Search Results

Abstract

The Beatrice Psalter (Wolfenbüttel, HAB, Cod. Guelf. 39 Aug. 4º) belongs to the problematic part of the Corvina library, to pieces that are hard to date or localize as regards place of origin. As Matthias Corvinus's coat of arms on the cover proves, the binding was made for the Hungarian king, yet it deviates in character from the typical gilded leather Covina bindings and is unique in the history of 15th century Italian manuscript bindings. There is a single analogous Corvina, the Bible once bound for Matthias (Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek, Ms. 6). The presently accepted view on the binding is based on the researches of Tommaro de Marinis and Antony Hobbson. De Marinis published a Livy manuscript once in the Aragonese royal library of Naples whose binding, or its central part, is identical with the binding of the Beatrice Psalter. In de Marinis's view the bindings of both manuscripts are of Neapolitan origin. Probing deeper, Hobbson associates the origin of the two manuscripts with the circles of Giovanni d'Aragona, and identifies their bookbinder as Felice Feliciano. He names Rome as the location where the binding was made.

Most probably, neither researcher ascribed any significance to the edges of the Psalter, which was described by earlier Hungarian research as gilded and decorated in colour, without being subjected to more thorough analysis. Thus, the Psalter edges were not identified with the Buda type of the gilt and painted edges, although they conform to this types, its constituents being easily recognized among the motifs of similar pieces. This fact alone may ascribe great probability to the hypothesis that the binding of the Psalter was not made in Naples or Rome but in Buda. This does not necessarily contradict Hobbson's results, for Felice Feliciano stayed in Hungary from autumn 1479 to summer 1480 accompanying Giovanni d'Aragona.

The hypothesis is supported by other specificities of the manuscript, too. As regards the quality of the parchment, the size, and the person of the scribe, the Psalter is part of a triple group within the Corvinae. The Plato in El Escorial (G. III. 3.), the Aristeas manuscript in Munich (BSB, Clm 627) and the Beatrice Psalter are three small manuscripts of similar size, all three written on rougher parchment than the Italian type and the scribe of all three was Gundisalvus Hispanus, who stayed in Italy in the mid-1470s until 1478 when he was appointed bishop of Barcelona. Albina de la Mare already asked: Are we to presume that Gundisalvus visited Buda, too? For the time being, this cannot be verified. It is, however, thought-provoking that the calendar taking up the first leaves of the Psalter is of a Hungarian, more precisely a Zagreb type with minor Pauline features, and the litany at the end of the manuscript also contains the major Hungarian saints. An additional coincidence is that the Plato in El Escorial and the Aristeas in Munich are proven to have been illuminated in Buda around 1480. On the basis of their style they belong to the circle of the manuscript decorated for Domokos Kálmáncsehi around that time. As for the inner figural initials of the Psalter, the Buda origin is highly likely, too. The one-line initial capital letters are very close to those in the Kálmáncsehi breviary (Budapest, OSzK, cod. Lat. 446).

The title-page of the manuscript is in Florentine style, but the attribution is uncertain. Earlier the name of Francesco Antonio del Cherico, more recently Francesco Rosselli and the Master of the Medici Iliad are mentioned. Rosselli also stayed in Buda in 1478/79–80, but in my view the leading illuminator of the title-page was not he but a better painter who might be identical with the leading artist involved in the Medici Iliad. The latter, however, probably never visited Buda.

To sum up: the writing of the Psalter may support a Buda origin, but this is questioned by the presumable illumination of the title-page in Florence. The inner part of the manuscript, however, was most certainly decorated in Buda, and on the basis of the specificities of the edges and other features of the binding, it must be seen verified that the rare binding was made in Buda. The latter must have been an inspiring, model example for the elaboration of the gilded leather bindings of Matthias's corvinae. The available data suggest that it can be dated to the very end of the 1470s or around 1480. The phases of the making of the Psalter shed light on the activity of the Buda workshop around 1480s, revealing a surprising complexity and exuberant activity there.

The Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus’s royal library as the collection of a renaissance/humanist ruler was enriched not only with works ordered or purchased in Italy but also with manuscripts made in Buda. Most recent investigations suggest that illumining and copying activity started in the Buda court only after the arrival of Queen Beatrice (1476).

The paper is concerned with one of the marked illuminator figures of the Buda workshop labelled – for want of real identification – as “the first emblazoner”. (His figure was first outlined by Edith Hoffmann in the 1920s, who also verified that he had been trained in Florence.) So far modest floral ornaments and Matthias’s coat of arms had been attributed to this illuminator, in addition to two voluminous manuscripts, the Alberti Corvina in Modena and the Ambrosius Corvina in Paris (Modena, BEU, ms.Lat.419; Paris, BnF, Cod. Latin 1767).

The paper sheds light on the illuminator’s figure embedded in a broader context and viewed from a new angle. The novel aspect is the differentiation between the illuminator’s own style and style imitation. The author managed to demonstrate that the master did not only create his own style but occasionally imitated the style of others. Accordingly, the first half of the study analyses the illuminator’s own style in detail, and the second half discusses his work with the method of imitation. The basis for the examination of the latter is the Ransanus manuscript (Bp. OSZK, cod. Lat. 249) in which the master’s hand imitating a certain Franco-Flemish style can be safely identified.

While explicating the above topics, the author also proposes new ideas about the genesis and localization of two important corvina manuscripts. She proves that the Philostratus (Bp., OSZK, Cod. Lat. 417) and Ransanus Corvinae so-far believed to have been made in Florence and Southern Italy were actually produced in the Buda workshop. The author uses all aspects of codicological research in her argumentation. This is the first time during the research that a scribe figure is also delineated who worked in the Buda workshop at the very end of the 1480s. The Beda Corvina as well as Nagylucsei’s Psalter (Venice, BNM, Lat. VIII. 2=2796; Munich, BSB, Clm 175; Budapest, OSZK, Cod. Lat. 369) are by his hand. The Philostratus Corvina can be attributed to a scribe who imitated him fairly closely.

The author concludes that the working method of the “first emblazoner” (idiosyncratic and imitated styles) and his role in different codices epitomize the functioning of the Buda workshop. She opines that the structure of the workshop was based on the parallel activity and occasional collaboration of outstanding and lesser masters. It is almost self-evident to infer from her reasoning that the Florentine illuminator Boccardino il Vecchio possibly decorated the Philostratus Corvina in Buda. The author points out that the inner initials of the manuscript are not by Boccardino il Vecchio but by a lesser figural painter. One of the secondary initials is clearly the copy of a Francesco Rosselli half-figure type. This phenomenon locates the second hand (“first emblazoner”?) to Buda. (Rosselli worked in Buda in 1479/80, his works were included in the Buda library, too.) The fact that a lesser master had a role in such an exquisite manuscript is ascribed by the author to the structure of the Buda workshop.

At the same time the paper also raises the question of the contribution of the “second emblazoner” within the Corvina Library and concludes that the Ransanus manuscript is the joint work of the “first” and “second emblazoners” in Buda (working on the codex with time lags).

The author reflects upon the long-standing question of dating the two heraldic painters and adduces important data to support the earlier also proposed hypothesis that the first and second emblazoners worked parallel, and their work coincided with the comprehensive development and unification of the Buda library at the very end of the 1480s.

The connection between the letters of Pliny the younger – first of all his descriptions of villas – and renaissance architecture is well known. In Hungarian scholarship Rózsa Feuerné tóth pointed out that in describing the palaces of Buda, Visegrád and Esztergom, Bonfini also used Pliny’s terminology. It is, however, strongly questionable that the adoption of the terminology also meant practical connections of construction between Pliny’s accounts and the Hungarian buildings, as the art historian hypothesized.

The paper is meant to provide addenda to this problem with the help of a concrete source, a Pliny codex of János Vitéz, which is annotated throughout in Vitéz’ hand. the focus is on the two most important texts, the description of Pliny’s villa in Laurentum (II.7, V.6), with an intention to explore whether inferences could be made from the paratexts by the high priest’s hand. the unfolding picture suggests a theoretical impact in the first place: apparently, what the Hungarian high priest particularly highly appreciated in the accounts was the formulation of space for the ideal humanist way of life, for absorbed studying. Library, bath, covered corridor, heated room, garden, quiet studies – these captured Vitéz’ attention during reading the text. the villa at Laurentum thus mainly epitomized a space as the venue of the ideal humanist life in Vitéz’ interpretation, serving otium, psychic and intellectual re creation. It is noteworthy that Bonfini lists the same elements – library, covered corridor, bath, garden – in his account of Esztergom castle in connection with János Vitéz, while it is only an unanswered question based on this source and our current knowledge of the Esztergom residence whether the Pliny studies of the lord of the castle did contribute to the high priest’s constructions or not. At any rate, the careful annotation of the Pliny text supports a positive answer to this assumption.