Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2011)

Matthias Belius: Comitatus Arvensis

52

ARVA COUNTY

cient information about the county. He adds that he hopes to get some from Sámuel Mikoviny who will travel to the spot in order to draw a map.8 It seems he could only finish the text by 1736 when he sent it in a big haste through the Locotenential Council to the county authority (cf. b) and to the Chancellary (cf. c). These two copies obviously derive from one original: this lost copy, supposedly Bél’s first draft, is hereby indicated a.

6: 1736.

b

1: 2: [Comitatus Arvensis.j

3: [Manuscript cannot be found]

4: Description of Arva County.

5: Mátyás Bél sent the Description of Árva County amongst others to the Locotenential Council on 13th August 1736 so that the Council could forward it to the county authority in order to be corrected and completed.9 10 The county authority lingered with the completion of the task. It dealt with the county description forwarded by the Locotenential Council on its general assembly (generalis congregatio) on 30th August 1736 but immediately decided to defer the work, referring to more important public affairs.111 In 1738 Bél asked the Locotenential Council twice (around 20th January then again on 2nd September) to urge the county authorities.11 Árva county sent a reply on 26th March 1738 following the pressing from the Council. It states that till the present they have not been able to review the text due to their official duties because their deputies are very busy. It also mentions that they cannot pay daily fee for the eventual revisers therefore they suggest for the author to wait till the deputies are less overloaded or — as they reckon it has already happened with other counties - he should get in private contact with the inhabitants of the county and make them revise the text (!).12 Eventhough the Locotenential Council decided to give no more than 3 months for the revised county description to be sent back,13 it seems probable that the case of the revision by the county authority

8 „Arvensem, denique, in iis referendum, cuius notitias sufficientes hucdum nequivi habere, tunc spero obtinendas, cum Dominus Mikoviny ad designandam mappam eo proficiscetur.” See Bél’s letter to the Locotenential Council on 9th July 1732 from Pozsony. In: Tóth 2006. Appendix IV. (= Bél 1732.)

9 See Bél 1993. nr. 628.

10 „Penes Intimatorias Excelsi Consilii Regii die 17. mensis Augusti Anni currentis, Posonii emanatas, adnexum et Comitatui huic submissum Matthiae Beeil [!], opus historicum eo fine est, ut reviso eodem reflexiones suas circa statum et situm Comitatus huius occurribiles adnotare, emendanda emendare, ac novis etiam additamentis (si quae occurrerent) Opus hoc Comitatus hicce adaugere velit: verum cum magis Publica occurrant, quorum in finem flenda deductio multum temporis praerequireret, negotii praeinserti [?] revisio, et accomodatio a fine et eventu praeinsertorum Publicorum praestolanda.” Prothocollum I. Comitatus Arvensis M (1733-1738.). SA Bytca, Oravská zupa I. Inv. c. 19. p. 498.

11 Bél 1993. nr. 699, 730a.

12 See the letter from the county assembly, MOL C 42 Miscellanea Fasc. 95. nr. 33. ff. 29-30. A decree of similar order can be read in the general assembly’s protocol (Prothocollum) dating of the same time as the letter answering the Locotenential Council’s letter. Prothocollum I. Comitatus Arvensis M (1733-1738.). SA Bytca, Oravská zupa I. Inv. c. 19. pp. 781-782.

13 This is revealed from the protocol of the Governor’s (Francis of Lorraine) Office in Vienna. See Bél 1993. Appendix IX. nr. 26. (In the citation „de Beregh” can be read instead of Árva, but this mistake is evident knowing the letter from the county authorities.)