Current Sign Ruler Influence On Transiting Moon Did Ancients use Tropical or Sidereal

[petosiris]

Actually, I slightly changed my opinion on this matter - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=105986#105986. They were actually proper siderealists, not pseudo-tropicalists.

Keeping the VP stationed at that degree and using a formula instead of just changing it, does favor the theory that many thought it was a trepidation and that it will return to it at some point. One of the ''ancients'' mentioned by Theon might have been Valens and Manilius as a result. There is no other way to explain this 8 VP confusion without this view. Everything falls into its place, once you think from the viewpoint of Theon's ''old astrologers'' and trepidation theorists.

Having a formula with an equinox is proper sidereal astrology, even if you do not realize precession is a one way trip. Every ayanamsa in India is calculated in this way, using an offset from a tropical zodiac, in fact some of their ancient astronomical books surprisingly? also contain trepidation theories.

 

[david starling]

It's the Traditional METHODS that count, not the setting of the Zodiacal-signs. A Tropical Traditionalist is just as "Traditional" as a Sidereal Traditionalist.

 

[petosiris]

It's the Traditional METHODS that count, not the setting of the Zodiacal-signs. A Tropical Traditionalist is just as "Traditional" as a Sidereal Traditionalist.

The problem comes when you try to apply those methods to the same chart always leads to drastically different results. This is especially true in traditional astrology where one placement can change everything.

So the statement by waybread of dropping ''affiliation with western tropical astrology of the past 2000 years to do that'' is largely true for the past 1500 years or so. This is so because they happened to coincide 1800 years ago.

 

[JUPITERASC]

It's the Traditional METHODS that count
not the setting of the Zodiacal-signs.
A Tropical Traditionalist is just as "Traditional" as a Sidereal Traditionalist.

The difference is that the so-called "Tropical Zodiac" was a mistaken innovation by Ptolemy
who was not a practising astrologer
unlike Valens


fact is
Ancient astrologers visually observed their local skies

but
"Tropical Zodiac" astrologers are eighteen hundred years too late
to visually observe the skies of the "Tropical Zodiac"
simply because
the skies described by the "Tropica Zodiac" no longer exist
and shall not return for another approximately twenty four thousand years or so

Obviously
the Equinoxes and Solstices as observed by Sidereal
reflect local skies as seen TODAY
and not local skies as seen by Ptolemy eighteen hundred years ago

the tradition amongst Tropical astrologes is to ignore precession
the Tradition amongst Sidereal astrologers is to factor in precession

and so as petosiris highlights with the following comment:

The problem comes when you try to apply those methods to the same chart
always leads to drastically different results. T
his is especially true in traditional astrology
where one placement can change everything.

So the statement by waybread of dropping
''affiliation with western tropical astrology of the past 2000 years to do that''
is largely true for the past 1500 years or so.
This is so because they happened to coincide 1800 years ago.

 

[david starling]

Tropical is a brilliant innovation.

 

[david starling]

Here's a question--Without the matchups of constellations and Tropical-Signs between about 200 B.C. and 400 A.D., would there still be the designations "Moveable" (Cardinal), Fixed, and "Common" (Mutable) in Sidereal Astrology? Seems like that's about the Sun's entrance into and movement through a Seasonal quadrant, unless there's another reason for it.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Tropical is a brilliant innovation.

Here's a question--
Without the matchups of constellations and Tropical-Signs between about 200 B.C. and 400 A.D.,
would there still be the designations "Moveable" (Cardinal), Fixed, and "Common" (Mutable) in Sidereal Astrology?
Seems like that's about the Sun's entrance into and movement through
a Seasonal quadrant, unless there's another reason for it.

as piercethevale remarked recently on another thread
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=868276#post868276

In the matter of the recession of the equinoxes
every age is a Cardinal Age
otherwise it wouldn't be the age of the Sign the equinox is found to be in.

 

[petosiris]

Here's a question--Without the matchups of constellations and Tropical-Signs between about 200 B.C. and 400 A.D., would there still be the designations "Moveable" (Cardinal), Fixed, and "Common" (Mutable) in Sidereal Astrology? Seems like that's about the Sun's entrance into and movement through a Seasonal quadrant, unless there's another reason for it.

Yes, I can explain those designations and I use them constantly when working with a sidereal zodiac, for example I do not know how one can establish the number of children, siblings and marriages without those qualifications.

Mutable signs were known as double-bodied in Hellenistic times. Those signs and constellations are Virgo (Maiden with Wings), Sagittarius (Archer and Horse), Pisces (Two Fishes), Gemini (Twins). No other constellation on the ecliptic is made of two parts (except Capricorn).

For the fixed and changeable - the Bull, the Lion, the Scorpion and the Water-Bearer are obviously slower images than the Ram, the Crab, the Scales and the Goat-Horned One, which are more active, but less effective.

It is interesting that although Capricorn is ruled by the slow Saturn, it is still changeable, that is - the sign nature (which in my opinion is decided by the constellations and asterisms) is more important in some cases.

They could also easily be related to the natures of the signs - i.e. the movement of the Crab and its connection to the Moon signifies travel according to Valens.

as piercethevale remarked recently on another thread
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=868276#post868276

Uh, I do not consider Pisces, a double-bodied sign a changeable because of the seasons. I consider Pisces to be double-bodied because of the image.

 

[david starling]

as piercethevale remarked recently on another thread
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=868276#post868276

Problem is, the Equinoxes don't correspond to the Sidereal modalities. So, in the context of SIDEREAL Ages, that statement makes no sense. The Vernal Point is an Age-marker Sidereally, and the modality of the Age depends on the Modality of the Sidereal sign it's in--unless one doesn't include Modality in Siderealism.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Problem is, the Equinoxes don't correspond to the Sidereal modalities. So, in the context of SIDEREAL Ages, that statement makes no sense. The Vernal Point is an Age-marker Sidereally, and the modality of the Age depends on the Modality of the Sidereal sign it's in--unless one doesn't include Modality in Siderealism.

piercethvale explained to you on that other thread as follows

No, you still don't quite understand.
I don't use the Signs anymore.
I only use them for place reference
as to where any particular degree symbol resides.

We could just as easily re designate the 360 symbols with just the numbers from 1 to 360 and 1 is always where the Sun is when the Spring Equinox happens and then lasts as long as it takes the Sun to move through 1/360th of the distance around the ecliptic... which is the same way that the Tropical Zodiac is accounted for. It's just for a matter of convenience and familiarity that I utilize Tropical Zodiac designations.

I was still citing some of the attributes of the Signs for a few years
when I joined the forum in 2007
but even by then I had no real belief in the accuracy of such
and I more or less displayed the use of them
so as not to alienate just about everyone in the forum...

I had a "message" to deliver, or an announcement if that suits you, and that was
the producing of that 2000 year old birth chart
and what it can teach us about astrology and theology as well>

...and then there's the matter of at the time of that 2000 year old chart
the two Zodiacs were pretty much aligned ...maybe fully?
So I do use Tropical when I interpret the natal horoscope of that chart
as it was also the Sidereal.

But my true Asc. is that of a Libran, my Sun is actually in Aries
my Moon in Capricorn, my M.C. and Pluto in Cancer, Mars in Taurus
Venus and Mercury Pisces, Saturn and Neptune Virgo, etc.

Scorpio also has an alleged higher symbolic form of that of an eagle
and is said to be the reason why so many Scorpio Asc. people, as like myself
and some of the Sun Sign Scorpios also have a countenance of an eagle.
An aquiline nose, protruding eyes, a piercing gaze.
I have it somewhat, the Scorpios in my family line
all have some indication of it that those of the other Signs don't.
I'm real good at picking out the Scorpios, the Tauruses, Cancers and Capricorns
and especially Virgos and Pisces... WHY?

If the Scorpios are said to be the Eagle when they elevate themselves
then why is this countenance showing up in those that are actually Libras?
That eagle symbolism goes pretty far back in Biblical times
I've always taken it to be understood that when the ancient lore mentions
the four symbols of a lion, a bull, an eagle
and an angel to be symbolic of Leo, Taurus, Scorpio and Aquarius
(symbolized as an angel "pouring down succor from the heavens").

Could it be that the amassed subconscious of society produces these physical attributes purely through the weight of the accumulated mass of pre-conditioned belief and expectation? I've been told by many an occult source that we create our own reality by our thoughts and I think some school of psychology goes along with that from what I've heard.

I've noted a number of times that an actress or model, singer, etc. that I found particularly attractive has a birth date the same day of the year as me or right before or after.

My mother told me that as a teenage she had a crush on Tyrone Power, the actor, and wished for a son just like him. Tyrone was born the same day of the year as me and has also a Scorpio Asc.

My father's favorite actor as a kid was Rudolph Valentino, admired the heck out of his screen presence (as He was an actor of the silent era) Rudolph was born the same day of the year, May 6th.

Go figure?

I was born exactly 9 months to the day, my mom told me... They didn't plan on the pregnancy, in fact they had only just recently met. I was a "love child" as used to be the term, a euphemism.
How can any of this be?

I haven't got an answer .... I don't even have a clue... can't even take a wild guess

 

[petosiris]

Yes, the quadruplicities, like the triplicities (the groupings, not the elements) come from Chaldean religions and mysticism, and they are in fact the Living Beings of Ezekiel and John. Also the Lamassu - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Lammasu.jpg/1024px-Lammasu.jpg

Here's a question--Without the matchups of constellations and Tropical-Signs between about 200 B.C. and 400 A.D., would there still be the designations "Moveable" (Cardinal), Fixed, and "Common" (Mutable) in Sidereal Astrology? Seems like that's about the Sun's entrance into and movement through a Seasonal quadrant, unless there's another reason for it.

Dorotheus on electional angles:
Tropical (which means related to turns and changes) or Changeable = many
Solid = one
Double-Bodied = two (this is where the modern term does not accurately convey the Hellenistic meaning)

Changeable and double-bodied often do not complete them, for example a marriage significator in a changeable sign may indicate many, but not serious or long-lasting affairs.

You can see why Solid signs were worshiped by the Babylonians. If you read Abu Ali Al Khayyat you will notice the Arabs too thought of them to be the most favorable signs (though I disagree with this point, Ptolemy and Hephaistio are right that changeable signs are better for trade for example).

Manilius and Ptolemy did ascribe those qualities to the Mediterranean seasons, but I think there are more related with the signs. Although the Sun has four turns, many nations have 2, 3 or more than 6 seasons for example, and why would a 21st century astrologer use seasonal terminology when he knows that weather is quite different around the world. I would understand if he was trying meteorological astrology, but in nativities?

 

[david starling]

Yes, the quadruplicities, like the triplicities (the groupings, not the elements) come from Chaldean religions and mysticism, and they are in fact the Living Beings of Ezekiel and John. Also the Lamassu - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Lammasu.jpg/1024px-Lammasu.jpg



Dorotheus on electional angles:
Tropical (which means related to turns and changes) or Changeable = many
Solid = one
Double-Bodied = two (this is where the modern term does not accurately convey the Hellenistic meaning)

Changeable and double-bodied often do not complete them, for example a marriage significator in a changeable sign may indicate many, but not serious or long-lasting affairs.

You can see why Solid signs were worshiped by the Babylonians. If you read Abu Ali Al Khayyat you will notice the Arabs too thought of them to be the most favorable signs (though I disagree with this point, Ptolemy and Hephaistio are right that changeable signs are better for trade for example).

Manilius and Ptolemy did ascribe those qualities to the Mediterranean seasons, but I think there are more related with the signs. Although the Sun has four turns, many nations have 2, 3 or more than 6 seasons for example, and why would a 21st century astrologer use seasonal terminology when he knows that weather is quite different around the world. I would understand if he was trying meteorological astrology, but in nativities?

I still don't see any logical reason for any particular Sidereal sign to be designated as one of the quadraplicities. Whereas, Tropical Astrology has a clearly logical reason, using the Earth's inclination to the Sun. There are 4 times, at the Equinoxes and the Soltisces, when the Earth is inclined exactly sideways, or exactly towards and away from the Sun, regardless of the weather in any particular place. The Ancient Babylonians used Helical risings, with a Zodiacal constellation presiding over a seasonal month once it was fully visible above the Eastern horizon just before dawn. Which means the 4 Fixed Signs presided over the middle period of each season around 2000 B.C. (when the Zodiacal imagery was first recorded) just as they do in Tropical coordinates. The Seasonal "Month of Directing the Oxen" was under the Constellation now known as Taurus, for example. Sidereal imagery DID result from climatic conditions in Babylonia and Egypt, and Tropical Astrology inherited that. But as far as why it makes sense to have 4 Tropical months divided into 3 parts each, that's about the Earth's inclination to the Sun.

 

[petosiris]

I still don't see any logical reason for any particular Sidereal sign to be designated as one of the quadraplicities. Whereas, Tropical Astrology has a clearly logical reason, using the Earth's inclination to the Sun. There are 4 times, at the Equinoxes and the Soltisces, when the Earth is inclined exactly sideways, or exactly towards and away from the Sun, regardless of the weather in any particular place. The Ancient Babylonians used Helical risings, with a Zodiacal constellation presiding over a seasonal month once it was fully visible above the Eastern horizon just before dawn. Which means the 4 Fixed Signs presided over the middle period of each season around 2000 B.C. (when the Zodiacal imagery was first recorded) just as they do in Tropical coordinates. The Seasonal "Month of Directing the Oxen" was under the Constellation now known as Taurus, for example. Sidereal imagery DID result from climatic conditions in Babylonia and Egypt, and Tropical Astrology inherited that. But as far as why it makes sense to have 4 Tropical months divided into 3 parts each, that's about the Earth's inclination to the Sun.

A heliacal rising does not concern a whole sign, mixing ecliptic and risings is a wrong approach, but the crude 15 ecliptic degrees of the Hellenists is approximate to give you an idea.

The 4 Fixed Signs would preside over the beginning of the seasons around 2000 B.C., just as today they preside between the seasons (as I said if by season we mean only equinox and solstices). The difference is I have the signs and constellations at the same place those Babylonians and Egyptians had it.

 

[david starling]

The 4 Fixed Signs would preside over the beginning of the seasons around 2000 B.C., just as today they preside between the seasons (as I said if by season we mean only equinox and solstices). The difference is I have the signs and constellations at the same place those Babylonians and Egyptians had it.

Since they used Heliacal reckoning, the 4 Fixed Signs presided over the MIDDLE of each Season. 2000 years later, due to precession, they once again aligned with the middle of each Tropical season, as the images attached to the Constellations will continue to do in Tropical Astrology. In Heliacal reckoning, the Sun has passed through a constellation. In Tropical, it's just entering a constellation. That's where the 30 degree differential applied, due to Precession.

 

[petosiris]

''Without the matchups of constellations and Tropical-Signs between about 200 B.C. and 400 A.D.,
would there still be the designations "Moveable" (Cardinal), Fixed, and "Common" (Mutable) in Sidereal Astrology?''

You asked for logic and arguments for sidereal quadruplicities, used by the few traditional western sidereal astrologers as well as by Indian astrologers. Sorry, but I can't accept your theory, unless I am using those designations with acronycal risings?

 

[david starling]

''Without the matchups of constellations and Tropical-Signs between about 200 B.C. and 400 A.D.,
would there still be the designations "Moveable" (Cardinal), Fixed, and "Common" (Mutable) in Sidereal Astrology?''

You asked for logic and arguments for sidereal quadruplicities, used by the few traditional western sidereal astrologers as well as by Indian astrologers. Sorry, but I can't accept your theory, unless I am using those designations with acronycal risings?

You cited mysticism as the reason. The Greek version of Heliacal as 15 degrees is unreliable. Makes perfect sense for the Ancient Babylonians to have waited for a constellation to FULLY emerge from the Underworld at the start of each seasonal month. Another example, the Ram fully visible at the beginning of the first month of Spring, known as the "Month of Sacrifice". And, the Overflowing Basin (now known as Aquarius), fully visible at the beginning of the 2nd month of Winter, known as "the Month of Rain". 2000 years later, those same matchups were temporarily achieved by switching to Tropical Astrology, whereby the the Sun was entering the constellation just BELOW the Eastern horizon at dawn.

 

[petosiris]

You cited mysticism as the reason. The Greek version of Heliacal as 15 degrees is unreliable. Makes perfect sense for the Ancient Babylonians to have waited for a constellation to FULLY emerge from the Underworld at the start of each seasonal month. Another example, the Ram fully visible at the beginning of the first month of Spring, known as the "Month of Sacrifice". And, the Overflowing Basin (now known as Aquarius), fully visible at the beginning of the 2nd month of Winter, known as "the Month of Rain". 2000 years later, those same matchups were temporarily achieved by switching to Tropical Astrology, whereby the the Sun was entering the constellation just BELOW the Eastern horizon at dawn.

I agree with you that the Hellenistic rising range is unreliable, but you were talking of signs making a helical rising which is even more unreliable, just my opinion though. Do you happen to have a scholarly evidence for this matter. I cited a few reasons. Chaldean mysticism was an argument from history that such a particular grouping exists from long ago.

The strongest argument is the imagery and conceptual part itself. Double-bodied images being of well, two parts is undeniable. The second strongest argument is the linguistic and historical one.

The Hellenists used the term bicorporeal/δίσομος which really makes zero sense when applied to a month=sign as done in tropical. I do not see how you can say that a month or season has two bodies.

Even the word they used for cardinal which is related to turn/change/τροπικός can't be applied to Aries and Libra, because they are not related to turning, but just indicate the equinox.

This is even acknowledged by Ptolemy who acknowledges !four groupings! because of his bizarre schemes - ''The first distinctions, then, are of the so‑called solstitial, equinoctial, solid, and bicorporeal signs.'' - Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, 1,11

The tropical zodiac played little, if no part in establishing the quadruplicities as you can see.

 

[david starling]

I agree with you that the Hellenistic rising range is unreliable, but you were talking of signs making a helical rising which is even more unreliable, just my opinion though. Do you happen to have a scholarly evidence for this matter. I cited a few reasons. Chaldean mysticism was an argument from history that such a particular grouping exists from long ago.

The strongest argument is the imagery and conceptual part itself. Double-bodied images being of well, two parts is undeniable. The second strongest argument is the linguistic and historical one.

The Hellenists used the term bicorporeal/δίσομος which really makes zero sense when applied to a month=sign as done in tropical. I do not see how you can say that a month or season has two bodies.

Even the word they used for cardinal which is related to turn/change/τροπικός can't be applied to Aries and Libra, because they are not related to turning, but just indicate the equinox.

This is even acknowledged by Ptolemy who acknowledges !four groupings! because of his bizarre schemes - ''The first distinctions, then, are of the so‑called solstitial, equinoctial, solid, and bicorporeal signs.'' - Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, 1,11

The tropical zodiac played little, if no part in establishing the quadruplicities as you can see.

Visible constellations becoming fully visible at the beginning of a seasonal month makes perfect sense. They had a solar-lunar calendar for both mundane and religious activities, and the Constellational imagery fits some seasonal months quite well. Lions on the banks of the Nile in the middle of Summer matches the image for the Constellation Leo, and Scorpions swarm the banks in mid-Fall. Notice the claws of the Scorpion had to be used for Libra, in order to have one constellation for each seasonal month.
My point is, Tropical Astrology CAN be justified as a viable Zodiac by looking at the historical record, including the imagery (which is less important than the Elements and Modalities [IMO]). The Tropical Signs are areas of the sky that correspond to Earth's inclination to the star it orbits. In that context, there's no need for the more distant star-clusters to occupy the Signs of the same historical names. You're right about "Tropical" referring specifically to the Soltisces, but it can be taken to include the Seasons themselves. Just as "Precession of the Equinox" applies to all four seasonally-measured points. One thing I'm pleased about, since I consider the Tropical Signs to be numbered, beginning with Aries as the 1st Sign, and use basic numerology in that regard, is that the Persian Zoroastrians used the beginning of Spring at the Vernal Equinox as the beginning of the New Year.

 

[petosiris]

Some go by numerology, others by astrology.

 

[david starling]

Some go by numerology, others by astrology.

They're not mutually exclusive.