There is a certain tendency in all of us, when comparing visual images, to try to have them match as closely as possible. What if the images compared are not identical? What if it's only sort of close? And the second issue is close to what? What source provides the standard example for the critical comparison?
In the heraldic patterns of paly, bendy and barry, from the medieval perspective, there is no particular limit on the number of parts - though always an even number. It's just a practical limit. What matters in medieval heraldry is the choice of pattern and the application of tincture. The number of pairs of stripes does not have a decisive effect on the prospective identification for any 'pre-modern' time of VMs creation.
What does have a decisive effect from the heraldic perspective is orientation. As the eye is naturally drawn to the radial orientation of the White Aries diagram, the blue striped patterns are also oriented within the radial perspective. And any investigator pursuing potential identities for these two patterns will probably come up empty handed. But the illustration clearly allows, though it is presented in a more subtle manner, that there is a second pathway of interpretation for the orientation of the stripes as they sit on the page with the radial influences all taken away. This is, in effect, a sort of optical illusion built into the illustration.
If there is an investigation of the historic connections of this alternative version of pattern orientation, then a significant historical identification is possible. And the details found in the White Aries illustration and in other folios of the VMs Zodiac clearly offer further evidence to affirm this historical identification: hierarchical positioning, heraldic placement, page choice and the papelonny pun. What is also significant to note is that the interpretation with a significant historical grounding is the interpretation given this veiled, only subtly suggested, clearly secondary position. In other words, the author shows that deception is in play. A disguise has been created.
There is still one aspect of comparison that may be apparent to keen observers, and that is a sort of line use that is not a necessary part of the identified, heraldic insignia. In one example the unpainted lines are divided into a row of little rectangles, giving the effect of a ladder, in the other case, a long, irregular streamer runs the length of the unpainted lines' interior. The representation in the first example is a good visual match for standard heraldic use of hatching lines, while the second doesn't have a good heraldic equivalent. What is their purpose? Clearly they make the patterns appear different, divergent.
The author expects the reader to know what is in the illustration. And if such is not the case, then the patterns are disguised well enough to pass as generic. Identification has been made and confirmed. Visual distinctions are no longer of prime importance once an ideological identification has been established. From the heraldic perspective, it might look as though the details of these patterns were a combination of hatching lines and paint. How to make sense of that?
What heraldry shows is that different methods of tincture designation are *not* used together. They need to be separated, and once this is done, the historical grounding should be clear. The veils of disguise have been lifted.
.
In the heraldic patterns of paly, bendy and barry, from the medieval perspective, there is no particular limit on the number of parts - though always an even number. It's just a practical limit. What matters in medieval heraldry is the choice of pattern and the application of tincture. The number of pairs of stripes does not have a decisive effect on the prospective identification for any 'pre-modern' time of VMs creation.
What does have a decisive effect from the heraldic perspective is orientation. As the eye is naturally drawn to the radial orientation of the White Aries diagram, the blue striped patterns are also oriented within the radial perspective. And any investigator pursuing potential identities for these two patterns will probably come up empty handed. But the illustration clearly allows, though it is presented in a more subtle manner, that there is a second pathway of interpretation for the orientation of the stripes as they sit on the page with the radial influences all taken away. This is, in effect, a sort of optical illusion built into the illustration.
If there is an investigation of the historic connections of this alternative version of pattern orientation, then a significant historical identification is possible. And the details found in the White Aries illustration and in other folios of the VMs Zodiac clearly offer further evidence to affirm this historical identification: hierarchical positioning, heraldic placement, page choice and the papelonny pun. What is also significant to note is that the interpretation with a significant historical grounding is the interpretation given this veiled, only subtly suggested, clearly secondary position. In other words, the author shows that deception is in play. A disguise has been created.
There is still one aspect of comparison that may be apparent to keen observers, and that is a sort of line use that is not a necessary part of the identified, heraldic insignia. In one example the unpainted lines are divided into a row of little rectangles, giving the effect of a ladder, in the other case, a long, irregular streamer runs the length of the unpainted lines' interior. The representation in the first example is a good visual match for standard heraldic use of hatching lines, while the second doesn't have a good heraldic equivalent. What is their purpose? Clearly they make the patterns appear different, divergent.
The author expects the reader to know what is in the illustration. And if such is not the case, then the patterns are disguised well enough to pass as generic. Identification has been made and confirmed. Visual distinctions are no longer of prime importance once an ideological identification has been established. From the heraldic perspective, it might look as though the details of these patterns were a combination of hatching lines and paint. How to make sense of that?
What heraldry shows is that different methods of tincture designation are *not* used together. They need to be separated, and once this is done, the historical grounding should be clear. The veils of disguise have been lifted.
.