Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)

Veszprém vármegye

INTRODUCTION

513

the quality of the suggestions by the county, a majority of it being insignificant remarks on the general part - or else, they ordered the author to do further research, however it was Bél who had asked for data or direct additions from them.

Furthermore it is worth noting that the Chancellary - by the hint from the Locotenential Council that handled the document when forwarding it to the county authorities - reprimanded Bél for writing about the peaceful co-existence of different denominations in the village Geese, that Bél apparently accepted with resentment.15 6: The basic text was prepared in 1735, while the alterations in 1736, after the county revision.

D

1: EFK Hist. I. cccc.

2: Matthiae Belii Comitatus Vesprimiensis... paratus Calocae per Franciscum Szarka de Lukafalva, 13. Apr. 1772.

3:169 pp. 390x240 mm.

4: Veszprém county’s description.

5: Copy made by Ferenc Szarka (cf. title). This late transcript, as mentioned above, was made from the manuscript that was under revision by the county authority in 1735-1736 and wherein the author incorporated some suggested modifications by the county officers (cf. c). Szarka, however, actualised, more precisely interpolated the manuscript. Thus, for example, in the chapter about the lord lieutenant, he writes about Ignác Koller suffragan bishop, later bishop in Veszprém, who was in hold of the position of lord lieutenant at Szarka’s time, between 1760-1773 - instead of Ádám Acsády, bishop of Veszprém, and lord lieutenant of Veszprém county between 1725-1744, whose name can be read in ms. A.16 In addition, he carries the “correction" further by mostly erasing Bél’s appraisal of Acsády (keeping only one sentence as if it was written about Koller!), furthermore he omits the data concerning the vice lieutenant and other county officials, obviously because he could not actualise them equally, not knowing who held those positions at his time.17 6:13th April 1772. (cf. title).

E

1: OSZK’s Manuscript Collection Föl. Lat. 3775.

2: Mathiae Belii Notitia geographico-historica Comitatus Veszprimiensis a Georgio Gyurikovits descripta.

3: 69 ff. 380x240 mm.

4: Veszprém county’s description.

5: Transcript by György Gyurikovits, based on the copy by Szarka (D).18 6: Around the 1820’s.

Szarka-copy (D p. 4.) we find that “to a small extent” it does not reject them (“exigua sui parte non respuant”). See in our edition p. 519. He also followed the county’s advice that the stream Torna does not steep “the market city of the same name Torna” (“oppidum sui nominis Torna humectat”, see A p. 79.), but “the manor of the same name Torna” (“curiam cognominem Tornám”). See the observation of the county in Bél 1989. 129; cf. the relating text in D at D p. 15. (in our edition see p. 525.)

15 See the letter of the Chancellary to Bél on 5th July 1736 and also Bél's reply on 14'1' July 1736. Bél 1993. nr. 622, 624. See the translation of the Chancellary’s letter in Bél 1989. 130-131. The Locotenential Council hinted the case to the king (or else to the Chancellary), cf. Haan 1879. 46-47.

16 See Veszprém county’s description A p. 91, also see D p. 36. In the present edition p. 537. We cannot know what was written in manuscript c that Szarka used for his transcript, however it could hardly be different from A, since Acsády was equally bishop in 1735-1736, when c was prepared.

17 See A p. 91. See also D p. 36. In our edition see p. 537.

18 At the end of the text: “Elenchus. Descriptio Comitatus Veszprimiensis Authore Matthia Belio Copia ex revisione ejusdem Manuscripti parata Calotsae per Franc. Szarka de Lukafalva ij. Apr. i]]2" The text part in italics is written by Gyurikovits’ hand. See E f. 65t.