05-01-2020, 01:55 AM
IMHO there are several different things all flapping in the breeze at the same time.
There are maps. These show specific geographic features and label the locations on various towns / cities. These were generally of a T-O structure.
There are cosmic representations. Most of these were geocentric and poly-concentric for the planets and stars.
Then there are there are the less common representations of earth or simplified versions of the cosmos. Here is where there seem to be more of the inverted T-O images. The difference here is that cosmic representations generally contain stars of some description between the Earth and the cosmic boundary. These generally take the form of a pictorial representation of th Earth as in the Oresme example (BNF Fr. 565) or the de Metz example (Harley 334). And they generally have a pictorial representation of water in the lower half.
See: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Then there is the VMs, which switches to a linguistic representation.
Looking at the historical images, I see no reason to suggest that different types of illustrations (regular T-O vs. inverted T-O) are attempting to represent the same thing. Therefore it is hard to see why the relevant vocabulary in the two VMs representations should be comparable.
The more important factor here (again IMHO) is not the authorial source, but the time and place of manuscript production - Oresme c. 1410; de Metz 1425-1449, both produced in Paris. Plus the de Metz manuscript has an illustration of a 'woman in a fish's mouth' much like the one in the VMs Quire 13.
There are maps. These show specific geographic features and label the locations on various towns / cities. These were generally of a T-O structure.
There are cosmic representations. Most of these were geocentric and poly-concentric for the planets and stars.
Then there are there are the less common representations of earth or simplified versions of the cosmos. Here is where there seem to be more of the inverted T-O images. The difference here is that cosmic representations generally contain stars of some description between the Earth and the cosmic boundary. These generally take the form of a pictorial representation of th Earth as in the Oresme example (BNF Fr. 565) or the de Metz example (Harley 334). And they generally have a pictorial representation of water in the lower half.
See: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Then there is the VMs, which switches to a linguistic representation.
Looking at the historical images, I see no reason to suggest that different types of illustrations (regular T-O vs. inverted T-O) are attempting to represent the same thing. Therefore it is hard to see why the relevant vocabulary in the two VMs representations should be comparable.
The more important factor here (again IMHO) is not the authorial source, but the time and place of manuscript production - Oresme c. 1410; de Metz 1425-1449, both produced in Paris. Plus the de Metz manuscript has an illustration of a 'woman in a fish's mouth' much like the one in the VMs Quire 13.