The fourth house is called the Under-earth and the time of old age. It signifies the topic of parents and property and hidden matters and the house one is born and foundations and the things happening after death. In horary charts or elections it signifies the action of the astrologer to the aspect of the stars. For either Jupiter or Venus will bestow gain and praises or Saturn or Mars losses and condemnations on the astrologer. Rhetorius The Egyptian, Astrological Commendium Containing His Explanation of The Whole Art of Astrology, Translated from the Greek by James H. Holden.

Hi, long time no see As for the above, isn't that just describing the logic of the "10th from the 7th"? No matter how able the astrologer is or isn't (and that would be shown by the 7th), he will receive "gain and praises" with the benefics in HIS 10th house, and vice versa wtih the malefics. So, basically, we could say that those are 2 different things so that we can keep the astrologer in the 7th

Chris wrote:I would just like to be very careful about projecting our own views of astrology and its application backwards in time, and assuming that since something makes perfect sense to us, that it must have made sense to an ancient astrologer as well

I can't agree more, but Chris, isn't this exactly what you are doing in trying to project backwards your concept of the 'consultation chart' with the suggestion that the texts which discuss querent concerns had no relevance to the matter of enquiry charts? You are forcing a distinction which was not made historically, and trying to define a new branch of astrology that had no recognition historically.

If we stick to the historical facts, the term katarche was used to define electional, inceptional and interrogational astrology - and all of these had the implication of drawing up charts specifically to answer a question, most especially those referred to as "inquiry charts". And I have seen references to the instruction of techniques to be used to answer enquiries predating the 'Palchus collection' and belonging to the era you talk about, so I?m not sure why we have such different conclusions on this.

I've felt tempted to quickly release some of the pertinent references, but my overriding instinct is to wait and publish within the context of the discussion and work for which I did (and am continuing) the research. But to be clear, my position is that the roots of horary are very ancient, and are evident in the ancient discussions on inquiry charts and the branch of astrology that is widely discussed under the traditional title 'interrogational astrology'. I also have evidence that traces some of the traditionally recorded rules of modern day horary back to the pre-Hellenistic sources.

My concern is that the attention that you have brought to this might incline you to adopt an entrenched position where you remain biased in favour of Pingree's arguments, even beyond the point that Pingree would have upheld them. The whole issue is currently getting a lot of exposure on the internet, even on Youtube, which I?m not sure is a good way to clarify the historical situation. That can create a provocative approach, which causes some delicate points to get unduly amplified and others to get unduly simplified. Perhaps its best to accept an area of agreement, that the principle of astrologers using charts specifically to answer queries and concerns is known to be of ancient origins. The rest is detail which can be illuminated as the sources become more widely available for public scrutiny.

Regards
Deb

PS - Hi Ema - good to see you again!

This has been a very interesting thread, thank you for letting those of us like me who are quite ignorant of the historical details such as these 'listen in' on the various points.

Deb, I'm sure it's tempting to do an early release of some of your references but I'd like to encourage you to continue with your original plan. This thread has placed on record the main thrust of things as well as some points of detail and from an 'outsider' point of view that's very useful and sufficient for any of us wanting to think more about it or study the issues and reasons for disagreement to do that. The world can easily wait for the full release and I would say will benefit more from the full release when it comes than from something less complete or released at a time that would run at least to some extent counter to the original conception you had.

Thanks again to all.

Regards

H.

Deb wrote: I can't agree more, but Chris, isn't this exactly what you are doing in trying to project backwards your concept of the 'consultation chart' with the suggestion that the texts which discuss querent concerns had no relevance to the matter of enquiry charts? You are forcing a distinction which was not made historically, and trying to define a new branch of astrology that had no recognition historically.

If we stick to the historical facts, the term katarche was used to define electional, inceptional and interrogational astrology - and all of these had the implication of drawing up charts specifically to answer a question, most especially those referred to as "inquiry charts". And I have seen references to the instruction of techniques to be used to answer enquiries predating the 'Palchus collection' and belonging to the era you talk about, so I?m not sure why we have such different conclusions on this.

I've felt tempted to quickly release some of the pertinent references, but my overriding instinct is to wait and publish within the context of the discussion and work for which I did (and am continuing) the research. But to be clear, my position is that the roots of horary are very ancient, and are evident in the ancient discussions on inquiry charts and the branch of astrology that is widely discussed under the traditional title 'interrogational astrology'. I also have evidence that traces some of the traditionally recorded rules of modern day horary back to the pre-Hellenistic sources.

My concern is that the attention that you have brought to this might incline you to adopt an entrenched position where you remain biased in favour of Pingree's arguments, even beyond the point that Pingree would have upheld them. The whole issue is currently getting a lot of exposure on the internet, even on Youtube, which I?m not sure is a good way to clarify the historical situation. That can create a provocative approach, which causes some delicate points to get unduly amplified and others to get unduly simplified. Perhaps its best to accept an area of agreement, that the principle of astrologers using charts specifically to answer queries and concerns is known to be of ancient origins. The rest is detail which can be illuminated as the sources become more widely available for public scrutiny.

Regards
Deb

No, I'm simply pointing out a technical distinction between what the early Hellenistic and Indian astrologers seem to have been doing, versus what the later Medieval astrologers seem to have been doing. That is no different than pointing out the prevalence of something like whole sign houses in one tradition and quadrant houses in another. The issue here is not me forcing a distinction, but rather that you don't think that there is a difference between horary astrology and consultation charts to begin with, and that is where we will have to agree to disagree.

That you do not acknowledge this distinction makes me doubt that the evidence that you've invoked is actually horary though.

Katarche doesn't mean 'interrogation'. We get the word 'interrogation' from the Greek word eroteseis, which is what the Byzantine astrologers used to refer to horary 'questions' or 'interrogations'.

I have shown myself to be willing to revise my stance on historical issues in the face of compelling new evidence, for example in the case of the Hermetic lot calculations. So, to say that I would adopt a an entrenched or biased perspective if provided with actual evidence of horary is unfair, and frankly it simply seems like rhetoric at this point, as you've presented nothing new or compelling here for me to reconsider. Until you do that, it appears to me that you are the one who has adopted an entrenched position.

Agreed, ?katarche? does not mean 'interrogation' (I think I covered its meaning adequately in my definition), but it is used in reference to electional, inceptional and interrogational charts. And this Greek word is used in Greek texts to refer to inquiry charts. But although there is no historical differentiation of the consultation chart as you describe it, it?s not a point that concerns my research. There is no lack of clarity about references which instruct how to give judgement to an inquiry, and then outline rules which have remained pertinent up to modern horary practice. But scrutinising a snippet of text (though clear enough) is one thing; the context and transmission of principle is just (if not more) important for securing the relevancy and offering illumination of technique. Its on that point that we can agree to differ because I personally feel there is already enough evidence out there to call your view into question, and I don?t feel it is appropriate to publish my work as a response to yours. Anyway, I?m sure you realise that if your argument is secure it will hold up to scrutiny over time.

I'm open to the possibility that the Palchus charts are legitimate and not corrupted or rewritten.

Hello Chris,

As Palchus has been mentioned here I think it might be useful to quote from your review of Benson Bobrick's book 'The Fated Sky' where you set out your position on Palchus charts historically:

One of the more egregious, if not hilarious, examples of the types of mistakes contained in this book is on pg. 20 when he starts talking about ?Palchus?

On the morning of July 14, A.D. 479, a worried client sought out an Egyptian astrologer in Smyrna by the name of Palchus and, at 8:30 A.M., asked whether a ship that he was expecting from Alexandria, now way overdue, would eventually arrive safely, and, if so, when?

The problem with this story is that ?Palchus? is merely a pseudonym of a late 14th century Byzantine astrologer-scribe named Eleutherius Zebelenus of Elis, and not a 5th century Eyptian astrologer, as Bobrick would have you to believe. The horoscope that he is referring to is actually from a group of genuine charts from the 5th century that Elutherius gathered together and edited under the name of ?Palchus?. It is ridiculous that Bobrick simply attempted to turn ?Palchus? into a living Egyptian astrologer from the 5th century when this was merely the handle of this Byzantine scribe. I have my own issues with the supposed horary charts that are collected together under the name ?Palchus? to begin with, but that is sort of a side issue that I can?t really fault Bobrick for since a number of other people made this mistake, or at least what I suspect is a mistake, long before he did.

Still, it seems like if he had really done his homework he would have realized how faulty this statement was, in addition to a number of other statements. It is possible that Bobrick was aware of these issues surrounding the fact that Palchus was the handle of this 14th century scribe and he decided to elaborate the story a bit anyways by taking a bit of artistic license, as he does in a few other parts of the book in his somewhat dramatized style of presentation. I don?t really know.

I assume from this you would apply the same substantive critique to Deb's article on Palchus here on Skyscript?
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shippalchus.html

Mind you that article was first written in the Traditional Astrologer magaine in 1993(!) so Deb's position on these charts may have changed in some respects.

As it seems such an important text to the issue being discussed here it would be really useful to be able to see a translated version of Book 3 of Hephaistio's Apotelesmatics. Its certainly long overdue as the Project Hindsight editions of I & II in the 90's rather left everyone hanging on for the final book. Have you been reading it from the original Greek yourself?

Rhetorius is saying that the 4th signifies the 'praxis' of the astrologer because it is the 10th from the 7th. The 7th is only relevant here because the statement is made within the context of the consultation chart. Within that context, Rhetorius is saying that the 4th house pertains to the 'reputation' of the astrology within the context of the consultation chart. If benefics are there then the consultation will result in 'gain and praises' (Holden's translation) for the astrologer, but if the malefics are there then the consultation will result in 'losses and condemnations' for the astrologer.

Does Rhetorius actually mention this turned signification for the 4th house or is that a speculation on your part? I can see the logic of that position but surely the radical signification of the 4th house with its links to mysteries, secrets and 'occult' matters is no accident here?

Mark

I just gave a quick look to the thread, just a friend of mine last week sent me the article of Franz Cumont on Palchus, where he describes the Codex Angelicanus, a manuscript kept in Rome where it is preserved the work of Palchus.

Cumont says -if I understand well French- Palchus was an Egyptian astrologer living at the end of V century, who called himself a disciple of Ptolemy (Cumont's words) but who worked even outside his country.

margherita

MarkC wrote: I assume from this you would apply the same substantive critique to Deb's article on Palchus here on Skyscript?
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shippalchus.html

Mind you that article was first written in the Traditional Astrologer magaine in 1993(!) so Deb's position on these charts may have changed in some respects.

As it seems such an important text to the issue being discussed here it would be really useful to be able to see a translated version of Book 3 of Hephaistio's Apotelesmatics. Its certainly long overdue as the Project Hindsight editions of I & II in the 90's rather left everyone hanging on for the final book. Have you been reading it from the original Greek yourself?

Rhetorius is saying that the 4th signifies the 'praxis' of the astrologer because it is the 10th from the 7th. The 7th is only relevant here because the statement is made within the context of the consultation chart. Within that context, Rhetorius is saying that the 4th house pertains to the 'reputation' of the astrology within the context of the consultation chart. If benefics are there then the consultation will result in 'gain and praises' (Holden's translation) for the astrologer, but if the malefics are there then the consultation will result in 'losses and condemnations' for the astrologer.

Does Rhetorius actually mention this turned signification for the 4th house or is that a speculation on your part? I can see the logic of that position but surely the radical signification of the 4th house with its links to mysteries, secrets and 'occult' matters is no accident here?

Mark

I outlined my position on the Palchus charts earlier in this thread. There is a fuller translation of that text in Greek Horoscopes by the way.

I identified the sections of Dorotheus that contained references to horary in the Arabic, and I spent some time going over the corresponding passages in Hephaistio with Schmidt when I was still at Project Hindsight. I have some partial translations of sections of the book, and I have done some work in studying the Greek on my own.

It is an observation on my part.

I outlined my position on the Palchus charts earlier in this thread. There is a fuller translation of that text in Greek Horoscopes by the way.

Thanks. I have Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's translation so I will check that out.

I identified the sections of Dorotheus that contained references to horary in the Arabic, and I spent some time going over the corresponding passages in Hephaistio with Schmidt when I was still at Project Hindsight. I have some partial translations of sections of the book, and I have done some work in studying the Greek on my own.

It sounds a fascinating text. However, as I dont read Greek (and I am not likely to) I guess I have to be very patient awaiting the emergence of an English translation of book 3 of Hephaistio. With the current very slow rate of the new Project Hindsight translations it looks like being many years away.

Mark

Mind you that article was first written in the Traditional Astrologer magazine in 1993(!) so Deb's position on these charts may have changed in some respects.

I think Chris did explain his point on this earlier, but to clarify my position on why that article appears just as it does, the answer is that it reproduces content from a magazine published nearly 20 years ago. To give you a sense of how dated this is now, this was published even before Project Hindsight started up, so it was pretty 'cutting edge' for its time, when not many astrologers were even aware of the 'Greek Horoscopes' collection. At that time I would not have dared to have reproduced the text from Greek Horoscopes because it was under copyright, (in fact I think it still is). It wasn't usual then for astrologers to be talking about the origin and definition of Greek astrological terms, and I used a much older translation and added some annotations as a way to make the chart known.

I later learned of Pingree's arguments that there is no astrologer called Palchus, as claimed in Greek Horoscopes, but that this is label relevant to the name of the place where the charts were cast. It seems to me that it's still convenient to refer to the 'Palchus charts', or to 'the anonymous astrologer known as Palchus', however, if I were going to write a book about the history of astrology then I wouldn't want to mention the Palchus charts without clarifying that point.

If I had to worry about keeping all pages on this site up to date with the latest theories and discoveries, I'd have no alternative but to take down a lot of pages with basically sound information and a few debateable comments. Its an issue I wonder about though, especially because I now disagree with some earlier views that I wrote myself - or at least my arguments now would be a lot sharper and clearer. We have a double whammy in that the astrological understanding of ancient texts, and internet technology are both developing so quickly that I find it hard to keep up with both of them!

Just to ask, this is Pingree theory or there is an evidence and generally accepted? Because Cumont article is still mentioned in Warburg bibliography for example.


margherita

margherita wrote:Just to ask, this is Pingree theory or there is an evidence and generally accepted? Because Cumont article is still mentioned in Warburg bibliography for example.

Its something that Pingree wrote about several times, and criticized some of the earlier historians for, although I don't know if anyone else has addressed it since. I know that Bezza wrote an article on Elutherius/Palchus's natal chart sometime recently, so perhaps he addressed the issue there?