Iani Pannonii Opera Quae Manserunt Omnia Volumen I Epigrammata Fasciculus 1 Textus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IANI PANNONII OPERA QUAE MANSERUNT OMNIA VOLUMEN I EPIGRAMMATA FASCICULUS 1 TEXTUS 1 IANI PANNONII OPERA QUAE MANSERUNT OMNIA SERIEM REDIGUNT STEPHANUS BORZSÁK ET AGNES RITOÓK-SZALAY INSTITUTUM LITTERARUM ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM HUNGARICAE SECTIO LITTERARUM RENASCENTIUM 2 IANI PANNONII OPERA QUAE MANSERUNT OMNIA VOLUMEN I EPIGRAMMATA FASCICULUS 1 TEXTUS EDIDIT, PRAEFATUS EST ET APPARATU CRITICO INSTRUXIT IULIUS MAYER SIMILIA ADDIDIT LADISLAUS TÖRÖK BALASSI KIADÓ · BUDAPEST 3 The book has been sponsored by “Research into the exploration, recording and publication of Hungarian cultural and historical relics” programme Hungarian Academy of Sciences National Cultural Fund The printed edition appeared in 2006 Digital edition, v. 1.01, 2014 c Gyula Mayer (ed., praef., critical apparatus), 2006 c László Török (apparatus of similar passages), 2006 c Miklós Bodóczky (English translation), 2006 ISBN 963 506 677 5 (Series) ISBN 963 506 676 7 (Volumen I/1) 4 Contents Preface............................................ 7 Introduction....................................... 9 The contents of the present fascicle: epigrams . ......... 9 The manuscript and printed tradition . ...... 10 Themanuscripts ................................. 11 Manuscripts without one- or two-letter sigla . ...... 20 Theearlyprints.................................. 22 Printswithouttwo-lettersigla . 26 Historyofthetexteditions. 28 The publications of Janus Pannonius’ works until 1754 . ....... 28 The Utrecht publication by Teleki and Kovásznai . ...... 28 The manuscript and printed sources drawn on for the Utrecht edition . 29 TheresearchesofJózsefKoller. 30 Teleki’s “Jani inedita” manuscript “supplementary volume”........... 31 The work of JenoÁbel..............................˝ 32 JózsefHusztiandLászlóJuhász . 33 Thepost-Juhászyears .............................. 34 Classification of the textual tradition . ......... 35 The Buda Corpus and S ............................. 35 Thesporadictradition .............................. 56 References.......................................... 61 Abbreviations ...................................... 67 Epigrammata ........................................ 71 Dubia..........................................262 Appendix ........................................263 Initiaepigrammatum ................................. 269 Tables ............................................279 6 Preface The publication of the surviving works of Janus Pannonius, the first step of which is the present edition, was launched at the instigation of Tibor Klaniczay1 and the editor was in- vited to the project at the suggestion of István Borzsák. We plan to bring out two subseries: one containing the texts, critical introductions, critical apparatus and the similia apparatus; the other the commentary. Detailed indices and glossary of latin words2 will round off the series. The fascicle containing the epigrams will, according to our plans, be followed by the ele- gies; the third fascicle will include the panegyrics, the Carmen pro pacanda Italia, Carmen ad Ludovicum Gonzagam and Eranemos; the last one Janus Pannonius’ prose and Homer transla- tions, and his letters. Since obviously there was no authentic edition of the epigrams, and the surviving col- lections have been created after the death of Janus, it was decided to arrange all epigrams in a single series according their chronological order. The chronology has been established by Ágnes Ritoók-Szalay. Details will be given by her in the commentary. Of course, this chronology of the epigrams can be seen in many cases only approximate. The textual tradition, in manuscript and printed, has been treated so far in the greatest detail by Csaba Csapodi,3 whose work will be referred to repeatedly throughout this book. The apparatus of similia has been written by László Török. In the first place, he tried to collect similar passages or references in the classical and contemporary poetic language, here and there also reminiscences in the latin poetry of 16th century Hungary, and—where appropriate—to cite historiographical sources of the Hungarian Middle Ages. The editor of the text contributed only on rare occasions. The collation of Epg. II 1–21 in the edition of Sambucus (Eh) was performed by Martina Monostori. 1 Cf. Borzsák, István: Dragma I., Budapest, Telosz, 1994, 410. 2 Until then the best reference for the words beginning with A–I is Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi Hun- gariae. A magyarországi középkori latinság szótára, eds. Iván Boronkai, Ibolya Bellus and Kornél Szovák, Budapest, 1987–1999. 3 See item [16] among the references on p. 61ff., abbreviated as Cs. 7 8 Introduction The contents of the present fascicle: epigrams In the long tradition of collecting and editing Janus’ works, the great bulk of shorter poems has been treated together, and we followed the same principle. The large collection represented in several codices and to be called the Buda Corpus (see p. 35) is fairly homogeneous not only in its textual tradition, but also in genre; the classification of the texts as epigrams cannot be doubted. However, in the case of the sporadic tradition the titles and other circumstances do not afford any classification according to genre, so it is customary to apply somewhat simplifying and arbitrary, pragmatic criteria. The “medium- length” poems written in the antique elegiac metre, which remain within the province of the antique elegy also in terms of content, are referred to as elegies (cf. [36, 62–63] and [27, 299]). The “longer” epic poems stand apart within the collection(Carmina Heroica in Teleki and Kovásznai), to which one might add the translations of the two excerpts from Homer. Lastly, all the rest of Janus’ poems are classified as epigrams, including the translations from the Anthologia Palatina and the short Hesiod4 excerpt, too.5 Accordingly, the hendecasyllable Abiens valere iubet sanctos reges Waradini (“Farewell to Várad” Epg. II 5 T. = 321 M., cf. [27, 294]) and the two poems Ad Henricum poetam Ger- manicum6, one iambic-epodic (3 Horváth = 452 M., trimetre + dimetre), one Sapphic (4 Horváth = 453 M.) came under this category. As a consequence of this practice, some poems closely connected in the textual tradition were separated, such as Epg. II 2 T. = 304 M. and Eleg. II 2, both written on the death of Andreola. The two poems feature together in eight of the nine known codices that contain the full elegy (only the Vatican X lacks the epigram) and in the Rhenanus edition, and only the Seville T and the Roman (Biblioteca Angelica, Qr) codex feature the epigram without the elegy. A similar, but less frequently featuring pair is El. I 6 + Epg. II 1 T. = 388 M., written on the death of his mother Barbara, that appears in both the codices AX and in Beatus Rhenanus’ Jr; codex T again contains the epigram without the elegy. The two poems written to Antonius Maria (El. II 12–13 in Teleki and Kovásznai)—while not written on the same occasion—can also be considered a pair. They have come down to us only in Sambucus’ 1569 edition (f. XXXV–XXXVI), in the part preceding the epigrams. The latter is a mere ten-line propempticon, and as such, its classification is ambivalent. Huszti [36, 64] has called it Janus’ shortest elegy, but Sándor V. Kovács [77, 134 nr. 256] has good reason to place it among the epigrams, and we follow him (Epg. 315 here). 4 Cf. [39, 67]. 5 The question of Janus Pannonius’ genres has been explored in great detail, with regard to content, by János Horváth in his much quoted anniversary essay [29] = [27]. 6 After János Horváth [30, 7–9] Ágnes Ritoók-Szalay [61, 15, 62–4] sought to substantiate their authenticity. 9 Csapodi Csaba (Cs. 34) has also mentioned the fact that Beatus Rhenanus termed all of Janus’ works he published epigrammata, with the exception of the Guarino panegyric.7 Among the elegies in the third part of the Vatican codex (X, f. 83) there is a poem lam- pooning Karolus: Huszti reasons that this is because it is somewhat longer than the average epigram, and thinks its placement might be deliberate on the part of the author, while its very first line bears resemblance to one of Janus Pannonius’ epigrams: In Karolum (127,1sq. Á. = 213 M.) Cf. Epg. I 140,9–10 T. = 378 M. Irrita si nostram non fallit opinio mentem, Quodsi non fallit cupidam spes irrita mentem, Pegasei cultor, docte Karole, chori, . tota tuo nobis pectore Roma venit. Unfortunately, no other manuscript of the poem has turned up yet (although the elegies preceding and following it in manuscript X also appear in the second Seville Codex, albeit in different places), and there can be found no title in the Vatican manuscript. The conclusive element in establishing Janus Pannonius’ conception of the elegy is the fact—as Csaba Csapodi has pointed out in detail—that the first 12 elegies in the first book form that portion of Janus Pannonius’ elegies which was almost certainly put together by the author himself for Marsilio Ficino. Ficino’s well-known dedication (Quod quidem fore facil- lime spero, si modo mea haec amatoria tibi aeque, aut saltem non multo minus placeant, ac tuae nobis elegiae probantur. Hae quidem nos summopere delectarunt, utinam nostra tuas aures non offendant! Á. 2028) at the same time attestes the use of the term elegiae9, at least in the case of these poems written mostly in Hungary. Epg. I 174 T. = 37 M. (Ad Grillum) shows how Janus Pannonius understood the word: Grylle, Lycambeos alias mittemus iambos; imbelles elegi nunc tibi munus erunt. Taking into account the above considerations, the pieces