W. M.,
I think the first two definitions are appropriate. Although heraldry in the VMs is quite limited, there are both armorial and ecclesiastical examples. The question I have asked of the ninja community is *why* heraldry is dismissed as an investigative possibility.
Sam G.
Let me answer your questions, then you answer mine.
The method is simply that standard heraldic patterns can name more of the examples found in the VMs tub patterns than any other set of traditional patterns. And this is the basis for further investigations based on heraldry, such as the possibility of historical identification.
In my view, armorial heraldry is limited to the patterned tubs which are only found on the first three VMs Zodiac pages. Ecclesiastical heraldry, red galeros, to designate the rank of cardinal, and white galeros, which identify the order of Premonstratensians, is limited to f71r.
The 'pape-papelonny thing' is only one of several objective, positional confirmations of the Fieschi identification. It does seem to possess some additional significance, as it would be rather difficult to create such a pun accidentally. The purpose of this papal identification is to amplify the significance of these patterned markers found in the circular bands of text, with the view that these marked text segments would play an important (but as yet undetermined) role in making sense of the text overall.
I do not disagree that the image of the particular figure is much like you describe. My question is how can we have unqualified faith in the representation supplied by the VMs painter? The general suggestion is that the VMs painter is sloppy and does not know what's what. To create the given image, the VMs painter needs to know exactly what to do unprompted by any clues from the ink drawing. And the painter is using an atypical technique that requires a level of skill well beyond that of the ink outlines.
I would say that the ink drawing presents a figure that is probably male, while the painted addition presents an altered figure that is more problematic. However to label this figure as unquestionably female, fails to answer these questions. Why should it be, in this singular instance, that the sloppy VMs painter has suddenly attained the heights of technical precision? Why should it be, in this particular instance, that the uninformed VMs painter knows exactly what to do?
I think the first two definitions are appropriate. Although heraldry in the VMs is quite limited, there are both armorial and ecclesiastical examples. The question I have asked of the ninja community is *why* heraldry is dismissed as an investigative possibility.
Sam G.
Let me answer your questions, then you answer mine.
The method is simply that standard heraldic patterns can name more of the examples found in the VMs tub patterns than any other set of traditional patterns. And this is the basis for further investigations based on heraldry, such as the possibility of historical identification.
In my view, armorial heraldry is limited to the patterned tubs which are only found on the first three VMs Zodiac pages. Ecclesiastical heraldry, red galeros, to designate the rank of cardinal, and white galeros, which identify the order of Premonstratensians, is limited to f71r.
The 'pape-papelonny thing' is only one of several objective, positional confirmations of the Fieschi identification. It does seem to possess some additional significance, as it would be rather difficult to create such a pun accidentally. The purpose of this papal identification is to amplify the significance of these patterned markers found in the circular bands of text, with the view that these marked text segments would play an important (but as yet undetermined) role in making sense of the text overall.
I do not disagree that the image of the particular figure is much like you describe. My question is how can we have unqualified faith in the representation supplied by the VMs painter? The general suggestion is that the VMs painter is sloppy and does not know what's what. To create the given image, the VMs painter needs to know exactly what to do unprompted by any clues from the ink drawing. And the painter is using an atypical technique that requires a level of skill well beyond that of the ink outlines.
I would say that the ink drawing presents a figure that is probably male, while the painted addition presents an altered figure that is more problematic. However to label this figure as unquestionably female, fails to answer these questions. Why should it be, in this singular instance, that the sloppy VMs painter has suddenly attained the heights of technical precision? Why should it be, in this particular instance, that the uninformed VMs painter knows exactly what to do?