When Did Astrology Columns Appear in Newspapers?

Anybody know? I’m rereading TW Doane’s “Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions” and he quotes a contemporary author who mocks the idea of anyone believing in astrology in that era. This seems to indicate that things like horoscopes weren’t common. Which leads me to believe that they didn’t appear until sometime after the late 1880s.

Anybody know? I'm rereading TW Doane's "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" and he quotes a contemporary author who mocks the idea of anyone believing in astrology in that era. This seems to indicate that things like horoscopes weren't common. Which leads me to believe that they didn't appear until sometime after the late 1880s.
A Wikipedia article says the first newspaper astrology item was in the 17th Century, but it wasn't until 1930 that a simplified method of astrology called sun signs--which is the kind of astrology that appears in newspapers today--appeared regularly in newspapers, supposedly invented by R. H. Naylor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_sign_astrology There have been many methods of using the stars and planets to predict human and supernatural activity over the centuries and it still goes on today, especially in Asian and Arabic countries. Many people believe in it and some have incorporated it into their religion. It's all hogwash, IMO. Lois
Anybody know? I'm rereading TW Doane's "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" and he quotes a contemporary author who mocks the idea of anyone believing in astrology in that era. This seems to indicate that things like horoscopes weren't common. Which leads me to believe that they didn't appear until sometime after the late 1880s.
I've been to a very old church in Greece with the signs of the zodiac painted on the ceiling and Jesus is in the middle. What era?
Anybody know? I'm rereading TW Doane's "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" and he quotes a contemporary author who mocks the idea of anyone believing in astrology in that era. This seems to indicate that things like horoscopes weren't common. Which leads me to believe that they didn't appear until sometime after the late 1880s.
I've been to a very old church in Greece with the signs of the zodiac painted on the ceiling and Jesus is in the middle. What era? There is a similar fresco in the Dekoulou Monastery in Mani, Peloponnese, Greece, from the 16th Century. http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-A_very_rare_fresco_depicting_Jesus_Christ_surrounded_by_the_Zodiac-33973224.html Here are some websites you might find interesting http://www.thegreektraveller.com/en/mesa-mani-dekoulou-monastery/ http://www.orthodoxartsjournal.org/most-of-the-time-the-earth-is-flat/ There is also a zodiac in a painting of the Virgin Mary at Chartres Cathedral, dating from the 13th Century. http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/chartres.htm But little information as to why zodiacs appear in Christian church art. Lois

Bit of a tangent, but heartening: Was watching Family Feud the other day and the question was, On a scale of 1 to 10, How Much Do You Believe In Horoscopes? Most popular answer was 1.

Bit of a tangent, but heartening: Was watching Family Feud the other day and the question was, On a scale of 1 to 10, How Much Do You Believe In Horoscopes? Most popular answer was 1.
Yes, but if that's an indication of the rest of the country, it means that most people are on the astrology belief spectrum and have not rejected the idea of astrology. Of course they didn't have a zero on the scale. L
Bit of a tangent, but heartening: Was watching Family Feud the other day and the question was, On a scale of 1 to 10, How Much Do You Believe In Horoscopes? Most popular answer was 1.
Yes, but if that's an indication of the rest of the country, it means that most people are on the astrology belief spectrum and have not rejected the idea of astrology. Of course they didn't have a zero on the scale. LYou over-analyse... 1 was as low as they could go and they went there. Let's be happy it wasn't near 10.

I suspect when publishers realized many women read newspapers, horoscopes became more commonly published in them.

I suspect when publishers realized many women read newspapers, horoscopes became more commonly published in them.
Misogyny doesn't suit you. On the other hand, maybe it does. Lois
I suspect when publishers realized many women read newspapers, horoscopes became more commonly published in them.
Misogyny doesn't suit you. On the other hand, maybe it does. LoisUnless it's true that women tend to read horoscopes. Jumping to a conclusion that mid atlantic is being misogynistic just because he said something you don't like is being um, man-hating, whatever the term is.

It shouldn’t be controversial. More women believe in Astrology more than men, and newspapers have always used whatever methods they could to sell more copies.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx

It shouldn't be controversial. More women believe in Astrology more than men, and newspapers have always used whatever methods they could to sell more copies. http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranormal-beliefs-come-supernaturally-some.aspx
Perhaps women are a little more intuitive than men in this respect. Everyone seems to associate Astrology as a form of pseudo-science or metaphysical woo. And most of it is. But the concept of astrology is becoming at least partially validated by our increasing knowledge of Astronomy and Cosmolgy and Physics. It cannot be denied that "alignment of particles" are causal to specific results. Astrology attempts to apply this principle to the alignment of stellar objects and configurations, such as the sun and planets. The Zodiac serves as a grand intellectual map The Farmers Almanac is also such an application, according to locally known weather patterns and predictions, rather than dates and times of birth. The zodiac
Although the zodiac remains the basis of the ecliptic coordinate system in use in astronomy besides the equatorial one,[3] the term and the names of the twelve signs are today mostly associated with horoscopic astrology.[4] The term "zodiac" may also refer to the region of the celestial sphere encompassing the paths of the planets corresponding to the band of about eight arc degrees above and below the ecliptic. The zodiac of a given planet is the band that contains the path of that particular body; e.g., the "zodiac of the Moon" is the band of five degrees above and below the ecliptic. By extension, the "zodiac of the comets" may refer to the band encompassing most short-period comets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac
I suspect when publishers realized many women read newspapers, horoscopes became more commonly published in them.
Misogyny doesn't suit you. On the other hand, maybe it does. LoisUnless it's true that women tend to read horoscopes. Jumping to a conclusion that mid atlantic is being misogynistic just because he said something you don't like is being um, man-hating, whatever the term is. The term is "reasonable." That more women than men read horoscopes means nothing. More men than women watch sports. Does that tell anything about their intellect? Both are merely entertainment. That's all they are. But check out sometime the amount of newspaper space given to sports and compare it to the amount of space given to horoscopes. We don't see pages of "Horoscope Sections" in every newspaper, to say nothing of the hours of mindless sports coverage on television and radio every day. Lois

Here’s a related question. Pluto? Astrology was around forever, then we discover a new planet. How did they figure out how to incorporate it? Did they go back and redo everyone’s charts? Then it became not-planet again. Now what? Seems fishy to me.

They ignore it completely.

They ignore it completely.
Perhaps it is too small to have a "perceptable" impact on the greater solar system, including the earth, whereas the moon's close proximity is certainly influential to physical events on earth, such as ocean tides which affect all organisms in that environment and may well affect all living things on earth.. I am not arguing or defending Astrology; it is at best an inexact science with too many unknown variables. I see astrology more as a rudimentary attempt at applying a crude form of science trying to tie and explain recurring events (and their consequences) in our solar system with certain events on earth. An example is the ability of travelers to "navigate by the relative position of the stars and local planets" But just as GR has replaced Newtionian physics, it also recognizes its practical functionality in local systems. I believe astrology was just an evolutionary step in the development of Astronomy and Cosmology, from direct observation without the benefit of knowledge of gravity and the use of sophisticated instruments.
Here's a related question. Pluto? Astrology was around forever, then we discover a new planet. How did they figure out how to incorporate it? Did they go back and redo everyone's charts? Then it became not-planet again. Now what? Seems fishy to me.
From what I understand, astrology only uses the five planets visible to the naked eye. The reason they were deemed to be special is that they wandered around relative to the other "fixed" stars. That's why they're called "planets" in the first place, it's Latin or Greek for "wandering star".

The most popular form of traditional Western astrology is sun sign astrology, the kind found in the horoscopes of many daily newspapers. A horoscope is an astrological forecast. The term is also used to describe a map of the zodiac at the time of one’s birth. The zodiac is divided into twelve zones of the sky, each named after the constellation that originally fell within its zone (Taurus, Leo, etc.). The apparent paths of the Sun, the Moon, and the major planets all fall within the zodiac. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, the equinox and solstice points have each moved westward about 30 degrees in the last 2,000 years. Thus, the zodiacal constellations named in ancient times no longer correspond to the segments of the zodiac represented by their signs. In short, had you been born at the same time on the same day of the year 2,000 years ago, you would have been born under a different sign.
In fact, there should be 13 signs, not 12.
Precession of the equinox is caused by the fact that the axis of the Earth’s rotation (which causes day and night) and the axis of the Earth’s revolution around the Sun (which marks the passage of each year) are not parallel. They are 23 1/2 degrees away from lining up; that is, the Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted. This tilt also causes our seasons, a fact that Ptolemy did understand but that many people do not understand even today. Ptolemy understood that the rotation axis of the Earth was slowly precessing, or moving in a circle, with an angular radius of 23 1/2 degrees with a period of around 26,000 years. He deduced this from comparisons of data taken by the ancient Sumerians 2,000 years before his time. He did not understand what was pushing the precession, but he did understand the motion. We now realize that the Sun is rotating with a period of around 30 days and that this causes the Sun to bulge at the equator, which causes a torque to be exerted on the top like motion of the Earth’s day and night cycle. There is also a small 18.6-year variation caused by the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, and the Moon also has a small effect on precession; however, the Sun’s equatorial bulge is the main cause of the precession of the equinox, which is why your sign listed in the newspaper, by Sidney Omar for instance, in most cases is removed by one sign from the modern, actual position of the Sun at your birth.
The modern signs as listed here are further complicated when their boundaries are those of the current constellations. A neater way of dividing the signs would be to divide the ecliptic into 30-degree slices, as Ptolemy did, but to keep the slices centered on the star patterns. This would make the time interval for the signs more nearly 30 days each and eliminate the [13th] sign of Ophiuchus [off ee oo’ kus], but your modern sign would still differ by one sign from the tradition designations.
http://skepdic.com/astrology.html

Removed because of duplication.
Lois

Thanks Lois for that interesting information. Placed it in my reference library.