This is starting to take on hints of a course in medieval theological disputation. First there is a statement, then the arguments in favor, followed by the arguments against, then a rebuttal of the arguments against and, finally, the desired conclusion. This is probably a good thing. The problem is with the arguments. And the problem with the arguments relates to the matter of evidence. What is evidence? What is seen as constituting evidence? What are the standards applied by the person making that decision. According to Deuteronomy, the establishment of evidence requires the testimony of two or more witnesses. But in the history of disputation, a *good* argument is not always validated by the facts.
Furthermore, I think there has been a certain change in the standards of evidence from medieval times to the modern day. Present day standards have risen to the point where ninety-nine and a half just won't do. Proof must be absolute. That is fine for present day interpretations, but applying it retroactively may be overly demanding. An image suggesting a certain identification does not need to be photographic in order to convey the intended meaning.
Worse than that, the VMs seems to be something of an attempt to discover how far away from this *photographic* reality an illustration can get and still convey the intended meaning.
The evidence I try to follow comes from the pages of the VMs. And then it has to correspond with historical facts and traditions.
Can Oresme's cosmos be reassembled with VMs parts? Do the Pisces tub patterns represent heraldry? What are the historical origins of the red galero tradition?
I believe that the details in the VMs provide the evidence to answer these questions. The difficulty in formulating evidence based theories depends on whether the researcher is able to ask these questions in the first place. I'm not saying it's easy. The difficulty starts at moderate and goes up from there. One needs to know the details of the Oresme illustration, rather obscure heraldic patterns like a semy of roundels or papelonny and so on. And the author adds to the obfuscation in several ways - because the author already knows this stuff and figures that the reader knows it too [[Wrong!]] so a bit of trickery has been used, an optical illusion - that sort of thing. But ambiguity is not the same as negation and denial. Both parts of the cosmos are presented, just not on the same page. Other confirmations have been included. It depends on the interpretation of the evidence on the page. Does the data convey meaning? If it does, it may help to form the basis for a VMs theory.
Furthermore, I think there has been a certain change in the standards of evidence from medieval times to the modern day. Present day standards have risen to the point where ninety-nine and a half just won't do. Proof must be absolute. That is fine for present day interpretations, but applying it retroactively may be overly demanding. An image suggesting a certain identification does not need to be photographic in order to convey the intended meaning.
Worse than that, the VMs seems to be something of an attempt to discover how far away from this *photographic* reality an illustration can get and still convey the intended meaning.
The evidence I try to follow comes from the pages of the VMs. And then it has to correspond with historical facts and traditions.
Can Oresme's cosmos be reassembled with VMs parts? Do the Pisces tub patterns represent heraldry? What are the historical origins of the red galero tradition?
I believe that the details in the VMs provide the evidence to answer these questions. The difficulty in formulating evidence based theories depends on whether the researcher is able to ask these questions in the first place. I'm not saying it's easy. The difficulty starts at moderate and goes up from there. One needs to know the details of the Oresme illustration, rather obscure heraldic patterns like a semy of roundels or papelonny and so on. And the author adds to the obfuscation in several ways - because the author already knows this stuff and figures that the reader knows it too [[Wrong!]] so a bit of trickery has been used, an optical illusion - that sort of thing. But ambiguity is not the same as negation and denial. Both parts of the cosmos are presented, just not on the same page. Other confirmations have been included. It depends on the interpretation of the evidence on the page. Does the data convey meaning? If it does, it may help to form the basis for a VMs theory.