Urbs - Magyar várostörténeti évkönyv 1. (Budapest, 2006)

Abstracts

were partly settlements disposing of freedoms inherent with their privileged status, and partly settlements under the private manorial rule of the king/queen. Their clear distinction is encumbered by the fact that the terminology of laws and charters do not fully contain infonnation on other criteria, e.g. the existence of the town-wall, the fact of their representation at the diet, the use of the red sealing-wax, etc. The study separates "free royal towns" from the other, non-free towns possessed by the king (e.g. Óbuda, Zólyom/Zvolen - Slovakia, five market-towns belonging to the castle of Huszt/Khust - Ukraine) to avoid terminological contradictions. The author introduces the notion "royal free town" for the second ones. Accordingly royal towns can be divided into two larger groups. 1. ) The initially seven, later eight "tavernical towns" (Buda, Pest, Sopron, Pozsony/Bratislava - Slovakia, Nagyszombat/Trnava - Slovakia, Kassa/Kosice Slovakia, Eperjes/Presov - Slovakia, Bártfa/Bardejov - Slovakia) were the "free royal towns" in the narrow sense of the term according to the medieval sources. The group of these towns was already formed before the 1440s. They had a direct connection to the ruler and - in the legal cases among the citizens - their courts had an own appellation forum, the tavernical court. This latter was led by the magister tavernicorum. 2. ) The category of the "royal free towns" is divided into other three sub-categories mainly differentiated according to their court of appeal. a) Some seven "personalis" towns (Esztergom, Székesfehérvár, Lőcse/Levoca Slovakia, and presumably Szeged, Szakolca/Skalica-Slovakia, Kisszeben/Sabinov Slovakia and maybe Zágráb/Zagreb - Croatia as well). Here the cases appealed by the citizens were not discussed by the court led by the magister tavernicorum but by the court led by the so-called personalis presentiae regiae locumtenens representing the king in the highest court. b) The seven Lower Hungarian (along the river Garam in present day Slovakia) mining towns (Körmöcbánya/Kremnica, Bcsztcrccbánya/Branská Bystrica, Selmecbánya/Banská Stiavnica, Ujbánya/Nová Bana, Bakabánya/Pukanec, Libetbánya/Lubictova, Bélabánya/Banská Bclá), were similar to the free royal towns according to their privileges, but the count of chamber had the right to intervene in their matters. These towns had a common appellation forum as well. c) The Saxon towns of Transylvania (Nagyszeben/Sibiu, Kőhalom/Rupea, Újegyház/Nocrich, Nagysink/Cincu, Medgyes/Medias, Nagyselyk/Çeica Mare, Segesvár/Sighisoara, Szászváros/Orastie, Szászsebes/Sebes-Rumania, Szerdahely/Miercurea Sibiului, Brassó/Brasov, Beszterce/Bistrita) and Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) had an own appellation court too. Group a) represents the narrow circle of the "royal free towns", but the notion is also valid for groups b) and c). The majority of towns classified among the inalienable crown-goods in Act No. 3 of 1514 were at least once represented at the diet in the Middle Ages. Consequently, the border line between the "free" and "manorial" towns classified into two, or rather (altogether) four groups can be found in their eventual invitation to the diets.