Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)
Vas vármegye
INTRODUCTION 255 time), but they have been still in revision.3 Which means that Bél sent the engrossed copy of county Vas to Batthyány in 1728, and the lord lieutenant probably forwarded it to the county authorities. That lost copy was signed with letter b, and its uncorrected version was signed with b1. This copy given to Batthyány was probably the same as the one returned by the Chancellary to Bél on 28th May 1733 with the observations regarding the description attached ([Cane]),4 since Batthyány himself was not only the lord lieutenant of Vas, but also the “second vice chancellor” from 1727, and the chancellor from 1733. It must have been him who assigned several revisors to the revision of the description of Vas county - as written in the end of the letter of the Chancellary.5 Bél, as we saw, also emphasised Batthyányi contribution to the revision in his letter of 1732. As it was noticed above, this version signed with b was incomplete, because the revisors denoted, that “the author”, i. e. Bél asked them to describe the cities, market towns and villages by districts, which means he asked them to complete the text.6 His wish came true: the Chancellary’s revisors provided him with plenty of additions and information, and amongst others they supplied the description of the villages which had been the biggest deficiency of the description. As it appears from the only remained copy signed with C, Bél partly accepted the observations and additions of the Chancellary. These additions were adapted to his own style by himself and inserted into the description (the corrected version was signed with b2).7 It can be observed that these corrections were made by Bél quite late, because from two notices of him it is obvious that he dealt with the text around 1743-1744.8 Probably he rephrased and completed the genealogical part at that time, however it is interrupted while presenting the Nádasdy family. Certainly we do not encounter a scribe’s error here, since the upcoming special part is precisely transcripted. More likely Bél himself interrupted the work for some reason. But the description of the settlements sent by the Chancellary was left untouched by Bél. In copy C from page 320. - where the presentation of the settlements by disctricts should have followed - the additions of the revisors were inserted without any particular changing.9 3 „Szaladiensem, cum priori [sc. cum Comitatu Castriferrei-noted by me, T. G.] Excellentissimo C. Ludovico Bottány [!] ante quadriennium traditus, adhuc in revisione haeret.” See ibid. 4 Not so much later, on 30th July 1730. Bél indicated in his letter to the Chancellary, that he had gotten the returned and revised description. See Bél 1993. nr. 492. 5 „Et haec erant quae circa Descriptionem Comitatus Castriferrei per deputatos Dominos revisores annotanda, occurrerunt.” See [Cane] pp. 60-61., in the present edition 429. 6 „Quandoquidem Author partem 2ndam huius operis juxta distinctionem Processuum elaborari, sicque Comitatum eiusque urbes et oppida quaelibet, sed et vicos separatim in suo processu, cui adjacent describi postulavit, ideo huius quoque series, in quatuor omnino Processus divisa sequens esset.” See [Cane] p. 21., in the present edition 409. 7 The first note of the revisors refers to the mount „Sághegy”, and it says, that on the side of the mount that faces Veszprém county there are huge rocks and extremely high stone blocks: „post voculas media arboribus etc. addendum praeterquam quod in eo latere, quo Veszpremiensem respicit Comitatum ingentia saxa, et praealtae rupes exurgant." See Bél 1993. nr. 486. p. 284. Bél rephrased it this way: „eo tamen latere, quo Veszpremiensem respicit provinciam saxosus nimium est, ex praealtis rupibus asper.” See C p. 2, in the present edition 262. 8 He notes that „while he is writing these words,” in 1743 the work titled Quadripartitum opus was published, but its author, Pál Priletzky died during the work: „dum haec scribimus, opus quadripartitum, prodire coepit, sed cui immortuus est, Paulus Priletzky, Auctor A. MDCCXLIII.” See C p. 82, in the present edition 308. In another place he writes that while he was revising the text bishop Gábor Antal Erdődy died on 26th September 1744: „Moritur [sc. Gabriel Antonius Erdődy] dum haec recognoscimus MDCCXLIV. die 26. Septembris.” See ibid. 160-161, in the present edition 341. 9 Cf. [Cane] pp. 21-61., (Bél 1993. nr. 486. pp. 291-306.) and also see C pp. 320-381, in the present edition 409-429. The accordance was already observed earlier by László Szelestei N., the collector of Mátyás Bél’s correspondence. In the preface of the edition of the correspondence he writes: „Description of Vas county published under Bél’s name in 1976-1977 (see Bél 1976-1977. - noted by me, G. T.) is almost completely identical with our text...” (the appendix of the letter of Chancellary dated on 1733. - noted by me, G. T.). And a bit later: „The text (description of Vas county - noted by me, G. T.) in this state is not Bél’s work.” (1. Szelestei 1993.8.). This statement however, as we saw, can be referred only the last 60 pages of the copy C (from which copy the translation mentioned by Szelestei N. was made), in which pages really the same text can be read as in the addition of the Chancellary. But the remainig part of the description is
