¹ Jankó, J., A Balatonmellék tudományos tanulmányozásának eredményei (Results of the scientific sunery of the Balaton region) (Budapest 1904), 30.Google Scholar

² Buday, Gy., ‘Az egyke’ (‘The one child system’) (1909)Google Scholar in Litván, G. and Szücs, L., eds., A sociologia elsö magyar mühelye (Budapest, 1973) 136–151Google Scholar; also Hidvégi, J., Hulló Magyarság (Perishing Magyars) (Budapest, 1938), 30.Google Scholar

³ Van de Walle, E., ‘Alone in Europe: the French fertility decline until 1850’, in Tilly, C., ed., Historical studies of changing fertility (Princeton, 1978)Google Scholar. Also Flandrin, J. L., Families in former times: kinship, household and sexuality (Cambridge, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴ Borbándi, Gy., A magyar népi mozgalom (The magyar populist movement) (New York, 1983), 46–53.Google Scholar

⁵ Szabó, D., ‘Uj magyar ideologia felé’, in Élet és irodalom 5 (Budapest, 1923).Google Scholar

⁶ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 141–2.Google Scholar

⁷ Andorka, R., ‘A dél-dunántuli egyke kutatások története’ (‘History of the research on the one child system of South Transdanubia’), in Statisztikai Szemle 12 (Budapest, 1969), 1245–57.Google Scholar

⁸ Kodolányi, J., ‘Földindulás’, Magyarország, 18, no. 40 (02 1939), 9.Google Scholar

⁹ Kodolányi, J., ‘A Földindulás a köröstárcsai egyke ellen’, Magyarország 16, no. 37 (02 1940), 8.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Elek, P., Gunda, B., Hilschler, Z., Horváth, S., Karsay, Gy., Kerényi, Gy.Kocogh, A., Kovács, I., Pocsy, F., and Torbágyi, T., Elsüllyedt falu a Dunántulon: Kemse község élete (A sunken village in Transdanubia: life in Kemse) (Budapest, 1936).Google Scholar

¹¹ Bitter disputes were waged on the pages of the left-wing periodical Századunk in the 1930s between the sociologist R. Braun and the populist writer Gy. Illyés. Braun argued that parish registers are valueless in sociological research and anyway, non-specialists should keep away from sociological subjects. But from the start the dispute deteriorated into political bickering. See Századunk 8–10, (1933), 252–6Google Scholar and Ibid., 2 (1934), 73–4 and 3, 141.

¹² See Andorka, , ‘A dél-dunántuli egyke kutatások’Google Scholar, 1248. Buday presents: (1) population in the villages of Baranya county between 1869 and 1900 according to the census; (2) number of children aged below 6 from census; (3) birth and fertility rates based on official statistics; (4) numbers of children enrolled in school; (5) questionnaires filled out by village councils on the subject. Results in Buday, ‘Az egyke’ (1909).Google Scholar

¹³ Dányi, D. ‘Az 1777 évi lelkek összeirása’ (‘The census of 1777’) in Történeti Statisztikai Évkönyv (Budapest, 1960), 188.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hölbling, M., Baranya vármegyének orvosi helyirata (Medical survey of Baranya county) (Pécs, 1845).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hoke, L., ‘A Baranyai Ormánság’ (‘Ormánság in Baranya’) in Hazánk és Külföld (Budapest, 1872).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Report to Ministry of Agriculture from council member I. Szécsényi about birth trends in Somogy county (1886). Also Szecsenyi, I., ‘Az egyke’ (Budapest, 1896), 129.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Jankó, , A Balatonmellek tudomanyos, 30.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 143–4.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid. 149–50.

²⁰ Fülep, L., ‘A magyarsag pusztulása’ (‘Destruction of the magyars’) in Pesti Napló, 10, 16, 17 11 and 4, 15 12, 1929 (Budapest).Google Scholar The question was political too. Fülep's articles were attacked by many, notably by F. Nagy the politician, who wrote that Fülep had ‘violated the honour of the Magyar peasant’ in Kisgazdák Lapja, 24 12, 1929. Fülep's reply to him was never published.Google Scholar

²¹ Kovács, I., ‘Egy elsüllyedt Dunántuli falu’ (‘A sunken village in Transdanubia’) (1936), reprinted in Toth, P. P., ed., Agrárszociologiai irások Magyarországon (Budapest, 1984) 236–46.Google Scholar

²² Kiss, G. K., Ormányság (Budapest, 1937).Google Scholar

²³ Hidvégi, J., Hulló Magyarság (Perishing Magyars) (Budapest, 1938).Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 48.

²⁵ Kovács, I., Néma Forradalom (Silent Revolution) (Budapest, 1937).Google Scholar

²⁶ Andorka, R., ‘Az ormánsági születékorlátozas története’ (‘The history of birth control in the Ormánság’), 54–8 in Valóság (Budapest, 1975), 6, 45–61Google Scholar, also ‘A dél-dunántuli egykekutatások’, 1250–7.Google Scholar

²⁷ Fleury, M., Henry, L., Nouveau manuel de dépouillement et exploitation de l'état civil ancien', INED (Paris, 1965).Google Scholar

²⁸ Wrigley, E. A., An introduction to English historical demography (London, 1966).Google Scholar

²⁹ Laslett, P., Household and family in past time (Cambridge, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Andorka, R., ‘Family reconstruction and types of household structure’, in Sundin, J. and Sonderlund, E., eds., Time, space and man. Essays on Microdemography (Sweden, 1979), 11–33Google Scholar; ‘Szüléteskorlátozás az ormánságban a 18 század vége óta’ 1–2, 73–85Google Scholar in Demografia (Budapest, 1970)Google Scholar; ‘The one-child family system in two microregions of Hungary in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’ (unpublished MS, Cambridge Group Library, 1976)Google Scholar; also ‘Az ormánsági születéskorlátozás’.

³¹ Andorka, , ‘The one child family system’, 8.Google Scholar

³² Ibid. 8. Evolutions in infant mortality are crucial in the argument, yet most difficult to establish with precision (cf. Andorka, , ‘Az ormánsági születéskorlatozás’, 52–3).Google Scholar In the villages examined by Andorka, infant mortality rates were not exceptionally high in the late eighteenth century but ‘there is no clear tendency in infant mortality until the second half of the nineteenth century’ (in ‘Family reconstruction’, 22).Google Scholar Infant mortality did not decline when fertility suppressions were adopted, on the contrary it increased in the period between 1820–1850, probably due to epidemics, and declined slightly only late in the nineteenth century. Andorka reckons that in the eighteenth century less than half of the children born reached the age of five, and this increased to about two-thirds by the end of the nineteenth century (‘Az ormánsági születés korlátozás’, 52)Google Scholar, but ‘… mortality rates declined less than the rate of live births, hence the number of children born decreased and so did the rate of those that stayed alive’ (ibid.).

³³ Andorka, , ‘Family reconstitution’, 20.Google Scholar

³⁴ Andorka, , ‘Születéskorlátozás az Ormánságban’, 83.Google Scholar

³⁵ Szücs, E. Tárkány, Magyar Jogi Népszokások (Magyar customs and law) (Budapest, 1981), 14–15.Google Scholar

³⁶ Mattyasovsky, M., Törzsöröklési jog és törzsöröklési szokäs (Impartible inheritance in law and custom) (Budapest, 1904).Google Scholar

³⁷ Baross, J., Részleges jelentés az OMGE éltal a magyar parasztbirtok öroklési modjára vonatkozó adatgyüjtés eredménye (Partial report on peasant inheritance customs, sponsored by the OMGE) (Budapest, 1905).Google Scholar

³⁸ Fél, E. and Hofer, T., Proper peasants (Chicago, 1969), 225.Google Scholar For appeals by disinherited sons and daughters, see Tárkány-Szücs, , A Magyar jogi, 757–74.Google Scholar

³⁹ Mattyasovsky, M., ‘Törzsöröklési’, 335.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Serf holdings were between 20 to 40 cadastral holds, depending on the quality of the lands regionally, and usually included a house too. Serfs owed corvée and tithes in proportion to the fraction of telek they occupied. Serfs in Hungary were not chattels, but were bound to the estate.

⁴¹ Andorka, R., ‘A paraszti családszervezet a 18 és 19 században’ (‘Family structure in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’) in Ethnographia, 2–3 (Budapest, 1975), 344–65.Google Scholar

⁴² Für, L., ‘Jobbágyföld-parasztföld’ (‘Serf land, peasant land’) in Szabó, I., ed., A parasztság Magyarországon a kapitalizmus korában (Budapest, 1965), 98.Google Scholar

⁴³ Kovács, I., ‘A néma’, 88–90Google Scholar, also Jankó, J., ‘A Balaton’, 132.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Spufford, M., ‘Peasant inheritance customs and land distribution in Cambridgeshire in the 16th to 18th century’, in Goody, J., Thirsk, J. and Thompson, E. P., eds., Family and inheritance (Cambridge, 1979), 156–76.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Berkner, L. and Mendels, F., ‘Inheritance systems, family structure and demographic patterns in Western Europe 1700–1900’ in Tilly, C., ed. Historical studies in changing fertility (Princeton, 1978), 209–223.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Young, D., Travels in France during the years 1787, 1788, 1789 (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Le Play, F., La réforms sociale en France, 2 vols (Paris, 1864).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Kiss, G. K., ‘Ormányság’, 385.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Kodolányi, J., Baranyai utazds (Travels in Baranya) (1942) (Budapest, 1963)Google Scholar; also Illyés, Gy. ‘Pusztulás’ (‘Devastation’) in Nyugat 16 (Budapest, 1933).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 142.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Berkner, and Mendels, , ‘Inheritance’, 216.Google Scholar

⁵² Toth, P. P., Agrársociologiai irások Magyarországon 1900–1945 (Budapest, 1984), 6.Google Scholar

⁵³ Kerék, M., A magyar földkérdés (The land problem in Hungary) (Budapest, 1939).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Berend, I. and Ranki, Gy., Hungary: A century of economic development (Newton Abbot, 1974), 42.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Kenéz, , ‘Nep’, 32–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Three million beggars was the title of a book by Gy. Oláh in 1928, but it also passed into popular usage as a slogan of the political left.

⁵⁷ Kovács, , ‘Egy elsüllyedt’, 325–30.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 146.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Kiss, G. K., ‘Ormányság’, 354.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 139.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., 148.

⁶² Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 129–131.Google Scholar

⁶³ Kiss, G. K., ‘Ormányság’, 127.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Hidvégi, , ‘Hulló’, 120.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The connection between the one-child system and peasant property remains to be denned. Attempting to correlate farm size and family size, R. Andorka found that differences within one village were very small, and in fact serfs with smaller holdings tended towards lower fertility (‘Family reconstitution’, 20–3). The data Andorka uses here are results of the census of serf households for 1828 in Besence and Vajszló; these alone are insufficient for any major conclusion and Andorka does not intend it as such. He appears to be in agreement with the contemporary one-child-system literature in linking the one-child system to economic status, writing: ‘what is the common factor linking ethnic groups where early birth control was found? Not religion, not ethnicity but – in my view – that they were landed serfs.’ (‘Az ormánsági születés korlátozás’, 55.)Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 146Google Scholar; Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 169.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Simontsits, E., A egyke demologiaja (The demology of the one-child system) (Budapest, 1934).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Illyés, , ‘Magyarok’, 189Google Scholar; Fülep, , ‘A magyarság’.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Kovács, , ‘Néma Forradalom’, 152–4 cf. R. Andorka, ‘Az ormánsági születéskorlátozás története’ (‘The history of birth control in the Ormánság’) in Valóság 6 (Budapest, 1975), 45–61.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Franklin, S. H., The European peasantry (London, 1969).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Fel, , Hofer, , ‘Proper peasants’, 113–4.Google Scholar

⁷² Kodolányi, , ‘Baranyai’, 99.Google Scholar

⁷³ Illyés, Gy., Puszták népe (People of the puszta) (Budapest, 1936), 29.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Elek, et al. , ‘Elsüllyedt falu a Dunántulon’, 49.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 143.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Harsányi, G., ‘Egyke’ (‘One-child system’) in Nyugat 19 (Budapest, 1933), 275.Google Scholar Also Fél, and Hófer, , ‘Proper peasants’, 131.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Elek, et al. , ‘Elsüllyedt falu a Dunántulon’, 47–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid., 46–7. Also L.Simon writes: ‘the daughter, if she is rich, is not given into marriage, they bring ‘a son in law’. In such a family the woman is in charge, the husband is in a position of servility.’ ‘Az egyke és az erkölcs’, Református Élet 34–35 (1934), 253.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Andorka, , ‘Az ormánsági születéskorlátozás’, 49–50.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 150.Google Scholar Fülep also mentions marriages between boys aged 13 and girls aged 10 in his parish. The marriage is not consummated but the children already live in one household. See ‘A magyarság pusztulása’, 118.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 141.Google Scholar Also Simon, L., ‘Az egyke és az erkölcs’ (‘One-child system and morals’) in Református Élet 34–35 (Budapest, 1934), 261–3.Google Scholar

⁸² Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 150.Google Scholar

⁸³ Harsányi, , ‘Egyke’, 276Google Scholar; Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 141.Google Scholar R. Andorka reconstituted the evolution of birth intervals in selected one-child-system villages and found them ‘remarkably long’ and ‘the data again confirm Hölbling's statement that couples in the region tended to avoid parities in the first years of marriage’ (‘Family reconstitution’, 18–19).Google Scholar But Andorka does not confirm decade-long intervals. The literature probably refers to observed individual instances here rather than to a norm followed by a majority.

⁸⁴ Morvay, J., Asszonyok a nagycsaládban (Women in the extended family) (Budapest, 1956), 194.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Fél, E., Kocs (Budapest, 1941), 90.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 133.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Jankó, J., ‘A Balaton’, 393–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Fülep, , ‘A magyarság’.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 132–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Scipiades, E., Az egyke jelentösége (The significance of the one-child system) (Pécs, 1926).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Andorka, R., ‘Family reconstitution and types of household structure’, 11–33.Google Scholar

⁹² Szabó, S., ‘A magyarsag pusztulésa’ (‘The magyars' destruction’) in Nyugat 2 (Budapest, 1936), 67.Google Scholar See also Simon, ‘Az egyke’, 262Google Scholar; Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 130–1Google Scholar; Elek, P. et al. , ‘Elsüllyedt’, 41.Google Scholar

⁹³ Számado, E., ‘Ormánság: a balladák népe’ (‘Ormánság:the people of ballads’) Magyar Nemzet (Budapest, 25 and 27 09 1938).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Hidvégi, , ‘Hulló’, 71.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Buday, , ‘Az egyke’, 141.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Harsányi, , ‘Egyke’, 276.Google Scholar F. Daróczi describes the case of a woman for whom the midwife ‘aborted twins, one today, one two days later and she did not even take to bed’. ‘Egy kalotaszegi falu’ in Magyar Népegészségügyi Szemle (Targu Mures, 1936), 232–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Andorka, , ‘Family reconstitution’, 27.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Davies, K., ‘Family patterns favouring high fertility in under-developed areas’ in Eugenics Quarterly 2 (1955), 33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁹ Erdei, F., Futóhomok (Quicksand) (Budapest, 1937), 225.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 140.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Kiss, G. K., ‘Ormánság’, 376Google Scholar; also Fülep, , ‘A magyarság’ (Budapest, 4 12 1929).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Tárkány-Szucs, E., ‘A magyar jogi népszokások’, 142.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Szombatfalvy, G., ‘Tiszazug’ in Nyugat 8 (Budapest, 1931), 153–8.Google Scholar See also the account of the Tiszazug trials in Györgyei, F., ‘Arsenic and no lace’ in Caduceus III, 2 (1987), 41–65.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Illyés, Gy., Magyarok (Budapest, 1933), 65.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 152Google Scholar; Fülep, , ‘A magyarság’ Szabó, ‘A magyarság’, 66.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Hidvégi, , ‘Hulló’, 67–70.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Kodolányi, , ‘Baranyai’, 167.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., 168.

¹⁰⁹ Kiss, , ‘Ormányság’, 376.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Elek, et al. , ‘Elsüllyedt’, 80.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Kiss, , ‘Ormányság’, 380.Google Scholar

¹¹² Harsányi, , ‘Egyke’, 275.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Kovács, , ‘Néma’, 145.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Kiss, , ‘Ormányság’, 378.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Szabó, , ‘A magyarság’, 68.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Herder, J., Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (1774).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Czigány, L., The Oxford history of Hungarian literature (Oxford, 1984), 103.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Babits, M., ‘Elfogy a Magyarság’ (‘The Magyars are vanishing’), Nyugat 19 (Budapest, 1933), 270.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Kovács, I., ‘Hulló Magyarország’ (‘Declining Hungary’) in Válasz 7–8 (Budapest, 1935), 417–28.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Fülep, , ‘A magyarság pusztulása’, 4 12 1929.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Harsányi, , ‘Egyke’, 275.Google Scholar

¹²² Kovács, I., ‘Református bün-e az egyke?’ (‘One-child system: a Protestant sin?’) in Református Jövö 23 (Budapest, 1940).Google Scholar

¹²³ Fülep, , ‘A magyarság pusztulása’ 17 11 1929.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Hidvégi, , ‘Hulló’, 43.Google Scholar But Hidvégi was wrong in his prediction: in 1986 the population of Hungary was 10.6 million, not 13.8 million.

¹²⁵ Kenéz, , ‘Népességpolitikai’, 442–7.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Borbándi, , ‘A magyar népi’, 13.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Braun, R., ‘Pusztul-e a magyar?’ (‘Are Magyars perishing?’) in Századunk 8–10 (Budapest, 1933).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Balogh, E., ‘A halálfélelem ideologiaja’ (‘The ideology of death fear’) in Kortárs, 3 (Budapest, 1939), 182–92.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ In considering the possible remedies for the one-child system, Kodolányi (‘Baranyai Utazás’, 127–8) reacts violently against the suggestion that industry should be promoted in Baranya to combat backwardness. Along with the majority of populist writers Kodolányi was a firm promoter of the peasant existence and could see improvements only within that framework. Fél, E. and Hofer, T., Proper peasants (Chicago, 1969).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Van de Walle, , ‘Alone in Europe’, 257.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Andorka, , ‘Születéskorlátozás az Ormánságban’, 83.Google Scholar

¹³² Tilly, C. (ed.) Historical studies in changing fertility (Princeton, 1978).Google Scholar

¹³³ Easterlin, R. E., ‘The economics and sociology of fertility: a synthesis’ in Tilly, C. (ed.), Historical studies of changing fertility (Princeton, 1978), 57–133.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Barth, F., Ethnic groups and boundaries(London, 1969), 16.Google Scholar