Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T18:46:29.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Serfdom in Hungary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Béla K. Király
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the particular case of Hungary, neo-serfdom is to be seen as an economic, political, and social evolution in which the political power of the nobility, especially that of the gentry, grew considerably; the demesne lands of the lords disproportionately increased at the expense of the serfs' rustical lands; the lords' seigneurial jurisdiction over their peasants increased; and the lords' management of their economy shifted from receiving rents to producing for markets. It was a system of social stagnation in which the evolution of cities and an urban middle class, a potential counterbalance to the nobility, was made impossible, and the serfs had no way out of their degrading environment and status. These conditions developed rapidly after the suppression of the Dózsa revolt of 1514, the greatest peasant movement of discontent in Hungary. As a result, the peasants were bound to the soil. The national Diet of 1547, however, enacted the serfs' right of migration, a freedom which was re enacted several times more.

Type
Symposium
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 269 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

References

1. All the privileges of the estates as well as the punishments and future obligations of the peasants after the revolt were spelled out in Istvan Verboczi's Tripartitum or Hdrmaskonyv [Book in Three Parts], first printed in 1517. Of the peasants’ new situation it says (the edition of 1844 by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pest, is quoted): “From now on as perpetual serfs they are totally subject to their lords” (art. 25, sec. 2). The Tripartitum also defined the right of ownership of the land: “Beyond fees and rewards for his work, the peasant has no right whatsoever to his lord's land, except the right of inheritance; full ownership of the land belongs exclusively to the landlord “ (art. 30, sec. 7). See also Istvan, Szabo, Tanulmanyok a.magyar parasztsdg tortenetebol [Studies on the History of Hungarian Peasantry] (Budapest, 1948), pp. 65–158 Google Scholar.

2. Act no. 26 of 1547, in Corpus juris Hungarici, millennial commemorative ed., 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1902), 2: 203 (hereafter cited as CJH).

3. Between 1604 and 1606 Istvan Bocskay waged a successful war of independence against the Habsburg monarch. The Peace of Vienna of 1606, which ended the war, entrenched the privileges of the estates.

4. Act no. 13 of 1608, in CJH, 3: 30-31.

5. The immensity of this system can be viewed on maps in Balint Homan and Gyula Szekfii, Magyar tbrtenet [Hungarian History], 7th’ ed., 5 vols. (Budapest, 1941-43), between pp. 160 and 161; 224 and 225. For the general conditions of neo-serfdom in the seventeenth century see Geza, Perjes, Mezogasdasdgi termeles, nepesseg, hadseregelelmeses es stratcgia a 17. szdzad mdsodik feleben, 1650-1715 [Agrarian Production, Demography, Supply of the Army and Strategy During the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century, 1650-1715] (Budapest, 1963)Google Scholar.

6. The heartlands of Hungary fell to the Ottomans in the mid-sixteenth century and were reconquered only during the War of Liberation (1683-99). This extended war, together with the War of Independence of Ferenc Rakoczi (1703-11), utterly devastated and depopulated the area. Tibor Mendol, “Az uj telepiilesi rend” [The New System of Settlement], in Sandor, Domanovszky, Magyar miivelodestbr tenet [Hungarian Cultural History], 5 vols. (Budapest, 1939-42), 4: 184Google Scholar. In the space of a century a remarkable repopulation took place. By 1788 the population of Hungary was 8, 560, 180. See the final computation of the census of Joseph II in Hungarian National Archives, locumtenentiale 2900 (1788), conscr. no. 8, reprinted in Gusztav Thirring, Magyarorszag nepessege II Jozsef kordban [The Population of Hungary in the Era of Joseph II] (Budapest, 1938), p. 37. See also Jozsef, Kovacsics, Magyarorszag tbrteneti demogrdfidja [The Historical Demography of Hungary] (Budapest, 1963)Google Scholar. For an example of the lords’ effort to gain settlers (inpopulatio) see the reprint of “Karolyi Ferencz grof patens-levele” [Letter of Patent of Count Ferenc Karolyi], May 23, 1753, in Gabor £ble, Az ecscdi uradalom es Nyiregyhdza [The Estate of Ecsed and (the town of) Nyiregyhaza] (Budapest, 1898), pp. 145-46. See also Istvan, Szendrey, Egy alfbldi uradalom a tbrbk hodoltsdg titan [An Estate on the Great Hungarian Plain After the Turkish Occupation] (Budapest, 1968)Google Scholar.

7. Act no. 101 of 1715, CJH, 4: 517. Act no. 6 of 1725, CJH, 4: 610.

8. The Vice-Regal Council, the first permanent Hungarian central government in a modern sense, was set up by Acts nos. 97 through 122 of 1723 (CJH, 4: 642). The Council continued as the central government organ in Hungary, with several reorganizations, until the first ministry was established in 1848. See Ibolya Felho and Antal, Voros, A helytartdtandcsi leveltdr [The Archives of the Vice-Regal Council] (Budapest, 1961), pp. 16–17 Google Scholar.

9. See Jerome, Blum, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815-1848: A Study in the Origins of the Peasant Emancipation of 1848 (Baltimore, 1948), p. 46 Google Scholar.

10. Ignacz, Acsady, A magyar jobbagysag tortenete [The History of Hungarian Serfdom] (Budapest, 1906), p. 343 Google Scholar.

11. Link, Edith Murr, The Emancipation of the Austrian Peasant, 1740-1798 (New York, 1949), pp. 31–88 Google Scholar. Gyorgy, Spira, ed., Tamtlmanyok a parasstsag tortenctehes Magyarorszagon, 1711-1790 [Essays on the History of the Peasantry in Hungary, 1711-1790] (Budapest, 1952), pp. 345-56, 454–69 Google Scholar. Wright, William E., Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth-Century Bohemia (Minneapolis, 1966), pp. 38-40, 71–76 Google Scholar,

142. For a most comprehensive study of Transdanubian Hungary see Ibolya, Felho, ed., Ac urberes birtokvissonyok Magyarorszdgon Maria Tcrezia koraban [System of Ownership of Rustical Lands in Hungary in the Era of Maria Theresa] (Budapest, 1970)Google Scholar. See also Emil, Niederhauser, A jobbagyfelszabaditds Kelet-Europaban [The Freeing of the Serfs in Eastern Europe] (Budapest, 1962), p. 81 Google Scholar.

12. Karl, Griinberg, Die Bauernbejreiung und die Auflosung des gutsherrlich-bduerlichen V erhdltnisses in Bbhmen, M'dhren und Schlesien, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1893-94), 1: 125 Google Scholar. Blum, , Noble Landowners, p. 47 Google Scholar. Link attributes peasant protection to “the emergence of a powerful, mercantilist, anti-corporate central government” (Emancipation, p. 24).

13. Link, Emancipation, p. 149. Niederhauser, , A jobbdgyfelszabaditds, p. 90 Google Scholar. Griinberg, , Bauernbefreiung, 2: 378-79Google Scholar. For an historical evaluation of the peasant policy of the Habsburgs see the analysis, “Alliance Between the Dynasty and the Oppressed Classes of the People,” in Oscar, Jaszi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, 1961), pp. 43–44 Google Scholar. For the myth of the “good emperor” see Spira, , Tanulmdnyok, pp. 441–44Google Scholar. For a Hungarian viewpoint see Jeno Berlasz, “A magyar jobbagykerdes es a becsi udvar az 1790-es evekben” [The Problem of the Hungarian Serfs and the Court of Vienna in the 1790s], in Yearbook of the Hungarian Institute of Historical Science for 1942 (Budapest, 1942), esp. pp. 40-56. For the peasants’ reaction to the increased suppression see Hadrovics, Laszlo and Wellmann, Imre, Parasztmozgalmak a 18. szdzadban [Peasant Movements in the Eighteenth Century] (Budapest, 1951)Google Scholar.

14. See Kiraly, Bela K., “The Emancipation of the Serfs of East Central Europe, “ Antemurale (Rome), 15 (1971): 63–85 Google Scholar. For the special local circumstances of Transylvania see Zsolt, Trocsanyi, Az erdelyi parasztsdg tortenete, 1790-1849 [A History of the Transylvanian Peasantry, 1790-1849] (Budapest, 1956)Google Scholar.

15. For a comprehensive study of the ownership of the serfs see Janos, Varga, A jobbagyi foldbirtoklds tipusai es problemai, 1767-1849 [The Types and Problems of the Ownership Rights of the Serfs, 1767-1849] (Budapest, 1967)Google Scholar; Marton Sarlos, “Deak Ferenc es az urberi foldtulajdon az 1832/1836-i orszaggytilesen” [Ferenc Deak and the Question of Servile Landownership at the Diet of 1832-36], Jogtbrteneti tanul-manyok [Studies of Legal History] (Budapest), 2 (1966): 193-94; Stefan, Kieniewicz, The Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry (Chicago, 1969), pp. 4, 248–49 Google Scholar; Laszlo, Revesz, Der osteuropaische Bauer: Seine Rechtslage im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert unter besonderer Berucksichtigung Ungarns (Bern, 1964), pp. 1–9 Google Scholar. See also Zsigmond Pal Pach, Nyugateuropai es magyarorssagi agrarjejlodes a XVI-XVII. szazadban [West European and Hungarian Agrarian Developments in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries] (Budapest, 1963).

16. The other main rights and obligations of the serfs were to cultivate a specific area of plowland and hayfield; to graze enough cattle on common land free to meet his family's needs; lignatio (to cut timber in the lord's forest to supply his needs for building lumber, kindling, and maintaining his agricultural implements) ; to cut reed from the lord's reed beds for heating and thatching his home; pannage (to feed his pigs on the mast in the lord's forests) ; educillatio (to run a tavern for the community) ; robot; kilenced (to give the lord one-ninth of his crops and newborn calves every year) ; tithe (to give the bishop one-tenth of his crops and newborn calves every year) ; to give the lord chickens, capons, and eggs on such occasions as Christmas or the wedding of one of the lord's sons; to cart logs for the lord; to pay the lord a fee for each hearth in use; subsidiae (to pay ransom if the lord should fall captive and also to mark the lord's wedding and first mass) ; and macellum (to buy meat exclusively at the lord's butcheries). See Ferenc, Eckhart, Magyar alkotmany es jogtortenet [Hungarian Constitutional and Legal History] (Budapest, 1946), pp. 206 ffGoogle Scholar.

17. In Mosony county, for instance, one sessio contained twenty to twenty-six acres; in Pest county, twenty-four to thirty acres; in Sopron county, upwards of sixteen acres; and in Csanad county, upwards of thirty-six acres. The size of a hayfield on a serf sessio was from six to twenty-two jalcastra. A jalcastrum or kassalo was an area that yielded a wainload of hay at the year's first mowing. See Eckhart, , Magyar alkotmany, p. 217 Google Scholar. See also the abundance of data in Felho, As urberes birtokviszonyok.

18. Gyula, Merei, Mezogazdasdg es agrdrtdrsadalotn Magyarorssdgon, 1790-1848 [Agriculture and Agrarian Society in Hungary, 1790-1848] (Budapest, 1948), pp. 7–8 Google Scholar. Between 1768 and 1848 the number of inquilini among the bondsmen on the Festetics estate increased as follows: 300 percent on the Manor of Keszthely, 240 percent on the Manor of Kemend, and 168 percent on the Manor of Csurgo. Imre, Szanto, A parasztsdg kisajdtitdsa es mozgalmai a dunantuli Festetics-birtokon, 1711-1850 [The Expropriation and the Movements of the Peasantry at the Transdanubian Festetics Lands, 1711-1850] (Budapest, 1954), p. 124 Google Scholar. For further details see Spira, Tanulmdnyok, pp. 271-76. On the consolidation of huge estates see Peter, Agoston, A magyar vildgi nagybirtok tortenete [A History of the Hungarian Lay Great Estates] (Budapest, 1913)Google Scholar.

19. The boom in grain sales reached its peak during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. The produce market did not, however, collapse with the disappearance of the grain buyers at the end of these wars. In the early 1820s a boom in wool started to bring in even better profits than the grain sales had. In 1846-47 Hungarian grain exports to Austria earned 9.1 million florins, and wool exports to Austria fetched 17.1 million florins ( Merei, , Mezogazdasdg, p. 25 Google Scholar).

20. Szanto, , A parasztsdg kisajdtitdsa, pp. 45–49Google Scholar.

21. Miklos, Wesselenyi, Baliteletek [Misconceptions] (Buda, 1833), pp. 225Google Scholar, 228; also Janos, Hetenyi, Robot es Dezsma [Robot and Tithe] (Budapest, 1947), p. 57 Google Scholar.

22. Merei, , Mezogasdasdg, p. 138 Google Scholar.

23. Szanto, , A parasstsag kisajdtitdsa, pp. 60–65Google Scholar.

24. Merei, , Mezogazdasdg, p. 139 Google Scholar.

25. Imre Wellmann, “Mezogazdasag tortenetirasunk uj utja” [The New Road of Our Agrarian Historiography], Domanovszky Emlekkonyv [Domanovszky Commemorative Album] (Budapest, 1937), pp. 690-95; also Gabor, fible, Az ecsedi szdzeves urberi per tortenete (1776-1877) [The History of the One Hundred Year Serf Lawsuit of Ecsed] (Budapest, 1912), pp. 16–18 Google Scholar. Imre, Soos, As urberi birtokrendezes eredmenyei Sopron megyeben [The Results of the Settlement of Servile Ownership Relations in Sopron County] (Sopron, 1941), pp. 45–48 Google Scholar.

26. Merei, , Mezogasdasag, p. 8 Google Scholar. See also Pach, Zsigmond Pal, Az eredeti tokefelhalmozas gyarmati korlatai Magyarorszagon 1848 elott [The Obstacles to Original Capital Accumulation in Hungary Prior to 1848 Which Originated in the Colonial Status (of the country)] (Budapest, 1950)Google Scholar.

27. Elemer Malyusz, “A magyarorszagi polgarsag a francia forradalom koraban “ [The Hungarian Burghers During the Era of the French Revolution], A becsi Magyar Tbrteneti Intezet vkonyve [Yearbook of the Hungarian Historical Institute of Vienna], 1 (1939): 227.

28. The Hungarian untitled (lesser) nobility comprised the possessionati and the bene possessionati, or gentry. The possessionati owned land cultivated by a few serf families. The bene possessionati owned middle-sized estates, several villages, and a great number of serfs. They were men of learning, and many of them had an advanced education. Only a few bene possessionati were to be found in each county, but they dominated the county administration and were the natural leaders of the lesser nobility. For details see the author's Hungary in the Late Eighteenth Century (New York, 1969), pp. 24-42. For the status of the peasantry prior to neo-serfdom see Szabo, , Tanulmanyok, pp. 5-30, 31-64Google Scholar.

29. Gergely Berzeviczy, “De conditione et indole rusticorum,” in Jen6 Gail, Berzeviczy Gergely eletc es muvei [The Life and Works of Gergely Berzeviczy] (Budapest, 1902), p. 142. Lengthy quotations are made from this remarkable work, for there is very little else that better characterizes the nature of neo-serfdom in Hungary than what’ this enlightened Hungarian so forcefully wrote at the time when neo-serfdom was at its height.

30. Ibid., p. 151.

31. Ibid., p. 147.