Onomato-geographical characteristics of patrociny settlement names

In ANDRÁS MEZŐ’s monograph several problems arose whose solution was of interest not only to the author, but also to researchers before and after him.

One such issue was whether, in the Carpathian Basin, the name type was formed following or disregarding European models and, closely connected to this, the issue of evaluating the name type’s onomato-geographical features.

For an overview of the latter dilemma, i.e. for onomato-geographical mapping, the following map illustrating patrociny settlement names in the Carpathian Basin was created, which provides help for more precise statements about the spatial characteristics of the name type (see Map 1).

The map proves MEZŐ’s observation that patrociny settlement names are more frequent in the southwest, south and west part of Transdanubia and this frequency decreases as we head north and east. The name type is rather frequent in Slavonian counties, due to Hungarian scribes and Hungarian documentation procedure (see above). In Transylvania the patrociny settlement names are quite frequent in Székelyföld (Szeklerland), probably partly due to the fact that Szeklers resettled from south and west Hungary in the 12–13^th century, and took their name-giving practice with them (MEZŐ 1996a: 229).

Based on these observations, Hungarian historical toponomastics has generally accepted the thesis that patrociny settlement names spread from the southwest part of the Hungarian language territory to the east and north, signalling the cultural roots of the name type’s genesis (HOFFMANN 1998: 116).

Map 1 Settlement names of patrociny origin in the Carpathian Basin.⁵ In so far as we wish to study more closely the procedure and dynamics of this name type’s distribution, we need to illustrate the spatial relations of the occurrence of this name type in written documents in chronological segments.

In the four maps below I have recorded four segments of the chronological change process. The first map shows patrociny settlement names whose first data occur before 1250. The second map shows patrociny settlement names occurring between 1251 and 1300, the third between 1301 and 1350 and the fourth patrociny settlement names occurring between 1351 and 1400 (see Map 2).

We may draw the following conclusions from these maps illustrating the distribution of patrociny settlement names in half-century intervals.

1. Besides the oft-mentioned southwest Hungarian centre there seems to be an early Transylvanian starting point.

2. Patrociny settlement names basically cover the whole Carpathian Basin between 1301 and 1350: the largest number of settlement names belonging to this group occurs in the documents at this time.

5 On the map I have shown 1390 settlements based on ANDRÁS MEZŐ’s database(1996a: 48–

219).

Map 2 Patrociny settlement names until 1250, 1251–1300, 1301–1350 and 1351–1400.

The evaluation of maps, however, is made difficult by several factors. The growth in the amount of data between 1301 and 1350 was firstly influenced by the already mentioned 1332–37 papal census, which first recorded the names of settlements paying religious tax in the Carpathian Basin. We have already discussed the temporal coincidence of the occurrence of data and the relationship between data and sources when we discussed the chronological issues. What we said about spatial matters should be complemented by the observation that the above maps may accurately indicate the main tendency of patrociny settlement names’ distribution, but the whole of the process should be dated to an earlier period. The frequency of patrociny settlement names which differ by areas also depends on how rich a settlement network is and consequently the settlement name-network in the given area. Therefore, we can determine a more accurate frequency of patrociny settlement names if we compare the number of patrociny settlement names in a given area to the total number of medieval settlements in a given county. Conducting certain studies like this we have reached the following results. We can find an above average patrociny settlement name frequency in the western comitats (e.g. Vas, Zala, Somogy, Baranya counties) and prominent frequency in certain southern areas (e.g. Bács, Bodrog and Csongrád counties). In the north, however, for example Abaúj and, further south, Szabolcs county, they remain below the average indicator and in Kolozs county we can find values close to the average. These proportions indicate that the frequency of patrociny settlement names in certain areas is only partly connected to name density.

Talking about the circumstances of formation of this name-type I have tried to provide evidence for the assumption that the church played a vital role in the distribution of patrociny settlement names. Consequently, the unified, inter-national culture, which made patrociny settlement names fashionable in certain (well-defined) parts of Europe is the factor which should be taken into account when discussing the formation and popularisation of this name-type. The Hungarian literature already pointed to this circumstance in the early days:

“Settlement name giving from patrociny names was present in French, Spanish, Italian and Bavarian-Austrian language territory, and also in Slovenian, Croatian, Slovakian and—although only as an exception—in Czech, Polish and other territories.” (L. KISS 1997: 181). The cultural roots of patrociny settlement names clarify why south-west Hungary is where this name-type started to spread from. The appearance of another centre of the name-type in the east, in Szeklerland, is explained by their resettlement to the west. I believe, however, that we can take into account another phenomenon, which can serve as an explanation to the early occurrence of patrociny settlement names in certain parts of these areas.

Indeed, the distribution pattern for this name-type largely coincides with the spatial features of the documented organisation of religious governance in the Carpathian Basin. Of course the organisation of bishoprics and archbishoprics was already concluded before the patrociny settlement names were docu-mented, but the first wave of religious governance (lasting till the end of the 11^th century) shows the same spatial characteristics as the ones we can see in the distribution of patrociny settlement names a few centuries later.

Within the institutional system of bishoprics and archbishoprics, organisations with a smaller scope of authority developed, namely archdeaconries. Their development took place over two centuries and by c. 1300 the diocesan struc-ture had received its final, previously stabilised inner division, and the arch-deaconry network developed over the whole country (KRISTÓ 2003: 56–102, KMTL 184 and the map next to it). The relationships of the archdeaconry network correlated with the distribution waves of patrociny settlement names;

what is more, I believe this is the level of organisation which played the biggest role in the formation and distribution of patrociny settlement names.

The parallels between these two processes (i.e. the development of diocesan organisation and distribution of patrociny settlement names) cannot be acci-dental. In my opinion, these coincidences may serve as another argument for proving that this name type of great vitality was formed by religious govern-ance and the church effectively contributed to its deliberate dissemination.

Besides organising the religious governance, the power of the church is best represented by looking at how dense the parallel network of villages with churches became. We already discussed this issue in chapter 2: based on AND

-RÁS MEZŐ’s work (2003) we know of 5900 settlements like this, i.e. at this time every 3^rd–4^th settlement probably had a church.

To complete the onomato-geographical picture let us turn to two observations pinned down as conclusions of the series of maps illustrating the chronological aspect.

1. The earliest data of patrociny settlement names were recorded in the south-west part of the Hungarian language territory, but a fairly early distribution was also indicated in certain Transylvanian areas. Certain settlement historical reasons may lie in the background of this (the resettlement of Szeklers from the west part of the country), but religious historical factors may have also influenced the appearance of this name type (i.e. the early organisation of Transylvanian bishoprics).

2. The name data multiplied from the beginning of the 14^th century. This obvi-ously correlates with the problem of the survival of document sources and with the fact that the first country-wide settlement name census was conducted at this time. In this respect we may again presume a certain degree of interrela-tion with religious spatial organisainterrela-tion. Namely, the laying of the foundainterrela-tion for religious governance (i.e. the organisation of comitats and within them archdeaconries) was concluded by the 14^th century, and this probably played an important role in patrociny settlement names gaining impetus.