Simply by following the naming system provided by the listings of plants in a "Mary Garden", an additional perspective on the VMs plant section is set forth as a "visual code". By naming the violet "Our Lady's Modesty", alternatively "Mary's Modesty', which carries the double 'M' monogram, also found in Latin. The monogram is camouflaged in the VMs violet diagram as Koen pointed out. "Mary's Modesty" is specifically tied to the story of the Annunciation.
Likewise, costmary was called the "Herb of the Virgin". And the interpretation of the wing-like roots as the wings of Saint Michael <Juan_Sali> shows that this is an intentional representation of the Assumption.
Clearly both of these religious events are significant in Mariology, and they add to other religious interpretations that can be made from various VMs illustrations. VMs Virgo as the Virgin Mary on the crescent moon is another indicator of Mariology.
Are these two botanical examples like 'golden boughs' in a forest of green. Is that the purpose of the botanical section? Is this a place where every picture tells a story or a place where things of value are few and far between?
I agree with the overall sentiment that the non-botanical aspects of the plants must be pointed out and deserve study. Understanding these, and how they differ from non-botanical parts in other manuscript traditions, may offer clues to what is going on with the VM plants.
However, I have also become more cautious when it comes to following a sentiment to the extreme and trying to generalize a thing one may spot in one part of the MS. It is oh so easy to get stuck in a cycle of confirmation bias with this manuscript, and learning how to recognize this and halt it on time is part of the learning process of the study.
That all said, there is certainly a subset of plants with decidedly architectural (and unnatural) stem bases. These are the most obvious examples, though I may have missed some:
[
attachment=8108]
About the m-arches, I'm not sure if they are supposed to represent letters, since arches like this are common in medieval painting. The subject of Mariology might indeed be relevant, since the Annunciation is often set under arches, associating the architectural form with Mary. Just google
annunciation painting, and you will see that in the majority of late medieval examples, Mary is placed under arches. This still holds true later in Renaissance painting, though the arched forms may be shifted to the background.
(24-01-2024, 09:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.About the m-arches, I'm not sure if they are supposed to represent letters, since arches like this are common in medieval painting. The subject of Mariology might indeed be relevant, since the Annunciation is often set under arches, associating the architectural form with Mary.
Right.
A decorative gothic design for arches with a double rounded "M":
[
attachment=8109]
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
To me the entire drawing on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. looks, from afar, like a portrait: headgear (turban or chaperon), two eyes, a nose, a spiky beard.
Fascinating, a turbaned character with emerald eyes.
Indeed, there are various factors to consider. And that's great photo! Perfect structure.
I take a different perspective. Do follow things to extremes. This is how they are tested. They will succeed or they will fail. Accept the evidence. Where there is evidence, present the evidence. That can take the cosmic perspective from Newbold to Velinska. Take things as far as they will go. The details of one investigation may support other inquiries.
A great example is the VMs You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. "critter" investigation. Many possibilities were suggested from Armadillo to Agnus Dei. Given the definition of a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary, armadillos don't belong with medieval artistic representations of cosmic boundaries. [BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18]
I will grant that a lot of the VMs is ambiguous, in part because it was made to be ambiguous. In addition, the modern investigator needs to *discover* the artist's intent, whereas the medieval reader might *recognize* various things of prior knowledge, from heraldry to the Christianized names of various plants and their religious associations. I think we have to assume that the VMs artist was aware of a good deal of information that is most strongly correlated to 1400-1450 and with the C-14 data. The artist may have known things that the modern investigator does not. The VMs artist may have done things that the modern investigator does not (yet) understand. Heraldic canting and the long investigation of Melusine of Luxembourg.
The question regarding the VMs violet illustration is whether the proposed arching structure is a representation of the double 'M' [MM] monogram (MM = Mariae Modestiae). If so, it is a hidden monogram. It is an obfuscated and camouflaged monogram. That fits right in with the way the VMs artist operates - repeatedly.
There are other VMs examples with some similarities. What plants are these? What are their Christianized names? There's also the old question: Where do you hide a tree? A: In a forest. A valid example is obfuscated by other, *false* examples.
There is a physical reality behind the 'Arches of the Virgin'.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The evidence is that the monogram for the violet is specifically a part of the VMs illustration of the violet. It's cheesy; it's clumsy; it's camouflaged; it's there. It's like a *cheap* rebus. The VMs artist cannot be prevented from using a cheap rebus. And our view of whether it is cheap or not does not affect whether the interpretation is valid from the artist's perspective.