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

petosiris

Banned
Another rabbit hole, great...

''I don't buy the argument ad antiquitatum. Unless we read horoscopes out of an antiquarian interest, only. I note that jyotish (Vedic) astrology uses a sidereal zodiac. They seem to get good results, but then their interpretations are very different from western interpretations.

Also, by the time we get to late Antiquity, there isn't much difference between western sidereal and tropical degrees.''


You are quoting part of my post where I do not mention a single jyotish astrologer. Only western astrologers are cited.

''It is more accurate to call the "original system" constellational, but then the "original" Babylonian zodiac wasn't identical to ours. (See Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore.) Note that sidereal signs are not co-equal with sidereal constellations. The constellation Virgo occupies about 47 degrees on the ecliptic, while Aries scarcely touches it.''

From my sentence of a thousand years it is obvious that I mean the equal sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees each. All scholars and astrologers agree that the first zodiac was sidereal and of which we have records from the 5th century BC. Are you going to dispute that, or do you want me to find academics... but for what? Everytime I quote academics, you just ignore them.

''So what is this, the argument ad hominem? argumentum ad verecundiam? The problem with the sidereal zodiac was and is precession of the equinoxes (axial precession.) The problem was far bigger than astrology, as the idea of the equinox slipping back into Pisces had many religious and civic repercussions.

Don't knock Mr. Pt. If Valens was the great compiler, Ptolemy was the great systematizer. His big project in the first book of Tetrabiblos was refuting astrology's critics. He tried to correlate astrology with Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. Science then isn't science now, but for what it's worth Mr. Pt tried to make astrology more consistent with the proto-science of his day. ''


There are more than a few tropical astrologers who are criticizing Ptolemy's rationalism - ''Holden emphasizes the technical rather than the philosophical departures that Ptolemy made from the rest of the astrological tradition, calling the Tetrabiblos an “abridged” and “deviant” version of Hellenistic astrology (Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, pg. 44). To a certain extent this represents a strong reactionary movement against Ptolemy that arose in the 1980s and ’90s, partially as a result of the recovery of other Hellenistic astrological sources, and the subsequent realization that Ptolemy’s work was not necessarily representative of the mainstream of the Greco-Roman tradition of astrology.'' - http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/astrologers/claudius-ptolemy/

I like and highly respect Ptolemy, indeed use some of his methods, but I am not blind that he spew the most bs out of all.

''Unclear what you mean.''

I have been using sidereal coordinates for hundreds of charts now and I prefer that system of reference to the tropical one. I also use mostly traditional and Hellenistic techniques.

''argument ad populum? (aka band wagon?)''

We are dealing with astrology, a field that has trouble proving a single empirical statement, so I guess I have to do with other types of arguments.

''argument ad antiquitatum

Note that I've said "argument," not fallacy. But don't tempt me!

Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.''


I said that there are two crutches for the tropical zodiac - a false appeal to antiquity and an argument from popularity.

''The idea of signs representing particular weather patterns comes from the zodiacal signs meaning the same thing as months. We even find this in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, where people think about going on pilgrimages when the blustery portion of March gives way to April's more moderate spring-like weather, and the sun is halfway through its course in "the Ram."

The earth-air-fire-water division is basically the Aristotelian elements. These alternate, along with the so-called male-female signs. (air-fire=male, earth-water=female.) This latter bit is really ancient, going back to a belief in a mother Earth and father Sky. We know them as Gaia and Ouranos (Uranus)''


Enough storytelling, I want citations to ancient astrologers.

''There is a debate as to whether the exaltations were Babylonian or Egyptian in origin. Possibly they diffused from Egypt to Babylon. Are you familiar with the work of Egyptologist and astrologer Joanne Conman?

Also, Ptolemy was a Renaissance Man-- prior to the Renaissance. He wrote extensively about the geography of the known world. He certainly read about places that he didn't personally visit, just as you might today.

Alexandria, Egypt is part of the Mediterranean climate zone, with cool rainy winters and hot rainless summers. It's not far from the true desert, but equally there was snow in the mountains of Greece, Iraq, and Lebanon. Educated Egyptians would have known about them. The onset and cessation of the rainy season would vary somewhat annually and in drought-wet cycles. Don't forget trade: Egypt was part of a Mediterranean network of trade that brought Egyptians into contact with the wider world.

Well, both the myths and the climate are a moving target. Myths vary over time and across nations. The climate varies with location. What holds them together is the concept of diffusion-- star and weather lore moving across places by oral or written transmission.''


A smart guy like him would definitely know that Saturn does not produce snow, nor does the equinox produce storms, nor anything else he talked about, happens in Sahara, a few hundred kilometres away from him. This also explains why many early astrologers do not talk of Aries as spring like or Capricorn as wintry. This is part of the degeneration of knowledge, including geography of Antiquity to the Middle Ages.

''I'll have to scrounge into my stash of scholarly artices when I have time, but the point being that the tropical zodiac comes into its own when the "scientists" of the day realized that the spring equinox was going to slip back into Pisces. (Try interpreting the New Testament in this light, incidentally-- a new deity who befriends fishermen, multiplies loaves and fishes, walks on water, stills the waves, and so on. Revelation ends with the Triumph of the Lamb-- i. e., the Aries equinox.)

What happens subsequently is that the sidereal equinox did move seriously back into Pisces. Because we don't know exactly what the equinox was back around 0 CE, it is guesstimated that today the two zodiacs are 24 or 27 degrees different.''


Did not expect an argument from the Bible. I would like a scholarly or theologian citation that the Lamb meant the Triumph of Aries rather than Jesus, because the latter is certainly what the patristic Fathers intended.

It is around 25 degrees, this is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Well, it's nice to see Dirius in a big dust-up with someone other than me. :joyful: (But maybe we'll get there.)

Petosiris, I dredged up a bunch of articles and conference proceedings that I think are relevant to this discussion, but I'm going to have to scan the lot to locate the relevant nuggets. As time permits. Which it doesn't just now.

I realize that you feel passionate about this topic, but I hope you can avoid insulting people. I'll try hard, too.

Another rabbit hole, great...

....

You are quoting part of my post where I do not mention a single jyotish astrologer. Only western astrologers are cited.

Is this a problem? you mentioned jyotish in a subsequent point. Just to be clear, I'm entitled to make my own points that may not correlate precisely with yours.

From my sentence of a thousand years it is obvious that I mean the equal sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees each. All scholars and astrologers agree that the first zodiac was sidereal and of which we have records from the 5th century BC. Are you going to dispute that, or do you want me to find academics... but for what? Everytime I quote academics, you just ignore them.

Which ones did I ignore???

For sure the Babylonians used a sidereal sign-based zodiac after about 500 BCE, but I don't see the argument ad antiquitatum as valid-- for what exactly?? If you want to make a pragmatic argument that it gives you better interpretive results today in horoscope readings, with evidence, I'll pay attention to that.

The Mesopotamians relied on a constellational astrology for centuries until they found it too cumbersome for predicting eclipses. With their sexagesimal arithmetic system, it was a lot simpler to convert to 30-degree signs.

The Babylonians also used the pathway of the moon, not the sun, and had a solar-lunar calendar that differed from our calendar today. So how authentic do you want to go with an ad antiquitatum argument for their sidereal zodiac? Why cherry-pick just their sidereal zodiac?

(See Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing.)

(BTW, are you familiar with Bernadette Brady's re-invention of their constellational astrology? It's on YouTube. I think she calls it visual astrology.)

If you want to make an argument that you hope to faithfully replicate some form of early astrology, I would respect that choice, even though it's not one most traditional western astrologers make.

There are more than a few tropical astrologers who are criticizing Ptolemy's rationalism - ''Holden emphasizes the technical rather than the philosophical departures that Ptolemy made from the rest of the astrological tradition, calling the Tetrabiblos an “abridged” and “deviant” version of Hellenistic astrology (Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, pg. 44). To a certain extent this represents a strong reactionary movement against Ptolemy that arose in the 1980s and ’90s, partially as a result of the recovery of other Hellenistic astrological sources, and the subsequent realization that Ptolemy’s work was not necessarily representative of the mainstream of the Greco-Roman tradition of astrology.'' - http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/astrologers/claudius-ptolemy/

I like and highly respect Ptolemy, indeed use some of his methods, but I am not blind that he spew the most bs out of all.

Let's take another look. One academic principle of criticizing a work is that it should be done in the context of what the author set out to achieve. We don't criticize a scholar for focusing on his stated objectives, vs. on your or someone else's different objectives. You are familiar with the scholarship of Professor Emeritus Mark Riley (CSU Sacramento) on both Valens and Ptolemy.

In "Theoretical and Practical Astrology: Ptolemy and His Colleagues ( 1987, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc, 117: 235-256) Riley notes that Ptolemy's project was to set up astrology "as a theoretical science." We don't think of Aristotle as scientific today, but in his era, men like Ptolemy and Aristotle were trying to understand the cosmos from a rational perspective. (Vs. as mythology.) This is why Ptolemy gets into more pure astronomy, astrological geography, and meteorology, and does so in a systematic way, as though he were writing a textbook.

With all due respect, a lot of Ptolemy's critics are not credentialed scholars but practicing astrologers, so their objectives are different. Neo-traditionalist "backlash" against Ptolemy seems pointless to me. Let's look at each of our few surviving written texts with a view to what the author set out to accomplish; as well as the lack of standards for plagiarism in Antiquity.

I have been using sidereal coordinates for hundreds of charts now and I prefer that system of reference to the tropical one. I also use mostly traditional and Hellenistic techniques.

OK, got it.

.... I wrote:

Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.''

I said that there are two crutches for the tropical zodiac - a false appeal to antiquity and an argument from popularity.

Then I think you missed my point. I was thinking more along the lines of Nicholas Campion, "Astronomy? Souls, Stars & Cosmology," (2014, J. of Cosmol., 13 pp.) Campion points to a strong theme in parts of Hellenistic astrology, notably in the Egyptian Hermetic tradition, that the horoscope is actually a tool for the soul's salvation. If this is the case, then it's hard to see the sidereal vs. tropical argument as so very relevant for the soul's journey to the stars.

Surely the tropical zodiac has been around for over 2000 years. But a sidereal zodiac is not therefore more valid merely because it is older. Apart from astrology, many far more ancient cultures used a solar "wheel of the year" or a lunar calendar in their cultural astronomies.


Enough storytelling, I want citations to ancient astrologers.

Bossy, are we? :innocent: These would be generalized for the Mediterranean culture region, which contains near-desert as well as mountains and shipping lanes.

Valens, Anthologies book 1:2. Read the signs and degrees weather forecasts here as a calendar, in which the degrees of different signs would refer to our calendar dates.

Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos,book 2:11. Ditto. He discusses "leading," "middle," and "following portions of signs as roughly 10-day periods-- similar to our long-range weather forecasts today. "Northern" and "southern parts" is a geographical distinction.

A smart guy like him would definitely know that Saturn does not produce snow, nor does the equinox produce storms, nor anything else he talked about, happens in Sahara, a few hundred kilometres away from him. This also explains why many early astrologers do not talk of Aries as spring like or Capricorn as wintry. This is part of the degeneration of knowledge, including geography of Antiquity to the Middle Ages.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, Petosiris. Saturn-ruled months (Capricorn and Aquarius) were cold months in the Mediterranean region. By "Mediterranean" I here refer to the name for the climate and environmental belt skirting the Meditteranean Sea. Some of it is desert, but it wouldn't be desert in Greece, Italy, the Levant, or a thin belt in northern Egypt. The spring equinox, again, relates to a calendar date of roughly March 21 today. Remember "In like a lion, out like a lamb"? This is elementary physical geography.

Obviously temperate Europe, lower-latitude mountains, and the true desert zones would have different climates than the classic Mediterranean region. (This coastal climatic zone also exists in SoCal, Chile, South Africa.)

Did not expect an argument from the Bible. I would like a scholarly or theologian citation that the Lamb meant the Triumph of Aries rather than Jesus, because the latter is certainly what the patristic Fathers intended.

It is around 25 degrees, this is unacceptable.

Well, I suppose the best defense is a good offense.

How many proof texts would you like, Petosiris? Obviously the Church Fathers and later theologians weren't going to peg their religious beliefs about their saviour-- not to mention their ecclesiastical power-- to astrology. But tell you what: if you have more time than I do, go through the book of Revelation armed with a guide to backyard astronomy (like a Peterson's field guide) and see how many of the author's visions you can peg to actual constellations, on and off the ecliptic. Start with Virgo: she's easy. So are the constellations Perseus and Cetus. In the meantime, I'll back up my references for this material behind my stack of articles.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
''Valens, Anthologies book 1:2. Read the signs and degrees weather forecasts here as a calendar, in which the degrees of different signs would refer to our calendar dates.

Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos,book 2:11. Ditto. He discusses "leading," "middle," and "following portions of signs as roughly 10-day periods-- similar to our long-range weather forecasts today. "Northern" and "southern parts" is a geographical distinction.''


Only this part is relevant to the problem (I can't say whether the writer of Revelation was a siderealist or tropicalist, or even an astrologer). The thing is, I already explained that Valens and Ptolemy differ on their delineations by having different degrees of the equinox, evidently Valens (and his source - Teucer of Babylon?) using a sidereal zodiac. So there is no problem with meteorology changing over time, but there is a problem with displacing of the constellations.

Btw, I am sure it is not calendrical, unless you think the Sun in the first degrees of Taurus causes earthquakes every year in the same location. It is a mixture of meteorological (which could be argued to be part of universal/mundane astrology, and I would agree) and universal phenomena for the Mediterranean, but the ancient astrologers were aware of desert regions a few kilometres away from exceptions like the Nile Delta and regions of water. Your best argument is to make the ancient astrologers idiots that thought their regional meteorology prevailed over any other astronomical rationale for astrological symbolism.

They just had a side job of meteorology, which has nothing wrong with it as long as one does not build a false system (I do not necessarily mean the tropical reference system, but the tropical rationale that is proven wrong) around it as Ptolemy did. Maybe it was the best thing and for the progress of science back then (I doubt it), but it is not now. Ptolemy is the originator of the tropical zodiac in astrology (there are records only of astronomers using it before him). Period.

''Whatever the case, Ptolemy's argument does not initially seem to have gained many supporters, and the sidereal zodiac continued to be used as the primary reference system from what we can tell according to most of the surviving horoscopes through the fourth century, until around 350 CE when there was a shift and Ptolemy's tropical values and tables became more widely adopted.'' - Brennan, Chris (2017). Hellenistic astrology: the study of fate and fortune. Amor Fati Publications, Denver, Colorado, p. 220

Chris Brennan is not an academic, but a respected tropical astrologer who is very knowledgeable and runs course in Hellenistic astrology. I highly respect and welcome Chris Brennan for not shying from using the words sidereal zodiac. Maybe you will listen to an astrologer.

I already cited academics - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=875519&postcount=42, https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=858319&postcount=100 - I explained my reasonable argument for my change of opinion here (Valens and the hundred surviving charts do not have everything displaced from the tropical zodiac by 8 or 10 degrees, but only by a few, sadly there is not a fully adequate research done in this area)- https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=869298&postcount=101 , you can also look up Jones, Alexander (1999) Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus, American Philosophical Society, pg. 343

Both post were addressed to you. You have not responded.

As I said I only want you to admit the evidence for argument ''ad antiquitatem''. Nothing else.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
''Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.''

Millions use a different astrology from the astrology of the ancients. That is a very profound thing, I agree. You are evidently not interested in traditional astrology, so whether you use the sidereal or the tropical zodiac is of little importance to me.

1. Length of Life
2. Occupation, Rank and Fame
3. Violent, accidental or internal death and its cause
4. Marriages, number of wives, the years of marriage, the success of partners
5. Children and their number, also their success
6. Health and occupation of parents
7. Years of sickness with the corresponding illness
8. Livelihood, wealth, property, the years of inheritance or buying property
9. Friendship and Siblings, the number and gender of siblings and their success
10. Operative and inoperative times
11. The native's religion and background
12. Travel and the years of travelling
13. Personality

As I have noted here - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=860199&postcount=102

Length of Life, Appearance, Parents, Brothers, Action, Affairs, Children, Friendship, Travel.

You are evidently not interested in Vettius Valens. You doubt the prediction of most of the aforementioned points. So you are not going to benefit from the ancient astrologers. What is then making you uncomfortable to just admit that they were siderealists?
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Just a tag line on my previous post. The Astrodienst free charts pages offers a wide range of sidereal chart options. They don't all give the same result.

Fagan-Bradley is about 25 degrees different from the tropical zodiac. This seems to be Astrodienst's standard. So far as I can tell they give the others as variances from this normed degree difference. Some zodiacs are modern, some are Hindu, and some are attempts to re-create older systems. Most of the variance in these systems is within 5 degrees of Fagan-Bradley.

Can't think of where I got 27 degrees as the other common figure for deviation between the ancient sidereal and modern tropical equinox position, but if I find the source, I will post it.

Hindu Lahiri is actually closer to 24 degrees different (53' off Fagan-Bradley.)

I think Robert Hand makes a reasonable argument for the tropical zodiac in Horoscope Symbols, p. 27. Agree with him or don't, but his rationale was:

1. Closer to the solar seasons, with starting points at 0 degrees of the cardinal signs.

2. Equinoxes and solstices are "clear cut astronomical fact." We can look and see the dates of the longest days and nights or equal lengths of daylight and night. If we stand on the equator we would see the sun directly overhead at 0 Aries. Tropical 0 degrees Aries is the intersection of the planes of thee ecliptic and the equator. At 0 Cancer in the northern hemisphere, the (geocentric) sun reaches its northernmost position. At 0 Capricorn in the northern hemisphere, the (geocentric) sun reaches its southernmost position.

From my own perspective, sidereal astrology would make a lot more sense if astrologers worked more extensively with fixed stars. A few do (like Bernadette Brady) but not many astrologers make full use of our fixed star repertory. (Something that Ptolemy did enumerate, and the Muslims subsequently furthered.) Rather, most astrologers whether modern or traditional, seem to focus primarily on planets in signs, houses, and inter-relationships.

As Ptolemy noted, fixing the start of the zodiac at 0 Aries is arbitrary, but convenient. In which case, it's hard to make an argument for 0 Aries as starting the zodiac in either sidereal or tropical.

With modern astrology's focus on the sun as the most important point in the chart (and Hellenistic astrology's focus on the ascendant) there is something to be said for the primacy of the sun in horoscopic astrology.

To me, this solar emphasis seems so clearly ancient Egyptian, where the sun god Re (Ra) was the primary focus-- not just of religion, but of the rituals of daily life and their beliefs about the after-life. Greenbaum and Ross https://www.academia.edu/7370462/The_Role_of_Egypt_in_the_Development_of_the_Horoscope make such a strong case for the ancient Egyptian roots of the horoscope point.

If you want an argument ad antiquitatum, let's look at the ancient Egyptians. (Speaking of an astrologer styling himself Petosiris.)

My particular interest in the history of ancient astrology is the thematic origin or houses. (Not the argument related to angularity, but the different rulerships.) One would need to be an Egyptologist to really do this research, but so far as I can make out, but the majority of houses have clear relationships to Egyptian mythology about their deities and the afterlife. The planetary joys offer another line of evidence to an Egyptian origin.

I can get into my research on this if you're interested.

In sum, the Egyptian contribution to Hellenistic astrology was significant, and this society was very solar-oriented.

They used fixed star rotations extensively as a big celestial calendar which governed both religious and civic life. They recognized when the equinox slipped from Taurus back into Aries, and made various adjustments; but basically throughout the ancient world, a strictly sidereal calendar (like a strictly lunar calendar) was a big problem for pegging all kinds of events because of the constant slippage as the equinox moved backwards due to axial precession.

Incidentally, Astrodienst also offers a terrific fixed stars chart option for anyone interested in retrieving a constellation-based astrology.
 

petosiris

Banned
''Whatever the case, Ptolemy's argument does not initially seem to have gained many supporters, and the sidereal zodiac continued to be used as the primary reference system from what we can tell according to most of the surviving horoscopes through the fourth century, until around 350 CE when there was a shift and Ptolemy's tropical values and tables became more widely adopted.'' - Brennan, Chris (2017). Hellenistic astrology: the study of fate and fortune. Amor Fati Publications, Denver, Colorado, p. 220

Yes or no?
 

petosiris

Banned
Taurus Rising, Sun and Jupiter with Taurus, Saturn with Virgo, Earth with Pisces, Mercury and Venus with Aries, Phobos with the Southern Fish, Deimos with Sagittarius.

The landing chart concerned research of climate, geology and potential life on account of the stars with Taurus, the search of water by humans on account of Earth in Pisces and Phobos with the Southern Fish.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Just catching up a bit here.

http://www.narit.or.th/en/files/2011JAHHvol14/2011JAHH...14..180T.pdf - notice that a hypothetical causal influence of certain stars is not modern or unique to Ptolemy. In my opinion, Valens or his source could also have been a rationalist, not a diviner. Indeed, a few times Valens disparages Nechepso, Petosiris, Critodemus and many times prefers methods that appear ''natural'' to him. Although he is partly mystical compared to Ptolemy, he is just as straight-forward as him. For it is one thing to say a king of some nation will fall, and another thing that a sector of the ecliptic produces earthquakes.

Actually Valens was pretty critical of your namesake Petosiris as well as other ancient astrologers whom he viewed as too mystical and cryptic to be of use to a practicing professional astrologer like himself. Note that one strong astrological thread in Alexandria during late Antiquity was Hermeticism.

The ancient Babylonian Scientists diligently recorded every event on the sky and on earth, and they were seeking for correlation. If something happened on earth, then the significance of the sky would indicate the same a few years later and vice versa. This is empirical, but notice that today there is no Akkadian King, so obviously mundane significations (and thus natal*) have to be slightly changed every few years, same as meteorological significations. Weather also changes. I respect astrological meteorology, despite no one to have practiced that since a few centuries. In fact, some of Ptolemy's atmospheric signs have astronomical truthfulness to them, they are primitive compared to modern meteorology, but it is something compared to nothing.

Are you familiar with the research of Francesca Rochberg? She is a professor of ancient languages at UC-Berkeley, and a leading authority on Babylonian astrology. She has published extensively on Babylonian astrology but my go-to book is her The Heavenly Writing (Cambridge University Press.) She notes that although the Babylonians made extensive observations of the heavens, their "findings" really were not cause-and-effect in a modern scientific sense. If astrologers predicted that the planet Mars brought drought or warfare, this wasn't based on long empirical study of what happened during Mars transits, but because the malefic characteristics of their planetary god (Nergal) pre-dated their omen literature. The planetary god Nergal brought warfare or drought because this was his nature.

Actually, for a very up-to-date use of astrological meteorology, look at the farmer's almanacs available in your local garden centers.
 

petosiris

Banned
I am familiar and researching her good work on ancient astrology, but I do not have access to her article on ''empiricism''. Based on your post, I presume she criticizes many historical scholars who think that Babylonian astrology is the first empirical science?

Whatever the case, the Babylonian astrologers were more diligent in universal astrology than astrologers today.

Edit: ''Their logical, systematic, and inferential character, I would argue, warrants classification with science. Other aspects of cuneiform divination, particularly those involving the practice (as opposed to the nature) of divination, indicate other possible classifications, for example with magic, or religion. The problem is that none of these categories are found in Akkadian terminology, though there are words for observe (naāru) and predict (qabû), apotropaic ritual (namburbû), incantation (šiptu), and gods (ilū).'' - Rochberg, In the Path of the Moon, pg. 406

Magical thinking is the first protoscience in my opinion, in the philosophical sense.

''Actually, for a very up-to-date use of astrological meteorology, look at the farmer's almanacs available in your local garden centers.''

I wonder if they sell tropical almanacs in Australia.

I would still like you to answer my simple question with a yes or no.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Only this part is relevant to the problem (I can't say whether the writer of Revelation was a siderealist or tropicalist, or even an astrologer). The thing is, I already explained that Valens and Ptolemy differ on their delineations by having different degrees of the equinox, evidently Valens (and his source - Teucer of Babylon?) using a sidereal zodiac. So there is no problem with meteorology changing over time, but there is a problem with displacing of the constellations.

I'm not sure what their differences signify. Ancient astrologers differed on all kinds of points. The texts are not entirely clear, but my best guess is that both Valens and Ptolemy were using signs as well as fixed stars.

Are you familiar with Aratus, Phaenomena? Hesiod, Works and Days? The research of classics professor Daryn Lehoux? ("Observation and Prediction in Ancient Astrology," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (2):227-246 (2004) Perapegma? http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/faq/astronomical-questions/what-is-a-parapegma The ancient Greeks had a whole lot of phenology and star-based weather lore prior to the introduction of astrology from Babylon. Like the Egyptians, they used fixed stars to mark calendar dates: times to plant, times to observe religious holy days, times to end shipping on the Mediterranean, and so on.

Btw, I am sure it is not calendrical, unless you think the Sun in the first degrees of Taurus causes earthquakes every year in the same location. It is a mixture of meteorological (which could be argued to be part of universal/mundane astrology, and I would agree) and universal phenomena for the Mediterranean, but the ancient astrologers were aware of desert regions a few kilometres away from exceptions like the Nile Delta and regions of water. Your best argument is to make the ancient astrologers idiots that thought their regional meteorology prevailed over any other astronomical rationale for astrological symbolism.

Look. Nobody is saying that these guys had Ph. D.s in meteorology and jobs at NOAA. We have to do our best to understand natural history in their terms. They seem to have combined what we would call "earth science" together with astronomy/astrology and phenology in ways that we wouldn't do today.

But maybe we're coming full circle. M.I.T. has a Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences

Have you looked at Ptolemy's world map or his Geographia? He regionalized the climate of different nations of the known world in other writings, not to mention in his astrological geography section of Tetrabiblos. I've attached Ptolemy's world map.

I think you sell Mr. Pt short in part because of unfamiliarity with the scope of his writings.

They just had a side job of meteorology, which has nothing wrong with it as long as one does not build a false system (I do not necessarily mean the tropical reference system, but the tropical rationale that is proven wrong) around it as Ptolemy did. Maybe it was the best thing and for the progress of science back then (I doubt it), but it is not now. Ptolemy is the originator of the tropical zodiac in astrology (there are records only of astronomers using it before him). Period.

Can you possibly, conceivably get beyond Ptolemy as the nasty, evil perpetrator of the wicked, utterly wrong tropical zodiac? See my references above on ancient Greeks' correlation of their celestial calendar, phenology, and climate patterns. You might wish to study Greek concepts of astronomy and climate prior to the introduction of Babylonian astrology.

Moreover, distinguishing between astronomy and astrology (or other cultural astronomy) in Antiquity is usually a false dichotomy.

''Whatever the case, Ptolemy's argument does not initially seem to have gained many supporters, and the sidereal zodiac continued to be used as the primary reference system from what we can tell according to most of the surviving horoscopes through the fourth century, until around 350 CE when there was a shift and Ptolemy's tropical values and tables became more widely adopted.'' - Brennan, Chris (2017). Hellenistic astrology: the study of fate and fortune. Amor Fati Publications, Denver, Colorado, p. 220

Chris Brennan is not an academic, but a respected tropical astrologer who is very knowledgeable and runs course in Hellenistic astrology. I highly respect and welcome Chris Brennan for not shying from using the words sidereal zodiac. Maybe you will listen to an astrologer.

I think Chris Brennan's signal academic achievement was an AA degree from the non-acredited Kepler College. But I have a copy of his Hellenistic Astrology, and I give him high marks for a magisterial book.

Look. I have never gone to the mat for the tropical zodiac. If you prefer sidereal, more power to your wheel. I use the tropical zodiac, however, with no problem. But then I consider myself to be an amateur modern astrologer who tries to be somewhat informed about the history of astrology. You wanna make something of it?

[to be continued]
 

Attachments

  • Ptolemy's map.jpg
    Ptolemy's map.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I have great respect for the research of Otto Neugebauer (Conman's critique notwithstanding) and Alexander Jones.

But Jeez Louise, Petosiris, have a heart. I mentioned that I was just home from 7 weeks away from home and have a lot of things to attend to at home that got backed up during my absence (ranging from income tax to tree-pruning to laundry. I indicated that it would take me a while to get through the more detailed arguments presented.

Your links seem to be of your working-out of the tropical-sidereal similarities and differences in some ancient sources. I actually do not have a lot of interest in this topic. If you do,, that's super.

Further, nobody has to respond as you want, when you want it.

"Yes or no" what???
 

petosiris

Banned
Is it true that the sidereal zodiac was the primary reference system for the surviving Babylonian charts and continued to be the primary reference system according to most of the surviving Hellenistic charts until the middle of the fourth century?

A: Yes
B: No

''Further, nobody has to respond as you want, when you want it.''

I do not know whether you will respond to this as I mention it for the fourth time, evidently you either have to lie or admit that argument 1 is true.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
''Your links seem to be of your working-out of the tropical-sidereal similarities and differences in some ancient sources. I actually do not have a lot of interest in this topic. If you do,, that's super.''

Then what are you doing in this thread disputing my historical arguments for the sidereal zodiac?

I would also want to briefly note that ''It is calm. From its first degree to 6° (the section of the Pleiades) it is worthless, even destructive, disease-producing, thundering, causing earthquakes and lightning flashes. The next two degrees are fiery and smokey. The right part (toward Auriga) is temperate and cool. The left parts are worthless and changeable, sometimes chilling, at other times heating. The head (to 23°) is in a temperate atmosphere, but it causes disease and death for living things. The rest is destructive, worthless, disease-ridden.'' is contrary to the usual and accepted significations of Venus. One can do whatever he wants with the local meteorology and still have separate sidereal astrological meanings.

It is almost undistinguishable in badness from the wintry (or is it temperate) Capricorn - ''Capricorn is temperate on both sides. By parts it is as follows: the first parts are destructive, the second moist, stormy, changeable; the middle parts are fiery; the last destructive''

Valens Book 1.2, translation by Riley

Usually Ptolemy is cited as the originator of causal astrology, however I think it is possible (based on the language) that the source of Valens and Ptolemy is an earlier naturalist (Teucer of Babylon?). And that he, like Ptolemy assigned causal influence to the fixed stars, which (today) we know is false in either the sidereal or tropical zodiac. They might be still relevant as significations in a divinatory manner. I recommend the chapter on atmospheric signs in the Tetrabiblos or Book I of Hephaistio of Thebes, as that is actually astronomical and truthful to a large degree for any location on Earth (with the exception of shooting stars and comets of course, although I would consider that divinatory). Farmers and gardeners probably already know them.

Meteorological astrology is part of the highest and most important astrological branch - universal astrology.

As for Ptolemy's statement that ''Observations of the signs that are to be seen around the sun, moon, and planets would also be useful for a foreknowledge of the particular events signified.'' In my opinion they are not only useful, but required. I am skeptical of predictions based on planetary longitudes, as those are the same for the whole Earth. Visual astronomy and knowledge of the climate by studying the geography of the region is the way to approach meteorological astrology in my opinion. Today one can also consult weather stations reports, or use thermometers, hygrometers, anemometers and udometers. There were available ancient devices for this matter.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I am familiar and researching her good work on ancient astrology, but I do not have access to her article on ''empiricism''. Based on your post, I presume she criticizes many historical scholars who think that Babylonian astrology is the first empirical science?

Actually, not. I'm not sure whom you consider to be "scholars." But academics tend to cite one another as evidence. Nobody disputes the existence of detailed Babylonian observations. This isn't the issue. The question is whether their omen predictions were based upon those observations or on `a priori assumptions about the nature of the planetary gods.

Further, you probably can access any academic articles you want through the Inter-Library Loan service of your local public library branch. If you live near a research-intensive college or university, see if they offer library cards to members of the community. Most journals today are on-line: just possibly if you are an alumnus of a research-intensive campus your alma mater would also give you courtesy library privileges, and then you could access their journals and search functions on-line from home.

If you've got a copy of Rochberg's The Heavenly Writing, or can get one through a university library, the following pages maybe of interest:

p. 117-119, 239: 12 signs introduced ca. 500 BCE, about the time that personal nativities appear in the records, and the solar ecliptic began to become important, vs. the previous "path of the moon."

p. 245. Babylonian astrology/astronomy was intrinsically part of a religious world view. It makes no sense to consider their achievements "scientific" in a modern secular sense.

pp. 247ff. The Babylonian texts include "observations" of phenomena that we would regard as utterly unrealistic, such as observation of demons, the sun shining at night, or impossible eclipse dates.

p. 256-7, 271. ""Although formulated frequently as observation predicate,s phenomena recorded in omen protases were necessarily only potentially observable because in no case do the omens function as a record of observations of identifiable (i. e., datable) instances....There is no empirical or experiential, connection...." 258-9: sometimes associations between celestial phenomena and projected outcomes were based merely on linguistic associations between them.

259, 269. Astrology was full of `a priori assumption. Inn a world-view in which nothing occurred by random chance, a relationship between x and y at one time would have to pertain indefinitely.

297: "predictions were not based upon experience or reason but as matters of divine authority."


.....

Magical thinking is the first protoscience in my opinion, in the philosophical sense.

I think Rochberg's point was, for astronomy/astrology we can separate the two only in a post-hoc view of the history of science.

I would still like you to answer my simple question with a yes or no.

Yes or no what?
 

petosiris

Banned
''I think Rochberg's point was, for astronomy/astrology we can separate the two only in a post-hoc view of the history of science.''

I think I agree with this statement.

''Yes or no what?''

Is it true that the sidereal zodiac was the primary reference system for the surviving Babylonian charts and continued to be the primary reference system according to most of the surviving Hellenistic charts until the middle of the fourth century?

A: Yes
B: No
 

waybread

Well-known member
Is it true that the sidereal zodiac was the primary reference system for the surviving Babylonian charts and continued to be the primary reference system according to most of the surviving Hellenistic charts until the middle of the fourth century?

A: Yes
B: No

''Further, nobody has to respond as you want, when you want it.''

I do not know whether you will respond to this as I mention it for the fourth time, evidently you either have to lie or admit that argument 1 is true.


Do not suggest that I would lie about anything, Petosiris. This is a serious ethical charge. People can disagree with you for all kinds of reasons. You did not seem to accept my repeated statement that I actually have more on my plate right now than will permit me to respond on-demand to the incessant questions of a complete stranger on an Internet forum.

There is little doubt that the Babylonians used a sidereal system. Happy?

I would have to make a more detailed study than I have done to date, or frankly care to do, to take up the sidereal vs. tropical debate for Hellenistic astrology.

I will say that you seem to rely heavily on Hellenistic authors whose works do not survive in the original-- but only as excerpts or attributions from other authors. This problem suggests caution in making definite assertions.

But out of curiosity, Petosiris: at what date do you think the Aries point for tropical and sidereal astrology would have been identical?
 

petosiris

Banned
Do not suggest that I would lie about anything, Petosiris. This is a serious ethical charge. People can disagree with you for all kinds of reasons. You did not seem to accept my repeated statement that I actually have more on my plate right now than will permit me to respond on-demand to the incessant questions of a complete stranger on an Internet forum.

There is little doubt that the Babylonians used a sidereal system. Happy?

I would have to make a more detailed study than I have done to date, or frankly care to do, to take up the sidereal vs. tropical debate for Hellenistic astrology.

I will say that you seem to rely heavily on Hellenistic authors whose works do not survive in the original-- but only as excerpts or attributions from other authors. This problem suggests caution in making definite assertions.

But out of curiosity, Petosiris: at what date do you think the Aries point for tropical and sidereal astrology would have been identical?

I am quite happy that you admit that the Babylonians used a sidereal system. However, you seem to doubt that the majority of the earlier Hellenistic astrologers were also using a sidereal zodiac. There is plenty of evidence - in the majority of over hundred surviving charts and texts, basically until Ptolemy in terms of texts. And after him until the fourth century in terms of charts.

As for the date, that would be around 220. I am not sure if you are aware, but the tropical zodiac of Ptolemy, Paulus, Hephaistio, the Anonymous of 379 and others was off by a few degrees, likely because of a wrong rate of precession of a degree per century. They did not know the exact location of the equinox.

What exactly do you mean by ''you seem to rely heavily on Hellenistic authors whose works do not survive in the original-- but only as excerpts or attributions from other authors. This problem suggests caution in making definite assertions.''?

I would be fully satisfied if you also agree with the second part of my statement.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
If you have not done a more detailed study, I have no explanations for your reaction ''I don't buy the argument ad antiquitatum'' based on feelings without evidence.

I have done a detailed study and found it exactly as Chris Brennan and academics say. The case is clear - the sidereal zodiac continued to be used as the primary reference system according to most of the surviving horoscopes and texts until around the middle of the fourth century. This means that - Nechepso and Petosiris (rising times table), Thrasyllus (objection against the tropical zodiac), Critodemus (charts in Valens), Teucer of Babylon (used by Valens on the signs and meteorology with an Aries 8 equinox), Balbilus (son of Thrasyllus), Manilius (reports Aries 10 equinox), Dorotheus of Sidon (has a few sidereal charts), Vettius Valens (reports Aries 8 equinox and has over a hundred sidereal charts, many of which belong to his predecessors) and many other western astrologers (like Palchus and Mashaallah) all used a sidereal zodiac.

So keep that in mind the next time to avoid false claims like ''Valens used the tropical zodiac'', ''For another ancient tropical astrologer, see the poet Manilius''. You have plenty of middle and later Hellenistic tropicalists to cite for that matter - Ptolemy, Porphyry, Hephaistio of Thebes, Paulus Alexandrinus, the Anonymous of 379, Olympiodorus, Rhetorius and others. Of those authors, I would have liked to have Ptolemy and Hephaistio as siderealists as I greatly admire their work, but in reality they are tropical astrologers.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I am quite happy that you admit that the Babylonians used a sidereal system. However, you seem to doubt that the majority of the earlier Hellenistic astrologers were also using a sidereal zodiac. There is plenty of evidence - in the majority of over hundred surviving charts and texts, basically until Ptolemy in terms of texts. And after him until the fourth century in terms of charts.

As for the date, that would be around 220. I am not sure if you are aware, but the tropical zodiac of Ptolemy, Paulus, Hephaistio, the Anonymous of 379 and others was off by a few degrees, likely because of a wrong rate of precession of a degree per century. They did not know the exact location of the equinox.

What exactly do you mean by ''you seem to rely heavily on Hellenistic authors whose works do not survive in the original-- but only as excerpts or attributions from other authors. This problem suggests caution in making definite assertions.''?

I would be fully satisfied if you also agree with the second part of my statement.

Whaaa????

Petosiris, now that I have Easter dinner prepped (company's coming) I thought I'd fire off one last message. But this really takes the cake.

What do you mean, I "admit that the Babylonians used a sidereal system"? Where did I ever express any doubt about this point? It's been known for a long time.

As to your assertion about "the majority of the earlier Hellenistic astrologers," I don't think you mean to make this assertion in quite this way. Hellenistic astrologers were more numerous than simply the names that history has handed down to us. We know this because some of the more prominent astrologers complained about the charlatans and quacks that gave their profession a bad name. There were astrologers who practiced at street fairs and Egyptian magicians who used astrology in the practice of black magic. There were Neo-Platonic, Hermetic astrologers. A really interesting book is by a classics professor, Frederick Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. It's not helpful on methods, but it gives a vivid picture of the diversity of astrology and astrologers who practiced in ancient Rome, and how astrology interacted with social issues of the day.

"Over a hundred" surviving charts and texts? Citations, please. And then show why they are sidereal vs. tropical. Are you relying on Neugebauer and Van Hoesen or someone else?

Again, you really have to be cautious about claiming as your authorities astrologers whose own works did not survive, or survived only in excerpts, who may be mentioned by extant sources only briefly, and about whom little is known. There is a danger of substituting conjecture based upon insufficient information for fact. I think my plain meaning here is self-evident.

So if you think that the sidereal and tropical Aries points were the same ca. 220 CE, it complicates your point, because a swath of charts would fall within the margin of error. As I said earlier (or perhaps elsewhere) some scholars think that Ptolemy jumped the gun on his tropical zodiac; that the sidereal 0 Aries equinox wouldn't have occurred till after the mid-2nd century CE when he wrote. From a tropical perspective, this probably doesn't matter, however.

I'm not here to "satisfy" your beliefs, Petosiris, because to me there are bigger issues.

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.

But you still haven't made an argument as to why the sidereal zodiac is superior in western astrology. Simply because a method is older or was used by some distinguished ancient astrologers are not logical arguments for using it today. A Model T was an earlier vehicle than our Toyota Tundra, but that doesn't mean the Model T is a better vehicle. If older is better, you might turn off your computer and go back to constructing charts by hand.

I'd want to see evidence that the sidereal zodiac produces better results in horoscope interpretations for the real people in real time with real problems that I try to help on this forum when I'm not tied up in this type of thread.

And then whose sidereal zodiac? The Astrodienst free charts pages will give you lots to choose from.

My own personal feeling is that when astrology "works" well in producing accurate chart readings, there is something going on in the mind of the astrologer besides the particular techniques used. Were techniques so important, with some clearly right and others clearly wrong, we wouldn't find skilled Vedic, modern, and traditional western astrologers all getting good results.
 
Top