In my experience when one writes something about the imagery on a purely speculative level, there is not much response because people know beforehand that any discussion won't lead very far. I could say "those things don't look like eyes, ears... or any representation of the senses at all", and that would be it. But let's try.
The mouth-like circle has been interpreted similarly before, though more in a "maw of hell" kind of way. For example JKP briefly mentions the idea in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Those things, if they are teeth, certainly aren't human. This is the most straightforward of the four. Note that an image like this would not have brought "senses" to the medieval mind, but rather "eternal damnation if I covet my neighbour's wife and swear too much".
![[Image: bodleian_10310370513.gif?w=500]](https://artstor.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bodleian_10310370513.gif?w=500)
![[Image: 73c1b3d09519e7e92b4182311faab60b--mediev...script.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/73/c1/b3/73c1b3d09519e7e92b4182311faab60b--medieval-manuscript-illuminated-manuscript.jpg)
The thing you interpret as an eye is an oval with "scales" around it and "plumes" on four sides. And around that a whole lot more stuff. Inside the oval are stars and a flower-like symbol. You might say "but the iris is a flower", which is true, but this is through association with the (colors of the) rainbow and its associated goddess Iris, not with the flower. Symbols like this one have been found in other maps or charts as well, usually in the centre and with some cosmological meaning. We have a thread about that somewhere IIRC.
Taking the castle rosette to refer to sound is original, but will probably come across as a bit forced to most readers. A magnificent castle and beautiful landscapes might also activate the sense of sight, and the sea the sense of smell, and so on.
If you wish to stick to your interpretation you'd have to do more research. The manuscript's contents were made, roughly, some time before 1450. How did people think about the senses then? Did they know about the anatomy of the inner ear, as you suggest? How did they picture this? How did they draw a spice bazaar? Which (classical?) sources did they depend on? Did they really see ears-eyes and mouth-nose as complementary pairs?
I also often find myself in the position where it's hard to find evidence or at least an indication for an interpretation. But still I try to include imagery from pre-1450 sources, quotes from ancient or medieval authors.... and of course consult the literature. The subject of "senses" in medieval times is unknown to me, but I'd expect that things have been written about it.
So well, what you have is the "hypothesis" part of a "working hypothesis".
But that's okay, many people who are writing about the manuscript now have started there.
The mouth-like circle has been interpreted similarly before, though more in a "maw of hell" kind of way. For example JKP briefly mentions the idea in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Those things, if they are teeth, certainly aren't human. This is the most straightforward of the four. Note that an image like this would not have brought "senses" to the medieval mind, but rather "eternal damnation if I covet my neighbour's wife and swear too much".
The thing you interpret as an eye is an oval with "scales" around it and "plumes" on four sides. And around that a whole lot more stuff. Inside the oval are stars and a flower-like symbol. You might say "but the iris is a flower", which is true, but this is through association with the (colors of the) rainbow and its associated goddess Iris, not with the flower. Symbols like this one have been found in other maps or charts as well, usually in the centre and with some cosmological meaning. We have a thread about that somewhere IIRC.
Taking the castle rosette to refer to sound is original, but will probably come across as a bit forced to most readers. A magnificent castle and beautiful landscapes might also activate the sense of sight, and the sea the sense of smell, and so on.
If you wish to stick to your interpretation you'd have to do more research. The manuscript's contents were made, roughly, some time before 1450. How did people think about the senses then? Did they know about the anatomy of the inner ear, as you suggest? How did they picture this? How did they draw a spice bazaar? Which (classical?) sources did they depend on? Did they really see ears-eyes and mouth-nose as complementary pairs?
I also often find myself in the position where it's hard to find evidence or at least an indication for an interpretation. But still I try to include imagery from pre-1450 sources, quotes from ancient or medieval authors.... and of course consult the literature. The subject of "senses" in medieval times is unknown to me, but I'd expect that things have been written about it.
So well, what you have is the "hypothesis" part of a "working hypothesis".
But that's okay, many people who are writing about the manuscript now have started there.