The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-07 21:03:13
My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so I
turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably originally
written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
"Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer Curiositäten
erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des Schlesischen
Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently printed
in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores Rerum
Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
to pp 363-6.
Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out enough
dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
A J
turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably originally
written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
"Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer Curiositäten
erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des Schlesischen
Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently printed
in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores Rerum
Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
to pp 363-6.
Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out enough
dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
A J
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-07 21:12:30
From: A J Hibbard
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:03 PM
Subject: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
> My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so
> I
turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
lift it.
Yes, I think I must have misremembered that - so we don't know whether he
could or not! I'm glad you've found something approaching nearer to an
original source for the lance story. I know I saw it in a book in which
Richard's height was being discussed, and some people said that because he
was three fingers taller than von P and von P was famously strong and
carried around this enormous lance which he challenged other people to lift,
von P must have been tall and Richard even taller. But clearly von P was
just stocky.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 9:03 PM
Subject: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
> My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so
> I
turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
lift it.
Yes, I think I must have misremembered that - so we don't know whether he
could or not! I'm glad you've found something approaching nearer to an
original source for the lance story. I know I saw it in a book in which
Richard's height was being discussed, and some people said that because he
was three fingers taller than von P and von P was famously strong and
carried around this enormous lance which he challenged other people to lift,
von P must have been tall and Richard even taller. But clearly von P was
just stocky.
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 01:49:39
I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so I
> turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
> traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
> travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
> lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
>
> Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably originally
> written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer Curiositäten
> erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des Schlesischen
> Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
>
> Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently printed
> in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores Rerum
> Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
> to pp 363-6.
>
> Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
>
> p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out enough
> dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so I
> turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
> traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
> travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
> lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
>
> Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably originally
> written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer Curiositäten
> erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des Schlesischen
> Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
>
> Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently printed
> in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores Rerum
> Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
> to pp 363-6.
>
> Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
>
> p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out enough
> dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 01:54:20
Yes, indeed, it is a free pdf of the whole book.
Don't know why you can't get past the password-like thingie, I had no
problems. I've just about finished struggling through the German text,
assisted by Google Translate, & it appears that there really isn't much
there, and nothing substantive beyond what has been quoted over & over
again. Really just a couple of paragraphs containing the quote about the
Turks, the physical description, the bit about the mass in Latin, the
"necklace" being given to von Poppelau....
There are also several more paragraphs descriptive of the English, which
appear to be not entirely complimentary.
A J
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:49 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I
> ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is
> this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today,
> so I
>
> > turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another
> foreign
> > traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von
> Poppelau
> > travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able
> to
> > lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> > Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
> >
> > Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably
> originally
> > written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> > "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer
> Curiositýten
>
> > erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des
> Schlesischen
> > Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
>
> >
> > Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently
> printed
> > in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores
> Rerum
> > Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
>
> > to pp 363-6.
> >
> > Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> > wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> > indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> > Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> > he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
>
> >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
> >
> > p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out
> enough
> > dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Don't know why you can't get past the password-like thingie, I had no
problems. I've just about finished struggling through the German text,
assisted by Google Translate, & it appears that there really isn't much
there, and nothing substantive beyond what has been quoted over & over
again. Really just a couple of paragraphs containing the quote about the
Turks, the physical description, the bit about the mass in Latin, the
"necklace" being given to von Poppelau....
There are also several more paragraphs descriptive of the English, which
appear to be not entirely complimentary.
A J
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:49 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I
> ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is
> this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today,
> so I
>
> > turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another
> foreign
> > traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von
> Poppelau
> > travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able
> to
> > lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> > Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
> >
> > Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably
> originally
> > written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> > "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer
> Curiositýten
>
> > erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des
> Schlesischen
> > Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
>
> >
> > Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently
> printed
> > in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores
> Rerum
> > Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
>
> > to pp 363-6.
> >
> > Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> > wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> > indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> > Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> > he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
>
> >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
> >
> > p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out
> enough
> > dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 02:22:41
What? A German being nasty about the English? This astonishes me.
Dr. Lin Foxhall, head of the archeology group at ULeic, had a nice little writeup of the von Poppelau evidence here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
There's not a lot to go on, unfortunately, and it doesn't look like we'll know any more unless and until a copy of von Poppelau's actual diary turns up.
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed, it is a free pdf of the whole book.
>
> Don't know why you can't get past the password-like thingie, I had no
> problems. I've just about finished struggling through the German text,
> assisted by Google Translate, & it appears that there really isn't much
> there, and nothing substantive beyond what has been quoted over & over
> again. Really just a couple of paragraphs containing the quote about the
> Turks, the physical description, the bit about the mass in Latin, the
> "necklace" being given to von Poppelau....
>
> There are also several more paragraphs descriptive of the English, which
> appear to be not entirely complimentary.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:49 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I
> > ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is
> > this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today,
> > so I
> >
> > > turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another
> > foreign
> > > traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von
> > Poppelau
> > > travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able
> > to
> > > lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> > > Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
> > >
> > > Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably
> > originally
> > > written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> > > "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer
> > Curiositäten
> >
> > > erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des
> > Schlesischen
> > > Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
> >
> > >
> > > Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently
> > printed
> > > in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores
> > Rerum
> > > Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
> >
> > > to pp 363-6.
> > >
> > > Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> > > wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> > > indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> > > Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> > > he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
> > >
> > > p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out
> > enough
> > > dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Dr. Lin Foxhall, head of the archeology group at ULeic, had a nice little writeup of the von Poppelau evidence here:
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
There's not a lot to go on, unfortunately, and it doesn't look like we'll know any more unless and until a copy of von Poppelau's actual diary turns up.
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed, it is a free pdf of the whole book.
>
> Don't know why you can't get past the password-like thingie, I had no
> problems. I've just about finished struggling through the German text,
> assisted by Google Translate, & it appears that there really isn't much
> there, and nothing substantive beyond what has been quoted over & over
> again. Really just a couple of paragraphs containing the quote about the
> Turks, the physical description, the bit about the mass in Latin, the
> "necklace" being given to von Poppelau....
>
> There are also several more paragraphs descriptive of the English, which
> appear to be not entirely complimentary.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:49 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I
> > ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is
> > this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today,
> > so I
> >
> > > turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another
> > foreign
> > > traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von
> > Poppelau
> > > travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able
> > to
> > > lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> > > Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
> > >
> > > Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably
> > originally
> > > written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> > > "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer
> > Curiositäten
> >
> > > erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des
> > Schlesischen
> > > Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
> >
> > >
> > > Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently
> > printed
> > > in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores
> > Rerum
> > > Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
> >
> > > to pp 363-6.
> > >
> > > Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> > > wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> > > indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> > > Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> > > he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
> > >
> > > p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out
> > enough
> > > dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 08:38:50
On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation of Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong made him more hostile than he really was.
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so I
> turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
> traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
> travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
> lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
>
> Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably originally
> written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer Curiositäten
> erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des Schlesischen
> Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
>
> Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently printed
> in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores Rerum
> Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
> to pp 363-6.
>
> Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
>
> p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out enough
> dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
I can't see anything at that link except the very first few pages. When I ask for the PDF, it gives me a Captcha that I can't get past. Is this... is this like a free PDF of the entire book, supposedly?
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> My copy of the 1936 edition of Armstrong's *Usurpation* arrived today, so I
> turned immediately to his Appendix "Richard III as seen by another foreign
> traveller, Nicolas von Poppelau." Armstrong does mention that von Poppelau
> travelled with an enormous lance, but does not say that Richard was able to
> lift it. Otherwise, Armstrong mentions only the conversation about the
> Turks, and Poppelau's physical description of Richard.
>
> Regarding Poppelau's journal, he ventures to say it was probably originally
> written in Latin, since the earliest reference he was aware of was to
> "Itinerarium Poppelianum, in Johannes Sinapius, *Schlesischer Curiositäten
> erste Vorstellung, darinnen die ansebulichen Geschlechter des Schlesischen
> Adels*, &c, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1720-8.
>
> Armstrong also mentions that the journal's contents were frequently printed
> in Silesia, & says he took his account from vol. III, of *Scriptores Rerum
> Silesicarum*, ed by G A Stenzel & published in Breslau 1847. He refers us
> to pp 363-6.
>
> Below is a link to this book. Since my German is non-existent, I'm
> wondering if anyone else would like to take a crack at translating, or
> indeed, if someone else has already looked at an "orignal" version of
> Poppelau's diary. Or has everyone since Armstrong been dependent on what
> he offered in his appendis to Mancini's *Usurpation*.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej4OAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=g+a+stenzel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mfs4UYvTH4qW2QWd9YDoBw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw
>
> p 380 in the pdf document is p 363 in the original, & I can pick out enough
> dates & names to think this is the source indicated by Armstrong.
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 09:39:57
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
Poppelau's diary?
> On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation of
> Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong
> made him more hostile than he really was.
I remember reacding that he's been translated as saying that Richard usurped
or seized the throne, I forget which, when the original word Mancini
actually used was far more neutral than that and just said he took the
throne, without necessarily implying that force or opposition was involved.
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
Poppelau's diary?
> On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation of
> Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong
> made him more hostile than he really was.
I remember reacding that he's been translated as saying that Richard usurped
or seized the throne, I forget which, when the original word Mancini
actually used was far more neutral than that and just said he took the
throne, without necessarily implying that force or opposition was involved.
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 13:07:26
Well, the Latin title is
Dominic Mancini, De *Occupatione* Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium, ad
Angelum catonem presulem viennensium, libellus incipit.
A J
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
> Poppelau's diary?
>
> > On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation
> of
> > Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong
> > made him more hostile than he really was.
>
> I remember reacding that he's been translated as saying that Richard
> usurped
> or seized the throne, I forget which, when the original word Mancini
> actually used was far more neutral than that and just said he took the
> throne, without necessarily implying that force or opposition was
> involved.
>
>
>
Dominic Mancini, De *Occupatione* Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium, ad
Angelum catonem presulem viennensium, libellus incipit.
A J
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
> Poppelau's diary?
>
> > On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation
> of
> > Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong
> > made him more hostile than he really was.
>
> I remember reacding that he's been translated as saying that Richard
> usurped
> or seized the throne, I forget which, when the original word Mancini
> actually used was far more neutral than that and just said he took the
> throne, without necessarily implying that force or opposition was
> involved.
>
>
>
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 14:27:01
........ which means either "usurpation", as armstrong used with Richard, or
"occupation" in a different case later on in the same volume.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
Poppelau's diary?
> Well, the Latin title is
>
> Dominic Mancini, De *Occupatione* Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium, ad
> Angelum catonem presulem viennensium, libellus incipit.
>
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Claire M Jordan
> <whitehound@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> From: Stephen Lark
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
>> Poppelau's diary?
>>
>> > On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation
>> of
>> > Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong
>> > made him more hostile than he really was.
>>
>> I remember reacding that he's been translated as saying that Richard
>> usurped
>> or seized the throne, I forget which, when the original word Mancini
>> actually used was far more neutral than that and just said he took the
>> throne, without necessarily implying that force or opposition was
>> involved.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"occupation" in a different case later on in the same volume.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
Poppelau's diary?
> Well, the Latin title is
>
> Dominic Mancini, De *Occupatione* Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium, ad
> Angelum catonem presulem viennensium, libellus incipit.
>
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Claire M Jordan
> <whitehound@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> From: Stephen Lark
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: The "original" of von
>> Poppelau's diary?
>>
>> > On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation
>> of
>> > Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong
>> > made him more hostile than he really was.
>>
>> I remember reacding that he's been translated as saying that Richard
>> usurped
>> or seized the throne, I forget which, when the original word Mancini
>> actually used was far more neutral than that and just said he took the
>> throne, without necessarily implying that force or opposition was
>> involved.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?
2013-03-08 15:13:24
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation of Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong made him more hostile than he really was.
Carol responds:
I agree. Just his translation of "occupatione" as "usurpation" instead of "occupation" sets the tone for the whole work. It would take a scholar with impeccable credentials like Livia Visser-Fuchs to produce a translation that's both accurate and objective. I just checked her bibliography: http://independent.academia.edu/LiviaVisserFuchs Yep. She's my candidate for a new Mancini translation. We also need an edition of Rous's "Angliae Historia Regium" with both the Latin text and a translation (not that he's an unbiased source, but he's important because when he *does* say something good about Richard, we can believe it. You don't lavish false praise on someone you're depicting as the anti-Christ!) The problem now is that we have to resort to snippets of translated passages in modern sources, and after my discussion with Marie on "curtam habiens facie" mistranslated as "having a short face," I don't trust the existing translation(s) at all.
How about a new translation of all the Latin and foreign-language sources while we're at it?
Oh, and Visser-Fuchs should write a biography of Margaret of Burgundy focusing on her relationship with her brothers, especially Richard. (Does anyone know if she's still alive? I know that Anne F. Sutton isn't.)
Carol
>
> On this subject, how about a new expert giving us a better translation of Mancini? He may have been badly informed but I think Charles Armstrong made him more hostile than he really was.
Carol responds:
I agree. Just his translation of "occupatione" as "usurpation" instead of "occupation" sets the tone for the whole work. It would take a scholar with impeccable credentials like Livia Visser-Fuchs to produce a translation that's both accurate and objective. I just checked her bibliography: http://independent.academia.edu/LiviaVisserFuchs Yep. She's my candidate for a new Mancini translation. We also need an edition of Rous's "Angliae Historia Regium" with both the Latin text and a translation (not that he's an unbiased source, but he's important because when he *does* say something good about Richard, we can believe it. You don't lavish false praise on someone you're depicting as the anti-Christ!) The problem now is that we have to resort to snippets of translated passages in modern sources, and after my discussion with Marie on "curtam habiens facie" mistranslated as "having a short face," I don't trust the existing translation(s) at all.
How about a new translation of all the Latin and foreign-language sources while we're at it?
Oh, and Visser-Fuchs should write a biography of Margaret of Burgundy focusing on her relationship with her brothers, especially Richard. (Does anyone know if she's still alive? I know that Anne F. Sutton isn't.)
Carol
Retrnslating sources (Was: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?)
2013-03-08 18:02:52
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> ........ which means either "usurpation", as armstrong used with Richard, or "occupation" in a different case later on in the same volume.
Carol responds:
If he had intended it to state unambiguously that Richard had usurped the throne, he could have used "usupatione." And I would think that the translation should match that of "occupatio" (don't know which case ending is involved) later in the volume.
Carol
>
> ........ which means either "usurpation", as armstrong used with Richard, or "occupation" in a different case later on in the same volume.
Carol responds:
If he had intended it to state unambiguously that Richard had usurped the throne, he could have used "usupatione." And I would think that the translation should match that of "occupatio" (don't know which case ending is involved) later in the volume.
Carol
Re: Retrnslating sources (Was: The "original" of von Poppelau's diar
2013-03-08 18:11:01
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:02 PM
Subject: Retrnslating sources (Was: The
"original" of von Poppelau's diary?)
> If he had intended it to state unambiguously that Richard had usurped the
> throne, he could have used "usupatione." And I would think that the
> translation should match that of "occupatio" (don't know which case ending
> is involved) later in the volume.
I supposed it was translated as "The Usurpation of Richard III" in part
because "The Occupation..." now has another meaning, as does "The
Assumption...". But it sounds like the most accurate translation would be
to rearrange the sentence and make it "How Richard III Assumed the Throne".
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:02 PM
Subject: Retrnslating sources (Was: The
"original" of von Poppelau's diary?)
> If he had intended it to state unambiguously that Richard had usurped the
> throne, he could have used "usupatione." And I would think that the
> translation should match that of "occupatio" (don't know which case ending
> is involved) later in the volume.
I supposed it was translated as "The Usurpation of Richard III" in part
because "The Occupation..." now has another meaning, as does "The
Assumption...". But it sounds like the most accurate translation would be
to rearrange the sentence and make it "How Richard III Assumed the Throne".
Retranslating sources (Was: The "original" of von Poppelau's diary?)
2013-03-09 18:08:28
Carol earlier:
> > If he had intended it to state unambiguously that Richard had usurped the throne, he could have used "usupatione." And I would think that the translation should match that of "occupatio" (don't know which case ending is involved) later in the volume.
Claire responded
> I supposed it was translated as "The Usurpation of Richard III" in part because "The Occupation..." now has another meaning, as does "The Assumption...". But it sounds like the most accurate translation would be to rearrange the sentence and make it "How Richard III Assumed the Throne".
>
Carol again:
Good suggestion. "Richard III's Assumption of the Throne" (or "Assumption of Power") would also work. What matters is the use of a neutral word in place of the unambiguously negative "usurpation" to more clearly reflect Mancini's actual terminology (as opposed to the translator's assumptions in a different sense of the word).
BTW, I have corrected my own typo ("retrnslating") in the subject line. I would appreciate it if anyone responding to the "Cuckingham's handwriting" thread would silently correct that typo (also mine). My eyes have reached the point where they blur badly at the end of the day. (Yes, I know. Time to see the ophthalmologist again.)
Carol
> > If he had intended it to state unambiguously that Richard had usurped the throne, he could have used "usupatione." And I would think that the translation should match that of "occupatio" (don't know which case ending is involved) later in the volume.
Claire responded
> I supposed it was translated as "The Usurpation of Richard III" in part because "The Occupation..." now has another meaning, as does "The Assumption...". But it sounds like the most accurate translation would be to rearrange the sentence and make it "How Richard III Assumed the Throne".
>
Carol again:
Good suggestion. "Richard III's Assumption of the Throne" (or "Assumption of Power") would also work. What matters is the use of a neutral word in place of the unambiguously negative "usurpation" to more clearly reflect Mancini's actual terminology (as opposed to the translator's assumptions in a different sense of the word).
BTW, I have corrected my own typo ("retrnslating") in the subject line. I would appreciate it if anyone responding to the "Cuckingham's handwriting" thread would silently correct that typo (also mine). My eyes have reached the point where they blur badly at the end of the day. (Yes, I know. Time to see the ophthalmologist again.)
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.