Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
Boglárka Weisz
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary*
The present study examines the privileges obtained by the mining towns during the
Angevin Era. It also looks at the extent to which these privileges diverged from
those granted to other towns, and how all this led to the development of the mining
town as a distinct class of towns. The question itself is interesting not only with
respect to urban history, but also because it brings us closer to an understanding
of why these towns acted jointly in defense of their interests, and how all this led
to the formation of leagues of mining towns, which by the ifteenth century were
organizing themselves on a territorial basis. After a detailed examination of the legal,
ecclesiastical and economic privileges the study has come to the conclusion that in
the area of both legal and economic privileges signiicant differences and divergences
can be discerned in comparison to privileges bestowed on other towns. The reason
for the differences naturally is to be sought in mining, and in the need to secure the
royal revenue stemming from it. From a legal standpoint, this shows up not only
in the appearance of ofices linked to mining, but also in the emergence of comites
or rectores appointed by the king to head the mining towns. In discussing economic
privileges it may be observed that, whereas other towns were motivated primarily by
a desire to obtain commercial privileges (e.g., right to hold markets, exemption from
tolls), mining towns were moved by the need to secure the rights connected to mining.
Thanks to their special freedoms, the mining towns differed from other towns while
also forming an organic part of the urban network.
Keywords: mining towns, privileges, urban policy
The ifteenth-century, German-language Chronicle of Szepesszombat (Georgenberger
Chronik)1 writes the following about the urban policy of the Angevins: “this king
[Louis I] and his father [Charles I] loved the towns of Hungary greatly, and they
* This research was supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-inanced by the
European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/1-11-1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence
Program.’
1 Cf. Stephen Mossman, “Georgenberger Chronik,” Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, Leiden–
Boston: Brill Online, 2013. Reference, accessed March 21, 2013, http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/
encyclopedia-of-the-medieval-chronicle/georgenberger-chronik-SIM_01093.
288
http://www.hunghist.org
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
elevated them and improved [their condition].”2 In what follows we will examine
the extent to which this urban development policy held true for the mining
towns, which were at this time emerging as a distinct class of towns, as well as
the extent to which the privileges acquired by the mining towns diverged from
those granted to other towns. From the late fourteenth century, these towns
took common action in defense of their interests with increasing frequency, and
the basis for this common interest lay in the identical privileges that Charles I
and later Louis I bestowed on them over the course of the fourteenth century.
Already during the reign of Charles I (1301–1342) we ind reference to the
fact that the mining towns had privileges that were uniform or, at least with
respect to mining, similar. When on March 12, 1337 King Charles authorized
Lukács, son of Kozma, Detre, son of Leusták and Miklós, son of Iván, as well
as Gergely, son of Gyula of Kistapolcsány to search for gold, silver as well as
other ores and metals, and open mines, within the boundaries of their estates of
Dobrocsna (Dobročna, Slovakia), Bohó and Nevidzén (Nevidzany, Slovakia)
and in the Divék Valley in Nyitra County, he also gave them an opportunity to
establish towns there, which they would be allowed to administer according to
the liberty of other mining towns (iuxta libertatem aliarum civitatum montanarum).3
Collective references to settlements of this kind may be cited from the era
of the reign of Charles’s successor, Louis I (1342–1382), as well. On March
31, 1349 Louis ordered the marking of the borders of Idabánya (Zlatá Idka,
Slovakia) according to the custom of other mines (iuxta consuetudinem aliarum
montanarum nostrarum in regno nostro existencium), and within these limits he
ceded the forests and other usufructs to the town, as was customary in other
royal mines (prout in aliis montanis nostris est consuetum).4 On November 28, 1357
Louis allowed the burghers, hospites and miners of Zalatna (Zlatna, Romania)
to possess the same freedoms that other mines in the kingdom enjoyed (qua
2 “Dieser konig und seyn fater habin dy stete zu ungern zere gelibit und dy erhaben, und gepessert.”
Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. Imre Szentpétery
(Budapest: n.p. 1938), 284.
3 Gusztáv Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának kritikai története [A Critical History of Mining in Hungary]
(Budapest: MTA, 1880), 318–19. The original charter, now missing, had appeared dated 1307 as well; cf.
Tivadar Botka, Bars vármegye hajdan és most [Bars County Then and Now] (Pest: n.p. 1868), vol. I, 8–9; and,
based on this, Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislavae: Veda,
1980–1987), vol. I, 467. For the correct date, see Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary],
32 vols., eds. Tibor Almási et al. (Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012), vol. II, 65.
4 Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku 1238–1350 [Privileges of the Towns and Markets in Slovakia 1238–
1350], ed. Ľubomir Juck (Bratislava: Veda, 1984), 163–64.
289
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
cetera montana in regno nostro existentia gaudent et fruuntur).5 According to a charter
from 1376, the people of Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania) were free to elect
a judge and jurors (iurati), who were allowed to make judgments in matters
arising among them, in a manner similar to that of other towns and mines (ad
instar... aliarum civitatum, et montanarum nostrarum).6
What these privileges, referred to only in general terms in the charters
quoted above, meant in reality to the burghers of the mining towns is illuminated
by a diploma of King Charles dated June 14, 1325. In it, the sovereign granted
the town of Aranyosbánya (Baia de Arieş, Romania) the liberties that the
masters or workers of other royal gold mines enjoyed (libertatibus, quibus aliarum
aurifodinarum suarum magistri seu operarii utuntur). The diploma goes on to list the
privileges in detail: 1. they were obligated to pay an eighth of the mine’s proits
to the king as a census or tax; 2. neither the palatine, nor the Transylvanian
voevode, nor the county ispáns (comites parochiales), nor any judge other than
the king or the judge royal (országbíró) could pass judgment on them; 3. the
king ceded to them land around the mine in the quantity of one and a half
miles (ad quantitatem unius et dimidiae rastae) in accordance with the custom of
the other royal gold mines (consuetudine ceterarum aurifodinarum).7 Thus, it was
payment of the urbura, the cession of a determined vicinity around the mine
(important irst and foremost because of the timber required for mining), as
well as the right to adjudicate its own affairs that Charles regarded as the rights
and obligations that were indispensable to a mining town. Taking one by one
the privileges of each mine and mining town, below we will examine how the
privileges enumerated in King Charles’s 1325 charter manifested themselves
(if at all) in these settlements, as well as what other freedoms tied to mining
may be observed there.
Among the settlements that came to be known as mining towns,
Selmecbánya (Banská Štiavnica, Slovakia),8 Rimabánya (Rimavská Baňa,
5 Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (National Archives of Hungary, hereafter: MNL OL),
Diplomatikai Levéltár [Medieval Charters, hereafter: DL], 36 543.
6 Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols., ed. György Fejér (Budae: Typis Typogr. Regiae
Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844) (hereafter: CD), vol. IX/5, 97–98.
7 Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, 7 vols, ed. Franz Zimmermann et al.
(Hermannstadt–Cologne–Vienna–Bucharest, 1892–1991) (hereafter: UGDS), vol. I, 396; cf. Anjou-kori
oklevéltár, vol. IX, no. 251.
8 Sometime between 1243 and 1255; cf. Das Stadt- und Bergrecht von Banská Štiavnica / Schemnitz.
Untersuchungen zum Frühneuhochdeutschen in der Slowakei, ed. Ilpo Tapani Piirainen (Oulu: Universität of Oulu,
1986), 31.
290
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
Slovakia)9 and Gölnicbánya (Gelnica, Slovakia) obtained town charters back in
the Árpád era.10 Neither the precise content nor the date of issue of Bakabánya’s
(Pukanec, Slovakia) irst charter is known.11 We may place the town’s origin to the
era of King Charles at the latest (allowing that it may have received its privileges
as early as the second half of the thirteenth century), which is attested not only
by the existence of the settlement and mine at that time,12 but also by a charter
dated 1337. According to the latter, two burghers of Bakabánya obtained a mill
site on the Büksavnica River on the estate of the Abbey of Garamszentbenedek
(Hronský Beňadik, Slovakia), in exchange for a tax paid annually for the mill
(pro censu annuali), which was needed to work the new mine opened up on the
king’s land in Savnic (that is, on the territory of the later Újbánya [Nová Baňa,
Slovakia] in Bars County). At the same time, none of the privileges held by
the residents of Bakabánya and the hospites of Savnic-Újbánya, whether enjoyed
on the basis of customary law, or obtained from royal gift or to be received in
the future, applied to this mill.13 In other words, the burghers of Bakabánya
in 1337 were actively involved in the exploration of a new mine, which would
serve as the embryo of a later independent mining town, while the abbey at
Garamszentbenedek, defending its possessory rights on this territory, did not
accept the validity of privileges already possessed or to be won in the future.
Whereas the former restriction applied presumably to the then already existing
privileges of Bakabánya, the basis for the latter may have been the assumption
that sooner or later Újbánya, too, would gain privileges of its own. The people
9 In 1268. Árpádkori Új Okmánytár [Charters from the Árpád Age, New Series], 12 vols., ed. Gusztáv
Wenzel (Pest–Budapest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akadémiai Könyvtársulás, 1860–1874) (hereafter: ÁÚO),
vol. VIII, 212–13.
10 It may be assumed that Gölnicbánya received a town charter back in the era of Béla IV, because in
1287, at the request of the judge, councilors and citizens of Gölnicbánya, Ladislaus IV conirmed their
privileges received from Béla IV and Stephen V. Výsady miest, 67–68. Cf. Tibor Almási, “Megjegyzések
Gölnicbánya Kun László királytól elnyert privilégiumához és megerősítéseihez” [Notes on the Privilege of
Gölnicbánya Obtained from King Ladislaus the Cuman and its Conirmations], Acta Universitatis Szegediensis
de Attila József nominatae. Acta Historica 102 (1995): 43–49.
11 Regarding the content we may take as our starting point the diploma of King Wladislaw II copied
down in the late ifteenth century, which contained conirmation of the privileges set out in the by that
time destroyed charter. CD, vol. VII/5, 425–26. In the subsequent analysis it is this charter that we shall use.
12 Cf. 1321: Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period], 7 vols., eds. Imre Nagy and Gyula
Nagy (Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920), vol. I, 619–20. Its village headman (Nicolaus villicus de Bakabania) is irst
mentioned in 1329. MNL OL, DL 86 996.
13 “nulla iustitia, vel libertatis praerogativa, si quam ipsorum concives in Bakabanya, vel hospites in
novis montaniis Chavnick vocatis ex consuetudine vel ex donatio regali haberent, vel in posterum habere
possent;” CD, vol. VIII/4, 274.
291
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
of Bakabánya commenced mining in Újbánya around 1337,14 and the burghers
of Bakabánya assumed a primary role in the negotiations between this mine
and the abbey at Garamszentbenedek up until 1345. On August 16, 1345 it was
still the judge and councilors of Bakabánya who were making arrangements for
the mill,15 whereas a diploma of September 8, 1345, already mentions a judge
and councilors of Újbánya in connection with the use of the abbey’s estates.16
Újbánya therefore must have received its town privileges between August 16
and September 8, 1345.17 If we assume a similar chain of events in Bakabánya,
where the people of Selmecbánya began working the mine prior to 1270,18 then
we must suppose that the mining privileges were obtained sometime after this,
and probably prior to the extinction of the Árpád dynasty.
The town privileges of the burghers and hospites of Rózsahegy (Ružomberok,
Slovakia) granted by Dancs, ispán of Zólyom, were set down in writing on
November 26, 1318,19 then on November 14, 1340 they received a similar charter
of privilege from Charles I.20 Körmöcbánya (Kremnica, Slovakia) was granted
its privileges by Charles I on November 17, 1328,21 while on June 14, 1325 the
hospites of the royal town of Aranyosbánya received from the ruler the liberties
that the foremen or workers of other gold mines enjoyed.22 It must have been
still during the reign of Charles that the hospites of Nagybánya received their
privileges, since on September 20, 1347 Nagybánya’s parish priest János, judge
Márton, notary Péter and councilor Ulrik asked for and received from King
Louis the bestowal of their privileges, contained in their old charter destroyed by
ire, after the fashion of other principal royal towns (ad instar civitatum nostrarum
14 Cf. 1337: CD, vol. VIII/4, 273–74; 1345: Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, 3 vols., eds. Ferdinánd Knauz
and Lajos Dedek Crescens (Strigonii: n.p., 1874–1924) (hereafter: MES), vol. III, 565.
15 “Kadoldus urbararius domini regis, civis de Bakabanya, item Dycusch iudex et iurati tunc pro tempore
constituti ac universitas civium de eadem;” MES, vol. III, 565.
16 “iudicibus, iuratis, civibus et universis hospitibus, ac montanis in nova montana Schennych vocata
nunc constitutis, et eciam ad eandem in posterum venientibus;” MES, vol. III, 567. On January 28, 1348 the
judge and councilors of Újbánya together with the town community (nos Ladizlaus dictus Lengel iudex, iurati et
tota communitas civium et hospitum de Kvnigesperg) issued a diploma with the town’s seal; ibid., 658.
17 Cf. Nándor Knauz, A Garam melletti szent-benedeki apátság [The Abbey of St. Benedek by the Garam
River] (Budapest: n.p., 1890), 217.
18 Cf. ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 253–54.
19 Výsady miest, 91–92.
20 Ibid., 132–33.
21 Ibid., 115–16.
22 UGDS, vol. I, 396.
292
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
capitalium).23 The irst mention of the judge of Nagybánya, who was at the same
time the judge of Felsőbánya (Baia Spire, Romania) as well (comes Corrardus judex
civitatum Rivuli Dominarum et de Medio Monte), may be found in a charter dated May
29, 1329,24 and thus the bestowal of the town’s privileges must have taken place
prior to this date. The privileges of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya were set down in
writing once more by King Louis on March 8, 1376.25 The borders of the royal
mining town of Rudabánya were surveyed in 1351,26 while the judge and jurors
appear in the charters in 1378.27 Finally, Breznóbánya (Brezno, Slovakia) received
privileges from Louis on August 14, 1380.28 Thus far I have demonstrated when
each mining town obtained its town privileges; henceforth I will examine the
legal, ecclesiastical and economic privileges enumerated in these charters, the
extent to which these differ from the privileges found in the charters of other
towns, as well as the extent to which it is possible to infer from them the existence
of uniform mining town privileges.
Legal Privileges
We begin the survey of the legal privileges of the mining towns by examining the
free election of judge or village headman, mentioned in virtually every charter.29
The right to freely elect their judge was obtained by the people of Rózsahegy,30
23 CD, vol. IX/1, 498.
24 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 410.
25 CD, vol. IX/5, 96–101.
26 MNL OL, DL, 71 888.
27 “judex jurati et cives ac universi hospites de Rudabanya;” A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának
okmánytára [Archives of the Senior Branch of the Zichy Family of Zich and Vásonkeő], 12 vols., eds. Imre
Nagy et al. (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1871–1932), vol. IV, 37.
28 CD, vol. IX/5, 390–91.
29 Among the mining towns in the Árpád era Besztercebánya (Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) (Codex
diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Richard Marsina [Bratislavae: n.p., 1971–1987] (hereafter:
CDES), vol. II. 341), Németlipcse (Partizánska Ľupča, Slovakia) (Výsady miest, 44) and Rimabánya (ÁÚO,
vol. VIII, 212) received the right to freely elect judges. The people of Selmecbánya likely also received the
opportunity to freely elect their judge, and their village headman is irst mentioned in 1266 (ÁÚO, vol. VIII,
151). In Gölnicbánya, although the charter of Ladislaus IV did not mention free election of judges, because
no one apart from the judge and councilors could pass judgment on them, presumably this meant free
election of the judge as well; Výsady miest, 68. We do not know the town charter of Radna (Rodna, Romania);
however, we may infer its right to freely elect judges, which it must have received from Béla IV, since in
1268 the judge and councilors of Radna issued a diploma bearing the town’s seal; UGDS, vol. I, 99–100.
30 1318: Výsady miest, 91; 1340: ibid., 132.
293
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
Körmöcbánya,31 Szomolnokbánya (Smolník, Slovakia),32 Nagybánya,33 Breznóbánya34 and Libetbánya (Ľubietová, Slovakia).35 When Bakabánya in the late
ifteenth century had King Wladislaw II conirm its lost privileges, the ruler
recalled the free election of the judge and jurors as an ancient custom (ex
antiquo more),36 since this was now regarded completely as the town’s internal
matter. Among the mining towns, only the 1340 letter of privilege of Rózsahegy
referred to the royal conirmation of the judge;37 this was a restrictive clause
that guaranteed the king an opportunity, should the need arise, to place his own
candidate in ofice. The charters of the non-mining towns in almost every case
provided for the free election of the judge;38 the king’s right of conirmation was
emphasized by the charters dated prior to 1245 almost without exception,39 and
scattered references to this are to be found after 1245 also.40 In 1340 the people
of Rózsahegy asked King Charles for the privileges of Lipcse in Liptó County,
that is, those of a town whose charter likewise contained the requirement of
royal conirmation.41
The charters, if they touched upon the judge’s term of ofice, generally
ixed it at one year.42 The king was generally unwilling to ix the date of the
election; in 1338, for example, in the privilege of Szomolnokbánya Charles
declared that they were to elect from amongst themselves a judge annually on
the customary date (in termino consueto) in accordance with the custom of other
31 1328: Výsady miest, 115; their irst judge (Johannes iudex) appears in 1331 in a diploma bearing the town’s
seal. MNL OL, Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Collection of Photocopies, hereafter: DF], 250 151.
32 This right was conirmed in 1338. Výsady miest, 128. The sovereign issued the diploma at the request,
among others, of the judge of Szomolnokbánya (Albertus iudex Peturman dictus...de civitate nostra Smulnuchbana);
ibid.
33 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499.
34 1380: ibid., vol. IX/5, 390. The judge of Breznó (Andreas iudex) is irst encountered on August 31,
1381; ibid., vol. IX/5, 462.
35 1382: ibid., vol. IX/5, 577.
36 Ibid., vol. VII/5, 425. The irst village headman of Bakabánya is known to us from 1329 (Nicolaus
villicus); MNL OL, DL 86 996.
37 Výsady miest, 132.
38 Cf. Erik Fügedi, “Középkori magyar városprivilégiumok” [Medieval Hungarian Town Privileges],
Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából, 14 (1961): 59–61.
39 Cf. ibid., 61.
40 E.g., Lipcse (Liptó County), 1263: CD, vol. IV/3, 9; Buda, 1276: Budapest történetének okleveles
emlékei I (1148–1301) [Charters Relating to the History of Budapest], ed. Albert Gárdonyi (Budapest: A
székesfőváros kiadása, 1936), 157–58.
41 Cf. 1276: CD, vol. IV/3, 9.
42 We ind this passage in the charter of Besztercebánya in 1255; see CD, vol. II, 341.
294
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
towns (more aliarum civitatum nostrarum).43 In the charter issued to the people of
Nagybánya in 1347 Louis I declared that the judge was to remain in his ofice
for one year, until January 8.44 This meant on the one hand that the election
of the judge took place annually, and on the other it alluded to the date of the
election also. In 1380 in the charter of Breznóbánya Louis already stipulated that
they should elect from amongst themselves a judge for a term of one year (per
annum duraturum) in the manner of other royal towns (ad instar aliarum civitatum
nostrarum).45 Although the charters stated that the judge was elected for one
year, this did not exclude the possibility of the same person being elected the
following year; indeed, we generally ind that a given person held the ofice of
judge for several years consecutively. In general the election of the jurors was
not speciically mentioned by the charters,46 and thus it almost certainly occurred
at the same time as the election of the judge and likewise for a period of one
year. Fixing the date of the election of the judge or stipulations concerning the
election of jurors were not typical in the charters of non-mining towns either.47
This is certainly an indication that the king regarded the election of judges as an
internal affair of both the mining and other royal towns.
According to the stipulations of the charters, the judge’s jurisdiction
extended to all matters great or small arising within the limits of the town,48 as
we can read in the privileges of other towns as well.49 We can read of this in the
charters of Rózsahegy,50 Szomolnokbánya,51 Nagybánya52 and Breznóbánya.53
However, the judge’s jurisdiction extended not only to lawsuits arising within
the town’s territory but also to the townspeople personally,54 something that
can be observed in non-mining towns as well.55 In all their affairs the people
43 Výsady miest, 128.
44 CD, vol. IX/1, 499.
45 CD, vol. IX/5, 390–91.
46 An exception is Körmöcbánya, where we ind the free election of judges and councilors among the
privileges; Výsady miest, 115.
47 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 61.
48 This can be found already in the privileges of the Árpád era; cf. Besztercebánya (CDES, vol. II, 341),
Gölnicbánya (Výsady miest, 68) and Rimabánya (ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 212).
49 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 62–63.
50 1318: Výsady miest, 91; 1340: ibid., 132.
51 1338: ibid., 128.
52 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499; Louis I reiterated it in 1376 in his charter issued at the request of Nagybánya
and Felsőbánya; ibid., vol. IX/5, 97.
53 1380: ibid., vol. IX/5, 390–91.
54 Cf. Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341.
55 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 63.
295
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
of Körmöcbánya were bound to appear only before the court of their judge
or villicus (village headman). Moreover, if the judge neglected to render a
judgment, he could be summoned to appear before the king. Charles I further
supplemented this privilege by declaring that in case the townspeople owed
money the debt had to be reclaimed before their own court irst.56 Louis I
ruled in a similar fashion in 1347 in his charter for the people of Nagybánya,
ordering that they could be brought to trial only before their own court, and
if the judge and the jurors proved indifferent and neglectful, the judge was
to be summoned to appear before the king.57 The only modiication brought
to this by the 1376 charter of Nagybánya is its inclusion, in addition to the
king, of the tárnokmester (magister tavarnicorum).58 A curtailment of the judge’s
jurisdiction can be observed in the 1318 privilege of Rózsahegy, which
ordered that lawsuits arising between the town burghers and foreigners were
to be adjudicated jointly by the villicus of Rózsahegy and the comes of the other
side;59 the judge’s competence thus extended only to internal affairs. Of all
the Angevin charters granted to the mining towns, only that of Rózsahegy
mentioned exemption from the authority of the county ispán.60 In the town
privileges this provision disappears in most cases in the fourteenth century, and
the king deines only the jurisdiction of the judge. In the case of Rózsahegy,
Charles may have considered it necessary to emphasize this separately in 1340
only because the people of Rózsahegy had received their irst charter in 1318
from Dancs, ispán of Zólyom.61
In the mining towns we encounter oficials who are not to be found in other
towns, since their existence was tied to mining. The ruler appointed an ispán
(comes) or rector to head the mining towns,62 while the town elected a judge. Buda
was headed by a rector, with interruptions of varying duration, from 1264 until
56 1328: Výsady miest, 115.
57 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499–500.
58 Ibid., IX/5, 99.
59 Výsady miest, 91–92. We may observe this limitation in Hibbe (Hybe, Slovakia) as well; 1265: ibid., 49.
60 1340: ibid., 132.
61 Ibid., 91–92; Although the people of Rózsahegy received the privileges of Lipcse in Liptó County
both in 1318 and 1340, in 1318 exemption from the count’s adjudication was not included among the
privileges; in fact, Dancs personally was allowed to exercise even the right of descensus.
62 In 1355 Louis I appointed the castellan of Makovica, Miklós, son of Jakab Baracskai, to be rector of
the ore mines situated above Gibolt (Gáboltó), which belonged to the castle of Makovica, in accordance
with the custom of other mines (more et consuetudine aliarum montanarum regni nostri). The rector was obligated
to ensure the revenues due the king from the mine; MNL OL, DL 62 500.
296
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
the mid-fourteenth century,63 and in the second half of the thirteenth century
the rulers appointed a podesta to head the town of Zagreb.64 This, however, also
meant that the ruler had suspended the right of these towns to freely elect a
judge, whereas in the mining towns the rector or comes worked alongside the
judge elected by the town. Of the comes or rector the charters of the mining towns
generally make no mention, except for the 1376 charter of Nagybánya;65 their
duties and jurisdiction, however, can be reconstructed unequivocally from other
sources. The rector administered the town’s affairs in conjunction with the judge
and jurors elected by the town.66 The ruler appointed to the mines urburarii (or
exactores urburarum),67 who were responsible for collecting the mining tax (urbura).
According to the charter of Nagybánya the urburarius was allowed to take from
the miners only the share equivalent to the urbura and no more. At the same time,
the urburarius could publicly punish those miners who concealed the extracted
ores. The urburarius himself could expect punishment if contrary to the law he
employed violence against the miners, absconded with the extracted ore and
used it for his own proit, or obstructed mining operations. However, the ruler
emphasized speciically that the urburarius was not allowed to interfere in the
town’s other affairs (for instance, justice and tax collection).68 Yet in 1376 Louis
I already decreed that the town’s judge and jurors were to pass judgment on
wrongdoers in conjunction with the king’s comes and urburarius.69
The judge, the jurors and the community annually elected a Bergmeister or
mine manager (magister montis) as well, who could investigate all matters arising
during the working of the mine and render judgments together with the
judge.70 Although the Bergmeister was elected by the town authorities, he must
nevertheless be regarded as a royal oficial. This is well illustrated by the Law
63 Cf. György Györffy, Pest-Buda kialakulása. Budapest története a honfoglalástól az Árpád-kor végi székvárossá
alakulásig [The Formation of Pest-Buda. The History of Budapest from the Conquest to Its Development
as Capital in the Late Árpád Era] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1997), 194–95; Attila Zsoldos, Családi ügy.
IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [A Family Affair. The Dispute between Béla IV and
Rex Iunior Stephen in the 1260s] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2007), 42.
64 Cf. Attila Zsoldos, “Városlakók a királyi család szolgálatában” [Town-dwellers in the Service of the
Royal Family], Történelmi Szemle 47 (2005): 197–99.
65 CD, vol. IX/5, 97–98.
66 Cf. July 14, 1331: MNL OL, DF 250 152. 1337: Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. III, 327–28; 1340: ibid., vol.
IV, 9–10; 1344: CD, vol. IX/1. 195–96; 1376: ibid., vol. IX/5, 97–98.
67 1256: CDES, vol. II, 389–90.
68 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 501–02.
69 1376: ibid., vol. IX/5, 97–98.
70 1347: ibid., vol. IX/1, 500.
297
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
Code of Selmecbánya: according to this, whereas the Bergmeister was chosen by
the judge (and council) of the mining town, his wages were paid by the royal
chamber.71 The Bergmeister supervised the mines and saw to the distribution and
granting of mining allotments as well as the granting of mining permission.72 In
mining matters he could also pronounce judgments in conjunction with other
town oficials.73
According to the charter of Nagybánya, the judge and jurors also elected
mine inspectors (scansores), who constantly monitored the mines and the mining
works, primarily in the interests of protecting the urbura, the king’s proit.74 If the
scansor proved neglectful and unfaithful, another had to be chosen in his place.75
Although the mining town elected the scansor, he protected irst and foremost
the interests of the ruler.76 The scansor along with the judge and jurors of the
mining town could also pass judgment on a given mine’s affairs, an example of
which we ind in Selmecbánya.77 Moreover, according to the entry, the Bernhard
who was taking care of matters here igured as the scansor of the mines of the
king and the Kingdom of Hungary (Bernhardus scansor montanorum regni Ungariae;
Bernhardus scansor domini regis et montanorum regni Ungariae). We consider it likely that
the jurisdiction of the above-named Bernhard extended only to the mines of (to
use a later expression) Lower Hungary, in the company of the representatives
of which he sat in judgement at Selmecbánya in 1388.78 The adjudicators there
also included a certain Jacob called Rolle, a former royal scansor, who is known
71 “Nu setz Wir tzum Ersten wy Vnd von wem man Pergwerk entphohen zal vnd welicher tzeit So Ist
tzu wissen, das, der Richtr [und der Rate] einer pergstatt hatt tzu setzen Ein Geschworn Perkmaster, vnd
der zal sein zolt haben von der Camr des Khönigs.” Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 46. The earliest manuscript does
not contain the section referring to the council; however, it appears in each of the later manuscripts; cf. Das
Stadt- und Bergrecht, 72, 101, 125, 157, 191.
72 Cf. the Mining Law of Selmecbánya, 45§, 46§, 47§, 56§, 57§. Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 46–48, 50–51. Cf.
Martin Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung der Berg- und Münzkammern und ihrer leitenden Beamten
in den mittelslowakischen Bergstädten im Mittelalter,” in Wirtschaftslenkende Montanverwaltung – Fürstlicher
Unternehmer – Merkantilismus, ed. Angelika Westermann et al. (Husum: Matthiesen Verlag, 2009), 64–70.
73 1402: MNL OL, DF, 235 721.
74 Cf. Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung,” 70–73.
75 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 500.
76 Oszkár Paulinyi identiied the scansor with the Bergmeister; see Oszkár Paulinyi, “A bányajoghatóság
centralizációjának első kísérlete Magyarországon” [The First Attempt to Centralize Mining Authorities
in Hungary], in idem, Gazdag föld – szegény ország. Tanulmányok a magyarországi bányaművelés múltjából [Rich
Land – Poor Country. Studies from the Past of Mine Exploitation in Hungary], eds. János Buza and István
Draskóczy (Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, 2005), 352, footnote 5.
77 1387, 1388: Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 268.
78 MNL OL, DF, 235 721; Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 268.
298
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
to have held the ofice of judge in Selmecbánya in 1372 and 1379, and was thus
a citizen of the town.79 In German-language sources the equivalent of scansor
is Steiger.80 This is also attested by one of the judgments of the administration
of Selmecbánya regulating mine exploitation, which was taken by the Steiger in
concert with the ispán of Selmecbánya, the judge, the jurors and the Bergmeister.81
According to the charter of Nagybánya, the judge, the jurors and the
community also elected, without infringing upon the rights of the ispáns of
the chamber (kamaraispánok), an experienced auritactor, whose inspection and
calculation everyone would accept.82 More can be learned about this ofice with
the help of a charter issued by Louis I on February 2, 1345, in which the ruler
decreed that in the customary places of the chamber, in the mines and in the
towns there be a “royal house” (domus regalis), where people were to bring the
gold and silver for the purposes of selling, smelting and converting. In the mines
only the ispán of the chamber could examine the number of carats of the gold,
and this exclusively in the royal house, whereupon he marked the gold with the
royal sign.83 From this data we may conclude that the auritactor appearing in the
charter of Nagybánya must have been a person who performed the examination
of the gold in the town,84 while the right to determine oficially the number of
carats and stamp the royal sign on the gold was left by Louis I irmly within the
competence of the ispán of the chamber.85
The privileges determined the manner of appeal as well, and designated
the king as appellate forum.86 On June 14, 1325 Charles I, when listing the
privileges granted to the town of Aranyosbánya, which other royal gold mines
also enjoyed (libertatibus, quibus aliarum aurifodinarum suarum magistri seu operarii
utuntur), mentioned that neither the palatine nor the Transylvanian voevode nor
79 Magyarországi városok régi számadáskönyvei [Old Account Books of Hungarian Towns], ed. László
Fejérpataky (Budapest: MTA, 1885), 16, 22.
80 Cf. Adolf Zycha, Das böhmische Bergrecht des Mittelalters auf Grundlage des Bergrechts von Iglau (Berlin: F.,
Vahlen, 1900), vol. II, 92–93.
81 1402: “Johannes Smernstempil, des konigs obirster steyger” MNL OL, DF 235 721.
82 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 500.
83 Bálint Hóman, A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and
Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 2003
[1921]), 265.
84 Cf. Stefánik, “Entstehung und Entwicklung,” 74.
85 We will not examine other ofices occurring in mining towns, such as the Teiler or the sáfár (steward),
since not one of the town charters speaks of these. For more on the sáfár, see Stefánik, “Entstehung und
Entwicklung,” 77.
86 See Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341; Selmecbánya, Výsady miest, 49–50.
299
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
the county ispáns (comites parochiales) or any judge but the king or the judge royal
could pass judgment on them.87 The privileges of the non-mining towns likewise
dealt with possibilities of appeal, in which they designated the king or the judge
entrusted by him.88
Among the mining towns only Nagybánya was permitted by King Louis to
enclose their settlement and thus defend it against the enemy with palisade and
hedge.89
The legal privileges show that the mining towns possessed all those privileges
that other towns possessed, while the differences, i.e., the emergence of ofices
differing from those in other towns, stemmed from mining activity itself.
Ecclesiastical Privileges
The right to freely elect a parish priest can be found in almost every mining
town privilege,90 including the charters of Rózsahegy,91 Nagybánya92 and Breznóbánya.93 Because these were towns where no signiicant church institution had
yet developed prior to the acquisition of the town privilege, it is thus almost
natural that there was an opportunity to freely elect the parish priest. Among the
privileges we also ind the regulation of the tithe obligation. The institution of
the libera decima, which meant that it was the parish priest and not the bishop who
beneitted from the tithes, can only be demonstrated in Selmecbánya among
the mining towns of the Árpád era.94 As for the privileges from the Angevin
era, only those of Nagybánya do hint at the fact that the parish priest enjoyed
the tithes. For in 1347 King Louis ordered that half of the tithe of the grain
and wine should belong to the parish priest of Nagybánya, while the other half
should be spent on building a church. It was likewise for the building of the
church that Louis pledged the census on the deposition of wine (census depositionis
87 UGDS, vol. I, 396 (Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. IX, no. 251.).
88 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 64.
89 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 502.
90 Cf. Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341; Rimabánya, 1268: ÁÚO, vol. VIII, 212.
91 1318: Výsady miest, 92. Our irst data on the parish priest dates from 1332 (Nicolaus plebanus); Pápai
tized-szedők számadásai 1281–1375 [Accounts of the Papal Tithe Collectors]. Vatikáni Magyar Okirattár,
Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/1 (Budapest: n.p., 1887), 198.
92 1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 499.
93 1380: ibid., vol. IX/5, 391. The parish priest of Breznó (Dominus Petrus plebanus de Brizna) is irst
encountered on August 31, 1382; ibid., vol. IX/5. 462.
94 Cf. 1263: Výsady miest, 45. 1270: ibid., 52–53. 1309: CD, vol. IX/1, 544–45.
300
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
vini), on its measure (census mensurae) and on the authentication of the lead stamp
(census staterae plumbi); after the church was completed he ceded all of these to
the town.95
In the realm of ecclesiastical privileges the mining towns held the same
rights as any other town,96 and no difference whatsoever can be shown.
Economic Privileges
In contrast to other towns,97, among the economic privileges it was not the
commercial privileges that held primary importance for the mining towns but
rather those linked to mining, above all the guarantee of “mining freedom”
(Bergbaufreiheit). This is natural, since whereas the most important economic
function of other towns was to ensure the exchange of goods, for the mining
towns this was mining. This provided the basis for them to become mining
towns, though the acquisition of this privilege did not necessarily lead to the
formation of a mining town. The concept of mining freedom meant on the one
hand the free exploration for ores, and on the other hand the stipulation of the
urbura (one tenth of gold, one eighth of silver and other metals) to be paid to
the king. Some of the privileges granted the freedom to mine without territorial
restriction;98 others, however, contained territorial restrictions as well. On March
12, 1337 King Charles I granted the opportunity to explore for metals and open
mines within the limits of the estates of Dobrocsna, Bohó and Nevidzén and in
the Divék Valley in Nyitra County.99 On February 21, 1347 Louis I granted the
sons of Gyula Tapolcsányi, Miklós and Gergely, as well as their kinsman, András
son of András Tapolcsányi, the right to pan for gold in the Tapolcsány River on
the territory of the royal castle of Hrussó (today northwest of Hostie, Slovakia)
and the Tapolcsány estate.100 The role assumed by the Tapolcsányi in mining is
illustrated not only by these last two documents, but also by the fact that in 1321
Charles also bestowed the silver mine of Bakabánya on the sons of Hazlow of
Tapolcsány, Gyula and András.101 On June 25, 1339 Charles gave the sons of
Ábrahám of the Hontpázmány kindred, Sebes and Péter, permission to freely
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Ibid., vol. IX/1, 501.
Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 74–77.
Cf. ibid., 28.
For example, Rózsahegy 1340: Výsady miest, 132.
Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 318–19.
Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. V, 19.
Ibid., vol. I, 619–20.
301
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
extract the gold, silver and other metals found on their estates, and especially in
the territory of Bazin (Pezinok, Slovakia) and Szentgyörgy (Svatý Jur, Slovakia),
and to pan for gold as well.102 A diploma dated July 13, 1339 already informs us
about a dispute on whether the gold and other metals found in the vicinity of
Bazin were located within the boundaries of the estates of Sebes and Péter in
Bazin or on royal land.103 In this same year a decision in the matter of the gold
mine of Nyírújhegy (Novus mons de Nyr)104 located in the vicinity of Sebes’s estate
in Sumberg,105 was taken by the king.106 On February 20, 1379 Louis I permitted
the sons of Péter Sós of Sóvár, János, György and László, to mine gold, silver
and other metals on their estates.107 Those on whose lands we have knowledge
of working mines must also have obtained mining licenses from the king, even
if their speciic mining license is not known.108 In the fourteenth century licenses
of settlement plantation sometimes made provision for mines to be explored;109
these, however, enjoyed free mining rights only in possession of a separate royal
license.110
The opening of each mine carried within it the possibility that a town might
also be founded there. Charles I alluded to this in 1337, when in addition to
opening mines in the Divék Valley he also granted the opportunity to plant
settlements and found towns there.111 And in 1340, when he authorized László,
102 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 319. Louis I conirmed the mining permit for János and Miklós,
sons of Sebus of Bazin, on February 4, 1365; ibid., 321–22.
103 Ibid., 320.
104 In 1340 it igures under the name “Novus Mons de Nir Pathaka”; see Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. IV,
12. The Nyírpatak stream lowed between Szentgyörgy and Bazin; cf. 1340: ibid., vol. XXIV, no. 763; 1343:
ibid., vol. XXVII, no. 478.
105 Sumberg is located north of Bazin; cf. MES, vol. III, 359–60.
106 Cf. Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 323–24; Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. III, 608–09; March 19,
1340: ibid., vol. IV, 12–13.
107 CD, vol. IX/5, 322.
108 For example, we learn of mines on the estate of Miklós, brother of Batiz, Miklós, son of Batiz and
István, son of Márk in 1312; see Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters], 8 vols., eds. Imre
Nagy et al. (Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891), vol. VII, 368–69. In 1320 the sons of Benedict of the Ákos
kindred made provisions for both the lead mine on the estate of Ardó (Gömör County) as well as mines
on their estates to be explored later; see Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol I, 545.
109 See for instance Lublópataka (Szepes County), January 21, 1308: Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria
Slovaciae, 2 vols., ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislavae: Sumptibus Acad. Scient. Slovacae, 1980–1987), vol. I. 247;
Fridmanvágása (Frydman, Slovakia), July 24, 1308: CD, vol. VIII/1, 259–60; Murány (Muraň, Slovakia),
1321: Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. I, 644; Dobsina (Dobšiná, Slovakia), 1326: Výsady miest, 109–10.
110 For instance, Kakas, son of Rikalf of Szepes obtained this kind of right through the mining license
of the Zipser Saxons. Cf. CD, vol. VIII/1, 259–60.
111 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 318–19.
302
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
son of János, son of Langeus of Tolcsva, to open gold, silver and other mines on
the estate of Tolcsva in Zemplén County, he also decreed that after the opening
of the mines and the establishment of the town László should be the comes, lord
or rector of the mines.112 Some of the mining towns, however, were founded by
the miners of already existing mining towns (as in the cases of Bakabánya and
Újbánya, for example), and thus there was no need to provide a separate mining
license for these settlements.
Since in order to work the mines timber was indispensable, it was the
privileges related to this that were most important to the mining towns.113 Two
processes may be observed: in one of them the ruler permitted the use of the
forest within the borders of the town,114 and in the other he assigned the mining
town a zone in the range of one, two or three miles within which he authorized
the use of the forest.
In the case of the mining towns generally it was the latter solution that
prevailed. Bakabánya, for example, must have possessed an area of one mile
(cum spacio unius miliaris), since it was together with its adjoining one-mile district
that on July 4, 1321 Charles I granted the settlement to the sons of Hazlow
of Tapolcsány, Gyula and András.115 When in the late ifteenth century King
Wladislaw II conirmed the privileges of the town of Bakabánya, he likewise
recalled this one-mile zone (per unum milliare circumquaque).116 The people of
Szomolnokbánya, who possessed the same liberty as other royal towns (more
aliarum civitatum nostrarum eadem libertate fruencium), received an area of two miles
around the town (in spacio duorum miliarium undique pergirando) in 1332.117 On June
14, 1325 Charles I ceded one and a half miles of land (ad quantitatem unius et
112 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. IV, 9–10.
113 The signiicance of timber is shown by those lawsuits which from the ifteenth century on almost
constantly raise the issue of forest use. Cf. Gusztáv Wenzel, Az alsómagyarországi bányavárosok küzdelmei
a nagy-lucsei Dóczyakkal. 1494–1548 [The Struggles of the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary against the
Dóczy of Nagy-Lucse, 1494–1548], Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből VI/6 (Budapest: n.p.,
1876); Eszter Magyar, A feudalizmus kori erdőgazdálkodás az alsó-magyarországi bányavárosokban 1255–1747
[Forest Management of the Feudal Era in the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary, 1255–1747], Értekezések
a történeti tudományok köréből 101 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1983), 46–49.
114 Besztercebánya, 1255: CDES, vol. II, 341; Gölnicbánya, 1287: Výsady miest, 68; Idabánya, 1349:
ibid., 163.
115 Anjou-kori okmánytár, vol. I, 619–20.
116 “per unum milliare circumquaque cum omnibus emolumentis et utilitatibus ad eam civitatem ab
antiquo spectantibus, iuribus tamen alienis semper salvis permanentibus, uti, frui, et gaudere possint et
valeant;” CD, vol. VII/5, 425.
117 Výsady miest, 121.
303
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
dimidiae rastae) around the mine to the town of Aranyosbánya in accordance with
the custom of the other royal gold mines (consuetudine ceterarum aurifodinarum).118
From 1328 Körmöcbánya was allowed to use the forests subjected to the
king’s right of donation within a distance of two miles (ad duo miliaria) without
prejudice to another’s right.119 On August 27, 1341 Telkibánya received, among
other things, two miles of woodland with mines (duas ratas de silva cum montibus),
since the town’s lands had proven inadequate.120 To Nagybánya belonged an area
of three miles (circumquaque ad tria milliaria),121 within which, however, in the era
of Louis I there were no longer suficient trees for the support timbering of the
mines (sed quia robora et magna ligna operae stolonum, fouearum, ac domorum aediiciis
necessaria in metis eorum inueniri non contingat). For this reason, in 1347 Louis allowed
the town to fell the necessary trees outside its borders (extra metas eorum) from
the king’s forest (in possessionibus et syluis nostris regalibus recipiendi habeant facultatem
liberam) without prejudice to the rights of other royal and noble estates.122 In
1376, moreover, Louis allowed the town the free use of the Fekete-erdő (Black
Forest) as well as other royal forests situated around the town.123
We possess little information from this period on the manner of timber
cutting. In 1342 the citizens of Szomolnok and Gölnicbánya received permission
during their lawsuit with the Monastery of Jászó, to take over half of the forest
between the Gölnic and Bodva rivers owned by the monastery in exchange
for which they were obliged to give one bolt of light white broadcloth to the
monastery annually. After they inished cutting down the trees of the forest,
they were obligated to return the land to the monastery.124 At the same time
the diploma does not inform us about what happened to the cleared forest
subsequently. Some light is cast on systematic timber cutting by a later, 1426
charter from the era of King Sigismund (1387–1437). According to this the
wood necessary for mining operations (ligna necessaria et suficientia) was to be
118 UGDS, vol. I, 396.
119 Výsady miest, 115.
120 Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 348–49. On July 9, 1341 the ruler ordered the boundaries of
Telkibánya be marked (ibid., 346), the chapter of Szepes issued a diploma about the boundary inspection,
in which it noted that it was within the king’s power to expand or reduce the limits (quicquid autem ultra
premissa vestre maiestati eidem civitati augendo, vel minuendo facere placuerit, hoc in vestra constitit maiestate). Ibid.,
347–48.
121 Except for already existing villages, lands, forests and the nobles’ estates.
122 CD, vol. IX/1, 499.
123 Ibid., vol. IX/5, 98.
124 MNL OL, DF, 232 783; CD, vol. IX/3, 342–43 (dated 1362).
304
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
provided to the miners from the royal forests (de silvis nostris regalibus). Every
year a different area had to be designated for cutting, and once a forested area
had been so designated, its trees had to be felled, and only following this was
it permitted to move on to another area. The cleared woodland could not be
plowed over so that forest could once more grow on it.125
The use of mining measures is addressed by the 1347 decree of Louis I.
In it, the ruler directed the miners of Nagybánya to use the old and customary
mining measure (antiqua seu consueta montium mensura),126 referring to the system
of mining land measurement used in distributing mining allotments.127 The basic
units of land measure used in the exploitation of the mine were the Lachter
(or Berglachter) and the Lehen, both of German origin.128 According to the
mining code of Selmecbánya, one Lachter was equal to three Selmecbánya ells,
while seven Lachter equaled one Lehen.129 It is open to doubt whether in the
fourteenth century we are dealing with the same measurement in Nagybánya,
and also in Felsőbánya, which was closely connected to it, since according to the
1535 regulations on mining in Nagybánya and Felsőbánya, one Lachter equaled
three Buda ells.130 There is a substantial difference between the two systems of
calculation, since the ell of Selmecbánya was 67.38 cm, while that of Buda was
58.403 cm.131
The practical functioning of the right of the chambers to exchange
precious ores was described by Louis I in the 1347 charter of Nagybánya. In it
the sovereign ordered the ispáns of the chamber not to hinder the merchants
(mercatores) doing business between Nagybánya and Szatmár while they were
coming to the Szatmár chamber and returning from there to the mine with
pennies (denarii). The diploma unequivocally refers to trade in gold and silver
when it notes that whoever leaves the territory of the Szatmár chamber with
gold and silver (cum auro et argento) along hidden paths, stealthily, or without the
125 MNL OL, DF, 280 671.
126 CD, vol. IX/1, 500.
127 Cf. István Bogdán, Magyarországi hossz- és földmértékek a XVI. század végéig [Measures of Length and
Land in Hungary up to the Late Sixteenth Century] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), 39.
128 Lehen = bányakötél = (pars pro toto) mining allotment.
129 “So ist zw wissnn das das percklocht(er) behellt vnnserer Statt ellnn dreyn, Vnd sybnn lachtter
behalttn ein lehnn.” Das Stadt- und Bergrecht, 46.
130 “die perglacher, anch welcher man perkwerk vermisst und vordinget soll werden, soll haben
hinfürt drey ofner eln.” Sándor Takáts, “A magyar léhen és holden. Első közlemény” [The Hungarian
Lehen and Holden. First Communication], Századok 42 (1908): 261, note 7; Bogdán, Magyarországi hossz- és
földmértékek, 101.
131 Ibid., 110–11.
305
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
permission of the ispán of the chamber (non obtenta licentia comitum camerarum) is
to be punished.132
The charters also made provisions for the right to erect and own buildings
that were indispensable during mining work. Thus, the people of Rózsahegy on
November 14, 1340 received from Charles I the right to freely build a mill within
the borders of their town, without prejudice to another’s rights.133 In 1376 Louis I
allowed the hospites and burghers of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya to maintain mills,
sheds,134 smelting furnaces, launders,135 allodia and other buildings (molendinum,
casas, fornaces, Balnea, allodia et alias quaslibet haereditates aediicari facientes) according
to the custom of other royal mines (ritu aliarum nostrarum montanarum).136
Like other towns,137 the mining settlements naturally attempted to obtain
permission to hold markets as well,138 though they achieved this for the most
part only in the ifteenth century.139 In his diploma granted to Gölnicbánya in
1287 Ladislaus IV also privileged the market of Gölnicbánya140 by decreeing
that no markets could be held in the villages within the town’s borders: those
living there also had to trade at the market of Gölnicbánya.141 On July 4, 1321
Charles I bestowed Bakabánya along with its market on the sons of Hazlow of
Tapolcsány, Gyula and András.142 According to the charter of Bakabánya from
the late ifteenth century, this free market (forum liberum) was held in the town
on Saturdays.143 In Nagybánya the weekly market was held every Monday, while
the fair could be held for ifteen days starting on the Sunday before the feast of
132 CD, vol. IX/1, 500–01.
133 Výsady miest, 132.
134 The casa mentioned in the document may have meant a building in which the miners kept their tools
and which on workdays could have served as lodgings for them as well.
135 The ores are cleaned after crushing but prior to roasting by washing. Cf. Georgius Agricola, Tizenkét
könyv a bányászatról és kohászatról [Twelve Books about Mining and Smelting = De Re Metallica], trans. Rezső
Brecht, ed. László Molnár (Budapest: OMBKE, n.d. [1985]), 294–95, 314–22.
136 CD, vol. IX/5, 98.
137 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 28–36.
138 On Selmecbánya’s weekly market: 14th c: ÁÚO, vol. III. 209; 1505: MNL OL, DF 234 771. On
Rózsahegy’s weekly market: 1318: Výsady miest, 92.
139 Rudabánya, 1388: MNL OL, DL, 42 413; 1415: Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of
Sigismund], 12 vols., ed. Elemér Mályusz et al. (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1951–2013), vol. V,
no. 808; Újbánya, 1424: MNL OL, DL, 59 014; 1434: CD, vol. X/7. 569; Rozsnyóbánya, 1430: MNL OL,
DL, 16 753; Besztercebánya, 1480: MNL OL, DF, 271 829; Breznóbánya, 1488: MNL OL, DL, 30 856.
140 Its toll regulations were established in 1278; cf. ÁÚO, vol. IX, 204–05.
141 Výsady miest, 68.
142 Ibid., 96.
143 CD, vol. VII/5, 425.
306
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
Saint Gall (October 16), according to the custom of the royal town of Kassa
(more civitatis nostrae Cassensis).144
In 1376 among the privileges of Nagybánya and Felsőbánya Louis I
mentioned also that on the day of the market (in die fori) both foreigners and
townspeople could freely sell cloth by the bolt and by the ell (cum petiis et etiam
ulnis), but during the week (in septimana) the town residents could sell either retail
or wholesale, that is, by the ell and by the bolt (cum ulnis et etiam petiis), while
foreigners could sell only by the bolt (cum petiis), that is, only wholesale.145 The
charter’s allusion to selling independently of the markets raises the suspicion
that a staple operated in Nagybánya; in the absence of further information,
however, we cannot state for certain that the town possessed staple right as well.
In contrast to other towns,146 mining towns only rarely obtained the privilege
of exemption from tolls,147 closely connected to trade. The people of Rózsahegy
did receive exemption from tolls at the market held in Rózsahegy from ispán
Dancs in 1318.148
In his charter granted to the hospites of Nagybánya in 1347, King Louis
decreed that the burghers, merchants and other hospites could freely sell wine.
The ruler also allowed them to bring butchered meat (except for bacon) and bread
without paying tolls (save that of Zazárkő) to Nagybánya and freely sell them
together with other goods on Mondays.149 This measure of Louis shows that the
people of Nagybánya possessed the right to sell meat in Nagybánya, and only at
the town’s weekly market, held on Mondays, did others also have the opportunity
to sell meat. Regulation of wine sales took place once more in 1376, when Louis
decreed that until the feast of Saint James (July 25) only wine produced on their
land could be sold in the town.150 In 1374 the people of Gölnicbánya saw to
it that the inhabitants of the seven villages belonging to them were prevented
from the right to either operate a public house (educillatio) or sell meat or textiles;
in all these matters the villagers were to adhere to Gölnicbánya.151
144 1347: ibid., vol. IX/1, 502.
145 Ibid., vol. IX/5, 99.
146 Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 36–40.
147 Selmecbánya and Besztercebányahad had possessed such a privilege since the Árpád era; cf. CDES,
vol. II, 341.
148 Výsady miest, 92.
149 CD, vol. IX/1, 500.
150 1376: ibid., vol. IX/5, 98.
151 Ibid., IX/4, 564–65.
307
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
The charters also deal with the problem of hunting and ishing in
connection with the use of the forest. The inhabitants of the mining towns
could freely hunt and ish within the town borders, just as the burghers of
other towns could in the Angevin period.152 This provision may be observed in
the charters of Gölnicbánya153 and Rózsahegy.154 According to both their 1318
and 1340 charters the people of Rózsahegy could freely hunt and ish within
their town borders; however, in the charter of 1318 the ispán of Zólyom,
Dancs, did not permit them to ish in the Vág River,155 whereas in the privilege
of 1340 the ruler speciically emphasized the right to ish freely in the waters
of the Revuca River.156
The charters from the fourteenth century determined the towns’ tax liabilities
and the manner of payment as well. The people of Rózsahegy were obligated
to pay 50 marks to the king every year.157 The inhabitants of Nagybánya and
Felsőbánya according to the charter of 1376 were required to pay 1000 lorins
around the feast of Saint George (April 24) in token of the annual tax (collecta),
the “proit of the chamber” (lucrum camere) and the new year’s gift; above this,
however, no other tax could be collected from them.158 According to the charter
of Bakabánya from the late ifteenth century, the town was expected to pay the
king a total of 90 lorins in two instalments as an annual census (pro annuo censu).159
The right of the grantor of the privilege to receive food and lodging (descensus)
is found only in the 1318 charter of Rózsahegy, where the grantor, ispán Dancs
of Zólyom, reserved for himself the right of descensus; however, he denied it
to his oficials and retainers.160 Finally, in 1340 King Charles exempted the town
from providing descensus to anyone.161
We do not ind privileges relating to the question of the transfer of real
estate and free disposition of property in the charters of the mining towns. Only
King Louis guaranteed the burghers of Nagybánya in 1347 that if someone
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
308
Cf. Fügedi, “Középkori városprivilégiumok,” 48.
1287: Výsady miest, 68.
1318: ibid., 92; 1340: ibid., 132.
Ibid., 92.
Ibid., 131.
Ibid., 132.
CD, vol. IX/5, 99–100.
Ibid., vol. VII/5, 425.
Výsady miest, 92.
Ibid., 132.
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
committed murder and then led, his movable and immovable assets would be
left to his wife, children or heirs.162
*
It is the principle of “mining freedom” and the privileges tied to mining, whether
economic or legal, that differentiate the mining towns from other privileged
towns. The burghers of the mining towns could be tied to other mining towns
not only by ties of kinship but also economic and political interests and their
lawsuits; indeed, we ind examples also of new mining towns being established
through their collaboration, as in the case of Újbánya, founded by Bakabánya.
It was this close relationship that led to the mining towns taking joint action in
mining questions beginning in the second half of the fourteenth century, and
from the ifteenth century in protection of their economic interests as well,
and alliances of mining towns organized on a territorial basis were formed. We
encounter the irst mention of the alliance of the mining towns which later
came to be known as those of “Lower Hungary” (Selmecbánya, Körmöcbánya,
Bakabánya, Újbánya, Besztercebánya and Libetbánya) – an alliance not based on
the signing of any formal treaty – when they passed a joint decision in 1388;163
this, however, as yet attests only to their solidarity in mining matters. It is only
from the ifteenth century on that we do have data about the aforementioned
mining towns taking common action for their own interests. The seven mining
towns of Upper Hungary (Gölnicbánya, Szomolnok, Rudabánya, Jászó [Jasov,
Slovakia], Telkibánya, Rozsnyó [Rožňava, Slovakia] and Igló [Spišská Nová
Ves, Slovakia]) entered into an alliance with one another in December 1487.164
Nevertheless, already in the fourteenth century there occurred common affairs
in which the individual mining towns of Upper Hungary jointly represented
their interests. For instance, in 1342 the judges and jurors of Szomolnok and
Gölnicbánya jointly pursued a lawsuit with the Monastery at Jászó regarding the
forest owned by the monastery.165 Because of the similarity of their economic
status the mining towns formed close relations with one another, and thanks to
their special freedoms they stood apart from the other towns while also forming
an organic part of the town network.
162
163
164
165
1347: CD, vol. IX/1, 502.
Wenzel, Magyarország bányászatának, 268.
Ibid., 361–63.
MNL OL, DF, 232 783.
309
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
Archival Sources
Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL
OL), Diplomatikai Levéltár (Medieval Charters – DL).
Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL
OL), Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (Collection of Photocopies – DF).
Bibliography
Agricola, Georgius. Tizenkét könyv a bányászatról és kohászatról [Twelve Books about
Mining and Smelting = De Re Metallica]. Translated by Rezső Brecht, edited by
László Molnár. Budapest: OMBKE, n.d. [1985].
Almási, Tibor. “Megjegyzések Gölnicbánya Kun László királytól elnyert privilégiumához
és megerősítéseihez” [Notes on the Privilege of Gölnicbánya Obtained from King
Ladislaus the Cuman and its Conirmations]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila
József nominatae. Acta Historica 102 (1995): 43–49.
A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára [Archives of the Senior
Branch of the Zichy Family of Zich and Vásonkeő]. 12 vols, edited by Iván
Nagy, Imre Nagy, and Dezső Véghely. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat,
1871–1931.
Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary]. 32 vols, edited by Tibor Almási,
László Blazovich, Lajos Géczi, Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Piti, Ferenc Sebők, and Ildikó
Tóth. Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012.
Anjou-kori okmánytár [Charters from the Angevin Period]. 7 vols, edited by Imre Nagy
and Gyula Nagy. Budapest: MTA, 1878–1920.
Árpádkori Új Okmánytár [Charters from the Árpád Age, New Series]. 12 vols, edited by
Gusztáv Wenzel. Pest–Budapest: Eggenberger Ferdinánd Akadémiai Könyvtársulás,
1860–1874.
Bogdán, István. Magyarországi hossz- és földmértékek a XVI. század végéig [Measures
of Length and Land in Hungary up to the Late Sixteenth Century]. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978.
Botka, Tivadar. Bars vármegye hajdan és most [Bars County Then and Now]. Vol. I. Pest: n.p.,
1868.
Budapest történetének okleveles emlékei I (1148–1301) [Charters Relating to the History of
Budapest], edited by Albert Gárdonyi. Budapest: A székesfőváros kiadása, 1936.
Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae. 2 vols, edited by Richard Marsina. Bratislavae:
n.p., 1971–1987.
310
Mining Town Privileges in Angevin Hungary
Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. 11 vols, edited by György Fejér. Budae:
Typis Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.
Das Stadt- und Bergrecht von Banská Štiavnica / Schemnitz. Untersuchungen zum
Frühneuhochdeutschen in der Slowakei, edited by Ilpo Tapani Piirainen. Oulu: Universität
of Oulu, 1986.
Fügedi, Erik. “Középkori magyar városprivilégiumok” [Medieval Hungarian Town
Privileges]. Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából 14 (1961): 17–108.
Györffy, György. Pest–Buda kialakulása. Budapest története a honfoglalástól az Árpád-kor végi
székvárossá alakulásig [The Formation of Pest-Buda. The History of Budapest from
the Conquest to Its Development as Capital in the Late Árpád Era]. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó, 1997.
Hazai okmánytár [Collection of Domestic Charters]. 8 vols, edited by Imre Nagy, Iván
Paur, Károly Ráth, and Dezső Véghely. Győr–Budapest: n.p., 1865–1891.
Hóman, Bálint. A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The
Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles
Robert]. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 2003 [1921].
Knauz, Nándor. A Garam melletti szent-benedeki apátság [The Abbey of St. Benedek by the
Garam River]. Budapest: n.p., 1890.
Magyar, Eszter. A feudalizmus kori erdőgazdálkodás az alsó-magyarországi bányavárosokban
1255–1747 [Forest Management of the Feudal Era in the Mining Towns of Lower
Hungary, 1255–1747]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből 101. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó, 1983.
Magyarországi városok régi számadáskönyvei [Old Account Books of Hungarian Towns],
edited by László Fejérpataky. Budapest: MTA, 1885.
Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis. 3 vols, edited by Ferdinand Knauz and Lajos Dedek
Crescens. Strigonii: n.p., 1874–1924.
Mossman, Stephen. “Georgenberger Chronik,” Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle,
Leiden–Boston: Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Accessed March 21, 2013, http://
www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/encyclopedia-of-the-medieval-chronicle/
georgenberger-chronik-SIM_01093.
Pápai tized-szedők számadásai 1281–1375. Rationes collectorum pontiiciorum in Hungaria
[Accounts of the Papal Tithe Collectors]. Vatikáni Magyar Okirattár. Monumenta
Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia I/1. Budapest: n.p., 1887.
Paulinyi, Oszkár. “A bányajoghatóság centralizációjának első kísérlete Magyarországon”
[The First Attempt to Centralize Mining Authorities in Hungary]. In idem Gazdag
föld – szegény ország. Tanulmányok a magyarországi bányaművelés múltjából [Rich Land
– Poor Country. Studies from the Past of Mine Exploitation in Hungary], edited
311
Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 288–312
by János Buza and István Draskóczy, 351–72. Budapest: Budapesti Corvinus
Egyetem, 2005.
Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae. 2 vols, edited by Vincent Sedlák. Bratislavae:
Sumptibus Acad. Scient. Slovacae, 1980–1987.
Stefánik, Martin. “Entstehung und Entwicklung der Berg- und Münzkammern und
ihrer leitenden Beamten in den mittelslowakischen Bergstädten im Mittelalter.” In
Wirtschaftslenkende Montanverwaltung – Fürstlicher Unternehmer – Merkantilismus, edited
by Angelika Westermann and Ekkehard Westermann, 29–78. Husum: Matthiesen
Verlag, 2009.
Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, edited by
Imre Szentpétery. Budapest: n.p., 1938.
Takáts, Sándor. “A magyar léhen és holden. Első közlemény” [The Hungarian Lehen and
Holden. First Communication]. Századok 42 (1908): 245–63.
Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. 7 vols, edited by Franz
Zimmermann, Carl Werner, Georg Müller, Gustav Gündisch, Herta Gündisch,
Konrad G. Gündisch and Gernot Nussbächer. Hermannstadt–Cologne–Vienna–
Bucharest, 1892–1991.
Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku [Privileges of the Towns and Markets in Slovakia],
1238–1350, edited by Ľubomir Juck. Bratislava: Veda, 1984.
Wenzel, Gusztáv. Az alsómagyarországi bányavárosok küzdelmei a nagy-lucsei Dóczyakkal.
1494–1548 [The Struggles of the Mining Towns of Lower Hungary against the
Dóczys of Nagy-Lucse, 1494–1548]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből
VI/6. Budapest: n.p., 1876.
Wenzel, Gusztáv. Magyarország bányászatának kritikai története [A Critical History of
Mining in Hungary]. Budapest: MTA, 1880.
Zycha, Adolf. Das böhmische Bergrecht des Mittelalters auf Grundlage des Bergrechts von Iglau.
Berlin: F. Vahlen, 1900.
Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund]. 12 vols, edited by Elemér
Mályusz, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth, Tibor Neumann, and Bálint Lakatos.
Budapest: MOL, 1951–2013.
Zsoldos, Attila. “Városlakók a királyi család szolgálatában” [Town-dwellers in the
Service of the Royal Family]. Történelmi Szemle 47 (2005): 193–206.
Zsoldos, Attila. Családi ügy. IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [A
Family Affair. The Dispute between Béla IV and Rex Iunior Stephen in the 1260s].
Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 2007.
Translated by Matthew Caples
312