Thanks, Nixx, but it doesn't "correct" my thoughts on the matter.

1. It's a thoughtful essay. Some footnotes not only would have made it more helpful to anyone seriously interested in the origins of western astrology, but would have acknowledged previous authors who influenced it.

2. Schmidt wrote: "The mystery of its founding only grows deeper when we consider that it seems to have sprung forth virtually fully-formed in a singular act of autogenesis.... . The large majority of the concepts, techniques, and principles of interpretation that are the mainstay of Hellenistic astrology cannot be traced back to any earlier or contemporary source." I don't buy this at all. We can see fore-runners of the Hellenistic astrological tests in Aratus and Ovid, in the Babylonian cuniform horoscopes, and in some of the Egyptian cultural astronomy, as well.

3. Maybe the decision is subjective as to whether there are a lot or a few surviving texts. Given the ones Schmidt cites, I'd say a few. But what about the archaeological materials? Schmidt doesn't mention them. We have hardly any extant materials prior to the start of the common era.

4. Maybe one of the problems of historical scholarship is that one can find what one expects to find. Schmidt sees coherence where I see a lot of diversity. I don't deny the coherence where it exists, in part because the authors tended to copy one another. But I think he has scripted-out the diversity of thematic house contents in the different sources.

5. I was left incredulous by this statement: "In fact, the lineage recorded by Firmicus Maternus gives credit to Hermes Trismegistus for the founding of this astrology, whom he says passed it on to one Asclepius, whereupon it was explicated by Nechepso and Petosiris and promulgated by Abram, Orpheus, and Critodemus. Moreover, most of the core doctrines that characterize Hellenistic astrology are independently ascribed to these same astrologers by later Hellenistic authors as well, often in the form of direct quotations of their writings or paraphrases of their doctrines."First of all, some of these "astrologers" are pseudepigraphical: i.e., mythological or legendary. There was no single "Hermes Trismegistus": rather, this was a body of literature with different authors writing under the name of the "greatest" Hermes. Greek and Roman authors often romanticized their own pasts, attributing origins to legendary founders. And how "independent" are the "later" authors? Here is where some citations would be helpful. Tamsyn Barton's book on ancient astrology is helpful in dispelling the fictional quality of some of astrology's history.

6. Re: Schmidt's section: "Preliminary Survey of the Contents of the Hellenistic Astrological Corpus." I won't bore you with a repetition of my posts on historical methodology. They're up there. I repeat my comment, however, that attention to the guidelines of historiography would be extremely helpful for astrologers who want to write history.

7. The section on the philosophical underpinnings of western astrology seems out of touch with the scholarly publications on this point.

There's more, but 'nuff said.

Hi everyone,

I appreciate all of the input going into this thread, but I feel that some of the arguments and stuff could be a bit lightened. This was my inquiry in effort of gaining better insight to the traditional methods and ways of how this science is applied. While I'm really happy that this thread has so much input, I think we should all be trying to pool our knowledge together in an effort toward the Placidus/Whole Sign thing.

That being said, I have actually used Porphyry over the past couple weeks and I must say that of all the systems so far I really like that one. I may not know as much as some of the others here, but I enjoy reading what everyone has said. I often wonder what the ancients would think of our discussions.

Anyway, I realize this response has no real "meat" to it, but I figured I would just like to continue our discussion on these forms of house systems, which, I believe I had read several times, that we probably will never know which is the most accurate, or whichever fits the best. I am beginning to wonder if exiling any of them would be an error, but then that begs the question as to why there were so many in the first place.

As for everyone else, carry on -- and also please have a wonderful, joyous holiday.

waybread wrote:But I detect an opinion here (and on a thread in another astrology forum) that:

1. unless an astrologer can read ancient Greek, his/her opinions on the astrology of antiquity can be dismissed.

2. Entire English translations of ancient texts can be dismissed on the grounds that some words are mis-translated.

This is too simplistic. It just means that there's a greater chance that someone could be mis-informed. BTW, that also includes me because my Greek is not very good, which is why when I said something in the past, I've tried to make sure the reader knows where this is coming from. It is just common sense to admit that unless we've got first hand understanding that our thoughts on what the ancients said in Greek are more likely to be flawed.

The ironic thing about this is that I don't dismiss Deb's opinion. I was trying to see where her opinion was coming from. But I do think it is very reasonable that if her opinion is coming from personal experience, that it should be taken one way, whereas it is coming from some sort of other examination, to take it accordingly. We all make judgements like this whether we admit it or not. As Alan White used to say, we have a right to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

BTW, what other forum? This one is the only one I spend any significant time with.

zoidsoft wrote:OK. Then probably someone else translated the Greek terms which suggest "angular triad" before Schmidt and it shouldn't be too hard to track down a source who makes the same arguments about fate based upon the motions of the Same and the Other.

On that, I have no information and no opinion.

waybread wrote:My Hellenistic astrology education is incomplete, but I actually started with on-line articles by Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan (!) that suggested (to me) a seamless narrative in ancient texts.

It's definitely not a seamless narrative and how you get this from Schmidt is beyond me. Schmidt has said hundreds of times about various passages that the Greek is very tricky and he has had to change his opinion more than once because of it.

waybread wrote: 5. I was left incredulous by this statement: "In fact, the lineage recorded by Firmicus Maternus gives credit to Hermes Trismegistus for the founding of this astrology, whom he says passed it on to one Asclepius, whereupon it was explicated by Nechepso and Petosiris and promulgated by Abram, Orpheus, and Critodemus. Moreover, most of the core doctrines that characterize Hellenistic astrology are independently ascribed to these same astrologers by later Hellenistic authors as well, often in the form of direct quotations of their writings or paraphrases of their doctrines."

First of all, some of these "astrologers" are pseudepigraphical: i.e., mythological or legendary. There was no single "Hermes Trismegistus": rather, this was a body of literature with different authors writing under the name of the "greatest" Hermes....

This is not accurate because it is taken out of context. Schmidt has also said countless times (what I've highlighted from your comment in bold) that "Hermes" could be a mythological or assumed name for an individual writing under an assumed name or a group working together.

Isaac Asimov said something to that effect. In a health crisis, whose opinion matters more, that of a physician or that of a bystander who saw someone collapse? It is more logical to give the physicians medical opinion more weight.

No it is not. If the patient is knocked out then the bystander knows more than the physician miles away in a hospital.

I am no defender of democracy but this is a typical denial of reality over theory that bedevils modern thought.

Matthew Gump

Mjacob wrote:

Isaac Asimov said something to that effect. In a health crisis, whose opinion matters more, that of a physician or that of a bystander who saw someone collapse? It is more logical to give the physicians medical opinion more weight.

No it is not. If the patient is knocked out then the bystander knows more than the physician miles away in a hospital.

I am no defender of democracy but this is a typical denial of reality over theory that bedevils modern thought.

Matthew Gump

What is reality? As for the metaphor, this is a ridiculous stretch. By your logic the bystander should not bother to call the ambulance and just treat the patient on his own and can expect a better result.

But to be more direct and less ridiculous, without having read the texts in the original Greek we are dependent upon what others who do have said and until one has studied enough to be competent all one really accomplishes is a muddying of the field if we treat all opinions as equal. It will lead into error and away from truth insofar as what the original authors of those texts meant.

Waybread,

Thanks, Nixx, but it doesn't "correct" my thoughts on the matter.

It does ''correct'' your erroneous postulation here which claimed he has (consistently) argued for a seamless overt narrative over the 6 centuries, or thereabouts, he has been looking at.
If it is the case he has suggested this elsewhere then please produce the evidence. I?m with Zoidsoft in suggesting this is a luminous case of au contraire.

2. Schmidt wrote: "The mystery of its founding only grows deeper when we consider that it seems to have sprung forth virtually fully-formed in a singular act of autogenesis. The large majority of the concepts, techniques, and principles of interpretation that are the mainstay of Hellenistic astrology cannot be traced back to any earlier or contemporary source." I don't buy this at all. We can see fore-runners of the Hellenistic astrological tests in Aratus and Ovid, in the Babylonian cuniform horoscopes, and in some of the Egyptian cultural astronomy, as well.

Whether or not you buy it would involve an analysis of this ''fully formed'' Hellenistic astrology. Involving an identification of what components pre-dated it and then evidence how Schmidt?s large majority (above two thirds?) were found pre the Hellenistic period. I can post, if interested, a partial methodology bumped into some time ago, to give you a sense of the challenge ahead.

6. Re: Schmidt's section: "Preliminary Survey of the Contents of the Hellenistic Astrological Corpus." I won't bore you with a repetition of my posts on historical methodology. They're up there. I repeat my comment, however, that attention to the guidelines of historiography would be extremely helpful for astrologers who want to write history

Isn?t this section bog standard historiography, and the kind of Overview one would find in a Standard Introduction to an academic book or paper. Were it presented as such then one would need to provide the references and footnotes, but it isn?t.

7. The section on the philosophical underpinnings of western astrology seems out of touch with the scholarly publications on this point

If a philosopher had produced a paper in response to Schmidt?s Middle Platonism hypothesis I?d have thought it would have received more publicity. I will keep my credulity unstretched whilst you dig up a reference or two.

Curtis, I don't intend my comments about Robert Schmidt at all personally. I focus on what people write. I responded to a specific article recommended by Nixx. If it is an older article expressing views that RS no longer holds, he probably has the ability to revise it or give it a new preface. But the issue to me isn't whether RS does or does not hold a particular opinion now-- it is, rather, what he has written and kept posted that is my focus.

Frankly all of those "founders" of Hellenistic astrology mentioned in Schmidt's article (cited in Firmicus Maternus IV: preface) appear to have legendary or mythical origins. It was not at all uncommon for the authors of antiquity to ascribe origins of something to gods or reinvented heroes. I mean, there was no Romulus or Remus, and Jupiter's affairs with various women actually did not explain the origins of various ethnic groups in antiquity.

Here is where some sort of historical method or knowledge of mythology would come in handy, of the sort that Tamsyn Barton (Ancient Astrology, 1994) applied to stories that circulated in antiquity about several practicing astrologers. These narratives appeared several times with different figures, indicating that we are looking at "type scenes." The individuals may have existed, but the stories told about them are the stuff of legend.

What I think is telling about the references to Aesclepias, Orpheus et al. is something different than that these were real astrologers. It is that at least some of the practising astrologers of the early centuries CE saw a common astrological origin in gods, religious mystery cults, or mythological human heroes.

Some figures such as Aesclepias span the boundary between being described as a healing god (memorialized as the constellation Ophiuchus) in some sources, and as a supernatural mortal physician (who could raise the dead) in others. Possibly he was the Graeco-Roman version of the Egyptian Imhotep. Orpheus was the mythological hero of the Orphic mysteries. "Abram" is unclear, but Jewish tradition says that Abraham " (son of the wandering Aramean") was the founder of astrology. He was called Abram prior to his name change in Genesis. The god Hermes (Mercury,) going back through Thoth to the Sumerian prototype goddess Nisaba (Nidaba,) has been credited with the origins of astrology. Sometimes in the hermetic literature Hermes is given the name for the son; at other times, the teacher. This doesn't mean there was an actual Hermes who wrote material now attributed to multiple sources who wrote under this name.

The extensive Egyptian king lists mention no King Nechepso (as he was sometimes described.) Although kings with comparable names might have been the legendary Nechepso, there is no evidence such an individual practiced astrology. If Nechepso existed as an ordinary mortal, the "King" title was added by way of lending authority to him. Apparently there was a scribe Petosiris, but he didn't live at the same time as Nechepso. Other than the astrologers' texts themselves, we don't know what he taught, and the Nechepso/Petosiris techniques apparently are far more recent (perhaps 2nd century BC) than the mists of antiquity claimed for them. (Campion, Dawn of Astrology, 107.)

This leaves us with Hanubius and Critodemos. Hanubius might have been the Egyptian god Anubis: in the Greek magical papyri Anubis and astrological material both appear, notably in what seems to me to be black magic. Not exactly mainstream Hellenistic astrology today. This kind of leaves us with Critodemos as the last man standing-- if indeed, that was his mortal nature.

The Brown University mathematician and decipherer of ancient archaeological materials, Otto Neugebauer thought that there might be a prototype tradition going back into the 1st or second centuries BC for which the name "Nechepso" is probably as good as any, but that is far different than positing an actual human being who actually founded Hellenistic astrology in whole or in part.

Of course it is just possible that half-dozen actual men who practiced astrology coincidentally just happened to have the names of gods and mythical mortals. But all of them in FM's list of founders? This is highly unlikely; notably given naming practices in antiquity and the relationship of each god/hero cited by FM to the solar themes of death and return from the dead.

Hey, everyone-- have a great Christmas/Hannukah!

Sure Nixx-- I have to break now, (hey, it's Christmas Eve,) but I'll line up some references, commin' right at ya.

Waybread,

Sure Nixx-- I have to break now, (hey, it's Christmas Eve,) but I'll line up some references, commin' right at ya.

Aged 6+ Xmas is an irrelevance, ..........so to enable you to frame your thoughts, and references, here is the ''challenge''. As I think I alluded to before source unknown, maybe the ACT forum where Schmidt has filled out his ideas in the past.

Middle Platonism has a bit of a span, and I do not know if Schmidt has been able to time this cohorts (and no they are not necessarily the names of the actual people imagined to be involved. I think you misconstrued Schmidt here with your ''type scenarios'') networking to within a few years or even decades. So shall we say your objective is to date the majority of these 'techniques', in a broad sense, to before 100BC?

''

Here is the content of the module relating to Hellenistic Predictive System.

INTRODUCTION :

Overview of the System of Hermes as It Survives in the Sources
The Three Grand Approaches to Chart Reading (the "Warp" of the System)
The Three Principal Subsystems (the "Woof" of the System)

PREDOMINATION:

According to Most Sovereign Place
According to Natural Hierarchy of Significators
According to Dignification

LORD OF NATIVITY:

Determination of Planet in Most Sovereign Place, having Most Rulerships over the Universal Significators, being Most Dignified in its Own Place
Planets Cooperating with the Lord by Co-Presence
The Events Ruled by the Lord and its Cooperating Planets
Timing of the Events by Ascensional Times or Planetary Periods
Lords by Succession

LORD OF A SPECIAL TOPIC:

"Possibility of Event" Assessed by Preponderance of Benefics or Malefics in Pertinent Place(s)
"Quality of Event" Assessed by Determination of Lord of Topic, the Planet in the Pertinent Place(s) that is Most Dignified

DISPOSITORS SUPPORTING THE NATIVITY:

"Possibility of Event" Assessed by Study of Significator
The Triplicity Lords of the Sect-Light
The Domicile Lord of the Ascendant
The Domicile Lord of the Lots of Fortune and Spirit
The Detailed Interpretation of these Dispositors and "Quality of Event" in terms of Configurations with Sun, Lunar Applications & Separations, Configurations & Co-Presences with other planets, their Domicile & Bound Rulers, and their Topical Places
Timing by Ascensional Times and/or Planetary Periods
The Relationship of these Dispositors to the Lord of the Nativity

DISPOSITOR OF THE VITAL TIMES:

Bound Ruler of the Predominating Universal Significator
Detailed Predomination Rules
Defaults
Primary Direction of the Predominator
Interpretation
Relationship to Lord of Nativity

DISPOSITORS SUPPORTING SPECIAL TOPICS:

The Triplicity & Domicile Lords of Paradigmatic Planetary Significator, of Relevant Lots, and of Paradigmatic Topical Place
Delineation of topic by Configurations with Sun, Lunar Applications & Separations, Configurations & Co-Presences with other planets, their Domicile & Bound Rulers, and their Topical Places
Timing by Ascensional Times and/or Planetary Periods
The Relationship of these Dispositors to the Lord of the Topic

ASSOCIATED TIME-LORD PROCEDURES:

Decennials
Established by Sequence of Planets from the Predominating Universal Significator
Length of Time-Lordship from Planetary Periods in Months
Detailed Interpretation of these Time-Lords
Quarters
Established by Sequence of Planets from Prenatal Lunation
Length of Time-Lordship by Quarters of the Planetary Periods
Interpretation of these Time-Lords
Circumambulations from Predominator
Through Bounds, with Successive Bound Rulers as Time-Lords
Planet Encountered Bodily or by Ray as CooperatingTime-Lord
Detailed Interpretation
Circumambulations from All Planets
Converting Ecliptic Intervals to Times Proportionate to Planetary Periods
Yielding Information Specific to Significations of Released Planet
Solar Returns
Yielding More Detailed Information within Context of Circumambulations from Predominator
Determination of Planetary Positions in Solar Return
Determination of Ascendant
Role of Transits
Rulers of the Year, Month, Day
As Established by Profections from Predominator, Activating Planets in these Signs
As Established by Profections from Ascendant, Taking Lord of the Sign of Profection
The "Busy" Sign Established by Synodic Lunar Cycle
Interpretation within Context of Solar Return
Annual Profections from Planets, Four Lots & Angles
Establishment of Topically Specific Time-Lords for the Issues Associated with each Significator
Zodiacal Releasing from Lots of Fortune & Spirit
Studying Issues Pertaining to the Body from Fortune
Issues Pertaining to Career & Action from Spirit

SOLUNAR CONSIDERATIONS:

The 1st, 7th & 40th Days of the Moon, their Universal & Topically Specific Import
The Prenatal Lunation as Universal and Topically Specific Significator
Topical Interpretation of Lunar Phases & Cooperating Planet
Spear-Bearers to the Lights
Topical Interpretation of Lunar Latitude, Speed, and Waxing/Waning
General & Topical Interpretation of Lunar Nodes
The Nine-Year Cycle of Zoroaster
Time-Lords Established by the Degree Ruler of Moon

THE ORIGINAL EGYPTIAN DECANIC SYSTEM:

The Rising Decan & the Biographical Profile of the Native
Bright Fixed Stars making a Phasis at the Nativity or Co-Rising with the Moon
Planets & other Significators in Full or Empty Degrees
Decanic Houses
Planets in Decans of other Planets ~ Constellations Co-Rising with the Decans
The Planets Going Around & Executing (Planetary Days & Hours)

EPILOGUE:

The Systematic Integration of the Various Universal Techniques, Topically Specific Methods, and Time-Lord Procedures of the System
Rules of Synthesis of the Various Subsystems''