Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)
Sopron vármegye
38 SOPRON COUNTY 5: This manuscript was the latest, fullest version of the description. Initially this was the manuscript signed Hist. I. uu. since the manuscript (F) that can be found under this sign presently does not correspond to the data sheet belonging to it: “Beliana I. uu. Descriptio Comitatus Soproniensis per Matthiam Belii [!], copia per Suam Eminentiam procurata. Manuscriptum folio pag. 448. Sequitur Elenchus.”44 The mentioned manuscript (F) however consists of 78 folios only. On the other hand it is certain that György Gyurikovits, who made copies of Bél’s descriptions in the 19th century, was also using this manuscript (that we marked by the letter 1) since he refers to it by the sign (Hist. I. uu.) in the version he compiled (M) and his references correlate to the “real” (448 pages long) manuscript signed by Hist. I. uu. Gyurikovits however copied from 1 only the parts where he saw supplements compared to the manuscripts (C, H) he had transcripted before.45 From these copied parts it is obvious that manuscript 1 was the latest version (since it contains the corrected versions of both G and K along with supplements), furthermore it is also clear that Bél had read it through in August 1749 but he inserted only a few supplements and corrections.46 It seems probable however that Gyurikovits did not hold the original copy but its transcript; this is what the note on the above mentioned data sheet refers to saying that the manuscript is an “archiepiscopal copy” (copia per Suam Eminentiam procurata).47 6:1743-1749; corrections: 1749. M 1: OSZK Manuscript Collection Föl. Lat. 3776. 2: Notitia Comitatus Soproniensis geographico-historica a Mathia Belio elaborata et a Georgio Gyurikovits locupletata A0 1822. 3:137 if. 380x240 mm. 4: Description of Sopron county. 5: György Gyurikovits’ fair copy. According to his own words he partly transcripted “the copy of Ruszt” (H),48 completing it with the supplements of manuscript C.49 Finally he discovered the latest version (1), and he supplemented the further additions based on it (thus the numerous additions of G and K - which manuscript 1 obviously contained -, alongside with the few additions of manuscript l).50 6:1822. 44 See EFK Hist. I. uu., Elenchus. 45 He published the supplements of manuscript 1 partly on inserted pages where he indicated the page numbers of manuscript 1 by pencil from where he copied them (see e.g. M f. 32', 70', 112' etc.). These page numbers are in accord with the above mentioned Elenchus, table of contents, that was prepared for manuscript signed Hist. I. uu. Cf. previous note. He published the remaining part of the supplements in separate appendix where he referred to from where they were taken (title of the appendix: Additamenta ex Descriptione Beliana Comitatus Soproniensis Tit. I. uu., perA.E. Colocensem. See M f. 135'.). Naturally these supplements refer to the lost manuscript 1 and its Elenchus, and not to the manuscript erroneously signed Hist. I. uu (F). 46 For the reference to the revision in August 1749 see M f. 135'. (See our appendix on page 241.) For the supplements see also chapter 4 of the introduction. 47 Gyurikovits refers to this in the appendix. See note 45. About the archiepiscopal transcripts see the general introduction (13-14.). The original manuscript might have been the manuscript signed Hist. I. hhhh, that was however seriously water-damaged. See Horváth 1812. 96-97.; SzELESTEi 1984. nr. 259. 48 Gyurikovits indicated the sign of the manuscript he was transcripting first: “Hanc descriptionem Comitatus Semproniensis possidet Bibliotheca Musaei Hung, ex dono D. S. Petri Kubinyi 1810.” L. M f. 79'. See also note 33. 49 He writes it himself. Cf. ibid. f. 123”. 50 See presentation of manuscript 1 and note 45.
