Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2011)
BEVEZETÉS - A szöveg tipográfiája - Irodalomjegyzék és mutatók
INTRODUCTION 27 not only in their names but also in the system of categorisation, eventhough Bél did not follow entirely the text of the act. v Bél’s division is different from the contemporary official administrative division or from the Hungary-concept of the time in other aspects as well - or was just shaping along with it. According to his plan he did not intend to write about Transylvania (that was not subject to Hungarian public law). On the other hand he wished to prepare a description about the counties of Partium that belonged to the jurisdiction of Transylvanian dicasteria - Kraszna, Kővár, Közép-Szolnok, Máramaros, Zaránd counties - which descriptions were actually prepared. He took in to his plan Arad and Békés counties, in which regions the county administration had not yet been reorganised. Furthermore he also included the Banat of Temes (in Bél’s terms it’s called Temes county but he means by it the whole territory of the Banat), which was at that time still under military administration. Bél evidently put these counties - alongside with the counties of Partium - in the category of Transtibiscan Hungary. He would have liked to include and describe the Slavonic counties (Pozsega, Verőce, Valkó, Szerém), however he later abandoned this plan obviously because of the great distance and also due to the fact that this territory had been annexed definitively under the supremacy of the Croatian Ban.17 18 About the order of the counties it is to be noted that it was Bél’s utmost intention for a certain geographical logic to prevail, that is to deal with neighbouring counties after one another. He mentions this intention several times in the printed volumes, e.g. he complains in the introduction of Tunk county’s description following Pozsony, that he couldn’t keep the geographical order, since Nyitra should have followed after Pozsony but its description’s revision was delayed, therefore he was obliged to replace it with Throe’s description.19 He complains about the same thing at the beginning of Bars county’s description: after Nógrád county’s description Hont should have followed because of „their neighbouring position” (ob situum adfinitatem) but since he had not received data about the county for long, by necessity he continued by the description of Bars county.20 In the plan of 1732 this geographical order is fully accomplished, meaning Nyitra follows Pozsony there and Hont follows Nógrád.21 Looking through the draft, this intentional geographical structure is obvious from the beginning till the end. It is not by chance that the counties are numbered in the original text as well. 17 He categorises Esztergom county to „Transdanubian Hungary”, eventhough by law it belonged to the Cisdanubian part, while he did the reverse for Komárom county. In the same time he classified Bereg and Csongrád counties to the Cistibiscan Hungary although the article rates them to the Transtibiscan district. Bél 1732. 74-75. However in this kind of counties’ categorisation there is inconsistence in other sources as well. See Szántay 2008. 315. IB Bél 1732. 76-78. p. About the geographical extent of the Notitia and Bel’s related ideas with their modification in time see more in depth Tóth 2007.1. 55-62. 19 „Poscebat id sane, cum totius ordo scriptionis, tum situum in primis cognatio, ut Comitatum Posoniensem emensi, ad Nitriensem pedem proferremus: quippe, inde a Moraviae collimitio, usque ad fines Comaromiensium, perpetuo latere provinciam eam, corniculantis lunae instar, circumscribentem. Sed, cum nescio, quo nostro lato, concinnatam dudum, Nitriensis Comitatus historiam, ob recognitionis inexspectatam tarditatem, nequiverimuis hucusque, curis secundis, elaboratiorem reddere; operae autem typographicae, nequeant, sine exstanti, & impensarum, & temporis iactura, feriari: dandum id fuit necessitati, ut Thúrócziensem hunc, magna & libenti provincialium cura, emendatum quidem, locupletatumque, illius loco, substitueremus." Bél 1735-1749? II. 291—292. 20 Ibidem IV. 155-156. 21 Cf. the summary above. Also see Bél 1732. 73.
