I don't want to comment on the Janick essays in depth, but I'll mention why I found them difficult to read.
In the zodiac-symbols section, he identifies the text under the symbols as Carolingian. It's not even close to being Carolingian. This style of handwriting on the VMS is found in the Occitan/Catalan region in the 15th century and probably dates to about the mid- or late-15th century. The spelling of the months supports the handwriting (they are consistent with each other).
It's also very likely that the marginalia was added later as it casually crosses over some of the drawings and the original illustrator tended not to do this. It's a different hand, a different color ink, and a different "sensibility". It's also a different hand (and language) from the marginalia on the last page. The way Janick writes about the zodiac symbols gives the impression that he thinks the month labels were part of the original manuscript and thus accepts out-of-hand that these are intended as zodiac signs.
There are factual errors in the section on historical precedents for the iconography of the symbols, as well.
I don't want to be seen as out-and-out attacking the work of another researcher, and we all make mistakes or go down blind alleys once in a while, but a certain minimum standard of care and attention needs to be maintained if something is to be taken seriously.
In the zodiac-symbols section, he identifies the text under the symbols as Carolingian. It's not even close to being Carolingian. This style of handwriting on the VMS is found in the Occitan/Catalan region in the 15th century and probably dates to about the mid- or late-15th century. The spelling of the months supports the handwriting (they are consistent with each other).
It's also very likely that the marginalia was added later as it casually crosses over some of the drawings and the original illustrator tended not to do this. It's a different hand, a different color ink, and a different "sensibility". It's also a different hand (and language) from the marginalia on the last page. The way Janick writes about the zodiac symbols gives the impression that he thinks the month labels were part of the original manuscript and thus accepts out-of-hand that these are intended as zodiac signs.
There are factual errors in the section on historical precedents for the iconography of the symbols, as well.
I don't want to be seen as out-and-out attacking the work of another researcher, and we all make mistakes or go down blind alleys once in a while, but a certain minimum standard of care and attention needs to be maintained if something is to be taken seriously.