20-08-2021, 08:50 PM
Every potentially useful basis for comparison should be tested.
What sort of critter would be associated with a squiggly - sorry, make that a nebuly, line? It makes a real difference in the interpretation. A nebuly line as a cosmic boundary makes the VMs critter into an Agnus Dei as suggested by others. The uncommon construction of the representation with the cosmic boundary between the lamb and the blood is repeated in BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18, which would apparently have been in the Burgundian library during the VMs C-14 dates and potentially served as a source.
If structural comparison works in the illustrations, what about the text? What about the text? Making a comparison of text segments requires the identification and discovery of specific segments of text. One from the VMs and one (or more) from valid historical sources. So the difficulty results from the problems of text selection. The attempt to impose botanical restrictions has yet to produce any potential examples for text comparison.
Without specific segments of text, there is no comparison. There also needs to be a basis for comparison, some characteristic of the text, such as vord repetition. Multiple repeated vords in a modest text segment will stand out on their own. Plus the sequence of the secondary repetition will form its own pattern. The VMs provides an even more complex example marked with and connected to its 'papal' recommendations, in the outer ring of White Aries.
The problem in recovering the validated historical text segment still remains.
What sort of critter would be associated with a squiggly - sorry, make that a nebuly, line? It makes a real difference in the interpretation. A nebuly line as a cosmic boundary makes the VMs critter into an Agnus Dei as suggested by others. The uncommon construction of the representation with the cosmic boundary between the lamb and the blood is repeated in BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18, which would apparently have been in the Burgundian library during the VMs C-14 dates and potentially served as a source.
If structural comparison works in the illustrations, what about the text? What about the text? Making a comparison of text segments requires the identification and discovery of specific segments of text. One from the VMs and one (or more) from valid historical sources. So the difficulty results from the problems of text selection. The attempt to impose botanical restrictions has yet to produce any potential examples for text comparison.
Without specific segments of text, there is no comparison. There also needs to be a basis for comparison, some characteristic of the text, such as vord repetition. Multiple repeated vords in a modest text segment will stand out on their own. Plus the sequence of the secondary repetition will form its own pattern. The VMs provides an even more complex example marked with and connected to its 'papal' recommendations, in the outer ring of White Aries.
The problem in recovering the validated historical text segment still remains.