f68v2 Updated

I had thought that this folio might have been representative of Kepler’s 1604 supernova, but recent work on f67v1 has changed that. Now I think the two green stars, in relation to the central figure, point instead to Tycho’s 1572 supernova.

The green stars seem to be Gamma and Schedar, also green on f67v1.

The page for f68v2 (link above) has been replaced to reflect my new thinking. I have also added an astronomical chart with the diagram drawn on it.

Advertisements

Research Note: f67v1

Since the events of the Astro section happened in the Pisces/Aries/Taurus part of the sky, I wondered, if f67v1 is Tycho’s 1572 supernova, why it would be there since it happened in Cassiopeia.

After much searching online, I discovered the reason is its astrological position was 07 Taurus.

I think I have identified all of the stars on the folio, and discovered that all of the named stars are astrologically also in Taurus!

Here are the folio and a star chart from Starry Night for comparison:

Folio Stars

f67v1 Star Identifications

Having an astrological position, I checked to see if it is represented in the Zodiac section, and I think it is.

The folio order is Taurus Light, Taurus Dark, then Gemini, so the first 15 degrees of the sign would be on Taurus Light.

On other folios, the small square “start here” point is generally on the 10:00 position. The nymph at the top of the inner circle has a can with a unique design, so I think it is first.

Taurus Light Nova Position

The pattern is easy to see, and the nymph at the 7° position is holding a unique star, representing the supernova.

This may also indicate how to “read” the Zodiac folios.

New Page

I’ve finally gotten around to drawing folio 67v1 and presenting my interpretation of it.

I currently think it depicts the supernova of 1572, with Tycho Brahe in the center. The Tycho animation (link above) is related to this folio.

The date is not in line with the other dates found, being about 90 years later. I’ve currently no idea why this should be, but personally I find the evidence supporting the interpretation convincing.