One day suddenly there appeared over the Macedonian camp these "flying shields", as they had been called, which flew in triangular formation led by an exceedingly large one, the others were smaller by almost a half. It is this original reading, primarily based on symbolism that we, as modern readers, should not forget when dealing with such documents lest we offer a literal reading which would be completely anachronistic and imply some kind of « magical thinking » of old as opposed to an infallible rationalistic modern approach. It is my opinion that this shared approach if applied systematically misses the main point of 17th century prodigious narration which aims less to explain the nature of a phenomenon than to understand its consequences. In other words, both of them acknowledge misinterpretation as the basis of their understanding of prodigious narrations and experiences for which we obviously have difficulties finding * direct* modern parallels. In effect, both of them share a similar and symmetrical conception by considering prodigies as epiphenomenal reflexes. It might seem a paradox at first sight that the ufological treatment of prodigies might be related to this historiographic « realist » approach, but in fact they are more related than meet the eye. Moreover, this would also explain why events in Genoa were related almost six months after they had supposedly occurred. This was in no way uncommon in early 17th century prodigy literature and other examples exist of date or setting changes made by the authors in order to resell their stories. If this assumption is correct, this would have left just about enough time for the author of the canard to hear about the Florentine representation and use it as a factual basis for his prodigious narration, only changing the date from November to August and the setting from Florence to Genoa in order to cover his tracks.
That means that the Genoa apparition story probably first began to be circulated in France sometime in early December, or at the earliest in late November. It can be assumed quite safely that the delay between the Parisian and Lyonnese edition was relatively short as information between these two major cities moved quite fast. However, we also know that the Parisian edition of the canard printed by Pierre Menier, drew upon an earlier copy, most certainly the editio princeps, printed in Lyon. Thanks to a mention by the Parisian chronicler Pierre de l’Estoile, we know that the canard began circulating in Paris on December 10th 1608, that is more than a month * after* the nautical battle in Florence. But the nautical spectacle of Florence having occurred on the 3rd of November 1608 and the alleged Genoa apparitions in August, we still need to check whether the canard appeared before or after the Florentine festivities. It is thus not improbable at all that the author of the canard knew about this particularly spectacular representation when he began writing his leaflet, either directly through a written account or by way of rumor. And through these officials, news of the event must have spread quickly outside Florentine territory. While no definitive proof can be offered here, it is nonetheless certain that a major event such as this one, along with its wonderful artifices and machinery, must have struck the minds of the beholders which counted high ranking envoys from all over Europe among them. All these graphical similarities are enough to ask ourselves whether the author of the canard could have heard about the naval representation in Florence and subsequently drew upon it for his narration, eventually changing the location and dates.
0 kommentar(er)
