Display posts from previous
Sort by

BEHOLD! A question of beholding

1 by junaid
Hello again,

A question on beholding. I have always thought that signs beholding each other (or planet that beholds another) means aspect, antiscion or contraantiscion until I read in another forum that beholding means only antiscion/contaantiscion. Comments/assustance appreciated.

Thank you in advance!

3 by junaid
Hello,

Thank you Yuzuru for the prompt response. I thought so. A question though. In the table given by Lilly in his Christian astrology Bk 1, Chapter XIX, he listed Tarus and Scorpio as signs that Aries does not behold. He did not list Virgo and Pisces. This is why I said previously that the antiscion and conta-antiscion signs are still considered in beholding even though they do not aspect each other e.g. Aries-Virgo and Aries-Pisces as mentioned by Lilly.

One other question, in the same list Lilly did not list Virgo as the sign that does not behold Aquarius. Why is this?

4 by yuzuru
I will have to check for sources later, but at least in hellenistic astrology, if memory doesn?t fail me, there are signs that behold each other (aspect) and are other relationships between signs (like hearing, touching, commanding, etc).

An antiscia can diminish aversion, but so can other relationships, like casting an aspect to a planet which is angular and behold the sign. Two planets in antiscia would be connected by their degrees, but I do not remember any source that would considerer it as beholding. I would have to check it out later if time permit of if any body find a concrete source.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

5 by Deb
I only have time for a quick comment, but yes, it is true that anciently the signs related by antiscia connections are referred to as the signs that 'see' (or behold) each other. In the Robbins translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, (I.15) he uses the word 'beholding', whereas I think that Schmidt uses the word 'seeing' for the same section. I would have to check to be sure, but in any case the principle is the same even if the translation terminology differs a little. The signs that make contra-antiscia relationships are then the signs that 'hear' each other. I explain in more detail in this article (I have linked to the most relevant section, after footnote 15):

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html#14back
I read in another forum that beholding means only antiscion/contaantiscion
This may be an ill-informed comment, or actually it may be a very informed comment, because the most ancient texts don't talk about sign relationships in the way that we relate them to planetary aspects. They talk about signs being configured to each other, or about similarities of arrangements - but with the exception of Manilius' description of how the signs of the quadruplicities view each other by primary motion,* the ancient sense of signs sharing sympathy by trine or square was not about casting aspects or receiving light. That seems to be a planetary principle rather than a sign principle.

Deb

(*Manilius versified some older text, and poetically talks about constellations having dramas and relationships with each other, so his references to signs looking at each other in certain ways may not be reliable as an astrological principle).

8 by margherita
Eddy wrote:This 'seeing' is said to be read in the light of the ancient theory that the eyes cast rays on objects.
I hate that theory, because we already had a long thread about it, and no conclusion.

Anyway, maybe in the beginning planets seeing each other could easily be the ones Deborah mentioned, maybe one use is older than the other, and then the meaning became wider.

Anyway in my opinion it's evident that in some moment, to behold means "aspect" see for example Lilly.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

9 by junaid
Hello everybody,

Thanks a lot for the responses!

What about my question about Lilly not listing Virgo as the sign that does not behold Aquarius? Is that a mistake in the copy that I have (printing error) or it was Lilly's intention? If it was his intention, then why?

Thank you again!

10 by Deb
Its a mistake - it has to be because Aquarius cannot behold Virgo if Virgo cannot behold Aquarius (as shown in the table).
That is what I teach in my course. I have a section where I explain this table and how it is designed to show which signs are able to connect to others by aspect, antiscia or contra-antiscia: "Therefore Aries is only prevented from beholding Taurus and Scorpio. By aspect it cannot behold Virgo or Pisces either, but these are not included in the table because it beholds Virgo through antiscia and Pisces through contra-antiscia".

I reproduce the table but include the glyph for Virgo under the Aquarius column with the asterisked remark: "[Virgo?s inclusion under Aquarius has been omitted from Lilly?s original table by mistake. It cannot behold Aquarius.]"

Incidentally, I had wondered whether this might have been corrected in the 1659 2nd edition of Lilly's work, but the facsimile copy I have shows all the columns filled with the four signs that cannot be aspected, so that antiscia and contra-antiscia are ignored. Hence, the Aries column includes the glyphs for Taurus, Virgo, Scorpio and Pisces. Its very difficult for me to tell whether those additions are added by the publisher or by an astrologer who owned the copy, but the added glyphs appear to be handwritten, so I think it must have been the latter.
Last edited by Deb on Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

11 by Deb
BTW, Margherita, in English, to 'behold' is generally used in the same sense as the word aspect as you say. The point I was making earlier is quite subtle and probably needs more explanation than I can add here today, but it concerns the fact that the oldest sources talk about geometrical 'arrangements' between the signs, not 'aspects'. The principle of casting an aspect belongs to the planets, whereas the signs share certain similarities because of their seasonal alliances. So looking at Ptolemy's work, for example, references to signs 'seeing' each other are only discussed in terms of antiscia relationships. I think the analogy of seeing or hearing for antiscia /contra-antiscia is descriptive of the way the connections lie at right angles to each other: antiscia connections cut straight across the solstice axis (seeing across it), whilst contra-antiscia are made vertically instead of horizontally - its like moving our heads around by 90? - we can't see anymore but now we can hear more clearly.

From what I have read in various sources (see for example, dictionary.com), the use of the word 'aspect', from the Latin aspicio doesn't appear in astronomical/astrological texts until the 14th century. I find this quite surprising. I haven't researched this personally yet but my instincts are that it was used earlier than this, and that this would be a point worth researching further.

12 by pankajdubey
From SOED:
beholding adjective (a) looking, watching;(b) (obsolete exc. dial.: orig. an error for beholden) under an obligation, dependent: L15.
the erroneous use in 15th century to Late Middle English could be interesting as well:
beholden /0b??h??ld(?)n/ pred. adjective. LME.
[ORIGIN Orig. pa. pple of behold, which is not otherwise attested in these senses.]

1 Under an obligation (to); indebted. LME.

2 Duty-bound. Now rare or obsolete. LME.
BTW- The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM is worth much more than its weight in Gold :)

PD
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”