Relatives and Miles

ISTVAN M. SZIJART6
Relatives and Miles
A Regional Approach to the Social Relations of the Lesser Nobility in the County of Somogy in the Eighteenth Century
ABS ACT
Through seven socio-economic criteria the author establishes three characteristic Ievels of the lesser nobility of Co. Somogy in the eighteenth century, than ta s samples consisting of three families om them. The analysis is based on the assumption that the geographical extent of social relations is re ected by the network of places where these families brought their wivesfrom or married o their daughters to. conclusion of this regional approach to the social relations of the lesser nobility is that the typical geographical sphere of life was narrow neighbourhood of their village for the petty nobili , while for the well-to- gentry it was approximately the county and for the wealthy injluential leading families it was a larger geographical unit.
While at the time of its foundation in the early eleventh centu the system of counties (comitatus, wirmegye) in the kingdom of Hungary was a bulwark of royal power, from the end of the thirteenth century it had en gradually transformed into the organ of the local self-gove ment of the nobility. In the eighteenth century the nobility exercised the bu of administration, certain judicial and l al legisla ve wer rougb the organization of the county. The head of the county was thefoispdn (supremus comes) ap inted by the king, usually a lay or ecclesiastical lord absent from the county, while the actual self-go­ ve ment of the county was directcd by the elec d alispdn (vicecomes). It was in this century that the devclopment of the mode state apparatus gathered momentum, and the central gove ment made efforts to Su rdinate the county. However, to enforce royal decrees resisted by the county authorities, it had no other means but the army. Tbis last argument remained, though an exceptional measure. The county enjoyed considerable autonomy for the central govemment had no alte ative executive organ on the regional
142 History and Society 2
and l al level, and its leading officials were existentially independent noble eo elected by the noble assembly.
According received opinion in Hungary, the county was the realm of the lesser nobility. But can we reverse this Statement? It should therefore be possible to get to know the lesser nobility by studiyng one particular county? I encountered for example records on several members ofthe Spissich family while investigating the noble society ofCo. Somogy in the eighteenth century. They did not own large estates, and I did not see fmd any evidence in Somogy which would have elevated this family above the ave ge of the lesser nobility. Only later did I find out that the Spissich family gave three alispdns in the eighteenth century, thougb not in Somogy, but in Co. Zala and across the Drava, in Croatia.1 Presumably the prestige of the Spissich in Somogy was augmented by the fact that they had influential relatives in the leadership of the neigh uring counties: county borders did not prevent s ial effects from crossing.
If this is so, we should y to establisb the ’social sphere‘ of the Hungarian nobility in e eighteenth century. I shall attempt to do so on the example ofCo. Somogy, by concentrating on the geographical sphere of a single social phenomenon, but one of centrat importance: ge. However, an overall investigation embracing the entire lesser noble society of the county would take several years. Therefore we have to Iimit our inquiry to a selected ple of individual cases. In orderto in any sense representative of the lesser nobility, tbe families2 surveyed must be selected in a statistically more or less relevant pling. Such a pr edure demands tbat we define certain social layers witbin the lesser nobility and take ples from these layers.
I.
The pr ess in wbich the nobility be e a legally unified order from a conglomerate of various privileged groups was formal!y completed in 1351 by an act recognizing the equal rights of every nobleman. Tbis principle found its way into Istvan Werb zy‘ s Tripartitum (1514), the collection of Hungarian costumary law, that had Iasting influence on the men lity of Hungarian nobility. The turbulent sixteenth and seventeenth nturies wimes­ sed a strong numerical expansion of tbe nobility through the practice of granting noble privilege to masses of commoners. According to the population censuses of the 1780s noble privilege embraced approximately 5% of the population. Tbe legal fiction of una eademque nobilitas (one and tbe same nobility) united groups of very diverse s ial status within one order. Among these only the separation of the titled arist racy is evident. The hidden differences among the ‚lesser nobility‘ ( znemesseg) were, however, at leastas significant as tho between arist racy and lesser nobility. I ied to define certain s ial levels within the lesser nobility by applying a complex set of criteria, as a basis of a stratified sampling.
My investigation included the lesser noble families living inCo. Somogy between 1715 and 1815. These unconventionallandmarks were chosen because it was the law 1715:86
S j 6: Rela vesand les 143
which re-established Sornogy as an independent county, after it bad been united with neigh uring la in the age of Ottoman occupation.3 The inclusion of the riod of the Na leonic wars is predicated by the extreme ricbess of sources. This research could not have en done without the light they sbed on the state of affairs at the end of the previous century,-first of all on landed prope y and on prestige, factors that do not usually change rapidly.
In establishing the layers within the lesser nobility I applied seven criteria. I do not claim tbat these would clearly define tbe s ial sta s of every single lesser noble f ly in Co. Somogy, but y goal this time was nothing ore than to select some clear cases.
In 1807, a register was set up.4 It contained all tbose inhabitants of the county who were subject to con ibution in one way or another to the noble levy (insurrectio). The Iist includes 77 noble eu from 39 families of the lesser nobility wi an income of at least 2 florins r annum. According to the law 1805:1, they were obligated to take arms up or-if the5 were not able to fight in rson-to send one mounted solidier at tbeir own expense. This was tbe higbest income category in the law, indicating that tbese people did not only enjoy noble privilege based on past erits, but tbat tbey were believed to capable of fulfilling the nobility’s ancient Obligation of defending the country. Their econo ic background was considered to be sufficient for this by contem raries.
A Iist drawn up after a comprehensive investigation of noble status in 1754-55 includes the names of 332 noblerneu and noble widows for Co. Somogy and-surprisingly enougb­ two more ilies.6 My second criterion was, tberefore, wbether a f ly bad at least one member on this Iist.
I have found 30 f lies satisfying botb of tbe a ve criteria. These f lies were raised high the average of tbe lesser nobility by tbeir assumed ability to serve in the noble levy at their own expense. Their presence in the second Iist ensures that tbese f lies lived in So ogy not only in 1807, but also a half century earlier, so in tbe greater part of tbe hundred years in question. I applied five further criteria to define tbe higher layer of the county nobility. Half of the 30 families did not show positive results for any of the five investiga­ tions, being clearly of a lower s ial status within this group. From tbese 15 families I have choscn thr representing the middling k of the gentry (birtokos znemesseg): the Bak6, Borda and Merey families.
I tried to select representatives of the upper stratum of the gentry by applying the following five criteria. There were noblemen with honorary titles such as royal councillor or royal chamberlain. These titles naturally rais their family a ve the average of the gen y. During y researcb I met nine families in eigbteenth-cen Somogy having me rs who were royal councillors or could boast with a royal chamberlain’s keys.
With the exception of the ispdn the leading comital offleials were elected by the noble community of the county, more precisely, by the minority present at tbe asse bly. Tbe ost prestigeous of ces were those entailing greater inde ndence7-i.e. greater power. The alispan was the actual head of tbe executive and tbe judiciary in the county. He
144 Hist y and S iety 2
sometimes bad a deputy: the n sodalisp n (substitutus vicecomes). The direct control over the administration was exercised by the county recorder (Ordinarius notarius,f egyz6).8 His im rtance is reflected by the fact that he was very often elected vicecomes after his tenure as recorder. The Chief magis tes (ordinariusjudex nobilium,foszolgabiro) repre­ sented the authority of the county in the districts in rson, one in each. (The county was divided into a growing nwnber of districts, from two to five in our period.) To these sitions in l al administration power I added the two deputies sent to the national Diet by the county. In eight nth-century Hungary the division of power tween king and Estates was very uneven with most of it resting with the ruler, but since the Diet retained the exclusive the rigbt to vote both for the recruits for the army and for raising taxes, it could preserve much of its bargaining wer-usually exploited to protecl and entrench noble privilege. As my third criterion I have selected noble families which bad at least two mem rs in the a ve defined politicaJ elite during the bundred years tween 1715 and 1815. There were eight in Co. Somogy.
A thorough study reveals the credit relationsbips in the county between 1756 and 1812. Nine families of the wealthy gentry are prominent from this point of view as the greatest creditors among lesser nobility_9 Belonging to this group did not only mean ing es cially rieb, but it also entailed a signiftcant s ial influence over the wide group of debtors.
Just as the register of income from the year 1807, the roll of landed property from 1806 served the preparation of the war against Napoleon. The expenses of e solidiers to be sent by the county (militia po alis,po dlis katonasdg) were shared out among the landed proprietors. It was calculated on lhe basis of lhe nwn r of acres ssess , but the total amount was reduced by 5650 acres if e family bad given one mounted noble solidier to the noble levy, the average income of this land was believed to be necessary to cover the ex nses of sending a mounted solidier. Therefore they contributed to the obligations of the whole county corres nding to the amount of the rest of their land. This calcula on bad slightly different results than that of the law 1805:1. Lesser noble families baving mem rs ssessing at least 5650 acres were somewhat fewer than those having 2 forints per year: only 23.10
Two calalogues of the nobility of Co.Somogy divide the lesser nopility in two; they distinguish tween ‚Nobles‘ and ‚Honourable Noblemen‘. This is one of the few cases where we encounter expressed value judge ents of conte raries on prestige. Tbe registers mention only five noble eo in the upper category both in 1806 and in 1808.11
I have selected the representatives of the up r Stratum of the gentry the following way: fro the 30 families ful lling the t two criteria (of baving at least one member in the calalogue of noble eo set up in 1754-55 and another having an inco e of minimum 2 forints a year in 1807) I have picked out those wbicb fulfill at least ree criteria of the last five as wen.12 I have found seven families of this type. I bave then omitted those longing to the tiny group of „honourable noblemen“ to get a sample whicb can represent a wider
S j 6: Rela vesand les 145
s iallayer.Sotbefollowingtbreefamiliesremained:gyulaiG ,13 InkeyandSomssich. In our investigation tbey will represent the wealtby and power l gentry, tbe called bene possessionati.
As for tbe income, tb tbese leyers were situated tbe upper tentb of tbe gentry: tbe frrst Ievel representing witbin tbis a tter, almost tbe st position, while tbe otber group represents a much weaker economic position-but still witbin tbe up r one tentb of tbe gentry.14 The vast majority of the lesser nobility liv on an even lower Ievel: tbose baving a small plot of land and tbose not having any at all. Tberefore I tbink it adviseable to anotber point of orientation and-if only for tbe sake of control-to in uce a tbird Ievel as weil
The tenn ‚ tty nobility‘ (kisnemesseg) denotes a colourful compound of several social groups. The most numerous of tbem were the curialistdk (curialistae) in eighteentb-cen ry Somogy.15 They lived in so called noble villages, where noblemen (each ssessing one single plot of noble land) lived like sants but still bad noble privilege. They might regarded as a Hungarian yeomanry, because free asants were nearly absent in Hungary by tbis century.16 In the eighteenth century there were five noble villages the county: Nagysza csi, NemesdM, Nemes isfalud, NemespAtr6 and Nemesvid. From their tty noble pulation I have selected the Bereczk, KovAcs and Kulcs families for comparison. I do not claim of course tbat the a ve defin Ievels liv separete s ial lives. e network of real s ial relations is evidently more tightly it than to descri d by a handful of criteria, es cially when each of them is horizontal.
By tbe p edure sketched a ve I arrived at three Limes tbree lesser noble families. Three groups representing tbree characteristic Ievels. Thr families each group-to reduce further tbe risk of presenting something atypical as typical and to Ievel off to some extent tbe unavoidable unevenness of sources. As far as the lowest group is conce ed I must nevertheless note that I bad to cboose families wbich offered sources ample enough to make this investigation possible. I sbould suppose that this fact is enough in itself to claim that these families were of a higber s ial Status tban the average of the curialistae. I would like to make this circumstance explicit even if I tbink I have g reason to lieve that tbis will not distort tbe picture and they can still act as a con oll-group in tbis analysis.
II.
In tbe followings I would like to draw conclusions about the geograpbical extent of social relations from the marriages. I thi that tbe network of places our lesser noble families impor d their wives from and married off their daughters to is a good indicator of all kinds of s ial contact. It is not at all by chance tbat one girl gets married to the son of tbe next d r gentleman, while the other is taken by the prince on a white borse.
Before getting down to tbe details, a few words sbould said about the ssible and probable sbortcomings of tbis approacb. Tbe first of tbese is tbat I bave not of course found
1 st d S iety 2
every relative in my sources. The collecting of data could not be complete even in the case of the nine families in our samples. Furthermore in some cases I could only put a the ntre of estates of the related family, only hoping that they really lived there. The maps depict all the landed pro y ssessed by mem rs of the family in question tween 1715 and 1815, and the home of all the related families in this ri .
I sball mention ‚related family‘ or simply ‚relatives‘ in the followings, but it sbould clear that I will not mean any y ei by tbese terms but tbe original nuclear family of busband or wife m i ed with a mem r of one of tbese nine lesser noble families, even thougb, Hungarian nobility counted relatives in a mucb wide circle.
*
S j t6: Relativesand Miles
Mem rs of the Bereczk family lived and ssessed small plots of noble land in Nemesd . e majority of their relatives (seven families) lived in the same noble village, one related family not far from bere in Csakany. One female member of the family lived with her busband in Szent�tenir in Co. la.
Map 1. Relatives and estates of the Bereczk f ly17
Legend:
+ related family
+? related family (uncertain case)
x related family with an unknown seat (I the town of the county they lived) x? the same as a ve (uncertain case)
0 settlement where e family in question ssessed land
settlement owned enlirely by the family in question
@@ home of the family in question (or that of one of its branches)
e
147
The second curialista family, the KovAcs lived in Nemesvid along with most of their relatives. They bad noble land in this village and in the neigh uring Nagyszakacsi. 1 have not found any mem r of this family marrying someone from another county.
Map 2. Relatives and estates of the KovAcs family
Hist y and S iety 2
148
S j 6: Relatives and Miles
Also mem rs of the last family representing the Iowest Ievel, the KulcsAr family Iived in Nemesvid. ey ssessed a certain amount of land outside this noble village as weil, the farthest plot at about five Hungarian miles‘ distance (approximately 42 kilome es). When iden fying their relatives, I have not met families from other counties in my sources.
Map 3. Relatives and estates of the KulcsAr family
149
150 Hist y and S iety 2
Among the families representing the intennediate Ievel we shall frrst investigate the case of the Bak6 family living in Nagys �csi. In the eigbteenth century they bad only some remnants of the great estates they bad ssess in the seventeenth. Both these ssessions and the relat families are rela vely evenly spread over nearly the whole area of Somogy. Even they did not have, however, more than one related family outside e county.
Map 4. Rela ves and estates of the Bak6 family

Szijan6: Relativesand Miles 151 The Borda family represents another ty : they bad a whole village, Pamuk their hands,
and the network of the related families is clearly centered around this village.
Map 5. Relatives and estates of the Borda family

152 Hist y and Society 2
The Mereys are one of the most ancient gen y families in Hungary. ey are aut htho­ naus in Co. Somogy, but by the eighteenth century mem rs of this family lived in several parts of the coun y. In our ri three of its branches were living in Somogy: the frrst in Bard, the second in Szerdahely and the last in Tab. (The investigation is of course restrict to them.) They had ssessions in 25 villages of the county. A high percentage of their relatives lived outside Somogy, all of them in the wesle part of the kingdom.
Map 6. Relatives and estates of the Merey family

S j : Rela ves aod Jes 153
The gyulai Gaai family is already one representing the up r level in our investigation.
The cen e of the family was Büssü, but some members lived also in Boronka in 1807, wbere e gyulai Gaals possessed some land. Tbe majority of tbe related families.lived outside Somogy.
Map 7. Relativesand estates of the gyulai Gaai family
0
154 History and Society 2
e bl k of estates of the es cially wealthy lnkey family was situated in the soutb-wes­ tem comer of the county adjoined by the less extended possessions in . The Inkeys had entire villages in Co. Somogy. The centre of the family was Iharosbereny. I could hardly find relatives. The reason for this is that the more populous of the two branches moved to Pallin in Co. Zala and was therefore left out of the investigation.
Map 8. Relatives and estates of the Inkey family
..
• •
.
.
.
S j 6: Relativesand Miles 155
Tbe Somssicb family is probably the most famous one among tbe gentry Co. Somogy. 1t became own nation-wide later in the nineteentb century and two of its brancbes got tbe title of count. The Iands of e family were s ttered tbrougbout the county. Tbe centres of estates were Somogywd and Kadarkut. The related families lived mostly outside Somogy, and two of tbem lived ou ide Hungary: one in Vienna, tbe other in one of the provinces of tbe Czech crown.
Map 9. Relatives and estates of the Somssich family
—-�
\.
‚
0••

+
+

156
History and S iety 2
I .
We have already s n, where our nine lies married from. We cannot however draw statistical conclusions from tbe of each family, we do not bave enough data to do so. We may venture, however, tentatively tabulate some data by adding up tbe info ation we have a ut each group. (See Table 1.)
9
9
9
27
3
2
2
7
77
26
1
0
7
8
9
1
10
20
Table 1.
Related families
Total of
Grand
total
in Somogy num r %
outside Somogy_
num r %
identified unidentifiable
families
8
I
98
17
5
0
50
5
5
0
51
6
18
I
5
19 9
28
Nameofthe
f ily
Bereczk Kov s Kulcs r
GroupNo. 1
Bak6
Borda
M� y
GroupNo. 2
GyulaiGaal lnkey Somssich
GroupNo. 3.
23
74
10
9
16
35
12
3
12
27
2
14
20
2
2
18
14
11
30
55
26
5
14
45
Admittedly, tbe num r of cases I could not identify is rather high. But the difference tw n the tbree groups is still conspicuous. 95% of tbe related families are om Co. Somogy in tbe case of our curialista families, almost one fourtb of tbe relatives of tbe group of intermediate sition lived outside the county, while this figure is as high as 74% in tbe case of tbe group representing the up r Stratum of the gentry.
This sult is not ataU su rising. I dare say it could predicted by any ex rt of the age without any investigation. But we do not have to stop at this point. We make a further step in pr essing the data collected, we draw a map on the basis of tbem. Marking aU the related nlilies would however mix up rule and exception. To avoid tbis I suggest the following technique: 20% of the marriages is a value high enough to contain the exceptional
4
95
1’4
S j 6: Rela ves aod les
cases when the marriage was due rather to chance than to regular s ial contact. Tbe rest (80%) still contain the overwbelming majority of marriages, e erging om regular social relations. the map summing the results of this approach the lines encircle 80% of the related families of the groups. The 20% outside the line are of course the relatives living at the farthest places om the residence of our lesser noble family, they not automatically identical with the exceptional marriages, which do not fit the regular pattem. (They of course unknown, separating them is almost impossible.) We can nevertheless sup se with a strong but necessary simplification that the farther two families lived from each other, the l ser tbeir contacts were, and tbe more the marriage between their mem rs was due pure chance. (S Map 10.)
Map 10. Relatives of the three groups under investigation
.‘ – · -· -·-·-
-·-.
,
I/“ ‚,
I‘
I\
‚I
\�.I
-‚
‚·
Legend: line
–. -. line —- line
encircling 80% of the relatives of the families in Group 1. encircling 80% of the relatives of the families in Group 2. encircling 80% of tbe relatives of the families in Group 3.
__,
157
158 Hist y and S iety 2
Fou.r flfth of the relatives of the three curialista tty noble families lived in two neigh ng noble villages at only one Hungarian mile om each other: in Nemesvid and Nemesded (where of course also our three families lived). In the case of tbe group in intermediate sition in this analysis e line encircles a territory which is surprisingly close to that of the county of Somogy. One settlement of the county of la is inside (and a part of L e Balaton, of course), the southe most territories of Somogy are outside-but that is all the difference. And as far as the bene possessionati are conce ed, the line a territorywhicbisabnostexactlyidenticalwiththatofTransdanubia.Itisa verywendefined g grapbical region, d it was often a unit in bistory since the Roman provincia of Pannonia, t . However, that it uld a unit of s ial bistory as wen, is a new hypothesis worth further exploring.
It is evident that our map is partly drawn by chance. If we bad bad other families in the sample, if I bad en able to identify morerelatives (or less), the three rderlines would have en di erent. I think nevertheless that on a higher Ievel of abstraction we neglect this d draw some conclusions of more general nature.
We conlude that our regional approacb to the s ial relations of the lesser nobility (represented bere by m i age) suggests that the typical geograpbical spbere of life probably formed by regular s ial contacts was the small area of tbe narrow neigh urbo of their village for the tty nobility, while for tbe fairly well-to-do gentry it was approximately tbe county, and for the influential and wealthy Ieading families it was a !arger geographical unit.18
In this reasoning several Iogical steps were connected only by pro oility and not by certainty. Mor ver, it is only based on a sample of three times thr families and not on a comprehensive investigation. The conclusion is therefore rather a bypotbesis than a hard fact. I ho , bowever, that it might provide a st ting point for further research.
Notes
1. Ivan Nagy: Magyararszag csaladai czimerekkel es nemzekrendi tablakkal [Families of Hungary.
With coats of arms and genealogical tables], Vol. 10. Pest: Ratb M6r, 1863. 330.
2. By family I mean patrilineal family, descendants of the same father on the male line and having the same sumame; regardless of the ssible split of this family into brancbes which might have becn the reality already at tbe beginning of the eighteenth century or which might bave happened du ng e century.
3. Ede Reiszig: Somogy varmegye törtenete [The bistory ofCo. Somogy]. In: Dezs6Csan i (ed.):
Somogy varmegye. Buda st: A ll z agos Monografia Tarsasag, n.d., 481.
4. Somogy va egye jstroma mind a knak Jövedelei erant, Orszagos Felkelesre kötelesek 1807. esztendei Orszagos Ajanlasra tett Bevallasok szerent. Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy
County Archives] IV.l.i. (Nobilitaria) Fase. No. 49, Ö: 944/955.
S j 6: Rela vesand les
5. Magyar Törvenytar. 1740-1835.evi törvenyczikkek [ e Code of Hungarian Laws]. Buda st:
Franklin Tarsulat, 1901. 319.
6. Janos lesy: Az 1754-55. evi orszagos nemesi össze(ras [The National Register of Noblemen of 1754-55]. Buda st: Athenaeum, 1902. 87-89.
7. Lajos Mocsary: A regi magyar nemes [The Old Hung an Nobleman]. Budapest: Franklin Tarsulat, 1889. 165.
8. Karoly Vörös: A feuda is megye büro aciaja [The Bureaucracy of the Feudal County]. Hist6ria X.(l988) 1. 15.
9. Tibor T6th: Hitelez6 es ad6sok. A kölcsönforgalom kerdesehez Somogyban, 1756-1812 [Creditors and Debtors. To the Problem of Credit Relationships in Co. Somogy, 1756-1812].
Buda st: KSH Könyvtar es Dokumentaci6s Szolgalat, 1979.51-52.
10. Conscriptio ssessionis 18 . Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy County Archives] IV.l.h. (Conscriptiones) Ö: 282 (Magyar Orszagos Leveltar [Hungarian National Archives]Filmtar [Micro­
film Library] Microfilm No. 37097).
11. T. N. Somogy Varmegyenek F6 Papi, Zaszl6s, El6kel6 es Nemesi Rendjeinek Laistroma.
Keszült 1806-dik Esztend6ben Augustus 10-diken.and T. N.Somogy Varmegyenek F6Papi, Zaszl6s, El6kel6 es Nemesi Rendjeinek Lais oma. Keszült 1808-dik Esztend6ben Augustus 8 ikan. Both: Somogy megyei Leveltar Somogy County Archives] IV.l.i. (Nobilitaria) Fase. No.42 (Magyar Orszagos Leveltar [Hungarian National Archives] Filmtar [Microfilm Library] Microfll.m No. B1329).
12. Theoretically it would be ssible to ‚l se‘ cer in well- own gen y families at this int of the investigation, because they might be absent from tbis Iist precisely because of the unquestionable nature of their noble status. (Cf. Janos lesy: Az 1754-55. evi orszagos nemesi össze as [The National Register of Noble eu of 1754-55). Buda st: Athenaeum, 1902. 3-4., Imre Wellmann: A köznemes­ seg gazdalkodasa a XV . szazadban [Management of Lesser Noble Es tes in the Eighteenth Century]. A N6grad megyei Muzeumok Evkönyve Vll.( l981) 62-64.) But as far as Co. Somogy is concern , the summary of the results of the investigation in 1754-55 must bave con ined these families as well, because I could not find but one family, the Paiss, which showed sitive resu1ts three cases when examined through the last five criteria, but which was to be put aside because its absence from tbe Iist of noblemen from 1754-55.
13. In this study I do not mention e occasional noble pre x, I write Somssich and not sardi Somssich (Sommssich of Sard), Inkey and not pallini Inkey (Inkey ofPallin) etc. I make an exception in the case of the gyulai Gaal family to distinguish them from the als6szilvagyi Gaa (Gaa of Als6szilvagy) family, which was not present in Co. Somogy until the end of the eighteenth century, still b a member elected alispan in our period.
14. The register from 1807 con ins the names of 1016 lesser nobles, 4 more families and in 10 cases it uses the term ‚the successors of So-and-so‘. Members of 39 families bad income higher than 2 forints per year: 52 rsons, I family, the heirs of Merey and Orszag-altogether less than 10%. (Somogy varmegye Lajstroma nd azoknak Jövedelei erant, Orszagos Felkelesre kötelesek 1807. esztendei Orszagos Ajanlasra tett Bevallasok szerent. Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy County Archives] .l.i. (Nobilitaria) Fase. No. 49, Ö: 944/955.)
15. According to the estimate of Zoltan Kovacs there were 130-150 curialista families among the total of 3 -4 families of the nobility in Somogy. (Somogy megye es közsegeinek ne ssegi viszonyai a török uralom megsz neset6l az els6 nepszamialasig [Population of Co. Somogy and its
159
1 Hist y and S iety 2
Villages from the End of the Ottoman Rule to the First Pupulation Census]. Manuscript, 1959. 73.) The pulation census found 2108 noble eo (grown-up and juvenile males) in Co. Somogy in 1784-85. 799 of them lived in the five noble villages. (Summarium der Bevölkerungs-Beschreibung von der Simegher Gespannschaft von Jahr 1784/5. Magyar Orszagos Leveltar [Hungarian National Archives] Kancellanai Leveltar Acta Generalia A 39 1786/4772)
16. Alajos gre: A magyar nemesi (curialista) közsegek szervezete es gazdalk asa 1848 e16tt a Dunant]lon [Self-Government and Management of Estates in tbe. Hungarian Noble (curialisra) Communities in Transdanubia Before 1848]. : llona Bolla-Andor Csizmadia-Alajos Deg -Pal Horvath: Tanulmanyok a falusi közössegekr61. Pecs: Pecsi Tudomanyegyetem, Allam- es Jogtudo­ manyi Kar; 1977. 55.
17. The maps were drawn on the basis of the following sources: Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy County Archives] IV.l.f. (Orphanalia varii) Fase. Nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 41, 42, 50, 51, 53 ,54, 55, 57, , 61; Conscriptio ssessiorum et praediorum, 1786. Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy County Archives] IV.1.h. (Conscriptiones) Box No. 15, Ö: 284. (Magyar Ors gos Leveltar, Filmtar [Hungarian National Archives], Filmtat [Microfilm Library] Microftlm No. 37095); Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy County Archives] IV.l .i. (Nobilitaria) Fase. „Ba“, „Be“, „‚Bi-Bu“, „Ga“, „I-1“, „Ki-Ko“, „K6-Kv“, „Me-Mu“, „Somssich“ and tbe rolls already quoted (see notes Nos. 3 and 9); Somogy megyei Leveltar [Somogy County Archives] IV.1.x. (Miscellanea) Vegyes iratok XVi -XIX. szazad. Fase. 1, 4, 6, 7, 11; Somogy megyei Leveltat [Somogy County Archives] . (Arcbivia familialia) De situm Berecz Fasc. Nos. 2, 3. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. 8, 9, 13, 16; Summarium der Bevö erungs-Beschreibung von der S egher Gespannschaft von Jahr 1784/5. Magyar Orsza­ gos Leveltar [Hungarian National Archives] Kancellanai Leveltat Acta Generalia A 39 1786/4772; Matricula P ochiae Nemesvid. Taufregister 1784-1816. Magyar Orszagos Leveltat [Hunga an National Archives] Filmtar [Microfilm Library] Microftlm No. A3803; Bela Baranyai: Somogy varmegye nemes csaladai [Noble Families of Co. Somogy]. In: Dezs6 Csanki (ed.): Somogy varmegye. Buda st: A llo-Orszagos Monografia Tarsasag, n.d.; Ibolya Felb6 (ed.): Az fu eres birtokviszonyokMagyarorszagonMariaTerezia koraban [Socagetenements inHungaryUnderMaria Theresa], Vol.I.: Dunantul [Transdanubia]. Buda st: Akade iai 6, 1970. 183.; Ivan Nagy: Magyararszag csaladai czimerekkel es nemzekrendi tablakkal [Families of Hungary. Witb coats of a s and genealogical tables], Vols. 1-13. Pest: Ratb M6r, 1857- 1868.; Ede Reiszig: Somogy varmegye törtenete [The bistory of Co. Somogy]. In: Dezs6 Csanki (ed.): Somogy v egye. Buda st: A llo rszagos Monografia Tarsasäg, n.d.; Agatb Vessey Lajosne Somssich: Semssich Pa! elete es m k ese [Pa! Sommsich’s Life and Work]. Buda st: Vajna es Bokor, 1944.
18. The usual procedure would be to confront my results witb those of s ilar investigations. The complete absence of any other research of this type makes this however im ssible. It is easily understandable that socia1 historians were primarily interested in social s ata and not geographic regions if they asked the question: ‚Wbere did the s use come om?‘. Now I have to confme myself to mentioning two studies which touch our problem. Writing a ut the early fifteenth century Erik FUgedi stated on tbe basis of the example of four relat gen y families tbat marriages demoostrate tbe exclusiveness of tbis social layer (casrellani in ntem rary terminology), what bad a regional dimension as well: they ‚looked for their s uses within their own geographic range‘. Unfortunately tbis is not s ified more closely. (Erik Fiigedi A Szentgyörgyi Vincze csalad [The Szentgyörgyi Vincze Family]). A Veszprem megyei Muzeumok Közlemenyei (1972) 265. In a monography a ut the wealthy gentry (k zepbi okos nemesseg) of Co. Tolna (eastem neighbour to Somogy) in
Szija 6: Relativesand Miles 161
the frrst half of the nineteentb century, J6zsef C•.6sz writes tbat tbey bad estates all over Transdanubia due to this gentry’s il ving in Nortb-Westem Hungary andin tbe Little Hungarian Plane in the age of the Ottoman occupation on the one band, marriage and inberitance on the otber band. J6zsef Gl6sz: Tolna megye közepbirtokos nemessegenek anyagi viszonyai a 19. szazad elso feleben [Eco!Jomic Situation of the gen y of Co. Tolna in the first half of the nineteenth century]. 1 A Wosinszky M6r Muzeum Evkönyve XVI (1 1) 7.) These remarks might reinforce my guess but tbey cannot at any rate substitute meticu1ous research, which migbt prove or refute it.

HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
2
MEDIUM VUM QUOTIDIANUM
29
Nobilities in Central and Eastern Europe:
Kinship, Property and Privilege
edited by
Janos M. Bak
Hajnallstvan Alapitvany Medium vum Quotidianum
Budapest
Gesellschaft
Krems
1994
PRI D IN NGARY Neotipp Bt., Buda st
HISTORY & SOCIETY IN CENTRAL EUROPE
together wi
Medium vum Quotidianum
EL BTK Gazda g- �s TArsadalomtört�neti Tansz�k Buda st 1051, V. ker. arista köz 1. Hungary
Tel.: (36)-(1)-11-80-9 /325
QUOT IA GESELLSCHA Kö ermarkt 13, A-35 Krems Austria
Tel.: (34-2732) 84793
Josef temlicka
Contents
Origins of Noble Landed Property in Premyslide Bohemia 7 Eiemir M lyusz
Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania ( 1986) 25 Erik Fügedi
Kinship and Privilege (1990) Kiril Petkov
Boyars and Royal Of cers
Jan Paku ki
55
77
The Development of Clan Names in Mediaval Poland 85
Karin J. MacHardy
Social Mobility and Noble Rebellion in Early Mode Austria 97
Istvan M. Szijart6
Relatives and Miles 141 Istvan Hajnal
From Estates to Classes 163
Authors ojthe volume:
Erik Füg i (1916-1992)
Istvan Hajoal (1892-1956)
Elem�r Malyusz (1898-1989)
Kario J. MacHardy (Dept. of Hislory, Uoiv. of Waterl , Ont. N2L 3GI, Canada)
Jan Pakulski (lost. Historii Arbivistyki, Co icus-Uoiv., Pl Teatraloy 2/a PL 87-1 Torun, Poland)
ril Petkov (Uoiv. Veliko T ovo, Ivailo 11, 43 rlovo, Bulga a)
Istvan M. Szijart6 (Gaz sag- �s Tarsadalomtört�neti Tansz�k. ELTE, 1151 Piarista köz 1., Buda st, Hungary)
Josef Zemlicka (lost. of Hist., Academy of Sc. of the Czech Rep., VisehradSka 49. , 12826 Praba 2, Czech Republic)
LECTORI SALUTEM!
eaimoftheeditorsandpublishersofthisseriesof casionalpa rsistopresentrecent results of research in s ial history to the inte ational public. In the spirit of the Hungarian historian of Euro , Istvan Hajnal (1892-1956), we lieve that the history of „small nations“ may highlight as cts of general development that are less visible in the life of major civilisations.
The volumes in this series will address s cific aspects ofs ial development in medieval and m e central Europe. We intend to f us on the region tween the German Iands and the Byzantine-Russian world, an explore s ilarities and differences in this area. Instead of arguing the validity of the te , we shall publish studies that may enable our readers to decide to what extent is „central Euro “ a historical reality or merely a dr of intellectuals and politicians. That is why we chose a medieval map for our cover: it emphasizes the centuries-old connecting function of the great rivers but contains no ephemeral political undaries.
It is also our hope to contribute to the understanding of present developments and upheavals in a region a ut which few critical analyses e available in the English-spea­ king world. At the s e time we should Jike to foster mode methods and approaches in social history, for so long neglected in our countries.
The present volume ap ars in close c peration with the Medium Aevum Quotidianum Society and contains studies mainly on medieval and early mode nobililies of the region. The papers of two recently de ased Hungarian medievalists as weil as arlicles of a Cz h, a Polish and a Bulgarian historian discuss the s ial history medirval nobilities. Two ticles, on Hungarian and Austrian nobles of the ancien regime Iook at social mobility and es te in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The volume closes with an essay by Istvan Hajnal on the end of the noble-corporatist world in nine enth-century Hungary. With publishing three articles ofthe generalions prec ing ours, we wish to bow tho tho who taught us, without wanting to hide that their questions and answers are not necessarily ours. By printing pa rs of younger scholars, in t , we hope to present recen t research in the area on topics that are discussed ong social historian everywhere.
The volume editor wishcs to express his gratitude to those friends and colleagues who assisted in the – often almost uns ountable – task of translating and editing the Czec , Magyar and Polish contributions: Catherine Allen, Si on C e, T as Domahidy, Vera Gathy, Ryszard Grzezik, and Paul Knoll. Needless to say that he alone feels responsible for the remaining shortcomings, which are, probably, many. May , we shall publish once a volume only on the intricacies and pitfalls of translating medieval and medievalist texts.
H&S
is a series of casional pa rs publish by the Istv� Hajnal S iety of Historians, in c ration with the M ium vum Quotidianum S iety (Krems, Aus ia), the S lec­ nost bos sky dejiny [S iety For Economic History] in Prague.
Ge uckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen Landesregie ng
itors:
Vera BAcskai, EL Btk, Bud st, . 107, H-1364.
JAnos M. Bak, Dept. of Medieval Studies, Centrat Euro an University,
Huvösvölgyi ut 54, 1021 Buda st
Gerhard Jaritz (for M Q), Kö ermarkt 13, A-35 Krems
itorial consultants:
Jobn B nar (Cbicago, ), Peter Burke (Cambridge), Josef er (Vienna), TamAs Farag6 (Miskolc), Susan Glanz (Br klyn, NY), Monica Glettler (Municb), Heiko Hau­ mann (Basle), TamAs Hofer (Buda st), Gerhard Jaritz (Vienna), Charles Kecskem�ti (Paris), B�la K.Kiraly (Highland Lakes, NJ), György Köv�r (Bud st), LudolfKuchen­ buch (B bum), J oslav Unik (Prague), Hans Medick (Göttingen), Walter Pietzsch (Wiesbaden), Martyn C.Rady (London), Herman Re l .(Tucson, ), Helga Schulz (Berlin), Julia Szalai (B udapest), Heide Wunder (Kassel).
Manuscrip and inquiries (including advertising) should addressed to AndrAs Csite, Managing Editor HISTORY & S IETY c/o: Hajnal Istv� kör, ELTE BTK, Budapest . 107, H-13 . E-mail: csite@osiris.elte.hu
Sale: Single copies in Hungary Ft 3 ; abroad: $ 15. or D 20. Sales for No h and South America are handled by Susan Gl z (1 550 E 9th Ave., Br klyn, NY 1 1 230, USA; for Hungary and all other regions by the Managing Editor.
ISBN 3- -2014-7
Coverpage idea by György Köv�r
Computer setting and formatting by Gabor Kelemen
Cover design Csilla Ma i based on the Ebsdorf Mapamundi. © Hajnal Istv Kör, Budapest, 1994.