05-11-2016, 03:29 AM
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.
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.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)