GREGORIUS STEPHANUS TÓTH
4: Description of Zemplén County
5: Bél began work on the description of Zemplen County very late: in 1731, he was still looking for the right man to help him. In a letter to the Locotential Council, dated July 9, 1732, he wrote that he had not been able to obtain the necessary information on the county, although he mentions that the lord lieutenant (Mihály Pethő Gersei) had promised to help him.2 Th is help probably did not materialise, as the lord lieutenant died in 1733 and there is no other evidence to suggest that he made a contribution. However, Sámuel Dobai Székely carried out extensive data collection on the county in 1732–1733, and certainly sent the results to Bél.
Th e correspondence between Bél and Dobai Székely provides information about the collected data. On August 12, 1731, Bél asked his friend to fi nd a suitable person to help him in the description of Zemplén County.3 In his reply, dated December 13, Dobai Székely mentions a friend of his who is willing to help4, although he subsequently commenced work on the description himself. On March 13, 1732, he promised to send the manuscript before St. Stephen’s Day.
However, he also mentioned his childhood friend, László Pika, who visited the north-eastern part of Zemplén County (“Krajna”) and provided information about it.5 In his letter to Bél dated July 9 of that same year, he reveals more about his work, explaining that he had already fi lled 12 sheets on Zemplén County — but that he needed a printed description (which, however, with the exception of the Szepes in the Prodromus, did not yet exist) in order to understand Bél’s description methods better.6 Th ere is no reason to doubt that Dobai Székely fi nally completed his work and that it was used by János Matolai, who compiled the only known version of the description. Th is is proved, for example, by the fact that Sárospatak is often mentioned in the text (A), along with the vineyards of the “blameless and erudite” teacher from Sárospatak, János Csécsi (Tsétsi),7 who was the teacher of Sámuel Dobai Székely in Sárospatak. However, there is no concrete evidence that Matolai received Dobai Székely’s “sheets”.8
6: Dobai, as suggested by the above, fi nished his work sometime in the second half of 1732, possibly in 1733.
A
1: EFK Hist. I. ff ff . [1.]9 2: Comitatus Zempliniensis.
3: 187 pp. 330×210 mm.
4: Description of Zemplén County.
2 “Zemplinensem, nondum suffi cientes notitias potuimus habere; quas, procuraturum se nuper promisit Dominus Supremus Comes.” See Tóth 20061, App. IV/III.
3 Bél 1993, no. 355.
4 Sámuel Dobai Székely writes the following to Bél: “Si in Descriptione Comitatus Zempliniensis quaedam habes fragmenta, mihi transmittito pro idea, incidi in bonum amicum, qui tibi auxiliatrices praebebit manus.” See Bél 1993, no. 432, p. 244.
5 Ibid., no. 451.
6 Ibid., no. 456.
7 “In Hoszszu hegy, vinea Ioannis Tseetsi, viri integri, et docti occurrit.” See A p. 47.
8 Since we earlier knew only of the late 19th-century copy (C), in our dissertation we thought it conceivable that the surviving text was the work of Sámuel Dobai Székely. See Tóth 2007, II, 262. In his monograph on Zemplén, and in a later study, János Barta Jr. adopted this position, although he was correct in criticising my hesitation with respect to authorship. See Barta 2009, 41–42; see also Barta 2016, 120–121. In the meantime, we have discovered manuscript A, as well as other data, which make it certain that the text was compiled by János Matolai and that Dobai Székely should be considered only as a source of data. See also the presentation of manuscript A and the following note.
9 Th ere are two manuscripts recorded under this number. In a strange twist of fate, László Szelestei N., an outstanding scholar of the manuscript legacy and correspondence of Mátyás Bél, saw and catalogued this manuscript, but did not take the other (in the stemma: C) into account (see Szelestei 1984, no. 257). In our case, it happened the other way round: when we requested the manuscript with this number we were given not manuscript (A), but the other (C). Th us in our dissertation we drew the wrong conclusion concerning the origin of the county description. See also Tóth 2007, II, 261–264, and the previous note.
5: Th e manuscript was written by the handwriting of János Matolai, and in all probability he was the author. Th ere is a great deal of evidence for this. On the one hand, Matolai himself mentions in his scholarly dissertation on Tokaj wine in 1741 (which was published in 1744) that while he was still working for Bél, he spent some time in Zemplén in order to study the region.10 Th ere can be no doubt that he is talking here about his collection of data for the county description.
Besides, Bél entrusted Matolai with another important work, the De re rustica Hungarorum, a substantial part of which was a description of viticulture. It is no surprise that there are close textual correlations between the De re rustica and the description of Zemplén County, as far as the Hegyalja vineyards, wines and fi elds are concerned.11 Th e other reason for Matolai’s visit to Zemplén was therefore to learn about the famous wine region.
It is very likely that Matolai was in Zemplén in 1732, because, as was his custom, he refers to the fact in several places in the text.12 It must have been at this time that he was collecting data. Matolai probably wrote the manuscript in question in 1736, since Mátyás Bél sent for review the description of Zemplén County (b) that was probably a copy of this (corrected and supplemented?) manuscript by Matolai. However, it is not clear whether Matolai visited the entire county. Th ere is some room for doubt, and it is likely that Bél’s diligent assistant also used data collected by Dobai Székely and László Pika ([Do]) in his text. On the last two pages of the manuscript, there are some grave inscriptions and rhyming epitaphs, written by a hand attributed by László N. Szelestei to Dobai Székely.13
It should be noted that the structure and elaboration of the text leave a lot to be desired. Th e most telling example is in the special part, where market towns and villages follow each other randomly, while in a “regular” county description they are always discussed separately. For this reason, when Mátyás Bél revised the text he marked the towns with coloured pencil — adding the abbreviation Op. (i.e. oppidum, or “market town”) — and included the town’s future, distinct serial number.14 In addition, Bél generally corrected the numbering of the villages, bearing in mind that by
“highlighting” the market towns their order had to be changed.15 6: 1732–1736.
b 1:
-2: [Comitatus Zempliniensis.]
3: (Th e manuscript has not been found.)
10 “Ex hac ignorantia vinis Tokainis ea saepe adnumerantur, quae locum inter illa non merentur... Vidimus id nosmet ipsi, quum ibidem, ex offi cio, quo Cl. Matthiae Belio iuncti sumus, scrutandae eiusdem regionis gratia, viveremus.” See Matolai 1744, p. 4. Imre Wellmann calls attention to the treatise and its relation to De re rustica that is discussed below. See Bél 1984, 375.
11 For details, see the relevant points of the text in our edition.
12 “Itaque hic, nisi crebris pluviis rigatur humus, profert nihil, sed exuritur, sole saepe ita accensa, ut non gramen tantum, sed dumi <etiam>
exsiccentur, quemadmodum id anno 1732. dum ibidem oberraremus, ipsi vidimus.” See A p. 26. (Besides, this remark is fairly similar to the Matolai quote in note 10.) Th e mention of events that took place in 1732 is also highly informative, since Matolai typically recorded events that happened during his visits. Examples of this can be found in the descriptions of Kisgéres and Imreg: “Kis Géres ... die X.
Septembris MDCCXXXII. magna sui parte confl agravit...” A p. 171.; “Imreg ... possidetur a compluribus, sed parte sui maiore a barone Sigismundo Barkoczy, cui et castellum in eodem est, vineaque novella in colliculo monti Imregiensi subiecta meridie, fructus adhuc ignoti, quippe hocce anno MDCCXXXII. primi.” A p. 188. In a further, important, coincidence, Matolai also mentions the harvest in Hegyalja in De re rustica: “In 1732, when we were there, it was announced for October 13.” See Bél 1984, 408. On the basis of this remark, János Barta Jr. assumed that Bél visited the region in personal. See Barta 2009, 41; Barta 2016, 121. Th is assumption is, however, wrong, since it is known that De re rustica is the work of János Matolai. Th is is stated by Bél himself in one of his letters. Cf. Wellmann 1984, 17–19.
Primarily, however, it is contradicted by Matolai’s above-mentioned statement. See note 10.
13 See Szelestei 1984, no. 257 (p. 90).
14 By way of example, see A p. 43, 48, 52 etc.
15 See A pp. 43–87, etc.
4: Description of Zemplén County.
5: On August 13, 1736, Mátyás Bél sent the description of Zemplén County to the Locotential Council, together with eight others, for the offi ce to forward them to the counties for review and supplementation.16 We do not know whether, apart from separating the villages and market towns, Bél had earlier made additional corrections to Matolai’s text (A), or he supplemented it before sending it to the government department. (In the stemma, we indicate the lost copy that was sent to the Locotential Council as “b”.) Th e Locotential Council forwarded the document to the magistrate on August 17, 1736. Th e county read out the offi cial letter at the General Assembly on September 13, 1736 — as a special agenda item — although it appears from the minutes that they did not deal further with the matter.17
At some point at the beginning of 1737, Bél may have urged the Locotential Council again, as the offi ce called on the county for a second time on February 19, 1737 to return the description. Th e letter was read out at the General Assembly of March 14, 1737,18 and although there is nothing in the minutes to suggest that they addressed the matter, the county replied to the government body. In their letter dated the same day (March 14, 1737), they wrote to the Locotential Council that Bél was interfering with the rights of private individuals in his description, about which the county had no adequate information, nor would it have the authority to provide information on such rights anyway; the description was thus considered unsuitable for review, not to mention the many mistakes found in the work.19
On March 27, however, the Locotential Council responded that it was expecting concrete criticism from the county.20 Th is letter is dated April 26, 1737,21 and it includes the comment that at the next General Assembly meeting they should write down their reasons for being unable to review Bél’s work, or the matter should be communicated to the lord lieutenant (?).22 However, there is no trace of whether or not the county “formulated their reasons” to the Locotential Council. Th ey also received a letter from the Locotential Council letter dated January 24, 1738, in which the council urged them to provide a revision. Th e letter was read at the General Assembly on February 25, 1738, but no answer was given.23 In light of the above, it is likely that the document was not sent back.
Th e manuscript — that is, the copy sent to the county — has not survived; there is no trace of it in the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County archives (MNL BAZML).
6: 1735–1736.
C
1: EFK Hist. I. ff ff . [2.]
2: Comitatus Zempliniensis.
3: 174 pp. 360×240 mm.
4: Description of Zemplén County.
16 See Bél 1993, no. 628.
17 Th e minutes of the General Assembly start with the following: “Ante cuius [sc. Congregationis] exordium extra serialiter publicatae sunt Excelsi Consilii Regii cum adjecto descriptionis Comitatus hujus Zempliniensis Beliano Opere Posonii 17ma Augusti 1736. celebrato.”
MNL BAZML IV. 1001 ac Közgyűlési jegyzőkönyvek 13. cím 1735–1736 (MOL Mikrofi lmtár, 3536. mf.) p. 673. After the letter was read out, no decision was made on the matter.
18 Ibid., pp. 221–222.
19 See MNL OL C 42 Misc. Fasc. 95 no. 33. f. 40 (no. 21).
20 Ibid., f. 39. (nr. 22). On the county’s letter and a detail from the response of the Locotential Council, see also Haan 1879, p. 43.
21 MNL BAZML IV. 1001 ac Közgyűlési jegyzőkönyvek 13. cím (General Assembly reports, tit. 13.) 1736–1737 (MOL Mikrofi lmtár, 3536.
mf.) ibid., pp. 244–245.
22 “Ad quas in subsequenti Congregatione rescribendae rationes, ob quas opus illud revideri non valet. Praeterea pro opinione negotiorum, hoc cum Illustrissimo Dno Supremo Comite medio D. Ordinarii Comitis communicetur.” Ibid., p. 245.
23 BAZML IV 1001 ac Közgyűlési jegyzőkönyvek 15. cím 1737–1738 (MOL Mikrofi lmtár, 3536. mf.) pp. 135–136.
5: Th e manuscript (indicated by the letter C) is a 19th-century exact copy of the Matolai manuscript (A). Th ere is nothing to suggest that it was made on the basis of a more organised, corrected document. Besides the fact that the two texts (A and C) are almost completely identical, this is also suggested by the fact that the villages and towns are mixed in the same way in the special section as they are in manuscript A. In fact, the renumbering that Mátyás Bél undertook in Matolai’s text (A) serves only to deepen the chaos, as the 19th-century copyist adopted these corrections, but did not diff erentiate the towns from the other settlements, thus the manuscript is completely chaotic with regard to the numbering of the villages and towns.24
6: Early 19th century.
IV. Brief review of the county description and the principles of the text edition
Th e description of Zemplén County is a complete county description that is fairly rich in data, although it is disorganised in terms of form and should be regarded almost entirely as the work of János Matolai. Mátyás Bél made only a few minor corrections to the text (see the presentation of manuscript A). Th e passages on natural geography in the general section (in our edition: p. 113–131.) are of considerable length compared to other descriptions and comprise several informative chapters. Th ese include the description of Tokaj Hill, the fi rst to be discussed among the hills and mountains of the county. Among other things, the author describes in detail the names of the cultivated hill slopes and their classifi cation (these data are extremely important and are the subject of serious debate in the wine region right up to the present day).
Th e parts on fi eld crops are interesting, as the author notes that he saw with his own eyes the dried out land between the rivers Bodrog and Tisza in 1732. Chapter 19 is also remarkable , in which the author writes about fi shing in the county.
In the political section (in our edition: pp. 132–140.), the second chapter in particular, attracts the reader’s attention, as the author here explores with unusual ruthlessness the decline of the Hungarians and the growth of the Slovak population in the area. Th e Hungarians, he writes, are in the majority only in Cigánd and Karád (Tiszakarád), where there are hardly any other inhabitants, but in other settlements they live together with Slovaks, Poles and Ruthenians. Th e author attributes the decline in the number of Hungarians partly to merging and assimilation, and partly to emigration, although he also mentions that Hungarian families tend to have only one or two children, while the Slovaks have three to fi ve. Finally, he notes that there are no diff erences between the Hungarians and the Slovaks in terms of customs, marriage, or other aspects. In the next chapter, however, the author slightly contradicts himself, as he explains that the settling Slovaks diligently learn the Hungarian language and customs, which is what saves the Hungarians from a more rapid decline. He also points out that, in terms of their dialect, the Slovaks are closer to the Ruthenians in this region, and the same is true of their clothing and habits. Interestingly, the longest chapter is about the Ruthenians. After discussing their origins, he notes with disapproval that many of them become highwaymen, although an improvement can be observed in this respect, as in their religious practices: while they once baptised their children only after one or two years, or even longer, according to the author they now follow the Catholic Church, thus baptisms take place shortly after birth. He divides the Ruthenians into two groups: those living in the north-western parts, near Sáros County, and those living near the border of Ung County. He notes, however, that both are referred to as Krajna. According to Bél, those living in the west are closer to their neighbours (i.e. the Slovaks) and have generally abandoned such customs as early betrothal and the abduction of girls, while those living near Ung County naturally adhere more fi rmly to their old ways. He then talks about the Ruthenians in a more uniform way, discussing in unique detail their customs in relation to marriage, funerals, food and clothing. Th e next chapter is unusual in terms of subject matter, as it explores the reasons for poverty among the county’s population. In addition to natural causes, the author mentions the large number of Jewish
24 See, for example, C pp. 41–85.
traders from Poland, as well as the Greek and Serbian merchants, who, according to him, profi t at the expense of the poor. He also mentions the Gypsies, who he claims are systematically cheating and robbing the population. Th e next chapter concerns the nobility of the county — in great detail — followed by a presentation of the county civil servants in a short but informative chapter.
At the beginning of the special part we find a description of the Hegyalja municipality (Processus Submontanus) (in our edition: pp. 141–167.), which begins with a description of the town and castle of Sárospatak. The description consists largely of a long, historical review, in which the author mentions Zsuzsanna Lórántffy and the spread of the Calvinist faith in the town, although he then also talks about the subsequent strengthening of Catholicism. The description of the contemporary town is of little interest, but it contains several valuable facts about the population, including their religious and ethnic distribution, as well as their way of life. Then immediately, without any transition, comes the presentation of the castle. The village descriptions feature the national and religious denominations of the population, the quality of the land and the landowner — that is, the standard data — although they are occasionally supplemented with other data, such as the quality of the wine in Vámosújfalu and many other villages. The description of the market town of Tállya (in our edition: pp. 148–150.), where the author lists the names of the surrounding vineyards and outlines the town’s history, is noteworthy, as is the presentation of Szerencs, in which praise for the local wine and a presentation of the castle play a significant part. The description of the market town of Mád is also lengthy, again due to the description of the vineyards and wines. Finally, the descriptions of the castle and town of Tokaj (in our edition: pp. 161–165.) are worthy of mention, the latter being the more interesting. Following a brief historical introduction, Bél explains that the town’s former privileges have disappeared and the inhabitants are impoverished due to debt. He naturally discusses Tokaj wine and lists the owners of vineyards in Tokaj. He then describes the churches, public buildings and private houses in the town, and lists many families who own dwellings there. After describing the vineyards, he writes about the citizens and the governance of the town. The author lists 39 settlements altogether, of which nine are market towns (Sárospatak, Tolcsva, Tállya, Szerencs, Mád, Tarcal, Tokaj, Bodrogkeresztúr, Liszka), along with one castle (Tokaj Castle) and 29 villages.
Th e description of the Bodrogköz municipality (pp. 168–178.) resembles that of the Hegyalja municipality in terms of disorganisation — the author lists 46 settlements simply according to number, without any distinction between them.
Two of the market towns are Lelesz and Királyhelmec (in our edition: pp. 174–175.). In connection with the fi rst, he naturally describes the history and properties of the provostship, while in relation to Királyhelmec, the reference to Zsuzsanna Lórántff y’s house near the town and to the inscription on its gate is an interesting detail. Th e description
Two of the market towns are Lelesz and Királyhelmec (in our edition: pp. 174–175.). In connection with the fi rst, he naturally describes the history and properties of the provostship, while in relation to Királyhelmec, the reference to Zsuzsanna Lórántff y’s house near the town and to the inscription on its gate is an interesting detail. Th e description