The constellation of Draco

[Kyriakos]

I meant this thread as one where there can be discussion on a number of issues, involving general interest in ancient Astronomy, Mythology (particularly related to the naming of constellations), encyclopedic knowledge of the Draco constellation, and anything else akin to those thematologies. I was happy to create this article, due to some research i did for a new short story which i completed earlier. I hope you enjoy the account, and find something of interest to add to it, or as a reflection to it...

The constellation of Draco is one of the constellations which were already known from antiquity. The astronomer Ptolemy mentions it, as he names forty-seven other constellations as well. Before Ptolemy (who lived in the early Roman era of Alexandria) the constellation was mentioned by other geographers and astronomers, such as Eratosthenes, who lived in Ptolemaic Egypt in the second century BC. Eratosthenes (who was one of the major scientists of his era, a friend of Archimedes, and the developer of the 'sieve of Eratosthenes' regarding the prime numbers) names the constellation as Ophis.

'Draco' is the romanized term for the Greek 'Dragon'. 'Ophis" is the Greek term for snake, serpent.

The most famous Dragon in Greek mythology was Ladon, who was the guardian of the garden of Esperides, nymphs who lived in that garden. Esperides (Hesperides) was an area near the colony of Cyrene, in the region of Cyrenaica.

Ladon is ussually depicted as a multi-headed serpent, or as a snake with many heads of dragons. He was one of the few monsters that Heracles (Hercules) did not manage to destroy, and instead just left Ladon in a state of permanent near-death. It is said that some time after his defeat to Heracles, Ladon was still seen by the Argonauts.
(sidenote: Another Dragon, the Lernaia Hydra, a multi-headed beast that lived near the town of Lerna in the region of Argolis in Peloponnesos, was also not slain by Heracles, although he destroyed all of it apart from its central head, which was immortal and got burried under a large rock).

Ladon is mostly referred to in other texts from antiquity as being the offspring of Typhon (the fiercest monster who fought the Olympian gods in the struggle concerning the Titanomachia) and Echidna. Typhon even managed to defeat and cut Zeus into pieces, before ultimately the resurrected Zeus won their final battle.
So this would make Ladon the brother of the Lernaia Hydra, the Nemean Lion and various other such beasts. Typhon, Echidna, and most of their offspring, are often seen as the main antagonists of Zeus and Heracles, as depicted also according to ancient sources in major temples, such as the one of Zeus at Olympia (where the statue of Zeus was found, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world).

The constellation of Draco is home to many observed stars. Of those the delta Draconis (δ Draconis) is called ussually either as Nodus Secundus, or by the name arabian astronomers gave it, Al Tais, meaning "He-Goat".
Nodus Secundus is latin for "The second Knot". The name refers to the delta Draconis star marking the second loop of the Draco constellation, which in mythology was linked to the image of a long-winding serpent body (if one wants to add some mystique, it could be likened to a probable similar state Ladon was found at, after being nearly killed in the Esperides).

 

[sydhe]

"Ophis" also figures in the name of the constellation Ophiuchus the Snake carrier, which is identified with Asclepius the god of medicine. This constellation was also known in the Latin form Serpentarius. The snake has been turned into the separate constellation Serpens, which is in two parts, the middle section being behind Ophiuchus. Asclepius was killed by the gods because he was capable of resurrecting people, which put him on Hades' bad side, but apparently got better.

Hydra's in the sky as well. There's also a small constellation named Hydrus the (male) water snake, but it was created in the 16th century and has no stories attached to it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you for that additional information, Sydhe

 

[Plotinus]

Astrologers don't like Ophiuchus, because the ecliptic passess through him, meaning that astronomically speaking there are thirteen constellations in the zodiac, not twelve. Ophiuchus is also interesting because Serpens, the constellation of the snake that he's holding, is the only constellation to be split into two non-contiguous bits, one on each side of Ophiuchus. So there you go.

 

[Pangur Bán]

One very minor but important point:

The constellation of Draco is one of the constellations which were already known from antiquity. The astronomer Ptolemy mentions it, as he names forty-seven other constellations as well. Before Ptolemy (who lived in the early Roman era of Alexandria) the constellation was mentioned by other geographers and astronomers, such as Eratosthenes, who lived in Ptolemaic Egypt in the second century BC. Eratosthenes (who was one of the major scientists of his era, a friend of Archimedes, and the developer of the 'sieve of Eratosthenes' regarding the prime numbers) names the constellation as Ophis.

Constellations can't really be 'known', since they complete inventions of the imagination like the 'witches' children see when looking a coat racks during the night. By the same token, any attempt to write an accurate history of a constellation, especially when that involves equating it with another known only by name, is close to impossible unless you have detailed charts.

 

[innonimatu]

The history of a constellation may tell tells us at least something about the history of the people who strasmitted that idea of a constellation? Or does has it ever happened that separate people with no contact imagined the same constellation?

 

[Kyriakos]

The constellations were grouped together for a number of reasons, partly due to the practical end of making astronomical knowledge more easily available through forming specific patterns which then could be passed on to other astronomers and the people. Another part was because groups of stars which were united in a constellation ussually formed a clear group in form in the way they could be seen in the sky, so they were not easy to mistake with other stars in the region if they were grouped in this way. This does not mean the stars themselves have to be linked in some way that expands on that.

The Draco constellation was known aeons before Ptolemy, it just had a different name then, Ophis. Not only Eratosthenes calls it by that name. Hipparchos (the most likely founder of trigonometry) also calls it Ophis, and most of the work of Hipparchos on astronomy is only surviving in Ptolemy's work. So it is quite reasonable to expect that Ptolemy did not mix up what Hipparchos, or Eratosthenes, were saying about the constellation.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Even if you believed constellations were 'basically the same' from one writer to the next using the same word, you still can't show that all the stars in one always belonged to it, or even that every village in the same culture had the same stars grouped together. But to go from that to make equations from historic culture to historic culture goes is a much bigger stretch, esp. if they have different names.

 

[Kyriakos]

Your argument could have merit if you have in mind the primitive tribes of the time, but not the Greek and Roman world. Astronomy was a known scientific order to them, and it was studied under the same rules of epistemic observation and passing-on of knowledge as the rest of the sciences, which largely have their foundation in those eras. In fact Eratosthenes was the third ever librarian of the Library of Alexandria, so it has to be assumed that he was a very scientifically-thinking individual, same as Hipparchos and Ptolemy. These are not some ancient farmers in tribal Europe of the north.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Where do you think these constellations come from? Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia were farming societies. There's nothing 'scientific' about constellations. They are relatively arbitrary groupings of stars invented as reference points for farmers and priests. The Ptolemy type guys fiddle around with them as you say, but of course that just illustrates my argument.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think the thread does not have to be derailed to a discussion of what constellations are, given that there are many sources of that available elsewhere

This is a thread a lot more closer in spirit to the question Innonimatu asked. Particularly its first part, related to history and mythology.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Sorry if you don't like the point I made, but like I said it's a point worth making and of central importance to the topic.

 

[Kyriakos]

I welcome all points, i just feel the thread is not really about what the constellations are. That is pretty much another full-thread by itself I briefly mentioned my own understanding of them, and obviously agreed with your main point, that constellations very rarely group any stars together due to actual meaningful relationships of the stars of the constellation, which exceed largely the practical reasons i referred to.
As such your point was very needed

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The history of a constellation may tell tells us at least something about the history of the people who strasmitted that idea of a constellation? Or does has it ever happened that separate people with no contact imagined the same constellation?

Of course. The Big Dipper (yes, I know that's an asterism, not a whole constellation by itself) has been imagined by widely disparate cultures.

I think the thread does not have to be derailed to a discussion of what constellations are, given that there are many sources of that available elsewhere

That's like saying you want to discuss the color blue but consider any discussion of color in general to be off-topic.

This thread is an excellent example of why it might be a good idea to merge the History and Science forums, since it belongs in both.

 

[Dachs]

This thread is an excellent example of why it might be a good idea to merge the History and Science forums, since it belongs in both.

It's also the only example in the last several months, which is why it's not a good idea to merge those two forums.

 

[Kyriakos]

Some general information on constellations (beginning with Pangur's post) has already been given. I do not see why one should expand on that in this thread, which is mostly about the role of Greek culture on the naming of a number of constellations, which is why i tried to mention some of the particulars of the term dragon (δράκων in greek) and what it could allude to

It is not really primarily a thread on astronomy, more than a thread on Pythagoras as a figure of philosophy would have to be about theories on triangles or other mathematical discoveries: definitely the theories could be mentioned, but they would not really have to take over the thread and turn it into one about mathematics.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So has this constellation ever had any impact on actual history? Other than Alpha Draconis having been the pole star, of course.

Are you talking about the history of science? History of naming practices? History of classical Greek scientists? The history of astrology (which is not a real science)?

 

[Kyriakos]

I gave a short description of what i meant by posting the thread, in the OP

The thread touches on a lot of topics having to do with history: Astronomy in the ancient Greek and Roman world, Greek mythology which arguably was important enough in the era so as to influence scientific orders, a brief reference to the actual history of the naming of the particular constellation (including its previous name in the Greek world), and some more secondary notes about a number of scientists of the era who were related to this thematology.

Surely it is not about "History" in the same vein as the nth Alexander the Great thread would be, but it still is very obviously better-placed in this subforum than anywhere else here.