391 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Received: 2017-08-29 DOI 10.19233/AH.2017.20 Original scientifi c article THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE Darko DAROVEC Ca‘ Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, Dorsoduro 3848/d, 30123 Venice, Italy e-mail: darko.darovec@unive.it Angelika ERGAVER Institute of Nova Revija for Humanities, Gospodinjska ulica 8, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: angiemeister@gmail.com Žiga OMAN University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: zigaoman@gmail.com ABSTRACT Based on a conceptual historiographic and semantic analysis of the fundamental ter- minology of the ritual of vengeance, this paper presents an attempt to provide researchers with a linguistic, conceptual, and methodological framework for the study of vengeance as the customary system of confl ict resolution in premodern Europe. For this purpose the key terminology, which also has abundant synonyms, has been collected in the ac- companying septalingual glossary. While predicated on, foremost, European Medieval sources and studies thereof, the dissemination and interrelation of the universal human custom make the paper applicable for other areas and periods. Keywords: vengeance, enmity, feud, truce, peace, fi delity, friendship, satisfaction, love, confl ict resolution, ritual IL LINGUAGGIO DELLA VENDETTA: GLOSSARIO DI INIMICIZIA E DI PACE SINTESI Alla base di un‘analisi concettuale storiografi ca e semantica della terminologia fon- damentale del rito di vendetta, l‘articolo presenta un tentativo per fornire ai ricercatori un quadro linguistico, concettuale e metodologico per la ricerca della vendetta come sistema consuetudinario di risoluzione dei confl itti in Europa premoderna. A tal fi ne la terminologia fondamentale, ricca inoltre di molti sinonimi, venne scelta nel glossario 392 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 scritto in sette lingue. Sebbene il saggio si basa sulle fonti e sugli studi medievali, la diff usione e l'interrelazione della consuetudine umana universale rendono l'articolo applicabile ad altre aree e periodi. Parole chiave: vendetta, inimicizia, faida, tregua, pace, fedeltà, amicizia, soddisfazione, amore, risoluzione dei confl itti, rituale INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper1 is to present a multilingual (Latin, English, Italian, Ger- man, Montenegrin, Albanian, and Slovene) collection of fundamental terminology or concepts that were used in the European Medieval and, to a degree, early modern periods for the customary and legal designation of the typical phenomena, phases, and procedures of confl ict resolution within the community, either between individuals or groups, com- monly known under the term vengeance. With the paper the authors would like, inter alia, to point out the striking similarities as well as some particularities between the regions and nations (peoples) of continental Europe found in the customary system of confl ict resolution. Furthermore, this paper places special emphasis on the Medieval rites of the custom of vengeance, which remained in use in some parts of Europe, especially around the Mediterranean, until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This enables an excellent possibility for a comparison to be made between rites in the Middle Ages and those in later eras, specifi cally in the early modern period. Perhaps somewhat immodestly, we are certain that the given results will be of help to researchers from the same fi elds of study and, particularly, that the collection of selected terms and concepts will encourage additional research in other linguistic areas. Hence this paper is also an appeal for the further collection of sources pertaining to the custom of vengeance, a system with the tendency to achieve social equilibrium and peace. Even just a fl eeting glance at the enclosed glossary shows the complexity of the issue at hand, so we are fully aware that all the terms enumerated in this paper cannot be explained 1 This research is supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Commu- nity Framework Programme as part of the project FAIDA. Feud and Blood Feud between Customary Law and Legal Process in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. The case of the Upper-Adriatic area. Grant Agre- ement Number 627936, and by the research of the PhD students Angelika Ergaver and Žiga Oman under the research supervision of Darko Darovec. The authors would also like to thank Stuart Carroll, Claudio Povolo, Shelagh Sneddon, Aleš Maver, Azeta Kola, Marijan Premović, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on this paper. 393 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 herein, nor is this our goal. We have limited ourselves only to, according to our estimation, the most important terms of the ritual of vengeance (injury, vengeance, feud, enmity, truce, satisfaction, fi delity, banishment, friendship, love, and peace),2 most of which abound in synonyms, yet without attempting to explain them with the help of language history or linguistic analysis, as we would like to present our study through the lens of conceptual history, perhaps best established by Raymond Williams, Quentin Skinner, and Reinhart Koselleck (Williams, 1976; Skinner, 1980; Koselleck, 2004; Koselleck, 2006). Conceptual history, as part of social history, analyzes the history of social concepts and structures in the longue durée, stemming from the methodological demand “that past social and political confl icts must be interpreted and decoded in terms of their contem- porary conceptual boundaries, and the self-understanding on the part of past speakers and writers of their own language-use,” which “must register the variety of names for (identical?) materialities in order to be able to show how concepts are formed. Hence, the concepts instruct us not only of the uniqueness of past meanings, but also contain struc- tural possibilities, treating the concatenations of diff erence invisible in the historical fl ow of events”. They help us in theoretically elucidating the chronological relation between event and structure or the concurrence of the continuance and change of a given structure. “It is only concepts which demonstrate persistence, repeatable applicability, and empiri- cal validity – concepts with structural claims – which indicate that a once ‘real‘ history can today appear generally possible and be represented as such.” The methodological restriction to the history of concepts expressed in words demands a further argument to help distinguish between the terms concept and word: “a word becomes a concept only when the entirety of meaning and experience within a sociopolitical context within which and for which a word is used can be condensed into one word.” Conceptual history “must always keep in view the need for fi ndings relevant to intellectual or material history. Above all, the semasiological approach must alternate with the onomasiological”, thus making it self-evident, “that historical clarifi cation of past conceptual usage must refer not only to the history of language but also to sociohistorical data, for every semantic has its link to nonlinguistic content” (Koselleck, 2004, 81–91). Or, as Medieval conceptual- ists would say, general concepts are not simply words, but also exist within reason. With the enclosed glossary and, especially, the thematological analysis of the struc- tural concept of vengeance, we want, based on the language of historical sources and the language of science, specifi cally predicated on the studies of the rituals of vengeance, to provide a starting point for the discussion of questions already posed by Koselleck: ”to what extent has the intentional substance of one and the same word remained the same? Has it changed with the passage of time, a historical transformation having reconstructed the sense of the concept?” (Koselleck, 2004, 82). 2 Regarding the terms listed in the brackets above, the German historical lexicon Geschichtliche Grundbe- griff e (eight books, 1972–1997), for instance, elaborates thoroughly only on peace (Friede), whereas many of the other terms are not given in the same context as in this paper: e.g. vengeance (Rache), friendship (Freundschaft), truce (Waff enstillstand), and love (Liebe). The Latin vindicta is also only given in the con- text of vindicta divina, while treuga and satisfactio have been left out (Brunner, Conze & Koselleck, 2004). 394 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 STATE OF THE ART: AN OUTLINE The traditional (legal) history of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, whose interpretations still dominate recent historiography, formulated vengeance (feud) as a primitive stage of human mental, social, and legal evolution (cf. Burckhardt, 1956, 346–350, 362–363; Huizinga, 2011, 9, 19, 29–30; Beyerle, 1915, 216–217), a phase of humanity‘s path towards the Western-European State and rule of law, regarded as the ideal and highest stage of social and legal organisation and development. In this context vengeance is very often regarded as arbitrary or violent self-help, a necessary evil the State is forced to tolerate while its legal or judicial institutions (at least in their modern form) are still in their infancy. Predicated on entrenched interpretations of traditional his- toriography, historians continue to stress that it was only the state monopolisation of law and violence in the modern period that brought about an end to a social order based on brute force, characterised as the Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes. Until recently it was generally accepted that the primary function of the State was to suppress violence, thus also contributing to social harmony, believed to be non-existent in the “primitive” order originating in the presupposed irrationality and violent urges of premodern humans unable to control them, whether Medieval Europeans or “natives” from other continents. Simultaneously, with the State‘s eradication of “feudal anarchy”, Europe is said to have undergone a “civilizing process”, in which the internalization of social constraints was essential to the creation of “modern” society (Elias, 2000; Elias, 2001). Consequently the (non-)existence of vengeance in the legal order was a signifi er of the dividing lines between the “darkness” of the Middle Ages and the “progress” of the modern period (Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007; Carroll, 2007; Broggio & Carroll, 2015). Traditional historians had little faith in the role of law, custom, and religion in limiting violence, disregarding that the behaviour of premodern humanity was no less shaped by social constraint. In fact, early modern social change resulted in the break- down of Medieval social constraints, worsening the violence. Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) argued for heroism to be replaced with the virtues of mercy and clemency, distinguishing a true aristocrat from the mob by his self-control. This was corollary to the aspirations of inward constraint by the Reformers, both Protestant or Catholic. Thomas Hobbes‘s (1588–1679) exposition of the need for absolute sovereignty in the state also originated in his experience of popular disorder plaguing France. He claimed that peace could only be found in subordinating one‘s desires and will to the sovereign, as man can never be at peace with his neighbour, since enmity is rooted in human nature (Carroll, 2006, 308–312, 318; Skinner, 2008, 41). Hobbes cleared the way for a ruling class defi ned by an ethics of yielding (i.e. non-vengeance), which reinforced their right to rule (Carroll, 2016, 137–138). However, the transition from the Medieval to modern society was a very complex and gradual process. A break with traditional perceptions of premodern society and vengeance occured in the mid-twentieth century and was the result of anthropologists who found that earliest human societies developed sophisticated systems of social control that upheld the peace in the feud. They showed that societies have developed mechanisms of interdependence 395 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 (familial, neighbourly, economic, etc. relations) that help to sustain them and regulate confl ict. Paradoxically those same relations create confl icts in society, which can erupt and escalate with violations of social norms. Transgressions demanded satisfaction, ex- acted by the ruler in the name of the community (for incest, witchcraft, sacrilege, treason, oathbreaking) or by the community (homicide, theft, arson, oathbreaking etc.), either by its appointed members or the injured party itself (Radcliff e-Brown, 1952, 212–219). But social bonds also impede the escalation of violence resulting from delicts, which is easier, the greater the interdependence of the parties to the confl ict. Confl ict resolution was shaped by the culture of (masculine) honour (and shame), which limits the set of honour- able targets and actions, imposing ritual limitations on violence according to principles of equivalence and reciprocity. The culture of honour also demands that actions be public, which enables the community to intervene in the confl ict at any time. Social mechanisms of peacemaking are thus inherent in the custom of vengeance, ensuring that the confl icts are never entirely private. Subsequently the custom provides the functions of both confl ict resolution and social control, with its tendency for the re-establishment or maintenance of social equilibrium (order) and peace (Gluckman, 1955, 1–55; Evans-Pritchard, 1940; Colson, 1953; cf. Durham, 1909, 25). In the mid-twentieth century historians began applying the fi ndings of anthropology to confl ict resolution in premodern Europe and they soon established that medieval society was permeated by a tendency toward peace, not violence (Wallace-Hadrill, 1959; Bloch, 1961, 123–130). With the notable exception of German historiography the theoretical starting points of anthropology have been taken up in European historiography and adapted for research in the highly stratifi ed societies of the Middle Ages and the early modern period (Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007). Predicated on anthropological research of confl ict resolution, further research has shown that European classical, Medieval, and early modern societies had mechanisms for peace and social equilibrium at all levels. Peaceful relations and harmonious coexistence were imperative for legal professionals and the clergy, members of the ruling caste, and village elites. The desire for peace, also rooted in Christian teaching, permeated custom, Roman canon and written law, wherein all harmoniously complemented each other (White, 1986; Smail, 2003; Smail & Gibson, 2009; Carroll, 2006, 185–233; Nassiet, 2007). It has been confi rmed that the custom of vengeance played the same role in politically and socially highly-stratifi ed European societies as it did in more egalitarian tribal societies. The culture of honour,3 which dictated a more or less equal requital for a sustained injury, limited the violence in confl icts and demanded that revenge be public. This enabled communities to intervene in confl icts at any stage, either through mediation or arbitration, which during the sus- pension of hostilities (truce) defi ned the terms for peace or made peace by settling the wrong with a composition payment and the establishment of a new relationship between the parties to the confl ict. Marriage was often the means by which feuding groups were 3 In the mid-1960s anthropological research established the concept of the culture of honour and shame, supposedly typical for Mediterranean patriarchal societies (Peristany, 1965). This was critically evaluated at the turn of the millenium (Hodren & Purcel, 2000, 489–523). 396 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 reconclied and turned into kin. As already noted by Max Gluckman, “the rule of exogamy is a primary mechanism for spinning the network of alliances between groups” (Gluck- man, 1965, 97), and these alliances and ties were “elaborately set in custom and backed with ritual beliefs” (Gluckman, 1955, 18). Mediation and arbitration reinforced social hierarchy, as authorities (ruler/chief, elders, priests/clergy) and separate legal experts of a community (i.e. lawyer, notary) played prominent roles in the negotiations. The rituals of peacemaking as a key element of vengeance existed in all premodern European societies, underpinned by the spread of Roman canon law and its principle that injustice, including murder,4 could be satisfi ed by a monetary compensation (Broggio & Carroll, 2015, 5; Cummins & Kounine, 2015, 3–7; Darovec, 2017, 88): from Montenegro (Boehm, 1993, 54–62, 121–142, 191–227; cf. Ergaver, 2016; Ergaver, 2017) to Iceland (Heusler, 1911, 38–124, 213–242; Miller, 1996, 179–299), from Italy (Bossy, 2004, 1–29; Povolo, 2015a, 97–133; Faggion, 2017) and France (Carroll, 2003; Bossy, 2004, 31–51; Carroll, 2015) to the Holy Roman Empire (Frauenstädt, 1881, 105–173; Mommertz, 2001; Bossy, 2004, 53–71; cf. Oman, 2016, 81–91; Oman, 2017, 158–173). Settling a confl ict was never easy, especially if triggered by a grave transgression of social norms, i.e. murder. Injured honour and emotions could take a very long time to cool and could lead confl icts through long sequences of mutual violent retaliations, suspended only by truces and fuelled by the memory of injustice (Dean, 1997; Dean, 2007; Muir, 2017). Thus arbiters always had to make an extra eff ort to achieve balance between the parties, as neither could noticeably prevail over the other if lasting peace was to be made. Honour and shame (humiliation) had to be equally divided. Self-humiliation on the part of the perpetrator played the key role in the restitution of both sides‘ honour, as only then could the forgiveness from the injured party follow, which was necessary for peace to be made (Boehm, 1993, 123–142; Darovec, 2017). Balance was the fundamental principle of law. It was based on Aristotelian thinking and remained an essential element of premodern European legal order following the codi- fi cation of vengeance into common law (ius commune) in the High Middle Ages (Smail & Gibson, 2009), particularly the codifi cation of the custom‘s key rituals of peacemaking, and in the Empire also of the ritual limitations of violence (Vogel, 1998, 42–43). By taking over and adapting the custom and Roman canon law, premodern courts strived in settling confl icts towards the re-establishment of peace and social equilibrium, by en- couraging and forcing the parties towards settlement. Settlement always saw the parties‘ social status and gravity of the transgression taken into account, e.g. for determining composition. The key change brought about by the codifi cation and by the further adop- tion of criminal law was the strengthened role of the courts and those who established them, i.e. the authority/ruler (chieftain, prince, bishop, king, emperor) before which peace was made. Sentences issued by the courts were always more severe than stipulations in customary settlement (Miller, 1996, 238–239; cf. Dolenc, 1935, 417), and physical punishment was seen as shameful (Carroll, 2006, 228). Also, coercion into settlement 4 With the notable exception of England, where the practice of blood money was already in retreat in the Middle Ages (Carroll, 2011, 88). 397 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 by the courts accompanied with threats of total property seizure, as was common in the Venetian Republic since the late 1500s, could lead to even graver retaliatory violence between parties to a confl ict (Povolo, 1997, 293–297). However, this was also a time of growing fi nancial, emotional, and strategic uses of legal action (Cummins & Kounine, 2015, 2). Especially since the courts and authorities continued essentially in playing the role of arbiters and some sort of “tax” (i.e. fi nes, trial costs) collectors, well into the early modern period. Nevertheless, the inquisitorial procedure did not entirely substitute the accusatorial procedure prior to the end of the ancien régime, and there was very little public prosecution as well (Wenzel, 2011). Concurrently, Central and Western-European modern criminal legislation classifi ed ever more delicts from private to public, reserv- ing their sanctioning and pardoning to the authorities/ruler. Beginning in the sixteenth century confl ict resolution, by achieving peace through the pursuit of balance between the parties (restorative or restitutive justice), had by the end of the eighteenth century come to be replaced with punishment for the perpetrator (retributive justice). This was also a consequence of economic, political, and social change, which, along with the increase of itinerant forms of crime, ever greater social mobility, altered forms of warfare, religious and civil wars, all resulted in an increase of violence that delegitimized traditional forms of confl ict resolution (Carroll, 2007; Povolo, 2015b; Povolo, 2017). Up until the end of the Middle Ages, and in certain parts of Europe even until the nine- teenth century, especially in the Mediterranean, confl ict resolution had been, like all social relations, dictated by the universal human concept of their management: the principle of exchange (Mauss, 1996; Lévi-Strauss, 1969, 60–68, 480–483; Verdier, 1980, 30–31). It is telling that in some languages, including Slovene (Snoj, 1997, 327), the words for ex- change and vengeance are etymologically related (Lévi-Strauss, 1969, 60). The principle of exchange also determined social relations of the European Medieval and early modern periods. This is shown in the rites of investiture (cf. Le Goff , 1977, 426–506) and other legal acts, i.e. contracts, peacemaking among them, as a three-phase ritual: 1) the gift and countergift (homage, self-humiliation, request for truce), 2) oath (fi des, truce, friendship), which provides opportunities for 3) the conclusion of the exchange, i.e. the constitution of a new contractual relation (lasting peace, love, forgiveness), which establishes a new or renews an existing relationship between two parties (peace, vassalage, matrimony) (Darovec, 2014, 481–499; Darovec, 2016, 14–38; Darovec, 2017). German historiography addressed vengeance diff erently. The break from traditional (legal) historiography came about in the late 1930s with the claim by Otto Brunner that the feuds (Fehde) among the nobility in the Medieval Holy Roman Empire were a constitu- tive element of its political structure rather than arbitrary robbery. Feuds were interpreted as legally normalized violence and a tool of establishing social contracts between the ruler and nobility, wherein the central concept of Medieval politics was not feud, but peace. However, this was a peace containing the notion of “just violence” as the indis- pensable part of the struggle for power, having the goal of establishing and maintaining order and peace. Brunner also argued, that vengeance as a custom of confl ict resolution was only conceded to the nobility as the Herrenklasse, while (blood) feuding among the nonpriviledged orders and peoples outside Europe continued to be percieved as irrational 398 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 or instinctive. Consequently, by reading Medieval peace legislature (the Imperial peace, provincial peace) at face value, Fehde was defi ned as rigorous, normatively-regulated, violent confl ict resolution reserved solely for the nobility, some kind of “righteous war” without the killing of (noble) adversaries, and a unique German(ic) (“civilized”) custom, the so-called knightly feud (Ritterfehde). It was regarded as strictly separate from the (“primitive”) aff ective blood feud of commoners and “natives” (Brunner, 1990, 1–110). The theses on Fehde as a specifi c custom of the German nobility dominated the research on vengeance in German historiography almost until the end of the twentieth century. It tended to establish German customs as unique and not comparable with other regions (cf. Carroll, 2006, 6). Even the critiques of the custom‘s legitimacy did not break with the concept, still regarding Fehde as a custom of the nobility, either as thinly veiled robbery (Rösener, 1982) or as a tool of class warfare (Algazi, 1995; Algazi, 1996). Only at the start of the twenty-fi rst century did research show that commoners resolved confl icts using the same customs as the nobility (Reinle, 2003). At roughly the same time further research on the feuds of the nobility showed that these did not only have a political, but also a social function (Zmora, 2007), corresponding to the custom of vengeance as understood by anthropology. At the same time German historians began to place more emphasis on the rituals of confl ict resolution (Althoff , 1997). However, as a rule, German historiography still continues to ignore modern anthropological and historiographical re- search on vengeance. Even after the unprivileged orders were “included” into the concept of Fehde, it was still almost exclusively approached from a legal positivist standpoint, i.e. as a normative legal institution (cf. Patschovsky, 1996; Wadle, 1999; Reinle, 2013), rather than a complex social phenomenon. Doubts about the uniqueness of Fehde have only been expressed very recently and tentatively (cf. Reinle, 2014). The new research on vengeance comes from studies on the lower orders in the early modern period, when the Fehde was prohibited. However, as Raymond Verdier has argued, the custom of vengeance was everywhere in (early) modern Europe gradually incorporated into state legislature and replaced with newer and newer laws, which transfi gured the custom, especially by substituting it with punishment (Verdier, 1980, 32–36). Due to the prohibition of Fehde in the early modern period, the latest German research on vengeance in the period also demanded the abandonment of the legal positivist approach in favour of an analysis of the social relationships dictated by the custom of vengeance (Mommertz, 2001; cf. Peters, 2000). The resulting fi ndings on the structure and function of the custom consequently came very close to the fi ndings of studies on vengeance outside of Germany. TERMINOLOGICAL CONUNDRUMS German historians were not the only ones to have attempted to defi ne vengeance as a specifi c custom or cultural practice. Like Fehde, the Icelandic ófrið or óvinr (Miller, 1996, 182), the Italian vendetta, and the Lombard and Frankish faida (cf. Halsall, 1999) have all been studied as unique customs. Their supposed uniqueness was established on interpretations of the custom predicated on local and regional sources by national histo- riographies, ignoring the universality of the custom. On the other hand, feud is employed 399 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 as a technical term to encompass all manifestations of the custom of vengeance (Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007; Þorláksson, 2007). The transnational similarity of the custom had however been noticed in the custom of blood feud, especially in Southeastern Europe, i.e. between the Montenegrin krvna osveta and Albanian gjakmarrje (Ergaver, 2016, 104–106). Otherwise, more or less theoretical distinctions between Fehde, vendetta, and feud have also been established. That the distinctions are largely theoretical is best proven by a comparison of Western-European Medieval sources with the Montenegrin, Albanian, Greek, and Corsican custom of vengeance, which remained in use at least until the nineteenth century. The transmission of written and state law from Western (England) via Central to South-Eastern Europe was namely gradual. For instance, the process of es- tablishing state legislature in nineteenth-century Montenegro (Andrijašević & Rastoder, 2006, 161–163; Marinović, 2007, 28–32, 157–167, 171, 181, 195–196, 624; Šćepanović, 2003, 25; Vujačić, 1997, 11–14; Bogišić, 1999, 321, 294–295; cf. Radov, 1997, 52–53) was almost identical to that in Western Europe from at least the fi fteenth century onwards. Jesse Byock formulates the diff erence between vendetta and feud as confl icts at dif- ferent levels of social organisation, with the vendetta as vengeance at the village level and feud at the tribal level (Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007, 39). Otherwise researchers into vengeance in the Mediterranean, e.g. Trevor Dean, generally understand feud or faida as enmity: a prolonged exchange of retaliations for the original wrong (not necessarily homicide), before it is concluded by a peace settlement; and vendetta as a single retalia- tion that settles the injury, mainly homicide, i.e. as blood feud (Dean, 1997, 15; Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007, 39–40). Edward Muir and Claudio Povolo claim rather that vendetta denotes the entire confl ict and that enmity (inimicizia) is a synonym for vendetta (Muir, 1998, xxii; Povolo, 2015b, 202–203). However, as intercultural studies show,5 the num- ber of retaliations is always, irrespective of the original injustice, determined by propriety demanded by the principle of exchange in balancing the injury and honour of both parties (Boehm, 1993, 191–222; Miller, 1996, 179–299). Peacemaking in blood feud demanded the exchange of blood for blood and life for life, which required ritual marriages to be made as composition and compensation. To replace the lives lost, the custom demanded the gift of women who would give birth to new life. Hence breaking off the engagement and commiting adultery were regarded as equal to murder, providing the injured party with the right to blood feud (Verdier, 1980, 28–30). The terminological confusion originates not only in culturally based manifestations of the custom, but also in its very rich and complex terminology within the same culture. Medieval and certain early modern sources thus give a plethora of synonyms for every change in social relations that the custom dictates, from the outbreak of violence to the resolution of the confl ict, with the most synonyms existing for the custom of vengeance 5 The diff erence between war and vengeance is both quantitative and qualitative. The key divergence is ge- nerally understood to be the abandonment of ritual limitations to violence in war and a much lesser chance for intervention in the confl ict save at the highest level (Gluckman, 1955, 8–9; Brunner, 1990, 8; Boehm, 1993, 212, 221; Miller, 1996, 218; Zmora, 1997, 122; Reinle, 2003, 25; Carroll, 2006, 16; Radcliff e-Brown, 1952, 215). 400 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 itself. In the sources vengeance (Lat. ultio, vindicta, Ita. vendetta, Ger. rache, Mne.6 osveta, Alb. hakmarrje, Svn. maščevanje) is most often given with synonyms for confl ict or dispute (Lat. altercatio, discordia, intentio, Ger. irrung, misshelung, ungute, unrat, zwayung, zwitracht), enmity (Lat. inimicitia, faida, Ger. vhede, fedeschaff t, feindtschaff t), and war (Lat. bellum, Ger. (g)werra, krieg, reisa, urlog), less often for clash (Ger. au- fl auf, stöss), challenge (Ger. vordrung), injustice (Lat. iniuria), unrest or disorder (Ger. unfrid, unordnung) etc. (ARS, AS 1063/4492, 4 September 1441, Graz; du Cange, 1710, 383–385; MGH, 318. §11, 451; Bizjak, 2016, 72; Krones, 1883, 87, 92; Wallace-Hadrill, 1959, 461, 484; Brunner, 1990, 37–38; Reuter, 1992, 312–313; Kos, 1994, 110–111; Halsall, 1999, 27; Throop, 2011, 11; Schäff er, 2013, 213; Oman, 2016, 85). Diff erent forms of confl ict are also given with synonyms in the sources.7 The most common synonym for vengeance in European Medieval and early modern sources is enmity, Latin inimicitia, French inimitié, ennemi or haine, German Feindschaft or Fehde. The last two, along with the English feud, originate from Germanic words for enmity (state of relations), hate (emotion) and confl ict: faehde, faithu, gifēhida, fǣhþ etc., while feud is supposed to have originated from either an unrecorded Old English word, the Old French fede or faide, or, perhaps, the Old English word for enmity, fæhð.8 The faide disappeared from French already during the Middle Ages, and the Italian faida was also very rare. It seems to have been rediscovered in the nineteenth century through the exhumation of Lombard legal codes (Carroll, 2016, 102). The Slovene word fajda was also certainly taken from German, French (cf. Dolenc, 1935, 173), or Italian literature. All originate in the Latinized form of a Germanic word, fi rst given in the sources in the Edictum Rothari, a collection of Lombard law from the seventh century, that formulates feud as enmity: faida hoc est inimicitia (MGH, LL 4/I, 45., 20). Just as common a term for vengeance is confl ict or dispute, which has the richest collection of synonyms for the custom. It is, originating in the Latin word for complaint (querella),9 very common in Italian (querela) and Spanish (querella) Medieval and early modern sources for both lawsuit and feud (Vocabolario, 1612; AKG 22, 396; AKG 24, 427).10 As the word for feud it is also very common in French (querelle) and English (quarrel) early modern sources (Carroll, 2006, 8). As the word for lawsuit the Latin querella roughly corresponds to the Montenegrin term svadja (Boehm, 1993, xix), and the Medieval German term geschrey (Svn. pokrik) (Schwind & Dopsch, 1895, 94. 175–176; Vilfan, 1961, 271–273). 6 Montenegrin relates to the terms, expressions, and phrases attested in the historical area of Montenegro, ta- ken from sources and studies written in the Shtokavian dialect or specialised and scientifi c literature written in either Serbo-Croatian or Serbian. 7 For instance in 1521 vede was used for the Italian war of 1521–1526 between the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France, while Krieg and guerra can be used for a feud between a nobleman and a monastery or church or for property disputes among kin (Kos, 1994, 111; Carroll, 2012; Darovec, 2016, 19). 8 Feud, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feud (August 2017); Fehde, https://www.dwds.de/wb/Fehde#et-1 (Au- gust 2017); feud, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=feud&allowed_in_frame=0 (September 2017). 9 quarrel, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quarrel&allowed_in_frame=0 (September 2017). 10 Defi nición de querella, https://defi nicion.de/querella/ (September 2017); querelle in Vocabolario, http:// www.treccani.it/vocabolario/querelle/ (September 2017). 401 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Fig. 1: King Rothar enthroned (detail). Edictum Rothari (http://www.studiarapido.it/ wp-content/uploads/2014/11/editto-rotari-3.jpg) The most common straightforward term for vengeance in the sources is the Latin vindicta, from which originate the Romance words for vengeance like the Italian vendetta and the French vengeance (Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007, 39). However, vindicta originally also has multiple meanings: vengeance, (the staff of) manumission, punishment, redress and satisfaction, and vindication (Bradač, 1980, 576). From vindicta also seem to stem the French words vindiquer and revindiquer and the German vindizieren, all of which express a claim or right. From Latin vindicare, to vindicate, via Old French vengeance or venjance and revengier or revenchier also seem to originate the English words vengeance and revenge respectively.11 The Latin ultio is often reserved for divine retribution (ultio divina) (cf. Wallace-Hadrill, 1959, 465–466), while in German sources Rache is far less common for the custom of vengeance (cf. MGH, Const. 2, 196a., 253) than words and phrases for enmity. In the Slavic-speaking regions of Southeastern Europe the most com- 11 Vengeance, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vengeance (August 2017); vengeance, http://www.etymonli- ne.com/index.php?term=vengeance&allowed_in_frame=0 (September 2017); Revenge, http://www.the- freedictionary.com/revenge (August 2017); revenge, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_ frame=0&search=revenge (September 2017). 402 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 mon term is osveta, followed by svadja (Boehm, 1993, 52), with the Albanian equivalent for vengeance being hakmarrje. The terms that stand for every change in social relations dictated by the custom of vengeance, from the outbreak of hostilities to intervention in the confl ict and its temporary or lasting resolution, are however far more unifi ed in the sources. As a rule, the terminology of vengeance in various languages cleary shows that it is a primary and universal custom or relationship. As emphasized by Claude Lévi-Strauss on the subject of exogamous marriage, “it is always a system of exchange that we fi nd at the origin of rules of marriage, even of those of which the apparent singularity would seem to allow only a special and arbitrary interpretation” (Lévi-Strauss, 1969, 478). Put like this, a German and an Italian wedding or Fehde and vendetta are not separate customs, but culturally specifi c manifestations of the same custom. Like marriage, the system of exchange found at the origin of the rules of vengeance also (re-)establishes social relations. Yet, regardless of its tendency towards peace and social equilibrium, the exchange in vengeance is not directed by love, which brings it to an end, but enmity, fuelled by the obligation to one‘s kin and a duty to justice.12 Understanding this led both to the various terms for vengeance worldwide, as well as to the seventh-century Latin translation of Lombard customs. VENGEANCE AS RELATIONSHIP: THE CUSTOM‘S STRUCTURE Fundamentally vengeance as a system13 of confl ict resolution is an obligation to retaliate for a suff ered injury, thus serving justice. Based on the principle of exchange (Lévi-Strauss, 1969, 479–485) the obligation was socially structured as a process (Miller, 1996, 182) for managing social14 relations. Simultaneously, as with any other custom, it is in itself fl exible, as its rites provide those involved in them with certain room for manoeuvering within the structures of custom and honour. Vengeance is consequently not to be taken as a set in stone legal institution, nor are the departures from rigid defi nitions to be understood as “feud-like” or Fehdeanalog (cf. Reinle, 2013, 9, 12, 23; Muir, 2017, 2). As long as these “departures” correspond with the custom‘s structure, they should be 12 In the early modern period both Protestant and Catholic Reformers placed great emphasis on vengeance be- longing to God alone. This created clashes between one‘s obligation to kin and Christian conscience, with Hamlet perhaps being the most famous example. Even so in the earlier (1570) French version that provided the raw material for Shakespeare‘s tragedy, Hamlet (Amleth) fi nds nothing disquieting about revenge: it is about justice (Carroll, 2003, 74). 13 According to Raymond Verdier: “Nous sommes ainsi conduit à étudier la vengeance comme système – ou sous-système – à la fois d’echange et de contrôle social de la violence. Partie intégrante du système social global, le système vindicatoire est d’abord une ethique mettant en jeu un ensemble de représentations et de valeurs se rapportant à la vie et à la mort, au temps et à l‘espace, à la personne et ses biens ; il est ensuite un code social ayant ses règles et ses rites pour ouvrir, suspendre et clôturer la vengeance; il est enfi n un instrument et lieu de pouvoir identifi ant et opposant des unités sociales, les groupes vindicatoires.” (Ver- dier, 1980, 16). 14 With social change in the early modern period, however, vengeance also became to be understood as a passion that cannot be tamed. Still, at least until the late seventeenth century, many argued that vengeance was acceptable if based on justice and reason rather than passion (Carroll, 2006, 14). 403 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 taken as part of it. The defi nition of vengeance as a legal custom is also too narrow, as the custom establishes and refl ects all relations comprising society, from the political to the economic. It would accordingly be better to see vengeance as a state of confl ict. It is a col- lorary of enmity. It forms when the wrong that triggered the confl ict is not appropriately (honourably) settled, or when a violent response is a culturally more appropriate response for an injury, especially homicide, than monetary settlement. The state of mutual enmity is maintained until lasting peace is made. Only then can the state of reciprocal hostil- ity (exchange) come to an end, establishing a new public social relationship: enmity is substituted with love. The basic structure of the custom of vengeance is dictated by the relationship of mutual animosty and the latter by the priniciple of exchange: injury-enmity-mediation- truce-peace. The prerequisite for vengeance as a rule is not an entirely unprovoked wrong, but a pre- vious existence of discord (Lat. discordia, Ger. groll, unguette, Mne. svadja, Alb. armiqësi) (Rolandino, 1546, f. 158r; Karadžić, 1966; Bogišić, 1999; Mann, 1948; Mommertz, 2001, 223; Schäff er, 2013, 212) between individuals and/or groups they belong to. It can originate from grievances or envy due to political, economic, or other social success or failure. It is Fig. 2: Banishment (variant). Pavle Paja Jovanović, ca. 1890–1900. Narodni muzej, Beo- grad (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/d/d0/Jovanovic_izdajica.jpg) 404 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 not necessary for the original relation to be one of friendship, it can simply be better than worse. The greater the resentment, the easier it can escalate by even a minor encroachment upon relations, rights, or property that constitute and maintain the social standing or honour of an individual and/or group. Both status and honour are continously tested, confi rmed, and demonstrated in the public that codetermines them. The state of discord is demonstrated by acrimony, coldness, disregard, etc. Discord generally escalates due to an event regarded as the original wrong (Lat. iniuria, Ger. unrecht) that demands retaliation15 (Boehm, 1993, 92–93; Miller, 1996, 182, 187; Althoff , 1997, 11–13; Wieland, 2014, 416–425, 446). Violent retaliation that can follow a sustained wrong had to be legitimized like any other public action. First, as also shown in Western and Central-European sources, the escalation of the dispute had to be made public, especially as it was a potentially danger- ous transformation of an amiable (Lat. amicitia, Ger. freundtschaff t) into an animus (Lat. inimicitia, Ger. feindtschaff t) relationship. Making the injury public acted as a public demand for its settlement, which gave it a role similar to that of a lawsuit (Mommertz, 2001, 240–241; cf. Vilfan, 1961, 271). As the demand to settle the injustice includes the threat of retaliation should it not be fulfi lled, it is to be taken as the beginning of venge- ance or a state of enmity in a feuding society. Gossip, public insults, and threats also have the function of demonstrating the altered relationship. By making the wrong public, the dispute passes into communal knowledge. Gossip is used to ascertain the legitimacy of one‘s demands and the support in the com- munity, which in turn uses gossip to constantly (keep in) check the morality and honour of its members. As the custom of vengeance dictates the changes in relationships to be public, it allows for the community to intervene in the confl ict at any stage and to direct it towards settlement, should it consider this to be necessary. With the constant presence of the possibility for peace in the custom, it fulfi lls the functions of both social control and confl ict resolution. The community advises both parties to the confl ict, passes requests or threatens with supernatural (divine) retribution. When making the injury public does not lead to the desired settlement, the relationship can further escalate by public insults accompanied by various gestures (Gluckman, 1955, 9–10; Boehm, 1993, 125; Miller, 1996, 216; Mommertz, 2001, 235–237; Wieland, 2014, 216). Insults (Ger. schmähen, schelten, Mne. uvrijeda, Alb. fyrje) are a further escalation, as they have to be returned “with interest”, according to the principle of exchange, which dictates that a gift is to be repaid with a countergift (Mauss, 1996, 136, 148). When this is not possible by delivering a worse insult, the humiliation demands escalation using (also mutual) threats of violence, including those that are written or symbolic, or even violence itself, e.g. homicide. By killing the adversary the perpetrator displays courage, being fully aware that retaliation will follow, either from the kin or by offi cial justice. Every alteration of the relationship accordingly had to be made in public. To do so was to 15 An injury could also often be “selected” in retrospect or “invented” to legitimize illegitimate actions. In a longer dispute the injustice is often selected tactically, during the adversaries‘ time of weakness or an action of people only marginally connected to them (Miller, 1996, 215–217; Peters, 2000, 73, 82, 89–91; Dean, 2007, 136–137; Wieland, 2014, 419, 429–432). 405 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 act honourably. The parties to a confl ict had to know what response could be expected for their words, gestures, or other actions, so they (and the community) could act accordingly: those threatened with violence had to expect violence. Consequently the line between a threat with enmity and the declaration of enmity could be blurred (Boehm, 1993, 92–94; Miller, 1996, 54; Mommertz, 2001, 218–223). Enmity (Lat. inimicitia, Ger. feindtschaff t, vhede, Mne. mržnja, Alb. urrejtje, Svn. sovražnost), like every change in social relations, had to be declared in public. In the Holy Roman Empire the declaration of enmity also became a normative prescription in the thirteenth century (MGH, Const. 2, 196a., 253), resulting even in written declarations. Elsewhere, i.e. in Montenegro, the declaration was determined by the custom: had truce not been off ered within a certain time period, violence would have followed (Ergaver, 2016, 108–110). Thus retributive violence was always legitimized only by the impossibil- ity of peaceful resolution (Gluckman, 1955, 14–17; Boehm, 1993, 125). Fig. 3: Count Gerhard Aaberg-Valangin sends the city of Bern a written declaration of enmity or Fehdebrief. Speizer Chronik des Diebold Schilling, 1339 (https://www. historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Datei:Artikel_45339_bilder_value_4_fehdew- esen4.jpg) 406 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 According to Medieval rites the declaration of enmity is the renouncement of fi delity/ faith (Lat. fi des) (Miklosich, 1888, 139) or peace (Lat. diffi datio, Ger. Absage). In the Em- pire enmity had to be declared in daytime, orally or in written form (Ger. e.g. feindtbrieff ), often at the opponent‘s home. Following the declaration the adversary became an enemy (Lat. inimicus, hostis, Ger. feindt), one whom it was allowed to harm. In blood feud the homicide itself or a public confession of the act, as a rule by fl ight, was regarded as the declaration of enmity (Ergaver, 2016, 108). Flight to safety (i.e. banishment), whether abroad or, in asylum or some other refuge (Frauenstädt, 1881, 51–87; Gluckman, 1955, 15), could also express the wish for extrajudicial confl ict resolution (Oman, 2017, 161, 173). The declaration of enmity was followed by a certain amount of time enabling the enemy to appropriately prepare for retribution or fi nally accept the settlement. In the Holy Roman Empire the term was generally three days (cf. MGH, Const. 1, 318. §17, 451), also ranging from a day and a night to six weeks and three days, i.e. three court days (Brunner, 1990, 11–12, 64, 68, 73; Mommertz, 2001, 219–223, 228; Reinle, 2013, 13–14). Based on the principle of collective responsibility at every stage from the declaration of enmity to the peace settlement, vengeance includes a network of allegiances between all parties to the confl ict, whether stemming from kinship, aff ection, dependence, or ob- ligation. All of them constitute friendship (Lat. amici, Ger. freundschaff t). In the Empire in the Middle Ages these relations were divided very roughly into cooperators (Lat. co- operatores, complices, Ger. Helfer, Gesellen) who perform specifi c functions in the feud, servants (Lat. servitor, Ger. dyner) connected to the principals of the feud as employees or subjects, and supporters (Lat. fautores, Ger. Gönner) as representatives in feud, e.g. a nobleman for a burgher. Everywhere, however, cooperators perform functions such as providing supplies, accommodation, and intelligence (all can also be performed by women) and, of course, exact violent retaliation (MGH, Const. 2, 427. §§5–12, 572–573; Brunner, 1990, 57–61; Schäff er, 2013, 204–205, 219–220; Mommertz, 2001, 218–219, 225–231, 244, 247; Peters, 2000, 74, 77–84, 90; Reinle, 2003, 171, 183, 197). Medieval limitations on violence were determined by the culture of honour, the Church and customary law and this created personal, temporal, and spatial immunities. Also, as a consequence of the Peace of God (Pax Dei) movement, during the European Middle Ages the suspension of hostilities was especially practised on Sundays and the most important Church holidays, including the entire liturgical periods of Advent and Lent. Hostilities were also to be suspended in times requiring the cooperation of the whole community, es- pecially in war (Gluckman, 1955, 8; Boehm, 1993, 210–211, 222; cf. Schwind & Dopsch, 1895, 34. 55, 68) and for collective labour (KLD, §§ 874–885; SK, 155; Hasluck, 1954, 155; Jelić, 1926, 96; Miller, 1996, 193). The custom was adverse to violent retaliation in sacred spaces (church, monastery, cemetery) and areas of certain sacral value such as homes (house, castle), settlements (village, town), fora (e.g. the Icelandic alþingi) and residences of authority (the chieftain‘s home, the court). Also communal production facilities (e.g. mills) and agricultural means of production (orchards, vineyards, pastures) were not to be damaged and could provide refuge. All cultures regarded vengeance upon women, children, the elderly, the ordained and other segments of society generally pro- hibited from carrying arms (e.g. Jews in Medieval Europe), as highly inappropriate or 407 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 dishonourable. Except in blood vengeance (for homicide, grave insults or heavy wounds) the killing of an enemy was also generally inappropriate (MGH, Const. 2, 427. §§28–29, 574; MGH, Const. 2, 438. §31, 599; Bogišić, 1999, 355–356; Frauenstädt, 1881, 57–58; Jelić, 1926, 34; Gluckman, 1955, 8–9; Brunner, 1990, 32–33, 51–52, 95–102; Boehm, 1993, 58, 198, 212; Miller, 1996, 193, 207; Wadle, 1999, 79; Ergaver, 2016, 110). Always appropriate was violence upon the enemy‘s property, mostly by raiding or robbery (of cattle, produce) and arson (of pens, stables, barns) (cf. Gluckman, 1955, 9). Alongside the customary limitations the tools of enmity were determined by the resources at the disposal of the parties to a confl ict. Actual military engagements and sieges were rare, even in feuds among the nobility, while subjects mostly resorted to arson. Lawsuits were also an instrument of enmity, even though the judicial path was regarded as less honourable (“subsidiary”), even in the early modern period, making it foremost the tool of the weaker party (Reinle, 2003, 124–133; Hausmann, 1988, 263–287; Wieland, 2014, 426–427, 515). Ritual mutilation (Smail & Gibson, 2009, 54–61) and cannibalism as part of custom was rare, yet could also occur, as a breach of the custom, and consequently to the further dishonour of the perpetrator (SK, 266–267; cf. Kadare, 2006, 10–11), in particularly acrimonious confl icts, including in early modern Europe (Muir, 1998, 97; Martin, 2017, 102). “Magic” was also a common instrument of enmity, while memory was always present in vengeance, fuelling or sustaining animosity in stories, poetry, or chronicles, which off ered a wide array of “injustices” to “legitimize” breaches of truce or Fig. 4: Ramón Berenguer IV receives homage from his vassal the Señor de Perelada in 1132 (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/540572761512953646/) 408 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 even peace. Especially women were the caretakers of familial memory (Brunner, 1990, 84–89; Boehm, 1993, 59; Peters, 2000, 83, 96; Carroll, 2006, 9, 17, 20; Dean, 2007, 137; Byock, 2007, 98–111; Reinle, 2014, 10; Muir, 2017, 4–8). Still, enmity never lasted forever (Boehm, 1993, 221), even if many confl icts lasting for a very long time are attested in sources (Stanojević, 2007, 14–15, 18, 34–35, 43–45, 59–64; Bicheno, 2007; Smail, 2007; Darovec, 2016). The fi rst stage or rite of settling enmity was to make truce (Lat. treuga, amicitia, concordia, compromisso, fi des, fi ducias, reconciliacio, pax, treugis manualibus, Ger. hantfrid, frid, schlechten frid, sůne) (ARS, AS 1063/4491, 23 August 1440, Haimburg; Monasterium, HHStA Salzburg, AUR 1286 XII 16; MGH, Const. 1, 318. §18, 451; MGH, Const. 2, 196a. 253–255; MGH, Const. 2, 427., 570–579). Truce is distinguised from peace by the durability of peace and specifi c words and gestures that conclude it. Until these were spoken and made, an agreement was always only a truce, regardless of the words used for peace (e.g. Lat. pax, Ger. Friede, Sühne) in the sources (Rolandino, 1546, 158r–159v). As stressed by Medieval jurists,16 atten- tion had to be given to the relationship that was established and publicly demonstrated through appropriate diction and gestures. The relationship established by truce was that of friendship (Lat. amicitia). Truce always had to be public to inform everyone involved in the confl ict that it was made, so they would suspend hostilities. Truce was a shorter or longer but always temporary period of mutual renouncement of enmity, providing the parties to the confl ict with time to assess the damages given and received, and to consider whether it was more honourable (worthwhile) to settle the confl ict by making peace or to resume hostilities. Truce also served to cool the parties‘ emotions, easing peacemaking, just like banishment17 (Ita. bando, Ger. Bann), i.e. the perpetrator‘s fl ight into church asylum or another refuge, particularly in settling homicides. The prerequisite for truce was a request for it, demanding ritual self-humiliation from the petitioner (gift and countergift, homage). The request could be also made by the wives and daughters (maidens) of the petitioner‘s kin (same for peace). As a rule, at least the fi rst request was symbolically rejected (Gluckman, 1955, 15; Ergaver, 2016, 109), until fi nally accepted with an oath of security (Lat. securitas, Ger. sicherheit) or safe conduct (Lat. salvus conductus, Ger. sicheres gleyt), which protected the enemy from retaliation or arrest. The oath of truce (Lat. fi des) was given by the injured party to the perpetrator and made on sacred (e.g. scripture, relics) and other symbolic objects. The agreement or compromise for truce can only exceptionally be made by the parties to the confl ict themselves, and as a rule by mediators (Ger. mitler, Mne. posrednik, Alb. ndërmjetës, Svn. (po)srednik) or 16 For instance by the renowned thirteenth-century notary, judge, and university professor Rolandino (Ro- landinus Rudolphi de Passageriis, ca. 1215–1300). His monumental collection of norms, fi rst published in print in 1546, is still used for the education of notaries today (Darovec, 2016, 16). 17 In the early modern period customary banishment of the perpetrator into another jurisdiction, intended to ease peacemaking, was transformed by central authorities into a legal institution aimed at the eradication of banditry, thus ignoring local jurisdictions. Consequently, the local fora were excluded from peacemaking, which at fi rst both prolonged and intensifi ed feuding (Povolo, 2015, 215, 219, 225; cf. Miller, 1996, 239, 263, 275). 409 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 arbiters (Lat. amicabilis compositor, Ger. compromitendt, schidman, Mne. kmet, arbitar, Alb. pleqnarët). Generally there were an equal number of arbiters for both parties, and they were chosen and accepted by both based on their moral virtue and legal competence: respected members of society, e.g. village elders, clergy, representatives of urban authori- ties, infl uential local nobility or distinct keepers of legal customs or professional jurists (notaries, lawyers). In Medieval and early modern communities across Europe,18 where both customary and the Roman legal order coexisted, at the beginning of the arbitration the parties to the confl ict had to notify the arbiters as to whether they wished to settle according to law or according to custom (Lat. per viam iuris vel per amicabilem viam, 18 In rural communities of South-Eastern Europe, especially in Montenegrin and Albanian territories, confl icts were settled exclusively by custom, which was by large also encouraged by both the Venetian and Ottoman authorities (Ergaver, 2017). Fig. 5: HAROLD SACRAMENTUM FECIT VVILLELMO DUCI: “Harold made an oath to Duke William” (Bayeux Tapestry). This scene is said in the previous scene on the Tapestry to have taken place at Bagia (Bayeux, probably in Bayeux Cathedral). It shows Harold touching two altars with the enthroned Duke looking on, and is central to the Norman Invasion of England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bayeux_Tapes- try_scene23_Harold_sacramentum_fecit_Willelmo_ducit.jpg) 410 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 amicabilis compositio, Ger. mit minne oder mir dem rehten, wilkhürlichen), i.e. amicably and with love. In either case the parties pledged to respect the arbitration in advance and to pay any damages for the eventual violation of the truce to the arbiters who had guar- anteed it (hence fi ducias, surety). Sanctions for violations of a truce imposed by a court were harsher and included corporal punishment equal to that for perjury: the violator would lose the right hand or the index and middle fi nger used in the gesture for swearing an oath. Hence, in the Empire, the truce is also known as Handfriede, “peace by hand”, opposite to a lasting peace concluded with a kiss from the representative of the injured party, the Mundsühner. The penalty for violating truce acted as peace with the court as the guarantor of the truce, otherwise the violator was outlawed (Ger. Acht). The penalty for violating truce by means of homicide was death. Accepting the compromise concluded the truce, which came into force when the security was given between the enemies.19 As a rule truce lasted from a few months up to a year, when not renewed or extended. Once it expired or was broken, hostilities would be resumed. Truce could be renewed many times before peace was made. Thus, there could be many compromises and truces in vengeance, but only one lasting peace could be made. Generally truces were made and expired on an important Church holiday, e.g. Pentecost, All Saints‘ Day or Nativity of John the Baptist (ARS, AS 721, kn. 19 (1644–1651), 15 May 1646, 391–392; Rolandino, 1546, f. 147r–v; MGH, Const. 2, 427. §8, 573; MGH, Const. 2, 438. §8, 597; KLD, §§ 602–639; Schwind & Dopsch, 1895, 34., §63, 70; SK, 149–154; Frauenstädt, 1881, 75–83, 106–109, 131, 143; Miklosich, 1888, 137–138; Evans-Pritchard, 1940, 180; Medaković, 1960, 62–63, 67; Kos, 1994, 124; Althoff , 1997, 92; Leth Jespersen, 2009, 18–19, 40; Pitt-Rivers, 2012; Darovec, 2016, 14–15, 20–22, 38; Povolo, 2017; Oman, 2017, 169, 173). Should the truce have held, it could be followed by lasting peace, made based on the terms agreed upon during the truce by the parties to the confl ict, the arbiters, or the court. The peace treaty could undergo many editions before it was unanimously accepted and contractually composed (Lat. instrumentum pacis et concordiae, Ger. Sühnevertrag), including according to a notarial form. The Medieval and early modern notarial form begins stating, that the parties to the confl ict have concluded peace, forgiveness, and concord, and put an end to their enmity with the kiss of peace: fecerunt adinvicem osculo pacis vicissim inter eos veniente, Pacem perpetuam, fi nem, remissionem, atque concor- diam (Rolandino, 1546, f. 158r). Montenegrin sources also attest: fi ne silenzio quiete et pace perpetua (IAK, SN LXX, 22 July 1599, 137–138). The contract was confi rmed by the rituals or, rather, the ceremony of peacemaking, dictated by the injured party and publicly demonstrated with symbolic words, gestures, and objects. The rituals consisted of self-humiliation (gift and countergift, homage), friendship (faith, truce), and the establishment of lasting peace (compensation, love, 19 As late as the end of the seventeenth century the central judicial authority of the Venetian Republic, the Consiglio di Dieci, resolved confl icts of blood among (at least) the urban nobility through mediation by presiding over the swearing of the oaths of friendship, thus concluding a truce. The truce allowed potential avengers to leave house arrest (Liberazione di sequestro) (ASVe. CCD-LR, b. 258, No. 197, 200–202, 206–210, Koper-Capodistria, 1684). 411 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 forgiveness), thus renewing certain rites that were already present in the making of truce. Self-humiliation (in the form of penance) followed the recording of the peace treaty, while the ceremony20 was performed inside or in front of a church or court (e.g. town hall) or at the victim‘s grave. Especially perpetrators of homicide had to request peace barefoot and bareheaded, dressed only in penitential undergarments, sometimes having their hands tied. They would sometimes be carrying a dog or a saddle on their backs, yet as a rule a heavy penitential candle in their hands or the murder weapon hung around their necks. The perpetrator approached the victim‘s kin on all fours or on his knees, or kneeled (Lat. fl exibus genibus, Ger. Fußfall, Kniefall) every few steps. Peace and forgiveness was requested by the perpetrator, his female kin, and/or arbiters or other members of the com- munity witnessing the ritual. In peacemaking a burgher could be represented by the town or city council, a vassal or subject by his lord, a priest by his bishop, a member of a tribe or clan by his chieftain, a member of a kin by his father, godfather, or other blood relative, or head of the household. Following a few consecutive requests the representative of the injured party (Mne. umirnik, Alb. pajtues) lifted the perpetrator to his feet and they exchanged the kiss of peace (Lat. osculum pacis, Ita. baccio di pace, Ger. Friedenskuss, Mne. cjelov mira, poljubac mira) on the mouth or cheek. The kiss signifi ed the parties‘ 20 Cf. Vialla de Sommières: Voyage historique et politique au Montenegro, Acte de la réconciliation publique, 1820, p. 338 (Wikimedia Commons, VDS pg390 Act de Réconciliation publique devant le Tribunal du Kméti.jpg) (Darovec, 2017, 85). Fig. 6: Kiss of Peace settling the enmity. Cambridge Ee.3.59, The Life of King Edward the Confessor, ca. 1250–1260 (http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4450/10071/) 412 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 equality21 (Schmitt, 2000, 331–332; Bogišić, 1999, 371–372; Rovinskiĭ, 1994, 259; cf. Boehm, 1993, 136; Darovec, 2016, 24; Ergaver, 2017, 197) and alleviated any humiliating acts performed by the perpetrator (Carroll, 2011, 90–91), demonstrating that he had been forgiven from the heart and that the peace was sincere, thus uniting the former enemies in friendship, brotherhood, godfatherhood, and love (Lat. amor, Ger. Minne, Liebe) as a formal covenant (Petkov, 2003, 33–34). Medieval jurists explicitly stated that there was no lasting peace without the kiss of peace (Rolandino, 1546, f. 158r–159v). During the early modern period it was gradually replaced by the embrace and/or handshake,22 which could also complement it, as attested inter alia in Montenegro: si abracionno, et in segno di […] perpetua pace bacciono (IAK, SN LXX, 9 January 1599, 137–138). The kiss was followed by the oral reading of the peace treaty to those present, which was confi rmed by a handshake as the fundamental legal gesture for concluding contracts (Schmitt, 2000, 108–109). With the peace treaty both parties for themselves and their heirs mutually and lastingly renounced enmity (Ger. Urfehde),23 a composition (Lat. compositio, Ger. Sühnegeld) or, for homicide, blood money (Germanic wergeld, Mne. krvnina, vražda, Alb. parë i gjakut) was set, depending on the gravity of the off ence and the status of those involved. In societies with little cash, composition could be symbolic or in kind: valuable tableware or weapons, arable land, livestock, produce, etc. (Petranović, 1868, 19; Bogišić, 1999, 372–273; Evans-Pritchard, 1940, 192, 197; Verdier, 1980, 20; Boehm, 1993, 137). The arbiters could also ask the injured party what the perpetrators had gained by paying composition, to which the wronged party answered: lasting peace (Lat. pax et concordia perpetua, plenam celebraui concordiam, Ger. Ewige Sühne und Frieden, ewige 21 Thus it was inapropriate to be given to those of inferior status. In seventeenth-century Italy it was apropriate that “inferiors receive their embraces around the neck; equals hold each other equally on their arms and they kiss; and superiors are to be approached by embracing them around the hips while bowing, making a sign of wishing to kiss their hand” (Carroll, 2016, 130). 22 Reformers, both Protestant and Catholic, regarded the kiss as too ”carnal”, even though it had already been in decline since the fi fteenth century. It was fi rst removed from church service, vanishing as a legal gesture during the seventeenth century (Koslofsky, 2005, 25, 33; Carroll, 2016, 128–129; Marinelli, 2017). 23 Literally ”not feud”. The renouncement of enmity/vengeance was also the oath given by a released captive in a feud to his enemy or by the defendant or suspect to the court and plaintiff , as well as everyone who aided in his or her arrest. It was closely related to the idea of accomodation, having both the function of submission and an agreement to compromise. As a legal institution Urfehde originated in peace treaties, where it was given as a temporary (in truce) or lasting renouncement of enmity (ewige orfeyde) and had to be made public. In peace treaties the renouncement was descriptive and in the Holy Roman Empire rarely was the word Urfehde used, while in the early modern period Urfehden given to the courts were specifi c documents. These could be given for any off ence punishable by imprisonment. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Urfehde was only a formal confi rmation (acceptance) of the judgement by the convict, as a rule including banishment and/or fi ne in return in place of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment, including the death penalty, was exacted if the renouncement was violated. In the early modern period Urfehde mostly had the function of maintaining the moral and social order. Urfehde and its English counterpart, the recognisance, were sworn in front of the magistrate, being a formal part of the legal process. Even if their Italian equivalent, the rinunce, was a private agreement (Kos, 1994, 118–120; Blauert, 2000, 13–21; Leth Jespersen, 2009, 38; Carroll, 2011, 87), it still required either a confi rmation by notaries or before authorities even in the early modern period (Povolo, 1997, 158–166), as is attested in the statutes of the County of Val Morena from 1600 (Cesca, 2009, 110–115). 413 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 orfeyde, vrvehe vnd si svne, gantze sůne, gantz ab vnd verrichtet).24 Composition settled all damages, including the treatment and care of the victim, and the costs of funerals, lawsuits, and trials. In Christianity settling blood included requiems for the victim‘s soul and the erection of memorials. Penance for homicide was also imposed by fasting, a temporary ban from attending church services, a pilgrimage, by giving alms, etc. In some areas following the peace the killer had to avoid the victim‘s kin as much as possible for a year and a day. Elsewhere, peace was demonstrated by sharing common meals or sleeping in the same bed, i.e. convivia (van Eickels, 1997, 137–139; Brown, 2011, 40). Always, however, bygones had to be bygones, as propriety demanded that the confl ict had to be for- gotten. Following the ritual ceremony of peacemaking in Christianity both parties jointly 24 In Montenegro the newly established spiritual bonds of godfatherhoods and brotherhoods were regarded as the main accomplishments of peacemaking, being both new alliances and guarantees for the peace to last (Ergaver, 2017, 194–198). Fig. 7: Kiss of Peace beetwen Justice and Peace. Giovanni Battista Tiepolo (1696–1770) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiepolo_Justice_and_Peace.jpg) 414 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 attended mass, hence peace was commonly made on a Church holiday or on a Sunday. In Central and Western Europe, especially in the early modern period, settling of blood had to be approved by the court, which issued a written copy of the settlement to both parties. In Italy this could still in early modernity be issued by the notary, without involving the court. Peace could however never be truly enforced by the courts, as it would not last. Sanctions for violations of peace were monetary, but could also include the death penalty. The peace settlement could be followed by marriages and engagements or spiritual bonds such as godfatherhoods and brotherhoods. As already the kiss of peace signifi ed the union of the two families, new familial bonds signifi cantly reinforced and acted as sureties for the peace. The peace settlement brought the relationship of enmity and vengeance to an end and the parties entered into a new relationship (ARS, AS 1063/4511, 16 August 1443, Wiener Neustadt; Monasterium, HHStA Salzburg, AUR 1286 XII 16; Rolandino, 1546, f. 158r–159v; Frauenstädt, 1881, 115–119, 125–145, 153–157, 164; Brunner, 1990, 107; Verdier, 1980, 25–31; Althoff , 1997, 115–121; Peters, 2000, 70; Carroll, 2003, 92, 100; Carroll, 2006, 232; Leth Jespersen, 2009, 19; Withington, 2013; Darovec, 2014, 492; Darovec, 2016, 38; Darovec, 2017, 64, 69, 79, 84; Ergaver, 2017, 196–197). The herein presented ritual of vengeance, which served as the basis for our selection of terms, at fi rst glance defi nitely shows an idealized image or a myth. Yet, as numerous sources attest, it was a myth that worked well in practice, especially through ritual ceremo- nies.25 Still, just as there are plenty of procedural complications and plenty of laws being violated in present times, there was just as much respect and disrespect for the rituals of vengeance in the past. Hence the power (political, economic, military, of social standing, etc.) or size of a community, as well as its capability to strike up alliances in the struggle for resources and defence, often determined the outcome of confl icts. However, and in this we can agree with Max Gluckman, “over longer periods of time and wider ranges of society the confl icts between these relationships become cohesion” (Gluckman, 1955, 19). Regarding the questions raised in the introduction, it can be established that many terms and concepts of the ritual of the customary system of confl ict resolution have by and large undergone a thorough redefi nition in contemporary legal and public life, includ- ing the system’s central phenomenon: vengeance. These redefi nitions are a consequence of the fundamental social changes that have taken place since the end of the Middle Ages. Increasing social cohesion in particular, which resulted in increasingly larger tightly-knit units, necessitated the formation of appropriate institutions that allowed the state to establish control of its territory. The key role in the centralization of most early modern European states was played by their centralized judicial institutions, tax system, and military. In the customary system of confl ict resolution since the end of the Middle Ages the state occupied the role of mediators and arbiters, gradually pushing them out of the ritual and taking control of the system of confl ict resolution. This established the state as the only legitimate avenger. 25 The website http://www5.unive.it/faida_msca contains a vast collection of illustrations from various sources and artists ranging from the sixth to the nineteenth century, which truthfully depict the ritual gestu- res, customs, and terms discussed in this paper. 415 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Fig. 8: Wedding of Maria de Medici and Henry IV of France. Jacopo da Empoli (1600) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marie_de_Medici%27s_marriage.jpg). 416 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 GLOSSARY The following glossary26 is meant as a tool for the research on vengeance as a custom- ary system of confl ict resolution, especially for studies predicated on European Medieval and also early modern sources. We also believe that the glossary can be of use for research on vengeance in other eras and/or on other continents. Due to the abundance of synonyms denoting the key rites of vengeance from the outbreak of hostilities to the establishment of peace, the glossary is limited to the most important or the most common terms and phrases found in the Western, Central, and Southern-European sources, particularly from the Holy Roman Empire and the Venetian territories. At the same time it is our inten- tion to emphasize the existence of a plethora of synonyms for the most terms, concepts, gestures, and emotions expressed in the rituals of vengeance in the customary system of confl ict resolution. While the glossary is primarily predicated on Medieval sources, many terms and phrases were still in use in the early modern period and, especially in the Mediterranean, even later. The conceptual historiographical and terminological analysis presented in the paper has shown that regardless of the social and political organisation of a specifi c region, contextually corresponding key terms and phrases of the custom of vengeance existed in many European languages, especially during the Middle Ages and some even in the early modern period. The analysis already presented in the paper is expanded in the glossary with a broader language of vengeance. It also has to be emphasized that in our research on vengeance we found an abundance of various synonyms for certain terms and phrases, especially in Latin, German, and (via dictionaries) Slovene. Almost all are used in the glossary. Latin, as the primary language of law in premodern Europe, was chosen as the fi rst language of the glossary. The herein used Latin terms and phrases are almost exclusively taken from Medieval and early modern sources, as are most Italian, Montenegrin, and Al- banian terms and phrases. German and Slovene terms and phrases, on the other hand, are divided into modern and those taken from Medieval and early modern sources. German premodern terms and phrases are given in italics and in the original ortography. Slovene terms and phrases given in italics, yet transliterated into Gaj‘s Latin alphabet, are mostly taken from German-Slovene and Latin-Slovene dictionaries,27 dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. At the same time we would very much like to see the glossary expanded with additional languages from around the world.28 26 The glossary follows the example of Christopher Boehm, who presented corresponding English words for those used in the language of vengeance specifi c to the Montenegrin area (Boehm, 1993, xvii–xix). 27 Premodern legal sources in Slovene, especially those regarding criminal law, are very rare as most were written in either Latin or German, even if Slovene was the oral language of law (Golec, 2016, 148–149). 28 The words and phrases given in the glossary are taken from the sources and literature already cited in the paper thus far, while the rest are taken from: Megiser, 1592; Vorenc & Kastelec, 1680/85; Wolf, 1860; Karadžić, 1966; Mann, 1948; Stevanović et al., 1983; Dolenc, 1939; Berishaj, 1989; Hysa, 1995; Orel, 1998; Bernik et al., 2004; Golec, 2016. 417 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 LATIN ENGLISH ITALIAN GERMAN (contemporary, sources) SHTOKAVIAN (Montenegro) ALBANIAN SLOVENE (contemporary, sources) alter- catio, con- tentio, di- scordia, iniuria, intentio, iurgium, tumultus confl ict, contention discord, strife, quarrel confl itto, discordia Konfl ikt, Streit, Zwitracht, beschwerung, groll, irrung, krieg, misshe- lung, rumor, ungute, unwill, zwayung, zwitracht svadja, konfl ikt, sukob armiqësi, konfl ikt spor, hrup, krejg, sovraštvu, nadležnost, negliha, nepokoj, neskladnost, neštimnost, nevola, prepirajnje, svada, zatažba, zuparnost amica- bilis customary, in accor- dance with custom consuetu- dinario nach Gewonheit, nach Gewon- heitsrecht, nach Rechtsgewon- heit, mit minne, wilkhürlichen, freundlich, gütlich prema običaju, po zakonu zemaljskome, po kuštumu zemlje i bërë zakon, zakonshëm po običaju amicabi- lis com- positio, arbitrium arbitration, compositi- on, reconci- liation arbitrato, composizi- one Ausgleich, Vergleich, Schiedsurteil, wilkur plemenski sud, arbitraža, pomi- renje, plećnija pleqësia poravnava, razsodba, sodni zbor, dobra vojla, svoja vojlia amicabi- lis com- positor, arbiter, arbitra- tor, boni homines arbiter, arbitrator, good men arbitro, giudice, composito- re amiche- vole, buoni uomini Schiedsrichter, compromitendt, schidman kmet, arbiter, posrednik,sud dobrih ljudi pleqnarët, pajtues, ndër- mjetësues, burrat e mirë, burrat e urtë razsodnik, ločnik, rezloč- nik, dobri ljudje amicitia friendship amicizia Freundschaft prijateljstvo miqësia prijateljstvo, perjasèn, priazn amor love amore Liebe, minne ljubav dashuria ljubezen, priazen arbitrari to arbitrate arbitrato compromitiern suditi gjykoj, trup gjykues razsojati, mejniti, soditi arbiter esse, com- ponere, concilia- re, con- ciliare pacem, concor- dare, pacifi ca- re, recon- ciliare to make peace, to reconcile stringere la pace stabilire la pace ausgleichen, einigen, vergleichen, versöhnen, fried machen, richten, taidi- gen, verrichten, vertragen miriti se, miriti krvi, miriti rane pajtoj, paqësoj pomiriti se, poravnati se, spraviti se, glihati, mir sturiti, miriti, složiti, spraviti, spet spraviti, spravo delati, sprijazniti, vkup rajmati 418 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 bandum, exilium, excom- munica- tio banishment, exile, outlawry bando Bann, Verban- nung, Acht, mordtacht odličenje, pro- gon, izgnanstvo dëbim, dëboj izgon; bandižaj- ne; bando, dano slanu iz dežele caedes, homi- cidium, interfec- tus homicide omicidio Totschlag ubistvo vrasje uboj, poboj, vbijanje caeremo- nia ceremony cerimonia Zeremonie svečanost, ceremonija ceremoni slavnost, slove- snost, svečanost, ceremonija certamen combat combatti-mento Gefecht ratovanje, borba betejë, luftë spopad compater godfather padrino, compare Pate kum kumbarë boter compa- tritas goodfather- hood padrinato Patenschaft kumstvo kumbari botrstvo compo- sitio wergeld, wergild, blood money tributo di sangue Wergeld, manngeld, sühnegeld krvnina, krvavi novac, vražda, odšteta pare e gjakut, kompensim spravnina, kom- pozicija, krvnina, odškodnina, vražda, krvavi penez, krvarina com- positio, compro- missum, pacisci agreement, compro- mise composizi- one, com- promesso Ausgleich, Einigung, Kompromiss, Vergleich dogovor, kompromis, sporazum marrëveshje, kompromis dogovor; kompromis; oblublenje dati, od ene inu druge strani za kakeršno glihin- go, s persego; pervoliti; v roko seči; zavezo delati; zglihati concor- dia concord, unity concordia Einigkeit sloga, jedinstvo përshtatje, me ra dakord sloga, složnost, skladanje, zglihanje damnifi - care, dare damnum, nocere to damage, to harm danneggia- re, nuocere schaden, schädigen oštećenja, naškoditi dëmtoj škodovati damnum damage danno Schaden šteta dëm škoda deridere, off en- dere, vulnerare to insult, to off end off endere beleidigen, beschämen, schimpfen, verspoten, ausschreien, aussprengen, ausspeien, schmähen, schelten, spotten povrjediti, uvrje- diti, vrijeđati ofendoj žaliti,užaliti, posmehovati, režaliti, spota- kniti, špotati, zadervižati, zameriti 419 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 devasta- tio devastation devastare Wüstung, grundstöer devastacija, pustoš mësymje, shkretoj pustošenje, zatrenje defensio per patrem (legal) defence by ones father difesa per patrem Rechtsverteidi- gung durch den Vater odbrana od strane oca mbrojtje nga babai obramba po očetu diffi datio renunciati-on of peace rinunciare alla pace Absage, abkla- ge, austretten, widerbot, widersage odricanje od mira me heq dorë nga paqja odpoved miru, odpoved zvestobe diffi dator the one who announces hostility, the one who renounces peace, defyer (in criminal law) sfi dante Absager (in criminal law) onaj koji najavljuje neprijateljstvo sfi dues odpovednik (in criminal law) dignatio, honor, honos honour onore Ehre čast nder čast, spoštovanje dissidere, inimicari in enmity creare inimicizia verfeindet sein, zwiträchtig sein u svađi, u neprijateljstvu, u krvi, zakrvljeni krijoj armiqësi sovražnost imeti, v sovražnosti biti expulsus, ex(s) ul, pro- scriptus, relegatus, homo sacer, excom- munica- tus outlaw, bandit, exile, the banished bandito, fuorilegge Verbannter, Geächteter, Friedloser, vogelfrey odličeni, prognanik bandit, jashtë ligjit izobčenec, izgnanec, brezpokojnež, vižan faida, querella feud, quarrel faida, vendetta, querela Fehde, abgesagte feindtschaff t, befehdung, fedeschaff t osveta, zavađa hakmarrje fajda, maščeva-nje, spor fama reputation fama Ruf, Gesicht ugled, reputacija, obraz dinjitet ugled familia, cognatio family, household, house, lineage, kin famiglia, parentela Familie, Ge- schlecht, Haus, Haushalt, Sippe, Verwandtschaft freundtschaft porodica, rodbina familja, lidhje farefi snore družina, rod, rodbina, sorod- stvo, žlahta, narod fi de- iussor, sponsor guarantor, warrantor fi de- iussore, fi duciario Bürge, Garant jemac, dorzon, garant dorëzan porok 420 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 fi dem dare, iurare to swear an oath giuramen- to schwören dati tvrdu vjeru, zaklinjati se, položiti zakletvu betim priseči, persega- ti, v roke seči, za gvišno oblubiti, zakleti fi des trust, fi delity, faith fede, fi ducia Treue, Glaube vjera, vjernost besë vera, zvestoba, zveščina fi ducia, fi de- iussio, sponsio surety, warranty garanzia, fi deiussio- ne piezaria Bürgschaft, Haftung jemstvo, garan- cija, dorezanija dorëzan, garant poroštvo, jamstvo, obluba, obečanje, zavuplivost fl ectere genua, fl exis genibus to kneel inginoc-chiarsi die Knie biegen klečati me ra në gjunjë, me u gjunjëzu poklekniti, pokloniti forum court of arbitration composi- tori Schiedsgericht, taiding plemenski sud, skup, arbitražni sud, plećnija pleqësia razsodišče, veča, pravda fraterni- tas brother- hood, con- fraternity, fraternity fratellanza, fraternità, confrate- rnità Bruderschaft bratstvo, pobratimstvo fi s, vëllazëri bratstvo, bratovščina, pobratimstvo furor, ira anger, fury, rage furore Wut, Zorn ljutnja, bijes tërbim bes, srd homici- da, interfec- tor killer assassino, omicida, uccisore Totschläger krvnik,ubica gjaks, gjaksor, vrasës ubijalec, bojnik, ubijavnik, vbijenik homi- cidium involun- tarium involuntary manslaugh- ter omicidio pensato Tötung ohne Vorbedacht ubistvo iz nehata, ubistvo grijehom vrasje e pavullnet- shme nenaklepni uboj humili- atio humiliation umilia- zione Beschämung, Demütigung, Erniedrigung poniženje poshtërim ponižanje, pohlevnost ignomi- nia dishonour, shame disonore, vergogna Schande sram, bruka turp sramota, špot indignans the off ended off eso Beleidigter uvrijeđeni i fyer užaljeni, razžaljeni infamia infamy, bad reputation infamia Verruf, schlechter Ruf, böser Ruf loš glas, sramota famë e keqe slab glas, zloglasnost inimicus enemy nemico Feind neprijatelj armik sovražnik, nepri-atal, sovraže inimi- citia, odium enmity (as emotion: animosity, hate) inimicizia, odio Feindschaft, feindtschaff t, veht, uble unnachpar- schaff t, zorn (as emotion: Haß) neprijateljstvo, mržnja, animozitet armiqësi, urrejtje sovražnost, čert, nenavist, nepriatelstvu, sovraštvu (as emotion: mržnja, sovraštvo) 421 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 iniuria, off ensa, vulnus aff ront, injury, insult, off ence wrong ingiuria Beleidigung, Beschimpfung, Unrecht, Verspotung, ehr verletzung, iniuiri schelt- wart povreda, uvreda dëmtim krivica, žalitev, sramota, zašmaganje, zašpotovanje inimicitia capitalis, inimicitia mortalis, vindicta mortis blood feud, blood revenge vendetta di sangue Blutrache, Totschlags- fehde, haup- tveintschaft, totveintschaft krvna osveta gjakmarrje krvno maščevanje interces- sio mediation media- zione Mediation posredovanje ndërhyrje posredovanje, mediacija inter- fectus volunta- rius murder, voluntary manslau- ghter omicido puro e proditorio Mord ubistvo iz koristi, ubistvo navlaš vrasje e pastër e vullnetare naklepni uboj, umor iudicium court tribunale Gericht sud gjykatë sodišče, sodni zbor iuramen- tum oath giura- mento Eid, Schwur zakletva beja prisega, rotejnje, rote lex law legge Gesetz zakon ligj, zakon zakon malefac- tor, auctor perpetrator colpevole, autore Täter krivac, izvršilac, rukostavnik fajtor, autor storilec, hudodelec matrimo- nium matrimony matrimo- nio Ehe brak martesë zakon mediator mediator mediatore Vermittler, mitler posrednik ndërmjetës posrednik, medi- ator, srejdnik mos, consue- tudo custom consuetu-dine Gewonheit običaj adet, zakon običaj off ensor off ender off ensore Beleidiger uvredilac, uvre-dioc, počinilac fyes žalivec osculum pacis kiss of peace bacio della pace Friedenskuss cjelov mira, poljubac mira puthja e paqes poljub miru pacifi ca- tor peacemaker pacifi cato- re, paciere Friedensstifter, mundsühner umirnik, mirotvorac pajtues pomiritelj, miritelj pax sanguinis settling blood pace Totschlagssühne umir krvi pajtimi i gjakut pomiritev krvi pax peace pace Friede mir paqe mir pax et con- cordia perpetua, plena concor- dia lasting peace pace duratura Ewige Sühne und Frieden, ewige orfeyde, ewige sune und fried, gantze sune, urvehe und sune večni mir i ljubav paqe ë qëndrueshme trajni mir, gvišen inu zažihran mir 422 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 praeda, spoliatio, incursio pillage, robbery incursio- ne, furto, rapina Raub pljačka, razboj-ništvo bastisje, vjedhje, grabitje plenjenje, ropanje, pajdaš praedare, spoliare to pillage, to rob saccheg- giare, rapinare rauben plačkanje, četovanje plaçkitje pleniti, ropati, opuliti, po sili vzeti, porubiti, rezbijati querella complaint, lawsuit querela, acussa, denuncia Klage, Beschwerde, geschray parnica, tužba, žalba, svadja padia, akuza, de- noncimi tožba, pritožba, pokrik, vik, krik, šrajanje recon- ciliatio, compo- sitio pacifi cation, peacema- king, recon- ciliation, settlement pacifi cazi- one, riconcilia- zione Sühne, Versöhnung pomirenje, izmirenje, pomirba, umir pajtimi pomiritev, sprava, sloščina, smirovanie, vkup spravlanje rite, ritus rite, ritual rito, rituale Ritual obred, ritual rit, ritual obred, ritual salvus conduc- tus safe conduct salvacon- dotto sicheres Geleit sigurna pratnja sjellje e sigurt varno spremstvo satisfac- tio satisfaction soddisfazi- one Genugtuung zadovoljstvo kënaqësi zadoščenje securitas security sicurezza Sicherheit sigurnost mbrojtje, sigurim varnost, žihrost sententia, iudicium sentence, judgment sentenza, giudizio Urteil, Schieds- spruch presuda gjykimi, dënimi sodba, razsodba treuga, treugae manu- ales, amicitia, concor- dia, fi des, fi ducia, pax, reconcili- acio truce tregua Stillstand, Waff enruhe, Waff enstill- stand, hantfrid, frid, schlechter frid, sune primirje besë premirje ulcisci, vindicare to avenge, to take revenge perseguire la vendetta rächen osvetiti se hakmerrem maščevati, nazaj vzeti Urphaede oath not to feud, oath to keep the peace, recogni- sance rinuncia alla vendetta, rinunce Urfehde, orfeyde odricanje od osvete, zakletva za održanje mira besë, heq dorë nga hakmarrja odrek mašče- vanju, odrek sovražnosti, urfeda verbum honoris word of honour parola d‘onore Ehrenwort časna riječ, riječ od poštenja fjala e nderit, besa častna beseda victima (homicide) victim vittima Opfer, Totschla- gsopfer žrtva, ubijeni viktimë žrtev, ubiti 423 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 vindex, vindictor avenger, vengeance taker, blood taker vendica- tore Rächer osvetnik, krvnik gjakmarrës, hakmarrës maščevalec vindicta, faida, alter- catio, bellum, discor- dia, inimi- citia, iniuria, intentio, ultio, vindica- tio vengeance, revenge, feud vendetta, faida Rache, Fehde, abgesagte feindtschaff t, aufl auf, befehdung, feindtschaft, vordrung, gwerra, handlung, irrung, krieg, lanndkrieg, misshelung, reisa, rache, stöss, teglich krieg, unfrid, ungute, unrat, urlog, zwayung, zwitracht osveta, krvna osveta hakmarrje, gjakmarrje (krvno) mašče- vanje, fajda violentia violence violenza Gewalt nasilje dhunë nasilje vulnus, plaga injury, wound ferita Wunde povreda, rana plage poškodba, rana 424 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 GOVORICA MAŠČEVANJA: SLOVAR SOVRAŽNOSTI IN MIRU Darko DAROVEC Univerza Ca‘ Foscari Benetke, Oddelek za humanistiko, Dorsoduro 3848/d, 30123 Benetke, Italija e-mail: darko.darovec@unive.it Angelika ERGAVER Inštitut Nove revije, zavod za humanistiko, Gospodinjska ulica 8, 1000 Ljubljana e-mail: angiemeister@gmail.com Žiga OMAN Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: zigaoman@gmail.com POVZETEK Pričujoča razprava, utemeljena na pojmovnozgodovinski analizi temeljnega izrazja obredja maščevanja, je poskus izdelave jezikovnega, konceptualnega in metodološkega okvira za raziskave maščevanja kot običajnega sistema reševanja sporov v predmoderni Evropi. V ta namen je članku dodan sedemjezični slovar, v katerem je zbrano ključno iz- razje običaja maščevanja v latinskem, angleškem, italijanskem, nemškem, črnogorskem, albanskem in slovenskem jeziku. Čeprav je razprava utemeljena predvsem na evropskih srednjeveških virih in študijah le-teh, razširjenost in sorodnost občečloveškega običaja omogočata uporabo članka tudi za druga obdobja in celine. V razpravi predstavljeni pojmovnozgodovinska in jezikovna analiza sta pokazali, da so, neodvisno od družbene in politične organizacije nekega ozemlja, kontekstualno ustrezni ključni izrazi in pojmi običaja maščevanja obstajali v mnogih evropskih jezikih, zlasti v srednjem veku, deloma pa tudi še v zgodnjem novem veku. Ključne besede: maščevanje, sovražnost, fajda, premirje, mir, zvestoba, prijateljstvo, zadoščenje, ljubezen, reševanje sporov, obred 425 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ARS, AS 721 – Arhiv Republike Slovenije (ARS), Gospostvo Bled (fond AS 721). ARS, AS 1063 – ARS, Zbirka listin (fond AS 1063). ASVe. CCD-LR – Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Capi Consiglio di Dieci – Lettere Rettori. IAK, SN – Državni arhiv Crne Gore, odsijek Istorijski arhiv Kotor, Acta Notarilia, Sudsko-notarski spisi. Monsterium, HHStA Salzburg – Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Salzburg, Erzstift (798– 1806), http://monasterium.net/mom/AT-HHStA/SbgE/fond (last access: March 2017). AKG – Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen. Vol. 22 (Wien, 1860), Vol. 24 (Wien, 1860). Algazi, G. (1995): Sie würden hinten nach so gail: Vom sozialen Gebrauch der Fehde im späten Mittelalter. In: Alf Lüdtke, A. & T. Lindenberger (eds.): Physische Gewalt: Studien zur Geschichte der Neuzeit. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 39–77. Algazi, G. (1996): Herrengewalt und Gewalt der Herren im späten Mittelalter: Herr- schaft, Gegenseitigkeit und Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt am Main, Campus. Althoff , G. (1997): Spielregeln der Politik im Mittelalter: Kommunikation in Frieden und Fehde. Darmstadt, Primus Verlag. Andrijašević, Ž . M. & Š. Rastoder (2006): Istorija Crne Gore od najstarijih vremena do 2003. Podgorica, CICG. Berishaj, N. (1989): Albansko-slovenski in slovensko-albanski slovar = Fjalor shqip- sllovenisht dhe sllovenisht-shqip. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba. Bernik, F. et al. (2004): Brižinski spomeniki = Monumenta Frisingensia: znanstvenokri- tična izdaja. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC. Beyerle, F. (1915): Das Entwicklungsproblem im germanischen Rechtsgang: I. Sühne, Rache und Preisgabe in ihrer Beziehung zum Strafprozeß der Volksrechte. Heidelberg, Carl Winter‘s Universitätsbuchhandlung. Bicheno, H. (2007): Vendetta. High Art and Low Cunning in the Birth of the Renais- sance. London, Weidenfi eld & Nicolson. Bizjak, M. (2016): Srednjeveške računske knjige za Slovenijo 1: deželnoknežji obračuni za Kranjsko (Landesfürstliche Abrechnungen für Krain) 1436–1448. Ljubljana, Zgo- dovinski inštitut Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU. Blauert, A. (2000): Das Urfehdewesen im deutschen Südwesten im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Tübingen, Bibliotheca-Academica-Verlag. Bloch, M. (1961): Feudal Society: The Growth of Ties of Dependence. London, Rout- ledge. Boehm, C. (1993): Blood Revenge: The Enactment and Management of Confl ict in Mon- tenegro and Other Tribal Societies. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Bogišić, V. (1999): Pravni običaji u Crnoj Gori, Hercegovini i Albaniji. Knjiga IV. Beo- grad, Podgorica, Unireks. Bossy, J. (2004): Peace in the Post-Reformation. The Birkbeck Lectures 1995. Cam- bridge, Cambridge University Press. 426 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Bradač, F. (1980): Latinsko-slovenski slovar. Ljubljana, Državna založba Slovenije. Broggio, P. & S. Carroll (2015): Violence and peacemaking in early modern Europe: a comparative perspective. Krypton, 5–6, 4–8. Brown, W. C. (2011): Violence in Medieval Europe. Harlow, Pearson. Brunner, O. (1990): Land und Herrschaft: Grundfragen der territorialen Verfassungsge- schichte Österreichs im Mittelalter. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Brunner, O., Conze, W. & R. Koselleck (2004): Geschichtliche Grundbegriff e: His- torisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Bd. 1–8/2. Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta. Büchert Netterstrøm, J. (2007): Introduction: The Study of Feud in Medieval and Early Modern History. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval andEarly Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 9–67. Burckhardt, J. (1956): Renesančna kultura v Italiji. Ljubljana, Državna založba Slovenije. Byock, J. L. (2007): Defi ning Feud: Talking Points and Iceland‘s Saga Women. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 95–111. Carroll, S. (2003): The Peace in the Feud in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France. Past and Present, 178, 74–115. Carroll, S. (2006): Blood and Violence in Early Modern France. Oxford, Oxford Uni- versity Press. Carroll, S. (2007): Introduction. In: Carroll, S. (ed.): Cultures of Violence: Interpersonal Violence in Historical Perspective. Houndmills, Palgrave MacMillan, 1–43. Carroll, S. (2011): Peace-making in Early Modern Europe: towards a comparative his- tory. In: Broggio, P. & M. P. Paoli (eds.): Stringere la pace. Teorie e pratiche della conziliazione nell‘ Europa moderna (secoli XV–XVIII). Roma, Viella, 75–92. Carroll, S. (2012): Hillay Zmora: The Feud in Early Modern Germany. http://www.h- net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=35932 (last access: September 2016). Carroll, S. (2015): Vendetta in the Seventeenth-Century Midi. Krypton, 5–6, 25–40. Carroll, S. (2016): Revenge and Reconciliation in Early Modern Italy. Past and Present 233, 101–142. Cesca, D. (ed.) (2009): Statuti medioevali della contea di Val Mareno e della gastaldia di Solighetto. Vittorio Veneto, Dario de Bastiani Editore. Colson, E. (1953): Social Control and Vengeance in Plateau Tonga Society. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 23, 3, 199–212. Cummins, S. & L. Kounine (2015): Cultures of Confl ict Resolution in Early Modern Europe. Farnham, Ashgate. Darovec, D. (2014): Cum lampulo mantelli: The Ritual of Notarial Investiture: Example from Istria. Acta Histriae, 22, 3, 453–508. Darovec, D. (2016): Turpiter interfectus: The Seigneurs of Momiano and Petrapilosa in the Customary System of Confl ict Resolution in Thirteenth-century Istria. Acta Histriae, 24, 1, 1–42. 427 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Darovec, D. (2017): Blood Feud as Gift Exchange: The Ritual of Humiliation in the Customary System of Confl ict Resolution. Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 57–96. Dean, T. (1997): Marriage and Mutilation: Vendetta in Late Medieval Italy. Past and Present 157, 3–36. Dean, T. (2007): Italian Medieval Vendetta. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 135–145. Dolenc, M. (1935): Pravna zgodovina za slovensko ozemlje: sostavni očrt. Ljubljana, Akademska založba. Dolenc, M. (1939): O “krvavem penezu” in sorodnih dajatvah. Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo, XX, 1–4, 272–283. du Cange, C. (1710): Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infi mae Latinitatis, Frankfurt am Main, http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/ducange.html (last access: August 2017). Durham, M. E. (1909): High Albania. London, Edward Arnold. Elias, N. (2000): O procesu civiliziranja: sociogenetske in psihogenetske raziskave, Zv. 1: Vedenjske spremembe v posvetnih višjih slojih zahodnega sveta. Ljubljana, Založba /cf*. Elias, N. (2001): O procesu civiliziranja: sociogenetske in psihogenetske raziskave, Zv. 2: Spremembe v družbi; Osnutek teorije civiliziranja. Ljubljana, Založba /cf*. Ergaver, A. (2016): Pomiritev v običaju krvnega maščevanja: mediacija, arbitraža in obredje “nove zaveze” med strankama v sporu v črnogorskih in albanskih običajih. Acta Histriae, 24, 1, 102–125. Ergaver, A. (2017): “First my Brother, then a Blood-taker, then my Brother Forever”: The Effi ciency of the Traditional Peace-making Custom in Early Modern Age Montenegro andthe role of the Venetian Authorities in the Peace-making Process. Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 179–206. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940): The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Faggion, L. (2017): La vengeance et le Consulat à Vicence dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle. Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 131–152. Frauenstädt, P. (1881): Blutrache und Todschlagssühne im deutschen Mittelalter. Leip- zig, Duncker & Humblot. Gluckman, M. (1955): Custom and Confl ict in Africa. London, Basil Blackwell. Gluckman, M. (1965): Politics, Law and Ritual in Tribal Society. Oxford, Basil Black- well. Golec, B. (2016): Slovenščina pred kazenskimi sodišči v zgodnjem novem veku. Acta Histriae, 24, 1, 147–176. Halsall, G. (1999): Refl ections on Early Medieval Violence: The example of the “Blood Feud”. Memoria y Civilisatión, 2, 7–29. Hasluck, M. (1954): The Unwritten Law in Albania. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 428 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Hausmann, F. (1988): Der Streit Friedrichs von Pettau mit den Erzbischöfen Friedrich II. und Rudolf I. von Salzburg. In: Valentinitsch, H. (ed.): Recht und Geschichte: FestschriftHermann Baltl zum 70. Geburtstag. Graz, Leykam, 263–287. Heusler, A. (1911): Das Strafrecht der Isländersagas. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot. Horden P. & N. Purcell (2000): The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford-Malden, Blackwel. Huizinga, J. (2011): Jesen srednjega veka. Ljubljana, Studia Humanitatis. Hysa, R. (1995): Albanian-English Dictionary. New York, Hippocrene Books. Jelić, I. M. (1926): Krvna osveta i umir u Crnoj Gori i Severnoj Albaniji. Istorijsko- pravna studija. Beograd, Gece Kon. Kadare, I. (2006): Zlomljeni april. Ljubljana, Tuma. Karadžić, V. S. (1966): Srpski rječnik. Beograd, Prosveta. KLD – Gjecovi, S. K. (2011): Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit. In: Vukčević, D. K. (ed.): Kanon Leke Dukađinija. Podgorica, CID. Kos, D. (1994): Imago iustitiae: historični sprehod skozi preiskovanje, sojenje in pravo pri plemstvu v poznem srednjem veku. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU. Koselleck, R. (2004): Futures past: on the semantics of historical time. New York, Co- lumbia University Press. Koselleck, R. (2006): Begriff sgeschichten. Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag. Koslofsky, C. (2005): The kiss of peace in the German Reformation. In: Harvey, K. (ed.): The Kiss in History. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 18–35. Krones, F. (1883): Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli. Zweiter Theil: Die Cillier Chronik. Graz, Leuschner & Lubensky. Le Goff , J. (1977): Le rituel symbolique de la vassalité. In: Le Goff , J. (ed.): Pour un autre Moyen Age, Temps, travail et culture en Occident: 18 essais. Paris, Éditions Gallimard, 426–506. Leth Jespersen, M. (2009): Die Fehdekultur in den Herzogtümern Schleswig und Holstein im Übergang vom Spätmittelalter zur Frühen Neuzeit. Zeitschrift der Ge- sellschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte, 134, 17–57. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969): The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston, Beacon Press. Mann, S. E. (1948): An Historical Albanian-English Dictionary. London, The British council. Marinelli, S. (2017): La pacifi cazione, non la vendetta. Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 109–119. Marinović, S. (2007): Kaznena istorija Crne Gore. Podgorica, Cicero »Cetinje«. Martin, J. J. (2017): Cannibalism as a Feuding Ritual in Early Modern Europe. Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 97–108. Mauss, M. (1996): Esej o daru in drugi spisi. Ljubljana, ŠKUC. Medaković, V. M. G. (1960): Život i običai Crnogoraca. Novi Sad, Europska Knjigopečatnija. Megiser, H. (1592): Dictionarium quatuor linguarum videlicet, Germanicae, Latinae, Illyri- cae, (quae vulgo Sclavonica appellatur) & Italicae, sive Hetruscae. Graz, Ioannes Faber. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-RL06CTA6 (last access: March, 2017). 429 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 MGH, Const. 1 – Wieland, L. (1893): Monvmenta Germaniae Historica, Constitutiones et acta pvblica imperatorvm et regvm: Tomvs 1. inde ab a. DCCCCXI. vsqve ad a. MCXCVII. Hannover, Hahnsche Buchhandlung. MGH, Const. 2 – Weiland, L. (1896): Monvmenta Germaniae Historica: Constitutiones et acta pvblica imperatorvm et regvm: Tomvs 2. inde ab a. MCXCVIII. vsqve ad a. MCCLXXII. Hannover, Hahnsche Buchhandlung. MGH, LL 4/I – Bluhme, F. (1868): Monvmenta Germaniae Historica: Legvm: Tomvs 4. inde ab anno Christi qvingentesimo vsqve ad annvm millesimvm et qvingentesimum: I. EdictusLangobardorum. Hannover, Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Miklosich, F. (1888): Die Blutrache bei den Slaven. Denkschriften der kaiserlichenAka- demie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Classe, 36. Wien, F. Tempsky, 127–209. Miller, W. I. (1996): Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Mommertz, M. (2001): Von Besen und Bündelchen, Brandmahlen und Befehdungss- chreiben: Semantiken der Gewalt und die historiographische Entziff erung von “Fehde”-Praktiken in einer ländlichen Gesellschaft. In: Eriksson, M. & B. Krug- Richter (eds.): Streitkulturen: Gewalt, Konfl ikt und Kommunikation in der ländlichen Gesellschaft (16.–19. Jahrhundert). Köln, Böhlau Verlag, 197–248. Muir, E. (1998): Mad Blood Stirring: Vendetta in Renaissance Italy. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press. Muir, E. (2017): The Feuding Spectrum: From the Mountains of Albania to the Court of Charles V, Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 1–10. Nassiet, M. (2007): Vengeance in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France. In: Car- roll, S. (ed.): Cultures of Violence: Interpersonal Violence in Historical Perspective. Houndmills, Palgrave MacMillan, 117–128. Oman, Ž. (2016): Will auss der Vnordnung nit Schreitten: A Case of Fehde from 17th Century Styria. Acta Histriae, 24, 1, 63–100. Oman, Ž. (2017): Modern Age, Ancient Customs – Settling Blood in the Eastern Alps between the Late Middle Ages and Early Modernity. Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 153–178. Orel, V. (1998): Albanian Ethymological Dictionary. Leiden, Brill. Patschovsky, A. (1996): Fehde im Recht: eine Problemskizze. In: Roll, C. (ed.): Recht und Reich im Zeitalter der Reformation: Festschrift für Horst Rabe. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 145–178. Peristiany, J. G. (ed.) (1965): Honour and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Peters, J. (2000): Leute-Fehde: Ein ritualisiertes Konfl iktmuster des 16. Jahrhunderts. Historische Antropologie, 8, 1, 62–97. Petkov, K. (2003): The Kiss of Peace: Ritual, Self and Society in the High and Late Medieval West. Leiden, Brill. Petranović, B. (1868): O osveti, mirenju i vraždi po negdašnjem srpsko-hrvatskome pravnom običaju. Čitano na sjednici Filosofi čko-pravoslovnog razreda Jugoslavenske akademijeznanosti i umjetnosti, 10. 4. 1868. JAZU, 1–9. 430 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Pitt-Rivers, J. (2012): The Law of Hospitality. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2, 1, 501–517. Povolo, C. (1997): L‘ intrigo dell‘ onore. Poteri e istituzioni nella Republicca di Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Verona, Cierre Edizioni. Povolo, C. (2015a): Tradicija pride na dan: razprave iz antropologije prava (16.–18. stoletje). Venezia, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. Povolo, C. (2015b): Feud and Vendetta: Customs and Trial Rites in Medieval and Modern Europe: A Legal-Anthropological Approach. Acta Histriae, 23, 2, 195–244. Povolo, C. (2017): La pietra del bando: vendetta e banditismo in Europa tra Cinque e Seicento, Acta Histriae, 25, 1, 21–56. Radcliff e-Brown, A. R. (1952): Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Glencoe, The Free Press. Radov S. (1997): Izreke i anegodte. Treće izdanje. Kulturno-prosvetna zajednica Pod- gorica, MZ Komani. Reinle, C. (2003): Bauernfehden: Studien zur Fehdeführung Nichtadliger im spätmit- telalterlichen römisch-deutschen Reich, besonders in den bayerischen Herzogtümern. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag. Reinle, C. (2013): Einleitung. In: Eulenstein, J., Reinle, C. & M. Rothman (eds.): Fe- hdeführung im spätmittelalterlichen Reich: Zwischen adeliger Handlungslogik und territorialerVerdichtung. Aff alterbach, Didymos-Verlag, 9–24. Reinle, C. (2014): Überlegungen zu Eigenmacht und Fehde im spätmittelalterlichen Europa: Einfuhrung in Fragestellung und Ergebnisse des Sammelbandes «Fehde- handeln und Fehdegruppen im spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Europa». In: Prange, M. & C. Reinle (eds.): Fehdehandeln und Fehdegruppen im spätmit- telalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Europa. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9–38. Reuter, T. (1992): Unruhestiftung, Fehde, Rebellion, Widerstand: Gewalt und Frieden in der Politik der Salierzeit. In: Weinfurter, S. (ed.): Die Salier und das Reich, Band 3: Gesellschaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der Salier. Sigmarin- gen, Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 297–325. Rolandino, R. (1546): Summa totius artis notariae. Venezia. Anastatic reprint, ed by the Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato. Bologna, Arnaldo Forni Editore 1977. Rösener, W. (1982): Zur Problematik des spätmittelalterlichen Raubrittertums. In: Mau- erer W. & H. Patze (eds.): Festschrift für Berent Schwineköper zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag. Sigmaringen Thorbecke, 469–488. Rovinskiĭ, P. A. (1994): Crna Gora u prošlosti i sadašnjosti. In: Vukčević, D. K. (ed.): Tom III. Etnografi ja – Književnost i jezik. Cetinje, Izdavački centar »Cetinje«. Schäff er, R. (2013): Fehdeführer und ihre Helfer: Versuch zur sozialen Schichtung von Fehdenden, In: Eulenstein, J., Reinle, C. & M. Rothman (eds.): Fehdeführung im spätmittelalterlichen Reich: Zwischen adeliger Handlungslogik und territorialer Verdichtung. Aff alterbach, Didymos-Verlag, 203–220. Schmitt, J.-C. (2000): Geste v srednjem veku. Ljubljana, Studia Humanitatis. 431 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Schwind, E. & A. Dopsch (1895): Ausgewählte Urkunden zur Verfassungsgeschichte der Deutsch-österreichischen Erblande im Mittelalter, Innsbruck, Verlag der Wagner‘schenUniversitäts-Buchhandlung. SK – Berishaj, M. (2004): Skenderbegov kanon. In: Berishaj, M. (ed.): Skrita moč bese. Ženske v imaginariju albanskega tradicionalizma. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU. Skinner, Q. (1980): Language and Social Change. In: Michaels, L. & C. Ricks (eds.): The State of the Language. Berkeley, University of California Press. Skinner, Q. (2008): Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Smail, D. L. (2003): The Consumption of Justice : Emotions, Publicity, and Legal Culture in Marseille, 1264-1423. New York, Cornell University Press. Smail, D. L. (2007): Factions and Feud in Fourteenth-Century Marseille. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 113–133. Smail, D. L. & K. Gibson (2009): Vengeance in Medieval Europe: A Reader. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Snoj, M. (1997): Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga. Sommières, V. de (1820): Voyage historique et politique au Montenegro. Paris, Alexis Eimery. Stanojević, G. (2007): Iz istorije Crne Gore u XVI i XVII vijeku. In: Stanojević, G. (ed.): Crna Gora u XVI i XVII vijeku. Zbornik radova. Cetinje, Obod, 7–104. Stevanović, M. et al. (1983): Rečnik jezika Petra II. Petrovića Njegoša. Beograd, SANU. Šćepanović, M. (2003): O krvnoj osveti. Krivičnopravni prilaz. Podgorica, CID. Throop, S. A. (2011): Crusading as an Act of Vengeance, 1095–1216. Farnham, Ashgate. van Eickels, K. (1997): ‘Homagium‘ and ‘Amicitia‘: Rituals of Peace and Their Signifi - cance in the Anglo-French Negotiations of the Twelfth Century. Francia: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte 24, 134–140. Vilfan, S. (1961): Pravna zgodovina Slovencev: od naselitve do zloma stare Jugoslavije. Ljubljana, Slovenska matica. Verdier, R. (1980): La vengeance dans les sociétes extraoccidentales. Paris, Cujas. Vocabolario (1612): Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca. Venezia. http://vocabo- lario.sns.it/html/index.html (last access: September 2015). Vogel, T. (1998): Fehderecht und Fehdepraxis im Spätmittelalter am Beispiel der Reichstadt Nürnberg (1404–1438). Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang. Vorenc, G. & M. Kastelec (1680/85): Dictionarium Latino-Carniolicum. https://www. dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-DKBDPGX3 (last access: July 2017). Vujačić, B. (1997): Predgovor. In: Radov, S.: Izreke i anegodte. Treće izdanje. Kulturno- prosvetna zajednica Podgorica, MZ Komani. Wadle, E. (1999): Zur Delegitimierung der Fehde durch die mittelalterliche Friedens- bewegung. In: Brunner, H. (ed.): Der Krieg im Mittelalter und der frühen Neuzeit: Gründe, Begründungen, Bilder, Bräuche, Recht. Wiesbaden, Reichert Verlag, 73–89. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (1959): The Bloodfeud of the Franks. Bulletin of John Rylands Library, 41, 459–487. 432 ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 2 Darko DAROVEC et al: THE LANGUAGE OF VENGEANCE: A GLOSSARY OF ENMITY AND PEACE, 393–434 Wenzel, E. (2011): La paix par la justice. Les modes alternatifs de règlement des confl its dans la France d‘ Ancien Régime. In: Broggio, P. & M. P. Paoli (eds.): Stringere la pace. Teorie e pratiche della conziliazione nell‘ Europa moderna (secoli XV–XVIII). Roma, Viella, 509–519. White, S. D. (1986): Feuding and Peace-making in the Touraine around the Year 1100. Traditio, 42, 195–263. Wieland, C. (2014): Nach der Fehde – Studien zur Interaktion von Adel und Rechtssystem am Beginn der Neuzeit: Bayern 1500 bis 1600. Epfendorf an der Neckar, Bibliotheca Academica Verlag. Williams, R. (1976): Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London, Collins. Withington, P. (2013): The semantics of ”peace” in early modern England. Transaction of the Royal Historical Society, 23, 127–153. Wolf, A. A. (1860): Deutsch-Slowenisches Wörterbuch. Laibach, Josef Blasnik. Zmora, H. (1997): State and Nobility in Early Modern Germany: The Knightly Feud in Franconia 1440–1567. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Zmora, H. (2007): Values and Violence: The Morals of Feuding in Late Medieval Ger- many. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 147–160. Þorláksson, H. (2007): Feud and Feuding in the Early and High Middle Ages: Working Descriptions and Continuity. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 69–94. Defi nición de querella – https://defi nicion.de/querella/ (last access: September 2017). Fehde – https://www.dwds.de/wb/Fehde#et-1 (last access: August 2017). Feud – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feud (last access: August 2017). feud – http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=feud&allowed_in_frame=0 (last access: September 2017). quarrel – http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quarrel&allowed_in_frame=0 (last access: September 2017) querelle in Vocabolario – http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/querelle/ (last access: September 2017). Revenge – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revenge (last access: August 2017). revenge – http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=revenge (last access: September 2017). Vengeance – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vengeance (last access: August 2017). vengeance – http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vengeance&allowed_in_ frame=0 (last access: September 2017).