-deleted-

Deb wrote:I just read this:

Saturn, the other malefic, is the day time ruler of air: that fits, because the reasoning here is that we want the malefics to act moderate so Saturn, as a cold and dry planet, is warmed as a diurnal planet and so he belongs to the diurnal sect. We want Mars a bit cooler, so to speak, that is why Mars belongs to the sect of the Moon.

Actually, to balance the excess the aim is to make Mars wetter, rather than cooler, because its cheif influence is to dry and burn (I.4, Robbins p.37). Also see Ptolemy 1.7 (p.43) where it is stated that Mars is allocated to the nocturnal sect in order that Mars "which is dry, is given to the moisture of night".

Yes, tou are right of course Deb! But thgen again, we keep the same problem: why the diurnal sect if we want a moderated Mars?
Well, perhaps there is no clear answer:)
Thank you for your reply,
regards,
Tienka

Hello Astrojin,
Thank you so much for your wonderful reply! I do think you are right here, as far as I can judge this matter:)
Perhaps that is the only reason why Ptolemy changed the rulership: making it a bit more fitting for his thinking.
Thank you all very much for your imput!
bye,
Tienka

Hi Tienka,

Tienka wrote:But thgen again, we keep the same problem: why the diurnal sect if we want a moderated Mars?
Well, perhaps there is no clear answer:)
?
Perhaps that is the only reason why Ptolemy changed the rulership: making it a bit more fitting for his thinking.

But I think there is a clear answer here; it?s just one that will come as a surprise to many because it revises what is currently being taught about the basis of sect-alignment. Ptolemy?s text shows that Mars doesn?t need to be in the diurnal sect to be moderated when in a water sign, because it is specifically moisture (not coldness) that most effectively moderates its drying/burning influence (moisture remember, is the primary quality of femininity). To demonstrate ? what would you do if you had something burning up or bursting into flames? Would you put it in the freezer to cool it down, or would you throw water at it? Hence in a water sign, both by day or night, the excessively destructive power of Mars is moderated.

Even though Ptolemy does not refer to Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces as the ?water triplicity? he demonstrates acknowledgement of their moistening qualities and also states that Mars is aligned because of the ?femininity of the signs? (and by femininity he does mean ?moist quality?: that much is very clear in his text). This brings to mind the recent discussions that Clelia raised in the combustion thread, about why Mars seems sometimes to be described as a ?feminine? planet as well as a nocturnal planet, even though it is quite clearly masculine in its essential nature and effects. I hadn?t realised the deeper implication of that particular discussion until now.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons why I don?t reject Ptolemy?s thinking out-of?hand, even though other texts might seem to offer a simpler and more obvious arrangement. Ptolemy?s humoral associations, when properly understood, make sense of many other planetary arrangements and associations, both before and after the ?Hellenistic period?. I hope to publish more on that soon(ish). For this reason I cannot accept that Ptolemy himself created or altered the planetary arrangements, because the logic was pre-existing, being implied in the details of older schemes (as Astrojin says, it helps explains the associations of winds, directions, and in fact, even the arrangement of the terms). Remember also, that we find evidence of competing traditions at that time, specifically with schemes that are labelled Egyptian or Babylonian; and that intellectual reputation in Ptolemy's era was established by showing broad awareness of the various and inter-linked philosophies of the contemporary and older authorities, not by casually innovating with traditional details. So we should be very cautious about assuming that because Ptolemy presents a different arrangement to what we find in other ?Hellenistic? sources, he was personally responsible for making changes himself.

Deb

PS - Astrojin, I also thought your post was very good and very informative, and I concur very much with how you explain this.

If it can be of help this is the table given by Bezza in his Comment to the first book of Tetrabiblos. Text in English.

http://cura.free.fr/decem/09simei.html


Mars is in the right place if I understand well, because it is a NOCTURNAL planet in nocturnal places. It respects the principle of hairesis, which was important for everybody, not just for Ptolemy.

Anyway I agree that Mars is a tricky planet, because it is an outer planet where Venus is inner, they don't behave in the same way

margherita

Hello all,

Figured I'd start trouble in this thread.

Astrojin, I don't think that algorithm you have for the Dorothean trigon lords works. It only seems to work for the watery trigon, maybe also for the earthy one as well (though one has to explain why Mercury either gets kicked out or becomes a pseudo-4th trigon lord??), and it doesn't explain the assignment of Saturn and Jupiter to the fiery and airy trigons, respectively. Recourse to a Stoic/Aristotelian humoural model only confuses matters. Why does Saturn go to Fire against its nature, and so the same with Jupiter and Air? The logic of the Dorothean lords still escapes me, even if they've proven useful ...

As for Ptolemy being a reformer, on the matter of the triplicities I believe he is actually holding with the tradtion as he understood or accepted it, if only reasoning it according to his prefered physical model.

Using the Thema Mundi, and taking the pivot triads (12th, 1st, and 2nd as one group, 3rd, 4th, and 5th as another, etc.), assign to their respective directions, the winds. Now look at what planets have their joys in the particular triads.

Wind_____Direction_____Pivot_____Planetary Joys
Notus_____South_____10th______Sun & Jupiter
Boreas____North______4th______Moon & Venus
Zephyrus__West______7th______Mars
Eurus_____East_______1st______Saturn & Mercury

Notus is associated with the hot winds of summer, Boreas the winter, and Zephyrus the spring. Eurus isn't associated with a season, but is described as unlucky.

These grouping match the Ptolemaic trigons, and so I don't believe he came up with them independantly.

GR wrote:Hello all,

Figured I'd start trouble in this thread.

Astrojin, I don't think that algorithm you have for the Dorothean trigon lords works. It only seems to work for the watery trigon, maybe also for the earthy one as well (though one has to explain why Mercury either gets kicked out or becomes a pseudo-4th trigon lord??), and it doesn't explain the assignment of Saturn and Jupiter to the fiery and airy trigons, respectively. Recourse to a Stoic/Aristotelian humoural model only confuses matters. Why does Saturn go to Fire against its nature, and so the same with Jupiter and Air? The logic of the Dorothean lords still escapes me, even if they've proven useful ...

As for Ptolemy being a reformer, on the matter of the triplicities I believe he is actually holding with the tradtion as he understood or accepted it, if only reasoning it according to his prefered physical model.

Using the Thema Mundi, and taking the pivot triads (12th, 1st, and 2nd as one group, 3rd, 4th, and 5th as another, etc.), assign to their respective directions, the winds. Now look at what planets have their joys in the particular triads.

Wind_____Direction_____Pivot_____Planetary Joys
Notus_____South_____10th______Sun & Jupiter
Boreas____North______4th______Moon & Venus
Zephyrus__West______7th______Mars
Eurus_____East_______1st______Saturn & Mercury

Notus is associated with the hot winds of summer, Boreas the winter, and Zephyrus the spring. Eurus isn't associated with a season, but is described as unlucky.

These grouping match the Ptolemaic trigons, and so I don't believe he came up with them independantly.

Every time we find something we don't understand we should try to plug it into the Thema Mundi as is done here. Schmidt has demonstrated that the chart of the world is a blueprint for understanding the basic concepts of chart interpretation from the Hellenistic era. Similarly, I think I have found the reason for the exaltation of the nodes (Gemini / Sagittarius) in case anyone has missed it:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... astro.html

Hello astrojin,

astrojin wrote:I gave a possible explanation for Dorotheus' arrangement and not Ptolemy's. I am also aware of the winds plus the Joys but as I said Ptolemy's arrangement could be explained either way (winds and primary qualities). Both methods of explaning Ptolemy's arragement (Ptolemy's own method i.e. primary qualities or the winds directions as you stated) did not explain Dorotheus' arrangement (which was what I tried to do!).

Yes, I know, I just don't think it really works, not completely anyway.

astrojin wrote: Ptolemy would take the ancients schemes (or any concepts) because they fit with his "scientific ideas" (he is far more Aristotelian than Platonian - which happens to be the sect that many modern Hellenistic embrace i.e. the Platonian one).

Sect?

Actually, I'm not sure how Ptolemy actually worked, and considering that his life is pretty much unaccounted for other than his surviving work, it is up in the air what he had access to and what he didn't. I think assuming that he had "the keys to the Alexandrian library" is high on the optimistic side.

astrojin wrote: You didn't read my post carefully.

Well in case I didn't, I've read it again, and again, you don't demonstrate the assignments from your algorithm.

astrojin wrote: There were Aristotelian astrologers and there were Platonian astrologers (sometimes they clash but most of the times they agree on the outcome though they had different ways of getting to the outcome).

I think putting these astrologers into little boxes is pointless, much as chopping up the philosophers since their ideas are so often intermingled.

-deleted-

Hi Gabe

It took me a while to understand your scheme; when I did I was quite impressed with it. However, I don?t personally feel that kind of logic would lie behind the arrangement of the triplicities, although I know these things need to be reflected upon and maybe it?s a concurring arrangement. My initial confusion was a failure to understand your reasons for including references to the winds. The association with joys is very neat but the planetary associations with winds seem to go against the usual correlations. (For example, Jupiter associates with the north wind, not the south). The reference to seasons is easier to understand - were you actually trying to demonstrate a planetary correlation with the winds there? If so it seems an unfamiliar one to me and doesn?t match with anything I?ve noticed in the ancient sources.

Regards
Deb

I have removed unnecessary references above to an astrologer who is not participating in the thread.

-deleted-