The comparative method in Guido Panciroli's treatise "Two books about memorable things, now lost and, on the contrary, recently ingeniously invented"

Galkova Dar'ya Aleksandrovna Postgraduate student of the Faculty of History, Department of History of the Middle Ages, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Leninskie Gory, 1 dargal444@gmail.com

In Italy, one of the central figures of the historical school of law in the second half of the XVI century was Professor Guido Panciroli of the University of Padua (1523-1599) ^{[10, P. 47.]}. A teacher and scientist, apparently of outstanding talents, he was extremely in demand in his profession until the last days, his students, who gratefully recalled They dispersed throughout Europe and took up primary positions in the state and the church. The work of the jurist has not been left without the attention of researchers, however, a full-fledged systematic analysis of the works has not been published.

The treatise "Two books about memorable things now lost and, on the contrary, recently ingeniously invented" ^[7], today arouses the greatest interest among specialists. He was known earlier, throughout the XIX century. this work was confidently ranked among the works that reveal the perception of the historical and philosophical category of "inventions" by humanists ^{[1; 4]}. In the early 20s of the XX century. interest in the treatise begins to fall. This work was returned to modern scientific circulation by the American researcher Vera Keller^{[5; 6]}, who considers "Two books about memorable things" in the context of the changing information space of Europe of the XVII – XVIII centuries. The researcher pays special attention to the pragmatic interest of the state in matters of replenishing knowledge and mastering new and well-forgotten technologies.

This article will focus not so much on the properties of the historical and philosophical category of "inventions", as on the innovation of Panchiroli's approach to the periodization of history and the changeability of epochs. Using the example of "Two books about memorable things", the features of his "evolutionary theory" will be analyzed, which is based on the comparison of two extremes – "lost" and "recently invented".

In Russian historiography, the biography of Panchiroli is practically unknown. He was born on April 17, 1523 in Reggio (now Reggio Emilia), where he began his education ^{[9, P. 6]}. His mentors and guides in the study of philosophy and ancient languages were Bassiano Landi (Approx.: Bassiano Lando (?-1562), a "wandering" teacher who later became famous in the field of medicine for his ethically ambiguous experiments. Because of them, he was subsequently expelled from Padua, where he was staying at that time.), and then Sebastiano Corradi (Approx. Sebastiano Corradi (1510-1556), a connoisseur of the works of Cicero, Virgil, Valerius Maximus, and Plato. He was educated in Venice, where his social circle was formed. In particular, he was in close contact with Giovanni Battista Cipelli (Egnazio), Pietro Bembo and Gianbatisto Giraldi. In the 1530s, he was invited as a teacher for the Duke of Urbino Francesco Maria della Rovere, then left for Reggio (1540-1544), later he was invited as a teacher at the University of Bologna (1544-1552) ^{[9, P. 5]}. From 1540 to 1556, Panciroli attended law courses at the universities of Ferrara, Pavia, Bologna and Padua, where he got acquainted with the founders of the historical trend of legal humanism – Andrea Alcato (1492-1550) and Marco Mantova Benavides (1489-1582) ^{[9, P. 5]}. Around 1547, while still a student at the University of Padua, Panciroli himself began to teach courses in civil law. Ultimately, after graduation, he becomes a doctor of law and is considered by his contemporaries to be a brilliant expert in this field. In addition to his teaching activities, during his stay at the University of Padua, he undertook to write the history of his hometown of Reggio, the manuscript of which appeared in 1563 ^{[9, P. 7]}.

Dissatisfaction with the university policy pushed Pancirolli in 1570 to accept an invitation from Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, to take up the position of ordinary professor of law at the University of Turin ^{[9, P. 7]}. According to the Duke's plan, outstanding experts in history, politics and law were to unite under his patronage at the university, which in itself flattered any chosen one. The granting of an honorary position for Pancirolli was also accompanied by a generous payment for that time (700 scudi per year, and after 4 years 1000 scudi per year) and the privilege of close communication with the Duke himself and his entourage ^{[9, P. 7]}. The work of the "circle of like-minded people", in particular, finds its embodiment in the preparation by a whole team of authors for the publication of classical works on civil law. First, the publication of two volumes of "Commentaries" to the Digests of Justinian of Milan jurist, teacher Andrea Alcato, Jason del Maino, published in 1573, was prepared. And then in 1574 two more volumes of "Commentaries on Digests" by the famous medieval jurist Bartolo da Sassoferrato were published. Panchirolli and his colleagues supply all these voluminous volumes with a qualified reference apparatus.

In the Jubilee year for the Catholic Church in 1575, the lawyer visits Rome and, presumably, Reggio, and on his return resumes teaching in Turin ^{[2, P. 165-166.]}. He remains at court until 1580. The attention and generosity of the Dukes of Savoy, in particular, Charles Emmanuel, the heir of Emmanuel Philibert, who died in 1580, forced the humanist to first refuse the invitation of the Venetians to return to the University of Padua "with the preservation" of Turin earnings. However, health subsequently failed. Even in a letter from 1575, Pancirolli writes: "The only thing that still bothers me is that I work with my eyes, and their health is weakening. I hope, with God's help, I will recover" ^{[8, P. 13]}. Hopes were not fulfilled, Pancirolli's myopia intensified, he was practically blind in one eye and was rapidly losing control of the second. Therefore, in 1580^{[9, P. 11]} (according to another point of view, 1582^{[8, P. 13]}), he decides to return to Padua to the Department of Civil Law.

The last stage of Guido Pancirolli's life took place in Padua, where the lawyer taught until his last days. He was invited several times by representatives of the highest secular and spiritual authorities to consult in resolving legal conflicts, but he refused ^{[9, P. 11]}. Back in 1589, the humanist's will was announced in Reggio, which, apparently, remains unchanged until his death in May 1599 ^{[9, P. 11]}.

Panchirolli's rich teaching and scientific experience has practically not found expression in publications, except for those "collective" ones mentioned above. Manuscripts with notes of his lectures and writings were distributed among students and relatives, and later published in various printing houses in Italy (Venice, Turin), France (Lyon) and Germany (Amberg). It is not known whether the humanist himself initiated the printing of some of his works. For example, the treatise "Consiliorum siue responsorum iuris d. Guidi Panciroli Regiensis" was printed in Venice in 1578 on the initiative of Panciroli's disciple Cardinal Alessandro Riario. This work contains a retelling of the humanist's oral lectures on various legal incidents. It was collected and published by students and teachers of the University of Padua, while their author was in Turin. Later in 1593, Panciroli's commentary on a late Antique document known as the "Notitia dignitatum" was published in Venice. The work on this work was started by Andrea Alcati, and Pancirolli, at the request of Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy, picked it up and published it taking into account the existing developments of his teacher. The treatise on positions in the Eastern and Western Roman empires was published under the title "Notitia utraque, dignitatum cum orientis, tum occidentis, ultra arcadii honoriique tempora", and was provided with a rich historical reference by both authors who worked on it. All other works of Pancirolli were published posthumously in the first half of the XVII century .

The treatise "Rerum Memorabilium iam olim deperditarum & contra recens atque ingeniose inventarum libri duo" or "Two books about memorable things now lost and, on the contrary, recently ingeniously invented" was also published without the direct participation of the author himself. Probably, this work was widely known as an oral tradition, could go hand in hand in manuscripts. Panciroli points out that he often discussed its contents with his patron, the Duke of Savoy^{[6, P. 47]}. In reality, the circle of "initiates" was much wider. It included students and colleagues of the jurist, some of whom he even mentions in the text as his referents ^{[7, I. P. 32., II. P. 623.]}

The main initiator of the preparation of the text for printing was the Nuremberg physician – Joachim Camerarius the Younger (1534-1598). He received one of the copies of the manuscript of the treatise during his stay in Padua. And already in 1596 (i.e., during the life of the direct author), the Camerarius turned for help to his colleague, jurist, syndic of Amberg and pupil of Panchiroli, Heinrich Salmut (1559-1634) and wrote: "if you have so much free time left from the performance of your official duties that you sometimes want and can devote leisure translations, then I would soon send you the text of the notes in Italian"^{[7, I. P. 6r-6v]}. It is not known whether Salmut was the only trusted addressee of the Camerarium, but it was he who eventually agreed. And it is he who will have to share with Panciroli the responsibility for the resulting work, because in addition to translating from Italian, he added a voluminous commentary to the humanist's achievements. In the final version, the publisher highlighted the original text in italics to distinguish it on print from the comments of the translator-commentator.

The work was first published in Amberg in two volumes – the first was published in 1599, and the second in 1602. Without too much modesty, I must say that Salmut has done a titanic job. In the first volume, which mentions 66 phenomena for an average of 2-5 printed pages, the entire volume of the text was 813 pages (instead of the approximate 220), and in the second for 25 phenomena – 773 pages (instead of the approximate 100). However, at the same time, in the introduction, the commentator noted that he in no way encroaches on the authorship of the idea. According to him, he undertakes to publish his teacher's materials not out of envy for him, but because Panchiroli's achievements are of great importance to society. Therefore, even if they are, as we would say now, "intellectual property" (privato studio), they simply cannot remain in oblivion of the handwritten heritage ^{[7, I. P. 4]}. This, apparently, is also the basis for the translation of Panciroli's notes from Italian into the universal Latin language – the language of European science.

Zalmut's flirtation with the scientific community was reflected primarily in the title of the work. In particular, the general title "Rerum memorabilium" is undoubtedly an allusion to the famous ancient collection of various curiosities "Collectanea rerum memorabilium", compiled by a follower of Pliny, Gaius Julius Solinus. And in the second volume there is also a postscript "Nova reperta", referring the reader to the modern edition of the eponymous series of famous engravings by Jan Staert.

Returning to the content of the text so appreciated by contemporaries, it must be said that Panchiroli selected "phenomena" in several directions at once. In the introduction, he notes: "in the first part of the collection I have recently compiled, it is said about the phenomena that nature generates and about which nothing is known today. Then we are talking about the buildings, the vestments of the ancients and their customs, which have been forgotten in our time. After that, those things and arts that were invented not so long ago are highlighted"^{[7, I. P. A]}. As you can guess from such a generalization, the range of phenomena of interest to the jurist turned out to be heterogeneous. Since every detail in it can be decisive, the surest way to form at least a superficial idea of the content of the work is to give a full list of chapters of the first and second books of the treatise.

(Approx.: the first book is divided into 66 chapters: 1. Purple. 2. Encaustic. 3. Obsidian. 4. Asbestos fabric. 5. Visson. 6. Window mica. 7. Fluorspar and precious stones. 8. Orichalcum. 9. Cinnamon tree. 10. Valerian and other incense. 11. Amom and other balms. 12. Myrrh, stackt, bdollah and balsam. 13. Indian metal (azzalo) 14. Ammonia (Ammoniaco Sale) 15. Stellion (from the name of the lizard, the seller is a deceiver who sells fake incense (as well as stones or metals). 16. Marble and its types. 17. Precious stones 18. Fruits 19. Buildings, amphitheatres and theaters 20. Circus Maximus, basilicas (rows), taverns (shops) and nymphaeums (wedding chambers). 21. Forum 22. Roads 23. Public libraries 24. Private houses 25. Bas-reliefs made of stone 26. Storeroom 27. Lists. 28. Thermal baths and baths. 29. Triumphal arches. 30. The column of Troyan, Antony and Pius. 31. The Mausoleum of Hadrian and Cestius. 32. Obelisks. 33. Pyramids, labyrinths, the Egyptian Sphinx and the seven wonders of the world. 34. Gold copper and amber. 35. Corinthian copper 36. Fireproof oil 37. Viscous glass. 38. Papyrus 39. Ships with four and five rows of oars 40. Music. 41. Silent music and a water organ. 42. Stage performance 43. Ancient epigraphy. 44. The ancient way of dressing. 45. Fibula. 46. The vestments of the emperors. 47. The order of greeting the emperor. 48. Head decoration. 49. The art of riding (without a saddle and stirrups). 50. Turtle shell harp. 51. Household utensils made of silver. 52. The order of eating among the ancients. 53. Containers for the sale of liquids (wine, oil, etc.). 54. Customs of warfare. 55. Customs in the army. 56. Wreaths that were awarded to soldiers. 57. Weapons depots, which later became known as the arsenal. 58. Triumphs. 59. Legates. 60. The order of marriage. 61. About ancient games. 62. Convicts sentenced to work in the mines. 63. Rites of burial of the dead. 64. Nomenclators 65. Gifts. 66. Clock and clepsydra.

This book contains 25 chapters 1. The New World. 2. Porcelain 3. Bezoar 4. Cinnamon (Cassia). 5. Sugar. 6. Manna. 7. Alchemy. 8. Distillation 9. Bell. 10. Mechanical watches. 11. Compass. 12. Printing house. 13. Paper. 14. Ciphers or cryptography. 15. Glasses. 16. Saddle, stirrups and horseshoe. 17. Quadrature of the circle 18. Cannon and amazing projectiles. 19. Greek fire. 20. Knight's Tournament of 21 Quintians (market) 22. Watermills. 23. Hunting with birds of prey (hawks, falcons, etc.) 24. Silk 25. Bottarga and caviar.)

In its "original" form (without Salmut's comment) Panchiroli's text was similar to a collection of short essays in which the subject of discussion was awarded only a stingy characteristic concerning the essence of the phenomenon and its "status" to date. In some places, the style of notes is conversational, and the reference apparatus appears sporadically in the text. So, for example, in the chapter about encryption or fibula, the output data of all sources of the lawyer is mentioned in detail, while the chapter about fireproof oil or natural minerals does not mention any author or book. The lack of a unified style of presentation, apparently, also resulted from the transfer of the text from the oral tradition to the written one.

Of great (perhaps even decisive) importance for the resulting selection was Panciroli's acquaintance with the entertaining collections of antiquities of the Dukes of Savoy. "Rooms of miracles" with relics of the past, according to Keller's apt remark, provided privileged access to an understanding of material history, which the jurist used ^{[6, p. 50]}. In particular, fibula, arsenal and Chinese paper come from "museum collections" to the text. And later in the collection of his pupil, Lorenzo Pignori, the Panciroli manuscript is found under the heading "inventioni anctiche & moderne" and a number of objects (fibula, rings, lamp, cloth dyed purple, various materials for writing), which, according to Keller, were collected specifically to illustrate the content of the treatise ^{[6, p. 51]}.

In addition, while staying in Turin, Panciroli had the opportunity to observe a series of alchemical experiments conducted by the Duke himself ^{[6, P. 51]}. At the same time, the jurist apparently began to be interested in the origin of various natural components (stones, minerals, metals, medicinal oils and incense), which also form the basis of one of the significant parts of the treatise. He drew information about substances of natural origin from various medical treatises. Panciroli was well acquainted with, and subsequently quoted the texts of Galen and Dioscorides (in the commentary by Pietro Andrea Mattiolo). Keller also noted the influence of Aristotle and various treatises on alchemy on the text of the jurist ^{[6, P. 58]}.

Most of the notes, after all, were not tied to collections of antiquities or to the properties of substances, but went back to the comments on legal documents compiled by Panchiroli. In particular, this concerns phenomena related to the emperor's attire, his insignia and court etiquette (purple, encaustic, clothing, the order of greeting the emperor, legates). A separate direction consists of chapters dealing with the customs and traditions of the ancients (eating, marriage, funerals, giving gifts). And also thanks to working with legal documents, several such curiosities appear in the text of the treatise, such as a turtle shell harp, or criminals sentenced to work in mines. But, as mentioned above, despite the serious legal basis of the text, Panciroli is very careless and inattentive to his sources.

At the center of the narrative of the prevailing number of chapters are the testimonies from the Corpus Juris civilis, which, as a rule, are mentioned only descriptively, without output data. Legal documents interpreted by Panchiroli fix in the text a certain norm in the perception of the phenomenon and testify to its existence in the historical period described. For the same purpose, in both the first and second parts of the treatise, the jurist briefly mentions (if at all) ancient and Byzantine authors who "documented" in their texts the existence of a phenomenon or its interpretation. Most often the name of Pliny sounds, which appears in almost every chapter, and in some more than once. The jurist often refers to Galen, Vitruvius, Virgil and Plutarch. Such ancient authors as P. Victor, Varro, Suetonius, Quintillian, Strabo, Plautus, Terentius, Diodorus Siculus, Cassiodorus, Aeschines, Demosthenes, Macrobius, Aulus Helius, Titus Livius, Martial, Hieronymus, Tertullian, Josephus, Cyprian, Ammianus Marcelin, Herodian deserve literally isolated mentions, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Vegetius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cornelius Nepos. Apparently, the result of the work on the commentary to the "Notitia dignitatum" was the involvement of several Byzantine sources. Panchiroli refers to the Byzantine historians – Nikita Choniata, John Zonar and Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos. There are references to Suda, a Greek medieval encyclopedic dictionary.

Practically none of the "contemporaries" of the jurist did not deign his attention, except Flavio Biondo, Pierio Valeriano Bolzani and Pietro Andrea Mattiolo. Panchiroli also directly refers to the "expert" opinion of his disciple Martin Gerstman, Bishop of Wroclaw and the young noble Venetian Hieronymus, mentioned above. References to contemporaries are rare, but each of them plays a special role in the text. The task of each "expert" is to confirm or refute the existence of the described phenomenon in the modern world. For example, in the chapter about ammonia, Panciroli writes: "Ammonia, which is born underground, Mattiolo considers to have disappeared today, and what the incense dealer shows us is a fake"^{[7, I. P. 57]}.

Thus, it is not the source as such that is important for Panchiroli, its content also played a secondary role. The jurist was interested in assessing the state of the phenomenon today and linking it to the time of its existence. In this regard, the chapter about orichalcum, a gold-colored fusible metal used in antiquity, is indicative. In it , Panchiroli notes the following: "as Pliny writes*, this metal has not been found for a long time, because the earth has been depleted, that is, it has become barren. It is known, however, that after that, the jurist Marcian, who lived during the reign of Emperor Alexander in 225, mentions him, so that at that time he also existed*"^{[7, I. P. 40]}.

Separately, it should be noted that in parallel with the text in its margins there are a number of precise references, primarily concerning laws and regulations. Opposite the asterisks in the margins, the output data of the source on which Panciroli relies is indicated in italics: "Pliny*" - "*lib. 34, cap. 2", "lawyer Marcian*" - "*L. Labeo 45. ff. de contrah. em.». Apparently, Zalmut has already worked on this part of the reference apparatus. Based on the fact that it is the output data indicated in the fields that subsequently form the basis of his comment, it can be assumed that he left signatures to sources relevant to himself. In addition, Salmut compiles at the end of the work an index of legal documents or a list of "some laws, the meaning of which is casually indicated in the treatise"^{[7, I. P. 753]}.

It was the style of presentation chosen by Panchiroli "without an evidence base" that became the basis for the appearance of Zalmut's grounded commentary. The publisher undertakes to fill up the stingy abstract base in the work and, in contrast to the conversational manner of narration, analyzes the phenomenon in parts: interprets the meaning of the term, compares the use of words in both ancient and modern sources, provides it with an abundant historical-legal and, if necessary, natural-scientific commentary and reveals rather general characteristics that the author gives. In other words, Salmut is a classic compilation, tailored according to the best humanistic models. The works of senior and younger contemporaries, such as Just Lipsius, Jean Bodin, Andrea Alcati, Jean de Cora, Pierio Valeriano Bolzani, Francois Othman, Adrian Tourneb, Jacques Cujas, Philippe Melanchthon, Alessandro Sardi, Lilo Gregorio Giraldi, Andrea Palladio, Polydore Virgil, etc., acquire special significance in the process of compiling a commentary for Salmut. numbers of other authors.

Subsequently, the translators of the treatise (already from Latin) often greatly shortened Salmut's commentary or completely abandoned it, referring to the religious bias of the resulting work. (Note: in 1612, an Italian translation appeared in Venice, made after the publication of Salmut, since the text of the original notes of the jurist was lost. The French translation was published a little later, in 1617 in Lyon. As indicated in the title, the translation was made from Italian. In 1725, an English version of the text was printed in London – one of their shortest variations of the preservation of the commentary.) For free handling of church texts and adherence to Protestant values in May 1601, Salmut's commentary falls into the index of forbidden books^{[3, P. 467]} and is in it until 1900. In fact, the publisher's influence on the work and on its concept was by no means limited to religious bias. In particular, it is striking that the publisher (unlike Panciroli himself) is obsessed with the idea of "progress", which radically changes the complex vision of the work. However, the development of this issue is worthy of a separate article. For us, Salmut's commentary is significant in its general form, in which he fills in the gaps of the scientific reference apparatus or "Latinizes" the text.

Salmut's decision to divide Panciroli's notes into two volumes, while fully responding to the author's idea. In the introduction and in the connecting phrases between the notes, the jurist repeatedly returns to the opposition of "forgotten" and "newly invented". The sequence of enumeration of the described phenomena is also built from it: first, Panciroli writes "about phenomena that were in use by the ancients, but are now out of use"^{[7, I. P. A]}, and then "about those that, on the contrary, first appeared after the Roman Empire" ^{[7, I. P. A]}. At the same time, the contrasting phenomena, according to his plan, had to go in parallel so that the reader would have the opportunity to review the achievements of the past and present as a reasonable merchant who keeps accounting of income and expenditure ^{[7, I. P. A]}.

Keller quite reasonably points out a certain roughness in Panciroli's comparative approach^{[6, P. 50]}. Looking through the contents of the first and second books, only with very large assumptions it turns out "following the example of Plutarch, to draw for yourself something like parallels" ^{[7, I. P. A]}. The jurist does not single out specific homogeneous phenomena for comparative analysis, does not indicate any common features or differences in thematic blocks. Apparently, this specificity of the text stems from the fact that a strict division into two autonomous parts, as bequeathed by the Duke of Savoy, could not be carried out. In the course of his work, Panciroli had to abandon the search for these "extremes" and due to this, he was able to very accurately identify a whole set of features of evolutionary processes inherent in European history.

Due to the blurring of the boundaries between "forgotten" and "newly invented", "antiquity" and "modernity" took the place of the key parameters of comparative analysis. Each phenomenon in the work of a jurist was ultimately checked for belonging to a particular period. And as a result, a whole idea of his "status" was formed, which in one way or another correlated with the past or the present. Based on this comparison, four types of phenomena can be distinguished in the text.

The first of them includes "pairs" - interrelated phenomena that are presented in both the first and second volumes. Each of the described consubstantial phenomena is characterized by a gradual transformation.

The connection of the phenomena of each of the listed "pairs" is based on the instructions of the author himself. For example, in the chapter about papyrus, he writes that he will tell about the paper ^{[7, I. P. 240]} in the second part. And in the chapter about the order of meals, he repeats and lists botarga and caviar from Volume 2 ^{[7, I. P. 508]} as an example of a "set" of dishes that changes over time. It is worth noting separately that some phenomena were never separated, that is, the "new" inventions of the first book were not transferred to the second. For example, in the chapter about epigraphy, the late introduction of Arabic numerals is noted ^{[7, I. P. 269]}, and in the chapter about the fibula, the invention of the beret described dates back to 1170^{[7, I. P. 328]}.

Thus, the first way of constructing a comparison in the text forms an idea of the process of updating and the emergence of new forms of previous knowledge. The author notes the variety of phenomena and their qualitative internal change, but does not give him estimates. 

The second type of construction of the comparison is less obvious, since it is based on the same chronological principle, but the phenomenon itself is attributed only to one of the two volumes. The main feature of the described phenomena is belonging simultaneously to two epochs independently of each other. For example, the watermill used by the Greeks and Romans in antiquity^{[7, II. P. 693]} and sugar^{[7, II. P. 285]} were lost and restored by Europeans. Panchiroli writes about them in the second book, as about new inventions. The custom of giving New Year's gifts in antiquity is observed, despite subsequent church prohibitions, but the jurist considers it the "property" of antiquity ^{[7, I. P. 741]}. The jurist notes that the Venetians, following the ancients, used the Arsenal for storing and manufacturing weapons, but leaves this phenomenon in the list of "lost"^{[7, I. P. 617]}. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that, as the author points out, the phenomena lost in antiquity can now be found in other parts of the world. So, for example, an antique harp made of turtle shell, as Panchiroli writes, according to the testimony of merchants, is found in India ^{[7, I. P. 481]}.

The logic of attributing this or that phenomenon to the first or second book is not completely clear. It is only obvious that Panchiroli notes the "technological" and cultural gap between the epochs that arose with the arrival of the barbarians. The resulting temporary gap, in his opinion, led to the loss of a number of phenomena already known in antiquity. The restoration of what is already known in the interpretation of the author becomes an independent phenomenon.

The third type of comparison is based on the geographical principle. It can include a group of phenomena that are associated with the Eastern world and either disappeared or appeared under its influence. Accordingly, the interaction of Europeans with the external "non-European" world plays a special role for this category. Thanks to him, the range of available natural resources and technologies was significantly expanded (or reduced). For example, Panchiroli associates the disappearance of purple with the gradual seizure of Syrian lands by the Turks^{[7, I. P. 10]}. The art of making prints and printing itself were known to the Chinese before Guttenberg's invention and, according to the jurist, came to Europe through the Baltic States ^{[7, II. P. 579]}. Thanks to the Arabs, alchemy appeared and so on ^{[7, II. P. 313]}.

Eastern scholarship was highly valued in Europe in the second half of the XVI century, but its claim to primacy in the invention of a number of things offended many Renaissance thinkers. Panciroli was not among the "offended" and described with interest his observations about various phenomena that had penetrated into Europe in one way or another.

Finally, the last, fourth group of comparable phenomena includes those very desired extremes - "forgotten" and "newly invented".  For example, the discovery of America and falconry definitely have no analogues in antiquity. And the visson or the technology of building Roman roads fell out of use and were subsequently forgotten. This group also includes those ancient phenomena (marble, a number of metals and ammonia), which in the modern era of the author exist, according to the author, only in the form of a fake.

Unlike Salmut, Panchiroli deliberately avoided religious, and along with them, legal issues. In his opinion, any discussions about the perception of these two spheres "among the ancients were not without prejudice"^{[7, I. P. A2]}. Therefore, summing up the first part of the treatise, Panchiroli writes: "in my story, I did not get involved with ancient pagan superstitions, so vile and empty, and did not want to talk about so often changing legislation. I noted with regret that because of such information, the book lost its inherent content. There is no doubt that I have missed something that in itself deserves reflection. However, I felt that it would be enough even that I had at least touched on the most important points because of this"^{[7, I. P. 751-752]}. Panchiroli's refusal to enter into a discussion on such burning issues is interesting in itself. In this interpretation, the ancient society was deprived of its inherent significant social attributes and spiritual life as such, and most importantly, it was devoid of vulnerability. Firstly, by cutting off the key controversial aspects in the consideration of antiquity, Panciroli got rid of criticism of a number of irrelevant issues for him, from which he did not seek to benefit from "knowledge". And, secondly, he received a dry residue for comparing the qualitative differences of the past and the present and thus introduced into scientific circulation the idea of rationality and objectivity of judgments as a certain value and condition of work

In the treatise "Two books about memorable Things" Guido Panciroli showed himself not only a talented jurist, but also an outstanding historian. His work is based on an inexhaustible interest in how the knowledge available to people changes in the historical perspective, and with it the surrounding reality. At the initiative of his patron Emmanuel Philibert, Panciroli tried to turn the solution of this complex problem into an opposition of one qualitatively completed period of antiquity to another, medieval, to which he himself belonged in his inner feeling.

At the same time, the combined experience of both cultural traditions had an undeniable value. Through the appeal to the "forgotten" and "lost" phenomenon, the author managed to make it public, to attract attention to it, which together gave hope for the possibility of revival. "New" inventions, which somehow became part of the European tradition, personified the increment of knowledge. Their discovery became another confirmation that reality is plastic and subject not only to oblivion, but to renewal.

At the same time, the need to overcome the many contradictions that arose forced us to evaluate the result in a new way. The exchange of experience with colleagues, constant discussions in the circle of "initiates" gradually blurred the boundaries between the two given extremes. Due to this, the process of transfer or loss of knowledge, which in the author's interpretation was limited exclusively by the historical conjuncture, gained special significance.