Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:26 am**

Chris Brennan wrote:

I've been combing through ancient philosophical and medical texts and trying to find any references that I can to the way that the Stoics conceptualized the elements and their individual qualities. Unfortunately the amount of material that has survived is rather slim...

I've been doing the same thing, but I think on a much smaller scale. And yes, the material is slim. Recently I found a lecture on "The Physics of the Stoics" which offers a few clues to Valens' comments in The Anthology on the signs. http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi143/stoaphys.htm (Quotes and thoughts below are mainly from this lecture.)

...although I have been able to find enough to indicate that they did have an alternate temperament theory that differs from the Aristotelian model adopted by Galen. I'm trying to tease out as many of the nuances of this approach as I can based on what little material survives...

Chris, could you possibly post what you've found? It has seemed to me that the Stoics thought on more of a cosmic scale that can't easily be applied to the astrology of personality and temperament.

...although at this point I'm starting to think that the full reconstruction of the model is going to require a lot of conceptual speculation based on only a few scraps.

This is the impression I've been getting as well: conceptional speculation because there's not much to go on.

The results would be worthwhile though, because it would allow us to have a conceptual model for interpreting the elements that actually matches the original motivation underlying their assignments.

I'm wondering if there even was an original motivation in relation to astrology. It seems to me at this time that Valens took the philosophy of the Stoics, and more or less tossed a few concepts into his astrology. Here is an example: (I'll use S for Schmidt, R for Riley and G for Gehrz)

Valens separates the signs into two groups, fire and air on one hand and earth and water on the other.

He calls fiery and airy signs [S: ascending; R: upward-trending; G: inclined or carried upwards]

He calls earthy and watery signs [S: descending; R: downward trending; G: inclined-downwards]

Then we look at this from the Stoic perspective:

"The universe is said to fall under two principles: an active principle which is rational, and a passive principle which is matter without any qualities."

The active is eternal and penetrates all matter. It can be called "the craftsman." Fire is pre-eminent, commanding, and the element from which the others emerge in the order of air, water and earth. Fire and air are active, water and earth are passive.

A blend of fire and air make up the soul of animals (including the human animal) and nature. The human soul is rational in that it can use judgement to accept or reject what is presented to it. This ability provides the basis of action. (The unspoken word here is perhaps that earth and water don't have that ability and so are "passive"!?)

Fire and air are sustaining; water and earth are sustained.

So then we come to Valens on signs of the zodiac:

Beginning with Aries (fiery), which he calls "commanding and just, authoritative, bold in purpose."

Taurus (earthy) is "unprolific, semi-vocal, mute, common, incomplete..."

I've only chosen a few words of Valens' discription of these two signs to make a point. I have yet to make a thorough study of all he says about the twelve signs, but we can perhaps see that he rates the "higher" Stoic element of fire over the "lower" element of earth. (I can expand on this later and reference the remaining signs.) There are also some curiosities in his description of signs that I'll try to review. Again, there seems to be a connection with the philosophy of the Stoics. There is a Stoic explanation as to why he calls the airy signs [S: effeminate; R: feminizing; G: womanish] (Though these are masculine signs.)

Please correct me, Chris, if necessary. I believe you've done a lot more research on Stoic philosophy than I have. This is pretty deep water, and as astrologers we're rather out of our depth. Speaking for myself at least!

Therese

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:38 am**

Therese wrote:

I have gone back and reviewed the thread you referenced and read your posts. I've also reviewed the Greenbaum book which I have filled with sticky notes and underlines. Due to my rather poor memory I had forgotten much of her discussion on the elements. Yet, when all is said and done, she has a chart on page 88, "Analysis of Temperament in the Natal Chart." This chart has the standard elements according to Aristotle in relation to triplicities. "Hot and wet" for air signs, "hot and dry" for fire signs, etc.

Its undeniable that Dorian Greenbaum concentrates on the main tradition of astrological temperament. Her book would be a very odd work indeed if it airbrushed out the only tradition of qualities linked to signs to pass on to medieval and renaissance astrology. Her book is after all a work examining the tradition of temperament as it evolved western astrology not a might have been 'sliding doors' alternatve astrological history. To seek to resurrect a long neglected Stoic approach as you and Chris are doing is a very different project.

Having said that Greenbaum is fully aware of this issue as she points out in her book:

The Stoics
So let us turn to the Stoics, whose school began with Zeno of Citium in around 300BCE. Like Empedocles, Plato and Aristotle before him, Zeno believed in the theory of the four elements composing the physical world. However, unlike Aristotelian, only one quality was assigned to each of the four elements. Thus, fire is associated with hot and air with cold ; fire and air are the ?active? elements. Water and earth, the ?passive? elements, are associated with wet and dry respectively.
These associations have great ramifications for astrological theory. Both Stoic and Aristotelian philosophy were incorporated into Hellenistic astrology, and the principles of both concerning elements (especially, Aristotlian, for temperament) and cosmology ( especially Stoic) were used by astrologers in the Greek-speaking world from Ptolemy to Olypiodorus and beyond. Temperament : Astrology?s Forgotten Key, p14, Dorian Greenbaum, 2005.

We appear to have three contrasting approaches to applying qualities to signs offered to us in 2nd century CE astrology. In essence that of Ptolemy, Valens and Galen. As we all know it was Galen?s approach, originating from medical astrology, that emerged as the predominant model so that by the time of Abu?Mashar it was the unquestioned paradigm of qualities linked to signs.

I think Ptolemy?s perspective is equally as intriguing as that of Valens. Ptolemy?s approach is both naturalistic in being linked to the solar seasons and the domicile rulerships. Fertile signs are linked to the benefics (Taurus, Sagittarius, Libra and Pisces). They have the quality of moistness which is life affirming. Signs linked to the malefics are either cold (Capricorn and Aquarius) or dry (Aries and Scorpio). Both these qualities are traditionally seen as destructive in excess symbolised by the malefics. I confess the signs I have main difficulty clarifying the quality for in Ptolemy?s system are the mercury ruled signs. Ptolemy simply states the mercury ruled signs form a sextile to the luminaries but doesn?t state an explicit quality. On reflection it seems that a dry quality may fit the traditional association of Mercury. Due to its common mutable nature though its difficult to be emphatic here. there is certainly an argument that diurnal signs tend to more warmth in general terms. Thus it would seem logical for Gemini to have some of the warmth of the day while Virgo has the coolness of the night. I need more time to reflect on this and will come back to this topic later in the thread.

We can obviously apply this kind of sect based logic to the other signs. Hence for Aquarius we see the diurnal sign of the diurnal planet Saturn as relatively less cold than Capricorn due to the daylight warmth. In terms of the luminaries Cancer is a nocturnal sign and its ruler the Moon is a nocturnal planet. Hence of the luminaries Cancer is warm but not as hot as the Sun. Its warmth comes puerly from the collection of light from the Sun. Ptolemy actually, consider the Moon as a life affirming benefic when it has the light of the Sun. Unlike the later medieval tradition Ptolemy describes the Moon?s essential nature as warm and moist.

So is Ptolemy?s approach Aristotelian or actually more reminiscent of a Stoic approach? His approach clearly has some links to the Stoics with a single quality attributed to each sign. Equally, there appears to be a diamtrical opposition between qualities in line with the ways the Stoics suggested. However, as so often with Ptolemy he appears to have evolved his own approach. Hence the air signs are not all associated with cold as a purely Stoic approach would suggest. More fundamentally, Ptolemy doesn't arrange the qualities to signs by triplicity.

In short:

Aries (dry)?Libra (moist)
Taurus (moist)-Scorpio (dry)
Gemini-(dry?)-Sagittarius (moist)
Cancer (warm)-Capricorn (cold)
Leo (hot)-Aquarius (cold)
Virgo (dry)-Pisces (moist)

Mark

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:33 am**

Mark wrote:

However, as so often with Ptolemy he appears to have evolved his own approach. Hence the air signs are not all associated with cold as a purely Stoic approach would suggest.

In short:

Aries (dry)?Libra (moist)
Taurus (moist)-Scorpio (dry)
Gemini-(dry?)-Sagittarius** (moist)
Cancer (hot)-Capricorn (cold)
Leo (hot)-Aquarius (cold)
Virgo (dry?)-Pisces (moist)

Mark, isn't this playing havoc with sect and nocturnal/diurnal triplicity rulerships? Those were such a solid part of Hellenistic astrology. And if you take all the moist signs, for example (Libra, Taurus, Pisces, Sag), these signs have hardly anything in common with each other via observed traits. They are from four different triplicities! So I really can't see this working with the zodiac signs as we know them. (Tropical or Sidereal)

Though I've done some research and thinking on the Stoic elements, I reserve judgement as to whether they belong with the trigons in the psychological sense, though they may work with lunar cycles and weather prediction. I haven't studied the correlation enough to come to a conclusion, except that these elements do tend to agree with planetary lords and exaltations in the signs.

Therese

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:54 am**

Mark wrote: Having said that Greenbaum is fully aware of this issue as she points out in her book:
Mark

To be more precise Medieval and Renaissance astrologers, the most beautiful minds of their age, give their explanation about the order of the signs, but obviously nothing we can compare with the two lines note of Schmidt or Hand with the fantastic explanation that Ptolemy gives dryness as main quality of the Air.

p.s. " Taurus (earthy) is "unprolific, semi-vocal, mute, common, incomplete..." as Deborah Houlding explained in another thread refers more to the constellation than to the sign...

margherita

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:13 am**

Therese wrote:

Mark, isn't this playing havoc with sect and nocturnal/diurnal triplicity rulerships? Those were such a solid part of Hellenistic astrology. And if you take all the moist signs, for example (Libra, Taurus, Pisces, Sag), these signs have hardly anything in common with each other via observed traits. They are from four different triplicities! So I really can't see this working with the zodiac signs as we know them. (Tropical or Sidereal)

Hi Therese,

I was merely highlighting what Ptolemy said on the qualities relating to signs not necessarily advocating them! Ptolemy seems more interested in linking the quality of signs to their domicile rulers rather than by triplicity.

The general rejection of his approach in the later astrological tradiition possibly reflects some of the objections you have raised. In practical terms I have found the Galenic associations to work quite well in temperament analysis in charts. As for the problem with triplicities that is true although triplicities are fundamentally something that pre-date any association of qualities. In that sense any system of qualities (Aristotelian or Stoic) was a later accretion on to an earlier Babylonian tradition which created the triplicities.

Therese wrote:

Though I've done some research and thinking on the Stoic elements, I reserve judgement as to whether they belong with the trigons in the psychological sense, though they may work with lunar cycles and weather prediction. I haven't studied the correlation enough to come to a conclusion, except that these elements do tend to agree with planetary lords and exaltations in the signs.

There are various references in hellenistic astrology that seem to demonstrate that the original organization of the zodiac into four astrological triplicities came from the four winds or directions in Babylonian omen astrology.

Maria J. Mateus in the Summer 2009 issue of The Geocosmic Journal. Titled ?The Geographical Astrology of Babylonia,? extensively discussed the four winds and directionality in Babylonian omen astrology. Mateus states:

?A Babylonian tablet (BM 36746) dating to sometime after 400 BC, groups the zodiacal signs with winds and lands in this manner:

Aries, Leo, Sagittarius- North Wind-Akkad
Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn- South Wind- Elam
Gemini, Libra, Aquarius- West Wind- Amurru
Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces- East Wind- Subartu

As Maria Mateus states:

"The earliest Greek source, associating the winds with the triplicities, is in the Isagoge of Geminus (written ca. 50 CE), wherein he states that the doctrine comes from the Chaldeans. His wind arguments correspond with that of BM36746, indictating that the Hellenistic triplicity scheme is, in fact, Babylonian in origin and based upon a schematization logic that probably predates the use of the zodiac, since these associations appear in monthly groupings of older omens in the same way they appear as zodiac signs...? (p. 74)

Here is a free link to the whole excellent article: http://mariamateus.squarespace.com/portfolio/academic/

This tradition can be seen as the direct ancestor of contemporary astrological techniques such as Ptolemy?s system of astrological geography which assigns triplicities to quarters of the world and sectors within these seems to be just a refinement of an ancient Bablyonian tradition found in ancient Mesopotamian omen texts. Hence lost property questions in horary rely on the same system of assigning directions to each triplicity.

It also appears that the idea of planetary rulers for each triplicity originated in Babylonian astrology too. In particular Babylonian astrology assigned a particular planet to each direction or wind. This also linked to the zodiacal triplicities.

These ideas are referenced to by Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos. For example in his chapter II concerning mundane astrology Ptolemy states:

Now of the four triangular formations recognized in the zodiac, as we have shown above, the one which consists of Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius is northwestern, and is chiefly dominated by Jupiter on account of the north wind, but Mars joins in its government because of the south-west wind. That which is made up of Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn is south-eastern, and again is governed primarily by Venus on account of the south wind, but conjointly by Saturn because of the east wind. The one consisting of Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius is north-eastern and is governed primarily by Saturn because of the east wind, and conjointly by Jupiter because of the north wind. The triangle of Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces is south-western and is governed primarily, because of the west wind, by Mars, who is joined by Venus as co ruler on account of the south wind. Tettrabiblos , Book II, Chapter 3..

The actual directional associations seem to have changed in hellenistic astrology from the original Babylonian/ Geminus description but there is no doubt that the principle of triplicities linked to directions remained.

Mark

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:54 am**

Hi Margherita

Why are you quoting me above? I am not clear why you have done this as your comments dont seem addressed to me.

Mark

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm**

Mark wrote:Hi Margherita

Why are you quoting me above? I am not clear why you have done this as your comments dont seem addressed to me.

Mark

True.... mine was a general thought....

But I even wanted to highlight the fact that here it's not just Greenbaum or Schmidt who tried to explain the order of zodiacal signs, as someone can understand reading this thread...

It's obvious that commentaries have the only reason to explain controversial things, and in fact they are extremely long. I say for sure that this chapter has been commented several times and in great detail.

How can someone can really think that everything interesting about Tetrabiblos - we don't have commentaries to Valens I believe- it is filled in the 50 pages of Schmidt translation?

p.s. maybe in another thread we could talk about Ptolemaic chorography, it's a nice subject (moreover we can be free of "Schmidt says")
margherita

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:15 pm**

p.s. maybe in another thread we could talk about Ptolemaic chorography, it's a nice subject

Indeed I agree its very interesting. I have been talking about doing this for a couple of years! Although I would like to explore the subject of astrological geography throughout ancient and medieval astrology. Moreover, I am interested in other associations for nations and countries beyond that of just Ptolemy. This fits in perfectly with my enthusiasm for mundane astrology.

Your comments on Schmidt/Valens make me reflect that astrologers tend to gravitate to either Valens or Ptolemy and often find the other correspondingly less interesting. I think we can all see where your sympathies lie.

Maybe I am unusual in finding both figures intriguing. They do provide such an interesting contrast. I will say though that as my understanding of traditional astrology has deepened my appreciation for Ptolemy has grown with this. He can be hard work following at times but ultimately you come to respect his profound and systematic thinking. On the other hand any practical astrologer can relate to the utility of Valens and the numerous ideas and techniques he has to offer us. Plus his more spiritual and less naturalistic outlook is a refreshing contrast. I made this point rather extensively before in an old thread arguing his notion of the Sun as 'the light of the mind' offers us a totally different world view to Ptolemy.

Mark

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:22 pm**

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Chris, could you possibly post what you've found? It has seemed to me that the Stoics thought on more of a cosmic scale that can't easily be applied to the astrology of personality and temperament.

I'm planning on publishing the results in a paper at some point in the near future, so I will let you know when that is available.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:30 pm**

Mark wrote:
p.s. maybe in another thread we could talk about Ptolemaic chorography, it's a nice subject
Moreover, I am interested in other associations for nations and countries beyond that of just Ptolemy. This fits in perfectly with my enthusiasm for mundane astrology.
Ptolemy is more interesting because we know why he arranged countries like that. Other less, but just because we don't know which method they follow...in every case I'm open to everything if it is more than "X says" or "Y says", but I know you are not like that...

Your comments on Schmidt/Valens make me reflect that astrologers tend to gravitate to either Valens or Ptolemy and often find the other correspondingly less interesting.
do you know why? Because Valens is isolated.

Ptolemy is 10000000 times more interesting not really for what he wrote, but because for 1500 years and more there were astrologers- the most erudite and learned scholars of Europe- who commented and explained and gave examples... It's not really Ptolemy who is interesting- but what it is around him. Tons of books and examples and readings...

Honestly I don't care almost anything about the Stoic order of the elements because astrology is reading charts

margherita

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:05 pm**

Therese wrote:

Mark, isn't this playing havoc with sect and nocturnal/diurnal triplicity rulerships? Those were such a solid part of Hellenistic astrology. And if you take all the moist signs, for example (Libra, Taurus, Pisces, Sag), these signs have hardly anything in common with each other via observed traits. They are from four different triplicities! So I really can't see this working with the zodiac signs as we know them. (Tropical or Sidereal)

Though I've done some research and thinking on the Stoic elements, I reserve judgement as to whether they belong with the trigons in the psychological sense, though they may work with lunar cycles and weather prediction. I haven't studied the correlation enough to come to a conclusion, except that these elements do tend to agree with planetary lords and exaltations in the signs.

Hi Therese,

I have had more time to reflect on this and comment on your above statements. First off I think any systematization of signs into qualities is going to work more effectively in some ways than others.

Secondly, as I understand it most of the evidence shows the quadriplicities (modalties) were far more important than the triplicities in ancient astrology for establishing any kind of personal disposition or motivation. These signs are often described generically as being similar in effect even though they come from all four triplicities!

I don?t know why you feel Ptolemy?s system is flouting sect. The domicile planetary rulers can still be seen to have their signs of diurnal and nocturnal expression. In Ptolemy?s system it makes sense Aquarius is the ?joy? of Saturn as a diurnal planet in its diurnal sign of rulership. The same applies to Mars in Scorpio or Venus in Taurus. Regarding domicile rulership I suggest that Ptolemy's system is the only one that actualy successfully matches signs and the qualities of their ruling planets.

Ptolemy?s assignation of qualities to signs is a clear attempt to fit the qualities to the signs and their domicile planetary lords as well as the planetary detriments. On that test Ptolemy?s system is a 100% success and works much better than its rivals. Look at Taurus. There we have a moist nocturnal sign with the nocturnal , moist planet Venus as its domicile ruler. The dry planet Mars is logically in its detriment in that fertile moist, sign. In Scorpio we have a dry , nocturnal sign with the nocurnal, dry planet Mars as its domicile ruler. I could go on....

Compare this to the Stoic system. There we have a moist planet (Venus) which according this theory is ruling a dry sign! Mars is in detriment in Taurus but why if this is a dry sign? It?s the same problem in Scorpio with a dry planet (Mars) ruling a wet sign. Venus is in detriment in Scorpio but why if Scorpio is a wet sign?

From the point of view of domicile rulerships anyway this makes no sense. Actually Galens system has the same kind of problems in Taurus and Scorpio. Hence we have dry, hot Mars ruling a cold wet Scorpio or moist Venus ruling cold and dry Taurus. Neither the Stoic or Galenic approach are that effective in matching the quality of domicile rulers to their signs.

What about exaltations then? Arguably, these pre-date Hellenistic astrology and any attribution to them would have been an attempt to incorporate the later Greek philosophy of qualities on to them. All three systems throw up problems:

Ptolemy?s system-The main difficulty here is the exaltation of Saturn in a warm, moist fertile sign Libra while dry, hot Mars is exalted in the cold sign of Capricorn. Since these are both malefics it could be argued the moist and diurnal nature of Libra reduces the dryness of Saturn while the cold , nocturnal nature of of Capricorn reduces the heat of Mars. The idea of cold dry Saturn being in fall in the ?dry? sign of Aries doesn?t seem to fit that well.

Galen?s system-Again there is a problem with a cold , dry Saturn exalted in Libra. The warm , moist nature of Libra could be seen to mitigate the cold, dry nature of Saturn. There is also the issue of the moist Moon exalted in a cold and dry Taurus. Actually, I wonder if Galen is the origin of the notion that the Moon is moist and cold rather than moist and warm as Ptolemy suggested?. In terms of planets in fall we find the moist Moon in fall in the cold wet sign of Scorpio.

Stoic system-We have the incongruity of a moist Moon being exalted in the ?dry? sign of Taurus. Its seems especially odd that the life giving , moist Moon is exalted in a dry sign! Equally, in terms of planets in fall we find the moist Moon in fall in the moist/wet sign of Scorpio.

Whatever system of triplicity rulers you use there are obviously a mixture of good matches and clear clashes depending on which sign a triplicity ruler operates from.

Mark

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:52 am**

Mark, before I reply to parts of your post I'd like to return to the planets for a moment. Do we have general agreement as to the qualities assigned to each of the planets? Such as Saturn is cold and dry...etc....

Could you list the generally accepted qualities associations for the planets? I've been steeped in Jyotish symbolism where one element is given to each planet, which isn't the way of western astrology. I just want to have a reference we can agree on for the planets because I'll need it for discussion.

Thanks,
Therese

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Aristotle's Elements and the Zodiac: Astrologers' Error?