15-10-2016, 07:09 PM
Here's a problem with the proposed identifications of this sort. Various things come in fours. Apostles, seasons, what have you. It's an interesting conjecture, but what else is there? What else does the text contain that supports any particular supposition? And without such support, the identifications are always somewhat superficial.
The reason for the problems of identification is that the drawings can be evocative, but they lack the necessary detail to provide a precise and exacting conclusion. VMs illustrations have various interpretations, in part, because they are ambiguous. What is the source of this ambiguity? It might be poor artistic skills, perhaps cultural differences, but consider this.
If the VMs version of the 'Oresme Cosmos' had been illustrated with the type of elaborated nebuly line, like the one found in the VMs Central Rosette, instead of the plain line that was used instead, the two illustrations would be even more similar.
If the heraldic identifications of VMs White Aries had been plainly left on the page as is, instead of being tucked into a circular illustration, the historical representation might be a bit clearer.
Proposed identification needs further support. That is provided by multiple, objective, positional confirmations. This example also provides a demonstration that the use of ambiguity is intentional, as well as the use of visible factors defined by traditional placement to confirm proposed identifications. Visual similarity, when combined with positional confirmation, can then produce a much stronger ideological identification.
Incidentally, 'papelonny' is a traditional term, a pattern designation, applied exclusively to a traditional, heraldic fur. It derives from the French word for 'butterfly.' Overlapping scale patterns outside of heraldry are just that, scale patterns and nothing more.
As far as starting an investigation of the attributes of the 'nymphs', start with the VMs Zodiac.
The reason for the problems of identification is that the drawings can be evocative, but they lack the necessary detail to provide a precise and exacting conclusion. VMs illustrations have various interpretations, in part, because they are ambiguous. What is the source of this ambiguity? It might be poor artistic skills, perhaps cultural differences, but consider this.
If the VMs version of the 'Oresme Cosmos' had been illustrated with the type of elaborated nebuly line, like the one found in the VMs Central Rosette, instead of the plain line that was used instead, the two illustrations would be even more similar.
If the heraldic identifications of VMs White Aries had been plainly left on the page as is, instead of being tucked into a circular illustration, the historical representation might be a bit clearer.
Proposed identification needs further support. That is provided by multiple, objective, positional confirmations. This example also provides a demonstration that the use of ambiguity is intentional, as well as the use of visible factors defined by traditional placement to confirm proposed identifications. Visual similarity, when combined with positional confirmation, can then produce a much stronger ideological identification.
Incidentally, 'papelonny' is a traditional term, a pattern designation, applied exclusively to a traditional, heraldic fur. It derives from the French word for 'butterfly.' Overlapping scale patterns outside of heraldry are just that, scale patterns and nothing more.
As far as starting an investigation of the attributes of the 'nymphs', start with the VMs Zodiac.