Tractatus de herbis

Hungarian historian and archivist Gyula Schönherr (1864–1908) noticed the codex at an exhibition in Rome in 1903, and in his 1904 study he identified it as a corvina on the basis of the coat-of-arms of Matthias Corvinus on the title page.[1] The coat-of-arms of Matthias was painted on an earlier coat-of-arms. The older coat-of-arms, which is visible in backlighting when viewed from the verso side, is described by Gyula Schönherr as a ‘crownless, one-headed eagle with extended wings’.[2] Based on this, and the dignitaries depicted on the title page, Schönherr correctly concluded that the earlier owner of the manuscript was Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia (King of Germany 1376–1400, King of Bohemia 1378–1419).[3]

Schönherr, who assumed that the illustrators of the manuscript knew exactly when each of the electors had attained their rank, how old they were and what they looked like, dated the manuscript to sometime between April and December 1397, based on the electors on the title page.[4] It is questionable whether the illustrations allow such a precise dating; in any case, the title page depicting Wenceslaus was certainly made in the last years of the fourteenth century.

The text mostly discusses plants, animals and metals and their medical uses in alphabetical order. Researchers have long had difficulty in identifying the work precisely. An entry made by an eighteenth-century hand on the original fol. [II] verso of the manuscript identifies the work as Historia plantarum by Rodericus Fonseca Lusitanus (Rodrigo da Fonseca, 1550–1622), but this is not possible for chronological reasons alone.[5] Based on the study of Schönherr, the manuscript was long known as a medical encyclopedia (Encyclopedia medica).[6] The illustrations are related to the Tacuinum sanitatis manuscripts,[7] which is why the codex has already been treated as belonging to this family by some authors.[8] A comparative study was carried out by Minta Collins in her 2000 book, identifying the codex as a Tractatus de herbis manuscript (and not Tacuinum sanitatis).[9] She suggests that the text of the manuscript may have been copied from MS BnF Latin 6823,[10] and sometime after 1440 a copy was in turn made of our manuscript: Cod. 604 of the Munich University Library.[11] Where our manuscript was located at this time is not known, but it is possible that it was in Buda.

Based on the depiction of Wenceslaus, Schönherr assumed that the illuminations were also made in Bohemia, but research very soon, as early as the 1910s, concluded that the manuscript was of Lombardian (Milanese) origin. In 1911, Betty Kurth had already linked the manuscript to the person of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan (r. 1395–1402), on the basis of iconographic elements, but she thought it to be the product of a workshop in Verona.[12] In 1912 Pietro Toesca already attributed the decoration to Giovannino de’ Grassi (c. 1350–1398) and several other miniaturists who worked with him.[13] The link with Grassi is further strengthened by the fact that some of the animal illustrations in the famous Bergamo sketchbook of the Grassi workshop were copied from the present manuscript.[14] Minta Collins drew parallels with Gian Galeazzo Visconti’s Book of Hours, especially its first part (Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale, Banco Rari 397).[15] It is assumed that Gian Galeazzo Visconti was the first to order an illustrated copy of Tacuinum sanitatis, a work of similar content, from Giovannino de’ Grassi.[16] The dating based on artistic parallels (1395–1400)[17] does not contradict the one proposed by Schönherr. On the basis of the manuscript’s association with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Kurth had already suggested that it was a gift to the King of Germany from the Duke of Milan,[18] who was on very good terms with Wenceslaus.[19] In fact, we do not know for certain whether the volume was actually a gift to Wenceslaus, or made for Gian Galeazzo or someone in his immediate circle.[20]

It is important to note that the codex was written by two different hands (fol. 1 r–v.; fol. 2. r.–fol. 295 r.).[21] This explains why the first entry of the encyclopaedia, Aurum (gold), does not fit into the alphabetic order followed by the later entries (beginning with Absinthium): it was not written at the same time as the rest of the text.[22] (Schönherr, unaware of the two different hands, was forced to assume that gold, the ‘king of metals’ was taken out of the alphabetic order out of respect.[23]) This raises the possibility that the manuscript’s illustrations were not produced at the same time.

As to when and how the manuscript came to Buda from the library of Wenceslaus, we can only speculate, as in the case of the Tetrabiblos commentary, also from his library. It is characteristic that both scientific manuscripts were inherited by Matthias and not added to the collection as part of the humanist library expansion concept. Incidentally, the same version of the coat-of-arms of Matthias appears in both manuscripts.

A special feature of this manuscript is that entries in Hungarian language can be found on the top of 87 pages, the Hungarian names of the plants and animals depicted. In addition, two recipes in Latin are also included in the manuscript, one of which also contains Hungarian words. The transcription of the Hungarian words had already been published by Schönherr, who also used other early Hungarian word lists to put them into context.[24] According to Schönherr, the differences in the way the sounds are marked with letters suggest that the entries were written by four different hands,[25] the first of which Schönherr dated to the third quarter of the fifteenth century (1450–1475), the others to the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Schönherr states that the two recipes were written by the same hand, the earliest. Again, it is questionable whether such a precise dating of the entries is possible; in any case, the entries are certainly from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

In the second recipe, the glossator mentions that it was tried by the Pauline hermits. This forms the basis of the popular theory that the manuscript was used for a longer period in the Pauline monastery of Budaszentlőrinc during the lifetime of Matthias or after his death.[26] This idea has already been established by Schönherr’s article, according to which ‘the codex may have been taken out of the royal library of Buda by the Pauline monks during the reign of King Matthias, but in any case long before the conquest of Buda [1541], and was in use among Hungarians for a long time.’[27] However, the entry does not in itself prove that the manuscript was in the possession of the Pauline monks, so this theory can neither be proved nor disproved on the basis of the sources currently available.

No one has yet succeeded in deciphering the Italian inscription on the last page of the manuscript, but its date (13 March 1546) suggests that by this time the volume was already in an Italian milieu. According to Schönherr, the type of the library stamp on the title page clearly proves that the manuscript was added to the library of Cardinal Girolamo Casanate (1620–1700) during his lifetime,[28] although the first mention of it dates from 1744.[29]

The plant illustrations in the manuscript are botanically accurate, and in many cases it is clear that the illustrator (or his source) saw the animals depicted with his own eyes (e.g. leopard). Although Minta Collins’ assessment is that it is not one of the most beautiful manuscripts in the genre,[30] some of the animal illustrations are of artistic merit (e.g. fol. 141. r–v.). The usefulness of the plant illustrations as sources has been recognised in the botanical literature.[31]

A facsimile edition of the manuscript has been published,[32] as well as an Italian translation accompanied by a volume of studies.[33] (Márton Veszprémy)

The data sheet below is partly based on: CECCOPIERI, Isabella, „Descrizione codicologica”, in Historia plantarum. Volume di commento. Erbe, oro e medicina nei codici medievali. A cure di SERGE RUTZ, Vera (Modena: Panini, cop. 2002), 265–270.

[1] SCHÖNHERR Gyula, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”. Magyar Könyvszemle 12. évf. (1904) 4. sz., 435–469.

[2] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 442.

[3] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 447.

[4] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 447.

[5] On the basis of this entry it is often assumed that at some point in its history the manuscript may have come in contact with Rodrigo da Fonseca, but there is no evidence of this at present.

[6] „(…) our codex belongs to a group of medical manuals based on Arabic sources (…)” SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 444., cf. CSAPODI, Csaba, The Corvinian Library. History and Stock [transl. GOMBOS, Imre] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973) 414., CSAPODI Csaba, CSAPODINÉ GÁRDONYI Klára, Bibliotheca Corviniana. 4. bőv., átd. kiad. (Budapest: Helikon, 1990) 57., JÉKELY Zsombor, „Encyclopedia medica”, in TAKÁCS Imre szerk., Sigismundus rex et imperator. Művészet és kultúra Luxemburgi Zsigmond korában, 1387–1437. Kiállítási katalógus. Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2006. március 18 – június 18., Luxemburg, Musée national d’histoire et d’art, 2006. július 13 – október 15. ([Mainz]: Zabern, [2006]), 392–393.

[7] PÄCHT, Otto, „Early Italian Nature Studies and the Early Calendar Landscape”, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13. (1950) No. 1/2, 13–47., 34., COLLINS, Minta, Medieval Herbals. The Illustrative Tradition. The British Library Studies in Medieval Culture (London: The British Library ; [Toronto]: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 277.
Taqwīm al-Ṣiḥḥa (‘Maintenance of Health’), a work compiled from Greek sources by Ibn Buṭlān (?–1066), a physician from Baghdad, was translated into Latin in Sicily in 1266. The work was then shortened in northern Italy, with unknown species of animals and plants being replaced by local ones, and individual copies adapted to the clients’ needs.. PARIS, Harry S., DAUNAY, Marie-Christine, JANICK, Jules, „The Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae illustrated in medieval manuscripts known as the Tacuinum Sanitatis”, Annals of Botany 103. (2009), 1187– 1205., 1188.

[8] E.g. PARIS, DAUNAY, JANICK, „The Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae”, 1189.

[9] Betty Kurth has already argued that the manuscript is not Tacuinum sanitatis. KURTH, Betty, „Ein Freskenzyklus im Adlerturm zu Trient”, Jahrbuch des kunsthistorischen Instituts der k. k. Zentral-Kommission für Denkmalplege 5. (1911), 9–104., 43., 44.

[10] COLLINS, Medieval Herbals, 275.

[11] COLLINS, Medieval Herbals, 278.

[12] KURTH, „Ein Freskenzyklus”, 45.

[13] TOESCA, Pietro, La pittura e la miniatura nella Lombardia. Dai più antichiti monumenti alla metà del Quattrocento (Milano: Ulrico Hoepli, 1912), 334.

[14] PÄCHT, „Early Italian Nature Studies”, 16., cited by JÉKELY, „Encyclopedia medica”, 393.
The link was already recognised by Pietro Toesca. TOESCA, La pittura e la miniatura nella Lombardia, 336.

[15] COLLINS, Medieval Herbals, 275.

[16] PARIS, DAUNAY, JANICK, „The Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae”, 1188.

[17] COLLINS, Medieval Herbals, 278.

[18]  KURTH, „Ein Freskenzyklus”, 46. The idea was also accepted by Zsombor Jékely. JÉKELY, „Encyclopedia medica”, 393.

[19] KURTH, „Ein Freskenzyklus”, 46., 90. jegyzet, JÉKELY, „Encyclopedia medica”, 393.

[20] COLLINS, Medieval Herbals, 278.

[21] CECCOPIERI, Isabella, „Descrizione codicologica”, in Historia plantarum. Volume di commento. Erbe, oro e medicina nei codici medievali. A cure di SERGE RUTZ, Vera (Modena: Panini, cop. 2002), 265–270., 267

[22] BnF Lat. 6823, on which the text of present manuscript is based according to Minta Collins, also begins with aurum, but the order of the entries in the two manuscripts does not correspond. Thus the identity of the first entry does not exclude the possibility that the entry of aurum in the present manuscript was added later to the already finished work.

[23] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 441–442.

[24] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 451-458, 463-467.

[25] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 461-463.

[26] Vö. CSAPODI, The Corvinian Library 414.

[27] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 450.

[28] SCHÖNHERR, „A római Casanate-könyvtár Korvin-kódexe”, 450.

[29] JÉKELY, „Encyclopedia medica”, 392.

[30] COLLINS, Medieval Herbals, 295.

[31] Pl. PARIS, DAUNAY, JANICK, „The Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae”, PARIS, Harry S., JANICK, Jules, DAUNAY, Marie-Christine, „Medieval Herbal Iconography and Lexicography of Cucumis (Cucumber and Melon, Cucurbitaceae) in the Occident, 1300–1458”, Annals of Botany 108. (2011), 471–484.

[32] Historia plantarum. Roma, Biblioteca Casanatense, ms. 459 „Tacuinum Sanitatis”. Ambito lombardo, seconda metà del XIV secolo. Edizione in facsimile (Modena: Panini, cop. 2001)

[33] Historia plantarum. Ms 459 Biblioteca Castanese. L’enciclopedia medica dell’imperatore Venceslao. The three parts in a common case:
Historia plantarum. Volume di commento. Erbe, oro e medicina nei codici medievali. A cure di SERGE RUTZ, Vera (Modena: Panini, cop. 2002)
Historia plantarum. Traduzione di LAZZARINI, Ennio. Schede descrittive di DI VITO, Mauro e SERGE RUTZ, Vera (Modena: Panini, cop. 2004)
Historia Plantarum. CD-ROM.