Skyscript Astrology Forum

In some discussions with sidereal astrologers on other forums, I've been told that actually in order to delineate my chart via the sidereal zodiac I need to be made aware of the the differences between the symbolism/associations/signification of the signs between sidereal and tropical. In other words that when I go to interpret my sidereal Libra ascendant I need to be aware that sidereal Libra is different from tropical Libra.

However each time I go to find out more about what sidereal libra represents I get conflicting views and am often incapable of determining what exactly those differences are. My sidereal sun in taurus sounds much like what I'd read about for tropical sun in taurus for example.

I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in being grateful for any well practiced sidereal astrologer to throw some clarity on this issue. Are they different? If so are there any sources where we can determine the differences?

One reason I ask is that coming from a tropical background, it's difficult to be convinced by the sidereal zodiac if, ultimately, you're ignorant of how to use it. All we could do is remain agnostic about it or ask a sidereal astrologer to interpret our charts on our behalf.

Also as the majority of posters on this site are tropical, it makes sense for the first thread of this new forum to be a helpful bridge for the tropical astrologer to further understand the sidereal zodiac.

Paul wrote:

However each time I go to find out more about what sidereal libra represents I get conflicting views and am often incapable of determining what exactly those differences are. My sidereal sun in taurus sounds much like what I'd read about for tropical sun in taurus for example.

It's true, Paul, that the sidereal signs in themselves have often been poorly defined. Also "sidereal" is a fairly broad topic and includes the western sidereal system, India's various systems, Tibetan astrology, and others.

As it's morning here in California, and I have to get to work, I'll edit and continue my reply to this post later.

This is a reply to Paul's question above.

After giving this some thought, I realized that it really is a very interesting question. First we have to separate the western sidereal system from India's astrology. (termed Vedic or Jyotish). Let's take the western sidereal system which began with Cyril Fagan. This system really never took off with a great number of astrologers.

Very quickly the system became highly technical, emphasizing various types of precise and complex cyclic charts that didn't sit well with the intuitive astrologer. Today the western sidereal system has very few followers, though many others, like myself, employ their solar return charts. Many students decamped to India's sidereal astrology as more teachers appeared on the western scene, especially in California.

Thus, there is very little literature on signs of the zodiac in the western system. I reviewed the meager literature, and realized that the "take" on signs seems to be very individualistic. I see that two views come through in the literature:

(1) Sign meanings are based strictly on the natures of ruling planets,

(2) We also see some of the "bleed through" of the tropical signs that happens to be my approach. For example, in Jim Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer (1976!...the latest "real book" on western sidereal astrology) we find these thoughts under Cancer: "Before long, one realizes that Cancer adores being in the spotlight....he is at home when the center of attention. His need for attention is a result of a deep sense of insufficiency and personal insecurity."

(Now this makes sense if you realize that the actual constellation of the crab is so insignificant with dim stars that it's difficult to find it in the night sky.)

The bottom line with western sidereal meanings is that their meanings never jelled. This is not helped by the fact that western sidereal practitioners are few and far between, and becoming fewer every year as most are in the upper age group. Because the western sidereal system emphasized angularity but not trinal relationships, you'll find references to the quadruplicities: cardinal, fixed and mutable, but there is little if any emphasis on triplicities. The system as it is used today emphasizes the angularity of planets, in mundo charts, and cyclic charts such as solar and lunar returns. The signs as such receive very little emphasis.

So we cannot look to the western sidereal system for an "accepted" understanding of signs of the zodiac. I rather hope that a western sidereal astrologer can join us and offer the latest perspective on signs.

I'll discuss the Indian signs in another post, and why I believe that the new Traditional translations offer the real key to understanding sidereal signs.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Thus, there is very little literature on signs of the zodiac in the western system. I reviewed the meager literature, and realized that the "take" on signs seems to be very individualistic. I see that two views come through in the literature:

(1) Sign meanings are based strictly on the natures of ruling planets,

(2) We also see some of the "bleed through" of the tropical signs that happens to be my approach. For example, in Jim Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer (1976!...the latest "real book" on western sidereal astrology) we find these thoughts under Cancer: "Before long, one realizes that Cancer adores being in the spotlight....he is at home when the center of attention. His need for attention is a result of a deep sense of insufficiency and personal insecurity."

Right, there's little information available and those that are available seem to at times contradict one another, which makes it difficult for the average tropical astrologer to really examine the system properly. By the way when I say sidereal astrology I simply mean the use of the sidereal zodiac and the meaning of the signs that result from it - I do not mean techniques which can be used in both systems, such as solar returns.

The bottom line with western sidereal meanings is that their meanings never jelled. This is not helped by the fact that western sidereal practitioners are few and far between, and becoming fewer every year as most are in the upper age group. Because the western sidereal system emphasized angularity but not trinal relationships, you'll find references to the quadruplicities: cardinal, fixed and mutable, but there is little if any emphasis on triplicities. The system as it is used today emphasizes the angularity of planets, in mundo charts, and cyclic charts such as solar and lunar returns. The signs as such receive very little emphasis.

Right, but in mundo charts, angularity of planets and so forth are all found alive and well in tropical charts too. A planet will still be angular whether in the sidereal or tropical chart, though admittedly what it woudl signify might well be different. What I mean is if there's such little emphasis on the signs then how are we in a position to make any informed decisions on what the signs mean?

So we cannot look to the western sidereal system for an "accepted" understanding of signs of the zodiac.

So what advice would you give to a tropical astrologer hoping to examine the difference in the sign meanings which, from some quarters, is said to exist?

Paul wrote:

So what advice would you give to a tropical astrologer hoping to examine the difference in the sign meanings which, from some quarters, is said to exist?

Paul the entire purpose of my web site (noted as a "signature" for my posts) is the answer to this question. I'm working at providing an integrated system of sidereal signs. I've realized very recently that this isn't possible without a thorugh understanding of the new translations that have come on the scene.

I'm out of town today, so will reply in more detail to your question as soon as I can. Also I haven't yet discussed the signs in Jyotish, which also come into this question.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Paul the entire purpose of my web site (noted as a "signature" for my posts) is the answer to this question. I'm working at providing an integrated system of sidereal signs. I've realized very recently that this isn't possible without a thorugh understanding of the new translations that have come on the scene.

I'm not so interested in the jyotish, my interest would be the western sidereal signs. But your website is a bit confusing.
For example in the Taurus section we have:

Located in the part of the ecliptic occupied by Tropical Gemini, there is a vibrancy, often an animated talkativeness and a certain naivete to those who have many planets in this sign.

It seems you're ascribing the traits of tropical Gemini onto sidereal Taurus. This is why I keep getting confused about which way you've been suggesting the trait swapping has occurred. On the one hand it seems to be that the tropical signs take their meanings from the sidereal ones, but this is an example where, it seems, that the sidereal sign has taken its meaning from the tropical instead. Hence the confusion.
Also you don't mention anything about it being a fixed sign or an earth sign or what it's inherent traits are etc. so it's perhaps not a great place to start to demonstrate the differences between tropical and sidereal sign symbolism.

For example you describe sidereal Taurus as "often an animated talkativeness...Though sometimes a poor listener, Taurus loves communication with other people", whereas valens describes it as a mute sign.

I had been avoiding your site as you confess to being atypical. I'm presuming this is also atypical? Or is it also following in the steps of Cyril Fagan here?

Paul wrote:

Therese Hamilton wrote: Paul the entire purpose of my web site (noted as a "signature" for my posts) is the answer to this question. I'm working at providing an integrated system of sidereal signs. I've realized very recently that this isn't possible without a thorough understanding of the new translations that have come on the scene.

I'm not so interested in the Jyotish, my interest would be the western sidereal signs. But your web site is a bit confusing.
For example in the Taurus section we have:

Located in the part of the ecliptic occupied by Tropical Gemini, there is a vibrancy, often an animated talkativeness and a certain naivete to those who have many planets in this sign.

It seems you're ascribing the traits of tropical Gemini onto sidereal Taurus.

Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Here's the underlying principle for sidereal Taurus: Taurus rules the throat and tongue. So the ability to express oneself verbally in principle belongs to Taurus. Gemini rules the shoulders, hands and arms. So Gemini can have to do with such activities as writing and the arts and boxing, various sports and so forth. These are generally said to belong to Mercury.

The underlying principle according to Cyril Fagan: We have always been seeing the original sidereal signs. I believe that Fagan said somewhere that the astrological tropical zodiac doesn't exist, but it's a measuring reference for astronomers. (I have Fagan's writings. I'll try to find a reference to that when I have time.)

Also you don't mention anything about it being a fixed sign or an earth sign or what it's inherent traits are etc. so it's perhaps not a great place to start to demonstrate the differences between tropical and sidereal sign symbolism.

This is all covered in the four introductory articles on my web site. The first one, followed by the three others: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/apolar1.htm
I'm in the process of modifying my views on the triplicities, however, to align them more with the triplicity lords. That was the purpose of my introductory article on the Traditonal sidereal topic, but the post was misunderstood. I'll be moving that introduction to this forum.

As for the quadruplicities, I believe that Robert Schmidt has the last word on those as they apply to the sidereal signs. I'll have to move that post from the other forum as well, and we can discuss that division further.

For example you describe sidereal Taurus as "often an animated talkativeness...Though sometimes a poor listener, Taurus loves communication with other people", whereas Valens describes it as a mute sign.

As I've said before, Valens presents problems because his writings on zodiac signs seem to be a collection of ideas from many sources. So if Valens called Taurus "mute, " my opinion is that he was wrong. Valens preferred the masculine signs, and tended to give them more positive meanings.

I had been avoiding your site as you confess to being atypical. I'm presuming this is also atypical? Or is it also following in the steps of Cyril Fagan here?

James Eshelman, whom I quoted on Cancer, was the bright rising star in the western sidereal community before he generally left astrology and joined an occult organization. He was quite devoted to Cyril Fagan's path. So if James Eshelman's material on signs reflects tropical meanings (such as Cancer liking to be on center stage), then we are both following in Fagan's footsteps. I don't quite understand why some of today's western sidereal astrologers (such as Ken Bowser) seem to have departed from Fagan's initial views.

As I said before, the western sidereal signs never jelled. There is no standard book on their meanings. James Eshelmans' book in 1976 was the latest. But there may be a sidereal web site out there somewhere. That's why it would be helpful if a few western sidereal astrologers knew about Skyscript and kept us posted on current views.

When I move posts from the Traditional forum, I'll set up separate topics for discussion on the sidereal triplicities and quadruplicities.

As for the quadruplicities, I believe that Robert Schmidt has the last word on those as they apply to the sidereal signs. I'll have to move that post from the other forum as well, and we can discuss that division further.

Therese, when asked about the quadruplicities in the other thread, your justification was Robert Schmidt's post in the Act forum, which you refer to again here. The link is:
http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=101

I read it at the time but passed over it because it was meandering off-topic, and it presented informal personal opinion from another forum. But if it is going to be referred regularly as a sort of "last word" I have to say that I don't believe Robert Schmidt would have expected that. The post is highly speculative and I see many weaknesses in the proposals he presents. For example, he suggests that Hellenistic astrologers might have merely continued the subliminal influence of Ptolemy by pointing to the seasonal relevancy of the definitions of tropical, solid and double-bodied, so he asks us to consider that the term tropical may have had another sort of origin, and that "the terms solid and double-bodied are not obviously related to the seasons at all". This leads him to propose that Ptolemy transposed such ideas to make arguments in favour of the tropical zodiac.

We don?t have many accessible works predating Ptolemy?s that explain the basis of these principles, but we do have the Astronomica of Manilius. This states clearly that the reason that the ?double signs? are given this term is because ?linking season with season, they possess double powers? (2.174ff.). He gives a similarly clear explanation about how the tropical signs are so-called because they ?turn the four seasons of the year? (3.622ff.). Manilius predates Ptolemy by about a century and a half and presents older material in versified form - we cannot attribute this to the subliminal influence of Ptolemy. So I don?t think we can consider that a viable proposal has been put forward to counter that of every ancient and traditional text which offers an explanation of these terms ? all express agreement in principle that they derive from seasonal associations. We have nothing really, to give us good reason to reject that.

BTW, Manilus does not fix the equinox in the first degree of the signs. The conclusion of his third book is very interesting for anyone following the discussion of the equinox placement and the signifance of seasonal influence in the ancient definitions of signs. I won't copy it all out. It starts at 3.666, which is p.217 in the Loeb edition.

Hi all,

Deb, you're right that taking an offhand forum post as a definitive statement is not a great idea, and I do believe this is one of the reasons why he doesn't post much if at all anymore. However, in the interests of being pedantic , he's suggesting that we moderns are under "the subliminal influence of Ptolemy by pointing to the seasonal relevancy of the definitions of tropical, solid and double-bodied", not the astrologers back then.

Deb wrote:

But if it is going to be referred regularly as a sort of "last word" I have to say that I don't believe Robert Schmidt would have expected that. The post is highly speculative and I see many weaknesses in the proposals he presents.

It looks like I should have said "most recent word," which has a much different meaning than "last word." This is probably why the quadruplicities might need a separate topic of their own. In that post I was responding to Mark as he asked what I had to say about that division of signs. I provided the link so anyone could read Robert Schmidt's entire quote in context.

Hi Gabe,
I share your concern about quoting him out of context and putting too much emphasis on his informal musings. But they do attract attention (like here). Since this has been raised as a big issue lately, let's quote him exactly because you are right that he says this in reference to what we supposedly "take for granted".

The question, then, becomes whether the founders of Hellenistic astrology had seasonal considerations in mind when they coined these terms. We often take it for granted that they did, but this could just be the continuing subliminal influence of Ptolemy on the tradition.

Later he concludes: "So I personally do not believe that this classification of the images originally had anything to do with the seasons, although it is easy to see how Ptolemy could have transferred such thinking to the context of the seasons."

I think it is fair to assess his suggestion - at that point - as being that Ptolemy could have been personally responsible for leaving this imprint on the tradition, which is the basis of his doubts over them having an older origin. I don't see this as something we moderns just take for granted. I have trailed a list of authors who make the point that the qualities of the quadruplicities derive from the effect of the seasons they align to, and it goes right through the tradition. It's not an uncritical taking for granted of something that has no clearly expressed logic to it.

This is a point of research for me within the Babylonian tradition, and since it is unpublished work I don't want to get too involved in this discussion right now. But there is one significant point that hasn't been mentioned so far yet relates to a lot of the discussions we've been holding lately, which is that historians know that (at least) by the 7th century BCE, Babylonian astronomers were issuing mundane predictions concerning neighbouring territories by grouping the twelve calendrical months of the year into four sets of triplicities. Other texts show the same principles embedded into zodiac division, and this is assumed to be a development of the Babylonian tropical zodiac based on the principles of calendrical arrangements. Francesca Rochberg first covered this in her 1984 paper ?New Evidence for the History of Astrology'.

My point is only this - whatever system of zodiacal measurement was being used, it was certainly gathering significance from the seasonal and calendrical associations at that time. Whether that is still a valid astrological approach is a different argument. I don't think it helps the sidereal case to suggest that astronomy/astrology was not inextricably associated with the calendar and the cycles of time in ancient times because it so obviously was. To suggest otherwise requires us to become blind to too much evidence from history and to what the writers of ancient texts specifically tell us themselves. Better, I think, to build the sidereal case on other grounds ? I can think of some good arguments that don?t rely on this red herring.

Paul wrote:

I'm not so interested in the jyotish, my interest would be the western sidereal signs.

When discussing the sidereal zodiac we can't leave India out of the equation for the simple reason that there was an obvious interchange of astrological concepts between early western writers and India. So if we pick up a standard text on Jyotish we find in the chapter devoted to signs of the zodiac:

Appearance:
The sign Mesha (Aries) resembles a ram..
The sign Vrisha (Taurus) resembles a bull...
Karkata (Cancer) has the appearance of a crab...
There are a few sign variations, but the similarity to Hellenistic signs is obvious.

Parts of the body:
(1) Aries = head
(2) Taurus = face
(3) Gemini = shoulders
(4) Cancer - chest
etc.

Malefic/Male: Odd signs: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11
Benefic/female: Even signs: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12

Inherent nature:
Fiery: signs 1, 5, 9
Earthly: signs 2, 6, 10
Etc.

Quadrupeds: signs 1, 2, 5, posterior half of 9 and anterior half of 10.
(This obviously relates to the shape of the constellations.)

(The above notes are taken from Dr. K.S. Charak's Essentials of Vedic Astrology, Vol. 1)

India has added some additional sign categories, but the important point is that the sidereal signs are used in horary and elections the same way they are used in the west by tropical astrologers. David Pingree has shown the many similarities between India's astrology and ancient western writers. This is why western astrologers who have studied India's astrology can often make the transition to Jyotish much more easily than a conversion to the western sidereal system. The western system has a strong mathematical structure, but no underlying philosophy.

Everyone agrees that there is only one tropical zodiac, and we all know that the zero Aries point is at the spring equinox. Likewise if it's a valid construct, there can be only one sidereal zodiac. But there are a number of assumed beginnings to that zodiac. There are only 53 minutes between the Fagan-Bradley value for the zero Aries point and the Lahiri zero point. So apparently we're in the ballpark for eventually discovering a "true" zero point for the sidereal zodiac.

So when I talk about laying a foundation for the sidereal zodiac, I'm including that zodiac in any sidereal astrological system, whether western or eastern. I believe that there is only one mathematically correct sidereal zodiac with stars that define that zodiac.