13
What gems can be mined when astrologers get enthusiastic about sharing info with each other Ouranos! :)

I keep thinking about this comment in Michael's post.
For one thing, it claims that, until the end of the 17th century, astrologers were not permitted to draw the charts of living people in any other than the old "Pythagorean square" style, in keeping with a Catholic mandate. Whereas for non-Catholics (astrologers? Nativities?), it was alright to use the "Pythagorean wheel" instead.
Part of my brain continues to wonder about that as I work on other things - the other half of my brain is telling it to pay attention and focus - too many "other things" to focus on. But I am totally brain-split now ... which half of my brain is going to win .... ? Seems only a matter of time before I'm going to need to drop everything and start following that new vein ... LOL!

14
For one thing, it claims that, until the end of the 17th century, astrologers were not permitted to draw the charts of living people in any other than the old "Pythagorean square" style, in keeping with a Catholic mandate. Whereas for non-Catholics (astrologers? Nativities?), it was alright to use the "Pythagorean wheel" instead.
I'm sorry to say it, but this is pseudo-historical nonsense. The Catholic Church regulated a lot of things on astrology, but the drawing of charts was never one.

Regarding chart representation. I do know of a 17th century circular representation close to the modern model. But I'm still searching for the source. I'll let you know when I find it.
Lu?s Ribeiro
www.academyofastrology.org (English)
www.academiadeastrologia.com (Portugu?s)

15
lribeiro wrote:
For one thing, it claims that, until the end of the 17th century, astrologers were not permitted to draw the charts of living people in any other than the old "Pythagorean square" style, in keeping with a Catholic mandate. Whereas for non-Catholics (astrologers? Nativities?), it was alright to use the "Pythagorean wheel" instead.
I'm sorry to say it, but this is pseudo-historical nonsense. The Catholic Church regulated a lot of things on astrology, but the drawing of charts was never one.
No need for apologies, Iribeiro. I just translated and summarized what is written in that article which Ouranos brought to to our attention. I make no claims whatsoever regarding its accuracy. It does sound a bit weird...
Regarding chart representation. I do know of a 17th century circular representation close to the modern model. But I'm still searching for the source. I'll let you know when I find it.
Would be great to take a look at that. Hope you will find it. :)
Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

16
That would be great Luis - thank you!
And thank you for saving me time - that point was needling me because I was sure it was wrong and could be easily disproved, and didn't want to add anything else to the already huge pile of open text books on my desk right now :)

18
I don't think I've ever seen a heliocentric chart. Horoscopic astrology has always been topocentric: wherever something takes place, that spot is the centre of observation.

Both round and square charts are more or less symbolic, two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional cosmos. Whether you believe the earth to be a globe, a flat round surface, or even a flat square surface (how many people did believe that?) doesn't matter: the corners of the square chart don't represent corners of the earth but rather regions of the sky above and below it. And the people who drew the square charts used round astrolabes to calculate the houses. :) (OK, most of them probably used ready-made tables, but the astrolabe was still a more 'realistic' depiction of the heavens.)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

19
I don't personally like square charts, and I was always curious that so many early charts are square. I initially put it down to the convenience - we are dealing with equal divisions of space, and it is easier to draw a square and then quarter and divide that neatly, than to hand-draw a neatly divided circle.

But I wonder if it is more than that, and touches on a conceptual shift that has crept in over the centuries. Most astrologers (especially due to the predominance of proportional chart display today), assume that the chart diagram is aiming to portray the circle of the zodiac, and fail to realise that it is portraying the celestial space around the observer, upon which the zodiac is projected.

If we imagine any circle to represent the local celestial environment then that must be perfectly round and the zodiac will be an oblique circle within it; therefore the zodiac must be squashed or expanded within some of the house divisions - this really troubles modern astrologers, who want zodiac signs to line up neatly with house divisions and don't understand that it has to be this way in order for us to comprehend whether planets are rising, culminating, retiring, etc - and they fail to understand how this has always been the primary concern of astrology (astrology can function without a zodiac; indeed, astrologers can use different zodiacs and still get good results, but the angular relationships of planets in any local environment is the kingpin around which astrology rests and upon which all astrologers agree).

If the chart were aiming to portray the zodiac, then I don't believe any historical chart would have been square - because the word 'circle', and its philosophical principles are so intertwined with and attached to the notion of the zodiac, that no one would ever draw the zodiac as a square! But it is not showing that - it is a figure just indicating directions of space that shoot off into infinity. Doesn't matter what border you put around that - you just need something to mark the edge of your diagram, so you may as well make it easy on yourself - as long as those divisions within it are equally spaced - which nowadays, of course, they tend not to be - because we've generally forgotten all this and slipped into thinking that an astrology chart is ALL about the zodiac.

20
I completely agree, Deb, except that I rather like square charts. ;) Perhaps the earliest person to oppose them in print, at least in English, was Thomas Oxley in The Celestial Planispheres, or Astronomical Charts in IV. Parts, illustrated by the Nativities of the Emperor Napoleon and King William IV, London: Davis and Dickson, 1830, p. 38:
There is also another very great impediment to the perfect attainment of this science, which is the absurd figure, or diagram almost always used, and very improperly called a figure of the heavens; which figure consists of a square and a number of half squares, or triangles cornered and dovetailed into one another like a mosaic pavement. In the name of reason I would ask in what respect can such a tessalated [sic] pavement be compared to a figure of the heavens! The orbits of the planets are nearly circular, the planets themselves are globular, and the lines distinguished by the names of ecliptic and equator, etc., are perfect circles. How excessively absurd then must it be, to represent the figure of the heavens under the similitude of a broken pavement, or of a square of board made up of a number of other squares, cut through their diagonals and clumsily glued together again. Surely it could never have been a man of science who invented so absurd a figure, but some sordid miser, with the view of saving half an inch of paper.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

21
Martin Gansten wrote:I completely agree, Deb, except that I rather like square charts. ;) Perhaps the earliest person to oppose them in print, at least in English, was Thomas Oxley in The Celestial Planispheres, or Astronomical Charts in IV. Parts, illustrated by the Nativities of the Emperor Napoleon and King William IV, London: Davis and Dickson, 1830, p. 38:
Hello Martin,

William Lilly published beside square charts also round ones, even though equally divided, in his Christian Astrology, published 1647.
For example pp. 177, 196, 238, 395, 419, 437, 439.

And some few are hexagonal (pp. 415, 442) and octagonal (p.452).

23
Clearly it shows that astrologers are walking in circles!

Martin, wait till you move to the Arctic circle! Must be your 60N something latitude that makes you prefer square charts.

Deborah, the beheaded Greek circle tells me that this astrologer had been partying all night! Or a jack of all trades assisting him who couldn't find his gnomon!

It's early for me in Canada and still trying to find my true North!

:D
Blessings!

24
johannes susato wrote:William Lilly published beside square charts also round ones, even though equally divided, in his Christian Astrology, published 1647.
Yes, I know (and Deb included several of those in her first post). But I was talking about astrologers actually opposing the use of square charts.

Lilly's various designs seem to have been motivated by an aesthetic desire for variation (see, for instance, the one on p. 200, which has a square frame but an interior that defies ready description).

And Deb is right, of course, that the earliest chart we have is round. It also illustrates how difficult most of us find it to draw a circle freehand. ;)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/