Gender and Well-Being Interactions between Work, Family and Public

Policies

COST ACTION A 34

Second Symposium:

The Transmission of Well-Being: Marriage

Strategies and Inheritance Systems in Europe (17th-20th Centuries)

25th -28th April 2007

University of Minho Guimarães-Portugal

Please, do not quote without author’s permission

THE TRANSMISSION OF WELL-BEING: MARRIAGE STRATEGIES AND

INHERITANCE SYSTEMS IN EUROPE (17th – 20th CENTURIES)

COST A 34 SECOND SYMPOSIUM, GUIMARĂES (APRIL 2007)

The transmission of land and marriage strategies in a Hungarian region

(Torna county) in the 19th century

Pozsgai, Péter

(Corvinus University Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract: The author examines the interrelation of the local endogamy and the inheritance system in a small

Hungarian rural region on the basis of the mid-19th century nominal censuses. The high proportion of married men

born in the place and the lower proportion of locally born married women is in strong correlation with the

characteristics of the inheritance practice in Torna whereby male successors were generally entitled to equal

shares and this was a very strong bond to the paternal economy and the locality where the parcels of the

farmstead were situated. The retirement of the head of the household in this region was not characteristic and the

widowed women still remained as household heads after the death of their husband, the owner gazda (the male

household head). It is in strong correlation with the inheritance system, the prevailing inheritance custom of the

region (equal division of males): the owner father or after his death the widow controlled the process of the

division and transmission of land generally till the marriage of the latest son. There were generally no written

contracts or wills regulating the transmission of land since the customary law was so strong. After a longitudinal

analysis of the landed peasant families in Torna market-town the class-character of marriages has been

confirmed. There were various family- and individual strategies to defend the harmful effects of partible

inheritance, but the most efficient one, the impartible inheritance did not go into practice. The possible strategies

like clan-alliances, the ‘son-in-law system’ or out-migration were not able to solve the „pressure of succession”

which led gradually to an agricultural economic crisis.

Dr. Péter Pozsgai

Corvinus University Budapest

Faculty of Economics

Fővám tér 8

1093 Budapest

Hungary

Tel.: +36-1-482-5140

Fax: +36-1-482-5027

E-mail: peter.pozsgai@uni-corvinus.hu,

pozsgai.peter@gmail.com

3

1. Introduction: region, sources, characteristics of inheritance and land tenure

1.1. An intermediate region between the Hungarian Great Plain and the Uplands

Torna county occupied an intermediate position between the Hungarian Uplands (today

Slovakia) and the Hungarian Great Plain in the north-eastern part of the country.1 The former

was an urbanized area with well developed handicraft and mining activity but poor agriculture

while the latter was and still today is the main agricultural region of Hungary. The relatively

poor natural endowments (overwhelmingly bad karst soil, chilly weather with frequent

rainfalls) did not favour the agricultural production and especially the tillage of land. Various

sources from the 18th and 19th century prove that the wealthier peasants who owned at least a

team completed their income with intermediate-trading between the two large regions.2 The

cartage and this type of intermediate trade were only possible for the peasants with team. The

landless peasants, cottars without a team were obliged to work as day-labourers either in the

neighbouring estates (three domains: Szádvár, Torna and Krasznahorka) or working for a

gazda (landed peasant) as a farm-hand. They had the opportunity for a better paid

complementary seasonal work as well: harvesting and threshing in the Great Plain (since the

crop was ripe there earlier) and the best remunerated vineyard-work in the hills of Tokaj-

Hegyalja.

The county consisted of 41 small and medium-sized villages and Torna market-town. The

population of the county in 1869 was 23.000 and the market-town Torna itself had a strong

agricultural character with only 1.470 inhabitants which indicates that it was rather an

administrative centre than an economic one.3

1 After the Trianon Treaty in 1920 half of the villages (in majority belonging to the Upper District) was annexed to Czechoslovakia, today they belong to Slovakia. (Compare with Figure 1.) 2 e.g. the questionnaire of the Letters-Patent Urbaria (Hapsburg administrative regulation of the socage system in Hungary) referring to the county of Torna from 1771 and the questions and answers included in the lists of the general tax conscription (conscriptio regnicolaris) of 1828. 3 The Hungarian market- or agrarian-towns represented a special type of the Hungarian historical development. In contrast of the settlements with urban legal status in Hungary (Liberae ac Regiae civitates) the market-towns

4

The proportion of the Hungarians was similarly high in both the Upper and Lower districts

(84% and 86%), that is, after the immigration and settlement of the Poles, Ruthenes (Rusyns)

and Slovaks in the 18th century the predominantly Hungarian character of the region remained

unchanged. There were altogether two settlements with mixed ethnic groups in the mid-19th

century: in Barakony besides the Ruthenian inhabitants (141 heads) there were 108

Hungarians, in Rákó besides the 309 Slovak heads 72 persons confessed themselves

Hungarian.4 Mainly in the 18th century settled the Poles in Derenk, the Ruthenians in Horváti

and the Slovaks in Szentandrás which had remained as homogeneous ethnic groups till the

mid-19th century. The only exception is Falucska where the vlach Ruthenian settlers arrived in

the 15th century.

Figure 1. Map of the settlements of Torna county with their official names in 1913

(oppida) were under the authority of their landlords, their autonomy and privileges were quite varied, though most of them had the rights to hold fairs. 4 Based on the results of the 1850/51 census where the ethnicity was indicated in the list.

5

1.2. The sources of marriages and property-transfer

The preserved nominal documentations of the mid-19th century censuses are the most important

out of the archive sources of Torna county: the listings of the 1850 census and the house-

registers of the 1869 census. The registers of the census of 1869 indicate the names of the

family-members and each co-residing members of the house who were present at the moment of

the census. The register consisted of the following data about each member of the household:

name, gender, marital status, year of birth, religious denomination, occupation, residence,

presence and absence, birthplace and literacy-level.5 A nominal-level database could have been

established based on the nominal household registers of the 1869 census, extended to 37

villages and one market-town (21.000 persons). With the use of the detailed census data the

marriages can also be examined in local and regional level as well (local endogamy/exogamy,

ethnic-denominational homogamy/heterogamy).

Two levels of analysis are distinguished in the research: the regional and the local levels. In

the course of the regional analysis the author used a major source type, the nominal

household registers of the 1869 census. In the local-level analysis supplementary sources

could be used to create a nominal link with the census registers. The most important of these

sources were the parish registers and the nominal cadastral land-registers (1868, 1884) as

well as the assessment lists of households (household heads) drawn up for the state public

works (1867, 1868). Wills were very rare in this region since the law-customs regarding

property and land transfer and the oral agreements between the members of the family were

so strong that the written wills were below 10% at the end of the 19th century.

5 I use ‘register’ in parallel with ‘list’ because each house had a nominal register consisting of data about the co-resident members of the house only. Besides the mentioned individual data there was information which referred to the whole house: the listing of the parts of the house and the economic buildings (face of the register) and the enumeration of livestock (back of the register).

6

1.3. The main features of the inheritance system

The Hungarian inheritance law-custom which gave preference to the sons goes back to the

Middle Ages. The inheritance pattern of the Hungarian nobility was patrilineal and for this

reason the sons were entitled to inherit the majority of land of clan-origin while the bequest of

all the daughters was only a quarter (daughter-quarter) of the land value. This pattern was

gradually taken over by the villein and peasant society. This practise prevailed with the

exception of the villein farmsteads (plots) which belonged to large estates, concentrated

domains where the landowner and the management of the estate took control over the size of

the peasant plot hampering the (inheritance) process of equal division.

The archive data affirm the domanial strategy which was directed to hamper the

fragmentation of villains’ plots and as direct effect of this intention was the growth of the

number of landless cottars in the settlements of the Upper District. The lower number of

cottars in the Lower District was obviously in close connection with the fact that the

fragmentation of plots was significantly larger in scale in the majority of the settlements of the

Lower District than in the territory of Upper District, regarding that the land tenure of

domains and the domanial administration expanded to a much smaller extent to the territory

of the Lower District. Here the division of the half-holdings and quarter-holdings between the

male successors of the villains could give rise by 1771 that these fragments of the holdings

altogether increased to 40%, while in the Upper District this ratio did not even reach the 15%.

The growth of the number of cottars similar to the Upper District was impeded by the

opportunity that there were no such limits of the fragmentation of farmsteads and the villain’s

status-reproduction in the Lower District as in the settlements of the Upper District which in

majority belonged to one of the domains. This is confirmed by the growth of villain

households between 1771 and 1828: the number of tax-paying household-heads increased by

42% in the Lower District, while the growth in the Upper District was only 16%.

7

After the liberation of serfs in Hungary in 1848 the partible inheritance prevailed by the

Hungarian peasantry which did not mean that all the sons had received equal portions but

mainly this custom was the predominant in the second half of the 19th century.

1.4. The lack of a real land-market, the significance of intra-familial transfers of land

The emancipation of the serfs in the spring of 1848 turned the land registered under the

Urbarium decree into free personal property of the peasants. The landlords were indemnified

by the state, and all socage service as well as the legal obligations of the cottars were

cancelled. Because of the lack of a well-developed banking system and the lack of agrarian

credit the post-revolution time could not rapidly bring essential change in the property

transfer. Mainly the familial transfer of land and the property in general was overwhelmingly

dominant after 1848–49 too. The developmental process of the land market was very slow and

the commercial land transfer became more frequent only after the 1880s. Even in the end of

19th century more than ¾ part of the peasant holdings were inherited and only less than ¼ part

of farmsteads was purchased commercially in Abaúj-Torna county.6

The importance of intra-familial transfers of land was confirmed by the analysis of the

encoded dataset of Torna county (19 villages and the market-town, altogether 11.000

inhabitants). After the nominal research of intra-familial transfers some important differences

could be perceived between the Hungarian region and the majority of West-European regions.

It can be seen in Table 1 that 1) the retirement (Ausgedinge) in this region was not

characteristic and 2) the widowed women still remained as household heads after the death of

their husband, the owner gazda (the male household head). It is in strong correlation with the

inheritance system, the prevailing inheritance custom of Hungary (equal division of males):

the owner father or after his death the widow controlled the process of the division of land till 6 In 1882 Torna county was united with Abaúj county and its former settlements formed only one of the districts of the larger Abaúj county.

8

the marriage of her latest son. There were generally no written contracts (it was not

characteristic for other rural regions in Hungary, rather for the more urbanized areas), no

Ausnehmer Buch with contracts of land transfer, and even the wills were very rare (5-6%) in

the region, but the customary law established very strong bond between the sons and the

father or the widow entitled with the rights of the owner father.

Table 1. Male and female (widows) household heads by age cohorts in Torna county (1869)

18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60- 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 60-

gazda 9 62 124 130 140 115 126 – 1 6 17 25 27 55 837kisgazda 2 12 25 27 18 23 26 – – 5 10 16 16 18 198cotter 4 41 76 89 58 39 40 1 9 17 36 41 29 40 520

total 15 115 225 246 216 177 192 1 10 28 63 82 72 113 1555

gazda 1,1 7,4 14,8 15,5 16,7 13,7 15,1 – 0,1 0,7 2,0 3,0 3,2 6,6 100,0kisgazda 1,0 6,1 12,6 13,6 9,1 11,6 13,1 – – 2,5 5,1 8,1 8,1 9,1 100,0cotter 0,8 7,9 14,6 17,1 11,2 7,5 7,7 0,2 1,7 3,3 6,9 7,9 5,6 7,7 100,0

total 0,95 7,12 14,02 15,43 12,32 10,95 11,96 0,06 0,62 2,17 4,67 6,32 5,63 7,78 100,0Explanation: gazda: welthier landed peasant; kisgazda: peasants with some land but frequently without a yoke

number

Gro

ups o

f pe

asan

ts

tota

l

percentage (%)

Peasant household heads'age cohorts

male female

2. Marriages and property transfer in Torna county

2.1. Local (geographic) endogamy and exogamy of marriages

The examination of endogamous and exogamous marriages in the settlements of the county

reveals some of the correlations between marriage strategies and inheritance practice

(Appendix 1). First of all the high ratio of locally born married men which stands out from the

table. The average is almost 70% while the proportion of married women who were born in

the place does not reach the 50%. The lowest ratio of locally born married men was in Torna

market-town (51%) which is quite understandable since it was the centre of administration

and a relatively high number of married migrant artisans and servants, farmhands of the Torna

9

domain lived there. The highest ratio of husbands born in the place was 75% or above.

Falucska, the vlach Rusyn (Ruthene) ‘inclusion’ shows the highest proportion (87%) where

the ratio of the locally born wives was uniquely high too (89%). Four villages rise above the

others in the Upper District (75–77%): Áj (in majority Catholic Hungarians), Derenk (Poles),

Horváti (Rusyns) and Jablonca (in majority Calvinist Hungarians). In the Lower District there

were six villages in 1869 where the proportion of married men born in the place reached or

exceeded 75% (Égerszög, Jósvafő, Perkupa, Petri, Szőlősardó, Teresztenye) all of them had a

predominantly Calvinist Hungarian population (see Appendix 2). Besides the Hungarian

communities the Slovak married men of Rákó and Szentandrás represented a relatively high

ratio as well (68% and 72%). The lower proportion of locally born married women is in

strong correlation with the characteristics of the inheritance practice in Torna whereby male

successors were generally entitled to equal shares and this was a very strong bond to the

paternal economy and the locality where the parcels of the farmstead were situated. Female

offsprings generally received a smaller share (equivalent to the dowry portion). Patrilocal

residence was the general practice after marriage. The survey of the proportions of locally

born married women has affirmed and completed the previous notes regarding the married

men: the ratio of the ethnic groups of Falucska, Derenk, Horváti and Rákó exceeded 60% but

the predominance of the settlements with Reformed Hungarians cannot be perceived.

To look at the ratio of endogamous marriages with scrutiny (where both of the wife and

husband were born in the place, see under ‘Resident couple’ in Appendix 1) it can be seen

that the most endogamous settlements (above 50%) were those which did have an ethnic

character (Derenk, Falucska, Horváti, Rákó, Szentandrás). The second most closed group was

the settlements with Calvinist dominance (above 40%) and there were 2-2 villages from each

district with Roman Catholic dominance where the ratio exceeded the 40% (Dernő, Újfalu,

Szilas and Szögliget).

10

By analysing the locally exogamous marriages one should differentiate between the groups of

‘resident husband–migrant wife’ and the ‘resident wife–migrant husband’ because of the

above mentioned characteristics of the marriages and inheritance. In the majority of the

settlements of Hungarian ethnic character there was an effort for maintaining the clan-

exogamy, not marrying a close kin partner. Generally the smaller population the village had,

the larger scale of exogamous marriages was the consequence. (See e.g. Méhész, Szádelő,

Becskeháza, Dobódél, Kápolna, Nádaska, Varbóc in Appendix 1.) In vast majority of cases

the male sons who were entitled to inherit the land, the draught animals and the equipment of

the paternal economy brought their brides into the parental house which led to complex

household forms (stem and joint family). The reasons of the slight inclination of male heirs

for outmigration or even becoming son-in-law in the place can well be understood. It is

confirmed by the low ratios of immigrating husbands (‘resident wife–migrant husband’)

where the average was only around 10% in both districts while the average proportion of local

husband and elsewhere born wife was above 30%. Since the land was inherited mainly by the

sons of the owner father the outmarrying daughters did not endanger the well-being of the

clan’s families and the transmigration of women made possible to maintain the clan

(consanguineous) exogamy.

2.2. The denominational homogamy and heterogamy: mixed marriages in Torna county

The ratio of religious denominations of the population in Torna county can be determined

from the nominal census registers (1869). The Roman Catholic and the Reformed (Calvinist)

Churches were dominant in both of the districts, altogether they represented 88% in the Upper

District and 92% in the Lower District. (See Appendix 2.) In the Upper District 59% of the

inhabitants belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, 29% to the Reformed Church, while in

the Lower District the ratio of the reformed was 51%, the Roman Catholic 41%. In the Upper

11

District the number of Uniates (Greek Catholic Church) was relatively high (7%), who were

predominantly Ruthenians of Falucska and Horváti. In the Lower District also the Ruthenes

belonged to the Greek Catholic Church, the greater part of them lived in Barakony, and a

smaller part in Rákó. The proportion of the Israelitic Jews was 4% in both districts. Out of the

protestant denominations the ratio of the evangelicals (Lutheran) represented approximately

1% in both districts, the majority of them was migrant settler. (See Appendix 2.)

Figure 2. The marriage strategy of the families of Greek Catholic Dudás clan in Rákó7

Nr H P FAM NAME G Y R M OCCUP ST B1 B230 1 1 Dudás András f 1821 g hs napszámos önálló Torna Rákó30 1 2 Bodnár Mária n 1832 k hs Torna Dobódél33 2 1 Dudás István f 1845 g hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Rákó33 2 2 Fedelem Mária n 1848 k hs Torna Rákó43 1 1 ör. Dudás András f 1822 g hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Rákó43 1 2 Kovács Erzsébet n 1824 k hs Torna Rákó43 1 3 Dudás András f 1844 g hs földmívelő segédmunkás Torna Rákó43 1 4 Szabados Julianna n 1850 k hs Torna Rákó44 1 1 Dudás János f 1836 g hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Rákó44 1 2 Simon Rozália n 1843 k hs Torna Dobódél44 2 1 Dudás Erzsébet n 1834 g hs földmívelőnő tulajdonos Torna Rákó44 2 2 Üveges János f 1841 k hs földmívelő segédmunkás Torna Szögliget44 3 1 Dudás István f 1842 g hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Rákó44 3 2 Kis Erzsébet n 1846 k hs Torna Rákó50 1 1 Dudás Mihály f 1810 g hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Rákó50 1 2 Jakab Erzsébet n 1817 k hs Torna Rákó50 1 3 Dudás József f 1846 g hs földmívelő segédmunkás Torna Rákó50 1 5 Burinda Mária n 1846 k hs Torna Rákó50 2 1 Dudás András f 1842 g hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Rákó50 2 2 Soltész Mária n 1847 k hs Torna Hídvégardó

The denominational mixed marriages in Torna county can be summarized on the basis of

nominal house-registers of the 1869 census (Appendix 3). In the Upper District the 107

mixed marriages represented 4.8% of the total marriages, while the 146 mixed marriages

added up to 7.5% of the marriages in the Lower District. The number of the mixed marriages

between the Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics, and between the Roman Catholic and 7 Abbreviations in the Figures: Nr = Number of the house; H = number of the household (in one house); P = the number of the persons (in one household); FAM = family name; NAME = forename; G = gender (f = male, n = female); Y = year of birth; R = religious denominations (k = Roman Catholic, g = Greek Catholic, r = Reformed/Calvinist, e = Evangelical/Lutheran, z = Israelite); M = marital status (hs = married, ö = widow(er), n = bachelor, h = maiden); OCCUP = occupation; ST = employment status; B1 = birthplace (county), B2 = birthplace (settlement). The heads of household are stressed by bold letters.

12

Reformed (Calvinists) were equal (there were altogether 103-103 from both types of mixed

marriages in the county), and they represented overwhelming majority of mixed marriages in

Torna county (81.4%). The majority of mixed marriages between Roman and Greek Catholics

were concentrated in the settlements of non-Hungarian character since the Greek Catholics

were the descendants of Rusyn (Ruthene) settlers. (See Falucska, Horváti, Barakony and Rákó

in Appendix 3.) It was a characteristic feature of the Greek Catholic–Roman Catholic mixed

marriages that in the settlements of (at least partly) Rusyn character the ‘inmarrying’ Catholic

brides resulted the dissolution of the ethnic and denominational endogamy. I show an

example in Figure 2 where the Greek Catholic Dudás married exclusively Roman Catholics.

The number of the mixed marriages between the Roman Catholic and Reformed people in the

Lower District was essentially higher than the number of the predominant mixed marriages

between the Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic spouses in the Upper District, which

confirms the more opened character of the Reformed Church in general and as a consequence

the ratio of the mixed marriages in the Lower District was higher than in the Upper District.

In both districts the number of marriages between a Calvinist man and a Roman Catholic

woman was higher than the number of marriages between a Roman Catholic man and a

Calvinist woman. In the Lower District, however, the previous number is almost twice as high

as the latter one. It is because the Reformed Church was dominant in majority of the

settlements of the Lower District and the male heirs, as we could have seen in the survey of

local exogamy, were bound to family economy and their birthplace. The way of the

dissolution of the local and denominational endogamy was marrying Catholic women outside

the settlement.

The proportion of the mixed marriages with the evangelicals did not reach 20% of the mixed

marriages (17.4%) in the county which was even though far higher than their proportion in the

county. There was a balanced ratio of marriages in county-level between the Roman Catholics

13

and evangelicals and between the reformed and evangelicals. There were no mixed marriages

between the members of the Christian denominations and the Israelitic Jews on the basis of

the nominal register of the 1869 census. (See Appendix 3.)

2.2.1. Marriage strategies of the ethnic groups in Torna county

In the previous part the significance of the ethnic groups of Torna county can well be seen in

the mixed marriages. In this subchapter therefore I survey the main characteristics of the

marriages of ethnic groups in Torna.

Figure 3. Two examples for the consanguineous marriages in Derenk (in italics)8

Nr H P FAM NAME G Y R M OCCUP ST B1 B24 1 1 Juhász András f 1820 k hs földmüves önálló Torna Szögliget4 1 2 Gogalya Erzsébet n 1816 k hs háztartást vezető önálló Torna Derenk4 1 3 Rémiás András f 1840 k hs földműves Torna Derenk4 1 4 Rémiás Anna n 1842 k hs háznál segítő Torna Derenk4 1 5 Rémiás János f 1844 k hs földműves Torna Derenk4 1 6 Hudi Mária n 1852 k hs háznál segítő Torna Derenk4 1 7 Rémiás Mária n 1866 k Torna Derenk4 1 8 Rémiás Anna n 1869 k Torna Derenk4 1 9 Rémiás Katalin n 1810 k öz napszámos Torna Derenk4 1 10 Rémiás András f 1850 k nt napszámos Torna Derenk

40 1 1 Rémiás Péter f 1814 k hs földműves önálló Torna Derenk40 1 2 Fekete Anna n 1814 k hs háztartást önálló Torna Falucska40 1 3 Rémiás István f 1840 k hs földész Torna Derenk40 1 4 Hudy Erzsébet n 1841 k hs házi segéd Torna Derenk40 1 5 Rémiás János f 1844 k hs földművelő Torna Derenk40 1 6 Rémiás Anna n 1850 k hs házi segéd Torna Derenk40 1 7 Rémiás Anna n 1867 k Torna Derenk

The goral Poles in Derenk maintained an archaic structure of the settlement where the clan-

character dominated (close kin groups lived side by side). Local son-in-laws could not have

been perceived inside the blocks of the clans. This strategy aimed at preserving the plots and the

viability of the local family economies. For this reason the ratio of the locally exogamous

marriages was relatively high (35,2%) and a significant-level of out-migration could have been

8 For the abbreviations see Figure 2.

14

revealed. (See Table 2.) Even though the efforts for preserving and transmitting the land of the

clans’ families could give rise (and it was gradually increasing) to consanguineous marriages. I

show here two of them by the Rémiás clan but this practice spread in the 19th century and can be

found by almost all of the clans of Derenk.9 (See Figure 3.)

In Falucska the efforts for the maintenance of an ethnic homogamy led to an almost complete

isolation from the other settlements of the county. It is really surprising that the descendants

of the vlach (‘shepherd’) Ruthenes did not marry from the other Greek Catholic Ruthenian

(Rusyn) groups of the county (Barakony, Horváti). The marriage practice of Falucska shows

that the ethnocultural and linguistic differences were so strong between the Ruthenes of

Falucska and Horváti and Barakony (inside the same larger ethnic group) that the population

of the village turned primarily toward the partner-settlements outside the county, especially

toward the descendants of vlach Ruthenian communities in Gömör and Szepes counties

(Uhorna, Porács etc.) which were, however, in different phase of their assimilation and partly

became Roman Catholic and partly were assimilated into the Slovaks.

Figure 4. The marriages with the spouses from Uhorna (Gömör county) in Falucska

Nr H P FAM NAME G Y R M OCCUP ST B1 B213 1 1 Sztopka Mátyás f 1829 g hs földbirtokos tulajdonos Gömör Uhorna13 1 2 Matylák Zsófia n 1821 g hs Torna Falucska13 1 3 Sztopka Mária n 1857 g hd Torna Falucska13 1 4 Sztopka Mihály f 1864 g nt Torna Falucska86 1 1 Magyar Dániel f 1832 g hs napszámos Torna Falucska86 1 2 Prunmán Mária n 1832 k hs Gömör Uhorna86 1 3 Magyar Erzsébet n 1860 g hd Torna Falucska86 1 4 Magyar Mária n 1863 g hd Torna Falucska86 1 5 Magyar Zsófia n 1866 g hd Torna Falucska89 1 1 Kovács Jánosné n 1804 g öz napszámos Torna Falucska89 2 1 Oravecz Mihály f 1842 k hs napszámos Gömör Uhorna89 2 2 Kovács Erzsébet n 1845 g hs Torna Falucska89 2 3 Oravecz Anna n 1867 g hd Torna Falucska90 1 1 Oravecz Pál f 1804 k hs napszámos Gömör Uhorna90 1 2 Fekete Ilona n 1815 g hs Torna Falucska90 1 3 Oravecz Mihály f 1855 g nt Torna Falucska

9 The parish registers confirm the data of the nominal census lists and a significant proportion of kin marriages (with dispensations) could have been revealed in Derenk.

15

The Rusyns of Barakony and Horváti were in the stage of linguistic assimilation

(acculturation) in the mid-19th century. Barakony was the most opened community of all

where the ratio of the locally exogamous marriages (45,8%) was much higher than the

endogamous ones (30,5%). The more homogeneous Ruthenian population of Horváti gave

rise to a significantly higher ratio of local endogamy. Both communities maintained very

strong marriage-connections with the Rusyn Greek Catholics of Borsod county (Viszló,

Rakaca, Irota, Galvács etc.) and had (together with Rákó) the highest ratio of mixed marriages

between Greek and Roman Catholics (28,8% and 25,4%).

Figure 5. Marriage alliances between the Breznais and the Hegedűs in Szentandrás

Nr H P FAM NAME G Y R M OCCUP ST B1 B26 1 1 Breznai András f 1832 k hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Szentandrás6 1 2 Hegedűs Mária n 1842 k hs Torna Szentandrás6 1 3 Breznai Mária n 1859 k hd Torna Szentandrás6 1 4 Breznai Anna n 1863 k hd Torna Szentandrás

57 1 1 Hegedűs János f 1834 k hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Szentandrás57 1 2 Breznai Anna n 1834 k hs Torna Szentandrás57 1 3 Hegedűs András f 1867 k nt Torna Szentandrás57 1 4 Hegedűs József f 1869 k nt Torna Szentandrás57 2 1 Hegedűs Pál f 1838 k hs földmívelő tulajdonos Torna Szentandrás57 2 2 Breznai Mária n 1839 k hs Torna Szentandrás57 2 3 Hegedűs István f 1866 k nt Torna Szentandrás

A high ratio of locally endogamous marriages (50–59%) was characteristic for the Slovaks of

Rákó and Szentandrás. The proportion of out-migration to the settlements of the county and

the ratio of married males and females outside the settlement were comparable with the Poles

of Derenk. The two Slovak communities linked together with strong marriage bonds, but the

marriages between Szentandrás and Derenk were frequent too.10 There are proofs of alliances

between clans or larger families in Rákó and Szentandrás. (See Figure 5.)

10 Modern national identity or a firm group-identity could not have been revealed in the examined ethnic communities. Besides the consciousness of the common origin and the linguistic-cultural community there could have been perceived the increasing denominational-cultural frontiers and the differences of language/dialect/ between the Poles, Rusyns and Slovaks. On the basis of the examination of marriages the traces of an identity of belonging to a larger Slavic community could have been perceived.

16

Table 2. Endogamy, exogamy and mixed marriages among the ethnic groups of Torna county

Name of the settlement

Tot

al m

arri

ages

(1

869)

Bet

wee

n lo

cally

bo

rn sp

ouse

s (N

)L

ocal

ly

endo

gam

ous (

%)

Res

iden

t hus

band

, m

igra

nt w

ife (N

)R

esid

ent w

ife,

mig

rant

hus

band

Tot

al im

mig

rate

d sp

ouse

s (N

)L

ocal

ly

ex

ogam

ous (

%)

Bot

h of

the

spou

ses

are

mig

rant

(N)

Mig

rant

(%)

Den

omin

atio

nal

mix

ed m

arri

ages

Mix

ed

mar

riag

es (%

)M

arri

ed m

en

else

whe

re (c

ount

y)M

arri

ed w

omen

el

sew

here

(cou

nty)

Mar

ried

spou

ses

else

whe

re (c

ount

y)M

arri

ed sp

ouse

s el

sew

here

(%)

Derenk 105 55 52,4 27 9 36 35,2 14 13,3 – – 25 23 48 46,2Falucska 135 112 83,0 5 9 14 10,4 9 6,6 9 6,6 6 3 9 6,6Barakony 59 18 30,5 22 5 27 45,8 14 23,7 17 28,8 5 12 17 28,8Horváti 63 34 54,0 13 7 20 31,7 9 14,3 16 25,4 5 15 20 31,7Rákó 93 55 59,1 19 7 26 28,0 12 12,9 24 25,8 16 25 41 43,6Szentandrás 110 55 50,0 27 7 34 30,9 21 19,1 9 8,2 14 23 37 33,3Total 565 329 58,2 113 44 157 27,8 79 14,0 75 13,3 71 101 172 33,6

3. Class endogamy: spouse selection and status-reproductive behaviour

3.1. Selecting a spouse

It is an essential question that apart from the special features of the ethnic groups’ behaviour

what was characteristic for the Hungarian peasantry? Was the family origin a decisive factor

by selecting a spouse or not? To what extent did it play a role in maintaining the well-being of

families belonging to various generations?

In the course of the local-level analysis besides the census registers in three static cross-

sections (1850, 1857 and 1869) some supplementary sources could be used to create a

nominal link with the census registers. The most important of these sources were the parish

registers and the nominal cadastral land-registers (1868, 1884) as well as the assessment lists

of households (household heads) drawn up for the state public works (1867, 1868). With the

use of these nominal sources life-histories about each family could have been compiled. I

show the method below through the example of the Hegedűs.

1850/51 József Hegedűs and his wife Terézia Darvas lived together with their three unmarried children

(1 daughter, 2 sons) in one household (one Wohnpartei). The head of the household, József Hegedűs was 45

year old at that time. He owned a team of two oxen, two cows and fifteen sheep besides the house and the

landholding.

17

1855 The eldest son of József Hegedűs, Ferenc (22 years old) married Klára Juhász (22), the

daughter of a well-to-do smallholder, István Juhász (in 1868 the widow of István Juhász owned 22 cadastral

hold [ca. 12.7 Ha] that is to say she was a féltelkes gazda, the owner of a half holding and the head of the

family). The young couple moved to the house of József Hegedűs. In Torna the patrilocal residence was the

general pattern after the marriage except when a father had only daughters.

1857 The young couple lived with the parental couple and the unmarried siblings together in one

household (one Wohnpartei). The census-taker, however, separated the young couple to a certain extent

from the parents and the siblings indicating that they live in another room (or small closet) in the house but

they do not create a household on their own. Only József Hegedűs had a real occupation, landowner

[Landbesitzer] while his married son was put only into the category of other male persons over 14

indicating that Ferenc is not independent, he did not have an economy/household on his own. Otherwise he

would have lived in another Wohnpartei and would have had an occupation on his own. The house was

owned by József Hegedűs and the animals (2 gelded horses, 2 oxen, 2 cows, 2 calves and 2 pigs) were put

under his name too.

1863 The younger son of József Hegedűs, János (25 years old) married Terézia Miliczky (28), the

widow of András Kis negyedtelkes gazda (owner of a quarter holding). He could not become the owner of

the holding but he became more or less independent on his father’s economy. It is obvious that he cultivated

the plots of the heir, the son of András Kis, who was only 12 years old at that time. By 1869 they had two

more offsprings besides the son and daughter of the widow from her first marriage. At the time of the

marriage they may have lived in the house of the widow but in 1869 we find them in the house Nr.16, which

was owned by János’ father, József Hegedűs (1868 cadastral survey). The name of János is not included in

the cadastral survey of 1868, József Hegedűs did not divided his land nor transfered the ownership of his

second house to János. In the 1868 conscription of public works, however, János is in the list (as household

head) with a yoke of oxen, as the majority of the gazdas. (He was conscribed together with his uncle Ferenc

Fekete shoemaker, indicating that the two families did not form a common household. Ferenc Fekete and his

family were only lodgers in the house of József Hegedűs therefore he was obliged only a three-day manual

public work for the county.) In 1869 the two kin Wohnparteis of János Hegedűs and Ferenc Fekete did not

form a common household. They were not bound by the property and there was no common production

since the two heads had different occupation.

1866 József Hegedűs married her daughter off, Terézia (21) married to János Rajhel (21), the son of

a well-to-do smallholder. (In 1868 János Rajhel ran a farm of féltelek (half holding) and in 1869 he had two

yoke of oxen, one maid and one servant belonged to the family.) Apparently by 1884 Terézia got the

majority of the parental vineyard, half a hold [0.58 Ha] (perhaps earlier it belonged to her mother) as a

dowry and in the 1884 cadastral survey lacking plough-land as well.

1869 By the time of the 1869 census only the eldest son of József Hegedűs and his family remained

with the old couple in one household. The census-taker separated the two nuclear families from each other

but there are no other sign that the two families formed two independent households: only the name of

József Hegedűs is included in both of the 1867 and 1868 conscription of public works and in the 1868

cadastral survey as well ( with a holding of 27 holds). As it appears, he did not divide the landholding and

house despite his age (65) did not retire. The results of the 1884 cadastral survey shows a completely

18

different situation. It seems that by the age of 80 he divided his plots: the plough-land and meadow into

three parts. He kept himself one-third of the holding, another third went to his eldest son (in 1884 only the

name of his widow is in the survey) and his second son owned slightly less than a quarter of the original

holding. The major part of the vineyard and some one-eights part of plough-land went onto the economy of

János Rajhel with Terézia.

The consequences of the practice that the father did not give the portions to his sons when

they married and the lack of retirement contract are obvious: the sons were more or less at the

mercy of their father who did in general not divide his holding in his life. In that sense the

case of the Hegedűs shows ordinary and exceptional elements too. The younger son tried to

break loose from the control and household of his father but he could only become a

household head in a widow’s economy but he could only partly become a landowner gazda. It

is very likely that after he had moved from the parental house he should have worked in the

economy of his father further on. He did not have a holding on his own. By no means was he

independent on the economy of his father which is confirmed by the fact that he was not even

the owner of the house in which he had lived with his family in 1868. The father’s strategy to

preserve the holding intact as long as possible was a customary way of preventing the early

fragmentation as well.

After a longitudinal analysis of the landed peasant families of Torna market-town (see

Appendix 4 and 5) on the basis of the above method the class-character of marriages has been

confirmed. Out of the 61 landholding household heads 33 were locally endogamous (both

spouses were born in Torna market-town) which represents 54%. This ratio is almost twice as

high as the market-town average of resident couples (29%). The wives of the landed peasants

in this group came exclusively from landholding peasants’ families and there are signs of

marriage-alliances between the richest peasant families too. The ratio of locally exogamous

marriages is relatively high (41%) but the vast majority of these marriages was a bond

between the landholding peasant husbands and immigrant wives (36%) which is essentially

19

higher that of the market-town average (23%). The ratio of immigrant male landed peasants is

very low (5%) in comparison with the average (14%). Only three migrant couples (5%) could

strike roots as landed peasant in the market-town. (See Appendix 1.)

3.2. Household forms and age of first marriage

Since inheritance was the main possibility sons had of acquiring land, participation in the

family economy was a strong constraining force. Therefore the married male offsprings

generally could not form a new household they should have stayed in the parental house. This

bond was reflected in the more complex households: the joint family households and the

frequent occurrence of stem family households. (See Table 3 and Appendix 5.)

Table 3. Households of the landed peasantry in Torna county

I. II. III. A. III. B. IV. V. A. V. B. VI.

nuclear extended nuclear

stem family

incomplete stem family

married siblings

multiple complex

incomplete complex others

18-24 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 925-31 42 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 6032-38 92 21 4 0 7 0 0 1 12539-45 118 16 6 2 4 0 0 0 14646-52 108 11 25 16 3 1 0 0 16453-59 60 7 38 24 1 8 3 0 141

60- 26 4 53 68 1 11 16 1 180total 451 79 126 111 16 20 19 3 825

Household types of landed peasants in the county of Torna (20 settlements)

total

Age cohorts of household

heads

The young men and women married therefore relatively early in comparison with the Western

European regions of single heirs. The average age of first marriage of women in the 19th

century was between 19-21 years, the same with the men was the age of 23-25 years with a

gradually increasing tendency in the second half of the century. The marriage was universal

and the proportion of unmarried males was very low in comparison with Western Europe.

20

In Torna county on the basis of 38 settlements and 21.000 inhabitants the ratio of unmarried

males was 29,9% in the cohort of 25-29 years. In the age cohort of 45-49 years the ratio of

unmarried males was almost negligible (2,3%). The ratio of the married or single males and

females can be studied on Table 4 from the age of 18 till 30 in year by year distribution. The

ratio of singe female by the age of 24 lowered to 10,9% and by the age of 28 it was about 5%,

while the ratio of single males at the age of 24 was relatively high (71,5%) but by the age of

28 the ratio reduced drastically to 18% and by the age of 29 to 10,9%.

Table 4. Married and single men and women in Torna county by yearly distribution

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

married males – 1 7 8 12 26 39 92 126 131 131 98 129married females 23 49 73 100 109 103 163 194 148 131 151 97 176single male 138 98 174 138 104 78 98 103 67 37 29 12 18single female 173 126 117 65 38 36 21 29 23 12 9 6 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

married males – 1,0 3,8 5,5 10,3 25,0 28,5 46,9 65,3 77,5 81,4 89,1 87,2married females 11,7 27,4 36,7 57,5 70,3 72,0 84,5 79,2 81,8 85,6 88,8 87,4 81,5single male 100,0 99,0 95,6 94,5 89,7 75,0 71,5 52,6 34,7 21,9 18,0 10,9 12,2single female 87,8 70,4 58,8 37,4 24,5 25,2 10,9 11,8 12,7 7,8 5,3 5,4 7,9

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

male 138 99 182 146 116 104 137 196 193 169 161 110 148female 197 179 199 174 155 143 193 245 181 153 170 111 216

percentage (%)

years old (number)

years old (number)

Total

Marital status

Marital status

4. Conclusions

The overall dominant type of inheritance was a partible one: sons of a landed peasant

inherited an equal proportion of the family land with the exceptions of some cases where

preference was given to the son who stayed with the parental house and bore the brunt of

taking care of the parents and the cultivation of the „father’s land”.

The daughters had rights generally only for a limited claim of inheritance in comparison with

the sons and mostly it meant only an endowment: the parents gave dowry to their daughter.

21

The dowry of a landed peasant’s daughter consisted of two parts: personal chattels

(bedclothes and attire) and a share from the family property. This latter was much more of

symbolic importance – a cow, share in the pasture or a piece of vineyard (see the Hegedűs) –

since the interest of the family economy required that the family plot of arable land and the

oxen or horse team be divided only between the sons who did not „take the property away

from the clan’s families”.

The division of plots did not happen generally during the life of the owner father because the

father „took his clothes off” (shared the ownership with his sons over the land or divided the

plots) in his life only exceptionally. When the father died his widow took over the rule over

the family property and became the head of household, gazda, though she was not the main

heir[ess] she commanded the family economy, even she had adult or married sons in the

house. At least that can be concluded from the materials of the cadastral surveys and from the

census lists. Her position, however, was weaker in comparison with the father’s one and after

her youngest son had married she retired in most cases but that was not a general rule. Several

cases prove a contrary situation when the widow seemed to own the complete power of a

landowner-gazda.

The father-son(s) relation was a strong economic bond since the sons were obliged to take a

role in the family economy and the main form of obtaining land and property was still the

succession when the heirs got a share from the father’s land. Obviously it could give rise

rapidly to the fragmentation of the land and this danger threatened the heir(s)’ family

economy. There were various family- and individual strategies to defend the harmful effects

of partible inheritance, but the most efficient one, the impartible inheritance did not go into

practice. The law-custom of the partible inheritance prevailed and each son demanded a share

from the father’s heritage which was a long established rule and the daughters could not

completely be excluded either. The father kept the holding intact as long as possible and the

22

probability of the claims could have decreased gradually but when after his death there were

more than one son still alive they had claims for an equal portion of the heritage.

One possible and frequent strategy was the „institution of son-in-law” (vőség) but it was not

able to solve the „pressure of succession” which led gradually to an agricultural economic

crisis. After the succession and division of the land only a few male heirs could achieve again

a similar farm size that their father had. Another possible way was for the adult sons who

wanted to set up their own economy but there was no chance for the division of land in the

life of the owner-father in the best case only a common use of the team, implements and

family plots under the rule of the father: to marry a well-to-do widow and to live on her land

until he had got his patrimony (and the sons of the widow were under-age).

Out-migration of the heirs of landed peasants in Torna market-town did not become general

strategy which is consequential upon the inheritance system and the birth control had no

significant tradition in the mainly catholic families of the market-town.

There were not many effective family strategies in the Torna region after the population

growth of 19th century. Government attempts to minimize the harmful effects of the partible

inheritance was made by OMGE (Hungarian Economic Association) at the turn of the century

but the efforts against the customary law of partible inheritance proved insufficient. The

emigration into the United States became stronger after 1900 but it could solve the agrarian

crisis only to a certain extent and the proportion of emigrants from this region represented

fourfold of the country average.

Appendix I. Local endogamy and exogamy in Torna county (1869)

in th

e pl

ace

else

whe

re

in th

e pl

ace

else

whe

re

in th

e pl

ace

else

whe

re

in th

e pl

ace

else

whe

re

1 Almás 809 90 75 70 95 164 39 51 31 43 55% 45% 42% 58% 24% 31% 19% 26%2 Áj 502 84 23 47 60 105 36 46 10 13 79% 21% 44% 56% 34% 44% 10% 12%3 Derenk 451 81 24 65 41 105 55 27 9 14 77% 23% 61% 39% 52% 26% 9% 13%4 Dernő 815 116 40 108 49 148 90 22 12 24 74% 26% 69% 31% 61% 15% 8% 16%5 Falucska 584 117 18 121 14 135 112 5 9 9 87% 13% 89% 11% 83% 4% 7% 7%6 Görgő 1218 182 66 142 107 239 106 70 28 35 73% 27% 57% 43% 44% 29% 12% 15%7 Hídvégardó 797 98 47 45 101 143 38 58 6 41 68% 32% 31% 69% 27% 41% 4% 29%8 Horváti 307 47 16 41 22 63 34 13 7 9 75% 25% 65% 35% 54% 21% 11% 14%9 Jablonca 577 94 27 66 56 115 49 43 11 12 78% 22% 54% 46% 43% 37% 10% 10%10 Kovácsvágás 345 44 22 23 42 65 16 27 7 15 67% 33% 35% 65% 25% 42% 11% 23%11 Körtvélyes 465 68 38 56 50 103 41 25 14 23 64% 36% 53% 47% 40% 24% 14% 22%12 Lucska 466 68 39 36 61 97 33 34 3 27 64% 36% 37% 63% 34% 35% 3% 28%13 Méhész 186 25 15 10 32 40 8 17 1 14 63% 38% 24% 76% 20% 43% 3% 35%14 Szádelő 314 41 19 21 38 58 13 27 8 10 68% 32% 36% 64% 22% 47% 14% 17%15 Torna 1407 136 131 117 149 258 74 60 37 87 51% 49% 44% 56% 29% 23% 14% 34%16 Udvarnok 502 76 30 44 62 105 33 42 10 20 72% 28% 42% 58% 31% 40% 10% 19%17 Újfalu 558 80 28 66 43 107 47 33 17 10 74% 26% 61% 39% 44% 31% 16% 9%18 Vendégi 444 51 36 24 62 80 11 38 8 23 59% 41% 28% 72% 14% 48% 10% 29%19 Zsarnó 596 53 47 37 61 97 19 32 17 29 53% 47% 38% 62% 20% 33% 18% 30%20 Barakony 302 40 19 24 36 59 18 22 5 14 67% 33% 46% 54% 31% 37% 8% 24%21 Becskeháza 257 34 18 17 37 38 7 13 3 15 65% 35% 31% 69% 18% 34% 8% 39%22 Dobódél 192 28 10 17 21 33 11 14 3 5 74% 26% 45% 55% 33% 42% 9% 15%23 Égerszög 416 69 20 61 31 81 46 17 7 11 78% 22% 66% 34% 57% 21% 9% 14%24 Jósvafő 726 128 43 77 91 163 55 65 17 26 75% 25% 46% 54% 34% 40% 10% 16%25 Kápolna 177 25 10 14 21 35 9 16 5 5 71% 29% 40% 60% 26% 46% 14% 14%26 Komjáti 597 62 57 37 81 111 19 38 12 42 52% 48% 31% 69% 17% 34% 11% 38%27 Lenke 336 42 27 19 53 65 11 29 3 22 61% 39% 26% 74% 17% 45% 5% 34%28 Nádaska 284 31 29 15 46 60 6 25 9 20 52% 48% 25% 75% 10% 42% 15% 33%29 Perkupa 866 126 43 97 73 166 74 49 21 22 75% 25% 57% 43% 45% 30% 13% 13%30 Petri 447 77 20 54 44 97 45 32 8 12 79% 21% 55% 45% 46% 33% 8% 12%31 Rákó 414 74 19 61 32 93 55 19 7 12 68% 32% 66% 34% 59% 20% 8% 13%32 Szentandrás 520 81 29 62 48 110 55 27 7 21 72% 28% 56% 44% 50% 25% 6% 19%33 Szilas 986 146 64 120 91 208 89 55 28 36 70% 30% 57% 43% 43% 26% 13% 17%34 Szin 753 107 49 77 78 153 59 46 17 31 69% 31% 50% 50% 39% 30% 11% 20%35 Szögliget 911 132 58 110 83 189 77 55 30 27 69% 31% 57% 43% 41% 29% 16% 14%36 Szőlősardó 445 71 21 44 48 92 37 34 7 14 77% 23% 48% 52% 40% 37% 8% 15%37 Teresztenye 262 45 15 26 36 59 23 22 2 12 75% 25% 42% 58% 39% 37% 3% 20%38 Varbóc 279 43 19 28 34 62 21 22 7 12 69% 31% 45% 55% 34% 35% 11% 19%

Mig

rant

cou

ple

(%)

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Sett

lem

ent

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n at

pre

sent

Num

ber

of m

arri

ed c

oupl

es

Res

iden

t hus

band

, mig

rant

wife

(%)

Res

iden

t wife

, mig

rant

hus

band

(%)

Res

iden

t hus

band

, mig

rant

wife

Res

iden

t wife

, mig

rant

hus

band

Res

iden

t cou

ple

(%)

U p

p e

r

D i

s t r

i c

tL

o w

e r

D

i s t

r i

c t

was born and married (N)

was born and married (%)

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Res

iden

t cou

ple

Mig

rant

cou

ple

Num

ber

Dis

tric

t

Appendix 2. The ratio of religious denomination in Torna county (1869)

N N % N % N % N % N %

1 Almás 809 348 43% – – 379 47% 5 1% 77 10%2 Áj 502 334 67% 13 3% 125 25% 20 4% 10 2%3 Derenk 451 436 97% – – – – – – 15 3%4 Dernő 815 809 99% 1 – – – 3 – 1 –5 Falucska 584 44 8% 532 91% – – 5 1% 3 1%6 Görgő 1218 516 42% 1 – 624 51% 11 1% 66 5%7 Hídvégardó 797 537 67% 6 1% 166 21% 13 2% 74 9%8 Horváti 307 62 20% 226 74% 3 1% – – 16 5%9 Jablonca 577 98 17% – – 421 73% 30 5% 28 5%

10 Kovácsvágás 345 345 100% – – – – – – – –11 Körtvélyes 465 115 25% – – 323 69% 5 1% 14 3%12 Lucska 466 332 71% – – 112 24% 17 4% 5 1%13 Méhész 186 37 20% 1 1% 136 73% – – 12 6%14 Szádelő 314 49 16% – – 250 80% 1 – 14 4%15 Torna 1407 1224 87% 8 1% 66 5% 34 2% 67 5%16 Udvarnok 502 450 90% 2 – 37 7% – – 13 3%17 Újfalu 558 444 80% 8 1% 96 17% – – 10 2%18 Vendégi 444 151 34% 1 – 237 53% 1 – 22 5%19 Zsarnó 596 277 46% – – 276 46% – – 43 7%20 Barakony 299 127 42% 159 53% 4 1% 1 – 11 4%21 Becskeháza 257 46 18% 10 4% 194 75% 3 1% 4 2%22 Dobódél 192 131 68% 5 3% 47 24% – – 9 5%23 Égerszög 416 14 3% – – 384 92% – – 18 4%24 Jósvafő 726 88 12% – – 516 71% 17 2% 53 7%25 Kápolna 177 15 8% – – 157 89% 1 1% 4 2%26 Komjáti 597 326 55% 16 3% 193 32% 6 1% 56 9%27 Lenke 336 87 26% – – 232 69% – – 17 5%28 Nádaska 284 207 73% 8 3% 51 18% 2 1% 13 5%29 Perkupa 866 345 40% 3 – 490 57% 1 – 27 3%30 Petri 447 56 13% – – 366 82% 2 – 22 5%31 Rákó 414 351 85% 49 12% 2 – – – 12 3%32 Szentandrás 520 477 92% 9 2% 27 5% – – 5 1%33 Szilas 986 607 62% – – 335 34% 2 – 42 4%34 Szin 753 135 18% 1 – 564 75% 10 1% 43 6%35 Szögliget 911 614 67% – – 257 28% 7 1% 33 4%36 Szőlősardó 445 27 6% – – 406 91% 7 2% 4 1%37 Teresztenye 262 50 19% – – 197 75% 1 – 14 5%38 Varbóc 279 78 28% – – 190 68% 2 1% 9 3%

Sett

lem

ent Eva

ngel

ical

(L

uthe

ran)

Isra

elite

Rom

an C

atho

lic

Gre

ek C

atho

lic

Ref

orm

ed (C

alvi

nist

)

Tot

al p

opul

atio

n at

pr

esen

t

Upp

er D

istr

ict

Low

er D

istr

ict

Num

ber

Dis

tric

t

Appendix 3. Mixed marriages in Torna county

k - g g - k k - r r - k k - e e - k r - e e - r r - g g - r g - e e - g

1 Almás 809 165 – – 4 1 – – – 1 – – – – 6 3,62 Áj 502 107 4 3 – – – 1 – 1 – – – – 9 8,43 Derenk 451 105 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –4 Dernő 815 157 – – – – – – – – – – – 1 1 0,65 Falucska 584 135 4 5 – – 1 – – – – – – – 10 7,36 Görgő 1218 249 – 1 1 3 – – 1 – – – – – 6 2,47 Hídvégardó 797 146 1 – 1 1 – – 1 1 – – – – 5 3,48 Horváti 307 63 6 10 – – – – – – – – – – 16 25,49 Jablonca 577 122 – – – 2 – 2 1 1 – – – – 6 4,9

10 Kovácsvágás 345 65 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –11 Körtvélyes 465 106 – – 1 – – 2 1 1 – – – – 5 4,712 Lucska 466 97 – – 1 1 – 1 – – – – – – 3 3,113 Méhész 186 42 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –14 Szádelő 314 59 – – – 2 – – 1 – – – – – 3 5,115 Torna 1407 266 2 4 1 3 5 4 – – – – – – 19 7,116 Udvarnok 502 106 1 1 – 1 – – – – – – – – 3 2,817 Újfalu 558 109 5 1 2 1 – – – – – – – – 9 8,318 Vendégi 444 86 – – 2 2 – – – – – – – – 4 4,719 Zsarnó 596 98 – – 1 1 – – – – – – – – 2 2,0

11249 2250 23 25 14 18 6 10 5 5 – – – 1 107 4,8

20 Barakony 299 59 4 11 – – – – – – – – – – 15 22,421 Becskeháza 257 54 1 – – 2 – – – – – 1 – – 4 7,422 Dobódél 192 38 2 – 2 – – – – – – – – – 4 10,523 Égerszög 416 92 – – – 3 – – – – – – – – 3 3,324 Jósvafő 726 168 – – 1 7 1 1 2 6 – – – – 18 10,725 Kápolna 177 35 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –26 Komjáti 597 118 1 1 1 4 – – – 1 – 2 – – 10 8,527 Lenke 336 72 – – 2 – – – – – – – – – 2 2,828 Nádaska 284 61 2 1 – 2 – 1 – – – – – – 6 9,829 Perkupa 866 170 3 – 3 8 – – – – – – – – 14 8,230 Petri 447 98 – – 2 – – – – – – – – – 2 2,031 Rákó 414 93 8 14 – – – – – – – – – – 22 23,732 Szentandrás 520 110 6 – 1 1 – – – – – – – – 8 7,233 Szilas 986 211 – – 1 1 – 1 – – – – – – 3 1,434 Szin 753 155 1 – 5 5 – 1 1 – – – – – 13 8,435 Szögliget 911 193 – – – 3 – – 1 – – – – – 4 2,136 Szőlősardó 445 92 – – 2 3 – – – – – – – – 5 5,437 Teresztenye 262 62 – – 2 2 – – – – – – – – 4 6,538 Varbóc 279 62 – – 4 4 – – – 1 – – – – 9 14,5

9168 1952 28 27 26 45 1 4 4 8 – 3 – – 146 7,520417 4202 51 52 40 63 7 14 9 13 – 3 – 1 253 6,0

k - g: Roman Catholic man and Greek Catholic woman; g - k: Greek Catholic man and Roman Catholic woman; k - r: Roman Catholic man and Calvinist woman; r - k: Calvinist manand Roman Catholic woman; k - e: R. Catholic man and Evangelical woman; e - k: Evangelical man and R. Catholic woman; r - e: Calvinist man and Evangelical woman; e - r: Evangelical man and Calvinist woman; r - g: Calvinist man and Greek Catholic woman; g - r: Greek Catholic man and Calvinist woman; g - e: Greek Cath. man and Evang. woman; e - g: Evang. man and Greek Cath. woman

Lower DistrictTorna county

Low

er D

istr

ict

Mix

ed /

Tot

al

mar

riag

es (%

)

Mix

ed m

arri

ages

to

tal

Upper District

Dis

tric

t

Settlement

Num

ber

Upp

er D

istr

ict

Types of mixed marriages (The abbreviations see below)

Mar

ried

wom

en

Pres

ent p

opul

atio

n

Appendix 4. Land and life-cycle of landed peasant families in Torna market-town

1850 1857 18692 Hegedűs József 1805 1,0 27 I. 2. III. A. 3. III. A. 1.9 Balázs József 1823 0,25 6 III. A. 1. III. B. 7. I. 2.

16 Hegedűs János 1838 0,5 13 II. 6. I. 2.17 Holecskó Imre 1826 0,25 6,5 I. 1. I. 2. I. 2.18 Pipoly József 1809 0,25 7,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.19 Molnár István 1831 0,25 6,5 [44] II. 6. I. 2.44 Fekete János 1824 0 III. A. 3. II. 6. I. 2.20 Molnár János 1832 0,25 5 V. B. 3. II. 6. I. 2.21 w. Molnár Józsefné 1824 0,25 6 [20] I. 2. III. B. 3.25 w. Turóczi Borbála 1820 0,25 6 I. 1. IV. 1.1. I. 3.33 Kalász Ferenc 1836 0,25 6 I. 2. I. 2.34 wr. Szabó József 1800 0,5 12,5 IV. 1.2. IV. 1.2.43 w. Szabó Jánosné 1834 0,25 6,5 I. 2. II. 6. I. 3.56 Rajhel József 1812 0,5 13 I. 2. I. 2. I. 1.57 w. Stromp Jánosné 1812 0,5 13 III. B. 7. I. 2. III. B. 3.58 Turóczi József 1819 0,25 6,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 4.59 w. Juhász Istvánné 1836 0,5 13 III. A. 3. III. B. 9. I. 3.60 Görcsös István 1828 0,5 12 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.61 Darvas Imre 1809 0,5 14 I. 2. I. 2. V. A. 2.62 w. Görcsös Istvánné 1818 0,5 14 I. 2. I. 2. III. A. 3.63 Balla József 1829 0,5 14 I. 2. II. 2. II. 6.64 Budovszki József 1820 0,25 7 I. 2. I. 2. III. A. 3.65 Jr. Szlovenszki János 1846 0,25 6,5 I. 2.67 Karafa István 1830 0,5 15,5 I. 2. III. A. 3. I. 2.68 Görcsös István 1840 0,25 7 I. 2. I. 3. II. 6.69 Kis János 1816 0,5 13 I. 1. I. 1. I. 1.79 Horváth József 1816 0,25 6 III. A. 7.80 Stecz József 1835 0,25 6 [89] II. 5.83 Tánczos Farkas 1806 1,0 28 I. 2. I. 2. I. 1.89 Rajhel János 1845 0,5 15 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.90 Sr. Szlovenszki János 1820 1,0 21 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.91 Turóczi József 1837 0,5 11 I. 2. I. 2. II. 5.95 Vidasits András 1813 0,5 13 I. 2. I. 2. III. A. 7.97 [19.sz.] I. 2. II. 6. [19]98 w. Görcsös Jánosné 1816 0,5 13 I. 2. I. 3. III. A. 1.99 w. Fémják Jánosné 1810 0,25 6 I. 3. I. 3. III. A. 3.99 Fémják József 1817 0,25 6 III. A. 3.

102 w. Kerekes Jánosné 1829 0,25 7 III. B. 3. III. B. 3. I. 3.103 Bartók József 1814 0,25 7,5 III. B. 3. II. 5. I. 2.105 Csontik Lajos 1825 1,0 46 I. 1. II. 5. I. 1.106 Rajhel Ferenc 1825 0,5 12,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.107 Holecskó István 1821 0,5 13 I. 2. II. 2. III. A. 1.109 Zsehrai János 1810 0,25 6 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.121 w. Majancsik Jánosné 1834 0,5 8 I. 2. II. 2. IV. 2. 1.145 Turóczi András 1835 0,25 5 I. 2. I. 3. II. 5.149 Peregrin János 1808 1,0 27 I. 2. I. 2. III. A. 8.150 Bartók János 1812 0,25 7,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.151 Kis János 1838 0,25 7 I. 2. III. A. 3. I. 2.

* in 'cadastral holds' (1 cadastral hold = 0.58 Ha); ** for the descriptive classification of households see Appendix 5.Abbreviations: w. = widow; wr. = widower; Jr. = Junior; Sr. = Senior

Size

of t

he

hold

ing

(ch)

* Life-cycles of landed peasant families**

Num

ber

of th

e ho

use

The name of the head of household

Yea

r of

bir

th

Shar

e of

the

hold

ing

(186

8)

Appendix 4. Land and life-cycle of landed peasant families in Torna market-town (cont.)

1850 1857 1869153 Molnár József 1841 0,25 7 I. 2. III. A. 3. I. 2.154 Fekete István 1809 0,5 13,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.155 Tisza András 1833 0,5 12,5 I. 1. III. B. 11. I. 2.157 Bartus János 1829 0,5 15 III. B. 3. I. 2. III. A. 2.159 Majancsik Borbála 1805 0,5 16 I. 2. III. A. 9. III. B. 1.160 Kovács Mihályné 1819 0,5 13 I. 2. I. 3. III. A. 3.160 Dobozi József 1844 0,25 6,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.162 Kis Mihály 1812 0,5 12,5 III. B. 1. I. 2. III. A. 2.164 Farkas János 1827 1,0 20,5 III. A. 3. III. A-2. 2. III. A. 4.166 w. Molnár Imréné 1812 1,0 19,5 I. 2. I. 3. III. B. 2.168 Sztankovics István 1840 0,25 6 I. 2. I. 2. III. A-2. 1.169 w. Stromp Jánosné 1826 0,25 6,5 I. 2. I. 3. III. B. 1.170 Stromp János 1827 0,25 9 I. 3. IV. 1. 1. I. 2.192 w. Noga Józsefné 1825 0,25 7 I. 2. I. 2. I. 3.202 Karafa István 1819 0,25 6 I. 2. III. A. 3.210 w. Juhász Istvánné 1808 1,0 23 I. 2. I. 2. III. B. 1.211 Figlyár József 1831 0,25 6,5 I. 2. I. 2. I. 2.212 Gáll János 1836 0,5 12,5 VI. 3. I. 2.

Num

ber

of th

e ho

use

The name of the head of household

Yea

r of

bir

th

Shar

e of

the

hold

ing

(186

8)

Size

of t

he

hold

ing

(ch)

* Life-cycles of landed peasant families**

Appendix 5. Descriptive tipology of the households

I. Nukleáris családok II. "Extended nuclear"- family households1. married couple 1. married couple with widow2. married couple with child/ren 2. married couple with sibling/s3. widow with chilkd/ren 3. married couple with widow and sibling/s4. widower with child/ren 4. married couple with relative/s5. married couple with grandchild 5. married couple with child/ren and widow6. widow with grandchild/ren 6. married couple with child/ren and sibling/s

6.1. widow with child/ren and sibling/s7. married couple with child/ren, widow and sibling/s 8. married couple with child/ren and relative/s

8.1. widow with child/ren and relative/s9. married couple with child/ren, widow and relative/s

III. Vertically complex family households: parent (couple) - married child relations, where A) the parental couple is at the lead of the household B) a widowed parent is at the lead of the household

/"stem family" phase/ /"incomplete stem family" phase/1. parental couple (p.c.) and married child + or - (m.ch.) 1. widow (w.) and married child + or - (m.ch.)2. p.c. and m.ch.* 2. w. and m.ch.*3. p.c. and m.ch. with unmarried child/ren 3. w. and m.ch. with unmarried child/ren4. p.c. and m.ch* with unmarried child/ren 4. w. and m.ch.* with unmarried children5. p.c. and m.ch. with widow/er 5. w. and m.ch. with widow6. p.c. and m.ch. with unmarried child/ren and relative/s 6. w. and m.ch. with relative/s7. p.c. and m.ch.+ with unmarried child/ren & widower 7. widower (wr.) and m.ch.8. p.c. and widowed son-in-law + 8. wr. and m.ch.* 9. p.c. with unmarried siblings and m.ch. 9. wr. and m.ch. with unmarried child/ren

10. wr. and married grandchild (m.g.)A-2) the young couple is at the lead of the household 11. wr. and m.ch. and m.g. with unmarried child/ren1. m.ch. and p.c. with unmarried children 12. wr. and widowed daughter-in-law +

IV. Horizontally complex family households: the co-resident group of married siblings/"transitional phase after the inheritance - (father's death)"/

1. married siblings (+ or -)1.1. a married and a widowed sibling

2. married siblings and unmarried sibling/s3. married siblings with widow

V. Multiple complex households: vertically and horizontally complex family householdsA) the parental couple is at the lead of household B) a widowed parent is at the lead of household

the co-residence group of nagycsalád (large-family) 1. wr. and two m.ch.consisting of three or more kin nuclear families and 2. wr. and three m.ch.in most cases three generations or more. 3. w. and three m.ch. with unmarried child/ren

4. w. and two m.g. with relative/se.g. two married brothers each with stem families,or a parental couple with two or more married children (and sometimes unmarried children or kin, too)

VI. Others VII. Unclassifiable1. unmarried mothers2. solitaries3. no family

* daughter with son-in-law p.c. parental couple+ with child/ren m.ch. married child/ren with or without child/ren- without child/ren m.g. married grandchild/renin italics House (more "Wohnpartei"s together) w. / wr. widow / widower