Yesterday I was linked in to a conversation on Twitter about
some strange and unusual markings that had been found on the front-piece of a
sixteenth century book. The symbols were circular, and one was bisected by a
number of lines in the form of a star. I was asked if I had come across
anything similar, as the markings seemed to be a bit of a puzzle to those
studying the work. The answer was 'yes - all the damned time - and I am sure
I've written about it somewhere'. It turns out I had started a blog on the
subject, but just never got around to finishing it. As usual. So below is a
version of that blog post. I have re-written sections of it to tie in with the
excellent blog written by Elizabeth DeBold from the Folger library, and hope
that the bits and pieces I have found will enhance and add to what she has been
looking at. I have, however, left most of the swearing in.
Since I began the graffiti project about a decade ago it
quickly became clear that there were certain symbols and motifs that turned up
time and time again. To begin with they were most obvious amongst the graffiti,
but as the project received more publicity people started emailing and
messaging me with their own findings. In many cases they were intrigued that
the marks they were coming across in their own fields of research were the same
as those that I and the numerous volunteers were coming across etched into
buildings. Years later and the photographs keep on coming. However, amongst
some of the first people to contact me were book historians and librarians, who
had come across these same markings on books in their own care and were
somewhat puzzled as to why they were there, and what they meant? At first it
was just one or two images of books, but the numbers soon began to increase,
and we all soon realised that 'something' was going on.
These marks are actually far more common on books than we at
first realised, and once researchers have started looking for these simple
annotations they really are turning up everywhere. Often as an informal drawing
on the fly-leaves, sometimes on the covers, and occasionally even hidden
amongst the more formal decoration and illumination. Compass drawn motifs,
pelta designs, pentangles - multiple variations upon a theme - and occasionally
even combinations of symbols.
These symbols are exactly the same symbols and motifs that
we are finding amongst the graffiti on the walls of our historic houses,churches and cathedrals. Not just similar, but the same. It is a language or
canon of symbolism that crosses just about every boundary. They can be found
upon buildings, upon fonts, upon parish chests, upon beds, upon seals, upon
pilgrim badges, upon jewellery, and as we have seen - upon books. They are
quite literally universal in pre-reformation and early modern western Europe.
To be blunt, they get bloody everywhere.
Bodleian Library, ms 57-2 |
So the big questions have to be - what do they mean, and
what was their supposed function?
All these signs and symbols are part of a group of markings
that are often referred to today as 'apotropaic' marks, or 'ritual protection
marks', or more commonly misreferred to as 'witch marks'. Put simply, they are
markings that are designed to ward off evil, and offer some form of
'protection'. Today a lot of people tend to class these markings as being part
of some sort of superstitious practice - often referred to as 'folk magic' or
'folk belief'. However, over the last decade it has become clear that this
attitude is generally a massive over simplification, and that the use of these
markings and signs was fundamentally embedded within the everyday practices of
the medieval church. They are used by all levels of society, including the
parish priest, and turn up on a regular basis amongst the formal decoration of
the orthodox church. The use of these symbols was no more a 'superstitious'
practice than many of the other traditions of the early church, including the
blessing of the farmer's plough, or even, dare I say it, the Mass itself.
A lot of these symbols, if not all, have their origins in
the pre-Christian period. Take the six petal rosette, for example, also
variously known as a 'daisy wheel', 'hexfoil', or 'geometric'. This familiar
symbol is the single most common motif recorded amongst the graffiti
inscriptions at the Roman site at Pompeii, where it appears to have been
regarded as a symbol associated with the sun. It also turns up on Roman altars,
particularly in northern Europe, and on Roman grave markers, where it is to be
seen alongside a number of other previously identified spiritually significant
symbols. However, the early Christian church was a bit handy when it came to
appropriating the myths, legends, and symbols of those who came before, and the
six petal rosette was quickly swept up by the early Christians. It's
associations with the sun and concepts of rebirth and renewal fitted well with
the newly developed Christian message, and most particularly with the rite of
baptism. As a result it entered the formal imagery of the early church, and in
this chilly little island stuck in the north sea, it became the single most
common decorative element that has been recorded on twelfth century baptismal
fonts.
However, as with all these symbols, such a straightforward
interpretation is also usually a far too simplistic interpretation. From the
twelfth century onwards in England the six petal rosette is also to be found
being used as a substitute or replacement for the more traditional cross or
crucifix. At churches such as Eaton near Norwich, and Cerne Abbas in Dorset
(and possibly Reigate in Surrey, where only the outline survives), the six
petal rosette was actually used in place of the traditional equal armed cross
as a church consecration cross. Likewise, there are a whole series of medieval
grave markers known as cross slabs, that are found predominantly in the north
of England, where the central motif of the four armed cross has been directly substituted
by the six petal rosette. In these cases it appears that the symbols
associations have gone beyond simple links with baptism, to being regarded as a
substitute and alternative to the cross or crucifix. In the West Country the
six petal rosette motif was traditionally even known as the 'symbol of the
Passion', or 'flower of the Passion', again reinforcing the links between the
motif and the cross or crucifix. As such, the motif would carry with it exactly
the same potent symbolism, and apotropaic function, as the cross itself. The
cross is, after all, one of the most powerful and protective of all Christian
symbols and the sign of the cross has long been recognised as having a
demonstrable apotropaic function across the Christian world. It is therefore
logical to assume that symbols that act as alternatives, or substitutes, for
the cross can be regarded as having been regarded as having similar, if not
identical, functions. In a number of the Baltic states, where these symbols
were still widely used until very recent times, they are known as 'holy signs',
and are as much a part of lay piety as any other part of the church's teachings
and imagery.
And so, as these markings turn up on just about every other
type of structure and artefact, I'd be more surprised if they didn't turn up on
books as well. And they do, in quite considerable numbers.
Of particular interest are a whole series of medieval Jewish
chronicles, where these motifs - and in particular the six petal rosette - form
part of the formal decoration. In these manuscripts the motifs are actually
formed of micrography (from the Greek, and literally meaning 'small writing'),
where the symbols were actually created using text to form their shape. A mix
of reading, writing and imagery, where the devotional text forms an image with
spiritual associations. A double whammy as it were.
ms-canon-or-91-307r-v2 |
So as with the Jewish works, these symbols appear to have been added to the books to offer a form of spiritual protection. You marked your books in the same way that you marked your house, the box in which you held your valuables, the bed in which you slept - in the same manner you marked your child with the sign of the cross during baptism. All of these mechanisms were designed to offer an additional level of protection.
ms-oppenheim-add-4-97a |
As with all of these symbols it is impossible to argue that
the beliefs associated with them in the twelfth century continued unaltered
through into the early modern period. Were people inscribing these same marks
into sixteenth century books, or seventeenth century buildings, still thinking
of these marks as alternatives and substitutes for the cross? Well, it is
impossible to be certain in every case, but we do have some very well
documented examples where, over time, the meanings and associations of a
particular symbol shifts and evolves - an evolution of belief as it were. The
example I always use (sorry!) is the pentangle. Today the symbol is largely
associated with magic, witchcraft, and even the modern Wiccan movement.
However, we know from the fourteenth century poem 'Gawain and the Green Knight'
that in the later Middle Ages the symbol was deemed to be a Christian one,
representing the 'five wounds of Christ' and the 'sign of Solomon', amongst
other things. So, at some point in the centuries between then and now the
meaning of that particular symbol has evolved, until it now actually has almost
exactly the opposite associations to that which it began with.
I'm not arguing that this is the case with all these
symbols. Some indeed are still used by the church to this day, and have overt
religious connotations. However, what appears likely from the evidence is that
for many of these symbols the direct religious associations diminished, and
they evolved into symbols that were simply regarded as being 'protective', or
at the most base level, perhaps even just 'lucky'. What is unquestionable
though is that they continued to be used. On bloody everything.
The reality is that these strange markings shouldn't even really
be regarded as particularly unusual in relation to book history. They are there
to offer a level of protection to the book, and are simply another aspect of a
concept that book historians and librarians are really already very familiar
with - the book 'curse'.
Book curses - you've all heard of them right? Book curses?
No? Well, we aren't talking about those weird people who display their
paperbacks with the spines towards the wall, so that the multiple colour of the
books don't interfere with their pale aesthetic. They probably should be cursed, but this is something
completely different. These were written curses that were applied to ancient
texts, most usually to deter thieves, or to 'encourage' the return of lost,
stolen, or borrowed books. The wording
of these curses often invoked God, suggesting some form of divine retribution
for those committing crimes against books and librarianship, and some of the
medieval examples also contain an image of the cross for enhanced efficacy and
potency. However, book curses carry on well into the post-medieval period, with
the most recent that I have personally come across being applied to a book
published in 1835. The 'curse' contains the name of the book's owner, 'Sarah
Jane Webster', and the rhyme 'Steal not this book for fear of shame, for here
you see the owners name. And if I catch you by the tail, I'll walk you off to
Leicester gaol'. Powerful stuff for anyone that has visited Leicester... You
can read more about book curses here.
The similarity between the better known book curses and these
symbols is therefore clear. As many of the symbols themselves are alternatives
or substitutes for the more traditional cross, carrying with them the
apotropaic functions usually associated with the cross or crucifix, they are
simply adding a layer of spiritual protection to the book. But unlike a lock or
a book clasp, these motifs and symbols offered a protection that actually
invoked God in aiding in that protection. And who would want to annoy God? I've
seen him on Twitter, and he can be quite testy at times...
It does make one wonder what steps The Librarian of Unseen University undertook to protect his charges... Certainly not someone you'd want to want to cross - whether equal armed or otherwise. ook?
ReplyDelete