I went to the online etymology dictionary and found this:

aspect
late 14c., an astronomical term, "relative position of the planets as they appear," from L. aspectus "seeing, looking, appearance," from pp. of aspicere "to look at," from ad- "to" + specere "to look" (see scope (1)). Meaning "the look one wears, the appearance of things" arose 1590s.

The last is interesting since it shifts the usage from the verb "look" to the noun "look." In other words it has less to do with seeing than "being seen." Following this train of thought an "aspect" is taken as a unit, not two individual planets, and gives the observer a certain appearance from which the observer may deduce something.

This would indicate that our usual understanding of the origin of the word "aspect," i.e., "to glance," is off kilter. The planets in aspect give a certain appearance or "look."

With no disrepect to others here I personally dont think etymology is really going to get to the bottom of what the issue 'beholding' or 'seeing' really meant regarding the signs. Not least because it is hellenistic in origin. Some degree of clarity underlining the philosophy of this idea seems to have been literally 'lost in translation'.

As Deb has already indicated it seems clear early sources differentiated between the relationship between planets and signs (Zoidia). For example Dorotheus of Sidon in his Carmen Astrologicum takes great efforts to distinguish between the aspects between planets and influence of the different zoidia to each other. He discusses each on its own terms.

In hellenistic terms its something of a misnomer to discuss signs 'seeing or beholding each other without also considering when the signs are invisible or 'blind' to each other. This is generally, known as aversion in hellenistic astrology.

Here is a a very illuminating article by Steven Birchfield on the classical understanding of the relationship between the signs (Zoidia).

http://www.astrologycom.com/livingsigns2.html

http://www.astrologycom.com/livingsigns3.html

http://www.astrologycom.com/livingsigns4.html

With no disrepect to others here I personally dont think etymology is really going to get to the bottom of what the issue 'beholding' or 'seeing' really meant regarding the signs.

On the contrary, unless and until we can telepathically communicate with the dead, written language is all that we have to let us know what they were thinking. Words are chosen and accepted for a reason. They communicate an idea. The first 15th century astrologer who chose to use the Latin word that we translate as "aspect" did so because it conveyed the idea he was trying to communicate. Knowing what that word meant to him and to others that copied his usage tells us what that idea is. The original meaning is the best we have to go on.

Not least because it is hellenistic in origin.

All the more reason to trace etymology. There should either be a connection or a misfire along the way. Translators sometimes make mistakes or they misunderstand. We don't know unless we trace the origin of the word.

This occurs in English to English understanding as well. I don't know if what follows is 100% accurate, but it serves as a good example of my point even if it turns out to be wrong. When describing the void Moon in horary Lilly says something like "things hardly go on." It's in English so we all understand, right? It means the thing queried will not occur. Frawley argued that in Lilly's day "hardly" meant "with difficulty." He is therefore saying that the thing inquired about, if the rest of the chart agrees, will go on but with difficulty. This is not what is usually taught. It is etymology that shows us Lilly's intent.

Hi Tom,

On the contrary, unless and until we can telepathically communicate with the dead, written language is all that we have to let us know what they were thinking. Words are chosen and accepted for a reason. They communicate an idea. The first 15th century astrologer who chose to use the Latin word that we translate as "aspect" did so because it conveyed the idea he was trying to communicate. Knowing what that word meant to him and to others that copied his usage tells us what that idea is. The original meaning is the best we have to go on.

I do feel rather misrepresented. You have taken my specific comment and universalized it as if I was making a general comment against the value of etymology. I wasn't. So you have rather used my comments as a bit of an Aunt Sally. Its just that I dont think the mind set or language of a 15th century renaissance astrologer will necessarily help us decipher a concept rooted in Greek astrology. The main language we really need to be studying here is Greek not Latin! Of course there is the much wider point of how this links in to the issue of aspectual theory later on. I think that is a valuable but fundamentally different issue to the point about the signs in relationship to each other.

Anyway, I do recommend people take the time to read Steven's article.

Mark

I do feel rather misrepresented. You have taken my specific comment and universalized it as if I was making a general comment against the value of etymology.

That was not my intent. My intent was to show that there is more than general value to etymology. I happen to think it is of extreme importance.

Its just that I don't think the mind set or language of a 15th century renaissance astrologer will necessarily help us decipher a concept rooted in Greek astrology.

It tells us what he is thinking of the Greek concept, whether he knew it was Greek or not. All astrology as it exists today or then, is not Greek. It's origins are Greek. If we feel Hellenistic astrology is the way to go, then, yes, it doesn't matter what the Renaissance astrologers thought where they differ from the Greeks. Just stick with the Greek. This is what I believe Schmidt does and he uses examples of medieval astrologers to demonstrate how they differ from the original Greek. This is fine if we wish to practice Hellenistic astrology as the Hellenistic Greeks understood it. But if we wish to go elsewhere for whatever reasons, e.g. Zoller believing that medieval astrology, not Greek, was astrology's high point, we need to understand medieval, Renaissance and later astrologers, many of whom were ignorant of the Greek contributions, e.g. Morin. And it is here that I believe etymology and worldview are of special importance.

I have no problem with learning Greek astrology, practicing it exclusively and learning just what the Greeks intended. It has great value and it's fun. But there is more.

All astrology as it exists today or then, is not Greek.

I am sure quite a few practitoners of hellenistic astrology today would disagree! Plus how can you disconnect the tradition from the Greeks language sources like Ptolemy, or Dorotheus who clearly had an influence on Persian/Arabic, Medieval or Renaissance astrologers? Lets not forget the flame of traditional astrology pretty much died out everywhere before its revival. So all traditionalists whether studying Lilly, Morin etc at one end or Valens and Ptolemy at the other end are seeking to breathe life into an astrological lineage that basically ceased to exist. In that respect hellenistic, medieval or late renaissance astrology are all on an equal footing. Is there really that much difference between studying Bonatti or Valens and trying to apply their ideas today?

If we feel Hellenistic astrology is the way to go, then, yes, it doesn't matter what the Renaissance astrologers thought where they differ from the Greeks. Just stick with the Greek. This is what I believe Schmidt does and he uses examples of medieval astrologers to demonstrate how they differ from the original Greek. This is fine if we wish to practice Hellenistic astrology as the Hellenistic Greeks understood it. But if we wish to go elsewhere for whatever reasons, e.g. Zoller believing that medieval astrology, not Greek, was astrology's high point, we need to understand medieval, Renaissance and later astrologers, many of whom were ignorant of the Greek contributions, e.g. Morin. And it is here that I believe etymology and worldview are of special importance.

I am certainly no fundamentalist believing one historical period has all the answers. I dont think its an issue of hellenistic vs medieval astrology. However, if you are a historian looking at the history of ideas you normally start with your earliest sources first rather than work backwards. From that you can gain an idea of how ideas developed and morphed over time. I just think in regards the particular issue being discussed in this thread, ie how signs see or behold each other, its very valuable to gain an understanding of how these concepts first developed. That doesn't imply people have to accept all the notions espoused by hellenistic astrology. However, to reject something its surely better to understand exactly what you are rejecting in the first place. Also if you haven't looked in depth at the earlier sources how can you determine whether their influence has carried on or not?

Mark

Hello

I don't have a copy (or access to one) of the Greek text of Tetrabiblos, but the English-language translations contain both the word 'aspect' and the word 'behold' in different places.

Since aspect is Latin and behold is of Germanic origin I'm interested in what the original Greek terms were, one of which has been translated as 'aspect' and the other as 'behold'. (Presuming there are not more than two...)

Does anybody here know what the original Greek words were in Tetrabiblos?

Regards

H.

Hi Handn

A quick answer that might help in your query ? the chapter in the Tetrabiblos that Robbins headed ?Of the Aspects of the Signs? (I.13), is found in Ashmand?s translation of the Paraphrase under the title ?Mutual Configurations of the Signs? (I.16). Robert Schmidt sticks to a more literal English translation and uses the phrase ?Concerning the Twelfth-Parts that are Configured? (I.14). In general, passages that we assume to be relevant to the ?aspects of the signs? tend to be talking about the ?arrangement?, ?configuration? or ?relationships? of the signs. (At least in the ancient texts that I have been studying lately).

Deb

Thanks Deb

That makes a lot of sense

Hello,

Thank you all!

I am sure quite a few practitoners of hellenistic astrology today would disagree! Plus how can you disconnect the tradition from the Greeks language sources like Ptolemy, or Dorotheus who clearly had an influence on Persian/Arabic, Medieval or Renaissance astrologers? Lets not forget the flame of traditional astrology pretty much died out everywhere before its revival.

Now I think I 'm the one who is being misrepresented, since you left out my quote that said our astrology had Greek origins. I never said there was no influence as the above paragraph implies. Horary astrology does not appear to be Greek. Ptolemy's astrology is not identical to Paulus', house meanings changed (in some cases radically. Didn't Ptolemy put children in the 10th?), techniques were added, and so on. My point was simply that what we practice today, and what was practiced by medieval, Renaissance and later astrologers, is not 100% Hellenistic Greek astrology. In fact the impression I've received over the years is that many medieval and renaissance astrologers were unaware of the Greek origins or if aware were unaware of the extent of the contributions. My further point was that people like Schmidt are unearthing and explaining 100% Greek astrology and some people like that and want to practice that way - but not everyone. Astrology didn't stop developing after the Hellenists, and everything that came after them that varies is not a corruption.

Now I think I 'm the one who is being misrepresented, since you left out my quote that said our astrology had Greek origins. I never said there was no influence as the above paragraph implies. Horary astrology does not appear to be Greek. Ptolemy's astrology is not identical to Paulus', house meanings changed (in some cases radically. Didn't Ptolemy put children in the 10th?), techniques were added, and so on. My point was simply that what we practice today, and what was practiced by medieval, Renaissance and later astrologers, is not 100% Hellenistic Greek astrology.

Ok fair enough. I dont disagree with you if that is all you meant.

In fact the impression I've received over the years is that many medieval and renaissance astrologers were unaware of the Greek origins or if aware were unaware of the extent of the contributions.

That may be the case. I dont dispute that. Whether it was conscious to them or not it was surely there. Moreover, today as modern astrologers we have access to information and textual resources not available to some of these astrologers.

My further point was that people like Schmidt are unearthing and explaining 100% Greek astrology and some people like that and want to practice that way - but not everyone. Astrology didn't stop developing after the Hellenists, and everything that came after them that varies is not a corruption.

I dont think I said anything that implies disagreement with your point above. My interest is in studying the traditional texts across history. However, the more ancient texts seems very relevant to this thread.

I am personally less and less interested in astrological labels or tribes. 'Hellenistic', 'Medieval', 'Classical' or even 'Traditional'. I do think many people like to focus around a particular era or astrologer. This has the reward that you can really get inside the methodology of a particular period of astrology. The history of astrology is so immense you do have to ground yourself somewhere. It also helps to ensure your approach is philosophically self consistent. Where this approach can become an issue though is when people suggest this era has all the answers and everything before and/or after is largely irrelevent. That kind of of exclusivist outlook can take on quasi-fundamentalist features. Thats not just an accusation that can be laid at the door of some of those practising hellenistic astrology. The same point could be made about some 'Traditional astrologers' following medieval techniques or some modern astrology.

Mark