Hermann István: A veszprémi egyházmegye igazgatása a 18. században 1700-1777 - A Veszprém Megyei Levéltár kiadványai 37. (Veszprém, 2015)
VII. Mutatók
The Administration of the Diocese of Veszprém to be similar because of their similar circumstances, but in the cases of these three chapters the beneficiaries of some of the income of the diocese were often persons who had no previous attachment to that particular diocese, nor did they play any part in the life of the diocese later on. This was largely due to the fact that at that time the diocesan bishop decided about the allocation of incomes - except for that of the principal provost - in the Bishopry of Veszprém, but this practice was followed less often in the other dioceses and only in certain cases. It can be observed that the more time the bishops spent in the diocese, the more beneficed were chosen by them from the local clergy. An unusual person in this respect is Márton Padányi Bíró (bishop 1745-62), who spent his whole career in the Diocese of Veszprém: all 8 canons appointed by him were beneficed from the diocese, and only his first principal provost came from outside the diocese. The case of Márton Padányi Bíró is also special because, in contrast to his predecessors, in the first 10 years of his work as a bishop (1745-55) he did not have the opportunity to allocate donations to canons. He was apparently embarrassed by the fact that at the beginning of his career he had a conflict with several members of the chapter, or came into conflict with them later on. In 1749 he instituted the title of honorary canon, which he gave to reliable rural deans, persons who later played a part in the governance of the church in the middle or second half of the 1750s. The honorary canon title became a 'precondition' to the incomes of chapters opening from 1755. After 1749 only one person was admitted to the chapter who had not previously been awarded this title. The commissaries came from among the members of the chapter in every case, and - with only two exceptions - were granted the income of the cantor or that of a higher dignitary when they assumed office. There were 8 commissaries working in the diocese in this period. The commissary collaborated with the bishop in the governance of the diocese with broad powers, and took part in both organising and supervising the pastoral, governmental and judicial duties. At the end of my paper, a case study describes the endeavours of Bishop Márton Padányi Bíró to establish the elite of the diocese. During his first years as bishop he had to subordinate his endeavours to the settlement of his disputes with some members of the chapter, including principal provost Pál Orosz, his first commissary. He promoted his supporters to key positions, including the unusual appointment to commissary of the sixth canon, István Lenti, whose income was well below that of the preceding commissaries. Following this event, from the end of the 1740s, not independently of the institutionalization of the title of honorary canon, he tried to create a circle of trust with 3-5 people from among deans in their 40s or 50s, who were a generation younger than him and whom he could rely on in the governance of the diocese 348
