Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)

Vas vármegye

INTRODUCTION

257

the writing of proper names. Besides the scribe’s negligence and his autonomous way of writing proper names or the bad quality of manuscript b could also cause the differences.

6:1732-1733.

[Ő]

1: EFK Hist. I. kkkk/9.

2: Districtus Orségh.

3: 4 pp. [pp. 225-228.]

4: Description of the district „Őrség”.

5: The text is written by an unknown author about the villages of Őrség. The short description was certainly made on Mátyás Bél’s request, since the author remarks that he is not familiar with habits concerning engagements and nuptials - from which we deduce without doubt that he refers to the questionnaires used by Bél, because these contain questions about the customs of the inhabitants, including questions on customs when wedding.15 The only thing the author writes about himself is that he had been owning a village in the dristict for a while - but he does not reveal, which one.16 He enumerates 17 villages belonging to the district, but he does not write about them particularly, only providing some general information; except for Alsó- and Felsőőr, about which settlements he makes a few interesting remarks. But the information he had given was not utilised in the description, because, as we saw, Bél postponed the description of the villages, therefore he probably put this one aside as well, since it provided data for the postponed part.

6: The manuscript was written after 1732, because it is mentioned in the text, that the churches of protestants were taken away this year.17

c

1: EFK Hist. I. s.

2: Comitatus Castri Ferrei.

3:381 pp. 370x270 mm.

4: Description of Vas county.

5: This manuscript which was made probably in the end of the 18th century is the earliest remained copy of the description. Its original (undoubtedly manuscript b) got damaged by water, and the text was reconstructed by Ferenc Szarka, employee of József Batthyány archbishop, who had bought Bél’s manuscripts - as Jakab Ferdinánd Miller, the bishop’s secretary, clearly refers to it in one of his notes.18 It is questionable if Szarka was the copyist in reality: on a late copy of Veszprém county’s description his name is mentioned as the author, however the writings of the two texts are different.19 Therefore it is likely that the present manuscript is another transcript based on Szarka’s copy.

The scribe of manuscript C copied not only the text written by Bél, but also the supplements of the data collection carried out by the Chancellary and the county authorities, which were probably posteriorly attached to the manuscript (see b, [Cane]). It is to be noted that these supplements in the copy C are already slightly “edited”. The text is divided

15 See the text in [0] p. 2. (226.) About the questionnaires see Tóth 2006a 80-82, especially p. 80. See also Tóth 2007a I. 65-73, especially: 69-70.

16 See Ő p. 2. (226).

17 See ibid.

18 Jakab Ferdinánd Miller in his Appendix writes: „Solummodo Comitatum Castriferrei Dominus Franciscus Žarka de Tanna [?!]... indefessa opera proxime restituit, nitideque descripsit.” See Miller 1775. 216. About Miller’s Appendix see also Tóth 2007a I. 14-15, 153.

19 See manuscript D of Veszprém county's description and its review in the present volume (513.).