![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Notes
∗I am grateful to Chris Stacey whose editing added much to the clarity of this text.
1S. Cerutti, ‘Normes et pratiques, ou de la légitimé de leur opposition’ in A. Michel (ed.), Les formes de l'experience – Une autre histoire sociale (Paris, 1995), 127–49.
2On the relationship of legal anthropology and history and the use of the former in the latter see, for example, T. Kuehn, Law, Family, and Women. Toward a Legal Anthropology of Renaissance Italy (Chicago and London, 1991); J. Bossy (ed.), Disputes and Settlements: Law and Human Relations in the West (Cambridge, 1983); W. I. Miller, ‘Avoiding legal judgement: the submission of disputes to arbitration in medieval Iceland’, American Journal of Legal History, xxviii, 2 (1984), 95–134; L. Gowing, Domestic Dangers. Women, Words, and Sex in Early Modern London (Oxford, 1996); R. C. Palmer, The Whilton Dispute. A Social–Legal Study of Dispute Settlement in Medieval England (Princeton, 1984).
3N. Z. Davis refers to similar phenomenon: Fiction in the Archives. Pardon Tales and their Tellers in Sixteenth-century France (Stanford, 1987).
4Tiszántúli Református Egyházkerületi Levéltár [From Beyond the Tisza Reformed Church District Archives] (subsequently Tt.REL), Keresztelési és házassági anyakönyv[Register of Baptism and Marriage], 1802–8, I. 99.a. vol. X, 10.
5Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Levéltár [Archives of Hajdú-Bihar County] (subsequently HBmL), IV.A. 1018/c, 1823/1, Barta Gergely és Zefer Mária válópere[Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer], 16 November 1822. In his testament István Zöld said that he had spent thirty-seven happy years with Mária Szilágyi. HBmL, IV.A. 1011/z, 1677, Zöld István végrendelete[Last will of István Zöld], 21 January 1826.
6Two men who were called István Zöld were registered in the Polgárkönyv[Book of Citizens] on 29 January 1781 and 23 March 1785. Both of them were registered as farmers. HBmL, IV.A. 1011/s, Matricula civium, 1707–1905, vol. 2, 65, 82.
7István Zöld's and Erzsébet Bónis's son, István, was born on 21 June 1779. Tt.REL, Keresztelési és házassági anyakönyv[Register of Baptism and Marriage], 1778–84, I. 99.a. vol. VII, 32.
8It was not the most usual thing for a Debrecenian to do – not that adult children did not get their portions, but the testaments from Debrecen attest that it most probably happened after their parents' death.
9The technical conditions of primary education in Debrecen were rather poor. See the article on girls' schooling in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Debrecen in Z. Mervó, ‘A leányok iskolai oktatása Debrecenben a polgári forradalom előtt’[‘Primary education of girls in Debrecen before the revolution’] in Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Levéltár Évkönyve, i (1974), 27–58. Most probably, Mária was among those 134 female pupils who were enrolled on Péterfia Street in 1787.
10 Last will of István Zöld. Debrecenian testators often commented on their relations with their children. By law, ancestral property had to be divided equally among the descendants, but the testator could decide about accumulated wealth without restriction. The last will could become the means of reward or revenge, and at times, unruly children were excluded from inheritance.
11HBmL, IV.A. 1011/s, Matricula civium, 1707–1905, vol. 2, 47.
12Gergely entered the guild on 16 February 1802. HBmL, IX. 36, vol. 2, Debreceni varga céh iratai[Registers of the cobbler guild of Debrecen], 1555–1871.
13Gergely was baptized in Péterfia Street on 26 May 1780. Tt.REL, Keresztelési és házassági anyakönyv[Register of Baptism and Marriage], 1784–92, I. 99.a. vol. VIII, 100. Mária Zefer was also baptized in Péterfia Street on 8 December 1786: ibid., 150.
14HBmL, IV. A. 1011/k, vol. 364/1833, Relationes, 19 January 1833.
15 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, pertest [court records].
16 ibid. Mária's parents declared that they spent a huge amount, 332 Hungarian Forints, on the marriage and also listed the items of her dowry.
17 ibid. Mária's attorney made that statement and he might have exaggerated the situation. Still, since Barta was unable to bring anything into the marriage, most probably the attorney was right.
18Barta's major attraction was that he had already entered the guild. Journeymen were not considered as acceptable partners in Debrecen.
19I. Rácz, A debreceni cívis vagyon[Civic Wealth in Debrecen] (Debrecen, 1989), 349–55.
20They bought the house for 3000 Hungarian Forints, which was a considerable amount. See Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, court records. Most likely the house had two or three rooms, a kitchen, the workshop, and a courtyard also belonged to it. See more on houses in Debrecen in Rácz, op. cit., 186–272.
21In the book of the cobblers' guild, in which the masters', journeymen's and apprentices' misdeeds and punishments were recorded, Barta's name was rarely registered and only for minor misconduct. See Registers of the cobbler guild of Debrecen.
22 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, Farkas Mária vallomása [Mária Farkas's testimony], supplement 1.
23‘Debreczen állapotjának rövid rajza’[‘Short portrait of Debrecen’], Társalkodó (1837), 35–6.
24See the whole text: K.Sztehlo, A házassági elválás joga Magyarországon és Erdélyben[The Right to Get Divorced in Hungary and Transylvania] (Budapest, 1885), 323–38.
25See more on divorce in the German states: L. Abrams, ‘Crime against marriage? Wife-beating, the law and divorce in nineteenth-century Hamburg’ in M. L. Arnot and C. Usborne (eds), Gender and Crime in Modern Europe (London, 1999), 118–36.
26On divorce, its legal and illegal forms, and the introduction of the Divorce Act in England see L. Stone, Road to Divorce. England 1530–1987 (Oxford, 1992). On divorce in the nineteenth century see R. Phillips, Untying the Knot. A Short History of Divorce (Cambridge and New York, 1991), 120–84.
27Further research is needed to produce available statistics about the total number of Protestant divorces in Hungary in the nineteenth century. Most probably, and similarly to Debrecen, this number remained rather low in other cities as well.
28HBmL, IV.A. 1018/c, 1793/22, Almási Sára és Hajnal Mihály válópere[Divorce case of Sára Almási and Mihály Hajnal], 21 August 1793.
29On the basis of these statistics – three to four divorce cases annually – it does appear that divorce rates in Debrecen were similar to those of western European communities from the early modern period. See, for example, T. M. Safley, Let No Man Put Asunder. The Control of Marriage in the German Southwest: A Comparative Study, 1550–1600 (Kirksville, 1984); R. M. Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva (Cambridge, MA, 1995). The guarantee of legal separation in Hungary did not result in a mass ‘divorce craze’ as in revolutionary France, where many couples tried to legalize their disunion once the law permitted it. See R. Phillips, Family Breakdown in Late Eighteenth-century France. Divorces in Rouen 1792–1803 (Oxford, 1980) and Phillips, Untying the Knot, op. cit., 47–63.
30See, for example, Phillips, Untying the Knot, op. cit., 1–27; S. Ozment, When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe (Cambridge, MA, 1983), 80–99; and M. Mátay, Törvényszéki játszmák: válás Debrecenben 1793–1848[Games at the Court: Divorce in Debrecen 1793–1848] (Debrecen, 2006), 11–26.
31Due to their work, artisans were more accustomed to an everyday life in which the written word was used more frequently than in the fields.
32Lovers, although they play a key role in marriage crisis, usually keep in the background; it is almost hopeless to try to gather reliable information about them. In the legal records they are often mentioned – mostly as bastards or whores – but only their existence is noteworthy, not their character. From the documents of the divorce case we only learn that Takács used to be a soldier before he settled down in the city as an artisan, and that he was still young at the time of the affair. We also know that he was a short-tempered person, who once offended a fellow artisan by telling him: ‘You prepare shit not soap.’ HBmL, IV.A. 1018/c, 1820/36. Nagy Sándor becsületsértési pere Takács András ellen[Defamation case of Sándor Nagy against András Takács], 20 November 1820.
33 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, Végh Julianna vallomása[Julianna Végh's testimony].
34 ibid., Zefer Mária vallomása[Mária Zefer's testimony].
35Men's adultery was included in 18 per cent of the divorce cases – most often the wife accused her husband with having extramarital sexual relations, but sometimes the witnesses mentioned such affairs in their testimonies.
36Barta later confessed in the court that he already had venereal disease before he got married to Mária. For a long period of time he resisted medical treatment and only as late as 1819 followed his wife's advice. The doctor, József Réz, in his testimony provided evidence that Barta infected the maid as well: ibid., supplement 2, Barta Gergely és Réz József vallomása[Gergely Barta's and József Réz's testimonies].
37 ibid., supplement 1, Hajnal Mária vallomása[Mária Hajnal's testimony].
38 ibid., court records.
39A neighbour labelled Zsuzsanna Bőhm, a merchant's wife, ‘potty’, because she ‘spilled that her husband has not slept with her for three years’. HBmL, IV.A. 1018/c, 1816/15. Steiner István és Bőhm Zsuzsanna válópere[Divorce case of István Steiner and Zsuzsanna Bőhm], 12 September 1816, supplement C, Szikszai Sámuel vallomása[Sámuel Szikszai's testimony].
40 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, Julianna Végh's testimony.
41 ibid., Nagy Miklós vallomása[Miklós Nagy's testimony].
42Violence was not men's privilege, but it was much less frequent among women. Only 2 per cent of the divorce cases refer to the wife's cruelty.
43 ibid., supplement 2, Réz József szakértői véleménye[József Réz's medical report].
44N. Z. Davis, ‘Women on top’ in her Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Cambridge, 1987), 124–51.
45 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, supplement 5, 15.
46 ibid., supplement A. Vásárhelyi was registered as a barrister in the Book of Citizens in 1817. HBmL, IV. A. 1011/s, Matricula civium, 1707–1905, vol. 2, 185.
47 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, supplement A.
48 ibid., Miklós Nagy's testimony.
49 ibid., Julianna Végh's testimony.
50 ibid., court records.
51HBmL, IV. A. 1018/c, 1817/5, Balkány István és Csáti Zsuzsanna válópere[Divorce case of István Balkány and Zsuzsanna Csáti], 21 April 1817, supplement C, Balog György vallomása[György Balog's testimony].
52Zsuzsanna Hadházi got married on 2 January 1833. Five days later she delivered a baby. She admitted at the court that she had had no sexual relations with her husband before the wedding. HBmL, IV.A. 1018/c, 1843/56, Barta Mihály és Hadházi Zsuzsanna válópere[Divorce case of Mihály Barta and Zsuzsanna Hadházi], 28 August 1843.
53In divorce cases, besides the attorneys of the plaintiff and the defendant, a third legal representative called a ‘marriage defendant’ had to be nominated by the jury. His duty was to defend the marriage as long as it was legally possible.
54See more on this in Cerutti, op. cit.
55Divorcing couples had to wait at least three to four years for the sentence of the local court, so the Barta case was rather typical. Mária's passive participation, however, prolonged the legal procedure throughout the trial.
56See more on the operation of the Curia in E. Varga, A királyi Curia 1780–1850[The Court of Appeal 1780–1850] (Budapest, 1974), 85–151. According to Varga, the high number of unresolved legal cases was a consequence of the archaic and highly inefficient operation of the Court of Appeal. By this time, the Curia was receiving more private legal cases than in the past and was unable to satisfy the new requirements. The judges made several attempts at introducing reforms, for example, they reduced the period of litigation breaks, but they were reluctant to initiate major structural changes.
57 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, court records.
58On 31 January 1828 Mária wrote a letter to the magistrate in which she urged the distribution of wealth between herself and Barta. She noted in her letter that it was a pressing issue, because the maid was pregnant: ibid., supplement 10. In 1828 several illegal births were registered in Debrecen and two of the newborn babies of single mothers were baptized in Péterfia Street. On 18 April 1828 Mária Vég's son, Károly and on 8 May Erzsébet Nagy's son, Ferenc were baptized in Péterfia Street. Tt.REL, Keresztelési anyakönyv[Register of Baptism], 1824–8, I. 99.a. vol. XIII. We cannot know whether any of the two women were Barta's domestic servants at that time, so this information did not prove that Barta committed adultery.
59 Divorce case of Gergely Barta and Mária Zefer, court records.
60 ibid., supplement 1.
61Barta's first tenant was a certain János Darabos, a shepherd. He lived in his house in 1825 and 1826. HBmL, IV.A. 1011/v, vol. 7, 8, Vagyonösszeírások. Péterfia utca[Conscriptions. Péterfia Street], 1825–6. In 1828 he also had a tenant, István Kiss. HBmL, IV.A. 1011/t, vol. 8, Conscriptio regnicolaris lib. reg. civitatis Debrecen suburbiorum plateae Péterfia, ‘B’ 1828, 367.
62HBmL, IV.A. 1011/z, 2162. Barta Gergely végrendelete[Last will of Gergely Barta], 20 May 1847.
63Tt.REL, Halotti anyakönyv[Register of Death], 1843–9, I. 99.a. vol. 91, 296.
64She bought a house at 221, Péterfia Street: HBmL, IV.A. 1011/v, vol. 7, 125, Vagyonösszeírások. Péterfia utca[Conscriptions. Péterfia Street], 1835–6.
65Gy. Varga, ‘A város iparos osztályai’[‘The industrial classes of the city’] in I. Rácz (ed.), Debrecen története 1693–1849[The History of Debrecen 1693–1849] (Debrecen, 1981), vol. 2, 345.
66HBmL, IV.A. 1011/z, 2068, Zefer Mária végrendelete[Mária Zefer's last will], 4 February 1843.
67 ibid.
68Tt.REL, Halotti anyakönyv[Register of Death], 1843–9, I. 99.a. vol. 91, 190.
69Ozment, op. cit., 50–72.
70In the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries this order was of great significance because the microcosm of the family also represented the structure of political power. As Davis says in her famous essay, ‘Women on top’: ‘In the little world of the family, with its conspicuous tension between intimacy and power, the larger matters of political and social order could find ready representation’, op. cit., 127.
71M. Nógrádi, Lelki próbakő[Spiritual Touchstone] (Debrecen, 1651), 33.
72HBmL, IV.A. 1018/c, 1845/2, Ormos Katalin és Csejti Mihály válópere[Divorce case of Katalin Ormos and Mihály Csejti], 22 January 1845, court records.