02-01-2017, 04:17 PM
The main point of contention was the statement:
so if that is now no longer considered, at least that has been achieved.
If Wikipedia says as a fact that it was owned by Rudolf, then this isn't entirely correct, but there are plenty of reliable sources that state it more carefully. The new Yale volume is one. And who knows, one of the Wikipedia editors may even be reading this and update.
The letter remains a record. A piece of evidence. That no other record of his ownership has yet been found does not mean much. This is a very clear case where absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
The world's libraries are full of old books with fragmentary or completely lacking provenance.
In particular the city of Prague was looted after the 30-years war and the amount of material that has gone missing is enormous.
The letters from Kircher to Marci were never found. Yet they must have existed.
People have searched for them in vain, but that's what historical research is about. You may find something or you may find nothing. It's hard to call this a waste of time.
If there's a record saying that it was bought by Rudolf, and there are some accounts of his expenditures, how could one afford *not* to search them.
And who knows. Maybe it was sold to him by Carl Widemann.
The catalogues of his library are still in the process of being edited.
Now that's really long shot, but should one decide not to look in them?
Quote:... as reported by Marci when his senility/Alzheimer’s was in its late stages and memory-loss near complete.
so if that is now no longer considered, at least that has been achieved.
If Wikipedia says as a fact that it was owned by Rudolf, then this isn't entirely correct, but there are plenty of reliable sources that state it more carefully. The new Yale volume is one. And who knows, one of the Wikipedia editors may even be reading this and update.
The letter remains a record. A piece of evidence. That no other record of his ownership has yet been found does not mean much. This is a very clear case where absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
The world's libraries are full of old books with fragmentary or completely lacking provenance.
In particular the city of Prague was looted after the 30-years war and the amount of material that has gone missing is enormous.
The letters from Kircher to Marci were never found. Yet they must have existed.
People have searched for them in vain, but that's what historical research is about. You may find something or you may find nothing. It's hard to call this a waste of time.
If there's a record saying that it was bought by Rudolf, and there are some accounts of his expenditures, how could one afford *not* to search them.
And who knows. Maybe it was sold to him by Carl Widemann.
The catalogues of his library are still in the process of being edited.
Now that's really long shot, but should one decide not to look in them?