There are two discussions going on here, that are to some extent interwoven.
One is about terminology, i.e. how should one call a series of pages that shows emblems of the zodiac signs. This has both very relevant aspects and completely trivial ones. The trivial (even incorrect) part is that one should only call it a zodiac if all signs are in one and the same illustration.
The much more important distinction related to terminology is about 'constellations' and 'signs'. These are two completely different things. The aspects that we would now call astrological are related to the signs, not the constellations.
In ancient star catalogues, there are no signs but there are constellations. These are often subdivided in three groups: north of the zodiac, along the zodiac, and south of the zodiac. The middle group is usually the set of of twelve that overlap with the twelve sign of the zodiac.
(All this is greatly simplified).
The second discussion is about what we are (probably or perhaps) seeing in the Voynich MS.
Is it astrological? Is it a zodiac? Is it a calendar?
These options are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary. A calendar may or may not include zodiac illustrations, and may or may not have astrological information.
[ It is like asking: is this a banana or is this a fruit. These are not mutually exclusive, but some combinations are valid and some or not. ]
While the Voynich MS is unusual, there exist a grat number of manuscripts that include zodiac sequences and calendars, and these may help in trying to figure it out.
Calendars always (essentially always, I guess) have months names. These we also have in the Voynich MS, but they have almost certainly been added afterwards, so are not part of the original design.
Calendars essentially always have events listed by numbered dates, in tables, and this we do not see at all in the Voynich MS.
The months in medieval calendars have different number of days. The only thing we see in the Voynich MS is 30 items per sign, which fits perfectly with an astrological interpretation of 30 degrees per zodiac sign.
The odds are very, very strongly in favour of an astrological (in modern terms), or zodiacal interpretation of these diagrams, and against any form of a calendar.
ReneZ Wrote:The much more important distinction related to terminology is about 'constellations' and 'signs'. These are two completely different things. The aspects that we would now call astrological are related to the signs, not the constellations.
In ancient star catalogues, there are no signs but there are constellations.
Rene, what do you mean by signs?
Rene, if the signs are not on the same page, no professional will call it "a zodiac". I will stand corrected if you have a counter example.
I naturally agree about the distinction between constellations and signs, and that we are likely dealing with signs here. The abstractions or emblems that have become connected to time periods and no longer to the constellations.
I am agnostic about what the section "means", but I agree that we would probably call it astrological today. It seems more likely that it is about associations with the central sign rather than a mere calendar. Though what exactly the astrological use is, is anyone's guess.
As for the purpose of the VMS circles-of-nymphs, I've already blogged about what I think they are...
I don't think they they represent a calendar in the sense that we interpret the word (a time-keeping tool to keep track of months, days, etc.), I think they diagram a variety of human events that are time-related, like stages of life (from youth to old age), like menstruation, like the cycle of pregnancy, etc.
This is actually pretty logical. This kind of event is time-related, often cyclical, like the movement of the stars, the cycle of the moon.
JKP, a zodiac sign is one of twelve equal partitions of the ecliptic.
The ecliptic is a circle along the sky, which essentially is the path of the Sun in the course of a year. This means that each sign covers 360 divided by 12 = 30 degrees.
The first sign after the Vernal equinox (21 March) is the sign of Aries. It is called Aries because in classical times it coincided with the constellation of Aries.
The same for the other 11.
The moon and the planets also travel essentially, but not really all that closely, the same path. The moon only needs 2.5 days to pass from one sign to the next (the Sun needs a month). For the planets it's more complicated.
As a result of precession of the Earth's axis of rotation, the correspondence between zodiac signs and constellations was lost many centuries ago.
In modern times, there are actually 13 constellations that include part of the zodiac, and the fraction of the zodiac that is covered by each constellation can be any number, not necessarily 30 degrees.
For ancient and modern astrology, and for ancient astronomy, the only thing that matters is the zodiac sign. Ptolemy used this as one of the two coordinates for every star in his catalogue.
I know what the ecliptic is. I understand the astronomical aspect of this. I wanted to know what you specifically mean by the word "sign".
We have zodiac symbols (similar to alphabetic characters) that some people call signs.
We have figures that emblematically represent signs.
We have names for each of these emblems that some people call signs (if someone says, what are Pisces, Aries, Taurus, etc., the other person answers, they are signs [of the zodiac]).
We have a simplified model of the constellations that are on the ecliptic that are divided into 12 segments of 30 degrees each that are labeled with "signs".
I would like to respond to this:
Quote:ReneZ Wrote:
The much more important distinction related to terminology is about 'constellations' and 'signs'. These are two completely different things. The aspects that we would now call astrological are related to the signs, not the constellations.
In ancient star catalogues, there are no signs but there are constellations.
But I can't unless I know exactly what you mean by "sign".
(06-06-2020, 09:56 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I know what the ecliptic is. I understand the astronomical aspect of this. I wanted to know what you specifically mean by the word "sign".
That's good. As I wrote, a zodiac sign is a 30-degree segment of the ecliptic.
There are many medieval manuscripts that include three things:
- A series of zodiac figures (usually starting with Aries, Taurus, etc.) with explanations about their influence. This is usually spread over multiple folios.
- Diagrams of constellations, including those on the ecliptic (in other words Aries, Taurus, etc.), sometimes with schematic dots or stars to indicate the origin of the shape in relation to the organization of stars in that constellation.
- A wheel diagram of the zodiac figures (a zodiac) OR a planispheric wheel diagram of figures representing constellations (which often includes a line or mark to show which constellation symbols are on the ecliptic). Some manuscripts include both a zodiac and a wheel diagram of signs representing the constellations (not just those on the ecliptic).
Some of them also (or alternately) include a set of explanations or diagrams about ruling "planets" associated with certain zodiac symbols.
A smaller percentage additionally includes zodiac man to diagram the influence of the zodiac on specific parts of the body for planning a variety of medical procedures.
Some of them include vein man to indicate the best times (moon charts) and places to do bloodletting.
.
After about 1480 or 1490 or so, they sometimes also included zodiac symbols representing the signs (the ones that are similar to alphabetic symbols).
Some manuscripts included domino-like symbolic representations of the constellations (including those on the ecliptic).
.
In contrast to astrological and astronomical manuscripts, the zodiac figures used as mnemonic embellishments on calendars generally start with Aquarius since most medieval calendars begin with January.
So when I think of zodiac "sign" I think of three things:
- The pictorial representation of a specific portion of the ecliptic (animals, twins, virgo, etc.)
- The alphabetic-style symbols used to represent a specific zodiac (a late-medieval development)
- The specific zodiac name or figure assigned to a 30-degree portion of the ecliptic.
Part of the reason I never refer to the VMS zodiac figures as "signs" is because I don't know if they are. They are inspired by signs of the zodiac in other medieval pictorial representations (perhaps manuscripts, church portals, mosaics, or something else), but since they are not in the same number or the same starting-point, I am reluctant to think of them as signs. They might be. I'm just not sure yet.
(06-06-2020, 09:47 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene, if the signs are not on the same page, no professional will call it "a zodiac". I will stand corrected if you have a counter example.
Hi Koen,
I posted a couple of examples in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (2017).
The Oxford dictionary entry makes sense to me: "zodiac" can mean "A representation of the signs of the zodiac or of a similar astrological system." So I see no problem in saying that the Voynich manuscript includes a zodiac or that the set of medallions are a zodiac (though incomplete and anomalous).
"The zodiac of the Great Mahazor" and "the zodiac of the Voynich manuscript" are both OK to me. I am perfectly happy with other people using whatever other words they prefer, as long as I can guess what they mean.