The Share of Tithe Paid to Parish Priests in Sixteenth-Century Transylvania: A Topographical Approach*

Géza Hegyi

Transylvanian Museum Society; HUN-REN Research Centre for the Humanities

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 13 Issue 3 (2024): 403-430 DOI 10.38145/2024.3.403

The most important source of income for the medieval Latin Church, the tithes paid by lay people from their crops and livestock, was divided between several levels of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The set of beneficiaries varied from one country or diocese to another, while the proportions essentially from one locality to another. In the Transylvanian diocese, the bishop (or the chapter) got the substantial part of the tithe (half to three quarters), while the archdeacon, as regional magistrate, uniformly received a quarter. Despite the canon law standards, in many cases only a fraction of the quarta remained to supply the parish priest. On the other hand, the parish priests from the deaneries of royal Saxons (i. e. German settlers) could usually keep the full tithe.

The aim of my research is to reconstruct the share of tithe of the Transylvanian parish clergy by locality, to map it and to analyze the spatial inequalities thus revealed. Due to the unilateral source endowments, we have only a few direct data on this, so I calculated indirectly the size and proportion of the priestly share, based on the data of a list from 1589, which only gives the local rents of the bishops and the archdeacons’ share of tithe. According to my results, the inhabitants of 1239 localities paid tithes in mid-sixteenth century Transylvania. For 457 settlements (mostly in the Székely Land) we do not know the share of the priest. In the known cases, the three most common distributions were when the local priest received no tithe (35%), a quarter of the tithe (36%) or the whole tithe (25%). The spatial distribution of the parishes with quarta was not uniform, but rather concentrated in some small areas due to various historical reasons. The level of priestly share correlated with secular and ecclesiastical privileges, the ethnicity of the population that paid the tithe, and the person of the landlord.

These results can provide important aspects for the interpretation of sources based on priestly income, such as the papal tithe register of 1332–1336, fundamental to the history of medieval Transylvania.

Keywords: Transylvania, tithe, parish priest, distribution, quarta, Saxons

Introduction

As any historian of feudal institutions knows, the practice of tithing is rooted in the regulations of the Old Testament.1 Early Christianity was still averse to it, but in the fourth and fifth centuries the idea of tithing began to become increasingly accepted. In Latin-rite territories, from the Carolingian period onwards, the tithe became a compulsory ecclesiastical annuity paid by all members of the fold. This was, of course, achieved with the support of the reigning secular power.2 Theoretically, the tithe should have been paid on all kinds of income, but due to the socio-economic conditions of the Middle Ages and the early modern period, it was collected primarily from the annual wine and grain harvests and secondarily from the reproduction of certain domestic animals (for instance sheep and bees).3 For this reason, the tithe records (documents, accounts, receipts, etc.) are an important source for the study of the rural history of Western and Central Europe.4

According to the Church Fathers (and to the canon law that quotes them), one of the functions of (and thus justifications of) tithing is to acknowledge God’s rule (signum dominii) and one is to provide support for the poor and others in need (tributum egentium animarum). The argument for a fitting tribute to the clergy (as a spiritual elite) emerges rather rarely and relatively late.5 Whatever the reason for this, the Church had always been considered the administrator and thus the actual holder of the tithe. Its exclusive right to this income was confirmed by several papal decrees and synods of the eleventh–thirteenth centuries against secular bodies of power.6 Not without reason: the tithe was by far the most important source of revenues for the Church, accounting for up to three quarters of a bishop’s income.7

The income from the tithe was divided among different actors in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. As the bishoprics were the first rank to be established in the early church and in the newly Christianized areas, the bishops themselves usually received the greater part of the tithes. Over time, tithing rights were granted to the chapters and their members, monastic convents, altar foundations, etc.8 From the outset, however, it was clear that the local priests were also entitled to a share (pars condigna) of the tithe from their parishes. The most commonly used principle in this respect was laid down by Pope Gelasius I (492–496), whose provisions were applied to the matter of tithing from the eighth century onwards. According to him, church revenues were to be divided into four parts, one of which (a quarta) was to go to the diocesan bishop, another to the parish priest, a third to the maintenance of the church (fabrica), and a fourth to charity.9 In practice, however, the set of beneficiaries varied from one diocese to another, and the proportions differed essentially from one locality to another. For example, in the areas that converted to Christianity between the eighth and eleventh centuries, the bishops generally received a much larger slice, and the local clergy received little more than metaphorical crumbs.10 However, the higher magistrates, such as the archbishop or the pope, usually did not receive a share of the tithes of other bishops’ dioceses (only from their own dioceses). The so-called “papal tithe,” which was decreed by the Second Council of Lyon (1274) and then by the Council of Vienne (1311–1312), was a different kind of tax. It obliged all ecclesiastics to pay a tithe of their income to the papal court for six years.11

In order to interpret the sources regarding the tithing, it is essential to map the local distribution of this income among the different ecclesiastical actors, since individual tithe data usually refer only to the share of one of the beneficiaries. A demographic or economic-historical evaluation¹² of the papal tithe registers of 1332–1337,¹³ crucial to any overview of the topography and incomes of the Hungarian Church, is only possible if we know the multipliers that can be applied to the amounts paid by a priest, as this information is essential if we seek to use these amounts to calculate the total production of his parish in a given year. I have recently completed this work on parishes in mid-sixteenth century Transylvania, and I present my findings below. Essentially, I seek to identify the external factors that shaped the observed regional differences.

The Structural Framework of Tithing in Transylvania

Historical Transylvania was the eastern province of the Hungarian Kingdom in the Middle Ages, but in the mid-sixteenth century, it became the core territory of an independent principality. In terms of secular administration, it was divided into three major parts. First, there were the seven counties covering the western, northern, and central areas, which were inhabited by serfs and nobles. The feudal system in these regions differed from the average Hungarian system only in minor details. The so-called King’s Land (Königs­boden, Fundus Regius), which was inhabited by privileged Saxons (i.e. German settlers), was the second area, and the Székely Land in the east was the third. The Saxons formed a comparatively urban, literate society, while the Székelys were a closed ethnic group governed by oral tradition. The Romanian population, which for the most part followed the Orthodox rite, did not have its own administrative units and lived largely in the mountainous parts of the counties and the Saxon territories.¹⁴

From the ecclesiastical point of view, most of Transylvania fell under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Transylvania, who had his seat in Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia/Weissenburg)¹⁵ and whose authority extended north-westwards beyond the Meszes (Meseş) Mountains, and up to the Tisza River.¹⁶ The southern part of the King’s Land (the area around Szeben [Sibiu/Her­mannstadt] and Brassó [Braşov/Kronstadt]) was under the direct jurisdiction of the archbishop of Esztergom. A small region, the so-called Kalotaszeg, which is roughly the area surrounding the headwaters of the Sebes-Körös [Crişul Repede] River), belonged to the diocese of Várad (Oradea), while the region of the Lápos Basin (Ţara Lăpuşului) formed a part of the diocese of Eger.¹⁷

 

Figure 1. The old (Veszprém) and the new (Transylvania) model of distribution of the tithe.

On the question of the distribution of the tithes among the holders in Hungary, the secondary literature is unanimous in stating that three quarters of the tithe went to the diocesan bishop in each settlement, while the remaining quarter (quarta) was shared in various proportions between the cathedral chapter and the local parish priest. The latter’s share is usually estimated at a quarter of a quarta, i.e. one sixteenth of the tithe.18

The model above (see Fig. 1), however, is based solely on a few thirteenth-century papal and royal documents concerning the distribution of the tithe, as well as on a detailed examination of the tithing system of the diocese of Veszprém.19 Although it does seem to be valid for some other dioceses, too (e.g. Győr, and Várad), I believe that the general application of this model to the whole kingdom was done rather hastily in the earlier secondary literature. Based on my study of primary sources, a different system seems to have prevailed in Transylvania and in the dioceses of Eger and Zágráb. In these territories, the bishop (or the chapter) was entitled to the major share of the local tithe, which varied between half and three quarters, depending on the parish priest’s share. The archdeacon, as regional magistrate, uniformly received one quarter in his own district.20 In conclusion, the crucial difference between the previous model and the present one is that here the parish priest did not share a quarter of the tithe with the canons. Rather, he shared three quarters of the tithe with the bishop or with the chapter or, sometimes, with other beneficiaries (such as the abbot of the Kolozsmonostor Convent, altar directors, etc.).21 On the other hand, the parish priests of Saxon deaneries on the so-called King’s Land could usually keep the full tithe (libera decima).22

Sources and Methods

The 447 surviving sources of which I am currently aware on the medieval history of the tithe in Transylvania (up to 1556)23 relate mostly to the tithing affairs of the bishop and the chapter, as well as of the Saxon clergy. There is, at the same time, disappointingly little data on the tithing income of Hungarian priests in the counties.24 With these data alone, it would be impossible to reconstruct the topography of the clergy’s tithe share.

Figure 2. Transylvanian dioceses with the share of priests

However, a somewhat later but comprehensive document allows us to arrive at this reconstruction through an indirect procedure. An inventory from 1589 shows the price for which the episcopal (E) and the archdeaconal (A) tithes were rented out to local landlords in each tithe-paying settlement of the seven counties.25 These parts of the tithes were secularized in 1556, that is, confiscated to provide the material basis for the nascent principality, and from then on, they were administered by the princely treasury.26 We are not so much interested in the specific amounts as in their relative proportions, which remained largely unchanged for decades (if not centuries). A fragment of a similarly structured list from 1563 covering some parts of Küküllő and Fehér Counties, can be used as a reference, and its data are in most cases identical to those from 1589.27

As mentioned above, these two lists do not include the precise wages corresponding to the tithe of the priest (P). We have seen, however, that in most places the archdeacon’s share (A) was a quarter of the total tithe (T), so we can calculate the priest’s share, too, as follows:

T = 4A

P = T–E–A = 4A–E–A = 3A–E

And the share itself is: p = P/T

It is true that, in some cases, this method does not lead to meaningful results, for example because the share of the archdeaconry is missing28 or its quadruple does not reach the sum of the rents.29 But we cannot expect structural regularities to be applied mechanically, especially not in the medieval world. In such cases, other, individual approaches or estimates yield results. Nevertheless, the method outlined above produces acceptable proportions in the vast majority of cases, and this indirectly supports its validity. When the value of the quarta30 is also explicitly referred to in any of the registers of 1563 and 1589 (for 104 localities), there is a direct way of checking the correctness of our calculations, and the result is generally reassuring (see Table 1).

Where possible, I have also used early modern urbaria and ecclesiastical sources, which usually confirm the data of the 1589 register.31

Evaluation of the Findings

I have identified a total of 1239 tithe-paying settlements in the territory of historical Transylvania, where a total of approximately 2150 settlements existed in the mid-sixteenth century. It can therefore be concluded that about 900 settlements did not pay tithes. Typically, these were settlements where the population for a long time (often from the moment they had been founded) had been predominantly Orthodox Romanians. Tithing as a compulsory ecclesiastical tax did not exist in Eastern Christianity, and this custom was respected by the Hungarian ecclesiastical and secular authorities.32 Settlements which had been inhabited by Catholics who were later replaced by Romanians were, in principle, treated differently. In 1408, a decree stipulated that these settlements were still obliged to pay the tithe to the Catholic Church.33 However, despite its repeated renewal, in many cases the decree was not enforced,34 which explains why among the 900 villages without tithe there were several, especially in the Székás area (Podişul Secaş) of Fehér County, that lost their former Catholic Saxon population only after the Turkish invasions of the fifteenth century35 and later became Romanian.36

In addition to the Romanian villages, a few other localities were exempted from tithing. Three of these localities were mining towns in the mountains, which had predominantly Saxon (and partly Hungarian) populations,37 presumably with infertile lands, where grains and grapes, the main base for tithes, were not grown. Some Hungarian villages with Catholic parishes in Hunyad County38 also did not pay the tithe, presumably because their inhabitants were all minor nobles and were not obliged to pay taxes.

For more than a third (457) of the 1239 settlements that did pay the tithe it is not possible to determine (or even to estimate) the amount of the priestly tithe. The vast majority of these settlements (417) were found in the Székely Land, because for this territory (except for the Aranyos Seat), as a consequence of low literacy rates, we have no usable medieval or early modern data on the tithe incomes of the clergy, not only from the Middle Ages but also from the early modern period. There is only some general evidence that this privileged but poor, partly mountain dwelling population did pay the tithe.39 In the case of Kalotaszeg and the Maros (Mureş) Valley between Nagyenyed (Aiud/Engeten) and Gyulafehérvár, the scarcity or even complete lack of sources is also to blame for the holes in our knowledge.40

However, the 771 known cases are still representative of the situation in the counties and the Fundus Regius. The three most common types of distribution were when the local parish priest received no tithe (269.541); a quarter of the tithe (278.5), or the whole tithe (189).

As I have already mentioned, the latter option, which accounts for almost a quarter of all known cases, was almost exclusively linked to the Saxon parishes. However, it was not specific to all Saxon settlements, but only, with a few exceptions, to privileged areas on royal land.42 It was therefore determined primarily (though only in broad terms) by the existence of secular self-government and only secondarily, in the details, by the ecclesiastical administration. The priests of the deaneries of Szeben and Brassó, which were directly under Esztergom’s jurisdiction, enjoyed the same rights in this regard as the free Saxon deaneries under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Transylvania. The main reason for this was that the cornerstone of the Saxon privileges, the Andreanum of 1224, had already guaranteed the priestly libera decima.43 However, this happened at the expense of the former tithe-holders (the bishop and the chapter of Transylvania), and it was necessary to obtain their consent, which always involved the payment of a symbolic annuity (census). Only some of these agreements have survived: those of the Transylvanian chapter with the deaneries of Medgyes (1283, 1289) and Sebes (1303, 1330), and that of the bishop with the deanery of Kozd (c. 1330).44 However, similar arrangements must have been made for all of the deaneries established on the territory of the free (royal) Saxons, i.e. Szászváros (Broos), Kézd, Királya, and Beszterce.

Those parishes of the aforementioned deaneries, which were located on the territory of the counties, also enjoyed the right of “free tithing,” at least until around 1580.45 This was probably because they were originally royal estates, too, and their situation was little different from that of their fellows who later moved on to self-government. Exceptionally, the Saxon parishes of the deanery of Régen, which were entirely on the territory of the counties, were also in possession of the full tithe46 for reasons that are not yet known. Another special case in the western part of the King’s Land were the Romanian villages which were settled in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the neighborhood of certain Saxon villages 47 and paid the full tithe to the parish priests.48 However, two Saxon villages (Petres [Petriş/Petersdorf] from the deanery of Királya and Buzd [Buzd/Bussd] from the deanery of Medgyes) as well as the entire deanery of Selyk (Şeica/Schelk), which also belonged to the King’s Land but probably joined it with a delay, were excluded from the circle of those who kept the whole tithe. I touch on them in the discussion below.

In terms of the distribution of tithes, we find a particular diversity in the ten Hungarian serf villages under the jurisdiction of the deanery of Brassó at the end of the Middle Ages. Those which had previously been in royal hands for a long time as part of the domains of Höltövény (Hălchiu/Heltesdorf) and Törcsvár (Bran/Törzburg) castles, were allowed to retain the full tithe in the fifteenth century (or at least claimed it, as the Saxon clergy did), but later most of them were forced to cede half of it to the castellans for the maintenance of the castle.49 Only Újfalu (Satu Nou/Neudorf), which seceded from the royal estates in 1404 and later became the property of the city of Brassó (1462), was able to preserve successfully the libera decima.50 In contrast, the priests of villages permanently owned by private landlords did not receive any tithe at all.51 This state of affairs was not changed by the fact that they all ended up in the same position in secular terms, becoming parts of the domain of Törcsvár pledged to the city of Brassó in 1498.52

Compared to the three large groups referred to above, the number of parishes where the parish priest received half the tithe is small but significant (23). These parishes were also located in the King’s Land. Apart from Buzd and the abovementioned villages around Brassó, the 13 parishes of the deanery of Selyk belonged here, the Saxon population of which must have arrived sometime around 1300 and which only belatedly became part of the King’s Land, being formerly a noble estate.53 Although between 1322 and 1504 they had continued a lawsuit against the bishop for the same privileges as the other free Saxons, they did not succeed in obtaining the full tithe. They were granted only half of it by acquiring after 1357, in addition to their original quarta, the archdeaconal share of tithe.54 Three villages from the deanery of Sebes55 took a different path. During the Turkish invasions from 1438 and 1442, their populations had shrunk dramatically, and the Transylvanian chapter had gotten its hands on their tithes. When these localities were repopulated by Saxons, the chapter returned only half of the tithes to the parish priests.56

There were only two settlements in which the priest received between half and a quarter of the tithe: in Küküllővár, he received three eighths of the tithe and in Gyalu he received a third.57 None of this was merely a matter of chance. Küküllővár was in royal hands for a long time and functioned as a sub-residence of the voivodes and vice-voivodes, and Gyalu was a sub-residence of bishops.58

The set of localities with a priestly quarta was the most numerous and also the most heterogeneous. Their most significant subgroup (114) was that of Saxon deaneries falling wholly or largely within the territory of the counties, i.e. Sajó, Teke, Székás, Négyfalu (Vierdörfer), Hidegvíz, Lower and Upper Küküllő, and Szentlászló. These deaneries, which had attained only a lower degree of ecclesiastical self-government, also secured a quarter of the tithe from their ecclesiastical and secular superiors.59 Here we have to take into account the aforementioned Saxon village of Petres too, which became a member of the deanery and of the seat of Beszterce after having been a noble estate at the beginning of the fourteenth century.60

The ecclesiastical landowners (the bishop and chapter of Transylvania and the abbot of Kolozsmonostor) also consistently gave the local parish priests the canonically prescribed quarta of their own estates (for the domains of Gyalu, Enyed, and Gyulafehérvár),61 except when the identity of the ecclesiastical landlord and the tithe-holder differed.62 The monarch also set an example by granting a quarter of the tithe to the parish priests of the royal cities, salt-mining towns, and domains.63 He or the later baronial owners were responsible for the priestly quarta of the Hungarian parishes of other domains (Bálványos [Unguraş], and Csicsó [Ciceu]) and estates (Bonchida [Bonţida], and Búza [Buza], as well as the villages of the Bánfi and Dezsőfi families in Upper Valley of the Maros River).64 Some families of the middle nobility (Apafi, Bethleni, Erdélyi de Somkerék) also granted the quarter of the tithe to the priests of their Catholic estates, others only to the parish priest of the central settlement of their estate.65 The remaining dozen or so villages could receive the quarta by occasional donations, for which some documents have survived.66

Contrary to what is widely stated in the secondary literature, the number of clerical benefices, which represented a fraction of a quarter of a tithe, was extremely small in Transylvania. It is even possible that some of them are in fact the result of a calculation error, because the contemporaries rounded off the numbers for the sake of simplicity, and thus these numbers do not accurately reflect the smaller ratios. Mostly, the centers of some manors or estates can be included here (with one sixth or one eighth as the priestly share),67 as well as the Hungarian villages of the Zsuki family, where the priests uniformly received half of the quarta (i.e. one eighth of the tithe).68 The one-sixteenth share, which is considered common in the literature, occurs marginally, only five times, and exclusively in the northern part of the province.69

Almost as numerous as the places with quarta were the tithing villages where the parish priest received nothing from the tithe (more than a third of the known cases). For the most part, these settlements were the Hungarian villages of the small and middle nobles from the western bank of the Kis-Szamos (Şomeşul Mic) River, the Mezőség (Câmpia Transilvaniei), and between the Maros and Kis-Küküllő (Târnava Mică) Rivers, as well as the settlements of the Aranyos Seat (with the exception of Felvinc [Unirea]).70 Their landlords may not have had sufficient lobbying power, or more likely, they would not have looked kindly on the local priest having an income that exceeded their own.

In the late Middle Ages, demographic changes often led to changes in the structure of the local tithe. Exceptions were those villages of the Szászváros Seat, which were formerly inhabited by Saxons and then by Romanians. These villages continued to pay tithes to the parish priest of Szászváros.71 Usually, when a Catholic community in the King’s Land died out and the village was left deserted72 or was repopulated by Romanians,73 the priest’s share ceased to exist, and the full tithe was collected by the secular Saxon authorities or (in the deanery of Sebes) the chapter of Transylvania. The same processes led to similar results on Church estates, too.74 On the other hand, if the Catholic population disappeared in one of the villages lying on the territory of nobles, the result was ambiguous, depending on the attitude of the landlord and the time of the change. In some cases, the tithe continued to be paid (without the priestly part, of course),75 but in most cases, the tithe was completely abolished.76

As a result of the Reformation and the secularization of Church estates and revenues, the medieval ecclesiastical framework was shaken and ecclesiastical immunity and privileges were weakened. Under these circumstances, many communities were not able to resist the increasing pressure of secular elites to expropriate more and more of the tithes, even if their populations remained adherents of Western denominations. From 1580 onwards, the parish priests in the King’s Land had to be content with three-quarters of the tithe, as the princely power expropriated a quarta for the benefit of the treasury, first for a fee, and then from 1612 on, without payment.77 Encouraged by this, the Diet passed a resolution in 1588 stating that if there were places in the counties where the libera decima existed, the priestly share should be reduced to quarta.78 The primary victims of this provision were the parishes of the deanery of Régen, which lost a significant part (even if not always three quarters) of their tithe income from the following year onwards.79 Even more vulnerable were the settlements in which the Saxons had been replaced by Hungarians, and the parish was therefore cut off from the protective framework of the Saxon deaneries.80 Some settlements fared even worse. Some Hungarian villages between the two Küküllő Rivers81 lost the priestly quarta altogether sometime between 1563 and 1589.82

Conclusions

In conclusion, parishes which had the same share of the tithe as their incomes were geographically concentrated. The settlements which retained all or half of the tithe for their priests covered roughly the large southern and small northeastern blocs of the King’s Land. These areas were surrounded to the north, respectively to the west, and south by a wide band of settlements in which the parish had a quarter of the tithe, with addition of the wider area around Kolozsvár and, presumably, the Fehér County section of the right bank of the Maros River. In most of the rest of Catholic villages, the local priest received none of the tithes.

Another important observation is that the level of tithe sharing correlated with secular and ecclesiastical privileges, the ethnicity of the population that paid the tithe, and the person of the landlord. A high level of self-government, the existence of a deanery, the presence of a Saxon population, and ecclesiastical or royal possession were all advantages for the local priest in terms of the degree of his share from the tithe, while Hungarian villages with serf populations, owned by the petty nobility, and in particular villages which had been deserted and then repopulated by Romanian serfs were the least likely for him to enjoy any revenue from this ecclesiastical tax.

Table 1. The priest’s share of tithe in the settlements where the value of the quarta is known83

Name of settlement	Page	E	A	q	T	P	p
Fehér County
Nagylak (Noşlac) and Káp­talan (Căptălan)	21	[60]	20	20	80	0	0
Szentkirály (Sâncrai)	(f. 1r) 21	(36) 40.50	(14) 13.50	13.50	54	0	0
Bagó (Băgău)	21	20	8	7	28	0	0
Lapád (Lopadea Nouă)	(f. 1r) 21	(36) [40]	(12) 8	12	48	0	0
Háporton (Hopârta) and Ispánlaka (Şpălnaca)	(f. 1r) 21–22	8	(4) [4]	(4) [3]	(16) 12	(4) 0	(1/4) 0
Ózd (Ozd)	(f. 1r) 22	30	10	(10)	40	0	0
Herepe (Herepea)	(f. 1r) 22	36	12	12	48	0	0
Csekelaka (Cecălaca)	22	16	6	6	24	2	1/12
Lőrincréve (Leorinţ)	23	4	2	[2]	[8]	q	1/4
Forró (Fărău)	(f. 1v) 23	36	12	12	48	0	0
Szentbenedek (Sânbenedic)	(f. 1v) 23	36	12	12	48	0	0
Hunyad County
Rápolt (Rapoltu Mare)	24	40	10	12.[50]	50	0	0
Arany (Uroi)	26	6	3	2.25	9	0	0
Küküllő County
Hosszúaszó (Valea Lungă)	(f. 2v) 27	50	25	(25)	100	25	1/4
Nagyekemező (Târnava) and Kisekemező (Târnăvioara)	27	120	60	60	240	60	1/4
Bogács (Băgaciu)	27	124	62	62	248	62	1/4
Nagykőrös (Curciu)	27	72	36	36	144	36	1/4
Felsőbajom (Bazna)	27	100	50	50	200	50	1/4
Szénaverős (Senereuş)	(f. 2v) 28	64	32	32	128	32	1/4
Szentiván (Sântioana)	29	32	16	16	64	16	1/4
Balázstelke (Blăjel)	(f. 2v) 30	44	22	22	88	22	1/4
Ádámos (Adămuş)	(f. 3r) 30	18	9	(9)	36	9	1/4
Dombó (Dâmbău)	(f. 3r) 30–31	16	8	8	32	8	1/4
Fületelke (Filitelnic)	(f. 3r) 31	28	14	14	56	14	1/4
Domáld (Viişoara)	(f. 3r) 31	16	8	8	32	8	1/4
Királyfalva (Crăieşti)	(f. 3r) 31	32	16	(16)	64	16	1/4
Ernye (Ernea)	(f. 3v) 32	14	7	(7)	28	7	1/4
Mikeszásza (Micăsasa)	(f. 3v) 32	(13.33) 12	(6.67) 8*	6.67	26.67	6.67	1/4
Désfalva (Deaj)	(f. 4r) 33	14	7	7	28	7	1/4
Sárd (Şoard)	34	2	1	1	4	1	1/4
Gálfalva (Găneşti)	(f. 4r) 34	(20) 30	10	10	40	(10) 0	(1/4) 0
Kissáros (Delenii)	34	36	12	12	48	0	0
Péterfalva (Petrisat) and Pettend (deserted)	35	28	8	9	36	0	0
Kóródszentmárton (Coroi­sân­martin)	(f. 4r) 35	(10) 15	5	(5*)	20	(5) 0	(1/4) 0
Besenyő (Valea Izvoarelor)	(f. 4r) 35	(16) 24	8	8	32	(8) 0	(1/4) 0
Harangláb (Hărănglab)	(f. 4v) 35	(24) 36	12	12	48	(12) 0	(1/4) 0
Csapó (Cipău) and Kisfalud (deserted)	35	18	6	6	24	0	0
Kisszőllős (Seleuş)	(f. 4v) 36	(–) 36	18	(18*) 18	72	18	1/4
Kiskend (Chendu Mic), Nagykend (Chendu Mare) and Balavásár (Bălăuşeri)	36	10	5	5	20	5	1/4
Szancsal (Sâncel)	36	16	8	6	24	0	0
Doboka County
Bádok (Bădeşti)	37	6	2	2	8	0	0
Magyarújfalu (Vultureni)	37	16	8	8	32	8	1/4
Csomafája (Ciumăfaia)	37	6	2	2	8	0	0
Báboc (Băbuţiu)	38	6	2	2	8	0	0
Fodorháza (Fodora)	38	6	2	2	8	0	0
Vajdaháza (Voivodeni)	39	25	8.33	8.33	33.33	0	0
Hídalmás (Hida)	39	20	4	6	24	0	0
Récsekeresztúr (Recea-Cris­tur)	39	13	4.34	4.34	17.34	0	0
Páncélcseh (Panticeu)	40	12	4	4	16	0	0
Köblös (Cubleşu Someşan)	40	18	5.50	6	24	0.50	0
Derzse (Dârja)	40	13	4.33	4.33	17.33	0	0
Felsőtők (Tiocu de Sus)	40	20	6	6.50	26	0	0
Alsótők (Tiocu de Jos)	40	6	2	2	8	0	0
Kecsetszilvás (Pruneni)	40	14	4.66	4.67	18.66	0	0
Szava (Sava)	42	16	5	5.25	21	0	0
Cegőtelke (Ţigău)	42	16	8	8	32	8	1/4
Nagydevecser (Diviciorii Mari), Kisdevecser (Divi­ciorii Mici)	42–43	26	13	13	52	13	1/4
Veresegyház (Strugureni)	43	10	5	5	20	5	1/4
Szentandrás (Şieu-Sfântu) and Kajla (Caila)	44	18	9	9	36	9	1/4
Kisbudak (Buduş)	45	15	–	5	20	5	1/4
Várhely (Orheiu Bistriţei)	45	6	–	1.50	6	0	0
Móric (Moruţ)	46	40	20	20	80	20	1/4
Inner Szolnok County
Dés (Dej)	47	12	6	6	24	6	1/4
Szentmargita (Sânmărghita)	47	20	10	7.50	30	0	0
Somkerék (Şintereag)	48	6	–	[2]	8	q	1/4
Dengeleg (Livada)	49	33	11	11	44	0	0
Iklódszentivány (deserted)	50	6	2	2	8	0	0
Zápróc (Băbdiu)	50	3	1	1	4	0	0
Kozárvár (Cuzdrioara)	51	15	5	5*	20	0	0
Péntek (Pintic)	51	12	4	4	16	0	0
Girolt (Ghirolt)	52	17	5.75	6.08	24.32	1.57	1/16
Kolozs County
Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca)	53	500	250	250	1000	250	1/4
Gyeke (Geaca)	53	12	4	4	16	0	0
Novaj (Năoiu)	53	3	1	1	4	0	0
Légen (Legii)	54	8	4	3	12	0	0
Zutor (Sutoru)	54	6	2	2.67	10.67	2.67	1/4
Vásárhely (Dumbrava), Inak­telke (Inucu), Sztána (Stana) and Kiskapus (Căpuşu Mic)	55	18	6	6	24	0	0
Tamásfalva (Tămaşa)	55	13	5	4.50	18	0	0
Mócs (Mociu)	55	10	3.34	3.34	13.34	0	0
Palatka (Pălatca)	56	25	9	8.50	34	0	0
Fejérd (Feiurdeni)	57	40	20	20	80	20	1/4
Méhes (Miheşu de Câmpie)	58	16	6	5.50	22	0	0
Középlak (Cuzăplac)	59	20	–	5	20	0	0
Fűzkút (Sălcuţa)	59	16	8	8	32	8	1/4
Vajola (Uila)	60	12	6	6	24	6	1/4
Torda County
Szind (Sănduleşti)	65	22	7.34	7.34	29.34	0	0
Boldoc (Bolduţ)	65	8.50	2.48	2.75	11	0	0
Egerbegy (Viişoara)	65	18.50	6.68	6.68	25.18	0	0
Gerend (Luncani) and Szent­márton (Gligoreşti)	66	26	8.68	8.68	34.68	0	0
Csanád (Pădureni)	67	12	4	4	16	0	0
Jára (Iara de Mureş)	69	12	4	4	16	0	0

Archival Sources

Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Vatican City (AAV)

Registra Lateranensia (RegLat)

Registra Supplicationum (RegSuppl)

Registra Vaticana (RegVat)

Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Serviciul Judeţean Cluj [Romanian National Archives, Cluj County Branch], Cluj-Napoca (SJAN-CJ)

Fond familial Kornis (Fond 378) [Archive of the Kornis Family, in the Archives of the Transylvanian National Museum] (F 378)

Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Serviciul Judeţean Covasna [Romanian National Archives, Covasna County Branch], Sfântu Gheorghe (SJAN-CV)

Fond familial Gyulay [Archive of the Gyulay Family, in the Collection of the Székely National Muzeum] (F 65, 2-4)

Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Serviciul Judeţean Sibiu [Romanian National Archives, Sibiu County Branch], Sibiu (SJAN-SB)

Episcopia Bisericii Evanghelice C. A. din Transilvania (Fond 3) [Archive of the Saxon Lutheran Bishopric of Transylvania] (F 3)

Magistratul oraşului şi scanului Sibiu (Fond 1) [Archive of Saxon Nation and of City of Sibiu] (F 1)

Biblioteca Naţională a României, Biblioteca Batthyaneum [Romanian National Library, Batthyaneum Library], Alba Iulia (Batthyaneum)

Arhiva Capitlului din Transilvania [Private Archives of the Chapter of Transylvania] (ACT)

Erdélyi Református Egyházkerület Levéltára, Kolozsvári Gyűjtőlevéltár [Archives of the Reformed Church of Transylvania, Cluj Branch] (EREK, KvGylt)

Széki Egyházmegye Levéltára [Archives of the Deanery of Sic] (B 2)

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [National Archives of Hungary], Budapest (MNL OL)

Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Diplomatic Photograph Collection] (DF)

Diplomatikai Levéltár [Diplomatic Archive] (DL)

Erdélyi Fejedelmi Kancellária [Chancellery of the Transylvanian Princes] (F 1)

Gyulafehérvári Káptalan Országos Levéltára [Public Archives of the Chapter of Transylvania], Cista comitatuum (F 4)

Hunyad megyei gyűjtemény [Collection from Hunyad County] (R 391)

Sombory család levéltára [Archive of the Sombory Family] (P 1912)

Udvarhelyi Református Egyházmegye Levéltára [Archives of the Reformed Deanery of Odorheiu Secuiesc] (UhEmLt)

Héjjasfalvi egyházközség iratai [Documents of the Parish of Vânători] (B 10)

Mohai egyházközség iratai [Documents of the Parish of Grânari] (B 15)

Bibliography

Printed sources

Barabás, Samu. “Erdélyi káptalani tizedlajstromok” [Tithe registers of the Chapter of Transylvania]. Történelmi Tár [34] (1911): 401–42.

Buzogány, Dezső, Sándor Előd Ősz, and Levente Tóth, eds. A történelmi Küküllői Református Egyházmegye egyházközségeinek történeti katasztere (1648–1800) [Historical cadaster of the parishes of the old Reformed Deanery of Küküllő]. 4 vols. Fontes Rerum Ecclesiasticarum in Transylvania 1/1–4. Kolozsvár: Koinonia, 2008–2012.

CDTrans = Jakó, Zsigmond, Géza Hegyi, András W. Kovács, eds. Codex diplomaticus Transsylvaniae. Diplomata, epistolae et alia instrumenta litteraria res Transsylvanas illustrantia. Erdélyi okmánytár. Oklevelek, levelek és más írásos emlékek Erdély történetéhez. 5 vols. Publicationes Archivi Hungariae Nationalis 2: Fontes 26, 40, 47, 53, 60. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó–MNL OL–MTA BTK TTI, 1997–2021.

CIC = Friedberg,Aemilius, ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici. 2 vols. Lipsiae: B. Tauchnitz, 1879.

Diaconescu, Marius, ed. Izvoare de antroponimie şi demografie istorică: Conscripţiile cetăţii Sătmar din 1569–1570 [Sources of anthroponymy and historical demography: The Satmar Conscriptions of 1569–1570]. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 2012.

DocRomHist C = Sabin Belu, Ioan Dani, Aurel Răduţiu, Viorica Pervain, Konrad G. Gündisch, Marionela Wolf, Adrian Rusu, Susana Andea, Lidia Gross, Adinel Dincă, eds. Documenta Romaniae Historica. C. Transilvania. 8 vols. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1977–2020.

EgyhtEml = Bunyitay, V[ince], R[ajmond] Rapaics, J[ános] Karácsonyi, F[erenc] Kollányi, J[ózsef] Lukcsics, eds. Egyháztörténelmi emlékek a magyarországi hitújítás korából [Monuments of church history from the era of Reformation in Hungary]. 5 vols. Budapest: Sectio Scient. et Litt. Societatis S. Stephani, 1902–1912.

EOE = Szilá­gyi, Sándor, ed. Erdélyi országgyűlési emlékek: Monumenta comitialia regni Transylvaniae. 21 vols. Monumenta Hungariae Historica 3. Budapest: MTA, 1875–1898.

ErdKirKv = Fejér, Tamás, Etelka Rácz, Anikó Szász, eds. Az erdélyi fejedelmek Királyi Köny­vei [Royal books of the Transylvanian princes]. 3 vols. Erdélyi Történelmi Ada­tok 7: 1–3. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület, 2003–2005.

Jakó, Zsigmond, ed. Adatok a dézsma fejedelemségkori adminisztrációjához. Erdélyi történelmi adatok 5/2. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület, 1945.

Jakó, Zsigmond, ed. A gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai. Monumenta Transsilvanica. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet, 1944.

KmJkv = Jakó, Zsigmond, ed. A kolozsmonostori konvent jegyzőkönyvei (1289–1556) [Record books of the Kolozsmonostor Convent]. 2 vols. Publicationes Archivi Hungariae Nationalis 2: Fontes 17. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990.

KvOkl = Jakab, Elek, ed. Oklevéltár Kolozsvár történetéhez [Document archive for the fistory of Kolozsvár]. 2 vols. Buda–Budapest, 1870–1888.

MonAntHung = Lukács, Ladislaus, ed. Monumenta Antiquae Hungariae. 4 vols. Monumenta Historica Socetatis Iesu 101, 112, 121, 131. Romae: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 1969–1987.

RatColl = Rationes collectorum pontificorum in Hungaria. Pápai tized-szedők számadásai. 1281–1375. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia 1/1. Budapest, 1887.

RechnKrsdt = Rechnungen aus dem Archiv der Stadt Kronstadt. 3 vols. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Kronstadt 1–3. Kronstadt: Römer & Kramner–T. Alexi, 1886–1896.

SzOkl = Szabó, Károly, Lajos Szádeczky, and Samu Barabás, eds. Székely oklevéltár [Document archive of the Székelys]. 8 vols. Kolozsvár–Budapest: Székely Tör­té­nel­mi Pályadíj-alap–MTA, 1872–1934.

Ub = Zimmermann, Franz, Carl Werner, Georg Müller, Gustav Gündisch, Herta Gündisch, Konrad G. Gündisch, and Gernot Nussbächer, eds. Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. 7 vols. Hermannstadt–Bucharest: Verein für Sieben­bürgische Landeskunde–Editura Academiei, 1892–1991.

Ursuţiu, Liviu, ed. Domeniul Gurghiu (1652–1706): Urbarii, inventare şi socoteli economice. Documente, istorie, mărturii. Cluj-Napoca: Argonaut, 2007.

ZsOkl = Mályusz, Elemér, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth, Tibor Neumann, Bálint Lakatos, and Gábor Mikó, eds. Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Document archive from the era of King Sigismund]. 16 vols. Publicationes Archivi Hungariae Nationalis 2: Fontes 1, 3–4, 22, 25, 27, 32, 37, 39, 41, 43, 49, 52, 55, 59, 61. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó–MNL OL, 1951–2022.

Secondary literature

Barcsay Mihály. “A bárcai magyarságnak rövid történeti rajza” [A short history of the Hungarian population in Burzenland]. Protestáns Egyházi és Iskolai Lap 5 (1862): 1303–10, 1335–43.

Bod, Petrus. Historia Hungarorum ecclesiastica. 2 vols. Edited by L. W. E. Rauwenhoff, in collaboration with Car. Szalay. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1888–1890.

Boyd, Catherine E. Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1952.

Chaline, Olivier, and Marie Francoise Saudraix-Vajda. “Introduction.” Histoire, Économie et Société 42, no. 2 (2023): 4–27. doi: 10.3917/hes.232.0004. 

Constable, Giles. Monastic Tithes: From Their Origins to the Twelfth Century. Cambridge: University Press, 1964.

Csizmadia, Andor. “Die rechtliche Entwicklung des Zehnten (Decima) in Ungarn.” Zeit­schrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 61 (1975): 228–257.

Dodds, Benn. Peasants and Production in the Medieval North-East: The Evidence from Tithes, 1270–1526. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007.

Dudziak, Jan. Dziesięcina papieska w Polsce średniowiecznej: Studium historyczno-prawne [Papal tithes in medieval Poland: A historical and legal study]. Lublin: Wydaw­nictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1974.

Eissfeldt, Otto, Werner Schmidt, and Adalbert Erler. “Zehn­ten.” In Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 6, edited by Kurt Galling, 1877–80. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1962.

Engel, Pál. “Probleme der historischen Demographie Ungarns in der Anjou- und Sigismunds­zeit.” In Historische Demographie Ungarns (896–1996), edited by Tibor Schäfer, 57–65. Studien zur Geschichte Ungarns 11. Herne: G. Schäfer, 2007.

F. Romhányi, Beatrix. “A középkori magyar plébániák és a 14. századi pápai tizedjegyzék” [The medieval Hungarian parishes and the fourteenth-century papal tithe registers]. Történelmi Szemle 61 (2019): 339–60.

F. Romhányi, Beatrix. “Plébániák és adóporták – A Magyar Királyság változásai a 13–14. század fordulóján” [Parishes and hides: The transformation of the Kingdom of Hungary around 1300]. Századok 156 (2022): 909–41.

F. Romhányi, Beatrix, Zsolt Szilágyi, and Gábor Demeter. “A Magyar Királyság regio­ná­lis különbségei a pápai tizedjegyzék keletkezése idején” [Regional differences of the Kingdom of Hungary in the era of the papal tithe registers]. Magyar Gazdaság­történeti Évkönyv 6 (2022): 17–51.

Fejérpataky, Ladislaus. “Prolegomena ad rationes collectorum pontificiorum in Hun­garia.” In Rationes collectorum pontificorum in Hungaria. Pápai tized-szedők számadásai. 1281–1375, xvii–xlvii. Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia 1/1. Budapest, 1887.

Fügedi, Erik. A középkori Magyarország történeti demográfiája [Historical demography of medieval Hungary]. A Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Népességtudományi Kutató Intézetének történeti demográfiai füzetei. Budapest: KSH Népességtudományi Kutató Intézet, 1992.

Fügedi, Erik. “Die Wirtschaft des Erzbistums von Gran am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts.” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 7 (1960): 253–95.

Gudor, Kund Botond. Az eltűnt Gyulafehérvári Református Egyházmegye és egyházi közösségei. Inquisitoria Dioceseos Alba-Carolinensis Reformatae Relatoria (1754) [The disappeared Reformed deanery of Gyulafehérvár and its parishes]. Erdélyi Egyháztörténeti Könyvek 1. Kolozsvár–Barót: Kriterion–Tortoma, 2012.

Gündisch, Gustav. “Siebenbürgen in der Türkenabwehr, 1395–1526.” Revue Roumaine d‘Histoie 13 (1974): 415–43.

Györffy, György. “Zur Frage der demographischen Wertung der päpstlichen Zehntlisten.” In Études historiques hongroises, publiées à l’occasion du XVe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques par la Commission Nationale des Historiens Hongrois, vol. 1, 61–85. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980.

Györffy, György. Einwohnerzahl und Bevölkerungsdichte in Ungarn bis zum Anfang des XIV. Jahrhunderts. Studia historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1960.

Hegyi, Géza. “A ‘keresztény földre’ telepedett románok tizedfizetése: az elmélettől a gyakorlatig” [The tithe paid by the Romanians settled on “Terrae Christianorum”: from theory to praxis]. Erdélyi Múzeum 82, no. 1 (2020): 24–46.

Hegyi, Géza. “A középkori erdélyi egyházmegye esperességeiről” [Deaneries of the medieval Transylvanian diocese]. In Arhitectura religioasă medievală din Transilvania. Középkori egyházi építészet Erdélyben. Medieval Ecclesiastical Architecture in Transylvania, vol. 6, edited by Péter Levente Szőcs, 355–67. Satu Mare/Szatmárnémeti: Editura Muzeului Sătmărean, 2020.

Hegyi, Géza. “A plébánia fogalma a 14. századi Erdélyben” [The term “Plebanus” in Transylvania in the 14th century]. Erdélyi Múzeum 80, no. 1 (2018): 1–29.

Hegyi, Géza. “Az egyházi tized intézményrendszerének változásai a középkori erdélyi egyházmegyében” [Changes of the system of tithing in the medieval Transylvanian diocese]. In Határon innen és túl: Gazdaságtörténeti tanulmá­nyok a magyar középkorról, edited by István Kádas, and Boglárka Weisz, 185–229. Budapest: BTK TTI, 2021.

Hegyi, Géza. “Did Romanians Living on Church Estates in Medieval Transylvania Pay the Tithe?” Hungarian Historical Review 7 (2018): 694–717.

Hegyi, Géza. “Egyházigazgatási határok a középkori Erdélyben (I. közlemény)” [Borders of ecclesiastical administration in the medieval Transylvania. Part 1]. Erdélyi Múzeum 72, no. 3–4 (2010): 1–32.

Hegyi, Géza. “Terrae Christianorum. A ‘keresztény földre’ telepedett románok dézs­mál­tatá­sának kezdetei” [The beginning of tithing among the Romanians moved to “Terrae Christianorum” in Transylvania]. Erdélyi Múzeum 79, no. 1 (2017): 61–75.

Hegyi, Géza. “The Relation of Sălaj with Transylvania in the Middle Ages.” Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica 16, no. 2 (2012): 59–86.

Hegyi, Géza. “Transylvanie”. In Démystifier l’Europe centrale: Bohême, Hongrie et Pologne du VIIe au XVIe siècle, edited by Marie-Madeleine de Cevins, 816–20. Paris: Passés composés, 2021.

Hennig, Ernst. Die päpstlichen Zehnten aus Deutschland im Zeitalter der avignonesischen Papstums und während des Grossen Schismas. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1909.

Holub, József. Zala megye története a középkorban [The history of Zala County in the Middle Ages]. Vol. 1. Pécs, 1929.

Jagersma, Hendrik. “The Tithes in the Old Testament.” In Remembering all the Way… A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, edited by A. S. van der Woude, 116–28. Oudtestamentische Studien 21. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.

Kemény, Joseph. “Bruchstück aus der Geschichte der vaterländischen geistlichen Zehnten mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf unsere Walachen.” Magazin für Geschichte, Literatur und alle Denk- und Merkwürdigkeiten Siebenbürgens 2 (1847): 381–97.

Körting, Corinna. “Zehnt. I. Altes und Neues Testament.” In Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 36, edited by Gerhard Müller, Horst Balz, Gerhard Krause, 488–90. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.

Kristó, Gyula. A vármegyék kialakulása Magyarországon [The formation of counties in Hungary]. Nemzet és emlékezet. Budapest: Magvető, 1988.

Kristó, Gyula. Early Transylvania (895–1324). Budapest: Lucidus, 2003.

Kuujo, Erkki Olavi. Das Zehntwesen in der Erzdiözese Hamburg-Bremen bis zu seiner Privatisierung. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Ser. B, tom. 62, 1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1949.

Lepointe, G[abriel]. “Dîme.” In Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, vol. 4, edited by R. Naz, 1231–44. Paris-VI: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1949.

Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel, and Joseph Goy. Tithe and Agrarian History from the Fourteenth to the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Comparative History. Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Lindner, Dominikus. “Vom mitteralterlichen Zehntwesen in der Salzburger Kirchenprovinz.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 46 (1960): 277–302.

Loy, Georg. Der kirchliche Zehnt im Bistum Lübeck von den ersten Anfängen bis zum Jahre 1340. Preetz: J. M. Hansen, 1909.

Mályusz, Elemér. “Az egyházi tizedkizsákmányolás” [Ecclesiastical exploitation by tithe]. In Ta­nulmányok a parasztság történetéhez Magyarországon a 14. században, edited by György Székely, 320–33. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1953.

Müller, Georg. Die deutschen Landkapitel in Siebenbürgen und ihre De­chanten 1192–1848. Ein rechtsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Landeskirche in Siebenbürgen. Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 48. 3 vols. Hermannstadt: Verein für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, 1934–1936.

Müller, Georg. “Die ursprüngliche Rechtslage der Rumänen im Siebenbürger Sachsenlande.” Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde 38 (1912): 85–314.

Plöchl, Willibald. Das kirchliche Zehntwesen in Niederösterreich. Forschungen zur Landeskunde von Niederösterreich 5. Vienna: Verein für Landeskunde und Heimatschutz von Niederösterreich und Wien, 1935.

Prodan, David. Iobăgia în Transilvania în secolul al XVI-lea [Serfdom in Transylvania in the sixteenth century]. 3 vols. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 1967–1968.

Puza, Richard. “Zehnt. I. Allgemeine Darstellung des Kirchenzehnten.” In Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 9, edited by Henri Bautier, Gloria Avella-Widhalm, and Robert Auty,499–502. Munich: LexMA, 1998.

Rácz, György. “A magyarországi káptalanok és monostorok magisztrátus-joga a 13–14. században” [The magisterial right of Hungarian chapters and monasteries in the 13th–14th centuries]. Századok 134 (2000): 147–210.

Roth, Harald. Kleine Geschichte Siebenbürgens. Cologne–Weimar–Vienna: Böhlau, 1996.

Samaran, Charles, and Guillaume Mollat. La fiscalité pontificale en France au XIVe siécle (période d’Avignon et Grand Schisme d’Occident). Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 96. Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1905.

Solymosi, László. “Das kirchliche Mortuarium im mittelalterlichen Ungarn.” In Forschungen über Siebenbürgen und seine Nachbarn: Festschrift für Attila T. Szabó und Zsigmond Jakó, edited by Kálmán Benda, Thomas von Bogyay, Horst Glassl, and Zsolt K. Lengyel, 51–65. Studia Hungarica 31, vol. 1. Munich: R. Trofenik, 1987.

Solymosi, László. “Tized” [Tithe]. In Magyar Művelődéstörténeti Lexikon, edited by Péter Kőszeghy, vol. 12, 65–67. Budapest: Balassi, 2011.

Teutsch, Georg Daniel. Das Zehntrecht der evangelischen Landeskirche A.B. in Siebenbürgen. Schässburg: C. J. Habersang, 1858.

Vekov Károly. “A gyulafehérvári káptalan hiteleshelyi tevékenysége és 16. századi sze­ku­la­rizációja” [The authentication activity and the sixteenth-century secularization of the Chapter of Transylvania]. In Loca credibilia. Hiteleshelyek a középkori Magyarorszá­gon. Egyháztörténeti Tanulmányok a Pécsi Egyházmegye Történetéből 4, edited by, Tamás Fedeles, Irén Bilkei,131–41. Pécs: Fény Kft., 2009.

Viard, Paul. Histoire de la dîme ecclésiastique, principalement en France, jusqu’au décret de Gratien. Dijon: Jobard, 1909.

Vischer, Lukas. “Die Zehntforderung in der alten Kirche.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 70 (1959): 201–17.

W. Kovács, András. “The Participation of the Medieval Transylvanian Counties in Tax Collection.” Hungarian Historical Review 7 (2018): 671–93.

Zimmermann, Gunter. “Zehnt. III. Kirchengeschichtlich.” In Theologische Realenzyklopädie, edited by Gerhard Müller, Horst Balz, and Gerhard Krause, vol. 36, 496–504. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004.

---

1. 1 Körting, “Zehnt”; Jagersma, “Tithes in OT”; Eissfeldt et al., “Zehnten,” 1878–79. Cf. Gen. 14:20, 28:22; Lev. 27:30–33; Num. 18:21.24–28; Deut. 12:6.11.17, 14:22–29, 26:12–26; 2 Chron. 31:5–12; Neh. 10:38–40, 12:44, 13:5.12–13; Mal. 3:8–10; Tob. 1:6–8; Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42.

2. 2 Zimmermann, “Zehnt,” 495–98; Puza, “Zehnt,” 499–500; Constable, Monastic Tithes, 13–56; Eissfeldt et al., “Zehnten,” 1879; Vischer, “Zehntforderung”; Boyd, Tithes and Parishes, 26–46; Lepointe, “Dîme,” 1231–32; Viard, Dîme, 17–148.

3. 3 Zimmermann, “Zehnt,” 499–500; Puza, “Zehnt,” 500–501; Constable, Monastic Tithes, 16–19, 34–35; Eissfeldt et al., “Zehnten,” 1879; Lepointe, “Dîme,” 1232–33; Viard, Dîme, 101–5, 150–60.

4. 4 Dodds, Peasants and Production; Le Roy Ladurie and Goy, Tithe and Agrarian History.

5. 5 CIC, vol. 1, 784 (C. 16, q. 1, c. 66); ibid., vol. 2, 563–65, 568 (X 3.30, c. 22, 26, 33). Cf. Constable, Monastic Tithes, 10–13, 36, 43–44, 47–52; Vischer, “Zehntforderung,” 210–11, 214–16; Lepointe, “Dîme,” 1236–39; Viard, Dîme, 89–91.

6. 6 CIC, vol. 1, 417–18 (C. 1, q. 3, c. 13–14), 801 (C. 16, q. 7, c. 3.); ibid., vol. 2, 561–62 (X 3.30, c. 15, 17, 19.), 1048–50 (VI 3.13, c. 2), 1062–64 (VI 3.23, c. 13). Cf. Zimmermann, “Zehnt,” 497, 498; Puza, “Zehnt,” 500; Eissfeldt et al., “Zehnten,” 1879; Lepointe, “Dîme,” 1234–35; Viard, Dîme, 205–17.

7. 7 Puza, “Zehnt,” 501; Fügedi, “Wirtschaft des Erzbistums,” 258.

8. 8 Constable, Monastic Tithes, 57–197; Lepointe, “Dîme,” 1234; Kuujo, “Zehentwesen in Hamburg–Bremen,” 218–41; Plöchl, “Zehentwesen in Niederösterreich,” 49–54, 89–92; Viard, Dîme, 173–75, 181–204; Loy, “Zehnt im Bistum Lübeck,” 5–9, 52–54.

9. 9 Zimmermann, “Zehnt,” 497; Puza, “Zehnt,” 500; Constable, Monastic Tithes, 27–28, 35–42, 49–56; Eissfeldt et al., “Zehnten,” 1879; Boyd, Tithes and Parishes, 75–79; Lepointe, “Dîme,” 1234; Viard, Dîme, 112–24, 175–80.

10. 10 Zimmermann, “Zehnt,” 497–98; Lindner, “Zehntwesen in Salzburg”; Boyd, Tithes and Parishes, 79–153, 233–34; Kuujo, “Zehentwesen in Hamburg–Bremen,” 168–91; Plöchl, “Zehentwesen in Niederösterreich,” 55–56, 84–89.

11. 11 Hegyi, “Egyházigazgatási határok,” 9–17; Dudziak, Dziesięcina papieska, 56–100, 180–203; Hennig, Päpstliche Zehnten, 7–26; Samaran and Mollat, Fiscalité pontificale, 12–22; Fejérpataky, “Prolegomena,” xx–xxii, xxv–xlvii.

12. 12 Cf. F. Romhányi et al., “Regionális különbségek”; F. Romhányi, “Plébániák és adóporták,” 916–27; F. Romhányi,“Középkori magyar plébániák,” 348–51; Engel, “Probleme,” 57–63; Fügedi, “Történeti demográfia,” 25–28; Györffy, “Päpstliche Zehntlisten”; Györffy, Einwohnerzahl, 29–30.

13. 13 Edited in RatColl, 41–409.

14. 14 Cf. Chaline and Saudraix-Vajda, “Introduction”; Hegyi, “Transylvanie”; Roth, Kleine Geschichte.

15. 15 The names of the Transylvanian localities are used in their Hungarian form, as these are the names that appear in the sources. However, in the first occurrence of the place name, the current, official (Romanian) form, and, where appropriate, the historical German variants of the name are given, too, in brackets.

16. 16 In the discussion below, I ignore this part of the diocese due to the lack of sources and limit my investigation to Transylvania in the secular sense.

17. 17 Hegyi, “Esperességek,” 359–63; Hegyi, “Relation of Sălaj,” 62–65; Kristó, Early Transylvania, 79–84; Kristó, Vármegyék kialakulása, 426–27, 478, 482–512. Cf. RelColl 49–50, 54, 70, 76, 84, 89, 91–144, 327, 330, 355–56.

18. 18 F. Romhányi, “Plébániák és adóporták,” 918 (see note 27, too); Solymosi, “Tized,” 66; Rácz, “Magisztrátus-jog,” 151, 159–60; Györffy, “Päpstliche Zehntlisten,” 64; Csizmadia, “Rechtliche Ent­wicklung,” 230–31; Mályusz, “Tizedkizsákmányolás,” 322.

19. 19 Solymosi, “Kirchliche Mortuarium,” 52–54; Holub, Zala, vol. 1, 383–404.

20. 20 1298: Ub, vol. 1, 210; 1334: ibid., vol. 1, 465; 1357: ibid., vol. 2, 146–47; 1367: DocRomHist C, vol. 13: 332; 1380: Ub, vol. 2, 528; 1394: ibid., vol. 3, 75; 1428: ibid., vol. 4, 327; 1439: AAV, RegSuppl, 357: 26r and RegLat, 367: 142v; 1451: DL 39579; 1505: DL 65194; 1509: DF 253542; 1510: SJAN-SB, F 1, 1-U5-1226; 1517: DL 82485; 1518: DF 277755; 1526: DF 253624; 1536: EgyhtEml, vol. 3, 75; 1538: ibid., vol. 3, 313; 1541: Batthyaneum, ACT, 5-41; 1550: MNL OL, P 1912, 36-1; 1552: SJAN-CJ, F 378, 1-64; 1554: Batthyaneum, ACT, 5-98.

21. 21 Hegyi, “Tized intézményrendszere,” 189–94, 197–200.

22. 22 Ibid., 195–97; Hegyi, “Plébánia fogalma,” 16–19; Müller, Landkapitel, 122–83; Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 18–47.

23. 23 Cf. Hegyi, “Tized intézményrendszere,” 185–87.

24. 24 1322: Ub, vol. 1, 368; 1398: DF 257485; 1414: ZsOkl, vol. 4, no. 1632; 1444: KmJkv, 1: no. 522; 1521: KvOkl, vol. 1, 353; 1541: Batthyaneum, ACT, 5-41. Cf. Hegyi, “Tized intézményrendszere,” 194–95; Hegyi, “Plébánia fogalma,” 14.

25. 25 Edited in Jakó, Dézsma, 20–75.

26. 26 EOE, vol. 2, 64–65, 74–75, 82, 97; ErdKirKv, vol. 1/1, no. 79, 138; ibid., vol. ½, no. 24, 72; ibid., vol. 1/3, no. 363, 1137. Cf. Vekov, “Hiteleshely és szekularizáció,” 135–37.

27. 27 SJAN-SB, F 3, 1-173. (I am grateful to Emőke Gálfi for drawing my attention to the document.) The dating of the source is justified by the fact that it mentions the widow of Nikola Cherepovich (who died in June 1562) and notes that Gergely Apafi (who died before September 1563) was still paying the rent for the tithe in person.

28. 28 FH: Bece (Beţa), Feldiód (Stremţ); KÜ: Boldogfalva (Sântămărie); DO: Kisbudak (Buduş/Budesdorf), Várhely (Orheiu Bistriţei/Burghalle); BSZ: Somkerék (Şintereag); KL: Gyalu (Gilău), Gesztrágy (Straja), Középlak (Cuzăplac). Cf. Jakó, Dézsma, 23, 29, 45, 48, 53, 58, 59. For ease of identification, I have also included the county code before each group of settlements (BSZ = Belső-Szolnok, DO = Doboka, FH = Fehér, HD = Hunyad, KL = Kolozs, KÜ = Küküllő, TD = Torda).

29. 29 FH: Lapád (Lopadea Nouă); HD: Rápolt (Rapoltu Mare); KÜ: Küküllővár (Cetatea de Baltă/Kokelburg); DO: Kisesküllő (Aşchileu Mic), Mikó (disappeared), Hídalmás (Hida), Esztény (Stoiana), Olnok (Bârlea); BSZ: Monostorszeg (Mănăşturel); TD: Décse (Decea), Szengyel (Sângeru de Pădure). Cf. Jakó, Dézsma, 21, 24, 29, 38–41, 49, 67, 68.

30. 30 In the register of 1589, the term quarta is always used in the absolute sense, i.e. it refers to a quarter of the total tithe. By contrast, the adjectives integra or medium referred to the portion rented (E+A).

31. 31 Prodan, Iobăgia, vol. 1, 255–56, vol. 2, 568, 630; Jakó, Gyalui urbárium, 52, 53, 57, 69, 97, 100, 109, 127, 143, etc.; Ursuţiu, Gurghiu, 39, 63, 66, 76, 82–83, 103, etc. – MonAntHung, vol. 2: 99, 101, 249; 4: 284, 290; EREK, KvGylt, B 2, Prot. 1/1, p. 1–14, 519–664; Buzogány et al., Küküllői Egyházmegye, passim; Gudor, Gyulafehérvári Egyházmegye, 369–425.

32. 32 Hegyi, “Did Romanians,” 694–97, 707–10.

33. 33 Hegyi, “Terrae Christianorum.”

34. 34 Hegyi, “Románok tizedfizetése,” 25–29, 31–32, 35–36.

35. 35 Cf. Gündisch, “Türkenabwehr.”

36. 36 E.g. Drassó (Draşov/Troschen), Birbó (Ghirbom/Birnbaum), Alamor (Alămor/Mildenburg). Cf. Hegyi, “Románok tizedfizetése,” 26–27, 30–31, 35.

37. 37 FH: Abrudbánya (Abrud/Grossschlatten); TD: Offenbánya (Baia de Arieş/Offenberg); BSZ: Radna (Rodna/Rodenau).

38. 38 Hosdát (Hăşdat), Rákosd (Răcăştia), Lozsád (Jeledinţi). For their Catholic parishes, see: 1503: DL 46764; 1524: DL 47548; 1533: MNL OL, R 391, 1-8-4.

39. 39 1462: SzOkl, vol. 1,192; 1466: ibid., vol. 8, 115; 1496: Barabás, “Tizedlajstromok,” 427; 1503: SzOkl, vol. 3, 155; 1522: ibid., vol. 2, 10; 1535: SJAN-CV, F 65, 2-4-1(6).

40. 40 The villages of Kalotaszeg district are listed in the tithe register of 1589, but since they were previously part of the bishopric of Várad, the distribution of the tithe was different from that of Transylvania, and therefore the share of the priests cannot be calculated in the same way as described above (cf. Jakó, Dézsma, 61–64). On the tithe-paying settlements from the valley of the Maros River: 1477: Barabás, “Tizedlajstro­mok,” 417; 1496: ibid., 421, 428–29; 1504: DF 277689, fol. 2v–3r, 7v–8r.

41. 41 The fractional numbers appear due to the fact that the territory of some settlements was divided between two ecclesiastical units, and this might result in differences regarding the distribution of the tithe. The settlements in question are Balázsfalva (Blaj), Medgyes (Mediaş/Medwisch), Segesvár (Sighişoara/Schässburg), Kecset (Aluniş), Gyeke (Geaca), Gyerővásárhely (Dumbrava), Sztána (Stana), Almás (Almaşu), Kispetri (Petrinzel), and Bábony (Băbiu).

42. 42 Hegyi, “Tized intézményrendszere,” 195–96; Hegyi, “Plébánia fogalma,” 19; Müller, Landkapitel, 123–127.

43. 43 Ub, vol. 1, 34 = CDTrans, vol. 1, no. 132.

44. 44 1283: Ub, vol. 1, 145 = CDTrans, vol. 1, no. 399; 1289: Ub, vol. 1, 160 = CDTrans, vol. 1, no. 445; 1303: Ub, vol. 1, 226–27 = CDTrans, vol. 2, no. 21; 1330: Ub, vol. 1, 421–26, 433–36 = CDTrans, vol. 2, nos. 618, 676–77; [c. 1330]: Ub, vol. 1, 440 = CDTrans, vol. 2, no. 688.

45. 45 1543: Batthyaneum, ACT, 5-59 (Igen [Ighiu/Krapundorf]); 1560: MNL OL, F 4, Alba, 1-5-13 (Kisenyed [Sângătin/Klein-Enyed]); 1614: MNL OL, F 1, 10, p. 154 (Fogaras [Făgăraş]. I am grateful to Tamás Fejér for sending me the transcription of the source.); 1622: Kemény, “Bruchstück,” 394 (Kövesd [Coveş/Käbisch]); 1627, 1637: UhEmLt, 2/15 (Moha [Grânari/Muckendorf]); 1640: ibid., B 10, 10 (Héjjasfalva [Vânători/Diewaldsdorf]); 1642: Bod, Historia ecclesiastica, vol. 1, 280 (Bürkös [Bârghiş/Bürgisch]);1648: Kemény, “Bruchstück,” 396–97 (Réten [Retiş/Rittersdorf]). Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 125–26, 174–75.

46. 46 Jakó, Dézsma, 71–72; Müller, Landkapitel, 165–67.

47. 47 Vajdej (Vaidei), Dál (Deal), Kerpenyes (Cărpiniş), Poján (Poiana Sibiului), Ród (Rod/Rodt), Guraró (Gura Râului/Auendorf).

48. 48 Müller, “Rechtslage der Rumänen,” 110, 154, 156, 167–68.

49. 49 Apáca (Apaţa), Krizba (Crizbav), Csernátfalu (Cernatu), perhaps even Bácsfalu (Baciu) and Türkös (Turcheş). See: 1456: Ub, vol. 5, 527, 529–30; 1506: RechnKrsdt, vol. 1, 104; 1544: Brandsch, “Dorfschulen,” 503; 1554: RechnKrsdt, vol. 3, 469. Cf. Barcsay, “Bárcai magyarság,” 1310, 1337. – Previous attempts by the castellans to expropriate a part of the tithe: 1351: CDTrans, vol. 3, nos. 618–620; 1352: ibid., vol. 3, no. 660; 1354: ibid., vol. 3, no. 772; 1355: ibid., vol. 3, no. 800; 1361: ibid., vol. 4, no. 95–96. – On the history of land tenure: 1366: DocRomHist C, vol. 13, 101–2; 1444: DL 29252; 1460: Ub, vol. 6, 85; 1476: Ub, vol. 7, 115–16; 1484: Ub, vol. 7, 369–70.

50. 50 1404: Ub, vol. 3, 333; 1456: Ub, vol. 5, 528; 1462: Ub, vol. 6, 127–29, 142–43; 1471: Ub, vol. 6, 489, 493–94. Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 137–38; Barcsay, “Bárcai magyarság,” 1341.

51. 51 Hosszúfalu (Satulung), Tatrang (Tărlungeni), Zajzon (Zizin), Pürkerec (Purcăreni). See: 1367: DocRomHist C, vol. 13, 299–301; 1373: ibid., vol. 14, 398–401; 1544: Brandsch, “Dorfschulen,” 503–4. Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 137–38; Barcsay, “Bárcai magyarság,” 1335, 1337–38.

52. 52 1500: DF 247090; 1548–1555: RechnKrsdt, vol. 3, 469. Cf. W. Kovács, “Participation of the Counties,” 685–86.

53. 53 In 1305, some of the villages here (Baromlak [Valea Viilor/Wurmloch], Ivánfalva [Ighişu Nou/Eibesdorf]) were still in the hands of private landlords (Ub, vol. 1, 229–30 = CDTrans, vol. 2, no. 44), and in 1322 the area is described as a “novella plantatio” (Ub, vol. 1, 369).

54. 54 1322: Ub, vol. 1, 369 = CDTrans, vol. 2, no. 444; 1323: Ub, vol. 1, 376 = CDTrans, vol. 2, no. 465; 1357: Ub, vol. 2, 146–47 = CDTrans, vol. 3, no. 959; 1364: AAV, RegVat, 251: 347r-v; 1369: Ub, vol. 2, 323 = CDTrans, 4: no. 732; 1414: Ub, vol. 3, 591–92, 596–97, 600–1; 1415: Ub, vol. 3, 644–51, 662–63; 1416: ZsOkl, vol. 5, no. 1618; 1454: KmJkv, vol. 1, no. 1147; 1504: Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 132–36, DF 246275, SJAN-SB, F 1, 1-U5-1882. Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 168–70; Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 35–38.

55. 55 Szászpián (Pianu de Jos/Deutschpien) with Oláhpián (Pianu de Sus/Walachischpien), Lámkerék (Lancrăm/Langendorf), Rehó (Răhău/Reichenau).

56. 56 1494: DF 245206; 1477: Barabás, “Tizedlajstromok,” 418; 1496: ibid., 420–21, 433; 1504: DF 277689, fol. 2v, 10v; 1513: DF 277731/b, fol. 1v. Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 160–61.

57. 57 1589: Jakó, Dézsma, 29 (Küküllővár); 1640: Jakó, Gyalui urbáriumok, 57; 1666: ibid., 148; 1679: ibid., 205 (Gyalu).

58. 58 The bishops also provided generously for the local priests of their estates beyond Meszes Mountain: they received half the tithe in Zilah (Zalău) and a third in Tasnád (Tăşnad) (Diaconescu, Izvoare, 37, 117). In contrast, the cathedral city of Gyulafehérvár had only a parish with quarta (1754: Gudor, Gyulafehérvári Egyházmegye, 399).

59. 59 Hegyi, “Plébánia fogalma,” 19; Müller, Landkapitel, 131–32, 134, 145, 151–52, 178–80; Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 32–34.

60. 60 Cf. [1314?]: Ub, vol. 1, 300 = CDTrans, vol. 2, no. 218.

61. 61 1414: ZsOkl, vol. 4, no. 1632; 1444: KmJkv, vol. 1, no. 522; 1580: MonAntHung, vol. 2, 99, 101 (estates of the Kolozsmonostor Convent); 1589: Jakó, Dézsma, 52–53 (bishop’s domain of Gyalu). On the chapter estates, the priests’ share of tithes can be more or less deduced from the quartas of the provost and the canons (1477: Barabás, “Tizedlajstromok,” 417–18).

62. 62 E.g. FH: Kutyfalva (Cuci), Koppánd (Copand), and Nagylak (Noşlac) (cf. Jakó, Dézsma, 21–23). They were the estates of the chapter, but their tithe belonged to the bishop.

63. 63 Royal city: Kolozsvár (Cluj/Klausenburg). Salt-mining towns: Dés (Dej), Désakna (Ocna Dejului), Szék (Sic), Kolozsakna (Cojocna). Torda (Turda) seems to be an exception in this respect, as the priest here received little or no tithe (cf. Hegyi, “Plébánia fogalma,” 15–16). Royal castles with their domains: Déva (Deva), Küküllővár, Görgény (Gurghiu).

64. 64 On estates and their landlords see Pál Engel’s digital map of medieval Hungary (available for download here: https://abtk.hu/hirek/1713-megujult-engel-pal-adatbazisa-a-kozepkori-magyarorszag-digitalis-atlasza).

65. 65 FH: Tövis (Teiuş); TD: Felvinc (Unirea), Gyéres (Câmpia Turzii), Vajdaszentivány (Voivodeni); KL: Szamosfalva (Someşeni), Fejérd (Feiurdeni); DO: Drág (Dragu), Doboka (Dăbâca).

66. 66 1398: DF 257485 (Szengyel [Sângeru de Pădure, TD]); 1541: Batthyaneum, ACT, 5-41 (Solymos [Şoimuş, HD]).

67. 67 One sixth: Apanagyfalu (Nuşeni, BSZ). One eighth: Léta (Liteni, KL); Magyaregregy (Românaşi, DO).

68. 68 KL: Alsózsuk (Jucu de Jos), Felsőzsuk (Jucu de Sus), Kályán (Căianu).

69. 69 DO: Kisesküllő (Aşchileu Mic), Esztény (Stoiana),Szentegyed (Sântejude); BSZ: Girolt (Ghirolt), Monostorszeg (Mănăşturel). In contrast, it appears that beyond the Meszes the p = 1/16 share was much more common (Diaconescu, Izvoare, 13, 15, 17, 19, 106, 189, 191).

70. 70 If it were more documentable, we would probably find it in most parts of the Székely Land, too.

71. 71 Szarkad (Sereca), Berény (Beriu), Kasztó (Căstău), Perkász (Pricaz). Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 133; Müller, “Rechtslage der Rumänen,” 195, 235.

72. 72 Szászárkos (near Balomir), Giesshübel (near Szászsebes [Sebeş/Mühlbach]), Fehéregyháza (near Szerdahely [Miercurea Sibiului/Reussmarkt]), Underten (between Alcina [Alţina/Alzen] and Kürpöd [Chirpăr/Kirchberg]). Cf. Jakó, Dézsma, 25; Müller, Landkapitel, 161.

73. 73 Alkenyér (Şibot/Unterbrotsdorf), Felkenyér (Vinerea/Oberbrotsdorf), Cikendál (Ţichindeal/Ziegenthal), Glimboka (Glâmboaca/Hühnerbach), Hóföld (Fofeldea/Hochfeld), Illenbák (Ilimbav/Eulen­bach), Szászaház (Săsăuş/Sachsenhausen), Kálbor (Calbor/Kaltbrunnen), Boholc (Boholţ/Buchholz), Sona (Şona/Schönau). Cf. Müller, “Rechtslage der Rumänen,” 192, 212, 217, 224–25, 234–37, 240.

74. 74 FH: Poklos (Pâclişa), Sóspatak (Şeuşa), Táté (Totoi). Cf. Hegyi, “Románok tizedfizetése,” 28, 30–31; Hegyi, “Did Romanians,” 710 (note 73).

75. 75 E.g. FH: Veresegyháza (Roşia de Secaş/Rothkirch), Meggykerék (Meşcreac); DO: Sajósebes (Ruştior/Nieder­schebesch), Solymos (Şoimuş/Almesch), Radla (Ragla/Radelsdorf), Alsóbalázsfalva (Blăjenii de Jos/Unterblasendorf), Fata (near Nagydemeter [Dumitra/Mettersdorf]). Cf. Jakó, Dézsma, 20, 23, 45, 47.

76. 76 FH: Váralja (Orlat/Winsberg), Feketevíz (Săcel/Schwarzwasser), Alamor, Hosszútelke (Doştat/Thorstadt), Drassó, Dálya, Kútfalva, Birbó, Henningfalva (Henig). Cf. Hegyi, “Románok tizedfizetése,” 26–28, 30, 34.

77. 77 1580: EOE, vol. 3, 149–51; Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 164–68; 1612: EOE, vol. 6, 254–55; Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 191–95. Cf. ibid., 55–67.

78. 78 EOE, vol. 3, 244.

79. 79 Teutsch, Zehntrecht, 185–86, 188–89. Cf. Müller, Landkapitel, 166.

80. 80 E.g. 1664: Gudor, Gyulafehérvári Egyházmegye, 378 (Krakkó [Cricău/Krakau], FH), 406–7 (Alvinc [Vinţu de Jos/Winz], FH).

81. 81 KÜ: Gálfalva (Găneşti), Pócsfalva (Păucişoara), Kissáros (Delenii), Kóródszentmárton (Coroi­sânmartin), Besenyő (Valea Izvoarelor), Mikefalva (Mica), Kápolna (Căpâlna de Sus), Héderfája (Idrifaia), Harangláb (Hărănglab), and probably also Szőkefalva (Seuca).

82. 82 These findings are based on a comparison of the registers from 1563 and 1589 (SJAN-SB, F 3, 1-173, fol. 4r-v; Jakó, Dézsma, 34, 35, cf. Table 1, too).

83. 83 Source of data: SJAN-SB, F 3, 1–173 (the values in brackets), Jakó, Dézsma, 20–71 (page numbers refer to this). Abbreviations: E = episcopal share of tithe, A= archdeaconal share of tithe, q = quarta, T = the whole tithe, P = priest’s share of tithe (for all these, the amount of the corresponding wage is indicated in florins), p = the rate of the priestly tithe. The first three are taken directly from the source, the others are calculated using the formulae: T = 4q; P = T – (E+A); p = P/T.

 

* The research on which this article is based was done with the financial support of the HTMKNP FAEK MTA National Program and of the K 145924 funding schemes of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary.

Differences in Quality of Life and Profitability on Small and Large Farms (1730–1930): A Statistical Approach*

Gábor Demeter
HUN-REN Research Centre for the Humanities
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 13 Issue 3 (2024): 361-402 DOI 10.38145/2024.3.361

The competitiveness and productivity of large landholdings and small estates and the incomes or welfare of the people living on such estates have long been an important issue in the Hungarian historiography – and in everyday politics too. Based on the statistical evaluation of serial sources from the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries we give a thorough analysis on the productivity of smallholdings and large estates, which showed a remarkable a spatio-temporal diversity contrary to the statements in the literature focusing on case studies or social aspects of the problems. The size of the in­­vestigated area (Kingdom of Hungary versus Hungary after 1920), as well as land-use colored the palette further. Statistical analysis also proved that socio-economic features on large landholdings were not so unfavorable as depicted by literature. There was a remarkable diversity within the large-estates regarding productivity too, and while in the 19th century their income/ha values were better, than the income on small estates, this gap partly disappeared between 1910 and 1935.

Keywords: Productivity, incomes, large estates, smallholdings, tenant peasantry, King­dom of Hungary, 18th–20th centuries

Introduction

The competitiveness and productivity of large landholdings and small estates and the incomes or welfare of the people living on such estates have long been an important issue in the Hungarian historiography, and indeed this issue remains controversial today. That matter at hand is not simply an economic or social question. Rather, it is one of the means through which the various political regimes after 1848 sought to legitimate their rule and policies. Neither is this issue negligible from the point of view of contemporary regional research and territorial planning. In his discussion of peripheralization at the time of the regime change in the early 1990s Endre Miklóssy identified the preponderance of large estates, rural overpopulation, and the marginalization of livestock farming as three of the four main historical factors contributing to the alleged backwardness of the region today.¹ Thus, the question can also be raised from the perspective of conditions today, or in other words, one could ask which former type of farm (allodial estates or farms dominated by plots) and social class (villages of former tenants with plots or villages inhabited by the landless, who after 1848 were mostly daily-wage agrarian laborers) are associated with areas which today are peripheral. The latter, the connection between the territorial pattern of social classes, and areas that are peripheral today, is not examined in the present paper.3In the interwar period, a political debate broke out on the issue of the comparative productivity of large versus small estates. Miklós Móricz (brother of the family writer Zsigmond Móricz) contended that large estates were more productive, but these estates were also associated with poorer living conditions for the populations living on them (and he supposed a causal relationship between the two).² Jenő Czettler pointed out the advantages of the large estates from the perspective of productivity—in the interwar period, because large estates had 20 percent better grain yields and 30 percent better yields for potatoes than small estates.³ Mihály Kerék refuted this. He contended that livestock production on smallholdings (which most statistics do not measure) compensated for the advantages of large holdings in grain production⁴ (and net cadastral land income)⁵ per acre. A table comparing the Balkan countries in the volume by Zagorov, Végh and Bilimovich, which was published after World War II, shows that in Hungary and Romania (as opposed to Greece, which also had a polarized estate structure) the yields of large estates were 20–30 percent higher than the yields of small estates in terms of grain production.⁶ However, Tibor Tóth’s research on the Interwar period, which is limited to the Transdanubian region, shows that the yields were better on smallholdings, although the return rates were somewhat slower^.7 The issue is not a specific Hungarian problem. According to Yanaki Mollov, Bulgarian smallholdings had better yields per hectare than the large estates in the interwar period.⁸ However, this is not the case if per capita values are calculated (labor force), and small farms were much more vulnerable to climate variability and changes in the external economic situation (including price volatility, which became an acute crisis after 1929).

The profitability of a given estate type may well have depended on many factors, including type of land use, land quality, location of the sample area, and the availability of technological advances, all of which are examined in the present study. Even the proclivities of political regimes (i.e. legal measures) may have been helpful in many cases (for instance in the case of Ottoman Macedonia in the nine­teenth century or in dualist Hungary). However, there are also examples when state intervention was not beneficial (for instance the permanent agrarian crisis in Serbia and Bulgaria after 1870, which was due to the maintenance of smallholder peasant democracy). Productivity and profitability also varied over time. There are many ways to measure these changes, but they do not always produce the same results.

If our results show that productivity measured according to harvest yield per acre was better on large estates then we need to consider the possible reasons for this, which include the following: (a) plot size, parcel size, parcel numbers, (b) technological development, (c) land use and product structure of the smallholdings and large estates, (d) whether the nobility managed to acquire better quality lands after 1848, or (e) whether the landed gentry, losing their tax exemption after 1848, attempted to manipulate the cadastral land survey during the registry period (1851–1865), when land income became the basis for land tax (1865), thus reducing their land tax by claiming that their lands were of poor quality. Klára Mérey, Pál Sándor, and Lajos Für have given concrete examples of how large landowners acquired fallow land after 1848 that had formerly been used by the peasants.⁹ They have also shown, furthermore, that these lands were often of better quality than the plots remaining in peasants’ hands.¹⁰ Scott M. Eddie, however, argues that this was not a general trend in 1850–1870. His sophisticated cliometric studies using country-scale data support the hypothesis that large estates (more precisely, the estates owned by the aristocracy) were subject to a more favorable tax classification than might have been expected in only one county out of the 52 studied (see the case of Viharsarok, also analyzed here).¹¹ The peasant estate was also sometimes placed in a higher “golden crown” category because it had a higher proportion of ploughland, even if the soil quality was actually worse because peasants were forced to cultivate more arable lands regardless of quality (see the case of Békés County in the discussion below).¹² On the other hand, the proportion of land taken up by pastures and forests was sometimes higher on large estates, and because of their generally lower income per acre, the average cadastral income per hectare on the whole large estate was also lower compared to the peasant farms, which were primarily ploughland. (The Draskovich family’s estates in southern Baranya offer an example of lands with a higher proportion of pastures and forests, while the Benyovszky family’s estates in the same area were primarily ploughlands).¹³

Productivity in the 18th Century

In the discussion below, I offer an overview of the issue by providing a summary of research done between 2018 and 2023. According to the census of 1728, which survived in 11 counties (2,200 settlements),¹⁴ the declared (and this word is important) seed yield (measured in proportion to seeds sown)¹⁵ on serf plots was not more than 1:2 in 25 percent of the settlements (500 settlements), and a seed yield of 1:4 or more was measured in only 20 percent of the settlements. (If the output is calculated in cubulus before sowing and harvesting and paying the tithe and state tax, a grain output of 1 to 4 was close to 800 kg/ha). The average yield of 1:3 was exceeded in Heves, Nógrád, Tolna, Sopron, and Szabolcs Counties. The lower-than-average value in Bihar and Szepes Counties, which are mountainous and forested, is not surprising, while the below average yield of Pest County is more surprising (animal husbandry still dominated the central plains in the eighteenth century due to the devastation caused in 1541–1699 during the Ottoman era). The declared yields of the municipalities of Somogy, Zala, and Vas Counties were also below 3:1. As 10 of the 11 counties are located in present-day Hungary (which is mostly lowlands), data from counties for which the sources do not provide these figures probably would not meaningfully raise this 1:3 average.¹⁶ As the landlords and the Church each took 10 percent of the harvest and 33 percent of the harvest had to be spared as seed for the next year, this 1:3 ratio allowed peasants to keep only 47 percent of their harvest, and part of this had to be used to pay taxes to the state. Thus, in the end, not more than 30 percent remained for peasant consumption. Supposing that 200 kg of grain are required for one adult and 150 for one child every year as a minimum, this makes total human consumption for a family 1,000–1,200 kg¹⁷ (without animals). This cannot be more than 33 percent of the total grain produced, ranging from 3,000 to 3,500 kg (otherwise the taxes cannot be paid). Calculating with a general output ratio of 1:3, this means that 1,000–1,200 kg of seed had to be set aside to be sown for the next year. Land size was calculated in cubulus, which indicates the volume of seed, 92 kg¹⁸ for a Hungarian acre (1 cadastral acre equals with 5,570 sq m, 1 Hungarian acre is 4,200 sq m). Thus, 11 to 12 acres (4.5 to 5 ha) had to be sown to produce this amount of grain at an output ratio of 1:3 in order to secure the subsistence of a family. In the case of an output ratio of 1:5, the seed set aside for the next year was 20 percent of the total harvest, taxes paid to the landlord and the Church came to a total of 40 percent, leaving 60 percent for the peasant to use to feed his family and pay the royal taxes. This left him with more than 40 to 45 percent of his harvest after taxation. Thus, even a smaller plot under 10 acres could sustain a similar family of six according to the figures used above.

To obtain more land, peasants could change the field-system and increase the ratio of cultivated lands from the usual 50 percent (the remainder 50% was used as fallow or grazeland) in the two-field system to 67 percent by applying three-field system (using one third of the plot for autumn crops, one third for spring crops and one third as fallow in a rotational system). They could also rent land from the landlords. This three-field system was often used in hilly regions in 1728 to compensate for lower soil quality.¹⁹ Applying the three-field system in the 18th century was not necessarily the sign of modernization or relative welfare (crop surplus), as plots using three-field system were not more productive, than lands under two-field system. It was rather a response to challenges caused by relative land shortages.

In 1728, the larger plots (sessio) had proportionally smaller yields per acre than the smaller units of land. In the lands with poorer yields, the plots tended to be larger, both in absolute terms (sessio size) and measured per capita. Had this not been the case, the population would have been compelled to move. (More than 60 percent of tenant peasants worked lands that were less than half a plot. This is a clear indication of the progressive fragmentation of the lands.) In his research on the Székely Land in the early eighteenth century,²⁰ Dezső Garda has shown that there was no significant difference in the grain yield of the armalist noblemen (nobles without peasants), the tenant peasants, and the landless cottars. The yields fluctuated around nine of ten kalangya.²¹ The differences between social groups were more pronounced in terms of livestock (1.9 and 3.7 cattle per family for cottars and members of the petty nobility, respectively). Most of the large estates were basically engaged in livestock farming in the first decades of the eighteenth century, either because of the general demand in Europe or because of labor shortages. Before the unification of peasant duties in 1767, the number of days spent on in corvée (compulsory work on a landlord’s manor) or the geographical location of the manor may be a guide to the nature of the large estates (allodia). Vast landholdings that made little use of corvée or allowed tenant farmers to free themselves of this obligation by making payments instead were more likely to be livestock farms (as these required less labor force thus were unable to exploit corvée efficiently), while near the larger cities (Vienna, Buda) grain production began to spread, and this required a workforce. This also suggests that the grain farming methods used on large estates may not have been very efficient in the beginning of the eighteenth century.

As eighteenth-century cadastral census data survived along the valley of the Tisza River, they can be used to quantify the share of tenant peasant plots compared to large estates, as well as to compare the yields on peasant plots and large manors at the end of the eighteenth century (Figs. 1 and 2). In contrast to Jászság and Nagykunság, the Tisza floodplain (and the Hevesi plain) was dominated by manorial ploughlands in 1786. This had not changed even in 1865, when water regulations were introduced and cadastral surveys were made to document the boundaries of estates and tenant plots.²² In the Central Tisza floodplain, both in regional comparison and also on the smallholdings, the grain yield per acre was lower than in Nagykunság and the plains of south Heves, for instance, and more land was owned by the lords and more crops were appropriated by the nobility (Table 1), whereas the amount of land per one agricultural inhabitant (including the cottars) was the smallest.²³ On the other hand, at the end of the eighteenth century, there was hardly any measurable difference between the yield per acre of small and large landholdings according to the surviving cadastral data. In terms of the total area of large holdings and plots, there were hardly any settlements on the Central Tisza floodplain, in the Békés loess and Nagykunság, and in South Heves which did not reach the limit of self-sufficiency (nine pm²⁴/person or five pm without animals) calculated by Glósz, with the exception of the region of Kiskunság (Danube-Tisza Interfluve, and in this area there was still heavy emphasis on animal husbandry on the large, empty quicksand plains) and Dévaványa in the moorland of Sárrét. Here, therefore, self-sufficiency had to be achieved either through animal husbandry or other forms of work (cottage industry, migrant labor). However, if we deduct the production of large estates from the total regional production, the situation was not good elsewhere either. Along the Tisza River (in contrast to the settlements of the Nagykunság or southern Heves), the yield was often barely 5 pm per person for peasant plots, if landless cottars are included and the yields of large holdings are not added (Table 3). Thus, the landless cottars²⁵ were forced to work either on the large estates or in animal husbandry (either as owners or herders) in the late eighteenth century. As long as there was enough common grazeland (this was the case until the beginning of great water regulation works in the late 1840s), the livelihood of this stratum was assured. However, the expansion of the large estates (and private land in general) over the commons and the expansion of ploughing on the large estates at the time of the river regulations²⁶ eliminated their livelihood and also provided the large estates with a cheap labor force that was no longer self-sufficient and thus could be easily exploited. This class was the biggest loser of the water regulations works and the new laws on land property after 1848. (The former common lands fell into the hand of landlords after 1848, who, prompted by the European grain hunger after the great crisis in 1847, began the transformation of even lower quality lands to arable land. These lands were profitable until grain prices collapsed after 1873).

According to Glósz, one or two sown cadastral acres were usually enough for one person to subsist, and since the amount of arable land per tenant peasant in most of the floodplains reached ten to twelve acres in the beginning of the nineteenth century, families of five to six people were able to live off the land at the time. By 1910, however, even with the increase of cultivated lands due to water regulation, only an average of six sown acres was available per family, which could only be sufficient for a family of this size if yields doubled (to twelve pm/acre, or about one ton/ha).

It is also important to underline that the yields of the arable land of the landlords in the Central Tisza floodplain were not good, and water regulation resulted in the further expansion of these low-quality ploughlands.²⁷

Table 1. Differences in grain productivity of Hungarian lands based on the specific variables extracted from the data of the first cadastral survey in the 1780s

  

Figures 1–2. The size and proportion of manorial arable land (light grey) in the surviving material of the 1786 cadastral census (based on Dávid, “Magyarország első kataszteri felmérése” and Rózsa’s recent explorations, Rózsa, “Az ártéri gazdálkodás mérlege.” / Regional differences in the land use of total cultivated land in 1786 based on the cadastral census (light grey for ploughland, medium grey for meadow and pasture, dark for garden and forest). There was hardly any arable land in the settlements of the Tisza floodplain, which were characterized by small administrative areas and large (manorial) estates with high share of the available arable land.

Productivity of Smallholdings and Large Estates from the 1860s to 1910

The significance of the data series published in 1865 during the first surviving cadastral survey³⁰ is that it is available for the whole country (except Transylvania and the large towns). To a limited extent it also makes it possible to calculate the net cadastral incomes³¹ of large and small estates, since the number of settlements where only smallholdings or only large estates were recorded (the data for so-called puszta, or “plainland farmsteads,” which had only one or two owners, were recorded separately) was statistically relevant. (Where both large estates and smallholdings were present, we cannot calculate their incomes separately.) From Table 2, it is clear that in the 1860s (after the abolition of corvée), the large holdings were more productive (in terms of harvest yield per acre) than smallholdings. Smallholdings had harvests per acre that were only 66 percent of the harvests (measured per acre) of the large estates.

Table 2. Differences between the profitability of small farms and large holdings in Hungary in 1865 (net cadastral income, excluding the production of livestock) 

Indicator	Small farms (sample)	Large landholdings (sample)	Large estates with some small farm	Country total and average**
Number of holdings	126,758 out of 2,010, 000	187 out of 23,685	138*+235	2,034,630.0
Total utilised area (acre)	1,380,000.0	409,000.0	131,487.0	33,510,620.0
Net cadastral income (forint)	3,610,000.0	1,944,000.0	599,600.0	98,056,000.0
Average size of holding (acre)	10.9	2190.0	1000.0	16.5
Average net income per holding (forint)	28.5	10,395.0	4500*.0	.048.2
Net income per 1 acre (forint)	2.6	4.7	4.6	2.9
Proportion of area used	92	80.0	95.0	91.0
Study sample	6.2% of farms, 4.1% of land, 3.7% of income	1.1% of farms, 1.3% of land, 2% of income	0.4% of land, 0.6% of income	100
** Counting only large estates. ** Excluding Transylvania and Croatia and some large cities (e.g. Debrecen).

Were the differences in income between small and large estates due to technological differences, or were they rather due to the fact that after the reforms in 1848, the nobility acquired land of better quality?³² Followers of prominent twentieth-century Hungarian historian Gyula Szekfű argue, on the basis of parcel names, that the large landowners established their estates on land cleared and cultivated in the nineteenth century and not on parcels obtained from peasants. This land therefore cannot have been of a terribly high quality and cannot have yielded impressive harvests or large incomes (and therefore there was no need for the landowners to manipulate the data). The results given above, however, seem to contradict Szekfű’s idea, though only partially. Surprisingly, if we approach the data series in a different way, in 1865, smallholdings were overrepresented in settlements with a high net cadastral land income of over six forints³³ per acre (323,000 holdings, or 15 percent of the smallholdings, compared to 2,635 large holdings, or 10 percent of the large estates).³⁴ This seem to support Szekfű’s thesis (according to which the land quality of the large holdings was generally poor). However, since the distribution of landholdings within a settlement (and therefore the difference in their soil quality) is not known, these data are not conclusive.³⁵ At the other extreme, for the settlements with a low net income of one or two forints per acre (below average), we counted 6,630 large estates and 466,000 small farms in total, which is 28 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Here, large estates are overrepresented, but this is also due to large forest estates with poor yields (this is immediately clear if one plots the large estates on the map).

In other words, the dominant land use of the estate types has a strong influence on the incomes/acre expressed in money. Despite the low group average in the sample in Table 2, smallholdings were not characterized by uniformly low productivity. In Baranya in 1910, for example, smallholdings did not yield worse net cadastral incomes per acre than the larger holdings, because the smallholdings had a higher proportion of arable land, which had higher net cadastral incomes than forests, meadows, and pastures, and this increased the weighted average of the net income per plot.

The notion that, after the 1875 tax reform, when cadastral net income became the tax base, the tax system favored large estates and the taxes placed on smallholdings were higher in absolute terms is untenable. In 1910 (the investigation was reduced to the recent territory of Hungary due to the availability of data), the direct tax³⁶ per capita in settlements dominated by large estates was 20 kronen (30 K for the large estates of aristocrats), and in settlements dominated by small estates it was 15 K (in the national territory of Hungary today).

Figure 4. Net land income per cadastral acre in kronen (K) in different subsets of two districts of Baranya County (Ormánság and Hegyhát), 1910 (Demeter and Koloh, “Birtokstruktúra és jövedelmezőség.”)

 The same is true if we use per acre values instead of per capita. The average tax for settlements without large estates was 6.5 K per acre, and the average tax for settlements dominated by estates owned by the petty nobility was the same, whereas for villages dominated by aristocratic estates it was 7.3–8 K per acre. Since direct taxes also included land tax alongside a household tax and corporate and industrial taxes, the tax values are also indicative of income conditions. Thus, the hypothesis that large estates paid less tax per acre because the nobility used its political influence to manipulate taxation to underestimate the value of their land in the golden crown system is not tenable in general either. In fact, they did not pay less, as proved above, and Eddie’s aforementioned thesis (that large estates in general did not enjoy more favorable tax rates between 1850 and 1870) seems persuasive.³⁷

Mariann Nagy also concludes that the higher the share of smallholdings in a county, the lower the net cadastral income (r= -0.39).³⁸ Our own country-level (within the state boundaries of Hungary after 1920), settlement-scale study confirms that in the villages dominated by large holdings, net cadastral income per capita (27.8 vs. 21 K) and, to a lesser extent, net cadastral income per acre (10.5 vs. 8.6 K) were also higher in 1910 than in settlements dominated by smallholdings. However, by 1935 the difference had almost disappeared. Thus, this phenomenon showed significant dynamics within two generations!

For the mid-nineteenth century, another case study gave new information concerning the productivity of large and small estates. In 1857, several censuses of the former Harruckern estates (today Békés County in southwestern Hungary) were recorded,³⁹ and here the net income per acre (in forints) can be calculated for more than 80 large estates. Since we also know which settlements these large estates were located in, their net incomes could be compared with the average land incomes of the total municipality (which includes small farms) in 1865. The resulting picture is rather chaotic, because the net cadastral income per acre of large farms varied between five and nine forints/acre, and in some cases the net cadastral income per acre of large landholdings was lower than the overall municipal average. Since this was not owing to differences in the sizes of large farms, we also examined the role of land use. Interestingly, large farms were more profitable than small farms if the share of ploughlands exceeded 75 percent of the area of large farms. (This implicitly also means that the large estates might have had better soil quality, at least for grain production, since it was the large estates that offered a viable way of expanding arable land up to 90 percent of the whole). When the share of ploughlands was between 60 and 70 percent, the net income per hectare of the large farms was equal to the average net income of the municipality, and below this percentage value, the small farms were more profitable (Table 3). Large farms were therefore more competitive in the case of monocultural farming.

Leaving aside land quality and land use as factors and focusing only on the size of the landholdings, in the 42 settlements analyzed in Békés, Csongrád, and Csanád Counties, the large landholdings had 25 percent higher net incomes per acre than the small landholdings in 1865 (Table 4), confirming the result of our general survey for 1865 but contradicting the results of the investigation of the 80 large estates above (Table 3). However, as before, we were unable to quantify the role of animal husbandry, so we cannot estimate how it would modify the differences. Net cadastral income, as an indicator, allows us to determine neither where the income/expenditure ratio was better (i.e. which estate type was more efficient) nor where the expenditures were lower (i.e. which landholding size was less capital intensive), since no other indicator is available at the settlement level beside the “income minus expenditure value” (i.e. net cadastral income).⁴⁰

Table 4. Differences in net cadastral incomes of smallholdings and large estates (1865) on the area covered by the genetic soil map of Békés County (1858)

Dominant farm structure (by municipality)		Net cadastral income   forint/acre	Net income forint/estate owner	Average estate size (acre)
Mixed (25)	Avg.	4.30	135.0	31.40
Smallholdings dominate (5)	Avg.	4.24	61.1	14.44
Large estates dominate (12)	Avg.	5.43	29846.0	5494.31
Total number of settlements and “puszta” on map (42)	Avg.	4.45	8615.6	1933.97

Using a special source, however, it is possible to examine how land quality affected income and determine whether large estates were located on better land or not in these three counties. Table 4 above is based on the cadastral survey conscription published in 1865, which includes the precise, accurate number of large and small estates (but not their size separately) and the number of “puszta.” A genetic soil map of the area (the second oldest in Europe) from 1858 has also survived. By superimposing the administrative boundaries of 1865 (Figure 5) on the soil map using GIS-techniques, one can identify the dominant soil type per settlement, and the settlement level average values for net cadastral income per acre in 1865 can be compared to the soil types. Net cadastral income per acre and per holding was highest in the loess (Table 5), which also suggests that the loess was dominated by large estates, while in contrast, the sand or the saline solonetz soils (vertisols) were dominated by small estates in 1865. The net cadastral income per acre on smallholdings located on sands was good, while the incomes of small farms established on peat and solonetz soils was poor. Settlements with mixed saline-loess soils were also dominated by large estates, but with better income per acre values. In other words, the large estates were mostly located on better soils.

Table 5. Net cadastral income per acre and per holding (in forints) by soil type and average size of holdings by soil type in 1865

Soil type and settlement number		Net cadastral income   forint/acre	Net cadastral income   forint/estate	Average estate size
sand IV (1)	Avg.	5.49	97.38	17.74
peat (2)	Avg.	2.38	103.25	43.36
loess I (8)	Avg.	5.91	2,3076.77	3,903.40
salty/saline II (14)	Avg.	3.51	1,811.74	516.68
salty and peat (1)	Avg.	2.32	68.75	29.66
salty and bound clay (2)	Avg.	3.47	56.81	16.35
salty and loess (14)	Avg.	5.09	10,813.64	2,126.25
total (42)	Avg.	4.45	–	–
Source: Our calculations based on the 1858 soil map and income data published in 1865.

By comparing the productivity of small and large estates located on the same soil types (Table 6), one can highlight the “soil-neutral” efficiency of the farm type. The combined query of the incomes (1865)—soil (1858) database revealed that in the case of loess, the large estates were clearly more efficient, while in the case of saline soils, the smallholdings were more efficient, obviously because the smallholder was forced to produce a minimum quantity even by investing extra work (and/or a larger workforce) to subsist, while the large farm was not under such pressure. In the case of settlements with mixed loess and saline soils, there was no significant difference between small and large farms.

Table 6. Differences in net cadastral income grouped by soil types and farm sizes (in forints, 1865)

Dominant soils    (1858)	Farm size (type, settlement number, avg. estate size)	Net cadastral income   forint/acre	Net cadastral income forint/estate
sand	MIXED estate structure (1)	5.49	97.38
peat	MIXED estate structure (2)	2.38	103.25
loess	DOMINANCE OF SMALLHOLDINGS (2) (79), cadastral acres	4.67	370.32
	DOMINANCE OF LARGE ESTATES (6) (4848 cadastral acres)	6.32	30,645.59
	TOTAL (8)	5.91	23,076.77
saline	MIXED estate structure (12)	3.52	90.46
	DOMINANCE OF SMALLHOLDINGS (1) (4 cadastral acres)	4.06	36.79
	DOMINANCE OF LARGE ESTATES (1)	2.74	24,242.00
	TOTAL (14)	3.51	1,811.74
saline and soot	(1)	2.32	68.75
saline and clay	MIXED estate structure (1)	3.38	95.65
	SMALLHOLDING DOMINANCE (1)	3.57	17.97
	TOTAL (2)	3.47	56.81
saline and loess	MIXED estate structure (6)	5.53	183.82
	SMALL FARMS DOMINANCE (3) (18 kh)	4.52	83.67
	LARGE ESTATES (5) (6122 kh)	4.90	30,007.40
	TOTAL (14)	5,09	10,813.00
Source: Our calculations based on the 1858 soil map and income data published in 1865.

How did landowners manage to acquire good quality land? In order to answer this question, we superimposed the soil map from 1858 on the Harruckern map of land use in the 1780s, which also contained aggregated landuse and population data at the settlement level (unfortunately, it did not include yields). Our research has shown that around 1780, most of the land far away from rivers and covered with loess was used as pasture (Tables 7 and 8), which, as public property (communal land, which meant that both the landlord and the peasants had the right to use it), fell into the hands of the manor according to the laws of 1848. These areas, converted into ploughland as a result of the land-use change induced by grain hunger in Europe, which generated high prices, showed extremely high yields and high incomes in the mid-nineteenth century due to decades of fertilization and fallowing.

Water regulation works began here around 1865, so the statistics cited reflect the incomes of the pre-regulation situation, when plots on saline soils and peat were more exposed to water. This implicitly also meant that the water regulation work of 1865 generated a temporary ameliorating situation for the smallholders (although peat that has lost water is easily damaged by wind and compaction caused by trampling, so the improvements are only temporary). In contrast to the situation along the Körös River, in the Central Tisza region at the end of the eighteenth century the floodplains of the rivers were dominated not by small farms but by large estates and communal-public lands used as pastures and meadows for grazing. This all became manorial land after 1848. So, water regulation along the Tisza River favored large estates.

Table 7. Differences in land use types on different soils (%) and farm types in 1865

Soil type (I-V: soil quality)		Smallholding / large holding ratio	Arable (%)	Meadow (%)	Pasture (%)	Woodland (%)	Vineyard (%)	Reed (%)	Uncultivated (%)
sand IV	1	138.17	65.84	4.33	25.16	0.00	1.54	0.00	3.13
peat III	2	32.72	18.06	29.74	16.28	10.64	0.21	7.99	17.09
loess I	8	17.39	60.37	19.04	17.02	0.39	0.16	0.00	3.01
saline II	14	73.40	44.02	16.13	28.95	2.92	1.22	1.03	5.73
saline and sooty peat	1	175.50	34.91	29.17	21.47	0.47	0.84	2.31	10.83
saline and clay, V	2	141.83	37.98	12.40	31.62	3.86	3.17	0.42	10.55
saline and loess	14	52.28	59.89	9.44	23.21	0.94	0.64	0.78	5.10
Total	42	61.32	51.20	14.96	24.02	2.06	0.87	1.06	5.83
Source: Our calculations based on the 1858 soil map and the income data published in 1865 (area and income of Hungary by cultivation). The dominant land use pattern(s) have been highlighted by bold letters.

Table 8. The land use and quality of the land (in 1858) that functioned as praedium (non-urbarial, non-peasant plots) in 1790

Praedium	Soil quality   1858	Soil genetic type   1858	Arable  %	Meadow  %	Pasture  %	Forests  %
Kígyósapáti pr.41	2	saline	0.00	4.76	95.24	0.00
Nagykondoros pr.	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Nagy Csákó	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Kis Csákó	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Csorvás dominale42	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Csorvás comm.	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Eperjes pr.	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Szénás pr.	2	saline	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Kis Kamut pr.	1	loess	100.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Szt. Miklós pr.			100.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Csejti Pr.	2	saline	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Bélmegyer pr.	2	saline	0.00	55.03	40.46	4.51
Gerla pr.	3	peat	0.00	44.48	44.48	11.04
Ölyved pr.	3	peat	0.00	73.61	24.51	1.88
Királyhegyes pr.		loess	0.00	12.27	87.73	0.00
Apáca pr.	1	loess	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.00
Tamás pr.	2	saline	0.00	40.20	24.87	34.93
Kis Péll pr.	5	clayey	0.00	24.97	75.03	0.00

The relationship between soil conditions and net cadastral land income can also be examined in 1910, since the genetic soil type can be considered a conservative property (at least for a span of 50 years), and the municipal net cadastral income is also available from 1883 and 1910 and even sorted even by type of land use. So, net income is available for different products (Table 9), which was not true of the survey done in 1865. The difference between loess-soils and clayey or salty solonetz soil is still remarkable, and estate size on loess remained extremely high in 1910.

By 1935, the positive trends in the net cadastral income of smallholdings in the Pécs region (southern Hungary) mentioned earlier (Figure 4) had also changed. The net cadastral income per acre of small estates fell from almost twelve crowns in 1911 to less than eleven crowns, while that of large estates rose to over eight crowns, and on the Biedermann and Benyovszky estates, the net income per cultivated acre of land jumped from eight or nine golden crowns⁴³ before World War I (Figure 6) to ten or eleven. This confirms that we have a spatially and temporally fluctuating phenomenon, which also depended on market volume, soil quality, and land use, in addition to technology and crop culture.

Figure 5. Overlay of the 1858 Békés-Csanád soil map with post-1886 settlement boundaries

Figure 6. Differences in the net cadastral incomes of small and large estates of different types in 1935, expressed in golden crowns. (Demeter and Koloh, “Birtokstruktúra és jövedelmezőség.”)

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Estate Types (1890s–1930s)

The question of profitability is therefore not settled by the series of studies summarized above. Income alone, however, does not necessarily offer a precise means with which to classify a settlement (or the type of enterprise that predominates) as developed or underdeveloped, since the concept of welfare includes a variety of other dimensions (health, environment, cultural indicators, etc.). And as a large part of the income generated in settlements that were dominated by large estates did not fall into the hands of the agrarian producers, this indicator is therefore inappropriate for comparisons of welfare. If we want to check or reproduce Miklós Móricz’s local-scale research for the whole country and investigate further the contradictory picture of large estates as either “oppressive” or “modern and profitable,” other social, economic and demographic factors must be taken into account in addition to cadastral income (which is more an indicator of farming quality than of livelihood).

The GISta Hungarorum database⁴⁴ allows the reconstruction of the socio-economic-demographic conditions of the settlements dominated either by large estates or small farms for 1910. Since various indicators of development are also available (the Human Development Index, HDI at settlement level from 1910 calculated by Zsolt Szilágyi),⁴⁵ it is also possible to determine whether there was a correlation between general development levels and farm type in 1910. For this purpose, we extracted a list of large farms from the compendium compiled by Gyula Hantos (1926)⁴⁶ and the Farmers’ Inventory (1897). The former provides statistical data on large estate types within the post-1920 boundaries of Hungary. The latter makes the entire area of the historical country available for analysis from an earlier period, but using different criteria and classifications of large estates. The Farmers’ Inventory from 1935 provides further possibilities. First, it is possible to group the settlements according to the share of the large estates as a proportion of the total area of the given settlements, and second, it is possible to examine the difference in net cadastral incomes per acre between large estates and small farms in the 1920s, but only for the post-Trianon area of the state.⁴⁷

Based on Hantos’ dataset from the 1920s (the postwar territory of Hungary) and the socio-economic indicators from the census of 1910, it was possible to distinguish aristocratic, non-aristocratic noble, ecclesiastic, etc. large estate types (above 100 acres), and one can also draw a distinction between large estates consisting mostly of arable land and large estates large estates consisting mostly of non-arable land. Using the socio-economic indicators from 1910, the several conclusions can be drawn, each of which I discuss below.

Natural reproduction rate (measured according to the proportion of the population under six years of age) was 1–2 percent higher on almost all types of large holdings than in the settlements dominated by smallholdings.⁴⁸ The situation was reversed for the population aged 60 and over, with a higher proportion on smallholdings (eight percent versus nine percent). The proportion of elderly people was lower on large farms dominated by arable land, indicating a larger workforce (i.e. people belonging to the work force were usually younger). In 1910, literacy rates on large estates of the noble, feudal, aristocratic, and non-feudal types were one to two percent lower than on small estates. This constitutes a significant change from circumstances in 1880, when literacy rates in the settlements dominated by smallholdings were markedly lower compared to the values in large-estate dominated settlements. Indeed, over the course of those three decades, literacy rates in settlements dominated by smallholdings increased by five percent points. Almost all large estates had 50 percent higher per capita net cadastral income than settlements dominated by smallholders (which is not surprising). The reason for this difference in per capita income clearly lies in the differences in cadastral income per acre, which was significantly higher on the large estates (10.6 vs. 8.6 kronen) than in settlements dominated by smallholdings. Since the amount of land per agricultural earner (including day laborers) was also higher on large estates, the difference in income per earner could be more than 50 percent on most large estates compared to small estates (except for Church and state-owned large estates, where the difference was smaller). The net cadastral income per acre was higher even on the large holdings that were dominated by pasture than it was on the smallholdings.

Death rates were also higher on large estates, as were birth rates. Migration gains were clearly more significant on large estates, with values up to two to three times higher (Church and state-owned estates were the least preferred),⁴⁹ and in 1910, migration still provided a means with which to address rural overpopulation. On large estates, the death rate from measles, dysentery, and whooping cough was lower.

In terms of distance from the railways, large estates were usually closer than small estates, and the proportion of smallholders compelled to work as day laborers was also higher on large estates (not surprisingly). The quality of housing, on the other hand, was uniformly worse on large estates. In this light, it is particularly noteworthy that mortality from diseases influenced by housing conditions (such as tuberculosis and the commonly prevalent diseases mentioned above) was still lower on these estates. This was probably due to better access to health services in settlements dominated by large estates. The proportion of deceased who had received some medical treatment was also higher on large landholdings.

Finally, the HDI value calculated by Zsolt Szilágyi⁵⁰ for 1910 was also clearly better in the settlements dominated by large estates and was higher than the national average (Table 10). However, from the perspective of today’s development levels and patterns, there is no connection between the present status of a piece of agricultural land as part of a periphery or core and the locations of former large estates. This means that much has changed over the course of the past century. (High development values were recorded in 2016 on former large estates, where the abundance of arable land was moderate around 1920, i.e. 50-75 percent of the cultivated land).

Based on the 1897 Farmers’ Inventory (which included landowners with estates over 100 cadastral hold), we can draw conclusions for the whole country, not just for the post-Trianon area. Of the 12,600 settlements, 5,576 had no large landholdings and their complex development index was much lower than that of the settlements with large landholdings in 1910 (except the group of large estates less than 15 percent of which was arable land, i.e. they were dominated by forests or pasture). There was hardly any difference in the proportion of the population under six years of age in each group, and the same is true for the population over 60 years of age, in contrast to the results of our investigation using Hantos’ dataset for the “reduced” interwar area in 1926. However, literacy rates were significantly higher in settlements with large estates dominated by ploughland (the opposite was true for the post-1920 country study). The improvement in literacy rates between 1880 and 1910 showed no significant difference between estate types (this also differs from the result of the statistical evaluation of Hantos’ estate list for the post-1920 country), showing an overall improvement of 20 percent (compared to the 5 percent increase in literacy rates in settlements found in the territory of post-Trianon Hungary). The proportion of deceased persons who had received some form of medical treatment was higher on large estates than on small farms. The rate of illegitimate births was high in settlements dominated by forest holdings and was below the national average in settlements with large estates dominated by arable land. However, these two mentioned types of large holdings were the most unfavorable in terms of settlement level infant mortality in 1910.

Table 10. Characteristics of the socio-economic-demographic conditions in the settlements dominated by large estates in the statistics compiled by Hantos in 1926 on large estates (group averages)

Group	Estate	Population under 6 years 1910, %	Population above 60 years 1910, %	Over 60 years old / under 6 years old	Average birth rate,  1901–10	Average death rate, 1901–10	Average natural reproduction rate, 1901–10	Population increase rate, 1901–10	Average migration rate, 1901–10	Whooping cough, scarlet fever, measles as a % of total deaths, 1901–10	Tuberculosis as a % of total deaths, 1901–10
large estates of non-nobles	33	17.27	8.32	0.50	37.86	24.04	13.82	74.77	60.96	3.86	16.17
aristocrats	182	16.39	8.10	0.52	37.52	24.08	13.44	73.20	58.99	4.09	14.79
clerical	51	16.28	8.83	0.57	38.33	25.43	12.90	63.61	50.71	4.36	14.53
state (urban)	40	15.73	8.17	0.54	35.57	24.96	10.61	91.30	80.70	3.58	15.18
corporate	3	19.37	4.98	0.26	41.34	21.12	20.22	68.17	47.95	6.00	11.91
foundation	9	15.86	9.03	0.62	35.30	23.68	11.62	98.81	87.19	3.01	16.50
noble	13	16.22	8.00	0.59	38.76	25.16	13.60	111.91	96.11	2.61	15.07
hereditary	20	17.63	7.59	0.45	39.76	25.16	14.60	68.45	53.85	4.66	15.36
all large estates	351	16.46	8.20	0.53	37.60	24.44	13.16	75.80	62.16	4.02	14.99
all municipalities of the country after Trianon	3,392	15.74	9.03	0.62	35.78	23.63	12.15	44.64	31.82	4.74	16.25
settlements without large estates	3,042	15.65	9.13	0.63	35.56	23.53	12.03	41.03	28.31	4.82	16.39

Group	Settlement wealth per capita, 1908, K*	Direct tax per capita, 1909, K	Settlement income per capita, 1909, K	Earners from population, %, 1910	Industrial earners from all earners, 1910, %	Tertiary earner in %, 1910	Literate in 1910, %	Literate in, 1880, %	Increase in literacy rate (1880-1910) %	Average size of population 1910
large estates of non-nobles	34.09	23.79	8.58	39.09	9.79	16.33	63.43	45.60	17.83	5,665.21
aristocratic	29.72	20.20	7.35	39.27	11.25	15.36	64.84	44.84	20.01	5,100.73
clerical	37.09	19.60	6.97	38.70	9.32	13.33	65.93	45.50	20.43	5,408.08
state (urban)	46.29	10.76	4.19	41.37	17.58	27.70	66.96	49.17	17.79	41,761.78
corporate	9.86	34.79	5.43	37.56	6.08	9.50	59.44	36.68	22.76	2,944.33
foundation	41.73	23.45	6.23	40.09	9.12	14.18	67.15	51.70	15.45	9,236.22
noble	46.74	19.95	8.36	38.00	10.07	12.38	64.09	43.41	20.68	4,462.31
hereditary	19.96	24.50	6.25	38.07	9.27	15.62	61.83	44.43	17.40	4,368.45
all large estates	33.30	19.82	6.98	39.30	11.30	16.39	64.92	45.53	19.39	9,398.59
all municipalities of the country after Trianon	25.31	16.06	6.44	40.82	10.18	13.61	65.67	42.47	23.21	2,362.15
settlements without large estates	24.38	15.63	6.37	40.98	10.05	13.28	65.74	42.10	23.64	1,549.47
* Kronen

Group	Smallholders compelled today laborers %, 1910	Cadastral income / agr. earner (K, 1910)	Cadastral income/capita (K, 1910)	Cadastral income per acre (K, 1910)	Cadastral income per estate (K, 1910)	Average estate size (acre, 1910)	Average estate size per one agr. earner (acre, 1910)	Direct tax / cadastral income in 1910
large estates of non-nobles	64.32	146.00	32.76	12.78	467.44	31.81	11.64	0.73
aristocrats	62.01	125.54	28.70	10.47	1945.19	275.39	12.35	0.70
clerical	62.17	95.39	25.05	9.61	124.52	12.74	9.66	0.78
state (urban)	59.47	96.31	18.88	10.14	4776.94	247.35	10.37	0.57
corporate	43.98	258.43	32.44	11.11	5986.46	430.17	20.42	1.07
foundation	58.01	127.40	33.31	12.00	263.55	21.74	10.75	0.70
noble	63.16	106.85	30.42	9.92	158.80	16.85	11.02	0.66
hereditary	60.43	159.60	31.05	10.93	1222.40	91.68	14.60	0.79
all large estates	61.66	122.18	27.78	10.57	1757.26	186.64	11.77	0.71
all municipalities of the country after Trianon	62.98	77.69	21.75	8.82	239.51	28.61	9.85	0.74
settlements without large estates	63.12	72.53	21.04	8.62	64.30	10.37	9.62	0.74

Group	Deaths, receiving medical treatment (1=100%)	Share of persons involved in home industry to total population, 1910	Infant mortality measured to deaths, avg. of 1901–1910 (1=100%)	Houses of bad quality material in 1910 (1=100%)	HDI in 1910 (Szilágyi 2019)	Territorial development index in 2010- (Pénzes 2014)	Distance from nearest railway station (m, 1890)
large estates of non-nobles	0.86	0.002	0.33	0.64	0.42	0.524	14,226
aristocrats	0.76	0.002	0.34	0.54	0.41	0.548	9947
clerical	0.74	0.001	0.32	0.68	0.41	0.576	14,138
state (urban)	0.87	0.002	0.31	0.54	0.43	0.616	7891
corporate	0.76	0.003	0.39	0.51	0.44	0.479	18,282
foundation	0.88	0.002	0.31	0.70	0.42	0.531	9542
noble	0.73	0.001	0.36	0.81	0.40	0.544	8090
hereditary	0.81	0.002	0.35	0.57	0.43	0.518	12,291
all large estates	0.78	0.002	0.33	0.59	0.41	0.588	10,850
all municipalities of the country after Trianon	0.48	0.002	0.32	0.46	0.38	0.568	11,768
settlements without large estates	0.44	0.002	0.32	0.45	0.38		11,870

Settlement wealth per capita was also high for large estates over 75 percent of which was arable land, as was the value of direct taxes. This was similar for “smaller” large estates under 500 acres. Municipal incomes per capita were similar in all categories, except for large estates over 75 percent of which was arable land, where we find an outlier value. Large estates over 75 percent of which was ploughland and those with over 1,000 acres had higher birth rates, while there was no difference in the death rates between estate types. However, migration rates were high towards settlements with large estates dominated by forest and grassland and estates that were over 1000 acres, while in settlements with large estates dominated by arable land the rate of population growth from migration was below the national average. The death rates from scarlet fever, measles, and whooping cough were particularly high in settlements with large holdings dominated by pasture and forests and on large holdings under 500 acres, exceeding the average measured for villages dominated by smallholdings. (Again, this contradicts the results of the earlier study on a narrower area, suggesting that the difference is not really due to the size of the estate but to other, natural geographic and cultural causes, as was true in the case of the contrast regarding literacy described above.) In the case of tuberculosis, however, there was no such remarkable difference. The share of industrial earners was significant on extremely large estates and large estates dominated by pasture, forest, and ploughland, two percentage points above the share measured in settlements dominated by small estates. Large estates dominated by ploughland and estates over 1,000 acres were four and a half kilometers closer to railway stations than small estates (again excluding large estates dominated by forest and grassland).

The share of smallholders compelled to work as day laborers approached the high value typical for smallholding villages only in the type of large holdings that were predominantly pasture. This may have been due to the fact that on the large holdings that were predominantly ploughland and on extensive large holdings landless day laborers were often the majority of the work force. Net cadastral income per capita was more significant on large holdings than on smallholdings (except for the large estates dominated by pasture or forests), supporting the notion that large holdings were more productive (though this still does not include data on livestock). For large holdings of over 1,000 acres 75 percent of which were ploughland, net cadastral income per acre was also notably high.

The significance of the 1935 Farmers’ Inventory for the present investigation (as well as the inventory from 1910, which we did not use here) is that it allows us to determine the productivity of small farms. By aggregating the total area and total income of large farms by settlement given in the inventory and subtracting these values from the total income and total area of settlements published by the Central Statistical Bureau in 1935 we can calculate the unpublished cadastral income data for smallholdings. In addition, it is also possible to create groups based on the proportion of large holdings (as a percent of area) per settlement and calculate the socioeconomic indicators for these subsets, within the post-1920 state boundaries.

The share of large landholdings as a percentage of total cultivated land in 1935 was analyzed in the following subgroups: above 60 percent, 40 percent-60 percent and 20 percent-40 percent. 1,970 settlements had large estates of over 500 acres (a share usually higher than 60 percent of the total cultivated land of the settlements), 500 settlements had large estate(s) between 100 and 500 acres, and 275 settlements had only large estate fragments under 100 acres (here the share of large estates was usually less than 20 percent of the total cultivated land). Some 600 settlements had no large holdings at all on their administrative area. To sum it up, in 1935, 56 percent of the settlements had a landholding of over 500 acres on their territory (Table 12).

Despite the fact that the 1910 value of the historical HDI calculated by Szilágyi did not show significant differences between the estate types, this does not exclude the possibility that some of its components (HDI is composed of literacy rate, life expectancy, GDP/capita) did so—offsetting each others’ effects. However, there were no differences in mortality rates, neither within the large estate types nor compared to the national average (mortality rates were used as proxies to life expectancy missing from 1910). The proportion of the population under six years of age was one percent higher on settlements with large estates compared to settlements with no estates over 100 acres kh, and 1 percent higher than the national average. The direct taxes per capita, which functioned as the basis of the local municipal surtax (and was used as a proxy to substitute missing settlement-level GDP data by Szilágyi, were high on large estates of over 500 kh (direct taxes still applied to incomes from tertiary and secondary sectors, in addition to agrarian land taxes).

Table 12. The value of socio-economic-demographic indicators (1910’s census) in the sub-groups of the large landholding population, based on the categorizations used in the Farmers’ Inventory (Gazdacímtár) in 1935

Estate type by size in acre (settlement number in brackets)	Settlement size (population), 1910	Average death rate, 1901–1910 (1=100%)	Population under 6, 1910 (1=100%)	State tax per capita (1910, K)	Crude death rate, avg. of 1901-1910	Literacy rate in 1910 among population above 6 years, %	HDI 1910 (Szilágyi, Zsolt, 2019)	Composite development in 1910 (composed of the single variables used here)
under 500 acres (502)	900.664	0.024	0.160	7.177	23.283	78.275	0.382	1.214
above 500 acres (1969)	3267.898	0.024	0.147	13.012	24.045	77.125	0.387	1.379
fragment (275)	1103.306	0.022	0.161	7.092	23.464	78.143	0.380	1.104
All settlements’ value	2611.682	0.024	0.149	12.388	23.845	77.440	0.385	1.321

Estate type by size in acre (settlement number in brackets)	Average cadastral income of large estates, 1935, aK*	Average cadastral income of large estates per acre, 1935, aK	Proportion of estates under 1 acre, 1935 (1=100%)	Proportion of estates over 100 acre, 1935 (1=100%)	Average size of all estates inc. large landholdings (kh)	Total cadastral income of ALL estates in 1935, aK	Total cadastral income of smallholdings in 1935, aK	Cadastral income of smallholdings per acre in 1935, aK
under 500 acres (502)	2058.86	7.169	0.232	0.422	1409.34	11305	9100	7.299
above 500 acres (1969)	18,926.28	6.643	0.262	0.600	5519.81	47914	27,483	6.184
fragment (275)	262.19	7.534	0.277	0.197	1237.12	11149	10,829	4.935
All settlements’ value	14,047.96	6.830	0.258	0.526	4317.04	37281	22,403	6.264
* Golden crowns instead of pengő to make data comparable with that in 1910.

However, compared to the previous examinations, there is a significant difference in net cadastral income per acre. The net cadastral incomes per acre on large estates were lowest for large holdings over 500 acres in 1935. At the same time, the net cadastral incomes of small farms were also low, somewhat lower than that of large holdings, but this situation was reversed for holdings between 100 and 500 acres. Here, the net cadastral income per acre on a large estate was higher than on large estates over 500 acres, but the net incomes of smallholdings were even greater. In contrast, the cadastral incomes per acre of the fragmented large estates exceeded that of the other categories of large estates and was also higher than cadastral incomes on smallholdings, since the net cadastral incomes of the small estates were lowest here, in this category, where there were hardly any large estates anyway. In other words, the presence of large landholdings seems to have had a positive effect on the net cadastral income per acre of small landholdings too.

If the values of single variables are aggregated in one composite development index, the most undeveloped settlements were those where only fragments of large estates were found (less than 100 acres in 1935), while settlements with large holdings over 500 acres showed development levels above the national average (1.37). This sheds new light on Móricz’s investigations concerning the welfare of the people who lived and worked on large estates in the interwar period.

Archival Sources

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [National Archives of Hungary] (MNL OL)

A39 A Magyar Kancelláriai Levéltár [Archives of the Hungarian Chancery]

Acta Generalia (1770–1848), 3688/1786

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Archives of the Central Statisctical Bureau]

Iratgyűjtemények (volt F iratgyűjtemény) (1701–1996), XXXII-23-j-12, 31–85. doboz.Az 1728-as adóösszeírás feldolgozásának anyaga (Perjés Géza hagyatéka).

Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Békés Vármegyei Levéltára [National Archives of Hungary, Archives of County Békés] (MNL BéML)

IV. Megyei törvényhatóságok, szabad királyi városok és törvényhatósági jogú városok [County municipalities, royal cities, and towns with municipality rights]

B. 156 A Csabai Cs. Kir. Vegyes Szolgabíróság iratai [Papers of Csaba

B. 202 Szarvas mezőváros iratai

B. 302 Document of Békéscsaba nagyközség iratai

B. 317 Gyoma nagyközség (1872-ig mezőváros) iratai

Bibliography

Primary sources

A Magyar Korona országainak mezőgazdasági statisztikája. Vol. 2, Gazdacímtár [Agricultural statistics of the countries of the Hungarian Crown. Vol. 2, Farmers’ inventory]. Budapest: Országos Magyar Kir. Statisztikai Hivatal, 1897.

A Magyar Szent Korona országainak 1910. évi népszámlálása. Első rész. A népesség főbb adatai községek és népesebb puszták, telepek szerint [The 1910 census of the countries of the Hungarian Holy Crown. Part 1. Main data of the population by settlements].Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, új sorozat, 42. Budapest: Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal; Pesti Könyvnyomda Rt., 1912.

A Magyar Szent Korona országainak 1901–1910. évi népmozgalma községenkint [The population movement of the countries of the Hungarian Holy Crown in 1901–1910].Magyar statisztikai közlemények. új sorozat, 46. Budapest: Magyar Királyi Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Athenaeum, 1913.

A Magyar Szent Korona országainak 1910. évi népszámlálása. Második rész. A népesség foglalkozása és a nagyipari vállalatok községenkint [The 1910 census of the countries of the Hungarian Holy Crown. Part 2. Occupation of the population and large industrial enterprises by municipality].Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, új sorozat, 48. Budapest: Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Athenaeum, 1913.

A Magyar Szent Korona országainak 1910. évi népszámlálása. Harmadik rész. A népesség foglalkozása részletesen és a vállalati statisztika. [The 1910 census of the countries of the Hungarian Holy Crown. Part 3. Occupation of the population in detail and business statistics]. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, új sorozat, 52. Budapest: Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Athenaeum, 1914.

A Magyar Szent Korona országainak 1910. évi népszámlálása. 4. rész. A népesség foglalkozása a főbb demográfiai adatokkal egybevetve s a népesség ház- és földbirtokviszonyai. [The 1910 census of the countries of the Hungarian Holy Crown. Part 4. Occupation of the population in accordance with the main demographic data and the housing and land tenure of the population]. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, új sorozat, 56. Budapest: Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Pesti Könyvnyomda Rt., 1915.

Arad vármegye adóközségeinek területe és kataszteri tisztajövedelme mívelési áganként és osztályonként az 1909. évi V. t.-c. alapján [Arad County area and cadastral net income of the tax municipalities of the county, by branch of agriculture and by class, according to the Law of 1909]. Budapest: Állami ny., 1914.

Az első magyarországi népszámlálás (1784–1787) [The first census in Hungary, 1784–1787].Budapest: KSH, 1960.

Békés vármegye adóközségeinek területe és kataszteri tisztajövedelme mívelési áganként és osztályonként az 1909. évi V. t.-c. alapján [Békés County area and cadastral net income of the tax municipalities of the county, by branch of agriculture and by class, according to the Law of 1909]. Budapest: Állami ny., 1914.

Csanád vármegye adóközségeinek területe és kataszteri tisztajövedelme mívelési áganként és osztályonként az 1909. évi V. t.-c. alapján [Csanád County area and cadastral net income of the tax municipalities of the county, by branch of agriculture and by class, according to the Law of 1909]. Budapest: Állami ny., 1914.

Hantos, Gyula. Magyarország nagybirtok-térképe. (Egy községben, egy tagban legalább 2000 kat. h. mező) [Map of large estates in Hungary]. Budapest: Földr. Intézet, 1926.

Magyarország községeinek háztartása az 1908. évben [Budget of the municipalities of Hungary in 1908]. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, új sorozat, 39. Budapest: Pesti Könyvnyomda Rt., 1913.

Magyarország földbirtokosai és földbérlői: Gazdacímtár. [The landowners and tenants of Hungary: Farmers’ inventory]. Budapest: Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1937.

Magyarország mezőgazdaságának főbb üzemi adatai az 1935. évben törvényhatóságok és községek (városok) szerint [The main data on Hungary’s agriculture in 1935, by municipality]. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, új sorozat, 105. Budapest: Stephaneum, 1935.

Magyarország művelési ágak szerinti terjedelme és földjövedelme [Landuse and land income by type of farming in Hungary]. Pest, 1866.

II. József népszámlálásának községi adatai [Municipal data from the census of Joseph II]. KSH Népességtudományi Kutató Intézetének Történeti Demográfiai Füzetei 15. Edited by Dezső Dányi, Tamás Faragó, and Géza László. Budapest: KSH NKI, 1996.

Pótlás az első magyarországi népszámláláshoz 1786–87 [Supplement to the first census in Hungary 1786–87]. Történeti statisztikai tanulmányok 2. Budapest: KSH, 1975.

Secondary literature

Bogdán, István. Magyarországi űr-, térfogat-, súly és darabmértékek 1874-ig [Hungarian measures of space, volume, weight and pieces until 1874]. Budapest: Akadémiai, 1991.

Czettler, Jenő. “Földbirtok-politika” [Estate-politics]. In Czettler, Jenő, Mezőgazdaság és szociális kérdés: Tanulmányok és parlamenti beszédek, 42–53. Budapest: Századvég–Akadémiai–Püski–“A Jászságért” Alapítvány, 1995. First published 1936.

Dávid, Zoltán. “Magyarország első kataszteri felmérése, 1786–1789: forrástanulmány” [First cadastral survey of Hungary, 1786–1789: source study]. Történeti Statisztikai Évkönyv 1, no.1 (1960): 33–58.

Demeter, Gábor. “Perifériák és fejlett régiók a történeti Magyarországon (1890–1910)” [Peripheries and developed regions in historical Hungary, 1890–1910]. In Területi egyenlőtlenségek nyomában a történeti Magyarországon: Módszerek és megközelítések, edited by Gábor Demeter, and János Szulovszky, 145–94. Budapest: MTA BTK; Debrecen: DE Társadalomföldrajzi és Területfejlesztési Tanszék – SzuloPress Bt., 2018.

Demeter, Gábor. Területi egyenlőtlenségek nyomában a 18. századi Magyarországon [Tracing territorial inequalities in eighteenth century Hungary]. Budapest: HUN-REN Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, 2024.

Demeter, Gábor, Gábor Németh, János Szulovszky, Zsolt Bottlik, Zsuzsa Frisnyák, Béla Nagy, Pál Beluszky et al. Kisatlasz a dualizmus kori Magyarország regionális társadalmi–gazdasági folyamatainak tanulmányozásához / A Historical Geographical Atlas of Hungary for the Analysis of Socio-economic Phenomena (1869–1910).Budapest–Debrecen: Kapitális Kft., 2020.

Demeter, Gábor, and Gábor Koloh. “Birtokstruktúra és jövedelmezőség az Ormánságban és környékén: A siklósi és szentlőrinci járás gazdálkodása (1893–1935)” [Land tenure structure and profitability in the Ormánság and its surroundings: Farming in the district of Siklós and Szentlőrinc]. Agrártörténeti Szemle 61, no.1–4 (1960): 25–76.

Demeter, Gábor, Adrienn Szilágyi, and Zoltán Túri. “Földminőség, nemesi érdekérvényesítés, jövedelmezőség a Tiszántúl déli részén a 18–19. században” [Land quality, noble interests, profitability in the southern part of Tiszántúl in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries]. Századok 155, no. 2 (1960): 285−316.

Demeter, Gábor, and Gergely Krisztián Horváth. “Sopron vármegye az ország gazdaságában és társadalmában az 1728. évi országos adóösszeírás tükrében: Szempontok egy összehasonlító vizsgálathoz” [Sopron County in the economy and society of the country in the light of the tax census of 1728: Considerations for a comparative study]. Soproni Szemle 77, no. 2 (2023): 155–79.

Eddie, Scott M. Ami “köztudott”, az igaz is? Bevezetés a kliometrikus történetírás gondolkodás-módjába [Is “common knowledge” true? An introduction to the cliometric way of historiography]. Debrecen: Csokonai, 1996.

Egyed, Ákos. Falu, város, civilizáció: Tanulmányok a jobbágyfelszabadítás és a kapitalizmus történetéből Erdélyben [Village, city, civilization: Studies in the history of serf emancipation and capitalism in Transylvania]. Bucharest: Kriterion, 1981.

Für, Lajos. A csákvári uradalom a tőkés gazdálkodás útján, 1870–1914 [The manor of Csákvár on the road to capitalism]. Budapest: Mezőgazdasági Múzeum, 1969.

Garda, Dezső. Főnépek, lófők, gyalogkatonák Csíkban és Gyergyóban: Csík és Gyergyó gazdasági fejlődése és népességének alakulása 1750-ig [Economic growth and population in Csík and Gyergyó until 1750]. Csíkszereda: Státus Kiadó, 1999.

Glósz, József.“Területi hiány és felesleg Magyarország gabonatermelésében a 19. század első felében” [Territorial patterns of shortages and surpluses in grain production in Hungary in the first half of the nineteenth century]. Korall 10, no. 36 (2009): 119–40.

Glósz, József. “A gabonakereskedelem feltételrendszere Magyarországon a 19. század első felében: A hiány és felesleg területi mérlege” [The conditions of grain trade in Hungary in the first half of the nineteenth century: the territorial balance of shortages and surpluses]. Aetas 24, no. 4 (2009): 16–31.

Glósz, József. “A birtokviszonyok hatása Magyarország gabonamérlegére a 19. század első felében” [The impact of land tenure on Hungary’s grain balance in the first half of the nineteenth century]. In Eszmék, forradalmak, háborúk: Vadász Sándor 80 éves, edited by Béla Háda, 199–214. Budapest: ELTE, 2010.

Kerék, Mihály. A magyar földkérdés [The land question in Hungary]. Budapest: MEFHOSZ Kiadó, 1939.

Miklóssy, Endre. “A területi elmaradottság társadalmi és gazdasági összetevői” [Social and economic components of territorial backwardness]. Magyar Tudomány 97 (Új folyam 35), no.8 (1990): 881–94.

Mollov, Yanaki, and Nikola Kondov. Dohodnostta na 44 zemedelski stopanstva v Balgariya za 1929–1930 godina [Income of 44 farms in Bulgaria in 1929–1930]. Sofia, 1932.

Mollov, Yanaki, and Nikola Kondov. Dohodnostta na 73 zemedelski stopanstva v Balgariya za 1930–1931 godina [Income of 73 farms in Bulgaria in 1930–1931]. Sofia, 1934.

Mollov, Yanaki, and Nikola Kondov. Dohodnostta na 66 zemedelski stopanstva v Balgariya za 1931–1932 stopanska godina [Income of 66 farms in Bulgaria in 1931–1932]. Sofia, 1936.

Móricz, Miklós. “Nagybirtok, népszaporodás, népsűrűség” [Large estates, population growth, and density]. Magyar Statisztikai Szemle 14, no. 4 (1936): 293–309.

Keleti, Károly. A telekadó és kataster: Közgazdasági és statistikai szempontból [The land tax and cadaster: Economic and statistical aspects]. Pest, 1868.

Nagy, Mariann. A magyar mezőgazdaság regionális szerkezete a 20. század elején [The regional structure of the Hungarian agriculture]. Budapest: Gondolat, 2003.

Orosz, István. A jobbágyvilág megszűnése Magyarországon [The dissolution of serfdom in Hungary]. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Történelmi Intézete, 2010.

Pénzes, János. Periférikus térségek lehatárolása – dilemmák és lehetőségek [Defining peripheral areas – dilemmas and opportunities]. Debrecen: Didakt Kiadó, 2014.

Rózsa, Sándor. “Az ártéri gazdálkodás mérlege: A nagykunsági települések gazdasági kondíciója az első kataszteri felmérés alapján” [The economic balance of floodplain management: The economic condition of the settlements of Nagykunság according to the first cadastral survey]. In Környezettörténet 3, edited by Gábor Demeter, Zoltán Kern, Zsolt Pinke, Beatrix F. Romhányi, András Vadas, and László Bíró, 39–64. Budapest: MTA BTK, 2021.

Sándor, Pál. “A XIX. századi parasztbirtok vizsgálatának történeti-statisztikai forrásai, módszerei és újabb eredményei” [Historical-statistical sources, methods and recent results of the study of the nineteenth-century peasant farms]. Agrártörténeti Szemle 6, no. 1–2 (1964): 36–81.

Sándor, Pál. “A XIX. századi parasztbirtok vizsgálatának problémái és újabb eredményei a felszabadulás utáni irodalom tükrében” [The problems and recent results of studying the nineteenth-century peasant farms in the light of post-liberation literature]. Agrártörténeti Szemle 10, no. 1–2 (1968): 94–117.

Sándor, Pál. Birtokrendezési periratok [Property settlement documents]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből. Új sorozat 69. Budapest: Akaémiai, 1973.

Szilágyi, Zsolt. “Regional Differences in Development and Quality of Life in Hungary during the First Third of the Twentieth Century.” Hungarian Historical Review 8, no.1 (2019): 121–52.

Szilágyi, Zsolt. Az ismeretlen Alföld: A táj területi egyenlőtlenségei a 20. század elején [The unknown Great Plains: Spatial inequalities in the landscape at the beginning of the twentieth century]. Budapest: BTK TTI, 2022.

T. Mérey, Klára. A somogyi parasztság útja a feudalizmusból a kapitalizmusba [The path of the peasantry in Somogy from feudalism to capitalism]. Budapest: Akadémiai, 1965.

Tóth, Tibor. A Dunántúli kisüzemek termelése és gazdálkodása az 1930-as években: Kísérlet néhány matematikai-statisztikai eljárás alkalmazására [The production and management of small farms in Transdanubia in the 1930s: An attempt to apply some mathematical-statistical methods]. Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből 102. Budapest: Akadémai, 1983.

Zagorov, Slavcho, Aleksandr Bilimovich, and Jenő Végh. The Agricultural Economy of the Danubian Countries, 1933–45. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955.

 

1 Miklóssy, “A területi elmaradottság,” 881–89.

2 Large estates had higher birth rates and lower death rates than the villages dominated by small estates, but population increases were not high due to significant emigration (reaching 40 percent of the natural population increase, whereas in the small estates emigration accounted for an estimated 25 percent of the population increase), despite the fact that population density was the lowest on the large estates. Miklós Móricz interprets this as an indication that the large estate were less sustainable, although it is more likely that fewer people were needed to run a large estate efficiently. Móricz, “Nagybirtok,” 293–309.

3 Czettler, “Földbirtok-politika,” Table 51.

4 According to a statistical assessment of 232 small farms, Kerék argues that although large farms produced more grains (an average of +2 quintals of grain per acre and +800 liters of milk per cow compared to smallholding), the small farms had much larger numbers of livestock, which means that while the large farms had a gross income of 135–167 pengő per acre, the small farms have gross incomes of 170–190 pengő per acre. In addition, the Hungarian smallholders marketed more products (as a percentage of their products) than Balkan smallholders (which were self-sustaining economies according to Chayanov), up to 60–70 percent (compared to 25–35 percent), similarly to the large estates. It is therefore not surprising that the share of contributions made by smallholders to total marketed goods was also high. The net income was thus between 57 and 64 pengő on the small farms compared to 31–35 pengő on the large landholdings. Kerék, A magyar földkérdés, 361–64.

5 Net cadastral land income is calculated in Hungarian statistics as the difference between incomes and costs, so it is similar to the term profit.

6 Zagorov et al., The Agricultural Economy, 15–22, and 50.

7 Tóth, A Dunántúli kisüzemek, 29.

8 Mollov and Kondov, Dohodnostta. According to our recent surveys, this did not stand for the 1860s.

9 Für, A csákvári uradalom, 33–139; Sándor, Birtokrendezési periratok, 94–95; Orosz, A jobbágyvilág megszűnése, 125; Egyed, Falu, város, civilizáció, 134–35; Sándor, “A XIX. századi parasztbirtok,” 1968, 94–117, and Sándor, “A XIX. századi parasztbirtok,” 1964, 36–81.

10 T. Mérey, A somogyi parasztság, 248; Orosz, A jobbágyvilág megszűnése, 133.

11 Eddie, Ami “köztudott”, az igaz is?, 83.

12 See Demeter et al., “Földminőség.”

13 See Demeter and Koloh, “Birtokstruktúra és jövedelmezőség.”

14 MNL OL. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Archives of the Central Statisctical Bureau]. Iratgyűjtemények (volt F iratgyűjtemény) (1701–1996), XXXII-23-j-12, 31–85.

15 In the eighteenth century, instead of yields expressed in quintals, grain yield was given as a ratio to seeds sown. Thus, all quantified data expressed here in kg, q, or tons are calculated and estimated.

16 See Demeter and Horváth, “Sopron vármegye.”

17 Glósz’s calculations are very similar. From a different basis he gives five pozsonyi mérő (pm) for an adult person without animals, which is 225 kg. In case of animals fed from arable land this goes up to nine pm. (Glósz, “Területi hiány és felesleg”; Glósz, “A gabonakereskedelem feltételrendszere”; Glósz, “A birtokviszonyok.”

18 This is only valid from the late 18th century according to Schwartner’s description. See Bogdán, Magyarországi űr-, térfogat-, súly és darabmértékek, 303–4.

19 In our opinion (see Demeter and Horváth, “Sopron vármegye”), three-field system were usually applied where intensive farming was needed because of the lack or low quality of arable land. In general, seed yields were also higher for plots using the two-field system. The implementation of three-field system was to compensate for this by extending the arable area from 50 percent to two-third of the ploughland, by reducing the fallow land. In regions using three-field system the ratio of peasants with half plots or less was also high, referring to relative shortages in arable land. The data also indicate that manure was not widespread on lands of better quality and higher yield in 1728. Wheat grain yields were only 1:2.5 in villages in which manure was used, but were close to 1:3 in villages in which manure was not used. The villages in which manure was used presumably relied more on livestock farming than on crop production.

20 Garda, Főnépek, lófők, gyalogkatonák, 138–50.

21 The term refers essentially to a haystack, though the term does not indicate a precise shape or quantity.

22 Demeter et al., Kisatlasz, 175 (Map 129). According to calculations based on the raw data of the 1897 Farmers’ Inventory (Gazdacímtár 1897), the share of arable land on large estates was above the national average in the floodplain counties, but on small farms it was even higher.

23 In Nagykunság and Csongrád Counties in the south, even the small amount of tenant ploughlands resulted in a large grain output per acre, and the landlord expropriated only a quarter of this. In the Tisza floodplain, more than half of the total harvested cereals went to the landlord, as was the case, for instance, in Heves, but the extent of the ploughlands was much greater in the latter. Thus, although the total per capita cereal yield in the Central Tisza region was higher than in the Kiskunság and Jászság, in the latter regions the proportion of grain expropriated by the landlords were only around 10 percent.

24 Pozsonyi mérő. Hereinafter referred as pm. Two pm equals to one cubulus, thus one pm is approximately 45 kg.

25 MNL OL. A39 A Magyar Kancelláriai Levéltár [Archives of the Hungarian Chancery]. Acta Generalia (1770–1848), 3688/1786.

26 See Demeter and Koloh, “Birtokstruktúra és jövedelmezőség,” 25–76.

27 Considering arable land, small farms were more productive in Ormánság, while in Békés and Csanád Counties large farms were more productive in terms of income per acre.

28 From this, we deduct the seed. One Hungarian acre = one cubulus = two pozsonyi mérő of seed (125 l = 92 kg) = 4,200 sq m. This gives an estimate of the seed output, which is 2:7 in Moson and 2:9 in Nagykunság as a ratio of seed yield to seeds sown.

29 Control area.

30 Magyarország művelési ágak szerinti terjedelme és földjövedelme, 1865.

31 We still do not have data on settlement level yield (in tons) between 1865 and 1910. Instead, net cadastral income was measured in 1865 in forints, which was the basis of the land tax. However, this indicator reveals nothing concerning expenditures or gross incomes.

32 Eddie, Ami “köztudott”, az igaz is?

33 One forint = two kronen (two crowns or two golden crowns) = ca. two French francs.

34 Our 1865 (and 1910) data only give the value of crop production. They do not reveal anything concerning livestock production. The figure of six forints was well above the national average.

35 For net income per acre above six forints, smallholdings included settlements such as Ruszt and Kismarton/Eisenstadt (no large holdings were recorded in either place, so there were no such settlements skewing the average upwards), which certainly owe their inclusion in the group to their special agricultural crops (wines, grape) and not to cereals.

36 That included land tax based on net cadastral income, taxes on houses, industrial taxes, and profit taxes paid by enterprises.

37 Eddie, Ami “köztudott”, az igaz is?, 75–88.

38 Nagy, A magyar mezőgazdaság, 36.

39 MNL BéML IV. Megyei törvényhatóságok, szabad királyi városok és törvényhatósági jogú városok B. 156. A Csabai Cs. Kir. Vegyes Szolgabíróság iratai 1133/1857. Birtokosok kimutatása községenként 1857-ben; MNL BéML V. Mezővárosok, rendezett tanácsú városok, községek. B.202. Szarvas mezőváros iratai 635/1857. List of landowners with more than 100 acres; MNL BéML V. Községek B. 317. Gyoma nagyközség (1872-ig mezőváros) iratai b. Közigazgatási iratok 823/1857. List of landowners with more than 100 acres; MNL BéML V. Városok B. 302. Document of Békéscsaba nagyközség iratai b. Tanács-ülési jegyzőkönyvek 582/1857. List of landowners with more than 100 acres.

40 Keleti, A telekadó és kataster, 7–14.

41 Pr. refers to praedium, in this case that is economically exploited area without settlement (community) on it (Hungarian puszta).

42 Part of the settlement was owned by the landlord, the other part belonged to the community.

43 Whereas golden crown and kronen before 1910 meant almost the same, the new Hungarian currency after World War I, the pengő, had a different exchange rate. Therefore we use values expressed in golden crowns (real price instead of nominal price represented by pengő) in order to make them comparable with the prewar kronen (crowns) and to eliminate the effect of inflation.

44 For the census data of 1910 in excel sheets, see: www.gistory.hu.

45 Szilágyi, Az ismeretlen Alföld.

46 Hantos, Magyarország nagybirtok-térképe.

47 In a separate study, the socio-economic-demographic indicators of villages in 1910 that were dominated by former tenants versus landless cottars are analyzed to examine the extent to which they differed from one another 60 years after the abolition of serfdom.

48 Differences were checked with a two sample t-tests. Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, differences are defined as significant at p=0.05 significance level, which means that there is only a five percent probability of that the measured difference is insignificant (contrary to our assumption).

49 This did not necessarily meant that work opportunities and living conditions on the large estates were better. Rather, it was simply not possible to create new plots for smallholders at the time except by breaking existing estates into smaller fragments. This made migration a viable macro-social strategy. The populations of large estates were recruited from poor areas (such as Göcsej, Matyóföld, and Szabolcs).

50 Szilágyi, “Regional differences.”