Re: Why not Dee?

["Gabriel Landini" <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21 Jun 2000, at 21:57, Karl Kluge wrote:
> Rafael Misovsky was born in 1580, so he could have had first hand
> knowledge. 

This is getting interesting.  If Baresch received the ms. from 
Tepenecz when leaving the country, then he (Baresch) should have 
known well its origins (and perhaps the price as well).
But in Baresch letter (1639) to Kircher or in the other Marci letter to 
Kircher (1640), nothing is mentioned at all about the ms. origins...
Doesn't this sound a bit strange?

In Marci's letter (1666) we learn the details from Missowsky, but that 
could be evident from Baresch friendship with Marci and the 
signature in folio 1 (that perhaps could also be read) so the link to 
Rudolf would have been obvious at that time.

So why to rely on Raphael about the ownership?

So [theory hat on] this may mean that:
Tepenecz ownership was a bit unclear ("forgot" to bring it back to 
the imperial library or something like that), and Baresch knew it and 
did not want to publicise having some imperial item that he 
shouldn't. 
When B died, Marci set the record straight and gave all the info he 
had. (In fact, at that time, B's and J's ownership may have been 
irrelevant).

or,

Baresch did not know much about the ms. itself and it was 
transferred with lots of other stuff from JdeT thinking that it belonged 
to J, not to Rudolf. However, Marci would have known the ms. 
details for a long time (from Raphael) so it still seems that Baresch 
was hiding something...

or,

B & M knew the imperial link all the time, but the price and Bacon's 
link were the only info provided by Raphael.
[theory hat off] 

Of course we don't learn anything new from all this. :-(

Cheers,

Gabriel