Countess Dracula by Tony Thorne

serial sadism. The weavers of legend have included this strand, too; in their versions the notebook in its secret casket also contains, like a seducer’s diary, comments on the girls’ features and figures.
    In a modern courtroom drama such a devastating allegation would be followed by gasps of incredulity and indignation, then an impatient shuffling while Szilvássy himself is called to the stand to corroborate or deny. The bare written records from 1611 are silent; the witness said no more and a full year elapsed before the name of Szilvássy was heard again. 11
    When the presentation of evidence was over, the court went on to pronounce its sentences immediately. The published judgement read as follows:
    The lady has committed a terrible crime against the female blood, and in this Dorothy, Helena and John Ficzkó were privy and purposeful accomplices and under interrogation the accusation proved to be well-founded and to determine more of the matter, Dorothy, Helena and Ficzkó were submitted to torture on the same occasion of the questioning. The accused persons then confirmed their previous statements and added even worse details of the terrible crimes committed by her ladyship, the widow Nádasdy. All the accused before the court, in the confessions that they made voluntarily and also under torture, and in other confessions, prove beyond doubt the guilt of the accused which surpasses the imagination in the many murders and slaughter and specific tortures and cruelty of all kinds and evil. And as these most serious crimes should be matched by the severest punishments, we have determined and we hereby decree that regarding firstly Helena and secondly Dorothy as those most implicated in the bloody crime, and as murderers, the sentence is that all the fingers of their hands which they steeped in Christian blood and which were the instruments of murder shall be torn out by the executioner with iron tongs, after which they shall be placed alive on the fire. As concerns John Ficzkó, his guilt and punishment is alleviated by his youth and his lesser participation in the crimes. He is therefore sentenced to lose his head; only his dead body will be placed on the fire with the two other condemned persons. And Katherine, as her two female companions stated that she had not participated in these affairs [sic], on only the basis of John Ficzkó’s confession she cannot be condemned, therefore she shall be kept in close confinement until her guilt may be determined. 12
    In fact the truth was the reverse: Ficzkó had spoken in Benecká’s defence, the two women had tried to implicate her.
    This sentence has been pronounced publicly before the accused and the punishment has immediately been carried out. As widerproof and as an example for future times, this document is signed in our hand and affirmed by our seal, and we order that it be dispatched to his excellency the Palatine. Dated 7 January 1611.
    There followed the signatures and seals of the twenty jurors. 13
    The punishments handed out to those found guilty were carefully graded and designed to match the crime. This was an age in which the idea of rehabilitation was unknown and punishing was carried out as a social ritual to deter and, just as importantly, to enact retribution, ensure public approval and to purify the whole community. As well as its pillory (instead of the wooden stocks, larger Hungarian communities favoured wrought-iron cages suspended above the marketplace) every village had its gibbet as a reminder to potential miscreants, and towns and castles kept their instruments of chastisement on public display. At Byt č a there was a prison within the castle itself, where Ficzkó was kept, and a public jail for common criminals in the town, where the old women were held. 14 Public executions were held outside the town on meadowland by the river, overlooked by a line of hills. Here large crowds could assemble, and, if the wind blew