[Blog Post] The Zodiac as a "Labors of the Months"

[ReneZ]

The explanation may be what Koen G and ReneZ say, but there may be another alternative that has to do not with the design but with the general conception of the codex. In fact, it is already suspicious that only the signs of Aries and Taurus are divided and that the signs of Aquarius and Capricorn are missing. Since what we see in the VM is mainly flowering herbs, we can deduce that the authors wanted to highlight the key signs in flowering.

I am not sure if 'suspicious' is the best word. I could certainly agree with 'unusual', but while doubled/halved signs are unusual, I do not agree that missing signs are unusual. More unusual is the start with Pisces, and of course the many women.

More importantly, even, is that 'having something unusual' is not unusual by itself. Lots of other manuscripts have unusual aspects. The zodiac pages in the famous, and often quoted Lapidario of Alfonso are also unusual in my opinion. I am not aware of any other similar illustrations with all the sitting figures.

To come back on topic, I do not see anything related to the labours of the month. These are well-established scenes that do not appear.