19-11-2017, 12:20 AM
There has recently been a notable increase in the discussion of the VMs cosmos illustration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the comparison of the cosmic depiction in Oresme BNF fr. 565. It seems clear that there are some interesting potential similarities that may benefit from further investigation and discussion.
The first consideration here, however, is the schematic depiction of the cosmos in various medieval representations for the time between Sacrobosco and Regiomontanus – or anything roughly between 1200 & 1500 CE. It currently seems to me that most of these cosmic representations follow along a ‘planetary’ schematic model. They depict the earth in the center, surrounded by the successive orbits of the known medieval ‘planetes’: the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn and then encircled by the fixed stars. This is essentially the same model as the “Music of the Spheres”.
This is not what we see in the Oresme illustration. This depiction of the cosmos is based on a different schematic representation. Here the image in the diagram has been simplified to three different parts. These are: 1) the earthly core, 2) the starry field, and 3) the surrounding cloud band.
Now, of course, there are similarities between three-part model and the planetary model, because they are using some of the same information to depict the same subject, a geocentric representation of the cosmos, but there are also some significant, obvious differences in the Oresme version. And these same differences in that schematic depiction are also found in the VMs representation. The VMs, with its labeled and faintly marked, earthly core, the surrounding stars and the nebuly line (the most rudimentary depiction of a cloud band – by definition), certainly follows the three-part model shown in Oresme much more closely than the schematic construction of the multi-layered, planetary model.
A third cosmic representation, that follows the three-part schematic model fairly well, can be found in an illustration from the “Holkham Bible Picture Book” [BL Add MS 47682] from England c. 1327-1335. (Posted to the VN by MarcoP) As such, it surely predates Oresme. The model is similar though each of parts (from Holkham) is a little different. The central core is large and dark. The stars are there, but only as a scattering mostly above the core. And there is a distinct cloud band, which is a significant part of this model, but in Holkham the cloud band is mainly found to be based on a wavy line (not nebuly), though there are a few bulbous examples on either side of 3 o’clock. This is clearly not the more elaborate, scallop-shell pattern used by Oresme or found in the VMs central rosette. The ideological combination of the central rosette cloud band and the central parts of the VMs cosmos can only promote an even greater similarity with the Oresme representation.
There has also been a related line of discussion in regard to the description and interpretation of the central part of these diagrams. The VMs has a couple ‘labels’ and a few lines of writing, but other than that it consists of a circle crossed by a horizontal diameter and a radius line that extends vertically upward. The fact that the radius extends upward, rather than downward, may appear to be minor, but it has the effect of turning the world upside down. If the VMs illustration is a representation of the world divided into three continents as shown in a standard T-O map, then this VMs representation is a T-O map that has been inverted. And some have gone so far as to interpret the VMs ‘labels’ as Europe, Africa and Asia.
However, in the central core of the Oresme cosmos, the illustration is first divided horizontally, and then the upper half is divided into two quarters. This matches the VMs as it is. Nothing needs to be inverted. Furthermore the Oresme illustration is painted in a way to make clear that this is not a division of geographical continents. It is an elemental division of water, earth, and air. And this appears to be a fairly standard sort of representation, with water taking up the bottom half, air to the left and earth to the right in the upper part. Do the ‘labels’ in the VMs cosmic illustration correspond to these same elements?
What the comparison of VMs and Oresme does show is that both cosmic representations follow the same schematic plan – the same three parts in the same sequence. And where there are opportunities for variation, either in the division of the central sphere or the pattern of the cloud band, the actual representations show more of a corresponding similarity. And it is a similarity that can be strengthened virtually beyond doubt by the combination with the cloud band pattern of the VMs central rosette.
[As to the combination of representational elements from separate pages of the VMs, some will probably want an inflexible rule against it. Consider, however, the dual representations of Aries and Taurus. Two images of Aries (or Taurus) on separate pages combine to make a pair. The medallions of the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac combine to make a series of five pairs across seven pages. Multiple page combinations are clearly an option in the VMs. Consider the nature of VMs Gemini. It shows a man and a woman, not the representation of Castor and Pollux, that might be expected in the Zodiac. Are these fraternal twins as brother and sister? Or is this a wedding? A play on the hieros gamos, perhaps? Or is there another interpretation? Twins are a pairing that share a common origin. A marriage creates a corresponding pair that originates from different sources. Can the scallop-shell patterned cloud band from the VMs central rosette be married to the VMs cosmos of f68v? It can only occur through the auspices and the details of the Oresme illustration of the cosmos.]
In the investigation of the cloud band, relative to the Oresme-VMs comparison, the ninja collective produced a variety of interesting material. Basically, it shows (IMHO) that cloud band patterns were primarily idiosyncratic; each artist had a unique version – with a single exception for the use of the scallop-shell pattern which occurs in the Apocalypse Tapestry, the Oresme cosmos, some of Christine de Pizan, the VMs central rosette and elsewhere. Perhaps it would now be of interest to take a look at how the earthly core is represented in all the cosmic diagrams of this time (c. 1200-1500). What is the distribution of various representations, whether geographic, elemental, pictorial or other? Were elemental cores or cloud bands used with planetary diagrams? Any contribution of medieval cosmic images is appreciated.
The first consideration here, however, is the schematic depiction of the cosmos in various medieval representations for the time between Sacrobosco and Regiomontanus – or anything roughly between 1200 & 1500 CE. It currently seems to me that most of these cosmic representations follow along a ‘planetary’ schematic model. They depict the earth in the center, surrounded by the successive orbits of the known medieval ‘planetes’: the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn and then encircled by the fixed stars. This is essentially the same model as the “Music of the Spheres”.
This is not what we see in the Oresme illustration. This depiction of the cosmos is based on a different schematic representation. Here the image in the diagram has been simplified to three different parts. These are: 1) the earthly core, 2) the starry field, and 3) the surrounding cloud band.
Now, of course, there are similarities between three-part model and the planetary model, because they are using some of the same information to depict the same subject, a geocentric representation of the cosmos, but there are also some significant, obvious differences in the Oresme version. And these same differences in that schematic depiction are also found in the VMs representation. The VMs, with its labeled and faintly marked, earthly core, the surrounding stars and the nebuly line (the most rudimentary depiction of a cloud band – by definition), certainly follows the three-part model shown in Oresme much more closely than the schematic construction of the multi-layered, planetary model.
A third cosmic representation, that follows the three-part schematic model fairly well, can be found in an illustration from the “Holkham Bible Picture Book” [BL Add MS 47682] from England c. 1327-1335. (Posted to the VN by MarcoP) As such, it surely predates Oresme. The model is similar though each of parts (from Holkham) is a little different. The central core is large and dark. The stars are there, but only as a scattering mostly above the core. And there is a distinct cloud band, which is a significant part of this model, but in Holkham the cloud band is mainly found to be based on a wavy line (not nebuly), though there are a few bulbous examples on either side of 3 o’clock. This is clearly not the more elaborate, scallop-shell pattern used by Oresme or found in the VMs central rosette. The ideological combination of the central rosette cloud band and the central parts of the VMs cosmos can only promote an even greater similarity with the Oresme representation.
There has also been a related line of discussion in regard to the description and interpretation of the central part of these diagrams. The VMs has a couple ‘labels’ and a few lines of writing, but other than that it consists of a circle crossed by a horizontal diameter and a radius line that extends vertically upward. The fact that the radius extends upward, rather than downward, may appear to be minor, but it has the effect of turning the world upside down. If the VMs illustration is a representation of the world divided into three continents as shown in a standard T-O map, then this VMs representation is a T-O map that has been inverted. And some have gone so far as to interpret the VMs ‘labels’ as Europe, Africa and Asia.
However, in the central core of the Oresme cosmos, the illustration is first divided horizontally, and then the upper half is divided into two quarters. This matches the VMs as it is. Nothing needs to be inverted. Furthermore the Oresme illustration is painted in a way to make clear that this is not a division of geographical continents. It is an elemental division of water, earth, and air. And this appears to be a fairly standard sort of representation, with water taking up the bottom half, air to the left and earth to the right in the upper part. Do the ‘labels’ in the VMs cosmic illustration correspond to these same elements?
What the comparison of VMs and Oresme does show is that both cosmic representations follow the same schematic plan – the same three parts in the same sequence. And where there are opportunities for variation, either in the division of the central sphere or the pattern of the cloud band, the actual representations show more of a corresponding similarity. And it is a similarity that can be strengthened virtually beyond doubt by the combination with the cloud band pattern of the VMs central rosette.
[As to the combination of representational elements from separate pages of the VMs, some will probably want an inflexible rule against it. Consider, however, the dual representations of Aries and Taurus. Two images of Aries (or Taurus) on separate pages combine to make a pair. The medallions of the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac combine to make a series of five pairs across seven pages. Multiple page combinations are clearly an option in the VMs. Consider the nature of VMs Gemini. It shows a man and a woman, not the representation of Castor and Pollux, that might be expected in the Zodiac. Are these fraternal twins as brother and sister? Or is this a wedding? A play on the hieros gamos, perhaps? Or is there another interpretation? Twins are a pairing that share a common origin. A marriage creates a corresponding pair that originates from different sources. Can the scallop-shell patterned cloud band from the VMs central rosette be married to the VMs cosmos of f68v? It can only occur through the auspices and the details of the Oresme illustration of the cosmos.]
In the investigation of the cloud band, relative to the Oresme-VMs comparison, the ninja collective produced a variety of interesting material. Basically, it shows (IMHO) that cloud band patterns were primarily idiosyncratic; each artist had a unique version – with a single exception for the use of the scallop-shell pattern which occurs in the Apocalypse Tapestry, the Oresme cosmos, some of Christine de Pizan, the VMs central rosette and elsewhere. Perhaps it would now be of interest to take a look at how the earthly core is represented in all the cosmic diagrams of this time (c. 1200-1500). What is the distribution of various representations, whether geographic, elemental, pictorial or other? Were elemental cores or cloud bands used with planetary diagrams? Any contribution of medieval cosmic images is appreciated.
![[Image: oresme11.jpg]](https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/17/91/67/48/oresme11.jpg)