Hi Mark

For one thing, you could simply take Firmicus' Thema mundi and assign its sign rulers in their given order to the celestial spheres. This order (Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn) was in fact commonly used by pre-Ptolemaic astronomers. Perhaps, it even served as the model for the Thema mundi?

However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

For one thing, you could simply take Firmicus' Thema mundi and assign its sign rulers in their given order to the celestial spheres. This order (Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn) was in fact commonly used by pre-Ptolemaic astronomers. Perhaps, it even served as the model for the Thema mundi?

That is a nice insight about the Thema Mundi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi

Which ancient astronomers have you found setting out the luminaries together?

The Thema Mundi does seem very old. Later Roman sources such as Macrobius and Firmucus Maternus mention it. Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE also discusses it in reference to the zodiac signs. The first astrologer we have a record of discussing it appears to be Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE) who was the personal astrologer and advisor of the Emperor Tiberius (b.42 BCE?d.37 CE).

Michael Sternbach wrote:

However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.

Brilliant! I am in your debt. Up to now I have never been able to really get a handle on the idea behind the concept of solar and lunar halves of zodiac. I understood the aspectual dimension of each luminary to signs but I confess I hadn't really thought out how both the solar and lunar halves of the zodiac related to the traditional order of the celestial spheres.

Your explanation makes perfect sense. It seems blindingly obvious the way you present it but I confess its escaped my notice before now. Have you come across any ancient sources explicitly giving this explanation for the scheme? Alternatively, any academic research setting out this view? I find it very interesting.

Thanks

Mark

michael - those are good insights.. where if anywhere, did you pick them up? perhaps you thought that up on your own - either way they are good insights. thanks for sharing.

Mark wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm

Which ancient astronomers have you found setting out the luminaries together?

If you ask the question this way, to my knowledge, the answer would have to be: All of them (up to the the Chaldeans)!

Already in the oldest Babylonian astronomy the luminaries were set out together (next to the Earth). But the order of the following planets is quite funny to our Greek-schooled eyes!

The Pythagorean system (as depicted by Philolaus) is special in that all the bodies of our solar system (including Sun and Earth) are revolving around a somewhat mysterious "central fire". Their order is: Earth, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

This is also the order of the older geocentric model, which was the one taken for granted by Greek astronomers like Eudoxos, Callippus, Chrysippus, Eratosthenes, Plato and Aristotle (according to Nilson: Geschichte der griechischen Religion, S. 272).

It seems that in some instances, Mercury and Venus would reverse their places, however. Certainly as far as Plato is concerned, it is not entirely clear whether he believed the order to be Mercury, Venus, or vice versa, for his sentence structure in the Timaios leaves this ambiguous. Which led to an academic debate lasting since the publication of the work to the present!

Mark wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm

The Thema Mundi does seem very old. Later Roman sources such as Macrobius and Firmucus Maternus mention it. Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE also discusses it in reference to the zodiac signs. The first astrologer we have a record of discussing it appears to be Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE) who was the personal astrologer and advisor of the Emperor Tiberius (b.42 BCE?d.37 CE).

Thanks for this interesting information about the history of the Thema Mundi.

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 07, 2014 6:50 pm

However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.

Mark replied: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm

Brilliant! I am in your debt.

Oh well, don't mention it. - But if you do insist on doing me something good in return, please consider giving me a late answer to the request I quite miserably ended my "Zodiac with 24 sectors" thread with. I have hope that you as a Valens-wise astrologer could help me here... This issue is quite important for my further research...

Mark wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm

Up to now I have never been able to really get a handle on the idea behind the concept of solar and lunar halves of zodiac. I understood the aspectual dimension of each luminary to signs but I confess I hadn't really thought out how both the solar and lunar halves of the zodiac related to the traditional order of the celestial spheres.

Your explanation makes perfect sense. It seems blindingly obvious the way you present it but I confess its escaped my notice before now. Have you come across any ancient sources explicitly giving this explanation for the scheme? Alternatively, any academic research setting out this view? I find it very interesting.

James wrote: Apr 07, 2014 8:30 pm

michael - those are good insights.. where if anywhere, did you pick them up? perhaps you thought that up on your own - either way they are good insights. thanks for sharing.

Copyright by Michael Sternbach.

There seems to be no research into this view other than my own.

However, I am looking forward to exchange further thoughts on this topic with you!

Michael

A few additional thoughts for you to ponder:

To see the Thema mundi as correlated with the pre-Ptolemaic geocentric system is just a first step.

Ptolemy's complete domicile scheme however leads us to a depiction of the geocentric order vis-?-vis the heliocentric view as I have demonstrated above.

In light of this, it may be no coincidence that the domicile scheme was introduced by the man who also presented the geocentric order with the Sun on the middle circle.

Of course, from a rigorous astronomical perspective, neither model holds true. But the Ptolemaic geocentric system comes closer to astronomical reality in that it is showing the planets in their correct order, except that the Sun and the Earth switch their positions mutually. As a matter of fact, Copernicus purposefully modelled his heliocentric system staying as close to Ptolemy's geocentric cosmos as possible.

The ?interchangeability? of the Sun and the Earth, that the domicile scheme hints at, is highly significant metaphysically. This is remarkably in line with Robert Hand (in ?Horoscope Symbols?) saying that the Earth and the Sun are the two centres of the solar system, the former correlated with the archetypal Mother, the latter with the Father: The Earth is bearing and nurturing the life that gets vitalized by the rays of the Sun.

Personally, I like to think of the Earth and the Sun as the ?physical centre? and the ?energetic centre? of the solar system, respectively. At least to our present knowledge, nowhere else in the solar system did matter reach the highly complex state of organization that we call life; however this order is maintained by the Sun's light (as Fritz Popp's research into biophotonics clearly demonstrated).

Michael Sternbach wrote:

If you ask the question this way, to my knowledge, the answer would have to be: All of them (up to the the Chaldeans)!

Already in the oldest Babylonian astronomy the luminaries were set out together (next to the Earth). But the order of the following planets is quite funny to our Greek-schooled eyes!

The Pythagorean system (as depicted by Philolaus) is special in that all the bodies of our solar system (including Sun and Earth) are revolving around a somewhat mysterious "central fire". Their order is: Earth, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

This is also the order of the older geocentric model, which was the one taken for granted by Greek astronomers like Eudoxos, Callippus, Chrysippus, Eratosthenes, Plato and Aristotle (according to Nilson: Geschichte der griechischen Religion, S. 272).

It seems that in some instances, Mercury and Venus would reverse their places, however. Certainly as far as Plato is concerned, it is not entirely clear whether he believed the order to be Mercury, Venus, or vice versa, for his sentence structure in the Timaios leaves this ambiguous. Which led to an academic debate lasting since the publication of the work to the present!

Fantastic stuff. That is all very thought provoking. From a brief check myself the main difference in planetary lists regarding the luminaries between the Mesopotamians and Greeks seems to be that while both listed the luminaries together the Greeks usually start with the Moon (See Plato's Timaeus or Aristotle's On The Heavens (De Caelo) ) while the Babylonians seem to list the Sun first. Would you agree?

Here are a couple of useful links that discuss the ancient theory of planetary spheres and the Pythagorean astronomical system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorea ... cal_system

For anyone wanting to do more research in this area a few recommended books on the history of ancient astronomy written in English:

-Greek Astronomy by Sir Thomas L. Heath

-Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus by Sir Thomas L. Heath

-Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato by Francis MacDonald Cornford

-A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler by J. L. E. Dreyer

-A History of Astronomy by A. Pannekoek

-Cosmology: Historical, Literary,Philosophical, Religous and Scientific Perspectives-Norriss S. Hetherington (Editor)

-The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy by James Evans

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Copyright by Michael Sternbach. There seems to be no research into this view other than my own.

In that case my sincere congratulations for some genuinely original and highly insightful research. I would suggest getting an article out on this asap. You deserve the full credit for this. I hate to say it but there are some totally unscrupulous types out there who will happily acquire such pioneering theories and pass it off as their own.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

But if you do insist on doing me something good in return, please consider giving me a late answer to the request I quite miserably ended my "Zodiac with 24 sectors" thread with. I have hope that you as a Valens-wise astrologer could help me here... Very Happy This issue is quite important for my further research..

.

I'm sorry Michael. I think you may have an inflated idea of my Valens credentials. Much as I like hellenistic astrology I am no authority on him. I think both Deborah Houlding and Curtis Manwaring have had a go at answering your query over on the traditional forum. Beyond them there are about 4 inactive but highly knowledgeable members on Skyscript who may just be able to assist you. There are a few academics off this site that occur to me too. I will send you a private message with some people worth contacting by PM here. However, do bear in mind this is a very obscure topic and your answer may neither come easily or fast.

regards

Mark

Mark wrote:

From a brief check myself the main difference in planetary lists regarding the luminaries between the Mesopotamians and Greeks seems to be that while both listed the luminaries together the Greeks usually start with the Moon (See Plato's Timaeus or Aristotle's On The Heavens (De Caelo) ) while the Babylonians seem to list the Sun first. Would you agree?

According to Nillson: Geschichte der griechischen Religion, the Babylonian order began with the Moon, followed by the Sun ? just like the Greek series. The old Babylonian order was Moon, Sun, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Mercury, Mars. Saturn and Mercury were reversed in later times.

So far, I haven't heard of any Babylonian model that starts out with the Sun. What is your source here?

Regarding the Pythagorean system, B. L. van der Waerden (in: ?Die Astronomie der Pythagoreer?) believes its original version to be heliocentric, in fact. The version with the central fire (and a ?Counter-Earth? directly opposite to our planet) as depicted by Philolaus (which I referred to above) is nowadays generally assumed to have been created either by himself or by one of his contemporaries in the late 5th century BC.

BTW, you gave a really interesting list of references ? much appreciated.

Michael wrote:

Copyright by Michael Sternbach. There seems to be no research into this view other than my own.

Mark replied:

In that case my sincere congratulations for some genuinely original and highly insightful research.

Thanks Mark. Your words are truly encouraging.

Mark wrote:

I would suggest getting an article out on this asap. You deserve the full credit for this. I hate to say it but there are some totally unscrupulous types out there who will happily acquire such pioneering theories and pass it off as their own.

Boy, have I personally experienced this before! - Nevertheless, I was happy to answer your query also because an article of mine on this will be published very soon. It contains some of the most relevant results of 21 years of research and shows the connections between the domicile scheme and different models of the solar system within a wider context. Nothing that can be imitated on the fly! In fact, consider what I have said regarding it on Skyscript so far as nothing more than a ?teaser?. - But thanks for your concern.

Michael wrote:

But if you do insist on doing me something good in return, please consider giving me a late answer to the request I quite miserably ended my "Zodiac with 24 sectors" thread with. I have hope that you as a Valens-wise astrologer could help me here... This issue is quite important for my further research

Mark replied:

I'm sorry Michael. I think you may have an inflated idea of my Valens credentials. Much as I like hellenistic astrology I am no authority on him. I think both Deborah Houlding and Curtis Manwaring have had a go at answering your query over on the traditional forum. Beyond them there are about 4 inactive but highly knowledgeable members on Skyscript who may just be able to assist you. There are a few academics off this site that occur to me too. I will send you a private message with some people worth contacting by PM here.

Wow, what a fantastic list you have sent me! Thank you so much. I am sure it will be of great use. Expect my reply by PM.

Of course, if any of you Valens tigers out-there happen to read this, please feel perfectly free to answer aforesaid query all by yourself! It would be much appreciated.

However, do bear in mind this is a very obscure topic and your answer may neither come easily or fast.

Good to know. I already started doubting that grey mass between my ears!

Best wishes
Michael

Michael Sternach wrote:

So far, I haven't heard of any Babylonian model that starts out with the Sun. What is your source here?

I was reading the book Astrology in Mesopotamian Culture: An Essay By A. E. Thierens. Thierens seemed to imply some old Assyrian planetary lists did this but it may just be my misunderstanding of what he was saying. I think he cites the ancient historian Diodorus Siculus from his Bibliotheca Historica for this.

However, I may have simply misunderstood him regarding the order of luminaries. Equally, its quite an old book (1935) and the author was not an academic authority but rather more an astrologer and occultist who studied the research of others. He does have a rather irritating habit of seeking to fit modern astrological interpretations on to ancient Mesopotamian astronomy and astrology.

What does seem clear unambiguous is that the Babylonians always seemed to treat the luminaries as qualitatively different from the five planets.

Considering how much the Greeks borrowed from the Babylonians in both astronomy and astrology it would certainly be consistent if the hellenistic approach to planetary lists was identical to the Mesopotamian one.

Wouldn't the rationale be different though? The Greeks seem to develop the idea of planetary spheres. I am not aware of the same concept in Mesopotamian thought.

Mark

Mark,

It's a little hard for me to imagine that any astronomically experienced culture would set the Sun closer to the Earth than the Moon because it would be fairly evident from the observation of solar eclipses that this assumption is incorrect.

Wouldn't the rationale be different though? The Greeks seem to develop the idea of planetary spheres. I am not aware of the same concept in Mesopotamian thought.

Right, it seems that the concept of concentric planetary spheres was introduced by the Greek mathematician and astronomer Eudoxus of Cnidus (408-355 BC).

There is still academic debate concerning the question whether the spheres were generally thought of by the ancients as having material existence or were considered to be immaterial / etheric in nature, or even mere mathematical abstractions.

There is no doubt, in any case, that concentric spheres are of unabated great significance in terms of archetypal psychology and meditative contemplation.

I have checked out the Loeb edition of the Bibliotheca Historica of Diodorus Siculus. However, it doesn't appear to support what A. E. Thierens wrote:

Diodorus Siculus writes regarding the 'Chaldeans':

And under all the stars hitherto mentioned the moon, according to them, takes her way, being nearest the earth because of her weight and completing her course in a very brief period of time, not by reason of her great velocity, but because her orbit is so short. They also agree with the Greeks in saying that her light is reflected and that her eclipses are due to the shadow of the earth. Diodorus Siculus from his Bibliotheca Historica II:XXXI

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/2A*.html

This seems fully consistent with the normal approach of hellenistic astronomy.

Mark

Michael Sternbach wrote:

It's a little hard for me to imagine that any astronomically experienced culture would set the Sun closer to the Earth than the Moon because it would be fairly evident from the observation of solar eclipses that this assumption is incorrect.

I think the main objection to your theory as it stands is that it seems to assume the astronomical lists of planets are synonymous with the way astrological thinking went. If your trying to prove an origin of domicile rulerships you need to go further. You need to find a basis for this in astrological literature.

There is fairly good evidence the two approaches were often at odds. For example, Greek astronomers adopted the tropical zodiac based on 0 Aries centuries before it became widely adopted in the later hellenistic astrology.

Regarding planetary orders in astrological literature Dorian Greenbaum and Micah Ross write:

Several different planetary orders circulate in astrological literature. The Role of Egypt in the Development of The Horoscope by Dorian Greenbaum and Micah Ross p151-152

I dont have time to quote from that article at present but I think you do need to study it. It challenges assumptions made by David Pingree regarding straightforward hellenistic planetary orders in astrological literature.

Mark

Mark wrote: Apr 14, 2014 7:17 am

I think the main objection to your theory as it stands is that it seems to assume the astronomical lists of planets are synonymous with the way astrological thinking went. If your trying to prove an origin of domicile rulerships you need to go further. You need to find a basis for this in astrological literature.

I agree. It would really be fascinating to find historic evidence that the Thema mundi and the domicile scheme were indeed derived from ancient models of the planetary system. I think the assumption is sound, though.

But what I find more important is the fact that these two most basic astronomical / astrological perspectives are linked with each other - and in ways that are metaphysically relevant. Personally, I give a little more emphasis to this than to the question how it came to be historically.

Furthermore, it's quite conceivable that the Thema mundi as well as the domicile scheme have their origin in a more ancient, still unknown astrosophical lore and were not fully understood any longer by the time of Ptolemy & Co. This would explain why Ptolemy, in explaining the domicile scheme, needs to resort to what are obviously Aristotelian-based rationalizations.

Possibly, the domicile scheme was originally a pattern printed on a Frisbee that ancient alien kids left on the Earth when they returned to their planet and that was later found and worshipped by the ancients.

There is fairly good evidence the two approaches were often at odds. For example, Greek astronomers adopted the tropical zodiac based on 0 Aries centuries before it became widely adopted in the later hellenistic astrology.

Again, while it may be difficult to prove that my ideas are reflecting the historical origin of astronomical / astrological concepts, I look at such things also in terms of their causa finalis, so it is of secondary importance how exactly they came to be.

There are actually a number of esoteric schemes that went through quite a dramatic evolution over the centuries (such as the kabbalistic Tree of Life). In this respect, the occult sciences are not very different from their ?official? siblings.

Regarding planetary orders in astrological literature Dorian Greenbaum and Micah Ross write:
Quote:
Several different planetary orders circulate in astrological literature. The Role of Egypt in the Development of The Horoscope by Dorian Greenbaum and Micah Ross p151-152


I dont have time to quote from that article at present but I think you do need to study it. It challenges assumptions made by David Pingree regarding straightforward hellenistic planetary orders in astrological literature.

I would certainly like to read the article. How is it available?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Michael