I didn't recall any interpretations of gender for the VMs animals - but VMs Dark Taurus is clear enough. "Armed, langed and pizzled" like the heraldic blazon says.
The thing about VMs Gemini is the choice that was made by the VMs artist to use the *marriage* version of pairing, rather than the *twins* version of pairing - particularly in light that both antiquity and the classical renaissance favored the 'twins' version. It shows that pairing also occurs between things that are "opposite".
Also consider the VMs does not follow the standard, concentric, planetary representation of the cosmos. It appears to have used a very peculiar structure - as related to the cosmic comparisons of E. Velinska. It seems to be a more 'primitive' image of the cosmic sphere than what was 'scientific' standard at the time the C-14 dates. In combination with other VMs illustrations having potential religious interpretations, it may turn out that the written text is more concerned with religion rather than science.
If the medallion(s) of each house of the VMs Zodiac contained a pairing, it would be obvious <that the artist was cross-eyed>. The pairing would be obvious. The VMs is more subtle. As it is, enough ambiguity has been introduced so that something plain and simple has been overlooked. The problem with Pisces is its position. The problem with Aries and Taurus is that they are bisected. They are each split in two to become two pair and fill in the sequence of five pairs.
Why five pairs in sequence? Five is an interesting number, as they say. The fifth glyph [EVA: v] in the VMs 4 x 17 symbol sequence has three (Greek, Roman, & medieval) numerical interpretations each supported by structural (shape & positional) factors in the sequence. But who can determine artistic intent from coincidence?
If the Gemini couple are nymphs, why not Virgo and Sagittarius as well? I see medallions as separate.
The thing about VMs Gemini is the choice that was made by the VMs artist to use the *marriage* version of pairing, rather than the *twins* version of pairing - particularly in light that both antiquity and the classical renaissance favored the 'twins' version. It shows that pairing also occurs between things that are "opposite".
Also consider the VMs does not follow the standard, concentric, planetary representation of the cosmos. It appears to have used a very peculiar structure - as related to the cosmic comparisons of E. Velinska. It seems to be a more 'primitive' image of the cosmic sphere than what was 'scientific' standard at the time the C-14 dates. In combination with other VMs illustrations having potential religious interpretations, it may turn out that the written text is more concerned with religion rather than science.
If the medallion(s) of each house of the VMs Zodiac contained a pairing, it would be obvious <that the artist was cross-eyed>. The pairing would be obvious. The VMs is more subtle. As it is, enough ambiguity has been introduced so that something plain and simple has been overlooked. The problem with Pisces is its position. The problem with Aries and Taurus is that they are bisected. They are each split in two to become two pair and fill in the sequence of five pairs.
Why five pairs in sequence? Five is an interesting number, as they say. The fifth glyph [EVA: v] in the VMs 4 x 17 symbol sequence has three (Greek, Roman, & medieval) numerical interpretations each supported by structural (shape & positional) factors in the sequence. But who can determine artistic intent from coincidence?
If the Gemini couple are nymphs, why not Virgo and Sagittarius as well? I see medallions as separate.