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.