Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)
Sopron vármegye
32 SOPRON COUNTY II. Creation process of the county description At the end of the 1710’s someone collected material ([Del]», [Del]») for Mátyás Bél that was used after 1725 by the creator of the first rough draft (A), János Matolai, Bél’s chief collaborator. A fair copy (B) was made from this, that was drastically rewritten by Bél, though to different extents (the general part and Sopron city’s description was thouroughly rephrased, the description of other cities and villages to a lesser extent). One of Bél’s scribes made another transcript (C) based on B that was sent in 1728 to the county authority where somebody wrote some remarks ([Com]») to the text, that created a new text version (C2). It is important to note here that not only some text corrections are of unknown origin, but we also know of a person, who revised an unidentifiable transcript of the description of Sopron county. This person was the teacher János Kristóf Ruisz, later judge and mayor of Sopron from whom Bél asked back the description of the castles of Sopron county in 1730 through Dániel Haynóczi as intermediary.1 In the meantime the description of the city of Ruszt had to be supplemented as it had been previously lacking. Bél wrote the presentation of the city himself (D), he made it transcripted (E1) then he sent it to the Ruszt city council for revision. The revised text might not have arrived back in time because in the next full transcript (F) of the county description the unrevised text version of the city description (E1) was used. The new transcript of the county description (F1) was probably sent to the Chancellary in 1729, because its objections sent in 1731 were taken into consideration in this very transcript by Bél (F2). Another transcript (G1) was made based on F2, that Bél sent to the county for revision in 1736 ([Com]b). The county authorities, though apprehending Bél’s whole enterprise, executed the corrections. This copy was also the basis of another revision in Ruszt. A manuscript collection remained, in which some part of the county description was transcripted creating a new text version (H). The corrections on the copy previously sent to Ruszt (E2) also were inserted in to the corrected version of manuscript G (G2). It was also this manuscript (G) that Johann Wilhelm Deccard, physician in Sopron, took as the basis of his transcript (I) in 1743; and probably the same manuscript (G) or the next in order (K) was seen by Dániel Haynóczi who wrote a considerable amount of additions to the description of Sopron ([Ha]) in the same year. Obviously this latter induced Bél to get another fair copy (K1) of the transcript of Sopron county’s description that was sent to and corrected by the county authority (G2) - or he made a separate „Sopron manuscript” especially because of Haynóczi -, into which he incorporated Haynóczi’s meaningful remarks and resources (K2) with his own hand, though rephrased. There was a newer fair copy (1) made based on manuscripts G and K, that Bél reviewed and completed at some points in August 1749, right before his death. In the 19th century György Gyurikovits, jurist and historian, had made a confusingly compiled transcript (M) from the county description, based partly on the known transcripts (C, H) and partly on the latest, but lost manuscript (1). This latest manuscript 1, its supplements can only be known from manuscript M - it is likely that manuscript 1 got lost because of Gyurikovits’ fault. III. Presentation of the manuscripts [De]» 1: EFK Hist. I. bbb. 3r-8v 2: Descriptio Comitatus Semproniensis. 3: 6 ff. 210x165 mm. 4: Description of Sopron county from an unknown author. Contents: extension, cities and villages by districts, rivers, domains, road network. It is supposed to be an early collection of data on behalf of Bél. 1 About János Kristóf Ruisz see Kincses 2001.217; Tóth 2007a I. 100.
