Keresés

Keresési eredmények

• A Mailáth család perbenyiki hitbizománya

  23-34

  Nagy Bettina

  Megtekintések száma:

  1

  My study presents the entail of the Mailáth family in Perbeník. The estate of Perbeník, which was converted into an entail of the Mailáth family in 1867, was located in the former county of Zemplén, and this former estate now belongs to the Slovak Republic. The Mailáth family moved to Zemplén County in the 18th century, via the marriage of Joseph Mailáth III. He married one of the daughters of the Sennyey family, the greatest landowner of the time. József Mailáth III., through his marriage with Antonia Sennyey, received the Sennyey estates in Zemplén County, and subsequently, established one of the largest manorial centres in Zemplén County. In my study, in addition to the Perbeník estate, I also review the inventories of the Őrhegy and Monyha farms, whereby we can get a relatively detailed picture of the Mailáth family’s estates in Zemplén County, the family trust established in 1867, and the family contradictions surrounding the entail.

• Református lelkészek jövedelmei Zemplén megyében a 18–19. század fordulóján

  73-85

  ifj. Barta János

  Megtekintések száma:

  1

  The income of priests and teachers in Hungary became important for the state power when it wanted to impose tax even upon privileged groups that had up until then been exempt from state burden. Joseph II’s plan could eventually not be realized because of the resistance of the nobility, there had been attempts to demolish even the sheets of cadastral research. However, it turns out from the fragments preserved in Zemplen county that the Calvinists had 143 cadastral acres and 666 square feet of self-managed land. The census measuring the income of the different layers of society estimated the income of Calvinist priests to be 1515 Rhenish Guldens.The income of priests can be divided into 3 main groups: they had allowances determined in monetary terms (payment, stole, deposit interest), they had crop yield (mostly cereals, wine, cattle, hay, wood), and the villagers also owed agricultural work to their priest. Sometimes even the holder of the settlement contributed to the catering of the churchof the village, the priest, or the preacher (with produce). Although the censuses of priest income primarily showed the crop yield – according to the actual benefits –, with a fewexceptions, it was recalculated to cash. Comparing the data in the two censuses, it can be seen that, in most cases, the ploughland included in the cadastral research meant only part of the parochial land that the ecclesiastical tracking kept account of on the side of priests or teachers. Similarly, only part of the ecclesiastical income was allowed to be included in the tracking made in 1800. This was because it soon turned out that the income of priests could not necessarily be included in either of the income categories contained in the tracking, so they needed to be tracked in different ways (most often exactly stating their type and extent). The incomes stated in the two censuses were in most cases the same, supporting the authenticity of the resources. It can be considered a curiosity that out of the 46 Calvinist priests mentioned in the 1800 tracking, there are 36 names with the note “Does not have anything”, which of course verified the fact that they were not possible to be added to categories, rather than that there was income deficit. Even though the data contained in the two resources are not the same in every respect, they more or less supplement each other, so the research cannot ignore either of them.

• Az Országos Községi Törzskönyvbizottság által meghatározott településnevek a Felvidék keleti peremén és használatuk a gyakorlatban

  5-27

  Bagdi Róbert

  Megtekintések száma:

  0

  In Hungary, it was during the era of Dualism that the historically developed names of settlements got systematized, as numerous names were in use that denoted not just one settlement. The framework of registration was defined by the 4th Law Article of 1898. In 1904, Zemplén county, while in 1905, Abaúj-Torna and Sáros counties received officially registered names, among which the rate of the changed names ranged from 55.7% (Abaúj-Torna) to 66.9% (Sáros) around the Eastern edge of Upper Hungary. In ourstudy, we aim to systematize the registered settlement names of these three counties on the basis of what methods prevail in the naming conventions, also showing on maps the real spatial distribution of those settlements. It can be verified based on the 1906 registers of Sátoraljaújhely in what rates the new settlement names had been adapted. Ultimately, it can be stated that the new settlementnames had not or very vaguely got adapted into practice.