It's some time since I looked at the Carter work. Someone remind me, did he consider orbs, or just the cardinality of the degree?

Thanks Borealis,

Very interesting. I didn't realise there was an online version of DeVore's dictionary. I will have to add that to my favourites.

So he has 22-28 Aquarius an an 'astrological area'. and 25-29 Leo.

There does seem a worrying link between astrology and alcoholism around 25-26 degrees of these signs. Sounds somewhat less impressive doesn't it...'I have my MC on the alcoholic astrologer's degree!'

As you state DeVore mentions 11 Virgo as an astrologers degree but no reference to Pisces. A clear difference from Charles Carter.

Kim Farnell gave her Charles Carter source as the Encyclopeadia of Psychological astrology. Judging by dates it looks like De Vore's book was written in the early 1930's. I assume thats after Carter's book but I currently have neither in my possession so its hard to be sure.

The Scottish astrologer Maurice Weymss name keeps popping up and I am now keen to try and track down his writings on the degree points to see if he is the actual source of this or not. Unfortunately, all his books are out of print so I am going to have to hunt down a facsimile copy. Unless of course any generous soul out there has the relevant source and is willing to share what it says?

Hello Mark,

"...Firmicus is estimated to have written his book around 355AD."

In the Intro to the book it mentions evidence that Mathesis was begun in 334AD, the 20 yr difference probably neither here nor there. So yes, approx. 23 degrees - I hadn't bothered to check your earlier figure. Precession of equinoxes being approx. 1 degree = 71.6 years. From now, 2006, back to 334AD = 1672 yrs/71.6 = 23.35 degrees (round up to 24 degrees, or back to 23). If going by works written 72 or more years ago, then deduct relevant no. of degrees from the current 23-24.

"So that would put Regulus for example at 6-7 Leo. Its currently at 29'55 Leo."

Well, this is interesting. Now I'm confused. Precession of equinoxes is backwards through the zodiacal signs = forwards in time/age, ie. forwards in time = Aries (Libra axis), Pisces (Virgo axis), Aquarius (Leo axis), Capricorn (Cancer axis).
Reverse direction/order if going backwards in time, ie. Aquarius (Leo axis), Pisces (Virgo axis), Aries (Libra axis).
So if we're reversing precession to go backwards in time I'd have thought we go from Leo (Aquarius axis) to Virgo (Pisces axis). But it appears you've projected approx. 23 degrees forward, from Leo/Aquarius axis forwards towards Cancer/Capricorn axis.

"However, I wonder if this all isn't really a distraction from the focus of the thread?"

It depends I guess on whether you're confining your research to relatively modern sources on the astrologer's degrees or were interested in tracking it back further to some source of origin. I'm not suggesting Firmicus was original source by any stretch, only an earlier one and that's why I mentioned him for consideration (think you asked where this idea had originated).

The astrologers degrees are not a new idea as Firmicus shows. In order of the stars, via the planets, Sun & Moon, to earth.

"...why should something as obscure as this carry over from the classical era?"

Has there ever been an era where people have not asked "what work/profession am I (or will my child be) most suited to"?

I'm sure astrologers throughout the various ages were not exempt from this human concern, and sought validation from the stars for their occupation ... especially since the stars were a focus of their occupation.

To be able to delineate others occupations but not their own ... to me that would seem a little obscure.

Kind regards,
TS

Hello TS,

My source for 355 ad is James Holden and the historian Lyn Thorndike.

Holden states:

I have assigned these dates for the following reasons. In Mathesis, v11. 1 Firmicus, mentions 'our Porphyry' which probably indicates that he had once studied under him. Porphyry died c304, so if we subtract 24 years we come to c 280 for the year of Firmicus's birth. And since I have agreed with Thorndike that Firmicus did not complete the Mathesis until 355 or shortly thereafter, I put the date of his death c 360, at which time he would have been 80 years old. (A History of Horoscopic Astrology by James Holden p63 note 158)

Like many dates in Hellenistic Astrology there is considerable room for debate of course. I just took 355 ad as a plausible date but you are welcome to another one!

Ok its 71.6 years for precession not 72 my error. That does become significant over long time frames as here I admit. I am happy to go with your calculation. Maths was never my strong point!

On precession and the fixed stars the point is that the Tropical Zodiac is moving backwards against the backdrop of the fixed stars ie Sidereal Zodiac. I can see why I confused you. The Tropical Zodiac moves backwards against the Sidereal Zodiac 1 degree every 71.6 years as we agreed. Hence, the talk of us moving from The Age of Pisces into the Age of Aquarius.

However, while its correct to state the Tropical Zodiac is moving backwards against the Sidereal Zodiac in effect this means stars in the Sidereal Zodiac appear to move forward in the Tropical Zodiac! So look at say Regulus right now at 29'55 Leo. Due to precession it will move signs into Virgo in just a few years. Of course its position is unchanged in its placement in the Sidereal Zodiac. It is still the major star in the constellation of Leo. Similarly Antares in the constellation of Scorpio has by precession moved into the Tropical Zodiac sign of Sagittarius.

In a nutshell the Tropical Zodiac precesses while the Sidereal Zodiac/fixed stars process forward through it!

Have you had a look at Anne Wrights website on the fixed stars? I highly recommend it:

Here a section that answers your question I hope:

[

b]Precession of the stars[/b]: The fixed stars cannot be progressed or arced. However they do precess forward in the zodiac at the approximate rate of 50.23 seconds of arc per year, the same as roughly eight minutes every ten years, or one degree every 72 years. In 100 years they precess at approximately 1degree23 minutes or 83 minutes (or 84).
If a natal planet is at a slightly higher longitude figure in a separating conjunction to a star, that star will precess to a conjunction, giving the energy field of that planet a superimposed profile and brings changes into the life corresponding to the influences of the particular star.
For example, if you were born in 1950 and had a planet at 23Libra50, that planet would be in a separating conjunction with Spica at 23Libra05. In the year 2000, Spica would precess, like a very slow moving transit, to conjunct that planet.
Examples:

#John Travolta (born Feb 18 1954, 2.53 PM, EST, Englewood) has Jupiter conjunct Rigel which brings honor, riches, glory and renown. His natal Jupiter is at 16Ge32. Travolta became an instant success with the release of the film Saturday Night Fever, in Dec 1977. Rigel had precessed to the minute of his Jupiter.
#Robert Kennedy (born Nov 20 1925 3.11 PM, EST, Brooklyn) had Pluto at 14Cancer30. When he was born, Canopus was at 13Can57. Canopus, when linked to the outer planets, has associations with violent, public and sudden death. When he was assassinated in 1968, Canopus had precessed to 14Can30, and conjuncted his Pluto to the minute

Here is the link to her website: http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/

I take your point about the validity of exploring this subject in any era you choose to. I agree it is interesting what the classical authors had to say on these issues too.

Its just that I don't think the classical sources are likely to provide the origin of the specific degrees we have been discussing for the reasons I previously gave you. However, that doesn't mean its not interesting on its own merit. As you suggest astrologers have probably been asking this kind of question as long as people have practised the art.

Mark, this has been fun!!!

I put forward a start point for FM writing Mathesis (334 AD) and you put forward an end point (est. completion of his work 355 AD).

I put forward an early origin, you head for relatively modern.

You put forward "Precession of the Equinoxes", I pick up the thread and you reverse directions to the opposite, "Precession of the Stars".

Lol!!! Step to the left, step to the right ...

"Have you had a look at Anne Wrights website on the fixed stars?"

Yes. Thanks, have long had her site bookmarked ... and in light of above would suggest revisiting http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/precession.htm, but think you'll probably do the opposite!!!

We were speaking of degrees, yes?, which are simply smaller divisions of the framework of the zodiacal houses - not the motion of the fixed stars?

So if we're rolling back the zodiacal framework (which the degrees are a part of) via 'Precession of the Equinoxes', the Vernal Point, then following the change in position of '0.00' and what it points to, the subsequent degrees also change position through time - changing frame of reference.

Question is I guess, do the degrees from an earlier frame of reference carry through (or underlie) the degree positions of the here and now?
Do meanings carry forward through time and did they contribute to shaping 'modern' thinking?
Did Weymss, DeVore, Carter et al study the classics and project them forward? The classical sources amongst others provided the foundation to much of what's known now. Considerations perhaps, or perhaps not.

In order of 'Precession of the Equinox', what's now 27 degrees Leo in the current frame-of-reference would appear to be roughly the equivalent of approx. 20 Virgo in TM's frame of reference? No?

There may be merit in by-passing the houses and shooting for the stars, but the sequence involved seems a bit more like aligning the tumblers of a combination lock ... x steps to the right, y steps to the left, x more steps to the right, y more steps to the left & so forth, et voila!

It appears you've managed to narrow the parameters of your search and have crystalized a focal point.

Happy hunting, & thanks for the dance!(curtsy)

Cheers,
TS.

Hello TS,

Oh dear we do seem to be divided by a common langauge!

You stated:

We were speaking of degrees, yes?, which are simply smaller divisions of the framework of the zodiacal houses - not the motion of the fixed stars?

Er well no I clearly wasn't! If you go back you will see I raised the point that I thought Firmicus's degree points were linked to fixed stars. From. my perspective then the precession of the fixed stars made these points irrelevant.

However, are you suggesting these degrees remain immutable in the Tropical Zodiac? That seems hard to accept as nothing else does in the tropical Zodiac. Alternatively, do you suggest recalculation of these degrees through procession?

You do seem to suggest the latter when you state:

So if we're rolling back the zodiacal framework (which the degrees are a part of) via 'Precession of the Equinoxes', the Vernal Point, then following the change in position of '0.00' and what it points to, the subsequent degrees also change position through time - changing frame of reference.

Undeniable

You ask:

Question is I guess, do the degrees from an earlier frame of reference carry through (or underlie) the degree positions of the here and now?

That is an interesting point. I have no idea. Its a pity that people seldom raise procession in discussing sensitive degrees. Either these degrees are linked to the natural Zodiac and are unchanging or need to be altered with precession-like the galactic centre for example. Moving them follows the logic of a tropical zodiac in my view.

You also ask:

Do meanings carry forward through time and did they contribute to shaping 'modern' thinking?

I follow what you mean in the first bit of this sentence but what do you mean in the second?

Did Weymss, DeVore, Carter et al study the classics and project them forward? The classical sources amongst others provided the foundation to much of what's known now. Considerations perhaps, or perhaps not.

Thats a fair question but probably not one that a bit of casual dabbling from you or I can answer, This is where the historians of this period-Kim Farnell and Patrick Curry have a lot to offer us.

In order of 'Precession of the Equinox', what's now 27 degrees Leo in the current frame-of-reference would appear to be roughly the equivalent of approx. 20 Virgo in TM's frame of reference? No?

Well I agree that where our points would take us back hypothetically. Although there are other traditions of sensitive degrees. For example the 'lame, pitted or smokey' degrees used by Lilly and Al Biruni. But without any good astrological explanation why these degrees should be significant I remain a sceptic.

It appears you've managed to narrow the parameters of your search and have crystalized a focal point.

Its probably a reflection of my Sun, Moon and ASC in fixed signs. All that fixity likes a clear target to focus on!

Take care,

Mark

Hello Mark,

"Oh dear we do seem to be divided by a common langauge!"

Lol! Do you think so? Maybe, maybe not. With an eye on the current heavens, it could simply be something like your taking hold of one end of the rope, my taking the other end, and our twirling it as fast as we can to see what arises (jumps up) in the middle?
Something new that we may not have previously considered, or skipped, to potentially consider for integration into our respective understandings. Or not.
I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss such things as it helps (me ... my 'mercury') to clarify, integrate & increase understanding.

"Er well no I clearly wasn't! If you go back you will see I raised the point that I thought Firmicus's degree points were linked to fixed stars. From. my perspective then the precession of the fixed stars made these points irrelevant."

Yes, linked to fixed stars - but I think we have two things going on here.
1. Frame of reference (earth's) and 2. bodies (Fixed Stars).
Do we just wind back the fixed stars (reverse engineer Precession of Stars), or do we also wind back the frame of reference (reverse engineer Precession of Equinoxes)?
27 Leo is a degree point - it's part of the frame of reference.
Regulus is a 'Fixed Star' - a 'body'.
If we don't reverse engineer precession of the equinox, aren't we still considering the Fixed Stars (reversed or not) from a current frame of reference?

Clear as mud? Okay ... maybe looking at it another way.
If the frame of reference is a co-ordinate system, do we reverse the co-ordinates or do we move the 'fixed' bodies to arrive at some point of origin?
I think it's a bit of both - otherwise, by doing only one of the two, we're probably only seeing half the picture.

"However, are you suggesting these degrees remain immutable in the Tropical Zodiac?"

Quite the reverse - I'm reversing the degrees remember?
So, by way of example, as time unfolds from say FM to now, approx. 20 degrees Virgo (FM's frame of reference) has mutated (?) into approx. 27 Leo (current frame of reference).
That because the frame of reference has continued to move through time (shown by precession of the equinoxes), a meaning that may have been attributed to the degree of say 20 Virgo in FM's time now applies to 27 Leo.
That while the actual degree point has precessed through the cumulative progression (layers) of time, the meaning has remained constant (well, close thereto, subject to the vagaries and evolution of language, interpretation, re-interpretation etc).

To bring in the stars, then maybe it's more a question of what 'Star' did the co-ordinate of 20 Virgo align with back in FM's time (that via precession of equinoxes now = 27 Leo), instead of picking a particular star and reversing it back?
FM wasn't the originator of meanings attributed various degrees - quite possibly have to wind the clock back (both the frame of reference and the 'bodies') further.

A degree being part of the 'frame-of-reference' then I'd have thought we wind back the frame-of-reference to the relevant period (as well as the 'Stars') and then consider what 'Star' that earlier degree point (which underlies the current degree point) may or may not have aligned with and how that translated to earth.

Best regards,
TS.

To bring in the stars, then maybe it's more a question of what 'Star' did the co-ordinate of 20 Virgo align with back in FM's time (that via precession of equinoxes now = 27 Leo), instead of picking a particular star and reversing it back?

To me that seems like hair splitting. In either case you need to precess the degree and all the current positions of of neighbouring fixed stars to see if any align with it.

I don't actually think we are disagreeing here..unless you want to!

Incidentally, you aren't strongly Virgo yourself are you?

best wishes,

Mark

Hi Mark,

"To me that seems like hair splitting."

Lol! Yes, splitting the hair in opposite directions (Precessing Stars and Precessing Equinox goes in opposite directions).

"Incidentally, you aren't strongly Virgo yourself are you?"

No! Think maybe what's called pretty evenly distributed (from a planetary pov!). Mercury's been known to take many guises ...

Best regards,

TS

Precessing Stars and Precessing Equinox goes in opposite directions).

True. I think anyone still reading this thread must have grasped that by now!

That doesn't change the fact that both issues relate to procession and need to be considered together in my view. Anyway, now we have cleared up that misunderstanding I want to return to your suggestion about other classical authors mentioning degrees.

I only have copies of Ptolemy, Dorotheus and of course Firmicus from that era. Did you have any specific authors in mind or were you just speculating on the possibility of this?

"I think anyone still reading this thread must have grasped that by now!"

Lol! Ah well, must also be obvious I'm slower then.

"That doesn't change the fact that both issues relate to procession and need to be considered together in my view."

Agreed. The latter star reference simply took me in another direction to the one you first raised. C'est la vie in navigating the high seas.
Therefore, if we reverse precession of equinox back to Ptolemy's time (roughly 26/27 degrees, to pick a point 127AD) then from current 26/27 Leo it takes us back to approx. vicinity of 'Spica' at 27 Virgo (now approx. 24 Libra).
If precess the star near this current 27 Leo point, ie. 'Regulus' at 29+ degrees, it takes us back to approx 3 Leo in Ptolemy's time.

The midpoint of 26/27 Leo perhaps indicative of where these two (Astrologer-King) then met ... maybe indicative of point of transition/transmission of power?

Is it possible then in view of this that 'Spica' was considered as one star more representative of astrologers (this attribution carrying forward to the current point of 26/27 Leo via p.e.), while Regulus remained largely to do with the rise & fall of Kings?

Other considerations influencing attributions of degrees that came to mind being the equal division occurring under the regulatory influence of the Sun and, historically, the close attention paid to the changing nature and passage of the Moon which probably also attributed qualities to the degrees (lunar mansions etc) ... from one perspective, the Sun bringing in the equinox, the Moon the Stars (wasn't the passage of the Moon once gauged from the Pleiades?).

Anyway, aside from that, a couple of other authors who briefly sprung to mind during this (in addition to who's already been mentioned) was Al-Biruni and maybe David Frawley on the Rig Veda/360 degrees. Speculating, haven't yet returned to revisit them.

Best wishes,
TS.

Hello TS,

Is it possible then in view of this that 'Spica' was considered as one star more representative of astrologers (this attribution carrying forward to the current point of 26/27 Leo via p.e.), while Regulus remained largely to do with the rise & fall of Kings?

Mmm thats an intriguing suggestion. Spica as the Alpha star of Virgo has always been associated with the Goddess or divine feminine in various cultures such as Babylon, Egypt etc. In the middle ages this association shifted to The Virgin Mary. Plus because its close to the ecliptic its sometimes conjunct planets. Spica can be eclipsed by the Moon and (rarely) by the planets. The last planetary eclipse of Spica occurred when Venus passed in front of the star (as seen from Earth) on November 10, 1783. The next eclipse will occur September 2, 2197, when Venus again passes in front of Spica.

In Lilly's time amongst other things its associated with clerics and those with a spiritual occupation ie 9th house matters. And of course astrology is there too with the origin of the 9th house in divination. Cornelius Agrippa suggested it was linked to Hermes Trismegistus himself! I would have to study this a lot more but I think you are definitely on to something here. Thanks!

Incidentally I checked out Anne Wrights website for fixed stars especially linked to Astrology. I came up with the following:

Acrux-11'57 Scorpio ( Astrologers and Occultists)
Alphecca 12'23 Scorpio ( Gift for Astrology)

The following are all linked to divination:

Acrux-11'57 Scorpio
Gacrux-6'49 Scorpio
Menkent-12'23 Scorpio
Mimosa-11'44 Scorpio
Agena-23'53 Scorpio
Toliman/Bungala/Rigel Kentaurus-29'34 Scorpio

A clear Scorpio link! However, with precession nearly all these stars would be back in Libra in the classical period.

One factor that needs to be considered is the southern declination of these fixed stars. For example, Toliman and Gacrux have a declination of
-59'40 and -57'05 so I don't think they would be observable in much of Europe in classical times or indeed now. However, they would have been visible in Egypt , Mesopotania and probably Greece. I am not sure how old these assocations are for these stars.

However, Alphecca has a northern declination of +26'43 so may be more relevant in northern hemisphere charts in Europe/North America.

best regards,

Mark