27-01-2016, 08:48 PM
It should be clear, even to the casual investigator, that there is something unusual about the VMs Zodiac. In fact, there are a number of differences with more traditional zodiac representations. And first among them is the fact that Pisces is the first sign in the VMs sequence. Traditional astrology has Aries as the first house, putting Pisces at the end (#12). Likewise the quasi-medical image of the Zodiac Man has Aries as the head and Pisces at the feet. So here is the VMs Zodiac being presented feet first.
Just to be clear, I am looking for ideas - not claiming to have the answers. Hopefully discussion can proceed in that manner as well.
I have looked at several aspects and here are two that might have some relevance. The first is calendar reform. The Gregorian reform took place in Feb 1582. From the VMs parchment dates, a composition date of 1430 would leave a century and a half where the errors in the Julian continued their progressive growth. And the knowledge that this discrepancy existed can be historically verified at various instances. But, throughout this prime time for VMs composition, efforts were made, but no action was taken to effect a correction.
The second factor is the astronomical phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. It has resulted in the movement of the spring equinox from Aries into Pisces. The Hebrew calendar took these factors into account and was reformed accordingly in the 12th Century. Roger Bacon made note of the situation. The equinox was halfway through Pisces by then. Regiomontanus was called to fix the calendar c. 1500, but when he arrived, he died instead. And suddenly we're all the way back up to 1582. And finally the days are back where they are supposed to be.
Is Pisces position at the start of the VMs Zodiac an indication that the traditional zodiac sequence has been updated to reflect the accumulation of errors in the Julian system and the movement of the spring equinox?
.
Just to be clear, I am looking for ideas - not claiming to have the answers. Hopefully discussion can proceed in that manner as well.
I have looked at several aspects and here are two that might have some relevance. The first is calendar reform. The Gregorian reform took place in Feb 1582. From the VMs parchment dates, a composition date of 1430 would leave a century and a half where the errors in the Julian continued their progressive growth. And the knowledge that this discrepancy existed can be historically verified at various instances. But, throughout this prime time for VMs composition, efforts were made, but no action was taken to effect a correction.
The second factor is the astronomical phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. It has resulted in the movement of the spring equinox from Aries into Pisces. The Hebrew calendar took these factors into account and was reformed accordingly in the 12th Century. Roger Bacon made note of the situation. The equinox was halfway through Pisces by then. Regiomontanus was called to fix the calendar c. 1500, but when he arrived, he died instead. And suddenly we're all the way back up to 1582. And finally the days are back where they are supposed to be.
Is Pisces position at the start of the VMs Zodiac an indication that the traditional zodiac sequence has been updated to reflect the accumulation of errors in the Julian system and the movement of the spring equinox?
.