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

Aversion and the 2nd house?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Clelia

The best book for you to refer to for Masha'allah, if you can get it, is
The Astrological History of Mashaallah (ISBN: 0674050258), translated by Edward Kennedy and David Pingree.

It contains a collection of charts concerning grand conjunctions and it is very revealing indeed on how Masha'allah's theory is applied in practice.

Yes I have seen the text 'On Reception' - there is a passage in chapter 4, 'Of a sickman' that gets used a lot in reference to this issue. It reads:

Quote:
I considered which of the seven planets were joining to him, or which of them were separating from him, that is from Saturn, who was dignified in [the matter of] infirmity. I found Venus separating from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, seven degrees* from the lord of sickness, because Venus is in the house of sickness. Venus therefore signifies the diminishing of the sickness, because of her separation from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, by seven degrees, and because of her joining with Mars who receives her, and in turn is received by her.


Because Venus is in the 5th house by division but the 6th by counting [signs], this passage has been brought to attention by Robert Hand and Ben Dykes as a clear reference to Masha'allah's predominant use of the whole-sign approach. I am not so sure - Since Venus is in Capricorn I think it is more likely to be a statement that Venus is in the house (as in domicile) of Saturn, the significator of sickness, which serves to emphasise the fact that Venus was received in its square aspect to Saturn (and so the aspect was less threatening than otherwise).

The above is my translation BTW, which I made for a course exercise a few years back. I have put an asterisk next to 'degrees' because this is translated by Hand and Dykes as 'days' - the Latin says diebus, which normally means day but it has symbolic overlaps and degrees is obviously meant to be used here. Its meaning is shortly clarified when Masha’allah repeats the statement that Venus is 7 degrees separated from Saturn, this time using the word gradus. (Another example of confusion between the words is in the Liber Hermetis, XII - Robert Zoller’s Latin translation reads “on the 13th degree of February”; corrected by Robert Hand’s footnote 2 (p.31) where he says that clearly the text means “the day of February, not the “degree”.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



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

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Actually, I think Porphyry's text is where the quote from the Thesaurus of Antiochus used by Deb above really originates but I need to check that point.


That's the case. This passage is most probably not from Antiochus. It forms chapter 52 of Porphyry which was later copied in Rhetorius, chapter 46 of Book 5 as it stands now. The Rhetorius manuscripts, however, have misleading titles as if the text was written by Antiochus, an error repeated by the editor, Franz Boll and previously Robert Schmidt too.

UPDATE: Pingree in his From Alexandria to Baghdad to Byzantium says that Porphyry ch. 52 is available now in the recension made by Demophilus, who quite probably himself inserted it into the archetype of the Porphyry manuscripts from Rhetorius V 46. Therefore while the chapter appears in that section of the Rhetorius work which mostly depends on Antiochus and Porphyry, it's from neither of them. I can imagine, however, that it comes from Porphyry's lost commentary on Ptolemy whose two exclusively preserved passages may be found in Hephaestio.


Last edited by Levente Laszlo on Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This article is from Robert Schmidt's introduction to Book III of the Tetrabiblos published by Project Hindsight (1996). Although its quite old it still has a lot of interesting information on the subject being discussed:

http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/houses.htm


Good that you had mentioned Robert Hand´s introduction to Valens´ Book III!
It spare me the work to find it and, being in the internet, the work of copying it, not to mention the afraid of copyright´s infringiment. Laughing

When Valens analysed the Lots as a kind of horoskopus, the funny thing is that they were considered by whole signs. So, in many of his charts, if we had Saturn " looking" at the Lot, it was understood as a bad situation even if the Lot was at 1º and the planet was at 29 degrees.

quoting R.Hand:
"In Book III, chapter 2, he discusses a division of the mundane quadrant into three equal pieces (later called the Porphyry system). However, it is perfectly clear from context that his intention there is to determine the places in which the planets may be most and least active. He in no way indicates that he is establishing a division into topics, or a house-system in the proper sense"

This paragraph agrees to Deb´s opinion: cadency is one thing and does not suggests dynamical houses to analyse topics.

In Book 9th, quoting R.Hand translation: "But before all it is necessary to reckon the places to the degree. And at least whenever the degree of the Horoskopos may be grasped, it is necessary to count from that degree up until the 30 degree completion of the next zoidion. And that will be the place concerning life. Then similarly up to the completion of another 30 degrees concerning livelihood; and the next as before. For often two places falling together onto [or coinciding on] one zoidion foretell both species in accordance with their distances in degrees. And similarly, it is necessary to examine the lord of the zoidion, in what zoidion it chances to be and to what sort of place it holds fast, according to its canonical description in degrees. For in this manner the procedure [or perhaps turning] will be judged. And if someone would reckon platically at one place per zoidion (which is rare), they [the natives? the places?] encounter constraints and outrages, or the entanglements of matters. "

I understand that the astrologers will encounter constraints and outrages if they do not take into account the "intercepted" sign.

Well, it is only my own opinion, but I think that Valens in his last books was learning and writing, and not taking the time to go back and correct old references. In my opinion, he says quite different things in his last books. I don´t know if the reason was because he learned different methods and improved his techniques or because he was not totally aware of some inconsistencies in his work: perhaps he was confused or sick or not motivated, I don´t know, but he was even more difficult to understand in his last books.

As a student I can say that some of his more recent theories seemed fancies ideas.
But I´m not referring to the division of houses which seems a new approach, consistent with other author´s point of view.

Anyway I can´t believe that he would change his whole sign approach to deal with the lots as horoskopus, because this was a piece of resistance of his delineation technique.

regards

Clelia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hi Clelia

The best book for you to refer to for Masha'allah, if you can get it, is
The Astrological History of Mashaallah (ISBN: 0674050258), translated by Edward Kennedy and David Pingree.


Thanks for mentioning the book: I don´t have it, except by some excerpts.

Quote:
It contains a collection of charts concerning grand conjunctions and it is very revealing indeed on how Masha'allah's theory is applied in practice
.

Nice to know!
Quote:

Yes I have seen the text 'On Reception' - there is a passage in chapter 4, 'Of a sickman' that gets used a lot in reference to this issue. It reads:

I considered which of the seven planets were joining to him, or which of them were separating from him, that is from Saturn, who was dignified in [the matter of] infirmity. I found Venus separating from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, seven degrees* from the lord of sickness, because Venus is in the house of sickness. Venus therefore signifies the diminishing of the sickness, because of her separation from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, by seven degrees, and because of her joining with Mars who receives her, and in turn is received by her

Because Venus is in the 5th house by division but the 6th by counting [signs], this passage has been brought to attention by Robert Hand and Ben Dykes as a clear reference to Masha'allah's predominant use of the whole-sign approach. I am not so sure - Since Venus is in Capricorn I think it is more likely to be a statement that Venus is in the house (as in domicile) of Saturn, the significator of sickness, which serves to emphasise the fact that Venus was received in its square aspect to Saturn (and so the aspect was less threatening than otherwise).

The above is my translation BTW, which I made for a course exercise a few years back. I have put an asterisk next to 'degrees' because this is translated by Hand and Dykes as 'days' - the Latin says diebus, which normally means day but it has symbolic overlaps and degrees is obviously meant to be used here. Its meaning is shortly clarified when Masha’allah repeats the statement that Venus is 7 degrees separated from Saturn, this time using the word gradus. (Another example of confusion between the words is in the Liber Hermetis, XII - Robert Zoller’s Latin translation reads “on the 13th degree of February”; corrected by Robert Hand’s footnote 2 (p.31) where he says that clearly the text means “the day of February, not the “degree”.)
[

Hats off! You have a really awsome memory! :-))

warm regards

Clelia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:01 am    Post subject: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Hello

Resuming and trying to summarize some ideas that our conversation helped me to improve:

1- I don´t know what kind of division Ptolemy adopted IF he adopted one. Maybe the Porphirius´ division, or whole signs or perhaps he used the same criteria that he advocates for a planet to be considered in the 1st house in matters of length of life, as we see in Antiochus. Personally I don´t think he did, since it would be easier to add “ do the same to all places”. Besides this, he was dealing with places of power, so it was another kind of fish, other than places for topics.

2- Valens used whole signs in all his charts. But to say the honest true, we really don´t have any proof that he used quadrants for strength and whole sign for topics. I realized that I got strongly influenced by Robert Schmidt´s opinions.

3- Many ancient authors used Porphirius ´ division and others, as Antiochus used a division of houses beginning 5 degrees before he cusp up to the 25 degrees, I don´t like this kind of division, because as I said to Deb, the houses walk clockwise, so the 29th degree pertains much more to the house itself than the 5th degree before it, when the planet is going to pertain to another house whereas the first one is diving deeply in the referred house.

4- Placidus de Tito said that his division, the Placidian, was based in Ptolemy and it was not true (don´t ask me why because I don´t have the necessary skill to explain Laughing ). But I understood that both systems are based on the division of time.

I really learned with the discussion, as always happens, and I want to thank you all!

Clélia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is what I would say Clelia in regard to your points.

1) I’m also not sure that when Ptolemy referred to the 5° above the horizon being part of the first house, he specifically meant this to refer to all the houses (as later astrologers seemed to assume); or that he meant all houses should be 5° before the cusp and 25° after. If he did, then this describes an equal house system with a 5° displacement. But maybe he was only partially describing what Antiochus described? This point has a long history of unresolved debate because it’s possible to use Ptolemy’s few brief comments with comparison to other texts to argue support for many house systems. The most honest thing is to admit we can’t be sure about Ptolemy’s stance on house construction because the brevity of the theoretical references and the lack of demonstrated theory in practice doesn’t allow firm conclusions. (Only strong opinions Smile ).

There is another possibility which would suit the whole-sign argument: that what Ptolemy was aiming to describe, was a situation where the ascending sign would shift from one sign to the next if the ascending degree was in the last 5° of the ascending sign. It is hard to recognise that principle in the actual text of the Tetrabiblos, but the support for this idea comes from later Arabian astrologers making that kind of argument. We have to realise that these matters have been passionately argued for many many centuries!

3) My personal opinion about the 29th degree after the cups pertaining more to the house than the 5° above it: consider my last comment above - the ends of the signs are weak and with regard to the houses, general theory is that the closer a planet is to the cusp of a house, the more effectively it expresses the theme of that house. From the quadrant division perspective - if we have a planet sitting right on the midheaven degree, say 30 mins pre-ascended so it is just before the midheaven point, are we going to consider that planet as elevated and 10th house and strongly expressive, or cadent and 9th house and weak? I would describe it as sitting on the midheaven and being very powerful in its celestial placement. Where do we draw the limit of pre-ascended influence: 3°, 5° ? – some have argued 15° and from what we know of Gauquelin sectors they may have a point.

It’s enough to drive a practicing astrologer crazy.

My astrological interest is mainly horary so it’s become habitual for me to use Regiomontanus and apply the 5° orb to house cusps as Lilly did, though I also realise that Lilly was only following convention himself – at that time all the cutting edge astrology development was coming from Germany, following the ‘rediscovery project’ of Regiomontanus, Schoener, etc, who were generating interest towards the translation and republication of classical astrological texts with the kind of preservation focus that compares to the early Project Hindsight intentions.

I’ve given up trying to establish which house system is the ‘right’ one, but when I see a planet a few degrees before a cusp and not getting referred to, as if it isn’t relevant, as an astrologer it makes me want to ‘bounce’ in my seat. For me a planet just before a cusp is ‘on the cusp’ and very significant – this is what I see when a chart is very clear and focussed in its symbolism; in horary and all other types of charts. But when a planet is far from a cusp I don’t give it half as much attention.

On another point, we don’t know that ‘many’ ancient astrologers used Porphyry, only that it was known about and discussed, and may have had more use than we currently realise. There is no ancient text that compares to the work of Valens for giving us such a wide array of chart examples – so we still struggle to know a lot about the practical application of astrological techniques by those who followed different schools of thought. Yet we know that these different approaches existed – see the discussion here on the 2nd century Michigan Papyrus 1, which seems to talk about one tradition that is more in line with Valens’ approach, and another which is more in line with Ptolemy’s:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=40248

4) I don’t agree with the statement that what Placidus said was not true. It might have been entirely true because it’s not beyond the realms of possibility. But more likely he just thought it was true based on his own sources. Ptolemy description of mathematical calculations based on hour circles offers theoretical support for the use of planetary hours, primary directions and what we call the Placidus house system. What's important to realise is that Placidus followed the system; he didn’t invent it – Tables of Houses for this were available throughout his lifetime; it is described on a 14th century astrolabe, the 12th century Hebrew astrologer Abraham Ibn Ezra acknowledged it as the system employed by Ptolemy; and according to North’s, Horoscopes and History, it is described by Abenmoat of Jaén in the 11th century. (Abenmoat wrote treatises on spherical trigonometry and important commentaries on Euclid’s Elements – and this is relevant because Euclid - also based in Alexandria as Ptolemy was - was the source of Ptolemy’s mathematical technique).

So 2nd millennium astrologers believed the system was described by Ptolemy, but we possess zero evidence to show that it actually was.

Thanks for your interest Clelia,

Best wishes
Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



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

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Clelia Romano wrote:


4- Placidus de Tito said that his division, the Placidian, was based in Ptolemy and it was not true (don´t ask me why because I don´t have the necessary skill to explain Laughing ). But I understood that both systems are based on the division of time.

Clélia


As told one million time I'm not interested in the "true Ptolemaic system" stuff, but Placido in claiming his method is based on Ptolemy is right.
Think about Ptolemaic directions, which are based on semiarc. What is Placido system nothing but dividing the semiarc in three equal parts?
This is the same idea of hourly distance Ptolemy mentions in his examples of directions.
If you calculate by hand a Ptolemaic direction, you will immediately see it.

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



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Deb:

Thanks for your answer!
It is my turn to have a limited access to the internet!

But I would like to clarify at least my 2nd point, when I hold that 29 degrees is more related to the house by PD. I was telling it in a general way and not referring to a planet position. The cusp is the more important point, I´m sure.

But, following the way Masha´allah pointed out, and correlating my rationale with some of his ideas, a planet that was in a cusp and loses his position is weaker than one that is, let´s say is 5 degrees after the cusp.
(Of course if the planet is the ruler of the sign we have to take it into consideration because of his celestial importance: anyway we have to see case by case, but I think that my point is valid as a general reasoning)

It is also true that the planet can be better positioned 5 degree before if he is going to become angular or sucedent and before he was in a cadent house.
All depends on individual charts. Again, I was talking in a general way and for the sake of argumentation. Wink

Quote:
My personal opinion about the 29th degree after the cups pertaining more to the house than the 5° above it: consider my last comment above - the ends of the signs are weak and with regard to the houses, general theory is that the closer a planet is to the cusp of a house, the more effectively it expresses the theme of that house. From the quadrant division perspective - if we have a planet sitting right on the midheaven degree, say 30 mins pre-ascended so it is just before the midheaven point, are we going to consider that planet as elevated and 10th house and strongly expressive, or cadent and 9th house and weak?


In this case I would see if the planet was in the same sign of the MC and if it was, probably I would consider it in the MC. If the sign of the 9th was the same of the MC, as some times occurs, I would consider it for both places.
But if the sign of the 9th was for example Sagittarius and the planet was Jupiter, and the MC was in Capricorn, I would consider it as configured to the 9th. But if it was Saturn, to the 10th.

Anyway 5 degrees before the cusp of MC is strong by position, but I was not referring to strenght, but to topics ( and let´s go again with the strengh/topic thing! Laughing )

Quote:
Where do we draw the limit of pre-ascended influence: 3°, 5° ? – some have argued 15° and from what we know of Gauquelin sectors they may have a point.


Hummm…indeed...he concluded that cadent houses were powerful, but maybe because he was using static houses cusps ( not giving a, so to speak "orb").
If we consider 15 degrees before the cusp as referring to the house is the same as saying that past events can be very influential…and they are.

Yes, it´s enough to drive us crazy -))

Quote:
My astrological interest is mainly horary so it’s become habitual for me to use Regiomontanus and apply the 5° orb to house cusps as Lilly did, though I also realise that Lilly was only following convention himself


I´m very fond of horary, as well, but, after a period of changing, I chose Placidus or Alchabitius: they give less distortions referring to the shrink and stretching of the houses.

best regards

Clélia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

margherita wrote:
Clelia Romano wrote:


4- Placidus de Tito said that his division, the Placidian, was based in Ptolemy and it was not true (don´t ask me why because I don´t have the necessary skill to explain Laughing ). But I understood that both systems are based on the division of time.

Clélia


As told one million time I'm not interested in the "true Ptolemaic system" stuff, but Placido in claiming his method is based on Ptolemy is right.
Think about Ptolemaic directions, which are based on semiarc. What is Placido system nothing but dividing the semiarc in three equal parts?
This is the same idea of hourly distance Ptolemy mentions in his examples of directions.
If you calculate by hand a Ptolemaic direction, you will immediately see it.

margherita


Hello Margherita:

I´m not the right person to answer that: to me your answer seems ok, but may be others with more mathematical expertise would say that the method of both was different!

best regards

Clélia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



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

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Clelia Romano wrote:


I´m not the right person to answer that: to me your answer seems ok, but may be others with more mathematical expertise would say that the method of both was different!

Clélia



No need to be an expert (I hate math too).

That's Ptolemaic primary directions method by hand (see point 3 planet to planet):

http://heavenastrolabe.net/primary-directions-with-and-without-morinus-software/

As everybody will tell Placido houses are 2 hours from each other.

For both the "hour" is the same mentioned in Ptolemy example about directions:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb59.htm

It is true that there is no evidence that Ptolemy used Placido house system (and in fact I'm agnostic about this), but obviously Placido used Ptolemy....

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



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Quote:
No need to be an expert (I hate math too).

That's Ptolemaic primary directions method by hand (see point 3 planet to planet):

http://heavenastrolabe.net/primary-directions-with-and-without-morinus-software/

As everybody will tell Placido houses are 2 hours from each other.

For both the "hour" is the same mentioned in Ptolemy example about directions:


Hi Margherita!

I hope you do not have awakened the sleeping math monster inside me Laughing

My doubt: Ptolemy worked with oblique ascensions when doing directions from the ASC to MC and the ascension time was different depending on the sign. But, as you are saying, each house has 2 hours, a fixed time. So can we suppose that signs and houses were judged accordingly to different conceptions?

Thank you for the links!

Clelia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



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

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:22 am    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Clelia Romano wrote:

Hi Margherita!
I hope you do not have awakened the sleeping math monster inside me Laughing


I really hope no!

Quote:
My doubt: Ptolemy worked with oblique ascensions when doing directions from the ASC to MC and the ascension time was different depending on the sign.


it seems to me you already asked me this some time ago. Ptolemy did not use the Hellenistic method. He writes:

in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned; in the prorogation from mid‑heaven, as many as the times of the culminations; and in the prorogations from all the others, in proportion to or in accordance with the nearness of the risings, or settings, or culminations, to the angles, as we explained in the discussion of the length of life.

The cusps of intermediate houses in Placido behave exactly like the method described for directions of intermediate points in the book III. They are considered according their distance from meridian proportionally to the semiarc. This distance should be steady and equivalent to 2 hours.

Obviously Placido built the method on Ptolemy reading.

On the other hand it was known to everybody that Regiomontanus was not following Ptolemy..Argoli for example says in his famous book about directions, that there are two methods, the first is the difficult method Ptolemy explained, the other the rational method by Regiomontanus.

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



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:33 am    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Ah mathematics, nice to see the both of you getting interested in the calculations by hand Smile. I've just started to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, so getting to know all about awakening monsters.

margherita wrote:
It is true that there is no evidence that Ptolemy used Placido house system (and in fact I'm agnostic about this), but obviously Placido used Ptolemy....


Martin said several times in the discussions that the ancient astrologers didn't feel the need to use the same house system according to the method of directions. In other words a semi-arc system could be used with another system like Porphyry or Alchabitius without the feeling of being inconsistent. This feeling of inconsistence (which I admittedly share) appears to be somewhat modern (or maybe stems from Placidus' days).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



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

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
Ah mathematics, nice to see the both of you getting interested in the calculations by hand Smile. I've just started to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, so getting to know all about awakening monsters.

margherita wrote:
It is true that there is no evidence that Ptolemy used Placido house system (and in fact I'm agnostic about this), but obviously Placido used Ptolemy....


Martin said several times in the discussions that the ancient astrologers didn't feel the need to use the same house system according to the method of directions. In other words a semi-arc system could be used with another system like Porphyry or Alchabitius without the feeling of being inconsistent. This feeling of inconsistence (which I admittedly share) appears to be somewhat modern (or maybe stems from Placidus' days).


Yes, I know and one of one or two things I don't agree with Martin, of whom I like almost ALL.

Better said, it's true that one can calculate Ptolemaic primary directions and use Regiomontanus house system without any problem. Still it's obvious that Placido houses are built on Ptolemy system.

That's evident if we use the variant of algorithm I used in the article of my blog quoted previously (from Marco Fumagalli, founder of Cieloeterra from I moti del Cielo
http://www.cieloeterra.it/edizioni/libri.moticielo/moticielo.html )

If we compare it with Martin formula of proportional distance (page 153 of Primary directions:astrology's old master Technique) with Fumagalli formula we directly work with hourly distance, so we can compare the point in respect to the Placidean house, which is measured in the same way.

It's more logic, even if not traditional, because we are using the same unit of measure.

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



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Summarizing. Reply with quote

Quote:
Clelia ; My doubt: Ptolemy worked with oblique ascensions when doing directions from the ASC to MC and the ascension time was different depending on the sign.


Quote:
it seems to me you already asked me this some time ago. Ptolemy did not use the Hellenistic method. He writes:


in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned; in the prorogation from mid‑heaven, as many as the times of the culminations; and in the prorogations from all the others, in proportion to or in accordance with the nearness of the risings, or settings, or culminations, to the angles, as we explained in the discussion of the length of life.


Okay Margherita, first of all what is the Hellenistic method you´re referring to when saying that Ptolemy did not follow it?

Secondly, in the phrase:"in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned", I understand that he is using the ascensions of the signs.
Robert Schmidt and Robert hand in their commentaries of the directions in Ptolemy quote Hephaisto, Book 2, chapter 11, explaining the method to the region of Hellesponto.

It is a long explanation, and perhaps here is not the place to put these comments, perhaps in other thread...

Anyway, other Hellenistic releasing that I know is ´Valens´ way to do it, which is quite different, since it begins with the horoskopus, counting the years and months of the ruler of the sign to know about the first years and up to the folowing houses to give testimony to the subsequent periods. Valens gives as example a native who had Saturn in Aquarius ( Saturn in this case gives 30 years) in the ASC. And he says that the man got emprisonned until his 30th year of life.

Thanks

Clélia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
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