severin (replaced in the sixteenth century by Caransebeş-Lugoj). where they were entrusted with a defensive role. the area had a large Romanian population and. Adunările cneziale şi nobiliare (boiereşti) din Transilvania în secolele XIV–XVI [Romanian medieval institutions.6 On account of their participation in the anti-Ottoman campaigns. in respect of functionality Severin County and the district of Caransebeş were one and the same institution. The Banat exemplifies the use of Romanian law for several reasons. secondly. Legal autonomy was preserved mainly by those districts that were set on crown estates. vice-bans of Severin. and that the execution of these judgements would only be made by Romanian noble judges. that the nobles and knezes (a Romanian elite category. Universitas Saxonum). pp. Judicial procedure When we speak of Romanian customary law. legally assimilated into the nobility) were exempt from of any contributions. Budapest. 73–75. 135–136.7 By requesting the confirmation of these earlier rights. This explains the persistence of ius valachicum in the Banat highlands until the middle of the seventeenth century (1658). often. Instituţii medievale româneşti. First. Cluj. A Szörény vármegyei hajdani oláh kerületek [The former Romanian districts of Severin County]. see IoanAurel Pop. who were holders of the castles in the districts and. As early as 1430 there is reference to the people of these districts having the right to be summoned only before the king. In the sixteenth century. and also a structure with military functions. ispán) and could appeal against sentences directly to the king. a part of the districts were conquered by the Ottomans and the remaining ones were merged with those of Caransebeş and Lugoj. Many of these had an almost anonymous existence. that the king could not make donations of property in the districts without the approval of the local nobility. 1876. Comiat and Ilidia). on the border of the kingdom. ispáns) of Timiş. parts of Arad and Cenad counties. appointed ban of Severin. Political autonomy thus went hand in hand with the growth of legal autonomy. Adrian Magina 73 between Timiş. confirming supposedly older rights. being made up of only a few villages and from early on being taken over by a noble family. Nicholas von Redwitz. Lugoj. which was in turn overlaid by Severin County. Caraşova. the term that was applied only a little later to the Saxons of Transylvania (1486. we have first to take into account the institutions and officials in those regions—the lords (comites. that nobles and knezes could only be judged by their lord (comes. For analysis of the document. 7 This charter was published by Pesty Frigyes. . King Ladislas V recognised in 1457 a number of privileges belonging to eight districts in the mountainous area of Banat (Caransebeş. Knezial and aristocratic assemblies in Transylvania in 14th–16-th centuries]. 144–148. Budapest. vol. although the distinction between these categories does not coincide with modern norms. The principal assembly was at Caransebeş. where justice was administered by the lord or his deputies. most parties abiding by the decision of the ius valachicum. before the assessors or the assembly. but there were many cases when other people of various conditions attended (alterius status homines).8 The presence of the lord at these assemblies did not affect the type of law followed. to coincide with the market. The role of the king was in the main confined to confirming judgements or hearing cases transmitted directly to his court on account of their special features. Assemblies in Caransebeş were possibly held weekly. called the sedem scilicet iudiciariam principalem septem sedium nobilium valachicalium and this heard not only cases from the district but also appeals or matters of particular importance that were moved before it. 3. and the evidence of the witnesses brought 8 Pop. So. Instituţii. 127–163. local and Romanian law might still be followed. The oath was decisory in Romanian procedural law. or. The oath-making ceremony was simple enough.74 Ius Valachicum in the Banat who convened and chaired the assemblies of Romanians that were called to administer the law. The parties swore. although not all of them judged according to Romanian law. being probative and also employed as a means of reaching a decision. a small town near Caransebeş. A Szörényi Bánság és Szörény vármegye története [History of Severin Banat and Severin County]. and made their respective oaths. the universitas nobilium et kenesiorum districtus Sebes. vol. with the approval of the assembly. a practice which remained stable until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. representatives of district meetings tried to resolve differences peacefully. Their membership was usually reserved for the noble elite. 9 Frigyes Pesty. Gyulafehérvári Káptalan Országos Levéltára. In investigating this phenomenon. declared themselves dissatisfied with the district’s decision and appealed to the king’s court. Cases went to law in the respective district—in congregatione nostra generali universitati nobilium kenezyorumque ac alterius status districtus nostri Myhald. Parties that were dissatisfied with the outcome could appeal directly to the king. in 1503 two inhabitants of Caran.9 But such instances were rare. from which it may have passed into Romanian use. F 2 Protocolla. as it is also found in Hungarian judicial practice. I. As in the Hungarian counties. They noted the testimonies of those involved. as the 1457 privilege allowed. 52). 1878. pp. . by putting their hands on a cross or on a saint’s relics in a church. The practice survived because it is mentioned in 1581 that the trial proceedings in Severin county were on a Thursday: szek Napian czeterteökön (Magyar Országos Levéltár [Hungarian National Archive]. Generally. The members of the assembly elected some of their number (usually six to twelve) as assessors (probi homines). p. The system of assessors was not unique to Romanian adjudication. criminal and civil. who collectively judged the case and passed sentence. on Thursdays. as we may find in a document of 1428 referring to the district of Mehadia. from 1439. Cases judged by ius valachicum Cases within the scope of the ius valachicum were of two types. Ioan-Aurel Pop has counted about thirty such assemblies meeting during the fifteenth century. pp. The decision so obtained had complete judicial validity. We do not know what happened in this instance. Eight judges were elected to settle the dispute but the citizens of Caran did not agree with their decision and appealed to the royal court. 11 Ibid. After the oaths had been made. Dreptul românesc în Banatul medieval [Romanian Law in the medieval B. who had been accused of a crime and who should be judged according to Romanian law (iuxta legem olachorum). some nobles of Zorlenţ village (situated between Caransebeş and Resiţa. but during the fifteenth century the ius or more valachorum formula became increasingly frequent. Another example comes from 1503. namely the arson of a mill. It is was undoubtedly a rough and ready system. The procedure involved took into account the nature of the case and the seriousness of the deed. Criminal cases. so the assembly referred to the old law as recognised within all the Romanian districts (iuxta antiquam et aprobatam legem districtum Volachicalium universorum). from 1494. The accused.11 Examples of this type survive only from the end of the fifteenth century. determining the procedures used. following Romanian tradition (iuxta ritum Volachie). One of the most common issues encountered in cases judged by Romanian law related to inheritance or the sale of properties. asked the noble Ştefan Himfy about a man from Bogdan’s estate (Bogdan was a knez in the district of Cuieşti). They had been sued by Dorothy (Doroteea). In 1499. asking him to take an oath together with twelve compurgators who were to certify his innocence. with the nobles agreeing to pay. Other cases coming before the assemblies included murder and wounding. the daughter of one of their relatives. due from her father’s estate. Ciulei. the noble John Porkolab accused the residents of Caran of having fished in his ponds. pp. In 1477. but probably the only one that could work in a society that had largely developed its norms on the basis of tradition and custom. . twenty 10 All examples are taken from Gheorghe Ciulei & Gheorghe G. for instance. who demanded her dowry and wedding gifts. Adrian Magina 75 at the assessors’ behest. today in Caraş-Severin County) came before the district court in Caransebeş. without recourse to written proof or inquests. The noble lost the case because the people of Caran swore that they had not committed the acts of which they were accused and the witnesses brought by him to swear were declared unsatisfactory by the assembly. 57–87. hunted on his land and killed his watchman. the assembly declared Gaman not guilty. 30–56. when Nicholas Perényi. The inhabitants were accused of entering the nobleman’s estates and causing damage there as well as serious injuries. causing a loss to him of 200 florins. Civil cases. which her kinsmen had retained after his death. Penalties were usually only financial. pp.10 The first mention of the ius valachicum in the Banat is from the late fourteenth century (around 1390–1392). ban of Severin. a noble of Romanian origin. did not acknowledge the crime. Reşiţa. based only on oral testimony. The aim of the proceedings was less to impose punishments or sanctions as to reach a negotiated solution. The two sides were reconciled by means of arbitration. 1997. and mostly concerned the right of inheritance in the female line. George Gaman of Bizere.]. when the people of Caran (again!) came into conflict with the noble Nicholas Măcicaş. In a further example. the assembly of Caransebeş district had to debate a criminal case. 30–31): consuetudo est ius quoddam moribus institutum. estates remained in the family or in the community. have different roots. As the nobles did not have the necessary sum. however. as security on a loan. London. whether in its Romano-canonical or vulgar Byzantine forms. pp. Nobles of the Măcicaş family had given a belt or girdle to one of George Gaman’s peasant tenants. the estate could be sold to others.: 450 years after the founding of the pashalik]. while the Romanian custom derived from Novella XVIII of Justinian’s Corpus. as the type of law that Romanians followed. not in land. to be discharged in cash and mobilia. In Romanian law. which stipulated that girls could inherit a quarter of their fathers’ estates. 15 Ciulei & Ciulei. In this case. An interesting case was brought to court in 1489. 10. These illustrations demonstrate Werbőczy’s assertion that where the written law provided no solution. p. 2002. whom we have seen before being charged with burning down a mill. Timişoara. The amount that was due was sixty gold florins. the so-called quarta puellaris. An almost identical case occurred in 1500 in respect of an unpaid dowry and wedding gifts. the case was judged by Romanian law (iure Volachie requirente). Prologue. which otherwise seem so close. Romanian law did not differ much from the legal traditions of the Hungarian kingdom. however. 31–33. Nobility. quod pro lege suscipitur cum deficit lex. p.12 Whatever the distant sources of the two practices. when the same George Gaman. as transmitted through vulgar Byzantine law. since land went exclusively through the male line. which they paid on the spot in the court’s presence. Dreptul românesc. irrespective of where they lived. (DRMH 5. These two cases may be put in the larger context of Hungarian law. was accused by his relatives of having appropriated muskets (pixides) from their castle. the ius valachicum adopted the protimissis system of pre-emption. they pledged to Dorothy the land that they had inherited from her father’s estate. Ioan-Aurel Pop has noted that the legal institutions of the Romanians were explained not by reference to the Banat or Wallachia but instead generically. As neither the accusers nor the accused could bring proof as to how the weapons changed hands.15 In terms of the pledging and sale of land. pp. It may be that the origins of the two schemes. in Vilaietul Timişoarei (450 de ani de la întemeierea paşalâcului) 1552– 2002 [The vilayet of T. 13 Tripartitum. 2000. 103–107.76 Ius Valachicum in the Banat gold florins. p. Sellers had first to ask their relatives and neighbours. Land and Service in Medieval Hungary. In this way. Ioan Aurel Pop. and it could reach a third or even a half of the father’s estate—but only given in cash and mobilia. A further civil case arose in 1500. while his accusers refused to take the oath. Judecăţi.14 Pledging and selling. the important Romanian nobles of the Bizere-Gaman family were involved. 14 Pop. The Hungarian scheme of female inheritance may have had its origin in the lex Falcidia. 31.13 In analysing the ius or ritum Volachie. ‘Judecăţi după dreptul “Ţării Româneşti” în Banat în jurul anului 1500’ [Judgments using Wallachian law in the Banat around 1500]. the percentage taken by the daughters was often greater. The quarter was. 88–163. George Gaman won his case because he made an oath in front of the assembly that he had honestly bought the arms. Under the influence of the larger ius commune. customary practices might prevail. . The peasant had 12 Martyn Rady. in the Banat the ius valachicum clearly retained its pre-eminence. if they refused to buy. mediated by canon law. even if a legal contract was acknowledged by the judicial authorities in Caransebeş. Cluj branch]. and be approved by these. Later documents mention that proceedings followed the tradition in that region (regy dicziretes zokassa zerinth). in accordance with Romanian custom (in tribus sedibus iudiciariis. Documente medievale bănăţene 1440–1653 [Medieval documents from Banat 1440–1653]. the ius valachicum demonstrates a self-generating and pragmatic form of law. Lugoj or Severin district. Having its roots in both the Romano-Byzantine legal tradition and influenced by the Hungarian customary law. used by the Romanian population in the late medieval Hungarian kingdom. where those involved either appeared in person or were represented through agents. and for their decisions to be fastened in written form. including the belt. for example. it needed the acknowledgement of the courts. by the autonomous Principality of Transylvania. the Banat highlands preserved specific legal practices that were accepted and recognised by officials of the kingdom and. came into possession of his master. A similar situation occurred in 1503 when a petty nobleman showed his neighbours and kinsmen the judgements of three assemblies that permitted him. fond Macskási of Tincova.16 In order. but also cognate with the law used in the other Romanian lands. subsequently. 812) or the one between the authorities of Caransebeş and the former mayor of the town (in Costin Feneşan. for the unwritten ius valachicum to be effective. it had nonetheless to go before three assemblies (in tribus sedibus nostrorum). After three judgment meetings (in tribus sedibus iudiciariis). pp. who asked the Măcicaş family to return the money in exchange for the belt. Box 8. as well as one that borrowed from larger legal traditions. iuxta ritum Volachie). thus. . In conclusion. Adrian Magina 77 died without heir and his belongings. the action between Margaret Gaman and Sigismund Fiat in 1628 (Serviciul Judeţean al Arhivelor Naţionale Cluj [Romanian National Archive. So. the Măcicaş family agreed that the pledge should remain permanently in the possession of George Gaman. Until the late seventeenth century. no. but that the final decision was only taken after the presentation of the matter before three courts. 135–141). in order to obtain a complete legal authority. to pledge some of his estates in Comiat district and the Banat of Severin. 16 See. Reference to three assemblies conveying an authority for sale or pledge continued in the Banat highlands until the late seventeenth century. the ius valachicum was a type of ‘common law’. . Commissioned by the Wallachian princes. p. 1986. As elsewhere. especially to landed property. Thus. Unfortunately.1 Up to the nineteenth century. Cambridge. 23–45 (p.) Custom and Law in Central Europe. Paul Fouracre. Cambridge. 1990. 41–71. Cambridge. Simon Keynes. 28. 79 . 2 Cf. in what follows. I will trace how legal procedure changed over the century in the context of the social and economic instability that both engendered a higher circulation of land estates and triggered a vigorous defence by small land holders to preserve their possessions against encroachment. ‘“Placita” and the settlement of disputes in later Merovingian Francia’. pp.3 1 See for instance the case of neighbouring Hungary: Martyn Rady. ‘Hungarian Procedural Law and Part Two of the Tripartitum’ in Rady (ed. the main reason for producing and retaining these early documents was to consolidate legal title. there is no surviving source that lays down what procedures were to be followed in medieval Wallachia. or at the conclusion of. These canonical compilations barely ever describe the procedures to be followed in resolving disputes. pp. 3 Cf. The administration of justice in medieval Wallachia was based on customary law. I will focus on the charters that survive up to the end of the sixteenth century. I will primarily use descriptive evidence.Changing Legal Procedures in the Context of Social Transformation: The Settlement of Disputes in Sixteenth-Century Wallachia Mariana Goina In the following article. 23). the sole source of Wallachian written law consisted of compilations based on Byzantine religious and legal codes.2 As far as we can observe. ‘Royal Government and the Written Word in Late Anglo-Saxon England.) Rosamond McKitterick. Procedures of dispute settlement Charters produced as a result of dispute settlement first appear in the extant record at the end of the fifteenth century (1490). judicial proceedings. The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe. The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe. They are almost exclusively related to land.’ in (ed. in (eds) Wendy Davies & Paul Fouracre. these law codes were intended as instruments expressing the princes’ claim to be guardians of the Byzantine tradition rather than as a body of reference for actual disputes. the law codes were hardly ever put to use in litigation. 2003. I will analyse procedures of dispute resolution in sixteenthcentury Wallachia. mainly princely charters issued in the course of. ].. and also your wish. Contribuţii la studiul satelor devălmaşe româneşti [Contributions to the study of Romanian Village Communities]. however. Most of the surviving deeds were issued after determination at the princely court. Fragmentary information from the end of the sixteenth century suggests that plaints were delivered orally. to present their suit to the prince directly. Up to the mid-sixteenth century. As a rule. not to relate how the decision was reached. summonses seem to have been delivered in writing. The monks provided 24 witnesses while the laymen only 12. 97.’5 The procedural steps are uncertain. Apparently. My Highness. once the prince had been notified by the plaintiff. how the plaint was presented and taken up. 1959). Our Highness are writing to you. that you have a suit with the monks of Tismana over the village of Blesniţa and the estate Varonicu […]. 183 (before 1 June.4 From no later than the mid-sixteenth century. for instance. suggests that in the subsequent period the written word either complemented or substituted for oral procedure. and how adversary parties were notified. The court was presided over by the prince. so that they could be spotted in the crowds that gathered to salute the prince. in that hour you shall come and uphold the oath with the monks in front of My Highness. regardless of their status. . Cristea. I. p. 2. say to you that in the very hour you see this book [charter] of My Highness. 1. which was the highest judicial forum in Wallachia. as it is the wish of the monks. after the complaint was made to the prince and the adversary notified. no. 5 DRH B.. and to you. a day was appointed when he should undertake the oath (together with his oath helpers) to prove himself. who was surrounded by the high dignitaries. cu jalba în proţap (‘hanging a plaint’). 221 (1490). The procedure involved is barely described. It remains unclear how often these courts were held. And I. Bucharest. customary practice allowed plaintiffs. prince Pătru [. and to all of your companions (cetaşi). collective oath-taking appears as almost the only method of proof used. so that you shall not deceive yourselves […]. The prince judged ‘according to justice and law’ (meaning the customary law) together with all his ‘impartial servants. Presumably. from Vodiţa. Stahl. whether plaintiff or adversary. 6 See. but the number of compurgators could vary. DRH B. The charters produced were intended to confirm the ownership of the contested estate. either at his place of residence or during the course of princely peregrination. Apparently. Apparently. depending upon the difficulty of the case. although they feature disproportionately in the slender records of this time. A later saying. The procedural practices involved have to be reconstructed piecemeal. These early charters are so schematic that it is hard to grasp whether the deed was issued as a result of a suit and the identities of the parties involved. but each retrial of the case required a doubling of the previous number. vol. 1998 (first published. plaintiffs hung their written plaints on the top of tall sticks.80 Settlement of Disputes in Wallachia In the first half of the sixteenth century. and so much must necessarily remain obscure. 1560). letters of summons were sent to the adversary informing him that he had to come at a certain date to the princely court and take an oath there accompanied by oath helpers: ‘With the God’s grace. twelve oath helpers were required in a property dispute. no. Dragomir. 5. the number of surviving deeds is very few. The procedures involved in oath taking 4 See also Henry H.’6 The collective oath (called ‘law’) was delivered by the parties. As a charter from 1594 explained: ‘[…] Petru.] and fixed the day on the feast of Saint Mary’s birth. before the clergy and always involved a great gathering of people.7 Nevertheless. the constable. So His Highness called for the chamberlain. no. to take the oath. the constable. requested that the chamberlain. the outcome of a suit might often be challenged. lost his case in front of Prince Stephan. Petru. 242 (1575). Although the monks tried to override the oath taken by Detco and his oath helpers. was waiting with his oath helpers to take the oath. But he refused to come. The first case of a retrial. had not endowed Dragomir governor [father of Petru. Stănilă. and if he wanted he could bring twenty-four noblemen [to overturn their oath]. at the princely court or. when he saw that the chamberlain. Then.’10 7 See for instance DRH B. Any party that was dissatisfied could ask for a retrial and override the previous decision by providing a double number of oath helpers. It was taken on the Gospels. His Highness sent the chamberlain. 153. Dobre. only if they failed to respond to the third was the case awarded against them. 40. but Petru again refused to come. So. And Petru. in which it is mentioned that the ‘good people’ had not allowed the oath to be taken but made an agreement. And the chamberlain Stănilă thus came with twelve noblemen two weeks in advance of the day of retrial. It seems that the parties were given three summonses. Mariana Goina 81 become more transparent in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. 75 (1539).9 The duration of a case could extend to weeks. His Highness sent the governor. a church. 7. or in front of. taken in the church. 10 DRH B. Stănila. on the Holy Gospel.. take the oath with twelve noblemen [. not wanting to see the oath. 11. the constable]. 9 For one of the few instances see DRH B. and monks from Ehsinoh monastery. And for a third time [the prince sent] Stan. ran home. The ritual could take place in. Stănila. and ran away. former high master of ceremony. the high lord steward. Drăghici. that his aunt. on the very site of the contested property. the constable.8 Although it is hard to be firm on this point. the chamberlain Stănilă was not able to take the oath. and his twelve noblemen and he appointed Iane. and the chamberlain Stănilă waited with those noblemen for a whole week. And for a second time. 11 no. 4. If one party ignored the summons. the extant record seldom shows evidence of agreements being reached or of the parties being reluctant to take oaths. and he again refused to come. Caplea. This instance provides one of the few examples when monastic institutions were unable to convince the Wallachian princes of the justice of their claim. albeit an unsuccessful one. 8 DRH B. His Highness saw that. to Petru. due to Petru’s villainy. . to witness the oath of those twelve noblemen.. Then. no. Then the chamberlain Stănila informed His Highness [the prince] that he had been waiting a week to take the oath and that Petru did not want to take the oath. if the dispute involved the boundary of an estate. to come and witness the oath of those noblemen. comes from a case that involved Detco. no. then the other might have to wait for him to come to court to take the oath. they were unable to provide the double number (twenty-four) of oath helpers and so lost the case. the constable. DRH B. three times to reclaim his and his brothers’ land. I. Thus. the first surviving dispute. no. 1545–1552. monastic institutions were pioneers in commissioning written records of their property and using these records in the course of subsequent disputes. Roşca. disputed a part of their landed property with the Tismana monastery. . ‘Charter-writing and its Uses in Early Medieval Celtic Societies. Wallachian religious houses were very active in defending their landed estates. 7 no. Use of written evidence The first charters brought as evidence in a dispute date from the end of the fifteenth century and belonged to the Tismana monastery. lasted for more than half a century. in which twelve noblemen took the oath in favour of Lal. After a total of six trials. But he did not give up and approached the successor of Petru the Young. succeeding generations took up the suit and made a further three unsuccessful attempts to gain the estates from Tismana. provided by the other side. Lal’s side eventually regained the villages. a surge in the number of surviving charters produced as a result of dispute settlement. Cambridge. Charters had to be endorsed by oral testimony and the party who was unable to provide the oath helpers lost the process. 106 (1512). Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies. 4 no. 15 Cf. it claims to go back to the time of Vlad the Monk (c. Lal accordingly lost the case and his landed estates. although unfortunately in an eighteenth-century version. in which a certain land owner. 57. After two successful trials. 2. the written word had little evidential value. together with the sons of a certain Risipa. 1998. 7. 239. 201 (1575). See also. p. 236 (1525). II. charters belonging to laymen are seldom mentioned in the course of litigation during the first half of the sixteenth century. held during the reign of Petru the Young (1559–1568). no written evidence was submitted to court. The first plaint of the laymen was recorded in 1493.13 It is worth noting that. 222 (1547). no. 1. 1482–1495). even if it was produced in the course of litigation. irrespective of whether he could prove written title. the outcome was reversed by a team of twenty-four oath helpers. 15 Written evidence as an aid to memory There is for the reign of Mircea the Shepherd (regn.11 As they lost the case. Prince Alexandru Mircea (1568–1577). Wendy Davies. For instance. while traditional oral testimonies were seen as more reliable and trustworthy. together with their companions (cetaşi) entered into a dispute with the village communities of Şoptani and Mălureni.14 Up to the mid-fifteenth century. the suit of Utmeş and his offspring with Cozia monastery over the lie of their boundaries. 1558–59). As in early Western Europe. DRH B. By contrast. no. initially charters were perceived as inconclusive proof of ownership. 55 (1508). Recorded in 1557. 2. the whole process relying instead upon oral and sworn submissions. no. 12 See DRH B. 14 DRH B. despite the protracted nature of the conflict. among many others. no. 102. The sons of Lal and Dragomir. Certainly. 13 DRH B.’ in (ed.12 One of the most extended descriptions of a protracted case comes from 1575.) Huw Pryce.82 Settlement of Disputes in Wallachia Suits involving land could extend across generations. 11 DRH B. 5. Oath helpers were appointed by a letter issued in the princely court that told the defendants whom they should bring to court. in 1560. where they are mentioned. no. Secondly. mostly to display the continuity of princely justice. including oath taking and the laying of an anathema. 222 (1579). 18 See for instance DRH B. 19 See among many others. DRH B. which was considered first. were invoked towards the end of the proceedings. 1559–60). 269 (c. Out of 154 deeds surviving from Mircea’s first period of rule. Mircea the Shepherd awarded a piece of disputed land to the Tismana monastery. And those early princes cursed in those charters with a mighty and great anathema. the charters he had produced were deemed to have been proven as false by the superior testimony of the oath. so that My Highness was frightened before God to disregard them and destroy the charters of the early princes. However. only fourteen of which record disputes over property. By contrast. it was testified by numerous noble and old men that those landed estates had belonged to the Holy Monastery. and struck through by the prince. Mariana Goina 83 this surge should be read in the larger context of Wallachian documentary survival. and only subsequently reinforced by recourse to written evidence. The princes often invoked the binding force of anathema as a reason for their decision.’17 Thus. Under these circumstances. ‘I have read “the books”’. Written records relating to previous disputes were consulted during the decision making process and the outcomes of former cases considered as reliable evidence for granting the land anew to the party that produced them. At first glance. the earlier deeds had to be endorsed by a further round of oath taking. suggests that charters were read or listened to by the court. 268. and the party that was unable to provide the requisite number lost the case. We will also notice at this time certain changes in judicial procedure and a higher legal regard for the written word.16 The criteria of choice are uncertain. but the older ways and the salience of oral testimony continued to prevail. since ‘[…] in early princes’ charters [as provided by the Tismana Monastery]. written evidence began to be referred to during the proceedings. The stages of court procedure indicate the priority given to oral testimony. no. 4. were adduced as compelling evidence. Moreover. For instance. 184 (1560). were singled out as constituting legal grounds for the decision. 65 record disputes over land. no. we have 99 deeds altogether. nos 208 (1579). the former decisions based on oath taking and a binding anathema. 17 DRH B.18 Thus. 8. Although the appearance of a new formula. In some cases. even to the extent that a further round of oath taking was not required. the authority of ‘the books’ still rested upon the oral evidence they disclosed. functioned more as aids to recollection than as legal evidence. There is no indication of how selection was made other than rhetorical references to status and age and the consistent requirement that they be noblemen. the surviving records may disclose material relating to previous disputes. the former oral procedures. no. Judges and disputants may have by degrees become accustomed to the importance of written proof. many cases appear to have been resolved on the basis of written evidence. 160 (1578).19 Charters. for the reign of Radu the Great (1495–1508). . it seems that charters. besides oral testimony. even when used as evidence. 16 DRH B. Charters as legal proof Written evidence seems to have acquired a firmer foothold in judicial procedure towards the last quarter of the sixteenth century. or perhaps especially. no. a record from around 1593 shows that the Wallachian prince. the omission of any reference in the court record to the written evidence supporting the plaint of Neacsa’s mother suggests the lesser evidential value given to charters. it appears that charters were the first type of evidence to be asked of a plaintiff even. For instance. though. 22 DIR B. even though their content touched upon the matter in dispute. For instance. Some charters that survive even to this day were not referred to in the course of litigation. who left her land to her mother and sister. Michael the Brave.21 On a few occasions. For instance: ‘And then.20 Yet. It may be that the princely charter was not considered compelling. no. The Social Context What prompted this change with regard to the type of evidence that might be given in court and the new value attaching to the written record? The evidence from the surviving 20 DRH B. however. . The surviving record of the dispute does not mention any written record used during the trial. And My Highness. 20 (1593). I have asked him whether he has a book [charter] for this estate. Some cases were decided on the basis of the written evidence alone. 201(1588). we may note that the rank order of evidence has been effectively turned on its head—oral testimony is only referred to in the absence of written records. Developments were uneven—some cases were resolved on the basis of the written record. although it seems that it was still the record of a previous decision that proved persuasive. 31 (1594). We know. no. therefore. nevertheless. and he answered that he does not have. 11. despite the fact that the charter commissioned by Neacsa’s mother still survives. In 1558. however.84 Settlement of Disputes in Wallachia The lesser value accorded to written deeds in legal proceedings may explain the relative infrequency with which they were invoked in court. but he could not bring them and he lost the suit in front of My Highness. and I gave him oral law. no. Either way. the lack of any written record was employed as an argument and could result in the case being lost. contesting Neacşa’s will. named Dan fell in front of My Highness and complained that the holy monastery had seized a share of his land. to bring twelve noblemen. 5. 19 (1593). we have from 1557 a private will made by Neacşa (a noblewoman). 21 DRH B. others by oath taking alone. It is. another cases from the same period points to an outcome that was decided exclusively by oral testimony. if he was of a lower status. her mother commissioned a royal charter to record the will. a certain man. hard to draw firm conclusions from this single case.’22 In this case. that by 1578 a certain Păcală had made two approaches to the princely court. read and compared several charters that had been adduced in the course of litigation and that he apparently decided the case on their evidence alone. In some instances. 11. or that the scribe simply left it out of his terse account of the court’s decision. II. with the result that more cash was available in the local economy. We learn of people selling their land. 7. all the villagers fell into a deep poverty and distress due to high taxation and tithes and much hardship. as a result of excessive taxation and harvest failure. nos 271 (1579). Property was sold off. and monetary economy in Wallachia at the end of the sixteenth century]. changes in the ownership and concentration of estates. 81. while others sold their children to the Ottomans. and they 23 Henri H. p. Bucharest. Sfatul domnesc şi adunarea stărilor [The prince's council and the estates’ assembly]. and all the villagers put their land up for sale and they themselves came. The main losers were the free communities of peasants and the lower noblemen. after which the tribute requested by the Ottoman Empire consistently rose. 325 (1580). 159. 1924. Radu the Great (1495–1508). 38–9. who were gradually annihilated as social categories. in Murgescu. Bucharest. were being produced for the market. . Several economic changes were occurring at this time. Hence: ‘[…] in the above-named village. 25 Bogdan Murgescu. and others were starving on the roads. Ţările Române între Imperiul Otoman şi Europa creştină [The Romanian lands between the Ott. pp. 1977). 51. 8. who built up large latifundia.’ Such descriptions are recurrent in the surviving charters contesting transfer of land. fiscalitate şi economie monetară în Ţara Românească la sfârşitul secolului al XVI-lea’ [Foreign dues. accumulating by degrees in the hands of just a few landowners. later on. including the struggle of free village communities to prevent encroachment and their slide into serfdom. 90).24 Social unrest intensified around the mid-sixteenth century. Jupan Radul.’26 Although some were able to resist the trend. one can note a painful and continuous process of impoverishment of some and the rise of others. The process is described by Filitti: ‘In the same class of noblemen. and especially cattle.23 Secondly. taxes. particularly during the course of the later sixteenth century. no. First. 24 See among many others. ‘Plăţi externe. their parts being subtracted from the commune. 2010. 2012. note 62. 1558–59). The number of village disputes grew especially during the reign of Michael the Brave (1593–1601) and they constitute one third of the surviving charters that deal with disputes over land (18 out of 51 charters). Arhiva pentru ştiinţă şi reformă socială [Archive for science and social reform]. România şi Europa. in the mid-sixteenth century. 1980. pushed most free village communities into serfdom. 1545–1552. noted in Gheorghe Brătianu. high steward. Cambridge. DRH B. estates that had once been farmed collectively were breaking up. Mircea the Shepherd (I. Murgescu. Bucharest. ‘Evoluţia claselor sociale’. in front of My Highness’s dignitary. ‘some during a period of bad famine. pp. growing tenfold by the end of the century. We also know of severe subsistence crises occurring in the late fifteenth century and. Stahl. more goods. 1995 (first edition. 26 Ioan Filitti. and sold off. together with increased commercial activity.25 The economic dislocation contributed to social instability. Acumularea decalajelor economice (1500-2010) [Romania and Europe: the growth of economic differences]. p. 129 (1573). thus contributing to the mobility of the land market. Empire and Christian Europe]. [Evolution of social classes]. from the reigns of Vlad the Monk (1482– 1495). again. Traditional Romanian village communities. willingly. DRH B. 81–93 (pp. Mariana Goina 85 records suggest that it was related to a larger contest over rights to property that was being fought out at this time. and. no. See also among many other surviving cases DRH B. had sufficient resources to choose not to. the repossession of the sold land by the community. 5. many villagers struggled to preserve a portion of their property in order to safeguard their position. 11. 31 DRH B. as is suggested by the village commissioning four charters to show evidence of its land rights. many of these dispossessions and forced sales were acrimoniously contested. no. 181. Oprea. see Stahl. commissioned by free village communities during the reign of Michael the Brave (1593–1601). in the end. challenging the sale of their land to the Coşuna monastery. some apparently burdened by high taxation. no. 11.32 Apparently. For other villagers. when 37 villagers repurchased their land from the chamberlain. not all the villagers were involved in the sale. Traditional Romanian village communities. Oprea was asked to support his plaint. both individually and collectively. 182ff. 33 His complaints are recorded three times before the ban of Craiova (DRH B. 28 DRH B. The village estate had been previously sold to a high dignitary. some conflict was already involved. 153 (1596). For instance. sold their estate ‘willingly’ for 24. with an oath that was to be sworn with twelve compurgators. 32 DRH B.30 Clearly. 279 (1598). as we learn in 1558. Marcea.28 As the status of freeman depended on the possession of land. particularly of smaller properties. We see in sequence here the sale of land to a high dignitary. he became a serf of the monastery. 116 (1558). but they may nonetheless be considered illustrative of more general trends. 52 (1568). He was never able to provide the requisite number.31 A generation later. no. The case of Radovanul village is illustrative of larger trends. 87. . The pressure applied by the landowner. although a charter 27 DRH B. 152 (1596). p. all he received was a larger purchase price. belong to the community of Radovanul village. The charters were preserved in the cartulary of Bucovăţu monastery. in this instance the monastery. 225 (1597). was sufficient to overcome his resistance. 11. Traditional Romanian village communities. no. no. One of the bitterest struggles involved the village of Radovanul. 11. but a few. no. one of the village’s priests. no. together with others who disputed their dispossession. and then a further round of forced sales and dispossessions. on account of which they resisted surrendering their land to the monastery. no. Left landless. 202 (1596). struggled for more than two years to have his estate returned. see DRH B. 186 (1596). pp.’27 Since the supply of land was limited and its alienation was not supposed to occur without the right of pre-emption being offered to kinsmen and neighbours. 11.33 However.000 aspers to Coşuna monastery. no. 6. the villagers. no. As it turned out. and once before Prince Michael the Brave: no.29 By the middle years of the sixteenth century. 131 (1595). making three plaints before the regional governor and one in front of the prince. 11. The Radovanul case involved members of the village community. for 217 cows and 8500 aspers. 29 Stahl. 189 (1596). there was often forcible dispossession. which explains their survival.86 Settlement of Disputes in Wallachia submitted themselves and all of them sold all their land so that the entire village shall become serfs of the above-named dignitary of My Highness. 60 (1594). Fourteen out of the twenty-four surviving charters. no. like the priest Oprea. both by individual peasants and by whole communities. For more information. 30 DRH B. 230. Many peasants were forced by circumstance to sell. But again these villagers failed to bring books in front of My Highness and the villagers from Pleniţa lost the case for the second time before My Highness […]. as recorded in Dushan’s code. these villagers from Pleniţa could not provide any book to show during the proceedings. Moreover. the case of Radovanul demonstrates the struggle of Wallachian free village communities to preserve their land and status in difficult economic circumstances. Đurica Krstić. The Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary: A Work in Three Parts (Tripartitum). 33 [3]). In this struggle. My Highness. they fixed another day when they could retrieve their books so to litigate with the above-named dignitaries of my highness. 34 DRH B. but not those of their adversaries. CA. preserved in a monastic cartulary. 147.35 Werbőczy’s Tripartitum states. the surviving records of the dispute make no mention of the charters belonging to Oprea and his fellow villagers. possibly on account of the court’s own partiality. Possibly. Radu. 35 Dushan’s Code: The Code of Serbian Tsar Stephan Dushan. even though we have them. Four surviving charters attest that the Pleniţa villagers had at least four disputes with the high equerry. 91. neither of endowment. The fourteenth-century Serbian laws. The Bistritza transcript. eds János M. Mariana Goina 87 from 1596 specifically records that he had not sold his share with the others. although coming from the same period. Since I. In this respect. has no force and is not admitted as evidence for or against a noble. ed. 1997. And in view of this. I enquired and requested from the Pleniţa villagers whether they possess books [charters] for this village. saw the village had no other way. increased reliance was put upon the written word. or even that the oath helpers provided by the villagers testified against them. In the proceedings. p. My Highness. . and they did not have. between 1585 and 1596 over the possession of its property: […] and the village of Pleniţa complained before My Highness that their village belonged to them from their ancestors. indicated that witnesses should be of equal status to the party on whose behalf their evidence was put. Belgrade. no.34 The question thus arises: who could act as oath helpers in Wallachia and why were most villagers unable to provide them? The evidence of the charters suggests that oath helpers had to be noblemen.’36 The Wallachian record indicates almost without exception that village communities while struggling with state dignitaries or monastic institutions were unable to provide oath helpers. 11. Whatever the explanation. Idyllwild. & Martyn Rady. And when that day came. even if it might be disregarded by the court for reasons that are uncertain. 2005. 292 (II. 36 See Stephen Werbőczy. this was a scribal oversight. that they should show them during the case and their litigation with the above named dignitaries of My Highness [with whom they disputed the village]. we should note that Wallachian customary law stood closer to Transylvanian than Serbian practice. 147 (1596). which had been fixed before My Highness. p. nor of purchase. Bak. that ‘[…] the oath of a non-noble person or a peasant. The second case of a protracted suit involving a village community. And they fixed a date in front of My Highness [to provide the written evidence]. or it may be that the evidence of the villagers’ charters was declared inadmissible. Péter Banyó. however. is structured around written records. no. the written evidence provided by the Coşuna monastery is mentioned. being of inferior status. 38 DRH B. 42 See. and he gave them the opportunity to uphold their claim with the oaths of twelve noblemen. which was found by the prince to be ‘bad and false. ‘Charters.38 Apparently. 170 (1596). 40 DRH B. the scribe rehearsed what had happened in an earlier phase. in one of the subsequent retrials of the Pleniţa case. the villagers had provided titles of endowment. no. 11. 149–169. no. 190 (1585). schematic. 266 (1597). the prince did not want to let the villagers from Pleniţa ‘struggle in vain’. law and the settlement of disputes in Anglo-Saxon England’. Unsurprisingly. the surviving record is laconic. we have tended to assume that peasants owned fewer written titles to their land than noblemen. Dispute settlements appear to have been based solely on customary law. p. Two more cases are recorded when they received four other requests to produce the ‘books. no. as elsewhere in Europe. so it is hard to make any definitive claims as to the arbitrariness of Wallachian justice. Patrick Wormald. which put them at a stark disadvantage in litigation. 39 DIR B. 11. and even poorly written. 5. . according to the surviving record. as far as it may be ascertained from the surviving laconic evidence. no. 11. while the noblemen presented titles of inheritance. the prince’s dignitaries were able to bring a plethora of charters. 41 Cf.37 Up to this point.39 Quite why this evidence had no bearing on the case must remain uncertain.88 Settlement of Disputes in Wallachia But the villagers did not give up. Yet. pp. the most likely explanation is that. Nevertheless. they could not bring the necessary oath helpers. remarkable that princes were keen to emphasise that procedures be properly observed both rhetorically and in formal fact.40 All in all. when before Prince Petru Ear-Ring (1583–1585). It is. Peasant communities were repeatedly invited to recruit oath helpers. unless in the years after 1585 there was a sudden flight to the written record. for instance.’ By contrast. The numerous cases where the charters of peasants are reported as having been struck through suggest that the value of the written word depended upon the status of the possessor. 176 (1596). the court came to its decision based on political rather than legal considerations. One possibility is that the villagers did have written evidence.41 The new importance attaching to the written record and the superior access that the privileged classes had to the culture of writing might suggest that they were using charters as a way of reinforcing their social and political hegemony. which were read during the proceedings and which convinced the prince to hand the disputed village to them. DRH B.42 We should also recall that peasants did not qualify as oath helpers in cases involving monastic institutions or noblemen. no. nevertheless. 6. The legal evidence was confined to 37 DRH B. Traditional Romanian village communities. even though they were usually unable to find sufficient noblemen to swear on their behalf. in Settlement of Disputes. Conclusion I have tried in this article to reconstitute the procedure in Wallachia for dispute settlement. however. either because it had been previously struck through or had been faked (they subsequently presented in 1597 a forged charter.’). 190. and not at all trustworthy. 189. See also Stahl. Nevertheless. but that it was compromised. more often than before. . It is only at the end of the sixteenth century that we may detect an increased importance laid on the written record. it seems that social unevenness in access to written documents was used by privileged social groups to their advantage. The growing number of land transactions was. Apparently. I attribute this change to an acute struggle for land in a context of farreaching economic and social transformation. Mariana Goina 89 the rituals of oath taking and to previous court decisions relating to the dispute. Oral testimony continued. land shortage and the struggle for landed property gave a boost to written evidence. the pre-eminence accorded to written evidence was limited. to be used as a means of legal proof in dispute settlement in the following centuries. Moreover. therefore. endorsed by a written title. Nevertheless. . and one that lasted for three decades: Hungaria. From March 1477 (the date the register was closed). 11 July 1480 (this letter to the city of Augsburg is calendared by Karl Nehring. 3. pp. 1480. Kenyérmező). Venice (ASVe). Levéltári Közlemények [Archival Studies]. Ercole I of Este. 107. Iván Nagy. imperator et tota Germaniae. events relevant to Hungary and Moldavia that took place between March 1475 (reg.). Mátyás király korából 1458–1490 [Records of Hungarian Diplomacy. pp. 104). 1476–1480. fasc. 2008. pp. ibid. Rats.3 1 Stadtarchiv Augsburg. Albert B. hereafter. Senato Secreti (S. Jahrhunderts’ (2 parts). 3 The supplementary ‘index’ of the registers of the Venetian Senate (Archivio di Stato di Venezia. which allows us to grasp how Venice saw the importance and place of Moldavia in its international diplomacy (Cf. from the same day. 30. 27. f. ‘Documentary Perspectives on Matthias Corvinus and Stephen the Great’. duke of Modena). no. but also a political and even symbolic function. Nagy (eds. 47. 1479–1480 [more Veneto 1481]. no. and Basarab IV Ţepeluş (‘the little Impaler’) at Câmpul Pâinii (the ‘Field of Bread’.2 The victory seemed part of a string of successes that had begun the previous year with the Hungarian defeat of Ali Mihaloğlu. The Age of King M. The formula is missing from reg. which significantly altered the nature of the relation between Matthias and Stephen.S. and March 1481 (reg. Hof. 91 . his queen. it suggested that the Hungarian-Moldavian alliance. at the latest.und Ämterwesen.). 9 July 1480. and that a sustained offensive against Turkish power might be expected. Haus-. to her sister. bureaucratic value. Augsburg. and her husband. Fridericiana. and Stephen III (the Great) of Moldavia. Letters were duly sent to the cities of the German Empire and to Modena. Literaliensammlung (Ratskorrespondenz). for which see below). Dacia et Croatia. p. Beatrix of Naples.1 The victories described in this correspondence had been won by troops led by Stephen Báthory. nos. Romanian historians have often dated the second letter to 1481. This choice of subject in the index for all matters affecting Hungary and Moldavia reflected the importance ascribed by the compilers to the crusade in which the two rulers were involved and the treaty of July–August 1475 that lay behind it. Vienna (HHStA). Moreover. had indeed been revived. 82r (to Nuremberg. whose forces constituted over almost three decades Rome’s only Greekrite crusaders (1475–1500). 1976. Oberste Instanzen: Rat.From Wallachia to Dacia: International Politics and Political Ideology in the Last Decades of the Fifteenth Century Alexandru Simon In early July 1480. 1876. Transylvanian Review. pp. 29. voivode of Transylvania. Abteilung. 17. 247–268. of 1475. almost identical to the letter sent to Augsburg). 5/2. 1482). 436–440 (letter of Queen Beatrix. 87–120. Deliberazioni) are important here. I. which was the month of the Hungarian–Moldavian agreement of March 1481. Elenore. Polania. 2. 85–113. despite the fact that the context in which it arose clearly indicate an origin in 1480 (or. ‘Quellen zur ungarischen Außenpolitik in der zweiten Hälfte des 15. announced from Buda the victories achieved by their forces not only in Wallachia but also in the former territories of Bulgaria. MDE] Budapest. Bey of Smederevo and Vidin. The formula itself had not only a practical. were jointly indexed under Hungaria et Valachia. Magyar diplomácziai emlékek. as well as events occurring between July and August 1482.. Matthias Corvinus and. 1481-1482 [more Veneto 1483]). Karton 4. 288–289. Reichshofkanzlei (RHK). 1475–1476 [more Veneto 1477]).und Staatsarchiv. 2 Some of the relevant sources are given in Alexandru Simon & Cristian Luca. 2002. 9. principally by Stoica Nicolaescu (in Documente slavo–române cu privire la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei cu Ardealul în secolele XV şi XVI. Under the impact of repeated Turkish assaults and Hungarian and Moldavian campaigns. Princely and Private Letters in the Archives of Sibiu. with Trans. 447–448). Ţara Românească şi Regatul Ungariei’ [On the Battle of V. 49.4 Economic dislocation exposed the unevenness of Wallachia’s political and institutional development. At the heart of their quarrel was the nature of power-relationships on the Lower Danube and. 3–26) 1480 is the only acceptable year of issue. 47.000) was concentrated in the southern harbours. ‘Boierii de margine şi puterea domnească în Ţara Românească medievală’ [Border Boyars and Princely Authority in Medieval Wallachia]. aut faciam. pp. no. Muntenia. pp. 33. Cluj. Bucharest. Stenner. nos. A. Revista de Istorie. Braşovului şi Bistriţei din Transilvania [Slavonic-Romanian Documents regarding the Rels of W. and M. 2004. În jurul Carpaţilor. 431–439. Marian Coman.]. Stephen III had fallen out with the boyars in the Wallachian border areas of Buzău. Studia Universitatis Babeş Bolyai. nos. pp. no. (1474–1475): Notes on the Relations between M. ‘Populaţie şi fiscalitate în Ţara Românească în secolul al XV-lea: un nou izvor’ [Population and Fiscality in Wallachia in the 15th Century: A New Source]. Nevertheless. 143–148). 2010. W.] . which were conquered in 1484 by Bayezid II. Both were at this time anxiously canvassing their illegitimate sons—John Corvin and Alexander.92 International Politics and Political Ideology There was certainly some sympathy of interests between Matthias and Stephen. In honorem Ştefan Andreescu [Festschrift for Ş. 5 Alexandru Simon. in the 15th–16th Centuries. . Historia. Braşov. 2012. 1980. Their correspondence survives and bears eloquent testimony to the mutual recrimination that was felt. which after the conflict of 1475–76 probably numbered less than 500. and the Hung.D. Braşov and Bistriţa in Trans. Eastern Wallachia in particular was only loosely connected to the rest of the principality and its boyars followed a largely independent course. Râmnic and Brăila. pp. Kingdom]. Alexandru Simon. In respect of Moldavia (see here. half of its urban population (at best ten per cent of the total population. the correspondence is undated. pp. relations between Matthias and Stephen were strained and mutual suspicion would ultimately weaken their common purpose. Aut viam inveniam. Consideraţii asupra relaţiilor dintre Moldova. 138–145). the territorial structure of the principality of Wallachia. The correspondence is kept in Direcţia Judeţeană a Arhivelor Naţionale–Braşov [National Romanian Archives–Braşov County Branch]. Petronel Zahariuc & Gheorghe Lazăr. Formele şi realităţile genezei statelor româneşti [Around the Carpathians: The Forms and Realities of the Genesis of the Romanian States]. pp. but (as I have argued in. 1905. Commercial Privileges. ‘Populaţie şi cruciadă în Moldova în primăvara anului 1475’ [Population and Crusading in the Summer of 1475]. in (eds) Ovidiu Cristea. Familienbestände. Archiv der Stadt Kronstadt. and the ‘eastern parts’ (in particular the semi-circle of territory below Brasov). and threatened to sunder the principality apart. Xenopol. Anuarul Institutului de Istorie A. 6 Except for Stephen’s proclamations of 15 March [1480]. Privilegii comerciale. 35–58. Several editions have been published.6 The Wallachian boyars resented in particular Stephen’s attempt to foist on them a certain Mircea as 4 Şerban Papacostea. respectively—as their future heirs. 2. 1779–1786.. in particular. the population of Wallachia had decreased by more than a third between 1456 and 1476.5 Only a few months before. scrisori domneşti şi particulare din archivele Sibiului. Iaşi. 56–59. reducing it to its constituent elements—Oltenia. ‘În jurul bătăliei de la Vaslui (1474–1475). Stephen had invaded eastern Wallachia about fifteen times over the last twenty years. propaganda and contemporary narratives and reports. who apparently had no right of descent to the princely throne. on the 28 May 2013. ‘Despre terminologia ţărănimii dependente din Ţara Românească în secolele XIV– XVI’ [On the Terminology of the Serf Peasantry in W. which was his usual title. rather than of Moldavia. which had hitherto been almost exclusively ecclesiastical.7 Between Matthias and Stephen. Revistă de Istorie [Studies. 1991. 133–150. there is a reluctance on the part of some historians to credit Wallachia and Moldavia with any representative institutions. Alexandru Simon 93 their ruler. 95–121. Tradiţie diplomatică şi vocabular politic’ [The Titles of S. ‘Titlurile lui Ştefan cel Mare. see Şerban Papacostea. with Queen Beatrix describing the Moldavian ruler as owing ‘obedience’ to Matthias on account of their alliance. He thus called himself by the title of ruler of Moldo-Vlachia. seems perfectly logical. In his proclamations to the boyars of eastern Wallachia. Titulatura domnilor şi asocierea la domnie în Ţara Românească şi Moldova până în secolul al XVI–lea [The Titles of the Rulers and the Association to the Throne in Wallachia and Moldavia until the 16th Century]. but of Vlad IV Călugărul (‘the Monk’). These tensions spilled over to affect the way the two sides described their mutual relations. 1155–70. Studii. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. 10 Ştefan Ştefănescu. Unfortunately. Emil Vîrtosu. 10). 229–230. and the right which belonged to him.]. 2. By deploying this term. by his actions. 41–78 (pp. 23. championed the cause neither of Mircea nor of the existing ruler Basarab IV (even though he was related to the Hunyadis). Stephen was one of the principal exponents of the romanity of the Wallachians. who was the son of Vlad II Dracul and had for long periods been resident in Hungary. as ruler of Moldavia. to determine events in Wallachia. at p. 12. 2. pp. in the 14th–16th Centuries]. Instituţii medievale româneşti. Adunările cneziale şi nobiliare (boiereşti) din Transilvania în secolele XIV-XVI [Medieval Romanian Institutions: Knezial and Noble (Boyar) Assemblies in Trans. in the 14th–16th Century]. 15. Cahiers Balkaniques. his address to the boyars studiously avoided description of the common people as rumâni. according to which the ‘responses’ to Stephen’s proclamations of 1480 were the result of regional assemblies (of estates). 110). Review of Hist. On the one hand. pp. which was not so far away from the area of conflict in 1480 (see Martyn Rady.: Diplomatic Tradition and Political Vocabulary]. the G.9 At the same time. no. therefore. ‘Byzance et la création de la Métropole de Moldavie’. The relevant information for Transylvania as well as for Wallachia and Moldavia is analysed by Ioan-Aurel Pop. In fact. 1959. 1991. which had at this time an almost pejorative meaning. 1994. Bucharest. Études Byzantines et Post–Byantines. pp. and the boyars were not favourably disposed towards him. 436–440. 21. 288–289. pp. 229–246. p. 9 For Moldo-Vlachia. the earliest extant codification of local customs in Transylvania comes from an assembly in Făgăraş (1508). lecture held at the Babeş-Bolyai University of ClujNapoca.10 He used instead the term siromahi. pp. as well as a highly hegemonic figure. Bucharest. 2005. Stephen emphasised the legality of his rule and the community of interests that bound the boyars to him. pp. 8 MDE. 1962. ‘Transylvania in the Medieval History of the Hungarian Kingdom’. More generally. rights and promises (Venetian or 7 Matei Cazacu’s hypothesis (‘La Valachie médiévale et moderne: esquisse historique’. Cluj. and above. Gorovei. Stelian Brezeanu. 62–64). he emphasised the bond between Moldavia and Wallachia. . Ştefan S. pp. who accumulated titles. Romanitatea orientală în Evul Mediu [Eastern Romanity in the Middle Ages].8 The Hungarians. 1999. there was no consensus over who should be the new Wallachian ruler. nos. the schemes of both fell apart. ousted by Basarab IV. 10. the tradition (Gheorghe Asachi. Ştefan Andreescu. . ranging from Serbia to the Crimea. ‘Langage et chantage: discours et idéologie croisées à Venise’. 12. 11. 14 November 1477). to the line of the Danube between Târgul de Floci and Brăila. Alexandru Simon. fasc. in (eds) Ovidiu Cristea.94 International Politics and Political Ideology Roman). Khishinev. Budapest. no 2. He fled to Moldavia and to obscurity. in (eds) Susana Andea. the Moldavian–Hungarian campaign failed to keep him on the throne for more than a couple of weeks. was by no later than November. 34. pp. we know that Stephen had previously shown little regard for the Wallachians of Wallachia. pp.S. pp. Archivio di Stato di Milano. Papacostea. Elena Chiriac. 14. Matthias argued that the cruelty of the Moldavians had led to this failure. 36–37. 257–282 (pp. In a letter written in August 1481 to Pope Sixtus IV.g. 1914. the Order of Christ. ed. Archivio Ducale Sforzesco (A. Apparently. Cântecul cignului [The Song of the Swan]. nn. Ephemeris Dacoromana. Potenze Estere. 1477. Appendix. ‘Începuturile politicii comerciale ale Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei (secolele XIV– XVI)’ [Genesis of the Commercial Policies of W. 15. 21. and M. the G. The consequence was inevitable. demanding nothing less than their submission to him. 145–164. Vlad IV fled to Transylvania. ‘Să nu ucizi o pasăre cântătoare: soarta unui fortissimus rei Christiane athleta în ochii Veneţiei’ [To Kill a Mocking Bird: The Fate of a fortissimus rei Christiane athleta in the Eyes of Venice]. Despite the support shown on this occasion by Stephen for Vlad IV. 16–49 (pp. his proclamations to the boyars were couched in uncompromising language. For how much has yet to be discovered. whose athleta Stephen remained ever since the winter of 1475–1476. after a couple of months as nominal ruler. O coexistenţă medievală [S. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. pp. pp. pp. ‘Un voyageur dans les pays roumains et son Histoire de la Moldavie: Leyon Pierce Balthasar von Campenhausen (1746–1808)’.14 The same chain of events was repeated in July 1481. 304–305. 25–31). ‘Autour de la dernière phase des rapports entre la Moldavie et Gênes’. 26–27.e. 280–320. pp. Naţional şi universal în istoria românilor. pp. IV. 365. and Matthias Corvinus: A Medieval Coexistence]. relations did not deteriorate completely to the level of 1474 when the armies of the two leaders had upon entering Wallachia started fighting each other rather 11 See. 1997. the Great: The Polish Option (1459–1472)]. VI) ed. 2007.11 On the other hand. Matei Cazacu. which would allow him to restore the so-called Angevin corridor of the 1350s that had connected Hungary. 402–417 (for documents in the old princely archive of Moldavia at pp. Pe urmele trecutului. Revue Roumaine d’Histoire. here p. who with the support of the Ottomans recaptured all Wallachia. for instance. cart. the sole legitimate survivors of the Templar knights) can seemingly be confirmed on the basis of Milanese reports from Venice (e. on his 70th Birthday]. Venezia. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. Ştefan cel Mare şi Matia Corvin.’12 Stephen’s probable purpose was to take over eastern Wallachia. Gheorghe Lazăr.15 Nevertheless. 12 MDE. Endre Veress. via Buzău and Oituz. 2009. Cluj. Milan (ASM). Profesorului Nicolae Edroiu la 70 de ani [On the Tracks of the Past: Festschrift for Prof N. 302) that Stephen III was planning to retake Caffa with maritime support from the ‘Portuguese knights’ (i.D. 159–169. 13–28. Novembre. Simon. 4. 401–402). pp. 1982. ‘Valea Albă’ [The White Valley]. Cluj. 1983. With Stephen III and Matthias backing rival candidates. (14th–16th Centuries]. 308–309 (1475). Bucharest. 1998. 13 Şerban Papacostea. even to the extent of describing them as ‘being for us like the Turks. the next year throwing in his lot with Stephen. 14 Alexandru Simon. 2007. ‘Politica externă a lui Ştefan cel Mare: opţiunea polonă (1459–1472)’ [The Foreign Policy of St. P.13 Despite Stephen’s use of the term of Moldo-Vlachia and his avoidance of the description of rumâni. nos. another example might be relevant. no. and with Stephen having antagonised the east Wallachian boyars. Ioan-Aurel Pop & Alexandru Simon. E. on his 70th Birthday]. 275–280). Studii oferite profesorului Şerban Papacostea cu ocazia împlinirii a 70 de ani [National and Universal in the History of the Romanians: Festschrift for Prof Ş. 1. in Asachi. 15 Actae et epistolae relationum Transylvaniae Hungariaeque cum Moldavia et Valachia (=Fontes Rerum Transsylvanicarum. Mircea. 2011. pp.). 45–86 (pp. Rerum Ungaricarum decades. 2012. Paris. In July 1480. The Moldavian and Hungarian failures after the summer of 1480 were not the only setbacks at this time in the struggle against the Turks. 20 For the Ottoman–Hungarian and Ottoman–Moldavian negotiations in the 1470s and 80s. pp.16 The 1475 ‘crusader treaty’ of Iaşi–Buda. ‘L’action de Vlad Ţepeş dans le sud-est de l’Europe en 1476’. 129–216. eds József Fógel. économiques et militaires en Mer Noire (XIVe–XXIe siècles). Brăila. 18 For the Lower Country. 86. Considerations en marge d' une nouvelle source’. Ovidiu Mureşan & Simon. 5 vols. Alexandru Simon 95 than the Turks. Cluj. which belonged to Matthias’s father-in-law. In fact. 17 This aspect of political growth in the two principalities might be useful to consider when discussing their subsequent ‘backwardness’. see Ştefan Andreescu. Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes. Dracula. ‘The Arms of the Cross: Stephen the Great’s and Matthias Corvinus’ Christian Policies’. the territorial cohesion of the Romanian principalities was hard to maintain (their ‘statal age’ was that of Hungary and Poland in the early eleventh century. Ionel Cândea & Anca Popescu. NS. Between Worlds (=Mélanges d’Histoire Générale. in (eds) László Koszta. Béla Iványi & László Juhász. Stephen the Great. 12. Venice. 39–45. 265–269). 225– 254.18 A decade later. 20–21). esp. As a consequence of the piecemeal way that they had been put together in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 4. 2. In correspondence relating to the 16 Alexandru Simon. no. it was a necessity since neither ruler had any other regional allies upon which to rely— since 1479. pp. In order to understand the conflicting aims of 1480–1481. see Sándor Papp. 124. I). no. 139–158. p. the Ottomans captured Otranto. 21 Antonius de Bonfinis [Bonfini]. 19 For Oltenia and Hunyadi policy. it seems that Stephen III was pursuing a similar policy. ‘Aux débuts de I'état moldave. in (ed. 15. he had aimed to divide Wallachia between Basarab IV and Vlad III Ţepeş (the Impaler). Alexandru Simon. 2007. was still held to be operable. 2007. which was reported by Antonio Bonfini as part of a wider anti-Ottoman scheme. see Şerban Papacostea.) Simon. 363–390. In the late 1460s. Études à la mémoire de Mihail Guboglu. with the aim of securing the route to the Danube and Dniester. Alexandru Simon.17 This made them potential targets for dismemberment. 2004. ‘Ştefan cel Mare. in (eds) Faruk Bilici. 32–42. pp. 2 vols. 2 1977. nos 1–2. Ferrante I of Naples. pp. which had been Stephen’s main protector in the mid-1470s. Studia Universitatis Babeş Bolyai. Matthias had attempted to partition Moldavia by ‘re-enforcing’ the so-called ‘Lower Country’. was at peace with the Porte. Leipzig. 3–56 (pp.20 These reverses opened the way for a new treaty between Stephen and Matthias. 48. Cluj. we need to revisit the political and institutional character of the principalities. between Vilnius and Moscow: Trading Rome for Constantinople (1386–1388)]. which was the subject of extensive renegotiation between 1479 and 1481. which was directed at the partition of Wallachia (it is uncertain whether this scheme was a personal initiative of his own or one that was worked out in collaboration with Matthias). Matthias Corvinus and their Time. Alexandru Simon. 7–12. pp. Matei Cazacu. 1936–76. pp. Pământurile crucii: românii şi cruciada târzie [The Lands of the Cross: The Romanians and the Later Crusades]. 1. pp. Meanwhile. ‘Truces and Negotations between Bayezid II and Matthias Corvinus (1482–1484): Archival Notes’. 259–272 (pp. ‘Moldova intre Vilnius si Moscova. 2003.21 It was probably concluded in late March. le roi Mattias et l”Empire ottoman’. pp. 1. Revista Arhivelor [Archives Review]. . Series Historiae. no. 2010. both Matthias’s and Stephen’s negotiations with Mehmet II over the terms of a truce. broke down.19 In 1480–81. so as to bring Oltenia firmly into the Hungarian orbit (an older Hunyadi policy). 1973. Enjeux politiques. Revue Roumaine d’Histoire. Anii trecerii de la Roma la Constantinopol (1386–1388)’ [Mold. 67–72). or at best the late twelfth). Nehring Karl gyűjtése [Karl Nehring Collection]. pp. Budapest. 219–220). Cos. ‘Princess Olena’s Safe-Conduct through Poland and Lithuania (1482)’.25 Stephen. 1960. Ivan III of Moscow and Stephen III (one of its aims seems even to have been the partition of Poland-Lithuania). in unedited Venetian documents]. 202. Matthias’ two letters to Stephen III (the first and most important is from 20 August 1482. Cahiers du Monde Russe et Sovietique. p.: The Int. his sons had fallen to fighting over his legacy and thus there was a power vacuum in Constantinople. 211–212. caught in the War of Ferrara (1482–84) had deteriorated after the events of 1481. History]. 25 Nehring. ‘De la Colomeea la Codrii Cosminului (poziţia internaţională a Moldovei la sfârşitul secolului al XV–lea)’ [From Col. but it did. nos. Filmtár [Microfilm Archive].26 His ambitions in Wallachia similarly foundered. the treaty of 1481 was a foedus between King Matthias and Stephen. Brno. 199–226 (pp. But a stunning Ottoman counter-offensive reduced these achievements to nought.]. ff. the G. nos 1–2. 2. 313–314. Stephen Báthory. turned out to be a greater failure than that of 1480.]. See Vilmos Fraknói. however. pp. 220–221. Studii şi Cercetări Ştiinţifice. 34. 17. must have been issued before September) have been edited several times. 1995. 89–98. I. 34. Stephen took Crăciuna on the Moldavian– Wallachian border and. to Cod. 1895. and Basarab IV proved at first impossible to dislodge. Külügyi Osztály [Foreign Corr. pp. ‘Ştefan cel Mare în lumina cronicarilor contemporani din ţările vecine’ [S. and the conclusion of the Moldavian–Hungarian–Muscovite alliance had increased Polish hostility towards Stephen. the prince of Wallachia. Direcţia Judeţeană a Arhivelor Naţionale–Cluj [Nat. 276r–277r (20 August 1482. unnumbered frames. 195–199. nevertheless. P.22 The new treaty was. 2004. Romanian Archives–Cluj County Branch]. overthrowing and killing Basarab.24 The marriage contributed to the conclusion of an anti-Jagiello alliance between Matthias. which started in July 1481. he pressed deep into Wallachia. 1983. Dan Sluşanschi. Mátyás király levelei. 24 See more generally on this. in the light of contemp. See also P. but usually under 1475. pp. 30173–30174. lacked the international context necessary to build on this success. the G. heir to the Muscovite throne. Romanoslavica . no. no. Matei Cazacu. Acest domn de la Miazănoapte. Cluj. Les influences roumaines et hongroises XVe–XVIe siècles’. chronicles from neighbouring countries]. Documente medievale din Regatul Ungariei [Med.96 International Politics and Political Ideology recovery of Otranto. 525–554 . Matthias now twisted the knife. ‘graciously’ aiding his ‘vassal’ Stephen and promising him shelter in Hungary. 11. Documents from the K. Even so. for in the wake of Mehmet’s death in May 1481. portraying Stephen as the key to any anti-Ottoman offensive. Istorie [Scientific Studies and Researches. from Stephen’s point-of-view. Ştefan cel Mare în documente inedite veneţiene [That ruler from the North-West: St. Matthias wrote to the pope in April. 2. nos 1–2. Panaitescu. while the second. far better than its predecessor of 1475 (for Bonfini too. rolls. Şerban Papacostea. imply his recognition of Vlad IV as the future ruler of Wallachia. not an act of obedience). 24. Mk. rolls. 26 For an overview of the context. Bucharest. pp. Stephen’s Venetian support had faded away after the Ottoman-Venetian peace of 1479. the new offensive in Wallachia. Mikulovsky rukopis [The Mikulov MS]. Position of M. 9. p. The omens for the new campaign were good.23 Stephen III’s position and relations with Hungary began to recover in the winter of 1482–1483 through the wedding of his daughter Helena to Ivan Ivanovici. and soon after that date). 1970. of King M. 23 This important correspondence is given in Masarykovy Universitni knihovny. ‘Quellen zur ungarischen Aussenpolitik’. Copies are available: Magyar Országos Levéltár [Hungarian National Archive]. of H. ‘Aux sources de l’autocratie russe. Matthias and Emperor Frederick III were once again at loggerheads. 33. see also the information in Ovidiu Cristea. XV–XVI. no. unnumbered frames. Vlad IV came to terms with 22 Actae et epistolae. His relations with the Papacy. which is basically an ‘appendix’ to the first. together with the forces of the voivode. at the End of the 15th Century]. Revue Roumaine d’Histoire. 7–41. 118. pp. In March 1482. Budapest. What we will notice over the succeeding decade is how the notion of a unified regional power-bloc. Casimir IV (1485).] II30. Crisia. Vienna-CologneGraz-Weimar. 40. Stephen made a new alliance with Matthias. ‘A Late Fifteenth Century Controversy at the Moldavian–Wallachian Frontier: An Incident Analysis’. however. ff. the terms of which brought him substantial estates in Hungary. 2004. papal ‘crusader lyrics’ customised ‘the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland. 127–134. under 18 November. 616 (620) r –639 (643)r. Alexandru Simon 97 Sultan Bayezid. Stephen was defeated by the Turks. Vatican City. after Matthias’s 27 See Ovidiu Cristea & Marian Coman. 101–19. eds Kornél Szovág et al. weiss 529 & weiss 920). Paul-Joachim Heinig & Alois Niederstätter. supl. Hof. losing Moldavia’s maritime frontier. soon freed him from the oath. He was forced for the time being to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Polish king.29 Matthias had. pp. 1214–1606) [H. Arch. 29 Alexandru Simon. no. 147–156. acknowledging his suzerainty. ‘Crăişorii valahilor din a doua jumătate a secolului al XV–lea’ [The King-pins of the Wall.: Documents from the Sec. while the boyars in eastern Wallachia drew closer to the Wallachian throne. ff. ‘Magyarország mint a nyugati keresztény művelődés védőbástyája’: a Vatikánai Levéltárnak azok okiratai. Nach Archiven und Bibliotheken geordnet (=J[ohannes]. f. edited based on the copy in [reg. 261r (6th of November 1473. 2010. Vat.28 Yet what he did not achieve as the ruler of Moldo-Vlachia (1480) or as prince of Wallachia (1481). Hs. During the early 1490s. and the Wallachians’ as the anti-Ottoman attacking force in the East (for instance: Archivio Segreto Vaticano. no. Stephen claimed the Wallachian throne either as his own or at his disposal). 159–67. XIII). Miscellanea. Handschriftensammlung. Hof.. 7. Das Taxregister der römischen Kanzlei 1471–1475 (Haus-. (eds) Paul-Joachim Heinig & Ines Grund. melyek őseinknek a Keletről Europát fenyegeto veszedelmek ellen kifejtett erőfeszitéséire vonatkoznak (cca. Back in 1458.und Staatsarchiv. Matthias had on account of his Romanian descent been sneeringly referred to as the ‘regulus of the Wallachians’.] II-7. 28 Alexandru Simon. . Poland. which apparently at the time spread from the mouths of the Dniester and Danube to those of the Dnieper. 529. In early 1489. Wallachia and Moldavia30 entered into political discourse and how the Moldavian contribution to this new configuration began to be conceived even in the terms of the reconstitution of Roman Dacia. Hss. in this volume. W[eiss]. Eurasian Studies. incorporating Hungary. at the turn of the century. (1440–1493). 123. 2009. 2/1. Stephen aided Wladislas II of Hungary against Tatar and Turkish incursions. The title was more than honorific. ‘The Contested Sultan: The Backgrounds of Bayezid II’s Moldavian Campaign of 1484’.]. however. Pope Innocent VIII. pp. by Edgár Artner. 30 E. for it spoke to the resources that Stephen had at his command. which had brought the former parts of Dacia back together again. Wien. Budapest & Rome. the Bulwark of Western Christ. to which humanists added the lustre of Roman ancestry. 3539. Partly. 28 November1500. 136 (141)v–146 (151)v. during the new Venetian-Ottoman war (1499–1503). Frederick III appointed Stephen as his nominal governor or captain in Wallachia (for much of his reign. Stephen III accomplished in quite different fashion. this arose from contingent circumstances. [reg. 523). pp. Regesten Kaiser Friedrich III. embraced the title. F[riedrich] Böhmer Regesta Imperii.und Staatsarchiv Wien. in return for which he not only received from the king property in Transylvania but also the title of regulus Valachorum that had previously belonged to Matthias.. in (eds) Heinrich Koller.g. Armadi. from the 2nd Half of the 15th Century]. 31 In 1490. for he wanted him to participate in a new crusade. In 1473. pp. p. 31 See here Haus-. which consisted of more than just those of Moldavia. 2002 (Regesten Friedrich).27 In 1484. Lithuania is also not mentioned. Maximilian.S. 331–406. Panormus et Taurinum. 52. indeed. Meanwhile. and the Other Empire: The Preliminaries and the Consequences of the Conspiracy of Max. Dalmatia et Croatia). 36 Inscripţiile Daciei Romane [The Inscriptions of Roman Dacia]. p. who. loyal to the Angevines. This was understood at the time. . no. 37 ‘Conspiracy’ was the designation used in the entourage of the influential Venetian-educated Hungarian prelate. 1527 [more Veneto 1528]. Frederick III and his son. and which nearly brought down the house of Jagiello. Polania. und Ludwig II. (It is noteworthy that after the death of Bogdan III in April. 410–411 (also in Actae et epistolae. pp. Russu. Prinos profesorului Şerban Papacostea [The Vocation of History: Festschrift for Prof. Polania et Dacia <atque Croatia>.. initially. or in 1489. Dacia et Croatia (Croatia was added as an afterthought. in the 1360s. ed. in Moldavia a more historicised identity was in the process of formation.S. no. pp. A regional compromise was reached only in the summer of 1499. It is therefore noteworthy that initially the formula had only three components. Ş. P. Croatia were omitted because they were conjoined to Hungary through the person of the ruler. 2. 1882. Bohemia.]. 1496–1497 (but including events up to 1 March 1498. Viaceslav Makusev. Deliberazioni. 53. political discourse tended to revolve around which principality was the ‘Greater’. 10. in September 1517. 11. Genua. to remain a feature of Venetian diplomatic discourse for three decades. 2 (3). contracted for good (to Hungaria. when the new Venetian year began). Moldavia. Stephen III’s ancestor. Dacia et Croatia (ASVe. no. which saved Stephen III’s throne (he was to have been deposed and replaced with Sigismund. Mantua. who was the youngest of Casimir IV’s sons). as well as the descendant of Dragoş family from Maramureş. The formula is therefore subsequent to Stephen III’s and Maximilian I’s ‘conspiracy’. and then. the formula was diluted (Hungaria. part 2 (Dacia Superior). therefore.35 It fell on fertile soil. At first. reg. Vocaţia istoriei. Stephen’s Moldavian heir. following the Hungarian-Moldavian treaty. in 1529. Mediolanum. Hungaria. Polania. 37. 2008. and Mary. Whereas in Wallachia. until it was overtaken by events. the revived Dacia seemed to have transcended its mythic construction. (1497)]. Bucharest. who subsequently incorporated them in the rebuilt princely palace at Suceava. in (eds) Ovidiu Cristea & Gheorghe Lazăr. presumably it was subsumed within Poland. the G. Polonia. at no. 38.. either at the time of the 1481 foedus. Matthias’s trustee and future voivode of Transylvania. had been chased away from Moldavia by Bogdan I. Matthias’s men ‘excavated’ the old capital of Roman Dacia at Sarmizegethusa Ulpia Traiana. 375–551. Deliberazioni) first appeared in reg. 33 Monumenta Historica Slavorum Meridionalum vicinorumque populorum e tabularis et bibliothecis italicis derompta. the future king of Poland.33 through the formula. I of Habsburg and S. Datia et Crovatia et Moscovia). Greater Wallachia (Muntenia) and Little Wallachia (Oltenia) were now considered a potential power-bloc that might be used to further Habsburg ambitions. Archiv für Kunde Österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen. (1490–1526)’. 3. Belgrade. Bohemia and. When.36 Following the triumph or ‘conspiracy’37 of Stephen III and Maximilian over the Jagiellons in 1497. the influential cardinal Thomas Bakócz tried to gain control not only of the estates of Alexander’s and Mary’s daughter. perhaps on the occasion of the marriage between Alexander. Thomas Bakócz. the daughter of Bartholomew Dragffy. invested Stephen with Transylvania. the king sent some of the stones that had been dug up there to Stephen III. Ioan I. in March 1530 (reg. pp. 253. 1/2. 42–43). (1849).34 The name of Dacia was. S. 15. Croatia being added afterwards by means of an atque: Hungaria. Brăila. leader of the royal party in the kingdom (Ioan-Aurel Pop & Alexandru Simon. in March 1528 (ASVe.32 The idea of a revived Dacia was particularly promoted in the Venetian administration (Stephen resumed in 1492 the Venetian title of ‘eastern captain’). mainly under Habsburg pressure). 35 Dacia disappeared from the Venetian registers after the Hungarian (and Moldavian) events of 1526–1529. but perhaps also of Moldavia). ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte Ungarns unter der Regierung der Könige Wladislaus II. 32 Friedrich Firnhaber. Peter IV Rareş of Moldavia had come to John Zápolya’s aid in Transylvania (thus severing the link between Suceava and Vienna) and the Ottomans had besieged Vienna. ‘Moldova şi celălalt Imperiu: Preliminariile şi consecinţele conspiraţiei lui MaximilianI de Habsburg şi Ştefan cel Mare (1497)’ [M.98 International Politics and Political Ideology death. S. 1980. The ‘special gift’ was made by Matthias to Stephen III. no 416. p. ed. pp. 137 34 The formula Hungaria. 1528–1529 [more Veneto 1530). Nobilimea românească din Transilvania. (eds) Hermann Wiesflecker. Türken. f. Slavonia. Régi magyar birtokviszonyok 1494–1598 [Old Feudal Hungarian Relations. Reichsregisterbücher. ‘Politica externă’. in (ed) Nicolae Caba. Kurt Riedl & Ingeborg Wiesflecker-Friedhuber. For this nobility. no. 38. 24. 406. 1502–1504. same eds. Ausgewählte Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Maximilian I. p. Papacostea. Bucharest. Reich und Europa. 1/2. Sfântul voievod Neagoe Basarab. Alexandru Simon. p. that Wallachia did not convincingly fit this scheme. F[riedrich] Böhmer Regesta Imperii. 1494–1598] (offprint of Értekezések a Történelmi Tudományok Köréből [Proceedings of the Historical Section <of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences>]. 3). 40 Acta Alexandri Regis Poloniae.H.]. Geschichte des Ungrischen Reiches und seiner Nachbarländer. 2000. (eds) Manfred Hollegger. 22–24. 32. 1998. 265r–v [March–July 1495. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar. Reborn under Vlad IV and Radu IV. Jagiellon Cracow feared that the Wallachian nobility of Transylvania would generally adhere to a pro-Habsburg orientation. nn (4 March. for example. ibid. Manfred Hollegger. no. 40r–41r [after the 14th of May 1501]. pp. 27 May 1498). Wallachia under the rule of its newly-confident princes undermined the ‘Dacian’. A. 41 See. especially those given by John Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus. Krakow.42 The aim of the princes of Wallachia was to make good their claims in Transylvania and render Moldavia an annex of their own power. Reichshofkanzlei (R. Maximiliana. Polonia. 1993. 1440–1514 [The Romanian Nobility in Trans. 10865. pp.. 2nd series. After 1523. XVI. place. p. András Kubinyi. [1. I. ed. Bucharest. Manfred Hollegger. p. 34–III. 1493-1519 ((=J[ohannes]. ‘Descreşterea Moldovei sub Bogdan III şi ridicarea Ţării Româneşti sub Neagoe Basarab’ [The Decline of Moldavia under Bogdan III and the Rise of Wallachia under Neagoe Basarab]. 9638. no. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar.39 After Stephen’s and John Corvin’s deaths (1504). no. 640. Alltagsleben und Regierung im mittelalterlichen Königreich Ungarn.D. ‘Die Bevölkerung des Königreichs Ungarn am Ende des 15. 39 ASM. 148–83). 1512–2012 [The Holy Voivode Neagoe Basarab]. 431–460. Alexandru Simon 99 This at least was the understanding in Vienna and in Maximilian’s own subsequent designs. Based on the few solid evidences surviving from the end of the 1400s (see Johann-Christian Engel. Regesten Maximilian. 3. no. 1496–1498. 12404. 149. magni ducis Lithuaniae. 2012. reg. enjoyed a series of privileges. date. pp. . Städteentwicklung. XIX). 159. cart. Maximilian certainly regarded Stephen as ‘his man’ in eastern Hungary (after all.g. Budapest 1894. 1927. 18144. Fryderik Papée. 5898. The problem was. p. (1501–1506) (=Monumenta Medii aevi res gestas Poloniae illustrantia. 1797. 23r–24v. and pushed further by Neagoe Basarab.40 although they would after 1526 often throw in their lot with Zápolya. Christa Beer. no.] Iliria. as a new ‘Little Wallachia’. Vienna–Cologne–Weimar. Undatiert. Potenze estere. etc. fasc. pp. fasc. 515. no. then the new Dacia may also have included Transylvania. Stephen IV of Moldavia sought in 38 E. Hermann Wiesflecker. (eds) Christa Beer. XIV).g. 331–332. 315. Illiria.K. 38 If we are to trust Milanese and Spanish reports from 1498 that declared the Wallachians (meaning most likely Stephen’s men. 1493–1495.). 1499–1501. König und Volk im spätmittelalterlichen Ungarn. or as communities. p. Kurt Riedl. Halle. see Ioan Drăgan. whether as individual Wallachian noblemen. pp. Herne. Russia. ff. 1989 (Regesten Maximilian). in Kubinyi. HHStA. p. 2004. JJ. he was one of the greatest landowners of the realm through the Transylvanian estates granted to him and his heirs by Matthias and confirmed by Wladislas II) 41 and thus a counterweight to Jagiellon power in Central and Eastern Europe. and not the actual Wallachian or Romanian nobility in the kingdom) controlled ‘half’ of Hungary. 134.S. yet up to half of this population. 293 (22 February 1498). ibid. 1481. Karton 41. 513.12. Jarhunderts’. 42 E. p. 1. the Wallachian population of Transylvania is unlikely to have exceeded 20–25% of the whole. Auswärtige Staaten. 4. Ignácz Ácsády. calendared in (ed) Hermann Wiesflecker. hegemonic construct that emanated from Suceava and Vienna. however. HHStA. Österreich. Ingeborg Wiesflecker-Friedhuber. 305. Andrea de Burgo an Erzherzog Ferdinand. 6. 29 May 1524). R. ff. 16 April. Karton [fasc. 286r–287r. 4 July 1523. fasc.] 25a. 12 May. Johann Schneitpeck an Erzherzog Ferdinand]. after 5 May. 43 For Vienna’s links to Stephen IV.100 International Politics and Political Ideology Vienna’s name to resurrect the days of his grandfather. 5. 217r. 1523–1563. ff.. 152r–153r. 76r. 333r–334r (11. Grosse Korrespondenz.43 The collapse of the kingdom of Hungary in 1526 and Stephen’s own death the next year put paid to these ambitions. 24r–v. 24 June. 41r–42v. see for instance HHStA. . 300r–301r. 1.K.H. fasc. especially Ştefan Gorovei and Maria Magdalena Székely for their insightful comments and suggestions. in the 15–16 c. writing a harsh and ironic rebuff on the verso of Stephen’s own letter. [Letter of S. Ioan Bogdan. M.1 There are several reasons why previous historians have been so reluctant to comment on these sources. Bucharest. Documentele lui Ştefan cel Mare [Docs of S. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 12th Putna Colloquia (Putna. Bucharest. as both Stephen’s two letters and the Wallachians’ two replies. on relations with Trans. 2. Ioan Bogdan.].]. The letters are preserved in the Stenner collection.) awarded by the Romanian National Research Council (CNCS – UEFISCDI. 534 documente istorice slavo–române din Ţara Românească şi Moldova privitoare la legăturile cu Ardealul 1346–1603 [534 Slavonic Romanian docs from W. to Buzau]. July 2012). share an almost identical content. 101 . 493. 229. who claimed the Wallachian throne. 1 The authors are most grateful to Bogdan Florin Popovici of the National Archives in Braşov for his kindness in providing facsimiles of the four letters. ‘Scrisoarea lui Ştefan cel Mare către buzoieni’. Tocilescu. modern Romanian scholarship felt uneasy about engaging a source that brought to light medieval conflicts between Moldavians and Wallachians.2 Firstly. Although this correspondence is well known—it has already been edited four times—an in-depth analysis of its content. 3. Matei Cazacu. the G. Constantin Rezachevici and Bogdan Murgescu. especially of its rhetoric of building and contesting legitimacy. 2 The only attempt at analysing this correspondence. 162. the SlavonicRomanian section. is still to be done. Documente slavoromâne cu privire la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei cu Ardealul în secolele XV şi XVI [Slavonic Romanian docs on relations between W. 1913. Ştefan Gorovei. This four piece correspondence actually consists of two texts. pp. and a rather disappointing one. vol. 398. Mousaios. Bucharest. Nicolae Iorga. nos 397.. 1931. and Grigore G. docs 447 and 448. project PN–II–ID PCE–2011–3–0309). Gheorghe Brătianu. IDEI. such as Ioan Bogdan. nos. The letters are edited in: Stoica Nicolaescu. as the Wallachians rejected their powerful neighbour’s request. no. Stephen’s proposal fell on deaf ears. lands in the 15–16 c].A Late Fifteenth Century Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier: An Incident Analysis Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman This article aims to scrutinise one of the most intriguing late medieval Romanian sources: two letters sent by the Moldavian prince. no. have also touched on these letters. Other historians. see the subsequent footnotes. 56–59. 1905. For reference to these. 73–76. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească în secolele XV şi XVI [Docs on rels between W. and M. belongs to Aneta Boiangiu. Stephen. This article was written with the support of the research grant Romanian Principalities as ‘Frontier Societies’ and the Later Crusades (15th–16th c.1981. 492. the G. and Braşov and the Hung.] Bucharest. 1905. and Trans. The authors thank the organisers and the participants at this conference. to the Wallachian border communities in order to gain their support for his protégé. Mircea. Leon Şimanschi. such as the Wallachian lord. most of the controversies have focused on the problem of their dating. the Moldavian prince. To give only one example from approximately the same period. . which sometimes proves to be a deceptive desideratum. a close reading can invalidate some of these hypothetical identifications. The Reign. this still leaves the matter unsettled and dependent upon the precise chronology of Stephen III’s relations with Wallachia. a national hero.5 Yet. For Stephen the Great’s legacy as a Romanian and Moldavian ‘ethnosymbol’. Connell & Giles Constable. University College London. the Wallachian lord Basarab could have been Basarab II (1442–1443). Mircea and Basarab. Stephen. as well as different means of building and contesting legitimacy. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Our claim is that even without a precise dating. 4 This list could easily be extended by including lesser known figures. Consequently. vol. Methodologically. of the Romanians]. Culture and Legacy of Ştefan cel Mare. Toronto. also named Basarab. Thus. successive attempts at placing the letters in a convincing. could equally have been Stephen II (1434–1447). which is in itself a highly controversial subject. unpublished PhD dissertation.. based on their external features. Moldova şi bătălia de la Başkent’ [W. with Stephen the Great. ‘Ţara Românească. Not only are they the sole extant pieces of a presumably far more extensive. who has in addition recently become a saint. Budapest. Sacrilege and Redemption in Renaissance Florence: The Case of Antonio Rinaldeschi. Studii și documente cu privire la istoria românilor [Studies and docs on the hist. Certainly.6 the texts reveal both the stakes at play. in Nicolae Iorga. see Lucian Boia. Even those historians who have approached this correspondence from a different interpretative framework have found it difficult to grasp all its connotations and implications. To put it bluntly. national bias is only a part of the answer. from 1905 and 1913. the sole reliable criterion in assessing these hypotheses is the palaeographic one. 17–36. Nonetheless. The names mentioned in the letters. all of which have been suggested by different historians. In addition. Voivode of Moldavia: a Case Study of Ethnosymbolism in Romanian Societies. we aim to use incident analysis7 in order to explore the legitimising strategies. Basarab III (1473–1477).102 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier Furthermore. see Jonathan Eagles.3 Nevertheless. See Ovidiu Cristea & Nagy Pienaru. factual chain of events have failed. Throughout this article we will try to find a way around the problem of dating and focus instead on the actual content of the letters. 2 vols. Analele Putnei. but also the sarcastic style of the Wallachians’ reply makes them even more unusual. 3. fifteenth-century Wallachian–Moldavian correspondence. For an overview of the national bias in modern Romanian scholarship. Basarab IV (1477–1482) or Basarab V (1512– 1521). see Nicolae Iorga’s sound scepticism with regard to the accurate date of Queen Beatrix of Hungary’s letters from 9 July 1480. 8..4 Similarly. see William J. xxxix. who fought alongside the Ottomans in the battle of Baskent. 7 For the use of ‘incident analysis’ as a methodological tool. Stephen. these letters are particularly odd. 2012. 5 See Ioan Bogdan’s comments on the two editions of the letters. M. 1901. most historians identified the Moldavian lord that was explicitly mocked by the Wallachians in their reply. As Ioan Bogdan has convincingly argued. Bucharest. 2011 (online version available through UCL Discovery portal). the letters can be dated in the last decades of the fifteenth century. Stephen III (1457–1504) or Stephen IV (1517–1527).]. 6 One should remember that not even dated documents can escape controversy. given above. 2001. p. with a special focus on the similarities and differences between Moldavian 3 Stephen the Great was canonised by the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1992. pp. as they are undated. are hardly of any use. 2005. as several Moldavian and Wallachian princes and pretenders to the throne in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century bore these names. and the battle of B. the Saxons of Braşov. it is nothing more than speculation. they represent the most hidden and enigmatic player in this drama. the lord of Moldavia Stephen’s attempt to install one of his own protégés on the Wallachian throne is perfectly consistent with his strategy during the 1470s and early 1480s. the ruling prince of Wallachia. Thus. but. this correspondence has miraculously survived only due to the Saxons’ archive. we have decided to stick as closely as possible to the text. For instance. from the very start. far more important. we have decided to set apart. individual and collective. At the same time. the discrete. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 103 and Wallachian political discourses. Historians have usually viewed Stephen’s successive attempts to control Wallachia as a part of his larger antiOttoman policy and his support of Mircea’s claim to the throne to be in this respect unexceptionable. the scribes and. Although he was nominally brought into play by his nobles. whose names are clearly mentioned. our approach investigates the main political actors that shaped the relationship between the two neighbouring realms in the late fifteenth century. the pretender’s mother seems to play an important part in this controversy. the scribes had a power of their own. in which they had major economic interests. an investigation on how these letters were physically written. the Wallachian border nobles. finally. other participants are less visible. Călţuna. Our goal is to view these players through the prism of two opposing discourses of legitimisation: the Moldavian one arguing for and the Wallachian one arguing against Mircea’s claim to the throne. there is no sound evidence that he was personally involved in any way in the events described. her figure is simply a tool in the hands of his son’s adversaries. as we shall further argue. Since the names mentioned in the letters do not entirely correspond to the real agents that had a part in these events. our analysis will focus on the five major. and by whom. In contrast to Basarab and Călţuna. Basarab. Călţuna was not a player. the Saxons from Braşov carefully surveyed this region. but only as a caricature of ‘an easy woman’. but rather a victim in this game. and the sarcastic innuendo about her sexual reputation among the fishermen from the port of Brăila—come from the Wallachian nobles’ reply. Placed in the immediate vicinity of the Wallachian–Moldavian borderland. Nevertheless. Obviously. Stephen III. Firstly. may serve to elucidate their true meaning. is only a distant presence in these events. as no reference to the Ottomans is made either in Stephen’s letters or in the Wallachian nobles’ replies. our analysis focuses . Hence. Moreover. Last but not least. Similarly. Thus. Mircea the pretender. but ubiquitous presence of Saxons from Braşov should be taken into account. the nominal actors from the actual makers and doers. the border nobles were less attached to their ruling lord than has been previously thought. nevertheless. Although this hypothesis is reasonable enough. Thus. instead of pursuing this line of interpretation. Accordingly. as we shall see. Although there is no specific reference to them in the content of the letters. there are the nameless scribes. players: Stephen III of Moldavia. unfairly ignored. as they have been regarded as simple tools writing down the words of the men who actually wielded power. It was therefore decided not to include him in the analysis. The only two historical references to her—the pejorative nickname. who attacked her morals in order to challenge Mircea’s dynastic legitimacy. To summarise. ’ Although. the key question is whether ‘Moldo-Vlachian realm’ did mean something more than just Moldavia.’ [The titles of S. is violent and bloody. Gorovei. one might even suppose that Stephen’s 8 For comparison. erasing the moments when he was the aggressor. Stephen used a double standard. as the two neighbouring realms had already been in dispute over the name of ‘the Greater Wallachia’. might have its equivalent in Latin charters as terrae Moldaviae. The Wallachian nobles’ reply was unceremoniously addressed to the ‘Moldavian lord. Obviously. 11 This was only the third name given by the Byzantine patriarchy to the Moldavian diocese. 23. except for the name of the realm itself: ‘by the grace of God. 9 Although the adjectival form of the intitulatio—the Moldavian lord instead of the lord of Moldavia— might seem disparaging. For a comparative analysis of the Wallachian and Moldavian use of the Byzantine names of the two dioceses. Tradiţie diplomatică și vocabular politic. different. polities. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. XIV–XVI) [Power and Territory: Med. The name of ‘the Moldo-Vlachian realm’ (zemlia moldovlaska) was intermittently used in fifteenth-century Slavonic charters issued by the Moldavian chancellery and.10 The name of Moldo-Vlachia is of Byzantine origin and was assigned to the ecclesiastical province of Moldavia at the beginning of the fifteenth century. They look more like a bald statement of fact. 2013. See Bogdan.’ This choice of name. in which the Moldavian lord overtly states that he will erase ‘all memory of wrong doing’. pp. and thus reminding.8 This omission is perfectly understandable. no.]. vol. see Stephen the Great’s correspondence with a noble criminal. Thus. as the first two. 55–63. Documentele lui Ştefan cel Mare. according to Gorovei. Putere şi teritoriu. ruler and lord of the entire Moldo-Vlachian realm. 2. one should remember that the Wallachian lords themselves frequently assumed such a title in their correspondence. Diplomatic tradition and political vocab.]. The question is entirely justified. 41–78. W. Iaşi. the absence of any reference in Stephen’s letters to his previous interventions in Wallachia should be underlined. See Ioan Bogdan. mentioned in document from 1395.’ which implicitly suggests the deliberate rejection of Stephen’s self-assumed title. but you shall continue to live and nourish yourselves peacefully. the G. Ţara Româneascǎ medievalǎ (sec. instead of the usual one of ‘Moldavian realm’. which was sometimes directed specifically at the borderland regions. the Moldavian lord felt the need to include a formal guarantee of security: ‘thus you shall know that I mean no harm and no injury to anyone. those when he was the injured party. 123. 200 et seq. Gorovei’s systematic analysis of Stephen the Great’s intitulatio.9 As for the possible meanings of the name ‘Moldo-Vlachian realm’. see Marian Coman. the most useful guide is Ştefan S. In the proposal he had made to his Wallachian neighbours. but magnanimously forgiving.104 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier on the terms used by the Moldavian lord to define his power and his interests before a Wallachian audience. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul. Coming back to the letters addressed by Stephen to the Wallachian border communities.11 Gorovei’s hypothesis is that both the Slavonic and the Latin names echo the making of the Moldavian state through the merging of several. the letters make no explicit threats. which partly explains the vehemence of the Wallachian replies. There is. had been Ruso-Wallachia and Mauro-Wallachia. however. a sentence that could be read as a reference to recent events in Wallachian– Moldavian relations. ‘Titlurile lui Ștefan cel Mare. as the record of Stephen’s interference in Wallachian politics. nos 189. Given this context. was certainly no accident. pp. 2005. 10 Ştefan S. The title Stephen assumed for the letters was a standard one. they could scarcely be considered an exercise in captatio benevolentiae. . Mihul. if there really was such a strong bond between the two. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 105 goal was to settle once and for all the rivalry between the two Valachiae. Moldavia and Wallachia. 14 See Grigore G. implicitly. pp. . in the letters sent to the Wallachian border communities. Suggestively. Rivalry. overtly disputed the title of ‘great voievode of Wallachia’.–Wall.13 One might suppose that by opting for a name that was familiar to his audience. Stephen Báthory (1479–1493). and implicitly denied it to their neighbours. 15th–16th c. the last decades of the fifteenth century. In the same period. 534 documente. The key to the understanding of the unusual choice of names given to the two realms in these letters is precisely their pairing: zemlia moldovlaska/ vlaska zemlia. eds Gheorghe Lazăr & Ovidiu Cristea. Nevertheless. the Wallachian nobles’ decision to address their reply to the ‘Moldavian lord’ showed that they were not willing to accept the idealised relationship between a Moldo-Vlachia. As we shall further see. The symbolic filiation proposed by Stephen and dismissed by the Wallachian nobles was a rhetorical device used in political Wallachian discourse.]. Prinos Profesorului Şerban Papacostea [Festschrift for Ş. Accordingly. the Wallachian nobles did not question the symbolic filiation between Stephen and Mircea.: Polish alternatives]. the would-be Wallachian lord. in Vocaţia Istoriei. P. undoubtedly. ‘Terminologie statală medievală şi rivalitatea moldo-munteană (secolele XV– XVI)’ [Med. the Wallachian lord. the parallel could be pushed even further. instead of employing the usual Moldavian names for Wallachia—the Basarab Realm or the Mountain Realm—Stephen simply made a compromise. terminology of statehood and Mold. Tocilescu. This name. this pairing corresponds to the symbolic father/son relation that Stephen aimed to establish between himself and his protégé. Stephen should simply designate Mircea as his successor to the Moldavian throne. 25. the Wallachian archbishop wrote to the Transylvanian voivode. Throughout the late medieval period the Moldavian lords repeatedly claimed the name of Wallachia for their own realm. This. the two neighbouring realms could ‘enjoy peace’ as a direct consequence of this bond. They only pointed out that. Furthermore. as the overall tone of the letter is hardly concessionary. Therefore. ruled by the father. To quote the archbishop’s words. the archbishop fully acknowledged the symbolic filiation between Stephen Báthory and Basarab IV. 407–422. with the Wallachian nobles viewing Stephen’s political suggestion to be as equally illegitimate as Mircea’s bastard origins. Interestingly. pp. Thus. and a Wallachia. the Mircea affair seems to have been only one episode in a much longer history of rivalry between Moldavia and Wallachia. the Moldavian lord also chose an unusual label to name the neighbouring realm: Vlaska zemlia. using similar terms. Stephen IV. Brăila. 371.14 In contrast to the border nobles’ rejection of the Moldavian lord’s claims. ruled by the son. 2007. ‘Politica externă a lui Ştefan cel Mare: opţiunea polonă (1459–1472)’ [Foreign policy of S. of the realm.12 In this respect. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie. Moreover. although it was frequently used in the Wallachian sources. the sarcastic references to Călţuna’s low morals seriously disturbed the filial bond between Stephen and Mircea. no. Radu V. and the Moldavian one.]. ironic suggestion emphatically rejected Stephen’s claims to being acknowledged as the ‘father’ of the Wallachian lord. and. 13 See Marian Coman. 13–28. no later than two decades after Stephen’s death. the G. this assumption scarcely stands closer examination. 2008. is hardly ever attested to in the Moldavian ones. a legitimate and rightful bond between two rulers might lead to 12 See Şerban Papacostea. it is hard to believe that the Moldavian lord was actually hoping for some support from the nobles in western Wallachia. the naming of the addressees given in the two extant letters invalidates the hypothesis of a standardised form. especially considering that he had set the town of Brăila on fire in 1470. by means of two letters.16 Secondly. such as those from Mehedinţi. O biserică a lui Ştefan cel Mare în Ţara Românească [The church of S. it seems more plausible that the Moldavian lord made an attempt at gaining the support of the border communities. Firstly. probably in the 1480s. Stephen brashly asserts Mircea’s rights by stating that ‘God knows. .15 There are. vol. Secondly. Instead of a carefully elaborated argument. And. Buletinul Comisiei Monumentelor Istorice. it might refer to the limits of the human 15 See Nicolae Iorga. Moreover. eds Stela Cheptea & Vasile Neamţu. vol. if Stephen had sent identical letters to all Wallachian communities. Secolele XIV–XVI. the sources are scarce. On the one hand. while a bastard and unlawful one could only bring turmoil and confusion. of the R. than each addressee would correspond to a specific county community. A key question in understanding Stephen’s correspondence with the Wallachian borders communities relates to the number and the identity of the addressees. the army had already been gathered. Therefore. it might well be that Stephen was expecting different reactions from the two borderland regions. 107–109. which constituted the eastern march army of Wallachia—hence. 146. 16 Instead.106 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier peaceful times. Stephen makes almost no effort to advocate Mircea’s claims to the Wallachian throne. which explains why the two Wallachian replies are almost identical. Bucharest. 3. Firstly. however. p. as you well know. Stephen was probably addressing his letters to the gathering groups of the border nobles.]. Unfortunately. Istoria românilor [Hist. but one might assume that Stephen was far closer to Buzău and Râmnic than he was to Brăila. ‘God knows’. pp. Bucharest. His decision to address two different letters. 1. sending out more than a dozen letters would have implied much higher costs. Stephen sent one of the letters to the community in the Brăila region. the connection between Stephen of Moldavia and Mircea fell into the second category. according to the Wallachian border nobles.]. 123. 1996. Stephen financed the building of a church in Râmnicul Sărat. Surprisingly. in his undertaking to install Mircea on the Wallachian throne. 2001.]. has a twofold meaning.’ Certainly. the stock phrase. Why did Stephen send a single message. as Stephen had probably sent similar proposals to all the Wallachian nobles in each of the counties of the realm. Constantin Rezachevici. at least two major objections to this hypothesis. while the other was sent to those in Râmnic and Buzău.’ This rhetorical appeal to divine knowledge is typical of Moldavian and Wallachian sources from the later Middle Ages. and M. one to Brăila and the other to Buzău and Râmnic. the logistical impediments were far more important than the potential advantages that Stephen could have hoped for. Thus. the two letters are only the extant part of a considerable larger correspondence. to three addressees? According to Nicolae Iorga. the G. in W. 4. For instance. Cronologia critică a domnilor din Țara Românească și Moldova 1324–1881 [Critical Chronology of the rulers of W. could have two possible explanations. 1910. p. Obviously. at the time of the border nobles’ reply. his explicit injunction to ‘return to your homes. that Wallachia is his lawful inheritance. and more recently Constantin Rezachevici. See Alexandru Lapedatu. not to mention the actual difficulties of reaching the addressees. 182. Documente privitoare la istoria României culese din arhivele polone. to be found in a noble’s letter sent to the Saxons from Braşov. I didn’t want to be involved in the torments of this realm’—see Ilie Corfus. See Bogdan. voivode. 1. will be rewarded by me and by my son. in the second letter. addressed the border nobles from the neighbouring realm as if they were his own subjects. the answer was written in the name of ‘all the nobles from Brăila (Buzău and Râmnic). Stephen addressed his letters to ‘all noblemen. and we will give them gifts. God is summoned. which becomes unambiguous when Stephen sets an immediate deadline for the Wallachian nobles: ‘the moment you read this letter of mine. Although the Wallachians’ reply preserved this threefold structure. no. Nonetheless. from Polish archives.17 Consequently. see the phrase ‘God knows and He believes me’. and to ‘all commoners. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 107 knowledge. but also to highlight the unequal relationship between the two realms. no. . Secolul al XVI–lea [Docs on the hist. who was the fundamental source of all human knowledge. 121. whose character and personality are well known. of Rom. Not a single name of those nobles who so insolently replied to Stephen’s proposal is documented. who styled himself lord of Moldo-Vlachia and father of the rightful lord of Wallachia. On the other. Stephen’s letters represent not only an attempt to elicit support for his protégé. Thus. Mircea. the other chief player in this drama. my son. 2.’18 To conclude. the predominant meaning is the second one. DIR A (veacul XVI). the last two social categories were differently named. both as a witness and a judge. voivode. that very moment. Documentele lui Ştefan. 1979. greater or lesser’/ ‘all the nobles’. ‘living in the entire county of Brăila’ or. 18 Compare this with the different formulas for promises more frequently used by Stephen. For two Moldavian examples from the end of the sixteenth century—‘God knows what is happening’ and ‘God knows that. Thus. nos 127. 226. greater or lesser. See DRH D. vol. we will feed them and honour them. Thus. you shall return to your homes. in 1435. as is the case in Stephen’s letters. 1. are vague and equivocal: ‘those of you that come to me and to Mircea.]. 16th c. the Moldavian lord called a halt to any discussion of Mircea’s legitimacy before it had even begun. from all the knezes and from all the Wallachians. to confirm Stephen’s assertion. starting with the different descriptions assigned to them. from the least to the greatest’. 4. 224. ‘in the entire county of Buzău and Râmnic’. they can still be analysed as a group. vol. 211. When the subordinate clause refers to the past or to the present. For similar examples in fifteenth-century Wallachian sources. the Wallachian border nobles.’ In contrast to these explicit requests. we get the following three pairs: (1) ‘all the noblemen. with Moldavia having the superior standing. nos. 138. Thus. This rhetorical strategy further demonstrates the imperative tone of the letter. see Bogdan. (2) ‘all sheriffs and judges’/ 17 For similar examples in Wallachian sources. no.’ Therefore. both in the Moldavian proposal and in the Wallachian reply. the phrase might be read as a call upon God. from the very beginning. Bucharest. Stephen’s promises to provide benefits to those nobles who were willing to join him in his attempt to raise Mircea to the throne. The Wallachian border nobles Unlike the Moldavian lord. if we place in a mirror the Moldavian and Wallachian socio– political terminology used in this correspondence. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. Stephen. 136. The two meanings may be distinguished according to the tense used in the subordinate clause that usually follows. remain a mystery.’ to ‘all sheriffs and judges’. 155. are well documented in Moldavian documents from the fifteenth century. 23–43. a rather odd chancellery term. pp. 2002. in their reply. 20. pp. This formula is attested to in Wallachian charters only at the very beginning of the fifteenth century. It seems very plausible that the Wallachian lords had sent to their Moldavian neighbours letters that were similar in content to those addressed to the Saxons from Braşov. (3) ‘all commoners. See Constantin C. and sporadically reappears throughout the sixteenth century. 1. with the far more familiar ethnonym for ‘Wallachians’ (vlasi). it is even more surprising to find in the Moldavian lord’s proposal a word such as ‘commoner’ (siromah). ‘Despre cnejii români’ [The Romanan knezes] Analele Academiei Române Memoriile Secţiei Istorice. 20 The significance of this term has also been strongly disputed by scholars.] Studii. p. 534 documente. as well as the stock phrases ‘greater or lesser’ or ‘from the least to the greatest’. 1962. 2. 26. attributed to the Wallachian lord. 35.]. Cristian Apetrei. The Wallachian equivalent to the Moldavian county was the district. 423. 21 See Bogdan. meaning of s. In contrast. D. Revista de Istorie. whose etymological meaning is ‘poor’. is never otherwise found in medieval Moldavian sources. Bucharest. in 14th to 16th c. and s. greater or lesser’. in Moldavian sources. eds Ionel Cândea. 180. nos. Valeria Costăchel. no longer extant. correspondence between the Moldavian and the Wallachian lords. but also to pinpoint some of the socio-political dissimilarities between late-fifteenth-century Moldavia and Wallachia. in the 15th to 16th c.20 We can find no other possible explanation for the use of this term by Stephen’s chancellery. Documentele lui Ştefan cel Mare. 1479 and 1499. pp. 1. ‘Despre terminologia ţărănimii dependente din Ţara Românească în secolele XIV–XVI’ [On the terminology of the dependent peasantry of W. Basarab V. ‘Despre “sirac” şi “siromah” în documentele slave muntene’ [On s. except for the existence of a previous. 1954. and s. both these terms. 753–799. pp. 1903. For instance. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. . ‘Dezagregarea obştii săteşti în ţările române în evul mediu’ [Disintegration of the Romanian village community in the middle ages]. which had probably borrowed it from Serbia. This term. no. 651–662. 159. Ştefan Ştefănescu. For the most convincing interpretation so far. In sources from the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 15. from the least to the greatest’/ ‘all Wallachians’. Ţinuturile Ţǎrii Moldovei pânǎ la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea [Territory of Moldavia since the mid-18c]. ‘Observaţii pe marginea conotaţiilor economice şi sociale ale termenilor “sirac” şi “siromah” în documentele slavo–române redactate în secolele XV–XVI în Ţara Româneascǎ’ [Comments on the social and econ. For the stock phrase. A comparative analysis of this terminology enables us not only to better grasp the background of this correspondence. ‘judge’ (jude) and ‘county’ (darjava). We should note to begin with that Stephen’s letters used almost exclusively a Moldavian terminology. 151. in Bogdan. ‘Sheriff’ (syndic).]. see Constantin Burac. then he failed to understand that siromah had a limited currency. 195. Giurescu. 34. Grigore G. were used as a generic label for those of ignoble origins. 1155–1170. in Muntenian slave docs]. Revista Istorică. See DRH B. 16. 2004. 26. nos. 13 1927. in Slavonic Romanian docs in W. 202. vol. in which they had frequently interceded for their ‘commoners’. For the Moldavian counties.19 Thus.21 If this was the case and the Moldavian scribe simply took over this term from previous letters sent by the Wallachian lords. see Stephen’s documents issued in 1472. the border nobles must have simply replaced this term. Studii şi referate privind istoria României [Studies and reports on Romanian hist. nos 140. in a parenetic text from the early sixteenth century. in Prinos lui Petre Diaconu la 80 de ani [Homage to P. ‘all noblemen. Thus. II–a. but are completely lacking in the Wallachian. see Ioan Bogdan.108 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier ‘all knezes’. 179. the 19 The responsibilities of the Moldavian sheriffs have aroused scholarly controversy. Tocilescu. Brǎila. in his 80th year]. it was quite commonly used by the Wallachian chancellery. Seria A. ‘commoners’ and ‘Wallachians’. Valeriu Sîrbu & Marian Neagu. 118. however. and the ‘Wallachians’ in the nobles’ replies.26 Otherwise. 1940. that local estates or Estates General were ever summoned in medieval Wallachia. The Wallachian border nobles made two minor changes in their replies. voivodates]. Dinu C. later on.25 A minor. 110. but also the knezes. the counties of Brăila and the counties of Buzău and Râmnic. they linked a geographical identity only to the noble estate. Secondly. clasă socială în voevodatele româneşti [Vlachs as a social class in the R. 1. no 205. no 59. p. a Wallachian charter from 1470 makes the distinction between ‘nobles’. Ţara Româneascǎ medievalǎ. 23 DRH B. For the serf hypothesis. ed. see DRH B. the limits of their adhesion to the throne and 22 See Învăţăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către fiul său Theodosie [The Teachings of N. the other two estates. and so on.22 This second category included in the late fifteenth century not only the nobles. for his son. Putere şi teritoriu. T. 25 Matei Cazacu suggested that the Wallachians’ answer to Stephen’s proposal was the result of ‘véritables assemblées régionales’. For similar examples in Wallachian charters. see Constantin Giurescu. the decision makers and the real political players were only a few. were all those inhabitants that were not subsumed in the first two categories of the nobles and knezes.23 The double meaning of the term Wallachian. the association of nobles with a district was commonplace in letters sent out by the chancellery. Firstly. For instance. pp. see DRH B. p. In the Moldavian lord’s letters. To conclude. survived into the early modern period. as in ‘the knezes from the district of Brăila’ or ‘all the nobles living in the district of Mehedinţi’. Bucharest. Bucharest. 1935. For the free-peasant hypothesis. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 109 distinction between the siromah and those of a noble birth is manifest. the district (sudstvo). therefore. p. who took over an earlier suggestion made by Ioan Bogdan. ed. 125. in Despre boieri şi despre rumâni [On boyars and Romanians]. Consequently. 1996). 78–100.B. 40. the Wallachian communities were geographically defined by a reference to the administrative divisions of the realm: respectively. Giurescu. 27 For these two examples. There is no convincing evidence. which was a Moldavian term. no 192. however. 3. 26 For the territorial administration of medieval Wallachia. but nonetheless significant detail from the Wallachians’ letters hints at the fact that only the border nobles actually decided on the terms of the response to Stephen’s proposal. 1. Vlahii. 3. Concealed. Gheorghe Mihăilă (Bucharest. under this generic commitment to the entire community. the social one—meaning ignoble inhabitants and. of the terminology they used. both Stephen and the border nobles referred in their correspondence to the entire community along the eastern Wallachian borderlands. serfs—and the political one. see Ioan C. Bucharest. the Wallachian border nobles’ rejection of any administrative structure illustrates.27 Therefore.24 Irrespective. no 137. were associated in name only to the real decision makers. ‘knezes’ and ‘commoners’. p. referring to the realm. Proprietatea solului în Principatele Române pânǎ la 1864 [Land ownership in the R. 1994. consciously or not. Cahiers Balkaniques 21. 268–271. Dinu C. the knezes and the Wallachians. This omission probably reflected the nobles’ reluctance to acknowledge the new administrative structures that the rulers of Wallachia were in the process of imposing. 24 Previous interpretations identified the ‘commoners’ and ‘Wallachians’ either with the serfs or with the free peasants. Arion. and ibid. pp. principalities to 1864]. 2008. . see Marian Coman. the Wallachian nobles turned the administrative reference into a geographical one. both the ‘commoners’ in the Moldavian lord’s letters. 165. but they also avoided its Wallachian correspondent.]. Not only did they not reiterate the reference to the county (darjava). See his ‘La Valachie médiévale et moderne: esquisse historique’. Filliti. : B. 1965. with Braşov in the 14th to 16th c. 259–304. 1865. and M] in Aut veniam inveniam aut faciam. by analysing their influence on neighbouring actors. 1.]. of which almost five hundred survive. if we assume a different perspective. in a commercial privilege given to the Lviv merchants. so may the historian map the nobles from the eastern borderlands of Wallachia. the border nobles rapidly entered the circle of power relations around the ruling house. A. although remaining faithful to their lord. in much the same way as an astronomer studies a black hole. as they kept their interaction with the Wallachian lords to a minimum. Buzău is mentioned in only three documents. Bogdan. they suddenly made their appearance in the chancellery’s documents in the first decades of the sixteenth century. Buzoienii şi mehedinţii’ [Frontier boyars and lordly power in med. ‘Boierii de margine şi puterea domneascǎ în Ţara Româneascǎ medievalǎ. even to the extent of refusing to acknowledge Mircea. becomes easier to comprehend. Bucharest. . Iaşi. disastrously in 1521. numerous small merchants and villages from this region are recorded. since it quickly managed to impose its own candidate to the throne. 35–58. Nevertheless. pp. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească.28 As almost all the extant documents were issued by the Wallachian lords. 272.29 As for the border nobles. see Marian Coman. we suggest that there 28 There are four references to Brăila in fifteenth-century Wallachian documents. and M. in the Saxons’ customs registers from Braşov. the paucity of the extant sources simply means that the border nobles were keeping their distance from the throne. 29 See Radu Manolescu. Furthermore. W. but successfully a decade later. 83–85. In Honorem Ştefan Andreescu [Festschrift for S. pp. Vlad Vintilă (1532–1535). aiming to take over the throne. precisely because they interfered so little in the political affairs of the house of Basarab. As a group. For instance. All four include Brăila in the stock phrase. the border nobles were almost invisible. which actually delineates the western and the eastern limits of the realm. 30 For this point. Comerţul Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei cu Braşovul (secolele XIV–XVI) [Commerce of W. From the point of view of the chancellery. they become perceptible only on brief occasions. they quickly became one of the major players in Wallachian politics.30 Placed in this context. this borderland region is the only one in all Wallachia in which the lords of the realm made no donation over the course of the fifteenth century. See DRH B. the descendant of an influential family of nobles from the Buzău region. Buzău and Râmnic. The eastern borderlands of the realm are seldom mentioned in fifteenth-century Wallachian documents. Suggestively. no 69. they also wished to distance themselves from the throne to protect their own liberties. during the first decades of the sixteenth century. 1. this borderland region emerges as an extremely lively one. 1. pp. this borderland was very much a blind spot. as well as their vocal refusal of Stephen’s proposal. Petronel Zahariuc and Gheorghe Lazǎr. Moreover. Thus. 83–85. 1. bearing the same names as the districts: Brăila.110 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier to the administrative apparatus that was gathered beneath it. 2012. Moreover. nos 30. Moreover. See Archiva istorică a României. the few extant references always relate to three towns. such as the episode of their correspondence with Stephen III. the border nobles’ silence throughout the fifteenth century. in 1532. starting from the beginning of the sixteenth century. Thus. 109. See DRH B. eds Ovidiu Cristea. In contrast. Archiva istorică a României. nos 55.]. We should note at this point that the border nobles are so hard to identify. pp. One cannot underestimate the power of this group. ‘from Severin to Brăila’. Throughout the fifteenth century. 275. 1865. Râmnic is mentioned only once. it is also the only region where we have no record from this time of the confiscation of property on account of crime. the Wallachian border nobles do not even name him directly.31 While Stephen simply states Mircea’s rights to the throne. considering the ultimate goal of the correspondence between Stephen of Moldavia and the Wallachian border nobles was his advance to the throne. but convincing palaeographic arguments. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 111 might actually be a direct connection between the pressure exercised on the eastern borderlands by the Moldavian lord. . Therefore. most likely. As a result. Wallachian. however. See his Cronologia critică. Stephen’s request to support Mircea’s claims for the throne could be interpreted as one of the key moments that influenced the border nobles’ decision to become more actively involved in the Wallachian state-building process. without any further explanations. Stephen’s correspondence with the border nobles and Mircea’s letter to the Saxons are contemporary. Both texts. who suggested that the pretender supported by Stephen was the same person as a Mircea. a rather common Wallachian one. Rezachevici’s main argument. The two phenomena are chronologically consecutive and they might also be causally related. 123. historians have attempted to identify Stephen’s protégé with different individuals. place it at the end of the fifteenth century. Stephen. p. who are mentioned by various Moldavian. The first hypothetical identification was made by Ioan Bogdan. referring to him obliquely and pejoratively as ‘Călţuna’s son’. this does not necessarily mean that the two Mirceas were one and the same person. that Mircea effectively ruled Wallachia because he styled himself lord of Wallachia in a letter sent to the Saxons from Braşov is inconclusive. bearing the same name and documented in the same period. such as the type of writing and the paper used. All pretenders styled themselves lords of Wallachia. As these slender references are hardly sufficient to sketch Mircea’s portrait. and the border nobles’ sudden interest in the Wallachian throne. particularly since the Mircea who wrote to the Saxons. invoked not the Moldavian lord’s but the Ottoman Sultan’s protection.31 This letter is also undated. had failed in his dream of taking power in Wallachia. To complicate things further. Mircea. Saxon and Venetian sources from the late fifteenth and the early sixteenth centuries. the pretender Mircea should have been one of the main actors in all these events. who had addressed a letter to the Saxons from Braşov. Nevertheless. pay little heed to this pretender who. there are some other persons bearing the same name. the list of hypothetical identifications is long and there 31 We find no sound reason for Constantin Rezachevici’s assumption that Mircea actually ruled Wallachia for half a year. Thus. B. 16. Mircea. p. See her ‘Scrisoarea lui Ştefan ce Mare către buzoieni. Documentele lui Ștefan cel Mare.]. ‘Patru documente inedite din secolul al XV–lea privitoare la istoria Ţării Româneşti’ [Four unpub. however.’ p. 5. ‘Izvoare otomane privind Moldova lui Ștefan cel Mare’ [Ott. Bejenaru’s hypothesis gains some ground. a squire in the retinue of the Wallachian lord. pp. that Wallachia is his rightful inheritance. 110–117. Stephen had a double goal in mind: to transfer the father–son bond into the political 32 C. but more often by aspiring pretenders to the throne. 31. baština. 75. 2. ed. simply the bald assertion of a rightful inheritance. see the late fifteenth century Moldavian chronicles. p. 31. See Revista istorică. the overall tone and structure of the letter. see Ivan Biliarsky. the Moldavian lord.and sixteenth-century Wallachian pretender failed to mention his father’s name. 78. 1924.’ The Slavonic word for inheritance. Bucharest. this omission makes perfect sense. Studii şi Materiale de Istorie Medie.. Stephen referred twice to Mircea as being ‘my son’. Radu. Cogălniceanu. Stephen supported Mircea’s claims by simply asserting his rights: ‘God knows. For the noble Mircea’s fate after the battle of Soci. 26. is derived from the word father. Surprisingly. See Petronel Zahariuc. 63. p. Thus. 179. For instance. nos 27. 2008. Cronicile slavo-române din secolele XV–XVI publicate de Ion Bogdan [Slavonic Romanian chronicles of the 15th & 16th c. of W. pp. the G. Mircea’s biological father was deliberately left out because the letter was intended to emphasise the strong bond existing between the pretender and his symbolic father. 34 See Bogdan. 2.’s Mold. the correspondence should be dated in the same year. pp. N. 875. for instance. 1913. According to a recently published document. C. ruled Wallachia’. vol. was actually related to the Basarab dynasty. the precise identification of the pretender is less significant than the legitimising mechanisms that this case study reveals. no.36 Indeed. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. after the battle of Soci between the Moldavians and Wallachians. Substituting the biological filiation with a symbolic one. Thus. 158.’35 Towards the end of the century. as Aneta Boiangiu identified the pretender with one of Vlad the Impaler’s sons. Vlad voivode’s inheritance and throne’. mentioned in a Venetian source from the autumn of 1521. Panaitescu. Convorbiri Literare [Lit. 47. 149. there is no reference of this type in Stephen’s letter. a mid-fifteenth century pretender to the Wallachian throne styled himself ‘the son of the great Dan.]. 29. 2011. published by I. whose life had been spared by Stephen in 1471. 104. See his ‘Mircea II Pretendentul. and Nagy Pienaru. identified Stephen’s protégé with ‘Marchya Voevoda’. 147. 17. Stephen. no. Revista de istorie.34 The claim was always backed up by a genealogical reference to the pretender’s father who had ruled over Wallachia. docs on the hist. 1959. If one considers. Mircea. Analele Putnei .]. Sources on S. See his ‘Mircea Pretendentul’ [Mircea the Pretender]. throughout the letter. Word and Power in Mediaeval Bulgaria. The list of hypotheses could go on. however.’ Arhiva. voivode. see Bogdan. 2009. 36 Ibid. 163–176. p. For other Wallachian nobles bearing the same name that could equally well be identified with Stephen’s protégé. as you well know. Bejenaru instead identified Mircea the Pretender with the Wallachian noble. 33 For this use and the meaning of this term in Old Church Slavonic in Bulgarian and Serbian sources. but also to the ‘days when my brother. no. 35 Ibid. 83. pointing thus to a patrimonial legacy.33 This term was frequently used in fifteenth-century Wallachia. According to this hypothesis. filologie şi cultură românească. another pretender displayed a more ostentatious genealogy referring not only to ‘his father. . Petre P. Another hypothesis was suggested by Nicolae Iorga.32 For our analysis. no. 190. sometimes by the ruling lords. not a single fifteenth. 1930. as it was the most important piece of evidence for substantiating his claim. who tentatively identified Mircea the Pretender with one of the Wallachian nobles who took refuge with Stephen as early as 1464. Leiden.112 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier are almost no compelling criteria for validating or invalidating any one of them. talks]. they contested Mircea’s legitimacy by stating that he was a ‘prostitute’s son’. ‘Scriitori de acte din cancelaria lui Ştefan cel Mare’ [Writers of charters in the chancellery of S. Theodora Rădulescu & Constantin Tegăneanu.’ Thus. the main endorsement of Mircea’s claim was his own will. eds Gheorghe Cronţ. 38 For the scribes documented throughout Stephen’s long reign. as we shall argue. pp. Constantinescu.’ The nobles mockingly recommended Stephen to name Mircea as his successor to the Moldavian throne: ‘let him rule in your place. see Silviu Văcaru. why not send a messenger carrying a letter bearing Stephen’s seal that would empower him to deliver verbally the Moldavian lord’s proposal to the Wallachian nobles across the border? Sensitive messages were usually conveyed by such means. There are numerous fifteenth century Wallachian and Moldavian letters sent to the Saxons from Braşov that are deeply frustrating to historians. nor the Wallachian nobles’ two replies. in Ştefan cel Mare la cinci secole de la moartea sa [S. investigation of how and by whom these letters were written provides new insights into the correspondence. even better. 2003. Would it not have been more appropriate to initiate negotiations. eds Petronel Zahariuc & Silviu Văcaru. As a result. the Wallachian border nobles confirmed once again that they understood all the consequences of Stephen’s proposal.37 Secondly. Ancuţa Popescu. pp. 921–922. Neither Stephen’s two letters.38 Only in a very few cases can historians trace back fragments of the scribes’ background. Iaşi. see Acte judiciare din Ţara Românească 1775–1781 [Judicial charters of W. 93–105. .].]. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 113 ascendency of Moldavia over Wallachia and to emphasise that. the G. five centuries after his death]. Al. Nevertheless. The first question to be asked is why Stephen’s proposal and the nobles’ reply were written in the first place. they manifestly broke off the bond between the two realms proposed by Stephen and advised the Moldavian lord to take care of his own country: ‘you should teach your own realm how to obey your will. Most of the fifteenth century Moldavian and Wallachian scribes are nothing more than names in a catalogue. education or career. our understanding would hardly be enhanced. Bucharest. directing their irony exclusively towards the Moldavian lord and completely ignoring Mircea. The Scribes At first glance. This was not only an insult but also a juridical argument since. 1973. mention the name of the scribe or scribes. ultimately. Firstly. even if we could point to the exact scribe who wrote one of the letters. they focused instead exclusively upon the puppeteer. Moreover. they took no notice whatsoever of the marionette. on such a delicate matter by using an oral message rather than a written proposal? Or. the G. The Wallachian border nobles grasped all the implications of Stephen’s proposal and sarcastically addressed them one by one.’ Moreover. as they consist only of a condensed 37 For later examples of this law. children born of an adulterous union had no right to their fathers’ inheritance. according to the medieval Wallachian law. the Wallachian nobles ironically suggested to Stephen that he convert the symbolic filiation into a juridical one by marrying Mircea’s mother: ‘if he is indeed your son. whose name was not even mentioned in their reply. you should take his mother to be your wife. any attempt to identify the scribes of the four letters that constitute this correspondence might seem both impossible and futile. ’ The differences between Basarab’s and Stephen’s proclamations are numerous. ‘Political Propaganda and Royal Proclamations in Late Medieval England’.40 Recalling peaceful times in the past. Maria Magdalena Székely suggested to us that the Wallachian border nobles did not accidently choose to express their fidelity to the ruling lord of Wallachia by referring to him as to a ‘great and good lord.41 Thus. 71. Documentele lui Ştefan. 147. the Moldavian and Wallachian ones seem to have been more akin to pamphlets. 40 See Bogdan. Whether such a rhetorical strategy was innovative in late medieval Wallachian and Moldavian politics is difficult to say. no. doc. the past services he had rendered them. similar to a proclamation. which is to our knowledge unique in the Wallachian sources.43 Leaving aside the genre used in these letters and returning to the manner of their physical composition. addressed an open letter asking all ‘notables. only one similar example of a political proclamation survives. points to the forcefulness of his stand. Basarab IV. fusing different rhetorical devices: the lawfulness of his request. unlike. in Bogdan. Historical Research. 43 During the discussion following our paper at the Putna conference. political proclamations are seldom preserved over time. Basarab’s proclamation enclosed a threat: ‘you should think it over if you are ready to suffer all this evil for the benefit of only two or three men in Braşov who will get rich. 1998. Unlike the late medieval political proclamations from Western Europe. it should be pointed out that a palaeographic analysis of the 39 See for instance Stephen’s letter to the Saxons from Braşov sent on 1 November 1474. From a comparative perspective. In contrast.42 or to endorse consistently his protégé’s claim to the throne. they are representative of the same genre. which slowly turned into a widespread instrument of government. they rarely find their way into private archives. Basarab himself. was used to portray Stephen III of Moldavia as Stephen the Great and the Good even during the course of his reign. Moreover.’ The same formula. charters recording rights to property. 2. Stephen’s choice of a straightforward demand. 42 Stephen does not even bother to mention the name of the ruling lord of Wallachia.114 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier statement: ‘you should trust this messenger. finally. pp. Deeply grounded in a specific historical context. instead of a persuasive approach. as he did not take the trouble either to contest the legitimacy of the ruling Wallachian lord. for instance. For late medieval Wallachia and Moldavia. their common political loyalty towards the Hungarian king. . and. Basarab and Stephen aimed to diminish the standing of their addressees in the eyes of their subjects.’39 Even the fact that Stephen decided to write down his proposal implies that he considered it a public statement. 123. the possible repercussions. Hence. peasants and commoners from the Burzenland [Ţara Bârsei]’ to urge the Saxon magistrates from the city to respect his rights. the nobles in their reply emphasised that they already had a different. Stephen’s letter should be situated somewhere between a threat in pamphlet form and a formulaic expression of goodwill. great and good lord. and more of a clear-cut request than a studied. 253–280. In an attempt to get back the treasure that his rival and predecessor had taken to Braşov. 41 See here James Doig. vol. as they are addressed to an open audience. which is also preserved in the Saxons’ archive in Braşov. He simply addressed the Wallachian nobles as if they were his own subjects. the rhetorical structure of Basarab’s letter is far more complex. the Wallachian nobles’ intention was to let the Moldavian lord know that their own prince was a match for him. rhetorical exercise. the Wallachian lord. Nevertheless. Stephen’s tone was considerably more dispassionate. Thus. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. This is an intriguing question. ‘have you any humanness?’—da est li u tebe človeačestvo). The only certainty is that Stephen’s letter must have been simultaneously dictated to the two scribes. 4.’ In both cases. must have noted down the one to Buzău and Râmnic. . of T.  Hrisovul [The Charter]. For example. Therefore. p. whereas a Wallachian one. while the Wallachian one went for priiti. See Aurelian Sacerdoţeanu. such as different graphic forms for the same words or even. Bucharest. as for example ‘until our last breath’ (literally ‘up to the end of our heads’—do otkinutia naše glaveh). no 175. as the two documents seems also to have been simultaneously dictated. and W. but also in two different scripts.: Charters and letters]. Not only were Stephen’s two letters written by different hands. M. see M. as only this could explain the minor variants of the two letters. not only when it comes to the content. open to speculation as there are too many unknowns. Caracterul limbii textelor slavo–române [Character of the language in Slavonic Rom. duplicate letter]. This is one of the arguments that enabled Ştefan S. the letter sent to Buzău and Râmnic includes an adverb that is missing from the one sent to Brăila: ‘God knows. in 1553. See Veress. Mircea. this time sent by the Moldavian lord. a Moldavian scribe must have written Stephen’s letter to Brăila. 60–61. a specific Moldavian semi-uncial script and a typical Wallachian cursive script.’ the Moldavian scribe used the adjective golem for ‘great’. The text itself has a perceptible trace of orality and some of the formulas seem to have been translated ad litteram from Romanian into Slavonic. The Moldavian scribe preferred the verb doiti. 344. as you perfectly well know. both replies were written down by the same hand. Documente privitoare la istoria Ardealului. 1947. vol. Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti. Thus. the Wallachian border nobles’ replies must have been written by a single scribe. while the Wallachian one preferred velik. but also to the graphic form of the words. 7. 226. vol. 45 There are too few extant duplicate documents to allow us to comprehend how the Moldavian chancellery issued charters of this type. Bucharest. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 115 originals is revealing. that Wallachia is his lawful inheritance. 1929. in 1595. using a typical Wallachian script.48 All these 44 The first variant of this common Moldavian stock phrase is documented in another of Stephen III’s letters. The only other example from the late fifteenth century bears some resemblance with the one being analysed here. Tradiție diplomatică și vocabular politic’. which is rather unusual in Old Church Slavonic diplomatic. there are several small discrepancies. in a few cases. texts]. 48 The Romanian word omenie (‘humanness’) is attested to for the first time in a letter sent to Hungary by the Wallachian lord. the scribes resorted to synonyms. most probably somebody from Mircea’s retinue. arheologie şi filologie. no.. see Damian P. 42. pp. the most important of which being why one of the scribes should have been Wallachian.45 In contrast. See Andrei Veress. Gaster’s edition of the Alexander Romance in Revista de istorie.44 This rare duplicate original issued by the medieval Moldavian chancellery raises more questions than it really answers. Similarly. 1. p. 46 On this formula. The Wallachian replies are almost identical. ibid. in the stock phrase ‘all my nobles. Besides. Bucharest. pp. Bogdan. Gorovei to suggest that both the letter to Braşov and the one to Brăila had been written by the same scribe from the Moldavian chancellery. 47 For the use of this formula in late medieval Romanian literature. minor variants. 25. See his ‘Titlurile lui Ştefan cel Mare. The Romanian phrase oameni de omenie (literally ‘men of humanness’) was also initially documented in a letter to Hungary. 348. 1932.46 ‘we are writing to you’ (pišemo tebe)47 or ‘don’t you have a kind human soul?’ (literally. the letters were written using two distinctive scripts. ‘to come’. Although the content of the two letters is basically identical. ‘Un duplicat moldovenesc din 1492’ [A Mold. sent to Braşov in January 1472. 7.1894. great and small. Acte şi scrisori [Docs for the hist. 1946. written on the verso of Stephen’s two letters. lord. changing the name of the senders and making small corrections. which implies that paper was a luxury product. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. 51 See Ioan Bogdan’s comments in the introduction to his edition. 58 etc. the one sent by the nobles from Brăila—two missing letters. we may note that the letter sent by the nobles from Buzău and Râmnic has some mistakes that were corrected in the second version. the scribe initially wrote one answer and then carefully copied it. whereas the second one is characteristic of the Wallachian. while in the Brăila version it appears only once. see DRH A. somehow found a way into the archive. is mentioned twice. and then written down. Stephen is given the title of gospodar. nos 21. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. the scribe’s struggle to translate into a comprehensible Slavonic language the Romanian phrases that had been dictated to him. Both words have the same meaning. characteristic of both the Moldavian and Wallachian chancelleries: ‘from all parts’ (ot cveh stranah).50 Therefore. (2) they could have intercepted the correspondence. and the lack of any seal to authenticate the reply stand in sharp contrast to the well-organised and efficient Moldavian chancellery. . For Moldavian ones. is typical of the Moldavian chancellery. With regard to the process whereby the replies were written. commonly used in Moldavian diplomatic.49 There is a minor detail in the title ascribed to Stephen that might be indicative of the scribe’s familiarity with Moldavian chancellery practices. especially page xvi. translated into Slavonic. later on. in a boastful and ego-inflating gesture. gospodar. The letter includes only one stock phrase. Thus. 49 For Wallachian examples. It was obviously an impromptu answer. In the letters sent by the nobles from Buzău and Râmnic. Călţuna. gospodin. All extant fifteenth-century Wallachian nobles’ documents were written on rather small pieces of paper.51 The nobles’ decision to admonish Stephen for wasting paper and ink is in this respect telling. rather unusually. (3) the Wallachian nobles could have sent their replies directly to Braşov. The pronominal adjective is našoi zemle instead of naše zemle. Comparative palaeographic and diplomatic investigation of the correspondence reveals once more the disparity between the players in this political drama. a pronominal adjective in the wrong case. Although. 114. 45. a superfluous grammatical particle and a useless repetition. The superfluous particle is ta.116 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier suggest that the content of the reply must have been initially conceived in Romanian. Mircea’s mother’s name. nos 47. see Bogdan. 50 The missing letters are from the words l[i] and ima[š]. (4) the letters simply got lost and. The Saxons from Braşov The Saxons are the invisible witness in this drama and the only hint at their existence as close observers of the Moldavian–Wallachian dispute is the survival of this correspondence in their archive. There are multiple hypotheses that could explain how these letters came to be in the Braşov archive: (1) the Saxons could have acted as mediators between the two parties. it was more probably a cost-saving measure. although in his own letter he styled himself. The improvised answer written and then copied by a single scribe onto the back of Stephen’s letters. but the first. the choice of writing their answer on the back of the paper might also have a symbolic meaning. None of these hypotheses can be convincingly proven. 2. ] Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice. In 1515.56 Moreover. mostly in the Brăila region. in the 2nd half of the 15th c. when a Moldavian noble fell into the hands of the Wallachians. no. at the beginning of the 16th c. 53 UB. Even assuming that the letters accidentally came in their possession. 3914. by selling weapons to him and by lodging his spies. which had affected the fish trade. 63. Essentially. see Bogdan. Stephen of Moldavia seems to have gained their trust. Thus. while most of the surviving letters written by the rulers of Wallachia to the Saxons are reproachful. ‘Contribuţii privitoare la mişcările sociale din sud–estul Transilvaniei la începutul secolului al XVI–lea’ [Contributions ion social movements in s-e Trans. the Wallachian ruler directly accused the Saxons of supporting Stephen. why the town’s revenues had fallen so dramatically. Documentele lui Ştefan. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 117 as the whole context is too obscure and the letters have no marginal notes. The only assertion that can be made is that Saxons usually followed attentively the events from the Moldavian frontier of Wallachia. 151. or else he would consider them his enemies. 57 Ibid.53 In a different letter. the Wallachian lord showed his disappointment with them for the lack of any news concerning his enemy. 54 Ibid. 101. 152.]. 3822. and W. 6. p. Radu of Wallachia urged the Saxons to take his side against the Moldavian lord. 160. 7. One of the reasons given was precisely the recurring conflicts at the Moldavian–Wallachian frontier. the Saxons aggressively pressed the Wallachian lords. to accept tolls that privileged them and safeguarded their privileged trading position. Stoide. no. Nevertheless. Stephen. 55 Constantin A. 52 See Gernot Nussbächer. when hostilities eventually broke out between Moldavia and Wallachia.57 Saxon preferences during this period are perfectly consistent with their overall attitude towards the two realms. Documentele privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească. vol. 56 See Ioan Bogdan. no. at the latter’s request. the Saxons negotiated his ransom.’ [Relations between M. Both the benevolent position towards the Moldavian lord and the forceful stance on Wallachia were intended to protect their trading interests. nos 106. . because the Saxons acted as conduits of information for both parties and because their archive has survived. Revista de istorie. p. The Saxons’ interest in the borderland region was primarily due to their economic activities. 1956. 159. 1325.54 And. For another example. the Saxons used two different methods to achieve the same goal. 1979. 156–158. the chief magistrate of Braşov explained to the king of Hungary. 2. Stephen and Braşov regularly exchanged information and the Moldavian lord was careful to notify the Saxons in advance on his moves against Wallachia.55 In contrast. The triangle Moldavia–Braşov–Wallachia is well documented throughout the late fifteenth century. ‘Legăturile dintre Moldova şi Ţara Românească în a doua jumătate a secolului al XV–lea. the Saxons still found this correspondence interesting enough to preserve it in their town archive. which seems unlikely. Throughout the fifteenth century. no. 149. 32.52 Their commercial interests explain not only why the Saxons carefully surveyed this region. Stephen of Moldavia’s letters to the Saxons reveal a trustworthy partnership. usually by providing refuge for different pretenders. to give a final example. but also why they might have assumed a mediating position between the two neighbouring realms. 118 Controversy on the Moldavian-Wallachian Frontier To conclude this section: although we have no idea how the correspondence between the Moldavian lord and the Wallachian border nobles ended up in the Braşov archive, we should not be surprised to find it there. The Saxons were vigilant observers and, occasionally, even active players in the conflicts between Moldavia and Wallachia. Conclusions The leading conclusion of this analysis is that the correspondence between Stephen III of Moldavia and the Wallachian nobles constitutes a dialogue that failed before it had even begun. Although there are some hints at an extensive mutual knowledge, suggested by subtle terminological choices, each of the two parties refused to take any step towards the other. On the one hand, Stephen of Moldavia preferred to command rather than to persuade, treating the Wallachian nobles as if they were his own subjects. Moreover, by installing his protégé as lord of Wallachia, Stephen hoped to keep a fatherly eye on the neighbouring realm. On the other hand, the Wallachian nobles, speaking on behalf of the entire borderland community, sharply rejected Stephen’s claims and emphasised their allegiance to the ruling lord of the realm. Nonetheless, their boisterous loyalty unambiguously highlights a strong regional consciousness. Faced with their powerful neighbour’s hostility, the border nobles had no choice other than to pass definitively under the umbrella of the throne of the Basarab dynasty. Appendix Stephen of Moldavia’s letter to the Wallachian borderland communities: Stephen, voivode, by the grace of God, ruler and lord of the entire Moldo-Vlachian realm. We are writing to all noblemen, greater or lesser, to all sheriffs and judges, to all commoners, from the least to the greatest, living in the entire county of Brăila.58 You should all know that I have taken with me my son, Mircea voivode, and I will not leave him alone. Risking my own head, together with all my nobles and my entire realm, I will pursue his benefit and mine, until he gains his inheritance, because God knows, as you well know, that Wallachia is his lawful inheritance. Therefore, I say to you: the moment when you read this letter of mine, at that very moment you shall return to your homes, each of you going back to where you lived with your entire wealth. And everything you have, you will continue to have, and where you ploughed before, you will continue to plough, with nothing to worry or to fear. Thus, you should all know that I mean no harm and no injury to anyone, and you can continue to live and nourish yourselves in peace. And those of you that will come to me and to Mircea voivode, my son, will be rewarded by me and by my son. We will give to them gifts; we will feed them and honour them. And I, together with my nobles, greater of lesser, swear this to be the truth. Issued on the 15 March, in Roman. The reply given by the Wallachian borderland communities: On behalf of all the nobles from Brăila,59 of all the knezes and of all the Wallachians. We are writing to you, Stephen, voivode, Moldavian lord. Are you not a kind human 58 In the second letter, Buzău and Râmnic. 59 In the second letter, Buzău and Râmnic. Ovidiu Cristea and Marian Coman 119 soul? Don’t you have any mind or brains? Why are you wasting your ink and paper on a prostitute’s son, on Călţuna’s son, whom you say is your son? If he is indeed your son and you want to please him, let him rule in your place. You should take his mother to be your wife and you should have her as your lady, as in our realm all the fishermen from Brăila have already had her. You should teach your own realm how to obey your will and you should leave us in peace, because if you are looking for an enemy, you will find one! And you should know that we have a great and good lord, and we also have peace on all sides. And we will all come against you and we will stand by our lord, Basarab, voivode, until our last breath. FURTHER READING Ardelean, Florin, Christopher Nicholson & Johannes Preiser-Kapeller (eds), Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians (Eastern and Central European Studies, 2, eds Christian Gastgeber & Alexandru Simon), Frankfurt a/M, 2013. Bak, János M. & Béla K. Király (eds), From Hunyadi to Rákóczi. War and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Hungary, New York, 1982. Curta, Florin, South-Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1200, Cambridge, 2006. Deletant, Dennis, ‘Genoese, Tatars and Rumanians at the Mouth of the Danube in the Fourteenth Century’, Slavonic and East European Review, 62, 1984, pp. 511–30. Deletant, Dennis, ‘Moldavia between Hungary and Poland, 1347–1412’, Slavonic and East European Review, 64, 1986, pp. 189–211. Georgescu, Vlad, The Romanians, a history, Columbus, OH, 1991. Goina, Mariana, The Uses of Pragmatic Literacy in the Medieval Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (from the State Foundation to the End of the Sixteenth Century), unpublished PhD thesis, CEU, 2009. (online version available at <http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2010/mphgom01. pdf>). Gündisch, Konrad & Mathias Beer, Siebenbürgen und die siebenbürger Sachsen, Munich, 2005. Hanga, Vladimir, Les institutions du droit coutumier roumain, Bucharest, 1988. Haynes, Rebecca, ‘Historical Introduction’, in Haynes (ed.), Moldova, Bessarabia, Transnistria: Occasional Papers in Romanian Studies, no. 3, London, 2003, pp. 1–142. Köpeczi, Béla (Gen. ed.), History of Transylvania, vol. 1, Boulder, CO, 2001 (online version at <http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/>) Moldt, Dirk, Deutsche Stadtrechte im mittelalterlichen Siebenbürgen, Cologne, Weimar & Vienna, 2009. Papacostea, Şerban, Stephen the Great, Prince of Moldavia, 1457–1504, Bucharest, 1975. Papacostea, Şerban, Between the Crusades and the Mongol Empire: The Romanians in the Thirteenth Century, Cluj, 1998. Péter, László (ed.), Historians and the History of Transylvania, Boulder & New York, 1992. Pop, Ioan-Aurel & Ioan Bolovan (eds), History of Romania: Compendium, Cluj, 2006. Pop, Ioan-Aurel & Thomas Nägler (eds), The History of Transylvania, vol. 1, Cluj, 2005. 120 ) Transylvania in the Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries: Aspects of the Formation and Consolidation of Regional Identity. 1980. Leiden & Boston. Weimar & Vienna. Mountainous Banat in the Middle Ages. 16. Ţeicu. 141–162 (online versions available). Romanians and Hungarians from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries: The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State. Annales Universitatis Apulenisis. Victor. Cambridge. Rădvan. 2011. Harald. The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads north of the Danube Delta from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth century. 2012. 2010. Leiden. Watermill in the Banat (Archaeological and Ethnologic Heritage of the Banat). Series Historica. 2012. 2002. Dumitru. Cologne. Zimmermann. Bucharest. 121 . 2nd edition. ‘Reconstructing historical landscapes: The road network of Râşnov castle’. Spinei.. Cluj. pp. no 1. Oana. Popa-Gorjanu. Spinei. 1986. Cluj. Die deutsche Orden in Siebenbürgen.Pop. 1996. Laurențiu. 2009. Ioan-Aurel. 2012. Dumitru. Brăila. Traditional Romanian Village Communities. Stahl. Henri H. At Europe's Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities. Moldavia in the eleventh to fourteenth centuries. Eine diplomatische Untersuchung. Cosmin (ed. Victor. Alba Iulia. Toda. Ţeicu. . 13. 71. 117 . 7. 96. 79 C Câmpulung. 11. 39 appeal. 7. 38. 103. 67. fishermen of. 42. 12. 4. 73. 5–8. 17. 74 B Banat. 37. 48. 55. 7. 46. 75. 39. 22. 8 ducatus. 77. 97 dowry. 103. 1363–67). 71–7 Basarab IV (Wall. 16. 7 Borşa (Borsa). 102–5. prince c. 80 D Dacia. 17. 19. ungHking 1310–42). 27. 37. 23. 6. 16. 38. see retrial arbitration. 97 daughters. 6. 106–10. 7. 65–9. 94 Brăila. 9. 2. 11. 23. 13. 4. 12. Cumania. 9. king 1205–35). 9. 9. 47 Armenians. 103. 72–7 Dniester. 4. 1. 16–18. 109. 6. 71–7. 17. 41. 95. assemblies districts. 75–6 Dragoş. 5. 11. 74. 1. 47 Andrew III (Hung. 92–4. 35. 116. 9. 91 Byzantium. Prince 1477 82). 80–3 counties. 24 Anselm von Braz. 8 allodial property. 65–9. 95. 68. 47. see also diet. Brassó). Noesen. 93. 75 Argeş. see also assemblies Croatia. 40. 32. 7. 21. 29. 7 Béla IV (king of Hung. 73–5 Charles Robert (Hung. 38. 21–3. 65. 75–6 diet. 31. 7. 27 Cluj. 10. representative institutions assessors. 49 assemblies. 46–8 Caransebeş. 10. 112 anathema. 6. 38–9. son of Thocomer. 21–8. 2. 12. 115–9. 6. 40. 76. Beszterce). 55–63 compurgation. 10–12. 3 customary law. 7. 91. 24 F Făgăraș. 108. 12. 117 Bulgaria. 50. 93. 3. 79. 62 Bistriţa (Bistritz. Dacians. 83 Andrew II (Hung. 21–7. 97–9 Danube. 66. 1235–70). prince 1400–32). 41. 11. 3. 3. 114. 114 Basarab. 3. 110. see also representative institutions. 1. 6. 94. 27 boyars. 94. 98 Csángós. 63. 23 Alexander the Good (Mold. 18. 2.Index A Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár. Roland 17. 62 Anonymus Chronicle. 77. 10. king 1290–1301). 2 Cumans. 119 Braşov (Kronstadt. 93 fish. Karlsburg). 10. 10. 93. 62 Bogdan I (Mold. 84. 50. 12. 48 Maramureş. 40 Muntenia. typology 66 Mircea the Elder (Wall. 17. 85 Moldavia. king 1458– 90). 17. locatio. 18. 31. 82. 11. 13. 5. 43–4. 2 I inheritance. 4. 1. 97. 92. 8. 25. 5 Germans. 74–7. 73 J Jagiello dynasty. 72–7. 83. districts. 31 Hussites. 11. 18. 48–53. 85 R Radu Negru. 101–19 Mircea the Shepherd (Wall. 31. 32. 10. 82–9. nobles as compurgators. 16. 15–7. 7 pre-emption. 40. 5. see also villages Pechenegs. kingdom of. 12. 6. 107–11. king 1272–90). 7. 8 Mircea the Pretender. 117. 75. 3 Poland. 75. & Mold. 7. 98 oral testimony. 68. 47. 84. 65–9. 10. 85. 6–7. 77. 104 Mongols. 107–9. law. 11. 82–9 Orthodox religion. 13. 62 Ladislas V (Hung. 2–4. prince 1593–1601). 39. 7 N nobility 12. 84–9. 6. battle (1330). 81. 6 regnum. 73 locatores. 9. see also allodial. 92. 37. 44–5. 18. 47. 34. 45. 91–9 Michael the Brave (Wall. 12. 111 P peasants. 21–8 representative institutions. 22. 29–36. 76–7. king 1141–62). king 1342–82). 52. Transylvania and Wallachia G Gelou. 12. 93. 46. 17 Ottoman Turks. 4 M Magdeburg Law. 27 H homagium. 16. consumption. 118 L Ladislas IV (Hung. 21–8 retrial. king 1444–57). 4. 92–4. 25–36. towns of. 98 Jazygs (As. 62 Lytva. 45 Louis the Great (Hung. 95. 80. 6. praediales. 113. 93 Moldova.124 Government and Law in Medieval Moldovia. 18. 8. 55–64 Romania. prince 1352–64). 11. 91–7. see Saxons Géza II (Hung. 16–9. 30–4. Alans). 17. 13. 30–2. 32 K knez. 34. 7. 5. 77. foundation of. 29. prince 1545–52). 22. Romanians origins. 39–42 mills. 39. 62. see also compurgation Oltenia. 98 Nicholas Alexander (Wall. 59. 1. dowry ispán. 6. 10. 96 Posada. 3. Litovoi. 7 Matthias Corvinus (Hung. 16–8. 13. 38 Pied Piper. ‘autochthonous’ development of. 18. rulership in. 23. 73. 29. prince 1386– 94/1397–1418). Graeven 39. see also knez. 1 . 5. 85 military organisation. 13. boyars O oaths. 1–3 Moldo-Vlachia. 29 Gyula. 2. 53. 73–7. 81 roads. 73. lag in political development. 6. 7. 76. 79–89. 103. 37 Golden Bull (1222). 21–9. 18 . 92. 2. dispute settlement in. Romanians. 57. 34. 91. Hungarian conquest of. 71. 8. 99 summons. Wallachian ambiguity and names for. 7. free. 13. 49–53 Stephen I. 71–7. the Impaler. 116 şoltuz (Schultheiss). 5. 117 seals. 5. 17. 4. 69 Wladislas II (Hung. 17. 19. 16. 103. St (Hung. 29. 2. military organisation. 119 W Wallachia. 37–42. 4. Hermannstadt). 65. 40. Principality of. 1457– 1504). 76. king 1387–1437). 10. 6. 16. 101–19 watermills see mills whirlpools (busnita). 105. 1. 27 Slavonic script. 97 Teutonic Knights. 98. 8. 5. Index 125 S salt. king 1490–1516). 32. 6. 27 Stephen III the Great (of Mold. 4. 7. 73–7 Sibiu (Szeben. 18. 104. 73 T Tatars. 41. 65. 73. 25. king 1270–72). 87 Severin. 8. 92. 10. 1. foundation of. 110. 40. 115. 62 Suceava. 9. 7. 101–19 Stephen V (Hung. 42 Timişoara. 8 voivode. 5. 16. 18. 80 Szekels. 22. 2. 6. law. 5. 49. 68. 69 Saxons. 66 Tismana monastery. 19. 15. 21. 48. 30. 32. Szekels Tripartitum. 68. 1. king 1000–38). population. 77. 17. 23. 38. 34–6. 116. Saxons. 37–41 Sigismund of Luxemburg (Hung. 12. 111. 6. debates over. regional identity. 3. 62 Silk Road. towns of. 87 U Ungrovlachia. 32. 91–100. 79–89. 84–9 Vlachs. 24–5. 52–3 Serbian laws. 11. 7 V villages. 2. 56. 10. 49 Slavonia. 17. 46–8. 6 Siret. 30. 27. 97. 22. 32 Vlad III. 25. 17. Eastern Wallachia. 61. 5. 16. 37–42. 39–42. 16. 27–8. 16. 7. 114. 35. 53. 38. 3. 52. 27. 63. 80–3 Transylvania. 38. 9. 4. 59. 34. see also voivode. 5.