(07-01-2017, 05:03 PM)Davidsch wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....1. I think the idea that the crossed arms indicate matrimony, as has been proposed previously, might be correct and fits well with images of courtly love that became popular around this time.
What I would like to discuss here on Ninja is:
...
- is the gemini in the VMS indeed a man and woman having sex (not visually of course), but are they "paired" as discussed in Maithuna (in the VMS symbolical)
- why are they fully dressed and the other women in the VMS are not
- is the gemini in the VMS an really original picture and not added later
- is the paint original and not added later
- what does it mean, or what implications can we make if the gemini indeed shows Maithuna
2. My impression, throughout the manuscript, is that the nudity is not gratuitous, that it's used when it fits the theme or subject matter. The same with genitals—the males have genitals when there is a direct reference to sex/copulation and are omitted when the subject is more general. Also, the style of Gemini in the VMS is similar to manuscripts made around the same time in central Europe and does not appear to follow the earlier Aratea/Roman zodiac traditions in terms of style (and nudity). In other words, if there is an exemplar, it was recent and locally adapted rather than historic.
3. I think it's original. The drawing style and ink are a pretty good match for other sections.
4. I don't know when paint was added. Some of the paint in the VMS is careful, some is sloppy (looks like it was done by a different person who didn't enjoy painting and saw it as a chore) but whether they are contemporary with the manuscript or later, I don't know. The pigments are pretty similar.
5. Don't know yet.