Horler Miklós: Budapest 1. budai királyi palota 1. Középkori idomtégla töredékek (Magyarország építészeti töredékeinek gyűjteménye 4. Budapest, 1995) (Magyarország építészeti töredékeinek gyűjteménye 4. Budapest, 1998)

András Végh: Medieval Terracotta finds from the royal Palace of Buda

thirteenth century palace building to have stood. From the fourteenth century group fragments of friezes and ornamented jambs are shown in photographs, together with some structural elements and reconstruction drawings already published in his 1966 study. Again he attempted, with the help of written evidence, to place these pieces to the East Wing of the Courtyard I. He refers to a strong Italian influence evident not only in the decoration of the pieces, but also in the formation of structural elements, for example, the characteristic twin windows of the Italian palazzo. He did not, however, develop the ideas contained in his 1966 study. In 1973 László Zolnay began excavations in the Northern Outer Bailey of the royal palace; this gave new life to the Buda debate. Now the terracotta pieces once again attracted special attention, and for two different reasons. For one thing a considerable number of new pieces were unearthed in the course of the excavations, and, secondly, the findings confirmed Zolnay's earlier theory, whereas the pieces discovered up to then seemed to be supporting László Gerevich's theory. Zolnay discussed the issue at length in his first, preliminary report on the excavations and published some drawings illustrating the recent finds.'

8 He endeavoured to refute the existence of thirteenth century terracotta pieces by declining to accept the stylistic definitions of László Gerevich. He joined Jolán Balogh in claiming that the patterns, earlier considered Romanesque were in fact Renaissance and actually took over some of the parallels she drew. In dating the pieces, however, Zolnay was more liberal than Balogh; he allowed for the whole of the fifteenth century as the time of their genesis, and he named King Sigismund of Luxemburg, his wife, Queen Barbara and King Matthias I Corvinus (Hunyadi) as the probable commissioners. Zolnay expressed no opinion in the matter of classification. He stated, and this is important even so it was unsupported by evidence, that no terracotta pieces were found in any of the early deposits and pits; at the same time, it also called attention to the fact that the pieces were found distributed across a rather large area. He also published two interesting historical records which tell of brick, if not terracotta, architecture at the time of King Sigismund of Luxemburg.

19 Alter all, we may say that László Zolnay, instead of systematically examining the terracotta pieces, only dealt with some of those aspects of the problem which seemed to contradict László Gerevich's hypothesis. It was in connection with the Zolnay excavations that György Duma conduced the chemical analysis of the material, also paying attention to the most recent finds.

20 The special significance of Duma's work lies in his methods, which were completely different from those employed by his art historian predecessors. As his study is re-published in the present volume, here we shall only give a short summary of his conclusions. György Duma was the first person to examine the surface of the terracottas and, on the basis of his observations, to draw conclusions as to how they were made. His laboratory tests proved that all pieces, regardless of their ornamentation, were made of the same material, which he managed to define as originating from local clay in the vicinity of Buda. Duma's results, therefore, do not facilitate any classification and different dating of separate groups. László Gerevich discussed the issue of the terracottas again in his study of the Buda Castle, published in the catalogue of the 1987 exhibition entitled "The Arts in the Age of King Sigismund".

21 Here he once again expounds his theory on the location of the fourteenth century fragments, adding a new claim to the effect that a considerable number of the pieces were made at the beginning of the fifteenth century, during the reign of King Sigismund of Luxemburg. However, this assertion is not discussed in detail; moreover, it is not clear which bricks Gerevich had in mind. The two-volume summery of the history of the fourteenth- and fifteenth century art and architecture in Hungary has also got to be mentioned in this context.

22 In it, the terracotta pieces are being mentioned only very briefly

—in one paragraph. This well illustrates the uncertainty with which specialists have related to the question, and the evident lack of information concerning it. Ernő Marosi discusses the bricks in the chapter on late Gothic style during the Matthias I Corvinus era, indicating his acceptance of Jolán Balogh's style-based definition. It is interesting that, like László Gerevich, Marosi—based on the fifteenth century description of Naldo Naldi, to be discussed in Chapter III

—assumes the east wing of Courtyard I to have been the original location of the bricks, although in a quite different period. László Urbán's work on the library of King Matthias I Corvinus presents a good example of the confusion caused by the different, often contradictory, theories. The author

—based on Balogh—accepts the fifteenth century as the date of the bricks. At the same time he uses as illustrations

—based on Gerevich

—the thirteenth century window and fourteenth century tracery reconstructions. Finally, based on Naldo Naldi's description he locates all this on the east wing of Courtyard I. As we could see, scholars of the terracottas have been influenced basically by the views of László Gerevich and Jolán Balogh when it came to style and dating of the pieces. Both of them identified northern