Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:10 pm**

Paul wrote:

However what I think is clearer from the opening posts and many subsequent ones is that what's really wanting to be discussed isn't so much whether or not traditional techniques can be applied to the sidereal zodiac as much as a comparison between the sidereal astrologer's approach and the tropical astrologer's approach.

Actually I had in mind a demonstration of how the domicile lords, triplicity lords, planets in exaltation and debility apply in the sidereal signs. (As in Fern's chart.)

If we accept the argument that tropical astrologers have been shifting the meaning of the signs to match the precessing sidereal signs, as put forth here by others, then we should see that the tropical qualities of Pisces should match the sidereal qualities of Aries.
From Vettius Valens, on sidereal Aries (Riley's translation):

Quote:
.... Depending on its relationship with the house ruler, men born under this sign will
be brilliant, distinguished, authoritarian, just, hard on offenders, free, governing, bold in thought, boastful, great-hearted, restless, unstable, haughty, inflated, intimidating, quickly changing, wealthy. When the houserulers are favorably situated and have benefics in aspect, kings and powerful men are born, those having the say over life and death.
Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is
stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive.

With the exception of the apparent contradiction of originally referring to Aries as fiery, and then later as watery (we can assume the latter is in relation to weather only?) we can clearly see that tropical Pisces does NOT resemble sidereal Aries.

This is backwards. Sidereal Pisces is like tropical Aries.

Someone mentioned about how Scorpio is now considered erotic and sensual.

If so, then that is the Venus rulership of sidereal Libra. I don't believe Mars has ever been called "erotic and sensual."

So let's examine this one as well.
Sidereal Scorpio from the same translation of Valens...

Although Sari wrote a clever post comparing Valens to the precessed tropical signs of today, Velens is problematic in that he combines seasonal and weather symbolism with constellational, star and planetary rulership symbolism. So Valens is an interesting look at a collection of sign information, but if we really want to understand the sidereal signs, we need to study today's natal charts.

Tropical descriptions has:
A) Changed noticeably from the Hellenistic period which Martin Gansten associates as being predominantly sidereal (Ptolemy excepted)
B) That these changes match precession
C) That a similar theme isn't equally found by some arbitrary other sign to be used as a control, I suggest a 'pro'cessed sign to compare against a precessed sign...I've never been compelled by the argument that tropical astrologers have shifted their meanings of the signs in correspondence to precession and whilst several have made the claim I'm not aware of any who demonstrated the claim.

Your "C" is much too complex to take on, and we don't really have a lot to go on with the ancient interpretation of signs, except when the symbolism is obviously connected to the ruling planets. I have many collections of charts that support the sidereal correspondence, but these collections would make a book. That is, there are numerous charts that support sidereal triplicities, rulerships, exaltations, and debilities in signs. However, most of these charts are now on-line at the AstroDatabank site. I can post some names, and anyone who is interested can go to the ADB site and read the biographies.

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:54 pm**

Martin Gansten wrote:

...comparing 'traditional tropical' and 'traditional sidereal' sources is problematic, for the simple reason that all traditional authors (including Lilly) rely for their descriptions on earlier sources which often go back to a time before the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs was commonly recognized.

Exactly! That in a nutshell is the real difficulty I have with the view that there is a specific approach to signs which are distinctly sidereal or tropical. Its creating a false dichotomy in my opinion. At least in regards western traditional astrology stemming back to the hellenistic period. I am less clear about a distinction between Indian and western traditions regarding the signs. Has the use of the Nakshatras and padas had an influence on the interpretation of the 12 sign sidereal zodiac in India? That is an open question for me. Perhaps you can answer that?

Martin Gansten wrote:

Just as tropical astrologers have tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes.

That comment is misleading. If we are discussing western traditional astrology the suggestion that tropical astrologers have 'tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes' is a nice sounding reposte but inaccurate.

Traditional western tropical astrology has always retained a clear sidereal perspective. However, its a siderealism based on working with the stars and actual unequal sized constellatons and not those of the equal 12 zodiac signs of 'sidereal astrology'. From tropical astrologers from Ptolemy to William Lilly we see an emphasis on fixed stars and the effects of constellations. Paranatellonta are found throughout various sources. So I dont personally accept the validity of your comment.

Mark

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:27 am**

Therese wrote:

Valens is problematic in that he combines seasonal and weather symbolism with constellational, star and planetary rulership symbolism. So Valens is an interesting look at a collection of sign information, but if we really want to understand the sidereal signs, we need to study today's natal charts.

This raises the wider issue that Valens and the other ancient astrologers most probably considered the seasons a fundamental element of sign symbolism. Indeed the question I have is can we really identify any ancient sources that exclude this from consideration?

Deb's earlier comment is very relevant here:

It is only modern sidereal astrology that has a reason to dissociate its techniques from the seasonal symbolism ? this was not an issue that ancient astrologers had to worry about, nor something that they strove to do. They blissfully used the system created in their own time, as it worked in their own time in all respects.

Clearly our sign associations developed from both a sidereal and seasonal perspective. I think there are many examples of ancient astrology that indicate a seasonal dimension. For example look at the quadriplicities of cardinal, mutable and fixed signs. This had a lot of emphasis in ancient astrology. Indeed it developed long before the adoption of elements. How else do we explain this important division of the signs except by a seasonal origin?

Mark

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:05 am**

Chill out, Mark. The tropical zodiac is based on seasonal symbolism, the sidereal is not. It's as simple as that. Please don't accuse me of creating a false dichotomy of signs. When you have personally used the sidereal zodiac for ten years (as I have used the tropical), then you'll be qualified to speak about that zodiac with some authority.

It also might help if you'd take time to really study alternate points of view rather than jumping in with commentary on your own perspective.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:18 am**

Chill out, Mark. The tropical zodiac is based on seasonal symbolism, the sidereal is not. It's as simple as that. Please don't accuse me of creating a false dichotomy of signs.

My issue isn't about siderealism as such Therese. Its the notion that there is a unique sidereal notion of the signs that is totally different from a tropical one. I dont think the two issues are necessarily synonymous. Indeed I dont see any traditional sources completely rejecting a seasonal dimension. I am not discussing a sidereal vs tropical zodiac here but rather the development of sign symbolism.

Therese wrote:

It also might help if you'd take time to really study alternate points of view rather than jumping in with commentary on your own perspective.

I have studied siderealism Therese. More than most tropicalists. I have read Cyril Fagan, Rupert Gleadow, Ken Bowser and numerous texts of Indian astrology. I have also studied Mesopotamian astrology. So please dont make judgements based on negligible information about me. Fundamentally this is a discussion forum where views are exchanged. I was hoping you might seriously engage with my point about the quadriplicities.

Mark.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:56 am**

Robert Schmidt had an excellent post on the quadruplicates on the ACT Forum (Miscellaneous Questions). It's worth reading in its entirety. Here are quotes from that message:

"...This distinction [tropical, solid and double-bodied] was certainly made prior to Ptolemy. The Nechepso/Petosiris reference in Pingree is to Book II, chapter 18 in Valens. It is a verbatim quote. The distinction is also found in...."

"The question, then, becomes whether the founders of Hellenistic astrology had seasonal considerations in mind when they coined these terms...."

"Now, the terms solid and double-bodied are not obviously related to the seasons at all...So what about the designation tropical, which in Greek simply means "liable to turning" or "liable to change?"

(Schmidt goes on to relate these to the Thema Mundi....it's well worth reading.) Schnidt concludes in part:

"So I personally do not believe that this classification of the images originally had anything to do with the seasons, although it is easy to see how Ptolemy could have transferred such thinking to the context of the seasons. Consequently, I do not believe it can be used to settle the tropical/sidereal issue in Hellenistic astrology."

Posted by Robert Schmidt on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 on the ACT Forum
http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=101

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:34 am**

Mark wrote:Exactly! That in a nutshell is the real difficulty I have with Therese's position that there is a specific approach to signs which are distinctly sidereal or tropical. Its creating a false dichotomy in my opinion. At least in regards western traditional astrology stemming back to the hellenistic period.

I think 'western astrology' is a hugely problematic (I could have said 'grotesquely inaccurate'

) term at least prior to the late medieval or Renaissance period; but putting that to one side for the moment, let me say that I did not mean to dismiss the historical existence of two types of zodiac definitions. To my mind, irrespective of whether precession was understood or not, the dividing line is between Ptolemy's (and the Greek non-astrological authors') definition, which takes the equinox as the zero point, and those definitions which treat the equinox as a point falling somewhere within a sign, as the latter are primarily sidereal in their conception of the signs.

I am less clear about a distinction between Indian and western traditions regarding the signs. Has the use of the Nakshatras and padas had an influence on the interpretation of the 12 sign sidereal zodiac in India? That is an open question for me. Perhaps you can answer that?

Off-hand I can't recall any clear instance of such influence.

If we are discussing western traditional astrology the suggestion that tropical astrologers have 'tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes' is a nice sounding reposte but grotesquely inaccurate.

Traditional western tropical astrology has always retained a clear sidereal perspective.

I think you are grasping at straws here. Using the individual fixed stars is one thing, describing the signs according to the stars present in them is another. The latter is only possible in a conceptually sidereal zodiac.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:56 am**

Martin Gansten wrote:As Paul has mentioned my name, I should like to clarify that I for one do not claim that the meanings of the signs have consistently changed in tropical astrology over time

Oops

I hadn't meant to imply that you were one of the people who claimed that the meanings have changed in tropical astrology over time.

I only mentioned you as you have said you are a sidereal astrologer, you are well known here and of good reputation and knowledgeable on the subject. In other words if you say that the hellenistic astrologers etc used a sidereal zodiac then we have no reason to doubt your words. Hope that makes more sense.

(making tropical Aries resemble sidereal Pisces, etc -- Paul has the order backwards). Some shifts in sign symbolism can be seen when we compare different epochs and cultures, but nothing as clear-cut as that.

My apologies for getting this backwards, I shouldn't post in such a hurry.

I don't really understand what this means. But comparing 'traditional tropical' and 'traditional sidereal' sources is problematic, for the simple reason that all traditional authors (including Lilly) rely for their descriptions on earlier sources which often go back to a time before the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs was commonly recognized.

And this is exactly my point.
Lilly and other authors rely on the authors who wrote during a time when the differences were not so recognised. With this in mind, the argument that was put forth that the tropical astrologers changed their meanings of their signs in accordance with precession kind of falls flat on its face. This is the very point I was trying to make.

If we accept, which I do, that the hellenistic astrologers were primarily using a sidereal zodiac (I would argue that it was a hybrid of sidereal and tropical but that's another matter) and we also accept that Lilly etc were using these same astrologers as reference and drawing from their sources, then we will quickly see that the tropical sign meanings had not changed. They remained the same.

Just as tropical astrologers have tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes.

Both camps attempted to separate their respective logics.

In other words to summarise my point, Therese is suggesting that the tropical astrologers have routinely altered the meaning of their signs in accordance with precession. However I disagree with this point and as 'evidence' to use to back up my argument I was referencing your point that the hellenists were sidereal, and noting that Lilly etc referenced them.

That being the case one or other of these points is incorrect:
A) Tropical astrologers routinely altered the symbolism of the signs in accordance with precession.
B) Tropical astrologers preserved the meaning of the signs as used by the hellenistic astrologers.

Both cannot be right, therefore one is wrong. In my view point A is wrong and that's the point that Therese has put forward here. It is to that point that my previous post was counter-arguing.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:18 am**

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Someone mentioned about how Scorpio is now considered erotic and sensual.
If so, then that is the Venus rulership of sidereal Libra. I don't believe Mars has ever been called "erotic and sensual."

You're doing it again, this is the point I made on page one of this thread, if you're comparing sidereal and tropical astrology then that's fine, but we must separate what is used in one from what is used in the other. Here it is not that Venus has rulership of sidereal Libra, Venus just has rulership of Libra. Both in tropical and sidereal.
We cannot have it both ways. You were suggesting that "Libra here in Fern's chart isn't the nice friendly tropical Libra. It's the energy we see in tropical Scorpio." etc.

Although Sari wrote a clever post comparing Valens to the precessed tropical signs of today, Velens is problematic in that he combines seasonal and weather symbolism with constellational, star and planetary rulership symbolism. So Valens is an interesting look at a collection of sign information, but if we really want to understand the sidereal signs, we need to study today's natal charts.
No, wait a second. Your argument was that the tropical astrologers have changed their meanings over time. To demonstrate that we must look backwards through history. Not look at today's natal charts. Let's find a sidereal authority you are more comfortable with, if not Valens then someone else. Then find me a traditional tropical astrologer, I suggest Lilly, and show me that the Lilly's Cancer is like sidereal Gemini etc.

My point is that this is inaccurate so you won't be able to.

edit:
Also you yourself referenced Valens in your very first post so I'm not sure why it's so problematic that I too use your own source

Your "C" is much too complex to take on, and we don't really have a lot to go on with the ancient interpretation of signs, except when the symbolism is obviously connected to the ruling planets.
Again you can't have it both ways. Either we don't have enough information to go on, in which you case you cannot claim that there's enough information to know that tropical astrologers have changed their meanings to match precession, or we accept that there's enough to go on that you're able to make that statement, and if you're able to make that statement then there's enough to go on to demonstrate WHY you're making that statement.

C is not difficult whatsoever. You have suggested that tropical astrologers have changed their meanings. This is a common argument I have heard from some sidereal astrologers. If this is the case all I'm asking you to do is demonstrate it.
If you can demonstrate that there's a fundamental change in meaning with the symbolism all we need to do is offer a control. The reason I say this is that simply observing that the signs have changed does not in itself suggest that they changed in accordance with precession. We can tell if it's in accordance with precession in particular by offering a simple control.
Returning to your example of tropical cancer being like sidereal Gemini, all we need to do is first of all see if tropical cancer has changed meanings, if so if they resemble sidereal Gemini, and if so make sure they don't also resemble, for example, sidereal Taurus. In other words make sure that it's not just a 'change' but rather a change directly in accordance with precession.

I have many collections of charts that support the sidereal correspondence, but these collections would make a book.
What does this prove or what is the point of it?
We can all reference our charts that demonstrate the techniques we use work. I have no doubt that sidereal astrologers get great results using sidereal astrology. I greatly respect many sidereal astrologers. I have no problem with sidereal astrology.
What I have a problem with is the attack upon tropical astrology where it is suggested that tropical astrologers, fooling themselves, are really just ignorant sidereal astrologers, who ignorant of their actions, are changing the meanings over time to match the 'real' signs, which are the sidereal ones. That's basically the point you've put forth. That's the point I disagree with and am challenging you on.

This is again the point I made in my first post. You claim you want to demonstrate traditional approaches with sidereal charts, and to some extent you've made progress on doing so via Fern's chart, but rather than stick to this you've also compared or referenced against the tropical approach to demonstrate how flawed it is. You say:
"Thus, tropical Pisces is similar to sidereal Aquarius, tropical Aries is similar to sidereal Pisces, and so forth. "

Now when I questioned you originally about what exactly you were trying to do, as it was confusing, you suggested you just wanted to see if the traditional techniques work with sidereal zodiac. But this isn't strictly true. You've another motive too which is to demonstrate that the tropical zodiac is to some degree flawed and as you put it that the tropical signs change to match the sidereal zodiac.

I've no problem with your use of the sidereal zodiac, nor even a comparison against tropical. It's the, as I see it, incorrect statements that are littered through the posts in reference to belittling tropical astrology that I am disagreeing with.

If we return to Martin Gansten's comment, we can see that the traditional hellenistic astrologers were themselves using a sidereal zodiac, and that being the case then there's no reason to discuss the matter really. We already know that they work in sidereal astrology.
But again that's not really what your true motive is, rather it is to demonstrate that they work better in sidereal astrology, which is in itself fine. But in trying to do so you've raised some strawman arguments and it's those arguments I'm attempting to show up and dismantle.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:29 am**

Therese Hamilton wrote:Chill out, Mark. The tropical zodiac is based on seasonal symbolism, the sidereal is not. It's as simple as that. Please don't accuse me of creating a false dichotomy of signs. When you have personally used the sidereal zodiac for ten years (as I have used the tropical), then you'll be qualified to speak about that zodiac with some authority.

It also might help if you'd take time to really study alternate points of view rather than jumping in with commentary on your own perspective.

Sorry but saying that unless someone has your experiences that they're not permitted to discuss the arguments you put forth is erroneous. (edit:That you have used the sidereal zodiac for 10 years informs us not at all about your contrasting of the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. It's non-sequitor. - thanks to Konrad for pointing out that I misread and thought you said you used the sidereal zodiac, you said you usd the tropical one instead. My apologies. The point still stands in that how many years you've used a zodiac doesn't make Mark less qualified to contradict you though.)

I have to say I agree with Mark in regards the false dichotomy.

I think the much more simple truth of the matter is that the hellenistic astrologers were using a hybrid of sidereal and tropical considerations. We cannot get away from the fact that the astrology we all use was shaped and molded during a time when there wasn't this heavy distinction between tropical and sidereal and so we each have a zodiac that has shadows of the other in it. We have considerations in the sidereal zodiac that are based upon tropical considerations just as much as we have certain sidereal considerations in tropical astrology.
My suggestion would be to use whatever zodiac feels right to you, but in doing so that doesn't mean that it is in any way more objectively right than others. I personally don't think we get anywhere when we engage in pointless penis measuring contests over whose zodiac is the best. Both work. We know this. We have seen sidereal astrologers make great insights and so too have we seen tropical astrologers do likewise. Considering how under attack astrology is by certain quarters we would probably do better to try to understand the approaches of one another and respect them rather than try to diminish them.

I personally prefer a tropical approach. For whatever reason the internal logic of that system personally appeals to me and I have too many reservations about the logic of the sidereal zodiac to be comfortable with using. That said I know some great sidereal astrologers and one of whom read my chart. He made some great points and it was interesting and refreshing. That said I think my tropical chart described me better but perhaps that's just cos I'm used to hearing the tropical stuff about me at this stage.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:42 am**

Paul wrote:Sorry but saying that unless someone has your experiences that they're not permitted to discuss the arguments you put forth is erroneous. That you have used the sidereal zodiac for 10 years informs us not at all about your contrasting of the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. It's non-sequitor.

I have to say I agree with Mark in regards the false dichotomy.

If you had read the rest of the thread, Paul, you would see that its creation was not to debate which zodiac is "right". Therese wanted to demonstrate "Tropical" techniques in a Sidereal context and I thought it was going along nicely for a short time until people brought their egos into it and decided to create an astrological death-match of Tropical vs Sidereal (Therese also said she has used the Tropical for 10 years, not the Sidereal).

Therese, I know I would appreciate some more charts to discuss, so if you could post one or two which interest you, maybe we could have a look at them without bringing the egos into it?

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:04 am**

Konrad wrote: If you had read the rest of the thread, Paul, you would see that its creation was not to debate which zodiac is "right".

In the very first post it is suggested that hte tropical zodiac is secretly just the sidereal one and that the tropical zodiac changed its meaning to accommodate that. In what way do I need to read the rest of the thread to disagree with that point?

Therese wanted to demonstrate "Tropical" techniques in a Sidereal context

And nobody stopped her and I have no problem with this at all.

The problem I have is with comments of Therese's where she suggests that the tropical astrologers change their signs in accordance with precession. That's the only point I've rebuked Therese for. She has inferred that there's only really one zodiac, the sidereal one, and that the tropical astrologers are just ignorant of the fact that they're using it.

I disagree with this point but am willing to be proven wrong.
I have no problems with any of the rest of the thread though I wonder why this point needed to be raised by Therese if it wasn't her intention to explore the issue. She's raised the issue, I haven't.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Traditional Techniques in the Sidereal

ROBERT SCHMIDT ON THE QUADRUPLICITIES