RE: Pisces a dragon??
davidjackson > 04-06-2020, 08:45 PM
The trouble is that such things as astrology were codified in the middle ages. It made little sense to break them down and recreate them. There were traditions, but they were all cousins to the same supposed original truth of antiquity.
It wasn't until the Renaissance that people started taking the old traditions apart and putting them together in new ways. And even then, they didn't go over the top with the new interpretations. Instead they tended to evolve it and start new traditions.
How to put it?
Astrology was codified. It was based on (very complex) imagined rules that in turn were based upon observations of physical phenomenon. They wanted to explain their world, so they saw how the planets moved and built up a superstition on how this influenced us.
Now, you COULD rebuild everything into a totally new interpretation, but why would you? If you've been taught that this is the way the world works, and there is no outside reason for reinterpretation, why would you start reinterpreting the zodiac in a new fashion?
You would have to come up with a very convincing reason why you are changing the rules in order to convince anyone to follow you, and it's unlikely, especially in the middle ages, that this would work.
Remember, the Renaissance started evolving the middle ages astrology because of two reasons: the development of chemistry (alchemy) which provided an outside reason for reinterpretation, and a cultural shift that allowed for independent investigation. It's impossible to emphasis how much of a cultural shift there was between the 14th and 16th century for researchers. In the 14th century you were ostracised for even suggesting something new; by the 16th century we see the formation of august independent research bodies seeking new knowledge.
Yes you can argue the Voynich is on the cusp of the Renaissance. But nothing about it suggests the early Renaissance or the seeking of new knowledge. Quite the opposite, it seems to be looking firmly into the past.
So no, I don't think the "zodiac pages" are something new. I think they are firmly in the tradition of their time. Each sign is a month; each nymph is an attribute of the month.
What those attributes are is something that has yet to be determined. I think we'll only really have a breakthrough if we ever find a template, something similar in a vernacular we understand.