Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania (1986)

ELEMER MALYUSZ
Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania
ABSTRACT
This article, a translated and abbreviated version oj a chapter in the author’s
nwnograph on the medieval society oj Transylvania (written in 1947 but not
published until 1988* ), treats he specific conditions oj the lesser nobility in the
Transylvanian part oj the medieval kingdom oj Hungary, comparing the rights and
duties ofthe nobility there with those in the „nwther country. “ The author emphasizes
the importance oj constant military duty, the reduced social differentiation
anwng nobles oj the region and their missionary zeal in dejending the realm.
Surveying the emergence oj the Transylvanian estates, he also denwnstrates the
close connection between politics, political ideas, and social development. As a
background, the author also summarises his findings about the development ofthe
lesser nobility oj medieval Hungary in general, a field in which he had been a
pioneering researcher jor decades. Even if some details might now need correction
and the emphasis is sometimes nwre legal-political than socia/, the picture drawn
by Mtilyusz is still essentially valid and presents a lively description oj a region ’s
noble stratum.
Evolution of the Lesser Nobility
Hungarian nobility as an estate emerged du ring lhe course of lhe lhirteenth century. In lhe
age of lhe Golden Bulls of Andrew Il (1222, 1231) t11e term nobilis stood only for the
magnates, tlle king’s entourage. Allhat time tllere was no such social group as a „lesser
nobility.“ Free Hungarians, tlle warrior descendants of the conquerors, belonged to different
social groups. Many of lhem were calied liberi, free men. However, these were only
nominally free, as tlleir destiny was linked to tlle land tlley received from tlle king or a
landowner, temporal or spiritual, in return for military and administrative duties. Others,
in tlle service of tlle ruler as warriors, lived as members of tlle military retinue of royal
26 History aod Society 2
counties among the so-called castle-warriors, and together with people of foreign origin,
the mainly unfree Slavic population. Free Hungarians, able to retain enough ofthe ancielll
property of their lineage to secure independence, were close in their way of life to those
who came to be the „lesser nobility.“ In the thirteenth century, they were referred to as royal
servitors, servientes regis.
Thirteenth-century Hungarian society consisted of 1mmerous groups from which the
nobility gradually became an estate based on its military value. Before tbe Mongoiinvasion
(1241 ), tbe majority of Hungarians still used the weaponry of tbeir ancestors and applied
old nomadic tactics. Arrow and sword were their main weapons. They wore practically no
armor, at the most a cuirass made of leather. As light cavalry, they tried to break up the
enemy forrnation by sudden attacks and feigned flights. Their weaponry and style of
warfare was not up to the Standard of tbe age, and they could not keep pace with Western
knights, whose strong armor resisted the arrows, and who masterfully wielded their
formidable weapons of attack, the long lance and tbe heavy sword. In the mid-tbirteenth
century only the higliest in rank, the magnates, the king’s retainers, could sport such a
knightly outfit. After the defat at the hands of tbe Mongols, King Bela IV, realising these
shortcomings, decided to muster fewer soldiers, but equipped with suitable arms. The
wealthier royal servitors were encouraged to emulate tbe customs of tl1e royal retinue, and
tbey acquired new-style armor. Many castle-warriors did the same. In keeping with their
new weaponry, the title nobilis-which earlier was synonymaus with knightly armed
magnate-was now added to the designation of the various military retainers; hence,
references can be found to noble servitors, noble castle-warriors, and noble ecclesiastic
retainers.
New weaponry also meant a knightly way of life, accompanied by a cbivalresque spirit,
Iifestyle and attitude. These elements could be found in tbe baronial courts and in tbe stone
castles built after tlle Mongoi Invasion. The next step was quite natural. Those who fought
in tbe battlefield as equals, lived in the same way in peacetime, and were devoted to tlle
sarne chivalraus ideals, lefl the framewerk of their respective social groups in order tobe
united with those above them in a new one. This happened in the last quarter of the tliirteenth
century: the name servientes regis disappeared (its only surviving remnant is the Hungarian
name, szolgabir6, i. e., the servitors‘ judge, for the iudex nobilium, or county magistrate),
and the successfully upward-mobile servientes and castle-warriors called themselves
nobles. This new group was already an estate. Its members were filled to a high degree with
a sense of vocation, a desire to respect and follow high etl1ical ideals, and the conviction
that they were indispensable components of society. Simultaneously, a sense of noble
origin, the desire to separate from others also developed, together with traditions handed
down from generation to generation. <\s they lived the life of knights, their daily behaviour
came to be characterised by a kind of style. Finally, tbere developed a similarity of property
relations, and an identical legal position guaranteeing the enjoyment of rights and privileges,
which tbe nobility and nobody eise was entitled to.
Ma!yusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 27
The servientes regis and the former caslle-warriors jointly developed the noble community
of tbe county, and established tbeir own local govemment witbin its framework. The
initiative was taken by the servitors. They had already started to elect their judges to settle
tbeir differences prior to the Mongoi invasion, at a time when the royal county-the
administrative unitof tbe royal domains and its govemment-was still intact. The new noble
county combined tbe Organisation of the old royal county with tbe autonomous jurisdiction
of tbe servientes. The head of tbe royal county, the ispan (comes) was transferred to Iead
tbe new Organisation, or, in otber words, he retained his leading position. His autbority was
even expanded, as earlier he bad no jurisdiction over the servientes, wbo were direclly
under tbe king or tbe palatine. B ut he did not adjudicate alone, as four magistrates sat beside
him. These rnagistrates were elected by the county assembly of the newly ernerging estate
of nobles. It was the caslle-warriors wbo gained most from tbe changes: while tbey lived
in tbe royil.I county, the ispan alone adjudicated in their cases, and bis ruling was final. They
were not allowed to take their lawsuits to the royal court. Now tbe elected magistrares
represented their interests too, and they themselves could become iudices nobilium, since
they were now regarded as nobles.1
While this development is fairly weil documented for the western-and partly for the
central-part of the kingdom, how did it proceed in the eastem parts, especially in Transylvania?
2 Older scholarship, represented by Käroly TagAnyi, was convinced that tbe conquering
Hungarians did not settle in Transylvania, therefore its lesser nobility emerged entirely
from among the castle-warriors, that is from a social position of servitude.3 Consequenlly
it was, by origin, of lower rank than those of the mother country. Today we have a different
view of the organisation of Hungarians at the time of the Conquest. Clans or lineages
(genus) possessing their viilag es by ancient right were presem in Transylvania as elsewhere
in the kingdom, and thc families which descended from tbem came to be part of the
fourteenth-century nobility. It is precisely a Transylvanian charter which preserved Ll1e frrst
written record on the appointment of somcbody as a serviens regis: lohn Latinus‘ s privilege
granted him by King Emeric in 1204.4
Thus the gap between the origin of the nobility of the molher country and Transylvania
is, therefore, not so wide as earlier supposed. And becomes even narrower if we remember
that the majority of the nobility emerged everywhere in the kingdom from among tlle
castle-warriors who had lefl the bonds of the royal county. Exactly the same constituent
elements can be recognised in the Transylvanian nobility as in the cas.e of the molher
country. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, we may take it that servientes regis as
weil as castle-warriors used to live on Transylvanian territory just as elsewhcre in therealm.
It is irrelevant that the servientes-just as most of the Transylvanian aristocrats-came from
distant regions of the country. The Iaudowners of other parts of Hungary did not hold their
Iands continuously since the Conquest, mainly because many of them were descendants of
foreign-German, English, French, Spanish, Italian-knights. Conditions of landed property
do not at alt suggest a late Settlement ofTransylvania. The descendants of the conquering
28 History and Society 2
free Hungarians were not missing from there either. However, by the end of the thirteenth
century, the majority of them could be found among the servile populations while others
belonged to the group of castle-warriors. Just as in the molher country, Transylvanian
Hungarians belonged to different layers of royal service, whence they ascended to the estate
of the nobility. As a comparison, we may Iook at a population in nortbem Hungary, about
wbich we know more details. The lesser nobility ofTunk and Lipt6 counties (in presentday
Slovakia) evolved mainly from among the castle-warriors. Here free Hungarians,
together with the local Slavs, at first became bondmen, then noblemen. In the fourteenth
century, the nobility of Upper Hungary did not differ from tbat of other regions, despite
such an indirect route to privilege. If such a background among the casUe-warriors did not
shape a separate type of nobility in the north, why should it have done so in Transylvania?
The Transylvanian servientes regis as weil as castle-warriors-just as the „Iancers“ of I,..ipt6
and the filii jobagionum of Tur6c
5
-became nobles on the basis of their military service,
6
in essentially the same way as royal servitors of different type acquired noble Status in other
parts of the kingdom.
Regional Differences
Even if their origin may have been sirnilar to the rest of Hungarian nobility and they
performed the same services as the ones in the molher country, the actual Situation of the
Transylvanian nobility was in many respects different. Before we survey these differences,
Iet us stress that from the late thirteent11 century onward the legal Situation of t11e nobles in
the eastem part of the kingdom was not different from that of the rest.
According to the coronation decree of Andrew Ill, issued in 1291, the Transylvanian
nobles enjoyed all the privileges of the Hungarian nobility, toget11er witll the Saxons, who
were masters of villages and lived the life of nobles.
7
The decree does not make a distinction
between the nobility ofthe mother country and ofTransylvania, it speaks about „the nobility
of tbe realm“ as of a single community. The decree exempted tbe nobles as weil as their
tenants and subjects from the payment of collecta (taxes)
8
as weil as acones (a tax on wine)
and from tbe royal descensus (hospitalily, doit de gite). The charter extended tlle privilege,
already granted to the servientes regis by the Golden Bull of 1222,9 that the king would
not collect fees from tbe nobles on tlle occasion of exchanging money, nor the issuance of
newly minted coins. Further on, the king forbade the voivode, just as the ban (viceroy) of
Slavonia, 10 to billet on the estates of the Transyl vanian nobles. Similarly, the right to
property of tbe nobles in tlle molher country and in Transylvania was identical: botb could
freely dispose of their possessions. If they had no heir, they could freely bequeath their
property to anybody, to a relative or to the Church, without restriction, regardless of whetller
they inherited or purchased their land. The duties were also equal to those in other parts of
the realm, just as the rights had been. Jf an enemy attacked the country, or if a part or a
province rebelled against the ruler, the nobles and the „nobly living“ Saxons were obligated
Ma!yusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvaoia 29
to help the king, to support him, to go to war with him. However, tbey were only expected
to participate in a war outside the country if the king compensated tbeir expenses, as
stipulated by the corresponding passage of the Golden Bull of 1222. The nobles were not
to be forced to participate in a campaign if it was not Ied by the king bimself; if the
commander was a baron, they had to receive payment for tbeir services.
Not Only Under The King’s Banner
However, this equality existed only in words. In reality tbe Situation was different . The
decree of 1291 recorded the desires and objectives of the Transylvanian nobilily. The
promise that they would have to go to war onJy under the king’s personal command, could
bardly be implemented. One of the fundamental privileges of the nobles that they would
directly join the royal army. could bave been observed in Transyl vania onl y to the detriment
of the country‘ s defence. Trans yl vania was a target for attacks from its eastem and southern
neigbbors hungry for booty; its villages and towns were threatened and devastated by
Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols, and Iater by the Ottomans and their allies. As an exposed
border region, it had to defend the realm often under conditions when it could not expect
succour from the molher country, and therefore, bad to avert invasion by its own strength.
It was unreasonable to expect the king to come to Transylvania every time to Iead his
insurgent nobles into war. Thus, he appointed the voivode to Substitute bim, and soon the
nobles had to light under his comrnand, sacrificing their individual advantages to the public
good, with the approval of the king.
Moreover, the voivode, because he had such a great authority, exercised, contrary to the
decrce of 1291, the right of descensus. During the interregnum around 1301-1308, there
was no royal autbority that could bave counteracted the will of voivode Ladislas K.an, who
set the law for bimself, and the nobility could hardly risk opposing him. However, they
were weil aware that the Situation was unjust. As soon as conditions improved under the
rule of King Charles of Anjou (1308-1342), the nobility attempted to assert their rights.ln
1324 two representatives were sent to the king: George Cseb of R6d, member of a wealthy
noble family of Co. Kolozs and Niebolas Was, from a family propertied in Co. Doboka.
Niebolas had been a captain of voivode Ladislas, but cbanged allegiance in 1321 and
received bis estates from King Charles. The two of them presented the request of „alt the
nobles or servientes regis of the Transylvanian land“ to the king, imploring_ that they may
be cxempted from the „foodstuff, cxactions, and the descensus demanded by the barons,
and mainly by the voivode ofTransylvania.“ The king granted their request. Thus they were
exempted from „descensus and the victualia hitherto paid to the voivode ofTransylvania.“
The nobles were also exempted from the collecta. the extraordinary tax in money, be it one,
or half aferto, and from any other kind of similar extraordinary exaction. However, Cbarles
did not Iift tbeir Obligation, dcspite the decree of 1291, of royal hospitality: if the king came
30 History and Society 2
to Transylvania, the tenant peasants of the nobles had to render a barre! of wine, a pig, an
ox, and one mark for pepper and saffron for each one bundred tenement.
Considering that Charles as weil as Louis I (1342-1382) repeatedly levied the collecta
from the entire country, it is improbable that in 1324 the king intended to exempt the
Transylvanians from it. Presumably the charter bas to be interpreted to mean that the king
wanted to free the nobles and peasants from the taxes levied by the voivode, but it did not
alter the rigbts of the king bimself. The cherter’s wording suggests that previously the
voivodes obligated the nobles themselves to pay taxes and render hospitality, not only by
way of their tenants. The voivodes and their offleials billeted on the estates and houses of
the nobles, demanded supplies, and on cemlin occasions also levied the tax in coin,
presumably at the time of military enterprises, or perhaps as redemption for participation
in such ventures. Thus it was this abuse that the king wished to stop in Transylvania, even
though legally‘ it had been abolished as far back as 1291.
Apparently the royal promise did not remain an empty word. In later years there is no
trace of complaint against these burdens of the Transylvanian nobility. The tax, or rather
fee, which was paid to the deputy-voivode in the middle of the fourteenth century was
something entirely different. It amounted to only four pennies per peasant family, and it
was only paid by the servile households. Moreover, it was not levied by the voivode, or his
deputy, but granted by the nobles, and it was the deputy-voivode who collected it togcther
with the noble magistrates. Presumably, it was meant as a contribution for the deputy-voivode’s
judicial services and for the maintenance of the voivode’s court.
Exemption From Direct Taxes
During the next stage of development, in the reign of King Louis, the Transylvanian nobles
were already in a better financial position than their peers living in the molher country. The
decree of 1351, which renewed the Golden Bull of 1222, with extending all its privileges
to servientes regis, now regarded as nobles. became the Magna Charta of the lesser
nobility.
11
It contained the famous sentence that all nobles of the country, evcn those Iiving
on „ducal territories,“ should enjoy one and the same freedom. This expression is-with
good reason-seen as the legal evidence for the complete identification of t11e Slavonian and
Transylvanian nobility witl1 that of tlle kingdom‘ s core regions. For tllis reason, Hungarian
historiography considers the process of the unification of the noble estate as completc by
the mid-fourteentll century. The same decree regulates thecollection of the direct tax, called
lucrum camerae, as it replaced the chamber‘ s pro fit from annual change of money .12
Fifteen years later, in 1366, when Louis the Great granted several legal privileges to the
Transylvanian nobility, and regulated their disputes with Romanians taking up residence
in the region, he also stated that the nobles were obligated to „help him, the voivode and
bis deputy in defeating his and the Holy Crown’s enemies,“ in retum for being exempted
in person and in property from paying the „chambcr’s profit“ and the victualia, and also
Ma!yusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 31
from military service against their wiliY Since tlle chamber’s profit was continued to be
collected in the rest of tbe country for the rest of the Middle Ages, the Transylvanians
enjoyed a more advantageous position.
The essence of tbis privilege can be understood from the close interrelationship between
tax exemption and military service. Hungarian kings frequently granted exemptions from
the tuerum eamerae to their favourite barons. The objective was that the peasants‘ taxes
should go tbe Iord and not to the king: tbe bigher income would enable tlle noble or baron
to equip more warriors and acquire better armor for themselves and their troops. Tbe king
transferred the Transylvanian peasants‘ tuerum camerae to tbe nobles because be bad to
rely on tbeir military services to a larger extent there than in tlle molher country.
Tbere is yet another factor to be kept in mind: different tasks awaited a weslern Hungarian
nobleman in the battlefield from the ones bis Transylvanian peer bad to face. The Western
enemy was usually an armored soldier on horseback, with heavy weaponry, consequently
tbe kings had to marsbal the strongest army against them. Tbe general levy (generatis
exercitus) of the nobility was of lower quality than tlle weil exercised baronial semi-professional
troops, the banderia, therefore tlle monarchs usually relied on the latter against
knightly armies. However, the enemy threatening from the East was almost always of light
weaponry, be it the Cumans, the Romanians or the marauding Ottoman spabis. They could
be successfully confronted by the mass levy of the lesser nobility. Challenged by the
dangers on the frontiers as they emerged in the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries,
Transylvanian nobleman came tobe better experienced in arms, were more often called up
to join the general levy, and had a greater share of the blood sacrifice. It was only logical
that they needed additional financial means, that is, the chamber’s profit paid by their
tenants.
If we are to consider exemption from the tuerum camerae as a proof of permanent military
preparedness, it would be valuable to know whether Louis‘ s privilege remained an empty
word or the direct tax was indeed abolished in Transylvania. Unfortunately, without the
entire corpus of medieval Transylvanian Charters at our disposal, we can only presume that
the change of 1366 was permanent . This is suggested, for example, by the Organisation of
fmancial administration. In the age of Charles Robert there was an autonomous Transylvanian
chamber, the chief offleer of wbich collected the tuerum camerae, similarly to tbe
cameral counts of the eight or nine other cbambers of the kingdom. In 1336 this chamber
comprised the counties Inner Szolnok, Doboka, Kolozs, Torda, Küküll6, FeMr and
Hunyad, in other words, Transylvania without the Saxon and Szekely regions. However,
we have no data about this chamber under King Louis; its chief officers are not mentioned,
wbereas the beads of other chambers are known by name. Tbis silence may indicate that
the chamber lost its significance, and only the mints of Kolozsvar/Cluj and Szeben!Sibiu
survived.
Another indication for the permanent exemption is that in several fifteenth-century laws
about the tuerum eamerae the tax of marten-skin is mentioned for Slavonia and parallel to
32 History and Society 2
it tlle so-called fiftieth forTransylvaniao We know that the Slovenian marturina corresponded
to the chamber‘ s pro fit, and the fiftietll was a laX paid by the Transylvanian Romanianso
It seems obvious, that the decrees would have mentioned the tuerum camerae, bad it been
in force in Transylvania in the fifteenth centuryo Their silence Illerefore corroborates the
testimony of otber data: the Hungarian peasants ofTransylvania, wbo, in the age ofLouis
the Great, were able to pay tax in money because of their setlled way of life and permanent
residence, were exempted from royal taxationo The Romanians, setlling later on secular
estates, became payers of a special tax, tbe aforemenlioned „fiftietbo“
Even though in 1366 the Transylvanian nobility came into a better financial posilion this
did not imply a lügher positiono The advantages in fact were counter-balanced by greater
burdens than those in the rest of the realm: constant warfare Iead to greater control over tlle
nobility not by the king but by tlle voivode or bis deputy 0 The penalty of someone absenting
hirnself from a militaryoperation was definitely higher than the amount he received from
his tenants as Iucrum cameraeo In 1438 the voivode confiscated an entire viiJage from tlle
sons of Stanislas of Bathor, because they disobeyed his order calling them to war, although
they were known to have suffered serious Iosses in the 1437 peasant war: the almost total
destruction of their village and the murder of their local officialo
The nobles of the molher country could excuse themselves more easily from military
operations, as there was no baron, similar to the voivode, immediately above them, whose
deputies and officers, Ll1e belliductores, knew tbe people and the land precisely, and wcre
authorised to exercise merciless control. Considering tbus the advantages and disadvantages,
the nobility in other parts of the country, being dircctly under royal control, were in a
more favourable position than the Transylvanian oneso Theexemption of their tenants from
the tuerum camerae did not sufficiently Substitute for tbe disadvantage deriving from their
Subordination to tbe voivodeo
Seigneurial justice
The privileges of nobles included also the juridical authority over their peopleo Legal
authority was perhaps more essential than the amount of services rendered by the tenants
and serfs in money and kindo In terms of dues and services the peasants of t11e later Middle
Ag es could regard themselves as permanent tenants of the plot allocated to themo The real
Iimitation of thcir status was that their Iandlord adj udicated in their lawsuitso It was by this
authority that the noble Iaudowners interfered almost daily with the life of t.heir tenants,
and whicb was also financiallylucrativeo
According to the Golden Bull t.’te servientes regis exercised judicial autllority over tlle
people-servants and freemen-living on their estates, hut completely 0 It was thecomes, who
adjudicated in cases of exchange and the tithe, whereas royal judges dealt witb the criminal
caseso B y the late thirteenth century the royal j udges had disappeared, and their j urisdiction
was also taken over by the countyo The Situation was different in the case of the great
MaJyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvaoia 33
landowners or barons. In the thirteenth century some of them obtained authorisation from
the king to adjudicate even in more serious cases. Hence they became the judges of tbei.t
people in every respect, particularly since they were also licenced to execute the criminals
At frrst this judicial authority was obtained by ecclesiastic Iandlords and later by lay barom
as weH. In the fourteenth century, certain members of the lesser nobility also acquired tbe
rigbt to high justice witb the symbol of the gallows or the wbeel on their estates. In tbe
mid-fourteentb century tbe entire lesser nobility demanded it as a generat privilege and the
kings acknowledged on innumerable occasions tbat „according to the ancient customs ol
our kingdom every nobleman and landowner bas tbe rigbt to judge bis tenants and landles􀃐
servants, excepting the cases of theft, highway robbery, and common crimes.“ The Iist ol
exceptions varied, sometirnes arson and murder were also mentioned, but tbe essence wa!
the same: serious criminal cases did not fall under the jurisdiction of tbe noblemen‘ s couru
of justice, but undcr tbe royal or county ones. As tbe principle was pronounced in general
by tbe decree of 1351, lower judicial authority was finally included in the privileges of tb€
nobility.
The Transylvanian nobility possessed tbe same legal authority as tbat of tbe mothe1
country, derived from tbe decree of 129 1. However, reality may have differed from th€
written text.
It is bighly probable tbat the voivode and his deputies-particularly during the reign ol
voivode Ladislas-{!id not allow the full assertion of tbe judiciary authority of seigneuria
courts, but demanded the right to pass judgment in the cases of subject tenants and collec1
tbe penalties. This can be inferred from voivode Tamas ofSzecseny‘ s decreeof 1342, wbict
regulated the administration of justice upon the nobles‘ complaint, and stated: „we consen
to the jurisdiction of all the nobles over their tenants and those servants without possessior
ifamuh) who stay on their estates, with the exception of three cases, such as robbery
higbway robbery, and violent trespass.“ The voivode’s words correspond exactly to thf
expression of the royal patents acknowledging the j uridical authority of all nobles Hungary
It may be inferred from tbe words „we consent,“ and „we agree to“ that previously thf
voivodes did not regard these rigbts as self evident. Wbatever tbe case in tbe frrst decade!
of tbe fourteenth century may bave been, the voivode acknowledged tbe juridical autborit]
of landed nobles at least from 1342 onwards, thus they were on an equal footing witb tbei!
Hungarian peers in this respect too.
Tbe privilege of Louis I from 1366 corroborated the legal norm that it was the Iord wb<
had to administer justice on his estate, in other words, tbat no one eise could arrest ar.<
punish bis tenants and servants. The same king also spelled out wbat would bappen if <
Iord did not peform his legal duties: he was tobe summoned to the voivode or to bis deputy
The seigneurial courts were tacitly authorised to pass judgement in high criminal cases, fo
tbere was no mention of cases reserved for the voivode’s bench. This measure resulted it
extraordinary material advantages to tbe nobility, as tbe penalties and confiscated proper􀃑
fell inot their bands.
34 History and Society 2
The royal grant of high justice gave the nobility such great and unexpected legal
competence that initially they did not dare exercise it, and continued to send their more
serious cases to the voivode’s court of justice. In 1391, tlle Saxons were still rebuked by
the voivode when they applied for the right to punish their serfs who bad committed theft,
arson, or highway robbery. King Sigismund had to rule by the strictest order that he
authorised the nobles by the tota!ity of his royal power and Special consent to bang, behead
or otherwise punish the criminals on their estates; in the case of failure in perfonning their
task they would be charged with compensation for the head of tbe criminals and in addition
they were to compensate all the darnage caused.
Presumably t11e voivode and bis deputy also did their best to retain their jurisdiction over
the crirninals, but after Sigismund‘ s order, which so resolutely annulled the old custom of
lirnited jurisdiction in tlie hands of nobles, the juridical authority of all nobles was fully
effective.
A further step was. made when the right to justice, originally based on personal authorisation,
became a corollary of landed property, which burghers could also exercise if tlley
held an estate of a nobleman as security. So, for example, a certain 1 ohn Bogar of Kolozsvar
confiscated four oxen and domestic tools from one of tbe serfs of the noblemen of
Szentmihaly as a penalty for a trcspass while he held the viiJage of Bocs as security.
The Nobles and the Bishop
Parallel to the acquisition of material advantages and the expansion of their jurisdiction,
t11e nobility succeeded in securing advantages in the spiritual sphere as weil. Even if these
were not very significant, they implied the acknowledgement of certain local customs, and
tbus contributed to the development of Transylvania’s particular features. Even more
importantly, the nobility took a uniform stand, and rcached an agreement with the bishop
through the deputies of their universitas.
The agreement, reached in 1335 in Buda, between t11e bishop and two representatives of
the nobility regulated t11e collection of tithes and the competence of tlle courts spiritual.
According to it, the titlle collector was not supposed to determine the number of plots and
houses at will, but bad to assess together witll t11e village reeve, and had to leave one half
of tbe ta!ly witll him. On tllis basis, the titlle was tobe assessed before St Martin‘ s, and tlle
parishioners bad to pay till Epiphany in money. Failing tllat, tlley were penalised three
tim es, each time to a !arger sum. Two-thirds of the penalties would always go to tlle ispdn,
t11at is, the county authority. Ecclesiastical punishmcnts, such as excommunication and
interdict could not be imposed on l.hose who failed to pay. Parishes under tlle patronage of
noblemen continued to obtain a share from the tithe, just as before. The decimator had to
take tlle titlle of wine at the time of grape gatllering from t11e freshly pressed juice. lf he
failed to do so, he could Iater demand a quantity of tlle new wine which corresponded to
MaJyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 35
the fresh juice only. On the other hand, the patrons could not demand to appropriate the
tithe by purchase, or farm without the consent of the bishop or the archdeacon.
The articles related to jurisdiction were mostly directed to restriet tbe excesses of the
archdeacons. They were not supposed to demand more for the burial of a murderer tban
one Mark; they were not allowed to summon a married woman to tbeir court, and could
judge in her discord only if she herself asked for legal remedy, or her busband sued her;
women deserving incarceration could not be irnprisoned in their acconunodation, but had
tobe charged to the custody of honest persons; usually t11e pcnalty was not to exceed one
mark, and they were not supposed to pronounce interdict or ban in cases of tithing. The
bishop granted special favour to noble women when he assured that an ecclesiastical ban
placed on their husbands would not extend to them and their two or tllfce servants unless
their spouse was to be excommunicated because of disobedience. Finally the seigneurial
jurisdiction of noblemen was acknowledeed by stating that a peasant caught on an
ecclesiastic estate should be brought to his Iord together with his belongings. Only if he
had conunitted a public crime and was caught redhandcd could the ecclesiastical authorilies,
as seigneurial courts, pass sentence on hirn.
However, the issue of the tithe was not settled by this regulation. In the early 1350s the
landowners found that it would be more advantageaus if the tithe of grain could be paid in
kind instead of money. They even persuaded King Louis in Buda to make such a resolution,
but on the insistence of the clery, including an intervention of the pope, this decision was
ultimately revoked. As a compensation, the king reduced the exchange rate of the tithe of
grain for that year, from 10 to 12 pence to 8 pence per shock.
The reason for the landowners‘ demand can be guesscd from later developments. It was
certainly not the fall of the price of agricultural products and the growth of t11e value of
money, that is, a „shortage of money,“ which made the conunutation of services in kind a
des irable one. Nor can we assumc that the Iords were moved by the protection of their serfs‘
interests. The bickering continued between the bishop and the chapter on the one hand, and
the landowners on the other. In 1358, Bishop Domonkos was forced to take a stand against
them at the general assembly of Torda/Turda, and Bishop Demeter had to do the same in
1394 vis-a-vis the voivode. On both occasions the complaints were aimed at those collectors
of tithe, who acted without authorisation on their estates, as if they were the rightful owners
of tithe, whereas the nobles argued that they farmed thc tithes legitirnately from the
representatives of the bishop and the chapter. In the first case the nobles promised not to
support their fellows engaged in the unaut11orised collection of tithe either·by advice or by
deed, and in 1394 an agreement was reached that only those farms of the thithes were
regarded lawful which were listed in diplomas and authorisalions issued and sealed by the
competent ecclesiastics. Further on, in 1358 the nobles accepted the aJlocation of ten pence
per shock to the Church as tithe, and thus rcvealed that they had not been concemed with
t11e burden of their peasants, but U1ey themselves wanted them to pay the tithe in kind.
36 History and Society 2
Clearly, then, the noble landowners wished to lay hand on the grain paid as tithe. But they
had little hope of fanning it from the bishop and the chapter, as long as their tenants could
commute their duty in money. While the tithe-collectors would have an easy job to Ievy
tbe dues in coin, the Situation would be entirely different bad the ecclesiastics received
grain (and wine) in kind. It would mean a Iot of trouble to collect, transport and sell it,
nothing said of the darnage caused by theft.T hus if the tithe has to be rendered in kind, the
clergy may willingly agree to leave the task of collecting it to the landlord, satisfied with
smaller gains but avoid all the nuisance.
14
It was undoubtetly a clever step of the nobility
that they made the king take a measure advantageaus to them.T hough their victory was a
temporary one, it proves that the nobility were ready to improve their financial position by
concerted action even against the church.
Lower Composition as Punishment for Rebellion
1l1e examples of the exemption from the chamber’s profit and the attempt at getting hold
of the tithe suggest !hat Transylvanian noblerneo proved to be more inventive in the
protection of their interests than their fellows in the molher country. However, at the end
of the Middle Ages, the nobleman of the kingdom’s core region won out against those of
Slavonia or ofTransylvania.T hc 1514law code,t he Tripartitum, records !hat the homagium,
or composition of a Hungarian nobleman was 200 forints, of a Slavonian 10 0 tlorins,
and of a Transylvanian only 66 tlorins . As the amount of the homage expressed social
standing, the Transylvanian nobleman was ranked considerably lower than his fellow in
the molher country or in Slavonia.
There is good evidence that this discrimination did not originale in the thriteenth or
fourteenth centuries. Quite a few examples can be quoted to show that the Iaw-courts ruled
a homage of 200 tlorins du ring the Angevin period and even in the mid-fifteenth century.
The 50 Marks one member of the Hidvegi family was obliged to pay in 1382 in the
judgement of arbitrators, was of equivalent value (as one mark of silver was worth 4 gold
tlorins), and so was the composition paid by Janos Gereb in 1461 to Istvan Vardai,
archbishop of Kalocsa.
As far as Transylvania is concemed, the change seems to have taken place in 1467. In
August of that year, the Hungarian nobles, the Szekelyek and the Saxons, led by the
voivodes, rebelled against the king, accusing him of tyrannical rule, but were swiftly pul
down within a month. According to Anton Verancsics, the Humanist chronicler and
archbishop, who knew Transylvanian conditions weil, it was at that time that Mattbias
Corvinus, although having pardoned most of the rebels, lowered the homage of the
Transylvanian nobility as a form of punishment. In a Ietter addressed to the Transylvanian
estates in 1540, when the Habsburg king wamed them to be Ioyal to him, he reminded them
of the punishment of the rebels of three-quarters of a century before: „Were not even the
honour of the nobility reduced?T he punishment has descended upon you too, when the
Maiyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvanja 37
200 forint compensation to commute the death penalty, you call homagium, was reduced
to 66 forints by Corvinus.“ 1 5
As Verancsics was weil informed, we have to regard bis
account authentic, even thougb no other contemporary source refers to this punitive
measure when descriibing the events of 1467. If this is so, we can precisely date, when the
status ofthe Transylvanian nobility was legally reduced vis-a-vis that ofthe molher country.
The Nobles and the Yoivode
Soon after its emergence as an estate, the lesser nobility realised the advantages in unity.
When asking for favours from, bargaining with, or testing its strength against king or
voivode, it appeared as a uniform social group. By the middle of the fourteenth century,
conscious of the common interests and jealously guarded privileges, and bound together
by intimate emotions, it considered itself a single family in the patriarchal sense, reflected
by the word „brcther“ used among nobleman, wether blood-relatives or not. The lesser
nobility bad no opportunity to get their special and exclusive „liberties“ confumed by each
new monarch but was able to have them acknowledged in general as early as the fifteenth
century. Yet.: in 1404 the lesser nobility i.nduced a promise from King Sigismund to respect
their liberties as they had enjoyed them under his predecessors-particularly at the time of
Louis I-as well as an order that the voivode was not to disturb the Jesser nobility in the
. f th
.
h 16
enJoyment o ose ng ts.
However, direct royal measures of this kind did not alter the essential position of the
Transylvanian lesser nobility. The authority vested in the voivode by t11e king madc t11e
actual condition of the Transylvanian nobility differ esentially from t11at of those in the
molher country. The limitations could not be altered by the occasional royal support or
intervention. The Transylvanian lesser nobility had to rely on themselves to gain greater
autonomy from the voivode. They could not expect the king to recall the voivode or to
change established pattems of govemmentjust to favor them. They had to realise that there
was no point in opposing or confronting the voivode; it was more promising to cooperate.
Through generations of quiet activity they succeeded in changing their position. The steps
in these achievements may be seen in the development of the county Organisation, in the
administration of justice by the voivode and, finally, in the growth of the noble assemblies.
Noble County Autonomy
Just as in the molher country, life in the Transylvanian county, the home and career-field
of the lesser nobility, was characterised by the cooperation of the ispcin-the chief officer
appointed by thc central power-his deputy, and the elected magistrates. The voivode
appointed the ispan from among his retainers, who, then appointed a member of the
entourage as alispan (vicccomes). The deputy-voivode-also the voivode’s retainer- could
be also an ispan, but he could also be the castellan of a county castle, as was the practice
38 History and Society 2
in lhe molher country. The ispdnok of Co. Hunyadwere repeatedly casteilans of Deva!Deva
in the fourteenlh, and of Hunyad/Hunadeovara in lhc fifteenlh centuries.
The Transylvanian comites and vice-comites were familiares, retainers and appointed
officials. They were nothigh-ranking Iords Iike U1e ispdn.ok in other parts ofHungary, where
some of lhe greatest lords held lhese offices, sometimes simultaneously witb posit.ions at
court. In Transylvania, in cotrast, lhe ispdn. of Co. Küküll6 was also deputy-castellan of
Küküll6var/Cet.atea de Balt.a, (tbat is a ret.ainer oflhe castellan), a relationship unimaginable
in central Hungary. The relalivcly low st.anding of lhe office of lhe ispdn is also indicated
by the fact that in 1448 Co. Torda was simult.aneously headed by four ispdn.ok, and in 1462
Co. Kolozs by three. As neither lhey nor lheir peers were considered among tbe high-bom,
lhey usually govemed lheir respective counties lhemselves and did not appoint deputies.
This may explain the conspicuous phenomenon lhat lhere were hardly any vice-comites,
alispdnok in fourteent.h-century Transylvania. In t.he fifteent.h century t.he alispdnok, at
times even to lhe detriment of lhe ispdnok, acquired a !arger role. At lhe end of t.he century.
warrant.s of law court.s, addressed to a county in general, mentioned bot.h ispdn and alispdn,
keeping wit.h lhe custom of t.he molher count.ry.
Whelher lhe nobleman heading coumy administration was called ispdn, or alispdn, lhe
position was lhe same: t.he chief officer was not elected by lhe county. J ust as at lhe selection
of t.he deputy-voivode, lhe voivode could bring anybody imo Transylvania from anot.her
part of lhe country, so too could he appoim aliens as ispdn. Similar was t.he case of t.he
alispdnok. Most of lhcm came from among t.he nobility of t.he county, but a !arge nwnbcr
from elsewhere. B y lhe late fifteent.h century efforts of lhe Hungarian nobility to transform
lhe alispdn, as t.he represent.ative of the county’s lesser nobility, from an appointed
Subordinate into an elected official bore fruil. King MatUlias set lhe precedent in 1486,
ordering lhat lhe ispdn could select only a nobleman from among lhe higher bom of lhe
given county as alispdn, and t.he alispdn was to t.ake his oat.h before t.he general assembly
of t.he county. The decree of 1 506 st.ated lhat only a person against whom t.he nobility had
no objection could bc alisptin. In contrast, t.he alisptin continued to be appointcd by U1c
isptin in Transylvania. It is not impossible t.hat t.he decrees of 1486 and 1 506 had at least a
momentary effect, but there is no evidence on lheir conscquences.
In late medieval Transylvania, it was t.he magistrates who representcd autonomy, just as
in lhe lhirteenlh century. Typically, each county in lhe molher country clected four
magistrates, consequently dividing tbe territory into four districts. This figure was consolidated
by t.he decrees of 1 291 and 1298 for all counties except Pilis, Bodrog and Z61yom,
which had only two magistrates each. However, exceptions in t.he molher country werc
rules in Transylvania. Here every county had two magistrates and two district.s. The districts
were termed upper and lower or, in Szolnok and Doboka, eastem and a westem.
Magistrates were elected by t.he counties in Transylvania. Diplornas from U1e early
fourteent.h century show lhe magistrates and t.he ispdn functioning as county auU10ritics.
Their work did not differ from U10se in leadership of counties in t.hc moU1er country.
Mälyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 39
Moreover, a relatively !arge nwnber of such county documents were issued solely by the
magistrates, indicating that they could officiate even without the ispan. Their sphere of
jurisdiction was quite extensive: they had the right to sentence and execute not only serfs
but in exceptional cases noblefamiliares as well.
17
The Lesser Nobles on the Voivode’s Bench
As a rule, the county aulhority could not adjudicate in lawsuits conccming noblemen. This
task was the province of a higher juridical forum, tbe voivode‘ s court, or sedes iudiciaria.
The 1 342 diploma of Voivode Tamas of Szecseny, which regulated juridical procedure in
Transylvania, stressed lhat no casteilans and officiaJs could sentence noblemen, even if
tbeir arrest was inevitable, as they had to be brought to the voivode or bis deputy.
In lhe late lhirteentb and early fourteenlh centuries lhe voivode adjudicated in person, but
towards lhe middle of the fourteenth century lhis function feil on the deputy-voivode. The
growing number of lawsuits and other duties forced the voivode to stop heading tbe court
ofjustice.
Tbe most characteristic feature of the voivode’s tribunal was tbat nobles participated in
adjudication. As co-judges, they advised tbe deputy-voivode, and lheir presence and
influence bindered high-handedness. They also asserted locaJ customary law, as quite often
the deputy-voivode was not Transylvanian and lherefore not familiar with local customs.
The deputy-voivode needed control as weil as support. Thougb few Transylvanian court
records survive from the turn of lhe thirteenth and fourteenlh centuries, it is hardly an
accident that none of lhe voivode’s letters of sentence mention co-judges. Tberefore, it
seems that initiaJly the voivode adjudicated alone over the Transylvanian noblemen, and
the self-assertion of the nobility, expressed by their insistence of sitting on the voivode’s
bench, was gradual. The voivode‘ s retreat from the court and his Substitution by bis deputy
araund the middle of the fourteenth century may have been a consequence of tbe nobles‘
restricting his free action. The voivode’s law court, with a presiding judge passing
judgement tagether witb co-judges, peers of the accused, was thus in principle sirnilar to
the royal courts of justice or tbe county courts.
The voivode’s tribunal adjudicated in tbe cases conceming tbe nobility of tbe seven
counties. Cases in which the voi vode or his deputy had immediate jurisdiction were opened
here and appeals heard from lower courts. For tbe history of the nobility it is important to
note that while initially the voivode or his deputy commissioned one (or both) Transylvanian
ecclesiasticaJ bodies as places of authentication (loca credibilia) to investigate cases,
from the mid-fifteenth century onwards the county authorities were also involved. From
tben on each case was investigated by three authorities: both Transylvanian places of
aulhentication and the county in question. This new custom was a sign of the county’s
increased prominenece as the lesser nobility‘ s organ of local govemment-and of tbe lesser
nobility itself.
40 History and Society 2
Another forum of voivode • s j urisdiclion was the cong regatio gene ralis or generat assizes.
This instilution originated in the molher country, but developed in a special direction in
Transylvania. Its history goes back to the Golden Bull of1222, according to which the king
or his deputy, the palaline, was supposed to hold a generat court of justice annually in
Sz􀃵kesfehervarforthe servientes regis. The decree of 1267 ruled that twoor three noblemen
should appear at these assizes on St Stephen’s Day from every county, presumably to act
as co-judges. However, an annual court proved insufficient and led to decentralisation, to
the emergence of the noble county. But by this development, the royal authority (and
income) from juslice decreased. These problems were solved when the palatine, by royal
appointement, toured the country, called the servientes regis of each county to a meeting,
and settled lawsuits on t11e spot, Iogether with the magistrates as co-judges. In tbis way
adjudication became fastcr and cheaper. Also, tlle magistrates and county authorities
acquired grea1er respect by being seated with and shielded by the palatine’s authority.
Finally, the palatine. did not lose his income from the penalties. Countrywide ilincrant
administration of justice by tlle palatine became pcnnanent around 1280.
The task of tlle general congregations was prirnarily punitive: to identify and capture
criminals, and especially to prosecute what was called violent trespass. Public crirninals
were denounced in the meeting, and, if present or caught, meted out capital punishment
and confiscation of their estates (or at least one of tllese).
The Angevin kings of tlle fourteentll century retained this institution. During the reign of
Charles I t11e palatine called congregations sirnultaneously in tllree, four, or even five
counties. The duration of tllese congregations was long, soinetirnes Iasting two weeks. Even
the palatine could not be present everywhere, the judge royal or another dignitary of the
court officiated under royal authorisation. The palatine on tour was accompanied by a !arge
entourage: protonotaries and 110taries, his chaplain (who put the contesting parties under
oath), the so-called royal bailiffs (who perfonned investigations, inspected landmarks, <md
filed documents), by the delegate of t11e chapter of Sz􀃤kesfehervar, tlle ldng‘ s representalive,
his advocate (usually a high-ranking courtier, a bishop or a respected abbot) who
intervened in cascs touching upon royal rights. In tlle fourteentll century, iurati assessores
also appear asjudges alongside the magistrates on behalf ofthe county. There were twelve
assessor jurors in 1 324, elected exclusively by the county for the duration of that general
assizes. Their commission was tenninated at tlle end of the meeting. Their appearance and
rote can be linked to tlle fact tllat the congregations became too lengtlly for the entire
nobility of the county to attend and, if the nobility had no special business, left after the
first day. The jurors were left behind as deputies and representatives of the noblemen to
participate in t11e procedures to tlle end. The alispan, the magistrates and the jurors affixed
their seals to the more important chäJ1ers of the palaline and to other judicial documcnts.
During the fourteenth century general assizes heard not only the cases of noblemen but
lawsuits from inhabitants of the market towns as weil. Therefore, royal orders about assizes
addressed not only the noblemen of a county, but the people of „whatever state or
MaJyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 41
condition.“ Tbus, for a wbile, the county was not exclusively the body of the nobility.
However, the phrase cuiusvis status et conditionis disappeared in tbe ftrSt decades of tbe
flfteenlh century, and generat assizes became the meetings of noblemen alone. But in the
flfteentb century the entire institution became gradually obsolete. This was due in part to
tbe more active county courts beginning lO settle cases wbicb, earlier, could only bave been
adjucated by the palatine, and partly because the palatine was often unable to Ieave tbe
royal court. Even thougb King Mattbias wanted lO renew the institution, in 1478 generat
assizes were suspended for five years, and in 1486 abo1isbed for good. Apparently tbe
counties objected to the costliness of adjudication. The maintenance of palatine and
entourage was expensive, and the 1ength of the congregations was excessive lO tbe
participants. Tbe penalties collecled for the palatine also represented a heavy burden.
However, the major objection was that the county feit strong enougb lO act without the
palatine.
The practice of generat congregations struck root in Transylvania as weil. Andrew m
personaUy beld such a meeting for the seven counties, the Szekelyek, the Saxons and people
of otber estates in GyulafeMrviD-/ Alba Iulia, after baving called a generat assizes of eastem
Hungarian counties to (Nagy)VID-ad/Oradea. The congregations of 1 305 and 1 308 date
from the time ofLadislas Kan‘ s voivodesbip, and the one of 1322 from just after the political
consolidation of Angevin royal power. From tben on generat assizes were be1d eacb year,
called and presided over by the voivode in lhe king‘ s name, for all Transylvanians, Srekely
and Saxon included. The bishop of Transylvania, as royal delegate, participated together
witb the representative from one of the two ecclesiastical bodies as places of autbentication,
eilher of tbe convent of Kolozsmonostor/Manastur or lhe chapter of GyulafeMrvru-.
The bisbop played a larger role than elsewhere, for he usually served as the voivode’s
co-judge.
The congregatio was beld at tbe sarne place almost without exception: on the estate of
tbe Crusader Order ofknights, called Keresztes-mez6/Cristoltel. Settiers witb Wallachian
right could also participate, together witb tbe inhabitants of market towns and other
propertied people, including tenants, just as in the molher country. However, at the turn of
tbe fourteentb and ftfteentb centuries peasants were pusbed out of tbe meetings in Transylvania
too. As their Iords bad acquired jurisdiction over tbem, the same Iords were to
represent their interests. The voivode presided over tbe meetings, witb magistrates and
jurors on tbe bench. The jurors ftrst appeared in 1342, two decades later tban in tbe molher
country. Also elecled by tbe generat congregation, tbeir office and authority extended over
tbe period of the meeting. Voivode Imre Lackfi’s words from 1372 describe tbe role of
jurors: „They were appoimed to assist us by the nobles of the seven counties in tbe usual
way.“.
The kings seemed to have supported tbe effort of the nobility to make the congregations
symbolic ofTransylvanian unity and their dominanceacknowledged. ln 1355, ispd.n Mikl6s
Was and Akos de genere Akos complained to the king tbat the prelates, barons, knigbts
42 Hütory and Society 2
and others, who bad estates in the molher country, did not attend the Transylvanian
congregations, whereas the Transylvanians were too far away to be able 10 appear at the
royal court of justice. Thereupon Louis the Great ordered !hat all nobles, however eminent,
had to submit to t.he general assizes of the voivode and the Transylvanian coumies, just as
if the king hirnself ruled in the cases.
That the the lesser nobility could successfully dominate the meetings (and have this fact
acknowledged by the crown), discouraged the Sz􀃕kelyek and Saxons from attending tllem,
particularly when their own court system became able to settle their cases at home. They
went to Torda to settle conflicts with noblemen. In the early fifteenth century, when general
assizes became less relevant in the rest of the country, their old role in Transylvania also
came 10 an end. The last recorded general assizes dates from the year 1412.
However, in Transylvania, in the second part of the fifteenth century, the term generalis
congregaJio had another meaning as weil. Besides the voivode’s tribunal, the octavial law
court, the term was also used for the ernerging corporatist meetings of the Estates of the
three Transylvanian nations. It was, however, not accidental !hat the name of the old
juridical assembly was transferred to the new proto-parliamentary institution. Even if
administration of justice was the former‘ s main task, matters of more general interest were
also raised and Statutes issued. When Voivode Tamas of Sz􀃖scny issued regulations for
the judicial process in 1342, he responded to U1e complaints of the „university of tJ1e
nobility“ about perceived abuses in tl1e proceedings. The voivode not only redressed tl1eir
complaints but also passed several resolutions showing that full authority rested in his
hands. Nothing was more logical Ulan tllat the nobles, the Szekely and the Saxon Ieaders
who gathered tl1ere, use the occasion of a judicial meeting to discuss issues of common
concem. Thus the meetings underwent an unnoticed transfonnation into conferences of the
Estates.
On the other band, at the end of the fourteenth and the early fifteenth century, when thc
Estates of Hungary began to play a defintive role, tlle voivode called lOgether several times
t.he higher bom and respectable men of Transylvania to discuss important issues of public
interest. These people were not elected deiegales of the counties nor appointed to represent
socicty, but participated on the basis of personal prestige. They were aptly characterised
by Voivode Laszlö of Losonc, when he called tl1em „the elder and more eminent members
of t.he country.“ Such a meeting was held in November 139 1 , and again in July 1402, in
GyulafeMrvar with the participation of the bishop. It is uncertain whet.her Szekelyek and
Saxons participated in the fonner, but records prove tl1eir presence in 1402.
Since basically the same magistrares a.nd assessors met at Torda, who were able to voice
t.heir views on Tra.nsylvania’s political questions and public issues, it was no wonder tl1at
the two meetings wit.h two distinct origins were similarly named. One significa.nt difference
divides the fourteenth-century general assizes from the meetings of Estates in the mid-fifteent.h
century: while the former was called by t.he voivode on royal mandate. tl1e lauer met
according to the independent decision of the Estates.
Mälyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 43
Unions and thc Three Nations
So far our view of Transylvanian social development has focused on the changes in those
institulians wbich grew from, and retained common features witb, ones in tbe molher
country. Let us now turn to the differences in the life of such institulians which become
ever more clear after the middle of the fifteenth century.
While in central Hungary the location of the Diet at the fields of Rakos bad become
symbolic of the corporatist system, in Transylvania the general assembly’s location was
not as important, nor was the passing of refonning decrees and statutes. Ratber, the
Transylvanian diet was characterised by engineering agreements, alliances, and unions,
and passing regulation concerning tbe co-operation of nationes. In Transylvania the Diet
held together communities of people deeply rooted in tbeir different daily lives, administering
their fate on their own, but rising to the status of a nation in the course of their
cooperation in Transylvania as a whole. As all these communities lived a life of tbeir own
and neither could dominate tbe other, the Transylvanian Diet was not the scene of heated
party struggles comparable to those at Rakos between the lesser nobility and the aristocracy.
The first formal union of the nobility, thc Szekelyek, and the Saxons was a response to
the peasant war of 1437 in whicb Hungarian and Romanian peasants, led by some poor
nobles and supported by a few cities, rose against the bishop of Transylvania.18 The Iords
got into a dire situation, because they had to bargain with the rebels who bad scored
impressive initial victories, and bad to face demands, which touched upon the core of their
privileges. The movement bad affected those Saxon elites who bad villages and tenants
under their control in the counties . .Though the Ieaders of the Szekelyek were not so closely
interested, their personal relations with the nobility and the instinctive desire to maintain
the existing social order, also sent them over to the side of the nobility. The otber motive
was the threat from abroad, from the Ottomans, and the need to avert it. Forced into tbe
defensive, the nobles of the seven counties, tbe Saxons of tbe two seats and the burgers of
Beszterce/Bislrita, Logether with the Szekelyek met on September 16, 14 3 7 at Kapolna/Capilna
, north-west ofDes/Dej in Co. Inner Szolnok, and, baving discussed the „grave issues“
ofTransylvania, recorded their agreements in writing. As the cbarter wbich spelled out the
conditions of the alliance was issued by the deputy voivode Lorand Lepes, who also stated
that it was he who brought about and ordered the „fratemal union,“ presumably it was also
he who initiated the meeting.
According to the chartcr of Kapolna, the nobles, Saxans and Szekelyek gave tbeir pledge
upon the cross to oblige themselves for etemity to remain loyal to the holy crown and the
king, confront any attack threatening the country, and would jointly participate in the
defence. The condition, however, was that in case the king planned something to the
detriment of one of tbe Uuee parties, the two others would kneel down to pray for clemency,
butcould not be ob Iigated to render assistance against their fellows. Military matters, supply
44 History and Society 2
oftroops, and related issues were also regulated. Ifthe nobility, the Szekelyek or the Saxons
asked for belp in case of an enemy attack or conflict., the others were obliged to set out next
day and to cover at least tbree miles daily. The party failing to comply with his duty would
pay for it not with bis property but with bis head. It was also ordered, and oaths taken tbat
any conflict between the bisbop and the chapter on the one band, and tbe nobles, Saxons
and Szekelyek on tbe otber, should cease.
Altbougb thisfraterna unio concentrated on common defence, tbe peasant revolt and tbe
Ottoman menace were only the immediate, external causes. There bad been crises earlier
as well-at the time of the Mongoi invasion or in tbe fourteenth century-which could have
mobilised Transylvanian society in a similar way, but tbe solution tbe was lefl to the central
authority, tbe king. It was rather tbe concatenation of sociaJ development., the attitude of
the age, and tbe external causes tbat led to the conclusion of the union of 143 7, symbolising
the specific Transylvanian coproratistsystem. Tbe union was clearly of sttlndischcharacter,
similar to such alliances and agreements in many other countries, for example in nearby
Silesia, where the cities and the Estates frequently entered into alliances with eacb other.
Next year, in 1438, the general congregation of nobles and Saxons, held at Torda,
conftrmed tbe agreement and the unio fratemitatis in front of the deputy voivode. Tbis step
suggests tbat tbe participants of the general congregations of Torda babitually discussed,
besides legal cases, also other common issues and reacbed agreements on these.
After a series of meetings in the subsequent decades-mostly called by the regent., Jänos
Hunyadi, for military prurposes-in 1459, the nobility, the Szekelyek, and Saxons agreed
upon a union for the second time. By then the corporationaJ system came to age in all of
Hungary. Moreover, in 1458, it was enacted Lbat a Diet should be held annually at Pentecost
in Pest. Tbe developments could not leave the leading sociaJ groups of Transylvania
unaffected. King Mattbias allowed the development of the corporatist system and hirnself
made efforts to transform the society in tbat direction. He was not afraid of the nobility’s
influence, because he feit hirnself strong enough to Iimit and utilise it in public interest. In
November 1459, be sent the isptin ofTemes and ofthe Szekelyek, John of L􀃨batlan, as his
envoy with a speciaJ commission and autborisation to Transylvania. The voivodeship was
in the hands of the two Iords of Rozgony. Thus, if a royal emissary and not they called the
nobles, Szekelyek, and Saxons to a meeting, it irnplied that the Estates could proceed and
pass resolutions without tbe voivode. Ubatlani’s mission was necessitated by „several
düferent and bighly important issues,“ stated the Estates, without specifying them any
further. The general congregation was held at Medgyes/Medias, where Lhe nobles and the
Iords, and all the three Estates, Szekelyek, Saxons, the representatives of the cities of
BrassOIBrasov and KolozsvM participated; only the delegates of Beszterce were missing.
Participants of the meeting passed certain resolutions (statuta), codified agreements, and,
having received the Transylvanian bishop’s consent, Lhey had the chapter of GyulafehervM-
and not the deputy voivode, as it was the case in 1437-rommit them to writing. As
Mälyusz: Hungarian :Nlobles of Medieval Transylvania 45
they themselves went to the ecclesiastical place of authentication, and the agreement was
issued under its scal, the autonomy of the Estates is conspicuous.
Clearly Mattbias did not send LabaUani to Transylvania to work out such an agreement.
The union was tbe work of the Estates, who utilised the opportunity that they bad to
congregate at Medgyes. Possibly Labatlani wanted to persuade them to offer a tax. There
is a passage empbasizing the preservation of old liberties and privilege, which may have
been a defensivestep in the face of such objectives. Otherwise the contents ofthe diplorna
remain general, lhougb somewbat more precise than the points of 1437. The designations
of the agreeme .. are also noteworthy: foedus unionis, pactum unionis, concordiae et
dispositionis conjöederatae.
The very signifiCallt military regulations of the year 1463 may have also been worked out
by the Transylvaoian Diet. In that year Mattbias held a Diet in Tolna, and persuaded the
H ungarian estatestto make unusual efforts as he was preparing for a major campaign against
the Ottomans. Tbe representatives of Trans ylvania were also present at the Diet, just as the
delegates of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, but since conditions in their part of the
kingdom were diflierent, the decisions were commined into writing. The regulations were
not put in the follDws, quivers, <;pears, shields, and the military equipment in general, so
46 History and Society 2
tbat tbey may be able to rally at the appointed place, had tbe general insurrection
been declared, eilher by the voivode’s Ietter, or by a bloody sword being carried
around, or by any other means, and march under the command of tlte voivode, with
one of tlle ispanok going ahead with the banner (signum publicum).
7. If a father and his son or two brothers lived on undivided common property,
only onc of them had to go to war in the case of general insurrection, and if he feil
tbe other one did not have to go.
8. In the castles which served the interests of public security, the castellans could
stay at home, t.he stewards of the high ranking Iords could also stay in the household,
together witl1 so many landless noblemen and serfs of Hungarian descent as many
were decided upon by the ispdnok and the elected noblemen. However, their narne
also had to be registered together with onc-fourt.h of the noblemen.
9. The army of the nobility was comrnanded by one of the voivodes as the
captain-general ofTransylvania, whereas tlte other voivode, or the deputy voivode,
if there was only one voivode, was to stay in Transylvania. If there was no voivode,
tbe deputy voivode was the captain. However, the army of the nobility could not be
led beyond the frontiers of Hungary, unless they were ready to go voluntarily.
10. According toan old custom, the Szekelyek would send two-thirds of their armed
men to the army, and one-third of tltem would stay at home. They were called to
war by a bloody sword, by the Szekely ispdn‘ s Ietter, or by the voivode’s Ietter if
he was also the ispan. I f necessary, the captains of the seats signalled mobilisatiOit
by drums and pyres lit at places called fire moulds. Had somebody stayed away, he
would lose bis head.
1 1 . The captains of tlle seats were obliged to muster the weapons in peace. All those
who violated tlle regulations were to lose their property and hcad. An instigator to
rebellion was to be tortured to death by hot iron and he could not be saved even by
tlle king’s clemency.
19
Finally, tlle manifesto, in which the participants of tlle revolt of 1467 tumed against tlle
king, can also be seen as closel y related to the alliances and unions. The argumentation was
characteristically corporatist by tlle abolilion of tlle privileges granted by earlier kings they
tllemselves, as weil as the entire country suffered Oppression, and since they had almost
got into final decline, Utey decided in unison to defend by arms the liberties and privileges
of Hungary. They elected tlle tllree Transylvanian voivodes and Imre and Istvan ofZapolya
as their Superiors (directores et antecessores), pledged obedience to tllem, and acknowledged
tlleir right to adjudicate in tlleir cases in keeping witll Transylvanian legal customs.
The signatories promised not to Iet ihemselves be dissuaded by fear, friendship, trick or
gift from their superiors until their entreprise was accomplished, but would stick to them
even at the cost of tlleir Jives. Finally they strongly pledged themselves to keep the
MaJyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 47
Obligations listed in the diploma, which contains the words of the oath as weil, stressing
!hat whoever did not observe the compact, would be punished by the loss of his office and
honor (hunumitas), and would be excommunicated.
Wbith this step, the Transylvanian Esrates reached the final point of the road towards a
declaration of autonomy of the Eastates. Tbe next step could have been only to get rid of
the king and elect one for themwelves. Matthias’s strong hand soon stopped this „Polish“
trend. Tbe alliance of 1467 proved merely as an episode. The development of corporationism
was characterised by the Co-operation of socicty and state: the king allowed the
objectives oflocal govemment freely unfold and even supported them, but he also bindered
Lhose selfish social energies paralysing Lhe functioning of Lhe state, and encouraged olhers
to work for Lhe community. In practice tbis was done by Lhe monarch when he invited Lhe
Estates to conferences, where he made recommendations and tried to win them over to
support his plans, on Lhe olher band the Estates could present their complaints, and work
out a compromise with the crown.
Aristocrats and the Lesser 1\obles
The leading roJe oflhc lesser nobility and their influence was so strong that it could not be
challenged by Lhe baronial reaction following the de? vf King Matlhias. The fact that Lhe
Iords of great estates did not try to radically turn agair the lesser nobility had causes deeply
rooted in Transylvanian society. The most conspk 􀀂 Lhis was Lhat the big
Iandlords of Transylvania did not call themselves bar-. Jnates. Those who would
have becn regarded as barons in the molher country because of their wealth, called
Lhemselves poriores nobiles in Transylv.ania, and called the lesser nobility, Lhe Szekely and
Saxon Ieaders, Lheir fratres.
Mikl6s Belhlen may be a good example. A plethora tates accumulated in his hands.
He owned tcn whole villages and parts of sixtecn in .üküll6; in Co. Feber and Torda
he held seven estates each; in Co. Kolozs he had ril .n ten, in Doboka in nine esrates;
in Inner Szolnok he had three entire estates, and so o􀃰 . • his youth he served in Mattbias‘ s
army and became captain of Lhe castle of ReLZ in Lowe. …1a. As t11e confidante of Lhe
king, he became the commandcr of John Corvin’s castJe of Sztropk6. His authority is
indicated by tlle fact !hat he was among the approximately one hundred high ranking
personalities who confirmed Lhe peace treaty of Pozsony (wilh Maxirnilain I of Habsburg)
of 1491 and his name was in the company o( such baronial families as Lhose of Hedervari
Kanizsa, Rozgony, Frangepän, Kinizs, Szentgyörgy, Zapolya, and Ujlak. Yet at home he
was only a potior nobilis.
His pcers of similar wealth were the Ieaders of the Transylvanian lesser nobility, not
barons. Thcir rote becomes clear Ulrough the following instances. In 1 5 15, Lhe wealtbier
nobles of Transylvania (potiores nobilium regni Transsilvanie) met in Gyulafehervar to
discuss with Lhe the bishop t11e welfare and tlle defence of tlle country. They decided to
43 Bliittocy and Society 2
hold a congregation in Szekelyvaslirhely/Mures-Osorheiu so that the Sz&elyek could also
easily send delegates. The bishop promised his participation in the meding, to which the
Saxons were also inviled so that they may „confer and make decisions; together.“ Of the
persons who had issued the leuer of invitation and negotiated with the bisbop, five people
signed their name: Marton of Transylvania (Erdelyi) from the Somkereki Erdelyi family
of Co. Inner Szolnok, Mikl6s Bethlen, Ferenc Apafy, Janos Horvath, whose family came
to Transylvania recently (and, as his predicate „ofZapolya“ indicated, from the south), and
Gasplir Sikesd from a lesser noble family of Co. Küküll6.
The other Iist of persons is connected with a meeting held by Hungarian nobles and
Szekelyek in Marosvaslirhelyfrrrgu Mures in 1524. There the case „IFclS raised of Pai
Szekely, a nobleman, hanged by the castellan of Fogaras, which was „an incredible thing
in Transylvania.“ They sent Szekely deputies to the king to protest and! also informed the
Saxons that after the return of their deputies all the three nations sfrould meet. They
reminded the Saxons in their Ietter that they had agreed and obliged themselves, at the
general Diet held after the death of Mattbias that if „they were oppressem by the magnates
or the powerful, or by anybody,“ and if the nation concerned bad no power to resist such
treatment. all the three nations were to rise in revolt. Those against whom they wanted to
take action were the magnates and the powerful, the representatives of the king.
The invitation addressed to the Saxons preserved twelve names: a mJix.ture of famous
aristocrats, members of prestigious but poor families, Iesser noblemen,. and Szekely
dignitaries, among them those wbo had signed the Ietter of 1 5 1 5 . Seveual of the peop1e in
the Iist are known to have been related to one another by blood and mamriage. Presumably
they bad some closer or more distant family relationsbips with the odlras as weil. Thus
whenever the Ieaders of the 1esser nobility went to visit relatives, they coold at once settle
public issues as weil, or, whenever gathered for a national conference, tfueymet as relatives
and not aliens.
It was, therefore, above all the family ties between the higher born aml wealthier lesser
noblerneo that bindered the caste-like separation of the Transylvanian llllistoc:racy. Political
and social leadership was in the hands of a small group, the members magnates, nor simple and poor noblemen, but potiores nobiles.They were lhe Ieaders of
such movements as those of 1 5 15 or 1524, whose names appear in the cbarters and whose
seals were affixed to it.
However, when we say that the big Iandlords and the lesser nobilit.y ClllOld co-operate
because they were relatives, we speak about a consequence and I1lD( die cause. The
explanation lies in the family sizes, which a comparison to the mother munlry may make
clear. In Transylvania rieb landed familiesbad many members, they weretn:Jeclans. Mikl6s
Betblen bad six sisters and brothers; Elek Bethlen bad ten. Thus great wabb was divided
into many parts in each generation, and not all the branches were able to iimaease their share
of the inheritance. But. even if they were less weil off, family relatiiom were kept up.
Brothers-in-law and sons-in-law were also regarded as relatives. Every f!imnly tried to enter
Mälyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 49
into relationship with another family on its own Ievel, but suitors of less wealth and standing
were not rejected either.
One of the leading families of Transylvania was definitely the Banfy of Losonc. They
descended from the ancient Tomaj lineage, and their ancestors were major Iords in the
molher country in Ärpadian times. They owned huge estates in Transylvania as weil.
Several family members became voivodes. It is, however, worth noting lhat at the end of
the middle ages they marry families of the better-off lesser noblity. Karolyis, Bethlens,
Somlyai Bathorys, Batori Szaniszl6fys quite frequently appear in the genealogy. Members
of the lesser nobilily are not missing either, such as scions of the Haranglabi, Dobokai,
Barlabasi families. And even people with a burger background appear: Andras Banfy’s
wife was Zs6fia Kis of Kolozsvar, Katalin Banfy‘ s busband was the leamed Laszl6 from
Szolnok.
Originally, the aristocratic families of the molher country also came from the prominent
branches of an ancient lineage?0
They also had an extensive network of relatives, but in
the fifteenth century Utese clans feil apart. The poor branches of the kindred declined and
lived lhe life of simple noblemen, while the rich and prestigious ones went their own way.
The baronial kindreds of the Garai, Rozgonyi, Hectervari, and so on, originally had a !arge
nurober of relatives, but when they rose to tlte top, tlley constituted only single families.
Subsequently they intermarried, obviously to keep lhe property intact and to unite tlle
wealth of two dynasties, so that their power could grow by the new relationship. Tbere were
many foreign families among the Hungarian aristocracy, and marriage ties were established
with Polish, Czech, Austrian, German, and Italia.n high nobility. However, many of these
marriages were not successful in terms of producing heirs. The fate of the family of Laszl6
of Gara is a good example. His father was also palatine, his molher was Anna of Cilly, and
bis wife Alexandra, princess of Teschen. They had only one daughter and one so.n, both of
them remained childlcss, thus the bra.nch of the palatine died out with them. Other baronial
families disappeared wiU1 similar speed. Wealth was growi.ng, Logether with power, but tlle
family became exli.nct, when lhe barons tumed away from their blood relations in tlle lesser
nobility for foreign princesses. In Tra.nsylva.nia lhe high ranklng families did not get
isolated. Marriages wilh noble families from tlle region and lhe !arge number of children
kept tlle patriarchal tradilions alive and bindered tlle evolution of a separate baronial
stratum. Additionally, constant military service also connected lhe Tra.nsylva.nia.n aristocrat,
who called hirnself potior nobilis instead of baron, to the lesser nobility.
A Society of W arriors
Military service figures as a decisive factor in the enlire history of Tra.nsylvania. The
stipulations of tlle military rules of 1463 outline the image of a rigorous military prepared-
2 ness. 1
50 History and Society 2
As we have seen in !hat ordinance, thc burden of military service was greater upon the
Hungarian nobility than upon the other parts of Transylvanian society. Their preentinence
was also justified by the weaponry of the nobility which was more efficient and stronger
than the arms of the two other nations‘ soldiers. However, as the wealthy landowners and
t11e noblerneu were originally both armored horseman in knightly Fashion and bad to be in
constant preparedness beacuse of the Frontier Situation; they differed less from each other
than from tlle lightly armed Szekely warriors. It is understandable, tllerefore, tllat tlle
aristocrats did not see themselves essentially different from the rest of tlle nobles, as
expressed in the term potior nobilis.
The relationship between nobleman and aristocrat did not change even when tlle former‘ s
wcaponry became Iighter. In contrast, the „nobleman“ seemed to rise on the scale of social
prestige at the turn of t11e fifteenth and sixteentll centuries. Paradoxical as it may sound,
when he put down his set of heavy weapons, inherited from the age of chivalry, instead of
Iosing bis Status in socicty, he moved upwards. This can be undcrstood if it is considered
tllat the nobility did not change tlleir weaponry out of a Iove of comfort, but because tlley
adjusted to tlle tactics of the most dangeraus enemy, the spahi of the Ottoman Turks.
Verancsics described the Tra.nsylvanian noble levy of the mid-sixteenth century in tllese
words:
They fight as cavalrymen; in older times they were annored knights, now all of them
are equipped witll light weaponry. This custom was undoubtedly adopted from the
Turks. Because in the time of King Mattllias armored warriors were deployed, who
scored great victories and performed glorius deeds. It was under Wladislas [II] and
his son, Louis [II] !hat the armored knights were being gradually neglected. They
were pushed into tlle background after tlle Battle of Mohacs and completely
disappeared togetller witll knightly discipline; tlleir place was Laken up by tllose who
are called hussars in popular parlancc. Perhaps they were lured by tlle lightness of
being soldiers, or by tlle briskness of the Turkish horses, or rather, as it happens to
every mortal as a consequence of tlle wildness of war, tlle vanquished have Laken
up tlle customs of the victors.22
The nobility regarded armed service as a vocation. They did not risk their lives merely to
have a preferential treatment in retum, but because they identified the struggle against the
Ottoman Turks with tlle fulfilment of the commands of tlle church. This idea was expressed
by John of Farag6, who drew up his will in July 1456, „ready to fight against the Turks,
tlle cruel enemy of Christians to detend the Cat110lic faith, tlle religion of tlle entire
Christianity, for the defence of tlle holy crown of tlle Hungarian Kingdom, and for tlle sake
ofmy soul’s peace, in keeping witll my vow.“ This sense of mission did not diminish with
tlle passage of decades. In 1496, two noblerneo of P6kfa1va, Baltllasar and Peter Kereky,
when tlley applied to the pope for permission to transfer the Pauline monastery, founded
Ma!yusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 5 1
by their ancestors, to the Franciscans, called themselves „faithful warriors, who struggle
against the enemy of the Christian name, against the cruel Turks.“
Verancsics‘ s characterisation of the Transylvanian Hungarian nobles sums it all up: „This
nation is very brave at arms, does not know fear, and is hihgly conscientious in the defence
of the country. It is somewhat slow starting the war and entering battle, but it shows more
in action than it promised at the outset, so much so, that enraged it is unable to stop a war
and battle until eilher the enemy or itself is destroyed.“
23
As long as the noble warriors remained true to their vocation, they could count on the
appreciation of the entire society. The moment their devotion abated or they did not have
to keep their hand permanently on the hilt of their sword because conditions have changed,
they had to face a new world. It was up to them, whether they could keep their leading role
by other merits, or-trying to rely on old prestige-to be seen as usurpers. The answer to this
challenge came, however, only in by the centuries after the Ottoman wars.
Notes
* Az erdelyi magyar tarsadalom a közepkorban [Hungarian Society in Transylvania in the Middle
Ages], Budapest: MTA Törtenettud. lnt., 1988 (Tarsadalom- es mü’ve16destörteneti t.anulmanyok, 2)
pp. 18-63. The Hungarian version contains all the references to published and unpublished sources,
which we have, for reasons of economy, omitted, while some explanatory notes were added by the
editors. We have also left out the detailed discussion of the corporatist development in Transylvania,
an issue in itsclf, and ret.ained only those aspects that characterisc the status and prestige of the lesser
nobility.
I . See E. Malyusz, „Die Entstehung der Stände im mittelalterlichen Ungam““ L’Organisation
corporalive du Moyen Age ‚a lajin de l ‚Ancien Regime, Louvain, 1939, pp. 1 5 -30.
2 . The author used the received Hungarian expressions for the Transylvanian part and for the rest
of the realm, often calling the Jatter „mother country“ or referring to the traditional dividing point,
the Kiralyhag6 [verbatim: Royal Pass] and writing of the regions beyend and „this side of‘ it. We
retained the sirnplificd term „mother country“ for most cases whcn other parts of thc medieval
kingdem of Hungary were meant, even though this term may conjure up modern connotation of a
metropolis and colony, which, of course, would be entircly inappropriate for the relationship of the
partes Transylvana: and the entire regnrun Hungaria: The text lost much of its picturesque quality by
our doing so, but is, perhaps, easicr understood by non-Hungarian readers. (Translator’s note)
3. In Megyei önkormfmyzatunk keletkezese [Origins of the Autonomy of the Hungarian County],
Bp. 1 899, (l􀂧rt. a tört. tud. kör. I 8:6) Taganyi had assumcd that the ninth-century Hungarians
distributed the land in the Danubian Basin among the warrior clans, thus creating an upper and a
Jesser nobility by hereditary right, whereas Transylvania was a conquered province, where the
aristocracy came from ‚ beyond the forest‘, therefore, royal authority remained the source of all
posscssions. See also: Kadar, Szolnok-Doboka megye mono g rajiaja [Monograph ofCo. Szolnok -Doboka],
Des, I 90 I . 2: 228, 246.
52 History and Society 2
4. F. Zimmermann-e. Wemer-G. Gündisch, Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in
Siebenbürgen, Hermannstadt 1897-, 1: 7. – Were the charters for Transylvania edited in greater
numbers, we should surely find just as many servientes there as in other parts of the realm.
5. See A. Fekete-Nagy, A Szepesseg területi es tarsadalmi kialakulasa [Social and Territorial
Development of the Szepesseg]. Bp. 1934, pp. 253-301, 344-5 1 ; E. Malyusz, Tur6c megye kialakulasa
(Development of Co. Tur6c], lbid., 1922, pp. 53-148.
6. The importance of military service-in contrast to other royal services-is apparent from the fate
of the inhabitants of the community Inokhäza in Co. Doboka. The inhabitants of this village used to
serve as bailiffs (pristaldi), which was not exactly military, but still higher than that of commoners
or peasants. In the 1340s, they were exempted from this traditional obligation, whereupon they
regarded themselves as nobles and free landowners. Later, the king granted Inokhliza to a certain
Master Ladislas of Doboka. The villagers objected to the seisin and claimed to be their own Iords .
The case came to the general assembly of the noblity, where it was proven that they served as
‚messengers and bailiffs‘, that is, as servitors of the castle, and the grant was approved (Erdelyi
Nemzeti Muzeum [Transylvanian Nat. Mus.], Törzsany<�g, No. 134). Had they been soldiers and
obtained a grant from the king for their village, they would hardly have fallen under a landowners
jurisdiction.
7. Zimmermann, Urkundenbuch 1 : 1 73-4. (See now in Gy. B6nis, J. Bak, J. R. Sweeney, The Laws
ofMedieval Hungary, DecretaRegni Media:valis Hungariae, Bakersfield, 1989, 1 :44-47; henceforth:
DRMH. ) „Saxons“ was the name given to German settlers in different parts of Transylvania,
regardless, whether they came from Saxony (which few of them did) or other parts of the GermanRaman
Empire.
8. The notion of collecta rnay need some explanation. This levy appeared in the time of Andrew II,
when the old tax called „freemen‘ s pennies“ was acquired by the landowners and the king was forced
to introduce a new kind of tax to substitute it. In the thirteenth century it was regularly collected . The
landowners tried to obtain exempitons for their serfs and tenants, as the royal taxation reduced the
ability of the peasants of paying the seigneurial dues .. TheGolden Bulls of 1222 and 1 2 3 1 , the decrees
of 1267, 1291. and 1 298 assured them that the king would not levy collecta, but it was a promise
which could not be kept. The king needed money; hence, he levied the collecta from each tenement.
In the course of the fourteenth century so many of the barons and nobles obtained exemption from
this tax, that it was finally discontinued. King Matthias ’s extraordinary tax, the subsidium can be
regarded as the revival of the collecta. Even its rneasure resurfaced: the collecta was usually one, or
half a ferto for each servile tenement, that is, a quarter of a marle silver (hence its name, from German
Viertel), which was exactly the same after Matthias’s reforms, when the tax was one gold florin.
9. The text of the Golden Bulls of 1222 and 1231 arc now in DRMH I : 34-4 1 , whcre explanatory
notes on the ducs and levies mentioned here are also to be found.
10. Medieval Slavonia was the region between the rivers Drava and Sava. part of today‘ s Croatia
1 1 . See DRMH 2:8-13
1 2. Art. 1 3 5 1 : 4, ibid . , p. 10.
1 3 . See S. Szilagyi, Erdelyorszag törtenete [History of Transylvania with Special Reference to
Cultural Development] (Pest, 1966) p. 198ff.
14 Actually, the issue of tithing in kind or in coin remained a contented issue throughout the Middle
Ag es, not only in Hungary or Transylvania, but that does not belang to the present argument; see e.g.
Mruyusz: Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania 53
P. Goreck.i, Parishes, Tithes and Society in Early Medieval Poland (Philadelphia, 1993. Transactions
of the Amer. Philos. Soc. 82/2) pp. 109-1 1 .
1 5 . A . Verancsics, Opera omnia, ed. L . Szalay, vol. 6 , Pest, 1860 (Mon. Hung. Hist. Scriptores 9),
p. 164.
1 6 . Zimmermann, Urkundenbuch 3: 3 2 1 .
1 7 . I n 1 408 Mikl6s Tuzsoni Bolgar accused a noble retainer o f his, a certain Mik16s Oldal, before
two magistrates of Feber countyof stealing 24 forints from him. The magistrates had the accused
caught and, as theft was proven, meted out capital punishment.
1 8 . On this uprising, see J. Held, „Peasants in Arms, 1437-1438,“ in: J. M. Bak, B. K. Kiraly, ed.
From Hunyadi to Rakoczi: War and Society in Medieval and Early Modem Hungary, Brooklyn,
1982, pp. 8 1 -88.
1 9 . lt is worth quoting this text in full, as it retlects weil the military character of Transylvanian
noble society. lt is printed in Szekely Okleveltar [Szckely Diplomatarium] l : 196-97 (frrst published
by M. G. Kovachich, Scriptores rerum Hungariacarum minores hactenus indeiti, Buda, 1 798,), but
no riginal survived. Its authenticity has been often challenged, for it contains expressions not known
from fiftcenth ccntury charters, expecially the „three nations,“ a term first recorded from 1503. On
the othcr hand, the display of a sword dipped in blood (asswned to have been the sign for mobilization
among the ancient Hungarians, according to the thirteenth-ccntury chronicles) is recorded as living
custom among the Szekely by the fifteenth-century chronicler John ofThur6cz. A. Borosy, discussing
the military duties of the peasantry („The militia portalis in Hungary Beforc 1 526,“ in Bak-Kiraly,
From Hunyadi, p. 69), still doubts the authcnticity of the actual text, but does not dismiss the
possibility of the contents being essentially correct.
20. On this matter see now Fügedi ’s article in the present volume.
2 1 . See above. pp.43f.
22. A. Verancsics. Oe situ Transylvaniae, Moldaviae et Transalpinae, in: Opera Omnia, ed. L.
Szalay, vol 2 (Pest, 1 857, Mon. Hist. Hung., SS 2), p. 148-9.
23. lbid.

IDSTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
2
MEDIUM JEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
29
Nobilities in Central and Eastern
Europe:
Kinship, Property and Privilege
edited by
Janos M. Bak
Haj nal Istvan Alapitvany
Budapest
Medium IEvum Quotidianum
Gesellschaft
Krems
1994
PRINTED IN HUNGARY
Neotipp Bt., Budapest
HISTORY & SOCIETY
IN CENTRAL EUROPE
together wi th
Medium .tEvum Quotidianum
EL TE BTK GazdasAg- es
Tarsadalomtörteneti Tanszek
B udapest 1 05 1 , V. ker. Piarista köz 1 .
Hungary
MEDIUM &VUM QUOTIDIANUM
GESELLSCHAFf
Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems
Austria
Tel.: (36)-(1)- 1 1-80-966/325 Tel.: (34-2732) 84793
Contents
Josef Zemlicka
Origins o f Noble Landed Property in Pfemyslide Bohernia 7
Elemer Malyusz
Hungarian Nobles of Medieval Transylvania ( 1986) 25
Erik Fügedi
Kinship and Privilege (1990) 55
Kiril Petkov
Boyars and Royal O fficers 77
Jan Pakulski
The Development of Clan Names in Mediaval Poland 85
Karin J. MacHardy
Social Mobility and Noble Rebellion in Early Modern Austria 97
Istvan M. Szijart6
Relatives and Miles 141
Istvan Hajnal
From Estates to Classes 163
Authors of the volume:
Erik Fügedi ( 1 9 1 6-1992)
IstvAn Hajnal ( 1892-1956)
Elem􀁫r 􀄆yusz ( 1 898-1989)
Karin J. MacHardy (Dept. of History, Univ. of Waterloo, Ont. N2L 3GI, Canada)
Jan Pakulski (Inst. Historii Arhivistyki, Copemicus-Univ., Plac Teatralny 2/a
PL 87-100 Torun, Poland)
Kiril Petkov (Univ. Veliko Tmovo, Ivailo 1 1 , 4300 Karlovo, Bulgaria)
IstvAn M. Szijartö (Gazdasag- 􀁫s Tarsadalom tört􀁫neti Tanszek, ELTE,
1 1 5 1 Piarista köz 1., Budapest, Hungary)
Josef Zemlicka (lnst. of Hist., Academy of Sc. of the Czech Rep., VisehradSka 49.,
12826 Praha 2, Czech Republic)
LECTORI SALUTEM!
The aim of the editors and publishers of this series of occasiona1 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- 1956), we believe that the history of „small
nations“ may highlight aspects of general development that are Iess 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 Iike to foster modern methods and approaches in
social bistory, 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 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 t11at t11eir questions and answers are not necessarily
ours. By printing papcrs of younger scholars, in turn, we hope to present recent research in
the area on topics t11at are discussed among social historian everywhere.
The volume editor wishcs to express his gratitude to those friends and colleagues who
assisted in the – oftcn almost unsvnnountable – task of translating and editing the Czec ,
Magyar and Polish contributions: Catherine Allen, Sirnon Carne, Ta.rnAs 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 t11e intricacies and pitfalls of translating medieval and medievalist texts.
H & S
is a series of occasional papers published by the lstv􀂲 Hajnal Society of Historians, in
cooperation with the Medium JEvum Quotidianum Society (Krems, Austria), the Spolecnost
hospodMsky dejiny [Society For Economic History I in Prague.
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen
Landesregierung
Editors:
Vera BAcskai, EL TE Btk, Budapest, Pf. 107, H-1364.
J􀂲os M. Bak, Dept. of Medieval Studies, Central European University,
Huvösvölgyi ut 54, 1021 Budapest
Gerbard Jaritz (for MJEQ), Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems
Editorial consultants:
Jobn Bodnar (Cbicago, IL), Peter Burke (Cambridge), Josef Ehmer (Vienna), TamAs
Farago (Miskolc), Susan Glanz (Brooklyn, NY), Monica Glettler (Municb), Heiko Haumann
(Basle), TamAs Hofer (Budapest), Gerbard Jaritz (Vienna), Charles Kecskem􀂳ti
(Paris), B􀂳la K.KirAly (Higbland Lakes, NJ), György Köv􀂳r (Budapest), Ludolf Kuchenbuch
(Bochum), Jaroslav L􀂲ik (Prague), Hans Medick (Göttingen), Walter Pietzscb
(Wiesbaden), Martyn C.Rady (London), Herman Rebe! . (Tucson, AZ), Helga Schulz
(Berlin), Julia Szalai (Budapest), Heide Wunder (Kassel).
Manuscripts and inquiries (including advertising) should be addressed to AndrAs Csite,
Managing Editor HISTORY & SOCIETY c/o: Hajnal Istv􀂲 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 bandled by Dr Susan Glanz (1550 E 9th Ave., Brooklyn, NY 1 1 230,
USA; for Hungary and all other regions by the Managing Editor.
ISBN 963-04-2014-7
Coverpage idea by György Köv􀂳r
Computer setting and formatting by Gabor Kelemen
Cover design Csilla MAtrai based on the Ebsdorf Mapamundi.
© Hajnal IstvAn Kör, Budapest, 1994.