¹ The village of Neubrunn was granted a municipal charter by Ludwig IV in 1323 and was surrounded by a wall, but as late as 1801, it contained no more than 168 houses. Cf. Schröder, Richard et al. , eds., Oberrheinische Stadtrechte, vol. I (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1895), 7–8Google Scholar; and Bundschuh, Johann Kaspar, Geographisches, statistisch-topographisches Lexikon von Franken (Ulm: Stettinische Buchhandlung, 1801), vol. III, 723Google Scholar.

² Staatsarchiv Wertheim (hereafter StAWe), G-Rep. 58 (Centgericht Remlingen), Nr. 113, Amtmann und Zentgraf zu Remlingen an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (Sept. 7, 1610, with postscript Sept. 12), f. 1v.

³ I will cite the 1532 criminal code, commonly known as the Carolina, by section (§) number. There are several modern editions, including Schroeder, Friedrich-Christian, ed., Die Carolina. Die peinliche Gerichtsordnung Kaiser Karls V. von 1532 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986)Google Scholar.

⁴ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Interrogatoria Vom Ambtmann zû Neûbrûnn, den verhaften Georg Schmiden daraûff zû examinieren” (Sept. 3, 1610).

⁵ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, Fürstbischof von Würzburg and Amtmann und Zentgraf zu Remlingen (Oct 1, 1610).

⁶ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, Amtmann und Zentgraf zu Remlingen an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (Oct. 3, 1610).

⁷ Foucault, Michel, Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Paris: Gallimard, 1975)Google Scholar. English translation as Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Sheridan, Alan (New York: Pantheon, 1977)Google Scholar. The most influential German work in a Foucauldian vein is indisputably van Dülmen, Richard, Theater des Schreckens. Gerichtspraxis und Strafrituale in der frühen Neuzeit (Munich: Beck, 1985)Google Scholar The English translation is van Dülmen, Richard, Theatre of Horror: Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990)Google Scholar.

⁸ Spierenburg, Pieter, The Spectacle of Suffering. Executions and the Evolution of Repression: From a Preindustrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 202–05Google Scholar. For the wider influence of this approach, see (among many others) Ruff, Julius R., Violence in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, esp. the chapter “Justice” on 73–116; and Muir, Edward, Ritual in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 116–20Google Scholar on the ritual of executions.

⁹ Although criticism has mounted in recent years. For a helpful literature survey, including the stark pronouncement that “the theatre of horror erected by Richard van Dülmen has been demolished,” see Haack, Julia, Der vergällte Alltag. Zur Streitkultur im 18. Jahrhundert (Cologne: Böhlau, 2008), 10–19Google Scholar.

¹⁰ In electoral Saxony, where appellate courts had the exclusive authority to pronounce death sentences, Manfred Wilde has estimated that fewer than 1 percent of the cases handled by these tribunals had any connection to magic or witchcraft. See Wilde, Manfred, Die Zauberei- und Hexenprozesse in Kursachsen (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003), 417Google Scholar. See also, for example, Peter Burke's observation that in the previous twenty years, witchcraft has “moved from the periphery of historical attention to a place near the centre” in Burke, Peter, “The Comparative Approach to European Witchcraft,” in Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries, ed. Ankarloo, Bengt and Henningsen, Gustav (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 435–41Google Scholar, quotation on 435.

¹¹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Copia Verschreibungen Georg Schmidten zû Neûnbrûnn, In sachen sich beßer zûûerfahren” (Feb. 25, 1597); and “Copia Urphede, Georg Schmidts aliâs Beck Georgen zû Neûnbrûnn” (May 4, 1603).

¹² StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Bericht uff die nach Neûnbrûnn geschickte Pûncten, Georg Schmiden, sonst Beck Jorg genant, wegen, so allhier in verhafft ligt” (Sept. 11, 1610).

¹³ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Des Artzts Anclag wider Georg Schmiden von Neûnbronn, vor dem Ambtmann daselbsten gethan” (Aug. 30, 1610); “Urkûnd von Höfeldt, dz Georg Schmid mit dem Artzt gangen” (Aug. 31, 1610).

¹⁴ These questions are not directly recorded, but have been reconstructed by comparing the answers Schmid gave in his initial interrogation without torture on September 6 and his answers during two interrogations under torture on the morning and afternoon of September 24.

¹⁵ After being formally authorized to do so by the Würzburg chancery. Cf. StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Amtmann und Zentgraf zu Remlingen (Sept. 13, 1610).

¹⁶ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Copia Peinliche Aûssag Georgen Schmidts, sonsten Beck Georg genant von Neûnbrûnn” (Sept. 24, 1610), quotations on ff. 2v and 5r. The Zentgraf's recovery of the rapier and glove is noted in the margin of f. 3v.

¹⁷ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Güticher Aûßag Georg Schmidts, sonst Beck Georg genant, von Neûnbrûnn” (Sept. 6, 1610), ff. 3v (assault charge) and 4r (arson allegation).

¹⁸ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 113, “Copia Peinliche Aûssag Georgen Schmidts, sonsten Beck Georg genant von Neûnbrûnn,” ff. 4r-v (assault charge) and 4v (arson allegation).

¹⁹ Both of these themes are expertly discussed in Schnabel-Schüle, Helga, Überwachen und Strafen im Territorialstaat. Bedingungen und Auswirkungen des Systems strafrechtlicher Sanktionen im frühneuzeitlichen Württemberg (Cologne: Böhlau, 1997)Google Scholar, which is based on the criminal files of the duchy of Württemberg's superior council (Oberrat). For the urban context, see the equally distinguished work of Schwerhoff, Gerd, in particular his Köln im Kreuzverhör. Kriminalität, Herrschaft und Gesellschaft in einer frühneuzeitlichen Stadt (Bonn: Bouvier, 1991)Google Scholar; for a briefer summary in another language, see Schwerhoff, Gerd, “Justice et honneur: Interpréter la violence à Cologne (XVe -XVIIIe siècle),” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 5 (2007): 1031–61Google Scholar.

²⁰ For example, Schnyder, Sibylle, Tötung und Diebstahl. Delikt und Strafe in der gelehrten Strafrechtsliteratur des 16. Jahrhunderts (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2010)Google Scholar.

²¹ There is now growing recognition of the extent to which criminal prosecution was driven by local demand. Particularly influential in this regard has been Dinges, Martin, “Justiznutzung als soziale Kontrolle in der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Kriminalitätsgeschichte. Beiträge zur Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte der Vormoderne, ed. Blauert, A. and Schwerhoff, G. (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 2000), 503–44Google Scholar.

²² As a proportion of punishments for serious crime, death sentences represented 7 percent of punishments in Ulm (1500–1599) and 31.5 percent of punishments in Frankfurt (1581–1620). See Coy, Jason P., Strangers and Misfits: Banishment, Social Control, and Authority in Early Modern Germany (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), 27Google Scholar; Van Dülmen, Theater des Schreckens, 187. In the Bishopric of Mainz, death sentences represented about 3 percent of the punishments in cases with known outcomes over the longer period 1560–1802. See Härter, Karl, Policey und Strafjustiz in Kurmainz. Gesetzgebung, Normdurchsetzung und Sozialkontrolle im frühneuzeitlichen Territorialstaat (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2005), 525Google Scholar.

²³ Staatsarchiv Augsburg (hereafter StAA), Reichsstift (hereafter RS) Ottobeuren, Band 587 I-II, Straf- und Frevelregister 1546–1592/3 and 1593/4–1615. Partial copy in StAA, RS Ottobeuren Band 4, Rotulus Probationum, Doc. 311, ff. 1173r-78r.

²⁴ Death sentences from the Strafregister and Turmregister supplemented with copies of sentencing records (Urgichten) preserved in StAA, RS Ottobeuren 4, ff. 548v-9v (Aug. 21, 1592), 550r-51r (1599), 586v-88r (Feb. 25, 1589), and 606r (1599). Population total estimated on the basis of the 1,676 households recorded in a 1620 tax survey and assuming an average of 4.71 persons per household. StAA, RS Ottobeuren 102, Steuerbuch 1620. For further discussion of sources and methods, see Sreenivasan, Govind P., The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487–1726: A Rural Society in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 116–122Google Scholar.

²⁵ Archiv der Abtei Ottobeuren (hereafter AAO), Akten (Herrschaftsarchiv) Westerheim 7, “Steûr Zedell zû Oberwesterheim uff Laetare Ao 87”; Archiv des Bistums Augsburg, Kirchenbücher Westerheim (1595–1759); StAA, RS Ottobeuren Band 491 I-II, Gült- und Leibhennenbücher 1552–1612 und 1613–22.

²⁶ Lists of householders in StAA, RS Ottobeuren Band 104, Steuerbuch 1627, ff. 274r-294v; Westerheim prosecutions in Band 587 III, Straf- und Frevelregister, Hefte 33 (1626–1627) and 34 (1627–1628).

²⁷ See the estimate of an annual average of 600 civil and criminal legal proceedings in ca. 1700 for a total adult population of about 1,000 in Peters, Jan, Märkische Lebenswelten. Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Herrschaft Plattenburg-Wilsnack, Prignitz 1550–1800 (Berlin: BWV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2007), 537Google Scholar.

²⁸ For a useful overview, see Jütte, Robert, Poverty and Deviance in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar, especially the chapter “Strategies of Marginalization” on 158–77. Jütte's more comprehensive approach is preferable to the more recent, but scattershot, discussion in Rheinheimer, Martin, Arme, Bettler und Vaganten. Überleben in der Not 1450–1850 (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Beier, A. L., Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England 1560–1640 (London and New York: Methuen, 1985), xxiiGoogle Scholar. “Vagrancy is perhaps the classic crime of status, the social crime par excellence. Offenders were arrested not because of their actions, but because of their position in society. Their status was a criminal one, because it was at odds with the established order.” See Härter, Policey und Strafjustiz, 1081–85.

³⁰ Sreenivasan, Peasants of Ottobeuren, 62, 68–71, 231; Härter, Policey und Strafjustiz, 513.

³¹ Härter, Karl, “Recht und Armut. Normative Grundlagen und Instrumentarien der Armenpolitik im frühneuzeitlichen Alten Reich,” in Aktuelle Tendenzen der historischen Armutsforschung, ed. Kühlberger, Christoph and Sedmak, Clemens (Vienna: Lit, 2005), 103Google Scholar. In English legal history, the same point has forcefully been made in Linebaugh, Peter, The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), esp. 70–73Google Scholar. Also see Schindler, Norbert, “Die Entstehung der Unbarmherzigkeit. Zur Kultur und Lebensweise der Salzburger Bettler am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts,” in Schindler, Norbert, Widerspenstige Leute. Studien zur Volkskultur in der frühen Neuzeit (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuchverlag, 1992), 258–314Google Scholar.

³² Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg (hereafter StAL), Bestand B 114, Bü 8176, Bericht des Vogts zu Gaildorf an Erbschenk Albrecht VII zu Limpurg-Gaildorf wegen Albrecht Kreber (Jul, 30, 1593).

³³ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 35, “Fragstûckh uf Caspar Kraûßen so zû Rembling. in verhafft gerichtet” (Sept. 14, 1618) f. 1r. Emphasis not in original.

³⁴ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 35, “Copia eines underthenigen berichts an unsern g. Fr. und Hern. von Würtzbûrg und Bamberg weg. beeden verhafften zû Rembling. Caspar Kraûsen und Veltin Hofmans' (Sept. 15, 1618), f. 1r.

³⁵ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 35, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Amtmann und Zentgraf zu Remlingen (Sept. 26, 1618).

³⁶ The response from the Hohenlohe official to the Gaildorf request for any information from recent convictions that might implicate Kreber was that “I have . . . looked through the files, but could not find many specific details in them.” StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8176, Sebastian Vischer, Secretarius zu Hohenlohe-Waldburg an Caspar Gärtner, Limpurgischen Vogt zu Gaildorf (July 28, 1593); StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8176, Schenk Albrecht von Limpurg-Gaildorf an Schenk Karl von Limpurg-Gaildorf [Konzept] (July 28, 1593); StAL, B 114, Bü 8750, Urfehden des Albrecht Kreber und seiner Ehefrau Ursula (1591–1593).

³⁷ For the magisterial presumption of the sexual immorality of the mobile population and the opinion that it “cannot be true” that the accused has committed no thefts other than those to which he freely confessed, see StAWe, G-Rep 58, Nr. 120, Gutliche Aussage des Hans Bopp von Waldbrunn (April 30, 1625).

³⁸ StAL, B 114, Bü 7723, Georg Eldtelin Vogt zum Ellenberg an Caspar Gärtner Limpurgischen Vogt zu Gaildorf (Nov. 26, 1600), and “Prothocollum in Sachen Anna Opferkûchin contra Melcher Müllern zu Mitelrhot” (Jan. 30, 1601).

³⁹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 89, “Gütliche Aûßag Claûsen Schmiden von Hetstat” (July 15, 1609), f. 1r for the date of the arrest; Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Amtmann und Zentgraf zu Remlingen (Aug. 4, 1609) responds to a supplication from the villagers of Hettstadt that Schmid be kept in prison.

⁴⁰ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 89, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Zentgraf zu Remlingen (July 21, 1609) for Anna's inability to find sureties; see also the letters from the Würzburg chancery to the Zentgraf on Aug. 17 and 22, 1609, for the reprimand and order of cost reduction. The chancery's letter of Dec. 22, 1609, is the only document in this voluminous file in which Anna is referred to by name.

⁴¹ Claro, Giulio, Sententiarum receptarum liber quintus item Practica Criminalis (Frankfurt am Main: Bassaeus, 1590)Google Scholar, Lib. V, § Furtum, Nr. 24, Propter necessitatem an licitum sit furari? That such a thief is indeed excused, Claro says, “est communis opinio” (p. 35). A similar judgment and extensive citations to other like-minded scholars can be found in Berlich, Matthias, Quinta pars Conclusionum practicabilium secundum Ordinem Constitutionum Divi Augusti Electoris discussarum (Arnhem: Jacob van Biesen, 1644)Google Scholar, Concl. XLIV; “Quinam ulterius poena furti teneantur, et qui non,” nn. 41–2, 35. Berlich also excused the theft of clothing by the truly poor. See also Blumblacher, Christoph, Commentarius In Kayser Carl deß Fünfften, und deß Heil. Röm. Reichs Peinliche Halß-Gerichts-Ordnung (Salzburg: Johann Baptist Mayr, 1670)Google Scholar, ad. Art. CLXVI, 377–78. Blumblacher added that a destitute man who steals something greater in value than the cost of his immediate need for food (or clothing) might still be excused, “as he might have thought that the necessity could last so long that he would need the entire [stolen] object or its value for his necessary sustenance, or it might happen that the [stolen] object was of such a nature that it could not easily be subdivided even if he had wanted to do so.”

⁴² StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8175, “Prothocollûm beeder Verhaffter zû Hûmeltsweiler becantnûs” (April 21 and 30, 1614).

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8175, “Denckhzetûl zûr Inq.sition” (May 2, 1614). The document includes a detailed list of the seven people for whom Schwarz claimed to have cut wood, including the amount of wood cut and the agreed-upon wage rate. The annotations are made in a second, less practiced hand, likely the hand of the messenger.

⁴⁵ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8175, Johann Hötzell, Hallischer Schultheiss zu Honhardt an Caspar Gärtner, Limpurgischer Vogt zu Gaildorf (May 3, 1614).

⁴⁶ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8175, Urfehde des Hans Schwarz und des Jacob Flexer (May 10, 1614).

⁴⁷ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8175, Ludwig Müller, Kanzler der Herrschaft Öttingen an Schenck Albrecht zu Limpurg-Gaildorf (May 3, 1614).

⁴⁸ Tesař, Ottokar, Die symptomatische Bedeutung des verbrecherischen Verhaltens. Ein Beitrag zur Wertungslehre im Strafrecht (Berlin: J. Guttentag, 1907), 16–24Google Scholar; Höpfner, Wilhelm, Einheit und Mehrheit der Verbrechen. Eine strafrechtliche Untersuchung, 2 vols. (Berlin: F. Vahlen, 1901–08), vol. I, 16–23Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Osenbrüggen, Eduard, Das alamannische Strafrecht in deutschen Mittelalter (Schaffhausen: F. Hurter, 1860), 187Google Scholar. Höpfner, Einheit und Mehrheit der Verbrechen, 29, offers the grim suggestion that the death penalty was sometimes imposed in Italian city-states for multiple offenses because of the limited number of bodily parts on which the statutory punishments could be imposed.

⁵⁰ Mäkinen, Virpi and Pihlajamäki, Heikki, “The Individualization of Crime in Medieval Canon Law,” Journal of the History of Ideas 65 (2004): 525–42Google Scholar, is a good overview of a large literature. For an older, but still useful, introductory overview in English, see Mannheim, Hermann, “Mens Rea in German and English Criminal Law–I,” Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 3rd ser., 17, no. 1 (1935): 82–101Google Scholar. Löffler, Alexander, Die Schuldformen des Strafrechts in vergleichend-historischer und dogmatischer Darstellung (Leipzig: C. L. Hirschfeld, 1895)Google Scholar remains very useful, but the preeminent modern discussion of the historical development of European notions of criminal intentionality is Stuckenberg, Carl-Friedrich, Vorstudien zu Vorsatz und Irrtum im Völkerstrafrecht (Berlin: De Gruyter Recht, 2007)Google Scholar, in particular his “Anhang. Zur Dogmengeschichte von Vorsatz und Irrtum in Strafrecht,” 501–606.

⁵¹ Gauvard, Claude, “Justification and Theory of the Death Penalty at the Parlement of Paris in the Late Middle Ages,” in War, Government, and Power in Late Medieval France, ed. Allmand, Christopher (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), 190–208Google Scholar, esp. 204–07.

⁵² There is a helpful overview of the issue of recidivism in Briegel, Françoise and Porret, Michel, “Introduction: Récidive, récidivistes et le droit de punir,” in Le criminel endurci: récidive et récidivistes du Moyen Age au XXe siècle, ed. Briegel, Françoise and Porret, Michel (Geneva: Droz, 2006), 9–22Google Scholar. In this same collection, see also Mario Sbriccoli, “Periculum Pravitatis: Juristes et juges face à l'image du criminel méchant et endurci (XIVe-XVIe siècles),” 25–41; and Valérie Toureille, “Larrons incorrigibles et voleurs fameux: La récidive en matière de vol ou la consuetudo furandi à la fin du Moyen Age,” 43–53.

⁵³ (de Gambilionibus) de Aretio, Angelus and (Bonfrancéschi) da Rimini, Agostino, Angelus Aretinus super Maleficiis . . . cum additionibus . . . de Augustinus Ariminensis (Lyon: Jacques de Giunta, 1535)Google Scholar, originally published as Tractatus Maleficiorum in Mantua (1472) and Tractatus de Criminibus seu de Maleficiis in Paris (1476), rubr. “Etiam vestem coelestem,” nr. 13: “Et sic doctores non habent resepectum ad quantitatem, sed ad animum delinquentis, hoc est ad reiterationem delicti, quod gravius punitur propter ipsam reiterationem,” f. 77r.

⁵⁴ Farinacci, Prospero, Operum Criminalium Pars IV continens Eiusdem Tum Consilia, Tum Decisiones (Frankfurt am Main: Palthenius, 1602)Google Scholar, Lib. I, Cons. 20 n. 9, 115, and Cons. 88 n. 8, 524; and his Farinacci, Prospero, Praxis Et Theoricae Criminalis Libri Duo (Frankfurt am Main: Palthenius, 1606)Google Scholar, Lib. I, Titulus III, “De Delictis et Poenis,” Q. 23, nn. 8–11, 321.

⁵⁵ StAA, RS Ottobeuren Band 587-I, Heft 15 (1590–91). The section “Aûßgeben in gemein” documents missions to the village of Westerheim, to the town of Markt Oberdorf, and to Ottilienberg im Allgäu; RS Ottobeuren Band 4, Doc. 311, f. 1177r.

⁵⁶ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 37, “Wirts Zettel zû Remling. waß uf Valtin Hofman in der verhafft gangen ist” (July 23-Sept. 22, 1618) provides the best chronological overview of Hofmann's imprisonment. Hofmann's confession has not survived, but the account gives the date when he was first “examined.” The suggestion of a retraction comes from the record of a payment of 1 kr. 4 d. “to those who took Hofmann out of the tower, when he was confronted with the servant who was [later] released, and he, Hofmann, denied [gelaûgnet] his previous testimony.” The term “geleugnet” is somewhat ambiguous here and could mean that Hofmann either refuted the servant's testimony or withdrew his own testimony. Given the reference to “previous” testimony, and since the account in the immediately preceding entry clearly states that the servant was acquitted of all charges, retraction seems more likely.

⁵⁷ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 37, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Keller Adam Ott und Zentgraf Hans Wolf Gesell zu Remlingen (Aug. 20, 1618). StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 37, Schultheiss Valenthin Kötzner von Thüngersheim an den Zentgraf Hans Wolf Gesell zu Remlingen (Aug. 26, 1618); Bericht des Kellers Thobias Hoch zu Karlstadt an den Zentgraf Hans Wolf Gesell zu Remlingen (Aug. 30, 1618).

⁵⁸ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 37, Anzeige des Bastian Reuss, Zentknecht zu Remlingen (Aug. 28, 1618).

⁵⁹ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Gutliche und Peinliche Verhöre des Georg Trinckhlin (May 23–29, 1607), quotations on ff. 1v, 1r and 2v respectively.

⁶⁰ The details and costs of the follow-up investigation in Schorndorf are documented in StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Verzeichnis der Unkosten für die Hinrichtung des Georg Trinckhlin (May 18-June 10, 1607).

⁶¹ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, “Verhafften Georg Trenckhlennß von Karensperg Urgicht N. 1” (July 22, 1602), and Peinliches Verhör des Georg Trinckhlin (Aug. 11, 1602). Note the detail on f. 1v of the second document that after walking away from a bill of three batzen at the inn in the village of Plüderhausen—with a promise to return and pay—Trinckhlin was careful never to go back to Plüderhausen.

⁶² For biographical details on the executioner Gentner, see Wunder, Gerd, Die Bürger von Hall. Sozialgeschichte einer Reichsstadt, 1216–1802 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1980), 149–50Google Scholar.

⁶³ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Gutliche und Peinliche Verhöre des Georg Trinckhlin (May 23–29, 1607), esp. the marginal annotations on ff. 1r (1 annotation), 1v (3), 2r (1), 4v-5r (1), 7r (1), and 9r (1). The magisterial notes on the final corroboration effort are on f. 10v; Trinckhlin's plea is on f. 9v.

⁶⁴ Blumblacher, Commentarius, ad. Art. CLXII, Obs. 2, 359. Note that this section represents Blumblacher's commentary on the provisions of the Carolina specific to the punishment for a third theft, hence my bracketed insertions. For earlier views that stressed the threat posed to the social order by recidivist thieves, see Wesenbeck, Matthaeus, In Pandectas Iuris civilis et codicis Iustinianei libros commentarii olim Paratitla vociferati (Basel: Oporin, 1563)Google Scholar, ad Lib. XLVII, Tit. II [i.e., Dig. 47.2], “De Furtis,” Nr. 15, 334–5; also Berlich, Quinta pars Conclusionum practicabilium, Concl. XLIII, Nr. 91, 29.

⁶⁵ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Peinliche Anklage gegen Georg Trinckhlin (June 10, 1607), quotation on f. 1v. The reference to the “hangman's absolution” is found in StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Gutliche und Peinliche Verhöre des Georg Trinckhlin (May 23–29, 1607), f. 10v.

⁶⁶ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Gerichtlicher Prozess gegen Georg Trinckhlin (June 10, 1607). Trinckhlin's plea is on f. 1r.

⁶⁷ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, “Extract ußer Jerg Trinckhlins des gericht. Metzgers gesellen urgicht, uf Daniel Kaûtern zû Reichenbach aûßgesagt, unnd dem Unndervogt zû Göppingen ubersandt” (April 15, 1608).

⁶⁸ Note that there were scholarly reservations as well. Blumblacher, Commentarius, ad. Art. CLXII, Obs. 2, 358, grumbles that “there are some legal scholars who would argue for, and support, the view that this Imperial law [capitally punishing the third theft] is much too harsh and cannot be enforced in good conscience and in respect of justice, the principal foundation of which [argument] is that there is no proportion or equivalence between the life of the [convicted] person and the object that was stolen.”

⁶⁹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 35 (Sept. 15, 1618), “Copia eines underthenigen berichts an unsern g. Fr. und Hern. von Würtzbûrg und Bamberg weg. beeden verhafften zû Rembling. Caspar Kraûsen und Veltin Hofmans” (Sept. 15, 1618), f. 1v.

⁷⁰ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 100, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Johann Wolf Gesell, Zentgraf zu Remlingen (Nov. 9, 1619), and Nov. 26, 1619 for the official reaction; “Güdtliche Aûßage der Margaretha Hûderin zûe Heitsdadt” (Nov. 18, 1619), f. 1v, for the warning and advice to flee. Klaus Schmidt, whose case is discussed above, was warned by a blacksmith, his former master, that the court beadle had recently been looking for him. See StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 89, “Andere gütliche Aûßag Claûsen Schmidts von Hetstatt” (April 28, 1609), Item 21, f. 2r.

⁷¹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 96, “Verzeÿgnûs der aûßag halben der Frawen welche ich von Udingen nach Remblingen in die verhafftûng genûmen hab” (June 23, 1599), f. 1v.

⁷² StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 28, Verfahren gegen die Gemeinde Kembach wegen Nichtanzeige eines durch den Wirt Endres begangenen Tötungsdelikts (1605–1609).

⁷³ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 115, Bericht des Amtmanns Joachim Lotter zu Remlingen an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (Oct. 10, 1615), ff. 2r-3r. Balthasar Seubot's own testimony is on ff. 1r-v.

⁷⁴ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an Amtmann Joachin Lotter und Zentgraf Hans Wolf Gesell zu Remlingen (Oct. 17, 1615) for the chancery's impatience; Urteil (Konzept) des Zentgerichts zu Remlingen (Oct. 24, 1615) for the jurors' reaction. In a letter dated Oct. 27, 1615, the chancery commuted Seubot's sentence from burning at the stake to beheading.

⁷⁵ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 119, Bericht (Konzept) des Zentgrafs Caspar Voit zu Remlingen an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (Nov. 27, 1624); “Birckenfelter Kûntschafft wegen Georg Scheÿdten haûsfraw daselbsten” (Nov./Dec. 1624) specifies that Scheid showed the cheese to two neighbors and then to the village court, whereupon the mayor and court notified the Remlingen criminal court; see Gutliche und Peinliche Aussage der Barbara Scheid zu Birkenfeld (Dec. 9, 1624) for Scheid's advice to his wife and stepson.

⁷⁶ Daniel's father Carius Wolffram (“Carges Wolffrûmb” in the Remlingen court records) was assessed a payment of 1.21 gulden in a 1605 tax register, which ranks him ahead of 61 percent of the 673 tax payers in the city of Fulda. Daniel's victim Gabriel Guttberlet (“Gabriel Gûtbeerlein”) paid a tax of 1.81 gulden, ranking him ahead of 69.5 percent of the other payers. Heiler, Thomas, ed., Das Türkensteuerregister der Fürstabtei Fulda von 1605. Veröffentlichungen des Fuldaer Geschichtsvereins 64 (2004): esp. 103 and 106Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 7, Zentgraf Michael Daub an Amtmann [Elias Meder zu Neubrunn?] [Konzept] (ca. Sept. 6, 1595); “Andreas Ulenß zûe Neünbrun urpheten” (Sept. 29, 1595).

⁷⁸ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 7, Amtmann Elias Meder zu Neubrunn an Zentgraf Michael Daub zu Remlingen (Nov. 4, 1595), f. 1r. Meder revealingly denied that he had made this specific request, but he also asked the Zentgraf to return to him “carefully sealed and guarded” the “documents” that he had provided to the court.

⁷⁹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 7, Amtmann Elias Meder zu Neubrunn an Zentgraf Michael Daub zu Remlingen (Feb. 13, 1596), f. 1r; see also Meder's letter of March 31, 1596. Emphasis not in original. The “testimony” enclosed with Meder's letters has not been preserved; it is also unclear what action, if any, the Remlingen court eventually took against Uhl.

⁸⁰ The complexities of peasant posture toward beggars are thoughtfully discussed in Schindler, “Die Entstehung der Unbarmherzigkeit.” Note the prosecution (1584–1585) of Jerg Dreyere and Mattheis Stechelin in the market town of Ottobeuren, because “they did not wish to take a poor woman out of the town, as commanded by the Amtmann”—though note also the 1604–1605 prosecution of Martin Huober of Moosbach, who, “when he was supposed to drive three crippled persons to Ottobeuren, out of wickedness and without compassion dumped them in a field.” See StAA, RS Ottobeuren B 587-I, Heft 13 and B 587-II, Heft 25.

⁸¹ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8342, “Gûetliche Aûßag oder Becantnûs deß zû Gröning. in verhafft ligenten aûßtreters Hansen Unfriden von Haffenthaler Höfflin” (Nov. 2, 1613), quotation on f. 3v.

⁸² StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8342, Aussage des Hans Unfrid vom Hafentaler Hof genannt Apfelhans (Nov. 8–11, 1613) for Hans's fuller confession; “Hanß Unfriden zûm Hafenthal haûßfr. Becantnûs zûe Gröning. in der gefengnûs” (Nov. 12, 1613) for Anna's perspective; quotation on f. 3r.

⁸³ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8342, Bürgermeister und Rat der Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd an Erbschenk Albrecht zu Limpurg-Gaildorf (June 8, 1615) for Hans's arrest in Schwäbisch Gmünd and the city council's request for any earlier arrest records and “Extract deß Nêwlicher Zeit zûe Schwebischen Gemünde hingerichteten Apfelhansen urgicht” (June 1615) for Gaildorf's reply and documentation of Hans's execution.

⁸⁴ For a helpful historical overview, see Stump, Brigitte, “Adult Time for Adult Crime”—Jugendliche zwischen Jugend- und Erwachsenenstrafrecht. Eine rechtshistorische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zur Sanktionierung junger Straftäter (Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg, 2003), esp. 15–33Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Miseratio aetatis ad mediocrem poenam iudicem produxerit (Dig. 4.4.37).

⁸⁶ “Aut verò est maior 14 annis, sed minor 25 et tunc non excusatur: debet tamen propter aetatis imbecillitatem mitius puniri arbitrio iudicis.” Claro, Sententiarum receptarum liber, § Fin. Lib. V, Q. LX, Nr. 3, 296–7. Clarus's chosen term of “imbecilitas aetatis” has an interesting history. Erasmus (leaning on Cicero's letter to Brutus) uses it to mean one of the sorts of human weakness that derives from original sin; in Grotius and above all in Pufendorf, “imbecilitas” is used to denote a form of weakness that is the basis for an individual's need for the society of other human beings.

⁸⁷ Stintzing, Roderich, Geschichte der Deutschen Rechtswissenschaft, vol. I (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1880)Google Scholar, 389 note 1.

⁸⁸ This is the Roman law maxim malitia supplet aetatem (Cod. 2.42.3), or “malice supplies the age.” Fachinei, Andrea [Andreas Fachinaeus], Controversiarum iuris libri decem (Cologne: Johannes Gymnicus, 1604)Google Scholar, Lib. I, Cap. 71, 83. An earlier edition entitled Controversiarium iuris libri novem was published in three parts in 1595–57; Lib. I, Cap. 71 is in Pars I (Ingolstadt: David Santorius, 1595), 126–27Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Farinacci, Prospero, Praxis, Et Theorica Criminalis Amplissima: Pars Tertia (Frankfurt am Main: Palthenius, 1611)Google Scholar, Lib. III, Tit. X, “De Poenis Temperandis,” Q. 92, Nr. 41, 166–67; Berlich, Quinta pars Conclusionum practicabilium, Concl. XLIV, nn. 37–39, 34; Blumblacher, Commentarius, ad. Art. CLXIV, 373. Chancellor Müller stressed the relative youth of Jacob Flexer in his discussion of the grounds for leniency in punishing him; StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8175, Ludwig Müller, Kanzler der Herrschaft Öttingen an Schenck Albrecht zu Limpurg-Gaildorf (May 3, 1614). See also the pardon of the youthful offender Blesi Schütz in StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 30, “Urgicht Bläsÿ Schitz zûe Attenhaûß” (Nov. 6, 1561), ff. 405r-v.

⁹⁰ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 21, “Urphede Daniel Wolffrûmbs von Fûlda bürtig” (June 20, 1608) and Nr. 37, “Copia eines Uprhedes Valtin Hofmans” (Oct. 2, 1618).

⁹¹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 120, Gutliche Aussage des Hans Bopp von Waldbrunn (April 30, 1625).

⁹² StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 120, Bericht des Zentgrafs Christoph Voit an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (May 2, 1625) for an account of the arrest; “Peinlicher Aûßage Hanß Boppen von Walbrunn sambt einem Bericht nach Wirtzbûrgk” (May 3, 1625) for Bopp's subsequent confession. StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 120, “Verfastes Urtheil Hanß Boppen von Walbrûn betreffent sambt beÿnebens ein Und.theniger bericht” (May 22, 1625).

⁹³ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 120, “Genadt des Armen Sünders Hanß Boppen” (ca. May 27, 1625) [date estimated on the basis of the order of the Würzburg chancery to the Remlingen Zentgraf that Bopp be pardoned, released, and banished (May 27, 1625)].

⁹⁴ Note that the term “psychology” itself seems to have been coined at precisely this time by the early modern German philosopher Rudolf Göckel, or Rudoph Goclenius (1547–1628). His Psychologia hoc est, de hominis perfectione, animo, et in primis ortu huius (Marburg: Egenolph, 1590)Google Scholar used the term to mean a science of the soul united with the body. For a helpful overview of the early modern origins of psychology as a discipline, see Vidal, Fernando, Les sciences de l'âme: XVIe-XVIIIe siècle (Paris: H. Champion, 2006)Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 119, Gutliche und Peinliche Aussage der Barbara Scheid zu Birkenfeld (Dec. 9, 1624), f. 1v.

⁹⁶ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 119, “Undertheniger berichtt an Ihr Fürstl. gn. Jörg Schedt weib zû Birckveld bet” (Nov 27, 1624). Note that in keeping with §130 of the Imperial Criminal Code, the court had initially sentenced Anna to death by drowning (cf. undated Urteil ca. Dec. 14, 1624); this sentence seems to have been moderated by the episcopal chancery in Würzburg.

⁹⁷ See StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 119, Fürstbischof von Würzburg an den Zentgraf Caspar Voit zu Remlingen (Dec. 19, 1624) for the sentence; Johann, Georg, Margaretha, und Barbara die Weidner von Birkenfeld an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (Jan. 8, 1625) for the children's petition and Fürstbischof von Würzburg an den Zentgraf Caspar Voit zu Remlingen (Jan. 13, 1625) for the reprimand. In a draft response composed sometime between January 13 and 29, 1625, Voit protested that he had been trying to broker a settlement between Georg Scheid and his wife, but that his efforts “had not yet borne fruit.”

⁹⁸ §130 of the Imperial Criminal Code, which is entitled “On the punishment of those who secretly give poison or venom [to others],” prescribed death for those who caused death or injury by poison, but did not per se ordain a punishment for attempted poisoning.

⁹⁹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 118, “Gûtliche Aûssage Andreßen Volckhen scheffern zû Heÿdenfeld, und seine haûsfrawenn Anna” (Dec. 8, 1624); quotations on ff. 2r-v.

¹⁰⁰ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 118, “Endturtheill deß Fûrst. Wûrtzbûrgisch. Centhgerichts so zû Remblingen wider Annam Völckhin von Haidenfeldt” (Dec. 19, 1624).

¹⁰¹ For another instance of this psychologizing habit, see the questions aimed at uncovering the inner mental state of the Eschach miller Thoma Röser, arrested for the physical abuse of his wife, in StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 6275, “Interrogatoria worauf Thoma Rößer Müller . . . zu Eschach güetlich zûbesprochen” (ca. Jan. 12, 1607).

¹⁰² von Frundeck, Joachim Münsinger, Responsorum Iuris sive Consiliorum Decades X (Basel: Hieronymus Gemusa, 1596)Google Scholar, Decad. I, Resp. VII, Nr. 23, 54 [60 of the 1576 Basel edition published by Eusebius and Nicolaus Bischoff].

¹⁰³ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 6141, “Freÿ aigne unnd güetliche Bekantnûs Caspar Schnabels von Honcling, des verhafften giffte geben” (Oct. 8–20, 1588); Dr. Nicolaus Winkler Stadtartzt zu Schwäbisch Hall an Caspar Gärtner, Limpurgischen Vogt zu Gaildorf (Oct. 13, 1588). White arsenic (commonly known as “mispickel”) was often called “hutsmoke” because it was produced by roasting the mineral arsenopyrite (FeAsS), which is about 43 percent arsenic by mass, and then recovering the precipitate from the inside of the chimney. The other main arsenic ore is the yellow sulfide of arsenic As₂S₃, commonly known as “orpiment.”

¹⁰⁴ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 6141, “Peinliche gerichtliche handlûng wider Caspar Schnabel von Honcling” (Oct. 26, 1588).

¹⁰⁵ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 6141,“Kûrtzer bedencken was für ein straff dem verhaften Caspar Schnabel von Honkling für ein straff [sic] zuerkennê und uffzûlegen mit angeheften urthel” (Oct. 26, 1588).

¹⁰⁶ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 6141,“Sûmmarische Verzaichnûs des uncosten, so uf den verhafften gifftgeber Caspar Schnabeln zû Honcling, welcher den 26 Octobris Ao 88 mit dem schwert alhie gericht worden gangen.”

¹⁰⁷ The impersonal language of this passage—“hab sich doch ain wid.will und. ettlichen . . . zûegetragen, gegen ainand.n aûff gewischt”—is very striking. StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, Bericht des Untervogts [Hans Dürr] (Nov. 17, 1553), f. 267r.

¹⁰⁸ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8158, Supplication der Anna Hoffmann zu Unterrot an Schenck Albrecht zu Limpurg-Gaildorf (July 11, 1618), ff. 1r, 2r.

¹⁰⁹ General-Landesarchiv Karlsruhe (hereafter GLAK), Teilbestand 69 von Helmstatt, A 1842, Zeugenaussagen (Sept. 6, 1582), passim, esp. witnesses #12 and #13 on ff. 5v-6r.

¹¹⁰ GLAK, Teilbestand 69 von Helmstatt, A 1842, Relatio in der Sachen Hans Fink gegen Gilg Eisenhauer (1583–90), ff. 1r-v (May 14, 1583), 3r-4r (Aug. 28, 1583), and 4v (Sept. 16, 1583). This manuscript, prepared as part of Fink's appeal to the Bischofsheim Hofgericht, includes copies of the proceedings before the Berwangen village court.

¹¹¹ GLAK, Teilbestand 69 von Helmstatt, A 1842, Appelationsklage des Hans Fink zu Bischofsheim (Jan. 18, 1584), f. 3r.

¹¹² A similarly intense battle in a village court over the words spoken by two adversaries, and whether those words constituted proof of an animus iniuriandi, is documented in AAO, Akten (Herrschaftsarchiv) 6/7, especially “Jacob Reûboldts von Sonthaim Replick, Probation und dedûction geschrifft: Aûch gegenclag” (1582), ff. 2r-v and “Duplicae, cum annexis Exceptionibus in causa Con, et Reconventionis respective Anna Wagnerin, zû Sondthaim” (1582), ff. 2v-3r.

¹¹³ Carpzov, Benedict, Practica Nova Imperialis Saxonica Rerum Criminalium (Wittenberg: Mevius, 1646 [originally published in 1635])Google Scholar, Pars III, Quaestio CXVI, “De transmissione Actorum ad Collegium Jurisperitorum, et quomodo procedendum sit crimine plenè non probato,” Nr. 12 and 18, 144–45.

¹¹⁴ Among many others, see von Bar, Ludwig, Handbuch des deutschen Strafrechts. Band I: Geschichte des Deutschen Strafrechts und der Strafrechtstheorien (Berlin: Weidmann, 1882)Google Scholar, 144 note 587, a work that appeared in English translation in 1916 as part of the AALS's Continental Legal History Series; Lea, Henry Charles, Materials toward a History of Witchcraft, ed. Howland, Arthur C., 3 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1939)Google Scholar. The Carpzov passage appears as a mix of the original Latin, an English translation, and an English abstract in vol. II, 822. See also Levack, Brian P., “The Decline and End of Witchcraft Persecutions,” in Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: vol. 5: The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, ed. Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke, Levack, Brian, and Porter, Roy (London: Athlone Press, 1999), 1–93Google Scholar, citation on 14.

¹¹⁵ For Carpzov's work at the tribunal, see Lück, Heiner, “Benedict Carpzov (1595–1666) und der Leipziger Schöffenstuhl,” in Benedict Carpzov. Neue Perspektiven zu einem umstrittenen sächsischen Juristen, ed. Jerouschek, Günter, Schild, Wolfgang, and Gropp, Walter (Tübingen: Edition Diskord, 2000), 55–72Google Scholar; the figure of 2,300 cases a year is on 66.

¹¹⁶ “Contrà plerique etiam judices sunt nimis gratiosi, et licentiosiores, qui non singula ad filum redigunt, aut severitate potius et vi quàm mansuetudine et humanitate conficere solent.” See Carpzov, Practica Nova Imperialis Saxonica Rerum Criminalium, Pars III, Q. CXVI, Nr. 13, 145–6. I would render this quote as “On the other hand, there are also many excessively lenient and loose judges who tend neither to strike a just mean, nor to conclude in severity in force, but rather [to conclude] in gentleness and kindness.” The unusual idiomatic phrase “singula ad filum redigere” makes it difficult to translate the passage in a straightforward manner. Carpzov seems to have lifted the phrase from a 1621 Tübingen dissertation entitled Dissertatio de poenis variorum delictorum, but he was also showing off his familiarity with the Greco-Roman classics, since part of the passage clearly depends on one of the sixteenth-century Latin translations of Plutarch, more specifically the Life of Phocion II, 8. I am indebted to Cheryl Walker, Jim Whitman, and Ken Pennington for their advice on this passage.

¹¹⁷ For example the later marginal annotation made to StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 25, Urgicht von Jos Neuß (Aug. 13, 1554), f. 329r: “No[ta]: the village sheriff made inquiries about the file marked with the red wax seal, but was unable to learn anything. Dated August 20, Ano [15]54.” Thus, in the 1588 trial of Caspar Schnabel of Honkling for the attempted poisoning of his wife (cf. 29–30), the legal consultant engaged by the Gaildorf authorities warned them that Schnabel “should under no circumstances be tortured, because the testimony and confession that he voluntarily made is much stronger and more reliable than that which might emerge from torture or harsh questioning.” See StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 6141, Dr. Georg Hermann Syndikus der Stadt Schwäbisch Hall an Caspar Gärtner, Limpurgischen Vogt zu Gaildorf (Oct. 18, 1588).

¹¹⁸ See, for example, the testimony of the Gemmingen town barber-surgeon Hans Bader, called to testify before the village court of Berwangen in a personal injury lawsuit between Hans Stösser and Endris Rampacher: “To this the witness testified that he was not present when the plaintiff was injured. It is, to be sure, a considerable wound, but whether it was [caused by] a scythe-blow [as the plaintiff has alleged] or a fall [as the defendant has countered], that he cannot tell. He did his best with the treatment [of the injury] as befits a doctor. Testimony thus concluded.” See GLAK, Teilbestand 69 von Helmstatt, A 1512, “Acta Erster Instantz Endris Rampach.s zû Geming. g. Hanns Stoßer daselbst (Dec. 14, 1568-Jan. 13, 1569),” f. 4r. The court eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiff; the defendant promptly appealed to the Hofgericht in Bischofsheim.

¹¹⁹ StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 28, Bericht von dem Zentgraf Johann Müller und dem Zentschreiber Georg Herman zu Remlingen an den Fürstbischof von Würzburg (Jan. 15, 1605), f. 1v.

¹²⁰ See the insightful observations in Roper, Lyndal, Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), 57–61Google Scholar; the quotation is on 61.

¹²¹ StAL, Bestand 114, Bü 6275, Supplication des Thoma Röser (1609). Röser, a miller, was banished from the village in 1607 for the brutal physical abuse of his wife. By the time of his petition for clemency (which was refused), he had already served in three different villages. See also the discussion in the abbot's council at Ottobeuren of the heartrending case of a peasant banished “more than ten years ago” from the village of Hawangen: his wife was eventually forced to abandon their home and join him on the road where their three children were born. By the time of the discussion, the parents had died and the children were begging in the nearby village of Buxheim, with the youngest now crippled and unable to walk. See StAA, RS Ottobeuren B 598, Ratsprotokolle 1619–29, ff. 301v-303r (Dec. 19, 1628).

¹²² Peasant appeals against sentences of banishment may be found in Österreiches Staatsarchiv Wien, Abteilung Haus- Hof und Staatsarchiv, Bestand Reichshofrat/Gratialia et Feudalia, for example, in the subsection Geleitbriefe, files 3–94 (1548–1550), 1–38 (1621), 1–79 (1628), 2–58 (1627), 5–45 (1634), 5–47 (1622), and 5–62 (1623), and in the subsection Pardon und Aussöhnung, file 1–50 (1656). For additonal cases, see the Bestand Reichshofrat/Judicialia miscellanea, files 4–5-38 (1568) and 33–63 (1573).

¹²³ Klaus Schmidt of Hettstadt was repeatedly arrested and ultimately banished from his village in 1609 for insults against and thefts from his neighbors. He nevertheless returned to his village, and, according to witnesses, declared that “if he was not given transcripts [of the necessary documents], he would not spare siblings, brothers, relatives, wives, or children, and would undertake a deed that children of children would rue, sing, and tell of, and he struck the table [saying], may the Devil take his soul if he did not do this, he must be given a transcript, and people must yield to his demands.” Upon subsequent rearrest and interrogation, Schmidt explained that “he could not remain away [from the village] unless he had his wife and children and his travel documents with him,” as it was his plan to settle on the lands of the Teutonic Order in Stuppach. See StAWe, G-Rep. 58, Nr. 89, “Verzaichnûs etlicher Zeûgen zû Hetstatt aûßag, uber Claûsen Schmiden daselbsten” (ca. July 13–14, 1609), f. 1v and “Gütliche Aûßag Claûsen Schmiden von Hetstatt” (July 15, 1609), ff. 1r, 2r.

¹²⁴ StAWe, G-Rep 58, Nr. 21, “Güttliche Aûßag Daniel Wolffrûmbs von Fûlda” (June 9, 1608), ff. 1v-2r. Note that when threatened with torture during a second interrogation five days later, Wolfrum stuck by his initial confession and insisted that he had committed no other offenses.

¹²⁵ StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8176, “Urgicht Hanß Beckhen von Ober Fischach sonst Klotz Hanß genant” (Feb. 8–9, 1593). Beck was hanged.

¹²⁶ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 30, Geständnisse der zu Obergünzburg hingerichteten Balthas Holzmüller, Bartlin Wagner, und Valentin Laur (June 22-July 7, 1561), ff. 385r-v, 386v, 394r-v; StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8342, Aussage des Hans Unfrid vom Hafenthaler Hof genannt Apfelhans (Nov. 8–11, 1613), ff. 2v, 4r, 5r. StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 25, Urgicht von Jos Neuß (July 31, 1554), f. 328r. This agreement was allegedly struck between two men in the tavern of Ittelspurg. See StAL, Bestand B 114, Bü 8167, Gutliche und Peinliche Verhöre des Georg Trinckhlin (May 23–29, 1607), f. 5r; Bü 8176, “Extract der alhie zû Hochennstatt Jûstificierten Bûrckhartten Zieglers . . . gûett- und peinlich bekhannte aûßagûng” (May 16–18, 1593), ff. 2r-v. See also Bü 8342, “Gûetliche Aûßag . . . deß . . . Hansen Unfriden vom Haffenthaler Höfflin” (Nov. 2, 1613), f. 4r, on a thief who reported that he had set down his harquebus to go and fetch firewood, and that when he returned to the camp, his companion had vanished along with the weapon.

¹²⁷ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 30, Geständnisse der zu Obergünzburg hingerichteten Balthas Holzmüller, Bartlin Wagner, und Valentin Laur (June 22-July 7, 1561), ff. 389r-390v.

¹²⁸ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, Simprecht von Pienzenau an den Fürstabt Wolfgang von Kempten (Oct. 20, 1553), f. 270r. Von Pienzenau was speaking here as an advocate, as one of his subjects had taken the life of a Kempten subject. That there were established customary procedures at Kempten for mediating among kindred after a killing is documented in Landgericht Akten 30, Sühnevertrag wegen des Totschlags an Hans Steudlin zu Sulzberg (Jan. 15, 1561), ff. 406r-7v. The same pattern was documented at Ottobeuren in the Obervogt's accounts; see StAA, RS Ottobeuren Band 587-I, Heft 3 (1566–67): Hans Miller and Caspar Miller of Grönenbach killed Caspar Weiss of Grönenbach in the village of Egg “and reached a settlement for 55 gulden”; Heft 8 (1577–78): Jerg Eggler of Ungerhausen killed Marte Lore of Ungerhausen in the village of Hawangen; Eggler “has come to a settlement with the [dead man's] relatives, [and] gives them 23 gulden”; also Heft 15 (1590–1591): after a murder committed in the village of Günz by two men from Arlesried and Mussenhausen, the perpetrators agree to pay £226 10 Schillinge.

¹²⁹ Justus Oldekop, Observationes Criminales Practicae, Tit. IV, Obs. 1, Nr. 2 (Frankfurt am Main: Christophorus Zeitler, 1664), 181. “Et facilius est reum vel condemnare ad mortem, vel absolvere, quam in hoc puncto secundum jura et aequitatem bene arbitrari.” The same passage can be found verbatim in Oldekop, Justus, Cautelae criminales (Hildesheim: Casten, 1639)Google Scholar, Tit. IV, Cautela I, Nr. 1, 357.

¹³⁰ Baker, J. H., “Criminal Courts and Procedure at Common Law 1500–1800,” and J. M. Beattie, “Crime and the Courts in Surrey 1736–1753,” in Crime in England, 1550–1800, ed. Cockburn, J. S. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 15–48Google Scholar, 155–86.

¹³¹ Gatrell, V. A. C., The Hanging Tree: Execution and the English People, 1770–1868 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 6–7Google Scholar. By the early eighteenth century, German jurists were beginning to comment on the absence of torture in England and sometimes quoted Oldekop in defense of their own practices. See, for example, the Würzburg jurist Kirchgeßner's, Johann ValentinTribunal Nemesis Juste Judicantis oder Richter-Stuhl der recht richtenden Gerechtigkeit (Nuremberg: Wolfgang Michahelles und Johann Adolph, 1706)Google Scholar, Teil IV, Capitel VII, “Von Peinlichen Fragen,” Nr. 3, 147. Bethencourt, Francisco, The Inquisition: A Global History, 1478–1834, trans. Birrell, Jean, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar, Table 8.4, 336, estimates a total of 1,604 executions in Castile and Aragon (including Sicily, Sardinia, and Spanish America) between 1540 and 1700. Bethencourt estimates a total of 16,000 executions for the Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian Inquisitions combined over the entire period 1481–1834 (p. 444).

¹³² StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “Bekhanntnûs an der Tortur Hannsen Honolds genannt Kletterlin” (Sept. 15, 1553), ff. 279r-282v.

¹³³ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, Kanzler Matthias Rasch an Fürstabt Wolfgang von Kempten [Konzept] (Sept. 17, 1553), ff. 302r-3v. That Honoldt's fate was already sealed is indicated by the suggestion that steps be taken against Simon “before the poor man [i.e., Honoldt] is executed.” The Prince-Abbot was away in Innsbruck, having been appointed Statthalter of Tirol and Vorderösterreich by the Emperor in 1551.

¹³⁴ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “Simon Jûdens von Haldenwang freÿwillige Bekhantnûs was Ime Kleterlin zekhaûffen geben” (Nov. 24, 1553), ff. 277r-8v.

¹³⁵ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “Verzaichniß, welchermaß. Symon Jud zu Haldenwang auff Hansen Honolds urgicht geantwort und wie sey sich derhalb. mitt ainandern vergleich” (Nov. 27, 1553), ff. 298r-9v.

¹³⁶ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “Innhalt der Urthail uber Hansen Honoldt genant Klettlerlen von Altußried” (Dec. 15, 1553), ff. 276r-v.

¹³⁷ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, Kanzler Matthias Rasch an Fürstabt Wolfgang von Kempten [Konzept] (Dec. 4, 1553), ff. 296r-7v.

¹³⁸ The best account of Rasch's life and career is Beat Rudolf Jenny, “Dr. jur. Matthias Rast (Rasch) aus Isny, Dozent und Universitätsnotar in Freiburg, murbachischer, fürstenbergischer und kemptischer Kanzler, mit einem Beitrag über das Freiburger Testament des Erasmus von 1533,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 118, Neue Folge 79 (1970): 175–238. Rast (ca. 1502-Jan. 3, 1567) served as chancellor of the Abbey of Murbach (1534–1538) and then of the principality of Fürstenberg (1539–1548) before entering the service of the Prince-Abbey of Kempten. Judging from the dates of the documents that he sealed, Dr. Matthias Rasch served as Kanzler of the Fürststift Kempten at least from March 23, 1551 to June 21, 1566; StAA, FürstStKe, Lehenhof U 52, 59, 70, 88, 151, 159, 179, 213, 355.

¹³⁹ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “Verzaichnûß was in des Reichs abschid vô. wegenn der Jûd.n untzimblich.n contract, aûch Kaûffûng der gestollen gûtter befûnd.n wûrdett” (1553), ff. 283r-v. StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “No. de rebus furtivis emptis” [Konzept], ff. 291r-v. This document is dated Oct. 14, 1553, indicating that it was composed well in advance of Simon's actual interrogation. It is closely related to another document, which also survives only in draft, and is entitled “Collecta ex Jûris sumpto doctrinis sup. qûestionem Si quis rem fûrtivam a fure emerit an fure teneatur,” ff. 289r-90v. Note that because Rasch gave both rubric and folio numbers in his citation from Angelus de Aretio, it is possible to determine that he must have used the 1535 Lyon edition of Angelus de Aretio and Agostino da Rimini, Angelus Aretinus super Maleficiis . . . cum additionibus . . . de Augustinus Ariminensis in preparing these notes.

¹⁴⁰ An Urfehde was originally an oath sworn by a criminal upon release from detention in which he or she accepted the justice of the arrest or imprisonment, and foreswore vengeance against those responsible for it. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Urfehde lost its reintegrative function and instead became an oath—almost always sworn as a preamble to banishment—whereby the released criminal acknowledged that he or she had merited a harsher punishment and thanked the authorities for their mercy. On this transformation, see Blauert, Andreas, Das Urfehdewesen im deutschen Südwesten im Frühmittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Bibliotheca Academica, 2000)Google Scholar; and Jerouschek, Günter und Blauert, Andreas, “Zwischen Einigungsschwur und Unterwerfungseid. Zur obrigkeitlichen Usurpation des Urfehdewesens,” in Herrschaftliches Strafen seit dem Hochmittelalter. Formen und Entwicklungsstufen, ed. Schlosser, Hans, Sprandel, Rolf, and Willoweit, Dietmar (Cologne: Böhlau, 2002), 227–46Google Scholar. Also see StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 24, “Vermerckht Etwelcher Artickel son [sic] in des Jûd. urfecht gesetzt werden möcht” (1553), ff. 284r-5v.

¹⁴¹ StAA, FürstStKe, Landgericht Akten 25, “Joß Nêwßen Urgicht” (July 31, 1554; addendum Aug. 27), ff. 325r-8v. Not all of Neuss's thefts are datable, but in six of the ten thefts that can be placed between April and July 1554, the proceeds were sold to Simon. There is a second Urgicht in the file on ff. 329r-330v (Aug. 13, 1554).