25-04-2026, 05:56 PM
Post Scriptum: I was trying to fit this in but it didn't really flow and that me to accidentally cutting it entirely. But, it doesn't look like the zodiacal system was ever used to find stars. Stephenson, again:
This follows from the definitional issues noted above; the location of the sun was figured from the date, so while Four Pillars horoscopes did find a zodiac symbol based on the passage of the sun, this was not done by locating the sun, but by computing the modeled location based on the mean solar year. "Popular" divination did not require taking any measurements more refined than what is termed the long-hour, a 12-part division of the midnight-to-midnight day. This involved water clocks, not astronomy. The fact that the ci, a 30-degree unit (in our European system), gives rise to the zodiac seems relevant to your argument as well.
If you try and force the idea that there was some unattested tradition of taking actual observations that sprung up, you wind up with the same basic problem I've noted before: There's no reason to list degrees to describe a wedge 30 times bigger. You never need to make this fine of a distinction to define the 8 Characters, and certainly not by finding stars on the ecliptic
Quote:In 525 B.C. another comet was reported, this time at Dachen. Later known as Dahuo, Dachen was one of the ci, or "jupiter stations." Here we have one of the earliest references in Chinese history to these twelve equal divisions of the sky (and later of the celestial equator) based on the motion of jupiter, or rather its supposed invisible counterrotating correlative planet Taisu.3o Since Jupiter completes a full circuit of the sky in almost twelve years, the sun in its annual course would spend a month in each division. Apart from the number of stations, the ci (which were still important in Chinese astrology in relatively recent times) had nothing in common with the signs of the Western zodiac. The latter divisions are based on the ecliptic rather than the celestial equator. In Chinese astronomy and astrology the zodiac has never held a special place except in popular thinking.You have to look at how he is using "popular" elsewhere, which I don't think is the best word choice, to really see the sense here, but he means in opposition to the kind of astronomical practice that found stars and recorded them.
This follows from the definitional issues noted above; the location of the sun was figured from the date, so while Four Pillars horoscopes did find a zodiac symbol based on the passage of the sun, this was not done by locating the sun, but by computing the modeled location based on the mean solar year. "Popular" divination did not require taking any measurements more refined than what is termed the long-hour, a 12-part division of the midnight-to-midnight day. This involved water clocks, not astronomy. The fact that the ci, a 30-degree unit (in our European system), gives rise to the zodiac seems relevant to your argument as well.
If you try and force the idea that there was some unattested tradition of taking actual observations that sprung up, you wind up with the same basic problem I've noted before: There's no reason to list degrees to describe a wedge 30 times bigger. You never need to make this fine of a distinction to define the 8 Characters, and certainly not by finding stars on the ecliptic