Thread split. This is an interesting discussion that keeps reappearing, so for the sake of clarity we'll have it in a separate thread.
First of all, I'll say again that I settle for the term Zodiac section because it is convenient. Also it is clear that most of the central emblems are related to the constellations on the ecliptic, so I find this term way more normal than for example "biological section".
Rene: yes, I agree with your categories. Though under the first one I would also add depictions of single constellations without them belonging to the series. For example, I was browsing the Leiden Aratea, and there you get Leo (full page image), next page Charioteer, next page Taurus... I personally wouldn't call this "a Zodiac", and the main purpose is astronomy. So like you say, these are not the Signs but the Constellations.
I find it weird to call something "a zodiac" when purely the constellations are meant. But the term is used so broadly and does appear to be accepted to refer to the ecliptic, so I can't object.
Marco: Quite right, I shouldn't generalize and there are of course hybrid forms. It is true that there was no clean divide between astronomy and astrology - it was all study of the stars, after all. But Aratus, for example, was mostly concerned with the description of the constellations and how they could be used for practical purposes. The final section in his poem is a bit unusual ("weather signs"), but the manuscripts generally illustrate his purely astronomical text. So I'd say that if an Aratus paragraph is illuminated, we can be sure that a constellation is meant and not a Sign of the Zodiac.
First of all, I'll say again that I settle for the term Zodiac section because it is convenient. Also it is clear that most of the central emblems are related to the constellations on the ecliptic, so I find this term way more normal than for example "biological section".
Rene: yes, I agree with your categories. Though under the first one I would also add depictions of single constellations without them belonging to the series. For example, I was browsing the Leiden Aratea, and there you get Leo (full page image), next page Charioteer, next page Taurus... I personally wouldn't call this "a Zodiac", and the main purpose is astronomy. So like you say, these are not the Signs but the Constellations.
I find it weird to call something "a zodiac" when purely the constellations are meant. But the term is used so broadly and does appear to be accepted to refer to the ecliptic, so I can't object.
Marco: Quite right, I shouldn't generalize and there are of course hybrid forms. It is true that there was no clean divide between astronomy and astrology - it was all study of the stars, after all. But Aratus, for example, was mostly concerned with the description of the constellations and how they could be used for practical purposes. The final section in his poem is a bit unusual ("weather signs"), but the manuscripts generally illustrate his purely astronomical text. So I'd say that if an Aratus paragraph is illuminated, we can be sure that a constellation is meant and not a Sign of the Zodiac.