Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T11:04:41.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Peasant Revolt of Bábolna 1437-1438

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Joseph Held
Joseph Held*
Affiliation:
University College, Rutgers University Soviet and East European Program of the University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On April 24, 1445, János Vitéz of Zredna, a well-known Hungarian humanist bishop, wrote to a friend about conditions existing in his homeland:

The sword is now the destroyer of every right … hence, Liberty is in the grip of Hatred, and pillage and looting are the providers of luxury…. No one gives mercy to another and everyone knows fear…

This was not merely humanist rhetoric; Vitéz's perceptions accurately described the Hungarian situation, where the powerful barons had become the controllers of the machinery of the state.

The Hungarian province of Transylvania (see p. 26), “the Land beyond the Forests,” in which the drama of 1437-38 was enacted, experienced a parallel development. During the fourteenth century, the barons in that province (as in the rest of Hungary) established seigneurial control over the peasant population. A system of feudal dues and obligations was imposed on the peasantry, and free movement from one estate to another was effectively curtailed. The tensions that this situation created in Transylvania were heightened by conflicts that were peculiarly Transylvanian in character.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 25 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1977

References

1. Joannes Georgius Schwandtner, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum Vcteres ac gemtini, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1746), 2 : 10.

2. Transylvania in the fifteenth century was a geographic, not a political concept. It was part of the Hungarian state, and it consisted of seven counties and the autonomous territories of Saxons and Székelys. The counties were under the jurisdiction of the vajda (or voivode) who was an appointee of the Hungarian king. The counties contained a mixed population; Magyars and Wlachs lived there side by side. (Substantial Wlach settlements also existed outside the counties.) The size of the Transylvanian province was about 79, 000 square kilometers; its population amounted to about 330, 000 people, distributed in the fifteenth century as follows : 260, 000 Magyars and Székelys, 100, 000 Wlachs, and about 70, 000 Saxons. There will be further references in the text concerning the nature and ethnic composition of the population. Though it would be impossible to list all the important sources dealing with the late medieval history of Transylvania here, a few of them are given below : Endes, Miklós, Erdély három nemzete es negy vallása autonómiájának története [History of the Autonomy of the Three Nations and Four Religions of Transylvania] (Budapest, 1935)Google Scholar; Asztalos, Miklós, ed., A tbrteneti Erdély [Historical Transylvania] (Budapest, 1939)Google Scholar; Jenö Horváth, Erdély története [The History of Transylvania] (Budapest, 1944); Emerico Lukinich and Ladislao Gáldi, eds., Docitmente Valachorum in Hungaria illustrantia (Budapest, 1941); I., Lupas, Historic Realities in the Principality of Transylvania in the Twelfth- Sixteenth Centuries (Bucharest, 1938)Google Scholar; Elémer Mályusz, A magyarsag a hosepkori Erdilyben [The Hungarians in Medieval Transylvania] (Kołozsvar, 1943); Lászlό Makkai, Erdély története [The History of Transylvania] (Budapest, 1944); Henrik Marczali, Erdély„ története (Budapest, 1935); Constantin Daicoviciu, et al., eds., Erdély története, 2 vols. (Bucharest, 1964)Google Scholar.

3. Fejér, Georgius, Codex Diplomaticus Hungariae Ecclesiasticus ac Civilis, series 10, 42 vols. (Buda, 1844), 8 : 370, 493 and 6 : 796Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Fejér, CDH). See also Elémer Mályusz, “A kozepkori magyar nemzetisegi politika” [Medieval Hungarian Nationality Policies], Ssdzadok, 73 (1939) : 257-94, 385-448; and Elémer Mályusz, “A magyarsag es a nemzetisegek Mohacs elott” [The Hungarians and the Nationalities before Mohacs], in Sandor, Domanovszky, Magyar müvelődéstörténet [A History of Hungarian Culture], vol. 2 (Budapest, n.d.), pp. 105–23Google Scholar.

4. For the history of the Transylvanian Saxons, see Klein, Karl K., Saxonica Septemcastrensia (Marburg, 1971)Google Scholar. Of the earlier works, the following are still useful : Friedrich, Teutsch, Die siebenbürger Sachsen in Vergangenheit und Gegemvart (Leipzig, 1916)Google Scholar; Franz Zimmermann and Carl Werner, eds., Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbilrgen, 3 vols. (Hermarńnstadt, 1892-1902); R. F., Kaindl. Geschichte der Deutschen in Hungarn (Vienna, 1912)Google Scholar; Georg, Keintzel, Ober die Herkunft der siebenbürger Sachsen (Budapest, 1887)Google Scholar.

5. The origin and history of the Székelys attracted wide attention among historians. See Bálint Hόman, “A szekelyek eredete” [Origin of the Székelys], in Hόman, Bálint, Magyar Kbzepkor [Hungarian Middle Ages] (Budapest, 1938), pp. 37–62 Google Scholar; Pal Hunfalvy, “A szekely kerdeshez” [About the Problem of the Székelys], Szásadok;, IS (1888) : 97-114, 193-206; Szilagyi, Lászlό, A szekely nemesi rendi tdrsadalom [Society and Noble Orders among the Székelys] (Budapest, 1937)Google Scholar; Janos, Connert, A szekelyek intezmenyci a legregibb idoktdl az 1562-i dtalaknldsig [Institutions of the Székelys from the Earliest Times to the Transformation in 1562] (Kolozsvár, 1901)Google Scholar; György Györffy, “A székely tarsadalom” [The Székely Society], in Székely, György, Tanulmányok a parasztság tbrtenetehez Magyarorszdgon a XIV. szdzadban [Studies in the History of the Peasantry in Hungary in the Fourteenth Century] (Budapest, 1953), pp. 104–16 Google Scholar; Benedek, Jancso, Die székler : Historische nnd ethnographische Studien (Budapest, 1922)Google Scholar; and Lászlό Makkai, “Erdély nepei a kozepkorban” [The Peoples of Transylvania in the Middle Ages], in Deer, József et al., eds., Magyarok es Romdnok [Hungarians and Rumanians], vol. 1 (Budapest, 1943), pp. 314–440 Google Scholar.

6. Legally, two types of lesser noblemen existed in Hungary in the fifteenth century : those who contracted with a baron to become his retainers (familiares), and those who remained free of baronial service. The latter are often referred to as county-nobility, meaning that this group of noblemen acted in judicial matters in the county assemblies. See székfii, Gyula, Szerviensek es familiárisok (Budapest, 1912)Google Scholar; Imre Szentpetery, “Nemesi es polgári eletforma” [The Way of Life of Nobles and Burghers], in Domanovszky, Magyar müvelodéstőrtenet, 2 : 309-43; Ferenc, Lehman, Vdltosdsok a magyar nemesseg történeteben [Changes in the History of Hungarian Nobility] (Budapest, 1903)Google Scholar; and Tibor, Kardos, A virtudlis Magyarorszdg (Budapest, 1934)Google Scholar.

7. Fejér, CDH, 7 : 815.

8. Even when peasant communities complied with the bishop's demands, they did so with great reluctance, as the report by Fejér shows. In some communities the peasants murdered the ecclesiastical tax collectors. See Fejér, CDH, 7 : 423-26 and 11 : 504.

9. losephus C., Eder, Observationes criticae et pragmaticae ad historiam Transylvaniae sub regibus Arpadianae et mixtae propaginis (Nagyszeben, 1803)Google Scholar. See also György Székely, “Magyar parasztháboruk” [Hungarian Peasant Wars], in Gereb, Lászlό, ed., A magyar parasztháboruk irodalma [Literature of the Hungarian Peasant Wars] (Budapest, 1950), p. 10 Google Scholar; and Székely, György, “Az erdelyi romanok feudalizalodasa,” in Székely, Tanulmanyok, pp. 240–47Google Scholar.

10. Fejér, CDH, 11 : 504.

11. Ferenc, Kovats, “Zsigmond kiraly quartling-ja” [The Quartling of King Sigismund], Magyar Gazdasdgtorteneti Szemle (Budapest), 3 (1901) : 126 Google Scholar. See also Fejérpataky, Lászlό, Magyarorszdgi vdrosok számadáskönyvei [The Accounting Books of Hungarian Cities] (Budapest, 1885), pp. 371–72 Google Scholar.

12. Lajos Demény, As 1437-38-as bábolnai népi felkelés [The Popular Uprising of Babolna in 1437-1438] (Bucharest, 1960), pp. 179-80.

13. See the letter of Palatine Lorinc Daruvari discussing the peasant revolt in Szatmar county in Kalman, Geresi, A nagy-kdrolyi Grof Kdrolyi csaldd oklevéltára [Archive of the Count Karolyi Family], vol. 2 (Budapest, 1883), pp. 193–94 Google Scholar. See also the letter of the voivode to the citizens of the town of Brasso [Brasov], ordering them to exterminate the rebellious Wlach peasants of Fogaras—“to kill all the men and bring back the women and children“— in Szabό, Károly, Székely oklevéltár [Székely Archive], 3 vols. (Kolozsvár, 1872), 3 : 47–49Google Scholar.

14. Joannis de Thurócz, Chronica Hungarorum, in Schwandtner, Rerum Hungaricarum Scriptores, 1 : 385; and Antonius Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum decades (Pozsony, 1744), dec. 3, liber 3, pp. 8-27, 401.

15. Demény, Az 1437-38-as bábolnai népi jelkelés, pp. 230-31.

16. József Pataki, “Az 1437-es felkeles kirobbanasanak történetehez” [About the History of the Outbreak of the Uprising of 1437], Studia Universitatum Victor Babes et Bolyai (Cluj), 3 (1958) : 62-63.

17. The document listing the names of the peasant leaders was recorded by the monastery of Kolozsmonostor and it will be discussed in detail below. It was first published by József Teleki in Hunyadiak kora Magyarorszdgon [The Age of Hunyadis in Hungary], vol. 10 (Buda, 18S2), pp. 3-10. The original copy of the document is now in the Hungarian National Archive (Budapest), D1.36972. It was also published by Geréb, A magyar paraszthdboruk, pp. 63-71, and Demény, As 1437-38-as bábolnai népi felkelés, pp. 259-66.

18. Hussitism in Hungary is a subject which cannot be discussed here in detail. Indeed, the subject is still awaiting its modern historian. For works that describe the movement but which are now outdated, see Toth-Szabó, Pal, A cseh-huszita mozgalmak es uralom története Magyarorszdgon [Czech-Hussite Movements and Rule in Hungary] (Budapest, 1917 Google Scholar); fitienne Barta, “L'Universite Charles de Prague et la Hongrie,” Revue d'Histoire Comparee (Paris), 7 (1948) : 221-59; Cyrill, Horvath, “Huszita emlekeink” [Our Hussite Memories], Irodalomtdrteneti Kozlemenyek (Budapest), 6 (1896) : 1–12Google Scholar; Pal Hunfalvy, “A magyar huszitakrol” [About Hungarian Hussites], Budapesti Szemle, 45 (1886) : 460-71; Karoly, Mollay, “Sopron ismerkedese a Huszitizmussal” [Sopron's Acquaintance with Hussitism], Soproni Szemle, 18 (1964) : 333–35Google Scholar; Székely, György, “A huszitizmus es a magyar nep” [Hussitism and the Hungarian People], Ssdzadok, 90 (1956) : 331–67Google Scholar; György Székely, “Eretnekmozgalmak” [Heretical Movements], in Székely, Tanulmdnyok, pp. 127-36; and Sziics, Jenő, A magyarorszdgi huszita mozgalom es a magyar nep [The Hungarian Hussite Movement and the Magyar People] (Budapest, 1954)Google Scholar.

19. See note 17.

20. Demény, As 1437-38-as babolnai nepi jelkeles, p. 2S9. The original document is published as an appendix to this volume.

21. Ibid., p. 260.

22. For regulations establishing baronial rights to one-ninth of the harvest see Szabó, István, “Az 1351. évi jobbágytörvények,” [The Laws of Serfdom of 1351], Szazadok, 88 (1954) : 497–524Google Scholar. See also Erdélyi, Lászlό, “Az elso ado elmeletehez” [About the Theory of the First Tax], Szazadok, 47 (1913) : 281–89Google Scholar.

23. Demény, Az 1437-38-as babolnai nepi jelkeles, p. 196.

24. Marxist historians in Hungary and Rumania have argued that the various agreements of Kolozsmonostor were not true reflections of the mood of the Transylvanian peasantry, that the peasant movement was a great deal more radical than the agreements indicate (see Karacsonyi, Bela's review of Geréb, A magyar parassthdboruk irodalma, in Szdzadok, 84 [1950] : 415–19Google Scholar; and Demény, As 1437-38-as bdbolncti nepi felkeles, p. 249). In asserting that such agreements necessarily represent compromises between lords and peasants, however, the Marxist historians failed to distinguish between the first and second agreements. While the second agreement does show an increase in baronial influence, the first, in my opinion, includes the major demands of the peasantry. The reduction of the tithe, the abolition of seigneurial dues, and the creation of a yearly peasant assembly were ideas that could not possibly have been originated by the lords. On the other hand, these ideas were not sufficiently revolutionary to create a new society in Transylvania. The very fact that the peasants were willing to negotiate with the barons both before and after the battle of Babolna Mountain is an indication of the truly moderate nature of the movement.

25. Rodney H. Hilton, Bond Men Made Free : Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (London, 1973), pp. 118-19.

26. Ibid., especially pp. 109-15.

27. See especially Székely, “Magyar parasztháboruk,” pp. 12-13, 18-21.

28. István Szabó, Tanulmdnyok a magyar parasztsag történetebol [Studies about the History of the Hungarian Peasantry] (Budapest, 1948), p. 50.

29. See, for example, Jenő Berlász, “A romansag az erdelyi paraszttarsadalomban” [Rumanians in the Peasant Society of Transylvania], in Deer et al., Magyarok es Romanok, pp. 582-83; Daicoviciu et al., Erdély története, 1 : 347; Stefan, Pascu, Bobilna (Bucharest, 1957)Google Scholar.

30. Tóth-Szabó, A cseh-huszita mosgalmak, p. 121.

31. The peasants negotiating with the barons included both Wlachs and Magyars. Mihaly of Virágosberek was a Wlach; Pal Vajdahazi Nagy was the “flagbearer of the Magyars and Wlachs.“

32. See the letter of Lóránt Lépes, vice voivode, to the Hungarian nobles, Saxons, and Székelys confirming the union, in Fejér, CDH, 7 : 912-15. See also Karoly Szabó, Székely okleveltar, 1 : 134-37.

33. Demény, Az 1437-38-as bábolnai népi felkelés, p. 211.

34. For an accurate text of this agreement see ibid., pp. 269-73, and Szöveggyüjtemény Magyarorszdg történetenek. tanulmdnyozasdhoz [Collection of Texts for the Study of the History of Hungary], vol. 1 (Budapest, 1967), pp. 289-91.

35. Demény, As 1437-38-as bdbolnai nepi jelkeles, p. 219.

36. The letter of Mihaly Kusaly Jakes to the Saxons reported this siege (see Elek, Jakab, Kolozsvár tbrtenete : Oklevéltár [The History of Kolozsvár : Archive], 2 vols. (Buda, 1870-88), 1 : 177 Google Scholar.

37. See the letter of Jakes, Dezső Losonci, and “some nobles from Hungary” to the Saxons asking for help against the peasants, in Karoly Szabó, Székely okleveltar, 3 : 53-54.

38. A letter of the widowed Queen Elisabeth, former wife of King Albert I, expressed her displeasure at the actions of the voivode in confiscating some properties of the Báthoris following the peasant rebellion (Handschrift Weiss, no. 160/3, p. 284 in the Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna, Austria).

39. Demény, As 1437-38-as bábolnai népi felkelés, p. 292.