Is the VM an autograph or copy?

[-JKP-]

The zodiac figures, I believe, are copies (maybe a few details have been changed and maybe the sources were not strictly other zodiacs, but other drawings that are similar to zodiac figures at the time, but that was not unusual as long as the general form was retained).

I've been researching this for quite a long time. The VMS figures follow the same basic patterns as a subgroup of zodiacs that I've been trying to track and map temporally and geographically. From what I have found so far, this subgroup appears to have originated in France/Flanders and made its way gradually south and east into the Holy Roman Empire. I have pins on maps to chart it and gradually the picture is filling in.

There are holes in the record (lost manuscripts), so I can't be completely sure of the sequence in a couple of places, but there is enough information now to suggest this is what happened.


Also, I've given a lot of attention to which details matter and which ones appear to be personal preference on the part of the illustrator. I had to collect and study more than 500 zodiac sequences for several years to sort this out...

For example, does it matter that it's a crossbow rather than a longbow or shortbow? It took a lot of research to determine that the kind of bow is probably not significant. What does appear to be significant is whether the archer is a centaur (traditional) or two-legged figure. The same kinds of details apply to the other figures.

Some of the traits that stand out might not to be as important as some other aspect. The main criterion (this is an over-simplification, but it generally seems to follow this convention) appears to be whether or not it follows the traditional forms (classical goat-fish, centaur, etc.) or whether it respects the alternate forms within this subgroup. I'm the one who's calling it a subgroup, by the way. This is my own determination, so it can, of course, be challenged, but I believe it exists.