31
margherita wrote:I'm strangely in agreement with Mark :) and I would say that we don't know exactly what Greek astrologers used and how.
Well over 90% of everything that was ever written on the subject is lost, so debating what they did is probably an exercise in futility. There were astrologers of different opinions on the subject, but from the available evidence surrounding the founders, whole signs seems to be the default for topics.

We see Valens giving the MC to praxis and saying that if it falls outside of the 10th sign that this sign also participates in the determination with regard to what one does. It is important to realize that Valens is probably 300+ years removed from the founders he is fond of quoting.

At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt. Mark Riley's translation is a "first draft" not checked for consistency (Riley says so) so I would not be inclined to use it against a more scrutinized translation such as Schmidt's for serious research.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

32
zoidsoft wrote:
At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt.
But what about Giuseppe Bezza? He knows ancient Greek, Latin, Arab and he taught in one of the most important Italian Universities for classical studies.

He is inside academical world and he is a traditional astrologer since the '80.

If he is not so known in the traditional astrology world is because he does not care to write in English. (The difference is I can read English works by Schmidt, Holden or Hand and the rest, but English mother tongue people cannot read Bezza and compare)

So if Schmidt says something and Bezza's something else, to me it means that there is no real evidence on the subject, otherwise both would be in agreement.



margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

33
margherita wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:
At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt.
But what about Giuseppe Bezza? He knows ancient Greek, Latin, Arab and he taught in one of the most important Italian Universities for classical studies.

He is inside academical world and he is a traditional astrologer since the '80.

If he is not so known in the traditional astrology world is because he does not care to write in English. (The difference is I can read English works by Schmidt, Holden or Hand and the rest, but English mother tongue people cannot read Bezza and compare)

So if Schmidt says something and Bezza's something else, to me it means that there is no real evidence on the subject, otherwise both would be in agreement.

margherita
I'm focusing on English translations primarily here. There are a few others as well like Rumen Kolev, Demetra George and Dorian Greenbaum to name a few. My omission is not meant to say there is no one else familiar with Greek. How many years has Dr Bezza been translating the Greek texts? Has he finished Valens 8 and 9, if so, if you could translate those to English for us we would be grateful. The Riley text needs more work. I've spotted a few errors and pointed them out here in this forum.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

34
Question to Margherita and Martin:

I assume that you both don't use the whole sign houses.
What house system(s) do you use then? Alchabitius?

I don't ask for a explanation/justification for the use
of a certain system, I'm just curious.

35
Eddy wrote:Question to Margherita and Martin:

I assume that you both don't use the whole sign houses.
What house system(s) do you use then? Alchabitius?
I use Placidus, but I am NOT at war with other systems. For example, for horary I've always used Regiomontanus.

But Placidus fits very well with semiarc primary directions method :) so with natal astrology.

As I showed in my blog in the short article already quoted above in fact, 5 out of the 6 Ptolemy's examples of semiarc method fall on a "Placidean" cusp. In fact quoting from my article:

"Up to this point we see that of the six examples of directions inTetrabiblos, in three of them the significator is on the axes (Asc, MC and Descendant); of the other three ones, two are on a Placidean house cusp and one is in the middle of the quadrant."

http://heavenastrolabe.net/ptolemy-and- ... irections/

where obviously middle of quadrant is 3 hours.

It means (to me) at least that Ptolemy knew very well Placidean hours. (or viceversa, Placido knew very well Ptolemy :) ).

This does not mean obviously that Ptolemy uses for sure Placidean houses, just they fit very well with Ptolemy.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

36
Eddy wrote:Question to Margherita and Martin:

I assume that you both don't use the whole sign houses.
What house system(s) do you use then? Alchabitius?

I don't ask for a explanation/justification for the use
of a certain system, I'm just curious.
I won't explain myself then, :D but simply say that I use Alcabitius cusps (while also paying attention to signs/aspectual relationships).

37
Thanks both to you Margherita and Martin.

In Margherita's article Ptolemy is quoted about not to work in "accordance to the usual systems". I know Martin once explained this but I don't remember well. Were the 'usual systems' based on the arithmetical method of calculating the rising times of signs (as in my example a few posts ago) or on Antiochus method of mundane aspects?

38
Eddy wrote:Thanks both to you Margherita and Martin.

In Margherita's article Ptolemy is quoted about not to work in "accordance to the usual systems". I know Martin once explained this but I don't remember well. Were the 'usual systems' based on the arithmetical method of calculating the rising times of signs (as in my example a few posts ago) or on Antiochus method of mundane aspects?
I believe the method of ascensional times, you explained above.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

39
margherita wrote:
Eddy wrote:Thanks both to you Margherita and Martin.

In Margherita's article Ptolemy is quoted about not to work in "accordance to the usual systems". I know Martin once explained this but I don't remember well. Were the 'usual systems' based on the arithmetical method of calculating the rising times of signs (as in my example a few posts ago) or on Antiochus method of mundane aspects?
I believe the method of ascensional times, you explained above.

margherita
Yes, directing only by rising times or oblique ascension.

41
Martin Gansten wrote: As you mention my name: my point is that there is a logical inconsistency either way, because it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that aspectual relationships are only one part of the matter, and that some major house significations are based on things like culmination and anti-culmination (and approaching or falling away from culmination, etc). The 10th place wouldn't be invested with certain powers if it were not for the fact that it was supposed to be culminating, and so forth.

Yes, sorry, I understood your original point and didn't mean to hijack it for my own purposes. I just mentioned your name since you had already alluded to the relationship between the houses and the ascendant earlier in the thread.

On that topic though, you made an important observation earlier that ancient authors tended to work in an idealist mindset, so that while they may have known that the actual point of culmination is not always in the the 10th whole sign house, they would still tend to adopt the idealized whole sign position anyways due to this mindset. Wouldn't the logical inconsistency you mentioned be rendered not as inconsistent from an ancient perspective if this was the mindset that (some) early astrologers adopted? Obviously that doesn't really help us much when it comes to having this debate amongst practitioners today, but as far as understanding how it was conceptualized during the early part of the tradition, it seems to explain how angularity could have been understood in a purely whole sign framework.
My website:
http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com