RE: Expert opinions about the VMS
Diane > 26-08-2016, 07:20 AM
David,
To generalise, there are two classes of specialist: the micro- and the macro-.
The micro-specialist is the norm. Not every medieval historian would claim expertise on every facet of history through the medieval centuries, even for Europe. It is more likely they will have a general knowledge of European history and a specialist knowledge of, say, Benedictine monasteries, their distribution, activities and so on.
The macro- sort of specialist is the sort you need if the boundaries are not clear. A specialist might be able to say that a given manuscript is not a Benedictine manuscript, but would tend to resort to "not my area" if pressed for an opinion about the style of writing - if it's not Benedictine. They may have a private leaning, but wouldn't claim to have the sort of expertise needed to provenance a manuscript which looked to be out of their own time and speciality.
The weakness of a micro-specialist is that they can tend to take the parameters of their own specialty as absolute, and also that if you present them with an artefact which *you* say belongs within their range: fifteenth-century, Latin Christian, zodiac etc. they tend to take those 'givens' as true as a rule, and then tend again to define what they see according to that description, unless it is plainly impossible. It is a constant characteristic and not the fault of anyone: just how it goes, but as I see it this pre-empting of the initial definition by amateurs, enthusiasts or people who adopted the old and entrenched theories has been a constant drag for Voynich studies.
A person thus begins by assuming, for example, that the imagery in the centre of the calendar roundels is a fifteenth-century creation, and that it is the creation of a Latin European 'artist', and that it refers to the standard European zodiac series, and that it must relate to astrology, even though each of those points is assumed, and not a conclusion gained from any prior macro- or comparative study of the images themselves, individually or collectively, to determine provenance and origin.
But if you take an image to a specialist in European zodiac imagery, or a specialist in German zodiac imagery (or whatever) and begin by telling them that it is a fifteenth century Latin zodiac series, then it is almost inevitable that they will find the nearest to it which exists within their own range of of specialisation; they hunt through their existing repertoire for a "nearest match". It's just not their business to decide whether these particular images, individually or collectively have been rightly represented to them. i
To correctly provenance a problematic object, and to gain a clear idea of where to seek appropriate precedents, you need the specialist in comparative studies, the 'macro-' sort of person, to set things on the right track in the first place.
Macro- specialists also have their weaknesses, of course.
Mostly minutiae - for which reason the two usually work together: you pick your micro- according to the macro- study's results. In Voynich studies, however, there tends to be a certain reluctance for those who know the minutiae of past studies of the Vms to assist, to help by correcting a detail and so on. I can't explain that, but such as been my experience.
About specialists in Christian art - well, I'm afraid that your impression isn't quite what my experience has been. Specialists in Christian art have been generally very reluctant to accept that iconic imagery now regarded as Christian wasn't always so. For example, the 'dog-headed' Christopher has recently been the subject of an academic paper, and the author was not only completely unaware of the figure's antecedents but became indignant when I showed him imagery of that type, and of the 'Good Shepherd' type from the centuries BC. Devotion of all sorts, whether religious, nationalistic or whatever, very often form a determined barrier to information. That's just how it is. There's a sort of loop happens. They say "Michael is a Christian figure'; you say "True, but there is a consistent lineage from long before the Christian era" and they reply "Look at this book' or 'Listen to this micro-specialist' - which describes it as a Christian figure, while entirely missing the point.
On the other hand, if an example I use is marked 1350, the micro-specialist could correct me (and I hope he would) by pointing out that it was actually made in 1340.
Rene,
You speak of that very impressive sounding volume (a natural companion for Elly Decker's Illustrating the Aratea), as
"about astronomical illustrations throughout the ages"
but the details suggest it deals with the European Christian world, (and presumably recognised influences upon such works) and that it is not so much "throughout the ages" as from 800AD.
Is there perhaps another volume by the same publisher dealing with the previous millennium?