Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hardball.

Am I a Cancer, or a Gemini? This is tough to work out and definately causes some cognitive dissonace. If you believe in the concept of a collective will, I am a Cancer because everyone(besides the Vedics) say people born between June 22 and July 21 are Cancers, and behave like Cancers, but what if we actually looked at the stars when I was born? I was born with the Sun in Gemini.

Yet, I am not a Gemini! I am a Cancer!

How can we explain this?

Maybe the qualities and characteristics atributed to each sign are based on the environment of the planet when the sun was passing through those signs. For instance, 2000 years ago, when the sun was actually in Aries, it was the time of the Vernal equinox. Ptolemy suggests that each planet has an influence on the native at the time of birth, creating an environmental fingerprint on the native. So people born at this time would be "springtime" people, bursting forth with life. As a signpost they looked to the stars to determine that when the Sun crossed into Aries, the people born at this time would reflect these "springtime" agressive qualities. The same with Capricorn and the dead of winter, in ancient times you had to be tough to survive a winter, and perhaps people born during that time were percieved as tough, capricorny people.

Thats the best I've got for explaining it. If we use this method however, we have to drop all correlations with the sign's personifications. Virgos are not vestal virgins. Leo's are not like lions. Picses are not like two fish.

More appropriate would be to say that Virgos are like September, the harvest, taking stock of what we have, and making sure we have enough to survive the coming winter. We are preparing for the winter and making sure that everything is in its place. We are also working hard reaping the harvest. Leo's are like August, the fields are bright and beautiful, the sun sets orange on a summer day. Think of a gorgeous August summer day and you have Leo.

Of course these are just stories, and I can't tell you why people born in July act like cancers, or why people born in February act like Aquarians. For some reason they do, but if we look at the stars we find that its impossible for the constelation to have any influence on any planet it is passing through, if that were the case, you could call me Cancer all day long but I'd be acting like a Gemini...right? So it must be due to something else, and these constalations must have just been used as markers in the sky, much the way sailors used the stars to cross the seas, or astronomers did to mark the seasons.

Any ideas why it all still works?

http://almanac.port-folio.us/part7.htm

Chaucer writes in the Canterbury Tales, "Whan that Aprille...and the yonge sonne hath in the Ram his halve cours yronne." Nicholas of Lynn's Kalendarium [1386] has the beginning of April as 20 degrees into Aries, rather more than halfway through Aries. Nicholas of Lynn uses the tropical zodiac, which fixes the cusp of Aries at the spring equinox, March 12 for him and March 20 for us after 600 years of progression of the equinox. The other zodiac signs follow at 30 degree intervals. The tropical zodiac signs do not fall on the actual constellations as would those of a sidereal zodiac. The actual constellations don't synchronize with the seasons. The seasons present an unequivocal manifestation of the power of celestial bodies. The tropical zodiac does follow the seasons. Hence astrologers in the West follow the tropical zodiac. This would imply that astrological influences derive from the planets, which includes the sun, and their aspects and that the constellations themselves serve merely as markers.

http://www.astro.com/homepage/gb2000_04_e.htm

The tropical ecliptic coordinate system starts at the vernal equinox, and what we call Sun signs are 30 degree sections of the annular solar path, reflecting the rhythm of the solar system. That the fixed star constellations which once gave the names to those sections are not anymore where they used to be when the ecliptic sections were named, is too bad, and a source of confusion for many. From the tropical point of view, which measures from the vernal equinox which undergoes precession, the SIDEREALISTS are the ones who ignore the precession of the equinoxes and stick to something which was true 2000 years ago but is not any longer. Mainstream astrology is about the solar system and its rhythms of movement, and NOT about fixed stars.

The fundamental error of the siderealists is that they try to use a measuring stick from FAR OUTSIDE the solar system, to measure the movement of the planets, instead of using the IMBEDDED MEASURE from within the solar system, represented by the annual circle of the Sun (as perceived from earth), the basic drum beat of the music of the solar system.

If you want to read more about some fundamental problems of the sidereal zodiac, visit the Swiss ephemeris section and read section 2.7 of the document under the link 'Full documentation'. Most siderealists do not really know what they are doing, in my opinion.

~ Alois Treindl

For the most comprehensive analysis, see

http://www2.bitstream.net/~bunlion/bpi/precess.html

Saturn Return----

First of all let me show my preferences. Tropical--Placidus--(thinking of switching to equal house)

The Next War of Astrology would be fought between the armies of Traditional and Modern astrologies

Well. You cant comment on Sidereal just on the basis of Sun Sign . Learn the Sidereal and analyse the chart on the whole.

As far as Tropical approach is concerned, i am Pisces. But if think of me as Pisces only then you are in for big surprise.

I think that fitting criticism and appraisal of both preferences of Zodiac can only be made by a person who is proficient in both styles.

In Pakistan atleast i know one living and practising as an astrologer. He is equally proficient in Sidereal (Vedic), Tropical(Traditional) Tropical (Modern). I would seek his opinion.

Your idea of development of Zodiac some where close to 2000 years ago seems plausible.

The Tropical Zodiac is really THE Solar Zodiac insofar as it traces the path of the Sun (ecliptic) from equinox (where the Sun/ crosses the Celestial Equator). Since the equinoctial points are the crossing of two imaginary lines, it took a while to devise the Tropical eg Solar Zodiac. The original Zodia were sideral and built around the moon and her mansion of stars -- which, as I discovered last summer at the Conclave in Ken Johnson's presentation -- is the reason the Vedics use Sidereal --

Because the indigenous astrology of India was Lunar -- the Nakshatras -- with the influx of the Hellenistic astrology (2nd century ad) they went pretty much solar except after some centuries precession robbed the system of the well beloved nakshatras, they reverted to the sidereal zodiac.

Tablet 5 of the Epic of Creation -- Marduk assigns the responsibility of the Zodiac to Shamash -- which I see as a mandate for the Solar Zodiac

Sonja Foxe

Mainstream astrology is about the solar system and its rhythms of movement, and NOT about fixed stars.

I am unclear what 'mainstream astrology' is being described here. While I utilise the tropical zodiac I feel the above statement goes too far in trying to de-emphasise the role of fixed stars. From Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos right up to Lilly in Christian Astrology the fixed stars have played an important role in traditional astrology. Equally, fixed stars were central to the Babylonian and Egyptian understanding of the heavens.

The paradox for tropicalists is that the fixed stars still retain a resonance imbued with their sidereal constellation position meanings. Noone has suggested for example that Antares gives up its role as heart of the Scorpion simply because it is now in the tropical sign of Sagittarius.

The fixed star authority Diana Rosenberg has taken this idea much further and argues that tropical astrologers need to look at the role of the sidereal constellations in their chart. I believe she is planning to bring out a book on this subject.

Beyond this I willing to accept that sidereal astrology is a fully viable system within its own frame of reference. The either/or thinking that suggests only one approach can be valid is too exclusivist for my taste.

SaturnReturn wrote:Hardball.

As a signpost they looked to the stars to determine that when the Sun crossed into Aries, the people born at this time would reflect these "springtime" agressive qualities. The same with Capricorn and the dead of winter, in ancient times you had to be tough to survive a winter, and perhaps people born during that time were percieved as tough, capricorny people.

[...]

More appropriate would be to say that Virgos are like September, the harvest, taking stock of what we have, and making sure we have enough to survive the coming winter. We are preparing for the winter and making sure that everything is in its place. We are also working hard reaping the harvest. Leo's are like August, the fields are bright and beautiful, the sun sets orange on a summer day. Think of a gorgeous August summer day and you have Leo.

[...]

Any ideas why it all still works?

Of cousre the seasonal attributions are inverted for the south hemisphere creating something of a dilema with this theory. Even more so for the inhabitans of the equatorial regions where the classic four season do not even exist!

Ptolemy and other classical astrologers must have been aware of this but unconcerned about anything other than only the seasonal experience in their own region.

As for this I thereofre suggestt that the influence of the signs are not seasonal in nature.

You can make anything fit...

Eg for south hemisphere

Capricorn at height of summer. Sun climbs gradually to the the peak near zenith, like Capricorns are climbers.

Cancer at depths of winter. Cold, rain and wet. Cancer is a water sign. And as the crab moves side ways at bottom of the sea the Sun creeps low along the north horizon.

Aries at autumn. Time for lighting fires. Cold weather is approaching time to gather fire wood for heat and cooking.

Libra at spring. Days are becomig fine and time to appreciate the outdoors and beautify surrounds, restore balance.

All a bit abstruse I know, but it serves to illustrate that I think the signs have an intrinsic meaning and the parochial attributions of the seasons is an overlay due to the experience of a people in a particular region.

Martin Lewicki

Mainstream astrology is about the solar system and its rhythms of movement, and NOT about fixed stars.

The above quote is by Alois Treindl, PhD physics, the founder and director of Astrodienst AG.

Shepherd Simpson, Astrological Historian (?), has another perspective. He writes:

The Sidereal Zodiac still has problems in that it is an oversimplification of what is really 'above' us.

The first problem is that it still insists that there are twelve signs, even though in reality there are thirteen, Ophiuchus being the 10th sign of the Real Solar Zodiac.

The second problem is that it insists that the Signs are all the same length: one twelfth of a year. The heavens just aren't that tidy. The actual lengths of the signs vary from seven days for Scorpius to forty-five days for Virgo. Gemini is the only Sign whose actual size is close to one twelfth of the year.

The third problem is that the Sidereal Zodiac still insists that Aries is the first Zodiac Sign. It has lost the ancient connection with the Ages. In fact Pisces is the Sign at the Equinox and is therefore the first Sign of the year according to the Ancient definition.

Read the full article here:

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyzodia ... zodiac.htm

I follow the view offered by Vivian Robson in his book The Fixed Stars and Constellations in Astrology (p. 24-25):

It will be noticed that Ptolemy expresses the nature of the constellations in terms of the planets ... It will be observed that the characteristics of many of the groups resemble those of the sign in which they fall. Some years ago Sepharial suggested that the signs themselves might not be the real originators of all the influences ascribed to them, some of which might more properly be attributed to the constellations. Thus in the case of Cancer the pushing nature of its natives may really be due to Monoceros, their love of dogs to Canis Major, and their love of the sea to Argo. This should be borne in mind for by careful research we may eventually be able to assign more exact influences to both signs and stars.

I like the approach of Robson and Sepharial because it includes both the tropical signs and the sidereal constellations. From this perspective, one might observe the Moon in the night sky and locate it within the tropical sign of Cancer and (for example) the sidereal constellation of Argo. It's a matter of perspective.

Hello Andrew,

Your criticisms of the sidereal zodiac are all valid. However, the move to equal asterisms seems the product of a later understanding when astronomical knowledge had suitably progressed. All the original 'zodiacs' of India, China and Babylonia were lunar rather than solar and were all unequal in their divisions. The Babylonian move from an 18 constellation lunar zodiac to a 12 sign solar zodiac seems to have been motivated by a greater understanding of the movement of the Sun and the attempt to fit the calendar into this cycle. It may also have been influenced by the Egyptian Sothic calendar.

One argument often cited by siderealists is that most of the early astrologers (excluding Ptolemy) do not appear to have used a tropical Zodiac. In his book 'A History of Horoscopic Astrology' James Holden seems to lend support to this view. In particular Holden suggests that the early Alexandrian astrologers used a fixed sidereal zodiac which Holden states 'differed from from the tropical zodiac by about 5' 05 degrees in the year 76 ad.''

Ptolemy's advocacy of the tropical zodiac was not generally adopted by western astrologers until the late hellenistic era. Nevertheless, it was eventually passed on to Arab and Latin medieval astrology. However, when astrology was transmitted to India it was based on the Alexandrian zodiac from astrologers such as Vettius Valens. Indian sidereal astrologers can therefore correctly argue they are following the fixed zodiac of early Greek astrology just as the western tropical astrologers can argue they are following the tropical zodiac advocated by Ptolemy.

Incidentally, its worth pointing out that Dr Shepherd Simpson is no enthusiast for the tropical zodiac either......

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyzodia ... zodiac.htm

Mark

Your criticisms of the sidereal zodiac are all valid.

Strictly speaking, they're not so much my criticisms as they are the criticisms of others whose arguments I've referenced for informational or comparative purposes. But your point is well taken.

Incidentally, its worth pointing out that Dr Shepherd Simpson is no enthusiast for the tropical zodiac either.

Yes. He seems to have his own unique take on the matter.

Interestingly, Robert Hand has written with regard to Varahamahira's Brihat Jataka, chapter 1, sloka 19:

These are our old friends the System A rising times for Babylon again; and again, just as in Valens, they are identified with the signs of the zodiac, not a separate set of 30 degree divisions having no fixed relation to the signs of the zodiac. And again they are symmetrical with respect to 0 degree Aries, something that can only happen in a tropical zodiac. Was this eminent figure of the Hindu tradition a tropicalist? Apparently so. In another early Hindu work, the Yavana Jataka, we also find symmetrical rising times, indicating a tropical zodiac although these rising times at least are recomputed for India.

http://www.robhand.com/tropzo.htm

For another perspective, here is an excerpt from the M.Phil. dissertation of Nicholas Whyte, whose website is here:

http://explorers.whyte.com/

His M.Phil dissertation was on the liber de arte astronomice iudicandi by Roger of Hereford, a twelfth-century (early medieval) astrologer's manual, which he describes here:

http://explorers.whyte.com/roger.htm

You can access the document from the above page. Of particular interest is the use of the sidereal zodiac in the construction of the horoscope of Eleanor of Aquitaine: it would appear that it was the practise of at least some Western astrologers in the early medieval period to cast their charts using the sidereal zodiac. It seems that sometime around the middle of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century ("since Kepler"), the tropical zodiac became the new standard in the West. In other words, it seems unnecessary to appeal to the work of Cyril Fagan et. al. in the modern siderealist movement in order for "traditional" Western astrologers to justify the use of the sidereal zodiac: many Western astrologers in the early medieval period were using the sidereal zodiac and they were using basically the same techniques that later astrologers like William Lilly also employed, except that they were doing so using a sidereal zodiac.

At least one astrologer of my acquaintance has argued that it is more likely that the Renaissance translations of Ptolemy may have helped to further deepen the use of the tropical zodiac in the West. If one reflects on how important it is to calculate Easter, which in the Western church relies on the equinox, it is likely that it was already the standard in medieval times. But that of course doesn't mean that the sidereal zodiac was ignored completely. The one element of the tropical zodiac that would in the West have been more acceptable is the symbolism of the Cross given by the solstices and equinoxes.

Here is the excerpt from Nicholas Whyte's commentary on the original manuscript of Roger of Hereford:

There are two ways of "distinguishing" the zodiac, in other words two ways of measuring planetary longitudes. The first counts the first degree of Aries (its "zero point") from the intersection of the ecliptic and celestial equator which the Sun passes through in spring. This is the tropical reference frame. The second compensates for precession, the slow wobble of the orientation of the Earth's axis which causes the celestial poles and equator to change position against the background of the stars, by subtracting eight degrees from the tropical longitude. This is meant to allow for precession since the time of Ptolemy, at the rate of 1? per century. As it is referred to a particular point fixed with respect to the stars, a historical First Point of Aries, it is a sidereal reference frame.

The first distinctio zodiaci is used by astrolabe makers and for trigonometrical calculations; the second for planetary tables and for astrological judgements. It is very interesting that Roger decides to come down as firmly as he does on this issue; he clearly intends Aries not to be the first 30? of the ecliptic north of the celestial equator, but instead to correspond to where the stars representing the constellation Aries actually happen to be.

Many medieval writers believed in the accession and recession of the eighth sphere, according to which the sphere of the fixed stars rocked back and forth over a period of centuries or millennia. This doctrine was developed (most notably by Thabit b. Qurra) partly to account for the discrepancy between Ptolemy's guess of 1? per century for the rate of precession and later Arabic measurements of 1? per 66 years, and partly to avoid the theological problems of the entire universe running on a 36,000 year cycle. Although it was known to Walcher of Malvern in the previous century, no reference to the difference between tropical and sidereal coordinates is made by Raymond of Marseilles, Roger's source for the Hereford tables.

Ptolemy's (and indeed Copernicus') planetary theory held that the tropical reference frame which is Roger's first distinctio zodiaci and has been the standard since Kepler, rotated with respect to the sphere of fixed stars and planetary auges, and that the latter was a more secure base for calculations. Most planetary tables (including Roger's of 1178 and the Toledan and Al-Khwarizmian tables from earlier in the 12th century) therefore gave planetary longitudes in sidereal co-ordinates, either with corrections to convert from one system to another or with a separate table for the motion of the eighth sphere.

As Mercier has shown, both the Al-Khwarizmi tables and the Toledo tables, as well as their derivatives, make tropical and sidereal longitude equal in 563; by the middle of the twelfth century there would indeed have been a bit more than 8? difference, so direct observation would have found this figure.

Further evidence for Roger's views comes from MS Arundel 377 in the British Museum, (see later). Its marginalia include a list of solar altitudes taken with the astrolabe when the Sun is "in initio signorum". The figures given are consistent with a sidereal reference frame differing by eight to ten degrees from the tropical reference frame. The tables themselves on the facing page of the MS are of sidereal longitude. It is clear that for Roger the signs of the zodiac used for interpretation of horoscopes are sidereal.

Why then use the tropical reference system at all? Because the signs of the zodiac are not as crucial to the correct interpretation of a horoscope as are the houses, and the cusps of the houses are dependent on spherical trigonometry based on tropical co-ordinates. These are calculated with the tables secundum circulorum coniunctionem facte referred to in the next paragraph ...

... It is immediately obvious that these are not consistent with the modern tropical definition of the location of the start of each sign; if they did, the figures for Aries and Libra would both be 38? (the colatitude of Hereford). Roger is using the position of the sun against a background not of a tropical but of a sidereal zodiac, whose First point of Aries is offset from the intersection of equator and ecliptic to compensate for precession ...

... Analysing the difference between Roger's measurements and calculated results for different assumed off-sets in the ecliptic, we find that a difference of between eight and ten degrees seems to have been used.

Hello Andrew,

Thanks for your detailed post. That was all extremely interesting!

This seems to support the view that the received historical wisdom in this area is often oversimplistic. While the shift over from a fixed to tropical zodiac is conventionally stated to have started in the late hellenistic era, with astrologers like Firmicus, the transition does not appear to have followed this pattern in a linear or consistent way.

A previous thread here suggested that the prominent Arab era astrologer Masha'allah was probably still using a sidereal zodiac in the 9th century.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2160

So the suggestion that the tropical zodiac only became widely accepted following the Ptolemy revival in the late Medieval or Renaissance era seems quite plausible. This seems a topic that would really benefit from more detailed astrological research.

Hand's article is very interesting although I think I will need a while to fully absorb it properly. His suggestion that the tropical zodiac may have been utlised in some early Vedic astrological texts is very intriguing. Of course this raises the further question of whether this detailed knowledge of precession came from Greek or indigenous sources.

While conventional histories give the credit for the discovery of precession exclusively to the Greeks ( Hipparchus via Ptolemy) a lot of research is emerging that many ancient cultures had a basic understanding of precession which is reflected in their mythology. In particular the pioneering book 'Hamlet's Mill' by De Santillana and Von Dechend in the 60's first put forward this theory in relation to various cultures such as the Babylonians and Egyptians. More recently authors such as Jane.B. Sellers (The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt) and William Sullivan ( The Secret of the Incas) have lent support to this thesis.

This seems to support the view that the received wisdom concerning the history of astrology is often oversimplistic. While the shift over from a fixed to tropical zodiac is conventionally stated to have started in the late hellenistic era, with astrologers like Firmicus, the transition does not appear to have followed this pattern in a linear or consistent way.

It would appear that Roger of Hereford was not the only early medieval astrologer who used a sidereal zodiac. As you have said, the received wisdom does seem to be oversimplistic. The Tetrabiblos seems to suggest that Ptolemy regarded fixed stars as being part of the signs. In section 2.11, for instance, he discusses the nature of the signs, part by part, and their influence on the weather. The Pleiades and Hyades are seen as part of Taurus, i.e., the fixed stars linked with the signs of the sidereal zodiac.

In particular the pioneering book 'Hamlet's Mill' by De Santillana and Von Dechend in the 60's first put forward this theory in relation to various cultures such as the Babylonians and Egyptians.

Here are links to a couple of essays which dispute the thesis of Hamlet's Mill; I've yet to read them in their entirety, so I just post them here for comparative purposes:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page9j.html

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page9f.html

The idea that the tropical zodiac lends itself to easier computations of factors such as zodiacal position and house cusps can be appreciated by anyone who as spent time keying in astronomical algorithms in to computers for astrology.

Planetary theory such as VSOP89 and Moshier etc refer orbital elements to the precesing equinox and ecliptic to facilitate coversion to equatoiral coordinates.

Degrees of long and short ascension remain in tact signwise in tropical zodic but are constantly changing siderealy.

Astronomical star maps up until mid 19th C often included tropical ecliptic overlays with the signs marked on the cusps as well as equatorial coordinates, both conveniently sharing the same equinox as the inception.

So, I suspect practicallity too may have something to do with adopting the tropical zodiac.

Martin