The use of the number 43 may well be connected to Gerson, as he is well in advance of Oresme, and apparently lived in southern France. But the real question is why Oresme and the VMs cosmos both have 43 undulation?
Well, there's this thing about comparison. You have to have (at least) two things in order to make a comparison. So we have the VMs cosmos (f68v). What do we compare it to????
The obvious answer is to compare it with something that looks very similar. But then we really don't have a good potential candidate for comparison that is visually similar.
What we have instead, and the 43 undulations are a key part of it, if we know - or whenever we find - the Oresme cosmos (BNF Fr. 565), is a cosmos with a *very similar structure*.
This similarity of structure is an indicator that these two illustrations are the ones that should be compared.
Consider, for example, the other illustration of a cosmos in another work by Oresme, which is BNF Fr. 1082. This illustration omits the surrounding field of stars entirely. And the outer cloud band has a completely different pattern. It is not a good candidate for comparison with the VMs cosmos.
But then we see the excellent discovery of Ms. Velinska. Oresme's (565) image of the cosmos has 43 undulations. And it has several other structural similarities with the VMs. Comparison clearly shows these cosmic representations are similar in structure, but differing in appearance. This did not happen by accident. Anyone trying to make a copy of the Oresme cosmos can do a better job than the VMs image.. Even the VMs creator can do a better job with matching the Oresme cloud band. It just happens to be in the Central Rosette.
This is the methodology by which the VMs has retained its mystery. Comparison is too easily based entirely on visual appearance. If the appearance is not sufficiently similar, the comparison is seen as failed. What is necessary is to see that the structure of both representations is the same. This validates the comparison. The Oresme cosmos has been mimicked by the VMs cosmos in its structure, and represented visually by an intentional choice of ambiguous alternatives - see original posting above.
And the value of recognizing this technique is in finding that it has been used elsewhere in the VMS - White Aries. Understanding this trickery is essential to understanding the VMs. It's like being able to understand heraldic canting and its important to the proper interpretation of armorial insignia. The Vms is similar, but raised up a notch or two because there is a clear intent to use ambiguity and disguise. Nevertheless, similarity is validated by structure. That's the reason for 43 undulations in The VMs cosmos. It is necessary to show that the VMs reproduction is being compared to the proper historical image.
Well, there's this thing about comparison. You have to have (at least) two things in order to make a comparison. So we have the VMs cosmos (f68v). What do we compare it to????
The obvious answer is to compare it with something that looks very similar. But then we really don't have a good potential candidate for comparison that is visually similar.
What we have instead, and the 43 undulations are a key part of it, if we know - or whenever we find - the Oresme cosmos (BNF Fr. 565), is a cosmos with a *very similar structure*.
This similarity of structure is an indicator that these two illustrations are the ones that should be compared.
Consider, for example, the other illustration of a cosmos in another work by Oresme, which is BNF Fr. 1082. This illustration omits the surrounding field of stars entirely. And the outer cloud band has a completely different pattern. It is not a good candidate for comparison with the VMs cosmos.
But then we see the excellent discovery of Ms. Velinska. Oresme's (565) image of the cosmos has 43 undulations. And it has several other structural similarities with the VMs. Comparison clearly shows these cosmic representations are similar in structure, but differing in appearance. This did not happen by accident. Anyone trying to make a copy of the Oresme cosmos can do a better job than the VMs image.. Even the VMs creator can do a better job with matching the Oresme cloud band. It just happens to be in the Central Rosette.
This is the methodology by which the VMs has retained its mystery. Comparison is too easily based entirely on visual appearance. If the appearance is not sufficiently similar, the comparison is seen as failed. What is necessary is to see that the structure of both representations is the same. This validates the comparison. The Oresme cosmos has been mimicked by the VMs cosmos in its structure, and represented visually by an intentional choice of ambiguous alternatives - see original posting above.
And the value of recognizing this technique is in finding that it has been used elsewhere in the VMS - White Aries. Understanding this trickery is essential to understanding the VMs. It's like being able to understand heraldic canting and its important to the proper interpretation of armorial insignia. The Vms is similar, but raised up a notch or two because there is a clear intent to use ambiguity and disguise. Nevertheless, similarity is validated by structure. That's the reason for 43 undulations in The VMs cosmos. It is necessary to show that the VMs reproduction is being compared to the proper historical image.