Interpretation based on appearance (the "looks like" investigation) is subjective. It can be seen in other VMs examples (cosmos, White Aries) that the artist makes an effort to thwart this sort of direct correspondence. Structure, by comparison, is objective. What is on top is on top. What is in the middle is in the middle. What is on the bottom is on the bottom. It's not a "looks like" subjective interpretation. It is a structural, objective determination. Therefore, the question arises: What sort of evidence is needed to confirm an interpretation if objective evidence is insufficient?
=
Isn't the union of Christ and the Church referred to as a 'marriage'? Hence the ring.
On the other hand, hasn't the nymph in the upper left, holding the spindle, been interpreted as Ananke, Lady Necessity, with her attribute - the cosmic spindle? Such a mix of classical and Christian imagery would make a simple, unified narrative derived from just the illustration look a bit difficult.
=
Isn't the union of Christ and the Church referred to as a 'marriage'? Hence the ring.
On the other hand, hasn't the nymph in the upper left, holding the spindle, been interpreted as Ananke, Lady Necessity, with her attribute - the cosmic spindle? Such a mix of classical and Christian imagery would make a simple, unified narrative derived from just the illustration look a bit difficult.