MarkC wrote: Yuzuru

Your quotes certainly dont confirm the statement attributed to Abu'Mashar in Astrology Weekly. Perhaps not the most reliable source for information on traditional astrology.

However, I am somewhat confused by your statement:

I don?t see any reason to think that Abu Mashar considered cazimi as a "not so good" condition.

You yourself provide a quote from Abu'Mashar that does seem to support that view. :

15 - the misfortune of the planets is if they.... are in the conjunction with the sun or in quartile aspect or in opposition...

That hardly sounds like the ultra positive notion of cazimi found in Lilly does it? However, I assume that reference is just to combustion in regards conjunction with the sun?

What exactly does Abu'Mashar say about cazimi? Maybe that will clear this up.

I know as yet what Abu'Mashar said by the quotations of Yuzuru only, but these are clear:

Chapter4, p. 30
2 - The good fortune of the planets is if they are in an aspect of the benefics - either sextile or trine - or they are in conjunction with them, or the malefics are cadent from them, or they are separating from a benefic and applying to another benefic, or they are contained between two benefics, or in the heart, or an aspect of the moon while the moon is made fortunate...

"in the heart" mean cazimi

p.33
15 - the misfortune of the planets is if they are in conjunction with the malefics or in their opposition....Or they are in the conjunction with the sun or in quartile aspect or in opposition...

In these quotations Abu Masher speaks of in the heart = cazimi as good and of conjunction as bad. I suppose, his definition of cazimi is in the same ecliptical longitude AND the same ecliptical latitude with the sun.

Johannes

hnmmm
just to clear it up, when he says "conjunction" he means only combustion

when he says "in the heart" he means cazimi.

cazimi good, conjunction bad :-)

Hi yuzuru,

our postings just overlapped. Would you agree with my explanation above?

Only when there is no space around the sun and the planet we can't see the planet and can really say, that this planet is 'in the Sun's heart'!

Hello Yuzuru,

Sorry I missed that reference to 'in the heart' in the first quote you gave.
Thanks for clarifying. I have Ben Dykes translation of Sahl and M?sh??all?h so I will check this out for comparison.

Hi Margherita,

Why would I still check out Olympiodoros? Well because I want to see if Greenbaum has annotated any notes to accompany the translation.

Lets be clear. I certainly dont object to the idea the notion is hellenistic on principle. Its just the references you and Sasha have provided have not been explicit enough. What you have posted so far has not , for me at least, proven your point. That is not to say there are no such references.....

As Sahl ibn Bishr (c. early 9th century) seems to use the idea that puts this in the same time frame as Abu 'Mashar. It will be interesting to check out M?sh??all?h bin Athar? (c. 740-c. 815), also working in the early 9th century. Like Abu'Mashar these two astrologers were of Persian descent.

We know these astrologers borrowed heavily from earlier hellenistic astrology so this does strenghthen the possibility that the idea has a late hellenistic source. It would be useful to see what Rhetorius actually says in more detail.

Hi Johannes,

I

suppose, his definition of cazimi is in the same ecliptical longitude AND the same ecliptical latitude with the sun.

I believe Bonatti used to consider this but I dont know if this notion finds reference in older sources.

Only when there is no space around the sun and the planet we can't see the planet and can really say, that this planet is 'in the Sun's heart'!

Well, technically speaking, when the planet is under combustion he is already invisible... :-)

Sahl:

The explanation of the strength of the planets is to which of them will there be missing an opportunity or an impediment to completing a matter when they have received and promised it. This is done in 11 modes, of which the first is when there is a planet in a good house from the ASC(...)

The tenth is when the planets are in the heart of the Sun, i.e. with the Sun in one degree, because then the fortunes increase good fortune and their good, but the malefics both increase and greatly strengthen their evil.

Hello Johannes,

Regarding Bonatti here is a quote clarifying that he certainly considered ecliptical longitude and latitude equal requirements for cazimi to be properly established:

?. . . and when (a planet) is with the Sun in one degree, so that there are 16? or less between them, both by latitude and longitude (which rarely happens), it is said to be united, and then it is made strong, because it is in the Sun?s forge, that is, in his heart.?

The Book of Astronomy, Treatise 3, Chapter 7 ?On the Dasturya or Haym of the Planets? translated by Dr Benjamin. Dykes

Tank you Mark, but I just read a passage with Abu'Mashar, which I'll quote at once. Very astonishing. Obviously my understanding of him was correct - at least not so wrong.

Please wait a moment . . .

Hello Mark,

Abu'Mashar, 'The Abbreviation . . .', Chapter Three,

"[13] 'Application' is of two species. One of them is application in longitude, the other is application in latitude. . . [15] If application in latitude is from conjunction, then it is, when the two planets are in one sign and they are equal in degrees, in logitude and in latitude and are in the same direction, and one of the two eclipses the other."

In this picture the combustion is not ended, when the planet has latitude to the Sun, but when he eclipses the planet (both in same longitude and latitude), then this planet is 'in the heart' = good fortune.

But I can't still find his definition of cazimi, which would approve my assumption.

Johannes

Sorry for delay

I think it?s better to cite exactly from a fragment that is generally supposed to be written by Antiochus which is resumed by Rhetorius in the referenced mentioned in my last post.

Antiochus, Fragmenta (cod. Paris), 105. lines 15-18:

?????? ??? ?? ???????????? ????????? ?? ???? ? ????
?????? ? ???? ??????, ? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????


I?m far away from being expert in Greek but resuming it says that the stars are united with Sun in the same degree (in longitude, in the text peri moiras) or by mundane conjunction (here is a key, because in the text we find para moiras, and I think that Bezza is right when considers that in fact we are dealing with horary distance). It is mentioned that the ancient authors didn?t speak about this (i.e. egkardion/ synodikos or cazimi for Arabs), but they founded to be true in practice.

Hi Sasha,

I?m far away from being expert in Greek but resuming it says that the stars are united with Sun in the same degree (in longitude, in the text peri moiras) or by mundane conjunction (here is a key, because in the text we find para moiras, and I think that Bezza is right when considers that in fact we are dealing with horary distance). It is mentioned that the ancient authors didn?t speak about this (i.e. egkardion/ sydeyontes or cazimi for Arabs), but they founded to be true in practice.

Thank you very much for doing that.

So the principal is established by either conjunction within one degree of longitude or by mundane aspect (effectively fulfilling the latitude requirement). Can I just clarify though whether the notion of egkardion or synodikos was described in the same highly auspicious way as the latter term cazimi? That is my only difficulty with accepting this is as synonymous with cazimi.

Mark, you are driving me crazy

MarkC wrote: Why would I still check out Olympiodoros? Well because I want to see if Greenbaum has annotated any notes to accompany the translation.

I meant, why you are not convinced that before Arabs, the conjunction with the Sun in a degree was a peculiar phase different from combustion? If it had the same meaning why they should list as another case...

In every case case Sarapione, who seems to write around II century adds that Mercury rejoices when it is synodical.
If Sasha could find the Greek quote would be perfect, or so I hope. Saint Sasha...

Margherita

Hi Margherita,

Mark, you are driving me crazy

Your not the first woman to tell me that. I take no responsibility for your mental health

I meant, why you are not convinced that before Arabs, the conjunction with the Sun in a degree was a peculiar phase different from combustion? If it had the same meaning why they should list as another case...

I never said I wasn't. Its just sources quoted so far given were not clear cut that a planet is saved the debility of combustion. Its also that I felt it was a significant step from that to the medieval position which sees it as highly auspicious.

I feel someone on the forum has to ask these difficult questions as I dont think a casual observer is going to see the matter as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Its no doubt clear in your head. However, up to now the text quotes provided have not been as definitive.

I also feel that by not readily accepting your view I motivate you and Sasha to work hard to prove the hellenistic connection. I figured the more passionately you wanted to prove your point the harder you would work to find a 'killer quote'. Its for the good of other forum members you see. This kind of material is like gold dust.

In every case case Sarapione, who seems to write around II century adds that Mercury rejoices when it is synodical.

Ah. You didn't mention that quote before. That changes everything. Maybe that is your killer quote! . Thats the kind of quote I was hoping to see!

Is this Serapio of Alexandria?

Project Hindsight states about him:

Serapio of Alexandria (of uncertain date, but probably B.C.E.). Not explicitly mentioned by Firmicus, but perhaps belonging to this period. The few surviving fragments of Serapio mostly deal with inceptional or katarchic astrology (that is, electional issues); there is one important fragment that sets out a general strategy for doing such katarchic investigations, and Serapio may have been one of the earliest systematizers of this theory.