I really don't want this to get all confrontational/defensive (again)... But yes, you do seem to me to want to have your cake and eat it too, though not exactly in the way you mean. On the one hand, you want ancient Greek definitions of Aries as beginning 8 or 10 (and you could have added 15) degrees from the equinox to count as tropical; on the other, you claim that we won't 'find tropicalists debating where our zodiac starts' (an argument you have used before). This is self-contradictory. If all those definitions were tropical, then clearly tropicalists did disagree on where their zodiac started.

Pace Fagan (who has not been so much contradicted as ignored by scholarship), the Greek conception of the zodiac was as much sidereal (fixed in relation to the stars) as it was tropical (fixed in relation to the seasons). Who said a bona fide sidereal zodiac has to have a named fiducial star? As you say, most of the ancients were unaware of precession or favoured the trepidation theory; and this continued long after Ptolemy. Today we all need to decide which parts of the ancient descriptions of the zodiac we think essential: the seasonal ones or the constellational ones. No-one can have both.

I draw a distinction between the major seasonal shifts across the entire planet (equinoxes & solstices) and localised weather/climatic factors. Overall these are astronomically key points in the Earth's annual orbit of the Sun. So its not just about climate/weather as you keep suggesting but fundamentally the astronomical relationship between our planet and the Sun.

It's really not me suggesting it, you know; it's the classical tropicalist authorities. That's why I was interested in your alternative take. I have to say, though, that once you take climatic changes out of the equation, those 'key points' don't seem all that 'key' to me. However, to each his own.

Hello Martin,

I will not have any time to reply to you for several days as I am facing a really hectic period over the next week. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ducking a reply to you.

I honestly wasn't seeking to adopt a confrontational or defensive stance. So I dont really understand what your comments are based on here. I certainly dont want our discussion to deteriorate into another tiresome tropical-sidereal ding dong either.

To be fair though you did more on less invite me to defend why I adopt the position I do and I was simply doing that. That includes my historical understanding of the hellenistic solar derived zodiac. I'm sorry if you take offence at that. As Martin Luther said 'Here I stand; I can do no other''.

regards,

Mark

Martin Gansten wrote:Today we all need to decide which parts of the ancient descriptions of the zodiac we think essential: the seasonal ones or the constellational ones. No-one can have both.

I disagree here , Martin. We can have both, and I do. I have mentioned on this forum before, I use the Equinox as the marker, and treat Fixed Pisces as the equivalent to what you and Mark would both consider Aries. I keep the four-footed, mute, human etc. as constellational significations and the rulerships (minus the bounds and the Decans) as based upon the Tropical Cross. I am liking both the rationale and the results I have so far.

I've been on a vacation of sorts for several days, so while the conversation between Martin and Mark takes a hiatus, I'll pick up some messages that have had delayed replies.

Martin wrote:

I think 'fiducial point' may be a little misleading here. The nak?atras are counted from K?ttik? in several contexts (e.g., descriptions of the sequence of da??s) even in quite late texts. And indeed, the so-called Jaimini tradition does seem to be very late: Pingree estimates that its defining text was composed in South India some time in the 17th century.

In his books B. Suryanarain Rao (B. V. Raman's grandfather) continued to list the nakshatras beginning with Krittika (Tauri: Alcyone) and ending with 28: Bharani. So along with the 27 equal lunar mansions beginning with Ashrvini in Aries, this list was still alive and well when Rao wrote his books. B. Suryanarian Rao was a contemporary of Sri Yukteswar. They were born and died a year apart from each other; Rao died in 1937.

RodJM wrote:

Ok, thanks for that info Therese.
I've always felt what Fagan says about that too, trying not to be subjective here as I fall into that group. If the several planets are in conjunction for example and depending on what the planets are, this would go a long way to explaining some of the contradictions I find when interpreting based on "traditional" understandings of the zodiac sign themes and characteristics.

Rod, I found the Fagan quote I must have been thinking of. Here it is:

"For the benefit of new readers it is now proposed to give a brief interpretation of the sailient characteristics of each of the zodiacal constellations [sidereal signs] when the Sun is passing through them. These readings must, in the nature of things, be quite general, and are based on the assumption (a) that the sun is fairly strongly placed in the horoscope and (b) that it is devoid of any configurations whatsoever, for should it be in major aspect to any planet it is obvious that the interpretations must be modified substantially..."
("Attributes and Rulerships," The Solunars Handbook, 1976, p. 27)

In my experience if planets happen to be in the 10th house in square aspect to the ascendant, it's the 10th house sign that can be more visible to other people rather than the sign in which the Sun is placed. Also, as Fagan suggests, planetary aspects can take priority over sign attributes. Sometimes a sign simply manifests a type of energy that is only perceptible when living or conversing with a person. This makes sign research extremely difficult unless one follows a profession relating to a sign whose ruler is prominent. Planetary interaction is always stronger than sign attributes.

Graham wrote:

If an Aries start indeed turns out to be the most reliable with tests like this, makes you marvel at the coincidence: 2000 years ago, Aries was clearly and logically considered first simply because it contained the Spring equinox.

You've mentioned that more than once, Graham, but I question whether Aries was the first sign of the zodiac "simply because it contained the Spring equinox." If astrologers looked at the sky back then they would have seen the equinox against the stars of Pisces rather than Aries. The zodiacal sign of Aries is something else altogether.

As constellations are measured today, the first star of the constellation of Aries is five or six degrees into the sign of sidereal Aries depending on the ayanamsa. Each zodiacal degree is equal to 72 years of time. So at the time the zodiac appeared in Mesopotamia the equinox was already against the stars of Pisces. The argument that Aries was the first sign of the zodiac because that was the location of the spring equinox at a certain period in history may be faulty.

Anyone who has looked at a star chart will note that a large section of the consellation of Pisces, including the Alpha star, Alrisha, (the Knot) fills up the first half of Ashvini, the first lunar mansion of Aries.

There has been speculation by Robert Schmidt and others that only one individual or a small group devised what we know as Hellenistic astrology which is the foundation of astrology as we know it today. I see another possibility: that astrological principles were held secret in the temples, perhaps in Egypt, and were only released at a certain time in the Hellenistic period.

One of our principle metaphysical sources, Edgar Cayce, mentioned in a reading that the twelve zodiacal signs (in approximately 10,500 BCE) represented spiritual progression in the temples. One person was told that she had completed all the 12 steps of the zodiac which was rare at that time. So it's possible that we may simply be re-discovering a zodiac that has existed from ages far beyond recorded history. If nothing else, this is an interesting speculative possibility.

I believe it's possible that in some way the sidereal zodiac is fixed in place in relation to the stars or a quasar or some other cyclic point in a way we don't yet understand. This includes the possibility that Aries has always been the first sign of the sidereal zodiac, and has always represented the head of the human being, the other zodiac signs following in order: Taurus, the throat and neck, Gemini, the arms, Cancer, the breast, etc.

Then there's the antiquity of the Thema Mundi Really, we are live in a historical period when we can only ask questions and guess at the correct answers.

Mark wrote:Hello Martin,

I will not have any time to reply to you for several days as I am facing a really hectic period over the next week. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ducking a reply to you.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to develop this any further. I asked a simple question and got an answer; I didn't find it particularly compelling, but then I wasn't expecting to. There's a reason I'm not a tropicalist, after all.

I honestly wasn't seeking to adopt a confrontational or defensive stance. So I dont really understand what your comments are based on here.

Just something in your tone here and there, but perhaps I was misreading you. Let's just leave it.

Konrad wrote:I disagree here , Martin. We can have both, and I do.

Yes, I was half-expecting you to say that. Hybrid solutions are possible, of course, and I know you have tried several; but they are (naturally) different from a tropical/sidereal zodiac as generally understood.

Martin Gansten wrote:Yes, I was half-expecting you to say that. Hybrid solutions are possible, of course, and I know you have tried several; but they are (naturally) different from a tropical/sidereal zodiac as generally understood.

Well, I haven't tried several at all. Before I used the Sidereal for everything but Releasing from Spirit. This is the first time I have taken what see as the spirit of both systems and fused them together. Of course, it is different from the zodiac as generally understood now, but that was the point: you said we all have to choose a side - Tropical or Sidereal - we don't. There is another possibility.

Out of interest, and this is not just directed at you, what is the rationale of the Sun ruling Sidereal Leo? I couldn't see one hence me rethinking what it is I am actually doing.

Konrad wrote:Well, I haven't tried several at all. Before I used the Sidereal for everything but Releasing from Spirit. This is the first time I have taken what see as the spirit of both systems and fused them together. Of course, it is different from the zodiac as generally understood now, but that was the point: you said we all have to choose a side - Tropical or Sidereal - we don't. There is another possibility.

Oh, there are plenty of possibilities. I wasn't exhorting anyone to choose sides; just pointing out that we are in a different position today than were the ancients who didn't know about precession. Whatever solution we adopt, it will be different from theirs.

Out of interest, and this is not just directed at you, what is the rationale of the Sun ruling Sidereal Leo? I couldn't see one hence me rethinking what it is I am actually doing.

I agree with Mark's comments on the first page of this thread. The Sun, the King, the Lion -- it all seems symbolically pretty apt to me.

Martin Gansten wrote:I agree with Mark's comments on the first page of this thread. The Sun, the King, the Lion -- it all seems symbolically pretty apt to me.

Yes, I had considered this when trying to reason for a purely sidereal rulership scheme, but I thought it a bit flimsy especially considering the power attributed to Aldebaran in most ancient star catalogues. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my view, however, so I will leave it at that for now.

Before letting it slip by, I?d disagree that Fagan?s views are not heavily contradicted by modern scholarship. One example is to be found in A Primer of Sidereal Astrology (with B.R.G Firebrace, AFA Inc., 1971), where he tells us on page 12 that

?It seems quite evident from the copious evidence before us that Claudius Ptolemy was a sidereal astrologer, and that the Tetrabiblos was a textbook on sidereal astrology.?

Yet we are told by Alexander Jones, perhaps the leading authority on Ptolemy, in his chapter in Ptolemy In Perspective (Springer, 2010), also on page 12, that

?Ptolemy establishes two things here: that for the purpose of expressing longitudes the ecliptic is considered as divided into twelve equal arcs of 30 degrees named after the zodiacal constellations, with the degrees counted eastwards, and that these arcs (i.e. zodiacal signs, as distinct from constellations) are fixed such that Aries 0 degrees is the vernal equinoctial point. Thus the frame of reference is strictly tropical.?

And later,

?the vernal equinoctial point is by definition Aries 0 degrees for all time?? (italics Jones?)

The above speaks for itself, yet in the context of Fagan?s book, his statement above is far from qualified or mitigated. The arguments surrounding the above statement form the crux of Fagan?s version of the history of western astrology. The whole construct is fairly byzantine, not entirely logical (Fagan states that Ptolemy ?never contemplated such an eventuality? ? which one? ??that star clusters have now moved, owing to precession?), and unsupported by evidence. Or modern scholarship.