“He Admitted Leading the Rebels towards Gorizia with a Halberd while Whistling”

A Connection between Crimen Laesae Maiestatis with the Uprisings and the Role of Rebel Punishment in the Tolmin Peasant Revolt of 1713

Abstract

The first line of argument in the article is an overview of the legal interpretations of uprising as a crime between the Middle Ages and the 18th century, when a shift in the authority concept occurs under the influence of natural law. This had an impact on the transformation of the offence of insulting the ruler, which became more frequently connected with other crimes, including the crime of uprising. What is presented is the process of distinguishing between the offence of insulting the ruler from the crimes of uprising and treason, the abuse of state symbols and institutions, and of immediate threat to the person of the ruler. The second line of argument concerns the trial of the rebels in the Tolmin Peasant Revolt of 1713. The questionable practices of the serfs that were underlined in the 1713 uprising case by the Imperial Commission as common features of the uprising culture were connected above all with threats to public security and disrespect or threats to the existing social hierarchy. The offence of insulting the sovereign that was proven against some of the executed rebels was traditional because it comprised an insult to the regional prince and a breach of fidelity. For all criminals against whom it was proven, it resulted in the death penalty, while insult to the local authorities counted only as an aggravating circumstance.