The Chronicle of the Isépy Family from their ancient origins to the 20

The Chronicle of the Isépy Family
from their ancient origins
to the 20th Century
Researched by Aladár Isépy
(Translated from Hungarian by Esther Vitalis)
INTRODUCTION
The following summary of our family's history was motivated by the numerous
documents and other records that were collecting dust on the shelves of archives and
libraries scattered and forgotten, and that deservedly urged the researcher to make the
best of their contents. We collected our data and now we will present it to the reader with
our interpretation. We will also quote the most important documents directly. These
documents include the daily business of generations over seven centuries since the
practical emergence of written records. They almost exclusively deal with the land
because land was, for a long time, the financial basis and most direct driving force of
everyday life. But as we recall the forgotten phases of our family's past and we give an
account of where we came from and who our ancestors were, we will at the same time
shed light on circumstances and phenomena of life that are worth considering from the
point of view of general Hungarian history. However, our message is intended primarily
for the members of the Isépy family because the lives of our ancestors are either a
warning or an example for them. At the same time, recalling the deeds of our ancestors
provides a tool to strengthen our family relationships today and encourages appreciation
of our family heritage.
We used all the resources available to us. While we love Hungarian history, we
reserved the right to pass objective criticism, especially where the characteristics of the
records gave reason to draw conclusions and where there was a need to give explanation
for the sake of historical connection. We especially exercised this right when we
challenged the well-know statement from the Chronicle of Kézai that the Bogát-Radvany
clan, from which the family derived, came from outside Hungary. Regarding this, we
believe that we have to look for the clan's most ancient settlement around Lake Balaton
and not on the Uplands of Northern Hungary where they currently reside. The clan has
had pieces of land near Balaton from ancient times. At the beginning of the 15th Century,
the living quarters of the clan leader Bogát were situated there: this is the individual for
whom the clan was originally named.
In their works entitled "The Hungarian Clans until the Middle of the 14th
Century", Dr. Mor Wertner and later Dr. Janos Karatsonyi used the same sources we used
to collect our data regarding the Bogát-Radvany clan. Their summary and analysis is
respected. Therefore, we could not resist the temptation to quote some representative
parts of Karatsonyi's work. We quote from the common sources in the appropriate
chapter of our work.
Our research is very far from being complete. Just as a treasure hunt is tied to the
suspected location of the treasure, we are dependent on known and currently available
sources. However, there could be currently unknown data hidden at the bottom of
archives or in private libraries, and this data could be discovered and used in the future.
But with the help of the material collected so far, we established a rich framework for
future researchers who want to expand the history of our family.
We compiled modern family history partly based on our personal experience,
partly based on the statements of family members and partly based on modern registry
entries. At this time, I would like to say thank you to all those who helped me. I want to
extend my special appreciation to my relatives Dr. Tivadar Isépy and his son Dezso Isépy
2
Jr. who helped greatly in the creation of the Family Chronicle with their enthusiastic
interest and with their devoted participation in the data collection.
We wrote the history of our family as an amateur historian, so we would not be
surprised if after reading this text, a professional historian would criticize us for not being
scientifically precise. Our excuse is that we wrote with love and enthusiasm, and we
believe that we fulfilled a duty towards our family, as well as our homeland, by collecting
these sources. However, admitting our lack of scientific training compelled us to use the
designation "Chronicle" for this work. Such a title suggests a more forgiving evaluation
of historical events instead of emphasizing a precise history.
Aladár Isépy
Budapest, March 1948
3
Table of Contents
Introduction
Contents
1. The origin of the Bogát-Radvány clan.
2. From the first half of the 13th century, development of modern clans from the
ancestral clan.
3. Isépy family and its three branches in the 14th and 15th centuries. The clan
infighting regarding land and the disposition of the land at the end of the feudal
restrictions on land ownership.
4. The loss of the lands and the further fortunes of the family from the second half of
the 15th century to the end of the 18th century.
5. The 19th and 20th century Isépy family.
Footnotes and Definitions
References
Appendices
1. The Isépy family pedigree charts
2. The Bogát-Radvány family lands
3. Names list from the text of the chronicles of the Isépy family indicating the more
famous individuals.
4. Timeline of the Isépy family (large foldout chart – not included here)
5. Documents from other sources: the state library, the convent library at Leleszi
and the Zemplén county library.
4
1) The origin of the Bogát-Radvány clan.
According to common knowledge, the Isépy family originated from the BogátRadvány clan; one of the best known and most frequently mentioned clans. The
renowned Rákóczy family whose glorious role in Hungarian history sheds a light on this
clan also originated from it.1
In specialist literature relating to family history and in their comprehensive work
on the era of Hungarian chivalry that began with the XIII Century (containing notes
based on original documents) Wertner and Karátsonyi dealt more intensively with the
history of this clan.2 That is to say, until the XIII Century our information relating to
clans comes only from chronicles or family traditions, because documents and
contemporary legislative acts, from the Magyar conquest of Hungary all the way to the
end of the XII Century, do not mention the clans anywhere.3
Among our chroniclers, it is Kézai who places the Bogát-Radvány clan among the
newcomers to Hungary (that is, not of Hungarian ethnic origin) and he states they came
into our country from Czech lands. However, he did not attach any explanation
whatsoever to his conclusion, which was merely one sentence.4 Yet, according to
Karátsonyi, members of the clan contemporaneous with Kézai, belonged to the country's
nobles. Thus they must have filled rather important and distinguished positions. Kézai
should have mentioned them as he did those clans of obvious foreign descent whose
origins he explained by making known the circumstances of their move to Hungary. His
tight-lipped record does not reveal his sources for his knowledge relating to the BogátRadvány clan. In the chapter of his chronicle on the Magyar conquest, however, he
concluded that at the time of the conquest the number of conquering clans was 108, based
on so far undiscovered sources. Because he was attempting to account for only 108 clans,
we can assume that those historical clans he excluded and other clans that prospered even
during his lifetime, he may have imagined merely as immigrants and descendants of
prisoners of war. It is not our role to decide whether the number of conquering clans was
truly 108 and whether they were identical to those clans that Kézai counted among the
conquering ones. One thing is true - the latest historical view doubts the survival of all
the conquering Magyar clans until Kézai's time. Moreover, one and another historian
comes to the conclusion that the clan names used from the XIII Century (and known by
their "de genere" markings) cannot be brought into relation with the clans of the period of
the Magyar conquest. The increasing general use of the clan names must be considered
merely a prevailing custom of primitive family names persisting for two centuries.5 The
consideration of one of our outstanding scientists deserves attention regarding this. He
states that following the Magyar conquest, during the time of St. Stephen and later, clans
were formed if a Magyar or a foreign valiant due to his excellence, obtained suitable
wealth, especially servants and cattle. Such a person would become the founder of a
clan, because wealth may have been the basis of the formation and independence of a
clan.6 However, soon after royal power eliminated the institution of the confederation of
tribes one no longer hears mention of clans. It is probable that membership in clans was
extended to one or another of the castle-serf groups (that is, serfs were know to belong to
the clan of the castle they served) and this especially applies to serfs of the servant class
and the Lord High Stewards (“white collar serfs”). This was a necessary consequence of
5
the social, legal and economic development occurring in the late Middle Ages. There
was also a gradual increase in literacy that helped the use of permanent family names to
evolve. In the Middle Ages, naming according to clans finally came to an end. It is
completely natural that in selecting the names of new clans, old traditions prevailed.
Looking at the chronicles from the point of view of science, although they are
noteworthy and fill in some gaps in recording historical events, they cannot be counted as
reliable sources. They have limited power to prove a fact until pragmatic research has
evaluated and reinforced their data. It appears, however, that Kézai's record has passed
unnoticed through this screening process, because his statement regarding the origin of
the Bogát-Radvány clan passed into common knowledge without being checked; and so,
it received a place as fact in our historical literature. 7
The Rákóczi family, with their splendid past, would deserve; and the Rákóczi cult
(kept alive with patriotic reverence all through the country) would wish, that official
researchers of Hungarian history would finally shed complete light on this honorable
family and specifically on the origin of the Bogát-Radvány clan in which it is rooted.
Today when national and ethnic origin, not only individually but also nationally, are
considered increasingly crucial; when strangers try to appropriate our national heroes as
their own (by taking advantage of our own mistakes or indifference), it would be
especially timely to examine more thoroughly, with the help of modern methods of
scientific and historical evaluation, whether Kézai's statement can truly be substantiated.
According to family traditions, the Bogát-Radvány clan - contrary to Kézai's
statement - originates from Chief Bogát who lived during the Magyar conquest. His
memory is immortalized by the name of the clan. It is unfortunate that devotion to this
ancient name, expressed repeatedly over time, did not spur research into its national
origin. One can see the paralyzing influence of the chronicle of Kézai. Because of that
chronicle’s presumed historical accuracy, it set a limit to the momentum of historical
research.
In the following disquisitions we take a stand against Kézai's well-known
statement and attempt to prove that the family tradition (that the clan is Hungarian),
preserved unchanged during many centuries, is accurate. In the course of this document,
we will draw conclusions that are sufficiently convincing to prove the clan's pureblooded Hungarian origin. We rely on means that were lacking during the first two
centuries following the Magyar conquest; not only new findings in general Hungarian
history, but also research on family relationships hidden in the ancient personal names
and studies of specific settlements. We also employed hitherto not evaluated but related
documents on the clan and its descendents' place in the legal system of inheritance.
The naming of the Bogát-Radvány clan is connected to the period immediately
following the conquest; to one name worthy of note during the first century of the
kingdom, specifically that of Chief Bogát, as well as, Andrew I, and Bogát's son, the
Palatine Radvány who lived in the time of King Salamon. In Anonymous' chronicle,
Bogát was mentioned several times as the father of Chief Bulcsú.8 Bulcsú was according to confirmed data in foreign sources - one of the chiefs of the campaigns in the
year 921.9 In order to assist Berengár, the king of Lombardy, Bulcsú pushed his way into
Upper-Italy with his army. After completing his duty, he forayed into almost the whole
of Italy returning home with rich spoils.10 However, we must consider Anonymous' notes
inaccurate in that Bulcsú, who lost his life much later after the disastrous battle at the
6
Field of Lech in the year 955, could not be a conqueror chief. Nevertheless, one thing
does become clear from this record -- the close kinship between Bogát and Bulcsú was
known even in the times of Anonymous. The memory of ancestors named Bogát is
preserved as "Field of Bogát", in the founding letter of the Abbey of Tihany, dated
1055.11 Other place names such as the town of Bogát or locations which include Bogát
as part of their name also date from this time. The Palatine Radvány (according to the
illustrated chronicle, he is Bogát's son, Radvány) - after the occupation of
Nándorfehérvár, - together with the cunning Vid - advised King Solomon how to divide
the spoils.12 Among the Palatines known so far, he was the fourth in line, and thus being
in a high position, he participated in the retaking of Szerémség previously occupied by
the Greeks. He participated during the subsequent campaign in the Balkans. In 1070 in
Szávaszentdemeter (today called Mitrovica) he founded an abbey for the brothers of the
Bazilite order. Here they placed the relic of Saint Demeter taken during the Greek
campaign in Nis.13 Another historic document, the founding letter of the monastery of
Százd /Zasty/ is a proof of his Palatine position - he signed as Palatinus Comes Radowan,
together with the king and other nobles of the country. 14
In the absence of additional sources, it is impossible to document the connection
of lineage between Chief Bogát and the Palatine Radvány, either between these two
persons of historical renown or of the members of the clan mentioned in documents since
the beginning of the century. However*, we can reasonably conclude that they were
related because the name Bogát, or its distorted version, does not occur anywhere else
except in the Aracsa clan, in documents as well as in historical literature.
*
Specifically, we refer to the common phenomenon that in a clan or family the same personal names appear again and
again, and that the clan itself used the Bogát and Radvány names and the father of the Palatine Radvány was according
to the Chronicle also named Bogát. Both names were in use as personal names among members of the clan at the
15
beginning of the XIII century.
But it is possible to reason further that names of ancestors of historical importance
remained for posterity as traditions in the memory of successors; and when important
circumstances made a direct link by a common name necessary, by using Bogát Radvány
names, they tried to invoke the memory of their outstanding ancestors. Either the
members of the clan themselves, or public opinion of the time, gave the name Bogát
Radvány to this clan. This is a fact and it speaks fairly clearly to the weight they put on
the use of both historical names together. With this reasoning, we believe we follow a
more reliable path than those who were looking for the ancestors of the clan not in Chief
Bogát and his descendant, the Palatine Radvány, but in other similar-named people of
foreign descent; people who did not even leave traces behind them. It was Kézai alone
who caused this quite brief mention of the supposed foreign origin of the clan. It is,
however, very unlikely that during that era when family traditions were guarded so
jealously; the clan would be able to carry on using, without blood connection, these
familiar names of persons of historical renown. There would have been outrage over the
centuries if they fostered a tradition of origin from the conquerors, at the same time
erasing the memory of ancestors of foreign origin without a trace. There is no clan of
foreign origin that did that. Even if we do not maintain that they were particularly proud
of their foreign origin, not one of them ever denied it.
7
The memory of origin from the conquering ancestors, however, did not only
continue living in the traditions of the descendants, but during feudal times it was
common knowledge. Thereby the origin of the clan reaching back to the times of the
Magyar conquest was acknowledged officially. To prove this it is enough to mention that
when a member of the Isépy family, living in the XVIII century and originating from the
clan, applied for a certificate of nobility from the County of Zemplén, it was issued to
him by the General Assembly of the County of Zemplén on December 4, 1782; in that,
among others, the following statement occurs:
"….. Cum astem justa petenti non esset denegandus assensun, et elioqui ex publici
Tabularii Nostri Actis, et adversaries luculenter constaret, Nobilem prosapiam Isepy ab
ipsis Regni incunabulis ex veteribus illis progenitoribus Scythis, qui dulcem, quam
Colimus Patriam Sangvine Posteris paraverunt…" 16
The General Assembly of the county, as the respective noble authority and the
qualified representative of the nobility, included in this testimony in Latin that the family
- according to certified archival data - originates from those "Scythian" ancestors who
obtained the homeland for their descendants by shedding their own blood. This
declaration deserves attention, was supported by certified proofs, and it in itself would be
sufficient proof of the clan’s origin. However, so far we have not succeeded in gaining
support for our thesis from this archival data alone because of the lack of collaborating
research. Thus in citing the certificate of nobility we could merely be restricted to
pointing out the perception, regarding this issue, of the noble society of the time. The
County of Zemplén issued in 1829, a similar testimony of nobility to another member of
the family.17
Some historians tried to justify Kézai's statement by the Slavic sounding name of
the clan.18 The name Bogát is, however, an ancient Hungarian personal name. Words
meaning "rich" in the Slav language - [and] in the Turkish "strength" [and] "solidity" are
identical [in meaning] to the word "bogát" /bakat/.19 The name of Chief Bogát, who was
probably born before the Magyar conquest, could not have been of Slavic origin,
according to most recent scientific statements, because the influence of Slavic people on
the Hungarian language started only after the conquest.20 But nothing can explain the
suggestion of some experts of the history of names that our ancestors would have used
this name first in its Turkish sense and later in its Slav one.21 It seems that this unnatural
explanation is rather a consequence of Kézai's record, trying to justify it by attributing to
it such a varying sense to the Bogát name. In connection with the above analysis, it would
be worth contemplating whether the Christian name of Sztanch Isépy22 (supposedly of
Slav origin) of the Bogát-Radvány clan, who lived in the XIII century - if read as
"Stancz"23 could be considered a shortened version of "Konstanc" /Konstantin/ being
identical to the name "Szilárd". Would that not be closely connected to the traditional
clan name "Bogát" which means "szilárd" (= staunch, solid, immovable, constant)? It is
also true that this name remains for posterity in "stancs" in the village name Isztancs.
This village is located in close proximity to Magyar-Izsép.
The influence of Eastern Christianity could, however, be the reason for the truly
foreign sounding name of the Palatine Radvány that, judging by the founding letter of
Százd /Zasty/ and the form "Radowan" found in the Pictorial Chronicle, could be
considered of southern Slav origin. In support of this, it is enough to cite the remark,
mentioned earlier, that the Palatine Radvány founded a cloister for the Brazilite Order.
8
This would give a reason why a true-born descendant of a Hungarian clan would bear
such a foreign sounding name and thus could cause such misunderstandings. We should
take into consideration the spirit of the era that included the life of the Palatine Radvány
and the medieval lifestyle resulting from it. That era was permeated totally and in every
sense by the ruling church. Adding to this that the founding of the monastery happened in
1070, that is, after the schism of the church; then we can come to the conclusion that the
Palatine Radvány could have founded a monastery for the Brazilite Order after receiving
the relic of St. Demeter who in turn was revered by the Eastern Church. Having obtained
the relict in Greece during the Balkan wars, the Palatine Radvány did not necessarily
have a closer contact with the Greek Catholic church than the Latin Catholics. However,
his action may prove that he himself belonged to a church that followed Eastern rituals;
as it was common knowledge that, in converting one and another Hungarian clan, the
Greek Orthodox Catholic Church predates the Latin Catholic Church. Even in those
times, in the peculiarly Slavic atmosphere of the Church, the Palatine Radvány could
easily have been given a foreign sounding name that would put into doubt his ancient
origin. However, in that case he could not have originated from Bohemia because the
Czechs never belonged to the Greek Church.
In those days, when their name already appears in documents, that is, at the
beginning of the XIII Century, the Bogát-Radvány clan is mentioned as settled at two
areas of the country conspicuously far from each other. The Clan owns extensive lands in
the County of Zemplén and also in the County of Zala. According to Karátsonyi, we do
not know much about the branch in the County of Zala; and one cannot establish
genealogical links with other members of the family mentioned from this time, the reason
being that documents were sparse.24 It seems, however, that Karátsonyi failed to notice
that the names of family members he identified as from the County of Zala, were, for the
most part, identical with personal names appearing in the County of Zemplén. Thus,
based on the identity of those with the same personal names, we can make the following
conclusions: in the beginning of the XIII Century, the clan did not have a separate branch
in the County of Zala. The estates in Zala were the property of those family members
who were settled then mainly in Zemplén, as those were the family members distributing
the estates in Zala among themselves later on. The following data serve to verify this:
a/ In 1227, two descendants of the Bogát-Radvány clan, the sons of Chele, Szech
and Pongrác [Pongrats]; István the son of Bogát, and Ipolth's son, Albert, appeared before
the chapter of the church in Eger; on that occasion they gave up the lands of Lázony and
Luc - in the County of Zemplén - to their relative, Sándor's son Móg.25 A few years later
in 1235, the same kinsmen Pongrác, Albert and István participated, together with their
relative named Radván26, in the distribution of one of the lands in Zala. And in 1243, the
earlier mentioned son of Móg, called Simon, then Radvány; and István's son, István, are
present - together with other relatives27 - at the distribution of the estate at Háláp itself. In
the year 1252, Móg of Lázony, Simon of Lucz, Domokos of Cseley (son of Pongrác),
Radván of Megyaszó and István of Berető reach an agreement before the chapter of the
church of Eger in the matter of the lands in the County of Zemplén.28
b/ In 1228, the already mentioned Gapoly* abandoned his estate named
Dörgicse, County of Zala, to his men.29
*
Spelt in the original manuscript as Gapoly and also Gyapoly. In an old Hungarian historical listing of lands of
the time it is spelt Gyapoly.
9
In 1251 – before the chapter of the church - he sold his estate named Chata in TransDanubia, to the Archbishop of Esztergom.30 In 1278, the same Gyapoly bequeaths (by a
last will) his lands in four villages in the County of Zemplén to the sons of his brother,
Chyz.31
One can conclude from these records that persons with the same name made
arrangements regarding lands, some lying in the County of Zemplén, and some lying in
Trans-Danubia; either before the chapter of the Church at Eger, or at another time at
Veszprém or Fejérvár.
In property records of the clan living on the lands in the County of Zemplén - as
early as the beginning of the XV Century - there are lists of lands in the County of Zala,
specifically at Haláp, Diszel and Dorgiche.32 The Halápi, or Halápi Fekecs family,
remaining all along in the County of Zala, cannot be considered a separate branch of the
clan. They are most probably a side-branch of the Monok branch of the clan from the
County of Zemplén. This relationship also appears in a document dated 1424,
emphasizing the close relationship of the Halápis and Monokis.33
Without additional documents and other reliable data it had not been possible to
ascertain so far, the reason that – beginning with the first written records - the BogátRadvány clan was settled in just those areas so conspicuously distant from each other.
Also there is no indication of the time when these settlements came into being. In view of
the relationship of lands of the clan, but undervaluing the importance of the lesser known
settlement in Zala, historical records place the ancient seat of the clan in the County of
Zemplén. That is where, at the time of the first appearance of historical documents, its
monastery and more extensive lands were situated.34 However, in opposition to this
general and deep-rooted opinion, we emphasize that the cradle of the clan should be
looked for not here, but at lands farther away from here, in the County of Zala, namely in
the areas of Trans-Danubia. If the history writers' supposition were true, that the clan
settled down initially in the less populated County of Zemplén where they became
owners of extensive lands, and they had the opportunity for expansion; then it would be
hard to find an explanation, a reason, an advantageous circumstance, that would later
cause them to move to Zala, a distant land, (considering the lengthy and exhausting travel
conditions of the times in reaching the County of Zala) in order to obtain additional
property. In fact, Zala was most heavily populated, an area where among all the counties
the number of clans owning lands was the highest - 31 in total.35 It is much more likely
that Trans-Danubia was the ancient nest of the clan, and only later, when in the storms of
history its lands diminished, the clan moved to the less [at the time] populated County of
Zemplén. There it was able to obtain significant properties. The move to Zemplén,
however, probably put the descendants of Chief Bogát and the Palatine Radvány in the
bosom of the Roman Catholic Church; into which they probably drifted in so far not
discovered circumstances, but possibly after the schism in the church. In those days the
pressures of newly established church-administrative regulations brought many into the
religion favored by the current ruler. After their appearance in the County of Zemplén,
they were the ones who built the Benedictine Abbey of Szerencs, in reverence to the
Roman Church's chief apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul; they then continue to practice
together the right of advowson for the abbey. The clan broke up into other branches and
reached its golden age of growth (in wealth) in the XIV and XV Centuries, while finally
severing their Trans-Danubian contacts. We notice a similar pattern of resettlement in
10
the case of other clans, as it is commonly known that numerous clans - among them
Kaplony and Szente, acknowledged as descendants of the Hungarian conquerors – and
the Magócs clans - moved from Trans-Danubia to their later settlements.36
In relation to the resettlement we must note that in documents relating to the
Bogát-Radvány clan we repeatedly see noticeable similarity of names between Zemplén
and Zala Counties, also other Trans-Danubian geographical names of a personal nature.
Aracs, the ancient estate of the Bogát-Radvány clan in the County of Zemplén37 bears the
identical name with Aracs by the Balaton and with a place called Eger-Aracsa west of
Zala County. Furthermore, with the once mentioned but now extinct Trans-Danubian
clan of Aracsa,38 from its distortion of the name Bogát could have developed the names
Buga, Bugáth, or Bogoth.39 There is a similarity between names of properties at Halán,
in other version Halám40 and Haláp of Zala41. Similarly in documents from 1300 and
140942 the name of Enyeres (Eneruh) in Zemplén conspicuously resembles the name of
the former village of Enyere in Zala.43 The name of one of the ancestors of the clan,
Cheley mentioned in 1227,44 is also the name of the village of Csele in Zemplén, as well
as being identical with the Trans-Danubian Csele Creek that became famous in
connection with the catastrophe at Mohács and with the now extinct village of Csele. The
personal middle name of the Rákóczi branch of "Gyapoly" carried on for several
generations and reminds one of the villages Kapoly in the County of Somogy and
Kapolcs in the County of Zala, both in the area of Balaton. The similarity of these names
(beside the great distance separating the lands in Zala and Zemplén, and the strikingly
different characteristics of these two regions) can be ascribed to the intermediary
influence of the landowner clan occurring in both these areas. One can deduce from these
Hungarian sounding names that they arrived in the region of Zemplén from TransDanubia, that the Zemplén region was populated by Hungarians and the clan brought
these names with them in remembrance of their ancient lands.
To prove that the cradle of the clan was not in Upper Hungary, but in fact in
Trans-Danubia, one may emphasize the historical fact that the Trans-Danubian lands of
the clan were situated in the same area as was the seat of Chief Bogát in the year 905.45
We cannot pass by our well-documented statement, of great importance, without
comparing it to Kézai's -- limiting himself to one sentence that contains no proof of any
kind whatsoever to verify his statement. We do not have any reason to suppose that the
Bogát-Radvány clan would drift to the Zala region of Trans-Danubia merely by chance
after settling Zemplén; nor would it be purely the influence of chance that it bore, at the
same time, the name of the first landowner of the Zala region, that of Chief Bogát.
Indeed, it is exactly the perfect match of the names and of the regions settled that best
proves that the historical Chief Bogát was truly the ancestor and the first name-giver of
the Bogát-Radvány clan. At the same time, it also explains satisfactorily the reason why
the clan prospering mainly in the County of Zemplén while owning properties of ancient
origin in the distant Zala County as well.
According to our sources, in the year 950 the lands of Chief Bulcsú of legendary
reputation, were situated on the extensive land holdings owned by Chief Bogat, near the
Balaton.46 On that basis we can correctly deduce a strong cousinly relationship between
Chief Bogát and Chief Bulcsú, asserted also by Anonymus. Between the records of
Anonymous and Kézai as to the origin of Bulcsú there are discrepancies that need further
clarification; these are that one considers Bogát the father of Bulcsú while the other
11
names Kal Horka.47 The existence of a cousinly relationship is reinforced, however, by a
circumstance deserving attention: Vér-Bulcsú, judging by its name a likely descendant of
Bulcsú or the Lad clan, owned ancient lands48 certified by documents, at BadacsonyTomajon, Tordemice and Gyulakeszi (in close proximity to the area of the ancient lands
of the Bogát-Radvány clan - and the one-time dwelling of Chief Bogát). History also
records that Bulcsú converted to Christianity in Constantinople. This very significant
event then could not have remained without further consequences and it possibly caused
the conversion of his closer relatives and residents of his estate. The Greek writer,
Szkülitszéz who lived in the XI century has an contradictory opinion in this regard.49 ,
He implyed that Bulcsú's conversion by baptism to the Christian faith was only
superficial.50 However, reasonable historians consider this statement unsubstantiated.
From the fact that during Bulcsú's forays into French lands, St. Wikibert was able to
freely and successfully convert among Bulcsú's troops51 we can conclude that Bulcsú
observed with patience the spreading of the new faith. Thus it can be rightfully supposed
that after his conversion, the Patriarch of Byzantium also sent his priests to Bulcsú so that
he, the Patriarch, could utilize his influence more and more in the powerful circle of the
converted chief. The Patriarch could put down deeper roots in the soil where, not too
long before, St. Metód, an apostle of the Slavs living there, had sowed the seeds of
Christian faith. Thus our imagination does not have to soar too far if from these we can
deduce, as the result of the Bogát-Bulcsú cousinly relationships, the consequence that the
son of Bogát, the Palatine Radvány probably belonged to the Eastern Church's circle
through their kinship.
We do not know the land and the dwelling of the Palatine Radvány. However, we
know that he was the Palatine of King Salamon during those troubled times when the
royal influence could extend mainly through Trans-Danubia and the central and southern
parts of the country. The lands of the Palatine Radvány were probably situated within this
same area (that is in Zala County) because those loyal to the king could not own their
lands in more distant regions without being disturbed. On the other hand, nobles living
farther away could not serve the king. The County of Zemplén - where the majority of
the land holdings of the Bogát-Radvány clan were later situated - paid tribute, in those
days, to Prince Magnus, the latter King Géza. A reference to the Palatine Radvány's
lands mentions the name "Bogát mezeje [meadow of Bogát]"52. This is noted in the
founding document of the Abbey of Tihany, dated 1055; as being adjacent to the property
of the Abbey and it offers some support to our thesis (if we identify the owner of that
land as the Palatine Radvány's father, also named Bogát who was still alive in the year of
the founding of Tihany).
Through this we also are closer to clarifying the genealogical relationship of Chief Bogát
and the Palatine Radvány, as the so-called "Meadow of Bogát" was situated at such lands
that at one time belonged to Chief Bogát. Furthermore, military campaigns led
personally by the Palatine Radvány in the Southern Regions suggest a closer interest in
that part of the country. And from the fact that he founded a monastery at
Szávaszentdemeter (Mitroviza), one can suppose that he owned lands also in Szerémség
where, according to the custom of the times, he could assure financial support for the
monastery.
In order to complete our data referring to the clan, we must remember two more
names of historical importance that were recorded prior to the XIII century - a period
12
rather short of sources; two individuals supposedly originating from the clan, the landsteward Csíz and the Palatine Móg.
The land-steward Csíz was the chief man of King István II (1114-31) who fell in 1129 in
a battle fought with the Greeks, by the Karas river, close to the Castle of Harám (formerly
Ujpalánka). This battle between the Hungarians and Greeks was led by Stephel, or Count
Steffing (a relative of the queen); and it concluded with the victory of the Greeks.
(According to the Chronicles: "The hand of God was with the Greeks; the Hungarians
were not able to hold out against them. Bloodshed was so enormous that hardly ever
happened anything like that before. The water of the Karas was so mixed with blood that
it looked like blood; men in armor lay in the river as logs and those who were fleeing and
their persecutors were stepping on the corpses as though on a bridge. The Hungarians
were slaughtered like oxen and no one could save them from the hands of the Greeks.
The land-steward Csíz fell there together with other good warrior knights").53 It was
recorded that this land-steward Csíz descended from the Bogát-Radvány clan,54 because
Csepán's son, Csíz Comes (Count) (1227-52) had the same name. (That man was the
ancestor of the Rákóczi branch of the clan and, after killing his relative Filke, was
obligated to pass on part of his lands as compensation.55) The Csíz name was then
preserved by the name Csíz Puszta [lowland] situated in the outskirts of the former
Lásztoc – also in the names of settlements of the clan in Zemplén - and Csízva Creek that
flowed into the Helmec Creek close to the village of Cselej.56
The Palatine Móg57 participated in the insurrection organized against King Imre,
brother of Prince András, the later King András II (Endre II.) that ended with the
punishment of the insurgents. The Palatine Móg even had his position taken away.58
However, later in 1206, after the coronation of András II he again was able to have his
position of Palatine back. The Móg name occurs in the Bogát-Radvány clan in documents
from 1227 59, 1243 60 and from 125261 among others.
If the older land-steward Csíz and the Palatine Móg were indeed descendants of
the Bogát-Radvány clan, then it also supports that this clan moved to the Highlands from
the southern parts of the country. (Because the defense of the southern parts of the
country during the time of the land-steward Csíz - influenced by the military system of
the times and the difficulties of traveling - was taken care of, first of all, by land-stewards
of counties close to the disputed country's borders; and in the insurgency against King
Imre it was mostly nobles of Trans-Danubia and the South Lands who participated).
When determining the origin of ancient clans and families historically, one must
consider the rights, that is, the ancient customs according to members of families and
clans who owned and inherited their lands.
Until the final phase of feudalism, in rights and obligations, Hungarian society
was made up of layers totally different from one another. Of these, descendants of the
conquerors, as first owners, had unlimited power of ownership and inheritance of their
properties. In opposition to this, others who obtained their lands by grants or had it only
as usufruct, had limited rights to manage the land.62 In return for ownership or usufruct,
the latter then were obligated to perform various feudal services.63 Even royal power
could not change those rights that were the due to descendants of the conquerors on the
basis of the ancient customs. Therefore laws regarding the order of inheritance, enacted
by medieval kings could only extend to properties granted by the king. Properties that
originated from the Conquest were the due of all the male descendants of the conquerors,
13
that is, all male members of the clan, thus the king's right of escheat could be put into
force only if the male line of the clan died out completely.64
King Kálmán declared in one of his articles that lands granted by St. Stephen are
the due of every male successor. However, this law did not create new rights, but only
reinforced the order of heredity that developed on its own, and extended the ancient
rights of descendants of the conquerors to those foreign valiants (knights) who, when
coming into the area during St. Stephen’s time, were granted lands.65
The rights associated with those lands that were granted by kings following St.
Stephen were different. King Kálmán could enforce his rights more broadly, saying that
only straight male descendants and the closest side branches, namely brothers, can
inherit. In the absence of close male descendants the lands pass to the king.66 To no
avail, the "Arany Bulla" [Golden Bull], (a consequence of a revolutionary movement)
tried to change this law of inheritance by granting free right of bequest to nobles without
a male descendant. This did not come into force the same as other concessions of the
Golden Bull.67 The ancient system of inheriting, originating from the East, remained in
force. No law would be brought into existence to change the custom (that land
inheritance was the due only of descendants of the conquerors and of St. Stephens'
foreign knights) until the law of entailment in 1351 extending this right for the whole
nobility.
However, even this change in the inheritance law could not straighten out the
differences that remained; on the one hand, among the descendants of the conquerors and
predecessors from the time of St. Stephen, on the other hand, later grantors and their
descendants. The problem is that the law of entailment is based on traditions, reaching as
far back as the Conquest [or] to time of St. Stephen, with no documentary proof such as a
land-grant; while for the lands granted after the actual law of entailment came into force,
there are land-grants.
Medieval documents relating to the Bogát-Radvány clan prove, without a doubt,
that the rights of the descendants of the conquerors and ancestors from the time of St.
Stephen applied without interruption to members of the clan regarding inheritance of
their lands in Zala, as well as Zemplén. However, these documents do not contain data
revealing the origin of the estates in Zala and Zemplén, being located so far from each
other, and they offer no trace of why the ancient inheritance rights were due equally to
both groups of estate owners. Although because of their distance from each other, we
could deduce rightfully that only one of them may have been the family estate and
residence, and the other may have come into possession as a grant. One is absolutely
certain, however, that class unions occurring during the times (either before or after the
law of entailment, at both places) and that these created the basis for ancient rights being
carried forward among the extended branches of the clans. The kinsman like contacts of
the various land owners, around the times when documents started to appear, revealed
themselves not only in the common name of the clan but in the tradition referring to their
common origin. We find the branches of the clans listing named representatives together
several times in documents; but the degree of their relationship - to the disadvantage of
genealogical research - we cannot verify even approximately. Such a cousinly
relationship, impossible to be defined any closer, is revealed in the document left for us
and cited already as the document of 1277. 68 According to this document, individual
clan members are listed but their exact relationship within the clan is not known. Those
14
listed include from the Bogát-Radvány clan; Bogát's son, István, Csele's son Szécs and
Pongrác's and Ipolth's son Sándor. These men appeared at the chapter of Eger with the
purpose of passing land, the lands called Luc in the County of Zemplén, to Sándor's son
Móg. Mog belonged to another branch of the clan. This Móg, son of Sándor, participated
as mediator and advisor in the disciplinary action against Csepán's son Csíz who killed
Filke, son of Bogát. Another document gives a view of this cousinly relationship
between members of the clan. In a document dated 1235 of the Veszprém chapter,69
Pongrác, István, Albert, Péter and Mark of the Bogát-Radvány clan divided their lands
into three parts - not named separately. These were lands that they owned beside Haláp
in the country of Zala. However, the level of relationship among them cannot be defined.
There is a document from 1243 with reference to the division of the estate at Haláp
itself.70 In that case the dividing parties 1) son of Móg: Simon; 2) Bacha's sons:
Velkenye, Pasca and Pál; 3) Petus; 4) Farkas' sons: Mark, Domonkos and Radvány; 5)
István's son: István; 6) Valphert's sons: Péter and Albert, participated. There is a
document originating in 1252, describing the peacemaking agreement made with Csíz
and contemporaneous land records with frequent mention71 of clan members who beside
Csíz of Morva and his brother Gyapoly, are 1) Sztanch of I'sép. 2) István of Bereth, 3)
Domokos of Csele, 5) Móg of Lázony, 5) Simon of Luc, 6) Radvány of Megyszó and 7)
Marcel's son Simon of Szada.
These documents clearly demonstrate that regarding land rights, the basis of the
inheritance process dividing the land within the clan was not King Kálmán's law with its
narrower system of inheritance definitions subject to royal reversal, but it was the earlier
participatory rights of the clan that extended to all male members. Otherwise, the first
instance of side branch relatives inheriting, limited as that was by the law’s restrictions,
would surely be noted in medieval documents, which were written at all times with
elaborate explicitness. This contention is proven by the declaration of István's son,
Miklós's (of I'sép) at the Abbey of Jászó in 1333 in which - referring to the custom of
inheritance within the clan - he passes his lands called Lázony and Lask, in the county of
Zemplén, to Sándor's son László (of Monok) who was a relative, but not a cousin.72 The
ancient hereditary right is of decisive importance in a series of lawsuits that went on for
almost one hundred years between the Monok and Izsép branches of the clan and those of
the Rákóczi and Isépy branches of the clan.
During medieval times, members of the clan consistently enforced, even by
lawsuits, their demands to be able to dispose of land within the clan as they saw fit and
made opposition to any claims made against their ancient land rights. Thus, they did not
only stand up against those who, for want of male descendants, managed to obtain a royal
permit of freedom to make their last will73, but also against those who, ignoring
precedence, attempted to grab exclusively for themselves lands of a clan without direct
male descendants. This was usually done through a royal deed of gift.74 In one case the
attempt to obtain a royal deed was not successful because the king could not freely make
a disposition on lands that were due rightful owners on the basis of the ancient hereditary
system. The hereditary contract with its ancient traditions remained in force until the final
division of the clans' estates. This division occurred in 1392-1409 when the branches of
the clan came finally into being and they established independent families. After this
time they used their family names continuously and the clan names were not used.75
15
In summary and support of our contention that the ancient customs of heredity
apply to the Bogát-Radvány clan; we see that the clan, despite having extensive lands, did
not belong to the most powerful clans, or to those who tended to cause trouble. Its
members did not have the power to practice - even temporarily - rights not their due, in
opposition to the king's right of reversal. The king could always enforce this important
aspect of his power and authority. In addition, we do not have any historical proof that,
until the law of entailment came into existence; any king voluntarily gave up his right to
increase his royal possessions by confiscating lands. Nor did the King exercise the right
of reversal in order to be able to distribute to one of his followers, ancient privileges due
the descendants of the period of Conquest and of St. Stephen.
In the course of our analysis we have narrowed the boundaries through which we
should look for the predecessors of the Bogát-Radvány clan. On the basis of an ancient
hereditary legal system, the clan either descended from the brave foreign warriors who
were granted lands by St. Stephen or from the conquerors directly. Thus it cannot hold
true that the clan in the XII76 or in the XIII77 centuries moved into our country, because in
that case their descendants could not own lands of ancient origin, as noted in documents
that appeared in the beginning of the XIII century.
Our reasoning, reinforced by general historical data and presented above in the
analysis of names, of the settlement pattern and of hereditary land rights; supports the
fact that the Bogát-Radvány clan is a branch of the Bogát-Bulcsú tribe, namely the tribe
of Horkas. The possibility of foreign origin for the clan could be supported if they
received their land grants from St. Stephen; but this could only be considered, if by
putting aside our other weighty arguments listed above, we would accept Kézai's
chronicle. However, even the political actions of St. Stephen would refute Kézai's
statement because our first king, during his actions in creating a state, utilized the
cooperation primarily of Germans and Italians, beside the support provided by the
Church. Those foreigners filling the most important roles were the ones who received
land grants. Beside the German and Italian warrior knights of Géza, the reigning prince were German knights who came escorting Queen Gizella; some of them became the
predecessors of Hungarian clans; history knows them by name. We do not have any
sources to say whether our first king invited helpers from Czech lands to whom he would
grant extensive lands.78 So far as we know he had no contact with them and thought
their morals were semi-pagan. (And they did not fit into his well-thought-out uniform
system of culture and government. Their way of thinking was different; they had a
different disposition and were less cultured.) History did not make note of Czech names
in Hungary at that time. The families originating from the Bogát-Radvány clan did not
preserve family stories of predecessors who came from foreign lands; but only stories of
the conqueror Chief Bogát; as well as Bogát's son, the Palatine Radvány, who originated
from his blood.
Based on all of the above, we can draw the conclusion that Kézai probably made a
mistake when he maintained that the Bogát-Radvány clan moved to our country from
Czech lands. We conclude that the reasons listed above and objective proofs refute this
and prove that our predecessors were truly conquerors and among those they belonged to
one of the most illustrious tribes.
16
2) Notes from the first part of the XIII century to the separation of the
families originating from the clan.
Diplomatic sources referring to the clans reach back generally to the beginning of
the XIII century. It is at that time that documents start naming families according to their
clans, and they also describe their miscellaneous affairs. The Bogát-Radvány clan's
history, as it is known so far, stepped over that threshold in connection with a major
event, when one of its members, Csépán's son Pál Comes - whose name in documents
appears consistently as Chyz (Csiz) - killed his relative, Bogát's son, Filke of Berető.
Because of his action against Filke, the latter's immediate relatives challenged Csiz to a
duel; and when he was defeated they forced him to give up part of his lands, (namely
Lazony all the way to the border of Berető and also specific section of Lucz) to Filke's
brother, Istvan of Berető.
We do not know the date of Filke's death or how he was killed. One thing is certain,
however, that this fatal event happened before 1227, because representatives of some of
the clans; namely, Bogát's son István, Chele's sons, Széch and Pongrác, as well as,
Ipolth's son Albert appeared in 1227 at the Chapter of Eger with the purpose of passing
the above named lands to Mog, son of Sándor, member of another branch of the clan,
who did a good service and was advisor in the delicate issue of Filke's death. They
wished to award him for his efforts by deeding him the lands Csiz has forfeited.
(Dates below the names are the dates the individual is mentioned in contemporaneous documents.)
Bogát
Chele
István Filke Sécs Pongrác
1227. 1227. 1227. 1227.
Csiz
killed him
before 1227.
Ipolth
Albert
1227.
Sándor
Mog
1227.
Csépán
Gyapoly
Pál Comes
called Csiz
1227.
killed Filke.
The tragedy caused by Filke's death unsettled the good relationships within the clan.
However, the passing of time healed the wound because in 1252 we find the clan together
again at the Chapter of Eger. Those who appeared there were István of Berethe, Domokos
of Cseke, Sztanch of Izsáp, Mog of Lazony, Simon of Lucz, Radván of Megyaszó, and
Simon (son of Marcell of Szada); also, Csiz of Morva and his brother Gyapoly; their
purpose being to finally re-establish the peace broken because of the death of Filke. (Also
to seal the agreement previously made against them by the judgment of some noblemen
elected to make the judgement). In this agreement, Csiz of Sóskut willed over, in
perpetuum, to Istvan (brother of the unfortunate Filke) and his sons, his properties lying
in the villages of Merk and Géza. On the other hand, István and other members of the
clan solemnly declared that they accepted the passing of the lands as final compensation
for the death of Filke and, at the same time, they promise Csiz and his brother Gyapoly
that they will have no further claim for their estates at Körtvélyes, Arács, Rákócz, and
Morva. István and his successors obligated themselves that they will never again go
against Csiz because of the death of Filke; and they will consider invalid those documents
issued by István and his closest relatives on the occasion of Filke's death.80
17
István of Berethő
1252.
Mog of Lazony
1252.
Domokos of Csele
1252.
Simon of Lucz
1252.
Csépán
Csiz of Morva
1252.
Stancs of Izsép
(Stancz)
1252.
Radvany of Megyaszó Marcell’s Simon of Szada
1252.
1252.
Gyapoly
1252.
At this same time - because of the internal dissension - another significant event
played itself out in the history of the clan. The time came for the division of the TransDanubian lands of the clan, also for the sale of parts of their properties that may have
been closely connected with the move to Upper Hungary. It appears that their relocation
probably happening gradually, could have started earlier and reached its final stage
around this time. In records of this time, we see members of the clan took their everyday
legal matters now to the chapter at Veszprém, then to Fejérvár, and another time to Eger;
so it is easy to imagine that taking care of lands that were extensive and at a great
distance from each other would create a large burden on members of the clan. Therefore
they had to make a decision as to which of their lands were more important; and the
decision fell on the northern ones because those were the more extensive at the time.
During the process of the relocation, in the year 1235, Pongrác, István, Albert,
Péter, Radvány and Márkus appeared at the Chapter at Veszprém for the division into
three parts of a mutually owned property in the county of Zala of an unknown name,
outside of Haláp.81
Pongrác István
1235.
1235.
Albert
1235.
Péter
1235.
Radvány
1235.
Márkus
1235.
Immediately after the Mongol invasion of Hungary, September 15th, 1243
members of the clan appeared again at the Chapter of Veszprém; among them: son of
Mog, Simon Comes, Bacha's sons: Velkenye, Pasca and Pál, Farkas' sons: Mark,
Domokos, Radvány, István's son: István, Walphert's sons: Péter and Albert in order to
share the property at Haláp among themselves. The division was done as follows: the
property was divided by drawing a line from the eastern part to the western. The western
part was given to Simon Comes and his closest relatives who, in turn, shared out the
goods among themselves into seven further parts. Of that Simon Comes himself received
4 parts because his relatives named Petus-Tar-Radvány, László and Ivanka were no
longer alive and we may suppose that they perished during the Mongol invasion. The
rest of the 3 parts were given to Bacha's sons. Velkenye, however, sold his part
immediately to Simon Comes, who then became the largest land owner at Haláp.82 The
eastern parts were divided proportionately by Farkas' sons: Mark, Domokos and
Radvány, István's son: István, Walphert's sons: Péter and Albert; therefore each of their
shares was much smaller than the portion Simon Comes received.
We have no detailed data on the division of the lands at Diszel and Dörgicse. We
only know that the Monokys owned property at Diszel and when they wanted to sell it
members of the clan still at Haláp protested against it.83 In 1228, Csépán's son Gyapoly
18
gave his property in perpetuum to his men.84 In 1251, the same Gyapoly sold his
property called Chata (Kata?) by the Fyzeg (?), to the archbishop of Esztergom for 15
marks.85 From the judgment documents of the Palatinate, dated 1409, with reference to
the division of properties; it appears that the clan owned some properties at Haláp, Diszel
and Dörgicse even at the beginning of the XV century. Up to that time, there are many
listings of clan land disputes in the branches living in the county of Zemplén.
A document originating from 1236, from the Trans-Danubian period of the clan,
recalls the earlier mentioned Walphert's (here it is written Wolpharo): Albert and the
Justice of the Palatine Dénes and Péter, man of the same Palatine, (“homo noster”) who
collaborated as official personages in the dispute between Zlandus, the Canon of
Székesfehérvár (originating from the Kaplony tribe) and the Royal Lord High stewards of
Ecser. This dispute was regarding the drawing of the borders of the villages of
Vindornya, Ecser and Szántó in the county of Zala.87
N. (Sándor?)
Mog Bacha
Simon Comes
1243
Wolphar (Walphert)
Albert
the Palatine Dénes
his man: 1236
Farkas
Mark, Domokos, Radvány
1243 1243
1243
István
István
1243
Velkenye
1243
Pasca
1243
Pál
1243
Csépán
Gyapoly
Petus, Tar-Radvány, László
and Ivanka died before 1243.
Péter
the Palatine Dénes 1228, 1251
his Justice: 1236
A land-record document, from around this time, was preserved at Butka of the
County of Zemplén. This document from the beginning of the previous century [XIX?]
was among the writings of the Buthkay family of the Gut Keled tribe - who died out
without descendants. György Fejér, author of the Codex Diplomaticus, quotes it.88 The
document describes the noble kinsmen Pósa and Lukács of the Bogát-Radvány clan who
came to an agreement before the Chapter of Eger. Based on that agreement, their lands:
Morva, Rákóc and Luskóc were deeded to Lukács and his sons Rajnold and the younger
Lukács (who was also called Gyapoly), while Possa, Aracs and Izsep (here it is spelled
Ispeche) went to Pósa and Endre, the elder sons of the former Pósa. Berető, Lesztenyr
and Kéza (here it is written Kyrsla) for the time being remain the undivided common
property of the clan. The date of the document, however, causes conflicting explanations
unresolved to this day. The reason is that, according to one eyewitness experienced in
reading documents (the former Mihály Barna, genealogist, of Meléte) an individual who
personally copied the document, the date is "Ao.Dni.M-mo CC-mo X-mo et septimo",
that is, it can be read as 1217. On the other hand, Antal Szirmay thought that he
discovered a short mark of abbreviation above the number X known from medieval
diplomatic writing, which would mean that it should be read four times ten, that is, forty
and claims the date is 1247. This can’t be correct. When writing figures such
abbreviations were never used, and the number forty was expressed always with the
numbers "XL", and not in an abbreviated form. However, in literature generally,
Szirmay's explanation is considered authoritative and no one has ever objected to it
19
openly. Therefore there remains a question whether the document originates from 1217
or from 1247.
In the text of the document, except for the name Gyapoly which was widely used
in the Rákóczy branch, all other personal names do not occur in documents written after
1227. This supports the fact that those names that occur in the document from Butka are
all old; therefore the document itself is early. It is also known that properties listed in the
document belonged to different people in 1247 than they did in 1217. That is, around the
date that Szirmay considered correct; these properties belonged partly to Csiz of Morva,
and partly to István of Berető, Mog of Lazony and Sztanch of Izsép. Earlier researchers
have attached great importance to this document and all the families of the clan
supposedly originated from Lukács and Pósa. The Codex Diplomaticus of György Fejér
also states89 that the Körtvélyesi family originated from the Lukács and Pósa sons - living
in 1260. Rákóczys originated from the sons of Lukács, (alive still in 1260), particularly
that of Rajnold; the Morvays from Lukács; the Körtvélyesis from Oswaldus, and the
Hosszúmezeys from the son of Oswaldus; the Possays from Endre, through Pósa, the
Bekecsys and Monokys through Beke, and the Iséphys originated through Domokos. This
data from the Codex Diplomaticus was then adopted by Antal Szirmay, also by Ivan
Nagy and other family history writers and used in their work. Since then, however,
archival research and literature analysis has dispelled this mistake and now the origin of
the Rákóczy as well as the Monoky and Isépy families is based on totally different data.
It is enough to point at the documents originating from 1227 and 1252 (mentioned several
times); these unquestionably refute the genealogical data of the Codex Diplomaticus.
In the area of the county of Zemplén, the clan settled in three groups; the Monoky
or Monaky branch in the south, between the Tisza River and Hegyalja. Some of those
members mentioned by name are Luczi, Szadai and Zaz. They merged with the Doby
family of the Gut-Keled tribe through inheritance. In the center, by the Helmec Creek
and the Ronyva were the Isépy and Cseley branches; and the Bánóczy and Mihályi, or
Kis-Mihályi, Lazonyi and it seems, the Leszteméry side branches. Finally further north
in the valley of the Ondva, the Rákóczy-Morvay kinsmen. The Bogáthy family, judging
by its name, apparently also had closer bonds to the central group, because the Isépy
family inherited from them one of its branches which originates from Bogát. The Posssay
family, however, who previously were considered to belong here, probably did not come
from the Bogát-Radvány clan, but much rather from the Kolcs tribe, similarly to the
neighboring Hosszúmezeys and Körtéelyesys, who not even that long ago were also
considered as coming from the Bogát-Radvány clan. As a matter of fact, we do not find
the Possay family anywhere among the families originating from the clan, at the times of
divisions.
We noted that there is no accurate data available to us at all on the initial phase
and the circumstances of the clan's settlement in the county of Zemplén. The reason is
that when the first documents appear, relating to these events, at the beginning of the XIII
century they mention their lands as being of ancient origin. Thus regarding the relocation
from Trans-Danubia, we had to depend on deductions. Did one or another branch of the
clan urge a new land division at a legitimate location because they wanted to receive a
deed as proof of ownership; there being no tangible proof of ownership if it happened
before the use of written records?
20
Members of the clan -- according to Karátsonyi90 -- during their final settlement
in the county of Zemplén, belonged to the chief nobles of the country and on the basis of
their extensive properties had great importance and prestige. Later on some of them
managed to reach as far as the Royal Court, such as Sandrin Monoky in the Court of
Nagy Lajos [Louis the Great] and Queen Mária,91 then Mátyus Isépy who accompanies
King Zsigmond [Sigismund] on one of his travels to the Czech Country.92 Several of
them have the rank of "Comes". This implied privileges tied to a particular person; the
bearer of such title would have rights similar to those of Counts in the western world. He
would not be under the jurisdiction of a governor of a castle, but would practice a
governor's rights on his own property. The degree of "magister" ["master"] was given to
several members of the clan. Through some of their members, the clan was in contact by way of marriage - with other important clans, thus Ákos through the Pazdicsys and the
Bessenyis of Dereglyő, - Gut-Keled through the Buthkay and Doby families - and with
the Aba clan through the Chyrke family of Pólyi. Only much later, during the times of
life-and-death struggle with the Turks did the Monokys, originating also from the clan,
receive the degree of Count through their valor. It was through valor, and also their
outstanding political role and numerous properties, that the Rákóczys received the degree
of Baron, Count, Imperial Prince and princely dignitary.
On June 17, 1756, the princely line of the Rákóczys ceased when the sons of
Ferenc Rákóczy II had no descendants. The Rákóczys clan overall ended with the death
of András Rákóczy on January 26, 1754. The last male descendant of the Monoky family,
Baron János Monoky, died in 1643, and the properties of the family passed to the family
of Baron Anna Monoky (invested with the rights of a son for inheritance purposes) and
her husband, Baron Andrássy Mátyás of Csíkszentkirály and Krasznahorka. The male
branch of the Cseley family coming from the Bogát-Radvány clan died out at the end of
the XVII century; it continues only in the female line through the Kolosy family who
originated from the Csanád clan, the name of which József Kolosy took on and brought
into life again in 1849.93 Documents mention the Haláp, or Fekete family of Haláp - still
living in the County of Zemplén between 1413-81, as landowners of Haláp and Rendek;
however, we do not find trace of them again after that date. The Isépy family had the
privilege that through the special grace of God they maintained the ancient clan until
today. Let the following lines tell about the life of this family, although not overly rich in
personal history, but living a life characteristic of their historical periods.
So far it has not been possible to determine what the ancient coat of arms of the
family looked like. But since its members belonged at one time to the greatest nobles of
the Country, - according to Csoma - they probably had a common badge. It would,
however, be too soon to state that it was a bird.94 At later times families coming from the
clan did use various forms of coats of arm. Among them the one belonging to the
Monokys from 1355 (who played a public role from the earliest times) - according to
Csoma – is a bow placed on a helmet. However, the helmet decoration is not what it
looks like, but is a crown with a cross across it; it is very similar to the Polish crown. The
Rákóczys' and the Morvays' crest is a magpie standing on half of a wheel; this bird
changed into an eagle with a crown on its head only later in the coat of arms of the
princely branch.95 The Isépy family uses a form of coat of arms that was popular in the
XVII century: a valiant dressed in red armor and having a blue shield gallops on a white
stallion, holding - in his right hand - a drawn sword, and in his left a bleeding Turkish
21
head. There is a helmet (in a larger size) with the same red outfitted, valiant horseman
with drawn sword, holding a bloody Turkish head. Along with a description of the
design and color of the coat of arms, these can be found in the archives of the County of
Zemplén, under #1782.pr.Pol.87.pag.207.108; but in which year the helmet was donated
and who the donor was, we could not find any trace.
Lacking sufficient data, it is impossible to establish coherent genealogical
relationships among the branches of the clan. On the tables that follow we will show each
branch of the family separately; and in such details that seemed necessary from the point
of view of their relationship to the Isépy family. We were not able to extend our research
to the side branches of the clan, to those whose members appear occasionally during our
history. We did not think it important to go into detailed genealogy of those branches as
they soon disappear.
22
The Rákóczy branch
Csépán I. around 1200
Pál I Comes, dictus Csiz
1227-52.
killed Filke, before 1227
wife: Magych Pazdicsy
Renold's daughter of the Ákos clan
László I.
1266-82
Gyapoly I.
1228-52.
Pál II. Comes,
1278-81.
Received permission for
free power of decision from
King László, IV.
Csépán II.
1266-82
Mihály I.
1298
Balázs I.
1328
N… daughter
1298
husband: Chuch (Kolcs)
Benedek I.
1348-51
Gyapoly II. (János)
1346-81
Benedek II.
de Rákócz
1392-1442
János
1392
Csala
+before 1350
husband: János Hosszúmezey, son of
Markolf, of the clan Kolcs
Balázs II.
Jakab I.
de Morva
1392-1442
the Morvay tribe
András I.
1389-93
László II.
1393-1448
István I.
1414-67
wife no.1: Anna Bessenyei of Deregnyő, 1438-50
wife no.2: Kata Pazdicsy, 1459
Gáspár I.
1454-1508
wife: Brigitta
Cseti
András II.
1454-89.
+before 1459
wife: Krisztina
Polyák of Körtvélyes
Lázár I.
1496
Zsigmond I.
of Felső-Vadász
1489-1524
wife: Dora Haraszthy
Menyhért I.
1454-79
Péter I.
1494-95
wife: Ilona Tarnóczy
Ferenc I.
of Felső-Vadász
1489-1524
captain of Likava
wife: Margit Tomory
Mihály IV.
1522-57
wife:
Zsófia Herényi
Máté I.
1508-09
Pál III.
1465-95
wife: Margit
Wrany of Nátafalva
1482
Ferenc II.
András V. Péter II.
1560-1607
1550-85
1550-75
wife #1:
Kata Eödönffy
wife #2: Dóra Keczer
Miklós I.
1494-95
Gergely I.
1489
Lajos I.
1506-25
Bora
husband: Ambrus
Körtvélyes
Anna
1550-89
husband:
János Ibrányi
János I.
András IV.
1517-61
1523
wife #1: Sára Némethy
wife #2: Júlia Kasuhy
Mihály VII.
1560-75
Margit
1459
Zsigmond III.
1573
György II.
1523-73
wife: Dora Kövér of Velerd
László VI.
1570-86
Lajos II.
1570-1612
baron
Zsigmond II.
Magdolna Kata
1559-1608
f.: 1.Boza: Miklos Jánsy
prince of Erdély
2. Janos Gerenday
wife #1: Judit Alagi Behémi
wife #2: Anna Gerenday
wife #3: Bora Theleghdi
Remarks: Beginning with István I. here only the "Felső-Vadászi" branch is shown.
23
Anna
1573
Sára Erzse
Zsófia
Mihaly Ibrányi 1561-83
Janos Varsády
II. The Monoky Branch:
Sándor I.
Around 1280
Mog I. Comes
1227
Simon I. Comes
Mog
1243-87
1252-87
Marcell de Szada
Simon 1252
Marcell
1278
Miklós Comes
Sándor
1278
Miklós
1278
Atha
1278
Sándor II. (Sandrin)
1278
László I. Comes
1321
Mihály I.
1346-83
wife: Erzsébet Doby
of the clan Guth
Keled
Simon II.
László II.
Tavernicorum
1349-81
Regalium ViceMagister
1346-68
László III.
wife: Erzsébet Gieser
János I.
1349-83
wife: László Vadászy's daughter
György I. Orsolya, 1406
1381
husband: László Csekey
János II. dictus Zaz
1381-83
János III.
1386-92
Mihály II.
1392-1404
Jakab I.
1424
Sándor III. (Sandrin)
1366-83
István I.
1383-1400
Canon of
Fehérvar
Péter I.
Ilona
1409
adopts the Doby name
Tamás 1424
Abbot of Szerencs
György 1424
III. Cseley branch:
Pongrác I.
1227
Domokos I.
1252
Pongrác II.
1309
wife #1: N…
wife #2: Anna
From the 1 wife
László I.
1342-56
from the 2 wife
Domokos II.
1388
wife: N. Tussay
Péter I.
1375
Miklós I.
1388
András I. György I. Domokos III. Antal A.
Klára
1349
1349
1405
[husb]
wife #1: N… Domokos IV. András
wife #2: N… 1392
Szbugyay
1422
Péter II.
1349-1411
Jakab I.
1349
Ábrahám I.
1349
Miklós II.
1381-1400
János I.
1413
Péter III.
1413
Katalin
[husb]
László
Abaházy
1422
András II.
1413
János II.
From the 1.: István I. Pongrác III. - From the 2nd : Erzsébet, Orsolya,
1413
1413
1413 Krisztina, Katalin
24
3. The Isépy family and its three branches in the XIV and XV
centuries: land disputes of the clan, the critical condition of the family
wealth after the disintegration of the relationships within the clan.
At the time when the documents start to use the same name consistently for the
members of the Bogát-Radvány clan, three branches of the Isépy clan are known (after
their lands and dwelling places); they are, however, impossible to bring together under
one common ancestor's name. In the family history literature, they are named Isépys96 of
the Bogát, Péter, and Sztanch branches. The order of their relationships will be
introduced separately. There is, however, no doubt about their close relationship. This is
supported by the use of the identical family name, by shared dwelling places and, last but
not least, by the fact that the properties, after the dying out of the Bogát and Péter
branches, were passed on smoothly to the Sztanch branch that survived them; the latter
preserved the family up until today. It seems that the Sztanch and Péter branches were
closer to the Rákóczy one than the Bogát branch; while the Bogát branch was possibly
closest to the Monoky branch. Their contact with the Cseley branch was the strongest of
all. That is quite natural because they lived in a contiguous land community for a long
time in a close-knit group (all in the central part of the country) and they stood up
together when diffusing frequent class conflicts within the clan. There is no doubt
therefore that the Cseley were the closest branch of the clan to the Isépys.
The name of the village Magyar-Izsép, from which the family took its name,
originated seemingly from the older version of the personal name "Izsep" that, on the
other hand, came from Özséb (Eusebius). The name, Izsép was used as personal name in
several clans such as Apor, Bo and Herman; but in the Bogát-Radvány clan it does not
occur once in that form. We know of several similar villages in various parts of the
country, for example: in the county of Zemplén, beside Magyar-Izsép there is Tapoly (or
Tót) Izsép; in Sáros there is Sáros-Izsép and in Baranya Izsép kozseg [small town], in the
county of Liptó there is Izsép-falu [Izsep-village], these latter probably received their
name because of their reverence for Saint-Üzséb [known locally]. Magyar-Izsép was
qualified as a 1st Class village in olden days; its borders included 14,800 acres of land.
The Bogát branch:
Bogát
around 1200
István I. Isépy
1227-52
Miklós I. Isépy Comes
1300-35
János I. Isépy
1335-49
János II. Isépy
1364
Miklós I. Isépy
1364
Mátyus? Isépy
1380
György? Isépy
1380
Filke
+ before 1227
Chyz killed him
István II. Isépy magister 1321
1300-24
Jakab I. Isépy
1335-49
25
Sebe Isépy
1335
as a female receives as a dowry a quarter
of the village of Bercel, county of Szabolcs
husband: dictus János Olasz,
Commander of the castle at Boldogkő
We have no intimate information about Bogát from whom this branch of the
family was named. His name is mentioned in documents only in connection with his son,
Filke who was killed under unknown circumstances, by his relative, Chyz of Morva. For
that reason he was to compensate Filke's brother, István I by giving him the properties at
Sóskút, Merk and Kéza. István I was present in 1235, at the division of the property that
was close to Haláp, county of Zala, and another member of the family called István was
present at the division of the Haláp property in 1243. Based on this data, it appears that
at the beginning of the XIII century, this branch of the family owned lands even in
Transdanubia.
The sons of István I, namely István and Miklós ended up in 1300 before the
Palatine Amade for judgment because they owed money. They were in debt to Mártonos
Pelejthey (the son of Zochund); Miklós owed 25, and István 2 marks respectively. They
missed the deadline of payment several times; therefore the debt increased to 35 and 8
marks. As they had no money for settling their debt, the Palatine ordered that they were
to offer a piece of their land or goods in the value of the debt for the purpose of settling it.
Miklós had some of his cattle at Izsép and Mérk marked for that purpose; Istvan, on the
other hand, personally offered his properties at Megyaszó and Enyeres (Eneruh). Because
of this debt, a feud started between the Isepys and Pelejtheys that affected even their
descendants. As a result, the son and grandson of Mártonos Pelejthey caused so much
trouble to Bogát's grandson István II, that if Lambert's son, Master Mihály (Commander
of the castle at Füzér) did not get him out of trouble, (into which he got himself because
of his bad behavior) Mártonos Pelejthey would have been condemned to lose his life or
his cattle. The help saved Mártonos Pelejthey but it cost János Pelejthey his lands at
Nagy-szár. What was due to the commander of the castle at Füzér? Mártonos Pelejthey’s
son tried to sue him to gain compensation from those at Füzér. This litigation also
touches the Isépy family insofar as one member of the Isépy family (a man of the
Palatinate) and other Isépys are mentioned in various positions of trust in the documents
of the litigation process between the Pelejtheys and the Füzérys.
It seems that Isépy Comes was not able to sort out his financial difficulties even in
1318, because that year he was forced to sell his part of the land at Megyaszó and Batya
to the son of János, provost of Gyulafehévár, Archdeacon of Küküllő and at the same
time Royal Vice-Chancellor. The Monoky relations living close-by objected to the sale,
on the basis of nationality rights,97 in spite of this the sale went through. This was due
perhaps to the Vice-Chancellor's persuasive power, or on the other hand, it may be that
the Monokys gave up objecting because they themselves were preparing for such a landsale.
It was in 1321 that Sándor Monoky's son, Lászlo, sold his lands at Szada to Kemény
Comes' son István and to János, the earlier mentioned son of Berke Comes and
his brothers. It is worth mentioning here that there was an Archdeacon of Küküllő, by the
name of János Apród of Küküllő, who was active in the royal chancellery, and who was
the biographer of Nagy Lajos [Louis the Great]; but one would dare not identify him with
János, the son of Berke Comes, on the basis of their name being similar. The
consequence of the sale of these lands was that on July 6, 1321, István Isépy II. and
László Monoky were forced to pass a fifth part of the right of presentation (the annual
26
income) of the ancient monastery of Szerencs (together with the sold lands which were
due to the buyer) to Kemény's son, István and the sons of Berke Comes.98
The financial condition of the family started improving after 1321 when István II.
was given (as a grant) by King Károly I., the locations of Berető, Lazony, Lask and
Mihályi that first belonged to Botond's son, the chief instigator (“turbulentorum
antesignanus”) of a rebellion. In Tholdy [the heroic epic of Hungarian literature] it is not
hard to recognize in Botond's son Péter, Péter the son of Petne, mentioned also in other
documents, who was Lord Lieutenant of Zemplén and was indeed the ringleader of the
rebellion of the year 1316. It is difficult to understand how Berető and Lazony, the two
ancient Bogát-Radvány national properties, ended up in his hands. Possibly some
members of the clan became disloyal at one time and the lands, by now returned, were
then given to Petne. The Monokys, however, maintained that those lands constituted their
properties at one time and therefore they claimed them again. Thus the Isépy brothers
could not enjoy the increase of their properties in peace for long. Miklós Isépy wanting to
prevent conflicts with the Monokys. In 1333 he made an avowal (valid forever) before
the Convent of Jászó, according to ancient hereditary customs. He left the locations of
Lazony and Lask to Lászlo, son of Sándor Monoky. This avowel, valid forever, must
have been urged by the Monokys who probably reminded him also of the fact that
Lazony was one of the properties passed on by the Monokys (in 1227) to Sándor, son of
Mog, as a remuneration for his services as intermediary in the death of Filke. Miklós
Isépy's last will, however, did not take effect because his descendants held back the
properties. This caused lengthy litigations between the Isépy and Monoky families.99
In the year 1335, István II's sons János and Jakab leased their property at Berczel,
county of Szabolcs, - as quarter inheritance (a dowery due to a female descendant) to
their sister Sebe, wife of János Olasz who was commander of the castle at Boldogkő (de
Buldwakev). They made this agreement beforethe chapter of Eger, emphasizing their
special affection for her.100 This arrangement is the first time that a special generosity
manifests itself toward female descendants; it shows up regularly afterwards, all through
the family history. From the Berczel document, we can find out also that this was not
one of the ancient properties that belonged to the clan. It was the one that István II
received as grant from King Károly [Charles] I; therefore members of the family were
free to dispose of it. Furthermore, one can conclude, on the basis of King Károly I's
repeated grants that the family probably allied themselves with the Anjous, during the
turmoil caused by the dying out of the house of Árpád.
During the year 1336 the lands at Berczel were increased when Sándor and János
Edelényi passed their property at Berczel (together with the church built in stone with its
rights of avowal) for 30 marks to János Olasz for his loyal services.101
On January 25, 1342, János and Jakab Isépy made another agreement before the
Convent of Jászó, with their brother-in-law János Olasz; -- the place called Berczel
would continue to remain in the hands of János Olasz; while half the property at Merk
was repossessed by him, and the one at Csele passed into the hands of János and Jakab
Isépy under the proviso that if János Olasz for some reason could not own Berczel in
peace (without challenge from the rest of the family), then the remaining half of Merk
and the total property at Csele would revert to him and his descendants.102 The lands at
Merk and Csele thus returned may have been identical with the one that Miklós Isépy
27
had to give up to settle the debt to the Pelejtheys, as ordered in 1300 by the Palatine
Amade. This property was pawned to János and Jakab Isépy.
Berczel later seems to have ended up in the hands of the Isépy family again
because in 1349 - at the land distribution with the Cseleys, we find it in the list of lands
that were the subject of the agreement. In 1371 it is again in the hands of János Olasz'
son Jakab; and there are not one but two towns of such name that were adjacent to each
other. One was called Egyházas-Berczell, the other was called by István, Berczell.
As the father and grandfather of János and Jakab Isépy were both István, one of the town
names can be explained; while the other was called [Egyházas] because of its
church built in stone. The latter was given to János Olasz by the Edelényis. Later,
Berczell is listed among other properties that were divided up in an agreement within the
clan in 1409. The explanation for this may be that Miklós, János and Jakab Isépy did not
give the whole Berczel property, only part of it, to Sebe, János Olasz's wife, as she was a
female descendant. The name of this János Olasz, that occurs here as "dictus Olasz",
occurs in other places as "Ionnes Gallicus", we must consider this a nickname that proves
its Italian origin. (Upper Italy = Gallia). His descendants took on the family name of
Berczelly and they wore it until the dying out of the male descendants in the XVI
century; after which it continued through the female line in the Bessenyeys of
Nagybesenyő originating from the Szálok clan. It is thus that Sebe Isépy became the
progenitor of György Bessenyey, a path-finder of our literary culture, the guardsman
poet, who was also born on Berczel, the ancient Isépy property.103
János Olasz
(called Olasz, nicknamed Ioannes Gallicus)
Captain of Boldogkő, 1335-42
his wife: Sebe Isépy
Jakab
took on the Berczely name
1371
Miklós
1416
András
1449
Tamás
Heléna
1502
husband: György Bessenyey
forefather of the guardsman poet
of the same name
Orsolya
1570
György
1416
János
the last in the male line
Kata
1570
husband: Imre Balogh
28
Erzsébet
1416
Around the middle of the XIV century the Isépy and Cseley branches started urging a
new and just division of the clan's properties - that were by now established among
families separated from each other. Apparently a branch of the family owned their
properties on the basis of an obscure verbal agreement. This was probably reason for all
the conflicts that emerged frequently among the sons of István Isépy II, János and Jakab,
as well as the descendants of Pongrác Cseley. On May 18, 1349 there was a friendly
agreement made in the presence of the Chapter of Eger, on the basis of which the families
agreed that while they could not yet include the Monokys in the land equalization, they
would settle the matter temporarily for the Isépy and Cseley families, as among brothers.
This too proves that the Bogát branch of the Isépy family was closer to the Monokys than
the other two branches, because it was they who called the Monokys to join in the land
equalization. On the other hand, the Monokys also had demands from the Bogát branch.
Conversely, the closer contact of the Péter and Sztanch branches to the Rákóczys - as we
will see later - was proved by their long-drawn-out litigations.
The document dated 1349 also deserves attention because it supplies data relating
to the then existing land relationships of this branch of the family. According to the
agreement with the Cseleys, this branch of the Isépy family still owned the following
lands: Berető, Nagy- and Kis-Lazony, Nánócz, Lask, Ujőr, Izsép, Sóskut, Berczel and
Megyaszó, or Bertalantelke. In the agreement, they passed to the Cseleys as fair
equalization, their part of the property at Kis Cselej and Mérk. The following remained in
the hands of the Cseleys: Nagy-Cselej, Baás, Fel-Megyaszó, Al-Batya, Béltelek, and
Bykus, among which, however, Baás, Al-Batya and Fel-Megyaszó had already been in
the hands of the Zudar family of Olnod, pawned to them by the Cseleys.104
It seems that the Monokys did not wish to acknowledge the division, the main
reason being that they were in litigation with the Isépys over the lands at Lazony and
Lask. As a result, the relationship between these two became so embittered that the
Monokys denied even the blood-relationship connecting the Isépy and Cseley families.
The litigation between the Isépy and Monoky families was started by the bequest
declaration of Miklós Isépy made in 1333, when the sons of László Monoky, Mihály and
Simon, accused Istvan Isépy II's sons, János and Jakab - in the front of the Palatine
Miklós Konth - of holding onto lands which were rightfully theirs under the bequest of
their ancestor. They did not only use Miklos Isépy's last will as their justification, but also
during the legal action, in 1357, they presented a document dated 1287, that was an
agreement made in the presence of King László IV. According to that agreement, the
sons of Mog Comes: Simon and Mog, and Simon Comes' son Sándor, shared as their life
estate the areas of the villages Lazony, Lucz, Haláp, Bacha, Megyaszó, Szada, Enyeres,
Lask and Mihályi, with their relatives the sons of Miklós Comes: Sándor, Miklós and
Atha, as well as, Simon's son Marczell. They wanted to prove that Lazony and Lask were
in the hands of their ancestors as far back as 1287. The Palatine ordered justification for
the legal process that went on for a long a time. As we will see from later arrangements,
the Isépys were given an extension of time to provide evidence105 in 1358, in 1360, and
even in 1364. The last extension, however, was not issued to János I and Jakab, but
János' sons: János II and Miklós II. This is even more significant because it sheds light
on the immediate descendants of János I. Accordingly Jakab Bánóczy could not have
been the son of János II, as Karátsonyi thought and tried to prove106, because the Isépys
used their name consistently not only in these times but also earlier. As a matter of fact,
29
the Bogát branch of the Isépy family actually disappears with János II and Miklós II,
unless we want to include János Isépy's sons, Mátyus and György (mentioned as György
Fejér) who were represented in 1380 by Lőrincz, the son of Jakab Jékelfalussy and
Miklós, son of Domokos, in some matter in the presence of the Chapter of Szepes.107
Regarding the latter, however, we do not have any other data at our disposal, beside this
short note.
After that, it is the Sztanch branch that continues the litigation with the Monokys,
and in the later years we find the properties of the Bogát branch in the hands of the
Sztanch's.
30
b) The Péter-branch
Péter Isépy
1235
Dénes Isépy Comes
1289
Jakab I. Isépy
1289
Mihály II. Isépy
1309
(Sons of Mihály II)
Mihály I. Isépy
1289
Erzsébet Isépy
1349
Klára Isépy
1349
Jakab II. Isépy
1342-51
Barnabás Isépy
1342-51
László I Isépy
1342-51
Mihály III Isépy
1380
Márton Isépy
1392
András Isépy
1392
János I Isépy
II. called
Fejér László,
dományos
so-Bájorbán,
in Sáros County,
1428
Jusztina Isépy
husbd: András
Chyrke from Póly
of the clan Aba
Ale
Pál Isépy
1342-51
Zsuzsanna Isépy
husbd: 1. György Pelejthey
2. Lászlo Vároky or
Vályonyi
The document of 1235 regarding the land division around Halap, Zala
County, first mentions Péter, ancestor of this branch, who was present at the division.
Péter's son, Denes Comes and his sons: Mihály and Jakab, in 1289 in the presence of the
Chapter of Mislye, pawned part of their land at Mihályi by the Ronyva (“particulum
terrae Migael vocatae prope fluirum Ronae”) for 10 silver marks to Mate's sons: András,
Miklós, Tamás and Péter (whose families or clans are not mentioned in the document
with reference to this event.)108 This document served as proof in the consequent
litigation with the Monokys for the property at Mihályi stating that Mihályi was in the
property of the Isépy family, through Péter's branch, as early as 1289.
On August 5, 1309, Jakab I's son Mihály II made an agreement with his relative,
Pongrác Cseley, in the presence of the Palatine Admade Aba, for the exercise of the
rights of patronage and the responsibilities thereof at the monastery at Szerencs.109
Mihály II had four surviving sons: Jakab II, Barnabás, László and Pál whose
names come up often in documents in the litigation that went on for almost a hundred
years between the Isépy and Rákóczy, as well as the Hosszumezey families, the latter
being related as in-laws to the Rákóczy family. The event that started this legal dispute
was that Gyapoly's son, Pál (who descended from the Rákóczy branch) having no male
descendants himself requested and received permission from King László IV to will his
property as he liked to any of his relatives or his monastery. A specially interesting point
of this document (Appendix IV/9) is that it was created in 1278, during the week of St.
István, that is, immediately before the battle at Morvamező, on August 26 of the same
year, and that it was dated at the castle of Laa where the King's general headquarters may
have been (“in Regno Moraviae juxta castrum Laa”). It is very likely that Gyapoly's son,
Pál - of the Radvány clan - also participated in this campaign; and it was just this
31
impending event that gave immediate reason and opportunity for the preparation of a last
will.
Gyapoly's son Pál, taking advantage of his freedom to dispose the property as he
chose, disinherited his other kinsmen and left his properties in the four villages to his
nephews, the sons of Chyz. The other kinsmen could not ignore this wrong committed
against the rights of their clan. Among the first to protest were the Isépys of the Péter and
Sztanch branches who, as we had mentioned before, were the closest to the Rákóczy
family. 110 They would not accept that anyone could freely decide the disposition of these
properties without taking into account the opinions of relatives of the same branch,
despite the fact that Pal himself remained without male descendants. The Monokys may
have come into the picture regarding the property at Mihályi, when László's sons,
Mihály, László and János started a legal battle against the widow of Jakab Isépy (who
died without male descendants) and his daughters, Erzsébet and Klára.111 We are
probably not mistaken, however, when we suspect that the basis of the bitter legal battle
between the Isépy and Rákóczy families might have been caused by the killing of Filke a
long time before leaving its sting in the heart of both families, even after the restitution
agreement with Csiz. That tense situation could perhaps be the reason no marriage
connection was ever made between the two families despite the fact that they were
neighbors and closely related.
We will discuss the litigation with the Rákóczys when we describe the Sztanch
branch descendants who started the legal dispute that the Péter branch joined later. Again
I wish to emphasize my conclusion that they too were Sztanch descendants and it is a pity
that nowhere could one find any proof of this.112
We meet the Péter branch in 1428 for the last time when László II, János I's
grandson and Mihály III's grandson were awarded a royal grant at Alsó-Bajor close to
Izsép in the county of Sáros.113 We do not have data on the further branches of this
family; it is possible that they lived under the adopted name of Fejér and disappeared
thus.
32
c) The Sztanch branch
Sztanch Isépy
1244-54
János I Isépy Comes
Proprietor of Magyar-Izsép
1284
Mátyus I Isépy
1324-40
Márkus I Isépy
magister
1381-1409
Lukács I Isépy
1328-40
Wife: Katalin
Buthkay (Colus)
of the clan Guth-Keled
Péter Isépy
magister
1381-1409
Benedek+
János II Isépy ++
1367
Mátyus Isépy
Wife: Orsolya Chyrke
of Pólyi, of the clan Aba
Erzsébet Isépy
Hsbd: Mak Tussay
of the clan Kolcs
Lukács II Isépy
1371
Anna Isépy
Husband: 1) Lambert Csaszlóczy
2) Péter Saághy
In 1252 Sztanch took part in the agreement with Chyz; he was already then called
Isépi. This suggests that he was the owner of either the whole or part of Magyar-Izsép.
However, we have earlier information about him, as well: in 1244 he made a bequest in
the presence of the Chapter of Eger; in this agreement he sold his lands by the Ronyva,
named Halám, to Razló's son, Miklós, a descendant of the Hunt-Pázmán clan. Even the
Bogát-Radvány kinsman, Marcell's son Miklós (who was also his neighbor) gave his
approval.114 Sztanch probably did not guess at the time that a simple sale of land would
cause such hostilities at a later time when his great grandson nearly paid for it with his
life.
Another document mentions Sztanch's son, János I.115 who was a Comes and who
is recorded in 1284 (as the Monography of County Zemplén describes) as owner of the
town Magyar Izsép.
János I had two surviving sons: Mátyus I and Lukács I, as well as a daughter
Erzsébet who was married to Mak Tussay of the Kolcs clan.116 In a document from 1414
there is a record that the widow Laszlóné Kérészy, born Erzsébet Tussay, acknowledges,
in the presence of Márkus Isépy and his son, Mátyus, receipt of the quarter property and
dowry due to her grandmother; remarking at the same time that her grandmother was
Erzsébet Isépy, daughter of János Isépy (son of Sztanch) and wife of Mak Tussay. Lukács
I and Mátyus I are mentioned frequently in contemporary documents and they play the
role of judges in settling disputes, and also at investitures of the King's or Palatine's men
into properties or when crossing borders. This is an indication that they may have been
reputable men enjoying public esteem. Their prestige manifests itself also in the fact that
they had marriage relationships with the powerful Guth-Keled clan; the wife of Lukács I
was actually Katalin Butkay, daughter of Miklós Butkay II and N. Szádellőy, originating
from that very clan. According to C. Wagner's opinion117, Miklós Butkay (the first to use
the Butkay family name) and his wife had the following sons: Pál II and Miklós III, and
also a daughter, Katalin. She, in turn, became Lukács Isépy's wife around 1314. This is
33
supported by another note according to which Lukács Isépy in 1371 acknowledges to
Miklós Butkay, receipt of the quarter due of his mother Colust Butkay.118 This Lukacs
Isépy, however, could have been Lukács II, the son of Lukács I, whose uncle was Miklós
III, from whom he received the above-mentioned dues. The name Colus, on the other
hand, can be considered identical with the nickname Katus (Catus) for Katalin - that was
incorrectly read by the person who deciphered the faded writing of the document.
Miklós I Guth-Keled
of the clan Guth-Keled
1224
Pál I
1281
Miklós II
he uses the Butkay name
1320
wife:
1) N. Sadalej (Szádellőy)
2) Bora Solymossy, 1343
From 1): Pál II
László I
wife: Ilona Bánóczy
no descendants
1399
Miklós III
1347-1363
wife: Klára
Katalin Butkay
around 1314
husbd: Lukács Isépy I
Lukács Isépy II
1371
Mátyus I and Lukács I probably started their litigation with the Rákóczys when Pál, son
of Gyapoly (who received free testamentary rights from the king) died. The son's of János
Isépy objected to the fact that their kinsman Pál (the person just mentioned) left his
property exclusively to the sons of Chyz. They questioned his free right to bequeath his
property in defiance of ancient customs; they also demanded part of the property. It is
impossible to conclude from the documents what year the litigation started; furthermore,
there is no record of the extent of the Isépy brothers' demands. The first document, with
reference to these events, dated 1328; already mentions the end of the first phase of a
series of lawsuits.119 It also mentions that there was a duel (to see how God would judge
the two men) between the parties that, however, ended undecided because both dueling
parties stood their ground bravely. The duelers were equipped with military weaponry (in
armis militeribus), lances and Bulgarian hammers (per clavas bulgaricales), astride
horses, and among festive formalities. On that occasion the king was also represented,
together with other valiant and noble men, and several of the country's highest judges. On
July 19, 1328 an agreement was made between the parties in the presence of the country's
highest judge on which basis Balázs Rákóczy I gave the property Arács to János Isépy's
sons: Mátyus I and Lukács I; they in turn gave up their demand for the lands at Rákócz,
Körtvélyes, Morva and Sink.120 On January 8, 1329, the Chapter of Eger installed
Mátyus I and Lukács in the Arács property, and confirmed its borders with them.121
Mihály Isépy's sons, the Isépys of the so-called Péter-branch, by referring to the
fact that they too were descendants of Sztanch and thus in the same kinsmen relationship
with the Rákóczy family as Mátyus I and Lukács, also demanded part of the inheritance
34
of Pál, son of Gyapoly.122 Indeed it is unfortunate that it is not possible to conclude from
the documents what level of relationship existed between the Sztanch and the Péter
branches. The documents also are silent about how the lands were divided in the
remaining branch of the family; we only know that, in 1326, the southern part of MagyarIzsép was the property of the sons of János Isépy and that it bordered Isztáncs as well as,
Kassu.123
The trial that was started by Mihály II's sons: Jakab II, Barnabás, László and Pál
against Balázs Rákóczy, on January 26, 1342 (in the presence of King Károly I.) also
ended with an agreement. On that basis the sons of Mihály were satisfied to receive, from
the Rákóczys, half of the village of Fel-Sink; at the same time they abandoned their
demands for further Rákóczy properties.124 Moreover, they promised if Jakab Isépy were
given the other half of Fel-Sink, they would restore Körtvélyes to the Rákóczys from the
Hosszumezeys.125 The Rákóczys had given Körtvélyes to the Hosszúmezeys, as quarter
property (due to a female relative) and a dowry for their aunt Csala Rákóczy at her
wedding. By doing that they again offended clan customs, because they gave up land
without asking the approval of the other branches of the clan. However, they had given
away land even earlier - in 1298 - specifically some part of the property at Sink
(probably Al-Sink), to Csala’s older sister on the occasion of her wedding; when this
female member of the family (we do not know her first name) married Balázs, also of the
Kolcs clan. It seems that the family later regretted their generosity in giving away family
lands to strangers. They decided they would like to regain at least Körtvélyes. Soon the
Hosszúmezeys came to know of the Isépys offer regarding the property they had been
given at Körtvélyes and they objected to the deal (the installation of Jakab Isépy into the
Fel-Sink property). Later even Balázs Rákóczy joined this protest. Subsequently the
Isépys succeeded in obtaining a favorable judgment regarding Körtvélyes (it would be
good to know by what means?). They asserted their ownership and not the Rákóczys; the
Convent at Lelesz recorded - on February 14, 1343 - to the Palatine Miklós Garay that
when the installation of Jakab Isépy into the Körtéelyes property was attempted, the
widow of Makalf's son, János Hosszumezey, the earlier mentioned Csala and her sons
made a formal protest against the installation.
The Rákóczys, learning of their loss of lands, came up with their own demands
now, and Balázs Rákóczy demanded from the Isépy family, part of the lands at Izsép,
Karós and Bogát for himself. The state judge, however, refused this reminding him that it
was he himself who earlier denied blood-relationship with the Isépys. Technically
speaking however, this is wrong, because he merely disputed that the Isépys had rights to
the inheritance of Gyapoly's son, Pál.126
This section of the trial ended with an agreement, on September 1, 1350, at the
Chapter of Eger; on the one part were Mihály Isépy's sons: Jakab, Barnabás, László and
Pál, on the other were Balázs Rákóczy's sons: Benedek and János (dictus Gyapoly), and
in addition, János' sons (grandsons of Markalf): Demeter, Miklós, Barnabás and Benedek.
As a result of this agreement, the sons of Mihály Isépy were given the whole of Fel-Sink;
while they again gave up their demands for Morva, Rákócz and Al-Sink. The
Hosszúmezeys were then prepared to return to the Rákóczys (as a response to the
Rákóczys' generosity) a large part of Körtvélyes that would be similar in size to half of
Fel-Sink.127
35
Thus Körtvélyes was still at that time the property of the Hosszúmezeys. The
rivalry for that spot may have been the reason why it was impossible to come to an
agreement for so long. The rivalry continued for decades. After the agreement in
principle, the Rákóczys themselves created obstacles. On May 13, 1351, they did not
accept a representative of the Isépy brothers sent for the confirmation of the agreement to
the Convent of Lelesz. At the same time the Rákóczys declared that they would not
consider documents valid that were issued at any other legitimate location. At the same
time the Hosszúmezeys attempted to sell Körtvélyes; however, that was unsuccessful
because of the protestations of the Isépys. From then on, the Rákóczys tried consistently
to obtain parts of the villages of Bogát, Karós and Izsép. This gave reason for the Isépys
who would no longer be satisfied with their demands for Sink and Körtvélyes, to try to
obtain other Rákóczy properties, as well. At the end they succeeded with their increased
demands because in 1382, after the death of Nagy Lajos, the governing Queen Erzsébet
adjudicated in their favor and ordered the Convent of Lelesz to install Márton Isépy into
the villages of Morva, Rákócz and Sink.128 That order was then repeated, in 1385, by the
royal Curia.129 Márton Isépy, together with his brother András, were the sons of Pál
Isépy of the Péter branch. The Isépy brothers; Pál, Jakab, Barnabás and László
(participating so far in the litigations) were mentioned as deceased in documents from
1382 on.
We are informed of the successful turn of the litigation from the reports of the
Convent at Lelesz. Those also give an account that Gyapoly, the son of Balázs Rákóczy
protested, as expected, against Márton Isépy's installation in the mentioned property. We
have no definite data on whether the installation was successfully accomplished or not.
One thing, however, is a fact. In 1388, Márton Isépy did occupy some parts of Morva,
Rákócz and Sink.130 At the same time, however, Márkus Isépy of the Sztanch branch
protested in the name of the whole Isépy family, against the forceful possession of Arács
and Körtvélyes by the Hosszumezeys.131 Members of the Péter and Sztanch branches; on
the one side Márton Isépy; on the other, Mátyus I's sons Márkus and Péter, made an
agreement before the Convent at Lelesz that they will divide equally their properties in
the villages of Rákóc, Morva, Oroszfalu, Also-Sink, Körtvélyes and Kyo.132 The sons of
Mátyus I: Márkus and Péter, who were both magisters, may have filled important roles in
public life in their times. The clearly favorable disposition of King Zsigmond towards
them demonstrates this again and again. He granted them (and to Péter, who had no male
descendants) additional lands. He also gave permission for Péter to make his own will
regarding certain properties of his. Márkus's son, Mátyus II did direct service for the
king. He accompanied the king on his travel to Czech lands, and because of service
rendered on this occasion, he was granted complete pardon for a capital offence for
which he had been previously condemned.
The infighting of Isépy kinsmen with the Monokys for the properties at Lazony
and Last, continued without interruption even during the lives of Márkus and Péter.
According to a document dated 1381 it went so far that they questioned the rights of the
ancient advowson* of the Isépy, Cseley and Bánóczy families connected to the
Monastery at Szerencs.
*The right of a patron to designate the priest or superior for a local parish/convent/monastery and to control
the income of said church. Originally all priests were appointed by the bishop and all local church income was
combined by the bishop into one fund administered at the diocesan level. This fund was usually divided into four parts,
one for the support of the bishop and dioceses, one for the support of local clergy, one for the building and maintenance
36
of churches, and one for the support of the poor. Wealthy local patrons desired more control of their local parish (or
monastery or convent) and established advowson rights. These rights were heritable and over time could involve large
amounts of land or other wealth which had been donated to the local church and come under the control of the
advowson.
Their reasoning, though far from the truth, was that the families mentioned were
not related to the Monoky clan's line and therefore the rights of advowson was not their
due.133 The history of the establishment of the Benedictine Abbey at Szerencs is lost in
the mists of time. Nevertheless one thing is certain; as far back as man can remember, all
the branches of the Bogát-Radvány clan practiced the rights of advowson together there
and it served as a place of burial for all of them. We mentioned that in 1309 Jakab I's son,
Mihály II (originating from the Péter branch of the Isépy family) made an agreement in
the presence of the Palatine Amade, with his relative, Pongrác Cseley in regard to the
practice of the right of advowson. In 1321 István II of the Bogát-branch, in agreement
with László Monoky, passed on a fifth of the right of advowson to Kemény's son István
and the sons of Berke Comes. Therefore the Monokys could not have been right; and the
following family members protested against their one-sided stand: Mátyus' sons; Péter
and Márkus Isépy, the sons of János and Lukács, furthermore János Bánóczy's son Jakab,
as well as Péter's son, Miklós Cseley. The Monokys appeared with their unrealistic ideas
at the meeting of the Palatines held, close to Sáros-Patak, in 1381, by the Palatine Miklós
Garay and the Benedictine orders at Zemplén and Ung. The case went to the country's
judge for a decision. A document, issued in 1400, by the Palatine Detre Bubek of
Pelsőcz legally declares that the Isépy, Bánóczy and Cseley families originate from the
Bogát-Radvány clan; therefore the advowson of the monastery at Szerencs is their due
just as much as to the Monokys who originate from the same clan.134
About the Bánóczy family who came forward together with the Isépys and
Cseleys in this matter, and about the relationship of other families in the clan, we only
know that Karátsonyi was looking for the continuation of the Isépys of the BogátRadvány clan in the Bánóczys. It is more likely that the Bánóczys branched out from the
Isépys among the immediate descendants of the Bogáts. István I, who was Filke's
brother; in 1252 was given Kéza by Chyz, as compensation for the death of Filke. Kéza,
was an older name of the city of Bánócz, the place from which the Bánóczys took their
name.135 It is not our responsibility here to verify whether the modern Bánóczy family is
the continuation of the Bánóczy branch of Bogát-Radvány clan; even they themselves do
not know.
A member of the Bánóczy branch, János, son of István, died without male
descendants. The family pursued the widow's allowance for his widow Erzsébet Csejkey,
daughter of László Csejkey, as well as the quarter property due to a female family
member and wedding expenses for his daughter Ilona, wife of László Buthkay. They first
turned to the Monokys because it appeared that they inherited János Bánóczy's property
at Berető. In answer to their request, according to the bequest at the Chapter of Eger in
1386, they agreed to pass this property to the widow of János Beretői and his daughter.136
However, some members of the Monoky family, headed by István Monoky, canon of
Fehérvár, changed their minds and protested against letting Berető go. The matter went as
far as the King, and Queen Maria decided that János Bánóczy's widow could reside at the
Berető property only as a usufructuary (she could live there but did not own the
property). Her financial needs would have to be satisfied from the properties at the
villages of Bánócz, Izsép, Ujőr, Sóskut and Mérk. These were in the hands of the Isépy
37
and Cseley families, at that time. Some of these properties probably ended up in their
hands after János Bánóczy died without male descendants. Péter and Márkus Isépy, both
magistrates, as well as Miklós and Domokos Cseley paid dues, in 1388, to the widow
Jánosné Bánóczy and her daughter.137
In the same year another side-branch of the Bogát-Radvány clan remained
without male descendants. In a document they are identified as of the Katan branch
"dictus Katan"; a relation of the above Janos' son, named Jakab, who lived in Berető, and
had properties in the villages of Bánócz, Berető and Ujőr and part of the property at
Izsép, died without male heir. As I previously mentioned these villages listed the
Bánóczys as the landowners; and therefore the dead person is not difficult to recognize as
Jakab, the son of János Bánóczy who, in 1381, stood up against the Monokys, together
with the Isépys and Cseleys, when defending the rights of avowal of the monastery at
Szerencs. Furthermore, the deceased was related to János, son of István Bánóczy who
also died without male descendants. We were told about the needs of that man’s widow
and daughter earlier.
As male descendants of the "Katan" branch died out, the royal inheritance court
confiscated their property and Queen Maria granted it, in 1386, to her favorite warrior,
Sándor Monoky, for his true and tried loyalty and devoted services (consideratis
fidelitatibus et fidelium servitorum). These he performed in the services of the Queen's
father, King Nagy Lajos, who was remembered as a good man. Properties that were
ruled and granted according to the ancient rights of the clans, as long as one male
member of the clan was still alive, did not revert to the King. Therefore they could not be
willed to others. As a consequence, this one-sided royal favor (the person who suggested
it was probably Sándor Monoky himself) was a great grievance for all those who in the
order of the clan were closer to the discontinued branch than he was. Márkus Isépy and
Miklós Cseley protested against this grievance and their trial ended up at the state judge.
Based on the documents they submitted as proofs, the state judge Imre Bubek of Pelsőc,
in 1387, brought a judgment that the properties of Jakab, son of "dictus Katan" János,
would be the due of Márkus Isépy and Miklós Cseley, as closest blood-relatives. Thereby
the grant document of the queen became invalid, as the queen could not have wanted to
subvert the right of inheritance within the clan.138
In 1385 the Palatine Miklós Szécsy and his sons: János, Ferenc and Miklós
granted to Péter and Márkus Isépy, the village of Keék in Abauj County. This property
had reverted to the king because of a discontinuance of male descendants.139 King
Zsigmond confirmed this grant document in 1398, thereby Péter and Márkus Isépy were
established in the property on December 17, 1398.140 Márkus, by then the only one alive,
received an additional confirmation in the property in 1409.
The year 1392 is an important date in the history of the Bogát-Radvány clan,
because in that year the various families who branched out of the ancient clan was finally
successful in gathering together peacefully; their purpose was - as the official document
translated into old Hungarian states-: "depending on the assistance and advice of specific
pious men, all infighting and dissension among them should cease, [and] such divisions
should be settled as among kinsmen of eternal value".141
This significant event, in 1392, took place on the Monday before St. Mihály's day,
at the Chapter of Eger. Those present at the negotiations were: Gyapoly Morvay's sons,
András, János and Lászlo; Jank Doby's sons Miklós and Péter; Simon Lulczy's son
38
Lukács; János and Mihály Monoky dictus Zaz; Pal's sons, András and Márton Isépy
(according to another source, Pál's sons, Mátyus and András)142); and lastly Antal
Cseley's son, Domokos. However, unfortunately it did not bring the desired result of
ending the dissension that raged among families of the clan.
The 1254 document that recorded the start of all the land divisions, according to
the noted Hungarian translation of 1470,143 states that the interested parties are all
"grandchildren on the third level of the now deceased Pál Csíz, who originated from the
Bogát-Radvány clan, and from the point of lands and all goods and chattels, they belong
to the same root". Therefore, all of them, as descendants of Csíz, equally divide the
property left behind by him as an inheritance. However, this statement, as we now know,
does not agree with the facts, because Csíz was the ancestor of only the Rákóczy-Morvay
branch and not of the other families of the clan; therefore properties of those families did
not originate from his inheritance. It is impossible to understand such a mistake in this
otherwise important translation, because it would have been quite possible to clear this
matter up through a careful reading of the document of 1254.
During the general settlement of properties in the year 1392, properties of the clan
were divided as follows:
a)
The sons of Gyapoly received Morva, Körtvélyes Rákócz, Arács, Kékszeg, Sink,
Sóskut and Mérk;
b)
Jank Doby's sons, Luczy, Lukács, János and Mihály Monoky Zaz received the
properties at Lucz, Szada, Baás, Megyaszó, Rekecs, Monok, Mihályi, Lazony and Lask;
c)
To the Isépy and Cseley families were given Berető, Izsép, Karós, Cselej and
Keék.
The land document continues, according to the Hungarian text:
"In the villages, those with the name of Vid, in other words Ondfalva, in [the
county of] Zemplén; and Báts in [the county of] Szolnok; Peklény and Finta in Sáros, that
were given by Péter (son of Rénold Pazdicsy) to his younger sister, Magych Pazdicsy,
wife of Pál Csíz; who, in turn, was the great-grandmother of the earlier named relatives;
were shared out to whoever owned them before. Furthermore, the building or manor
house that was located east of Finta, was given to the sons of Jank. Two villages, namely
Szerencs and Ujor, that were bequeathed, by the now deceased Pál, who was a Comes,
together with the monastery named St. Péter and Pál at Szerencs (with all its valuables)
are given by these kinsmen of one free will and of one heart, to the congregation of the
said monastery [under oath by the apostles]. They did not keep any property
themselves, adding these too to the lot, if any of the above mentioned kinsmen died
without male descendants, those properties, or parts of them, would be willed to the other
ancestors, or their descendants. In addition, if either of the above kinsmen would be taken
to court on account of the above named chattels and those would be taken away from
them legally, to settle this new claim they would have to make a new division. And to
exercise the jus patronatus [law of patronage] regarding the above named villages
together with the monastery at Szerencs, let that be on the basis of personal testimony."
This land document indicates a significant shift to the disadvantage of the Isépy
and Cseley families because it appropriates Arács and Fel-Sink earlier adjudged to them
by the courts; and in addition their ancient properties at Sóskut and Mérk (despite the
agreement made in 1254 with Csíz to his descendants). Moreover the lands at Lazony
39
and Lask are returned again to the Monokys. Also to the Monokys, it awarded Megyaszó
and it attached Ujőr to the monastery of Szerencs.
This agreement, therefore, did not bring the looked-for peace; instead it served as
further basis for conflicts and for the continuation of litigation. Márkus Isépy as well as
Miklós, Domokos and János Cseley protested against this unfair division of property, and
they began a new lawsuit in 1405. On the basis of their protest, the Palatine Miklós Garay
ordered in 1405, (that is, thirteen years after the general settlement of the properties) the
verification of their case and a new hearing thereof.144
Meanwhile, a lawsuit with the Monokys ended favorably for the Isépys who were
joined by the Cseleys, because a report dated 1400, in the Convent at Lelesz, records the
installation of Márkus Isépy, and also Miklós Cseley, into lands at the villages of Lazony
and Lask, as well as, parts of Megyaszó, Lucz and Szada. This decision Péter Monoky
naturally objected to.145
The final settlement of clan properties drove even the Lesztemérys to come up
with demands of their own. We do not find this family among those families who
participated in the property distribution of 1392, although it seems that they too belonged
to the immediate relation of Filke (killed by Csíz). The reason may have been that
Lesztemérys' properties were not in the center of any disputes within the clan. Or their
demands were more modest; thus they were probably easier to satisfy through a friendly
agreement with the Isépy and Cseley families. What actually happened, as a result of
their new claims, was that during the years 1395-99, based on a reciprocal exchange, the
Isépy and Cseley families took the cattle of the Lesztemérys at Sóskut and Mérk and gave
the Lesztemérys in exchange properties at Kéza (Bánócz).146
The aging Péter Isépy, in 1403, received permission from King Zsigmond to leave
his property in the County of Abauj (probably the part assigned to him from the lands at
Keék) to Bertalan Tabajdy the son of [familiaris] Miklós Perényi (Royal Grand
Cupbearer and formerly a Székely Count) and his brothers. This act of grace, in actual
fact, was a modification of an earlier and similar royal decree that gave permission to
Péter Isépy to will the same property to István Debrőy, captain of Eger, a man of
historical renown. The latter, however, allied himself with László Nápolyi, a rival King,
and fell out of favor. King Zsigmond gave over the right of inheritance to the Tabajdy
brothers who were the men of Péter Perényi, who defeated Debroy.147
When we look for reasons for this unusual bequest, by which Péter Isépy ignoring
blood-relations intended to leave his property to strangers, we can only explain it in one
way. It was the king himself who initiated it, warning Péter Isépy (who was without male
descendants) that the properties awarded to him at one time by the king should go to
those liegemen that the king specified. As there were not enough lands around to grant to
all his loyal followers; by this roundabout way he was able to reward some for their
services.
It is true Péter Isépy had no male descendants in his old age; but we are informed
through a note dated 1362 that Péter Isépy's son, Benedek, engaged himself as a personal
representative of László Putnokys' son, Mihály, at the Chapter of Eger. If Benedek was
truly the son of Péter, he must have passed away, because we hear no more about him,
and thus his dying early opened the door for the unusual bequest.148
Márkus Isépy, who survived his brother, also made a last will, in 1410, at the
Chapter of Eger; and his will, written on parchment paper, was in the possession of the
40
family for a long time. It is mentioned in an old list of family documents. He left his own
acquisitions and his properties at Berető, Karós and Keék to be shared equally between
his son, Mátyus and his daughter, Anna. Anna, who was first married to Lambert
Császlóczy, then to Péter Saághy, made a statement - in 1419 - at the Convent of Jászó, in
favor of Mihály Saághy's son Péter, in which she acknowledges that after the death of her
husband she had her dowry and all her other marriage emoluments returned to her. 149
After new negotiations regarding the division of clan properties, in 1409 the
Palatine Miklós Garay's judgment was announced. This judgment meant to maintain the
status quo, emphasizing that Monok and several other villages, such as Enyeres, would
remain in the property of the Monokys; while Fel-Megyaszó, Baás and Also-Batya, (this
have been in the property of the sons of Péter Zudar of Olond (they came by it through an
earlier pawning by the Cseleys)) were the responsibility of the Cseleys, or rather Márkus
Isépy who originally protested the plan for sharing out the total clan property. Further,
Halám and Sink, also in the property of strangers, were the responsibility of the Cseleys.
The Palatine entrusted the Convent of Lelesz with the actual property division.150 Those
assignments were seemingly accomplished to the satisfaction of all parties, because no
one raised another word against it.
A few years later the time came for a decision in the long drawn-out litigations
with the Monokys, because in the year 1413 Márkus Isépy was installed in the Kis
Mihályi property that originally belonged to the Péter branch of the family. Previously,
this same property had ended up in the hands of the Monokys who in 1366 and 1387 151
even added to it by obtaining the lands of the Kis-Mihályi family. In 1413 the KisMihályis did not leave without complaining at the appearance of a new owner, as the
Convent of Lelesz reported it to the Palatine. The widow of Mátyás Kis-Mihályi
objected in her own and in her son Tamás' name to the installation of Márkus Isépy.
However, as subsequent developments show, her protest was ineffective.
The property division that started in 1392 regarding the Rákóczy lands brought
changes in the following way: it strengthened the resistance of the Rákóczys to the point
that Márkus and Márton Isépy were not able to take over their new possessions in the
villages of Rákócz, Morva, Oroszfalu, Also-Sink and Kyo even those these towns were
adjudged to them by the king's court. It goes without saying that in 1413, Márkus and his
son Mátyus complained when Gyapoly's son, Benedek Rákóczy, committed forceful acts
on Sink and Arács, thereby causing extensive damage to them. The matter went as far as
the highest court of the country, which in 1414 ordered retaliatory steps against Benedek
Rákóczy on behalf of Márkus, Mátyus and András Isépy.152 The Palatine Miklós Garay
awarded the other half of Fel-Sink to Márkus Isépy,153 but that aggravated the situation
even more, because in 1415, according to investigator’s documents, the Rákóczys not
only reoccupied Fel-Sink by force, but they also accused the Isépys of taking possession
of Laskócz illegally and of entering some parts of Fel-Sink, as well.154 And they were
partially right because the Isépys did indeed retake the whole of Fel-Sink.
41
When naming the immediate descendants of Sztanch Isépy we refer to the official
document of 1414; in which Tussay Martin's daughter, Erzsébet, the widow of László
Kereszy, together with Achilles Cseley; acknowledges in their own name as well as in the
name of the widow Kereszyné, Erzsébet Tussay's daughter Katalin and Achilles Cseley's
half-sisters, Márta, Krisztína and Orsolya, that they took - from Márkus Isépy and
Mátyus's son - the quarter property [rightful dowery of a female family member] and
wedding present of the former Erzsébet Isépy, János Isépy's daughter and grand-daughter
of Sztanch, that had not so far been distributed. This very Erzsébet Isépy was, in fact, the
grandmother of the above-mentioned Erzsébet Tussay, and the great-great grandmother
of Achilles Cseley and his half-sisters.155
Sztanch Isépy
1244-1254
János Comes I.
Landowner of M-Izsép
1248
Mátyus I.
1324-54
Márkus I.
1381-1409
1410
Erzsébet
husband: Mak Tussay
Péter
1381-1409
1409 already +
Lukács
1328-40
Márton Tussay
N. Tussay (female)
husbd: Domokos Cseley II.
Erzsébet Tussay
husbd: László Kereszy,
1414
Domokos Cseley III.
wife 1: N…
wife 2: N…
Katalin Kerecsy
1414
from 1st: Achilles Cseley
from the other: Márta, 1414, Krisztína, 1414
Orsolya, 1414
The following events are a series of acts of violence and high-handed bullying that reveal
the spirit of the times and the nature and temperament of the individuals. Márkus Isépy
and his son Mátyus, and his grandson László, were hot-blooded, bullying and tough men,
worthy sons of the times in which they lived. However, their contemporaries with whom
they engaged in the struggle of life were similar. It is no wonder that they often clashed,
and these clashes led to serious consequences when they took the law into their own
hands. Because of their actions; complaints, accusations and counter-accusations flew. It
is unfortunate that our sources are so short of details; they [the history writers] satisfy
themselves with a brief mention of events.
In 1413, Jakab Agóchy and his relatives accused Márkus Isépy and his son
Mátyus with wounding and even killing residents of Agócs. In the same year the Cseleys
and kinsmen who lived with them in relative peace, raised a complaint against Márkus
Isépy’s family because they took over by force their plough-lands in the border area of
Terebes; further using their serfs, they regularly cut-down the Agóchys' forests at Cselej
and other lands of theirs that were planted with trees. The following year, in 1414, several
neighboring landowners, namely Dénes Pelejthey, János Leszteméry, János Komoróczy
dictus Papp and László Ramócsay of Zeretva, came forward against Márkus Isépy and his
son and at the same time against Zsuzsánna, Márton Isépy's daughter and the other
daughter Jusztina's husband, János Ghyrke of Pólya; according to these complaints the
Isépys forcefully took over lands lying outside the village of Karós.156
42
Meanwhile Márkus Isépy had a serious quarrel with the Lasztóczys; it was only
by a hair's breath that the hatred that developed from this quarrel did not have fatal
consequences. Recall that Sztanch, ancestor of this branch of the family, in 1244 sold part
of the property at Halám, by the Ronyva creek, to Miklós, son of Razló of the HuntPázmán clan. This property fell, through the female line, to the Lasztóczy family. In 1354
it was owned by Péterné Lasztóczy (Mrs. Péter Lasztóczy). Mátyus I. Isépy attacked her
and occupied a considerable part of her land. As the matter went to court, the state judge,
Tamás Szécsényi Comes ordered the return of the property to the widow Péterné
Lasztóczy, as inheritance left for her by her parents.157 However, Mátyus I seemed to
consider inheriting through the female line illegal and therefore he did not accept the
judgment. In 1410 the grandchildren of Péterné Lasztóczy started court proceedings
against Márkus, son of Mátyus I., and his son, Mátyus II., because the latter showed
reluctance in returning Felső Halám, in its entirety, to the rightful owners; and they were
still occupying it.158 State judge, Simon Rozgonyi agreed, in 1411, that the complainants
were legitimate; therefore he instructed the Convent of Lelesz to draw a border line
between the two properties; and he made arrangements for the replacement of the old,
and hardly visible, border markings, thus legally separating the properties. The Convent
of Lelesz, in their report, did justice to the order and verified the property rights of the
Petitioners, the Lasztóczys as well as Czókházy (descendants from Razló through the
Hunt-Pázmán clan), and also kinsmen of Czókháza, Rakattyás and Hegyalja, describing
even their lineage.159 The order of their clans is given as follows:
R a z l ó Hunt-Pázmán
Miklós
1244
Garabus
of the clan Hunt-Pázmán
János
Miklós
of Hegyalja
Detrik, Chok
of Chókhaza
Elleus
Erzse … N… Pethew
N… Tanalch
wife of farm-bailiff
Máté
Péter
István
dictus Chok
1413
Lőrincz
of Chókháza
1436
István
N…Lasztóczy
Péterne 1354
Miklós de Eadem
1411
János
1411
Dénes de Eadem
Péter
1411
N…Tamás
Gergely
Péter
Pál Chapy
Anna
Balázs
of Rakattyás
N…Györgyi
1411
László, state judge's
son-in-law
1411
Tamás
1436
The memory of all these Hunt-Pázmán descendants is kept alive today only by the
farmsteads and ranches of Hegyalja, Czókháza and Rakattyás lying in the valley of the
Ronyva, between Kozma-Kolbása and Lasztócz.
However, there were other conflicts between the Isépys and Lasztóczys, because
in 1416, János Lasztóczy and the grandson of Péterné Lasztóczy, together with their
relative Pál Chapy, turned to the Convent of Lelesz with the request that the latter force
43
Mátyus II Isépy and Achilles Cseley to pay 1100 marks and 133 denarius [old Roman
coins], and Mátyus Isépy to pay 134 marks and 66 denarius to settle their debts; and if
they failed to do so, their creditors will hold back their properties at Mérk and Sóskut, as
well as, lands marked for that purpose, at Iszép, Berető and Arács, until the day that their
debts were settled.160 This most likely happened because the relationships between them
became even more strained during the following years. Each accused the other of various
wrongs. For example, in 1416, the Lasztóczys together with their Chapy relatives,
accused Mátyus Isépy and Achilles Cseley of taking wheat and hay from the Mérk
property pawned earlier.161 In 1418, it was Mátyus II Isépy and his son, András, as well
as the Cseleys, who dragged János and Péter Lasztóczy, András Leszteméry and the five
Chapy brothers / sisters into court, because in their opinion the latter carried away from
Mérk crops that were not due to them, at which occasion they even threatened to murder
János and Achilles Cseley.162
Immediately after that, the Lesztymérys and Chapys complained again that
Mátyus Isépy had his serfs cut down and take away trees from their woods at Halam.163
The tension broke out fully in 1418, when János Cseley and Mátyus II Isépy, together
with their men, attacked - with arms - men working on the Halám farmstead of Péter
Lasztóczy. They beat them up thoroughly and carried them off; and as Péter Lasztóczy
hurried out to help; he, too, was assaulted in the woods at Halám. They even cut off his
right hand and, as badly wounded as he was, they carried him off, too.164 That last violent
act on their part brought serious consequences, as Mátyus II was brought to trial and was
condemned to lose his head and all his cattle. It is not only he who was in serious danger
but this also caused fatal disadvantages for his family, because it resulted in the
confiscation of Izsép, Berető, Kis-Mihály, Sink, Arács, Berecki, Karós and Keék. The
fiscus [bailiff] put his hands on these lands in 1419.165 Mátyus only escaped his
punishment because - according to a record originating in 1422 - King Zsigmond fully
pardoned him in consideration of his outstanding merits while he was in the king's escort
in the Czech Country.166 Unfortunately we have to accept the mere mention of Mátyus'
actions in the Czech Country, because the note referring to it does not give any further
details.
During the following years, the family is closely associated with the property at
Karós. Mátyus II moved from the seat of his ancestors to his property at Karós. Residing
at Karós lasted no more than for two generations, because events played out in the life of
the grandchildren of Mátyus II were again closely associated with Magyar Izsép and its
surroundings. We do not find any written explanation anywhere for the move to Karós.
We can conclude that it had to be while the mortgage loan on Magyar Izsép was paid off;
since it was temporarily owned by the Lasztóczys. Karós, the new home, lies in the
Bodrogköz, by the Vajdácska-Nagy-Kövesd road, and it was also an ancient property of
the family. It appears that initially it was owned by the Péter branch of the Isépy family
and around this time it was repossessed by the Sztanch branch. It is also close to
Ladmócz where the family of Mátyus II's wife, Orsolya Chyrke of Pólyi, from the Syxtus
branch of the Aba clan, were land owners. The latter family was related to the Isépys
through János Chyrke, husband of Jusztina Isépy, who originated from the Péter
branch.167
During his residence at Karós, Mátyus clashed with his neighbors, Ferenc
Zerdahelyi and István Upory. He started an investigation against them because they
44
forcefully took and drove away pigs that were brought to Karós by his serfs as villein
socage; they even wounded Mátyus Isépy with their arrows.168 This was the first clash
with the Zerdahelyis who did not seem to like the new neighbors and tried to give them a
bad time or cause them some damage at every turn. The Zerdahelyis were one of the
oldest families of Zemplén County; they originated from the proud Boxa clan who were
convinced that they came from one of the seven twins of the legendary Mick Ban
[warden of the southern marches of Hungary]. The Upory family came from the one time
mighty Ákos clan; therefore they deservedly occupied a distinguished position in the
society of Zemplén County.
With the recovery of the Kis-Mihály property in 1413, and by rejoining the two
halves of Fel-Sink in the same year, the division of property among the families
originating from the Bogát-Radvány clan was actually finished; thus the century’s long
and fruitless litigations and dissension among the families of the same blood came to an
end. In contrast with the property division of 1392, later divisions ended up more
advantageously for the Isépy family, because through the retrieval of the ancient property
of Kis-Mihály, and with the addition of the property at Fel-Sink, the status quo was
maintained as a rule. Unfortunately for the much disputed towns of Lázony and Lask for
which the Monokys conducted a passionate fight; the two towns remained their property.
Clan distinctions came to an end by the final property division, and the lands truly and
finally became absolute properties of the families. However, arm in arm with the
dissolution of clan relationships, a new danger arose for the families. In place of the
usual male-line inheritance which the clan; relationships called for to preserve the lands
forever for the clan; a wider inheritance rule not considering gender, started to come into
force. This brought with it a constant piecemeal loss of the clan's properties and, at the
end, the family became impoverished. This dangerous process could have been balanced
by advantageous marriages or regular purchase of properties; but male members of the
Isépy family - it seems - never had the inclination to consider the protection of family
interest when they selected a life partner. Moreover, they had not been able to
counterbalance the loss, after satisfying daughters’ dowries, by newer land purchases, or what would have been even simpler - to satisfy their daughters with money rather than
land.
After the last of the clan’s infighting over land, violent actions with serious
consequences still continued, mainly with immediate neighbors and with more limited
aims. During the year 1424, Mátyus Isépy and his son András, Jakab Cseley and his son
András, as well as, János and Achillesz Cseley complain together of György and Tamás
Doby, because the latter had their serfs remove border markings on Cseley-Isépy
properties at Kis-Mihály. They also cut down fruit trees and took over forcefully a
substantial part of the Cseley-Isépy land.169 This kind of violence illustrates best that the
Monoky and Doby kinsmen were not prepared to give up the property at Kis-Mihály
either. When they were forced out of land they had occupied, they continued - during
subsequent years -their violent harassment of the property's rightful owners. András
Isépy had no choice but to protest, in 1434, against the Monokys and Dobys, demanding
that the latter kinsmen to whom lands were shared out in the past not be allowed to claim
any of his further properties anywhere and at any time.170
In 1429, Mátyus II and his son András came into conflict with the Buthkays when
- in agreement with János and András Cseley - they wished to reestablish the faded and
45
therefore shifted borderlines of Berető on the side of Falkus and Butke, that is, on the
neighboring properties of the Butkays. This conflict, however, was settled by mutual
agreement. A newer assault by the Zerdahelyis was much more unpleasant; as they had
their serfs destroy the forests at Karós to the point that an investigation was started
against them.
It appears that Mátyus II needed money around 1429, because he pawned part of
Karós to András Azáry for 100 gold forints.171 However, he was not bothered by
financial problems for very long, because in 1433 we find him no longer among the
living.172 His son, András I was forced to satisfy his mother and older sister Julia (wife
of Jakab Orosz of Csertész ) by cash, from his own inheritance.173 For that purpose, he
had given 6 units of land held in villeinage as pawn to János Cseley, for the amount of 25
gold forints.174 At the same time, he sold his puszta at Ujbogát (in the County of Szatmár)
to Miklós and Lukács Bogáthy, for 100 gold forints.175
Andras Isépy, being a more thoughtful and level-headed individual than his
ancestors, had the good intention to live in peace instead of constantly bickering with
relatives and neighbors. Therefore in 1433 he made an agreement with András Cseley,
and János and Ambrus Chyrke of Pólya at the Convent of Lelesz that if any conflicts
arose between them in the future, they will take the matter to a mutually selected judge.
András suggested this as an example to other kinsmen to follow, calling the Zerdahelyis,
as well, to join them.175
The Zerdahelyis, however, did not care to heed these good words. Hostile feelings
lying low in them finally broke out openly. One night in 1436 (the exact day is not
known) together with their family members and villains they attacked, by force of arms,
the village of Karós, burnt its houses, destroyed whatever there was left, and what was
worth anything to them they carried off, even those villagers, in shackles, whom they
could catch.176 András Isépy's intention to keep the peace had no result and it is
understandable that he, in his indignation, immediately started a court proceeding at a
competent location, together with his relatives, against Miklós and János Zerdahelyi, and
also against those family members and other people who took part in the attack. They
probably received their well-deserved punishment; our sources, however, do not have a
record of this.
In the same year, that is in 1436, Gyapoly Morvai's son Benedek, together with
his sons: László, Szilveszter and István, protested against Mátyus Isépy (who
unfortunately died early that year) and his son András for repossessing plough-lands
lying between Luskóc and Alsink for Margit Zeretvay, widow of Imre Leszteméry.177
In 1434, András gave to Márton Isépy's daughter, Zsuzsanna (married first to
György Pelejthey, and later to László Vallyoni /or Varoky, maybe Vakok/) her rightful
share of the properties at Karós and Arács.178 Thus he followed his grandfather's
principle expressed in the latter's last will (originating in 1410) that female inheritors
would not be satisfied by receiving a quarter of the property and dowry (Quarta puellaris
et exsolutio doties et rerum paraphernalium); but they should be given a share of the
inheritance equal to male descendants.
The descendants of Sztanch Isépy's granddaughter Erzsébet Isépy (wife of Mak
Tussay), namely, Erzsébet Tussay, the widow of Ambrus Pólyi, widowed Mihályné
Hamvay, Orsolya Cseley, Krisztina Cseley (Jánosné Csizy) and Katalin Cseley (Miklósné
Mérai Pothő), (whom we mentioned in 1414) at the Chapter of Eger sold their inheritance
46
in the villages of Cseley, Berető, Karós, Berecski, Arács, Sink, Kis-Mihály, Sóskut,
Merk, Keék, and Bogát for 500 gold forints to János Perényi. This caused complications
and litigation later on.179
A record of 1466 gives an account of a capital event in which a member of the
family played a fatal role. The widow of Miklós Ráskay, named Erzsébet made an
accusation against András Isépy's son, László who - on János and Pál Upory's instigation
- together with Benedek Gávay and Péter Masthay (or Musthay) attacked a noble
residence at Kis-ráska and killed its lord, Miklós Ráskay, Erzsébet’s husband.180 Because
of scant information it was not possible to find out the reasons, preceding events and the
method of accomplishing this act. We can only state that the event did not close with
László Isépy losing his head and cattle. We find only one more note, dated 1470, about
this tragic event. It sounds like this in Latin: "uramentales adjudicatoriae pro Nobili
Domina Elisabetha Relicta condam Nicolai de Raska, contra Ioannem de Upor, et
Ladislaum filium Andreae de Isep, et Petrum de Mustha ad Capita sorundem super eo:
quod praefatu, Nicolam Dominum et Maritum dictae Dominae Elisabethae noce
miserabili intermissent, centesimo quinquagesimo se Nobilibus Iuramentu, deponere
debente."181 It is rather surprising that László Isépy was not severely punished, as his
grandfather almost lost his head and his cattle for an event of much less tragic
consequences.
It is probably related to this event, that László Isép is mentioned in a note dated
1469, in which Mihály Gercsely acknowledges in his own name, also in the name of
Ambrus Eödönffy Nagymihályi, János Semsey, Mathys Pazdicsy and Benedek Ruthkay,
that there was a legal proceeding against István, Pál, András, Gáspár, Menyhért and
Mihály Rákóczy, and also László Isépy, Domokos Zalay, Vince Both Hraboczi, Márton
Migleczy, Péter Tussay, Gáspár Ztrithey, Mihály and János Bánóczy, János Komoróczy
and Péter Tamásfalvy because of serious damages and other criminal acts perpetrated by
them.182
Around the time of Miklós Ráskay's murder; despotic behavior, people taking the
law into their own hand, and vendettas - although prohibited - were common. In society's
view, these kinds of excesses were committed by men releasing their passions without
any moral inhibitions. Whatever the motive for such violent acts, we would not be
objective if we judged them based on today's moral and legal concepts.
Although for László Isépy this tragic action did not have a tragic ending and
during his lifetime he had ample opportunity to answer his conscience; however his
action would bring about a fatal turn in the history of his family. From that time on, the
financial status of his family rapidly declined, as if this capital act built a crucial partition
between the past and the future. Within a reasonably short time ancient properties of the
family were lost one after the other. It is true, however, that beside bad luck, the
satisfying of inheritance rights of female descendants also contributed greatly to this. In
addition the fact that lands that were pawned could only be retrieved by selling other
land, as there was no cash money around contributed to the loss of property.
47
4. The depletion of wealth and the later fortune of the family from the
second half of the XV century to the end of XVIII century.
The dwindling away of the family's properties, felt more noticeably around the
time of László Isépy's violent acts, come to an end in the first decade of the XVI century.
Some able male members of the family succeeded in putting a stop to the disintegration
of the remaining family holdings and hung onto this now considerably more modest
property until the reform endeavors of the XIX century managed to totally change the
social order, the economic importance of land and altogether every aspect of human
existence.
In this critical period, everyday life is still proceeding in the old ways, and
disagreements between neighbors are just as frequent as before. In 1469 the Buthkays
complain of László Isépy at Berető and István and Péter Perényi at Terebes together with
their serfs allowing their cattle and herds to regularly graze on Buthkays's ploughland and
stamp the grass flat on their hayfields.183 In the year 1470 László Isépy's wife, Margit
Bessenyey of Deregnyő, as well as her sisters Klára and Johanna, in collusion with Pál
and János Rákóczy; accuse László, János and István Buthkay and several other landowners of the region of expropriated important documents and other valuable movables
from them.184
We believe that the family of László Isépy's wife, Margit Bessenyey of Deregnyő,
as a branch of the Deregnyős, originated from the Ákos clan, and thus was closely related
to the Rákóczys through István Rákóczy (whose wife was Anna Bessenyey of Deregnyő).
László's brother, Miklós Isépy had been married twice, but we know only the Christian
names of both wives: the first one was called Agátha, the second Margit. The latter,
however, was in 1502 already the wife of Balázs Herestyényi of Lasztócz.185
In 1470 there was an auction for László Isépy's lands at Izsép, Karós and Berető
because of his debt of 25 gold forints that he borrowed from Pál Rákóczy.186 Our sources
do not record whether the auction did actually happen or the parties were able to agree
beforehand, but it is a fact that the lien on the lands at Izsép, Karós and Berető,
previously in the hands of Pál Rákóczy, was soon in the hands of the Impricseks of
Jamnicza. The Impricseks ended up causing lots of unpleasant complications with their
appearance in the family history.
In 1472, Miklós Isépy sold his part of the land in Karós to Ferenc Zerdahelyi and
his successors of both genders for 200 gold forints.187
In 1475, it was János Csapy who complained of László and Miklós Isépy, because
they assaulted his serfs on their neighboring properties at Isztancs to the point that they
caused serious injury to two of them.188
In 1479, a disagreement began with the Imprics' of Jamniczy. László Isépy
instigated a summons of Miklós Imprics, as well as István Kozmafalvy and János
Kázméry because they took over, by force, his house and his noble country seat at
Izsep.189 The Imprics' originating from the Horvát Land, appeared the first time on this
occasion, after they bought (from Pal Rákóczy) the liens of the properties at Izsép, Berető
and Karós. Where they came from, we cannot be certain. They, or their ancestors were
probably military men who made their fortune, or they may have been lenders who,
according to the customs of the times, having the tools of the trade, searched out - with
the help of agents - properties that had a lien on them or were available for sale for a
48
good price. If they succeeded in buying out the lien on a property they had their eyes on,
they could purchase that property from its owner (who happened to be in financial
difficulties) for a very advantageous price. In addition they managed to create a deed of
donation, as well. Miklós Isépy’s wife, Agátha and Simon Lasztóczy's widow, Ilona also
accused Miklós Imprics and his associates of stealing numerous valuable articles
belonging to Agátha and a silver ring of Ilona’s from the family seat at Magyar-Izsép.
Around the same time, Miklós Imprics also took legal steps and summonsed to court
Miklós and László Isépy. He claimed that the repossessed lands at Magyar-Izsép were
due to the Imprics' by the lien; and almost at the same time, the Isépys took into
possession, by force, the property at Bereto.191
The wife of András Rákóczy (brother of Pál) named Krisztina Polyák of
Körtvélyes started an investigation in 1482, because Miklós Isépy was not prepared to
return the 50 gold forints borrowed from her and her husband, for the lands at Berető;
further, he was not prepared to even extend the time limit for the repayment of the
loan.192
In 1486, László Isépy gave his daughter Katalin and her husband, János Nagy
three units of land out of his own property at Magyar-Izsép, held in villeinage. We know
the three husbands of Katalin Isépy on the basis of an old family tree: the first one was
called Tamás Káposztás, the second was János Nagy, and the name of the third one was
János Varga. On the occasion of this presentation, János Nagy was called Nobilis
Ioannos, Nagy de Isep; but in a later document he was "ignobilis", that is, it appears he
was "not a nobleman".193
A document dated 1502, records the mother of László Isépy, Katalin Zádorházy
who was the daughter of Imre Zádorházy and the wife of András Isépy. The document
describes how Squire László Zádorházy in his name, as well as in the name of Gáspár
Szbugyay (son of the late János Szbugyay and Krisztina Zádorházy), furthermore László
Isépy (son of the late András Isép and Katalin Zádorházy) and Miklós Zádorházy (son of
János) release to Péter Füzesséry, Jr. the wedding dowry that was due to Erzsébet
Zádorházy, senior, the widow, Péterné Füzesséry.194
Between 1431 and 1440, several official documents mention members of the
Zádorházy family as landowners of Berető, Berck, Iszép, Karós and Füzessér. The order
of their relationship is:195
Miklós Zádorházy
1431, 1434, 1437, 1440
János
1434-1440
László
1434-1440
Imre
1440
István
1440
Miklós
1502
László
1502
Krisztina
hsb: János
Szbugyay
Katalin
hsb:András
Isépy
János
Gáspár Szbugyay
1502
László Isépy
1502
49
Erzsébet
hsb:Péter
Füzesséry
Péter Füzesséry Jr.
1502
The Isépy family's order of relationships beginning with Mátyus II is as follows:
Mátyus II Isépy
1392, 1415
wife: Orsolya Chyrke of Pólyi
of the Aba clan
András Isépy
1424, 1429, 1482, 1490
wife: 1) N…
2) Katalin Zádorházy, noble woman
from wife #1: Miklós Isépy
1472, 1475, 1482, 1490
wife: 1) Agatha (1479)
2) Margit (in 1505
she is the wife of Balázs
Herestyeni of Lasztócz)
Julia Isépy
1433
hsb: Jakab Orosz of Csertész
from wife #2: László Isépy
1466, 1502 (see above), 1509
wife: Margit Bessenyei
of Degernyő, 1470
In a document dated 1490, Miklós and László Isépy are mentioned as brothers not
born of the same mother (fraters carnales); therefore András Isépy had another wife
before Katalin Zádorházy, whose name however we do not know.
Gáspár, the son of Miklós Imprics of Jamnicza, summonsed László Isépy again to
court in 1490, because László together with his brother Miklós now repossessed the lands
at Karós (after the properties at Berető and Magyar-Izsép) from the Imprics'.197 But it
appears Gáspár Imprics had enough of arguing and he tried to get rid of those lands. In
1499 he sold the lien on the property at Berető to litteratur György Nagymihályi,
commander of the castle at Tokaj, for 400 gold forints; to whom László Isépy then willed
the same property for 200 additional gold forints.198 That action, as we will see, led to
complications later. The lands at Iszép and Karós, although having a lien on them,
remained the property of the Isépys. Without additional data it is impossible to know
exactly what kind of agreement was made with Gáspár Imprics.
Veronika Isépy, Miklós' daughter (and wife of János Török of Lasztócz), wishing
to prevent further crumbling away of the family land holdings, protested in 1503 against
her brothers' Márkus and Ambrus letting go of their rightful properties at Izsép, Berető
and Karós.199 But all in vain, because during the following year, 1504, Márkus managed
to pawn part of his inherited property at Berető to Jakab Polyák of Pelejthe for 32 gold
forints.200 Then, in 1505, he, together with his mother, Margit (the widow of Miklós
Isépy, by then married to Balázs Herestyéni of Lasztócz), sold for good (witnessed at the
Convent at Lelesz) four units of land held in villeinage, and five puszta lots from his
property at Berető to Miklós Butkay for 120 gold forints. The latter at the same time
assumed all debt run up by Imre Perényi in the past and still outstanding.201
Ambrus Isépy, half-brother of Márkus, immediately protested against the sale of
the lands at Berető.202 That, however, did not hold him back in selling all his own goods
and chattels at Izsép, Karós, Bereczki, Kismihály and Bogát, as early as 1506, to
Zsigmond Berzenczey, commander of the castle at Terebes and his wife, Anna, for 100
gold forints. He set only one condition -- if the line of the Berzenczey clan came to an
end, the lands would revert to Ambrus Isépy or his descendants.
It appears that Márkus was again in great need of money, because in 1506 he
pawned his hayfields called Mocsarrét, Nagy-rét and Mező, as well as part of his
50
ploughlands on a rural road named "Kolbására fityegő", to Zsigmond Berzenczey,
commander of the castle at Terebes, for 5 and 1/2 gold forints. 203 At the same time, Imre
( Lászlo Isépy's son) sold his whole inheritance at Berető, Karós, Kis-Mihály and
Bogát.204 Then in the nick of time János Török, Veronika Isépy's husband, bought his
brother-in-law Márkus's remaining properties in Zemplén and Szabolcs. This was
registered in 1506 by the Convent at Lelesz.205
Miklós Isépy
wife: 1. Agátha
2. Margit.
From 1: Ambrus I.Isépy
1505
From ?: Veronika Isépy
husband: János Török
of Lasztócz
Ambrus II Isépy
1580
a Pauline friar and
vicar of Patakújhely
From 2: Márkus II. Isépy
1504, 1505, 1506
+ / This connection is not
verified by documents but is based
on probable deductions
In 1508, Laszlo Isepy clashed with the Botth family because he was extending
property borders at Kis-Mihály toward Kis-Legenye; during this dispute the Botth family
forced him to reestablish the original borders.206 To cover financial obligations he
undertook for his son, György, he sold lands at Karós to Zsigmond Pogány of Cseb and
to László Zerdahelyi for 100 gold forints.207 Just before that, he had been protesting in
court against cutting up part of the property towards a dowry and marriage dues by a
descendant of Mátyás Pelejthey and Zsuzsánna Isépy.208
László I. Isépy
1466 - 1509
his wife: Margit Bessenyey of Deregnyő
Imre Isépy +
1506
György I Isépy
1509-1520
László II Isépy +
/mentioned in 1570/
Katalin Isépy
1486
husbd: 1. János Káposztás
2. János Nagy
3. János Varga
If we consider all the properties the family lost between 1429 to 1509; partly sold;
partly lost because of missed deadlines in taking lands out of pawn; as well as the land
given in dowry and marriage dues, generously satisfying female descendants; we come to
a shocking realization. While the family owned properties extending to 15 villages at the
beginning of the XV century, by the end of the first decade of the XVI century that
dwindled to mere remnants at Izsép, Sóskút and Kismihály.
51
To have a clear picture of the decline of the properties incurred in about 75 years, we give
an illustration in the table below.
Property
Arács
Year
1434
1455
Action
inheritance
"
Bereczki
1506
Berető
1455
sold in
perpetuity
inheritance
1499
1505
Bogát
1506
sold in
perpetuity
"
"
1506
"
1455
inheritance
1486
dowry
Izsép
1506
Karós
1434
1455
1472
Keék
sold in
perpetuity
"
inheritance
"
1506
1509
1410
1455
sold in
perpetuity
"
"
inheritance
"
1506
sold in
perpetuity
Kis-Mihály
Mérk
Sink
Sóskút
Újbogát
1455
1433
inheritance
sold in
perpetuity
Sold/given/
From whom
To whom
András I. Isépy
Zsuzsanna Isépy
Erzsébet Isépy's
János Perényi
/granddaughter of
Sztanch/ descendants
Ambrus Isépy
Zsigmond Berzenczey
Erzsébet Isépy's
/granddaughter of
Sztanch/ descendants
László I Isépy
Márkus II Isépy and
his mother;
János Perényi
Imre Isépy
Zsigmond Berzenczey
Ambrus Isépy
Imre Isépy
Erzsébet Isépy's
/granddaughter of
Sztanch/ descendants
László I Isépy
Zsigmond Berzenczey
Ambrus Isepy
Imre Isepy
András I Isépy
Descendants of
Erzsébet Isépy
Miklós I Isépy
Ambrus Isépy
Imre Isépy
László I. Isépy
Márkus I. Isépy
Descendants of
Erzsébet Isépy
Ambrus Isépy
Imre Isépy
Descendants of
Erzsébet Isépy
András I. Isépy
György Nagymihályi
László Butkay
János Perényi
Katalin Isépy and her
husband
Zsigmond Berzenczey
Zsuzsanna Isépy
János Perényi
Ferenc Zerdahelyi
Zsigmond Berzenczey
Ferenc Zerdahelyi
Anna Isépy
János Perényi
Zsigmond Berzenczey
János Perényi
Miklós and Lukács
Bogáthy
This summary does not contain those property losses that were caused by missed
deadlines for redeeming properties in pawn; there is no documented data about this.
52
During the years following this deterioration in the family's wealth, our
documents become more scarce. One contribution to this situation was the general
decline of public life after the death of King Mátyás, and the consequent catastrophic
defeat at Mohács. From 1509 to 1551, we find no more than three notes about the family.
However, following that period, sources relating to the family reappear and mentions are
more frequent. A few documents from the first half of the XVI century give an account of
certain complicated consequences of the sale of the lands. Until the end of 1551 these
were relating to György Isépy, the son of László I. Another mortgage deed dated 1553,
however, mentions György Isépy together with his son Sebestyén. Thereafter documents,
from 1560 to the end of the century deal with the daily business of Sebestyén and his
brothers, András and Ferenc.
Complications arose regarding ownership in connection with the property-sale of
lands at Berető. Zsigmond Rákóczi, ancestor of the Rákóczi dynasty, (in his own name,
as well as in his brother Ferenc's name, and in agreement with György Isepy) raised
objection, in January 6, 1520 at the Convent at Lelesz, for the continuing possession of
the property at Berető by the husband of the widow of litteratus György Nagymihályi.
Nagymihályi had bought Berető from László Isépy (father of György). Zsigmond
Rákóczy protested further against Nagymihályi holding onto properties first pawned by
Miklós Isépy to the Buthkays, that later ended up with György Nagymihályi. Veronika
Isépy (daughter of Miklós) and her husband János Török of Lasztócz had earlier also
protested against these sales.209
Legal basis of the joint protest by the Rákóczys and György Isépy could not be
ascertained because of scarcity of documentation; we can merely deduce that the validity
of the property sales realized by László and Miklós Isépy was called into question; and
for some reason the Rákóczys demanded Berető for themselves. The protests were
successful, because according to a document issued by the Palatine in 1520, that began
with the word "Dictur nobis…" ( "My order…") the property at Berető was
adjudged to Zsigmond and Ferenc Rákóczy.210 Klára, the widow of György Nagymihályi
(who by that time was the wife of János Zobránczy of Nagymihály) protested against that
order, in the name of her sons and daughters born of her first marriage,211 but with no
success. Again in 1551 the Nagymihályis attempted in vain to regain the Berető property.
At the same time, Veronika Isépy, with her husband, János Török of Lasztócz, raised
objections now against the Rákóczy's reinstatement in the property at Berető.212 Whether
György Isépy's activities in agreement with the Rákóczys brought any benefit to the
family is impossible to conclude. It is, however, a fact that Berető no longer appears
among the family properties.
In 1538 a small village and puszta property of György Isépy, son of László, was
pawned by him for 100 Hungarian forints to Bálint Thorma of Lasztócz.213 This village
may have been a small town in the neighborhood of Legenye and Mihályi, and the puszta
named after it may have been part of the Isépy family's property at Kis-Mihály. In the
year 1551, Bálint Thorma transferred, by permission of King Ferdinand I, the pawned
title to György Serédy, captain general of the Country of Sáros.214 Meanwhile, György
Isépy authorized his relative, Lénárd Cseley, to take legal action to reinstate this small
village property to the family. In this legal action Lénárd Cseley could cover all György
Isépy’s outstanding property demands. Lénard Cseley did in fact start legal action against
György Serédy. As usual it went on for a long time. In 1572, the court of Zemplén
53
instructed András Alagy, (who came into possession of the pledge after the death of
György Serédy) by order upheld by the Royal Crown, to transfer the village property to
the descendants of the now deceased Lénard Cseley. These descendants were obligated
to settle accounts with the children of the now deceased György Isépy.215 We do not
know whether this judgment was executed as it should have been. We will see, however,
that because of these small-village properties further conflicts arose between the
descendants of Lénárd Cseley and György Isépy. This small village property would not
get wholly reinstated as the family's property until the XVII century, and even then only
by a special last will.
There is a copy of a pawn ticket dated 1553216 in which a certain Gergely Tóth, in
the presence of five witnesses, pawned two pieces of "rétetskéjét" [small meadow] to
György Isépy and his son Sebestyén, and also all their descendants of both genders
("utricesque sexus"). The pawn ticket is interesting because it clearly demonstrates the
close clan relationship of György and Sebestyén. Documents from the XVI century
gradually give up the practice, customary in medieval times, of listing father and son
together. Later Sebestyén and his brothers and sisters took over, as inheritors, the
properties of György Isépy after his death around 1553-1560. Sebestyén Isépy, as lord of
the lands at Izsép, in 1560 is accused by Katalin Cseley, daughter of Lénárd, of carrying
off some corn from her ranch at Csörvég when it was laid waste and occupied by her
brother.217 Katalin Cseley had quarrels with her brother János and her brother-in-law
János Borbély of Terebes. A gift deed issued in 1575 by István Radéczy, Bishop of Eger
and vice-regent, emphasizes that the properties of Izsép and Sóskút continued to be
passed on to descendants of Sebestyén, Ferenc and András Isépy.
Lukács Káposztás stepped up in 1564, with a demand to Sebestyén Isépy that his
share of the mill at Izsép should be apportioned, and for that reason he insisted on having
judges sent out. Lukács was probably a descendant of Tamás Káposztás, first husband of
Katalin Isépy (daughter of László), and a share of the mill at Izsép was his due on that
basis.218
The Perényi family's male line in the Palatine branch dies out through the death of
Gábor Perényi in 1567. His widow Ilona Ország of Guth enjoyed the usufruct of the
enormous Perényi property, and his lawful heir, his sister Erzsébet Perényi, became the
wife of Ferenc Drugeth of Homonna. In 1568, by the order of Count Miklós Báthory,
State Judge, in the name of the king, the widow of Gábor Perényi and Ferencné Drugeth
and her son were installed and registered by the chamber of Szepes into the usufruct of
the estates due them. Those estates included properties that were sold to János Perényi in
1455 by the descendants of Erzsébet Isépy. At the occasion of the installation, doubts
arose regarding the ownership of some land in the neighborhood of Izsép, due to lack of
proper land registration records. As a result, András Isépy was forced to speak out in his
own and his sisters' and brothers' names, against the installation of the Perényi
descendants into the rural road called "Török Rész" that was part of the Isépy family's
property.219 The protest was successful, because we find this property even as late as
1583 owned by the Isépy family.220
In the year 1570, the chapter of Lelesz installed András, Ferenc and Sebestyén in
the property belonging to Izsép, called "Pap-Rész". This property came to them after the
death of their two uncles, László's son László and Miklós' son Márkus. However, György
54
Drugeth, son of Ferenc Homonnai-Drugeth and Erzsébet Perényi protested against this
installation stating that this property belonged to the Perényi inheritance.221
However, simple objecting did not satisfy the Drugeth's. Being aware of their
power, they also made threats. As a result Ferenc Isépy, in the name of the family, was
forced to appeal all the way to Emperor Miksa II, the Hungarian King, for defense. In
1571, the Emperor instructed Janos Reuber of Fixendorf, captain-general of Upper
Hungary (with a seat in Kassa) to arrange military defense for the Isepys against the acts
of brute force of Ferenc Drugeth.222 The unfinished matter of the Pap-Rész rural road
was decided by the royal Court in 1575 in favor of the Isépy family as a result of Ferenc
Drugeth's non-appearance at the trial.223 Also in 1570 is a record at the Convent at
Lelelsz that proves that Ferenc and Sebestyén Isépy did inherit all the properties of
Magyar-Isép and Sóskút, as well as the property at Nagy-Szekeres in the County of
Szatmár.224
The confusion around the names, Pethey and Persey, occurs twice in records
dated 1571. This is significant from the point of view of the family chronicle because the
name of the wife of Ferenc Isépy sometimes appears as Persey, other times as Pethey.
There are two notes in the archives of the Convent at Lelesz, one of these says: "Isépy
Franciscus at Andreas portionis suas in una Sessionis Lobbagionis deserto in Possessione
Isép, Cottuque Zempléniensi exist habitis Nicolao de Pethe vita sua possidenda
conferunt".225 Another states: "Fassio Nobilium Francisci et Andreae de Isep, super quiba
dam portionibus possessionariis in Possessione Isep in Cottu Zempleniensi exist habitis,
Nobilis Nicolao de Perse facta."226
According to the first record, translated into Hungarian, Ferenc and András Isépy
gave, out of their own property at Izsép, a unit of prairie land (held in villeinage) to
Miklós Pethey for enjoyment in his life. In the other document, the same Ferenc and
András Isépy swear at the Convent of Lelesz that they passed several of their units of
land (held in villeinage) to Miklós Persey.
If these two records were the only confused ones, we could believe that the
archivist made a mistake in putting down one of those names. However, in the years 1575
and 1576 we again find misleading notes regarding these two names. In one of the two
cases we even find Dorottya, Ference Isépy's wife, mentioned.
The record of 1575 states: "Requisitorium V. Conventi de Lelesz sonans proparte
Nobilis Domine Sophiae Kisfaludy Relictae Egregii condam Melchioris Persey, super
Extradatione Literarum, quarum videlicet vigore Nobilis Sebastiamus, Franciscus et
Andreas Isepy quandam Curiam nobilitariam in Possessione Isép in Cottu Zempleniensi
exist. habitam Egregio quandam Nicolao, filio dictae Dominae Exponentis et praefato
olim Melchiore Persey suscepto vendidissent, nec non super extradatione quarundam
duarum Sessionum Iobbagionalium in Oppido Bereghszász in Cottu Beregh existentis
habitarum titulo novae Donationis eidem Nicolao Persey factae elarquitum."227
The text of the record of 1576 reads: "Kisfaludy Sophia Melchioris Pethey de KisPethe vidua Curiam in Possessione Isép Cottuqua Zempleniensi exist. habitam Nobili
Dorothea, filiae sua. Conjugi Francisci Isépy, aut ea dificiente Ursulae Prthey, aequae
Filiae suae, conjugi vero Balthasaris Kozmay perennaliter confert. Item eadem
Nominibus etiam dictarum filiarum Suarum, nec non Margarethae Sappy /could also be
Sárfy/ relicta Valentini Pethey prolium suarum /quae Sophia erat Consors Ambrosiis
55
Vidy/ Georgium Ludóczy ab Imperationis Praedii Kis-Pethe in Cottu Nógradiensi
existentis prohibent."228
The record of 1575, in Hungarian translation, makes note that Zsófia Kisfaludy,
widow of Menyhért Persey, urges the Convent at Lelesz to issue a document that shows
that Sebestyén, Ferenc and Andrés Isépy sold a manor house in the village of Izsép, to the
now deceased Miklós Persey, son of this petitioner. Furthermore, she requests the release
of two units of land (held in villeinage) that Miklós Persey received in the city of
Beregszász. According to the other record dated 1576 the same Zsófia Kisfaludy, widow
of Menyhért Petey of Kis-Pethe, wills her mansion at Izsép to her daughter Dorottya,
wife of Ferenc Isépy; or in case she died sooner, then to the other daughter Orsolya, wife
of Boldizsár Kozmay. At the same time, she prohibits her two daughters, as well as their
relatives, (noted each by name) from being allowed to raise any demands against the
"puszta" in County Nógrád.
We listed these contradictory records, in such detail and in their original Latin and
also in translation, drawing parallels between them word-by-word, because on an earlier
genealogical table Ferenc Isépy's wife is called Dorka Pethe. Even if we are not able to
clarify this issue from these texts; we must still consider the information recorded on the
family tree as erroneous, because the wife of Ferenc Isépy in all other documents is listed
as married for a second time to Ambrus Figey and a third time to Ferenc Várathky.
One of Sebestyén Isépy's wives - probably the second one - was Zsófia
Nyomarkay (daughter of Mihály Nyomarkay and Klára Bajory) who in 1613 was married
to Nagy, alias István Fekete. As early as 1616 she was mentioned in documents as
Istvánné Horváth.229 The sons of Sebestyén Isépy, Márkus and János, are called "fratres
carnales" (brothers born of different mothers) in documents. We do not know the name of
Sebestyén's first wife. We do not know of the wife of his brother András either.
The Convent at Lelesz, in 1574, gives an account of the installation of Imre
Bornemissza (alias Lökös de Csernek) into the ‘puszta'-s at Komár and Falucska-földe
that were purchased by him from Fábian Ruszka of Kelecsény. At the same time, the
Convent reports that Mihály Monoky, János Cseley; and András, Sebestyén and Ferenc
Isépy objected to the investiture into the property at Falucska-földe. The name of the
property is very similar to that of the Falucska 'puszta'. It is probable that this property
also belonged to Kis-Mihályi; and the families mentioned above wanted to regain it. The
result of their attempt is not known to us, as the matter of Falucskafölde 'puszta' does not
show up again anywhere in documents or records.230
In the year 1575, when the case against Ferenc Drugeth was decided in favor of
the Isépys, another more significant event occurred. Ferenc, Sebestyén and András
received the deed of donation for the properties at Izsép and Sóskút. Because of the allaround chaotic conditions of the time, it became absolutely necessary to have the king reconfirm property rights. Without such effective proof of ownership, remnants of the
ancient properties would become easy prey to overbearing "little kings". We can see this
from the Drugeth proceedings and later we experience it in the bullying land seizures of
the Dobó brothers, sons of the hero of Eger. On June 8, 1575, István Radéczy (viceregent and bishop of Eger) issued in the name of Emperor Miksa II, the Hungarian king, a
deed of gift at Eperjes. This document re-deeds the property, made up of 12 units of land
(held in villeinage) in the village of Izsép and on Sóskút 'puszta' (that according to the
wording of the document, had been the property of their ancestors since ancient times);
56
together with a building and manor house on it and a detailed list of all the chattels, to
Sebestyén, Ferenc and András Isépy for their useful and tested loyalty and services.231
Pursuant to the deed of gift, the above named were installed into the property by the
Convent at Lelesz.
Records dated 1575 recount Sebestyén Isépy's own bullying in the village of
Kelecsény. He, on a day not mentioned specifically, forced his way into the Kelecsény
joint manor house of the widow Istvánné Szabó and the widow Tamásné Kis and, for
reasons unknown to them, attacked Dénes Halmay of Halmaj (who had escaped from his
own property occupied by the Turks). Sebestyén Isépy even threatened the latter with his
life and wounded the other seriously on one of his hands. 232 Because of this Sebestyén
was summoned to court, and the royal court ordered him to pay a penalty.
We are aware of another violent act committed by Sebestyén Isépy, also in
Kelecsény. Mihályné Asguthy (Sára Kelecsényi) complained that he forced his way into
her country house in 1579 and there committed a violent act of some sort, not described
in detail in our source material.233
A 1580 record indicates Ambrus Isépy (Vicar of the friars of the Pálos Order at
Patak-Ujhely) was trusted by his supervisor, Prior István, and his friar colleagues; with an
assignment in the interest of the monastery.234 We can’t conclude from the notes whether
this member of the family was identical with the Ambrus, son of Miklós, who objected to
the sale in 1505 of the property at Berető. In 1506 that Ambrus sold his properties at
Izsép, Karós, Bereczke, Kismihály and Bogát to Zsigmond Berzenczey, commander of
the castle at Terebes, and his wife. We suspect these records do not refer to the same
person however, because the property-owning Ambrus was around 20 years old in 15051506. In 1580 he would have been 95 years old; at that age, if anyone happens to live
that long, he would not be fit to conduct official business. It is more likely that Ambrus,
the friar of the Pálos Order, was the son of the property-owning Ambrus and was named
after his father. It is worth remembering him with respect because he was the only
known member of the family who was a servant of the church; and we do not have any
reason to doubt that he, being loyal to his vow, exercised his duties diligently and with
total faith in God.
It is in 1581 that we first meet Péter Fekete who for the next ten years was the
cause of discord at Magyar-Izsép. The "iványi" or "nagyiványi" Fekete, alias Nagy
family, whose branch used the forename "Izsépi" for a while, was one of those families
who were forced out of their lands at Transdanubia by the Turks. They moved to Upper
Hungary; and there tried to establish their homes. It appears that this family succeeded in
saving a significant part of their moveable property and they were able to raise money, as
well, so that soon after they arrived in Zemplén County they were able to buy new lands.
Péter Fekete ended up at Magyar-Izsép, while the remainder of his family expanded in
Sáros County. By intermarrying with the ancient families of the county, they managed to
carve out a respectable position for themselves. Arriving at Izsép, Péter Fekete bought a
country-house at Csemegrész and two units of land (held in villeinage) from Sebestyén
Isépy who happened to be in urgent need of money just then.235 They made an agreement
in 1582 at the Convent of Lelesz, on the day of eve of the Apostle St. Jacob. “István
Mathisy, elected bishop of Csanád, imperial counselor, prepost [praspositus, or
praespositus] of the Convent of Lelesz, informs all those whom it may concern that on
the one part "Sebastianus Isepy de Eadem Isep", and on the other part "Petrus Fekete in
57
dicta Isep", appeared in person before him; at that time Sebestyén Isépy (in his own
name, as well as his children's: András and Márkus, and also in the name of Anna, wife
of Sándor Lasztóczi, and Zsófia, in addition the two children of his brother now
deceased, i.e. György and Eufrosina) declares and acknowledges that he sold two units of
land to Péter Fekete”. 236 However, when prince Miklós Báthory, state judge, ordered
the installation of Péter Fekete into the country-house at Csemegrész; András Isépy, son
of Sebestyén, and György (who was the son of the sister of the earlier deceased Ferenc)
objected.237 By then Sebestyén himself regretted this buy and sell deal, and tried to delay
handing over the units of land; as it appears Péter Fekete had not yet paid the whole
price.238 A quarrel arose from this, and it soon became so bitter that Péter Fekete turned
to the Convent of Lelesz for help. He brought another complaint against Sebestyén Isépy
because the latter intruded by force into Péter Fekete's house where he committed various
violent acts.239 Despite this, the conflict was successfully settled, and Péter Fekete gave
as security his own house at Izsép until he fully paid the purchase price.240
58
Péter Fekete
1517
Wife: Dóra Tarjány
István Nagy alias Fekete
Wife: Dóra Tibay
Wife:
István
Miklós
1. Judit
Berthoty
2. Zsófia
Nyomárkay
(previously wife of
Sebestyén Isépy) 1613
Albert 1568
László
János
Péter
1581-1619
Wife: Dóra
Hencsellőczy
Bajánházy
At Magyar-Izsép
János
Wife: N. Polhlázy
János
1618
Zsigmond
1708
Wife: Éva Keresztes of
Homokszentivány
László 1716
Wife: 1. Éva Izdenczey
2. Erzse Botka
From:1.: Gábor
Wife 1. Mária Tahy
2. Zsuzsánna Lovey
3. Klára Szomody
4. Klara Füzesséry
Zsófia
Hsbd: Janos Payzoss
Zsuzsanna
Hsbd: András
From 2:. László
Wife: Júlia Görgey
(daughter of Samuel
Gorgenyi and Bora
Miskolczy of Viso)
Isaák
László
Wife: Maria Stepan
László
Wife: Éva Balogh of
of Galántha
Gedeon
Borbála
Husbd: Ferenc Isepy
Pál 1822
From 1: Mária
Husbd: Tamás
Sárosy
Borbála
From 2: Zsuzsanna From 3: István
Hsbd: András
Wife: Klára
Tahy
Galambos
Gábor 1814
Péter
Wife: Krisztina
Lacsny
János
László 1816-96
Mária
Hsbd: Antal Zalán
It was in 1583 that the deed of gift of István Radéczy, bishop of Eger and imperial
governor, to Péter Fekete and János Koncz for a country house and five serf buildings at
Magyar-Izsép, as well as another country-house and nine units of land in Cserveg (that
belonged to Magyar-Izsép village), was recorded. These were the very same properties
that fell to the treasury [fiscura] after the death, without descendants, of Veronika Isépy
and her husband János Török of Lasztócz .241 In that same year Ferenc and Jakab, Istvan
Dobó's (the hero of Eger) sons, appear with demands for lands in the area of Upor
(obtained, from György Drugeth). At the same time they revived the quarrels relating to
the Perényi inheritance. They also laid claim to the properties at the so called Pap-rész,
Török-rész, Sóskut and Cserveg, wanting to occupy these under any cost.242
These two events again stirred up the situation at Izsép because the demands of
the Dobó brothers hit not only the Isépys, but also Péter Fekete. The deed of gift
59
received by Péter Fekete was quite unexpected for the Isépy family and they realized with
great disappointment that their ancient property, previously believed to be in the hands of
relatives, had ended up after all in the hands of total strangers. The Isépys protested
against the claims of the Dobó brothers.243 Sebestyén Isépy now became determined not
to part with lands that he had sold to Péter Fekete. Péter Fekete too raised objections
against Ferenc and Jakab Dobó having any rights to the deeded properties.244 In 1585
Péter Fekete had Sebestyén Isépy summoned to court because he was holding ploughlands by force at Izsép and Csörveg.245 This process was being dragged out in the courts
as late as 1588. During which time Péter Fekete also had Ferenc Isépy's son György and
his daughter Fruzsina, as well as their guardian and stepfather, summoned to court. In
1587 he brought additional accusations against them because they carried off the crop at
Cserveg.246
In 1588 István Báthory, state judge, made a decision on this complicated case
declaring that the disputed property of Veronika Isépy and her husband János Török of
Lasztócz should finally go to Péter Fekete and János Koncz, pursuant to the deed of gift
of István Radóczy, royal governor. On the other hand, he declined the claims, without
any possibility of appeal, of the Dobó brothers because Jakab had died in the meantime,
and Ferenc did not appear in court.247
With this decision the legal aspects of this case would have been concluded; but
Sebestyén Isépy was not prepared to release the occupied lands to Péter Fekete who then
turned to the King and Emperor Rudolf II and requested that a special enforcing edict be
brought against Sebestyén Isépy.248 At the same time, Péter Fekete raised another
accusation against Sebetyén Isépy, because the latter caused an almost life-threatening
wound to him by further violent actions.249
During these uncertain times in the country, Sebestyén Isépy made an agreement
in 1586 with Ferenc Rákóczy, Ferenc Binkóczy and Gáspár Varsády. They undertook
collateral assurance for each other and they committed themselves to pay blood money if
one of them got into trouble.250
Meanwhile Sebestyén Isépy also had conflicts within the family with Ambrus
Figendy, stepfather and guardian of the children of the deceased Ferenc Isépy. Ambrus
Figendy summoned Sebestyén Isépy to court in 1583. He alleged that Sebestyén
occupied by force Ferenc Isépy's son, György's, property, as well as his mill on the shore
of Helmecz Creek, his country house, and one of his serfs' houses.251 In 1591, however,
they came to an amicable agreement; and on that occasion Sebestyén Isépy had a new
mill built to replace the old mills. Those mills were the property of György Isépy and his
mother; and her daughters from a second marriage, one called Zsuzsánna and the other
Katalin Figedy. 252 In 1590, Sebestyén and András Isépy satisfied their older sister,
Fruzsina, wife of Albert Göenczler, by giving her the inheritance that was due to her.
According to a note dated 1586, János Isépy may have been the steward of the
court of István Radéczy, bishop of Eger, and Hungary's royal governor. Lacking
additional information, we are unable to prove that this János Isépy was identical to the
son of Sebestyén. It is likely that the János Isépy who performed familiar services for
Bishop Radéczy originated from the Bajor branch that ended up in the County of Sáros.
The Bishop of Eger had his seat in the Country of Sáros, in Eperjes, after being forced
out by the Turks.253
60
Because of the property at Falucska-puszta, Ilona Cseley, widow of István
Pozsgay, and Borbála, widow of András Farkas of Csörghő (who in the year 1551 were
mentioned as descendants of Lénárd Cseley) started an action in 1587 against Sebestyén
Isépy and Benedek Vizkelety. They stated that no matter how much they urged them to
hand over part of the "falucska" [hamlet] as their due (those lands were pawned by János
Cseley and his wife, Dorottya Hencselőczy, at Nagy Mihály some time ago), the latter
kept delaying. Sebestyén Isépy and Benedek Vízkelety had purchased that lien with
money Péter Monoky offered to Sebestyén Isépy. As it becomes clear eventually,
Sebestyén Isépy then sold this property to Péter Monoky.254 This property had to be
litigated back for the Isépy descendants from his widow.
The lawsuit started by the Cseley sisters went on for a long time without any
success, and the parties were forced to turn to the Emperor and King Rudolf II requesting
that new judges be appointed. Despite the lawsuits, the matter of the property at
"Falucska" [hamlet] ended not by legal methods, but in an amicable manner. Gáspár and
András Csörghői and the son of Borbála Cseley, in their last will dated 1609, left the
whole property at "Falucska" to the children of Sebestyén Isépy, namely: Márkus and
János, as well as to Judit (married to Benedek Farkas), and to Anna (Sándorné
Lasztóczy). Thanks to this last will, the lands at Falucska-puszta were returned to the
property of the Isépy family. These were lands that during times past time had ended up
in strangers' hands and that Gáspár Farkas of Csörghő grabbed or bought up gradually.
An exact copy of the last will of Gáspár Farkas of Csörghő dated 1609 appears to indicate
that he was trying to satisfy the wishes of his father, András Farkas of Csörghő, who as
early as 1601 meant to deed the property at "Falucska" in its entirety, and unselfishly, to
the children of Sebestyén Isépy. He hoped that, after his death, hatred and endless
bickering would not start between the Isépy descendants and his own.256. He showed
unusual generosity and wise foresight. Judit Isépy immediately had her 1/4 share of the
property at Falucska-puszta deeded to her husband Benedek Farkas, as a reward for his
help and expenses in regaining from István Kutassy and Margit Zokoly, widow of Péter
Monoky, the properties for András Farkas.257
The clan order of the family starting with György Isépy and his son László is:
György I Isépy
1508, 1520, 1539, 1551
Sebestyén Isépy
András Isépy
Wife: 1. N.N.
1568, 1570
2. Zsófia
1575
Nyomárkay
1553, 1560, 1564, 1570
1574, 1575, 1579, 1582, 1585,
1590, 1593, 1604
Ferenc I Isépy
Fruzsina Isépy
1570, 71, 75, 76 Hsbd: Albert
Wife: Dorottya
Göenczler
Persey of Maróth
1571, 75, 76
György II Isépy
1591, 1609
András Isépy
1604
János II Isépy
1586, 1604
1614, 1616
1620, 1636
Orsolya Isépy
Hsbd: Ambrus
Kasuhy
Fruzsina Isépy
1591
Zsófia Isépy Márkus III Isépy Judit Isépy
1582
1604, 1630, 1636 1609, 1616, 1635
Wife: Sára
Hsbd:
Fügedy
1.Benedek Farkas
2. Bálint Literaty
61
Anna Isépy
1609, 1616
Hsbd: Sándor
Lasztóczy
The Dobó brothers' aggressiveness had not come to an end with the decision of
the state judge. In 1591 Ferenc Dobó, who was lord lieutenant of the County of Borsod
at the time; illegally occupied forests that comprised the property of the Isépy family,
among them Boczó Forest (lying on the borderline of Izsép). This despotic behavior led
to legal actions for years. Although the judgment of the court favored Sebestyén Isépy, it
was not until 1593 that (because of Ferenc Dobó's delaying tactics) Ferenc Sztáray, subprefect, appeared on the scene representing Zemplén County, to personally enforce the
judgment. Even so the matter was not finally concluded before 1595.258
At the end of 1603 or the beginning of 1604, Sebestyén Isépy died. His sons
Márkus and János, who as we had already mentioned, were born of different mothers, on
March 28, 1604, divided up the inheritance left to them by their father.259 During his long
life Sebestyén Isépy proved a colorful character who in difficult times faithfully fought
for his family's happiness, and succeeded in restraining the wasting of the family
property. After his death, however, the gradual loss of properties started again. In 1604
Márkus once again pawned several units of land from the property at Izsép to János
Deak.260 He had already pawned his 1/4 part of the mill at Izsép to János Fekete. 261 In
1609 he sold his portion of Falucska-puszta to András Szabó, resident of Mihályi.262
András Isépy, his brother, for a reason unknown to them was not present at the division
of the property. About him we only know that, in 1604, he was carrying on a dispute
with Pál Misley regarding a pledged unit of land that was called "Gondolya István helye"
["Place of István Gondolya] that belonged to Izsep.263 In 1609 György, son of the now
deceased Ferenc Isépy (brother of Sebestyén) sold his portion of the Mihályi property to
Mihály Beőthy, for 200 forints.264.
In 1613, János Isépy gave a country house in Magyar-Izsép, to his mother, Zsófia
Nyomárkay (who after Sebestyén Isépy's death got married to István Nagy alias Fekete,
and became a widow again) together with Katalin Kényessy of Kényes, wife of Benedek
Veresmarthy. His brother, Márkus agreed to that in 1615.264 However, both brothers
protested against Benedekné Veresmarthy making any agreements regarding this country
house, in any way at all, with her half-brother, Boldizsár Kozmay, Jr.. These two
[Benedekné Veresmarthy and Boldizsár Kozmay, Jr.] were the children of Orsolya
Persey (sister-in-law of Ferenc Isépy) who was first married to the elder Boldizsár
Kozmay; the second time to Ambrus Kényessy litteratus; and the third time to János
Ibranyi. During the next year (1615) when Zsófia Nyomárkay got married the third time
(this time to István Horváth) her son János gave several units of land from the Izsép
property, for her use.266 Márkus and János, as good brothers should, satisfied their sisters
Judit (married to Benedek Farkas) and Anna (married to Sándor Lasztóczy) as well.267
The agreement made in Lelesz in 1582, even mentions Sebestyén's daughter Zsófia, who,
however, does not seem to be alive in 1616.
In 1618 the 30 Years War broke out. Gábor Bethlen, Prince of Transylvania, got
involved. On his way to the west, he marched through the counties of Upper Hungary;
and those surrendered to him, one after the other. We find two records from this time
relating to the Isépy family, both from the year 1620. In the first "Márkus Isépy applied
for having those goods given to him that were sequestered for the king because of the
disloyalty of János Isépy."268 The other informs us of the settlement of this matter thus:
"Prince Gábor Bethlen donates the goods sequestered on account of the disloyalty of
János Isépy, to his brother, Márkus."269 The question arises to whom was János Isépy
62
disloyal -- the crowned king, or Gábor Bethlen, the elected king of the country at the
time? As things stood, János Isépy could only be disloyal to the latter, as Gábor Bethlen
would have returned the properties to János if he had been loyal to him. It is difficult to
conclude too much from these two records; however, based on the fact that political
attitude was closely tied to religion in those days, one can surmise that the steadfast and
continued loyalty of János Isépy to the Roman Church went against Gábor Bethlen who
fought for Protestantism. This also argues the possibility that this János Isépy was after
all the steward of the (royal) household for Bishop Radéczy, royal governor. By this time,
his brother Markus had converted to the Protestant religion.
The marching of Gábor Bethlen to the west was likely the time period when, on
the basis of the principle "cuius regio, eius religio" [whose the region, his the religion],
members of the Isépy family converted to the reformed religion. They remain followers
of that religion to this day. We do not think it likely that the conversion happened
earlier, because in the second half of the XV century (when the Protestant expansion was
at its highest), Ambrus, the friar member of the family, probably guarded dutifully and
with suitable alertness that his family would not leave the ancient religion. In 1628 János
Isépy was again in ownership of his lands; because it was in this year that he shared the
inheritance left by their mutual mother, Zsófia Nyomárkay, with his half-brothers János
Fekete, with György Horváth and also with Anna.270
On May 20, 1629, Márkusné Isépy, as well as her sons Mihály and András,
mortgage their property at Mihályi to András Szabó for 27 and 1/2 forints. This is the
same András Szabó to whom Márkus in 1609 sold his inheritance at Falucska.271 In 1634
András Bernáth, resident of Kazsu, passed the chattels at Miglész (received from Mihály
Isépy as liens) to János Rákóczy.272 We do not know Márkus Isépy's year of death, but
we do not hear of him in 1629 when his wife and sons pawned the Mihályi property.
However, his sons share out his property among themselves as late as 1655 so he may
have survived to then.
Conflicts, some bigger, some smaller, are frequent among relatives and neighbors
during this time; these could turn into quarrels, and later into legal actions. In 1635 János
Csertész i Jobbos began a lawsuit against Judith Isepy because she gave shelter
repeatedly to an escaped serf of the complainant.273. She by this year is mentioned as the
widow of Bálint Literáty. Albert Csathó of Also-figed, (guardian of Ilona, daughter of
the former Anna Fekete of Izsép) in 1636, summons to court the clan at Magyar-Izsép;
János and András Isépy, Pál Petróczy, János László, Mátyás and Miklós Thassy, András
Misley, and also Erzsébet Csakánfy (first married to István Gerőcz, then to Benedek
Gaál). He claimed that they divided up the crop quota of the serfs among themselves
without including the complainant, although he, too, had two country houses at Izsép and
therefore part of the crop would have been due to him. The court of justice of Zemplén
County agreed that Albert Csathó, the complainant, was right, as none of the defendants
appeared at the trial.274
Mihály Isépy (son of Márkus Isépy and Sára Figedy), who is mentioned with a
forename "bacskói" [of Bacskó] in some documents, died some time before 1640. His
first wife was Zsófia Kozmay, and his second Katalin Pelejthey of Pelejte who after the
death of her husband got married to Kristóf Pálóczi Horváth (at other times called
Perlaki).275 Boldizsár Kozmay, brother of Zsófia Kozmay let half of the country house at
Magyar-Izsép to his sister and brother-in-law to use as their residence.276 At the same
63
time István Kozmay (probably the third brother) pawned the other half of that same
country house to Mihály Isépy277 who, after the death of his first wife, remained with his
second wife there. However, after Mihály Isépy died, Mihály Bornemissza, who called
himself "frater generationalis", protested that the second wife of Mihály Isépy, by now
his widow, should not keep the country house as her inheritance.278 The litigation
regarding this country house went on for almost ten years. Finally in 1649 the parties
came to an agreement. This fact is worthy of note, because we learn from it that Anna
Isépy of Batskó (daughter of Mihály I Isépy and Katalin Pelethey) is the wife of István
Bornemissza of Nagy-Komencze. He represented the opposite party in the dispute possibly the son of Mihály - and assists not only in the division of his wife's properties at
Izsép and Gálszécs, but also readily lets the country house to his mother-in-law and her
second husband, Kristóf Horváth; the very country house that was the subject of such
long drawn out litigations.279.
The relationship through marriage of the Isépy and Persey descendants is shown
on the following table:
a) Márkus III. Isepy
1604, 1620
Wife: Sára Fügedy
András III. Isépy
1652, 1655, 1690
Ferenc II. Isépy
1652, 1655
before 1681
Wife: Anna
Horváth
Mihály I. Isépy
(used forename "from Batskó")
before 1640
Wife: 1. Zsófia Kozmay
(daughter of Orsolya Persey)
2. Katalin Pelejthey
(2nd hsbd: Kristóf Pálóczi/Perlaki
Horváth)
From 2nd: Anna
Husbd: István Bornemissza
of Nagy-Komencze, 1649
b) Menyhért Persey
Wife: Zsófia Kisfaludy, 1575
Miklós Persey
before 1575
Dorottya Persey 1575
Husbd: 1. Ference Isépy
2. Ambrus Figedy
3. Ferenc Varatskay
From 1.: György II. Isépy and Fruzsina;
1591
1591
From 2: Zsuzsanna and Katalin Figedy
1591
1591
Orsolya Persey 1575
Hsbd: 1.the elder
Boldizsár Kozmay
2. Ambrus Kényessy
3. János Ibrányi
From 1.: Boldizsár, István and Zsófia;
Hsbd: Mihály Isépy de
Batskó before 1640
From 2: Katalin Kényessy
As we had noted before, we do not have data about the time of Márkus Isépy's
death. His sons, András and Ferenc (who were the only two still alive after his death)
divided their father's bequest on February 8, 1655. The heirs "explain in their letter to all
those concerned that they made their agreement for the division of the property (into their
respective shares) at Isép, County of Zemplén, in true brotherly fashion.280
64
In 1652 András and Ferenc Isépy prohibited the residents of Magyar-Izsép,
whether noble or not, from utilizing the so-called Boczó forest for their own purposes.281
The prohibition was mainly directed at the Petróczy family who appear to be the main
advocate for the universal requisitioning of this forest. The Isépy brothers insisted on
their rights because the Boczó forest had been an ancient property of the family, and thus
its returns would be exclusively theirs; and they would permit only their own serfs to use
the advantages of the forest, such as planting new trees, beech-masting, oak-apple and
fruit gathering. It is easy to imagine that at a time when general conditions were
deteriorating, prohibitions were not heeded and because supervision became more lax;
everyone, noble or not, would keep going to the forest. These same people would even
consider it offensive that the owners finally started to take better care of their property.
A long-drawn lawsuit resulted from the prohibition on the use of the forest;
among the noble property owners of Magyar-Izsép, several got involved: Pál Misley and
Zsuzsanna, wife and later widow of Pál Petróczy, further Mária Csathó, wife of Benedek
Palásthy, as well as, János and Borbála Gerőcz, all of whom argued that they had the
same right to use the Boczó forest as the Isépys (who they claimed expropriated it for
their exclusive use).282 As early as 1622 this matter was in one or another court;
however, the idea of the forest being public property could not be successful argued
because of lack of legal basis. In the registry book of the Rákóczy estate, titled "Urbarium
Possessionum", in the description of Magyar-Isép in 1689 there is a separate note
regarding the Boczó forest. That record states that the forest is the due of only the Isépy
family and those who are obvious descendants, or who came by it through a lien.283
Beside the lawsuit originating from the use of Boczó forest, there is one more
record from these years worth mentioning. According to that András and Ferenc Isépy
together with the consort (of a reigning prince) Zsuzsanna Lorántfy (widow of reigning
prince György I. Rákoczy) protested, in 1695, against two other property owners, István
Bozvay and Pál Katona, for their illegal expropriation of lots not named in particular.284
However, we found no further data regarding details of this matter or its follow-up
development. Researching in the Rákóczy-Aspremonth archives, we found a receipt
dated March 8, 1667 on which a certain individual called György Bartók acknowledges
that he received first 20, then another 5 forints as loan from Ferenc Isépy. András Isépy
(brother of Ferenc), being one of the witnesses, signed the receipt.285 It is at the same
place that we find a note that in 1668, the consort (of a reigning prince) Zsófia Báthory,
widow of György II. Rákóczy, complained that Ferenc Isépy gave shelter to a few
escaped serfs from the village of Upor belonging to the borsi estate.286
After the discovery of the Wesselényi conspiracy, the patriotic nobility in Upper
Hungary were exposed to the greatest persecution. That was made worse by the Counterreformation that used political pressure and all kinds of other methods to reinstate the
respect and power of the Roman Church in the country.
In the State Archives a record, dated 1671, lists 222 noblemen from Szatmár,
Bereg, Zemplén, Ung and Ugocsa as participants in secret gatherings. These were
suspected of disloyalty or were considered open rebels; furthermore, their names were
kept on file by both the treasury and the Chapter of Eger, as Calvinist and Lutheran
heretics.287 Ferenc Isépy's name is on the copy of the list attached here. And his name
also appears in a treasury's investigative letter issued in 1672, in which he and 19 others
were suspected of being confirmed Calvinists; using abusive language at the royal
65
dignity, the Catholic religion, and generally at Catholics and their priests. They also
made belittling remarks about the same and forced their way into the repossessed church
at Nagy-Kázmér, holding secret gatherings there.288 On the basis of such events, Ferenc
Isépy was arrested and imprisoned. His daughter, Anna Isépy (wife of Bálint Hadry)
turned every stone to have his father released and she offered a high ransom in exchange
for his freedom. Having lived in Sirokán, in the County of Sáros, she sought support
among the relatives of her husband, and finally she received a loan of 1000 forints from
Gábor Kapy, lord of Kapivár, for the release of her father. She also pledged her father's
lands at Izsép in exchange for his freedom.298 Whether this pledge agreement extended
to the whole property, is impossible to accurately confirm from the records. However, in
later years when the lien given to the Kapys was already in the hands of the Izdenczy
brothers, the descendants of Anna Isépy still owned lands at Magyar-Izsép. Ferenc Isépy,
however, could not enjoy for long his freedom, that his daughter worked so hard to
secure for him, because in 1681 we do not find him among the living. András Isépy,
brother of Ferenc Isépy, raised his voice against his brother's lands being pawned to
Gábor Kapy. Ferenc Isépy called his sisters, Anna and Mária, that they should act
towards freeing the property from this mortgage.290 He also warned that Gábor Kapy
should not be allowed to purchase the property outright.
This warning, however proved to be impracticable for the time being, partly
because they lacked the funds necessary to redeem the pawned lands, but also because
the contract made in the Kapy castle on October 18, 1678 was binding for them. That
contract secured the use of the property for Gábor Kapy for a specified time period. This
fact is emphasized in the document issued by the County of Sáros in 1690. Therein
Gábor Kapy declares that he has full right to the property of Ferenc Isépy because of the
1000 forints loaned for the release of Ferenc Isépy from prison.292
Despite all this, after a short while Gábor Kapy released from pawn a section of
the property at Magyar-Izsép, which was due to Mária Isepy, wife of Ferenc Banó. His
right of pledge that would be due to Anna Isépy he, however, passed on to Márton
Izdenczy, commander of the castle at Tokaj, and his wife, Borbála Horváth.293
After the death of her first husband, Balint Hedry, Anna Isépy came to very
difficult circumstances. Her husband's relatives drove her out of her home in Siroka. She
was forced to flee from their persecution and harassment. She herself complains that
deprived of all her possession, she was forced to take shelter with strangers; and as she
did not have sufficient money to redeem her goods and chattels, she had to secure a
permanent lodging somehow for herself. She turned to her relatives, Márton Izdenczy
and his wife, Borbála Horváth - who owned a 1/2 serfs lot on their puszta at Siroka and
she requested that they would pass that to her for her use. On February 3, 1703, the
Contractus of Komló came into being at the Izdenczy countryseat. There Anna Isépy
(now married to János Paxy) repeated in all its detail the contract that was made in 1678
at the Kapi castle, when in addition to the 700 forints received from Gábor Kapy in
exchange for the puszta at Siroka, she received an additional 200 forints from him,
thereby further burdening the property at Izsép with a mortgage. She re-stated, very
emphatically, the deadline and the methods of redeeming that property from the lien.294
András, together with his brother Ferenc, was suspected of disloyalty. He,
however, was able to clear his name relatively quickly because the Chamber of Szepes in
1672 ordered the return of his earlier seized goods and chattels.295
66
In the archives of the Convent at Lelesz there are three documents, dated 1679
and 1680 that obviously relate to the family; however, we were not able to fit the Isépys
mentioned into the family tree. Some members of the family, in the future, would
probably be able to establish - after a thorough local search - the genealogical relationship
with those. In one of these documents, Ference Isépy, in the name of his son János (born
from Erzsébet Szénássy) protested solemnly against the fact that Miklós Scrobak had had
opened, without permission and knowledge of the Chamber of Szepes, the sealed will (in
Notaria hac Lelesziensi) deposited by the now deceased Rebeka Szénassy at Lelesz (in
the document: "cistas nobiles).296 According to the second document, László Szénassy,
the widow Miklósné Szénássy, i.e. Anna Makray; the widow Istvánné Tolnay, i.e.
Rebeka Szénássy; and the widow Ferencné Isépy, i.e. Erzsébet Szénássy; summoned as
witnesses to the district administrators and jurors in September 18, 1680, testified in
unison that neither the former Pál Szénássy, nor his son (the above named László
Szénássy) together with the now deceased Rebeka Szénássy Sr., older sister of Pál, were
party to the sharing of the formers' properties.297 The third document, originating from
1680, is a friendly agreement; pursuant to it the now deceased János Isépy's under age
granddaughter Mária (who was born of Mária Szentpétery and husband István, son of
János Isépy, who in turn was the son of the grandfather and his wife Margit Péter) will
inherit together with the Tatay sisters and brothers. The possessions to be shared were
properties in the Counties of Szatmár, Abaujvár, Borsod and Zemplén, as well as, various
movable properties.298
N. Szénássy
Pál Szénássy
László Szénássy
1680
Miklós Szénássy
Wife:
Anna Makray
1680, a widow
Rebeka Szénássy Sr.
Rebeka Szénássy Jr.
Hsbd:
István Tolnay
1680
Erzsébet Szénássy, 1680 a widow
Hsbd: Ferenc Isépy
Erzsébet Petri Szénássy, a noble woman
Hsbd:
1. Miklós Szentpétery
2. Mihály Jászay
3. János Pap
Children: from the 1.: Mária Szentpétery
Hsbd: János Isépy
(father: István, mother: Margit Péter)
Mária Isépy
(1680, under age)
Margit Péter
Hsbd:
1. István Isépy
2. István György
3. János Szikszay
4. Jakab Alistály
From the 1.: János Isépy
Wife: Mária Szentpétery
From the 4: Jakab Alistály Jr.
Mária Isépy (in 1680 under-age)
Mihály
Mihály Tatay
Mária
Zsuzsánna
Sámuel Tatay, guardian in 1680
Erzsébet
67
We have not found a connection either with György Isépy, against whose wife,
Rachel Asztalos, together with her sister Mária Asztalos (wife of Mihály Wiczmandy); an
enforcement was ordered at Deés in 1665.299 This György Isépy was supposedly
identical with the György Isépy who is mentioned, in 1709, as a fugitive from Erdély
[today's Transylvania].300 However, we do not have any further information on the latter.
The Asztalos family was supposedly also called Ecsedy; and they later settled in the
County of Zemplén and are possibly identical with a family of the same name who still
live there.301
The Rákóczy estate's record books (Urbarium Possessionum) on matters relating
to serfs, and Borsi, throw a detailed light upon the land and socage questions at MagyarIzsép in the second half of the XVII century. Those record books contain the following
information on the village of Magyar-Izsép in 1689:302
Landowners at Magyar-Izsép: György and Mihály Isépy, sons of András, they
own 4 units of land held in villeinage and 1/2 puszta lot.
Further: Zsigmond Fekete, Ference Horváth and Ferenc Balogh, are inheritors of
the Isépy property through the female line. Among these, Zsigmond Fekete owns 6 units
of land (held in villeinage) and 5 puszta lots, Ferenc Horváth does not have serfs, there is
only one serf who lives in his court.
Pál Petróczy, Benedekné Palásthay and Jánosné Posta, the three of them own one
manor house, as they say, with "pura statucio" [clearly stated = clear title].
In addition, land owners at Magyar-Izsép are: György Cseley, whose portion is
pawned to Zsigmond Fekete and is included in a number of the above noted lots; Ferenc
or Lord Ferenc owning 1/2 unit of land (held in villeinage) and László Szobonya owning
2 units of such land, both Cseley inheritors.
Lien holders: Gábor Kapy owns 6 total and 7 puszta units of land, which were
Ferenc Isépy's serfs and pusztas. Ferenc Isépy's beneficiaries were his two daughters,
Ferencné Bano and the other Ferencné Frido. (The latter name is hardly legible and it is
incorrect in any case because Anna Isépy's first husband was Bálint Hedry, and after his
death, János Paxy.)
The record mentions, word-by-word, that there is also the forest called Bocsó as a
"Property", and states only three people own it; those are Gábor Kapy, Zsigmond Fekete
and György Isépy, and when the forest grows acorns only those three people can drive
their pigs there to feed. “Some say it was Dobó who would have given it to the Isépy
family”. (It becomes clear on this occasion that events occurring not so long ago can
remain in common knowledge in a very distorted form.)
The bridge-toll in the village was divided among the landowners in the following
way: two parts went to the Rákóczy estate, the third part to the rest of the land-owners
who then divided it up according to their estates. Until then the chief court of the village
was regulated thus: for two consecutive years it was the Rákóczy estate, in the third year
Ferenc Isépy and the fourth András Isépy's descendants were appointed judges. However,
after the number of serfs of the Rákóczy estate gradually but substantially decreased over
time, in subsequent disputes, official emissaries of the County of Zemplén regulated the
appointment of judges. Accordingly, one year it was a person representing the Rákóczy
orphans, the next year it was Gábor Kapy, in the third György Isépy and in the fourth
68
Zsigmond Fekete who were appointed judges. In 1689 the Rákóczys owned only four
units of serf land (held in villeinage) in the village of Magyar-Izsép.
The Rákóczy estate's book of Urbarium Possessionum also recorded that the mill
between the villages of Upor and Isztáncs belonged to the Isépy family.
The waves of the Wesselényi conspiracy hardly settled, when a new danger
threatened the nobility of Northern Hungary: that is the suspicion of participating in the
Thököly uprising. The Treasury hurried to brand everyone in easy reach as traitors so
that they could put their hands on the respective landowner's properties. In 1690, the
Treasury started an investigation against András Isépy, Péter Dely and János Posta,
among whom Dely owned lands at Kolbása (half of that was leased by András Isépy, the
other half by György Sepsi). As we know András Isépy owned a country seat and lands
at Magyar-Izsép; it was now his son, György, who was running it. János Posta, however,
owned no real property at all. The Treasury confiscated András Isépy's property at
Magyar-Izsep.303 A group investigation was started by the magistrates and jury of the
County of Zemplén; György Isépy appeared before them and declared in their presence
that his father had never had any contact, whatsoever, with the rebellious Tököly.304 His
brother Mihály turned, at the same time, to the Chamber of Szepes so that based on the
proofs he presented they could urge the release of the seized property.305 The Chamber
of Szepes, in 1690, ordered the release of the property, because they themselves realized
that András Isépy, who in the meantime had died, could not have been a rebel as he was
by then around 90 years old and had lost his eyesight. He was certainly unsuitable for
warfare. He could not have been in contact with Tököly; instead he remained peacefully
at home where he passed quietly away, in very old age.306 Thus in 1690, György and
Mihály Isépy were able to get back the seized property from the Chamber of Szepes,
through the intervention of János Berzeviczy, financial administrator of Varanno.307
The Treasury’s process regarding confiscated properties was to quickly dispose of
them, i.e. if a buyer appeared, they would sell immediately; otherwise they would lease
the lands to reliable people. Knowing this, the Chamber of Szepes gave instructions to
Imre Revizky, the financial administrator of Újhely, on July 9, 1691, instructing him to
sell certain properties that the Treasury had seized in the Rady area; and, in case no
suitable buyer appeared, to lease them to the noble lady Csereyné, and to György Isépy
and also to György Sepsy because they were worthy of it.308 During the same year
György Isépy and György Sepsy requested that the Chamber of Szepes let them have the
"Petróczy" property at Magyar-Izsép for 150 Hungarian forints, and the "Dely" property
at Kolbása for wheat worth around 100 forints.309
Following the liberation of that part of the country previously under the Turkish
yoke, internal order and security of rights gradually were restored. The consequence of
this was also the so-called "investigatio" of the nobility, i.e. verification of their nobility,
and at the same time, the preparation of a general census of the same. There were many
who thought it their due to exercise their noble rights, but they could not prove their
nobility in any way, as their documents were lost during those troubled times.
Committees were created with the responsibility to restore order. In the nobles'
registration in 1709, among those who were on the list registered as nobles, were György
and Mihály Isépy, registered at Magyar-Izsép, another Mihály Isépy at Tarcal. Further,
in the County of Zemplén documents of investigation, dated 1711, a note of noble origin
(potior nobilitas) of Mihály Isépy de Eadem was verified without a doubt by the
69
appointed country judge and jurors.310 They do not mention the brother, György, so he
could not have been alive at the time. His inheritors divided up his estate in 1713; and
his widow, Mária Petróczy, then married the nobleman János Villám.311
There is no way we could fit Mihály Isépy, resident of the village of Tarcal, into
the Isépy family tree. György Isépy and his wife Anna Thuróczy belonged to the
immediate kinship of Mihály. According to a note, the county's judges and jurors sold
their house at Tarcal for 142 forints, to nobleman György Schwameder and his wife,
Anna Besáderen.312 It appears that the Isepy family of Magyar-Izséep questions the
nobility of those at Tarcal. In reply, the latter must have requested from the king a letter
patent of nobility, that was issued on May 21, 1719, to György Isépy, his wife Anna
Thuróczy and also their son György and daughter Judit, as decided in Luxenburg, by
King Károly III. It emphasized in the Armalis text the unquestionable ancient noble
origin of György Isépy.313 It is curious that the interested parties' name is mentioned as
"Isepe" in the letter patent of nobility.
The division of property left by György Isépy at Magyar-Izsép was accomplished
on June 19, 1713 between János Isépy, Borbála Isépy (wife of László Vékey), further
István Ormos of Csertész, as guardian of the minor child Ferenc, son of the former Zsófia
Isépy, as well as, the guardian of Mária Isépy, minor child of Mária Petróczy (now
married to János Villám) and her now deceased first husband.314
In this document, a former division of property is cited that left one half to Mihály
Isépy, the other half of the countryseat went to János Isépy as a male inheritor, together
with lands that belonged to it and all other emoluments. The only condition was that
because of his privileged share he is to compensate the other three inheritors in other
ways.
They agreed with their mother Mária Petróczy how to divide the property
acquired in common, naturally including the investment of their father in the property of
the widow Mária Petróczy at Kolbása during their years of living together.
To cover the costs of upbringing, clothing and arranging the marriage of the
minor child Mária Isépy, as well as, for her inheritance; she received a vineyard lying on
the promontory, called Poklos, around the borderline of Szeg and the half country seat at
Bodrogkeresztúr together with the lands that belonged to it and all other emoluments.
The father of Ferenc Ormos, orphan of the former Zsófia Isépy, bought the whole
property of János Szomlyú, who lived in Magyar-Izsép, together with a serf and his two
sons, the lot and whatever belonged to it; all this instead of the inheritance at Sóskut.
János Isépy, however, ended up owing from the lands around the countryseat "for one
ploughland of three butts' size [i.e. two parts were cultivated while one part remained
fallow in each season], for another the same size, and for the third, ploughland of four
butts' size and a quartal part, meaning a Kassa butt [butt or vat = 25 gallons] under that."
(Hungarian text is a word for word citation from the original land document.).*
* Old Hungarian land size measurements, difficult to translate into English.
Borbála Isépy, wife of László Vékey, received the part made up of two plots and
two "quartal" of lands at Füged, County of Abaúj: those lots came from the former
György Isépy's inheritance there.
The other piece of land, the vineyard at Poklos, on the promontory of Szeg, was to
be equally divided between János and Borbála Isépy. The Isépy mill remained undivided
70
property of János Isépy, but on condition that he assures free milling work for the other
inheritors. The free use of Boczó Forest and all other forests and meadows, not listed so
far, and the border areas were maintained for all inheritors; including the half land at a
location called Büd in the County of Abauj.
On January 7, 1723, the Izdenczy brothers, namely János, Imre and István,
divided the goods and chattels at Magyar-Izsep left for them by their parents, and the
estate of Ferenc Isépy passed on to them by a lien, originally let to their father by Gábor
Kapy, and later renewed by the Komlósi Contractus ( Contract made at Komlós ).315 The
fourth kin (a sister), named Éva Izdenczy, did not receive land; she was, however,
compensated by 1000 forints cash.
This land document sadly reflects the clan displacement of the inhabitants of
Magyar-Izsép during the Turkish occupation. When listing in detail all the units of land
held in villeinage, as was the custom, besides mentioning the current inhabitants' names,
it lists the original inhabitants whose names remained in common usage. The early
inhabitants' names were: Benda Sárkány, Mihály Sárkány, Mihály Nagy, Gergely Tóth,
György Szomjú, János Keskeny, István Puha, Mihály Kovács, the old Mihály Bodnár,
Mihály Jámbor, Pál Lengyel, Lószló Tóth, Ádám Orosz, Pál Kesskettő, Miklós Varga,
István Bába, M. Pelyes. The names of the new ones were: Stepanovszki, Brezovszki,
Voitko, Koleszár, Hudák, Tupicsovka, Muslenka, Szlovják és Kasketovszki. These are
sad proof of the Hungarians' withdrawal southward.
In 1723 it appeared that one could fear renewed demands on once settled matters.
A "pro memoriam" [reminder] type of note by János Isépy remained for us in which he
clarifies the property rights of the lands at Magyar-Izsép and Sóskut and also his position
in opposition to the Perényi-estate at Terebes; with the following written proofs:
1) The installation document of Sebestyén and György Isépy into the properties
at Izsép and Sóskut, issued by the Convent of Lelesz in 1586;
2) Letter of safe-conduct of Emperor and King Miksa II, written to János Rueber
of Fixendorf, Captain General of Kassa, on account of the harassments of Ferenc
Homonnai-Drugeth in 1571;
3) A newer Deed of Gift issued in 1575 in the presence of István Radéczy,
Bishop of Eger and His Majesty Royal Governor, to Sebestyén, Ferenc and András Isépy,
with reference to the properties at Izsép and Sóskut.
As, however there is no trace, whatsoever, of any attempts to enforce the rights of
the Perényi by now, János Isépy's worries proved groundless.
On September 19, 1727, György Isépy and Mária Petróczy's inheritors: János
Isépy, Ferencené Ormos, Borbála Isépy (married to László Vejey) and Mária Isépy make
a division again; and they confirm that division by a [Contactualis…] land title document
issued in the presence of István Szepsy and Ferenc Chernel. It is unfortunate that only
fractions of this agreement remain for posterity: and it is exactly the missing fractions
that would be most useful; therefore it is now impossible to verify to what extent this
influenced the 1713 division. However, based on the fact that the agreement was made in
Kolbása, a property of Mária Petróczy, and that she herself was no longer present, one
can deduce that the division came about because of her death and on account of her
estate. Thus, the division of the paternal inheritance of 1713 continues to be valid.317
Borbála Isépy (married to László Vékey) also owned a house at Sátoralja-Uj-hely that
71
was pawned to János and Jakab Sebők. In 1731 she took this matter to court in order to
get the property released.318
At the division of 1713, from the estate of György Isépy, father of Lászlóné
Vékey, in the County of Abauj; the lands at Felső-Fügöd became property of the Isépy
family, probably through the predecessors of the former András Isépy and András Nagy,
or even further back, through Markus Isepy's wife, the ancestor Sára Fügedy. Borbála's
father Mihály Isépy has already taken his share, by an earlier division. The estate at
Felső-füged, including all the properties, was one whole and one puszta unit of land held
in villeinage. Of those, two were converted into noble manor houses and a lot about the
size of half a manor house, purchased by András Nagy from Demeter Fügedy. Of the
inherited property Borbála Isépy, in agreement with her uncle Mihály, pawned three units
of land to István Szirmay Jr. Further, Dorkó Keresztes, widow of András Nagy willed a
manor house (bought from Demeter Fügedy) to the Bakony family. The fourth unit of
land named Molnárhely she willed to a preacher called Mathócsay, and through him it
went to the Dőrys, and in 1736 it became the property of the Ternyey family.319
Borbála Isépy (married to László Vékey) made available her share of the property
for purchase and sold it to István Szirmay. However, the whole family of Mihály Isépy
contested this jointly and severally, including his wife Borbála Nyomarkay and his
daughters, namely Éva, married to István Urbán, and Zsófia, the latter Ferencné
Kozma.320
András III Isépy
Born: around 1600
+ 1690
Wife: N… N…
György III Isépy
+ around 1711
Wife: Mária Petróczy
Daughter of Pál Petróczy and Ilona Mérges
daughter is the wife of
"nobleman" János Villám
+ around 1727
János IV Isépy
1713, 1723, 1727, 1749
Wife: Erzsébet Lentes
of Pelejthe
Zsófia Isépy
1713 already +
Hsbd: István Ormos
of Csertész
Mihály II Isépy
1690, 1709, 1736
Wife: Borbála Nyomárkay
Eva Isépy 1736
Husbd: István Urbán
Borbála Isépy
Hsbd: László
Vékey of Eadem
Zsófia Isépy 1736
Husbd: Ferenc Kozma
Mária Isépy
1713 still single
Hsbd: István Tóth
István Keczer Lipóczi, canon of Nagyvárad in 1737, collected from György Isépy
and his fellow debtor the amount of 105 forints that they owed him.321 However, this
debt, in all probability became the burden of György Isépy of Tarcal, because in the Isépy
family of Magyar-Izsép only János' son, György, was alive. He was 17 years old in 1737
and thus was too young to be involved in borrowing money. It appears that Keczer liked
to lend monies: we find him again in the last will of András Rákóczy, the last male
descendent of that noble family. A. Rákóczy made an arrangement to satisfy his debt to
István Keczer of Lipócz, by now grand provost of Nagyvárad.322
In 1742 we find in the record books of the market town of Tarczal, the abovementioned György Isépy, in the following entry:
"I, the undersigned, inform all those concerned, that on the territory of the markettown of Mező-Tarczal the Rétyi estate at the borders of those meadowlands (at present
72
not in use) of the Honorable noble Sándor Muraközy; go to, for consideration of the very
Honorable General Sándor Károlyi, and also other successive officers; for their use; thus
with the permission of the noble Sándor Muraközy and also myself, we agreed peacefully
to the above. I, as well as, the above-mentioned gentlemen issued this cautionary epistle.
Tarczal, the 22nd day of June, 1741. György Isépy, m.p.L.S.323 ["By his own hand"] and
the certification of the document.
György Isépy of Tarczal may have been the Respondent before a tribunal of
Zemplén County during a trial held in 1747 in which Zsigmond Bernáth of Bernáthfalva
accuses him of aggressive behavior. The same also took offence regarding the sales-deal
of a vineyard at Tarczal.324 According to these records it was clearly György Isépy, Sr.
who was one of the litigating parties; that adjective couldn't possibly refer to the merely
27 year old György Isépy of Magyar-Izsép.
Also in 1747, András Bánó of Lucska, had his relative György Isépy of MagyarIzsép investigated, because the latter together with Ferenc Balogh and Ferenc Kozma had
the pigs of András Bánó's wife, Ilona Tahy, herded to an unknown location.325 Ilona
Tahy, the former wife of Ferenc Bánó, was the granddaughter of Mária Isépy.
The descendants of the daughters of Ferenc Isépy came to an agreement, the last
day of September 1733; and they divided (among themselves) their inheritance at
Magyar-Izsép and Sóskut. Those who participated were: Klára Bánó, Julianna Divinyi of
Meléthe, Ferenc Pallay, Gábor Fekete, László Fekete, Zsuzsanna Fekete, András Iszák,
Imre Bánó and István Rozgonyi.326
Also in 1733, Imre Bánó of Lucska along with his cousin Julia Divinyi of
Meléthe, (daughter of Klára Bánó and wife of István Rozgonyi) petitioned the orphan's
court of Zemplén County; and because that brought no success, in 1741 they protested at
the court of justice. The reason for their petition was that their relative Ference Pallay
had taken over several parts of the properties at Magyar-izsép and Sóskut; and he
attempted to possess those although they were not his due.327 János Izdenczy joined their
protest; emphasizing that Ferenc Pallay not only did not want to return the illegally taken
properties but claimed as an excuse that his ancestors were rightfully given them by Julia
Rakoczy328; therefore he has full right to occupy or sell them. Imre Bánó and Julia
Divinyi refuted this baseless claim by stating that the above-mentioned properties were
given to Ferenc Isépy much earlier by Zsuzsánna Lorántffy, consort of the reigning
prince, for his loyal services to Ferenc Rákóczy.329 Meanwhile during the course of the
litigations, Erzse Botka, second wife of László Fekete (the first one being Éva
Izdenczey), as well as his true and adopted children: Gábor Fekete, Zsuzsánna Fekete
(wife of András Isaák) and László Fekete joined Ferenc Pallay. A court decision in 1748
obliged Ferenc Pallay to return the illegally obtained goods and chattels. The court
considered valid the agreement made between the parties in 1733 in Eperjes.330
73
Ferenc Bánó of Lucska
Wife: Mária Isépy
Klára Bánó
Hsbd: N. Divinyi of Meléthe
Imre Bánó
Julia Divinyi of Meléte
Hsbd: István Rozgonyi
Borbála Bánó
Hsbd: Ádám Tahy of
Tahrváry and Tarko
(Son of Ferenc Tahy and
Kata Retsky)
Ilona Tahy
Hsbd: 1. András Bánó
2. Sebő Saárossy
After the famous Pozsony Parliament of 1714, Hungarians hurried to Empress
Mária Terézia to help. Mihály and János Isépy contributed two well-equipped cavalry
into the established army that brought so much glory to the Hungarians during the
Austrian War of Succession in 1714.331
From 1743 on, it was the young György Isépy (who must have finished his
studies around this time) who, in place of his father, started taking care of various matters
for the family. His father János Isépy, and other relatives such as Ferenc Ormos (who was
an in-law of his father) and László Vékey also gave irrevocable power of attorney to the
young man.332 He represented his father when he started legal action against the widow
Istvánné Molnár, Mária Vida and her daughter Sára (married to András Nádasdy)
because they offended Zsófia Isépy, daughter of János and the sister of György, with
insulting language.333
In the beginning of 1749 János Isépy died. According to data available, his
inheritors, on April 20th of that year, divided into three equal parts the meadow lands on
the border of Magyar-izsép and Sóskut.334 This was witnessed by András Isaák and
Ferenc Kozma. No record remains of the division of the rest of the property.
Beside the son György, born to János Isépy and his wife (now his widow)
Erzsébet Lencsés of Pelejte, there were also two daughters born: Zsófia and Mária.
György married three times: his first wife was Julia Nagy of Fügöd, the second Rozália
Botka, and the third was Erzsébet Csuka. Of the daughters of János Isépy and Erzsébet
Lencsés, Zsófia got married to János Balogh, and Maria got married first to István
Kovách, and after his death to Mihály Liszkay.
János Isépy, IV
1713, 1723, +1749
Wife: Erzsébet Lencsés of Pelejte
György IV Isépy
Born: 1720, +1784, I.2
Wife:
1. Julia Nagy of Fügöd
2. Rozália Botka +1773.IV.8
3. Erzsébet Csuka
Zsófia Isépy
Hsbd: János Balogh
74
Mária Isépy
Hsbd: 1. István Kovách of
Szendrő
2. Mihály Liszkay
György Isépy and the widow Lászlóné Vékey (the former Borbála Isépy), along
with their cousin Ferenc Ormos of Csertész, and Mária Isépy's children; István, Gábor,
Julia and Mária Tóth; on April 18, 1752 appeared at the Convent of Lelesz and swore
verbally that on June 14, 1745, they sold a property at Ujfehértó, Szabolcs County (made
up of a manor house, a lot, and also 5 puszta lots in the neighboring Szegegyhaz) to
István Erdődy, district administrator, and his wife Borbála Turzay for 150 forints. The
property in question was located too far away for the Isépys to be able to cultivate or use
it properly for any other purpose.335 These lands had come into the Isépy family's
property through Maria Petróczy, wife of György Isépy III. It was possible to trace their
origin all the way to Tamás Herencsény who lived in 1292. The table of clan order below
shows this. We can connect other kinfolk to this relationship through the descendants of
György III and Mária Petróczy:
Tamás Herencsény, 1292
Demeter, 1339
Lőrinc, 1387
János, 1414
(during the reign of King Zsigmond)
István, 1460
Benedek, 1505 [?]
Borbála
Hsbd: János Kázméry
Zsófia Kázméry
Hsbd: István Dely of Lasztócz
1607
István Dely, Jr. of Lasztócz
Wife: Anna Bernáthy of Bernátfalva
1630
Zsófia Dely of Lasztócz
Hsbd: 1. N. Komoróczy
2. Péter Sepsy
Erzsébet Dely of Lasztócz
Hsbd: György Mérges
Ilona Mérges
Hsbd: Pál Petróczi
Mária Petróczy
Hsbd: 1. György Isépy III, 1713
75
György III Isépy
Wife: Mária Petróczy
János Isépy
Wife: Erzsébet
Lencsés of Pelejte
Borbála Isépy
Hsbd: László Vékey
Zsófia Isépy
Hsbd: István
Ormos of Csertész
György IV. Isépy
Wife: 1. Julia Nagy
2. Rozália Botka
3. Erzsébet Csuka
Mária Isépy
Hsbd: 1. István
Kovách
2. Mihály Liszkay
1785
Zsófia Isépy
Hsbd: János
Balogh
András Vékey
Sándor Vékey
Gábor Tóth, Jr.
Wife: widow of
of István Sepsy
György Vékey
Ferenc Ormos of Csertész
Wife: Anna Vethéssy
Mária, László, Erzsébet, Julia
László Vékey
Wife: Zsuzsa Beszterczay
László Vékey
Pál Vékey
Zsuzsánna Vékey
István Tóth
Ujfehértó
Gábor Tóth
Wife: Borbála
Hangachy
Ujfehértó
Julia Tóth
Hsbd: Imre Morgay
Ujfehértó
Borbála Tóth
Hsbd: Sámuel
Bernáth of
Bernáthfalva
Dániel Tóth Judith Tóth
Hsbd. Lajos
Chernel
Gáspár Bernáth
Ágnes Bernáth
Hsbd: Károly Szepessy of Négyes
Retired colonel - in Kazsu, 1817
Anna Köröskényi
Hsbd: 1. József Diószeghy, Sr.
of Gice
2. Mihály Dókus of Csabacsüd
Mária Isépy
Hsbd: István Tóth
Imre Vékey
Mária Tóth
Hsbd: János
Payzos
Julia Tóth
Hsbd:
1. István
Ecsedy
2. Sandor Chernel
László Köröskényi, Jr.
Wife: Franciska Keczer of
Lipócz
József Vékey
Anna Tóth
Hsbd:
László
Köröskényi
Sámuel Tóth
Wife: Judit
Chernel
(sister of
Lajos Chernel)
Tamás Köröskényi
Wife: Cecilia Bodó
From the #1: József Jr., János, Julia Diószeghy;
from #2: Mihály Dókus Jr. of Csabacsüd
Ágoston Tóth
Péter Tóth Julia Tóth Adél Tóth
District
Hsbd:
Hsbd:
Prosecutor Ferenc
Gusztav
1843 [?]
Stepán
Janikin
Rozgony,
1852
Jozefa Tóth
Hsbd: Gábor
Mészáros
Ferenc Tóth
Assoc. judge of the court
Zemplén County, 1761
It appears that the matter of the Isépy forests resisted settlement, because
in 1751 the interested parties set-up a committee to manage the care and supervision of
those forests. The members of that committee were: György Isépy, János Palásthy and
Gáspár Fekete who prepared the agreement containing the rules.336 The committee faced
difficulties at the beginning. We know that Imre Bánó, András Isépy, Ferenc Pallay and
Ferenc Kozma, even György Isépy himself, complained in 1752 that people coming in
and out of the forest caused permanent damage. That could have happened because at the
beginning the committee did not have proper methods of enforcement for guarding the
forest.337
76
After regulating the safety of the forests, the next step was to regulate the pasture
lands. In 1754 Ferenc Kozma (husband of Zsófia Isépy, daughter of Mihály II), in the
name of the whole Isépy family; warned the residents of the neighboring village of
Kozma, who regularly drove their animals to the pastures at Sóskut, that those were the
property of the family.338 This protest naturally resulted in resistance on the part of those
at Kozma. The prohibition was repeated in 1755 by György Isépy. Zsigmond Bernáth in
particular strongly resisted the new order. He was the one who in 1747 felt offended
because he was ordered to discontine feeding his swine on mast in the forest at Izsep.339
Finally, on the night before Christmas 1754, he had the audacity to enter the village of
Magyar-Izsép with his men and drive away all the horses of György Isépy. This
happened just at the time when György had recently managed to replace his livestock.
He has lost almost all his animals because of some epidemic.340
During the same year, Mária Isépy, the widow of István Kováts, got involved in
legal wrangling with Ferenc Balogh because of a difference in accounting regarding the
transportation of her former husband’s vines to Poland.341 However, they must have
come to an agreement within a short time because, in the same year, they together sued
András Soltész of the village of Legenye, to recover their mutual demands.342
György IV Isépy was indeed cut out to become the head of the family. He had the
ability, willpower and energy to improve the financial conditions of the family and the
respect that would go with it. His actions all speak to that and characterize his individual
worth, resulting in his appointment as a judge of the County Court in Zemplén County.
We think probably it was he who initiated the security arrangements for the
forests and pastures of Magyar-Izsép and Sóskut. His also worked toward redeeming for
the family those properties that were mortgaged and forgotten. He called for the return of
such properties and he started legal action against those who had these pledges if they did
not indicate any readiness to discuss the matter. First he started legal action against János
Fekete regarding the return of the lot called "Gondolya Helye", that András Isépy had
pawned as early as 1652 to the former János Fekete.343 He also called on János Horváth
for the return of a lot (part of the Magyar-Izsép property) pledged by Márkus Isépy for
Mihály Deák in 1604. In addition he demanded those plough-lands and pastures
mortgaged from the family; that János Horváth purchased in good faith from the
mortgage holder, Lászlo Keresztes.344 Finally, he warned György Isépy of Tarcal to
return those properties that were pawned in 1658 by András Isépy to András Balla - these
were lands and their chattels just outside of Magyar-Izsép that were in the possession of
the Isépy of Tarcal at the time.345 It is unfortunate, that we are unable to follow György
Isépy's reclaiming activities because of lack of further data. We do not know the results
of the above mentioned initiatives. In the case of János Horvath we know that case
continued even after János Horvath’death.
György Isépy was not alone, however, in his drive to regain ancient properties. As
we will see, owners of the Rákóczy lands at Borsi, the Aspremonth Counts, had also
started a wide-ranging investigation into the return of all those properties that belonged to
the Rákóczys in ancient times but ended up in strangers' hands in, by now forgotten,
circumstances.
The litigation started by Count Aspremonth's estate in 1760 affected the Isépy
family. An investigation began to determine property rights of three lots, one of which
was located in close vicinity to Magyar-Izsép; the other two, were somewhat further from
77
the village, at the Bessenyő-Ridge. The first, so-called Csabóczy-lot, was purchased at
one time by Gábor Fekete and his second wife, Erzsébet Botka, from a resident with a
similar name.346 On the second lot in Bessenyő a man called János Koczák, serf of Count
Aspremonth, had lived 15 years ago; and that lot plus another there were passed on from
him to János Isaák. György Isépy purchased his lots from János Isaák and from Gábor
Fekete.347 It was necessary to determine the Isépy property rights, because the
Aspremonth's insisted that those lots came from the Rákóczy's.
Count János-Gobert Aspremonth and his wife Countess Anna Wolkenstein made
more far-reaching demands in 176l. They began an action jointly and severally against
those landowners who, according to them, had in their property, lands of Rákóczy origin.
The legal action extended to Count Gábor Splényi, Imre Szirmay and his wife Krisztina
Begányi, Terézia Pálóczi Horváth (widow of Begány János), Zsuzsánna Fekete (married
to András Isaák; János, Gábor and László Fekete; János Izdenczy and György Isépy for
all their properties allegedly of Rákóczy origin that were lying in the Rákóczy Borsi, or in
close vicinity of the Aspremonth estates. Those were the villages of Nagy-Bari, Borsi,
Isztáncs, Magyar-Izsép, Csörgö, Imregh, and Sóskut puszta.348
An appointed commission from Zemplén County did the investigation in this
action. We will point out several details from their record books regarding the Isépy
family's lands. These records were made by József Boronkay, district administrator and
Samuel Cserépy County counselor, at witness interrogations.
An extract from one of the record books says:
"As we are coming to M. Isép from the direction of the forest named Boczó, at
east end of the village, at the first spot is a manor house called Török that is currently
owned by Mr. János Fekete and Mr. Imre Szirmay; above them goes the road, from
Isztáncs, leading into Isép; at the lower neighborhood are the lands going toward Bocsó.
In the manor house called Török lives Zupkó Leskó, Count Apremont's serf. The witness
mentions that the former My Lord Márton Izdenczy owned the above-described land, by
the road, around the Török mansion; My Lord Bessenyey owns this land now, and a serf
of Márton Izdénczy, called Csir, lived there. But the witness would not know how My
Lord Bessenyey came by it, or by the land around the Török mansion, together with the
gardens of My Lords Ferenc Balogh and György Isépy."349
At another place they write [based on witness testimony]:
"In the neighborhood of Babooszka, or Kuncz-plot there is a plot of land where
János Koczák, serf of count Aspremonth, lives and until the current avowals it was My
Lord András Isaák who owned it. The lower neighbor of this plot is Zabava, or
Kocserka, a unit of land held in villeinage of My Lord János Payzos. The witness adds
here, that he had heard that My Lord András Isaák sold, for 40 forints, two side-by-side
Bessenyő plough-lands belonging to My Lord György Isépy that were in between Miska
Löcs's lot and the lot after Tupióczka puszta; one of those two Bessenyő plots may
belong to István Koczák; but he [the witness] did not know anything about the rope over
the ditch by the mill."350
Another witness’ testimony:
"My Lord András Isaák separated the meadow-land by the Upor ditch, after Török
Puszta, and the field belonging to the church in Isép, and sold, for one horse, to My Lord
György Isépy, same as the two Bessenyő ploughlands."351
78
According to another witness:
"The lower neighbor of Franko's plot of land is called Bodajóka Juris Isépyani."
"The two side-by-side Bessenyő plough-lands belonged to Miska Lőcs, My Llord Banó's
man; between that and the puszta called Tupióczka, there was a plough-land of the size of
three vats [25 gallons/vat size] was sold by András Isaák to My Lord György Isépy for
forty Hungarian forints; and the land at the rope over the mill at Isztáncs, as My Lord
András Isaák mentioned, at the lower neighbor of István Koczák, belongs to My Lord
Janos Pajzos' serf called Zabava; although it should be due to the Isépy lot."352
Thereafter another witness testifies that András Isaák sold the two Bessenyő plots
to György Isépy, for forty forints.353 Another testifies that András Isaák exchanged the
meadow-land by the church to György Isépy for a horse.354
Another record book states:
"[…..?] In addition to these, My Lord György Isépy owns on Sóskut, under the
Bercz mountain by the highway 15 short lots, of which 1C is owned by General
Aspremonth and 5 others by Gábor Fekete. The above Isépy lands are below these."355
"…the roped off plot about the size of 11 bushels, also two Bessenyő plots the
size of 3 bushels each, which were owned by My Lord György Isépy [subhynothecario?],
and My Lord András Isaák already took out of pawn."356
With regard to these litigations, the Convent of Lelesz informs that it received
instructions from Count Lajos Batthyány, Palatine; that he will release from their
archives, to Count Gobert-János Aspremonth-Reckheimb, copies of documents relating
to inherited properties. And these are the following: 357
a) the document dated 1388, in which Erzsébet Cheykey (widow of János
Bánóczy) and her daughter Ilona ask the magistrates Peter and Mark Isépy, as well as
Domokos and Miklós Cseley, to release their inheritance left to them by Janos Banoczy;
they were consequently obligated to release the said inheritance to Erzsebet Csekey and
her daughter.
b) in the year 1582, on the day of the apostle Szent Jakab's eve, Sebestyén Isépy
and Péter Fekete made an agreement. István Mathisy, (elected bishop of Csanád and
Praepositus of the Convent at Lelesz) informs everyone concerned, that on one part
Sebastianus Isépy de Eadem Isep, on the other part Sebestyen Isépy appeared in person
before him. Sebestyen Isépy in his own name and also in the name of his children (those
being András, Markus and Anna, wife of the nobleman Sandor Lasztoczy, and Zsofia),
also in the name of his brother Ferenc Isépy's children (Gyorgy and Eufrozina), admits
that he sold two units of land (in villeinage) to Peter Fekete.
c) the deed of gift issued in 1583 by the Emperor and King Rudolf II to Peter
Fekete and Janos Koncz.
d) the document dated 1588, in which count Istvan Batory, chief judge of the
country, in reply to the request of Istvan Petroczy, orders the release of a letter of
admission of Laszlo Isépy, dated on the feast day of our Blessed Virgin in 1486.
According to that letter, he released to his daughter Katalin (married to the "non-noble"
/ignobilis/ János Nagy /who he still calls "de Eadem Isep"/) three units of land held in
villeinage on which the following persons were living at the time: Bálint Tóth, András
Tóth and Márkus Kalmár.
79
The legal action between the Counts of Aspremonth and the landowners of
Magyar-Izsép came to an end on August 2, 1761 at the court of justice of Zemplén
County. As a result of the efforts of Sub-Prefect Gábor Zámbéry, the parties
came to a successful agreement. In this agreement, János Ganzaugh, legal counsel, in the
name of Count Gobert-János Aspremonth-Reckheim and his wife, and (on the other side)
János Izdenczy, János, Gábor and Lászlo Fekete, György Isépy, and Zsuzsánna Fekete
(married to András Isaák) accept that all those lands and chattels that rightfully belonged
to the Rákóczy-Aspremonth inheritors (although currently in strangers' hands), would
have to be returned to their rightful owners within a certain period of time. In return, the
Aspremonth estate would buy for a suitable price all buildings built by the temporary
user, and other non-moveable investments. The agreement even makes arrangements for
the transportation of livestock and movable equipment, and also for procedures regarding
sowing.358
As a result of the return of the Aspremonth lots, the descendants of Anna and
Mária Isépy made a new agreement, as prepared by the lawyers János Ganzaugh and
György Bernáth; its purpose was the revision of the agreement made at Eperjes on
September 30th, 1733 as well as the one between the Izdenczys at Komlós on January
7th, 1722.
In the new agreement dated February 23, 1762, first Anna and Mária Isépy
declared that the Izdenczys are Isépy descendants through their mother. In other words,
János, Imre and István, as well as Lászlóné Fekete are descendants of Éva Izdenczy and
Mária Isépy. The latter together with her sister were daughters of the former Ferenc
Isépy. Anna Isépy had earlier taken her portion of the inheritance left by Ferenc Isépy.
(See the Komlós contract of 1703.)
We do not comprehend the statement establishing that the Izdenczy brothers are
descendants of Mária Isépy. It is known that the Izdenczys inherited their properties at
Magyar-Izsép and Sóskut from Martin Izdenczy, who came by these properties not
through inheritance, but at the Kapy castle in 1678, and through the Komlós contract of
February 3rd, 1703. According to further paragraphs of this new agreement, the Izdenczy
brothers agreed that, as a result of the return of the Aspremonth lots, they would share the
property proportionately among themselves. Further, they will settle separately with their
sister, Eva (who earlier had received cash) and her husband László Fekete.
The agreement mentions, among others, Ferenc Pallay, stating that he has no
property at all at Magyar-Izsép; and the land that he is cultivating is merely his as a right
of pledge from the Izdenczys.
We also learn from the agreement that the returned properties increased the
Aspremonth's effective possessions in Magyar-Izsép to 23 total units of land held in
villeinage and 12 separate mansions (inquilinaria).359 However, it is not clear anywhere
how and when these claimed-back properties of Rákóczy-origin ended up in strangers'
hands. It is also impossible to conclude if the lots supposedly bestowed by Zsuzsánna
Lorántffy to Ferenc Isépy had to be returned to the Counts of Aspremonth. We question
how the properties that once belonged to the Isépy family ended up as part of the property
of the Rákóczys. Today it is impossible to give an authoritative answer to this question.
But we can draw the conclusion that during the huge collapse of the family properties at
the turn of the XIV and XV centuries these properties were broken away from the Isépy
possessions through unclaimed liens.
80
Peace did not come with the Aspremonth estates agreement. Hardly had the
agreement with the landowners of Magyar-Izsép regarding the return of the RákóczyAspremonth lots been completed, when they revived the matter of Bocsó forest. They
were again demanding rights to feed their swine on mast there and also to regularly grow
trees.360 György Isépy protested, in the name of his relatives jointly, and the matter ended
up in court. There were witness interrogations in 1765. Naturally there were witnesses
who stated that using the Bocsó forest is a due of the Aspremonths. Two parts belong to
them and only one belongs to the Isépys. However, no one could give objective evidence
because everything they said was based on hearsay. It appears that this legal action ended
with a compromise, because we do not find any trace of its continuation. The
relationship between the landowners of Magyar-Izsép and the bailiffs remained tense.
It is typical of the Aspremonth estates case, but also appears common, that there
was an unwillingness to accept a responsibility for common burdens. Even in such minor
cases they were on the shoulders of the landowning nobles. In the year 1763 all the
landowners of Magyar-Izsép, including Count János-Gobert Aspremonth, received a
warning from the authorities regarding the neglected condition of roads and bridges on
their properties. They were obligated to renovate and upgrade them within a set time
limit.362
In 1756, György Isépy called upon János Horváth to return a lot that was pawned
to Mihály Deák in 1604 and subsequently transferred to him as a lien. As
György Isépy's call was not effective, he started legal action in 1766, against Ilona
Makay, the widow of János Horváth.363 The action was dragged out as usual. It created
an estrangement between the two families. In 1779 György Isépy complained that the
sons of the former János Horváth, namely János, Antal and Sándor "hold possession" of
the "izsépi" forename.364 In turn, the Horvath brothers make a complaint in 1780 against
György Isépy, and together with him against Ferenc and László Kozma because those
two forcefully occupied family lands in the outlying areas of Magyar-Izsép.365
The efforts to reclaim properties of György Isépy and the successful conclusion
of the land litigations of the Aspremonth estate encouraged Zsófia Isépy, wife of Ferenc
Kozma (daughter of Mihály Isépy and Borbála Nyomárkay), and her cousin Borbála
Isépy (married to László Vékey) to regain property sold to the younger István Szirmay.
On April 13, 1768 she appeared in person at the Convent of Lelesz to renew and confirm
in her own name, the protest of Mihály Isépy from 1736. She gave authorization to her
husband, Ferenc Kozma, to act for her in this matter.366 The initiative, however,
appeared to be unsuccessful, because we find no records of its continuation.
The descendants of Mihály Isépy and his wife Borbála Nyomárkay along the line
of their daughter Zsófia and her husband Ferenc Kozma:
81
Mihály Isépy
Wife: Borbála Nyomárkay
Zsófia Isépy
Husbd: Ferenc Kozma
Éva Isépy
Hsbd: István Urbán
Sámuel Kozma
Mária Kozma
József Kozma
Hsbd: György Rátkay
Ference
István
Endre
Wife:
Mária Terebes
József
György
Wife:
Ilona Dési
György
Erzsébet
Hsbd:
Lajos
Keresztessy
Mária
Hsbd: László Karsa
Judit
Hsbd:
N.
Ubrisi
Borbála Árpád
Hsbd:
Wife:
Gusztáv 1.Teéz Fáy
Korda 2. Ilona Fáy
Ferenc
Wife:
Ilona Isépy
According to the records of the Aspremonth estate, beside the count, there were
other landowners in 1775 at Magyar-Izsép. These were: György Isépy, Ferenc Kozma,
István Balogh, Mihály Liszkay, Mózes Bessenyey, the widow Jánosné Horváth, László
Ormos, László Fekete, Ádám Fekete, Zsigmond Fekete, János Balogh, János Holleganz,
Imre Bánó, János Palásthy, László Huszár, the widow Ferencné Tahy, Tamás Saárossy,
Baron Gábor Splényi, László Kacsány, Mihály Dobos, György Balásházy, Mihály
Benedek, Gábor Tóth, István Tóth and István Sepsy.367
This long list of noble landowners bears witness to the fact that Magyar-Izsép at
one time was in its entirety the property of the Isepy family. Through doweries to the
female line, and as a consequence of bad luck and other circumstances, the property was
frittered away over time. The disproportionately large number of landowners in relation
to the size of the town shows the impoverishment of the nobility. It also shows that they
continued to cling to their land. Living in such close quarters now gave rise to additional
discord. We find records dated 1777, in which Gábor Fekete began legal action against
György Isépy for slander; the matter, however, came to a friendly conclusion.368
In the daily course of life in 1778 there was a need to protest against the
unauthorized use of some parts of the property at Sóskut, by landowners living at Kozma
and other neighboring villages. György Isépy repeated the protests of 1754 and 1755,
when he complained about unlawful beech-masting in the forest and prohibited grazing.
At that time it was Zsigmond Bernáth who was the culprit. Now it was Ferenc Bernáth
and Imre Reviczky who overstepped the protective prohibitions.369
A record dated 1777, a class action, notes that noble woman Erzsébet Csuka, third
wife of György Isépy, was previously the wife of József Borbaly, and now his widow.370
We were not able to ascertain the family relationship between Erzsébet Csuka and Mária
Csuka, the mother of the writer of these lines. We know only that Erzsébet Csuka's three
siblings lived in the County of Szabolcs; these were András Csuka (his wife was Klára
Ologváry), Éva Csuka (married to Sándor Nagy of Csobaj) and Borbála Csuka (married
to Sámuel Pataky). István Csuka is also mentioned but we could not conclude what kind
of relationship he had with Erzsébet Csuka.
Conflicts arose again with the Aspremonth estate along the border of the Sóskut
property. Respecting borderlines was offensive to the Aspremonths' pride. They wanted
control of the whole property at least until all legal matters were resolved. The following
letter, quoted in Hungarian translation, was written by György Isépy, László Ormos and
82
Ferenc Isépy in Latin, to Zsigmond Major, Judge of the Court of Appeal of Abauj
County, and legal advisor of the Aspremonth estate (in Bodrogkeresztúr); that letter was a
reply to his communiqué to the above mentioned three persons.
That letter reads: 371
"Especially Honoured, Excellent and Noble, Mr. Solicitor!
We respectfully acknowledge your letter of January 27th in which you inform us
of the plan to put Sóskut Puszta under your control. In the name of the interested parties,
we demand an immediate cancellation of this plan. The reason is that we will not have
our rights to the above puszta ignored, and we will never give up those rights. Therefore
we stand up and protest against the said plan; and our advice is that in order to reach a
satisfactory conclusion, appropriate judges should be appointed who would draw the
borderlines of Sóskut accurately. With that purpose in mind a magistrate would be the
most suitable, who would be best in the position to arrange what is necessary. Although
among the descendants of Ferenc Isépy, Mr. Báno and the widow Julia (probably Julia
Divinyi, Istánné Rozgonyi) reside now permanently in the County of Sáros, Mr.
Hollegánz, who is an interested party together with the previously named, can speak for
them. Therefore, we who are present cannot give a definite reply in their name; but we
have no doubt that if those interested parties came to know about this matter, they would
immediately raise their voice against any such sequestering. Thus we hope we will all be
of the same opinion in this matter.
Magyar -Izsép, February 6, 1779.
György Isépy, b.o.h.
László Ormos, b.o.h.
Ferenc Kozma, b.o.h.
There was another letter from the same year in which Ferenc Isépy gives an
account to his father György Isépy of the hearings that he conducted in order to repossess
the property legally theirs. The letter's content is as follows:
"My Highly Respected and Kind Lord Father!
I represented our family at the Treasurer of Tarcal. All he had advised me was
that if we have any rights to that property we should commend ourselves to those Isépys
who belong to our class, because they would be successful at the Royal Court. It is hardly
worth trying here, unless we take out all the original documents from the Chapter of
Eger. And, in case they cannot be found there, they would probably be at the Royal
Court, or a Testimonial could be obtained from the Noble County with the name of the
poorest of our kinsmen, by special treatment. My Lord and father is asked not to spare
any costs and communicate with a reputable solicitor of Pest coming to an agreement
with the same; Mr. Joseph Bernáth is a good acquaintance of my Lord Father and he has
a good professional reputation at Pest. He will be able to help. I had suggested to the
Treasurer that it might be better, as some say, to denounce; his reply was that he would
gladly accept this suggestion in any other case. However, the custom is that if one of our
kinsmen dies without male descendants, any property should be passed to the next
successor through the male line. I had also brought up that several outsiders owned
properties by donation; his reply was that if a person has even a hundred donations, it
would not stand up against successors still living. Further, I had talked to Mr. Kapossy
also; he said that there were a few documents and records that he had not done yet, but
will do them when he tidies up and registers the whole Archive.
83
After sending my humble respect to my Lady Mother, and offering my self into
your fatherly grace, I remain
My kind lord father, who is above me in merit.
Dated: Ujhely, February 27, 1779
Your humble and obedient Son
Ference Isépy, b.o.h.
Address: Perillustri ac Egregio Domino Georgio Isépy de Eadem
I Cottus Zempléniensi Tabulae Iudriae Assessori, Domino Parenti misi [nisi?]
Sing. Collendissimo.
M.-Izsép
György Isépy requested from Zemplén County a certificate of nobility for his
other son Lajos, which according to the decision of the Assembly of 1782 was given to
him. In his reasoning regarding the certificate of nobility, he states that Lajos Isépy
wishes to follow a higher level of education being especially interested in training in the
medical field. For that purpose he intends to visit educational institutions of His
Majesty's dominion. He also emphasizes the family's unquestionable ancient landowner
nobility, adding that the family originated from that Scythian tribe who acquired our
beloved country by their bloodshed.373
We find no record anywhere of whether Lajos Isépy gained anything with this
certificate of nobility and whether he pursued foreign studies. We also found nothing
about whether he followed the medical profession as a vocation. We only know that he
moved from Magyar-Izsép to Petrik, a village also in the County of Zemplén, where his
family’s male line eventually died out.
As György Isépy approached the end of his life he thought with some
consternation that, according to the current custom of inheritance, his property would be
equally shared among his children after his death. It would be broken up into five parts.
Therefore on July 25, 1783, in the company of his son Ferenc, he appeared at the
Convent of Lelesz and there solemnly protested against the custom of a family's female
members inheriting proportionally with the male members.374
György Isépy died half a year later, on January 21, 1784, and his children: Ferenc,
Lajos and Pál Isépy, as well as Borbala (married to János Panda) and Julia (married to
Péter Tolvaj of Köpösd) did not wish to make a decision regarding the division of the
inheritance, but rather they wanted to have neutral judges make that decision.
84
To wit:
"Compromise Agreement"
With regard to the movable and unmovable chattels left to us children, by the
death of our dear father György Isépy, between the Honourable Bernáth Sigmond of
Bernáthfalva, László Bernáth and László Ormos of Csicser, and the Honourable László
Kossuth of Kossuthi, magistrate of Zemplén County and Sámuel Bernáth of
Bernáthfalva, juryman of the mentioned country and ourselves, as they divide and sort
out questions that would come up, we will accept their judgment, in peace, and our
obligation to pay a hundred talers as honorarium.
Dated: Magyar-Izsép, May 24, 1784 375
Coram* Andrea Borny, b.o.h.
Ferenc Isépy, by.o.h.
Coram* Ioanne Pandak, b.o.h.
Lajos Isépy, b.o.h.
Barbara Isépy's husband
Borbála Isépy, a stroke by her hand
Pal Isépy, b.o.h.
Julia Isépy, a stroke by her hand
• [coram=] in the presence of
However, we had found no data whatsoever on the judges’ decisions and do not
know whether the judges considered György Isépy's protests against female inheritors. It
appears that documents with reference to this have been destroyed.
The tense relationship with the Aspremonth estate with regard to Sóskut Puszta
continued. A letter of Ferenc Isépy dated April 23, 1786 written to the cashier of the
estate is typical. It goes like this:376
"My trusted Lord! Mr. Kasznár!
I am surprised at you, my Lord, that your Excellency wants to argue with the
Isépy owners; you, Sir, do not know "in which bush the rabbit hides" regarding the
Sóskut estate. I possess the royal gift of deed that was given to my ancestors three
hundred years ago; and we have living proof that we had owned that property before the
Count. We will not have that denied to us. If the Count has a sense of justice he should
proceed on the right path; then the truth will become clear. You, dear Sir, don't come to
our house again to disturb us saying that you want to repossess, as the other day when
there were only the two of us present.
I am yours, Respectable Sir,
Magyar-Izsép, April 23, 1786
Your obedient servant,
Ferenc Isépy, b.o.h.
85
Another letter written in Latin, may relate to this. It was written by Mátyás Haizler, the
estate's farm-bailiff at Borsi, to the lawyer of the estate. The content, in Hungarian
translation, of this letter is:377
"Honourable* Mr. Solicitor:
My Especially Respected Sir!
I respectfully inform you that the landowners of Magyar-Izsép, namely the
gentlemen Ferenc Isépy and Ferenc Kozma (although by provisons of the noble János
Palonay and later of myself, the clearing, by meczensefi labourers, was started at Barcz
puszta), having done all preparations that were necessary, they occupied Barcz puszta
with their own men with the intention of continuing the clearing. After taking the
required steps for repossession, as instructed, and for restarting the clearing work, the
order and harmony is reestablished again as of today, etc.
With my respect.
Your Humble Servant
Toronya, March 28, 1786
Mathias** Heizler, b.o.h.
* "Tekintetes" and "Nemzetes" [Ügyvéd Úr] have the same meaning in Hungarian, i.e. Honourable.
** "Mátyás" - Hungarian spelling, "Mathias" - Latin.
Because of the above, the county proceeded with an investigation; however, it did
not bring any ill consequences to either Ferenc Isépy or Ferenc Kozma.378
The few notes available to us from the remaining few years of the century did not
provide us with any data worth recording.
The census of 1797 of the nobility records as members of the family still alive
Ferenc Isépy and Pal Isépy at Magyar-Izsép and Lajos Isépy at Petrik.379
Around the turn of the century, beside the Isépys, we find the following
landowners among the nobility of Magyar-Izsép: Aspremonth, Holleganz, Reviczky,
Sárossy, Horváth, Tahy, Rozgonyi, Ormós, Cserépy, Némethy, Liszkay, Kozma,
Püspöky, Pandák, Fekete, Palásthy, Payzos, Kolosy, Kácsándy, Bánó, Balogh,
Bessenyey, Bydeskuthy, Kovács, Széchényi, Karsa, Képes, Szánky és Básthy families,
most of whom were descendants of the Isépy family through the female-line.380
86
5.) The generations of the XIX. and XX. Centuries.
The family alive today are descendants of György Isépy (who according to the
vital statistics records of the protestant church at Magyar Izsép was born in 1720 and died
January 21, 1784, at the age of 64, and put to eternal rest by a sermon). The family
branching through his sons, Ferenc, Lajos and Paul, each of whom extended their
families further. Their lineage is shown on the following table:
György Isépy
Born 1720, died 1784.01.21
Wife #1: Julia Fügödi Nagy
Died: 1762.05.10
#2: Rozália Botka
Marriage: 1765.04.06 at Kovácsvágás
#3: Erzsébet Csuka, 1777
From #1: Ferenc Isépy
Brn: 1757.01.24
Wdg:1784.07.28
+ 1831/07/01
Wife: Borbála
Nagyiványi Fekete
Brn: 1757.01.01
+ 1836.12.16
Lajos Isépy
Brn: 1759.07.16
+ 1840.01.17
Wife 1: Magdolna
Raksányi
Wdg: 1786.07.?
Wife 2: Mária Sáradi
+ 1838.11.19
Katalin Isépy
Brn.1760.10.23
+ 1763.04.13
From #2: Pal Isépy
Brn: 1767.01.24
+ 1828.05.15
Wf 1: Krisztina
Kelecsényi Ruszka
#2: N. Szentmiklóssy
#3: Zsuzsánna Kovács
Antal Isépy
Brn: 1768.06.05
Julianna Isépy
Brn: 1769.09.21
Mrg: 1793.03.13
Hsbd: Péter
Köpösdi Tolvaj
[Children] From #2:
From #3:
György Isépy
Brn: 1771.03.02
+ 1772.10.28
György Isépy, Brn: 1773.01.14, + 1773.10.??
Borbála Isépy, Brn: 1776.12.10
Hsbd: nobleman János Pandák, Brn 1776.12.10
A) The Line of Ferenc:
Ferenc Isépy whom we had already mentioned repeatedly, was born in 1757
according to the vital statistics record381; he was baptized the same year on January 24th.
It was primarily his line that inherited the estate, although somewhat shrunken, at
Magyar-Izsép. He held it until the Trianon Peace of baleful memory caused the passing
of the ancient lands into strangers' hands for the final time as the landowners were forced
to sell their sacred soil. On July 28, 1784, Ferenc Isépy married Borbála Fekete of NagyIvány, (daughter of László Fekete and his wife, Julia Görgey of Toporcz). She was born
January 1, 1757 and died at Magyar-Izsép on December 16, 1836. She only lived five
years after her husband's death. He left the land of living on July 1, 1831. There were ten
children of the marriage, as shown on the table below:
87
Ferenc Isépy
Brn: 1757, 01.??, baptized: 01.24
Wife: Borbála Fekete of Nagyivány
Brn: 1757.01.01
+ 1836.12.16
Wdg: 1784.12.28
Ferenc Isépy
Brn:1785.06.28
+ 1787.08.10
Károly Isépy
Brn:1787.05.28
+1883.02.19
Julianna Isépy
Brn: 1792.01.25
Hsb: Sámuel Képes
(Wife #1)
László-Maria Isépy
(Twins)
Brn:1796.02.07
+ 1796.05.21
+ 1796.07.06
Antal Isépy
Brn: 1789.11.19
+ 1883.01.30
Wf:Veronika
Szunyogh
kápolnai szunyoghi
János Isépy
Brn: 1792.??
+ 1859.04.20
Wf: Julia Kovács
+ 1871.02.27
László Isépy
Brn: 1799.10.13
+ 1864.07.06
Wf: Zsófia Zapalszky
Brn: 1806.10.19
+ 1880.10.17
Mária Isépy
Brn: 1802.05.29
Hsb: Sámuel Képes
(Wife #2)
Terézia Isépy
Brn: 1809.09.??
Hsb: Ignác Ilosvay
Antal and László married and continued the family. The first-born son, Ferenc,
died when he was only two years old. Károly and János did not leave descendants. About
them we only know that they studied law at the College of Sárospatak, and in 1809 they
participated in the last uprising of the nobles; the 22 year old Károly as a corporal and the
18 year old János as a common soldier, both in Zemplén County's insurgent cavalry
regiment. This regiment fought in the battle of Győr, between June 12-14, 1809. This
battle had an unfortunate ending, suffering many dead and wounded. After the general
retreat, the regiment gathered at the encampment in Komarom where Colonel Gábor
Kandó of Egerfarmos made his report, on June 16, 1809, to the Orders at Zemplén on the
course of the battle and the conduct of the regiment.382 This insufficiently trained, badly
equipped insurgent army - with little military experience - could not possibly have
withstood the pressure of the Napoleonic army. The cruel mocking of their retreat by
their contemporaries caught them off-guard. Károly Isépy owned a manor house by the
highway in Magyar-Izsép that even in 1900 was associated with his name.
On the hill above the village was the manor house with its columnar facade, built
in the style of ancient country mansions. It was owned by Antal; but it was possibly his
father; or more likely, his grandfather, György Isépy, who built it. In Antal's time
enormous chestnut trees surrounded it; and a spacious farmyard, as well as a vegetable
garden and a large orchard belonged to it.
Members of our family alive today are mainly descendants of Antal. Providence
blessed him with a long life, as he was born on December 30, 1789 and died on January
7, 1883. He lived more than 93 years and was in total possession of his mental faculties
to the end. His predecessor, András Isépy who died around 1690 also passed away at the
ripe old age of 90. Antal’s wife was Veronika Szunyogh. She bore him twelve children.
Among those the branch of the family continued through five of the male children. His
wife died on March 10, 1859 and left him in lonely widowhood for almost a quarter
century. Antal Isépy was blessed with outstanding abilities and high moral principles.
Every member of the family considered him with respect and pride all his life. They
88
knew him as a person with outstanding legal knowledge and a good general education.
He obtained a lawyer’s diploma and he was judge of the county court in several counties.
At the time when the number of royal courts of appeal was increased, he was offered the
presidency of the Court of Appeal at Debrecen; however, referring to his old age he
declined this honour. His outstanding preparedness and high moral principles were
characteristic of him even as a youth, states István Gosztonyi, his principal, talking about
his legal practice.383
Antal Isépy was also exceptional as a farmer; he greatly increased the lands
inherited from his father. This is demonstrated by a sworn statement at the Convent of
Lelesz in 1841, according to which István Bánó of Lucska sold ownership of the lands
annexed earlier at Magyar-Izsép and Sóskut puszta to the gallant Antal Isépy, for 11.4040
forints and 24 silver crowns.384 With this deal, a part of the Isépy land that at the end of
the XVII (17th) century ended up in the hands of the Bánó family of Kükemező and
Tapolylucsok through Isépy Maria (married to Ferenc Bánó) was returned to the family.
During his long life, Antal spent much time in intensive family history research
and he collected a large number of valuable documents and other material. However,
after his death, part of this was lost. Today there are only copies in the possession of the
family; they can be found in the inheritance of Tihamer Isépy. It appears, however, that
the originals of the documents did not perish, as many of them ended up in the collection
of Mihály Barna of Meléthe. All those were placed for safekeeping at the Széchényi
Library of the National Museum.385 A few of these were taken to the State Archives.
Antal Isépy had been acquainted with Mihály Barna. We found correspondence between
them mentioning the collection referring to the Isépy family. In Antal Isépy's letter we
discover that most of the old documents regarding the family ended up in the Andrássy’s
archives at Monok. They are direct descendants through the male line of the Monoky
family.
According to the correspondence, there was a will left by Sebestyén Isépy, who
died either in 1603 or 1604; it states - among other things - that the family letters are with
János Monoky. He had a friendly relationship with János Monoky, and he even sold his
property at Falucska to him. Probably for the sake of preserving safely his more
important documents during those uncertain times, he placed them with János Monoky
who had better arrangements for safekeeping. The archives of the Monoky branch of the
Andrássys, who remained without male successors, were taken to the castle of
Krasznahorka that, not too long ago, was still the property of the Count Maldeghem
family, inheritors through the female branch.
89
The immediate descendants of Antal Isépy are shown on the table below:
Antal Isépy
Born: 1789.12.30
+ 1883.01.07
Wife: Veronika Szunyogh from Kápolna-szunyogh
Born: 1804
Marriage: 1826.10.24
+ 1859.03.10
Emilia Isépy
B: 1828.08.29
+ 1841.05.23
Miklós Isépy
B: 1829.10.18
+…
Wf: Amália
Lehoczky
Antal Isépy
+
Terézia Isépy
B: 1831.05.18
+ 1869.10.22
Hsd: István
Mándy
Marriage:
1851.10.22
Gyula Isépy
B: 1832.12.06
+ 1883.05.01
Wf: Etelka Szunyogh
from Kápolna-szunyogh
Ilona Isépy
Ödön Isépy
B: 1834.03.10
B: 1835.04.16
+ 1891.03.29
+ 1836.03.21
Hsd: Ferenc
Karsa from Szentkirály-szabadja
Katalin Isépy
B: 1836.07.10
+ 1855.02.06
Ödön Isépy
B: 1837.11.26
+ 1873.08.13
Wf: Ilona
Kutka from Dorog
István-Jenő Isépy
B: 1838.12.07
+ 1866.03.11
István Isépy
B: 1844.02.25
+ 1911.03.11
Wf.1: Izabella Nyomárkay
from Nyomark
Wf.2: Jolán Jassik
Géza Isépy
B: 1840.06.27
+ 1916.11.13
Wf: Berta
Bydeskuthy from Ipp
Among the surviving children of Antal are:
1a) Miklós who inherited the manor house on the hill. He lived there while his
father was still alive; as Antal, after losing his wife, moved into an outbuilding on
the property and resided there until the end of his life. Miklós was not a lucky
farmer. He was not able to survive the years of poor crops and the more and more
frequently occurring natural disasters. At the end the time came when the soil
under his feet became so uncertain that he was forced to sell the property together
with the beautiful manor house. The property ended up broken into small plots, in
the hands of the farm labourers. They - not knowing what to do with the
residence - let it fall into decay.
Children born from the wife of Miklós, Amália Lehoczky, were:
1.-a1) Jolan, Józsefné (kupisinki) Horváth, born at Magyar-Izsép on
March 27, 1861, died March 21, 1936.
I.-a2) Erzsébet was born at Magyar-Izsép, November 5, 1863.
I.-a3) Veronika, Istvanné (rovisnyei) Matheidesz, was born at MagyarIzsép, 1861, died at Budapest, May 30, 1931.
I.-a4) Etelka, Barnané (bárcziházi) Bárczy, was born at Magyar-Izsép,
December 28, 1867.
I.-b) Teréz, Antal Isépy's second daughter was born at Magyar-Izsép, May 18,
1831 and died October 22, 1869. She was the wife of István (mándi) Mándy, chief
administrative officer of a Hungarian county-district (up to 1945). She left her
90
husband a widower for a long time; he lived long past her death. To follow old
custom, Mandy wore the Hungarian national costume until the end of his life, and
he was well known especially for his long mustache, his dashing lean figure, his
sensitive, gentle personality and his well-groomed appearance. He did not change
the latter even after a hunting accident in which he lost half of his arm, limited his
activities.
I.-c) Gyula, Antal Isépy's second son, was born at Magyar-Izsép, December 6,
1831. He chose the pharmacist profession and owned a pharmacy at Eperjes,
where he died May 1, 1885. His wife was Etelka Szunyogh from Kápolnaszunyogh with whom he had three children:
I-c1) Etelka, born at Eperjes, January 6, 1868; she died in Debrecen, May
28, 1940. Her husband was Count Arthur Almásy from
Törökszentmiklós and Zsadány, who was a landowner and chief
administrative officer at the County of Gömör.
I.-c2) Dezső, born at Eperjes, November 21, 1870 , died at Rákos-Csaba,
December 6, 1932, as a retired lieutenant colonel. A long-drawn
out illness cut short his military career. He aspired to obtain the
dignitary position of a royal chamberlain; and for that purpose he
provided his certified family tree and other documentary proofs to
His Majesty's Office of the Chief Chamberlain. Those documents
had gone through the required examination. However, the collapse
of the government in 1918 caused the failure to realize his desire.
286
His wife was Mariska Deák, from Diós-ad (daughter of Albert
from Diós-ad and Mariska Petke) born at Köpecz, September 6,
1883, died in August 13, 1925.
They had two children:
I.-c2*) Dezső, born at Szabadka, March 23, 1909, received
military training and after finishing at the Ludovika Akdémia, he
was initiated as a second lieutenant to the artillery. He took part in
the Second World War as a captain. He received the knight's cross
of Hungarian Decoration, and a ribbon with swords on it, for his
valiant behavior as a battery commander. His wife was Katalin
Morvay from Also-draskóczy.
I.-c 2al) Mária, was born at Budapest, February 9, 1937.
I.-c3) Ilda, Gyula Isépy's third child ended her own life in 1902 because
of an unhappy marriage.
I.-d) Ilona, Antal Isépy's next daughter was born at Magyar-Izsép, March 10,
1834; she died March 29, 1891. Her husband was Ferenc Karsa from Szentkirályszabadj, assessor to the orphans' court in Zemplén. In 1848-1849 he was dispatchrider officer of Gorgey. He immortalized his military adventures in an interesting
diary. (Its title: "Events that happened in 1848 and 1849, around me and with
me.")
91
I.-e) Ödön, born at Magyar-Izsép, November 25, 1837, died at Tőketerebes,
August 13, 1873, of cholera that he contracted at the World’s Fair in Vienna,
arriving back home already ill. He was bailiff of Count Gyula Andrássy's estate at
Tőketerebes.
His wife was Ilona Kutka from Dorog, very beautiful daughter of Antal Kutka,
manager of Count Csáky's estate at Klukno. Kutka himself was an unusually
gifted man, who obtained three diplomas; legal, engineering, and economics
diplomas. He had a reputation in Europe as a mapmaker. Ödön’s children:
I.-e1) Márta, born at Tőketerebes, September 23, 1869. Her husband,
Húgo Herczog, knight of Rossbach, was principal of the
agricultural schools at Nagy-Szent-Miklós and Ada.
I.-e2) András, born at Tőketerebes, November 21, 1872. After finishing
legal studies, he worked in the judiciary at various levels. He
retired as presiding judge of the High Court of Justice. He, being a
senior member of the family, enjoyed deserved respect from
members of his family, and besides he was a popular personage in
a wide circle of people. He was an enthusiastic outdoorsman and a
diligently practicing tourist for decades. He was married four
times, his first two wives, Matild (parti) Szabó and Stefánia
(balsai) Balsay died; he divorced Margit (asguthy and kulai) More
and Mária Boja. His marriage with Mária Boja was childless; from
the previous three the following offspring were born:
I.-e 2a) Tibor, born at Nagykároly, December 21, 1897, died at the
same place on December 30, 1897.
I.-e 2b) Magda, born at Ungvár, November 19, 1899, died at
Sátoraljaújhely, March 4, 1921.
I.-e 2c) Nóra, born at Ungvár, November 14, 1900. Her husband
was 'vitéz' * Dezső Papp, a retired colonel. * title awarded to some exservicemen during the pre-war Horthy regime
I.-e 2d) Ilona, born Alsoverecke, November 13, 1905. Her
husband was Béla Ficzere, major of a railway regiment.
I.-e 2e) Klára, born at Alsóverecke, October 24, 1906. Her
husband was Károly Berecz, lumberman and wholesaler at Pécs.
I.-e 2f) Adrienn, born at Alsóverecke, July 9, 1908.
I.-e eg) Judith was born at Sátoraljaújhely, November 10, 1910
and died at the same place on November 10, 1911.
I.-e 2h) András, born at Sátoraljaújhely, October 2, 1913. He was
an artillery captain. He completed the Ludovika Akadémia, and
later he was instructor of the artillery cadet school at Nagyvárad.
He was a qualified cartographer. As an outstanding equestrian he
competed in equestrian events. As a battery commander he took
part in the Second World War and was wounded.
I.-e3) Panna, born at Magyar-Izsép, January 19, 1874. Her husband was
Marcell (nemessányi and réti) Nemessányi, a registrar of real estate
at Lőcse.
I –f) Géza, born at Magyar-Izsép, June 27, 1840, died at the same place, on
November 3, 1916. He was a farmer on his land at Magyarizsép, the last such
92
among the members of the family. His wife: Alberta Bydeskuthy from Ipp, was
born 1846; died in 1927. Their children were:
I..-fl) Zoltán, born at Magyar-Izsép, November 17, 1875. He studied law,
and thereafter, followed the profession of public administration. He
was a county recorder, and later he was an active chief
administrator of the same, enjoying general respect at the Tokaj
District. In this capacity he was awarded the class II civilian war
medal for his merits achieved in the World War. After the Czech
occupation he was forced to sell the last land inherited from his
father at Magyar-Izsép; the land that was family property since
ancient times. His pleasant disposition secured him an active role
in the managing of the social life of the county; because of his
great sense of humour and witty ideas he was a popular entertainer
at social gatherings. His first wife, whom he divorced, was Irén
Marosy. His second wife was Anna Pekáry, who was earlier
married to Sándor Hunyor from Tokaj, a royal notary. Their
children:
I.-f 1a) From his first wife: Natália, born at Királyhelmec,
December 6, 1900. She enjoyed literary success. Because
of her participation in charitable causes, she was a great
help at Kassa in assisting Hungarians under the yoke of the
Czech occupation.
I.-fl b) From his second wife: Zoltán, born at Tokaj, December 21,
1919. He participated in the Second World War as an
ensign and a second lieutenant, and because of his heroic
conduct he was decorated.
I.-f2) Irén was born at Magyar-Izsép in 1877. Her husband was Dezső
Dobranszky, the manager of a sugar-mill.
I.-f3) Sarolta was born at Magyar-Izsép February 28, 1879. Her husband,
Sándor Mészáros, was the chief notary of the town of Abádszalók.
I.-f4) Gizella was born at Magyar-Izsép in 1880. Her husband, Aurél
Schulz, was a landowner.
I.-g) István was born at Magyar-Izsép on February 25, 1844 and died at
Satoraljaujhely, March 11, 1911. He practiced law at Sátoraljaujhely. He married
twice; his first wife was Izabella Nyomárkay, who later got married to Vilmos
Szentgyörgyi; his second wife was Jolán Jassik. He had a well-cultivated
vineyard on the hill at Ujhely and was famous for his extensive wine cellar carved
into a mountain of ash-stone. His szamoródni and asszu vines were famous in the
entire county. In the cellar he had, one could find hundred-year old bottles
covered with a black moss-like layer.
Children from his first wife were:
I.-gl) Lenke, born at Sátoraljaujhely December 2, 1870; died at the same
place, September 5, 1941. She had a cheerful and charming
disposition, with notable musical ability. Her husband, Dr. János
Kossuth, was a lawyer at Sátoraljaujhely.
93
I.-g2) Tihamér, born at Sátoraljaujhely March 3, 1878; died at the same
place, February 8, 1947. He was a juridical doctor and active as a
lawyer at Sátoraljaujhely with a busy law office. His great sense
of economy helped him to become wealthy. His wealth, however,
diminished substantially between the two World Wars, and even
more so as a result of the economic collapse after the Second WW.
During the First WW, already at a mature age, he voluntarily
joined the military. However, because of his weak constitution and
inadequate physique, he could not withstand the exhausting
military training. He was released from the military for being
unsuitable for service. He had artistic tendencies and a poetical
spirit. He was an outstanding piano player, a well-known
performer of Hungarian folksongs in which he easily competed
with Lajos Pethe, chief administrative officer of Somogy, and a
renowned writer of folksongs. His wife was Borbála Csoma from
Gelencz, with whom he had six children:
I.-g2)a) Tihamér, born at Sátoraljaujhely March 30, 1918, was a
public servant. As a reserve ensign, he took part in the 2nd
WW. His wife was Anna Gulyás whom he married on
Csillaghegy on May 6, 1950.
I.-g2)b) Borbála was born at Sátoraljaujhely July 28, 1919. Her
husband, István Záborszky from Zabor, was a customs
officer.
I.-g2)b) György was born at Sátoraljaujhely October 14, 1920. As
a reserve ensign, he participated in the 2nd WW. His wife
was Éva Gerley, daughter of István Gerley, retired
lieutenant colonel.
I.-g2)d) Dénes was born at Sátoraljaujhely February12, 1923; he
was a civil servant.
I.-g2)e) Zsuzsanna was born at Sátoraljaujhely March 7th, 1927.
Her husband was Dr. János Boros, a customs officer (civil
servant).
I.-g2)f) Katalin was born at Sátoraljaujhely December 9th, 1928.
I.-g3) Edith, daughter of Ference Isépy, born at Sátoraljaujhely October
18, 1893. Her husband was the nobleman Béla Lábos, chief judge
of the Court of Appeal.
II.) From the second branching of the Ferenc Isépy line, it was László who
continued the family. He was born September 13, 1799 at Magyar-Izsép and died on July
16, 1864 at Homonna. He studied law at the Protestant College of Sárospatak and he
followed the profession of public administration. He was first a judge, then chief
administrative officer of the district. After the suppression of the 1848/49 revolution, he
retired from civil service. However, during the so-called "provisorium" [provisional
government] of 1861, in consideration of his large family and the need to survive, he
accepted a government position; for which he was highly criticized by the public. They
94
wanted independence for their county and thought he was a collaborator. He owned two
houses at Homonna and several acres of ploughland in this county.
On April 1, 1838, he sold one of his houses to 'vitéz' Mihály Dragoner; in 1844
that house was passed to Antal Kutka, father-in-law of Ödön Isépy; and in 1846 it was
sold to József Durcsinszky, an engineer. It is still in the hands of descendants of that
family.387 The second manor house in which the family lived for many years and the
writer of these lines spent part of his childhood, was at one time a customs office. Its
impressive main building consisting of five (living) rooms. This house must have been
built in the XVIII century; it had walls of a meter thickness, and vaulted ceilings. A
spacious yard, front garden, another farmhouse, stables, barns, granary and hayloft
belonged to it, as well as a large kitchen garden and an orchard. The whole property was
four acres. After a later division into lots, a complete new subdivision was built on it.
László Isepy's wife, Zsófia Zapalszky was born at Őrmező, on October 19, 1806;
she was the daughter of János Zapalszky, the Greek Catholic vicar of that town, and his
wife Julia Mocsáry. This marriage, made according to the heart's desire of László Isepy,
was considered by the family beneath them. It is true the Zapalszky family's name does
not appear among the known Hungarian noble families, although they consistently
emphasized that they emigrated from Poland as nobles. The writer of these lines had
repeatedly attempted to contact those noble Zapalszkys still living in Poland that
belonged to the Korczak group of coat of arms; but it was not possible to establish a
creditable connection with them because of the lack of data and other difficulties. It was
also impossible so far to throw light on Julia Mocsáry's relationship to a noble family of
the same name. However, from the addresses of letters found in her inheritance, but since
disappeared, written in French; she was named consistently, and every time, as formerly
known as "nee de Mocsary"* from that we can deduce her noble origin; as in those days
the word "de", (a word denoting nobility), could only be used in such cases. Zsófia
Zapalszky died on 17 October 1880 at Homonna.
The children of László Isépy and Zsófia Zapalszky:
II.-a) Viktor, born at Homonna in 1833; died on January 8, 1896 at Budapest. He
studied at the University of Greifwald, Germany. He was a doctor of law and
obtained a lawyer's diploma. He practiced law in Budapest where he owned a
family residence in the III district. He was also active in the Capital's public
administration. He was a well-known personage among the population of the
district, with his long white beard and patriarchal appearance. His wife was Julia
Kovács with whom he had two sons:
II.-al) László, born at Budapest, December 31, 1861, died as a retired
'hussar' colonel, December 28, 1928. He began his career in the
field of law, but his natural inclination was for the military
profession. As a 'honvéd hussar' officer he did field service; then
because of his knowledge of languages he became an instructor at
the Ludovika Academy where he taught German and French. He
was a highly educated, widely-traveled man of cheerful
disposition, and of a bohemian outlook on life who would always
seek out the company of writers and artists of the same interests.
He was a member of the so-called "Kagál" society, editors of the
humour magazine"Borszem Jankó", and the famous "Eötvös" table
95
of the Abbázia café. He had a fully equipped cabinet-making and
woodturning workshop and a separate photo laboratory in his
apartment. In his extensive library, of mostly selected French and
German works, beside famous writers of world literature, he had
an unparalleled collection of books on horsemanship and western
European technical literature on equestrian subjects. He was a
characteristic figure of the capital, with his bold head and French
beard, his attractive face and somewhat portly body. He was
immortalized by Manno Miltiadesz in the latter's caricature series
well known at the time. He was enthusiastic about life on the
Danube; one could often see him rowing in a canoe he had made.
At the time of his death, Jenő Molnár wrote his eulogy in the pages
of the Magyar Hírlap [Hungarian News].388 His wife was Adél
Lord from whom, however, he lived separately for a long time.
II.a2) Victor, born in 1873, died at Budapest August 20, 1936. He was
brought up in Budapest and Dresden. He obtained doctorates in
law and public administration, and also obtained a lawyer's
diploma. Further, he completed the agricultural academy at
Magyaróvár where he obtained another diploma. He practiced law
in Budapest; later on because of his agricultural education, he was
active as a consultant.
II.-b) Miksa, born at Homonna in 1835, died young on May 23, 1866. At the
time he was registrar at the Royal High Court of Justice at Budapest. A very
gifted and promising young man whose early death destroyed any hope of a great
career.
II.-c) Béla, born at Homonna in 1837, was a magistrate who ended his own life in
1876.
II.-d) Elek, born at Homonna around 1840 was an administrator of the treasury of
Tokaj. He died there in 1890.
II.-e) Kálmán, born at Homonna, January 26, 1843; died in Budapest on June 2,
1888. He was chief magistrate of the Szinna region of Zemplén County, and he
was the first administrator of this newly formed region.389 I remember him as my
father with reverence. He was taken away from us so early by Destiny. He
appears in my childhood memories most vividly in his hunting outfit; because his
region had lush forests and was rich in wild animals, he had plenty of opportunity
to pursue the noble sport of hunting. Our home at Szinna was a frequent gathering
place for hunting parties of landowners of the county.
As an experienced hunter, he often shot rare and valuable wild animals,
huge bears among them. In spite of his well-trained physique he was affected by a
grave illness that took him away at the relatively young age of 45. His wife was
Mária Csuka, eldest daughter of nobleman Dániel Csuka, landowner of Cselej and
his wife Anna Cseley who was born at Cselej on 17 November 1853; and died at
Budapest, July 21, 1936. My mother being a most noble spirit, an unparalleled
good and caring mother, a loyal and loving wife, was an example of the fine
Hungarian ladies. With her bright and cultured personality, her loveable and
gentle manners would captivate everyone.
96
I must mention my mother's family in more detail because through her several
famous families' blood flow into this branch of the Isépy family. According to
tradition, the noble Csuka family originated from Székelyföld* Hungary.
*At one time part of Hungary, but now under Romanian rule.
They received a letter patent of nobility in 1635, at Bozok, from King Ferdinand
II.390 Moving from there northward, members of the family settled first in SajóVámos, County of Borsod, and later at Szikszo, Abauj County. We find them
there at the end of the XVIII century among the landowner-nobles. Dániel Csuka,
father of Mária Csuka, moved from Szikszó to Cselej to the property of his wife.
He was an exceptionally gifted and highly cultured man. According to the records
of the College of Sárospatak, he studied law, obtaining a lawyers diploma.
However, he never practiced that profession.
He kept in close touch with several outstanding personages of his time,
among them Menyhért Lónyay, Bertalan Szemere and Miklós Szemere, the poet;
the latter two were also relatives of his. As a law clerk to Albert Semsey, consul
of Abauj, he participated in the 1844 Parliament of Pozsony. There, despite his
basically mild temperment, he got involved in one of the so-called "juratus"
[articled clerks'] fights. In his book, "Hangok a multból" [Sounds from the Past],
Sándor Takács records the details.301 He describes how Imre Bossányi, János
Petrilla, Daniel Csuka, József Bónis, Ferenc Gencsy and Sámuel Fogtőy, articled
clerks, fought an almost life-and-death battle, at the excursion ground called
Vaskutacska, close to Pozsony [Bratislava today], with a crowd of hostile German
countrymen who used offensive language toward them. Despite the Germans'
provocative behavior, the clerks suffered harmful consequences. As a result of
this unfortunate incident all of them were sent to prison for a shorter or longer
period of time. The grandmother of Dániel Csuka was Ferencné Csuka (formerly
Klára Szemere) who came from the Borsod branch of the Szemere family, having
inherited the blood of Chieftain Huba according to the following order of
generations (proved by documents).392
Domokos de Kak
János de Kak
wife: Erzse (gagyi) Bakos de genere Aba
Lőrinc
killed: Pál and Antal (gagyi) Bakos
wife: Dóra
János, commander of the castle at Esztergom
1435, 1488
wife: Katalin (polyi and alattyáni) Chyrke
de genere Aba
Mihály Szemere, sub-prefect of Abauj County
1520
wife: Magdolna
András (berethei) Szemere
1550, 1564
wife: Anna Rásonyi
97
Tamás (berethei) Szemere
1569, + before 1620
wife: Eufrozina (berethei) Szendy
Péter (berethei) Szemere
1584
wife: Sára Baxy
1591
György Szemere
1612, 1657
wife: Katalin Zsujtay
1634, +1651
Ferenc Szemere
1651, 1700
His wife: Katalin (jóbaházi) Dőry
1700, 1733
Ferenc
1719, 1736, 1745
w: Krisztina
Dayka
1734, 1736
György
1719, 1742
Klára
(pankotai)
Jósa, 1742,
in 1745 she is already
a widow
Ferenc
1741, 1812
w: Sara Fay
1743, 1822
Zsigmond
1745
+
Zsófia
1745
+
György
+ 1787
w: Zsófia Bernáth
1750, 1815
Pál
1745
w: Zsuzsánna
Faragó, in 1764
she is already
Ferencné
Ternyey
Klára
1764, in 1822 no longer
alive. Hsbd: nobleman
Ferenc Csuka
Dániel I. Csuka
w: noblewoman
Erzsébet Vécsey
László
1722, 1843
w: Erzsébet Karove
Dániel II Csuka
w: Anna (cseleji and
erdősi?) Cseley
Bertalan
1849, prime miniszter
1812, 1869
w: Leopoldina Jurkovich
1829, 1865
Attila
1859, 1905
/last member of
the male line/
Ábrahám
b:1767, + after
1863 (last of
the male line)
Pál, a poet
1785, 1861
w: 1. Krisztina Szemere,
penname: Vilma Képlaki
2. Borbála Csoma
It was József Kolosy, the father of Danielné Csuka (the former Anna
Cseley), who, according to her autobiography (vol. IV, page 75) took the name
Cseley, 393 in the common belief that the Kolosy name would bring misfortune for
98
those who have it, or for those before whom it was pronounced. This superstition
was widely believed for a long time so that the harmful effect of the Kolosy name
is even mentioned in literature. They say it had to be counterbalanced by
pronouncing the "Barkóczy" name (supposedly bringing good luck) three times.
The change of name, however, did not help the family as the superstition
immediately got transferred to the Cseley name. With the new name, however,
there was a rebirth of the ancient Cseley family name; the family of which the
Kolosys (short description in IV.76) were direct descendants and inheritors
through the female line. (This name had died out with the Bogát-Radvány family's
name in the XVII century.) The Kolosy family came from Erdély. Through
various adversities they relocated to Zemplén County. The family derives its
origin from the Csanád clan.394 One of its ancestors, János Kolosy, from whom
the Zemplen branch descends, is described in the ancient record: "…was a famous
military leader who supplied the Highest Chieftain, Imre Telekesy, with 100
cavalry that he himself organized, and thus helped to beat the Turks in 1459 at
Eszt [??? perhaps Esztergom]." Through Julia Boronkay, wife of József Kolosy,
this branch of the family were direct descendants of the (nyitra-szerdahelyi)
Szerdahely, the (miháldi) Count Splényi, Dráveczky and the (szuloi and karomi)
Szulyovszky-Sirmiensis families. The mother of Julia Boronkay, Anna-Maria
Szulyovszky-Siriensis396 carried in her veins the blood of (szirmabesenyői)
Szirmay, (péchujfalusi) Péchy, Szerencsányi, Mednyánszky, Marsovszky,
(szentmiklósi and óvári) Pongrácz, (tőkes-ujfalusi) Ujfalussy, (jesszeniczei and
buda?ini) Szunyogh, (gradeczi) Horváth-Stansith, Count Hellenbach, (márkusand batizfalvi) Máriássy, Palugyay, Görgey and the (nagymihályi) Pongrácz
families.
My mother, a widow, got married a second time to Károly Herczegh, who
died on 15th March, 1922 as a retired fiscal inspector in Nyíregyháza, after a
happy 32-year marriage with my mother. My step-father had an attractive
appearance and an excellent demeanor. He, with his clean-living and gentlemanly
personality won respect and appreciation everywhere, in his official position as
well as in social circles. He was the father, from his first marriage, to Dr. József
Herczegh, a later manager of a mine, one of our country's most outstanding
mining engineers. Because of the latter's great technical knowledge, versatility
and cultured demeanor, and being speaker of several languages, he worthily
represented Hungary several times at international labour and mining congresses.
Those originating from Kálmán Isépy and Mária Csuka's marriage are:
II.-el) Aladár, born at Szinna, January 23, 1881. After completing officer
training of the Ludovika Academy, in August 18, 1899, he started
his military carrier as a cadet sub-officer. After various peacetime
postings, he got a posting as a captain at general headquarters, and
participated in the First World War in the battles against the
Russians, Romanians, and Italians. He received several badges of
honour (decorated with several swords). After the war, he served in
the newly organized Hungarian general headquarters, partly in
detachment and various higher commander postings. He took part
in the national army's entering Budapest on 16th, September 1919;
99
later as a colonel he was commander of the infantry regiment at
Pécs; and as a general he was Budapest's city commander for a
fairly long time. In this position, too, he received several badges
of honour. After he retired as a lieutenant general, the title of
"vitéz" was conferred on him. He never married and adopted the
two sons of his sister Anna: Dr. László Teltsch and Dr. István
Teltsch. Since then they used the Isépy family's name, having the
right, if a way and an opportunity offered itself, to petition for the
Hungarian noble title, the family's forename of Magyar-Isépy and
also the family crest, for themselves as well as for their
descendants.397
II.-e2) Anna, born on Szinna, January 2, 1883. After finished an upper
level finishing school for girls in Sopron; she continued studying at
the state teacher-training institute where she obtained a teacher's
certificate. However, she never utilized her training. Her husband,
Kornél Teltsch, was first the Lutheran college's instructor at
Eperjes, thereafter a teacher and then principal of the Lutheran
Kossuth high school in Nyíregyháza. He was an excellent
pedagogue, either as a teacher or as an administrator. Despite the
fact that he originated from Szepesség and his mother tongue was
German, he was a Hungarian patriot through and through. He
participated in the First World War, from beginning to end, as a
territorial officer and later as a captain. The pressures of the war
and the demands of his work as a school principal, undermined his
health, and too soon he left the world of the living, on February 26,
1937, in Budapest. The sons from their marriage whom Lieutenant
General Aladár Isépy adopted were:
II.-e2/a) László, born at Eperjes, July 7, 1905. He was a medical
doctor and surgeon, and at the same time, a professional
medic-major. He took part in the Second World War, as
commander of a military hospital and he received a
decoration for his excellent service. As the war ended, he
was in a Russian prison where he spent more than three
years. His wife was Margit Szatmáry, a concert violinist, an
outstanding pupil of Jenő Hubay. Their children were:
II.-a2/aa) Eszter, born at Debrecen, February 22,
1938.
II.-a2/ab) Éva, born at Budapest, March 18, 1942
II.e2/b) István, born at Eperjes, February 7, 1911. He had a
doctorate of law and was a counselor for the Máv [Magyar
Állami Vasút = Hungarian State Railway] head office. He
also served in the office of the vice-secretary of the Regent,
while it was still in operation. For his outstanding service,
he was awarded the knight's cross of Hungarian Order and
the bronze medal for merit. As reserve ensign, he took part
in the closing phase of the Second World War and because
100
of his quick thinking he was able to avoid Russian military
imprisonment. His wife was Margit (barakonyi and
zeleméri) Kovácsy, daughter of Dr. Ferenc Kovácsy, chief
counsel of the Court, and Melanie Schneller (who was
granddaughter of the former Istvén Schneller, university
professor at Kolozsvár). Their children:
II.e2/ba) István, born at Budapest, July 8, 1942.
II.e-3) Kalmán, born at Szinna, March 2, 1885. After finishing cadet
training school of Nagyvárad, he was a professional 'honvéd'
officer. However, after a short period of military service, he
entered public service, and he retired as a postal accountant
counselor. He participated in the the First World War and was
awarded a 'vitéz' medal. He was a reserve captain at the end. His
wife was Kornélia Eöttvös.
Of their marriage the following offspring were born:
II.e3/a) Kálmán, born at Nagyvárad, December 2, 1906, was a
doctor of political science; but he chose the field of
commerce as a profession. He had an independent alcohol
import-export agency before the Second WW. His wife was
Emilia Baron of Vienna. After the Second WW, they
moved to North America, to the United States.
II.-f) Mária, born at Homonna, November 2, 1844, died at the same place on 19th
January, 1916. She was likeable, of charming disposition, and she was a lady
respected by all; an example of the gentle ladies of the olden days. Her husband,
Kálmán (ráczböszörményi) Kelemen was born at Mád, January 28, 1838; he died
at Homonna, September 2, 1936. He was a lawyer at Homonna and had a
sparkling sense of humor; as an old fashioned very popular Hungarian gentleman.
By the special grace of God, he lived to be 98 years old and was completely
mentally alert until the end of his life.
101
B/Line of Lajos
We have little data on Lajos and his descendants; no more than what we could
deduce from the registry books at Magyar-Izsép and Petrik, because his line came to an
end after the third generation.
B) Lajos, born at Magyar-Izsép, August 16, 1759, died at Petrik, January 17,
1850. He was the son for whom his father György obtained, in 1782, testimonial
of nobility with the purpose that, during his stay abroad, he could use it to train
himself in the medical field. We do not know his later life, neither do we know
when and for what reason he moved to Petrik. He was married twice; his first wife
was Magdolna Raksányi whom he married July 22, 1786. His second wife was
Mária Sáradi who died November 19, 1830. His children (probably from the first
wife) were:
B-1) János, born at Petrik, May 21, 1878, died at the same place,
February 25, 1869. His first wife: Zsuzsánna (csicseri) Csicsery
who died November 19, 1844; his second wife was Mária Györy.
His children from the first marriage:
B-1a) Terézia, born at Petrik, August 8, 1819, died at the same
place, June 21, 1827.
B-1b) János, born at Petrik, August 8, 1822, died at the same
place, October 16, 1825.
B-1c) Terézia, born at Petrik, August 9, 1827, died at the same
place, February 13, 1829.
B-ld) Borbála, born at Petrik, February 25, 1830. Her husband was
János Petrás; their marriage was September 27, 1855.
B-le) Amália, born at Petrik, November 25, 1832. Her husband
was András Csicsery; their marriage was on August 8,
1853.
B-2) András, born at Petrik, September 29, 1789, died at the same place
on March 24, 1848. He was married three times. His first wife was
Mária Budaházy who died around 1829. The day of their marriage
was November 11, 1827. His second wife was Mária Isaák, born
around 1811. Their marriage was in 1831. She died May 28, 1836.
His third wife was Klára (nagyváradi) Stepán, born around 1809;
their marriage day was July 11, 1836. She died March 2, 1859.
Children, from the first marriage:
B-2/a) Dániel, born at Petrik, August 27, 1828, died May 5, 1834.
From the second wife:
B-/2/b) Ferenc, born at Petrik, December 11, 1832, died at the
same place December 29, 1859. His wife was Veronika
(nagyváradi) Stepán, born around 1829, died January 30, 1894.
Their children were:
B-/2/bl) Emilia, born September 28, 1855. Her husband
was Elek Laky; they divorced in 1879.
B-/2/b2) Erzsébet, born January 3, 1858, died May 5,
1859.
102
B-2/b3) Terézia, born March 4, 1860, died January 12,
1866.
B-2/c) Dániel, born at Petrik, January 24, 1835, died [?].
From the third wife of András:
B-2/d) Antal, born at Petrik, May 5, 1837, died December 21,
1841.
B-2/e) József, born at Petrik February 25, 1839, died at the same
place December 18, 1851.
B-3) Pál, born at Petrik, February 19, 1792, obtained a Certificate of
Nobility in 1829. He moved to the County of Krassó-Szöreny where he
entered the service of the Chamber [probably the Chamber of Advocates].
In the same year, his Nobility was announced in that county, he
disappeared without trace.
B-4) Mária, born at Petrik, July 16, 1796.
B-5) Anna, born at Petrik, September 7, 1799.
C) The line of Pál.
C) Pál, son of György Isépy from his second wife, Rozália Botka, continued the
family through the third branch, and his line is still thriving. He was born on
Magyar-Izsép on January 4th, 1767 and died on May 15, 1828. He was married
three times; his first wife was Krisztina (kelecsényi) Ruszka who was probably
born at Gálócz, Ung County, as their marriage was held at the same place on May
19, 1794. His second wife was N. Szentmiklóssy, and the third: Zsuzsánna
Kovács. We do not have further information on the second and third wife. Their
children, it appears, were all born from the first wife:
C-1) Erzsébet, born August 7, 1795. Her husband: József Ternyey, whom
she married on February 9th, 1831.
C-2) Katalin, born July 16, 1796, died October 1, 1868.
C-3) József, whose data are unknown, and who died in infancy.
C-4) József, born October 10, 1798.
C-5) Gábor, born in 1804, died April 28, 1859. His wife was Teréz
Juhász. The day of their marriage was December 27, 1835. Their
children:
C-5a) Borbála, born February 21, 1836, died January 1, 1837.
C-5b) Bertalan, born October 3, 1838, died May 19, 1872. His
wife was Ilona Rácz who died December 8, 1862. Their
marriage was on November 15, 1861. Their children:
C-5ba) Margit, born September 15, 1863. Her husband was
Béla Balogh whom she married in 1885.
C-5bb) Irma, born July 20, 1865. Her husband was Mihály
Tudja; the day of their marriage was December 28,
1888.
C-5bc) Ilona, born April 27, 1867. Her husband was Imre
Kardos, their wedding day was August 20, 1890.
C-5bd) András, born March 2, 1868, died June 22, 1868.
103
C-5be) Gyula, born July 20, 1869, died July 26, 1870.
C-6) Dániel, born August 14, 1809.
C-7) Tamás, born December 10, 1812. His wife was Mária Györössy,
whom he married on January 31, 1851. He owned lands at Barancs
and Orosz-Hrabocz (Nagy-Gerebélyes), that his descendants were
able to hold for a while even after the Czech occupation.
Their children:
C-7a) Ilona, born 1853, died July 20, 1855.
C-7b) Tivadar-Vilmos, born November 17, 1854, died in 1903.
His wife was Mária Tajoros, born March 31, 1871. They got
married September 7th, 1891. He managed his farm on his estate at
Barancs, and as an excellent farmer, he even enlarged it. Their
children:
C-7ba) Tivadar-Vilmos was born June 14, 1892 at
Barancs. He chose the vocation of seaman;
therefore he finished the commercial naval academy
at Fiume. Following that he took several extensive
sea voyages. During the First World War he served
in the imperial and royal navy, and at the end of the
war he was a frigate sub-lieutenant. After the
collapse of the Monarchy and the loss of sea power,
he became a member of the professional permanent
staff of the Royal Hungarian Navy. Thereafter he
completed a military commissioner's course and
was transferred to the officer corp. He also studied
law and a degree of doctorate was conferred on him.
During the Second World War he was, as lead
military commissioner-colonel, a commander of the
Royal Hungarian Navy and great distinction was
conferred on him for his valor. At the end of the war
he was a prisoner of war in Russia where he spent
more than three years. His wife was Györgyi
Brogyáni whom he married on May 24, 1919.
Their son:
C-7ba/1) Dezső, born February 21, 1920. After
finishing the Bolyay János military technical
academy, he was commissioned a lieutenant
in the Signal Corp. He took part in the
Second World War and became a prisoner
of war in Russia [SSSR] where he spent a
long time. His wife was Borbála (csebi)
Pogány.
C-7bb) László, born in 1895, at Barancs. He was a doctor
of law and currently* the county recorder of
Diósgyőr; the position he obtained when he was
104
forced to flee from the land occupied by the Czechs.
His wife was Klára (pilisi and szilasi) Pilissy. Their
children:
C-7bb1) Tamás.
C-7bb2) József.
C-7bc) Ferenc, born at Barancs, in 1897. He is a farmer on
part of the property at Baranch, on the area that the
Czechs occupied.
C-7bd) Anna, born in 1898 at Barancs. Her husband:
Sándor Gönczy is the chief judge of the district
court.
C-7c) József, born June 12, 1858, died June 4, 1916, at Budapest,
as technical counsel to the capital.
All those family members listed are without doubt descendants of the Isépy
family of Magyar-Izsép, who came from the Bogát-Radvány clan. Our work, however,
would not be complete, if we did not mention those families who also use the Isépy
(Izsépy) name, but their connection to the Isépy family of Magyar-Izsép had not been
possible to determine due to the lack of adequate data. We mention their names here,
because it is possible that they too are true branches of our family, however, broken away
during times of unknown circumstances.
First of all, we mention those whose noble origin was established by the Ministry
of the Interior under # 78894 / 1904. All of them originate from parents, Emil Izsépy and
Borbála Béresi. We had not been able to find the residence of either those named or their
descendants. Their names are:
Kornélia, born at Sátoraljaujhely, November 15, 1880.
Béla, born at Sátoraljaujhely, November 5, 1882.
Vendel, born at Sátoraljaujhely, October 19, 1886.
Emil, born at Sátoraljaujhely, May 27, 1889.
Considering the place of their birth, Zemplén County, it appears that they may be
descendants of György Isépy and his wife, Anna Thuróczy, residents of Tarcal, who
received a letter patent of nobility from King Károly III on May 21, 1719.
Besides these, we know of another Isépy (Izsépy) family whose lineage is:
András Izsépy, farm manager at Fáj.
Béla Izsépy, schoolteacher at Gyöngyös, Charlotte Izsépy, Ida Izsépy
Mária Izsépy
in Gyöngyös
Gyula Izsépy
in Eger
Gyula Izsépy
Edit Izsépy
Béla Izsépy
in Eger
Irén Izsépy
Hsbd: József Kosáry
in Eger
Margit Izsépy
Éva Izsépy
However, we do not have closer information on this family either, and the duty of
further research would be to shine light on whether or not the above-mentioned Isépys
(Izsépys) are indeed members of our family.
105
Abundant source material provided the possibility for us to follow the history of
the Magyar-Izsép family, without interruption, from the beginning of the appearance of
documents all the way to our present day and to place them in the destiny of Hungary.
We also think that during the course of our research, we managed to obtain an insight
into time of the first centuries following the original settlement of the Magyars in
Hungary. Already at the initial period of the settlement we found traces of our ancestors.
The XVII century's original documents of nobility give voice to the conviction that our
clan comes from those Scythian ancestors who won the country for their descendants by
shedding their blood.
Tracing the life of our family from the distant past over the centuries shows our
family had a more modest life than some of the more famous clan branches and it cannot
show off proudly with men famous in the whole country, such as the Rákóczy brothers
(who gave the best to our country). Also our family did not enjoy the high status of the
Monokys. After the rapid dissolution of the family wealth, for centuries we lived close to
the soil and lived a life of the landowner middle nobility, full of adversities and worries,
but exemplifying the ancient virtues and faults of this class. From the beginning, among
these characteristics was a tendency for despotic measures and the instinct for obtaining
lands by ruthless means. When the family financial decline started to take place, this
deteriorated into the fault of too easily letting the lands go. Sensible and strong-willed
men, however, succeeded in stopping the dissolution of land-ownership in time and
thereby averting the danger of a total financial ruin.
The frequent disagreements over land caused permanent tension in several
generations. That condition brought with it passionate clashes between relatives and
neighbors.
With the passing of time these passions slowly calmed and new ideals were
realized in countrymen worrying about the fate of their country, the on-going struggle for
ancient national rights and for freedom of religion -- causes for which the family also
made their own sacrifices. Members of the family in the modern age, from the middle of
the XIX century, adjusted to the changed circumstances caused by political reforms, in a
calm manner. They stood their post admirably everywhere fate placed them. The family
participated in a worthy manner in the two World Wars of the first half of the XX
century.
It is noteworthy that in examining data with reference to the clan that the lineage
was somewhat precarious, in that, during the centuries it was mostly a single male who
carried the family further; only the last several generations showed a propensity for
ample reproduction. It is close to a miracle that this branch of the family maintained the
bloodline of the chieftain Bogát and the palatinate Nádor; although the tree of the
Rákóczy, as well as, the Monoky families grew extensive branches for a long time.
The phenomenon of a single descendant's tie to the land made it difficult for his
family members to get seriously involved in public life, to take on an official position, or
to show great courage at a given opportunity. Only after the end of the system of the
feudal estates and the final annihilation of land ownership, do we find the family in
public roles requiring legal knowledge and, in most recent times, in the service of the
military.
The continuance of the family to our days, in any case, shows a great survival
instinct. We can look into the future with confidence and hope that generations following
106
us, by the Grace of God, will be able to face life's challenges courageously and
steadfastly. Learning from the examples of our ancestors we will continue the family (the
only one living branch of the ancient Bogát-Radvány clan), that is, the blood of the
conqueror chieftain Bogát, until the end of time.
-------------
107
Footnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, volume I
page 248.
Dr. Wertner M.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, pages 104 116. Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig volume I
pages 248-260.
Dr. Erdélyi László: A magyar lovagkor nemzetségei, 1200 – 1408, page 3.
Kézai Simon ‘circa 1275’: De nobilius advenis, Endlicher kiadás, page 126.
“Sed illi, qui Radvan et Bakat nominator eorum generation de Boemia ortum
Mabet” – Horváth István: Magyarország nemzetségeiről.
Dr. Erdélyi László: A magyar lovagkor nemzetségei, 1200 – 1408, page 4.
Eckhart Ferenc: “Jog- és alkotmánytörténet” cimű fejezet, Hóman Bálint: “A
magyar történetírás új útjai” page 287.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume II page18.
Anonymus: Gesta Hungarorum, chapters 39, 41 and 53.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages 122, 126,137 and 158: Nagy
Géza: Arpádkori személyneveink. Turul IX published in 1891 page 95.
Szalay László: Magyar Történet, I.27. Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet I.137.
Nagy Géza: Árpádkori személyneveink. Turul IX. Published 1891 page 115.
Hóman Bálint: A honfoglaló törzsek megtelepedése. Turul XXX.évfolyam.95.
Szilágyi Sándor: A magyar nemzet története, volume II pages 86-87.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet 282 – volume II page 242.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VI page 444. –Hazai
okmánytár, volume VII page 26.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume I pages 24 – 25.
Zemplén vm.levéltára:1782.Pol.87 pages 207 – 208.
Zemplén vm.levéltára: Könyv: A NoL. Lap1419. -425-ig. Kötet: 4. Szám: 118.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, volume I
page 248.
Kubinyi Ferenc: Régi magyarok személynevei. Turul.III. Published1885, page
173. Nagy Géza: Árpádkori személyneveink. Turul IX published in 1895 page
115.
Ligeti Lajos: A magyarság [magyarság] őstörténete page 189.
Nagy Géza: Árpádkori személyneveink. Turul IX published in 1895 page 112.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Pór Antal: Válasz Nagy Géza “Árpádkori személyneveink, stb” cikkére. Turul
IX published 1891, page 287, mely szerint a “ch” mássalhangzó kiejtése
[kiejtése] váltakozó és esetenként “cs”- nek, “h”-nak, “k”-nak, “c”-nek, sőt
olykor “j”-nek is olvasandó.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, volume I
page 248.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140. Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár
[okmánytár], volume VI page 444.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár [okmánytár] volume VII page 6.
Hazai okmánytár, volume VII page 26.
108
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár [okmánytár],volume VII page 345
and volume IX, page 383: Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom.98-99. Fasc. 1728,
No. 17.
Hazai okmánytár, volume V page 11.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume IV, pages 2 to 118.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume V pages 2 to 463..
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Zala vm. Okmánytár, volume II page 442.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, volume I
page 249.
Dr. Erdélyi László: A magyar lovagkor nemzetségei, 1200 – 1408, page 7.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig (volume and
pages missing): Dr. Erdélyi László: A magyar lovagkor nemzetségei, 1200 –
1408, pages 14 to 16.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, volume I
page 132.
Dr. Wertner M.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, pages 74. Dr.
Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, volume I page
132.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume IV, pages 2 to 26.
Hazai okmánytár, volume VII page 26.
Gróf Károly: cs.oklevéltára, volume I page 28. Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai, volume II page 243.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VI page 444.
Hóman Bálint: Szent István, 57.
Hóman Bálint: Szent István, 57.
Hóman Bálint: A honfoglaló törzsek megtelepedése. Turul XXX. Published
1912, page 95.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, volume II
page 343.
Thallóczy Lajos: Adalékok az óhit [óhit] történetéhez. Századok, published
1896, pages 199 – 206. Hóman Bálint: A honfoglaló törzsek megtelepedése.
Turul XXX. Published 1912, page 111.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages 159 – 160.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages 159 – 160.
Nagy Géza: Árpádkori személyneveink. Turul IX. Published 1891 page 115.
Szilágyi Sándor: A Magyar nemzet törteneté története, volume II page 262.
Thuróczy, volume II, cap.63.
Kempelen Béla: Magyar nemes családok, volume V page 196: Révai Nagy
Lexikon, volume 5 page 120.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140: Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár,
volume VI page 444. Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, Tom.10 volume II,
page 90. Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps. 66 Fasc.1.No 1. Keresztes K. :
Rákóczyak. Turul XLII, published 1928, notebooks 1 and 2.
109
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
Csiz pusztára vonatkozólag 1. “Adalékok Zemplén vm. törtéhetéhez.” Published
1902 104.old.
…dalon: Nádorok névsora. 22.kötet Mog /Mocho, Mok/ hihetöleg a BogátRadván nemzetségről, bácsi főispán, előbb országbiró, 1188 -94: 2-szor 1198.99
bácsi főispán 3-szor: bihari és soproni főispán. 1206.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages 426 - 427.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140: Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár,
volume VI page 444.
Hazai okmánytár, volume VII page 26.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 98 -99. Fasc. 1729. No. 17. Hazai okmánytár,
volume V page 23. Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VII page
345 and volume XI page 383.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages 220 - 221.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, 209.10.315.
Hóman Bálint: A magyar történetirás új útjaiból, Eckhard F.: Jog- és
alkotmánytörténet, 288-290.: Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages
220, 221 and 494.
Hóman Bálint: A magyar történetirás új útjaiból, Eckhard F.: Jog- és
alkotmánytörténet, 290.: Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I page 473.
Hóman Bálint: A magyar történetirás új útjaiból, Eckhard F.: Jog- és
alkotmánytörténet, 291.: Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I page 473
and 494.
Hóman Bálint: A magyar történetirás új útjaiból, Eckhard F.: Jog- és
alkotmánytörténet 292.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140: Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár,
volume VI page 444.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VII page 6.
Hazai okmánytár, volume VII page 26.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VII page 345 and volume XI
page 333. Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 98 -99. Fasc. 1728. No. 17.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus (volume and pages missing).
Rákóczy-Aspremonth Levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.1. No.1.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Keresztes Kálmán: Rákóczyak, Turul XLII. Published 1928, 1-2 füz. 44.
Balla Antal: II Rákóczi Ferenc, 18.
Hóman-Szekfű: Magyar Történet, volume I pages 171, 172 and 194.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VI page 444. Országos
Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No. 50 and D1.139140.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 98 - 99. Fasc. 1728. No. 17. Hazai okmánytár,
volume V page 23. Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VII page
345 and volume XI page 383.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No. 50 and D1.139140.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume VII page 6.
Hazai okmánytár volume VII page 26.
Zala vm-i okmánytár, volume II page 542.
110
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
Hazai okmánytár, volume V page 11.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 4 – II.118.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.
Hazai okmánytár, volume VI page 32.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 9 – IV.215. Meléthey Barna Mihály
genealogiai gyüjteménye, elhelyezve a Nemzeti Muzeum Széchényi
könyvtárában, Fol. Lat. 3600.X.121 – 136. szám alatt /Isépy cs. csomagja/ Fasc.
CXXV.a.e
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 9 – IV.215.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, volume I
page 248.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth Levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.1. No.1.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 86. Fasc. 1548. No. 88.
Országos Levéltár: 2905/9.1849. Verseichnis Jener Zunamen [Zunamen]
Welche unter der Ministerio verändert wurden. Magyarország császári polgári
biztosának levéltárából.
Csoma József: Magyar Nemzetségi cimerek, 45.
Csoma József: Magyar Nemzetségi cimerek, 46.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, 1. BogátRadván nemz. Dr. Wertner Mór.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század
közepéig 1. Bogát-Radván nemz.
Gróf Károlyi család oklevéltára, I.181.222. Történelmi tár, 1892.504.
Anjoukori okmánytár, volume I page 620. Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus,
volume VIII. Page 5. Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 85. Fasc. 1545. No. 2
and 3.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 8 – V.127 and 9.III.5. Anjoukori
okmánytár, volume I page 620.
Jászói convent levéltára: FASC. Metal.3.act. No 15.docum.1.a.e.
A nagybessenyői Bessenyey cs. története, 1336.év.
u.ott [ugyanott] and 1342. év alatt.
u.ott "
Országos Levéltár: D.1.4043 and D1.139140. N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 398. No.
50.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.4753, D.1.4951 and D1.5311.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, I. BogátRadván nemz. Isépy-Bogát ág.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 9 – V.425.
Országos Levéltár: D1.139140.10.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.59 Fasc.3. No.1. Országos Levéltár:
D.1.376.a.2.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume XII page 307 /367.old/,
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 5 – II.463.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig, I. BogátRadván nemz. Isépy-Bogát ág.
Keresztes Kálmán: Rákóczyak, Turul XIII. Published 1928 1-2 füz. 48.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.9999.
111
113.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Lit I Nro. 113 tio. Anno 1428. (currently Leles,
Slovakia)
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 4 – II.26.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.10235
Országos Levéltár: D.1.10235
Wagner, C.: Coll.gen.Hist. Illustr.Hung.Familiarum quae jam interciderunt,
volume IV. Page 89.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 9 – IV.388.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.3972. Anjoukori okmánytár, volume II page 338.
/380.old./.
mint. 119.alatt.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.2564. Anjoukori okmánytár, volume II page 389
/444.old/.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, volume I
page 254.
Dr. Karátsony I.: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig, volume I
page 254.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.3461.377.9999.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.377.3461.9999. Anjoukori okmánytár, volume IV page
189.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.3972. Keresztes Kálmán: Rákóczyak, Turul XLII.
Published 1928 1-2 füz. 46.old.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.1413.4142. Anjoukori okmánytár, volume V page 398.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.6948.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.7143.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Lra I No. 114.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.7404.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.7562.7563.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume XI page 383.
Wenzel Gusztáv: Árpádkori új okmánytár, volume XI page 383. Országos
Levéltár: D1.376. Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.59 Fasc.3. No.1.
Országos Levéltár: 139140.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 50 § 12. D1.139140.: Fejér
György: Codex diplomaticus, 10 volume I. Page 288.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 50 § 13. D1.33763.: Leleszi
convent levéltára: Act. No 1.Anno 1388.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.1. No.1. Országos Levéltár:
N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 50 § 14. D1.139140.
Zichy levéltár: volume V page 595.
Országos Levéltár: D.1.7143. Codex diplomaticus, Com. Zichy, volume V.
pages 91 to 93. Adalékok Zemplén vm. történetéhez [történetéhez] published
1915, 313.old.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 95 - 97. Fasc. 1694. No 3.: Fejér György:
Codex diplomaticus, 10 volume II. Page 69. Szirmay Antal: Not. C. Zemplén.
Topogr. polit.§.123. page 90.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 39. Fasc. 771. No 6. D1.24689.
112
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában található családi oklevél másolatokból.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 85. Fasc. 1545. No 47.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Sub I No. 118. Anno 1400.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 50 § 15, 16. D1.139140.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 10 – IV.205-205. M. Barna
genealogiai gyüjteménye, B.A. Loc. Fasc. XXXI. Loc 5.A.1403. Isépy cs.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, volume 91 – IV.124. M. Barna genealogiai
gyüjteménye, Isépy cs., 22.iv.309.lap.
Országos Levéltár: D1:159.10866 and 12676. Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában
lévő feléjegy zés [feljegyzés] alapján.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 50. D1.139140.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 50. § 5.6. D1.139140.
Országos Levéltár: D1.10168.
Országos Levéltár: D1.377.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act. No. 64. Anno 1415. M. Barna genealogiai
gyüjteménye: 38.iv.332.lap., Isépy cs., Országos Levéltár: D1.10391.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 85. Fasc. 1546. No 109. D1.10235.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 82. Anno 1414.
M. Barna genealogiai gyüjteménye: 308.lap 21.iv. Isépy cs.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 3. Anno 1410.
M. Barna genealogiai gyüjtemény: 36.iv, 329.lap and 37.iv, 330.lap. Isépy cs.
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus, Tom. 10 volume V pages 719, 720, 721.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 17. Anno 1416.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 1. Anno 1416.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 19. Anno 1418.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 1. Anno 1418.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 15. Anno 1418.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 37. Anno 1419.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 86. Fasc. 1448. No 88.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Hab. Act. Vetustor Sub. No. 18, fasc 5. Anno 1429.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 94. Anno 1422.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 30. Anno 1424.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 86. Fasc. 1574. No 18.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 57. Anno 1429.
Ettől az időponttól ugyanis semmit sem hallunk róla sem a birtokról [s z birtok,
I think this would be "sem a birtokrol"?]. Leleszi convent levéltára: No.Fasc.
23. Anno 1433.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 23. Anno 1433.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 6. Anno 1433.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Actor vetustor. No. 36. Fasc.Anno 1433.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc.1 Anno 1436.
Országos Levéltár: D1.12861.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 86. Fasc. 698. No 33. D1.12576.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 44.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 57. Fasc. 1035. No 40. D1.16370. Leleszi
convent levéltára: No. Fasc.12 Anno 1466.
113
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Hab. Act. Vetustor Sub. No. 23, fasc 13. Anno 1470.
Vide Actor. No. 30 Anno 1470.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 5. Fasc. 53. No 24. D1.16822.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 6. Anno 1469.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 30. Anno 1470.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 30. Anno 1502.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 39. Fasc. 766. No 22. D1.16998.
hg. Esterházy cs. levéltára: A01472.§-24
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 8. Anno 1475.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 39. Anno 1479.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 17. Anno 1479.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 5. Anno 1479. Leleszi convent levéltára:
No.Fasc. 39. Anno 1479.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No.Fasc. 14. Anno 1482.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth Parvifol.8. Anno 1486.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth Parvifol.140. Anno 1502.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Elench.V.Lit.Z.No.32. Anno 1434. No. 33 Anno 1437
No. 34. Anno 1440. No.31 Anno 1431.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 2. Anno 1490.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 2. Anno 1490.
Leleszi convent levéltára: No. Fasc. 38. Anno 1499.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 4 Fol.2. Anno 1503.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 1 Fol.151. Anno 1504.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698. No 28. Leleszi convent
levéltára: Act No. 7. Anno 1505.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 86. Fasc. 1561. No 5.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 1 Fol. 26. Anno 1506.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 1 Fol.23. Anno 1506.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Elench.V.Lit.T.No.113. Anno 1506.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 18. Anno 1508.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 1 Fol. 71. and Proth Parvifol.186. Anno 1509.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth Parvifol.192. Anno 1509.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 39. Fasc. 766. No 58.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 39. Fasc. 779. No 58. and Tom. 95-97. Fasc.
1694. No 16.
mint 207./alatt.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 5 Fol. 83. Anno 1520.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 29. Fasc. 550 No 4.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 29. Fasc. 550 No 4.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 16. Fasc. 388. No 26.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő családi oklevél másolatokból.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 16. Fasc. 1. Anno 1560.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc. 92 No. 126. Prot.1. page 479. Anno 1564.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 57. Fasc. 1031. No 34; Tom. 64. Fasc. 1178.
No 8; Tom. 110. Fasc. 1861. No 52. Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66
Fasc.2. No.6 – 14 old.
114
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.
254.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Elench.VI.a.Lit.I.Libellus octavus Signaturum No.
150 Fol. 127. Anno 1583.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 550 No 34.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 112-113. Fasc. 1884 No 49.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 36. Fasc. 698 No 35 and 40.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Lit I. No. 65. Anno 1570.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 38. Lib Fol. 55. Anno 1571.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Hab. Libro Sig. 3, Folio 54. Anno 1571. Országos
Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 112-113. Fasc.1884 No 49.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act No. 82. Anno 1575.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Elench.VI.a.Lit.K. Nro. 180 Lib. 5 Fol. 145. Anno
1576.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 57 Fol. 140. Anno 1613. M. Barna genealogiai
gyüjteménye: 41.iv.337.old.Isépy cs.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 49. Fasc. 925. No 38; N.R.A. Tom. 5 Fasc.
70. No 8.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 112-113 Fasc.1884. No 49.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 87. Fasc.1574. No 18.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act. No. 11. Fasc. 1. Anno 1579.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Hab. Libro Sig. 7, Folio 29. Anno 1580.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc 48. No. 303. Anno 1581.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No.2. Leleszi convent
levéltára: Elench.VI.a.Lit.I Lib.octavus.Sign.143. Lib.8 Fol. 61. Anno 1582.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 3. No. 76.H.H. Anno 1582.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act. No. 12. Fasc. 1. Anno 1582.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act. No. 15. Fasc. 2. Anno 1582.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 28.vo Fol. 78. Anno 1582 and Lib.F. No. 116
Anno 1582.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411. Locuto 3 No. 74, H.H.
and Caps. 5 No. 5. 143.old. Caps.100. Fasc.3. No. 753. – 13.lap. Loc. 3. No. 76.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Elench.VI.a.Lit.I. Libellus octavus Signaturum No.
150 Lib. 8 Fol. 137. Anno 1583.
mint 249./alatt.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Hab. Libro Sig. 8, Folio 162. Anno 1581.
mint 251./alatt.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 89. No. 482. Proth. 5 page 545. Anno 1587.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 41. Fasc.813. No 1.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411.nPage 43. No. 5.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act. 36. Fasc. 3. tio Anno 1590.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 91. No. 237. Proth. 4 page 482. Anno 1568.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 91. No. 237. Proth. 4 page 482. Anno 1568.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 91. No. 238. Proth. 5 page 497. Anno 1590.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.100 Fasc.2. No. 753.102.old.
Nagy Iván: Magyarország családjai: I. Isépy cs.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 12. No. 29. Anno 1587. and Loc 12. No. 32. Anno
1589. Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411. Locuto 12.
115
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
274.
275.
276.
277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
No32. M. Barna genealogiai gyüjteménye: Isépy Antalnak a gyüjt. elején
csatolt leveléből.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 12. No. 33. Anno 1593.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Ex Actis Archivi I. Comitatus Zempleniásis signantur
Loculo Juridict. 2 No. 48. reperibilibus. Anno 1609.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 51. Fol. 111. Anno 1609. Zemplén vm.
levéltára: Loc 2. No. 48. No. 7 and 9.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 25. No. 119. Anno 1593. Rákóczy-Aspremonth
levéltár, Caps.100 Fasc.2. No. 753 109.old. Locullo 25. No 119.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő családi oklevél másolatokból.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 319. Anno 1756.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 91. No. 242. Proth. 6 page 54. Anno 1604.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 2. No. 48. No. 6 and F. Anno 1609.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 91. No. 243. Anno 1604.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 2. No. 48. No. 7 and 9.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth 57. Fol. 140. Anno 1613. and Proth 57. Fol.
140. No. 4. Anno 1615.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Elench.VII.a.Lit.I. No. 41 Lib. 15 Fol. 226. Anno
1615. M. Barna genealogiai gyüjteménye: Isépy cs. 41.iv.337.lap.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 308. Anno 1616.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő családi oklevél másolatokból, 47.sz
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 47.sz oklevél másolatából.
M. Barna genealogiai gyüjteménye: Isépy cs. 41.iv.337.lap. Anno 1628.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 28.sz iratról.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Prot. No. 1796 page 145 and Fasc.120 No. 28. Anno
1634.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 25. No. 98. Anno 1635. Rákóczy-Aspremonth
levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411 Page 281. No 90.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 88. No. 362. Proth. 13 page 661 and 667. Anno
1636.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411 Page 72. No 63. Anno
1640.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 29. No. 50. Anno 1648.
M. Barna genealogiai gyüjteménye: Isépy cs. 41.iv.337.lap.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 29. No. 50. Anno 1648.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411 Page 191. No 46.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 25. and 34. sz családi oklevél
másolatokból.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 300. Anno 1652 and Loc. 91. No. 244.
Prot 8. page 1127. Anno 1652. Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1.
No. 411 Page 78. No 100.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc. 94. No. 114. and Prot 8. page 1153. Anno 1652.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.11. No.1.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411 Page 82. No 117.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 8. Anno 1776 March 6.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc. 87. No. 226. Prot 9. page 836. Anno 1668.
116
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 100. Fasc.1373. No 3.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 100. Fasc.1744. No 57.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No.12.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 312. Anno 1681. Rákóczy-Aspremonth
levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411 Page 109. No 62.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 12.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 102 and 103. Fasc.1763. No 26.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 12.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 12.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 64. Fasc.1148. No 52.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Hab Sig 34. Fol. 40 Anno 1679.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 74. Fasc.1338. No 61.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act. No. 5 Anno 1682.
Ecsedy József táblabiró gen. gyüjteményéből.
Ecsedy József táblabiró gen. gyüjteményéből.
Ecsedy József táblabiró gen. gyüjteményéből.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.11. No. 1.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 68. Fasc.1239. No 54.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 681. Fasc.1239. No 55.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 57. Fasc.1043. No 28.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 68. Fasc.1239. No 56 and 57.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 27.sz családi okiratból.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 75. Fasc.1357. No 21.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 75. Fasc.1366. No 88.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. Nob. 13 No. 1196.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 26.sz családi okiratból.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 70. Fasc.1267. No 14.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Proth. 1 Page 65 Anno 1720.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 26.sz iratból.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 18. Anno 1723.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 112 and 113. Fasc.1884. No 49.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 30.sz iratból.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48 No. 313. Anno 1731.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Fol 29. Act. No. 15 Anno 1736.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth Fol. 21 and 23 Act No. 12 Anno 1736.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 27. No. 77. Anno 1737.
Keresztes Kálmán: Rákóczyak, Turul XLII. Published 1928 1-2 füz. 59.old.
Országos Levéltár: N.R.A. Tom. 57. Fasc.1048. No 43.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 8 No. 242. Anno 1747.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 22 No. 75. Anno 1747.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 19.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 87. No. 7. Anno 1741.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 91. No. 298. Prot. 33 page 182 Anno 1741.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.100 Fasc.2. No. 753.113.lap. No. 58.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411 Lucullo 4 No. 58.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 10. No. 927. Anno 1742.
117
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Proth Fol. 22 Anno 1744.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 315. Anno 1743. Rákóczy-Aspremonth
levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411. page 570Anno 1375.
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő 32.sz iratból.
Leleszi convent levéltára: Act 6 Proth Fol. 7 and 8. Anno 1752.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 25 No. 121. Anno 1759. /1751/.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 87 No. 9. Anno 1752.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc 93 No. 232. Anno 1754. M. Barna genealogiai
gyüjteménye: Isépy cs. 41.iv.337.lap.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Proth. 46 page 624. Anno 1755.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 317. Anno 1754.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 316. Anno 1754.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 21. No. 104. and Loc. 91 No. 246. Anno 1754.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 318. Anno 1756.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 320. Anno 1756.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 48. No. 321. Anno 1756.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Fasc. 20. No. 74. Anno 1760.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.100 Fasc.2. No. 753.49.old. No. 74 and
u.ott: Caps 66..
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.95 Fasc.1. No. 411.Lucullo 3 No. 74. Anno
1761.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.5 No. 5, 5 and 6 old. Anno 1762.
u.ott 19.old.
u.ott 24.old.
u.ott 31.old.
u.ott 39.old.
u.ott 44.old.
u.ott 95.old.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.18. No. 13.no.1.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No.1.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.4. No. 3./B/.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.18. No. 24.
Zemplén vm. levéltára: Loc. 91 No. 248. Proth. 54 page 100. Anno 1763.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.66 Fasc.17. No. 29.
Rákóczy-Aspremonth levéltár, Caps.100 Fasc.2. No. 753.71.
Footnotes 362 through 397 have been lost from the original.
Definitions
"kaptalan = chapter": advisory body of bishops or heads of religious orders, an ecclesiastic body entrusted
with notarial functions. A place where certifications were done and documents, such as charters, deeds and
other legal instruments, were preserved.
"convent": a church body such as a monastery or convent that, in the Middle Ages, was the administrator of
royal orders, especially relating to property. Legal rights, especially deeds, were recorded by the local
church authorities. Even as late as the early part of the 20th century, it was the church that registered all
sorts of civil matters (including wills) in Hungary.
118
References
Anonymous: Gesta Hungarorum
Balla, Antal: II.Rákóczi Ferenc
Barna Mihály /melethei/ genealogiai gyüjteménye
Bessenyei /nagybecsenyői/ család története
Csoma Jószef: Abauj vármegye nemes családai
Csoma Jószef: Magyar Nemzetségi Cimerek, nemes Csuka család oklevelei
Ecsedy József ny.táblabiró genealógiai gyüjteménye
Dr Erdélyi László: A Magyar lovagkor nemzetségei 1200 – 1408
hg.Esterházy család levéltára
Fejér György: Codex diplomaticus
Hazai okmánytár
Hóman Bálint: A honfoglaló törzsek megtelepedése, /Turul XXX.écf./
Hóman Bálint: A Magyar történetírás új útjai
Hóman Bálint: Szent István
Hóman-Szegfü: Magyar Történet
Hommonnai róm.kath.plébánia anyakönyvi adatai
Horváth István: Magyarország nemzetségeiröl
Dr. Isépy Tihamér hagyatékában lévő oklevél-másolatok
Jászói convent levéltára
Dr. Karátsonyi János: A Magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig
gr.Károlyi család oklevéltára
Kempelen Béla: Magyar Nemes Családok
Kereszetes Kálmán: Rákócziak, /Turul:XLII.évf./
Kézai Simon: De nobilibus advenis. Endlicher kiadás
Kubinyi Ferenc: Régi magyarok személynevei. Turul III.évf.
Leleszi convent levéltára
Ligeti Lajos: A magyarság őstörténete
Magyarizsépi ref.egyház anyakönyvi adatai
Málcai ref.egyház anyakönyvi adatai
Nagy Géza: Arpádkori személyneveink. Turul IX.évf.
Nagy Iván: Magyarország Családjai
Országos Levéltár: Diplomatikai /D1./ és N.R.A. gyüjtemény
Őrmezői gör.kath. plébánia anyakönyvi adatai
Pallas Nagy Lexicon
Pör Antal: Válasz Nagy Géza “Arpádkori személyneveink” cikkére, Turul IX.évf.
Rákóczi-Aspremonth levéltár
Révay Nagy Lexicon
Szalay László: Magyar Történet
Szilágyi Sándor: A Magyar Nemzet Története
Thallóczy Lajos: Adalékok az Óhit történetéhez. Századok 1896.évf.
Történelmi Tár
Wagner C.: Coll.gen.Hist.illustr.Hung.Familiarum que jam interciderunt
Wensel Gusztáv: Arpádkori új okmánytár
Dr. Werter Mór: A magyar nemzetségek a XIV.század közepéig
119
Zala Vármegyei okmánytár
Zarándy /Stefezius de Thurstein/ Alfréd: Huba vére Szemere
Zemplén vármegye levéltára
Zemplén vm. Monografiája
gr.Zichy levéltár
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
2 and 3 List of land holdings and list of names mentioned in the family history.
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
4. A foldout chart of the Isepy family timeline is missing.
139
5. Documents from other sources: the state library, the convent library at Leleszi and
the Zemplén county library.
Collection of documents
(Copies of the most important documents)
C o n t e n t s:
Series #
Year
1.
1227.
2.
1235.
3.
1236.
4.
1243.
5.
1244.
6.
1247.
1217.
Subject
The Chapter of Eger confirms that István, son of Bogát, and his
brothers of the Bogát-Radvány clan, transferred his part of the
land at Lázon and Lunch to Mogra, son of Sándor, of another
branch of the same clan.
(From the judgment letter, dated 1409, of Palatine Miklós
Garai, the original of which is saved at the archives of the royal
chamber at Buda. Gusztáv Wenzel: A new collection of
documents from the times of Árpád, v.VI, p. 282, 444)
Testimonial letter of the Chapter of Veszprém regarding the
division of a land, in the vicinity of Haláp, by members of the
Bogát-Radvány clan, among themselves.
(The original of the Testimonial Letter of Palatine Miklós Garai
in the archives of the royal chamber of Buda.
Gusztáv Wenzel: A new collection of documents from the times
of Árpád, v. VII, no. 4, p.6)
Palatine Dénes makes a decision in the matter of Szántó Puszta,
a disputed between the reader-canon, Zlandus (descendant of
the Kaplony clan) of Székesfehérvár and the Lord High
Stewards of Ecser by Vindornya. The document describing this
event remembers Volphar's son Péter (of the Bogát-Radván
clan) and his brother Albert, as men of the above mentioned
Palatine, i.e. his assistant judges.
(National Collection of Documents, VI. 72. Dr. Karátsonyi:
The Hungarian clans, etc.)
All the members of the Bogát-Radván clan divided up the land
at Haláp in the presence of the Chapter of Veszprém.
Stanch of the Bogát-Radván clan sells part of his property
called Haláp to Rázló's son Miklós of the Hunt-Pázmán clan.
(Genealogical writings of Mihály Meléthei Barna. B.A.Loc.5.
Fasc. XXXI.1244. Isépy cs.291.195. and
B.A.Loc.3.Fasc.XVI.1244.p.6)
Kinsmen by the name of Pózsa and Lukács, of the BogátRadván clan, share their properties in a brotherly manner, in the
presence of the Chapter of Eger. (National Museum, Széchenyi
library, Fol.Lat.3600.X.nos. 121-136)
140
7.
1252.
8.
1252.
9.
1278.
10.
1282.
11.
1289.
12.
1298.
13.
1300.
14.
1300.
Testimonial Letter of the Chapter of Eger with reference to the
agreement made with Norvai Ghyz, by István Beréthey and
companions caused by the killing of Fylke.
(Original in the archives of the royal chamber at Buda. Gusztáv
Wenzel: New collection of documents from the times of Árpád, v.
VII, pp. 240.345)
Testimonial Letter of the Chapter of Eger with reference to the
negotiations of the Bogádradván [sic] clan regarding the subject
of homicide of Filke.
(From Barna Melethei's Hungarian Genealogical collection,
12.iv.292.1)
King László IV. gives his permission to Pál, son of Gyapoly of
the Bogát-Radván clan, of the right to freely decide his last will.
(Gy. Fejér: Cod.dipl. V.2.-463)
Testimonial Letter of the Chapter of Eger with reference to the
final decision of Pál comes of the Bogáthradván [sic] clan.
(Dr. Karácsonyi: The Hungarian clans, etc., Wenzel: New
Collection of Documents from the times of Árpád, XII.307.-367.)
Testimonial Letter of the Chapter of Miszla (Mislye) with
reference to Dénes comes and sons, of the Bogát-Radván clan,
pledge their property at Migael to the sons of Máté.
(Original, on thin skin, is at the archives of the royal chamber at
Buda.)
(Wenzel, G.: New Collection of documents from the times of
Árpád, v. XII. pp. 400-484)
Testimonial Letter of the Chapter of Eger with reference to
Mihály, son of László, of the Bogat-Radvan clan, passed certain
parts of his property in Synk, as quarter inheritance due to his
older sister.
(Original, on thin skin, is at the archives of the royal chamber at
Buda. Wenzel: New collection of documents from the times of
Árpád, v.X, pp. 203.315)
Palatine Omóde instructs the Chapter of Eger to install Zochud's
son, Mártonos, and grandson, Viszló, into the properties at Merk
and Izsép of Zemplén county, on the basis of certain demands
made against István's sons, István and Miklós .
(Dr. Karácsonyi: The Hungarian clans, etc. Count Károlyi's
archives, v.I. 26-27. National collection of documents, VII. #246)
Judgment, according to which the properties of István's son István
at Megyaszó and Eneruh get evaluated in response to certain
demands of Zochud's son Mártonos.
(National collection of documents, VII. #255 - Count Károlyi's
archives: I. pp. 25. 28)
141
15.
1309.
16.
1318.
17.
1321.
18.
1321.
19
1321.
20.
1324.
21.
1328.
In the presence of the Palatine Onode Pongrác, Chelei and Jakab's
son, Mihály, came to an agreement regarding the practice of
advowson of the church of Szerencs.
(Collection of documents from the Anjou times, I. #164,
p.178)
The Chapter of Eger testifies that Miklós comes of the BogáthRadván clan, sold his properties (called Mediaszov and Batha) to
János, provost of Gyulafehérvár, and his brothers.
(Archives of the Chapter of Erdély at Gyulafehérvár, #611
/regesta [collection of documents]/ Historical collection, 1892,
p.504)
Kemén Comes' son, István and Berke, Comes' son János, provost
of Gyulafehérvár and royal vice-chancellor, came to an agreement
with László, son of Sándor Monoki of the Bogátradván [sic] clan,
regarding the matter of the property at Szada of Zemplén County.
(With a seal hanging on red and green silk cord; its original in the
State Archives: N.R.A. 1534. #38; Collection of documents from
the Anjou times, v.I, #564, p.917)
Kemén's son, János and Berke Comes' sons came to an agreement
with László Comes (of the Bogátradván [sic]clan) and István's
son István (of the same clan) regarding the practices of advowson
of the monastery of Szerencs.
(Dr. Karácsonyi: The Hungarian clans, etc. Fejér, Gy: Codex
diplomaticus, VIII.5. 127 - Collection of documents of the Anjou
times, I.620)
Károly, king of Hungary, grants properties of Berető, Lazony,
Lask and Mihályi, confiscated from Peter, son of Botond Tholdi,
to Master István and the sons of István.
(Fejér, Gy: Codex diplomaticus, v.VIII, #LXXVIII. p.127)
János Pelejthei, son of Mártonos, getting into trouble because of
damages done through his aggressiveness, could only avoid its
consequences, through the help of Mihály, commander of Füzer,
but in exchange he had to give him his property at Azar. Mátyus,
son of János Isépy was present at the installation of Master
Mihály.
(Copy prepared from family documents in the estate of Dr.
Tihamér Isépy)
Balázs Rákóczi (of the Bogát-Radván clan) and Máté Isépy (of
the same clan) came to an agreement, in the presence of Pál Lord
Chief Justice, regarding Rákócz, Körtvélyes, Arács, Morva and
Synk, all in Zemplén County.
(Collection of documents from the time of Árpád, v.II, #388,
p.380)
142
22.
1329.
23.
1335.
24.
1337.
25.
1342.
26.
1343.
27.
1347.
28.
1350.
As instructed by Pál, the Lord Chief Justice, the Chapter of Eger
installed Máté and Lukács, sons of János Isépy, into the property
called Arács.
(Original document in the State Archives: M.R.A. 939. 3.Dl.
#2564; Collection of documents from the Anjou times, v.II.,
pp.389-444)
János and Jakab, sons of István Isépy, as well as their uncle,
Miklós Comes give the place called Berczel, in Szabolcs County,
to the sister of the former, [and] wife of János Olasz, commander
of Boldogkő, in lieu of a quarter inheritance. (See the work of
"History of the Bessenyei family of Nagy Bessenyő"; Fejér, Gy:
Codex diplomaticus, tom VIII, vol.VI, p.133; in the archives of
the convent at Jászó; furthermore, in the collection of Barna of
Melethe M: The Isépy family, 15th sheet, #302. Placed in the
Szécsenyi Library of the National Musem, fol. [volume]
Lat.3650, X. #121-136.)
Mate Isépy (son of János) is present, in the presence of the
Palatine Villermus Drugeth, at the agreement that was made
between the sons of Gál Abajdóczi and Miklós Fonyi. (Collection
of documents from the Anjou times, v.III, pp.235-339. Original in
the State Archives, N.R.A. 1536.4.Dl.3055.)
Balázs, son of Mihály Rákóczi, passes half his property to the son
of Mihály Isépy.
(Original in the State Archives, N.R.A. 698.29.Dl.3461;
Collection of documents from the Anjou times, v.IV, pp.117-189)
The convent of Lelesz reports to Palatine Miklós Garai that at the
time of the installation of Jakab Isépy into the property of
Körtvélyes, the widow of the son of János; her sons oppose it.
(Original in the State Archives, N.R.A. 104.43.03. 3350-3559;
Collection of documents from the Anjou times, v.IV, p.184
/p.302/)
Mátyus and Lukács Isépy (sons of János), as representatives of
the authority, collaborated with Miklós and János Pelejthei in the
partition of their estate.
(The family of Count Károlyi's Collection of documents: I.114,
/p.169/)
The sons of István Isépy, as well as the sons of Pongrác Chelei
divided up their ancient and acquired properties in the presence of
the Chapter of Eger.
(Original document in the State Archives: N.R.A.
1537.28.Dl.4043; Collection of documents from Anjou times,
v.V, 147./p.278/)
143
29.
1350.
30.
1351.
31.
1351.
32.
1351.
33.
1344.
34.
1387.
Testimonial letter of the Chapter of Eger regarding the method of
division of the properties at Felsink, Rákócz, Morva and
Körtvélyes, by the sons of Balázs Rákóczi and Mihály Isépy, as
well as, the grandsons of Markalf.
(Original document at the State Archives: N.R.A.
698.31.DL.4142; Collection of documents of the Anjou times,
v.V, 147 /p.278/)
János Hosszúmezei's sons declare, in the presence of the Chapter
of Eger, that they cannot release the properties of Felsink and
Körtvélyes until the sons of Mihály Isépy settle matters relating to
another property.
(Original document at the State Archives: N.R.A. 299.12.
Dl.4198; Collection of documents from the Anjou times, v.V,
289.a. p.481)
In the presence of the Chapter of Eger, the sons of Balázs Rákóczi
declare, that as they belong to the diocese of Eger, they oppose
the fact that the sons of Mihály Isépy would have documents
prepared elsewhere regarding their properties at Körtvélyes and
Felsink or any other property.
(Original document at the State Archives: N.R.A.
195.16.Dl.42000; Collection of documents of the Anjou times,
v.V, #291, p.485)
Testimonial letter of the Chapter of Eger, stating that on the
appointed day, the sons of Balázs Rákóczi and those of János
Hosszúmezei appeared in person in order to confirm the
agreement regarding Felsink, Körtvélyes, Rákócz, Morva and
other properties; however, the sons of Mihály Isépy sent an
authorized representative whom the others did not accept.
(Original document at the State Archives: N.R.A. 98.32.Dl.4199.
Collection of documents of the Anjou times, v.V, #29l, p.483)
At the execution of judgment against János Füzéri, by the Lord
Chief Justice Miklós Szécsy, as men of the authority, the
following members of the Isépy family took part: István's son
István (of the Bogát branch), János's son, Mátyus of the Sztanch
branch, and Mihály's son Pál of the Péter branch.
(Count Károlyi family's collection of documents, I.147 p.227)
Lord Chief Justice Imre Pelsőczi Bubek, granted to the son of
Mátyus Isépy and to Miklós, (son of János Cseley) the properties
at Bánócz, Berető and Ujőr and a part property at Izsép that were
expropriated because of the death of Jakab, son of dictus János
Káthán, who died without descendants.
(Rákóczi-Aspremonth archives: Caps.56.Fasc.l.No.l)
Péter Isépy and Márkus, and the sons of Mátyus, as well as, the
144
35.
1388.
36.
1392.
37.
1398.
38.
1388.
39.
1400.
40.
1400.
41.
1400.
42.
1403.
43.
1409.
sons of Miklós and Domokos Cseley, give out the inheritance of
the widow and daughter of János Bánóczy after he died without
male descendants.
(State Archive of Lelesz: Ao.1388.No.l)
1470 Hungarian translation of documents about the division of
the families descending from the Bogát-Radván clan, in the
presence of the Chapter of Eger.
(Copy prepared from the documents in the estate of Dr. Tihamér
Isépy)
King Zsigmond bestows the village of Keék of Abauj County to
Péter and Márkus, sons of Mátyus.
(Additional material to the history of Zemplén County,
vol.1915.p.313. Codex diplomaticus of Count Zichy,
vol.V.page.91-93)
An agreement between the Isépy, Cseley and Leszteméry families
regarding the villages of Merk, Kéza and Sóskut.
(Copy prepared from the documents in the estate of Dr. Tihamér
Isépy)
Report of the Convent at Lelesz regarding the installation of
Márkus Isépy and Miklós Cseley into the village of Lazony and
Lask, also into parts of Lucz, Száda and Megyaszó, which Péter
Monoky objected to.
(State Archives of Lelesz: the year 1400. No.118.)
As ordered by Palatine Detre Pelsőczi Bubek, the Monokys
submitted their proofs as to the Isépy, Cseley and Banóczy
families' right to the advowson of Szerencs, as they are not related
to the Monokys.
(Reference information missing.)
Palatine Bubek Detre Pelsóczy's judgment regarding the
advowson of the monastery at Szerencs, that was the same due of
the defendant Monokys, as well as, the plaintiff Isépy, Cseley and
Banóczy families, as they all originated from the Bogát-Radván
clan.
(State Archive: N.R.A. Tom. 85, Fasc. 1545, No. 2.Dl.376;
Rákóczy-Aspremonth Archives: Caps.59.Fasc.3.No.l)
King Zsigmond gives permission to Péter Isépy to leave his
property in Abauj County, to Bertalan Thabajdy and his brother.
(Barna M. Meléthei's genealogical collection: B.A.Loc.Fasc.
XXXI.Loc.5. A.1403-Isép cs. [family] 36.iv.328 lap.)
Palatine Miklós Garay's judgment in regards to the distribution of
the lands of the Bogát-Radván clan.
(State Archives: N.R.A. Tom.36.Dasc.698.30.50.Dl.139140.)
The installation of Márkus Isépy to the property at Kismihályi,
145
44.
1413.
45.
1419.
46.
1506.
47.
1553.
48.
1575.
49.
1582.
50.
1683.
51.
1609.
52.
1609.
53.
1671.
that the widow of Mátyás Kis-Mihályi and her son Tamás object
to.
(Archives at Lelesz: Lra, M.10.100, Anno 1413.)
Because of the despotic behavior of Mátyus Isépy and János
Cseley at Izsép, Berető and Kis-Mihályi, further of Mátyus Isépy
at Arács, Bereczki and Karos, as well as, at Keék, the King seizes
those for the benefit of Peter Lasztoczy.
(Archives at Lelesz: Actorum No.37.Anno 1419)
Ambrus Isépy sold, in the Convent at Lelesz, all his property to
Zsigmond Berzenczey, commander of the castle at Terebes, and
his wife for 1000 gold forints.
(From copies in the estate of Dr. Tihamér Isépy)
Mortgage-bond of Gergely Tót for György Isépy and his son,
Sebestyén, about a small piece of meadow.
(From copies in the estate of Dr. Tihamér Isépy)
Deed of gift of István Radéczy, bishop of Eger and royal governor
of Hungary, to Sebestyén, Ferenc and András Isépy for the
properties at Izsép and Sóskut.
(State Archives: N.R.A. Tom.112-113. Fasc.1884.No.49,
furthermore, copies in the estate of Dr. Tihamér Isépy.)
Report of the Convent at Lelesz to Emperor and King Rudolf II,
with reference to the installation of Péter Fekete into the country
seat at Chernegrét (Csemegrész), that was opposed by András
Isépy, son of Sebestyén, as well as, György, son of the former
Ferenc.
(Rakóczy-Aspremonth archives: Caps.5.No.5.-143.old. Archives
of County Zemplén: Loc.3.No.76.H.H.- Anno 1582.)
Deed of gift of István Radéczy, bishop of Eger and royal governor
of Hungary, to János Koncz and Péter Fekete.
(Rákóczy-Aspremonth archives: Caps.995.Fasc.1.No.411.
Loc.3.No.74.H.H.; further, Caps.5.No.5.0143.old. and
Caps.100.Fasc.2.No.753.-13.old. Loc.3.No.76.)
Farkas Gáspár Csörgői and András' son, Sebestyén Isépy
bequeath the property called Falucska to their sons.
(Barna Meléthey: Genealogical collection, 44.iv,340.la.)
Judit Isépy (wife of Benedek Farkas) transfers 1/4 of the Falucska
property to his husband's name, as a pledge.
(Barna Meléthei: Genealogical collection, 46.iv.344.l.)
List of noblemen of Szatmár, Bereg, Zemplén, Ung and Ugocsa,
as those participating in secret gatherings, suspect of treason, that
is, open rebels, and in addition, they are on record as Calvinist
and Lutheran heretics in the records of the treasury and by the
Chapter of Eger.
(State Archives: N>R.A. tom.100.Fasc.1737.No.3.)
146
54.
1672.
55.
1680.
56.
1690.
57.
1690.
58.
1703.
59.
1719.
60.
1719.
61.
1723.
62.
1736.
63.
1752.
Letter of investigation against persons, as hardened Calvinists
who used blasphemous words against the dignity of the King, the
Roman Catholic religion, generally Roman Catholics and their
priests, belittling the same, forcing their way in to the reoccupied
church at Nagy-Kazmér where they held secret gatherings.
(State Archive: N.R.A. Tom.100. Fasc.1744. No.57.)
Negotiations between the juvenile Mária Isépy, daughter of János
Isépy and Mária Szentpétery, granddaughter of István Isépy and
Margit Péter, and the descendants of Jakab Alistály and Mihály
Tatay.
([rosz.?] Archives of the convent at Lelesz: 26.szam. From the
Actor anno 1680.No5. document. )
Petition of György and Mihály Isépy to the Chamber of Szepes,
regarding the goods and chattels seized from their father, András
Isépy. (From a document in the estate of Dr. Tihamér Isépy.)
The order of the Chamber of Szepes to Baliff János Berzeviczy of
Varánno for the return of the goods and chattels of the former
András Isépy. (From a document in the estae of Dr. Tihamer
Isepy.)
Agreement of Anna Isepy [married to Bálint Hedry, later to János
Paxy] with Márton Izdenczy, regarding the goods and chattels at
Magyar-Izsép given in pledge, the so-called "Komlósi Contract".
(Rákóczy-Aspremonth archives. Caps.66.Fasz.17.No.12.)
Decision regarding the estate from the ancient land at Isép
(through the father) between the widow of György Isépy and her
children. (From a document in the estate of Dr. Tihamér Isépy.)
Letter patent of nobility, granted by Emperor and King Károly VI.
to György Isépy and his wife, Anna Turóczy, residents at Tarcal,
as well as, to their children called György and Judith.
(Liber Regius, 33.kotet [volume], 24.oldal [page], 45. sorszám
[serial number])
Division of the estate at Magyar-Izsép among the Izdenczy
siblings.
(Rákóczy-Aspremonth Archives. Caps.66.Fasc.17.No.18.
Ac.1723.)
Borbála Isépy and her uncle, Mihály Isépy pledge their share of
Felső-Fügöd to István Szirmay, Jr.
(Archives at Lelesz: Actorum No. 15. Anno 1736.)
Borbála Isépy, Lászlóné Vékey, further, Zsófia and Mária Isépy
and their inheritors, as well as, György Isépy sell their property at
Újfehértó and Szégegyháza (in the County of Szabolcs) to István
Erdődy and his wife. (Archives at Lelesz: Anno 1752. - Copy was
prepared from certified copy in the estate of Dr. Tihamér Isépy.)
Miklós, Zsigmond and István Balog, sell - in eternity - their
147
64.
1753.
65.
1761.
66.
1762.
67.
1768.
68.
1779.
69.
1782.
70.
1783.
71.
1786.
72.
1813.
73.
1838.
74.
1844.
75.
1903.
76.
77.
78.
1929.
portion of Felső-Fügöd inherited from the predecessors of the
former András Isépy and the former András Nagy of Fügöd to
István Szirmay, Jr.
Archives of Lelesz: Actorum Pret. Fol.37. Anno 1753.)
Friendly agreement between Count János Govert Aspremonth, as
well as, János Izdenczy, János, Gábor and László Fekete, for
reclaiming of parts of the properties originating from György
Isépy.
(Rákóczy-Aspremonth Archives: Caps.66.Fasc.4.No. 3.B.5.)
Agreement between of Anna and Mária Isépy, as well as, Ferenc
Pallay and István Izdenczy regarding the property at MagyarIzsép.
Zsófia Isépy, daughter of Mihál, and the wife of Ferenc Kozma
oppose the sale of the property at Fügöd, by Borbála Isépy
(Lászlóné Vékey).
(Archives of Lelesz: Prot.A. 1768.Fol.56-57. Act.No. 37.)
Letter of György Isépy, László Ormos of Csicser, and Ferenc
Kozma to Zsigmond Major, Judge of the County Court of Abauj
County, solicitor of the Counts of Aspremonth, regarding the
rights to the eternal properties at Magyar-Izsép and Sóskut left by
András and Ferenc Isépy.
(Rákóczy-Aspremonth Archives: Caps.66.Fasc.17.No. 44.)69.
Letter of Testimony of the General assembly of Zemplén County
for Lajos Isépy, son of Gyögy.
(Archives of Zemplén County: Protocollo Politicorum, No. 87.
Pagina 195., 207., 208, et 209. Anno.1782.)
Protestation of Gyögy Isépy before the Convent of Lelesz against
the equal inheritance of the female and male members of the
family.
(Archives of Lelesz: Anno 1783.fol.65-66. Act. No.42.)
Letter of Mátyás Heizler, manager of the estate at Bors of Count
Aspremonth, to the solicitor of the estate regarding the subject of
despotic behavior of Ferenc Isépy and Ferenc Kozma.
(Rákóczy-Aspremonth Archives: Caps.66.Fasc.2. No. 11.)
Statement of acknowledgment of István Goszthonyi to Antal
Isépy for the solicitor's work the latter did for him.
László Isépy sells his house at Homonna to the Honourable
Mihály Dragoner for the 1250 Ft. draft.
Verbal sparing of law students in Pozsony [Bratislava now].
Written by Sándor Takáts.
Authobiography of the widow Danielné Csuka, born Anna Cseleji
and Kolosi Cseley.
A short description of the history of the Kolosy Family.
Ancient family tree of Dezső Isepy.
"Obituary for the death of the laughing captain, Colonel László
148
79.
1934.
80.
1934.
81.
1929.
1895.
Isépy," article that appeared in the Magyar Hírlap [Hungarian
News], January 5, 1929 issue.
Adoption agreement, in which Aladár Isépy adopts his nephews,
Dr. László Teltsch and minor István Teltsch.
Supplementary statement in which Aladár Isépy authorizes the
adopted Dr. László Teltsch and minor István Teltsch, to petition
their forename and crest as soon as the right to transfer is revived
by the head of state.
Certifications of nobility.
149