In the text with bold letters Rethorius used a word ?????????(epitheoreo) which is synonym of the word ??????(eforao) and which means looking ahead in the direction of the signs or sinister aspect in medieval/renaissance terminology.Here , I think, the connection between the sinister aspect and dominant position is very clear.

Hello, Astroart.

I wouldn't agree that the connection between sinister aspect and domination is clear from this quote - because sinister/dexter aspect depends wholly upon the relationship of the applying/applying to planet; dominance is another kind of principle(whenever a planet is in the 9th, 10th or 11th sign away from another, but this refers especially to the 10th) regardless of the kind of aspect they are connected with - be it sinister or dexter.

If, for instance, a planet that is in Aries(Mars) applies to a planet in Capricorn(Jupiter), it would be by dexter square, right? And that simultaneously means that the planet in Capricorn is the dominating one.
If it were the other way around, and planet from Capricorn(Mars) applied to another, more ponderous in Aries(Jupiter), we would have a sinister square, but the applying planet would again dominate the applied to planet(ten signs away from him.)

In medieval times they considered a sinister aspect weaker(I like the way Andrew explained the difference on his site ) and dexter more forceful; Deb also mentioned the connection to the Sun/Moon cycle, where Moon loses its power when waning(sinister aspects). So whereas sinister/dexter is about the force of an aspect, its ability to perform, dominance is all about 'who is the boss' between the two. Hence, these two principles are not mutually dependent - at least, that is my current level of understanding concerning this matter.

Goran

Hi cor scorpii!

I wouldn't agree that the connection between sinister aspect and domination is clear from this quote - because sinister/dexter aspect depends wholly upon the relationship of the applying/applying to planet

According to the opinion of Robert Schmidt in Hellenistic times the teaching of application(sunaphe)/separation(aporroia) was different from that of the aspect teaching.He says that in arabic astrology these two teachings have been mixed together.A quote from Schmidt:

"However, application and separation between planets can take place across the boundries of the zoidia, so that these concepts must be distinguished from aspect proper."(R.Schmidt,PHASE Watch Fancy ,1998,,v.1, p.80)

astroart wrote:Hi Deb!

Here we have two possible scenarios:
-the dominant/elevated position of one planet over other is on the basis of mundane position of the planet and is closely related with the phase between the planets
-the dominant/elevated position is based and closely related with the aspect between planets.

I don't see any difference between these two cases. At least Bezza in his "Commento al primo libro del Tetrabiblos" (Comment to the first book of Tetrabiblos) put them together.

The planet which rises before the other it's stronger and more powerful in every case.
Then what you call a second scenario, it's just a particular application of the first, ie the square from the tenth- the planet in the tenth is in the preceding signs in respect of the one which follows in the first.

Or at least I understand so from what I read.

margherita

According to the opinion of Robert Schmidt in Hellenistic times the teaching of application(sunaphe)/separation(aporroia) was different from that of the aspect teaching....

...application and separation between planets can take place across the boundries of the zoidia, so that these concepts must be distinguished from aspect proper

I think Schmidt is now doing what used to be called "adding an epicycle"

According to the opinion of Robert Schmidt in Hellenistic times the teaching of application(sunaphe)/separation(aporroia) was different from that of the aspect teaching.He says that in arabic astrology these two teachings have been mixed together.A quote from Schmidt:

"However, application and separation between planets can take place across the boundries of the zoidia, so that these concepts must be distinguished from aspect proper."(R.Schmidt,PHASE Watch Fancy ,1998,,v.1, p.80)

Yes, according to R. Schmidt, aspect proper is formed only when the two planets are 3 degrees apart(applying/separating) which makes 7 degrees in total; although separation can not properly be called an aspect. At the same time, an aspect can be formed across the boundaries of two signs, but under the condition that the planets are 3 degrees apart, as I said. Everything other than that is just "testifying" when two planets form a figure between the signs that behold each other - but even here, testimony proper can only occur when the two planets will also form an exact aspect before either of them changes signs - hope I've summarized this correctly...


If you wish to read about this in more detail, please go to
http://actastrology.com/viewforum.php?f=4

(but I assume you've already visited that forum )

Deb wrote:

According to the opinion of Robert Schmidt in Hellenistic times the teaching of application(sunaphe)/separation(aporroia) was different from that of the aspect teaching....

...application and separation between planets can take place across the boundries of the zoidia, so that these concepts must be distinguished from aspect proper

I think Schmidt is now doing what used to be called "adding an epicycle"

Actually I think Dimitar is reading into it a bit?

Hi Deb, did you pick up the Antiochus book by any chance? ;D

The core of the discussion is about the meaning of the left-hand/right-hand aspects.

A dexter aspect is therefore more direct. Because the line of sight is carried by diurnal motion it has a stronger influence than a sinister one and is more likely to produce an uncomplicated, expressive effect. A sinister aspect, because it is issued against the natural movement of heaven and has to 'look backwards', is weaker, distorted, inverted or somewhat debilitated. The terms generally convey something of the ancient and widespread belief that the direction 'right' is manifest, strong and linked to diurnal qualities, while 'left' is hidden, passive and nocturnal. Hence the word sinister, originally used to depict something belonging to the left, has come to mean something that is dark, hidden or in an unnatural state

Here I will quote Schmidt(D&F,p.142):
"As in most ancient cultures, the right is the side that signifies what is fortunate and strong, whereas the left what is sinister and weak.These associations are a cornerstone of augury and other ancient divinatory practices.The augur would face north , and birds that flew from west -that is , from the direction on the augur's left -were a bad omen;this motion eastwards from the west accords with the proper motion of the planets.On the other hand, birds that flew from the east on the right of the augur were a good omen; this motion accords with the diurnal rotation."

To avoid this negative connotations of the meaning of the word "left" Antiochus don't used the common greek word for "left" ?????????, but used another word-????????(Antiochus, The Thesaurus, 22.Concerning Right and Left Side).
The meaning of the word ????????? is - left, on the left; sinister;ominous;clumsy.The meaning of the word ???????? is -of good name, of good omen;of the left hand.
(Translations are according to Pocket Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary.Same is in a Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon)

Thanks to everybody for your interesting replies!

Allthough it seems quite obvious that there are two different principles involved (as Deb mentioned) I still feel some kind of contradiction when it comes to practical delineation.

Deb wrote:

The Moon could still dominate the Sun in that mundane position, but the aspect would be the sinister, waning square, by which the Moon moves towards the Sun from its left side to close its cycle

When the waning Moon is considered weaker and when a dexter aspect is considered to have a more forceful influence: how can the sinister aspect of the Moon still dominate the Sun? How can a waning and weak Moon dominate another planet? This is what I can`t bring together at the moment.

Maybe my thinking is too black-and-white in this case . But I can`t see how a planet that diminishes in light through his application to another planet can at the same time dominate this planet.

Andrew`s article is also quite interesting. When I understood it right dexter and sinister is connected to the application of the swifter planet. When I omit the outer planets in a traditional delineation then Saturn would barely be able to cast a sinister or dexter aspect because he is the slowest planet. I think only retrogradation could change this.

In the example with ME in 6? Aries and MA in 6? Leo I too would say that ME makes a sinister aspekt to MA. Generally ME is always the swifter planet (except he is stationary) and I would say that ME in 5? Sagittarius makes a dexter aspect to MA - I do not consider retrogradation or stationarity here.

Andrew wrote in his article:

Take the example of Mercury in 6 Aries and Mars in 6 Leo; if Mars is the significator, then Mars will receive the sinister trine form Mercury; if Mercury is the significator, then he will form a sinister trine to Mars. The applying planet tells who is initiation or moving into the event.

Which are the conditions a planet have to fulfill to be the significator in an aspect (or sender or receiver)? Is it the essentially and accidentially most dignified planet, the faster moving planet, another condition or a combination?

Maybe my thoughts go in the totally wrong direction (or I just ask stupid questions ).

Best wishes
Jogi

Which are the conditions a planet have to fulfill to be the significator in an aspect (or sender or receiver)? Is it the essentially and accidentially most dignified planet, the faster moving planet, another condition or a combination?

This was my head-ache when I started working with sinister and dexter aspects. It is always the swifter planet that forms the aspect. Then see wther that aspect is cast forward and ahead in the zodiac, sinister, or backwards into covered and familiar gound, dexter.

With Mercury's slow motion leading up to his station on Oct 6. this year we did have the case of Mercury first forming a dexter square to Mars, followed by Mars perfecting a sinister square to Mercury before Mercury turned retrograde. Off the top of my head I am not sure whether an aspect is sinister or dexter when the planets mutually apply to each other. I think it would be a combination where the one planet was casting a sinister square and another one a dexter.

Jogi wrote: When the waning Moon is considered weaker and when a dexter aspect is considered to have a more forceful influence: how can the sinister aspect of the Moon still dominate the Sun? How can a waning and weak Moon dominate another planet? This is what I can`t bring together at the moment.

Maybe my thinking is too black-and-white in this case . But I can`t see how a planet that diminishes in light through his application to another planet can at the same time dominate this planet.

Your logic doesn't seem to be taking into account that diurnal rotation is clockwise but zodiacal motion counter-clockwise. So a waning Moon would actually be dominated by the Sun in this system.

On the other hand this is not the only system, in the Indo-Greek version the "sinister" square is the stronger one (I assume diurnal motion is not considered, only the sequence of the signs and houses but maybe still with the concept of "forward" looking planets in a different context. Maybe the forward-looking concept comes down to whether one believes aspects are related to diurnal rotation or zodiacal position.)

CJ wrote

Your logic doesn't seem to be taking into account that diurnal rotation is clockwise but zodiacal motion counter-clockwise. So a waning Moon would actually be dominated by the Sun in this system.

Indeed I know that diurnal rotation is clockwise (I know at least this for sure ).
And this is actually what I ment: E.g. the Moon in 4? Pices and the Sun in 6? Gemini. This is a waning Moon - so a weak or weaker Moon. Additionally the Moon makes a sinister square with the Sun - sinister as weaker or not so influential. And as you mentioned one would say that the Moon is dominated by the Sun.

But at the same time the Moon is in the 10th sign of the Sun and so is said to dominate the Sun - and exactly this is my problem. How does that fit together in practical delineation (and this is what counts the most - at least for me).

This would mean that I either stick to the one or to the other concept. It would mean that they cannot be used simultaneously. But in the life of the native one thing must be true or at least more true than the other, that is the Moon dominates the Sun or the Sun dominates the Moon. And if it is so, one of the two concepts is wrong

Which are the conditions a planet have to fulfill to be the significator in an aspect (or sender or receiver)? Is it the essentially and accidentially most dignified planet, the faster moving planet, another condition or a combination?

According to the opinion of prof.Giuseppe Bezza(Milano) in this case-the predominance(kathyperth?resis) of one planet over the other- the most important factors are two: the essential nature of the involved planets(benefic/malefic) and the concordance/discordance between the sect (hairesis) of the planets. If the two stars are of the same fraction, day or night, and if the preeminent planet is a benefic- it means a good things. Otherwise, if the the two stars are of the opposite fraction, day or night, and if the preeminent planet is a malefic -it means a harmful things.