Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Portolanero (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 9 February 2013 (→News and Suggestions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What does "No direct extracts from the document have been discovered" mean? We do have the Cnoyen/Mercator extracts (long quoted passages) preserved in Dee's extant manuscript.

Those are extracts from what Cnoyen was told about the Inventio, not from the Inventio itself. David Trochos (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

News and Suggestions

I have here some news and material on the IF. The "in the 1490s, the Inventio had gone missing," seems wrong now because Best read it. It may be lost soon after 1578.

"Cnoyen... neither he nor the priest having actually seen the Inventio." This is very right. The only persons we know who read the IF were Columbus and Best.

IF "only known through a summary in a second text, the Itinerarium" That is right. But is "summary" a good choice? Usually it implies that the book was read. But that was not the case like the article later explains. I would suggest: "mainly known through a description in a second text, the Itinerarium"

What we know from the Cnoyen Itinerarium seems based on the priest with the astrolabe who reported in 1364 the King of Norway. I think there is some scholarly consensus now that this priest was probably Ivar Bardsson. That Columbus' son Fernando and las Casas mentioned the IF seems worth to mention too. -- Portolanero (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't know that Columbus or Best saw it. Best is referring to Mercator's mention of it. My friend Kirsten Seaver says that Columbus would have heard of it, but that's all. Best's quote is from Forbisher's report on his first voyage, right? Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And Kare Prytz isn't a reliable source by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Best mentioned text that is not in the Mercator letter. I checked Best by Google Books and gave the references to find it. Follow my link. The same is true for Columbus. The floating islands could not be from the Cnoyen report. And his son and las Casas wrote he had or read the IF. -- Portolanero (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of this page and perhaps Misplaced Pages. You need to give a reliable source (see WP:RS and don't suggest Prytz) saying Best mentioned text not in Mercator or anywhere else. He seems to have copied from Forberisher's first voyage but you didn't reply to that. Again, a reliable source for Columbus, something not being in Cnoyen, anyone saying Columbus read or had the IF. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont fully understand your reply. On note 14 I wrote:

The citation in context: "a frier of Oxforde... described almoste all the lande aboute the Pole, finding it divided into foure partes or ilandes by foure greate guttes, indrafts, or channels...Hee reporteth that the south-weast parte of that lande is a fruitfull and a holesome soyle. The north-east part (in respect of England) is inhabited with a people called Pygmaei, whiche are not at the uttermoste above foure foote highe." Best (1578), pp. 34f.

Now "Best (1578), pp. 34f." is at Google books, see note 13. The crucial sentence: "Hee reporteth that the south-weast parte of that lande is a fruitfull and a holesome soyle." is not in the letter by Mercator. This everyone able to read Taylors Imago Mundi paper (given in this article here) can check. So you can belive me or check what I said if you doubt. What is the problem? -- Portolanero (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have Taylor's paper. And you don't seem to get my point. As editors we can't say that because X then Y, we need to quote a source that says "because X then Y." In other words, you need a reliable source stating Best read/had the Inventio. Ditto Columbus - you are relying on Prytz but we can't use him. I'll see what Kirsten Seaver says. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Why is Prytz not a reliable source? And where does the unsourced and now disputed claim "in the 1490s, the Inventio had gone missing," comes from? -- Portolanero (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)