13-04-2016, 06:50 PM
I suspect part of the problem is that in the late medieval / early Renaissance transition period we tend to see two artistic trends that aren't recognised as such.
We see the trained scribal tradition, which tend to be the main bulk of the works that have arrived down the centuries to us. Within this, our scholars of the last century have happily sub-divided manuscripts into different trends, tracing the work from master to pupil over the years.
And on the other hand we have the "esoteric" manuscripts, which are simply authors who are literate but have no official training from the scribal houses. And these are the scribblers who develop imagery according to their own whims, who have never been taught how to do things properly. But most importantly, the above-mentioned 20th century scholars may have not paid as much attention to these as they should have.
An excellent example of this is CLM 849, a 15th century necromancy manual on paper in the Bavarian State Library. Kieckefer has analysed it in an excellent book called Forbidden Rites. It is full of magic circles that remind one of the Voynich's nymph circles in their design and information content - but attempting to fit this into the 15th century imagery hierarchy that we moderns have developed is futile.
But - this remains a literary tradition. Did the unknown author develop this type of circle himself? Of course not. He's copying older sources we don't have (but can guess at from other manuscripts that contain similar material) and in certain places appears to be developing the imagery based on his written sources. And it's the basis of Renaissance magic.
There used to be an idea that in the Middle Ages "there was no such thing as an individual" (Prof Mary Carruthers quotes this). I think that's a 20th century idea that doesn't bear up upon examination. It should read: Most of what has been passed down to us is so structured that no individualism stands out.
The Voynich is simply the strongest refutation of this idea. Other outliers such as CLM 849 just support the notion.
We see the trained scribal tradition, which tend to be the main bulk of the works that have arrived down the centuries to us. Within this, our scholars of the last century have happily sub-divided manuscripts into different trends, tracing the work from master to pupil over the years.
And on the other hand we have the "esoteric" manuscripts, which are simply authors who are literate but have no official training from the scribal houses. And these are the scribblers who develop imagery according to their own whims, who have never been taught how to do things properly. But most importantly, the above-mentioned 20th century scholars may have not paid as much attention to these as they should have.
An excellent example of this is CLM 849, a 15th century necromancy manual on paper in the Bavarian State Library. Kieckefer has analysed it in an excellent book called Forbidden Rites. It is full of magic circles that remind one of the Voynich's nymph circles in their design and information content - but attempting to fit this into the 15th century imagery hierarchy that we moderns have developed is futile.
But - this remains a literary tradition. Did the unknown author develop this type of circle himself? Of course not. He's copying older sources we don't have (but can guess at from other manuscripts that contain similar material) and in certain places appears to be developing the imagery based on his written sources. And it's the basis of Renaissance magic.
There used to be an idea that in the Middle Ages "there was no such thing as an individual" (Prof Mary Carruthers quotes this). I think that's a 20th century idea that doesn't bear up upon examination. It should read: Most of what has been passed down to us is so structured that no individualism stands out.
The Voynich is simply the strongest refutation of this idea. Other outliers such as CLM 849 just support the notion.