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:
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
Notes on the nativity and death of Jean Baptiste-Morin
by Deborah Houlding
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Galileo's Astrology

 
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: Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:38 pm    Post subject: Galileo's Astrology Reply with quote

Thereís a very good article by Nick Kollerstrom about Galileoís astrology amongst the last set of updates: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galast.html

Within the article there are two links (easily missed) that lead through to more detailed graphics of Galileoís astrological worksheets.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart2.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart.html

These reveal interesting details about Galileoís use of dignities and his general technique.

Nick Kollerstrom is very keen to get feedback on the way Galileo worked. Some of the information is obscure to me so if you notice anything that I have missed, or can make sense of something I canít, please let us know.

There are two points that are particularly perplexing in the Giovanni Sagredo chart. Why did Galileo apparently refer to the preceding opposition of the Sun and Moon at 16 degrees Gem/Sag when the last full Moon was at 26 Gem/Sag? This looks like a simple mistake to me but Nick wonders if something else was involved. And why has he apparently assigned 4 points of fortitude to Mercury for an exaltation connection?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pete



Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 301
Location: Kinnelon, New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Galileo's Astrology Reply with quote

Quote:
There are two points that are particularly perplexing in the Giovanni Sagredo chart. Why did Galileo apparently refer to the preceding opposition of the Sun and Moon at 16 degrees Gem/Sag when the last full Moon was at 26 Gem/Sag? This looks like a simple mistake to me but Nick wonders if something else was involved. And why has he apparently assigned 4 points of fortitude to Mercury for an exaltation connection?

Hi Deb,
it's obvious from Nick's excellent article that Galileo was a gifted astrologer, so the only conclusion I can draw is that the 10 degree error in the previous Full Moon is, as you say, a simple mistake of the pen.
As for the points for Mercury's exaltation, this is certainly puzzling as Mercury is quite clearly in Leo, not Virgo! However it's possible that he looked at Mercury's position on the square chart and momentarily *thought* it was in Virgo. A rather sloppy mistake to make, if that's what he did, but hey - we've all made errors of notation and slapped our foreheads afterwards. This is mere conjecture, obviously, but all I can come up with.
==
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the thread ďRectification by Trutine of Hermes/AnimodarĒ we have been talking about the Animodar method of rectification (which is explained in detail there). Iím now fairly convinced that the reason Galileo drew two charts for his own nativity ( see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart.html ) is because the lower chart with 14.33 Leo rising was his original chart, based on his estimate for his time of birth, and the alternate chart was rectified by the Animodar method, which has Venus ruling the degree of his previous lunation and therefore places the same degree and minute that Venus occupies upon his ascendant. Because I donít have much respect for the Animodar method of rectification I personally feel the original chart is a preferred chart to use for him. But what we donít know, is whether he was just experimenting with the method or accepted it very seriously and therefore took the rectified chart as the one he referred to.

Pete, I agree with you that the copying errors are not surprising. If I had to hand-calculate and then hand-draw all my own charts I canít imagine how many mistakes Iíd have to keep correcting. Imagine if posterity judged your capabilities as an astrologer according to your notes and scribbles! In a way itís very useful that Galileo made the mistake with the Part of Fortune in the chart he gave of his own nativity with 21.37 Leo rising, because it allows us to realise that he was copying information over from the other chart; and that strengthens the argument that the other chart was the original version.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NickK



Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 4

Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, in the article on this site, you can see that, written next to Sagredos' birthchart (he was Mr G's best buddy), there was the preceding Full moon given, in error alas by ten degrees. It is given as 16į Gemini - Sagittarius, while it was actually at 26 deg (on 7th June 1571). For readers who have the book 'Galileo's Astrology', that's page 160. This is surprising - we don't expect Galileo to err ten degrees for a Full Moon!

Next to his daughter Virginia's chart (not here shown, but p.152 in the book), he writes in the preceding New Moon at 16 Leo (8th August 1600, 5 days before) - and that's quite correct. I wish we could get G's 'Astrologia Nonulla' (the name for his astrol. manuscripts are called) held in Florence more publicly available.

Beside his natal chart of his other daughter Livia (18th August, 1601), he jotted down two preceding syzygies: a Full Moon at 21 Leo (14th August) then the previous New Moon at 5 Leo (29th July) and both of these are correct.

For a birthchart he did for a Mr Cesare Galli (15.12.1601) he noted two adjacent partial eclipses: the lunar eclipse just before at 17 Gemini (on 9th December, correct) then the solar eclipse just after, at 2 deg Capricorn (24th December).

I'm wondering, if these syzy-computations both before and after the birthchart were common amongst astrologers of this period, and is there any example of someone else doing this? Any comment would be welcome,
Nick k.
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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