Th is article informs about an album amicorum of Pavel of Jizbice which is bound into an old edition in the holdings of the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague and has been found recently. Th e humanistic poet Pavel of Jizbice used it at the time of his studies in Annaberg. Th e album contains fi rst of all records by his fellow-students. Latin and Greek of their records which are transliterated in the article is directly proportional to the erudition level of those days.
This article informs about an album amicorum of Pavel of Jizbice which is bound into an old edition in the holdings of the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague and has been found recently. Th e humanistic poet Pavel of Jizbice used it at the time of his studies in Annaberg. Th e album contains fi rst of all records by his fellow-students. Latin and Greek of their records which are transliterated in the article is directly proportional to the erudition level of those days.
This article provides a critical edition and exposition of several phrases from scholastic poems (or from two or four combined poems) with the incipit Ex fideli veterum scriptura cognovi (Walther, Initia No. 5984), whose authorship is ascribed to the protonotary of Václav IV., Vlachník of Weitmile († 1399), inspired by the intellectual atmosphere of the Prague Court.
The DF III 1 Strahov Manuscript, which preserves the only version of the Vincencius and Jarloch chronicle, has a rich and not too happy history behind it. For a long time it was housed in the Prague Chapter Library, from which it was lost under mysterious circumstances sometime before 1764. It was not discovered again until 1826 by Josef Dietrich, curate at Postoloprty, who donated it to Josef Dobrovský. Dobrovský used it for his edition of what is known as the Ansbert Chronicle and then donated it to the Strahov Monastery Library. If we follow the fortunes of the Codex before its disappearance from the Chapter Library, we find that this evidently happened "thanks" to Václav Prokop Duchovský, Secretary to the Archbishop's Consistory, who did not return the borrowed manuscript to its original place, and kept this fact from Gelasius Dobner, who was looking for the Codex in the library a year later in order to compile an edition of both chronicles. The motive for this behaviour was evidently their mutual poor relations due to Dobner's criticism of Hájek's Chronicle.
The DF III 1 Strahov Manuscript, which preserves the only version of the Vincencius and Jarloch chronicle, has a rich and not too happy history behind it. For a long time it was housed in the Prague Chapter Library, from which it was lost under mysterious circumstances sometime before 1764. It was not discovered again until 1826 by Josef Dietrich, curate at Postoloprty, who donated it to Josef Dobrovský. Dobrovský used it for his edition of what is known as the Ansbert Chronicle and then donated it to the Strahov Monastery Library. If we follow the fortunes of the Codex before its disappearance from the Chapter Library, we find that this evidently happened "thanks" to Václav Prokop Duchovský, Secretary to the Archbishop's Consistory, who did not return the borrowed manuscript to its original place, and kept this fact from Gelasius Dobner, who was looking for the Codex in the library a year later in order to compile an edition of both chronicles. The motive for this behaviour was evidently their mutual poor relations due to Dobner's criticism of Hájek's Chronicle.
The Latin treatise De amore (s. XII/XIII) by Andreas Capellanus has repeatedly presented a challenge to research because of the heterogeneity of its form and contents. The numerous interpretations of this elusive work base themselves on the single edition by Emil Trojel from 1892 which does not convey a representative account of the rich and complex transmission of the text. An important part of this contribution is, thus, to elucidate both the transmission history of De amore and relevant questions for research. The main focus will be an analysis of the textual version of De amore in the aforementioned Prague manuscript (1471–1481) and its formal-structural transformation, its codicological surroundings as well as its cultural context. This late-medieval textual witness suggests, on every level of the text, significant emendations to the textual form as presented by Trojel. By means of radical truncations and a prominent restructuring, new intratextual connections are created: a reinforced edifying function, an ambition for a general validity, and tendencies concerning structuring and systematizing clearly appear to be the new principles for the shaping of the text. In the Prague manuscript, De amore is copied between contemporary Humanist treatises whose contextualisation will be presented as the source of further thoughts on literary history. The contribution will be rounded off by means of an up-to-date comprehensive list of the manuscript transmission of De amore, a comparative table of the different structurings of the text, and a new description of the Prague manuscript.
The Latin treatise De amore (s. XII/XIII) by Andreas Capellanus has repeatedly presented a challenge to research because of the heterogeneity of its form and contents. The numerous interpretations of this elusive work base themselves on the single edition by Emil Trojel from 1892 which does not convey a representative account of the rich and complex transmission of the text. An important part of this contribution is, thus, to elucidate both the transmission history of De amore and relevant questions for research. The main focus will be an analysis of the textual version of De amore in the aforementioned Prague manuscript (1471–1481) and its formal-structural transformation, its codicological surroundings as well as its cultural context. This late-medieval textual witness suggests, on every level of the text, significant emendations to the textual form as presented by Trojel. By means of radical truncations and a prominent restructuring, new intratextual connections are created: a reinforced edifying function, an ambition for a general validity, and tendencies concerning structuring and systematizing clearly appear to be the new principles for the shaping of the text. In the Prague manuscript, De amore is copied between contemporary Humanist treatises whose contextualisation will be presented as the source of further thoughts on literary history. The contribution will be rounded off by means of an up-to-date comprehensive list of the manuscript transmission of De amore, a comparative table of the different structurings of the text, and a new description of the Prague manuscript.