The Voynich Ninja

(02-11-2016, 08:00 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The method is simply that standard heraldic patterns can name more of the examples found in the VMs tub patterns than any other set of traditional  patterns. And this is the basis for further investigations based on heraldry, such as the possibility of historical identification.

Which other tub patterns are related to heraldry?  You have two matches - one pattern with scales and one with blue and white stripes, neither of which are exact representations.  They're merely "evocative" of standard heraldic patterns, as you put it.  The rest of the patterns seem to have nothing to do with heraldry no matter how much you stretch things, is that correct?  Or do you think the other tub patterns are also heraldic patterns, only we have not identified them yet?

Quote:In my view, armorial heraldry is limited to the patterned tubs which are only found on the first three VMs Zodiac pages. Ecclesiastical heraldry, red galeros, to designate the rank of cardinal, and white galeros, which identify the order of Premonstratensians, is limited to f71r.

Okay, so by your own admission the vast majority of the manuscript appears to have nothing to do with heraldry.

Quote:The 'pape-papelonny thing' is only one of several objective, positional confirmations of the Fieschi identification. It does seem to possess some additional significance, as it would be rather difficult to create such a pun accidentally. The purpose of this papal identification is to amplify the significance of these patterned markers found in the circular bands of text, with the view that these marked text segments would play an important (but as yet undetermined) role in making sense of the text overall.

First of all, we can already look at the markers and consider that it's likely that they serve some kind of purpose.  So your heraldic theory doesn't really help us much here - it just "amplifies the significance" of something we already know.  Second, I don't see any reason to assume that the markers are necessarily there to mark the text in those rings as particularly significant - they could serve any of a number of purposes.

Quote:I do not disagree that the image of the particular figure is much like you describe. My question is how can we have unqualified faith in the representation supplied by the VMs painter? The general suggestion is that the VMs painter is sloppy and does not know what's what. To create the given image, the VMs painter needs to know exactly what to do unprompted by any clues from the ink drawing. And the painter is using an atypical technique that requires a level of skill well beyond that of the ink outlines.

I would say that the ink drawing presents a figure that is probably male, while the painted addition presents an altered figure that is more problematic. However to label this figure as unquestionably female, fails to answer these questions. Why should it be, in this singular instance, that the sloppy VMs painter has suddenly attained the heights of technical precision? Why should it be, in this particular instance, that the uninformed VMs painter knows exactly what to do?

I see two clearly drawn breasts on this figure in the ink outlines themselves.  Not in the paints.  Again, if you don't see this then there's not much more we can say about the topic.

Diane & W. M.,
 
So the question is, why heraldry? One of the first things I read about the VMs was the Goldstones’ book “The Friar and the Cipher”. And while the Carbon-14 tests have eliminated any possible direct connection, the two parts the book were still interesting separately. Although some of the VMs portion would now be outdated, the other part about the Friar, a biography of Roger Bacon, was something I found interesting on its own.
 
I did some additional reading about Roger Bacon and other persons mentioned in the biography, one of whom was Ottobuono Fiesch, later elected Pope Adrian V. At one site online, I found a list of 13th Century popes, with brief biographies and illustrations of their armorial insignia. The Fieschi insignia is a diagonal pattern of alternating blue and white stripes, described by the blazon: bendy, argent et azur. There was also another pope, Innocent IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), earlier in that century with the same familial coat of arms, along with a couple other examples of popes with a common familial insignia.
 
Having found a pairing of the Fieschi insignia in the historical record and returning to the Goldstones’ book, it was a surprise to find the two blue-striped tub patterns on the final color plate in the book, which was f71r, White Aries. Further biographical reading revealed that Sinibaldo and Ottobuona were uncle and nephew. That in 1251, as Pope Innocent IV, Sinibaldo made his nephew a cardinal. And that, earlier in his reign, Pope Innocent had granted the red galero to the cardinals as a sign of their office, a heraldic symbol, and this, of course, remains an ongoing tradition.
 
Further investigation of the White Aries illustration, shows that the figure associated with the blue-striped pattern in the inner circle also has something, a hat, on its head that appears to be a red galero.  So, in a rough way (depending on orientation etc.), with two blue-striped insignia and a red hat, this is potentially an illustration of the event that occurred in 1251. And as soon as it is clear which of the blue-striped insignia belongs to the pope and which to the cardinal (because or the red galero), then it is also clear, in the celestial spheres of the White Aries illustration, that pope and cardinal are in the correct hierarchical positions in the spheres. Furthermore, it is clear that such positioning is an objective fact and not a subjective interpretation. And the illustration then provides further examples of positional confirmation of this identification through the use of favored heraldic placement, the unique celestial association with White Aries and celestial sacrifice, and the corresponding placement, in quadrant and in sphere of the papelonny patterns on the two pages preceding f71r.
 
Given the complexity, coordination and historical connections involved in these illustrations, I cannot accept that they are the result of an accidental concatenation of circumstance. I see this as an intentional construction. And one which was deemed to be too obvious to presented without certain steps toward obfuscation, foremost of which are the two possible determinations of orientation for the blue stripes, (either radial or not radial) in the first place. An optical illusion disguises the valid historical interpretation. Deception is intentional; identification is disguised, but not contradicted.
 
As to other heraldic patterns, in the outer ring of Pisces , a pattern of alternating vertical stripes corresponds to a paly, horizontal bands correspond to a barry. There is a bend sinister and a pattern with chevrons, multiple small circles are suggestive of a semy of roundels. Even 'plain' is a valid heraldic option (all blue on f71r). Of course, the individual investigators need to make their own determination as to whether they demand that the VMs illustrations present picture perfect accuracy, or whether an idea suggested is sufficient. If there were but a single instance, the interpretation would be more ambiguous. However, given the multiple examples in a concentrated location, I believe this could only have been done by someone who knew what s/he was doing.

Three questions:

1. Why is this found in a book with mostly plant drawgs and naked women?
   
2. Why did this information need to be obscured?
   
3. I may be mistaken, but didn't the church usually condemn animal sacrifice as pagan? Why invoke this association?
   

(03-11-2016, 09:55 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Diane & W. M.,
 
So the question is, why heraldry? One of the first things I read about the VMs was the Goldstones’ book “The Friar and the Cipher”. And while the Carbon-14 tests have eliminated any possible direct connection, the two parts the book were still interesting separately. Although some of the VMs portion would now be outdated, the other part about the Friar, a biography of Roger Bacon, was something I found interesting on its own.
 
I did some additional reading about Roger Bacon and other persons mentioned in the biography, one of whom was Ottobuono Fiesch, later elected Pope Adrian V. At one site online, I found a list of 13th Century popes, with brief biographies and illustrations of their armorial insignia. The Fieschi insignia is a diagonal pattern of alternating blue and white stripes, described by the blazon: bendy, argent et azur. There was also another pope, Innocent IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), earlier in that century with the same familial coat of arms, along with a couple other examples of popes with a common familial insignia.
 
Having found a pairing of the Fieschi insignia in the historical record and returning to the Goldstones’ book, it was a surprise to find the two blue-striped tub patterns on the final color plate in the book, which was f71r, White Aries. Further biographical reading revealed that Sinibaldo and Ottobuona were uncle and nephew. That in 1251, as Pope Innocent IV, Sinibaldo made his nephew a cardinal. And that, earlier in his reign, Pope Innocent had granted the red galero to the cardinals as a sign of their office, a heraldic symbol, and this, of course, remains an ongoing tradition.
 
Further investigation of the White Aries illustration, shows that the figure associated with the blue-striped pattern in the inner circle also has something, a hat, on its head that appears to be a red galero.  So, in a rough way (depending on orientation etc.), with two blue-striped insignia and a red hat, this is potentially an illustration of the event that occurred in 1251. And as soon as it is clear which of the blue-striped insignia belongs to the pope and which to the cardinal (because or the red galero), then it is also clear, in the celestial spheres of the White Aries illustration, that pope and cardinal are in the correct hierarchical positions in the spheres. Furthermore, it is clear that such positioning is an objective fact and not a subjective interpretation. And the illustration then provides further examples of positional confirmation of this identification through the use of favored heraldic placement, the unique celestial association with White Aries and celestial sacrifice, and the corresponding placement, in quadrant and in sphere of the papelonny patterns on the two pages preceding f71r.
 
Given the complexity, coordination and historical connections involved in these illustrations, I cannot accept that they are the result of an accidental concatenation of circumstance. I see this as an intentional construction. And one which was deemed to be too obvious to presented without certain steps toward obfuscation, foremost of which are the two possible determinations of orientation for the blue stripes, (either radial or not radial) in the first place. An optical illusion disguises the valid historical interpretation. Deception is intentional; identification is disguised, but not contradicted.
 
As to other heraldic patterns, in the outer ring of Pisces , a pattern of alternating vertical stripes corresponds to a paly, horizontal bands correspond to a barry. There is a bend sinister and a pattern with chevrons, multiple small circles are suggestive of a semy of roundels. Even 'plain' is a valid heraldic option (all blue on f71r). Of course, the individual investigators need to make their own determination as to whether they demand that the VMs illustrations present picture perfect accuracy, or whether an idea suggested is sufficient. If there were but a single instance, the interpretation would be more ambiguous. However, given the multiple examples in a concentrated location, I believe this could only have been done by someone who knew what s/he was doing.

Thank you for the reply dear R. Sale. You certainly have a wonderful theory. I hope you find what you are looking for!

Sam G,

So, besides a pair of papelonny patterns and a pair of blue-striped designs, several other representations of basic, named, heraldic insignia can be found in the tub patterns, mainly around the outer ring of Pisces. (See my prior post #22, last paragraph.) And the fact that it starts at the top of VMs Pisces with a paired paly is a significant connection between the pairings found in the first five monthly medallions and the historical pairing of the Fieschi popes. Not only are there examples that can be named by the heraldry paradigm, there are several examples of heraldry that are within the pairing paradigm, even one pair from the historical paradigm. And all this exists in the first part of the VMs Zodiac. So it is pretty much a world in itself. But, on the other hand, suppose it is an ordinary herbal and an ordinary zodiac, what are the connections you would expect there to be?

As to the markers, well, obviously they are there. But what has been done with them? I’ll admit I’m not the most devoted scholar, and I’ve only been at it for a decade, but I’ve seen nothing about these markers, unless it was something that originated from my attempted investigations. I have made attempts to begin such a conversation here, (The Golden Key etc.), postings that were read by many here, but commented on by none. So I do not believe that the markers on White Aries have been taken seriously.  And that is because the heraldic identifications were long unrecognized and remain widely doubted. But the VMs was intended to be read by persons who already knew the relevant details of heraldry and history and would recognize evocative illustrations and possibly investigate further. Moreover, the illustration was intended to deflect a casual investigation. Historical images are altered in a radial orientation. Plain white stripes are given ink markings. There is a sort of tension between the elements of disguise and the elements of confirmation. And the situation is resolved, if one considers that the elements of disguise are ambiguous and the elements of confirmation are positionally objective.

Now to our little nymph and her torso paintjob. There is a fair amount of lighter (red) to darker (brown) variation in several areas: down the right arm, on the right breast, perhaps there is a navel(?), and something just below the collar, etc. Does the darker element come from ink in some or all of these examples? That is beyond me. All dark area seem to have a red aura around them. And, given the clear, unpainted area between the proposed, right breast outline and the areola, there is some intentional technique happening there to keep that area clear.

Compare this figure’s paintjob with the other red-torso figures of the inner circle. There are no underlying physical details showing through the clothing on either of those torsos. Compare with the lady in green, outer ring at 2 o’clock, where inked, breast outlines are clearly shown, but no areolas are present. Now back to the figure in question. Is the figure clothed or not? Is it wearing a see-through blouse?  If dark coloration is intentional structure, what is that structure just below the collar? Was this figure naked in the ink version and clothed by the painter, who carefully and very accurately covered the ink work with red paint? That’s beyond me.

The representation is clearly there, whether by ink and paint together or by paint alone. So it’s back to the original question, is the figure unquestionably female? Biologically, the answer is no. In the drawing, there are hints of ambiguity. The left breast could be the shoulder. Elements of ambiguity, disguise and deception have been discovered already on the trail of the Fieschi popes. What if this is another bit of intentional trickery, put in place to derail an investigation? We already have a pun that shows we are dealing with a joker.

If we try to look for answers to the VMs within the pages of the VMs, do we expect those answers to be obvious and superficial, or perhaps something a bit more difficult to find? Of course, if the Fieschi armorial insignia is not known to the investigator, or the origins of the red galero tradition, let alone word one about a particular, traditional heraldic fur, known as papelonny, that sort of gums up the works, doesn’t it? And if the creator of this manuscript were to consider putting such a structure in the manuscript, how many of them would that be?

Even though we still may not agree, thanks for your interested skepticism.

R.Sale,
I think the glitch in your theory is that you confuse the use of a certain pattern within the small profession of heraldry with a definition of that pattern wherever it occurs.

This is equivalent to saying that because we find the image of a rose used in European heraldry, therefore every similar image of a rose is a reference to heraldry.

It goes the other way: of all the many known patterns, some of which had been used for millennia, European heraldry adopted some. In the context of contemporary French vocabulary, they described e.g. the pattern like clouds as 'nebuly' and so on.  Time fossilised that vocabulary so in describing a coat of arms (and nothing but a coat of arms) the custom is still to say 'nebuly' rather than 'cloud' pattern.

The problem is that there is no evidence that the original maker of the images now in the Voynich calendar had any intention to refer to heraldry, or even that he thought of the pattern in those words. 

He also employed a much wider vocabulary of pattern than occurs in European heraldry.  So we cannot reasonably describe these as 'heraldic patterns'.  They are just patterns. 

It would be more nearly a match, but equally inappropriate, to call them all "mosaic patterns" or "woodwork patterns" or even "fabric patterns"... they're just patterns which may carry some significance, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but we have to work to understand the intention of the original and I'm afraid the 'heraldry' idea doesn't cover it.  I know it can be hard to discount what seems initially a good idea, but one has to do that constantly when researching problematic images.

Look how often the linguists form, modify and then abandon working hypotheses.  It's what happens.

Koen & Diane,

Koen's questions:

1) Why is this Zodiac in the VMs? Because the creator of the VMs apparently put it there. Why is heraldry in the Zodiac? Because it's a good place to put it where it is not patently obvious. What is it's purpose? It is part of a hidden narrative.

2) Why is it hidden? If the VMs is intended to convey secret information, this is part of an intentionally disguised pathway for subsequent readers to access that information.

3) The sacrificial reference is relevant to historical tradition, not to current practice - at the time of the VMs.

::

Diane,

Glitches ahoy! When you mention "a certain pattern within the small profession of heraldry", how is heraldry a small profession? Didn't heraldry involve pretty much *all* of the nobility of Europe, and those who dealt with them? Heraldry in the Middle Ages, *at the time of VMs composition* was not small and insignificant.

I have called these patterns 'evocative' of traditional heraldic designs. And that is because, besides clear visual similarities, heraldry has given these patterns their names. It is not necessary to replicate any example perfectly in order to provide a basis for further investigation. Such a basis can also be substantiated by the number of relevant examples. What is important in these examples is the initiation and promulgation of heraldry as an idea. Is there some other discipline or enterprise (mosaics, woodworking, textiles) which can match any of the VMs patterns with its own set of names and definitions. Suggesting various hypothetical interpretations without *any* concrete examples is a pretty weak argument. [Heraldry is the discipline; paly, bendy, barry, chevrony, papelonny, etc. are the examples.]

I have suggested that heraldry is a discipline that can be used as a method of interpretation, and have given the example of a specific, paired armorial insignia, ecclesiastical heraldry, proper hierarchical positioning, favored heraldic placement and a combined celestial association to demonstrate an illustrated (f71r), historical reference to the origins of a chronologically relevant and on going religious tradition (the cardinal's red galero). Can the creation of such a complex construction be attributed to an uninformed and careless individual?

Not all the tub patterns are heraldic. Is it possible to create ambiguity and disguise, if everything matches perfectly? If some examples match heraldry and some do not, why is that a problem? If you can put a name to any pattern I have omitted, from any tradition, please do so. I prefer comparing VMs illustrations with other images of the *same* time period and naming them with contemporaneous terminology, before looking to more distant sources.

What is your familiarity with heraldry, prior to my investigations? Nebuly is a heraldic line of division, not an insignia pattern. And if you are thinking of the person who started calling any and every scale-like pattern in the VMs a representation of papelonny, after I introduced the term, that was someone else.

The glitch here, in my estimation, is the failure of investigators to recognize even the possibility of heraldic correspondences, which are both relevant and contemporary with VMs manufacture. And this is due to a lack of familiarity with the topic in general and the comparative obscurity of the specific, relevant details, like nebuly and papelonny in particular. Apparently this gives skeptics the opportunity to focus on the apparent ambiguities, without considering the underlying, traditional and historical realities, contemporary with VMs creation, with which they are otherwise unacquainted.

R. Sale
I appreciate that you answer questions to the point. I agree with your answer to my third question - people knew about historical practice and may have referred to it.

I also agree that if the patterns were heraldic, this could open up an interesting way to understand the script.

The problem is that in my opinion the evidence that this section was built around heraldry is so very thin, that it's a dead end. There are a number of corresponding patterns and a handful of other possible indications, but these, like the hat, carry flaws which have to be explained away by the omnipresent argument of "obscuring". I just think it's a stretch that an intent to obscure an exposition about heraldry is the explanation for what we see: heraldic, semi-heraldic and non-heraldic patterns on a circle of barrels filled with naked (or possibly over-painted) women. In a manuscript without a single knight, sword, shield, coat of arms, you name it. 

On the other hand, Diane and I have demonstrated that patterns were a very important part in several earlier cultures. Many of these patterns had a meaning and did not necessarily represent what was seen, just like in heraldry. I have presented plenty of examples of the simpler wavy line, which bear the same meaning: a protective barrier, a limit of a domain, a border. The patterns have ancient origins and spread wide and far before we see them in Europe.

For example, a very old example of the Serpent line as a protective barrier, in this case protecting the Sun on his passage through the underworld:


As a much later and different example, we see that the many decorations on the walls of the Dura Europos synagogue in Syria, which dates from the 3rd century CE making it one of the oldest in the world, a similar pattern is used as actual borders between the "frames". 





The one above also shows a familiar pattern on their mail shirts, but that is likely irrelevant to the VM. Diane has also produced many examples. 

I have also shown that parallels for even more complex patterns could be found in Greco-Egyptian art, where they represent different types of materials. If I were so inclined and had enough time, I could surely find parallels for most of these patterns within the visual vocabulary of Greco-Roman Egypt, but I'm not sure if that would change much.

Of course, such patterns can also be found within medieval works (related or unrelated to older forms), so even if I believed that the contents of the manuscript was the product of a medieval European mind, I would still have a hard time understanding why it must be heraldry, based on this little and flawed evidence.

For a reminder of some of my favorite concrete examples - which you have seen already - see this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 

I am not saying that there is a perfect solution for this. But I just think that within the manuscript as a whole, the evidence for heraldry as an informing system is too limited and too inaccurate.

So, after a bit of thought, to anyone interested, here's a simple challenge. I have provided a list of several names for standard heraldic patterns. Anyone can take that name to a reference on heraldry and find an example and definition of that specific pattern. They can take that pattern and definition to the VMs tub patterns and look for a visually similar example. Then, if we were to compare the choices each participant has made, do you think there will be much variation and discrepancy between individual selections, or will it be that we have all chosen pretty much the same. Paired paly patterns sit at the top of VMs Pisces. And how can you lose a chevrony?

List of names: paly, bendy (both diagonals), barry, chevrony and papelonny

If the VMs author was an educated person in Europe, at or subsequent to the VMs parchment dates, is it not reasonable that s/he would know these patterns and definitions in their heraldic context? Whether or not the individual, modern reader makes this set of connections is another matter altogether. The VMs illustrations provide a set of heraldic examples. It is the strength of the set, that one example leads to another, which establishes heraldry as a method of interpretation. It says to continue looking for other examples. And eventually, if the investigator works around Pisces outer ring, an obscure heraldic fur is found and its name is 'papelonny'. And this is an element that play a big role later on, if the investigation survives to have a later on.

And if the VMs author had been educated under Catholic church auspices, which would have been the primary option at the time, I believe, isn't it reasonable that s/he might know the origins of an approximately 200 year old religious tradition in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of said institution?

And if the author's intent is to disguise a more recognizable image, then the shift to radial orientation is perfectly brilliant. But the fact is that there are two possible interpretations of orientation. An intentional optical illusion has been made. This is a prime example of intentional ambiguity. The White Aries illustration has *two* interpretations. The valid interpretation exists on the page. It's just harder to see. And it is the hidden, secondary, page-based orientation of the blue-striped patterns that connects to the history and tradition of the red galero (also represented), which is then repeatedly confirmed by the objective placement of the illustrated elements through their proper hierarchical location and other traditional descriptions of positioning within the construction, and more.

If there is intent to disguise, it worked.

Hey, Koen, our postings got crossed. Maybe I said something useful above. However, you're off on the wrong foot here. This section (VMs Zodiac) was *not* built around heraldry. Heraldic patterns, select little bits and pieces were hidden in the VMs Zodiac. They are easy to find, if you look at the "challenge" I posted above. They are hardly obscured, other than being small and tucked away and mixed with other patterns that may or may not belong in the heraldic set. Heraldry may indeed seem thin, until you feel it is validated. It may seem like a thin string until it becomes too long to be the result of random chance, then it is more like a wire.

Heraldry is limited, but not inaccurate. It is clearly connected to one of Stolfi's patterned markers in the VMs illustration (f71r). Is this another meaningless coincidence or an intentional placement? Doesn't that decision depend on discovering what the reason is? Isn't that reason provided by seeing what the patterned markers and blue-striped insignia were intended to represent?

All cultures use patterns, some patterns derive from prior cultures, I have no problems there. Some of your investigations have been very interesting, the stepped crown, recently. In other areas, I have several difficulties.

In general, for the VMs, there is a certain chronology. Not before the parchment manufacture. That places creation of the VMs under certain chronological restrictions. I feel it is only logical to focus any investigation in areas, cultures and disciplines that ostensibly share those same chronological criteria, as much as possible, at least for starters, with the caveat that nearly everything is influenced by something that has gone before.

Specifically, I have a problem with the proposed Egyptian serpent to nebuly line connection. Firstly, this is a natural reality for snakes. Anyone *could* derive the shape directly from the snake. There is no need for Egyptian representations as intermediaries. And secondly, the ideas behind the two representations are completely different. If the idea is different, the meaning is different, the interpretation is different, then this is not the same thing. The snake is not a cloud and the cloud is not a snake. This would seem to be a factor indicative of alternative ideological origins.

PS: In the examples above, you have lost the distinction between nebuly and wavy. Nebuly is defined as being bulbous. Wavy is just the regular sine wave, like your two examples.