Miscellaneous Questions on Hellenistic Astrology

[Doug_Noblehorse]

Mr. Schmidt:

Thank you for you inviting me into this Forum. I look forward to discussion here being a clarifying source of Hellenistic astrological understanding. In my study of Hellenistic astrology and the System of Hermes I quite frequently have questions about procedural or interpretational nuances... so I'll ask them here (unless directed otherwise...)

1. When considering the interpretation of beneficence or maleficence of a particular planet (as conditioned first by sect considerations), how does planetary placement affect its beneficence or maleficence? For example, in a diurnal chart with Ares in the Goat-Horned in the 1st Place, I understand that Ares' conduciveness for business is increased by being in a pivot. However, is Ares' maleficence (already exacerbated by being in a diurnal chart) increased by being in the Goat-Horned, the image of its exaltation? Or is its maleficence somewhat moderated by Ares' being in one of its own places? I would think that the astrological logic applied to this question's answer would also apply if Ares was in the image of the Ram or if Ares was in one of his Confines... As a corollary then, would a diurnal chart's Ares' disposition be further soured if he were in the Bull or the Crab, images that find him in Anti-Domicile and Depression?

2. Is this Forum a place to ask questions springing from your recent Intensives?

mr. noblehorse

[Robert_Schmidt]

Welcome to the Hellenistic forum, Mr. Noblehorse!

I think it is a good idea to have a general thread for miscellaneous questions.

A number of texts say that no planet in its own places is without some beneficence. However, this is qualified by the statement that it does not cease being malefic. It is just that its maleficence it directed away from the native. So someone with Kronos in its own places may have gain but at the expense of others.

This is similar to having a malefic in a place where it rejoices: Kronos in the 12th, a decline and one of the places of enemies, can lead to victory over one's enemies. Here the maleficence of Kronos is again diverted or directed away from the native. .

There appears to be an important conceptual difference between having a planet in its depression and having it opposite its domicile. It is somewhat subdued when in its depression, but it is said to "turn bad" when it is opposite one of its domiciles. When one is far from home, he is more likely to do things he would never dream of doing in his own backyard. "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" comes to mind. Another way of looking at it might be that when one is in a foreign land, he might pick up habits and manners considered unacceptible in his own land. (This latter remark may have come from a conversation that I had with Ben Dykes over some Medieval references to the same effect. I cannot quite remember right now.)

I would rather postpone the sect issue for the moment. It is actually much more subtle than I used to think ten years ago. It does not suffice to simply say that is a blanket benefic or malefic condition for a planet. For one thing, there are certain situations in which the sect of a planet is of central importance: for example, in studying planets in the topical places ("houses"). In others it does not play much of a role. I believe I have discovered the reasons for most of the situations in which it is important, and when it is not. This issue will come up again in due time.

As far as the material in my intensives is concerned, I would prefer not to air it in a random fashion. I have plans to introduce these issues in an orderly way, so do not despair. When I bring something up, I will welcome your questions.

[Rumen_Kolev]

here is one interesting article by professor Simo Parpola.

http://www.bethsuryoyo.com/currentevent ... page1.html

I think he is on the right path.

[Therese_Hamilton]

This question is for Robert Schmidt:

I had always believed that the three Qualilties (cardinal, fixed and mutable) originated with Ptolemy and were related to the seasons. But I found the quote below in Pingree's comments in THE YAVANJATAKA. (Vol. II, p. 216) Do we have specific statements in the translated texts stating that the origin of the qualities was Nechepso-Potosiris?

"45. The classification of the signs as movable, immovable, and two-natured goes back to the West to the treatise of Nechepso-Potosiris (Darmstadt, pp. 15-16), and is repeated by all astrologers..."

Thanks,
Therese

[Robert_Schmidt]

Ms. Hamilton, (please forgive the generic address and inform me of whether Miss or Mrs. is more appropriate), welcome to the Hellenistic forum.

I cannot give your question the attention it deserves at the moment. Let what I am sayng now just be a place-holder for a more considered response, which I will soon edit so that the response stays proximate to your question. The distinction between tropical, solid, and double-bodied images ("signs") is ubiquitous in the earliest Hellenistiic tradition and well-antedates Ptolemy. I will give more specific references soon.

Robert Schmidt

[Therese_Hamilton]

Robert Schmidt wrote: "Ms. Hamilton, (please forgive the generic address and inform me of whether Miss or Mrs. is more appropriate), welcome to the Hellenistic forum..."

Many thanks for the welcome! Ms. Hamilton is fine with me.

I'm most interested in whether the tropical, solid and double-bodied images were initially linked to the seasons, or if that association began with Ptolemy. I feel fortunate to have your preliminary translations of TETRABIBLOS. The publication of booklets on the Project Hindisight Hellenistic track was a high point in my astrological educaton. Nothing has been the same since! And, of course, I'm subscribed to future publications.

I look forward to your reply, and appreciate your attention to this question. I believe your explanation will interest anyone who is following this forum.

Therese Hamilton

[Robert_Schmidt]

Forgive me for taking so long to answer your question, Ms. Hamilton.. Sometimes daily life intervenes.

In Book I, chapter 22 of the Tetrabiblos Ptolemy has his arguments in favor of the tropical zodiac. He begins by saying that this is in some sense implied in writers on astrology. The distinction between tropical (“cardinal”), solid (“fixed”), and double-bodied (“mutable”) images {“signs”) may very well have been one of the things that Ptolemy had in mind.

This distinction was certainly made prior to Ptolemy. The Nechepso/Petosiris reference in Pingree is to Book II, chapter 18 of Valens. It is a verbatim quote. The distinction is also found in a Byzantine summary of a lost book by Thrasyllus written in the 1st century C.E, and in many other authors who either pre-date Ptolemy or are writing in ignorance of his work.

The question, then, becomes whether the founders of Hellenistic astrology had seasonal considerations in mind when they coined these terms. We often take it for granted that they did, but this could just be the continuing subliminal influence of Ptolemy on the tradition.

Now, the terms solid and double-bodied are not obviously related to the seasons at all. (From a Hellenistic perspective, I do not like to characterize the double-bodied images as “mutable,” since the term easily changeable is applied, by some authors at least, to all of the tropical images except for the Goat-Horned, and all the double-bodied ones except for the Twins.). So what about the designation tropical, which in Greek simply means “liable to turning” or “liable to change”?

A good place to start is with the Hellenistic astrological interpretation of planets in such images. The authors are fairly consistent in saying that the events associated with a planet in a tropical image tend to break off prior to completion or reverse themselves; those associated with planets in solid images tend to come to completion with permanent result; those in double-bodied images also come to completion, but digressively,

Although the term tropical certainly was used by early Hellenistic astrologers for the vernal and solstitial points, I would like to offer an entirely different reason for why the term was used to describe the images in question. The Hellenistic astrologers often refer to the thema mundi, or hypothetical chart for the creation of the cosmos. A large number of basic concepts of Hellenistic astrology may be seen to be conceptually compatible in this chart, which has the Crab rising. For instance, the exaltations are the “good places” in this chart—that is, the Hour-marker (or Ascendant) and the images that are connected with the Crab by means of hexagons, tetragons, trigons, or diametrically.

This places of the twelve images in this chart (their “house positions”) were understood to have left their character on the images themselves—not the other way round. Thus, the Ram is called the "Midheaven of the cosmos". The Twins and the Archer as characterized as “servile” because they occupy the 12th and 6th places, respectively, the two places that have relevance for the topic of slaves. And so forth.

Since the Crab is rising n this chart, the four tropical images make up the four angles. The angles in any chart were called from early on kentra, which means “pivots” or “hinges”. I am convinced that they were given this name because of the rocking and swiveling motion of the ecliptic during the course of a day. This can be seen by observing the rising portion (“degree”) of the ecliptic during the course of a day, which is sometimes north of due east and sometimes south; and when the rising portion is north of due east, the setting portion is south of due west, and vice versa. In other words, the Crab and the other three angles were understood to have been marked or imprinted with this “tropical”, “turning”, or “oscillating” characteristic from the very beginning.

So I personally do not believe that this classification of the images originally had anything to do with the seasons, although it is easy to see how Ptolemy could have transferred such thinking to the context of the seasons. Consequently, I do not believe it can be used to settle the tropical/sidereal issue in Hellenistic astrology.

A number of years ago, Robert Hand issued a more serious challenge to those who would argue that Hellenistic astrology was based on a sidereal zodiac. It was based on the great use that Hellenistic astrologers made of the ascensional times of the images. In their scheme, the Ram and the Fishes have the same ascensional times, as do the Bull and the Water-Pourer, etc. Now, Mr. Hand made the point that these ascensional times are only equal in a tropical zodiac. This is a problem for Babylonian astrology as well, since the Hellenistic astrologers derived their ascensional times directly from Babylonian astrology.

It is my personal opinion that the founders of Hellenistic astrology did have a tropical zodiac in mind, but I will not make my arguments here. This is enough for one post.

Robert Schmidt

[Roy_Kirkland]

Re-posted from the Phasis thread:

And thanks for the invitation Mr. Schmidt. I have a burning question unrelated to heliacal phenomena - should I post it here or start a new topic? It is about time lord procedures, and specifically about "annual" profections. Since I have a moment to write it out, I'll do it here - please move it at will.

I'm puzzled by the statement in Valens, (old Hindsight translation series) Book IV chapter 16 of the Anthology: in the 6th paragraph, it says:

it is necessary to examine the action of each nativity, whether it has its operation from Hermes or Ares. . .

- what does he mean by "has its operation from" - does he mean the Hermes or Ares is Kurios, the domicile lord of the Horoskopos, the Oiskedespotes, lord of the sect light, the active time lord (and if so, by which method)?

I would think that since the helm, from which the ship is steered, might be where it has its 'operation' from, but that may be a cultural prejudice because the captain is almost always at the helm of modern ships (although he is rarely the helmsman). This is what makes me think that the sense of the word 'operation' may mean the material/physical control of the chart - but again, the captain, wherever he/she may be on the ship, would be the decision maker, in which case the helm could be subservient to the captain, and of course, the Oiskedespotes could be strong enough to boss the captain around - etc. It all hinges, to me, on the meaning of 'operation' in this context, and whether Valens is referring to a sort of overall 'operation', or 'operation' limited to a particular topic or time-period.

Thanks -

[Therese_Hamilton]

Re: Tropical, Sollid and Double-Bodied Images:

Mr. Schmidt, your reply was simply wonderful. You answered all my questions and added other interesting details as well. If this is an example of what we'll be seeing in your Astrologers' Series (The Astrological Record of the Early Sages ("TARES"), then we should all be buying the books in hardback as our foundation library for astrology's future. (Absolutely no flattery intended; this is my honest reaction.) For later astrology, Benjamin Dykes' translations are also being published in hardback, but they're very pricy. A whole new astrology is beginning to emerge in these various translations. It's all very exciting.

I've marked the "tropical-solid-bicorporeal" reference in my copy of Valens to find it easily in the future. I was hoping to find exactly such a reference.

The definition of "tropical" in the reply post was extremely helpful. Knowing the meaning of that one term alone helps to push the terms in today's popular astrology books into the "irrelevant" pile.

Yes, "mutable" is a poor term and doesn't explain the original meaning of those images/signs. I'd like to see the old terms restored. I can only hope that today's popular astrology will one day have disappeared into the distant past to be replaced by a more enlightened science--and that astrologers themselves will be required to have a professional education before they can practice.

Very interesting points about the "thema mundi." I've seen some astrologers begin to discuss this chart.

I have the article by Robert Hand in which he discusses the ascensional times of the images. There is so much to study these days that there is no time left to be an astrologer! We are all students.

Many thanks again for this very instructive post. It seems that the question of the Hellenistic zodiac continues, though we know that the Babylonian zodiac was sidereally fixed. (For anyone interested in the Babylonian zodiac, an easy-to-find modern discussion can be found in Francesca Rochberg's HEAVENLY WRITING. (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

For myself--I'm still holding out for a sidereal Hellenistic zodiac. That is, I'm looking for additional ways to practically test techniques. But I'm waiting for the first volume or two of TARES.

Therese Hamilton

[Roy_Kirkland]

Hi Ms. Hamilton et al - here comes another of my inelegantly formed arguments -

I don't believe it's necessary to think in terms of sidereal and tropical regarding the Babylonian system, because I am not that sure that they used a sign/ruler zodiac anyway. Take a look at Gavin White's book 'Babylonian Star Lore' and let me know what you think. I think they were more concerned about the groupings of the stars, and such things as which of the three 'paths' were in some position relative to the rising and setting stars (including the planets). I know that this does not sound like much of an astrological system, but if you think of all the possible phases of the planets, the swift movement of the Moon, the declinations (which were probably a factor because it would help determine co-rising and setting stars and the degree North and South of due east at which the Sun would rise, etc.) and other things they used, they probably had more than enough to satisfy a very fate conscious king (as opposed to a very scandal hungry merchant's wife, who would have had to be satisfied with sheep entrails - astrology would have been the property of the 'cultural elite' I guess).

Nevertheless, I have, for a long time, considered precession correction (excluding the Indian dasa systems) the only reason to use a sidereal zodiac. To me, the system of signs was based on the solstices and equinoxes, not because of Europe's seasons, but because they are the pivot points of the Sun's apparent path. The reason I think that the apparent path is so important is because, as in Plato's Cave, we see the shadows - the analemma is how we see our course through space. The points at which the apparent path of the Sun and the orbit of the Earth converge or are at their limits of separation are functions of obliquity of the ecliptic, right ascension and declination. Just like plotting a sine wave on the X and Y axis - the equinoxes would be the places where the curve crossed the Y axis, and the solstices would be the positive and negative extremes on the X. I believe that the signs show the effects of the Sun's rays from the solstices and equinoxes, rather than to describe the effects of 12 rectangular batches of stars - in other words, Virgo is like it is because it receives a ray from the goat-horned one and the crab (2 of the 4 Trigons) etc., not because Spica is somewhere inside the virtual rectangle.

The old 8 house scheme, in which the heavens are divided by time, rather than geometry, gives us a sense of the planetary position relative to the horizon and the meridian of longitude, and their midpoint. This type of divisional scheme does not consider the declination cycle of the Sun as being a linchpin of the system - it is more like a proto-Gaquelin-sector expressiveness measurement (Indian astrologers call this Kendra Bala). Consequently, for this design, the 'quality of time' has nothing to do with geometry, it is all about local and apparent celestial phenomena and planetary expressiveness.

In a scheme like this, essential dignities based on the ecliptic really aren't essential are they? In other words, this view is all about the background of the fixed stars, relative to the appearance and disappearance of a planet, or its relationship to dominant (angular) positions. I think this is where Fagan was going when he began to abandon the zodiac. Nevertheless, considering the methods of progression and such that are used in this system, a totally apparent sky/planet centered system is neither inconceivable nor inadequate to symbolize events in our lives.

I do not discount the viability of the sidereal zodiac, nor the techniques used by either eastern or western siderealists. I use them and understand them myself. I believe that these are different systems, different schemes, developed with an internal coherence of their own. I do not believe it is necessary to expect the sidereal "signs" to act the same way the tropical signs do. In fact, I believe that the sidereal 'zodiac' is just the tropical zodiac based on the time of convergence, when precession held the vernal equinox close to 0 Aries. I think that the genius of the tropical system is in its integration of geometry into a system based on the relationship between the Earth and the Sun. I think the genius of the sidereal system is the integration of the 'mundane' sphere and the planets into a useful system of omens based on the relationship between the individual, the Earth and the heavens. I don't think the sidereal system needs a zodiac analogous to the tropical one, any more than the tropical zodiac needs a 13th sign.

Some time ago I tried the Hellenistic time-lord systems in the sidereal zodiac to see if I could get anywhere near the level of accuracy that I did with Dasa systems. They failed. I started running them in the tropical system and, yep, they worked fine, and are working better now that I am learning more about the system of Hermes. Plus, the Hellenistic authors explain little things, like why the minor periods of the planets are what they are. I get more from studying these methods than "it's in the book", or "it's what the guru has blessed us with" when I ask why something is as it is. Do Narayana Dasa in the Tropical zodiac - I think you'll be surprised.