DRMH online Preface

 

 

The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary

Decreta regni mediaevalis Hungariae

Online edition

Preface

The present edition is a revised, up-dated, and re-worked version of the five printed volumes of the The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Decreta regni mediaevalis Hungariae, [DRMH] published between 1989 and 2012. The initiator of that project was Charles Schalcks, Jr., Publisher, a tireless servant of Slavic and East European studies, single-handed editor and publisher of several books and many seminal periodicals. On the counsel of Peter Hidas from Montréal, who was to be General Editor of all the laws of Hungary, he had approached Prof. György Bónis (1914–1985) to prepare a bi-lingual edition of the medieval laws of Hungary that were to be part of a major editorial plan of publishing all the laws of Central and Eastern Europe with English translations.[1] Bónis, in turn, invited James Ross Sweeney (1940–2011) of Penn State University, who then asked the assistance of the present editor, at that time at the University of British Columbia, who finally remained with the project to its very end. The first volume (1000–1300) appeared in 1989 (with a second, revised ed. in 1998); the second (1301–1458), co-edited with the leading Hungarian medievalist of the time, Pál Engel (1938–2001) and the Roman legal scholar Paul B. Harvey Jr. (1945–2014) of Penn State, came out in 1992. The volume of the laws of King Matthias I Corvinus (1458–90) was edited with the cooperation of Paul Harvey and Leslie S. Domonkos, then at Youngstown State University, and published in 1996. For the legislation of the Jagiellonian age, including the great collection of customary law, the Tripartitum, the editor was joined by Martyn Rady of UCL SEES, Peter Banyó of CEU Budapest, and Zsolt Hunyadi from Szeged University (and profited from the counsel of András Kubinyi, 1929–2007), so that the project could be completed by 2012. In the course of these decades a great number of colleagues, faculty and students alike, from the editors’ own universities and elsewhere assisted the editors; financial aid from their home universities and several foundations was helpful in preparing the printed volumes. Thanks are due to all of these persons and institutions, duly listed in the prefaces to the printed volumes of DRMH 1–5.

 

1        Selection of texts

In principle, this edition intends to present all surviving texts of legal force for the entire kingdom of Hungary in their time (“statutory law” and the major source of customary law) from its foundation in 1000 AD to its end at the battle of Mohács, 1526. No such collection exists, and, considering the rather chequered history of these text, cannot be easily constructed. Besides, the exact definition of “law” (decreta) is open for discussion.[2] The editors have, therefore, made reasonable selections for every period, based on the available resources; they are confident that this edition represents the essentially complete corpus of what were legally binding rules in the kingdom across these five centuries. Their point of departure was the collection of the hand- or typewritten transcripts of Ferenc Döry (1875–1960), who spent decades planning to edit a complete critical collection of medieval laws, but did not live to see it published. His work was acquired by György Bónis, who shared it with the editors of DRMH, then it went into the possession of Géza Érszegi, and is now deposited in the Hungarian National Archives.

 

1.1     The laws from 1000 to 1301

There is no generally accepted canon for the texts of Árpádian legislation. Neither the choice of legislative documents nor their authentic texts have yet been established through a critical edition. In the absence of a consensus, legal scholars have been free to shape the contents of printed collections in accordance with different principles. In the Hungarian tradition, the Codex Juris Hungarici (CJH)[3] represents a minimalist principle, for it contains only the “books” of Stephen, Ladislas, and Coloman, and the Golden Bull of Andrew II of 1222. The manuscript collections used by the first editors of the CJH did not contain later ones.[4] At the other extreme, Stephen Endlicher included more than eighty pieces in his collection of “laws,” augmenting—theoretically speaking, not without reason—the “law books” with a number of charters of privileges for towns, territories, and other communities.[5] The present edition represents a compromise between these two, combining legal tradition and modern view of legal history. Almost all of what had been part of the CJH for centuries has been included, but now augmented by additional texts. In contrast to the CJH, we have dropped the Institutio Morum “of St. Stephen” (called there the first book of his laws). A. Kollar, as early as the eighteenth century, demonstrated that this “speculum pincipum” does not belong into a book of laws.[6] On the other hand, certain texts of historical significance, not strictly laws or decreta but rather important privileges, discovered only in the eighteenth century, are included here: besides the Golden Bull of 1222, also its 1231 renewal and a later, shorter version of 1267 for a wider circle of freemen. The coronation decree of Andrew III and the parliamentary decretum of 1298 can be regarded as the earliest true pieces of legislation and although missing from the CJH, they are included here. In the printed version, certain texts issued in what was called “synods” had been relegated into an Appendix. That we have revised for the present edition: the statutes of the synods of Szabolcs (1092)–also styled “Book I of King Ladislas’ Laws”–and “the synod of Esztergom” as well as the undated canons of other early twelfth-century synods belong to this group. Together with the statute of Coloman concerning the Jews—as part of this rare group of early “laws”—have been included. However, the so-called “Second Cuman Law” dated to 1279, has been now convincingly argued to be a modern forgery, based partially on an authentic royal charter of that year.[7] While in the printed version the editors’ doubts about its authenticity were already noted, we have now left it out altogether. Finally, an undated collection of legal norms, formerly believed to have originated in the last years of the thirteenth century, was also included in the Appendix as “Compliatio c. 1300.” Containing significant legal measures (although irregular in form), it was seen as the last piece of legislation extant from the Árpádian age. It has now been demonstrated that it originates most likely from a century or so later.[8] Its date cannot be ascertained, the only firm ante quem is the year 1440, when it was presented to King Wladislas I, copied into a booklet; we call it therefore “Compilatio ante 1440”.

With the exception of the early medieval collections (“books”), privileges and decrees are referred to throughout by the date of their issue, as closely as known.

 

1.2     The laws between 1301 and 1490

The decreta of the Angevin, Luxembourg and Corvinian age have been critically edited—based on Döry’s manuscripts—in two volumes: György Bónis and Vera Bácskai Decreta regni Hungariae. Gesetze and Verordnungen Ungarns 1301–1457 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976), in the series Publicationes Archivi Nationalis Hungariae II, Fontes vol. 11 [DRH]; and György Bónis with Géza Érszegi and Zsuzsanna Teke, Decreta regni Hungariae. Gesetze and Verordnungen Ungarns 1458–1490 (ibid., 1989), same series, vol. 19 [DRH Matth]. The editors of DRMH essentially followed their choices, but did not include the fragmentary texts and those that are known only by reference (deperdita); they can be consulted in the two volumes mentioned above. An exception is the decree of 1411, for which a text, not utilized in previous editions, was recently discovered. Thanks to the collegial advice of Dr. Iván Borsa of the Hungarian National Archives, the editors were able to include the reading of this version, as it seems to contain the oldest text. As mentioned above, the “Compilatio ante 1440” is now placed in its chronological context here. The editors yielded to tradition and included one of the royal charters on a cameral contract from 1342, while omitting the others printed in DRH. Three other texts, not decreta proper, but relevant for legal and political development have also been retained: the royal propositions of 1415/7 and of 1432/3, and a Register from 1467. In the light of recent research, it is clear that the so-called Palatinal Articles, earlier believed to have been issued in 1457 or 1458, are of much later date.[9] They have, therefore, been dropped.

1.3     The laws and dietal decisions between 1490 and 1526

The decreta of these decades were never edited in any critical version. For this period, the editors were forced to give up the principle of translating and printing the entire corpus of statutory law. The bulk of legal documents emanating from the period between 1490 and 1526 proved to be too large to handle successfully. As far as we know, during these decades more than forty diets were held, and even though the decisions of many are lost, under King Wladislas II seven (or six) decreta were issued amounting altogether to some four hundred articles (paragraphs); from the ten years of King Louis II’s reign, more than three hundred articles have survived. Besides, many of the texts repeat more or less verbatim provisions of earlier decreta and often contain matters that were merely ephemeral administrative issues. One may even question whether all the decisions of diets—some not approved by the king, others not accepted by the estates—deserve at all the name of “legislation” in the sense that they contain legal norms binding for all subjects of the kingdom. This is especially true for the articles issued at the “tumultuous diets” of the last decade of the medieval kingdom under Louis II. These texts are less legal monuments than political programs, designed for the moment and as part of the propaganda war waged between the different factions. We identify them rather as dietal decisions. Lacking up-to-date, document based studies for the period, the context and background of the texts can be indicated only in general outlines. These will have to be augmented by new research, but at least the surviving texts are worth to be made accessible.

The editors, therefore, made a few compromises for the texts of the Jagiellonian Age. Almost all original surviving Latin texts—based on Döry’s transcription, hitherto unpublished—are included in the edition, but not all are translated and annotated. Actually, the CJH Millennial edition also abbreviated these texts or set them in small type. The selection was guided by the question whether the text contains any new legal (including procedural) measure, or whether it is politically important (e.g. reflecting stages in the tug-of-war between different noble and aristocratic factions, or the gradual restriction of the liberty of peasants, and so on). According to these criteria:

(1) some decreta are altogether given only in Latin;

(2) the rest of the decreta is presented in the usual bi-lingual form but those paragraphs that repeat earlier laws were left out, and marked not only—as in previous volumes—when they are verbatim identical to earlier articles by the = sign, but, this time, also when they are essentially the same as texts already edited elsewhere, containing only stylistic changes; these are marked by the ≈ sign indicating “similar to”; or

(3) even in the translated texts, several overly verbose articles were dropped and instead something of a regest is offered, summarizing their content in a sentence in English and printing their tituli (even though these were mostly added by later editors) in Latin.

 

2 The Latin text

This edition presents, as mentioned above, a hitherto partly unpublished vulgate redaction of the Latin text of the laws, based largely on the transcriptions made by Ferenc Döry. Döry followed, as a rule, the best and oldest available manuscripts: for St. Stephen, the twelfth-century Codex Admont; for Ladislas and Coloman, mainly the Codex Thuróczi; and for the decreta from the thirteenth century onward either the rare originals or the best available medieval transcripts. It is, of course, not certain that there are not more copies in provincial or private archives. For the Golden Bull of 1222 and the decretum of 1514, however, newly established texts have been adduced, prepared by Géza Érszegi, who collated all available copies. As mentioned above, the law of 1411 is also in a new redaction. At some points, where Döry’s reading does not agree with those of the older editions, the disagreement has been noted. In some instances all surviving texts are so corrupt of incomplete that, in order to render some sense, reconstructions proposed by other historians have been consulted. Manuscript variants are included only in the texts from the Jagellonian age (1490–1526). For the preceding centuries the DRH edition of Bónis et al. can be consulted.

DRMH 5, the Tripartium, followed the first printed edition of 1517 (Vienna: Singrenius) tacitly correcting obvious misprints.

The presentation of the texts conforms to the prevailing norms of modern scholarship. Rubrics inserted by early modern editors have been dropped, with the exception of chapter headings in some of the law books of Stephen and Ladislas and in a few later decreta, which may be original. (Exceptions made for the Jagiellonian age are discussed above.) The subdivision of laws into articles is an old CJH tradition and rests implicitly on medieval bases, even though the numbering is modern. The traditional numbering of either the CJH or the first editors has been, as a rule, followed to facilitate scholarly consultation. Differences between this edition and previous ones, if significant, are listed in the concordances following the respective texts. The orthography has been normalized to the usage of u and v, i, and j; e caudata (which prevails for æ) is given as e.

 

  1. The English translation.

This posed more problems than translations usually do. Every translation implies interpretation and thus a certain amount of change and distortion. The editors had to face at least two additional problems. First, the Latin text was in many cases clearly faulty or garbled and had never been properly amended. During the past five hundred years learned editors of the CJH put their hands to the text and did their best to make sense of it. They did so, however, in the light of a living Hungarian legal tradition, that is, of the customary law of the noble natio Hungarica of much later centuries. We attempt to bring the texts as we have it, even if they do not correspond with the expectations of lawyers and legal historians of a later age, or contained contradictions and obscurities. The editors have noted their doubts and problems, as well as earlier scholarly comments in the notes, but have attempted to render the text of the ancient originals as faithfully as possible. This brought them to the second major quandary. It is obvious that medieval institutional and legal terms in the English language originated in the historical realities of the British Isles. Here, however, concepts that grew out of an entirely different historical experience had to be rendered in English words. Many of our learned colleagues in such cases decide to retain the “original” Latin–which may be precise, but awkward. One still might ask, however, how “original” these Latin terms were. Surely medieval Hungarians named offices and institutions in the vernacular and these terms were translated into Latin by the learned clerks who composed the written record—therefore, only their Magyar version, if known, would be truly original. But deploying a large number of Latin or Hungarian technical terms on each page of English text would not have helped the non-specialist reader. Therefore, the editors attempted in almost all cases to coin a term that appears to be a reasonable English equivalent of the Latin of the laws (and, as far as one can presume, of the vernacular original). Finally, only the translation of the word comes remained “unsolved”: since is does not imply noble title (there was, with some exceptions, no titled nobility in medieval Hungary) nor the kind of royal officer of Carolingian-type “count,” the editors decided to give the Hungarian version, ispán, that seems to have designated first the great men of the realm, later royal officers heading the counties.[10] The difficulties with another enigmatic term, regnicola (verbatim: inhabitant of the realm), that seems to have meant landowning freemen, later noblemen, led to an awkward but perhaps reasonable formulation: they are referred to (in the earlier Middle Ages) as “man/men of the realm,” and later as “gentleman/en of the realm.” Other technical terms are explained in the notes.

All in all, the translation aims at the maximum feasible authenticity, bearing in mind that not all readers will wish to enter into the intricacies of local development. The task was to prepare a readable and informative text, not necessarily elegant, but faithful, and by adding notes and glosses, to enable the reader to derive more precise understanding.

 

 

4 The apparatus criticus

As can be expected in a project that was accomplished across several decades with a number of collaborators, the annotations and prefaces to the texts are slightly diverse in every section, even if a certain uniformity was attempted. Every law opens with a preface on its background and textual problems, then lists the manuscripts (used by Döry and usually re-checked by the editors) as MSS, the previous editions (EDD) and a selected list of relevant scholarly literature (LIT). Annotations on historical matters, technical terms, and personal data as well as cross-references to earlier or later legislation are added only to the English translation.
The annotations are composed so that every law can be read in itself, thus repetitions are frequent.

No systematic attempt was made during the preparation of the present edition fully to update the literature in the prefaces and the notes from the printed DRMH, but some recent titles have been added.

Budapest, 2019.                                                                 János M. Bak

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

THE HOUSE OF ÁRPÁD (1000-1301)

The laws of King St. Stephen I of HUNGARY (1000–1038) Book I……

THE LAWS OF KING st STEPHEN I OF HUNGARY (1000–1038) Book II……………..

  CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF SZABOLCS 20 MAY 1092= Laws of King St      Ladislas I (1077-95) [“Book I”]……………………………………………………..

THE LAWS OF KING St LADISLAS I OF HUNGARY (1077–1095 [BOOK II] …………..

THE LAWS OF KING st LADISLAS I OF HUNGARY (1077–1095 [BOOK III] ………

THE LAW OF KING COLOMAN OF HUNGARY (1095–1116)…………………………….

STATUTES OF KING COLOMAN OF HUNGARY FOR THE JEWS (1095–1116) ………

THE GOLDEN BULL OF KING ANDREW ii OF HUNGARY  (1205–35) 1222………….

CONFIRMATION OF THE GOLDEN BULL OF KING ANDREW II OF HUNGARY (1205–35),             1231………………………………………………………………………………………

PRIVILEGE FOR THE LESSER NOBLES BY KING ANDREW II of HUNGARY (1205– 35)1267…………………………………………………………………………………

CORONATION DECRETUM OF KING ANDREW III OF HUNGARY (1290-1301),

              1 SEPTEMBER,1290…………………………………………………………

LAW OF KING ANDREW III OF HUNGARY (1290-1301) 5 AUGUST, 1298……………

 

DIVERSE DYNASTIES (1301-1490)

LAW OF KING CHARLES I OF HUNGARY (1301-42) OF ca. 1320……………

MANDATE OF KING CHARLES I OF HUNGARY (1301-42), 10 August, 1324 …………

PRIVILEGE OF KING CHARLES I OF HUNGARY (1301-42) OF 31 October, 1328……

Charter on cameral contracts of King Charles I of Hungary (1301-42),             1342…………………………………………………………………………………………

DECRETUM UNICUM OF KING LOUIS I OF HUNGARY (1342-82) 11 December,             1351….…………………………………………………………………………………..

LAW OF QUEEN MARY OF HUNGARY (1382–7) OF 22 JUNE 1384………………………

LAW OF QUEEN MARY OF HUNGARY  (1205–35) OF 14 NOVEMBER 1385……

DECRETUM OF THE DIET OF HUNGARY IN 1386 (after 27 August)………………

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) (October 1397)……………….

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437), 6 April 1404 (Placetum regium).

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) OF 21 December 1404……..

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437 OF 15 APRIL 1405…………..

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) OF 31 AUGUST, 1405………….

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) 1411 (before 18 March)……

KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY’S Proposition TO THE ROYAL COUNCIL 1415

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) 23 JULY, 1421……………………

ORDINANCE OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) 17 March 1427 A……

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) 17 March 1427 B……………..

KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY’s Propositions on defense of c. 1432/1433

LAW OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) OF 8 March 1435 (Decretum             maius)……………………………………………………………………………………

EDICT OF KING SIGISMUND OF HUNGARY (1387-1437) OF 12 MARCH, 1435…………..

LAW OF KING ALBERT (1437-39) OF HUNGARY OF 29 MAY, 1439…………………….

Compilation OF LAWS IN HUNGARY (BEFORE 1440)…………………………………

CORONATION PATENT OF KING WLADISLAS I (14440-44) OF HUNGARY, 20 JULY,             1440……………………………………………………………………………………

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS I OF HUNGARY (1440-44) OF 1443 (March or April)…..

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS I OF HUNGARY (1440-44) OF 18 April, 1444……………….

LAW OF THE DIET OF HUNGARY OF 7 MAY, 1445………………………………………….

LAW OF THE DIET OF HUNGARY OF 13 JUNE, 1446………………………………………..

LAW OF THE DIET OF HUNGARY OF 25 MARCH, 1447…………………………………….

LAW OF KING LADISLAS V OF HUNGARY (1440-57) OF 29 JANUARY, 1453………

LAW OF KING LADISLAS V OF HUNGARY OF 25 JANUARY, 1454……………………….

LAW OF REGENT MICHAEL SZILÁGYI  OF HUNGARY ([24 JANUARY] 1458)………….

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 1458 [JUNE 8]…..

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 5 JANUARY, 1459……………………………………………………………………………………………

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 28 MAY, 1462….

CORONATUON DECREE OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90)        OF 6 APRIL, 1464………………………………………………………………………..

REGISTER  OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 1467    [BEFORE 1APRIL]………………..… …………………………………………………..

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 18 SEPTEMBER,             1471……………………………………………………………………………………

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 2 OCTOBER,     1474 …………………………….

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 29 MARCH, 1478

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 15 JULY, 1481

LAW OF KING MATTHIAS I (CORVINUS) OF HUNGARY (1458-90) OF 25 JANUARY,     1486  (Decretum maius)………………………

 

JAGELLONIAN HUNGARY

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF 1492  (2 FEBRUARY ?)……………………………………

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF 1495……………..

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF 1498 (2 JUNE)…..

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF MAY 8, 1500…..

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF MAY 8, 1504…..

DIETAL DECISION UNDER KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF 1507

LAW OF KING WLADISLAS II OF HUNGARY (1490-1516) OF 1514…….

DIETAL DECISION UNDER KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26) 1518 BÁCS……

DECISION OF THE DIET UNDER KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26)  IN 1518    TOLNA…………………………

DIETAL DECISION UNDER KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26) OF 1521……

DIETAL DECISION UNDER KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26) OF 1523……

DECISIONS OF THE DIET UNDER KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26),             1524/5……………………………………..

DECISIONS OF THE DIET UNDER KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26), 1525 (IN       HATVAN)………………………

LAW OF KING LOUIS II OF HUNGARY (1516-26) OF 1526……………………………

Stephen Werbőczy’s Tripartitum (1517)

Abbreviations…………………………………………………

Martyn Rady, Stephen Werbőczy and the Triparitum …………………………………..

Tripartitum opus iuris consuetudinarii inclyti regniHungariæ per magistrum Stephanum de Werbewcz personalis præsentie regiæ maiestatis locum tenentem accuratissime editum

Prologus……………………

Pars I………………………………

Pars II……………………………….

Pars III……………………………..

Appendix…………………………..

The customary laws of the renowned kingdom of Hungary: A work in three parts rendered most accurately by master Stephen Werbőczy locumtenens of the personal presence of the royal majesty

Prologue…………………………………………….

Part I……………………………………………….

Part II…………………………………………………

Part III…………………………………………………

Appendix………………………………………………..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Of this ambitious project, only the five volumes of DRMH and the edition of a few early Russian laws materialized.

[2] See: György Bónis, “Begriff, Wirkung und gesellschaftliche Rolle des Dekrets,”in Idem and Vera Bácskai eds. Decreta regni Hungariae. Gesetze and Verordnungen Ungarns 1301-1457 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976), pp. 15—31 and Susanna Teke, “Begriff des Dekrets und seine gesellschaftliche Rolle zur Zeit von König Matthias,” in: György Bónis with Géza Érszegi and Zsuzsanna Teke, eds., Decreta regni Hungariae. Gesetze and Verordnungen Ungarns 1458-1490 (ibid., 1989), pp. 11—40.

[3] The most frequently used, so-called “Millennial,” edition is Magyar Törvénytár: Codex Juris Hungarici, Dezső Márkus et al. eds., Budapest: Franklin, 1896 ff.

[4] See Andor Csizmadia, “Previous Editions of the Laws of Hungary,”in DRMH 21, pp. xvii–xxxiii..

[5] Stefan Ladislaus, Endlicher, Rerum Hungaricarum monumenta Arpadiana. Sankt Gallen: Scheitlin, 1849.

[6] A. Kollar,. De originibus et usu perpetuo potestatis legislationis circa sacra apostolica regum Ungariae libellus singularis. Vienna: Trattner, 1764. The“Admonitions” were most recently edited by László Havas, Sancti Stephani primi regis Hungariae libellus de institutione morum: sive admonitio spiritualis, Debrecen: Debreceni Tudományegyetem 2004; better than Josephus. Balogh, in: Emericus Szentpéteri , ed, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadiane gestarum, vol. 2,. (Budapest: Academia Litt.,1938;  repr. Budapest: Nap, 2001) pp. 611–28. On this “mirror of princes,” see Jenő Szücs “The Admonitions of St. Stephen and his state,” New Hungarian Quarterly 29. 112 (1988): 89–97, with English translation of the text, by James Ross. Sweeney and János M. Bak, ibid., 98-105.

[7] See Nora Berend, “Forging the Cuman Law, forging an identity,” in: Manufacturing a Past for the Present: Forgery and Authenticity in Medievalist Texts and Objects in Nineteenth-Century Europe, János M. Bak, Patrick Geary, Gábor Klaniczay, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 109—28.

[8] Pál Engel, “Az ‘1300 körüli’ tanácsi határozat keletkezéséhez’ [On the origin of the decision in council of ‘c. 1300’], now in Idem, Honor, vár, ispánság: Válogatott tanulmányok, ed. Enikő Csukovics, (Budapest: Osiris, 2003), pp. 638-48.

[9] Norbert C. Tóth, “A nádori cikkelyek keletkezése,” [Origin of the Palatinal Articles] in: Rendiség és parlamentarizmus Magyarországon a kezdetektől 1918-ig. Dobszay Tamás et al. eds.,(Budapest: Országgyűlés—Argumentum, 2014), pp. 36–45.

[10] That the word was seen as specific for this Hungarian officer is suggested by the fact that in German it was translated not as Graf but as Gespan. Pipo Scolari, ispán of several counties in Hungary, was called in Florence Pipo Spano..