Skyscript Astrology Forum

Pankaj: do you mean that phrases like 'ascendant/midheaven of the universe', etc, suggest a relation to the seasons, or do I misunderstand you? Valens is without doubt referring to the Thema Mundi or 'nativity of the world', which has Cancer rising and Aries culminating.

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

Okay, what do you think he is implying by equinox if not the equinox itself?

He has used conflicting descriptions of Aries here.

Can you be more specific. I didn't see what was conflicting, nor how this informs us about what definition we should use for 'equinox'? Valens is saying that from 0 degrees to the equinoctial degree there is a specific quality to the sign - this implies, obviously, that 0 Aries does not coincide with the equinox itself. In other words, that the equinox is somewhere within what Valens is describing as Aries, and this makes it a sidereal zodiac.

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.

But this is comparing apples and pears. Aries is the MC of the universe regardless of any zodiac employed because Aries is at the MC of the Thema Mundi. Calling it an equinoctial sign is to acknowledge the equinox falls within it, but there's nothing conflicting about that at all.

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.

Maybe not, but he never defines his segments by tropical logic at all. Or would you disagree? He is dividing the signs in several ways, particularly by decan, but also by defining where applicable where the equinox is. In what sense might that NOT be a sidereal zodiac he is using then?

In the example of Libra he's simply acknowledging that the sign takes on the quality of the fact that the equinox is placed in it. Clearly Valens is not saying that the equinox spans 30 degrees. So saying the whole sign is tropical is simply acknowledging the sign takes on the qualities of the fact that the equinox is contained within it.

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

Well I'm not sure why these ones aren't enough. In his descriptions of the signs, he goes on to tell us how to find them, what stars are contained within it and what constellations rise with Aries. These are all sidereal matters are they not? They are intended to allow an astrologer to discover the rising (particularly) and setting of the signs by way of acknowledging the constellations which surround and 'touch' the signs. Whilst this may be true of a tropical sign as well, it is much more in keeping with the premise behing sidereal astrology.

Rather than look for more and more sidereal hints, I think we should first ask if there are any reasons to think he's using tropical. I don't think there are, and I think the quote I gave is the best one for demonstrating that.

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.

Erm, right, but wouldn't this strengthen the notion of a sidereal zodiac?

I guess I'm still curious if you're seeing something explicitly or implicitly tropical in all these quotes? I don't see anything other than a sidereal measurement with an acknowledgement that the meaning of those sidereal references can partake of the quality of what is found within it, particularly if an equinox is. But that doesn't mean he's not measuring these things sidereally.

Btw I am aware of the points made by some who are more knowledgeable on the astronomical side of things regarding whether particular authors such as Valens used Babylonian Ascensional times (referred to normally as System A).

I am not trying to establish what muddling Valens did of the sidereal and tropical logic - just to discover what he (intentionally) was trying to use. Whether or not he accidentally used some computations that were tropical is not of as much interest to me as much as whether Valens was actually making sidereal measurements and thinking that the equinoxes did not initialise his zodiac.

Paul what do you think the nature of Aries will be, say, 2,000 years from now? In your estimation, what do you think Valens would say about it were he writing in the year 4,000 CE?

Thai is what I said in my post.
what would you take as implicitly tropical evidence.That is what you have to define otherwise it will be difficult for it not to degenerate into tropical vs sidereal debate.

If you don"t find that evidence then you have your answer: )

pankajdubey wrote:Thai is what I said in my post.
what would you take as implicitly tropical evidence.That is what you have to define otherwise it will be difficult for it not to degenerate into tropical vs sidereal debate.

If you don"t find that evidence then you have your answer: )

I consider the tropical zodiac one which begins at the vernal equinox, and, for the purposes of this discussion, everything else as sidereal. That pretty much sums up my stance from when I answered this earlier in the thread.

Phil wrote:Paul what do you think the nature of Aries will be, say, 2,000 years from now? In your estimation, what do you think Valens would say about it were he writing in the year 4,000 CE?

Hi Phil

That's an interesting question but one outside the scope of what I'm looking for at the moment. I'm not so much interested in what Valens might think in this situation, or that situation, in this year, or in that year. I'm interested in what he actually did use, how he actually did measure in his own time.

I am also not looking to examine how the nature of a sign may change. All of these things drive at the heart of tropical v sidereal arguments which I'm at pains at avoid here.

Good afternoon,

Not a proponent of any kinds of zodiacs that rely on regional and / or transitional symbolisms of constellations and / or signs, based on the above astronomical data concerning bright fixed stars near the ecliptic it nevertheless seems understandable to me that the axis Antares - Aldebaran long served as a reference for tracking planetary motion.

However, we might like to recall that, with reference to each other, the 'fixed' stars are not immutably motionless, but just appear to be much more so than the 'wandering' stars.

Also, within the framework of human diversities, there may be several or many astrologies with validities limited to a particular region and / or time period.

Humans, try if and as they like to do otherwise, remain anthropomorphic and conceptualise anthropomorphically.

Best regards,

lihin

Thanks Paul. I believe that definitions are important in your original question. If you seek signs of Valens using a tropical zodiac, they are likely not to be found in his measurement methods. You?ve shown well that these seem to be sidereal. But I think the idea of a ?zodiac? encompasses more than just measurement. It requires actual zoidia. And the qualities of those zoidia. If you seek the tropical zodiac in Valens, it is in the symbolism. Leo and Cancer are associated with the word ?hot?; Pisces is ?cool?; Aquarius ?very cold?; Libra is ?equinoctial?. Aries through Cancer are reported to be associated with thunder and lightening. That these things, prominently and repeatedly reported by Valens, are parts of the ?Nature of the Signs?, is attested by the title of the chapter. This common thread, reported by Valens to inform us of the nature of every sign, is seasonal. Overall, this flow of symbolism is where the tropical zodiac is to be found. The nature of the world under the influence of the signs is observed, and the nature of the signs is deduced. We have Valens? report of prior ?reverse engineering? of the signs of the zodiac. For instance, Cancer ??makes the air damp and hot??

I think just stopping at the names of the signs, without considering their symbolism, allows one to label Valens? zodiac ?sidereal? ? but in name only. In substance, tropical symbolism is pervasive. This cannot be ignored, because after all, astrologers don?t just label, they aim to describe, to flesh out.

I?d add that even further discussing and debating Valens? descriptions of the nature of the zoidia, which is certainly a useful exercise, demonstrates our feeling that their nature is indeed important. But I understand that this likely is not your intent for this thread.

But if you don?t mind I?d mention one little point, discussion of which (perhaps elsewhere) would show that the qualities of the zoidia is just as important as their location. It?s a small detail, mentioned and ignored above, but it sticks out and poses a neat riddle: It is curious that Aries is described as ?by nature watery?. This certainly goes against the typical description of this sign. But as noted above, at the time of Valens? writing, part of Aries did indeed precede the spring equinox. Wasn?t this when part of this sign overlapped what is now considered tropical ?Pisces??

Phil wrote:Thanks Paul. I believe that definitions are important in your original question. If you seek signs of Valens using a tropical zodiac, they are likely not to be found in his measurement methods. You?ve shown well that these seem to be sidereal. But I think the idea of a ?zodiac? encompasses more than just measurement.

It is chiefly the measurement I'm concerned with here. As I said in a prior post I do not doubt that there are places where there is some tropical logic used by Valens, mostly because of the overlap between the two. However, the whole point in regards it requiring actual zoidia is that we must ask how do we demarcate those zoidia - my examination here is to see if Valens demarcates it from the vernal equinox or from a sidereal perspective, and that seems to be obvious to me to be sidereal.

Now everything else is sort of secondary to that. You talk about qualities of the zoidia but clearly Valens is assigning qualities based on things such as decans (which become sidereally defined) as well as 'up to the equinox' which is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the equinox is in the sign and so describes that sign. As I said in my earlier reply I think in reality most of the hellenistic astrologers used a fusion of tropical and sidereal logic.

This common thread, reported by Valens to inform us of the nature of every sign, is seasonal...
We have Valens? report of prior ?reverse engineering? of the signs of the zodiac. For instance, Cancer ??makes the air damp and hot??

You say that Valens references tropical symbolism and state that "Leo and Cancer are associated with the word ?hot?; " but lets look at what he actually says in regards to Cancer, for example, being hot:
The parts are as follows: under the two initial stars to the southeast, it is worthless, destructive, stifling, productive of earthquakes. From that point to 10? it makes the air damp and hot

In other words from a given star to the 10 degrees mark is hot. That's hardly a tropical logic, but clearly demarcating from a given star associated with the start of Cancer which is surely sidereal. Why only the first ten degrees? Is it relating to a decan? That the first several degrees are under the term of Mars?

By leaving out a major part of this quote you're trying to shoe horn it into a tropical perspective when clearly this quote actually shows that valens is only describing a third of the sign, and this description is explicitly measured sidereally.

As for Leo, I don't see anything saying it is hot. Instead it is called fiery, which indeed it is - ironically particular attention is given to Regulus, a fixed star, as being especially fiery.

I don't see anything in this which corresponds to a tropical zodiac, instead I see acknowledgement of the elements associated with the signs, and qualities attributed to the sign for a variety of reasons, some of which are sidereal, some of which are due to a variety of planetary rulerships, and some of which are due to the presence of the equinoxes/solstices in those signs, but even at that those attributes are minimal.

It is curious that Aries is described as ?by nature watery?. This certainly goes against the typical description of this sign. But as noted above, at the time of Valens? writing, part of Aries did indeed precede the spring equinox. Wasn?t this when part of this sign overlapped what is now considered tropical ?Pisces??

Yes this is possible and I wondered it myself, though I equally wonder why the same thing wasn't said of all the other signs. In any event I don't think I would put too much weight on this, though it's certainly an odd statement to make - however the elements may well have still been in a state of flux at this stage, this is very very early in the adoption of the elements.

lihin wrote:...it nevertheless seems understandable to me that the axis Antares - Aldebaran long served as a reference for tracking planetary motion.

None of this is related to the topic we're discussing here.

Paul wrote:

It is curious that Aries is described as ?by nature watery?. This certainly goes against the typical description of this sign. But as noted above, at the time of Valens? writing, part of Aries did indeed precede the spring equinox. Wasn?t this when part of this sign overlapped what is now considered tropical ?Pisces??

Yes this is possible and I wondered it myself, though I equally wonder why the same thing wasn't said of all the other signs. In any event I don't think I would put too much weight on this, though it's certainly an odd statement to make - however the elements may well have still been in a state of flux at this stage, this is very very early in the adoption of the elements.

From the context ('by nature watery, with thunder and hail'), I personally don't think this comment of Valens' relates to the elements at all, but rather to weather conditions around Alexandria in early spring. In other words it's one of the seasonal or 'tropical' references, though not equating the equinox with 0 Aries.

Paul, thank you for making me think! I agree with your statement, via your last post, that an analysis of the qualitative descriptors that define a ?zodiac? is a discussion worth having. I think asking, as you did in your first post, ?whether or not Valens used a sidereal zodiac? certainly requires this discussion, which I am glad to see you don?t hesitate to thoughtfully address.

Regarding my mention of the sign Cancer, here is my thought: Valens notes that part of Cancer ?makes the air damp and hot, having heavy rains and constant thunderstorms.? Not all of Cancer, fair enough. But the concept remains: We see a zodiac sign, as listed in Valens? section on the nature of the signs, affecting seasonal phenomena on earth. Causing them. If a sign does this, the zodiac collectively does this. The chapter of Valens? Anthology entitled ?The Nature of the Twelve Zodiacal Signs? is replete with seasonal descriptions of those signs. The zodiac?s nature is gleaned, at least in part, from tropical phenomena. One could get as granular as one likes, looking for a decan that?s a counter-example, etc. Or noting contradictions in the text. But look for the word ?hot?, or ?cold?, etc., and it would be very hard to honestly ignore this component of zodiacal description. Looking at a preponderance of what?s written, we get a seasonal flavor to the signs as described by Valens. (Some contend that this flow of symbolism informs all the qualities of each sign, the ?fiery? and ?upward trending? nature of Aries, the ?earthy? and ?rustic? nature of Taurus, e.g. But this concept is not central to this thread.) Shoehorning does not lead me to this conclusion. Quite the opposite, a global look at what was written, in full context, leads me to my thoughts above. This can be found here for all to see:

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vet ... entire.pdf

Now, ?Leo is hot: the bright star in its breast is fiery and stifling.? Again, this fits. Valens? Earth is in fact stifling in the heat of summer. Stellar spatial descriptions are being employed: sidereal. A seasonal basis informs the qualities of a star: tropical.

One could spend all day cancelling out some points above, reversing others, etc., and then retranslating and re-contextualizing back in the other direction! We?ve seen all that before. This endless cycle of picayune detail trumping picayune detail is, sadly, the usual outcome of this ?granular? method. Even in the face of such methods, I think, on the whole, the above represents a fair answer to your original question. But if one can?t even entertain this tropical flow of symbolism, I just don?t know what else to say without repeating myself. Or the prominent "tropical" and "sidereal" astrologers who've made the same points.