+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Astrology (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-34.html)
+--- Thread: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't (/thread-535.html)
Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - david - 13-04-2016
I am currently convinced that the Voynich Zodiac isn't a zodiac at all.
Instead, it's a late medieval Spanish-based myrogenesis - the attributing of specific characteristic to each degree of the zodiac.
The zodiac signs simply illustrate the month, the nymphs around the zodiac are paranatellonta, the aspects that astrology granted each degree around zodiacal sign.
In fact, I suspect the zodiac is actually a lapidary.
A year ago I put up a long blog post explaining this and examining historical precedent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
I'm currently revisiting this topic with new information, and I'd love to hear your opinions on this before I finish off my article.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - Anton - 13-04-2016
I like the idea of the Zodiac being not a Zodiac, since it is a simple solution of the "Pisces" problem.
But actually you then need to match the beginning of a calendar year (which was in force in the particular time and place) with Pisces. I remember when we discussed this problem in 2014 or in 2015 in Pelling's blog, there were certain difficulties with that - at least for 15th century European calendars.
If one argues that Pisces is first just because they hold the point of the vernal equinox - that's good for an astronomical chart but perhaps not for a lapidary or something.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - david - 13-04-2016
Here, I'm going to mutter "re-ordering of the folios" and "possible loss of material" before moving onto a new topic.
I'd also point out that the Voynich either matches the Alphones X lapidario or adds one attribute - Pisces, for example, has 28 attributes in the lapidario but 29 in the VMS. There may be something significant there, but I'm still working on it.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - Anton - 13-04-2016
I once tried to reconstruct how the Zodiac pages might have been reordered to restore Aries to its leading position, but to no avail.
As to the figure of 29. Synodic month is 29,5 days. Even if the figures do not stand for days, but for other attributes, this may indirectly determine the number of those attributes.
***
In any case, I suggest that you find that quite comprehensive discussion in Nick's blog, maybe you may borrow some inspiring thoughts from there. Unfortunately, I don't remember the link offhand.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - ReneZ - 14-04-2016
(13-04-2016, 07:49 PM)david Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am currently convinced that the Voynich Zodiac isn't a zodiac at all.
Instead, it's a late medieval Spanish-based myrogenesis - the attributing of specific characteristic to each degree of the zodiac.
The zodiac signs simply illustrate the month, the nymphs around the zodiac are paranatellonta, the aspects that astrology granted each degree around zodiacal sign.
I'm a bit confused.....
With
Quote:isn't a zodiac at all
what do you mean precisely with the word 'zodiac'. In the post you link, you write it isn't a horoscope.
Then above, you refer to the degrees of the zodiac, and the zodiac signs.
So, do you believe that there is a cycle of zodiac illustrations, however, its purpose is not clear?
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - david - 14-04-2016
ReneZ - it's easy to get confused whilst writing all this. I'll start afresh.
A zodiac is a circle of 12 30º divisions of celestial longitude. We then have the signs of the zodiac, Leo, Pisces, etc etc.
A horoscope is when someone uses celestial positions within the zodiac to make a prediction.
Now, whenever the Voynich zodiac is being discussed, it seems to be assumed that it is encoding calendar information, and indeed the names of the months of the year written alongside the signs of the zodiac reinforce that concept.
So whilst it looks like a zodiac, I'm suggesting that its purpose isn't to encode zodiacal information to produce a horoscope. So the astrological figures don't represent months.
Instead, I'm suggesting it's a myrogenesis. The nymphs represent each celestial degree of the zodiac, and then that degree has an aspect - quite possibly a magic Stone (a lapidary) although of course it could be anything - a medicine, a plant, etc - that would have extra potency when we reach that degree of the zodiac.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - -JKP- - 15-04-2016
(14-04-2016, 05:07 PM)david Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Now, whenever the Voynich zodiac is being discussed, it seems to be assumed that it is encoding calendar information, and indeed the names of the months of the year written alongside the signs of the zodiac reinforce that concept.
...
The names of the months are in a different color ink and what strongly appears to be a different hand, not only different handwriting from the VMS main text but from the other marginalia (different stroke order, different cadence, different spacing, different writing style, and different language from the other marginalia).
If it is another hand, it could have been added by anyone and possibly some time later (e.g., by someone trying to decipher the VMS, for example). If so, it in no way reinforces the intention of the original illustrator.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - ReneZ - 15-04-2016
Thanks for the clarification David. These questions and doubts tend to come up regularly, and it seems useful to distinguish between the two aspects:
- the cyle of illustrations is the cycle of zodiac signs.
I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt about that, even though it isn't complete. I'd say, even if we had only three consecutive illustrations of a feline animal, a woman holding something like a stalk and a pair of scales, we could be pretty sure it was a fragment of the zodiac cycle.
- what is this set of illustrations representing
Here, the options are open, in my opinion. Horoscopes were drawn in pretty standard ways, and quite different from this. In calendars, the zodiac images are almost marginal drawings, and there is always the list of days of each month, which we don't see here. You mention celestial longitude, which is a good point. In ancient star catalogues, the longitude was not measured from 0 to 360, but as "sign, number" where sign is one of the twelve zodiac signs, and number a figure between 0 and 30.
That there are 30 items strongly suggests that these are the degrees rather than days of the month.
Now what is being represented for each degree, i.e. what is the meaning of the human figure, the star and the label, remains open.
The fact that Pisces has 29 is not an issue in my opnion. The star and the label are there (in the centre). Only the nymph is missing.
In Gemini there is one with a nymph and a star, but the label is missing. That looks more like an oversight, while the missing nymph in Pisces seems intentional, and to mark the start in one way or another.
I haven't yet given up on my old theory that the stars represent actual stars in the sky, in the sense of paranatellonta, or a star catalogue, but I certainly can't demonstrate it convincingly enough, so it'll have to stay at the level of one of many ideas.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - Koen G - 15-04-2016
Rene, I think the distinction you make is an important one indeed. When I see people say that this is a zodiac, I think they mean that this series was intended, used and perceived as one. I think they way you describe its possible intention is a plausible one.
I also agree that most of the figures can be linked to their counterparts in the standard zodiac cycle as well. The stylistic differences may be interpreted differently by different people, but there is no doubt that the Voynich fish are like Pisces.
I think it's very unfortunate, however, that a later hand (we all agree on this, right?) added month names to the roundels. If not, we would have had a cycle of twelve images, possibly corresponding to twelve months. Here, I must agree with the point that Diane often defends. If we just put the Voynich series of images (left) next to the zodiac (right), we get:
Code:
fish ram
goat bull
goat twins
bull crab
bull lion
twins maiden
crab/lobster scales
scales scorpion
blue feline archer
maiden goat
"scorpion" water-bearer
archer fishSo while the figures have been selected from the same "pool", it is far from certain that this was ever meant to represent even the image cycle as we know it.
RE: Why the Voynich Zodiac - isn't - ReneZ - 15-04-2016
There's of course quite a bit more that could be said about it...
While there is little doubt that the month names were added later, we don't know how much later. I think it is fortunate, because it is one of the minor clues we have about the MSs' whereabouts in its early history. Even if it is not telling us anything specific just yet.
Anyway, this person clearly associated the zodiac signs with the months. There are two ways of doing that.
In calendars, January is typically associated with aquarius, February with pisces and March with aries.
Our later owner / peruser associated pisces with March, which is more like manuscripts of astronomical / astrological nature, such as here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.