Deb wrote:
although I don?t personally believe that the explanation he gives holds the full answer either. It was possibly perceived as very ancient and a bit of an enigma even by his time.

Deb, I believe there is much truth in your statement here. I also believe this would apply to other ancient astrologers predating Ptolemy?s time who were studying other ancient astrological traditions handed down from past ages. Thousands of years could be involved from original sources and true meanings are simply lost.

Regards, Steve

Martin Gansten wrote:(I.19 in the Robbins edition, not I.22).

Later I noticed that the text I referred to uses a different chapter division. It was from this website http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/index.htm
Ashmand 1822. It's quite confusing and if it's the one most used I will follow the divison of Robbins' translation.

Like many of Ptolemy's 'scientific explanations' it appears extremely far-fetched to me (not unlike the 'scientific explanations' found in several 19th and 20th century astrological authors). I can't take the 'fecund winds' and the rest of it seriously, and do not for a minute believe that this bears any relation to the actual historical roots of the exaltations.

I personally like the attempts to explain astrological effects in scientific terms. I however too question the validity of some of Ptolemy's ideas because the explanations are very Graeco/Mediterrano centered. And.....

Hands up, all who would consider the Australian Moon exalted in Scorpio! And I suppose nobody born in Central Africa would have any planets either exalted or in their fall...

....indeed it makes one think about what to do in other regions on Earth. 'Flipping' over the exaltations in Australia is still an easy one but as you point out the Equatorial regions place us to a difficult problem. Further the climate of Greece/Alexandria is so much different from that of Scotland for example that using the same scheme just because these areas are on the northern hemisphere is quite questionable. If the climate conditions do play a role in the exaltations of planets then they should be considered differently for each local situation.

As a rule, Indians have been quite inclined to accept things on ancient authority without explaining them, as indeed were many Greek authors --

Most scholars and researchers believe that Indians took over the 12 signs scheme from the Greeks in the first centuries CE, so if there is some explanation then still we return to the Greeks (and or Babylonians).

--Ptolemy stands out from the crowd in this as in many other respects...

Because of his 'scientific' explanation of (this natural) astrology still was acceptable to those who actually rejected (judicial) astrology. Astrology maybe survived because of Ptolemy.

Steven wrote:
?that we?re discovering that astrology?s transmission was not linear but intricately circular between the predominant astrological cultures such as the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians and not least Greeks. We cannot lay at the foot of just one man the distinguished title of ?saviour? of astrological history.

I could not agree with you more Steven?well put!

Regards, Steve

Hi Steven,

Thank you very much for mentioning the article. Being a part-time student I have acces to the Jstor website at the libraries over here. I printed it and read it yesterday. Jim Tester's 'A History of Western Astrology' also mentions Dorotheus, Vettius Valens, Rhetorius and the techniques that passed to Late Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Tester mentions Pingree quite a few times as source, but this one is more detailed on this part. I was very pleased to read (on page 236) that Theophilus the Philosopher used an astrology depending on Varahamihira showing that the links to Indian astrologers were quite existent.

On the spreading on techniques I do fully agree with you and Steve that this wasn't all dependent on Ptolemy as a Noah with the Tetrabiblos as his Ark. Indeed, his way of dividing the elements in the zodiac isn't used but rather Valens' method of elements divided over the triplicities is.

Perhaps I stated it a bit dramatically that astrology survived because of Ptolemy, but I rather meant that I believe for the acceptance of astrology by some opposing elements in church and scientists (they weren't all opposed) a more 'scientific' astrology was preferable. These usually did accept the effectiveness of astrology but rather as tool for medicine and physics, than for 'interrogations' and 'elections' which sometimes was considered less ethical. As these latter hardly are discussed by Ptolemy in contrast with Dorotheus and Vettius Valens, his work would make astrology more acceptable to the 'sceptics' of those days.

The history of astrology in the Sassanian era is worth a lot of studying. The climate for astrologers got more harsh in the later centuries especially after the reign of Justinian in the 6th century. Many knowledge indeed passed to Persia.

MarkC wrote:Censorinus (AD 238) wrote:

'The sun creates the winter solstice when passing through the 8th degree of Capricorn...and the 8th degree of Aries is the vernal equinox (De Die Natali XXV)

Hello Mark and all,

I have a question (I have not found an answer for). Since the Hellenistic zodiac is know to begin with an equinox around 8th or 12th degree, do the bounds and decans begin with the zero degree Aries? Which would mean that they should be adjusted in our modern zodiac, isn't it?...

carriere.francois wrote:I have a question (I have not found an answer for). Since the Hellenistic zodiac is know to begin with an equinox around 8th or 12th degree, do the bounds and decans begin with the zero degree Aries? Which would mean that they should be adjusted in our modern zodiac, isn't it?...

Yes, the Hellenistic authors who placed the equinox in 8?--12? Aries (or, in other words, placed 0? Aries 8?--12? before the equinox) still reckoned the terms (bounds) from 0? Aries, and not from the equinox.

steven wrote:What I'd like to see translated of course is the Liber Aristotle that Pingree refers to! Actually in his article Pingree refers to several manuscripts which he footnotes that he was going to publish. I wonder if he did before his passed.

In this case, yes. It is The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santalla, published by the Warburg Institute in 1997. It contains an edition of the Latin text (no translation) and a very detailed commentary about its sources (mainly Dorotheus) and occasionally cross-references from Sahl's natal work.

steven wrote:I understand what you mean, although I'm not quite sure astrology would not have been accepted without Ptolemy. What made astrology acceptable was the popularity of Aristotle and his "physics" are quite evident in not only Ptolemy, but many of the medieval Arabic sources such as Al-Kindi. Of course we'll never know will we Your point is duly taken.

It probably then must have been a combination of Ptolemy and other sources as the material translated by Hugo. Interesting to see how astrology was spread over that whole part of the world of India to Spain.

Dr. Michio Yano in Japan.

Do you happen to know if astrology is practised a lot in Japan? I just wonder about that.

Osthanes wrote:

steven wrote:What I'd like to see translated of course is the Liber Aristotle that Pingree refers to! Actually in his article Pingree refers to several manuscripts which he footnotes that he was going to publish. I wonder if he did before his passed.

In this case, yes. It is The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santalla, published by the Warburg Institute in 1997. It contains an edition of the Latin text (no translation) and a very detailed commentary about its sources (mainly Dorotheus) and occasionally cross-references from Sahl's natal work.

I don't have time for a closer look but on Jstor I found two review articles:
Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Marwan Rashed
Reviewed work(s): The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santalla by Charles Burnett; David Pingree

Source: Isis, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 590-591
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/237261
&
Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Lodi Nauta
Reviewed work(s): The "Liber Aristotilis" of Hugo of Santalla by Hugo of Santalla; Charles Burnett; David Pingree

Source: Speculum, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 474-475
Published by: Medieval Academy of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2903497

Martin Gansten wrote:

carriere.francois wrote:I have a question (I have not found an answer for). Since the Hellenistic zodiac is know to begin with an equinox around 8th or 12th degree, do the bounds and decans begin with the zero degree Aries? Which would mean that they should be adjusted in our modern zodiac, isn't it?...

Yes, the Hellenistic authors who placed the equinox in 8?--12? Aries (or, in other words, placed 0? Aries 8?--12? before the equinox) still reckoned the terms (bounds) from 0? Aries, and not from the equinox.

Realizing that this adjustment of 0? Aries dates of a couple of centuries before, it seems that those astrologers who did this didn't check the positions by observations but rather relied on the tradition of the sources that mention this adjustment.

My guess would be the sidereal exaltations are likely related to planetary qualities. There also seems to be some possibly "elemental" aspect to the opposition pairs Venus-Mercury, Mars-Jupiter, Saturn-Sun. However as pointed out by astrodienst fixing the zodiac by anything except the galatic center is problematic. The multitude of starting points may suggest what is really at issue is a heliocentric tropical zodiac (not directly related to the constellations or any specific star). Astronomically the definition of Mars in Cancer would seem to be become Mars in a certain space relative to the Sun versus (geocentric tropically) Mars in the place relative to the Earth which the Sun occupied relative to the Earth when it was summer in the northern hemisphere.

if you google the title of the Pingree article mentioned by Steven you will be given a link to a PDF posting of the article without needing JSTOR access. it is a great read.

thanks for the heads up Steven!

-Estebon Duarte

Deb wrote:Hi Geodron

This is one sort of (co-)causality, but what if there is another, which is associated with fixed stars, position in the galaxy, etc.?

There is no doubt in my mind that this exists. And of course, it is just philosophically ugly that the signs of the zodiac do not relate directly with the constellations! During my frequent, bumbling attempts to identify the stars that I can see, I am often trying to imagine everything one sign away from itself, so that what I know of a chart can be related to what I see in the sky. And the worst is yet to come, because at some stage we are going to be talking about the sign of Aries roughly overlapping the constellation Libra.

If I want to apply something like techniques of Valens to contemporary charts, which system should I use? I mean, you can easily re-calibrate ?cookbook? descriptions of Venus in Scorpio to Venus in Libra (just substitute Libra for Scorpio and you are done), but what to do with something more sophisticated, all the dignities and rulerships could shift dramatically if one uses sidereal. I am cautiously using tropical. One reason being that all the horary is based on tropical and it apparently works, plus all the solar circuit based approaches you mentioned. Still, it?s not an easy feeling.

I agree. It?s not an easy feeling. And I don?t have the answer. I know that many astrologers who consider themselves tropicalists do employ the techniques of Valens but as you can see in this forum, others take the opposite approach. Either approach leaves us with a significant disadvantage. A sidereal approach misses out on the seasonal justification for its symbolism, but the tropical position misses out just as much by being unrelated to the stars. My own choice, and it is purely subjective one, is to keep the calendrical significance, but to bring in the stellar influence by incorporation of fixed star meanings.

I would be very grateful if somebody using Hellenistic techniques with sidereal zodiac could share their experiences: does it work, does it work better than tropical?

I think you might struggle to get an unbiased report on that, because most astrologers adopt a position for reasons that are not necessarily well thought through in the beginning. There have been several times when I have considered changing to the sidereal approach, because I have been impressed by the technical knowledge of the astrologers that are known as siderealists. But I (subjective opinion here) think there is a bit of a myth that the most intelligent astrologers will graduate towards the sidereal zodiac, and so this myth may have influenced a few good astrologers to go down that route.

I dont think it has anything to do with seasons. As you know in southern hemisphere seasons are reversed