22-07-2025, 10:47 PM
These general statements are fine and possibly true in large part. I'm not going to argue against them. I would say, however, that the VMs cosmos is an exception, where investigation and comparison reveal a lot more than many other parts of the ms. The devils are in the details, so the details need to be examined.
The typical cosmic illustration of the VMs era has a poly-concentric structure. Everything has its own sphere. The Earth is in the center, labeled 'terra' surrounded by 'aqua', then 'aer', then 'ignis', the four classical elements. Then there are rings for the planets, from Luna to Saturn, then the fixed stars, perhaps a Zodiac and whatever heavens were deemed appropriate. This is not what is found in the VMs.
Ms. Velinska's comparison was with the cosmic illustrations found in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334. In these examples, the cosmic diagrams have a very different structure. The cosmic ring structure has been eliminated. The planets, the planetary spheres and the heavenly spheres are all gone. The structure of these cosmic diagrams is altered and greatly simplified. The central Earth is a single sphere with an inverted T-O division showing pictorial representations of the elements. Water is the bottom half, land and air have the upper quarters, fire is omitted. The earth is surrounded by a field of stars, and the stars are surrounded by a cosmic boundary. In the BNF, this boundary is an elaborate scallop-shell version of a nebuly line. In Harley the boundary is a plain line set off by color. The simplified structure of these cosmic diagrams consists of three major parts: an inverted T-O Earth, a field of stars, and a cosmic boundary.
*Now* look at the VMs cosmos. From the center out there are the same three structural parts as the BNF and Harley diagrams. At the same time, the VMs looks a lot different. The VMs Earth is not pictorial; it is linguistic. The VMs stars are polygonal, not the crisp golden asterisks of BNF and Harley. And the VMs cosmic boundary, such as it is, is a ragged representation of a plain nebuly line. The BNF cloud band has 43 undulations, and the VMs shows 43 undulations as well - if you hunt for them and also assume that none are entirely hidden behind the spokes that cross the nebuly band. This is a subtle hint at VMs humor.
Provenance indicates both BNF and Harley were made in Paris - BNF c. 1410 and Harley in the second quarter of the 15th C. Both fit in with the C-14 dates for VMs parchment. BNF was owned by Jean de Berry (d. 1416), then by his daughter Marie (d. 1434).
What the cosmic comparison shows, with the clear structural similarity between VMs and BNF in particular, is a shared ideology that has specific historical connections. Is there another alternative? [Harley shares the mermaid illustration.]
Of course, there is more to it. Outside the VMs cosmic boundary there is a large circular wheel with eight curved spokes. This structure defines the VMs cosmos as a cosmic oxymoron, a colossal joke. This is a structure borrowed from Shirakatsi's 'Eight Phases of the Moon'. There is no historical alternative to this structure.
Interpretation is the investigator's prerogative. Either identify the parts and see how the trickery was constructed or to be 'taken in' by the deception.
The typical cosmic illustration of the VMs era has a poly-concentric structure. Everything has its own sphere. The Earth is in the center, labeled 'terra' surrounded by 'aqua', then 'aer', then 'ignis', the four classical elements. Then there are rings for the planets, from Luna to Saturn, then the fixed stars, perhaps a Zodiac and whatever heavens were deemed appropriate. This is not what is found in the VMs.
Ms. Velinska's comparison was with the cosmic illustrations found in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334. In these examples, the cosmic diagrams have a very different structure. The cosmic ring structure has been eliminated. The planets, the planetary spheres and the heavenly spheres are all gone. The structure of these cosmic diagrams is altered and greatly simplified. The central Earth is a single sphere with an inverted T-O division showing pictorial representations of the elements. Water is the bottom half, land and air have the upper quarters, fire is omitted. The earth is surrounded by a field of stars, and the stars are surrounded by a cosmic boundary. In the BNF, this boundary is an elaborate scallop-shell version of a nebuly line. In Harley the boundary is a plain line set off by color. The simplified structure of these cosmic diagrams consists of three major parts: an inverted T-O Earth, a field of stars, and a cosmic boundary.
*Now* look at the VMs cosmos. From the center out there are the same three structural parts as the BNF and Harley diagrams. At the same time, the VMs looks a lot different. The VMs Earth is not pictorial; it is linguistic. The VMs stars are polygonal, not the crisp golden asterisks of BNF and Harley. And the VMs cosmic boundary, such as it is, is a ragged representation of a plain nebuly line. The BNF cloud band has 43 undulations, and the VMs shows 43 undulations as well - if you hunt for them and also assume that none are entirely hidden behind the spokes that cross the nebuly band. This is a subtle hint at VMs humor.
Provenance indicates both BNF and Harley were made in Paris - BNF c. 1410 and Harley in the second quarter of the 15th C. Both fit in with the C-14 dates for VMs parchment. BNF was owned by Jean de Berry (d. 1416), then by his daughter Marie (d. 1434).
What the cosmic comparison shows, with the clear structural similarity between VMs and BNF in particular, is a shared ideology that has specific historical connections. Is there another alternative? [Harley shares the mermaid illustration.]
Of course, there is more to it. Outside the VMs cosmic boundary there is a large circular wheel with eight curved spokes. This structure defines the VMs cosmos as a cosmic oxymoron, a colossal joke. This is a structure borrowed from Shirakatsi's 'Eight Phases of the Moon'. There is no historical alternative to this structure.
Interpretation is the investigator's prerogative. Either identify the parts and see how the trickery was constructed or to be 'taken in' by the deception.