Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

P

petosiris

Banned
I am relying on Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, my own trial of many of Valens and all Palchus charts, on academics like Jones who confirm sidereal longitudes and on Chris Brennan and other tropicalists confirmatory statements. We are both modern Hellenistic astrologers, the only tradition to have both tropical and sidereal astrologers in it.

''But just for the sake of debate, let's suppose I take your point about the persistence of the sidereal zodiac long after the introduction of the tropical zodiac. You've apparently done the research on this, and the point is of historical interest. It might be of further interest to someone who wants to practice Hellenistic astrology today as authentically as possible.''

Thank you for your understanding. It is my intent to know Hellenistic astrology as authentically as possible, but not necessary to practice it in the same way, as there are some things I disagree with or just have to change them because of the change of time and culture.

As for putting Hellenistic astrology into practice, it was not the intent of my post to do that.

The arguments from antiquity and authority are important to some people. If the Old Astrologers intended a sidereal zodiac, then who am I to disagree with their wise judgement?
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Changing times, mon, changing times. They actually no longer care what you do.

I've looked at my sidereal chart a few times, and it just doesn't seem like the real me. In the tropical zodiac, most of my planets are in air and fire. In the sidereal zodiac, they move into signs that are mostly earth and water. My tropical moon in Leo becomes a watery moon in Cancer, for example, which just doesn't feel right.

I think sidereal is intuitively more satisfying because of the better (though imperfect) match with constellations. I'm just not convinced that it produces better chart readings today.

Regardless, I wish you well in your work of discovery.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
What you are saying it is more intuitive because of the following. I will just quote part of Pseudo-Manetho (c. 2nd century):

''These (aforementioned seven) circles are quite easily discerned by wits,
but the (two) others we also see with our eyes
when ambroisal night spreads over the earth
one shining equal in colour to milk
and the other, the Zodiac, brightly shining with twelve signs ...''- Manetho, Apotelesmatika, translation by Robert Lopilato

The tropical zodiac is invisible. Note that in the next paragraph Manetho says that the summer turns at the ''eighth degree of Cancer'', so evidently he is another Hellenistic astrologer who used a sidereal zodiac.
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Lovely quote!

The sidereal zodiac is equally invisible, unless you're able to identify fixed stars pegged to 0 and 29 degrees of each sign. The constellations are of varying widths along the ecliptic. Virgo takes up about 47 degrees, Aries hardly touches the ecliptic.

But nobody's been observing the night sky to locate signs, anyway, since ancient Greece. Once ephemerides came into general use in ancient times, astrologers looked at pieces of paper (or parchment or clay tablets, whatever.)

But thanks-- Manetheo would be a source for the 8 degree mark for the spring equinox.

Petosiris, I applaud your research here. I am not likely to duplicate it, so let's just say I'll take your word on its persistence in ancient astrology long past the invention of the tropical zodiac.

Someone interested in replicating Hellenistic astrology as authentically as possible should take note. However, I just don't see western sidereal astrology today as so accurate as tropical astrology.

Maybe today we inhabit a more solar, less sidereal worldview in modernity.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
Book I of Hephaistio - the universal astrology of Nechepso and Petosiris, which likely uses Babylonian sources, is impossible without direct observation, not only of colours and latitudes, but of winds and many other things. Actually at one point the Old Astrologer says to examine whether an eclipse occurs near the mouth of the Scorpion, curious how the tropical astrologer would find the mouth, maybe start imagining it like Firmicus Maternus?

The sidereal zodiac is visible and bright.

Identifying fixed stars allows you to accurately measure planetary longitudes compared to the witty equinoxes, which are very hard to measure. The equinox and solsticial points are not visible compared to the visible and bright fixed stars. No Hellenistic astrologer had the equinox right as far as I am aware, however Manilius, Teucer of Babylon and Valens somehow managed to have the same degree for the Pleiades (6th) as the ancient Babylonians. There is a reason why there have been many different equinox starting points at the same time - 1, 8, 10, 15 and with different substraction for precession - 1 degree per century like most tropicalists, or 1 degree per 80 years per some old astrologers mentioned by Theon of Alexandria. I find that the Palchus one does not agree with Theon's formula, so evidently he used another formula.

Yes, the sidereal zodiac is ancient. I am of course quite aware of the unequal constellations occupying the equal allotment of degrees to the Seven Stars.

...
Cancer - Feminine, Prolific, Changeable, Popular, Ambitious, Wealthy, Travelling, Lavish, Mindful, Public, Aquatic, Cheerful, Large Face, Wide Head, Sunken Eyes, Higher Lower Part, Crooked Teeth, Shaggy Hair, Passionate, Dark.

The first 7° belong to Mars - Accused, Burdened, Wandering - Back
The next 6° belong to Venus - Advancing, Skillful, Popular - Breast
The next 6° belong to Mercury - Intelligent, Wealthy, Public - Head
The next 7° belong to Jupiter - Elevated, Good, Prolific - Claws
The final 4° belong to Saturn - Injured, Burdened, Accused - Lion Mouth

Leo - Masculine, Royal, Solid, Distinguished, Independent, Reliable, Just, Despising Flattery, Haughty, Irascible, Terrestrial, Daring, Fine Face, Smooth, Small Ears, Higher Upper Part, Thin-Set Teeth, Rugged, Flushy, Bright.

The first 6° belong to Jupiter - Elevated, Good, Active - Heart
The next 5° belong to Venus - Advancing, Wealthy, Active - Mane
The next 7° belong to Saturn - Accused, Wandering, Burdened - Belly
The next 6° belong to Mercury - Intelligent, Playful, Popular - Back
The final 6° belong to Mars - Injured, Burdened, Passionate - Tail
...

I already mentioned to Dirius that I use the Egyptian bounds extensively. I can only work with them with a Babylonian zodiac.
''This has an implication in my thesis that the Egyptian bounds, like their ancient Babylonian counterparts were sidereal and based on specific fixed stars. Regulus - first Jupiter bound of Leo, not Mercury bound of Virgo. Pisces in the space alloted to Mars (Aries) - the first Jupiter bound of Aries. The first degrees of Taurus - to Venus, because of the beautiful and many Pleaides, 8 because of the planetary years. The sting of the Scorpion - Saturn bound, does not change to a benefic bound every dozen years etc.''

Whatever the case, one does not have Regulus (heart of the Lion) in Virgo, Aldebaran (eye of the Bull) in Gemini and Antares (heart of the Scorpion) in Sagittarius, or the entire Aries in Taurus and the most of Pisces in Aries, or the horn tips of Taurus (Mars) changing nature every hundred years, absolutely every star and asterism is displaced in this type of astrology.

In sidereal, one has Pisces a bit into Aries with the Jupiter bound, and also the Virgin with a dozen degrees in Libra occupying the Saturn bound (robe) and Mercury bound (feet).
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Petosiris, have you lived in cities, with their nightly light pollution, all your life?

Actually, equinoxes and solstices are measurable, though you might want to work on them and fine tune them over a few years.

I live in the Canadian Rockies, on a west-facing slope. Across our valley to the west is a ridge of foothills. Looking out our windows or sitting on the deck, we make note of the southern and northern movement of the setting sun and moon at different points along this ridge. At our latitude, the north-south movement of the setting luminaries along the ridge from solstice to solstice, is dramatic. Some ancient cultures would actually erect monuments or beacons to mark such points. Some ancient cultures would align their henges and even Christian churches to the spring equinox.

Not to mention the more technically advanced Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

Similarly, with a even a primitive clock, it is possible to make note of the longest and shortest periods of night and day, as well as equinox periods of equal daylight and darkness.

In fact, there is a theory that Christmas is actually a solar holiday, in that the margin of error in these types of measurement may be a couple of days. With the winter solstice on or about Dec. 21, it would take an astronomically unsophisticated society about 3 days to note that the days are visibly getting longer. (Today we can look on-line or in the newspaper for sun setting and rising times.)

Once we get north of the clear skies of the Old World deserts and Mediterranean regions, we get temperate Europe, where skies are overcast a lot of time. Stars and planets were a lot less visible. Understandably, the sun, moon, and highly visible constellations like Orion and the Pleiades were a lot more important in their traditional cultural astronomies than were the planets.

One other point that occurs to me, is that if you are a hard-core siderealist and neo-Hellenistic astrologer, a lot of the ancient delineations involving signs may not apply but would have to be recalculated for today's seasonal and planetary placements. (cf. Valens, 1:3.)
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Actually at one point the Old Astrologer says to examine whether an eclipse occurs near the mouth of the Scorpion, curious how the tropical astrologer would find the mouth, maybe start imagining it like Firmicus Maternus?
Click to expand...

I highly recommend the fixed star option for chart formats at Astrodienst. You can input any zodiac or house system you want against a background of constellations. You can also input fixed stars, thanks to Bernadette Brady.

There actually are tropical astrologers who used fixed stars. You can used fixed stars regardless of your zodiac. Moreover, with respect to Scorpio, as you know, we cannot conflate the constellation and the utterly abstract 30-degree sidereal sign.

The constellation Scorpio actually doesn't touch the ecliptic throughout most of the constellation's length: today it occupies 241o 14' to 248o 02'. (Remember the constellation Ophiuchus in between constellations Scorpio and Sagittarius?)
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/dates-of-suns-entry-into-each-constellation-of-the-zodiac

The sidereal zodiac is visible and bright.
Click to expand...

Well, this is news to me. Explain, or link or attach some examples that are not the constellations.

I would love to see a rational explanation of the terms. But the differences between Egyptian and Bablyonian terms belies the notion of a consistent Hellenistic "tradition". (She lowers her voice to express the appropriate reverence for "the tradition".)
 
P

petosiris

Banned
''Well, this is news to me. Explain, or link or attach some examples that are not the constellations.''

Well that is why it is visible and bright... at night as Manetho says. It is the sky above, not the Northern Hemisphere climate below. Every star possess a constant (almost, because of proper motion) ecliptic longitude, whatever its distance from the ecliptic.

I would caution that IAU Scorpio is slightly different from Ancient Scorpio, which has Libra as its Claws and its mouth nearer to the ecliptic.

As Dirius said tropicalists rarely use fixed stars. Of course you can use constellations and fixed stars in a tropical zodiac, although I have to say that makes little sense, as you do not change the significations of the zoidia, nor the bounds, nor anything else as fixed stars move through them. While the usage of a sidereal zodiac implies the greatest authority to the heavens, for it influences every judgement one makes.

''But the differences between Egyptian and Bablyonian terms belies the notion of a consistent Hellenistic "tradition". (She lowers her voice to express the appropriate reverence for "the tradition".)''

And similarly, the persistence of the Egyptian bounds through all surviving horoscopes testifies the power of the ''tradition'' (said with an appropriate reverence) set by Nechepso and Petosiris (there is only one literary horoscope that preserves a different set of bounds).
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Sorry, you seem to be confusing visable constellations with abstract 30-degree sidereal signs here, although I know you know better.

For either sidereal or tropical signs, it is possible to identify visible fixed stars that define their cusps, within a few degrees. I could look up these stars' degrees for tropical signs, but perhaps someone has already worked them out.

The modern western astrologers I'm aware of who use fixed stars use them as extra data points. If Algol or Spica conjuncts your sun, presumably that says something about your identity in addition to information gleaned from sign, house, and aspects.

Are you familiar with Bernadette Brady's Brady's Book of Fixed Stars (Weiser, 1998) and Star and Planet Constellations (Wessex Astrologer 2008)? Her data are also available at Astrodienst on the free charts options. In the intro to her first book she talks about the impact of knowledge of precession on ancient societies, but uses the tropical zodiac so far as I can determine. Her horoscope examples in her second book are certainly tropical.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
''Sorry, you seem to be confusing visable constellations with abstract 30-degree sidereal signs here, although I know you know better.''

I am sorry you do not understand sidereal logic, but that is how we see it.

If I see Mars near Regulus (I recall one ancient astrological text using the terms Moon diameter and a finger in connection with paranatellonta, so let say he is at one Moon diameter), I know for certain that he is in Leo, however this is not possible in the invisible tropical zodiac, which requires a knowledge of the equinox point. Is that correct?

A: Yes - Manetho is correct that the zodiac is brightly shining.
B: No - you are correct and the sidereal zodiac is invisible and ''utterly'' abstract.
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
The names Nechepso and Petosiris themselves say something about the Hellenists' belief in the validity and antiquity of ancient Egyptian precedents. But we know that a lot of this reverence was metaphorical, not actual or practical. These astrologers were not the ancient pharaoh and scribe, but more recent Hermetic authors using their names as pseudonyms. (Brennan, Hellenistic Astrology, Stephan Heilen, https://www.academia.edu/7781974/Some_metrical_fragments_from_Nechepsos_and_Petosiris )

Heilen (p. 24) suggested that perhaps several Greek authors from the 2nd half of the 2nd century BCE wrote a body of multiple works under these pseudonyms.

Valens (ca. 150 CE) at times expressed frustration with his predecessors:

"Now if you rush to the books of the older compilers, be aware that their texts have been adorned with an affected style which can bewilder the minds of their readers and of the ignorant, although their texts have not attained the truth and are enemies of the wise. Wasting the time of many men and leading them astray, these texts have defrauded some of life and have terminally afflicted others." (Riley transl. p. 66.)

He criticizes Critodemus (Ibid,) your namesake (pp. 54, 64) and miscellaneous anonymous astrologers (47.)

I find the history of early astrology to be thoroughly fascinating. I just don't find it to be a focus of awe and reverence, or binding upon practice today; and note that there was considerable disagreement at the time within the body of practicing astrologers. In praise of the "literary" professional astrologers we tend to overlook the ones who practiced at street fairs, as amateurs, or who made wretchedly wrong predictions.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
petosiris said:
''Sorry, you seem to be confusing visable constellations with abstract 30-degree sidereal signs here, although I know you know better.''

I am sorry you do not understand sidereal logic, but that is how we see it.

If I see Mars near Regulus (I recall one ancient astrological text using the terms Moon diameter and a finger in connection with paranatellonta, so let say he is at one Moon diameter), I know for certain that he is in Leo, however this is not possible in the invisible tropical zodiac, which requires a knowledge of the equinox point. Is that correct?

A: Yes - Manetho is correct that the zodiac is brightly shining.
B: No - you are correct and the sidereal zodiac is invisible and ''utterly'' abstract.
Click to expand...

I understand sidereal logic.

No, you don't need the Aries point, except insofar as you would identify the star/s that currently sit at about 0 Aries.

Are you familiar with this website? http://www.constellationsofwords.com/stars/Stars_in_longitude_order.htm

It gives the longitude of stars in alphabetical order if I want to index them that way. In the tropical zodiac. One could learn to identify the stars that mark the beginnings and ends of the signs in the night sky, facilitated by a night sky app like Sky Map. A telescope and photography would probably be even better, but on a trad thread, let's stick with the naked eye.

You could do this for the sidereal signs, as well.

Or, you could go to the fixed star chart option at Astrodienst, ask them to input whatever sidereal or tropical zodiac you want, give them the chart data, and presto!

This would show the sign cusps at a very small scale over the background of zodiac constellations.
 

Attachments

  • barack_obama_fixed stars.jpg
    barack_obama_fixed stars.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
Petosiris, have you lived in cities, with their nightly light pollution, all your life?
Click to expand...

I live in two cities - Bortle scale - 5 and 7. When I go to the countryside some 30 km away - it is 3 and enough for skywatching, especially in the summer. I live in Europe. A few dozen kilometres away you can find truly dark sky.

I can still regularly see Leo, Virgo, Taurus and Gemini in the city. However, the ancient astrologers had 0 light pollution everywhere so this really does not matter much in our debate.

Actually, equinoxes and solstices are measurable, though you might want to work on them and fine tune them over a few years.
Click to expand...

Well that is certainly one reason why the primitive cultures did not use a tropical zodiac, but a constellational one.

Similarly, with a even a primitive clock, it is possible to make note of the longest and shortest periods of night and day, as well as equinox periods of equal daylight and darkness.
Click to expand...

So it will take you a whole year just to find where the zodiac begins. And believe me primitive water and sand or whatever clocks were not used in measuring the tropics, as they are very unreliable over any large period of time. Actually Vettius Valens preserves excellent information of astronomy of the time:

''Even the length of the year has been fixed at different values: Meton the Athenian, Euctemon, and Philip fixed it at 365 1/5 1/19; Aristarchus of Samos at <365> 1/4 1/162; the Chaldeans at 365 1/4 1/207; the Babylonians at 365 1/4 1/144; and many others at various values.''

It was very difficult to estimate the longitude of the Sun as it removes completely the ''ambroisal night'' that allows for astrology in the first place. Without night, astrology would have been impossible. Of course, light and visibility do not matter to a person who uses Pluto, I just do not understand why you are so keen on saying my zodiac is utterly invisible, when it is simply not true. As I mentioned, some fixed stars are even brighter than the planets, so if we go by your logic, we might as well completely discard astrology.

''I thought it best to use Hipparchus for the sun, Soudines, Kidynas, and Apollonius for the moon, in addition to Apollinarius for both bodies (if one applies the addition-factor of 8°, which I believe to be correct)'' - translation by Riley

Here Valens notes that the Greek astronomers used a tropical zodiac, but he applied an addition to their values, as he deliberately used a sidereal zodiac. The Babylonians only had a sidereal year and were not aware of precession according to academia, and I presume this is why their values were higher than those of the Greek astronomers, which appear tropical.

Once we get north of the clear skies of the Old World deserts and Mediterranean regions, we get temperate Europe, where skies are overcast a lot of time. Stars and planets were a lot less visible. Understandably, the sun, moon, and highly visible constellations like Orion and the Pleiades were a lot more important in their traditional cultural astronomies than were the planets.
Click to expand...

We use an astrology that was developed in Babylonia and Egypt. As always, tropicalists are quick to point this with seasons, but try to avoid mentioning it with the fixed stars. You make a good point (and certainly why astronomy developed amazingly well in Mesopotamia), however there will always be time to see the fixed stars.

Today astrologers have abandoned the use of local weather completely, but this was definitely not the case in Babylonia and Egypt. Astrology, in my opinion, is both mathematical and divinatory in nature, so it should take both astronomy and omens, including weather, into account. Mundane omens contain plenty of those, but in natal astrology, I am only aware of a statement in Firmicus Maternus that one born during storm or earthquake will have trouble keeping balance.

One other point that occurs to me, is that if you are a hard-core siderealist and neo-Hellenistic astrologer, a lot of the ancient delineations involving signs may not apply but would have to be recalculated for today's seasonal and planetary placements. (cf. Valens, 1:3.)
Click to expand...

I already explained that your theory about 1.2 (I presume you mean this chapter rather than the one on the bounds which is 1.3) is not correct, not because of the equinox point, but mostly because of the use of fixed stars in meteorology (be it seasonal or not). This is simply not correct in either the tropical or sidereal zodiac. Ptolemy makes the same mistake (''variation in degree that is due to the special quality of the fixed stars''). We both have to correct their mistakes. I believe it is much easier and convenient to use a sidereal zodiac, as with it, only meteorology changes, while with tropical one needs to discard the usage of precession and fixed stars.

There is simply nothing that needs to be changed other than meteorology:
Summer Solstice at 12° Cancer
The First 30° - Hot
The First 10° - Stifling
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Windy

The Next 30° - Hot
The First 10° - Stifling
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Moist

The Final 30° - Moist
The First 10° - Hot
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Moist

Autumn Equinox at 12° Libra
The First 30° - Irregular
The First 10° - Temperate
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Moist

The Next 30° - Rainy
The First 10° - Cold
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Rainy

The Final 30° - Windy
The First 10° - Moist
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Hot

Winter Solstice at 12° Capricorn
The First 30° - Moist
The First 10° - Hot
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Rainy

The Next 30° - Moist
The First 10° - Moist
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Windy

The Final 30° - Windy
The First 10° - Temperate
The Next 10° - Moist
The Final 10° - Hot

Spring Equinox at 12° Aries
The First 30° - Rainy
The First 10° - Windy
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Hot

The Next 30° - Hot
The First 10° - Windy
The Next 10° - Moist
The Final 10° - Rainy

The Final 30° - Temperate
The First 10° - Moist
The Next 10° - Temperate
The Final 10° - Irregular

I used mostly Ptolemy. I will just note that this is very primitive and not very useful today. I also caution against the usage of planetary longitudes, as they are the same for whole Earth. I skipped his talk of south and north parts, as the Sun does not deviate, apparently he thought that the Moon and the rest of the stars would also have large influence on the weather.

I really have to agree with Martin Luther: ''They set forth, in their almanacs, that we shall have no snow in summer time, nor thunder in winter; and this the country clowns know as well as the astrologers.'' (Table Talk - DCCXCVIII) compare with ''The sign of Leo as a whole is hot and stifling'' - Ptolemy

There is a reason why meteorological astrology has been dead for centuries. It has been taken up by other scientific fields that have developed it considerably.

Observe the rising of the Sun to determine the weather by day and the setting of the Sun to determine the weather at night. For whenever the Sun rises or sets clear, unobscured, steady, and unclouded, it indicates fine weather, but if its disk is varied or reddish, or sends out red rays, either outwardly or as circling back upon itself, or parheliac clouds, or yellowish cloud formations while emitting long drawn out rays, it indicates heavy winds.

And if at rising or setting, the Sun is dark or sallow, being accompanied by clouds, or halos, or parheliac clouds while emitting dark rays, it indicates storms and rain. Whenever the Sun rises deep-blue, it indicates famine and pestilence.

Observe the course of the Moon. For whenever the Moon is thin and clear and has nothing around it, it indicates fine weather. If the Moon is thin and red and the whole disk of the unilluminated part is distinct and a little shaky, it indicates winds. If the Moon is dark or sallow or thick, it indicates wintry and stormy conditions. In clear weather, whenever the stars become faint while the Moon is under the horizon, they indicate storms.

Observe the halos around the Moon. For whenever there is one that is clear and gradually fading, it indicates fine weather. If there are two or three, they indicate storms. If they are yellowish and broken, they indicate storms with heavy winds. If they are thick and misty, they indicate snowstorms. If they are sallow or dark or broken, they indicate winds and snowstorms, and the more of them, the more severe the storms. And the halos that gather around the stars, both the wandering and non-wandering stars, indicate what is appropriate to their colours.

Observe the colours and brightness of the non-wandering stars which are close together in some number. For whenever they appear brighter and larger beyond their customary appearance, they indicate winds. Whenever in a clear sky, the star clusters appear dim, invisible, or thickened, they indicate rain, but if they are clear and constantly twinkle, they indicate heavy winds.

Shooting stars, coming from one angle, indicate a wind from that direction, but from opposite angles, an instability of winds, and from all four angles, storms of all kinds. Clouds resembling tufts of wool indicate storms. In clear weather, the appearance of fine clouds indicates cold weather. Rainbows indicate storms after clear weather and clear weather after storms.

Fogs in the mountains indicate stillness, the dispersing ones indicate winds. Whenever the peaks of the mountains are with fair weather, they indicate winds. Flaming meteors signify war. Whenever the heavens appear very dark, they signify the drying up of places of water, but if the heavens appear sallow, they signify the destruction of masters.
Click to expand...

I used mostly the translation of Ptolemy by Robbins and in a few places Hephaistio Book I by Robert Schmidt. I changed the structure of the text and sentences a bit (not just because of copyright). Thus I hope no tropicalist can envy and malign us that we reject meteorological astrology. On the other hand, I really recommend the reversal of the tropical zodiac, if one plans on continuing to use that in the Southern Hemisphere.
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Petosiris, I think you missed my point about observing where the sun rises and sets on the longest and shortest dates of the year. I am talking more generally about cultural astronomy here. During the Bronze Age neolithic societies lined up their henges to solistices or equinoxes. An easier method was and is to live in a valley with an east- or west-facing ridge. Over a period of time, you can note the northern-and southern-most location on the ridge of sunrise or sunset. For further visibility and definition, a traditional society could put a cairn or monument on the ridge at those points. For equinoxes, just find the date when day- and night-lengths are equal. Note the sun's location, and again, put up some kind of cairn. Oftentimes people who observed the sun's passage would light bonfires at these places during the key solar transition points.

You need no star-gazing for this process whatsoever to mark the solar "wheel of the year." However, f you want to key the equinoxes and solstices into the zodiac, similarly, observe rising and setting constellations at these points.

You are probably familiar with ancient astro-meteorology, which particularly linked climate phenology to rising and setting constellations, stars, and asterisms. Apparently Aratus, Phaenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aratus which predated Hellenistic astrology, and was extremely popular. You are probably also familiar with the research of Daryn Lehoux, notably on Greek parapegmata http://www.queensu.ca/classics/daryn-lehoux.

As I said, this process is best completed over a few years for accuracy's sake; but for whom would this have been a problem? Not for traditional societies. Maybe for stressed-out hurried moderns.

As you know, the Babylonians used the path of the moon, not the solar ecliptic, until fairly late in their astro-history. Probably because of better visibility at night.


When I have a moment, I'll give you some links.

The point about ancient/medieval societies isn't so much about light pollution, but skies that were overcast (temperate Europe) or subject to ambient dust due to periodic dust-and sandstorms in the Near East. In Mediterranean and desert situations the skies are normally very clear except when windy conditions kick up the dust, or during the winter rainy season in the Med. climate zone. Along the Nile valley and delta, extremely humid conditions at sunrise often obscured the sun's visibility. (See Ptolemy on the 12th house.)

Gotta run now, but I will see what sense I can make of the rest of your post, either tonight or tomorrow. I'm sure you're familiar with natural (not here meaning anthropogenic) climate change, and it would be interesting to see how or if climate patterns shifted between the 2nd century CE and today.

Also, think about who the audience was for the climate generalizations. Primarily they were used for farming, and noting the opening and closing dates for shipping on the Mediterranean Sea.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
Familiar with most of it. It does not help decide which zodiac is better, the tropical or the sidereal.

waybread said:
Also, think about who the audience was for the climate generalizations. Primarily they were used for farming, and noting the opening and closing dates for shipping on the Mediterranean Sea.
Click to expand...

Sure.

I'm sure you're familiar with natural (not here meaning anthropogenic) climate change, and it would be interesting to see how or if climate patterns shifted between the 2nd century CE and today.
Click to expand...

I have read a bit about Milankovitch cycles. Precession would have had a notable effect, but I am not sure it is considerable enough to change Ptolemy's observations.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Petosiris, continuing somewhat from your previous long post. I couldn't determine what you meant by your list of degrees and weather conditions. You give 30 degrees, followed by 10 degree segments. What is the basis of your cardinal points at 12 degrees?

So far as Ptolemy's climate calendar is concerned:

Here is a climate graph for Athens, Greece, today.
http://www.athinai-hellinikon.climatemps.com/graph.php

You can pretty much find these for any city you want.

Here is a climate graph for Alexandria, Egypt, today.
http://www.alexandria.climatemps.com/graph.php

You will note that the average annual precipitation patterns are similar because both cities are in the Mediterranean climate zone, except that Alexandria is drier, closer to the desert ecotone. Alexandria's hot, dry summer season lasts longer. You will note some real jumps in monthly average precipitation amounts, with the cessation and particularly with the onset of the long rainy season.

The Mediterannean rainy season can be pretty stormy and windy, which is why in ancient times shipping pretty much depended upon the dry-weather months.

Ptolemy (book 2:11) broke up his astrological months into thirds (10 days duration) and these graphs are characteristically given in bar-graph form, month by month in our modern calendar, but you get the idea. (For the Alexandria graph, watch the lower light green line, as well. I think it gives the number of rainy days.)

The graphs pretty well show that the month of Leo (July-August) around Alexandria would be "hot and stiffling," with maximum average temps near 30C (upper 80sF) and considerable humidity around the delta and sea.

Another kind of wind in North Africa is the spring Hamsin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khamsin notable for causing hot sandstorms. (Cf. the Sirocco of summer.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirocco There are a few other notable strong winds in this region http://1yachtua.com/Medit-marinas/Mediterranean_Sailing/mediterranean_winds.shtm so it is possible that Ptolemy meant some of these, vs. ordinary windy conditions during rain storms.

It is hard to say just where Ptolemy based his climate overview, or whether it was a regional assessment. As the author of a comprehensive world geography book, he was well aware of snow in the mountains in neighbouring countries, true desert climates, and temperate zones. As a quick-and-dirty estimate you could take the last 10 days of one of Ptolemy's astrological sign months plus the first 20 days of the next astrological sign to roughly approximate one of our months.

So if we take the "month" of Aries for Alexandria where Ptolemy lived, as lasting approximately from our March 21-April 20, we see that precipitation drops off dramatically in March-April, notably from the winter maxima. Ptolemy notes a transition from (1) rainy and windy to (2) temperate to (3) hot and promoting diseases. (Mosquito-born?) I originally thought "north" and "south" were in relation to the earth's surface, but my translation (Robbins) says this is in relation to the ecliptic. The only way that makes sense to me is if planets orbiting through the sign appear above or below the ecliptic have their own impact on climate, something Ptolemy seems to say in the preceding chapter.

The climate graphs show a big jump with the onset of the rainy season in October (Libra?) something that Ptolemy seems to peg to Virgo. There is a literature on historical climate change, and I have access to my former university's on-line academic journal articles, so it would be interesting to see whether today's Mediterranean climate is somewhat different than in the 2nd century CE. Certainly the classical writers were aware of differing weather and climate conditions during their own historical periods.

For better or for worse, he (and others) thought that the stars influenced earthquakes; but then the astrologers whom you favour probably penned some goofy ideas, as well.

Given that sidereal signs are only abstract 30-degree pie-sectors of the heavens, perhaps you could attach a graphic to your next post to show how they are so obviously visible to you.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
''winter is very mild, and looks like spring: highs are around 18/19 °C (64/66 °F), and lows around 9/10 °C (48/50 °F), though this is the only period of the year in which weak or moderate rains occur'' - not at all like your Europe Saturn month.

https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/egypt

''In inland areas the climate is desert, with virtually no rain; the temperatures increase gradually as you head south.''

As I said, I think Ptolemy and everyone else was aware of this. Which might be why Ptolemy is the first one to bond the months with the signs.

''The rainfall in Cairo is poor, since it amounts to only 25 mm (1 in) per year, and it's absent in the long summer: in fact, from the point of view of rainfall, we are already in the desert.'' cf. Memphis.

The question is, did Ptolemy mean Europe by rainy delineations for every third decan or did he mean the whole Egypt as well. I do not think he meant the deserts a few kilometres away. The difference for Egypt, Libya and Syria compared to Greece, Rome etc. is extremely stark - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Countries_by_average_annual_precipitation.png

Robbins is correct that north and south refer to the ecliptic. As you see, you appear to be incorrect that those are calendrical delineations, as the other planets do not have a set calendrical course, and those are the only ones capable of reaching the southern and northern parts Ptolemy is referring to.

''Now the sign of Aries as a whole, because it marks the equinox, is characterized by thunder or hail, but, taken part by part, through the variation in degree that is due to the special quality of the fixed stars, its leading portion is rainy and windy, its middle temperate, and the following part hot and pestilential. Its northern parts are hot and destructive, its southern frosty and chilly.''

Ptolemy and the Babylonians usually thought that the north brings hot weather, because they lived in the Northern Hemisphere. It may have been due Aries constellation makes the weather hot and destructive. He thinks that Capricorn and Aquarius are moist, probably because they are aquatic signs as well. This is why the Aries/Leo/Sagittarius - Jupiter trigon has been associated with the North (the early Hellenists did not have elements triplicities, but winds) in Babylonian sources and Ptolemy.

If I were you, I would base my astrology on sources that can be correct. There are many authors who just did not make any implicit connection and bondage between the signs and the months. That is the goofiest idea of Ptolemy, as the rest of the authors' material are still usable and relevant today.

''Given that sidereal signs are only abstract 30-degree pie-sectors of the heavens, perhaps you could attach a graphic to your next post to show how they are so obviously visible to you.''

''Sorry, you seem to be confusing visable constellations with abstract 30-degree sidereal signs here, although I know you know better.''

I am sorry you do not understand sidereal logic, but that is how we see it.

If I see Mars near Regulus (I recall one ancient astrological text using the terms Moon diameter and a finger in connection with paranatellonta, so let say he is at one Moon diameter), I know for certain that he is in Leo, however this is not possible in the invisible tropical zodiac, which requires a knowledge of the equinox point. Is that correct?

A: Yes - Manetho is correct that the zodiac is brightly shining.
B: No - you are correct and the sidereal zodiac is invisible and ''utterly'' abstract.
Click to expand...

You don't need a graphic, you just need a simple A (no contradiction) or B (contradiction) question. If I see the belly, the tail and the mane of the Lion, I also know it is Leo. If I see the last part of the head of the Lion, I know it is Cancer and Saturn bound. If I see Cancer, I know that is Cancer, same as with Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, those are all within their signs. Those are hundreds of visible fixed stars, you can't get more visibility than that.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
petosiris said:
If I were you, I would base my astrology on sources that can be correct.
There are many authors who just did not make any implicit connection
and bondage between the signs and the months.
That is the goofiest idea of Ptolemy
as the rest of the authors' material are still usable and relevant today.
Click to expand...
I illustrate one other classic goofy idea of Ptolemy :smile:


ptolemy.gif



(33).PNG


(34).PNG
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
petosiris said:
''winter is very mild, and looks like spring: highs are around 18/19 °C (64/66 °F), and lows around 9/10 °C (48/50 °F), though this is the only period of the year in which weak or moderate rains occur'' - not at all like your Europe Saturn month.

https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/egypt

''In inland areas the climate is desert, with virtually no rain; the temperatures increase gradually as you head south.''

As I said, I think Ptolemy and everyone else was aware of this. Which might be why Ptolemy is the first one to bond the months with the signs.

''The rainfall in Cairo is poor, since it amounts to only 25 mm (1 in) per year, and it's absent in the long summer: in fact, from the point of view of rainfall, we are already in the desert.'' cf. Memphis.

The question is, did Ptolemy mean Europe by rainy delineations for every third decan or did he mean the whole Egypt as well. I do not think he meant the deserts a few kilometres away. The difference for Egypt, Libya and Syria compared to Greece, Rome etc. is extremely stark - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Countries_by_average_annual_precipitation.png

Robbins is correct that north and south refer to the ecliptic. As you see, you appear to be incorrect that those are calendrical delineations, as the other planets do not have a set calendrical course, and those are the only ones capable of reaching the southern and northern parts Ptolemy is referring to.

''Now the sign of Aries as a whole, because it marks the equinox, is characterized by thunder or hail, but, taken part by part, through the variation in degree that is due to the special quality of the fixed stars, its leading portion is rainy and windy, its middle temperate, and the following part hot and pestilential. Its northern parts are hot and destructive, its southern frosty and chilly.''

Ptolemy and the Babylonians usually thought that the north brings hot weather, because they lived in the Northern Hemisphere. It may have been due Aries constellation makes the weather hot and destructive. He thinks that Capricorn and Aquarius are moist, probably because they are aquatic signs as well. This is why the Aries/Leo/Sagittarius - Jupiter trigon has been associated with the North (the early Hellenists did not have elements triplicities, but winds) in Babylonian sources and Ptolemy.

If I were you, I would base my astrology on sources that can be correct. There are many authors who just did not make any implicit connection and bondage between the signs and the months. That is the goofiest idea of Ptolemy, as the rest of the authors' material are still usable and relevant today.

''Given that sidereal signs are only abstract 30-degree pie-sectors of the heavens, perhaps you could attach a graphic to your next post to show how they are so obviously visible to you.''

You don't need a graphic, you just need a simple A (no contradiction) or B (contradiction) question. If I see the belly, the tail and the mane of the Lion, I also know it is Leo. If I see the last part of the head of the Lion, I know it is Cancer and Saturn bound. If I see Cancer, I know that is Cancer, same as with Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, those are all within their signs. Those are hundreds of visible fixed stars, you can't get more visibility than that.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it is incontrovertible that fixed stars are easily visible :smile:
direct observation of fixed stars is a simple matter, even in polluted cities

 
Top