Seeking more discussion on the topic of Cosmic comparison between the two representations: Oresme's BNF Fr. 565 and the VMs f68v.
Oresme's (565) illustration is a non-religious representation of an earth-centered cosmos with a rather uncommon, simplified structure of three basic parts: (1) inverted T-O earth, (2) surrounding stars, (3) outer cloud band with 43 undulations.
So far, no other cosmic representation has this same structure --- with the possible exception of VMs f68v.
Proposition A: The VMs cosmic structure was derived from that of the Oresme image.
While there is much similarity is structure between the two representations, there are significant differences in their visual appearances.
Proposition B: The differences in visual appearance are intended to disguise the use of the Oresme cosmos as the source of the VMs.
Comments welcomed.
I don't know... it's possible there is another source from which both the Oresme depiction and the VMS depiction might stem.
Basically what JKP says. Often when images are similar but diverge in ways that cannot be attributed to copyists' error or simplification, they derive from a common source or source family. We have no way of telling what was the case here.
Even if two medieval images are identical, you can't say for sure whether they were copied from each other or a third manuscript. Unless of course you can show that ms A was present at the time and place ms B was made.
Hence, in the case of the VM, one must in theory remain agnostic about such questions.
JKP & Koen,
Thanks for the nice quibbles. I suppose if we ignore the cosmic comparison, we can start again from scratch. And there always is that nagging possibility of a hypothetical third illustration that was an independent source for both Oresme and the VMs.
Actually I was hoping that someone might agree - or disagree. Clearly, however, I should have limited the options to the set of three part cosmic illustrations that fit the key with 43 undulations in the outer cloud band. At present there is only the example of Oresme (565) and that's it - unless we include the VMs f68v. And the question is whether, with a three part structure, using the same three parts, and the outer band of 43 undulations, there is a derivative relation of any kind, one from the other or both from a hypothetical third image, that no one has seen. And the point being that if there is this similarity, it is based of the comparative structure of the cosmic diagrams more than on the similarities of appearance.
The VMs is deceptive. It is not the product of a foreign culture presenting an alchemical-herbal as a normal, expository text - although it is surely intended to successfully appear as such to many who could not know otherwise. Instead it is a creation meant to represent an artificial world inside of which (certain elements) of the known world have been hidden. This is the lesson of the cosmic comparison.
Images of ambiguous appearance are used to create structure. Structure confirms the identity of the ambiguous images because it conforms to known tradition. It corresponds to historical facts
The trail of discovery is ambiguous. It is disguised and it is clearly marked at the same time. It is ingeniously obfuscated by visual trickery and it is clearly confirmed by structural similarity. Intentional trickery turns the VMs cosmic diagram into a deviant mimic, a representation that holds to the original structure of Oresme (565), but avoids the presence of close visual similarity as a method of planned deception. Structure takes precedence over appearance. And the validity of structure can only be evaluated against the correct example of the historical prototype from which the VMs representation was derived - either directly of indirectly.