| Difficulties and Possibilities | 2. ECONOMIC REORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION | Developments in Mining and Industry |
Miklós Bethlen had many instructions for the chief steward of his estates in Transylvania. 'Since the vineyards suffered heavy damage during the recent troubled times', new vines had to be layered. The damaged mills and manorial buildings had to be repaired, and the barns and kitchen gardens 'laid waste in many places' had to be {2-277.} restored 'even if it costs money'. The efforts to restore seigniorial farming in the aftermath of the Vasvár Treaty are best illustrated by Bethlen's instructions concerning his farmsteads. The main task of the supervisor, András Sallák, was to assess 'the present state of farming and the extent to which it could be revived and expanded with the current stock of animals, [...] what kind of animals should be bred and where', and 'to expand productive capacity as far as possible.'[44]
In the 16th century, seigniorial farming in Transylvania was at an experimental stage, but research indicates that by the second half of the 17th century, it had become the dominant tendency on both private and treasury domains. It was probably the country's territorial losses and the comparatively poor quality of the remaining grain-growing lands that drove landowners to make their estates more productive. Manorial farming had always been adapted to Transylvania's specific circumstances, and it continued to differ in some respects from the pattern in Hungary proper. As in royal Hungary, the larger agricultural domains were concentrated in the hands of a few aristocratic families and the state; but while the domains in Hungary consisted of a few large estates, in Transylvania they tended to be more fragmented, encompassing small and medium-sized estates.
Thus István Apor's domain, which covered in the aggregate some 11,000 hectares (20,000 hold), consisted of medium and small estates scattered all over the country. He owned estates, some of which encompassed only a few villages, in the counties of Csík, Udvarhely, Háromszék, Küküllő, Torda, Kolozs, Doboka, Belső-Szolnok, and Fehér, as well as in the region of Szeben. Mihály Teleki had little property to start with, and he acquired his estates on the merit of his military and public service. He assembled these properties in an eminently purposeful fashion, yet even when he had become Transylvania's greatest landowner, his domain consisted of a multitude of scattered fragments. Only Prince Apafi's private {2-278.} domain and those of the treasury came close to the Hungarian model. Ebesfalva and Balázsfalva were ringed by large estates belonging to Apafi. Fehérvár, Görgény, Gyalu, Kolozsmonostor, Huszt, Szamosújvár, Zalatna, and Déva lay at the centre of old treasury domains. On the treasury's Fogaras domain, three manorial centres, organically linked, had emerged at Fogaras, Porumbák, and Komána.
It is difficult to estimate the extent of seigniorial farming on the great private estates. One analyst has concluded that half of the Apor estate was devoted to this activity, but there is reason to believe that this estimate is too high. The great landowners' farms were generally situated around a manor-house on scattered, small and medium-sized plots of land, some of which adjoined the peasants' own fields.
The fragmented nature of manorial farming is, like that of domains, attributable to Transylvania's distinctive pattern of socio-economic development as well as to more recent developments. To be sure, the landowners' efforts to grow grain were hampered by both topography and climate; but the value of the land, and their ability to extend manorial farming, depended in large measure on the availability of manpower, i.e. on the number of villein families. Complete records are lacking for the Apor estates, and partial registers show the presence of no more than 655 bound villeins and 175 cotters. In 1694, the seventy-six settlements on the Teleki domain held 1,956 villeins, 178 cotter families, and 297 settlers who were fugitives from elsewhere. The treasury estates held a greater attraction for villeins, and thus probably had fewer manpower problems than private landowners.
Transylvania's agrarian population was highly diversified. Many of its strata enjoyed specific privileges, while the relatively small number of landed villeins owed a variety of services. The medium-sized estates associated with Hungary's affluent, lesser nobility were not found in Transylvania; but there were a great {2-279.} many lesser nobles who farmed with the aid of one or two villein families, and the towns — which continued to play a significant social and economic function — also absorbed considerable manpower. In illustrating the typical nobleman's reluctance to go down into the depths of a salt mine, a contemporary verse cites something other than treasure, money, and land:
| 'Találnék oly embert az Vármegye táján, |
| Hogy száz ház jobbágyért a szerencse szárnyán |
| Aknába nem menne az mozgó lajtorján.' |
| [Not one man could I find in this whole county |
| Who, even for a hundred villeins, would try his luck |
| And climb down the shaky ladder into a shaft.][45] |
Manorial farming was facilitated by the fact that many of the villeins who served the landowner owned draught animals. One of István Apor's manorial farms, linked to four villages in Kolozs County, encompassed some 270 hectares of ploughland and 95 hectares of hayfield; it was tended by the families of thirty-five perpetual villeins and eight cotters, whose livestock included 30 horses, 180 oxen, 117 cows, and 174 young bullocks.
The supply of cultivable land was limited, and its quality was variable, as was that of the manpower. The seigniorial farms could only produce a profit by fully exploiting the capabilities of the villeins, whose socage obligations were, for all practical purposes, unlimited in Transylvania. The comment in the urbarium of 1679 for Körösfő and Nagykapus reflected general practice: the villeins 'provided services as required by the landowners'.[46] The villeins of Bánffyhunyad working on the Bánffy estates at Kalotaszeg had similar obligations: 'Normally they were to serve every third week, but when an urgent need arose to bring in the harvest or tend the vines, this rule gave way to the compulsory prolongation of their service.'[47]
{2-280.} The landlords were utterly dependent on the villein's labour, and did their best to protect and retain this most precious possession. János Petki instructed his marshal [udvarbíró] at Csíkcsicsó: 'You must make sure that [the villeins] do not hide or run away; behave in such a way that their numbers will grow. Do not harass them, nor impose fines, for it is such actions, and not a wish to avoid service, that makes villeins go into hiding.'[48] Miklós Bethlen and Mihály Teleki gave similar instructions. Bethlen also forbade his marshal to impose fines in money or kind on villeins who shirked their work; he considered caning or incarceration more appropriate.
The market came to have a determining influence on the production pattern of seigniorial farms, and landowners tried to expand grain production. Bethlen instructed his steward: 'If you lack the grain best suited to the soil, obtain it from elsewhere and, if necessary, buy some for cash'.[49] Some 5,000 cords [köböl] of autumn wheat were sown on István Apor's estates. On other estates, spring wheat and oats were sown as well as autumn wheat, and, more rarely, rye or barley. The landowners had low expectations of their crops: 'In Fogaras 1200 cords of oats were sown, [which] should yield 3600 cords,' noted Princess Anna Bornemissza in 1667.[50] That same year, the wheat crop amounted to 4,524 shock [kalangya] at Balázsfalva and 8,035 cords at Ebesfalva; assuming a threefold seed-yield, this means that grain was sown on less than 300 hectares on these two estates, which together covered some 5,700 hectares. Some manorial farms planted maize ('Turkish wheat'), which began to displace millet on villein plots as well.
Flax and hemp, the traditional industrial plants, were now joined by tobacco, which was cultivated earlier in Transylvania than in Hungary. Unlike tobacco, which was grown only on the villeins' plots, fruit was grown both on these and on manorial farms. Bethlen proudly recorded that he had planted three hundred cherry trees as well as other fruit trees. Marrows, cabbage, and {2-281.} other vegetables were grown on plots surrounding the central manors, which were often very modest buildings. Herb and flower gardens served cooking and medicinal needs as well as the important activity of beekeeping.
Stockbreeding was more closely integrated with other agricultural activities in the principality than in Hungary. Many of the rich highland meadows and hayfields that distinguished Transylvanian agriculture passed from common to private use, which increased considerably the socage services demanded of villeins. Traditionally, vineyards had been concentrated in the Küküllő Valley and around Beszterce and Enyed, but vines were planted in many other regions in this period. References to 'old wine', 'sweet manorial wine', and 'vermouth from the Fejérvár manor' indicate a qualitative diversification of viticulture and wine-making.
Although the extent varied, stockbreeding was an integral part of manorial farming. The prince's stud farms of Balázsfalva, Katona, Komána, Radnót, and Porumbák enjoyed wide renown, though horse-breeding was generally considered a luxury. In the report on his estates' development, Bethlen notes that he 'paid cash for cows, pigs, sheep, and horses'.[51] Pigs were routinely imported from the Romanian principalities. Cows and sheep were kept on the estates of Apafi and Thököly. Of the butter, various kinds of cheese and curd, and wool that was produced, most went for local consumption, but some of it reached the market. The wheat, wine, and fruit put on the market by the landowners came mainly from the villeins' deliveries or stocks obtained by other means.
Despite the development of manorial farming, villeins' plots and the farms of various privileged communities contributed the larger part of Transylvania's agricultural output. The country had lost its most fertile lands, but the manorial farms may well have made up for the resulting shortfall in wheat production; landowners urged their villeins to plant wheat, rye, and oats. This may explain how, after 1684, the country could fed the imperial forces: records {2-282.} show that, in 1689, 20,812 cords of wheat (as well as other grain) were supplied to these troops.
In the midst of the rapid extension of manorial farming, all manpower came in handy, and little effort was made to increase the complement of perpetual villeins. By 1680, it was clear that the foundations of this expansion were weak. Having lost its main wheat-growing regions, and cut off from the wheat-growing plains of royal Hungary, Transylvania was driven to grow its own food. This necessity, in turn, had some negative repercussions in other sectors of the economy.
| Difficulties and Possibilities | 2. ECONOMIC REORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION | Developments in Mining and Industry |