04-11-2016, 08:35 PM
Sam G,
So, besides a pair of papelonny patterns and a pair of blue-striped designs, several other representations of basic, named, heraldic insignia can be found in the tub patterns, mainly around the outer ring of Pisces. (See my prior post #22, last paragraph.) And the fact that it starts at the top of VMs Pisces with a paired paly is a significant connection between the pairings found in the first five monthly medallions and the historical pairing of the Fieschi popes. Not only are there examples that can be named by the heraldry paradigm, there are several examples of heraldry that are within the pairing paradigm, even one pair from the historical paradigm. And all this exists in the first part of the VMs Zodiac. So it is pretty much a world in itself. But, on the other hand, suppose it is an ordinary herbal and an ordinary zodiac, what are the connections you would expect there to be?
As to the markers, well, obviously they are there. But what has been done with them? I’ll admit I’m not the most devoted scholar, and I’ve only been at it for a decade, but I’ve seen nothing about these markers, unless it was something that originated from my attempted investigations. I have made attempts to begin such a conversation here, (The Golden Key etc.), postings that were read by many here, but commented on by none. So I do not believe that the markers on White Aries have been taken seriously. And that is because the heraldic identifications were long unrecognized and remain widely doubted. But the VMs was intended to be read by persons who already knew the relevant details of heraldry and history and would recognize evocative illustrations and possibly investigate further. Moreover, the illustration was intended to deflect a casual investigation. Historical images are altered in a radial orientation. Plain white stripes are given ink markings. There is a sort of tension between the elements of disguise and the elements of confirmation. And the situation is resolved, if one considers that the elements of disguise are ambiguous and the elements of confirmation are positionally objective.
Now to our little nymph and her torso paintjob. There is a fair amount of lighter (red) to darker (brown) variation in several areas: down the right arm, on the right breast, perhaps there is a navel(?), and something just below the collar, etc. Does the darker element come from ink in some or all of these examples? That is beyond me. All dark area seem to have a red aura around them. And, given the clear, unpainted area between the proposed, right breast outline and the areola, there is some intentional technique happening there to keep that area clear.
Compare this figure’s paintjob with the other red-torso figures of the inner circle. There are no underlying physical details showing through the clothing on either of those torsos. Compare with the lady in green, outer ring at 2 o’clock, where inked, breast outlines are clearly shown, but no areolas are present. Now back to the figure in question. Is the figure clothed or not? Is it wearing a see-through blouse? If dark coloration is intentional structure, what is that structure just below the collar? Was this figure naked in the ink version and clothed by the painter, who carefully and very accurately covered the ink work with red paint? That’s beyond me.
The representation is clearly there, whether by ink and paint together or by paint alone. So it’s back to the original question, is the figure unquestionably female? Biologically, the answer is no. In the drawing, there are hints of ambiguity. The left breast could be the shoulder. Elements of ambiguity, disguise and deception have been discovered already on the trail of the Fieschi popes. What if this is another bit of intentional trickery, put in place to derail an investigation? We already have a pun that shows we are dealing with a joker.
If we try to look for answers to the VMs within the pages of the VMs, do we expect those answers to be obvious and superficial, or perhaps something a bit more difficult to find? Of course, if the Fieschi armorial insignia is not known to the investigator, or the origins of the red galero tradition, let alone word one about a particular, traditional heraldic fur, known as papelonny, that sort of gums up the works, doesn’t it? And if the creator of this manuscript were to consider putting such a structure in the manuscript, how many of them would that be?
Even though we still may not agree, thanks for your interested skepticism.
So, besides a pair of papelonny patterns and a pair of blue-striped designs, several other representations of basic, named, heraldic insignia can be found in the tub patterns, mainly around the outer ring of Pisces. (See my prior post #22, last paragraph.) And the fact that it starts at the top of VMs Pisces with a paired paly is a significant connection between the pairings found in the first five monthly medallions and the historical pairing of the Fieschi popes. Not only are there examples that can be named by the heraldry paradigm, there are several examples of heraldry that are within the pairing paradigm, even one pair from the historical paradigm. And all this exists in the first part of the VMs Zodiac. So it is pretty much a world in itself. But, on the other hand, suppose it is an ordinary herbal and an ordinary zodiac, what are the connections you would expect there to be?
As to the markers, well, obviously they are there. But what has been done with them? I’ll admit I’m not the most devoted scholar, and I’ve only been at it for a decade, but I’ve seen nothing about these markers, unless it was something that originated from my attempted investigations. I have made attempts to begin such a conversation here, (The Golden Key etc.), postings that were read by many here, but commented on by none. So I do not believe that the markers on White Aries have been taken seriously. And that is because the heraldic identifications were long unrecognized and remain widely doubted. But the VMs was intended to be read by persons who already knew the relevant details of heraldry and history and would recognize evocative illustrations and possibly investigate further. Moreover, the illustration was intended to deflect a casual investigation. Historical images are altered in a radial orientation. Plain white stripes are given ink markings. There is a sort of tension between the elements of disguise and the elements of confirmation. And the situation is resolved, if one considers that the elements of disguise are ambiguous and the elements of confirmation are positionally objective.
Now to our little nymph and her torso paintjob. There is a fair amount of lighter (red) to darker (brown) variation in several areas: down the right arm, on the right breast, perhaps there is a navel(?), and something just below the collar, etc. Does the darker element come from ink in some or all of these examples? That is beyond me. All dark area seem to have a red aura around them. And, given the clear, unpainted area between the proposed, right breast outline and the areola, there is some intentional technique happening there to keep that area clear.
Compare this figure’s paintjob with the other red-torso figures of the inner circle. There are no underlying physical details showing through the clothing on either of those torsos. Compare with the lady in green, outer ring at 2 o’clock, where inked, breast outlines are clearly shown, but no areolas are present. Now back to the figure in question. Is the figure clothed or not? Is it wearing a see-through blouse? If dark coloration is intentional structure, what is that structure just below the collar? Was this figure naked in the ink version and clothed by the painter, who carefully and very accurately covered the ink work with red paint? That’s beyond me.
The representation is clearly there, whether by ink and paint together or by paint alone. So it’s back to the original question, is the figure unquestionably female? Biologically, the answer is no. In the drawing, there are hints of ambiguity. The left breast could be the shoulder. Elements of ambiguity, disguise and deception have been discovered already on the trail of the Fieschi popes. What if this is another bit of intentional trickery, put in place to derail an investigation? We already have a pun that shows we are dealing with a joker.
If we try to look for answers to the VMs within the pages of the VMs, do we expect those answers to be obvious and superficial, or perhaps something a bit more difficult to find? Of course, if the Fieschi armorial insignia is not known to the investigator, or the origins of the red galero tradition, let alone word one about a particular, traditional heraldic fur, known as papelonny, that sort of gums up the works, doesn’t it? And if the creator of this manuscript were to consider putting such a structure in the manuscript, how many of them would that be?
Even though we still may not agree, thanks for your interested skepticism.