Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

21
... :-) ... then you've to find the library of Caesarea ... :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_ ... _(diocese)

.... this was in 16th century a titular see ...
and these were the archbishops in the critical time
Celio Piccolomini (1656–1665?)
Federico Baldeschi Colonna (1665–1675?) .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_ ... hi_Colonna
Savo Millini (1675–1683)
Giacomo Cantelmo (1683–1690) .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Cantelmo

Once in the research of Lazzarelli there was an archbishop of Antiochia (also a titular see), Lorenzo Zane, which seems to have been a man for underground operations of the current pope Sixtus IV, reknown for heavy nepotism and rather criminal activities as for instance the murderous attacks on the Medici brothers.

A titular see might have been a common mechanism to hide something. Federico Baldeschi Colonna had in his 10 years as archbishop this function:
In 1665, at the age of 40, Baldeschi was elected Archbishop of Caesarea and only days later he was appointed Nuncio in Switzerland, a position he held until 1668. In 1668 he was appointed secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide. In early 1673 he was appointed an assessor of the Roman Inquisition.

The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide was an institution to develop missionars.
In this time these political activities took place (Huguenots):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots
Edict of Fontainebleau
Louis XIV inherited the throne in 1643 and acted increasingly aggressively to force the Huguenots to convert. At first he sent missionaries, backed by a fund to financially reward converts to Roman Catholicism. Then he imposed penalties, closed Huguenot schools and excluded them from favoured professions. Escalating, he instituted dragonnades, which included the occupation and looting of Huguenot homes by military troops, in an effort to forcibly convert them. In 1685, he issued the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes and declaring Protestantism illegal
Number of Huguenots in France
1519 None
1560 1.800.000
1572 2.000.000
1600 1.200.000
1685 900.000
1700 100.000 or less
Btw, the book with this very important one sentence of Johannes the Teuto was printed in Paris.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologic ... a_Maritima
This was a famous old library. Using the name Library Caesarea in 17th century can only have been a name useful for propaganda.
Generally it's said, that Dominicans had their foe in the Jesuit Order.

After all, even if you find a smaller edition of the JvR text with only the first part as content in this legendary "Caesarea", you would have the problem, that it's difficult to decide, if this an unfinished start of the original 3-parts-text or if it is indeed a version, that had a deep Dornröschen-sleep waiting for a unknown prince, who wrote the glorious chess version with professions for the number-pawns and the glorious court-girls for the desires of all male chess-players.
Image



:-) .... There are more important objects than this dictionary note.

If one speaks about chess in 14th century, one should know, that Queen and Bishops were very weak figures then. They were improved end of 15th century in Spain. Also one should know, that chess was occasionally played with dice. One should know, that there were altered openings. There was a 4-parties-chess also in Europe. The names of the chess figured were different. "Bishop" is English. "Läufer, Renner, Kurier". The Queen is a European invention. Thee are many Asian chess versions. There are a lot of interesting things ....
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=460&hilit=chess+variants
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

22
You asked me to find the “Caesarea” library – note that already Jönsson (2005), p.359, footnote 1 states
Quietif mentions a manuscript extant in “Caesarea”, a place which I have not been able to indentify with certainty.
With respect to the library of the Dominicans: I quoted their “Caesarea” library (named after the ancient “Caesarea” library you cited) from memory – and I don’t find the source anymore in the Internet. Perhaps I remembered incorrectly, then I have to apologize.

However, I have found another solution for the 17th century which seems to be feasible (and is no propaganda):

In this text of 1688
https://diglib.hab.de/drucke/ea-490/transcript-roh.htm

one finds the Caesarea library three times:
[…]
Non vacat recensere Bibliothecas, qvibello interierunt, vel ad alios Dominos pervenerunt. Sola illa Matthiae Hunniadis incomparabilis Bibliotheca, incomparabili universae Furopae [sic! Should be: Europea] damno, partim à Turcis distracta, partim ad Caesaream Vindobonensem et Augustam Guelferbytanam translata luctuosisiimum ejus exemplum praebet.
[…]
In Bibliothecâ Caesarea libri Chimici à Lullio scripti […]
[…]
Extat et in Gallicâ et nuper in Germanicâ linguâ tractatus nomen Synesii Abbatis praepositum habens, qvique è Caesareâ Bibliothecâ editus fuerit.
The decisive term is “Bibliotheca […] Caesaream Vindobonensem” - “Vindobona” being the roman name for Vienna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscrip ... l_Library


In other words: the library of Caesarea in the 17th century was simply the library of the Emperor of this time, the Kaiser in Vienna.

For the JvR-tractatus this makes a lot of sense, since he lived in Habsburg country in his time (1377) and the Austrian Emperors were Habsburgian in the 17th century.

So if an early version with only the first part of the JvR-treatise survived at least until the 17th century, then it makes sense that this was in the Habsburg library – the Habsburg people could have taken it from the Freiburg region to Vienna.

Evidently: I do know that we have nowadays one version of the full JvR-text in Vienna– but we do not know whether this was the version Quietif/Echard cited or not.

In this light: I do not agree with “There are more important objects than this dictionary note.” It is a historical source which has to be treated like all other historical sources - what is written is written and has to be dealt with.

Who decides the relevance of the historical source? It can only be the context and whether it leads to insights which otherwise would not be gained.

For me the source is important since it led me to a theory which can deal with the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the JvR-treatise in the versions of 1429 and 1472. So, in a certain sense, it is not even important if the Quietif-entry is right or not with the first part, the many inconsistencies and contradictions –I do think I mentioned enough of them in the posts above-- are directly in the JvR-text – and they do not go away by ignoring them.

Hence, I repeat my proposition from my last post:
I propose that any other theory which might be even more precise and better in any way --I would happily learn from it-- should at least be also able to explain these inconsistencies and contradictions, one by one, perhaps in a totally different way.

In this light: How do you deal with the inconsistencies and contradictions in the JvR-text, one by one? What do you propose?

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

23
If Cesarea is indeed Vienna, then we have not a 5th new JvR manuscript, but a 4th, which is already known to us, one from 1472. And this is a complete one with 3 parts.
Congratulation, good finding. ... .-) ... I had a similar idea, and suspected the "Kaiserstuhl" near Freiburg.
How do you deal with the inconsistencies and contradictions in the JvR-text, one by one? What do you propose?
I don't see much inconsistencies and contradictions. I propose to reduce my own evaluation for the chance of "1429" and "Rosenfeld-theory" to be correct from 3% to 0.5 %. I never took it really serious, and this already a long time. The idea, that JvR himself made the step to the 10 professions was new to me, I think, this is an useful improvement.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

25
After some research, I do believe that we can safely say that the “Caesarea”-library in the Quietif-entry is the one in Vienna – see the list of libraries from 1694 (Carlo Giuseppe Imbonati, “Bibliotheca Latino-Hebraica Sive De scriptoribus Latinis”)

https://books.google.de/books?id=5-ZVAA ... ea&f=false
[…]
Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindebonensis Peter Lambeccius
[…]
Bibliotheca Dominicana , Altamurae
[…]
Peter Lambeccius is known as the librarian of the Habsburg Emperor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lambeck

Image


And Ambrosius de Altamura is the librarian of the library of the Dominicans:

https://books.google.de/books?id=52xH2T ... o&f=false

Note that in his records of all authors of the Dominican order as of 1677 our Johannes (JvR) is not present – JvR was not known to be a relevant author to the order until then. Note furthermore that the famous library of the Dominicans was in Paris as this entry of the book from 1682 (Johannes Friderici, “Bibliotheca Realis Philosophica omnium materiarum rerum, et titulorum, in vniverso totivs philosophiæ”) tells us

https://books.google.de/books?id=SadmAA ... ea&f=false

Hence Quitif/Echard are at the right geographical place to follow Ambrosio de Altamura and they haven’t heard of JvR until they got the message from Vienna – or they even where there personally.

Note that our full version JvR-tractatus as of 1472 was (entered?) the library of the Emperor (“Hofbibliothek”) in Vienna in 1576 following this source
https://manuscripta.at/_scripts/php/cat ... T8500-4143

To conclude: the JvR-tractatus Quitif/Echard point to was quite certainly in Vienna. We do not know whether there were perhaps two versions there – one short from earlier than 1429, one long from 1472 we know of. We have to ask the library – I will do it.

However, and in any case, that does not change the fact of the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the JvR-text himself (at least I see them - I will make a list of it in the next days). Please note that already Kopp uses the term “erfinden” (to invent) many times in his articles on JvR cited in this very thread.


P.S.: I would not call it "Rosenfeld-theory". I am not following Rosenfeld, as I already indicated.

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

26
Note that our full version JvR-tractatus as of 1472 was (entered?) the library of the Emperor (“Hofbibliothek”) in Vienna in 1576 following this source
https://manuscripta.at/_scripts/php/cat ... T8500-4143
Image


Compare the description of the text in 1794:
Codices manuscripti theologici bibliothecae palatinae Vindobonensis Latini aliarumque occidentis linguarum, Bände 1-2
Michael Denis
Joan. Thomas nob. de Trattnern, 1794
https://books.google.de/books?id=erGmjT ... 34&f=false
Image
Image
Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

27
Thanks Huck, the very interesting information you gave!

It is also available under [linked by the Vienna library:
https://search.onb.ac.at/primo-explore/ ... AC13943458 ]

https://manuscripta.at/_scripts/php/cat ... 01221-1237

This material tells us, that the version discussed in 1794 is the version of 1472. It does not tell us whether there is a second shorter version or not. We will see what the library tells us.

Furthermore it tells us, that it was alright to consider the heavy influence of de Cessolis on the JvR-tractatus as of 1472 – which again leads to the question, why JvR did not simply follow his model in form and style, as already discussed (one of the inconsistencies evident for me, including not giving a right table of contents as de Cessolis does).

Then: I did check the London edition of Kopp in post 4 of this very thread, as hinted at. For me, it does not get clear what I should learn from it – what should I learn?

Two remarks:
(1) Perhaps you want to hint me at the double appearance of “Postea” which means in Latin: “timely after”:
[…]
Postea sunt alie decim cartule […]
[…]
Postea sunt alii qui eodem modum ludum faciunt […]
[…]

[Bond’s translation:

After this there are other ten cards […]
[…]
Then, there are others who in the same manner play, of make the game
]

Note that already Bond translates this decisive “Postea” with two different words: “After this” and “Then”, the second being a clear “timely after” for the statement of the semantic content containing a notion of time, the “after this” being a “timely after” in the sense of the flow of reading different entries of a list, which is timeless on the level of semantic content.

This is induced by the context, since Latin has always to be translated following the context:

So the first “Postea” is an “After this” since you have
Sub quibus duo marschalchi sunt […] Postea sunt alie decim cartule […]

[Bond’s translation:
Under which kings you have two marschalli […] After this there are other ten cards […].
]
Which is clearly semantically a timeless list.

As for the second “Postea”, it is a “Then” in sense of “Thereafter” since it clearly refers semantically to
Nam communis forma et sicut primo pervenit ad nos est talis […] Postea sunt alii qui eodem modum ludum faciunt […]
[Bond’s translation:

For the common form and as it first came to us is thus […] Then, there are others who in the same manner play, of make the game
]
The “et sicut primo pervenit ad nos [as it first came to us]” induces a notion of time on the semantic level. Hence the other forms than the common form arrived later – and in view of the cited work of R. Decker in “Brother Johannes and the year 1377”, The Playing Card 18 (1989), p. 46-47 (cited after Jönsson (2005), p. 363):
If playing-cards had only just arrived in the neighborhood of Basel in 1377, we would expect one form, not the range of mutations cited, …[for] a new game can travel quickly whereas new forms of a game evolve slowly.
it is clear that the cards cannot arrive in 1377 in Freiburg region in its “common form” and in the same year or the next year all the other forms can already be invented. Note that JvR writes [Bond’s translation:]
they paint the cards in different manners
Note that for painting or printing cards in large amounts –which you need for inventing different forms--, you need cheap paper. In view of the first paper north of the Alps opening after 1377 – in 1390 in Nürnberg, in 1392 in Ravensburg—paper was certainly not cheap in 1377 since it had to be transported over the Alps.

This is another clear inconsistency -- or even contradiction--, if you want the multiple forms of the cards to be present in 1377.

(2) W.r.t. footnote 41 of Kopp’s London translation
Et sic quidlibet rex est met [footnote:]41) tercius decimus.
41) Met findet sich bei allen Abschriften, Bedeutung?

[[Bond:] And so each king becomes [footnote 41)] the thirteenth, […]
[Me: ]41) You can find Met in all copies, meaning?]
The “met” clearly comes from the verb “metari” – to meter/to mark in English. Hence the meaning is
And so each king is metered as the thirteenth [in the sequence of which the values are counted from the As as one to the king having a value of thirteen.].
In this light even better:
And so each king has the value of thirteen.
Note that this corresponds with the passage where later on, in which the king has the value of fifteen, the queen fourteen etc.

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

28
vh0610 ....
The “et sicut primo pervenit ad nos [as it first came to us]” induces a notion of time on the semantic level. Hence the other forms than the common form arrived later – and in view of the cited work of R. Decker in “Brother Johannes and the year 1377”, The Playing Card 18 (1989), p. 46-47 (cited after Jönsson (2005), p. 363):
R. Decker in “Brother Johannes and the year 1377”, The Playing Card 18 (1989), p. 46-47

Image

Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

29
I got the response from the library in Vienna:
‚Caesarea‘ ist einwandfrei mit der kaiserlichen Hofbibliothek in Wien zu identifizieren, deren Nachfolgeinstitution die Österreichische Nationalbibliothek ist. Quetif scheint sich damals für sein Nachschlagewerk an die Hofbibliothek gewandt zu haben, um Nachweise zu Werken von Dominikanern zu erhalten. Dabei ist dem Hofbibliothekar Johann Benedikt Gentilotti (+1725) oder einem seiner Mitarbeiter anscheinend ein Irrtum zur Gliederung des Werkes unterlaufen, denn im handschriftlichen Katalog Gentilottis, Cod. Ser. n. 2208, fol. 135r (um 1721), wird der Textabschnitt im damals als „Cod. Theol. 209“ geführten Cod. 4143 einleitend genau so beschrieben, wie ihn Quetif wiedergibt (siehe Anlage). Es hat also keine kürzere Fassung gegeben.

['Caesarea' can be clearly identified with the imperial court library in Vienna, the successor institution of which is the Austrian National Library. At that time, Quetif seems to have turned to the court library for his reference work in order to obtain evidence of works by Dominicans. The court librarian Johann Benedikt Gentilotti (+1725) or one of his employees apparently made an error in the structure of the work, because in the handwritten catalog Gentilottis, Cod. Ser. n.2208, fol. 135r (around 1721), the text section within the then called “Cod. Theol. 209 “ (now Cod. 4143) is initially described exactly as it is reproduced in Quetif (see attachment). So there was no shorter version.]
[I do not know how to put the attachment of the mail in this forum. Perhaps someone can help me?]

This response clearly helps us: the Jönsson-Quietif-Riddle is solved. We do know now that the Viennese version Quietif refers to was always the one we are already aware of, written in 1472.

[However, We know furthermore by Jönsson (1998) that there must have been an earlier archetype even before 1429. We do not know the structure of the archetype. Perhaps the new post of Huck reproducing the article of Decker might help us - I will read it...]

Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden

30
vh0610 wrote: 22 Sep 2021, 18:46 [However, We know furthermore by Jönsson (1998) that there must have been an earlier archetype even before 1429. We do not know the structure of the archetype. Perhaps the new post of Huck reproducing the article of Decker might help us - I will read it...]
Well, somewhere must have been the original of 1377. Likely it's lost. One suspicion says, that it was lost in Straßburg in an attack during the Prussian-French war 1870/71 ... if it was this war and if it was the original. Kopp 1973 reported something ...
Image


Image


August 1870: Zerstörung der Bibliothèque de la ville de Strasbourg
Nur noch Ruinen: die Dominikanerkirche mit einer der bedeutendsten Bibliotheken Europas im abgetrennten Chor
It seems, that the library was in a church of the Dominicans.

Image


https://www.rheinpfalz.de/kultur_artike ... duced=true

Der Temple Neuf (deutsch Neukirche)[1] ist eine fünfschiffige lutherische Kirche in Straßburg, die sich seit 1877 an Stelle eines mittelalterlichen Vorgängerbaus in der Nähe des Münsters erhebt.
Sie wurde 1874–1877 im neuromanischen Stil vom Architekten Émile Salomon nach 1872 vorgelegten Plänen errichtet und im Jahre ihrer Fertigstellung mit einer großen Orgel von Joseph Merklin ausgestattet.
Vorgängerbau des Temple Neufs war die ehemalige Dominikanerkirche, das nach dem Münster mit 85 Metern zweitlängste gotische Kirchengebäude der Stadt. Seit der Reformation diente sie als protestantische Kirche (Johannes Calvin hatte an dieser Kirche gepredigt und Gottesdienste abgehalten.[2]), der abgetrennte Chor und das angrenzende Kloster seit der Französischen Revolution als Stadtbibliothek und -archiv. Dort wurde unter anderem die wertvolle Sammlung an mittelalterlichen Handschriften (darunter der Hortus Deliciarum) aufbewahrt, die während des Deutsch-Französischen Kriegs durch preußisches Artilleriefeuer vernichtet wurde. Nach Abriss der Ruine wurde bereits 1871 ein Wettbewerb zum Neubau ausgeschrieben, an dem sich auch Gottfried Semper beteiligte.
Image


https://www.dewiki.de/Lexikon/Temple_Neuf_(Straßburg)
Huck
http://trionfi.com