Wow, Mark! What a super overview!

I am familiar with most of the material you posted, as we can find it in different sources.

Although I don't have a copy of Schmidt's book, I was aware of its existence; so my question to GR was essentially whether he'd used Schmidt's book, or extracted the Antiochus material independently. I have read a bunch of Schmidt's on-line articles.

I had read the Crane review a while back, also, and think it is just super.

Just by way of a personal introduction, I am not coming up through the "loop" of neo-Hellenistic or even traditional astrology, but I do have a background in academic research. It was not in a field connected to astrology (I am currently retired), but it did engender certain research habits and a commitment to critical thinking. One of the main habits (which the Crane review noted) concerns handling of sources and being prepared to substantiate one's arguments.

Consequently I might push back ever-so-slightly at your
comments, "You also have to become conversant with what one might call 'Schmidtology'" and "Nevertheless, If you are going to comment on early hellenistic astrology you really need this text."

Fair enough. Maybe I'll buy it.

Coming from my perspective, however, I could counter that anyone doing Hellenistic astrology needs to keep up with the academic journal literature, which includes archaeology. It saddens me that some neo-Hellenistic astrologers think they come off better if they criticize the academics for misstepping occasionally on astrological terminology. (Referencing back to Kirk's concern, above.) I think both camps have their own contributions to make.

My particular interest for the moment is looking into the origins of astrological houses. Here, I think a study of ancient Egyptian beliefs of the afterlife can help us out considerably.

I take my hat off to the astrologers who study ancient Greek. I'm not going to pick it up at this stage of life. But I don't know how many have expertise in philology within a classical studies background. I think this is really what one would need to delineate different source materials within a given text. The work of David Pingree and Mark Riley would be good examples of desirable expertise, whether or not one agrees with their particular word translations or conclusions.

I also think the larger historical and cultural contexts in which ancient astrology occured have to be considered. In focusing so closely on particular questions that are important to a relatively small group of insiders, we can lose the opportunity for fresh contributions from people coming from different perspectives.

The Antiochus problem is interesting, though, because if he didn't come from Athens but from Ascalon (i.e., Ashkalon in southern Israel) it puts him well into the Egyptian sphere of influence.

Was the invention of horoscopic astrology the work of a few or did more people contribute? Probably we'll never know, simply because so much of what once might have been a far richer body of writings has perished.

We also have to recognize that if the trail leads to Nechepso and Petosiris texts, those authors were not writing in a vacuum, but coming from centuries (if not millenia, in the case of Babylon and Egypt) of prior contributions. It would be nice to see more discussion of the more indigenous beliefs current in Egypt ca. 100 BC to around 500 AD.

However, I think a couple of Ph. D. students in philology could help us out some with all of the textual passages that seem to have been copied and pasted, glossed by later authors, or sometimes even misunderstood by them.

Waybread wrote:

Coming from my perspective, however, I could counter that anyone doing Hellenistic astrology needs to keep up with the academic journal literature, which includes archaeology

It depends what we are motivated by. I was discussing understanding the basic principles of hellenistic astrology to allow you to delineate charts. The Antiochus book is very useful in terms of defining numerous astrological concepts. You seem to have a wider academic project in mind in a quest to understand the underlying linguistics, archaeology, history, sociology, mythology and religious attitudes of that time. I dont deny that is all very useful background information. However, there is a line to be drawn somewhere between the pure academic and the practical astrologer. Its probably less clear in hellenistic astrology than anywhere else though as so much of the origins of the tradition is steeped in mystery. Hence you see people like Dorian Greenbaum, and Chris Brennan who take a deep interest in all the latest academic research. Indeed Greenbaum is at the cutting edge of much of this. Still, for this to be more than just information there comes a point when this knowledge needs to be applied astrologically.

Mark
PS I sent you a PM.

Good afternoon,

The Hellenistic house definition of the third place listed by Mr Robert Schmidt in "The Twelve-Topic System of Places", page 305, Volume Two, Definitions and Foundations, published in 2009, of a planned 30-volume series, states, "the third from the Hour-Marker is called the place of goddess (thea), and it is significant for friends and the like". Nothing new. Since 2009 apparently no further volumes have been published.

May one doubt one of the underlying assumptions of an author who, it seems, has been considered by some to be a kind of 'guru' of Hellenistic astrology? Mr Schmidt took a partially lost work by Antiochus as 'base', although other Hellenistic authors including later ones refer to books that have been destroyed or otherwise lost since by Hermes, Petosiris and Nechepso, authors considered prior to Antiochus.

Mr Schmidt's chosen words for English translations of ancient Greek words make sense to me but at times differ from common usage. These choices do help the reader enter into a Hellenistic mind-set, a prerequisite for deep understanding.

However, if the portions of future volumes allotted respectively to linguistics, philosophy and practical astrology resemble those in Volume Two, one may ask how useful they might become as astrological textbooks. In my humble opinion Julius Firmicus Maternus' 'Mathesis' is considerably more suited to this task than 'Definitions and Foundations'.

Best regards,

lihin

Hey, Mark. I doubt that I will ever practice neo-Hellenistic astrology. If practising astrologers think less of my posts because they focus on historical/pre-historical questions about astrology, I will just have to live with it.

Just now the "bee" in my historical "bonnet" has to do with the origins of the thematic content of houses. Maybe some day in the future I will get concerned with some other dimension of Hellenistic astrology, like length-of-life calculations, at which point I will happily plunge into it. Right now my "practice" is modern (going on 22 years), but it is increasingly informed by Hellenistic forays.

Coming from my perspective, I think it is a pity that more neo-Hellenistic astrologers haven't gotten a graduate degree or two. There is always a place for the self-taught independent scholar: don't get me wrong. But a lot of academic standards exist for a reason, and despite their deficiencies, I think they tend to prune out the idiosyncracies and fallacies that we see in some independent scholarship.

I would happily point out examples (maybe on another thread) but because the community of visible neo-Hellenistic astrologers is very small, it would have to get up-close and personal.

For example....

Joseph Crane made a good point about the purpose of references in his review of Schmidt's book, which you linked above. In addition to duplicability, I might add that once you tuck into scholars' references, you can see how they put their research together. Whose pathways are they pursuing? What have they read or not read? Have they misread something that they quote?

In a community of scholars, researchers use one another's citations to facilitate their own research. I haven't read Schmidt's book, so I don't cast any aspersions on him, but a main purpose of citations is to avoid plagiarism.

For Schmidt to dismiss references, partly on the grounds that it would have taken him another 5 years to get his book out (Crane's review), precisely suggests to me that Schmidt might have benefitted from university training in research methods. My former university's library has a program that allows me to insert references, move them around, instantly revise them into different citation formats, and then copy them into a manuscript, and so on. Or I could do this with software on my own computer. It hardly takes more time to organize footnotes in this fashion than it does simply to write a first draft.

How one practices neo-Hellenistic astrology without a clear background in its history is beyond me. I suppose it is possible to practice neo-Hellenistic astrology as a mere "cookbook" of "recipes", but is this what anyone wants?

Also, can we truly say what it is that a neo-Hellenistic astrologer practices? I think there is too great an assumption that surviving texts give us a complete picture.

We will never know how much material was lost; not only because of the poor state of survival of texts into the hands of medieval scribes; but because of the repeated bans against astrologers in imperial Rome, that resulted in exiling or silencing of practicing astrologers. This may partly explain why most of our key surviving texts come from within the Egyptian sphere of influence.

Oh, and wait. Somehow we have to prune out surviving astrological texts and archaeological evidence if they don't fit our pictures of practice, based on a handful of surviving Greek and Latin texts. Let's toss out Mithraism, magical papyri, and Demotic horoscopes. Some neo-Hellenists would toss out Manilius and even Ptolemy as non-practising astrologers.

Once you know something about astrology's history in context, it makes a whole lot of practical Hellenistic astrology more understandable. What were the advances in astronomy or mathematics at a certain date, such that given calculations (like the timing of rising signs) could even be made? Did middle Platonism inform an astrological text?

There is also a big danger of reading presentist concerns back onto the past. Today, houses are one of the foundations of both modern and traditional astrology. To what extent might we be reading what we "know" today onto ancient texts where it was never intended?

Pruning out Manilius because he doesn't "fit" what we want to understand today about ancient astrology would be an example of presentist biases.
He gives a lot of information on rising constellations, many of them off the ecliptic, on the native's character. In what way is this not practice?

Anyway, 'nuff said.

I would also add, in case my own words get turned against my posts, that I am not presenting my posts as a shining example of academic research. Rather, I am an amateur happily ferreting out what I can learn, and trying to share preliminary findings and ideas with anyone who's interested.

waybread wrote:I doubt that I will ever practice neo-Hellenistic astrology.

What is meant by "neo-Hellenistic astrology"?

waybread wrote: ...But a lot of academic standards exist for a reason, and despite their deficiencies, I think they tend to prune out the idiosyncrasies and fallacies that we see in some independent scholarship.

Modern academic standards have their biases as well, and then there is the matter of what the purpose of those standards is in the first place. If they were actually geared toward discovering what the practices of Hellenistic astrology were, which, as I gather, previous academic work was not, then there might be greater value to them.

Also, I do think it would be better for your work to acquire Schmidt's text and base your criticisms on it rather than what is frankly a rather poor review which either mischaracterizes or misunderstands the work it is directed at.

And, while you've seen some of Schmidt's work on the internet, those 20-year odd articles are, in his own words, very preliminary work, such as you are engaged in at the present time. While I don't necessarily think you're both on the same page in the direction of your researches, I think it would be better that you not take those older Schmidt essays in any sort of authoritative manner, as perhaps, others have done, to both their own and the subject's detriment.

PS I also think that a general concern about plagiarism is justified, especially in an "outlaw" subject such as astrology, though it seems major newspapers & universities, with significant funding beyond the scope of the astrological community, have serious trouble keeping a lid on it.

Mark, I do have to take exception with some things here in your post:

Mark wrote:By that I mean that Schmidt has re-translated all the well established terms used in western astrology with new words.

It's more accurate to say that Schmidt has translated the text into English as closely as he thinks it possible to do so, and thus keeping closer to their semantics without introducing our usage of astrological terms, which bring with them quite a bit of their baggage. But you're correct that this is something closer to a "first principals" approach, in that his method has been to look that these texts in the manner that the purported authors would have, and without seeing them through the looking glass of our own modern astrological practices & presuppositions, astrological and otherwise. I think calling this "Schmidtology" is a bit dismissive...

Schmidt hasn't published his full reasonings for using "confines" for horion, as opposed to term(or bounds). I would make note that terms & bounds are not bad fits for horios, but don't quite match up with its diminutive form.

"Neo-" means "new, recent, in a modern form." (cf. neoclassicism) It acknowledges the differences between "then" and now, and distinguishes between astrologers of Antiquity and our contemporaries.

I've just googled Definitions and Foundations. Vol. 2 of The Astrological Record of the Early Sages and ordering this book is by no means straightforward. But you're right, Gabe. It is better to have a book in hand than to rely on an intermediate source, even where it quotes the book directly.

However, if an author no longer stands by older on-line material, oftentimes he has the ability to get it removed, or to post a revised discussion.

Some academic works on the early history of astrology are geared towards understanding the practices of ancient astrology, and some are not. You kind of have to take it book by book. Although some of the early English translations have been criticized as misinterpreting key astrological terms, I don't think you can read their footnotes without realizing that Robbins (Ptolemy) or Goold (Manilius) had to master some astrology simply in order to undertake a critical edition of an astrological text (i.e., translations that explained the texts to the readers.)

My primary interest isn't in taking on Robert Schmidt, but in exploring the origins in the development of the thematic content of houses.

Plagiarism, as you note, as a serious problem for academics. There have been some shockeroos regarding noted historians who plagiarized others' work. I had this happen to a portion of my doctoral dissertation. However, serious plagiarism is grounds for professional sanctions or even dismissal in North American universities when it comes to light.

Gabe, I hope we don't get into a "two wrongs make a right" sort of argument. Ideally, in the near future, we will see the lines between astrologers and academics blurring as more astrologers get degrees and more academics learn astrology; or at least some good team reasearch involving both types of expertise.

For a different take on houses, see Clelia Romano:
http://www.astrologiahumana.com/mysteries.pdf

She makes a case for understanding the houses via the Thema Mundi. Which puts Virgo (a goddess constellation>>>sign) into the 3rd house.

As a slight departure from her intriguing interpretation, I would suggest that this works out mythologically with Libra in the 4th, as The Scales can be understood as the balance in Osiris's hall of justice, where Anubis weighs the heart of the deceased against the feather of the goddess Ma'at to see if his heart was free of guilt, and Thoth records the result. In the Denderah Zodiac (Temple of Hathor, probably 1st century BC), this meaning of Libra is graphically represented. The lion-like creature below the scales was probably Amemit (Ammet) who devoured the bad souls, or cast them into a firey lake.

http://davidpratt.info/earth/bentley1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weigh ... heart3.jpg

Hi, I just noticed the question as to where I obtained the correlation between the 9th House and the "official" religion centered around the Roman emperor.

Actually, it wasn't a single source. The discussion began as Demetra George and I were talking about Tamsyn Barton's "Ancient Astrology." After poring over numerous texts in Demetra's personal library, we reached the conclusion I stated above re: the Ninth House as "official" religion and the Third as being connected with the sort of populist Goddess cults that were so prevalent throughout the Levant during Roman times.

Sorry I don't have an exact quote for it.

Never mind the sources, Kenneth. Do you recall the nature of the actual evidence?

Not all popular religion in the Roman empire was goddess-centered, and some important state religion was goddess-centered.

I am not sure I see anything reflecting the common people's goddess religions in how Hellenistic astrologers interpreted the third house.

In fact, Firmicus Maternus (3: 12: 5) says that "Mercury with Venus in the third house will make the native either "Victors in sacred contests, priests, prophets, dressers of the gods [i.e., idols?]; or those who carry on important duties in temples, in charge of sacred rites; or managers or chiefs of states or ambassadors of good character, to whom the state with confidence entrusts its projects."

This doesn't sound like peasant religion, although it does indicate a religious (and potentially goddess) connotation. We can go through FM's placements of other planets in the 4th without a clear case for the religion of common people being particularly in evidence.

Valens (2: 13K:14P, provisional Riley transl.) does say that if the sun and new moon are in the 3rd house, the "Native will be a priest or priestess of the great goddess and will have an unsurpassable livlihood." He doesn't say who this goddess is. There were plenty to choose from. Depending upon the planetary placements, the third house seems to indicate either significant wealth and achievement, or become an impoverished, murdering blasphemer!

So far as I know, most major religious leaders would have come from the patrician class.

delete

Not trying to jump on you Kenneth! I just find the topic fascinating and would love to learn more about it.

The 9th house gets a little more interesting. Valens (2: 62P/7K:8P, provisional Riley translation) includes the statement that the 9th is the "Place of the God Sun. It has many configurations. If benefics happen to be in this Place and have been assigned the Ascendant or Fortune, the native will be blessed, reverent, a prophet of the great god; in fact, he will be obeyed like a god."

This latter phrase sounds like an emperor. Valens may have had one in mind. On the other hand, the idea of a ruler as the sun god has many Egyptian forerunners, notably the pharoah who was intepreted as a sun god for thousands of years in ancient Egypt.

Firmicus Maternus (3: xii) lets the 9th house go with the potential for natives with well-placed planets there to become prophets, temple officials, and sooth-sayers; with menial temple functions or difficulties attending nativities with some of the other planets in the 9th. Temple-robbing of offerings and furnishings seems to have been a special problem in Antiquity.

With the moon representing "the people" in mundane astrology, I could see how one could think of the 3rd "house of the moon" as indicating the religion of common people but I am not sure how this worked out in everyday practice in Antiquity. For one thing a lot of horoscopes were done up for very important people, who could hardly have been associated with the Plebes.

Maternus says that a waxing moon in a nocturnal chart, favourably aspected to Jupiter, domiciled or exalted, and located in the 10th house, not the 9th, makes men emperors. In the 9th house, however, they are likely to be important but secondary administrators.

Also several of the astrologers insist that they got their material from Egyptians, or astrologers with names sounding suspiciously like those of psychopomp gods. Some of the knowledge they declared to be secret. This points either to Egypt or to the various mystery cults flourishing around the turn of the millenium. This makes me doubt that Roman politics were a huge source of influence on the houses. For another thing, astrologers got banned or expelled from the city of Rome left, right, and center. Out in the hinterland of Egypt and Sicily, the emperor may have had slightly less influence on astrologers' thoughts.