25
Hello,

In my opinion the whole confusion comes from the meaning of right and left in Hellenistic astrology.

As Gjiada mentioned the concept of predominance of the planet that?s rising before another one is clear and needs no clarification.

The problem seems to be that in the Hellenistic astrology, right and left meant different thing according to the context.

The solution seems to establish a reference point, element, and then to try to find the right and left planet.

26
Jogi wrote:CJ wrote
Your logic doesn't seem to be taking into account that diurnal rotation is clockwise but zodiacal motion counter-clockwise. So a waning Moon would actually be dominated by the Sun in this system.
Indeed I know that diurnal rotation is clockwise (I know at least this for sure :lol: ).
And this is actually what I ment: E.g. the Moon in 4? Pices and the Sun in 6? Gemini. This is a waning Moon - so a weak or weaker Moon. Additionally the Moon makes a sinister square with the Sun - sinister as weaker or not so influential. And as you mentioned one would say that the Moon is dominated by the Sun.
Sinister just means right-hand side in medieval terminology. Certainly if one seeks to base the astrology solely on Valens et. al then one might have these kind of problems (by his own admission his works are a bit jumbled).

If one wants more variation on Valens I am of the maybe unorthodox view that the Indo-Greek astrology has hardly anything "Indian" in it, what is not Egyptian is from somewhere else (Yavana is also later maybe not by chance a term for Persians and Arabs, however the terminology is Greek). Indians do not generally edit their texts since there is more of a tradition to view them as holy works than science. The first to obviously "improve" on the Yavanajataka is Saravali in a separate book (both are also mentioned in Al-Biruni's "India").

27
In the collection of Viennese codes(CCAG-vol. VI, p.2) is interesting greek manuscript about sinister/dexter aspects:

F. 160 v . ???? ??? ??????? ???????????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????.(Concerning the aspects of the planets and their division of right and left)

But unfortunately G.Kroll-the editor of this volume -has not published the text of the manuscript.I think this text may be will reveal many things about this problem - sinister/dexter.

28
Jogi wrote:
Which are the conditions a planet have to fulfill to be the significator in an aspect (or sender or receiver)? Is it the essentially and accidentially most dignified planet, the faster moving planet, another condition or a combination?

Maybe my thoughts go in the totally wrong direction (or I just ask stupid questions ).
Far from it. You are actually raising many of the questions lots of us have been asking ourselves and scratching our heads over. :-?

I do like Andrew's article and love his football analogy. :lala I agree with Andrew that the faster moving planet is the most reasonable starting point generally.

Still, you do raise a good point about outer planets. I have been wondering also about whether this can be applied to transits? Is this something older authorities considered or is the concept confined to use in electional and horary?

For example, say you have a natal Moon at 28 Gemini and transiting Saturn is at 28 Virgo. Saturn is obviously forming a square but can we properly call this a dexter square? Saturn is clearly the faster moving of these planets (since the Moon's position is fixed!) but is there any traditional basis for using the original positions of planets in a nativity to calculate dexter/sinister aspects through transits?

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

29
Mark wrote:Still, you do raise a good point about outer planets. I have been wondering also about whether this can be applied to transits? Is this something older authorities considered or is the concept confined to use in electional and horary?

For example, say you have a natal Moon at 28 Gemini and transiting Saturn is at 28 Virgo. Saturn is obviously forming a square but can we properly call this a dexter square? Saturn is clearly the faster moving of these planets (since the Moon's position is fixed!) but can we use the original positions of planets in a nativity to calculate dexter/sinister aspects through transits?
Oh, this is excellent thinking! :'
Yes, transitting Saturn does cast a dexter square. I do think so.

Apart from that, thank you for mentioning that you enjoyed my article on the subject. It was a difficult topic to get one's mind wrapped into when the subject 'resurfaced' in the late 80's with the renewed interest for classical astrology. :)
http://www.astronor.com

30
Apart from that, thank you for mentioning that you enjoyed my article on the subject.
It was my pleasure believe me. In a miasma of academic discussion on this subject it was really refreshing to read something written for mere mortal astrology students wanting to actually delineate a chart in this lifetime. :'

I dont know if the transit idea will hold up. Its something I intend to research a bit to see if those dexter Saturn transits were more powerful or the Jupiter sinister transits less effective.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

32
Anyway it`s still confusing. Maybe this confusion is due to the usage of the words LEFT and RIGHT.

There is one good book about traditional astrology in German language which is written by Rafael Gil Brand (Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie, 424 pages). When he explains left and right aspects he says that the planet which is behind another one in the Zodiac, is in the right aspect of this other planet. E.g. Sun in Sag. and Mars in Virgo would mean that Mars is in the right square of the Sun and thus is dominating the Sun. With the Sun in Sag. and Mars in Pieces, Mars would be in the left square of the Sun and thus the Sun would dominate Mars.

He advices to visualize that one of the aspecting planets is right on the ASC. In our example the Sun in Sag. would be on the ASC and Mars in Virgo would be above the Sun and thus be on the right side of the Sun.

With Mars in Pieces on the ASC the Sun in Sag. would now be on the right side of Mars and thus be in the rigth square of Mars. Mars at the same time would be in the left square of the Sun. The Sun would dominate Mars because Mars is on the left side of the Sun.

It is interesting that in his explanations he never says that a planet is casting a right/left aspect but that a planet is in the right/left aspect of another one.

With this definition of RIGHT and LEFT there would be no collision with the doctrine of a dominating planet in the 10th sign of this planet.

Now there is a new question: which definition of dexter/right and sinister/left is true and which is wrong?

Jogi

33
Left and Right is difficult. I'll just pick up some quotes from Al Biruni, then we can expand our thoughts on the matter later:
Position Right and Left of Sun
Astronomers agree that all three higher planets form the time of conjunction to opposition, and both lower planets from conjunction on the retrograde to that on the direct course, and the moon form opposition to conjunction are to the right (west) of the sun, while the higher planets from opposition to conjunction, and the lower planets from conjunction on the direct to that on the retrograde course, and the moon from conjunction to opposition are on the left (east) of the sun.
Two Right and Two Left Hands
When a planet is in the cardo of midheaven and its sextile and quartile rays fall together above the earth, it is said to have two right hands, if these fall below the earth two left hands. The indications of the former are success and victory.
Note that in the second quotation the application of the terms of left and right hands does not refer to the term of sinister and dexter in the sence that we have been discussing them earlier throughout this thread.
Last edited by Andrew Bevan on Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.astronor.com

34
Is it any wonder people get so confused about what ought to be something simple? Those translations (or the originals), frankly, suck. Pardon my French.

I still can't wrap my head around this, and I'm a "brain-worker" by profession, and someone who has been a student of astrology for 40 years. Unfortunately, the trend in explicating "traditional" astrology seems to be one of (unnecessarily?) obscure English. (This is not a criticism of you, Andrew).

And what is east or west "relative to" supposed to mean on a circle with arbitrary starting points? Just tell me something like "if the faster planet is in the hemisphere that rises before the slower, it is X; if on the other side, it is Y". Or something like that.

Frustrated,

- Ed

35
Thanks, Ed. I'm a bit brain-impaired from struggling through Dariot today - I uant to ftart fpeling like this ;)

I always thought it was cos I was one of those people when the chiropractor wants to check my right wrist and I give it to him, he always tells me: no, your OTHER right wrist.

I can never wrap my head round it either. There's a short section in Dariot that I'll try to transcribe - maybe just to add to the muddle. Free translation by me, from Chapter 5


Among these aspects, as Julius Firmicus witnesses in the second book of his Mathematics, the 25th Chapter: the sextile, quadrate, and trine aspects are double, that is to say a right and a left, taking the right for the hind part and the left for the fore part, as if we would say that Aries has a right sextile unto Aquarius, and a left unto Gemini. Likewise Aries has a right trine to Sagittarius and a left [trine] to Leo.

In like sort you must judge of all the other aspects. And it is also to be noted that the right aspects are more forcible than the left.


It doesn't deal with which planet is doing what, but I think the left and right make sense in this one.

36
Thanks, Olivia. So an aspect to what rises before is right and vice-versa. But which planet is considered the origin? I suppose that if one were directing aspects of promissors to significators, there is no confusion, since the promissor is the basis on which the sinister or dexter designation is based. But what about looking at an arbitrary aspect between two planets?

- Ed