Astonomical Astrology

[hcamelion]

Hi everyone,

I have a question that has been weighing on my mind for a few years. I am very interested in the precession of the equinox and its effect on the world. I am also very interested in the history of astrology and how its practice has changed from century to century and culture to culture.

Here are my talking points:

The idea that ancients studied astrology at the same celestial accuracy of astronomy and after the Aries age the accuracy was lost because the precession of the equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes) was no longer taken into account.

I know western astrology uses the tropical zodiac beginning with the sign of Aries at the Northern hemisphere Vernal Equinox always on or around March 21 of each year but maybe ancients would use the current Astrological age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age) as the marker. The current Astrological age being the actual sign in at the Equinox.

I have not done any charting or research to see if western astrology can be said to be "frozen" in the Aries age but would be interested in anyone's thoughts on this if you know how to determine this.

I have also heard that it was the Babylonians that removed the 13th sign of Ophiuchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus) and made the signs equidistant apart to dumb down astrology for the main stream. Maybe at some time the precession was no longer calculated also. I have heard that nostradamus practiced astrology that included the 13th sign "The Serpent Holder" as well.

I am inclined to think that it is possible some culture or group in the past used the true sign at the equinox and may have even used the actual lengths of the signs, which vary from seven days for Scorpius to forty-five days for Virgo, instead of the 12 fixed lengths. Even more It seems to make sense that they would also include the 13th sign. It is common historical knowledge that astronomy and astrology was once the same thing. Even if it never was practiced this way would it not make sense to practice astrology like this in a modern world? It seems Astrology should keep up with other bodies of knowledge and reinvent itself like all other disciplines do when breakthroughs are made. For example it has done this in the past when a new heavenly body was found but it did not seem to happen when precession was determined or when astronomy became much more accurate.

I am under the impression that Vedic astrology comes the closest to taking into account the actual positions of the stars but they don't use Ophiuchus, and use Aries as the first Zodiac Sign and used fixed points instead of the actual lengths of the Zodiac.

So if Astrology was practiced closer to actual astronomy:
What would this practice of astrology look like?
How would it be different and what would not change?
How would a chart be different?
What meaning would be assigned to Ophiuchus?

I am also extremely interested in Dr. Shepherd Simpon's work....it is a shame geocities took down all his stuff but it still exists at reocities and archive.org:
www.reocities.com/astrologyreference/index.htm (http://www.reocities.com/astrologyreference/index.htm)

Also can anyone recommend some academic level books about the history of astrology?

Well that's it in a nut shell...any comments, collaborators and open minds welcome.

[starlink]

Hcamelion, I moved your thread to Natal Astrology as your post is probably too advanced for beginners:). I could have moved it to General Chat as well maybe. Let me know if you would like that better.

Starlink

[hcamelion]

Thanks, :happy: feel free to move it wherever you feel I will get the best response.

[Culpeper]

There are books on the history of astrology. Some come to mind:

A History of Horoscopic Astrology by James Herschel Holden, AFA.

A History of Western Astrology by Nicholas Campion, Continuum.

The Fated Sky by Benson Bobrick, Simon and Schuster.

There are a number of threads on this forum covering the subject of the constellation Orphiucus. You can find them using the search feature. I could add links but it would take time.

Astrologers now use the most accurate mathematics available to produce charts. And it is all programable and the computer has become the tool of choice for casting charts. As a result there may be astrologers who never take a sum.

The ancients were aware of the precession of the Zodiac. However, it has been known since the classical era that the simplest solution to a problem is the most effective. Connecting the Zodiac to the seasons on Earth rather than the fixed stars made for simpler mathematics. The Signs and the constellations are not the same thing.

Why not have a sign for every constellation? The maths more complicated. If you divide 360 by 13 the result is 27.6923... a never ending fraction. 360 by 12 = 30 a far more attractive result especially with the methods of the day. There is no historical evidence that there were ever 13 signs although the Babylonians may have used 16 at one time.

Modern astronomy and astrology are entirely different paradigms. Those who follow different paradigms inhabit different worlds. They are incommensurable. See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Is there some reason to reinvent astrology? It works very well as it has come down to us. You have heard the expression "If it works don't fix it." Nevertheless, books are written all the time that attempt to do just this. Usually I have found that they obey Sturgeon's Law: They are 90% "junk". But sometimes an effective method can be found in them.