During this time of year I always evaluate my
library, or its beginnings at least. I labouriously make a list of the books I
have yet to obtain and yet another list of the books that I most likely will
never have the privilege of acquiring. This year, in addition to my
bibliographical wishes, I began to think about how scholars approach the
evaluation process of a medieval manuscript. More importantly, a question arose that I had yet to consider: how should we as
academics begin to understand what certain manuscripts might have meant during the medieval
time period? I cannot claim to have the definitive answer to such a distinctly
difficult query; however, I will suggest that an ontological evaluation of various manuscripts may begin to shed light upon a probable answer.
The medieval manuscript is a multivalent object. It
embodies many attributes such as text, without which many histories may have been
lost due to the evolving nature of orality, and a visual programme that is reminiscent
of the artistic developments during its time of creation. Some examples of the
uses of manuscripts were to mirror aspects of patron ideals, act as a vade
mecum, represent regional socio-political and cultural currents and serve as a
container for closely guarded magical formulae. With such a large repertoire of
functional aspects, one must question the amount of ‘vitality’ some medieval
manuscripts were thought to have held. According to Richard Kieckhefer’s
monograph, Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century,
a manuscript (specifically a book of magic) not only contained rites, but also
shared the numinous qualities of the rites with which it was inscribed.[1]
Hence, upon the destruction of a necromantic, or demonic, manuscript ‘[t]he
burning thus served as an exorcism; the very pages seemed quite literally
infected by demons, who needed to be banished.’[2] Kieckhefer’s
account of the supernatural power that the pages of a necromantic manuscript were
thought to hold leads us to consider aspects of the manuscript culture during the Middle
Ages and their theoretical underpinnings with respect to the
ontological debate.
In Levi Bryant’s The Democracy of Objects,
ontological realism is described as a thesis that is about the being of
objects ‘whether or not we exist to represent them.’[3] Ontological realism serves as an explanation
of the metaphysical position that manuscripts may have held. Moreover, the perspective of
particular interest is the idea that the ‘being’ of an object is unshackled
from human intervention, which is indicative of the potential efficacy a manuscript's components may contain as well as the manuscript's aptitude as an autonomous
object. It supposes that although a human hand created a manuscript, the book
holds the capacity to evolve due to the very essence of the contents it was
created to house.
In consideration of this theory, the different components within a manuscript
(text, illuminations, marginalia, etcetera) may in turn be independent of each
other, yet serve a purpose of providing an understanding of the whole. For
example, many manuscripts that were produced during the Middle Ages were for
liturgical purposes and were thought to contain the Word, or essence, of God. Oftentimes, the illuminations within these books were used to underscore the content
of the text, yet at the same time embellish known aspects of the religious oral
culture. Irrespective of the creator’s original intention for the illumination,
the fact that it was housed within an object that embodied the 'essence' of God
redefined its functionality. The illuminations, along with the Word of God,
became a representation of God on earth. Thus, it may be suggested that any
illumination within the manuscript mirrored the intention of God instead of
man. If this suggestion were to be true, what then can be said about
manuscripts that are liturgical, or devotional (such as a book of hours), but contain aspects that may not
have been considered godly?
The medieval manuscript, and its components, has been meticulously considered by academics. However, the manuscript as an embodiment of being should continuously be analysed with regard to how its autonomous elements have the propensity to redefine the creator's intention. Such a shift over time may also suggest a break from the hierarchical attributes assigned to a creation by its creator.
The medieval manuscript, and its components, has been meticulously considered by academics. However, the manuscript as an embodiment of being should continuously be analysed with regard to how its autonomous elements have the propensity to redefine the creator's intention. Such a shift over time may also suggest a break from the hierarchical attributes assigned to a creation by its creator.
~Shandra
