Petercsák Tivadar: Nemesi és paraszti közbirtokosságok Heves Megyében (XVIII-XX. század) - Studia Agriensia 23. (Eger, 2003)

NOBLE AND PEASANT JOINT TENANTRY IN HEVES COUNTY (18th-20th CENTURY)

There are a number of similarities in the way noble and peasant joint tenantries were run. In both cases, for both economic and practical reasons, those lands which were difficult to manage (woods and pastures) remained undivided and reserved for common use. In the post-feudal era both gentry and peasants were able to use these to an extent depending on the size of their landholdings, something which also dictated how much they would contribute towards the running of the common property. In both cases the general assembly representing the members amounted to the highest forum of discussion, and it was there that the most important decisions were made. Everyday matters were dealt with by elected officials whose titles though frequently different tended to cover the same areas. This is true from the emergence of the noble of the joint-tenantries right up until the middle of the 20,h century, and continuing today with the recently developed new woodland societies. What had been the director or governor, became known in the 20th century as the president (Hung.: elnök), the treasurer instead of being the perceptor, számtartó became the pénztárnak, and more recently the gazdaságvezetó', the woodland inspector (Lat.: inspector) or custodian (Hung.: gondviselő gazda) over the past one hundred years became known as various types of forester (Hung.: erdőgazda).

The organisation structure of the noble joint tenantry was regulated by precedent rather than by law. In contrast, with the peasant joint tenantries it was state legislation which influenced the running of forestry and pasturage associations, including official inspections at both local and more senior levels. At the same time the everyday running of the joint tenantries was made all the more colourful by local peculiarities and traditions.

Based on the examples analysed in Heves County it is possible to conclude that in private hands the joint-tenantries proved more capable at running affairs to the benefit of the community, being based on legal precedents which could be applied flexibly to the circumstances. The bodies working at local government level provided a link with officialdom and the political leadership of the village as well as with those members of the joint tenantries using the woodland and the

298