margherita wrote:

Clelia Romano wrote:
I always took for granted that Ptolemy used to direct the anareta to the place of the hyleg using ascensional times. I?ll have to find out the excert that says so in the 3rd Book of the Tetrabiblos.

The method described in that chapter of Tetrabiblos is different from the Hellenistic one. Ptolemy uses semiarc method.

Anyway I would NOT discard the method you used, it gives 66, so for me it's good enough

yes, Margherita, but I want to know what I?m doing: to reach the correct time is not the problem, since as you know the chart came up because it was a puzzle for me. Other astrologer already reached 66 years using the middle years of the Moon

I?m reading here in Book 3, that there are 2 methods and, if I understood it correctly, one when the releaser is between the MC and the horoskopus, and the other when it is between the 7th and MC.
Ptolemy gives more methods to do the releasing after a while: the ascensional times and the hourly times, that have to do with the motion of the sky(PM)

I don?t know if I?m wrong but I understand that he admitted the use of ascensional times.

Clelia

Hello Petr:

There are some remarks I want to point out:

Ptolemy : Sun is less than 25 degrees from Asc .
Valens : Sun is the angular house, Moon is cadent(Antology III).
Dorotheus I : Jupiter apper heliacally in the period of +-7day from birth and birth Sun is in the terms of Jupiter. Jupiter is in angles house(Carmen Astrologicum and Rumen Kolev Greek & Arab Astrology, Hyleg,Alchocoden & Almuten Part I).

Valens in fact does not chose the Moon or the Sun in first place, but he recommended a formula, depending if the nativity was conjunctional or preventional. Later, in medieval times, this formula will turn out as the Pars Hyleg of Bonatti that is not any other thing than a much older way to find the apheta.
The formula: ASC+Moon -San, when the nativity is conjuntional) and ASC+SAN-Moon when preventional.
The way Valens used the formula had some differences when the nativity was preventional, but this is not my phocus now;-)
If the zoidion where the number left off was a masculine zoidia and the nativity diurnal, and the bound lord was not cadent or in bad aspect to the Sun ( in diurnal nativity, for nocturnal, the opposite) we should take it as the apheta. If not..etc..

So, perhaps it was best to leave Valens outside of the discussion, because he has a very different point of view and his writings are very obscure in many points

I am using the procedure of Persian or Arabic astrologers.
This is a compilation Omar, Alcabitius, Abubakr, IbnEzra, AbenRagel and others.
She gives better results.

I agree! But this time it did not work

For our example.
The Moon is cadent, he can not be hyleg.
Sun is in female quadrant and signs can not be hyleg.

Only because that? Being a luminarie in the first house does not counts anymore?

I do think that the Sun is our first choice, but there are no planets aspecting the Sun with dignities in his place.
This case opened an important window to me, because it proved that Saturn really impeded the aspect Sun/Jupiter. Otherwise the native would have lived much less than he actually did.
The Sun had to be discarded because he had no alchocodem.

PF is in the succedent house.The ruler of the PF is in the angular house (Saturn). He is also the ruler of triplicity. Both planets are fast and oriental.
We select the one that gives more vitality

I do not agree again. We are not dealing with Primary Motivation?we have to pick the one which has dignity in the Hyleg?s place.

Saturn.

?Alcocoden gives the most years under AbenRagel:

1)He is at 1, 10, 11, 5 houses ? 57y?

I do not have this book, but I?m impressed that the author gives the bigger years if the Alchocodem was in the 11th or 5th: are you sure this is not a rule for the Hyleg to be able to be chose?

Well after so many disagreements I hope I did not upset you!


Clelia

Clelia Romano wrote:
I don?t know if I?m wrong but I understand that he admitted the use of ascensional times.

Clelia

Ptolemy gives examples of his method in the III,11 Quadripartite, still he exposes the rule he follows in the last chapter of last book:

And again we must assign years to the degrees of the intervals: in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned; in the prorogation from mid?heaven, as many as the times of the culminations; and in the prorogations from all the others, in proportion to or in accordance with the nearness of the risings, or settings, or culminations, to the angles, as we explained in the discussion of the length of life.

As you see this excludes the method of ascensional times because there wherever planets are, we don't take this into any consideration.

Moreover in Ptolemy example is Saturn which should go to the Sun, not viceversa, according the same chapter you mention.

In any case as you showed ascensional times work. For me too a Sun in the first house should be hyleg....

margherita

Hi Clelia!

Valens in fact does not chose the Moon or the Sun in first place, but he recommended a formula, depending if the nativity was conjunctional or preventional.

I have a different opinion on an interpretation of Valens. He says: ..And before all, let the predomination for the Sun and the Moon be sought..

His method is not described completely. I agree with the opinion:

So, perhaps it was best to leave Valens outside of the discussion, because he has a very different point of view and his writings are very obscure in many points

I agree! But this time it did not work .

I think that it is functional.

Only because that? Being a luminarie in the first house does not counts anymore?

I do think that the Sun is our first choice, but there are no planets aspecting the Sun with dignities in his place.

I start from Arabic doctrine.The Sun can not be there hyleg. The input is find the right hyleg and alchocoden. Determine the approximate length of life through alchocoden. This question was resolved by Persian and Arab astrologers.
Ptolemy gone another way ? Actinobolia and Horimea.

I do not agree again. We are not dealing with Primary Motivation?we have to pick the one which has dignity in the Hyleg?s place.

I accept. The question is: is hyleg ASC, PF or SAN acording method to Arab?

I do not have this book, but I?m impressed that the author gives the bigger years if the Alchocodem was in the 11th or 5th: are you sure this is not a rule for the Hyleg to be able to be chose?

Libro Conplido de Ali Ben Ragel.

Well after so many disagreements I hope I did not upset you!

That's all right.

I did not finish post. It was little time for me.
Jupiter has the same position as Saturn. He gives (1 -5 point): ): 79 + 79 + 79 + 12 + 45,5 = 294,5/5 =58,9y
Sun add 19y. Saturn substract 30y. The question is what substract Mars. As Mars is strong. Whether it takes away all years or 1 / 3. Whether the reception Moon - Jupiter's through triplicity indicate relationship, which adds years. Moon is in term Venus.
Mercury has a reception over the term, she is changing the nature aspect.
He is retrograde and combustion.He does not add etc.

The conclusion is that Jupiter is not required years.

My experience is : hyleg determined according to Ptolemy, and years set the Arab alchocoden method often leads to bad results. Complex Arab method gives better results.
Ptolemy's method for determining the length of life is different.
Horimea or actinobolia by position hyleg.

The method of determining hyleg under Ptolemy gives three candidates:
Sun, Saturn, Jupiter
The Sun is strongest, because it is the first house.The position of the Sun determines the method of Actinobolia.
First we determine anaretic points.

Hi Margherita:

Sorry if I?m stuborn...but this kind of things really confuses me. I know he gave an example in the end of the books, and by his example he used Primary Directions.

But in your quote:

in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned

margherita wrote:

Clelia Romano wrote:
it does not mean that times of ascension in the latitude is the same as ascensional times?

Did he perhaps used both?

Thank you Margherita!

Cl?lia

Clelia Romano wrote:Hi Margherita:

Sorry if I?m stuborn...but this kind of things really confuses me. I know he gave an example in the end of the books, and by his example he used Primary Directions.

But in your quote:

margherita wrote:in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned

it does not mean that times of ascension in the latitude is the same as ascensional times?

Did he perhaps used both?

Cl?lia

Yes but not alternatively.....

You should read that for points to the Ascendant we should use oblique ascensions, but for points to MC their right ascension and for the rest of the points something between these values.


margherita

Yes but not alternatively.....

You should read that for points to the Ascendant we should use oblique ascensions, but for points to MC their right ascension and for the rest of the points something between these values.

margherita[/quote]

yes, Margherita! The calculations for the points between MC and 7th are in mundo.

Thanks for that!

Cl?lia