The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[chenxiang]

There is no classical text that supports the idea of mapping the VMS "things" to ...

Do you really mean "there is no classical text", or "I could not find any classical text"?

Speaking of which, here is another way you could help me.  Suppose that the Dictation Scenario is true, and our Author has just decided to take some of the Chinese medical knowledge back to Europe.  

He must have asked "Which of your medical books should I copy?  One that gives a broad overview of your science, that is considered the most authoritative, etc etc?"

I supposed that the immediate answer must have been "The Zenghe Bencao here, of course.  Its 26 volumes and 1000+ pages include the theory and experience of all our most respected doctors since 300 BCE..."

"A thousand pages?  *Gasp*! I mean, what is the best book that I can hope to copy in my spare time, before I die?"

"Well, ... there is the Shennong Bencao Jing.  It is only about 30 pages, but it is the very core and foundation of our pharmaceutical knowledge.   It was written by the Divine Farmer himself, and ..."

So here is my question.  After doing the SBJ, at some point our Author must have asked

"And about astronomy and astrology, which treatise do you recommend -- one that is short but gives a  broad overview of your knowledge in those fields, especially the parts that are different from the science of Arabs and Indians?"

Any idea of which could have been the answer?

All the best, --stolfi
[/quote]




Dear Jorge,

Thank you for the clarification. I am glad we can agree that there is no classical text dividing a solar term into 15 parts.

Regarding your new question about which astronomy or astrology treatise the Author would have copied: I am afraid I cannot provide a specific book title, because I find the premise of the question to be rather problematic.

If a European traveler was in China and asked a local doctor, "What astronomy book should I copy to bring back to Europe?", the answer would likely be completely irrelevant to his actual needs. Medieval and early Renaissance Europe already had a highly developed and sophisticated astrological system based on Ptolemy, Arabic translations, and the Alfonsine Tables (as eggyk mentioned earlier).

If the Author wanted to enlighten Europeans about Chinese medicine, he might copy a herbal. But why would he abandon his familiar Ptolemaic astronomy and try to translate an official Chinese astronomical treatise—which was often closely guarded by the state (e.g., the Imperial Astronomical Bureau)—and then map it onto the European zodiac (Aries, Taurus, etc.)?

The VMS Zodiac section is undeniably European in its visual structure (Aries, Taurus, etc.), even if the internal division (24/30 parts) is unusual. If the Author brought back Chinese astronomy, why is there not a single Chinese constellation (like the 28 Mansions) visible?

Therefore, I do not think there is a Chinese astronomy book he should have copied. The inclusion of astronomy in the VMS is much more likely to be from his own European background, perhaps adapted to fit the structure of his special cipher or notes.

Best regards,
Chenxiang