Testimony - definition from Antiochus?

[David_Stricker]

I would like to start a new thread on the subject of "testimony" as the aspect words "marturo" or "epimarturo" have been associated with. In the earlier Project Hindsight translations, these words were translated as "to testify" or "to witness". Testifying shows up in large numbers in Vettius Valens writings, when he describes the conditions under which something may happen. Just one of many examples, appears in the section on eminence (Ch 23 of Book II,p.44 of the Project Hindsight Vol. VII ):

"And if when the star of Hermes should be upon [Lot of] Spirit, it should be found to be oriental while being witnesssed by benefics in the places of the Moon, such a one will have his good fortune from writing and teaching, will be dear to many, one who is truly erudite and he will be deemed worthy of honors and gifts and reputation, and he will be pronounced happy by many."

Now this sounds like a wonderful thing to me, but I need to know where Hermes and Spirit would have to be in relationship to Aphrodite or Zeus to have this opportunity. This is one of many times that Valens indications specific conditions or activities based on the planets in this aspect relationship, that he never defines! I have studied the Valens example charts relentlessly but was not able to tease out conditions that would mean anything other than being in a whole sign aspect. It is difficult, because although Valens has over 120 charts in his writings, he only gives degree placements in just a couple.

Mr. Schmidt, it is my understanding that you have presented information pertaining to a definition that you have found in a manuscript attributed to one "Antiochus"? It is my understanding that the version you have worked on has differences than the one that was published by Project Hindsight 15 or 16 years ago as "The Anthology" by Antiochus of Athens. Would you care to elaborate on this precious word? I would be interested to see the passage, in Greek as well as in English, just to see how it is presented. This word is absolutely critical to accurately delineate charts using the methods of Vettius Valens and I would be grateful if I could stop (or at least slow down) beating my head against my desk in frustration over these aspect words!

Dave of Illinois

[Robert_Schmidt]

Mr. Stricker,

I will post my response shortly.

Robert Schmidt

[David_Stricker]

Mr. Schmidt,

I failed to notice that you had an Intensive scheduled for this weekend, so I understand that your priorities at the moment are elsewhere and with good reason.

In my impatience, though, I decided to lay out a chart example and list the testimonial aspects based on my understanding of your presentation in the Lots Intensive (MP3 #13 for anyone who has purchased the "CD"). Sorry for my possible inpertinence but the meaning of the Hellenistic use of aspect terminology has been haunting me for at least 10 years!

My understanding of your description of Anitochus' definition of "testimony", at this point, is any aspectual relationships between two planets that are more than 3 degree apart but that will come to perfection (reaching the exact degree for an aspect- 60 or 90) before either planet leaves the signs they are respectively in. This means that not all of the "whole sign aspects" that we might have considered in the past were testifying or witnessing, because either planet may leave the sign before the exact aspect is made.

Since Bill Gate's chart has been "cast out" in the discussion about the Domicile Master and Lord of the Nativity, I thought I would use him as an example. Here is his chart, calculated with Curt Manwaring's Delphic Oracle program (an excellent program, by the way, for anyone doing Hellenistic astrology!!). The planets within the small circles are the representations for the Hermetic Lots, for example Mercury circled is Lot of Necessity, Mars circled is Lot of Courage, Saturn-Nemesis, Jupiter-Victory, Venus-Eros, Sun-Spirit and Moon-Fortune.

Bill Gates.gif (21.28 KiB) Viewed 2919 times

In the past, we initially were using whole sign aspects and did not have any specific definitions for the testifying or witnessing , even though it was used repeatedly in the Hellenistic texts (especially Vettius Valens). In Gates' chart, that meant the Jupiter at 27 Leo was in a whole sign sextile aspect to Mars at 10 Libra. But this is NOT an example of testimony, because Jupiter will leave Leo before Mars can arrive at 27 Libra. You can do the tedious examination with an ephemeris if you don't have Curt's program. Jupiter leaves Leo on 11/17/1955 at which time Mars has only advanced to 22 Libra. I am not sure how retrogradation fits into this determination of aspects and I am not sure if Antiochus or anyone else gives any clues.

Here are the rest of the planets that have a testimonial aspect in Bill Gates' chart (based on my current understanding):

Jupiter - Venus Square
Jupiter - Mercury Sextile
Jupiter - Moon Trine
Mars - Moon Opposition
Mercury - Moon Opposition

I do not know how the conjunctions are considered but Venus-Saturn and Sun-Saturn will perfect before Saturn can creep into Sagittarius.

I know there is doctrine in later times regarding the perfection of aspects, especially in Horary astrology. I just wanted to open this up and possibly spare Mr. Schmidt a little time in the future describing the concept. Hopefully I have not mangled the interpretation of the concept and will only need elaborations and discussions of the source of the definition ,as time permits Mr. Schmidt.

Dave

[Demetra_George]

Dear Dave

Your interpretation of testimony between two planets is basically my understanding also - that two planets occupying signs that are configured by whole sign are moving towards an application and will perfect the figure before they leave their respective signs. The nature of the configuration, i.e., whether it is a sextile, square, trine, or opposition determines if their testimony to each other about each others significations is favorable or unfavorable.

If planets are within a 3-degree orb of application, then that is a different matter that Bob discusses.

I would like to ask Bob to comment upon how he assembled the above interpretation in regards to testimony from the passages of Antiochus and Porphyry that he quotes, because it is confusing to me.

Demetra George

[Doug_Noblehorse]

Please allow me to offer my welcome to the Forum, Ms. George. I look forward to reading your voice and benefiting from your experience and wisdom!

Mr. Noblehorse

[Robert_Schmidt]

Mr. Stricker,

Here are two versions of the testimony definition, both deriving from the lost Antiochus original, and the only ones available in the surviving literature. Later authors use the language of testimony countless times and assume its meaning without providing a definition of their own. The similarity of the two versions is evidence that they both come from the same source. The version found in Rhetorius’ Explanations (what I erroneously regarded as properly representing Antiochus in my early translation in Vol. II of the original Project Hindsight translation series) is rewritten and, I believe, represents a misunderstanding of the original. The two translations here are all included in the new PH translations series The Astrological Record of the Early Sages (TARES).

ANTIOCHUS SUMMARY 6. That the stars are said to provide testimony (epimartureō) to each other whenever they chance to be tetragonals or trigonals or diametricals or hexagonals of each other, and [he says] at intervals of how many [images] each of the said figures is assumed (schēmatizō). And that the figure (schēma) conforming to a trigon (kata trigōnon) is sympathetic and helpful even if one of the stars is destructive, for it causes less harm; the tetragonal figure is the opposite even if one of the stars is benefic; the figure conforming to a diameter is adversative, and worse if a malefic is present; the hexagonal figure is feebler than the other figures. The aforesaid figures are brought to completion (apoteleō) in two different ways, either by image simply or by portion; wherefore, while the stars are assuming a trigonal figure in relation to each other (trigōnizontes allēlous) according to their images, they frequently do not assume a trigonal figure according to their portions, and similarly in the case of the other figures.

PORPHYRY 8. They call the figure-assumptions (schēmatismos) of the stars in relation to each other testimonies (epimarturia) There are these figures (schēma): a trigonal figure is that at intervals of five images, whenever there are three images between the pairs of images; a tetragonal one is that at intervals of four, whenever there are two between them; a diametrical one is in the seventh, whenever there are five intermediate images; a hexagonal one is that at an interval of three, whenever there is one intermediate image. And the assumption of a trigonal figure is sympathetic and helpful; and even if a destructive star is present, it is less harmful. That of a tetragonal figure is harsh and discordant and capable of giving pain if a destructive star is present. That of a diametrical figure is adversative, but worse if a malefic is present. That of a hexagonal figure is feebler. But one must see whether the stars are able to complete the figures by portion (ei kata moiran echousi teleia/telein ta schēmata) and not merely by image. The assumption of a trigonal figure is at an interval of 120 portions, that of a tetragonal figure at an interval of 90 portions, that of a hexagonal one at an interval of 60 portions, and that of a diametrical one at an interval of 180 portions. For, stars frequently stand configured (eisin eschēmatismenos) according to image but not further/longer (ouketi) according to portion.

A casual reading of these texts might lead one to suppose that what is being contrasted are configurations based on images alone and configurations that are geometrically exact to the portion. If that were true, it would mean that only planets in geometrically exact configurations could stand in a testimony relation. But that would make the word frequently in the last sentence of ANTIOCHUS 6 and PORPHYRY 8 questionable, because planets are for the most part not in perfect configurations. Such a restrictive interpretation would also be inconsistent with the usage of other Hellenistic astrologers.

But again, Porphyry’s last sentence evidently offers a clarification of what it means for planets to complete their figures “merely by image”. The word ouketi in this sentence could be taken in two ways: “no longer” or “no further”. I think it quite likely that both meanings are intended. The implication is that two astronomical scenarios are to be excluded from the testimony relation being defined here: 1) when the two planets have already been in an exact geometrical figure and are now separating from it; 2) when the two planets are converging toward an exact geometrical figure but do not succeed in forming it before one of them moves to the next image.

By excluding these two possibilities, we are left with a single scenario. The kind of testimony relation addressed in this definition is characterized by the situation in which two planets are moving toward an exact geometrical figure and succeed in forming it before one of the planets crosses over into a new image.

It is because a careful consideration of the overall argument in this passage demands such an interpretation — and, I might add, by paying due attention to the tenses of the participles that are used in the two versions — that I felt justified in making a small textual emendation to the Porphyry version of this definition (emending teleia to telein), one that also serves to bring it into closer agreement with the version in the ANTIOCHUS SUMMARY. However, this emendation is not fully necessary in order for the Porphyry version to have the meaning I have suggested.

Early in the days of Project Hindsight, we all believed that the Hellenistic astrologers were using “sign-based aspects”. From the remains of the lost Antiochus original, I now know that aspect proper is a figure within a three-portion range (or “orb”). If anyone has every attempted to make sense of “sign-based aspects” in reading a Hellenistic chart, he or she would probably agree to me that such a notion introduces too many planetary configurations and completely muddies up any attempt to interpret. The testimony concept narrows the range of viable configurations based on images to a smaller number.

I will later explain what I believe to be the difference between the aspect and testimony concepts.

Robert Schmidt

[Scott_Silverman]

I have been off site for a month and am very pleased to see Mr.Schmidt and Ms.George, my two teachers of Hellenistic Astrology, weigh in on the subjects of testimony and planetary nature (see Ms. George's thread on Mars). I have been waiting for this area of the ACT board to kick in. I'd also like to see further discussion on heliacal rising and setting. I find I have to cut and paste and print out the longer posts if I am going to properly absorb their contents. Does anybody else have this, er, 'problem', for want of a better word? I have been enjoying the contributions of Mr. Noble Horse, Therese and Sari as well. It is certainly exciting to consider that in the near future we will have new editions of both Antiochus (Project HIndsight-Schmidt translation)and Rhetorius (AFA, James Holden translation) to add to our bookshelves - as well as a new printing and completely reformatted edition of 'The Judgment of Nativities' by Ali Abu Khay'yat (Holden translation and one of my all time favorites, again from AFA). Additionally, there are new translations of Porphyry and Firmicus Maternus in the wings, should there be demand enough for such things!

[Sari_Metsovuori]

It is certainly exciting to consider that in the near future we will have new editions of both Antiochus (Project HIndsight-Schmidt translation)and Rhetorius (AFA, James Holden translation) to add to our bookshelves - as well as a new printing and completely reformatted edition of 'The Judgment of Nativities' by Ali Abu Khay'yat (Holden translation and one of my all time favorites, again from AFA). Additionally, there are new translations of Porphyry and Firmicus Maternus in the wings, should there be demand enough for such things!

The flux of those new translations sounds wonderful! Ali Abu Khay'yat is one of my favourites as well.

Sari Metsovuori

[Patrick Watson]

In Delphic Oracle, it shows the astronomical definitions for the aspect doctrine, without going into exactly what it means. Included in this list are:

-What kind of whole sign aspect it is
-Whether the planets are converging toward making a figure or diverging
-Whether their elongation is increasing or decreasing
-Whether the figure perfects while remaining in their signs

Most curious to me is what increasing or decreasing elongation has to do with it. Does the reconstructed Antiochus aspect doctrine address when aspects are made between a direct planet and a retrograde planet? Or an aspect between two retrograde planets?

It seems like just from this list, that for an optimal connection between two planets, they have to be in whole sign aspect, within 3 degrees, converging towards perfection, perfecting before leaving the signs they are in. But what about planets that only meet these conditions halfway, is it just not as convincing a figure, or are their specific delineations to be made?

And then as far as testimony goes, I've read from Curt Manwaring that it has something to do with a planet being able to see a planet as well as its domicile lord to be able to lend its "advice" to the planet in question. Is that still true? I get the feeling it has to be a little more intricate than that.

I wish I could have been there for the Intensive on this topic!

Patrick Watson

[Robert_Schmidt]

To your questions, Mr. Watson. By “figure”, I mean the images at a hexagonal, tetragonal, trigonal, or diametrical interval from another image. Planets in these images are said “to assume a figure” relative to one another. For testimony to occur, the figure must perfect before either of the two planets leaves its image.

Aspect proper requires that the two planets are about to form a geometrically exact figure and are within three portions (“degrees”) of doing so. When planets look upon one another in this way, they are said to be “joining in a figure”. Aspect proper does not require perfection of the figure within the limits of their respective images. Consequently, there can be “out-of-sign” aspects but only within this three portion range.

The interpretation of testimony and aspect is different. When a planet assumes a figure relative to another in the testimony relation, it adopts a stance, attitude, or posture relative to it. The nature of this stance depends on the nature of the figure and can be hostile or friendly according to the usual classification of figures.

When a planet aspects another, the two planets do more than merely assume an attitude relative to one another; they actually join in that hostile or friendly figure and engage with one another. Planets in a testimony relation are not in aspect. The term "whole-sign aspect" would be meaningless in Hellenistic astrology.

As the word testimony indicates, in such a relation one planet says something about another planet. It can also provide its testimony about something else which it has seen (such as the affairs taking place in a topical place) to another planet which then is acting in the capacity of a judge.

Where you might say that the testimony relation is impersonal, the aspect relation is more personal. We commonly say, for instance, that “I am seeing someone” when we mean we are in a relationship with them, or “I will see you in court” when we will be engaged in a legal matter with them.. It is only through the aspect relation that one planet can actually afflict or maltreat another, or conversely bonify it.

To anyone with a technical knowledge of grammatical syntax, I would say that testimony is a matter of predication while aspect is a matter of attribution.

To be precise, bodily conjunction is not an aspect at all; planets joining in this way are said to be "in adherence". Again, when planets are separating from a figure, that cannot be said to aspect one another at all; separation depends on an entirely different paradigm. Both testimony and aspect can occur through the retrogradation of one or both planets. As a matter of fact, one of the Greek words for retrogradation metaphorically means “to recall a witness for cross-examination.

There is also an important conceptual difference between figures that form in the first half of the synodic cycle, and those that form in the second part. That is why Mr. Manwaring’s program has the designations “converging” and “diverging” (for forming and separating figures, respectively), and “increasing” and “decreasing” (for figures forming in the first and second halves of the synodic cycle, respectively.

The Hellenistic doctrine of planetary configuration is rich with metaphysical overtones, which we may end up exploring partly on this forum and partly on the Philosophical Astrology forum moderated by Mr. Timothy Smith.

I hope this helps.

Robert Schmidt