E LITE CITIZENS IN THE MARKET - TOWNS OF THE LATE MEDIEVAL H EGYALJA REGION

The research of medieval market-towns has old traditions in Hungary. Among others Elemér Mályusz, Jenő Szűcs, Vera Bácskai, Erik Fügedi, Erzsébet Ladá-nyi and András KubiLadá-nyi were doing researches on the medieval oppidum in Hungary during the last 50 years. These investigations have a common feature:

they usually examined the economic functions of these settlements and the role they played in the development of craftsmanship and trade. Another important issue was whether the market-towns contributed to the development of „western-type” citizenship in Hungary. The researches were mainly of general character and focussed on the towns on the national level.¹

Most recently it was András Kubinyi who applied the „central point system”

he elaborated in Hungarian town development to the oppida. He proved that medieval Hungarian market-towns could be involved in the development of towns from a functional point of view. On this basis, the oppidum seems to be more urbanized than it had been though before. Both its outstanding economic

1 The most important general works in this topic are Bácskai, Vera, Magyar mezővárosok a 15.

században. Budapest, 1965. (Értekezések a történeti tudományok köréből. Új sorozat, 37) and Mályusz, Elemér, “A mezővárosi fejlődés”, In: Gy. Székely (ed.), Tanulmányok a parasztság történetéhez Magyarországon a 14. században. Budapest, 1953. 128–191. Besides the origin of the market-towns is examined in Fügedi, Erik, „Mezővárosaink kialakulása a 14. században”, Történelmi Szemle 14 (1972) 321–342. From the viewpoint of the economic situation the following studies must been mentioned: Bácskai, Vera, „Mezőgazdasági árutermelés és árucsere a mezővárosokban a 15. században”, Agrártörténeti Szemle 6 (1964) 1–35., Makkai, László, „A mezővárosi földhasználat kialakulásának kérdései (A telkes és „kertes” földhasználat a 13–15.

században)”, In: A. Bodor–B. Cselényi–E. Jancsó–Zs. Jakó–T. A. Szabó (eds.), Emlékkönyv Kelemen Lajos születésének nyolcvanadik évfordulójára. Bukarest, 1957. 463–478. and Székely, György, „Vidéki termelőágak és árukereskedelem Magyarországon a 15–16. században”, Agrártörténeti Szemle 3 (1961) 309–343. Additional data: Szűcs, Jenő, Városok és kézművesség a 15. századi Magyarországon. Budapest, 1955. passim. Regarding the market-towns’ legal status and everyday official functions: Bácskai, Vera, „A mezővárosi önkormányzat a 15.

században és a 16. század elején”, In: Gy. Bónis–A. Degré (eds.), Tanulmányok a magyar helyi önkormányzat múltjából. Budapest, 1971. 9–34., Ladányi Erzsébet, „Az oppidum fogalom használata a középkori Magyarországon. Az oppidumok jogélete”, Levéltári Szemle 42 (1992) 4:

3–12.; Idem, „Libera villa, civitas, oppidum. Terminológiai kérdések a magyar városfejlődés-ben”, Történelmi Szemle 23 (1980) 450–477.

227

LÁSZLÓ SZABOLCS GULYÁS

228

role and its function in Hungarian social development makes it important to investigate the issue.² The society of market-towns is not such a popular field amongst medievalists as for instance their economic role. So far it was Vera Bácskai and Elemér Mályusz who mainly investigated the financial situation, family and social relationships and the office-holding of the leading groups in market-towns.³

The most suitable sources for examining the society of medieval market-towns are the records issued by municipal councils. In the medieval Hegyalja region we are in a lucky situation: here we can find densely situated wine-growing settlements, resulting in intensive property-circulation and thus, in an ever greater number of documents issued. A significant type of source for the examination of the town elites are the commercial contracts that make it possible to come to conclusions in family- and social relationships, vineyard-possessions, craftsmanship. The appearance of craftsmen in the town councils are closely reralated with the above sources as well.

About 1200 the territory of the Hegyalja region was royal property. Patak and Újhely were the most important settlements.⁴ The former was the residence of the comes of Patak, and the latter obtained city privilege in 1261.⁵ At the beginning both were possessed by the ruler, but in 1390 the Perényi managed to get hold of them.⁶ However, in 1429 King Sigismund granted the privilege of free royal city to Patak. At the same time the Pálóci acquired the entire lordship, including both cities, and held it up to the end of the Middle Ages.⁷ Patak was one of the most important settlements of the family, who also held their residence here.⁸

2 See: Kubinyi, András, Városfejlődés és vásárhálózat a középkori Alföldön és az Alföld szélén.

Szeged, 2000. (Dél-alföldi évszázadok, 14) and Idem, „Városhálózat a késő középkori Kárpát-medencében”, In: E. Csukovits–T. Lengyel (eds.), Bártfától Pozsonyig. Városok a 13–17. szá-zadban. Budapest, 2005. (Társadalom- és művelődéstörténeti tanulmányok, 35) 9–36. Kubinyi made a considerable impression on the research of medieval urban history in Hungary. His scholarly achievements were summed up in an article: Kubinyi, András, „Miért lettem a közép-kor kutatója?”, Korall 21–22 (2005) 218–244.

3 Mályusz, Mezővárosi fejlődés, 142–143. and Bácskai, Mezővárosi önkormányzat, 14–17.

4 The early history of Patak and his vicinity was examined in detail in Szűcs, Jenő, „Sárospatak kezdetei és a pataki erdőuradalom”, Történelmi Szemle 35 (1993) 1–57. Additional information on these settlements’ medieval history: Détshy, Mihály, „A sárospataki r. k. plébániatemplom történetének okleveles adatai”, Műemlékvédelem 6 (1969–1970) 89–101., Idem, Újhely várának története. Sátoraljaújhely, 1994. (A Sátoraljaújhelyi Kazinczy Ferenc Múzeum Füzetei, 1). Idem,

„Hol állt a középkori sárospataki vár?”, A Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 6 (1966) 177–197., and Cs. Csorba–J. Fehér–I. Hőgye–D. Kováts, Sátoraljaújhely 1261–1986. Sátoraljaújhely, 1986.

5 Elenchus fontium historiae urbanae. III./2., Ch. Ed. A. Kubinyi. Budapest, 1997. (Acta collegii historiae urbanae societatis historicorum internationalis 43.)

6 Codex Diplomaticus Hungariae Ecclesiasticus ac civilis. I–XI., Stud. et op. Georgii Fejér.

Budae, 1829–1844. X/1. 340.

7 Related sources: National Archives of Hungary, Collection of Medieval Charters (Magyar Országos Levéltár, Diplomatikai Levéltár [hereinafter DL] 12 052. and DL 12 092.

8 The first data for the castle is from 1444. Détshy, Sárospataki vár, 182.

THE ELITE OF THE LATE MEDIEVAL MARKET-TOWNS 229

The most important settlements and ecclesiestical institutions in the region

Újhely, and even to a greater extent Patak were rather urbanized places. Both had exempt parishes and two monasteries, besides, the latter had a nunnery, a hospital and a public bath.⁹ Liszka was owned by the chapter of Szepes from the year 1248

9 For the exempt status of the churches see: Szűcs, Sárospatak kezdetei, 9–12. and Ladányi Erzsébet, “A „Bodrog-parti Athén” kezdeteiről”, Magyar Könyvszemle 117 (2000) 191–198. 18.

footnote and the connecting parts of the text. Other mentioned ecclesiastical institutions appeared in a papal edict in 1418. – XV. századi pápák oklevelei. V. Márton pápa (1417–1431).

Ed. P. Lukcsics. Budapest, 1931. (Olaszországi magyar oklevéltár, 1) 49. Additional related sources: Csánki, Dezső, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában. Vol. I–III., V.. Budapest, 1890–1913. I. 338., Karácsonyi, János, Szent Ferenc rendjének története Magyarországon 1711-ig. Vol. I–II. Budapest, 1923–1924. II. 529–531.; 556–557. The hospital is mentioned at Kubinyi, András, Főpapok, egyházi intézmények és vallásosság a középkori Magyarországon. Budapest, 1999. (METEM Könyvek, 22) 266. The earliest data for the bath is from 1515: „Leonardus Germanus provisor pronunc procuratorque domus balnei vaporalis de Patak” – National Archives of Hungary, Photo-collection of Medieval Charters (Magyar Országos Levéltár, Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [hereinafter DF]) 217 460.

LÁSZLÓ SZABOLCS GULYÁS

230

up to the end of the Middle Ages. In the fifteenth century the market-town was controlled by an officialis, who was one of the locals.¹⁰ Tolcsva was first possessed by the Tolcsva genus but from 1398 on it was owned by the Debrői, Csicseri, Upori, Cekei, Tárcai and Perényi families.¹¹ Szántó was one of the most significant market-towns in the region. From the thirteenth century it was owned by the Szántói, but by 1459 it was annexed to the lordship of Tokaj. Its importance is clearly shown by the fact that a Franciscan monastery was founded there in the fifteenth century and it was the third populous settlement in Újvár county, having 109 households.¹²

The history of other important settlements in the Hegyalja region (as Vámos-újfalu, Tállya, Mád and Keresztúr) were interwoven into the framework of the lordship of Tokaj. In the fifteenth century the landlords of this territory were the Szilágyi, Brankovics, Szapolyai, and partly the Perényi families.¹³

Apart from these examples, I have examined two market-towns, which are actually not located in the Hegyalja region, but in the near vicinity. Gönc was one of the German villages in the lordship of Vizsoly, and thus it was in the possession of the Queen since the thirteenth century. In 1391 the Bebek family managed to acquire it, but at the end of the Middle Ages the settlement was owned by the king, the Szapolyais, and the chapter of Szepes.¹⁴ In Újvár county Kassa (Košice, Slovakia) was the most populous, while Gönc the second largest about 1420. In 1511 it was licensed to hold four fairs annually. There were two monasteries in the neighbourhood, which also testifies its importance.¹⁵

Szikszó, another of the oppida under investigation was by the end of the fourteenth century obtained by the king from the Aba kindred.¹⁶ About 1430 it was

10 Az Árpád–házi királyok okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke. Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico–diplomatica. Vol. I–II/1. (1001–1272). Ed. I. Szentpétery. Budaapest, 1923–1943, II/2.–

II/4. (1272–1301), Ed. I. Borsa. Budaapest, 1961–1987. (Magyar Országos Levéltár Kiadványai II. Forráskiadványok 9, 13.), I. 890. The overseer: DF 214 648.

11 Zsigmondkori Oklevéltár I–II/2. (1387–1410), Ed. E. Mályusz. Budapest, 1951–1958. III–VII.

(1411–1420), Ed. I. Borsa. Budapest, 1993–2001. VIII–IX. (1421–1422.), Ed. I. Borsa–N. C. Tóth.

Budapest, 2003–2004. X. (1423), Ed. N. C. Tóth. Budaapest, 2007. (Magyar Országos Levéltár Kiadványai II. Forráskiadványok, 1, 3–4, 22, 25, 27, 32, 37, 39, 41, 43.) I. 5467. and VII. 302., Csánki, Történelmi földrajz I. 339., Bándi, Zsuzsa, “Északkelet-magyarországi pálos kolostorok oklevelei (regeszták)”, Borsodi Levéltári Évkönyv 5 (1985) 683–684., Pauleczki, Ferenc, Tolcsva története.

Tolcsva, 1996. 23–24. The Cekei family kept a provisor in the settlement in 1505: DF 229 262.

12 Györffy, György, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza. Geographia historica Hungariae tempore stirpis Arpadianae. Vol. I–III. Budapest, 1963–1987. I. 142–143.; Csánki, Történelmi földrajz, I. 200., Codex Diplomaticus VIII/7. 153-154. For the monastery: DL 72 087 (1500).

13 An adequate summary about the history of the lordship of Tokaj: Németh, Péter, “A tokaji uradalom kialakulása”, Századok 139 (2005) 429–447.

14 Györffy, Történeti földrajz, I. 89. A summary of the medieval history of Gönc: Iványi, Béla, Gönc szabadalmas mezőváros története. s. l., 1926.

15 For the tax look Iványi, Gönc, 8–9. The privilege: DL 39 969. About the monasteries: Joó, Tibor,

“A Gönc melletti pálos kolostorok”, A Hermann Ottó Múzeum Közleményei 24 (1986) 48–58.

16 Györffy, Történeti földrajz, I. 147–148.