Another person of interest emerges from the historical mist. He has the currently notable name of Gaza, Theodorus Gaza, known by the epithet 'Thessalonicensis', 'The Thessalonian'. (Here we see him above, looking rather like the Magician figure in the Tarot.)
He was an influential Greek humanist scholar contemporary with our manuscript. His dates are circa 1398 - 1475. He flourished during the relevant historical window.
Moreover, when the Turks captured his native city in 1430 he fled to Italy - he was resident in Northern Italy during the relevant historical window, one of the Greek scholars who moved westward during this period, bringing with them an influx of new knowledge and old manuscripts.
He comes into focus as a translator of Theophrastus, the student of Aristotle, and specifically Theopohrastus' Historia Plantarum - the natural history of plants.
He translated this important and voluminous text into Latin - a great achievement - although it was not published until 1483, several years after his death.
This tells us that he was in Northern Italy, translating Theophrastus from Greek into Latin, during our historical window. The work was completed by his death. It was no doubt decades of toil.
We know that he learnt and mastered Latin very quickly under the tutorship of Victorio de Feltre.
Regardless, he was an enthusiast of Theophrastus and the Peripetetics from the outset, and knowledge (and texts) of Theophrastus (and other Aristoteleans) travelled with him from the East.
* * *
As readers of this blog will know, I argue as a general proposition that the Voynich ms. is the result of some East/West encounter, some East/West stimulus. The protracted fall of Constanipole is the great historical event of this period. That is the wider context of the period.
The Historia Plantarum comes into focus as a possible inspiration for aspects of the botanical content of the Voynich manuscript.
The reacquisition of Theophrastus was critical to the emergence of botany as a recognizeable science. The Historia Plantarum provides the first system of plant classification and considers over 500 plants from a natural historical (descriptive) perspective.
It is not a materia medica. It is not a medical text. It is not, like Dioscorides, an account of medical herbs. Rather, it considers plant life in general. It is botanical, not medical. It is not part of the tradition of 'herbals' copied and handed down throughout the Middle Ages.
In such 'herbals' the only interest in plants is for their medicinal value. In Theophrastus, there is a detached interest in botany and plant morphology, providing the foundations for the modern science.
The translation of Theophrastus - as distinct from the 'herbals' - was instrumental in the creation of the first lectureships in botany in northern Italian universities.
This detached interest in botany and plant morphology may be nearer to what we find in the Voynich ms.
It is certainly not a standard 'herbal' and we may be misconstruing it by placing it in that tradition. Indeed, it may not be a medical text at all.
Rather, the Voynich 'herbal' illustrations may constitute a study of botany, of plant morphology, more in the tradition of Theophrastus than Dioscorides.
The interest of the Voynich author may not be in herbal medicine - and the work is not an 'astrological herbal', as I often cast it - but rather he has a wider interest in botany generally, in the wider phenomenon of plant life.
Certainly, the Voynich is not a scientfic work in any modern sense, but it may represent a study in plant classification and plant morphology.
One of the central problems in the study of the Voynich may be that we have misconstrued it as a medical herbal.
It is supposed that it is too early to be under the influence of Theophrastus - but that is based on the post-humus publication of Gaza's Latin translation.
Gaza had been in Italy - on and off - since 1430. He is a conduit for the influence of Theophrastean perspectives well prior to the time the Historia Plantarum was officially published.
Whether by text, teaching or association, he brought the botany of Theophrastus into Italy.
* * *
Might he be a candidate as author of the Voynich, creator of the Voynich script?
He was a humanist in Northern Italy at the right time. He rapidly mastered Latin and had outstanding linguistic skills.
I have not seen his name mentioned as a contender - searches throughout relevant Voynich literature and forums yield nothing - but he is surely a humanist worth noting.
Nothing in his extant works - including his highly celebrated Greek Grammar - bears any resemblance to the Voynich whatsoever.
(That is true of every humanist of the period, though, and yet it seems one of them was involved in producing the Voynich ms.)
More importantly, perhaps, he alerts us to the intellectual tension in the Greek emigrants to Italy. Many - most famously Cardinal Bessarion - were Neoplatonists under the influence of the school of Pletho. Gaza, though, is a representative of an opposing Aristotelean school. There were profound philosophical differences between the two.
Bessarion sponsored, supported and was on friendly terms with Gaza, but philosophically they were opponents. Against the tide of Neoplatonism in the period, Gaza was dedicated to the recovery of the ancient Aristotle and promoted Aristotelean perspectives.
If there are reflections of Theophrastus' botany in the Voynich ms. it is perhaps the outcome of these philosophical tensions.
On other counts, the Voynich cosmology appears to be deeply Neoplatonic: surely Porphyry's Cave of the Nymphs provides structural ideas? In that case, its study of plant morphology might be counter-Theophrastus.
* * *
A scenario emerges involving the textual sources I proposed in the previous post:
There is a single configuration based around the 360 degrees of the zodiac/days of the year.
The connection between Theophrastus and this configuration is gemstones. Theophrastus wrote a major work on stones. A scholar of Theophrastus, such as Gaza, would have had a natural interest in the Lapidary of Alfonso for this reason.
Yet the Voynich is about plants, not stones.
Does the Voynich manuscript arise (somehow) when Theodorus Gaza - the great advocate of Theophrastus - encounters new texts in Northern Italy?
We must remember that the Greek emigres were as intrigued and as influenced by the Western canon as much as Latin scholars were of the Greek. It was a meeting of long-parted traditions.
In any case, the chain of texts might be:
Theophrastus (on stones)
This leads to The Lapidary of Alfonso.
The Lapidary (of 360 degrees) is matched to the Canones and Phases of Ptolemy for the purposes of creating a companion volume - a Lapidary of plants.
This is at least a plausible scenario that might have occasioned the creation of the Voynich.
Our author has thought:
*Theophrastus wrote the definite works on stones and plants.
*In the Lapidary of Alfonso we see a cosmology of gemstones based on Theophrastus' definite work, matching 360 gemstones to the degrees of the zodiac.
*There ought to be a work that applies Theophrastus' study of plants to the 360 degrees of the zodiac.
The author looks to Ptolemy in order to do this. The opportunity is presented by the Helios icon in the Brescia Canones, because plant life is under the auspices of Helios.
In that case, Panofsky was exceedingly astute. When he viewed the Voynich ms. he immediately matched it with the Lapidary of Alfonso. He had no doubt of the connection.
He wondered whether there might be a companion volume to the Voynich dedicated to stones on the basis of that connection.
But that is the wrong surmise. Instead, the Voynich ms. is intended as a type of companion volume to the Lapidary - it is the book on (Theophrastus') plants that matches Alfonso's book on (Theophrastus') gemstones.
But how to match plant morphology to the 360 degrees of the zodiac as the gemstones had been matched?
Our author believes the Helios icon in the Brescia Canones provides the clue. Indeed, he may believe that Ptolemy's Helios icon may have been intended for that purpose.
That is, our author believes that Ptolemy had prepared the means for assimiliating plant morphology to a solar cosmology - an account of plant life under the rulership of Helios - and our author takes it upon himself to complete the task.
The Lapidary of Alfonso had already accomplished this task for the realm of stones. The Voynich project was to do the same for plants. (What, we might ask, went wrong, and why the strange script?)
Where is the seed for the Voynich ms.? The germ? The starting point? What first thing caused the idea to arise in somebody's mind?
If there is any Historia Plantarum in the mix, it is coming through Theodorus Gaza, his circle, his students, his associates - or his opponents.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment