Patrociny Settlement Names in the Carpathian Basin*

Valéria Tóth (Debrecen, Hungary) Patrociny Settlement Names in the Carpathian Basin * 1. Introduction: processing of name types in the literature In Hungarian historical toponomastics only two early toponym types were processed in monographs. MIKLÓS KÁZMÉR introduced the characteristics of a lexical-type toponym, those containing the lexeme falu ’village’, in an inde- pendent volume; and ANDRÁS MEZ Ő compiled a monograph about a semantic category—toponyms formed from the name of the patron saint of a church (1996a). Although the issue of the latter name type (patrociny settlement names) had attracted the attention of several researchers even prior to this, and acknowledged Hungarian etymologists and onomasticians (such as János Melich, István Kniezsa, Elemér Schwartz, Elemér Moór, Károly Mollay, Sán- dor Mikesy, Loránd Benk ő, Lajos Kiss, Gyula Kristó) clarified numerous issues of detail, the turning point in this topic was still ANDRÁS MEZ Ő’s monograph, “Templomcím a magyar helységnevekben” (Patrociny in Hungarian settlement names, 1996a). The author, with his wide knowledge of philology, history and church history, made an attempt to present every detail of this important and colourful group of settlement names. Through this, he showed how a piece of our past, however small, may shed light on broader trends if presented by an expert (HOFFMANN 1998: 109). This monograph set an example for future generations of researchers, not only in defining an onomastic corpus and the methodology for data processing, but also by the definition and use of concepts, discovering the inner and outer relations of the system and by its interdisciplinary approach (loc. cit. and also HOFFMANN 2003: 177–178). Ac- cording to those who appreciate it, the virtues of ANDRÁS MEZ Ő’s work make it worth mentioning as one of the best specialist monographs in Hungarian onomastics and Hungarian cultural history (cf. BENK Ő 1996: 98). In defining the corpus, MEZ Ő’s main methodological principle was to aim at spatial and temporal completeness. The former criterion refers to the fact that the volume intended to collect and process the entire onomastic corpus of early medieval Hungary (11–15 th centuries). The latter criterion refers to the fact that MEZ Ő intended to take into account the whole time interval when this toponym type may have been formed by natural name-giving: in other words, he collected his linguistic corpus from the beginning of Christianity in Hungary (11 th century) up to the 15 th century. The fact that played a role in * The work is supported by the TÁMOP 4.2.1./B-09/1/KONV-2010-0007 project. The project is implemented through the New Hungary Development Plan, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. Valéria Tóth 176 defining the upper time limit is that the main period of name-giving for Hungarian settlement names (including patrociny settlement names) had ended by the beginning of the 16 th century (MEZ Ő 1996a: 25). External (non-linguistic) factors played a role in the withdrawal of patrociny names themselves at the beginning of the 16 th century, such as the division of the country into three parts due to the Turkish invasion (into territories under the Hungarian kingdom, the Turkish Empire and the Transylvanian principality). Furthermore, the expansion of Protestantism obviously did not favour this name type either (loc. cit.). The scientific study of languages may take place based on various aspects, one of which is the attempt to discover what the given linguistic element group shows regarding the society’s material and religious culture, in other words, what knowledge it conveys with respect to human culture in general, and na- tional culture in particular (BENK Ő 1996: 93–94). Among linguistic elements, toponyms are probably the most suitable for the above, due to their role as cultural messengers. In addition, researchers of early toponyms—respecting a socio-pragmatic requirement—need to be able to identify themselves with the medieval people, as ANDRÁS MEZ Ő did, since this is the way to find the hidden motivation of the period, which consequently leads to credible results (cf. MEZ Ő 1996b: 126). ANDRÁS MEZ Ő’s toponymic monograph attempts to shed light on the historical and cultural historical background of patrociny settlement name-giving by presenting the structural and etymological types of such names, the role of churches in the life of medieval people, the motives behind title choice and the patron saints who served as the bases for toponyms. In an appendix, he also provides the list of church titles which did not become settlement names. Both patron saints that served as the bases for toponyms and church titles which did not become settlement names offer an opportunity to discover relations between Hungarian culture and Eastern and Western culture, as well as to view the cult of domestic saints (HOFFMANN 1998: 116). Cultural historical, church and cult historical conclusions may be drawn solely from this wider perspective, since the degree of certain Hungarian saints’ cult cannot be concluded solely from those settlements names which preserved their names, but also from medieval patrocinies (KRISTÓ 1996: 113, MEZ Ő 1996a: 28). This thought obviously lead MEZ Ő to publish his volume entitled “Patrocíniumok a középkori Magyarországon” (Patrocinies in medieval Hungary, 2003) a few years later, which does not focus on titles which become toponyms, but rather presents churches bearing certain titles using a dictionary-entry style. Our knowledge about patrociny settlement names in medieval Hungary and the Carpathian Basin, and the inner and outer relationships of name types have been placed in a unified framework primarily thanks to ANDRÁS MEZ Ő’s Patrociny Settlement Names in the Carpathian Basin 177 work. At the same time, it is important to emphasise that MEZ Ő’s monograph did not complete the related research, but primarily summarised the results and indicated new research questions for which the database of the work may serve as the perfect starting point (cf. 1996a: 48–219, and MEZ Ő 2003). The extent to which this work invigorated historical onomastic research is shown in studies inspired by “Patrociny in Hungarian settlement names” which basically rethought certain aspects of it. ISTVÁN HOFFMANN (1999), for example, added new aspects to the structural description of patrociny settlement names, and I myself presented the typical changes to them (TÓTH 2006). I also studied the circumstances of the origin of this name type (2007a), as well as its spatial characteristics (2010a). ANDREA BÖLCSKEI ’s work, meanwhile, illustrated a concrete change process—the phenomenon of name differentiation with patrociny settlement names. ANITA RÁCZ studied those names from Bihar county (an eastern Carpathian Basin comitat of a considerable size) which belong to this semantic group (1999). With regard to the issue of chronology in connection to patrociny settlement names, ANDRÁS MEZ Ő had already pointed to the fact—and this observation may be true not only for the time factor—that in answering certain questions regarding this name type it is neither onomastics nor history that can primarily be of help, but archaeology (1996a: 231). From this point of view the archaeologist GÁBOR KISS ’s study is especially important, providing additional archaeological remarks concerning Szentkirály settlement names, which memorialized the name of the first Hungarian Christian ruler, King Saint Stephen (2011). They may serve as an example as to how archaeological excavations can narrow and consequently make more precise the chronological borders drawn by toponymic data. AND - RÁS MEZ Ő, the author of the original monograph, was unable to comment on all these new issues himself due to his illness and tragically early death in 2003. 2. Patrocinies and patrociny settlement names in Hungary The patrociny settlement name type belongs to the category of clerical names. Clerical names are settlement names which linguistically refer to 1. a church edifice or its part (e.g. Fehéregyház ‘white church’); 2. the patron saint of the church (e.g. Boldogasszony ‘Virgin Mary’, Szentistván ‘Saint Stephen’, Mindszent ‘all saints’); 3. persons or organisations belonging to the church (e.g. Apáti ‘abbot’s’, Káptalanfalva ‘village belonging to the chapter house’) (cf. MEZ Ő 1996a: 23–24). The concept of church names therefore basically refers to a set of linguistic elements which are characterised by identical cultural definiteness (HOFFMANN 1998: 113). Among these we may find patrociny settlement names (or in other words, names originating from the name of the patron saint of the church or the title of the church), to which Hungarian historical onomastic literature has applied several terms (summaries of these MEZ Ő 1996a: 36, L. KISS 1996: 99, HOFFMANN 1998: 113, KMTL 534). Valéria Tóth 178 In Hungary, the process whereby churches and monasteries were built and named after a patron saint or saint began at the turn of 10–11 th century (i.e. from the beginning of Christianity). This saint or saint secret, after which the church or chapel was named, is called a patrociny (KMTL 534). Italian, South Slavic, German, and perhaps Czech priests had a role in spreading this custom, characteristic of west and southwest Europe, to Hungary (MEZ Ő 1996a: 36). According to certain opinions, when the church is ordained the patron saint is chosen by the patron himself or the believers (KMTL 534), but it is more likely that in this issue the church was the one who made the decision. And although the motives behind the choice of the title cannot be discovered, the influential role of certain factors needs to be taken into account. Among the primary motives are the obligatory celebrations, the celebration of the patron saint; if a saint had several celebrations, then the role of the calendar came into the picture as well; the choice of a name could have been influenced by the patron saint of the founder of the church; the spreading of an orders’ favourite saints; the ruling family’s patron saint, etc.

Load more