,

The “13th Sign” – Science or Science-Fiction?

Ophiuchus

UPDATED September 20, 2016 – September 20, 2016, people!

Apparently this is still “news.” The last round of anxious texts and Facebook messages I received from people asking about the “new zodiac” was in 2011, but apparently the meme is making the rounds again because I’ve got another slew of messages from people wondering whether they’re still an Aquarian, or gulp, God forbid, a Capricorn.  Clearly this is a veeerrry urgent concern, so this post is for all of my little radishes out there who do not want to be any other sign than the sign they thought they were!

In short: fear not, Little Radishes!  You are still Radishes!  Or Aquarians, or whatever it was you were before this “new discovery.”  In fact, neither the Precession of the Equinox (which incidentally is the phenomena responsible for the idea of the Age of Aquarius) nor the constellation Ophiuchus are new discoveries, least of all to astrologers.  Knowledge of both dates back over two thousand years ago to a time when the terms astrology and astronomy were synonymous, so the fact is, the discoveries were very likely made by someone who also practiced divination.   Neither of them affects our craft because our craft is actually not (despite widespread popular belief) based on the constellations.

I can understand that this sounds absurd when it’s common astrological lore to talk about the double-faced Gemini “twins,” and the unforgiving sting of the Scorpio “scorpion.”  Never the less, it’s true.  Western astrology is based on the relationship of the earth to the sun and moon, or the seasons, not on the relationship of the earth to the constellations.  In other words, 0 degree Aries is the beginning of the western zodiac and it always coincides with the spring equinox, NOT 0 degree Aries the constellation.  It’s been this way since Ptolemy in 200 AD, and although no one knows exactly why the ancient Greeks decided to abandon a sidereal zodiac (based on constellations) for the tropical (based on seasons) they did, and it fits in nicely with the Greek obsession for the ideal, the perfect. The western zodiac is simply the circle divided into 12 equal portions all balancing each other out – it’s very yin and yang, and the Greeks conceived it as a perfect representation of a perfect, ordered world.

Hence a sign is simply a 30 degree division of a 360 degree circle, with no relation to a constellation.  Therefore the proposal of a “13th sign” is irrelevant.  Since the signs are not based on constellations, the fact that there are more than 12 constellations has no bearing on anything.

However, modern astronomers are prone to error in their assumptions about astrology, and like to pose both these astronomical facts as “proof” that astrologers are ignorant of the astronomy behind their craft and hence that astrology is bunk.  The media, being unsatisfied with the current political and/or celebrity circus of the moment periodically jumps on the bandwagon to stir up the dust and an unwitting public gets dragged into the melee.

If you’re interested in knowing more about this it’s worth checking out what the inimitable Deborah Houlding, author of one of my favorite books on the houses has to say about it. You can read that over on the site she founded, Skyscript.

TL;DR: you’re the same sign you always were, because your sign is based on the change of the seasons, not the constellations. In short, you’ll always be a radish to me <3

 

3 replies
  1. EVA
    EVA says:

    Thank you Wonder for this update! Now I can direct others to see for themselves that they are still their “Aquarius” sign. :))

    Reply
  2. Lark
    Lark says:

    Yes, the whole 13th sign astro bashing thing is crapola!

    BUT – in other news, according to some (i.e. Lisa Renee) we ARE shifting into the more constellation based Galactic Zodiac during these times, as opposed to tropical and sidereal. So there is a shift, but not because of Ophiucius. Who knows, but it got me thinking…

    Reply
    • Wonder Bright
      Wonder Bright says:

      Thanks for stopping by, Lark!

      One of the strengths of astrology is how it’s a constantly unfolding practice with multiple ways in and out, it makes it very adaptive to different cultures and eras. However, this is also a weakness, because the practice is so adaptive people use it to substantiate all sorts of claims. As far as theories about “ages” and “shifts” go, imo most are far too vague to be provable and it’s the charismatic people behind them that generate the buzz they seem to inspire. (see the incomparable Madame Blavatsky!)

      I like my astrology like I like my tea, steeped a long time, bound by tradition, and with a proven track record. So I’m a tropical enthusiast, I like the way traditional astrology describes the relationship between the earth and our own solar system. Perhaps it’s shortsighted of me, but honestly, I’ve far from mastered life here on earth, it will surely take me the rest of mine to even approach a true understanding of the oldest most established system, without venturing further afield into the galactic center!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *