In fact, this final detail is a mistake, an anachronism. Hugh died acouple of decades too early to have benefitted from this invention:two magnifying glasses bound together by a rivet in their handles.
The image of Hugh of Saint-Cher wearing glasses in the fresco at the former convent of San Niccolò, Chapter Room, Treviso, is an anachronism as their invention was decades following his death in 1263.
the fresco, byTomasso da Modena, was painted in 1352). It stresses theDominicans’ commitment to Bible study and to scholarship, and noportrait conveys this more than the image of Hugh of St Cher.
Image from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:38_Ugo_da_San_Caro.jpg
Ugo da San Caro, serie dei Quaranta domenicani illustri, ex convento di San Niccolò, Sala del Capitolo, Treviso, 1352 (altezza di ciascun ritratto 150 cm circa) Image by Risorto Celebrano, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Thought to be one of the first images of a person wearing glasses. Image dated 1352.
anachronistic zettelkasten
Does he really mean anachronistic here? It doesn't seem to suit the context. While he seems to be comparing the time-ordered nature of a journal versus the non-time ordered structure of a zettelkasten, I can't help but read it from the alternate, and more common (and also pejorative) perspective. Seems odd to call it out specifically as it's not an issue with respect to any other of the more commonly used sources (books, journal articles, magazines, newspapers.)
Might have been better to use anachronistic to modify zettel rather than zettelkasten which is a collective noun--that's the dissonance here for me.
Compare those, like Roland Barthes, who used a slip box as a diary, which would have been chronological. I've also got a chronological section of my slip box.