TÖRTÉNETI TANULMÁNYOK LXXIII. 2021.

Tünde Veres

Livestock keeping at the Regéc estate as reflected by 17th

century sources and other Rákóczi estates*

“My Lord Steward of Regéc, Lázár Péderi, give forty barrels to Lord
Steward of János Locsintzky of Szerencs, upon receipt of my commis-
sion.”1 This instruction was given by the one-time administrator of the
Rákóczi estates, named Ferenc Klobusiczky. In spite of its brevity the
source text carries a lot of information because it refers not only to con-
nections between neighbouring Rákóczi estates but also reflects on the
management of those estates. There is sound reason for concluding from
the instruction that there was a closer cooperation between the estates of
Szerencs and Regéc. This is also proven by the accounts of Regéc Ma-
jordomo István Szilvássy, dated 1701. According to the detailed accounts
in most cases livestock and produce – sheep, hemp, poultry, bacon, dried
plums – were sent from the Regéc estate to Szerencs, along with beer, old
wine and bottles. Moreover, according to cash expenditures, an amount
of 180 forints was transferred to the Steward of Szerencs from Regéc.2 A
whole lot of minor details indicate that there was a kind of an economic
relationship between the Rákóczi estates. Such cooperation occurred
among the estates at Szerencs, Ónod, Makovica, Munkács and Sáros-
patak, as well as Regéc, which is in the focus of this paper. The level,
functioning and background of this cooperation has not been studied yet,
while the farming activities carried out at the estates concerned have.
Accordingly, there is a blank spot in this segment of economic history

*
Supported by the ÚNKP-20-4 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry
for Innovation and Technology.
1  Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [National Archives of Hungary,
henceforth MNL OL] E 554 Magyar Kincstári Levéltárak [Archives of the Hungarian
Treasury], Magyar Kamara Archívuma [Archive of the Hungarian Chamber], Vegyes
iratok, ügyviteli segédletek, pecsétnyomók, Városi és kamarai iratok [Miscellaneous
documents, administrative aids, stamps, Municipal and chamber documents] (1527–
1894) (hereinafter E 554) Szalay Collection 1701. t. sz. Klobusiczky Ferenc utasítása
Pédery Lázárnak [Instruction from Ferenc Klobusiczky to Lázár Pédery], fol. 159r.
2  MNL OL G 29 A Thököly- és a Rákóczi szabadságharcok levéltárai [Archives of
the Thököly and Rákóczi Freedom Fights], Rákóczi-szabadságharc levéltára [Archive
of the Rákóczi Freedom Fight], Gyűjteményes rész, Gazdasági iratok [Collection,
Economic documents] 1694–1712. (hereinafter G 29) Rákóczi birtokok iratai [Docu-
ments of the Rákóczi estates] V.3.C/G package (hereinafter pkg.) 82. case (hereinafter
c.) 96. 23–73.

52
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

which deserves some in-depth exploration. However, to examine this

cooperation, we need to know its background; in this case the allodial
management practices of the various estates. This is because studying
these details, including their positive as well as negative sides, i.e. the
difficulties faced in the segment concerned will help clarify the reasons
behind the various amounts of money and produce transferred between
estates.
This study is such an undertaking, a study of livestock husbandry at
the allodium of the Regéc estate and compare the results with the data of
the Makovica and the Szerencs estates.
The farmland sizes steadily increased from the mid-17th century.
The policy of increasing the lands farmed by landlords themselves dates
back to the life of György Rákóczi I who had increased the number of
allodiums on his estates in Hungary to 37 by 1648.3 I.e. just like on other
Rákóczi estates agricultural production took place on allodial lands on
the Regéc estate as well. These allodiums were used for the production
of wheat for the most part, though not exclusively. This needs to be re-
marked specifically because agricultural production on allodium would,
of course, involve allodial grape production as well. On account of its
particular importance however, it was separately managed in that age
already. Accordingly, allodial farming means the cultivation and mana-
gement of and agricultural/forestry production on arable fields, meadows
and woodlands. Another segment of agricultural production – livestock
production – was also taking place on landlords’ own farms (allodiums),
or more precisely, at allodial centres.
Livestock were kept first inside the fenced area, later at the village
of Fony and even later at the Tállya-Rátka allodium. The livestock produ-
ced included pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats and horses. During Miklós
Eszterházy’s ownership (1635–1646) even a park was inside the fence
where as many as 14 deer were kept.4 No more detail is available at pre-
sent about the later history of the park.
As to how allodial livestock keeping was not a particularly important
element of agricultural production in Regéc is clearly illustrated by Figu-
re 1. There was practically no development apart from sheep keeping and
data show that even the number of pigs fluctuated towards the end of the

3  Makkai, László, I. Rákóczi György birtokainak gazdasági iratai (1631–1648).

[Economic documents of the estates of György Rákóczi I] Budapest, 1954. 57.
4  MNL OL P 108 Rep. Magánlevéltárak [Private archives], Eszterházy család
hercegi ága [The ducal line of the Eszterházy family] (1527–1942), Repositorium
(1527–1936) (hereinafter P 108 Rep.) 34. Fasc. D. Nro. 141.

53
TÜNDE VERES

17th century. There is nothing surprising about the fact that only a few
horses were kept on the estate, for which one reason was related to costs.
The price of a horse did not exceed, indeed, did not even equal, that of an
ox. Data from 1711 and 1712 show that the price of a horse was 16,80 and
14,25 Hungarian forints, while that of an ox was 18–17 forints,5 therefore
the higher cost resulted from sustenance. The reason is that horses are
highly demanding as regards the purity of drinking water and feed, and
a horse may have needed 10–15 kg of feed per day, depending on its
constitution and use. They required even more drinking water, amounting
up to three times the amount of feed they consumed, in weight.6 But even
more importantly, horses were too sensitive for being used in agriculture,
particularly in view of the fact that cattle were much more powerful for
pulling the heavier ploughs used at the time. Horses kept on the estate
– including those purchased in 1711 as well – were used for carriage on
the allodium. Our source contains a specific reference to this, explaining
that 6 of the total of 10 dray horses were sold in 1712 to allodium at
Fony, Szántó and Tállya. Records from 1711 say that a new horse-drawn
wagon, also belonging to an allodium, was repaired, for which iron pieces
from “Türherz” were purchased for 1 forint and 68 denars.7

5  MNL OL E 197 Magyar Kincstári Levéltárak [Archives of the Hungarian Trea-

sury], Magyar Kamara Archivuma [Archive of the Hungarian Chamber], Családi
és személyi fondok [Family and personal fonds], Archivum Patakiense Rákóczia-
no-Trautsonianum (hereinafter E 197) Rationes Provisorales pkg. 50. Dominii Regéc
1711. case (hereinafter: c.) 59. No. 1. fol. 12r.; Ibid pkg 51. Dominii Regécz 1712. c.
60. No. 1. fol. 41v–42r.
6  Regarding horse keeping see: Horn, Péter, Állattenyésztés I. Szarvasmarha, juh,
ló. [Livestock Production I, Cattle, sheep, horses] Budapest, 2000.
Online: https://regi.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop425/2011_0001_521_Allat-
tenyesztes_1/ch22s02.html downloaded 12. 01. 2021
7  MNL OL E 197 Rationes Provisorales pkg. 50. Dominii Regécz 1711. c. 59. No. 1.
fol. 24r.

54
 Year Cattle Oxen Sheep Goats Horses Pigs Poultry Geese Ducks Turkeys Guinea fowls
1635 55 8 156 31 9 32 10 8 309
1639 35 2 326 138 165 27 4 697
1646 31 30 297 47 405
1678 15 36 329 230 40 111 14 10 785
1686 21 28 120 51 19 15 4 17 275
1695 40 23 21 20 213 87 404
1696 20 21 40 76 112 35 304
1701 67 30 985 191 400 292 60 41 2066
1710 26 61 1216 151 4 219 210 61 1947
1711 35 43 44 73 10 31 236
1712 50 30 47 10 75 179 13 404

55
Figure 1. The allodial livestock of the Regéc estate on the basis of accounts and inventories. The account data are the figures appearing under
the heading of “delivered”, that is the number of animals delivered to/from the allodium.
LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE
 Estate (year) Cattle Oxen Sheep Goats Horses Pigs Poultry Geese Ducks Turkeys
Rohonc-S zalonak 96 57 340–580 60–100 100 1130–1330 2063
(1637)
Ónod (1671) 67 14 437 3 449 138 60 73 1241
Makovica (1684) 206 45 119 156 160 116 90 32 29 953
TÜNDE VERES

Makovica (1690) 182 175 29 41 124 73 34 13 671

Szerencs (1701) 112 24 252 70 84 10 30 582
Szerencs (1703) 150 1000 600 1750
Makovica (1711) 9 11 153 42 9 224
Makovica (1718) 23 23 12 8 69 37 172

Figure 2. Livestock figures of allodiums – table of comparative figures

56
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

Cattle were bred for two purposes. For use as beasts of draught for
use in crop production and for its milk and meat. There were about 50
heads of cattle during the century under review. Only about half of them
were oxen at the beginning, and later on as the entire population decrea-
sed, their number dropped to four. The question is why there were so few
cattle on the Regéc allodium. The answer to this question is a complex
one. Lying in a hilly area, what little grazing land the Regéc estate had
was also grazed by goats and sheep. Goats and sheep graze grass practi-
cally to the ground leaving nothing to cattle. The lack of suitable grazing
fields is, however, not the main reason because this problem could have
been remedied by herding the cattle to better, more spacious areas and, if
and when it was necessary, they probably did remedy this problem.
Another and practically the most important factor determining the
decrease in number of cattle populations, was armies passing through the
area. Inventories reflect the devastation caused by German armies during
the 17th century. They looted granaries, laid waste to buildings and their
activities probably did not stop there: they must have confiscated cattle as
a source of food. A letter sent by András Fekete in 1675 from Tállya de-
picts the burdens of quartering soldiers. Fekete wrote his letter to Mihály
Szentiványi, prefect of the estate of Borbála Battyány. Batthyány was
wife of Zsigmond Forgách III, Prefect of Borsod County and Chamber-
lain of Ferdinand III.8 His estates were located in Upper-Hungary, inclu-
ding the Szalánc estate. He owned a manor house in Tállya, registered in
the terrier as “the Manorhouse of the Forgáchs’”. András Fekete was a
servant of this manorhouse. He wrote the following to Szentiványi about
his own and the manor house’s situation:

“I have received your letter in which you asked me to let you know
about the truth of whether the General had cattle slaughtered at the
slaughter house or not. Now I am writing, again, as I did earlier, that
he had twelve heads of cattle slaughtered, (...) Then when the soldiers
returned, they took up accommodation here they and their cattle had
to be fed by her Ladyship’s household. There were twelve Germans,
8  Regarding the life of the wife of Zsigmond Forgách III see: Szabó, András
Péter, “Egy felső-magyarországi katolikus főúr pengeélen. Forgách (III.) Zsigmond
levelezése I. Rákóczi György erdélyi fejedelemmel (1644–1645)”, [A Catholic lord
in Upper Hungary on thin ice. Correspondence between Zsigmond Forgách III with
Prince of Transylvania György Rákóczi I (1644–1645] In. Dénesi Tamás – Dejcsics
Konrád (eds.), Collectanea Sancti Martini. A Pannonhalmi Főapátság Gyűjteménye-
inek Értesítője 2. [Bulletin of the Collections of the Archabbey of Pannonhalma] Pan-
nonhalma, 2014. 291–344.

57
TÜNDE VERES

eighteen horses, two wagons and four oxen and I had to supply them
from her Ladyship’s supplies while they were here because I have
nothing and if it were not for your care I would die of hunger. When
they left they brought here two more Germans to be accommodated
for the winter whom I have to give food and drink every day and I do
not know what I should give them from because I do not have myself
anything and they want meat every day. If it was not given from our
Ladyship, I cannot stay on in any way, they are doing damage to her:
what should I do with them and what instructions should I follow?
Please let me know because I cannot bear this misery, I have to leave
this house behind because I have nothing to manage throughout all
winter long. And I have to keep these two Germans as well, just like
they are.”9

The third reason for the small number of cattle was related to the
profile of the estate, since the estate specialised in grape growing and fi-
eld crops were only produced in order to satisfy the estate’s own demand.
Accordingly, there was no need for keeping large numbers of livestock
which was also justified by the relatively small size of allodial arable fi-
elds. There are hardly any records of trading in cereals – in 1701 they sold
somewhat more than 14 cubic measure of Kosice (896 liter in today’s
metrics) for 21 forints10 – and they also only sold oxen when they had
some disease.11 Draught oxen were kept separately at the allodiums and
they were always registered separately. Their draught power was utilised
not only on the arable fields but also in vineyards, for example in the
winter when manure was delivered to the fields and vineyards.
To assess the size of the livestock kept on the allodiums of Regéc
by the day’s standards it should be compared with data recorded by other
estates. (Figure 2).12 The data clearly show that the cattle population kept
9  MNL OL P 1314 Batthyány-letters, scroll 4812. nr. 13637
10  MNL OL G 29 Gazdasági iratok [Economic documents] 1694–1712. Rákóczi
birtokok iratai [Documents of the Rákóczi estates] V.3.C/G 82. pkg 96. c. 74.
11  Provisor Gábor Horvát sold one “diseased” draught ox from Fony in 1696 for 10
forints. MNL OL E 554 I. Szalay gyűjtemény [Szalay Collection] 1719. t. sz. Regéci
vár 1696. évi számadása [1696 Accounts of the Regéc Castle], fol. 8v.
12  Regarding the data of the Rohonc Szalonak allodium see: Zimányi, Vera, “Ma-
jorsági gazdálkodás a rohonc-szalonaki társuradalomban a XVII. század derekán”,
[Allodial management on the joint estate of Rohonc and Szalonak in the mid-17th
century] Agrártörténeti Szemle 4, 1962, 31–32.; Ónod: MNL OL E 156 Kincstári
levéltárak [Treasury Archives], Magyar Kamara Archívuma [Archive of the Hungarian
Chamber], Urbaria et Conscriptiones (hereinafter E 156) a. Fasc. 025. No. 041. It may

58
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

at Regéc was significantly smaller not only than estates of Tokaj with
extensive fields in Szabolcs county, rich in fine grazing lands but also
than the cattle stock of the neighbouring Szerencs estate. A significant
difference can be seen if comparing it to the cattle stock of the Makovica
estate, north of that of Regéc. The territory of the Rákóczi estate of the
day was partly occupied by hills of the Tatra Mountains therefore it had
remarkably large numbers of cattle. The reason is likely to have been
associated with milk and meat processing. Another important fact is that
according to sources the Makovica estate had, on the whole, larger allo-
dial arable lands (of a capacity of about 1373 cubic measure of Kosice),
though at the same time significantly smaller allodial meadows than did
the estate of Regéc.13
Sources offer less information on the way livestock was kept. Accor-
ding to terrier data a total of 275 wagonfuls of hay was produced on all
allodial meadows of the Regéc estate, depending on the weather conditi-
ons of the year concerned and on which meadows could actually be used,
because some areas were flooded from time to time or became overgrown
with reeds, rendering them useless. Although in order to provide them
with feed the cattle may have been herded to other areas for grazing but
no records of such herding have been found to date. One herding did take
place in 1650, however, when cattle from Regéc were herded over to the
other side of the River Tisza, at the order of Zsuzsanna Lorántffy.14 It
could be assumed that the animals were herded to the grazing fields near
be of interest to note regarding the Ónod estate that the allodium of Berzék village was
considered to be condemned by witches therefore the construction of a new allodium
was urged. “This allodium should be moved elsewhere because it is (according to
older people) in a very bad place, it is said to be haunted by witches; whether it is
true or not, is not known, but one thing is beyond doubt: the livestock of the allodi-
um are always sick, and few recover. Poultry go blind first and then they soon die a
good healthy allodium should be brought here (...) but at this place all things perish.”
Makovica (1684): Ibid. Fasc. 021. No. 016.; Makovica (1690): Ibid. Fasc. 021. No.
020.; Szerencs (1701): Ibid. Fasc. 154. No. 071. Regarding 1655 livestock data of the
Transylvanian fiscal estates of the Prince’s family see: Makkai László, “Kimutatások a
Rákóczi birtokok terméseredményeiről és állatállományáról”, [Records of the agricul-
tural yields and livestock of the Rákóczi estates] Agrártörténeti Szemle 1, 1958, 275.;
Szerencs (1703): Ibid. Fasc. 041. No. 050.; Makovica (1711): Ibid. Fasc. 022. No.
011.; Makovica (1718): Fasc. 022. No. 023.
13  MNL OL E 156 a. Fasc. 022. No. 003.
14  MNL OL E 190 Magyar Kincstári Levéltárak [Archives of the Hungarian Trea-
sury], Magyar Kamara Archivuma [Archives of the Hungarian Chamber], Családi és
személyi fondok [Family and personal fonds], Archivum familiae Rákóczi (hereinafter
E 190) c. 19. nr. 5741.

59
TÜNDE VERES

Rakamaz but the wife of György Rákóczi I did not explain the reason for
that action. The letter’s data – 27 October 1650 – may bring us closer to
answering the question, as so late in the year grazing was out of the ques-
tion, however, it may indicate winter accommodation as an objective.
Although this seems to be conceivable, we nevertheless have another
idea. We think it is more probable that the cattle were moved in order to
provide for the Prince’s widow and her entourage in the town of Tokaj.
This is because Zsuzsanna Lorántffy wrote a letter to András Klobusiczky
about her intent to travel – she wrote the letter from Tállya – when in the
very first sentence of her letter she says: “We will need the donation from
Sáros, please bring it over to us in Tokaj.” This would not have been the
only time when foodstuffs, such as livestock, are sent to another estate
with the aim of providing for the visiting Rákóczi family. We also know
of a later case of herding cattle to the area of the Szerencs estate. 10 old
dairy cows, 8 barren cows, one old bull from the Great Plain, one two-
year old bull, 11 2-3-year old oxen and 1 other young ox, as well as one
blond ox were moved from the allodium of Fony to that of Szerencs.15
The size and composition of the herd clearly show that it was not driven
with the aim of grazing, but much rather for breeding, which must have
been partly influenced by the fact that Ferenc Rákóczi II was staying in
Szerencs castle at the time.
And then one year later 40 goats were driven from Munkács to
Regéc. 12 of the animals died on the way.16 Diseases spread easily in
flocks of sheep and herds of goats, as a consequence of which some of
the animals died. Mihály Fodor was in charge of the estate’s sheep in
1687–1688. Like all persons employed by the estate he also had to render
accounts for his work. Being illiterate however, he could only report on
the revenues and expenditures of keeping sheep only by word of mouth
before creditworthy persons, in this case the chief justice of Fony and
the jury. He reported that in year 1687 German soldiers had confiscated
3 lambs and 5 goats, 23 sheep and 19 goats had perished and 2 goat
kids had been taken by wolves.17 During the years of the freedom fight
15  MNL OL E 554 I. Szalay gyűjtemény [Szalay Collection] 1703. t. sz. A szerencsi
majorba való tehenek hajtásáról [On herding cattle to the allodium of Szerencs], 1
April 1695. fol. 32r.
16  MNL OL E 554 I. Szalay gyűjtemény [Szalay Collection] 1719. t. sz. Regéci vár
1696. évi számadása [1696 Accounts of the Regéc Castle], fol. 12r.
17  MNL OL E 554 I. Szalay gyűjtemény [Szalay Collection] 1701. t.sz. A regéci
pásztorok számadása [Accounts of the Regéc Shepherds], 3 January 1688. fol. 87r. Al-
though there was no reason to complain about the work of the shepherds of Regéc, they
did not perform such complete work on all estates. György Rákóczi I gave strict instruc-

60
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

Rákóczi’s soldiers endangered flocks and herds. Indeed, they took one of
the lambs driven out to the grazing lands in 1711. This was the year when
the steward of the estate, János Petrahay, would not hire a paid shepherd
to take care of the goats and the lambs. He used an older method instead.
They gave charge of the livestock of the Fony allodium to a serf from
Baskó, named Mátyás Abrankó, who was supposed to keep the goats and
lambs of the estate together with his own animals.18 Although Petrahay
did not employ Abrankó as a paid shepherd, a look at the payments made
in the 1711 accounts, reveals that there was a goatherd, that is, a “caprari-
us” as well. Accordingly, the good care given by the serf from Baskó did
not remain unpaid for: he was paid 2 forints and 70 denars for his four
month’s work.19
Pigs were often driven to the off-limits acorn-producing forests of the
estate. How Zsuzsanna Lorántffy had not been satisfied with the work of
the Regéc allodium’s swineherd was explained all so clearly in her letter
to András Klobusiczky. Since pigs are driven out but then left unattended,
they cause more bad than good. And since all the swineherd who should
be in charge of looking after the animals spends his time doing nothing
at home, the widow of György Rákóczi I sees no point in employing a
swineherd. So to keep order she instructed her prefect to send some of his
men to where the pigs were, to see how the hired swineherd was doing.
In case he was not found doing his job, he must be taken into custody.20
The wife of the head of an allodium, that is, the allodiatrix, was
another employee of an important position besides shepherds. She was in
charge of overseeing how poultry and the dairy cows were kept. In 1701
she was paid 2 pairs of boots, dried plums of a specific quantity as well as

tions in 1648 to his steward in Gyula because of the thefts and insufficient supervision
of the shepherds. He instructed his provisor not to take over more than 200 sheepskins
from the 5011 sent to him because the rest of the animals died from some disease, while
the shepherds failed to state the disease concerned and had not even tried to cure the
animals. Moreover, the animals had been grazing in some area where they picked up
some skin parasites. Moreover, the Prince instructed his steward to check whether the
shepherds’ own lambs had also died in similar proportions, because Rákóczi suspected
that many of the 651 sheep reported to have died had been stolen by the shepherds for
themselves, replacing the castle’s stamp on their horns. Kőszeghy, Sándor, “I. Rákóczy
György rendelete juhászata ügyében”, [Directive of György Rákóczi I regarding his
shepherds] Magyar Gazdaságtörténeti Szemle 2, 1895. 60–32.
18  MNL OL E 197 Rationes Provisorales pkg. 50. Dominii Regéc 1711. c. 59 No. 86.
19  MNL OL E 197 Rationes Provisorales pkg. 50. Dominii Regéc 1711. c. 59 No. 1.
fol. 27r.
20  MNL OL E 190 Archivum familiae Rákóczi c. 19. nr. 5741.

61
TÜNDE VERES

6 forints in cash, 10 forints and 20 denars for clothing, some 500 litres of
wheat and 2 bushels of lentils.21 Moreover, the estate provided her with
the requisite supplies for the allodiums, including 4,80 forints for feeding
the guinea fowls and 2 pieces of rock salt for the cattle. The right to make
cow cheese was granted to the allodiatrix who paid 26 forints and 40 de-
nars for this right.22 The reason for this is not clarified in the records, just
as where she had sold the dairy products. By contrast, it is an interesting
fact, how the estate gave 2 ells’ length of fabric in 1701 to the allodiatrix
for making cheese, while no revenue from cheese made from the cows’
milk appears in the accounts. The most important dairy products included
butter and ewe’s curd. The goatherd was provided with 4 ells’ length of
fabric for making this product.
It is worth taking a look at the pay of the allodiatrix on other Rákóczi
estates. Only the payments list of Makovica from 1696 is truly similar to
the above 1701 pay data. The estate of the day, now in the northernmost
part of modern-day Slovakia, was a lot larger than that of Regéc; this is
also reflected by the number of allodium centres. While Regéc had two
such centres, the Makovica estate had six such economic units. In contrast
to Regéc where field crop production was most important, the Makovica
units were solely livestock producing units, as is reflected by Figure 2 as
well. The six allodium centres were to be found in the municipalities of
Svidnik, Újfalu, Hrabóc, Zboró, Sáros and Kucsin. The reason why we
cannot say that livestock farming was the exclusive activity is that if by
taking a look at the locations of these six allodiums we can see that three
of them – Svidnik, Zboró and Hrabóc – were among the higher ranges of
the Tatra Mountains, while the other three municipalities are to be found
souther down, near Eperjes. And this geographical difference did deter-
mine their activities as well. Higher lying hilly areas are not suitable for
growing cereals, therefore they can only be used for livestock production.
This does not, of course, mean that no livestock was produced at Kucsin
for instance, because that was important, if for nothing else, because of
the necessary draught power. And the fact that poultry were raised on
every allodium is also proven by the appearance of the function of the
allodiatrix. Their pays were as follows, at the different allodiums: The
allodiatrix working on the Svidnik, Újfalu, Hrabóc and even the Zboró

21  MNL OL G 29 Gazdasági iratok [Economic documents] 1694–1712. Rákóczi

birtokok iratai [Documents of the Rákóczi estates] V.3.C/G 82. pkg. 96. 25., 34., 52.,
57.,73.
22  MNL OL G 29 Gazdasági iratok [Economic documents] 1694–1712. Rákóczi
birtokok iratai [Documents of the Rákóczi estates] V.3.C/G 82. pkg. 96. 68.

62
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

allodium, received the very same compensations: 7 forints in cash, 3,50

forints for 7 ells’ of Moravian fabric, 4,25 ells’ length of rough fabric,
4 pairs of new boots, 75 denars for overwear, 2 forints for payments to
their servants, 10 ells’ length of thin linen, 20 ells’ length of rough linen,
4 pairs of tall boots, another 2 forints for the assistant calf herder, 4,25
ells’ length of rough fabric, 1 pair of short boots, half a cubic metre of
Kosice of winter wheat, half a cubic metre of Kosice of mixed wheat,
3 bushels of peas, 80 litres of rye and millet each and 2 pieces of rock
salt. The amounts and supplies received by the allodiatrix in Regéc are
far exceeded by the above, let alone those received by the allodiatrices
working in the other allodiums in Makovica!23 One thing should be noted
here, however: While the allodiatrix in Regéc was given 2 ells’ length of
linen for making cheeses, here only that of Svidnik received 30 ells! This
alone may sufficiently emphasise the significance of dairy production in
Makovica.
In addition to the allodiatrix of Regéc mention is made of other per-
manent employees of the allodium. Conclusions as to the number of such
people and their tasks can also be drawn from accounts and pay lists.
Four such persons are mentioned in the 1637 records: Swineherd András
Nagy, farm hand Tamás Tóth from the village of Rátka, allodiator inside
the fenced area and another person, János Vajda, whose job is not mentio-
ned in the source.24 Although the number of staff employed for economic
purposes increased, by the end of the 17th century it was far below the
headcount required for running such central economic units. According
to data from 1701 a total of 14 persons were working for allodiums, not
including those taking care the vineyards. Besides the name of the allo-
diatrix mention is made of the foreman, supervising agricultural works
and workers, two goatherds and two calf herders, three pigherds and five
farm hands. By 1710 the number of such employees had increased to 21.
The greatest differences between the two years result from the number of
farm hands because the estate had 12 such paid employees before the end
of the freedom fight, while in 1711 there were only 8. Even the economic
apparatus was more finely structured and the increase in the number of
farm hands also shows that the amount of work they were to perform
had grown. It should also be noted that we are talking about the years of
the freedom fight, when the number of serfs who could be made to work
was smaller because of the battles, which may be the reason why the
number of paid farm hands doubled. Nevertheless, it is clear that with
23  MNL OL E 156 a. Fasc. 021. No. 022.
24  MNL OL P 108 Rep. 34. Fasc. D. No. 138.

63
TÜNDE VERES

such a small number of paid farm hands the use of serf labour as well
as workforce paid on a monthly basis as well as day labourers. They
had come to be more widely employed on the Regéc estate by the end
of the 17th century and the first decade of the 18th century, when works
carried out in the form of day labour were listed on page after page in the
accounts of the time. These included agricultural as well as even const-
ruction activities. Monthly paid labourers were hired for seasonal works.
Even jobs such as scything and hay collection had come to be performed
by hired labourers by 1712 on the Rákóczi family’s estate under review.
In that year the estate paid 355,84 Hungarian forints for such work, plus
in-kind supplies.25 Such an increase in paid labour is a sign of a gradual
decrease in the amount of serf labour used. Vilmos Sápi distinguished
three groups of paid labourers employed by allodiums, in terms of the
duration of their employment. Day labourers were assigned to category
three, seasonal workers and workers hired for specific jobs were assigned
to category two, while category one labourers working for wages.26 These
were conventionally retained for one-year period as indicated by a list
of paid labourers from 1637: “From the year of ...”. Where the sentence
was continued differently for most of the individuals listed. For most
of the allodium’s paid workers the months of October, April, June and
September were recorded. The months and days noted however, show
no ad-hoc organisation but a very coherent system. Pigherds’ year started
on 1 October, when the grazing season ended. Farm hands were hired
for summer works from June on, while the allodiator started to work in
April, when the spring field works got under way. Accordingly, hiring
corresponded to the end or beginning of the relevant work season. This
system was altered by Zsuzsanna Lorántffy in 1652. The changes affected
all of the Rákóczi estates. From then on labourers were hired each year in
November in Regéc.27
The milk, meat, wool and hide of the livestock kept on the allodi-
ums were used, the processing of which was also included in the tasks
of the hired workforce. The amounts of hide from animals that died from
disease and from the slaughterhouse were precisely shown in the yearly
accounts. The hides were used by the estate: they were processed by its

25  MNL OL E 197 Rationes Provisorales pkg. 51. Dominii Regécz 1712. c. 60. No.
1. fol. 38v–38r.
26  Sápi, Vilmos, A mezőgazdasági bérmunkásság jogviszonyai Magyarországon a
XVI. századtól 1848-ig. [Legal status of agricultural wage-earners in Hungary from the
16th century until 1848] Budapest, 1967. 103.
27  Sápi, A mezőgazdasági bérmunkásság, 1967. 118.

64
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

tanners and allocated the finished boots to its shepherds in the way of in-
kind payment. And as reflected by the data presented in the above-ment-
ioned Figure 1 this indicates that livestock keeping on the estates served
one purpose: to supply the estate’s personnel and, as the case may be,
the Prince and his entourage. So the products were very rarely sold.28
28  To help understand cattle trading more clearly it must be added by all means that
the livestock kept on allodiums was not meant to connect estates into this commercial
network. The cattle belonging to serfs and those of landowners were kept for supplying
the demand for milk and meat as well as for use as draught animals in agricultural
production. And in the case of the Regéc estate the hilly landscape and the resulting
limitations on the number and sizes of grazing lands would not have been suitable for
this. Cattle trading had its own specific channels. From the 16th century on the price
of cattle (beaf) started to rise on markets abroad, which had a positive impact on cattle
breeding in Hungary. Increasing number of noblemen started to trade in cattle, driving
their herds on order to more and more and increasingly distant German towns. The
Hungarian Grey cattle were very much in demand on foreign markets. Its meat differed
from those of other cattle breeds and the animals were also larger in size. The increase
in the body weight of the Hungarian Grey nearly exactly corresponded to its price
increase, as it was not particularly large or different until the 15th century. Even its
whither height was only about 120 cm. The growth then probably resulted from cross-
ing with larger-bodied cattle, coming probably from the steppes. As a result, the body
weight of the Hungarian Grey had increased, from the initial 300–350 kg to about 500
kg by the 18th century. Today these animals grow up to 600 kg in weight. This change
however, did not take place in all areas of the Kingdom of Hungary. These animals
were typically kept only in areas of the Great Plain, specifically for the market. Cattle
remained smaller in size in other parts of Hungary; they were a lot more controllable
in work processes, than other cattle breeds or even horses. Cattle, sheep and even pigs
were kept extensively on the Great Plain; the animals were not driven to winter accom-
modations and during the winter they had to find their own food underneath the snow
cover, in order to survive. Cattle lost weight by the end of the winter and many of them
did not survive. This type of livestock keeping had a profound impact on the number
of cattle driven to South-German markets, and even the timing of their export, because
they could only be sold after fattening in the spring and the summer. This conventional
nomadic form of livestock keeping was also changed by the lucrative nature of cattle
trading. Traders with sufficient capital constructed winter accommodations for their
cattle, feeding them with hay throughout the winter months, as a result of which the
animals lost little or no body weight so they could be driven to the markets earlier next
year. The heyday of Hungary’s cattle export was ended by a decrease in prices in the
first third of the 17th century. Traders could not make more profit from exporting their
livestock, indeed, in some cases they could not even sell all of the animals driven to the
markets. Besides a decrease in prices the decline was also driven by a lack of demand,
because the South-German towns, the primary export markets, could no longer afford
meat in general, only on special occasions. Internal economic processes also weakened
Hungarian traders, as the Court granted export monopoly to German and Italian cattle
traders (appaldators). This did not go without compensation of course, because the
same Italian traders provided the Court with loans. No matter how Hungarian cattle

65
TÜNDE VERES

Data from the neighbouring Rákóczi estates such as Szerencs and Ónod
also lead to similar conclusions, along with data of the estate of Ecsed.29
Although the aim was not to sell the output, nonetheless, sheep breeding
was developed specifically and sheep stocks increased significantly from
the end of the 17th century. This however, was not a permanent trend
by far. The majority – 1012 sheep – of the total of 1164 Moravian sheep
kept around Regéc in 1710 were driven over to the Makovica estate on 6
October. The wool of the sheep that had remained in Fony was sold the
next year by the Steward, as instructed by Miklós Szirmay. They sold the
131 pounds of sheared wool for an amount of 50 forints. Shearing was
however, a lengthier procedure at that time because “during the turmoil
in year 1710 it [the wool] was mixed with weeds [had to be] cleaned
[first] (...)”.30 Thereafter they kept a surprisingly low number of sheep.
This remained unchanged even after the Rákóczi’s war of independence
and the number of sheep kept only started to rise from 1715 on. In 1726 a
stock of over 1000 animals were recorded.31 Sheep became the most im-
portant in later centuries as well among the species kept by allodiums. In
the 1800s when the estate was already owned by the Bretzenheim family,
some 5000–8000 sheep were kept.32 It should also be noted however, that

traders made efforts to start associations or companies or to offer similar funding, as

did the Zrínyi family as well, Vienna turned down the proposals. For details regarding
trade see Zimányi, Vera, Magyarország az európai gazdaságban 1600–1650. [Hun-
gary in the European economy, 1600–1650] Budapest, 1976. 129–141., regarding
livestock production on the Great Plain: Wellmann, Imre, “Határhasználat az Alföld
északnyugati peremén a XVIII. század első felében”, [Land use on the north-western
edge of the Great Plain in the first half of the 18th century] In. Tamás Csíki – Tibor
Rémiás (eds.), 18. századi agrártörténelem. [Agricultural history of the 18th century]
Válogatás Wellmann Imre agrár- és társadalomtörténeti tanulmányaiból. [A selection
from the agricultural and social history studies of Imre Wellmann.] Miskolc, 1999.
153–154.
29  Ulrich, Attila, “Az ecsedi uradalom majorsági gazdálkodása és jobbágyi szol-
gálati rendszere a Rákóczi-család birtoklása idején”, [Allodial management on the
Ecsed estate and its serf service system during its ownership by the Rákóczi family]
In. Katalin Almássy – Eszter Istvánovits (eds.), A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum
évkönyve 49. [Yearbook of the Jósa András Múzeum of Nyíregyháza 49] Nyíregyháza,
2007. 395.
30  MNL OL E 197 Rationes Provisorales pkg. 50. Dominii Regécz 1711. c. 59. No.
81.
31  Jármay, Edit, A Regéczi uradalom gazdálkodása a XVIII. században. [Manage-
ment of the Regécz estate in the 18th century] Budapest, 1930. 76.
32  Oláh, József, “A sárospataki és regéci uradalmak állattenyésztése a XIX. század
első felében”, [Livestock production on the Sárospatak and the Regéc estates in the

66
 LIVESTOCK KEEPING AT THE REGÉC ESTATE

this figure includes those kept on the Sárospatak estate as well, since the
two estates had been managed together even at the time of the Trautsohns
(1711–1775).33
The permanent leading role of sheep keeping was related to the
prohibition in 1784 of the imports of wool fabric which encouraged the
increase in sheep keeping through a boost in the demand for wool. Since
Sárospatak estate had wet grazing lands, we can be sure that larger herds
of the estates were grazing the fields of the Regéc estates. In the middle
of the 17th century however, no such particular attention was being paid
to these animals. The dilapidated state of the allodial buildings recor-
ded in the inventories often applied to pens and stables. An assessment
was carried out in the 1670s of the allodium of the Rákóczi estates and
their deficiencies. The following appears in relation to sheep keeping
at Regéc: „(…) ita et modalitas de ovibus eo comparandis cum Cel[si]
ss[i]mo Principe conferenda, hortus proxime exstruendus et in quo loco
erigendus, et hoc Cel[si]ss[i]mo Principi declarandum, una cum horto
et loco, pro ovibus adhuc una dom[us] in allodio exstruenda, stabulum
tegendum, in Arce Turris restauranda (…)”.34 I.e. a place for keeping
the sheep is suggested and that a garden, and a house in the allodium,
should be constructed and the covered stable inside the fenced area needs
renovation.
The author of the document however, had to make remarks of criti-
cism not only regarding the conditions in Regéc. The deficiencies in the
farming facilities at the Makovica estate and possibilities for better utili-
sation of various elements were also mentioned in the text. They mention
only four allodiums specifically. The document discusses not only the
need for the development of certain segments, particularly, livestock
production and dairy operations at Makovica but also a need for closer

first half of the 19th century] Agrártörténeti Szemle 4, 1962, 234.

33  As early as in 1709, Donát Trautsohn could acquire the estates of Sárospatak and
Regéc in pledge, for an amount of 150,000 forints. Tamás, Edit, “Adalékok Trautson-
falva/Hercegkút két és fél évszázados történetéhez”, [Fragments to the 200-year his-
tory of Trautsohnfalva/Hercegkút] In. Arnold Tóth – Péter Szolyák (eds.), A Hermann
Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve L. [Yearbook of the Ottó Hermann Museum L.]. Miskolc,
2011. 325. However, it was not until 1711, after the crushing of the freedom fight, that
he could exercise control over the estate; accounts of the year’s harvest were sent to
him in Vienna. Balassa, Iván, “A tokaj-hegyaljai német telepítések történetéhez”, [To
the history of the settlements of Germans in the Tokaj-hegyalja region] In. Bodó Sán-
dor – Szabadfalvi József (eds.), A Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve XII. [Yearbook of
the Ottó Hermann Museum, XII] Miskolc, 1973. 286.
34  MNL OL E 156 a. Fasc. 024. No. 006.

67
TÜNDE VERES

cooperation with the neighbouring Rákóczi estates. Accordingly, it was

prescribed that grain for seeding in the autumn and that feed for the win-
ter be purchased from Fony and that pigs be driven over from Munkács
to supply the estate with sufficient amounts of bacon. Wine and vinegar
were purchased from Patak and fish could be supplied to the Makovica
estate from Szerencs.35
This study aimed at drawing a picture of how allodial livestock ke-
eping functioned on an estate, in particular, that of Regéc. And we also
showed that it worked in a different way than in Makovica. The different
geographical locations of the two Rákóczi estates give us the answer
why we saw that sheep were driven up north and why estates exchanged
goods. Of the Rákóczi estates of Upper Hungary Makovica was furthest
(apart from Lednice) and owing to the Tátra Mountains the villages there
were also more difficult to access. Nonetheless, even the distance betwe-
en Munkács and Zboró was no obstacle when it came to supplying and
sustaining the estate. Cooperation between the separate Rákóczi estates
offer a lot of questions which will need to be answered by future research.

35  MNL OL E 156 a. Fasc. 024. No. 006.

68