28-11-2016, 08:42 PM
Is this where you lost your zodiac? Was it a real zodiac? Or some sort of moshed up, knock-off copy of a zodiac?
The problem with the word is its lack of precision. We have Rene's three definitions and, like a triangle, you don't get one side without the other two - especially in an era where astronomy and astrology were not yet well separated and each month is designated by its corresponding constellation. Multiple definitions combined with the variations of individual opinion yield a spectrum of potential interpretations.
Now we have the reality of the VMs 'Zodiac'. And each of us can only compare what we see with our own interpretation of the definition. Is this a real zodiac?
So this is the VMs and, of course, there are problems. Problems that are significant enough to eliminate the possibility of any simple explanation. There are some similarities with other 'zodiacs' of the same era and there are differences. The similarities are the easily accepted correspondence of the individual monthly medallions in the VMs with those of other zodiacs and, secondly, the sequence in which the monthly emblems have been placed. (With allowance for Aries and Taurus being bisected and two months missing.)
The significant differences, with the sequence of VMs medallions, start with Pisces being placed first. Aries and Taurus are split in two. Aries has goats instead of sheep, and so on down the list of unusual and unique characteristics. And even while this continual chorus of discrepancies goes on, the over all similarities of the individual medallions and their sequential arrangement maintain a sort of 'zodiac' facade - not to mention having the VMs medallions labelled according to the traditional zodiac system. Beyond the appearance, however, do the pages of the VMs 'zodiac' perform any of the functions expected of a standard zodiac or calendar? To make that determination, we probably need to be able to read the written text.
The problems of the VMs Zodiac are reflective of a problem for the whole manuscript and its creation. To what extent does the manuscript borrow from prior works? To what extent does it follow tradition or go off on its own? Is the manuscript maker a mere copyist or a creator? Simply an illustrator or a genuine innovator? I believe the unusual nature of the VMs zodiac medallion sequence helps to provide some answers.
Given the situation caused by the accumulated errors in the Julian calendar system present at the time of the VMs parchment dates, problems had occurred in determining the proper date for Easter. The need for calendar reform was recognized centuries before it was actually put in place by the church.
Having Pisces first, splitting Aries and Taurus into halves, along with Gemini and an uncommon version of Cancer allows the VMs innovator to set up a sequence of pairs using each of the monthly medallions for the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac. Pattern exists in the VMs zodiac, but it's something that goes well beyond what might be expected.
.
The problem with the word is its lack of precision. We have Rene's three definitions and, like a triangle, you don't get one side without the other two - especially in an era where astronomy and astrology were not yet well separated and each month is designated by its corresponding constellation. Multiple definitions combined with the variations of individual opinion yield a spectrum of potential interpretations.
Now we have the reality of the VMs 'Zodiac'. And each of us can only compare what we see with our own interpretation of the definition. Is this a real zodiac?
So this is the VMs and, of course, there are problems. Problems that are significant enough to eliminate the possibility of any simple explanation. There are some similarities with other 'zodiacs' of the same era and there are differences. The similarities are the easily accepted correspondence of the individual monthly medallions in the VMs with those of other zodiacs and, secondly, the sequence in which the monthly emblems have been placed. (With allowance for Aries and Taurus being bisected and two months missing.)
The significant differences, with the sequence of VMs medallions, start with Pisces being placed first. Aries and Taurus are split in two. Aries has goats instead of sheep, and so on down the list of unusual and unique characteristics. And even while this continual chorus of discrepancies goes on, the over all similarities of the individual medallions and their sequential arrangement maintain a sort of 'zodiac' facade - not to mention having the VMs medallions labelled according to the traditional zodiac system. Beyond the appearance, however, do the pages of the VMs 'zodiac' perform any of the functions expected of a standard zodiac or calendar? To make that determination, we probably need to be able to read the written text.
The problems of the VMs Zodiac are reflective of a problem for the whole manuscript and its creation. To what extent does the manuscript borrow from prior works? To what extent does it follow tradition or go off on its own? Is the manuscript maker a mere copyist or a creator? Simply an illustrator or a genuine innovator? I believe the unusual nature of the VMs zodiac medallion sequence helps to provide some answers.
Given the situation caused by the accumulated errors in the Julian calendar system present at the time of the VMs parchment dates, problems had occurred in determining the proper date for Easter. The need for calendar reform was recognized centuries before it was actually put in place by the church.
Having Pisces first, splitting Aries and Taurus into halves, along with Gemini and an uncommon version of Cancer allows the VMs innovator to set up a sequence of pairs using each of the monthly medallions for the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac. Pattern exists in the VMs zodiac, but it's something that goes well beyond what might be expected.
.