Deb, I assume you have been drawing material from Geminos' Instroduction to the Phenomena? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Aratus' Phenomena was a practical manual in verse to teach the reader to identify constellations and predict weather according to Aaron Poochigian who recently translated the text. (John Hopkins University Press, 2010) The Phenomena was not an astrological text. Geminos's Introduction to the Phenomena is subtitled by the authors A Translation and Study of a Hellenistic Survey of Astronomy. (Translated by James Evans and J. Lennart Berggren, Princeton University Press, 2006) This introduction also isn't primarily an astrological text, but rather an astronomical compendium.

What seems to have happened (based on my limited understanding) is that for astronomical purposes the zodiac became linked to the equinoxes and solstices from a particular early date, but astrologers continued to use a sidereal zodiac related to the stars. Based on existing horoscopes that have survived to our time, they followed their Babylonian precursors in that regard.

Ptolemy himself was an astronomer, mathematician, and geographer, but not a fully practicing astrologer as Valens apparently was. There are even questions as to whether Ptolemy was an astrologer at all. So my perspective is that early astronomy became mixed up with astrological principles. Thus, the birth of the astrologers' tropical zodiac.

Hi Therese,
With concern that I don?t have time to make more than quick points in this thread, let me clarify that I am not rejecting the use of fixed stars by early astronomer/astrologers to determine the place of the zodiac. My argument is that the original, theoretical intention, and that of Arabs which you mentioned above, was for the zodiac to be associated with the equinoctial and solstitial points. However, the zodiac is a non-visible theoretical construct, so in order for an early astronomer to get out his astrolabe, quadrant, etc. and check, measure or monitor the movement of planets by celestial longitude, they needed to be able to place the zodiac amongst the fixed stars. So a sidereal framework of reference was a necessity for an ancient astronomer wanting to fix positions according to the zodiac ? we shouldn?t apply to that the modern assumption that if an astrologer today uses a sidereal frame of reference for the zodiac, they chose to reject the principles of the tropical zodiac. The ?either/or? debate is representative of a modern dilemma, not theirs - at that time all astronomer/astrologers believed they were working with the one valid system of zodiac measurement, though there were various astronomical methods used to locate it in the stars.

In regard to your second post, yes, that?s the title of Geminos?s work, the only English translation of which was made by Evans and Lennart Berggren and published by Princeton University Press in 2006. It?s an essential text for anyone who wants to understand the early definitions of the zodiac ? true is it not primarily an astrological text, but that should not imply any lack of relevancy for astrology. Geminos does not differentiate between the two studies in the way Ptolemy does (by keeping his Almagest free of the astrological principles he discussed in the Tetrabiblos), and Geminos offers theoretical explanations of many purely astrological points, such as the basis of antiscia connections, the principles of aspects, and many more important points that give meaning to zodiac divisions.
I don?t agree with the comment that Aratus? work was not an astrological text either, for similar reasons, and think it is pointless to question Ptolemy?s involvement or commitment to astrology ? but this thread would probably go way off track if I elaborated on my thoughts on those kinds of suggestions

Therese Hamilton wrote: What seems to have happened (based on my limited understanding) is that for astronomical purposes the zodiac became linked to the equinoxes and solstices from a particular early date, but astrologers continued to use a sidereal zodiac related to the stars. Based on existing horoscopes that have survived to our time, they followed their Babylonian precursors in that regard.

Therese

Measuring a zodiac from the stars can mean one of two things - the modern way is to derive the zodiac's meaning from the stellar background itself. The other way is to measure the ecliptic (or something else) from star positions, but not necessarily derive meaning from those stellar backgrounds.

I think that ancients didn't have this problem (which is I think the same thing Deb is saying if I understand her right) and so this distinction wasn't necessary in the ancient world. We should keep in mind the examples of Babylonian horoscopes we have also include, apparently for astrological purposes, the data of the nearest cardinal point - either solstice or equinox.

But in addition can have the position of the Moon in relation to fixed stars. I think the ancients applied astrological significance to all of the above. We also know, as per my previous post here, that the used the fixed stars, and observation of them, to determine when solstices and equinoxes were. So when, for example, sirius rises in the middle of the fourth month we have the solstice, and there's some evidence that the solstices were not observed but rather calculated in this manner. So here we're using stars, in effect, to measure the position of the cardinal points. So when we measure something sidereally we cannot be sure if when we derive astrological meaning if we're deriving it from the stars themselves or something we're using those star positions to in turn calculate, like the cardinal points or something derived from them. Especially when in fact the whole zodiac could be related to either the stars or the cardinal points, even if those cardinal points are originally placed in the centre of signs, which are in turn measured sidereally.

Personally I think astrological meaning as ascribed to stellar positions as well as tropical ones.

Yes, Paul and I are pretty much making the same point. In addition - as Paul suggests - astrologers had no reason to limit themselves to the symbolic principles of the zodiac signs without also taking meaning from the alignment with stars - there wasn't any theoretical need to think that one principle would conflict with the other.

Recently, Martin gave me some valuable help in my coverage of the sidereal view within the article on the zodiac I wrote as a response to the BBC's suggestion of a 13-sign zodiac. There was a point in history where astrologers had to make a decision on whether they wanted to keep the zodiac's symbolic emphasis on seasonal correspondences, or let that go by use of a sidereal zodiac that also lets go the principle of the zodiac being aligned to the equinoxes and solstices. I am not sure when that happened but it wasn't within what we think of as the 'Arabic era'. At that time the Sun's return to the vernal point as a definition of the Aries ingress acted like a foundation chart for a whole host of astrological techniques. Even their rulers were characterised by this, their accession chart (defined by the Aries ingress of the year of their reign) being used to determine the length and quality of their reign, in the way we would use a personal nativity.

BTW, my reason for commenting in this thread at all, was because of the earlier assertion that the Arabs used a sidereal zodiac, so their techniques are not relevant to the tropical zodiac; because that's a very black and white, but unreliable, conclusion to draw.

Deb wrote:

BTW, my reason for commenting in this thread at all, was because of the earlier assertion that the Arabs used a sidereal zodiac, so their techniques are not relevant to the tropical zodiac; because that's a very black and white, but unreliable, conclusion to draw.

I don't know if I or anyone else actually said that. I only questioned why there hasn't been research done on astrological principles in comparison studies of the zodiacs. This seems to me to be a glaring oversight in our field.

Just yesterday a book arrived in the mail that was recommended by Waybread on another thread. (Ancient Egyptian Sky Lore by Joanne Conman) I haven't had time to read this book yet, but a quick scan shows that the author's research attempts to overturn sacred beliefs of Egyptologists. Conman precedes her Introduction with a quote that I suggest might apply to our accepted astrological beliefs and practices:

"For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clich?s of our forbearers. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

John F. Kennedy
Commencement Address
Yale University, June 11, 1962

As just one example, Robert Hand has pointed out that Ptolemy apparently didn't apply the four elements to the triplicities. But these became attached to the astrologers' zodiac early on. This may have led to a system of interpretation that one day in retrospect may turn out to be the basis of long held mis-interpretation of sign principles.

What Hand means is that Ptolemy doesn't refer to the four triplicities as 'fire, earth, air and water', but rather as the Aries-triplicity, Libra triplicities, etc; the elemental principles are still there. Valens is the oldest source I know of to include those labels, but even in his text the references are very oblique - they are not directly made as they are in later texts. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of though.

Paul wrote:

So when we measure something sidereally we cannot be sure if when we derive astrological meaning if we're deriving it from the stars themselves or something we're using those star positions to in turn calculate, like the cardinal points or something derived from them.

This is true. We really don't understand the mechanics of influence that seem to be reflected in signs of the zodiac. I've said that I accept that there are rhythms that originate at the equinox and solstice points. I've suggested in a past article on my web site that the astrological zodiac itself may be a construct linked to the stars, but equinotical-solstice rhythms may align with certain other manifesting energies.

I prefer not to align these rhythms to signs of the zodiac, however, which brings up the southern hemisphere problem. But if zodiac signs are not involved, then there can be seasonal rhythms with opposite meanings at the same time in the northern and southern hemispheres: The quieter energies of fall in the north while the south is experiencing the vitalizing energies of spring. No zodiac, no problem!

Deb wrote:

What Hand means is that Ptolemy doesn't refer to the four triplicities as 'fire, earth, air and water', but rather as the Aries-triplicity, Libra triplicities, etc; the elemental principles are still there. Valens is the oldest source I know of to include those labels, but even in his text the references are very oblique - they are not directly made as they are in later texts. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of though.

Deb, my best reply is to quote from the article on my web site that was published in the NCGR Memberletter in 2013 (Ancient Triplicities: Key to the Sidereal Zodiac):

--------Begin quote----------
In addition to triplicity lords, Vettius Valens (2nd century C.E.) was the first astrologer to connect elements to the triangles. But in western astrology these have been changed from the Stoic elements where each element had only one quality (hot, cold, wet, dry) to Aristotle?s system which gives a mix of two qualities to each element. This system is entrenched in western tropical astrology, but there is now a serious question as to whether this element assignment may be in error. In his commentary on Book 1 of Ptolemy?s Tetribiblos, Rob Hand writes:

"The text does appear to be saying that Hot = Masculine, Wet = Feminine, Dry = Masculine, Cold = Feminine. If Ptolemy is completely in accord with standard Aristotelianism in which Hot and Cold are both active whereas Wet and Dry are both passive, then Ptolemy here classifies Hot = Active & Masculine, Cold = Active & Feminine, Wet = Passive & Feminine and Dry = Passive and Masculine. If this analysis is correct it has all manner of interesting symbolic consequences for astrology."
[Robert Hand, commentary in Claudius Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos, Book 1 (Robert Schmidt, translator), Golden Hind Press, 1994, p. 17.]

Taking a hint from Rob Hand?s commentary, a workable sidereal perspective links Aristotle's basic four qualities to the triplicities. However, Aristotle?s four qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry have nothing to do with weather, temperature or seasons. They are psychological in nature.

-----End quote from article------ http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aatriplicities2013.htm

Well I disagree Therese to several of those particular points for various reasons, but to pursue this we'd go off the focus of this thread. (That the humoral qualities are derived from seasonal effects is evident in Ptolemy's expression of Hippocratic principles, where the association with weather, season and climate is much more apparent).

More relevant - in relation to your previous post addressed to Paul - it might interest you to know that although I don't share your perspective personally, I do have a lot of respect for astrologers who prefer to remove the seasonal association of the signs with the intention of working with a more "universal system". Ptolemy, in fact, gives support for this concept indirectly, in telling us that should the zodiac not be started from the vernal point it would be necessary to exclude certain features of the noted sign characteristics otherwise it would lead to error. I will give the Ashmand interpretation of this point, although best understanding (I think) comes from a combination of translations made by Ashmand, Robbins and Schmidt.

The beginnings of the signs, and likewise those of the terms, are to be taken from the equinoctial and tropical points. This rule is not only clearly stated by writers on the subject, but is also especially evident by the demonstration constantly afforded, that their natures, influences and familiarities have no other origin than from the tropics and equinoxes, as has been already plainly shown. And, if other beginnings were allowed, it would either be necessary to exclude the natures of the signs from the theory of prognostication, or impossible to avoid error in then retaining and making use of them ... (Ashmand I.25 Robbins and Schmidt, I.22)

The way I understand this comment, is that Ptolemy sees no theoretical reason why the zodiac cannot commence from any point, providing the elements that relate to seasonal correspondence are removed from it.

Deb wrote:

Well I disagree Therese to several of those particular points for various reasons, but to pursue this we'd go off the focus of this thread. (That the humoral qualities are derived from seasonal effects is evident in Ptolemy's expression of Hippocratic principles, where the association with weather, season and climate is much more apparent).

Deb, I didn't reference humoral qualities and seasonal effects, but these seem to be quite logical, but would be opposite in the hemispheres as marked from the equinoxes and solstices.

I don?t think this is a matter of agreement or disagreement. There seems to be some confusion here between the four basic qualities in my article (hot, cold, wet and dry) and the four elements. You seem to be suggesting that Aristotle associated the four elements (fire, earth, air and water) with the humors. (I may be misunderstanding you here.) But I didn?t find this when I did the research for my article. Apparently the linking of the humors with elements occurred after Aristotle, and this development has made it?s way into tropical astrology. As astrologers we are forced to rely on academic sources. Here is a quote from a site on Greek medicine:

"Aristotle's most important contribution to the theory of Greek Medicine was his doctrine of the Four Basic Qualities Hot, Cold, Wet, and Dry. Later philosopher-physicians would apply these qualities to characterize the Four Elements, Four Humors, and Four Temperaments. The Four Basic Qualities are the foundations for all notions of balance and homeostasis in Greek Medicine."
http//www.greekmedicine.net/whos_who/Aristotle.html

So Aristotle's four basic qualities are hot, cold, wet and dry, and it?s these that I suggest can help to explain the foundation of the sidereal trigons.

Then later philosopher-physicians linked the four elements to the humors and temperaments, and tropical astrology has incorporated these into its sign trigons. These don't transfer to the sidereal zodiac just as the four qualities can't be transferred to the tropical zodiac. We can see, however, that the tropical elements don't follow Aristotle's pattern where Fire is opposite Water and Air is opposite Earth.

In the sidereal zodiac the four qualities are in correct opposition to each other. (hot-cold and wet-dry) Aristotle's elements are made up of combinations of the four qualities, so these have very different meanings than the basic qualities themselves.