153
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Received: 2017-04-10            DOI 10.19233/AH.2017.09
Original scientifi c article
MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD 
IN THE EASTERN ALPS BETWEEN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES 
AND EARLY MODERNITY
Žiga OMAN
University of Maribor, Faculty of Arts, Koroška cesta 160, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia
e-mail: zigaoman@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The paper analyses blood feud as a legal custom of the system of confl ict resolution in 
Inner Austria during the transition from the Late Middle Ages to the early modern period. 
Based on legal customs, common law, and early modern criminal law the analysis is 
applied to a case of blood (homicide) settlement in Upper Carniola in the 17th century. 
Two things in particular emerge: the long survival of this legal custom and the tendency 
of blood feud for peace. Both put Inner Austria in these matters fi rmly within the broader 
European legal context.
Keywords: blood feud, legal custom, confl ict resolution, peacemaking, Carinthia, Carni-
ola, Styria, Bled, Late Middle Ages, early Modern Period
ETÀ MODERNA, TRADIZIONI ANTICHE – LA RICONCILIAZIONE 
NELLE ALPI ORIENTALI TRA IL TARDO MEDIOEVO E GLI INIZI 
DELL’ETÀ MODERNA
SINTESI
Il saggio analizza la vendetta come un sistema giuridico per la soluzione dei confl itti 
nell’Austria centrale nel periodo tra il tardo Medioevo e gli inizi dell’Età Moderna. 
L’analisi si basa sulle tradizioni giuridiche, il diritto penale comune e quello degli 
inizi dell’Età Moderna e viene applicata sull’esempio della riconciliazione (omicidio) 
nell’area della Carniola dell’Ottocento. Vengono messi in risalto due fatti: la persistente 
esistenza di tale tradizione giuridica e la tendenza verso la vendetta per ottenere la 
riconciliazione. Entrambi collocano l’Austria centrale in un contesto giuridico europeo 
più ampio.
Parole chiave: vendetta, tradizione giuridica, risoluzione dei confl itti, riconciliazione, 
Carinzia, Carniola, Stiria, Bled, tardo Medioevo, inizi dell’Età Moderna
154
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
OVERTURE: PEACEMAKING
In the evening of Shrove Sunday 1654 a fi ght had broken out among some subjects of 
the Lordship of Bled, which had left Peter Jakopič severely beaten by the Svetina brothers. 
He succumbed to his wounds a few days later. It is not attested why the fi ght broke out. 
One of the brothers was arrested and imprisoned at Bled castle, while the others managed 
to fl ee abroad. The testimonies from the witnesses their father Hanže Svetina presented 
in court showed that it was unclear who delivered the deadly blow. Two weeks later the 
Svetina and Jakopič families had settled the homicide. The culprits’ father made lasting 
peace with the victim’s whole kin, which brought an end to their enmity (blood feud). As 
part of the peace, composition had been paid to Jakopič’s widow and child (weregild), as 
well as the lordship. The settlement allowed the youngest of the fugitive brothers to return 
home immediately, while the other two had to remain in exile for a year and a day. After 
that they were allowed to return to their homes and continue to live there in safety (ARS, 
AS 721, kn. 20 (1652–1655), 10 and 25 April, 1654).
INTRODUCTION
These brief, yet meaningful lines from one of the protocols of the patrimonial and 
provincial court1 in Bled, an estate belonging to the Bishopric of Brixen in Tyrol (Ribni-
kar, 1976, 7), attest to the existence of blood feuds among Upper Carniolan subjects in 
the mid-17th century. That is to say that they attest to the peace settlement as an integral 
part of blood feud. Like feud in general, it was a legal custom of the system of confl ict 
resolution and as such had the tendency to achieve lasting peace. The understanding of 
this function of the (blood) feud is not a new one, yet historiography has only begun to 
take it into account following the pertinent fi ndings of ethnology and (legal) anthropol-
ogy. Their research on more or less egalitarian stateless and pre-state societies from the 
margins of Europe and other continents came to the result that (blood) feud as the primal 
legal custom has the tendency to achieve peace and thus maintain social equilibrium. 
Since the mid-20th century, historiography has been confi rming these fi ndings with their 
successful application to research on European Medieval and early modern communities 
of all social strata (Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007; Ergaver, 2016, 102–105).
 The research has shown that the inclination for peace was just as strong among European 
Medieval and early modern societies and that, as John Michael Wallace-Hadrill had put it, 
“[f]euding in the sense of incessant private warfare is a myth; feuding in the sense of very 
widespread and frequent procedures to reach composition-settlements necessarily hovering 
on the edge of bloodshed, is not” (Wallace-Hadrill, 1959, 487). The desire to achieve peace 
1 The division between the two in (at least) Carniola was not consistently implemented everywhere, leaving 
many patrimonial courts fused with provincial courts (Kambič, 2005, 209). Three legal authorities shared 
jurisdiction over the Lordship of Bled: Bled, i.e. its rentiers, the town of Radovljica and the Land Sovereign 
(Škrubej, 2012, 209, 211–212). Provincial courts (Landgericht) had jurisdiction over the unprivileged esta-
tes, i.e. burghers and peasants (Golec, 2016, 148).
155
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
existed both among legal experts and laymen of all social classes, from the aristocracy to 
the lowest of subjects, with codifi ed law and legal customs complementing and supporting 
each other (Ergaver, 2016, 104). This was a consequence of the so-called European legal 
revolution, which set off  in the 12th century, transferring ancient legal customs into the 
professional legal sphere by codifi cation, making them part of common law (ius commune) 
(Povolo, 2015, 196–197). This process saw the customs go through certain changes, as the 
codifi cation did not only legitimize what was written, but also who was to record it. First 
and foremost however, as William Ian Miller points out, “[i]n those instances in which the 
law codifi ed well-established patterns of behavior, adherence to the rule would tell us less 
about respect for the law than about the law’s respect for customary behavior”. This was 
especially noticeable in practice as “[t]he will to Law was too strong to be contained to mere 
laws” (Miller, 1996, 225, 229; cf. Frauenstädt, 1881, 21, 169). Miller’s words should serve 
as a reminder for all legal texts referred to throughout this paper.
Feud as a legal custom of the system of confl ict resolution followed the following 
(ideal) stages or, rather, rituals. A sustained (gifted) injury demanded appropriate requital2 
2 This exchange of gift and counter-gift in feud is given in the origin of the Slovene word maščevanje (ven-
geance), derived from “exchange” and “that, which stands for exchange” (Snoj, 1997, 327; cf. Lévi-Strauss, 
1969, 60). In the late 16th century Hieronymus Megiser translated the German Rechen (Latin vlcisci, Ital-
ian vendicarsi; modern German Rächen) with the following early modern Slovene words: se maszhati, se 
maszhováti (modern: se maščevati, to avenge), sadovoliti (modern: zadovoljiti, to satisfy, to settle), osvetuti 
(archaic osvetiti, to avenge) and nadomestiti (same modern, to substitute, to exchange) (Megiser, 1592, 
[187]). All of these words should also be taken as (customary) legal terms.
Fig. 1: Bled in the 17th century (Valvasor, 2017)
156
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
(countergift) (cf. Miller, 1996, 182) so that harmony and peace were (re)established 
between the parties (e.g. kin groups in blood feud) and consequently within the com-
munity. This was in accordance with the norms and customs of gift economy (Mauss, 
2002). Appropriate requital meant that the violence in feuding was generally (and ideally) 
limited. When the parties to the confl ict did not want to or could not achieve peace among 
themselves, especially if violence had already erupted, i.e. enmity3 had been declared, the 
community intervened to maintain social order and peace. This is mediation. At fi rst by 
those who had familial or allied ties to both parties in the feud and were, when not em-
broiled in the confl ict themselves, regarded as impartial. If they failed, the community’s 
authorities or legal experts followed, attempting to bring about a settlement. Both media-
tors and arbiters had to be accepted as such by both parties to the feud. Mediation set the 
terms for settlement. First, all violence had to cease, i.e. a truce4 had to be reached. During 
the truce the parties to the feud had the opportunity to peacefully resolve their confl ict. 
If or when they considered this appropriate and honourable, they brought their enmity to 
an end and made lasting peace. Peace was additionally strengthened by forging not only 
friendly (allied) but also familial bonds, i.e. by marriage,5 brotherhood, or godfatherhood. 
An integral part of peacemaking was also the payment of composition, either in kind 
or cash. Blood feud followed the same rituals. Spilled blood had to be requited with 
blood or composition (weregild) and brought to an end by lasting peace. The parties to 
a blood feud were the families (“whole kins”) of both the victim and the perpetrator and 
thus it was not necessary for vengeance to be exacted upon the actual perpetrator. Any 
appropriate target would do: generally only a free adult or adolescent male member of the 
enemy kin. The threat reinforced the disposition of both parties towards peace. With the 
inclusion (codifi cation) of (blood) feud into common law, legal professionals (notaries, 
lawyers, judges) received an important role in settling confl icts, especially in towns and 
cities, yet could not6 force the parties to make lasting peace7. In cases of homicide, if 
the perpetrator was a foreign lord or his subject, the role of the victim’s family could 
also be taken over by their lord, as the head of his feudal familia (de’ Passageri, 1546, f. 
3 That enmity (also) stands for feud is most succinctly given in Early Medieval Lombard law, the Edictum 
Rothari of 634: faida hoc est inimicitia (MGH, LL 4/I, 45., 20). The same is true for German Feindschaft 
(Frauenstädt, 1881, 167). Consequently, the early modern Slovene word sovrashtvu (Megiser, 1592, [71]) 
(modern: sovraštvo, sovražnost) is also to be taken as a (customary) legal term (cf. Golec, 2016, 169).
4 Latin also treuga, fi des, German Treue, the early modern Slovene translation for both being vera, sveshzhi-
na (modern: vera, zvestoba) (Megiser, 1592, [255]; cf. Ergaver, 2016, 111). Thus they should also be taken 
as (customary) legal terms, even if not necessarily for truce (cf. note 6).
5 This was also used to settle disputes by Upper Carniolan and Lower Styrian subjects, at least until the early 
18th century (Kos, 2015, 161).
6 However, this was not necessarily true already by the late Middle Ages. The Antwerp town statute of 1437, 
for instance, stipulated that peace should only be made in court, from the initial stages to the kiss of peace 
(Frauenstädt, 1881, 105–108). Nonetheless, even if this should be foremost taken as a normative prescrip-
tion, it is very telling in how closely the statute follows the rituals of customary settlement.
7 Hieronymus Megiser translated the German phrase Fried machen (Latin pacifi care) as myriti (modern: 
miriti) and Vertragen (Latin componere, Italian pacifi care) as správiti (same in modern Slovene) (Megiser, 
1592, [79, 277]). They might have been used for truce as well (peace v lasting peace) (cf. de‘ Passageri, 
1546, f. 158r–159r). It is clear that both words are also to be taken as (customary) legal terms.
157
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
147r–159v; Gluckmann, 1955, 1–26; Miller, 1996, 179–299; Mommertz, 2001, 222–247; 
Darovec, 2016, 14–32; Ergaver, 2016, 106–125; Oman, 2016, 76–91).
The Bled case followed these same rituals. The existence of blood feud and the 
authorities’ (lordship’s) “tolerance”8 for it in the mid-17th century should not come as a 
surprise. Even though the early modern State was steadily pushing its way into confl ict 
resolution, in practice the ancient legal customs competed with state law and its imple-
mentation well into the early modern period. This is especially noticeable with blood feud 
(cf. Frauenstädt, 1881, 93, 126, 168). Feud in general and blood feud in particular were 
gradually pushed into “subsidiarity” (cf. Reinle, 2003, 281) by the State throughout the 
Middle Ages and the early modern period, until it did away with both during this period. 
The State established itself as the only authority to requite injury, the sole avenger or, 
rather, punisher. A systematic substitution of the customs of settlement (peace) with the 
law of punishment (inquisitorial procedure, torture) had begun in the 16th century, yet due 
to the slow and gradual implementation was not completed before the end of the ancien 
régime (Povolo, 2015, 196–199, 211, 221–227, 230–233). Thus, the “subsidiarity” of 
(blood) feud must be taken with reserve until well into the early modern period. It was the 
primary (primal) legal custom, to which the judicial path had been “subsidiary” or, rather, 
secondary for centuries (Frauenstädt, 1881, 125–134, 168; Althoff , 1997, 60, 87–88, 98). 
In practice, this perception persisted until the end of legal plurality. Consequently, in the 
long transitional period, as the Bled case also shows, the sources attest to the co-existence 
of ancient legal customs and early modern criminal law, with the latter not necessarily 
dictating confl ict resolution.
In the case of blood feud this was early on understood also by German historiography. 
If not before, then with Paul Frauenstädt’s seminal work Blutrache und Totschlagssühne 
im Deutschen Mittelalter, which put special emphasis on blood (homicide) settlement9 
in the “German” part of the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval and early modern times 
(Frauenstädt, 1881). As William Ian Miller showed (Miller, 1996), another important Ger-
man work on blood feud is Andreas Heusler’s Das Strafrecht der Isländersagas, which 
pointed out the inseparability of (blood) feud and peace (Heusler, 1911). In contrast to feud 
(Fehde), over which (not only) German historiography has spilled seas of ink, especially 
regarding its legality and legitimacy, whether for the nobility or the subjects, there seems 
to have been no greater dissent regarding this with blood feud. The fundamental (if quite 
redundant) question seems to have been, if blood feud and Fehde, especially the so-called 
Ritterfehde, had a common origin or not. Regardless of that, even by reading the sources 
at face value, which was typical of both legal positivists and Otto Brunner (Zmora, 1997, 
7), blood feud was acknowledged (a certain) legitimacy, which pertained to all estates. It 
8 This „tolerance“ was acknowledgement of the custom‘s legitimacy (legality), and is not to be confused with 
the Foucaultian tolerance for illegality (cf. Foucault, 2004, 93–101).
9 The term blood settlement seems more fi tting as it corresponds to customary terminology. The Serbian 
(Montenegrin) expression umir krvi, for instance, means appeasing, settling blood (Ergaver, 2016, 109). 
On the other hand, the German term Totschlagssühne, homicide settlement, seems to have been coined 
by historians (cf. Frauenstädt, 1881, 141). There is no known early modern Slovene expression for blood 
settlement, only peacemaking in general (cf. note 6).
158
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
was also acknowledged that blood feud did not lose its legitimacy right after early modern 
criminal law had begun to be issued (Reinle, 2003, 22; Büchert Netterstrøm, 2007, 20–28, 
44–46; Þorláksson, 2007, 78, 92–94).
Slovene historiography on the other hand tackled blood feud on its “home turf” largely 
in passing. Although the custom is also attested in Slovene folk poetry (Vilfan, 1943, 
25–26; Štrekelj, 1980, 93–106, 191–199, 208–209, 213–215), it was partially regarded 
as coming into disuse early by the “Slovenes”10 or, rather, their (Slavic) ancestors. The 
renowned philologist Franc Miklošič in his comprehensive study on Slavic blood feud 
(Die Blutrache bei den Slaven)11 thus established the thesis that the (Slavic) ancestors 
of the Slovenes stopped using the custom because very early they had came under the 
infl uence of Germans already infl uenced by Roman law (Miklosich, 1888, 162–163). 
What is interesting is not the easy refutability of his thesis, but that Miklošič established 
it despite being familiar with Frauenstädt’s work. This perspective was later disproven by 
the legal historian Sergij Vilfan, with a case of blood (homicide) settlement among Slavs 
(“Slovenes”) in the village of Landar in Friuli at the start of the 15th century (Vilfan, 1996, 
457–458). Vilfan in general not only pointed out to the use of blood feud by the “Slo-
venes” in Late Medieval and early modern periods, but also to the custom’s integration 
into Medieval codifi ed, i.e. common law (Vilfan, 1961, 262–264; Vilfan, 1996, 459–463). 
In the time between Miklošič and Vilfan another legal historian, Metod Dolenc, sort of 
“synthesized” both positions. On the one hand, Dolenc saw the end of blood feud already 
in the 13th century; on the other, he listed clear cases of the custom’s survival in 17th and, 
in part, even in 18th-century Carniola (Dolenc, 1935, 168, 175, 409–410, 417).
BLOOD FEUD IN THE COMMON LAW OF THE LATE MEDIEVAL
EASTERN ALPS
The duchies of Carinthia, Carniola and Styria were, like much of Inner Austria12 
geographically and culturally (also) part of the (eastern) Alpine and Prealpine regions. 
All three also had in common the basic linguistic division into Germanophone and Slo-
10 The term “Slovenes” should be taken with reserve, as there was no distinct Slovene (nor German etc.) 
ethnic or national community prior to the 18th or, rather, 19th century. Until then, identifi cation was mostly 
bound to locale, region, and province (Kosi, Stergar, 2016), as well as to religion. For instance, Primož 
Trubar’s and Jurij Dalmatin’s “Slovenes” on one hand encompassed a (much) broader population – not in 
any “irredentist” sense – than the Slovene linguistic territory, and on the other specifi cally only Protestants 
who could understand their translations (Makarovič, 2008, 53–57).
11 I would like to thank Darko Darovec for notifying me as to its existence. The work seems to have been 
forgotten by Slovene (legal) historiography, as neither Metod Dolenc nor Sergij Vilfan cited it.
12 Inner Austria was an entity of Habsburg hereditary lands (1564–1619/1749) made up of the Duchies of Ca-
rinthia, Carniola and Styria, the Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca, the Free City of Triest, the Mar-
graviate of Istria and a few other smaller territories. Its capital until 1619, when the Princely (Landesfürst, 
Land Sovereign) court moved to Vienna, was the Styrian capital Graz, which remained the seat of the Inner 
Austrian Government until 1746. The latter was the Princely governing body second only to the Princely 
Privy Council in Inner Austria. The Government had the authority over those at the lower Land/Provincial 
level, including the courts (Spreitzhofer et al., 1988, 64–66).
159
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
vene-speaking populations. For the given time period the legal sources were generally in 
German even in the lands (Carniola) and regions (Southern Carinthia, Lower Styria) with 
a predominantly Slovene-speaking population. This, however, does not mean, that German 
was the only language used in court or the only language of law. In 16th-century Carniola, 
knowledge of Slovene was demanded even from the highest offi  cials of both the Land 
Estates and the Land Sovereign (Škrubej, 2012, 204–205). In court sources Slovene begins 
to appear in the same century, mostly in patrimonial court sources (Škrubej, 2012, 205; 
Golec, 2016, 148–149). The rest have been recorded in German, even if the court process 
had been completely or largely in Slovene. The same goes for the case at hand, the peace 
settlement from the Upper Carniolan Lordship of Bled, which was recorded in German.
Still, and not only for the sake of chronology, it is perhaps not unfi tting to begin the 
chapter in the relative neighbourhood of Inner Austria, rather far from Bled. In 1293 a 
Land/Provincial (i.e. State) Peace (Landfriede) for Bavaria was issued, which contains an 
important stipulation: it stipulated sanctions for the homicide of those who were under im-
munity (peace) in passage to or from the duke’s court. Should anyone have killed, mortally 
wounded, or maimed anyone under this immunity and then fl ed the country, he would have 
had to face either of two options: those acting in malice (mit mutwillen), i.e. criminally, 
would be banished13 for life and their wife and children expropriated. The sanction was 
much lighter should the killing have taken place in mortal enmity (todvintschaft), i.e. a 
blood feud, or otherwise, yet barring malice. Still, this only applied should the perpetrator 
have proved ignorance that the victim was under immunity. Should this have been success-
fully proven, the perpetrator would only have had to remain in exile for a year, while his 
lord was forbidden to burn (devastate) his property or expropriate his wife and children.14 
If the perpetrator was caught before he managed to fl ee to safety, he would have faced trial. 
The stipulation was renewed in the Landfriede of 1300 (MGH, Const. 3, 633. §§1, 4, 6, 33, 
614–615, 619; MGH, Const. 4,2, 1168., 1216–1225; cf. Reinle, 2003, 80).
The stipulation contained in both Landfrieden shows not only the existence of blood 
feud, but also its legitimacy in the eyes of even the highest authorities. As with any other 
form of violence it was of course forbidden to be exacted upon those under immunity 
(Brown, 2011, 224–225). Still, the perpetrator’s ignorance of the victim being under such 
immunity was considered an attenuating circumstance.
At roughly the same time a similar legal text was drafted or, rather, renewed in 
Carinthia. In 1308 the town privileges, the “old rights” of the duchy’s capital St. Veit 
an der Glan were ratifi ed by the town’s lord, the Carinthian Land Sovereign. He had 
jurisdiction in homicide cases and when perpetrators were caught, they would face trial 
before the Sovereign or his representative. Those who managed to fl ee, however, had to 
pay the town lord a fi ne of 30 marks, the town judge (Stadtrichter), who had jurisdiction 
13 The early modern Slovene term for banishment is bandishaine and to be banished vishan (Golec, 2016, 
159).
14 The perpetrator‘s lord had the right to the perpetrator‘s property, whether he had it devastated or pawned 
(Coulin, 1915, 368–369), while the victim‘s family had the right to the perpetrator‘s life (Bloch, 1962, 128). 
The lord‘s or the court‘s participation in composition (cf. MGH Const. 2, Friderici II. 196a., 260) most 
likely stemmed from his role as an arbiter or, rather, chief arbiter in the feud (cf. Ergaver, 2016, 118).
160
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
in other criminal cases, a pound, and the toll master 6 marks. Still, this only meant that 
composition had been paid to the town authorities. The perpetrator still had to make peace 
with the victim’s kin as best as possible, as the town privileges stipulate that perpetrators 
“should beware of their enemies” (huet sich vor seinen veinden).15 As will be seen further 
15 Ez hat auch der landesherre von bůzze nicht mer rechtes dan den totslach; ob er geschicht, wirt derselbe 
begriff en, der dingt mit dem herren, als er stat an im vinde; chumt er aber hin, so geb dem herren dreys-
sich march phenningen, dem richter ein phunt, dem zolner sehs march und huet sich vor seinen veinden 
(Schwind, Dopsch, 1895, 162).
Fig. 2: Safe conduct (CCB, 1507, f. 75v)
161
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
on, this could also mean that peace with the victim’s family had already been made or at 
least agreed upon fi rst (i.e. truce). In the early modern period this seems to have become 
the rule.
A successful escape following the homicide meant that the perpetrator had managed 
to fl ee into asylum, especially a church or a castle (Burgfrieden) or abroad. Asylum was 
given for the period of thrice two weeks (i.e. three court days), during which peace with 
the victim’s family had to be made. The term could generally only be renewed once, 
sometimes more often. Had blood still not been settled by then, the perpetrator still had 
the opportunity to fl ee to another asylum and was also provided a safe escort (conduct; 
Geleit) for part of the way. When asylum was sought at a castle, its lord or their offi  cial 
had to help the perpetrator make peace (mediation). This was still valid in the early mo-
dern period. Various lesser immunities (Freiung) did not off er protection in a blood feud 
(Frauenstädt, 1881, 41, 51–84).
In Carinthia at the start of the 14th century blood feud still retained its legitimacy in 
the eyes of the Land Sovereign much like in Bavaria. Not only that, it clearly shows that 
the judicial route was considered by the population as “subsidiary” in homicide cases. 
Not involving the courts (in the beginning) by fl ight,16 especially fl eeing from the victim’s 
kin (Zacharias, 1962, 173) and (fi rst) seeking peace in accordance with the old (legal) 
customs, had surely been the preferred way, as both a court trial and facing ones enemies 
entailed much more risk (Miller, 1996, 274–275, 288).
That the example from St. Veit was no local peculiarity, is further shown by the three 
decades younger stipulation from the Land/Provincial Law (Landrecht) for Carinthia. It 
was issued on 14 September 1338 in Graz together with an identical one for Carniola. For 
cases of fl ight following homicide, explicitly including subjects, the law stipulates that 
perpetrators owed the higher court 30 marks and the lower 60 pennies, but otherwise had 
to beware of their enemies (huͤt sich vor sinen veinden und vor dem geschray). Still, even 
if they were apprehended, they could still redeem themselves of the death sentence and 
their wives and children were not to be expropriated.17
Already Sergij Vilfan concluded that both Landrechte condoned blood feud, maybe 
even hinting at the legal custom of devastation (grundstöer) (Vilfan, 1996, 459–463).18 
The best proof for this is the aforementioned Bavarian stipulation from 1293, prohibiting 
the perpetrators’ lord from burning property and expropriating wives and children, which 
Vilfan however never cited. There is also no indication that either Landrecht condoned 
the devastation of the perpetrator’s property by the victim’s kin (cf. Vilfan, 1996, 460). 
Nonetheless, both the Carinthian and the Carniolan Landrecht attest not only to the exi-
16 In Albania, when there were no witnesses to the homicide, fl ight was stipulated by custom, so that the 
community was notifi ed of the culprit‘s identity (Ergraver, 2016, 108).
17 Tuͤt aber ainer einen totslag und chumt er davon, der ist dem obristen gericht vervallen dreizzig mark und 
dem niedern gericht sechtzig phenning und huͤt sich vor sinen veinden und vor dem geschray. Wirt er aber 
begriff en, so ist hals wider hals oder er lose sich, wie er stat an dem lantsherren vindet, und sol des hau-
svrowe und siner chind nicht entgelten an dem guͤt (Schwind, Dopsch, 1895, 175–176).
18 For more on devastation (commonly Wüstung) as a legal custom originally connected to blood feud see: 
Coulin, 1915; Bühler, 1970.
162
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
stence of blood feud well into the 14th century, but also of its legitimacy in the eyes of 
the Princely authorities.
This is also attested in the mining law for the Upper Carniolan mines, i.e. miners, near 
Jesenice from 1381. Should a mining foreman (pergmaister) kill someone, he had to pay 
the Land Sovereign and the other foremen 12 pounds, and then his life and property were 
safe from them, but not from his enemies (dan vor seinen veinden huet er sych).19 Peace 
with the “authorities” did not entail peace with his victim’s kin.
Styria was no diff erent. Weistümer20 of the Admont Benedictine monastery for its 
offi  ce of Obdach near Judenburg from 1391 attest to that. They stipulate adherence to 
the accusatory principle in homicide cases (cf. Frauenstädt, 1881, 38), as the judge was 
forbidden from taking the perpetrator captive if the victim’s kin did not call upon him to 
do that (wo aber ainer ain leiblos macht, so sol der richter nicht nach im greifen, er wert 
dann von sein freunden darumb berueft). The culprit still had to pay a fi ne to the Obdach 
provost (Probst) (Bischoff , Schönbach, 1881, 270, 277), i.e. composition to the lordship.
Lordships in Styria continued to condone blood feud in the following century, as can 
be seen from the urbarial register of the parish of Sankt Dionysen near Bruck an der Mur 
from 1431. The parish belonged to the Benedictine nunnery of Göss (Bischoff , Schönbach, 
1881, 315, 318). While Article 10 of the register completely prohibits declarations of 
enmity or feud (ab dem gut sagt in gericht oder anderswo hin)21 both among the parish’s 
and the abbey’s subjects as well as to those of other lords (Bischoff , Schönbach, 1881, 
318), the next article regulates homicide in much the same way as the aforementioned 
laws and privileges. The fl ed perpetrator had to pay two blood pennies22 and half a pound 
to the judge to ensure safety from curial repercussions, but this did not entail safety from 
the victim’s kin (ist er von im besichert, aber von des erslagen freunten nicht).23 As in 
19 [S]chlegt ein maister der ist vnss vnd den andern maistern veruolln zwelff  pfundt marckh den fur all sach 
vnd als pald er die geit so sol fur pass vmb die sach mit seinem guot noch mit seinen leib niemant nichts  zu 
schaff en haben, dan vor seinen veinden huet er sych (Lačen-Benedičič et al., 2001, 10, 18).
20 Weistümer (singular Weistum, also Taiding etc.) are statutes of common law, found both in urban and 
rural areas throughout the Empire. They were codifi ed legal customs, recorded in cooperation (examina-
tion) between the lordship and the (customary) legal experts among its subjects. Weistümer were recor-
ded either on the lordship‘s demand or per request of its subjects, whether burghers or villagers (Dolenc, 
1935, 118–119; cf. Obermair, 2015, 108–111). Weistümer for Carniola were collected for publication in 
the collection Österreichische Weistümer, but never published (I would like to thank Borut Holcman for 
this information).
21 At least in the 15th century this was not yet self-evident, as another Weistum from Carinthia attests. It was 
composed for the neighbourhood of Wieting, a village near Althofen next to Friesach. The village belonged 
to the provosty of the Benedictine monastery Sankt Peter in Salzburg. The neighbourhood‘s order stipulates 
that the provost had to punish every subject who would attack someone without the prior declaration of en-
mity or feud (onentsagt) and an attempt to settle the matter in court (ôn ze red setzen) (Bischoff , Schönbach, 
1881, 508, 515).
22 The blood penny was at fi rst the judge‘s (lord‘s) share of weregild, evolving by the early modern period into 
a fee for the kin to inspect the victim (Vilfan, 1961, 247).
23 Wan ainer erslagen wirdet auf dem guͤt, den sol man nicht aufheben ân des richter willen. wirdet der rechte 
geschol begriff en und im zugesuͤcht mit dem rechten, so antwurtet man in als vor geschribet stet. wurd er 
aber nicht begriff en, so geb er dem richter ain halb phunt phening und zwen plütphening, so ist er von im 
besichert, aber von des erslagen freunten nicht (Bischoff , Schönbach, 1881, 318).
163
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
the Empire in general (Frauenstädt, 1881, 15, 37–38), the culprit had to make peace with 
them as well as possible, or otherwise face vengeance. This shows that the ancient legal 
custom in the 14th and 15th centuries was also condoned by monastic lordships.
Furthermore, as both the Bled case and the Carniolan Landrecht attest, even if the here 
given Carinthian and Styrian Weistümer are from the predominantly or solely German-
-speaking regions of the respective duchies, the attitude towards the custom of blood feud 
was no diff erent in their predominantly or solely Slovene-speaking ones. 
EARLY MODERN PERIOD: BETWEEN CUSTOM AND CRIMINAL LAW
It is the Weistümer that also off er proof for the gradual implementation of early mo-
dern criminal law. An excellent case for the survival of customary confl ict resolution 
comes from the second half of the 16th century from Kleinsölk in northern Styria. Kle-
insölk was a so-called “free valley” (Freithal) in an area largely supposed to be allodial 
property of the Styrian Land Estates (eigen vom Land) (Bischoff , Schönbach, 1881, 7). 
One Weisung stipulates peacemaking in enmity or feud (feintschaft), which would arise 
between neighbours either with (justifi able) cause or without. As the old customs (alter 
herkomen) stipulated, the “bailiff ” (ambtman), together with four trustees (verorndten) 
from the community (i.e. subjects), fi rst had to try their best to settle the confl ict by peace 
(güetlich zu vergleichen). Should both or one party to the confl ict resist this, the matter 
could be taken to court, but the “bailiff ” had to be compensated with a pound of pennies. 
This is a clear case of the “subsidiarity” of the court path; after paying off  the “bailiff ”, 
both or one party had to summon the subjects’ court within three times fourteen days (i.e. 
three court days) and present the matter there. The “bailiff ” and the lordship (the Land 
Estates) also had to be paid 30 guldens before the court convened. Both parties were then 
allowed to employ the lawyers “they could fi nd or aff ord”.24
Even though the Weistum does not explicitly refer to blood feud, there can be little 
doubt that it was settled in a similar if not the same manner. Both the Landar case from 
15th-century Friuli and especially the Bled case from 17th-century Carniola speak in 
favour of this. Last but not least, the sources show little diff erence between the terms 
enmity (vîntschaft) and mortal (tôtveintschaft, inimicitia mortalis) or capital enmity 
(hauptveintschaft, inimicitia capitalis),25 i.e. between feud and blood feud (Frauenstädt, 
1881, 10; Zacharias, 1962, 167).
24 Es ist auch von alter herkomen, so etwo ein nachber gegen dem andern in feintschaft mit oder ohne ursach 
erwaxen that, sollen die 4 verorndten neben des ambtmans, da es sich anderst thuen lest, vleis anwenden, 
die parteien güetlich zu vergleichen. da es aber bei inen beden, ainem oder dem andern, nit stat oder 
bewegung funde, ist inen alsdann die merer obrigkeit zuersuechen unverwört, doch das er sich mit ainem 
phunt phening vorher bei dem ambtman vergüete und hinein raiche. volgents inen 3 vierzehen tagen soll er 
handl vorfüeren und das gericht mit urborsleiten im tall besazt werden; aber von stundt an, so die beisizer 
zusamen komen, dreissig gulden dem ambtman vorher oder der obrigkeit erlegen. er oder die mögen pro-
curatoren oder advocaten, wi si sich zum besten behelfen künen, ainhaimsche oder frembde erbiten, ires 
gefallens und gelegenhait (Bischoff , Schönbach, 1881, 12).
25 Neither the distinction nor the terminology was of course reserved to the Empire alone. For instance, 
French sources also record inimitié, haine mortelle and ennemi capitale (Carroll, 2006, 8).
164
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
The Kleinsölk and the Bled cases respectively attest that the legal custom of confl ict 
resolution survived largely unchanged through the centuries. Subsequently, the end of 
mentions of blood feud in Carinthian and Styrian Weistümer in the 16th and 17th centu-
ries should not be taken as the end of the custom itself, nor as the end of its “tolerance” 
by the authorities. Proof for this are the Weistümer from Austria below the Enns (Lower 
Austria), some of which show no change in stipulations regarding homicide (settlement) 
between the 15th and 17th centuries (cf. Winter, 1896, 798, 804, 847), the implementation 
of early modern criminal law by provincial courts (Winter, 1896, 276) notwithstanding. 
The impossibility of its strict implementation dictated the further existence of legal cu-
stom throughout the Empire at least as late as the late 17th century.
At that, early modern criminal law at fi rst also followed legal custom (cf. Miller, 1996, 
225, 229), modifying it for its own purpose. Criminal Law of the Bishopric of Bamberg, 
Constitutio Criminalis Bambergensis from 1507,26 thus allows blood feud in case of the 
perpetrator’s fl ight, but the victim’s kin fi rst had to demand that the judge rule outlawry 
for murder (!) (mordtacht). This meant that the judicial route had to be taken fi rst. Culprits 
were summoned before the court on three consecutive court days (three times fourteen 
days) and if they did not show up, outlawry or banishment (Acht) would be ruled. The 
judge then “took” the perpetrator’s “body and property from peace” and put them into 
“unpeace”, declaring him dishonourable and rightless, “free as a bird in the sky, a beast in 
the woods and a fi sh in the waves”, to whom neither peace nor safety could be granted.27 
All his property went to his lord, all his rights were turned to “unrights”, none who attacked 
him would commit a crime (CCB 1507, §§231–241, f. 64v–66v).28 Banishment was not 
necessarily unlimited, although it ought not expire before the victim’s kin had demanded 
it. After a year had passed, the culprit could have been pardoned and in cases of homicide 
receive safe conduct, the wishes of the victim’s kin notwithstanding – killing him now 
would have been a crime. Outlawry could also be suspended for three months, so that the 
perpetrator could prove that he had justifi able cause, which he had to swear in the fi rst 
four weeks following the homicide (CCB 1507, §§244, 246–247, 270–271, f. 67v–68r, 
76r). The novelty of Bambergensis is in that it only allows for blood feud following 
outlawry. The aforementioned Late Medieval common law knows no such restriction. If 
26 CCB 1507, http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/bambi.html (March 2017).
27 The victim‘s kin often attempted to deceive the court by not having the body buried before outlawry had 
been ruled (CCB 1507, §249, 68r), i.e. on the fourth court day or eight weeks after the homicide. This 
stemmed from the ancient custom that demanded that the victim‘s body remained unburied for as long as it 
remained unavenged, reminding the kin of its obligation. With codifi cation, for instance in the Sachsenspie-
gel, the custom was transformed into a stipulation demanding that the corpse had to be present in court 
upon each summons of the fl ed perpetrator. Should he not appear, the judge was not to allow burial before 
outlawry was ruled. With time burial begun to be allowed on the fi rst court day (Frauenstädt, 1881, 11).
28 N. als du mit vrteyln vnd recht zu der mordtacht erteylt worden bist, also nym ich dein leyb vnd gute auß 
dem fride, vnd thu sie in den vnfride, vnd kuͤnde dich erloß vnd rechtloß, vnd kuͤnde dich den voegln frey in 
den luͤff ten, vnd den thiern in dem walde, vnd den vischen in dem wage, vnd sollt auff  keiner straff en noch in 
keiner muntat die Keyser oder Koenig gefreyet haben, niendert friden noch gleyt haben. Und kuͤnde alle dein 
lehen, die du hast, jrn herren ledig vnd loß, vnd von allem rechten, in alles vnrecht Und ist auch allermeniglich 
erlaubt vber dich, das niemant dir freueln kan noch solle, der dich angreyff t (CCB 1507, §241, f. 66v)
165
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
the escaped perpetrator made peace (paid composition i.e. fi nes) with the authorities, he 
was not considered an outlaw. He remained within the law, and thus could receive asylum 
and assistance. Subsequently, the victim’s kin29 could opt for the (“subsidiary”) judicial 
route precisely in hope for an outlawry ruling, which eliminated these advantages, i.e. 
29 At least in some parts of Switzerland, and as late as the 16th century, only the women of the victim‘s kin 
could initiate judicial proceedings, so that the family could still make use of the blood feud should the judge 
reject outlawing the culprit. This was in use because if the lawsuit was initiated by a male relative, then a 
blood feud was no longer an option (Frauenstädt, 1881, 22).
Fig. 3: Mordacht (CCB 1507, f. 64v)
166
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
rights (Frauenstädt, 1881, 22, 100–101). The exclusive restriction of blood feud to only 
after outlawry had been ruled came with early modern criminal law. Nonetheless, its 
reception of the legal custom is further proof of its resilience.
This is true of Emperor Charles V’s criminal law, Constitutio Criminalis Carolina 
from 1532, as it is largely based on the Bambergensis, although it is rather taciturn regar-
ding outlawry (CCC 1609, §155–156, 71). The Carolina had subsidiary status in Inner 
Austria in regard to Land/Provincial statutes, i.e. the Provincial Court Procedure (Landge-
richtsordnung) or Criminal Procedure (Malefi zordnung) (Kambič, 2005, 205–207). This 
document, together with the Bambergensis and the Carolina, introduced the inquisitory 
process into confl ict resolution, which gradually eliminated the accusatory procedure and, 
with it, the (blood) feud (Frauenstädt, 1881, 172–173; Povolo, 2015).
In Habsburg hereditary lands the process had begun at the end of the 15th century 
with Emperor Maximilian I’s laws for Tyrol, the Landrecht of 1496, and the Malefi zrecht 
of 1499.30 These were part of his general attempts to criminalize feuding, starting with 
the so-called Perpetual Imperial Peace of 1495 (Reinle, 2003, 14). In cases of homicide 
both Tyrolean laws demanded that the perpetrator stand trial even if he had already 
made peace with the victim’s kin. Also, the authorities were not obligated to provide 
perpetrators with safe conduct except when homicide was committed in self-defence. In 
cases of the culprit’s fl ight and triple contumacy, the Malefi zrecht stipulated that both his 
and his victim’s kin should be notifi ed of his outlawry once it was ruled (MRT 1506, f. 
3v–4r, 11v), i.e. blood could only be requited with blood upon outlawry. Both laws were 
the basis for the future development of criminal law in Inner Austria (Steppan, 2005). 
Stipulations regarding outlawry were, for instance, mirrored in the Criminal Privileges 
(Malefi zfreiheiten) of the Carniolan capital Ljubljana in 1514 (LMF 1514, f. 1r, 4v–5r).
Not only its capital, Carniola itself, i.e. its Land Estates, had its Provincial Court 
Procedure made after a “neighbouring” example (Kambič, 2005, 208), the Provincial 
Court Procedure for Austria below the Enns from 1514.31 It stipulated that the perpetrator 
had to be tried regardless of the settlement reached with the victim’s kin. Still, if the 
settlement had not been reached, the judge was also forbidden to issue safe conduct to the 
culprit. First, the culprit had to settle (vertragen) with the victim’s kin and make peace 
(versuͤnt) with his own lord by paying damages (composition) to him or his offi  cials. The 
Land Sovereign was the only one allowed to pardon the perpetrator, as every killer lost his 
grace, save for killing in self-defence, when the provincial judge (Landrichter) was also 
allowed to grant pardon (LGÖ 1514, fol. 5v). 
The Carniolan Provincial Court Procedure of 153532 however explicitly stipulates that 
only the Land Sovereign was to pardon homicide, provided the victim’s kin agreed to that,33 
and not provincial or even patrimonial courts, as was obviously at least fairly common if 
30 MRT 1506, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001925/images/ (March 2017).
31 LGÖ 1514, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0003/bsb00039796/images/ (March 2017).
32 LGK 1535, http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/ferdinand1535 (March 2017).
33 The provision had been in use at least since the 13th century and was most likely connected to the „divi-
sion“ of the perpetrator between his lord and his victim‘s kin (Bloch, 1962, 128–129). As the perpetrator 
„belongs“ to the latter, it is they who can approve the pardon.
167
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
not the rule in practice. Still, at least a year had to pass before pardon could be granted and 
at least six months for homicides committed in self-defence if the perpetrator did not settle 
(zůuertragen) with the victim’s kin. Self-defence could also be pardoned by the authorities 
in whose jurisdiction it took place. The Procedure further stipulated, that when settling 
blood in cases of self-defence the victim’s kin could not demand more (weregild) from 
the perpetrator than his assets could meet, as was supposedly often the case. Therefore the 
authorities and courts had to approve of the settlement fi rst (LGK 1535, 15). 
These were common concerns with settling blood elsewhere (Frauenstädt, 1881, 141). 
The purpose of these stipulations was to avoid blood feuds that would continue or erupt 
otherwise. The custom had remained a reality in practice, novelties such as limiting it 
only after outlawry had been ruled or in cases of self-defence notwithstanding, as they 
remained only normative prescriptions for a while to come (Frauenstädt, 1881, 123–126). 
As the Bled and Pleterje (given below) cases attest, at least some Carniolan provincial 
and patrimonial courts still followed the old legal custom in homicide cases at least as 
late as the 17th century.
Contrary to the Carniolan, the Styrian Provincial Court and Criminal Procedure of 
1574, and in criminal matters also the Carinthian Provincial Court Procedure of 1577, 
were based primarily on the Carolina (Kambič, 2005, 209). This of course did not mean 
that the implementation of early modern criminal law in both duchies was any faster than 
in Carniola. After all, the slow implementation seems to have been the norm throughout 
the Empire (Frauenstädt, 1881; Zacharias, 1962, 172–175). For instance, a year following 
the settlement among the subjects in Bled a homicide in a feud (Fehde) in the Styrian 
town of Ptuj was also settled by paying composition (weregild) to the victim’s kin and 
the town authorities (fi ne), which had also helped the settlement along in accordance with 
legal custom (Oman, 2016, 93–95). Composition was not always paid in cash. In 1632 
a subject of the Pleterje Charterhouse settled the enmity that broke out due to “involun-
tary manslaughter” (the victim put a borrowed fi rearm into fi re and died in the resulting 
explosion) with payment in kind (cereals) (Dolenc, 1935, 409–410). As late as 1724 the 
Carniolan authorities issued grievances over the trifl ing sums paid as composition to 
the victims’ kin (AS 1, šk. 251, Patent of the Carniolan Landeshauptman regarding the 
eradication of sins and vices, 4 March 1724, Ljubljana). It remains doubtful if they really 
were trifl ing to the parties involved, and not simply demeaned as such by the authorities 
who were striving for people to obey the law. Already the Bambergensis scolded judges 
who were only after fi nes instead of working towards “general peace and the common 
good” (CCB 1507, §272, f. 77r). 
THE CASE OF BLED: SETTLING BLOOD IN THE MID-17TH CENTURY
Comparing the settlement of Peter Jakopič’s homicide presented at the beginning of 
the paper with the analyzed texts of common and early modern criminal law shows that 
the settlement is a clear case of the survival of the blood feud as a legal custom of the 
system of confl ict resolution of 17th-century Upper Carniola. A more detailed analysis 
further strengthens the thesis.
168
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
A few days after he was severely beaten by the four Svetina (Suettina) brothers in 
the evening on Shrove Sunday (13 February) 1654, Peter Jakopič (Petter Jacopetsch) 
died. The reason for the fi ght has not been recorded; it could well have been an argument 
originating in or amplifi ed by the general carnival merriment and rowdiness, which had 
the tendency to rapidly lead to violence (Muir, 2005, 93–105, 112–115).
What went on that night was given by testimony of the six witnesses whom the broth-
ers’ father Hanže (Hannsche) Svetina presented to the Bled patrimonial and provincial 
court on 10 April. This was a per patrem defence in the informative process (Povolo, 
2015, 217–218). Hanže claimed that his son Matevž (Matheusch), who was in the interim 
incarcerated at Bled castle, did not even hit, let alone kill Peter Jakopič. The fi rst to testify 
was Jurij Ferčaj (Jurÿ Fertscheÿ), who said that he saw the fi ght and that all four brothers 
had taken part in it. They were also the ones who had attacked the deceased, but Ferčaj 
could not say who of them hit Jakopič and who did not. The second witness, Hanže 
Golob, testifi ed much the same, claiming that it had been too dark to see who hit the 
victim. The third witness, Gregor Andrejec (Andreÿez) corroborated, but also claimed that 
Fig. 4: Upper Carniolans in 17th-century attire (Valvasor, 2017)
169
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
he had seen Matevž Svetina holding a club.34 Bastl (Sebastijan) Konič (Wastl Khonetsch) 
was the fourth to testify, even if he was too late to the scene to have witnessed the fi ght. 
Nonetheless, he advised Blaž (Wläsch) Svetina to return home and prevented him from 
breaking into the victim’s house – this would have made matters much worse35 for him. 
The most interesting is the testimony of Simon Mertelj (Mertell), even though he also had 
not been present at the time of the fi ght. It is not the most interesting testimony because 
he had advised the brothers to return home, nor because he had seen Matevž Svetina 
holding a log in his hands, since he could not say if he had struck Jakopič with it or 
not. The essential point of his testimony rather lay in the conversation between the three 
brothers who had fl ed, which Mertelj claimed he had overheard when he had escorted 
them abroad – both to safety and in the intent to follow the customary path of settlement 
(cf. Frauenstädt, 1881, 81) – namely that Matevž was not the one who should have been 
arrested. The fi nal witness was Primož Černe (Primos Tscherne), who also arrived to the 
scene only after the fi ght was already over and saw Jakopič beaten to the ground. As it had 
been very dark, Černe could not say if Matevž Svetina was holding anything in his hands 
when he was standing fi ve or six paces from the victim (AS 721, kn. 20 (1652–1655), 10 
April, 1654).
Doubt had been cast regarding the perpetrator’s identity, which surely accelerated 
the settlement. It was also common for courts to rule on the principle that it is better 
that a culprit goes free than that an innocent is accused and punished (AS 721, kn. 18 
(1636–1640), 25 February and 30 March, 1637). 
Thus it should not come as a surprise that already on 25 April, only two weeks after the 
witness’ testimonies, a peace settlement was reached between the families – Lent, which 
had begun shortly after the homicide, might have accelerated it as well. Hanže Svetina 
made peace with the widow, brothers, and the rest of the kin (gesambter freindschaff t) of 
the killed Peter Jakopič on behalf of his sons Matevž, Blaž, Hanže Jr, and Matija (Mathia) 
as their relative (vetter), so that he could be given safe conduct (sicheres glaidt) (AS 721, 
kn. 20 (1652–1655), 25 April, 1654). Svetina needed it as it protected the accused from 
arrest when they appeared in court, especially guaranteeing protection from aggravating 
circumstances in advance to those suspected of homicide (Povolo, 2015, 217). Further-
more, it was in general only granted to those who had already been given the chance to 
make peace with their opponents or the court (Reinle, 2003, 89). Peace between the two 
families was made by the following points or, rather, stages of the ritual of peacemaking.
First. The widow, brothers and the whole kin of the late Peter Jakopič had agreed 
that all four Svetina brothers were to be given “true and full peace” (wirklichen vnd 
volmechtigen friden), i.e. lasting peace, and safe conduct. They pledged that they would 
not chase away the brothers upon their return home or remain in any kind of enmity 
34 Upper Carniolans seem to have been known for their long and heavy clubs (see Fig. 4), mostly made of 
hawthorn wood. The famous Carniolan polymath Johann Weikhard/Janez Vajkard Valvasor in the 17th 
century stressed that a single blow by one could, and not rarely did, kill a man (Valvasor, 2017, 113–114).
35 Forced entry into someone‘s home (Heimsuchung) was a breach of the immunity (peace) of one‘s home and 
thus strictly forbidden even in enmity or (blood) feud (Bischoff , Schönbach, 1881, 306; Reinle, 2003, 81).
170
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
(feindtschaff t) with them, pledging instead to live with them in good neighbourliness 
(guete nachperschaff t), as is becoming. To that, Hanže Svetina pledged for himself and 
his family that they would give Jakopič’s kin no reason or cause for anger or aggravation 
(zorn oder widerwillen) and forever remain in peace and good neighbourliness with them 
(AS 721, kn. 20 (1652–1655), 25 April, 1654).
Right at the start of peacemaking there was the essential reciprocal renouncement of 
enmity or vengeance (Urfehde)36 and the restoration or establishment of good neighbour-
liness. The explicitness of including the respective entire kinsfolk of both perpetrator 
and victim is essential, as the spilled blood involved them both. This is settling blood 
before the feud escalates. Unlike some other cases from 17th-century Bled, the given 
settlement does not mention establishing “love, honour and friendship” (lieb ehr vnd 
freindtschaff t) (AS 721, kn. 17 (1632–1636), 13 June and 15 September, 1635) between 
the two families. However, this does not mean that the same words were left unsaid at 
the oral peace settlement (cf. Vollrath, 1992, 295–296); quite the contrary, it is to be 
expected that the oral settlement included all these phrases (in Slovene)37 and without a 
doubt also a public gesture of peace. Most likely this was not a kiss of peace anymore, 
as the gesture had been in decline since the 15th century, being replaced by an embrace 
by both Protestants and Catholics in the following two centuries (Koslofsky, 2005, 25, 
33; Carroll, 2016, 128–129). It is unknown which gesture was used in Upper Carniola 
in the mid-17th century. If not a kiss or an embrace, then at least a handshake as one of 
the fundamental legal gestures (Schmitt, 2000, 109), which also followed the kiss of 
peace (Frauenstädt, 1881, 109; Carroll, 2016, 129). The peace between the two families 
was, apart from being confi rmed or ruled in court, without a doubt made in public, most 
likely in front of a church and perhaps on a holiday (i.e. church fair) as attested (auf ofnen 
khirchtag in gegenwurt viller perschonen) in another case of blood settlement in Bled 
from 1637 (AS 721, kn. 18 (1636–1640), 27 April 1637).
Secondly, the three brothers who had fl ed abroad following the homicide agreed to the 
provision of the peace that the youngest, Hanže Jr, could return home as soon as possible, 
so that he could help his father with work. Blaž and Matija agreed to remain abroad (in 
exile) for a year and a day, after which they could return home and continue to live there 
in safety (AS 721, kn. 20 (1652–1655), 25 April, 1654).
The exile of the two fl ed brothers, obviously including the supposed culprit, had a 
reinforcing eff ect on the peace settlement, as the absence of the culprit had a general 
36 For two examples of Urfehde given by culprits to court in early modern Slovene see: Golec, 2016, 159–165.
37 Along the aforementioned (cf. notes 2–4, 6), Megiser gives the following pertinent early modern Slovene 
translations: sovrashnik (Feind, hostis; modern: sovražnik) for enemy, perjasèn, prijasen (Freundschaff t, 
amicitia; prijateljstvo) for friendship, myr (Fried, pax; mir) for peace, lubesan (Liebe, amor; ljubezen) 
for love, soßeszhina (Nachbawrschaff t, vicinitas; sosedstvo) for neighbourliness, poboj, vbijanje (Todt-
schlag, caedes; uboj) for homicide and zhast, slava, dyka (Ehr, honor; čast) for honour (Megiser, 1592, 
[54, 71, 79, 146, 165, 252]). Friendship and love were sometimes regarded as synonyms and both are 
attested as (customary) legal terms (cf. Golec, 2016, 169). The rest of the words given here should also 
be taken as such.
171
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
soothing38 eff ect (Miller, 1996, 282; Povolo, 2015, 215). The same term is stipulated in 
similar cases in the aforementioned Bavarian Landrecht from the late 13th century and 
in the stipulations regarding the declaration of outlawry in Inner Austrian early modern 
criminal law. Outlawry was however not the case here.39 It is clear that in the Bled case 
the exile was part of the ancient legal custom and not its modifi cation by early modern 
criminal law.
Third. Hanže Svetina pledged for his sons that he would give Jakopič’s widow 10 
crowns for the support of her underage child as soon as possible, including a plot worth 
30 crowns plus interest (AS 721, kn. 20 (1652–1655), 25 April, 1654). This is composi-
tion, weregild. It was not exactly trifl ing, as altogether 40 crowns40 in the 17th century 
amounted to the price of a farm (Hufe) or the yearly salary of a mid-level town offi  cial 
(Kotnik, 1997, 48; Hernja Masten, 2005, 226). Weregild for a subject in Styria at the time 
was about the same (Oman, 2016, 89). It was common both to pay support for the victim’s 
underage children and, at least among subjects, that weregild was at least in part paid in 
kind (Frauenstädt, 1881, 138–139; Dolenc, 1935, 410), in this case in arable land.
Fourth. Hanže Svetina had to pay the Lordship of Bled the legal expenses it had with 
the case, namely 35 crowns and 2 gold ducats, within two weeks’ time (AS 721, kn. 20 
(1652–1655), 25 April, 1654). The fi rst sum is composition paid to the lordship, originally 
the judge’s (lord’s) part of the weregild, while the two ducats most likely stood as surety 
for the settlement (Dolenc, 1935, 410). Fines for breaking settlements in Bled in the fi rst 
half of the 17th century were between 6 and 10 gold ducats (AS 721, kn. 17 (1632–1636), 
13 June and 15 September, 1635; AS 721, kn. 20 (1652–1655), 17 May, 1652).
The surety for peace was thus given by the patrimonial and land court (lordship) at 
which it was made. Contrary to the complaints in the Bambergensis, this was not (only) 
about money, as the control over peacemaking legitimised the courts as institutions which 
upheld the social order, thus working towards “general peace and the common good”. 
While there is no record of masses paid for the victim’s soul, perhaps roughly at the level 
of the weregild and the composition to the court (cf. Oman, 2016, 89), i.e. ca. 30 crowns, 
it is highly unlikely that one of the integral acts41 of peacemaking (Frauenstädt, 1881, 
144–145, 153; Bloch, 1962, 129) would be left out in practice as well.
Nonetheless, settling blood in mid-17th century Bled shows clear similarities with the 
blood feud as the legal custom of the system of confl ict resolution in earlier times and 
38 For the same reason blood settlements in the north of the Empire demanded that former enemies avoid each 
other as much as possible for a year and a day (Frauenstädt, 1881, 128–134).
39 Regarding exile, there is yet another option, which again does not pertain to the case at hand, but is worth 
mentioning. When the perpetrator was too poor to pay weregild, it could be substituted by exile or the ex-
tension thereof. In 17th-century Saxony, for instance, from three to four years (Carpzov, 1670, 198).
40 This amounts to 46 guldens and 40 kreutzers in Carniolan currency. A ducat was worth 5 guldens, a crown 
one gulden and 10 kreutzers (Ribnikar, 1976, 29).
41 The existence of peace shrines, crosses, stones, and chapels (Marter, Sühnekreuz, Sühnestein, Mordstein), 
which commonly marked homicide sites in the German-speaking areas of the Empire (Frauenstädt, 1881, 
154–156), is unknown to me for Slovene-speaking ones. Considering the extent of their occurence (cf. 
Sühnekreuze & Mordsteine, http://www.suehnekreuz.de/ (March, 2017)) they are to be expected, yet this 
remains the work of a thorough analysis of Slovene wayside shrines.
172
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
elsewhere in Europe, as given at the beginning of the paper. Injury and damage had to be 
requited, whether in blood, kind, or cash in order that peace could honourably be made 
and harmony (“good neighbourliness”) restored to the community.
CONCLUSION: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS
Blood feud, being a primary (primal) and universal legal custom, was, as expected, 
used by both the Germanic (German) and the Slavic (Slovene) speaking populations 
of the discussed Eastern Alpine regions in the Medieval and early modern periods. As 
the sources referred to throughout the paper attest, “ethnicity” was no dividing line, nor 
was the existence and condonation of the custom of blood feud in the Lordship of Bled 
determined by its jurisdictional fragmentation or its ecclesiastic lord. Even if the latter 
might seem plausible, given the places of origin of some of the Weistümer mentioned 
herein, this can be refuted by various cases from throughout the Empire. Both the custom 
of enmity settlement (confl ict resolution) given in the Weistum from the Styrian Sölk and 
the case of customary and common legal practice from the Upper Carniolan Lordship 
of Bled show parallels with the rituals of blood and enmity settlement elsewhere in the 
Medieval and early modern Empire, as well as Europe as a whole.
The given Bled case went through the expected stages or, rather, rituals of (blood) 
feud as a legal custom of the system of confl ict resolution, in which both the lordship (i.e. 
Fig. 5: Payment of weregild depicted in the Heidelberger Sachsenspiegel, early 14th 
century (Heidelberger historische Bestände, http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/
cpg164/0035)
173
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
its court) and the families involved placed the greatest emphasis on settlement. This is 
in accordance with the tendency of feud towards peace. The origins of the fi ght remain 
unknown, yet the break in social relations between the Svetina and Jakopič families was 
the death of Peter Jakopič due to blows from the four Svetina brothers. Both to protect 
themselves from the requital (vengeance) of Peter’s kin and with the intent to settle 
(resolve) the confl ict in accordance with custom, three of the brothers fl ed abroad (the 
fourth was apprehended and incarcerated by the lordship). With the culprits “far from 
sight”, passions could cool down and the possibility for peace grew. The fact that the main 
perpetrator among the brothers remained unknown also helped with that. The time of Lent 
might have as well. If any formal truce was made remains unknown, but it seems that the 
feud might have been suspended following the brothers’ fl ight. In their absence, three 
and a half months after the homicide, the families made lasting peace before the (joined) 
patrimonial and provincial court in Bled. By that point mediation from either or both the 
court and the community (neighbours, possibly the parish priest) is to be expected, even if 
it was not recorded. Perhaps some of the witnesses Hanže Svetina presented in court acted 
as mediators as well. The peace settlement contained the expected words and rituals. The 
court protocol recorded the renouncement of enmity (vengeance), the re-establishment 
of good neighbourliness, composition payments to both the victim’s kin (weregild) and 
the lordship (court), as well as limited exile for two of the fl ed brothers, including the 
one responsible for Peter Jakopič’s death. The gesture of peace (whether kiss, embrace, 
or handshake) and the payment of masses for the victim’s soul are without a doubt only 
missing from the protocol. With the peace concluded, the blood feud begun with the 
homicide was brought to an end, the balance in the community restored. The case attests 
that as late as the mid-17th century the ancient legal customs were not only in use by the 
subjects, but also accepted in more or less the same way as centuries before (including the 
lordships and their courts), i.e. as a legitimate system of confl ict resolution. Also, there 
is actually nothing in the given case that points to the implementation of the novelties of 
early modern criminal law.
174
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
NOVI VEK, STARI OBIČAJI – POMIRITEV KRVI V VZHODNIH ALPAH MED 
POZNIM SREDNJIM IN ZGODNJIM NOVIM VEKOM
Žiga OMAN
Univerza v Mariboru, Filozofska fakulteta, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor
e-mail: zigaoman@gmail.com
POVZETEK
Analiza primera pomiritve krvi (uboja) na Gorenjskem sredi 17. stoletja pokaže, da 
je potekala v skladu z maščevanjem (krvnim) kot starodavnim pravnim običajem sistema 
reševanja sporov. Kljub tedaj že dobro stoletje potekajoči implementaciji novoveške 
(državne) kazenske zakonodaje, so se tako podložniki kot gospoščine ter patrimonialna 
sodišča še naprej držali (tudi) običaja. S tem so sledili tudi njegovi kodifi kaciji v obče 
pravo, ki je prav tako razvidna iz uporabljenih koroških in štajerskih pravnih napotil iz 
poznega srednjega in zgodnjega novega veka. Le-ta kažejo jasne vzporednice z običajem 
in občim pravom v srednjeveškem in zgodnjenovoveškem Svetem rimskem cesarstvu in 
Evropi nasploh.
Težnja pravnega običaja maščevanja k miru in obnovi družbenega ravnotežja je 
podana skozi analizo blejskega primera. Po eni strani se kaže v hitrosti pomiritve, h 
kateri je pripomogel beg večine storilcev (in arest tistega, ki mu beg ni uspel). Kot kažejo 
občepravna besedila, je beg pomenil jasno izraženo željo po reševanju spora v skladu 
z običajem maščevanja. Obenem je odsotnost storilcev olajšala sklenitev miru med 
družinama žrtve in storilcev. Trajni mir je bil pred blejskim (združenim) patrimonialnim 
in deželskim sodiščem sklenjen v skladu z običajem: kompozicijo (krvnino), vzajemnim 
odrekom sovražnosti (maščevanju) in sklenitvijo dobrega sosedstva. Pravni običaj (krv-
nega) maščevanja je spor od zadane krivice (uboja) skozi obredje pomiritve popeljal k 
trajnemu miru in v skupnosti obnovil ravnotežje, tj. »dobro sosedstvo«.
Ključne besede: krvno maščevanje, pravni običaj, reševanje sporov, pomiritev, Koroška, 
Kranjska, Štajerska, Bled, pozni srednji vek, zgodnji novi vek
175
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
AS 1 – Arhiv Republike Slovenije (ARS), Vicedomski urad za Kranjsko (fond AS 1).
AS 721 – ARS, Gospostvo Bled (fond AS 721).
Bischoff , F. & A. Schönbach (1881): Steirische und Kärnthische Taidinge. Wien, Wil-
helm Braumüller.
CCB 1507 – Bambergische halßgerichts ordenung (1507), http://www.uni-mannheim.de/
mateo/desbillons/bambi.html (March 2017).
CCC 1609 – K. Karls deß V., vnd deß h. Roemischen Reichs Peinlichs Gerichts Ordnung 
(1609). Frankfurt/Main. Wolfgang Richter in Verlegung Nicolai Bassaeisaempltichen 
Erben.
LGK 1535 – Des Herzogthumbs Crainn, vnd der angeraichten Herrschaff tn vnd Graff -
schaff ten der Windischen March, Meetling, Ysterreich, vnd Karst, Lanndtgerichtß-
-Ordnung (1535), http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/ferdinand1535 (March 2017).
LGÖ 1514 – Hierinn sind die Artickel der Landegericht des Fürstenthümb Osterreich 
durch die Roemisch Keyserlich Mayestat ec. auff gericht (1514), http://daten.digitale-
-sammlungen.de/~db/0003/bsb00039796/images/ (March 2017).
LMF 1514 – Deren von Laibach Malefi tzfreyhaittn (1514) (Reproduction). In: Kambič, M., 
Budna Kodrič, N. (2005): Malefi čne svoboščine Ljubljančanov = Deren von Laibach 
Malefi tzfreyhaittn: Ljubljanski kazenski sodni red. Ljubljana, Pravna fakulteta, 17–32.
MGH Const. 2 – Weiland, L. (1896): Monvmenta Germaniae historica: Constitvtiones 
et acta pvblica imperatorvm et regvm: Constitvtiones et acta publica imperatorvm et 
regum: tomvs 2, inde ab a. MCXCVIII vsqve ad a. MCCLXXII. Hannover, Hahnsche 
Buchhandlung.
MGH Const. 3 – Schwalm, J. (1904–06): Monvmenta Germaniae historica: Constitvtio-
nes et acta pvblica imperatorvm et regum: Constitvtiones et acta publica imperatorvm 
et regvm: tomvs 3, inde ab a. MCCLXXIII vsqve ad a. MCCXCVII. Hannover, 
Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
MGH Const. 4,2 – Schwalm, J. (1904–06): Monvmenta Germaniae historica: Constitvti-
ones et acta pvblica imperatorvm et regum: Constitvtiones et acta publica imperatorvm 
et regvm: tomvs 4, inde ab a. MCCXCVIII. vsqve ad a. MCCCXII, pars II. Hannover, 
Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
MGH LL 4/I – Pertz, G. H. (1868): Monvmenta Germaniae historica inde ab anno Christi 
qvingentesimo vsqve ad annvm millesimvm et qvingentesimvm. I. Edictus Langobar-
dorum. Hannover, Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
MRT 1506 – Gesatz vnd ordnungen der ynzichten Malefi tz Rechten vnnd annderer 
nottirftigen hendeln des lands der Graueschaff t Tyroll (1506), http://daten.digitale-
-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001925/images/ (March 2017).
Schwind, E. & A. Dopsch (1895): Ausgewählte Urkunden zur Verfassungsgeschi-
chte der Deutsch-österreichischen Erblande im Mittelalter. Innsbruck, Verlag der 
Wagner‘schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung.
Winter, G. (1896): Niederoesterreichische Weisthümer. II. Theil: die Viertel ob und unter 
dem Mannhartsberge. Wien, Leipzig, Wilhelm Braumüller.
176
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
Althoff , G. (1997): Spielregeln der Politik im Mittelalter: Kommunikation in Frieden und 
Fehde. Darmstadt, Primus Verlag.
Bloch, M. (1962): Feudal Society, Volume I. The Growth of Ties of Dependence. London, 
New York, Routledge.
Brown, W. C. (2011): Violence in Medieval Europe. Harlow, Pearson.
Büchert Netterstrøm, J. (2007): The Study of Feud in Medieval and Early Modern 
History. In: Büchert Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early 
Modern Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 9–67.
Bühler, T. (1970): Wüstung und Fehde. Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde = Archi-
ves suisses des traditions populaires, 66, 1–2, 1–27.
Carpzov, B. (1670): Practicae novae imperialis Saxonicae rerum criminalium, pars I. 
Quaestionum fere universarum in materia cujusqve generis homicidiorum, fractae 
pacis publicae [...]. Wittenberg, Tobia Mevi, Elerd Schumacher.
Carroll, S. (2006): Blood and Violence in Early Modern France. Oxford, New York, 
Oxford University Press.
Carroll, S. (2016): Revenge and Reconciliation in Early Modern Italy. Past and Present, 
233, 101–142.
Coulin, A. (1915): Die Wüstung. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Strafrechts unter beson-
derer Berücksichtigung des deutschen und französischen Hochmittelalters. Zeitschrift 
für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 32, 327–501.
Darovec, D. (2016): Turpiter interfectus: The Seigneurs of Momiano and Pietrapelosa 
in the Customary System of Confl ict Resolution in Thirteenth-century Istria. Acta 
Histriae, 24, 1, 1–42.
de‘ Passageri, R. (1546): Summa totius artis notariae (anastatic reprint, ed. Forni, A. 
(1977),  Bologna, Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato).
Dolenc, M. (1935): Pravna zgodovina za slovensko ozemlje: sostavni očrt. Ljubljana, 
Akademska založba.
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, 101–130.
Foucault, M. (2004): Nadzorovanje in kaznovanje. Nastanek zapora. Ljubljana, Krtina.
Frauenstädt, P. (1881): Blutrache und Totschlagssühne im Deutschen Mittelalter. Leipz-
ig, Duncker & Humblot.
Gluckmann, M. (1955): Custom and Confl ict in Africa. London, Basil Blackwell.
Golec, B. (2016): Slovenščina pred kazenskimi sodišči v zgodnjem novem veku. Acta 
Histriae, 24, 1, 147–176.
Hernja Masten, M. (2005): Upravna dejavnost mestnega sveta Ptuj v času 1653–1655. 
Studia Historica Slovenica: Mlinaričev zbornik I. 5, 1–2–3, 215–233.
Heusler, A. (1911): Das Strafrecht der Isländersagas. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot.
Kambič, M. (2005): Razvoj kazenskega prava na Slovenskem do leta 1848. In: Kambič, 
M. & N. Budna Kodrič (eds): Malefi čne svoboščine Ljubljančanov = Deren von La-
ibach Malefi tzfreyhaittn: ljubljanski kazenski sodni red. Ljubljana, Pravna fakulteta, 
193–221.
177
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
Kos, D. (2015): Zgodovina morale: 1. Ljubezen in zakonska zveza na Slovenskem med 
srednjim vekom in meščansko dobo. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.
Kosi, J. & R. Stergar (2016): Kdaj so nastali »lubi Slovenci«? O identitetah v prednaci-
onalni dobi in njihovi domnevni vlogi pri nastanku slovenskega naroda. Zgodovinski 
časopis = Historical Review, 70, 3–4, 458–488.
Koslofsky, C. (2005): The kiss of peace in the German Reformation. In: Harvey, K. (ed.): 
The Kiss in History. Manchester, New York, Manchester University Press, 18–35.
Kotnik, B. (1997): Zgodovina hiš južne Koroške: občina Št. Jakob v Rožu. Celovec, 
Ljubljana, Dunaj, Mohorjeva založba.
Lačen-Benedičič, I., Mlinar, J., Kokošinek, N. & A. Janko (2001): Ortenburški rudar-
ski red. Planina pod Golico, Krajevna skupnost Planina pod Golico.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969): The Elementaty Structures of Kinship. Boston, Beacon Press.
Makarovič, G. (2008): Ko še nismo bili Slovenci in Slovenke: novoveške etnične iden-
titete pred slovensko narodno zavestjo. Ljubljana, Slovenska matica.
Mauss, M. (2002): The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New 
York, London, Routledge Classics.
Megiser, H. (1592): Dictionarium quatuor linguarum videlicet, Germanicae, Latinae, 
Illyricae, (quae vulgo Sclavonica appellatur) & Italicae, sive Hetruscae. Graz, Ioannes 
Faber. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-RL06CTA6 (March, 2017).
Miller, W. I. (1996): Bloodtaking and Peacemaking. Feud, Law, and Society in Saga 
Iceland. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Miklosich [Miklošič], F. (1881): Die Blutrache bei den Slaven. Denkschriften der  kai-
serlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Classe 36. Wien, 
F. Tempsky, 127–209.
Mommertz, M. (2001): Von Besen und Bündelchen, Brandmahlen und Befehdungsschre-
iben: Semantiken der Gewalt und die historiographische Entziff erung von "Fehde"-
-Praktiken in einer ländlichen Gesellschaft. In: Streitkulturen: Gewalt, Konfl ikt und 
Kommunikation in der ländlichen Gesellschaft (16.–19. Jahrhundert) (ur. Eriksson, M. 
& B. Krug-Richter). Köln, Böhlau Verlag, 197–248.
Muir, E. (2005): Ritual in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Obermair, H. (2015): How to Record a Confl ict? The Communities of the German Part 
of the Diocese of Trent during the Late Middle Ages. In: Bellabarba, M., Obermair, H. 
& H. Sato (eds.): Communities and confl icts in the Alps from the Late Middle Ages 
to Early Modernity. Bologna, Berlin, Società editrice il Mulino, Duncker & Humblot, 
101–118.
Oman, Ž. (2016): Will auss der Vnordnung nit Schreitten: A Case of Fehde from 17th 
Century Styria. Acta Histriae, 24, 1, 63–100.
Povolo, C. (2015): Feud and Vendetta: Customs and Trial Rites in Medieval and Modern 
Europe: A Legal-Anthropological Approach. Acta Histriae, 23, 2, 195–244.
Reinle, C. (2003): Bauernfehden. Studien zur Fehdeführung Nichtadliger im spätmitte-
lalterlichen römisch-deutschen Reich, besonders in den bayerischen Herzogtümern. 
Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner.
178
ACTA HISTRIAE • 25 • 2017 • 1
Žiga OMAN: MODERN AGE, ANCIENT CUSTOMS – SETTLING BLOOD IN THE EASTERN ALPS ..., 153–178
Ribnikar, P. (1976): Slovenske podložniške prisege patrimonialnega sodišča Bled. 
Ljubljana, Partizanska knjiga.
Schmitt, J.-C. (2000): Geste v srednjem veku. Ljubljana, Studia Humanitatis.
Snoj, M. (1997): Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.
Spreitzhofer, K. et al. (1988): Notranjeavstrijska centralna oblastva in uprava notra-
njeavstrijskih dežel do srede 18. stoletja. In: Žontar, J. et al. (eds.): Handbücher und 
Karten zur Verwaltungsstruktur in den Ländern Kärnten, Krain, Küstenland und 
Steiermark bis zum Jahre 1918: ein historisch-bibliographischer Führer = Priročniki 
in karte o organizacijski strukturi v deželah Koroški, Kranjski, Primorju in Štajerski 
do leta 1918: zgodovinsko-bibliografski vodnik = Manuali e carte sulle strutture 
amministrative nelle province di Carinzia, Carniola, Litorale e Stiria fi no al 1918: 
guida storico-bibliografi ca. Graz, et al., Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, et al., 64–75.
Steppan, M. (2005): Das Strafensystem der Laibacher Malefi zfreiheiten von 1514. In: 
Kambič, M. & N. Budna Kodrič (eds): Malefi čne svoboščine Ljubljančanov = Deren 
von Laibach Malefi tzfreyhaittn: ljubljanski kazenski sodni red. Ljubljana, Pravna 
fakulteta, 83–110.
Sühnekreuze & Mordsteine. http://www.suehnekreuz.de/ (March 2017).
Škrubej, K. (2012): Courtroom oaths and patrimonial court in 18th-century Carniola: 
vestiges of ‚ius proprium‘ and local autonomy (The case of the Estate of Veldes/
Bled). Lex localis: revija za lokalno samoupravo = Journal of Local Self-Government 
= Revue für lokale Selbstverwaltung, 10, 3, 203–228.
Štrekelj, K. (1980): Slovenske narodne pesmi: zvezek I: pesmi pripovedne vsebine. 
Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba.
Valvasor, J. V. (2017): Slava vojvodine Kranjske. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga.
Vilfan, S. (1943): Pravni motivi v slovenskih narodnih pripovedkah in pripovednih 
pesmih. Etnolog: glasilo Etnografskega muzeja v Ljubljani, 16, 3–29.
Vilfan, S. (1961): Pravna zgodovina Slovencev: od naselitve do zloma stare Jugoslavije. 
Ljubljana, Slovenska matica.
Vilfan, S. (1996): Zgodovinska pravotvornost in Slovenci. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba.
Vollrath, H. (1992): Konfl iktwahrnehmung und Konfl iktdarstellung in erzählenden 
Quellen des 11. Jahrhunderts. In: Weinfurter, S. (ed.): Die Salier und das Reich. Band 
3: Gesellschaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der Salier. Sigmarin-
gen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 279–296.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (1959): The Bloodfeud of the Franks. Bulletin of John Rylands 
Library, 41, 459–487.
Zacharias, R. (1962): Die Blutrache im deutschen Mittelalter. Zeitschrift für Altertum 
und deutsche Literatur, 91, 3, 167–201.
Zmora, H. (1997): State and Nobility in Early Modern Germany: The Knightly Feud in 
Franconia 1440–1567. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Þorláksson, H. (2007): Feud and Feuding in the Early and High Middle Ages. In: Büchert 
Netterstrøm, J. & B. Paulsen (eds.): Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. 
Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 69–94.