Mark wrote:I think the essence of what I was seeking from the thread is clear enough in my initial post

Quote:
Does anyone know when the first astrological text discusses the ages in terms of the location of the equinoxes in the signs? I am sure the Theosophists advocated this in the late 19th century but I dont know if the idea of astrological ages based on precession came before this

Hi Mark
I'm not concerned that you have a view which I don't personally share (various reasons, but let's set them aside since it's your thread). I can demonstrate from this comment why I wasn't clear about about the extent of the discussion. To begin with it seems that you are only considering the location of the equinoxes in the signs, but the next sentence goes beyond that and asks whether the idea of astrological ages based on precession came before the Theosophists. Well yes it definitely does, but the strongest evidence of earlier precessional awareness is not related to the the vernal point changing signs, but concerns knowledge of the precessional shift of the pole star. This seems to be off the radar of your discussion I now realise (probably best for me as I have contractual reasons why I can't go too far into this discussion at this time anyway). However, if you want to find good evidence of the astrological use of precession in ancient and medieval sources then that's the direction to follow. It is much clearer than anything found by trailing the VP through the signs. I can see it's not of direct interest to your current research though.

Deb

I'm not concerned that you have a view which I don't personally support (for various reasons, which we can set aside since it's your thread).

I would still welcome your opinion on this by PM

I can demonstrate from this comment why I wasn't clear about about the purpose of the discussion. To begin with it seems that you only want to know about the location of the equinoxes in the signs, but the next sentence asks whether the idea of astrological ages based on precession came before the Theosophists.

Yes I have opened up a much wider subject than my original question intended. However, its been very educational nonetheless.

the strongest evidence of earlier precessional awareness is not related to the the vernal point changing signs, but concerns knowledge of the precessional shift of the pole star. This seems to be off the radar of your discussion I now realise, which is probably best for me as I have contractual reasons why I can't go too far into this discussion at this time

.

Yes that is a completely different subject to the purpose of this thread as I see it. I take it we will see more of your research in the next issue of Mountain Astrologer?

But anyway, if you want to find clear evidence of the astrological use of precession as a 'great age' then that's the direction to follow. It gives much clearer evidence than anything you'll find by trailing the VP through the signs .

My focus is not really a research project to find evidence of precession. I will let others like yourself make the case for that. My own approach is more practical astrological one to see how Robson's method could be applied historically. Robson for example links the movement of Regulus into Leo to events such as the rise of the Roman Empire and Christianity. I have therefore applied this approach retrospectively. I have also been looking at contemporary trends which I see as related to the movement of Regulus into Virgo. I have already given a talk on this subject so I haven't formulated this view on a whim. Its my perspective that numerous influences in our society increasingly match the symbolism of Virgo better than anything else.

My own approach is more practical astrological one to see how Robson's method could be applied historically.

No reason why it can't be applied historically, but I don't think you'll find any historical evidence to support that approach. On the other hand, the notion of precessional shifts being indicated by the changing relationship of the Earth to the stars is undeniable, and I personally think that offers an ancient foundation to the same principle being applied to the signs. However, it's a complex point and I can only offer this brief, informal opinion.
I don't have anything in the next MA although I think there will be some relevant material in one of the summer editions. I am currently putting the finishing touches to a powerpoint that has very clear demonstrations of precessional themes relating to the pole stars, which I am going to present at Perugia in June. Why don't you think about coming to that weekend event? Perugia is beautiful and Guiseppe Bezza will be speaking there too, and hopefully Margherita will come up from Rome ... something to think about ...

No reason why it can't be applied historically, but I don't think you'll find any historical evidence to support that approach.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'historical evidence ' doesn't it?
I think I have found quite a lot of interesting connections between the position of Regulus in the tropical signs. Some of these are quite striking. Although I would say that. However, this is clearly not a traditional technique in the sense that any previous source advocates this approach. The only writer suggesting this is Vivian Robson. However, as an innovation I dont think it breaches the principles of traditional astrology. I dont think I am geting into the 'lazy' mundane astrology discussed by Yuzuru.

The findings from your research does interest me a lot.

I am going to present at Perugia in June. Why don't you think about coming to that weekend event? Perugia is beautiful and Guiseppe Bezza will be speaking there too, and hopefully Margherita will come up from Rome ... something to think about

Its sounds a fantastic event. We hear so much of Guiseppe Bezza here from Margherita. Well if the gods smile on me maybe. I am currently unemployed so we shall see....

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'historical evidence ' doesn't it?

Of course. I'm quote sure you have masses of it. But I think you know what I meant ... I happen to think that we should understand star-meanings 'from within' and not as something that is objectively recorded 'out there', so my current understanding of the historical use of stars does not have to tally with your current use of stars in history

I happen to think that we should understand star-meanings 'from within' and not as something that is objectively recorded 'out there', so my current understanding of the historical use of stars does not have to tally with your current use of stars in history

Oddly enough I actually agree with you overall if its a question of choosing between the two approaches. I do think the cultural context of star meanings is vitally important and helps inform our astrology. There are hardly any astrologers doing this kind of work today so I do think your research is very worthwhile. That is why a book like Gavin White's Babylonian Star-Lore is more important to me than many other books I possess on astrology.

Yo -- the t-zodiac precesses -- the sidereal is not quite as moveable being attached to the fixed starts -- the t-zodiac is a function of the sun's apparent path "around" the earth" and its solstices and equinoxes --actually a function of the 23 degree obliquity of the earth's axis

it really does make sense and reflects our understanding of celestial mechanix

Yo -- the t-zodiac precesses -- the sidereal is not quite as moveable being attached to the fixed starts -- the t-zodiac is a function of the sun's apparent path "around" the earth" and its solstices and equinoxes --actually a function of the 23 degree obliquity of the earth's axis

Yes I think most people here are aware of that. I have never suggested the tropical zodiac is better than one of the existing sidereal zodiacs. Both zodiacs face an issue to confront because of precession. For the siderealist it is the gradual shift of the the seasons away from the original signs while for the tropicalist it is the shift of fixed stars and constellations away from zodiac signs. Thus many millenia from now the tropicalist will have the stars of the constellation of Taurus in the tropical sign of Scorpio while the siderealist will have the northern hemisphere winter in the sidereal sign of Cancer.

Regarding Steiner, he presented 2 seperate concepts (in his anthroposophical doctrine) regarding epochs: first, the "New Age" (having no connection whatsoever with the Age of Aquarius) which he described as the end of the "Kali Yuga", which he gave as beginning in the year 1899. Secondly-and actually not as much emphasized by Steiner as the "New Age"-is the precessionally determined Age of (the constellation of) Aquarius, which according to Steiner would occur in 2375. Note that anthroposophical astrological thinking is completely siderealist (as was Blavatsky's thought as given in the Secret Doctrine and early Theosophy)

Regarding historical evidence of an ancient (Western) belief in precession connected with new ages (such as around the time of Christ, and the alleged beginning of the "Piscean" Age) I must again refer you to the Fideler book (Jesus Christ the Sun of God); yes, he does include the (now supposedly academically questionable) Ulansey Mithra/precession hypothesis (evidence), but Fideler includes much additional referenced material (mostly if not entirely from academic sources) supportive of the prevalence of the precession/ages concept in those ancient times.

Regarding Ms Houlding's comments about the Pole and its stars, and the connection of these with changes in epochs/ages, this is such a big subject (at least as I have been made aware of in my own studies) that I would think another thread is needed if that matter is to be appropriately evaluated.

The importance of (certain) stars moving into (certain) tropical signs, relative both to mundane and certain esoteric considerations, is an integral element of certain secret teachings (some originating with the immediate followers of Paracelsus), others to be found in certain medieval magical and alchemical (rather than astrological) texts, and referenced in some of the (rare) "flying rolls" connected with the original Golden Dawn, mostly written by Mathers (as I have mentioned in the Stars thread), and a few also by Wynn Westcott. I speculate that such might be the source for Robson's idea (mentioned above by MarkC). I shall here briefly mention that not all "traditional" astrological information is to be found in the works of the out-and-out astrologers of those times: much (very much, actually) other astrologically oriented material is to be found among the alchemists/spagyrists and "hermeticists" and kabbalists, of the period from around 1100 through 1600 AD, and perpetuated within "underground" linneages founded by certain immediate students of those masters.

Deb wrote: Perugia is beautiful and Guiseppe Bezza will be speaking there too, and hopefully Margherita will come up from Rome ... something to think about ...

Margherita will come.....and many others too from what I heard, nobody wants to miss two astrologers like that.
margherita

Regarding Steiner, he presented 2 seperate concepts (in his anthroposophical doctrine) regarding epochs: first, the "New Age" (having no connection whatsoever with the Age of Aquarius) which he described as the end of the "Kali Yuga", which he gave as beginning in the year 1899. Secondly-and actually not as much emphasized by Steiner as the "New Age"-is the precessionally determined Age of (the constellation of) Aquarius, which according to Steiner would occur in 2375. Note that anthroposophical astrological thinking is completely siderealist (as was Blavatsky's thought as given in the Secret Doctrine and early Theosophy)

I am somewhat confused by Steiner's ideas relating to the astrological age. You state he considered the Age of Aquarius will begin in 2375 CE while other sources state he considered the Age of Pisces only began in 1473 CE.

Steiner refers to the subject of the vernal sun on 13 Feb. 1917:

?We know that now the sun rises in Pisces. Up to the fifteenth century it rose in Aries . . . ? (Cosmic and Human Metamorphosis, 1989, pp. 16-17)

9 Sept. 1924: ?If in the present epoch we look at the point in the heavens where the sun rises on the twenty-first of March, we find behind the sun the constellation of the Fishes (Pisces). The Sun has been rising in this particular constellation for hundreds of years, but always at a different point. Going back a few centuries we find that the point at which the sun rose in spring was still in the same constellation, but if we go back as far as the year 1200A.D., we find that the sun rose in the constellation of the Ram (Aries).? (The Evolution of the Earth and Man, 1987, pp. 155-164)

I certainly never doubted the context would be sidereal for the Theosophists. They held Indian culture in exceptionally high esteem and indeed both Madame Blatavsky and Colonel Olcott went there for an extended period of years. The headquaters of the organisation was based in India. It is little surprise therefore that they preferred an Indian vision of astrology over a western one.

Regarding historical evidence of an ancient (Western) belief in precession connected with new ages (such as around the time of Christ, and the alleged beginning of the "Piscean" Age) I must again refer you to the Fideler book (Jesus Christ the Sun of God);

Ok I will have a look when my budget allows.

The importance of (certain) stars moving into (certain) tropical signs, relative both to mundane and certain esoteric considerations, is an integral element of certain secret teachings (some originating with the immediate followers of Paracelsus), others to be found in certain medieval magical and alchemical (rather than astrological) texts, and referenced in some of the (rare) "flying rolls" connected with the original Golden Dawn, mostly written by Mathers (as I have mentioned in the Stars thread), and a few also by Wynn Westcott. I speculate that such might be the source for Robson's idea (mentioned above by MarkC). I shall here briefly mention that not all "traditional" astrological information is to be found in the works of the out-and-out astrologers of those times: much (very much, actually) other astrologically oriented material is to be found among the alchemists/spagyrists and "hermeticists" and kabbalists, of the period from around 1100 through 1600 AD, and perpetuated within "underground" linneages founded by certain immediate students of those masters.

Thanks thats a useful point to keep in mind.

Although there was probably no use of astrological sign ages in classical times (Rothwangl's theories on Dionysius may be a bit speculative), the Indians used the theory of trepidation in their theories of ages, mahayuga's etc. Here's an article of David Pingree. Finally, an article not from jstor , I hope this one is accessible to all. Here's an article that explains trepidation. It's in French but there is a useful illustration.