08-04-2016, 10:12 AM
In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Vviews asked if I could clarify my stance on the Greekness of the VM. I started replying there, but then thought the admins would appreciate it if I moved this discussion to a new thread. So here goes:
I appreciate the questions, hopefully I can clarify at least a bit.
Well first of all, I'm not the first one to make the link with ancient imagery, Diane has been doing this for years.
To answer your questions:
- I don't have a theory yet, my insights are still evolving. Either way, I think the chance that the manuscript was made in present day Greece is small, and I see no reason to assume so. Hellenistic culture and imagery was spread far and wide, to the East, to Egypt, copied by the Romans...
- I am absolutely convinced that the VM is a copy, or slight adaptation of earlier sources. Or, more likely, a group of older sources blended together in a similar style. Like Diane, I believe these sources related to the Eastern trade routes, which linked the Mediterranean to the East.
- If MS Beinecke 408 is the result of an attempt at near-identical copying of these older sources, we don't necessarily need the 15th C scribes to understand the imagery. Remember that not all manuscripts produced in the Middle ages were original works. Many were copies, adaptations, translations... This is very important: I will never argue that the MS was an original 15th century European creation, and I see no reason why it should be.
You are totally right that many of these artifacts have been rediscovered too recently for it to be a 15th century European creation. This line of thinking seems very unlikely to me.
Lately I've had reasons to consider Byzantium. It has remained, at least partially, culturally Greek for much longer than mainland Europe. They would have had access to Eastern Hellenistic imagery through trade with the East. Note that many of the images I refer to in my blog posts were common on coins!
Specifically about the Athena aegis vs. nebuly line issue: I don't argue that whoever first made this had Greek vases standing around. That is very, very unlikely. I merely use them as an illustration that this was a specific pattern that would have been recognized. As JKP correctly remarked, this pattern was known in several earlier cultures as well. My point was, that the original makers of this imagery (let's say in 8th century Byzantium, just to say something) tapped into this tradition rather than the later nebuly line one.
In all cases, the imagery I provide are an illustration of a tradition, which to some extent lived on in places like Byzantium. Most of these statues, coins, frescos, mosaics... have been lost. The examples I cite just give us a glimpse into the imagery the Ancients.
The dating of the origins for the root-and-leaf section is still an issue, because if I assume Byzantium as the origin of the source material (so not the place where MS Beinecke 408 was later manufactured - that would have been in Europe), it could be anywhere between, let's say, the fourth and the fifteenth century.
A quote from an essay by Jonathan Harris (Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, University of London)
"reading classical Greek and even composing in the same style were an integral part of Byzantine higher education. Whereas in the West secular education had tended to die out in the early Middle Ages, in Byzantium it was sustained. In each generation, those who took their education beyond the age of fourteen would be instructed in the works of the ancient Greek poets, historians, dramatists and philosophers. Thus any educated Byzantine in the imperial service would have had a knowledge of these [ancient and classical] works which would have been the envy of many educated Italians."
As you rightfully point out, the question remains up to which century they would have been familiar with the actual imagery I propose. In the earlier centuries, those involved in international trade would have definitely seen these images on coins, that seems for sure. But this is something that still needs to be investigated.
What I'm trying to say is: we don't need any totally crazy theory to explain how these images ended up here.
I'll gladly answer any other questions or clarify where necessary.
(08-04-2016, 09:20 AM)V Views Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen Gh,
I have a few questions, regarding this but also several other identifications you make.
Is your theory that the Voynich was produced in Greece? Or that it is a copy of an ancient Greek manuscript?
In any case, can you prove that the artefacts you refer to as inspiration for Voynich iconography were known in the 15th C?
My issue with many of the artefacts you offer for visual comparison is that they were rediscovered in the 19th century, such as the Victory of Samothrace for example, which you refer to in your blogpost referenced by MarcoP.
Although European scribes and intellectuals were certainly familiar with the writings of the ancients, I strongly doubt that they had ever laid eyes on the coins, pottery and imagery you refer to as inspiration, which were rediscovered much more recently.
If I am wrong, I would really appreciate a link to a scholarly article explaining the presence of ancient Greek artifacts in European monasteries or universities in the 14th-15th century.
I appreciate the questions, hopefully I can clarify at least a bit.
Well first of all, I'm not the first one to make the link with ancient imagery, Diane has been doing this for years.
To answer your questions:
- I don't have a theory yet, my insights are still evolving. Either way, I think the chance that the manuscript was made in present day Greece is small, and I see no reason to assume so. Hellenistic culture and imagery was spread far and wide, to the East, to Egypt, copied by the Romans...
- I am absolutely convinced that the VM is a copy, or slight adaptation of earlier sources. Or, more likely, a group of older sources blended together in a similar style. Like Diane, I believe these sources related to the Eastern trade routes, which linked the Mediterranean to the East.
- If MS Beinecke 408 is the result of an attempt at near-identical copying of these older sources, we don't necessarily need the 15th C scribes to understand the imagery. Remember that not all manuscripts produced in the Middle ages were original works. Many were copies, adaptations, translations... This is very important: I will never argue that the MS was an original 15th century European creation, and I see no reason why it should be.
You are totally right that many of these artifacts have been rediscovered too recently for it to be a 15th century European creation. This line of thinking seems very unlikely to me.
Lately I've had reasons to consider Byzantium. It has remained, at least partially, culturally Greek for much longer than mainland Europe. They would have had access to Eastern Hellenistic imagery through trade with the East. Note that many of the images I refer to in my blog posts were common on coins!
Specifically about the Athena aegis vs. nebuly line issue: I don't argue that whoever first made this had Greek vases standing around. That is very, very unlikely. I merely use them as an illustration that this was a specific pattern that would have been recognized. As JKP correctly remarked, this pattern was known in several earlier cultures as well. My point was, that the original makers of this imagery (let's say in 8th century Byzantium, just to say something) tapped into this tradition rather than the later nebuly line one.
In all cases, the imagery I provide are an illustration of a tradition, which to some extent lived on in places like Byzantium. Most of these statues, coins, frescos, mosaics... have been lost. The examples I cite just give us a glimpse into the imagery the Ancients.
The dating of the origins for the root-and-leaf section is still an issue, because if I assume Byzantium as the origin of the source material (so not the place where MS Beinecke 408 was later manufactured - that would have been in Europe), it could be anywhere between, let's say, the fourth and the fifteenth century.
A quote from an essay by Jonathan Harris (Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, University of London)
"reading classical Greek and even composing in the same style were an integral part of Byzantine higher education. Whereas in the West secular education had tended to die out in the early Middle Ages, in Byzantium it was sustained. In each generation, those who took their education beyond the age of fourteen would be instructed in the works of the ancient Greek poets, historians, dramatists and philosophers. Thus any educated Byzantine in the imperial service would have had a knowledge of these [ancient and classical] works which would have been the envy of many educated Italians."
As you rightfully point out, the question remains up to which century they would have been familiar with the actual imagery I propose. In the earlier centuries, those involved in international trade would have definitely seen these images on coins, that seems for sure. But this is something that still needs to be investigated.
What I'm trying to say is: we don't need any totally crazy theory to explain how these images ended up here.
I'll gladly answer any other questions or clarify where necessary.
