Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:04 pm**

Phil wrote:

Leo is hot: the bright star in its breast is fiery and stifling.

The bright star refers to Regulus, which of course is not visible when the Sun is in Leo. The signs were probably originally "full moon signs", perhaps even after they were equalised; the FM would have been in a given sector once, occasionally twice (in a 13-FM year) a year.
But I accept that by Valens time (and probably long before) they could work out where a star must be, even if invisible.

It's clear from the citations given and the points raised by Phil that Valens was simply doing meteorological Sun-sign astrology, for his time and place (that's not all he was doing, of course). But in his time (working between about 140 and 175CE), the VP was nearly in sidereal Pisces (indeed, according to some rather maverick opinions - De Luce, Djwhal Kuhl - it already was), so there was none, or very little, of sidereal Aries in "tropical Pisces" (and the latter concept of course did not yet exist).

Perhaps Paul's original question, as Phil and Pankadjubey have both suggested, should have been "Would Valens have used a sidereal or a tropical zodiac if he were alive today?" Or in 2000 years time? So would he still be predicting fiery and stifling heat in Leo in 4000? If yes, he's a tropical astrologer, if no, he's sidereal.

To me the best indication that Valens was probably thinking sidereally (albeit giving some significations which were only valid for a particular place and epoch) is, as Paul says, that he clearly situated the VP some way inside Aries.
The best indication that he might possibly be thinking tropically is that, like nearly everybody else at the time and since, he lists the signs starting from Aries as number one. But as you have to start somewhere, why not follow the convention and choose the sidereal sign where the VP falls at the time?
Most sidereal astrologers still choose to start the list with Aries today, whihc wouldn't be a problem if everyon understood it was arbitrary, but they don't. and many (notably Indian ones) write and talk of Aries as "the first sign of the natural zodiac". I'd say that was tropical thinking, but 2000 years out.

Graham

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:26 pm**

Hi Phil

I do not doubt that there are tropical descriptions applied in places to the signs - just as there are sidereal ones, and those attributed by particular philosophies.

However, whilst I recognise that parts of the signs are given seasonal/tropical assignations, and that the signs as a whole can in places be affected by this, I do not think that his zoidia are 'tropica' any more than they are purely 'sidereal'. They are, in my opinion, a mix of tropical and sidereal logic (which I conceded in a very early post in this forum). My interest is mainly in whether Valens was concerned mostly with dividing the ecliptic sidereally or from the equinox, more so than what attributes he applies as a result.

I do think you are overstating the case for the tropical assignations however, for example we can see from Sagittarius that it is "moist because of the
constellation Argo" - so clearly its attributes of hot, cold, dry, moist are not entirely tropical, and, in fact, as I said before, Leo is so hot because, he claims, of Regulus. There is plenty of opportunity to say "because of the solstice" (which would be cancer) or because it follows a solstice sign, or because of the seasons. Instead it is because of the nature of a fixed star. We can argue that the nature of the fixed star is in turn derived tropically but we do not have that evidence to make that claim. We're only guessing. It could be any number of other reasons.

You conclude that as part of Cancer is 'damp and hot' that therefore the signs are "affecting seasonal phenomena on earth" - but this is not the only conclusion to draw from this, any more than we might say that as part of Aquarius is fiery that therefore Aquarius is warm (a similar kind of logic to what you're using for Leo and Cancer). Clearly Valens is describing, very explicitly, that only part of Cancer is warm and damp, and not even the part nearest to Leo which is then considered hot. In fact throughout all the signs we see things like the south part are this, the left part are that, the north part is something else. We clearly do not have the concept of a sign here as being an unbroken individual unit, but rather an area of space with differing attributes often wildly conflicting scattered throughout it. This seems much more like a sidereal logic to me. I do not accept that calling a third of Cancer makes the air damp and hot suggests that this is derived because of the seasons (at least not alone). I think it's just as likely to be because "The first 7? of Cancer belong to Mars: hurling thunderbolts, moved in different directions, uneven, contradictory in his wishes, manic, prolific, poor, destructive, and in the end, base"

Ultimately I'm not as interested in the discussion of sign attributes as I am in sign measurements, unless we see it that in all cases of sign attributes, the attributes change drastically after a regular N degrees, which might contend that a tropical zodiac is being overlaid upon a sidereal measurement, but as that is not happening there is probably little point in entertaining that idea.

I do not doubt that tropical considerations are found scattered throughout many of the hellenistic authors, valens included, and unlike what Geoffrey and Pankadjubey want me to ask, I'm not asking about hypothetical situations of if Valens were alive today - I am purely trying to examine and understand the 'controversy' of the zodiac as outlined by Valens in his own time.

Posted: **Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:23 pm**

Paul
Maybe this section of Valens could help answer your question (my bold):

8K;7P. Listening and Beholding Signs.
Similarly the listening and the beholding signs (the sextile signs) must be calculated from their rising times as follows: Pisces beholds Taurus; in the second klima the rising times of the six signs from Pisces <to> total 160 and from Taurus to Libra total 200. Pisces is less than Taurus and therefore listens to it. The rising times of the two groups total 360. Likewise from Gemini to Scorpio there are 212 and from Leo to Capricorn 212; therefore Gemini and Leo are of equal rising time and listen to each other. Again from Virgo to Aquarius is 200, from Scorpio to Aries 160. They behold each other /24P/ and <Scorpio> listens to Virgo . From Leo to Capricorn is 212>, and from Libra to Pisces is 180? From Sagittarius to Taurus is 148, and from Aquarius to Cancer is 148. They listen to each other and are of equal rising times. Similarly for the rest <of>.

I don't understand all the details, or what he means by saying that groups of signs, which overlap, behold or listen to each other. But when he gives just two signs, it's clear that his "mirror axis" is not at 0? Aries or Cancer , but somewhere inside those signs, and that he's consciously using these points to organise the signs into antiscia and contrantiscia within a sidereal framework. It's fairly clear that we're in the same situation as Deborah Houlding describes in her article on Antiscia:

Manilius describes this scheme in the Astronomica, where he states that signs opposing each other across the solstice axis are able to 'see' each other - his terminology derived from the fact that both will rise and set in the same part of the horizon. However, Manilius's description differs from that of Firmicus because he uses the centre of Cancer and Capricorn as his reference points, linking the sign of Gemini to Leo, Taurus to Virgo, Aries to Libra, Pisces to Scorpio, and Aquarius to Sagittarius.The obvious explanation for this shift of reference is that the use of antiscia as an astrological technique has a very long history, originating from the time when 15? Aries marked the Vernal Equinox and the middle degrees of Cancer and Capricorn corresponded with the solstices. Manilius's scheme is certainly the same as that of Firmicus because both create an association between periods of equal sunrise and sunset.

Graham

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:21 am**

Could any of it be based on the apsidal precession of the perihelion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:47 am**

varuna2 wrote:Could any of it be based on the apsidal precession of the perihelion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession :)

I assume you're being tongue in cheek, but it's true that the movement of the perihelion/aphelion over the centuries can slightly alter the dates of the seasons. But if that explains anything mentioned here, it shows Valens was working sidereally - he was situating the VP in sidereal terms. Tropically, the VP is always 0? Aries, whatever sort of precession calls its movement.

Graham

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:31 am**

Good morning,

It may well have been that Vettius Valens used position tables originally mainly based on the Antares - Aldebaran axis. Speculation, like much one performs when attempting to enter an ancient mind set.

Meanwhile we know that, of the two, Antares exhibits from a terrestrial perspective much less nutation and proper motion than Aldebaran.

Mr Paul's quote is quite useful. Can anyone arrive at 12 equal signs of 30 degrees each using the given numbers?

Best regards,

lihin

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:45 am**

Graham F wrote:But in his time (working between about 140 and 175CE), the VP was nearly in sidereal Pisces (indeed, according to some rather maverick opinions - De Luce, Djwhal Kuhl - it already was)

By most ayan???as in popular use today, the equinox would have been around 1-2? Aries at this time; but Valens seems to have used an old value of 8? (see IX.12, top of p. 162 in Riley's translation). He most likely wasn't aware of precession, which means it should come as no surprise that he relates the signs of the zodiac both to the fixed stars and to the seasons. (Several ancient civilizations used star phenomena to mark the seasons, precisely because precession was not known.)

Going back to Paul's original question, it seems clear that Valens did not equate the equinox with 0 Aries, but rather viewed it as a point falling somewhere in the sign Aries. In other words, he was not a tropicalist in the Ptolemaic or common modern sense. If nobody has any evidence to present to the contrary, perhaps this thread should be allowed to rest.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:02 am**

Martin Gansten wrote:
Graham F wrote: Going back to Paul's original question, it seems clear that Valens did not equate the equinox with 0 Aries, but rather viewed it as a point falling somewhere in the sign Aries. In other words, he was not a tropicalist in the Ptolemaic or common modern sense. If nobody has any evidence to present to the contrary, perhaps this thread should be allowed to rest.
I agree, and it does not seem anyone has presented any strong case that Valens measured anything tropically. I would add that this does not mean that some of the things employed or measured were not in turn tropical in nature (the contra-antiscion and rising times Graham mentioned relating to that) but that is a wholly separate topic to what I was examining. I think it is clear from reading several hellenistic authors that the majority of hellenistic authors were not aware of precession or not very astronomically astute - often relying instead upon traditions handed down through the centuries.

I had wondered if there was some hidden tropical definitions of signs somewhere I had not noticed, and particularly so as it may indicate an interpolation from some later text. But it does not appear to be the case.

I think it is clear that Valens does indeed measure sidereally.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:23 pm**

I think a similar question would be If Jesus was a Pope: )
Or is Pope secular.

The way the question is defined produces different answers.If the ancients were not really aware how were they aware?
I agree this thread has served as much purpose as itcould.

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:23 pm**

For me this thread was productive and I appreciate everyone's input. I thank you. I think a takaway, for another time, stems from the fact that Paul's original question

"whether or not Valens used a sidereal zodiac" is different than the question he poses later:

"whether Valens was concerned mostly with dividing the ecliptic sidereally or from the equinox, more so than what attributes he applies as a result."

This is because, in my humble opinion, the attributes of the signs, where those signs get their "power" from, is critical in defining a "zodiac". It's not just the names or locations of those signs. This point is underscored by Graham in his question:

"Perhaps Paul's original question, as Phil and Pankadjubey have both suggested, should have been "Would Valens have used a sidereal or a tropical zodiac if he were alive today?" Or in 2000 years time? So would he still be predicting fiery and stifling heat in Leo in 4000? If yes, he's a tropical astrologer, if no, he's sidereal."

To me Graham hits the nail right on the head.

Martin's conclusion,

"Going back to Paul's original question, it seems clear that Valens did not equate the equinox with 0 Aries, but rather viewed it as a point falling somewhere in the sign Aries. In other words, he was not a tropicalist in the Ptolemaic or common modern sense."

leaves this beginner wanting more. How would the folks in this particular forum treat, as Graham alludes to, the sun in Regulus in winter? Or a cardinal sign at the end of a season? Was the pre-equinoctial Aries really "watery", or is this an artifact, like some corners of signs being described as "useless"? You get the point. The subtle difference in the phrasing of Paul's original question makes all the practical difference in the world. But I guess that is for another thread...

Looking forward to learning further from you guys,

Phil

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:21 pm**

Phil wrote:I think a takaway, for another time, stems from the fact that Paul's original question
"whether or not Valens used a sidereal zodiac" is different than the question he poses later:
"whether Valens was concerned mostly with dividing the ecliptic sidereally or from the equinox, more so than what attributes he applies as a result."

To me it's exactly the same question, so I have to agree with Martin's closing remarks.
If you divide the ecliptic always from the VP, you're working with a tropical zodiac. If you choose some relatively fixed marker (a star, a galactic coordinate, or simply a precessional offset from some particular date when you consider that "the two zodiac coincided"), then you're using a sidereal zodiac.
What attributes you apply to those divisions is another issue. In practice, most Western and Indian astrologers, tropical or sidereal, use basically the same attributes (notably, and crucially, rulerships and exaltations). The differences in attributes between tropical and sidereal are very often less than those between different schools or styles of each (a modern Westerner wouldn't use terms, faces etc, but a traditionally-minded one, tropical or sidereal, might well).
There are indeed differences, as you pointed out: I've noticed that tropicalists often look first at the elements (lot's of Air signs, etc), siderealists do this less; and paradoxically, tropicalists use more psychological or other qualities suggested by the constellations or their mythological associations (Libra associated with balance or justice, Sagittarius with aiming far, Aries with barging in, Pisces swimming both ways, etc). Siderealists, particularly some Indian ones, seem more inclined to an almost mathematical interplay of rulerships and relationships of planets, with much less reference to the qualities of the signs. Certain planets, rather than certain signs, are seen to be dominant, and rather than someone being "a typical ascendant Leo", you'd be more likely to hear of a "distinctly solar type", I think. But I recognise that some tropical astrologers, particularly traditional ones, work more like that too.
Perhaps more in another thread some time, as you say.

Graham

Posted: **Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:49 pm**

Phil wrote:
How would the folks in this particular forum treat, as Graham alludes to, the sun in Regulus in winter? Or a cardinal sign at the end of a season? Was the pre-equinoctial Aries really "watery", or is this an artifact, like some corners of signs being described as "useless"? You get the point. The subtle difference in the phrasing of Paul's original question makes all the practical difference in the world. But I guess that is for another thread...

Looking forward to learning further from you guys,

Phil

Speaking for myself, and at the risk of digressions, I reject the premises of the questions, since I must in order to use a star-based frame of reference; those premises involve the notion that the signs must be based on the seasons.

I currently believe that the heart of leo, regulus, is also a primary contributor to the influence of what is giving magha nakshatra its characteristics. The ancients used the words 'star' and 'constellation' interchangeably.

The Sun in Regulus in winter would not change whether it is summer or winter. One might ask Australians, who use fixed stars, about this. The season likely does influence the qualities of the birth or event, but this would only be another layer of interpretation. Therefore, Sun in Regulus in winter: Power, authority, fall from grace, etc.

Or: http://www.astrologerpanditji.com/page834.htm

Seasons are local and vary and not universal.

There are 2-7 seasons listed in different vedic texts.

3 seasons: possibly intended in rg veda 1.164.2 and 48; Satapatha Brahmana 3.4.4.17 & 11.5.4.21; Kausitaki Brahmana 11.7

5 seasons: Tandya Brahmana 12.4.8 and 12.2.3; Satapatha Brahmana 2.2.3.14 and 2.5.2.16 and 3.1.4.20 and 3.1.4.5; Aitareya Brahmana 1.1; Taittiriya Sanhita 4.3.3; 7.1.10; 7.2.6; 7.3.8; 7.4.5

6 seasons: Mentioned in various Jyotisha texts and Brahmanas; Taittiriya Sanhita 4.4.11; 7.2.1; 7.3.10; 7.4.3; 7.4.7

7 seasons: rg veda 1.164.3,15; Satapatha Brahmana 6.6.1.14 and 9.3.1.19

I do not believe that the astrology 12-fold division is as new as is believed by many in the west (rg veda 12-fold divisions and 8 and 12 adityas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80dityas). Therefore, the confusion of Valens does not concern me, because I believe the 12-fold division of space and star-reading existed millennia before him. This is also why the regulus in a different season with the Sun does not seem strange to me, since it has always been shifting with local seasons and their conceptions, unless trepidation theory is true and not precession theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_bleen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Induction

Therefore, I cannot associate seasons with signs nor with cardinality. Maybe the infant hellenists ("O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you." - Timaeus) confused the thema mundi with the seasons, or maybe it was from associating signs with kendra houses in the equivalent of the kalapurusha, or maybe cardinality was intended to be applied to the kendra/cardinal houses.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hellenistic use of the Sidereal Zodiac

Non-tropical = 'sidereal'?