The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is that the longest entries are the two that are split, coming in more than twice as long as the more "typical" entry. If we assume a meaningful text, as we both do, and that the text is the only source of meaning, as you do, this is more conservatively read as an indication that the scribe duplicated Zodiacs so as to have enough space to contain the longer entries.

That is an intriguing theory, but the numbers are somewhat confusing:

    f70v2 1.5 501 Pisces       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f70v1 1   302 Aries1       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f71r  1   374 Aries2       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f71v  1   375 Taurus1      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72r1 1   412 Taurus2      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72r2 1   387 Gemini       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72r3 1.5 628 Cancer       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72v3 1.5 476 Leo          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72v2 1   407 Virgo        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72v1 1   393 Libra        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f73r  1   368 Scorpio      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f73v  1   351 Sagittarius  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


The first number is the count of panels occupied by the diagram. The second number is the count of EVA letters [a-z?] on all the text rings on that page, excluding word spaces [.,-]. The bar chart has one "X" for each 20 letters.  Joining the two-diagram signs we get

    f70v2 1.5 501 Pisces       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         
    f70v1 1   676 Aries1+2     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f71v  1   787 Taurus1+2    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72r2 1   387 Gemini       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    f72r3 1.5 628 Cancer       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   
    f72v3 1.5 476 Leo          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX         
    f72v2 1   407 Virgo        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX             
    f72v1 1   393 Libra        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX             
    f73r  1   368 Scorpio      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               
    f73v  1   351 Sagittarius  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I don't know what to make from these numbers.  If we assume that the text in the rings is not only meaningful but essential -- that is, it had to be that text, not any shorter -- then why does it vary that way? Why is Gemini's half the length it should have by interpolation of the neightbors?

But even with that assumption, I can't believe that the Author decided to split Aries and Taurus into two halves just because he figured out that the text would not fit in a single diagram.  In the Cosmo section there are several diagrams with two or three rings of text in the same band.  Why didn't he just do that in these two signs?  Splitting the diagrams seems to be an awful waste of vellum, that would make the diagrams harder to use.

Keep in mind that the Scribe was comically unable to plan the layout of these diagrams, and almost always had to squeeze nymphs and other elements near the end, and eventually just draw them outside the diagrams.  Splitting the diagrams to fit the text would be uncommon foresight from his part. So the split would have been determined by the Author.  Again,why didn't he specify an extra ring of text instead?

So I rather think that the text was meaningful but not essential, meaning that it could be truncated or pruned down to fit the available space.  On the first of the two barcharts above, note that the three diagrams with the most text are those that are bigger because they occupy 1.5 panels instead of just 1.

Keep in mind also that we don't know how those folios were meant to be folded.  

Moreover, based on the style of the nymphs I believe that Aries and Taurus were the first diagrams to be drawn, followed by Pisces and then the rest.  

So here is an alternative theory.  The Author initially planned to have 24 diagrams of 15 degrees each.  The scribe started drawing them like that on what is now page f70v1, leaving panel f70v2 and the half-panel f70v3  blank for some reason.  (Note that the Western Zodiac is generally assumed to start with Aries.)  

But then for some reason the Author decided to switch to 30-degree diagrams.  Maybe he found that he did not have enough vellum for 24 diagrams. Maybe he wanted to make his Zodiac more compatible with the Western ones.  Anyway, he told the Scribe to use that format from then on, using three bands of nymphs instead of two.  And he had him go back and do Pisces that way -- before Aries, instead of at the end of the section. (Note that the Chinese 24x15 degree thing starts in February.)

In fact, European astrology does have a dedicated "half sign", and it is far from obscure---it is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Sometimes the signs were fitted to the unequal hour, but the equal hour is defined such that each one passes through 15 degrees and divides each sign of the zodiac.

That's a good try, but I don't think it makes sense.  If each diagram of Aries and Taurus represent one hour, why does each degree (a 4-minute interval) have a unique label?  Why are those degrees represented as stars? 

An why would each 2-hour period be associated to a sign of the Zodiac?   In a single specific day, that could be the part of the Ecliptic that is near the zenith at that hour.  But that association shifts along the year over the full Ecliptic, and does not repeat from year to year.

The divided signs are odd, granted, but we can place their 30 degree totals with stars and labels in a European context.

If they are meant to be hours, the 15-label diagrams are odd because two of them are associated with the same Zodiac sign. The 30-label ones are odd because they would refer to 2-hour intervals.

As mentioned, a circle was divided into 365.25 degrees

Even if that is correct for Chinese astronomy in general (and one must be wary of possible of undue generalizations by scholars), the "solar terms" were definitely a division of the Ecliptic (or of the year) into 360 parts, not 365; and those parts pointedly were definitely not days, because the users of that system understood that the number of days between two successive "terms" was variable.

What, in a 15th Century Chinese context, do we suppose these labels on these degrees represent?

They represent the divisions of that "solar terms" scheme.  Possibly the names of stars that could be used to identify that degree.  Or some random name assigned to that degree.

the practice of associating stars with the degrees of the signs does not need a foreign explanation

As I wrote, the division of the Ecliptic into 12 sectors of precisely 30 degrees was not unknown in Europe.  What seems to have been unknown there is the division of the Ecliptic (not of the day) into 24 sets of 15 degrees.  Which was 2000-year-old well-known concept in China and the ares of Chinese cultural influence.

All the best, --stolfi