Pesty Frigyes: Heves vármegye helynévtára - A Heves Megyei Levéltár forráskiadványai 11. (Eger, 2005)

orthographic rules. The only exception is the transcription of the geographic names because their form corresponds to that of the source. The publication does not contain the stereotype address line of the questionnaires. The answers given to the questions had been put down and copied by the notaries of the settlements. During this work some words might have been left out as a result of human errors. These words are indicated in square brackets. It is the offical name of the settlements since 1903, that appear with the descriptions in bold letters. In case of abbreviations in the settlement descriptions, the missing information is given in square brackets. The original order of the settlements by the original source compiled by Frigyes Pesty was followed in this publication, therefore this order does not strictly follow the alphabetic order. The following part covers the history of Felsőtárkány that became part of Heves County in 1884. The final part contains the material from the supplementary data gathering. The highlighted sections of the original manuscript remained highlighted in this piece of work too. In the vast majority of the cases, the authors of the original settlement descriptions used underlinin

g in order to highlight the names of the people they considered important, or sometimes they put these names between quotation marks. In this publication these names are written in italics. The notes are given in foot-note form, in order that they can be easily handled. Part of the notes is text review, the rest gives additional information and correction. Some parts of text review notes refer to problems of legibility in the manuscript, repetitions of text, texts erased from or added to the original manuscript. The majority of the text review notes is explanation of words that deal with latin expressions, quotations, regional variants of certain words, and outdated expressions. Taking into consideration the fact that 80% of the population of Hungary at the time of the creation of the source lived in villages, while today close to 70% of the population live in towns or cities, the names of plants and animals referred to in the text repetedly had to be explained. The written sources and their authors from where the makers of the descriptions often quoted larger sections, were indicated in the text review notes. The informative notes contain the earliest indication of the given settlement in a charter, as well as the historical-etymological explanation of its name. The date and the order of the historic events mentioned in the descriptions is compared to the written sources, which further enriches the content of the informative notes. As for the names of the settlements, the already destroyed villages are also indicated along with their earliest indication in charters, their earliest names and the etimology of the denominations. In case these geographic names refer to establishments for economic purposes (mines, brick works, glassworks, alum works, game and pheasant 352