What do Constellations have to do with Astrology?
some questions about constellational astrology
My first task when beginning the study of astrology was to understand the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. At some point I came across the concept of true sidereal, or constellational, astrology, which was pioneered by a man named Athen Chimenti. I’ve recently become more curious about this form of astrology, and I have a fundamental question about it.
The first source from which I learned about this was Chimenti’s website, Mastering the Zodiac. I recently watched a YouTube video he made called Sidereal Astrology Explained, which I will be referencing in this post as “the video”.
My Questions
“When someone hears their Sun is in Gemini, they believe their Sun is in Gemini, the constellation,” says Chimenti in the video linked above. But using the tropical zodiac, the most common on in the West, it would not be in that constellation, he goes on to explain.
That is truly the case. The common idea is that the “Sun sign” refers to the constellation the Sun was in at the time of birth. Many people are surprised to hear that this is not the case, and this is likely one of the reasons a lot of people scoff at the idea of astrology in general. Though of course, such people may also scoff at the idea that the “stars” can affect us or determine our personality or do whatever it is that astrology claims that they do, even if we were using the “actual” constellations.
I have heard a number of people who feel betrayed at finding out that the tropical signs are not constellations as they believed, and then express how happy they are now to use “the actual sky” and the “actual” constellations to find their “signs”.
What no one has ever explained, or even attempted to explain, is: what is the purpose of using constellations? What power do you impute to them? What is the function of the constellations in astrology? What does referencing constellations provide that ecliptic divisions anchored to the ascending equinox do not?1 What is the essence of the constellations such that they should be used in astrology?
I know that “astrology” literally means “a telling of the stars”, but by itself this explains nothing. People simply makes statements like, “constellational astrology uses the actual sky”2 and leave it at that, as if this statement has some inherent meaning. People talk about “using the actual constellations” as if the reason for it is self-evident, but it is not evident to me. I don’t find the meaning or significance to be obvious, so I would like to understand why people consider constellations to be astrologically important. I understand that they thought they were using constellations when using the tropical zodiac and now they want to use the “actual” constellations, but that does not explain the significance or lack thereof of constellations.
What I would like is a meaning-giving story that explains in some way the purpose and function of constellations in astrology. How does this system work? What is its logical basis? I am not asking for “facts” or “science”, but for something that “makes sense”, that has what at least appears to be a logical foundation. I’ll give an example of a meaning-giving story, describing the logic I find in the tropical zodiac:
The Sun is the source and foundation of life on Earth. Its path creates a circle around the Earth. That circle is symbolic of wholeness, of everything that exists. Since we see many varied forms, none of these forms are the circle itself, but they form a part of the circle. Thus, if we divide the circle of life as symbolized by the Sun’s path, the ecliptic, then we can come to an esoteric or symbolic understanding of life, its parts, and how they relate to each other and to the totality. Just as the day begins when the Sun rises over the horizon, the Sun’s cycle begins when it rises over the equator, a point called the ascending equinox. We divide the circle of the Sun into 12 equal parts from its beginning, and use the position of the planets, representing aspects of our consciousness, relative to this division to understand many things about life and ourselves.
This is an example of what I mean of a meaning-giving story; it gives an insight into, a logical basis for, why the tropical zodiac can be used and how it functions.
I would like to know if there is such a story for constellational astrology? If someone who uses and believes in constellational astrology could explain the foundation of their system to me in a similar way?
There is one other point that needs to be addressed. It confuses me when people say they are so relieved to use “the actual sky” or the “actual” constellations, because constellations are not real and don’t exist. I have yet to hear anyone mention this fact; all the people I have heard from seem to view constellations as really existing things, when they are obviously not real things. Stars are real, but constellations only exist in the human imagination, so how then do “actual” constellations figure into astrology?
If you believe that astrology should use the “actual” constellations, I would be interested to hear from you what exactly you believe the essence of constellations to be and how using them in astrology functions. I would be like to hear a meaning-giving story that could serve as logical foundation for such a system.
Chimenti frequently states the tropical zodiac is seasonal, or based on seasons, and such statements. This is simply false. Cancer starts when the Sun is most north of the equator, and this is true for everyone at that time; it is summer in the northern hemisphere, and winter in the southern hemisphere, yet it is Cancer for everyone, because Cancer does not indicate summer or winter, it indicates that the Sun is at its northern most point above the equator. I made a post demonstrating this. It is unfortunately true that you can often hear people say the tropical zodiac is based on seasons, but the fact that many people say it does not make it true. I would appreciate answers to my questions that exclude inaccurate statements, such as the tropical zodiac is seasonal.
Similarly, in his video Chimenti says that Ptolemy fixed the tropical zodiac around the seasons. As per above, it wasn’t about the seasons, but more importantly this statement imputes the whole foundation of the tropical zodiac to one man, and this is not accurate. The history of the zodiac is complex and I doubt we will ever know the “truth” of the matter. However, there is plenty of research and clear evidence showing that the tropical zodiac existed before Ptolemy and has other foundations. Here is a good article that explains some of this history, that was researched using real books (!!!) and has actual references.
Saying it uses the “actual sky” is very annoying, because the tropical, sidereal, and constellational zodiacs all use the actual sky. That is to say, they use the actual positions of the planets. Planetary positions are what we are actually talking about when using a zodiac, and these positions are not absolute, they are always relative to something else. The tropical zodiac uses the actual positions of the planets in the sky relative to the ascending equinox point, which is a point in the actual sky; the Lahiri sidereal zodiac uses those positions relative to Spica, and constellational astrology uses those positions relative to “constellations”, but they all use the “actual sky”.
I forgot my main point: in practical terms, the Tropical vs Sidereal debate acts a distraction from a deeper mutual understanding of the Archetypes of the Planets, both in Aspect and in their location in the visible sky (or invisible as the case might be, below the horizon). So yes, there is a discussion to be had there, but imo it is far from one of the most important Astrology conversations to be having.
Hi Josh, thanks for this: I have worked through a lot of these questions myself.
My main comment would be that I think you are getting too tied up in the use of specific words: for example the word "Season", which I think is a logical starting point when trying to explain the rationale behind the Tropical Zodiac (I usually use "Seasons/Equinoxes" as short hand).
Tropical Astrologers themselves will very often try to explain the Tropical system in terms of the seasons, arguing that the current stage the Sun is at in its cycle directly informs the Archetype of the Tropical Sign. Why is Aries like Aries? In the northern hemisphere, because it is the start of Spring: we are rising, we are becoming activated, we are initiating, we are felling new sources of energy leading us forward boldly and courageously.
I don't agree with Athen on everything, but I think you are being too harsh overall. He identifies Ptolemy as the person considered most responsible for tying the Zodiac to the passage of the Sun rather than the visible sky. To narrow this down to the word "Season" seems a logical and appropriate starting point to then understand the Tropical System in more detail. His 13 Sign model is great as a True Sidereal starting point, and the resources and software he offers (mostly for free) are excellent.
Having said all that, I disagree with the methods of a lot of True Sidereal Astrologers (Athen is the only one I still follow). True Sidereal should practice at the level of fixed stars not constellations, which is why I use the Nakshatras (I am not a "Constellational Astrologer" in other words). You can't just straight swap the Archetype of a Sign and apply it to that Constellation, as they clearly aren't the same thing. Mars also isn't the ruler of the Aries Constellation: Rulerships, Exaltations, Detriments etc are Tropical concepts not applicable (imo) to Sidereal.
Also, yes: the term "actual sky" is unfortunate. I would suggest "visible" sky, in that the essence of Astrology lies in direct observation of the Planets and Fixed Stars around the Ecliptic, is more appropriate.