Re: Collection John of Rheinfelden
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 14:07
Thanks Huck for the correction and the clarification! This helps us a lot.
You wrote:
I did not think about a modern book typo – copy errors can happen in all centuries. This is in my eyes also important when discussing your remark
Since meanwhile, I also got hold of the paleographic “bible”: Bernhard Bischoff, "Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters" in the version from 1979. With respect to number representations, he writes on p. 223f:
Note that the “the serious errors caused by [the new; vh0610] zero and the place value (21, 31 instead of 12, 13; 101 instead of 11, etc.) are indicative of the difficulties encountered in their inclusion.” puts all year numerals in manuscripts from 1143 onwards until the later XV. century into the difficult situation that they might be “serious errors caused by the zero and the place value”.
In this context: thanks for the nice figure showing how difficult it is to read the Arabic numerals:
Best example we have is the Basel version from 1429 of JvR’s tractatus:
Folio 2r shows in the 10th line the first appearance of 1377 in the introduction in Roman numerals as m.ccc.lxxvij :
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/ubb/F-IV-0043/2r
However, Folio 19r in chapter 5 shows in line 12 and line 14 Arabic numerals for the year 1344 and 1377 – and the 4s in 1344 are half- eights which can easily be misread as zeros – at least I can easily misread them (Everybody can check now and see on his own whether he finds it plausible or not):
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/ubb/F-IV-0043/19r/0/
In this light, I do not agree with
And if Ingold did not have JvR’s tracatus in his library –and I showed in my previous post that he had a big personal library and liked to cite authors—and hence –as a hypothesis—quoted from memory “As I have read”, then we have to take into account the recency effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial-po ... ncy_effect) that is, the last appearance is the one staying easiest in the memory. In our Ingold case, it is far easier to remember visually a 13XX than a m.ccc.lxxvij (as everybody can check now personally) – but if you remember it visually, you can even more easily misread a 1344 as a 1300 if the 4 is written like a half 8.
Hence, if Ingold read, e.g., in c. 1430 the Basel version of 1429 in the Dominican library of Basel, there is plausibility for me that he can have misread the year numerals for 13XX. I agree that we do not know how the year numbers were written in the version he more probably read in the Dominican library in Strassburg (if this was Ingold’s read), but at least we know that in 1429 Arabic numerals were used for 13XX.
However, since it is all about plausibility and what one holds for plausible, this might only be my conclusion. Others might see other plausibilities.
In this light, you asked me
in view of plausibility, moreover, by help of your correction, I can now formulate again and in a more precise way my hypothesis of the last post (I marked it as plausibility and I mark it as this again):
I will not pursue this any further, since I have the impression to miss something evident with JvR, which is more important.
You wrote:
I consider this post as new information which I evidently follow contentwise.Huck wrote: 03 Oct 2021, 05:44
Ah .... .-) .... well, much more simple. It's a modern book typo, the original year number is 1450, not 1405.
Literatur des Schachspiels: Tschaturangavidjâ
Anton Schmid 1847
https://books.google.de/books?id=FqdAAA ... ch&f=false
I did not think about a modern book typo – copy errors can happen in all centuries. This is in my eyes also important when discussing your remark
Note that even the “professional writers” produce a lot of copy errors as already discussed by Decker (1989) and as well by Schröder (1882). Following them leads to: Human beings commit errors in copying, this is normality, not the exception. This is especially true for the quite new Arabic numerals which were also used in medieval manuscripts as we will see in the following:Huck wrote: 02 Oct 2021, 21:11 The text is written in 1472 as a copy by a professional writer, not by JvR. JvR in 1377 should have written the year number in Roman numbers MCCCLXXVII.
Since meanwhile, I also got hold of the paleographic “bible”: Bernhard Bischoff, "Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters" in the version from 1979. With respect to number representations, he writes on p. 223f:
In this light, it might not even be “a modern book typo”, it might be simply already wrong in the Giessen manuscript.Die ältesten deutschen Beispiele [für indisch-arabische Ziffern; vh0610] sind ein Salzburger Komputus von 1143 und eine Regensburger Handschrift s. XII ex. Auch die wenigen Beispiele der „ostarabischen Formen“ stammen aus dem dem XII. Jahrhundert. In den praktischen Gebrauch haben sich die Ziffern langsam eingeführt, vom Geldwesen wurden sie hie und da bis ins XV. Jahrhundert ausgeschlossen. Bezeichnend für die Schwierigkeiten, denen ihre Aufnahme begegnete, sind auch die Mischungen römischer und arabischer Ziffern wie MCCC7 und die schweren Irrtümer, die [neue; vh0610] Null und Stellenwert verursachten (21, 31 statt 12,13; 101 statt 11, usw.). Die Ziffern 4, 5 und 7 nehmen im Allgemeinen erst im späteren XV. Jahrhundert eine der heutigen ähnliche Form an (Abb. 28). [Abb. 28: die 7 zeigt nach unten wie ein Haken, die 4 ist wie eine halbe 8 geschrieben, und die 5 erscheint wie eine nach unten schauende 2; vh0610]
[The oldest German examples [for Indo-Arabic numerals; vh0610] are a Salzburg computus from 1143 and a Regensburg manuscript s. XII ex. The few examples of the "Eastern Arabic forms" come also from the XII. century. The Arabic numerals have slowly been introduced into practical use, from the monetary system they were excluded here and there up to the XV. century. Indicative of the difficulties encountered with its inclusion, is the mixture of Roman and Arabic numerals such as MCCC7 and the serious errors caused by [the new; vh0610] zero and the place value (21, 31 instead of 12, 13; 101 instead of 11, etc.) are indicative of the difficulties encountered in their inclusion. Numbers 4, 5 and 7 generally only take on a shape similar to today's in the later XV. century (Fig. 28). [Fig. 28: the 7 is pointing down like a hook, the 4 is written as a half 8 and the 5 appears like a 2 looking down; vh0610]
Note that the “the serious errors caused by [the new; vh0610] zero and the place value (21, 31 instead of 12, 13; 101 instead of 11, etc.) are indicative of the difficulties encountered in their inclusion.” puts all year numerals in manuscripts from 1143 onwards until the later XV. century into the difficult situation that they might be “serious errors caused by the zero and the place value”.
In this context: thanks for the nice figure showing how difficult it is to read the Arabic numerals:
However, the translation ofHuck wrote: 02 Oct 2021, 21:11Writing forms of numbers at mid 15th till mid 16th century.Zahlenschreibweisen Mitte 15. bis Mitte 16. Jahrhundert
(Textauszug aus, Abbildung nach: Deutsche Gaue, Zeitschrift für Heimatforschung, Bd. IX 1908, S.310f.)
...Wir glauben, unsern Lesern einen Gefallen zu tun, wenn wir eine Reihe arabischer, richtiger indischer Ziffern (Wattenbach) zusammenstellen. Es kommt oft vor, daß man sie angeschrieben findet als Jahrzahlen auf Altertümern.
Ihre Entzifferung soll nun diese Zusammenstellung sowie die folgende Bemerkung erleichtern:
Man merke, es bedeuten die Ziffern fast nur Jahrzahlen von 1450 - 1550. Vor 1450 kommen außer in Handschriften bei uns Jahrzahlen in arabischen Ziffern seltenst vor. .....
I remember, that Franco informed me, that Ziffern were used earlier than 1450 in Florentine business calculations.
is in my eyesVor 1450 kommen außer in Handschriften bei uns Jahrzahlen in arabischen Ziffern seltenst vor.
and we deal with manuscripts, for which the above cited passage from the paleographic “bible” of Bernhard Bischoff (1979) holds (as well that usage of Arabic numerals start in the XII century and the serious errors caused by new zero and the place value).Before 1450, Arabic numbers appear very seldom in year numbers in our region – with the exception of appearances in manuscripts.
Best example we have is the Basel version from 1429 of JvR’s tractatus:
Folio 2r shows in the 10th line the first appearance of 1377 in the introduction in Roman numerals as m.ccc.lxxvij :
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/ubb/F-IV-0043/2r
However, Folio 19r in chapter 5 shows in line 12 and line 14 Arabic numerals for the year 1344 and 1377 – and the 4s in 1344 are half- eights which can easily be misread as zeros – at least I can easily misread them (Everybody can check now and see on his own whether he finds it plausible or not):
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/ubb/F-IV-0043/19r/0/
In this light, I do not agree with
since, as shown, JvR’s tractatus in the oldest version we have contains Arabic numerals for exactly the respective years 13XX.Huck wrote: 03 Oct 2021, 05:44 He would have had problems to misread a "MCCC" for a "MCCCLXXVII". As already stated, book printing likely had helped to avoid number mistakes with Ziffern.
And if Ingold did not have JvR’s tracatus in his library –and I showed in my previous post that he had a big personal library and liked to cite authors—and hence –as a hypothesis—quoted from memory “As I have read”, then we have to take into account the recency effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial-po ... ncy_effect) that is, the last appearance is the one staying easiest in the memory. In our Ingold case, it is far easier to remember visually a 13XX than a m.ccc.lxxvij (as everybody can check now personally) – but if you remember it visually, you can even more easily misread a 1344 as a 1300 if the 4 is written like a half 8.
Hence, if Ingold read, e.g., in c. 1430 the Basel version of 1429 in the Dominican library of Basel, there is plausibility for me that he can have misread the year numerals for 13XX. I agree that we do not know how the year numbers were written in the version he more probably read in the Dominican library in Strassburg (if this was Ingold’s read), but at least we know that in 1429 Arabic numerals were used for 13XX.
However, since it is all about plausibility and what one holds for plausible, this might only be my conclusion. Others might see other plausibilities.
In this light, you asked me
My answer: Yes, from the point of view of plausibility, I still believe –I believe, I don’t have the truth—that Ingold read JvR. The difference in page numbers is no problem for me. I see it like this: Ingold took from memory only the structure of JvR as a model from a bird’s eye perspective and from a temporal distance, transformed this structure (or order) to his needs and then wrote his chapter on cards. He did not want to do more since his composition was different: Ingold chose a book structure with 7 different games. And in the same way he had a model for the first-written chess chapter (the then well-known de Cessolis - Ingold's chess chapter, which is securely based on de Cessolis-- also does not have the length of de Cessolis, if my memory is correct), he looked in his memory for a similar model on playing cards for his short chapter on cards. This is how I see it.Huck wrote: 03 Oct 2021, 05:44Really? Ingold's text has about 8 pages. The text of Johannes has more than 300. How do you think, that such texts can be similar?I strongly propose again that plausibility is very high that Ingold read JvR.
in view of plausibility, moreover, by help of your correction, I can now formulate again and in a more precise way my hypothesis of the last post (I marked it as plausibility and I mark it as this again):
I find this plausible, perhaps others don’t. Then we kindly agree to disagree -- which is also part of science (and fine for me).Plausibility is high for me, that Ingold could have misread and misremembered a 13XX – year numbers exactly as appearing in the JvR tractatus from 1429 (Basel version) as 1377 and as 1344. From this, plus Schröder's statement (1882) of JvR's tractatus being “demonstrably quite common”, plus the order of Ingold being not far away from the one of JvR, plus Ingold and JvR being from the Strassburg region having access to the same Dominican libraries, plus no other known book/treatise on cards of that time, results for me in a considerable high plausibility of Ingold having read JvR, thereby making an error in noting in words the year 1300 and having read 1344 (or 1377) in Arabic numerals in JvR's treatise.
I will not pursue this any further, since I have the impression to miss something evident with JvR, which is more important.