Page 32 [32]
OCR
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 complete 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 published 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 incunabulum 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 contemporary 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
