Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1999 (3. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)
Mentalităţi
The Trial by Hot Iron Ceremony 23 Connected with this moment of the unbinding of the hand was an interesting case of two persons who did not allow the canons to unbind their hands.139 Other cases related either to the refuges in the church140 or the refusal to come out to the church141 not allowing in this way that their hand be inspected. Sometimes it is stated that the reason why they sought refuge in the church was that their hand was unhealed. It could also happen that after carrying the hot iron the person either did not wait for the unbinding-moment and ran away142 or the accuser renounced the charges.143 144 The above-mentioned act, solutio manus, was the final act of the trial by hot iron. The canons inspected the accuseds’ hands and made public the judgment. III. After the “cathedral scene” The result of the hand-inspection made by the canons of Oradea chapter was communicated to a lay judge who pronounced the sentence. 1. If the accused was found innocent by the trial, the ordeal-ceremony was closed with a thanksgiving, as the rules of the trial prescribed: laus Deo referatur, or Deo gratuleturf4 It was also possible that the accuser was condemned for false charges.145 trium, scilicet. Visam, Virsint et Mil, fracto sigillo Capituli, falso sigillo fuerant sigillatae. Qui pro iniustis habiti sunt.” Ibid., no. 280, p. 258 cp. Solymosi, “Guden magánoklevele”, 103. 139 See, for instance the Szolnok castle-men case from 1213: “Georgius itaque pro se et cognatis suis praenominatis, portato ferro Waradini, cum solvi deberet, non est permissus absolvi a Bulsu et Bucicud, quorum uterque vice et in persona adversariorum suorum se stare dicentes, resignaverunt, praedictos Felicianum, Thomam et Georgium esse omnino liberos, ut illi de se asserebant.” Karácsonyi, and Borovszky, Regeslrum Varadinense, no. 52, p. 173 cp. Jakó, Codex diplomatics, no. 58, p. 139. 140 See, for example Vitalis' case from 1220: “... Vitalis, portato ferro, confugit ad ecclesiam, dicens se esse combustum.” Karácsonyi, and Borovszky, Regestrum Varadinense, no. 257, p. 249; Michael’s case from 1220 is very similar: “Praedicti fures [ioubagiones Sebastiani de Pou, scilicet, Michaelem et Kepam, filios Nicolai], portato ferro, combusti sunt. Sed Michael confugit ad ecclesiam.” Ibid., no. 269, pp. 253-54. 141 “Baghia vero de villa Gurbey, ioubagio Germani, combustus est et de ecclesia non exiuit ad solutionem.” Ibid., no. 286, p. 260; Manta and John’s case from 1221 is the same: “Ex illis Manta et Joannes, portato ferro, ad solutionem non exiverunt de ecclesia...” Ibid., no. 296, p. 265. 142 See, for instance Budev’s case from 1220: “Praedictus Budev, portato ferro, antequam solveretur, aufugit.” Ibid., no. 270, p. 254; Mocyod’s case from 1221 is very similar: “Praedictus Jacob in dato termino non venit in locum. Mocyod vero, portato ferro, ante solutionem manus fugit.” Ibid., no. 298, p. 266. 143 See, for instance Peter and Unoka’s case from 1219: “Vnuca de villa Zamtou impetiit conuillanum suum, scilicet Paulum, de furto ... Paulus, portato ferro, dum die Dominica (Da pacem) manum suam soluendam porrigeret, supradictus Vnuca renunciauit iudicio ferri candentis, dicens, se falsa opinione inductum supra nominatum Paulum de furto impetiisse.” Ibid., no. 233, pp. 240-41. 144 Solymosi, “Guden magánoklevele,” 103-104. 145 See, for instance Hagya and Henguch’s case from 1235: “...Hagya, civis Culusiensis, impetiisset nomine Henguch de villa Hem, pro furto, et Henguch iudico ferri fuisset justificatus, praenominatus Hagya remansit in iudicio sex marcarum, et eo non habente, unde sex marcas persolveret, iudex huius causae, nomine Nuetlen, curialis comes, per manum pristaldi sui nomine Luca de villa Lomb, posuit eum et uxorem eius et unicum filium eiusdem, nomine Abbeus, pro sex marcis apud avum suum, nomine Valderum, hospitem de Bichor.” Karácsonyi, and Borovszky, Regestrum Varadinense, no. 388, pp. 306-307 cp. Jakó, Codex diplomatics, no. 182, p. 182.
