46
To test out my theory.

Peotsiris and Levente - inventor hypothesis by an individual or school ? or gradual development ?
What theory? Considering that the vital components of astrology come from Mesopotamia, I consider the inventor hypothesis untenable - things include like the benefic and malefic powers of the wandering stars, and the areas they influence, the twelve-fold circle, the groupings of triplicities and assigning them to planets, the exaltations, the Egyptian terms, the dodekatemoria, heliacal risings and settings etc. Mundane astrology was also adapted without change.

However, many Hellenistic astrologers acknowledge certain Egyptians as the founders of the science. I consider the pseudigrapha, probably compendiums, of these authors to have held great value and enthusiasm, hence the user name. These authors (whether an individual, a school or else) had to come up with the domicile scheme, twelve place system, configurations, the Lot of Fortune, length of life technique, profections, other handy chronocrator systems and other things, in other words they developed technical stuff that helps the craft. It also helped that it was firmly based on Aristotelian cosmology. This is what we call Hellenistic astrology as distinct from the Babylonian.

47
petosiris wrote:
To test out my theory.

Peotsiris and Levente - inventor hypothesis by an individual or school ? or gradual development ?
What theory? Considering that the vital components of astrology come from Mesopotamia, I consider the inventor hypothesis untenable - things include like the benefic and malefic powers of the wandering stars, and the areas they influence, the twelve-fold circle, the groupings of triplicities and assigning them to planets, the exaltations, the Egyptian terms, the dodekatemoria, heliacal risings and settings etc. Mundane astrology was also adapted without change.

However, many Hellenistic astrologers acknowledge certain Egyptians as the founders of the science. I consider the pseudigrapha, probably compendiums, of these authors to have held great value and enthusiasm, hence the user name. These authors (whether an individual, a school or else) had to come up with the domicile scheme, twelve place system, configurations, the Lot of Fortune, length of life technique, profections, other handy chronocrator systems and other things, in other words they developed technical stuff that helps the craft. It also helped that it was firmly based on Aristotelian cosmology. This is what we call Hellenistic astrology as distinct from the Babylonian.
I couldn't agree more. Maybe the only thing I would add is that I'm also fairly convinced that the works attributed to semi-legendary figures like Nechepso weren't necessarily written by the same author and in the same era.

49
Now as the debate about how to interpret Manilius's description of the houses is over, I turn back to the titular topic of the thread.
Paul wrote:I made the comment that whole sign aspects were the least important, not the most important, in Hellenistic astrology. Aspects by zodiacal degree were the most important aspect types in Hellenistic astrology, with aspects in mundo next in importance.

A major source who makes this explicit is Antiochus. Both Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand refer to Antiochus as one of the most influential of ancient astrologers(1). Antiochus himself gives a very detailed account of the aspect doctrine and goes to the pain of making sure that the priority of the aspect doctrine is clearly established.
He says (2) of the aspects:
"the first and greater differentia [of all] is that being taken by degrees" (i.e. aspect by zodiacal degree)
"the second is the temporal differentia...[based on] ascensions of the zoidia" (i.e. in mundo)
"The third is the zodiacal or common and universal differentia. in relation to which we all are in doubt" (i.e. by sign)
The passages Paul is referring to here is from an anonymous text titled Explanation and interpretation of the entire astrological craft from Antiochus's Treasuries, translated by Schmidt (PH vol. 2B, pp. 17-19) and James Holden (Rhetorius, pp. 14-16) as chapter 15, also copied into the "Porphyry" manuscripts as chapter 51 (translated by Holden in Porphyry, pp. 44-46). The text was compiled after 505 but before, say, the eleventh century, and scholars attribute it to Rhetorius on the ground that some texts (the so-called Epitome IIb and another short epitome in a Berlin codex), apparently extracted from this Explanation and interpretation, give Rhetorius as their author. It is, however, not impossible that the shorter texts are remnants of Rhetorius's genuine writings, which would then be used as a basis to assemble Explanation and interpretation. In any case, this very chapter is not found in the attributed Rhetorius material, and therefore can be really late.

"Rhetorius" describes three approaches to aspects, but my interpretation differs from Paul's, as I take these all three approaches as different definitions of what makes a degree-based aspect:
(1) calculating by exact degrees on the equator using Ptolemy's tables for right ascensions - this is called "portional" or "ascensional";
(2) using the rising times, which is an approximation of right ascensions, in the manner of Antigonus, Phnaës, and others - this is called "temporal";
(3) taking the degrees on the ecliptic as everybody does - this is called "zodiacal" or (rather misleadingly) "platical".

And here comes a sentence, which I re-translate:

"For when the sun was in Leo around the 1st degree, and Jupiter was in Sagittarius around the 5th degree, (the configuration) was often acknowledged to be Jupiter's trine to the sun, but (these planets) were configured as unproductive toward each other, since neither (3) platically were they posited within the 120 degrees, nor (2) temporally did they turn to be within the 120 time units, nor even (1) ascensionally within the 120 degrees."

I don't know what exactly this unproductivity means, but it's clear that for "Rhetorius" sign-based aspects were generally inferior to degree-based aspects; in this respect I agree with Paul.

But following others, I don't think Manilius implies the same: he simply describes how to count sign-based aspects correctly. To paraphrase Richard Bentley, an 18th-century editor of Manilius (via Housman): "What the author explains in so many verses is simply this. He says, you'll make a mistake if you count five full signs for the trine since the trine consists of 120 degrees, but five signs give 150 degrees. The same happens if you count four signs for a square because a square is 90 degrees, but four signs give 120 degrees. So count from the beginning of the first sign to the beginning of the last sign, not from the beginning to the end or from the end to the beginning, because in the latter cases the result will be greater or fewer than the right number."

Of course, it sounds stupid, but the Romans counted inclusively and didn't have a zero, so they really needed drilling. Using Housman's words: it was such a difficulty to teach the Roman nation how much two multiplied by two was.

50
I don't know what exactly this unproductivity means, but it's clear that for "Rhetorius" sign-based aspects were generally inferior to degree-based aspects; in this respect I agree with Paul.
Hellenistic aspect doctrine confirmed :-|

51
petosiris wrote:
Even in a sidereal zodiac, the actual boundaries of the visible image (i.e. constellation) have little to do with the sign it is associated with. The constellations deviate considerably in length from the regular 30 degrees extensions of the signs.
What if I told you that the Greek astrologers did not make a difference? Mindblown, I know. Firmicus and Rhetorius (probably using the same source) distribute the 30 degrees of each constellation throughout the twelve signs. Then every single astrologer without exception treats the forms of the constellations as applying to the ideal 30 degrees twelfth-parts rather than whatever constellations one chooses to see.
Well, that sounds interesting. Where do Firmicus and Rhetorius explicitly equate constellations with signs? I would appreciate it if you could provide me with links.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

52
Michael Sternbach wrote:Well, that sounds interesting. Where do Firmicus and Rhetorius explicitly equate constellations with signs? I would appreciate it if you could provide me with links.
I shall show what degrees you should look for in the signs. All the 30
degrees are distributed through all the bodies of the signs. So that you
may know where the first degree is, and where the second, and the others,
I shall give a whole list briefly. The first and second degrees of Aries are
located in the horns; the third, fourth, and fifth in the head; the sixth and
seventh in the face; the eighth, ninth, and tenth in the mouth; the
eleventh and twelfth in the breast; 13th, 14th, and 15th in each shoulder;
16th and 17th in the heart; 18th and 19th in the right arm; 20th, 21 st, and
22nd in the left arm; butt the 23rd in the belly, and also the 24th and 25th;
the 26th and 27th are in the feet; the 28th and 29th in the kidneys, and the
30th in the tail. This is the way the 30 degrees are distributed in the body
of Aries. - 8.4 - Bram, J. R. (1975). Ancient Astrology. Theory and Practice (The Mathesis of Firmicus Maternus)(Noyes, Park Ridge, NJ 1975), 75-78 http://www.astrologiahumana.com/firmicu ... actice.pdf
''There arises from the 1st degree to the 3rd the boundary of the sign, from the 3rd to the 7th the head, from the 8th to the 10th the neck, from the 11th to to the 13th the chest, from the 14th to 18th the waist, from the 19th to the 21st the hips, from the 22nd to the 24th the back, from the 25th to the 27th the tail, and from the 28th to the 30th the feet.'' - Holden's translation of Rhetorius, this is of Aries too (he attributes the signs to Teucer, but there are many interpolations)
These degrees were probably related to melothesia, presumably a malefic in these points would harm the relevant part. The parts are obviously related to the constellations (risings). These are very different from the constellations described in the Almagest.

However, even if the constellations had different sizes, all authors treat them as interchangeable with the signs associated with them, even Ptolemy for example, in 1.12 and 3.8 he refers to ''shapes'' of the images (μό??φωσις - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 08.01.0636). There is almost no chapter in the Tetrabiblos that does not apply some constellational consideration - for example he refers to fecund and barren signs in 4.6, to terrestrial in 4.8, to quadrupedal and cutting in 3.8 and 4.9, to large, small and graceful in 3.11, to injurious, humpbacked etc. in 3.12, to terrestrial, aquatic and human in 4.4.

He also mentions the images that are extra-zodiacal, he refers to human, quadrupedal, creeping, winged, watery etc. in mundane astrology - 2.7. which is not much different approach from Dorotheus 1.1. ''When we have thus reckoned the stars that share in causing the event, let us also consider the forms of the signs of the zodiac in which the eclipse and the dominating stars as well happened to be, since from their character the quality of the classes affected is generally discerned. Constellations of human form, both in the zodiac and among the fixed stars, cause the event to concern the human race.'' - Robbins, F. E. (1940). Tetrabiblos (Vol. 435). Loeb Classical Library.

It is clear that Ptolemy is speaking of the forms of the twelfth-parts as interchangeable with the forms of the images (dodekatemoria = zoidia), at least in 1.12.

I wonder if this can be even argued and what is Levente's opinion on this:
1. Are the constellations interchangeable with the signs in most authors, and isn't this plain clear from the term zoidion?
2. If no, why would they apply the aforementioned indications to the twelfth-parts rather than the constellations, whatever boundaries they had?

I also wonder if the Odapsos source in ''Valens'' and Hephaistio is related to the constellations of the Almagest and other Greek star maps, or to the signs, since Hephaistio and Valens treat them under the twelfth-parts exclusively? I interpret these texts as related to equal sized constellations.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/ve ... entire.pdf

Also Dorotheus says that eclipse in Aries harms sheep. Why does no author ever specify he means the constellation?

I really like how those whole sign considerations line up, as if there is conspiracy behind it.

53
Not so much a conspiracy as a different perspective perhaps? I just can't help thinking our ancient astrological heroes wouldn't have understood what our modern 21st century fuss about their methods is about. They were simply not as exacting as us!

However, they were in effect using (dare I say: inventing) what we moderns call the sidereal zodiac (which moreover coincided with the tropical zodiac at the time - but that's yet another story).

As astrologers supposedly were still looking at the sky once in awhile in those days, they must have been aware of the actual extension of the individual constellations, though. And morphing Libra constellation's 18 degrees into a sign of 30 degrees is certainly, well, quite a stretch! :lol:

Moreover, let's consider that those fellows were commonly including the fixed stars in their readings. What if then, say, one of the outermost stars of Virgo (48 degrees in extension) was conjunct a planet that was (in an alternative view?) in an adjacent sign?

If there ever was a 'conspiracy', it was one simply meant to create a more rigorous framework of reference. Something that we top-heavy moderns should be able to appreciate, really. Don't you think?
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

54
And morphing Libra constellation's 18 degrees into a sign of 30 degrees is certainly, well, quite a stretch!
I don't know, I personally use 30 degree constellations and whole signs for angularity, and I have considered, but ultimately abandoned different approaches. I also regularly look at the sky. I think I have made my points clear, so take it or leave it.
Moreover, let's consider that those fellows were commonly including the fixed stars in their readings. What if then, say, one of the outermost stars of Virgo (48 degrees in extension) was conjunct a planet that was (in an alternative view?) in an adjacent sign?
There are various sources that are focused on individual fixed stars like Ptolemy and the Anonymous, but Dorotheus and Valens rarely mention any. This is probably owing to the fact that they hardly computed degrees back in the day. However, everyone used the ''nature of the image'' which I mentioned, and many of these natures seemed to have come up from the duh, image.
They were simply not as exacting as us!
Does anyone ever say that what they are doing is provisional? They definitely found their methods effective, and, if they were not, they would be ineffective if the opposite ''exacting'' method is more correct. Doesn't that make sense? I also have trouble understanding what is so troubling about the general method, after all ''the particular always falls under the general'' (Ptolemy 1:3).

For example, many astrologers would consider Venus at 30 Libra and Mars at 1 Scorpio to be disjunct because they are in different signs, but when it comes to whole sign aspects or house system, they require ''degree exactitude'', it seems to me contrived that way. It seems to me that the latter is an intensification (particular) and of the general which is productive enough by itself, and if the general is not present then things like sign boundaries follow naturally (or artificially some may say).

It seems to me inconsistent to disagree with whole sign houses and aspects, but not considering out of sign aspects and things like that, it is illogical in that it changes general and particular. Another example is house cusps, why should only the ruler of the cusp be considered, rather than say the two houserulers that influence the particular equal or quadrant house. I think the answer lies in the fact that those things were not meant to be used that way.

55
Levente

Thanks for segueing to the issue of aspects. Allow me to pick your brains for a bit, because I'm not sure I totally follow you - please correct me where I'm mistaken here.
Levente Laszlo wrote: The passages Paul is referring to here is from an anonymous text titled Explanation and interpretation of the entire astrological craft from Antiochus's Treasuries, translated by Schmidt (PH vol. 2B, pp. 17-19) and James Holden (Rhetorius, pp. 14-16) as chapter 15, also copied into the "Porphyry" manuscripts as chapter 51 (translated by Holden in Porphyry, pp. 44-46). The text was compiled after 505 but before, say, the eleventh century, and scholars attribute it to Rhetorius on the ground that some texts (the so-called Epitome IIb and another short epitome in a Berlin codex), apparently extracted from this Explanation and interpretation, give Rhetorius as their author. It is, however, not impossible that the shorter texts are remnants of Rhetorius's genuine writings, which would then be used as a basis to assemble Explanation and interpretation. In any case, this very chapter is not found in the attributed Rhetorius material, and therefore can be really late.
When you say it can be very late, I'm not following why it wouldn't just be Antiochus himself. My understanding of the history of all these texts is really lacking so it would be good to get a better understanding of this.

I understood it that we mostly know what Antiochus wrote by examining Porphyry and Rehtorius and the synopsis of Antiochus's definitions (Schmidt, Defintions and Foundations) and in doing so attempting to retrospectively work out what the actual Antiochus might have written. In what sense is this unique to Rhetorius (am I understanding you right)? Is it that this section doesn't appear in the attributed material of Rhetorius and so the idea is someone else added it in later? That it's in Porphyry should suggest that actually they're both copying some other author (ie the actual Antiochus), no? I think I'm missing something.
"Rhetorius" describes three approaches to aspects, but my interpretation differs from Paul's, as I take these all three approaches as different definitions of what makes a degree-based aspect:
(1) calculating by exact degrees on the equator using Ptolemy's tables for right ascensions - this is called "portional" or "ascensional";
(2) using the rising times, which is an approximation of right ascensions, in the manner of Antigonus, Phnaës, and others - this is called "temporal";
(3) taking the degrees on the ecliptic as everybody does - this is called "zodiacal" or (rather misleadingly) "platical".
Ah, I was seeing all of these works as distinct, or, rather, as distinct in Antiochus and Rhetorius etc. draws on this work or is inspired by it. At least that's how I read the translations that are available to me. I can only go by what authors like Schmidt translate. It seems, from Schmidt's translation, that he's using aspects by ecliptic degree, aspects by ascensional time which I'm calling in mundo, and aspects by sign last. One of the reasons I hadn't realised that Schmidt's Antiochus translation was meant to be the exact same as, say, Porphyry, is explicitly because Schmidt doesn't mention Ptolemy's right ascensional tables and so on where Porphyry does etc.

I had thought, perhaps, that this wasn't in the original Antiochus and the subsequent authors, now also impressed by Ptolmey, adjusted this section with inspiration from Ptolemy.

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're suggesting that Schmidt's translation of Antiochus could be much later than Porphyry or Rhetorius and that the original, whatever that might be, was aspect along the equator, aspect via time periods and finally degree based aspects of the zodiac. Am I following?
But following others, I don't think Manilius implies the same: he simply describes how to count sign-based aspects correctly. To paraphrase Richard Bentley, an 18th-century editor of Manilius (via Housman): "What the author explains in so many verses is simply this. He says, you'll make a mistake if you count five full signs for the trine since the trine consists of 120 degrees, but five signs give 150 degrees. The same happens if you count four signs for a square because a square is 90 degrees, but four signs give 120 degrees. So count from the beginning of the first sign to the beginning of the last sign, not from the beginning to the end or from the end to the beginning, because in the latter cases the result will be greater or fewer than the right number."
I re-read what I wrote and realised you could take it that I was saying that Manilius also counts aspects by ascensional time etc. I wasn't trying to imply that. What I was trying to demonstrate with the Antiochus quote was that whole sign aspects had less confidence and that Antiochus describes them as being in doubt. It's this part I was saying Manilius was in agreement with. In other words both Antiochus and Manilius prefer aspects by degree to aspects by sign. Keep in mind the argument I was making was against the comment someone made that aspects by sign were primary, degree secondary. And also that aspects by degree cannot be seen outside Antiochus, Porphyry and Rhetorius. I was just trying to provide an example demonstrating something pretty explicit that aspects by degree were in fact preferred. I realise how I've written this may be confusing.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

56
petosiris wrote: I don't know, I personally use 30 degree constellations and whole signs for angularity, and I have considered, but ultimately abandoned different approaches. I also regularly look at the sky. I think I have made my points clear, so take it or leave it.
Can you explain further? It's not clear to me here. Do you mean that you use a sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees per sign and you regularly look at the sky and see this zodiac and moreover witness which of these zodiacal signs is rising? That's pretty difficult to do considering the boundary of this zodiac may not have any stars whatsoever. Are you saying you do this? I'm just trying to follow what you mean here, maybe you just mean something more general.
Moreover, let's consider that those fellows were commonly including the fixed stars in their readings. What if then, say, one of the outermost stars of Virgo (48 degrees in extension) was conjunct a planet that was (in an alternative view?) in an adjacent sign?
However, everyone used the ''nature of the image'' which I mentioned, and many of these natures seemed to have come up from the duh, image.
We've already opened a can of worms with the houses, I'm hoping we can avoid doing that with the zodiac as well! But just to ask, are you saying by extension that the image is found in the stars themselves? The nature of Aries is found in the sign Aries, and specifically the constellation of Aries depicts the ram? I am not sure if I'm adding links where you weren't expecting or just filling in the blanks in sequitor.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

57
Can you explain further? It's not clear to me here. Do you mean that you use a sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees per sign and you regularly look at the sky and see this zodiac and moreover witness which of these zodiacal signs is rising? That's pretty difficult to do considering the boundary of this zodiac may not have any stars whatsoever. Are you saying you do this? I'm just trying to follow what you mean here, maybe you just mean something more general.
But just to ask, are you saying by extension that the image is found in the stars themselves? The nature of Aries is found in the sign Aries, and specifically the constellation of Aries depicts the ram? I am not sure if I'm adding links where you weren't expecting or just filling in the blanks in sequitor.
Yes, to all. I explain how exactly I see them here (by ecliptical projection) - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/s ... ostcount=1

I do not agree with the IAU arrangement of the constellations, nor with the 25 degrees Ram in the Almagest. Note that Ptolemy's images are different from the constellations by lines, they are much more closely to what I use, these are nicely depicted in Bouché-Leclercq, A. L'astrologie grecque, starting from page 131. Generally though, the texts by Firmicus and Rhetorius as well as the striking realization of dodekatemoria = zoidia, with their natures, made me convinced that the constellations should be depicted as such, and:
If anyone examines the images I give, he should find them most apparent in the sky.
Remember that we are talking about images and living beings, not simply drawn lines and abstractions. Ptolemy thought lowly of numerical methods and lots since they have only plausible explanations, but he regularly employed the constellations since these have natural and perceivable explanations (mostly owing to the grouping of stars, but also their colours).

It is true that boundary will sometimes not have bright stars (like the tip of the horn, Z Tauri for the Bull or the head of the second twin, Pollux, or the sting of the Scorpion, Shaula, or the tail of the Lion, Denebola), but generally it is clear that if you continue the tail and the back of the human or animal, you will get the complete picture.
We've already opened a can of worms with the houses, I'm hoping we can avoid doing that with the zodiac as well!
Well, I did not mention it for no reason. It seems to me at least, easier to imagine that one could make an association between the Crab being the Ascendant and the entire first place, if it is actually one, and in the same way, as a planet can. As David Cochrane mentions naturally the group of stars making the Ram (and I would include every presence of a planet) is naturally copresent and in assembly with other stars in the Ram, or having aspect and configuration (schema) with the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth, tenth or eleventh images from the Ram, and the stars present in those images. The geometrical rays of the stars reach these images, it is true they are most powerful when exact (something that no one could contest), but they are operative even without exactitude since the rays always fall in the signs in question. (cf. the affinity explanations of why sign aspects work in Manilius or Ptolemy 1.13 - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... B*.html#13)