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

AP - Ancient classification of elements as diurnal/nocturnal

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Archived Post



Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Skyscript

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:30 pm    Post subject: AP - Ancient classification of elements as diurnal/nocturnal Reply with quote

21 Sept 2003

Sue:

In Astronomica, Manilius says that the fire and water signs are diurnal while the earth and air signs are nocturnal. In the introduction to the Loeb edition there is a table giving diurnal and nocturnal rulership of the planets over the signs. These are different from what I just mentioned and both are different from Ptolemy's table. Manilius does mention that some give the masculine signs to diurnal and feminine to nocturnal (which is what Ptolemy does) Am I getting confused here (writing this post has made me even more confused) and reading it incorrectly or were these differing opinions with Ptolemy's becoming the more accepted?

--------------------------

Deb:

Quote:
were these differing opinions with Ptolemy's becoming the more accepted?


I think so. Manilius listed 3 alternative schemes for defining signs as diurnal or nocturnal (2.203). Of these the latter 2 survived but the first has been dropped from use. It does actually make sense if you realise that he wasn’t thinking in terms of ‘water’ signs or ‘fire’ signs – neither he nor Ptolemy classified the signs in this way, but referred to them as trigons. Aries, Leo and Sagittarius are the trigon of Aries whilst Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces are the trigon of Cancer. As Goold explains, these two trigons are considered diurnal because they relate to the cardinal signs where the day becomes longer than the night (Aries) or reaches the zenith of its power (Cancer).

I think that as the relevance of trigons slipped away, so did this definition of diurnal and nocturnal.

--------------------------

Sue:

I think my confusion started when I read an article that described the diurnal/nocturnal rulerships in terms of water signs etc. I had read what they were saying in Tetrabiblos and Astronomica but after reading the article I just thought I had misunderstood trigons. Had another look at the books after reading this and it makes more sense.
Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Archived Post



Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Skyscript

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AP - This is an archived post, but may still be responded to.
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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