I’m skipping over RQs 5 & 5 as they relate in many ways to the point I made in reply to RQ 3, and honestly I think more knowledge of specific Greek terms would be needed than I possess. To summarise though, it seems one can project different interpretations onto the author and arrive at *differe...

RQ3: Is it apparent to you that on pp. 19–20, in the middle of the argumentation about the possible alternative meaning of z??dion, passages using d??dekatēmorion and not z??dion are cited and discussed? If it is, do you find these passages relevant to determining whether z??dion had an alternative...

RQ2: Do you find knowing the precise meaning of platikos in Valens and Firmicus relevant to the understanding of the intentions of these authors? If you do, do you think that Dr. Gansten presented you with the relevant evidence to justify his choice of translating and interpreting platikos as “roug...

RQ1: Do you find these circumstances—the poor state of Valens’s text and the issues with his consistency and honesty—relevant when you assess the information given by Valens? Yes, though I'm not as fully aware of the exact nature of the degradation of various texts and the poor state in which they ...

For this discussion, I would like to invite all attentive readers, especially but not exclusively those with a favorable opinion of your paper. Hi Levente, I hope you'll allow me to describe myself as an attentive reader, and one with a generally favorable opinion of Martin Ganten's paper. If it's ...

Georgius

If you scroll down a bit here, I actually outline the method that Valens describes:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11929

Your posts here seem a little rambling and quickly becoming a set of unconnected references on astrological history - not about your original topic. You mention the “theory??? that Eudoxus invented Hellenistic astrology. But it’s not a theory. It’s a statement by Schmidt, without substantiation- at ...

Could you please post only one English? This is an English-speaking forum.

In Book I, Manilius defined the meridian as: “starting from the northern pole, cuts the sky in the middle and divides the day into two, determines the sixth hour and beholds at equal distances sunrise and sunset???. Notably the meridian here is described both spatially and temporally as the midpoin...

I fully agree that Manilius is a much underestimated source of information, at least in English speaking astrology circles. However, in German, we have the extensive research of Wolfgang Hübner at our disposal, who wrote various scholarly books centred on Manilius. Oh that's interesting to note! Un...

Conclusion: Manilius described a Quadrant House System Prudence Jones noted that Manilius employed visual descriptions, which appear to describe a division of the prime vertical, reminiscent of Campanus houses. Campanus would indeed match this imagery of the stationary nature of the houses, in a wa...

Manilius and ‘Zenith’ In Book II, Manilius described the Midheaven angle as ‘the zenith of high heaven’, which is not astronomically accurate. Brennan noted that this misuse of ‘zenith’ by Manilius ‘has important implications for understanding how Manilius describes the houses’, and so I will exami...