Adulteresses and fornicatresses in Serbian law in the first half of the XIX century
Keywords:
adulteresses, fornicatresses, legal rules, custom rules, canonical rulesAbstract
During the first and second Serbian uprisings, under the influence of historic, social, cultural and ethnic processes which played a significant role in forming and developing the Serbian state, women were punished for the criminal acts of adultery and fornication, which is proven by a large number of verdicts, but also by custom and canonical rules which stipulated specific sanctions in these cases. It can be concluded from mentioned verdicts in cases of adultery that the penal policy enforced by Karadjordje (First Uprising) was milder compared to the penal policy of Grand Duke Miloš (Second Uprising). At the time of Miloš’s rule, on the evidence of preserved rulings, it can be seen that in the period between 1825 and 1828 adulteresses faced corporal punishment involving 50 to 100 lashes of the whip and/or exile in cases where the adultery was committed with a Turk. The period between 1837 and 1843 is characterized by a milder penal policy similar to that from the time of Karadjordje’s rule (25 lashes of the whip), and even milder (10 lashes of the whip or 25 strokes of the stick) but with one difference – aside from corporal punishment jail terms were also frequently applied albeit for only short periods of time. As for the punishing of fornicatresses, as opposed to the punishing of adulteresses, there is a discrepancy between canonical and customary rules on one side and legal regulations on the other. Fornicators were most frequently awarded the sentence of whipping (12 to 50 lashes), but in several cases of fornicator deliberation, verdicts were recorded regardless of the circumstances involved. If the misbehavior of a girl was discovered before her marriage, she (and her entire family) would be exposed as a laughing-stock, the chances of a regular marriage became minimal, and the most violent reaction of the village was to stone or exile the offender. Sanctions stipulated by two legal systems – clerical canons and customary law norms, when it came to the criminal acts of adultery and fornication, were in essence almost identical in that both the church and the village stipulated the harshest fine for female transgressors – their excommunication. The basic sanctions imposed by the Orthodox Church against “fallen” female members of the community ranged from the mild – denial of communion over a certain period of time, to those which, aside from the holy communion, also denied a female transgressor the presence during the second part of liturgy after prayer for non-christened, and the anathema – excommunication, which included exclusion from the church community (this was practiced in the most severe cases). These were not fines in the true sense of the word, but were more like categories of the present spiritual state of a particular member of the church, regardless of the type of transgression committed. However, the “sinner” always had to repent and return back to the community. This was the true purpose of these penances. As far as the customary law is concerned, it is known that it developed under a certain set of circumstances. Serbia, when it fell under Turkish rule, lost its legislative continuity. In the absence of state regulations, the customary law, simultaneously with church law and under its significant influence, became the only orient in the regulation of basic social relations and at the same time, its protector and guardian. All actions of individuals which differed from established social norms fell under the impact of public criticism and condemnation and were sanctioned in an appropriate way. Excommunication from the church or social community for these women was more severe than the death sentence which was sometimes levied for some of these criminal acts.
References
Bogišić V., Materials from replies from various parts of the Slavic south, Zagreb 1874.
Bogišić V., Collection of present legal customs of South Slavs, book I, JAZU Zagreb 1874.
Djordjević T.R., Materials for Serbian customs from the time of the first rule of Grand Duke Miloš, book I, Serbian Ethnographic Collection XIV, Life and customs 8, Belgrade 1909.
Djordjević T.R., Materials for Serbian customs from the time of the first rule of Grand Duke Miloš, book II, Serbian Ethnographic Collection XIX, Life and customs 11, Belgrade 1913.
Djordjević T.R., Innocence of girls in our people, “Ethnographic Museum Bulletin” 1928, nr 3.
Djordjević T.R., Village as a court in our customary law, [in:] Collection of the Faculty of Philosophy, book I, Belgrade 1948.
Erlih V., Yugoslav families in transformation, Zagreb 1971.
Filipović M., Residents of Takovo, Ethnological observations, Serbian Ethnographic Collection LXXX, Discussions and materials 7, SANU Belgrade 1972.
Gavrilović O., Magistrate Court in Valjevo 1815-1865, Belgrade 1973.
Gavrilović O., Magistrate Court in Ćuprija 1815-1865, Belgrade 1991.
Karadzić V.S., Materials for Serbian history of our time, Belgrade 1898.
Mijatović S.M., Serbian customs (from Levča and Temenić), book I, Serbian Ethnographic Collection VII, Life and customs 4, Belgrade 1907.
Milaš N., Rules of the Orthodox Church with explanations, book I, Belgrade–Šibenik 2004.
Milaš N., Rules of the Orthodox Church with explanations, book II, Novi Sad 1896.
Mirković S.Z., Karadjordje’s Code (criminal, family and state law during the uprising period in Serbia), Belgrade 2008.
Peruničić B., Belgrade Court 1819-1839, Belgrade 1964.
Popović R., Protocol and register of Šabac Magistracy between 1808 and 1812, Belgrade 2010.
Savić V.B., Karadjordje, Documents II (1810-1812), Gornji Milanovac 1988.
Solovjev A., Dušan’s Code 1349 and 1354, Belgrade 1980.
Solovjev A., The history of Slavic laws, Laws of Stefan Dušan, the emperor of Serbs and Greeks, Belgrade 1998.
Stojanović I., Registry Protocol from May 21, 1812 until August 5, 1813 of Karadjordje Petrović, supreme leader and the patron of Serbian people, Belgrade 1848.
Vukićević M., Courts and their set-up at the time of uprising between 1804 and 1813, “Police Bulletin” 1905, nr 29, nr 32, nr 34.
Živanović T., Legal sources of Serbian criminal law and his historic development and the development of criminal justice between 1804 and 1865, Belgrade 1967.