Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)

Veszprém vármegye

INTRODUCTION

511

III. Presentation of the manuscripts

A

1: OSZK Manuscript Collection Föl. Lat. 277. pp. 72-170.

2: Comitatus Vesprimiensis.

3: 99 p. 340x210 mm.

4: Veszprém county’s description.

5: Draft in János Matolai’s handwriting. Undoubtedly it is the first draft of the county description because it contains corrections that were obviously made during writing. Structurally it is complete however deficient in the details: at the end newer settlements are enumerated in a posterior supplement. A roughly drawn map is also included in the manuscript that is Matolai’s work as well (p. 71). He also reports at the end of the description that he could not describe Ferenc Esterházy’s domain of Pápa, because of the inhabitants’ suspicion, therefore he could only designate the villages on the map; he achieved the work, as he remarks, after “six week’s wandering”.2 The manuscript contains at some places observations by Mátyás Bél’s own hand.3

6: The manuscript was prepared after 1731 because it relates at some point that the author had the opportunity to enjoy the panorama from the castle of Csesznek in 1731.4 On the other hand it definitely dates prior to 1735, when Bél sent the description to the Locotenential Council in order to make it revised by the county authorities (cf. c). Furthermore, manuscript A is so rudimentary (lacking margin notes, synopses, while the footnotes are still on the margin, and there are remarks at the volume’s end etc.), that we have to presume a third manuscript between this one and the one sent to the county authorities (cf. b).

b

1:2: [Comitatus Vesprimiensis]

3: (Manuscript cannot be found)

4: Veszprém county’s description.

5: As mentioned above, the manuscript A shows such a rudimentary state that the copy sent to the Locotenential Council (c) must have been preceded by an intermediary manuscript. We denoted this lost copy by letter b. This could have been a fair copy (b1) of manuscript A that was later checked and in several cases modified by Mátyás Bél (b2). Thus he contracted - in accord with other descriptions - the first paragraph containing the county’s name etymology with the second describing the boundaries.5 Probably he also added his personal memories about the lake Balaton, such as

2 „...quae omnia [sc. pagos ad dominium spectantes] apposuimus quidem in mappa, sed describere, ut alios comitatus locos, non potuimus, hominum nescio, quid de sinceritate nostra suspicantium, intertrimento prohibiti. Alioquin totum hoc opus peragratione hebdomadarum sex absolvimus.” See A p. 159. See the full remark in p. 607. (note 10.) in our edition. About Matolai’s data collecting trip in Transdanubia in 1731 - when he visited Veszprém county as well - see Tóth 2007a I. 83-84. See also note 4.

3 E. g. A p. 137.

4 „Magnam nos cepimus voluptatem, cum a. 1731. comitis [sc. Francisci Esterházy] indulgentia, huius regionis situm ex arce prospeximus.” A p. 94. Bél kept the remark as if he was there himself, since it was typical for him. See D p. 41., in our edition p. 540.

5 In the county revision made in January 1736 the information regarding the boundaries are referred to as being in the §. I. (see Bél 1989. 129.), while in manuscript A these can be found in § II. (see A p. 72.). Szarka’s copy also proves Bél's modifications (see D p. 3., in our edition see p. 518.)