If a representation shows Europe, Africa and Asia, if it has lands and seas, rivers and mountains, if it has geographical features and cities, it's a map, not a representation of the cosmos. On the other hand, cosmic representations of the early 1400s are more "scientific". They have all the planets, sometimes the Earth is divided into the traditional four elements. The cosmic illustrations that are the found in the original comparison (*) are of a much simpler, basic structure.
* BNF Fr. 565 is a posthumous copy of Oresme produced in Paris c. 1410.
* Harley 334 is an even more posthumous copy of G. de Metz produced in Paris in the second quarter of the 1400s.
Both show an inverted T-O Earth, that is not geographical nor strictly elemental, but better described as pictorial.
Pictorial representations of Earth in cosmic illustrations are not that common. And the two best examples both came from Paris. Their dates are not set in stone, so there might be only 10, 15, 20 years between them. They could have been produced in the same workshop or even by a specific person.
As to the division of "inhabited" or "uninhabited", that could be the difference between "cultivated" and "uncultivated" which simply reflects the current situation, plus the fact that various areas went fallow after the plague.
The problem is trying to figure out why the VMs is such a good structural match for the Oresme cosmos and yet looks so different. Why are the Oresme and de Metz illustrations so similar to each other and yet are atypical of other contemporary cosmic diagrams? Why is the pond scene in de Metz (f. 57) so similar to the pond scene in the VMs (f79v)?
The evidence of a potential interrelationship seems plausible to me. And the events occur within the VMs parchment dates. Not every question has been answered by any means, but there doesn't seem to be a better explanation. If you had made the VMs, what is the explanation for all this?
* BNF Fr. 565 is a posthumous copy of Oresme produced in Paris c. 1410.
* Harley 334 is an even more posthumous copy of G. de Metz produced in Paris in the second quarter of the 1400s.
Both show an inverted T-O Earth, that is not geographical nor strictly elemental, but better described as pictorial.
Pictorial representations of Earth in cosmic illustrations are not that common. And the two best examples both came from Paris. Their dates are not set in stone, so there might be only 10, 15, 20 years between them. They could have been produced in the same workshop or even by a specific person.
As to the division of "inhabited" or "uninhabited", that could be the difference between "cultivated" and "uncultivated" which simply reflects the current situation, plus the fact that various areas went fallow after the plague.
The problem is trying to figure out why the VMs is such a good structural match for the Oresme cosmos and yet looks so different. Why are the Oresme and de Metz illustrations so similar to each other and yet are atypical of other contemporary cosmic diagrams? Why is the pond scene in de Metz (f. 57) so similar to the pond scene in the VMs (f79v)?
The evidence of a potential interrelationship seems plausible to me. And the events occur within the VMs parchment dates. Not every question has been answered by any means, but there doesn't seem to be a better explanation. If you had made the VMs, what is the explanation for all this?