Skyscript Astrology Forum

Vic DiCara wrote:

Konrad wrote:

Vic DiCara wrote:Konrad,

Thank you. Interesting information. I see it in two ways: (1) confusion about which system to stick with took about 400 years to die out. (2) to express "ayanamsa" (as we would say in Vedic astrology) almost requires us to have a sidereal version of the 12-fold zodiac. So we would say, "The equinotical point is now at 8? of Sidereal Aries" or better yet, "8? of the 1st sidereal division"

Vic

Vic,

As long as you qualify that this is just your belief and that it really has no textual evidence to support it, and in fact, that the textual evidence contradicts it, then I can't really argue with what you are putting forward.

You know there is textual evidence and historical evidence as well. But yes, it is my interpretation of the textual and historical evidence, which surely differs from yours and from what you feel is standard and correct.

Vic,

It is less about interpretation, and more about being plain wrong in regard to certain aspects of what you are writing about. For example, above you contend that it took ancient people 400 years to figure out that the tropical zodiac was the correct one to use. Ignoring that just a couple of days ago you claimed there was never any twelve-fold sidereal zodiac and only a tropical one, the real issue is that the sidereal zodiac was used consistently for much longer than 400 years (from the mid 5th century BC until the 4th century AD and in certain places even later). Again, this is a problem not of interpretation, but of basic knowledge. You cite MUL.APIN (having only heard a report of it by someone else) as proof of a tropical zodiac when in fact it is a calendar that charts the days of various stellar occurrences throughout the solar year. The 12 months of 30 days it describes which you are conflating with a tropical zodiac is an idealised version of the Babylonian year which, of course, was lunisolar meaning it sometimes had 13 months and was never 12 months of exactly 30 days. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that evidence of an interest in tracking the seasons is not the same thing as measuring planetary longitude from the equinox. There are countless studies, both of Mesopotamian and Hellenistic sources, which show that the ancients were measuring longitude from a particular star or stars in the form of a 360 degree circle, I have cited three already, but there are many more.

Konrad wrote:

sidereal zodiac was used consistently for much longer than 400 years (from the mid 5th century BC until the 4th century AD and in certain places even later).

This topic has come a few times on Skyscript as you know. I am not convinced we can objectively describe what the early hellenistic astrologers were doing as explicitly 'sidereal'. While the Mesopotamians might have had a fiducial star to calculate the boundaries of their 12 sign equal zodiac the Greeks incorporated rather a muddle of sidereal and tropical elements. In part because many probably believed it was the equinoxes that stayed fixed not the stars! This is something moderns have a really hard time getting their head around because for us the notion of precession is integral to our world view. But it certainly wasn't for the ancient astrologers. Hence astrologers like Valens started their so called 'Alexandrian zodiac' 8 degrees from the vernal equinox point. This was no doubt an attempt to emulate system B from the Babylonians which placed the equinox 8 degrees into sidereal Aries. However, unlike the Babylonians use of fiducial stars the early hellenistic astrologers were using a seasonal rather than a sidereal frame of reference to do this since they utilised the annual position of the Sun entering O tropical Aries as their fiducial point.

Its quite true this wasn't a pure tropical zodiac starting with O Aries which Ptolemy introduced. Although, it was derived from it as its fiducial point. On that basis I would argue it wasn't a pure sidereal zodiac either. It was rather a mixed up hybrid of the two.

That is because these astrologers thought the vernal equinox had to be fixed in place at 8 degrees into into the zodiac. Moreover, the topic was fairly academic in this period as the tropical and Babylonian zodiacs almost exactly coincided. The issue only really became practically important as the centuries progressed and the two frames of reference diverged. Even then there was still some resistance to the notion of precession as one continuous motion backwards against the order of the stars due support for trepidation theory.

I would challenge whether the contemporary explicitly astrological use of the word 'sidereal' matches up to what these ancients were doing or thinking. I would suggest its an historical anachronism to claim such an approach as either discretely tropical or sidereal in contemporary astrological terms. Modern siderealism surely argues for a clear separation between the concept of a zodiac from its seasonal associations. But if you look at any ancient culture on earth the two notions of stars and seasons were seen as totally synonymous. I am not saying this makes these cultures tropicalists. The word is a misnomer before astrologers have a conscious understanding of precession. But I do think the attempt by some modern western sidereal astrologers to claim these ancients were intellectually taking an identical stance to the zodiac as them is historically misleading. Without a conscious understanding of the process of precession these astrologers never saw a choice between a sidereal and seasonal frame of reference. The two were integrally linked together in their thinking.

As for this history of an explicit tropical zodiac it can be traced continuously back to Hipparchus in the 2nd century BCE. Astronomers such as Geminus were using it in the 1st century BCE. Ptolemy, was therefore not the originator of the tropical zodiac but the pioneer in introducing an explicit concept of precession of the equinoxes to astrological thinking. He quite naturally, followed the Greek astronomical tradition of calculating the zodiac from the vernal equinox.

Mark

Konrad wrote:

Vic,

It is less about interpretation, and more about being plain wrong in regard to certain aspects of what you are writing about .... Again, this is a problem not of interpretation, but of basic knowledge.

Vic, I want to emphasize that Konrad is correct in pointing out the fundamental problem with your perspective and writings. You are confusing your belief, opinions and interpretation with certain basic knowledge that you lack from your limited studies. I admit that it takes time, money for books and energy to keep up on modern scholarship and new discoveries. But these expenses are necessary in order to continue to be accurate in our astrological work rather than appear simply as uninformed about basic facts that everyone else is aware of.

I live in California, USA and have noted that all freshmen students in the state university system are required to take a course in logical thinking in the first semester of their studies. Thus it is recognized that it's a fundamental human trait to confuse opinion and belief with logic and factual information.

Scholars have spent a great deal of time and money to become specialists in their fields. So we can't ignore them and claim that "academics isn't my forte." At least not if we want to appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable astrologers.

Therese Hamilton:

Scholars have spent a great deal of time and money to become specialists in their fields. So we can't ignore them and claim that "academics isn't my forte."

I have to concur. If you expect people to radically transform their historical understanding of astrology you have to have a good understanding of history itself and the relevant academic research.

Mark

Mark,

Mark wrote:This topic has come a few times on Skyscript as you know. I am not convinced we can objectively describe what the early hellenistic astrologers were doing as explicitly 'sidereal'.

Well no, but that is not really what I am claiming either. Vic was claiming that the tropical zodiac was adopted wholesale after Hipparchus, and that there was never a 12-fold division of the sky based on the stars. Now he says that the 400 or so years from Hipparchus to Theon were just the ancients figuring out that they should be using the 0 Aries tropical measurement. That is where my disagreement is.

However, unlike the Babylonians use of fiducial stars the early hellenistic astrologers were using a seasonal rather than a sidereal frame of reference to do this since they utilised the annual position of the Sun entering O tropical Aries as their fiducial point.

Can you explain what you mean here?

Moreover, the topic was fairly academic in this period as the tropical and Babylonian zodiacs almost exactly coincided

I disagree here. Of course, there was a time when the two measurement systems would have been about exact, but that is only for a short period of time relative to the 800 or so years we are discussing here, and even then, there are instances of astrologers casting horoscopes to the degree, and sometimes minute, so I doubt they would have been happy with 'just about' being correct in their calculations. According to the Jones article I cited earlier, every horoscope bar one or two cast from the 1st century to the 4th which has at least four planets calculated to the degree displays a sidereal reference system. Now the question which you are moving onto i.e. whether the astrologers were thinking sidereally or tropically was one I was not attempting to touch on, but rather only that there was a twelvefold sidereal measurement and it never died out with either Hipparchus or Ptolemy.

Without a conscious understanding of the process of precession these astrologers never saw a choice between a sidereal and seasonal frame of reference.

Indeed, Jones actually concludes that most practising astrologers of the period I mentioned were unaware of precession, or in disagreement with the concept. The problem of what to measure planetary longitudes from is unfortunately ours alone, and a decision we must make individually. This decision is not something I sought to take away from Vic or anyone else, but if one appeals to history to validate that decision then it can, and should, be scrutinised.

He [Ptolemy] quite naturally, followed the Greek astronomical tradition of calculating the zodiac from the vernal equinox.

He did, but it is not something that Greek-speaking astrologers followed until some 200 years after him, and beyond the Greek-speaking world, it wasn't followed wholesale for some centuries after. That is ultimately my point.

Mark wrote:

Without a conscious understanding of the process of precession [astrologers in antiquity] never saw a choice between a sidereal and seasonal frame of reference. The two were integrally linked together in their thinking.

As for this history of an explicit tropical zodiac it can be traced continuously back to Hipparchus in the 2nd century BCE. Astronomers such as Geminus were using it in the 1st century BCE. Ptolemy, was therefore not the originator of the tropical zodiac but the pioneer in introducing an explicit concept of precession of the equinoxes to astrological thinking.

I think we have to remember that in this time period there were two traditions, but rather than being tropical/sidereal as such for astrologers, these traditions belonged to astronomer/mathematicians on one hand and practicing astrologers on the other.

Hipparchus and Geminos were astronomer/mathematicians, and it has often been suggested that Ptolemy himself didn?t practice astrology. In biographies Ptolemy is noted as a mathematician, geographer and astronomer, though astrology is often included in his legacy. Academics frequently try to avoid mentioning astrology as linked in any way to Ptolemy.

So while astronomers were developing the new measurement of a zodiac aligned with the equinoxes and solstices, from records translated so far (see earlier references to Alexander Jones in this topic), astrologers as a group continued to follow the Mesopotamian tradition of sidereal measurements and reference to the stars.

However, at this time in antiquity stars were still considered to be part of the 12 signs of either zodiac. Quoting from Geminos (my italics):

1. On the Circle of the Signs

The circle of the signs is divided into 12 parts, and each of the sections is designated both by the common term ?twelfth-part? and by a particular name taken from the stars that it contains and by which each sign is formed. 2. The twelve signs are: Aries, Taurus [etc....]

Signs and Constellations

3. The word ?sign? is used in two ways. According to one way it is a twelfth-part of the zodiac circle, that is, a certain interval of space demarcated by stars and points. According to the other [way] it is an image formed from the stars, based on resemblance and the position of the stars.

There is an interesting note at the bottom of this page by the translators:

Although Hipparchos discovered precession in the second centry B.C, Geminos nowhere alludes to this phenomenon. Ptolemy (Almagest vii 1-3) suggests that Hipparchos had left several questions about precession unresolved or inadequately proven, and it appears that Hipparchos?s lost work on precession never circulated very widely. Indeed, there was no mention of precession outside of Ptolemy until late Antiquity, when Ptolemy?s influence was clearly felt. (p. 13)

Then on page 115 Geminos states:

The two solstices and the two equinoxes occur, in the way of thinking of the Greek astronomers, in the first degrees of these signs; [Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricorn] but in the way of thinking of the Chaldeans they occur in the eighth degrees of these signs.

Geminos?s Introduction to the Phenomena, translators James Evans and J. Lennart Berggren, Princeton University Press, 2006.

The translators? notes elaborate on this statement. My main point in posting these quotations is that at this time in antiquity signs of the zodiac were very much related to the stars and constellations, and precession may have been ignored or poorly understood.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Scholars have spent a great deal of time and money to become specialists in their fields. So we can't ignore them and claim that "academics isn't my forte." At least not if we want to appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable astrologers.

it's an interesting and fairly locked in attitude that i don't fully concur with..

i am prone to making comparisons between astrology and music all the time... there are many musicians in the world today that never got a degree from a music school... the one's that did, don't generally ever have their certificate up on the back of the stage when they perform either, lol... so is it that the musician who went to school and knows how to articulate music theory or history, is thus more qualified to play music? i don't know that the beatles, tom petty and a wide array of musician/artists would agree with this!!

there are astrologers who practice their art and then there are astrologers who get degrees at astrology university and may not be involved in a professional astrological practice... not everyone is interested in history. and as i understand it, history is written by the winners, lol... i am not sure how that applies to astrological history and on a day to day basis, i am not sure how much that matters in the life of an astrologer...

speaking of which, whatever happened to that vedic astrologer that was swearing on a stack of vedas that hillary was going to win? well - maybe i am pulling your leg a bit theresa, but i just don't buy into a lot of thinking that seems rigid and boxed in as i read it..

stuffy, stuffy, stuffy, lol...

Dear Skyscripters,

First, let me express my respect for you. This is a very rigorous and intellectual community, I have not found a comparison to it elsewhere in the subject of astrology. I am lucky to have access to your thoughts, opinions, and research.

I?m very comfortable being wrong. Being wrong and finding it out is a valuable opportunity to improve and grow.

Paul asked me if I could cite an academic holding my opinion, and I answered that I couldn?t. This does not mean that I don?t know what I am talking about, it means that I can?t cite an academic. It doesn?t mean that there isn?t an academic with my basic view, either. Nor does it mean I haven?t carefully studied the subjects I discuss. Not everyone studies through academics. James_M made this point nicely in this thread.

People have really misunderstood a statement I made in response to Andrew Foss that, ?There aren?t really two zodiacs...? I admit, it is a statement begging to be misunderstood, and in hindsight I would rather not have said it. However please realize that it is not the same as saying ?There was never a twelve-fold sidereal zodiac.?

Konrad, you have stated that a sidereal 12-fold zodiac was used consistently from mid 5th Century BCE through the 4th century. You claim that the reason I think otherwise is because I am ignorant. I may indeed be ignorant of many things, but the main reason I don?t agree is that I don?t trust this evaluation. Mark has given another point of view in this thread, surely not based on ignorance of facts.

It's a pleasure to be around people with superior research and study to myself.

Sincerely,
Vic

james_m wrote:

Therese Hamilton wrote: Scholars have spent a great deal of time and money to become specialists in their fields. So we can't ignore them and claim that "academics isn't my forte." At least not if we want to appear to be intelligent and knowledgeable astrologers.

it's an interesting and fairly locked in attitude that i don't fully concur with..

i am prone to making comparisons between astrology and music all the time... there are many musicians in the world today that never got a degree from a music school... the one's that did, don't generally ever have their certificate up on the back of the stage when they perform either, lol... so is it that the musician who went to school and knows how to articulate music theory or history, is thus more qualified to play music? i don't know that the beatles, tom petty and a wide array of musician/artists would agree with this!!

there are astrologers who practice their art and then there are astrologers who get degrees at astrology university and may not be involved in a professional astrological practice... not everyone is interested in history. and as i understand it, history is written by the winners, lol... i am not sure how that applies to astrological history and on a day to day basis, i am not sure how much that matters in the life of an astrologer...

speaking of which, whatever happened to that vedic astrologer that was swearing on a stack of vedas that hillary was going to win? well - maybe i am pulling your leg a bit theresa, but i just don't buy into a lot of thinking that seems rigid and boxed in as i read it..

stuffy, stuffy, stuffy, lol...

As an astrological and occult researcher, I do try to take into account all pertinent literature, regardless of its origin. Many excellent source works were written by professional scientists.

However, you and I share an understanding that academic perspective can be biased and limited. Thus, many important discoveries in history were made by outsiders to the established schools of thought.

So once again, my own outlook could be called dialectical. And that has got do with my grandfather having been an academic who actually published books about openness in research, and about dialectics.

Vic DiCara wrote:Konrad, you have stated that a sidereal 12-fold zodiac was used consistently from mid 5th Century BCE through the 4th century. You claim that the reason I think otherwise is because I am ignorant. I may indeed be ignorant of many things, but the main reason I don?t agree is that I don?t trust this evaluation. Mark has given another point of view in this thread, surely not based on ignorance of facts.

Vic,

Yes, I get you don't trust the evaluation. There has been ample opportunity for you to express clearly why you don't, though this might be my fault for not specifying that this where I have trouble following you. Let me try to rectify that. In your updated article you write:

I would date this transition period beginning around the second century BCE, and extending not long into the Christian Era

What evidence are you seeing that makes you conclude that? Have you read and considered the articles and other evidence which contradict that viewpoint? If so, why are they incorrect?

You write:

Early astrology relied on interpreting immediate sidereal observations in tandem with easily observable omens. Later on, as calculations improved, the ancients made less use of omens and sidereal observations, and more use of the tropical divisions. Eventually they preferred the tropical divisions almost entirely.

Part of the problem here may be the vague assignations of time you are using. Who exactly are the 'ancients'? I am having trouble placing your timeline here too. I think you are referring to the Mesopotamians as having improved their calculations while making use of a sidereal measurement, but, even taking your assertion of a 2nd century BC date for the adoption of the tropical zodiac, there is still 300-400 years of history that you appear to be glossing over to get there. Regardless of Greek astronomers measuring longitude from the equinox, do you have evidence of astrologers casting horoscopes in the tropical zodiac from the 2nd century BC until the 4th century AD? If so, can you point me towards it so I can read of them myself?

You write:

By the fourth century this migration was essentially complete; the use of a 12-fold sidereal system had almost completely disappeared.

You claim that the time of the sidereal zodiac until the 4th century was a 'transition period'. Do you not think that this is an anachronistic observation?

To Paul:

People have really misunderstood a statement I made in response to Andrew Foss that, ?There aren?t really two zodiacs...? I admit, it is a statement begging to be misunderstood, and in hindsight I would rather not have said it. However please realize that it is not the same as saying ?There was never a twelve-fold sidereal zodiac.?

I never heard the statement you made to Andrew Foss, I was going off of what was implied in you pre-edited article:

Eventually we preferred the tropical divisions almost entirely, which is why everyone?s mother knows ?Cancer, Leo and Virgo? but very, very few people know the ancient sidereal divisions.

Some of the ancient sidereal divisions, both constellational and zodiacal, were known as Cancer, Leo and Virgo. If I am picking you up incorrectly here, please correct me, but it looks like you are drawing a distinction between a tropical twelvefold division whose segements are named 'Cancer' and so on, and the rest.

James, regarding the point about scholarship, I tend to agree that there can be stagnant and rigid theories and outlooks propagated and held in academia, but I think Mark and Therese are advocating a scholarly approach to astrological history, not a slavish following of academic findings. If we assert something about astrological history, is it not a good thing to cite our sources so that others can follow our reasoning and then agree or disagree as they see fit?

Vic DiCara wrote:Not everyone studies through academics. James_M made this point nicely in this thread.

If there was a point to James's post, I think it was more along the lines that practice and theory have little to do with each other. It is an attitude with which I, for one, profoundly disagree, for several reasons.

There aren't really different kinds of study, with academic study being a special kind -- just different standards of rigour, breadth and honesty. Ideally, studying something outside of an academic institution could/should be just the same as studying within academia; but in reality, without proper training, most of us tend to fall short of those standards. That is why academics matter.

Konrad, you have stated that a sidereal 12-fold zodiac was used consistently from mid 5th Century BCE through the 4th century. You claim that the reason I think otherwise is because I am ignorant. I may indeed be ignorant of many things, but the main reason I don?t agree is that I don?t trust this evaluation. Mark has given another point of view in this thread, surely not based on ignorance of facts.

I think Konrad's contributions have been eminently balanced and nuanced. As he pointed out, 'tropical' and 'sidereal' are categories that are only meaningful once precession has been accepted as a fact. But I think Mark and you are talking about slightly different things. Mark's post touched on conceptual distinctions, a rather subtle matter. You, as I understand it, are advocating the use of 'the tropical zodiac', that is, the one using the vernal equinox as the zero Aries point. This is something much more concrete. And there is absolutely no avoiding the fact that, in the zodiac definitions used for horoscopy in both Mesopotamia and the Hellenistic world (as well as Persia and India), the equinox was not used as the zero point. When academic authors speak of 'sidereal' measurements, that is typically what they mean. It is a negative definition, not dependent on whether particular fiducial stars are named.

Martin Gansten wrote: If there was a point to James's post, I think it was more along the lines that practice and theory have little to do with each other.

hi martin,
i wouldn't characterize what i was communicating that way but i can see how someone else might.. how relevant is it to playing music, that one does or doesn't understand all the theory and history that is involved in it? obviously an academic would argue that it is critical, but it isn't as there are many examples of musicians playing and being highly successful at it too.. some would argue that a good classical training in 17th century counterpoint is essential to writing music for example... it isn't, or it only is in so far as someone might think it is - typically an academic type.

i feel that i witness the same dynamic here in the astrological world.. even worse - those folks who are determined to hold up what they think is the holy grail and generally want to clobber anyone else who has a different view on it.. a recent interview that was had comes to mind as i say this..

doing and studying are two different worlds.. they can overlap, or not.. this is why i personally am much more interested in seeing someone who is doing astrology, then to read about a theory about it generally.. as for reading on the history of astrology - i think the origins will always be clouded in mystery and that in all likelihood astrology has been practiced a number of different ways with different perspectives - none of them the "one and only holy grail''' that some would like to believe or think..