Rewriting Magic by Claire Fanger

Author:Claire Fanger
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Penn State University Press

Categories of Magical Knowledge in the Ars Notoria and Liber Florum

The opening of the New Compilation Book of Figures, which dates its inception to the Ides of August, 1315, describes how John rewrote the third part of his book because the original Book of Figures had been attacked by certain “Barking Dogs.” The figures (according to the Barking Dogs) seemed to be composed “in the manner of necromantic figures” (more figurarum nigromancie), “on account of the crosses and circles in them, and on account of the consideration of planetary and daily cycles in the figures and prayers.”21 It is not clear what stance (if any) was being taken on the issue of tacit and explicit demonic pacts by the Barking Dogs. It is possible that they were accusing John of summoning demons explicitly, but they need not have been. The reference to planetary and daily cycles suggests that their concerns may have been for a visual evocation of the figures of astrological image magic, much of which fell into the large “ambiguous” category of necromancy. In any event, the astronomical references suggest that John’s detractors were not much concerned at this point with the possibility that John was reviving the ars notoria by imitating the ars notoria figures (which, though strictly ordered to the lunar calendar like other Christian liturgies, do not employ, as John’s original Book of Figures evidently did, planetary images or characters).

That John clearly distinguished the ars notoria from necromancy is a point that may need reinforcing, since there are later medieval treatments of necromancy and the ars notoria that do lump the categories together. When this happens, however, it necessarily involves the Augustinian logic that does not distinguish between explicit and tacit demonic pacts, because it is actually impossible to elide the ars notoria with necromancy following Thomistic logic. One example of such “lumping” should serve to make the point. In the middle of the fifteenth century, Johannes Hartlieb, in his well-known guide to bad magic, a speculum principis titled The Book of All Forbidden Arts, sets the ars notoria in the category of necromancy. Yet it is clear that for Hartlieb, any work that involves figures, characters, or any ambiguous signifiers at all is a candidate for the “necromantic” label. He writes,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.