AZ ORSZÁGOS SZÉCHÉNYI KÖNYVTÁR ÉVKÖNYVE 1958. Budapest (1959)

III. Az OSZK gyűjteményeinek anyagából - Borsa Gedeon: A Breviárium Strigoniense újabban fellelt ősnyomtatvány kiadása

egyik adata (Nr. 2753), amelyet hazai szakirodalmunk — tudomásom szerint — eddig nem ismert. Eszerint a boroszlói Egyetemi Könyvtár egy csonka Diurnale Strigoniense-t őrzött, amely feltehetően az 1500 utáni évek egyikében jelent meg. Sajnos a példány ma nem található. An unknown edition of the Breviárium Strigoniense GEDEON BORSA The article describes a so far unknown edition of a badly defective breviary from Esztergom (Strigonium) in the holdings of the National Széchényi Library. Almost a dozen editions of breviaries printed for the Esztergom archdiocese between 1480 to 1524 are hitherto known, the copy in question cannot, however, be identified with either of these. From an examination of the type it appears that this breviary must have been printed by Thomas de Blavis of Venice, assumably in 1486. As this early printed book has not been recorded in the respective volume of the Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, the bibliographical description was made in the style of the GW. The author is making an attempt at a relatively accurate reconstruction of the extent and contents of the 5 and 15 sheets respectively, missing from the front and back of this unique copy. He was aided in this attempt by traces of the stitching still adhering to the back, by the comparison with other existing editions and finally, by handwritten references in it to pages missing from this copy. A critical examination of the existing pages and of the text reconstructed in the described manner confirm the time of printing previously approximately established on the basis of the type of letters. The construction and text of this edition of the Breviárium Strigoniense differ in many cases both from former and later editions; at the same time it represents a transitional form between the two main types. From the critical examination of the text and from the single formal elements the conclusion can be drawn that the breviary under discussion was not printed on the basis of an earlier printed edition, but of a manuscript. The defective binding of the copy stems from the beginning of the 16th century; no information is available as to its earlier provenience. 237