Xenopoliana, X, 2002
PUBLIC PUNISHMENTS
IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
- Emese Bálint -
The history of public punishments
reveals not only universal methods of treating deviant behavior, but provides
information about urban social networks, population movements and elite mentalities.
Early modern Transylvanian methods of treating those who, in any way, broke
the well constructed moral codes of behavior, indicate basic and obvious similarities
with Western punitive practices. The microanalysis of the judicial system of
the late sixteenth-century Kolozsvár (Cluj) reveal different mentalities, forces
of social cohesion, and forms of cultural transmission. A contrastive study
of different responses to deviant behavior indicate the specific mental map
of the community. Punishments given for offenses and crimes are one of the
most productive ways of analyzing social structure and morality.
Selfperception of the cultural and political elite of the sixteenth century
is reflected in several documents connected to the judicial system and trial
processes. For a historical analysis it is a revealing fact what officials in
Kolozsvár thought to be inadmissible behavior, which violated social norms.
While killing was always considered a capital crime throughout Europe, different
attitudes were thought of as being improper. While describing the judicial system
of early modern Kolozsvár mainly based on trial records, town regulations and
town accounts, one can follow this kind of delimitation, first looking at the
images of proper behavior as reflected in official edicts and laws, and then
describing the popular behavior, which is evident when analyzing sexual offenses
and crimes, lewd behavior, witchcraft, usage of bad language, and theft.
Society in the early modern period was not a community of equal people, where
each individual acts the same way. Distinct cultural differences between the
popular and high culture always existed, and the task of the historian is to
reveal the organizing mechanism of societies, which is to be described with
the help of the preserved archive documents.
The history of public punishment can be best studied in a comparative framework.
Comparison with German and English punitive patterns is chosen because historians
dealing with these countries stress the occurring similarities. Yet, what is
more interesting, they always point out the differences, which can be observed
during rituals of punishment (e.g. the tendency to expose the dead body in Germany
and to use it in the anatomy rooms in England). The distinctive types of legal
systems are in close connection with the local variables, which help understand
cultural and social networks of the given communities. Court records and town
accounts are among the most illuminating of all early modern sources for social
history. Interrogations are a good source for investigating early modern lives,
which would be otherwise unknown. What we can read about, of course, is mediated
by the interrogators' interest, scribes' framing of the story, offenders' defense
strategies. These narratives, combined with extratextual realities allow the
interpretation of elite and popular mentalities. Main drawback is the way in
which this method wipes out the cultural distance between the past and the present.
An imaginative leap of understanding is needed, by which to comprehend mentalities,
which could seem bizarre or unexplainable to us, present-day European historians.
There is a rich archival material, principally in the Romanian National Archives,
and a well-developed secondary literature on the topics of public punishment,
moral codes, norms of social behavior. Sources from the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries are microfilmed in the State Archives in Kolozsvár, and there can
be found different statutes of the town (1536, 1557, 1577, 1578), registers
of the council meetings (from 1557 on), trial registers (from 1516 on) and town
accounts (from 1553 on). A great variety of documents were collected and published
mainly in the second half of the last century. The most important ones: Elek
Jakab, Collection of Documents to the History of Kolozsvár, vol. 2; Sándor Kolosvári
and Kelemen Óvári, Corpus Juris Hungarici. Transylvania, 1540-1848; Sándor Szilágyi,
Documents from the Transylvanian Diets, vol. 2-12; Endre Varga, Documents from
Seigniorial Courts. Besides collections, useful secondary sources are numerous
studies on legal documents and the legal system of the Principality, written
by Elek Jakab, Károly Vajna, András Kiss etc. The theoretical framework of legislation,
morality and punishment are primarily given by Richard van Dülmen in the Theatre
of Horror, Ulinka Rublack, The Crimes of Women in Early Modern Germany, R. P.-C.
Hsia, Social Discipline in the Reformation.
When groups of people live together in the same locality, in order to keep the
community functioning, they have to regulate their conduct by adapting a set
of laws. Those who violate the established rules of the community are subject
to some type of sanction, discipline or punishment. Describing deviance and
reactions to deviance in a certain community, therefore, can reveal the basic
patterns of social and cultural life.
Most of the anthropological studies concerned with smallscale social units,
regarded deviance as something which breaks wellconstructed theories, cultural
patterns and structures. While sociologists systematically studied deviance,
the big breakthrough in the study of deviance in anthropological perspectives
began only in the second half of the twentieth century. A summary of anthropological
and sociological studies is given in the book edited by Morris Freilich, Douglas
Raybeck and Joel Savishinsky1. Although it presents methodological perspectives
for anthropologists working with nonEuropen communities, their models for crosscultural
research can be successfully used for describing communities in a historical
perspective.
The investigation of social norms, and implicitly, the changing notion of deviance
fits new trends in writing history, which are present in the historiography
of the last couple of decades. Instead of focusing on the great deeds of the
powerful, scholars have considered ordinary men as actors of history, worthy
of investigation; and "rewriting" the history of Europe has created new
perspectives for investigating several aspects of everydaylife history. Previously
neglected topics have attracted students, and historical anthropology as a method
of approach, have provided them with a new analytical framework. Bob Scribner's
ennumeration of new themes and new applications of anthropological models indicate
how these trends have gained legitimacy in current historiography2: "major themes
discussed under this heading include economic and political anthropology as
applied to preindustrial European societies; the anthropology of daily life
and material culture; family, kinship and community; honor and patronage; sex
and gender; religion, magic and witchcraft; orality and literacy; ritual and
ritual behavior."3 In this context, an interest towards deviant behavior
and the relationship between a deviant person and the set of norms in a society
has arisen. Close links with sociology and ethnography can help historians to
study deviance in a complex way, having access not only to data which confirm
the existence of deviance in a community, but also to its sociocultural context4.
The methodology called "thick description", which was introduced by Clifford
Geertz5, and which comprises the guiding idea for students of new historical
perspectives. It is based on the interpretation of social interaction in a given
society, and in terms of that society's own norms and categories. The importance
of context, and its interpretation given by the participants (using Durkheim's
definition, actors) is equally valid in studying normative rules in a society.
This comparative understanding of deviance implies a different type of understanding:
our involvements with complex and simple, nonwestern societies lead to a better
recognition of the way in which deviance is affected by sociocultural scale.
Additionally, concerns with fieldwork and with differing levels of sociocultural
integration combine to promote a better appreciation of the processes that generate
deviance. Finally, an anthropology of deviance is likely to create new models,
models that permit the individual to reappear as a viable actor who creates
and recreates sociocultural systems.6
In the next few paragraphs I survey the main set of terminology offered by the
authors, and argue for their usefulness in historical analyses. First of all,
it is worth mentioning that anthropologists prefer qualitative to quantitative
data, and their methods are likely to yield deep insights into the nature and
functioning of deviance. Their conclusions usually rest upon these insights,
while comprehensiveness and sensitivity are preferred to replicability and testability.7
Further, being aware of the complexity of even the smallest community, there
are some limitations and categorizations in the respect of community-types.
The clarification of these structures help to understand their functioning,
and motivate most of our usage of terminology. Discussion of large and smallscale
social units/communities emphasizes the contrast between the two, and indicates
the adaptability of terms for a historical inquiry. As presented by Peter Burke,
new historical analyses are concerned with qualitative evidence, and concentrate
on specific cases.8
The first and basic term borrowed from anthropology is scale. This perspective
was successfully applied in Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's Montaillou, when focused
on a small community, described in depths local particulars characteristic for
that type of village. Smallscale social units are "either independent and self-reliant
(such as a hunting and gathering bands) or are part of a largescale social
unit (such as a tribe or a state). They are distinguished in part by a limited
population, and by the personalistic, three-dimensional ties that interconnect
members of the system".9 The sociocultural context, which characterizes
these communities, is extremely rich; the interdependence of their members
and shared circumstances promote a common knowledge of their personal background,
personality, past, and current behavior. In these communities there is a well-defined
set of social and moral norms, and the access to the shared social knowledge
affects the way people regard and treat deviations from the common norms. "Moreover,
it allows them to rely principally on informal sanctions." At this point
there is a clear indication given by Peter Burke, showing how historical anthropology
uses anthropological means to "translate" the implicit rules in a society.
Informal sanctions can indicate the flexibility of the rules, which in reality
are not applied mechanically. They can be broken, but at the price of giving
offence. "The idea of rules remains a useful one, and so does the attempt to
tell the modern reader how he or she would have been expected to behave in another
century; how to be polite, for example, or how to be insulting, how to be a
thief, how to be a saint."10
Largescale social units are fundamentally different from small ones in the
regard of both their qualitative and quantitative ways. They "lose their personalistic,
threedimensional relationships that are common in small-scale entities. While
small- units are independent, self-sufficient, and possess only few specialized
institutions that exhibit a great deal of interdependence rather than independence"11.
It basically means that most members are unfamiliar with other individuals of
their society. Therefore, most relationships are formalized, structured, and
devoid of personal content (like buyer-seller, employer-employee relationships).
As seen from my presentation, historians are much more concerned with smaller
units of population, but students of social theories dealing mainly with the
concept of social discipline and European penal system, regard these large communities
as the very expression of state power, the power of institutions over masses
of people.12
Put in a historical perspective, the evolution of a town presents features that
first correspond to those of the small-scale social units, and during the urban
development bears the features of both types of communities. It becomes a larger
unit, with independent and specialized institutions, and finally lose the characteristics
of face-to-face communities. Institutions and their power exercised in society
are in the focus of many historians dealing with the growing interdependence
of modern societies13. Quoted by Norbert Finzsch, Peter Duerr's arguement against
Norbert Elias' thesis enforces the idea of continuity and changed interference
in the developement of urban history and the history of institutions: "I will
challange this thesis [process of civilisation] by showing that human beings
in small, easy to survey, 'traditional' societies were much more interconnected
with their peers than is the case today. That means that the immediate social
control, to which one was subjected, was much more unavoidable and complete.
Accordingly, it becomes clear how questionable Elias's assumption is that today
we live in a much tighter ring of prescriptions and rules, since the 'censure
and the pressure of social life' have increased tremendously."14 Discussing
further the history and theory of confinement, Finzsch writes about the theory
of Gerhard Oestrich, who developed in the 60s a concept of social discipline.
His point of departure was that the late feudal system of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries was in disarray. Populations were growing rapidly and shortages
of provisions led to crises, especially in cities. This situation was aggravated
by the failure of the clerical institutions to order and regulate the realm
of propriety and morals. Therefore secular authority had to replace the church
in this area. Finally, the "production of norms" (Normenproduzierung) was
a natural reaction to changes that were superimposed on the cities.15
In the context of social norms and punishments it is important to consider the
growing power of authorities, increasing social control, and improving mechanism
of state control. These characteristics have significant implications for the
manifestations of deviance and for the reactions of others to deviant acts and
actors. Every malady and deviation from the sociocultural matrix bear a social
meaning which is defined by social experiences and judgments. The process of
showing and reporting maladaptations is socially learnt, and often perceived
in a stereotypical way. As a cultural construction just like illness or gender
- deviance varies from one social unit (and implicitly culture) to another,
and it is true for time-perspective as well; being deviant and oppressing deviance
always require the exact knowledge of different social roles.
Defining the social role of the punishment, first of all we have to turn to
the definition of deviance, and to understand its cohesive power by placing
it into the social pattern. As Emile Durkheim stated, deviance is not a marginal
phenomenon in society, but rather a central one because it involves violation
of norms and redefinition of moral and social boundaries, therefore it is an
integral part of all healthy societies. The source of all kind of maladaptations
is a conflict between a person and the social environment. This conflict arises
if the person does not accept or follow something important for others - common
values, common ideals, common rules of everyday behavior, the usual way of life,
oral principles, norms, laws, traditions, expectations - and this behavior is
not tolerated by the community. Durkheim concluded saying that deviance is functional
and good because it is one mechanism of social change. Its main function is
to create and sustain the flexibility necessary for the social system to adapt
itself to varying conditions16.
Another set of definitions taken from anthropological studies is soft and hard
deviance17. Concerned with studies on the micro level, anthropologists and historians
accepted new perspectives in studying communities. The change occurred in the
mid-1950s with the introduction of a distinction between social structure and
micro-level social organization. The investigation focusing on the "exercise
of choices by members of society"18 replaced previous, elegant and very
general social models, and could deal both with the stable elements of culture,
and with those aspects that were unstable, changing, and often varied with the
changing norms. Defining the level of the studied social entity could explain
hard versus soft deviance. From my point of view, this terminology is important
because it helps understand the response given to any manifestation of deviance.
As people are (and were) capable of discriminating between those who simply
fail to act according to the desired norms (i.e. soft deviance), and those whose
behavior threatens the order in a community (i.e. hard deviance). Therefore
it is useful to regard these notions as local variables.
In most parts of Hungary and Transylvania fornication or adultery, for example,
was considered a serious crime and was punished by death. However, in some Protestant
towns, where the social norms were different, it was punished by flogging, shaming
or public penance. The same happened with the judging of theft. It makes a clear
difference to deter people by cutting the thief's right hand or by executing
him. Along with the changing of the social definition of deviance, it is obvious
that the authorities' response to it is altered in concordance. It is not enough
to enumerate the offenses against public rules and the reaction to them, for
the better understanding of functioning of a community it is essential to view
punishment as part of the everyday life and point out those specific features
which make it indispensable in human life. Richard J. Evans focuses19 on the
central aims of the punitive pattern, such as deterrence and retribution, reintegration
by ritual cleansing, and later the intention to reform the wrongdoer. These
are very good explanations, which reveal the logic of punishment. Crime was
regarded as an offense against values and normality, therefore it merited punishment.
The more serious a crime was, the more severe the reaction to it. Proportionality
gives answer to combined punishments: when hanging was not seen as a punishment
enough for high or even petty treasons, the fate of those guilty of this offence
was to be hung, drawn and quartered.
Unquestionably, the intention of the officials differed from the mob's perception
of an execution, for example. If viewed with a modern eye, the early modern
punitive system was something horrifying, very cruel20 and mostly chaotic. Richard
van Dülmen21 uses the term "horror" to denote the harshness of the "theatre".
Every execution was meant as a spectacle for the attending crowd, and according
to Foucault, it was a demonstrative ostentation of power. And as such, it needed
to be public. While the whole trial process was not conducted publicly, the
punishment, even the smallest one, was placed into a public sphere. Nevertheless,
attending an execution and enjoying its theatre-like performance, was a very
specific element in preindustrial societies. Like every well-organized show,
it had the most basic elements: procession with criminals marching through the
densely populated streets of the town, the special place of the scaffold, which
was placed either at the margins of the town or in the main square, a well known
and feared person represented by the executioner, the criminal, the officials
(both secular and religious), sometimes soldiers, and of course, spectators,
the crowd. According to Dülmen, it was first of all an instance of public life,
and secondly, an artificially constructed deterrence. Staging of the criminal,
using the symbols of his crime, its gravity was made understandable for everybody,
and people could define themselves, as being normal, against the criminal.22
Besides the changing judgement of the crime, there is another aspect which I
call the economy of punishment. In trial documents found in the archives of
Kolozsvár there were some procedures of clemency, or applications of a lesser
punishment (floggings, beatings, fines), even when the crime merited a serious
bodily punishment or banishment. These can be explained again with the role
an individual plays in a small social unit: for maintaining the equilibrium
of the community, it needs all its members to actively participate in its life.
If the number of crimes committed were equal with the number of executions,
it would have meant serious losses to the town.
The Principality of Transylvania during the course of the sixteenth century
developed gradually, and the most influential facts were the Turkish alliance
and the spread of Reformation. Unlike Hungary, affiliated to the Habsburgs,
it was exposed to a number of foreign influences, witnessed commercial instability,
inflation, and several devastations. Further, in the second half of the sixteenth
century there were several plague epidemics and fires in Kolozsvár, which caused
serious damage. And it is well known that royal towns severely limited the acceptance
of new residents from the outside of the town. Another characteristic of the
legal system was that executions could be redeemed right before they took place
either by the expressive will of a citizen to marry the criminal23, or after
having made an agreement with the victim's family. All these factors contributed
to the formation of a specific mentality, which was adapted to the local characteristics
and needs.
*
After the introduction
of different terms, which help interpret punishments from below, from the perception
of the members of the community, there is a clear need for understanding the
mentality of the sixteenth century, which constituted the basis for moral judgements.
As mentioned before, every individual in a community knows the rules, which
govern the social entity, and put simply, it appears as a social contract: live
by the rules and avoid causing problems, or break the rules and expect punishment.
Focused on the governing moral rules in Kolozsvár in the second half of the
sixteenth century the complex analysis of available sources can also reveal
representations of lower classes and self-representation of the elite. A simple
analysis of the laws (common law and customary law24) is not enough, because
they were only abstractions created by the political elite of Transylvania.
However, they can be helpful in comparison with the statutes of Kolozsvár, which
transmit a closer adaptation of local demands. The dynamism of morals, and the
actual picture of righteous behavior is best reflected in depositions of witnesses
in trials. Rigid rules were not always respected, they were often broken, and
in practice were applied more flexibly rather than mechanically.25 Besides social
practices of urban population, trial records can illuminate many other aspects
of everyday-life history: family histories, neighborhood relations, material
conditions, personal microuniverse, and life experience. The historian's
interest is, obviously, different from that of the judges', our main aim is
to learn about the conflicts which are detected behind the crime itself, and
its appreciation by contemporary people. The careful reader of the depositions
can gain a deep insight into the moral values of a community. Another aspect
has to be taken into consideration: the great variety of crimes, like those
in the jurisdiction of the Church, moral crimes and other infamous deeds. Therefore
only the analysis of the punitive practice can give answers in the regard of
how crimes were interpreted.
Modern perception implies a very strong institutional background behind any
punitive system. Customary law was an oral tradition, without any enforcing
institution, but with a strong influence upon judgements. It was first collected
and published by István Werbőczy's Tripartitum26 which contains the laws, customary
laws and ordinances concerning mainly the nobility. Werbőczy's intention was
to lay the ground for a judicial system based not on changing customs but on
solid codes.
In addition, there is another aspect which is worth stressing when talking about
morality and judging practices: shifts in mentality, and the acceptance of laws
happened really slowly because cultural changes occur both within a life-cycle
and within generation cycles, from parents to children and grandchildren. As
Scribner argues "given that the period in which a person can be born, socialized,
grow up, marry, procreate and transmit her or his values to the next generation
as parent or grandparent is around fifty to sixty years, we should not be surprised
to find that significant change may move in long waves of five to six generation
covering up to 150 years."27 In this case we know that some elements of
the customary law were abrogated in the eighteenth century28 but some of them
were still legally effective in the nineteenth century.29
_______________
1 Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives (New York; Westport, Connecticut; London: Bergin&Garvey, 1991).
2 The application into practice of anthropological methods by historians has a fairly long tra-di-tion with the school of Annales. Besides Scribner's article see Gérard Lenclud, "L'historien et l'anthropologue", Annales, 1998 (May-June): 695-714.
3 Bob Scribner, "Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe", in Problems in the Histo-rical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe, eds. R. P. Po-Chia Hsia and R. W. Scribner (Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, 1997), 11-34.
4 Peter Burke calls it the "grammar" of a culture, which is used by the members of a society, and upon which, the emitted signals of the users is comprehended by recipients. See The historical anthropology of early modern Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 5.
5 Clifford Geertz, "Thick description", in Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, 1973), 3-33.
6 Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives, 4.
7 Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives. p. 5. In the introduction of his book, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy, Peter Burke emphasized the importance of the complementary use of quantitative and qualitative, micro-social and macrosocial approaches. Case-studies are needed to show how major trends affected the lives of individuals, while statistical analysis is required to show that the cases are really typical, and of what. 4.
8 Peter Burke, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy, 3.
9 Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives, 6.
10 Peter Burke, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy, 6.
11 Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives, 11.
12 See, for example, different works of Foucault, Elias, Oestrich as described in Norbert Finzsch, Elias, Foucault, Oestreich, in Finzsch and Jütte eds., Institutions of Confinement. Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1950, 3-16.
13 One of the outcomes is Finzsch and Jütte eds., Institutions of Confinement. Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1950.
14 Norbert Finzsch, Elias, Foucault, Oestreich, in Finzsch and Jütte eds., Institutions of Confi-ne-ment. Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1950, 3-16.
15 Ibid., p. 13. See also on Oestreich's concept as presented by Martin Dinges, "Foucault and German Historiography", in Finzsch and Jütte eds., Institutions of Confinement. Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 161: discipline was first introduced into the army, the bureaucracy, and the priesthood, and then into the rest of the population.
16 Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Deviance and Moral Boundaries (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1985).
17 Douglas Raybeck, "Hard versus soft deviance: anthropology and labeling theory", in Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives, 51-73.
18 Raymond Firth's theory as quoted in Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives, 10.
19 Richard J. Evans, Rituals of Retribution. Capital Punishment in Germany, 1600-1987 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
20 See for example Ferenc Temesvári's qualification: inhuman perceptions, laws and executions (igyekszünk átfogó képet adni a letűnt korok embertelen felfogásáról, törvényeiről és ítéletvégrehajtásairól), in Büntető eszközök a régi Magyarországon [Means of Punishment in Early Modern Hungary] (Szombathely: Savaria Múzeum, 1970), 3.
21 Richard van Dülmen, A rettenet színháza. Ítélkezési gyakorlat és büntetőrituálék a kora újkorban. [Theatre of Horror] (Budapest: Századvég Kiadó--Hajnal István Kör, 1990).
22 "Societies always view themselves in terms of the Other, a figure that is necessarily fictious in its discourse no matter what the objective reality is." Quotation taken from Jean-Claude Schmitt, "Religion, Folklore, and Society in the Medieval West", in Debating the Middle Ages.
23 András Kiss, "Halálból megmentett vőlegény", in Források és értelmezések [Sources and Interpretations] (Bukarest: Kriterion, 1994), 30-38.
24 The concept of crime within groups living under traditional conditions is different from that in the common law which is represented by the state. See Tárkány Szücs, "A népi jogszokások szankció-rendszere" [The Sanctions of Popular Legal Customs] Separatum ex Ethnographia, 1980 (3-4): 372-392.
25 See Peter Burke, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy, 6.
26 István Werbőczy, Tripartitum opus juris consuetudinarii inclyti regni Hungariae, Nemes Magyarország szokásjogának hármaskönyve. Transl. and ed. by Sándor Kolosvári and Kelemen Óvári (Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1897).
27 Bob Scribner, "Reformation and Desacralisation: from Sacramental World to Moralised Universe", in Problems in the Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe, eds. R. Po-Chia Hsia and R. W. Scribner (Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, 1997), 75-92.
28 Tárkány Szücs, A népi jogszokások szankció-rendszere.
29 Sándor Kolosvári and Kelemen Óvári, "Introduction" to Werbőczy, Tripartitum, xi-xxxii.BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Michael, Approaches to the History of the Western Family, 1500--1914 (London: Macmillan, 1980)
Ben-Yehuda, Nachman, Deviance and Moral Boundaries (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1985)
Bridenthal, R., Koonz, C. and Stuart, S. eds., Becoming Visible. Women in European History (Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, 1987)
Briggs, John, Crime and Punishment in England. An Introductory History (UCL Press, 1991)
Burke, Peter, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (Wildwood House, 1978)
Burke, Peter, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)
Dülmen, Richard van, A rettenet színháza. Ítélkezési gyakorlat és büntetőrituálék a kora újkorba. [Theatre of Horror] (Budapest: Századvég Kiadó--Hajnal István Kör, 1990)
Eckhart, Ferenc, A földesúri büntetőbíráskodás a XVI-XVII. században (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1954)
Evans, Richard J., Rituals of Retribution. Capital Punishment in Germany, 1600-1989 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
Finzsch and Jütte eds., Institutions of Confinement. Hospitals, Asylums, and Prisons in Western Europe and North America, 1500-1950 (Washington D.C.: German Historical Institute, Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Freilich, Raybeck and Savishinsky eds., Deviance. Anthropological Perspectives (New York; Westport, Connecticut; London: Bergin&Garvey, 1991)
Galloni, Paolo, "A bűnök hierarchiája és társadalmi ellenőrzésük" [Hierarchy of Crimes and their Social Control], Aetas, 1991 (2)
Geertz, Clifford, "Thick description", in The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, 1973)
Hsia, R. Po-Chia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe 1550-1750 (London and New York: Routledge, 1992)
Jakab, Elek, Kolozsvár története. Vol. II. Okmánytár [Collection of Documents to the History of Kolozsvár] (Budapest, 1888)
King, Margaret L., Women of the Renaissance (The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 1991)
Kingdon, Robert M., Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva (Rutgers University Press, 1991)
Kiss, András, Boszorkányok, kuruzslók, szalmakoszorús paráznák [Witches, Quacks and Straw-Wreathed Adultresses] (Bukarest-Kolozsvár: Kriterion, 1997)
Kiss, András, Források és értelmezések [Sources and Interpretations] (Bukarest: Kriterion, 1994)
Klaniczay, Gábor, "Hungary: The Accusation and the Universe of Popular Magic", in Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen eds., Early Modern European Withcraft (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Kolosvári, Sándor and Óvári, Kelemen, "Approbatae Constitutiones", in Corpus Juris Hungarici, 1540-1848 (Budapest: Franklin-Társulat, 1900)
Kolosvári-Óvári eds., A magyar törvényhatóságok jogszabályainak gyűjteménye. vol. 1: Az erdélyi törvényhatóságok jogszabályai (Budapest: MTA, 1880).
Komáromy, Andor ed., Magyarországi boszorkányperek oklevéltára [Documents on Witch Trials in Hungary] (Budapest: MTA, 1910)
Lenclud, Gérard, "L'historien et l'anthropologue", Annales 1998 (May-June)
Magyary-Kossa, Gyula, Magyar orvosi emlékek IV. [Hungarian Medical Memoirs] (Budapest: Magyar Orvosi Könyvkiadó Társulat, 1929)
Ozment, Steven, The Age of the Reform (1520-1550) (New Haven, 1980)
Póra, Ferenc, A magyar rokon értelmu szók és szólások kézikönyve [Hungarian Synonims] (Ciceró)
Roper, L., The Holy Household. Women and Morals in the Reformation Augsburg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989)
Rublack Ulinka, The Crimes of Women in Early Modern Germany (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999)
Schmitt, Jean-Claude, "Religion, Folklore, and Society in the Medieval West", in Debating the Middle Ages
Scribner Bob, "Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe", in Problems in the Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe, eds. R. P. Po-Chia Hsia and R. W. Scribner (Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, 1997)
Scribner, Bob, "Reformation and Desacralisation: from Sacramental World to Moralised Universe", in Problems in the Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe, eds. R. Po-Chia Hsia and R. W. Scribner (Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, 1997)
Szabó, T. Attila ed., Erdélyi magyar szótörténeti tár [Dictionary of the Hungarian Vocabulary in Transylvania] (Budapest)
Tárkány Szücs, Ernő, "A népi jogszokások szankció-rendszere" [The Sanctions of Popular Legal Customs] Separatum ex Ethnographia, 1980 (3-4)
Temesvári, Ferenc, Büntető eszközök a régi Magyarországon [Means of Punishment in Early Modern Hungary] (Szombathely: Savaria Múzeum, 1970)
Tóth, István György, Árulkodó úriszéki iratok. Viharok a 18. századi parasztcsaládban. [Storms in Peasant Families in the Eighteenth Century] http://www.rubicon.hu/assign.php3?ID=9002020
Vajna, Károly, Hazai régi büntetések (Budapest: Univers, 1906)
Varga Endre, Úriszék. XVI-XVII századi perszövegek [Documents from Segnorial Courts in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1958)
Vígh, Károly ed., Férfiak és asszonyok tüköre [Mirror of Women and Men], Budapest, 1980
Werbőczy, István, Tripartitum opus juris consuetudinarii inclyti regni Hungariae, Nemes Magyarország szokásjogának hármaskönyve. Transl. and ed. by Sándor Kolosvári and Kelemen Óvári (Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1897)