I thought forum members might be interested in this article by the Russian astrologer Albert Timashev which argues the Egyptian terms originated due to latitude:

http://astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

However, like Deborah Houlding, Robert Schmidt rejects this theory :

http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=114

Mark

From the Timashev article:

Other important conclusion is that the ancient Egyptian astrologers used 10 signs zodiac closely connected with system of decanes.

?

As for the 10-sectors division, it's known, that in ancient times there were no constellations of Aries and Libra: Libra was called Claws of Scorpio and was considered as part of a constellation of Scorpio, and Aries was not recognized as constellation too and was a part of constellations of Taurus and Pisces.

?
Looks like he?s confusing the constellations for zodiac signs.

Deb wrote:I wrote a lengthy paper about the origin of the terms which was published in Culture and Cosmos volume 11, about a year or so ago. With the brief time I have available today I can?t begin to explain the rationale behind the terms, but I can tell you that the logic encompasses a number of philosophical principles and that the reasoning behind the length and arrangement is quite complex.

Hi Deb,
Is your paper on your website or somewhere else on the internet. I'm just curious about the rationale. I read once about when you put the five planets in a pentagram and then count then you get the order of the terms, but I rembember looking at it but only some of the orders do it that way (in the same system) the others don't.

Hi Eddy

It's not on the internet at the moment; but I aim to look at it again, and circulate it more widely next year. Sorry that's not very useful for now.

Deb

Hi Deb,


Well I will see it appear then probably. Walking in Southern France uphill downhill etc during over 2 weeks made me a very patient person .

I don't have "Culture and Cosmos" vol.11, but what I know is that the famous Italian philosopher Agostino Nifo(1473 ? 1538) was the first who revealed the mystery with Ptolemy's bounds(terms). In the year 1513 he wrote a book with comments to the Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. There he quotes old greek manuscipt from anonymous author, who explain in details the rational basis behind the bounds. The interesting thing here is that after recalculation by this method there are very small differencies between received results and the bounds according to German critical edition of Ptolemy(W. H?bner, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1998). The diferencies are only in the third sign -Gemini-and the differencies don't exceeded 2 degrees.

Hi Astroart

I think there are one or two other small differences too. The source of Nifo's argument is an anonymous Greek Commentary on the Tetrabiblos which is speculatively attributed to Proclus. I argue against the likelihood of Proclus being the author of both this and the so-called 'Proclus paraphrase' because the two documents show different versions of Ptolemy's terms. However, it is generally accepted as dating from around that period. Nifo explains the rationale of this commentary, as did Hieronymous Wolf who produced a Latin translation in 1559.
Part of my paper explores the evidence offered in this document and illustrates that the purported reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny - that is, the logic explained does not support the values that are recorded in a number of places. In some places those values are better explained by a different logic which is seen more clearly in the Arabic line of transmission rather than the Greek line of transmission.
For example, in order for there to be no difference between the rational basis and the received results for Aquarius, the logic has to be interpreted in a very specific way. But that specific interpretation doesn't then hold up for other parts of the table. You can check that for yourself - see what it is saying about how to create the Aquarian terms, and then see if you can reproduce the Libran terms using the same argument. In fact there is a lot of 'fudging' going on in the explanation and ultimately it is not a reliable 'revelation' because the internal logic is flawed.

But it is an important document, and takes us further to understanding the kind of thinking built into both the Egyptian and Ptolemaic table of terms.

BTW, if you or any astrological researcher with a genuine interest would like a copy of my paper please email me personally - but with real names please, not aliases. The published C&C paper was restricted for space reasons, and I have some ongoing additions and amendments which I don't currently have time to work on, but I am happy to suppy a copy of the research for anyone working in this area who would struggle to obtain the C&C edition.

Deb

According to this anonymous greek author(who quotes Agostino Nifo) the ptolemaic terms are based on the exaltation, triplicity and rulership.Very interesting is that in Valens, who represent different from Ptolemy stream in hellenistic astrology, we can see same idea (Anthology, book.III, ch.6, p.49) :
?It did not seem good to me that some had postulated bounds for the seven - zoned sphere as 8, 7, 6, 5, 4(and there is no harmony in this way), but it seemed better to postulate from the houses and exaltations and trigons.?

But the anonymous greek author for the determination of the terms used so called triz?dia or three following one after other signs.For example for determination of Aries terms he used Aries and next two following s signs-Taurus and Gemini.
Valens used all signs in the zodiac where one planet have these three dignities and this way he determined terms(first author who published Valens? terms which are different from chaldean, egyptian and so called ptolemaic terms is Bouche-Leclercq in his book ?L 'Astrologie Grecque", Paris, 1899, p.214)

Valens used all signs in the zodiac where one planet have these three dignities and this way he determined terms(first author who published Valens? terms which are different from chaldean, egyptian and so called ptolemaic terms is Bouche-Leclercq in his book ?L 'Astrologie Grecque", Paris, 1899, p.214)

Very interesting. I have never heard about that before. A fourth type of terms belonging to Valens?! Fascinating. Could you share any more information how this compares to the Egyptian terms? I had always assumed Valens was just using those but I have still to get a copy of his Anthology to look for myself.

Thanks

Mark

Here are Valens' terms from Bouche-Leclercq's book:

Thanks

Its very good of you to illustrate the terms like that. This is totally unlike anything I have ever seen.

Here is a useful link showing the other 3 systems of terms:
http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/20 ... or-bounds/

Firstly unlike the Egyptian or Ptolemeic terms (bounds) it differentiates between diurnal and nocturnal charts. The only other system that does this is the Chaldean terms (bounds). However, what seems completely unique about this arrangement is its inclusion of the luminaries!

Very thought provoking and and perplexing.

Mark

Hello Steven,

Thanks for offering your perspective which is always highly valued.

I wonder if certain details aren't being confused in this discussion concerning Valens.

More than likely. As I still lack a copy of the Anthology that does make some misunderstanding of his ideas almost inevitable.

As you can see these are the Egyptian bounds

Well thats good to hear. Its bad enough having three systems of terms to get your head around for natal or horary astrology. Having four to decide between might have sent some of us over the edge.

I had always assumed Valens used the Egyptian terms so to hear something different was was rather perplexing.

So Valens in this particular section is not inventing a new system, he is only correcting an existing system which he feels has given an improper number of degrees of their terms, otherwise the two systems are identical with regards to the order of these terms in each sign.

I accept this system was probably irrelevent for natal or katarchic purposes. Still, even if only meteorological in application this revised system is surely a rather significant 'correction' as you call it. Unless I have misunderstood things I had always thought the Chaldean terms
(like the Egyptian and Ptolemaic) did not include the luminaries? Adding in the luminaries to a system that didn't have them before looks like quite a fundamental alteration to me.

Mark