Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2011)

Matthias Belius: Comitatus Arvensis

INTRODUCTION

53

finally got stuck there. Other official document cannot be found regarding the matter, but the most important evidence is that the description didn’t get published. 14 6: 1736 (before 13th August).

c

1:2: [Comitatus Arvensis.]

3: [Manuscript cannot be found]

4: Description of Árva County.

5: Mátyás Bél sent the descriptions of Árva County and Kis-Hont district on 12th September 1736 to the Chancellary.15 We indicated this lost copy of Arva’s description by letter c. The Chancellary sent them back with their comments shortly later, on 5th October of the same year.16 Some remarks are crossed out in the letter. These crossed parts were probably made by the responsible assigned by the Council since at the end of two of his comments he entrusted the decision to the Chancellary about the actual problematic part of the text.17 Bél took into consideration the two comments that finally remained in the letter and modified the description accordingly (c2).18 19

On 17th September 1738 Bél thanked the Chancellary’s official János Ferenc Reviczky, his recurring aid, for revising the description of Árva County on his own (which revision is not to be confused with the official revision made by the Chancellary in 1736.).iy Most probably Bél sent him too the copy revised by the Chancellary, received back in October 1736, that is the copy we signed c. Reviczky prepared his comments and supplements on a separate paper (see [Re]) that afterwards Bél in most part built in to the description (we marked this state of the text with c3).

6: First version: 1736; corrections: 1736-1738.

[Re]

1: EFK Hist. I. kkkk/4.

2: Observationes in Historiam Comitatus Arvensis.

3: 10 pp. [pp. 185-194.] 325x220 mm.

4: Observations on the description of Arva County.

5: Observations were made by János Ferenc Reviczky. His authorship becomes evident when he mentions János Reviczky as his own grandfather and Sándor Reviczky as his father.20 Reviczky added

14 Cf. Bél 1735-17496).

15 See the letter in Bél 1993. nr. 635.

16 Ibid. nr. 638. The Chancellary commented only on the description of Arva County.

17 Ibid, the first and third comment between brackets.

18 In the first remark the Chancellary ordered Bél to erase the passage that says Lehotka has noble privileges (cf. Bél 1993 nr. 638.), what Bél seems to have accepted, because in the two latter copies there is no such observation to be read in the description (see D p. 163., E pp. 163-164.). Secondly the Chancellary warned that Felsőkubin town was owned by the Kubinyi family, instead of the Kubinszki family (cf Bél 1993 nr. 638.), that was also corrected by Bél (Dp. 154., E p. 154.).

19 See Bél 1993. nr. 733.

20 „Benyó Lehota... villa rustica, Joannis olim Reviczky avi mei, quae nunc quoque hypothecae jure propter nomina Patris mei Alexandri, per successores Andreae Reviczky tenetur, non contemnendus vicus.” See [Re] p. [190.]. About the descent see Nagy 1857-1868. IX. Reviczky család (Revisnyei) table II. Also see Sedlák 1987. 321.