R. Sale > 24-01-2024, 09:34 PM
Indeed, there are various factors to consider. And that's great photo! Perfect structure.
I take a different perspective. Do follow things to extremes. This is how they are tested. They will succeed or they will fail. Accept the evidence. Where there is evidence, present the evidence. That can take the cosmic perspective from Newbold to Velinska. Take things as far as they will go. The details of one investigation may support other inquiries.
A great example is the VMs You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. "critter" investigation. Many possibilities were suggested from Armadillo to Agnus Dei. Given the definition of a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary, armadillos don't belong with medieval artistic representations of cosmic boundaries. [BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18]
I will grant that a lot of the VMs is ambiguous, in part because it was made to be ambiguous. In addition, the modern investigator needs to *discover* the artist's intent, whereas the medieval reader might *recognize* various things of prior knowledge, from heraldry to the Christianized names of various plants and their religious associations. I think we have to assume that the VMs artist was aware of a good deal of information that is most strongly correlated to 1400-1450 and with the C-14 data. The artist may have known things that the modern investigator does not. The VMs artist may have done things that the modern investigator does not (yet) understand. Heraldic canting and the long investigation of Melusine of Luxembourg.
The question regarding the VMs violet illustration is whether the proposed arching structure is a representation of the double 'M' [MM] monogram (MM = Mariae Modestiae). If so, it is a hidden monogram. It is an obfuscated and camouflaged monogram. That fits right in with the way the VMs artist operates - repeatedly.
There are other VMs examples with some similarities. What plants are these? What are their Christianized names? There's also the old question: Where do you hide a tree? A: In a forest. A valid example is obfuscated by other, *false* examples.
There is a physical reality behind the 'Arches of the Virgin'.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The evidence is that the monogram for the violet is specifically a part of the VMs illustration of the violet. It's cheesy; it's clumsy; it's camouflaged; it's there. It's like a *cheap* rebus. The VMs artist cannot be prevented from using a cheap rebus. And our view of whether it is cheap or not does not affect whether the interpretation is valid from the artist's perspective.