The sidereal zodiac

Hi. I'm trying to find some background on the sidereal zodiac. I wonder if anyone could please answer any of these questions.

Where exactly is the first point of tropical Aries in the sidereal sign system that is used by most sidereal astrologers? Is this the same system that was used by the Persian astrologers from around the 5th century BCE?

Do any astrologers use sidereal signs that are defined by the first point of sidereal Aries that was defined by the astronomers about 80 years ago?

Are there any other definitions of the first point of sidereal Aries?

Finally, does anyone know anything about the first use of the tropical zodiac by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE?

Many thanks. Best wishes,

miquar said:

Where exactly is the first point of tropical Aries in the sidereal sign system that is used by most sidereal astrologers?

Click to expand...

About 24 Aries, roughly. Exactly? Depends who you ask.

Lahiri ayanamsa is 'the standard'.

Are there any other definitions of the first point of sidereal Aries?

Click to expand...

There are lots of different ayanamsa theories, and ayanamsas in use by various astrologers, many of them are slightly different variations on Lahiri. Most of the ones I've looked at put Spica within a few degrees of the beginning of (sidereal) Libra.

Finally, does anyone know anything about the first use of the tropical zodiac by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE?

Click to expand...

In those days, there would have been less difference between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs.

miquar said:

Hi. I'm trying to find some background on the sidereal zodiac. I wonder if anyone could please answer any of these questions.

Where exactly is the first point of tropical Aries in the sidereal sign system that is used by most sidereal astrologers? Is this the same system that was used by the Persian astrologers from around the 5th century BCE?

Do any astrologers use sidereal signs that are defined by the first point of sidereal Aries that was defined by the astronomers about 80 years ago?

Are there any other definitions of the first point of sidereal Aries?

Finally, does anyone know anything about the first use of the tropical zodiac by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE?

Many thanks. Best wishes,

Click to expand...

Hi Miquar in response to your pm there's a discussion from a year ago that may be of use to you on which I posted the following comments

JUPITERASC said:

I refer you to "History of the Zodiac," by Dr Robert Powell

“History of the Zodiac” originally a 2004 Ph.D. thesis now in book form is an in-depth exploration of the origins of the Babylonian Zodiac and its location in the ecliptic: the book reveals that

the division of the ecliptic into tropical astrological signs was originally a derivation of Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.); "...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." (Dr. Robert Powell 2007)


The key point being that:

(1) the signs of the original sidereal zodiac, each thirty degrees long, coincide closely with the twelve astronomical constellations of the same name,

(2) whereas the signs of the tropical zodiac, since they are defined in relation to the vernal point, now have no direct relationship to the corresponding zodiacal constellations, owing to the precession of the equinoxes.


In other words, the so-called, allegedly 'Fixed Unmoving Aries Point of the Tropical “Zodiac''' is a mathematical abstraction, merely a convenient artificial construct arbitrarily used as an intended anchor designed to nullify the obvious inconsistencies of the precessing/regressing/drifting Vernal Point. 0º Aries is a hypothetical anchor descriptive of the moment when - due to the tilt of Earth's axis in relation to Earth's orbit of the Sun - the Sun appears to cross the Equator at the Vernal Equinox which is directly opposite another Equinox point when the Sun also appears to cross the Equator




At the time of Claudius Ptolomaeus, Valens, Hipparchus et al the clearly precessing/regressing /drifting of the Vernal Point in relation to the background of stars was an inconvenient truth that could not have been mentioned even if anyone had noticed it because the powerful prevailing religious view implacably imposed the view that the Earth is stationary in space, being orbited by the Sun and seven visible planets. Under no circumstances could any astronomer/astrologer of that time challenge the religious/political Old Testament/Biblical status quo by declaring that due to Earth's axial tilt combined with Earth's 'wobble' as Earth orbits the Sun, from a Geocentric perspective, we experience a phenomenon known as precession.


The device currently described as 'The Tropical Zodiac' was originally used by astronomers as a calendar (and not 'a Tropical zodiac') from which the first day of Spring (or Vernal Equinox) was inferred - the twelve 30º demarcations of which thereafter were intended as simply demarcations of the twelve months of the year (and not intended to be construed as 'star signs of The Tropical zodiac').


Robert A Powell has explained these facts thoroughly in "History of the Zodiac" If you disagree then perhaps you would care to debate the issue with Robert A Powell, a well-respected mathematician, astronomer and astrologer more than well qualified to have thoroughly researched and then written the book "History of the
Zodiac"

bio: Robert A. Powell born Reading, England,1947 graduated in mathematics at Sussex university 1968, and awarded a Master's degree in statistics there 1969. 1969 to 1976 he lectured in mathematics & statistics in the Department of Computing and Cybernetics at Brighton Polytechnic. 1971 he was elected Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. From its inception in 1971 he was a tutor in mathematics for the Open University, until 1974. He left Brighton Polytechnic in 1976 in order to complete his research on the history of the zodiac & during 1976-77 Robert A. Powell was visiting lecturer in astronomy and the history of astronomy at Emerson College, England and also researched astronomical chronology at the Mathematisch- Physikalisches Institut, Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland

link to diagram illustrating declination of Sun in relation to Earth http://susdesign.com/popups/sunangle/declination.php

link to written elucidation of meaning of 'declination of the Sun' http://planetfacts.org/declination-of-the-sun/

Click to expand...

Thanks Moog and Jupiterasc. So the first point of Aries on the tropical zodiac is at at 6 degrees Pisces on the most commonly used sidereal zodiac, if I'm following this properly. So using that sidereal start point, the sidereal and tropical zodiacs would have coincided around 290 CE.

I wasn't aware that Ptolemy wasn't the first to use the tropical zodiac as a calendar. But the precession of the Equinoxes was well documented centuries before Ptolemy came along, so does this mean that the astrologer/astronomers of Ptolemy's day had other ideas of why precession occurred?

What I'm especially interested in is when the tropical zodiac was first used in astrological interpetation. Did Ptolemy do this as well as using it as a calendar? I suppose that if one used a sidereal zodiac which started around 2 degrees later than the Lahiri one, then it would have coincided with the tropical zodiac during Ptolemy's time. But the precession of the cardinal points against the fixed stars was known to Ptolemy, whatever explanation he gave to it, and so if anyone were to use a tropical zodiac at that time, they would be aware that it was not the same as the sidereal zodiac. So whenever the tropical zodiac came into use as an interpretive framework, this must have marked a move away from sidereal astrology to some extent by those involved.

Also, is the Lahiri sidereal zodiac the one which the Ancient Persians used?

miquar said:

Thanks Moog and Jupiterasc. So the first point of Aries on the tropical zodiac is at at 6 degrees Pisces on the most commonly used sidereal zodiac, if I'm following this properly. So using that sidereal start point, the sidereal and tropical zodiacs would have coincided around 290 CE.

I wasn't aware that Ptolemy wasn't the first to use the tropical zodiac as a calendar. But the precession of the Equinoxes was well documented centuries before Ptolemy came along, so does this mean that the astrologer/astronomers of Ptolemy's day had other ideas of why precession occurred?

What I'm especially interested in is when the tropical zodiac was first used in astrological interpetation. Did Ptolemy do this as well as using it as a calendar? I suppose that if one used a sidereal zodiac which started around 2 degrees later than the Lahiri one, then it would have coincided with the tropical zodiac during Ptolemy's time. But the precession of the cardinal points against the fixed stars was known to Ptolemy, whatever explanation he gave to it, and so if anyone were to use a tropical zodiac at that time, they would be aware that it was not the same as the sidereal zodiac. So whenever the tropical zodiac came into use as an interpretive framework, this must have marked a move away from sidereal astrology to some extent by those involved.

Also, is the Lahiri sidereal zodiac the one which the Ancient Persians used?

Click to expand...

This issue has been previously discussed as follows

JUPITERASC said:

The crossing of the Ecliptic by the Celestial Equator occurs twice a year at two points directly in opposition to each other – these two points demarcate the Spring Equinox and/or Vernal Point and the Autumnal Equinox and/or Autumnal Point - (Unfortunately, when our Sun is at these points we must not look at it – in fact we must never look directly at the Sun)

Approximately two thousand years ago (or thereabouts) one of these two points was indeed 0 º Aries.

That point is or was the Vernal Point
however - since then - because
(a) Earth orbits the Sun
(b) Earth is tilted on its own axis

the result is
- no matter how 'distinct exact mathematical and actual' the crossing of the great circle of the Ecliptic by the great circle of the celestial Equator may be –

(c) that event no longer takes place at 0º Aries or thereabouts as it once did over two thousand years ago approximately or thereabouts.

instead
(d) the crossing of the Ecliptic by the celestial Equator currently occurs at approximately 6 º Pisces (exactly 5º Pisces 05' 31” September 2011)

Nevertheless Tropical astrologers continue to describe this point as 0 º Aries.

The error originates from the controlling Religious/Political view of approximately two thousand years ago or thereabouts that insisted that the Sun orbits Earth and is presumably not tilted on its axis.

Historical note
Hipparchus (190 BC – 120 BC) had compiled a catalogue of 850 stars and then decided to compare his catalogue of stars with the star catalogues of two earlier observers Timocharis and Aristillus detailing observations covering the previous 150 years. Timocharis and Aristillus had created their own different methods of keeping track of the sky: Hipparchus realized that in order to compare data and/or discuss observations with others - as well as pass accurate observations to later generations - there was a need for a common or conventional map of the sky.

The most fundamental point on a map is the “Origin” – the (0) location.

Hipparchus selected the Vernal Equinox as the Origin for his map of the sky and fixed it at 0º Aries even though he did observe and also recorded that the Vernal Equinox was drifting very slowly westward (being at the time of Hipparchus at approximately 12 º Aries or thereabouts)

Hipparchus noticed as well that all the stars seemed to continually change their places with reference to his Origin (0) point – the Vernal Equinox - but he offered no written explanation. Hipparchus and others undoubtedly conjectured that an explanation was that our Earth must have moved - but all refrained from mentioning that officially - for fear of the old testament-style biblical organized religion retribution which, almost two thousand years ago - would have punished them for challenging the Status Quo .

Robert A Powell's book “History of the Zodiac” contains the information that an agricultural calendar of seasons based on the Vernal Point and developed at Athens by the astronomers Meton and Euctemon was gradually merged over the centuries with Hipparchus astrologically orientated map of the sky which had also based itself on the Vernal Point As time passed, the original calendar months merged with and/or were replaced by the twelve signs of the zodiac.

Unfortunately however, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the Vernal Equinox (aka 0º Aries aka The Vernal Point aka The Aries Point) has drifted westwards and is now (September 2011) located precisely at exactly 5º Pisces 05' 31” .


These are the origins of 'The Tropical Zodiac' of modern astrology i.e. Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.); "...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." (Dr. Robert Powell 2007)

Click to expand...

If we look at certain books by Charles Carter (Essays on the Foundations of Astrology, The Zodiac and the Soul) we find a strong argument that the signs were never derived from the constellations, but rather from Pythagorean symbolism, and the names of the starry constellations corresponding at the time were attributed to them. In Manilius (long before Ptolemy) we find a mixture of sign and constellation; then Ptolemy applied the signs to the seasons in an attempt to "objectively justify" the tropical signs: I comnpletely follow the concepts enunciated in Carter (and also by Robert Zoller, David Rouell and others) and I consider that the signs really do not (and did not) originate from the zodiacal constellations, but rather from the division of the circle of the sky FROM THE EARTH, in accordance with esoteric and symbolic considerations. I do, however, also consider the sidereal constellations important modifying factors: I consider (as do the authors just mentioned) the signs to be of the Earth, and the constellations as "raying in influences" from space (as the planets are as well)

dr. farr said:

If we look at certain books by Charles Carter (Essays on the Foundations of Astrology, The Zodiac and the Soul) we find a strong argument that the signs were never derived from the constellations, but rather from Pythagorean symbolism, and the names of the starry constellations corresponding at the time were attributed to them. In Manilius (long before Ptolemy) we find a mixture of sign and constellation; then Ptolemy applied the signs to the seasons in an attempt to "objectively justify" the tropical signs: I comnpletely follow the concepts enunciated in Carter (and also by Robert Zoller, David Rouell and others) and I consider that the signs really do not (and did not) originate from the zodiacal constellations, but rather from the division of the circle of the sky FROM THE EARTH, in accordance with esoteric and symbolic considerations. I do, however, also consider the sidereal constellations important modifying factors: I consider (as do the authors just mentioned) the signs to be of the Earth, and the constellations as "raying in influences" from space (as the planets are as well)

Click to expand...

JMO my own personal observations indicate that:

Sidereal astrology divides the natal chart into twelve segments that have twelve basic symbolic meanings

Tropical astrology divides the natal chart into twelve segments that have twelve basic symbolic meanings


When calculating the Vernal Point Sidereal astrology ACCOUNTS FOR the precession of the Equinoxes

When calculating the Vernal Point Tropical astrology IGNORES the precession of the Equinoxes


The result is:

...when the Sun crosses the Vernal Point a sidereal astrologer LINKS that event with the background groups of stars known as constellations BUT a tropical astrologer totally SEPARATES that event from the background groups of stars known as constellations.


Interestingly, the very word 'astrologer' is from the early Latin word astrologia, deriving from the Greek noun ἀστρολογία, 'account of the stars'. Astrologia later passed into meaning 'star-divination' with astronomia used for the scientific term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology


THEREFORE ORIGINALLY 'ASTROLOGIA' ἀστρολογία, meant the 'account of the stars' AND furthermore, 'astrology' in the public mind is associated with 'the stars' of the 'astrological zodiac'. When people 'read their stars' in the 'Sun sign columns of newspapers' their impression is that the 'Sun' and 'the stars' referred to in their daily newspapers/magazines are the Sun that is visible from planet earth during the day and the stars that are visible from planet earth at night.


Sidereal astrology notes the orbits of the planets in relation to the Sun AND takes into account Earth's relation to the Sun AS WELL AS BEING connected to the background of stars known as constellations BECAUSE when the Sun crosses the Vernal Point a sidereal astrologer links that event with the background groups of stars known as constellations

Tropical astrology natal charts are centred solely on Earth's relation to the Sun AND THEREFORE also the orbits of the planets in relation to the sun are noted BUT the Sun and planets are totally divorced from the background groups of of stars known as constellations BECAUSE PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOXES IS IGNORED which is why JMO it is nonsensical to 'precess a Tropical natal chart'

SO THEREFORE

when a Tropical astrology chart shows any one of the seven visible planets as 'being in' for example 'the Sign of Aries' UP TO APPROXIMATELY 24º ARIES, then a Sidereal astrology chart shows that same visible planet (BECAUSE SIDEREAL ASTROLOGY ACCOUNTS FOR THE PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOXES) as 'being in' 'the Sign of Pisces'

THAT'S BECAUSE

The difference between 'Tropical Zodiac' and 'Sidereal Zodiac' locations is approximately 24º

AND THAT ALSO THEN MEANS

that SOMETIMES e.g. when any one of the seven visible planets is at e.g. between 25º Aries and 29º Aries then that planet 'is in the Sign Aries' BOTH SIDEREALLY AND TROPICALLY.

Thus planets of any natal chart COULD 'be in the same sign' BOTH Tropically AND Sidereally BUT NOT AT THE SAME DEGREE OF THAT SIGN


SO the 24º difference caused when precession is taken into account may be applied for example to the current location of transiting Saturn:

If at night time on any day in 2013 when Saturn is clearly visible in the night sky any astronomer or astrologer observing Saturn would notice that the group of stars identified as the constellation of Libra is clearly visible in the background and Sidereal natal charts of anyone being born in 2013 would show Saturn as 'being in the astrological Sign of Libra' BUT TROPICAL ASTROLOGY CHARTS OF ANYONE BEING BORN IN 2013 SHALL SHOW SATURN AS 'BEING IN THE ASTROLOGICAL SIGN OF SCORPIO'


98 word quote

“....Oldest catalogues of stars and constellations are from Old Babylonian astronomy, Middle Bronze Age. Numerous Sumerian names in these catalogues suggest they build on older, but otherwise unattested, Sumerian traditions of Early Bronze Age. Classical Zodiac is a product of revision of Old Babylonian system in later Neo-Babylonian astronomy 6th century BC. Knowledge of Neo-Babylonian zodiac is reflected in Hebrew Bible. E. W. Bullinger interpreted creatures in Ezekiel (and thence in Revelation) as middle signs of the four quarters of the Zodiac, with Lion as Leo, Bull is Taurus, the Man representing Aquarius and the Eagle representing Scorpio...” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation


“....The Greeks adopted the Babylonian system in the 4th century BC. A total of twenty Ptolemaic constellations are directly continued from the Ancient Near East. Another ten have the same stars but different names....”


“....There is only limited information on indigenous Greek constellations. Some evidence is found in Hesiod. Greek astronomy essentially adopted the older Babylonian system in the Hellenistic era, first introduced to Greece by Eudoxus of Cnidus in the 4th century BC. The original work of Eudoxus is lost, but it survives as a versification by Aratus, dating to the 3rd century BC. The most complete existing works dealing with the mythical origins of the constellations are by the Hellenistic writer termed pseudo-Eratosthenes and an early Roman writer styled pseudo-Hyginus...”

dr. farr said:

In Manilius (long before Ptolemy) we find a mixture of sign and constellation; then Ptolemy applied the signs to the seasons in an attempt to "objectively justify" the tropical signs.

Click to expand...

Thanks dr. farr. Please could you say a little more about this. Was Manilius using sidereal or tropical signs, or both? Do you know who was first to use tropical signs in astrological interpretation?

Thanks again Jupiterasc. I've run out of Thank you's even though I've only used one today. Seems like there's a lot of history there. I'll get the book by Powell. I'm clear about the geometry of the celestial sphere, the inclination of Equatorial plane to the plane of the Ecliptic, and the nutation of the Earth's axis of rotation and precession and all of that stuff. I'm mainly trying to understand when the tropical zodiac came into being and how it emerged from sidereal practise.

miquar said:

Thanks again Jupiterasc. I've run out of Thank you's even though I've only used one today. Seems like there's a lot of history there. I'll get the book by Powell. I'm clear about the geometry of the celestial sphere, the inclination of Equatorial plane to the plane of the Ecliptic, and the nutation of the Earth's axis of rotation and precession and all of that stuff. I'm mainly trying to understand when the tropical zodiac came into being and how it emerged from sidereal practise.

Click to expand...

QUOTE:

"...The tropical zodiac is, of course, an imaginary device, which no longer tallies with the visible constellations.

The use of the word 'sign' derives from the use of the zodiacal constellations as signals for forthcoming weather conditions or agricultural events....

whilst the name Zodiac is of Greek origin, meaning 'circle of animals'; the circle extending 8-9° either side of the ecliptic and containing the orbits of all the visible planets..." source: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/zodiachistory.html


"...The word Zodiac is derived from the Greek work zoidiakos, meaning 'little animal sign'. In Latin, this became zodiacus. Ancient star gazers imagined outlines of stars forming constellations (stars grouped together with each other). They divided the ecliptic (Earth's orbit around the Sun) into 12 zodiacal signs. This made their job of noting positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets easier by giving them reference points of measure: the stars..."

ROBERT POWELL "HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC" is available on amazon http://www.amazon.com/History-Zodiac-Robert-Powell/dp/1597311529 and currently ebay

Manilius at times seems to use and reference signs and at other times to use the constellations (but not only the 12 zodiacal ones) and is never really clear about this matter; by the time of Valens, however, it does seem that signs were the basis of the Hellenistic approach, and of course after Ptolemy the Hellenists definitely used only the signs (tropical zodiac) as their fundamental matrix.

Note however that the Chinese Zodiac (of animals, dating from the first 2 centuries BC) is based on divisions of the equator and not on constellations (although of course the Chinese system makes much use of various constellations and stars in its various methodologies) Same with Tibetan astrology.

Further, we do know that the ancient Egyptian 36 decans-system was NOT based on constellations, but rather on 10 degree divisions of the equator (they and the Babylonians and Sumerians used the EQUATOR, not the ecliptic); and the Babylonians used fixed 5 degree divisions of the equator (called "facets") which were not connected with constellations or stars (in these divisions of space by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians we see a kind of prototype of the non-constellational division of the ecliptic into signs, by the Hellenists) However, ancient Egyptian and Sumero-Babylonian astrology ALSO used constellational-based considerations, and the Chinese/Tibetans and ancient Egyptians also used star/asterism based Lunar mansions: when the Egyptians used their 36 decans, or the Babylonians their 72 facets, these "signs" did not "move"-they were fixed areas just like the (larger degree-wise) signs of the later Western tropical zodiac (and the Chinese and Tibetan "animal zodiac"); however, when the Egyptians, Babylonians (and Chinese and Tibetans) used their constellational zodiacs (including their Lunar mansions), these did move (just as the sidereal zodiac moves), so it is clear that these astrological systems were not simply one or the other (symbolic/divisional-like the tropical, vs sidereal-constellational) but rather used BOTH considerations, in the practice of their complete astrological models...

Addenda: the ayanamsa issue is by no means a settled one: while Lahiri is generally accepted in Vedic astrology, and Fagan-Bradley in Western sidereal, there are at least 2 other major ayanamsa in competition in the Vedic world: the KP ayanamsa and the Raman variation; furthermore, since the early 20th century various astrological authors (Vedic and Western) have researched the issue of precessional time vis a vis the zodiacal constellations, and have each come-up with various ayanamsas, in a few cases every bit as well researched as those of Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley. Perhaps the most ancient, and unknown, ayanamsa is the one I learned of from Jaimini adepts, using Alcyone as a time-marker in calculating the ayanamsa: currently this subtracts slightly over 30 degrees from all horoscope points to align with the zodiacal constellations (and the Lunar asterisms, ie, nakshatras), and in my own experiments I have found this ayanamsa to yield more accurate sidereal-delineative results than either the Lahiri or Fagan-Bradley ayanamsas (the Alcyone ayanamsa calculation is: X year AD plus 144 X 50.24 divided by 3600)

Hi. Thanks again for all the information dr. farr. I'll be doing some reading having just bought Powell's History Of The Zodiac. If you've read this book, I'd be interested to know if you think there are any biases or important omissions in it, in your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, too.

Thanks again to everyone who has posted on this thread.

I got hold of the Powell book today. Pretty heavy going, so I skipped to the part where he discusses the use of the tropical zodiac in astrology. I've been looking for synchronicity around the 'birth' of the astrological tropical zodiac, and there does seem to be some. If I understand it properly, the tropical calendar had already been used for centuries as a way of marking time and charting the seasons when Ptolemy projected this spatially to split the ecliptic into the tropical zodiac that we know today. Apparently there is no evidence of Ptolemy casting charts, and sidereal astrology continued to overwhelmingly dominate horoscope casting until the demise of astrology in around 500 CE. Evidence has been found that by 530 CE Arabic astrologers had begun to cast charts, and they were using a translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios from Greek into Arabic, and it is suggested by Powell that the Arabic astrologers (and the astrologers of Christian Europe who brought astrology back to Europe from around 1140 CE) didn't even know that there had ever been a sidereal zodiac!

What fascinates me is that when Ptolemy effectively conceived the tropical zodiac, the Babylonian sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac were within one degree of alignment. My own view is that this gives validation of both zodiacs. I'm still pondering the meaning of the transition though, and the fact that the sidereal zodiac took hold in the East while the tropical zodiac eventually came to prominence in the West.

miquar said:

.... If I understand it properly, the tropical calendar had already been used for centuries as a way of marking time and charting the seasons when Ptolemy projected this spatially to split the ecliptic into the tropical zodiac that we know today.

Click to expand...

Correct

miquar said:

Apparently there is no evidence of Ptolemy casting charts....

Click to expand...

Correct. That is the crucial difference between the two approximate contemporaries, Ptolemy and Valens

Professor Riley:

"....Vettius Valens work 'Anthologiae' is

(1)the longest extant astrological work from antiquity and
(2)unique in several respects:
(3) the author was a practicing astrologer
(4) the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work....."


Historians have found Valens horoscopes invaluable for the verification of dates of historical events e.g. births and deaths of important people whose horoscopes Valens cast.

whereas Ptolemy, was a mathematician/astronomer and NOT a practicing astrologer - therefore Ptolemy had a different rationale or perspective to that of Valens.

Valens faithfully chronicled the techniques of astrologers who preceded him by several hundreds of years THEN Valens illustrated those techniques with the use of natal charts from his own practice.

Valens perspective being that of a practicing astrologer meant that Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact for the benefit of future astrologers. Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled


Ptolemy built on the work of Apollonius of Perga, who lived approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy and who developed a form of geometric particular methods within the geometrical practice, that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on - that Ptolemy then applied to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion - but incorrectly - because the planets DO NOT move with uniform circular motion in circles!!

link to webpage illustrating Ptolemy's incorrect, yet mathematically appealing, idea of the universe http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...aristotle.html


Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time, instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus, another great astronomer - Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus

And it was Hipparchus who, a century after Apollonius, began applying the Apollonian geometry in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.

Hipparchus took the first steps in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry fit the appearances of the heavens - particularly in relation to the moon and the sun - by developing those moving circles as a technique for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens

Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga

Albert Timashev while writing an article entitled "Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years" has this to say of Ptolemy:

"Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all. Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en


Ptolemy was a mathematical theorist who 'improved on' the ideas of his astrological predecessors...

Ptolemy altered techniques according to personal prejudice/whim even though he was not an astrologer and ironically those personal prejudices/whims then dominated astrology for approximately 1500 years!!

on which Ptolemy based "The Ptolemaic Universe"

miquar said:

...What fascinates me is that when Ptolemy effectively conceived the tropical zodiac, the Babylonian sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac were within one degree of alignment

Click to expand...

Thanks Jupiterasc. So I'm assuming that Valens used the sidereal zodiac.

Is there a simple time-line anywhere that shows how the lead up to the use of the twelve sidereal signs? I'm especially interested how the number twelve came to be used. Do the stars along the ecliptic naturally fall into twelve separate groups, or did someone like Pythagoras influence this?

With thanks

From my reading of Valens, Maximus, Firmicus Maternus, Paulus Alexandrianus and other Hellenists I am convinced that they were using signs (tropical zodiac), based on internal evidence in their available writings; there has been some recent controversy among neo-Hellenists regarding this matter, but the majority view of the neo-Hellenists support that the available Hellenist authors were using tropical signs.
Further, a very small number of contemporary Vedic practitioners use tropical rather than sidereal, and at least 2 (Western Vedic) authors have adduced some evidence that the earliest Vedic authors used tropical rather than sideral (except for the nakshatras, or Lunar mansions, which were sidereal in all systems, ancient Western, Arabic, Vedic and Chinese)

Regarding ancient (traditional) constellations, at least 14 such constellations fall along the ecliptic, and I might add that a few of the "12 zodiacal" constellations barely touch the ecliptic at all!

Regarding how "12" came to be, see the works of Robert Zoller ("Arabic Parts"), and Carter's "Essays on the Foundations of Astrology" and particularly his brilliant "The Zodiac and the Soul"-largely forgotten books, which should NOT be ignored!!

Yes there do seem to be different views of how much of astrology was sidereal and how much was tropical in the first to fifth centuries AD. Powell claims that remaining literary horoscopes from that period (almost all of which, he says, are from the 5th century AD) were mostly tropical, but that original horoscopes for that half-millenia were probably mostly sidereal, (based on looking at the positions used for the planets and allowing for computational errors) with the last 'definitely sidereal' horoscope being dated 497 AD.

However quickly the tropical zodiac took hold in Hellenistic Greece, it seems that the sidereal zodiac was somehow 'fated' to be lost to the Arab world and the Christian West between the 6th and 20th centuries AD. Whether Ptolemy's tropical zodiac took hold in Greece, or whether it came to be the sole zodiac used in the Arab world from around 530 AD onwards simply because the Arab astrologers ended up with only Tetrabiblos to translate and work with, the effect was the same from the 6th century onwards.

Thanks also for the book recommendations.

As of today the first point of Aries (0 Aries) is at 5 Pic 04' 31". Remember please, that it is the VP that move against the background of the fixed (Sidereal) Zodiac.

Bert Fannin
Western Sidereal Astrologer

miquar said:

Thanks Jupiterasc. So I'm assuming that Valens used the sidereal zodiac.

Click to expand...

That assumption is hotly debated currently miquar. Obviously since the VP was in Aries in Valens AND Ptolemy's time it's a matter of opinion. In fact some opine that Ptolemy used the Sidereal zodiac!

miquar said:

Is there a simple time-line anywhere that shows how the lead up to the use of the twelve sidereal signs? I'm especially interested how the number twelve came to be used. Do the stars along the ecliptic naturally fall into twelve separate groups, or did someone like Pythagoras influence this?
With thanks

Click to expand...

Few can authoritatively answer that question Miquar however, JMO Rumen Kolev of Varna is one of the very few living astrologers currently practicing Ancient Babylonian Astrology who may well have some useful insights for anyone interested at http://www.babylonianastrology.com/