Lihin wrote:

According to some etymological dictionaries, 'Pagan' derives from the Latin for 'peasant' and was (also) used in a derogatory way. Ancient Heathen philosophers can scarcely be termed 'peasants'.

I was aware of the Latin origin of the word pagan. Its usually translated as 'country dweller' from the Latin word paganus. It probably was used in a derogatory way originally. Words change their associations over time. For example, the term 'Christian' was originally used in a pejorative way too.

However, the notion of 'pagan' acquired a different meaning after the rise of Christianity. It has long been used to refer to non-Christian religion and philosophy in the classical world. For example academics describe the Emperor Julian as a 'pagan' in outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the ... te#Beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan

In the Roman empire early Christianity itself developed as one of several monotheistic cults, and it was in this period that the concept of "pagan" really developed in the first place. Christianity stood in competition with other religions advocating "paganism'', including Neoplatonism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Manichaeanism, and popular cults such as those of Dionysus, Mithras, Cybele, Isis etc.

In contemporary discussion the term pagan seems a much more neutral word to be using than 'heathen'. I see that as little different from the word 'apostate'. The main difference being an apostate rejects 'the true faith' they were raised in while a heaven rejects or is ignorant of 'the true faith'. Heathen is a word based on a pejorative judgement of exclusion i.e. a non-Christian outside of civilised society. I see little difference between the terms infidel and heathen. Pagan could be seen as a more positive term for non-Christians or non-Muslims who embrace such a philosophy.

Having begun this thread, my conclusion until now (always open to changes) is that the Hellenistic basic delineations of the 3rd house are more correct than the Mediaeval ones.

I do find studying the hellenistic associations enriching. Correct or incorrect is a matter of astrological judgement. This will inevitably differ from person to person.

For me the 9th house is off topic in this thread. It is included in the lists of seven 'favourable houses' that exclude the 3rd.

I'm afraid that is the occupational hazard of opening a thread here. Sometimes the topic develops beyond the perspective of the original poster. I personally, think comparing the meanings of the 3rd compared to the 9th is very relevant here. Both houses are cadent and deal with ancient attitudes to religion in the horoscope. Obviously others agree.

Mark

I think it is important to distinguish between the worship of goddesses and the status of actual women. Some goddesses were extremely important to both men and women, like Athena to the city of Athens. As a sweeping generalization, it is probably fair to say that within a given social class, men had far more status and control than women. However, the prerogatives of an upper-class woman could easily trump those of a lower-class male; not to mention the widespread institution of slavery in Antiquity.

When we find the emergence of astrology as we define it (vs. star-lore or omen literature) I think we can generalize that most societies were pretty male-oriented. Where I would part company with Eisler and Gimbutas, however, is that many societies, globally, that had no Indo-European invasions, were also pretty patriarchal. However, we have to take them case-by-case, because women often had ownership over land and certain occupations, and could become political power-brokers.

Women of ancient Greece probably were involved in animal sacrifice for certain rites. Women slaughtered pigs in honour of Demeter during her festival, the Thesmophoria, which was restricted to women-only.

The site www.theoi.com has all kinds of information on the worship of different Greek deities. The entry on Artemis gives a complete run-down of authors from Antiquity on her various temples, statues, and observances.

However, there is some evidence that the status of some of the Near Eastern/Mediterranean goddesses declined over time, according to Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of Goddesses. Ancient goddesses originally construed as autonomous and powerful in Sumer, over time, became relegated to the status of consorts to the more supreme father-gods or even demonized. We see this with Juno/Hera, the wife of Jupiter/Zeus who morphs from a supreme mother goddess to a nagging wife whose husband is endlessly unfaithful to her.

What I find interesting astrologically and sociologically is that the Hellenistic authors have all kinds of cookbook information about how Planet A in Sign B or House C might confer special benefits to the native through women. He might marry well, or his mother might come from a respected and influential family. Similarly if Planet A is badly situated, his wife is up to no good or other women might harm him in some way.

I just randomly turned to Dorotheus, Carmen Astrologicum (Pingree translation) 4:1:

"If Venus reaches Jupiter's place in the turning of years then he will have no good in the case of women....If Venus reaches the Moon's place in the turning of the years, then he will be good in his work, but a bad reputation in the matter of women will be spread against him. If Venus reaches the Sun's place, then it will spoil the life of the native and disasters will reach him because of women."

In this passage, we see that actual women have considerable control over men's lives even if they themselves are not dominant as a group. Also, we see Venus acting as a malefic, even when conjuncting Jupiter. Dorotheus in this context sees some transits as malefic, somewhat independently of the planet involved, although the planets' nature will indicate the source of the problems to be expected.

hi lihin and others,

i have been enjoying reading this thread, including the diversions personally, but in an attempt to bring it back to the initial post of lihins in my own way, i would like to ask a few questions. here is the first part of lihins original post.

lihin wrote:Good afternoon,

The relative strengths of astrological places or houses attributed to the ancient Egyptian King Nechepso is coherent:

- pivotal strongest
- following less strong
- cadent weak.

There are thus eight stronger counter-clockwise counted places: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11.

The parallel list attributed to the ancient Egyptian Priest Petosiris is supposedly based on aspect / aversion (conjunction and 4 Ptolemaic aspects only) to the place of the ascendant but in some versions (Timaeus, Dorotheus, Ibn Sahl - see Prof. B. Dykes' Introduction to Traditional Astrology, p. 118 and following) apparently contains only 7 of the 8 non-averse places. The third place, in a sextile aspect to the ascending place, is missing. However, it is coherently included as a 'Good Place' in the 'Good and Bad Places' related e. g. by Mr Chris Brennan, a notable contemporary Hellenistic astrologer.

Why was it left out by e. g. Timaeus, Dorotheus and Ibn Sahl?

Might we here have an instance of warp of originally Heathen astrology by patriarchal, absolute monotheistic influences?

lihin

in the list of houses that lihin mentions, the list is based on the houses on the angles, or immediately following the angles, but do not include the cadent houses.. this would seem to begin as a conversation about cadency with the additional wrinkle of a question over why the 3rd, or the 9th - not mentioned in this original post - was left out..

if the emphasis is only on the ascendant axis and one uses only ptolemaic aspects to this axis, the 3rd and 9th would be included in the list of 'stronger' houses due their ptolemaic relationship to the ascendant.. if one were to consider the midheaven axis as having great bearing, many of the other houses - 12,6,8, and 2 would as well..

from my pov one has to buy into the idea that the ascendant axis is more central to a chart then the midheaven axis if one is going to use ptolemaic aspect relationships to understand why some houses are considered more favourable or strong and capable of expression then these other houses that are also in ptolemaic aspect to the midheaven axis..

as for the house of the goddess, and the idea of the 9th having some symbolism associated with the house of god, the most obvious way this makes sense to me is off the midheaven axis defining what is often thought of as a 'high' point for both the sun and moon from the pov of one representing the sun at it's greatest strength - high noon (sun conjunction midheaven) and carried over into the 9th which is the direction of the sun diurnally, while the moon is at it's most subjective and moist and comfortable point symbolically speaking while at the midnight point conjunct the i.c. or border of the 4th/3rd house cusp..

as one can immediately see, i am not pulling from some ancient source to make these statements, to which my ideas can be easily dismissed if that is the only barometer one is using to try to fathom astrology.. from my pov one's observations on the nature of these movements as they relate are the fundamental source for all of these ancient texts and comments.. i think folks who are serious about astrology need to come to their own individualistic understanding of astrology in order to use astrology in some beneficial way for themselves and others..

i like the idea of the 3rd as 'house of the goddess' but i don't know if having a conversation about the possibility of patriarchal discrimination is so much about traditional and or ancient techniques so much is this is another fine example of a post from lihin that i see as primarily philosophical in nature.. perhaps a more full and rich philosophical understanding of these terms and how and why they were used, or abandoned is helpful to know in so far as they might continue or not, being used to give others a better understanding of these ideas.. ultimately all these ideas must of been based on some sort of observation for them to have bearing.. we are all capable of that!

here is an article that may have some relevance to this topic at hand, or be of interest to some here..

Joys of the Planets - abstract of recent material from Chris Brennan (UAC 2012)
(topic discussed at COA 5th July 2012)
http://www.astrodivination.com/

Some other points about the houses in Antiquity. (See N. Campion, Dawn of Astrology and T. Barton, Ancient Astrology.)

The Babylonians didn't use houses. After many centuries of omen literature in their region, their horoscopic astrology emerges ca. 600 BC.

The Greeks, at least initially, appear to have gotten astrology from the Babylonians ("Chaldeans".) The original sources don't agree on the dates, but a decent estimate is 300 BC. The Greek authors themselves seem to have attributed astrology to the Chaldeans, even though the Greeks laid a fair bit of astronomical, mathematical, and philosophical track for the Hellenistic astrology that would emerge.

The Greeks had a lot of pre-astrological star-lore (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, ca. 700 BC), principally in the form of the rotating constellations as a giant calendar (in the days before paper calendars) that could be used to estimate dates significant for agriculture, shipping, and holiday observances. They also developed natural philosophies that subsequently modified the astrology they got from the Babylonians. But initially, this wasn't horoscopic astrology.

There was probably an independent diffusion of astrology to Egypt from Babylon. Ongoing warfare was one culture contact in the 6th century BC. The Egyptians also had considerable star lore of their own, both for their religious-agricultural calendar, but also in terms of how they construed the after-life. They invented decans, and perhaps exaltations.

Then the three traditions merge in the crossroads of Hellenized Egypt-- and Egyptianized portions of Greece and Rome during the late centuries BCE. There is a big and fascinating collections of horoscopes from the archaeological record of Ptolemaic Egypt, analysed by Otto Neugebauer and his associates. Some are written in Demotic: Greek characters for the Egyptian language. Here we also find a hotbed of Hermeticism-- both the more philosophical, esoteric version, but also black magic and spells.

The big thing about the Egyptians, to my way of thinking, that in their various books of the passage of the god, pharoah, or soul in the after-life following death, they pass through a series of locations, each associated with a particular test for the deceased, particular deities, or some other type of event specific to that location. The boundaries are marked by "pylons" or large portals. The Egyptian cycle is constantly perpetuated, unclike in Graeco-Roman lore, where the dead pretty much stay in the underworld.

One important Egyptian after-life god was Thoth, the Ibis-headed scribe. Initially a moon god, he became assimilated to Hermes. Anubis, the jackal-headed god of embalmers, gave rise to a new Graeco-Egyptian god, Hermanubis. All three gods and their hybrids were psychopomps: spirits who conducted the souls of the dead through various passages of the after-life.

Egyptian narratives of the soul's passage begin to look a lot like houses as they appear in the early astrologers' writings, albeit in a very generic way. We get [in English translation] houses, places, temples.

Manilius talks about houses as "temples", and the second house as "the gates of hell."

Dorotheus of Sidon [which fell within the Egyptian-Greek-Roman sphere] attributes knowledge of the houses to Hermes, the "king of Egypt"; but his ascription "praiseworthy by three natures" indicates the mythical Hermes Trismegistus, who was none other than the hybrid Thoth-Hermes.

I don't think there is compelling evidence that Nechepso and Petosiris were real people. There was a pseudipigraphical tradition of assigning texts to mythical figures or kings in order to give them more stature. Nor is it clear that such works were transparent: Valens says Petosiris "spoke in mystic riddles," as would be appropriate to religious secrets (2:41).

However, the number of astrologicical themes attributed to Egyptians Nechepso and Petosiris by early astrologers suggests at least some attempt to connect the lore of ancient Egypt with Hellenistic astrology's antecedants. Nechepso might have meant the pharoah Necho II, but there is no hard evidence that he was an astrologer.

As indicated above, Alexandria, Egypt, was an important cross-roads of these and other cultures. Not coincidentally, it was home to Vettius Valens and Ptolemy.

As the exception that proves the rule, the rationalist Ptolemy (2nd cent. AD) says almost nothing about houses whatsoever in Tetrabiblos. We find religious allusions throughout the other Hellenistic astrologers' books, but not the works of Mr. Scientist.

Dorotheus (1st cent. AD mentions houses, but says nothing about their topical contents, so far as I can tell. He indicates them primarily as angular or in relation to angles.

Valens (I've got the provisional Riley translation, which is not indexed :(2:13 K,14P ) gives the third as the house of the "goddess moon." The 9th, correspondingly, belongs to the "god sun." Valens gives a real smorgasbord of interpretations of the 3rd, which seem to relate more to which planets are in the house or their contacts, then it does to the house's actual meaning.

If you dig through Valens further, you can parenthetically find other information about the third as the house of brothers (2:40). Then, in what appears to be a cut-and-paste sort of compilation, in book 4: 12, we get a conventional run-down of houses. To the 3rd he attributes "brothers, travel abroad, kingship, authority, friends, relatives, rent/revenue, slaves! Quite a mish-mash. He also says that the affirs of a house are also related to its opposite house. He gives an example of the 3rd/9th axis in 4: 15, which relates primarily to travel, royalty, and religion.

But Valens, Dorotheus, and Ptolemy give a number of other houses and calculations to be examined besides the 3rd house if you want information on siblings.

So these musings suggest to me that:

(1) we should be looking more to the mythology current in Ptolemaic Egypt on the origins of house meanings. (See Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky!)

(2) The topical content of houses was in a big state of flux in late Antiquity. The undigested compiled nature of information on house meanings (see my above post on Firmicus Maternus) suggests the astrologer-authors read several primary sources and simply slapped them together.

(3) That houses were probably a late-breaking addition to Hellenistic astrology is suggested by the variety of non-house calculations used to determine the phenomena that the houses supposedly represented. A major one was lots (Arabian parts).

Kirk wrote:
I think you've probably misunderstood - or misrepresented - him. My guess is that only fools have tightly joined life and its chaos to "measurable empirical objectivity" derived through "an entirely rational construct". (Even reading those phrases of yours sort of sucks the life right out of a person.)

But, fortunately, I think you're just trying to get a reaction from us. Nixx at it again.

Please don't accuse me of misrepresenting people, I'd rather be accused of sodomising a bunch of 3 year olds and then eating them!!

Here's one quote which goes into it - check out ACT forum:
by Robert_Schmidt on Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:02 pm

''Without yet going into any detail about the reasons for these statements, or addressing one scientific approach which in my view holds out some ray of hope for finding a physical basis, let me first explain what I believe is a real stumbling block to this entire endeavor. It has to do with the origins of Western astrology in the Hellenistic period. Having been engaged in studying and translating these Hellenistic sources for the past 18 years, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) Hellenistic Astrology was not developed to account for existing empirical observations correlating celestial phenomena to human events. 2) It could not have resulted from researchers ?trying things out? until various reliable correlations were discovered. 3) The original founders of Hellenistic Astrology did not have any kind of efficient planetary causality in mind when they developed their system; this would not come on the scene until Ptolemy. 4) Hellenistic Astrology was an inspired and highly systematic rational construct based on certain ?metaphysical? considerations (which I will not go into here).''

He leaves us salivating............


I have a feeling somewhere in my head, and/or on my hard drive, is information about these ''considerations'' but a brief search has revealed nothing ce soir. Just as well, we don't want to stop the thread discussing how bloody feminine the Horoscope is these days with Neptune and Pluto in particular enticing the ladies into the conference chambers.

Schmidt's view of Deb's 3rd house notions might be interesting. Anyone know it?

. . .

Kirk, with this multi-named troublemaker, it's both, plus the often continued boasts that this personage is some sort of highly studied capital p psychological astrologer, which I find extremely dubious.

Gabe

Kirk wrote:

Nixx wrote:

Kirk wrote:


I suppose it depends on what we're aiming for. Do we want to be historians of astrology or active participants in astrological symbolism? Active participants don't really need such in-depth historical probing. In fact, it can get in the way and become too much of a focus of justification for using astrology in a rational fact-oriented age.

Speaking for myself, so to speak, both. Also, I certainly wouldn't want any of my astrological curiosites or applications to be regarded as irrational. Fortunately Robert Schmidt tells us Horoscopic Astrology was an entirely rational construct so we can take solace in the possibility the aim of this interest is, or was, measurable empirical objectivity.

I think you've probably misunderstood - or misrepresented - him. My guess is that only fools have tightly joined life and its chaos to "measurable empirical objectivity" derived through "an entirely rational construct". (Even reading those phrases of yours sort of sucks the life right out of a person.)

But, fortunately, I think you're just trying to get a reaction from us. Nixx at it again.

Kirk wrote:

Nixx wrote:
. . .

Here's one quote which goes into it - check out ACT forum:
by Robert_Schmidt on Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:02 pm

''Without yet going into any detail about the reasons for these statements, or addressing one scientific approach which in my view holds out some ray of hope for finding a physical basis, let me first explain what I believe is a real stumbling block to this entire endeavor. It has to do with the origins of Western astrology in the Hellenistic period. Having been engaged in studying and translating these Hellenistic sources for the past 18 years, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) Hellenistic Astrology was not developed to account for existing empirical observations correlating celestial phenomena to human events. 2) It could not have resulted from researchers ?trying things out? until various reliable correlations were discovered. 3) The original founders of Hellenistic Astrology did not have any kind of efficient planetary causality in mind when they developed their system; this would not come on the scene until Ptolemy. 4) Hellenistic Astrology was an inspired and highly systematic rational construct based on certain ?metaphysical? considerations (which I will not go into here).''

. . .

Yes, the Hellenistic astrologers created a very rational astrology. But rather than astrology as "an inspired and highly systematic rational construct" I had my eye on your statement in your previous post "so we can take solace in the possibility the aim of this interest is, or was, measurable empirical objectivity."

The aim of astrology being "measurable empirical objectivity"? Going back to those Hellenistic astrologers: Was their aim with astrology - their inspiration, goal and purpose - as rationally constructed as the astrology itself?

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

Oh I'm sure that poster is convinced that what was done in the Hellenistic period under Schmidt's hypothesis is something analogous to what the poster considers is the only worthwhile kind of astrology, which is that capital p psychological school from what seems like 40 years ago. Since I actually have an idea what Schmidt thinks on the matter, from speaking & studying with the man, I can say that poster is not correct.

But then again you're right, Kirk, he's just trying to start trouble, like that poster does on other forums, and feeding the trolls is such a bad idea.

Kirk wrote:

Yes, the Hellenistic astrologers created a very rational astrology. But rather than astrology as "an inspired and highly systematic rational construct" I had my eye on your statement in your previous post "so we can take solace in the possibility the aim of this interest is, or was, measurable empirical objectivity."

The aim of astrology being "measurable empirical objectivity"? Going back to those Hellenistic astrologers: Was their aim with astrology - their inspiration, goal and purpose - as rationally constructed as the astrology itself?

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

If you look at what has come out of the Project Hindsight initiative it seems to be, by and large, a relatively straightforward system, or paradigm, whereby the aim of a Horoscope is to 'predict' an upcoming event or circumstance to enable you to be forewarned as to your potential 'fate'. In Schmidt?s lingo ''events in the mundane world''.

As such, like all other Western Horoscopic schemas that I have to date come across, it is dealing in what is usually called measurable or observable or empirical reality. True the types of ??events in the mundane world?? they are focused on are not as easily assessed as ?do more yellow cars than orange ones go down Beech Avenue on Wednesday afternoons'?.

This ''System of Hermes' is not a paradigm which has anything in common with say the Hillman conception of astrology as a metaphorical language , or the Sheeran one of astrology as a useful cognitive psychology modelling tool. It's essentially what we call today science, albeit a science which allows for and relies on the idea of a ''Cosmic Soul''. I.e. if you gave a Hellenistic astrologer a set of 5 charts and said one of these folks got married on the 4th June, had 3 kids, lost a leg last Tuesday and is mad about almonds which chart is it; they would imagine they could tell you once they had a few days to navigate the warps and the woofs. If you think otherwise I?d like to see some supportive quotes from your hard drive.

What we would find in the original sources is a big range of methods for seeing whether the native gets along with his brothers; oftentimes multiple, very different techniques in the same book. Most of them have nothing to do with the third house, so far as I can make out. So rather than projecting backwards onto Hellenistic astrology a contemporary belief that brothers are a third house matter, we might use the multiple techniques of Dorotheus that have no bearing on the third house, and see if they get us to the same conclusion for the client.

Kirk, I am not so sure about how the astrologers of Antiquity would have answered. The belief in a Father Sky/Mother Earth as active and passive principles, respectively, is pretty widespread among Indo-European cultures. However, encoding the moon as feminine appears to be an overlay by the Greeks and Romans onto an older stratum of belief in the moon as a male deity.

Nixx, thanks for the passage by Robert Schmidt. Actually there was a lot of highly irrational use of astrology in Antiquity, but this got scripted out-- not only by Ptolemy but also by today's authors looking back at that period. Probably you've heard of the religion of Mithraism, which was strongly based in astrology. In Hellenistic Egypt magicians also used astrology in their spells-- some of them were pretty awful (Betz, ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation.) ancient Rome had "street" astrologers who practiced at fairs and circuses. So it is convenient but not strictly accurate to describe Hellenistic astrology as a truly rational endeavour. Some material got left on the cutting room floor of the history of astrology.

Oops, sorry, Kirk. Lecture mode again.

Good morning,

Very often one may find the etymology of words to be more revealing and meaningful than some of their modern acceptations. 'Heathen' etymologically is related to 'heath' (in German "Heide"). This relates to the practices of Heathens close to nature, linked to specific places, in stark contrast to the current trend towards 'globalisation', meaning attempts to reduce or eliminate local and regional differences. When one reads ex. gr. Book 2 of the Tetrabiblos by Claudius Ptolemy, one gets an idea of how differentiated human societies were in relatively recent ancient times and how such differences may be related to astrological factors.

Reading the last few posts has convinced me to repeat that there is no inclusion of the 'Nechepso' list of strong houses (angular, then following) in the question posed at the outset of this thread, but only the 'Petosiris' list of favourable houses, determined by their 'seeing' (not being in aversion to) the Ascendant by 'Ptolemaic aspects'.

Best regards,

lihin