Rene,
Perhaps a few details need to be clarified regarding the comparison with VMs f68v3. While the book by Oresme was originally published in 1377, several other copies were made later on. Nick Pelling has cited six different versions. One of these is the one in the comparison by E. Velinska, which is BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. As I understand it, this text was published about 1410, a generation after Oresme's death. From a different copy of the Oresme book, there is BNF Fr. 1082. This is <potentially> an image from the 1377 edition. I am not aware that cosmic illustrations from the other texts are yet available.
If the two 'Oresme' illustrations are from different copies of the same text, and since both are cosmic representations, it might be suggested that they are corresponding images. Yet the comparison between these two cosmic representations shows some clear differences. The image of the central earth differs in many details. Then where BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 shows the earth surrounded by stars, BNF Fr. 1082 has no stars at all. And where BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 has a scallop-shell patterned cloud band, based on a nebuly line, the BNF Fr. 1082 illustration used an entirely different technique. The images are visually different and there are significant differences in structure.
Now go back to the comparison between VMs f68v3 and BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. Both show the earth as an inverted T-O structure. BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 is a pictorial representation. VMs f68v3 has labels and text. VMs is not a poor copy. VMs is a change of method. This is a code shift. Now look at the stars. In both cosmic illustrations, the earth is surrounded by stars. In the BNF image the stars are scattered like certain de Pizan illustrations. In the VMs the apparent stars encircle the earth like beads on a string. This is a play on words, both Latin and French use words which do not distinguish between "surrounded' and 'encircled". Obviously there is a clear visual difference.
In BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 there is an elegant cloud band, while the VMs appears distinctly different. The meandering line in the VMs shows 43 undulations, the same number as the BNF image. And the recovery of the proper, traditional terminology for a line with the structural pattern as seen in the VMs is a nebuly line. And the etymological origin of the word 'nebuly' is from the Latin word for 'mist' or 'cloud', thus demonstrating similarities in structure and in meaning, even though their appearances differ.
Then the VMs has the large outer circle, like a great wheel connected to the interior by eight curved spokes. This is where Newbold went wrong. He presumed that this was the Andromeda Galaxy seen by Roger Bacon through an anachronistic telescope. But perhaps it is better to interpret this construction in a manner more contemporary with the VMs parchment dates. What is it that the VMs shows? Both the circle and the spokes contain a long line of written text. What is the status of written text banners in medieval illustrations? They are informative, but they do not constitute real objects in the context of the illustrated image. Why should the VMs interpretation be different? The whole of this outer structure is ephemeral. It exists merely for the sake of creating and emphasizing visual difference, but has no effect on the structure whatsoever.
Each part of the VMs cosmos has structural similarity with BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 and in each part of the VMs there is some sort of alteration or disguise that has been used to maximize the visual differences. This is part of the evidence that reveals the true nature of the VMs. The enigmatic nature is an intentional creation. It was created in part by traditional, cultural information that was hidden; it is hidden until traditional names and interpretations can be rediscovered. The nebuly line is just one example.
Perhaps a few details need to be clarified regarding the comparison with VMs f68v3. While the book by Oresme was originally published in 1377, several other copies were made later on. Nick Pelling has cited six different versions. One of these is the one in the comparison by E. Velinska, which is BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. As I understand it, this text was published about 1410, a generation after Oresme's death. From a different copy of the Oresme book, there is BNF Fr. 1082. This is <potentially> an image from the 1377 edition. I am not aware that cosmic illustrations from the other texts are yet available.
If the two 'Oresme' illustrations are from different copies of the same text, and since both are cosmic representations, it might be suggested that they are corresponding images. Yet the comparison between these two cosmic representations shows some clear differences. The image of the central earth differs in many details. Then where BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 shows the earth surrounded by stars, BNF Fr. 1082 has no stars at all. And where BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 has a scallop-shell patterned cloud band, based on a nebuly line, the BNF Fr. 1082 illustration used an entirely different technique. The images are visually different and there are significant differences in structure.
Now go back to the comparison between VMs f68v3 and BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. Both show the earth as an inverted T-O structure. BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 is a pictorial representation. VMs f68v3 has labels and text. VMs is not a poor copy. VMs is a change of method. This is a code shift. Now look at the stars. In both cosmic illustrations, the earth is surrounded by stars. In the BNF image the stars are scattered like certain de Pizan illustrations. In the VMs the apparent stars encircle the earth like beads on a string. This is a play on words, both Latin and French use words which do not distinguish between "surrounded' and 'encircled". Obviously there is a clear visual difference.
In BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 there is an elegant cloud band, while the VMs appears distinctly different. The meandering line in the VMs shows 43 undulations, the same number as the BNF image. And the recovery of the proper, traditional terminology for a line with the structural pattern as seen in the VMs is a nebuly line. And the etymological origin of the word 'nebuly' is from the Latin word for 'mist' or 'cloud', thus demonstrating similarities in structure and in meaning, even though their appearances differ.
Then the VMs has the large outer circle, like a great wheel connected to the interior by eight curved spokes. This is where Newbold went wrong. He presumed that this was the Andromeda Galaxy seen by Roger Bacon through an anachronistic telescope. But perhaps it is better to interpret this construction in a manner more contemporary with the VMs parchment dates. What is it that the VMs shows? Both the circle and the spokes contain a long line of written text. What is the status of written text banners in medieval illustrations? They are informative, but they do not constitute real objects in the context of the illustrated image. Why should the VMs interpretation be different? The whole of this outer structure is ephemeral. It exists merely for the sake of creating and emphasizing visual difference, but has no effect on the structure whatsoever.
Each part of the VMs cosmos has structural similarity with BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 and in each part of the VMs there is some sort of alteration or disguise that has been used to maximize the visual differences. This is part of the evidence that reveals the true nature of the VMs. The enigmatic nature is an intentional creation. It was created in part by traditional, cultural information that was hidden; it is hidden until traditional names and interpretations can be rediscovered. The nebuly line is just one example.