VMs: Fish (was What's Missing or Different?)

[Koontz John E <John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 mesinik@xxxxxx wrote:
> Quoting Koontz John E <John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > But, again, what I was asking this time was what hasn't the author done
> > that we might expect an author to do at any of the times and places where
> > we hypothesize the text to have been prepared?big bad fish?

I'm fairly certain I didn't introduce the subject of fish!  But I will
grant that whether or not they are conventional they are certainly not
missing.   See also f17r and f65v.

========

I am not sure if the fish is swallowing the "mymph" or disgorging her.
She might also be a mer-nymph.  The fish appears to be a conventional
fish, rather sturgeony, rather than a conventional whale (even by early
standards).

The water is a briny green, interestingly, not blue, though the fish
itself has some blue pigmenting.

What are the various quadrupeds in this scene?  The one beneath the
nymph-fish menage appears to be a chamaeleon though I assume this is
accidental.  The one at the far right, bottom, might be a hound of some
sort though it has a rather tapir-y snout.

The nymphs above appear to be taking their ease in a series of intricately
connected pulpets or opera boxes.

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