On f. 329r, a short note can be found about the son of Tarquinius Priscus and the βούλλα in Greek, with some introductory words in Latin. The note is to be conferred with a passage in Plutarch’s Aetia Romana (287F 3-288B 27).152 3.9 Blank pages (ff. 329v-333v)
152 Plutarchi Moralia, vol. II, fasc. 1. Recensuerunt et emendaverunt W. Nachstädt, W. Sieveking, J. B. Titchener. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Lipsiae, 1971. 329 (101).
4 Summary
In this chapter first an outline of the literature discussing the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 has been presented. It is the first time that such overview of the literature relevant to the Vienna codex has been given – the necessity of such overview can be justified by the fact that this manuscript occupies a significant position in the research of the history of the Hungarian human-ism through its connection with Janus Pannonius.
In the subchapter focusing on the physical features of the manuscript ex-isting descriptions of the codex ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 published in manuscript or exhibition catalogues are contrasted, expanded or corrected, where it seemed necessary on the basis of the thorough study and on-the-spot exami-nation of the manuscript. The description of page numbering and the size of the manuscript have been corrected through the realization of the fact that some pages were skipped accidentally during the process of numbering the leaves of the manuscript. The use of catchwords has been again examined thoroughly, which also helped revisit the structure of the paper codex, i.e.
how it is made up of gatherings. Watermarks found in the manuscript have also been re-examined and the related standpoints of the manuscript de-scriptions have also been contrasted.
In the section focusing on the scribes of the manuscript a further argu-ment is presented confirming István Kapitánffy’s standpoint of rejecting the widely accepted assumption that Janus Pannonius was the scribe of the codex ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45. In the detailed description of the Greek and Latin scripts in the manuscript the question of the number of the hands is also discussed in details showing that it cannot be excluded that the same hand copied the Greek and Latin lemmas in the lexicographical part of the manuscript, even if Kapitánffy attempted to argue for two scribes: one copying the Greek lem-mas and another one copying the Latin ones.
A very significant result presented in the first chapter is undoubtedly the revelation and identification of the third exlibris hiding under the two upper exlibrises of Johann Faber and Alexander Brassicanus. Thus, a so far unknown possessor of the manuscript, Johann Cuspinianus has been revealed, which is an important addition to the history of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 and at the same time raises new questions in connection with the provenience of the codex.
The description of the content of the manuscript has been considerably expanded and corrected in this chapter. The introductory title of the Greek-Latin dictionary in the codex has been revealed with the help of ultraviolet light – the existence of this title had remained unknown earlier. The short thematic list of Greek-Latin tree names has been examined thoroughly: it has been collated both with the existing hermeneuma tradition and with another manuscript found in Madrid (Σ I 12). The Latin-Greek dictionary found in ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 has been described in more details as it can be found in the existing manuscript descriptions and its features characteristic of the idiomata generum have also been highlighted in details. Finally, the so far unknown source of the section Corporis humani partes has also been identified and the version found in the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 has been collated with its edition.
II The Provenience of the Manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45
In this chapter an attempt will be made to reconstruct the provenience of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45.153 The history of the codex will be discussed in chronological order and will be presented in relation with its three main stages: Italy (Ferrara), Hungary (Pécs and Buda) and Vienna. For the reconstruction of the provenience of ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 both external (e.g. watermarks, book-plates) and internal (e.g. Taddeo Ugoleto, the royal librarian’s notes) evidence is exploited.
1 The manuscript in Italy
On the basis of the watermarks154 found in the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45, the history of the codex definitely starts in Italy since all four watermarks occurring on the leaves of the codex can be located in Italy.155 The major-ity of the watermarks seem to point to the cmajor-ity of Ferrara. Two of the four watermarks (standing basilisk and lion standing on two feet) appearing in the manuscript seem to originate from Ferrara. The third watermark (triple mountains) can either be associated with a similar watermark from Lugo or with another one from Ferrara. The fourth watermark (flying basilisk) seems to originate from Reggio Emilia, which is actually very close to Ferrara. Again on the basis of the watermarks, the manuscript can be dated to the middle of the 15th century, around 1450.156
153 The results presented in this chapter were partly published in Ötvös 2009 in Hungarian and in Ötvös 2011 in English.
154 For a detailed analysis of the watermarks see Chapter I on pp. 22-23.
155 István Kapitánffy also located the place of the transcription to Italy on the basis of the Italian words occurring sporadically among the Latin lemmas, see Kapitánffy 1991: 180. However, the presence of the Italian words in the Greek-Latin dictionary does not prove necessarily that the manuscript was copied in Italy since the Italian words are adopted from another tradition of Greek-Latin lexica. For details see pp. 145-157.
156 In the codicological descriptions found in manuscript catalogues the codex is usually also dated to the middle of the 15th century and located to the city of Ferrara, see Bick 1920: 54;
Csapodi 1973: 456; Mazal 1981: 302; Hunger 1994: 85 (only the dating is given) and Gamillscheg
2 From Italy to Hungary:
Janus Pannonius as the possessor of the codex
The first possessor that can be traced back in the history of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 was the famous Hungarian humanist poet, Janus Pannonius.
His possessorship can be proven with the “Nota” that was possibly written on a flyleaf now lost and was observed and described by the 18th-century librar-ian Michael Denis in the codex Ser. nov. 3920, on f. 116r: “Codex (…) 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.” Based on Denis’s observation, a slip is attached on f. IIIv that also associates the manuscript with Janus Pannonius: “Lexicon graeco latinum.
Supplement. XVI. (Autogr. Jani Pannonii, vid. schedas sub no CCXVI.).”157
In the light of what has been said so far, we can reconstruct the early history of the codex as follows. In the middle of the 15th century, around 1450 the manuscript was copied in Italy, with all probability in Ferrara as the watermarks suggest. Then the young Janus Pannonius used the wordlist in the manuscript when he was learning Greek during his studies (1447-1454) in Guarino Veronese’s school in Ferrara.158 Possibly it was in his Ferrara years when he added the remark copied by Denis. On returning to Hungary to occupy the bishopric of Pécs in 1459, he brought along the codex since he needed it to carry on studying Greek texts. As analogy, one can think of two English humanists, Thomas Grey and Robert Fry, who were both Guarino’s students. As the reconstruction of the stock in their librar-ies reveals, both possessed a Greek-Latin dictionary which they brought
1994: 44. In the online description of the manuscript on the website of the Austrian National Library the codex is also dated to the middle of the 15th century, between 1440 and 1460, cf.
http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/AL00159293 (downloaded on 26 August 2014).
157 It is another more complex question whether Janus Pannonius was also the scribe of the manuscript as Denis states. For the detailed discussion of this issue see pp. 27-30. From the viewpoint of the provenience of the codex, this question is not relevant now; the only thing Denis’s remark proves is that Janus definitely possessed the codex and he did use it, as well.
158 For ample material on Janus Pannonius’s Ferrara years see Huszti’s biography (Chapters 2-9); on Janus’s Greek studies in Guarino’s school see Huszti 1931: 22-23. In Guarino’s school, a most important method for the instruction of Greek was the preparation of translations from Greek to Latin. In this way two aims could be achieved at the same time: students could come to know the Greek authors and could learn and practise the Greek language simultaneously; see e.g. Sabbadini 1896: 124ff.
home from Italy.159 Janus seems to even have the codex rebound in Hungary, perhaps in Pécs.160
In Hungary, Janus Pannonius possibly used the manuscript ÖNB Suppl.
Gr. 45: he needed the Greek-Latin dictionary in the codex for the study of Greek texts. In one of his letters he complained that only his Greek books were left in his library since his friends had carried away all his books writ-ten in Latin. He writes the following to Galeotto Marzio: “Postremo suades ut libros mittam. An nondum etiam satis misisse videor? Graeci mihi soli restant, Latinos iam omnes abstulistis. Dii melius! quod nemo vestrum Graece scit! Puto et ex Graecis nullum mihi fecissetis reliquum. Quodsi didiceritis, ego mox Iudaicum ediscam; et ex Ebraeis codicibus Bibliothecam inscribam.”161 In this situation – even if it might be partly poetic exaggeration – a dictionary was essential for Janus Pannonius.
Janus seems to have used the Greek-Latin dictionary in the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 also for his translations of Greek works into Latin. In his article analysing Janus’s translations from Greek, Zsigmond Ritoók observes that in several cases with all probability Janus used the Latin equivalents found in the Greek-Latin dictionary.162 László Horváth presents a particular example in connection with Janus Pannonius’s translation of Plutarch’s work περὶ πολυπραγμοσύνης (Plut. Mor. 515B-523B).163 Here Janus uses the Latin equivalent negotiositas for the translation of the Greek compound πολυπραγμοσύνη – the Latin equivalent used by Janus was later replaced with Erasmus’s version De curiositate in the title of Plutarch’s work. Horváth argues that Janus might have used the dictionary in ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 for the translation of the Greek word πολυπραγμοσύνη: although the compound is missing from the dictionary, the verb πολυπραγμονῶ on f. 219v also has the Latin equivalent negotior inserted between the two columns.164 With all
159 Weiss 1957: 93 and 102.
160 On this question see pp. 40-41 for details.
161 Teleki 1784: 98-99.
162 Ritoók 1975: 405ff.
163 Horváth 2001: 199-215.
164 Horváth 2001: 209. The Latin equivalent negotior cannot be found in the 8th-century codex Harleianus 5792, see CGL II 412, 59. It seems to be a later addition from another tradition of Greek-Latin lexica. On this group of glossary notes see pp. 145-157 for details. However, it is possible that the insertion of the Latin equivalent negotior next to the Greek verb πολυπραγμονῶ is mistaken. In one of the representatives of the other tradition of Greek-Latin lexica, in the Madrid manuscript Res. 224 (for details on this codex see p. 152) we can find the following Latin equivalent next to this Greek verb (f. 202v): in rebus non pertinentibus
probability, the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 remained in the possession of Janus until his death in 1472.
3 The manuscript in the stock of the Bibliotheca Corviniana
According to Csaba Csapodi’s hypothesis, Janus Pannonius’s books were confiscated for King Matthias’s royal library after the humanist’s fall and death in 1472.165 Since Janus’s books were not marked with coat of arms nor with notation of ownership, they could mingle in the stock of the Corvinian library without any trace. Csapodi offers several arguments in support of his hypothesis. Firstly, there are three (or perhaps four) among the few books identified as Janus’s possession which could only make their appearance abroad after the dissolution of the Corvinian library and which were plausibly possessed by Janus and then by King Matthias. A further argument lies in the high proportion of the Greek codices characteristic of both Janus’s and King Matthias’s book collections. Possessing a bilingual, Latin and Greek book collection was very unusual in that age. Thus, it is plausible that the confiscation of Janus’s bilingual library stimulated the establishment of a similarly bilingual, Latin and Greek royal library.166
implicor. This Latin equivalent was also added in the left margin in ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 (with a slight modification: instead of non, nihil can be read there). In the Madrid codex, the Latin equivalent negocior belongs to the Greek verb πολιτεύω (together with civilitor), which directly precedes the verb πολυπραγμονῶ. Thus, due to the proximity of the two Greek lemmas in the other tradition of Greek-Latin lexica it is also probable that the Latin verb negotior was mistakenly inserted next to the Greek verb πολυπραγμονῶ. Being unaware of this mistake, Janus then could have used the Latin equivalent negotior trusting his dictionary.
165 Csapodi 1975: 205-206.
166 Csapodi 1973: 456 (No. 1013) lists the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 (referred to as Vocabularium Graecolatinum and Latinograecum) as authentic Corvinian manuscript. However, in his subsequent work, Bibliotheca Corviniana (Budapest 1999) written together with his wife Klára Csapodi-Gárdonyi, he does not include the codex in the catalogue of the Corvinian manuscripts and we cannot find any reference whether this was a conscious decision. In contrast, in his article written in 1990 Otto Mazal lists the codex ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 among the Corvinian manuscripts, see Mazal 1990: 27. So there is no consensus in the literature regarding the Corvinian status of the Vienna manuscript. The codex does not have the typical characteristics of the authentic Corvinian manuscripts (e.g. the coat of arms of the Hunyadi family with the black raven or the typical Corvinian bindings made of silk, velvet or gilt leather; cf. Rozsondai 2004: 195), which makes it more difficult to decide whether the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 can be regarded as an authentic Corvinian codex. In a more recent article, Edit Madas categorized the codex ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 among those manuscripts
Furthermore, apart from Csapodi’s arguments, there is indirect evidence suggesting that the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 was once part of the stock of the Corvinian library. It seems that the royal librarian and tutor of Johannes Corvinus, Matthias’s illegitimate son, Taddeo Ugoleto (1448-1515) used the manuscript in the Corvinian library. However, Ugoleto had his own Greek-Latin dictionary as well: he owned a copy of the first printed Greek-Greek-Latin dictionary edited by Johannes Crastonus. It was first published in 1478 in Milan, a second edition was released five years later, on 10 November 1483 in Vicenza. Ugoleto obtained a copy of the second edition sent by his friend, a certain Paulus Romuleus as a present. Now it is preserved in Vienna (ÖNB Ink. X. E. 9).167 Originally, the printed dictionary contained about 15000 entries on 520 pages, to which Ugoleto added more than a thousand new items in the margins (missing entries, alternative meanings, grammatical information etc.). He finished his work on the dictionary by 20 June 1484, that is in not more than six months’ time as his note at the end of the book informs us: Relectum xxo. Iunii mcccclxxxiiiio.
Ugoleto’s notes were scrutinized by Gábor Bolonyai, who presented his results in a paper published in 2011.168 As he observed, Ugoleto’s additions can be divided into four different – sometimes overlapping – groups: single Greek lemmas with their Latin equivalents; Greek explanations or definitions;
words or expressions given together with the author’s name (sometimes even with the title of the work where they appear) and passages quoted from classical authors.169 The entries added by Ugoleto are organized in almost perfect alphabetical order, which suggests that they were copied from an already prearranged text at once. Their layout can further confirm this as-sumption: the entries generally follow each other with a tendency of slightly slanting to the right. By comparing a part of Ugoleto’s additions with the Greek-Latin dictionary in the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45, Bolonyai man-aged to prove that Ugoleto copied that wordlist extensively.170 Bolonyai also presents statistics showing what kind of additions Ugoleto adopted from
that were not kept directly in the Corvinian library, but possibly in its proximity (“Manuscrits grecs n’ayant vraisemblablement pas trouvé place dans la bibliothèque Corviniana, mais peut être conservés à proximité”), cf. Madas 2009: 70 (No. 190).
167 A very brief codicological description of the incunable is available in Csapodi & Csapodi-Gárdonyi 1988: 105 (No. 254), where the name of Crastonus is misspelled as Crastonius.
168 Bolonyai 2011: 119-154.
169 Bolonyai 2011: 120.
170 Bolonyai 2011: 122.
the Greek-Latin dictionary of ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45. Ugoleto seems to have focused on glosses from the scholia to Aristophanes’s Nubes and Plutus.171 Regarding prose writers, Ugoleto adopted mostly glosses related to or quoted from Xenophon’s works. According to Bolonyai’s opinion, if we assume that Ugoleto’s selection of glosses found in the margins of ÖNB Suppl. Gr.
45 was the result of deliberate decisions rather than random transcription, his preference of certain authors and works might as well indicate which works he had read before or planned to read in the near future. Thus, perhaps Aristophanes’s Nubes was already in Ugoleto’s educational schedule at the time of enlarging the material of his own dictionary.172
However, it can be demonstrated that Ugoleto also used other glossaries, lexica and presumably literary works apart from the material found in the Greek-Latin dictionary in the codex ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45.173 These additions also tend to differ in their layout and appearance (different pen and ink, less careful and neat handwriting, additions not organized under each other in a slightly slanting row).174 This second layer of additions, which were probabily inserted at a different time compared to the additions taken from ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45,175 are also significant since with their help further items can be detected in the stock of the Corvinian library.
From the viewpoint of the provenience of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl.
Gr. 45, however, Ugoleto’s additions taken from its Greek-Latin dictionary are more important. Ugoleto’s notes can provide indirect evidence for the availability of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 in the royal library between 1483 and 1484. Since no external evidence (e.g. characteristic binding or coat of arms) can be found in the case of ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 clearly proving its presence in the stock of the Corvinian library, the internal evidence gained this way can confirm our assumption originating from Csapodi’s theory that after Janus Pannonius’s death the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 eventually landed in the Corvinian library or at least in its proximity.176
171 A similar tendency is apparent in ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45, as well, cf. pp. 108-109.
172 Bolonyai 2011: 123-124.
173 For a detailed analysis of these additions cf. Bolonyai 2011: 127ff.
174 Bolonyai 2011: 128.
175 Bolonyai 2011: 129-130.
176 Cf. Madas’s classification of the manuscript ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 on p. 60, n. 166.
4 From Hungary to Vienna
For reconstructing the later history of the codex ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45, the book-plates attached to the pastedown of the front board by its possessors are of invaluable help. There are three book-plates stuck on each other revealing three subsequent possessors of the manuscript.177
The undermost exlibris is that of Johann Cuspinianus (born Spiessheimer),
The undermost exlibris is that of Johann Cuspinianus (born Spiessheimer),