THE VIRTUAL ART - BOOK & MAP FAIR

pugna nautica inter Melitenses et Turcos in Mari Mediterraneo 16

€650.00

Title: pugna nautica inter Melitenses et Turcos in Mari Mediterraneo 1645
Description: Naval battle Maltese ships : Turcos + 2 Portraits, Merian, 1645

Pugna nautica inter Melitenses et Turcos in Mari Mediterraneo… 1645

Naval battle Maltese ships : Turcos + 2 Portraits, Merian, anno 1680. COMPLETE 3 SHEETS: 1. Sea battle, size: 32x38 cm., 2. The son of Sultan Ibrahim, 32x18 cm., 3. Wive of Sultan Ibrahim, 32x18 cm..
Edited in Merians Theatrum Europaeum, vol V., anno 1680.
clean prints, good condition.

Finely engraved and labeled naval battle scene between Maltese galleys and the Ottoman Turks. Plus 2 portraits. Although labeled '1645' this detailed copperplate engraving certainly depicts an action on September 28, 1644 bewteen six Maltese galleys and a fleet of Ottoman galleons. The galleys San Lorenzo, Santa Maria, Vittoria and others engaged a Turkish convoy carrying pilgrims bound for Mecca. The Maltese killed many pilgrims and took almost 400 prisoners as slaves including by some reports one of the Sultan's wives and her son.

On their voyage home the Maltese stopped in Crete, then a possession of Venice, for a few days. This apparent collusion between the Maltese and Venetians, previously at peace with the Turks, served as a pretense for the Cretan war between the Turks, Venice and Malta between 1645 and 1669.

TRANSLATION FROM WIKIPEDIA:

Contents

1 December 6
1.1 The water is fine
1.2 Translation of Latin caption
1.2.1 Translation of German book title
1.2.2 Engraving of Maltese–Ottoman Empire naval battle
1.3 Overseas
1.4 "Choose" vs. "Jews"
1.5 Plush candles

December 6
The water is fine

What exactly is meant by "the water is fine" in http://www.economist.com/node/21540395 (at the very bottom of the article)? I think litterally it's something like "the water is not too cold", but i guess that it's also used as a general expression like "you will like this party, you might think there are just nasty people but you'll see they are really nice"? Google just comes up with many lyrics. TIA! Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Literally, "Come on in, the water's fine" would be used to encourage bathers into the sea (or a pool) -- usually understood to mean, as you say, that the water is at a comfortable temperature. Figuratively, the expression could be used to reassure someone that an activity is safe, enjoyable, profitable, etc., and to encourage them to participate. In your example it is used in a slightly punning way. On the one hand the usage is figurative because it is talking about entrepreneurs embarking on the construction of floating cities, rather than anyone actually going bathing. On the other hand there is an obvious connection between the literal meaning and the subject being discussed. 86.148.152.251 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point to bring up. If something sounds cliched and trite, it's probably also corporate speak.--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 86.148.152.251, not what WaltCip is getting at. Joepnl (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation of Latin caption
What does the caption say in English?
Engraving of Osman, son of Ibrahim I

Hi, would someone like to try their hand at translating the Latin caption of the image on the right into English? I'm afraid the smaller print may be a bit hard to make out. The woman depicted is Kösem Sultan. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Vera effigies Turcorum Imperatoris Ibrahim filli, sultanae eiusdem matris, sub pugna navali ab equitibus Melitensibus captorum, inq. insulam Melitensem abductorum. I'd read it as: "True images of the son of the Turkish imperator Ibrahim and of the mother of the same sultan, who was captured by the Maltese cavalry during a naval battle, and abducted to the island of Malta." (How did the Maltese cavalry get into a naval battle? Don't ask me. All I know is that that "navali" is "naval" and "equitibus" is "cavalry".) I don't know what "inq." stands for, but that does not seem to be very important to understand the passage. --Itinerant1 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be inque, "and in". Ab equitibus Melitensibus "by the Knights of Malta" --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is Filii "son" or "sons"? Also, was it the Sultana or her grandson who was abducted to Malta? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Vera effigies is singular ("authentic image"), and the transcription above, although not the translation, omitted the "et" before sultanae. (Et sultanae eiusdem matris doesnt't mean "and of the mother of the same sultan", I think, but rather "and of his [i.e., Ibrahim's] mother the sultana".) To answer the questions immediately above, filii is singular "of the son"; and captorum and abductorum are plural, so the meaning is that both were captured and taken to Malta. Deor (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So, "An authentic image of the son of the Turkish Emperor Ibrahim, and of the Sultana his [i.e., Ibrahim's] mother, who were captured by the Maltese cavalry during a naval battle, and abducted to the island of Malta"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That does not make sense from the historical perspective. Kösem Sultan was captured at the age of 15, in 1604 or 1605. Ibrahim I, the son of Kösem Sultan and Ahmed I was only born in 1615. The child depicted in this picture is Ibrahim's son, who was born no earlier than 1640. I'll defer to Deor's authority with regard to other aspects.--Itinerant1 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This probably refers to the Action of 28 September 1644. Mikenorton (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case, the woman in the engraving would not be Kösem Sultan, but the wife of Ibrahim who was captured with the boy (according to the cited article). Eiusdem matris would then denote the mother of the "filius" rather than the mother of Ibrahim. Deor (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is Theatrum Europaeum, where the two different pictures of mother Zaffira and son Osman are shown as an illustration of the news text (in German). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that there were serious doubts about whether the boy really was the son of Ibrahim, John Evelyn 'exposed' him as an imposter in 1669 in his The History of the three late famous Imposters, viz. Padre Ottomano, Mahomed Bei, and Sabatei Sevi . Mikenorton (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And so, summing it all up, the correct translation would appear to be "Authentic depiction of the son of Emperor Ibrahim and of the sultana his mother, [who were] captured in a naval battle by the Knights of Malta and carried off to the island of Malta". Perhaps the image should be moved to the article Action of 28 September 1644, as it's misleading in its current use. Deor (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing something fundamental here: Where is the filius in this picture? The small bloke on the left looks more like a servant/slave. Also, the lady looks pregnant to me, but maybe I'm just imagining that. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the son is pictured in the other image linked to by Pp.Paul above - 'Osman', I'm further presuming that the images appear as a pair, although why one caption is in Latin and the other in German..... Mikenorton (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Yes, I concur. As far as I can tell, the Latin and German captions say the same thing. Unfortunately, our article on Ibrahim I says nothing about this particular wife of his (how do we know her name is Zaffira?), or a son named Osman. Thank you all – this has been most enlightening. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to confirm that the German text is the literal translation of the Latin. "Wahre Contrafactur des Türckischen Kaysers Ibrahims Sohn und der Sultanin seiner Mutter, welche in dem Seetreffen von denen Malteser Rittern gefangen und nach Malta gebracht worden." This also makes unambiguously clear that the person depicted is not Ibrahim but Ibrahim's son, and that the mother is not Ibrahim's mother but that son's mother. Fut.Perf. ? 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

She's named 6 lines from the bottom of the first column of p. 645 in the work cited by Pp.Paul.4. Deor (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted it above from the German news in Theatrum Europaeum, which is several pages long and has more images of Sultan Ibrahim I and of the battles of the Turkish-Venetian War. The English version of the name would be perhaps Sapphira, she was baptized, I do not know whether in fact or fiction, Giacometta Beccarino see, for example, her fate here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That story sounds implausible to me. If she was sold into slavery in 1620, there's no way she'd end up a wife of Ibrahim I, who was five years old at the time. Presumably, his wives had to be virgins when he took them (and he liked them young, too - his first three wives gave him children when they were 14 to 15.)
I'm looking through some free history books on Google Books. Zaffira is not mentioned in most sources, possibly because Ibrahim had lots of wives and children, and only the first few are usually listed. History books say that Ibrahim still had no children in early 1642 (some people were already planning for the seemingly inevitable fall of the Ottoman empire in the event that Ibrahim, the last male heir in the House of Osman, died childless), but then he quickly started reproducing and he had seven sons by 1644. And, since Osman was not one of the first children, he had to be an infant when he was taken. Nevertheless, Ibrahim was sufficiently mad at the loss of one of his wives that he declared war on Venice.
There is also this account, which states that she was _really_ the wife of Ibrahim's chief eunuch and the nurse of Mehmed IV, and the boy was not Ibrahim's son at all - his father was unknown.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, and this account, which seems to be a retelling of aforementioned John Evelyn's book, repeats the "eunuch's wife" story, names the woman Sciabas, says that she was Russian (although Sciabas is not a Russian name in any way - it sounds Italian to me), and that she was killed during the battle.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would like to update "Action of 28 September 1644" with all this fascinating information. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone did! --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just noticed! I've added the image of Osman to the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here's more useless trivia. It looks like most 18th and 19th century English books say that she was a eunuch's wife and it was all a hoax. French/German/Italian books stick to the original story. They also say that she was the first wife and he was the oldest son, 2 months older than Mehmed IV. (For that to be true, it would mean some serious coverup at the highest levels in Istanbul.) Paul Rycaut, who was a British consul in Turkey for 11 years, supposedly gave a good contemporary overview of the facts in the third volume of his General Historie of the Turks, but that book is not available online.--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the beauty of Wikipedia and crowdsourcing in action: we started off with a simple request about the meaning of an image caption in Latin, and have now resurrected a footnote from history (as well as the historical significance of "Upper Germany" and "Lower Germany"). Well done, guys. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Theatrum Europaeum provide any more information about this Zaffira? (I'm terrible with blackletter German.) And does it explain how those engravings were made 60 years after Zaffira's death? --Itinerant1 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Translation of German book title

Ah, great. Now, for those with German skills: how should the title of the work from which the engraving was obtained be translated? It is Theatri Europaei Fünffter Theil / Das ist: Außführliche Beschreibung Aller Denckwürdigen Geschichten. Die sich in Europa, Als Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland / Franckreich / Hispanien / Jtalien / Groß-Britannien / Dennemarck / Schweden / Polen / Moscaw / Böhmen / Hungarn / Siebenbürgen / Wallachey / Moldaw: Jn der Türckey und Barbarey ... vom Jahr 1643. biß ins 1647. Jahr / allerseits begeben und verlauffen. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Theatri Europaei Part V: A detailed description of all significant events which took place between 1643 and 1647 in Europe, ie Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Moscow, Bohemia, Hungary, Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldavia but also in Turkey and the barbaric countries. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Does Theatri Europaei translate as "European Theatre"? And what is "allerseits begeben und verlauffen"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Theatri Europaei Fünffter Theil literally is "fifth part of the European Theatre". The convention is to recast such genitive titles in the nominative but leave them in Latin, so "Theatrum Europaeum, Part 5" is what you want. Allerseits begeben und verlauffen is what Incognito rendered as "took place"—literally something like "...occurred and came to pass everywhere [in Europe...]. Deor (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Just a few small corrections: "Barbarey" would be Barbary Coast, not "barbarian countries". There's also no "but also" in the original. "Moscaw", as a country, would probably be translated as "Muscovy". I don't think "Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland" can be translated as "Austria and Germany"; I'd go for "Upper and Lower Germany" (or even: "Germany and the Low Countries"? Not quite sure. But "Austria" certainly wouldn't have been singled out conceptually like this.) You could also turn the main title into English: "Theatre of Europe, Part 5". Fut.Perf. ? 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"begeben und verlauffen" is a hendiadyoin for "happened" (things that "occurred and transpired" or something like that). "Allerseits" would be "anywhere". Fut.Perf. ? 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about mistranslating "Barbarey". "Hoch-Teutschland" is an obsolete / archaic term for the alpine regions of Germanic countries. When the Austro-Hungarian empire became defunct in 1918, the name was even considered as an option for the "new" political entity Austria. I took "Hoch-Teutschland" to mean Bavaria+, Austria and Switzerland. Vice versa, I assumed "Nieder-Teutschland" to refer to Brandenburg-Prussia, Saxony+ and the Netherlands (which I forgot to list). There is an article on Theatrum_Europaeum. The English article is a two line stub, but the de:WP stuff is longer. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: I posted a query on the German ref desk on "Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland" and will provide any feedback. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up in Grimm. It seems to have been used already mostly in the "Southern Germany" vs. "Northern Germany" sense that's also found in the modern linguistic concept of "High" vs. "Low German". "Hochdeutschland" would have stretched a good deal further north than just the "alpine region", but apart from that your list in your last posting has it essentially right. "Upper" vs. "Lower Germany" is probably the best translation. Fut.Perf. ? 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
As Fut.Perf. says: The areas separated by the Weißwurstäquator / the Speyer line isogloss. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No. North and south of the Benrath line (or the Uerdingen line) that separates Low and High German. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Thank very much – and now I also know what a hendiadys/hendiadyoin is. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Engraving of Maltese–Ottoman Empire naval battle
A depiction of the Action of 28 September 1644?

I have uploaded an engraving of a naval battle between Malta and the Ottoman Empire from Theatrum Europaeum (and have asked the Graphic Lab at the Commons to prepare a cropped version without the crease, if possible). I thought it might be nice to use it to illustrate the Action of 28 September 1644, but now am wondering whether it depicts the same battle as I note the caption states that the battle took place in 1645. Also, what is the word in the German version of the caption before dein that has disappeared into the crease? Does Treffen translate as "engagement, meeting"? In Mittellandischen there is a small e above the letter a – should the word be transcribed Mittelländischen? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that it says "Türken in dem mittelländischen meer" or "Turks in the Mediterranean Sea". Mikenorton (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's "Pugna Nautica inter Melitenses, et Turcos, in Mari Mediterraneo / Treffen zwischen den Maltesern und Türcken in dem Mittelländischen Meer, Aº 1645". Yes, "Treffen" is "engagement" (in the sense of "battle"). Yes, the small superscript "e" can be normalized to modern a-umlaut. About whether it depicts the same battle, I wouldn't worry about the divergence in the date; the ships shown, with their names, very closely match the events of the battle as described in our Action of 28 September 1644, so it's certainly intended to be the same. Fut.Perf. ? 12:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The action of 28 September provoked the Cretan War, which this engraving could depict. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at the details. According to our article on the 1644 battle, "The Maltese San Lorenzo, Santa Maria and Vittoria overhauled and attacked a Turkish galleon, while San Giuseppe and San Giovanni captured a smaller sailing ship and the "capitana" chased a vessel which turned out to be Greek, before returning to fight the galleon." The picture shows exactly these actions: on the right, three galleys labelled "S. Laurentz", "S. Maria" and "Victoria" surrounding a ship labelled "Türckische Galleon"; in the middle, two others labelled "S. Iohann" and "S. Ioseph" engaging another Turkish sailing vessel; and on the left, another galley labelled "Capitaine de Malte" engaging a vessel labelled "Griechisches Schiff". There's also "Rhodes" in the background, and a convoy of other Turkish ships in the background on the far right; all of this also matches the description. Fut.Perf. ? 14:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is only for the crease, take the image from the 2nd edition of 1651 (select the reference year 1645, then Tafel 34 before p. 808 (cannot link to the page itself) [1] or the image from a vendor [2]. The vendor refers also to the 1644 or 1645 question. The image is falsely labeled 1645, the story itself is entangled and told amongst the 1645 events. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Number: 1271703
  • Dealer: Petra Riedel







 
Your IP Address is: 54.166.172.180
Antique Maps fair
Copyright © 2008-2018 VIRTUAL ART - BOOK & MAP FAIR |  Design by mCar Automatisering, Inspired by Clyde Jones | Powered by Zen Cart