Oldal 32 [32]
been in the collection, since his canonisation was initiated by Matthias. It is also
conceivable (I am absolutely certain) that books dedicated to Matthias" or John
Vitéz" were in the Buda library. It is not unreasonable to believe that the com¬
plete works of Plato, translated by Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) (Florence, 1484!)
could also be found in Buda, in fact Csaba Csapodi enthusiastically presumes
that the king made a decorated copy of it for his own use.'? Contrary to this, it
is interesting that Csapodi, who knew that the panegyric of Alexander Cortesius
(1460-1490) titled De laudibus bellicis Matthiae Corvini Hungariae regis was pub¬
lished in Rome in 1487 under the authors supervision," did not assume that the
incunabulum could be found on the shelves of the Bibliotheca regia. An ornamental
version of this work exists, specifically made for the king,'’” but Csapodi explicitly
writes his statement down without any explanations, that Cortesius did not send
the printed version to the king.’ Further investigations are needed to see if the
decorated mansucript had been made on the basis of the incunabulum with the
corrections of the author.’
‘The editions of referenced and citied authors by Janos Thuréczy (1435-1489)
and Antonio Bonfini (1434-1503) perhaps kept in Buda could be possible library
items, as well as those works that have been referred to and cited in inventories
during the 16th and 17th centuries. This is all together 62 printed items.
It can safely be stated that Matthias Hunyadi had a similar attitude to the in¬
cunabulum as his contemporary monarchs referred to in the introduction: if there
was a choice, manuscripts were preferred, while the decorated manuscripts were
only representative. As previously mentioned the king had manuscript copies of
printed documents made which were richly illustrated for him. If our intention is
to outline the cultural horizons of the royal court, then more aspects of contempo¬
rary publishing must be taken into consideration: starting with the books offered
to the king or his orbit, arriving at an account of the sources of citations found in
the court’s published books.
107 Petrus Nigri, Clypeus Thomistarum, Venetiae, 1481 (Harn 11.888; Csaponi 1973, Nr. 493.)
108 Georetus de Pauerbach, Theoriae novae planetarum, cca. 1472 (Csaront 1973, Nr. 497.)
10 HC 13062, BMC VI, 666-667. To clarify the date of publication: KrisTELLER 1978, 25-35. (About
the commercial consideration of the recommendations to Matthias and the copy presumably sent him:
35.)
Csaronı 1973, Nr. 506.
GW 7794 (post 1484), ISTC ic00938800 (post 1485. jünius 1.) Eucharius Silber; Csapodi determined
the more accurate publication date: Csapop1 1982.; Cf. Havas 1965.
112 WoLFENBUTTEL, HAB Cod. Guelf. 85.1.1. Aug. 2; Csapop1 1973, Nr. 207.
13 „Den Panegyricus hat der Verfasser nicht in dieser gedruckten Form dem König übersandt,...” Cf.
Csapont 1982, 209.
Csapopt1 1982 states that the text of the codex and the incunabulum differ (,, Der Text der Wolfenbiitteler
Handschrift und der der Inkunabel stimmen also nicht genau überein ...”), and that the 1531 edition
is based on the decorative codex: Correstus—Ossopogus 1531 (OSZK Ant. 5244). Edina Zsupän,
summarising the literature on the dating of the manuscript preserved in Wolffenbüttel, states that it
was completed after August 1487, but before June 1488. She does not, however, address the question
of the relation between the text of the manuscript and the incunabulum (ZsupAn-HEITZMANN, hrsg.,
Corvina Augusta..., 2014, 73-77.)
45 Cr. Mixó 1999.
3
11.
©
11
5
11
Rk
30