RE: VMs: On the VMs zodiac

[Nick Pelling <nickpelling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

At 18:19 12/10/2004 -0400, John Grove wrote:
>         Argh... not black and white again! I thought we got rid of that 
> several
> years ago.
> They are NOT black and white. They are varying shades of color - Taurus are
> both red - one is
> just a richer red than the other for example.

Marianna's idea is perhaps a little deeper than you give it credit for. 
Sure, it's not a black/white issue: but looking again at Taurus, all bar 
two of the figures on the first half have clothes & are coloured red, while 
all of the figures on the second diagram are naked and are uncoloured.

IMO, we don't know for certain which colours were added by whom: some of 
the Taurus reds look like bad watercolour, some look like they've been 
applied with a stick... while some of the lines (look at the 7 o'clock 
nymph on the outer ring on the left Taurus page) seem to be in a blue-brown 
colour, and could well be by the same person who possibly added the second 
breasts. And so on... all very curious.

As Dana suggested a while back, there may well be many more hidden 
symmetries within the zodiac section: regardless of how wide individual 
bifolios are, there are still many distinct ways of folding and binding 
them (as we saw in Quire 9). More particularly, who's to say that (what we 
now know as) quires 10 and 11 weren't originally bound together?

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list