Martin wrote:

Now, I haven't read Geminus (who flourished about a century prior to Ptolemy), and don't know if there is any actual astrology in his writings.

Geminus probably wrote his work around 70BCE ( the latest estimate is 50BCE). Ptolemy lived around c. 90 CE ? 168CE. So a more realistic gap between these sources is at least 200 years. Geminus is actually closer in time to Hipparchus ( 2nd century BCE) than Ptolemy. In many ways his work is a bridge between the work of Hipparchus and Ptolemy.

Geminus seems to have been influenced by Stoicism. He showed some scepticism to astrology although he does mention some astrological ideas such as aspect theory and the effect of fixed stars on the weather. As Deb already pointed out Geminus makes a clear distinction between the 30 degree signs and the unequal constellations. He clearly states that the signs are determined by the equinoxes and solstices.

For instance he states:

'the two solstices and equinoxes occur, in the way of thinking of the Greek astronomers , in the first degrees of these signs.'' Geminos Introduction to the Phenomena. James Evans and J.Lennart Berggren, chapter 1, p115

This appears to be evidence for the use of a tropical zodiac long before Ptolemy was even born. Moreover, its clear Geminus is relying on older sources and not innovating. Its definitely, time to bury the old myth that Ptolemy developed the tropical zodiac.

Mark

Thanks, Mark, for the update on the dating of Geminus. It doesn't, however, alter the timeline Hipparchus - Geminus - Ptolemy, with both the latter relying on the former.

Geminus seems to have been influenced by Stoicism. He showed some scepticism to astrology although he does mention some astrological ideas

In my book, then, Ptolemy is still the first astrological author to espouse (not invent) the tropical zodiac.

In the quotation you give:

'the two solstices and equinoxes occur, in the way of thinking of the Greek astronomers , in the first degrees of these signs.'' Geminos Introduction to the Phenomena. James Evans and J.Lennart Berggren, chapter 1, p115

I note the phrase in the way of thinking of the Greek astronomers (led, presumably, by Hipparchus), suggesting that others held different opinions. This agrees with what Rochberg and others have stated with regard to the Mesopotamian zodiac.

As a final aside, see Holden's History, pp. 22-24, which discusses the nativity of Augustus as described by Manilius. Augustus was born shortly before sunrise on 21 or 22 September, 63 BCE, with the Sun tropically in 26-27 degrees Virgo; yet Manilius gives him Libra rising.

This really must be my last post on this topic for now. I hope I haven't given offence to anyone (particularly to Deb, whom I know personally and hold in high regard). The historian in me is satisfied, on the basis of the available evidence, that the zodiac began as a sidereal construct and remained so in astrological practice for many centuries (still surviving as such in India); but I am not looking to launch a sidereal crusade.

Hi Martin

I?m also tied up with other projects and don?t want to give more than brief responses, and you and I both know that no offense is ever intended or taken. We are not going to submit defining arguments here anyway, only raising points of debate. Hence I am going to avoid going into supplementary arguments and will stick to the main points that have been raised already.

Firstly, I don?t see the issue of the first ?astrologically? authored comment being a significant one ? particularly since there are innumerable published statements that Ptolemy personally invented the tropical zodiac, and my point is that the whole issue is bogged down with errors and misunderstandings. Besides this, there are too many floating assertions that even Ptolemy wasn?t an astrologer since he didn?t leave us with published charts, (which are non-sensical as far as I?m concerned). Ptolemy wrote about and explained astrology, as did Geminos, who can also then be referred to as an ?astrological author? (or not, if people want to get tied up in that).

The relevant fact is that Geminos explained various methods of astrology in a clear, objective manner, showing that he was teaching prevalent knowledge and not arguing in favour of astrology or against it, or trying to innovate. So his work is a testimony to the expectations and common working practices of the astrologers of his day. Ultimately the breadth and depth of his astrological coverage is irrelevant, since if evidence exists that the ancient use of ecliptical measurement was driven by the needs of the tropical zodiac, as I argue, then it doesn?t matter if this comes from a primarily astronomical or astrological source (since both astronomers and astrologers were making use of it as a system of planetary reference).

One of the reasons why Geminos?s work is so valuable is that he gives a clarifying explanation of how the Greek tropical system directly correlates with ?the thinking of the Chaldean astrologers?, whose texts made reference to the vernal equinox at 8? Aries. This is a critical point that you quoted earlier when I said

"... once the zodiac was determined the problem of precession was originally dealt with by periodic updates which moved its commencement point backwards through an initially fixed frame of reference which can be likened to the modern sidereal zodiac (so the updates periodically describe the *beginning* of the zodiac being at 15 Aries, then 12 Aries, then 8 Aries as described by Manilius)."

(And later ...)

"These updates show attempts to keep the start of the zodiac aligned with the equinoxes, so that the 12th-parts moved backwards against the original plot of the ecliptic line? All of the references to a slipping commencement point show us that the zodiac being talked about was a tropical one."

To which you said (of the first remark):

If this were true, it would be a strong argument for the position you are taking; but where do you read 'commencement point' or 'beginning'?

Geminos explains (I.1.9) that despite the alternate systems of notation, there is no difference of approach between the Greek and Chaldean systems, and he describes it as I have :

?since the first points of the signs are not subject to the same convention for them: among the Chaldeans they precede by 8 degrees. Thus the summer solstitial point, according to the practice of the Greeks, is in the first part of Cancer; but according to the Chaldeans, in the eighth degree. The case goes similarly for the remaining points. (1.9)?

So Geminos explains - and the text translators annotate this point to clarify that this is what he meant (my additions italicised) - that the Chaldeans began their tropical zodiac signs at the 8th degree of the previously marked ecliptic-divisions which initially aligned to the centre of the underlying constellations (roughly, since constellations are not exact).

The tropical points drifted backwards with regards to this older reference, whilst the zodiac sign divisions were periodically updated to keep them aligned with the equinoxes and solstices. The only difference between the two systems is that the Chaldeans appear to have placed the emphasis on the Summer solstice rather than the vernal equinox (this is shown in various sources) and the Greek solution was to call the same degree that the Chaldeans knew as the 8th degree of Aries the 'zero degree' of the tropical zodiac, which gave the system greater reliability and precision (since Chaldean astronomers evidently only made periodic updates, which could generate inaccuracies as well as confusion).

As for what other modern authors have written, we need to question whether they have considered that two apparently different systems could simply reference the same tropical information using two different notation points that actually relate to the same celestial degree.

A lot of confusion is going to remain in this issue if astrologers and researchers don?t put forward the case that ancient astrology could only develop by exploring two different frames of references simultaneously. On the one hand it needed the fixed sidereal references to provide a visible grid by which observation points could be noted and seasonal shifts perceptively monitored; but it also needed an accurate knowledge of the Sun?s path and its pivotal points, because although both systems can present pertinent calendrical, time-based and seasonal information, advanced understanding of planetary motions and phases, as perceived from the geocentric perspective, can only be understood by knowledge of planetary relationships to the Sun?s own cycle as presented on the Sun?s own path (this is because the visible planets remain closely aligned to the plane of the Sun?s path). This is why awareness of the history of zodiac development is important, because the coinciding advances in planetary knowledge could only come from a tropical frame of reference and not the sidereal one.

This then makes sense of why Manilius (who versified astronomical information from earlier sources) makes apparently contradictory statements, giving clear descriptions in several places that the tropical points initiate the signs, whilst elsewhere describing the tropical points as falling in the 8th degree of Aries, Capricorn, etc. These supposed contradictions make his text seem like an illogical mess to modern scholars, but they would not appear so to a contemporary reader familiar with knowledge of the alternate systems as described by Geminos.

I haven?t seen Holden's discussion of the nativity of Augustus "as described by Manilius" but I can?t imagine how it adds anything of value to this discussion since Manilius never stated Augustus? birth-date, or claimed a Libran connection for him. The relevant passage that has been used to promote this idea (4.547-555) ought to be read because it gives no sound reason to suppose that there is a direct reference to Augustus there. The only place where Manilius does describe Augustus astrologically is at II.507 9 where he says of Capricorn ?what greater sign can he ever marvel at, since it was he that shone propitiously on Augustus?s birth?. That?s really all we have from Manilius about the chart of Augustus.

This is now longer than planned so I also won?t add more to this thread now because I need to focus on other things. There are many related points that tie into this argument but like you I don?t want to raise brief points that can?t be argued without a full in-depth review and associated references. So am happy to leave these ideas as points to think about for now, without triggering off a whole new sidereal/tropical crusade.

(In any case, I hope that what I have written here shows that although my argument is that ecliptic-based planetary definition was pursued and developed through the motivation of highlighting the tropical zodiac, there is no doubt that sidereal astrology has always and will always be relevant too, and that the real astrological benefit comes from finding a way to use both frames of reference together.)

Best wishes
Deb

How do you know he didn't practice it Steven? If in 2000 years time (use a lot of imagination here) just my book on houses survives, people will think I was just a theorist too. How many of us publish our private and client charts? Not so long ago people were insisting that Kepler was just a theoriest who only did astrology because he was forced to in his professional contract - until we then discovered hundreds and hundreds of his charts, some on very personal family questions that now show he used astrology as his own personal, trusted advice system.

We need to keep in mind that a modern astrologer has to study this subject which is quite specialist in our society, but for Ptolemy the subject was everywhere in his life. He spent his life exploring and studying the sky and writing about that and he defended the rationale of astrology, so we know he was personally persuaded by it. Hence I don't believe, not for one moment, that he wasn't constantly aware of things like the Moon being in aspect to Saturn or in any way oblivious to the influence of astrological happenings in his life. Not for one nanosecond even. Absolutely not - no way. Only someone with the soul of an astrologer would write that caption about how his feet no longer touched the ground when he studied the stars. (And I do think he did charts - I just think he probably lost loads of them in computer crashes as happens to me all the time )

x

steven wrote:

Ptolemy wrote about and explained astrology

But tell me Deb, are you going to be operated on by a surgeon who practices surgery or one who only read about surgery and wrote a book on it?

I believe that Deborah can give a better answer than me, but I can try from my point of view, Italy.

You had started revival of traditional astrology from horary, but here we (better, Giuseppe Bezza) started from natal astrology, so we saw the process from another point of view.

And how someone can practice natal astrology without Ptolemy? What from Middle Ages and Renaissance natal astrology does not come from Ptolemy?

I read tons of English language articles about "Lilly's" method of temperament, when temperament is Ptolemy method and can be found word by word in Tetrabiblos, together with all the rest. What about the qualities of the soul for example?

Why so many astrologers were inclined to follow a theory book, instead of others they can read (like Vettius Valens), who were amply known? Evidently because they did not think Ptolemy was not an astrologer.

Are there not examples in his book, ok. In Italy students of many faculties like Law, Economics, Political Sciences, study Civil Law on the book of Andrea Torrente, so it is very famous. It is a theory book, a comment to the Civil Code, there are no practical examples, still Torrente was President of Court of Cassation, the major court of last resort.

So Torrente wrote a book for students, but was a judge (ie he worked every days at practical cases) there is no contradiction.

margherita

But the problem is Steven that there is actually a great dearth of original historical charts to study. It's great that Valens left so many examples, and I am not trying to place Ptolemy's importance over Valens, but Valens is the exception not the norm. Text after text after text we get theory and more theory, with hardly any charts, (and most of those we do get are recyled and rehashed through the centuries).

So Ptolemy is no more guilty of that than most other historical astrologers. My point is that there is a difference between not casting charts and not publishing them, and that the value of Ptolemy's work doesn't lie in a claim that it offers practical demonstrations. It's that it offers a reasoned defence and a philosophical rationale, and his astronomical knowledge was so outstanding and his scientific standing was so great that his personal repute served to protect the preservation of other texts too.

But of course still I love you even if you don't love Ptolemy, who I will always love, if only because he started his book with a finger in the eye to astrology's ridiculing skeptics and hostile debunkers (and he did that with a lot more grace and elegance than I have ever been able to master )

steven wrote:all except Ptolemy. And Europe was without a doubt in love with Ptolemy but in fact the medieval astrologers did not follow many of his astroloogical teachings. Dorotheus, Valens, Rhetorius, .... these are the astrologers emulated and whose charts we find in later authors. I ain't buyin the sales pitch hun

But I know you'll still love me anyway.

Steven

But which method of judging a nativity do you use? Not Ptolemy's one? What about temperament, shape of body, mind, activities?

And what about the system of directions, profections, solar returns, transits? That's not Ptolemy?

margherita

I know Deb and Margherita willl not like this but I cant help posting part of James Holden's comments on this subject from an interview he gave to Nina Gryphon:

Ptolemy was a science writer. He was like Isaac Asimov who wrote books on practically everything. I suspect that Ptolemy had been hired by some rich man who said: ?I?ve got a nice, private library in my house and I?d like to have some books on the sciences. And I?ll pay you good if you?ll write them.? So Ptolemy wrote him a book on astronomy, and he wrote one on geography, and he wrote on two or three other subjects.

And then the man said: ?Oh, and astrology; write something on astrology.? So Ptolemy wrote something on astrology. But if you look in the very first chapter of the Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy says he has left out a whole lot of what was current in his lifetime, and he said: ?My book is not complete, I?ve left out a whole lot of things because it?s a big subject and if I wanted to put everything in it, it would be a whole lot bigger book.? Why, I think hardly any astrologer after his time ever bothered to read that part of it. Most of them assumed that he was first so he must have invented the whole thing.

For example, there was a man who was a professional astrologer, named Vettius Valens who was living in Alexandria from about 150 to 175 AD, which would have overlapped Ptolemy?s lifetime. He didn?t know Ptolemy and never mentions him once.

I?ve written a paper on this that hasn?t been published yet, but I think what happened is that Ptolemy wrote his books for a client or a patron whose name was Syrus. All Ptolemy?s books are addressed to a man named Syrus who is otherwise totally unknown.

When he finished he gave all the books to Syrus, the guy stuck them on the shelf, and they sat there for 150 years. They were not published or made available to the general public until around 300 AD. And Valens lived in the same town with Ptolemy and never heard of him, though Valens was a professional astrologer and also had a school of astrology. He would have known if the Tetrabiblos had been available; he would have had a copy; and he would have known all about it. And yet Valens?s book is true to what was going on at the time. For example, I think it?s got almost a hundred example horoscopes in it. Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos doesn?t have a single one.

Personally, I find Holdens theory an interesting insight into how astrologers choose to fill the gaps in our knowledge with their own speculations about Ptolemy. Holden's theory that Ptolemy effectively wrote a book on astrology from scratch, after popping down to the library, seems hard to accept. As Deb suggests we do have the Tetrabiblos and there are lots of hints there. Why does he bother with such a spirited and philosophical defence of astrology? Why is he so opinionated about things like rejecting most of the lots? Surely, that kind of passion only comes from someone who really cares about astrology? Whether Ptolemy 'saw clients' I dont know. As Holden notes he doesn't seem to get a mention from Valens. But then Valens came to astrology from a very different outlook to the scientist Ptolemy. Ptolemy was a remarkable polymath with interests extending well beyond astrology. Indeed in cultural terms his greatest contribution was undoubtably his astronomical work The Almagest (Syntaxis mathematica).

While Ptolemy did gain an unprecedented profile from the medieval period onwards he was clearly highly respected in the hellenistic era too. While else is so often described as the 'divine Ptolemy'? If these astrologers rated Ptolemy so highly isn't it a little strange for modern students of the tradition to seek to demote his importance by suggesting he was not an astrologer?

Mark

Incidentally, if anyone would still like to comment on the actual theme of this thread ( not Ptolemy or the origin of the tropical zodiac!) I would be very interested in seeing your views..............

Thanks

Mark

Mark wrote:
While Ptolemy did gain an unprecedented profile from the medieval period onwards he was clearly highly respected in the hellenistic era too. While else is so often described as the 'divine Ptolemy'? If these astrologers rated Ptolemy so highly isn't it a little strange for modern students of the tradition to seek to demote his importance by suggesting he was not an astrologer?

Mark

Which students of tradition to seek to demote his importance? Everywhere in the world or in the English speaking world of traditional astrology?

My (surely wrong) opinion is that there the revival started on horary so Ptolemy obviously cannot say anything, so he can be a polymath or a compiler. But if they were involved in natal astrology, they obviously read Ptolemy in order to read chart, because there is no other method followed by the astrologers, even the ones already translated by Schdmit, like Montulmo. And what about Gaurico, Cardano, Giuntini, Argoli, Schoener, Nabod, the same Lilly?

It will be interesting to see which is the alternative method to read a chart to Ptolemy...

margherita

Why are we commenting on Holden?s informal guess on what he 'thinks' might have happened? In the classical world, standards of scholarship were high; it wasn?t possible to have a respected and influential knowledge of one field of ?natural science? without having the necessary knowledge of integrated fields. Hence all the topics Ptolemy wrote on were related and supportive of each other ? astrology, mathematics, astronomy, optics, geometry, star-charting and phases, map-making and the principles of harmony. In fact, no one can understand why Ptolemy was as outstanding as he was if all they have read is his four books on astrology. It was his works on optics and harmony that were most influential in terms of the development of aspect theory, for example, and provided a direct impetus for Kepler.

Ptolemy?s works went into the Alexandrian library, along with those of Aristotle and Euclid. All of these wrote many books on related fields which is why they were illustrious in the history of science. It doesn?t argue scattered or insincere interest ? it demonstrates deep, substantial knowledge of integrated mathematical, scientific and philosophical principles.

Ptolemy was a brilliant scholar and that?s why history remembers him as such and why Byzantine peace treaties were negotiated around the acquisition of his works. The Arabs didn?t study Ptolemy because they wanted to understand astrology; they studied astrology because they wanted to understand Ptolemy ? that?s a measure of his influence and how great his reputation was.

If modern astrologers want to suggest his reputation had no basis and that he just waited around until someone said ?oh go write a little something on astrology now?, fine; but obviously flippant comments are best passed over. I have a lot of respect for the contributions James Holden has made to astrology over many years, without sharing his views on many things.

Hi Margherita

The urge to demote his importance baffles me too. Especially since I have had arguments with historians of science in the past; who would love to argue that Ptolemy (like Kepler) could not possibly have been seriously interested in astrology (and must have done it because some Patron forced them to do it ...)

Anyway - my exit from the thread; have other things to focus on today.

Deb