Bolonyai ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Who Copied Janus Pannonius’s Greek- Latin Dictionary (ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45)? Gábor Bolonyai HE FIRST HUNGARIAN HUMANIST who received a thorough Greek education in the fifteenth century was Janus Pannonius (1434–1472).1 He attended Guarino’s school between March 1447 and August 14542 and learned Greek, in all likelihood, from Theodore of Gaza, who was active in Ferrara as professor of Greek between 1446 and 1449.3 After Theodore’s departure, Janus may have continued 1 His chosen name reflects his cultural identity. On a letter to Callistus III (MS. Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Reg. Vat. 462, 253v–254v) discovered and published by Ágnes Ritoók-Szalay, he signed his name as Johannes de Chesmicze: Á. Ritoók-Szalay, “Nympha super ripam Danubii” (Budapest 2002) 24. On his national identity see M. D. Birnbaum, Janus Pannonius, Poet and Politician (Zagreb 1981) 9–12, and Ritoók-Szalay 26–28. 2 For the dates see J. Huszti, Janus Pannonius (Pécs 1931) 19. 3 See Giovanni Aurispa’s correspondence in R. Sabbadini, Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa (Rome 1931) 112. For his stay in Ferrara see R. Sabbadini, “Ferruccio Ferri, La giovinezza di un poeta. Basini Parmensis carmina,” G. Stor. della Lett. Ital. 65 (1915) 98–99; J. Monfasani, “L’insegnamento di Teodoro Gaza a Ferrara,” in M. Bertozzi (ed.), Alla corte degli Estensi: Filosofia, arte e cultura a Ferrara nei secoli XV e XVI (Ferrara 1994) 5–8 and 12–13; Concetta Bianca, “Teodoro Gaza,” DBI 52 (1999) 738–739; F. Tissoni, Le Olimpiche di Pindaro nella scuola di Gaza a Ferrara (Messina 2009) 12–14; and P. Botley, Learning Greek in Western Europe, 1396–1529: Grammars, Lexica, and Classroom Texts (Philadelphia 2010) 14–16. For Janus’s respect for him as a scholar, see his epigram on Gaza, Epigr. 7 in the recent edition by J. Mayer, Iani Pannonii opera quae manserunt omnia I.1 (Budapest 2006). T GÁBOR BOLONYAI 215 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 his Greek studies with Guarino, and he kept studying Greek authors even after returning to Hungary. Janus’s prose trans- lations4 show a high command of the Greek language, and his rendering of two passages from the Iliad are among the first attempts to go beyond lexical equivalence and aim at poetical correspondence between the original and the translation.5 For us, however, it is more important that his bilingual dictionary has survived. Scholars have recently disputed who the scribe of the lexicon was.6 Michael Denis, a librarian at the Hofburg Bibliothek in Vienna in the eighteenth century, found in the codex (ÖNB Suppl.gr. 45) the following annotation: Ιανος ὁ παννονιος ἰδια χειρι εγραψεν ὁταν τα ἑλληνικα γραµµατα µαθειν ἐµελεν [sic].7 For Denis these words meant that the manuscript was Janus’s autograph and the dictionary offered invaluable evidence for his first encounter with Greek. Denis’s reading was accepted by Vogel and Gardthausen,8 and taken over by Josef Bick in his 1920 catalogue of Greek hands in Vienna manu- scripts, although by then the annotation had disappeared from 4 Plutarch, Quibus modis ab inimicis iuvari possimus [De capienda ex inimicis utilitate], De negotiositate [De curiositate], and Dicta regum et imperatorum; Demos- thenes, Oratio adversus epistolam Philippi [In epistulam Philippi] and Funebris oratio. 5 The two passages are the encounter between Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.119–236) and Calchas’s oracle (2.299–330). For his original and novel approach see Zsigmond Ritoók, “Verse Translations from Greek by Janus Pannonius,” AAntHung 20 (1972) 235–270. 6 Two papers address whether and how Janus made use of the vocabulary in his translations: Zsigmond Ritoók, “Lexikalisches zu den neulich entdeck- ten Übersetzungen aus dem griechischen von Janus Pannonius,“ AAntHung 23 [1975] 409–413; and László Horváth, “Eine vergessene Übersetzung des Janus Pannonius,” AAntHung 41 [2001] 199–215. 7 He offered the following translation in his catalogue (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, ser. nov. 3920, f. 63r, no. CCXVI): Janus Pannonius propria manu scripsit, quando graecas litteras discere cura fuit. 8 M. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig 1909) 479. 216 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 the manuscript.9 Csapodi took Janus’s role a step further when he raised the possibility that the dictionary had been compiled by the poet himself.10 Thus, it was authentic evidence not only of his handwriting but also of his basic vocabulary. This suggestion was strongly opposed by István Kapitánffy on several grounds. First, he recognized that the manuscript was an apograph of Harleianus 5792, the only extant exemplar of an ancient Greek-Latin bilingual dictionary (later called the Pseudo-Cyril); Janus’s authorship of the content was therefore out of question.11 He also challenged the generally accepted identification of the copyist as Janus Pannonius. He gave an alternative explanation for the production of the codex and for the meaning of the annotation reported by Denis. Kapitánffy observed that the Greek lemmata and their Latin equivalents were clearly written in different inks and pens, and not pair- wise, line by line, but separately, in longer units.12 He therefore concluded that the manuscript had been copied not by one person, and especially not by a language learner,13 but by two professional scribes, one Greek and one Latin. He also ana- lyzed the several dozen marginal notes added in a cursive Greek hand to the vocabulary items. From the different ductus of the letters ( fig. 1) he inferred that these annotations were made by one or more subsequent users of the dictionary, none of which could plausibly be Janus. Kapitánffy noticed that most 9 J. Bick, Die Schreiber der Wiener griechischen Handschriften (Vienna 1920) 54– 55, plausibly assumed that the note was written on a flyleaf attached to the manuscript, because there was no evidence of the loss of a page in the codex. 10 Csapodi, Scriptorium 28 (1974) 35. 11 I. Kapitánffy, “Triklinios, Guarino und Janus Pannonius,” AAntHung 36 (1995) 352. 12 The Latin glosses are displaced and subsequently linked with lines to their corresponding Greek lemmata (see fig. 1). 13 He thought that a beginner like Janus would have proceeded line by line, writing down each Greek lemma along with its Latin equivalent. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 217 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Figure 1: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45, fol. 69v ——— of the marginal quotations come from various branches of the scholia to Aristophanes, including the second redaction of Triclinius, Koster’s anonyma recentiora, and the Suda. But Janus is not known to have been familiar with, or influenced by, Aristophanes.14 He conjectured that the annotator may have been Guarino, who is known to have owned manuscripts of Aristophanes with scholia and an exemplar of the Suda,15 and suspected that Janus either purchased the copy or received it as a gift from his master when he started his Greek studies. He suggested, accordingly, that the autograph note should be taken to refer to the sentence itself and not to the whole manu- script.16 Around the same time the question of scribal hands was examined by Herbert Hunger in his catalogue of the ÖNB 14 Kapitánffy, AAntHung 36 (1995) 355–356. 15 Kapitánffy, AAntHung 36 (1995) 356. He made this guess without seeing Guarino’s handwriting. 16 He interpreted the verb ἐµελεν as the (faulty) imperfect of µέλλω, meaning “when he began to (learn Greek)”: I. Kapitánffy, “Janus Pan- nonius görög szótára” [Janus Pannonius’s Greek dictionary], ItK 95 (1991) 181. See also Zs. Ötvös, “Janus Pannonius’s Vocabularium,” The Complex Analysis of the Ms. ÖNB Suppl. Gr. 45 (Budapest 2015) 27. 218 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 manuscripts.17 While he did not join the debate on attribution, he distinguished three hands in the Greek texts which he did not try to relate to the Latin ones. Hunger distinguished a “main hand” responsible for the Greek-Latin vocabulary and the Latin-Greek word-list ( fig. 2); then a more dynamic and fluent script ( fig. 3) in the section that starts on fol. 320r and contains proverbs excerpted from Plutarch. To this second hand too Hunger persuasively ascribed the marginalia. On fol. 321r, where a thematically mixed unit begins, a third hand can be observed. This one is also cursive but uses different ligatures and abbreviations ( fig. 4).18 The manuscript was subjected to a thorough codicological and palaeographical examination by Zsuzsanna Ötvös in her 2015 dissertation. After offering a detailed description of each hand, she cautiously endorsed the traditional view that the main body of the dictionary was copied by two different scribes only: a Greek one responsible for the Greek lemmata, and a Latin one responsible for the Latin interpretations.19 She even left open the possibility that the two copyists were one and the same, adducing passages where the Latin scribe switched into Greek and his writing strongly resembled the main Greek hand.20 For the Greek marginal glosses she accepted the prevailing opinion that they were by a scribe other than the one who copied the Greek lemmata. She agreed with Hunger’s observations about the second and third thematic units: in these the writing clearly changed twice (first 17 H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen National- bibliothek IV (Vienna 1994) 85–87. 18 Following Hunger, Gastgeber also distinguishes three Greek hands (Miscellanea Codicum II 63 and 272). 19 Cf. also O. Mazal, Byzanz und das Abendland: Katalog einer Ausstellung der Handschriften- und Inkunabelsammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Graz 1981) 301; and E. Gamillscheg in Matthias Corvinus und die Bildung der Renaissance (Vienna 1994) 44. 20 Ötvös, Janus Pannonius 33–34. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 219 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Figure 2: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 17r ——— Figure 3: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 320r ——— Figure 4: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 321r ——— the copyist of the marginalia. Ötvös pointed out, moreover, that a stylistic shift in the script was already noticeable at 299r, 220 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 where the Latin-Greek word-list begins. This fourth hand featured more cursive elements than the main hand but less than the second ( fig. 5). Figure 5: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 299r ——— All the same, she thought that the differences between this section (299r–320r) and the next (321r–329r) were only a matter of degree, the former being less, the latter more cursive in character. Both even shared similarities with the main, more formal hand of the vocabulary. She tentatively suggested, therefore, that either or both of them might be the cursive of the main hand. If so, the Greek was written by only two, not three copyists as Hunger suggested. This brief survey makes clear that it is very difficult to tell the hands of this manuscript apart solely on palaeographical grounds. To put the discussion on a firmer footing, it seems advisable to draw on other aspects of the scripts, in particular on text-critical considerations. As noted above, the Vienna manuscript is one of fifteen apographs copied from the only extant exemplar of Pseudo-Cyril. As I have argued elsewhere, it is a direct apograph of Escorialiensis Σ I 12, an exemplar made for personal use by Benedetto Bursa made (1414–after May GÁBOR BOLONYAI 221 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 1446), a former colleague of Guarino in Ferrara.21 In all likelihood, around 1445 he copied in Negroponte an exemplar (now lost) that belonged to his Greek teacher Niccolò Sagun- dino. This exemplar presumably derived immediately from the codex Harleianus (hereafter H) in Nicolaus Cusanus’s possession during the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Benedetto’s copy con- tains more marginal glosses than Janus’s, quite often in a more extended form. Such abridgements prove dependence on the fuller version. Probative too is the fact that (with few exceptions discussed below) every annotation in the Vienna manuscript can be found in Benedetto’s exemplar. The same can be said of the two sections that follow the Greek-Latin vocabulary. The direct and near complete dependence of the Vienna manuscript (hereafter W1) on the Escorial exemplar (hereafter Es)22 throws a different light on the making of the manuscript. It renders highly improbable that the entire vocabulary, the marginal notes, and the additional paratexts that go back to the same source were all copied by different people, each in turn adding his own glosses and supplements. The evidence instead suggests that the manuscript was copied from a master exem- plar by a single scribe who transcribed both the preexisting bilingual dictionary and the marginal annotations. This proposal contradicts previous palaeographical analyses, which identified three or more different scribes. I argue instead that the admittedly uneven and variable character of the script may be readily explained by other factors. But before I do so, I will attempt to make this thesis more plausible by considering not the scripts but the identity of the copyist of the Vienna manuscript. The most likely candidates are among Theodore’s pupils, in particular, the schoolmates of Janus known to have studied 21 G. Bolonyai, “Benedictus and his Greek-Latin Dictionary: Escorial Σ I.12,” GRBS 57 (2017) 794–797. For further proofs see below. 22 For the sigla see GRBS 57 (2017) 827. 222 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Greek in Ferrara.23 We know six of them by name: Basinio da Parma, Lampugnino Birago, Ludovico Carbone, Battista Guarino, Lianoro Lianori, and Giorgio Valagussa.24 All but one prove, on further inspection, unlikely.25 The exception is Lianoro Lianori (1425–1477), who can be identified as the copyist we are looking for thanks to the survival of a group of autograph letters written partly in Greek, partly in Latin. In their handwriting ( fig. 6) we can easily recognize the charac- teristic traits of the cursive hand of the marginalia in the Vienna manuscript. Lianoro Lianori penned these letters be- tween March 1448 and November 1449, shortly after his departure from Guarino’s school, at a time that roughly co- incides with the estimated date of the Vienna manuscript.26 Both hands feature a fairly dynamic, fluent, and harmonious style, with letters slanting slightly to the right (figs. 6–8). Ascenders of certain letters (especially τ and δ) rise decisively above the top line, descenders of γ, λ (!), ρ, and χ sink below the base line. Singularly characteristic are a γ with a tail stretching sharply backwards (i.e. to the left), a δ with an upper oblique stroke turning backwards occasionally in a similarly acute 23 A glance at Theodore’s and Guarino’s handwriting suffices to exclude them from the list of potential scribes. See David Speranzi, “‘De' libri che furono di Teodoro’: una mano, due pratiche e una biblioteca scomparsa,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 23 (2012) 319–354, and Antonio Rollo, “Sulle tracce di Antonio Corbinelli,” SMU 2 (2004) pl. XVIII. 24 For a recent overview of his students see Tissoni, Le Olimpiche di Pindaro 13–21. As to Birago, his stay in Ferrara in 1449 is well documented, but that he studied with Gaza is only a (plausible) conjecture. 25 For Battista Guarino’s hand see Erlangen Universitätsbibliothek codex A1 f. IIr, published by D. Harlfinger, “Zu griechischen Kopisten und Schriftstilen des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts,” in J. Glénisson et al. (eds.), La paléographie grecque et byzantine (Paris 1977) 360. For Carbone’s hand see Budapest MTA Library codex Lat. K 397 (http://carbo.mtak.hu/it/ study.htm). For Basinio’s Latin hand see, e.g., Vat.lat. 1676 (https:// digi.vatlib.it/mss/detail/Vat.lat.1676). 26 Ötvös, Janus Pannonius 22 and 57. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 223 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Figure 6: Vat.lat. 3908, fol. 197r ——— Figure 7: ÖNB Suppl.gr. 45. fol. 266r ——— Figure 8: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 243r ——— 224 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 angle,27 and a λ with an upper bar hardly exceeding the mean line and two legs sinking deeply below the base line. Another typical, idiosyncratic feature of both scripts is the tendency to write the accent marks without lifting the pen, thus forming a kind of ligature between the letter and the mark, especially when the circumflex combines with ω (e.g. in διεκδικῶ in fig. 1) and the acute with α and υ (e.g. σκυτάλης and ξύλον in fig. 7). There are other, less striking, similarities, like the shape of the minuscule α, κ, µ, ν, ρ, φ and the majuscule η and τ.28 All the same, minor dissimilarities between the two scripts are undeniable. Lianori’s correspondence features more liga- tures, abbreviations, and other cursive elements. Conspicuous are the curlicued letters in the dates and the greetings (e.g. εὖ χαίρειν in the first line, fig. 6). Some letters exhibit minor divergences in shape. The hand of the marginalia writes the round sigma with a characteristically long horizontal bar in end-position, whereas the letters use the lunate sigma almost exclusively, with and without a hook. For the letter ν the vocabulary frequently displays a Roman v written with two near equal left-slanting strokes; in the letters ν begins with a vertical bar to which an upwards open bowl is attached. The majuscule π type with two vertical strokes predominates in the vocabulary; the letters feature a minuscule form with two closed loops surmounted by a horizontal bar. To account for these differences we must turn to the context of these writing 27 This feature was already highlighted by S. Bernardinello, Autografi greci e greco-latini in Occidente (Padua 1979) 56, in his description of Lianori’s hand on the basis of Vat.gr. 1308. 28 For a description of Lianori’s Greek hand see also P. Eleuteri and P. Canart, Scrittura greca nell’umanesimo italiano (Milan 1991) 45–47; E. Gamill- scheg, RGK III (Vienna 1997) 391; and T. Martínez Manzano, Historia del fondo manuscrito griego de la Universidad de Salamanca (Salamanca 2015) 156– 157. Without going into details, we note that Lianori’s Latin hand also corresponds to that of the vocabulary. I return below to the problem of the “other” Greek hands in W1. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 225 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 and consider both their aims and Lianori’s life circumstances. A letter sent from Bologna on 15 April 1448 by Niccolò Volpe to Giovanni Tortelli helps us date Lianori’s school years in Ferrara. Volpe, who was then in his thirties and taught rhetoric and poetry at Bologna, writes that he was studying Greek in his spare time under Lianori of Bologna, a student of Theodore Gaza for about two years: Suffuror nunc pauxilum temporis in quo do litteris graecis operam sub Leonorio bononiensi, qui vacavit illis duobus fere, ut arbitror, annis Ferrariae sub praeceptore Theodoro.29 Lianori confirms the length of his studies in Ferrara in a letter to Tortelli dated 24 May 1449 (Letter 8 Onorato). There he explains that he has only studied Greek for two years and is not yet competent at 24 to translate Procopius’s Gothic Wars at Tortelli’s invitation: quippe qui duos annos graecis deditus et quidem satis negligenter, prima vix teneam rudimenta litterarum quique iam quartum et vigesimum annum agam aetatis meae. From Letter 1, the earliest to survive addressed to Tortelli, we learn that Lianori had already sent him several pieces in Greek and Latin. He now excuses their childish content and poor style on the grounds that, deprived of his studies for financial reasons, he could only practice his skills in his letter- writing. If Lianori began his correspondence with Tortelli only a few weeks or months before Letter 1, dated 14 March 1448, he must have broken off his studies in Ferrara around January or February. This inference squares nicely Theodore Gaza’s teaching in Ferrara. Theodore moved from Mantua to Ferrara 29 A. Onorato, Gli amici bolognesi di Giovanni Tortelli (Messina 2003) 64 (Let- ter 26). For Lianori’s school years in Ferrara another important source is Carbone’s funeral speech for Guarino Guarini (Oratio funebris in obitu Guarini Veronensis), in which he praises him as utramque linguam egregie callens: K. Müllner, Reden und Briefe italienischer Humanisten: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pädagogik des Humanismus (Vienna 1899) 91. For his career see Ludovico Frati, “Lianoro de Lianori, ellenista bolognese,” StudMemUnivBologna 10 (1930) 165–177; Onorato XLVIII–LIII; Franco Bachelli, “Lianoro Lianori,” DBI 65 (2005) 9–12; Manzano, Historia 37–38 and 156–165. 226 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 at the invitation of Giovanni Aurispa after Vittorino de Feltre’s death on 2 February 1446.30 He must have assumed his new position in the following weeks. His employment there ended in 1449. We conclude, therefore, that Lianori was 21 years old when Theodore Gaza started to teach him Greek in early 1446.31 His later career shows that Greek remained central to his life. When he had to interrupt his studies and return to Bologna, he immediately engaged his services in teaching Greek. Doing so not only eased his financial difficulties but also allowed him to firm up his mastery of Greek with a view to his future as a humanist scholar. It is of particular interest that Lianori pre- pared the material for his student by copying in his own hand Chrysoloras’s Erotemata as a grammar-book and two orations of Isocrates as a textbook (Letter 27). His interest in writing Greek is clear in his correspondence with Tortelli. In the spring of 1448 Lianori’s financial straits threatened his academic ambitions.32 For a time he relied on his patron, Albergato Vianesio, who as mayor of Città di Castello invited him to move to his town (and probably into his own house) during the plague that afflicted Bologna. In return he copied official documents, an occupation hardly agreeable to his dreams. He repeatedly asked both Tortelli and Vianesio (who was a protonotary apostolic) to intercede with the Pope for a more rewarding position (Letters 2, 3, 11). Lianori’s Greek letters to Tortelli may have been meant as proof of his proficient letter-writing in both languages. It seems likely that 30 As stated by Marsuppini in his letter to Aurispa, De illo vero Graeco, qui tua opera ad iuvenes erudiendos in Italiam, immo Ferrariam est vocatus: R. Sabbadini, Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa (Rome 1931) 112 and 169. 31 It is not known when he entered Guarino’s school. It is conceivable that he had already spent some time in Ferrara before beginning his Greek studies. 32 Letter 1: nescio quid aliud agere debeam quam aut omnino litteras destituendas censeam aut illarum exercitationem aliquo modo exquiram. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 227 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 he also carefully attended to their visual appearance. He prob- ably sought to display his ability with Greek cursive suitable to private correspondence, combining the impression of ease, fluency, and a uniform layout with ligatures and letter-types adapted to different positions. This consideration explains why his hand in the letters appears more fluid and ornamental than the one used for the marginal notes in the Vienna manuscript. Lianori’s letters attained their aim. As the newly appointed head of the Vatican library, Tortelli asked him on Nicholas V’s behalf to translate Procopius’s Gothic Wars as part of the Pope’s ambitious project to render the chief Greek authors into Latin. After some hesitation33 he finally accepted and translated one sample section. Although we cannot evaluate his achievement, which has not survived, his later assignments and posts suggest that he made a favorable impression. Two years later, in 1451, he was appointed canon of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Bologna; he was then licensed in canon law and in 1455 lectured on moral philosophy; one year later he became the first professor of Greek at the university of Bologna. His career took another turn when in May 1459 the next Pope, Pius II, nominated him as papal secretary and familiar. From that time on until his death in 1478 his ecclesiastical career took priority over his academic aspirations. But he never gave up his interest in Greek and his passion for Greek manuscripts. He assembled a remarkable collection that included many texts in his own handwriting.34 Lianori’s career, therefore, confirms his life-long attraction to Greek literature and its textual aspects, already evident as a student of Theodore Gaza. Janus Pannonius’s personality and background, both cultural and financial, were rather different. He was thirteen, nine years younger than Lianori, when he 33 Without a dictionary and unable to consult another Hellenist, he found the text, which was full of lacunae, too difficult for his level (Letter 8). 34 Martínez Manzano, Historia 37–45. 228 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 arrived in Ferrara in 1447. He enjoyed the robust financial backing of his uncle, Johannes (János) Vitéz, bishop of Várad, the chief Hungarian humanist of the previous generation, well connected with scholars and ecclesiastical figures.35 Having demonstrated extraordinary talent at a very young age, Janus’s ambition was to become a competent poet by classical stan- dards. Despite their differences, Lianori and Janus shared a fascina- tion with Greek literature. Janus needed a vocabulary to help his Greek learning, Lianori needed money. These two needs met. But how are we to imagine their deal? What does the Vienna vocabulary reveal of its own origin and background? Should we think of it as an exemplar Lianori originally made for his own use and later sold, or as a copy specifically meant for Janus? The textual relationship of W1 to Es, its master copy, suggests an answer. As noted above, W1 is a direct apograph of Es with some additions. Collation and analysis of the sources of the Vienna manuscript reveal three different textual layers.36 The first derives from Es (a corrected and enlarged version of Pseudo-Cyril); the second from a humanist vocabulary;37 and 35 For a recent overview of his career see F. Földesi (ed.), A Star in the Raven’s Shadow: János Vitéz and the Beginnings of Humanism in Hungary (Budapest 2008). 36 The data of the Greek-Latin dictionary in both codices can be divided into six categories: (1) original Greek lemmata, (2) humanist additions, (3) original Latin interpretations, (4) additional Latin synonyms, (5) new en- tries, (6) marginal notes. The Greek-Latin dictionary as a unit is followed by two other of ancient origin, a thematic wordlist (298r –298v) and a Latin- Greek dictionary (299r–320r), and by four humanist additions, mainly proverbs (320r–320v, 321r–326v, 327r–328v, 328v), available only in these two manuscripts. See Hunger, Katalog 85, and Ötvös, Janus Pannonius 43–53. 37 For this tradition see P. Thiermann, Das Wörterbuch der Humanisten. Die griechisch-lateinische Lexikographie des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts und das ‘Dictionarium Crastoni’ (diss. Hamburg 1994); and A. Rollo, “Study Tools in the Humanist Greek School: Preliminary Observations on Greek-Latin Lexica,” in F. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 229 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 the third, a thinner stratum, from Lianori’s own translation notes. The transcription, however, was not carried out in the same order, in three clearly separable steps. The different inks and pens used in the two columns and the occasional mis- placement of lines show that the entries were made in two steps: first the Greek lemmata, then their Latin interpre- tations.38 From their relative position we infer that the Greek marginalia of Es were transcribed only in the final phase. Two examples, κνέφας and κνήθω, serve to explore the process in detail. Figure 9: Escor. Σ I 12, fol. 194r ——— Figure 10: ÖNB Suppl.gr. 45. fol. 152r ——— ___ Ciccolella et al. (eds.), Teachers, Students, and Schools of Greek in the Renaissance (Leiden 2017) 26–53. 38 As first observed by Kapitánffy, who from these differences concluded that the two parts should be attributed to two different scribes. A strong objection to this view is that the Latin scribe often switches into Greek, and that his Greek script closely resembles the one of the Greek scribe. 230 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 ΚΝΕΦΑΣ CREPUSCULUM H. κνέφας καὶ κλίνεται κνέφατος ση(µαίν)ει δὲ τὸ σκότος. crepusculum [in margine imo:] κνέφας, οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ σκότος, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρὸς ἑσπέραν µετὰ δύσιν ἡλίου δηλονότι. Ξενοφ(ῶν). ἅµα κνέφα ἤλαυνεν: Es κνέφας. φάτος [sic], τὸ σκότος. crepusculum. obscuritas. tenebra [in margine:] p(ro)p(r)ie post occasum solis. Xen. W1 ΚΝΗΘΩ SCALPO H. κνήθω. || κνησείω ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπιθυµητικῶς ἔχω κνᾶσθαι || scalpo pis, psi, ptum. Es κνήθω. scalpo. pruriginem habeo. κνήθοµαι gratto. κνησείω τὸ ἐπιθυµητικῶς ἔχω κνᾶσθαι. W1 Proceeding chronologically, the original item in H consists of only two words: the lemma ΚΝΕΦΑΣ and its Latin equivalent CREPUSCULUM. Other than adding diacritical signs, the scribe of Es makes two changes (see fig. 9). First, he provides beside the lemma without a gap inflectional and semantic information (the genitive). Second, he explains the meaning in greater de- tail, quoting a passage from Xenophon in an annotation at the bottom of the page.39 In the Vienna manuscript (see fig. 10) the entry κνέφας con- sists of three parts: Greek lemma (κνέφας. φάτος [sic], τὸ σκότος), Latin glosses (crepusculum. obscuritas. tenebra), and a marginal note (proprie post occasum solis. Xen.). Here the scribe incorporated into the lemma in a slightly reduced form the grammatical infor- mation available in Es—dropping the words καὶ κλίνεται and σηµαίνει δὲ and making a minor mistake (φάτος). Then he added further Latin glosses, evidently with the help of a humanist dictionary.40 In this particular case the different ink is 39 As noted above, in all likelihood Benedetto Bursa copied Sagundino’s exemplar, and it seems probable that all these additions go back to Sagun- dino’s revision of the vocabulary. He in turn must have drawn partly on the Suda (whose entry Κνέφας is very similar), partly on his own reading (for the quotation). Perhaps it is due to a lapse of memory that he cites Xenophon inaccurately, writing ἤλαυνεν instead of καθανύσαι (Hell. 7.1.15) or πλησίον γίγνονται (Cyr. 4.2.16). 40 There is a close parallel in Marc.gr. I.16: κνέφας. obscuritas. tenebrae. crepusculum. For the less common singular form tenebra see the entry in GÁBOR BOLONYAI 231 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 harder to tell, but usually such additions are readily notice- able.41 Finally, the passage in the marginal note in Es was transcribed, but in a shortened Latin version (proprie post occasum solis) followed by the author’s name (Xen). The annotation uses the same brownish ink and perhaps the same pen as the Greek lemmata. The same order appears in the next entry. Once again H contains only a Greek lemma and a single Latin gloss (ΚΝΗΘΩ SCALPO). This time Es adds the conjugation of the Latin verb (see fig. 9) and inserts the related κνησείω, doubtless taken from the Suda,42 a lexical tool Sagundino systematically used to revise and enrich his copy of Pseudo-Cyril. In W1 (see fig. 10) the scribe characteristically leaves out the Latin conjugation and adds alternative Latin glosses, drawing as previously on a humanist dictionary.43 The difference in ink is not easy to tell, but the position of the additional glosses (between the interpretation and the marginal notes) strongly suggests the same sequence of stages. The marginal notes, in a lighter ink and a more fluent style, were evidently added last. The text also shares the verb κνησείω with Es, a sign of the de- pendence of W1 on Es. Because they are not in close contact with the marginalia that stems from Es, it is usually hard to determine the relative order of Lianori’s own annotations (the third stage in the production of W1). The entry νόµισµα is one of the few that offers a clue ( fig. 11): ___ Barb.gr. 585 and Ott.gr. 240: κνέφας. obscuritas tenebra crepusculum. (I thank the anonymous reviewer for these references.) 41 See Ötvös, Janus Pannonius 145. 42 〈Κνησείοντα:〉 ἐπιθυµητικῶς ἔχοντα τοῦ κνᾶσθαι. 43 Close parallels can be found in Istanbul, Topkapi Museum Gayri Islami Kitaplığı 23, where κνήθω is translated as in W1 (pruriginem habeo) and its middle form is also included as a separate entry with the same Italian gloss (gracto). 232 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Figure 11: Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 181v ——— ∙ἀριστοτέλης∙ νόµισµα λέγεται∙ ὅτι οὐ φύσει ἀλλὰ νόµῳ ἐστί∙ νόµισµα, τὸ νόµιµον ἔθος et moneta. unde ludens ar(istophanes) introdux(it) r(espo)ndentem quemdam σιδαρέοις. et dix(it) dorice, κωµῳδῶν byzantios. quia et vili et minuta moneta utebantur W1 Here two marginal notes of rather different appearance are attached to the same lemma. The first, a quotation from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, does not appear in Es; the second, from a scholium to Aristophanes’ Clouds, does.44 The first note is written in black ink, with a sharper pen, a smaller letter-size, and a less cursive style. It is placed at the same level as the entry and followed by the second note in the next line. This arrangement proves the priority of the first one. Evidently, Lianori must have written the second marginal note below the lemma because the space above was already taken by the previous note. We can therefore reconstruct the stages of the text as follows. First, Lianori transcribed only the dictionary entries from his master copy: the Greek lemmata followed by the Latin glosses. The different inks and pens suggest that he copied several pages’ worth of Greek words, perhaps even all of them, and 44 In a considerably reduced, translated version. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 233 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 only then the Latin ones. Be that as it may, he constantly checked the corresponding pairs, and if there was a mistake he corrected it within four or five lines (see fig. 1). He was very faithful to the Greek lemmata. Although occasional spelling and accentuation errors occur, his text is free from major cor- ruptions like omissions or displacements. Dependence of W1 on Es can only be inferred from sporadic abridgements of Greek definitions or additions closely attached to the lemma.45 In contrast, Lianori makes considerable changes to the Latin glosses. The reason for this is obvious: the Latin of Pseudo- Cyril contains unusual, even obscure, non-classical words. Lianori must have sought to correct, omit, or replace them with more familiar classical ones.46 Thus corrected and sup- plemented, the Latin provides proof of the dependence of W1 on Es. Where Pseudo-Cyril offers more than two interpre- tations, W1 frequently omits one or more, but never the opposite.47 In this, the second revision stage, Lianori made hundreds of additions to Pseudo-Cyril with the help of a humanist bilingual dictionary.48 Most of them concern the Latin, but not infrequently the Greek lemmata are also en- 45 A case in point is the item εἴλη: ΕΙΛΗ GLOUUS ACIES ALA COORS H εἴλη ἡ τοῦ τάγµατος καὶ τοῦ πλήθους συστροφὴ globus. acies. ala. cohors Es εἴλη ἡ τοῦ πράγµατος καὶ τοῦ πλήθους συστροφὴ globus. acies. cohors W1. The ad- ditional Greek definition (from the Suda) is an innovation shared only by Es and W1 among other apographs and counts as a separative secondary read- ing. W1, moreover, contains a mistake (the more common πράγµατος for τάγµατος), perhaps the consequence of inattention or insufficient familiarity with the rarer τάγµα. 46 A similar tendency can be observed already in Es. 47 For example, the original entry of σαφήνεια in H reads: ΣΑΦΗΝΙΑ MANIFESTATIO. Es corrects the orthography of the Greek lemma and adds two Latin synonyms: σαφήνεια manifestatio. diluciditas. explanatio. In contrast, W1 features only the additions and leaves out the original, less suitable gloss: σαφήνεια diluciditas. explanatio. It is evident that Es could not have got manifestatio from W1. 48 See also Ötvös, Janus Pannonius 145–157. 234 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 riched with supplemental information (irregular forms, stem, case construction, gender, dialectal usage, and stylistic value).49 This work amounts to a systematic revision and enlargement of Pseudo-Cyril. In the third and last stage Lianori added further Latin glosses, inserted new entries, and added Greek quotations presumably drawn from his own study of Greek texts. Several considerations lead to this conclusion. There are visual clues that tell these elements apart from their surroundings. They are often in a smaller size and a more casual hand that uses a thinner pen (see διέρχοµαι in fig. 1 and νόµισµα in fig. 11). In several cases we can identify a particular passage as their likely source. Nine times Lianori himself gives the author’s name (Xenophon five times, Aristotle twice, Demosthenes and Herodotus once each; see the Appendix). When he inserts hapax legomena or rare words as new entries, he similarly states the source unambiguously (e.g. Hermogenes’ De methodo). These quotations do not occur in other ancient or humanist diction- aries. From these rare or unique words we can identify some of the texts Lianori must have read.50 The vast majority of these later additions stem from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, espe- cially Book 4.51 The second most frequently quoted identifiable 49 ὀφείλω serves as illustration. Like the hyparchetype H, Es offers only the Latin gloss debeo. At first Lianori only copied these two words: ὀφείλω debeo; next he inserted the irregular aorist ὤφλησα after the Greek verb, and the alternative teneor by the original Latin gloss, writing both supplements with a different pen and ink. Since this particular entry turns up in this form (ὀφείλω ἀορ ὤφλησα teneor) in several manuscripts that belong to the tradition of the humanist dictionaries (e.g. Budapest, University Library, Cod.gr. 4), it seems almost certain that Lianori used such a copy. 50 By my counting more than two hundred supplementary notes belong to this group of marginalia. Since a large number regard common words, their sources are usually impossible to identify. For exceptions see the next note. 51 When a word in common use occurs in Eth.Nic., it seems plausible that Lianori encountered it there. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 235 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 source text is Xenophon’s Anabasis, especially Books 1 and 3. It seems reasonable to link even the more common words to particular passages in these two works, where their sense agrees with Lianori’s Latin glosses. It is striking that in some of the sections in the Greek works almost every word has an available corresponding Latin interpretation in Lianori’s dictionary. For example, in one sentence of Aristotle (Eth.Nic. 1126a1–8), most of whose words were already in Pseudo-Cyril, six of them (here underlined) appear subsequently in W1 as inserted glosses: οὐ γὰρ τιµωρητικὸς ὁ πρᾶος, ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον συγγνωµονικός. ἡ δ’ ἔλλειψις, εἴτ’ ἀοργησία τίς ἐστιν εἴθ’ ὅ τι δή ποτε, ψέγεται. οἱ γὰρ µὴ ὀργιζόµενοι ἐφ’ οἷς δεῖ ἠλίθιοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, καὶ οἱ µὴ ὡς δεῖ µηδ’ ὅτε µηδ’ οἷς δεῖ· δοκεῖ γὰρ οὐκ αἰσθάνεσθαι οὐδὲ λυπεῖσθαι, µὴ ὀργιζόµενός τε οὐκ εἶναι ἀµυντικός, τὸ δὲ προπηλακιζόµενον ἀνέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους περιορᾶν ἀνδραποδῶδες.52 Of these only one is a hapax, the rest are common. But we may safely assume that all of them were glossed in consequence of Lianori’s translating this particular passage, especially because each is defined by a Latin equivalent that perfectly fits this context. Since Lianori was a beginner, we must assume that he read the Greek texts under his teacher’s guidance. The selection on which his personal choice of vocabulary rests tallies perfectly both with what we know of Theodore Gaza’s teaching and scholarly activity,53 and with Lianori’s own later career. Lia- 52 τιµωρητικός vindicaturus, συγγνωµονικός dativus veniae, ἀοργησία inirascentia, ἀµυντικός punitivus, προπηλακίζω impulso. as || vitupero. conuitior, ἀνδραποδῶδες servile. 53 Monfasani, in Alla corte degli Estensi 5–17, and “Theodore Gaza as a Philosopher: A Preliminary Survey,” in R. Maisano et al. (eds.), Manuele Crisolora e il ritorno del greco in Occidente (Naples 2002) 269–281; Botley, Learning Greek 14–25; D. Speranzi, “Identificazioni di mani nei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Riccardiana,” in E. Crisci (ed.), La descrizione dei manoscritti. Esperienze a confronto (Cassino 2010) 177–202; and F. Ciccolella, “Through 236 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 nori’s recourse to the Nicomachean Ethics matches Theodore’s marked preference for Aristotle.54 His close reading of Ari- stotle’s ethics also suited his appointment in 1455 as lecturer of moral philosophy in Bologna.55 For Xenophon, in turn, there are indications that Theodore used the Cyropaedia and the Anabasis as school texts.56 And Lianori in one of his letters refers to Xenophon as the only Greek text available to him.57 His annotations show that he studied the Anabasis. Finally, con- cerning Demosthenes we note that Pannonius back in Hungary translated into Latin the Funeral Oration, of dubious authorship, on 13 June 1460.58 Perhaps his interest in it was aroused by his master Theodore, who may have read it in Janus’s class just as he did in Lianori’s. The other word possibly linked to Demos- thenes is a rare rhetorical term (κλιµακωτόν. oratio per grada- tionem) used, among others, by Hermogenes59 to characterize one of the most famous passages in Demosthenes (De corona 179). ___ the Eyes of the Greeks: Byzantine Émigrés and the Study of Greek in the Renaissance,” in G. Abbamonte et al. (eds.), Making and Rethinking the Renaissance: Between Greek and Latin in 15th-16th Century Europe (Berlin 2019) 19–20. 54 Monfasani, in Manuele Crisolora 269–281, and Speranzi, Medioevo e Rinascimento 23 (2012) 319–354. 55 Frati, StudMemUnivBologna 10 (1930) 170; see also P. F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore 2002) 217 and 398. 56 See Tissoni, Le Olimpiche di Pindaro 15, 18–19, 23–41. 57 Onorato, Gli amici bolognesi 142 (Letter 8). 58 It was published first by János Horváth, “Janus Pannonius ismeretlen versei a Sevillai-kódexben,” [ Janus Pannonius’s unknown poems in the Sevilla codex] ItK 78 (1974) 613–617, shortly after the discovery of the Biblioteca Colombina y Capitular Sevilla Cod. 7-1-15. See also Ritoók, AAntHung 23 (1975) 403–415. 59 Id. 1.12: τὸ κλιµακωτὸν καλούµενον σχῆµα, ὃ δὴ σπάνιον παρὰ τῷ ῥήτορι, µᾶλλον δὲ οὐδὲ σπάνιον, ἀλλ’ ἅπαξ ἢ δὶς εἰρηµένον. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 237 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 In the last stage of production Lianori returned to his original master copy and transcribed its Greek marginalia. Benedetto Bursa’s exemplar contains several hundred annotations not only to the Greek lemmata but also to the Latin glosses. It is clear that Lianori was only interested in the notes to the Greek and omitted the rest. He also excluded most of the comments that do not contain an ancient quotation. The Greek mar- ginalia are written with the medium brown ink and the thicker pen used for the Greek lemmata. On several occasions Lianori abridges notes that are not quotations from classical authors. These too provide strong evidence about the textual de- pendence between the two manuscripts. To conclude, our analysis shows that Lianori followed a four- step process: he first transcribed the entries from his master copy; he then improved the Latin glosses with the help of a bilingual dictionary; next he made corrections and additions, relying on his own translation notes; finally, he copied the marginal glosses of the Escorial manuscript, occasionally with omissions, translation, or abridgement. The sequential writing of each step suggests that Lianori prepared the vocabulary for his personal use while learning the language, and that each stage was added in accordance with his growing mastery. We now return to the question of the various hands iden- tified by previous scholars. If we place side by side the columns of Greek lemmata in the two manuscripts, the palaeographical similarities are immediately striking ( figs. 12 and 13; see also figs. 9 and 10). With few exceptions (θ, β, and δ) the individual letters closely resemble each other in type, shape, and size, including how each stroke and diacritical sign is drawn. Lianori seems intent on imitating the script he was copying, a well- known method of acquiring scribal expertise. In contrast, the cursive style, ligatures, and abbreviations of the marginal glosses reflect more advanced skills and individuality that deviates markedly from the marginalia in Es (cf. the α, λ, ν, π, and τ in figs. 14 and 15). 238 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Figure 12: Escor. Σ I 12, fol. 173r Figure 13: Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 123r ——— Figure 14: Escor. Σ I 12, fol. 201r Figure 15: Suppl. gr. 45. fol. 162r ——— GÁBOR BOLONYAI 239 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 It seems then that the stylistic discrepancies in W1 that led scholars to posit several copyists are best explained as reflecting different stages of scribal proficiency. The lemmata reflect more rudimentary skills, the marginal notes more developed ones. The rest of the manuscript, including the additional entries and the final sections (298r to 333v), exhibits various transitional forms. The whole codex mirrors Lianori’s ap- prenticeship as a scribe.60 Janus Pannonius, on the other hand, does not seem to have played a role in the making of the codex. It is not clear why he did not update the dictionary as Lianori, Bursa, or Sangundino did. Perhaps he did not have a penchant for meticulous philology and diligent note-taking,61 even though his trans- lations show a keen awareness of semantic nuance62 and he seems to have consulted the dictionary for his translations. On the whole, it seems fair to say that Janus did not have the same interest in lexicography as other users of Pseudo-Cyril.63 60 It is interesting that a similar problem of attribution was raised by another manuscript, similarly lacking uniformity, copied by Lianori during this time. In Biblioteca Universitaria Salm. 279, dated to 6 November 1447 on the last folio, S. Martinelli Tempesta distinguished five or six hands (“Verso una nuova edizione del Panegirico di Isocrate,” in M. Fassino et al. (eds.), Studi sulla tradizione del testo de Isocrate (Florence 2003) 112–113); while Teresa Martínez Manzano, focusing on the many similar features, at- tributed each unit but one (9r–20r) to Lianori (“Autógrafos griegos de Lianoro Lianori en la Biblioteca Universitaria de Salamanca,” Scriptorium 58 (2004) 22, “El texto de Isócrates del Salm. 279,” CFC(G) 16 (2006) 212–216, and Historia 158). 61 As plausibly suggested by Kapitánffy, AAntHung 36 (1995) 351–354. 62 Horváth, AAntHung 41 (2001) 199–215. 63 The only gloss in the codex which does not seem by the hand of Lianori is ἐρέα lanicium in 110v (see fig. 16). It does not bear resemblance to Janus’s supposed signature in the Budapest codex Magyar Országos Levéltár, Diplomatikai Levéltár 59 506, published in T. Kardos et al. (eds.), Janus Pannonius (Budapest 1975) 207. 240 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Figure 16: ÖNB Suppl.gr. 45, fol. 110v ——— Janus’s fascination with Greek literature was unique in Hungary. After one and a half decades of slumber, only the 1480s would again see a surge of interest in Greek language and culture. It was linked to Matthias’s ambitious plan to create a royal library with a separate collection of Greek manu- scripts. To this end he nominated Taddeo Ugoleto, who was in close contact with several leading humanists all over Italy. The story of Janus Pannonius’s dictionary ends with Matthias’s royal librarian. Besides collecting, copying, and organizing the books, Ugoleto sought to make the library more useful to patrons. When he received an exemplar in November of 1483 of the second printed edition of Crastoni’s Greek-Latin dictionary, he spent the next eight months collating Janus’s manuscript with his own printed dictionary, painstakingly merging the ancient and humanist transitions by transcribing more than one thousand entries from W1 in the margin of his book.64 Ugoleto’s transcriptions provide direct textual evidence for the availability of Janus’s vocabulary in Matthias’s Royal Library after his death in 1472. It is likely that Ugoleto im- proved his dictionary because, being at the time in charge of educating Johannes (János) Corvin, Matthias’s illegitimate son, he was expected to teach him both Latin and Greek.65 János 64 G. Bolonyai, “Taddeo Ugoleto’s Marginal Notes on his Brand-new Crastonus Dictionary,” in Matthias Corvinus und seine Zeit 119–154. 65 Naldo Naldi, Epistola de laudibus augustae bibliothecae 1.352–356: Taddaeus eundem [sc. Johannem] / edocuit Graios etiam recludere fontes: / Usque adeo puer ut legeret quaecumque fuere / Scripta per auctores, quos Graecia protulit olim, / Vates atque bonos, oratoresque supremos. GÁBOR BOLONYAI 241 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 Corvin is thus also among the few Hungarians known to have learned Greek in the fifteenth century, but in contrast to the previous possessor of the vocabulary he did not have any literary ambition. The dictionary was finally acquired ca. 1503 by Johan Cuspinianus,66 and it is thanks to him that the man- uscript found a safe place to survive in the Hofbibliothek in Vienna.67 APPENDIX Quotations with explicit references: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45 (W1) Source 1. apud ph〈ilosoph〉um is qui aeqaliter partitur mala cuius contrarius est ἄνισος Arist. Eth.Nic. 1129a33 2. ἀριστοτέλης νόµισµα λέγεται ὅτι οὐ φύσει, ἀλλὰ νόµῳ ἐστὶ Eth.Nic.1133a30 3. στόλος classis. || agm〈en〉 || in mari. posset forsan dici etiam de terrestri exercitu ut Demosth〈enes〉68 τὸν ἐκ ἁπάσης τῆς ἠπείρου στόλον ἐλθόντα Dem. Or. 60 = Epitaph. 10 τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς ᾿Ασίας στόλον ἐλθόντα 4. γενεά generatio. nativitas. propagatio. progenies. hoc seculum Es γενεά generatio. progenies. [in margine laevo:] spatium xxx annorum. familia. [in margine dextero:] Herodotus uero ait γενεαὶ τρεὶς [sic] ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν ἔτεα ἐστί [sic] Hdt. 2.142 γενεαὶ γὰρ τρεῖς ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν ἔτεά ἐστι 5. ἥµισυ dimidium. semis. [in margine:] in a〈ccusa〉t〈iv〉o pl〈urali〉 ἡμίσεα sine synaeresi dicitur. Xen〈ophon〉 Xen. An. 1.9.26, Cyr. 8.3.10, Ages. 4.5 6. πολιτεύοµαι urbanor civilitor [in margine:] ὁ Ξενοφῶν καὶ πολιτεύω λέγει Perhaps Xen. An. 3.2.26 66 Ötvös, Janus Pannonius 244–245. 67 This study is part of a project on the reception of Greek culture in the Renaissance supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund – NKFI/OTKA (project number K 112283). 68 In Janus Pannonius’s translation: Illi classem ex universa venientem Asia. Cf. also Suda s.v. Στόλος: καὶ τὸ πεζικὸν στράτευµα. ᾿Αρριανός (= FGrHist 156 F 167) … κυρίως δὲ ὁ ναυτικός. 242 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 7. στόµα :- || καὶ στόµιον os. buoca. frons || Xenophon utitur saepe. :- prior pars agminis. os agminis E.g. Xen. An. 3.4.42 8. φάλαγξ legio gionis acies ei Es φ. l. a. et aranea [in margine:] in duali potest esse genus masculinum attice nam ξενοφών dicit τὼ φαλάγγε [sic] Xen. An. 1.8.17 (hapax) 9. χρῶµαι utor. uteris. usito. usurpo χρῶµαι χρῇ licet veniat ab άω utor. usito. usurpo et interrogo et interficio Xenophon facit synairesim eius etiam in am dicens χρᾶσθαι Used in fact only by Herodotus, e.g. 1.22 Inserted words with likely sources: ÖNB Suppl. gr. 45 (W1) Source ἀλείπτης unctor || palaestrae praeceptor Ar. Eth.Nic. 1106b1 ἀληθευτικὸς verax. veridicus Eth.Nic. 1127a24 ἀµυντικός punitivus Eth.Nic. 1126a7 ἀναλογία proportionalitas, convenientia duarum proportionum inter se, ut ita habet se octo ad 4 ut 10 ad 5 Cf. Eth.Nic. 1131a31, b6- 7 ἀνδραποδῶδες servile Eth.Nic. 1126a9 ἀνθρωπικός naturalis homini Eth.Nic. 1163b24 ἀνθρωπολόγος idem hominibus multum loquens Eth.Nic. 1125a5 ἀοργησία inirascentia Eth.Nic. 1126a3 αὐτάρκης contentus [in margine:] per se sufficiens Eth.Nic. 1125a12 et passim δεητικός precativus Eth.Nic. 1125a10 διανεµητικόν distributivum Eth.Nic. 1134a4 διέρχοµαι transigo. pertracto ἐπέρχοµαι idem Eth.Nic. 1111b5 et al., ἐπέρχοµαι: 1127a15 δικαιοπράγηµα communiter dicitur operatio iusti. δικαί- ωµα uero emendatio iniqui. δικαιοπραγέω iusta opero Eth.Nic. 1135a14 δολοφονία occulta necatio Eth.Nic. 1131a7 δουλαπατία fraus Eth.Nic. 1131a7 δυσδιάλυτος indissolubilis Eth.Nic. 1126a20 δωροδόκος ambitiosus. corruptus. suscipiens munera in corruptionem Eth.Nic. 1163b11 ἐγκρατής continens. tenax. compos || qui motus ad libidinem coercet se Eth.Nic. 1145b10 GÁBOR BOLONYAI 243 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 ἐγκράτεια continentia. tenacitas || refrenatio motus venerei Eth.Nic. 1145b8 et al. εἴρων ironicus. simulator Eth.Nic. 1127a22 et al. ἐµµελῶς apte. decenter. moderate Eth.Nic. 1128a10 et al. ἐναντίωσις adversatio Eth.Nic. 1126b34 ἐνεργέω ago Eth.Nic. 1105a16 et al. ἐπαινετικός studiosus laudari Eth.Nic. 1125a8 ἐπιδεξιότης dexteritas Eth.Nic. 1128a18 ἐπιεικής aequus. probus. mitis. modestus [in margine:] is qui vocatur bonus et aequus Eth.Nic. 1127b3 ἐπιείκεια aequita. probitas. [in margine:] benignitas Eth.Nic. 1137a32 et al. ἐπιεικῶς clementer. [in margine:] virtuose. mansuete. mediocriter Eth.Nic. 1180a8 εὐεκτικός efficiens bonam habitudinem Eth.Nic. 1129a24 εὐεξία σώµατος incolumitas. sanitas || bona habitudo = valetudo Eth.Nic. 1129a20 ὀγκηρός tumidus Eth.Nic. 1127b27 ὀλοφυρτικός querulous Eth.Nic. 1125a9-10 ὀξυφωνία volubilitas linguae, stridula vocis acies Eth.Nic. 1125a15 ὁρίζω instituo [in margine:] et def[f]inio ὁριστέον determinandum. Definiendum perhaps Eth.Nic. 1128a25 ὀργιλότης iracundia Eth.Nic. 1125b29 ὀργιστέον irascendum est Eth.Nic. 1126a35 or 1131a8 παρρησία licentia. fiducia [in margine:] libertas praecipue in loquendo Eth.Nic. 1124b29 πήρωσις orbitas [in margine:] orbatio Eth.Nic. 1131a8 πραότης mansuetudo [in margine:] modestia. Temperantia Eth.Nic. 1125b28 προαγωγία dolus. pellectio Eth.Nic. 1131a7 προπηλακίζω impulso. as || vitupero. conuitior Eth.Nic. 1126a7 προπηλακισµός [in margine:] contumelia Eth.Nic. 1131a7 προσποιητικός simulativus Eth.Nic. 1127a22 πρόσπταισµα cespitatio offensio pedis Eth.Nic. 1138b3 προσπταίω idem Eth.Nic. 1138b4 σπευστικός properus Eth.Nic. 1125a14 244 WHO COPIED PANNONIUS’S DICTIONARY? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 214–244 στάσιµος stativus. [in margine:] stabilis. firmus Eth.Nic. 1125a14 συγγνωµονικός dativus veniae Eth.Nic. 1126a3 συνηδύνω conplaceo Eth.Nic. 1126b32 σύντονος autem vehemens Eth.Nic. 1125a16 τιµωρητικός vindicaturus Eth.Nic. 1126a2 φανεροµισής qui aperte odit Eth.Nic. 1124b26 (hapax) φανερόφιλος qui aperte diligit Eth.Nic. 1124b27 (hapax) φιλοκίνδυνος studiosus periclitandi. crebris se exponens periculis Eth.Nic. 1124b27 χαῦνος laxus. elatus [in margine:] tumens et inflatus opinione sui (B: tumens) χαυνότης hoc vitium Eth.Nic. 1125a18 ψεκτός vituperandum Eth.Nic. 1226b3 ψευδοµαρτυρία falsum testimonium perhaps Eth.Nic. 1131a7 ψηφισµατῶδες decretale. decretum publicum perhaps Eth.Nic. 1134b24 [in margine:] κλιµακωτόν oratio per gradationem Cp. Hermog. Id. 1.12 (Dem. De corona 179) γέρρον [in margine:] γερροφόρος ferens gerrum Xen. An. 1.8.9 δρεπανηφόρον ἅρµα falcatus currus Xen. An. 1.7.11 εὐεπίθετος facilis inuasu Xen. An. 3.4.20 εὔπρακτον facile factu Xen. An. 2.3.21 ζωστήρ cingulum. balteus || nomen loci in littore attico Xen. Hell. 5.1.9 [in margine:] ἰσόπλευρον aequilaterale Xen. An. 3.4.19 µακριστός qui est vel appelatus beatus Xen. An. 1.9.7 ὁµοτράπεζος de eadem mensa Xen. An. 3.2.4 παραθαρρύνω conforto. bene sperare iubeo Xen. An. 3.1.39 March, 2023 Greek Department Eötvös Loránd University Budapest, Hungary bolonyai.gabor@btk.elte.hu