+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" (/thread-1185.html)
[split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - Diane - 27-11-2016
Anton,
One of the interesting things about the Voynich diagrams relating to winds and stars is that they do not show any clear correlation to the usual "zodiac-planets-cardinal winds" mindset of the Latin European texts. The so-called "zodiac" doesn't represent the zodiac creatures; there is no sign of the planets' inclusion apart from sun and moon - which seems to mean that astrology may not be a subject of the month-roundels as is usually presumed - and the winds on f.67v-1 are not the cardinal winds.
For these and various other reasons, including the disposition of those curved lines on the famous diagram of f.68v-1 I was obliged to conclude that the sort of "text-book" astronomy-astrology characteristic of the Latin west does not inform the content of Beinecke MS 408 - and that the diagrams in the latter better agree with other traditions and customs- chiefly those of the navigators.
It is an interesting question as to when, and where, that information first entered the Latins' horizons and I'm not sure that the question has ever been investigated in any depth.
RE: f67v1 The four Seasons - -JKP- - 27-11-2016
(27-11-2016, 01:10 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton,
One of the interesting things about the Voynich diagrams relating to winds and stars is that they do not show any clear correlation to the usual "zodiac-planets-cardinal winds" mindset of the Latin European texts. The so-called "zodiac" doesn't represent the zodiac creatures; there is no sign of the planets' inclusion apart from sun and moon - which seems to mean that astrology may not be a subject of the month-roundels as is usually presumed - and the winds on f.67v-1 are not the cardinal winds.
...
Diane, you keep saying this but I'm not convinced it's true. Calling them zodiac figures is a convenience for most people, not a presumption of what the figures mean.
R. Sale has been talking about heraldry, not about it being astrology and I've seen many other discussions about them that have little or nothing to do with astrology. I wrote a blog about several of them representing cycles of life, with the only connection to astrology being that in the middle ages, some people believed that certain months were better for certain activities (like getting married, having children, etc.)—otherwise, I haven't talked about them having astrological implications other than their resemblance to zodiac symbols in shape and sequence.
Why not present your side without putting words in other people's mouths? I do not see researchers "usually" presuming that these wheels are astrological. I'm sure some do when they first see them, for obvious reasons, but I don't see any reason to fixate on people's first impressions. Once they study them, researchers make many different observations about the roundels that are not directly astrological.
RE: f67v1 The four Seasons - ReneZ - 27-11-2016
Illustrations of the 12 zodiac constellations or zodiac signs can be found in (at least) three different types of treatises.
1) Astronomical;
These tend to show all constellations in three parts: North of the ecliptic, at the ecliptic, and south of the ecliptic. The second part is the set of 12 zodiac constellations. This always refers to constellations, not signs of the zodiac.
2) 'Astrological' or horoscopes;
These show emblems of the 12 zodiac signs. Often, they also show more detailed subdivisions into 36 decans, or 360 degrees.
3) Calendars or books of hours;
These also show emblems of the 12 zodiac signs, often with a parallel cycle of 12 emblems for the months, i.e. what are typical activities performed during this month.
Zodiac is therefore the more neutral term, and it does not say anything about the intention of the illustrations. Talking about constellations, or calling it a calendar makes it more specific.
The nice articles by Marco and Darren at Stephen's blog, and JKP at his own blog, tend to include illustrations both fromgroups 2 and 3 above. The well-known quote from Dr. Stolot suggests a possible connection between the Voynich MS zodiac and group 3, based on details in the drawing.
Illustrations that include indications of the stars tend to come from group 1, but I believe that they can also come from group 2. People who have looked at all these illustrations in more detail may be able to be more specific about that point.
RE: f67v1 The four Seasons - MarcoP - 27-11-2016
(27-11-2016, 04:13 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess the confusion comes from the use of the word Zodiac. When we say 'a zodiac', the most 'standard' thing that comes to mind is twelve of the thirteen constellations of the ecliptic presented as signs in a circle, with an astrological intention.
When we see for example a planisphere or a celestial globe, we can say it contains 'the constellations of the Zodiac', but not 'a Zodiac'. It shows the constellations in their real position on the ecliptic, without any astrological intent.
In my opinion, the above statements are misleading. I think it's difficult to distinguish astrological from astronomical, when discussing ancient artifacts. The two disciplines were close and inter-dependent and authors like Ptolemy or al-Sufi are relevant to the history of both fields. Kepler himself still used to cast horoscopes.
I also think we cannot say much about the intentions with which a planisphere or a celelestial globe was created. How can we say they were produced "without any astrological intent"?
Finally, I would like to note that in many cases, planispheres and celestial globes actually included a zodiac wheel:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Savage Smith ("Islamicate Celestial Globes") mentions several globes with "12 medallions containing the zodiacal signs represented by emblematic motifs that are to be found on other examples of Islamicate metalwork".
RE: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - Koen G - 27-11-2016
Thread split. This is an interesting discussion that keeps reappearing, so for the sake of clarity we'll have it in a separate thread.
First of all, I'll say again that I settle for the term Zodiac section because it is convenient. Also it is clear that most of the central emblems are related to the constellations on the ecliptic, so I find this term way more normal than for example "biological section".
Rene: yes, I agree with your categories. Though under the first one I would also add depictions of single constellations without them belonging to the series. For example, I was browsing the Leiden Aratea, and there you get Leo (full page image), next page Charioteer, next page Taurus... I personally wouldn't call this "a Zodiac", and the main purpose is astronomy. So like you say, these are not the Signs but the Constellations.
I find it weird to call something "a zodiac" when purely the constellations are meant. But the term is used so broadly and does appear to be accepted to refer to the ecliptic, so I can't object.
Marco: Quite right, I shouldn't generalize and there are of course hybrid forms. It is true that there was no clean divide between astronomy and astrology - it was all study of the stars, after all. But Aratus, for example, was mostly concerned with the description of the constellations and how they could be used for practical purposes. The final section in his poem is a bit unusual ("weather signs"), but the manuscripts generally illustrate his purely astronomical text. So I'd say that if an Aratus paragraph is illuminated, we can be sure that a constellation is meant and not a Sign of the Zodiac.
RE: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - Diane - 28-11-2016
Koen,
I'd surely agree that once the Occitan or Judeo-Catalan inscriptions were added, the series was being taken for a calendar, and the Mediterranean world denoted the months of the calendar by the twelve constellations of the Roman zodiac.
But all this proves is that a correlation was being made, not that the intention of the original series was to represent the same 12 constellations that were so very well and widely known within Europe that as early as the ninth century, one writer didn't bother to llist them because "everyone knows them".
Indeed, they were as well known as the series of numbers around a clock-face, and as difficult to "get wrong" as any other universally familiar set of images. Depictions of the 12 month-creatures were found not only in a text-book, but in public places: in cathedrals, churches, mosaics in public buildings.
The point here is that those wishing to argue that the whole content of the manuscript and its imagery is a product of Latin European culture have to address the fact that the series does not represent the zodiac '12'.
It plainly and obviously does not; it is not a 'peculiar' zodiac: it is not a zodiac. I believe I may have been the first to investigate this matter in any depth, though I have since seen Rene and others quote some of my results while omitting the evidence and argument informing those results. The one I see most often repeated is that the series contains "two goats".
So, if it was not originally intended to represent those 12 constellations - at least not according to the Roman-Latin-Byzantine-Arab habit, then what was it supposed to represent, and where did it come from? That's the critical issue for correctly provenancing this imagery.
And if it was not meant as a zodiac series, yet is related to a ten-month period in some way, what (apart from astrology or text-book astronomy) might it relate to? Here, of course, most imaginations fail, and some historical and other study is needed to address the question.
Whether the series does, or doesn't relate to the ecliptic is not something we know; it is a presumption built from the presumption that the series relates to the Roman zodiac's "12".
Similarly, we find for example that the matter of "per degree astrology" has been raised over and over again, but no-one to my knowledge has ever been able to produce a Latin diagram bearing any resemblance to any of the month-folios' tiers of figures.
Here again - and I am very happy to hear of any precedent - I believe my comparisons to circles of 'angelic' figures were the first comparisons of that sort to be offered, but happily since then Marco and others have produced other 'angelic wheels', principally from works produced by Jewish and Islamic speaking scholars during the reign of Alfonzo called 'il Sabio'.
The examples I offered were also from the Jewish tradition, exploring the intersection between the Majorcan school of cartography and Panofsky's opinion that the work displayed element of Kabbalah, a tradition whose early centre was in what is now Northern Spain.
Apart from the work done by P.Han, and which has been largely ignored when it isn't simply parroted without due acknowledgement (a common custom among some of the pre-ninja Voynicheros), I have yet to see anyone attempt to investigate the questions raised by the Voynich calendar's imagery - and particularly whether, and how, the calendar's tiers and 'nymphs' may or do relate to other schemes for the heavens, other forms of calendar, and alternative series of imagery.
Or perhaps it was done, and the results (as so often) ignored because the results ran counter to a prevalent theory.
Discovering and citing precedents correctly is such an important part of decent scholarship, that I'm glad to see how well observed it is in this 'new wave' of Voynich workers - as it had been on the first mailing list.
RE: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - Diane - 28-11-2016
Postscript: as so often we find later echoes in some works. Ellie and I have both illustrated certain examples of a partial 'sky' divided into tiers and occupied by 'naked souls' - but the style and details show the earliest examples of this sort have close affinity to extant Jewish works. The issue is further complicated by the fact that highly decorated formal Jewish manuscripts are often illustrated by Christian artists.
RE: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - Koen G - 28-11-2016
Diane: yes, if we take the month names as "canon", then an interpretation as some kind of calendar with Zodiac-themed month emblems seems to be the most logical one.
However, where I perhaps differ from your view is that, even if we ignore the month names, it is still hard to deny that there is a strong parallel with the constellations of the ecliptic. There is a feline, a pair of people, two fish... I'd say that these constellations, or even the Zodiac itself, has at least steered the series to become what it is now.
Of course I also agree with your objections against just calling this an atypical Zodiac.
Code:
1. Ram <-> fishes
2. Bull <-> goat
3. Twins <-> goat
4. Crab <-> "bull" with basket
5. Lion <-> "bull" with basket
6. Virgin <-> twins
7. Balance <-> two lobsters
8. Scorpion <-> leopard
9. Archer <-> virgin
10. Goat <-> scales
11. Aquarius <-> animal with ears, four mammalian legs and curly tail
12. Fishes <-> archerRE: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - VViews - 28-11-2016
I respectfully disagree with Diane's first comment above that "it is not a 'peculiar' zodiac: it is not a zodiac". I don't think this can be asserted as a fact at this point at all.
MarcoP's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the zodiac cycle over at Stephen Bax's site shows very clear examples of many of the features we find in this Voynich section, whether it's Aries as a goat, double animals for various signs, human crossbowman as archer, and many more elements. JKP's blogposts about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , also show very clear examples. I know that most here are already aware of this research, but am reposting it here for newcomers who might not be.
It is true that we haven't yet found a sequence which presents all of the Voynich features at once, but all of them (except for the Taurus basket) individually have parallels elsewhere.
When discussing parallels it must be remembered that we only have access to what has been digitized, and this is limited by two factors:
1) many libraries which have extensive manuscript collections have not made their collections available online (Glasgow University Library and Vienna National Library are at the top of my personal wishlist).
2) even among those that do digitize, many manuscripts, especially the more rustic looking ones have not yet been included in such efforts.
So in a way, we are a bit like this guy:
![[Image: 1-x59cvjb_mojtouxmkbihsq.jpeg?w=680]](https://firstthetrousers.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/1-x59cvjb_mojtouxmkbihsq.jpeg?w=680)
RE: [split] Discussion about the word "Zodiac" - R. Sale - 28-11-2016
Is this where you lost your zodiac? Was it a real zodiac? Or some sort of moshed up, knock-off copy of a zodiac?
The problem with the word is its lack of precision. We have Rene's three definitions and, like a triangle, you don't get one side without the other two - especially in an era where astronomy and astrology were not yet well separated and each month is designated by its corresponding constellation. Multiple definitions combined with the variations of individual opinion yield a spectrum of potential interpretations.
Now we have the reality of the VMs 'Zodiac'. And each of us can only compare what we see with our own interpretation of the definition. Is this a real zodiac?
So this is the VMs and, of course, there are problems. Problems that are significant enough to eliminate the possibility of any simple explanation. There are some similarities with other 'zodiacs' of the same era and there are differences. The similarities are the easily accepted correspondence of the individual monthly medallions in the VMs with those of other zodiacs and, secondly, the sequence in which the monthly emblems have been placed. (With allowance for Aries and Taurus being bisected and two months missing.)
The significant differences, with the sequence of VMs medallions, start with Pisces being placed first. Aries and Taurus are split in two. Aries has goats instead of sheep, and so on down the list of unusual and unique characteristics. And even while this continual chorus of discrepancies goes on, the over all similarities of the individual medallions and their sequential arrangement maintain a sort of 'zodiac' facade - not to mention having the VMs medallions labelled according to the traditional zodiac system. Beyond the appearance, however, do the pages of the VMs 'zodiac' perform any of the functions expected of a standard zodiac or calendar? To make that determination, we probably need to be able to read the written text.
The problems of the VMs Zodiac are reflective of a problem for the whole manuscript and its creation. To what extent does the manuscript borrow from prior works? To what extent does it follow tradition or go off on its own? Is the manuscript maker a mere copyist or a creator? Simply an illustrator or a genuine innovator? I believe the unusual nature of the VMs zodiac medallion sequence helps to provide some answers.
Given the situation caused by the accumulated errors in the Julian calendar system present at the time of the VMs parchment dates, problems had occurred in determining the proper date for Easter. The need for calendar reform was recognized centuries before it was actually put in place by the church.
Having Pisces first, splitting Aries and Taurus into halves, along with Gemini and an uncommon version of Cancer allows the VMs innovator to set up a sequence of pairs using each of the monthly medallions for the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac. Pattern exists in the VMs zodiac, but it's something that goes well beyond what might be expected.
.