Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)
Zala vármegye
INTRODUCTION 443 The Locotenential Council forwarded the work of Bél to the county authorities on 31st January.13 The letter of the Council was publicly read at the general assembly on 18th March, then a committee was formed for the revision of the description that consisted of the (first) deputy lord lieutenant (Ferenc Tarányi at the time), András Jakasits (assessor), the tax-collector (“perceptor”, Antal Cseh), the notary (György Nagy) and the magistrates (at that time Péter Deák, Lázár Rumy, Zsigmond Hertelendy and Zsigmond Forintos).14 On 13,h August 1736 Bél urged the Locotenential Council and through it the county authorities.15 This pressure was transmitted to Zala county on 17th August by the Council.16 The letter of the Locotenential Council was publicly read at the general assembly on 30th September 1736, and it was noted that “they will soon send it”.17 The Council sent another pressing letter on 19th February 1737 - obviously on Bél’s demand, however his letter did not subsist - asking for the return of the description.18 The reaction given to the letter publicly read on 4th April was again a mere: it would be sent back as soon as possible.19 Finally they sent back the letter with their corrections on their general assembly of 10th December 1737 to the Locotenential Council.20 As they wrote in it, their task did not only consist of correction and modification but also of noting the castles, cities, villages and the castles built in defense of the Turks in Kanizsa.21 This is conform to Bél’s demand to the “revising gentlemen”, that subsisted in the manuscript.22 Unfortunately however, only the letter arrived to the Locotenential Council, Bél’s manuscript and the observations of the county authority got lost somewhere. The Council informed the county authority about this deficit in its letter dating of 31s' December 1737,23 that was publicly read at the general assembly on 9th February 1738.24 They attached to their reply letter of the same date the letter of István Csillagh, postmaster of Zalaegerszeg, in which he testified that the county official delivered him the documents and he forwarded all to Körmend, to the neighbouring post office.25 The Locotenential Council submitted the case to the King and the Chancellary on 4th March 1738;26 the Chancellary replied on 21st May attaching the report of Lipöt Paar, chief postmaster, in which he declares that he could not find the responsible and was not able to locate the manuscript.27 Afterwards there is not any more correspondance relating to this case. 13 See the letter in ZMLIV i b, Documents of the general assembly, records of the general assembly on i8'h March 1736. 14 „...quem in finem deputantur Dnus V. Comes D. Andreas Jakasits (?), D. Perceptor et Notarius, praeterea D. Processuales Iudlium.” See in ZML IV i a, Protocols of the general assembly 4. 1736-1737. p. 134. The names of the officials not mentioned in this text were taken partly from the introduction of the protocol of the assembly (see ibid. pp. 108-109.), and partly from the referring part of the archontology of the county (see Molnár 2000. 241-300. passim). 15 See Bél 1993. nr. 628. 16 See the letter in ZML IV 1 b, Documents of the general assembly, records of the general assembly on 30th September 1736. 17 „Quod quidem proxime transmittetur.” See in ZML IV 1 a, Protocols of the general assembly 4. 1736-1737. p. 335. 18 See the letter in ZML IV 1 b, Documents of the general assembly, records of the general assembly on 4d’ April 1737. 19 „Quod omnino transmittetur quantotius [!].” See ZML IV 1 a, Protocols of the general assembly 4. 1736-1737. p. 534. (for the content of the letter see ibid. pp. 533-534.) 20 See ZML IV 1 a, Protocols of the general assembly 4. 1737-1741. p. 92. 21 „Opus Historici Mathiae Bell, quoad hujus Comitatus Descriptionem, pro revisione, censuratione et modificatione ac Arcium, Oppidorum, Praesidiorum item, antiquitus contra Tureas Canisienses exstantium, vicorumque in gremio hujus Cottus existentium connotatione, nobiscum communicatum una cum effectuatione desiderii antelati historici, in annexo scripto contenta, Serenitati Vestrae Regiae Excelsoque Regio Consilio Locumtenentiali remittimus humillime...” See a copy of the county assembly ibid. The original can be found in MOL C42 Miscellanea Fasc. 95. nr. 33. f. 15a. (We used the original.) 22 See C p. 135a, in the present edition 498., note i. See also C. 23 See the letter in ZML IV 1 b, Documents of the general assembly, records of the general assembly on 9th February 1738. 24 L. ZML IV i a, Protocols of the general assembly 4. 1737-1741. pp. 117-118. 25 See the draft of the county authority’s letter ibid. pp. 118-119., and its original in MOL C42 Miscellanea Fasc. 95. nr. 33. f. 21. The letter of the postmaster dating of 8'h February see ibid. f. 17. 26 See the draft of the letter ibid. f. 11. 27 See the letter of the King ibid. f. 14. See the report of the chief postmaster ibid. f. 11.
