Good morning,

Reference is made to two detailed analyses of the Ptolemaic confines, one by Dr. Giuseppe Bezza, the other by Ms Deborah Houlding at this site:

http://cieloeterra.it/articoli.confini/confini.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/terms.html

Both the authoress and the author arrive at certain conclusions concerning possible corrections, those of the authoress summarised in an "Experimental table of terms" (page 40), those of the author in his comments in the right column of each sign. One can at least observe that there is only approximate agreement concerning the 'true' Ptolemaic table of confines. As Ms Houlding mentioned (page 15), the oldest preserved ancient Greek manuscript dates from the 13th century CE.

Regulus Astrology in A Rectification Manual, Appendix A, page 355, apparently used the table of Ptolemaic confines attributed to an 'Anonymous Commentator' whilst exchanging the places of Ar?s and Kronos in Gemini. As far as i can see, the book contains no discussion of the question posed in this thread. The author finds the Egyptian confines more reliable in practice but "... recognise that this type of analysis requires further testing on a much wider sample".

Although the older system of Chaldean confines mentioned but dismissed by Claudius Ptolemy (because of the total degrees per planet, see Tetrabiblos, Book I, Section 21, "The Repartition of the Confines") is clear and coherent, as Ptolemy stated, and the only one of the three that respects ha?r?sis (sect) by stipulating different tables by night than by day. Alas, apparently little or no research has been done to date on the astrological effectiveness of the Chaldean confines.

By contrast, the near unanimity from ancient Greek to modern times about the order of the Egyptian bounds perhaps explains in part why they were preferred in the Mediaeval period by most authors. In any case, before comparing them to Ptolemy's, it might be wise to ascertain what the latter are or should have been using Ptolemy's own logic, as Ms Houlding and Dr. Bezza have attempted.

Here once again one can see that some 'basic' things astrological are scarcely as tidy as some would like to pretend.

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote: As Ms Houlding mentioned (page 15), the oldest preserved ancient Greek manuscript dates from the 13th century CE.

Hello Lithin

The test for 'correctness' in how the table of terms was established is - I propose - that of Occum's razor, i.e. which is the briefest set of rules which will give the most complete rendering of the table of terms? Of course, we are plagued by the problem that there may be copying mistakes in extant manuscripts, or much worse that the authors of those manuscripts may have decided that they were passing on mistakes and the table of terms should 'obviously' follow a different plan and, without telling us, they make changes to the table according to a scheme of their own. To this end, it is desirable to have the earliest possible listing of the table of terms so that the incidence of these mistakes and corrections is minimised.

Let me here quote from a posting I made in this forum some months ago and which would seem pertinent.

Just last year a translation of two cuneiform tablets held at the British Museum turned out to be a partial table of the Terms. These tablets are from Babylon and date from around the 4th century BCE, so very shortly after the equal signed zodiac as we know it was developed. These tablets thus represent the very earliest record we have of the Terms, which are well known to have had their origins in Babylon, rather than Egypt as Ptolomy stated.

In brief, I give the Terms below as listed. I miss out the degrees as they are only partly intelligible. I trust the abbreviations are obvious.

Ar: JU, VE, ME, SA, MA
Ta: VE, ME, JU, SA, MA
Ge: ME, JU, VE, MA, SA
Ca: MA, VE, ME, JU, SA
Le: JU, VE, SA, ME, MA
Vi: VE, ME, JU, MA, SA
Li: SA, ME, JU, VE, MA
Sc: MA, VE, ..............
................................

This table verifies Venus following Jupiter in the Terms of Leo, as Deborah suspected, and Saturn follows Mars at the end of the Terms of Gemini. There are, however, a number of other differences from the tables of Terms given by Ptolomy.

I have had a brief stab at coming up with a scheme which delivers this table. This is not the place to go into detail, (unless it is requested), but I have been quite successful by considering the five rows of the table to be an expression of the five dignities, starting with the Triplicities (day and night), followed by Exaltations, Sign and Detriment. They are arranged according to rules which are similar to those outlined by Deborah Houlding, but with a few notable differences - in particular concerning the ordering of the malifics at the ends of the signs.

Geoffrey

The first table in the Bezza text is identical with the table Lilly uses in Cristian Astrology (at least in the first edition, London 1647). I don't read Italian but as I understand this table is by an anonymus. Does anybody know when it was first published?

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:The first table in the Bezza text is identical with the table Lilly uses in Cristian Astrology (at least in the first edition, London 1647). I don't read Italian but as I understand this table is by an anonymus. Does anybody know when it was first published?

Johannes

Deborah Houlding traces the Lilly version of the table back to the Latin translation of Tetrabiblos by Joachim Camerarius in 1535. The Greek version of the table given by Camerarius is different.....

Geoffrey

Good afternoon,

Might Herr Joachim Camerarius' input on the Ptolemaic bounds possibly be an instance of Renaissance 'tinkering' or 'improvements' on Hellenistic models? In German one says: "Das Bessere ist des Guten Feind". (The better is the good's fiend [enemy].)

Due to the uncertainties mentioned above, i have not much tried to use the Ptolemaic (which?) bounds to date. Who has used the Chaldean confines in practice and with what results? Applying the general predictive technique of 'directing the Ascendant (clockwise) through the confines', my humble experience to date concurs with Regulus Astrology, that the Egyptian confines tend to coincide with emphasis and events included therein. The Chaldean confines, however, also 'work' reasonably well and are not skewed in favour of the Benefics. In keeping with the pervasive doctrine of ha?r?sis, Kronos receives 78? by day and Herm?s, who has nocturnal elemental rulership in Air, 66?, by night vice versa, together 144?, precisely 40 %.

The Egyptian confines allot 82? (23 %) to Aphrodite, 80? (22 %) to Zeus, 76? (21 %) to Herm?s, 65? (18 %) to Ar?s and 57? (16 %) to Kronos. A neutral allocation would allot 72? to each planet. The Benefics receive 40? (11 %) more than the Malefics. There is no application of ha?r?sis, also not in any variant of the Ptolemaic confines.

The confines were no less important in Hellenistic astrology (that to the best of my feeble knowledge employed no planetary strength systems by points) than Element, Kingdom (a better translation than 'exaltation' according to Prof. Dr. phil. Benjamin Dykes in Introductions to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma'shar & Al-Qabisi) and Rulership. In Mediaeval astrology the confines were degraded to a 'minor dignity' and during the Renaissance often abandoned altogether, e. g. by Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche. One finds here yet another instance of essential differences amongst Hellenistic, Mediaeval and Renaissance astrologies.

One might also mention one of Vettius Valens' confines systems including all seven planets.

By the way, it is really so important to attempt to pin astrological concepts to specific countries? Transportation on horseback was in ancient times often quicker than by motor car in contemporary cities.

Best regards,

lihin

Hello Geoffrey
You remind us of the fragments of a variation of the Egyptain terms found on cuneiform tablets dating probably from the 5th or 4th century BC (ISAW Papers 1 2011 - A New Discovery of a Component of Greek Astrology in Babylonian Tablets: The ?Terms?)

In brief, I give the Terms below as listed. I miss out the degrees as they are only partly intelligible. I trust the abbreviations are obvious.

Ar: JU, VE, ME, SA, MA
Ta: VE, ME, JU, SA, MA
Ge: ME, JU, VE, MA, SA
Ca: MA, VE, ME, JU, SA
Le: JU, VE, SA, ME, MA
Vi: VE, ME, JU, MA, SA
Li: SA, ME, JU, VE, MA
Sc: MA, VE, ..............
................................

This table verifies Venus following Jupiter in the Terms of Leo, as Deborah suspected, and Saturn follows Mars at the end of the Terms of Gemini. There are, however, a number of other differences from the tables of Terms given by Ptolomy.

I have had a brief stab at coming up with a scheme which delivers this table. This is not the place to go into detail, (unless it is requested), but I have been quite successful by considering the five rows of the table to be an expression of the five dignities, starting with the Triplicities (day and night), followed by Exaltations, Sign and Detriment. They are arranged according to rules which are similar to those outlined by Deborah Houlding, but with a few notable differences - in particular concerning the ordering of the malifics at the ends of the signs.

I would be very interested in seeing your suggestions for an "Occam's razor" scheme to this sequence, particularly as I don't understand the hints you give - I can't see an order "starting with the Triplicities (day and night), followed by Exaltations, Sign and Detriment." Also, I presume that weh you say "rows", you mean "columns" (as set out in the English, at least). I presume it is sure in the tablets that the first 5 terms refer to Aries, next 5 to Taurus etc, or is this just an assumption?
Many thanks for any help.
Graham

Graham Fox wrote: Also, I presume that weh you say "rows", you mean "columns" (as set out in the English, at least).

Apologies, I did mean columns instead of rows.

If you PM me with an email address, I will send you a short pdf 'paper' with my attempt at a scheme.

Geoffrey