Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)

Veszprém vármegye

512

VESZPRÉM COUNTY

having seen the winter fishery on the lake in 1701, and also having bought fish that he had had carried to Veszprém by his servant, because he lived there at the time (these remarks cannot yet be read in copy A).6 6: Based on the above information the manuscript was probably prepared between 1732-1735, since it was a fair copy of A that was made after 1731, and an antecedent of c that was sent to the Locotenential Council in 1735.

c

1:2: [Comitatus Vesprimiensis]

3: (Manuscript cannot be found)

4: Veszprém county’s description.

5: As mentioned Bél sent along with other country descriptions that of Veszprém to the Locotenential Council on 13th August 1735 to get it revised by the county’s officers.7 The county assembly dealt with the case on its general assembly of 21st November 1735 and it decided to set up a committee for the revision of the county description.8 The committee held its investigation regarding Bél’s work on 20,h January 1736 and put down in protocol its observations.9 The general assembly held on 9th April 1736 acknowledged that the revision had been accomplished and decided to send it back as soon as possible.10 Finally on 25th May 1736 the document was sent back to the Locotenential Council with the observations written on its margin.11 The general assembly also attached Veszprém county’s register of road network to its letter, writing that Bél had asked for it.12 The Council forwarded the letter to Bél except for the register of road network that remained at the Council by chance.13

The manuscript in question was lost; we marked it with letter c on the stemma. Its basic text (c1) was a fair copy of b and it was prepared presumably in 1735. After being revised in the county, it was sent back to Bél who executed the modifications based on the county’s observations in this manuscript (c2), although he took into consideration the suggested modifications only to a small extent, as it is evident from the copy by Szarka made in 1771.14 This slight is mainly due to

6 See the mentioned parts in D pp. 17, 27. (In our edition pp. 526, 531-532. translation: Bél 1989.30, 35.) Bél went to Veszprém at the end of 1700 in order to improve his Hungarian. See Haan 1879. 13.

7 See Bél’s letter in Bél 1993. nr. 529. See its translation in Bél 1989. 127.

8 The protocol reads as follows: “Vigesimo sexto: Fine revisionis submissi historici Comitatum hunc deliniantis, & describentis Matthiae Beel operis, conclusum est: ut Deputatione sub Praesidio Domini Adami Somogyi, cum interventu Dominorum Stephani Kenesey, Francisci Sándor, Matthiae Vigyázó, &Josephi Bittó Tabulae huius Iudriae Assessorum, idem opus censuretur, 8c revideatur, ac primo quo fieri poterit tempore per eosdem reportetur.” See VeML IV. I. a. Protocol of Veszprém county’s general assembly 1734-1740. p. 84.

9 Presently these observations are only available in translation (see Bél 1989. 129-130.) since the original document is missing and cannot be found amongst the documents of the general assembly of 23rd January 1736, where the translator indicated it to be (“VeML IV. I. b. documents of Veszprém county’s general assembly and particular assembly, general assembly in Pápa on 23,d January 1736.” See ibid. 130.), nor amongst the documents of the next general assembly held on 9,h April 1736 when the county authorities sent their observations alongside with the county description to the Locotenential Council (see below; see also our next note). The manuscript got lost obvioulsy when it was taken out from the documents for the purpose of being translated (Bél 1989.). I hereby thank to Réka Jakab, chief archivist of Veszprém County’s Archives for her help in researching the county material.

10 „Duodecimo. Opus Hystoricum Matthiae Béli per ordinatam eatenus deputationem revisum, et censuratum in conformitate adinventae per deputationem modificationis quantocyus submittendum veniet.” See VeML IV. I. a. Protocol of Veszprém county’s general assembly 1734-1740. p. 102.

11 “...modificandorum modificatione marginaliter eidem Historico Operi apposita...” See the letter in MOL C 42 Miscellanea Fasc. 95. nr. 33. p. 60. See its translation in Bél 1989. 128.

12 Ibid. pp. 58-59. See the translation in Bél 1989. 128.

13 See the previous note.

14 Thus he conceded to the county’s suggestion in writing that the county’s soil somewhat “tolerates” pines (see the county’s remark on that matter in Bél 1989. 129.). In manuscript A (A p. 74.) it can be read that it entirely rejects pines (“pinos et abietes respuunt”), but in the