portingal
2012-10-11 10:40:45 UTC
These are the main results found for the analysis of the arms of Christopher Columbus; they will probably be published in full at my blog after the present study of the arms of the Kings of Jerusalem. I took as source the arms illustrated by the parchment issued in Barcelona in June 1493.
a) The parophonies are verbalized in Portuguese and Castilian.
b) Those refering to CC are in Portuguese and those referring to the Kings of Castile and Aragon are in Castilian, there are some justifiable hybridizations.
c) They don't belong to any Colombus family but are either new arms granted as a whole to CC or as an augmentation to his (but only his) shield.
d) We were able to identify ten semantic levels including the two transmitted at the chief/top quartering. We can't exclude that other levels may be discovered but this would be a hard task at this point. Regarding the designant: six are in Portuguese and two in Castilian, excluding the two of León and Castile, already treated in my thesis, improved and rectified in "Estudos de Heráldica Medieval".
e) The said modified arms of Colombus are included in the analysis. Despite loosing some semantic expressiveness they favor the heraldic composition, in my view.
f) All the visual elements resulting from the analysis, except those at the top, result from entirely new parophonies, therefore it's impossible to provide any comparisons with arms of other lineages that could have inspired the authors. We don't say that these influences are inexistent, only that they weren't necessary to draw and color the blazon of CC.
g) Unfortunately, the parophonic methodology wasn't able to give a complete solution for the question of the origins of Columbus. The verbalizations maybe favor a Portuguese origin whereas the constitution of the corresponding heraldic trace benefit either the Genoese or the Portuguese hypotheses.
h) Other specialists should discuss the adequacy of our propositions and maybe choose one solution or another for the above question, besides proposing possible new denominants or verbalizations as an alternative or extension.
i) Follows a period of methodological rest during which we will not discuss this subject further for the moment. Later the study will be reevaluated regarding the parophonies and concluded with a reappraisal of the theme under the light of the existing theories, particularly regarding the question of the origins of CC, the only that remains doubtful.
Kind Regards,
Carlos da Fonte
a) The parophonies are verbalized in Portuguese and Castilian.
b) Those refering to CC are in Portuguese and those referring to the Kings of Castile and Aragon are in Castilian, there are some justifiable hybridizations.
c) They don't belong to any Colombus family but are either new arms granted as a whole to CC or as an augmentation to his (but only his) shield.
d) We were able to identify ten semantic levels including the two transmitted at the chief/top quartering. We can't exclude that other levels may be discovered but this would be a hard task at this point. Regarding the designant: six are in Portuguese and two in Castilian, excluding the two of León and Castile, already treated in my thesis, improved and rectified in "Estudos de Heráldica Medieval".
e) The said modified arms of Colombus are included in the analysis. Despite loosing some semantic expressiveness they favor the heraldic composition, in my view.
f) All the visual elements resulting from the analysis, except those at the top, result from entirely new parophonies, therefore it's impossible to provide any comparisons with arms of other lineages that could have inspired the authors. We don't say that these influences are inexistent, only that they weren't necessary to draw and color the blazon of CC.
g) Unfortunately, the parophonic methodology wasn't able to give a complete solution for the question of the origins of Columbus. The verbalizations maybe favor a Portuguese origin whereas the constitution of the corresponding heraldic trace benefit either the Genoese or the Portuguese hypotheses.
h) Other specialists should discuss the adequacy of our propositions and maybe choose one solution or another for the above question, besides proposing possible new denominants or verbalizations as an alternative or extension.
i) Follows a period of methodological rest during which we will not discuss this subject further for the moment. Later the study will be reevaluated regarding the parophonies and concluded with a reappraisal of the theme under the light of the existing theories, particularly regarding the question of the origins of CC, the only that remains doubtful.
Kind Regards,
Carlos da Fonte
