• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Why is Pisces first?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Imagery
  • Why is Pisces first?
• Why is Pisces first?

• Why is Pisces first?

  R. Sale > 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?
  .

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  Anton > 27-01-2016, 10:26 PM

  This is really a strange point in this Zodiac.
  
  I remember we had an extensive discussion of it some time ago in the comments in Nick's blog.
  
  My opinion is that movement of the equinox point to Pisces is the first and natural explanation. However, other people argued that notwithstanding this, astrology continued to count Zodiac from Aries, not from Pisces. To this, if I remember correclty, I introduced the objection that probably this Voynich Zodiac is not Zodiac at all, but some form of calendar (like German "Volkskalender"'s).
  
  The most appropriate solution would be to find the way in which Zodiac folios could have been accidentally rebound, thus moving Pisces into the beginning. However, I failed to find such way.

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  -JKP- > 28-01-2016, 02:14 AM

  I don't think the zodiac symbols have anything to do with representing the sequence of the zodiac.
  
  Think of it more as a prognostication. For example, it might be better to take a trip under the sign of Taurus, or for someone to marry under the sign of Pisces or to have children under the sign of Aries, etc.
  
  In fact, in the middle ages, there were whole calenders devoted to days that were not good for doing anything (bad luck).

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  ReneZ > 28-01-2016, 07:32 AM

  (Not a reply to anyone in particular....)
  It's important to distinguish between the zodiac signs, and the corresponding constellations.
  A zodiac sign is one of twelve equal parts of the great circle called ecliptic.
  This is the path that the Sun follows against the background of stars. The moon and the planets also travel more or less near this circle. 
  At some point in time, these twelve parts roughly coincided with the twelve constellations they are still associated with, but of course these constellations are not all the same size, and in fact the ecliptic crosses a thirteenth one: Ophiuchus, the snake holder.
  The ecliptic has a reasonably stable orientation in space, but its zero point, which is one of the two points where the celestial equator crosses it, moves. Thus, the locations of the twelve equal parts which are the zodiac signs also move with respect to the  stellar background.
  This effect (precession) was already reasonably accurately measured at the time of Ptolemy. There has been some controversy among historians of science, since Ptolemy claimed to have measured the star positions in his catalogue himself, while it can be argued quite convincingly that he took them from Hipparcus, and just moved them taking into account the precession for the interval of time since Hipparcus.
  By now, the zodiac signs no longer coincide with the constellations they were named after, but this effect was accuractely predictable already 2000 years ago (or more).

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  MarcoP > 28-01-2016, 12:54 PM

  The precession of the equinoxes seems to me a possible explanation.
  Another candidate might be a “lunisolar” calendar in which years are mainly computed on the basis of lunar months, with “adjustments” to synchronize the cycle with that of the Sun. This practice could cause errors in the long run.
  This passage from the Paschal Canon of Anatolius of Laodicea (AD 270 ca) is often quoted (this fragment by Anatolius was transmitted in Eusebius' writings):
  
  “Those [Christians] that place the first month in it [i.e. in the 12th segment of the zodiac, that precedes the equinox] and that fix the 14th of the month [i.e. Passover] by it, commit, as we think, no little and no common blunder. For this [i.e. the rule of the equinox] is not our own reckoning, but it was known to the Judeans long ago even before the Messiah and it was carefully observed by them”.
  
  The rule of the equinox states that "Passover should always occur on or after the vernal equinox".
  I found the quote above in “Intercalation and the Rule of the Equinox ” (the notes in square brackets above also are from that this source):
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  Full text of the Canon here:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  As Eusebius writes, we “enter this most deep and unforeseen sea of the obscurest calculation, in which swelling questions and problems surge around us on all sides”. I might easily have misunderstood something. Anyway, it seems clear that there were people who shifted the beginning of the year to Pisces (the last of the 12 signs of the zodiac). The Paschal Canon is too ancient to be of likely direct relevance, but at least it's a precedent.
  
  
  Another item which seems interesting to me is the attached table from 'Tractatus quadrantis veteris' Harley MS 3735 (England, 1264-1293). As you can see, it lists the position of the sun at the beginning of each month. The list of months starts with March, so the first sign in the list is Pisces.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Apparently, a similar table was included in French manuscripts:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  R. Sale > 28-01-2016, 09:28 PM

  Anton et al.
  
  Precession certainly seems to be a viable explanation, even though that means the Pisces-first sequence conflicts with the traditional Aries-first sequence used for astrology and perhaps medically as well. I was of the impression that the errors in the Julian calendar accentuated the discrepancies rather than diminished them.
  
  
  Wikipedia indicates that the equinox moved from Aries to Pisces approximately 100 BCE and will exit about 2700 CE. So that puts the middle at 1400 CE. And as that midpoint was approaching, from the examples of MarcoP, the work of Roger Bacon, the Hebrew calendar, etc., it would have been apparent that the spring equinox wasn't in Aries any more.
  
  This seems to create a duality. Aries first is the traditional start of the Zodiac sequence. But Pisces first is some sort of 'modernized' astronomical version based on 'scientific observation".
  
  The VMs author, then, has not chosen to go with the traditional sequence. This does not support the use of astrological interpretations. And if this fact can be combined with Ellie Velinska's matching of the VMs illustration with the Oresme cosmos, then perhaps this can add some medieval, scientific connections in the VMs.
  
  I found this example interesting.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  It's a bit later than VMs parcment dates, but still before the Gregorian reform. And look, it's got heraldry. The VMs also has heraldry in the Zodiac section and makes a surprising use of it.
  .

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  ReneZ > 29-01-2016, 07:10 AM

  I am not so sure that precession of the equinoxes has much to do with the reason why Pisces is first, unless the author actually misunderstood the relevance of this effect himself.
  The point I was trying to make is that this effect only concerns the constellations that coincide (more or less) with the zodiac signs, but not the zodiac itself. At the vernal equinox, on 21 April, the sun enters the sign of Aries. It did in 0 CE and it does now.
  The cycle of zodiac symbols in the MS (whatever its purpose - could be any type of prognostication) represents these zodiac signs.
  The fact that Pisces comes first deviates from the very consistent tradition of starting with Aries. It may have been a personal preference (the sign of Pisces being somehow important to him/her). Other examples should be of interest, as would be any written account of why Pisces could play a special role more in general.
  
  The association between zodiac signs and months in the MS is yet another topic of interest...

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  MarcoP > 29-01-2016, 10:05 AM

  Hello Rene,
  I see your point. Precession is well rooted into Western astronomical tradition. Since the Voynich people adopted the Western zodiac signs, one would expect that they were aware of precession and the consequent difference between the Pisces constellation and the Pisces zodiac sign, I agree. I don't think one can entirely exclude that they linked the cycle to the constellations instead of the signs, but this seems unlikely. Something vaguely similar can be observed in Alfonso's Lapidario, which bears other similarities with the Voynich manuscript, such as the association of a single star with each one of the 360 degrees of the zodiac: “the Lapidario stars of the first degree of Aries are actually stars in Pisces. This is a source of confusion for those who are unfamiliar with astronomical precession”.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  I think it is also worth remembering that there is a second consistent tradition in which the sequence starts with Aquarius: that is of course the ordering in which zodiac images are represented in calendars, and I think it is the most common in XIV / XV Century manuscripts - e.g. one of the “crossbow Sagittarius” manuscript you published on your site: Planeten-Buch - BSB Cgm 7269:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  The initial sign varied on the basis of the conventional “beginning of the year” (which differs in the Christian calendar, January 1st, and astronomical year, spring equinox). If we exclude precession, here we are dealing with a culture or a convention that placed the beginning of the year in the sign of Pisces (Feb 19 - Mar 20).
  
  About “the association between zodiac signs and months in the MS”, if you are referring to the Latin alphabet labels added to the medallions, I think it is interesting to note that the 'Tractatus quadrantis veteris' table I attached before is consistent with them (Pisces / March, Aries / April, Taurus / May etc). If we consider those labels reliable, the Voynichese year apparently started during the first 20 days of March.

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  R. Sale > 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.

• RE: Why is Pisces first?

  -JKP- > 29-01-2016, 11:53 PM

  (29-01-2016, 11:21 PM)R. Sale Wrote: 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.

  
  Consider this...
  

  • parts of the manuscript are missing
    
  • the manuscript is probably not bound in its original sequence
    

  Pisces does appear to be the first symbol, as it is an obverse page, but that doesn't guarantee that all the following pages were in exact zodiac sequence.
  
  Even if it is intended as a zodiac sequence (starting with Pisces), as I mentioned previously, the zodiac symbols may not have anything to do with representing a full zodiac cycle... they may be the best signs under which to undertake certain activities (travel, marriage, childbirth, etc.). Even kings consulted astrologers to get counseling on the best days to do things.
  
  
  
  Look at the drawings around the zodiac symbols—they have nothing to do with constellations. They represent cycles of life (one wheel represents the cycle of menstruation, another is the cycle of maturation, marriage, pregnancy and post-partem (possibly even with stretch marks), a third illustrates youth through middle age to death). Given this context, the zodiac symbol may represent the belief that the universe/heavens move in cycles and so do the lives of human beings.
  
  
  In those days, constellations were believed to govern specific parts of the body (as demonstrated by hundreds of medieval illustrations of "zodiac man"), so it's not a stretch (although quite original) for the VMS illustrator to represent cycles of life as being related to specific symbols (or constellations).
• Next Oldest Next Newest