How old is this technique is still an unresolved question. It may be attributed to the Persians, but there are sources that are assigned to the Chaldean astrology. In studying this method, I got to hand materials from a friend in Bulgaria, written a significant Bulgarian astrologer F.Gruzinov ,to talk about the earlier version of this method as was used by Chaldeans.
The basis is probably derived from unique materials Chaldean manuscripts, which were compiled at the instigation of the Armenian Tsar Artaxes I (190/189BC - 160/159BC) and some fragments brought to Europe by an unknown orientalist (pseudonym frater Julian ?). Given the position of Armenia is connected to Persian, Chaldean, Greek and Indian astrology, very likely.
Based on the same principles as Masha?alah,Abu Mashar system, with the difference, that the start of the cycle is derived from the Sun (diurnal charts) or Moon (nocturnal charts), but the degree of ascendant position. This is given the system much more individual character.
So the beginning of a period and subperiod gives us the position of ascendant natal horoscope.
Method to better understand the example. Let us ascendant at 16 ? of the Virgo in the diurnal charts. Mercury is the ruler of the Virgo, so that the main period of the cycle will begin Mercury and ruler subperiod is also Mercury. Whereas the ascendant is at 16 ? sign, subperiod isn?t all, but only a proportional part. In this case, half of 1 year 10 months and 9 days, half 678 days or 389 days will take subperiod of Mercury, then comes subperiod the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun and Venus. Since it is the diurnal charts following the period of the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Sun ,N.Node,S.Node etc. If the same incident occurred at nocturnal charts, then after the period of Mercury following period N.Node,S.Node,Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun and Venus, etc. Otherwise, it is used in combination with solar revolution or transit of the the same as for Abu Mashar.
History Firdaria moves about 900 years again. [/b]

Hi Steven,

I do not have the book ?On the Solar revolution? Abu?Mashar's. Waiting for translation of Ben. The method with ascendant has the advantage that he eliminates the problem of the status of S. Node and N. Node, they are not static, but depend on the position of ascendant.Nativ streak in the daily or night cycle at a certain stage of its progression. It is interesting that both systems operate in parallel. There is also another possibility of further development Firdaria.
Each supperiod can be divided evenly on the next subperiod. It works in practice and illustrates the nature of the time period. However, it is necessary to know the precise time of birth.

Hello Petr, Steven and all,

Buscherini in his thesis about Great Conjunctions under the supervision of Prof. Panaino mentions Kennedy listing Arab authors who firstly used "world year" astrology

this is the exact reference

E. S. Kennedy, Ramifications of the World-Year Concept in Islamic Astronomy, in Actes du dixi?me Congr?s International d'Histoire des Sciences, Ithaca 26 VIII 1962 - 2 IX 1962, Paris 1964, pp. 23-43.

I don't have the text, so I don't know exactly what Kennedy writes and which authors he lists, but I see that Panaino is very fond of this text

margherita

Petr wrote:The basis is probably derived from unique materials Chaldean manuscripts, which were compiled at the instigation of the Armenian Tsar Artaxes I (190/189BC - 160/159BC) and some fragments brought to Europe by an unknown orientalist (pseudonym frater Julian ?). Given the position of Armenia is connected to Persian, Chaldean, Greek and Indian astrology, very likely.

Could you give some references, please?

steven wrote:I do not doubt the firdar are older than the Sasanian period. (...) Maybe in the 3rd or 4th centuries BC.

Steven, you know I am only expressing my personal opinion, but I do not think they might be pre-Sasanian. The early centuries that you devise look somewhat unsubstantiated if we see that astrology itself (with its time-ruler systems included) is hardly earlier than 1rd century BC, and lunar nodes, which are solidly incorporated in the fardar system, play a very meagre role in much of Hellenistic astrology. In fact, besides Valens, the only major contribution to the topic of lunar nodes comes from the late Rhetorius, which poses another problem, as we currently have no satisfactory insight on his sources regarding lunar nodes. The adjective "Chaldean" proves not so much of value, for astrology itself was long called "Chaldean science" (Chaldaik? math?sis) due to the confusion of Babylonian nativity omina and Hellenistic genethlialogy. Of course, it served as a kind of marketing tool for astrologers who certainly took a chance on that.

Lunar nodes began to be introduced in Indian astrology probably with the 3rd century Satya, who, with the inclusion of the Ascending Node in the planets, made up a system of 8 grahas signifying directions, as M?nar?ja reports. This Satya could draw on a second, though lost Hellenistic treatise, which might have been somewhat similar to Valens. Later, following M?nar?ja but before Var?hamihira, that is, between the late 4th and late 6th century the complete set of the navagraha was developed.

While actually nothing had remained from the Sasanian astrological material, it seems probable that Sasanian astrology borrowed the idea of incorporating lunar nodes among planets from Indians, not vice versa. The main proof is that a survived fragment of the Sasanian world-nativity served the theory of exaltations of lunar nodes, conspicuously absent from early Indian astrology. As the fardar system is obviously not unrelated to the exaltation system so introduced, and the Sasanian theory can be hardly earlier than 6th century or later than 7th century, this is also the most possible date of its invention. Maybe it is a kind of Sasanian development, based on the quite obscure hint in Book 4 of Valens, where he speaks about using exaltations for another time-lord system. But even though it is not, the technique which involves using lunar nodes, thus pointing to Indian or, more probably, Sasanian astrologers, which has a sense of influx from Valens, which bears a certainly Greek-related name, and finally, whose oldest known source is al-Andarzaghar, comes probably from Sasanian astrology.

Levente

Well, Steven, while I understand your point of view more or less (the importance of practice vs. vain hypotheses), I think there is something which should not be so eagerly dismissed - as I see it.

The tools of traditional astrology have their roots in history, which is an issue of its own value. I can regard historical questions of a science or of an art as secundary in importance, even then it is not advised to a serious practicioner to be fuzzy, careless or superficial on historical facts. (I could add astronomy which equally can be handled with low level of understanding.) So even though there are serious gaps in our historical knowledge, and theories and hypotheses sometimes (but not always) tend to be insufficent to fill in them, I think there is an independent value of a historical query, especially if it helps us gain a better understanding of development of astrological techniques.

You know, we always sample the world around ourselves from ourselves. While being a practicing astrologer, I am a classical philologist, and there is a side effect that I cannot get rid of easily. Whenever I meet a new technique, I am the least concerned if it works or not. Not because I lack a sort of practical interest: only I know that a lot of techniques can be claimed to have power, although their theoretical underpinnings are clearly weak. I suppose not I am the only one who turned away from modern astrology not because it did not work but because its fuzziness was something unacceptable. Anyway, I have serious doubts with the applicability of the verb "work" in the context of astrology - when we cannot separate the value of astrological techniques from other factors, like personal insights and so, in the frame of a successful prognostication.

What I always ask is: "why does this astrological authority claim what he claims". Just because if we headlessly jump into practical evaluation of a certain technique and assert that it really has powerful application, but later it can be proven that either we or this very authority had misunderstood something inherited, therefore we are dealing with a corrupt technique - it is something that makes me feel discomfort, no matter how we attempt to mend it.

To tell an example which is just about fardar?ya: as far as I know (but it is a second-hand information, so please correct me if I am mistaken), Zoller had some pains with interpreting the correct order of the natal fardar cycle for nocturnal nativities. It is due to the somewhat obscure wording of Bonatti which seems to suggest that the years of the nodes should be placed after those of Mars - the way as Zoller conceived it. But if someone has a chance to compare it with the list found in On Solar Revolutions by Ab? Ma?shar, it is clear that the nodal years always come after the planets'. This is a pretty simple example, as Bonatti is known to have drawn on Arabic sources, but in this case his source, al-Qab???, was not clear enough. I could cite many other examples but what I try to demonstrate, is perhaps understandable.

Therefore, inasmuch historical issues may seem to have minor importance, they may equally play an important role in evaluation of a technique right before testing them in practice, just to avoid misunderstanding that might concern both us or our source. Regarding them in this way, a certain amount of historical studies, theories and hypotheses are not contrary to a higher quality practical work; just the opposite, they can help us gain a better understanding our techniques, their history, and, consequently, become a better astrologer.

Levente

No, you're not wrong. New Library still teaches Zoller's course with the firdar arranged so that the nodes are in the middle for night births, and if you deviate from that, you lose points on the exam. It's a DIY course at this point, though, there's no tutoring, and Bob's no longer involved, obviously.

Which seems a bit silly at this late date, but they aren't going to change. So I do it wrongly for them, and properly for my clients.

I left modern astrology because it didn't work. It woefully didn't work. And if it didn't work that badly for me, I was terrified for my clients.

Are there still a couple of modern techniques that I use? Yes - because they do work. But mostly I left because as a whole - modern astrology fails to do much unless people just want you to talk about them for an hour. Lots of people do want that. But I never seemed to get those clients. And I aggravated other astrologers no end by not being one of those kinds of people myself. So I guess it all worked out.

The fuzzy thinking, and worse yet, things like intuition and channelling, made me ashamed to admit I was an astrologer in polite company, especially the academic kind. It still does, to be honest. Not because of the kind of astrology we do here, but because we'll forever be lumped in with the 97% who are using intuition and spirit guides with a complete disregard - absolute hatred in many cases - for critical thinking. As well as hearing how traditional astrology is all wrong because nobody who came before us could possibly know anything worth knowing, so it isn't even worth reading about. But if you've known a fair number of modern astrologers, you've come across the attitude. It's sad, really.

History's important to me, too. But because there are gaps in our understanding of how every horary technique came to be - it doesn't make me toss over horary. You know?

I agree it's important to know where we come from. I'm sure Steven agrees with that, too, as does pretty much everybody on this forum. But as you doubtless know yourself, at some point you have to jump in and do something if you're going to get a chart done. It doesn't mean give up historical research - and nobody here has done.

Will we make mistakes? Undoubtedly. People do. And I understand - believe me - about not wanting to call techniques invented in the 1960s ancient. But we're still reconstructing astrology. Yes, be careful, know what you can, but don't put off the practise of for decades and decades and decades until everything that can be found is found - if that happens, we'll end up with generations of theoreticians, and no more astrologers.

But you know all that. And I don't think you're seriously accusing Steven of not taking historical fact into consideration, anyway.

Osthanes (as usual) has an excellent point: I believe that having a historical understanding of where something comes from is of great value. At the same time, how detailed that historical knowledge must be is another question; I do not believe that, for practical application, the history must include exactly where the "t's are crossed and the i's dotted".
Having determined where the concept comes from, what kind of thought or hypothesis is behind it: both of these only to be known from a historical knowledge of the concept-then-if it makes sense to the artist (astrological practitioner)-if it "tastes good" to the artist-then the concept is provisionally accepted and put to the test of actual, real-world practical application. If it appears (in the artist's view) to produce reliable, consistent results over many experiments (trials, in this case, astrological delineations) then the artist accepts it as a tool-until such time when the consistent reliability of that tool doesn't hold-up any longer: if that should happen, at such an event the artist drops that tool and considers something else.

I guess what I"m saying is that my attitude in the matter of astrological practice, is 100% utilitarian (exactly the same attitude I have regarding my profession of homeotherapeutic medicine) But understanding the history, background, is necessary, so that we can develop an internal connection or resonance with the subject. While utilitarianism drives practice, we really can't achieve this without knowledge, including knowledge of the origins.

For example, I had used Placidus house system, with good results, but always with at least some degree of attendant confusion, or question, or obscurity, in most charts. A decade ago, I read about the ancient Whole Sign House system. What I read included a good historical background. The method "made sense" to me, it "tasted good" to me (my mind). I began to apply it, and, for me, the results always were clear, precise-clearer and crisper than my previous experience with Placidus. I have used Whole Sign exclusively ever since. Now, if it had turned out that Whole Sign had only been invented in 1990, by Badda-bing, at Barney's Beanery in Bayonne-I would-knowing that history-have been somewhat dubious about experimenting with the method; however, if after experimenting with that method it produced consistent and reliable results in practice, I still would have adopted this method over others with a more pristine history of orgination.

I agree with Osthanes too.

Practice is important, but if we don't know which are the sources where we are taking techniques we are using while we call ourselves "traditional" astrologers it makes no sense for me.

Moreover as we see in English speaking world traditional astrology is very fashionable so we see many traditional astrologers who claim to be experts and quote ancient texts - but when we inquire a little- they are wrong (in good and bad faith).

We have plenty of examples as we saw in this thread, or the one about stars.
Let's think to Frawley: what he says about temperament for me shows clearly that he should ask someone to explain him how epicycle works.

And this just if we think who is in bona fides, then we have the dark side, the self-appointed "experts" who profit from others.

For me, I told many times, I just buy things which come out from scholars and University- because 99,9% of times they have discovered since many years what I need to know.
Example is Steven's firdaria. He wrote in another thread he was going to revise his article about firdaria (very beautiful as all Steven's works). But a list of authors who used tasyr, intiha and fardar in astrology texts was already given in 1964 in the article I mentioned above (at least i found this reference).

This happened a lot of times to me too, I've learned from experience.
margherita

Margherita

thank you for an interesting line, she also leads to:

www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc

Osthanes

I am not a historian, but I have a history of very close relationship. My grandfather was an archaeologist.

?????? ???????? (Fyodor Gruzinev) was a Bulgarian astrologer born in Russia (1897 - 1978). He assembled a comprehensive library of astrology and occult literature. Unfortunately she no longer exists. On the retirement ,started work on his legacy, which includes more than 30 publication dealing with Indian, Greek, Arabic astrology and the astrology of his time. He knew several languages and had excellent contacts in astrological literature, probably through Martinist (hence the names are only pseudonyms - brother Julian, etc.). In Bulgaria, have been issued so far only four books.
F. Gruzinev wrote in 1960 under the pseudonym ?????? ??? ????? book : ???????? ?? ???????? ??????????????? ???????? (Foundations of acient tradition astrology), ???????, 1996.
In the beginning of the book is written (rough translation):

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.

This book is a translation from Russian. The Russian original was written by one of the disciples of the great orientalist scholar, who was for many years in Tibet, China and India, where he was able to be in contact with local prominent astrologers. Brother Julian - so you call that orientalist - has received access to many manuscripts. He has studied translation of the 8 books of famous sutras of Maharishi Dzhaymini and comments to them Yehi-LuCh?u-Ts?ai. Sutras themselves are known already 50 centuries and contains the ancient teachings of the holy astrologers. Four recent books of sutras Dzhaymini also be lost in India and in Europe are known in astrological literature, only the first two books. Brother Julian has read ?Astrology of the Moon? itself Yehi-LuCh?u-Ts?ai, unknown in Europe. He also read the manuscripts of Shirokatsi in Chinese translation and interpretation of his writings Pitamacha and Viaza.
In Tibet, the translations are preserved writings of the Armenian king Artavazd II with his horoscope, according to which he would be beheaded. (This really happened during the 34 h. BC after the defeat of the armies of Artavazd of Cleopatra). Chaldean priceless collections are compiled on the orders of Artashes I around 170 years BC. Brother Julian has recorded some instructions of the Chaldeans. He had the opportunity to pursue discussions with scholars on Indian astrology of Parashara, Vashista?

In his next book, which has not been released, but was probably also written in 1960, working title: ?????????? ??????? ?? ????????? (The calculation time of the events) publishes a chapter on Firdaria. Arabic direction cyclic system, which describes a method according Abenragel and Chaldean method. Again the reference to the Armenian source.

Petr

Petr wrote:Margherita
thank you for an interesting line, she also leads to:
www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc

Thanks, very appreciated,
margherita

As the fardar system is obviously not unrelated to the exaltation system so introduced, and the Sasanian theory can be hardly earlier than 6th century or later than 7th century, this is also the most possible date of its invention.

Interesting commentary on this topic makes Stefan Weinstock in CCAG V.4, p.134. where he commented one text atributed to Rhetorius:

"Doctrina ???????????? quam Rhetorius in novis capitulis tractat differt ab eis quae apud Vett. Valentem (IV, 17-24), Hephaestionem (II, 27-34), Firmicum (VI 33-39) leguntur (cf.etiam Bouch?-Leclercq, Astr. Gr. p. 494 ss), neque eandem computationis rationem alibi repperi. Temporum enim dominus est Saturnus 11 annos, Iuppiter 12, Mars 7, Sol 10, Venus 8, Mercurius 13, Luna 9 annos, de quibus septenas partes singuli chrnocratores sibi ceterisque deputant; qui anni partibus Capitis (3) Caudaeque (2) Draconis aucti efficiunt summam 75 annorum, post quos alter annorum ordo nascitur. "

So we may be have a proof that this doctrine is older than Sassanian period and the roots are in Hellenistic time.

In an article of Bruce Scofield about planetary periods, http://alabe.com/text/PERIODS.html , Robert Hand is said to believe there is a development from planetary periods to directions and progressions.

the article wrote:Primary directions equate one rotation of the earth into 360 years, or roughly 4 minutes of time (1/360th of a day) to one year. Notice here that the day, one rotation, is divided into a number of years that is the same number of days as in an ideal year. (360 is perfect, but 365.2422 is not). This is like fractals, the day becomes a fractal, a micro-model, of a hypothetical great year of some sort (see footnote 9).

footnote 9 wrote:(9) In his introduction to Book IV of Vettius Valens, Rob Hand suggests that these systems were the roots of later systems, including primary directions. He sees the development of predictive systems in astrology in the following sequence:

1. Integral time-units by themselves only indirectly based on spatial units. (Planetary Periods and Dasas)

2. Integral time-units directly related to space-units. (Directions)

3. Integral time units related to other time units. (Progressions).

Rob's view of primary directions is that they represent a transitional point in this development. Apparently, they were originally used was to define a unique set of planetary periods for each chart that was based on the rotation of the earth. For example, if the Midheaven were directed to Mars, it would begin a planetary period ruled by Mars that would last until the next direction became effective. In this article, I've taken the position, more for purposes of organization than as a result of intense archaeoastrological research, that primaries relate one time unit (the day) to 360 years and that they are the first of the series of predictive systems falling under #3 above.

In Mark Riley's article 'Ptolemy and his colleagues' an example of how Vettius Valens used planetary periods and directions based upon rising periods per sign combined (p.242 and further) http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/PDF ... etical.pdf

The Babylonians and peoples after them used 'goal years' in the Sasanian Era to predict future planetary positions, like the 8 year period of Venus, the Metonic cycle of 19 years. One can find some of those numbers in several timelord systems, so this must have been an inspiration. It appears that in the development to primary directions some 'rationalisation' or 'scientification' has been going on. A process that continued in the application of the Naibod key and the secondary progressions.

I found in a book on the history of spherical trigonometry a quote of Hypsicles a contemporary of Hipparchus. The quote is also here,
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biog ... icles.html

The work which involves arithmetic progressions is Hypsicles' On the Ascension of Stars. In this work he was the first to divide the Zodiac into 360?. He says (see [1] or [2]):-

The circle of the zodiac having been divided into 360 equal arcs, let each of the arcs be called a spatial degree, and likewise, if the time taken by the zodiac circle to return from a point to the same point is divided into 360 equal times, let each of the times be called a temporal degree.

I'm only speculating but could this have inspired astrologers to step from timelord systems to the more mathematical directions systems?