VMs: Re: Meaning of Pisces?

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

Sorry to state the obvious, but isn't there a danger that we're simply 
reading too much into this whole Pisces-as-start-of-the-year thing?

As the astrology/volvelle section only contains Pisces through Sagittarius, 
I can see three reasonable alternatives about the two missing signs 
(Capricorn and Aquarius):
(a) they were never included in the VMS (perhaps if it was some kind of 
agricultural calendar)
(b) their missing bifolio came *before* the other astrological bifolios
(c) their missing bifolio came *after* the other astrological bifolios

By the time the VMS was owned by its quire-marker, Pisces was indeed at the 
front of Quire #10: but that alone doesn't really help us resolve which of 
(a), (b), or (c) is the case.

In the absence of any significant tradition of placing Pisces at the start 
of the zodiac, I would guess that Occam's Razor would point to (b) being 
the most likely - that is, that there was an extra (now missing) bifolio, 
with Capricorn and Aquarius preceding the other astro signs. Then Capricorn 
(containing Jan 1) would mark the start of the New Year.

I'd predict that the same bifolio may well have contained a frontispiece to 
the whole astrology section, explaining its contents (or use): and, 
further, that Capricorn may well have been split into two halves (light and 
dark), like Aries and Taurus (the other two grazing beasts).

On balance, it's a little less likely that Pisces began the astro section - 
but many geographical locales celebrated the start of the year at different 
dates. I recently mentioned Florence's celebrating the New Year on March 
25th as an example, but there were numerous variations on this same theme.

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....