29-10-2016, 10:42 PM
Sam G,
Unfortunately, I detect a certain impatience in your comments, an urgent attempt to force a complex topic into an oversimplified reduction to absurdity. My comments are dismissed as "pointless nitpicking" and excuses, while the examples you "just gabbed" are to be given full weight, unexamined, even if irrelevant. You want to contradict what I have said, but you do not answer any of my questions about what is shown in the VMs illustrations.
Somewhere on VMs f71r, in the inner circle of characters, on the upper left quarter of the page, some poor 'nymph' has been caught between a blue-striped tub pattern and a red galero. This 'nymph' has had its torso painted. What does the fact of this painting represent? I say it represents clothing. Is there another interpretation? So it would a appear that whatever qualities the torso of this figure may possess, they are covered with a layer of cloth.
Throughout the VMs, illustrations of unclothed, female 'nymphs' have their breasts defined by simple ink lines. However, there is no such use of ink lines to indicate breasts apparent in this particular image. Instead, any indications of structure are provided in a highly atypical manner, i.e. by a smattering of reddish-brown dots. How is this done?
On the one hand, you argue that the papelonny pattern, because it has a few examples of misalignment, cannot be considered as a valid interpretation of the tub designs with these few flaws. The VMs is just full of flawless representations of externally sourced illustrations. And at the same time you suggest that the painter, frequently said to be a second person of much lesser skill than the inkster, working later and even unfamiliar with VMs content, can specifically locate and accurately depict a covered torso to represent potential breasts under clothing, where the inkster depicts none,and using a pointillist technique at a very intricate level of skill. Could you elaborate on this? The careless and sloppy VMs artist seems to possess a remarkable knowledge of where to paint this and just how to do so. That is a conundrum.
All it takes is a pair of blue-striped insignia and a red galero to make a historical connection. All that is needed then is to get the VMs blue-striped patterns oriented correctly. Stop falling for the radial influences. Then all the 'reader' needs is the knowledge of the historical origins of the tradition of the red galero and the armorial insignia of the pope involved (Innocent IV). It is a tradition that still continues in a fairly significant institution. This subjective, hypothetical, historically unique situation is illustrated in White Aries, where the pope made his nephew a cardinal (1251 CE).
A further examination based on the objective location of illustrated elements shows that the prospective pope and cardinal are in there traditional locations in the different celestial spheres. The armorial representations in question are positioned in the favored upper right quadrant of an armorial insignia. And the representations are placed on the same page as the White Aries medallion, to further link one celestial association with another celestial association.
And now if the papelonny pattern is valid, then it adds a heraldic canting confirmation and an independent, historical confirmation of the White Aries identification. If the pattern is not valid, it add nothing. But look, the patterns are still where they would need to be placed if they were valid. They correspond in both quadrant and sphere with the blue-striped patterns on f71r.
Is this an example of a concatenation of meaningless coincidence or an example of intentional construction?
I see a number of traditional interpretations drawn into the VMs illustrations that confirm a single, historical identification. You apparently find no identifications - unless you care to say otherwise. And I'm good with that.
Unfortunately, I detect a certain impatience in your comments, an urgent attempt to force a complex topic into an oversimplified reduction to absurdity. My comments are dismissed as "pointless nitpicking" and excuses, while the examples you "just gabbed" are to be given full weight, unexamined, even if irrelevant. You want to contradict what I have said, but you do not answer any of my questions about what is shown in the VMs illustrations.
Somewhere on VMs f71r, in the inner circle of characters, on the upper left quarter of the page, some poor 'nymph' has been caught between a blue-striped tub pattern and a red galero. This 'nymph' has had its torso painted. What does the fact of this painting represent? I say it represents clothing. Is there another interpretation? So it would a appear that whatever qualities the torso of this figure may possess, they are covered with a layer of cloth.
Throughout the VMs, illustrations of unclothed, female 'nymphs' have their breasts defined by simple ink lines. However, there is no such use of ink lines to indicate breasts apparent in this particular image. Instead, any indications of structure are provided in a highly atypical manner, i.e. by a smattering of reddish-brown dots. How is this done?
On the one hand, you argue that the papelonny pattern, because it has a few examples of misalignment, cannot be considered as a valid interpretation of the tub designs with these few flaws. The VMs is just full of flawless representations of externally sourced illustrations. And at the same time you suggest that the painter, frequently said to be a second person of much lesser skill than the inkster, working later and even unfamiliar with VMs content, can specifically locate and accurately depict a covered torso to represent potential breasts under clothing, where the inkster depicts none,and using a pointillist technique at a very intricate level of skill. Could you elaborate on this? The careless and sloppy VMs artist seems to possess a remarkable knowledge of where to paint this and just how to do so. That is a conundrum.
All it takes is a pair of blue-striped insignia and a red galero to make a historical connection. All that is needed then is to get the VMs blue-striped patterns oriented correctly. Stop falling for the radial influences. Then all the 'reader' needs is the knowledge of the historical origins of the tradition of the red galero and the armorial insignia of the pope involved (Innocent IV). It is a tradition that still continues in a fairly significant institution. This subjective, hypothetical, historically unique situation is illustrated in White Aries, where the pope made his nephew a cardinal (1251 CE).
A further examination based on the objective location of illustrated elements shows that the prospective pope and cardinal are in there traditional locations in the different celestial spheres. The armorial representations in question are positioned in the favored upper right quadrant of an armorial insignia. And the representations are placed on the same page as the White Aries medallion, to further link one celestial association with another celestial association.
And now if the papelonny pattern is valid, then it adds a heraldic canting confirmation and an independent, historical confirmation of the White Aries identification. If the pattern is not valid, it add nothing. But look, the patterns are still where they would need to be placed if they were valid. They correspond in both quadrant and sphere with the blue-striped patterns on f71r.
Is this an example of a concatenation of meaningless coincidence or an example of intentional construction?
I see a number of traditional interpretations drawn into the VMs illustrations that confirm a single, historical identification. You apparently find no identifications - unless you care to say otherwise. And I'm good with that.