Hi Koen,
here are a few general considerations.
* I don't know how deep we want to go into "who first said what" (that's always tricky) but we could mention the site of Stephen Bax, when referencing contributions that were originally discussed there (e.g. the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. you found in BAV Reg Lat.1324, the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. in BNF NAL 3191, the standing Scorpio in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. pointed out by Ellie). I am sure that Stephen doesn't care, yet I think it would be nice to remember that he encouraged a lot of research in this field. We will unavoidably be partly duplicating work done there.
* I will repeat myself: joining different features together blurs things. If, in a corpus of 100 zodiacs, two independent features each occur 15 times each, we can expect them to occur together only 2 times and a single occurrence, or no occurrence, would not be a surprise. If they truly are independent (i.e. if there is no evidence that they tend to appear together) they should be discussed independently and the rarity of their co-occurrence should be regarded as normal. E.g. an increase in the number of symbols of the signs is observed in a very limited number of sources: it is not a frequent phenomenon. Cancer as a crayfish is rarer than Cancer as crab, but it is not uncommon. There is no evidence that the increased number of symbols is correlated with Cancer being illustrated as a crayfish or a crab. All the cases in which signs are reduplicated in an arbitrary way are of potential relevance (but I agree that cases in which the signs are systematically reduplicated, like NAL 3191, are different, while still interesting). Similarly, blue lions and spotted lions are both rare. It's normal that their co-occurrence is exceptional. Independently discussing and researching blue lions and spotted lions is more likely to produce meaningful results (finding enough examples of both, this search could also prove that the two are correlated, after all).
* Dresses are not likely to be strongly related with the specific illustrations and should probably be discussed separately in a "Voynich costumes" thread. Costumes were adjusted according to fashion. They are of course extremely informative, but the fact that Sagittarius wears baggy leaves and the male Gemini doesn't could well be irrelevant.
* You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. by Olga Koseleff Gordon (1963) is available online. It is a short paper: 12 pages, 3 of which are illustrations. I think it is the single most relevant paper I have found, since it discusses two European examples, not too far in time. Some of the unusual features are also present in the VMS. It is also interesting to see the level of detail appropriate for discussion in an academic work.
* "You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: Occupations of the Months and Signs of the Zodiac in the Index of Christian Art" by Colum Hourihane (2007) can be read on google books (but with no access to the illustrations). The descriptions of the single signs can be helpful in understanding what is relevant / irrelevant and what is common / uncommon.
Some notes on the specific signs:
Aries
On the forum, the similarity of two Aries animals with goats rather than rams has been mentioned several times. It is not a unique feature, yet it is interesting and some seem to consider it particularly important: it is certainly worth mentioning. A similar example is discussed by Koseleff Gordon in the paper mentioned above (Aries in Morgan M.700, England, ca. 1325-1330, is illustrated by "two kids"). Other goat-like Aries can be seen on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
The fact that the Voynich Aries animals look like goats was discussed in 2004 by You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. Richards seems to attribute the idea to Dana Scott. I think that this important observation can be credited to these three people, until we find traces of earlier discussions.
For Aries and
Taurus, one should also note that the month (or zodiac sign) appears to have been split into two pages, each including 15 nymphs (while each of the other zodiac signs has 29-30 nymphs). In both cases, the animal in one of the medallions is lighter than the other.
Gemini
Male-Male / Male-Female and Dressed / Undressed Gemini seem to be one of those couples of features whose rarity depends on combination (i.e. all the four combinations are possible). The Male-Male combination (dressed or undressed) corresponds to the classical brothers Castor and Pollux. Naked Male-Female Gemini are particularly reminiscent of Adam and Eve, as noted by Hourihane, Dressed Male-Female Gemini are comparable with the amorous "labours" illustrating Spring months.
Examples of dressed Male-Female Gemini can be seen on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.:
MS Ludwig XII 8 (Germany, 1464 ca)
ONB cod. 1842 Brevier (Poland, 1400-1427)
Getty Ms. 34 (Bologna, 1389 and 1404)
Lund Astronomical Clock, (Sweden, c1380 or 1424) [reported by Darren Worley]
Pal. Germ 148 (Bavaria, 1430-50) [reported by Ellie Velinska]
(this list is not exhaustive)
Cancer
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. has made some interesting comments about the double-double-Cancer in BNF NAL 3191. His idea is that the consistent reduplication of signs in the manuscript could correspond to the diurnal / nocturnal aspects of the signs. The fact that the reduplication is not constant is still puzzling (e.g. there are 4 symbols -crayfish- for Cancer, three lions for Leo, two maidens for Virgo). But the night-and-day idea seems to explain some details in the Paris ms, including the red/black crayfish. It is interesting that the same colour pattern appears in the VMS. See also the light/dark Aries and Taurus.
Scorpio
Reptilian Scorpio illustrations are rather limited in their geographic location. The only Italian example I am aware of is a mosaic (1165 ca) in the Norman Otranto cathedral. I have never seen Italian examples closer in time to the VMS nor in Italian manuscripts.
Sagittarius
A well know fact is that a Sagittarius with crossbow is extremely rare. More: it is completely unknown before 1400 ca and outside German-speaking regions.
The fully-human Sagittarius is rather rare per se (at least in earlier sources).
(09-12-2017, 03:26 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is this the only "idle" Sagittarius? All others I've seen are aiming. The hallmark of the Sagittarius appears to be his intention to shoot, while this one is just blissfully smiling, bow half pointed down.
Astronomically, considering the shape of the Sagittarius constellation from which the zodiac sign derives, the arms and arrow should be more or less orthogonal to the body of the archer: the "correct" Ptolemaic illustration is a shooting figure. We can say that shooting is indeed his hallmark.
The "idle" Sagittarius can be seen as one of the "genre scenes" discussed by You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: a departure from constellation images that makes the illustration closer to the "labours of the months" that often appeared together with the zodiac signs.
Examples of this typology were posted on the site of Stephen Bax (You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.).
In 2000, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (who also collected and translated Stolot's statement) noticed that the Voynich Sagittarius looked like a "jovial hunter" in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. While I believe his idea cannot be "proved", it does explain the change in character of the zodiac sign: it was imbued with the benign character of its ruling planet (Jupiter).
Most of the Jovial Sagittarius examples appear in the context of planetary illustrations. In Darren's 1475 example, the identification of the sign with the planet is particularly clear.
Another jovial Sagittarius (in a completely different pose) appears in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (1475).
[PS: for Sagittarius with crossbow, see also the files attached here. In the meantime, a discussion with Rene and JKP pointed out that ONB cod. 1842 is somehow later than I thought, but still 1427 or before]