Trigons ("Triplicities") and their Lords

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Good day dear Ms. Hamilton,

Thank you once again for the useful information provided. My own approach is to maintain an open mind ("The Way is the goal") rather than seeking a one and only Salvatory School of Astrology. The table you provided a link to was already familiar. The hypothesis of deduction of the Trigon Ladyships and Lordships from the Zoidia of Exaltation does not appear to explain the portion (degree) (not merely Zoidion) positions of the Exaltations of the wandering Stars in that very table.

These portion positions were an enigma until the (often, alas, ignored) work of the 20th century Irish astrologer and author Cyril Fagan. The combination of Babylonian New Year 27 March 786 BCE GC (new Moon Crescent sighted after vernal equinox) with the heliacal rising of Aphrodite (Ishtar, Most Revered Goddess) the following morning was quite extraordinary. Hermes was not visible at New Year but, if you like, we can also show His first heliacal rising in that year. The exaltation of Ares was at His position at His first heliacal rising on 23 January 785 BCE GC in the same Babylonian year. Here are two charts (both using a fixed zodiac set at the Fagan-Bradley precession factor) illustrating the portions (degrees) of the Exaltations:

786BCEGC-03-27_Neujahr-Venus-hel-ris.JPG (66.81 KiB) Viewed 822 times

785BCEGC-01-23_Mars-hel-ris.JPG (64.03 KiB) Viewed 818 times

It seems that, indeed, parts of Mesopotamian astrology found their way into the Hellenistic system, perhaps also the 'winds'. It might be interesting to examine even more closely how much the concept of 'winds' differs from that of 'elements'.

Best regards,

Abd-Allah Meyers

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Dear Ms. Hamilton,

The following article by Ms. Deborah Holding has been useful to understand the underlying philosophical differences between Hellenistic and Mediaeval astrologies concerning Trigons:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html

The paradigm of the four Elements as explained by Aristotle apparently was not the basis of the Trigons of Hellenistic astrology, although Aristotle lived before its 'codification'. Thus, attempts to apply the Aristotelian doctrines retroactively from a Mediaeval or Renaissance perspective to Hellenistic astrology are not adequate to comprehend e. g. Dorotheus' Trigon rulerships.

In other respects as well I have been noticing that one cannot assume that many of the basic notions and techniques of Mediaeval astrology can simply be carried back to Hellenistic. A conceptual 'tabula rasa' seems to work better.

Best regards,

Abd-Allah Meyers

[Therese_Hamilton]

Dear Ms. Hamilton,

The following article by Ms. Deborah Holding has been useful to understand the underlying philosophical differences between Hellenistic and Mediaeval astrologies concerning Trigons:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html

The paradigm of the four Elements as explained by Aristotle apparently was not the basis of the Trigons of Hellenistic astrology, although Aristotle lived before its 'codification'. Thus, attempts to apply the Aristotelian doctrines retroactively from a Mediaeval or Renaissance perspective to Hellenistic astrology are not adequate to comprehend e. g. Dorotheus' Trigon rulerships.

This is true. Medieval astrology is not Hellenistic astrology. Many concepts had changed in the centuries between the two. For example, let's suppose that Valens did designate the trigons to be "airy" or "earthy," and so forth. J. Lee Lehman reminds us in Classical Astrology for Modern Living (p. 34) that he was a Stoic. The Stoic system applied only one quality to each element:

Fire: Hot
Earth: Dry
Air: Cold
Water: Wet

There is additional confirmation that Valens used the Stoic elements in Project Hindsight's Book IV of his Anthology. (Translated by Robert Schmidt, 1996) On page 7 of the translation Valens refers to air as "ice-cold and opaque," opposite fire which warms it. In a note comparing Aristotle's elements to the Stoic, Rob Hand comments in part:

Notice that the Stoic sequence agrees with the order of the elements in the signs and the Aristotelian order does not! Could it be that the use of Aristotelian elements with the triplicities was an error?

Later astrology labeled air as "hot and wet." Does it make sense that a cold dry planet like Saturn belongs to a hot and wet 'air' trigon? Saturn is lord of one sign of the air triplicity (Aquarius) and exalted in another (Libra). We have then to return to the specific definitions of the Stoic elements to understand how they can relate to the trigons. And when we analyze these meanings we can see that they cannot be accurately applied in two different zodiacs when based on the observation of sign energies and traits by astrologers.

Therese Hamilton

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Dear Ms. Hamilton,

Thank you for your helpful reply. Meanwhile I have obtained a copy of "Definitions and Foundations" and am studying it. Since it was published, however, it seems some other astrologers have developed opinions on some topics of Hellenistic astrology that differ from Mr. Schmidt's, e. g. concerning certain configurations. If I have understood correctly thus far, Mr. Schmidt has not yet resolved the questions about applicable zodiac(s) nor about the origin(s) of the portions values of planetary exaltations. The texts do refer to seasonal and meteorological factors that would seem to indicate the moving zodiac but, again, the moving and the most frequently used fixed zodiacs were much closer together then than now. Vettius Valens used the portions of planetary exaltations to define the 'winds' in certain practical astrological contexts.

Here are two additional wheels showing the heliacal rising of Hermes and the heliacal setting of Zeus in 786 BCE. The heliacal phenomena depend on their real visibility by unaided human sight due to several factors, e. g. apparent magnitude, 15 ecliptical degrees separation from Helios thus being an approximation.

helris-mercury-786BCJC-09-13-2h00UT-Babylon.jpg (68.92 KiB) Viewed 691 times

babylon_786BCGC-06-11-helset-jup.jpg (68.86 KiB) Viewed 688 times

If Cyril Fagan's explanation of the portions of the exaltations, the only one I know of that has been published to date, was erroneous, who will publish a better one?

Best wishes,

Abd-Allah Meyers

[Rumen_Kolev]

Hi Abd-Allah,

Where from do you get these data for First of Nisan 786 BC and the heliacal rise of Venus then?
There must be a mistake here.
First of Nisan (first lunar crescent after spring equinox) was on the 3rd of April 786 BC (-785) in Babylon.
(and not on 27th of March)

Venus rose morning first on 11th of September 787 BC which is 6 months before the New year in 786 BC.
(Ulul 3rd in the Babylonian calendar).

yours Rumen

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Good morning dear Rumen,

Gregorian calendar versus Julian calendar. 27 March is Gregorian. The map shows Aphrodite's heliacal rising or, according to your research, is the event shown not such a rising? The date is from Cyril Fagan, e. g. "Zodiacs Old and New".

How often in the ancient Babylonian calendar does an heliacal rising of Aphrodite (Ishtar, Babylon's more revered Goddess) New Year's Day occur? Is in your expert opinion such an event rare enough to merit special attention?

Best regards,

Abd-Allah Meyes

[Rumen_Kolev]

Morning appearance on the New Year Day occurs once in around 1152 years.

As you know Abd-Allah, the place of morning first appearance of Venus goes around the whole zodiac in 1152 years and 144 steps each being taken in 8 years and with around 2.5 degrees backwards on the zodiac each next step.

But Fagan must have made an error in his computations. In 786 BC this was not the case.
In the time when Fagan was active, such computations were extremely difficult and long. Now, with the computer, is different.
For his time, though, his achievements were really astonishing.

On Hellenistic versus Babylonian Astrology- It depends on our goals.
The reconstruction of the pre-diluvial illumination of Enmeduranki is impossible ONLY with the Hellenistic texts.
But it is impossible also without them!

yours Rumen

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Dear Rumen,

Thanks for your inputs on the year 786 BCE at Babylon.

Although it may appear to some that we might be off topic, Hellenistic astrology uses, amongst other factors, the exaltations to determine Trigon Ladies and Lords. Several Hellenistic authors relate not only sign, but also portion positions of exaltation.

So, if Cyril Fagan's research results were erroneous, what is your explanation of those portion exaltation positions? Vettius Valens used them in certain practical astrological applications of 'winds'.

Best regards,

Abd-Allah