Koen,
The only distinction I am making is in the practice of celestial sacrifice as compared with *non*-celestial sacrifice. Both Homer and Hebrew tradition indicate it was a standard practice to sacrifice white animals to the gods of the celestial spheres. This was known to the VMs author. This was used by the VMs author. The simple purpose here is to associate the celestial with the celestial.
And how can this second celestial item be identified? Certainly not by a person's facial characteristics, but by the heraldic and official ecclesiastical indicators that society has provided.
Heraldry works as a method of investigation because it can name and describe more of the tub patterns than any other system of identification. And given the early 1400s parchment dates, heraldry and a sort of heraldic culture, more than two centuries old and still growing stronger, is far more a part of the culture that was known to the VMs creator, than Hellenistic culture would be. Though a person, well-educated and widely traveled, would easily have some familiarity with Hellenistic artifacts.
Heraldry is the author's choice. It's a long way to go to add something to add to the significance of Stolfi's markers, but the illustrations give us what we have. Heraldry puts a name on it. Heraldry establishes a firm historical grounding. Heraldry actually connects - in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. illustration - with one of the markers. I certainly cannot accept that this is accidental happenstance. I see an intentional construction - the parts of which are: pairing, heraldry, historical identification, Stolfi's markers, then, most probably, the written text that the markers indicate. Why go to all of this intricate construction, all the positional confirmations present in the illustrations, for nothing?
Okay, bring in the brick wall. Heraldry does not fail. Heraldry brings us to language. And language fails. Language always fails. Brick wall!! But the purpose of this construction is not to leave it unused. Or does the pun just sit there unpunned?
The only distinction I am making is in the practice of celestial sacrifice as compared with *non*-celestial sacrifice. Both Homer and Hebrew tradition indicate it was a standard practice to sacrifice white animals to the gods of the celestial spheres. This was known to the VMs author. This was used by the VMs author. The simple purpose here is to associate the celestial with the celestial.
And how can this second celestial item be identified? Certainly not by a person's facial characteristics, but by the heraldic and official ecclesiastical indicators that society has provided.
Heraldry works as a method of investigation because it can name and describe more of the tub patterns than any other system of identification. And given the early 1400s parchment dates, heraldry and a sort of heraldic culture, more than two centuries old and still growing stronger, is far more a part of the culture that was known to the VMs creator, than Hellenistic culture would be. Though a person, well-educated and widely traveled, would easily have some familiarity with Hellenistic artifacts.
Heraldry is the author's choice. It's a long way to go to add something to add to the significance of Stolfi's markers, but the illustrations give us what we have. Heraldry puts a name on it. Heraldry establishes a firm historical grounding. Heraldry actually connects - in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. illustration - with one of the markers. I certainly cannot accept that this is accidental happenstance. I see an intentional construction - the parts of which are: pairing, heraldry, historical identification, Stolfi's markers, then, most probably, the written text that the markers indicate. Why go to all of this intricate construction, all the positional confirmations present in the illustrations, for nothing?
Okay, bring in the brick wall. Heraldry does not fail. Heraldry brings us to language. And language fails. Language always fails. Brick wall!! But the purpose of this construction is not to leave it unused. Or does the pun just sit there unpunned?