If the inverted T-O of the VMs is the only / primary part considered, then the similarities with the globus-type illustrations is more predominant - even though globus illustrations are sometimes quartered in the lower half instead of the upper.
Looking at the cosmic representations in BNF 565 and Harley 334, what images do you see as religious? Since the lower half of both appear to represent water, and since water was considered to be an element, at least half the Earth is elemental, and perhaps hypothetically geographical as well. Considering the upper parts, these are not as clear, however there are depictions of houses. Both of these terrestrial images are more pictorial than they are geographical or elemental. Both share the inverted T-O format, which is an uncommon structure *in a cosmic representation* in the VMs era. And provenance says both were produced in Paris (1410-1450).
It's not a question of which came first. Obviously, the religious use of the inverted T-O takes precedence. It's a matter of what's on second, BNF 565 (Oresme) or the VMs? We have the 1410 date and the Berry library connection for this historical ms. We have the standard C-14 dating for the VMs (1404-1438). It's clear which way the chronology leans. It is clear that the VMs shares the same uncommon, three-part, cosmological structure. Each of these parts in the VMs is structurally similar to the historical examples, yet also visually diverse. And what can be more visually diverse than switching from a pictorial representation to one that is labelled by vords? Whether the vords denote elements or continents of something else won't be known until they can be read.
There is also an unusual, potential similarity between BNF 565 and the VMs, concerning the 43 undulations in the cosmic boundaries. BNF 565 is elegant. The VMs is sloppy and ambiguous because of the eight curved spokes that interpose. Several people have counted; 43 undulations *can be seen* in the VMs. Of course, once the wheel with eight curved spokes is recognized, sitting outside the cosmic boundary, well.... <The artist, s/he makes with the joke, eh?>
The use of a singular images, Oresme's cosmos or whatever is less difficult than the interpretation of a combined, pair of images. There is a requirement of a sort of "two-factor verification" before the full interpretation of these illustrations can be established: 1) Oresme and Shirakatsi; 2) the generic mermaid and Melusine; 3) the Agnus Dei of 1313 and the Golden Fleece of 1430. The use of combined images is an example of intentional trickery.
Looking at the cosmic representations in BNF 565 and Harley 334, what images do you see as religious? Since the lower half of both appear to represent water, and since water was considered to be an element, at least half the Earth is elemental, and perhaps hypothetically geographical as well. Considering the upper parts, these are not as clear, however there are depictions of houses. Both of these terrestrial images are more pictorial than they are geographical or elemental. Both share the inverted T-O format, which is an uncommon structure *in a cosmic representation* in the VMs era. And provenance says both were produced in Paris (1410-1450).
It's not a question of which came first. Obviously, the religious use of the inverted T-O takes precedence. It's a matter of what's on second, BNF 565 (Oresme) or the VMs? We have the 1410 date and the Berry library connection for this historical ms. We have the standard C-14 dating for the VMs (1404-1438). It's clear which way the chronology leans. It is clear that the VMs shares the same uncommon, three-part, cosmological structure. Each of these parts in the VMs is structurally similar to the historical examples, yet also visually diverse. And what can be more visually diverse than switching from a pictorial representation to one that is labelled by vords? Whether the vords denote elements or continents of something else won't be known until they can be read.
There is also an unusual, potential similarity between BNF 565 and the VMs, concerning the 43 undulations in the cosmic boundaries. BNF 565 is elegant. The VMs is sloppy and ambiguous because of the eight curved spokes that interpose. Several people have counted; 43 undulations *can be seen* in the VMs. Of course, once the wheel with eight curved spokes is recognized, sitting outside the cosmic boundary, well.... <The artist, s/he makes with the joke, eh?>
The use of a singular images, Oresme's cosmos or whatever is less difficult than the interpretation of a combined, pair of images. There is a requirement of a sort of "two-factor verification" before the full interpretation of these illustrations can be established: 1) Oresme and Shirakatsi; 2) the generic mermaid and Melusine; 3) the Agnus Dei of 1313 and the Golden Fleece of 1430. The use of combined images is an example of intentional trickery.