Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)
Sopron vármegye
36 SOPRON COUNTY its observations regarding the description, that they probably inserted directly in the manuscript.27 The general assembly decided on the sending of the document and the remarks the same day.28 In its letter the general assembly explained that despite its bad opinion on Bél’s work the correction was accomplished (on the stemma: [Com]b). In the manuscript its traces can be percieved.29 Bél took the corrections into consideration. Besides he also used another person’s supplements, probably from Ruszt, when modifying the text (see H). 6: The main text was written before 27th January 1736, the corrections of the county assembly between 1736-1738, Bel’s corrections were made afterwards, partly after 1740.30 H 1: OSZK Quart. Lat. 256. 2: Comitatus Semproniensis. 3: 76 ff. 220x170 mm. 4: Partly an extracted description of Sopron county - its general part and the description of the cities of Sopron and Ruszt (if. 1-60.) -, partly other documents concerning mainly the city of Ruszt.31 5: In all likelihood someone from the city of Ruszt prepared such an excerpted version from the manuscript of Bél that was undoubtedly the G. He then attached a couple of documents to this and he also supplemented it here and there. Supposedly the manuscript G got to Ruszt in the course of the control by the county authorities. Bél took some of the modifications of this unknown contributor in to manuscript G.32 The manuscript got to the National Museum as a donation from Péter Kubinyi in 1810.33 6:1736-1738. I 1: EOL V. 31. pp. 1-43. 2: Succinta Semproniensis Comitatus Descriptio.34 3:43 pp. 4: The General Part of Sopron county’s description, with the supplements by Johann Wilhelm Deccard. in congregatione deferat.” GYMSM SL IV. A. I. a. General and particular assembly protocols 1738-1741 (MOL Microfilm Collection, 14 no. mf.) pp. 85-86. 27 This is what the protocol suggests. Cf. the next note. 28 “Retulit Deputatio pro revisione Operis Beliani ordinata observationes, in eodemque opere factas, iisdem perlectis, ordinatum ut idem opus cum observationibus Excelso Consilio remittatur.” Ibid. p. 138. 29 See Tóth 2001.250-251. and Tóth 2006b 241-242. It is interesting that Sándor Czompó’s Hungarian welcoming speech to the new lord lieutenant that Bél publishes in its full length in this copy - as a late insertion (see in our edition 71-74.) can be also found in the assembly’s minutes. See GYMSM SL IV. A. I. a. General and particular assembly protocols 1734-1738 (MOL Microfilm Collection, 14108. mf.) pp. 524-533. It also fortifies the idea that the supplements derive from the county assembly. Besides the comments by unknown hands relating to the villages also suggest county revisors. See G pp. 152,159. 30 Tóth 2001. 242. 31 For their detailed enumeration see Szelestei 1984. nr. 646. 32 Tóth 2001.238,242,249-250. 33 On the first inserted small letter: “Possidet Bibliotheca Musaei Hungarici ex dono S. D. Assessoris Petri Kubinyi 1810.” L. H p. 1. 34 Title on the page preceding the title page. At the beginning of the text the title given by Bél can be read: “Comitatus Semproniensis...”
