Megyetörténet. Egyház- és igazgatástörténeti tanulmányok a veszprémi püspökség 1009. évi adománylevele tiszteletére - A Veszprém Megyei Levéltár kiadványai 22. (Veszprém, 2010)
Tanulmányok a megyei igazgatás történetéről - Dominkovits Péter: Vármegyei vezetők, közigazgatási feladatok a 17. századi Sopron és Vas vármegyék példáján
Dominkovits Péter This essay outlines the main administrative, financial and judicial tasks, defensive and military measures taken against the Ottoman threat of county bureucracy and municipial authorities via the examples of two Western Danubian counties, Sopron and Vas in the 17th century. By the end of the 1670s, when a new period of Habsburg absolutism commenced, an image of county evolved that cooperated with the monarch and central authorities, consolidated the territories behind the system of border castles from the perspective of the judiciary, economy and administration. These local authorities, even if in many cases late and with conflicts, provided free labour and supply centres for border castles. Counties also took part in actual land-defense by defending passages, conscription and insurrection. Bureucracy of county Vas even undertook the role of organising society in territories under Turkish occupation. It was counts (supremus comes) who governed the counties, and who were appointed from the secular aristocracy by the monarch. In certain cases prelates were commissioned such as the bishops in county Győr or Veszprém. Subprefects {alispánt = vicecomes) provided the technical operation of a county, who were selected by the feudal states from the candidates nominated by the counts, whereas the daily performance was provided by the staff of district administrators (szolgabírós = judices nobilium) (judices nobilium) and their jurors (jurassor; jurati assessores), who supported the admnistrative, taxational and military tasks. The tax-collector (perceptor) managed the financial business, and the official correspondence was administered by the notary (nótárius). Instances of Sopron and Vas counties testify that the system of estates, power, scopes available for action for the political elite and their relations may have brought forth significant differencies between counties. Such difffencies may have been apprehended through bureucracy: two alispáns were elected in Vas, whereas one in Sopron, and as substitutions for alispáns a vicegerens was also appointed in Vas. Even though it was no sooner than 1723 that erecting county halls was prescribed by a bill (1723:73), regular county seats and performing county halls had already characterised the functioning of both county authorities. As a result of the Ottoman threat, however, close cooperation of more than one county (eg. Sopron, Vas, Zala) can be observed in military business. By the end of the second third of the century, it was this cooperation that the partial congregation of the Transdanubian region originated from. This essay also emphasises the significance of the research of county politics and the regional (i.e. attending more than one county) institution of notaries within the above framework. 444
