Levéltári Közlemények, 61. (1990)

Levéltári Közlemények, 61. (1990) 1–2. - Fallenbüchl Zoltán: A XVIII. századi magyar archontológia / 3–21. o.

A XVIII. századi magyar archontológia 21 stantial registers, in a volume of the year 1979. An overwhelming part of the collected names and service data has — for the time being — not yet been published, but it certainly should be in the future, since a work like that could be used both as a historical research handbook and a reference of social history. Furthermore, in part of his essay, the author outlines the methodology of archontological studies. Such a work requires tight periodization and exact area determination, as well as a decision on how far the study should reach, in respect of different categories of officials; namely, upper, middle and lower officials. The author holds the view that possibly, data about the whole staff of officials have to be processed. It is not always easy to choose between the two kinds of archontology: chronological-tabular and narrative. If possible, biographical data should be inserted in chronological tables, too. The language of nomenclature is a special problem in Hungary, since official language was Latin until 1844. This should be certainly taken into consideration when indicating both offices and proper names. Special attention must be devoted to name variations and dates of years of holding an office. A system of abbreviations is also needed to process these data. Following this part, the author comments on the present status of Hungarian archontology of the 18th century. Between 1686 and 1790, every royal civil servant then holding an office in Hungary was registered in a catalogue, provided that archival material allowed it: this collection should be published sometime. In addition, the author also presents the outcome of a public opinion poll addressed to county archives during the years of 1983—84 and relating to the basis of source, processing and research work of the archontology of counties and towns, i.e. Hungarian municipalities of the 17th and 18th centuries. Interest in the archontology of officials of self-government bodies has been extremely grown in Transdanubia. Further tasks of Hungary's archontology are also mentioned by the author. With the help of the list of officials employed in public offices, processing work of archontological data of royal officials until 1848 should be carried on. This has been partly done (1790—1815), and partly, it has been recently started under the author's supervision, and has already brought about some achievements. Not long ago, in 1988, the author published his independent Hungarian-, German- and Latin-language volume, entitled "Magyarország főméltóságai — Die höchsten Würdentrager Ungarns 1526—1848" (High dignitaries in Hungary between 1526 and 1848), but it contains only a small fraction of data available today. The volume has excited wide public interest. In the future, the author wishes to publish the archontology of the entire royal Hungarian staff of officials in the period between 1600 and 1848, naturally, in several volumes. In this case, his data will become available for the searchers of both local history and genealogy.