Fügedi, Kinship and Privilege (1994)

ERIK FÜGEDI
Kinship and Privilege
The social system of medieval Hungarian nobility
as defined in customary law
ABSTRACT
This article-an edited and translated sectionfrom thejirst chapter ofthe author’s
last, posthumously published monograph on the Eleftinthy kindred*-presents the
social, legal and economic framework ojmedieval Hungarian nobility as routtined
in the 1514 code ofcustomary law, compiled by Chief Justice Stephen Werb0czy.1t
concentrates on t he way of life ofthat wide Stratum wlzich is comnwnly called „lesse r
nobility.“ The author emphasizes the centrat role ofthe kindred, a widely branched
network of relationships in the male line, and its „common property,“ tlze ancient
estate. Following the dejinitions and regulations of the law code, matters of
inheritance, guardianship, marriage, local associations. and noble privilege are
discussed. Conside ring that t he code was the summary of medieval deve lopment on
the one hand, and served as the legal base of the noble commonwealth virtually
until the end of the ancien regime, on the other, the picture it reveals is of prime
importance, even if the social and economic realities were in many respects
different.
In 1525 tlle papal Iegate, Baron B urgio, characterised the Hungarian conditions of
his time in the following words: … the fate of this country is in the hands of the
nobility, which is divided in three parts. The frrst part is soldiering, fighting on the
borders in the pay of the magnates: they are most valuable of them all. However,
they are fully dependent on their masters, do nothing but what tlleir Iords command
and are not interested in anything eise. The other part consists of those nobles who
live on their country estates, pursue busbandry and trade, never go to the towns, do
not attend tlle diets, merely cast their vote on tlle delegates sent by tbe county to the
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 57
eliles of Western Europe or the Gennan Adel. The Hungarian common nobles-just as tlle
Polish szlachta-were perhaps better called „freemen,“ had this tenn not been reserved for
other, specific social strata. Moreover, medieval Hungarian society did not know hard and
fast borders between aristocracy and lesser freemen, nor was it rare to rise swiftly or to fall
(though slower) from tlle one to tlle otller stratum.
9
Despile the great progress in our understanding of tbe origins and development of tlle
medieval nobility, I feit that we are still not close cnough to comprehcnd tlle real life of
this i.mportant part of old Hungary. Ever since I ventured into the field of social history in
1969, when I spent some time on a schotarship in Paris, I have been looking for that basic
unit of noble existence, which-like tlle modern fam ily-was able to reproduce its own world,
botll in terms of biology and in modes of socialization. This unit was tbe genus or generatio,
noted by many historians before me, but not placed squarely at the center of a social
analysis. I grasped the paramount significance of tllis notion from a fifteentll-century report,
spoken by the runbassador of King Mattbias Corvinus in 1475, describing Hungary at tlle
presentation of his agrbnent at tlle court of Milan. He said t11at „tlle number of tlle nobles‘
houses (case) is seventeen hundred; t11ey pay notllin§ but are obligated to go to war for tlle
defense of tlle country to t11e best of lheir ability.“ 1
Cicco Sirnoneuo used lhe word casa, „housc,“ for the noble „households,“ a term
gcncrally accepted for extended patrilineal families of the nobility all ovcr Europe. It
referred not only to horizontally similar units, but also vertically to members of the set in
past and future generalions. It is this casa of tlle Hungarian nobility which I intend to
investigate in the present study.
Thcre are, however, some semantic problems, which go weil beyond the mere use of
words. Medieval Latin sources in Hungary use lhe word genus or generatio (apparently
interchangeably) for thc groups of nobles clairning common descent. The Hungarian
equivalent may have been, among others, nemzetseg, also referring in its root to procrealion
on the male side.
11
However, these words have been applied to at least three different
features of medieval Hungarian society in its consecutive stages. There were tlle genus of
the wandering and conquering Magyar tribes of the nintll-tenth centurics, then there were
those extended cognate and agnate aristocratic family clusters of the thirteenth-fourteenth
centuries, the members of which referred to themselves as being de genere such-and-such.
These were, however, identical neither with the ancient ones nor with tlle late medieval
groups of related noble families, which Sirnonetto called case.
Of the first of these, tlle lineages-as I would call tllem-of the conquest age, we know very
little. They seem to have played a roJe in the military order of the Magyar tribal alliru1ce,
and received particular areas of settJement when tlle Hungarians arrived in tbe Danube
Basin.They also seem to have conslituted some kind of legal and cultic unit. It is, however,
unclear, whetJ1er they were based on blood relation.
12
The second type, tlle genus of the
centrat Middle Ages, which may be properly defined as clans, are better known. As a rule,
tlley were aristocratic families tllat regarded themselves as descendants, in the male line,
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 59
kin-based nobility. A Iate medieval collection of customary Iaw, compiled by the Iawyerpolitician
Werb6czy, the Tripartitum-as it is usually referred to-reflects medieval Hungarian
legal and social reality as weil as political thought. The extensive Iiterature on the
Tripartitum15
established that Werb6czy, a spokesman for the politically active middle and
lesser nobility in the early 1500s, did in fact include his party’s views and programs in the
code. It is, however, easy to discem, when he writes in favor of ephemeral political concems
and when he records received tradition.
lt is, thercfore, legitimate to start out by sketching the legal and social system of noble
kindred according to Werb6czy. Once this is done, this „normative“ source can be
confronted with records of daily administration of justice, property transactions, and
conflict solution, without having to survey the entire bulk of surviving written evidence.
The Kindred
According to the Tripatitum, the basic unit of the nobility was the kindred (generatio), that
is, all those who descend from one ancestor, more exactly, from one nobleman. Generatio
was used here not only as a word for a group of persons but referred consciously to the
principle of pater generat, thus, to a group propagated through blood lineage (sanguinis
propagatio). At one point Werb6czy differentiales between four kinds of descendants:
posteritas, including all children of a nobleman, male and female alike; proles, those bom
during the fat11er’s lifetime; and liberi, the children a.nd grandchildren taken together.
However, the fourth category is the most important one: „according to the ancient and
approved custom of our realm we understand as heirs (haeredes) only the Iegitimale male
offspring who receive patemal inheritance.“
16
The Latin word uscd by Werb6czy, propagatio, comes from the plant world, from
gardening, just as the English „propagation.“ In this sense, t11e descent, the generatio, was
often compared to a tree, the ancestor being the trunk, the decendants t11e branches and
leaves; in the Tripatitum: stirps et ramum genealogiae. Expressions like „line,“ or „lineage“
are also used occassionally but, of course, not in thcir modern anthropological sense.
The kindred is thus the totality of a nobleman‘ s descendants over several generations. All
male descendants appear asfratres and their relationship to each other is govemed by the
order of descent. A „brother“ could be, stricto sensu, another son of the ego’s father-whereby
difference is registered between full- and half-brothers asjrater uterinus andfrater
carnalis-or the son of the father’s brot11er (jrater patruelis), a person whom we would call
a cousin. However, t11e medieval meaning of the term „brother“ was wider than that of
modem „cousin,“ whom we understand to belong to the same generation. For example,
King Andrew Ili called King Ladislas IV hisfrater patruelis, although he was a grandebild
and Ladislas a great-grandchild of King Andrew II.17 Today we would call him a „nephew
once rcmoved.“ Our records, however, use moslly t11e general expressionfrater without
precise connotation, frequently not specifying , for example, whether afrater patruelis is
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 61
power: no father could disclaim or disinherit his son, that is, to exclude him from the
kindred.
A good example for tbe division ofan estate between father and son is known from 1351.
James, son of Desiderius of Rede, declared at the county court of Co. Borsod that, after due
deliberation with bis kinsmen, he retained one third of his estate for hirnself, gave an
third, with the manor-house of his father, to his younger son Stephen, and the last third to
his clder son, John.
20
The falber‘ s duties were minimal: he had to raise-feed and clothe-the sons and daughters
and set up an independent household for them: by dividing the estate for tlle sons, and by
marrying off the daughters. The duty to divide property implied, albeit tacitly, that tlle father
must preserve tlle ancestral cstate intact in order to pass it on. Tilis injunction seems to have
been more stringent than tllat of division, for a son could force his father to divide the
property only in a few distinct cases: if tlle father alienated the ancestral estate (or was about
to do so) „without neccssity and good reason,“ if he neglccted il, if he inflicted „horrible
and cruel punishment“ on thc son „withoutjust cause and a major trespass,“
21
if he hindered
tlle marriage of an adult son, or if hc wanted to force hirn to commit a crirne. The marriage
of the daughter had to be approved by the faUler (or, after his death, by tlle kinsmen).
Otllerwise such a marriage was not valid, what Wcrb6czy explains by t11e duty to pay t11e
so-called filiaJ quarter (on which more below). The need for approval was even more
important if the girl married a non-noble and obtained her quarta in real estate. lf a girl did
not marry, for whatever reason, she had the right to be maintained for life.
lf the father died and was survived by one or more minor sons, tlle patemal aut11ority, or
in Wcrb6czy’s words „tl1e lcgally granted and pennittcd power for tlle protection of him
who by his minority is unable to fend for himself,“
22
had to be transferred to a guardian,
who, however, received power „only for the protection of his ward’s property.“ Werb6czy
procecds clearly and systematically as long as he details tlle du lies of tlle guardian-drawing
up an inventory, rendcring accounts, and so on-but becomes somewhat unsure about tlle
selection of tlle proper guardian, for tllis point touches on the core issue of division of tasks
and responsibilities witllin tlle kindred.
The Tripatitum lists tllree kinds of guardians: (a) legal, (b) testamentary, and (c) commissioned.
The first kind of guardian is defined by relationship to tlle ward, the second by tlle
will of tlle fatller, and tlle tllird-lacking eitller of the first two–by the king’s command.
However, this sequence docs not imply priorities of choice. According to .Werc6czy, the
guardian has to be of full age, reliablc, who has appropriate mcans (to be able to bear
material rcsponsibility), Jives in the same county, and-above all-a person „who does not
covet the cstate and proprietary rights of his ward. “
23
Such a person could be best selected
by the father; hence, the testarncntary choice was tlle most dcsirable one. If, however, thc
father died intestatc, the legal guardian, usually thc other parent, the molher entered the
sccne.
Füged.i: Kinship and Privilege 63
patemal autilority, tiley became subject to the power of tileir husbands. The almost sole
exception was the motiler‘ s claim to legal guardianship if the faUler died intestate. The rules
about wards also expressed tile principle of women‘ s inferiority. They state that boys of
legal age need no guardian, but „girls must be und er the guardianship and power of someone
until married, for Uley would otberwise be easily misled because of tileir levity.“
28
The
code does not state expressly tilat married women were subject to their husbands , for tilat
was established by no lesser autilority than St. Paul (in 1 Kor. 11: 2), and sustained by the
Roman Church throughout Europe. Still, an implicit hint at women’s perceived status can
be detected in a passage about their right to cede their dowry to their husbands. Here
Werb6czy mentions, among other permissible cases for such a transfer, Üle last will on the
deathbed „when tile suspicion of fear and terror from tileir husbands is unlikely.“
29
The only obstacle to marriage is listed as close blood-relation, witilin the fourth grade,.according
to canon law. lf tile parties kncw of the obstacle, their children were regarded
iUegitimate, but if they were not aware of it, the offspring was legitimate. It seems, however,
that such marriages were dissolved, no matter what. Strangely, Werb6czy does not speak
of possible ecclesiastical waivers. As mentioned before, girls were to be married off with
the consem of the father or of the kinsmen; hence, it must have been fairly easy to keep
count of relationships: tilc person deciding about the girl‘ s spouse needed to know only bis
own or his brothers‘ ( cousins‘) grandparents-and their descendants-to offer proper guidance.
Werb6czy expressly emphasized that the kinsmen should assist in establishing the
relationship of spouses. However, the picture was complicated by fictive kinship originating
at baptism: godfathers, godmothers and their offspring were regarded as spiritual kin
and thus excluded as eligible spouses.
The Status of women was expressed in material terms through the properlies connected
with marriage. The girl received from her parents, patemal kinsmen, and her fiance’s
parents res paraphernales: wedding gifts always in moveable goods, which remained hers
and passed on to her children. Only if she died childless did these goods revert to her
parental family (patemal kinsmen). More important for our inquiry was the dower (dos,
dotalitium), about which Werb6czy gives several explanations. In one paragraph he states
that this amount, paid by the busband at tile consummation of the marriage (hence, the
German Morgengabe), is a reward for the wife’s Ioss of virginity ?0 A few lines further he
gives a less „Victorian“ definition: dower is „the payment legally married women used to
be given for fulfilling tileir spousal duties, from the real properties and rights of the husband,
according to the man’s condition.“
31
Thus, this grant is seen as a cumulative pay-merces
means wages, salaries-for the wife’s fidelity, childbearing and household duties. The rule
that a woman received in her first marriage the full dower, in the second tile half, in the
third the quarter and in the fourth the eighth supports this perception, and contradicts
Werb6czy’s first „romantic“ definition. ll makes sense as wages: women usually „work“
most in their frrst marriage, take greater risk while bearing the frrst child, and may live
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 65
father’s faults and shortcomings. He owed the same to the guardian, whom he could sue
only after having reached full age.
As to age limitations, Werb6czy uses two categories: legal age, which is reached by boys
with 14, when theycan sueat court, and „full age“ (perfecta aetas), which is 24 years. There
are also intermediate stops: a 16-year-old can pawn his gold and silver objects, with 18 he
can sell them, but in matters of landed property he has to wait till bis full age. Girls reach
legal age with 12 and may dispose of landed estates with 14. This rule, however, patently
conflicts with those about guardianship, but it does not seem to have botbered the author.
Property division was, of course, not mandatory. To begin with, the estate needed to be
Iarge enough to be divided. But even estates of sufficient size were frequently held in
common by brot11ers or (patcmal) cousins, with all rights and duties shared. This arrangement
underlined the principle that the property did not belong to the individual, but to the
kindred; the male members merely enjoy its fruits. Their right of disposal was also limited
in the same sense: in case of alienation-even of a temporary one-those kinsmen who would
inherit after the vendor or mortgager bad the right of first refusal. If they wished to buy or
mortgage, they receivcd it at the very advantageaus price of „common estimation.“
The kindred was based on strong community band. As already mentioned, even tlle
all-powerful father bad no right to exclude a son from it. Donations were usually granted
not merely to the beneficiary, but per eum to bis „brothers“ (referring, as we saw, to the
patemal kindred in a broader sense). Even ifnot spelled out this way, they all bad the rigbt
to claim their part in case of a division The communal band of the kindred came to bear at
any alienation just as it did in naming a guardian. The opposite of this band was the case
of „denial of kinship“ (proditio .fraterni sanguinis). Werb6czy’s definition of such an act
is tllat „a kinsman deprives analher by trick, cabal or fraud of bis rights, or defrauds him
of his heritage. „35 In a wider forrnulation: „he denies that a member of the kindred belongs
to his »family tree« (genealogia sua).“ Such a deed, if unfounded, was to be punished by
loss of honor and all property. Still tlle kinsrnan so denounced has to maintain tlle culprit
as a member of his familia, that is, tlle calumniator did not lose his membership in tlle k.in.
That happened only in the case of high treason.
Werb6czy-aware of the demographical rule that more girls are born Ulan boys-<:onsidered
t11e case t11at an outsider had tobe admitted to the kindred when a fatller had only daughters
or no offsprings at all. If he has a daughter (or more), the king may have declared them to
„be true heirs and male successors“ (in verum heredem et successorem masculinum
prejicere). This privilege, called praefectio (and I shall Anglicize it as „prefection“) might
appear to have been t11e last resort of a near-extinct branch, but, according to Werb6czy, it
was not. He argues as follows: „Prefectio … has the same character and force as a donation“;
hence, t11ese girls obtained tlleir property not by inheritance or blood-right but by tlle force
ofroyal favor. This principle comes to bear most clearly ifwe assume that two brothers (or
condivisional kinsmen) obtain tllis privilege for their daughters. It would seem, then, that
were the women to continue the joint inheritance of the kindred, the descendants of one
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 67
The Ancestral Estate
As discussed before, the preservation of „heritage“ was just as mucb a prime task of every
member as tlle perpetuation of tbe blood-line. It could not be lost for tlle kindred, save by
high treason. (In tbe case of „denial of kinship,“ tlle culprit’s part went to the accused and
tllus remained witllin tbe kindred.) There was no statute of Iimitation on tlle kindred’s
estates: one branch inherited tbe possessions of an extinct one, as long as tbere was a single
male heir around.
A case from 1340 shows tbat tllis rule could, however, be broken by common consent. A
fatller gave half of his estatcs in Kis Kanna and Mihalyfalva viilag es to his tbree unmarried
daughters. To this transaction, he had to obtain the agreement of both his son and his
„divisional brotllers,“ for, had he (or his son) died witllout male heir, the kinsmen would
have inherited lhe entire estate. Wilh tbe probable marriage of the girls to non-kinsmen,
however, half of tbe estate would be alicnated from lhe kindred. 36
In order to retain lhe closed system of inheritance, women had to be excluded. Daughters
received at marriage lhe quarter of the patemal estate, lhe quartafilialis, but usually only
its traditional value in cash. In lhe exceptional case tbat they married a non-noble with lhe
approval of lhe kinsmen, lhey were given land. Widows received their brougbt-in possessions
also in money. Thus, by good busbandry and wise political choices (for „high treason“
is tlle result of a wrong bet!), and if there were sufficient males born and surviving to
manhood, U1e ancient estate could remain for centuries in lhe hands of the kindred.
Nobles also owned other properties, besides tbe „ancestral estate.“ They are not detailed
in tlle code, but Werb6czy refers to estates bought on tlle money of the fatbcr or the motber,
received as compensation (homagium), or as quarta filialis. These, and certain estates
included in U1e privilege of prefection, if so specified, were heritable by male and female
offspring alike. Werb6czy explains this anomaly (or so be seems to regard it) by pointing
out that money is a moveable good and, therefore, inheritable by boili sexes, „even if it is
frequently acquired by much Iabor“ or „sometimes by enormous sbedding of blood.“
Tberefore, he continues, „lest it may seem that girls are excluded from lhe paternal legacy“
or tllat tlle brotbers do not Iove lhem, tlley have a share in tllis kind of wealtll.37 On lhe
other band it followed from lhe logic of tlle system lbat women were excluded from
so-called mixed acquisitions, which came to lhe family partly by royal grant, partly tllrough
purchase.
Kinsmen frequently tried to grab such acquired estates as weil. Salomon, member of lhe
Veszkeny clan died heirless some time before 1265. His estate Szekes escheated to lbe
crown and tbe king granted it to another clansman, Dennis, son of Bartllolomew, for his
deeds in U1e Bobemian campaign. No less lhen nine kinsmen (five of tllem definitely
cousins) sued Dennis, claiming tbat Szekes was inberited, ancestral property and thus not
subject to escheat. Accordingly, King Bela IV had no rigllt to give iL away, but should have
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 69
walks, inquests and other legal acts were performed by neighbors and abutters quite
frequenlly. Not only the immediate neighbors-who needed to be there for their own
interest-came to such occasions, but nobles from near and far, curious about the new owner
or the new boundaries. These persons rernembered t11e actions and passed on the information
to their successors. The royal bailiff was also a fellow noble of the same county: he
had to remernher the action ex officio. These acts and their actors offer us a glimpse at the
self-organization of the nobility.40
The second important feature of the noble estate is its center, the locus residentiae or locus
solitae residentiae of the owner. „Residence“ may sound a trifte too seigneurial for a
cornmon noble, but it was certainly rnore than a domus, which the Tripaniturn uses only
in such cornbinations as domus nobilitaris or domus et curia, sometimcs referring only to
curia. The few reconstructions based on archeological research (see Figures 1-2. on p. 70)
suggcst that noble residences were sornetimes quite impressive buildings. But whatever
their size or style, they always differed from the dwellings of peasants, by the rnere fact
that a nobleman lived in thcm. The residence playcd an import.ant role in thc division of
estates, in the context of which it is called „patemal home.“ The domus paterna went to the
youngest son, and the girl(s) had the right to stay in it. The other son(s) had the claim to a
similar house, built on their portion(s) of the estate. A nobleman necded to have a residence.
A court case from 1357 rnay illustrate this principle. Niebolas of Marcellfalva protested
against the seizure of a piecc of his land by Nicholas, son of Paul of Dereske. The accused
asked the court of Co. Vas, which piece of land was allegedly occupied by him. The
plaintiff, present at the court, stated that he „is a noblernan, and according to the custorn of
the realrn, he can be found.“ The court decidcd tllat a formal summons had to be issued.
Hence, one ofthe county rnagistrates was sent to the residentia ofNicholas ofMarcellfalva
and sumrnoned him to a definite term in the county court.41
The residence was, of course, closely connected to the neighborly groups discussed
earlier. Werb6czy points out that sentences relating to an estate ought not to be pronounced
in the royal court (as King Matthias), but at the Iocation of the proprietary rights, „preferably
at the usual residence of the heirless deceased person. „42 The nobleman and his estate
belong to the county where he resides. Here, neighbors and abutters know hirn and t11e
property, and no change could be legal without their knowledge and assent.
Noblerneo held full dominion and all rights to use their estates. It was one of the
comerstones of noble privilege in U1e famous Primae nonus (Title 9 of Part I of the
Tripa rti tum) U1at „within the boundarics of U1eir es tat es, they can dispose of ait their revenue
any time at their pleasure.“ The property right to the estate was, as we have seen, not
unlirnited, at least not to U1e „ancient allod,“ over which the kindred disposed. But the
nobleman was free to spend his revenue as he wished, with the onl y exception of rnandatory
payrnent of filial quarter and the refund of tlle dower. A father may mortgage or sellland,
even to the detriment of U1e son or sons, in order to fulfil U1ese Obligations.
Fügedi: l(jnship and Privilege 7 1
The amount due to the widow seems to have been regulated by custom. The Tripartitum
notes only that barons pay 400 florins (as we hav seen in the fourteenth-century example),
wile owners of fifty or more peasant plots, 200. No values are listed for lesser estates.
The filial quarter meant one quarter of the estate’s value. This would have imposed a
serious burden on the family, had it not been calculated by what was called „common
estimation,“ or legal value.
The Tripartitum speaks of two kinds of estimation or valuation of propcrty: the „common“
and the „etemal.“ The lauer is ten Limes the form er, and the example given is a seltled tenant
peasant‘ s plot, worth 1 Mark (equal to 4 golden florins) according to the one, and 40 Marks
according to the other. Actually, „etemal valuation“ features only once, as a fine for an
unfoundedly acquired estate. The very low „common“ (beuer translated as „legal“) estimation
applied, for example, to calculating the girls‘ inheritance. It also features in several
other rules, all of them aimed at the protection of the ancient allod. If mortgaged without
consent, the estate could be redeemed at that price; if overmortgaged, the successors could
redcem it at the legal value; kinsmen had the frrst refusal at any sale-and could purchase
the estate at the estimatio communis, and so on. The idea was to establish an etemal,
unchanging value of landed wealth, regardless of profit, market or any other economic
element. (Only in one case, conceming the value of forests, does Werb6czy calculate the
value as the tenfold of annual revenue.) Also, as is tobe expected, these estimations refer
to real estate only. Money and monetary Obligations play a subordinate roJe in this system.
Una eademque nobilitas
Having surveyed tJ1e genealogical, social and material aspects of noble existence, the
question remains: how docs someone become a noble. Werb6czy begins his explanation
by a historical fiction about the ancient „golden age“ of a communitas of equals from which
some fell into servitude because of thcir refusalto go to war. He borrowcd this text from a
thirteenth-century chronicle, which does not concem us here.43 The relevant definition
follows: „Nobles are those who, for some merit, have been granted an estate by the king.“
The donation is „the decorum of the nobleman which distinguish him from the non-nobles.“
Werb6czy repeats this principle once more by stating: „by such a grant of the prince-if
followed by rightful seisin-the grantec becomes immediately a noble.“44 A few lines
further, however, Werb6czy adds-somewhat illogically-that the king may ennoble someone
without donation, „when our princc raises any commoner from among the peasants
and non-nobles, and ranks and institutes him into the community, society, and nurnber of
the true nobles of the realtn.“45 The only other entry into tl1e nobility, adoption, was, in tl1e
last resort, also based on the nobility acquired some time by tl1e ancestor of the adoptcr.
Hence, in essence nobility originated always in royal favor, with or without a grant. The
connection between king and nobility was tl1en elaborated into the famous legal fiction of
tl1e „doctrine of lhe Holy Crown,“ which combines the medieval organic concept of the
Fügedi: KinslUp and Privilege 73
reward for services-as is usual,“ in which case the grantor may stipulate that the donation
„escheats to him or his legal heirs“ at the extinction of the grantee’s branch.
50
These
cautious hints total all the information on the widespread practice of what was called
jamiliaritas (retainership) found in the three-volume law code which in fact made a good
portion of „equal“ nobles dependent on on their „more equal“ seniors. But this, Logether
with a number of other issues, belongs to the chapter on reality rather than the ideal system
so carefully described by Werb6czy.
Notes
* Az Elefanthyak. A magyar nemes es klanja, Budapest [benceforth: Bp.], 1993.
I. E. Bartoniek. ed., Mohtics Magyarorszaga. Bar6 Burgio papai k6vet jetentesei [Hungary before
Mohacs: Reports of Baron Burgio from Hungary], Bp., 1926, pp. 13-16.
2. More on this, see below in I. Hajnal, „From Estates to Classes.“
3. D. Csanki, Magyararszag törtene/mifo/drajza a Hunyadiak koraban [Historical Georgraphy of
Hungary in the Age of the Hunyadi], vol. 5, Bp., 1 9 1 3, p. v.
4. P. Vaczy, „A kiralyi szerviensck es a patrirnonia1is k.iralysag“ (Royal servientes and Patrimonial
IGngship], Szazadok 6 1 /62 (1927128) 243-90, 351-414.
5. E. Malyusz, „A magyar köznemesseg kialakulasa·· [Development of the Hungarian Cornmon
Nobility], Szazadok 76 ( 1942) 272-305, 407-34 briefly surnrnarized as: „Emstehung der ständischen
Schichten im mittelalterlichen Ungarn,“ Etudes historiques hongroises 1980 (Bp., 1980) 1: 103-20;
also in Malyusz’s article in this volume.
6. Besides the unpublished Diss. Cand. Hist., Engel presentcd bis results, arnong other places, in:
“Ung megye települesviszonyai es nepessege a Zsigmond korban“ [Settlement Conditions and
Population of Co. Ung under Sigismund], Szazadok 1 19 (1985) 941- 1005.
7. I.S zab6, Le repartition de Ia popu/ation de Hongrie entre bourgades et les villes dans les annees
1449-1526. Bp., 1 9 60 (Studia Hist. Acad. Sc. H., 49).
8. F. Maksay, „Les pays de Ia noblesse nombreuse,“ Etudes historiques hongroises 1980. (Bp.,
1980) 1: 1 67-92.
9. On the main Jines of development, see E. Fügedi, Tbc Aristocracy in Medieval Hungary: Theses,
in: /dem, Kings, Bis hops, Nobles and Burghers in Medieval Hungary, ed. J. M. Bak (London, 1986),
eh. IV.
10. I diarii di Cicco Simonetto, ed. M. Rosario Natale. Milan, 1961 (Acta Italica, 1), p. 201.
1 1 . Nemzeni (inf.) mcans to sire, to falber; actually, the Hungarian word for nation (nemzet) is also
derived from Ibis root (in centrast to the Latin based words referring to birth !).
12. Cf., e. g., Gy. Nagy, „A magyar nemzetsegekr6l“ [On the Hungarian Lineages], Szazadok 3
( 1870) 􀃩34-5 1 , 688-706; Gy. Györffy, Wirlschaft und Gesellschaft der Ungarn um die Jahrlausendwende.
Vienna, 1983, pp. 103-4, 141-2 and passim; K. Mesterhazy, Nemzetsegi szervezet es az
osztalyviszonyok kialakulasa a honfogla/6 magyarsagnal [Kinship Organisation and the Development
of Classes among the Conquest-Age Magyars], Bp., 1980, pp. 70-86.
Fügedi: Kinship and Privilege 75
32 .. “ … qui enim per jura haereditare uxori suae cupit complacere … “ lbid, 1:102, 2.
33. See Hazai Okmanytar/Codex diplomaticus patrius, ed. I. Nagy et al., (Bp., 1865-91) 1:173.
34. See A Podmanini es Azstfdi Baro Podminiczky csalad törrenete [History of the Family of the
Barons Podmaniczk:y of P. and A.), I. Lukinich, ed., (Bp., 1937) I: 173.
35. „. .. fratris vel sororis juslis suis juribus per alterum fratrum aut sororem dolosa, adumbrataque
et fraudulenter privatio vel exhaereditalio.“ Trip. 1:39.
36. See Zala varmegye törtenete. Okleveltar [History of Co. Zala. Diplomtarium] 1 1024-1363,1.
Nagy et al. ed., Bp., 1886, pp. 368-69.
37. “ … ne tarnen a successione bonorum et rerum patemorum penitus exclusae viderentur, fraternus
amor et dilectio filiorum … pennisit filias … potiones congruas … habere.“ Trip. I: 19, I.
38. See Sopran vannegye tönenete. Okleveltar [History of Co. Sopron. Diplomatarium] 1, 1156-
1411, ed. I. Nagy (Sopron, 1889), pp. 30-32
39. Trip. 1:29-30.
40. Cf. Filgedi, „Verba volant…. Oral Culture and Liuteracy among the Medieval Hungarian
Nobility“, in Idem, Kings, Bishops, eh. VI.
41. Cod. dipl. Hung. Andegavensis, [ as n. 20 above)6:576.
42. “ … maxime vero in loco solitae residentiae … „Trip. I :30, 3.
43. On this subject sec J. Bak:, Königtum und Stände in Ungarn im 14.-16. Jh. (Wiesbaden 1973),
p. 164, and J. Szilcs, Theoretical Elements in Sirnon of Keza ’s Gesta Hungaronun (Bp. 1980).
44. „Narn ubi princeps noster quempiarn hominum, cuiuscunque condilionis existat, ob preclara
facinora, ac servilia, castro, vel oppido, sive villa, aut alio iure possessionario condonaverit: mox ille
per huiusmodi donalionem principis (statulione legitima subsequente) in verum nobilem creatur, et
ab omni rusticitatis iugo eripitur.“ Trip. 1:4.
45. “ …. dum videlicet princeps noster quoscunque plebee condilionis homines a rusticitatis et
ignobilitalis servitute scquestrando et eximendo, in coctum ac collegium numerumque verorum regni
nobilium aggregat, et adscribit. Tales, etiam sine possessionara collalione, veri nobiles reputantur.“
lbid.
46. „Proinde vero nobilitas, usu disciplinaquc militari, ac ceteris animi corporisque dotibus et
virtutibus acquiritur.“ lbid.
47. /bid.l:9.
48. “ … omnes domini prelali, et ecclesiarum rectores, ac barones, et cetcri magnates, atque nobiles,
et proceres regni huius Hungarie, ralione nobilitatis, et bonorurn temporaliurn, una eademque
libert tis, exemptionis, et immunitalis prerogativa gaudent;nec habet dominorum aliquis maius, nec
nobilis quispiarn minus de libertate.“ lbid. 1:2.
49. See now in Decreta Regni Mediceavlis Hrmgariceffhe Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of
Hungary, 2, J. Bak:, J. R. Seeney, P. Engel, ed. (Bak:ersfield, 1991) p. 37.
50. Trip. I: 14,10; 43; 69,1. There is still no geeral study on the farniliaritas, a relationship between
aristocrats and lesser nobles, which was less formal but also less „reciprocal“ than what we call
Western vassallage. and never Iasted beyond the lifelime ofthe retainer, but is still seen as resembling
feudal institulions elsewhere; see E. Malyusz, „Magyar tarsadalom a Hunyadiak:koraban“ [Hungarian
Society in the Age of the Hunyadi), Matyds kirriiy em/ekkönyv, ed. I. Lukinich (Bp., n. d. [1940)),
pp. 318-32 and now in Fügedi, Elefanrhyak, pp. 229-36.
HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
2
MEDIUM !EVUM QUOTIDIANUM
29
Nobilities in Centrat and Eastern
Europe:
Kinship, Property and Privilege
edited by
Janos M. ßak
Hajnal Istvan Alapitvany
Budapest
Medium lEvum Quotidianum
Gesellschaft
Krems
1994
HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
together with
Medium 1Evum Quotidianum
EL TE BTK Gaz􀁘g- 􀁙s
Tarsadalomtörttneti Tanszek
Budapest 1051, V. ker. Piarista köz 1 .
Hungary
MEDIUM ./EVUM QUOTIDIANUM
GESELLSCHAFf
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 Pfemyslide B ohernia 7
Elemer Mci.lyusz
Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania ( 1 986) 25
Erik Fügedi
Kinship and Privilege (1990) 55
Kiril Petkov
Boyars and Royal Officers 77
Jan Pakulski
The Development of Clan Names in Mediaval Po land 85
LECTORI SALUTEM!
The aim of the editors and publishers of this series of occasional papers is to present recent
results of research in social history to the international public. In the spirit ofthe Hungarian
historian of Europe, IstvMI Hajnal ( 1 892-1956), 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 B yzantine-Russian world, an explore similarities and differences in this area.
Instead 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 contains studies mainly on medieval and early modern nobilities of the region.
The papers of two recently deceased Hungarian medievalists as weil as articles of a Czech,
a Polish and a B ulgarian historian discuss the social history medirval nobilities. Two
articles, on Hungarian and Austrian nobles of the ancien r􀂽gime Iook at social mobility and
estate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The volwne closes with an essay by
lstvMI Hajnal on the end of the noble-corporatist world in nineteenth-<:entury Hungary.
With publishing three articles of the generations preceding ours, we wish to bow tho those
who taught us, without wanting to hide that their 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 U1at are discussed among social historian everywhere.
The volume editor wishcs to express his gratitude to those friends and colleagues who
assisted in the – oflen almost unsvrmountable – task of translating and editing the Czec ,
Magyar and Polish contributions: Catherine Allen, Sirnon Came, Tamäs Domahidy, Vera
Gäthy, Ryszard Grzezik, and Paul Knoll. Needless to say that he alone feels responsible
for the remaining shortcomings, which are, probably, many. Maybe, weshall publish once
a volume only on U1e intricacies and pitfalls of translating medieval and medievalist texts.