Miscellaneous Questions on Hellenistic Astrology

[Therese_Hamilton]

Roy Kirkland wrote:
"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."

I don't believe there's any evidence that the Babylonians had a sign/ruler system, but it's a fact that the early system of 18 constellations in "the path of the moon" evolved into a 30 degree 12 sign sidereally based zodiac. The question is wether Hellenistic astrologers adopted the star based zodiac as it was or began to think in tropical terms. That is the big question as I understand it at present. Here's a pertinent summary quote from Rochberg--(She lists the tablets and planetary positions in support of this summary):

"By the early fourth century, all the references in astronomical texts to positions of planets on the ecliptic were made either by the Normal Star system or the zodiac [of 30 degree signs discussed earlier], and the zodiacal constellations, which originally constituted the "stars in the path of the moon," were no longer of any relevance." (The Heavenly Writing, p. 131)

RK: Take a look at Gavin White's book 'Babylonian Star Lore' and let me know what you think.

TH: That's one book that hasn't made its way into my library. I've relied on Rochberg and Pingree.

RK: Nevertheless, I have, for a long time, considered precession correction...

TH: There's a powerful mathematical argument for precession correction (or sidereal charts) in the use of precise transits to natal charts (such as Obama's and Biden's birth charts at the moment of the inauguration--12:00 noon) and solar returns, but it's quite possible--even probable--that the Hellenistic time lord systems work best, or even work only in the tropical zodiac. I haven't yet experimented with the time lord systems.

RK: 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..."

TH: It's the internal coherence of both systems that we'll eventually be testing. Perhaps Robert Schmidt or someone else might want to elaborate on some of your other points. I have yet to form an opinion on some of the factors you mentioned.

RK: Do Narayana Dasa in the Tropical zodiac - I think you'll be surprised.

TH: Do you mean the Vimshottari dasa system applied to the tropical zodiac? (This would make an interesting discussion on Sam Geppi's new forum if you're interested.)

Therese Hamilton

[Doug_Noblehorse]

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.

snip

Therese Hamilton

Hello Ms. Hamilton! I suffered an involuntary chuckle when I read your second sentence above - this has been my experience with Mr. Schmidt's material as well - you always get more in return than you asked for. I would only add that with Mr. Schmidt's answers, not only are "your questions answered" and "other interesting details" encountered, but upon assimilation further questions inevitably result (the Lernaean Hydra comes to mind...)

I also agree with your assessment of TARES; once completed it will serve as a bibliographical foundation for students of astrology.

Mr. Noblehorse

[Roy_Kirkland]

To reply to Ms. Hamilton -

TH: Do you mean the Vimshottari dasa system applied to the tropical zodiac? (This would make an interesting discussion on Sam Geppi's new forum if you're interested.)

I didn't mean the Vimsottari - that dasa is measured by the Moon and the nakshatras, and is by necessity based on the ayanamsa, not on the equinoxes and solstices - the Narayana dasa is one of the Rasi Dasas of Jaimini, and sign-based - there is a complete exposition of it in chapter 18 of "Vedic Astrology, An Integrated Approach" by P.V.R. Narashima Rao - he also has a free program available for download which is, IMHO the best of it's type available. Anyway, when I redo this dasa in the Tropical system (thanks to his program, I wouldn't bother if I had to do this by hand) and compare it with my natal chart, not only does everything work out by standard dignity, but it works for the lots as well -

For instance, (all things forward are tropical) I have the lot of Eros in Scorpio, with Selene and Zeus, and Horoskopos is Libra. When I was married, the pattern (from the main period down 4 levels) was Aquarius, Leo, Taurus and Aries - (Aries is the 7th house). All of them are in pivots to Eros except for Aries (this is not an uncommon pattern for signs to take in a key event using Aphesis or annual profection) - but Aries is the natural 7th place of my chart. Ares (Mars), the domicile lord of Eros and the 7th topical place, exchanges signs with the Moon from Cancer, from where it can see both of its domiciles. All these signs except Leo can be seen by their domicile lords, but Leo is, again, in a pivot from Eros (and both Eros and its domicile lord can see Helios, and in the case of Ares, there is testimony. Interestingly, the Lot of Fortune is in Sagittarius, which puts Eros in the 12th from it, but that has special meaning to the way this worked out - I often tell the story that on the previous birthday I had examined my Solar Return for the year, and said "if this were anyone but me, I'd swear they are getting married this year" - I had forgotten that interpretation completely until I dug the chart out of a drawer to elect a wedding date - 12th indeed! But Fortune has its own story to tell about marriage through Aphesis etc., and Eros is seen by its lord, who happens to be lord of the 7th as well - anyway, I've seen maybe a hundred cases of how this dasa works really well tropically, using the system of Hermes. Oh, by the way, if I work this out for the time of the wedding, the 5th level image was Sagittarius - home of Fortune.

And yes, I recognize the value and use of precession, as you know, I have lectured on the subject many, many times. I use it to work to work with my strict and phenomenologically oriented system of transits and certain types of return charts, and usually consider precession on an individual basis rather than as necessitating another zodiac. I do believe that it is a viable idea to base a coordinate system on some star or another (personally, I like Fagan's idea of using Aldebaran rather than Spica) but I think a lot of unnecessary confusion and quibbling can exist when trying to mix systems, and I hold to the premise that the 12 signs that we know and love get their attributes from the Thema Mundi, which is, in essence, a tropical construction. There are excellent books on the attributes of the sidereal "signs" (the New Instant Astrologer, the Solunars Handbook etc.) which can be helpful for those studying the works of the western sidereal movement and wanting to stay consistent (or introduce the concept of precession to the client in a very heavy-handed way).

I have not done enough work with Transits in the Hellenistic system to make an argument for the application of precession to the ingresses of the signs - the 1st degree of an image in the birth horoscope will have changed considerably by the time someone is 35, and that can make quite a difference in timing for the ingress of Saturn (if, in fact, the relationship to the fixed stars is important at all for this method). It's part of what I am studying now, when I have time. I do not consider transiting planets to natal planets important enough other than in the context of the return charts. As far as returns go, I will admit that I currently use the quotidian methods of progression of natal and return charts, and would never use that system without precession, because we are using the movement of the celestial sphere to let us know when the planets are "in the zone". I look at the returns done in the Hellenistic style and follow a little of what Abu Mashar was talking about, but I am missing the first book of that series, and therefore have too little material to base an authentic methodology on.

Anyway, I've got so much work to do right now that I'm going to miss the "Twelfth Parts" intensive this weekend, and have to type with a towel over my hands to keep the tears out of the keyboard. I understand and vibrate with Mr. Noblehorse on the excitement with which I am integrating this teaching into my practice, and, Ms. Hamilton, it was you who introduced me to this work those many years ago -

Roy

[Therese_Hamilton]

Another question for Mr. Schmidt:

As I wait for the Sourcebook which presumably contains answers to most questions...From your studies, what is your current stand on trigon lords? Is the system of two or three lords perferred, and for what purposes? What about the Cancer trigon, which differs in rulership between Ptolemy and most others?

I'm inquiring because a current discussion on malfics on this forum suggests an analysis of trigon lords. I'm particularly puzzled about the Cancer triplicity.

Thanks,
Therese Hamilton

[Therese_Hamilton]

Since Mr. Schmidt and those who have attended his intensives are now replacing the traditional sign names with "images" such as the Ram, Bull, Scorpion, etc. and today's planets with Ares, Zeus, Hermes, etc., could someone please post a complete list of planets and images for the uninitiated? Since this is Hellenistic astrology, that takes care of the names for Greek gods and goddesses, but I'd like to know more about the reasons for using images rather than today's names for signs of the zodiac.

For example, why the "goat-horned" which doesn't give exactly the same mental picture as the "goatfish?" And I'm not sure what the image labels would be for Sagittarius and Pisces. Yes, let's have a list!

Thanks,
Therese Hamilton

[Gabriel_Rosas]

Well, Ms. Hamilton, this might not be perfect:

Helios for the Sun
Selene for the Moon
Hermes for Mercury
Aphrodite for Venus
Ares for Mars
Zeus for Jupiter
Kronos for Saturn

The Ram for Aries
The Bull for Taurus
The Twins for Gemini
The Crab for Cancer
The Lion for Leo
The Virgin for Virgo
The Balance for Libra
The Scorpion for Scorpio
The Archer for Sagittarius
The Goat-Horned One for Capricorn
The Water Pourer for Aquarius
The Fishes for Pisces

[Robert_Schmidt]

Mr. Rosas, Thank you so much for posting that correlation. I should have done it much sooner so that the new technical terminology would not be so much of a shock to others.

As for Ms. Hamilton's questions:

I am trying to stay true to the original Greek words for their deities because I believe that they should be addressed by their proper names. Not only that, but the Romanized versions of these deities do not have exactly the same associations, as I am sure Ms. George could explain much better than I.

As for my full translations of the Greek words for the images, I might make a similar remark. "The Goat-Horned" is the literal translation of the Greek word for that image. It is certainly different from the Goat-Fish. As a matter of fact, it is the only image described by an adjective with an indeterminate noun: "the Goat-Horned What"? Consistently enough, this image is characterized as "enigmatical" in the Hellenistic sources.

Again, "the Water-Pourer" is the proper translation of the Greek word. This has an entirely different connotation than "the Water-Bearer", doesn't it?

As for rejecting the word sign as a translation for the Greek word zoidion, it is in the first instance simply because the Greek word means "a pictoral or figural representation". The Latin word signum did have this connotation, and our derived word sign also had it when first introudced into English. But it lost this meaning as early as the 16th century. It now means primarily a trace, pointer, or signifier of some kind. No one today would say that a statue of George Washington was a sign of George Washington; we would say that it was an image or representation of him--that is, the word sign no longer signifies properly for our purposes.

I deplore nominalism. I believe that it is only through such literal translation that the technical Hellenistic terminology can come alive once again.

There are deeper reasons for insisting on this translation that are connected with exactly the manner in which such segments of the zodiac are images. I hope we can go into that issue in due time.

Robert Schmidt

[Therese_Hamilton]

Thank you Mr. Rosas and Mr. Schmidt for your replies. I'm sure both will be very helpful to anyone who drops in to read posts on the Hellensitic forum. Actually I'm putting together a reference file from posts on the different topics on this forum. It's the next best thing to actually attending the intensives.

Therese Hamilton

[Therese_Hamilton]

Just a note--for lack of a better place to post this, I'm putting it under the Questions Topic.

Here is something interesting I'm noticing in these discussions. Prior to joining this forum I used the usual names for the planets: Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, etc. These names seemed to be symbols, but didn't go much beyond that. In a sense the planets never really came alive. But when the Greek names are used: Ares, Aphrodite, Zeus, etc., these names seem to conjure up living, breathing presences with life and personality.

I feel rather differently, however, about replacing Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc. with Ram, Bull, Twins, etc. These are not specific gods and goddesses, but are more like symbols themselves (for me, anyway). It's more difficult to quickly mentally visualize an image's numerical place in the zodiac using these newer terms. This may change later, but for now this is my perception.

It's just too easy to think of the "Bull" as the constellation of stars that make up Taurus, or the "Ram" as composed of the actual stars of Aries, etc. This may have to do with the amount of time I've spent with astronomy proper apart from astrology.

Therese Hamilton

[Rumen_Kolev]

It is about time lord procedures, and specifically about "annual" profections.

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)?
Thanks -

Hey,

It was long time since I read this in Valens (the Pingree edition, not the translation).
However memory talking, this was in a chapter called 'For the ups and downs in life' or the like.
Valens is talking as someone delirious indeed.
But beleive me, he was playing ...
This is a passage that I woluld characterize as cryptic to a degree.

Valens here talks about the state of the hylegial places.
Their State in the nativity and in all kinds of 'pro-rogated' horoscope.
He then explains how the Luck of the native may change in different situations.

What you ask is- I believe- about the MC.
Because the MC is not included in the hylegal places wich he called hypostasis- foundation, base...
So, MC is not 'hypostasis' but it is important
That's why Valens talks about this in the end of the discussion.
He does not mention it explicitly .
This is a trick.
Whoever knows will understand what is this.
Whoever does not know, will be perplexed.
This is generally the whole idea of the Hellenistic authors- to write in a cryptic way and in this way to hide the exact profanation of the deepest secrets.
Remember that in Babylon in the end of many astrological and religious tablets a line was incsribed:
You may show this tablet to an initiate BUT NOT TO THE UN-INITIATED !!!
(sorry- RKK)
Of course, Valens here is not that tough to decipher.
It is well known which is the point showing the ACTION....
So- sorry Valens !- but this is an easy one !

OK.
Next, you ask "whether he means Kurios or domicile Lord of the horoscopos...."

He means, first the Planet that has power on/in the MC in the nativity.
Next he means ALSO how that power in the MC shifts from planet to planet trough all kinds of techniques for time-lording- all kinds of profections, directions....