1850. ÉVI ERDÉLYI NÉPSZÁMLÁLÁS (1994)

HELYNÉVMUTATÓ

After that Paragraph 4 instructed that the population should be counted in the order of residential houses. All buildings suitable for human residence had to be counted and listed, "distant forest huts" and unhabitad houses too, and only churches, flour-mills, watch-houses and unhabitable buildings serving for purposes of work were exempted. The hanging-out of house numbers was regulated in detail whereby local authorities were ordered to indicate the name of their respective locality at its first and last house "in the languages fashionable in the country", on a wooden or stone column to be erected specially for that purpose. Paragraph 5 stressed that "perfection is the first prereguisite of the population census" by which it was meant that the census should be, primarily, full-scope. All inhabitants of the localities had to be indicated. Exceptions were only the soldiers registered in the monthly tables of regiments, battalions and army corps" while their family members already had to be included in the census, and also the retired and incalid soldiers. After that, the rules for filling out the printed papers of the census were explained in detail. The most important was sample "A" which served for the indication of the data of the families. After registering the name of the country, the district, the area, the sub-area and the locality, first the house number and then the names of its owner and tenants had to be filled in. After that the persons living in the house had to be listed individually. In the first place the name of the head of the family had to be indicated followed by the name of his wife, children and of the inhabitants. At every person (both male and female) their year of birth had also to be indicated. Similarly to the note on the names of localities, a note on the first and family names instructed that they should be given in the forms they are used in the language of the inhabitants of the respective locality. Nicknames frequent with the Saxons and the Roumanians (for example, Cartweight otherwise Longleg) had also to be indicated for better identification while those who happened not to have a family name, had to chose one. In the case of the windows the name of their deceased husband had to be written in. Children had to be registered by the family name of their father while those born out-of-wedlock were shown by the name of their mother. As against the instruction of the first population census the clarification of the concept of the family (those living on one bread) was not dealt with, presuming, as it were, that those belonging together would naturally be assigned to the family heads. However a new definition was used - the concept of the tenant living in the same house who, in the model sheet enclosed with the instruction, was called "lakofel" (dwelling partner) in Hungarian and "Wohnpartei" in German. In our table these data are given under the heading "number of dwellings". The occasionally rather high partners and co-residents the married children, brothers and sisters or relatives living independently in one house may have been just an frequent as the separate families living on their own and perhaps it was these latter who represented the majority. After that came the questions regarding "personal conditions" in the followeng order: "1. Dignity, for example: Privy Councillor, medical doctor, professor of surgery, professor of law etc with the golden key, bishop, provost, member of a charitable monastic order, Franciscan monk etc. 2. Stand: for exapmle, secretary, receiver of taxes 3. Earnings and trade: for example, factory-owner, bread-baker, miller, agricultural farmer etc, daylabourer, servant etc. 4. Religion 5. Property: for exapmle, land-owner, house-owner, fundholder 6. All other personal conditions: for example, stepchild, child in care etc." The examples cited from the original instruction indicate that for filling in the rubrics very few of the possible variations were listed and that the respective guidance was far from being full-scope. No information was given either about the criteria of the individual categories or about the borders separating the groups. Consequently, in this case, the those who carried out the survey were rather left alone. According to the model sheet the answers to the questions had to be pressed into one rubric what would have resulted in further difficulties during the data processing if the later had taken place at all. However the final results of the population census do not include the important data shedding light on social stratification. The information is poorer than that obtained on the basis of the Josephian population census and of the tax conscriptions. Of the answers enumerated only those regarding religion were processed and published. According to the rubrics figuring {.'. the summaries, the Roman Catholics, the followers of the Greek United and Not-united churches, of the Augustan and Helvetian Confessions, the Unitarians and the Israelites were differentiated, (iln the tables we used the updated designations of the subsequent population censuses, such as "Greek Catholic", "Greek Orthodox" and, respectively, "Lutheran" and "Calvinist". No separate data were found with regard to the Armenian Catholics whose data figure among those of the Roman Catholics.) 187.