- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
- Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
-
RE: Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
DG97EEB > Yesterday, 05:50 AM
Nice finds.. I thought we'd seem quite a few Pisces in March recently, but the challenge was finding one that was Pisces first... And the second challenge is finding a split month.. on the latter, I'm sure I found one in a Sammelband, but at the time I thought it was well known, so ignored it and now can't find it.. I will look again.. -
RE: Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
eggyk > Yesterday, 09:23 AM
(Yesterday, 05:50 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nice finds.. I thought we'd seem quite a few Pisces in March recently, but the challenge was finding one that was Pisces first... And the second challenge is finding a split month.. on the latter, I'm sure I found one in a Sammelband, but at the time I thought it was well known, so ignored it and now can't find it.. I will look again..
Right now there are only 3 entries on the sheet that 100% put pisces in march deliberately (marked in blue on the Imagery Categorisation sheet at the top). Pisces is often near march, or on the same page, but almost never actually deliberately placed as a header or a symbol for march. The only other example aside from the two in my post above is another very old calendar from the first half of the 13thC (unless I've missed one): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
-
RE: Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
Koen G > Yesterday, 09:29 AM
One thing we must keep in mind is that "Pisces first" is part of the original design. However, the month mismatch is done by a later 15thC hand and may have nothing to do with the source MS. -
RE: Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
eggyk > Yesterday, 10:51 AM
(Yesterday, 09:29 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One thing we must keep in mind is that "Pisces first" is part of the original design. However, the month mismatch is done by a later 15thC hand and may have nothing to do with the source MS.
However, if the pisces foldout had been the same size as f72 (only 1 page longer), there would have simply been room for an aquarius, making it a completely normal sequence. And/or room for capricorn on the recto, giving room for an unusual capricorn beginning sequence, too.
But speculating whether the pisces foldout could have ever been 1 page longer is a totally different topic, and I have no evidence that that was or could have been the case, so i'll just keep searching for both pisces first and capricorn first sequences. I've been checking for both for every entry, but I've found nothing certain so far for "pisces first" unfortunately. -
RE: Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
Koen G > Yesterday, 11:00 AM
-
RE: Zodiac Imagery: Manuscript Collection/Discussion
eggyk > Yesterday, 09:29 PM
Here's an entry with a totally messed up sequence. I don't even have speculation to explain what happened here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
1517AD, France, Paris
february - sagittarius
march - aries
april - taurus
may - pisces
june - cancer
july - leo
august - libra
september - capricorn
october - virgo
november - gemini
december - aquarius
january - N/A (not digitised?) - probably scorpio i guess
Like genuinely, it's not even a matter of pairs of pages being swapped accidentally, or even a constant shift. They are just shuffled at random.