Nuremberg Chronicle - 1493 - Hartmann Schedel

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#1
I was just viewing through the thread regarding Unicorns where the book Nuremberg Chronicle was introduced on post #21. Latin scholars refer to it as Liber Chronicarum aka Book of Chronicles. In general I'd like to have this thread revolve around the discussion and findings from this book and where those finds could lead people.

Nuremberg_chronicles_-_f_30v_1.jpg


Nuremberg_chronicles_2.jpeg

As I started to peek through this book a bit from the English translations I picked up something interesting immediately. Now most of us here know that the "new world" as the American continent was not really new at all and here we have something from this book to support that.

From the topic under the First age of the world you can find the following information;

"So God made the first human being and with the aid of the angels formed his body from the clay of the earth in the field of Damascus. The city of Damascus lies in the northwest corner of the Guta, a fertile plain to the east of Hermon. To the east of the city this is known as el-Merj, the Ager Damascenus. The fertility of the Guta is very great. There are many fields of corn and maize; but groves of poplar and walnut, orchards of apricots, pomegranate, pistachio, and almond, with hedges of underwood, so abound that the distant view of the Guta is as of an almost unbroken sea of verdure."

Now why I find it interesting is that this book was first published in 1493, which is one year after the Columbus expedition to the Americas. We are being taught that Maize and Corn came from the American continent and while this may be true I'm almost certain that it did not arrive as it is being taught to us. In the Wikipedia article on maize we find the following statement under Columbian exchange;

"After the arrival of Europeans in 1492, Spanish settlers consumed maize and explorers and traders carried it back to Europe and introduced it to other countries. Spanish settlers far preferred wheat bread to maize, cassava, or potatoes."

Take in to account that this book was published in 1493 and it was surely a longer task to write it so the writing must have been going on before that year. How in the world would they have had the knowledge of maize and corn fields in Asia already then? Even if some of the content in this book would be very much questionable even the topic of discussing maize and corn fields becomes a question on a story telling level.

To expand from that what is referred to Guta north east of Damascus here I'm thinking of the words Getae, Guti, Goths, Jutes etc. We know they arrived to Europe through the Steppes and probably with multiple waves during hundreds of years. The location fits perfectly to the history of some of those people.

[Later add] Also one other far fetched thing to add is that Finns have been calling Swedes with the nickname "Hurri" for who knows how long. I've been thinking of where that originates from and we know the Goths have invaded at least southern Sweden at one point of the time from the naming of the places at least and I think it was used as a referal to those people, not the original Swedes whom I think were at one point pretty much the same people as the original Finnish people. The thing with the connection to above is that the Getae were located pretty much in our official history to that area refered to as "Guta" here, but that is also the location of the "Hurrian" people. What I'm getting here on a really loose connection is that perhaps the Getae that could be the Goths were the Hurrians. Finnish legends have some connections to Asia Minor so perhaps the ancient people of this land knew who they were called to come up with the nickname. It's loose, but there are some fitting pieces to this line of thought and it deserves a look upon on my later research. [/Later add]

There are too many books to go through by one people and I'm often just peeking around some of the contents if anything interesting is caught up when figuring out if a book is worth to pick up and this just immediately from this book.

Feel free to add in if you have read this book, or are reading it or eventually find out something of interest.

Here is the link to the english translation and it's contents.

[Edit]

Another quick find on the last chapter Of the region called Sarmatia or Poland.

"In as much as mention will be made soon hereafter of Boleslaus, the third Sarmatian or Polish king, I will first treat briefly of the country of Sarmatia or Poland, and of the manner in which it attained the royal sceptre. Sarmatia is a large and extensive land, but is located in a wilderness and not built up. It has a severe climate. To the east are the Moscovites, and the River Tanais (Don) is to the south. Dacia and Hungary are on the west, and Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Germany, and the German Sea, called Mare Germanicum, are on the north."

I find it interesting, because I had no knowledge who the Sarmatians were originally or what became of them. So if there is a connection between the Sarmatians being the Polish people we can create some link of who the Poles were fighting and trying to apply that also to the past of the Sarmatians in a way being able to name some other people whose past empires or links to them could have been lost due to naming.

My own expansion of thoughts to research is that perhaps the Sarmatians were those who took a hold on the Russian nobility until Peter the Great through the apply of the hereditary Streltsi royal guard in the 16th century. The color of red hair is relatively common in both of these groups but there are other groups as well not related to them in with the same traits like the Gaelic & Irish people.

Links:
Treasures of the Library : Nuremberg Chronicle
Liber chronicarum, Nuremberg, 1493
The Nuremberg Chronicle
 
Last edited:

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
106
Likes
365
#2
Well, there is some weirdness about this. Corn can only grow in certain climates and areas. You mention Asia I think you meant South America. It is not far fetched for the author to write the whole book in less than a year. We are made of minerals which is the reference to clay and earth. The Sarmatians are Iranian in origen and settle in Southern Russia and the Balkans. The book mentions Germany being north of the land but Poland historically resides east of Germany. It also mentions Hungary being to the west of it. The use of the word Germany is weird since during this time it was referred to mainly as the Holy Roman Empire. If Hungary is to the west and Germany to the north, then we would be talking the area more around present day Slovakia, including the Balkans themselves, and maybe up to czechoslovakia. The Balkans were historically Catholic and of course very close geographically to Rome. So the Holy Scepter story makes sense.. What doesn't make any sense at all is the author mentioning Poland...
 
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#3
Well, there is some weirdness about this. Corn can only grow in certain climates and areas. You mention Asia I think you meant South America. It is not far fetched for the author to write the whole book in less than a year. We are made of minerals which is the reference to clay and earth. The Sarmatians are Iranian in origen and settle in Southern Russia and the Balkans. The book mentions Germany being north of the land but Poland historically resides east of Germany. It also mentions Hungary being to the west of it. The use of the word Germany is weird since during this time it was referred to mainly as the Holy Roman Empire. If Hungary is to the west and Germany to the north, then we would be talking the area more around present day Slovakia, including the Balkans themselves, and maybe up to czechoslovakia. The Balkans were historically Catholic and of course very close geographically to Rome. So the Holy Scepter story makes sense.. What doesn't make any sense at all is the author mentioning Poland...
I will expand on this take and try to clarify it.

A) First I will first take on the part on writing and publications. I don't know how effective writers were in those times, it would have to be a much longer process however with all the manual work to drawings and the hand work to write. It would also probably be a lot longer process to go through the publications than in modern age.

Take in to account that Kolumbus parted only on the latter half of the 1492 on August 3rd to be more exact. It would take time for him to reach the area and eventually come back.

This book was published in 1493 so to include those findings to that book would pretty much make this impossible for my mind, not by modern standards but by taking those times in to account. And how quick were the Spanish to bring back corn & maize and that knowledge of such plants to even become more widely known.

B) Let's take in to account the climate.

We know there has been changes in climates and how Sahara and the area in general spoken about as Guta here has dried out. There are even threads on this forum that speculate Sahara being a more fertile land around the times this book was written. The way Timbuktu lost it's power after it's rivers had dried out also suggested that there was more fertility around the lands south of Europe at those times.

C) The below is from the quotation I picked up from the book.

"... The city of Damascus lies in the northwest corner of the Guta, a fertile plain to the east of Hermon. ... The fertility of the Guta is very great. There are many fields of corn and maize ..."

The city of Damascus is located where modern Syria is today and if that is in the northwest corner of "Guta", then the location of "Guta" expands farther to the east and south. This is in Asia and I did mean it, not South America.

asia.jpeg

D) On Sarmatians I can only state the need to study that topic more. What you are giving here is just what the academy would be saying us.

I am certain, yet cannot prove it on this instance that there has been movement en masse through the Steppes. Many people claiming Iranian descendancy have done this according to some sources. The Sarmatians being there at one point and also the Scythians. For them to move more westward to their modern positions would make sense in a series of wars. Kingdoms and nations of the past did not stay put but could've been forced to move through wars. We also know that the Poles were fighting defensive wars towards the east so it is likely that they were pushed out more to the west to the current location.

I have looked at the maps that have been depicted in this book and they are a bit off especially on the Scandinavian & Finnish part. But in the first world map depicted there the "Polonian" people are located more closely to modern Ukraine and north of Crimea and Europe is twisted a bit in an upward motion. So if this was the image of the map for the author to work upon it is very easy to state that Hungary is to the west and Germany would be to the north or more accurately north west. On the other map they are closer to the more modern positions, but still off from it.

nurembergmap.jpg nurembergmap2.jpeg

From our modern academical history point of view or at least what our schools teach it doesn't make sense for the author to mention Poles being Sarmatians. But to state it so clearly it definitely needs more research and I've read it's exactly the area where Sarmatians were said to have been located at one point. The location matches 100%. I think this might be on to something.

E) The use of the word Germany could have come through translation, would need to see the original terms. But the writer is also talking about the Baltic sea as "Mare Germanicum" so perhaps there has been a latin version of naming the area. Just speculation but it is a good point and could need more research.

ps. I have not seen much contesting topics or points of views brought up in this forum so far. So this academical pov defence came a bit as a surprise, but I do welcome it at times as it allows me to also challenge my own thoughts and then elaborate them more carefully to prove my point. I'm not after to make any academical discoveries here, but I'm doing this because finding out real history and it's contradictions is a hobby of mine. I will try to defend the points of views I make if contested and I have the time and energy.
 
Last edited:

Moriarty

Active member
Messages
43
Likes
142
#4
Some very good points, in particular about the New World foods. It ties into the Potato Famine in Ireland. This has recently been troubling me, because what did they eat and grow before potatoes? The faminine was allegedly 1840 which is right slap bang in the middle of the time period most of us here accept as history being changed - and potatoes 1492 or thereabouts. At least 100,000 people died. Again.. allegedly
 

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#5
Some time ago I purchased a high-quality reproduction of the 1493 Nuremberg Chronicle - a truly beautiful tome - had read bits and pieces of it here and there and I am very glad that you, @GroundhogLfe, started this thread, as I had wanted to share something I found about the Chronicle for a while. So thanks!

But first:
E) The use of the word Germany could have come through translation, would need to see the original terms.
The Liber Chronicarum talks about Germany as "Teutschland" or "Deutschland", the latter being the modern term for Germany in the German language. It has been called so throughout the middle ages up to today, and "Holy Roman Empire" was only the title of the political entity encompassing most parts of the German (German speaking) lands during the time, including others. The full name was "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation", because it usually had native Germans for its rulers/emperors, some of which were crowned in Germany, others in Rome (as far as I remember). So that is perfectly fine I would say, the Liber Chronicarum calling German lands Germany in the English translation.

Regarding the mentioning of maize in this 1493 published book:

I think it would be a physical impossibility to report about maize being already cultivated large scale on fields in the Middle East maybe half a year at best after Columbus had first returned from the New World. Think about medieval times and how new discoveries would spread around the continents, by trade caravan, by mounted messenger and the likes. At horse speed at best. Also, people are sceptical about new things, especially farmers (that is a byword here in Austria). Cultivation techniques would have to be learned or developed. And how long would it have taken for the reports to get back from the Syrian maize planters to get back to Schedel and company in Nurmeberg for them to have included them in the book? Far more important to me is the fact that Columbus and the discovery of the New World aren't even mentioned as far as I know or have seen. One would expect to read about that before reading about the Syrian maize fields. So in short I have to agree with @GroundhogLfe that we do have an anomaly here - or should I say: an anachronism?

Here comes something I discovered about the Nuremberg Chronicle, that leads me to believe that it is a much more recent concoction:

Please take a look at a close-up of the Castell Sant Angelo in the wood-cut city view of Rome in the 1493 Liber Chronicarum:

Castell S. Ange Rome 1493 (Liber Chronicarum).jpg

Then let us look at an 1762 etching our good old friend Giovanni Battista Piranesi published in a 1762 catalogue...
Piranesi Castell S. Angelo before restoration (!) 1762.jpg


...and compare it with yet another one of his making from 1765:
Piranesi Castell S. Angelo after restoration 1765.jpg


BOTH Piranesi etchings depict the Mausolaeum of Hadrian / later Castell Sant Angelo - first as a ruin, second ready built!

Considering that Piranesi was able to etch a lifelike representation of the Castell Sant Angelo / alledged Tomb of Hadrian while in a state of utter ruination as late as the year of 1762, he must have at least seen it in this state. Furthermore, I would have to infer that nobody in 1493 or before could have made a woodcut like the above depicting the Castell Sant Angelo in its modern form, let alone name the building by it's modern name "Castell Sant Angelo" while it was little more than a pile of rubble, hence the Hartmann Schedel Liber Chronicarum must be a much more recent concoction/forgery, produced around the 1750s at the earliest!

That would elegantly explain the mentioning of maize in it, this turning out to be no more than a very mundane anachronism. Of course maize would've had spread across Europe, Africa and Asia by the mid 18th century!

Please you guys, correct me if there is fault in my logic. Anyways, this is what I wanted to share on the Liber Chronicarum for quite a while, so I'm glad the OP gave me opportuinity to do so! :)

I think the Nuremberg Chronicle aka Liber Chronicarum 1493 was devised to cement the universal (yet ficticious) Scaligerian chronology, and "they" (whoever "they" are) needed, among many, many other things, an authentic looking late medieval standard work on chronology to achieve this goal.

Side note: Having done simple woodcuts myself back in my school days, I have to note that you almost can't help but make archaic looking art when using that technique, so a team of forgers equipped with antique printing presses and letters could have produced a work as the Liber Chronicarum at any given time history post printing press invention - even today it could be done!
 

Attachments

Last edited:
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#6
Regarding the mentioning of maize in this 1493 published book:

I think it would be a physical impossibility to report about maize being already cultivated large scale on fields in the Middle East maybe half a year at best after Columbus had first returned from the New World. Think about medieval times and how new discoveries would spread around the continents, by trade caravan, by mounted messenger and the likes. At horse speed at best. Also, people are sceptical about new things, especially farmers (that is a byword here in Austria). Cultivation techniques would have to be learned or developed. And how long would it have taken for the reports to get back from the Syrian maize planters to get back to Schedel and company in Nurmeberg for them to have included them in the book? Far more important to me is the fact that Columbus and the discovery of the New World aren't even mentioned as far as I know or have seen. One would expect to read about that before reading about the Syrian maize fields. So in short I have to agree with @GroundhogLfe that we do have an anomaly here - or should I say: an anachronism?

Here comes something I discovered about the Nuremberg Chronicle, that leads me to believe that it is a much more recent concoction:

Please take a look at a close-up of the Castell Sant Angelo in the wood-cut city view of Rome in the 1493 Liber Chronicarum:

View attachment 13794
Then let us look at an 1762 etching our good old friend Giovanni Battista Piranesi published in a 1762 catalogue...
View attachment 13793

...and compare it with yet another one of his making from 1765:
View attachment 13792

Considering that Piranesi was able to etch a lifelike representation of the Castell Sant Angelo / alledged Tomb of Hadrian while in a state of utter ruination as late as the year of 1762, he must have at least seen it in this state. Furthermore, I would have to infer that nobody in 1493 or before could have made a woodcut like the above depicting the Castell Sant Angelo in its modern form, let alone name the building by it's modern name "Castell Sant Angelo" while it was little more than a pile of rubble, hence the Hartmann Schedel Liber Chronicarum must be a much more recent concoction/forgery, produced around the 1750s at the earliest!

That would elegantly explain the mentioning of maize in it, this turning out to be no more than a very mundane anachronism. Of course maize would've had spread across Europe, Africa and Asia by the mid 18th century!

Please you guys, correct me if there is fault in my logic. Anyways, this is what I wanted to share on the Liber Chronicarum for quite a while, so I'm glad the OP gave me opportuinity to do so! :)

I think the Nuremberg Chronicle aka Liber Chronicarum 1493 was devised to cement the universal (yet ficticious) Scaligerian chronology, and "they" (whoever "they" are) needed, among many, many other things, an authentic looking late medieval standard work on chronology to achieve this goal.

Side note: Having done simple woodcuts myself back in my school days, I have to note that you almost can't help but make archaic looking art when using that technique, so a team of forgers equipped with antique printing presses and letters could have produced a work as the Liber Chronicarum at any given time history post printing press invention - even today it could be done!
Thanks for clarifying the part on using the word Germany in it.

Regarding the production of the book we can find this even from Wikipedia and I believe if we start to dig deeper we can find the same from better sources.

"Two Nuremberg merchants, Sebald Schreyer (1446–1503) and his son-in-law, Sebastian Kammermeister (1446–1520), commissioned the Latin version of the chronicle. They also commissioned George Alt (1450–1510), a scribe at the Nuremberg treasury, to translate the work into German. Both Latin and German editions were printed by Anton Koberger, in Nuremberg. The contracts were recorded by scribes, bound into volumes, and deposited in the Nuremberg City Archives. The first contract, from December, 1491, established the relationship between the illustrators and the patrons. Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff, the painters, were to provide the layout of the chronicle, to oversee the production of the woodcuts, and to guard the designs against piracy. The patrons agreed to advance 1000 gulden for paper, printing costs, and the distribution and sale of the book. A second contract, between the patrons and the printer, was executed in March, 1492. It stipulated conditions for acquiring the paper and managing the printing. The blocks and the archetype were to be returned to the patrons once the printing was completed."

Having done contracts to the book prior to Kolumbus parting for the "new world" is a clear indication to me that the writing was also done before that at least in parts. It supports more that the official academical history version regarding how corn & maize was introduced being incorrect. It also is a clear reason why there was no mention of Kolumbus and his voyage.

We also have this quote regarding it

"A document from 1509 records that 539 Latin versions and 60 German versions had not been sold. Approximately 400 Latin and 300 German copies survived into the twenty-first century."

If one is to go through all the work to prove that all this is correct in academical terms we'd need to get that document to be researched or something similar from that age. Even those who have falsified history have surely made mistakes and they could not have taken everything in to account and there have been books & documents here and there left that you can piece things up.

This is the part that I do not understand from your post:

"I would have to infer that nobody in 1493 or before could have made a woodcut like the above depicting the Castell Sant Angelo in its modern form, let alone name the building by it's modern name "Castell Sant Angelo" while it was little more than a pile of rubble, hence the Hartmann Schedel Liber Chronicarum must be a much more recent concoction/forgery, produced around the 1750s at the earliest!"

Are you implying that no one in 1493 or prior could not have made that first picture on Castell Sant Angelo and why not? Or just that no one could have drawn like Piranesi did, which I would have to agree with, he's unique. Just being curious and trying to see what's the logic behind that. Sure it could be a forgery but to come to that conclusion on comparing it to the work of Piranesi does not prove anything at least for me there as they seem chronologically fitting or am I missing something?

The naming part could be a good point, that I understand and it should be verified. We can surely find some other books from that age for comparison to try and see has that name been in use earlier. One of these book series I've been planning to peer through is from Franscesco Guicciardini and his massive book series History of Italy and it's wars as a depiction what was really going on there in the change of the century. Link to vol 1 here, a translation from the 18th century before the massive falsifications.
 

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#7
Are you implying that no one in 1493 or prior could not have made that first picture on Castell Sant Angelo and why not? Or just that no one could have drawn like Piranesi did, which I would have to agree with, he's unique. Just being curious and trying to see what's the logic behind that. Sure it could be a forgery but to come to that conclusion on comparing it to the work of Piranesi does not prove anything at least for me there as they seem chronologically fitting or am I missing something?
(NOTE: Maybe I didn't make it clear that the middle image shows also the Castell Sant Angelo, or rather the Mausoleaum of Hadrian, the future building site of the Castell. Sorry for the confusion, if any!)

It's not about Piranesi's unique artistic skill or the comparatively abysmal skills of the Nuremberg woodcutter, but about WHAT is depicted, and WHEN.

Please look at how the Castell Sant Angelo is depicted in the 1493 Liber Chronicarum. Observe the wedding cake like structure with a circular lower level/wall and rectangular middle and top building level on it. It's also topped by the angel statue wielding a sword in striking pose. Then, look at how Piranesi depicted the Tomb of Hadrian, "today called Castell Sant Angelo" (quoting from the latin subtitle in Piranesi's etching) in the 1762 etching. It is in a ruined state and lacks any modern superstructures/masonry (the round bottom and rectangular middle and top levels), whereas in the 1765 etching Piranesi renders the Castell in its present form. Just as the alledged late 15th century woodcutter had depicted it almost 300 years earlier. I am convinced Piranesi must have seen the Hadrian Mausoleum, later Castell Sant Angelo, in its original, ruined state as he drew it in the 1762 etching. Piranesi came to Rome first in 1740 according to Wikipedia, so if he is drawing from memory, that is the time when he would have first had opportunity to see the Hadrian's Tomb in it's original condition.

This all simply means, in my opinion, that nobody in or before 1493 could have depicted or drawn the Castell Sant Angelo, because it hadn't been built yet and all that was back then was just the ruined Mausoleum of Hadrian, as we see it in the 1762 Piranesi etching. Piranesi could have first seen the ruin of the Hadrian's Tomb in 1740, and etched a depiction of the Castell Sant Angelo built on top of the mausoleum ruins in 1765. This leads me to believe that the Liber Chronicarum could not have been produced prior to 1740, because the Castell it depicts in Rome came into existence in the form presented only some time between the 1740s and 60s. At least if we are to trust Piranesi's contemporary views of Rome... Not saying this is fact, but this is how the situation presents itself to me. My opinion, that is to say. :)
Post automatically merged:

Addendum:

According to Wikipedia:
"
The popes converted the structure into a castle, beginning in the 14th century; Pope Nicholas III connected the castle to St Peter's Basilica by a covered fortified corridor called the Passetto di Borgo. The fortress was the refuge of Pope Clement VII from the siege of Charles V's Landsknechte during the Sack of Rome (1527), in which Benvenuto Cellini describes strolling the ramparts and shooting enemy soldiers.

Leo X built a chapel with a Madonna by Raffaello da Montelupo. In 1536 Montelupo also created a marble statue of Saint Michael holding his sword after the 590 plague (as described above) to surmount the Castel.[6] Later Paul III built a rich apartment, to ensure that in any future siege the pope had an appropriate place to stay.

Montelupo's statue was replaced by a bronze statue of the same subject, executed by the Flemish sculptor Peter Anton von Verschaffelt, in 1753. Verschaffelt's is still in place and Montelupo's can be seen in an open court in the interior of the Castle."
- Source
Honestly, I don't buy the first part at all, and think that the whole structure was built on top of the old ruin around 1753, when they alledgedly placed the Peter Anton von Verschaffelt statue as mentioned above. It makes no sense to me that Piranesi would depict a ruined mausoleaum that hadn't existed like this since the early 14th century in a contemporary looking scene like that. Call it a hunch, but the notion of the Vatican/Popes trying to extend their own history backwards as far as they could is nothing new to any of us here, I think. ;)
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#8
(NOTE: Maybe I didn't make it clear that the middle image shows also the Castell Sant Angelo, or rather the Mausoleaum of Hadrian, the future building site of the Castell. Sorry for the confusion, if any!)

It's not about Piranesi's unique artistic skill or the comparatively abysmal skills of the Nuremberg woodcutter, but about WHAT is depicted, and WHEN.

Please look at how the Castell Sant Angelo is depicted in the 1493 Liber Chronicarum. Observe the wedding cake like structure with a circular lower level/wall and rectangular middle and top building level on it. It also topped by the angel statue wielding a sword in striking pose. Then, look at how Piranesi depicted the Tomb of Hadrian, "today called Castell Sant Angelo" (quoting from the latin subtitle in Piranesi's etching) in the 1762 etching. It is in a ruined state and lacks any modern superstructures/masonry (the round bottom and rectangular middle and top levels), whereas in the 1765 etching Piranesi renders the Castell in its present form. Just as the alledged late 15th century woodcutter had depicted it almost 300 years earlier. I am convinced Piranesi must have seen the Hadrian Mausoleum, later Castell Sant Angelo, in its original, ruined state as he drew it in the 1762 etching. Piranesi came to Rome first in 1740 according to Wikipedia, so if he is drawing from memory, that is the time when he would have first had opportunity to see the Hadrian's Tomb in it's original condition.

This all simply means, in my opinion, that nobody in or before 1493 could have depicted or drawn the Castell Sant Angelo, because it hadn't been built yet and all that was back then was just the ruined Mausoleum of Hadrian, as we see it in the 1762 Piranesi etching. Piranesi could have first seen the ruin of the Hadrian's Tomb in 1740, and etched a depiction of the Castell Sant Angelo built on top of the mausoleum ruins in 1765. This leads me to believe that the Liber Chronicarum could not have been produced prior to 1740, because the Castell it depicts in Rome came into existence in the form presented only some time between the 1740s and 60s. At least if we are to trust Piranesi's contemporary views of Rome... Not saying this is fact, but this is how the situation presents itself to me. My opinion, that is to say. :)
Post automatically merged:

Addendum:

According to Wikipedia:



Honestly, I don't buy the first part at all, and think that the whole structure was built on top of the old ruin around 1753, when they alledgedly placed the Peter Anton von Verschaffelt statue as mentioned above. It makes no sense to me that Piranesi would depict a ruined mausoleaum that hadn't existed like this since the early 14th century in a contemporary looking scene like that. Call it a hunch, but the notion of the Vatican/Popes trying to extend their own history backwards as far as they could is nothing new to any of us here, I think. ;)
Ok, fair enough. So it's ultimately a picture vs picture. I also do put more trust on Piranesi in general than this book which is a new find for me, but there seems to be a lot of references to support the early existence of this book as well. Your explanation for motivation from the Church trying to paint it this way would also make sense.

As a contradiction to that it's been said that Giordiano Bruno was imprisoned in Castel Sant'Angelo in the latter 16th century so that would support it's existence and it being destroyed after that. I don't think the Vatican would fake his existence and he has made some great works for the betterment of men that are still available.

Good points. There are many things to take in to account here that all this just raises more questions.
 

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#9
Well, whether or not Giordano Bruno was a real person or poetic fiction for purpose of narrative construction is a whole other topic...

All I can say, or rather show, on the topic after a very quick look at Giordano Bruno over at Wikipedia is this:

Giordano Bruno earliest drawing.png

What a sketchy statement...

So the guy was a basically a martyr for modern science/copernicanism/etc. but the earlist drawing we have of him is from the early 18th century?
I can't help but be critical here, but I will leave it at that, as to not derail the thread! :)

Highly interesting, controversial matters, don't you think @GroundhogLfe? Greatly appreciated, man.
Post automatically merged:

Anyways, the Liber Chronicarum being of fundamentally younger origin would perfectly solve the riddle of it mentioning maize being grown in Syria back then, wouldn't it? :giggle:
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#10
Well, whether or not Giordano Bruno was a real person or poetic fiction for purpose of narrative construction is a whole other topic...

All I can say, or rather show, on the topic after a very quick look at Giordano Bruno over at Wikipedia is this:

View attachment 13797
What a sketchy statement...

So the guy was a basically a martyr for modern science/copernicanism/etc. but the earlist drawing we have of him is from the early 18th century?
I can't help but be critical here, but I will leave it at that, as to not derail the thread! :)

Highly interesting, controversial matters, don't you think @GroundhogLfe? Greatly appreciated, man.
Very much so. One must just try to stay most rational without picking sides and attaining information from all directions.

If you have anything more to suspect the existence of Bruno I would like to have a thread of his own in the pseudo characters. That portrait also created suspicions for me. I just don't get why fake someone's existence to such a degree that you're also turning out to promoting something most beneficial for the people like 'On the Shadows of ideas'. It would be in full contradiction to how those in political power would only benefit from the lack of people's memory. But then again, who knows. I'd be curious to find out more.
 

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#11
Very much so. One must just try to stay most rational without picking sides and attaining information from all directions.
I agree very much, @GroundhogLfe! And sadly, I can't say anymore on the topic of Giordano Bruno. As I said I just briefly glanced over the Wiki page and found the suspicious image, but my knowledge on the subject is limited. I have a reasoned general suspicion of the authenticity of any of the important characters that we are being presented with throughout history. Those of whom we only know from writing that is...
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
329
Likes
1,721
#12
Basically all works from before ca 1650 have been cleansed by the Church's rewriting effort. This all happened AFTER the keepers of the true history were already long dead (witches, healers, heretics, gnostics, etc.)

That explains the maize and the Castell Sant Angelo. Everyone makes mistakes, so we have some smoking guns here.

Other problems with the dating of the Nuremberg Chronicles:

- author unknown
- original book comes without author or dates, all attributions are guess work
- almost no original sources, some supposed sources are nowhere to be found in the archives
- slight disagreement within Academia whether the work is truly medieval, since some contents appear to be influenced by humanism
- book templates only first officially mentioned in 1742 (state library archives)
- manuscript was supposedely kept by the Nuremberg monastery after 1493
- book wasn't bound in "Koberger's book binder shop" but in the Augustinian monastery in Nuremberg (who was this Adrian Wilson with his sloppy writing about the Chronicles?)
- whover printed it lost large sums of money, the book was extremely high quality and almost no one bought it, at the same time the author was apparently so humble as to not include his name

Source for further study: Die Produktion der Schedelschen Weltchronik in Nürnberg
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#13
So plenty of questions hanging on the air on the origins, love the criticism this one receives.

When I have the time I and hopefully some others just have to just focus on what this book states and try to focus on verifying them is there any basis for the claims. At least I have the claim on Poles being Sarmatians to work for and dig deeper for early similarities.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#14
Even if the Nuremberg Chronicle should be severely misdated and be more recent work of monastic origin rather than what is officially claimed, that does not make all the information contained in it worthless. One has to keep in mind when consulting/studying a work like this one, that there were most likely certain agendas involved with the timeline, events and historical figures presented in it. I for one find it very useful and interesting to read the old German language (in the German version that is) and see what certain countries and people have been called long ago - just as with the Sarmatians being identified as the Poles. By no means does the Chronicle become useless once one begins to have doubts in it's true origin and character. So right on, @GroundhogLfe, go ahead with your studies of the book's contents, as will I and many others here I think! :)(y)
 
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#16
I always liked this image from the Nuremberg Chronicle. Good memory they had back then.


That is a good point. I don't want to become a spokesperson for this book as I'm just after the truth, which is why I created the thread.

Some quick questions arose to my mind.
  • If this book is a forgery in an attempt to stage it as a late 15th century book from the 17th or 18th century, then why even begin discrediting it with the input of Troy depicted as a medieval town in it? Hadn't the claims of antiquity of Troy been established by then already? Clearly IF Troy actually was more of medieval origins it was by the establishment to begin with to push if farther back in time. And if so, this book is at least not supporting that cause and can thus deduct it is not a work by them.
  • So avoiding the first question and thinking this book is actually from the late 15th century, one would have to think that either Troy was a medieval town or that is just a drawing from applying some earlier written information of it's landmarks.
  • Elaborating the above indirectly, the pictures of some other towns have had some landmarks in them that you can recognize even today so it makes me think that there has been at least some support from some sources to come up with that picture as it is. I am now actually compelled to read what the book says about Troy now.
  • Some have stated that Troy was actually a placeholder name like Rome so it could be meaning another place than the one in Asia Minor we have come to know of.
  • The wandering nations could've just brought their home with naming cities according to their older habitat or name. We have examples of this that are known in modern history as well.
  • The Troy in Asia Minor afaik would not have had rivers flowing through it. So I'm actually thinking could that be Paris? There is also a link in the naming, that Paris was the son of Troyan King Priam and Queen Hecuba so there would be some continuation for those origins.
  • That brings me to another question to look for, that is Paris actually mentioned in the book by name as a city? And if so, could some of those landmarks fit to any other city.
So we come up with loads of new questions, thanks for the input guys.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#17
ut that does raise some questions.
Since I own a reproduction of the full 1493 Nuremberg Chronicle (got it rather recently, so I looked over it but didn't read all in depth yet) I think I can help you out a bit with these questions. If I may. ;)
  • If this book is an attempt of forgery to stage it as a late 15th century book from the 17th or 18th century, then why discredit it with the input of Troy depicted as a medieval town in it? Hadn't the claims of antiquity of Troy been established by then already?
Even if the book emerged only in the 17th or 18th century from some monastery, it still would have been promoted and spread as a genuine, old work of the the ending 15th century, and nobody would object to outdated folly and fable such as talking about Troy or showing it as a medieval city. I don't know if Wilhelm Kammeier's works are available in English, but you should really read his first book "The Counterfeiting of German History", in which he brilliantly explains the methods in which falsification of medieval documents has been carried out, a possible why and also the psychology of the perpetrators. Suppose the Chronicle did come (from God knows where) out into the public and started to be reprinted and widely distributed in the 17th or 18th century, sold as the 15th century chronicle that it claims to be. Who would be discredited even if someone did object against this or that historical inconsistency? Schedel and friends were long dead by then, so nobody would be in danger. The publishers and bookshops were simply distributing a priceless, albeit a bit naive (medieval city Troy!) antique chronicle!

However, I can ensure you the question regarding Troy would not have arisen in the first place, as (as far as I can tell from reading over the passages) Troy is not described as a contemporary, still existing city, but rather in a historic context. In short, the book never claims Troy being still a city in medieval times.
  • So avoiding the first question that came to my mind and thinking this book is actually from the late 15th century, one would have to think that either Troy was a medieval town or that is just a drawing from applying some earlier written information of it's landmarks.
I have to disappoint anyone who is eager to draw any conclusions from the illustrations of strange medieval towns in the Liber Chronicarum, but the quite mundane explanation for these mysteries is that the book had been done in a rush and on the cheap so to say, with a lot of copy and pasting of ever repeating woodcut "graphics". I have checked this for myself in the book and it is true that many of the city views are identical, simple repetitions of the same woodcut artwork, just with different coloring and another title slapped onto them. Same goes for the "portraits" of all kinds of historical figures; kings, popes, saints and scientists etc. They just used the same images over and over, and when it comes to the cities, the woodcutter/artist, who was probably a humble artisan of limited imagination, just did a few variations of idealized, typical medieval city views which were then repeated over and over again.

1 Marseille Nuremberg Chronicle 1493.jpg 1 Trier Nuremberg Chronicle 1493 DUPLICATE B.jpg 1 Padua Nürnberger Weltchronik 1493 DUPLIKAT C.jpg 1 Nicea Nuremberg Chronicle 1493 DUPLICATE D.jpg
Here's an example of this phenomenon. 4 duplicates of one city scape drawing representing 4 entirely differnt cities. A stylistic, maybe even a money choice!

Of course there are notable exceptions, such as the view of Rome, which has the various recognizable monuments (such as the Castell Sant Angelo as discussed before), but in general, it's the same few generic city views over and over again. And upon checking real quick, I am sorry to inform that the alledged image of Troy is also just another generic city picture. See the picture for the city of Ravenna below and compare to what KD posted above. Identical, safe for the hasty coloring job.

City of Ravenna 15th Century Nuremberg Chronicle CRESCENT MOONS.jpg
(Apologies for the unfavorable cropping: The title is cut off here, but I can assure you it is the illustration for Ravenna in the original!)

All I said here is basically the same things academia/the experts tell us about how the Nuremberg Chronicle was made and why the images in it look the way they look. Along with my copy came a smaller book with a lot of background info on it. Just on the side: What I find however very interesting is how this artist (15th or 17th/18th century) pictured a typical European city - namely with crescent moons on top of church spires being almost more common than crosses! Just food for additional thought!
  • Elaborating the above indirectly, the pictures of some other towns have had some landmarks in them that you can recognize even today so it would make you think that there has been some support from some source to come up with that picture as it is. Now it's no proof of anything and I am now actually compelled to read what it says about Troy
See above. Looking for landmarks would only make sense in the few unique city depictions, such as that of Rome or Jerusalem...
  • Some have stated that Troy was actually a placeholder name like Rome so it could be meaning another place than the one in Asia Minor we have come to know of.
Just my personal (current) opinion: Since these tales of the Argonauts and of the Troyan Horse etc. are in all likelyhood just that - tales - I guess Troy is just a mythified Constantinople (that isn't far off on the map anyways), with the mythical siege and fall of Troy most likely just being one or the other fall, sacking and destruction of Constantinople, as recorded in history. Just my two cents... Fomenko claimed that, or did he??
  • The Troy in Asia Minor afaik would not have had rivers flowing through it. So I'm actually thinking could that be Paris? There is also a link in the naming, that Paris was the son of Troyan King Priam and Queen Hecuba.
See above. Paris has a seperate section and picture in the Liber Chronicarum. And it does claim the city of Paris to be founded by exiles from Troy, after the Troyan War, and that it's named after Paris the Troyan. I would have to look up if it says Paris founded the city or his descendents and they named it after him. But in general, the Troyan founding story of Paris seemed to have been a common belief in the middle ages, as I've come across that in various medieval chronicles lately.
  • That brings me to another question to look for, that is Paris actually mentioned in the book by name as a city? And if so, could some of those landmarks fit to any other city.
Yes, as every major and many other somehow important cities in Europe, Paris has it's own section in the book.

Well, @GroundhogLfe, I hope you found some of the info helpful. Listen, here's an offer: I don't know how easy it is for you to look up certain things in the Nuremberg Chronicle text-wise (language barrier and stuff), so if you want me to look up anything in specific in my copy, I'd love to assist. I got the archaic German version, and it's quite readable for me. Let me know, and sorry if you can actually read latin or something and I may have underestimated your learnedness! :)
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
GroundhogLfe

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
95
Likes
439
#19
Lots of things to digest here, need to return on them later. Also good to know that Paris has it's own section to scrap that off the list for now, but I actually can't shake off the name from the possible connection to Troy now.

@Silvanus777 And no I don't naturally read latin, but if I come up with something of great interest I'm ready to put my effort to make the translations from it with dictionaries and if I come up with questions regarding the book I'll be sure to ask what the German version states. I'm not sure if this book as a whole is one of those, I first got to read the english translation fully for possible chapters of high level interest.

Regarding on the story on Troyan horse I think the wooden horse is just that, a story. But the story itself is a lesson and a reference that Troy could've been taken down by a 5th column, like so many other kingdoms and nations have fallen to the same.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
447
#20
I'm interested to find out what location, if any, was assigned to Troy in the Chronicles.
Just looked it up:

Says it was in Asia Minor, as per standard narrative. Nothing to see here...

Also described as the old capitol of all Asia (Minor), and then the "most famous city under the stars" The chronicler also expressly states that "it is now fields and plowed acres" and not a thing remains of Troy. In general the whole Nuremberg Chronicle seems to come from a time when the "writers of history" hadn't quite yet decided on what should be declared myth and poetry and what hard facts history. Regarding Troy, the Chronicler quotes Homer here as the authority, as if quoting an historian.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
KorbenDallas Tartary a.k.a. Tartaria 6

Similar threads


Top