The challenge of the VMs is to understand the manuscript. Since we can't read the writing, we are left to interpret the illustrations. There are a number of VMs illustrations that are examples for discussion regarding their interpretation and provenance.
I am not the originator of most of those interpretations. I did not invent the Golden Fleece hypothesis. You can dismiss it if you want. But if you take it seriously, then there you are: Burgundy, 1430. A clue based on an event that occurred in 1430, and look it up. This is something the artist knows, let's presume, because the artist was immersed in the culture of that era. And that has become the common factor in a growing set of interpretations. That it makes sense within the cultural interpretation, if the cultural interpretation is still known - like Melusine and Valois. The Valois of Berry and BNF Fr. 565. The Valois of Burgundy and the Golden Fleece.
In order to investigate, there needs to be a thorough understanding of the relevant era, there is also a range of variation within the relevant era. There were mystics and heretics with all types of ideological variations, not all of them got published. If the VMs had a purpose, what was that purpose? And what was the author's state of mind? Alchemy, astrology, religion, whatever, are opportunities for various forms of idiosyncratic ideology. It's yet to be proven that the writing is coherent. Parts of it maybe. Who knows? There are a variety of hypothetical options to consider.
I am not the originator of many of these interpretations, but I do agree with them. Melusine, the Oresme cosmos, connections to Mariology. And if one had never heard of the Arches of the Virgin, how can there be any type of recognition or comparison? It's not possible. It's the investigator's lack of knowledge that makes the connection impossible. While the VMs artist may have actually been inside the church itself.
What I'm doing here, I think, is collecting and putting together a set of previous and present investigations, by various VMs researchers, that are compatible with a historical / chronological perspective that fits in the 1430-1440 decade and makes use of traditions and mythologies that were prevalent in that era. That doesn't mean that I personally believe in them, if that's the problem.
PS to your #20
As I said, others have made the Goden Fleece interpretation early on regarding f80v. An identification made without benefit, or even the identification of the nebuly line and the underlying droplets. These confirm the VMs critter as a representation of the Agnus Dei following the particular, three-part structural pattern: 1] critter / 2] cosmic boundary (nebuly line) / 3] droplets (of blood) found in BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18. An older manuscript that was later in the Burgundy library.
The other potential interpretation of the Golden Fleece is with the VMs mermaid of f79v. And if the VMs mermaid is Melusine of Luxembourg, then *both* representations share in the Valois connection even though that connection may have gotten lost along the way. Melusine and the Burgundy Valois connection are validated in the historical description of the Feast of the Pheasant.
It is not about your interpretations and descriptions. I'm sure everything can be explained somehow.
But unfortunately, none of this can be seen in the VM and it does not fit the story told in the VM manuscript.
Surely a car can also be repaired with the description of a video recorder. It's all technical.
I cannot agree. Things can be seen in the VMs. Each investigation is an example.
Take the VMs cosmos. How do you explain it? I promote the comparison to the cosmic illustrations from BNF Fr 565 and Harley 334. These illustrations originate in Paris, during the VMs C-14 time-span. And Paris, in the time-span 1420-1435, is not French, but is held by the Duke of Bedford, in alliance with the Duke of Burgundy. That's just history.
Take the actual VMs cosmic illustration. The artist has made every effort to maximize visual diversity without violating structural integrity. Happy to discuss further, but won't do it here. But this is part of the artist's trickery. The creation of ambiguity. There is a cosmic boundary with 43 undulations.
Then there is Shirakatsi's wheel. There is no historical equivalent to it.
Harley 334 also has a mermaid with companions, like the VMs. The VMs artist gives her a personality. She has thighs. She is not a generic mermaid. She is Melusine of Luxembourg, mythical ancestress of the Valois - both Berry and Burgundy. These connections are historically referenced.
And, of course, there is the Golden Fleece. Whether it is accepted or not, there are several indicators mutually compatible and also within the C-14 time-span. And the VMs illustration, often seen as the Golden Fleece (f80v) can be seen as a uniquely structured version of the Agnus Dei, borrowed from a book in the Burgundy library.
And there are the examples in all three of these instances, where two different objects have been brough together. In the cosmos, it is Oresme and Shirakatsi. In the mermaid, it is generic versus specific (Melusine). In the VMs critter, it is Lamb of God and fleece of gold.
Now to the rainbows. Take anything about rainbows between 1400 and 1450. Is there anything that connects rainbows to Burgundy? In the C-14 era, rainbows and particularly double rainbows were represented as celestial thrones for both classical and Christian divinities. The VMs double rainbow throne has no occupant, so there's a big ambiguity, but if it did...?? It turns out that La Sainte Hostie de Dijon (1435) was a significant historical event - but only in the shorter term. Christ is seated on a rainbow throne with the Arma Christi. A gift from the Pope to the Duke of Burgundy.
In the center of the VMs central rosette, in the center of the VMs illustration of New Jerusalem, is a representation described as a starry canopy. If there is anything beneath, it can't be seen. So, there's ambiguity coming out the ears. The only clue, and it's not that obvious, is that the canopy is held by six supports. Is there any hexagonal object that is relevant to the historical era and also part of Burgundy? There is the Well of Moses created in 1405 and found at the church, Chartreuse de la Sainte-Trinité de Champmol, in Dijon. Another thing that was better known in the shorter term, at the time. Like the whole of Burgundian history and events of the era were better known at the time.
And what other sorts of religious 'events' might have occurred in Burgundy during the C-14 dates. There were the reforms of Colette of Corbie, relevant to the VMs because her biography makes specific notes regarding a 'mystical' ring and cross, which as you surely know are among the "identified" objects held by nymphs in VMs illustrations. And she was supported by the duke and duchess of Burgundy.
Here is a house of cards, built on historical facts. Could a person who grew up, contemporary with this era, collect these various perspective views? Could a person contemporary with this time (presumably literate, and perhaps connected to the church) have lived in this era and *not* know these facts and events presented above?
There are also VMs illustrations that have potential interpretations involving Mariology that do not specifically connect to Burgundy, but to the era, along with other religious traditions.
These are things that demonstrate what the artist knows. Nebuly lines are cosmic boundaries. It's red hats and blue stripes, not blue hats and green stripes. It's the prior placement of two papelonny patterns. Catching up with the artist's use of heraldry requires consideration of canting. The VMs artist has drawn the structure in place. And the secret of canting is to have the proper terminology that makes the canting process function.
Whatever the nature of this story "told by the VMs", it will be hard to find better interpretations for these examples discussed.
In the initial interpretation that the wings represent Saint Michael, there was the general reference to the prevalent illustrations of Saint Michael and the Dragon. In which case, it was reasonably inquired: Where's the Dragon? And why is Saint Michael at the bottom of the page?
If the plant depicted in 46v is costmary. And costmary is the Herb of the Virgin. Then the new paradigm for the image is a version of the Assumption of the Virgin. So, it's correct that Saint Michael is below. Though often he is omitted, sometimes off to the side. Or in a trio with Saint Benedict. And those are 1500s at best.
Any representation of this pairing, that is pre-1500 would be interesting.
(03-08-2022, 12:36 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the initial interpretation that the wings represent Saint Michael, there was the general reference to the prevalent illustrations of Saint Michael and the Dragon. In which case, it was reasonably inquired: Where's the Dragon? And why is Saint Michael at the bottom of the page?
If the plant depicted in 46v is costmary. And costmary is the Herb of the Virgin. Then the new paradigm for the image is a version of the Assumption of the Virgin. So, it's correct that Saint Michael is below. Though often he is omitted, sometimes off to the side. Or in a trio with Saint Benedict. And those are 1500s at best.
The dragon is the evil, it is represented as well as a serpent or a demon. A demon can be seen in many
Saint Michael weighing the souls pushing down one of the plates.
For the Assumption of the Virgin a candidate in the VM is the top left corner of the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , it has the main elements: the dead body of the Virgin (I cant explain the ring in her hand), her soul ascending and the cross on its right, and God inside the nebuly line. But it is a theme to develope in a future new thread.
Yes, but... The dragon doesn't really have anything to do with the VMs You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. illustration. The interpretation of Saint Michael as the 'dragon slayer' is valid and a common representation, but it leads us somewhat astray. This is supposed to be an herbal illustration. The herb represented appears to be costmary. Costmary is the so-called 'Herb of the Virgin'. At the roots of the virgin's herb are the wings of Saint Michael, in his capacity as a 'conductor of souls'. Not as the slayer of dragons. Thus, creating certain associations with the Assumption of the Virgin. It all makes sense in a "mythic" sort of interpretation.
Having the right relationship means that the pieces will fit together.
If you look at the biography of Colette of Corbie, you will find an explanation for both the ring and the cross. It is specifically said in her biography that she received a ring from Saint John in a dream. And that she had a cross that contained a piece of the 'true cross'. These are her attributes.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
She died in 1447, but one assumes her biography is reflective of her life. That is to say that the significance of these items to her was sufficient to retain these items in her biography. Her career of reform started c. 1413. And this was the era of Jean sans Peur, duc de Bourgogne (d.1419). Plenty of contact with southeastern European and Muslim influences (Nicopolis, 1396). She was supported by the duke and duchess, also by Philip the Good, continuing even after her death.
This is further indication of what the VMs artist knew of the social environment in the first half of the 15th century.
(03-08-2022, 07:57 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The herb represented appears to be costmary. Costmary is the so-called 'Herb of the Virgin'
This is interesting, the spanish version of wikipedia for You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (costmary) says:
Etymology
Tanacetum : generic name derived from the medieval Latin "tanazite" which in turn comes from the Greek "athanasia" (= immortal, long term), which probably indicates the long duration of the inflorescence of this plant, in other texts it refers to the belief that beverages made from the leaves of this plant confer eternal life.
The identification of the plant adds a new element to conect the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. to Saint Michael, in his capacity as a 'conductor of souls'.
The You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. does not appear explicity in the bible. If the herb section follows the bible then the Assumption of the Virgin does not fit here.
Curiously, the first word on the page, pody (EVA), can be read as a Greek word ποτή - flight.
There is more on etymology here. (What is the medieval French, German, etc. name for this plant?)
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
First of all, in French there is the derivation from a word that refers to immortality. And secondly, in Mariology it refers to her 'Dormition' <being asleep> and her Assumption, as far as I understand it, without actually saying that she died - i.e. immortality. Saint Michael was the 'conductor of souls' and he is shown in that capacity with the Virgin Mary in a couple of illustrations in the 1500s. It looks like a package deal, but what about the linguistic part?
The most immediate interpretation of the written text would be a botanical monograph: everything about the plant - from a medieval perspective. A botanical monograph in the VMs could be compared with matching monographs from validated, historical sources. This has been tried with other VMs botanical illustrations where it was felt that the prospects of an accurate identification were strongest. The only remarkable thing about those investigations was their total failure. So, could it work here? It seems doubtful.
Is there some other overarching plan behind VMs content and construction, such as an herbal bible? Until the writing can be read, how can it be determined what the VMs has to say?