ravenest
Can anyone tell me or point me to a source of who first annotated the astrological decans with planetary associations (symbols) in the 'Chaldean order' ;
Astrological decan with planet question
Minderwiz
Teucer of Babylon (early first century AD) is one of the earliest sources, if not the earliest source, for this assignment, though he may well have got it from an earlier source. Given that Hellenistic Astrology was imported into India in the second or third century AD, he would appear to be one of the key sources in both traditions.
Manilius in his Astronomica, (started during the reign of Augustus) gives the Decans, in sign order, which probably reflected their origins in the sidereal zodiac. However Manilius tends to be an oddball in early Astrology and is not particularly consistent with his contempories. So it looks highly possible that Teucer's usage was dominant from very early on in the history of Horoscopic Astrology
The Hellenistic authors actually paid a lot more attention to the 'bounds' or horoi than they did to the decans, though the latter do appear in the various texts. That may or may not be because the decans were a 'left over' from an earlier time. The shift in usage from a sidereal zodiac to a tropical one, started by Ptlolemy, may therefore be responsible for their decline in the West and right through the tradition they have been seen as very much the lowest level of dignity which a planet can have - Lilly described it as indicating the next stage up from 'being out on the street' in the analogy of a home or domicile for the planet.
As you are aware there has been an awakening of interest in the decans over the last century, probably due to their usage in Indian Astrology - however they are still used in a tropical context, which throws up questions about their validity, whereas Jyotish still uses a sidereal zodiac.
https://beyondtheheaven.wordpress.com/tag/teucer-of-babylon/
Manilius in his Astronomica, (started during the reign of Augustus) gives the Decans, in sign order, which probably reflected their origins in the sidereal zodiac. However Manilius tends to be an oddball in early Astrology and is not particularly consistent with his contempories. So it looks highly possible that Teucer's usage was dominant from very early on in the history of Horoscopic Astrology
The Hellenistic authors actually paid a lot more attention to the 'bounds' or horoi than they did to the decans, though the latter do appear in the various texts. That may or may not be because the decans were a 'left over' from an earlier time. The shift in usage from a sidereal zodiac to a tropical one, started by Ptlolemy, may therefore be responsible for their decline in the West and right through the tradition they have been seen as very much the lowest level of dignity which a planet can have - Lilly described it as indicating the next stage up from 'being out on the street' in the analogy of a home or domicile for the planet.
As you are aware there has been an awakening of interest in the decans over the last century, probably due to their usage in Indian Astrology - however they are still used in a tropical context, which throws up questions about their validity, whereas Jyotish still uses a sidereal zodiac.
https://beyondtheheaven.wordpress.com/tag/teucer-of-babylon/
ravenest
Thanks
I will check him out. Sorry, I didnt quiet get that. Do you mean by 'sign order' that he lists the decans of Aries, then Taurus, Gemini etc in that order ? - I cant see what other order they would appear in ? What other origins could they have if not in a sidereal zodiac (same order) tropical zodiac (same order) or time keeping ( still same order) ?
His contemporeries didnt list them in 'sign order' ?
Aha! Thank you. So, are you saying (just to be clear) that a planet (regardless of how weak or insignificant it is as a 'home' has an affinity with that decan (even if it is only on the level of 'couch surfing' ). The reason I ask is it seems like the 'Chaldean order' , orders the planets according to ... relative motion, is it ? If so , then it seems one system of 'order' is being placed on another ? That it isnt really 'worked out' ... the system was 'imposed' ... that might be more common than I realise in astrology and is considered valid ?
I was wondering if it was because the energy of the decan was like that planet so it was attributed there ( as some described some stars energy as a combo of 2 planets). It doesnt seem so.
I am trying to work out if there is actually some connection with the planet and decan energetically or it is an ..... imposition ?
I thought the interest was more in respect to the 'other' view of decans ; cardinal fixed mutable and the other system of allocation of planets ( which I thought was introduced by that Leo fellow into modern western astrology from Indian astrology ? - { aside; which seems a reasonable system and does seem to relate more to an attempt to look at the energy of a decan and sign and less of an 'imposition} ? ) .
I cant see how they can be used with tropical (aside from cardinal fixed mutable) , even in some modern writings they say these planets 'rule' that decan . Many are seeing 'Mars in Aries' in the same way as Mars being attributed to the first decan of Aries and that there is no difference , the second decan is the same as having the Sun in Aries.
I find it hard to buy as I still have this idea of a ready made order from the planets placed on the zodiac ... but perhaps a lot of astrology is like that and the bits that make sense to me are due to conditioning ?
I see the decans as having validity, but not sure about this planetary attribution, I see their essence as being composed of the main influential stars in the decan ... but that could be just another of my wacky ideas ? I am very much doubting the technical validity of Jyotish more and more ... especially after reading this;
http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic2_e.htm
a great article IMO ... and I sympathise with the author, having run into the same dogmatic problems myself ( and he is a Hare Krishna himself ! - or some type of Krishna devotee) in anthropology re; 'Out of India Movement' and the Indian Nationalist Party
Thanks for that ... the Persian sources it mentions ... that is what I am interested in and where the planet attributed to decan source might lie - although I doubt it still survives:
http://zoroastrianheritage.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/astrology-zoroastrianism.html
Minderwiz
Manilius runs the decans as follows:
Aries: D1: Aries. D2:Taurus, D3: Gemini
Taurus: D1: Cancer D2: Leo D3: Virgo
Gemini: D1: Libra, D2: Scorpio, D3: Sagittarius
Cancer: D1: Capricorn, D2: Aquarius, D3: Pisces
Leo: D1 Aries.....etc
Or at least he would have, because he makes a mistake when he gets to Pisces and gives the first two decans to Aries and Taurus instead of Capricorn and Aquarius.
Ravenest said:
The dominant listing was that given by Teucer, though Manilius' system is also found in Firmicus Maternus in the early fourth century, so clearly there was no immediate switch from the order of signs to the order of planets. And of course the order of signs places the source of the system on the zodiac, rather than the planetary spheres. Edited to add: As the decans are not derived from the zodiac but existed as a separate entity before, then the Manilius system or even the Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable system (which is derived from the seasons) has no better claim than the chaldean order to be 'correct'
Ravenest said:
Firmicus explains the decans as follows '....the decans themselves are allocated to individual planets (sic) so that if the planet should be in that decan, even though it is in a strange sign, it is considered as if it were in its own sign. Located in its own decan it accomplishes the same things as when in its own sign' (Matheseos Book 2: 4)
Now Firmicus' point is debatable. Note he focuses on the planets, rather than signs, though the dignity of the planet is related to its own domicile. And the clear suggestion is that Venus in either a Taurus or Libra decan is the equivalent of Venus in Taurus or Libra. That certainly isn't what came down to the medieval or later traditions and it doesn't seem to hold with the earlier writers either.
You are correct to identify a situation where one system is grafted onto another. The decans are originally Egyptian and give ten day periods derived from the constellations that help to calibrate the Sun's apparent orbit. They existed either before or alongside the zodiac (probably before) and mathematically, the two systems could be combined quite easily as the zodiac is clearly 36 decans exactly. What is not so easy to combine is meanings in terms of astrological or divinatory meanings.
I've come across a footnote in my translation of Manilius, that suggests an even earlier possible amalgamation than Teucer (though it is notabsolutely clear which system of allocation it relates to) That possible attribution is to the legendary founders of Horoscopic Astrology. These two Astrologers wrote under the nom de plumes of Nechepso and Petosiris. We know that later Astrologers such as Vettius Valens had copies of their works because Valens and others quote them. However we don't have those originals and we don't even know whether the worked together or in slightly different time periods. We're not even sure of exactly when they lived. Dates around the end of the second century BC into the first centurn BC are quoted.
Certainly at the time Manilus wrote, he was the only Astrologer to mention the zodiacal order of decans, the others (at least those of whom we have texts) used the Chaldean order. Firmicus wrote perhaps 300 years later.
Ravenest said:
From Firmicus and indeed other writers it is an energetic connection. We tend to see Astrology solely in terms of the signs (whether tropical or sidereal) and forget that other systems both existed and were used. Those other systems have largely dropped out of modern usaage but clearly the signs were not viewed as having exactly the same nature throughout their extent. This is not surprising because the earlier focus on fixed stars gave those stars the characteristics of the planets. Thus you might find a star in Taurs with very non-Venus characteristics such as Caput Algol.
For more on the origin and first usage of decans in the west see:
http://www.bendykes.com/articles/decans.php
Ravenest said:
Yes the modern usage of decans comes from Indian Astrology, at least in part and as a Theosophist, Leo had an interest in Indian Astrology. However Jyotish has at least three systems of decans in common use. So you can't take the Cardinal Fixed Mutable view as being 'correct'
Ravenest said:
In as sense we're all conditioned by the current Astrological weltanschaung, we live in a time when Astrology has focused on signs of the zodiac to the exclusion of previous systems. Attempting to deal with this is not easy. Shoud the decans be seen in a totally separate way than signs, even though we have imposed the signs on the decans. Where should we start counting decans from? Are they really planet or fixed star based, if the latter have those stars any connection at all to planets. There have been over 2,000 years of this issue, were those early attempts 'correct' or did they simply cobble together a single system out of two (or perhaps four or five) different systems.
Jyotish is not really the answer because it too has a variety of decan systems and going by what is the most common now, may not give an answer to the question of origins.
Also remember that when teucer wrote, the two zodiacs were virtually aligned. The Vernal equinox in the north occured around 2 degrees Aries, so he wasn't imposing a tropical system on a sidereal one or vice versa. The distinction would have made no sense to him.
Ravenest said:
No you're not wacky (well not much lol) as I've just made that connection above. I think you (and I and everyone else) is looking for something that is not there - an integrated system that is totally consistent. As the decans (and possibly the bounds) originated separately from the zodiac (itself a human construct) it's not surprising that there are inconsistencies or things that don't fit together perfectly. What we do have is several systems for looking at measuring the relationship of earth to Sun, planets and stars. Sometimes having an alternative way of viewing can be useful but it does engage the brain in quite a bit of research and thought and probably won't yield a 'right answer' at the end. At least it reminds us that the zodiac we use is 'an answer' not the 'only answer'.
ravenest
Thanks M.
Interesting - I have never encountered that 'sign order' of the decans before. I realise one or the other may be equally valid or correct.
I guess my central focus is seeing IF there is any relationship between what the energy or influence of a decan was compared to the stars in that decan - did the energy of any significant stars flavour the decan ?
I like that ben Dykes article - thanks. he was the first I have read where I noticed a clear reference to what I have been thinking about:
" I have compared the descriptions to the constellations that rise with the decans, as well as the two systems of decan rulership (by Chaldean order or speed, and by the rulers of the triplicity), but have so far been unable to find consistent reasons why the images and meanings are what they are, both between different decans and in terms of how the three sources differ. The answer may lie in the divinities associated with the decans, sources for which I have so far not consulted."
I am a little unclear here whether his comparison included only constellations, but I assume so, and that he didnt compare decans with individual stars in the decans (also taking the point that a decan is possibly extended from pole to pole, or at least to the local latitudinal horizon). In reference to decans giving their influence to the meaning of a tarot minor card one example is 7 of swords ... numerous times people have not seen its issue of warning, failure and even futility in its 'astrology' of Moon in Aquarius, if one extends that decan off the band of the ecliptic to the poles it includes Sheat ... which gives a similar energy ( when combined with the decanic image) to that described by the card (especially in the Thoth deck).
Interesting, this is a question (the variation one gets when applying one system with another) that has surfaced a few times in the Thoth and G.D. threads on card meanings and decan associations. Looks like I have to go back into ' star divinities' (which is where all this started anyway , when I first heard about the 'gods' that lived in the stars ( indigenous source ) their dynamics with others - in asterisms ( example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_astronomy 1.3
{ "coincidence" } and even constellations ( in biod-dynamic agriculture - Brian Keats research eg.
http://www.astro-calendar.com/shtml/Research/CowTimes2.shtml
{although I dont know of his sources} ) .
This note is interesting : " [18] Holden, p. 70-71 and n. 168. Does this mean that planets obey the leitourgoi, who obey the decans in turn? Or is it speaking of fixed stars that fall under the leitourgoi, so that the author of the Hermetica is mixing the old constellational notion of the decans with the new, zodiacal one? "
Also this (from you) : " Also remember that when teucer wrote, the two zodiacs were virtually aligned. The Vernal equinox in the north occured around 2 degrees Aries, so he wasn't imposing a tropical system on a sidereal one or vice versa. The distinction would have made no sense to him."
Yeees .... my original point years back ... they may have been the same thing or looked at in the same way back then ... people lived 'under' a 'natural zodiac'.
No I am not looking for an integrated system that is totally consistent with all the input ... I am trying to follow a thread ... sometimes it emerges, mostly it is lost going back ( as most things are) ... except going right back, I do have access to a living ancient tradition of star lore ... often I find connections ... sometimes calling them 'coincidence' is a bit too much ( ahem ... wiki ... but really I suppose I cant blame them as they would not be aware of as many coincidences as I have found) ... when they start stacking up.
I know there are seasonal indicators (tropical) and cultural stories (sidereal) but what happens when shift is brought in to that and the seasonal and cultural, eventually , are at variance, is a wider ( and perhaps more of an anthropological matter) subject - but one relevant for a culture with star lore for over 40,000 years (thats a big precessional shift ! ) ... I will eventually explore how they dealt with that * (from an anthropological slant) - after I understand more of the western process with it.
Once again , thanks Minder wiz
* at the moment the 'alignment' is changing from another influence, a much faster change than precession, as it appears global warming has caused the flowering of some plants to change .... " now when that plant <points to plant> is flowering and you go to the estuary to catch fish they wont be there because although the plant is saying they are there, its the wrong time and we know that because the stars aren't in the right position yet .. and if you go and check anyway, the fish arent there. Something has gone wrong." - Aboriginal elder.
Interesting - I have never encountered that 'sign order' of the decans before. I realise one or the other may be equally valid or correct.
I guess my central focus is seeing IF there is any relationship between what the energy or influence of a decan was compared to the stars in that decan - did the energy of any significant stars flavour the decan ?
I like that ben Dykes article - thanks. he was the first I have read where I noticed a clear reference to what I have been thinking about:
" I have compared the descriptions to the constellations that rise with the decans, as well as the two systems of decan rulership (by Chaldean order or speed, and by the rulers of the triplicity), but have so far been unable to find consistent reasons why the images and meanings are what they are, both between different decans and in terms of how the three sources differ. The answer may lie in the divinities associated with the decans, sources for which I have so far not consulted."
I am a little unclear here whether his comparison included only constellations, but I assume so, and that he didnt compare decans with individual stars in the decans (also taking the point that a decan is possibly extended from pole to pole, or at least to the local latitudinal horizon). In reference to decans giving their influence to the meaning of a tarot minor card one example is 7 of swords ... numerous times people have not seen its issue of warning, failure and even futility in its 'astrology' of Moon in Aquarius, if one extends that decan off the band of the ecliptic to the poles it includes Sheat ... which gives a similar energy ( when combined with the decanic image) to that described by the card (especially in the Thoth deck).
Interesting, this is a question (the variation one gets when applying one system with another) that has surfaced a few times in the Thoth and G.D. threads on card meanings and decan associations. Looks like I have to go back into ' star divinities' (which is where all this started anyway , when I first heard about the 'gods' that lived in the stars ( indigenous source ) their dynamics with others - in asterisms ( example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_astronomy 1.3
{ "coincidence"
} and even constellations ( in biod-dynamic agriculture - Brian Keats research eg. http://www.astro-calendar.com/shtml/Research/CowTimes2.shtml
{although I dont know of his sources} ) .
This note is interesting : " [18] Holden, p. 70-71 and n. 168. Does this mean that planets obey the leitourgoi, who obey the decans in turn? Or is it speaking of fixed stars that fall under the leitourgoi, so that the author of the Hermetica is mixing the old constellational notion of the decans with the new, zodiacal one? "
Also this (from you) : " Also remember that when teucer wrote, the two zodiacs were virtually aligned. The Vernal equinox in the north occured around 2 degrees Aries, so he wasn't imposing a tropical system on a sidereal one or vice versa. The distinction would have made no sense to him."
Yeees .... my original point years back ... they may have been the same thing or looked at in the same way back then ... people lived 'under' a 'natural zodiac'.
No I am not looking for an integrated system that is totally consistent with all the input
... I am trying to follow a thread ... sometimes it emerges, mostly it is lost going back ( as most things are) ... except going right back, I do have access to a living ancient tradition of star lore ... often I find connections ... sometimes calling them 'coincidence' is a bit too much ( ahem ... wiki ... but really I suppose I cant blame them as they would not be aware of as many coincidences as I have found) ... when they start stacking up. I know there are seasonal indicators (tropical) and cultural stories (sidereal) but what happens when shift is brought in to that and the seasonal and cultural, eventually , are at variance, is a wider ( and perhaps more of an anthropological matter) subject - but one relevant for a culture with star lore for over 40,000 years (thats a big precessional shift ! ) ... I will eventually explore how they dealt with that * (from an anthropological slant) - after I understand more of the western process with it.
Once again , thanks Minder wiz
* at the moment the 'alignment' is changing from another influence, a much faster change than precession, as it appears global warming has caused the flowering of some plants to change .... " now when that plant <points to plant> is flowering and you go to the estuary to catch fish they wont be there because although the plant is saying they are there, its the wrong time and we know that because the stars aren't in the right position yet .. and if you go and check anyway, the fish arent there. Something has gone wrong." - Aboriginal elder.
Minderwiz
At this point, Holden is quoting Firmicus Maternus, who he says is the only Astrologer to preserve this bit of astrological lore. Maternus is referring to something that we do not have access to. He claims that 'others' allocate to each decan three munifices (Maternus wrote in Latin but also supplies the Greek equivaley leitourgoi which Holden translates as 'duty officers'. Given that he quotes the Greek, it seems that Maternus was quoting a Greek text.
The trouble is that Maternus is infuratingly vague about the nature of these 'duty officers'. He does say that his sources claim that these can decree sudden accidents, pains, sicknesses, chills, fevers and everything that happens unexpectedly. He also adds 'Through these divinities they say defective births are produced among men'.
So these divinities are concerned with 'fate' or the 'unexpected'. By this time, I think that the Moirai (fates)had been fixed in number at three but that could explain that there are three 'fates' to each decan who have the same nature as the Moirai but the effects are dependent on the nature of the decan but all he says is But this part of the doctrine we must, of necessity, pass over in this book, and most intriguingly 'The Greeks also, who tried to reach the secrets of that theory, stopped at the first stage and left the subject with a certain reluctance. (Jean Rhys Bram translation). So we don't get an aswer to who or what they were.
If it is a reference to some variant on the Moirai, I would thing that the disposition of the planets through the decans would be their way of assigning those 'unexpected' events but that is pure speculation on my part and I've even less to go on than Firmicus Maternus because I don't have his source LOL.
ravenest said:
My feeling is that there's no such thing as a 'natural zodiac' - it's a human construct which was created at a point where what we now term the sidereal and tropical zodiacs were much the same thing.
Why did they construct the zodiac? To establish the calendar - or at the lowest level predict seasonal changes. Why did they need to do that? - because they were an agrarian society, no longer dependent on hunting. Of course it wasn't as simple as that. There was no single act of construction. The zodiac was added to over time.
The stars were the easiest way to predict seasonal change. The rising or culminating of stars at particular times of year became a predictor of seasonal change. I think this is where the decans probably fitted in and of course predicting seasonal change allows the 'intervening' period to be in some way measured. So thre decans rising correspond to a lunar cycle with the Sun The stars give a measure of the passage of time. Indeed our three most important time periods depend on the zodiac, years, months and days. The planetary movements are natural but the resulting calendars and time pieces are arbitrary.
The trouble is that having been created, the zodiac contained the seeds of its own destruction. It threatens to fail at it's key purpose, predicting seasonal change the question became which is more important, tying it to the stars, from which it born, (though by the time it was constructed it's matching to the constellations was an arbitrary one of equal 30 degree divisions, called 'signs'), or keeping to the original purpose of predicting seasonal change - which means that the tropics are the most important feature.
There are clearly at least two possible answers to that question both then and now. Western Astrology went down the path of the tropics, Jyotish went down the path of the stars (and still is sidereal) in the sense that it tries to reconstruct the zodiac of 2,000 years ago by adding in a factor or ayanamsa to adjust for precession. And as Dave is fond of telling us, a number of Western Astrologers experimented with sidereal zodiacs in the early years of the last century.
To practice either Western Astrology or Jyotish one needs a 'zodiac' but of course to practice 'Astrology' one does not.
One can look up into the heavens and see stars, one can look into the heavens and 'see' asterisms, (though the gods forgot to join up the dots, unlike star atlases), but one cannot look into the heavens and see the 'signs' of the zodiac. As very few Astrologers actually do look up into the heavens, but instead look down into their computer screens, perhaps there's a lot to be said for the first two! 