29-01-2016, 11:21 PM
Rene,
A thousand pardons and all that, but the information I seem to be finding appears to be contradictory.
Accornding to the chart, the spring equinox occurs on or about 20 March; not 21 April as you say.
See chart:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Further on the article makes two points about the Julian calendar.
1) that when Julius Caesar started the calendar, the equinox date was 25 March
2) due to the cumulative inaccuracies in the Julian calendar, by 1500 CE, the equinox occurred on 11 March
So, if it is proposed that the VMs construction date occurred before the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 CE, then the author would have been living with the Julian system. And an educated person of the time, such as Regiomontanus, would also have been aware of the discrepancies.
Then there is the matter of precession of the equinoxes. The equinox moves through the zodiac in a retrograde direction. The equinox was in Aries, which is why Aries is traditionally listed first, but tradition and reality parted ways about 100 BCE, when the equinox moved into Pisces.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The VMs Zodiac appears to be an intentional break from the traditional zodiac sequence. Given the situation imposed by the errors in the Julian calendar, Pisces first has to be the 'new' reality - in contrast to the traditional one.
The VMs sequence is Pisces first. And in light of the sequence as it stands, is it possible for Pisces to play a "special role" or to perform some other function beyond the astronomical? I believe that it does. In the VMs Zodiac, as a pair of fish, Pisces is the first pair in the pairing paradigm.
A thousand pardons and all that, but the information I seem to be finding appears to be contradictory.
Accornding to the chart, the spring equinox occurs on or about 20 March; not 21 April as you say.
See chart:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Further on the article makes two points about the Julian calendar.
1) that when Julius Caesar started the calendar, the equinox date was 25 March
2) due to the cumulative inaccuracies in the Julian calendar, by 1500 CE, the equinox occurred on 11 March
So, if it is proposed that the VMs construction date occurred before the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 CE, then the author would have been living with the Julian system. And an educated person of the time, such as Regiomontanus, would also have been aware of the discrepancies.
Then there is the matter of precession of the equinoxes. The equinox moves through the zodiac in a retrograde direction. The equinox was in Aries, which is why Aries is traditionally listed first, but tradition and reality parted ways about 100 BCE, when the equinox moved into Pisces.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The VMs Zodiac appears to be an intentional break from the traditional zodiac sequence. Given the situation imposed by the errors in the Julian calendar, Pisces first has to be the 'new' reality - in contrast to the traditional one.
The VMs sequence is Pisces first. And in light of the sequence as it stands, is it possible for Pisces to play a "special role" or to perform some other function beyond the astronomical? I believe that it does. In the VMs Zodiac, as a pair of fish, Pisces is the first pair in the pairing paradigm.