03-04-2016, 01:03 AM
If the reason for decorated tubs is to make the illustrations more aesthetically interesting, then many opportunities to do so have been squandered. There are blank tubs before we get to Taurus. All of the Taurus examples are blank. And after that the nymphs stand sans tubs in the all-together. Many more patterns could have been drawn into these zodiac illustrations, if they were there to make things look 'better'. Instead, the VMs Zodiac presents all you ever wanted to know about heraldry and more, in just three pages - Pisces and the Aries pair.
Starting in VMs Pisces, the question of heraldic identification can proceed from example to example. Are the chevrons sufficient? And what can be recognized beyond this? If an investigator does not know the heraldic example of a semy of roundels or other examples of certain patterns and their definitions, then that investigator fails the test of recognition, sees nothing but simple, generic designs and therefore no heraldry. Nothing to investigate and no investigation.
A pattern is generic until it has a name. The examples of gurges and papelonny show that these patterns were named and in use in a period of time more that a century before the VMs parchment dates. The patterns used might be well known to the illustrator. But their obscurity to modern attempts at investigation is sufficient to thwart a casual investigator. Papelonny is omitted from many of the more superficial heraldic references. So what the VMs examples have been lacking is to be named and identified from the modern perspective, because there is a certain level of difficulty involved and a degree of subtle complexity in the way the illustrations are constructed.
How many identifications are needed to validate heraldry as a useful investigative premise for further research?
Further research turns up potential historical connections for certain heraldic patterns. Why would there be potential heraldic identifications with significant historical grounding tucked away in these three Zodiac illustrations?
Starting in VMs Pisces, the question of heraldic identification can proceed from example to example. Are the chevrons sufficient? And what can be recognized beyond this? If an investigator does not know the heraldic example of a semy of roundels or other examples of certain patterns and their definitions, then that investigator fails the test of recognition, sees nothing but simple, generic designs and therefore no heraldry. Nothing to investigate and no investigation.
A pattern is generic until it has a name. The examples of gurges and papelonny show that these patterns were named and in use in a period of time more that a century before the VMs parchment dates. The patterns used might be well known to the illustrator. But their obscurity to modern attempts at investigation is sufficient to thwart a casual investigator. Papelonny is omitted from many of the more superficial heraldic references. So what the VMs examples have been lacking is to be named and identified from the modern perspective, because there is a certain level of difficulty involved and a degree of subtle complexity in the way the illustrations are constructed.
How many identifications are needed to validate heraldry as a useful investigative premise for further research?
Further research turns up potential historical connections for certain heraldic patterns. Why would there be potential heraldic identifications with significant historical grounding tucked away in these three Zodiac illustrations?