Hello Dimitar,

astroart wrote:
So I think that the conceptual basis behind the aspects is different according to Schmidt(Greek optical theory) and Bezza(Pythagorean theory of universal harmony and proportions).

I don't see any contrast, they are both mentioned in the same chapter, the one about " of the aspects of the sign", Quad., I, 13.

This is usual in Bezza, especially here, a comment to Ptolemy. In the first part he mentions the theory of music, which is Ptolemy method, then he explains the two forms of the aspect based on optics; while in the next chapter he explains seeing and hearing signs.

I believe the difference is Bezza starts always from Ptolemy, Schdmidt is more oriented to Hellenistic astrology, but obviously are the same river.....

margherita

I've been doing a lot of work on the relationship between Greek optical theories and the concept of aspects in the early Hellenistic tradition over the past few years, so I can answer some questions about it.

From what I can tell, the Hellenistic astrologers seem to have drawn pieces from a few different Greek optical theories in order to explain the aspect doctrine, and I've had some difficulty nailing it down to a specific school.

When it comes to aversions the primary motivation seems to be a concept that first shows up briefly in Plato's Timaeus and then later became a core component in the optical theories of Plotinus. In Plato it is initially couched in this sort of innocuous statement that when the visual ray emanates from the eye "like meets with like" and this is what allows sight to take place. Plotinus seems to have taken this statement and merged it with the Stoic concept of sympathy in order to create an optical theory where vision takes place due to an affinity between the observer and the observed. When two things share some sort of affinity or sympathy this allows them to see each other or relate to each other, but when they share no affinity or sympathy they are unable to see each other or relate to each other.

This optical theory that requires sympathy in order for there to be a connection actually becomes a core assumption in the Hellenistic aspect doctrine. Manilius and Ptolemy explain it the most clearly when they talk about the nature of the aspects within the context of the mutual affinity between the signs that the planets are placed in, or a lack thereof. All of the signs that are configured are those that share some affinity either by gender, modality or triplicity, while all of those that are in aversion share none of these affinities.

So, in this way the traditional aspect doctrine is intimately tied into the zodiac and the relationship between the signs. It wasn't until Kepler came along that the aspects became completely divorced from the zodiac and instead conceptualized solely as geometrical relationships between planets. What is weird about that though is that while the later tradition didn't really follow Kepler in downplaying the use of the zodiac, they did follow his approach in conceptualizing the aspects in purely geometrical terms. It appears to me that this is one of the fundamental conceptual distinctions between modern and traditional astrology.

Chris,

Thank you for your considerations, they where really helpfull. If you ever have anything else to add on the subject, that would be much appreciated.