Re: VMs: A Possible Interpretation of the Four Figures, one with an Egg

[Nick Pelling <nickpelling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pamela,

At 17:12 10/09/2004 -0700, Pamela Richards wrote:
> Eric spoke of doing some work to "clean up" these
> images.  Do I understand you to mean that these
> figures are not discernable in the actual document
> because of the flower-petal pattern?  Does the image
> need to be altered in order to see the figures in the
> first place?  That would be very interesting.

The figures in the "flower-petal/tombstone" page are discernible, but only 
just - you certainly have to look several times to notice they're there at 
all (look at the sidfile!). That, coupled with the obvious parallels with 
the preceding page (which has much the same underlying magic-circle-like 
basic structure) makes me suspect that it was "jazzed up" to make the two 
appear quite different.

> Did Kieckhefer happen to observe that the spirits
> being called up were thought to have been connected
> with the fixed stars? Angelic spirits,  "evil"
> spirits; even the spirits of the dead were so
> associated, presumably each with its own star.

AFAIK, no fixed stars in necromancy - only demonic names. In the 
necromantic universe, demons are not the spirits of the dead, but instead 
more like fallen angels, working in a curious hierarchy which, for 
Kieckhefer at least, mirrors the power-structure of the medieval Church. 
FWIW, Kieckhefer's main thesis is that most necromancers were within the 
Church, rather than outside it.

> If there is anything in the VMs that describes
> necromancy, that would be a good reason for the tight
> encryption.  Necromancy was punishable by death.

Worse case, yes: but in practice, many medieval necromancy trials had quite 
different outcomes. Most medieval courts were not kangaroo courts run by 
the Church!

> However, I would think twice about the idea that a
> document bearing on such content was knowingly sold to
> royalty.  Either the VMs is a different document, or
> Rudoplh II had no idea of the details of its contents,
> or the author had lost control of it before it reached
> the hands of Rudolph.  Or all three.  But I am very
> hestitant to imagine that someone knowingly placed a
> recipe for necromancy in the hands of the Holy Roman
> Emperor, no matter how interested he may have been in
> esoteric subjects.

AFAICT, there's no obvious evidence to support the idea that any VMs owner 
circa 1600 had any idea what it said (whether necromancy or not), which 
rather weakens this argument - I'm perhaps the strongest advocate of 
necromantic content in the VMs, and I'm only claiming three pages (of 220+) 
are probable magic circles, which is not an overwhelming number. :-/

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list