31
Hi Gerson

Is it possible for you to give us the reference for this? This matter was recently discussed in another thread so it will be interesting to look at this more closely.

Thanks
Deb
According to a recent text that i've read from Schmidt,the hellenistic only not nominated the condition of a planet in opposite home as "detriment",but this position was viwed as malefic ...

Re:erroneous statement

32
Hi Deb,the discussion can be finded at:

http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 9&start=30

We can read it in the third paragraphe of Schmidt's reply,on Decembe,31.

The question remains very tricky,because for example in vedic astrology(that seems inherit several features of hellenistic astrology after Alexander's invasion on India),there's not detriment.Mercury in Saggitarius,for example, is not viwed as a malefic position because aspects Gemini,his opposite house,therefore helps Gemini...very,very tricky...
All the best

Gerson
"Life is a gift,enjoy"

33
I think there is a problem with that link because it leads to a thread started in March, not December. But I thought you meant that you were aware of a reference in a primary source, which is what I would have liked to check for myself. That was what I prefer to investigate, rather than someone else's take on the matter.
Thank you anyway Gerson
Deb

34
Sorry,i mean March,31.
It's difficult to find a main source about it,even Schmidt itself does not presents an explicit statement,only an inference from Valens text.

Gerson
"Life is a gift,enjoy"

35
I did look through the thread anyway, but somehow missed that before.

I agree with what you are saying here, and that we tend to see it by implied reference rather than explicit statements. I gave an example as demonstrated by a chart from Rhetorius in the 'peregrine' thread earlier in the year. You can find the details here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 2&start=11

Obviously, I would be interested if there were any explicit statements to this effect in the early texts!

36
Thank's Deb, a very informative discussion.I'm also waiting to find an explicit statement about this matter, a kind of "Rosetta stone".
I liked your willingness to question the basis of astrological premiss,we can learn a lot from it.
All the best
Gerson
"Life is a gift,enjoy"

37
Hello James (Jerd),
Although there's one thing I can't figure out in the "Third part of life" section: how can Venus in Virgo (it's fall/depression state) offer any help to Saturn?

Is it's angularity relative to the Lot of Fortune enough to give it some strenght to help out Saturn?
This is a difficult question (at least to me!) because when I first studied medieval astrology we were taught that we need to look into all dignities of a planet before giving judgment on a particular matter or area of life (all dignities in both essential and accidental). I found this method to be very confusing especially when you have a lot of contradictions from different testimonies (e.g. angular but fall, cadent but in exaltation by sign and degree, in domicile but combust, and so forth).

Using Almuten does not really help distinguish the many manifestations a planet can have. Getting a number out of many essential dignities and debilities and using it to represent all matters of life that a planet may represent is also confusing to me. Over the years I discovered that it is easier to just use the dignities as they are for each properties of the planets have different meanings for different things in life.

An example: Assume you have retrograde Mercury in Cancer within a degree of the sun in the 7th house. Mercury can represent so many things in life (universal) and so many things in this native's life (specific). Do we then assign all matters governed by Mercury to be "combust" and hence, have negative delineation? I don't think so. If Mercury does represent the native's mind or thinking, I would consider the speed and direction more important. Being close to the sun, Mercury is fast and hence, the thinking process is good. Being retrograde, his thinking style is more reflective. Mercury may also represent the native's relationship which in this case is not so good. A naturally fast and dual planet (Mercury) in a fast motion and in the 7th may bring a multitude of relationships that don't last. Being combust may mean clandestine relationships. But if the native wants to know whether any of the significant relationships will give him happiness, the agreement of primary qualities (hot, cold, wet and dry) of the planet and the sign it is in is the most important consideration. We then confirm this analysis with other indicators of relationship.

Coming back to your question, upon reading Valens I find that in using the triplicity method for the general prediction of life - house position relative to ascendant and lot of fortune is the most important consideration (for the three planets that are trigon/triplicity lords of the main luminary) and not their essential dignities. The Greeks were looking for power and recognition via this method. Power and recognition are directly correlated to angularities (or accidental dignities and not essential dignities). The assisting planet (i.e. the domicile lord of the trip lord) can assist if it is configured with the trigon/triplicity lord. As long as it is configured, it can offer help. If it is in complete aversion, then it cannot help. In our case, the assisting planet (venus) can help because it trines Saturn but the help is not much as Venus is debilitated (in Fall in Virgo). However, Saturn does not need to rely on Venus very much because he is angular (the most important consideration in this method). The role of the assisting planet becomes important when the trigon/triplicity ruler of the main luminary is cadent. Hellenistically, Venus is even less helpful because it is not a sect mate of Saturn.

Angularities give recognition and power. Essential dignities were looked upon more for potentials and qualities (or even resources). Sun in Leo in a day chart gives a lot of potentials to be "king" and there are many out there who have the potentials to be "kings" (many are born with sun in Leo) but king of what. Cadent sun in Leo does not push you to the limelight and hence, you are probably a king of a small department in your office (or a head of a monastery somewhere). Angular sun in Leo gives you the potential to be king as well as pushes you to the physical world of opportunities where you realize your potentials to the maximum. You might have angular sun Fall in Libra; the fact that you are pushed to the limelight and into the world of opportunities (Sun angular), you can still achieve worldly success with what little you have (Sun in Libra low on resources or potentials). This is a simplification but I think you get my point. What about those who have all planets cadent? Cadency or apoklima in Greek means turning away. It is good for malefics to have their effects turned away from the native but the reverse is true for benefics. Hence, benefics in cadent houses tend to benefit others more than the native. Sometimes this is a choice made by the native (they turn away from the establishment - they become social workers, environmentalists - those who contribute to others more than towards enhancing their own power base). Never delienate planet in isolation. A planet can be cadent as well as fall but reception and aspects and relationship with fixed stars can surpise even the best astrologer!

PS: I have 5 traditional planets (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Mars and Jupiter) cadent in whatever famous house system, Venus and Jupiter detriment, with Mars opposing and squaring almost all planets - still I thank the Omnipotent One God that I have a relatively easy life!). We are astrologers! We are immune to the effects of the stars (or at least that's what Ptolemy implied in his Tetrabiblos).

39
Deb wrote:Obviously, I would be interested if there were any explicit statements to this effect in the early texts!
Serapio, CCAG Book 8, part 4, pg. 231, the first line. Robert Schmidt's translation goes as "That the stars turn bad when opposed to their own domiciles." I finally figured out how to type the Greek on here, but it's taking forever, so I'll save it for another time.
Gabe

40
GR wrote:Serapio, CCAG Book 8, part 4, pg. 231, the first line. Robert Schmidt's translation goes as "That the stars turn bad when opposed to their own domiciles." I finally figured out how to type the Greek on here, but it's taking forever, so I'll save it for another time.
But at least we can do a quick transliteration: 'Hoti hoi asteres enantioumenoi tois idiois oikois kakunontai.' :) This is very interesting; thank you for the reference! Given the frequent diversity of opinion among the Greek authors, and the fact that this doctrine has not been universally upheld by the Arabic authors (and not at all by the Indians), I wonder if Serapio is the only preserved source for it.

41
Martin Gansten wrote:I wonder if Serapio is the only preserved source for it.
Can't say for certain myself; what is a bit frustrating about these ancient authors is that they do not write clearly, yet they write in a very specific manner. :-cry If they wanted to be clear, it wouldn't have killed them to do it, so there is method to their madness. I think it is a mistake for us to read these texts as if they were Bible verses and we some rigid literalists; the only fate for us then would be skepticism. Serapio might be the first to say so explicitly, but it could probably be implied from Antiochus and others.
Last edited by GR on Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gabe