Page 68 [68]
OCR
Stephanus Geographus: Szamosk6zy probably mentions this author’s name in this form because it was clear to his contemporaries, and to himself, which “Stephanus” he meant. Most likely it is Stephanus Byzantinus, who in the 5th century wrote his geographical encyclopaedia Evhnika (Latin title: De urbibus et populis), which has proved to be a rich source for humanists and modern researchers to understand various instances of the geographical past and history of their countries.?”° However, the extensive Corvina literature is not aware of any information pointing to this famous work existing in the Buda collection, nor have we been able to find an answer to the question of how Szamoskézy knew about it. Although we know of three 16th century editions of the work,’” there is no hint that the basis for the edition was a corvina. This is not reflected in the prefaces of the later editions," nor in the two editions that are still considered to be the best versions?’ Did Szamoskézy come across the codex itself? Theoretically, this possibility cannot be excluded, especially if we think of the large number of surviving copies in Italy: most notably those in the Biblioteca Trivulziana.”” It is particularly worth mentioning that the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek also has a copy of a volume purchased from Sebastian Tegnagel," and that Csapodi’s list of references also records volumes of this provenance: both are “uncertain corvinas”.**" In this situation, we are forced to formulate hypotheses. Of course, the most logical assumption is that, despite the sources we have examined being quiet on the matter, Szamoskézy did indeed get his information from a print, or that an entry on Stephanus Byzantinus in a contemporary lexicon mentioned that it was in the Corvina. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that our historian already knew from other sources that the geographical lexicon in question was available in the Corvina. Therefore, it is also possible that although the 16th century and later editions did not rely on the manuscript from Matthias’s library, Szamoskézy equated 5 Looxine through the volumes of LAnnée philologique, we encountered studies largely along the same line. See also the bibliographies of STEPHANUS BYZANTINUS-BILLERBECK-NEUMANN-HARTMANN, I, 2006, 51-64. and BILLERBECK-NEUMANN-HARTMANN 2021. 396 Perı poleön. De urbibus was published in Greek by Aldus Manutius, editio princeps (STEPHANUS Byzantınus-ALpus 1502); Greek-Latin editions by STEPHAnuUs BYZANTINUs—GIUNTA 1521; STEPHANUS BYZANTINUS-XILANDER. WirHouT being comprehensive, here are some of the items we saw: Theodor Pınepo-Jacobus Gronovius: Amsterdam, Jacob de Jonge, 1678 (the same here: Rudolph Wetsten, 1725); Abraham BerkeLius-Jacobus Gronovius: Leiden, Daniel Gaesebeeck, 1674, and 1688 (the same here Frederik Haaring, 1694); Lucas Hotstentus—Theodor Rycx: Leiden, Jacobus Hackius, 1684 and Leiden, Petrus vander Aa, 1692 (with notes and commentaries by HotsTentus: Utrecht, sumptibus Societatis, 1691); Pinepo, HotstTentus and BERKELIUS with notes by Wilhelm Dinporr, Leipzig, Kühn, 1825; Antonius WESTERMANN: Leipzig, 1839 (Teubner). STEPHANUS BYZANTINUS-MEINEKE 1849; new critical edition: STEPHANUS BYZANTINUSBiLLERBECK-NEUMANN-HartMann, I-V., 2006-2017. The critical inventory of the manuscripts and editions: STEPHANUS BYZANTINUS-BILLERBECK-NEUMANN-HARTMANN, 1., 2006, 8-46. 29 KRISTELLER, Ifer Italicum, I, 1977, 360. Nr. 737, KRISTELLER, lfer Ifalicum, I, 1977, 335., 442-444., 531. Further corvinas in Trivulziana: Csapovı 1973, 541 and 577. 300 LAMBECK-KoLLar 1766, 127. 301 Csaronı 1973, 320, 459. 29 a 29. æ 66
