Szőcs Tibor: A nádori intézmény korai története 1000-1342 - Subsidia ad historiam medii aevi Hungariae inquirendam 5. (Budapest, 2014)
Rövidítések és bibliográfia
300 Szőcs Tibor: A nádori intézmény korai története 1000-1342 professionalized during the activity of Nicholas, son of Bare, between 1220 and 1221. Then, on the one hand, appeared the first deputies of the palatine who can be regarded as the precursors of the of the vice-palatines, and, on the other, this is the time when, having completed a lawsuit, the palatine's office started issuing judging charters in the name of the palatine. The 4th chapter contains the summary of the palatinal institution from the period between 1192 and 1342. It discusses the changes that took place in the practice, the procedure and the structure of the office. I tried to explore how common law (customary law) influenced a palatine in his activity in a given period, and how far the radius of action of his institution extended, etc. This process can be divided into five major sections from the point of view of the history of institutions 1) The term of the 'mobile palatines' (form the 1190s up to the years following the Mongol invasion of the Hungarian Kingdom in 1241-1242). In this period the palatine and his followers were 'traveling' in the realm, just as the royal court did, without an apparent regional center of gravity. 2) The term of the 'local palatines' (from the 1240s up until the beginning of the 1270s). In this period the palatines did not travel, and their activity focused on a well defined region of the realm. 3) The term of the 'oligarch-palatines' (between 1272 and 1310). At the beginning of the reign of Ladislaus IV, the rival baronial "leagues" monopolized the dignity of the palatine. The 'oligarch-palatines' exercised power over their own territory, from where they rarely moved out. The model of the 'oligarch-palatines' originated in that of the 'local palatines', but the difference between the two systems was that in the case of the 'local palatines' the regional center of gravity was assigned by the king, and usually it did not coincide with the location of the palatines' family estates. In contrast, the 'oligarch-palatines' resided in the seat of their "kindred-estates", and their official activity was strongly interwoven with the oligarchic practice of power. 4) The legacy of the model of the 'oligarch-palatines' (1310-1328). In this period the palatinal exercise of power was very similar to that of the previous one. Nevertheless, the reason why I treat it as a distinct period, is explained by the fact that from 1310 on Charles I recognized only one palatine as a legitimate (Kopasz Borsa) office-holder, and later palatines were able to take their office exclusively by royal consent. Most of the palatines of this period (Kopasz Borsa, Dózsa of Debrecen, Philip Druget) followed the official model of the 'oligarch-palatines', i.e. they resided in the seat of their own kindred-estates, and dealt, almost exclusively, with the cases of this region. 5) The term of palatines with nationwide range (1328-1342). Although I discuss the activity of the three palatines from the Druget family (Philip, John, William) in the same subsection, from the point of view of 'institutional history' a much greater difference can be pointed out between the practice of Philip and John than, e.g. between that of Philip Druget and Dózsa of Debrecen, who was Philip's predecessor. After the death of Philip Druget his office devolved upon his brother, John, but his landed-estates were inherited by William, son of John, who established himself there. Consequently, John Druget was not able to base his
