Pisces sounds like the fun sign!
Seriously though, as many interpretations as people on this and most matters. If someone wrote it to represent a/the zodiac they could have done it any way they chose. The traditional interpretation relies on it being a genuine C15th manuscript and showing an accepted manner of illustration, same as most others of the time. What if it were a/the zodiac (astrological/calendar/astronomical etc) with data shown in an unconventional manner? Is that possible that it is not what it is accepted as? What if it looks like a dog, barks like a dog but is not a dog?
I suppose I never had issue with the concept of a broken down zodiac, but then I don't think its a run of the mill C15th manuscript.
Bunny
The trouble is that such things as astrology were codified in the middle ages. It made little sense to break them down and recreate them. There were traditions, but they were all cousins to the same supposed original truth of antiquity.
It wasn't until the Renaissance that people started taking the old traditions apart and putting them together in new ways. And even then, they didn't go over the top with the new interpretations. Instead they tended to evolve it and start new traditions.
How to put it?
Astrology was codified. It was based on (very complex) imagined rules that in turn were based upon observations of physical phenomenon. They wanted to explain their world, so they saw how the planets moved and built up a superstition on how this influenced us.
Now, you COULD rebuild everything into a totally new interpretation, but why would you? If you've been taught that this is the way the world works, and there is no outside reason for reinterpretation, why would you start reinterpreting the zodiac in a new fashion?
You would have to come up with a very convincing reason why you are changing the rules in order to convince anyone to follow you, and it's unlikely, especially in the middle ages, that this would work.
Remember, the Renaissance started evolving the middle ages astrology because of two reasons: the development of chemistry (alchemy) which provided an outside reason for reinterpretation, and a cultural shift that allowed for independent investigation. It's impossible to emphasis how much of a cultural shift there was between the 14th and 16th century for researchers. In the 14th century you were ostracised for even suggesting something new; by the 16th century we see the formation of august independent research bodies seeking new knowledge.
Yes you can argue the Voynich is on the cusp of the Renaissance. But nothing about it suggests the early Renaissance or the seeking of new knowledge. Quite the opposite, it seems to be looking firmly into the past.
So no, I don't think the "zodiac pages" are something new. I think they are firmly in the tradition of their time. Each sign is a month; each nymph is an attribute of the month.
What those attributes are is something that has yet to be determined. I think we'll only really have a breakthrough if we ever find a template, something similar in a vernacular we understand.
I mostly agree with David here, where the issue is really one of terminology.
The zodiac is a band of the sky that was special because this is where the Sun, the Moon and the planets were moving about. It was subdivided into sections which were associated with some constellations.
Illustrations related to the zodiac throughout the middle ages could take on several forms, including a single illustration of all signs (usally also in a circle), a zodiac man with the different signs allocated to different body parts, or individual signs per page, with or without association to the different months.
The Voynich MS fits squarely in the last category, where the association with the months was made some time later by (presumably) a later owner, and there are not the illustrations related to the months that are typical for calendars.
My issue is only with the term "a zodiac", which, as JKP and David also explained, is far from ideal. If you were to say to anyone who does not know the MS that there is "a zodiac" in it, they would probably expect something else.
Of course I agree that the signs can be used individually on separate pages. But then calling this "a zodiac" would be highly unusual, and I doubt this is ever done.
(04-06-2020, 09:45 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course I agree that the signs can be used individually on separate pages. But then calling this "a zodiac" would be highly unusual, and I doubt this is ever done.
Sorry, but this is done all the time.
I could point to any number of manuscript descriptions in any number of libraries. Just to give one concrete example (I didn't search very hard):
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
It remains playing with words, or perhaps nitpicking.
Why should "a zodiac" be wrong and "illustrations of the signs of the zodiac" be right?
Rene, I don't understand why one the one hand you start encouraging the use of "transliteration" instead of "transcription" but call this nitpicking.
The problem here is really simple. If you say "a zodiac", you refer to a single-page composition. Saying the VM contains "a zodiac" is wrong. My issue is not with the word zodiac, but with the sequence "a zodiac". The page you link to does not say "a zodiac", because there is no single-page composition of all signs.
We're drifting OT here, but transcription and transliteration are two different things.
This was one of the (many) issues that was raised against the Cheshire paper by a linguist, and I decided that I follow his advice.
I agree, over half of this thread is off topic. I tried to split the terminology discussion.
Well, we definitely don't want to use terminology like Cheshire does, so that's a good reason indeed to add the word "transliteration" to one's portfolio. What I don't get though is why correctness is required for some terms but not for others. Calling the VM series "a zodiac" is simply wrong.
In addition to the fact that the indefinite form of the word is not used for dispersed images, calling it "a zodiac" also implies assumptions about its intention. Saying "signs of the zodiac" is not problematic, because they remain the signs even if they are merely used as month emblems (which we don't know).
These are the terms I've been trying to use (there are probably lapses, but I have tried). I don't know if they are the best but it's what I generally write:
- zodiac figures - the iconic representations of each sign of the zodiac
- zodiac sequence - a series of zodiac figures in their traditional sequence, but not necessarily in the same diagram or on the same page, as long as their association with one another as a conceptual unit is clear
- zodiac - a representation (visual, textual, conceptual) of the signs of the zodiac together on a page or a poster or some other cohesive unit in their traditional sequence. Usually this is roughly circular.
(04-06-2020, 08:45 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So no, I don't think the "zodiac pages" are something new. I think they are firmly in the tradition of their time. Each sign is a month; each nymph is an attribute of the month.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] (04-06-2020, 09:13 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[/font]
The Voynich MS fits squarely in the last category, where the association with the months was made some time later by (presumably) a later owner, and there are not the illustrations related to the months that are typical for calendars.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][/font]
While I think, these folios with the Zodiac Signs may be a calendar, I think about anything, but not about labours. Nothing here says about that. They are traditional, but in the same time they can represent any other calendar, which must be more or less a secret.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]We probably discussed this earlier, but it is interesting that that who made inscriptions of the month names began the sequence of months correctly (rather usually), as March usually was placed first, but the problem is that in medieval times the sign of Pisces, in the context of calendaries, was linked to Ferbruary, not to March. Aries was the standard "label" of March. Maybe, the later owner wanted to match the usual sequence to the unusual order of the VMs diagrams.[/font]