Help need with Fabri's "Evagatorium" (Volume 2)

Latin Learning Latin
1

Salvete,

I need your help with my latest transcription-project for Project Gutenberg: the second volume of Felix Fabri’s Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae, Arabiae et Egypti Peregrinationem. I was able to deal with most issues, but a few are left which might be dealt with based on a manuscript version I found on the Internet (not the original ones by Mr. Fabri, but a copy with some alterations but still close to the original text). The questions:

“XXXI. Nostra militia similior est et uniformior. Nam
milites alii, etiam in eodem bello percussi, jactant se, et unus
alteri se praefert, et ab aliis quidam aliis praeferuntur, meliores
esse milites, et militiae gloriam melius meruisse, et nonnumquam
in curiis regum graves inimicitias contra se ob id
habent: his > frascis > omnibus et sordidis laudibus caret nostra
hierosolymitana militia, quia omnes aequaliter eam merentur,
et nobilis miles factus non minus est miles, quam rex ibi
percussus.”

Is this really “frascis”? There is a manuscript-version (not exactly the same text), but I cannot make out the writing. Any idea?


“Ab hoc monasterio fuerunt missae sorores
etiam ad alias mundi partes ad aedificandum similia monasteria.
Unde in comitatu dominorum de Kyburg prope Thuregum
est hodie unum de illis monasteriis et dicitur ad
sanctum Lazarum > Imgfren> .”

Is this really “Imgfren”? See this manuscript.

“Johannes, dictus > Hentgi> , procurator et cocus expertus.”

Is this really “Hentgi”?. Compare the manuscript.

“Insuper obtulit,
se suis expensis reaedificare muros Jerusalem, jam per Corradinum,
regem Damasci, destructos, et omnes captivos Christianos
reddere, et nihil velle retinere eorum, quae ad regnum
Jerosolymitanum pertinent, nisi templum Domini in Jerusalem.
Hanc conditionem libenter et > contanter > acceptassent Christiani,
Rex Jerusalem Johannes et Franci et Teutonici, sed non
placuit Pelagio, Cardinali Legato et Italicis, et orientalibus
Christianis, nec acceperunt nuntios Soldani.”

Shouldn’t this be “constanter” instead of “contanter”? The manuscript does not seem to be of much use here, because it seems to use another word.

“Mihi autem non
solum rex sed regum optimus, lumen et speculum videtur
aliorum; non enim consecrationis munus sprevisse credendus
est, sed pompam saeculi, perituram humiliter declinasse coronam,
ut > immarcessibilem> [ > alibi consequeretur.”

Is this really “immarcessibilem”? See this manuscript page.

“His igitur ordinibus institutis et (#277 A#) aliis perfectis
pius rex Jerusalem Balduinus in gravem incidit aegritudinem,
vidensque sibi mortis imminere diem de proprio palatio egressus
supplex et humilis regio fastu deposito in conspectum
Domini in palatio patriarchae, quia locus dominicae resurrectioni
erat vicinior, se transferri praecepit ibique vocatis filia
et genero pueroque Balduino jam > bimilo > coram praesentibus
regni principibus curam eis regni tradidit, ipse autem…”

What does “bimilo” mean? “Logeion” was not helpful, but the manuscript seems to have it as well.


I would really appreciate it, if you were able to help me with these issues.

Valete (or Dankon!),

Carolus Raeticus

2

I think this is fratris. Glad to see you’re hard at work on Vol. 2!
EDIT: Sorry, there’s no way this can be fratris. Whatever it is, it’s most likely a dative plural, which rules out fratris.

3

Actually, I almost at the end of this project and currently preparing to begin transcription of the third and final volume, which promises to be especially interesting. I am looking forward to it. So, help me with these remaining questions concerning volume 2.

Carolus Raeticus

4

I checked both manuscripts at the MDZ, and they both have the word ‘gratanter’. I don’t know where Hassler got ‘contanter’. ‘gratanter’ goes much better with ‘libenter’. ‘contanter’, meaning “with delay, slowly” would go against the force of libenter “gladly”. What’s going on there is that Soldanus is making an offer to the Christians that if they lift the siege at Damiata, that he would cede Jerusalem to them in perpetuity, as well as rebuild its walls out of his own funds and return all Christian prisoners; the only stipulation was he would retain the Lord’s temple. This was an offer which King John of Jerusalem, the Franks, and the Teutons would “gladly and gratefully” accept, but the Italian Legate, Cardinal Pelagio,and the Eastern Christians would not, nor would they receive Soldanus’ heralds.
P.S. That was a nice job on Vol. 1 ! It formatted perfectly on my I-Phone.

5

Looking in the DMLBS, immarcessibilis appears to be an alternate form of immarcescibilis:
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/immarcescibilis

6

I checked the other manuscript at MDZ and it too shows ‘bimilo’ . I would guess that it agrees with puero and probably is medieval Latin for ‘bimulus’, " only two years old". I wish I could be more authoritative, but I just don’t have enough experience with medieval Latin to give you a definite answer.

7

Salve Aetos!

Thank you for your help so far. I will keep “immarcessibilem” and “bimilo”. I will also keep “contanter” but add a footnote recommending “gratanter” (I want to be conservative rather than creative).

I am happy, that FF1 is working to your satisfaction. I guess that Project Gutenberg’s policy of strict HTML-versions which have, in addition, been checked for errors using the W3C’s “validator”, is indeed able to ensure that the resulting e-books work on most modern computers (and similia).

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

8

After a little more digging, I think it’s safe to say this is a surname. The modern variant is ‘Hentges’. Röhricht and Meisner include ‘Johannes Hentgi’ in their Register of pilgrims which is appended to their work Deutsche Pilgerreisen nach dem heiligen Lande, Berlin, 1880:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZg_vFOUYvgC&pg=PA677&lpg=PA677&dq=hentgi&source=bl&ots=RXsiUpkXxy&sig=ACfU3U3vbp-9kf_jnAGpiuTPZV91tA_4hA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDqOfJgPzlAhXKm-AKHZDFDCU4ChDoATAJegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=hentgi&f=false

N.B.: R&M’s source is F.F.F

9

I’m wondering if this actually might be Early New High German ‘Jungfrau/n/en’. It was, presumably, a convent founded by sisters of the order of Saint Lazarus. FF does use a few German words in his narrative; however, in Hassler’s edition, these words are usually printed in Fraktur. Here’s an example:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZg_vFOUYvgC&pg=PA677&lpg=PA677&dq=hentgi&source=bl&ots=RXsiUpkXxy&sig=ACfU3U3vbp-9kf_jnAGpiuTPZV91tA_4hA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDqOfJgPzlAhXKm-AKHZDFDCU4ChDoATAJegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=hentgi&f=false

After a lot of searching, however, I can’t find any instances of Hassler using the Fraktur typeface for proper names.

10

First off, here’s a link to the same section in the other text at the MDZ:
https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0004/bsb00044095/images/index.html?id=00044095&groesser=&fip=xdsydsdasyztseayaeayaxdsydxdsydxdsydeayaen&no=8&seite=431

Carole, all I can give is a couple of conjectures, because the word in both manuscripts seems to be “frascis”.
The context is that he is giving 40 reasons why his order (militia) is best ever sent to the holy land. Reason number 31: his order is free from all the ** and false (foul, sordid) praises and everyone is treated as an equal; in other words, the members don’t squabble over social position, because they are all equally “soldiers of our Lord”. Given that context,
‘frascis’ can be “teeth gnashing” (bickering) from frendo, ere, fressum, becoming fraseus in medieval Latin, or perhaps a corruption of frasis, which could have the meaning of rhetoric, eloquence (so, empty rhetoric).

Anyway, those are my guesses and I’m afraid that’s all I’ve got. Good luck and I’ll look forward to seeing FF2 soon!

11

You probably already know this, Carole, but I just discovered it inside the front cover of Hassler’s Volume 1. The copy came originally from the University Library of Lausanne, and had a descriptive note on Hassler’s series. Here’s the note:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ztUWAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

What caught my attention was “le dominicain allemand Fabri ou Schmidt…”. Then the light bulb came on. Faber is Latin for Schmidt.

12

Congratulations on solving Carolus’ problems Aetos!

I think I mentioned this before, on vol.1, but Carolus why you persist in calling it Fabri’s Evagatorium? It’s not Fabri’s but Faber’s. (Or Happy Smith’s? :slight_smile: )

13

Thank you, Michael! I had a notion you were letting me fly “solo” on this one!

14

Actually, I had been wondering at the beginning of the transcription projects whether his name might indeed be “Faber”, but the Wikipedia-articles refer to “Fabri”, not “Faber” (the German article even quotes “Faber” as wrong). More importantly, however, references refer both to “Felix Fabri” AND to “Felix Faber”, e.g. this German web-page giving historical references (the page belongs to the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, so some quality can be expected). Most importantly, however, the first volume of the Evagatorium (see this page at Google-Books) actually has, right at the beginning, “Frater Felix Fabri”. So, I am going to stick to “Fabri”.

Vale

15

Thank you, Aetos, for providing valuable help. I’ll leave it at this and keep the rest of the text as is. I already have 189 footnotes concerning changes and a few remarks. But I was conservative when changing anything. I applied changes only when these were obvious typos and NEVER when it seemed possible to be an alternative spelling. Still, there may be an instance of me having been too eager (it is easy to be blind to one’s own misjudgment), but all changes are indicated, so that the original text of the reprint can be easily recreated. I also may have missed (during the two proofreading-runs I made) a few typos I introduced into the transcription myself, but as they say: “Perfection is the enemy of the good”. I did use Whitaker’s WORDS-programme (God bless the man!!!) to help me with this, but still…

Anyway, I have to apply some finishing touches, but it should not take too much time before I can finally upload it to Project Gutenberg (sigh of relief!).

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

16

Thanks for the reply Carolus. I see that Felix Fabri is well established as his name in modern literature, but surely this originates in misinterpretation of the genitive form of the name, Fratris Felicis Fabri, as we have it in the heading of the Evagatorium.
I see the German Wiki article says “Er nannte sich selbst Fabri und signierte gern mit f.f.f. (Frater Felix Fabri),” and Hassler’s edition of the introductory epistola is indeed headed FRATER FELIX FABRI, but is there any actual authority for Fabri rather than Faber?

It’s a small point but it bugs me. I suspect Fabrification. :slight_smile:

17

Salve mwh!

You may be actually right, but it is common practice to give his name as Felix Fabri. A fuller list of name variants can be found at this Bibliothèque Nationale de France-page. Interesting is also is this Italian paper (l viaggio del frate domenicano Felix Fabri da Ulm a Venezia e da Venezia a Ulm (1483-1484)). On page 2 (footnote 5) the author gives his reasons for using the name Felix Fabri instead of Felix Faber:

I bow to the wisdom of people who deal with this on a professional basis, and, I admit, I am lazy person who does not wish to have to decide every single question.

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

18

One word in response to that: mumpsimus.

19

As for the question whether the surname is “Fabri” or “Faber”: While proofreading the index to the last volume of the Evagatorium I stumbled upon the following:

An image of a manuscript (right column, top) confirms Fabri. Okay, this is not the original manuscript, but this dates from 1508 (by Hartmann Schedel, the guy of Schedelsche Weltchronik-fame), That does not mean, that Mr. “F” did not also go by the name “Faber” or some German equivalent, but it seems clear enough that “Fabri” is valid.

As for the source of the index:

Indicem, qui sequitur, a Fratre Henrico Wild confectum, ab alio
quodum monacho correctum, ipse noster Felix secundo operis sui volumini
praefixit.

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

20

Well it depends what you mean by “valid.” The dogma you quote has no authority, it only confirms what we already knew, that the mistaken Fabri is of long standing (and its genesis perfectly obvious). In your previous post you yourself referred to a 2015 article acknowledging that we should really write Faber, not Fabri (“Di per sé dovremmo scrivere Faber, …”). That was precisely the point that I made.

Ratio et res ipsa commend Faber. To perpetuate Fabri is to perpetuate mumpsimus.

Valeas, mi amice.

Miseri, cavete felices.