Notitia hungáriae novae historico geographica (Budapest, 2012)
Sopron vármegye
INTRODUCTION 39 IV. Brief review of the county description and the principles of the text edition The content of Sopron county’s description was mainly influenced by three factors. The first being the fact that its base text was prepared by János Matolai. The second is that Bél received a lot of support and help from Dániel Haynóczi in the description of Sopron city and owing to that he could prepare a very thourough discourse on the town. Finally the description’s content was largely influenced by the fact, that Bél or one of his data collectors received a considerable amount of information from the Esterházy family. It was natural that the base text (A) was prepared by Matolai, because Sopron county was a well-known territory for him: he studied in the Lutheran school of Sopron, and after the university he abided here and he prepared his discourse here on Sopron’s wine in the early 1720’s that was later published in the Prodromus, the “predecessor” of Notitia,S1 His contribution had a strong imprint on the description. It is not so evident yet in the physical-geographical segment (membrum physicum) - the description of nature was Matolai’s strong suit as seen in the De re rustica for that matter - on the contrary in the political segment (membrum politicum) or the historical parts. His text-critical sense, his expertise was much below the level of Bél’s; in vain had Bél rephrased the parts written by his collaborator (B), Chapter 1 of the political part and the first six chapters of the description of Sopron city remains of a very low standard in spite of all the rephrasing and supplements. Matolai’s description of the castles is likewise poor as opposed to the description of Fraknó prepared by Bél who always prepared elaborate descriptions, formed them into historical discourses. It is almost certain that Matolai did not roam around Sopron county as he did for Veszprém or other counties, that resulted in the description of the villages being poor, hardly more than mere enumeration (the exception to this is the villages in possession of Sopron city). On the other hand he could wrote quite a few useful information about the contemporary life of Sopron: about public buildings, suburbs or the lifestyle of Sopron’s habitants etc. Furthermore he put down in writing the expansion of the Lutheran’s wooden church and also its reasons and circumstances that Bél was obliged to erase from the text52 because of the prohibition53 of mentioning the protestants. Dániel Haynóczi’s contribution, who was the rector of the Lutheran High School in Sopron (cf. [Ha]) meant a tremendous help for Bél. As we observed in the explanatory notes on the text, Bél often used and copied the supplements that Haynóczi had written for the description of Sopron city sent to him.54 To be noted also that Bél received from somebody - maybe from János Kristóf Deccard - the autobiography of Kristóf Lackner, mayor of Sopron, from which he also used and copied many excerpts.55 51 See Tóth 2007a I. 75-76., see also Tóth 2009a 147. 52 The description of the church as written by Matolai can be read in A f. 23', also in the fair copy where Bél crossed out the text part, see B f. 40. Matolai presents the church as follows (we quote the draft): “Est et ad occasum aedes sacris Evangelicorum destinata. Oratorium vocitant, seu domum precationum, ab exercitio rei, quod precibus, orationibusque verbi Dei, hoc est, concionibus, et praedicationibus divinis, frequentatur. Adplicata his usibus est a. MDCLXXV. singulari regis indultu, cuius et privilegio confirmata libertates suas tuetur. Primum leviter instructa fuit, qualicunque opportunitati cultus servitura: deinde vero, postquam orto incendio a. MDCLXXVI. penitus conflagravisset, Preinero reparatore, meliorem postea formam induit. Nec tamen cum ampla esset, intrantibus ita suffecit, quin plurimos excluderet. Extra fores, et fenestras manendum erat, qui vacare sacris volebant, eorum quoque, qui intraverant, aliis alios importune prementibus. Itaque tanto incommodo solliciti frustra de augenda domo cogitarunt, deficientibus (!) subsidiis, dum collecta deinceps stipe, a. MDCCXX. adcurante B. Georgio Poch,1-1 et Perillustri Cramero, aedes amplior facta est.b )” (The text of note a.):) “B. Poch erat t.t. (?) Praetor, Dn. autem Georgius Kramer aedilis.” (The text of note b.):) „Camera erat in fundo oratorii fere vetustate collapsa; itaque hac diruta, spatium hoc protendendo oratorio impensum est, nec tamen dum ita amplum, ut commode omnes intrantes capiat, multis adhuc stare per interordinia debentibus, et se invicem comprimentibus. Nam ultra 5000. auditorum confluere singulis diebus festis creditum est.” See A f. 23”. 53 See Tóth 2007a!. 137. 54 More in detail see Tóth 2006b 242-245. 55 Ibid. 245-249., see also Lackner 2008. 10,12—13,33. See also the review of manuscript K.
