Page 22 [22]
We are aware of several examples when he referred to a text as familiar at
the reception of a gifted decorated volume or an incunabulum (e.g.: Sylius Itali¬
cus, Roberto Valturio). We know the history of Matthiass life and it can clearly
be seen that he had very little time to spend in Buda. He must have attended
scholarly disputes; we have knowledge of a fictitious record of a debate on the pu¬
rity of marriage described by Antonio Bonfini (De pudicitia conjugali et virginitate
dialogi).” The codex containing this work might have been taken by the widow
Queen Beatrice to Naples, and from there it passed into the property of Janos
Zsämboky (Johannes Sambucus). It was printed from his library by Johannes Le¬
unclavius in 1572.°°
While studying his book usage it must be considered if there were books in the
Bibliotheca Corvina in languages other than Latin and Greek. There must have
been ones in Italian. Experts argue over whether the Dante codex kept at the
Eötvös Loränd University Central Library could have belonged to the collection
or not." Did Matthias speak Italian at all? Surely, at least a little. However, it is
unknown if he had any Hungarian codices. It would be hard to believe that in an
ideal humanist collection there could not be found works in such an exotic lan¬
guage for the Latin and Greek cultured scholars. Likewise, the presence of Slavic
languages cannot be excluded. It is inconceivable that the conqueror of Bohemia
and Silesia only took Latin books from the occupied courts, especially since we
know that the Czech vernacular culture hugely benefited from Husitism, their
first print was also in Czech.”
The monarch did not have much time for reading since he spent his time with
the affairs of war and state and representation. The illumination and visual presen¬
tation served the quicker understanding and illustration of the text. Furthermore,
these had added meanings that the people of today are unable to decode. No
matter how the works were decorated with tight iconographical programmes, the
king needed explanations to understand the meanings, it was not evident. Albeit
Matthias, similarly to his contemporaries, understood much more iconographic
meanings than the later, present-day interpreters of his codices.** Unfortunately
the only surviving decorated contemporary printed material containing Hungar¬
ian history (Janos Thurdéczy’s Chronica Hungarorum) is a controversial corvina
copy." It would be difficult to adopt the same method used by Laetitia Le Guay
in her excellent monography to analyse the imagery of the manuscripts of Phil¬
lipe de Commynes and Jean Froissart which were used by generations of Dukes
“THE current provenance of the original codex: OSZK Clmae 421. — Csapopr 1973, Nr. 131. Critical
edition: BonFinius, Symposion, (ed. APRÓ) 1943.
Bonrinius, Symposion, 1572.
1 Tr is assumed that Giovanni Como of Venice gave it to Matthias in 1464, see: FossaLuzza 2006, 51-90.
Cr. Vorr 2006 with items presenting the Olomouc incunabula.
3 On the relationship between text and images in reading, cf. OsCHEMA 2005, 177-192. Most recently,
the subject is summarised in a monumental collection of studies: KuUPFER-COHEN-CHAJES, eds.,
Visualization of Knowledge, 2020.
54 OSZK Inc. 1143.: Frrz 1937; MAtyusz 1967.
20