12-11-2016, 08:28 AM
Is this a nebuly line?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/VoNOqsyCcIZkk/giphy.gif)
12-11-2016, 05:22 PM
Koen.
No, it's a sea snake. Esthetically, it does approach the definition of being slightly bulbous at times, due to the flattened shape of the snake, but at no time does it ever have a consistent and uniform pattern along its length. The individual forms start small and become larger.
And even if it were a perfect match, that does not address the problem of the etymological origin of the terminology. If the name for the line derives from a snake, why is it called 'nebuly' = 'cloudy' and not called 'snaky'? The origin of the name denotes the ideological source - otherwise, what purpose does language serve?
No, it's a sea snake. Esthetically, it does approach the definition of being slightly bulbous at times, due to the flattened shape of the snake, but at no time does it ever have a consistent and uniform pattern along its length. The individual forms start small and become larger.
And even if it were a perfect match, that does not address the problem of the etymological origin of the terminology. If the name for the line derives from a snake, why is it called 'nebuly' = 'cloudy' and not called 'snaky'? The origin of the name denotes the ideological source - otherwise, what purpose does language serve?
14-11-2016, 05:31 AM
(12-11-2016, 05:22 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen.
No, it's a sea snake. Esthetically, it does approach the definition of being slightly bulbous at times, due to the flattened shape of the snake, but at no time does it ever have a consistent and uniform pattern along its length. The individual forms start small and become larger.
And even if it were a perfect match, that does not address the problem of the etymological origin of the terminology. If the name for the line derives from a snake, why is it called 'nebuly' = 'cloudy' and not called 'snaky'? The origin of the name denotes the ideological source - otherwise, what purpose does language serve?
The nebuly line represents things of celestial associations (angels, divinities, rulers (who promoted themselves as divine)) and the shapes are often clouds with broadly scalloped edges (technically not wavy or tight enough to be nebuly) that later were drawn more iconically as nebuly, but the curvy shape itself might be inspired by any different influences even if it represents a cloud.
Something I noticed, after education became more common in Europe, and nobility were finding it harder and harder to proclaim themselves as divine beings (demi-gods), that the ruffled collar became very popular among the higher strata of society. I haven't researched the origin of this uncomfortable-looking and difficult-to-make-and-clean ruff, but I'm very suspicious that it was developed to mimic a nebuly, a "head emerging above the clouds"—a subliminal association with divinity:
![[Image: elizgower1.jpg]](http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/elizgower1.jpg)
![[Image: 13447-004-F4F544DF.jpg]](https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/47/13447-004-F4F544DF.jpg)
Queen Elizabeth I
14-11-2016, 10:38 AM
Apparently the shape of the ruff is of uncertain origin, but probably evolved from the wavy, wrinkled or crenellated necklines that were previously in style (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example).
The purpose of the ruff was a lot less lofty, according to French historian and philosopher Michel Serres: in the 16th century ruffs and other high collar styles served to hide the lesions and swollen lymph nodes on the neck caused by syphillis...
The purpose of the ruff was a lot less lofty, according to French historian and philosopher Michel Serres: in the 16th century ruffs and other high collar styles served to hide the lesions and swollen lymph nodes on the neck caused by syphillis...
14-11-2016, 04:11 PM
R. Sale:
I posted the snake to show that some patterns even occur in nature. We see the same in the VM, in fact, where the bulbous line is used in a number of leaf edges.
To get back to the purpose of this thread. I believe your question was: why don't we give heraldry a chance to try to understand the manuscript?
I feel like there is just not enough to go on.
I posted the snake to show that some patterns even occur in nature. We see the same in the VM, in fact, where the bulbous line is used in a number of leaf edges.
To get back to the purpose of this thread. I believe your question was: why don't we give heraldry a chance to try to understand the manuscript?
I feel like there is just not enough to go on.
- A very limited set of folios.
- A small set of patterns.
- Many of those are not exactly the heraldic version.
- As Sam pointed out, there are a number of other problems as well, like a crucial figure being female.
- Little evidence in the rest of the manuscript that points towards heraldry, and some things, like the abundance of plants and naked women, what make one wonder why there would be an exposition on heraldry in the same manuscript.
- The fact that even the more complex patterns can be explained in another way.
- The fact that you have been studying the possible presence of heraldry for quite some time now, but haven't made much progress either.
14-11-2016, 05:14 PM
It seems a straightforward question, Why does heraldry fail?
But it isn't. It is a question + an answer in itself.
A better question was postponed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and I think it's worth repeating that:
Are the markers themselves found in heraldry?
In order to answer that we could ask:
* what are the markers (and where are they, on what page)
* can we find them in similar books or particular heraldry ?
Yes we can
....find most of them, but it requires serious research in libraries, manuscripts in the correct region and time.
But it isn't. It is a question + an answer in itself.
A better question was postponed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and I think it's worth repeating that:
Are the markers themselves found in heraldry?
In order to answer that we could ask:
* what are the markers (and where are they, on what page)
* can we find them in similar books or particular heraldry ?
Yes we can
....find most of them, but it requires serious research in libraries, manuscripts in the correct region and time.
14-11-2016, 09:46 PM
JKP, VViews & Koen,
The shape of a moving snake is an occurrence of nature, whether it is wavy or nebuly or whatever. However, the name that is given to a pattern is derived from its ideological origins - wavy from waves, obviously; nebuly from nebula, just as obviously.
In the same way, if you fold a band of cloth (lace) back and forth on itself, it will assume a natural shape and it's going to take a lot of starch to get it to do something else.
As far as nebuly lines in VMs leaf margins, is this really a natural occurrence? Where are the real plants that possess this characteristic? While I'm not involved in the investigation of VMs plants, I do know that leaf margins are categorized into a number of different patterns and I do not recall this sort of regular, bulbous meandering to be one of them. But perhaps someone has found an example.
Now to Koen's points. First of all, number is not indicative of validity; quantity is not reflective of quality. And clearly there are a number of tub patterns that are clear matches to specific, named, heraldic patters. If I say "chevrons", everyone who knows the definition is going to choose the same, singular example from the VMs tub patterns. And the same can be done for a number of other examples.
If there are other patterns which can be explained in other ways, please be more specific and provide examples.
Sam has proposed that the figure in question is obviously female. I have suggested that other, more subtle factors may apply, such as atypical depiction and the difficulty of determining a clothed person's gender exclusively by looking at the clothing covering the chest. Why is the specific area so clearly white, with red paint to enhance the image? Is the painter in collusion with the ink artist? That's not supposed to be possible. A closer examination reveals certain ambiguities and those ambiguities may well be intentional. Just like the orientation of the blue stripes in White Aries initially seems to be determined according to a radial interpretation of the illustration. But that is not the only possibility.
In a normal text, the effort is generally to state thing in as clear a manor as is possible. In a text where information has been hidden, other factors apply and other steps must be taken. Contradiction does not work because contradiction is negation. Ambiguity is an excellent option because it provides a disguised gateway that can only be opened by those who are familiar with the disguised interpretation. The validity of the disguised interpretation can then be validated by other factors in the illustration. In other words: A heraldic pattern with blue and white stripes has many interpretations. A pattern, bendy, argent et azur has several interpretations. A pair of such bendy patterns has very few historical interpretations. A pair of the bendy patterns and a red galero has a *singular* historical interpretation. Then there is the confirmation of this identification through the proper hierarchical placement of the images in the celestial spheres of the illustration, etc., etc., including the papelonny pun. If the complexity of this construction can not be accidental, it must be intentional. And being intentional implies there is significance and a potential purpose.
Heraldry succeeds by providing the intended reader with a traditional and familiar pathway, in an otherwise complex, confusing and incomprehensible document, starting with the known origins of the religious traditions of the cardinal's red galero and leading to (IMO) the specific passages of marked circular bands of text in the illustration. The task of heraldry is fulfilled and complete. The inability to make sense of the written text is a separate matter altogether, dependent on complexity of the language, lack of focused investigation and other potential difficulties.
If we were to focus on the clues provided, not the host of distractions, there might be some possibility of progress. If we continue to debate the existence of the intentional construction found in these illustrations, any progress will have to come from other areas. And if the opening provided by heraldry is the sort of unique key to further investigation that I feel that it is, I don't see where any similar opportunity is duplicated elsewhere in the VMs.
In my view, the whole attitude of modern skeptical investigation is problematic. The continuous demand for proof of this detail and that. The fact that some detail in the VMs is not *exactly* like some other example. I think that an investigator should try, at least in part, to assume the view point of the author and the intended readership. And if communication between author and reader is to be achieved, then they must share some common understanding. It therefore behooves the author to chose certain common traditions and historical events. Heraldry, in both its armorial and ecclesiastical forms, were a native part of the European culture concurrent with the VMs parchment dates and for any subsequent date of VMs creation.
Perhaps the whole issue depends on the simple matter of perspective on the interpretation of ambiguity in the illustrations. From the perspective of the parchment dates, I believe that ambiguity would be seen to contain similarity. And within that perspective, similarity is treated as identity. Identity is ideological. While from the modern perspective, ambiguity contains certain differences. Differences deny identity. Differences are visual. And the thing about differences in the VMs is that they are flawed and ambiguous themselves. The orientation of the blue-striped patterns is not just one possible option. Only the hidden, second option makes a significant, historical connection. The creator of these images is a master of heraldry able to create the papelonny pun. Sophisticated heraldic canting and objective positional confirmations are confronted by investigators who have never seen a specific, obscure heraldic fur and what should we expect? Nothing. It actually is obscure and often omitted from references. That does not impact the validity of the identification.
The shape of a moving snake is an occurrence of nature, whether it is wavy or nebuly or whatever. However, the name that is given to a pattern is derived from its ideological origins - wavy from waves, obviously; nebuly from nebula, just as obviously.
In the same way, if you fold a band of cloth (lace) back and forth on itself, it will assume a natural shape and it's going to take a lot of starch to get it to do something else.
As far as nebuly lines in VMs leaf margins, is this really a natural occurrence? Where are the real plants that possess this characteristic? While I'm not involved in the investigation of VMs plants, I do know that leaf margins are categorized into a number of different patterns and I do not recall this sort of regular, bulbous meandering to be one of them. But perhaps someone has found an example.
Now to Koen's points. First of all, number is not indicative of validity; quantity is not reflective of quality. And clearly there are a number of tub patterns that are clear matches to specific, named, heraldic patters. If I say "chevrons", everyone who knows the definition is going to choose the same, singular example from the VMs tub patterns. And the same can be done for a number of other examples.
If there are other patterns which can be explained in other ways, please be more specific and provide examples.
Sam has proposed that the figure in question is obviously female. I have suggested that other, more subtle factors may apply, such as atypical depiction and the difficulty of determining a clothed person's gender exclusively by looking at the clothing covering the chest. Why is the specific area so clearly white, with red paint to enhance the image? Is the painter in collusion with the ink artist? That's not supposed to be possible. A closer examination reveals certain ambiguities and those ambiguities may well be intentional. Just like the orientation of the blue stripes in White Aries initially seems to be determined according to a radial interpretation of the illustration. But that is not the only possibility.
In a normal text, the effort is generally to state thing in as clear a manor as is possible. In a text where information has been hidden, other factors apply and other steps must be taken. Contradiction does not work because contradiction is negation. Ambiguity is an excellent option because it provides a disguised gateway that can only be opened by those who are familiar with the disguised interpretation. The validity of the disguised interpretation can then be validated by other factors in the illustration. In other words: A heraldic pattern with blue and white stripes has many interpretations. A pattern, bendy, argent et azur has several interpretations. A pair of such bendy patterns has very few historical interpretations. A pair of the bendy patterns and a red galero has a *singular* historical interpretation. Then there is the confirmation of this identification through the proper hierarchical placement of the images in the celestial spheres of the illustration, etc., etc., including the papelonny pun. If the complexity of this construction can not be accidental, it must be intentional. And being intentional implies there is significance and a potential purpose.
Heraldry succeeds by providing the intended reader with a traditional and familiar pathway, in an otherwise complex, confusing and incomprehensible document, starting with the known origins of the religious traditions of the cardinal's red galero and leading to (IMO) the specific passages of marked circular bands of text in the illustration. The task of heraldry is fulfilled and complete. The inability to make sense of the written text is a separate matter altogether, dependent on complexity of the language, lack of focused investigation and other potential difficulties.
If we were to focus on the clues provided, not the host of distractions, there might be some possibility of progress. If we continue to debate the existence of the intentional construction found in these illustrations, any progress will have to come from other areas. And if the opening provided by heraldry is the sort of unique key to further investigation that I feel that it is, I don't see where any similar opportunity is duplicated elsewhere in the VMs.
In my view, the whole attitude of modern skeptical investigation is problematic. The continuous demand for proof of this detail and that. The fact that some detail in the VMs is not *exactly* like some other example. I think that an investigator should try, at least in part, to assume the view point of the author and the intended readership. And if communication between author and reader is to be achieved, then they must share some common understanding. It therefore behooves the author to chose certain common traditions and historical events. Heraldry, in both its armorial and ecclesiastical forms, were a native part of the European culture concurrent with the VMs parchment dates and for any subsequent date of VMs creation.
Perhaps the whole issue depends on the simple matter of perspective on the interpretation of ambiguity in the illustrations. From the perspective of the parchment dates, I believe that ambiguity would be seen to contain similarity. And within that perspective, similarity is treated as identity. Identity is ideological. While from the modern perspective, ambiguity contains certain differences. Differences deny identity. Differences are visual. And the thing about differences in the VMs is that they are flawed and ambiguous themselves. The orientation of the blue-striped patterns is not just one possible option. Only the hidden, second option makes a significant, historical connection. The creator of these images is a master of heraldry able to create the papelonny pun. Sophisticated heraldic canting and objective positional confirmations are confronted by investigators who have never seen a specific, obscure heraldic fur and what should we expect? Nothing. It actually is obscure and often omitted from references. That does not impact the validity of the identification.
14-11-2016, 11:14 PM
15-11-2016, 12:04 AM
Davidsch,
The VMs location is primarily the first three pages of the Zodiac section on the tub patterns of Pisces outer ring and the two Aries pages. At the top, paired patterns of alternating vertical stripes are similar to the standard, heraldic pattern called a paly. The traditional patterns of ordinaries and subordinaries are standard in most references. You will also find other easy comparisons with barry, bendy and bendy sinister, along with chevrony and even such as a semy of roundels.
The difficult with papelonny is that it is a fur and not in the group of patterns listed above. Metals, colors and furs make up the heraldic set of tinctures. The vast majority of references in my investigations limited the topic of heraldic furs to the various examples of ermine and vair, and omitted the traditional (Pre-VMs) patterns of papelonny and plumety.
Without a name or a pattern, how can we match an unspecified VMs example? Without name or definition, all patterns are generic. Heraldry is a pre-VMs system that names and describes some of the patterns of the VMs tubs. Heraldry is a system of designation and, if we use it, it either succeeds or it fails. And there have been those who simply dismiss the whole investigation out of hand. But heraldry, to the contrary, can name and describe example after example from the VMs tub patterns.
PS: There's no intent on my part to close off this conversation. I was simply attempting to answer all three of their postings in a single reply rather than three separately. And as it happened, your comments posted, *while* I was composing my response. I only saw your comments afterwards and I agree with what you said. I took a while to think about it and write a comment (above). I can be *really* slow. Forgive my tardiness.
The VMs location is primarily the first three pages of the Zodiac section on the tub patterns of Pisces outer ring and the two Aries pages. At the top, paired patterns of alternating vertical stripes are similar to the standard, heraldic pattern called a paly. The traditional patterns of ordinaries and subordinaries are standard in most references. You will also find other easy comparisons with barry, bendy and bendy sinister, along with chevrony and even such as a semy of roundels.
The difficult with papelonny is that it is a fur and not in the group of patterns listed above. Metals, colors and furs make up the heraldic set of tinctures. The vast majority of references in my investigations limited the topic of heraldic furs to the various examples of ermine and vair, and omitted the traditional (Pre-VMs) patterns of papelonny and plumety.
Without a name or a pattern, how can we match an unspecified VMs example? Without name or definition, all patterns are generic. Heraldry is a pre-VMs system that names and describes some of the patterns of the VMs tubs. Heraldry is a system of designation and, if we use it, it either succeeds or it fails. And there have been those who simply dismiss the whole investigation out of hand. But heraldry, to the contrary, can name and describe example after example from the VMs tub patterns.
PS: There's no intent on my part to close off this conversation. I was simply attempting to answer all three of their postings in a single reply rather than three separately. And as it happened, your comments posted, *while* I was composing my response. I only saw your comments afterwards and I agree with what you said. I took a while to think about it and write a comment (above). I can be *really* slow. Forgive my tardiness.
15-11-2016, 12:19 AM
R. Sale wrote: The shape of a moving snake is an occurrence of nature, whether it is wavy or nebuly or whatever. However, the name that is given to a pattern is derived from its ideological origins - wavy from waves, obviously; nebuly from nebula, just as obviously.
Yes, the name is derived from its ideological origins. But artists take ideas where they can find them. If the edge of a cloud and the movement of a snake look similar to the artist, that person might choose to draw a snake-like cloud edge (and we end up with nebuly iconography). Or an artist might notice that the ruffle on a piece of fabric, along the edge, looks like snake-heads. If snakes are common themes (as in countries where the snake was sacred), they might choose to combine the shape of the ruffle with the suggestion of snakeheads (as is seen on some ancient pottery) to suggest a sacred story or personage.
In the same way, if you fold a band of cloth (lace) back and forth on itself, it will assume a natural shape and it's going to take a lot of starch to get it to do something else.
In the medieval ages (and even in current times in parts of eastern Europe), fabric design, ruffles, stitching and other forms of embellishment were sometimes loaded with symbology. The stitch designs are often religious symbols or a form of "heraldry" in the sense of representing a certain family or culture. Sometimes these designs were incorporated into lace and cross-stitch. You could tell where a person was from by seeing their clothes and you could "read" a lot more if you knew the symbols in the clothes.
So... the choice of the ruffle might be a natural offshoot of how fabric folds, but most fabric does not hold a nebuly line naturally. Lace flops. Most fabric flops. Almost everything the nobility wore was made of cotton, linen, and silk, which are particularly floppy. Lace is even floppier because it is full of holes. You have to starch it very heavily to create this kind of ruffled collar and the starch dissolves if it's humid—it takes special processing to create this kind of collar. Today we have synthetic fabrics, but those didn't exist before the 20th century. The deliberateness of the shape of these collars is apparent. Whether it actually meant to mimic a nebuly, I'm not positive, but given that it was only nobles/rulers who wore it when it was first introduced I wouldn't be surprised if there were an association between a shape that is unusually uncomfortable and difficult to make and a certain image they wanted to promote. There are many other kinds of collars that hide the neck, so even though this may be partly responsible for the fashion at the time (VViews made a good point), it's probably not the whole story.
R. Sale wrote: As far as nebuly lines in VMs leaf margins, is this really a natural occurrence? Where are the real plants that possess this characteristic? While I'm not involved in the investigation of VMs plants, I do know that leaf margins are categorized into a number of different patterns and I do not recall this sort of regular, bulbous meandering to be one of them. But perhaps someone has found an example.
One of the most difficult things for artists and nonartists to draw is a ruffled leaf margin. A leaf margin can be either smooth or serrated, but if it is ruffled and serrated, it's harder to draw. If it is ruffled an lacinated, many people simply can't draw it (even many artists). There have been some pretty interesting solutions to trying to represent a ruffled leaf edge and some of the more elaborate VMS leaf margins might, in fact, be attempts to show lacinated or serrated edges that are also ruffled and perhaps are also drawn to be mnemonic or stylized.
... Differences deny identity. Differences are visual. And the thing about differences in the VMs is that they are flawed and ambiguous themselves. The orientation of the blue-striped patterns is not just one possible option. Only the hidden, second option makes a significant, historical connection. The creator of these images is a master of heraldry able to create the papelonny pun. Sophisticated heraldic canting and objective positional confirmations are confronted by investigators who have never seen a specific, obscure heraldic fur and what should we expect? Nothing. It actually is obscure and often omitted from references. That does not impact the validity of the identification.
As I've mentioned before, my knowledge of heraldry is almost nil (which means I wouldn't recognize it if it were coded) and when I look at the various geometric patterns in the VMS, they resemble embellishments from dozens of different sources, including church architecture, fabric, paintings, illuminated initials, chair legs, religious relics, and many others. Lines and circles are everywhere.
To convince people like me, with no background in heraldry, that there is heraldic iconography in the VMS one would have to pick them out, line them up, and explain them. Otherwise how would we know what to look for or that these shapes are specific to heraldry and not just semi-random designs?
Yes, the name is derived from its ideological origins. But artists take ideas where they can find them. If the edge of a cloud and the movement of a snake look similar to the artist, that person might choose to draw a snake-like cloud edge (and we end up with nebuly iconography). Or an artist might notice that the ruffle on a piece of fabric, along the edge, looks like snake-heads. If snakes are common themes (as in countries where the snake was sacred), they might choose to combine the shape of the ruffle with the suggestion of snakeheads (as is seen on some ancient pottery) to suggest a sacred story or personage.
In the same way, if you fold a band of cloth (lace) back and forth on itself, it will assume a natural shape and it's going to take a lot of starch to get it to do something else.
In the medieval ages (and even in current times in parts of eastern Europe), fabric design, ruffles, stitching and other forms of embellishment were sometimes loaded with symbology. The stitch designs are often religious symbols or a form of "heraldry" in the sense of representing a certain family or culture. Sometimes these designs were incorporated into lace and cross-stitch. You could tell where a person was from by seeing their clothes and you could "read" a lot more if you knew the symbols in the clothes.
So... the choice of the ruffle might be a natural offshoot of how fabric folds, but most fabric does not hold a nebuly line naturally. Lace flops. Most fabric flops. Almost everything the nobility wore was made of cotton, linen, and silk, which are particularly floppy. Lace is even floppier because it is full of holes. You have to starch it very heavily to create this kind of ruffled collar and the starch dissolves if it's humid—it takes special processing to create this kind of collar. Today we have synthetic fabrics, but those didn't exist before the 20th century. The deliberateness of the shape of these collars is apparent. Whether it actually meant to mimic a nebuly, I'm not positive, but given that it was only nobles/rulers who wore it when it was first introduced I wouldn't be surprised if there were an association between a shape that is unusually uncomfortable and difficult to make and a certain image they wanted to promote. There are many other kinds of collars that hide the neck, so even though this may be partly responsible for the fashion at the time (VViews made a good point), it's probably not the whole story.
R. Sale wrote: As far as nebuly lines in VMs leaf margins, is this really a natural occurrence? Where are the real plants that possess this characteristic? While I'm not involved in the investigation of VMs plants, I do know that leaf margins are categorized into a number of different patterns and I do not recall this sort of regular, bulbous meandering to be one of them. But perhaps someone has found an example.
One of the most difficult things for artists and nonartists to draw is a ruffled leaf margin. A leaf margin can be either smooth or serrated, but if it is ruffled and serrated, it's harder to draw. If it is ruffled an lacinated, many people simply can't draw it (even many artists). There have been some pretty interesting solutions to trying to represent a ruffled leaf edge and some of the more elaborate VMS leaf margins might, in fact, be attempts to show lacinated or serrated edges that are also ruffled and perhaps are also drawn to be mnemonic or stylized.
... Differences deny identity. Differences are visual. And the thing about differences in the VMs is that they are flawed and ambiguous themselves. The orientation of the blue-striped patterns is not just one possible option. Only the hidden, second option makes a significant, historical connection. The creator of these images is a master of heraldry able to create the papelonny pun. Sophisticated heraldic canting and objective positional confirmations are confronted by investigators who have never seen a specific, obscure heraldic fur and what should we expect? Nothing. It actually is obscure and often omitted from references. That does not impact the validity of the identification.
As I've mentioned before, my knowledge of heraldry is almost nil (which means I wouldn't recognize it if it were coded) and when I look at the various geometric patterns in the VMS, they resemble embellishments from dozens of different sources, including church architecture, fabric, paintings, illuminated initials, chair legs, religious relics, and many others. Lines and circles are everywhere.
To convince people like me, with no background in heraldry, that there is heraldic iconography in the VMS one would have to pick them out, line them up, and explain them. Otherwise how would we know what to look for or that these shapes are specific to heraldry and not just semi-random designs?