skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Aspect doctrine in ancient astrology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 125

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've encountered so many people in denial, and it is good to hear a valuable confirmation once in a while Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1513

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for this Levente!

Some of it I already knew, but you've put it together in a way that's quite helpful and fills in some of the blanks for me.

I'm going to look into this a bit more, it's given me a good kicking off point, and interesting to see where your disagreements lie with the conclusions of others like Schmidt, it helps provide a wider variety of informed opinion.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astroart



Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 146
Location: Varna, Bulgaria

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My personal view is that before going to discuss the issue of aspects in Hellenistic astrology first we must have some clarity and consensus on the meaning of the Greek terms related with the aspects doctrine. Because as we know : “language is the source of misunderstanding “ (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry).

The Hellenistic astrologers use two different types of words for aspects doctrine. The first type is based on the act of seeing and the second type is based on the act of testifying. Among the first type of terms are the words that Robert Schmidt divided on two categories and translated as:

1/ ‘contemplate’, ‘regard’ and ‘behold’ ( theōreō)
2/ ‘look at’ or ‘look upon’ ( blepō ) and ‘scrutinize’ (katopteuō)

The first category of terms Schmidt related with the sign based aspects and the second category of terms with the degree based aspects.
But there is also one another type of terms based on the word that means ‘bear witness’ or ‘testify to’ (marturō) and certain variants of this word.
The problem that arises is the following:

Does the term’ testify to’ (marturō) overlap the other terms for seeing such as ‘contemplate’ ( theōreō) , ‘look at’ ( blepō ) and ‘scrutinize’ (katopteuō) or not?

As we know the opinon of Robert Schmidt is that doctrine of testifying is closely related but not identical with the doctrine of seeing. Let see what he says about the Hellenistic doctrine of testimony (Geocosmic Journal, Autumn 2006, p.16):

“The sufficient condition for the testimony relationship between two planets is that they are not only in signs at the specified intervals from one another, but they have already formed, or will form, an exact figure before leaving there respective signs.”

The question is whether Schmidt is right or not .
_________________
http://www.astro-art.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 937
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, folks-- I'm a latecomer to this thread, and am now only part way through. If I don't jump in when the spirit moves me, I'm apt to lose my points by the time I've done all the homework.

First, thanks Paul for taking this discussion here. I deliberately avoid social media out of privacy concerns, so it's gook to rekindle hot topics on the Skyscript forum.

A very tiny fly in the ointment-- Hellenistic or ancient astrology was not necessarily typified or defined by the "literary sources." Not only do we know that an awful lot of material was lost or preserved in part through secondary referencing, but historical sources of the Roman empire indicate practices that aren't event mentioned in the translated written sources.

One such practice was the use of astrology boards. We don't precisely know how they were used. If memory serves, they weren't mentioned in the published sources (that I've read.) For example, : https://www.livescience.com/17943-oldest-astrologer-board-zodiac.html

It looks to me like whole signs houses would be the easiest houses system to use with these boards. Which isn't to say that some other system could have been applied, but with more difficulty.

We know from the extant published sources plus Frederick Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politicsthat all kinds of people practiced astrology: slaves, women (gasp, shock!) and people at street fairs. The "good" astrologers complained about the charlatans, but the fact remains that some people were practicing astrology in Roman times that differed fromn the kind sanctioned by Ptolemy or Firmicus Maternus. Not to mention Mithraism and the use of astrology in Hermeticism and Egyptian black magic. Probably a lot of these alternative astrologers didn't use houses.

Then we have a collection of a lot of archaeological finds of verbal horoscopes in Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's monograph on Greek horoscopes. Some of these came with degrees, but many were just planets-in-signs.

I once worked out all of the Valens horoscopes that had sufficient data for that purpose. The only way I could get them to work out was with whole signs. Clearly Valens knew about additional house systems, but I don't know how much he used them himself. Valens was a great compiler of other people's work.

Dismissing Manilius as a poet seems to me to be taking him out of all historical context. We don't know whether he read charts for people or not. He continued an ancient tradition of believing that poetry, not prose, was the proper medium for writing about the heavens and the gods.

Anubio (1st century CE) also wrote in poetry. (Stephan Heilen, "Anubio Reconsidered.")

I agree with Houlding, Ross and Greenbaum https://www.academia.edu/7370462/The_Role_of_Egypt_in_the_Development_of_the_Horoscope
that the origin of houses was probably Egyptian-- and steeped in ancient religious beliefs. The Egyptians' minute observations of the heavens with their decans system and the all-important rising of the sun probably gave rise to the ascendant or "horoscope point" in astrology.

They used a system of natural hours, in dividing day and night into two separate periods of equal length. I believe that the planetary joys in houses-- however much they were subjequently rationalized by the Hellenists-- were based upon the stations of the sun/pharaoh/soul passing through the night/afterlife at night; and then the stations of the sun during the day.


Last edited by waybread on Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:36 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 937
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a couple more comments.

On the multiple origin thesis: https://www.academia.edu/7781974/Some_metrical_fragments_from_Nechepsos_and_Petosiris

Stephan Heilan, "Some Metrical Fragments from Nechepsos and Petosiris."

Thank goodness for classical philologists. Cool

That Ptolemy, the great rationalizer, and proto-scientist, who lived in Egypt, scarcely used houses suggests that they had a religious origin.

Then is there a Thema Mundi point to be made in this discussion? What was its house system? How did it construe aspects?

Wink

Paul, sorry if these posts are off-topic. Typical thread drift, I suppose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 125

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Dismissing Manilius as a poet seems to me to be taking him out of all historical context. We don't know whether he read charts for people or not. He continued an ancient tradition of believing that poetry, not prose, was the proper medium for writing about the heavens and the gods.

Anubio (1st century CE) also wrote in poetry. (Stephan Heilen, "Anubio Reconsidered.")


Levente was more of comparing him with the poetical work of Dorotheus, which is easily seen more practical - it tells you how to judge most areas of life and certain event charts. Manilius' work is way less technical and uses a lot of its dedicated space to mythological material a la Aratus type, or at least that is what I understood from his point.
_________________
The totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astroart



Joined: 08 Mar 2009
Posts: 146
Location: Varna, Bulgaria

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other side is Benjamin Dykes whose opinion is that the term ’ testify to’ and 'bear witness' (marturō''and epimarturō) means the both types of aspects: as sign based aspects as well degree based aspects. In his introduction and comments to Hephaistion's Apotelesmatics III Dykes writes that there are no direct evidence that support Schmidt's interpretation of the definition of 'testimony' and certainly not in Hephaistion Book III and then he explains his position (p.26) :

"For one thing, the texts say that there are two ways to have testimony, and one of them is by sign alone. "

Probably when he says "the texts say" he means the book III of Hephaistion. Unfortunately he don't say where exactly in Apotelesmatics is this text.
_________________
http://www.astro-art.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Dimitar,

Of course, we would be better informed about the issue if someone took up the arduous task to sift through the published texts so that every elucidating passage on the exact meaning of the "aspect" terms would be found. But for the time being, it seems, at least to me, that Dykes is right: the expressions concerning witnessing cover both sign-based and degree-based "aspects". Undoubtedly, Schmidt made valiant efforts to defend his interpretation of Antiochus's notion of witnessing, and his achievements must be respected,
but I agree with those who believe his conclusion in this matter is strained indeed. The texts referred here (which I think are meant also by Dykes) are the ones Schmidt built his arguments upon.

1. κατὰ δύο δὲ διαφορὰς ἀποτελεῖται τὰ εἰρημένα σχήματα, ἢ κατὰ ζῴδιον ἁπλῶς ἢ κατὰ μοῖραν, a passage in the Antiochus summary (1.6, CCAG 8.3: 113.29-30), which he translated as "the aforesaid figures are brought to completion in two different ways, either by image simply or by portion", can also be translated simply as "the aforesaid figures are rendered in two different ways, etc.", which I think is better since I personally can't imagine how a sign-based aspect can be "completed".

2. The sentence ὁρᾶν δὲ χρή, εἰ κατὰ μοῖραν ἔχουσι τέλεια τὰ σχήματα καὶ μὴ μόνον ζῳδιακῶς in "Porphyry" (8, CCAG 5.4: 198.6-8 ), which he translated, reading τελεῖν for the τέλεια of the manuscripts, as "but one must see whether the stars are able to complete the figures by portion and not merely by image", may also be translated, if you retain the original word and abstain from adding the subject "the stars", which Schmidt did, as "but one must see whether the figures are complete according to portion and not only by image".
Incidentally, in an unpublished version of the text, it continues with an explanation which says δυνατώτεροι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ κατὰ μοῖραν συσχηματισμένοι τῶν ζῳδιακῶς συσχηματισμένων "since the ones (sc. the stars) assuming figures according to portion are more powerful than those assuming figures by image." The wording suggests it may have been in the original, which is lost in the published version.

3. The last sentence of the "Porphyry" chapter (8, CCAG 5.4: 198.10-11), missing from the alternative versions, says πολλάκις γὰρ κατὰ μὲν ζῴδιόν εἰσιν ἐσχηματισμένοι, κατὰ δὲ μοῖραν οὐκέτι in the edition, and was translated by Schmidt as "for, stars frequently stand configured according to image but no further according to portion"; οὐκέτι in temporal sense can really mean "no longer/further" as the opposite of οὔπω 'not yet', which would imply a separating figure. However, οὐκέτι can also be interpreted simply as "but not". This sentence, by the way, seems out of place here, and probably constitutes an addition to recover the missing sentence found in the alternative version.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 125

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente, does Mathesis 4.25 imply that aspects (applications and separations) are blocked by sign boundaries? And are there other Hellenistic sources that imply this?

Does it indicate some kind of preference for sign based aspects?
_________________
The totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:
Levente, does Mathesis 4.25 imply that aspects (applications and separations) are blocked by sign boundaries? And are there other Hellenistic sources that imply this?

Does it indicate some kind of preference for sign based aspects?


Yes, Firmicus obviously takes the signs as if they are closed by boundaries, which is implied by the usage of words like obstacula 'obstacles' (ed. p. 277.20) and terminus 'boundary' (p. 277.23; not in the astrological sense).

However, I don't know any more Hellenistic sources being as explicit as Firmicus, save for one possible source. It is an untitled text with the incipit Tēs ouranias diatheseōs, sometimes attributed to Hephaestio, falsely, whose one section is partly based on "Porphyry", and another section is an alternative text of this same "Porphyry". Its chapter 16 on application and separation, an adaptation of "Porphyry" 11, begins as συναφὴ καὶ ἀπόρροια λέγεται συνέλευσις καὶ συμπαρουσία δύο ἀστέρων ἐν ἑνὶ τῶν δωδεκατημορίων μοιρικῶς γενομένη ("a meeting and mutual presence of two stars that takes place in one of the twelve-parts portionally is called 'joining' [sunaphē] and 'running off' [aporroia]"). It continues with similar but clearer definitions of applications and separations than "Porphyry", which make it apparent that applications and separations can happen either bodily or in figures; this implies that the reference to a single sign in the opening sentence must be understood as though the stars cannot leave their respective sign during an application or separation.

But I wouldn't say sign-based aspects are preferred over degree-based aspect; instead, it seems to me that degree-based aspects constitute the special cases of the sign-based aspects, and they are more powerful (in whatever sense) than the general case. This interpretation, of course, excludes the possibility of out-of-sign aspects.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1513

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've removed a number of posts from this thread.

I hate putting on my moderator hat on thread where I'm participating, but to just to remind people that it's typically not expected to see discussion on bodies like Sedna or involvement with modern aspects such as the quincunx on the traditional forum.

In addition, this thread although it has meandered considerably, should not spin out into personal discussion of one's chart using modern methods - this is a focus on ancient astrological practice and its history first and foremost.

Finally it's not acceptable to post massive sections of another person's work here, small quotes are acceptable, otherwise feel free to link to another article or online essay.
By all means summarise the entire article in your own words in a short paragraph.

I apologise if anyone sees this as some kind of censorship. It is not.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raymond Scott



Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 37

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a strong interest in parans which Kenneth Bowser refers to as mundane aspects because I desire a Multidimensional Astrology that goes beyond just using Ecliptic Longitude which is the zodiac chart. I have been using Right Ascension (Equatorial Longitude) and Declination (Equatorial Latitude) years before I started using parans regularly.

After reading about Oblique Ascension and Oblique Descension, I understand parans a lot more.
I already know that objects that conjunct in Right Ascension within a 2 degree orb have a corresponding culminating,culminating paran (culminate together) and a corresponding anti-culminating,anti-culminating paran (anti-culminate together) and that objects that oppose in Right Ascension within a 2 degree orb have two corresponding culminating,anti-culminating parans (one culminates while the other anti-culminates).

I read that the formula for the rising, setting, culminating, and anticulminating of planets rely on right ascension and declination of the planet and the geographic latitude of the horoscope
Right Ascension, Oblique Ascension, and Oblique Descension are factors in parans.
The Sidereal Time paran connections between objects are the result of the objects being connected via the factors of Right Ascension,Oblique Ascension,Oblique Descension.

Right Ascension: the angular distance eastward along the celestial equator from the vernal equinox to the intersection of the hour circle that passes through the body; expressed in hours and minutes and second; used with declination to specify positions on the celestial sphere
Oblique Ascension: an arc of the equator, intercepted between the first point of Aries and that point of the equator which rises together with a celestial object, in an oblique sphere; or the arc of the equator intercepted between the first point of Aries and that point of the equator that comes to the horizon with a celestial object
Oblique Descension: the degree or arc of the equator which descends, with a celestial object, below the horizon of an oblique sphere.

Robert Hand's explanation of oblique ascension:
First an explanation of oblique ascension. On the equator all positions on the celestial sphere, regardless of declination, rise along with their right ascensions at 0 degrees declination. This is because at the terrestrial equator the celestial equator rises in the east exactly perpendicular to the horizon, hence the term "right" ascension, "right" meaning perfectly upright. But either north or south of the terrestrial equator positions on the celestial sphere do not rise with their positions measured in right ascension. They rise along some other degree on the celestial equator. This other degree is the oblique (or slantwise) ascension of our hypothetical position on the celestial sphere. It is called oblique ascension because the celestial equator at latitudes other than 0 degrees north or south rises slantwise or obliquely in the east, the further away from 0 terrestrial latitude (the equator), the more obliquely. Therefore, the oblique ascension of position A can be defined as whatever degree on the equator may be rising when A exactly touches the horizon assuming that A is not on the celestial equator, i.e., that A has a declination not equal to 0."
http://www.arhatmedia.com/tropzo.htm

Philip Sedgwick noted about parans:
"While some astrologers scratch their heads, others investigate the angular relations along the potent Celestial Equator circular reference.
Often when measuring to the Celestial Equator instead of the ecliptic, other unnoted parallels and contra-parallels emerge. Again, a parallel or contra-parallel on this circle operates the same as such an alignment on the other circle.
Meanwhile the factor of the Paran adds a doubled effect as well. Using either the Celestial Equator or Ecliptic, a Paran technically can be measured. A Paran on the Celestial Equator would not correlate to one on the Ecliptic. And again, remaining attached to only one sphere of measure ignores other critical angles calling out for interpretive attention. Paran, comes from paranatellonta, meaning literally, "rising side by side." This refers to a transiting object and natal object rising over the horizon and meridian at the same time. Many combinations of Parans are available coming from the factors of oblique ascension, oblique descension, and right ascension.
http://www.noeltyl.com/~noeltyl3/techniques/011130.html

Rob Hand in Essays on Astrology defines parans as “simultaneous transits over two or more bodies over the horizon or meridian circles of a given place at the same time.” Hand defines seven types of parans as follows:
1. Two bodies rising together (conjunct the oblique Ascendant).
2. One rises while the other sets (oblique Ascendant opposition the oblique Descendant).
3. One rises, the other culminates or anti-culminates (oblique Ascendant square right ascension).
4. Two bodies set together (conjunct the oblique Descendant).
5. One body sets, the other culminates or anti-culminates (oblique Descendant square right ascension).
6. Two bodies culminate or anti-culminate together (conjunct the right ascension).
7. One culminates while the other anti-culminates (right ascension opposition right ascension).
http://www.alabe.com/text/Dineen-AstofPlace.html

David Cochrane's wonderful (in my view, unparalleled) Astrology program Sirius’ Speculum lists Sidereal Hours for the rising, culminating, setting, and anti-culminating of the objects as well as the Right Ascension,Oblique Ascension, and Oblique Descension of the objects.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raymond Scott



Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 37

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In his book, Essays on Astrology,
Robert Hand pointed out that declination is the vertical dimension of Right Ascension and not ecliptic longitude even though some astrologers use declination along with ecliptic longitude instead of Right Ascension.
Robert Hand wrote one cannot say that if Saturn rises while Mars culminates, Saturn will necessarily culminate while Mars sets because of geometry planetary transits over angles. He pointed out that a paran on one pair of angles does not mean that there will be parans on other pairs of angles at the same time. He noted that If two bodies are also in parallel of declination when they are in paran, they will always transit the angles in pairs and be in paran on any pair of angles. He also wrote that contraparallels also synchronize the rising, culminating, setting and lower culmination patterns of pairs of planets, but not as perfectly as parallels.
He noted that eclipses of the Sun are also parallels and that the Sun conjunct Moon while parallel Moon will transit all angles simultaneously He also notes that shows that an eclipse is both a zodiacal aspect and a paran aspect. He raises the possibility that is part of the rreason that eclipses are so powerful.

In his book, Horoscope Symbols, Robert Hand wrote that parallels,contraparallels might not have much astrological influence unless they are in conjunction,opposition in Declination Longitude Equivalent Chart

Robert Hand pointed out that parans take both latitude and Declination into consideration.
He also noted that the Babylonians used parans long before aspects on the ecliptic. He also pointed that Babylonian Astrology was an observational one, and that the horizon and meridian circles are much more easily seen outdoors than the ecliptic. He also noted that Ptolemy discussed parans in the Almagest. Robert Hand wrote that parans appear to represent a direct and powerful linking of planetary energies although it is not clear what differences there might be among the various type of parans.
Parans depend upon the latitude of location. The important thing is that the two bodies cross the great circle of the horizon or meridian. Paran transits are affected by changing geographic latitude.

Robert Hand used a 4 degree (16 minutes of Sidereal Time) for natal parans, but I prefer using 2 degree orb (8 minutes of Sidereal Time) and 1 1/2 degree orb (6 minutes of Sidereal Time) for dwarf planet/candidates and major asteroids/protoplanets.
He used a 1 degree orb for transiting parans to natal parans. If transiting parans to natal parans can be used, I don't see why parans cannot be used in synastry which is actually the older person's transits at the time that the younger person was born. I always thought that the older person could re-live the psychological influences of the transits that he/she had when the younger person was born through the interaction with the younger person.

Robert Hand originally looked at the Right Ascension, Oblique Ascension, and/or Oblique Descension degrees for the transits to natal, and I was wondering if we could look at those before I even read his book. I was already looking at transits to natal in Right Ascension. Now, I realize that only the Right Ascension conjunction, opposition may be valid in looking at transits to natal for they actual parans. Other Right Ascension aspects are not parans.
Robert Hand referred to the transits as 'Ascensional Transits.'

Robert Hand later changed to looking at Sidereal Times (ST) or RAMC (Right Ascension in the Medium Coeli aka Midheaven) rising,culminating,setting,anti-culminating of the planets.

I really like the way Robert Hand thinks and views things in Astrology. He questions what most astrologers do. He does things that most astrologers don't do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated