[split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section?

[split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - Printable Version

+- 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] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? (/thread-2197.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

[split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - ReneZ - 30-11-2017

VViews wrote:

Quote:Is everyone ok with this being referred to as the "Zodiac" section?

It seems to be something of a convention to call it that, and everyone immediately understands what part of the Voynich is being referred to, but I know some people don't like calling it that.

and Koen:

Quote:The term Zodiac section is not without its problems

I find it increasingly difficult to take any of this seriously.

Could anyone please come up with a definition of 'zodiac', in such a way that one can understand why the zodiac section in the Voynich MS would *not* be a zodiac???

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - Koen G - 30-11-2017

Hi Rene

I will ignore the tone of that first sentence, and just try to answer your question.

Just for the record, this was split from a thread where I affirmed that the term "Zodiac section" is suited for referring to this section of the VM, because I see no immediate problems with communication. Past incidents have made clear that terms like "recipe section" and "pharma section" did cause such difficulties. That said, I can understand why some people think there are issues with the term. Let's use your request as a test. A definition of Zodiac which does not fit the corresponding VM section. I just went to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

Let's go over the definitions:

an imaginary belt of the heavens, extending about 8° on each side of the ecliptic, within which are the apparent paths of the sun, moon, and principal planets. It contains twelve constellations and hence twelve divisions called signs of the zodiac. Each division, however, because of the precession of the equinoxes, now contains the constellation west of the one from which it took its name.

This definition is talking about a part of the visible sky, basically a wider version of the ecliptic. This belt is divided in segments, the ones we use in astrology. To say that the VM section is "a zodiac" would be like saying that it is "an ecliptic" or "a tropic", which is awkward and doesn't apply. With this first definition I have already answered your question, but there are more - maybe those apply?

a circular or elliptical diagram representing this belt, and usually containing pictures of the animals, human figures, etc., that are associated with the constellations and signs.

At first one might say that this definition applies to the VM section, but upon second reading we see that again it doesn't. This definition of "a zodiac" sees it as the entire sequence of signs, drawn together in one diagram. This is the type of Zodiac we see very often in manuscripts and indeed in modern representations.

The final definition appears to treat a metaphorical extension of the concept, marked as "rare" in the proper entry:

(rare) a circuit or round.

It's not really about the set being incomplete. It's neither about the duplication of two signs. It's not even about the fact that the sheep are goats.
Let's imagine that this is a proper series of the signs of the Zodiac.
Then still this section would not contain "a Zodiac". It contains something which uses the signs of the Zodiac. A calendar? A horoscope? Cycles of life? I don't know. But there is no Zodiac in this section, just some of the signs, used inappropriately in some cases.

But for me the bottom line remains that the word "Zodiac section" serves its purpose in communication, so it's alright. But if we're going to discuss definitions, be prepared to actually understand those definitions.

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - VViews - 30-11-2017

Hi ReneZ,
Personally I call it the Zodiac section. That is the most obvious name for it IMO. I have yet to read a compelling argument for calling it anything else.
The reason why I raised the question over there was because I remembered that some people (ok, one person) had disagreed with this, and since the subforum is called "positions we can agree upon" wanted to be sure that there was some consensus over the whole sentence, both the count and the wording of it.
But yeah, to me, the section plainly containing signs of the Zodiac, no matter how unusual they may be, can unambiguously be called the Zodiac section. Just wanted to be sure there was a majority agreement on that before closing the poll.

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - -JKP- - 30-11-2017

I usually call them zodiac symbols or zodiac-symbol section or zodiac roundels. Since they start with Pisces and only include 10 of the 12 traditional symbols, I'm a little reluctant to call it a "zodiac".

But it certainly has many commonalities with a zodiac. The images are traditional, even if a bit inventive, the sequence is traditional, and the surrounding wheels are mapped into circa 30 figures, which fits with the traditional division of thirty degrees per constellation. Even some of the nymphly subject matter (cycles of life) is consistent with the astrological houses (not to be confused with lunar mansions).

The images are also very consistent in subject matter with radio-carbon dating for circa early 15th century. Lizard scorpios and crossbowmen were only chosen to represent Scorpius and Sagittarius during a short window of time in a minority of manuscripts (note that lizard-Scorpios are distinct from the English dragon-Scorpios). This in itself creates a commonality with other manuscripts with zodiac sequences, especially when combined with the romantic-couples version of Gemini.

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - ReneZ - 01-12-2017

I have put myself at a disadvantage here, of course, that by arguing that a certain discussion is not worth having, I am actually engaging in it Rolleyes

Anyway, I am glad to see that:

Quote:It's not really about the set being incomplete. It's neither about the duplication of two signs. It's not even about the fact that the sheep are goats.

because these were the arguments I have seen so far why these are not illustrations of zodiac signs.

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - Koen G - 01-12-2017

For me those are two different discussions.

On the one hand, there is the question: are the central emblems Zodiac signs?
And the answer is YES. Bull, fish, archer, maiden, scales... Now, I assume we can agree that their sequence is unusual and their appearance is rare, but that doesn't mean they are not the signs.

A whole different question is: does this section contain a Zodiac?
And here the answer is NO. As I have demonstrated in my previous answer, a Zodiac is the full series in one diagram. Imagine a manuscript which contains a prince's horoscope, which uses images of the signs. Would we call this a Zodiac? No. It may or may not contain a full Zodiac diagram, but it is a horoscope. Similarly, a calendar may use all the signs in the right order and all, but that doesn't make it a Zodiac. We'd still call it a calendar.

This is not a Zodiac, it's a calendar. Wikipedia calls it Faltkalender mit Monatsbildern.

So I hope this clarifies my position. The term "Zodiac section" is the best we have for now since everybody knows what it refers to, and the section does contain most of the signs. But the whole thing is not a Zodiac. It's something else. Basically I'm saying that Zodiac section is a good name until we find out what it really is.

(All of this is speaking as a researcher, not as a moderator. Members can obviously use whatever name they prefer).

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - Diane - 02-12-2017

Since - as far as I understand it - I am the only person who noticed before 2010 that the zodiac isn't a zodiac, and (despite the impression Rene has given out, more than once) when I presented that opinion I pointed out, for the first time in Voynich studies, that the series contained two goats and no sheep.. and at the same time explained just why that fact would have been obvious to any non-halfwitted person in Latin Europe.

From that day to this, not one person has engaged in a dispassionate discussion with me, or made an intelligent comment directly to me, or asked for more explanation, or further textual or iconographic matter as context.

What has happened is that Rene was the first to openly adopt (without failing to take credit by the simple technique of omitting to credit his source.. as he does) the item about the two goats.

Now we have the 'nagging'... the end of which is to have a detailed, informed, historically justifiable argument neither read, nor debated, nor even understood. But then you are asked to vote on whether or not it's right.

... Well, vote away. Nothing to do with me. I wasn't offered a ticket in that lottery.

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - Koen G - 02-12-2017

Diane, part of the problem is that nobody (including you) properly distinguishes between the discussion about "a Zodiac" and "the signs of the Zodiac"

Will anyone still defend the position that this is "a Zodiac", after having read the definitions? This is a matter of format, and the VM section's format does not allow it to be a Zodiac

An entirely different question is whether the central emblems bear any relation to the signs or constellations of the Zodiac. Whatever their history may have been, it seems that in their present form they do. You just don't get a series like this without any connection to Zodiac imagery. Maybe they are just month emblems, but the connection to Zodiac images remains.

The individual problems with each image should certainly be discussed as well, but the overall character of the set makes it extremely likely that a connection to Zodiac imagery was intended.

So I say:
- "A Zodiac": NO
- A standard series of Zodiac images: NO
- Use of Zodiac images: YES

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - -JKP- - 03-12-2017

(02-12-2017, 08:33 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

So I say:
- "A Zodiac": NO
- A standard series of Zodiac images: NO
- Use of Zodiac images: YES

I'm comfortable with that.

As for it being a "calendar", what is the definition of a calendar for purposes of this discussion? The 30 divisions for each section might refer to some very old calendars, or it might refer to the 30 degrees associated with each progression of the constellations.

If the zodiac-symbol sequence is incomplete, so is the "calendar". In most of the manuscripts I've seen, calendars were identified by numbers or auspicious days or saints' days or labors of the months. The VMS sequence has none of these.

RE: [split] What is "a Zodiac" and does it apply to the VM section? - ReneZ - 03-12-2017

Almost exactly one year ago:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Since - as far as I understand it - I am the only person who noticed before 2010 that the zodiac isn't a zodiac, and (despite the impression Rene has given out, more than once) when I presented that opinion I pointed out, for the first time in Voynich studies, that the series contained two goats and no sheep.. and at the same time explained just why that fact would have been obvious to any non-halfwitted person in Latin Europe.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Pam Richards not only called the animals goats, but also argued that the images are not zodiac signs.