Help needed: errors in "Fratris Felicis Fabri Evagatorium"

Latin Medieval and Neo-Latin
1

Salvete!

I am currently wrapping up my latest transcription project: Part 1 (of 3) of Fratris Felicis Fabri Evagatorium in Terrae Sanctae, Arabiae et Egypti peregrinationem, an 1843 reprint of a 1484-text about a monk’s travel to the Holy Land. This one has a lot of typos in it, some of which require your help:


Page 13:

“Ideo magister generalis ordinis nostri nulli fratri licentiam Jerosolymam (visitandi) tribuit, nisi praesupposita papae licentia, vel habita vel habenda; prout patet in liberis Testimonialibus meis de hac peregrinatione.” Shouldn’t this be “libris [Testimonialibus]”?

Page 21:

“Quinto. Malos et gentem peccatrinum cemquam diutius in ea morari sustinuit, sed mox completis iniquitatibus ignominiose ejecit.” I guess that this should be “et gentem peccatrinum QUEMQUAM”, shouldn’t it?

Page 29:

“Quo dicto alta voce incepi: Christ ist erstanden 2c. Finito illo versu rursum intonavi; In Gottes Namen fahren wir seiner Gnaden 2c.” Am I correct in transcribing these characters as “2c.” or should it be “&c.” (for “etc.”)? Note: The “” is a mark-up for German text.

Page 65:

“Qui cum diceret, se non habere facultatem me licentiandi in Ierusalem, sed ad S. D. Papam et Generalem Ordinis nostri Magistrum spepsaret hoc negotium, statim produxi literas, #25 A# tam Papae quam Magistri Ordinis.” The word “spepsaret” is certainly wrong, but I can’t figure out what the author meant. Any idea?


Page 88:

“Post Missam consedimus simul nos XII. ad deliberandum, cum quo patrono vellemus manere, et quo pactu conventionem inire conveniret.” This should probably be “pacto”, but do you know of a variant Medieval form “pactu”?

Page 89:

“Conclusimus ergo manere cum domino Petro: in super XX concepimus articulos, quibus modum conventionis nostrae limitavimus, et ad quae nobis patronus obligaretur expressimus.” Shouldn’t this be “insuper”?

Page 98:

“His spectaculis etiam affuimus in propria conducta barca; peracta illa benedictione et desponsatione maris convertunt Buzatorium ad monasterium S. Nicolai alyu et ibi petito litore exeunt omnes de omnibus navibus et ingrediuntur ecclesiam…” I haven’t got the faintest idea what “alyu” is supposed to mean or of what word it could be a misspelling, do you?

Page 120:

“In ista ergo parte superiore habitant officiales galêae est galêotae unusquisque in transtro suo, et ibi dormiunt et comedunt et laborant.” In my opinion this should read “et galêotae”. What do you think?

Page 138:

“Nam ille collateralem suum inculpat, quod suo lectulo partem cumbae suae occupet, alius negat, ille affirmat, et uterque suos adjutere- advocat, et quandoque integrae societates offenduntur ad invicem.” This is probably “adjutores”. What do you think?

Page 148:

“Et valedictis omnibus de domo in barcam descendimus, et per canale extra urbem venetianam navigantes ad Sanctum Nicolaum alliiu applicuimus.” Another “word” which completely dumbfounds me. Any idea what the author might have meant?

Page 239:

“Aliqui vero peregrini prae nimia devotione nescientes se regere, inmorierati erant, et prae nimia diligentia, qualiter se Deo possent exhiberer placabiles, quibusdam gestibus insolitis et puerilibus movebantur.” Is this really “inmorierati”?

Page 292
https://books.google.at/books?id=ztUWAAAAQAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA292#v=onepage&q&f=false

“Cui Martinus: Ego Christum non nisi spinea corona, et stygmata crucis praeferentem non gnoscoa.” Any idea what the author means, obviously something about “knowing”, but what word exactly was butchered?

Page 314:

“Ascendimus ergo omnes in montem sanctum, et pater Gardianus cum suis ministris sacris induti ad altare accessit, et cantor Officium de sancta cruce: Nos autem glari orationem, inchoavit, et cum altis vocibus prosecuti sumus Officium.” Is “glari” a real word or some typo?

Page 355:

“Progressi inde consequenter venimus ad loca, ubi tempore eductionis Christi erant tabernae, et quando morte plectendi educebantur, fuerunt aliqui pii homines, qui pro plectendis vinum solvebant, et dabatur eis hic bibere vinum forte, ut bibentes jocundi fierent, quia dicitur Esdrae VI., quod vinum omnem mentem convertit in securitatem et jocunditatem, et non meminit omnem tristitia, et debitum, et omnia praecordia facit honesta.” Shouldn’t this be “tristitiam”?

Page 365:

“De hoc templo et ejus descriptione, et quis eam aedificaverit, et quale moda sit, dicam fol. 257 A et in sequentibus.” Should this be “quale modo”? WORDS does offer ablative for “quale”, but I would have expected “quali”.

Page 383:

“Haec Lyra fr. id Jesus autem transcens per medium illorum ibat, Joh. IV. Leguntur etiam similia [simila → similia de multis Sanctis, quibus divina virtute cesserunt petrae, vel liquescerunt, sicut de S. Barbara.” Shouldn’t this be “transiens”?

Page 395:

“Pre majori tamen ejus notitia volui sequentia annectere.” Shouldn’t this be “Pro…”?

Page 397:

“Et hoc dicit propter olivarum ibi crescentium abundantiam, quarum fructus est unctuosus, humosus, et deliciosus, quia, ut dicit Isidorus, oleum olivae ex radicis amaritudine surgit in pabulum luminis, in medicamentum vulneris, et in reflectionem esurientis.” Shouldn’t this be “refectionem” instead?

Page 452:

“Non multi valoris sunt apud me reliquiae novae de transmarinis partibus asportatae, praecipuae quae sunt emtae a Sarracenis, vel ab orientalibus Christianis falsis.” I guess that this should be “praecipue”, but L&S lists “praecipuus” as an adjective. What do you think?

Page 472:

“Habebant autem stellam auream grandem, quam in choro detecto submittebant quidam in medium, et stabant juvenes superius, et gloria in excelsis cantabant, et stellam continue ab oriente in occidentem movebant.” Shouldn’t this be “de tecto”?

Thanks a lot for your help. It is really appreciated. Sorry, if this post appears twice. I was unsure whether sending it worked the first time.

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus

2

“Quo dicto alta voce incepi: Christ ist erstanden 2c. Finito illo versu rursum intonavi; In Gottes Namen fahren wir seiner Gnaden 2c.” Am I correct in transcribing these characters as “2c.” or should it be “&c.” (for “etc.”)? Note: The “” is a mark-up for German text.

I think it’s safe to say “&c.” is called for here, as these are the first lines of hymns. The first is one of the oldest German Easter Hymns and the other is a song from the Crusades, titled “Kreuzfahrerlied”. Of course, I don’t really know what 2c would stand for, other than 2nd century, perhaps and that wouldn’t fit in this context.

3

I think that may just be an “H” or some other single character.

4

Here’s a link to an image of &c. (etc.)in Fraktur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera#/media/File:Et_cetera_r_rotunda.svg

5

alyu - p.98
alliiu -p.148
EDIT: Deleted theory-misread city-still looking for Buzatorium.
Well, I now know that Buzatorium was the name of a ship which made an annual trip from Venice to the Monastery/Church of St. Nicholas in the Lido on the day of the Ascension in May. (At first I thought it was a corruption of Byzantium; well, was I wrong!) It’s quite a story, Carole; Aside from the typos, the Latin is quite easy. It’s like reading a travelogue! Still no idea about alyu or alliiu.

6

Thank you, Aetos, for the “et cetera”-image. One less problem to solve.

As for the story. Yes, it is definitely fascinating, especially the part about the travelling. And it is rather easy to read, at least now. It took me quite some time to reach the level where I can read this sort of text at leisure (except for some weird vocabulary). I kept giving it a try until I found that I could finally read it while enjoying myself. Actually, the transcription has been finished for more than a year, I just did not find time to proofread it. But now I only need to deal with these few pesky bits. After that I can create the Project Gutenberg-versions.

I am looking forward to any comments about the rest of the problematic passages.

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

7

In the first passage, in liberis Testimonialibus meis should surely be not libris but literis or litteris.

Glancing through the rest I’d say that most of your proposed corrections are obviously right.
Additionally:
p.65 spepsaret: spectare??
p.239 inmorierati: inmoderati?
p.292 gnoscoa: gnosco or agnosco.
p.314 glari: text missing? Perhaps for Gardiani but syntax defective.Something on the lines of “nos autem (Gardianus) orationem inchoavit ”??
p.395 pre for prae? (merely orthographic, cf. 2nd passage cemquam and others)

Buzatorium is Bucefalum (Βουκεφαλος, Alexander’s horse, see further up the page), if that’s any help. I take it we’re in Byzantium? In any case Aliu/Alliiu is clearly a local designation of St. Nicolas.

Casually checking p.138 adjuteres (shd be -ores not -eres?) I couldn’t resist reading this chapter de inquieta dormitione, and recommend it. I’ve had some bad sea journeys in my time but nothing quite like this :smiley:

8

I thought we were in Byzantium, too and like yourself started reading some of the text, only to discover that I was way off! See my post above. Our brother Felix is describing sailing on the good ship Buzatorium to the St. Nicholas’ Monastery on Ascension Day in Venice 1480. It is named after Βουκέφαλος, but the Doge decided to use the Latin name instead.
Originally, I thought he was talking about St. Nicholas of Tzivaliou in Constantinople. Do you suppose Alyu or Alliiu is a corruption of an old name for the Lido (location of St. N’s church in Venice)? I wish I could see the text Hassler was working from, but I guess I’d have to take a trip to Ulm for that.

9

So Aliu/Alliiu will be Venetian? St.Nick-on-the-Lido, perhaps?

Edit. You beat me to it. Is it still there? — Yes! San Nicolò al Lido. It’s famous.

10

Hello mwh, I am not entirely sure what you meant when you wrote…

Do you think that it is “prae”, or that “pre” was a Medieval variant for that?

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

11

Well, pre is what’s printed, and pro wouldn’t make much sense, so I wondered if pre was a medieval spelling of prae. That wouldn’t be at all surprising, but I don’t know much about medieval Latin spelling—nor about medieval Latin in general, come to that, but this travelogue looks to be an easy and entertaining read, and makes a welcome change from hardcore theology. For this use of prae compare the domus stupendas prae altitudine et decore that he saw either side of Venice’s Grand Canal, p.83.

What do you think of my other suggestions?

Miseri, cavete felices.

12

Salve!

I am going to make the following changes to the text:

  • p. 13: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 21: SOLUTION: “quemquam”
  • p. 29: SOLUTION: "&c.
  • p. 65: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 88: SOLUTION: “pacto”
  • p. 89: SOLUTION: “insuper”
  • p. 98: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 120: SOLUTION: “et”
  • p. 138: SOLUTION: “adjutores”
  • p. 148: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 239: SOLUTION: “inmoderati”
  • p. 292: SOLUTION: “agnosco”
  • p. 314: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 355: SOLUTION: “tristitiam”
  • p. 365: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 383: SOLUTION: “transiens”
  • p. 395: SOLUTION: NONE → “[sic]”
  • p. 397: SOLUTION: “refectionem”
  • p. 452: SOLUTION: “praecipue”
  • p. 472: SOLUTION: “de tecto”

The reason for not adopting some of the suggestions is that they seem a bit too tentative, and when creating transcriptions for Project Gutenberg I opt for a fairly conservative approach. On the whole I made more than threehundred changes. Still, hats off to the editor of the printed edition, because the original manuscript (it was not printed during Mr. Fabri’s life time) is supposed to look like this.

Thanks for your help,

Carolus Raeticus

13

Salve Carole!
Thanks for providing the link to the original text(?)! I’m still going through it, but so far I can tell you that the first 46 pages constitute the index (register). Following the drawing, a much more legible text follows. This is the beginning of FFF’s second part, continuing his description of the visit to Mount Oreb and Mount Sinai. In Hassler, this starts in Volume 2, p. 329. I’m trying to find spepsaret from vol.1, p.65. Most of the typos/errors/variations are relatively obvious but that one has me totally stumped.
Edit: After skipping to the end and comparing it(the original text) with Hassler, it corresponds with p. 468 (just before the index)in Volume 3 of Hassler’s edition.

14

Salve Carole!
Found it:
spepsaret= spectaret (Hassler, Vol 1., p.65)
https://app.digitale-sammlungen.de/bookshelf/bsb00044095/view?currentUrl=%2Fview%2Fbsb00044095%3Fview%3DImageView&manifest=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.digitale-sammlungen.de%2Fiiif%2Fpresentation%2Fv2%2Fbsb00044095%2Fmanifest&canvas=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.digitale-sammlungen.de%2Fiiif%2Fpresentation%2Fv2%2Fbsb00044095%2Fcanvas%2F113&view=ImageView

The resource is:Fabri, Felix: Felicis Fabri ord. praed. Evagatorium - BSB Clm 2826 (Page 113) It’s about 2/3 of the way down the page.

15

I don’t understand. I guessed spectaret, but amended that to spectare in my list of suggestions so as to have it depend on diceret. Otherwise, what does it mean?

PS. p.314 glari should be gloriari. “Nos autem gloriari” is the Introit to the mass. I guess none of us are good Catholics or we’d have seen that right away. :smiley:

That takes care of pretty well everything I think. But how about that spectare{t}? Could someone please explain the subjunctive, or should it be infinitive as I originally proposed?

16

Michael,
I think just from context the meaning of spectaret here is simply he (the Prior) would have to refer the matter to his superiors, since he didn’t have the authority to grant FFF permission. It should be linked with "Qui cum diceret… non habere…..,sed ad … spectaret. Perhaps "sed ad… spectaret is considered as a clause of result. “he said that he didn’t have this, so he would do that.” I’ve just finished reading everything A&G have to say about indirect discourse and the closest statement I can find that applies to this is:
593. A clause depending upon a Subjunctive clause or an equivalent Infinitive will itself take the Subjunctive if regarded as an integral part of that clause:—1
The overall structure is a cum circumstantial clause “cum diceret…, …statim produxi”, with two intermediate clauses, one with an infinitive and one with a subjunctive, nested between.
Just my analysis (more like guesswork!)-I’m certainly no expert.

17

Many thanks for the effort, Aetos, but I really don’t see how that will work. If spectaret is right, it has to be grammatically parallel to diceret: cum diceret … sed spectaret, with spectaret the second limb of the cum clause and opposed to diceret. But surely sed spectaret should be the second part of what he said, i.e. dependent on diceret, and that requires spectare infinitive (with hoc negotium its subject, I take it), so as to give something like “When he said he didn’t have the power of “licencing” me into Jerusalem but the matter had to do with His Holiness the Pope and the Master General of our Order [the Dominicans] I immediately produced their letters.”

So it looks to me as if spectaret is a scribal error in the manuscript you tracked down. It was satisfying to have my guess for spepsaret confirmed—and it was satisfying to identify “Nos autem gloriari,” which had me baffled at first pass.

I don’t think that leaves us with anything further to “solve,” unless your knowledge of old Venetian extends to Aliu/Alliiu. :smiley:
Alleluia!

18

Thanks for the reply, Michael. I guess that’s it, then. Considering the whole document was handwritten, it certainly is not surprising for there to be scribal errors. I don’t think I ever wrote a letter (back when we wrote letters by hand)where I didn’t have to correct something or even typed a paper without a bottle of white-out available!

19

Ave, Carole!

Thank you for starting this project. I find this sort of thing fun to read in Latin. Please keep us updated about your progress and provide links to the texts once posted.

20

Thank you Aetos!

I have amended “spepsaret” to “spectaret” and “glari” to “gloriari”. Honestly, I am quite amazed that you are able to decypher such a manuscript.

As for the progress of the project. I am mostly finished. Is there any change (from the above list), except for spectaret/gloriari, that I should apply?

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus