Hello Martin,

but as today's tropical zodiac is some 24 degrees different from the sidereal, modern tropical authors have had to change their understanding of the signs.

I see. Well that pins your position down rather clearly.

Certainly over the last two millenia there must have been changes. Just because we talk about an astrological tradition doesn't mean it has not been through changes to adapt to different cultures and historical influences.

In the current of history some influences develop and flourish and some die away. That certainly doesn't demonstrate that tropicalists are struggling with to keep up with an inerrant sidereal zodiac as you seem to be suggesting though.

Show me anything in the history of human ideas that has not changed somewhat over two millennia. The history of Christianity, comes to mind........

You have used it to imply Valens worked with a sidereal zodiac in the past.

Another 'but in' - (sorry). Ptolemy and Valens were working with the same zodiac, and I assume that this is what Rob Hand is getting at when he says that history cannot help us with the issue, because at that time there simply was no divided sidereal v tropical zodiac to choose between. I haven't read Rob Hand's article but I covered this myself in an article that has a lot of material relevant to the issue of early zodiac employment

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/zodiachistory.html

Hi Mark,

MarkC wrote:I see. Well that pins your position down rather clearly.

Actually, I don't have a 'position' on which zodiac Valens used; I was just trying to clarify what I saw as Sari's argument, correct or not. I am reading Valens at the moment, painfully slowly, Greek text and German translation side by side and cursing both languages. So I haven't really formed an opinion yet.

I am not quite sure what to do with your other comments. I don't feel they address anything I said, or wished to imply.

Deb wrote:Ptolemy and Valens were working with the same zodiac

Do we know that for sure, and if so, how? Or is that covered in your article?

Deb wrote:
Ptolemy and Valens were working with the same zodiac

Do we know that for sure, and if so, how? Or is that covered in your article?

Yes. I know everything I know for sure - it's the stuff I don't know yet that I'm not sure about.

But of course I don't say these things without giving an argument. It is in the article - sections 2 and 3 and the most relevant to this issue.

Thanks, Deb; that really clarified things for me. But a quick look at your longish article didn't reveal the secret connection between Valens and Ptolemy (who, incidentally, seem not to have agreed on many things). Could you give a hint on where to look?

Hello Martin,

Actually, I don't have a 'position' on which zodiac Valens used;

That I accept. You just seemed very keen to clarify Sari's position for her. I accept I may have misjudged your intentions.

Nevertheless, while it its academically respectable to appear detached in such discussions it may useful to at least declare an interest here in terms of your personal approach to this subject. Do you happen to work sidereally yourself? That was certainly the impression I formed from your post. If that assumption is incorrect I apologise.

Hi Martin

I was just editing my post to direct you to sections 2 and 3, as you posted yours. The point has to be made in full though, because our knowledge of the historical development and practical employment of the zodiac is a critical issue. The answer is in my argument, but you won't get a quick snap comment on the situation between Ptolemy and Valens - having built up the article to prove that there was only one perception of the zodiac at that time, it wasn't necessary for me to compare the situation between Ptolemy and Valens.

MarkC wrote:That I accept. You just seemed keen to clarify Sari's position for her. I accept I may have misjudged your intentions.

Nevertheless, while it its academically respectable to appear detached in such discussions it may useful to at least declare an interest here in terms of your personal approach to this subject. Do you happen to work sidereally yourself? That was certainly the impression I formed from your post. If that assumption is incorrect I apologise.

No need to; I'm a proud siderealist and never made a secret of it! But my views on the right zodiac definition are not affected one way or the other by the views of Valens (who was not really in a position to decide by experience anyway, for the reasons you pointed out).

I thought you were missing Sari's point when stating that her argument had a 'problem', that's all. No secret agenda.

Thanks, Deb; I read those sections more carefully. I'll have to disagree, though, with your view that:

there was only one perception of the zodiac at that time

As Mark pointed out, Holden has shown quite convincingly that the 'Alexandrian zodiac' was a fixed one, and the fact that Indian astrology (derived from pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic sources) has remained sidereal is strong supporting evidence. As for Valens, he may or may not have agreed with Ptolemy; only a direct quotation from Valens himself can settle that point.

No need to; I'm a proud siderealist and never made a secret of it! But my views on the right zodiac definition are not affected one way or the other by the views of Valens (who was not really in a position to decide by experience anyway, for the reasons you pointed out).

Ok fine. I hope my question didn't come over like a zodiacal equivalent of the McCarthy Witch hunt. In other words 'Are you now or have you ever been an upholder of the sidereal zodiac?'

I thought you were missing Sari's point when stating that her argument had a 'problem', that's all. No secret agenda.

On balance I probably was. I suppose I find it very difficult to think like a siderealist. Its a bit like thinking upside down for me. I am also a bit slow on the uptake at times. Probably comes from my plodding tropical mercury in Capricorn and Taurus rising If you prefer I have a sidereal mercury in detriment in Sagittarius. Its so weird I have no fire in my tropical chart and enough in my sidereal chart to self combust!

Ok so the basic thesis is Valens approach described the signs accurately 1800 odd years ago when the two zodiacs roughly co-incided. As the tropical zodiac has moved further from the sidereal zodiac the interpretations provided by Valens increasingly fail to work for tropical astrology. Hence the requirement of modern tropical astrology to upgrade its interpretation into the following sign? I think I get it now. Thanks.

In a nutshelll, isnt this what sidereal astrologers always argue about tropical astrology? The only nuance here is that the sign interpretations of Valens do seem a bit different to what we are used to. However, as I pointed out earlier there are other possible explanations here rather than the failure of the tropical zodiac!

Mark wrote

It is certain, however, that (pace Rob Hand) the zodiac actually used by pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic astrologers for casting horoscopes was sidereal. James Holden, himself a tropicalist, has described the development very well in his History of Horoscopic Astrology.

Martin wrote

As Mark pointed out, Holden has shown quite convincingly that the 'Alexandrian zodiac' was a fixed one, and the fact that Indian astrology (derived from pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic sources) has remained sidereal is strong supporting evidence.

I think you have misunderstood Martin, maybe because you expected me to have a tropical astrology bias in this? My argument in that article is that Ptolemy and Valens were both ?siderealists? because all astrologers of that time based their understanding and use of the zodiac on the underlying stars. There was a more or less perfect match between the systems at that time, so no reason for them to take divergent approaches. Does this settle our argument? No, because they were both tropicalists too. They both expected the zodiac to be indelibly connected to the Sun?s seasonal circle. During their lifetime the same zodiac that made a seamless integration with the stars also made an elegant integration with the Sun's seasonal passage too.

The other important point is that there was no historical precedent for zodiac shifts for them to be concerned about either. The only argument at that time was where the Sun cut the ecliptic, not whether the zodiac should begin anywhere other than that point. (I am talking about the situation that applied to Ptolemy and Valens, no one mentioned Indian astrology here!)

People argue that Valens was a siderealist and Ptolemy was a tropicalist but both of these viewpoints are false. They were not even aware of these distinctions. But of course, if you have something in your primary source material that suggests that Valens did not seek to begin his zodiac with the Sun's intersection of the ecliptic, to denote the start of spring, I would be very interested ....