The circumstances of name type formation

church title referring to the celebration of all saints customised in the Hungarian church from the 11^th century, form an independent category. (For further details about the types see MEZŐ 1996a: 225–227.)

in connection to patrociny settlement names, i.e. why only with regard to them did it cause such a move towards the Latin language.

The presence of a Latin variant of patrociny settlement names in documents may correlate with how the church titles themselves were recorded in docu-ments. In other words, we may presuppose the use of Latin concerning pat-rocinies in the whole of Hungary, even at the time when patrociny settlement names themselves were represented by their Hungarian equivalent. Szentiván

‘Saint Ivan’ settlement and church in Zala county are mentioned in a document from 1419 in this way: Herbathfelde alio nomine Zenthywan, in facie cuius est constructa ecclesia sancti Johannis (MEZŐ 2003: 140); among data about Szentmárton ‘Saint Martin’ in Fejér county we can find the following: 1324>

1409: Lowazfelde … que alio nomine Zenthmarton vocaretur, in qua ecclesia in honore sancti Martini constructa (MEZŐ 2003: 269); about Szentmiklós

‘Saint Nicholas’ in Kolozs county this document mentions inter alia: 1358:

beati Michaelis archangeli et beati Nicolai in Zenthmiclos, parrochiales ecc-lesias (MEZŐ 2003: 298), etc.

According to the Hungarian literature, using saints’ names as patrocinies became the practice in Hungary from the end of the 12^th century or even earlier (BENKŐ 1993: 18) under the influence of the Roman church, spreading from southwest Europe. It is beyond question that for some time the church played the decisive role in the choice of patrocinies (i.e. in determining the patron saints of churches): there is no evidence the population chose the patron saint of its own church (and settlement) (MEZŐ 1996a: 37). This kind of name-giving role of the church—basically realised via internal organisation—is completely understandable³ if we take into account that, beyond its own institutional frames, the influence of the church was significant in medieval social organisation, public administration and jurisdiction (cf. KRISTÓ 2003:

52–102, KMTL egyházi birtok ‘religious estate’, egyházi társadalom ‘religious society’, egyházmegye ‘diocese’, MEZŐ1996a: 30–36). The identity and self-consciousness of the church was increased by the fact that its members had a culture different from that of secular society, based on written records and its own languages (Latin, and in some cases, Greek), resulting in a communication system of its own (KMTL 182). And since this system was built on Latin, it is self-explanatory that patrocinies in Latin documents were recorded in Latin, thereby abiding by the general rules of formulation.

On the basis of all this I believe the name-giving activity of the church was not limited to denoting church names (patron saints), but also extended to having

3 We also have to highlight that the church’s name-giving role cannot be related to a central decision: for example, a decree made by the Pope, or a religious prescription (we know of no such examples), but rather we should consider the role of the local ecclesiastical persons and of church dignitaries (among whom primarily the bishops).

a role in transforming patrocinies into settlement names. It is another issue that this influence can only rarely be proved by written records. However, some-times the documents themselves inform us about name-giving imposed by the upper echelons of the religious hierarchy: for example, in 1407 the monastery called Szent Jakab ‘Saint Jacob’ in Mórichida received approval to popularise an inhabited part and name it after the monastery’s patron saint Szentjakabfal-va ‘Saint Jacob’s village’ (MEZŐ 1996a: 42). If we accept the impact of the church not only in naming patrocinies themselves, but also in forming patrociny settlement names, then this provides a logical explanation for the Latin occur-rence of this name type. That is to say that, just as the patrociny was written in Latin in the Latin text of a document (on the pattern of other European models), initially the patrociny settlement names also occurred in Latin.

3.2. As well as Latin, the other important factor that has to be mentioned is that certain patrocinies occur alternating with their own synonyms, even in a data set referring to one settlement. And it can be difficult to understand (since there are no similar examples in connection to other name types) why a village is denoted by a name-giving and name-using community (i.e. the people living there) either as Boldogasszony ‘blessed (= saint) lady’ or Szentmária ‘Saint Mary’ only because Virgin Mary had both of these denotations in religious and secular language use. A settlement in Bács, which received its name after a church consecrated in honour of the Virgin Mary, was mentioned in medieval documents as Szentmária ‘Saint Mary’ (1413: Szent-Mária) and Boldog-asszonyfalva ‘blessed (= saint) lady’s village’ (1522: Bodogazzonfalua), and a settlement in Fejér county as Szentmária (1359/1368/1429: Zenmaria) and Bol-dogasszonyegyháza ‘blessed (= saint) lady’s village with a church’ (1423: Bo-dogazzonegghaza) (for data see MEZŐ 1996a: 206–209, MEZŐ 1996b: 35–36).

Among settlement names originating from patrocinies, the Szentmária ~ Bol-dogasszony type of alternation is not unique: Keresztúr ‘crucified [Christ] lord’

~ Szentkereszt ‘saint cross’ settlement names show the same type of alternation.

The (Garam)szentkereszt in Bars county was first mentioned in documents as Keresztúr (1075/+1124/+1217: Kerestur, 1380: Kerezthur), then as Szentke-reszt (1603: Szenth KeSzentke-reszt), the (Szász)keSzentke-resztúr from Küküllő county was first Szentkereszt (1270/1279: Scenkerest), then Keresztúr (1356: Kereztur), and the Keresztúr from Pozsega county was first Keresztúr (1412: Kereztur), and then Szentkereszt (1563: Zenthkerezth) (for data see MEZŐ 1996a: 113–

118). This kind of alternation within the same settlement was probably less characteristic of spoken language, and more defined as a document-specific feature (HOFFMANN 1998: 116).⁴

4 We have to add to all this that, for example, Szentmária name as patrociny could have been applied with dual name use. The Szűz Mária chapel in Boldogasszonyfalva settlement in

Val-3.3. The patrociny settlement names’ chronological and onomato-geographical relations also exclude the possibility of spontaneous genesis. Since I discuss these issues in a separate chapter, here I will only refer to circumstances closely related to the formation of this name type. In so far as these settlement names were formed naturally, their appearance would have been expected already from an early period, since the church building was a prominent feature of a settlement when there only few such buildings. This was the situation, for example when, during the time of King Saint Stephen (1000–1038), a decree prescribed a joint church for every 10 villages. There are quite a few toponyms referring to churches from before the 14^th century: +1093/1404: Kerekyghaz

‘round church’, +1256: Feyereghaz ‘white church’ (cf. KMHsz. 1: 89).

However, most toponyms originating from church names started to appear from the 14^th century, and then with overwhelming impetus. Maybe it is not accidental that Hungarian history defines the beginning of the 14^th century as the end of the foundation of religious (and secular) administration (KRISTÓ

2003: 102). I discuss the possible parallelism between religious spatial organ-isational issues and the distribution of patrociny settlement names in the chapter about onomato-geography.

3.4. The assumption that in the distribution of patrociny settlement names the church played a vital role is strengthened by the way this name type appeared in non-Hungarian territories in the Carpathian Basin. Several Hungarian researchers have observed that, in the medieval onomastic corpus of the Croatian-Slavonian areas, there are many Hungarian settlement names origin-ating from patrocinies. This is in harmony with the presumption that the name type spread from south Hungary (cf. MEZŐ 1996a: 229, HOFFMANN 1998:

116, BENKŐ 2003: 117). What causes a dilemma is that the southern toponyms appear in Hungarian in medieval documents. These name forms thus point to the great influence of the medieval Hungarian church (BENKŐ 1993: 18). With regard to this we have to mention the special dual toponyms of the Dráva–

Száva interfluvial region, in which the Hungarian patrociny name-form fre-quently occurs with a Slavic toponym or anthroponym as a first component:

Obed-Szentkereszt, Bakva-Szentbertalan, Podgorja-Szentmihály, Berivoj-Szent-iván, Vojk-Keresztúr, etc. According to LÁSZLÓ HADROVICS, compound names like these are evidence that the majority of the population was Croatian but the religious organisation was under Hungarian governance (1970: 238). Both examples provide proof that in the formation of patrociny names in this area the church played a role—the same way as it did, in my opinion, in Hungarian language territories.

kó county was recorded in the following forms: 1333–34: capelle Beate Virginis, de capella Sancte Virginis, capelle Beate Marie, de capella Sancte Marie (MEZŐ 1996b: 32).

When we talk about the Hungarian variants of foreign language names it is worth mentioning the possibility that these Hungarian name-forms were not actually used, but that what is going on is rather a “Hungarianisation” of medieval Hungarian documentation (cf. BENKŐ 1998: 115). The number of these medieval Hungarian formants occurring in Croatian-Slavonian areas decreases in later centuries, and the already existing ones are present primarily in their Slavic language variant, without the lexeme szent ‘saint’: Szentkirály

> Krajevci, Szentgergely > Gregoravác, Szentmárton > Martinai, Szentpéter

> Petrovina. In the explanation of the above we should by no means presume the dominance either of the Hungarian population or the Hungarian church but, with a degree of caution, we may assume the opposition of two phenomena:

the customs of document writing preferring Hungarian name forms and the spoken language which used Croatian name-forms (cf. BENKŐ 1996: 96).

3.5. The study of the circumstances determining the formation of patrociny settlement names has to explore the assumption that foreign patterns played a role in the genesis of this name type in Hungary. ANDRÁS MEZŐ does not agree with the earlier, traditional opinion in Hungarian onomastics, according to which behind the use of patrociny names there are European patterns (cf.

e.g. BÁRCZI 1958: 154, BÁRCZI–BENKŐ–BERRÁR 1967: 387, BENKŐ 1987:

305), but claims that searching for foreign influence in the transformation of patrocinies into settlement names is completely superfluous (1996a: 44).

Behind the difference in opinion there are different motives: MEZŐ bases his standpoint on the fact that this would be the only name type having foreign influence in its formation process (1996b: 120), BENKŐ—who represents the traditional point of view—bases his opinion on the fact that the name type’s onomato-geographical description certainly shows a unified, connected cultural background, and the Hungarian language territory is in this respect most closely in contact with Italian, South German and South West Slavic territories (1996:

96, see also ZELLIGER 1991: 542, HOFFMANN 1998: 115). In my opinion, the fact that this name type spread across country and language borders, also correlates with the internationality of the church, the same church that during the Middle Ages maintained extremely intensive relations with the Neo-Latin territories (from where this name type originates). I do not believe that the language interferences (i.e. language-population contact) played a role in the distribution of patrociny settlement names; it was rather the role of the rela-tively unified cultural background. This name type would not have been so internationally spread and would not have shown such uniform features had it not been for the unified, European church representing international culture. It is not accidental that a toponym type carrying such an important ideological message was formed due to impact of foreign culture.

3.6. Numerous settlement names of patrociny origin have a variant used in parallel, and the reasons for this are not only due to the background settlement

history (cf. HOFFMANN 1998: 116): e.g. Baróc ~ Szentborbálaasszony ‘Saint Barbara lady’ 1439: Baroch alio nomine Zenthbarbaraazon (Fejér county, MEZŐ 1996a: 65), Tőttős ~ Szentegyed ‘Saint Aegidius’ 1346/1393: Teuteus alio nomine Zentegyed (Baranya county, op. cit. 70), Bába ~ Szenterzsébet

‘Saint Elisabeth’ 1416: Baba alio nomine Zenthelsebeth (Nógrád county, op.

cit. 73), Kisfalud ~ Szentgyörgy ‘Saint George’ 1441: Kysfalud alio nomine Zenthgywrgh (Zala county, op. cit. 83). With regard to these parallel names we primarily need to emphasise the process that formed them: namely, the variants were caused by the fact that the patrociny name-form replaced the name of the settlement used earlier and from a different motivation. We are aware of more than 150 examples of patrociny names as secondary: e.g. Régen (1259/1270: Regun, MEZŐ 1996a: 196) > Szenttamás ‘Saint Thomas’ (1347/

1378: Scethomas, op. cit.), Födémes (1239/1465: Fedemus, MEZŐ 1996a:

186) > Szentpéter ‘Saint Peter’ (1332: Sanctus Petrus, op. cit.), Lovász (1409:

Loaz, MEZŐ 1996a: 154) > Lovászfölde (1409: Lowazfelde, op. cit.) > Szent-márton ‘Saint Martin’ (1409: Zenthmarton, op. cit.), etc., while we are aware of only two examples of patrociny names being primary and then being replaced by a name of different motivation: Keresztúr ‘crucified [Christ] lord’

(1290–1301: Kerezthwr, MEZŐ 1996a: 115) > Újvásár (1381: Vyuasar, op.

cit.)—referring to the newly acquired right to organise fairs (cf. op. cit. 125), and Szentlélek ‘Holy Spirit’ (1335: Zenthleluk, MEZŐ 1996a: 142) > Oldal-falva (1632: OldalOldal-falva, op. cit.)—replaced by a name-form referring to the owner (op. cit. 143). It is highly possible that the two directions would have been more balanced had it been the case of a name type formed naturally, based on name models. The great vitality of patrociny settlement names again indicates that we are dealing with a name type supported from above.

This clarifies the reason why there is no name type in Hungarian of which the lexical-morphological changes have the same characteristics and frequency as those of patrociny settlement names. Since I discuss this issue in detail in chapter 7, here I will only indicate that exactly half of the patrociny settlement names underwent a change of some type, and this susceptibility to change (uncharacteristic of any other name type) is due to the language “conscience”, attempting to change the artificial character of these names by adjusting them to other structural types formed naturally.

All factors (early Latin attestation in documents; alternation with synonyms even in the same settlement names; occurrences of Hungarian language variants in Slavic language territories; the impact of foreign language and culture;

frequent structural changes) governing the circumstances of patrociny settle-ment name-formation settle-mentioned here imply that in Hungary this name type was not formed naturally, but by religious governance (as a unique cultural name type). Since, however, these names were typologically not foreign to the Hungarian onomato-system (i.e. from a functional and formal aspect, this

name type shows relatedness to one of the most important name types of the early Hungarian settlement name system: toponyms formed from personal names without a formant), there was no system-related obstacle to their spreading. This is why, over time, this name-giving method freed itself from religious governance and resulted in spontaneous name-forms using already existing name models. From this time on patrociny settlement names can be regarded as characteristic of Hungarian territories. Consequently, we may conclude that the Hungarian onomato-system accepted this name-forming process as well (cf. HOFFMANN 1998: 116).