My opinion about that famous brief You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Prof. Ewa Sniezynska-Stolot.
She seems to me to be strictly commenting about the iconography of the medallions of the zodiac pages. She says nothing of the unusual repetition of Aries and Taurus nor of the amazing rings of "nymphs" encircling the signs. She discusses the zodiac cycle as a whole, only mentioning specific signs as examples: I consider this approach very sound, quite different from focusing on isolated details such as the number of petals of the flower at the feet of Virgo or the shape of the third spot on the back of Scorpio. Of course, her analysis is based on the thousands of details that can be observed in the medallions: discussing all of them in detail would have been more appropriate for a whole book than for a brief statement.
When she writes that "the signs of the Zodiac do not present problems" she is saying that their degree of variance is compatible with what can be observed in the wide range of medieval European zodiac cycles. At least, this is my personal interpretation of that sentence.
The only detail that she mentions as strange (the manger or "well" of Taurus) is exceptional indeed. I don't think I have ever seen anything similar in an illustration of Taurus (while Taurus grazing a bush or small tree is almost as common as Aries doing so).
In the last sentences, she provides some speculation about Taurus and about the origin of the manuscript. She is clearly not as sure of the reliability of these points as she is of her other observations.
She seems to me to be strictly commenting about the iconography of the medallions of the zodiac pages. She says nothing of the unusual repetition of Aries and Taurus nor of the amazing rings of "nymphs" encircling the signs. She discusses the zodiac cycle as a whole, only mentioning specific signs as examples: I consider this approach very sound, quite different from focusing on isolated details such as the number of petals of the flower at the feet of Virgo or the shape of the third spot on the back of Scorpio. Of course, her analysis is based on the thousands of details that can be observed in the medallions: discussing all of them in detail would have been more appropriate for a whole book than for a brief statement.
When she writes that "the signs of the Zodiac do not present problems" she is saying that their degree of variance is compatible with what can be observed in the wide range of medieval European zodiac cycles. At least, this is my personal interpretation of that sentence.
The only detail that she mentions as strange (the manger or "well" of Taurus) is exceptional indeed. I don't think I have ever seen anything similar in an illustration of Taurus (while Taurus grazing a bush or small tree is almost as common as Aries doing so).
In the last sentences, she provides some speculation about Taurus and about the origin of the manuscript. She is clearly not as sure of the reliability of these points as she is of her other observations.