skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Proper use of the term 'hairesis'
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The confusion probably arises because there was some sort of debate in the early Hellenistic tradition about how to assign some of the sect-related rejoicing conditions to the signs.


I know of three approaches.

1. Cancer/Leo hemisphere approach. Hephaistio as mentioned.

2. Masculine as diurnal, feminine as nocturnal. Ptolemy as mentioned.

3. Signs ruled by diurnal planets as diurnal, signs ruled by nocturnal planets as nocturnal.

I think this one may have been a contender for more popular than the previous, and it is endorsed by Vettius Valens. However, the triplicity rulers scheme seems to suggest that 2. was more influential overall, and that it probably precedes Ptolemy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:


It is in book 1, chapter 1 of Hephaistio, where he outlines the significations of the signs of the zodiac. Hand has a footnote about it in Schmidt's translation on page 3, where they are initially perplexed about why Hephaistio says that Aries is nocturnal, and then he speculates that it may have been a variant tradition derived from the domicile assignments.


Thanks for the quote <3
Anyway Gemini is MASCULINE in Hephaistio (page 7)
According the hemisphere's logic it should be feminine too.

Margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:

Thanks for the quote <3
Anyway Gemini is MASCULINE in Hephaistio (page 7)
According the hemisphere's logic it should be feminine too.
Margherita


Not if sect and gender are being treated as separate concepts within the context of that approach. That Hephaistio seems to be treating them as separate seems to be confirmed when he talks about some of the signs like Virgo, which he lists as being diurnal and feminine. This goes back to my original point, which is that even though the later tradition ended up following Ptolemy in treating sect and gender as connected or equivalent, there was some sort of competing tradition for assigning sect to the signs in the early Hellenistic tradition that may have seen them as distinct concepts. In that scheme gender was assigned based on odd and even signs, but sect was assigned to each hemisphere based on the domicile assignments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
This goes back to my original point, which is that even though the later tradition ended up following Ptolemy in treating sect and gender as connected or equivalent, there was some sort of competing tradition for assigning sect to the signs in the early Hellenistic tradition that may have seen them as distinct concepts.


Sorry, but I'm not persuaded. Why some signs are not mentioned?
And why nobody mentions this different idea of hairesis? I have almost all Bezza published and he never mentioned such a thing, and the same people wrote in the previous posts of this thread.
And which more ancient tradition considering that Hephaistio book is a comment to Tetrabiblos? The doctrine of two hemispheres in Hephaistio comes from Ptolemy.......
I checked Teucer (in Rethorius, in Holden translation), which is really a different tradition of Hellenistic astrology and he says that Taurus is feminine and nocturnal and Gemini is diurnal and masculine. Teucer for sure did not depend on Ptolemy.

Anyway, interesting thread <3
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3542
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

we see competing traditions all the time... i am curious why that would be a difficult concept to grasp??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

margherita wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not persuaded. Why some signs are not mentioned?


It is possible that a few significations were simply missing from the text, or weren't in the manuscript tradition that Pingree edited for this chapter of Hephaistio. Enough of them are preserved that there is a pretty clear pattern though. Here are the ones listed by Hephaistio:

Diurnal: Leo, Virgo, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn.
Nocturnal: Cancer, Aries, Aquarius, Pisces.


margherita wrote:

And why nobody mentions this different idea of hairesis?


It is not accurate to say that "nobody" mentions this idea. Knappich recognized and mentioned it, which is what started this thread, and Hand called attention to it as a possibility in the footnote I mentioned earlier.

margherita wrote:

And which more ancient tradition considering that Hephaistio book is a comment to Tetrabiblos?


Hephaistio is not a commentary on the Tetrabiblos. It draws heavily on the Tetrabiblos in some chapters, but it also draws heavily on other authors/traditions like Dorotheus. In the same chapter that deals with the signs at the beginning of Hephaistio he alternates between first listing the terms/bounds according to Dorotheus, and then he gives them according to Ptolemy. It is possible then that this alternative tradition for assigning sect to the signs of the zodiac came from Dorotheus or some other early author. Hephaistio also drew on and cites other early authors later in his work like Nechepso, Thrasyllus, Critodemus, and others. His text is a compilation from the works of many early authors then, although primarily from Ptolemy and Dorotheus.

margherita wrote:

I checked Teucer (in Rethorius, in Holden translation), which is really a different tradition of Hellenistic astrology and he says that Taurus is feminine and nocturnal and Gemini is diurnal and masculine. Teucer for sure did not depend on Ptolemy.


It is not clear to me that those passages that are supposed to be from Teucer in Rhetorius haven't been updated by Rhetorius, because they include some concepts that didn't tend to be emphasized as much until later in the tradition, like the concept of detriment. It is odd that sect is not mentioned at all in the same parallel passages by Valens when he talks about the signs in Anthology 1, 2, as those passages are also supposed to be derived from Teucer. So which one represents the earlier version, the one preserved by Valens, or the one preserved by Rhetorius? Who knows.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petosiris wrote:
Quote:
The confusion probably arises because there was some sort of debate in the early Hellenistic tradition about how to assign some of the sect-related rejoicing conditions to the signs.


I know of three approaches.

1. Cancer/Leo hemisphere approach. Hephaistio as mentioned.

2. Masculine as diurnal, feminine as nocturnal. Ptolemy as mentioned.

3. Signs ruled by diurnal planets as diurnal, signs ruled by nocturnal planets as nocturnal.

I think this one may have been a contender for more popular than the previous, and it is endorsed by Vettius Valens. However, the triplicity rulers scheme seems to suggest that 2. was more influential overall, and that it probably precedes Ptolemy.


Just to add 2 more by Manilius.

4. Aries - Virgo as diurnal, Libra - Pisces as nocturnal hemisphere approach.

5. Aries, Cancer, Leo, Scorpio, Sagittairus and Pisces as diurnal, the rest as nocturnal. This is the one he prefers and these are based on the trigons of Aries and Cancer - the signs of the spring equinox and summer solstice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Knappich couldn't have read Pingree's Hephaestio edition from 1973 since he published his astrological history in 1967 and died in 1970. It's possible, though, that he used the old Engelbrecht edition of Hephaestio, and from the fragmentary allusions he reconstructed a classification of signs related to the issue of parties (haireseis) - provided he read Ancient Greek -, which he considered the right definition of hairesis. However, I think a more plausible explanation is that he read something about the parties somewhere (e.g., in Bouché-Leclercq's handbook) but what he remembered better was Ptolemy's introduction of the solar and lunar halves, possibly in Pfaff's German translation.

Just for the record: Ptolemy is the source of this division of the zodiac (even if he's not the originator of the theory); he doesn't use the expression hairesis here; Hephaestio doesn't lift this precept even though he copies or summarizes much of Ptolemy's Apotelesmatics; and the sporadic assignments in Hephaestio, collected by Chris above, would hardly make it possible to reconstruct the rationale without the aid of Ptolemy's text.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente Laszlo wrote:

Just for the record: Ptolemy is the source of this division of the zodiac (even if he's not the originator of the theory); he doesn't use the expression hairesis here; Hephaestio doesn't lift this precept even though he copies or summarizes much of Ptolemy's Apotelesmatics; and the sporadic assignments in Hephaestio, collected by Chris above, would hardly make it possible to reconstruct the rationale without the aid of Ptolemy's text.


<3 <3 <3
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente Laszlo wrote:
Knappich couldn't have read Pingree's Hephaestio edition from 1973 since he published his astrological history in 1967 and died in 1970. It's possible, though, that he used the old Engelbrecht edition of Hephaestio, and from the fragmentary allusions he reconstructed a classification of signs related to the issue of parties (haireseis) - provided he read Ancient Greek -, which he considered the right definition of hairesis. However, I think a more plausible explanation is that he read something about the parties somewhere (e.g., in Bouché-Leclercq's handbook) but what he remembered better was Ptolemy's introduction of the solar and lunar halves, possibly in Pfaff's German translation.

Just for the record: Ptolemy is the source of this division of the zodiac (even if he's not the originator of the theory); he doesn't use the expression hairesis here; Hephaestio doesn't lift this precept even though he copies or summarizes much of Ptolemy's Apotelesmatics; and the sporadic assignments in Hephaestio, collected by Chris above, would hardly make it possible to reconstruct the rationale without the aid of Ptolemy's text.


Bouché-Leclercq in his book ''L’Astrologie grecque'' available online here - https://archive.org/details/lastrologiegrecq00boucuoft lists four schemes of separating signs according to sect on page 156. - https://i.imgur.com/Sn0QbhH.jpg

He shows first the condition that comes up in Manilius of odd and even alternating gender. This seems to be the most popular rejoicing condition that went on to become one of the 3 sect conditions in the Medieval tradition. Although one could ascribe that to the influence of Ptolemy, the fact that Dorotheus also uses it, surely adds up (unless there is an interpolation? it comes in one of the natal books as well as in Book V). Reference to that condition also appears in the summary of Antiochus, Valens, Paulus and Rhetorius.

Note that Valens and Dorotheus ascribe the triplicity rulers scheme to this specific sect condition. For example - ''When the zodiacal circle is subdivided according to similarities and differences, we find two sects, solar and lunar, day and night. The sun, being fiery, is most related to Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius, and this triangle of the sun is called “of the day-sect” because it too is fiery by nature.'' - Valens, V. Anthologia. Translated by Mark Riley.

Or Dorotheus:

''Chapter 28. Knowledge of masculine and feminine signs, eastern and western, and diurnal and nocturnal.
Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius are masculine, eastern, [and] diurnal...'' - the eastern wind became fiery in Valens

''Look at the diurnal and nocturnal signs; I will make clear to you the diurnal among them and the nocturnal. The diurnal among them: Aries and its triplicity, Leo and Sagittarius, are diurnal, and Gemini and its triplicity, Libra and Aquarius, are diurnal. The nocturnal: Taurus and its triplicity, Virgo and Capricorn, are nocturnal, and Cancer and its triplicity, Scorpio and Pisces, are nocturnal.'' in Chapter 4 of Book 5 - Sidonius, D., & Pingree, D. (1976). Carmen astrologicum. Pingree (Hrsg.), Dorothei Sidonii Carmen Astrologicum, Leipzig.

Bouché-Leclercq then lists the condition peculiar to Manilius where the triplicities of Aries and Cancer are diurnal. He then lists the hemisphere scheme mentioned by Manilius that Aries - Virgo are diurnal while the other hemisphere nocturnal.

He finally lists the condition given by Ptolemy, which as Levente said it comes up first in his text, although he ascribes the doctrine to other people.

The condition I mentioned before that comes up in Antiochus (diurnal stars rejoicing with diurnal rulers) does not seem to be related to the signs, but more to do with the rulers? So depending on whether your think that represents a sign rejoicing/sect condition, you have 4 or 5 sect conditions related to sign in the surviving Hellenistic sources.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated