“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University Iaşi

Faculty of History

The judicial system in Moldavia in the 17th century:

laws, procedures, penalties

Doctoral thesis

-abstract-

Doctoral tutor: Doctoral student:

Prof. Alexandru-Florin Platon, PhD Zaharia Georgiana

Iaşi

2013

Contents

Introduction ……………………………………………………... 5Documentary and historiographical reference points ………… 9

1. The beginnings ……………………………………………………… 102. The period of the communist regime ……………………………… 133. The ethnology and history of law …………………………………… 164. New perspectives …………………………………………………… 185. The sources ………………………………………………………… 21Conclusions …………………………………….……………………… 25

I. Deeds …………………………………………………….............. 271. “Sfăzi”, beatings and “depărături” ……………….……………….... 282. Theft and robbery …………………………….…………………….. 303. “Committing murder”………………………………………………... 324. Cusses, disobedience and treason ………………….……..……… 355. Other deeds ………………………………………………………….. 376. Deed and sin …………………………………..……………………. 377. Case studies …..……………………………………………………. 39

7.1. Burlă …..………………………………………………….… 397.2. Isac Stârcea …..………………………………………………. 41

II. The procedure ………………………………………………... 441. Denunciations, plaints, complaints …………………………………. 442. The research …………………………………………………………. 46

2.1. The entitled persons …………………………………………… 462.1.1. The boyars and the servants …………………………… 472.1.2. Delegating and collaborating …………….…………… 522.1.3. The plaintiff ……………………………….…………….. 552.1.4. The village …………………………….……………….. 582.1.5. Others …………………………………………………… 60

2.2. The evidence and the evidence means ………………………… 612.2.1. “The suspicion” ………………………….……………… 612.2.2. The reputation ………………………………………… 622.2.3. Capturing “face to face” ……………………….……… 622.2.4. The research on the scene ……………………………… 63

a. “The analysis” ………………………….……………… 64b. The “technical/medical” findings ……………………… 64

1

c. The material means of the evidence …………………… 652.2.5. The writs ………………………..…………………….... 662.2.6. The testimony and the oath ………………………...…… 67

a. The testimony, the oath, the co-jurors ………………… 67b. The perjury and the false witnesses ………………........ 70

2.2.7. “Strânsoarea” and the tortures ....……............................ 712.3. The surveillance…………………………………………..…… 74

3. The end of the research …………………………………………....… 763.1. The restitution and compensation …………………………… 763.2. The agreement between the parties …………………………… 783.3. Gloabe (fees) and deşugubine (fees for murder) ………….… 803.4. Motivations of the research ....………………………………… 823.5. Surveillance order ………………………………………...…… 833.6. Appealing to the competent body …………………………… 84

III. The justice and the law ………………………………….....… 851. The justice ………………………………………………….…...…… 872. The norms with legal function ……………………………………… 87

2.1. The law ……………………………………………………...… 892.2. The prince …………………………………………………..… 902.3. The body of laws .......…………………………………….…… 922.4. “The tradition of the country” and the custom ...……………… 93

a. The tradition ……………………………………………….. 93b. The custom ………………………………………………… 96

3. The applicability of the body of laws in the 17th century ………...... 97IV. The judgment ……………………………………………….… 107

1. Who was judging ………………………………………...………….. 1072. The place and time of the judgment ……………….....…………….. 1093. Obligations of the judges ……………………………….....………… 1124. The progress of the judgment …..………………………...…………. 113

V. The punishment ……………………………………………..… 1161. The death penalty …………………………………….…......………. 118

1.1. Beheading…..………………………………………......…...… 1181.2. Hanging …………………………………………….......…..…. 1191.3. Impaling …………………………………………..….............. 1201.4. Burning alive ………………………………………………….. 1201.5. Other methods ………………………………………………… 1211.6. The place of execution and the ritual ………….……………… 1221.7. The treatment of the corpse ……………........………………… 123

2

2. The mine ………………………………………….……....…..……. 1283. “The prison” ………………………….....……………..…………… 1324. The beating and other punishments ………………………….……… 1395. Aggravating circumstances …………………………………….…… 1416. Attenuating circumstances ……………………………………….… 141

VI. Justice, society and mentality …......………………………… 1431. “Good and old people” …………………………..........…………….. 1432. Justice and punishment: between official regulation and social practice ...............................................................................................…

149

Conclusions .........…………........................................................... 155Bibliography ……………………………………………………… 161

3

The purpose of the thesis1 is a detailed exposition of the Moldavian judicial system in the 17th century, with an emphasis on the less explored aspects in historiography thus far. Hence, I will present some of the deeds considered “criminal” today, the corresponding terminology, as well as its connection with the mindset of the period. This is followed by a detailed presentation of the procedure, with the purpose of showing the way the complaints were made, who had the power of acting one way or another in this sense and what was the evidence for the accusations. I will also show the way in which the delinquents were surveyed and the end of such actions. Before finding out what happened next, I had to present the sources and forms of the law in that period, for a better understanding of the legal thinking of that time, as well as of the type of norms that guided people in solving issues of this nature.

Afterwards, I will present several aspects of the judgment per se. Though the subject of the princely judgment has been largely presented in certain works, it is still unclear what happened in the territory, outside the judgments made by dignitaries and by the alleged assemblies of the “good and old people”.

Also, few things have been told about the punishment, considering the amount of material on the subject. Hence, I analyzed both various aspects regarding the death penalty and other repressing measures for the wrongdoers. I have also made a (necessary) exposition of the “imprisonment” and mine punishments – generally neglected.

The last part is different from the rest of the thesis, with an emphasis on the analysis of various issues regarding the society and mentality of the time, with the legal life in the foreground.

It is worth underlining that, thus far, the local people have not been seen as a part of the judicial system, with very few exceptions, though the importance of their role is apparent. I presented elements related to the fact

1 This work was possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU 107/1.5/S/78342 with the title „Doctorate: an Attractive Research Career“.

4

that personal justice was still an important point of reference in that period for the way in which justice was done; however, insufficient details are available in this sense.

With few exceptions, the subject was presented (and even researched) from the perspective of the prince and of the structures supporting his existence (dignitaries, servants, etc.). Hence, I considered it important to present the things, as much as possible, from the other perspective, too. Furthermore, I aimed to find out the way the juridical life took place in the territory, beyond the theorisations regarding the judicial power of the prince and his seeming ubiquity.

I believe that, in a study of this type, the human factor and its intimate motivations should be privileged. I support this idea because, in the period studied, the judicial realities were marked by far more personal relationships than today; the contacts between the agents were intimate, as many institutional and bureaucratic barriers did not exist.

For a part of the issues presented, I have only provided starting points, with the possibility of further development (such as the differences between villages of free, land-owning peasants and the princely, boyar or monastery villages, etc; the destinations of the fees; issues regarding the torture, the calumny; the rapports between the master and the servant etc).

One of the most important premises of the thesis refers to the differences, and not to the similarities with nowadays, reason for which I tried to avoid, as much as possible, a modern perspective on the subject. For the same reason, I considered it necessary to modify the terminology used in the historiography when this was possible, considering that the modern terminology is often inadequate for the realities of the 17th century.

Another important aspect was the stress on the characteristics of the judicial system. To this end, I had to go beyond the type of approach used for some of the previous aspects (such as the judgment). In the past, the tendency was to present mostly the way in which certain legal actions took place theoretically (as concluded from certain descriptive sources, such as the testimonies of foreign travellers), without going further, to find out what happened concretely.

5

All this had the purpose of providing new information on the so-called judicial system2 of the historical period in question, and mostly of presenting an – at least – slightly different vision compared to those exposed thus far. My intention was not to make a simple enumeration, but to outline certain structures, phenomena, along with their determining factors and, not least, with certain people.

For the 17th century in Moldavia, one may talk about the dependence of a great part of the law elements on both the morals and the mentality or on other aspects related to the communities of that period. The fact reflects, among others, in the visible expressions of the justice3, from the terminology to the character of the punishments.

For instance, the cohesion of the communities led to the creation of a certain type of justice. They had an essential role in the control of the morals and of delinquency, implicitly. From this perspective, the relevant aspects are the direct involvement of the local people in the identification, capturing and sometimes even punishment of the wrongdoers, as well as the importance of reputation in a period when there were limited possibilities of investigating a cause.

The same union between individuals explains the use of shame as a prevention instrument or even as part of the punishment per se. The prince’s threats, which appear in documents regarding the “great shame” or “the reveal to the village”, represent its materialisation. It was closely related to reputation and “honour” (mostly with the meaning of rank), and their “staining” had important social consequences on the targeted individuals; their entire existence could be affected, even beyond death4.

Coming back to the close connection between morals and justice, it is worth noting that the first had an important religious content. Hence, the language that one could label “juridical” was mostly ethical and religious in that period, comprising the use of words such as: malice, error, sin,

2 The term is inadequate for the 17th century. As one may suspect and as seen in the thesis, the mediaeval juridical structures are not comparable to the modern or contemporary ones. See the chapter Dreptatea şi legea.3 The term is spelled direptate in the sources of the time.4 I refer here to the marginalisation of certain individuals by burying them outside the cemeteries or by not burying them at all – believed to affect the soul after death.

6

injustice, etc. The same feature is shown by the analysis of the deeds considered serious – a mixture of sins and infractions –, an aspect due to the religious foundations of the morals in that time. The ecclesiastical canons were part of the mixture of norms circulating in that period (either written or oral).

In the words of Paolo Grossi, “the choice [of the Church – author’s note] for law is a choice for the temporal and for the social”5. In other words, the status of the Church and the diffusion of its precepts were also ensured with help from the judicial power it had acquired. The Church delegates the right of judgment for certain types of causes and it also obtains immunities within a rather clearly outlined autonomy, which turns this institution into a real power, capable of imposing its own system of norms on an entire society. The close collaboration between the political and the ecclesiastical power is visible in many aspects of the juridical life of the period; some of the most important signs are the close normative relation between them and the financial power of the latter. Both the ecclesiastical and the monastery or bishopric courts were often a kind of local seigneuries, with administrative and jurisdictional rights.

The prince granted these rights in order for those establishments to find sources of revenues. The motivation seems to have been similar for all the other courts. There were also motivations related to prestige, especially for the most important such courts (the princely council, the metropolitan or bishopric courts and some dignitary functions).

The personal relationship between the boyars and the people on their territories or those under the “jurisdiction” of their dignitary function conferred certain characteristics to the pâră (denunciation, in modern terms). Naturally, it was less official, considering the different form of the “institutional” order in that epoch. The boyar was familiarized with the people – another reason for which the legal issues were treated differently –, which leads to the impression that settlements and agreements were the only end for these causes, seen this way by the foreigners; the personal knowledge of the judge could be taken in as evidence in “court”. The organizational type is due to the content of the basic notion of pâră. The lack of an intermediary procedure similar to the current denunciation led to 5 P. Grossi, L’ordine giuridico medievale, Editori Lateza, s.l., 2006.

7

doing a single action (thus using just one term) comprising both the warn that an infraction had been committed and the indictment per se.

The involvement in various causes could determine the mobilisation of the entire family or group, and the relationships between members changed dramatically at times. Such an example is represented by disinheritances or by various conflicts that could develop while solving an issue; the land-related conflicts benefit from a richer illustration in the sources preserved. The loss of such assets altered both the material and the social status of those persons. The change was caused by the deeds committed, by the payments for others (undiscovered or absent) or following accusations made to get revenge or out of grudge etc.

Certain rapports and juridical customs alter after the intervention of the non-native factor. More and more Greek boyars appear and they bring along new customs, often contradicting the local traditions. The fact that some of them were not willing to maintain the old customs determined the (probably partial) reversal of a predetermined order; one of the consequences was the fact that many injustices were committed in “court”.

In this context, the issue of the priorities of the people invested with administrative and judicial powers rises. Which came first: the desire or need to catch and punish the wrongdoers or the wish to get more revenues? I believe that the two did not exclude each other, regardless of the form of the sanction (body punishment or fee), because the payment for the dignitary and for his servants was ensured either way.

There have been discussions on the existence – even a century prior – of two parallel administrative regimes: the ones of the State and the local, unofficial one. It was explained by the fact that the State structures could not interfere with certain pre-existing interests in those areas6. That solidarity – voluntary or imposed several centuries before – conserved its power and it was visible in some kind of a juridical isolation (also encouraged by the autonomy). The conclusion is that the last had always been present, to a greater or lesser extent, partially indifferent to the centralizing policies of the princes, as not even the princes had in mind to

6 H.H. Stahl, (ed.), Nerej. Un village d’une région archaïque. Monographie sociologique, vol. I, Bucarest, 1939, p. 231.

8

monopolize all the aspects concerning the juridical life of the communities7. Furthermore, this parallel regime was favoured by the personal character of the institutions or by factors such as the geographic one. An equally important aspect seems to have been the strong spirit of preserving the tradition, expressed in all fields of life, including in keeping the order and seeking justice.

The form of juridical order in 17th century-Moldavia was funded on the pluralism of its sources. Tradition was the one that guided the entire social and juridical life, and other types of norms were destined to complete it when needed or when punctual issues had to be solved (such as the princely documents issued in specific situations and required by momentary necessities).

The so-called judicial system functioned by different rules than those of today, as both form and origins, which rose from the very type of society within which it operated. These major differences make it difficult to understand without an overall view on the epoch and on the mentalities. This is why it was impossible to set a clearer delimitation than the one presented in the part of the juridical life analyzed. For instance, though my purpose was to study and to present the issues related to the “criminal” aspect, a division between criminal and civil causes would have been inexact and in disagreement with the reality. They could be classified, at the most, by the courts to which they belonged, but even this aspect was hardly determined (or respected) during those times. The centralization occurred only to the extent and in the fields that would have stirred the interest of the prince or of the Church; the high boyars also thought of their own advantages.

Despite certain assertions and the way in which the matter has been presented thus far, the deeds which triggered denunciations were often investigated, though this aspect is not much stated in the sources8. Furthermore, regardless of the taxation level of those times, physical

7 O. Rizescu, Avant l’«État-juge»: Pratique juridique et construction politique en Valachie au XVIIe siècle, Ed. Notarom, s.l., 2008, p. 200. 8 I reiterate the old issue regarding the categories of documents preserved and, consequently, the character of the information found there. The respective data are not relevant for all the aspects of the judiciary system that have become known; of course, I am persuaded that we will never know enough regarding many of them and that a part of them will remain undisclosed.

9

punishments were still applied, including death penalty. One should not forget that both the prince and the servants (of all ranks) were still men of their times, regardless of their more or less ardent desire to get richer.

The issues solved today institutionally for the most part were dealt with by the direct contact of the interested parties in the 17th century – including via recoveries and private revenges. As for the investigation methods – though empirical to a great extent –, it is worth underlining that the testimony and the oath were not the only ones used, as shown throughout the thesis.

Inevitably, the juridical order did not have a constant expression throughout the century, as it was closely connected with the power and with the duration of the reign of those who came one after another on the Moldavian throne in the period studied. The more stable reigns, such as that of Basil Lupu, brought a certain balance of the juridical life. The opposite happened during shorter reigns, as it was known that, often, the energies of the princes focused not on the effective administration of the country, but on recuperating the money invested in the throne and on getting richer.

For instance, the princes stopped believing it was beneficial to apply only physical punishments and they preferred to give the possibility of paying fees for certain deeds. From this perspective, the priorities changed under the circumstances of the new political situation: the prince now ruled over a rather homogeneous territory, without the centrifugal dangers of the beginnings. Hence, the initial significance and importance of the harshest punishments was partially lost (except for those for treason or similarly serious deeds). Now the prince transformed his right – the punitive power – into a source of income, which was important to support any reign (all the more in the new tax-full system determined by the modified relation with the Porte).

Despite these factors, the principles which guided the juridical decisions remained the same, regardless of their form (manifest or latent) at various moments in time.

The juridical conscience of the people during those times was guided more by values than by laws per se, and the latter were variable compared to the first. This is due to the adaptability and mobility of the judiciary system (even physically speaking), features conferred by the

10

aforementioned normative flexibility, as well as by local autonomies. This was the result of the lack of a mandatory code of universal laws for the entire country (as today); the local customs and specific norms of each judging function played the role of guide in this domain.

Until the subsequent century, the only significant modification from this perspective seems to have been the emergence and, most probably, the beginning of sporadically using certain written laic laws (consulted by a very small circle of people). However, the elaboration of the body of laws of Basil Lupu did not seem to have altered a mindset present for centuries, given that its significance could be related mostly to the expression of power and to the desire to augment the prince’s prestige.

That which still remains the foundation of the mediaeval and pre-modern law is the ethical fund (with origins in the Christian morals, some reminiscences of the Roman-Byzantine law, but also what was seen as simply natural) accompanied by the corresponding juridical customs.

Some terminological analysis helped me get closer to the core of certain phenomena or juridical actions (such as deşugubina or strânsoarea). I also believe that the seeming confusion triggered by the diversity of juridical notions (justice, law, body of laws etc) really refers to another specific of the epoch (related to both the normative plurality and the origins of these “laws”).

Another part of my conclusions regards both the utility of certain types of sources and the way of seeing them.

Despite the fact that the comparative method – based on using the ethnographic sources – is often considered uncertain, the information thus obtained often proves more reliable than one may think at first glance. I believe that this is due to the conservation of certain juridical realities in the memory of the descendants of those who had experienced them directly. Their traces can be even more visible in the oral tradition than in the few written sources which conserve them in such a fragmentary manner.

On the other hand, emitting hypothesis or even conclusions that neglect the character of the sources consulted may lead to inexact outcomes. The best examples in this sense are the artificial transformation of the good and old people into a genuine institution and the omission of the transformations incurred over time to the content of the sanction called

11

deşugubină. Both are due first of all to the omission of the reality according to which the documents issued in those times had a stereotypic content (a well-known aspect, for that matter) and that the adjustment to new realities was done very slowly (precisely because of the conservatism specific to document elaboration at that time). I believe this is the reason why it was omitted that – though the word deşugubină kept being mentioned in documents – it did not mean the same thing as it had meant in the previous century.

As regards the good and old people, I believe that the research has fallen into the trap of interpreting a simple expression pattern as an objective reality. However, after carefully analyzing more sources, I was able to conclude which were, most probably, the roles of the persons who appeared at times under this denomination.

I believe to have also shown the utility of a source such as Carte românească de învăţătură, regardless of whether the scholars can reach a common denominator concerning its applicability in the 17th century. The importance of this body of laws is given mostly by its content of ideas, contemporary with the epoch analyzed, characteristic to it through their universality (comprising norms compatible – to a great extent – with any “Christian orthodox” population, which also constitutes its target-group9).

One of my conclusions – regarding the thesis overall – is related to the need for a better insight into the possible social repercussions which followed certain phases of the judicial “procedure”. There is the example of the complaints which could constitute a revenge mean for some or an opportunity to get rich for others. There is also an accentuated interdependence between the structures of the society and those of the “juridical body”; in some situations, one could hardly tell the difference between the two. The relative and partial control that the prince could claim over such a system makes us reconsider the existence of a de facto centralization in this sense, as well as the anachronistic image that we tend to have on the realities of the past, maybe because we are unable to ignore the term of comparison provided by our contemporary world10.

9 Carte românească de învăţătură, critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu, Ed. Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest, 1961, p. 37.

12

Bibliography

ToolsBusuioc, Monica-Mihaela, Dicţionar de arhaisme, Ed. All Educational, s.l.,

s.a.Ciorănescu, Alexandru, Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române, Ed.

Saeculum, Bucharest, 2001.Cozianul, Mardarie, Lexicon slavo-românesc şi tâlcuirea numelor de la

1649, editor Grigorie Creţu, Institutul de Arte Grafice Carol Göbl, Bucharest, 1900.Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române, Ed. Univers Enciclopedic,

Bucharest, 1998.Mic dicţionar academic, vol. I-II, Ed. Univers Enciclopedic Gold,

Bucharest, 2010.Sachelarie, Ovid, Stoicescu, Nicolae (ed.), Instituţii feudale din Ţările

Române. Dicţionar, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1988.Scorpan, Constantin, Istoria României. Enciclopedie, Ed. Nemira,

Bucharest, 1997.Scriban, August, Dicţionaru limbii româneşti, Iaşi, 1939.

Documentary sourcesBăjan, Dumitru I., Documente de la Archivele statului, vol. I (1586-1840),

Tipografia “G.N. Vlădescu-Câmpulung”, 1929.Caproşu, Ioan, Zahariuc, Petronel, Documente privitoare la istoria oraşului

Iaşi, vol. I, Ed. “Dosoftei”, Iaşi, 1999; vol. II, Caproşu, Ioan, 2000; vol. III, Caproșu, Ioan, 2000.

Caragea, Constantin, Caragea, Marcela, Documentele moşiilor cantacuzineşti din Bucovina, in “Buletinul Comisiei istorice a României”, nr. X, 1931.

Catalogul documentelor moldoveneşti din Direcţia Arhivelor Centrale, vol. I, Bucharest, 1957; vol. II, 1959; vol. III, 1968; vol. IV, 1970; supplement I, 1975.

10 This is maybe more visible in the part of the thesis dedicated to the historiography of the issue, where one may notice the trace left by one epoch or the other on the way of seeing and writing history.

13

Catalogul documentelor Ţării Româneşti din Arhivele statului, vol. III (1621-1632), Doina Duca-Tinculescu, Marcel-Dumitru Ciucă, General Directorate of State Archives in the Socialist Republic of Romania, Bucharest, 1976.

Condica lui Constantin Mavrocordat, vol. II, edited by Corneliu Istrati, Ed. Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi, 2008.

Condica marii logofeţii (1692-1714), edited by Melentina Bâzgan, Ed. Paralela 45, Piteşti, 2009.

Corfus, Ilie, Documente privitoare la istoria României culese din arhivele polone. Secolul al XVII-lea, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1983.

Cronţ, Gheorghe, Constantinescu, Alexandru, Acte judiciare din Ţara Românească: 1775-1781, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1973.

Documenta Romaniae Historica, A. Moldova, vol. XVIII (1623-1625), elaborated by Ioan Caproşu, V. Constantinov, Bucharest, 2006; vol. XIX (1626-1628), elaborated by Haralambie Chirică, Bucharest, 1969; vol. XX (1629-1631), elaborated by, Ioan Caproşu, C. Burac, Bucharest, 2011;vol. XXI (1632-1633), elaborated by Constantin Cihodaru, Ioan Caproşu, Leon Şimanschi, Bucharest, 1971; vol. XXII (1634), elaborated by Constantin Cihodaru, Ioan Caproşu, Leon Şimanschi, Bucharest, 1974; vol. XXIII (1635-1636), elaborated by Leon Şimanschi, Nistor Ciocan, Georgeta Ignat, Dumitru Agache, Bucharest, 1996; vol. XXIV (1637-1638), elaborated by Constantin Cihodaru, Ioan Caproşu, Bucharest, 1998; vol. XXV (1639-1640), elaborated by, Nistor Ciocan, Dumitru Agache, Georgeta Ignat, Marius Chelcu, Bucharest, 2003; vol. XXVI (1641-1642), elaborated by Ioan Caproşu, Bucharest, 2003; vol. XXVII (1643-1633), elaborated by Petronel Zahariuc, Cătălina Chelcu, Marius Chelcu, Silviu Văcaru, Nistor Ciocan, Dumitru Ciurea, Bucharest, 2005; vol. XXVIII (1645-1646), elaborated by Petronel Zahariuc, Marius Chelcu, Silviu Văcaru, Cătălina Chelcu, Bucharest, 2006; B. Ţara Românească, vol. XXIII (1630-1632), elaborated by Damaschin Mioc, Bucharest, 1969; vol. XXIV (1633-1634), elaborated by Damaschin Mioc, Saşa Caracaş, Constantin Bălan, Bucharest, 1974; vol. XXV (1635-1636), elaborated by Damaschin Mioc, Maria Bălan, Ruxandra Cămărăşescu, Coralia Fotino, Bucharest, 1985; vol. XXXV (1650), elaborated by Violeta Barbu, Constanţa Ghiţulescu, Andreea Iancu, Gheorghe Lazăr, Oana Rizescu, Bucharest, 2003; vol. XXXVII (1652), elaborated by Violeta Barbu, Constantin Bălan, Florina Manuela Constantin.

Documente din Basarabia, collected by P.S. Visarion Puiu, Constantin Tomescu, Ştefan Berechet, Ştefan Ciobanu, Tip. Eparhială “Cartea Românească”, Chişinău, 1928.

Documente privind istoria României, veacul XVII, A. Moldova, vol. I (1601-1605), Bucharest, 1952; vol. II (1606-1610), Bucharest, 1953; vol. III (1611-1615), Bucharest, 1954; vol. IV (1616-1620), Bucharest, 1956; vol. V (1621-1625),

14

Bucharest, 1957; B. Ţara Românească, vol. I (1601-1610), Bucharest, 1951; vol. II (1611-1615), Bucharest, 1951; vol. IV (1621-1626), Bucharest, 1954.

Documente privitoare la istoria românilor. Urmare la colecţia lui Eudoxiu de Hurmuzachi, supplement 2, vol. I.

Ghibănescu, Gheorghe, Ispisoace şi zapise, vol. II, part I, Tipografia “Dacia” Iliescu, Grossu & Comp., Iaşi, 1909; vol. IV, part II, Iaşi, 1915.

Idem, Surete şi izvoade, vol. II, Tipografia “Dacia” Iliescu, Iaşi, 1907; vol. III, Iaşi, 1907; vol. IV, Iaşi, 1908.

Iorga, Nicolae, Anciens documents de droit roumain, vol. I-II, Paris – Bucarest, 1930-1931.

Idem, Documente româneşti din archivele Bistriţei, part I, Ed. librăriei Socecu & Comp., Bucharest, 1899; part II, Bucharest, 1900.

Idem, Documente tecucene, in “Buletinul Comisiei istorice a României”, vol. IV, Bucharest, 1925.

Idem, Scrisori de boieri. Scrisori de domni, Aşezământul-tipografie “Datina românească”, Vălenii de Munte, 1925.

Idem, Scrisori şi zapise de meşteri români, Bucharest, 1926.Idem, Studii şi documente cu privire la istoria românilor, vol. II,

Stabilimentul grafic Socecu & Comp., Bucharest, 1901; vol. V, Bucharest, 1903; vol. VI, Bucharest, 1904; vol. VII, Bucharest, 1904.

Marinescu, Iulian, Documente vasluiene, in “Buletinul Comisiei istorice a României”, vol. IV, Bucharest, 1925.

Moldova în epoca feudalismului, vol. VI, elaborated by A.N. Nichitici, D.M. Dragnev, L.I. Svetlicinaia, P.V. Sovetov, Ed. “Ştiinţa”, Chişinău, 1992.

Nandriş, Grigore, Documente slavo-române din mănăstirile Muntelui Athos, Fundaţia Regele Carol I, Bucharest, 1936.

Panaitescu, Petre P., Călători poloni în Ţările Române, Cultura Naţională, Bucharest, 1930.

Pascu, Ştefan, Hanga, Vladimir, Crestomaţie pentru studiul istoriei şi dreptului R.P.R., 3 volumes, Ed. de Stat pentru Literaturǎ Economică și Juridică, Bucharest, 1955-1963.

Rosetti, Al., Scrisori româneşti din arhivele Bistriţei, Casa Şcoalelor, Bucharest, 1944.

Sava, Aurel V., Documente privitoare la târgul şi ţinutul Lăpuşnei, Fundaţia “Regele Carol I”, Bucharest, 1937.

Veress, Andrei, Documente privitoare la istoria Ardealului, Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti, vol. XI, M.O. Imprimeria Naţională, Bucharest, 1939.

Visarion, Documente basarabene, in “Buletinul Comisiei istorice a României”, no. VII, Bucharest, 1928.

15

Vitencu, Alexandru, Vechi documente moldoveneşti, Tipografia “Mitropolitul Silvestru”, Cernăuţi, 1925.

Juridical sourcesBerechet, Ştefan Gr., Condica criminalicească cu procedura ei (1820-1826),

Tip. “Dreptatea”, Chişinău, 1928.Brăiloiu, C.N., Legiuirea Caragea, Tipografia Naţională a lui Ștefan

Rassidescu, Bucharest, 1865.Carte românească de învăţătură, critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu, Ed.

Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest, 1961.Codul Calimach, critical edition by Andrei Rădulescu (ed.), Ed. Academiei

R.P.R., Bucharest, 1958.Îndreptarea legii, Ed. Pelerinul Român, Oradea, s.a.Longinescu, Ştefan G., Pravila Moldovei în vremea lui Vasile Lupu,

bilingual edition, translation into French by A. Patrognet, in Legi vechi româneşti şi izvoarele lor, vol. I, Bucharest, 1912.

Manualul juridic al lui Andronachi Donici, critical edition, Ed. Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest, 1959.

Pravila bisericească numită cea mică, Tip. Academiei Române, Bucharest, 1884.

Pravila ritorului Lucaci, text established, introductory study and indices by I. Rizescu, Ed. Academiei, Bucharest, 1971.

Regulamentul Organic al Moldovei, integral edition by Dumitru Vitcu and Gabriel Bădărău, Ed. Junimea, Iaşi, 2004.

Narrative sourcesCantemir, Dimitrie, Descrierea Moldovei, in Operele principelui Demetriu

Cantemiru, tome II, Tipografia Curţii, Bucharest, 1875.Idem, Hronicul vechimei a romano-moldo-vlahilor, in Operele principelui

Dimitrie Cantemir, tome VIII, Institutul de Arte grafice “Carol Göbl”, Bucharest, 1901.

Idem, Istoria ieroglifică, in Opere complete, vol. IV, edited by Stela Toma, Nicolae Stoicescu, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1973.

Idem, Viaţa lui Constantin Cantemir, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1973.Carra, Jean Louis, Istoria Moldovei şi a Ţării Româneşti, Institutul

European, Iaşi, 2011.Călători străini despre Ţările Române, vol. III, edited by Maria Holban,

M.M. Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, Paul Cernovodeanu, Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1971; vol. IV, 1972; vol. V, 1973; vol. VI, 1976; vol. VII,

16

1980, vol. VIII, 1983.Cioran, Emilia, Călătoriile patriarhului Macarie de Antiohia în Ţările

Române, Stabilimentul grafic “I.V. Socecu”, Bucharest, 1900.Cler, G. Le, Moldo-Valahia. Ce a fost, ce este, ce ar putea fi, translated by

Diana Ciobanu, Institutul European, București, 2010.Costin, Miron, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei de la Aron vodă încoace, critical

edition by P.P. Panaitescu, Fundaţia Regală pentru Literatură şi Artă, Bucharest, 1944.

Idem, Poema polonă, in Opere, ed. critică de P.P. Panaitescu, Ed. de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă, Bucharest, 1958.

Cronica anonimă a Moldovei, 1661-1729 (Pseudo-Amiras), study and critical edition by Dan Simonescu, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1975.

Gaster, Moses, Chrestomaţie română. Texte tipărite şi manuscrise (secolele XIV-XIX), vol. II, Leipzig – Bucharest, 1891.

Învăţăturile lui Neagoe Basarab către fiul său Theodosie, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1984.

Kogălniceanu, Mihail, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei atribuit lui Nicolae Muste, in Cronicele României, second edition, tome III, Bucharest, 1874.

Idem, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei de la domnia lui Istratie Dabija până la a treia domnie a lui Mihail Racoviţă, in Cronicele României, vol. III.

Idem, Variantă la cronica atribuită lui Nicolae Muste , in Cronicele României, second edition, tome III, Bucharest, 1874.

Melchisedec, Cronica Huşilor şi a episcopiei cu aseminea numire, Tipografia “C.A. Rosetti”, Bucharest, 1869.

Idem, Cronica Romanului şi a episcopiei de Roman, editor Tudor Ghideanu, Ed. Muşatinia, Roman, 2008.

Neculce, Ion, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei precedat de O samă de cuvinte, edition, preface and notes by Iorgu Iordan, Ed. “Ion Creangă”, Bucharest, 1972.

Panaitescu, Petre P., Călători poloni în Ţările Române, Cultura Naţională, Bucharest, 1930.

Papiu Ilarian, A. (ed.), Istoria celor petrecute în Ţara Românească (Mitropolitul Matei), in Tesauru de monumente istorice, vol. I, Tipografia Naţională a lui Ştefan Rassidescu, Bucharest, 1862.

Sfaturi către Moise Movilă (1631), in Literatura română veche, vol. II, edited by G. Mihăilă and Dan Zamfirescu, Ed. Tineretului, Bucharest, 1969.

Simonescu, Dan, Literatura românească de ceremonial. Condica lui Gheorgachi, 1762, Fundaţia “Regele Carol I”, Bucharest, 1939.

Uricariul, Axinte, Cronica paralelă a Ţării Româneşti şi a Moldovei, edited by Gabriel Ştrempel, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1993.

17

Varlaam, Cazania, ed. by J. Byck, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, s.a.

Ethnographic sourcesBurada, Teodor T., Datinile poporului român la înmormântări, Tipografia

Naţională, Iaşi, 1882.Candrea, I.A., Densuşianu, Ovid, Speranţia, Th.D., Graiul nostru. Texte din

toate părţile locuite de români, vol. I, Atelierele grafice Socec & Co., Bucharest, 1906.

Climescu, I., Curpănu, I., Petrovu, C., Din obiceiele juridice ale poporului român din districtul Bacău, in “Columna lui Traian”, new series, year III, no. 1-12, Bucharest, 1882.

Densuşianu, Nicolae, Chestionar despre tradiţiile istorice şi antichităţile ţărilor locuite de români: epoca până la 600 după Cristos, 1895.

Idem, Vechi cântece şi tradiţii populare româneşti. Texte poetice din răspunsurile la “Chestionarul istoric” (1893-1897), text chosen and established, introductory study, notes, versions, indices and glossary by Ion Oprişan, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1975.

Florea Marian, Simion, Înmormântarea la români. Studiu etnografic, Bucharest, 1892.

Fochi, Adrian, Datini şi eresuri populare de la sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea. Răspunsurile la chestionarul lui Nicolae Densuşianu, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1976.

Herseni, Traian, Individ şi societate în satul Fundul Moldovei, excerpt from “Arhiva pentru Ştiinţa şi Reforma Socială”, year X, no. 1-4, Bucharest, 1932.

Muşlea, Ion, Bîrlea, Ovidiu, Tipologia folclorului: din răspunsurile la chestionarele lui B.P. Hasdeu, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1970.

Idem, Obiceiele juridice ale poporului român, Tip. Societăţii Academice Române, Bucharest, 1878.

Urechia, V.A., Legende române. Viaţa în trecut. Reminiscenţe, Ed. Librăriei Socecu & Comp., Bucharest, 1896.

Zane, I.A., Proverbele românilor, vol. V, Stabilimentul Grafic I.V. Socecu, Bucharest, 1900.

General worksBălan, Teodor, Vornicia în Moldova, Cernăuţi, 1931.Berechet, Ştefan Gr., Istoria vechiului drept românesc, vol. I, Izvoarele, Tip.

“Goldner”, Iaşi, 1933.Boldur, A.V., Istoria Basarabiei, vol. I, Chişinău, 1937.Brătianu, Gheorghe, Sfatul domnesc şi adunarea stărilor în Principatele

Române, Ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1995.

18

Cernea, Emil, Molcuţ, Emil, Istoria statului şi dreptului românesc, revised and enlarged edition, Ed. Universul Juridic, Bucharest, 2004.

Ceterchi, Ion (ed.), Istoria dreptului românesc, 3 volumes, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1980.

Ciurea, D., Aspecte din situaţia socială a Moldovei în secolele XVII-XVIII, in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie «A.D. Xenopol»“, no. XXIV, Iaşi, 1987 (II).

Codarcea, Cristina, Société et pouvoir en Valachie (1601-1654). Entre la Coutume et la loi, Ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 2002.

Comisia prezidenţială pentru analiza dictaturii comuniste din România, Raport final, Bucharest, 2006.

Constantinescu, M.G., Organizarea vechilor juridicţiuni în Moldova şi Muntenia, Bucharest, 1939.

Costăchel, V., Panaitescu, P.P., Cazacu, A., Viaţa feudală în Ţara Românească şi Moldova (sec. XIV-XVII), Ed. Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1957.

Crăciun, Maria, «Moartea cea bună»: intercesori şi protectori în pragul marii treceri. Între discursul clerical şi pietatea populară, in Discursuri despre moarte în Transilvania secolelor XVI-XIX, editors Mihaela Grancea, Ana Dumitran, Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă, Cluj-Napoca, 2006.

Dianu, Grigore I., Istoria închisorilor din România, Bucharest, 1900.Djuvara, Mircea, Consideraţiuni asupra caracterului raţional al realităţilor

juridice, excerpt from “Analele Facultăţii de Drept din Bucharest”, no. 1, Bucharest, 1939.

Idem, Instituţionalismul juridic şi teoria obiceiului juridic, in “Cercetări juridice”, year III, no. 1, 1943.

Dogmatica. Manual pentru uzul seminariilor teologice, Ed. Institutului biblic şi de misiune ortodoxă, Bucharest, 1958.

Floca, Ioan N., Din istoria dreptului românesc, vol. I, Sibiu, 1993.Fotino, George, Ce este vechiul drept românesc?, Tipografiile Române

Unite, Bucharest, 1939.Idem, Curs de istoria dreptului românesc, vol. I, Bucharest, 1940-1941.Foucault, Michel, A supraveghea şi a pedepsi. Naşterea închisorii,

translated by Bogdan Ghiu, Ed. Paralela 45, Piteşti, 2005.Georgescu, Valentin Al., Bizanţul şi instituţiile româneşti până la

mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1980.Idem, Corelaţia dintre etnologia juridică şi istoria dreptului, in Metode noi

şi probleme de perspectivă ale cercetării ştiinţifice, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1971.

19

Giurescu, Constantin C., Despre boieri şi despre rumâni, edited by Dinu C. Giurescu, Ed. Compania, Bucharest, 2008.

Idem, Istoria Bucharestlor, Editura pentru literatură, Bucharest, 1966.Idem, Istoria românilor, 3 volumes, Fundaţia Regală pentru Literatură şi

Artă, Bucharest, 1946.Gonța, Alexandru I., Satul în Moldova medievală. Instituțiile, Ed. Științifică

și Enciclopedică, București, 1986.Grigoraș, Nicolae, Instituţii feudale din Moldova. Organizarea de stat până

la mijlocul secolului al XVIII-lea, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1971.Grossi, Paolo, L’ordine giuridico medievale, Editori Lateza, s.l., 2006.Ionescu-Muscel, Petre, Istoria dreptului penal român. Studiu comparat, s.l.,

1931.Iorga, Nicolae, Istoria poporului românesc, 4 volumes, Ed. “Casei

Şcoalelor”, Bucharest, 1922-1928.Idem, Istoria poporului românesc, Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1985.Idem, Viaţa femeilor în trecutul românesc, Tip. “Neamul românesc”, Vălenii

de Munte, 1910.Martin, François Olivier, Histoire du droit français des origines à la

Révolution, CNRS Éditions, Paris, 2010.Mazilu, Dan Horia, Noi despre ceilalți. Fals tratat de imagologie, Ed.

Polirom, Iaşi, 1999.Idem, O istorie a blestemului, Ed. Polirom, Iaşi, 2001.Idem, Văduvele sau despre istorie la feminin, Ed. Polirom, Iaşi, 2008.Idem, Voievodul dincolo de sala tronului, Ed. Polirom, Iaşi, 2003.Ofrim, Alexandru, Cheia şi psaltirea. Imaginarul cărţii în cultura

tradiţională românească, Ed. Paralela 45, Piteşti – Bucharest – Braşov – Cluj-Napoca, 2001.

Panaitescu, Petre P., Începuturile dreptului scris în limba română, in Contribuţii la istoria culturii româneşti, edited by Silvia Panaitescu, preface, notes and bibliography by Dan Zamfirescu, Ed. Minerva, Bucharest, 1971.

Idem, Obștea țărănească în Țara Românească și Moldova: orânduirea feudală, Ed. Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest, 1964.

Peretz, Ioan, Curs de istoria dreptului român, Bucharest, 1926.Idem, Curs de istoria dreptului român, vol. II, part I, second edition,

Bucharest, 1928.Idem, Curs de istoria dreptului român, vol. II, part I, second edition,

Bucharest, 1928.Pilat, Liviu, Între Roma şi Bizanţ. Societate şi putere în Moldova (secolele

XIV-XVI), Ed. Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi, 2008.

20

Popescu, Alexandra-Marcela, Hiclenia, fenomen politico-social, în Moldova Medievală (doctoral thesis), “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iaşi, 2011.

Potra, George, Contribuţiuni la istoricul ţiganilor din România, Bucharest, 1939.

Rădvan, Laurenţiu, Oraşele din Ţara Românească până la sfârşitul secolului al XVI-lea, Ed. Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi, 2004.

Scurtu, Vasile, Termenii de înrudire în limba română, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1966.

Simionescu, Paul, Etnoistoria. Convergenţă interdisciplinară, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1983.

Stahl, Henri H., Contribuţii la studiul satelor devălmaşe româneşti, vol. I-II, Ed. Academiei R.P.R., Bucharest, 1958-1959.

Idem, Contribuţii la studiul satelor devălmaşe româneşti, vol. III, second edition revised, Ed. Cartea Românească, Bucharest, 1998.

Idem, Istoria socială a satului românesc. O culegere de texte, Ed. Paideia, Bucharest, 2002.

Idem (ed.), Nerej. Un village d’une région archaique. Monographie sociologique, 3 volumes, Bucarest, 1939.

Stahl, Henri H., Stahl, Paul H., Civilizaţia vechilor sate româneşti, Ed. Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1968.

Stoica, Corneliu, Valea Trotuşului. Enciclopedie, Ed. Magic Print, Oneşti, 2006.

Stoicescu, Nicolae, Curteni şi slujitori. Contribuţii la istoria armatei române, Ed. Militară, Bucharest, 1968.

Tanoviceanu, Ioan, Tratat de drept şi procedură penală, 5 volumes, second edition revised and completed by Vintilă Dongoroz, Corneliu Chiseliţă, Ştefan Laday, Eugen C. Decusară, Tip. “Curierul Judiciar”, Bucharest, 1924-1927.

Teodorescu, Constantin, Istoricul Ocnelor Mari în trecut cu biografia celor mai vestiţi criminali, Ed. Librăriei H. Steinberg, Bucharest 1897.

Vintilă-Ghiţulescu, Constanţa, În şalvari şi cu işlic, Ed. Humanitas, Bucharest, 2004.

Vintilă-Ghiţulescu, Constanţa, Willcocks, Mária Pakucs (ed.), Spectacolul public între tradiţie şi modernitate: sărbători, ceremonialuri, pelerinaje şi suplicii (secolele XIV-XIX), Institutul Cultural Român, 2006.

Vulcănescu, Romulus, Etnologie juridică, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1970.

Xenopol, A.D., Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană, 6 volumes, Iaşi, 1888-1893.

21

Idem, Istoria românilor din Dacia Traiană, second edition revised, vol. II, VI, VII, Ed. Cartea românească, Bucharest, s.a.

Special worksBaboiu, Oana Eugenia, Enache Alexandra, Petcu Magda, Tortura între

constrângere şi pedeapsă, Ed. Mirton, Timişoara, 2002.Barbu, Violeta, “Furtişagul” din vistieria ţării: de la justiţia sumară la

proces, in “Revista istorică”, tome XV, no. 3-4, Bucharest, 2004.Berechet, Ştefan Gr., Dreptul vechilor noştri ierarhi la judecarea mirenilor,

in “Biserica Ortodoxă Română”, LVI, 1938.Idem, Judecata la români până în secolul al XVIII-lea, s.l., s.a.Idem, Legătura dintre dreptul bizantin şi românesc, vol. I, part I, Vaslui,

1937.Idem, Procedura de judecată la slavi şi români, Tip. Eparhială “Cartea

Românească”, Chişinău, 1926.Cernea, Emil, Les traditions autochtones de l’ancien droit pénal roumain, in

Études d’histoire du droit pénal, edited by Lesław Pauli, Warsaw-Cracow, 1976.Chelcu, Cătălina, Between the Memory of the Customary and the Code

of Law. Crimes, Penalties and Social Identities in Pre-Modern Moldavia (17 th

Century – First Half of the 18 th Century). Components of the Project and the Current Stage of the Research , in “Transylvanian Review”, Vol. XIX, Supplement No 5: 2, Cluj-Napoca, 2010.

Chelcu, Cătălina, Chelcu, Marius, Pagube, furturi, despăgubiri, pedepse: între pravilă şi obiceiul pământului. Câteva consideraţii, in “Arhiva istorică a României”, new series, vol. I, no. 1, Bucharest, 2004.

Condurachi, Ioan D., Formarea vechiului drept românesc nescris, excerpt from the journal “Ţara Bârsei”, Braşov, 1935.

Idem, Recherches sur l’ancienne organisation judiciaire des Roumains, Paris, 1913.

Idem, Trăsăturile caracteristice ale vechiului drept penal românesc, Tipografia Penitenciarului “Văcăreşti”, Bucharest, 1934.

Crăescu, Constantin, Două ipostaze ale delincvenţei în satul medieval românesc: furtul şi crima, in “Opţiuni istoriografice”, no. VII2, Iaşi, 2006.

Cristea, Ovidiu, “Cu acest feliu de pompă i-au dus”: un “spectacol” pentru un caz de “hiclenie” în veacul al XVII-lea, in “Revista istorică” no. 3-4, Bucharest, 2007.

22

Cronţ, Gheorghe, Des conceptions morales et pédagogiques dans les dispositions au caractère pénal de l’ancien droit roumain, in Études d’histoire du droit pénal, edited by Lesław Pauli, Warsaw-Cracow, 1976.

Disescu, C.G., Les origines du droit roumain, Paris, 1899.Dobrescu, Demetru I., Psihologia penală a ţăranului, in “Revistă de drept şi

sociologie”, year II, no. 1, Bucharest, 1899.Filitti, Ioan C., Consideraţii generale despre vechea organizare fiscală a

Principatelor Române până la Regulamentele Organice, excerpt from “Analele Economice şi Statistice”, no. 1-3, Tipografia “Ion C. Văcărescu”, Bucharest, 1935.

Idem, Despre vechea organizare administrativă a Principatelor Române, excerpt from “Revista de Drept Public”, year IV, Fundaţia culturală “Regele Mihai I”, Imprimeria, Bucharest, 1929.

Filitti, Ioan C., Suchianu, Ion, Contribuţii la istoria justiţiei penale in Principatele Române, Tip. şi legătoria Închisorii Centrale “Văcăreşti”, Bucharest, 1928.

Firoiu, Dumitru V., Câteva consideraţii referitoare la forma de redactare a hotărârilor judecătoreşti date de domnii Ţării Româneşti şi ai Moldovei în secolele XIV-XVII, in “Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Iurisprudentia”, year XXI, Cluj-Napoca, 1976.

Georgescu, Valentin Al., Psychohistoire et histoire des mentalités sud-est européennes au niveau de l’histoire du droit, in “Révue des Études sud-est Européennes”, tome XVIII, 1980, No 4.

Georgescu, Valentin Al., Strihan, Petre, Judecata domnească în Ţara Românească şi Moldova, part I, vol. I, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucharest, 1981.

Ghibănescu, Gheorghe, Organele administrative rurale, in “Arhiva”, year XII, no. 7-8, Iaşi, 1901.

Gionea, Vasile, La violence juridiquement réglementée et la violence non-réglementée dans les principautes roumaines, durant les XVII et XIX siècles , in “Recherches sur l’histoire des institutions et du droit”, XIV, Bucarest, 1989.

Idem, Gionea, La coutume en Valachie, en Moldavie et en Transylvanie durant le Moyen-Âge, in “Recherches sur l’histoire des institutions et du droit”, X, Bucharest, 1985.

Godea, Ion, Étude d’ethnologie juridique roumaine. “Perindele”, in “Ethnologica”, Bucharest, 1983.

Grigoraş, Nicolae, Principalele amenzi din Moldova în timpul orânduirii feudale (secolele al XV-lea – al XVIII-lea), in “Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie «A.D. Xenopol»“, VI, Iaşi, 1969.

Hanga, Vladimir, Le procès dans le droit coutumier féodal roumain, in “Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions.

23

L’assistance dans la rèsolution des conflits”, fourth part, L’Europe Médiévale et Moderne (suite), De Boek Université, Bruxelles, 1998.

Iorga, Nicolae, Les origines et l’originalité du droit populaire roumain, in “Bulletin de la Section Historique”, tome XIX, Bucharest, 1935.

Lévy, Jean Paul, L’evolution de la preuve, des origines a nos jours. Synthèse générale (I), in “Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions “, XVII, La preuve. Deuxième partie: Moyen Âge et temps moderns, Ed. de la Librarie Encyclopedique, Bruxelles, 1965.

Livadă-Cadeschi, Ligia, Vlad, Laurenţiu, Departamentul de cremenalion, Ed. Nemira, Bucharest, 2002.

Lupu, Ioan, Vina şi procesul ei la români, Iaşi, 1934.Manolescu, Gabriel, Despre originea, semnificaţiile şi tipologia unui obicei

străvechi: strigarea peste sat, in Mihai Pop (ed.), Folclor literar, vol. I, Timişoara, 1967.

Marcu, Liviu P., Éléments d’ethnologie juridique dans l’œuvre des chroniqueurs roumains, in “Ethnologica”, Bucharest, 1982.

Idem, Les coutumes juridiques comme système normatif vicinal, in “Ethnologica”, Bucharest, 1983.

Maxim, George G., Obiceiurile juridice ale poporului român. Studiu asupra obiceiurilor pământului din punct de vedere: juridic, social, moral şi politic, Tipografia “Lumina Moldovei”, Iaşi, 1921.

Mazilu, Dan Horia, Lege şi fărădelege în lumea românească veche, Ed. Polirom, Iaşi, 2006.

Mototolescu, Dumitru D., Jus Valachicum în Polonia, Bucharest, 1916.Nedelcu, George P., Puterea părintească în vechiul drept românesc, Ed.

Institutul. Grafic “Miricescu”, Ploieşti, 1933.Păcurariu, Mircea, Dicasteria şi consistoriul Mitropoliei Ungrovlahiei, in

“Biserica Ortodoxă Română”, year LXXVII, no. 7-10, 1959.Peretz, Ion, Ideea de drept şi de lege în folclorul român, Tip. Clemenţa,

Bucharest, 1905.Popescu, Alexandra-Marcela, Mărturii privind pedeapsa cu moartea pentru

hiclenie în Ţara Moldovei, in “Opţiuni istoriografice”, IX1-2, Iaşi, 2008.Rădulescu, Andrei, Pagini din istoria dreptului românesc, Ed. Academiei

R.S.R., Bucharest, 1970.Rădulescu, Constantin, Studiu penal comparat asupra trecerii

administraţiunii închisorilor sub dependinţa Ministerului de Justiţie, Tip. Ziarului “Curierul Judiciar”, Bucharest, 1909.

Rizescu, Oana, Avant l’«État-juge»: Pratique juridique et construction politique en Valachie au XVIIe siècle, Ed. Notarom, s.l., 2008.

24

Sacerdoţeanu, Aurelian, Cum se jura, in “Hrisovul”, no. VII, Bucharest, 1947.

Sachelarie, Ovid, Autoritatea hotărârilor judecătoreşti în vechiul drept românesc, in “Studii şi materiale de istorie medie”, VII, 1974.

Safta-Romano, Eugeniu, Arhetipuri juridice în Biblie, Ed. Polirom, Iaşi, 1997.

Stahl, Paul H., Histoire de la décapitation, PUF, Paris, 1986.Tătaru, Anca-Mihaela, Nelegiuirea. Faptă şi osândă în societatea

românească medievală (I-II), in “Opţiuni istoriografice”, no. IX1-2, 2008 and no. X1-

2, 2009.Ungureanu, Gheorghe, Pedepsele în Moldova la sfârşitul secolului al XVIII-

lea şi începutul secolului al XIX-lea, Iaşi, 1931.Vlad, Matei D., Regimul administrativ al satelor de colonizare din Ţara

Românească şi Moldova (secolul XVII), in “Studii. Revistă de istorie”, tome 22, no. 1, Bucharest, 1969.

Vulcănescu, Romulus, Les signes juridiques dans la région carpato-balcanique, in “Revue des Études sud-est européennes”, tome II, no. 1-2, 1964.

Zaharia, Georgiana, Decapitarea, arderea, sfârtecarea: simbolismul corpului în execuţiile capitale, in “Opţiuni istoriografice”, IX1-2, Iaşi, 2008.

Eadem, Des boyards et des serviteurs. Entre des «procédures pénales» et des «valuri» (Moldavie, le XVIIe siècle), in “Research and science today”, no. 4, Târgu-Jiu, 2012.

Eadem, “După dreptate şi după lege”. Despre justiţie la români în secolul al XVII-lea (studiu introductiv) (master thesis), “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iaşi, 2010.

Eadem, Urmăriți și urmăritori: despre hoți în Moldova in secolul al XVII-lea, in “Buletinul cercurilor științifice studențești”, no. 17-18, Alba Iulia, 2011-2012.

25