MarkC wrote:Fagan, and Allen with final refinements by Bradley calculated Spica to be around 29 06' Virgo rather than at 00 Libra as in the Lahiri zodiac.

Hi Mark and others,

Allan and Bradley were the same person. Garth Allen was a pseudonym for Donald Bradley who didn't want to operate with his own name because of his profession as a meteorologist.

Allan and Bradley were the same person

Thanks Sari,

I didn't know that.

It had confused me as I kept seeing the western siderealist zodiac described as both the Fagan-Allen or Fagan-Bradley zodiac. And of course Cyril Fagan thanks Garth Allen for his help in his books!

I was trying not to offend either Allen or Bradley's contribution.

I take it since Garth Allen eventually 'came out' as Donald Bradley the latter term is now the preferred description by western siderealists?

Mark

MarkC wrote:I take it since Garth Allen eventually 'came out' as Donald Bradley the latter term is now the preferred description by western siderealists?

I don't know, I think Donald Bradley "came out" only after his death.

Hi Mark,

Now I've read Mercier's article too. He also mentions that the Babylonians didn't really look at the sky with abstract reference circles in mind like the Greeks did. A few posts ago I believe you wrote that Hipparchus used the equator as reference frame for positions of stars and planets. I've also read that in the foreword of an ephemeris with not only the usual ecliptical coordinates but also the equatorial coordinates.

Perhaps Hipparchus may have been an adherent of the tropical zodiac with the vernal equinox as 0?Aries in mind. I'm not sure if the Greeks in the century before hime would have used that too. Like you I too will have much less time the coming period to go deep on this fascinating historical subject. Probably I will have to restrict myself to the weekends, unless I suffer from forum withdrawal symptoms .

In India they have more ayanamshas. B.V. Raman seems to have used an ayanamsha based upon Beta Delphini (in 'our' Dolphin) of the nakshatra Dhanishta. Although I don't know why he chose this one.

I was skimming through David Frawley's "Astrology for the Seers". What I noticed is that vedic astrology apparently uses Libra as the Sun's fall. It does not sound very "siderial" to me...

I think I will stick with the tropical for now, especially with all the information exchanged in this thread Thank you all!

geodorn wrote:I was skimming through David Frawley's "Astrology for the Seers". What I noticed is that vedic astrology apparently uses Libra as the Sun's fall. It does not sound very "siderial" to me...

What an earth do you mean by that? Libra has been Sun's fall since horoscopic astrology was born when the sidereal and tropical were aligned. We cannot be sure of whether the dignities are attached on the tropical or the sidereal zodiac. Ask any Indian astrologer and they consider Sun to be in its fall in sidereal Libra without questioning. They've done it for the last 2000 years.

Papretis, it may be my "western" bias plus a rather limited knowledge (I am a beginner ). I can see the symbolism of the fall being in Libra due to the motion of the Sun: it is exalted at vernal equinox (light wins over darkness sort of thing) and is in its fall at autumn equinox by the same logic. I mean this explanation does not have anything to do with the fixed stars, it is purely season based, i.e. tropical. That is why I find it suspicious that they use it there. I've read somewhere that some vedic proponents say the westerners confused things when the zodiacs separated, but looking at this example I am not so sure anymore. "Used without questioning for 2000 years" bothers me even more. Of course, there could be other explanations, which I am not aware of.

Papretis wrote:Libra has been Sun's fall since horoscopic astrology was born when the sidereal and tropical were aligned. We cannot be sure of whether the dignities are attached on the tropical or the sidereal zodiac.

While I can understand the rationale of the Sun's fall in tropical Libra (from a northern hemisphere perspective) I don't know how I should imagine a rationale based upon the sidereal zodiac.

Eddy wrote:While I can understand the rationale of the Sun's fall in tropical Libra (from a northern hemisphere perspective) I don't know how I should imagine a rationale based upon the sidereal zodiac.

But why imagine that the exaltations (and, therefore, the falls) of the planets have anything to do with the seasons at all? Is there anything to support such an idea, apart from the Sun's exaltation/fall axis coinciding with 'tropical' signs (a 33% chance)? How do the other six planets fit in?

Martin Gansten wrote:But why imagine that the exaltations (and, therefore, the falls) of the planets have anything to do with the seasons at all? Is there anything to support such an idea, apart from the Sun's exaltation/fall axis coinciding with 'tropical' signs (a 33% chance)? How do the other six planets fit in?

I think of it because of Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos I.22, on the exaltations.

A while ago in the "Journal of sidereal astrology called 'The Constellations' -thread" the discussion was also going in the direction of rulerships. Deb mentioned that soon there is an article of Gavin White to appear about exaltations. MarkC also felt for a discussion on the rulerships but also feels more for waiting for White's article (see post Fri May 08, 2009 8:19 pm).

So on one side I feel my fingers itching to type about another rationale of the exaltations than the climatological but on the other side I also want to wait. Another thread started by Andrew Bevan on the exaltation of the Moon also attracts me but as I know too little of the concept of 'sect' and I have not much time to go deep into the subject I have to curb myself.

Moreover I have not so much time following weeks to fully participate. However I notice it is very tempting to join in the discussions over here.

But yes I think the exaltations should be related to the tropical zodiac rather than the sidereal. Ptolemy does it related to the climate. I actually don't happen to know how a sidereal explanation, of for example the Indians, looks like.

Eddy wrote:But yes I think the exaltations should be related to the tropical zodiac rather than the sidereal. Ptolemy does it related to the climate. I actually don't happen to know how a sidereal explanation, of for example the Indians, looks like.

I didn't remember this in Ptolemy (I.19 in the Robbins edition, not I.22). Like many of Ptolemy's 'scientific explanations' it appears extremely far-fetched to me (not unlike the 'scientific explanations' found in several 19th and 20th century astrological authors). I can't take the 'fecund winds' and the rest of it seriously, and do not for a minute believe that this bears any relation to the actual historical roots of the exaltations.

I am not aware of any classical Indian authors attempting to explain the exaltations (although there must be literally hundreds of astrological Sanskrit texts I haven't read, so that doesn't mean much). As a rule, Indians have been quite inclined to accept things on ancient authority without explaining them, as indeed were many Greek authors -- Ptolemy stands out from the crowd in this as in many other respects, and (though I know Deb nurses a soft spot for him) not necessarily in a good way. Hands up, all who would consider the Australian Moon exalted in Scorpio! And I suppose nobody born in Central Africa would have any planets either exalted or in their fall...

I don?t have much time today but I should just point out that there is nothing personal between myself and Ptolemy. We are not even good friends, on account of him being, not only 2000 years old than me, but also dead for most of that time. I only stand up for him from time to time because his arguments seem to attract a lot of bias, and it has almost become fashionable to call him an idiot; which he certainly was not. Only the other week we had someone declare in this forum that Ptolemy?s work could not be taken seriously because it lacked reason (!). Hmmm.

On this point maybe it ought to be remembered that Ptolemy did not claim to originate anything, he only tried to explain the rationale as passed on by his older authorities. If that passage is compared with II.3, which concerns the connection between directions, winds and countries, we start to glimpse a philosophy which was very significant in Babylonian astrology. And because of this, I believe it is unlikely that Ptolemy ?made up? the theory of the exaltations that he presents ? although I don?t personally believe that the explanation he gives holds the full answer either. It was possibly perceived as very ancient and a bit of an enigma even by his time.

On the other hand, there is a lot of support for the view that the arc which separates the Moon?s exaltation from the Sun?s, reflects the arc of visibility at which the New Moon rises after the Sun?s passage of the equinox. And because this seems to pre-date the tropical zodiac (with the Pleiades acting as the equivalent for the Moon?s exaltation, and being a constellation that was strongly connected to the concept of spring) then it seems a credible suggestion, which most authorities seem willing to accept ? at least in regard to the luminaries. The point to remember is that the strength of the 'New Year' argument relies on the evidence that is sidereal, so it's not easy then, to make a case for the exaltations being organised according to the relationship of the signs. All of which, gives me a headache ...