12-01-2019, 09:02 PM
12-01-2019, 10:16 PM
Google Books highlights "Archiv für schlesische Kirchengeschichte", volumes 34-36 with information about Albertus Wroblicius as a student in Graz. According to what I can see, he entered in 1607. His provenance is declared as "Mestadiensis", "Mstokicensis", - both of which I consider errors of reproduction, because finally it says "Mustoviensis", - that is, of Mstow.
Martinus Wroblicius of Prague was "Mstoviensis", and, interestingly, we find such a student in Graz also! (this is on page 146, unfortunately this page is not revealed by Google).
Definitely, the whole publication should be consulted for details, I only don't know which volume it is, most probably it's 34.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Martinus Wroblicius of Prague was "Mstoviensis", and, interestingly, we find such a student in Graz also! (this is on page 146, unfortunately this page is not revealed by Google).
Definitely, the whole publication should be consulted for details, I only don't know which volume it is, most probably it's 34.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
26-01-2019, 10:42 PM
Returning now to the main person in this thread, to Sinapius, who's been shaded by Wroblicius in these pages for some time now, we may note some very peculiar circumstances.
In the following I heavily rely on the biography of Sinapius found on Rene's website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , without further reference.
What I say below includes a fair amount of speculation (growing in some fiction that I invent in the end), but that's not in order to impose another "provenance theory" onto the reader, but rather to highlight some prospects of possible further research.
So, the first thing that we note is that there is general consensus that Sinapius' youth passed in Český Krumlov. One source, though, - Jantsch 1680 (available at Google books) - claims him to be "literarum studiosus, ac promus condus [which means basically "keeper of a store room"]" in Prague seminary as early as 1584. This is doubtful, at least in terms of dating, since that would mean that, born in 1575, he was entrusted to keep a store room in Prague seminary as early as at the age of nine. The information that in his youth he was somehow in attendance of the local apothecary of Krumlov is corroborated with his later medical/pharmaceutical career.
So I guess it is likely that his childhood passed in Krumlov - like Wroblicius' childhood did, and that he studied in Krumlov seminary - like Wroblicius did. Besides, he descended from a poor family, like also did Wroblicius, which suggests that he also was enrolled "in domo pauperum". And he then continued his education in Prague - again, like Wroblicius did.
The age difference of at least 13 years, which is a major factor in these affairs when one is young, precludes the possibility of Wroblicius having been a childhood friend of Sinapius. But there might have been some connection to his family, like to parents or to the elder brother (or brothers) of Wroblicius.
The next thing that we note is that Sinapius and Wroblicius, both being poor young men, nonetheless obtained some opportunity to continue their education in Prague. This might have been, of course, just due to their being successful students and having been somehow advanced through jesuit charity or the like. But this also brings a question of whether they could have had some benefactors. In here, we note that in their publications, both Sinapius and Wroblicius placed dedications to two members of the family of Popel - to Zdeněk Vojtěch Popel (1528 - 1628) and to Vaclav Vilem Popel (1592 - 1621), respectively. I was not able to trace what was the exact relation between them, but it is known that Vaclav Vilem Popel studied at Clementinum roughly at the same time when Sinapius did, for Winter (1899, page 272) mentions "two Popels" - Jan and Vaclav under the year 1600, and Vilem under the year 1601. Quite likely, "Vaclav" and "Vilem" are just one and the same Vaclav Vilem Popel.
This makes it very likely that Sinapius knew Vaclav Vilem Popel in person in those days already. Whether it was through this acquaintance that Sinapius obtained any benefits from (the more aged) Zdenek Vojtech Popel, or not, remains unclear. What is most likely is that both Wroblicius and Sinapius were connected to Vaclav Vilem Popel, the former considering him his benefactor.
It is worth noting that together with Wroblicius, there are a couple of people from Horšovský Týn reported "in domo pauperum" - Petrus Homolius and Johannes Mallonius (or Mallonis) - who are recorded as subjects of "Wylim z Lobkowicz". I don't know if it's the same Vaclav Vilem Popel (he was at the age of seven at the time, and I don't know if he had his own feudal rights already), but it's possible. These two might have been another source of connection of Wroblicius to the Popel family, so they are worth tracking in a background mode, I think.
The third thing that we note is that Sinapius is recorded as "Jakub Sinapis Bojanovicensis Moravus" in the Clementinum archives, which suggests that he was born not in Krumlov, but in Bojanovice. There are several places named Bojanovice in Moravia, one south-west to Brno, another (Dolny (= "farther") Bojanovice) south-east to Brno, but yet another (which is smaller) is... just three kilometers south to Kojetin, where Wroblicius was established as a local priest in 1614! If this is the Bojanovice from which Sinapius originated, then Kojetin would have been his native parish, and his birth record might still be found in Kojetin church records - if they are still preserved, of course. And if Sinapius was born near Kojetin it is quite interesting that Wroblicius obtained a parish there.
Now, returning to the books (and what follows is quite a deal of speculation). The book number 4 (the Aristotle) and the VMS are marked by the same hand (not that of Sinapius) and in the same style as belonging to Sinapius. (This must have been not earlier than 1608 (when Sinapius became "de Tepenecz")). This strongly suggests that the two books belonged to one "batch". The low numbers also loosely suggest that this "batch" was not a large one (both numbers are supposedly less than 20, although the number of the VMS is barely legible and could be e.g. 79). So, the library of Sinapius was expanded, after 1608, with a small batch of books one of which once belonged to Wroblicius. This makes it not impossible that the whole batch was obtained from (or otherwise descended from) Wroblicius - in other words, that the VMS also once belonged to Wroblicius.
How could he have obtained it? Unlikely is that he had it from the beginning. He was from a poor family, and even if it were a family relic, it would not have ended up with a younger brother. Unlikely is that he somehow obtained it during his studies in Prague or in Graz. He was not a student of medicine or botany to be interested in purchase of such a book or to be presented with such a book. He was not a student of obscure languages to be asked his opinion like Kircher. Where then? It is not unlikely, though, that, as a person generally interested in books (and we may safely assert that), he just found this very curious and peculiar book somewhere during his residence in Kojetin or slightly before that (we still don't know his whereabouts between Graz 1611 and Kojetin 1614), and included it in his library.
1618. The Bohemian Revolt unfolds. Kojetin, as the old nest of protestants, is one of its centres. Wroblicius, as a catholic priest and an jesuit, is in immediate danger. He flees from Kojetin and his way is somehow directed to Sinapius in Melnik - maybe because Sinapius was his old acquaintance and he expected some support from him as from an influential and rich person. Being short of money in his runaway, he sells the few books that he had to Sinapius. Sinapius is greatly interested in the quaint and curious volume in a language unknown, but in order to support an old acquaintance in need, he also puchases all other miserable books - in particular, the book by Aristotle, this through a nostalgic recollection of how he studied Aristotle at Clementinum. He begins to study the strange book, but the revolt is raging and he is thrown to a prison, which makes books a matter of lesser order of importance. In 1620 he is released, but this only to be expelled from the country. When he returns after the Battle of White Mountain (probably in 1621), he has many cares and dies within one year and a half.
How would the book end up with Barschius? Barschius graduated from the Clementinum in the same year as Sinapius. Sinapius might have known him, and his interest in such things. So he just may have given the book to Barschius. Later, when the book was sent to Kircher, Marci erased the exlibris of Sinapius to corroborate his story of the book having once belonged to Rudolph. The exlibris of Sinapius would have betrayed this mystification invented to arouse interest in the learned and famous man Kircher.
***
Fictitious as the later paragraphs now stand, my main point is that there are ties that seem to connect Sinapius and Wroblicius. I am convinced that this is something worth of a thorough research.
Some time-bound map of the Bohemian revolt would be helpful. It is of interest whether Kojetin was "set aflame" earlier than Melnik, and how the revolt expanded altogether. Would it be probable that Wroblicius would flee through Prague (and not to his native Poland, for example)? That he fleed from Kojetin is a thing I am firmly convinced in, since it is strongly suggested by the common logic, and I think this may be taken for granted.
In the following I heavily rely on the biography of Sinapius found on Rene's website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , without further reference.
What I say below includes a fair amount of speculation (growing in some fiction that I invent in the end), but that's not in order to impose another "provenance theory" onto the reader, but rather to highlight some prospects of possible further research.
So, the first thing that we note is that there is general consensus that Sinapius' youth passed in Český Krumlov. One source, though, - Jantsch 1680 (available at Google books) - claims him to be "literarum studiosus, ac promus condus [which means basically "keeper of a store room"]" in Prague seminary as early as 1584. This is doubtful, at least in terms of dating, since that would mean that, born in 1575, he was entrusted to keep a store room in Prague seminary as early as at the age of nine. The information that in his youth he was somehow in attendance of the local apothecary of Krumlov is corroborated with his later medical/pharmaceutical career.
So I guess it is likely that his childhood passed in Krumlov - like Wroblicius' childhood did, and that he studied in Krumlov seminary - like Wroblicius did. Besides, he descended from a poor family, like also did Wroblicius, which suggests that he also was enrolled "in domo pauperum". And he then continued his education in Prague - again, like Wroblicius did.
The age difference of at least 13 years, which is a major factor in these affairs when one is young, precludes the possibility of Wroblicius having been a childhood friend of Sinapius. But there might have been some connection to his family, like to parents or to the elder brother (or brothers) of Wroblicius.
The next thing that we note is that Sinapius and Wroblicius, both being poor young men, nonetheless obtained some opportunity to continue their education in Prague. This might have been, of course, just due to their being successful students and having been somehow advanced through jesuit charity or the like. But this also brings a question of whether they could have had some benefactors. In here, we note that in their publications, both Sinapius and Wroblicius placed dedications to two members of the family of Popel - to Zdeněk Vojtěch Popel (1528 - 1628) and to Vaclav Vilem Popel (1592 - 1621), respectively. I was not able to trace what was the exact relation between them, but it is known that Vaclav Vilem Popel studied at Clementinum roughly at the same time when Sinapius did, for Winter (1899, page 272) mentions "two Popels" - Jan and Vaclav under the year 1600, and Vilem under the year 1601. Quite likely, "Vaclav" and "Vilem" are just one and the same Vaclav Vilem Popel.
This makes it very likely that Sinapius knew Vaclav Vilem Popel in person in those days already. Whether it was through this acquaintance that Sinapius obtained any benefits from (the more aged) Zdenek Vojtech Popel, or not, remains unclear. What is most likely is that both Wroblicius and Sinapius were connected to Vaclav Vilem Popel, the former considering him his benefactor.
It is worth noting that together with Wroblicius, there are a couple of people from Horšovský Týn reported "in domo pauperum" - Petrus Homolius and Johannes Mallonius (or Mallonis) - who are recorded as subjects of "Wylim z Lobkowicz". I don't know if it's the same Vaclav Vilem Popel (he was at the age of seven at the time, and I don't know if he had his own feudal rights already), but it's possible. These two might have been another source of connection of Wroblicius to the Popel family, so they are worth tracking in a background mode, I think.
The third thing that we note is that Sinapius is recorded as "Jakub Sinapis Bojanovicensis Moravus" in the Clementinum archives, which suggests that he was born not in Krumlov, but in Bojanovice. There are several places named Bojanovice in Moravia, one south-west to Brno, another (Dolny (= "farther") Bojanovice) south-east to Brno, but yet another (which is smaller) is... just three kilometers south to Kojetin, where Wroblicius was established as a local priest in 1614! If this is the Bojanovice from which Sinapius originated, then Kojetin would have been his native parish, and his birth record might still be found in Kojetin church records - if they are still preserved, of course. And if Sinapius was born near Kojetin it is quite interesting that Wroblicius obtained a parish there.
Now, returning to the books (and what follows is quite a deal of speculation). The book number 4 (the Aristotle) and the VMS are marked by the same hand (not that of Sinapius) and in the same style as belonging to Sinapius. (This must have been not earlier than 1608 (when Sinapius became "de Tepenecz")). This strongly suggests that the two books belonged to one "batch". The low numbers also loosely suggest that this "batch" was not a large one (both numbers are supposedly less than 20, although the number of the VMS is barely legible and could be e.g. 79). So, the library of Sinapius was expanded, after 1608, with a small batch of books one of which once belonged to Wroblicius. This makes it not impossible that the whole batch was obtained from (or otherwise descended from) Wroblicius - in other words, that the VMS also once belonged to Wroblicius.
How could he have obtained it? Unlikely is that he had it from the beginning. He was from a poor family, and even if it were a family relic, it would not have ended up with a younger brother. Unlikely is that he somehow obtained it during his studies in Prague or in Graz. He was not a student of medicine or botany to be interested in purchase of such a book or to be presented with such a book. He was not a student of obscure languages to be asked his opinion like Kircher. Where then? It is not unlikely, though, that, as a person generally interested in books (and we may safely assert that), he just found this very curious and peculiar book somewhere during his residence in Kojetin or slightly before that (we still don't know his whereabouts between Graz 1611 and Kojetin 1614), and included it in his library.
1618. The Bohemian Revolt unfolds. Kojetin, as the old nest of protestants, is one of its centres. Wroblicius, as a catholic priest and an jesuit, is in immediate danger. He flees from Kojetin and his way is somehow directed to Sinapius in Melnik - maybe because Sinapius was his old acquaintance and he expected some support from him as from an influential and rich person. Being short of money in his runaway, he sells the few books that he had to Sinapius. Sinapius is greatly interested in the quaint and curious volume in a language unknown, but in order to support an old acquaintance in need, he also puchases all other miserable books - in particular, the book by Aristotle, this through a nostalgic recollection of how he studied Aristotle at Clementinum. He begins to study the strange book, but the revolt is raging and he is thrown to a prison, which makes books a matter of lesser order of importance. In 1620 he is released, but this only to be expelled from the country. When he returns after the Battle of White Mountain (probably in 1621), he has many cares and dies within one year and a half.
How would the book end up with Barschius? Barschius graduated from the Clementinum in the same year as Sinapius. Sinapius might have known him, and his interest in such things. So he just may have given the book to Barschius. Later, when the book was sent to Kircher, Marci erased the exlibris of Sinapius to corroborate his story of the book having once belonged to Rudolph. The exlibris of Sinapius would have betrayed this mystification invented to arouse interest in the learned and famous man Kircher.
***
Fictitious as the later paragraphs now stand, my main point is that there are ties that seem to connect Sinapius and Wroblicius. I am convinced that this is something worth of a thorough research.
Some time-bound map of the Bohemian revolt would be helpful. It is of interest whether Kojetin was "set aflame" earlier than Melnik, and how the revolt expanded altogether. Would it be probable that Wroblicius would flee through Prague (and not to his native Poland, for example)? That he fleed from Kojetin is a thing I am firmly convinced in, since it is strongly suggested by the common logic, and I think this may be taken for granted.
08-04-2019, 08:30 PM
(31-05-2018, 03:38 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually, the Google Books search is not unambiguos, so here's another candidate for the article in which Wroblicius is mentioned:
Code:Beránek, Karel -
Promoce v Klementinu v letech 1604-1617. Karel Beránek. In: Acta Universitatis Carolinae : Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis : Příspěvky k dějinám Univerzity Karlovy / Praha : Univerzita Karlova Roč. 25, č. 1 (1985), s. 7-32.
I don't know if it's in Svobodny's article or in Beranek's.
Actually it turned out to be the Beranek's article, and it is now featured on the internet: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
What we interpreted as a record of some disorderly conduct (page 17) appears to be a record of 21 bachelors of arts and philosophy graduated in the year 1606. (This shows how poorly AI translator performs still...)
Quote:Die 8. lunii anno 1606 fuit in solaria domus pauperum actus creationis baccalaureorum viginti unius promotore P. Melchiore Trevinnio:
Among those twenty one, we find, under number 10, Albertus Wroblicius Silesius.
It is now almost certain that Wojciech Wroblewsky of the Jagellonian in Krakow and Albertus Wroblicius is one and the same person.
Furthermore, on page 22 under the year 1614 we find Martinus Wroblicius Mstoviensis Polonus - I guess, his younger brother who then followed him in Graz.
So, there were three brothers Wroblicius: the elder Peter, the middle Albertus (Wojciech), and the younger Martin. While the traces of Peter are lost in Krumlov, the two yonger brothers went to Prague and then to Graz. That two lads at once from a poor family were able to continue their education in Prague and then in Graz almost certainly means that they had some benefactor.
04-07-2020, 05:59 PM
Re-reading this thread, I cannot suggest any other explanation of the discrepancies in numbering beside that there were several sequences of numbers, corresponding most probably to diffferent batches of books, with the numbering serving perhaps for accounting purposes.
I was also thinking of the book #40 - "Knichy Mistra Albertana" (is Albertus Magnus meant here?)
Rene, you mention that it once belonged to Pontanus. How is that established? Is there the Pontanus's exlibris there? Does it feature any date?
voynich.nu states Pontanus died in 1616, the Czech Wilipedia says 1614: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I was also thinking of the book #40 - "Knichy Mistra Albertana" (is Albertus Magnus meant here?)
Rene, you mention that it once belonged to Pontanus. How is that established? Is there the Pontanus's exlibris there? Does it feature any date?
voynich.nu states Pontanus died in 1616, the Czech Wilipedia says 1614: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
05-07-2020, 06:51 AM
The source of information for the MS with #40 is an old (now defunct) web page of Rafal Prinke. His source for this was:
J. Truhlář, Katalog českých rukopisů c. k. Veřejné a Universitní Knihovny pražské, Praha 1906
where the MS is entry nummber 243.
Quoting from Rafal's old page:
Thanks for the update on Pontanus' death date!
J. Truhlář, Katalog českých rukopisů c. k. Veřejné a Universitní Knihovny pražské, Praha 1906
where the MS is entry nummber 243.
Quoting from Rafal's old page:
Quote:This manuscript is of utmost interest because of its provenience. It was written in 1493 by one Master Albert and was probably owned in the mid-16th century by Jan Bukovský z Hustiřan because there are notes in a different hand about the births of his two sons in 1540 and 1538. The back cover has notes on taxes from Prague houses in 1579, while the front cover bears the later owner's inscription: "E bibliotheca Georgii Bartholdi Pontani a Braitenberg praepositi Pragensis". Most interestingly, however, folio 1r is signed "Jakuba z Tepence"! It is exactly in the same place as in the VMS and has the same form so there can now be no doubt that he was indeed the owner of both (I must admit that until now I was not quite sure what to think about his erased signature in VMS). As far as I know this is the first identified MS from Sinapius's library mentioned in VMS literature.
Thanks for the update on Pontanus' death date!
05-07-2020, 01:40 PM
I searched more about Pontanus, and there is strange ambiguity about his death date even on Czech websites. Some say 1614, some say 1616.
I had a closer look of the exlibris on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (I reproduce the fragment from voynich.nu):
[attachment=4525]
The last word does not look as "Tepence". The first letter looks like capital H, L or T (in all cases a strange one), the second one is like "i" if the first letter is H or L and like "p" with short descender otherwise, but by no means it is "e". The third letter is undoubtedly "x". Then there is a space, and then something like "pnize". The first letter after the space has a short descender to be a "p", but there's no better match, so must be a "p".
The presence of the letter "x" prevents all this from being read as "Tepence", at least verbatim.
I had a closer look of the exlibris on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (I reproduce the fragment from voynich.nu):
[attachment=4525]
The last word does not look as "Tepence". The first letter looks like capital H, L or T (in all cases a strange one), the second one is like "i" if the first letter is H or L and like "p" with short descender otherwise, but by no means it is "e". The third letter is undoubtedly "x". Then there is a space, and then something like "pnize". The first letter after the space has a short descender to be a "p", but there's no better match, so must be a "p".
The presence of the letter "x" prevents all this from being read as "Tepence", at least verbatim.
05-07-2020, 03:17 PM
Anton, I find it difficult to read that ex libris as René describes it on his site too (Jakuba z Tepeneze). However I am not an expert on Czech or Latin
However, I have no doubts that the name is "Jakobi"
Where you see H, L or T, I can also see an S. Maybe it says Synapij? There is a weird space between Sina and pij/pius if that's the case though.
Here is how I see it
![[Image: 163.png]](https://i.ibb.co/mB49Tns/163.png)
However, I have no doubts that the name is "Jakobi"
Where you see H, L or T, I can also see an S. Maybe it says Synapij? There is a weird space between Sina and pij/pius if that's the case though.
Here is how I see it
05-07-2020, 03:32 PM
I guess Rene just quotes Rafal Prinke.
Yes the name is certainly Jacob, it reads "Jakuba" which is attributive word form "Jakub's" (whose book is this? - this is Jakub's book)
Next we have "z" (= Czech "from")
The problem is with the remainder, I can't read the location (from which this Jakub descends) as Tepenec. One thought was it might be Lipnic instead, there is the historic town of Lipnic in Moravia, but this "x" does not fit neither. The space is also strange. Maybe, some curious abbreviation?
I'm also not sure if the number is put with the same quill and ink as the exlibris, but with the low quality of the image it's difficult to tell.
Yes the name is certainly Jacob, it reads "Jakuba" which is attributive word form "Jakub's" (whose book is this? - this is Jakub's book)
Next we have "z" (= Czech "from")
The problem is with the remainder, I can't read the location (from which this Jakub descends) as Tepenec. One thought was it might be Lipnic instead, there is the historic town of Lipnic in Moravia, but this "x" does not fit neither. The space is also strange. Maybe, some curious abbreviation?
I'm also not sure if the number is put with the same quill and ink as the exlibris, but with the low quality of the image it's difficult to tell.
05-07-2020, 03:50 PM
On further consideration, the "z" word does not look as "z". It's different from the "z" in "pnize", and if one looks attentively, the strange crossbar in the following capital letter is just the part of the preceding "g". It's a "g"!