O, I think most people have a romantic idea of Brazil! I live in a kind of city that never sleeps: lot of traffic, violence, pollution...:-(

Yes I was aware of that. Sao Paulo is a sprawling Metropolis. Plus I saw the movie City of God so I am aware Brazil has considerable levels of poverty and large disparities in the distribution of wealth.

But there are places outside town, for example Campos de Jord?o, a city in the countryside, where you can see the sky so dark and the stars twinkling: no people, only the bugs singing. It is amazing. Out there I feel like the sky is something alive.

Something that many city dwellers across the world have lost.

Okay, I was not sure what you was referring to. But only Base is constructed with the 2 Lots, isn?t it?

I didn't know that! As I said I have only started seriously looking at lots very recently. You are clearly correct. The Hermetic Lots are not purely based on Lots. However, they rely on working with a planet to a Lot. So you need considerable trust in the Lot of Fortune and Spirit to start working with them. My slight anxiety probably relates to my naturalistic sympathies which is why I study fixed stars. Of course its all symbolism. However, it seems one place further removed from celestial reality in the Hermetic lots and two places further removed in the Lot of Base.

The other slightly confusing thing is the different Lot traditions even in the classical era. Hence Valens has a different system (excluding the Lot of Fortune and Spirit). Its less transparent if we just look at Brennan's article as he is restricting his thoughts to mostly Paulus and Olypiodorus. Still, I dont think these differences are irreconciliable myself. However, If you start incorporating medieval Lots too its gets really messy with various methods to calculate Lot of marriage, Mother etc. After years of 'dabbling' and looking at sources all over the tradition I have decided to focus my efforts on classical astrology for now. My adoption of whole sign houses as significators of areas of life was a key element in that process.

I do think we need a sense of proportionality here. In her article in Culture and Cosmos Dorian Greenbaum shows research that out of about 300 extant charts from the Hellenistic tradition, approximately 91 calculate the Lot of Fortune (in one form or another), and 33 employ the Lot of Spirit, thus making them by far the two most widely employed lots. Lets explore the other lots but I do think we should not lose the central importance of these two Lots.

Mark

I think I have seen this thread too late to try to catch up with it, but it looks like a lot of very interesting information. However, it seems to be changing topic and since it is already quite long, and the new information is very interesting too, it would be better to start a new thread to continue discussion on the lots (then other members will find that discussion more easily).

Regards
Deb

Hi Deb

I think I have seen this thread too late to try to catch up with it, but it looks like a lot of very interesting information. However, it seems to be changing topic and since it is already quite long, and the new information is very interesting too, it would be better to start a new thread to continue discussion on the lots (then other members will find that discussion more easily).

Hope you had a nice time in France.

Yes we have moved from stars to lots! Probably my fault.

I have started a new thread thread on the 'Hermetic Lots' over on the traditional forum.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 5401#55401

Mark

Hi all,

I think the topic of fixed stars in astrology (also the lots but I'm trying to go back to the original heading of this thread) is well worth to be investigated more deeply as their traditions are weak and their way of application is somewhat dubious. Certainly, there are some modern proponents of newly invented or re-discovered applications, but, to my mind, the first question to be asked is how the teaching(s) regarding fixed stars were transmitted from Mesopotamia through the Greeks, Persians, Arabs to Europe again.

Looking at the various early traditions, three more or less different branches of the tradition can be ascertained. The first is, of course, Claudius Ptolemy, who treats fixed stars in his Scientific Treatise (the Almagest), Phases and Apotelesmatics, of which only the latter is astrology specifical. In the Treatise, the data of 1028 stars are given: constellation, ecliptic longitude and latitude, and brightness expressed in magnitude. In the Phases, the theory of risings and settings of the fixed stars is covered, and a parapegma (star catalog based on stellar appearances and disappearances in the course of the year) is given with weather predictions. All of these material, which are apparently drawn on such earlier authorities as Hipparchus and others, have little to do with astrology, however, in the Apotelesmatics the astrological significance of fixed stars in various (zodiacal and extra-zodiacal) constellations is given, modelled after the temperament of one or two wandering stars. In this description, which refers to the "ancients", sometimes even the luminaries are used, which is a peculiarity of Ptolemy's system. Otherwise no clue is given how the stars should be utilized in astrological context: whether their diurnal phases, or their co-rising and co-setting with wandering stars, or their ecliptical projection is to be used. Certainly, Ptolemy's chapter is duly incorporated by Hephaestio in his Apotelesmatics.

Now, there is another branch of the tradition that is connected to but not derived from Ptolemy. It is widely thought that the earliest survived author on this is the so-called Anonymous of 397; I regard his existence highly dubious as the chapters are preserved in the "Palchus" collection of Eleutherius Elius, who is otherwise quite infamous for his drastic editorial principles and shameless forgeries. Moreover, this author is too much well informed about his predecessors' work ("too much" means sometimes his attributions seem to be rather audacious), for he refers such a number of other authorities as Rhetorius does more than 200 years later. Excluding this obscure personality, remains the data for two stellar observations in about 480 and 505. The first one is focused on stars harming health and especially vision (later called al-zam?na or "azimene" stars), which was already alluded by Ptolemy in the chapter about ailments, while the second treats the 30 brighty stars, almost the same ones Ptolemy classified as first and second in magnitude order. In both cases, data are given in ecliptical longitude, and in the latter the temperament (often different from Ptolemy), the northern or southern latitude, and the magnitude is appended. These two observations may well have been carried out by a single person, and if can believe for a unique attribution made probably by the 10th century Demophilus, this astronomer/astrologer was Iulianus of Laodicea. Although his original hasn't been preserved, several reworkings exist.

Rhetorius does an extensive use of these chapters and it may be suspected that the discussion of lecherous portions and images belongs to the same author. Therefore the question of fixed stars could be connected to the teachings on decans and individual portions that points to Teucer of Babylon as an early representative of such theories. At the same time, there is a Pahlav? translation of the chapter on the 30 stars (awiy?b?n?g in Persian, meaning "fixed", henceforth b?b?n?ya or biy?b?n?ya in Arabic, usually rendered as behenia and beibenia) which is attributed to Hermes. I flirt with van Bladel's theory which says that the cause of this misattribution was that a chapter describing topical places and referring to Hermes was exactly before the chapter on fixed stars - as it appears in Rhetorius. If it's right, that would mean that the compiler of the Rhetorius epitome didn't really changed too much and that Rhetorius copied from Iulianus almost word-to-word.

Now, neither Rhetorius' nor the Pahlav? version is preserved. Luckily, for Rhetorius there are numerous epitomes and fragments, and there is a partially survived Arabic version of the Pahlav? text with its wholly preserved Latin translation, not to count the incorporation of them by M?sh??all?h and Ab? Ma?shar. Even more, there are two known reworkings, the first by Theophilus of Edessa, who recalculating the positions for 768 adapts the descriptions to catarchical instead of genethlialogical astrology; the second occurs in the Rhetorian epitome made possibly by Demophilus, where the positions are aligned to 884. (He is the editor who copied some Rhetorian chapters to Porphyry's texts; otherwise no mention of fixed stars can be found in Porphyry or Antiochus of Athens.)

At last, the texts deriving from Iulianus help us to see how these stars should be used. The only problem is that the Greek texts published so far (and their modern translations) are always conflated versions from the different epitomes of Rhetorius, thus they need to be used cautiously. Putting away these incertainties, it is clear that no matter the stars are called paranatellonta (meaning "co-rising stars"), they have to be utilized when having the same portion as the pivots and the wandering stars. (The Pahlav? version omits IMC and includes only the Sun and the Moon.) It fits perfectly to the way of the treatment of the fixed stars as the only reason to give the ecliptical position is if we are supposed to use them. This usage is fairly constant in medieval age.

The way how fixed stars are compared to the nature of wandering ones, even there are differences between the tradition of Ptolemy and that of Iulianus, ought to make us imagine a common source. It might be the previously mentioned Teucer of Babylon (to avoid confusion, he's thought to come from Babylon in Egypt, not from Mesopotamia), who lived possibly in 1st century CE, but this can hardly be proved convincingly. Even then, the theory of the nature of fixed stars goes back to Mesopotamian observation where their colour helped to identify what temperament they had. It is thoroughly discussed by Franz Boll in an article. On the other hand, there is the tradition of weather parapegmata, stemming back at least to Hipparchus, which lives on even in Rhetorius.

This list of sources shows that the teaching on fixed stars wasn't especially strong in Hellenistic times. Most of the authors (like Dorotheus of Sidon and Antiochus) don't even mention them or just make a passing remark (such as Antigonus of Nicea and Vettius Valens). In the latter case, we haven't got a slightest clue how they handled this question but at least in Antigonus it is clear that ecliptical projection was used. It may mean that it was the original way of usage (and thus it isn't an innovation by Iulianus) and that it was developed no later than early 2nd century. That would explain its relative neglect in traditions that primarily draw upon Dorotheus and Antiochus.

Finally, there is a third, curious branch of this tradition represented by only one text, the Nativities attributed to Zoroaster. This treatise, which is an Arabic translation of a Pahlav? text, is thought to stem back to a Greek original by a 3rd century ?arr?nian named Aelius. It contains a chapter on 16 fixed stars, which can be compared to the list of 30 stars. This vague description sometimes gives natures, latitudes, and whether the star is lucky or unlucky; the latter is a distinct feature of this text that may show a Sassanian innovation (I prefer this explanation) or something lost in the other branches of the tradition. In this text it is also clear that ecliptical projection is utilized, no matter the star has a greater latitude. Therefore I can only conclude that if we talk about fixed stars in astrology proper, the tradition, whose various branches occur in various contexts, seems to have used portional conjunction with pivots and wandering stars while the outcome was a combination of the natures of the fixed and wandering star. While a conception of co-rising stars did exist in astronomy and calendrical weather predictions, it seems not to have been incorporated to astrology, at least in the early times.

Hi,
I believe is a little far from the discussion, but maybe readers would like some material on the lore of the constellations and stars:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/G ... /home.html

http://www.ianridpath.com/startales/startales3.htm

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Fixedstars.htm

Hello Deb:

I think I have seen this thread too late to try to catch up with it, but it looks like a lot of very interesting information.

Welcome home:-))
We missed you in the present discussion!

regards

Cl?lia

Have deleted some posts to keep the discussion sharp. Basically, Mark praised Levente's post and suggested he start a new thread in the traditional forum, and I said let's keep this thread together but can move the whole thing. That seemed to meet with agreement, so here we are in the trad forum

Deb

Wherever the discussion ends up here I am finding it very interesting. Osthanes has certainly given us a lot to think about.

I am going to have to do a bit research before replying to such an impressive post.

Mark

Hi,

as Clelia started this thread, I feel the question's up to her if it should stay or be moved to the traditional section.

I just wanted to share some of my infos and thoughts on this topic, and of course, I'm open to any discussions. Sorry, the style was (and, alas, is usually) so dense, dry and cold, but it would really deserve pretty much time to improve stylistically, which, unluckily, I can't afford.

Levente

I like the idea of leaving the decision about possible movement with Clelia.

Levente, I have often thought that some of your posts would make good articles, which would give you space you need to unfold your ideas. But I understand about needing time to make more formal offerings, and I think we are all happy for you to contribute in whatever way you can, especially since your posts are always so informative.

Regards
Deb

Sorry, the style was (and, alas, is usually) so dense, dry and cold, but it would really deserve pretty much time to improve stylistically, which, unluckily, I can't afford.

Hello Levente,

I doubt any people actually view your posts like that here. As Robert Burns said:

O, wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!

Your posts are undoubtably amongst the most impressive on Skyscript. Its not just your knowledge of Greek and Latin but your appreciation for the whole culture including the underlying religious and philosophical themes. I believe you have mentioned you are a professional Philologist and it certainly shows. Unlike some of us you put a considerable amount of thought into the organisation of your posts which gives them a structure and cogency that commands respect. I do hope you find the space to take up Deb's invitation to write something here at some point. In any case thanks for your input. Your presenting material I haven't seen anywhere else.

Mark

Hello Deb, Mark and All:

I like the idea of leaving the decision about possible movement with Clelia

.

I do not have problems about moving the thread: when I began the discussion I was not sure if I had to post here or there. So, for me it?s okay.
Besides this, if moving it will make room for more exchange of ideas, I think it will be a good decision!

regards

Cl?lia