Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2011)

BEVEZETÉS - A szöveg tipográfiája - Irodalomjegyzék és mutatók

26

INTRODUCTION

Bél’s plans for the edition of Notitia

We mostly know about Bél’s conceptions regarding the structure of the Notitia from his letter dating of 9th July 1732 that he most probably intended to the Locotenetial Council. From the letter it is only the appendix that subsisted which is an autograph draft for the structure of Notitia. In this draft Bél noted for each county to what extent its description was ready and also how it stood in the process of official control (either by the county authorities or the Chancellary). His main purpose must have been to point out that the county authorities’ revision and data providing were extraordinarily slowing down his work.14 From our point of view the most important feature of the draft is that he explained exactly in what categorisation he wished to publish the county descriptions. It must have been one of his goals as well, since he gave a clear structure and he also indicated the volume-arrangement for each description. The structure can be summarised as follows:

Part I: „Cisdanubian Hungary” (Hungária Cis-Danubiana)

1. Pozsony, 2. Nyitra, 3. Trencsén, 4. Turóc, 5. Bars, 6. Komárom, 7. Pest-Pilis-Solt, 8. Nógrád, 9. Hont, 10. Zólyom, 11. Liptó, 12. Árva (according to the draft it takes 3 volumes)

Part II: „Transdanubian Hungary” (Hungária Trans-Danubiana)

1. Moson, 2. Sopron, 3. Vas, 4. Zala, 5. Veszprém, 6. Győr, 7. Esztergom, 8. Fejér, 9. Tolna, 10. Somogy, 11. Baranya, and 12. the Slavonic counties (Comitatus Sclavoniae): a.) Pozsega, b.) Verőce, c.) Valkó, d.) Szerém (all in one volume according to the draft)

Part III: „Cistibiscan Hungary” (Hungária Cis-Tibiscana)

1. Szepes, 2. Sáros, 3. Zemplén, 4. Ung, 5. Bereg, 6. Abaúj, 7. Gömör, 8. Torna, 9. Borsod, 10. Heves és Külső-Szolnok, 11. Csongrád, 12. Bács-Bodrog (all in one volume according to the draft)

Part IV: „Transtibiscan Hungary” (Hungária Trans-Tibiscana)

1. Temes, 2. Csanád, 3. Arad, 4. Zaránd, 5. Békés, 6. Bihar, 7. Kraszna, 8. Kővár, 9. Közép-Szolnok, 10. Szatmár, 11. Szabolcs, 12. Ugocsa, 13. Máramaros. (no volume’s specification mentioned)

Bél planned 4 major parts that would have presented the Cisdanubian, Transdanubian, Cistibiscan and Transtibiscan Hungary consecutively. This subdivision and order can be seen in the titles of the printed volumes. Bél in the main title uses four parts of Hungary („Cisdanubian Hungary” etc.) while in the titles on the preceding page he writes simply „Cisdanubian Part” (Pars Cis-Danubialis) etc.15 Bél’s categorisation obviously goes back to the four districts defined in details on the Diet of 1722- 1723. The judiciary corps called „district courts” (tabulae districtuales) were then set up and their jurisdiction was defined based on districts of given counties, namely „Cisdanubian”, „Transdanubian”, „Cistibiscan” and „Transtibiscan”.16 Bél’s division and the accordance in the appointed districts exist

14 See Bél 1732. For the plan also see Tóth 2006. xvii—xviii.

15 See note 2.

16 The article: 1723: XXXI. For the text of the article see CJH 1657-1740. 592. To be noted that these districts and groupings were actively used previously in the work of the Lower House of the parliament (Tabula Inferior, alsótábla), though they only got real function on this mentioned Diet. Bak 1997. 77-78.; Szántay 2008. 314-316.