Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2011)

Matthias Belius: Comitatus Arvensis

INTRODUCTION

55

manuscript D (cf. notes 22. and 23.) are already implemented in this text. At two places signs of planned insertions can be seen, eventually by the hand of Mátyás Bél (pp. 30, 32.).28 6: Likewise to copy D it must have been made after 12th February 173929 or even later than 1742 (cf. D).

F

1: OSZK’s Manuscript Collection Föl. Lat. 3782.

2: Mathiae Belii Notitia geographico-historica Comitatus Arvensis a Georgio Gyurikovits descripta.

3: 66 ff. 380x240 mm.

4: Description of Arva County.

5: Copy made by Gyurikovits György. It is hard to decide based on which existing version this copy was made. It contains the two modification applied to copy D30 but it doesn’t include the only correction made on E (p. 30.) (its sense is rather dubious anyway). The difference is so insignificant between copies D and E that the question is not really relevant. On the whole it can be stated that it is a copy of the corrected D or of E.

6: First half of 19th century.

IV. Summary

Data providers: György Buchholtz ([Bu]), Ádám Kheberitsch ([Bu]), Illés Petrovicz ([Bu]), János Ferenc Reviczky ([Re])

Revisions by: county (b; not accomplished); Chancellary (c)

The manuscript to publish: D Translation: Bél 2001. (Slovakian)31 Literaute: Sedlák 1987, Minárik 2001.

28 According to István Horvát the version doesn’t contain entry from Mátyás Bél. See Horvát 1812 f. 8r.

29 For the remark upon Reviczky’s death on 12th Febr. 1739 see E p. 145.

30 See F f. 42r, 52r. Also see notes 23, 24.

31 The Slovakian translation is based upon the manuscript E (its xerox copy is served in Dolny Kubin), which, as we saw, contains the whole text, but it is probably posthumous and there are much more errors in it, than in manuscript D.