27-11-2023, 03:59 AM
Tackling the Voynich, I'm happy to say, led me on a long and worthwhile detour through neoplatonic philosophy for many months. Returning to the Voynich, and reading back through my notes, I have new clarity.
My account of the Voynich and its language is as follows:
It is a synthetic (symbolic) Lullian language that comes from the intellectual world of Nicholas of Cusa, is based upon the Coincidentia Oppositorum, and purports to be the 'Language of the Nymphs'.
Its purpose is to show that the science of the Arabs - and more than their science - is to be found in indigenous occidental folk traditions, and specifically the herbal traditions of northern Italy (which needed to be recovered from a crude paganism.)
I see the work as a case of what I call the Petrarchean Project. The necessary historical context is this:
The central intellectual problem of the later Middles Ages was how to counter the Muslims and their superior science.
Petrarch's breakthrough was to appreciate that what the Arabs had was actually the ancient Graeco-Roman heritage. Rather than acquiring it through the Arabs - who Petrarch despised - Christendom could reacquire it through the recovery of its ancient past.
With this came new attention to the vernacular and to folk traditions - a store of knowledge that was not Infidel exotica.
The Voynich manuscript is part of this (Renaissance) counter-Islamic phenomenon.
More exactly, it is also part of the revival of interest in the works and methods of Ramon Lull (his 'Great Art') - which were dedicated to finding a (synthetic) science that exceeded that of the Arabs - in the 1400s, the main advocate of which was Nicholas of Cusa (who was himself also dedicated to the Muslim-Christian problem.) The revival was precipitated by the fall of Byzantium to the Turks, the defining event of this period.
That, broadly speaking, is how I see it presently. Like others with their pet theories, I am confident this is not too far wrong. :-)
My account of the Voynich and its language is as follows:
It is a synthetic (symbolic) Lullian language that comes from the intellectual world of Nicholas of Cusa, is based upon the Coincidentia Oppositorum, and purports to be the 'Language of the Nymphs'.
Its purpose is to show that the science of the Arabs - and more than their science - is to be found in indigenous occidental folk traditions, and specifically the herbal traditions of northern Italy (which needed to be recovered from a crude paganism.)
I see the work as a case of what I call the Petrarchean Project. The necessary historical context is this:
The central intellectual problem of the later Middles Ages was how to counter the Muslims and their superior science.
Petrarch's breakthrough was to appreciate that what the Arabs had was actually the ancient Graeco-Roman heritage. Rather than acquiring it through the Arabs - who Petrarch despised - Christendom could reacquire it through the recovery of its ancient past.
With this came new attention to the vernacular and to folk traditions - a store of knowledge that was not Infidel exotica.
The Voynich manuscript is part of this (Renaissance) counter-Islamic phenomenon.
More exactly, it is also part of the revival of interest in the works and methods of Ramon Lull (his 'Great Art') - which were dedicated to finding a (synthetic) science that exceeded that of the Arabs - in the 1400s, the main advocate of which was Nicholas of Cusa (who was himself also dedicated to the Muslim-Christian problem.) The revival was precipitated by the fall of Byzantium to the Turks, the defining event of this period.
That, broadly speaking, is how I see it presently. Like others with their pet theories, I am confident this is not too far wrong. :-)