Skyscript Astrology Forum

I intend to see that pariter cum not only in the sense of in the same place but also with reference to the degrees with equally ascension. but this could be an extension of the author intentions.

But grammatically I cannot see possibility for an interpretation as "other place", because aliquo is linked to testimonio, not to loci.

pariter cum aliquo loci testimonio: it is aliquo loci not aliquo testimonio< on contrary I think it's about testimonies coming from other places. for example a planet that aspects the lord of part of reasoning. so it's logical. testimonio is linked with loci. it's about the testimonio of those loci. sorry but this is the way latin works. in fact you could take that testimonio and the proposition would still be logical and grammatically correct: pariter cum aliquo loci: equal of degree with other places.

Osthanes,

you say:

from [their] place

but there is no support in the text for that "from", or for "their".

without this "from" and "their" the translation would be inconsistent if we would accept your opinion that aliquo is related to testimonio, because loci would remain out of the context, which is unacceptable.

Tom, Osthanes and Sasha_i,

Thank you all for valuable input.

Now it is time to give an example. I hope this will illustrate the use of some of the principles mentioned in Part of Reasoning. For the illustration, I have chosen birth data of a living super IQ homo sapiens sapiens: Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, born in Ioannina, Greece on January 19, 1976 at 01:00 (Asc = 26d37m Libra).

Source of birth data is his personal website. See: http://www.ellhnas.com/evangelos.html

He enjoys membership of nearly 30 IQ societies as either a full member or a honorary member, the most exclusive one being the Giga Society which admits at 1 in a billion.

* * *

Before delineation I would like to tell you why I have selected him from among 25 other intelligent data: Because he suits very well (almost perfectly) with the requirements of the Part of Reasoning and he has been tested many times, each time proving his intelligence to be no less than one in a few million and up to one in a billion by rarity. So we are talking about a real person who can be tested this time against methods of medieval astrology. This kind of exceptionally intelligent people are also very important to calibrate, rectify and test our astrological methods.

Here we go!..

* * *

Selections:

I will employ the Alcabitius semi-arc house system along with traditional rulerships with Dorothean triplicity rulers, Egyptian bound rulers and Caldean face rulers. A 5-degree orb to the Part will be used as a stringent requirement as far as aspects to the Part are concerned, but aspects with larger orbs will also be accepted as a testimonial but of secondary importance when the more stringent requirement is not satisfied. For planetary aspects generally accepted orbs (e.g 9 degrees for Saturn and Jupiter, 8 degrees for Mars and 7 degrees for Venus and Mercury) will be taken; but whole-sign aspects will also be accepted with secondary importance when traditional orbs are not exactly satisfied.

Any argument which contains the term "ruler" or "lord" applies for all rulers separately in the hierarchy of 5 rulers but in order of decreasing importance from domicile to exaltation, triplicity, bound and face rulers each but with major emphasis residing with especially what are called the major rulers (domicile and exaltation) and what I would like to call the quasi-major ruler ( a ruler that has at least two of the lesser dignities at a point of interest, such as a planet having both the dignity of triplicity and bound, or triplicity and face, or bound and face). Almuten of the point of interest may take priority when it is different from the domicile ruler.

Considerations before judgement:

As per Bonatti, presence of the ascendant, its ruler, the Moon in the rational signs endows the native with rational quality (this can roughly be taken to mean 'intelligence' by a modern interpretation). I would like to add to this Mercury as I often see it in a rational sign or in Aries (the special case of Aries needs explanation and I have one; but this will be skipped at the moment) in the charts of intelligent people. Rational signs are given as air triplicity (Gemini, Libra and Aquarius), Virgo and first half of Sagittarius.

Our example figure has his ascendant in Libra nearly conjunct Spica, and Mercury in Aquarius to start with. For the record, Libra is the most frequently encountered ascendant in my sample of 25 nativities. Both Mercury and ascendants seem to be higher than chance levels by presence in rational signs. I don't know if this will remain so when data accumulates.

Delineation based on the Part of Reasoning (to be referred to as PR, or the Part hereinafter):

Ascendant is at 26d37m Libra and the Part is at 19d02m Gemini.

1) Lords of the ascendant, by order of importance are Saturn (almutem of the asc = exaltation and triplicity), Venus (co-almutem of the asc = ruler of domicile and bound), Mercury (primary triplicity ruler of a nocturnal nativity) and Jupiter (participating triplicity ruler)

- Saturn receives Mercury, ruler of the Part, by an opposition;
- Venus opposes the Part within about 2 degrees; opposes Mars (see below), trines Jupiter (trip ruler of the Part) and trines the Moon, significator of mind (especially perceptive and imaginational faculty of it);
- Mercury disposes the Part and makes a whole-sign trine to it and is received by opposition by Saturn (triplicity ruler of the Part), also trine a little off the orb with Mars, Mars being the quasi-major ruler of the Part (rules both bound and face at 19d02m Gemini);
- Jupiter casts a sextile to the Part.

So all rulers of the ascendant either aspects the Part or its ruler.

...TO BE CONTINUED

Hi Sigma,

I followed the link you gaved in order to make some researches.
I notice they are speaking about "1:00 GMT+2:00, 19/1/1976", so the local hour of his birth is 3 (AM or Pm? I couldn't tell from the text) not 1 as you mentioned.

Sasha,

let me clarify my position. I interpreted pariter cum aliquo loci testimonio as "[and] in the same time, it [sc. the lord of the Ascendant] has somewhat dignity in [their] place".
The first question is what pariter means. I suggested pariter cum means the same as una cum which is a more classical expression for "together with". As par means "equal", consequently, pariter can mean "equally" as well, which may allow your interpretation, namely, the text points to degrees with the same ascension. It depends upon the interpretation of the following, that is, how cum aliquo loci testimonio should be interpreted.
Although your argumentation makes sense, I am afraid, it is untenable. You interpret it as about testimonies coming from other places, but it would be cum aliquorum locorum testimoniis or similar.
After cum there must be a noun and/or a adjective in ablative case, and this is the testimonio in singular. The aliquo is an attribute for testimonio, not loci, as one would expect from the word order. (In that case, it would run as cum alicuius loci testimonio.) The text clearly speaks about "any testimony" which is better qualified with the possessive, singular loci, that is, "any testimony of [a] place". One may be dubious what place is disputed, because as you pointed out rightfully, there is no further qualification of the "place", so if anybody adds a possessive pronoun there, it is conjecture.
Now, the first part of the sentence spoke about the Part or its ruler being in aspect with the Lord of Ascendant. The clause says something like "equally/together with any testimony of place" where "testimony" must mean "dignity" and "place" can be interpreted as a place on the zodiac, that is, a sign or a degree. As I see it, the easiest way to treat this somewhat obscure passage as reception (in the astrological sense), that is, having dignity in its sign/degree, the Lord of Ascendant receives the Part or its ruler that can corroborate the indications for high intelligence further.
I must say, however, that it may make sense, I would be calm only if we could compare this interpretation with other variants of text. There might be corruption: e.g. it is possible that originally it was cum aliquorum locorum testimonio where abbreviations (aliquo4 loco4, for instance) were employed, and after the disappearance of them, our present text comes from a corrupted and slightly corrected (loci for loco) version. It is purely a philological question and in the present situation an independent version could help much.

I agree with you, that it would be of a great help another source in latin or arabic. I have a collection of arabic treatise. I shall search to see if I have Abumasar. I am looking for the Dvd , and when I will find it, I will present my conclusion.

with the possessive, singular loci,

Please don't take it personally, but I think that loci here is the plural from locus. it's about other places testimony

If we accept your opinion that testimonio is the noun, and loci is an attribute, the logical consequence would be: to say pariter with whom? With aliquo testimonio, would be the answer if we accept your opinion.
Now you say loci is an attribute: then the question would be what/which testimonio? The answer to this question can?t be loci. I think that the logical solution in order to give to the word loci a role in this clause is to consider testimonio as an attribute

Osthanes,

I think that we should look at other fragments from the text to see whether the texts offers some clues

Of course, this is not a personal but a technical question. It is natural that different views can emerge.

Please don't take it personally, but I think that loci here is the plural from locus.

I disagree, I am afraid. Syntactically I see that impossible, because if it is plural, then it is a nominative, so it should be the subject of the sentence. Besides, in that case it could not be placed in the center of an attributive clause. Moreover, locus is an irregular which has two plurals: loca for real places (like the zodiac), loci for only places in texts.

I think that the logical solution in order to give to the word loci a role in this clause is to consider testimonio as an attribute.

Sadly, I must contradict again. A noun (like testimonium) can be used as attribute only if it is in genitive case.
To descend to pure linguistic ground, following the traditional case descriptions, in that sentence cum testimonio from the nominal testimonium is a so-called ablativus modi. It has two attributes: one adjectival, a consecutive aliquid, and a nominal one, the loci being a so-called genitivus explicativus. The whole is an adverbial, modal phrase, which is intensified by pariter, a modal adverb, that gives a "societative" colour to the original modal phrase.

in the center of an attributive clause

I don't see an atributive clause here. where is the predicate? atributive to what clause?

As "attributive clause", I mean an association of a noun with an attribute. The latter can be an adjective or another noun in genitive. This is a complex attributive clause, having two attributes: one adjective (aliquid), and a noun (loci). It is like quaedam zodiaci pars, that is, "a certain part of the zodiac". In this example, quaedam is an adjective, zodiaci is a noun in genitivus possessivus.
The predicate, which must be a verb, is of course fuerit.

I confused it because in my language we have attribute at accusative case.

There is no problem. I think we can conciliate our different views, at least with your magnanimous help if you can find this text in your collection.

in my opinion pariter cum aliquo loci testimonio is a part of a larger clause : vel ipsa vel dominus eius cum orientis domino fuerit pariter cum aliquo loci testimonio. pariter cum in the same time with and then I think it follows a complement fuerit with whom ? with aliquo loci testimonio