24-09-2020, 07:32 PM
To paraphrase JKP: Deceptively simple with roughly rendered illustrations carefully crafted to disguise a hidden level of subtle sophistication. And that sophistication seems to be connected with and derived from the cultural traditions and the social excesses associated primarily with the Duchy of Burgundy in the years after 1430 CE.
So, the original inquiry has gone a bit wide of the mark, though discussion is appreciated. It was not intended as a make your own version of the VMs situation as a basis for creation, but a question of how and why would *a person* make the VMs - the one that we have?
For example, if you made the VMs, why would you use nebuly lines as leaf margins in the botanical section? I'm no expert on botany, though I have looked for information. That information tells me that there are *no examples* of plants with leaf margins that follow a pattern that resembles a nebuly line. Perhaps I am incorrect and there is an example but where is it? And the VMs has several examples of nebuly lines as leaf margins with single bulbs and multiple bulbs, not just the one. What is the reason to repeatedly introduce this incongruous element into the plant illustrations? As if it wasn't strange enough already? If you made the VMs. why would you do that? Even in the 1400's it would be known that this is not a valid association. <<Has anyone every seem other examples??>> So why do it?
For a long time this problem has been ignored. Sure it's a botanical 'anomaly' - but it's just a wobbly line. However that is no longer true. It is not just a line. It is a pattern very clearly associated with heraldry and known as a *nebuly* line. And heraldry was associated with 1400s tradition and culture almost as intimately as air and water. The VMs creator would have known this. Her/his contemporaries would have known this. So why do it?
Perhaps it is an example of the combination of two disparate and contradictory elements to intentionally create an oxymoron. Ostensibly this might produce an interpretation of things and sources that are highly exotic; that this book was from a place where oxymorons exist. But in modern light, a lot of modern light, the deception is revealed. Meanwhile, the nebuly line is relevant to other lines line of VMs investigation and, more importantly, leads to another example of creative deception / idiosyncratic representation in the example of an uncommon cosmic structure which possesses an amazing combination of structural correspondences and visual disjunctures relative to BNF Fr. 565. (Plus Harley 334)
Creative deception becomes absolutely clear in the depiction on VMs White Aries. Interpreting the blue-striped tub patterns according to the rules of heraldry, there are two different paths of potential interpretation. This is the point where deception is conclusively proven. There are two paths of interpretation concerning the way the stripes are oriented according to a traditional heraldic definitions.
The first path is naturally a radial interpretation - like spokes on a wheel. Each character is turned upright prior to interpretation. This produces a pair of potential heraldic examples from the tub patterns that appear to have no relevant significance. The second path is more subtle, more deceptively simple, based on the patterns alone - isolated on the page. Paired blue stripes do have historical implications. And in combination with red hats this produces a unique historical combination indicating the Fieschi popes and the origins of an ongoing religious tradition. If you made the VMs, why would you do that?
Deception is revealed, but what does it hide. If you made the VMs, why would you do that?
So, the original inquiry has gone a bit wide of the mark, though discussion is appreciated. It was not intended as a make your own version of the VMs situation as a basis for creation, but a question of how and why would *a person* make the VMs - the one that we have?
For example, if you made the VMs, why would you use nebuly lines as leaf margins in the botanical section? I'm no expert on botany, though I have looked for information. That information tells me that there are *no examples* of plants with leaf margins that follow a pattern that resembles a nebuly line. Perhaps I am incorrect and there is an example but where is it? And the VMs has several examples of nebuly lines as leaf margins with single bulbs and multiple bulbs, not just the one. What is the reason to repeatedly introduce this incongruous element into the plant illustrations? As if it wasn't strange enough already? If you made the VMs. why would you do that? Even in the 1400's it would be known that this is not a valid association. <<Has anyone every seem other examples??>> So why do it?
For a long time this problem has been ignored. Sure it's a botanical 'anomaly' - but it's just a wobbly line. However that is no longer true. It is not just a line. It is a pattern very clearly associated with heraldry and known as a *nebuly* line. And heraldry was associated with 1400s tradition and culture almost as intimately as air and water. The VMs creator would have known this. Her/his contemporaries would have known this. So why do it?
Perhaps it is an example of the combination of two disparate and contradictory elements to intentionally create an oxymoron. Ostensibly this might produce an interpretation of things and sources that are highly exotic; that this book was from a place where oxymorons exist. But in modern light, a lot of modern light, the deception is revealed. Meanwhile, the nebuly line is relevant to other lines line of VMs investigation and, more importantly, leads to another example of creative deception / idiosyncratic representation in the example of an uncommon cosmic structure which possesses an amazing combination of structural correspondences and visual disjunctures relative to BNF Fr. 565. (Plus Harley 334)
Creative deception becomes absolutely clear in the depiction on VMs White Aries. Interpreting the blue-striped tub patterns according to the rules of heraldry, there are two different paths of potential interpretation. This is the point where deception is conclusively proven. There are two paths of interpretation concerning the way the stripes are oriented according to a traditional heraldic definitions.
The first path is naturally a radial interpretation - like spokes on a wheel. Each character is turned upright prior to interpretation. This produces a pair of potential heraldic examples from the tub patterns that appear to have no relevant significance. The second path is more subtle, more deceptively simple, based on the patterns alone - isolated on the page. Paired blue stripes do have historical implications. And in combination with red hats this produces a unique historical combination indicating the Fieschi popes and the origins of an ongoing religious tradition. If you made the VMs, why would you do that?
Deception is revealed, but what does it hide. If you made the VMs, why would you do that?