Display posts from previous
Sort by

25 by james_m
this looks like one of those conversations that often plague astrologers - was it sidereal or tropical? i heard they used to use entrails to figure things out too.. maybe someone here can try that.. good luck sorting it out...

27 by Konrad
Therese Hamilton wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:HERE (a part of) THE TEXT_SOURCE FOM THE BOOK
http://screencast.com/t/bKYQzJZc8xpk
Thank you, but my computer stalled out on this link. This happens frequently with my aging XP computer. I stay with XP so I can continue to use the Rodden AstroDatabank for research.

Therese
Do you mean the Astrodatabank web-page?

29 by epurdue
Therese Hamilton wrote:
Konrad wrote: No, I mean the entire program that's on my computer that allows searches for astrological traits and configurations. The program can also be upgraded with new data. But the program itself is "dead" now for new users and doesn't run on Windows 7. A sad loss because there is data in that program for more than 20,000 individuals.
If you buy Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate, you can download a free Windows XP virtual machine from Microsoft that allows to run any Windows XP program.

30 by Therese Hamilton
Mithra6 wrote:
If you buy Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate, you can download a free Windows XP virtual machine from Microsoft that allows to run any Windows XP program.
I think there might have been problems with AstroDatabank with that combination too, but I'll check the ADB forum for information. I surely would like to upgrade my circa 2003 computer. I have to hand it to Toshiba, however. Never had any problems, and it's still running!

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

31 by Mark
Deb wrote:
It seems logical to me that the Greek astrologers at least would be doing that, since fixing the 0 Aries point at the equinox is so clearly described by Geminos as being the normal convention of the Greeks.

Indeed the tradition seems to long pre-date Geminos (1st century BCE).

Most general astronomical histories state that Hipparchus (2nd century BCE) was the first to propose a tropical zodiac starting at 0 Aries. While most of the writings of Hipparchus are lost we do still have a surviving text which is his Commentary on the Phenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus.

One fascinating comment by Hipparchus in the text is that the tropical zodiac is an ancient tradition even in his time:
??First of all it, must be considered that Aratus so divided his zodiac, that the tropical and equinoctial points should form the commencement of signs?and in this way almost all the old astronomers divided their zodiac?? Commentary on the Phenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus, by Hipparchus.
Who were these 'old astronomers'? Were they all Greek or could some have been Babylonian?

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

32 by Mark
Chris Brennan wrote:
Aside from that, Jones recently published an important paper in Ptolemy in Perspective where he tabulates all of the existing horoscopes and basically points out that the values were largely sidereal during the early Hellenistic tradition, and it wasn't until a few centuries after Ptolemy that a distinct transition took place where the charts became tropical.
I dont think its strictly accurate to describe it as a 'sidereal' approach. Where is the fiducial star? There is none in Greek astrology. Instead what we find are differing traditions of where the equinox lay with ideas asserting 0, 8 , 10 or even 15 degrees Aries as the equinox point.

As cited in my post above above the Greek astronomers seem to have relied more on 0 Aries as their fiducial point. However, the Greek astrologers seem to have tended to borrow the values of 8 or 10 Aries as the equinox point from Babylonian astrology. Ptolemy wasn't taking a revolutionary approach in adopting 0 Aries as the start of the zodiac but rather introducing the mainstream position of Greek astronomy dating back centuries and applying it to Greek astrology.

What James Holden calls the 'Alexandrian zodiac' clearly didn't coincide with 0 Aries. That doesn't mean its fiducial point was a fixed star. The basic reference point was still the assumed equinox point. However, before an understanding of precession became widespread the equinox pont was assumed to be fixed.

Two Babylonian traditions (8 or 10 Aries) in terms of the equinox point were used by the early hellenistic astrologers according to Otto O. Neugebauer and H.B. Van Hoessen in their book 'Greek Horoscopes'.
Babylonian astronomy of the Seleucid period uses two different methods for the description of the Sun and related phenomena. These two ?Systems? , called A and B respectively find a continuation in Hellenistic astronomy. For our purposes the following facts are characteristic for the two Systems:

(a) The venal equinox is assumed to correspond to a solar longitude of 10 degrees Aries, but 8 degrees Aries in System B (whereas Almagest uses 0 Aries). Especially the norm of system B is very frequently found in astrological writings into the Middle Ages.

(b) The rising times of the zodiacal signs are in both systems computed according to simple arithmetical schemes ( in contrast to the tables in the Almagest which are based on spherical trigonometry) Greek Horoscopes, p13 , O. Neugebauer and H.B. Van Hoessen
The western siderealist Cyril Fagan was spot on in his following comment:
''?.nowhere in the literature of Greece or Rome is mention made of any fiducial or marking star.'' Zodiacs Old and New, page 26, Cyril Fagan, 1951
Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

33 by Martin Gansten
Mark wrote:I dont think its strictly accurate to describe it as a 'sidereal' approach. Where is the fiducial star? There is none in Greek astrology. Instead what we find are differing traditions of where the equinox lay with ideas asserting 0, 8 or 10 degrees Aries as the equinox point.
This strikes me as a somewhat hair-splitting objection. If the equinoxes and solstices had been perceived as the real defining points, what possible reason could there have been for removing them from the beginnings of the signs by 8 or 10 degrees? The original definitions of the zodiac obviously included some other element which was considered more important than the tropical points, and if not one or more fixed stars, then what? (Besides, the fact that the twelve equal signs were named after the unequal constellations to which they most closely corresponded might give us a clue.) In my view, preserving this displacement of the tropical points amounts to giving priority to the fixed relation of the signs to the constellations, whether an actual fiducial star is named or not.

Incidentally, Indian astrologers today typically work in a similar way, deducting the ayan???a from tropical positions. They do not find that this compromises the sidereal nature of their astrological practice, as their zodiac remains fixed with regard to the constellations. I agree with them.

34 by Mark
Martin wrote:
This strikes me as a somewhat hair-splitting objection.
I don?t think so but I understand why a siderealist like yourself might look at it differently. My point is that these astrologers perceived the fixed point in their zodiac as the equinox not a fixed star. The word sidereal relates to a star does it not? Of course there was no knowledge of precession amongst the early Greek and Roman astrologers so it clearly wasn?t a tropicalism based on 0 Aries. However, their fiducial point appears to have been where they perceived the equinox to be located. Later astrologers like Ptolemy just provided greater astronomical sophistication to allow the exact calculation of the equinox point.

Martin wrote:
If the equinoxes and solstices had been perceived as the real defining points?
They were amongst most Greek astronomers. Did you see my quote from Hipparchus above? Like it or not the majority of Greek astronomers DID use 0 Aries (tropical) as the starting point of their zodiac.

Martin wrote:
If the equinoxes and solstices had been perceived as the real defining points , what possible reason could there have been for removing them from the beginnings of the signs by 8 or 10 degrees?
Its rather the distinction between Greek astronomy and popular astrological usage. The Greek astrologers seem to have adopted these points (especially 8 Aries) as where the equinox lay directly from Babylonian sources which were already outdated due to precession. They were also relying on often innaccurate astronomical tables passed down to them. So with the best will in the world their attempts to calculate the zodiac were never going to coincide with the actual tropical zodiac at that time. Plus they had no knowledge of precession. As I see it they were calculating a zodiac from what they perceived as the equinox point. It just didn?t coincide with the actual one because their astronomical understanding of where it lay was less advanced.

Martin wrote:
Incidentally, Indian astrologers today typically work in a similar way, deducting the ayan???a from tropical positions. They do not find that this compromises the sidereal nature of their astrological practice, as their zodiac remains fixed with regard to the constellations. I agree with them.
I rather thought you would. :wink: However, I don?t see what possible relevance this has to a discussion of ancient astrology. After all these ancient astrologers were on the whole completely unaware of precession so the whole analogy is irrelevant.

Plus they had no fiducial star like the Indians. If you have evidence to the contrary please do post it....

Considering what a key point the fiducial star is in any version of a sidereal zodiac (Fagan, Lahiri etc) I find your lassez faire approach to the term difficult to fathom. You seem content to exchange the standard definition of the word for one based on a fixed zodiac derived from the assumed equinox point. This seems very different from a sidereal zodiac in most people's use of the word.

I think it is unfortunate that such lax use of the term 'sidereal' is widespread in contemporary academic circles too.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

35 by Martin Gansten
Mark wrote:I don?t think so but I understand why a siderealist like yourself might look at it differently.
And I quite understand why a tropicalist like yourself might like to make as much of astrology's history as possible look tropical. However, let's not play the motive game.
My point is that these astrologers perceived the fixed point in their zodiac as the equinox not a fixed star.
As long as they did not know about or understand precession, this may have been (and, I believe, probably was) entirely a matter of practical convenience. The point is that there was something else that defined the beginning of the signs. That something was the fixed constellations (all made up of stars!), whether or not a particular fiducial star was named.
Later astrologers like Ptolemy just provided greater astronomical sophistication to allow the exact calculation of the equinox point.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Saying that the sign Aries begins at the equinox point is a stipulative definition. It is neither more nor less sophisticated than saying that Aries begins 8 degrees prior to the equinox point; it is just different.
If the equinoxes and solstices had been perceived as the real defining points?
They were amongst most Greek astronomers. Did you see my quote from Hipparchus above? Like it or not the majority of Greek astronomers DID use 0 Aries (tropical) as the starting point of their zodiac.
And did you see me referring to the same fact earlier in this thread? As I said there, astronomers and astrologers seem generally not to have been the same people, or to have shared the same objectives. Hipparchus and Geminus are only tangentially relevant to Greek astrology as such.
The Greek astrologers seem to have adopted these points (especially 8 Aries) as where the equinox lay directly from Babylonian sources which were already outdated due to precession.
They were; but then, as you say yourself, most astrologers didn't know about precession.
As I see it they were calculating a zodiac from what they perceived as the equinox point. It just didn?t coincide with the actual one because their astronomical understanding of where it lay was less advanced.
I have read this several times over, but I admit I cannot grasp your reasoning. 'More or less advanced' doesn't enter into it. If someone measures the equinox as falling 15? or 10? or 8? into the sign Aries, then there must be a starting point to Aries which is not dependent on the equinox. You can't measure something without reference points. And the only possible reference points in this case are the fixed stars (one or more). A zodiac which uses the fixed stars as reference points is a sidereal zodiac. What else could it be?

Regarding Indian astrology:
However, I don?t see what possible relevance this has to a discussion of ancient astrology. After all these ancient astrologers were on the whole completely unaware of precession so the whole analogy is irrelevant.
I don't think it is. The point is that you don't need a named fiducial star in order to have a sidereal zodiac. It is enough that the zodiac remain fixed in relation to the constellations. (In fact, the Sanskrit word used ? niraya?a ? is not strictly related to the stars. It means 'unprecessed'.)
Plus they had no fiducial star like the Indians. If you have evidence to the contrary please do post it....
You are the one insisting on named fiducial stars, not I.
I find your lassez faire approach to the term difficult to fathom. You seem content to exchange the standard definition of the word for one based on a fixed zodiac derived from the assumed equinox point. This seems very different from a sidereal zodiac in most people's use of the word.

I think it is unfortunate that such lax use of the term 'sidereal' is widespread in contemporary academic circles too.
On the contrary, I think that most people who use the phrase 'sidereal zodiac' at all (a minuscule fraction of humanity!) use it in precisely the same sense that I and other academics do, namely, a zodiac fixed in relation to the stars/constellations. It seems perfectly natural and uncontroversial to me. If it doesn't to you, then we just feel differently on a point of semantics. However, it will be easier to communicate if we all stick to established usage.

36 by Deb
Theresa, the book Ptolemy in Perspective is very expensive but Alexander Jones?s research surpasses anything else that has been published on the matter of tropical/sidereal calculations to date. So as old fashioned as the idea is, I strongly recommend that you order a copy from your local library ? it takes a few weeks of patience but this is the best way to save yourself a fortune and support these areas of academic research. It?s especially valuable to have academics who have no allegiance to any working system exploring these issues and Jones knows his stuff.

Only the first few pages of his article ?Ancient rejection and adoption of Ptolemy?s frame of reference for longitudes? are available on Google Books preview ( see the link here); but the whole of the short preceding chapter can be seen online, and that?s an important primer for understanding how an the ancient astrologer who was working out the maths of the longitude calculations could draw from sidereal values in order to arrive at what was perceived to be a tropical solution. The major part of the article that is not visible on Google books demonstrates this and gives us a great deal to think about. Jones has examined the work of Valens and shows how we need to exercise caution before assuming that because the calculations were closer to sidereal values than tropical values at that time, this was purposely driven by principle rather than the effect of calculation methods and available tables. For example, on p.29 Jones writes:
There is nothing in the papyri to suggest that their authors or users thought of the frame of reference primarily as sidereal. Like Valens, they probably computed the ascendant and other cardinal points of their horoscopes on the assumption that the vernal equinoctial point was fixed at Aries 8?, which would make the frame of notation ostensibly tropical.
This reinforces the conclusion that Cyril Fagan came to, and also Neugebauer who Jones reports had concluded that Valens frame of reference was ?simply Ptolemy?s?. Jones shows it is not as simple as that, but also demonstrates that even the later horoscopes whose values show closer affiliation with sidereal values than tropical values, were pursuing the attempt to obtain the correct placement according to tropical zodiac principles.

Jones?s work is mathematically challenging and requires a lot of attention and careful reading. There is certainly a lot of sidereal significance to the calculations but it doesn't relate directly to modern sidereal practice; it presents a much more complex situation than what could be described as one fundamental sidereal/tropical split. The article needs to be read in its entirety because it would be too easy for anyone to cherry pick comments out of the article to give an impression of the matter being far more simplified and conclusive than it really is. I see this as an absolutely essential piece of work to understand the kind of issues we need to consider, though ultimately it leaves a lot of questions hanging in the air. We end up a lot more informed about what we don't know than what we do know. I doubt it will make one jot of difference to any contemporary astrologer?s practice anyway, but researchers get just the kind of careful analysis of data that is needed to take these issues forward.

I need to spend a lot more time on this before I?d feel confident about summarising the issues that are more important to astrological debates. But I?m reminded that I was sent a copy of this book for review so although it will take a while, I?m going to pause on this discussion until I can make a careful reading of the whole book and give a formal review of what this book covers and what within it comprises the most significant and groundbreaking points of research for astrologers. Before that I am committed to a review of another book which ? co-incidentally ? is themed on sidereal astrology. I use the tropical zodiac myself (for theoretical reasons as much as any other) but I?m glad that we are getting well written explorations of how the sidereal system differs, why Indian practitioners maintain it and why some practitioners in the west prefer it. I don't think the sidereal argument is stronger than the arguments made in favour of the tropical zodiac but I definitely think the sidereal argument is currently not getting the representation and effective explanations it deserves.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”