Most certainly, it does *appear* to be unfinished. Just as it does appear to be an alchemical herbal that might come from an undiscovered culture, if we see it from the appropriate medieval perspective. However, as I understand it, there is no known, corresponding, historical culture for the VMs document. So, this appearance is false. It has been invented by the document's creator. And a damn good job it was.
So just as the apparent provenance of the VMs is not based on actual, cultural reality, should we consider the question as to what is the state of completedness. Is it 100% finished, or maybe only 80% - or whatever? And does it matter?
Suppose in some illustration, certain details might have a definitive cultural identification, and it is the author's desire to avoid all overt connections, and yet the use of some alternative creates a contradiction, what to do? Well, if you consider the techniques of disguise, there are several options - imperfection being one, omission being another. Nothing creates ambiguity better than omission. It neither confirms or denies any sort of identification. Omission creates the appearance that something is unfinished, even if it is the author's intent *not* to provide anything further. So some pages of the VMs may appear to be unfinished because of intentional omissions. Why is White Aries so well painted and the rest of the zodiac sloped over or skipped?
In part, the reason is designed in; the later nymphs have neither clothing nor tubs. Nothing to paint. But the painted efforts were focused on White Aries for two reasons; to disguise the necessary presence of painted blue stripes and to emphasize that White Aries is white - (paint intentionally omitted).
Perhaps the VMs was not completed and it also contains intentional omissions.
In contrast it would it would seem that much of the document is finished - that the ink work is mostly finished in contrast to the painting. The ink work provides the structure, and most of the important details (Oresme's cosmos in two parts, the triple identification in the 17 symbol sequence of f57v, the papelonny pun, etc.) are built into the structure and therefore presumably they are finished.
So just as the apparent provenance of the VMs is not based on actual, cultural reality, should we consider the question as to what is the state of completedness. Is it 100% finished, or maybe only 80% - or whatever? And does it matter?
Suppose in some illustration, certain details might have a definitive cultural identification, and it is the author's desire to avoid all overt connections, and yet the use of some alternative creates a contradiction, what to do? Well, if you consider the techniques of disguise, there are several options - imperfection being one, omission being another. Nothing creates ambiguity better than omission. It neither confirms or denies any sort of identification. Omission creates the appearance that something is unfinished, even if it is the author's intent *not* to provide anything further. So some pages of the VMs may appear to be unfinished because of intentional omissions. Why is White Aries so well painted and the rest of the zodiac sloped over or skipped?
In part, the reason is designed in; the later nymphs have neither clothing nor tubs. Nothing to paint. But the painted efforts were focused on White Aries for two reasons; to disguise the necessary presence of painted blue stripes and to emphasize that White Aries is white - (paint intentionally omitted).
Perhaps the VMs was not completed and it also contains intentional omissions.
In contrast it would it would seem that much of the document is finished - that the ink work is mostly finished in contrast to the painting. The ink work provides the structure, and most of the important details (Oresme's cosmos in two parts, the triple identification in the 17 symbol sequence of f57v, the papelonny pun, etc.) are built into the structure and therefore presumably they are finished.