Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)

Vas vármegye

260

since the scribe was often compelled to leave out words - most likely because of the damaged state of the manuscript - and he also made several errors.

The original of manuscript C was undoubtedly damaged (probably by water): Jakab Ferdinánd Miller’s above quoted remark proves it,30 as well as the previously mentioned omissions in manuscipt C where the scribe marked it by points of ellipsis when he could not read something. The bad state of the original of C is most of all affirmed by the multitude of miswritings and misreadings. The greatest challenge of the publication of Vas county's description was emending those errors and reconstructing the original text by Bél as well as it was possible.31

IV. Summary

Data providers: revisors appointed by the Chancellary, probably from the county (deputati revisores) (see b, [Cane]); unknown landowner from the county (see [0]).

Revisions: Chancellary and county (b, [Cane])

The manuscript to publish: C

Translation: Bél 1931 (a few excerpts from the description of Szombathely); Géfin 1941. 26-27. (one part of the review of the castle from the description of Szombathely); Bél 1959. (description of Szombathely, bilingual in Latin- Hungarian); Bél 1976-1977. (abridged); Bél 2008b (description of castles, cities and villages in Tótság; a corrected version of the related part of the previous translation in Hungarian and Slovenian).

Literature: Bendefy 1976, Bendefy 1977.

30 See note 18.

31 See a typical example of miswriting in the general introduction (13-14, note 4.).