Skyscript Astrology Forum

Yes, this should be easy. And I should know it. But - I was just reading Bernadette Brady and Lee Lehman's paper 12 th Century Castle Besiegement in Sport, which you can find here: http://www.bernadettebrady.com/Pdfs/Cas ... tBrady.pdf

And at the end of page 9, there's this neat little note:

Note: A zodiac sign is considered to be from 1 0 to 30 0 . Thus a planet is not in a particular zodiac sign until it has reached 1 0 00? 00? of that sign. Thus Jupiter at 0 0 15? of Capricorn would be considered as 30 0 15? Sagittarius and thereby still in rulership.

Help! Is this the general rule? Was I asleep that day in class? Is my sun-sign really Aries?

Thanks -
Liv

I think this is more a result of confusion between ordinal numbers, which was the normal usage in the past, and cardinal ones, which is our modern usage. When old texts refer to the first degree of a sign, they mean what we say when we say 0 degrees of a sign until 59'59" of it. A related example, when someone is born, they are 0 years of age, but they are in their 1st year of life. When they have their 1st birthday, they'll be 1, but will be in the second year of life.

We also must not forget that the zero is a relatively recent innovation in Western mathematics, the Hellenistic and early to middle Arabic astrologers wouldn't have had it, and I don't think it gets much use in Europe until the Renaissance(?).

Is that helpful?

I think this is more a result of confusion between ordinal numbers, which was the normal usage in the past, and cardinal ones, which is our modern usage.

I think you're exactly on the money, Gabe. Good call.

Tom

It just seems like a really whopping mistake for those two! But I think you're right.

I can remember when math textbooks explained the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers.Maybe they do not do so nowadays.The same confusion relates to terms as well.

Matt

The other day I began a thread with exactly this theme.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4464

You'll find there quotings of Deborah and R.Hand to be read in full length! I should like to invite you, to continue the discussion there.

But one thing seems to be of importance in my opinion so I bring it here: It's not a problem of ordinal and cardinal numbers, the problem is, to which planet the point 00?00 degree is allotted. As far as I understand Deb, Hand and Brady in former times it was still allotted to the ruler of the peceeding parts. The new ruler was beginning his rulership with the first fraction of the new sign i.e. 00?01?. Nowadays we already allot 00?00 to the next ruler.

Johannes

matt23z wrote:I can remember when math textbooks explained the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers.Maybe they do not do so nowadays.The same confusion relates to terms as well.

Matt

I know, Matt. I'm just surprised that a couple of folks with doctorates in sciences that deal with statistics a lot would mess this one up - hence my utter confusion at seeing that quote.

We also must not forget that the zero is a relatively recent innovation in Western mathematics, the Hellenistic and early to middle Arabic astrologers wouldn't have had it, and I don't think it gets much use in Europe until the Renaissance(?).

Hi Gabe,
In the interest of veracity, this doesn't seem to be fully the case, so I thought I'd chip in with the following information.

In Georges Ifrah's Universal History of Numbers there is a section on the birth of the Babylonian zero (pp152-154). He says:

At some point, probably prior to the arrival of the Seleucid Turks in 311BCE, Babylonian astronomers and mathematicians devised a true zero, to indicate the absence of units of a given order of magnitude. They began to use, instead of a blank space, an actual sign wherever there was a missing order of the powers of 60, and the sign they used was a variant of the old 'separator' ...

'Zero' was written as a diagonal double wedge or diagonal double chevron.

There is a graphic in the text of a mathematical tablet in the Louvre, Paris, from Uruk (late third or early second century BCE) which contains one of the earliest known instances of the Babylonian zero.

The author also refers to an astronomical tablet from the same period in the British Museum (BM34581). It includes the cuneiform notations for 0 deg 1', 0deg 0min 30'', etc.

Greek astronomers used the sexagesimal zero adapted to their own alphabetic numerals. Examples of these exist in Greek papyrus collections from as early as the 1st century CE. (p157, Universal History of Numbers).

It seems the Arabs assimilated Indian number symbols and mathematics some time around the latter quarter of the 8th century CE. The Bodleian Library at Oxford has a manuscript in its collection of an astronomical treatise by Al Biruni copied in 1082 which contains the number zero.(p532 ibid).

Apparently, the use of Arabic numerals including zero entered into use in Europe in the 13th century.

All the best,

Bill

Hello Bill,

You might want to read this review of that book.

http://www.ams.org/notices/200201/rev-dauben.pdf

While Wikipedia isn't a worthy primary source, these seem to be relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero#Early_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero#History_of_zero

Take care,

Johannes wrote:... the problem is, to which planet the point 00?00 degree is allotted. As far as I understand Deb, Hand and Brady in former times it was still allotted to the ruler of the peceeding parts. The new ruler was beginning his rulership with the first fraction of the new sign i.e. 00?01?. Nowadays we already allot 00?00 to the next ruler.

I just want to mention that I responded to this in the other thread, to say that this is not a point that I ever tried to make (nor, I believe, Rob Hand). Rather than repeat myself, see the discussion there:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 4&start=10

Re: the quote at the top of this thread - I think that is highly misleading and I agree with Gabe's explanation, which is exactly the point that Rob Hand and I were making in the Traditional Astrologer.

Thank you Gabe for pointing me in the direction of that review ... approach with caution seems to be the message.

At the same time, I sense a familiar smell off the review; an academic ripping to bits the work of a non-academic - a mere amateur - who has the gall to step into his territory. I've no doubt that many if not all of the criticisms are valid, but even so ....

The Wikipedia entries ironically reference Ifrah several times. What they clarified for me was the difference between zero as a sign for 'nothing' in a written value - i.e. 1*27, which in decimal format is 1027, and where the asterisk denotes the absence of any 'hundreds' - and zero as an actual number.

Whatever, is it the case then that Babylonian astrologers did not conceive of fractions of a degree, or rather of the first degree of a sign? I'd find that a bit surprising.

All the best,

Bill