Re: astrological iconography

[Dan Moonhawk Alford <dalford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
> "Rafal T. Prinke" wrote:
> > Rene Zandbergen wrote:
> > 
> > > What is even odder is of course the fact that they're
> > > there at all. [etc]
> > 
> > Unless the basis of the Zodiacal sequence is not
> > astronomical but calendaric. As Prof. Sniezynska-Stolot
> > suggested, the iconography indicates the signs were
> > redrawn from a calendar 
> 
> But then it would make sense that the month names were
> written there right when the MS was created, which is not the
> popular view but which I would not want to discard either.
> 
> My only guess is that the sign of Pisces and the month of
> March are special to the writer of the MS:
> - his birth date
> - the date he believed the world/universe was created
> - the date he believes he's going to die
> - etc.

OR

it's a recognition of people just learning astrology for the first time,
or just the fashion then, placing themselves cosmologically. 

The astrological year BEGINS on Mar 21 or so. 

The astrological MONTH of the Great Year at 1500 was PISCES (about 75% of
30 degrees, so maybe 23 degrees), which is most of the month of March.

warm regards, moonhawk

Come the millennium, month 12, In the home of greatest power,
  the village idiot will come forth to be acclaimed the leader.
                                                  -- Nostradamus, 1555
;-)