Janus Pannonius as scribe?

Until recently, the transcription of the Vienna manuscript was attributed to Janus Pannonius on the basis of the remark in brackets attached on a slip on f. IIIv (Fig. 10, appendix I Illustrations).⁵⁷ The following can be read on this slip: “Lexicon graeco latinum. Supplement. XVI. (Autogr. Jani Pannonii, vid.

schedas sub n^o CCXVI.)” Instead of Autogr. the same hand wrote first Apogr., which was immediately deleted. A subsequent hand added the modern-day signature on the slip later: S. gr. 45. It was again this hand that indicated that the word schedas in the remark refers to the relevant pages of the codex Ser.

nov. 3920. In the codex Ser. nov. 3920, on f. 116 we can find the description of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 (that time having the signature CCXVI) written by the 18^th-century librarian Michael Denis. Denis made the follow-ing observation in describfollow-ing the codex on f. 116r: “Codex forma folii majoris, chartaceus, foliorum trecentum viginti novem, seculo decimo quinto per duas colum-nas nitide scriptus hanc Notam praefert: Ιανος ὁ παννονιος ἰδια χειρι εγραψεν.

ὁταν τα ἑλληνικα γραμματα μαθειν ἐμελεν. Janus Pannonius propria manu scripsit, quando graecas literas discere cura fuit.”⁵⁸ (In English translation: Janus Pannonius wrote with his own hand, when he started to learn the Greek let-ters.⁵⁹) Denis thus concludes that on the basis of this remark Janus Pannonius was the scribe of the manuscript: “Manum igitur habemus elegan tissimi Poetae

57 The question whether Janus Pannonius was the scribe of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr.

45 was already discussed in Ötvös 2008: 238-242. Since extremely scant authentic mate-rial is preserved that shows Janus’s handwriting, a comparison of the handwriting in the Vienna manuscript with the extant examples of the poet’s handwriting can hardly help us settle this question. On Janus’s handwriting see p. 16, n. 3 for more details and for relevant bibliography.

58 Regarding accents, aspiration marks, spelling and punctuation, I closely follow Denis’s script (ÖNB Cod. Ser. nov. 3920, 116r). I express my thanks to Dr. Christian Gastgeber (Institut für Byzanzforschung, ÖAW), who sent me the digital images of the relevant pages from Denis’s original description.

59 As for the translation, it is to be noted that Denis obviously derived the verb form ἔμελεν from μέλω, since he translated it with the expression cura fuit. However, this derivation is objectionable regarding grammar, because this verb tends to occur in expressions constructed with the personal dative case. Consequently, according to Ιstván Kapitánffy, the verb form ἔμελεν rather derives from μέλλω, which fits the sentence both grammatically and seman-tically. In Janus’s time, no distinction was made in the pronunciation of simple and geminate consonants, the two verbs were pronounced identically. See Kapitánffy 1991: 181.

et demum Quinqueecclesiensis Episcopi…” Denis even assumed in his description that the poet copied the extensive Greek-Latin dictionary during his studies in Ferrara, in Guarino Veronese’s school: “Conditum hoc singularis diligentiae monumentum ab Jano, dum Ferrariae Guarino utriusque linguae magistro uteretur, perspicuum est.”

Bick supposes that the Nota observed and copied by Denis was perhaps originally written on a flyleaf which was later damaged and eventually lost.

Although even Bick could not find any traces of this remark in the codex, he accepted Denis’s opinion based on the Nota and he indicated Janus as the scribe of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 in his description published in 1920. He also accepted Denis’s assumption and claimed that Janus must have copied the manuscript between 1447 and 1453 (or 1458), i.e. in the years the poet spent in Guarino’s school in Ferrara.⁶⁰ This could be the reason why Janus is present on several lists that contain the names of scribes working during the Renaissance⁶¹ and in several descriptions of the manuscript Janus is indicated as its scribe.⁶²

However, István Kapitánffy contradicted the consensus established in the literature about Janus’s role as a scribe in the preparation of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 and offered an alternative interpretation of the now lost remark quoted by Denis in his paper published in 1991.⁶³ Kapitánffy based his argumentation on his observations regarding the process of the tran-scription of the Greek-Latin dictionary.

First of all, Kapitánffy observed that the columns had been written with dif-ferent pens: a soft-pointed pen must have been applied for copying the Latin words; while a hard-pointed one for the Greek items since they consist of uniformly thin lines.⁶⁴ The colour of the ink used for the transcription of the Greek and Latin columns also seems to be different: the Greek columns were copied with a brownish ink that nowadays looks somewhat fainter, whereas the Latin columns were copied with a slightly darker, blackish ink.⁶⁵

60 Bick 1920: 55.

61 E.g. Vogel & Gardthausen 1909: 479.

62 Csapodi 1973: 456; Mazal 1981: 302.

63 Kapitánffy 1991: 178-181; the arguments presented there are also summarized in German in Kapitánffy 1995: 351-354.

64 Kapitánffy 1991: 179; Kapitánffy 1995: 352. See Fig. 11 in the appendix I Illustrations on p. 184.

65 Kapitánffy only mentions the difference of the inks used for the transcription of the Greek and Latin columns as a possibility (see Kapitánffy 1991: 179-180 and Kapitánffy 1995: 352), which can be attributed to the fact that he could only consult the microfilm version of the

The use of the different inks and different pens for the transcription of the Greek and Latin columns clearly suggests that the Greek lemmas and their Latin equivalents were not transcribed line by line, instead, the Greek column was copied first, the Latin one only after it. This statement concerning the method of the transcription can be proven with several characteristic scribal errors, as well. For instance, the verso of folio 174 can illustrate this phenomenon effectively (Fig. 12, appendix I Illustrations):

in line 6, the scribe of the Latin column wrote the Latin equivalent of the seventh Greek lemma next to the sixth Greek item. It was in line 8 that he finally realized his mistake and attempted to correct it by adding nequid, the Latin equivalent of the Greek word μητί between the two columns in line 6.

Then, by drawing lines, he managed to connect the Greek lemmas with their own Latin equivalents misplaced by one line each. The same scribal error can be observed on several further folios, as well.⁶⁶ As the examination of the catchwords presented above clearly suggests,⁶⁷ even in the Latin-Greek dictionary in the Vienna codex it was the Greek part, i.e. the columns con-taining the Greek lemmas that was copied first, and the columns of the Latin lemmas were added only afterwards.

Considering the arguments gathered above, we can conclude that it was only after copying the column of the Greek lemmas that the scribe turned to the transcription of the Latin column in the entire lexicographical part of the manuscript (i.e. in the Greek-Latin dictionary, in the Greek-Latin thematic list of tree names and in the Latin-Greek wordlist). This assumption renders the hypothesis that Janus was the scriptor of the manuscript even less probable since a language learner like Janus at that time would have decided to copy the text line by line instead of proceeding by columns so as to improve his vocabulary even in the course of the transcription.⁶⁸ However, at this point, the question arises how the remark cited by Michael Denis can be explained.

In Kapitánffy’s witty argumentation, Denis was right, but the remark only

manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 in the manuscript collection of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTAK Mf 1196/II): this microfilm version with its bluish colours does not reproduce the colours of the original codex.

66 E.g. on ff. 69v, 78r, 180v, 182v, 207v. On f. 78r, the scribe did not connect the related, but misplaced lemmas through drawing lines, he rather used symbols made up of dots of identical number (one to six dots) and strokes of identical number (two) to show which Greek and Latin lemmas belong together.

67 See p. 25 for details.

68 Kapitánffy 1991: 180.

refers to itself, not to the whole of the manuscript as for instance Bick also believed: it was only the sentence “Ιανος ὁ παννονιος ἰδια χειρι εγραψεν.

ὁταν τα ἑλληνικα γραμματα μαθειν ἐμελεν” that could have been written by Janus, sua manu, when he was probably experimenting with his newly acquired Greek knowledge.⁶⁹ Thus, the remark cited by Denis cannot prove that Janus was the scribe of this manuscript.

There is a further argument supporting this conclusion. In quoting the note written by Janus, Denis did not use accents, and aspiration marks are also missing in two cases (Ιανος, εγραψεν). However, in other Greek quota-tions, he does reproduce these diacritic marks correctly; he only avoids their application if the original manuscript lacks them. Consequently, it must have been Janus, who failed to use accents and aspiration marks cor-rectly. Janus’s failure in the application of diacritic marks, together with his semantic and syntactic errors (the mistaking of μέλω for μέλλω already noted and the lack of the subjunctive after ὁταν), proves the rudimentary character of his Greek knowledge. Hence the fact that accents are applied throughout the main text seems to rule out the supposition that Janus was the scribe of the manuscript.⁷⁰

In the manuscript descriptions of Hunger and Gamillscheg, Janus’s role as the scribe of ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 is not presented as an unquestionable fact based on Bick’s interpretation of Denis’s description; they also cite Kapitánffy’s opposing view without taking sides.⁷¹ The online description of ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 at the website of the Austrian National Library categorically refuses Bick’s standpoint regarding Janus’s role as the scribe of the codex:

“Janus Pannonius ist gegen J. Bick nicht Kopist der Handschrift.”⁷² However, even in the more up-to-date related literature the view that Janus Pannonius was the scribe of ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 still seems to prevail.⁷³

69 Kapitánffy 1991: 180-181.

70 Once again, for drawing my attention to this important point, my grateful acknowledgements are due to Dr. Christian Gastgeber, who also examined the way how Denis uses diacritic marks in Greek quotations in his manuscript descriptions.

71 Gamillscheg 1994: 44; Hunger 1994: 86. Hunger refers to BZ 84/85 (1991/1992) 189, where a short German summary of Kapitánffy’s 1991 paper published in Hungarian can be found.

72 Cf. http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/AL00159293 (downloaded on 25 August 2014).

73 Cf. e.g. Thiermann 1996: 660 and Botley 2010: 63.