u;ta m striae • 10 ■ 2002 ■ 1 received: 2002-02-04 UDC 343.61(494 Zurich)" I4"(094.5> 'she was killed wretchedly and without a cause': social status and the language of violence in zürcher homicide trials of the fifteenth century Suzanne POHL Cornell University, Department of History, Ithaca NY 14853-400!.. USA 430 McOraw Hall e-maif sp!08<® Cornell.edit ABSTRACT In Ziircker homicide trials of the fifteenth century, injured parties sought revenge by portraying the siayings as dishonorable. Yet the language of violence was dependent on the respective, slants of slayer and victim, in cases that involved men of relatively equal status, cries for vengeance rang loud and clear. They were more muffled when the victim was a woman or a man of lower status than his perpetrator. Discussion of such a case suggests that, rather than directly blaming the slayer, friends of the victim appealed to the empathy of the council by focusing on the suffering body of the slain woman. Key words: municipal law, penal act, homicide, Zurich, 15th century "FU UCCISA BRUTALMENTE E SENZA MOTIVO": LO STATO SOCIALE E IL LINGUAGGIO DELLA VIOLENZA NEI TRIBUNALI DI ZURIGO DEL XV SECOLO SINTESl. Nei processi di Zitrcher del quindicesimo secolo per omicidio, le parti offese. si vendicavano descrivendo le uccisioni come disonorevoh Tuttavia il linguaggio della violenza dipendeva dalla condizione sociale dell'uccisore e della vittima. Nei cast cite vedeva.no coinvoki. uomitti di uguale condizione sociale, le richieste di vendetta erano acclamate. a gran voce, mentre erano piu sommesse quando la vittima era una donna o tin uomo di condizione sociale inferiors a quella del fautore del crimine. L'analisi di un caso simile sembra suggerire cite, invece di ColpevoUzzare I'uccisore, i conoscenti della vittima fecero leva sulTempatia della giuria concentrattdosi std corpo sofferente della donna assassinata. Parole chiave: statuti urbani, atti petiali, omicidi, Zurigo, XV secolo 247 ACTA Hl STRIAE • 1« • 2UU2 • ! Swuwk ä'OHU SHE WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLY AND WITHOUT A CAUSE'. SOCIAL STATUS . MV-iM Nineteenth ccntury textbooks of legal history present a rather straightforward pictuie of late medieval law and society. The settlement of disputes was dominated by mechanisms of private violence, and peacemaking, and this was followed by the emergence of centralized legal systems in Europe, which gradually criminalized interpersonal violence and forced contestants to solve their disputes through the courts. The scholarly work of recent decades shows that the story is far more complcx. Ralher than replacing private mechanisms of dispute resolution, emerging courls in medieval Europe coexisted with systems of vengeance and peacemaking, and not always in a way that favored the former. Litigants could use the courts as just another form of vengeance, adding the possibility of stigmatizing their enemies in a public forum to physical violence. In a recent study on the justice system in fourteenth century Marseille, Daniel Smail has argued thai a prominent blood feud that tore the city apart in the 135Ok was actually aided by the courts, because they gave contestants an opportunity for the "telling of a history" (Smail, 199?, 187). This public fashioning of tales of violence solidified party lines, as each faction created a group memory that justified Iheir pursuit of vengeance and blackened their opponents. The analysis of the language of violence used by defendants is thus a good indicator to understand the relationship between the culture of violence and late medieval justice. At times, this language can represent a compromise that symbolizes an exchange between state authority and defendants. In her study of sixteenth century remission letters, Natalie Zemon Davis analyzes the parameters of such an exchange. The French kings made concessions to the culture of violence by extending the possibility of a pardon to slayers. While the government thus indirectly sanctioned the use of violence in French disputing culture, defendants had to play by the rules of the state. The procedure defendants had to follow in order to obtain a remission letter underscored the authority of the king and his ultimate claim to a monopoly on the execution of violence; and iri these letters, slayers could not tell their stories like a "hero in a folktale showing his strength," but had to distance themselves from their violence (Zemon Davis, 1987, 57). Here, we also look at homicide and the legal language of violence it spawned. The protagonists are not the slayers, but injured families and witnesses. The setting is fifteenth-century Zürich, which was a free city of the German Empire. Political power there lay with the artisan and trade guilds and the Konstajfel, the guild of the urban patricians. Each guild annually elected some of its members into the city council.1 This council presided over Zürich's most important court, the Raisgencht [coun- 1 From a large council of about two hundred members arose a small council of some twenty-four. The large council was consulted in certain important affairs, lot example, about war and peace. Actual power lay with the small council, that met almost daily to regulate economic, legal, and political affairs of the city Henceforth, the term "city council" here refers to the small council. Tne exact composition of the city council has been adequately discussed by Ruoff, 1941. 30-42. During the fifteenth 248 ACTA HISTIUAE • 1<) • 2002 • L Siaiiww TOKL: SHE WAS Kit LED WRETCHEDLY AND WITHOUT A CAUSE': SOCIAL STATUS .... 247-25* cil court]. This court settled disputes ranging from quarrels over debts to verbal and physical injury. It was also the only court that adjudicated grave breaches of the peace, like homicides.- In her study of late medieval Zürich, the historian Susanna Burghartz emphasized the important function of the Ratsgerichi within the city's dispute culture (Burghartz, 1990). It was a much used and convenient dispute forum for quarreling citizens. There, they had the chance of receiving financial compensation because the disputant who had given the initial provocation in addition to the fine for breaking the city peace had to pay a fine to the other party. The judges also often encouraged out of court settlements; they championed consensus and the restoration of good will among citizens. This maxim did not apply to all Zurchers equally. Accusers and perpetrators who appeared before the court were seldom marginal citizens, but respectable, tax-paying citizens; guild members or their apprentices. Those too poor to pay the tax that granted citizenship or lacking respectable professions, day laborers or vagrants, rarely made use of the Ratsgerichi to settle their disputes. The underprivileged helped instead to make up the bloodier chapters of the history of the Rats-gerir.ht. Easily labeled as perpetrators of dishonorable violence, of murder, highway robbery, and theft, they are the most frequent protagonists of execution verdicts. Members of the nobility were also apparently subject to a different code, as they rarely appeared in front of the court. The overwhelming majority of the protagonists of fifteenth-century homicide cases thus are members of the middle and upper-middle stratum of society. They were also mostly male - both as victims and perpetrators. Violence and its accusation before the court was the domain of honorable men of relatively equal status. Most cases fit this pattern. The code of male honor, as we will see, influenced the language of violence used by accusers and witnesses. Yet the generalizations we could make about these cases are not our main agenda. Rather, they serve as toil for the few odd century, representatives of the trade guilds and members of the Koustqffel dominated Hie city council. But no urban arisiocraey concentrated power consistently in the hands of particular families. Within the successful guilds. Hie fortunes of influential families fluctuated with trade or politics. It was not until the seventeenth century thai elite families could maintain their power at length. 2 Zurich had a complex system of courts whose jurisdictions occasionally overlapped. The city council traditionally had considerable control over Zurich's other courts which were presided over by an imperial officii and the former mistress of the city, the abbess of the Frauenmtlnsler. But the city council appointed the judges who adjudicated in this court, and they thus exercised considerable influence on its legal practice. It is important to note that this complex arrangement of courts overlaid entrenched practices of private arbitration and settlement within the urban guilds. Many disputes that did not involve capital offenses were settled by the guildmastcts and were never brought before a court Several guild-statutes prescribed that disputing guild members should wait a week before bringing an accusation before the courts of the cities; this was to allow guild wasters time to settle a dispute internally. For a discussion, see Rtioff, 1971, 26. ACTA H ISTRI AK - 10 • 2002 • I Svaaaat POHL: 'SHI WAS KKXGO WRETCKÖM.V A-VD WITHOUT A CAUSE': SOCIAL .STATUS.... J47-36-I cases that do not fit the pattern. These atypical cases share in common that the protagonists are not men of relatively equal status, although they also differ from each other. For example, one concerns a middle class citizen killed by a nobleman, others husbands who press charges against the slayers of their wives and another an aunt who prosecutes the death of her niece who was killed by the husband. The language of violence in these cases is less assertive and condemnatory than in the majority of cases involving men of relatively equal status. The weaker .social position of the victim compared to the perpetrator most likely caused the judges to view these slayings as less serious. An especially detailed case suggests that in order to nudge a reluctant council into action, friends and families pursued a rhetorical strategy that acknowledged the judges' prejudices and yet appealed to their empathy by focusing on the very weakness of the victim's body. In light of the larger picture of Zurich's fifteenth-century homicide cases, these untypical cases help to shed light on the relationships between the language of violence, social status, and judicial discretion in this city. The search for vengeance: the rhetoric of accusers in front of the Council Court Accusations in homicide cases in front of the Ziircber council court commonly followed a rather stereotypical pattern. The family of the victim tried to stigmatize the slayer and his act as much as possible in order lo obtain a heavy punishment. In a case from 1391, Claus Eius accused Hans Habersat of killing his father. He told the council that Habersat had "slain and murdered his father dishonorably without a cause".3 Similarly, in 1470, the family of Velin Werdmueiler accused Hans Bueler of killing Velin "wretchedly and murderously" ("Eliendklich und mortlich" StaZH, B VI, 227, fol. 129r). Accusers utilized a cultural distinction between dishonorable and honorable violence that also influenced the legal categorization of slayings. Violence was considered an acceptable and even expected tool to defend male honor. Killings that occurred during a heated dispute were classified by the court as honorable manslaughter. Slayings committed in secret or with a reprehensible motivation were considered murder. Honorable manslaughter was punished with a monetary fine and was not morally condemned by the judges. Yet honorable violence demanded honorable vengeance, and judges granted private parties the right to chose between blood vengeance and a negotiated financial settlement for the slayer. This was not an option in the case of murder: murderers were crushed with the wheel, a punishment that shamed their families as well. Between honorable manslaughter and murder, a third category existed. Slayings that took place in public, but without a justifiable cause were considered dishonorable, if not murder. An example is the slaying of Chuni by Johann Nesi from 1382. Witnesses asserted that there had been a disagreement be- 3 "Dz der sin Vater unredlich und anc schuld crslagen und ernwert hat" (StaZH, B Vi, 194, fol. 272r). 250 ACTA HlSTUIAli • 10 ■ 2Ü02 • 1 Summe FOHL: 'SHE WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLY AND WITHOUT A CAIfStr SOCIAL STATUS ., 247.264 tween Johann Nesi and Chuni about the quality of Nesi's knife. Since Nesi remained silent after the incident, everyone thought that he had forgotten it. After some time, however, Nesi stabbed Chuni to death without warning. This violence was considered dishonorable because it was not immediately preceded by a dispute. Because Nesi had never acknowledged a provocation, everyone thought that Nesi had brushed the disagreement with Chuni aside (StaZH, B Vi, 191, fol. 252v). Until the late fifteenth century the council punished such slayers with the customary manslaughter fine, but to show their disapproval, the judges affixed an additional stipulation to the verdict; such as an additional sum, or the stipulation that the slayer was not allowed to pay his penalty off slowly, but had to do so within a week, or would have his right hand cut off. But by 1468, the court had developed a legal category for such slayings - dishonorable manslaughter. The punishment was execution with the sword. Most accusers hoped to convince the court that the slaying of their relatives could be classified in such a category. Often, this meant twisting the facts: Claus Eius tried to convince the council that Hans Habersat had murdered his father. But he was killed during a heated exchange after he had insulted his slayer's honor (StaZH, B VI, 194, fol. 272r, 1391). Such facts did not deter accusers from blackening their opponents in front of the court. From the moment that their relative had been kiiied. the family of the victim engaged in a pursuit of vengeance. An accusation in front of the court could result in a heavy fine for the slayer, permission to pursue blood vengeance, and perhaps even the death penalty. An accusation was also a chance to slut the reputation of the slayer, by proclaiming in a public forum that he had killed dishonorably. Such stigmatization of the slayer in front of the court was probably merely a continuation of what went on behind the scenes. The evidence suggests that friends and families of the deceased commonly started a gossip campaign through which they spread rumors that the killing had been less than honorable.4 Since the official introduction of the category of dishonorable manslaughter in 1468, the language of the accusations became more vicious, as accusers could now hope that the court imposed the death penalty which they routinely asked for. Not every single accusation followed this pattern of somatization. There are a few cases in which the accusers ate a bit more reticent. In 1425, Johann Nell accused the slayer of his son, Hans von Huenenberg. Nell told the judges that Iiuenenberg had done him and his family a great wrong but he also said that he "left it all to their wisdom to judge this deed, as they knew better than he how the thing had happened.5 Why was Nell not more assertive? He was the city scribe and thus an important person in the city's administration. Huenenberg was a knight. Although Zürich was gov- 4 For example, in 1450, after Peter Snider had killed Hans Darner's servant, Hans Domer's wife quickly spread the rumor that Snider had attacked Hans Dorner dishonorably, see StaZH B VI 217, fol. 145r. 5 "Setzen auch dz gentzlich hin zuo uewer wisheit, das ir uns darumb richtend nach dem und uech has wisent ist, dann mir, wie sich die sach ergangen hat" (StaZH, B VI. 207, fol. 61 v). 251 ACTA IIISTKIAE • I« • 2(102 • 1 Sutaorn FOUL SHE WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLY ANO WITHOUT A CAI Sir SOCIAI ST AVUS .... 347-M4 erned by a guild constitution since the patrician regime had ended through a revolt in the late i3
  • WliElCHEDLY AND WtTHCKT A CAUSE'' SOCIAL STATUS .... 247-264 fact that the judges did not consider il their responsibility to pursue violence against women to the fullest, because the bodies of the women were primarily the responsibility of their male relatives. Men were ceded a large amount of control over the bodies of their wives, sisters, and daughters. They had the legal right to use violence to punish them (Burghartz, 1990. 142). A striking example of this right is the legal regulation of adultery in Zurich: A husband could kill his wife and/or her lover with impunity if he found them in flagranti (see for example SiaZH, B V, I 244, fol. 11 In. This amount of control over female bodies probably accounts for the fact why there are so few cases of domestic violence that came in front of the council court. If they were brought in front of the court, the judges tended to be very lenient. Burghartz cites a case in which a woman died from the beating her husband gave her, bui the husband was acquitted and the court stated explicitly that she had died from "natural causes" (Burghartz, 1990, 145). It was a completely different matter, certainly, if women committed violence. While violence was an accepted response for men to defend their honor, it brought no honor to women. Burghartz repeats a case in which two women attacked a man and beat him with their fists. They were punished with a fine that was high compared to Ihe fines assigned to men who used unarmed violence (Burghartz, 1990, 146). The case, of Elfy Gugerin illustrates that a woman who participated in a homicide had to pay a high price.9 Elfy had conspired with her lover in the slaying of her husband, Her crime was doubly dubious. Women's honor was primarily bound up with how well they were able lo keep their sexual purity intact. An adulterous wife who killed her husband was unnatural, a monstrosity, and equally monstruous was the punishment dealt out to her. Elfy Gugerin who had counseled her lover to kill ber husband was buried alive in a dreadful way. A hole was dug in the ground and covered with foot long thorns. Elfy was placed on the thorns, another layer of thorns was put on her, and then she was crushed with stones, the thorns penetrating her body (StaZH, B VI, 198, fol. 40v). In a way, this punishment mirrored her crime as she had lost her honor by allowing her body to be illicitly penetrated. But while violent women were punished harshly, men who violated women's bodies could expert relative leniency. Perhaps this was because the right of men to punish the female members of their families might also have included a duty and a prerogative to protect them from the violence of other men. Apparently, the court was reluctant to interfere with this duty. Judges did not claim the same prerogative to her own kitchen by a man she had offered food and shelter. The perpetrator was acquitted. Burghartz found very few rape cbargcs on the whole. The council was reluctant to convict in such eases, and victims were reluclant to press chargcs. The most likely outcome of such an accusation was the siained reputation of the victim and the acquittal of the perpetrator (Burghartz, 1090, 14-5). 9 This is also the only ease of a woman participating in a homicide. There are also no records of active female killers for the fourteenth and fifteenth ceniury. 254 ACTA HI5TR1AK • 1« • 20(12 • 1 Suzanne 1'OIIL: 'SHE WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLV AND wtTUOl' l' .A CAUSE'. SOCIAL STATUS . .. .W-JM judge She injured bodies of women as they did over men, and took little initiative to investigate such cases on their own. Men who brought charges against other men who had injured women of their families were in a way compromising their authority by admitting, to their failure to protect these women thus explaining the deferential language of the accusations. A victim's position in society, whether due to class or gender, thus influenced accusers to make their charges in front of the court more faltering. Yet accusers knew; if it was true that judges did not punish harshly if the perpetrators were of high social status or the victims were women, they also knew that in Zurich's culture of violence there was little honor in killing an innocent and defenseless victim. Violence was shameful, if it was unequal, if it constituted an abuse of authority. Rudy Hirny told the court that he did not know how the slaying of his wife should be judged, but we also detect his efforts to represent the deed as shameful. The husband stressed that his innocent wife had been killed "at night and... in her bed" - a helpless victim, not at all an equal match for the perpetrator ("by nachl... an irem bett." StaZH B VI 229, fol. 127r). As I mentioned above, Hirny subsequently weakened his condemnation of the slayer and emphasized his ignorance, of legal matters and his inability to categorize this slaying, perhaps constrained by a need to defer to the standards of the council. Witnesses sometimes expressed their indignation more, strongly. One well-documented case from 1431 shows this in great detail. In this case, the victim was a woman, but the circumstances differed from the slayings of Nesi Appenzeller and Anna Mirny. Here, a husband killed his wife, and the records contain the testimony of several witnesses. With one exception, all of these witnesses were women. All of them were neighbors and friends of the victim; their testimony is partial. The council tended to be lenient in cases of domestic violence, but these women considered the slaying heinous. They conveyed their disgust with the slayer to the court, but for the most part refrained from directly blaming the slayer, as is the case in the accusations against men who killed women. Nevertheless, they found a strategy to cast blame in other ways. They tried to gain the sympathy of the court by focusi ng on the very-weakness of the female body, dependent on male protection Their testimony differs from the testimony found in cases in which the victim was a man. The actual violence is represented differently because the women's testimony expresses a stronger emotional concern for the victim and a different representation of the body. 10 It also might explain, why there are so few such cases. Only three Ziirclieis accused the slayers of their wives in front of the court in the fifteenth ccntury. (We have a total of 151 homicide cases in this century.) Either no other wife was killed, or the records are incomplete, or - what seems to me another likely possibility - such cases were often settled without the court's interference at all. ACTA H t STRIAE • 10 • 2002 • I Susans» POHL: 'SHU WAS KILLED WP.CTOtF.DLY AND WITHOUT A CAUSE': SOCIAL STATUS ..... 247-264 Counting Wounds and (he Body Suffering To put the case of Anna Merkli into perspective, I wilt first analyze a couple of cases that involve violence of men against men. Witnesses usually report violence with a casual tone that seems to confirm conventional stereotypes about the "violent tenor of life" in the middle ages and the indifference to it (Huizinga, 1913. 1). For example, in 1385, a witness describes the fight that led to the slaying of H. Bibcrli by H. Taentzer. In the words of Herman, this fight became a quick exchange of insults and wounds. He reported "that H. Biberli threw lard in Taentzer's face, and also hit him with his fist. Taentzer drew his knife and stabbed Biberli in his stomach".11 This terse report conveyed to the judges that the violence committed had been honorable. The slayer had reacted to a direct insult to his honor. Biberli threw lard in Taentzer's face, according to medieval culture, this place is the essence of one's personality. But the construction of identity and personhood was a public, affair: honor was in the eye of the beholder and one's identity and social status depended on the amount of honor the community was willing to grant to an individual. A public insult, according to Hans De Waardt, threatened one's identity, which was dependent on the malleability of community opinion. It threw the contestants into a liminai state,' and immediate measures had to be taken to 'refirm' the violated boundaries of one's personhood (de Waardt, 1995). A man's honor was closely linked to his ability both to keep his body inviolate end to use violence to defend his reputation (Spierenburg, 1999, 5-6). According to this behavioral code, Taentzer had reacted appropriately, to avenge the insult on his honor, he had stabbed Biberli. Violence was a communication tool, a language understandable to all bystanders: Taentzer repelled the marks on his own body that stained his reputation when he marked his opponent. Such fights were in the nature of a competitive exchange. The contestants tended to act as if honor was a scarce commodity, as if there was not enough honor to go around, fights ended when one lost honor and the other gained it. It was therefore not enough to repay the opponent in kind, contestants sought to top the insults. It was not sufficient for Taentzer to hit Biberli back with his fist; he instead chose to stab him. In 1395, a witness reported a quick exchange between Peter Bader and Peter Rot-wiler, competing over who can do more damage to the other. The witness told the court that "Rotwiler said to Peter that he should leave him in peace, or he would hit him in the neck'.12 Peter Bader topped this by retorting that "by God, he would hit him so hard then that he would never be able to beat lip another man".13 Then, the 11 "Dz H. Bibertin smaltz in sin antlit wurf und in oech mit dem fust in dz antlit stuog und dz do der Biberli den Taentzer stach in sin buch" (StaZH, B VI, 192. fol. 280v>. 12 "Do Sprech der Rotwiler, er mtissie jach im nut dz er sin enbar. aid er slueg inn an sin hals" (StaZH, B V), 1%, fol. 4v). 13 "So helff im got, so tet er ein slacben. dz er niemer ueber wunde" (StaZH. B VI, 196, fol. 4v). 256 ACTA HISTRIAE ■ 1« • 2002 • I Spanne POHL •SMi; WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLY AMU WITHOUT A CAUSE":SOCIAL STATUS ,,.. 247-364 witness continued. B;ider took out his knife and stabbed Rotwiler. The witnesses recounted in detail the. exchange of wounds and insults. This minute attention to the specifics of the fight conveyed to the judges that a homicide was preceded by a competition for honor, and they judged these slayings accordingly as honorable manslaughters. The terse statements of the witnesses are not a sign of neutrality or indifference, but a moral judgment - that this violence was justifiable and honorable. But while the statements of the witnesses circle around the bodies of the contestants, the suffering body is not present in these accounts. Cuts and gashes are conscientiously enumerated, but empathy with the victim, or grief at their suffering, is absent. But whether a contestant suffered or not, was not what was important. What was critical was if he had acted in a culturally accepted way that would have restored his honor. In 1431, Hans Merkli had killed his wife Anna, and her aunt brought the case in front of the court, Her accusation is reticent like other accusations brought against men who killed women. This time the reticence is not due to a husband's failure to protect, his wife from the violence of other men. Rather, the aunt's reticence defers to the council's prejudice in favor of a husband's right to punish his wife. Her accusation is matter of fact: she told the court that Anna's husband had "smashed her thigh with a mallet, from which wound she had subsequently died".14 The court should "evaluate this slaying according to their own judgment, and she thought that this was better done than avoided".15 Her words imply that she thought the slaying was unjust, but she, like others in cases where a woman was the victim, refrained from openly condemning the slayer and his deed. The story appears horrific to the modern reader. Hans had suspected his wife Anna of cheating on him with one of the servants. He instructed her cousin Ueli Bloesi to watch the house on an evening when he was not home. Ueli reported back to Hans that he had seen Anna and the servant inside the house. When Ueli had knocked on the door, Anna had told the servant to leave through the backdoor. For Hans this was proof of Anna's guilt. Anna ran away to hide with her female neighbors, many of whom were involved in negotiating the terms under which Anna went back to her husband. Hans Merklin promised the women that he would not punish Anna "immoderately" ("unbescheidenlich" StaZH, B VI, 209, fot. 305r), a formulation that underscores the legal right of the husband to punish his wife. But the 'neighborhood watch' was not effective. Hans smashed Anna's leg with an axe, and she died in consequence of the injury. Although he tried to prevent visitors from coming to 14 "Mit einem siege! iren schenke! entzweye hab geslagen dz sy desselben streichs lad ist" {StaZH. B VI, 209, Co!. 329r). 15 "Die sach richtend nach dem und sy dz findem, und sy besser dunke, getan dann vermitten" (SfciZH, R VI. 209. fol. 329r). 257. ACTA 1-11 STRIAE • 10 - 2U02 • I Sazminc POH1.; SHE WAS K!U.e[>W]ra kem, das tetl sy, da hies c-v sy an das lenn gan, da hatt er ein ax und ein slegel zuoeiuandcr gestelt, da erschrak sy. da sprach er zuo ir, sy inueste im ?.e ein bein dar habert, das sy im eins dar hette, wcitches sy woeltc, da vicle sy im an den hals, batt inn frainiiicb, ermam in unseres herrert und urss frowen. das er sy und inn socliches uebcrtiuebe nach vil worten, er wolt es nit tuon, da sas sy nider, hatt im bcide bein dar, da swour er ucbel. und sprach zuo ir d?_ sy im ein bcin dar hette, oder aber er woeltc ira bcide bein abslachen, atso hette sy im ein bein dar das sluog er ir mit dem siege! en!7,weye" (StuZH. B V!. 209, fol. 306r). 25S ACTA HI5TRIAK* id • 2(102 • i Suraiine POHL 'SHE WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLY AND WITHOUT A f M SE': SOCIAL STATUS .. ¿»-J« over the bodies of delinquents, so can a husband claim authority over the body of his wife. But Hans overstepped the limits of his authority, despite, the promise given to the female neighbors, he punished her "immoderately" - he killed her. Her retelling of the story in detail, with his commands to her, to come with him upstairs, to present him with one leg, makes Hans' behavior a travesty of lawful spousal control over the body ot a wife. As Valentin Gröbner writes in a seminal article about the representations of violence in late medieval Nürnberg, there is actually a literary convention of telling a story of unjust violence as a mockery of an execution. The chronicler Deichsler describes how during a feud between the city of Nürnberg and the knight Cunz Schott, Schott had captured the Nuernberg merchant Wilhelm Derrer and cut off his hand. There are similarities to Elfy's account: Schott asked Derrer to put his right hand on a block of wood. Derrer asked for mercy, but Schott insisted. Derrer finally put out his left hand. Schott threatened to kill him if he did not put out his right hand, and Derrer finally did so. Groebncr cites other examples from chronicles which tell about violence in a similar way - emphasizing the 'executioner's demand' to surrender a specific body part, followed by the pleas for mercy, and the reluctance and fear of the victim (Gröbner, 1.995, 183-184). While in these stories, the exchange between victim and perpetrator is almost a fight for control over specific bodyparts; Anna's offering of both her legs to Hans may be interpreted as a plea for compassion with her complete and utter helplessness. It served as a reminder that her whole body was at his mercy, and a request to treat it with care like a good husband should. Whether Elfy knew of this literary convention, and she dramatized the story accordingly, or whether it really happened in this exact detail, is less important than the fact that Elfy chose to describe this instance of violence in a way that appealed to a cultural understanding that violence that constitued an abuse of authority was wrong. It is this kind of violence, as Valentin Gröbner writes, that 'hurts' (Gröbner, 1995, 185). Deichsler noted down without evident concern for the suffering of those concerned. that the council had ordered the cutting off of hands, ears, or feet, of delinquents, without going into detail, but his empathy with the suffering of Derrer comes through in the detailed telling of his injury. We find a similar situation in the court case in Zürich. It is the wrong violence that hurts, the violence that constitutes an abuse of power. Witnesses can record without expressions of empathy the wounds given in an honorable fight, but the suffering body of the victim surfaces in the testimony of Anna Merklin's case. Apart from the attention to the gruesome details of her 'execution,' the witnesses talk about Anna's subsequent illness. They stress that Anna was "very sick" ("vast krank" StaZH, B VI, 209, fol. 305v). They also express their empathy with Anna. They repeat to the court their dialogues with Anna, that they had told her how sorry they were for her. Wimerturerin said that she told Anna: "My God, I am truly sorry for 259 AC TA HlSTRiAE • 10 • 2. 20 "Das sy Merklin gcsach und klagt den Merklin ir were sin kumber leid, da sprach er. waninib es ir leid were, es wer doch im nit leid, dann hett er es nit getan er woelte es noch tuon, also reu sy fuerer mit im fruntüch, da trang er gegen ir wolt sy stechen, fluchet ir und handlet sy mit Worten ubel" (StaZH, B VI, 209, fol. 306r) 260 ACTA HISTRlAE • iü • 201)2 ■ J Sum«« POHL: SHE WAS KILLED WRETCHEDLY AND wi HIOt'T A CAUSE': SOCIAL STATUS ... 347-264 court, they focus on Neil's suffering. They repeatedly stress, how much he was bleeding and screaming in pain (StaZH, B VI, 20?, fol. 60r-60v, 97r-98v). Perhaps this was a way to convey their sense that the social inequality between victim and slayer made this deed particularly heinous, and it lessened the likelihood of a fair punishment. There is another case when the witnesses focus on the suffering of the victim and express their empathy with him. in 1493, Birgger was killed by Joerg Toeitschy in a dishonorable manner. Birgger was having words with Hans Meis, and Toeitschy all of a sudden intervened in the dispute, hitting Birgger on the head. The mayor of Zurich, Swend, was present at this scene. Birgger did not die right away, after he was attacked, he went up to the mayor to tell him: "Mayor, I want to tell you that I have been hit by Toeitschy in a dishonorable, infamous and murderous fashion".21 However, the mayor did not react. He did not give a command to apprehend the slayer, perhaps because the slayer was a friend of Hans Meis who had been mayor the previous year. The testimony suggests that the witnesses disapproved of Toeltschy's behavior and were distressed at the mayor's inaction. A witness said that "he was surprised that Toeitschy was allowed to just sit there.22 Another told the court that he "had never felt so badly for anybody as he did for Birgger".23 The seriousness of the wound is also stressed: one witness told the court that he thought that Toeitschy would "have liked to cut off Birgger's head from the neck".2'* Again, the suffering body of the victim becomes an accusation, a sign for the wrong use of authority. How effective was this rhetorical strategy'? Judgment in Zurich was the result of a negotiation as the judges carefully considered the cultural division of violence into honorable and dishonorable deeds as well as the social position and gender of victim and slayer. If accusers deferred more strongly to this latter standard of adjudication, witnesses could use a language that emphasized the shamefulness of the slaying without openly labeling the slaying as dishonorable. Judges valued community opinion as well. The court sought to restore consensus and harmony among citizens. Punishment was often a compromise as judges tried to satisfy different standards of adjudication. In the last mentioned case of Birgger's death, the strategies of the witnesses may have been effective. Perhaps trying to make up for their mayor's inaction, the council condemned the slayer to the death penalty. 21 "Herr Bürgermeister, ich clag euch, das der mich schandtlich, lästerlich und mordtlich gehowen hat' (StaZH, B VI, 237, fol. 299r). 22 "[ihn) neme wunder, das man den Toeltschy also da liesse sitzen (StaZH. B VI, 237, fol 299r). 23 "Inn habe nie keiner so uebel als der Birgger erbarmet" (StaZH. B VI. 237, fol. 299r). 24 "Und helle im als inn ditechte gern den hals abgehowen" (StaZH, BVI. 237, fol. 299v). 261 ACTA HISTKJAK • 1« • 20(12 • 1 POHL-'SUE WAS KIUXE> WRtVCCIItUL.V AND wriH'M T A CAUSE'- SOf'IAI. v I ATI« . )A~I-?.(A Heinnch Huenenberg, the slayer of Johann Neil, was exempted from the death penalty but punished with a double manslaughter fine (StaZH. B VI, fol. 6lv). He was also banished from Zurich for three years, in this way, judges deferred to the evaluation of the witnesses; they made clear that I his slaying had been somewhat less than honorable. Still, this sentence falls short of the actual deserved murder verdict.. After all. Huenenberg had attacked Nell at night and from behind, without revealing his identity. The judges categorized Hans Merkli's slaving of his wife as a manslaughter. but the council affixed an additional stipulation. The slayer had to surrender his wife's dowry (StaZH, B VI, 209, fol. 329r). One of the slayers mentioned earlier, Heini Etter, the drunken city constable who had killed Nesi Appenzeller, had to pay five Mark in addition to the manslaughter fine. The verdict stated that the council demanded the fine because Etter had not heeded an earlier warning to leave Ihe woman in peace (StaZH, B VI, 202, fol. 26Ir). In this case, the council punished Etter also for acting contrary to his official position. He was after all a city constable, whose duty was to protect, not to kill citizens. His sentence, as well as that of Hans Merklin, is milder than Huenenberg's sentence. Adjusting punishments was a flexible business. If the victim was a woman, this adjustment was move subtle. There was also no guarantee that judges always sought a compromise. We remember Anna Hirny, killed by Llely Luty while she was asleep in her bed. According to cultural standards, this deed was murder. Rnedy Hirny had to be content with a mere manslaughter sentence (StaZH, fi VI, 229, fol. 127r). We cannot tell whether this was because community support was lacking or not sought out - there is no witness testimony. The husband who had failed to protect his wife from the violence of another man at least had the chance to reclaim authority and honor through blood vengeance. As in all cases of manslaughter, this was his right. The records do not tell us if he claimed it, 262 ACTA H ISTRI AK - 10 • 2002 • I StKMUtePOHL. "Sllt VAS KIU.KO WRETCHKM.Y AND WITHO!.rr A CAUSK^SOflAt, STATUS ... 247-2« "BILA JE UMORJENA BRUTALNO IN BREZ MOTIVA": SOCIALNI STATUS IN GOVORICA NASILJA V ZURISKIH SODNIH PROCESIH 15. STOLETJA Suzanne POHL Univerza Comcll, Oddelek za zgodovino, Ithacn NY 14853-4601, USA 450McGraw Hali e-mail: spl08@coniell.edu POVZETEK Ziiriški mestni zakoni so že vse od poznega 14. stoletja natančno razločevali med častnimi (javnimi in izzvanimij in nečastnimi (tajnimi in/ali neizzvanimi) uboji. In med sodnimi razpravimi na občinskem sodišču so sorodniki žrtev znali dodobra izkoriščati to razlikovanje. V večini primerov so poskušali stigmatizirati ubijalce predvsem tako, da so orisovali njihova dejanja kot nečastna, četudi je šlo za primer častnega uboja. Pričujoči prispevek obravnava nekaj tistih redkih primerov, ki se močno razlikujejo od drugih, a so si med seboj osupljivo podobni. Sorodniki tako ubitih žensk kot moških s precej nižjim družbenim statusom kot obsojenec so bili premalo samozavestni in nepopustljivi med obtoževanjem morilcev. Največkrat so se tožniki namreč zavedali, da so sodniki v takšnih primerih bolj popustljivi kot pa med spopadi med moškimi, ki so pripadali približno istemu družbenemu razredu. Eden izmed izjemno podrobno opisanih primerov govori o retorični strategiji, po kateri so žrtvini prijatelji in sorodniki silili obotavljajoči sodni svet k nagli obtožbi. Namesto da bi morilca obdoložili neposredno, so poskušati na sodni svet vplivati tako, da so se osredoločali na samo krhkost žrtvinega telesa in na pomanjkanje nadzora, ki ga je žrtev imela nad njim. To je bilo precej nenavadno, saj so se priče običajno omejevale na preštevanje ran in žalitve. Pa vendar je v primerih s bistvenimi družbenimi nenenakostmi med ubijalcem in žrtvijo trpeče telo lahko postalo nekakšna obtožba, znamenje, ki razkriva zlorabo avtoritete. V svojih odločitvah so morali sodniki uravnoteževati kulturno obsodbo čezmernega in neupravičenega nasilja s svojo oceno družbenega položaja in spola žrtve in ubijalca. Ključne besede: mestni zakoni, kazniva dejanja, uboji, Zurich, 13. stoletje 263 ACTA HI STRIAE« 10» 2002-1 Suianiie POHL; 'SHE WAS KILLED WRF-'IVHEIH. > \VD WITHOUT A CAUSE': -SOCIAL STATUS . 247.2W SOURCES AND REFERENCES StaZH - Staatsarchiv Zurich (StaZH). Rats- und Richtebücher, B VI 190-265. Burghartz, S- (1990); Leib, Ehre und Gut: Delinquenz in Zürich Ende des 34. Jahrhunderts. Zürich, Chronos Verlag. Gröbner, V. (1995): Der verletzte Körper und die Stadt. Gewalttätigkeit und Gewalt in Nürnberg am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts. In: Lmdenberger, T., Liidtke, A. (eds.): Physische Gewalt. Studien zur Geschichte der Neuzeit. Frankfurt am Main, 162-189. Huizinga, J. (1913): The Waning of the Middle Ages. A Study of the Forms of Life. Thought and Art in France and the Netherlands In The XIVlli and XV!tl Centuries. New York, St. Martin's Press. RuofT, W. Ii. (.1941): Die Zürcher Rate als Strafgericht und ihr Verfahren bei Freveln im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Diss. Zürich. Smail, D. (1997): Telling Tales in Angevin Courts. French Historical Studies, vol. 20, n. 2. New York, 183-216. Spierenburg, P. (ed.) (1999): Men and Violence. Gender, Honor, and Rituals in Modern Europe and America. Columbus, Ohio State University Press, de Waardt. H. (1995): Ehrenhändel, Gewalt und Liminalität: ein Konzeptual-isierungsvorschlag. In: Schreiner, K., Schwerhoff, G. (eds,): Verletzte Ehre. Ehrenkonflikte in Gesellschaften des Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit. Köln -Weimar - Wien. Böhlau Verlag. 303-319. Zemon Davis, N. (1987): Fiction in the Archives. Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press. 264