Merlin says:
autre interpolation du mot cartes....Le manuscrit cité du Renard le Contrefait (no. 6985, 3) de la Bibliothèque Impériale est tout au plus de 1450, et, dans le manuscrit 7630,4, plus ancien de plus d'un siècle, il n'y a trace de nom des cartes. Voice comme le vers déjà cité s'y trouve écrit:
Jouent à jeux de dez, ou de tables
In English:
Another interpolation of the word cards .... The manuscript quoted of Renard the Counterfeit (No. 6985, 3) of the Imperial Library is at most [?] 1450, and in manuscript 7630,4, older than more than one century, there is no trace of the name of cards. Here is as the verse already quoted is written there:
Playing games of dice, or tables
There are two issues, I think.
(1) Could 6985-3 really be as late as 1450, as he claims?
(2) Is there an earlier redaction, 7630-4, that doesn't have the word "cartes"?
On issue 1, I look again at the detailed information Gallica provides:
Titre : Français 370
Date d'édition : 1301-1400
Type : manuscrit
Langue : français
Format : Papier. Filigrane : ancre surmontée d'une croix (Briquet, n° 365-395 ; également un raisin (Briquet, n° 13063- 13078), des armoiries : 3 fleurs de lys (Briquet, n° 1672- 1676). Une étoile couronnée (Briquet, n° 6107-6110). Surtout, sur le f. de garde initial où est la table des matières, le filigrane "Mathias 145" que Briquet (n° 4443) désigne comme un papetier probablement du Midi de la France. Il y a également un Y barré (Briquet, n° 9195- 9197). - 129 f., plus 2 f. initiaux non réglés, et 3 f. de garde à la fin : 2 réglés, le dernier non réglé. Il y a un f. coupé entre le f. 17 et le f. 18 ; et un autre f. coupé entre le f. 22 et le f. 23 (sans lacune dans la pagination, moderne, du ms.). Le f. 46 est bis. Le f. 29 r° est blanc. - 377 × 271 mm. - 2 col. de 37 lignes. Pas de signatures. Réclames : f. 40v, 55v, 87v, 119v. - Le premier cahier est composé des 2 f. de garde initiaux et des 2 premiers f. du texte ; et les suivants, des quaternions réguliers (en tenant compte des f. coupés et du f. 46 bis). - Reliure à la fleur de lys et au chiffre de Louis XVIII au dos, en veau raciné
Description : Texte unique : (f. 1-129 : Renart le Contrefait (2° rédaction), t. II.)
Description : La Bibliothèque de Vienne a fait copie de ce volume pour se compléter ; elle possède en effet l'unique exemplaire du t. Ier de ***Renart*** le Contrefait dont la Bibliothèque nationale a fait, de son côté, prendre copie (ms. fr. 369 ; copie moderne).Au f. 129v, on voit la signature de Jehan Duboys (à la suite de : Cy fine le second et derrenier volume de Regnart etc.). Cette signature semble remonter à la fin du XVe siècle. Ensuite le ms. appartint à la Bibliothèque conservée au chateau d'Anet (peut-être pas dès Diane de Poitiers ni des princes de Vendôme. Vendu en 1724, après la mort d'Anne de Bavière, princesse de Condé, il fut acheté par Antoine Lancelot, qui le paya 7 livres, 1 sol (cf. Paris (Paulin), Les manuscrits françois de la Bibliothèque du Roi (Paris, 1840), t. III, p. 172-174. - Cf. Delisle (Léopold), Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, t. I (Paris, 1868, p. 189 et 409).Au f. 1, signature d'Antoine Lancelot : "Ant. Lancelot".Codex Lancellotiom 166 : Regius 6985. 3. Mc XXXII.
Droits : domaine public
Identifiant : ark:/12148/btv1b10525299w
Source : Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Français 370
Provenance : Bibliothèque nationale de France
Date de mise en ligne : 28/09/2015
There is the line (which I put in bold):
Date d'édition : 1301-1400
That seems to say that the manuscript is at the latest 1400. That is 50 years earlier than Merlin claims. But for our purposes, i.e. finding things before 1377, it is not enough. Your Antonio van der Linde, whenever he was writing, says "um 1450", which is even stronger than Merlin.
There is also the line:
Description : Texte unique : (f. 1-129 : Renart le Contrefait (2° rédaction), t. II.)
I read this as saying that this is the unique version of f. 1-129, but after that it is the 2nd redaction. But I really don't know if that is right, because what it says later contradicts that. Then there is the question, is the "first redaction" implicit here a manuscript that still exists, or a manuscript that is lost (i.e. from 1428 as opposed to 1441)?
Then there is the second description; here is a translation of most of it:
The Library of Vienna [?] has copied this volume to complement itself; It possesses the sole copy of t. I of Renart *** the Counterfeit of which the Bibliotheque Nationale has made a copy (ms 369, modern copy). 129v, we see the signature of Jehan Duboys (following: Cy fine the second and last volume of Regnart etc.). This signature seems to date back to the end of the 15th century. Then the ms. belonged to the Library kept at the castle of Anet (perhaps not as early as Diane de Poitiers or the princes of Vendome.) Sold in 1724, after the death of Anne of Bavaria, Princesse de Conde, it was bought by Antoine Lancelot, who paid 7 livres 1 sol. (cf. Paris (Paulin), Les manuscrits françois de la Bibliothèque du Roi (Paris, 1840), t. III, p. 172-174. - Cf. Delisle (Léopold), Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, t. I (Paris, 1868, p. 189 et 409). On f. 1, signature of Antoine Lancelot : "Ant. Lancelot". Codex Lancellotiom 166 : Regius 6985. 3. Mc XXXII.
This seems to say that the original of the passage we are interested in is in the Library of Vienna; or is it Vienne, the town in France near Lyon? This is something completely new to me. I am confused. Perhaps Ross or Franco could clarify the issue, I don't know.
On issue 2 regarding Merlin, what is necessary is to find manuscript 7630-4, to see if it has "cartes", and see whether it is considered of a century earlier, as Merlin says. Van Praet doesn't seem to seem to know about any earlier manuscript. Maybe it hadn't been catalogued by 1822.
There is also the question of how to relate Gallica to what Rothe says, about the earlier version having 32,000 lines and the later (6985-3) 18,000 lines. And where does Rothe think the earlier one is? Is it the same as the one at Vienne/Vienna, or something else?
I think it would be good to try to track down "Imperial" 7630-4 and see what is there. Rothe unfortunately does not seem to give identifying information for the second manuscript he is talking about. I need to stop for now, however.
