Graham,

I get what you?re saying! I think. Please let me know if I?m off: First, you essentially refer to Tetrabiblos I.17: ?Since of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, that is, to the luminaries?? (which translation I grabbed just now on my laptop from the ebooks section of astrolibrary.org).
Then you interpret section I.10, as follows: spring is moist, moisture characterizes ?creatures in the earliest stages?, and therefore whatever constellation occurs in spring coincides with the ?first? sign in the zodiacal circle. Thus currently Aries is the ?first? sign. But, by the same logic, one Platonic month earlier Taurus was the ?first? sign. And, sure enough, this ?firstness? of Taurus is corroborated by earlier near eastern lists, as you have noted at the end of your post.
I think you then posit a constellation-based process at work here, because Cancer and Leo, at the time of Ptolemy?s writing, were certainly not the ?most northern? constellations. But they had been, one Platonic month earlier. Thus we find one (here ? and maybe more elsewhere) attribute of the signs (i.e. rulership) that has moved out from under the seasons in synchrony with the constellations ? with precession. I think this is your point.
But, I?d humbly add, focusing on the above only, there are inconsistencies in such a purely constellation-based interpretation of sign rulership. First, Ptolemy?s statement itself is problematic: It was never true that the season ?most productive of heat and warmth? correlated with the northernmost constellations of the ecliptic. That statement is false in all times ? all Platonic months ? and precession never corrects it. For it is common (and verifiable) knowledge that ?heat and warmth? occur in the northern hemisphere in July and August, not symmetrically about the summer solstice, regardless of which constellations fall there. So the question is: which half of the statement ?northernmost?most productive of heat and warmth? do we lean on and associate with Cancer and Leo? We can apparently only choose one.
Well, it is the association between temperature and the contemporaneously correct zoidia that is most clearly stated by Ptolemy ? both in the overtly stated ?heat and warmth? of Cancer and Leo and the ?cold and wintry? descriptions of Capricorn and Aquarius. Ptolemy appears to base his rulership assignments on correct observations of temperature ? of human experience ? in his region, correct in his time and all time, invariant relative to precession.
Reinforcing the up-to-date, as opposed to anachronistic, nature of Ptolemy?s observations and assignments is his definition of Aries as the first sign (as opposed to Taurus) in the same book. It is inconsistent for Ptolemy to switch from the current Platonic month in discussing Aries to the previous one in discussing Cancer and Leo. And in this same book (section 11) he defines what could be called the ?modes? of the zoidia in relation to his current era, not some previous Platonic month.
So I see your point, I think, and it is an interesting and thought provoking one. At worst my relative newness to astrology makes me na?ve; at best it gives me an open mind. I really puzzled over what you said. But, even taking a good bit of time to really ponder it (if I understood you) and give it its due, I still see a preponderance of references to the seasons in the above Ptolemaic descriptions of the zoidia. It seems futile to deny that Ptolemy?s zoidia are defined by these seasons and the human experiences they produce.
But Graham, though I come to this conclusion, I do so respectfully, and I find your thoughts and ?challenges? invaluable.

Phil

Hi Phil
Thanks for your reply. Yes, you put the other point of view very well - that Ptolemy wasn't simply taking what was sidereally the VP constellation in his epoch (Aries) as the first sign, but was carefully choosing the one most appropriate to represent, for all time, the beginning of the tropical zodiac, and that he chose this constellation (and it's already accepted ruler, Mars) not accordiing to the northen hemisphere solstices and equinoxes (axis of symmetry marking moments of maximum/minimum/equal light) but of the times of maximum/minimum heat in Alexandria (and in most of the Mediterranean region). I think that's the best rationalisation we can make to support Ptolemy and the Aries zodiac, but I think it's unlikely - I think he was probably just taking what was the VP constellation in his epoch, as he says in I.10.
When I started studying astrology here in France with Denis Labour?, who worked and has written on both tropical and sidereal astrology, he said that although sidereal (Indian) often seemed to give more accurate predictions, the tropical zodiac gave a deeply satisfying impression of working with light, with the cycle of light through the year. Deborah Houlding's remarks, which I quoted, seem to bear this out. Denis of course worked with Aries as the first tropical sign, but he told me that Fagan's view that Taurus (the VP constellation one Platonic month before, as you say) would be a better choice to start the tropical zodiac had been shared by some tropicalists.
I think it's really quite simple - do you prefer to have the rulership scheme aligned precisely with the tropical cycle of light, or approximately with the the hottest and coldest months in the Mediterranean. But now that the whole edifice of interpretation based on "Aries= the 30? following the VP" has been developed, and apparently found by many to be satisfactory, it's not of course going to change! I sometimes wonder if the multiplication of minor dignities etc, which enable a good astrologer to find just about anything in a chart retrospectively (and which sometimes seem like traditional equivalent of the multiplication of asteroids, hypotheticals, etc in modern astrology) wouldn't be so necessary if they'd got the zodiac (and the basic rulerships) right.
Just on a personal level, I've got more experience working sidereally, but I shall try to compare working sidereally with working tropically with the VP and solstices lined up to map Houlding's rulership diagram above (i.e. for Aries, read "Taurus"). I'll see how I get on.
Graham

Hi James
Now you're confusing me!

does one make the earth and the fact astrology seems to have been developed in the northern hemisphere the basis for any beginnings, or does one make it the sun? wanting to put emphasis on the lights sun/moon and heat - remember this is all symbolism as i understand it anyway- is different then acknowledging a starting point of the cycle based off growth, verses decay which is captured well with the spring and fall equinox in the northern hemi.

Since we're talking about the tropical zodiac, I'd say it's the Sun in relation to the Earth in the Northern hemisphere. We can acknowledge a cycle of growth and decay of light (the Sun's) in the Northern hemisphere. That's what Houlding (and others) implies, and I think she's right, so I think the rulership scheme should reflect that.

saturn [...] is also a symbol for our ability to consider the future and make plans for the future. i think it is future oriented. janus the 2 headed god, or goddess looks back and forward into the past and into the future which i think fits with saturns rulership over the beginning of winter and the change to increasing day length after the longest night of the year represented by the winter solstice.

Exactly, so it should be "looking both ways" to before and after the WS, as it would be if the WS was placed at 0? Aquarius, but as it isn't in the current scheme - it's only looking "up" to longer days.

the moon on the other hand is very much concerned with the past

So surely it should end a section of the zodiac (i.e. come before the solstice), not start a new one (by coming after it)?

in this sense the moon is a good symbol for death as well in so far as it is the end of greater light and the beginning of greater darkness

It could perhpas better represent death by ending a half-cycle. And it's immediately followed by the Sun, which must thus symbolise ever increasing darkness??
But I realise that my point of view is a bit like trying to persuade the Town Council of Stratford-upon-Avon that "Shakespeare" was in fact the Earl of Oxford - it's never going to work!
All the best
Graham

Graham,

I think now I?m the one who is misunderstood! I don?t think a derivation based on heat was the foundation of labeling Aries the first sign. In Tetrabiblos I.10 as you?ve quoted it, it seems that the ?newness? of spring is directly projected onto what should be the ?new beginning? of the zodiac. The constellation that happens to be there is imbued with ?newness? or ?firstness? because of this. The flow of symbolism in the quote mentioned is from season to zoidia to constellation. Even predating Ptolemy, there is more and more evidence of a season-based flow of symbolism in the ancient near east. So much so, that it seems the constellations themselves will break and re-form to keep appropriate to their seasons. That was what I was saying above.

I think the symmetrical rulership scheme we?re discussing is a totally separate ?axis? of symbolism, so to speak. I think the symbolic underpinnings of the poles of this axis are clearly stated by Ptolemy: ?heat and warmth? on the one end, and ?cold and wintry? on the other. The layout of sign rulers is in essence a classical, or Greek, system. Deb Houlding discusses this on the same page here on skyscript from which you took the illustration above. One will not find the current rulership structure in existence in a previous Platonic month. I believe it is not the case that the rulership structure illustrated in the figure you provided was centered on Cancer and Leo and the summer solstice in the Age of Taurus, and has shifted away from this solstice due to precession. For this layout, this order of rulers, did not exist in the Age of Taurus. Thus sign rulership is not some carryover from the past, out of synch due to precession. It?s invention was coeval with the Age of Aries.

And in this Age, when Ptolemy writes, he provides other, contemporaneous, properties of the signs. These are based on the signs? positions relative to the solstices, equinoxes, mid-seasons, and ends-of-seasons (See section I.11. I?m sticking with the astrolibrary.org/ebooks translation I mentioned before.) There is no Platonic month mixing going on. All zodiacal parameters ? the start of the zodiac, the seasonal properties of the zoidia, and the rulers of the zoidia ? are based on then-current seasonal underpinnings clearly stated by Ptolemy.

But I think I hear you ? temperature on its own isn?t 100% satisfying to me either in defining any particular astrological framework. I get it. I would direct you to the discussion on the sects of Mars and Saturn elsewhere in this forum. The conclusion of that thread demonstrated that there can be more than one ?axis? of symbolism in a certain realm of astrology.

I hope the above addressed your thoughts and that I'm not flying off-topic. And I'd add that I appreciate your point of view and any discussion or friendly "debate" that comes from it. This kind of thing - hearing new views and working with them, one way or the other - is what keeps astrology vital!

Phil

hi graham and paul,
i really appreciate your trying to understand me graham! pauls latest post here is something that i tend to readily identify with and want to thank paul for articulating what he has in this latest post. i think the ideas of rulership need to be kept separate from the idea of the seasons being the basis for the system and starting point to the tropical zodiac, as opposed to the heat of the sun. i am not as good with words and as focused on this as either you or paul, but i do believe paul has articulated my own feelings on this very well.

Good morning,

Methinks some of the content of this thread has recently been discussed in the thread called "Tropical Astrology-Seasonal or Non-Seasonal?" at this Forum:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

The adoption of the tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere, notably by Klaudios Ptolomaios, was indeed a conscious break with prior usage, an astrological paradigm shift.

Best regards,

lihin

Thanks to Lihin for linking to the other thread, which raises some interesting points. I've already made up my mind on what seems to be its central question (inversion or not of the tropical zodiac in the southern hemisphere, to take account of the seasons being reversed, and hence wehter that zodiac is primarily seasonal), but it's useful to see the arguments of the two camps, and to be reminded by Mark that "Ptolemy [...] single handedly originated tropical astrology" (in the age of Aries, as Phil points out).
Graham

Interesting short essay based on Macrobius on http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/JO-DSJT.html
as recommened in the Books section.
Looks to me like the two signs of saturn should be one in the solar half of the zodiac, one in the lunar; one at the end of the year, one at the beginning; one bring things to a close, one starting a new upward cycle... and thus one preceding preceding the Winter solstice, one follwing it:

Janus, the Twofold God, who looks both ways: to the inside and the outside, to the past and the future, to the old year and the new year[...]
There is an alchemical mystery in the nature of Janus, for the ancient physicists said that He comprises both Apollo and Diana (Sun and Moon). [...] The two faces of Janus represent the two Gates of Heaven (the rising and setting places of the sun)

Lots other goodies on this site! Thanks to Damon for posint link!
Graham

Thanks for this thread, Graham, it is really interesting and brings up some good points about the Tropical zodiac. Being of a more practical nature, I am interested in testing out this version in actual charts. Do you, or anyone esle, know of any software which allows us to set the starting point of the zodiac so I can do just that?

hi graham,
i mentioned janus the 2 headed god in my post back on feb 1st on this thread.. glad to see you found something on it in damons link too! that link has so many additional links it is hard to know where to start. let us know if you find something especially interesting. thanks!

Hi Konrad
With most "Vedic" programs you simply choose "ayanamsha : none (tropical)" and then choose an offset of 30? (e.g. "subtract 30? from the chosen ayanamsha"). This option is available in the excellent and very complete freeware Jagannatha Hora and most commercial "Vedic" programs.
http://www.vedicastrologer.org/jh/
It's not in Morinus or Delphic Oracle.
In Solar Fire, it can't be done with the tropical zodiac (no offset from tropical zodiac available).
Otherwise, you can just consider that the glyph for Aries means Taurus, etc. It's easy enough for basic placements, rulerships and exaltations but you'd have to be careful if using harmonics, minor dignities, automatic point-scoring systems etc.
Graham

In Solar Fire, you can of course redefine the diginity set. So you can choose to have Pisces ruled by Mars and as exaltation of Sun, Aries ruled by Venus and as exaltation of Moon, etc. You can also change all the minor dignities. Then the point-scoring should also work with the new chosen rulerships.
Graham