Vorstelijke genade in de praktijk. Remissiebrief voor Matthieu Cricke en diens mede-acteurs voor vermeende vrouwenroof in oktober 1476, slechts geïnterineerd na kritische verificatie door de raadsheren van het Parlement van Mechelen

Abstract

In October 1475, Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, pardoned the actor Mathieu Cricke and his co-actors, who had been imprisoned following the complaint of Jan van Musene, a burgher from Malines, for the abduction of his mistress, the actress and former prostitute Maria van der Hoeven. Cricke and his companions submitted their letter of remission to the court of the Parliament of Malines, with the intention of obtaining its ratification. However, Van Musene and his co-plaintiffs submitted an official protest. In order to check the veracity of the presumed offence and the legitimacy of the protest, the counsellors of the Parliament began an investigation, on apar with the procedure. No less than eighteen eyewitnesses of the events were traced and cross-examined in Diest, Gempe and Louvain. The court's final verdict ordered ratification and a pardon. Cricke and the co-accused were acquitted of the charge of abduction, but were convicted for the minor complaints of physical and verbal abuse against Van Musene and his co-plaintiffs. Settlement of the fine that was part of the verdict dragged on for years, since no bailiff had the courage to collect the arrears from the members of Cricke's group, considered to be socially dangerous. The presence, in this case, of four different types of texts (a letter of remission, a request for ratification, investigation and payment of the fine) has the methodological advantage of demonstrating in concrete terms that a pardon is always carried out in phases, and should be put into perspective. Granting pardon was indeed the exclusive privilege of the prince, acting freely and without limitation. However, the juridical and political suitability of its execution depended on the verification of the facts by one of the ducal high courts. The many contradictions regarding these facts between the statements of the concerned parties and the numerous witnesses questioned, and the contradictory viewpoints of the judges and the ducal officers, present a unique opportunity for a deeper insight into the ideological opinions, social patterns of behaviour, and the impact of networks in the 15th century.