Period of Original Use

[Linda]

There is good codicological evidence (that I presented at Frascati in 2012) that the bifolios had already been misordered / shuffled by the time that the quire numbers were added (certainly from Q13, but I think elsewhere too). This would run counter to the suggestion that the quire-adding owner was able to read (or even parse) the manuscript in any way.

The quire numbering style (abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals) is extremely unusual, and so far we have found examples (as I recall) only from circa 1470 or so in Switzerland / Lake Constance. My inference is that the manuscript had by this time probably entered some kind of Swiss monastic library: but I see no sign that anyone had the faintest idea what it was saying.

Lets say the binding did happen in this way. If that is the case that no one could read it by 1470 then the original owner had likely died without passing along its secrets, or this was the case with the person they did transfer it to, and the binder was perhaps a third person to be in possession of it. 

Or, it could have gone through many hands by this time, perhaps a society of people, passing the pages to each other in turn, and this latest one found the folios in disarray so decided to have it bound so as not to lose any of it, perhaps he was going on a trip and wanted to be able to transport it more easily, or thought perhaps the ordering he received it in may have been important and didnt want to lose track of this. 

There are parts of what is today northern Italy that until 1918 belonged to Austria (Trento), and the area bordered on Tyrol in Switzerland. The Habsburgs of Austria were also the Counts of Tyrol by that time and ruled the whole area. The northern tip of Lake Garda and the eastern tip of Lake Constance are included in the greater area described, ie Trentino Tyrol Austria. 

It seems interesting to me that Northern Italy keeps coming up in terms of where the manuscript originated, or from whence the author may have come or travelled through, but here is an area that falls under both that description and as part of the Habsburg dynasty, which makes this area directly connected to where the manuscript was later known to be, in Prague, even though it seems like quite the distance for it to have travelled.



So one guess is that the manuscript would have found its way to Vienna sometime after 1470. It may have come into the possession of the government at an early time, or the binder kept in in their family for a time, or it continued to be passed around, at least we know it was kept dry and did not succumb to fire. 



By some means it may well have belonged to Rudolf II, whether purchased for the 600 ducats or already in his possession, or simply in possession of the greater court, which was moved from Vienna to Prague in 1583. This would explain how Tepence came to have hold of it there in or after 1607, when he was given that name by Rudolf II. He would likely have had interest in the herbal section from a medical point of view.



Tepence died in 1622. By 1637 Baresch wrote his first letter to Kircher, the 1639 letter delivered by Moretus evidently mentions Baresch had had it for some time, presumably longer than the 2 years that had passed since the previous letter. Could it have meant 15 years?

The connection with the tip of Lake Garda seems especially appropos since i think this area is depicted within the manuscript itself on f80r, and Lake Constance on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.