What legal subjects were stable and which changed in your period. Did definitions of criminality expand or contract? In English common law, all felonies were punishable by hanging with no distinction among burglars, rapists, arsonists or thieves. The tendency over years was to add criteria that avoided treating different grades of criminal similarly. Inheritance and land tenure—stable or volatile? Market regulation, even if only like engrossing, forestalling and regrating. What private agreements were enforceable, and which not? How did judges draw on positive law and precedent?
Thanks, Richard, for these interesting questions and topics. Change vs. continuity is certainly a crucial approach. The author of the law book I'm currently reading emphasizes that he drew on the old customs and the old procedures -- both those that existed just before the Hussite wars disrupted the functioning of all legal institutions and those that existed well before then -- and yet there are chapters dedicated to how to accept new lords into the ranks, so attitudes of recovering/preserving the old past and acknowledging "newnesses" both exist in the same document. Swimming in my head have been more constitutionally related questions than criminal ones, but it would be an interesting avenue to pursue, to see how much they prescribed as far as punishment or were focused on other aspects of criminal law.
Should I write an article about the different types of law that existed in the Czech kingdom and how they related to each other? Or should I focus on the fifteenth century and Hussitism's impact on the law?
Thanks again, Jenny, you've given me a few ways to think about this. I will try to write at least one article that does not automatically cause eye-disappearances, or eye-watering, or any other eye-catastrophe.
Funny, no, Hannah and Rosie will not remain unfinished! I have the next couple of scenes sketched but it does require a lot of patience, doesn't it?
I'm always interested in rhe intersection between Canon and secular law. For example, in Catholic/Orthodox kingdoms marriage was sacramental, but issues of marital dispute or dissolution raise questions about property, inheritance, family power for the upper classes. Have you encountered any cases where this intersection occurred?
Thanks, Carmen! That's a really interesting question. I look at mainly "land law books," that is, books that are considered to be explanations of what the law of the land is, or what we might call constitutional law books. They are less constitutional than that makes them sound, but they do define many aspects of legal life. You're right that marriage is a topic that shows how ecclesiastical or canon and secular law intersected and that it was sacramental, so the church(es) got the ultimate say. Local customs could also dictate who could get married and when, but in the fifteenth century, the century I'm focused on, marriage technically falls under _ius commune_, a combination of canon and Roman law, which was taught in universities. I don't know for a fact that _ius commune_ was taught in Prague (today: Charles) University, but it would be worth looking into. The sources I look at describe what should be done for widows and minors if the father dies, but I believe they are silent about marital disputes or dissolution.
Thanks, Jenny! So your post tends to imply that Czechs had a menu to select from, which is partially true, but there was some law they could not avoid since the Czech kingdom was part of the Holy Roman Empire. They did, as I wrote in response to Carmen's post, write their own "constitutions" and right now I'm reading a late-fifteenth-century land law book from Moravia, which definitely follows the Bohemians' land law quite a bit. The fifteenth century, however, for the Czech kingdom means Hussitism and the Hussite wars, so, yes, there was quite a bit of "going against the grain" at the time--essentially outright rejection of Catholicism and the formation (and eventual recognition) of their own Church! There was also a surprising amount of tolerance, I would say, in the second half of the fifteenth century. The man who wrote the Moravian land law book would have to fall into the Hussite/Utraquist column rather than the Catholic one and he was well-known for religious tolerance.
What legal subjects were stable and which changed in your period. Did definitions of criminality expand or contract? In English common law, all felonies were punishable by hanging with no distinction among burglars, rapists, arsonists or thieves. The tendency over years was to add criteria that avoided treating different grades of criminal similarly. Inheritance and land tenure—stable or volatile? Market regulation, even if only like engrossing, forestalling and regrating. What private agreements were enforceable, and which not? How did judges draw on positive law and precedent?
Thanks, Richard, for these interesting questions and topics. Change vs. continuity is certainly a crucial approach. The author of the law book I'm currently reading emphasizes that he drew on the old customs and the old procedures -- both those that existed just before the Hussite wars disrupted the functioning of all legal institutions and those that existed well before then -- and yet there are chapters dedicated to how to accept new lords into the ranks, so attitudes of recovering/preserving the old past and acknowledging "newnesses" both exist in the same document. Swimming in my head have been more constitutionally related questions than criminal ones, but it would be an interesting avenue to pursue, to see how much they prescribed as far as punishment or were focused on other aspects of criminal law.
Should I write an article about the different types of law that existed in the Czech kingdom and how they related to each other? Or should I focus on the fifteenth century and Hussitism's impact on the law?
Yes, I could do that, but I'm curious what might tickle a more general audience's fancy more than my own. :)
Thanks again, Jenny, you've given me a few ways to think about this. I will try to write at least one article that does not automatically cause eye-disappearances, or eye-watering, or any other eye-catastrophe.
Funny, no, Hannah and Rosie will not remain unfinished! I have the next couple of scenes sketched but it does require a lot of patience, doesn't it?
I'm always interested in rhe intersection between Canon and secular law. For example, in Catholic/Orthodox kingdoms marriage was sacramental, but issues of marital dispute or dissolution raise questions about property, inheritance, family power for the upper classes. Have you encountered any cases where this intersection occurred?
Thanks, Carmen! That's a really interesting question. I look at mainly "land law books," that is, books that are considered to be explanations of what the law of the land is, or what we might call constitutional law books. They are less constitutional than that makes them sound, but they do define many aspects of legal life. You're right that marriage is a topic that shows how ecclesiastical or canon and secular law intersected and that it was sacramental, so the church(es) got the ultimate say. Local customs could also dictate who could get married and when, but in the fifteenth century, the century I'm focused on, marriage technically falls under _ius commune_, a combination of canon and Roman law, which was taught in universities. I don't know for a fact that _ius commune_ was taught in Prague (today: Charles) University, but it would be worth looking into. The sources I look at describe what should be done for widows and minors if the father dies, but I believe they are silent about marital disputes or dissolution.
Thanks, Jenny! So your post tends to imply that Czechs had a menu to select from, which is partially true, but there was some law they could not avoid since the Czech kingdom was part of the Holy Roman Empire. They did, as I wrote in response to Carmen's post, write their own "constitutions" and right now I'm reading a late-fifteenth-century land law book from Moravia, which definitely follows the Bohemians' land law quite a bit. The fifteenth century, however, for the Czech kingdom means Hussitism and the Hussite wars, so, yes, there was quite a bit of "going against the grain" at the time--essentially outright rejection of Catholicism and the formation (and eventual recognition) of their own Church! There was also a surprising amount of tolerance, I would say, in the second half of the fifteenth century. The man who wrote the Moravian land law book would have to fall into the Hussite/Utraquist column rather than the Catholic one and he was well-known for religious tolerance.