delete

Hello Paul,

The most thorough and up to date scholarship on this subject is by Alexander Jones. Especially his article:

Ancient Rejection and Adoption of Ptolemy?s Frame of Reference for Longitudes by Alexander Jones.

Its found in the book Ptolemy in Perspective, Use and Criticism of his Work from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century Edited by Alexander Jones. Published by Springer

I think it goes a long way to answering your question.

Mark

Good morning,

By some, generally fervent advocates of some kind of 'sidereal' zodiac, Vettius Valens is claimed to be a representative of 'mainstream' Hellenistic astrology whilst Klaudios Ptolomaios was a scientist who, as an astrologer, was 'marginal' at best.

Careful reading even of Prof. Riley's draft translation of Valens' Anthologies reveals that things are, as usual in reality, not so simple, cut and dried, black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. Although Valens' charts transmitted to us use some kind of equal-sign zodiac, for the several reasons stated above, it is difficult if not impossible to determine precisely which zodiac(s) they were based on for calculation purposes. Moreover, many of Valens' passages, ex. gr. in Book I, either refer to the visible astronomic constellations or apparently make little sense.

Personally, i doubt these issues of Hellenistic astrology are resolvable within the current framework of 'tropical-sidereal disputes'. Many of the arguments currently applied remind me of the scribes of George Orwell's 1984 occupied in constantly re-writing history to make it better fit current ideological perspectives and priorities.

Best regards,

lihin

I would follow Martin?s question about defining terms. What exactly is a ?zodiac? here? I?d humbly suggest it includes two things: geometric definitions of sectors of the sky, and also the inherent properties of those sectors. The first component, astronomic measurement, certainly can be discussed very precisely when described with respect to a stellar reference frame, and it would be very surprising if in ancient times this convenient method were not used. Yet this is just one half of the equation, and a zodiac it does not make: even in Valens? Anthology, Book I, we see the zodiac signs qualitatively defined and described by seasonal phenomena. The fact that here we have two variables in defining a ?zodiac?, not just one, leaves plenty of room for harmony within the astrological community. And on this thread.

?I come in peace??

Please consider: there is definitely a problem if two people take the same equation, say with 100 variables, and change one and only one of those variables, and expect the equation to still hold. They will then of necessity argue about who has ?the right? equation. This is why this whole debate is likely irreconcilable ? if the only variable we attribute to a ?zodiac? is its ayanamsa. However, if the variable that represents symbolism within the zodiac is also changed, then simply changing the ayanamsa could be compensated for by this second altered variable. I note that in the time-honored Vedic system, entire sets of variables are likely different than in western tropical astrology. Many cultural/symbolic parameters are certainly different, and I'd imagine there are many technical differences too. I have to think that using a sidereal measurement technique here is certainly more than compensated for by these other different parameters. It?s easy to see why western tropical methods and Vedic methods both thrived for millennia, side by side, while doing things differently. It is because they do things differently enough, that the exact same result is achieved, just through different paths!

On a smaller scale, I've heard one prominent proponent of the "western sidereal" school of thought discuss similar variability between his and ?western tropical? interpretations of the quality of the signs. This alone could make two different ayanamsas both do just fine. But throw in the unique set of technical emphases in the modern ?mainstream sidereal? school, and now we have plenty of room for two different ways of doing things to get to the same result.

So I guess my modest experience and research points me to answer Paul with ?Yes, Valens used a tropical and a sidereal zodiac. And so should we.?

Phil

hi phil,
nice post. thanks!
it agrees with my own thinking.. they are 2 different reference points and both equally valid..
james

Good morning,

It is indeed usually quite difficult to detach oneself, even if one might wish to, from the myriad layers of conceptualisation inherent even in the basic patterns of languages.

If we make an attempt in the realm of astronomy-astrology, we might recall that there are only a few fixed stars at 'centre stage' of planetary movement - near the ecliptic, a band of about 16 degrees width - of light comparable with the errant or moving stars. Herm?s at his weakest has an apparently visual magnitude of about 5.7, thus at times, even when not obscured by H?lios, scarcely visible to naked human sight. In heavy light pollution experienced by vast portions of the worldwide human pandemic living in large towns and cities, objects weaker than 2 to 3 are often invisible.

If we accept Ar?s as a benchmark of the wandering stars with a minimum apparently magnitude reaching 1.8 (the others except Herm?s are brighter), the list of fixed stars as bright or brighter within the ecliptic band is, by order of brightness with current location in tropical degrees:

Aldebaran (69)
Spica (204)
Antares (249)
Pollux (113)
Regulus (150)
El Nath (82)

Alhena (99) has an apparent magnitude of 1.9, Nunki (282), 2.0.

One may notice that these fixed stars are not evenly distributed along the zodiac and that their very names presume accumulated layers of 'meaning' encoded in at least two languages (Arabic and Latin), one Semitic, the other Indo-European.

Best regards,

lihin

As I feared from the outset, this thread has gone far off-topic and seems in immediate danger of deteriorating into yet another tropical/sidereal debate. I would ask everyone to remember Paul's stated intention with the thread:

Paul wrote:I am just trying to ascertain what arguments if any are given for why Valens may be using a tropical [zodiac], however, I am not trying to get a definitive answer. Just better understand why anyone would think it's not sidereal. I am not interested in judging whether those arguments are 'valid' or not, just to hear them to understand them, as it would seem very obvious to me that it is indeed a sidereal one being used.

If you have nothing to say that is relevant to this purpose, please do not post on this thread, or I shall have to start deleting posts. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but I really don't want another fruitless debate here. Anyone interested in that sort of thing can find more than enough of it on Skyscript by searching the archives. Paul's question seems far more interesting and worthwhile.

This degenerates into a tropical sidereal debate because the debate itself is not well defined.

Take precession as zero.

What elements in chart calculation at that time would define the chart as sidereal and what would call it tropical.

Martin Gansten wrote:As I feared from the outset, this thread has gone far off-topic and seems in immediate danger of deteriorating into yet another tropical/sidereal debate. I would ask everyone to remember Paul's stated intention with the thread

Thank you Martin. Please remove whatever you feel strays from the topic. I may do the same, if you're okay with that, though as this is your forum I prefer if it is done by you, not least because you are a sidereal astrologer yourself.

I just want to say that nobody needs to defend their zodiac preferences in any forum, but just as similarly nobody needs to argue for others being inferior. If at any time anyone feels compelled to post in defence of their zodiac preferences re-read my initial intention. I am not interested in judging the arguments one way or another, just in hearing about them because it seems obvious to me that Valens is using a sidereal zodiac.

Paul wrote:

Martin Gansten wrote:As I feared from the outset, this thread has gone far off-topic and seems in immediate danger of deteriorating into yet another tropical/sidereal debate. I would ask everyone to remember Paul's stated intention with the thread

Thank you Martin. Please remove whatever you feel strays from the topic. I may do the same, if you're okay with that, though as this is your forum I prefer if it is done by you, not least because you are a sidereal astrologer yourself.

I just want to say that nobody needs to defend their zodiac preferences in any forum, but just as similarly nobody needs to argue for others being inferior. If at any time anyone feels compelled to post in defence of their zodiac preferences re-read my initial intention. I am not interested in judging the arguments one way or another, just in hearing about them because it seems obvious to me that Valens is using a sidereal zodiac.

But that is where the problem lies.

If you could list why it is obvious to you that Valens is using a sidereal zodiac then this would not be a pre-supposition and invoke another pre-supposition.

PD

pankajdubey wrote: But that is where the problem lies.

If you could list why it is obvious to you that Valens is using a sidereal zodiac then this would not be a pre-supposition and invoke another pre-supposition.

PD

Pankajdubey

I encourage you to read all my posts on this thread as I think I address all your concerns and have clarified what I am asking for and why I believe Valens uses a sidereal zodiac. However I am not so interested in promoting my understanding as my interest isn't in what I believe (which I already know) but in what this controversy is.

If you look to my second post on this thread you see I give one example, the most obvious one I can think of, for why I understand Valens to be measuring signs sidereally.

I thought there was more than one example.

I think that the crux lies with his use of the word equinox.

Aries is the house of Mars, a masculine sign, tropic, terrestrial, governing, fiery, free, upward-trending,
semi-vocal, noble, changeable, procuratorial, public, civic, with few offspring, servile, the Midheaven of the
universe and the cause of rank, two-toned (since the sun and the moon make white lichen). It is also
unaspected and ecliptic.

/6P/ Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is
stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive. The middle degrees up to 15? are mild <and> of animals.

He has used conflicting descriptions of Aries here.


Valens uses it with reference to Aries:

Aries to equinox in sign description.But also adds Aries as MC of the universe.
Libra as an equinoctial sign.Also the IC of the universe.
Rest of the descriptions are as if he is explaining the sign concept to someone familiar with the star concept.

2 <A> As mentioned, as a whole Libra is tropic and
changeable. By part it is as follows: its first and second decans are temperate, the third rainy. Its northern
parts are windy, the southern moist/dry text? and disease?ridden. ....

He follows the rule of describing the sign as a whole then parts of it in chunks of varying degrees, not all in relation to position of stars or all in position of terms.

for cancer

It is the house of the moon, feminine, solstitial, the Ascendant to the universe, slavish, downwardtrending,
mute, watery, noble,..

What we definitely know that Valens has used signs to describe the points of universe and described how the stars of the universe fit in that divison and that he has used sign differently than we use now.

Are there any other sidereal references that you can think of ?

All we can say that the whole seasons fuss was not so much important to him as there wasn't much of a discernable difference to him.