Why does heraldry fail?

[Sam G]

Now we're getting to it. One of the figures associated with the blue-striped patterns is *unquestionably female* and therefore the whole construction collapses. Let's look more closely at that illustration.

In keeping with the thorough painting of the page (f71r), the body of this 'nymph' has been colored red. So it seems unlikely that this figure is nude, as is generally seen on other pages. Then, in this pattern of red paint, there is something that looks like a breast, or a pocket on a shirt. Are we seeing something that is on the clothing or under the clothing? Certainly it is possible for overweight men to accumulate fat in such a way as to give a similar appearance *under* clothing. So the *unquestionably female* viewpoint is not unquestionable.

But also look at the structure of the illustration itself. Typically breasts are drawn with simple ink lines. But in this example, we have a collection of red dots. Do you think the artist painted each of these dots individually to create the current image?

The figure in question clearly has two breasts, like other figures in the VMS who are clearly intended to be female.  I don't see it as ambiguous at all.  But of course you're free to see whatever you want in any image.

Let's also look at the matter of the papelonny pattern. First of all, your alternating, black and white is not the best representation of this design. Take a look at the red and gold pattern attributed to Chotard Chateaubriand. All the scales are red and the lines used to define the pattern are gold.

Meanwhile, your 'Not Papelonny' counter example is simply not relevant. Besides the looping lines used to make the scales, it is crossed with a series of horizontal lines that are completely extraneous to the VMs illustration.

This is pointless nitpicking.  I just grabbed two examples quickly to illustrate my point about the alignment of scales.

We have the VMs illustration, and in some cases the alignment of the scales does not match up with the line above. These patterns in the VMs are rather small, and perhaps a bit sloppy. And the VMs is not intended as an instruction manual for heraldry. Rather, I would argue that the illustrations are supposed to be evocative of heraldic patterns, sufficiently so that they convey the *idea* of papelonny, in this case, and that the reader is supposed to use that idea, rather than quibble about minor details.

This just sounds like a rationalization for the fact that the pattern in question here isn't papelonny at all.  Also, the illustrator does draw scale patterns much closer to papelonny in other parts of the VMS, such as at the top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. among other places.  So why doesn't he properly reproduce papelonny in the Zodiac tubs where (according to you) it really matters?

That is, if the evocative interpretation makes sense in context, the interpretation is likely to be valid, even if the actual image isn't perfect in every detail.

I don't agree with this at all.  It just sounds like an excuse to take a small portion of the image out of context and interpret it in any way that you want.

And while that is certainly more difficult to accomplish in the construction of a visual pun. We do have the fact that the location of the two papelonny patterns clearly does mimic the placement of the two blue-striped patterns as to the intentional placement in a specific quadrant and a specific celestial sphere. How is it that pape and papelonny are aligned *in pairs?*

You have a woman in a red hat and a scale pattern that isn't papelonny.  There's nothing here that suggests that this is anything more than a meaningless coincidence.