skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Domicile rulership in the sidereal zodiac
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There are quite a few techniques that Valens uses which rely on the rising times, but I don't like the convoluted nature of the them.


Except for two chronocrators by ascension at the same time, they are not dependant on having equal rising times in my opinion.

Valens uses equinox Aries 8 of system B while using rising times of Aries 10 System A. Either he was making an abstraction like you propose, or he had no idea what is the difference between the two. The difference between sidereal and tropical rising times is unnoticeable at the time, especially if you do not understand precession.

Francesca Rochberg in the Path of the Moon even shows a third school of Babylonians that divided Capricorn - Gemini into fast rising signs of 20 and Cancer - Sagittarius into slow rising signs of 40.

She says that ''Rising times (anaphora) relate to the problem of the variation of daylight length. In early Babylonian astronomy this was perceived as a calendaric matter, but later, in the Hellenistic period, daylight length was treated as an astronomical matter, i.e., as a function of the sun’s position in the zodiac.''

She then quotes Neugebauer - ''On the other hand one finds the unaltered set of Babylonian rising times of System A in Indian astronomy of the sixth century A.D. without any consideration for India’s far more southern position.'' - Rochberg, F. (2010). In the path of the moon: Babylonian celestial divination and its legacy (Vol. 6). Brill.

I think the application was meant to be related to the rising time, not the daylight. This in no way supports the ''invariance of the tropical zodiac'', as it was done approximately or accidentally in a sidereal zodiac. - http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01hand.html

It is obvious that he meant the whole Aries rises in 20, not that 20 degrees of Aries and 10 degrees of Taurus rise in 20 (as it is proposed in the article). It is a mistake that needs to corrected in a sidereal framework, but as I said I do not see how Valens could have known the exact rising times of the signs until the application of trigonometry and latitude by Ptolemy.

For example in the length of life which uses rising times, the ''inaccurate'' rising times with klimas instead of latitude would give accurate lengths +- 5 years. I do not think it made them record wrong observations with regards to releasing. Or for the rectification of the ascendant. Or for finding the ascendant, it will give approximate results.

I do think however, that it is problematic with Valens usage of it with planetary years, as that seems predicated on being the exact year of the native.

One can see similar approximations and idealizations with sidereal antiscia of Aries 8, 10 in Manilius and Thrasyllus (and in Ptolemy and Rhetorius erroneously) which are completely accurate only with an Aries 15 zodiac. The tropical is not even good in idealization as tropical Aries is equinoctial as much as tropical Pisces is, because it uses an interstice instead of placing its tropic somewhere between the sign, the 15th degree being ideal. This led to a complete changeover of antiscia signs from signs in sextile and trines to signs in aversion or squares (while according to Thrasyllus and Hephaistio equinoctial Aries and Libra do not hear each other, most likely because they are in opposition).

As Rochberg points out, the rising times were used as daylight pattern, so this may have complemented the antiscia as counter-antiscia (although it would involve signs in aversion or squares).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote :
Quote:
I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of siderealists how they think domicile rulerships were originally conceived?

I do have a hypothesis, and I think the origin is primarily tropical. I think it requires an acceptance that there was probably an oral tradition preceding (by quite a long way) the earliest surviving documents about astrology, and perhaps also requires that we envisage astrology as an art/science that has been discovered and rediscovered, rather than invented. These ideas are related to things I posted in an earlier discussion (Origins of the tropical zodiac, in the Philo/Science forum). I suggested, following Cyril Fagan, that it would be more logical in terms of the symmetrical rulership scheme for the tropical cross (solstice/equinox axes, and hence antiscia/contrantiscia) to be lined up with that symmetry (solstices between Cancer/Leo and Capricorn/Aquarius, and the 30° following the sun's spring equinox point to be ruled by Venus and called "0° Taurus" -- or indeed, called whatever you want, but ruled by Venus).
I caused a lot of confusion by not being clear enough, but the apparent anomaly seems to have been noted by others. In a recent post about Astrology and praying (philo/science forum), Paul wrote :
Quote:
the solstice is the 21 June, and so if we were to link this to light, we should really have Gemini as ruled by the Moon, and Cancer by the Sun, so as to better reflect the order of the planets along the solstice axes. We don't do that.

I'd like to quote the tropicalist David Roell (A New Theory of Astrology, in Skeet Shooting for Astrologers)
Quote:
Signs are not measured from the Sun's longitude, which is how they are usually expressed, but from the Sun's declination. This was how you can still measure it today. Every morning at sunrise, mark the sun's first appearance on the horizon. From the Winter Solstice to the Summer Solstice, you will see it move, day by day, to the left (north). From the Summer Solstice to the Winter Solstice, it will move steadily to the right (south). This lateral distance on the horizon is trisected (in time) to form signs. Long ago it was projected against a backdrop of stars merely as a convenience. The twelve signs of the zodiac have no relation to the background of stars whatever.

The article here on Skyscript by Robin Heath, The Astronomy and Astrology of the Solar Hero, develops the same idea very successfully. This may be what happened at Stonehenge, for example, and probably in the deserts of Egypt and Babylon, where landmarks were few. But before (or as well as) projecting those positions onto the stars (probably the stars rising at sunset, the start of the Semitic day) and perhaps making imaginative connections with events in the agricultural cycle or the weather at that time of year, the horizon-watchers may well have ascribed these space/time slices to various planetary deities. If so, it would be logical to put the Sun at the "top" and Saturn at the "bottom", to associate the Moon with the Sun as the other sect light, and to arrange the other four planets according to their distance and speed of movement from the Sun (or their speed of movement from the Moon). This gives the symmetrical mirror-image rulership scheme.
This then may have rapidly become more associated with the stars, and disconnected from the horizon, so that it "went sidereal", and astrologers may have found that this worked to their satisfaction for predictive or ritual purposes. Then Ptolemy "brought it down" again once the tropical cross had shifted the VP to early Aries, and found that revised scheme useful for predicting meteorological events, for example. So he (re-)established the tropical cross, but skewed with respect to the rulership scheme. (Though he, or perhaps a copyist, forgets to skew it in the chapter of the Houses of the Planets, and lines up the solstice with the rulership scheme rather than with the Gemini/Cancer cusp:"...of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo".)
As Mark pointed out, Gavin White's article here on Skyscript suggests a tropical origin for the exaltations, following the solstice/equinox cross – but with Mars conventionally at the end of Capricorn, Saturn near the end of Libra, and in Indian astrology (possibly borrowing from an earlier Hellenistic tradition) with the Sun at 20° Aries. And according to White, in a text c. 600 BC:
Quote:
'Jupiter behind the Crab (Cancer) in front of the Lion (Leo)'

So aligning more or less with the earlier sidereal placements of the tropical cross.
As with the rulers, I would suggest that these points were then used sidereally and found to "work" that way. I do believe there is a logic to the sidereal zodiac in terms of galactic structure, which these probably tropical signposts, established when the VP was around 0° Taurus, fortuitously pointed to. But I don't think it would be useful to try to develop that here.
Thanks for your attention.
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Signs are not measured from the Sun's longitude, which is how they are usually expressed, but from the Sun's declination. This was how you can still measure it today. Every morning at sunrise, mark the sun's first appearance on the horizon. From the Winter Solstice to the Summer Solstice, you will see it move, day by day, to the left (north). From the Summer Solstice to the Winter Solstice, it will move steadily to the right (south). This lateral distance on the horizon is trisected (in time) to form signs. Long ago it was projected against a backdrop of stars merely as a convenience. The twelve signs of the zodiac have no relation to the background of stars whatever.


If that was true, they would not have used the constellations as sidereal signs and noted the equinox at the 15th, 10th or 8th degree of the sidereal signs. The Babylonian and Hellenistic astrologers were deliberate sidereal astrologers. They could have just used the tropical values substracting 8 degrees from their tables, but they did not (in fact we have the opposite happening - Valens adds 7 degrees to the tables of Hipparchus - they confusingly did not make a difference between the tropical and sidereal year, because of unawareness of precession, but in my opinion they did make difference of zodiacs - one is aligned with the constellations of the same names as the images, the other is not).

Graham,
I think the Northern part is a slip by Ptolemy. While the antiscia/daylight symbolism of the tropical zodiac is not satisfactory by time of Ptolemy, I do not think it goes back to Taurus equinox, as the 12 sign zodiac did not exist at that time (at least according to academia). The earliest equinox point I could trace is the Aries 15 by Eudoxus and some Alexandrian astrologers. I think that is the time when the exaltations (which I think were more seasonal than sidereal) were developed, and the various degrees were changed for certain schematicism - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10059

Aries 15 spring begins 14 days after Ptolemy's zodiac begins. So what ''Ptolemaic powers'' can be implicit in the signs if that is the case? If the domicile and exaltation scheme is wholly tropical, how can tropical astrologers be sure they are not using them wrongly by 14 degrees off? If I want to use the Hellenistic zodiac I either have to use a sidereal zodiac or a tropical zodiac that begins 7, 9 or 14 degrees earlier from the equinox. It certainly was not the Aries 1 zodiac.

While I agree with you that Taurus is more indicative of moist spring and Scorpio of dry autumn using Ptolemy's planetary properties scheme, I have a better idea - that this is just a coincidence, as was cold Saturn indicating wintry time at the time of Ptolemy, which was chosen more by virtue of planetary order than anything else (as were dry Mars and moist Venus flanking the domiciles with squares with contradictory seasons).

Ptolemy, Paulus and Rhetorius also have another slip by using sextile and trine antiscia, which is redundant with Aries 1. This is more evident of astrologers not being well aware of the implications of tropicalism, siderealism and precession, as they continue to use both well into the Medieval ages.

By talking about the northern and the daylight, you are noting something obvious. The first degree is an arbitrary and non-schematic point, only chosen by the virtue of nearly coinciding with the sidereal signs at the time of Ptolemy, as Aries 8 was discovered to not be the true equinox anymore.

In the Hipparchus-Ptolemaic zodiac, Aries and Libra are no more equinoctial than Pisces and Virgo. Cancer does not have any more daylight than Gemini and Capricorn does not have any less daylight than Sagittarius (or maybe there is an atomic amount of difference). Those distinctions were not created with Aries 1 in mind, but most likely with Aries 15 (although in my opinion they work to some extent, albeit not as symmetrical, with the sidereal zodiacs of Aries 8 and 10 - Manilius and Thrasyllus used them thus, I may add Pisces 5).

The discovery of antipodes should have settled the question by now. Instead we continue to see the seasonal paradigm being used without problem in Iceland, Brazil and Australia. It works just as well as in temperate zones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Petosiris wrote:
Quote:
If that was true, they would not have used the constellations as sidereal signs and noted the equinox at the 15th, 10th or 8th degree of the sidereal signs. The Babylonian and Hellenistic astrologers were deliberate sidereal astrologer

Yes of course, I agree. I was trying to suggest an origin for the rulership scheme, not discredit or deny sidereal. I'm suggesting that the tropical origins are earlier, before astrology as such in fact, or perhaps in parallel. A horizon-based solar calendar, which could help to explain how the rulership scheme developed. Once the connection was made with the stars, it was sidereal, and became more precise as to degrees, as you say.
Quote:
I think the Northern part is a slip by Ptolemy. While the antiscia/daylight symbolism of the tropical zodiac is not satisfactory by time of Ptolemy, I do not think it goes back to Taurus equinox, as the 12 sign zodiac did not exist at that time (at least according to academia).

Yes, I agree it's a slip, but a "Freudian" one (a mistake that reveals the truth). And as you say, there are no documents, but in other fields such as linguistics, when there are no documents, you look at structural features. This is what I'm trying to do. The rulership scheme may reflect a dividing up of what would have been the tropical cross when VP was at 0 Taurus.
Quote:
While I agree with you that Taurus is more indicative of moist spring and Scorpio of dry autumn using Ptolemy's planetary properties scheme, I have a better idea - that this is just a coincidence

I wasn't actually thinking of moist spring or dry autumn, just of the solstice/equinox axes. And of course everything could just be coincidence, including the rulers and all events that seem to be indicated by astrology!

Quote:
By talking about the northern and the daylight, you are noting something obvious.
Yes, but I was suggesting that this northern point of maximum daylight "should" logically correspond to the "top" of the rulership scheme, i.e. cusp between the two houses of the lights, and this doesn't seem to be at all obvious to most astrologers.
Quote:
The first degree is an arbitrary and non-schematic point, only chosen by the virtue of nearly coinciding with the sidereal signs at the time of Ptolemy, as Aries 8 was discovered to not be the true equinox anymore.
Yes, once we're in a sidereal perspective I agree, of course. Sidereally, I don't think there is any reason to consider Aries the "first" sign, and tropically, Taurus would make a better "permanent" first sign by matching the rulership symmetry to the antiscial symmetry of the solstice/equinox cross.
Quote:
Tropical Aries and Libra are no more equinoctial than Pisces and Virgo. Cancer does not have any more daylight than Gemini and Capricorn does not have any less daylight than Sagittarius (or maybe there is an atomic amount of difference). Those distinctions were not created with Aries 1 in mind, but most likely with Aries 15
Yes, and anyway I am much more convinced by sidereal than tropical. The various decreasing degrees of the VP documented in Aries surely show that astrology was sidereal preceding Ptolemy and took some time to settle into the modern tropical logic of considering the VP to be "frozen" between Pisces and Aries. If they'd opted to put it between Aries and Taurus I think it would have more internal logic, and might thus correspond in the way I suggested to a much earlier time when horizon-rulerships were perhaps taking shape. What I'm really saying is that I think Ptolemy was right when he "slipped", and I was trying to find an explanation of when and how the rulership scheme could have developed in that symmetrical way from solar/horizon observations. The Robin Heath article (The astronomy and astrology of the solar hero myth) seems to me to point in this direction.
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I wasn't actually thinking of moist spring or dry autumn, just of the solstice/equinox axes. And of course everything could just be coincidence, including the rulers and all events that seem to be indicated by astrology!


Right, coincidences by analogy are the source of divination (although Ptolemy was fully naturalist), I am just saying that this kind of analogy is contrary to some other analogies like the constellations (which by the way were thought to influence the weather - 2.11. of Tetrabiblos, also cf. phases of fixed stars book by Ptolemy).

Quote:
Yes, but I was suggesting that this northern point of maximum daylight "should" logically correspond to the "top" of the rulership scheme, i.e. cusp between the two houses of the lights, and this doesn't seem to be at all obvious to most astrologers.


When you get into Hellenistic astrology you will see they tried to schematise too many things at the same time. For example the antiscia doctrine is contrary to the aspect doctrine, so one (the antiscia) becomes secondary to the other, or at least so it appears to me. People are accustomed to see all kinds of patterns, some astrologers see the ABC system in Hellenistic astrology where it is not. So I am always open to the idea of slips and mere coincidence rather than unconscious Freudian slips and deliberate coincidence. So while Taurus - Scorpio axis makes more sense, it actually did not because of other reasons. Ptolemy notes that you can start everywhere, but he uses the spring analogy that youth is moist like it. I think there was influence from the Babylonians who started their new year from the New Moon after the equinox (which at the time occured in Aries), although the Egyptians (and some astrologers like Valens) did from the rising of Sirius.

Off-topic you would be interested in knowing that April 23 is the feast of saint George and that October 26 is the feast of saint Demetrius and these coincide with Taurus and Scorpio Julian Calendar tropical ingresses in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The superstitious people of Greece and the Balkans believed that the two saints pull the Sun around the sky and they specifically say that George controls the summer and that Demetrius controls the winter. Anthropologically this would fall into the category of divine twins myths, although saint George is already related to the Thracian Horseman myth, and the iconography between the two is the same. George usually rides a white horse, while Demetrius rides a brown horse. This itself (my personal hypothesis) may be a remnant of fertility cults introduced by the Celts related to Epona.

Counter-argument can be that it is the fixed signs of the Aries zodiac that decide the seasons (even though Ptolemy does not make that distinction well enough he does say that the tropical fixed signs makes the weather touch you most firmly).

I myself have noticed that Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo and Libra have no malefic signs with them compared to Scorpio - Aries half - which has 4. So the Taurus - Libra half should be the brighter and solar one, theoretically. I have entertained the possibility of Aries 8 or 15 tropical zodiac, but not of 1 Taurus before. It is quite interesting.

But none of this helps my practice. If I discovered some rationale for the exaltations is tropical, how does this help me if I know it is not applicable to the Southern Hemisphere? Similarly, if the exaltation was proven to be related to paranatellonta or heliacal risings in a sidereal zodiac, how does this help my practice today if I do not live in Babylon or Egypt?

I never understood that part of both camps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Petosiris wrote
Quote:
April 23 is the feast of saint George and that October 26 is the feast of saint Demetrius and these coincide with Taurus and Scorpio Julian Calendar tropical ingresses in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The superstitious people of Greece and the Balkans believed that the two saints pull the Sun around the sky and they specifically say that George controls the summer and that Demetrius controls the winter.

This is interesting, though curious they start pulling a month after the equinoxes, rather than straight away!
Reminds me that I found out a while ago that contrary to my belief, traditionally built churches are not aligned due east, but to various points on the local eastern horizon within the range of the Sun's rising in the course of the year. And in principle, this direction should correspond to the date of the Saint's day of that church. So a church of St John the Baptist should be aligned to the summer solstice (or nearly - 24th June, to be precise, in present calender), that of John the Evangelist to the winter solstice (Decmeber 27th, in fact).
So in a sense the St Johns "rule" those bits of the Sun's path as seen on the horizon, as I suggest for planetary rulers.
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham F wrote:
Petosiris wrote
Quote:
April 23 is the feast of saint George and that October 26 is the feast of saint Demetrius and these coincide with Taurus and Scorpio Julian Calendar tropical ingresses in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The superstitious people of Greece and the Balkans believed that the two saints pull the Sun around the sky and they specifically say that George controls the summer and that Demetrius controls the winter.

This is interesting, though curious they start pulling a month after the equinoxes, rather than straight away!
Reminds me that I found out a while ago that contrary to my belief, traditionally built churches are not aligned due east, but to various points on the local eastern horizon within the range of the Sun's rising in the course of the year. And in principle, this direction should correspond to the date of the Saint's day of that church. So a church of St John the Baptist should be aligned to the summer solstice (or nearly - 24th June, to be precise, in present calender), that of John the Evangelist to the winter solstice (Decmeber 27th, in fact).
So in a sense the St Johns "rule" those bits of the Sun's path as seen on the horizon, as I suggest for planetary rulers.
Graham


Right, the conception and nativity of John the Baptist and Jesus coincide with the tropical equinoxes and solstices in the Julian calendar, however the people for some reason thought that those two feasts better indicate the change of weather, and I think it has to with the weather becoming more ''solid'', which is not contrary, but using tropical logic.

I was rereading James Holden's translation of Rhetorius and in the appendix, which is sometimes attributed to Teucer of Babylon and there is a clear understanding of quadruplicity as related to the constellational imagery, where it is said that Libra has the power of a bicorporeal (double-bodied - mutable today) sign ''because of the balance-pans of the scales''. I imagine Capricorn should also be thought to have double-bodied qualities to some degree. I was noting that it is impossible for sidereal Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces to be anything other than double-bodied sign as it related to two, while there is nothing such about a month itself. This is why I think the quadruplicities were conceptualized sidereally and tropically (as we have Manilius and Ptolemy using month analogy, although the first uses it with the middle of the signs, Ptolemy also has four groupings, not quadruplicties). So the tropicalists argument that quadruplicities are clearly tropical, is not correct if you examine the properties in the Hellenistic and Indian tradition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11
Page 11 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated