This has a great description of Ferrands book!
My last post discussed wounds and surgeons in the first volume of Roger Boyle’s romance Parthenissa (1651), in which I argued that the hero’s body was being medicalised in a distinctively modern way. But there’s plenty more to say about the function of wounds in this romance. The hero’s body in Parthenissa is not just a patient’s, submitting to the ‘plaisters’ of the surgeon; the hero is also an active desiring subject who has been overcome with physical passion for the heroine.
So far, so conventional; the wound representing love stretches all the way back to Cupid’s arrow. However, clichés become clichés for a good reason; just because the wound is now hackneyed as a metaphorical construction of passion it shouldn’t blind us to its effectiveness. The wound conveys a loss of control, the absolute physicality of the body confronted with the object of desire. What emerges from a reading…
View original post 1,343 more words
281J Early 15th century Homiliary
{Homiliarius doctorum qui omiliarius dici solet … Hieronymi Augustini, Ambrosii, Jo. Chrysostomi, Gregorii, Origenis, Bede et complures ..}?
St Augustine (354- 430), John Christomos (349-407) St Benedict , Pope Leo I(440-61) ( and others)
Spain, 15th century. $37,000
Large Folio. 12 ½ x 9 1/4 inches Leaf size, text block is 9 3/4 x 6 inches.
196 Leaves This manuscript begins at Leaf 141 and continues to CCCXXVIII, (141- 337 leaves). For a total of 196 manuscript leaves on vellum. There are catch words and original it had signatures in the beginning of each quire, but they are now unintelligible. There are 
thirty five large decorated initials with nice neat pen work. This book has seen a lot of use. Some pages have been trimmed, sections have been scratched out and others corrected. many leaves have cuts and cracks some repaired earlier than later, by stitching .
This is a collection of Homilies. Who was the editor is not certain, and while traditionally it is attributed to Paul the Deacon approximately 720-799 There is also supposition that it was collected by Alcuin or even Bede. What we do know is that the production of 
Homiliary began in the 780s when Charlemagne (742/743–814) appointed Paul the Deacon to compose a Homiliary. Charlemagne,” has been represented as the sponsor or even creator of medieval education, and the Carolingian renaissance has been represented as the renewal of Western culture. This renaissance, however, built on earlier episcopal and monastic developments, and, although Charlemagne did help to ensure the survival of scholarly traditions in a relatively bleak and rude age, there was nothing like the general advance in education that occurred later 
with the cultural awakening of the 11th and 12th centuries. Learning, 
nonetheless, had no more ardent friend than Charlemagne, who came to the Frankish throne in 768 distressed to find extremely poor education systems” [EB] “Charlemagne stands out as the personification of everything that is unselfish and noble, a conqueror who visualized himself as the champion of European unity with the purpose of saving Europe through imperial conquest—an evangelist with a sword. As it turns out, Charlemagne did see himself as the Conqueror of everything pagan and heterodox and the divinely destined builder of Augustine’s City of God—of “one God, one emperor, one pope, one city of God.”[2] It was as if Charlemagne consciously sought to fulfill Plato’s vision of the ideal philosopher king. After all, Europe badly needed a conquering strong man like David of old, who could exercise wisdom and discernment in the sustainment of God’s new Jerusalem on earth.” [Gregory W. Hamilton ;http://nrla.com/charlemagne-and-the-vision-of-a-christian-empire/%5D
So, We do know that ” From a very early time the Homilies of the Fathers were in high esteem, and were read in connection with the recitation of the Divine Office. That the custom was as old as the sixth century we know since St. Gregory the Great refers to it, and St. Benedict mentions it in his rule (Pierre Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, 107). This was particularly true of the homilies of Pope St. Leo I, very terse and peculiarly suited to liturgical purposes
This particular Homilarium Begins [folio cxli] with Ambrose (340-397) Homilies for the Quadragesima (forty days of Lent -Yes lent is longer than 40 days even though there are more 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter. ( counting the days of Lent excluding its Sundays and the Sacred Triduum, which technically is a separate sacred time.) This takes up to folio cclxxiiii. Following St Ambrose who has iv sermons in this section are sermons by Origen(IV) Bede( ) John Chrystosom ( ) Cyrill ( v), Augustine ( ) Peter Chrysologus Archbishop of Ravenna, approximately 400-450 (1) Alcuin of York ( ). Folios 141-275
After the Quadragesima series begins the Homilies for The Passion of Christ (Holy Week) On Palm Sunday, Jesus and his disciples spent the night in Bethany, a town about two miles east of Jerusalem. This is where Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from the dead, and his two sisters, Mary and Martha lived. They were close friends of Jesus, and probably hosted Him and His disciples during their final days in Jerusalem.
Holy Week/Passione homilies occupy folios 246-312.
Augustine,Gregory, Pope Leo, Chrystomos,
Palm Sunday Dominica in ramis palmarum folios 313-337
Bernard,Pope Leo, Cyprian, Chrystomos,
Ambrose: (c339-397)
Homiletic commentaries on the Old Testament: the Hexaemeron (Six Days of Creation); De Helia et ieiunio (On Elijah and Fasting); De Iacob et vita beata (On Jacob and the Happy Life); De Abraham; De Cain et Abel; De Ioseph (Joseph); De Isaac vel anima (On Isaac, or The Soul); De Noe (Noah); De interpellatione Iob et David (On the Prayer of Job and David); De patriarchis (On the Patriarchs); De Tobia (Tobit); Explanatio psalmorum (Explanation of the Psalms); Explanatio symboli (Commentary on the Symbol).
Saint Augustine:
Peter Chrysologus:
(c. 380 – c. 450) Archbishop of Ravenna, approximately 400-450 , The earliest printed work by Chrysologus is 1575 Insigne et pervetvstvm opvs homiliarum.He is known as the “Doctor of Homilies” for the concise but theologically rich reflections he delivered during his time as the Bishop of Ravenna. His surviving works offer eloquent testimony to the Church’s traditional beliefs about Mary’s perpetual virginity, the penitential value of Lent, Christ’s Eucharistic presence, and the primacy of St. Peter and his successors in the Church. Few details of St. Peter Chrysologus’ biography are known. He was born in the Italian town of Imola in either the late fourth or early fifth century, but sources differ as to whether this occurred around 380 or as late as 406.
John Chrystosom
Beyond Chrstostoms preaching, the other lasting legacy of John is his influence on Christian liturgy. Two of his writings are particularly notable. He harmonized the liturgical life of the Church by revising the prayers and rubrics of the Divine Liturgy, or celebration of the Holy Eucharist. To this day, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite typically celebrate the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom as the normal Eucharistic liturgy, although his exact connection with it remains a matter of debate among experts.
Saint Cyrill. 
Cyril’s jurisdiction over Jerusalem was expressly confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople (381), at which he was present. At that council he voted for acceptance of the term homoousios,(“consubstantial” this term was later also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate it as being “same in essence” with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God) having been finally convinced that there was no better alternative. Cyril’s writings are filled with the loving and forgiving nature of God which was somewhat uncommon during his time period. Cyril fills his writings with great lines of the healing power of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit, like “The Spirit comes gently and makes himself known by his fragrance. He is not felt as a burden for God is light, very light. Rays of light and knowledge stream before him as the Spirit approaches. The Spirit comes with the tenderness of a true friend to save, to heal, to teach, to counsel, to strengthen and to console”. Cyril himself followed God’s message of forgiveness many times throughout his life. This is most clearly seen in his two major exiles where Cyril was disgraced and forced to leave his position and his people behind. He never wrote or showed any ill will towards those who wronged him. Cyril stressed the themes of healing and regeneration in his catechesis. the well-known Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, to explain them to the catechumens during the latter part of Lent
Holy God, you gather the whole universe
into your radiant presence and continually reveal your Son as our Savior.
Bring healing to all wounds,
make whole all that is broken,
speak truth to all illusion,
and shed light in every darkness,
that all creation will see your glory and know your Christ. Amen.
St. Gregory the Great (ca. 540-604).
Alcuin of York : Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus; c. 735 – 19 May 804 AD)—also called Ealhwine, Alhwin or Alchoin—was an English scholar, clergyman, poet and teacher from York, Northumbria. He was born around 735 and became the student of Archbishop Ecgbert at York. At the invitation of Charlemagne, he was a leading scholar and teacher at the Carolingian court, where he remained a figure in the 780s and ’90s.
Alcuin wrote many theological and dogmatic treatises, as well as a few grammatical works and a number of poems. He was made Abbot of Tours in 796, where he remained until his death. “The most learned man anywhere to be found”, according to Einhard‘s Life of Charlemagne (ca. 817-833), he is considered among the most important architects of the Carolingian Renaissance. Among his pupils were many of the dominant intellectuals of the Carolingian era
.
Origen :
The homilies (homiliai, homiliae, tractatus) were familiar discourses on texts of Scripture, often extemporary and recorded as well as possible by stenographers. The list is long and undoubtedly must have been longer if it be true that Origen, as St. Pamphilus declares in his “Apology” preached almost every day. There remain in Greek twenty-one (twenty on Jeremias and the celebrated homily on the witch of Endor); in Latin, one hundred and eighteen translated by Rufinus, seventy-eight translated by St. Jerome and some others of more of less doubtful authenticity, preserved in this collection of homilies
263J Gassendi, Pierre (1592-1655); Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642); Kepler, Johannes (1571-1630)
Petri Gassendi Institutio Astronomica: Juxta Hypotheseis tam Veterum quàm Recentiorum. Cui accesserunt Galilei Galilei Nuncius Sidereus; et Johannis Kepleri Dioptrice. Tertia editio prioribus Correctior.
London: Jacob Flesher for William Morden, 1653. $22,000
Octavo: 18.3 x 11.8 cm. 3 parts in one volume: [16], 199, [1]; 173, [1] p., 4 leaves of plates. Collation: A-N8, O4; A-L8 (including the final blank leaf)
SECOND EDITION THUS, Fourth edition overall of Gassendi
A nice copy in contemporary, blind-ruled English calfskin, rebacked. The first title page is printed in red and black. Galileo’s “Sidereus Nuncius” and Kepler’s “Dioptrice” are introduced by separate title pages. The text is illustrated with astronomical woodcuts including images of the moon, showing its uneven, mountainous surface as discerned by Galileo through the telescope and four full-paged woodcut illustrations of stars (the Pleiades, Orion’s belt, the Praesepe and Orion Nebulas.)
Gassendi’s “Institutio Astronomica,” has been called the first modern astronomy textbook. It is divided into three sections: the first details the so-called theory of the spheres, the second describes astronomical theory, and the third discusses the conflicting ideas of Brahe and Copernicus. The present edition is important for the inclusion of two seminal works of telescopic astronomy: Galileo’s “Sidereus Nuncius” (first ed. Venice, 1610), in which announces his discovery of Jupiter’s moons, and Kepler’s “Dioptrice” (first ed. Augsburg, 1611), Kepler’s brilliant explanation of how the telescope works.Galileo’s Discoveries with the Telescope:”Galileo’s ‘Starry Messenger’ contains some of the most important discoveries in scientific literature. Learning in the summer of 1609 that a device for making distant objects seem close and magnified had been brought to Venice from Holland, Galileo soon constructed a spy-glass of his own which he demonstrated to the notables of the Venetian Republic, thus earning a large increase in his salary as professor of mathematics at Padua. Within a few months he had a good telescope, magnifying to 30 diameters, and was in full flood of astronomical observation.”Through his telescope Galileo saw the moon as a spherical, solid, mountainous body very like the earth- quite different from the crystalline sphere of conventional philosophy. He saw numberless stars hidden from the naked eye in the constellations and the Milky Way.
Above all, he discovered four new ‘planets’, the satellites of Jupiter that he called (in honor of his patrons at Florence) the Medicean stars. Thus Galileo initiated modern observational astronomy and announced himself as a Copernican. (Printing and the Mind of Man)
Kepler’s Explanation of the Telescope:”In order that the enormous possibilities harbored in the telescope could develop, it was necessary to clear up the theoretical laws by which it worked. And this achievement was reserved solely for Kepler. With the energy peculiar to him, inside of a few weeks, in the months of August and September of the same year, 1610, he composed a book tracing basically once and for all the laws governing the passage of light through lenses and systems of lenses. It is called ‘Dioptrice’, a word that Kepler himself coined and introduced into optics. […]”In problem 86 in which he shows ‘how with the help of two convex lenses visible objects can be made larger and distinct but inverted’ he develops the principle on which the astronomical telescope is based, the discovery of which is thus tied up with his name for all time. Further on follows the research into the double concave lens and the Galilean telescope in which a converging lens is used as objective and a diverging lens as eyepiece. By this suitable combination Kepler discovers the principle of today’s telescopic lens. Even this scanty account sows the epoch-making significance of the work. It is not an overstatement to call Kepler the father of modern optics because of it. (Max Caspar, “Kepler”, pp. 198-199) Kepler’s work is also the first to announce Galileo’s discovery that Venus has phases like the moon.
Wing G293; Cinti 155; Sotheran, I p. 75 (1476); cf. PMM 113 and Dibner, Heralds of Science, #7 (the 1610 edition)
Quodcumque vinclis super ter- ram strinxeris, erit in astris reli- gatum fortiter. And whatever with bonds you shall have bound upon earth will be bound strongly in heaven. Et quod resolvis in terris arbitrio, e- rit solutum super radium. In fi- ne mundi iudex And what you unbind/loosen on earth will be loosened upon in…
Bruno Ganz: “I Know Now What No Angel Knows”
The loss of any beloved actor hurts, but there’s an extra tinge of poignancy to the passing of Bruno Ganz at the age of seventy-seven. Delivering one of his most subtly moving performances in Wim Wenders’s Wings of Desire (1987), Ganz plays Damiel, one in a flock of angels who wander the still-divided city of Berlin, listening in on the innermost thoughts of people unaware of their presence. Their eavesdropping is “both empathetic and voyeuristic,” as Michael Atkinson points out in the essay accompanying our release, and “most of what the angels hear from their earthling subjects is worry, worry, worry.” Nonetheless, as Damiel confides to his close friend (Otto Sander), he’s been tiring of his “transcendent existence” and yearns to feel “a weight within that would end this boundlessness and tie me to earth.” He’s tempted to experience even the simplest of pleasures such as a smoke or a cup of coffee—“and if you do it together,” Peter Falk tells him, “it’s fantastic”—and reaches his breaking point when he falls for a trapeze artist (Solveig Dommartin).
Damiel casts off his wings, and with them, his immortality, plunging to earth where he can touch and smell and love and sense the passing of time. He can also cheat death by setting down an immortal record of his mortal life. He can write: “I know now what no angel knows.” Ganz is gone, but we still have that declaration, along with more than a hundred film and television performances.
Ten years before Wings, Ganz and Wenders first worked together on The American Friend, a loose adaptation of two of Patricia Highsmith’s Ripley novels. Dennis Hopper plays the devious and seductive con artist and serial murderer Tom Ripley, who arranges to have Ganz’s Jonathan Zimmermann, a terminally ill picture framer, ensnared in a plot to kill one of Ripley’s rivals. As Francine Prose wrote for our release three years ago, Zimmermann is “a tragic figure, a hero for whom we are actively rooting in his struggle against the forces unleashed by the reprehensible caprice of his American friend. How can we not side with a character played by Bruno Ganz at his most radiantly handsome, an actor who can manage to perform the deceptively simple but in fact challenging feat of making a mild and fundamentally decent family man both interesting and charismatic?”
Hopper and Ganz would eventually get along just fine, but not before coming to blows at the outset. Ganz once told the Irish Times’ Donald Clarkethat he was “jealous because [Hopper] was a Hollywood star and I was nothing, really.” Which wasn’t entirely true. Born to a working class family in Zürich, he was acting professionally by the time he was twenty, working with top theater directors within just a few years, and in 1970, he became a cofounding member of Peter Stein’s famously radical Schaubühne ensemble. Around fifteen years into an off-and-on career in movies, Ganz starred in Eric Rohmer’s The Marquise of O (1976). That’s not nothing.
Between The American Friend and Wings of Desire, Ganz worked with novelist, playwright, and Wenders collaborator Peter Handke on The Left-Handed Woman (1978), turned in a wrenching performance as a man shot by police who then unwittingly becomes an enemy of the state in Reinhard Hauff’s Knife in the Head (1978), worked alongside Klaus Kinski and Isabelle Adjani in Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu (1979), and appeared with Hanna Schygulla and Jerzy Skolimowski in Volker Schlöndorff’s Circle of Deceit(1981). In Circle, he played a journalist sent to Beirut to cover the Lebanese Civil War, a man “horrified and bewildered by the spectacle of violence and drawn into violence himself,” as Peter Bradshaw writes in the Guardian. “In all these roles, Ganz was excellent as the morally literate, cultured man gazing into an abyss of evil or sadness.”
Over the weekend, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung ran several remembrances, including Schlöndorff’s, in which he recalls that Ganz had wanted Romy Schneider, with whom he’d had an affair ten years before, for Schygulla’s role. But by this point in her life, Schneider was ailing “both physically and emotionally” and wouldn’t have been able to withstand conditions on the set of film shot on location in an actual war zone. Schygulla turned out to be a trooper, calming Ganz’s nerves as sharpshooters carried out their “macabre target practice” on innocent civilians simply trying to cross a street. Before they arrived in Lebanon, Ganz and Schygulla had clashed during rehearsals in Munich. He couldn’t take her seriously as an actress, even after “her great success” in Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s The Marriage of Maria Braun (1978). Schlöndorff notes that even twenty years after Fassbinder’s death, following a screening of Schlöndorff’s Baal starring Fassbinder as Brecht’s poet, Ganz couldn’t get over how “unbearably arrogant this guy” was. For her part, Schygulla couldn’t relate to the methods Ganz had developed during his Schaubühne days.
But neither Ganz nor Schygulla wanted to give up a role in Circle of Deceit.At Schlöndorff’s insistence, they talked it out during a long walk through Munich’s English Garden. After all, “they were professionals.” During the shoot, Schlöndorff “discovered anew each day” that Ganz was the “ideal” actor to portray an observer who had begun to doubt his own profession, journalism. Also writing in the NZZ, Urs Bühler argues that Ganz “knew how to use his presence to fill empty spaces on the screen without dominating them.” For Variety’s Owen Gleiberman, Ganz was “sly, pensive, puckish yet woeful, inwardly commanding, almost always intensely becalmed, an actor with a light in his eye that could radiate anything from merry deviousness to the fiercest of existential distress.”
Existential distress doesn’t get any more fierce than in a scene from Oliver Hirschbiegel’s Downfall (2004) that’s become one of the most popular memes of the past decade. As Adolf Hitler—and, as a testament to Ganz’s range, it’s a deep plummet from Damiel hovering in the heavens over Berlin down to the hellish underground bunker beneath that same city—Ganz rants and raves as the realization begins to sink in that the war is lost. A little over two years after the film’s release, the scene, its video and audio intact, began to appear with fresh subtitles—because, yes, it is funny to see the Führer working himself into a lather over an iPod Touch without a camera or the results of a Glasgow East by-election. “It’s amazing, the creativity from these kids!” Ganz once exclaimed in an interview. “How they come up with these ideas!”
The meme tends to overshadow the daring brilliance of Ganz’s performance. “The decrepit individual shuffling through the bunker rooms, his mood ricocheting unpredictably from bleak resignation to wildly unreal flurries of optimism, is brilliantly played,” argued historian Ian Kershaw, author of an award-winning series of biographies of Hitler, in the Guardian in 2004. “The towering outbursts of white-hot rage, subsiding into pathetic self-pity, the fury directed at the alleged ‘betrayal’ of generals who had strained every sinew to fulfill his commands; his cold indifference to the fate of the German people; his last wishes to continue the fight against the Jews . . . Of all the screen depictions of the Führer, even by famous actors such as Alec Guinness or Anthony Hopkins, this is the only one which to me is compelling. Part of this is the voice. Ganz has Hitler’s voice to near perfection. It is chillingly authentic.”
Fifteen years on, it’s easy to forget how heated the debate over Downfallbecame in the mid-2000s. “To play Hitler is to walk into a paradox,” wrote A. O. Scott in the New York Times. “We still want to understand not just the historical background of German National Socialism, but also the psychological and temperamental forces that shaped its leader. At the same time, though, there is still a powerful taboo against making him seem too much like one of us. We want to get close, but not too close.” One of the film’s harshest critics argued in an open letter published in Die Zeit, a widely read weekly in Germany, that Downfall takes its viewers “into a black hole in which they are led, almost unnoticeably, toward looking at this time through the eyes of the perpetrators, and generates a kind of benevolent understanding of them.” That critic was Wim Wenders.
One counterargument would be that it’s precisely because the Nazis were not supernatural incarnations of evil, but rather, human beings caught up in the fever of an ego-stroking ideology espoused by a charismatic personality that we need to be reminded that fascism can take hold anywhere and at any time. But if anyone is to have the last word on Downfall, it should, of course, be Bruno Ganz. “Having played him, I cannot claim to understand Hitler,” he told the Guardian in 2005. “He had no pity, no compassion, no understanding of what the victims of war suffered. Ultimately, I could not get to the heart of Hitler because there was none.”
Ganz had appeared in dozens of international productions before Downfall,but the film’s success—it was nominated for an Oscar for best foreign language film—had directors calling on him from around the world. He played professors in Francis Ford Coppola’s Youth Without Youth (2007) and Stephen Daldry’s The Reader (2008); he reunited with Theo Angelopoulos, who’d directed him in Eternity and a Day (1998), for The Dust of Time(2008); Ridley Scott cast him in The Counsellor (2013); he was a delightfully amusing guest in Sally Potter’s The Party (2017), a Virgil-like guide in Lars von Trier’s The House That Jack Built (2018), and Sigmund Freud in Nikolaus Leytner’s The Tobacconist (2018).
And we have at least one more performance from Ganz to look forward to—if he’s made the cut. Ganz was cast as Judge Lueben in Terrence Malick’s Radegund, which was shot in 2016 and will hopefully be released later this year. That judge is likely Werner Lueben, Senate President of the Reich Military Tribunal, who, directly or indirectly, sentenced hundreds of people whom the Nazis perceived as enemies to death, among them, the conscientious objector Franz Jägerstätter, who’ll be played by August Diehl. Radegund would be Ganz’s 121st credit at the IMDb. Not every single one of those performances will prove to be immortal, but a good number of them, certainly including his films with Wenders, possibly his work with Rohmer, Schlöndorff, Herzog, and yes, his Hitler, will.
For news and items of interest throughout the day, every day, follow @CriterionDaily.
181J Psalterium Latinum.
A early fifteenth century Manuscript
Psalter surrounded on every page by an untitled 18th century English History manuscript.
Tours, France circa 1430 $95,000
Quarto: 19.5 X 14 cm. 171 parchment leaves plus 1 unsigned with vertical catchwords.
A fifteenth-century manuscript Psalter with an early eighteenth-century English manuscript written in the margins throughout. The English work is mainly historical with long polemical passages concerning the Church of England. The primary aim of the author, who writes with a strong Catholic bias, is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the reformed Church. This copy has been recently rebound in appropriate style , of full calf and clasps.
This psalter has a long English Provenance, stretching back to the first quarter of the sixteenth-century, when this Psalter was owned by Alice Lupset, the mother of the English humanist Thomas Lupset (See below for a full discussion.)
The Psalter:
The illuminations in this volume is exquisite, with all of the large initials done in gold and colors, with great skill. The nine large (7-line) gilt initials are all accompanied by full
illuminated borders containing leaves, fruit, flowers, and vines in many shades of blue, red, green, yellow, and orange, with gilded highlights. There are several other 4-line gilt initials in the text as well as many two and one –line initial letters.
This manuscript prayer book contains the complete text of the Psalms of David. The first 118 Psalms. These are followed by eighteen named Psalms(Beth, Gimel, et cetera) These are followed by Psalms 119 through 150 and, finally, eight other Psalms.
This manuscripts dates to ca 1430. None of the popular saints canonized in the 1440’s and 1450’s appear either in the calendar or in the litany of saints. This manuscript contains almost exclusively the names of universally honored saints and festival occasions for the church as its “red letter days”
Provenance:
1) The sixteenth century:
A sixteenth century inscription on the final leaf informing us that this book belonged to Alice Lupset (died 1543/4) wife of the goldsmith Thomas Lupset (died 1522/3) and mother of the English Humanist.
The Inscription reads:
“Thes boke belongeth unto syster Lupshed sum tyme the wife of Thomas Lupshed gol smyth”
A second shorter inscriptionapparently in the same hand reads:
“Lent to syster Baker”
The feast days for English saints have been added to the calendar in an early sixteenth century hand (for example Cuthbert lear 2 recto) In accordance with Henry VIII’s
Proclamation of 1534 the word “Papa” has been duly erased from all entriesin the calendar bearing the names of popes. The Addition of English names(which are written in an English cursive hand similar to the one usedfor the ownership inscriptions) and the erasure of the word “
Pope’ were quite possibly made by Alice Lupset herself.
2) Now to the seventeenth-century. There is a single signature, only partly legible, on the final leaf: “George {???}”
3) The eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century: The ownership inscription of James Leatherbarrow appears on the first leaf and reads :
“Jas Leatherbarrow’s book 1751 No[vember] 13”
A nineteenth-century inscription on the rear flyleaf records the names of the subsequent owners of this manuscript: “This book belonged to James Leatherbarrow in 1751. See the name on the first page_by whom it was given to his Brother John Leatherbarrow, who gave it to his Daughter Mrs. Ann Lithgow, who gave it to her edest Daughter Mrs.Gasney & from her it came into the possession of her sister Elizabeth Lithgow. February 14, 1841” In another inscription John Lithgow identifies hiself as the son of Anne Lithgow.
From John Lithgow the manuscript passed to William Ormerod (1818-1860)
The English manuscript :
Surrounding, or rather filling the entire margins of the Psalter. The work is part religious, part history, and part chronicle. The, as of now, unidentified author’s purpose is to expose the usurpation of the Church and the throne of England by Protestants, beginning with Lord Somerset, and to demonstrate the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church by tracing the history of Christanity in England and chronicling – using lists excerpted from other sources- the succession of the kings and bishops of England. A number of printed and at least one manuscript work are quoted in full while others are digested or presented only in excerpt. The author of the manuscript then comments then comments upon these works, often at length, making the voices of our author and his sources difficult to parse.
The author cites a number of late seventeenth-century works, including Burnet’s “History of the Reformation”,and Jeremy Collier’s Historical Dictionary. A reference to John Harris’ Lexicon Technicum gives a terminus post quem of 1704.
181J Psalterium Latinum.
A early fifteenth century Manuscript
Psalter surrounded on every page by an untitled 18th century English History manuscript.
Tours, France circa 1430 $95,000
Quarto: 19.5 X 14 cm. 171 parchment leaves plus 1 unsigned with vertical catchwords.
A fifteenth-century manuscript Psalter with an early eighteenth-century English manuscript written in the margins throughout. The English work is mainly historical with long polemical passages concerning the Church of England. The primary aim of the author, who writes with a strong Catholic bias, is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the reformed Church. This copy has been recently rebound in appropriate style , of full calf and clasps.
This psalter has a long English Provenance, stretching back to the first quarter of the sixteenth-century, when this Psalter was owned by Alice Lupset, the mother of the English humanist Thomas Lupset (See below for a full discussion.)
The Psalter:
The illuminations in this volume is exquisite, with all of the large initials done in gold and colors, with great skill. The nine large (7-line) gilt initials are all accompanied by full illuminated borders containing leaves, fruit, flowers, and vines in many shades of blue, red, green, yellow, and orange, with gilded highlights. There are several other 4-line gilt initials in the text as well as many two and one –line initial letters.
This manuscript prayer book contains the complete text of the Psalms of David. The first 118 Psalms. These are followed by eighteen named Psalms(Beth, Gimel, et cetera) These are followed by Psalms 119 through 150 and, finally, eight other Psalms.
This manuscripts dates to ca 1430. None of the popular saints canonized in the 1440’s and 1450’s appear either in the calendar or in the litany of saints. This manuscript contains almost exclusively the names of universally honored saints and festival occasions for the church as its “red letter days”
Provenance:
1) The sixteenth century:
A sixteenth century inscription on the final leaf informing us that this book belonged to Alice Lupset (died 1543/4) wife of the goldsmith Thomas Lupset (died 1522/3) and mother of the English Humanist.
The Inscription reads:
“Thes boke belongeth unto syster Lupshed sum tyme the wife of Thomas Lupshed gol smyth”
A second shorter inscriptionapparently in the same hand reads:
“Lent to syster Baker”
The feast days for English saints have been added to the calendar in an early sixteenth century hand (for example Cuthbert lear 2 recto) In accordance with Henry VIII’sProclamation of 1534 the word “Papa” has been duly erased from all entriesin the calendar bearing the names of popes. The Addition of English names(which are written in an English cursive hand similar to the one usedfor the ownership inscriptions) and the erasure of the word “
Pope’ were quite possibly made by Alice Lupset herself.
2) Now to the seventeenth-century. There is a single signature, only partly legible, on the final leaf: “George {???}”
3) The eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century: The ownership inscription of James Leatherbarrow appears on the first leaf and reads :
“Jas Leatherbarrow’s book 1751 No[vember] 13”
A nineteenth-century inscription on the rear flyleaf records the names of the subsequent owners of this manuscript: “This book belonged to James Leatherbarrow in 1751. See the name on the first page_by whom it was given to his Brother John Leatherbarrow, who gave it to his Daughter Mrs. Ann Lithgow, who gave it to her edest Daughter Mrs.Gasney & from her it came into the possession of her sister Elizabeth Lithgow. February 14, 1841” In another inscription John Lithgow identifies hiself as the son of Anne Lithgow.
From John Lithgow the manuscript passed to William Ormerod (1818-1860)
The English manuscript :
Surrounding, or rather filling the entire margins of the Psalter. The work is part religious, part history, and part chronicle. The, as of now, unidentified author’s purpose is to expose the usurpation of the Church and the throne of England by Protestants, beginning with Lord Somerset, and to demonstrate the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church by tracing the history of Christanity in England and chronicling – using lists excerpted from other sources- the succession of the kings and bishops of England. A number of printed and at least one manuscript work are quoted in full while others are digested or presented only in excerpt. The author of the manuscript then comments then comments upon these works, often at length, making the voices of our author and his sources difficult to parse.
The author cites a number of late seventeenth-century works, including Burnet’s “History of the Reformation”,and Jeremy Collier’s Historical Dictionary. A reference to John Harris’ Lexicon Technicum gives a terminus post quem of 1704.
253J Aristotle, and Peter Tartaretus (14??-1495) $18,000
-
Expositio magistri Petri Tatereti in Summulas Petri Hyspani cum textu, una cum additionibus in locis propriis summa accuratione, summaque animadversione impressa..
With
-
Clarissima singularisq[ue] totius philosophie necnon methaphisice Aristotelis magistri Petri Tatareti expositio.
With
-
Expositio magistri Petri Tatereti super textu logices Aristotelis
Ad1) [Lugduni] : [Claudii davost al’s de troys.], 8. August 1509 (Date in the colophon:
octaua mensis Augusti anno … M.ccccc.ix.)
Ad2) [Lyons] : Impressum cura & industria Claudij davost al[ia]s de troys, 13 July 1509
Ad 3) Imprints suggested by ISTC [Lyons: Claude Davost, after 1500] or [Nicolaus Wolf ? about 1500] or [n.pr., about 1495].
This is a Very Large Octavo 9 x 5 inches. Ad1) a-l8 m10. Ad 2) A-I8, K10, L4, M-T8 Ad3) aa-pp8 qq8
This copy is bound in its original full calf over wooden boards, as you can se above, much of the leather has been lost exposing all the structural features of the construction of the book. It is lacking clasps but retains the catches and remnants of the attachment points of the clasps.
Woodcut initials and quite a few schematic text woodcuts. Spaces and guide letters for large initials not filled in and individual marginalia by old hand. This copy is bound in its original full blind stamped calf over wooden boards. With the old ownership notes (including “Samuel Hoffmanns”, the other deleted) verso with contemporary note. Occasionally contemporary marginalia in red and black ink. With the clasps renewed.
This is a rare incunabula edition of the commentary on Aristotle’s Logic by Petrus Tartaretus, follower of Duns Scotus and rector of theUniversity of Paris in 1490. Here is a Memory device for Aristotle in this book.
The most remarkable Scotist of his time, author of commentaries on the Physics and Ethics of Aristotle, on the Sentences of Peter Lombard and on the Quodlibeta of Duns Scotus.
Most of the bibliographers ascribe the printing of this work to the Lyonese printer Nicolaus Wolff,
classified as quarto volume, the dating ranges between 1495 and around or shortly after 1500.
Ad 1) Panzer, VII,; p. 292, no. 141 Not in Adams or the BM STC, French Books..
Ad 2) USTC no.: 155038 Panzer, VII,; p. 292, no. 140
LIBRARY COPIES: Universitat de Barcelona , Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Oxford (UK), Wadham College Library : Not in Adams or the BM STC, French Books..
Ad 3) Goff T43 = T40; R 758; Pell Ms 10941; IGI V p.153; IBE Post-incunables 249; Sajó-Soltész p.952; Olivar 391; Sack(Freiburg) 3337a; Walsh 3835a; ISTC it00043000
Now Back to a beginning !
Ad1) Aristotle ,Petrus Hispanus,Peter of Spain (Petrus Hispanicus Portugalensis)
This work, the first bound in this sammelband is Peter Tartareus’ explanation and direction of Peter Of Spains , Tractatus or Summaries, Tartareus’ follows the structure of Peter of Spain who naturally follows “Porphry’s Tree”
“For nearly four centuries, when logic was the heart of what we now call the “undergraduate curriculum,” Peter of Spain’s Summaries of Logic (c. 1230) was the basis for teaching that subject. Because Peter’s students were teenagers, he wrote simply and organized his book carefully. Since no book about logic was read by more people until the twentieth century, the Summaries has extensively and profoundly influenced the distinctly Western way of speaking formally and writing formal prose by constructing well-formed sentences, making valid arguments, and refuting and defending arguments in debate. ” (quoted from Peter of Spain: Summaries of Logic: Text, Translation, Introduction, and Notes 1st Edition by
“It is still not possible to establish the date of origin of the Tractatus,( and their Summaries) the work that has enjoyed such enormous success. Recent scholarship
suggests that it could have been written any time between the 1220s and the 1250s (Ebbessen 2013, 68–69). It has universally been recognised as a work by Peter of Spain. Another work that has been identified as Peter of Spain’s is aSyncategoreumata (Treatise on Syncategorematic Words), which was probably written some years after the Tractatus.[2] Considering the fact that in all the thirteenth-century manuscripts the Syncategoreumata directly follow the Tractatus, and the number of similarities between doctrinal aspects of these two works on logic, it is almost certain that they were written by the same author. Both works seem to have originated from Southern France or Northern Spain, the region where we also find the earliest commentaries on these treatises.”
The Tractatus
The Tractatus can be divided into two main parts. One part deals with doctrines found in
the so-called logica antiquorum—i.e., the logica vetus (old logic) and logica nova (new logic)—and the other contains doctrines covered by the logica modernorum—viz. the tracts that discuss theproprietates terminorum (properties of terms).
The first main part of the Tractatus divides into five tracts. The first tract, De introductionibus(On introductory topics) explains the concepts used in traditional logic—nomen (noun), verbum(verb), oratio (phrase), propositio (proposition)—and presents the divisions of and the (logical) relationships between propositions. The second tract, De predicabilibus (On the predicables) covers matters dealt with in Boethius’s accounts of Porphyry’s Isagoge. It gives an account of the concept predicabile and the five predicables—genus, species, differentia, proprium, accidens—i.e., the common features of and differences between the predicables, as well as of the terms ’predicatio’ and ’denominativum’. Tract three, De predicamentis (On the categories), discusses the ten Aristotelian categories, as well as some items already dealt with in the previous treatise. The fourth tract, De sillogismis (On syllogisms) mainly goes back to Boethius’s De 
syllogismis categoricis (On categorical syllogisms). It gives an explanation of the basic element of the syllogism, i.e., propositio, and of the syllogism, and then goes into mood and figure, the proper forms of syllogisms, and briefly deals with what are called paralogisms. The fifth tract, De locis(On topical relationships), is derived from Boethius’s De topicis differentiis (On different topical relationships) I and II. This tract starts off with an explanation of the notions argumentum and argumentatio, and then proceeds to deal with the species of argumentation: syllogism, induction, enthymeme, and example. Next, it gives a definition of locus (the Latin translation of the Greek topos): a locus is the seat of an argument (i.e., the locus is supposed to warrant the inference by bringing it under some generic rule.) The intrinsic loci (= the kind of locus that occurs when the argument is derived from the substance of the thing involved) are covered first, followed by the extrinsic loci (= the kind of locus that occurs when the argument is derived from something that is completely separate from the substance of the thing involved) and intermediary loci (= the kind of locus that occurs when the argument is taken from the things that partly share in the terms of the problem and partly differ from it). Examples are: intrinsic—the locus “from definition”: ‘a rational animal is running; therefore a man is running’; extrinsic—the locus “from opposites”: ‘Socrates is black; therefore he is not white’; intermediary—‘the just is good; therefore justice is good’.
The second part of the Tractatus comprises subjects that were of major importance in the doctrine of the properties of terms. In the sixth tract, De suppositionibus, the theory of supposition is dealt with. The treatise begins with an exposition of significatio. The definition of significatio runs: significatio is the respresentation of a thing by means of a word in accordance with convention. Next it gives a definition of the related terms suppositio and copulatio, and the differences between the terms significatio, suppositio and copulatio. Of these three suppositioand significatio are the most important in Peter’s semantics. Suppositio is defined as the acceptance of a substantive verb for some thing. Suppositio is dependent on significatio, because supposition can only occur via a term that already has some significatio. Put in other words,significatio pertains to a word by itself, and supposition to a term as actually used in some context.
The tract concludes with a division of suppositio. The first division is into suppositio communis(common supposition) and suppositio discreta (discrete supposition)—e.g., the terms homo(man) and Sortes (Socrates) respectively.
The second division, suppositio communis, is divided into naturalis (natural) and accidentalis(coincidental). Suppositio naturalis is described as the acceptance of a common term for all those things that can share in the common universal nature signified by the term in question—e.g., homo (‘man’) taken by itself by its very nature is able to stand for all men, whether in the past, present or future; suppositio accidentalis is the acceptance of a common term for those things for which the term in question requires an additional term—e.g., in homo est (‘A man is’) the term homo stands for present men, whereas in homo fuit (‘A man has been’) and in homo erit (‘A man will be’) it stands for past men and future men respectively, owing to the additional terms fuit and erit.
The third division, suppositio accidentalis, is divided into suppositio simplex (simple supposition) and suppositio personalis (personal supposition). Suppositio simplex is the acceptance of a term for the universal ‘thing’ it signifies, as in homo est species (‘Man is a species’, animal est genus (‘Animal is a genus’), in which the substantive terms homo and animal stand for the universal man and animal, and not any one of their particulars. Suppositio simplex can occur both in the subject- and in the predicate-term—e.g., homo est species (‘Man is a species’) and omnis homo est animal (‘Every man is an animal’) respectively. Suppositio personalis is the acceptance of a common term for one or more of its particulars, as in homo currit (‘A man is running’).
The fourth division, suppositio personalis, is subdivided into either derterminata (determinate = standing for a certain particular) or confusa (confused = standing for any 
individual falling under that name). Suppositio determinata occurs when a common term is taken indefinitely or in combination with a particular sign—e.g., homo currit (‘Man is running’) or aliquis homo currit(‘A /some man is running’). Suppositio confusa occurs when a common term is taken in combination with a universal sign (’Every man is running’).
The tract on supposition winds up with the discussion of a few questions regarding the attribution of supposition in a few cases.
The seventh tract of the Tractatus, on fallacies, which forms part of the Aristotelian-Boethian logic, is written in the tradition of the Fallacie maiores (Major fallacies). The eighth tract, De relativis (On relatives) deals with the relative pronouns as defined by Priscian in his Institutiones grammaticae. The relative pronouns are devided into: relatives of substance, such as qui (who), ille (he), alius (another), and relatives of accident, such as talis (of such a kind), qualis (of what kind), tantus (so much), quantus (how much). The former are subdivided into relatives of identity (qui and ille) and relatives of diversity (such as alter and reliquus, both of which can be translated as ‘the other’). The relative of identity is defined in terms of supposition as what refers to and stands for the same thing. These relatives are either reciprocal or non-reciprocal. With regard to the relatives of identity, Peter adds a dicussion of a number of questions about the rationale for using demonstrative pronouns, and some problems concerning how the fallacy of a relative having two diverse referents comes about.
The tract on relatives continues with a brief discussion on the relatives of diversity, accompanied by a rule about the supposition of the relative when it is added to a superior and an inferior in a premiss and a conclusion, as in aliud ab animali; ergo aliud ab homine (‘Something other than an animal; therefore something other than a man’). 
With regard to relatives of identity a rule of the “ancients”, who deny that a proposition introduced by a relative can have a contradictory opposite, is discussed and rejected. Another rule is given about the identity of supposition of a non-reciprocal relative and what it refers to. The tract concludes with short accounts of relatives of accident.
The ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth tracts of the Tractatus, i.e., the short tracts De ampliationibus (On ampliation), De appellationibus (On appellation), De restrictionibus (On restriction) and De distributionibus (On distribution) are in fact elaborations of the theory of supposition. Ampliation is an extension of the supposition of a term. It occurs when an expression is combined with a modal term—e.g. homo potest esse Antichristus (‘A man can be the Antichrist’), and homo necessario est animal (‘A man is necessarily an animal’)—in which case the supposition of the term ‘man’ is extended to more than just individuals existing in the present. The tract on appellationes is very short: appellation is considered no more than a special case of restriction, i.e., the restricted supposition brought about by a present-tense verb. In this tract the rules of appellation are in fact specific kinds of rules of restriction. The subject of restriction in general is discussed in the eleventh tract. The rules of restriction are the same ones as were presented in the early Parisian textbooks on logic (see de Libera 1982, pp. 176–177). The final tract, on distribution, deals with the multiplication of common terms as a result of their being combined with universal signs. These universal signs are either distributive of substance (such as omnis, nullus), or of accidents (such as qualiscumque, quantuscumque). In this description ‘substance’ is defined as substistent modes of being, and ‘accident’ as accidental modes of being. Separate attention is given to the universal sign omnis (‘all’ or ‘every’) along with a discussion of the common rule that the use of omnis requires three appellata (particular things). The most frequently cited example in these discussions in the thirteenth century was the sophisma omnis phenix est (‘Every phoenix is’). According to Peter of Spain, the use of omnisdoes not call for at least three appellata; an exception to this rule is found in cases in which there is only one appellatum, as is the phoenix-case. The tract also pays attention to a number of tongue-twisting sophisma-sentences.
Author and Citation Information for “Peter of Spain”
The latest version of the entry “Peter of Spain” may be cited via the earliest archive in which this version appears: Spruyt, Joke, “Peter of Spain”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/peter-spain/> .The citation above refers to the version in the following archive edition:
Peter Tartaretus (14??-1495)
PETRUS TARTARETUS (1494),Known for the concept of Pons asinorum (asses’ bridge ). Although of earlier origin, in philosophy this term was applied to the diagram that Peter Tartaretus constructed to assist the student of logic in the discovery of the middle term of a syllogism. The expression suggests that getting students of logic to find the middle term of a syllogism was as difficult as getting asses to cross a bridge. Hi is also known as the most remarkable Scotist of his time, *Peter Tartaretus (Tataretus) one of the most eminent of the later Scotists, taught at Paris 1490. Edited commentaries on Aristotle 1494, Expositio in Summulas Petri Hispani, first ed. without date, then 1501 and 1503, commentary on Scotus Quodlibetica 1519, and on Scotus’ commentary on the Sentences 1520. “Wetzer und Weltes: Kirchenlexicon, s. v.”
Ad 2) Petrus Tartaretus commentary of the entirety of Aristotle.
Tartaretus, begins this book by reminding us that he will be following Duns Scotus or as he says “doctoris subtilis” And dives in to The Phisicorum of Aristotle, followed by De Celo & Mundo, De Generatione & coruptione, Metheororum with some very interesting diagrams,De anima, De Sensu & Sensato, De Memoria, and finally Methaphisice.
Ad 3) Peter Tartaretus (14??-1495) on the Logic of Aristotle . Here Tartaretus comments on Aristotles Organon.
“In fact, the title Organon reflects a much later controversy about whether logic is a part of philosophy (as the Stoics maintained) or merely a tool used by philosophy (as the later Peripatetics thought); calling the logical works “The Instrument” is a way of taking sides on this point. Aristotle himself never uses this term, nor does he give much indication that these particular treatises form some kind of group, though there are frequent cross-references between the Topics and the Analytics. On the other hand, Aristotle treats the Prior and Posterior Analyticsas one work, and On Sophistical Refutations is a final section, or an appendix, to the Topics). To these works should be added the Rhetoric, which explicitly declares its reliance on the Topics.”
Quoted from The latest version of the entry “Aristotle’s Logic” may be cited via the earliest archive in which this version appears: Smith, Robin, “Aristotle’s Logic”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/aristotle-logic/>.
C.H. Lohr, ‘Latin Aristotle Commentaries, I, Medieval Authors’, Traditio, XXIII, 1967
Parsons, T.: The traditional square of opposition. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos- ophy. CSLI (2006)
Khomskii, Y.: William of Sherwood, singular propositions and the hexagon of opposition. In: Be ́ziau, J.Y., Payette, G. (eds.) The Square of Opposition. A General Framework for Cognition, pp. 43–60. Peter Lang (2012)
Read, S.: John Buridan’s theory of consequence and his octagons of opposition. In: Be ́ziau, J.Y., Jacquette, D. (eds.) Around and Beyond the Square of Opposition, pp. 93–110. Springer (2012)
Recent Comments