Skyscript Astrology Forum

It's occurred to me that before discussing specific signs, we need general agreement on planetary atttibutes since the signs have all been assigned ruling and exalted planets. My suggestions would be:

(1) Valens, who has extensive lists of planetary attributes, and that section of Riley's translation can be downloaded by everyone.

(2)Ben Dykes' Introductions to Traditional Astrology contains a chapter on each of the traditonal planets and lights.

So, yes, I believe we all need to agree on our basic planetary source material before discussing specific birth charts.

Deb wrote:

In the example comment I referred to the implication appears to be that the shift in meaning has affected the sidereal sign interpretation, so that sidereal Libra has become more like tropical Scorpio. A neat solution if it were widely accepted - the two zodiacs give different sign locations but end up giving similar meanings anway. I imagine most siderealists will have more of a problem with this than I would.

Yes, the concept of each segment of the ecliptic having the same meaning opens up some common ground between tropical and sidereal astrologers. And, yes, I suppose many sidereal astrologers wouldn't much like the idea. But for me, it's the only approach that makes logical sense.

Therese wrote:

It's occurred to me that before discussing specific signs, we need general agreement on planetary atttibutes since the signs have all been assigned ruling and exalted planets. My suggestions would be:

(1) Valens, who has extensive lists of sign attributes, and Riley's translation of planets can be downloaded by everyone.

(2)Ben Dykes' Introductions to Traditional Astrology contains a chapter on each of the traditonal planets and lights.

So, yes, I believe we all need to agree on our basic planetary source material before discussing specific birth charts.

There are obviously lots of possible sources but wouldn't you agree that Ptolemy is a key resource? The Tetrabiblos is the most influential book in astrological history. Every astrologer from his time down to the end of the traditional era came under his influence. Couldn't we compare Ptolemy's understanding of signs and planets to what we understand today too?

I do think though there might be a problem here. We seem to be assuming a change in the understanding of a sign indicates the influence of the sidereal zodiac. However what about new cultural ideas changing our ideas and perceptions of the signs? For example the influence of Galen and his system of qualities.

Aquarius is an interesting sign for this thread. Looking a Valens and say Ibn Ezra the sign gets a very negative description. The Saturn ruled focus of the sign seems the main reason for that. However, later authors pick up the early references to Aquarius as a human sign which indicates more grace and social cultivation. In terms of the humours it gets linked to being sanguine which was often seen as the most positive of the qualities.

Mark

I made a mistake in my post, Mark. I meant to suggest that we try to agree on what the planets signify. That's why I suggested Valens and Ben Dykes' book because both have extensive lists for the planets. I thought it best to let the ancient signs alone, since there really aren't many traits listed that we can use today as we delineate charts. But there shouldn't be any distinction between different schools of astrology regarding the planet lists.

I went back and corrected by post, removing any reference to signs.

Therese

So I don't want to post any chart data until everyone who is participating agrees to one or more planetary lists in the Traditional literature. As I said before, I don't have Bonatti, but I downloaded Riley's Valens' planetary lists, and I like the planet chapters in Ben Dykes Introductions to Traditional Astrology. I didn't think that Ptolemy had extensive planetary lists as they are found in these two sources, and perhaps others. So, does anyone else have other planetary suggestions from traditional texts?

Therese Hamilton wrote:Paul, let's study some horoscopes. I have no interest in an argument regarding the "shifting" of sign meanings. There isn't enough information in the literature to support that premise either way. It's a dead argument in my opinion. I have a collection of Gemini charts I can post, and these charts can be studied on the AstroDatabank site.

Obviously us studying horoscopes will not inform us whatsoever whether or not historically tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs in relation to precession.

And yet you make a curious statement when you say that actually there's not enough information to support the premise. If there's not enough information to support your premise then on what grounds are you making that premise?

In other words on what basis exactly are you making the claim that tropical astrologers have changed their signs in accordance with precession - what sources or authors or whatever have you seen this happen in so that you now conclude that this is the case?

Paul wrote:

Therese Hamilton wrote:Paul, let's study some horoscopes. I have no interest in an argument regarding the "shifting" of sign meanings. There isn't enough information in the literature to support that premise either way. It's a dead argument in my opinion. I have a collection of Gemini charts I can post, and these charts can be studied on the AstroDatabank site.

Obviously us studying horoscopes will not inform us whatsoever whether or not historically tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs in relation to precession.

And yet you make a curious statement when you say that actually there's not enough information to support the premise. If there's not enough information to support your premise then on what grounds are you making that premise?

In other words on what basis exactly are you making the claim that tropical astrologers have changed their signs in accordance with precession - what sources or authors or whatever have you seen this happen in so that you now conclude that this is the case?

Paul, if we want some "evidence" (for lack of something better to call it), then first we must excerpt any symbolism from Valens on the signs that apparently is related to the ruling and exalted planets for each sign. The next step would be to study stelliums in the birth charts of individuals in modern times.

Do these stelliums reflect the rulership of the tropical or sidereal sign? I think the best place to post these charts would be on the new sidereal forum. I won't say, "See, the sidereal is better!" I will only (for example) post a chart with a stellium in sidereal Gemini along with notes from the biography of the person. Do we see a very active Mercury (Gemini) in the person's life? If a tropical astrologer wishes to study the posted charts, then he or she can consider the stellium in the tropical zodiac as a sort of study guide in personal work.

This is why I suggest that there has to be general agreement on characteristics that come under each planet's rulership.

It's best if I don't continue this discussion on this thread, but I can reply to a related question on the new forum. I think I adequately explained in another post how the meanigs associated with the constellations have changed with precession. (Such as a tropical astrologer really doesn't think "Pisces" or "Cetus" when seeing planets in Taurus.)

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Paul wrote: Paul, if we want some "evidence" (for lack of something better to call it), then first we must excerpt any symbolism from Valens on the signs that apparently is related to the ruling and exalted planets for each sign. The next step would be to study stelliums in the birth charts of individuals in modern times.

Why would this be the most logical though? Surely if our premise is that tropical astrologers have (presumably unbeknownst to themselves) altered the meanings of the signs in line with precession, it should be a simple matter of seeing what tropical astrologers said before the tropical aries point precessed into Pisces and then see what they said some hundreds or thousand of years after it did so and see if it's different? This would seem to be the most logical and straightforward.

Instead what you're advocating is simply looking at the charts and see whether they fit a sidereal or tropical perspective better - this would be a better test if we were examining which were the most 'true' or 'accurate' zodiac, however we're not. We're examining whether tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs.
In other words if we find that the moon and not mercury fits better, this wouldn't show that tropical astrologers changed their meanings, it would just show that they were wrong.

Also your own hypothesis works against your test idea, if indeed the tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs in line with precession, then won't we get the astrologers assigning the same meaning to tropical Gemini as you would to Sidereal Cancer? Sure, we can then ask if they appear to be more mercurial or lunar - but again this is surely flawed as it doesn't negate the fact that hey, tropical astrologers may have changed the meaning of their planets as well, why not? Or that the dispositor of the planet, in this case the moon or mercury, may not be well placed either accidentally or according to the zodiac being used which may mitigate its ability to be effective.

So I don't think this would be a good test. It's too prone to being capable of error and there's no need for our test to either be so complicated or so prone to error.
Instead if your argument is that tropical signs have changed meaning all we need to do is examine history and record that change. You suggested that Sari attempted to do so. I read Mark's (I think) quote of Sari earlier in the other thread, but I think this approach is the better one for examining that argument.


Also, in the sidereal forum you make this point:

(2) We also see some of the "bleed through" of the tropical signs that happens to be my approach. For example, in Jim Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer (1976!...the latest "real book" on western sidereal astrology) we find these thoughts under Cancer: "Before long, one realizes that Cancer adores being in the spotlight....he is at home when the center of attention. His need for attention is a result of a deep sense of insufficiency and personal insecurity."

However, I'm curious what you mean here, are you saying that tropical meanings have bled through to the sidereal signs? If so isn't that the exact opposite of what you were saying before about tropical astrologers altering their meanings in line with precession, instead showing sidereal astrologers altering their meanings in line with precession instead? Or perhaps both do it? This was hinted at earlier and I'd be very curious about whether there was a two way alteration of sign meanings.

Paul wrote:[quote="Therese Hamilton]Paul, if we want some "evidence" (for lack of something better to call it), then first we must excerpt any symbolism from Valens on the signs that apparently is related to the ruling and exalted planets for each sign. The next step would be to study stelliums in the birth charts of individuals in modern times.

Why would this be the most logical though? Surely if our premise is that tropical astrologers have (presumably unbeknownst to themselves) altered the meanings of the signs in line with precession, it should be a simple matter of seeing what tropical astrologers said before the tropical aries point precessed into Pisces and then see what they said some hundreds or thousand of years after it did so and see if it's different? This would seem to be the most logical and straightforward.

Actually one of the early sidereal astrologers did write a book comparing what ancient writers said about the signs to the tropical signs today. The book is Your Character in the Zodiac by Rupert Gleadow. But the book is difficult to find now. Also, it's a huge point of debate which zodiac astrologers used in different historical periods.

Instead what you're advocating is simply looking at the charts and see whether they fit a sidereal or tropical perspective better - this would be a better test if we were examining which were the most 'true' or 'accurate' zodiac, however we're not. We're examining whether tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs.

Well, Paul, you are interested in this topic, but I'm not especially interested because I know we need to go back and carefully study the ancient writings. I think you'd enjoy reading Gleadow's book if you can find it.

Also your own hypothesis works against your test idea, if indeed the tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs in line with precession, then won't we get the astrologers assigning the same meaning to tropical Gemini as you would to Sidereal Cancer?

...that is tropical Cancer to sidereal Gemini. Yes, and Gleadow has many examples of that.

Sure, we can then ask if they appear to be more mercurial or lunar

The difference would be that the person's life activity would reflect Mercury rather than the Moon. Not necessarily how they would "appear" because the planets are the keys to appearance and personality.

Also, in the sidereal forum you make this point:

(2) We also see some of the "bleed through" of the tropical signs that happens to be my approach. For example, in Jim Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer (1976!...the latest "real book" on western sidereal astrology) we find these thoughts under Cancer: "Before long, one realizes that Cancer adores being in the spotlight....he is at home when the center of attention. His need for attention is a result of a deep sense of insufficiency and personal insecurity."

However, I'm curious what you mean here, are you saying that tropical meanings have bled through to the sidereal signs? If so isn't that the exact opposite of what you were saying before about tropical astrologers altering their meanings in line with precession, instead showing sidereal astrologers altering their meanings in line with precession instead?

Sidereal signs remain in one location over the centuries. They bleed through in the shifting tropical signs. My choice of words was confusing.

This particular historical point that interests you so much, Paul, is an acceptable topic for the sidereal forum. I suggest that the conversation be moved to that forum. I can give quotes from Gleadow's book, as he was the scholar who looked deeply into the ancient texts. A problem, of couse, is choosing the statements of tropical astrologers today. There are many books, web sites and authors, and they don't all agree with each other.

I see more value in studying modern charts and biographies. Sari's post gave enough examples to suggest that some tropical signs are indeed different than ancient descriptions of the same sign. Since my time is limited, I leave this study to Rupert Gleadow.