Paul wrote:

I think part of the problem with regards the tropical bit is that even before james joined the thread, for example in your second post, you compare against the tropical coordinates. It is difficult in situations like this if we are to do this kind of thing to not continue comparing and contrasting.

Perhaps comparing and contrasting can be helpful in understanding both zodiacs. The problem on the Traditional forum when a sidereal perspective was discussed was outright rancor and criticism. We don't want that to happen here. Astrologers should be able to discuss different perspectives, and remain respectful during the discussion.

But are we examining Temperament using the sidereal zodiac or are we doing using Jyotish methods?

I was replying to your question about relating elements to the sidereal signs. Jyotish is just as "sidereal" as the western Fagan school.

So I have to say I don't know what you mean when you say that elements have no relationship to the sidereal signs when we have examples of sidereal astrologers relating their signs to the elements. It doesn't matter greatly, I'm just curious really.

I meant that the current characteristics attached to the tropical signs (triplicities) don't apply to the sidereal zodiac. For example, tropical Aries is said to be impulsive and aggressive and is labeled "fire." Neither the label (fire) nor "impulsive and aggressive" describes sidereal Aries.

I am not sure I follow, if I say that tropical Gemini is hot and moist, then is this because of some philosophical reason, or because of some seasonal concern (ie a tropical reason)? In what sense then could I, or could I not, say that Sidereal Gemini is also hot and moist? What determines whether a sign is hot and moist etc.?

Dorian Greenbaum traces the development of these characteristics through history. Once you have her book, I think most of your questions will be answered. The meanings attached to the elements (as the tropical Air trigon is considered to be hot and moist) have developed in western astrology through the centuries. These assignments are based on Aristotle's four elements. They don't apply to the sidereal signs because Aristotle's elements don't align with sidereal signs. Using the four qualities (hot, cold, wet and dry) the sidereal Gemini triplicity is cold. So we can't compare tropical Gemini to sidereal Gemini as they are entirely different in nature. Likewise for the other eleven signs.

Rob Hand has pointed out that the assignment of Aristotle's elements to the tropical signs actually may have been an error. His comments are what prompted me to relate the four qualities to sidereal signs rather than the four elements. I'll (again) post his commentary here as it relates to the historical development of characteristics assigned to the triplicities.

"Unfortunately, later astrologers consistently converted Ptolemy's "wet" to "water", "cold" to "earth", "hot" to "fire"and "dry"to "air". The problem is that according to Aristotelian philosophy Water = Cold and Wet, Earth = Cold and Dry, Fire = Hot and Dry and Air = Hot and Wet. Or if one uses the Stoic system of elements, one gets Water = Wet, Earth = Dry, Fire = Hot and Air=Cold. What astrologers did was correct according to neither system of elements." (Tetrabiblos, Book 1, Golden Hind Press, 1994, p. 16) (Translated by Robert Schmidt)

"The text does appear to be saying that Hot = Masculine, Wet = Feminine, Dry = Masculine, Cold = Feminine. If Ptolemy is completely in accord with standard Aristotelianism in which Hot and Cold are both active whereas Wet and Dry are both passive, then Ptolemy here classifies Hot = Active & Masculine, Cold = Active & Feminine, Wet = Passive & Feminine and Dry = Passive and Masculine. If this analysis is correct it has all manner of interesting symbolic consequences for astrology." (Ibid, p. 17)

Paul, you didn't identify the "sidereal astrologers" who apply elements to signs. The founder of the modern western sidereal school, Cyril Fagan, rejected the triplicities as Ptolemy's mania for schematics. In other words, he considered them to be invalid. So if "sidereal astrologers" apply element meanings to signs, this would be the personal belief and method of the astrologer. The element-sign relationship based on Aristotle comes directly from tropical astrology.

There is no sign-element tradition in India's sidereal astrology or in the western sidereal school founded by Cyril Fagan. So any sidereal astrologers who apply element meanings to signs are basically copyists from a tropical tradition.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Therese.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Astrologers should be able to discuss different perspectives, and remain respectful during the discussion.

I think so too Therese. I am curious what parts of Temperament are, as you define it, Tropical logic, so could not be applied to the sidereal zodiac, and why this is so. You've given some reason for that now.

I was replying to your question about relating elements to the sidereal signs. Jyotish is just as "sidereal" as the western Fagan school.

Right, but Jyotish is irrelevant, to some degree, with the logic behind the zodiac itself. Jyotish is a categorisation of astrology which just happens to use the sidereal zodiac, but anyone could adopt it. I could use it now and take nothing from Cyril Fagan or the Jyotish methods to do so. What I was trying to discover is whether you think the elements are instead tropically defined in some way, such that Aries being a Fire sign only makes sense from a tropical perspective because it is, for example, seasonally aligned, or is based on the tropics in some way. I do not believe that they are you see, and think it is a, chiefly, philosophical addition.

I meant that the current characteristics attached to the tropical signs (triplicities) don't apply to the sidereal zodiac. For example, tropical Aries is said to be impulsive and aggressive and is labeled "fire." Neither the label (fire) nor "impulsive and aggressive" describes sidereal Aries.

So it is just a matter of characteristics then?

Dorian Greenbaum traces the development of these characteristics through history. Once you have her book, I think most of your questions will be answered.

Thanks, last two nights I read through the first few sections because this subject was on my mind. I did not see where Dorian Greenbaum alludes to the elements being tropically defined, but rather philosophically defined. I'm obviously missing something here.

They don't apply to the sidereal signs because Aristotle's elements don't align with sidereal signs. Using the four qualities (hot, cold, wet and dry) the sidereal Gemini triplicity is cold. So we can't compare tropical Gemini to sidereal Gemini as they are entirely different in nature. Likewise for the other eleven signs.

Why is Gemini cold in the sidereal zodiac? Is this something widely attested?

Paul, you didn't identify the "sidereal astrologers" who apply elements to signs.

Do you mean other than Vettius Valens? I cite him as important because he was the first, or one of the first to describe the signs through the elements. But he was a sidereal astrologer, and he gives nothing to suggest that he was inventing this concept. What I'm trying to establish here is basically whether you feel that the elements are dependent on the cardinal points, or the four winds for example?
If you read Chris Brennan's article that James mentioned earlier in the thread, he makes some very interesting points on the subject of the elements. Looking to the joys of the planets we see them affiliated such that the air triplicity take their joy near the east, at the ascendant, and the earth near the IC, the water triplicity near the descendant and the fire triplicity near the MC.

If these things are indeed correlated then it suggests that the joys and the elements are linked, presumably to the four winds. But I don't think the tropical zodiac is important with any of this, in other words, any zodiac could be used surely? The divisions into three signs (ie, the elements) are surely still used by sidereal astrologers at any rate (e.g as per the triplicities) so I'm not sure if there's really no elements associated in the sidereal, or if instead it's just that a potential interpretative difference between the zodiacs. I think it's important not to rule out Vettius Valens though.

The founder of the modern western sidereal school, Cyril Fagan, rejected the triplicities as Ptolemy's mania for schematics. In other words, he considered them to be invalid. So if "sidereal astrologers" apply element meanings to signs, this would be the personal belief and method of the astrologer. The element-sign relationship based on Aristotle comes directly from tropical astrology.

He may do, but then I do not see Cyril Fagan as having a monopoly of opinion on the sidereal zodiac, even if his opinions are popular. Clearly the triplicities were used prior to Ptolemy, but I have not Fagan's work to know what exactly he was saying about this subject.

There is no sign-element tradition in India's sidereal astrology or in the western sidereal school founded by Cyril Fagan. So any sidereal astrologers who apply element meanings to signs are basically copyists from a tropical tradition.

I guess I'll still return to the point of Vettius Valens, a sidereal astrologer and the first we have on record (that I know of) to correlate signs with elements.


I think whilst it may be perfectly true that sidereal astrologers do not use the elements (I honestly would not know for sure, though I do know some who do) I do not think it follows that the concept of the elements rests upon tropical logic.

On a separate note it would be interesting to track the introduction of the elements into the Indian astrology systems. I am surprised the Arabic astrologers' influence wouldn't have creeped into India though perhaps use of elements never took off?

Paul, have you read Alex Jones's book chapter on "Ancient Rejection and Acceptance of Ptolemy..."? Therese was kind enough to show it to me. You might find it useful in refining your ideas.

Which are well stated and interesting to me, by the way. I just think this will add to them.

Respectfully.

Phil

Paul wrote:

. What I was trying to discover is whether you think the elements are instead tropically defined in some way, such that Aries being a Fire sign only makes sense from a tropical perspective because it is, for example, seasonally aligned, or is based on the tropics in some way. I do not believe that they are you see, and think it is a, chiefly, philosophical addition.

It has always seemed to me that tropical "fire" signs have a fiery like energy, excitable, spontaneous, etc. I wouldn't relate those traits to a season, however. The seasonal definitions, of course, run into trouble in the southern hemisphere, as Aries isn't a spring sign there. So I might ask: "What is the source of the energy of Tropical Aries, or of each of the tropical signs for that matter?"

So (if I understand you correctly), you are saying that you believe that the "fire" traits of tropical Aries are a philosophical addition? Then I would agree with you, although I'm not sure if "philosophical" is the right word. The current way we interpret the characteristics of the tropical signs is only as old as Alan Leo and Charles Carter.

Therese:
I meant that the current characteristics attached to the tropical signs (triplicities) don't apply to the sidereal zodiac. For example, tropical Aries is said to be impulsive and aggressive and is labeled "fire." Neither the label (fire) nor "impulsive and aggressive" describes sidereal Aries.

Paul:
So it is just a matter of characteristics then?

That might be the best way of looking at it.

Thanks, last two nights I read through the first few sections because this subject was on my mind. I did not see where Dorian Greenbaum alludes to the elements being tropically defined, but rather philosophically defined. I'm obviously missing something here.

It's a philosophy or method that developed among tropical astrologers in the west because after the mid Arabic period, there were no sidereal astrologers except in India and other Asian countries. That's why for any discussion about sidereal tradition, we have to look to India, the country that kept that zodiac alive.

(It's another topic altogether when we ask if medieval texts were originally tropical or sidereal. The overall change to the tropical zodiac happened sometime during the Arabic period, but the translated texts were from an earlier period. So Martin and myself, and perhaps a few other astrologers, apply those translations in the sidereal zodiac while the majority of astrologers consider them to be tropical. This would be a different discussion under a new topic.)

Why is Gemini cold in the sidereal zodiac? Is this something widely attested?

No, but this goes back to Valens who apparently was applying Stoic elements to the signs. Stoic Air is cold and active. Then Stoic Air is similar to Aristotle's cold, which is why I am experimenting with the "cold" label for the sidereal Gemini trigon. As far as I know, no one else has considered that Aristotle's qualities might align with sidereal triplicities. Only Rob Hand has reminded us that Ptolemy discussed the qualities rather than the four elements.

I cite [Vettius Valens] as important because he was the first, or one of the first to describe the signs through the elements. But he was a sidereal astrologer, and he gives nothing to suggest that he was inventing this concept. What I'm trying to establish here is basically whether you feel that the elements are dependent on the cardinal points, or the four winds for example?

I relate the elements to the planets (as is done in India) and not to the signs at all. As for sidereal sign characteristics, it seems to me that triplicity lords are helpful in that respect. I don't consider the cardinal points or four winds in either zodiac.

If you read Chris Brennan's article that James mentioned earlier in the thread, he makes some very interesting points on the subject of the elements. Looking to the joys of the planets we see them affiliated such that the air triplicity take their joy near the east, at the ascendant, and the earth near the IC, the water triplicity near the descendant and the fire triplicity near the MC.

Yes, I read Chris' article, and it's also printed in the latest issue of the ISAR Journal. Chris (in conjunction with Benjamin Dykes) has some interesting ideas, although these are suppositions at this point. But how do you reconcile the zodiac arrangement of Aristotle's element opposites with the (incorrect) opposites as they are in the tropical zodiac? (Chris discusses this in his paper.) I've read Chris' paper twice, but I still need to spend more time with his ideas.

If these things are indeed correlated then it suggests that the joys and the elements are linked, presumably to the four winds. But I don't think the tropical zodiac is important with any of this, in other words, any zodiac could be used surely? The divisions into three signs (ie, the elements) are surely still used by sidereal astrologers at any rate (e.g as per the triplicities)...

We know that the triplicities were used from the time of Dorotheus up to Lilly's time. Then they underwent a total change in interpretation with Leo and Carter. So now we have different theories as to their origin and meanings. Well, we do know that the division of the zodiac into the four trigons came from Mesopotamia. But as to what happened to them after that, there's a lot we don't know. It's true that the trigons were apparently used by all ancient astrologers, whether tropical or sidereal. So any possible theories could apply to any zodiac, yes.

...so I'm not sure if there's really no elements associated in the sidereal, or if instead it's just that a potential interpretative difference between the zodiacs. I think it's important not to rule out Vettius Valens though.

By labeling the triplcities, hot, cold, wet and dry, we're precisely following Valens, because those were the single qualities of the Stoic elements. It would be very confusing to use Stoic element labels because we're too conditioned to think of Aristotle's elements in relation to tropical signs. But actually, these elements are mainly used in classical astrology and in studying temperament. The modern psychological meanings of tropical signs aren't really related to Aristotle's elements.

but then I do not see Cyril Fagan as having a monopoly of opinion on the sidereal zodiac, even if his opinions are popular. Clearly the triplicities were used prior to Ptolemy, but I have not Fagan's work to know what exactly he was saying about this subject.

We only talk about Cyril Fagan because he resurrected the sidereal zodiac in the west. He never had many followers, and they have now dwindled to only a handful. But he succeeded in his main work, which was to make astrologers aware that there was once a sidereal zodiac with specific stars that defined signs. (Although which stars are still a point of controversy.)

I guess I'll still return to the point of Vettius Valens, a sidereal astrologer and the first we have on record (that I know of) to correlate signs with elements.

Yes, Stoic elements: hot, cold, wet and dry, a single quality to each element. So we agree that Valens applied elements to signs and that he used a sidereal zodiac.

I think whilst it may be perfectly true that sidereal astrologers do not use the elements (I honestly would not know for sure, though I do know some who do) I do not think it follows that the concept of the elements rests upon tropical logic.

Not tropical "logic" as such, only a system that developed over time among tropical astrologers.

On a separate note it would be interesting to track the introduction of the elements into the Indian astrology systems. I am surprised the Arabic astrologers' influence wouldn't have crept into India though perhaps use of elements never took off?

India has a long tradition of elements associated with planets. (Sun, Mars = fire; Moon, Venus = water; Mercury = earth; Saturn = Air; Jupiter = ether) I'm not qualified to outline the historical development for this arrangement, but I think perhaps the reason that India never absorbed a triplicity-element correlation is that it may have conflicted with the planet-element scheme already in place. It seems to be a mysterious omission since so much of India's astrology appears to be of Greek or Arabic origin.

Then there is the final question: If the Stoic elements were the original elements associated with the triplicities, then might Rob Hand be correct in suggesting that it was an error of astrologers to ever have assigned Aristotle's elements to the triplicities? (Each of Aristotle's elements being a mix of two qualities.)

Paul, you've been asking if it isn't possible to apply different element principles to either zodiac. Lee Lehman discusses this in her book, Classical Astrology for Modern Living (Whitford Press, 1996) in the chapter "Elements, Qualities and Triplciities." She explains why Aristotle's elements have been used with the tropical zodiac: (Italics are Lehman's.)

"To the extent that there is a seasonal component built into our theory of the (astrological) elements, then the elements, as we are elucidating them, can only apply to the Tropical zodiac, not the Sidereal one. The Sidereal zodiac has no intrinsic seasonal component, while the Tropical zodiac is explicitly defined in terms of the season of the year. Given the importance that the Greeks ascribed to the elements in Astrology, it is obvious why Greek Astrology became Tropically-based, once the difference between the two systems became known and understood.

"The Stoic system was used astrologically as the description for the elemental nature of the astrological signs by those Stoic astrologers, such as Vettius Valens, but without fully recognizing the ramifications of the difference in elemental attribution...The earliest known example at this point is from Vettius Valens, who was definitely Stoic. This different sequencing creates different results, depending on the system, and we lack any evidence that, until now, anyone has discussed the ramifications of the two systems for astrological practice.

"[Discussion here that both element systems gave "active" to fire and air.]...This maintained the quality, and astrologically it maintained the integrity of the masculine (active) and feminine (passive) signs. However, it wreaked havoc with seasonal considerations. Now it is the Fall that is cold and Winter dry. Neither is a convincing case in a Mediterranean climate...." (pp. 34-35)
------End quote-------

Rob Hand's commentary in Tetribiblos, Book 1 (noted in an earlier post) was published in 1994. So I've been considering the words of Lee Lehman and Rob Hand in discussing the sidereal zodiac triplicities.