Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros16ArticlesThe Grand Justices of the Hungari...

Articles

The Grand Justices of the Hungarian Kingdom: the Palatine and the Judge Royal in the Angevin period

Tibor Szőcs

Résumés

L'administration laïque médiévale "classique" du Royaume de Hongrie a été mise en place dans le premier tiers du XIIIe siècle. Dans la plupart des régions du pays, le palatin (en latin : palatinus) était le juge suprême après le roi, tandis que le tribunal de la cour royale était présidé par le "juge du roi" (en latin : iudex curie), qui devint plus tard un tribunal autonome. Cet article retrace l'histoire de ces deux magistrats principaux jusqu'à la fin du XIIIe siècle et examine ensuite les changements intervenus à l'époque angevine. Charles Ier n'a pas transformé de manière significative la structure administrative du pays après son accession au pouvoir, mais des développements internes ont conduit à une grande modernisation du fonctionnement des deux institutions. Au terme d'un processus qui a débuté à la fin des années 1320 et qui a duré plusieurs décennies, la cour du palatin et du juge du roi sont devenues, dans la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle, un organe administratif opérant au centre du pays qui n'est plus tributaire de la présence personnelle du juge principal.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Dynasty shift - paradigm shift?

  • 1 Engel Pál, The realm of St Stephen. A history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526, London and New York, I (...)
  • 2 For the reign of Louis I, see Engel P., The realm of St Stephen, op. cit., p. 157-173. For his memo (...)

1With the death of King Andrew III of Hungary on 14 January 1301, the Árpád dynasty, which had ruled until then, died out on the male line, followed by the struggle for the throne. The struggle was won by Charles I of the Anjou dynasty.1 Thus the Angevin rulers, which had successfully expanded in Italy, gained the Kingdom of Hungary, and Charles’ son, Louis I the Great (1342-1382), went down in later Hungarian history as one of the greatest and most successful kings.2 However, the extinction of the Árpád dynasty brought an important change: it was the first change of dynasty in the recorded history of the kingdom.

  • 3 Györffy György., King Saint Stephen of Hungary, New York, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 93-98 (...)
  • 4 On the building of the Christian church and state organization, see Györffy Gy., King Saint Stephen (...)
  • 5 Csukovits Enikő, « Le innovazioni istituzionali nell’età angioina e i loro parallelismi napoletani  (...)
  • 6 According to the customary law of the time, a valid coronation was performed 1) in the city of Fehé (...)
  • 7 Benda K.Fügedi E., Tausend Jahre Stephanskrone, op. cit., p. 39-40.
  • 8 On Charles’ struggle with the Hungarian oligarchs, see Engel P., The realm of St Stephen, op. cit., (...)

2The The Magyars occupied the Carpathian Basin around 895, and later, the member of the Árpád dynasty was crowned around 1000, and thus the Christian Kingdom of Hungary was established.3 Although the institutional system was radically transformed,4 the ruling dynasty itself successfully preserved and transferred its power by taking the initiative to adopt Christianity and organise the state in a Christian way. The same dynasty went on to rule the country for another 300 years, so there was understandable confusion among contemporaries when King Andrew III died without an heir in early 1301. The fact that the ruler of the Kingdom of Naples ended up on the throne could even have led to a radical change in the system of government. The possibility of this also existed in the example of Charles I, (Caroberto’s grandfather), who conquered the Kingdom of Naples by force of arms. Having defeated the resistance in the 1260s, Charles established a strongly French-centred government, bypassing the local nobility.5 Charles, although he landed in Dalmatia in 1300, and was theoretically crowned king in 1301 (although not according to the contemporary legal tradition, and therefore not fully legitimate),6 had to contend with other pretenders to the throne and a good part of the Hungarian elite who supported them. This struggle did not end when, after 1308, he remained the only king in the country with real power, and in 1310 he was crowned for a third time, fullfilling all the rules.7 Even so, a good part of the Hungarian elite still rebelled regularly against him, and although the 1310s were marked by Charles’ slow rise to power, it was not until 1321 that he finally gained control of the country.8 The grandchild thus gained the Kingdom of Hungary after a much longer struggle than his grandfather had got Sicily. However, these twenty years of continuous struggle did not result in a political system like that of the kingdom of Charles I in Italy.

  • 9 Csukovits E., « Le innovazioni istituzionali »…, op. cit., p. 59-119; Csukovits Enikő, « Az „idegen (...)

3Research in Hungary has already shown that the transformations of the 14th century did not have significant parallels from Naples, nor did the elite change as radically as in the Kingdom of Naples.9 (This is not to say, of course, that the Hungarian elite itself did not change during the reign of Charles I, but the reshuffling was internally, among families that were originally Hungarian.) The same was true of the political institutions. The main offices of the country remained essentially the same institutions in the 14th century, inherited from the previous dynasty. This paper will review the main secular offices, focusing mainly on the history of the two highest judicial offices, the so-called « palatine » and the « judge royal », examining also the changes that occurred during the Angevin dynasty.

The role of the palatine and the judge royal in the pre-Anjou administrative order of Hungary

  • 10 For the early Hungarian government see Zsoldos A.Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 126-129; Z (...)

4The administrative and judicial system of the Kingdom of Hungary was established with the adoption of Christianity at the beginning of the 11th century. It underwent a slow transformation until the change of dynasty at the beginning of the 14th century, and although the foundations remained the same, the institutional system of the late 13th century was very different from the early 11th century in many ways.10 This is also true of the office of the palatine, which is contemporary with the Christian Hungarian state, and especially of the judge royal, which, after all, was not established in its function until the beginning of the 13th century. This chapter presents a brief history of this two offices, which had jurisdiction over the country, up to the beginning of the Angevin period. First of all, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by « kingdom-wide » administrative and judicial authority for these two offices.

  • 11 Zsoldos A., Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 33; Csukovits Enikő, « Hongrie » in de Cevins Mar (...)
  • 12 Gál Judit, Dalmatia and the Exercise of Royal Authority in the Árpád-Era Kingdom of Hungary, Budape (...)
  • 13 For Regnum Slavonie: Györffy György, « Szlavónia kialakulásának oklevélkritikai vizsgálata [Formati (...)
  • 14 The historiography of the Romanian « regnum-question » is reviewed in Rady Martyn, « Voivode and Re (...)
  • 15 Szőcs Tibor, Changes in the Palatinal Jurisdiction in the Territories of the Transylvanian Voivode, (...)

5The classical administrative system of the Middle Ages, which remained characteristic - with minor changes - until the partial Turkish occupation of the country (first half of the 16th century), was established in the first third of the 13th century. According to this system, the crowned king became the ruler of « Hungary » (Hungaria), and also of several other countries, by a single coronation. The range and order of these titles was established by the middle of the 13th century, and after the coronation the king became « King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, Rama [= Bosnia], Serbia, Halic, Lodomeria, Cumania and Bulgaria » (rex Hungarie, Dalmatie, Croatie, Rame, Servie, Galitie, Lodomerie, Cumanie et Bulgarie).11 These titles became permanent, and various subsequent kings may have added other titles, but the core above remained constant. Although Hungarian influence (or at least attempted influence) over each of these countries and provinces prevailed for longer or shorter periods, in the long run most of them were more of a claim, and there was never a moment in history when the Hungarian king in power had influence over all of them at the same time. Of the countries listed, Croatia and, to some extent, Dalmatia were the only ones to have a permanent political reality.12 The « Hungary » at the beginning of the list of titles was further subdivided. In addition to the central area, it had two main territories, Slavonia and Transylvania. The issue is complicated by the fact that from the 13th century onwards these were sometimes, and later increasingly often, called « regnum » in their own right (regnum Slavonie, regnum Transylvanie),13 and some 20th century nation states prefer to find their predecessors in them (the Croats in Slavonia and the Romanians in Transylvania).14 What is certain, however, is that they could not be regarded as a separate country (or even as some other independent entity) alongside Hungary, but were, as the titles of the kings indicate, part of « Hungaria ». They were provinces with their own administration, whose independence was gradually established, and whose institutions and customs were therefore in many respects similar to those of the rest of the country, but there were also elements of difference. The jurisdiction of the two offices examined in the present study, the « palatine » and the « judge royal », did not extend to the other countries listed in the royal titulary (even if there was actual Hungarian influence there), nor even to the territories of Slavonia and Transylvania.15 The « kingdom-wide » jurisdiction must therefore be interpreted in this narrow sense.

  • 16 Szőcs Tibor, « Nádorispán szavunk latin és magyar megnevezése és etimológiája [Latin and Hungarian (...)
  • 17 The latest short summary of the palatine’s medieval history by Csukovits Enikő, « Palatin » in de C (...)
  • 18 GyörffyGy., King Saint Stephen, op. cit., p. 123-125.
  • 19 The « people of the royal court » were a non-freed people who lived in the royal manor-houses (Lati (...)
  • 20 Zsoldos A.Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 129-130; Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit. p (...)
  • 21 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit. p. 34-35; Szőcs Tibor, « A history of the palatinal institut (...)
  • 22 See below, in the next paragraph.
  • 23 In Latin: Kunčer Dragana (ed. and transl.), Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis. Anonym’s Descrip (...)
  • 24 For a list of the 11th-13th century palatines, see Zsoldos Attila, Magyarország világi archontológi (...)
  • 25 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit. p. 101-103.
  • 26 Concerning the changes in the 14th century, see in details the next chapter.

6The older of the two titles is the palatine (the Latin name was comes palatii until the mid-11th century, comes palatinus in the 12th and early 13th centuries, and then - as a result of a process of change over a few decades - simply palatinus from the 1230s onwards, Hungarian: nádor),16 which was one of the most important secular dignities of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary.17 Its origins date back to the early 11th century, to the time of St Stephen (1000-1038), who organised the structure of the court on a Western European, mainly Carolingian, model.18 He also created the institution of the palatine on the Carolingian model. The early palatine was still essentially an official at the head of the royal court, who was both governor and judge of the people of the royal court,19 and also had economic functions.20 He was also the judge of the subjects who came before the monarch in the royal court, and passed judgments on behalf of the king.21 From the end of the 11th century onwards, his functions gradually changed. The economic management of the court was entrusted to a special officer, the curialis comes (from which the office of the judge royal, in Latin iudex curie, was created in the first half of the 13th century).22 The main function of the palatine in the 12th century was to judge at the royal court, deciding on the lawsuits brought before the king. Then, at the end of the 12th century, he became a judge in his own right, thus creating the highest judicial forum in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary after the king’s personal jurisdiction. An unknown foreign author, who wrote a description of Central Europe (Descriptio Europae Orientalis), including Hungary, around 1308, had already summed up the office as follows: « He is called a palatine who is the head of justice in the whole country. » (Palatinus vocatur ille, qui est iusticiarus in toto regno.)23 The office was given to the most trusted men of the king, usually as the last, or at least late step in the career ladder, and from the second half of the 1270s was appropriated by the most respectable noble families.24 Such was the prestige of the dignity that in the late Árpád dynasty, in the summer of 1300, King Andrew III made several baronial families his allies by granting them the title of palatine, and they were able to exercise their power officially in the provinces surrounding their own family estates. This was necessary because when the young Anjou Caroberto landed in Spalato in August 1300 as a pretender to the throne, and Andrew III wanted to avoid the barons joining him en masse, he had to offer them something having a great political value in return. It was the title of perpetual (but not hereditary!) palatine. Therefore the country had suddenly six palatinus, who retained the title even after Andrew’s death a few months later.25 Charles, who had been fighting for the throne in the country, was forced to acknowledge this, so he immediately began his reign in Hungary with the fact that there were half a dozen palatines in the country.26

  • 27 Szőcs Tibor, « Miből lett az országbíró? Az udvarispáni tisztségek kialakulása [What Was the Origin (...)
  • 28 For examples, see Szőcs T., « Miből lett az országbíró? », op. cit., p. 1067-1069.
  • 29 Szőcs Tibor, « A királyi különös jelenlét bíróságának Árpád-kori előzményei [The Antecedents of the (...)

7The other kingdom-wide magistrate is the judge royal (Latin: iudex curie [regie], literally « judge of the [royal] court », Hungarian országbíró). His history is more complicated that in the case of the palatine, and does not date back to such an early period. In a sense, its creation is linked to the transfer of some of the duties of the almost all-responsible palatine in the royal court to someone else. Thus, at the beginning of the 12th century, during the reign of King Coloman (1095-1116), the 11th century institutional system was reformed, by this king, who appointed a new court official, called curialis comes in Latin, to manage the royal estate, following a Croatian model.27 In the 12th century, the curialis comes was responsible for the administration of the royal estate and its property, but when, at the end of the 12th century, the palatine ceased to be a judge of the royal court and became a judge in his own right, the former duties were also transferred to the curialis comes. From the beginning of the 1220s, the name began to change, and during the reign of Béla IV (1235-1270) the old names were finally replaced by the form iudex aule (regie) or iudex curie (regie), which referred to his judicial function. From the 1270s onwards, the latter name (iudex curie) became the dominant one over the centuries.28 The change of name is no coincidence, since it was from the beginning of the 13th century that the judge royal took on the classic role of chief magistrate of the royal court. So, if someone was summoned before the king in a case or wished to bring a case (even as an appeal) before the monarch, the judge royal would deal with it. However, his situation was legally more complicated. The judiciary of the royal court could hardly be equal to the judge royal, because the latter did not always hear cases brought before the king. In addition, there were those who had acquired royal privilege of being subject only to the personal jurisdiction of the monarch. Such a privilege was granted to the Archbishopric of Esztergom, at the head of the Hungarian ecclesiastical organisation, during the 13th century, they were exempted from the jurisdiction of the palatine or the judge royal of every time, as were other private individuals in the last decades of the 13th century.29 In addition, there was a territorial restriction: the judge royal was not authorized to exercise jurisdiction in trials related to Transylvania and Slavonia, and the palatine neither. This is shown by the fact that from the tribunals of the Transylvanian voivode and Slavonian ban, who controlled these provinces, appeals could only be made to the ruler, not to the judge royal acting on his behalf.

  • 30 Szőcs Tibor, « Kinek az embere? Az alországbíró és az országbíró viszonya a 13. század második felé (...)

8From the very beginning, the judge royal also had a deputy, the vice-judge royal (in Latin: viceiudex curie, in Hungarian: alországbíró). This deputy usually represented his lord and was also his appointee, so if there was a change of office between the judge royals, it also affected his deputy, because the new office-holder appointed a new vice-office-holder. However, in the course of the 13th century, there appeared, in some cases, vice-judge royals who ran the court independently of the judge royal and were appointed by the king. The most striking and planned manifestation of this phenomenon can be seen from 1293 until the death of Andrew III, when the judge royal, despite his name, was completely excluded from court judgments and trials were conducted solely by the vice-judge appointed by the king.30 Charles of Anjou inherited this structure at the beginning of the 14th century: although there is theoretically a baron who is called « judge royal », it is not he who actually presides over the court, but the « vice-judge royal » appointed by the monarch.

Transferring the administrative system into the Angevin period

  • 31 See chapter « Dynasty shift - paradigm shift? »

9The period at the end of which Charles’ power extended to the whole country lasted exactly two decades, and consisted of two distinct parts.. Between 1301 and 1310 he had to compete with other claimants to the throne, and he also had to fight to be recognised as the legitimate king of Hungary. He underwent his third coronation ceremony in 1310, but it was the first one that legally met all the conditions.31 From then on, there was no question that he was the only legitimate king in the country, but he still had to contend with the Hungarian elite who rebelled against him from time to time. This struggle, which was marked by political bargaining and armed combat, came to a symbolic end in 1321, when his most powerful opponent, Matthew from the Csák kindred, died in old age. Matthew had established his own small province in the north-western part of the country, where he did not recognise Charles’ power. Although Charles I was never able to strike a decisive blow at him with arms, after his death the remnants of his province collapsed, and all those who had hitherto recognised Matthew’s power submitted to Charles.

10This is important because Charles, who landed in the country in 1300 as a claimant to the throne and was first crowned in 1301, could not automatically take over the institutional system established during the Árpád dynasty. His rule was initially confined to a small part of the country, and although he built up a royal court, he was unable to fill it with all the traditional offices. This could have been an opportunity to build a completely new system, but Charles did not choose this path. Unlike his grandfather, Charles I, who had occupated the Kingdom of Naples, his grandson, who had won the Kingdom of Hungary, did not rely on the elite he had brought with him and on a new institutional system. The main reason for this was that, unlike his grandfather, Charles sought to gain recognition for his power primarily by relying on the Hungarian elite, resorting to armed force only when there was no other option, and then relying on the armed force of the Hungarian elite loyal to him. In other words, the struggles of the 1300s and 1310s were more an internal war than a conquest. Such a tactic naturally implied that the elite allied with it should be spared and that the social and political structure of the country should not be too much dismantled. This was also true of the political institutions, Charles apparently not wishing to completely rebuild the old political establishment, but rather to change it to his own advantage.

  • 32 Zsoldos Attila, « III. András hat nádora [King Andrew III’s Six Palatines] », in Cabello Juan – C.  (...)
  • 33 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 107-108.
  • 34 For source references see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 108.
  • 35 For a list of the palatines of the Angevin era, see Engel Pál, Magyarország világi archontológiája (...)

11This was also the case for the palatines and judge royals. As discussed in the previous chapter, Charles I inherited an unconventional system in the case of the palatine and the judge royal from the reign of King Andrew III. In 1300, his royal predecessor had recognised six of his barons as « perpetual palatines », i.e. he had agreed to allow them to take and use the title of « palatine » within their own estates and provinces. Since there were several persons of considerable power among them (Matthew of Csák, John of Héder, Amadé of Aba and Stephan of the Ákos kindred), Charles thought it better not to make them his enemies at once, and therefore recognized the use of the title for some time.32 This multiplication of the title of the palatine may have been the reason why Charles sought to make another office his first in rank: the title of master of the treasury.33 This office (in Latin: magister tavernicorum), which also dates back to the Árpád age, was somewhere in the middle of the ranking of titles during the 13th century. Charles’ ambition to make it the principal office is clearly reflected in the order of dignities in his charters. The solemn royal charters listed the principal ecclesiastical and secular office-holders, in the Hungarian chancery tradition. The order of offices in the list was fixed and reflected a kind of ranking (though not strictly literal). Traditionally, in the 13th century, the palatine was mentioned at first in the list of secular officials, but from 1307 onwards the title of master of treasury almost always relegated the palatine to second place, even after there was only one palatine, accepted by Charles, until the early 1320s.34 The old order of precedence was first restored in 1322, during the palatinate Dózsa Debreceni.35 Charles refused to acknowledge the primacy of the title until his greatest political opponent, Matthew from the Csák kindred, also used the title, even if illegitimately. After Matthew’s death in 1321, however, this obstacle was removed, there were no longer any uncontrolled palatines in the country, and the office could regain its former primacy.

  • 36 One of Charles' charters of 1302 mentions a iudex curie noster without name, see: Szőcs Tibor, « Az (...)
  • 37 Szőcs Tibor, « Kirendelt alországbírók. Adatok I. Károly kúriai bíráskodásához [Appointed Deputy Ju (...)
  • 38 Szőcs T., « Kirendelt alországbírók », op. cit., p. 494-496.
  • 39 For other examples of the gradual development and the divergence from the classical Angevin institu (...)

12In the first two decades, Charles also organised his court (the office of the judge royal) in a completely different way. It is certain that the young king had a judge royal from early times, although we do not know who.36 However, according to the few surviving records, the practical management of the court was not carried out by this judge royal (who may not have been in office permanently), but by appointing several members the local nobility to solve a case time to time, giving them the authority of deputy judge royal.37 In this way, Charles partly followed the system of Andrew III, whereby the judge of the royal court was a deputy judge royal appointed by the monarch, and there were also occasional commissioned judges (albeit independent of the deputy judge royal institution).38 Charles’ system was thus essentially based on the earlier system, with some modifications. Since he did not gain power in the whole country at once, but gradually, he was able to organise and reorganise the institutional system according to the opportunities of the moment.39

  • 40 Weisz Boglárka, « A tárnokmester jogköre az Anjou-korban [The Authority of the Master of the Treasu (...)
  • 41 Bertényi Iván, « A nádori és az országbírói ítélőmester bírósági működése a XIV. században [The Jud (...)
  • 42 For a list of the names of the judge royals in the Angevin era, see ENGEL P., Magyarország világi a (...)
  • 43 For details, see BERTÉNYI I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 137-150.

13From the 1320s onwards, however, there was a conservative turn in the country in terms of institutional arrangements. The dignity of the palatine regained its first place, while the title of master of treasury, which had been in second place since the 1320s, declined in importance over the decades and by the time of Louis I (1342-1382) had settled in fourth or fifth place in the rankings of dignitaries.40 After 1320, the office of judge royal was reorganised on the basis of the previous period, rather than according to the system of the time of Andrew III. In other words, the judge royal became the actual head of the royal court, and the importance of the office of vice-judge royal, which had been prominent in the second half of the reign of Andrew III, declined and later disappeared, its role being taken over by asupport staff, which became increasingly more formalised in the 14th century.41 The judge royal’s dignity itself became growingly prestigious, and by the time of Louis I it was considered the second most important office after the post of the palatine. This is also clear from the range of individuals from whom the ranks of office holders are recruited. In the second half of the century, the office of judge royal was mostly held by members of the elite, who were more prestigious and had climbed the official « corporate ladder »,42 the only exception being James of Szepes, a middle-class nobleman. Although James was an expert in the curial judiciary (he was first a bailiff of the judge royal and then of the palatine), his appointment was not motivated by practical considerations, but by a complex political game, the details of which are still not fully understood, and he won his title twice within a short period of time, with the support of King Louis’ mother, Queen Elizabeth.43

  • 44 Zsoldos Attila, « Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary at the Turn of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centu (...)
  • 45 For the relationship between the Druget family and the Angevin dynasty see Kiss Gergely, Dinasztiák (...)
  • 46 Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartomány története, op. cit., p. 291-295.
  • 47 Ibid. p. 298-300.
  • 48 C. Tóth Norbert, A Magyar Királyság nádora. A nádori és helytartói intézmény története (1342–1526) (...)
  • 49 Ibid. p. 50-54.
  • 50 On the circumstances and the course of the appointment of Miklós Gilétfi (with somewhat different r (...)

14The office of the palatine, which regained its prestige after 1321, was the most powerful piece on the hierarchical chessboard throughout the Angevin period - it was almost always mentioned first in the dignitaries, as well as in other baronial rankings. Both Charles I and Louis I bestowed the position on their most trusted men, and during Charles’ reign, from 1323 onwards, the only family to have been given the office of palatine was the Drugets.44 The Druget family had a close relationship with Charles' family for a long time. Philip Druget, of Franco-Neapolitan origin, arrived in the country with Charles in 1300 and, as far as we know, stayed with him throughout. Meanwhile, Philip's brother John was living with his family at the court of Charles' sister Clemence in France, and after Philip's death (1327) the office of palatine was given to John, who moved to Hungary with his son William. After John's death, the new palatine was his son William.45The Drugets also built up quite a large private province.46 Charles, after the suppression of the oligarchs who held the private provinces, did not allow anyone to concentrate power, the Drugets being the only exception. With their provinces and private fortunes in the north-east of the country, they were by far the largest in the country - the one and only exception to Charles’ refusal to elevate foreigners to high office. After Charles’ death, however, the Drugets’ careers began a rapid decline, and they were never again to come close to the office of the palatine.47 The importance of the title itself was further enhanced under King Louis I by the fact that, from 1342 onwards, the office was, it is thought, very often elected at Diets.48 This did not, of course, mean that the will of the nobles was always reflected in the person of the elected palatine. In 1367, after the death of Palatine Nicholas Kont, this title was given to Ladislaus (Wladislas) duke of Opole gained the title, and at the time of his accession to office, a wider royal council, and perhaps also a Diet, can be shown to have been convened.49 Nevertheless, the election of the duke, who was a relative of the king, to the post of palatine (having held no office in Hungary before, and having immediately « burst » into the official public life of the time with this dignity) was certainly not the idea of the Hungarian nobles. After the Drugets, it was no longer the case that members of the same family were appointed as palatine, even, the person of the elected office-holder was in some cases a surprise. It is explained by the power reshuffle after 1342 that the successor to William Druget was Nicolaus Zsámboki (Gilétfi), who had previously held only minor offices, as a political homo novus.50 In general, however, the office of the palatine was reserved for prominent members of the elite.

Institutional professionalisation in the Angevin period

  • 51 « palatinus [...] iudices vicarios non habeat, nisi unum in curia sua », Bak János – Bónis György – (...)
  • 52 For a detailed explanation of the vice-palatine system see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., (...)
  • 53 Szőcs T., « A history of the palatinal institution », op. cit., p. 128.
  • 54 Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartomány története, op. cit., p. 290.
  • 55 Szőcs T., « A history of the palatinal institution », op. cit., p. 129; Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartom (...)

15The 14th century saw important changes in both the office of the palatine and that of the judge royal. In fact, it was at this time that both became a « real » professional judicial office. During the Árpád dynasty, in the 13th century, the palatines of course operated a court in the same way, but initially they were still very much linked to their personal presence. Since it became clear early on that the office-holder could not always be present in person, the question of substitution had to be dealt with somehow from the very beginning. From the early 1220s, the palatines appointed deputies to replace themselves, at first more than one at the same time, and by 1222 it was laid down by law that a palatine could have only one deputy and that in his residence.51 In the second half of the 13th century, however, a dual system emerged. A « vice-palatine » (in Latin: vicepalatinus) was seated in Buda (or in the adjacent city of Pest, now called Budapest), and a « deputy judge of palatine » (in Latin: viceiudex palatini) in the respective seat of the palatine.52From the 1270s, the palatine who emerged from the oligarchy kept their court on their own family estates, in their own provinces, which did not coincide with the location of the royal court.53 This problem was somewhat alleviated by the presence of a vice-palatine in Buda in the centre of the country, through whom the judiciary of the palatine was more accessible to those who did not live near the official’s mansion. The custom of having a palatine’s court on the family estate was persisted until the Angevin period, and was followed by Palatine Philip Druget (1323-1327) as well, whose seat was in Vizsoly. The change came during the reign of his successor (and brother), John Druget (1328-1333). After Philip’s death, John Druget and his son William arrived in the country from France, from the court of Clemence of Anjou at the same time. John obtained the office of palatine, but the Druget estates were administered by his son William. John did not settle on the family estates, but in Óbuda (today part of Budapest), the centre of the country.54 This innovation, resulting from his special situation, initiated several important changes. On the one hand, the office of the vice-palatine of Buda was abolished, since it was unnecessary to have both the palatine’s mansion and its « outpost » in very close proximity to each other. On the other hand, it started an important process: after a practice of almost 100 years, the court of the palatine was finally to be separated from the family estates and moved to the administrative centre of the country. All this was fully realised during the reign of John’s son and successor, Palatine William Druget (1334-1342), who moved the palatine’s court from the family estates to the permanent seat of the royal court, Visegrád, in the years after 1338.55 This brought the court of the palatine to a permanent, settled location, rather than appearing in different parts of the country for a few years at a time, depending on the person holding office.

  • 56 For the institution of the palatinal generalis congregatio see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. ci (...)
  • 57 The assemblies held under William were analysed and described in Kruták Anita, « A nádori congregat (...)
  • 58 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 113-114, 130-139.
  • 59 Ibid. p. 220-225.

16Another important and spectacular change took place under John Druget. Not only did the palatinal court move to the centre of the country, but the palatinal court also moved out more and more frequently to rural judicial ways. As early as the 1270s, it can be seen that the palatine or, in Slavonia, the Slavonian Ban, and later, in Transylvania, the Transylvanian Voivode or his deputy, could hold general assemblies for a county. These events, known as « general assemblies » (in Latin: generalis congregatio), were in fact also external forums of justice, when the nobility of the county or counties would gather and bring their cases before the palatine (the Ban or the Voivode).56 Although the custom never died out, they were occasional and often limited to certain counties. John Druget was the first of the palatine to hold assemblies for both the eastern and western parts of the country, and the custom continued under Palatine William. He had already followed a visible pattern of traveling the country regularly every two years, holding adjudicatory assemblies from spring to autumn for a large proportion of the counties, thus bringing the highest level of justice to those who could not or would not visit the royal residences.57 In parallel, in the case of William, it becomes commonplace that the curia of the palatine also functioned in his absence, and it would issue charters on behalf of the palatine. It is clear from the analysis of the use of seals that the palatine was personally present at public assemblies and that the staff of the curia worked on his behalf..58 This personnel was then no longer the vice-palatine: the centre of gravity shifted at the same time to the bailiffs, who, as curia assistants, managed the litigation on behalf of their superiors.59 Thus, following the path of changes laid down by John Druget in the 1330s, the curia of the palatine under the reign of William Druget underwent a strong institutionalisation process. In the space of a decade and a half, it changed from a person-centred office with many archaic features and customary laws to an institution-centred court office, whose location was also moved away from the family estates of the current palatine and into the centre of the country, and whose operating time was not as dependent, as before, on the personal presence of the palatine.

  • 60 Piti F., « Az 1342. évi nádorváltás », op. cit., p. 435-441.
  • 61 Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 75.
  • 62 On this (with further references) see C. Tóth N., A Magyar Királyság nádora, op. cit., p. 43-46.

17At the same time, the office of the judge royal also underwent a professionalisation, namely under a single judge royal, Paul of Nagymarton (1328-1349), who remained in office for a long time, even after the change of ruler. The fact that Paul of Nagymarton remained in office under the new king is noteworthy, because shortly after the death of Charles I and the coronation of Louis I, all the major lay dignitaries were replaced or transferred, with the exception of Paul.60 The innovations introduced by Paul survived for a very long time, in fact he was the creator of the framework for the office of judge royal for the late Middle Ages.61 Although his court was already administratively independent of the royal judicial administration, its function was much more closely linked to the royal court and the king himself than that of the palatine. The seat of the judge royal was always in the same place as the royal court and, unlike the palatine, they did not have to move to the centre of the country. This location was mostly Visegrád during the reign of Paul of Nagymarton, and when Louis I moved his seat to Buda between 1347 and 1355, the curia of the judge royal also went with him. From the beginning of Louis’s reign, it became even more apparent that the judge royal and his court were more closely associated with the king, while the palatine (which was also settled in the same town as the royal court) became more a judge representing the nobility of the country, and these changes were reflected in the use of titles after 1342. After the change of king, judge royal Paul had to indicate on all his documents that he was « King Louis’ judge royal », while the title of the palatine (after some minor changes) was at the same time changed to palatinus regni Hungarie, which did not refer to the royal institution but to the country (regnum), which included the entire nobility.62 In other words, while the palatine represented the community of the nobility of the country, the judge royal represented the king himself.

  • 63 Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 91-93.
  • 64 Ibid. p. 93-94.
  • 65 Ibid. p. 93.
  • 66 Bónis Gy., A jogtudó értelmiség, op. cit., p. 58; Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, (...)
  • 67 Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 137-150.
  • 68 Bertényi I., « A nádori és az országbírói ítélőmester », op. cit., p. 195-198.

18It was also under Paul that the importance of the judge royal’s curial staff also increased. There was a permanent « deputy-judge royal », but he was rarely and only occasionally involved in the judgments, but rather dealt with the background affairs of the judge royal as a private person, e.g. in the administration of the estates.63 The permanent assistant appointed at the curia became the bailiff, called protonotarius in Latin, who conducted most of the trials in practice, although in the 1330-40’s he did not have the power to close it (i.e. make the final decision), but only to take action at intermediate stages of the proceedings.64 The professionalisation of the position of bailiff is shown by the fact that Paul of Ugal, who worked as bailiff (protonotarius) in the curia of the judge royal Paul of Nagymarton, had already worked for the his predecessor, Sándor of Köcsk, then still as a notary.65 In the Angevin period, this is the first known example of continuity of the staff of the office, breaking the strict system of personal relationships. . The best example of a professional career spanning magistrates and even offices is the early career of James of Szepes, the most famous and most substantial judge royal of the Angevin period. In 1351, James was the notary of the judge royal Thomas of Szécsény. In 1356 he was already the bailiff of judge royal Nicholas of Szécs until 1358. In 1360, he was transferred to the curia of the palatine as a bailiff, although the change of the palatine took place in 1356. After the death of the Palatine Nicholas Kont (1367) he remained as a bailiff under the next palatine, Ladislaus of Oppeln.66 From there he was transferred to the office of the judge royal. Although his appointment was not purely « professional », but because he was politically considered the right candidate,67 his promotion was in any case based on his previous career as a curial official. The increased weight of the office of bailiff is shown by the fact that from the 1370s onwards, they could demonstrably take decisions and bring and even conclude specific cases on behalf of their superiors, without their knowledge or practical intervention.68 Thus, by the last third of the Angevin period, both the palatinal and the judge royal’s courts had become a professionalised administrative body.

Conclusion

19The classical medieval secular administration of the Kingdom of Hungary was established in the first third of the 13th century. Although the system was constantly changing, no major transformation took place in the 14th century. From a judicial point of view, the country was divided into a main central area and several smaller territorial provinces, the two largest of which were Slavonia and Transylvania. The latter were headed by two special, provincial government official, the Ban of Slavonia and the Voivode of Transylvania. In areas that were not part of separate provinces, the palatine was the supreme judge after the king. The origins of the institution of the palatine date back to the beginning of the 11th century, but in later centuries there were several changes in the exercise of the palatine's power. The court of justice of the royal court was headed by the so-called judge royal, which later became a court in its own right, but remained the judicial head of the royal court throughout. However, his jurisdictions were not the same as those of the king; the judge royal did not have authority over certain elements over which the king had power.

20When Charles I gained the throne after the change of dynasty the early 14th century, and consolidated his power by the early 1320s, he did not apply elements from his old homeland, the Kingdom of Naples, but, the earlier Hungarian insitutional system continued to operate. This does not mean, however, that there were no significant changes in the exercise of power by the palatine and the judge royal. The archaic system inherited from the 13th century, based heavily on personal dependencies, was replaced by a professionalised system of offices during the transformations of the 1320s and 1360s. The changes for both offices began in the late 1320s, and for the palatine it was linked to the two Druget palatines (John and William), and for the judge royal to the tenure of Paul of Nagymarton. Many of the changes they introduced characterised the functioning of these institutions not only in the 14th century but throughout the Middle Ages. The final stage in the process of professionalisation of the offices was when the staff of the curia were able to conduct a trial in the curia of the palatine and the judge royal without the personal intervention of them.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Engel Pál, The realm of St Stephen. A history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526, London and New York, I. B. Tauris, 2001, p. 124-134; Csákó Judit, « L’arrivée au pouvoir de Charles Ier de Hongrie au miroir des sources narratives », Mémoire des princes angevins 2020, section 1-13  | published online 23/12/2020 | downloaded on 30/01/2024 | URL : https://mpa.univ-st-etienne.fr:443/index.php?id=515.

2 For the reign of Louis I, see Engel P., The realm of St Stephen, op. cit., p. 157-173. For his memory, see Csukovits Enikő, Az Anjouk Magyarországon, II. köt., I. (Nagy) Lajos és Mária uralma (1342–1395) [The Angevins in Hungary, t. II, The Reign of Louis I the Great and Mary (1342–1395)], Budapest, MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet, 2019, p. 119-124.

3 Györffy György., King Saint Stephen of Hungary, New York, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 93-98; Zsoldos Attila., The Legacy of Saint Stephen, Budapest, Lucidus, 2004, p. 41-49.

4 On the building of the Christian church and state organization, see Györffy Gy., King Saint Stephen…, op. cit., p. 104-126; Zsoldos A., Legacy of Saint Stephen, op. cit., p. 71-103.

5 Csukovits Enikő, « Le innovazioni istituzionali nell’età angioina e i loro parallelismi napoletani », in Csukovits E. (ed.), L’Ungheria angioina, Roma, Viella, 2013, p. 69-73.

6 According to the customary law of the time, a valid coronation was performed 1) in the city of Fehérvár (today Székesfehérvár) 2) by the Archbishop of Esztergom, the highest ecclesiastical leader in the country 3) with a specific crown, the so-called « Holy Crown ». At the coronation of Charles in 1301, the Holy Crown was missing and the ceremony was not performed in Fehérvár. Benda Kálmán – Fügedi Erik, Tausend Jahre Stephanskrone, Budapest, Corvina, 1988, p. 32-34; Zsoldos Attila, The Árpáds and Their People. An Introduction to the History of Hungary from cca. 900 to 1301, Budapest, Research Centre for the Humanities, 2020, p. 54-55.

7 Benda K.Fügedi E., Tausend Jahre Stephanskrone, op. cit., p. 39-40.

8 On Charles’ struggle with the Hungarian oligarchs, see Engel P., The realm of St Stephen, op. cit., p. 124-134; Csákó J., « L’arrivée au pouvoir de Charles », op. cit., p. 1-13.

9 Csukovits E., « Le innovazioni istituzionali »…, op. cit., p. 59-119; Csukovits Enikő, « Az „idegen” Anjou-ház [The „Foreign” Angevin Dynasty] », Történelmi Szemle 147, 2018:4, p. 1-10.

10 For the early Hungarian government see Zsoldos A.Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 126-129; Zsoldos Attila, « Comitat » in DE CEVINS Marie-Madeleine et al. (eds), Démystifier l’Europe centrale: Bohême, Hongrie et Pologne du VIIe au XVIe siècle, Paris: Passés composés, 2021. p. 374-375.

11 Zsoldos A., Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 33; Csukovits Enikő, « Hongrie » in de Cevins Marie-Madeleine et al. (eds), Démystifier l’Europe centrale, op. cit. p. 507-509; for the toponyms mentioned see also the map ibid.

12 Gál Judit, Dalmatia and the Exercise of Royal Authority in the Árpád-Era Kingdom of Hungary, Budapest, Research Centre for the Humanities, 2020, p. 13-16.

13 For Regnum Slavonie: Györffy György, « Szlavónia kialakulásának oklevélkritikai vizsgálata [Formation of Slavonia in the Light of Critical Analysis of the Charters] », Levéltári Közlemények 41, 1970/2, p. 239; Kristó Gyula, A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon [The Feudal Particularism in Hungary], Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979, p. 93-94. For Regnum Transylvanie: Kristó Gyula, Early Transylvania (895-1324), Budapest, Lucidus, 2003, p. 164; a different approach: Sălăgean Tudor, Transylvania in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century. The Rise of the Congregational System, Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2016, p. 157-165.

14 The historiography of the Romanian « regnum-question » is reviewed in Rady Martyn, « Voivode and Regnum: Transylvania’s Place in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary », in Péter László (ed.), Historians and the History of Transylvania, Boulder – New York, East Europe Monographs, 1992, p. 87-101.

15 Szőcs Tibor, Changes in the Palatinal Jurisdiction in the Territories of the Transylvanian Voivode, the Ban of Slavonia and the Ban of Mačva in the Early Fourteenth Century (under press)

16 Szőcs Tibor, « Nádorispán szavunk latin és magyar megnevezése és etimológiája [Latin and Hungarian Name and Etymology of Word Nádorispán », in Székely Tünde (ed.), X. RODOSz Konferencia-kötet: bölcsésztudományok – élő- és élettelen természettudományok – orvostudományok – műszaki tudományok, Kolozsvár, Clear Vision Könyvkiadó, 2009, p. 188-192; Szőcs Tibor, A nádori intézmény korai története 1000–1342 [The Early History of the Palatinal Institution 1000-1342], Budapest, MTA TKI, 2014, p. 14-16.

17 The latest short summary of the palatine’s medieval history by Csukovits Enikő, « Palatin » in de Cevins Marie-Madeleine et al. (eds), Démystifier l’Europe centrale, op. cit. p. 682.

18 GyörffyGy., King Saint Stephen, op. cit., p. 123-125.

19 The « people of the royal court » were a non-freed people who lived in the royal manor-houses (Latin: curia or curtis). These manor-houses were scattered throughout the country and provided for the constantly moving royal court. See Zsoldos A., Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 61-64.

20 Zsoldos A.Árpáds and Their People, op. cit., p. 129-130; Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit. p. 34-39.

21 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit. p. 34-35; Szőcs Tibor, « A history of the palatinal institution in the Árpádian Age and in the first half of the Angevin Period (1000–1342) », Chronica. Annual of the Institute of History University of Szeged 13, 2017, p. 126-127.

22 See below, in the next paragraph.

23 In Latin: Kunčer Dragana (ed. and transl.), Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis. Anonym’s Description of Eastern Europe, Belgrade, The Institute of History, 2013, p. 141.

24 For a list of the 11th-13th century palatines, see Zsoldos Attila, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000–1301 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary 1000-1301], Budapest, MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2011, p. 15-25.

25 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit. p. 101-103.

26 Concerning the changes in the 14th century, see in details the next chapter.

27 Szőcs Tibor, « Miből lett az országbíró? Az udvarispáni tisztségek kialakulása [What Was the Origin of the Judge Royal? On the Emergence of the Office of Curialis Comes] », Századok 151, 2017:5, p. 1081-1087.

28 For examples, see Szőcs T., « Miből lett az országbíró? », op. cit., p. 1067-1069.

29 Szőcs Tibor, « A királyi különös jelenlét bíróságának Árpád-kori előzményei [The Antecedents of the Royal Court of Special Presence in the Árpád era] », in Papp Sándor (ed.), Urbs, civitas, universitas. Ünnepi tanulmányok Petrovics István 65. születésnapja tiszteletére, Szeged, SZTE Középkori és Kora Újkori Magyar Történeti Tanszék, 2018, p. 284-289.

30 Szőcs Tibor, « Kinek az embere? Az alországbíró és az országbíró viszonya a 13. század második felében [Whose Man? The Relationship between the Judge Royal and Deputy Judge Royal in the Second Part of the 13th Century] », Történelmi Szemle, 58, 2016, p. 262–263.

31 See chapter « Dynasty shift - paradigm shift? »

32 Zsoldos Attila, « III. András hat nádora [King Andrew III’s Six Palatines] », in Cabello Juan – C. Tóth Norbert (eds), Erősségénél fogva várépítésre való. Tanulmányok a 70 éves Németh Péter tiszteletére, Nyíregyháza, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2011, p. 299; Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 101-103.

33 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 107-108.

34 For source references see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 108.

35 For a list of the palatines of the Angevin era, see Engel Pál, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301-1457 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary 1301-1457], I, Budapest, História, 1996, p. 1-4.

36 One of Charles' charters of 1302 mentions a iudex curie noster without name, see: Szőcs Tibor, « Az Anjou elit kormányzati feladatai [The Administrative Duties of the Elite in the Angevin era] », in Csukovits Enikő (ed.), Az Anjou-kor hatalmi elitje, Budapest, Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 2020, p. 172, note. 39; the earlier literature also assumed other persons to have been judge royal, for the uncertainties in this regard see Bertényi Iván, Az országbírói intézmény története a XIV. században [A History of the Institution of the Judge Royal in the 14th Century], Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976, p. 60-61.

37 Szőcs Tibor, « Kirendelt alországbírók. Adatok I. Károly kúriai bíráskodásához [Appointed Deputy Judge Royals. Contributions to Charles I’s Curial Jurisdiction] », in Fedeles Tamás – Hunyadi Zsolt (eds), Szent Márton és Benedek nyomában. Tanulmányok Koszta László emlékére, Szeged – Debrecen, SZTE Középkori és Kora Újkori Magyar Történeti Tanszék, 2020, p. 480-498.

38 Szőcs T., « Kirendelt alországbírók », op. cit., p. 494-496.

39 For other examples of the gradual development and the divergence from the classical Angevin institutional system, see Szőcs T., « Az Anjou elit kormányzati feladatai », op. cit., p. 172-173.

40 Weisz Boglárka, « A tárnokmester jogköre az Anjou-korban [The Authority of the Master of the Treasury in the Angevin Period] », in Weisz Boglárka (ed.), Pénz, posztó, piac. Gazdaságtörténeti tanulmányok a magyar középkorról, Budapest, MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, 2016, p. 182-183.

41 Bertényi Iván, « A nádori és az országbírói ítélőmester bírósági működése a XIV. században [The Judicial Function of the Palatine and Judge Royal Bailiff in the 14th Century] », Levéltári Közlemények 35, 1964, p. 187-205; Bónis GYörgy, A jogtudó értelmiség a Mohács előtti Magyarországon [The Legal Intellectuals in Pre-Mohács (before 1526) Hungary], Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971, p. 46-73.

42 For a list of the names of the judge royals in the Angevin era, see ENGEL P., Magyarország világi archontológiája, op. cit., p. 6-9; for a summary of the career of the judge royals, see BERTÉNYI I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 64, 67-68, 74, 106-113, 146, 178-180.

43 For details, see BERTÉNYI I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 137-150.

44 Zsoldos Attila, « Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary at the Turn of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries », Hungarian Historical Review 2, 2013, p. 219-220; Csukovits Enikő, « Le gouvernement du royaume de Hongrie: personnel et institutions », in Rao Riccardo (ed.), Les grands officiers dans les territoires angevins – I grandi ufficiali nei territori angioini, Roma, École française de Rome, 2016, section 7 | published online on 05/04/2016 | downloaded on 18/02/2024 | URL: https://books.openedition.org/efr/3042; for a monograph on the history of the Druget family and their province in Hungary, see Zsoldos Attila, A Druget-tartomány története 1315–1342 [The History of the Druget Province 1315-1342], Budapest, MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, 2017, English summary p. 289-302; see also Zsoldos Attila, « Druget, lignage » in de Cevins Marie-Madeleine et al. (eds), Démystifier l’Europe centrale, op. cit. p. 433.

45 For the relationship between the Druget family and the Angevin dynasty see Kiss Gergely, Dinasztiák keresztútján a 13. század végén – a 14. század első felében. I. Károly testvérei (Klemencia, Beatrix) és rokonaik szerepe a dinasztikus kapcsolatok és -identitás alakulásában. [Dynasties on the crossroad in the late 13th century and the first half of the 14th century. The role of Charles I's sisters (Clemence, Beatrice) and their relatives in the development of dynastic relations and identity.] Akadémiai doktori értekezés [Doctoral Thesis for Hungarian Academy of Sciences], Pécs, 2021. p. 116, 120-121, 531, 536-537 | downloaded on 10/03/2024 | URL: https://real-d.mtak.hu/1416/7/dc_1909_21_doktori_mu.pdf

46 Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartomány története, op. cit., p. 291-295.

47 Ibid. p. 298-300.

48 C. Tóth Norbert, A Magyar Királyság nádora. A nádori és helytartói intézmény története (1342–1526) [The Palatine of the Hungarian Kingdom. The History of the Palatinal and Governor Institution 1342-1526], Budapest, Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 2020, p. 40-71.

49 Ibid. p. 50-54.

50 On the circumstances and the course of the appointment of Miklós Gilétfi (with somewhat different reconstructions) see Piti Ferenc, « Az 1342. évi nádorváltás [The Change of Palatine in 1342] », Századok 140, 2006/2, p. 435-441; Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 141-145; Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartomány története, op. cit., p. 188-193; C. Tóth N., A Magyar Királyság nádora, op. cit., p. 40-46.

51 « palatinus [...] iudices vicarios non habeat, nisi unum in curia sua », Bak János – Bónis György – Sweeney James Ross (eds and transl), The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Decreta regni mediaevalis Hungariae, I, Bakersfield CA., Schlacks, 1989, p. 35. For details on the early vice-palatines see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 203-204.

52 For a detailed explanation of the vice-palatine system see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 205-210.

53 Szőcs T., « A history of the palatinal institution », op. cit., p. 128.

54 Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartomány története, op. cit., p. 290.

55 Szőcs T., « A history of the palatinal institution », op. cit., p. 129; Zsoldos A., A Druget-tartomány története, op. cit., p. 291; for a detailed derivation see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 125-141.

56 For the institution of the palatinal generalis congregatio see Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 163-180; for the banalis see B. Halász Éva, « The congregatio generalis banalis in Slavonia in the thirteenth and fourtheenth centuries », in Miljan Suzana – B. Halász Éva – Simon Alexandru (eds), Reform and Renewal in Medieval East and Central Europe: Politics, Law and Society, Cluj-Napoca – Zagreb – London, Romanian Academy and Croatian Academy – University College London, 2019, p. 373-389; for the Transylvanian: Janits Iván, Az erdélyi vajdák igazságszolgáltató és oklevéladó működése 1526-ig [The Judicial and Charter-Issuing Activities of the Transylvanian Voivodes until 1526], Budapest, Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1940, p. 38-41; Kristó Gy., Early Transylvania, op. cit., p. 220-221, 229-234. For a different view of the institution of the generalis congregatio in Romanian historiography, focusing on the Transylvanian assemblies, see Sălăgean T., Transylvania in the Second Half, op. cit., p. 143-148, 153-175, 186-189, 234-240.

57 The assemblies held under William were analysed and described in Kruták Anita, « A nádori congregatio intézménye Druget Vilmos nádorsága alatt [The Institution of Congregatio Generalis Palatini during the Office-Holding of William Druget] », in Kiss P. Attila – Piti Ferenc – Szabados György (eds), Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 7., Szeged, Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 2012, p. 425-438.

58 Szőcs T., A nádori intézmény, op. cit., p. 113-114, 130-139.

59 Ibid. p. 220-225.

60 Piti F., « Az 1342. évi nádorváltás », op. cit., p. 435-441.

61 Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 75.

62 On this (with further references) see C. Tóth N., A Magyar Királyság nádora, op. cit., p. 43-46.

63 Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 91-93.

64 Ibid. p. 93-94.

65 Ibid. p. 93.

66 Bónis Gy., A jogtudó értelmiség, op. cit., p. 58; Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 139-140.

67 Bertényi I., Az országbírói intézmény története, op. cit., p. 137-150.

68 Bertényi I., « A nádori és az országbírói ítélőmester », op. cit., p. 195-198.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Tibor Szőcs, « The Grand Justices of the Hungarian Kingdom: the Palatine and the Judge Royal in the Angevin period »Mémoire des princes angevins [En ligne], 16 | 2025, mis en ligne le 23 octobre 2025, consulté le 10 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mpa/448 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/153a8

Haut de page

Auteur

Tibor Szőcs

Senior research fellow, HUN-REN–MNL–SZTE Research Group for Medieval Studies (Hungary)

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search