The cross and the presence or lack of Christian influences

[Koen G]

Hi Marco

I don't necessarily mean the nudity, but rather the seemingly "pagan" character of these "water nymphs". This, together with the script, might perhaps raise some eyebrows, in the best case. Of course it's hard to say Who would or would not object to which scene. It all depends on how it would be explained by the owner and the viewer.

Anyway, the christian or non-christian character of the VM is something I find fascinating. This is my impression of the manuscripts you posted. Please correct me if I'm wrong, you have more experience with these things than I do. Just for convenience I use the word "secular" to mean that there is no directly visible influence of Christianity.

• Florence Plut.13.16: this looks mostly like a manuscript that has its origin in older sources. Essentially my view on the VM is that it is similar, yet from a much less mainstream, less documented tradition. The Florence MS has not been christianized, so I agree that, like the VM, it contains little Christian influences.
  Also, thank you for linking this MS, there is an image in it which I find extremely interesting related to the cross-nymph, but I'll get back to that in another post.
  
• Tubingen: again a wonderful MS. I agree that its subject is secular, but it has been thoroughly medievalized, with medieval kings, knights, peasants... This also comes with references to the religion which dominated every aspect of medieval society. Just a few folios further, there is a man painting a madonna with child and another one carving saint statues (left) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . I'm not trying to be nitpicky, just saying that these images, whatever their origin (also older?) have been made or adapted to speak clearly to a medieval audience. This has only happened a little bit in the VM, mostly in the Zodiac section (crossbowman...)
  
• The Egerton is all about plants, but I agree that the images treat their subject in a "secular" way. It demonstrates perfectly that the VM plant sections' secular nature is not unique, but offers no satisfactory parallel for the other sections, which are much heavier on human activity.
  
• Cadamosto is similar, but it does contain much more human activity, which is immediately recognizable as typically medieval: hunting, farming, riding horses, animal husbandry. The first image is of a king on a throne. But I admit that it is surprisingly secular.
  
• Arderne: indeed, this is also a scientific manuscript, but it is largely populated by tonsured monks and other typical medieval figures like noblemen.
  

So well, perhaps I should better say that the Voynich contains relatively few signs of medieval christian culture. If you look at a MS like Tubingen Md 2, which treats traditional secular matter, you see the difference.


Might it help to make some sort of typology of the medieval scientific manuscript? Going by the examples you provided, it looks like they are either:

1. Relatively faithful renditions of older sources
   
2. Creative adaptations of older sources, translated for a medieval audience
   
3. About plants (some overlap with 1. here)
   
4. About practical matters, but firmly grounded in medieval culture
   
5. A composition of some of the above
   

It seems clear that the VM is a composition, and (3) covers at least part of it. But I think that the other sections remain mostly unparalleled. And when there are parallels, those are usually of pre-medieval origin

It is for those reasons that I believe the VM must have descended from rare older sources, with relatively little translation to 15th century customs.