Skyscript Astrology Forum

Astrophilus wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:34 pm Aries is "watery"? I thought it was a fire sign.

Maybe he confused Pisces with Aries. Unfortunately my Greek is not good enough to check the original text.

Mine is, and yes, it says 'watery' (hudatōdēs). Valens was referring to weather conditions.

Ouranos wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 3:38 pm They did not defined 0° Aries as a point 8-10 degrees prior to the equinox but the Vernal Point which is very different.
[...]
Do you see the difference Martin?

No, I confess I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The Hellenistic astrologers (and their Babylonian predecessors) who considered the equinox point to mark 8° Aries would, by logical necessity, have considered 0° Aries to be a point 8° prior to the equinox, which is what I stated. Hence Valens' statement: From its [= Aries'] first degree to the equinox ...

To clarify, Valens wasn't a siderealist in the modern sense, as he didn't understand precession. The same is true of many ancient and medieval astrologers: they believed the signs to be fixed in relation both to the seasons and to the stars (just as we see in that quotation from Valens), or to move very little, in a back-and-forth fashion (trepidation). My point was that they didn't use the tropical zodiac, that is, the one that equates 0° Aries with the equinox.

Martin,

With due respect to your knowledge as a historian, changing the Vernal Point to Equinox now is not any more convincing.
My point is simply to say that 'Vernal' refers to 'Spring' and not to the moving sidereal point. Again a misnomer.

According to Chris Brennan (Ch.8, Hellenistic Astrology), he says that "Hipparchus discovered precession in the second century BCE, and he adopted the tropical zodiac as a reference system for the purpose of doing astronomical calculations. " (p.218, citing Jones, "Ancient Rejection, p.29).
Ptolemy is also the first astrologer who adopted the tropical zodiac for measurements. (Almagest 2,7).

Do you any specific statement from any astrologer of the Hellenistic period claiming that he was a sidereal astrologer?
I think that both zodiacs are telling stories that are relevant to our modern world depending on the lens you use.

Ouranos

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:05 pm Apparently the originators of the twelve-house system didn't follow that line of reasoning. Perhaps because they didn't use the tropical zodiac (= the zodiac where Aries begins at the equinox).

Do you assume the "originators" might have been using Sidereal zodiac together with Whole Sign houses? I see Aries = 1st house could come to mind more naturally when used to viewing the houses in whole signs rather than quadrant.

Ouranos wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:02 pm With due respect to your knowledge as a historian, changing the Vernal Point to Equinox now is not any more convincing.
My point is simply to say that 'Vernal' refers to 'Spring' and not to the moving sidereal point. Again a misnomer.

'Vernal equinox' (the most common designation), 'equinoctial point' and 'vernal point' (the least common) are all used to refer to the same point of intersection between the ecliptic and equator. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.

As for moving, the standard term is 'precession of the equinox', meaning that the equinoctial (= tropical) point is perceived as moving against the fixed background of the stars. That is why the sidereal zodiac is often called the fixed zodiac. The same perspective is found in the Sanskrit tradition, where the words for tropical and sidereal are sāyana ('with motion') and nirayaṇa ('without motion'), respectively. The motion referred to is that of precession.

Ptolemy is also the first astrologer who adopted the tropical zodiac for measurements. (Almagest 2,7).

As we don't know whether Ptolemy was in fact an astrologer or only wrote on astrology, it might be better to say that he was the first to propose the use of a tropical framework for horoscopy.

Do you [have] any specific statement from any astrologer of the Hellenistic period claiming that he was a sidereal astrologer?

That's a bit like James's recent question about modern and traditional. As long as there was no prevalent 'modern astrology' to distance oneself from, there was no need to call oneself a 'traditional astrologer'. Likewise, until precession was commonly understood and the difference between the two zodiacs noticeable, there was no need to distinguish between sidereal and tropical. To repeat what I said before:

many ancient and medieval astrologers [...] believed the signs to be fixed in relation both to the seasons and to the stars [...] My point was that they didn't use the tropical zodiac, that is, the one that equates 0° Aries with the equinox.

Astrophilus wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:27 am Do you assume the "originators" might have been using Sidereal zodiac together with Whole Sign houses? I see Aries = 1st house could come to mind more naturally when used to viewing the houses in whole signs rather than quadrant.

It is clear from the textual evidence that signs were often equated with houses in common practice. Personally I am not convinced that they were ever equated/conflated at a conceptual level, but you famously can't prove a negative. What we do know about the conceptual/theoretical view of houses in the early sources is that: (1) there are no passages explicitly teaching a doctrine of whole-sign houses (at least to my knowledge: again, you can't prove a negative); (2) there are passages (e.g. in Valens and Firmicus) that explicitly say that houses should be calculated by degree; (3) these 'houses by degree' seem often to have been what we would call equal houses (this is the case in Firmicus and Ptolemy, and in a section cited by Valens from 'Asclepius'), although quadrant houses also came into play at an early stage (cited by Valens from one Orion, and implied in several places of his Anthologies), perhaps influenced by the Egyptian practice of marking both rising and culminating decans.

Vernal equinox' (the most common designation), 'equinoctial point' and 'vernal point' (the least common) are all used to refer to the same point of intersection between the ecliptic and equator. 

This intersection point (intersection between ecliptic and equator) is at 0° Aries. That is my point. Precession of the equinox is the correct term in sidereal. I am a child of Uranian astrology and I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

As we don't know whether Ptolemy was in fact an astrologer or only wrote on astrology, it might be better to say that he was the first to propose the use of a tropical framework for horoscopy.

I thought I heard you say that the tropical zodiac never existed. Thank you for the correction. No need to fathom Ptolemy. The list could be long on the sidereal side as well.

My point was that they didn't use the tropical zodiac, that is, the one that equates 0° Aries with the equinox.

I have serious doubt about this. I don't believe the Vernal Point to be a modern invention. We are talking about the Sun's path after all. That they did not use the tropical I believe you... in the modern sense. Same for the sidereal as they did not have to make a distinction. As you say 'there was no need to distinguish between sidereal and tropical....'
Brennan in his book (p.221) says that "most of the zodiacal qualities that astrologers associated with the signs only seem to have been developed later in the Hellenistic tradition, when the two zodiacs were roughly aligned."
In Bowser, 'An Introduction to Western Sidereal Astrology.'

Thank you Martin and sorry James if we haven't found the body of evidence in this murder case.

Ouranos wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 11:03 am This intersection point (intersection between ecliptic and equator) is at 0° Aries. That is my point.

That's rather begging the question. Designating the equinoctial point as 0° Aries is the same thing as using the (Hipparchean/Ptolemaic) tropical zodiac. Nobody is disputing the location of the equinox (a matter of observation), but where Aries begins has been a subject of contention for the last two millennia or more.

Precession of the equinox is the correct term in sidereal.

And also in common astronomical parlance.

I thought I heard you say that the tropical zodiac never existed.

No, I only said that the originators of horoscopic astrology didn't use it. The Perpetual Tables (in common use in the ancient world, and also referenced by Valens) were based on a fixed (sidereal) zodiac.

I don't believe the Vernal Point to be a modern invention. We are talking about the Sun's path after all.

It's not a modern invention, it just wasn't equated (by astrologers) with the beginning of the sign Aries. This is a historical fact that can be quite easily checked by anyone who takes the trouble of reading what texts are available (including many worked horoscopes). What's more, the distinction between astronomical and astrological usage survived well into the late Middle Ages in Europe, as discussed in this interesting paper by Philipp Nothaft. Here is an excerpt:

[...] the use of sidereal sign-entries in this example appears to have been motivated by conscious choice. This much is made exceedingly likely by Roger of Hereford’s astrological textbook De quatuor partibus iudiciorum astronomie, in which he alerts his readers to the difference between two types of zodiac as well as the underlying cause (precession). He refers to these types as the divisions of the ecliptic secundum circulorum coniunctionem (the tropical zodiac defined by the intersection between the ecliptic and celestial equator) and secundum figuras signorum (the sidereal zodiac of the visible constellations). Roger is very clear that the latter type of zodiac finds its applications in astrological judgments and the planetary tables cast for this purpose. He also points out that the difference between the two reference frames in present times is 8°, such that sidereal 1° Aries is equivalent to tropical 9° Aries. Users of sidereal tables will need to take this difference into account when using an astrolabe [...] This, Roger writes, needs to be done “with utmost diligence,” since “judgments are made according to the constellations,” that is to say, with a sidereal zodiac.

interesting conversation, lol...

there were some folks that were purposing a house system in the opposite direction.. there was a fellow who wrote a book about it in the past 10 years too, which i was tempted to buy, but never did.... if i can find the author and title, i will share it...

the issue is over the fact the earth is rotating and a few different motions are happening at the same time... planets appear to rise in the east and set in the west which might indicate a natural clockwise order to houses.. instead it is is reverse this clockwise order.. i believe that has to do with the longer motion of the planets in a counterclockwise direction as represented by our ''zodiac'' - i didn't say which one because i want to keep martin and ouranos guessing!

i generally concur with ouranos here and like the fact he appears fairly neutral on the issue of zodiacs... some astrologers of today are unable to drop the labels associated with the astrology they do... just practice it- like the astrologers of old.. they probably didn't call themselves astrologers either... maybe they did.. they would have needed to know math and astronomy to cut it..

here is the book i was mentioning in my first paragraph..

https://steinerbooks.org/products/97815 ... use-system

james_m wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 4:48 pm some astrologers of today are unable to drop the labels associated with the astrology they do...

And others are unable to understand the labels, which may be why they object to them.

well, it is incumbent on those who are using labels and love the labels, to define them, isn't it?

Speaking for myself, I'm generally happy to answer questions (about my own use of words and about things that happen to fall within my particular areas of knowledge) from people who ask nicely and genuinely wish to know the answer. I'm less patient with wilful ignorance and borderline trolling.