Re: Why not Dee?

[Zandbergen@xxxxxxxxxxx (Rene Zandbergen)]

Gabriel wrote:

> 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?

Either Baresch did not know, did not think it was important, or wanted
to hide the info. If he got the VMs from Tepenec through illicit means,
he wouldn't want to tell Kircher. Also, Baresch may not have known
Tepenec. His first letter to Kircher (now lost) was written 15 years
after
T's death. 

We may assume that Tepenec knew everything that Raphael knew (and
perhaps
a bit more). Could Tepenec and Raphael have known each other? They were
contemporaries both with some status in the eyes of the crown, but one
was a scientist and the other a politician. Both had a Jesuit training
so
it is possible....
Also, the title of Raphael's "teach yourself Bohemian in one day"
indicates that he was interested in secret writing one way or another.

> 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?

Raphael was a highly placed official (he could sign royal documents,
if my understanding of the meaning of procurator is correct). So
that makes him a reliable witness.
Now he was about 8 (?) when Dee left Prague and 15 or 18 when Kelly
died, but this was before he was in contact with the court.
He was 26 when Tepenec arrived and 42 when Tepenec died, and at this
time all the nasties of the catholic/protestant war had begun.
He was 31 when Rudolf abdicated.

> 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.

Well, he wrote his name on it, so it must have been official. But
who erased it? (Could be himself, if he sold it to Rudolf after 1608).

> 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).

We don't know if Marci knew Baresch before 1640, when he came back 
from Rome. The Baresch letter probably reached Kircher while Marci
was there. Marci then writes something about B to Kircher as soon
as he is back in Prague (i.e. he had to inquire). In the next
letter he refers to B as 'Mr Baresch', not 'my special friend'.
So I think it is reasonable to assume they only got to know each
other later.
We do need to find out when Baresch died. This information exists
somewhere.

The period 1640-1644 is when Marci probably got his information
from Raphael. Marci was involved in political struggles between
the two Universities and may have known Raphael from that connection.

The text of the last Marci letter (the one in the VMs) strongly 
suggests that Marci had not written to Kircher on the subject
of Baresch or the VMs in the mean time. (There is a large
gap in their correspondence, which could easily mean that some
letters are lost).  

> B & M knew the imperial link all the time, but the price and Bacon's
> link were the only info provided by Raphael.

I find that highly likely.

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

We can invent new theories :-) 
And there are a few things we can still find out. For example
the death date of Baresch, and perhaps more vital statistics
once we know where he was born. 
Also, we may still find samples of Tepenec' handwriting (we 
have some of Baresch and Marci).

How, precisely, Raphael knew about the VMs is of interest and
may settle to whom Rudolph paid the 600 ducats:

to Dee or not to Dee, that is the question.

(My apologies. I realise that this is pretty awful).

Cheers, Rene