Boyars and Royal Officers

KIRIL PETKOV
Boyars and Royal officers
A Case Study on the Social Terminology of the Aristocracy of the
Middle Bulgarian Period
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the char;ges in the expressions applied t o the upper strata of
Bulgarian society in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. The author registers the
differentiation ofthe originaly all-encompassing tenn boyar (boljiari) into groups
characterised mainly by wealth or by royal service (vlasteli). The possible reasons
for the appearance of additional terms are also explored. lt is being proposed
furthermore that, lacking sufjicient sources, such a terminological analysis may
o.ffer an important clue t o tlze social history of Medieval Bulgaria.
8 ulgarian medievalists had shown for close to a hundred years a great interest in the study
of the upper Strata of medieval 8 ulgarian society. For simplicity‘ s sake, Iet me refer to these
groups as „aristocracy“ since our sources, as we shall see, do not allow a more specific term
or a more precise analysis of t11e 􀁽lite. The fri st generalion of scholars in the 1920s and
1 930s based its research on German positivism. It was their great merit to have introduced
the notion of an aristocracy in medieval Bulgarlas as a feasible subject of inquiry.
1
The years after World War li witnessed considerable decline in the study of the aristocracy.
ldeologically biassed, post-war research concentrated mainly on problems connected
wiili the Iower classes. This trend definitely contributed to our understanding of the fabric
of medieval Bulgarian society, only it placed the emphasis too heavily on one part of
society-and surely not the decisive one, as far as the govenunent of the realm was
concerned. Thus, the present generation of students of Bulgarian social history is faced
with painful gaps regarding the politically and socially most significant strata of our
medieval society.
78 History and Society 2
This state of affairs is due not only to ideological preferences but also to objective
difficulties. The study of the aristocracy-just as many other aspects of medieval Bulgarian
history–encounters great difficulties because of the Iack of sufficient written sources.
Private charters, notarial books, estate surveys, or legal documents, the usual sources for
social history for many other European countries, are missing in Bulgaria. An almost total
destruction during the centuries of Ottoman domination is to a great extent responsible for
this sad state of affairs. However, it seems quite likely that-at least in the secular sphere-not
much was wriuen in the medieval centuries. Therefore, we can probably not expect more
written evidence from yet unexplored Byzantine or westem archives.
A possible way out of this awkward Situation was proposed seventy years ago by Jordan
Trifonov, whose exemplary study of term boljar pointed to a promising track to follow? He proposed that a study of the social terminology of Middle Bulgarian sources (mostly
from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) might serve as a good point of departure for
an entirely new approach to the problem. In bis study, Trifonov collected and analysed
almost all information available to him about the strata designated by the term boljari from
the ninth to early fifteenth century. Yet, there are several other terms that have not been
explored by him, such as knjaz, vlastel, velnwzha. Most of them have only occasionally
attracted the attention of Bulgarian social historians. If involved in a complex analysis,
however, they could supply a surprising amount of information about the aristocracy and
especially about its social dynamic, an aspect not explored by J. Trifonov and bis successors.
The long established assumption that in the time of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom
the country’s social structure was conservative or almost immobile could be seriously
shattered by a complex terminological analysis. Such an inquiry would have to Iook at all
the notions applied to more or less contemporary higher social strata by medieval Bulgarian
authors, translators and copists.
A complete picture could be gained, of course, only by including all types of references
to social strata in the terminology in all available sources. Moreover, it must be remernbered
that almost all our sources are of ecclesiastical provenance. Therefore, our information
would necessarily be of a rather one-sided character even if included more texts. For t11e
period of the thirteenth and fourteentll centuries there are few surviving royal charters and
only six of them are genuine. They, in turn, are biassed because of they tend to represent
the expectations of the rulers about what the aristocracy ought to be.
In spite of these obstacles it may still be feasible to embark on a short study of the social
terminology of the Middle Bulgarian sources in order to establish a notion of at least the
main trends of social mobility amongst the aristocratic sectors of society. Without claiming
completeness, the following sketch may raise a few relevant questions and provide material
for further thoughts about the development of medieval Bulgarian aristocracy as a type of
Balkan medieval social stratum.
The most common designation of a member of the upper strata of the society was the weil
known term boyar, in Bulgarian: boljar or boljarin, plural: boljari. For the thirteenth-fourPetkov:
Boyars and Royal Officers 79
teenth centuries, that is, the time ofthe Second Bulgarian Empire, at least three periods can
be nicely distinguished, during which the tenn had different meanings. The first of them
covers roughly the years of the restoralion of the Bulgarian Empire up to the time of Boril
( 1 1 85/7- 1 2 1 8); the beginnings of the second could be traced already in tbe times of John
Assen II ( 1 2 1 8 – 1 24 1 ). lt developed in full by the end of the thirteenth century, while soon
thereafter, in the ftrst quarter of the fourteenth century, we see again new developments.
Du ring the first period, generally, the term was employed by all kinds of sources to denote
„a member of the higher classes,“ but already in the beginning of the thirteenth century
there appeared a certain narrowing in its significance. Thus, the boljari appears as the only
social group different from „the people“ in the six relevant texts surviving from this period:
the Translatio of St. Ilarion (Hilary) of Mäglen;
3
the Life of St. Michail the Soldier;
4
the
account on the council against the Bo§omils in the Synodicon of the Bulgarian Church and
similar texts from the same source; the ordo for the coronation of a queenlempress,
t.ranslated from Byzantine Greek soon after the restoration of the Bulgarian Empire; and
the triumphal inscription of John Assen li from 1 2 30
6. All these sources use the term very
generally, without giving any hintat a possible inner stratification of tbe group so defined.
Yet by the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century-the second
period in the development of the terminology-the term boljari, which up to then bad a
monopoly as a designation for the higher social strata, gradually lost ground. The boljari
preserved their position in the sources only in the royal charters. Moreover, in the three
original charters of the thirteenth century-J ohn Assen II‘ s charter for Vatopedi monastery
( 1 2 30), bis privilege for Dubrovnik merchants (in the 12 30s), and the charter ofKonstantin
Assen giving tax exemptions to the monastery of St. George at Virgino Brdo near Skopje
( 1 2 57 – 1 2 70) we cannot find the word boljar at alt? All three documents use as social
designation praldori, vlasteli, vladalci. Praktor had both in original B ulgarian sources and
texts translated from Greek the well-known connotation of „royal officer,“ a functional
term, meaning usually a person in charge of collecting taxes. The implication of vladalec
was also similar but it is only found in Serbian sources.
8
Thus, these sources imply a
terminological shift, spreading from the royal chancery and emphasising the position of
members the aristocracy as „officers of the crown.“
This shift seems not to have been accidental or reflecting merely the wishful thinking of
the royal chancery. The tenn boljarin is also missing from several other sources originating
in the mid-thirteenth century: the Life of St Petka; the account for the restoration of the
Bulgarian Patriarchate under John Assen II ( 1 2 35); the Life St Joakim of Osogovo; and the
abovementioned Dubrovnik privilege. Such a change suggest a slow, but constant trend
toward stratification among the higher classes.
lndicative of this direction is the slightly discernible trend in the terminology of some
other sources of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. As mentioned above, in the Life of
St. Petka we cannot fmd the term boljari. In its social tenninology four kinds of persons
feature: „very rieb people,“ vlasteli, an intermediate category, and „simple people.“ The
80 History and Society 2
upper classes were thus depicted as consisting of at least two social categories: one of them
based on material wealth, and another detennined by its Connections with the ruler cy.le
know nothing about that intennediary category wich the texts merely call „the others.“)
Two other sources originating in the mid-thirteenth century-a Life of St. lohn of Rila and
the Translatio ofSt. Petka from Epivat to Tarnovo-confinn that there was already a division
among tbe upper classes based on having or not a of share in public power. We may,
therefore, assume that according to the terminology of contemporary sources, there
emerged a distinct group from among the boljari, which was determined only by its material
possessions and not by their service in the govemment of the realm. l t is not clear whether
there were other features which helped this group to distinguisb itself from other members
of the aristocratic Strata. This is a trend in the development of the narrow meaning of the
tenn tbat later in the thirteenth century entrencbed itself even more deeply in the social
tenninology _9
Taking into account these developments, it now seems possible to explain the absence of
tbe term bo/jari in the ctlarters of the kings from the second and tbird quarter ofthe thirteenth
century. If we accept that the terminological borrowings from neighbouring social systems
were meant to emphasise the status of the royal offtcers it is possible to argue that tbe king‘ s
chancery tried to Counter-at least in words-the growing division among the elite. These
changes may reflect the fact that a number of the members of the upper classes were no
more directly dependenton the crown, but made their fortune out of and based tbeir prestige
on their landed property. In modem tenns we can call this policy of the royal court an
auempt to represent the top strata of the society as ruling and goveming classes whose
position derived from the sovereign. It was an essencial step in establishing the idea of tbe
state as a patrimonium of the king, but later sources prove tbe complete failure of its
practical realisation. In the fourteenth century boljari appeared again in tbe royal charters
but this time witb the expressed meaning of wealthy landowners legally defined as one of
tbe two politically powerful sectors of society, tbe other being the royal officers.
10
These conclusions drawn from original Bulgarian sources can be strengthened by comparision
witb the social tenninology in works translated from Byzantine Greek. Good
examples are to be found in the Middle-B ulgarian translation of the chronicles of Konstantinos
Manasses and Symeon Logothetes.
1 1
Clearly, the translators’perception ofmedieval
B ulgarian social structure was crucial for the social terminology they chose to employ. The
simpler social structure of medieval Bulgaria found its expression in the translation of the
numerous connotations of tbe many ranks of Byzantine aristocracy by the general tenn
boljiar. It is worth noting, however, that more i.mportant for our analysis is a reverse
connection between a Greek original and its Middle Bulgarian translation: when Bulgarian
writers used different words for a By?antine social tenn. Elaborating on this trend we find
social distinctions, otherwise not clearly expressed in vemacular terminology.
Two main Observations can be made on lltese texts. On the one hand, during the Middle
Bulgarian period the tenn boljiari preserved its meaning as a term for members ofthe upper
Petkov: Boyars and Royal Officers 8 1
classes as a whole, regardless of the origin of their status. On the other band, wben power
was concemed in the Greek text, bolj iari was used only to denominate persons with power
deriving from outside tbe Emperor’s autbority. In all cases wben an imperial official was
mentioned, no matter how high bis position in the hierarchy was (be could be a simple tax
collector, or imperial logotbete) tbe employed tenn was vlastel. The same distinction was
made even when one and the same person was in question but in bis different capacities.
For example, in the translation of Constantin Manasses the Greek term telei is normally
rendered in Bulgarian with boljari. The eparch of Constantinople was one of the telei, but
wben he is explicitly reffered to in bis official capacity, the translation is vlaste/.
12
Tuming back to original sources, we might proceed to the middle of tbe fourteenth century
when further developments in the meaning of the tenn boljiar Iead us to the third period
of its development. In the writings of the great reformer of medieval texts, the patriarch
Euthymius, and bis pupils, this tenn is rarely used: in Eutbymius‘ own works boljiar
appears only onceP Some otber references from the late fourteenth and early fifteenth
centuries confirm the thirteenth-century usage of boljiari as local magnates without
govemmental office.
14
Another interesting feature in the social tenninology of the whole period of the Second
B ulgarian Kingdom is the appearance of „major“ and „minor“ Iords: boljiari malie i velikije.
These two expressions are usually seen as a division in the ranks of Bulgarian aristocracy
comparable to „estates.“ This point of view has its origin in the social history of the First
B ulgarian Empire when the bojls and the bagains in fact represented two legally distinguished
strata. Yet the social Situation two to three hundred yers later was-as far as it is
correctly represented in the social terminology of the sources-very different.
A closer investigation shows that the expression „great boljiari“ covers persons included
in the wider meaning of the tenn boljiar, as it was used in the first half of tbe tbirteenth
century. The opposition „great-small“ found its way into the sources of the same time,
without any precise connotation, and continued to be used in the same way.
15
The cantrast
„great-small“ as expression of a Jegally established division is not supported by any
systematic use of the two terms. They were regarded as interchangeable, a fact wbich
contradicts the implication of a hierarchical order, so clearly visible in the cases when the
aristocratic ranks from the First Kingdom were concemed. Thus, the opposition „greatsmall
boljiar“ was a medieval topos, and not a real social division during the thirteenth-fourteenth
centuries. The designation „great boljiari“ was not entirely meaningless, though.
It often served to describe the highest aristocratic strata from the mid-tbirteenth century on,
uniting in itself both royal offleials and the most important members of the landed
aristocracy.
On the other band, the wider meaning of boljiari after the time of John Assen II did not
correspond to the social stratification of the aristocracy and was ambiguously employed.
Another social group of the upper strata was more clearly defined in the contemporary
social terrninology: the vlasteli. We have already seen tbe chief feature which distinguished
82 History and Society 2
them from the rest of the aristocracy: their being the actual ruling classes-stricto sensu-of
late medieval Bulgaria. There was only one necessary element in the curriculum vitae or
cursus honorum of a person for being designated as vlastel-to be a royal officer. Original
B ulgarian works throughout the period confirm that vlasteli were regarded state officials,
and-with the development of the more typically medieval patrimonial concept-royal
officers. As early as the last years of the twelfth century we find them as a social category,
betonging to the aristocracy but distinct from the boljiari. 16
The fourteentb-century royal charters recognise the existence of only two groups apart
from the clergy and the peasantry-boljiari and raboutniki (i. e., persons working in the
royal administration). Etymologically raboutnik (derived from rab, „slave, servant“) is just
the opposite of vlastel (derived, of course from vlast, „power“). Yet, from the point of view
of the royal chancery, both terms meant the sarne. People who were regarded vlasteli by
the common people represented the royal power in action, while for tbe supreme source of
power, the king, they were servitors, ministerials.
Translated works allow us to grasp a further feature in the social identification of the
vlasteli. Their position in the society was a consequence of their connection to the Emperor
or the king, the sources of all power in the Byzantino-Balkan oikoumene. For example,
when translating Greek ekskousiatai with vlasteli, Bulgarian authors connected the administrative
and financial privileges implied by the Greek term with the meaning of vlasteli. 17
B y the end of the thirteenth century the inner development of Bulgarian aristocracy
produced a new social stratum. For their designation the old term boljiar was not suitable
and new terms came into being in order to mirror the changes in the social structure. The
frrst such term was velmozha (derived from „great men,“ „Ieader“) which we meet in the
Life ofSt. Joakim ofOsogovo (presumably written in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth
centuries).
18
From the second quarter ofthe fourteenth century this word gradually replaced
the boljiari in every context when the upper arictocratic strata or magnates were concerned.
19
By the middle of the century they had already been clearly formed as a separate
group, mainly incorporating persons of the vlastel category.
A second term is the old Slavic knjaz. It is indicative that we find kn)az for the first time
in the very beginning of the thirteenth century and later again in the second half of the
fourteentb?0
Both periods are very similar as far as the appearance of mighty, haif-independent
local oligarchs is concemed. In all known texts this word refers to the top of the
social hierarchy with extensive rights in their apanages. They were obviously the aristocratic
􀂟lite whose power and privileges were so wide, that anything but the old Slavic term
for ancient local autonomous tribal leaders was able to convey their Status. Thus, as with
the case of velmozha, we encounter a linguistic phenomenon, reflecting far-reaching social
changes which the traditional terminological system was not able to accomodate.
My terminological analysis does not claim to be complete. Still less complete are the
conclusions drawn from it, as far as real changes in the society are conemed. Social
terminology was-and still is-a relatively conservative part of the language. Nevertheless,
Petkov: Boyars and Royal Officers 83
it could be argued that for late medieval Bulgarian autbors the notion of aristocracy kept
changing throughout the period. Studies based on traditional methods of research have been
thus far not able to grasp this important feature of the social mobility in medieval B ulgaria.
A terminological a.nalysis cannot answer the question why there was such a developmenl,
it merely records it. Yet, in the almost desperate absence of any ot.her source, the
possibilities of terminology are still not entirely explored and further researcb would
probably prove tbese conclusions as generally valid.
Notes
1. A good example from this school with a summary of aU previous research can be foung in Jordan
Trifonov, „Käm vaprosa za starobälgarskoto bo1jarstvo“ [About the Medieval Bulgarian Boljars],
Spisanie na Baigarskala Akademia na Naukite, ser. 14, 26 ( 1923), 1-70.
2. See note 1, above.
3. Jordan lvanov. Baigarski starini iz Makedonia [Bulgarian Antiquities in Macedonia] (Sofia,
1970), 419420 (henceforth BSM).
4. lbid., 422-24.
5. M. G. Popruzenko, Sinodik tszarjia Borila [The Synodicon of Emperor Boril] (Sofia, 1928),
79-80, 74, 82.
6. A. Popov, ZArevgrad-Tämov [The Royal City ofTamovo] (Sofia, 1984), 8-9.
7. BSM, 576, 578-586; M. Andreev, Vatopedskata gramota i väprosite na bälgarskoto feotklino
pravo [The Vatopedi Charter and Some Problems Connected with tbe Law of Feudal Bulgaria],
(Sofia, 1965), facsimile.
8. A. P. Naumov, Gospodstvuju􀃄cii klass i gosudarstvennaja vlast‘ V Serbii xm -XIV veka [Ruling
Class and Govenment power in Thirteenth-Fourteenth Century Serbia] (Moscow, 1975), 90-93.
9. For instance in a Life of St. Joakim of Osogovo from the middle of the thirteenth century, see
BSM, 405-418.
1 0.Evidencies to be found in the so-called Mraka charter of John Alexander from 1 347 and the
charter of Jobn Si􀃅man for the monastery of St. John of Rila from 1378, see BSM, 590-599.
I I . Middle Bulgarian texts in: lvan Dujcev and Dimitri S. Libacov eds., Sredneboigarskiiperevod
hroniki Konstantina MaTUJssii v siavjanskah perevodah [Middle Bulgarian translation of Konstantin
Manasses in the Context of Slavic Translations] (Sofia, 1988); and I. Sreznevsky, ed., Simeona
Metafrasta i Logotela Spisanie mira ot bytija i letovnic [A History of World from the Beginning and
a Chronicle by Sirneon Metaphrastes and Logotethos] (Sankt Petersburg, 1905). Byzantine Greek
comparisions are made to Constantini Manossis Breviarum historiae metricum. Rec. I. Bekkerus
(Bonnae, 1837) and V. Muralt, ed., Georgii Hamanoli Chronicon (Sankt Petersburg, 1861).
1 2 . See for instance Dujcev-Lihacov, Sredneboigarskij perevod, !65-66 and cf. Breviarum, Ins.
3343 ff.
1 3 . E. Ka!uwiacki, Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius ( 1375-1393) (London, 1971),
1 15.
14. In the Transiatio ofSt. lohn of Rila, described by Vladislav Gramatik, see E. Kaluzniacki, Werke,
Erste Beilage, 420; Jordan Trifonov, “ Kam vaprosa,“ 30.
84 History and Society 2
1 5 . Socially not defined groups are designated with the opposition „small-great“ in some texts of
the Synodicon of tbe Bu1garian Church; in a treatise for tbe tavem-landlady Theophano, see
E.Turdeanu, ed., Le dir de l ‚empereur Nicephore II Phocas erde sonepause Theophano (Thessalonild,
1976), 66. It must be noted, however, that Turdeanu br.lievs the version T now in the so-called
Tikvesk i sbornik to be the most closest to the lost original. Furthemore, he calls it a „Macedono-Serbian“
(?) redaction. Yet the terrninology of this version is definitely different of that in version S, a
tru1y Serbian redaction of the f’tfteenth century. This, as well as otber linguistic indications make us
accept its prolOtype as a Bu1garian version of the rnid-thirteenth century. Further references can be
found in tbe Laudatio for King John Alexander of 1337 and in the Bulgarian translation of the Troy
legend, see Chr. Kodov, Opis na slavianskire rakopisi v bibliotekata na BAN[Inventary ofthe Slavic
Manuscripts in the Library of the Bälgarian Academy of Sciences] (Sofia, 1969), 23 ff., and
Duj􀃏ev-Libarov, Srednebolgarskij perevod, 244.
16. The ear1y short Life of Sr. lohn of Rila in the Sofia Prolog (the late twelfth century); the Visio
of Isaiah from the colection of priest Dragol (early thirteenth century); and in the Troy legend the
vlasteli are tbe symbol of the highest status for the average so1diers, see Duj􀃐v-Liba􀃏ev, Srednebolgarskj
perevod, 247; for the Life of St. Theodosi from Tamovo (mid-fourteenth century) see V.
Zlatarski, „Zitie i m.n prepodobnago otza na􀃑ego Theodosija“ [The Life and the Deeds of Our
Venerable Father Theodosius], Sbomik za narondi umotvorenia (Sofia, 1904), vol. 20, 30; for the
homily for Euthymius written in ear1y fifteenth century by Gregory Tzarnblak, see P. Rusev et al.,
Pohvalno slovo za Evtimii or Grigorii Tsamblak [Homily for Euthymius by Gregory Tzamblak]
(Sofia, 1971), 1 84 ff.
1 7 . Duj􀃐v-Liha􀃏ev, Srednebolgarskji perevod, 165, 1 80, 1 86, 215, cf. Breviarum, Ins. 3343, 4219,
4569, 6 1 69.
1 8. BSM, 405-4 1 8 .
1 9 . For example the Laudatio for John Alexander from 1337 they are theclosest friends ofthe king;
in the marginal note of Prvoslav 1360 the logothetes Mita-one of the highest officials of the
kingdom-is called tbe most honorable velmota of the kingdom; according to Tzarnblak „even the
highest officials of the kingdom (velmol.i) were inclined tu ward heresy.“
20. The earliest references we have in Latin translation, see I. Bozilov, „Belota-bälgarski vlastel ot
na􀃏aloto na trinadeseti vek“ [Belota, a Bulgarian Noble from the Beginning of the Thirteenth Century]
Jsroriceski Pregled, I ( 1977): 7 1 – 8 1 ; and I. Duj􀃒ev, „Prepiskata na papa lnokentii s bälgarite“ [The
correspondence of Pope Innocent with the Bulgarians) Godisnik na Sofiiskija Universitet, Jsroriceski
Fakulret, ( 1 942). 37 Nr. 3, 1 – 1 16, yet in bis Life of St. Phylotea patriarch Euthymius definitely
supported the translation of the term princeps with the Slavic knjiaz. see E. Kaluzniacki, Werke, 96.
For the fourteenth century sources see A. Jacobs, ZONARA- SONARA. Die byzantinische Geschichte
bei Johannes Zfmaras in slavischer Obersetzung (MUnchen, 1970), 21-24; E. Kalumiacki, Aus der
panegyrischen Literatur der Südslaven (London, 1971), iii; P. Rusev et al., Pohvalno slovo, 208; J .
L . Scharpe and F . Vyncke, eds., Bdinski Zhomik. An Old-Slavonic Menologium of Women-SainrsA.
D. /360 (Bruges, 1973). 6 1 , 76, 77. 135, 136.
HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EURO PE
2
MEDIUM tEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
29
Nobilities in Centrat and Eastern
Europe:
Kinship, Property and Privilege
edited by
Janos M. Bak
Hajnal Istvän Alapitväny
Budapest
Medium JEvum Quotidianum
Gesellschaft
Krems
1994
PRINTED IN HUNGARY
Neotipp Bt., Budapest
HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
together with
Medium tEvum Quotidianum
EL TE BTK Gazc:Iasag- 􀂣s
Tärsadalomtört􀂣neti Tansz􀂣k
B udapest 105 1 , V. ker. Piarista köz 1 .
Hungary
MEDIUM ..EVUM QUOTIDIANUM
GESELLSCHAFT
Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems
Austria
Tel.: (36)-( 1 )-1 1 -80-966/325 Tel.: (34-2732) 84793
Contents
Josef Zemlicka
Origins of Noble Landed Property in Piemyslide Bohemia 7
Elemir Malyusz
Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania ( 1986) 25
Erik Fügedi
Kinship and Privilege (1990) 55
Kiril Petkov
Boyars and Royal Officers 77
Jan Pakulski
The Development of Clan Names in Mediaval Poland 85
Karin J. MacHardy
Social Mobility and Noble Rebellion in Early Modem Austria 97
Istvan M. Szijart6
Relatives and Miles 141
Istvan Hajnal
From Estates to Classes 163
Authors of the volume:
Erik Fügedi (1916-1992)
Istvcin Hajnal ( 1 892-1956)
Elem􀁾r M􀃲yusz (1898-1989)
Karin J. MacHardy (Dept. of History, Univ. ofWaterloo, Ont. N2L 3GI, Canada)
Jan Pakulski (lnst. Historii Arbivistyki, Copemicus-Univ., Plac Teatralny 2/a
PL 87-100 Torun, Poland)
Kiril Petkov (Univ. Veliko Tmovo, Ivailo 1 1, 4300 Karlovo, Bulgaria)
Istvcin M. Szijart6 (Gazdasag- 􀁾s Tarsadalomtörteneti Tanszek, EL TE,
1 15 1 Piarista köz 1 . , Budapest, Hungary)
Josef Zernli􀃳ka (lnst. of Hist., Acaderny of Sc. of the Czech Rep., YisehradSka 49.,
1 2826 Praba 2, Czech Republic)
LECTORI SALUTEM!
The aim of the editors and publisbers of this series of occasional papers is to present recent
results of research in social history to the international public. In the spirit of the Hungarian
historian of Europe, Istvan Hajnal (1 892-1 956), we believe that the history of „small
nations“ may highlight aspects of general development that are less visible in the life of
major civilisations.
The volumes in this series will address specific aspects of social development in medieval
and modern central Europe. We intend to focus on the region between the German Iands
and the Byzantine-Russian world, an explore similarities and differences in this area.
Inslead of arguing the validity of the term, we shall publish studies that may enable our
readers to decide to what extent is „central Europe“ a historical reality or merely a dream
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 boundaries.
It is also our hope to contribute to the understanding of present developments and
upheavals in a region about which few critical analyses are available in the English-speaking
world. At the same time we should like to foster modern methods and approaches in
social history, for so long neglected in our countries.
The present volume appears in close cooperation with the Medium Aevum Quotidian um
Society and cont:lins studies mainly on medieval and early modern nobilities of the region.
The papers of two recenUy deceased Hungarian medievalists as weil as articles of a Czech,
a Polish and a Bulgarian historian discuss the social history medit>val nobilities. Two
articles, on Hungarian and Austrian nobles of the ancien regime Iook at social mobility and
estate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The volume closes with an essay by
Istvan Hajnal on the end of the noble-corporatist world in nineteenth-century Hungary.
With publishing three articles of the generations preceding ours, we wish to bow tho those
who taught us, without wanting to hide that t11eir questions and answers are not necessarily
ours. By printing papers of younger scholars, in turn, we hope to present recent research in
the area on topics that are discussed among social historian everywhere.
The volume editor wishcs to express his gratitude to those friends and colleagues who
assisted in the – often almost unscnnountable – task of translaling and editing the Czec ,
Magyar and Polish contributions: Catherine Allen, Simon Came, Tamas Domahidy, Vera
Gathy, Ryszard Grzezik, and Paul Knoll. Needless to say that he alone feels responsible
for the remaining shortcomings, which are, probably, many. Maybe, we shall publish once
a volume only on the intricacies and pitfalls of translating medieval and medievalist texts.
H & S
is a series of occasional papers published by the Istvrut Hajnal Society of Historians, in
cooperation with the Medium .tEvum Quotidianum Society (Krems, Austria), the Spolecnost
hospodarsky dejiny [Society For Economic History] in Prague.
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen
Landesregierung
Editors:
Vera Bacskai, EL TE Btk, Budapest, Pf. 107, H-1364.
JAnos M. Bak, Dept. ofMedieval Studies, Central European University,
Huvösvölgyi ut 54, 1021 Budapest
Gerbard Jaritz (for M.tEQ), Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems
Editorial consultants: John Bodnar (Chicago, IL), Peter Burke (Cambridge), Josef Ehmer (Vienna), Tarnäs
Farag6 (Miskolc), Susan Glanz (Brooklyn, NY), Monica Glettler (Munich), Heiko Haumann
(Basle), Tarnäs Hofer (Budapest), Gerbard Jaritz (Vienna), Charles Kecskemeti
(Paris), Bela K.KirAiy (Highland Lakes, NJ), György Köver (Budapest), Ludolf Kuchenbuch
(Bochum), Jaroslav Unik (Prague), Hans Medick (Göttingen), Walter Pietzsch
(Wiesbaden), Martyn C.Rady (London), Herman Rebel . (Tucson, AZ), Helga Schutz
(Berlin), Julia Szalai (Budapest), Heide Wunder (Kassel).
Manuscripts and inquiries (including advertising) should be addressed to Andräs Csite,
Managing Editor HISTORY & SOCIETY c/o: Hajnal Istvän kör, ELTE BTK, Budapest
Pf. 107, H-1364. E-mail: csite@osiris.elte.hu
Sale: Single copies in Hungary Ft 300; abroad: $ 15.00 or DEM 20.00 Sales for North and
South America are handled by Dr Susan Glanz (1550 E 9th Ave., Brooklyn, NY 1 1 230,
USA; for Hungary and all other regions by the Managing Editor.
Coverpage idea by György Köver
Computer setting and forrnatting by Gabor Kelemen
Cover design CsiUa Matrai based on the Ebsdorf Maparnundi.
© Hajnal Istvrut Kör, Budapest, 1994.