Laws of 1351 and ius Avictas in the Hungarian kingdom
His laws issued in 1351 are very important. They were in force for 500 years. Its most important
decisions:
1. Collecting your ninth tax(nonae in Latin or kilenced in Hungarian)
. Every noble is obliged to collect the ninth tithe from his serfs. [The ninth was abolished by the XII.
Article in 1836. of the Hungarian Diet - Estate Assembly].
2. The law of Avictatis. A noble cannot sell or transfer his property to anyone. It can only be inherited
by his direct descendants. If the family dies out, the estate reverts to the king.
3. The Serf Act. No matter who the serf belongs to, he cannot be forcibly removed[abducted] from his
place without the permission of his lord.
4. Law of the rights of the nobility . They were then free to judge their estates. They had the right to sit
as a judge, i.e. a lord's court. In exceptional cases, they could even bring death sentences(ius gladii or
pallosjog).
King Louis he strengthened and copied the Golden Bull(Bula Aurea 1222) for the country, except for its
only article, that is, the one according to which a noble who died without a direct heir could freely
dispose of his estates. He deleted this article, ordering that in this case the tributary relatives are
entitled to the inheritance, thereby re-founding the ancestry(aviticitas, ius aviticum). At the same time,
i.e. in the 1351 general assembly, he approved twenty-five more articles of law, the most important of
which was the settlement and simplification of the complicated tax case. According to the law of King
Louis, three garas, fourteen of which went to a quarter mark, were to be paid for each serf's port and no
more. No one had to pay the so-called excess denarii and tax bills; it was also not allowed to take food
from the serfs. Also, the estates of the village elders and lord's servants became tax-free. King Louis
greatly eased the fate of taxpayers when he regulated the tax matter in this way and abolished all
abuses and additional taxes. But he did not agree here, but abolished the all-around unjust and
burdensome dry duty for the benefit of nobles and non-nobles, only allowing the collection of bridge
and road tolls. He also abolished the very inappropriate right exercised by some landowners, according
to which passengers had to take a specific, albeit devious, route in order not to be taken advantage of by
the owner of the customs. From now on, everyone could walk the way they wanted. It was also
fashionable in Hungary that if a nobleman took his wife home, he had to pay one mark of silver at each
customs point on the honeymoon. King Louis put an end to this abuse as well.
1
There were certainly such great reliefs and benefits that were brought and still to be brought, that King
Louis did not find it unfair to bring in the nineties, which can rightly be considered a war tax. In regard
to this, his decree reads as follows: From all our serfs, sowers and vinedressers, whether they are
residents of free or rent-paying localities, with the exception of the walled cities, we and the queen
collect a ninth(tax), and we leave it to the lords and nobles to do the same; the high priests and the
ecclesiastical persons who have serfs, after they have collected the tithe, should also collect the ninth,
so that by this they can serve us more faithfully and thus increase our honor. This is explained by
reason, but even more so from the letter of King Louis to the County of Győr, that the ninth was a war
tax, which the serfs exempted from military service had to pay to the conscripted and possessive
nobility, in order to at least cover their expenses in this way. Where serfdom was older, and little by
little they bought what they could anyway, King Louis' decree was not welcomed. Perhaps they lived
with the suspicion that the certain land rent would be lost due to the uncertain, because of the ninth
taxes depending on the harvest, which actually happened, and they hoped that the king would change
this law over time. But Lajos strongly urged its implementation. Whoever - so to speak - fails to collect
the ninth for his own benefit, we will take it(ninth tax) for our benefit from such a lawbreaker. This
strictness was not harshness, but it was necessary to prevent the confusion that would have arisen if the
free-moving serfs had flocked to the estates of the lords who had neglected their property and had left
the old, legally established farmers and landowners. Because King Louis loved the benefits of not only
the lords, but also the poor, as even Antonio Bonfin(Matthias Corvin's chronicle writer 130 years later)
knew, probably from the court of King Matthias. He forbade it by law, even though it had already been
customary under his father, that someone other than the lord of the land could rule over a serf. He also
stated that no one should dare to hinder his serf's freedom of movement due to old offenses. And he
interjected this place, as if he was ashamed of the mullet: And for the transgression of the father, the
son should not be condemned either in person or in his property.
In the same year 1351, the official money tax exemption of the nobility was established. "At the request
of the nobles, we also contribute - so to speak - so that all true nobles enjoy the same freedom within
the borders of our country." This discount benefited the Slavonians, who, on top of the chamber's
profit, owed the nyest tax and other things under the name of the ban's lodging rights (zolazina). But as
generous as he was in the direction of the country-defending nobility, he was so generous in handing
out noble privileges, which is why he was loved by so many, the chronicler says.4
Another law serves the interests of commoners. The principle of noble freedom: the nobles living in the
country have the same rights. Its consequence: in the 14th century, the Hungarian nobility becomes
unified = they become barons, the small and middle nobility stratum continues to grow stronger, and
the organization of orders also advances. Uniform serfdom is formed: by the 13th year, their rights are
unified, and in 1351, their obligations will also be the same. In the 14th century, the orderly
organization of the urban citizenry also begins, the strongest cities unite.
2
Aviticitas, ius aviticum
On December 11, 1351, King Louis I (the Great) of Buda announced the law of Avictas (Ius Avictas)
The law of ius Avictas was not a new concept in the Hungarian legal system; its roots go back to the
period after the conquest. It was then that the family estates were formed, which were based on
customary law. King Louis the Great signed this institution into law, thereby confirming Andreas II.'s
bulla Aurea(Golden Bull). However, he made an important exception: he abolished Article 4 of the bull,
which allowed the nobles to freely dispose of their estates.
The essence of the Law of Antiquity is that it limited the right of the nobles to dispose of their ancestral
property within strict limits. Louis the Great declared that the nobles had no right to freely dispose of
their ancestral estates, neither while they were alive nor in the event of their death. This ensured that
the ancestral wealth remained within the clan and was inherited by the nearest brothers.
The concept of ancestral wealth included those assets (both movable and immovable) that were passed
from the ancestor to the descendant by legal inheritance. The concept of seniority did not apply to
individual parts of property, but to the entire mass of property. The ancestral property could only be
alienated under a special title (e.g. release from war), however, the seller was also obliged to offer it for
purchase to the brothers of the class in the order of inheritance. Fratres (fratres) in Hungarian law
meant not only brothers, but also usually side relatives, brothers. Among these, class brothers are those
who are connected not only by blood (communio sanguinis), but also by community of property
(communio juris). While the former meant descent from a common ancestor, the latter meant that
their ancestors once jointly owned the property to be inherited, and they made a class of it. Class
brothers (fratres condivisionales) are therefore members of the genus from the common ancestor from
whom the ancestral property was originally transferred to his heirs according to the order of legal
inheritance.
In the case of the alienation of the ancestral property, it was therefore necessary to notify the class
brothers of the intention to sell. Due to the failure to notify, the brother who forgot to notify could
initiate a lawsuit, and in the event of his death, his heirs could also initiate the lawsuit. There have been
a number of such recovery suits based on ius aviticitas, ius aviticum.
And they were called to inherit: first of all the descendants, and in the case of legal equality (aequalitas
juris) regardless of gender, in the case of legal inequality or in the case of the so-called sons' property,
3
only the male descendants. In the absence of such, the rule was that the property went back to where it
came from, i.e. to the ascendants (ascendentes) and their descendants in common law, i.e. the side
relatives of the testator (collaterales). Namely: the property after the father passed back to the father,
and if he was no longer alive, to his descendants; property left after the mother for the mother and her
descendants. The nearer relative excluded the more distant; so the father excluded his brothers; he
excluded the grandfather, etc. Ascendants inherited per capita (per capita), side relatives inherited per
tribe (per stirpes). If neither the father, nor the mother, nor their side relatives existed, the inheritance
went to the grandfather, grandmother or their side relatives in the legal community, etc. It could not
affect the inheritance rights of the holder and, in the event of death, of the relatives in the legal
community, and in legal transactions concluded between the living, this was also greatly limited with
respect to inheritance rights. The alienation of the ancestral estate could be demanded by those in the
legal community to invalidate the alienation (ex praejudicio); unless the alienation was necessary
(necessaria) or reasonable (rationabilis). Those in the legal community also had a right of pre-emption
with respect to the permitted alienation, either in the form of the right of pre-emption (praemonitio) or
the right of admonition (admonitio), due to the violation of which they could demand the termination of
the alienation (see Probate). They also had this right of pre-emption in the case of pledging the
property. Due to his neglect, he could claim it by transferring the pledge (transvestitio pignoris). In
addition to raising money (auctio), the right of pre-emption also existed in the case of signing new
mortgage years, even if a pledge was actually made under the guise of a profit. As a result of these
restrictions, the possessor only had the right of free disposal if there was no one who had the right of
inheritance to the ancestral property based on community of law.
Social and Economic Effects
This legal change had a significant impact on Hungarian society and economy. Thanks to the law of
seniority, the estates could not be broken, which contributed to the stability of the clan system. On the
other hand, it limited the economic freedom of the nobles, as they could not sell or give away their
ancestral estates.
The institution of seniority thus included several private legal institutions. From the point of view of
inheritance law, it represented a binding inheritance order, i.e. it was limited to legal inheritance only,
and it excluded the possibility of testamentary inheritance with respect to ancestral property. Ancestral
assets were inherited primarily by descendants, and in the absence of descendants, by the branch from
which the wealth originated. It therefore had to remain within the genus until it died out completely,
for all the descendants of the former common ancestor. And if this happened, the ancient property
returned to the Holy Crown as the source of all rights, i.e. the prohibition of testamentary disposition
4
was applicable even to the last member of the family. In the sense of property law, ancestry limited the
disposition between the living: ancestral property was prohibited from being encumbered or alienated.
By enshrining the principle of seniority in law, a tied ownership system was created in Hungary, which in
fact precluded the enforcement of the right of free disposal. The legislation preserving the Hungarian
property system greatly hindered social and economic progress in the centuries to come, and already in
the 18th and 19th centuries. it became obsolete by the turn of the century. The first criticisms of
antiquity were formulated in the Age of Enlightenment, at the end of the 18th century. In 1790, József
Hajnóczy proposed the introduction of the right of free disposal to the parliament reconvened after 25
years, since "the real owner cultivates the land better than someone who cannot freely dispose of his
property."
The legal institution was a serious obstacle to the civil transformation during the reform era. The
legislation of 1351 triggered the writing of István Széchenyi's 1830 work entitled Hitel, who wanted to
take out a HUF 10,000 loan for the development of his estates, which was rejected by the Austrian bank
due to the lack of collateral, as the provisions of the Law of Antiquity precluded the encumbrance of
noble estates with a mortgage. Széchenyi also prepared a specific legislative program entitled "Law XII"
in his work "Stadium", published three years later, in the second point of which he wrote the following:
"The right of primogeniture is forever abolished. (…) Whatever property someone sells in perpetuity
after the promulgation of this law, with the knowledge of the respective parties, neither the seller nor
his descendants can take it back from the buyer or his heirs under any pretext, and the perpetual sale
can never be annulled."
The Law of Ancestry was at the center of the debates of the reform-era parliaments, and after half a
thousand years, it was finally repealed by the XV of 1848, created by the last Hungarian parliament.
legal article, which can be considered the basis and creator of modern Hungarian private law. In
addition to the brief declaration of the abolition of primogeniture ("The abolition of primogeniture is
hereby declared in principle..."), the article contained the immediate termination of ongoing
primogeniture lawsuits, as well as the government's instruction to prepare a civil code and submit it to
parliament.
After the fall of the war of independence, on November 29, 1852, Ferenc József issued the Open Order
of Ancestry (Avitizitäts-Patent), which, in addition to the termination of the right of ancestry, and as a
consequence of it, also declared the donation system to be abolished. It abolished the distinction
between ancestral and acquired property, between serfs and landlords, and between male and female
inheritance. Since the ancestral patent fully met the Hungarian legal requirements of the time, the 1861
Conference of Parliament Judges, which generally restored the old Hungarian law, did not consider it
necessary to repeal it.
5
The real reason of aviticitas, ius aviticum what never told by historian
Hungarian nobility used a plenty of loan for fighting in kong Louis's wars and money based society
started in 14th century so nobility got the money either from high nobles or bankers so the king had to
prevent the non considered loan using of the little nobility.
After 1860's a plenty of story circulated even about high nobles who played off their whole estates
because they got free hand for it.
