Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: Valens' horoscopes

[Guest guest]

Hello everyone,

 

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest wrote:

>

> Hi Sari,

>

> I just wanted to say again that your insights below are excellent.

Velens' horoscopes have been shown to be sidereal. It's something of

a mystery that astronomers apparently began using the tropical zodiac

for measurement, but astrologers (based on published horoscopes)

continued with the sidereal for several hundred years after Ptolemy.

 

If my understanding of Holden is right, the Greeks used a zodiac

about 3-4° lesser than the Babylonians, which would make Zeta Piscium

around 0° the fiducial star (which has been received by the Persians

and the Indians).

 

However, somewhere I wonder if we do not try to impose in some way

a «sidereal» zodiac to the Greeks? Would not it be easier for anyone

to find its way in the sky by looking at the stars to find the vernal

equinox?

 

Also, do Valens' horoscope were «really» casted according a fiducial

star, which would make them different then a genuine tropical

horoscope? Did he gaved some longitudes to his horoscopes?

 

As Arthyr Chadbourne once agreed, it would then be possible to use

Greeks terms, decanates and other zodiacal divisions...

 

Also, it seemed (according to Denis Labouré's book on astrological

history) that Greek had many zodiacs with some " fixed " vernal

equinox, such as 8° or 10°. But I have doubts, here, because of

Holden's opinion...

 

--

Best regards,

François

[Guest guest]

At 03:16 PM 1/12/09 -0000, François wrote:

>

>If my understanding of Holden is right, the Greeks used a zodiac

>about 3-4° less than the Babylonians, which would make Zeta Piscium

>around 0° the fiducial star (which has been received by the Persians

>and the Indians).

 

Hi François,

 

There was a lot of zodiac confusion back then, and it's been documented by

various writers. I'm not taking time to look up the information now. But it

seems obvious that when India adopted the Greek structure of astrology, the

zodiac at that time did put zeta Pisces at approximately zero Aries.

 

>However, somewhere I wonder if we do not try to impose in some way

>a «sidereal» zodiac on the Greeks? Would not it be easier for anyone

>to find its way in the sky by looking at the stars to find the vernal

>equinox?

 

The zodiac used by the Greeks had previously been in place in Mesopotamia,

and it was definitely sidereal. A specific ayanamsa wasn't used because the

star degrees noted with specific longitudes for sign boundaries weren't

placed exactly at 30 degree intervals.

 

>Also, do Valens' horoscope were «really» cast according a fiducial

>star, which would make them different then a genuine tropical

>horoscope? Did he give some longitudes to his horoscopes?

 

Computation during Valens' time wasn't that exact. Many of his horoscopes

give planetary positions only by sign without degrees. The best technical

discussion of Valens' horoscopes can be found in GREEK HOROSCOPES by

Neugebauer and Van Hoesen. I'm not sure if this book can be easily found

anymore. The book was re-published in 1987.

 

>Also, it seemed (according to Denis Labouré's book on astrological

>history) that Greek had many zodiacs with some " fixed " vernal

>equinox, such as 8° or 10°. But I have doubts, here, because of

>Holden's opinion...

 

It's true that the Greeks had a number of zodiacs partly because of

confusion about locating the vernal point. This is all documented, but as I

said above, I don't have time to look up the information this evening.

Perhaps someone else on this forum can give you references or quotes.

 

Sincerely,

Therese