Good evening,

In another thread Mr Mark, Moderator, wrote:

"Nations and countries are human based and change over time. This is the problem with any fixed system of geodetics. In fact in the system you propose parts of the world will remain under the same astrological influence for millions of years."

I propose no system at all but simply seek to understand Klaudios Ptolomaios' system of mundane astrology and to ascertain if and how it might be valid today. In his Tetrabiblos, Book II, first part of the last paragraph of Section 3, Of the Familiarities between Countries and the Triplicities and Stars in the English translation by Professor Frank Robbin, one reads:

"Now that the subject at hand has been set forth, it is reasonable to attach to this section this further consideration ? that each of the fixed stars has familiarity with the countries with which the parts of the zodiac, which have the same inclinations as the fixed stars 45 upon the circle drawn through its poles, appear to exert sympathy;"

45 These are the so?called ??????????????, (paranatellonta) stars which rise and set at the same time as the degrees or sections of the ecliptic, but to the north or south of them. See Boll-Bezold-Gundel, pp 55, 141 ff.

We might recall that Ptolemy's assignments of correspondences between astrological signs and regions or countries refer to the tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere whilst the stars referred to proceed geocentrically forward in this zodiac at the rate of about 50" of ecliptical arc yearly. There are differences of understanding on whether primarily risings and settings of such stars (see footnote 45 above) and / or to the intersection of the meridian drawn through the earth's equatorial north pole, south pole and the fixed star considered with the ecliptic determine the tropical sign(s) involved.

In both cases, however, much quicker than in "millions of years", approximately in 2,160 years per sign, the fixed stars move through the signs thus leading to changing their correspondences with different geographical zones and countries. In mundane astrology methinks we attempt to work not only with "human based" changes but with coherent correspondences between celestial events and such changes.

In cases of use of some kind of 'sidereal' fixed zodiac, Mr Mark's reasoning might be valid but, it seems, not applied to Ptolemy's system of mundane astrology. It is interesting and methinks useful to note that Ptolemy related fixed stars to geographic regions and countries, wandering stars (planets) to cities.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello Lihin,

I do think this new thread is integrally related to the one you already created. Moreover, as you are actually, quoting my comments out of context from that thread I feel members should at least be given the link to their context in that thread.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7094

It might have been preferable to work your comments into the existing thread. However, as you seem passionate about opening a new thread on Ptolemy's astrological geography I will reply to you here.

Thanks

Mark

Lihin wrote:

I propose no system at all but simply seek to understand Klaudios Ptolomaios' system of mundane astrology and to ascertain if and how it might be valid today

That was part of the difficulty I and some others had with your original thread. You claim you have no particular approach you are tied to. However, several times in that old thread you argued strongly for a geographic epicentre in terms of latitude/longitude and sought to argue that approach was the most consistent with that adopted by Ptolemy. This in itself is a controversial interpretation of the approach adopted by Ptolemy.

Lihin wrote:

In both cases, however, much quicker than in "millions of years", approximately in 2,160 years per sign, the fixed stars move through the signs thus leading to changing their correspondences with different geographical zones and countries. In mundane astrology methinks we attempt to work not only with "human based" changes but with coherent correspondences between celestial events and such changes.

I find this a rather amusing attempt to 'change the goal posts' in terms of the argument. My critique of your proposed fixed geodetic was in part based on a specific comment of yours. You suggested your the notion of a fixed astrological geodetic could last millions of years virtually unchanged not I.

Lihin wrote:

Have some readers perhaps the opinion that there is and can be no such centre based, like the example cited at the beginning of the thread, for example on land masses? Of course it is clear that this centre will move slightly in aeons due to continental drift.

You were surely suggesting here that your proposed astrological epicentre based on geographical land surface would only change over ''aeons due to continental drift''. That is the basis for my reference to your proposal being based on a fixed geodetic that would last millions of years.

You have clearly gone away and come back with a new argument based on precession and fixed stars. I just think it would have been more intellectually honest to concede your original position was flawed rather than seeking to misrepresent the view as mine.

Moreover, I have considered further on your idea and conclude you were in error in suggesting an astrological epicentre based on the geographical land surface area would take aeons to change. On reflection we have the climate change factors based on glaciation and de-glaciation. The land surface area of the earth has therefore clearly changed since the end of the last ice age. The prospect of climate change also presents the possibility of further changes to global land surface boundaries over the next few centuries.

Still, none of this helps refute my critique based on the cultural examples I previously gave i.e. Vikings vs modern Scandanavia and Roman empire vs modern Italy. If you have a fixed geodetic epicentre which represents 0 Aries zodically where does precession fit in? It seems you have to fall back on the fixed stars as the geographical zodiac remains fairly static over millennia.

Actually, I find the point on fixed stars in mundane astrology very interesting as it gets relatively little attention. I will reply to separately on that. Although we must acknowledge that topic takes us well beyond just Ptolemy.

Mark

Good morning,

In my humble opinion "passion" (same etymological origin as 'passive') is out of place in such topics. We are seeking to understand mundane astrology and to apply whatever knowledge we think we glean to mundane phenomena.

Whether or not Klaudios Ptolomaios' understanding of fixed stars proceeding in the tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere as basic indicators of qualitative shifts in geographic regions and countries is correct should be carefully, diligently researched using, for example, the examples Mr Mark has quoted of Italy and Scandinavia. To my knowledge little such research has been conducted to date. Obviously due to the time scale, normal continental drift would be excluded as a variable from such research. The difference between tropical procession of fixed stars and continental drift is hopefully evident to all.

May i suggest careful reading of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, Books I and II? Nowhere in them have i found to date a "fixed geodetic epicentre which represents 0 Aries zodiacally", but perhaps i have missed something.

Best regards,

lihin

Good morning,

Reference is made to the text above translated from Klaudios Ptotomaios' Tetrabiblos, Book II, and to footnote number 45.

Including Professor Frank Robbins' quoted English translations and two French translations in my possession, three distinct methods of calculating the tropical ecliptical longitude of fixed stars not situated directly on the ecliptic are given in footnotes, one method in each translation:

1. paranatellonta of the fixed star, id est a relation between the horizon and ecliptical coordinate systems;

2. intersection of the equatorial meridian through the fixed star with the ecliptic, id est a relation between the equatorial and ecliptical coordinate systems usually not a perpendicular;

3. intersection of the ecliptical meridian through the poles of the ecliptic and fixed star with the ecliptic, thus a perpendicular to the ecliptic, id est a relation within the ecliptical coordinate system.

Which, if any, is intended in the original text and why? Here is the original ancient Greek:

" ?????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??????????, ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ????, ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? [p. 160] ????? ?????????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??? ??????????, ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ? ?? ????? ??? ? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????????: ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???????????, ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ? ???????????? ????????? ???????? ?? ???????????."

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin wrote:

May i suggest careful reading of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, Books I and II? Nowhere in them have i found to date a "fixed geodetic epicentre which represents 0 Aries zodiacally", but perhaps i have missed something.

We seem to have a real communication difficulty here.

At times in the old thread you appeared to be strongly suggesting a fixed astrological epicentre or prime meridian? You gave us the specific coordinates by latitude/longitude. If you were using signs of the zodiac stemming from that point we could derive 0 Aries from the selected prime meridian. We see this in the existing systems of astrological geodetics developed by the Sepharial (United Kingdom) and Grimm (Germany) which are both centred on the Greenwich meridian.

I think the confusion here is that nobody was entirely clear what you thought the astrological implications of your proposal were. Despite being asked to demonstrate what you meant in practical astrological terms you have yet to do so. It wouldn't have been unreasonable to conclude you were suggesting a fixed astrological geodetic system with the 0 Aries point centred on the co-ordinates you gave.

I agree Ptolemy doesn't appear to advocate a fixed astrological geodetic based on 0 Aries. Ptolemy's approach seems more generalised and seeks to assign the world into quarters and within these each quarter is subdivided into the signs of the various triplicities. He seems to stick with nations/countries rather than simply meridians running across the earth.

Mark

Good evening,

According to Klaudios Ptolomaios' Tetrabiblos, Book II, Section 3, the island of Sardinia is about in the middle of a geographic zone attributed to the sign of Leo and the planet of Helios. Now comes a very simple example of the procession of fixed stars corresponding to this zone.

The current capital of Sardinia, Cagliari, was an ancient city named Kalaris. Here are two sky maps set to Cagliari, one for 150 CE, during Ptolemy's lifetime, the second for 2013:
At the time of the first map, the fixed star Zosma, Delta star of the constellation of Leo, was, according to Janus software, posited in 15 degrees of the tropical sign Leo. Its nature is considered like Saturn/Venus.

At the 2013 spring equinox, the fixed star Dubhe, Alpha star of the constellation of Ursa Major, will be posited in 15 degrees Leo. Its nature is considered like Mars.

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin .. the fixed stars do not precess ... it is the solsticial & equinoctial points that precess. The stars are fixed. Precession is a function of the earth's wobble brought about by the wobble and spin of the terrestial axis of rotationb.

Good morning,

From a heliocentric perspective proposed in Hellenic antiquity but generally adopted by astronomers during the Renaissance, the vernal point appears to precede backwards along the ecliptic.

From a geocentric perspective used by ancient and most modern astrologers, the fixed stars appear to proceed forwards along the tropical ecliptic of the northern hemisphere.

At the latest since the theories of relativity one should know that one perspective is not 'right', the other not 'wrong'. One can assume a centre anywhere.

Even those contemporary astrologers who apply heliocentric techniques usually do so as complements to geocentric ones. Their heliocentric calculations usually assume the Sun's centre as centre of the solar system although this is not entirely accurate. The Sun and planets revolve round a common 'barycentre' not always within the Sun's surface.

Here is a nice source for astronomical data useful, perhaps without intent, for astrologers:

MEASURING THE SKY A Quick Guide to the Celestial Sphere By Jim Kaler

Best regards,

lihin

Good morning,

In his translation of the Tetrabiblos published in 1822, Mr J. M. Ashmand favoured the ecliptical, not equatorial understanding of Ptolemy's text concerning the mundane astrological use of fixed stars. Here is the section with the footnote, bold emphasis added:

"CHAPTER IV THE FAMILIARITY OF THE REGIONS OF THE EARTH WITH THE FIXED STARS

IN addition to the rules which have been already given, respecting the familiarity of the regions of the earth with the signs and planets, it must be observed, that all fixed stars which may be posited on any line, drawn from one zodiacal pole to the other, through such parts of the zodiac as may be connected with any particular country, are also in familiarity with that particular country.

And, with regard to metropolitan cities, it is necessary to state, that those points or degrees of the zodiac, over which the Sun and Moon were in transit, at the time when the construction of any such city was first undertaken and commenced, are to be considered as sympathizing with that city in an especial manner; and that, among the angles, the ascendant is principally in accordance with it. In certain cases, however, where the date of foundation of a metropolis cannot be ascertained, the mid-heaven in the nativity of the reigning king, or other actual chief magistrate, is to be substituted, and considered as that part of the zodiac with which it chiefly sympathizes. 1"

Footnotes

52:1 Whalley remarks on this passage, that the gradual progress of the fixed stars "from one sign to another, is in an especial manner to be regarded in considering the mutations, manners, customs, laws, government, and fortune of a kingdom."

Best regards,

lihin

Good afternoon,

To compare the method 'equatorial poles' to that of 'poles of ecliptic' (as far as i have understood them until now) to determine relevant fixed stars, here are two more sky maps for Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, both set to place the Medium Coeli at 0 degrees of the sign Leo, tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere. To limit data output, only fixed stars up to 2.1 apparent magnitude or brighter are included. All data has been generated using Janus software. The beginning of the sign of Virgo reached the MC at 22h17m for the 150 CE chart, 22h38m for the 2013 chart.
Here is the relevant data showing bright fixed stars that culminated in the sign of Leo:
Regulus is listed as of a nature like Mars-Jupiter, Dubhe like Mars, Alphard like Saturn-Venus. We see that the results differ by method.

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin wrote:

From a heliocentric perspective proposed in Hellenic antiquity but generally adopted by astronomers during the Renaissance, the vernal point appears to precede backwards along the ecliptic.

From a geocentric perspective used by ancient and most modern astrologers, the fixed stars appear to proceed forwards along the ecliptic.

I would tend to express this a bit differently.

Using a sidereal frame of reference or fixed star zodiac the equinoxes and solstices precess backwards through that zodiac.

Using a tropical zodiac frame of reference the stars and constellations gradually move forwards in that zodiac due to the effects of precession.

An example is the fixed star Regulus (in the constellation of Leo) which has recently moved into the tropical sign of Virgo.

Personally, as someone working with the tropical zodiac I have never understood why so many fellow tropicalists keep going on about precession of the equinoxes in the sidereal zodiac. I think tropicalists should be giving much more focus to the drift of stars into new signs in the tropical zodiac.

The whole 'Age of Aquarius' emphasis was really a result of Theosophy in the late 19th and early twentieth century. Its was taken up again by the new age movement starting in the 1960's. It also has support from siderealists.

My personal research has been more around fixed stars ingressing new signs in the tropical zodiac over the centuries.

Mark