LED Color Changing Party Light With Remote LED Color... — auction comparables · Snaplot Comparables
Comparables
1,604
Median
£644
Suggested estimate
£280 – £980
25–75% range
£276 – £1,473
Overall range
£1 – £2,346,586
Distribution
Sell-through 100% of lots sold
3% at premier salerooms
Trend↘ falling -87% over 8y
Median from 1,061 sold in the last 36 months·hammer prices, excl. buyer's premium — fair-market auction value (retail/insurance replacement runs higher)
1,676 comparables for “LED Color Changing Party Light With Remote LED Color...” · page 28 of 70
<p><span style="color:#9C0000"><strong>DE ROSSI, AZARIAH.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#9C0000"><strong><br /></strong></span>Me’or Einayim [philosophy of history]. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p><span style="color:#9C0000"><strong>FIRST EDITION. </strong></span>Title within woodcut architectural border. Woodcut diagrams on f.156. This copy with the corrected ‘Mahaduroth’ which are in most standard copies together with the rare ‘Teshuva Le’hasagah’ but without ‘Mahahadurot Shniyoth’ affixed to very few copies. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>ff. 194. Few light stains in places, dark stain on last few leaves, signed by censor on title. Recent half-calf marbled boards, rubbed at edges. Sm. 4to. </p>
<p>Vinograd, Mantua 138; Mehlman 1327.<br /></p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Mantua, n.p. 1574.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p> Azariah de Rossi of Mantua (c.1511 - c.1578) was a member of the Min Ha’Adumim family, one of Italian Jewry’s oldest and most distinguished families. Legend has it that their ancestors were brought to Rome as captives from Jerusalem by Emperor Titus. De Rossi’s controversial Me’or Einayim questioned conventional medieval wisdom and introduced fundamental changes in chronology. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>De Rossi rehabilitated the works of the Alexandrian philosopher Philo Judaeus, who had been ignored by Jewish scholars for almost 1500 years. He exposed the much vaunted “Jossipon” as an early medieval compilation based on the works of Josephus, though with much falsification. In the spirit of the Renaissance, de Rossi turned to critical analysis and made use of the Apocrypha and Jewish-Hellenistic sources in his study of ancient Jewish history and texts. Most contentiously, he suggested that Midrashic literature was employed as a stylistic device “to induce a good state of mind among readers, ” and thus not to be taken literally. Such statements led the Me’or Einayim to be viewed as heresy and it was banned by the rabbinic authorities upon publication. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>De Rossi re-issued the work the same year, making changes to the offending passages and adding an apologetic postscript. However, some prominent rabbis decreed that those below the age of 25 should be prevented from consulting the book. De Rossi himself was spared chastisement due to his publicly viewed personal Halachic observances. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>This copy of the Me’or Einayim contains the Mahaduroth (ff. 185-186), which are a series of addenda and corrigenda. These are followed by Luach HaPerakim, a table of contents (ff. 187-188). Also present are the Hasagah, the criticism by De Rossi’s fellow Mantuan, R. Moshe Provenzali, of the author’s revisionist chronology (ff. 189-190), and De Rossi’s reply to that criticism, Teshuvah LeHasagah (ff. 191-194). Mehlman points out that exceedingly rare copies of Me’or Einayim have an insert of 6 leaves between ff. 186-187 with the heading Mahadura Sheniyah, in which De Rossi was forced to fend off further attacks upon his work. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Fascinatingly, de Rossi writes here that knowledge of the "New World" (his words) was known by the Rabbis of the Talmud. From as early as King Solomon's time, the Americas were "well known…travelers would come and go…from the Land of Ophir and Parvaim (see Kings I, chap X, v.22) - there is no doubt this is the Land of Peru." De Rossi states that the reason the Greek geographer Ptolemy did not depict the American Continent in his maps, was because such knowledge "had disappeared from human memory" (Me’or Einayim p. 159a et seq). </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>See M. Silber, America in Hebrew Literature, in: Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, Vol. XXII (1914) pp. 101-37, 114-15 and 121; R.J.H. Gottheil, Columbus in Jewish Literature, in: American Jewish Historical Quarterly (1894) pp. 129-37; J. Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes (2001). </p>
<p>And see Carmilly-Weinberger, Censorship & Freedom, pp. 210-13; I. Mehlman, Genuzoth Sepharim, (1976) pp. 21-39; S. Simonsohn, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua, pp. 634-637; EJ, Vol. XIV, cols. 315-18.<br /></p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>“The Me’or Einayim became so important that it rendered its author as one of the greatest, or perhaps the very greatest, of Jewish historians who flourished in the seventeen centuries between Josephus and Jost.” </p>
<p>Salo Baron, Azariah de Rossi’s Attitude to Life, in: Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams (1927) p. 12.</p>
![<p><span style="color:#9C0000"><strong>DE ROSSI, AZARIAH.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="color:#9C0000"><strong><br /></strong></span>Me’or Einayim [philosophy of history]. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p><span style="color:#9C0000"><strong>FIRST EDITION. </strong></span>Title within woodcut architectural border. Woodcut diagrams on f.156. This copy with the corrected ‘Mahaduroth’ which are in most standard copies together with the rare ‘Teshuva Le’hasagah’ but without ‘Mahahadurot Shniyoth’ affixed to very few copies. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>ff. 194. Few light stains in places, dark stain on last few leaves, signed by censor on title. Recent half-calf marbled boards, rubbed at edges. Sm. 4to. </p>
<p>Vinograd, Mantua 138; Mehlman 1327.<br /></p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Mantua, n.p. 1574.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p> Azariah de Rossi of Mantua (c.1511 - c.1578) was a member of the Min Ha’Adumim family, one of Italian Jewry’s oldest and most distinguished families. Legend has it that their ancestors were brought to Rome as captives from Jerusalem by Emperor Titus. De Rossi’s controversial Me’or Einayim questioned conventional medieval wisdom and introduced fundamental changes in chronology. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>De Rossi rehabilitated the works of the Alexandrian philosopher Philo Judaeus, who had been ignored by Jewish scholars for almost 1500 years. He exposed the much vaunted “Jossipon” as an early medieval compilation based on the works of Josephus, though with much falsification. In the spirit of the Renaissance, de Rossi turned to critical analysis and made use of the Apocrypha and Jewish-Hellenistic sources in his study of ancient Jewish history and texts. Most contentiously, he suggested that Midrashic literature was employed as a stylistic device “to induce a good state of mind among readers, ” and thus not to be taken literally. Such statements led the Me’or Einayim to be viewed as heresy and it was banned by the rabbinic authorities upon publication. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>De Rossi re-issued the work the same year, making changes to the offending passages and adding an apologetic postscript. However, some prominent rabbis decreed that those below the age of 25 should be prevented from consulting the book. De Rossi himself was spared chastisement due to his publicly viewed personal Halachic observances. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>This copy of the Me’or Einayim contains the Mahaduroth (ff. 185-186), which are a series of addenda and corrigenda. These are followed by Luach HaPerakim, a table of contents (ff. 187-188). Also present are the Hasagah, the criticism by De Rossi’s fellow Mantuan, R. Moshe Provenzali, of the author’s revisionist chronology (ff. 189-190), and De Rossi’s reply to that criticism, Teshuvah LeHasagah (ff. 191-194). Mehlman points out that exceedingly rare copies of Me’or Einayim have an insert of 6 leaves between ff. 186-187 with the heading Mahadura Sheniyah, in which De Rossi was forced to fend off further attacks upon his work. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Fascinatingly, de Rossi writes here that knowledge of the "New World" (his words) was known by the Rabbis of the Talmud. From as early as King Solomon's time, the Americas were "well known…travelers would come and go…from the Land of Ophir and Parvaim (see Kings I, chap X, v.22) - there is no doubt this is the Land of Peru." De Rossi states that the reason the Greek geographer Ptolemy did not depict the American Continent in his maps, was because such knowledge "had disappeared from human memory" (Me’or Einayim p. 159a et seq). </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>See M. Silber, America in Hebrew Literature, in: Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, Vol. XXII (1914) pp. 101-37, 114-15 and 121; R.J.H. Gottheil, Columbus in Jewish Literature, in: American Jewish Historical Quarterly (1894) pp. 129-37; J. Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes (2001). </p>
<p>And see Carmilly-Weinberger, Censorship & Freedom, pp. 210-13; I. Mehlman, Genuzoth Sepharim, (1976) pp. 21-39; S. Simonsohn, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua, pp. 634-637; EJ, Vol. XIV, cols. 315-18.<br /></p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>“The Me’or Einayim became so important that it rendered its author as one of the greatest, or perhaps the very greatest, of Jewish historians who flourished in the seventeen centuries between Josephus and Jost.” </p>
<p>Salo Baron, Azariah de Rossi’s Attitude to Life, in: Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams (1927) p. 12.</p>](/img/aHR0cHM6Ly9iaWRzcGlyaXQtaW1hZ2VzLmdsb2JhbC5zc2wuZmFzdGx5Lm5ldC9rZXN0ZW5iYXVtL2Nsb25lZC1pbWFnZXMvMTIyMDgzLzAwMS8wMDEuanBn.v4pOcfXirut4t7gFxoNtIQ)
