Skyscript Astrology Forum

Deb, my point is that at 22deg30, the Firmicus Dodekatemorion also falls out in Scorpio.

My comnent about 'signs within signs' is an observation of my own based upon the description given in Porphyry and the Babylonian Dodekatemorion tablets. I see the 12 and 13 multiplication as two different techniques based upon a similar idea.

Konrad wrote:Deb, my point is that at 22deg30, the Firmicus Dodekatemorion also falls out in Scorpio.

Thanks for clarifying that, because I misunderstood you to mean that the Pauline method wouldn't work beyond 22deg30. That is actually quite a useful point for me to realise, as my motivation for looking into this matter in the first place was to understand the technique as Valens understood it, and how it impacted on his calculation of the rising sign.

Konrad wrote:My comnent about 'signs within signs' is an observation of my own based upon the description given in Porphyry and the Babylonian Dodekatemorion tablets. I see the 12 and 13 multiplication as two different techniques based upon a similar idea.

Again, thanks for clarifying that - I also see the 12 and 13 multiplication as two different techniques based upon a similar idea. I have now read the Porphyry description you pointed me to and will refer to it in the reply I am about to post to Martin.

Hi Martin
Thanks for commenting. You start your post by saying:

There are two systems just as you say, Deb, but the system you favour is not the one Rochberg describes in the book excerpt you link to.

I?m confused as to why you say that and will write out the part of her text that describes it quite clearly below.
You then (correctly) summarize my understanding by saying:

The system you support is the one that can be described in either of these two ways:
(a) Multiply the longitude of a planet by 12 and count the result from the planet itself.
(b) Multiply the longitude of a planet by 13 and count the result from the beginning of the sign occupied by the planet.

That is correct ? either approach will lead to the same result. It is not that I support one approach or another, I am simply basing my understanding on what the authors I have read explain. Keep in mind that (as discussed above) this method means that the dodekatemorion of a planet at 10? of a sign, when multiplied by 12, will fall at 10? of the sign 120? ahead of it in the zodiac (so for one at 10? Aries it falls at 10? Leo; for one at 10? Taurus it falls at 10? Virgo, etc). You suggest this is not what Rochberg describes, saying:

The other system is the prevalent one in India, as Mark says, though both systems have actually found their way into Sanskrit texts (and, if memory serves, both go back to Babylonian sources). It can be described as:

(c) Multiply the longitude of a planet by 12 and count the result from the beginning of the sign occupied by the planet.

This will give a 'microzodiac' like the one Rochberg describes, with 12 divisions beginning with the sign itself.

The result of that calculation would mean that the dodekatemorion of a planet at 10? of a sign will fall in 0? of the sign 120? ahead of it in the zodiac (so for one at 10? Aries it falls at 0? Leo; for one at 10? Taurus it falls at 0? Virgo, etc). But the way that I have described it is what Rochberg shows in her book.

In the Babylonian sources they are called zittu and her text (bottom paragraph, p. 157) reads as below (I have omitted her mathematical notations but you can check this on this Google book link):

In other sources in which the connection between astrology and magic is documented, incantations are assigned to the twelve zittu of the zodiac. As shown by Neugebauer and Sachs, these two text provide further evidence that the Greek method of computing dodekatemoria was based on the method found in cuneiform material. The method may be formulated in the following way: Given a position in the zodiac expressed in degrees of a zodiacal sign, a second position in the zodiac may be obtained by multiplying the degrees by 12 and adding the result to the first longitude.

Rochberg then gives the interpretation of a few lines from a table in a cuneiform source which demonstrates this (beginning at the top of p.58 ):

In line 1, the position given is I 10 (= Ares 10?). Aries 10? is associated with Leo 10?, which is called ?Leo of Aries?. Following the abovementioned method of computing dodekatemoria, we multiply 10? (the degrees of Aries) by twelve and travel that many degrees (120?) along the zodiac from Aries to the sign Leo. Adding n degrees of the zodiacal sign [?n degrees? = number of degrees of the planet], here 10, we reach Leo 10? as given ? [in the table, she then notes the same procedure yields the rest of the results].

It is pure coincidence (but very handy) that the cuneiform text offers the example of 10? as I did (to make life simple). We can see that it yields exactly the same result as that I described.

Hence, I don?t believe the technique that divides the signs into 2?? sections can accurately produce the results of the technique that aims to multiply the degree positions by 12 (as illustrated here). I don?t doubt your word that they were treated this way in Sanskrit texts and have now followed up Konrad?s reference to Porphyry, where he is aiming to compute dodekatemoria by reference to 2?? divisions of the signs - but this approach simply doesn?t give reliable results for multiplication of the degree point by 12, or show the method described in the Babylonian source Rochberg refers to, or the intention of authors such as Paulus and Firmicus to identify extended points in the zodiac to which planetary connections could be made. Rochberg?s description of the zittu as 2?? divisions doesn?t show this either - it only suggests that the ?micro-zodiac? offered symbolic association of these parts with plants, trees, stones, etc.

On the other hand, although I personally believe Firmicus was aiming to replicate the instruction given by Paulus and did so in a clumsy way that simply generated error, I will remove any implication that this was a mistake from the glossary item, because I cannot prove that without going into a major argument, it I don't want the glossary item to contain any unnecessarily controversial points. You have also made me realise that the glossary entry needs some kind of amendment, to give more acknowledgement of what the term dodekatemoria meant when associated with sign sub-divisions rather than degree multiplications. So I am going to give some more thought to that too.

No Problem, Deb.

Can you explain the bolded part further?

...Porphyry, where he is aiming to compute dodekatemoria by reference to 2??divisions of the signs - but this approach simply doesn?t give reliable results for multiplication...

Hi Martin,

Good to see you back on the forum. Hope you had a good research trip in India

Martin wrote:

The other system is the prevalent one in India, as Mark says, though both systems have actually found their way into Sanskrit texts (and, if memory serves, both go back to Babylonian sources). It can be described as:

(c) Multiply the longitude of a planet by 12 and count the result from the beginning of the sign occupied by the planet.

So this system reproduces results that coincide with the dwadasamsa? Or is Deb right that no table can coincide with a multiplication system like this? I was concerned that the system laid out by Deb wasn't quite matching up to the dwads in the table.

Is your view that the Babylonian micro-zodiac, Indian dwadasamsa and the system laid out by Firmicus Maternus in his Mathesis, I.XIII are effectively one and the same?

Amongst a few issues I have raised by PM with Deb was whether we should do calculations using degrees and minutes or just whole degrees?

I see Konrad favours the former approach while Deb seems sympathetic to the latter approach. Do we have any texts actually clarifying this? One thought I have is that the Greeks at least had planetary rulers for each degree (monomoiria) so I do wonder if they would have wanted to divide up zodiac degrees like this.

Thanks

Mark

Konrad - I amended the text to make my meaning clearer in that earlier post - the amendment is emboldened below:

but this approach simply doesn?t give reliable results for multiplication of the degree point by 12, or show the method described in the Babylonian source Rochberg refers to, or the intention of authors such as Paulus and Firmicus to identify extended points in the zodiac to which planetary connections could be made.

Mark wrote:Good to see you back on the forum. Hope you had a good research trip in India

Thanks. It wasn't bad.

So this system reproduces results that coincide with the dwadasamsa? Or is Deb right that no table can coincide with a multiplication system like this? I was concerned that the system laid out by Deb wasn't quite matching up to the dwads in the table.

So far as I can see, the method I gave as (c) gives exactly the same results as the commonly used Indian tables (although they typically don't include degrees in the dv?da????as).

Is your view that the Babylonian micro-zodiac, Indian dwadasamsa and the system laid out by Firmicus Maternus in his Mathesis, I.XIII are effectively one and the same?

One of the Babylonian methods, yes. (I'm going to have to chase that source down at some point -- I know I've read that both systems are Babylonian.) And one of the Indian methods, namely, the more common one -- the 'thirteenth-harmonic' one is present in India too (given in the S?r?val?, if I recall correctly).

Amongst a few issues I have raised by PM with Deb was whether we should do calculations using degrees and minutes or just whole degrees?

It seems counter-intuitive to me not to use minutes of arc, as the dividing lines between the twelfth- (or thirteenth-) parts of a sign don't coincide with degree boundaries.

Well Martin, somehow in replying to your post I managed to remove your original post to me (don't ask me how, I have no idea). All I have been able to retain is this remark that I quoted:

Martin wrote:I was referring to your original link, which explicitly describes (in text and image) 12 two-and-a-half-degree segments to a sign, each segment representing one 'micro-sign'. That is not the result you get by multiplying by 13 (that is, 12+1).

The other quotation you give from Rochberg does support the method you prefer.

I replied to point out that where I give the link in the glossary it is accompanied with the recommendation to see pages 156-160, and to let you know that I am still looking at this with a view to revising the entry to include reference to the system you describe too.

So sorry for screwing up your post. I can't remember if there were other other comments - if there were, would you repost?

mark:

Q. am I using 12th parts in mundane?

A. No for dynamic purposes, e.g., directing significators through the 12th parts in fashion like the egyptian bounds, though in theory I would not be opposed to it.

Yes in terms of delineation. For example, American is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horosopce, pp. 253-254 for my delineation of Jupiter/Cancer/8th, specifically 5CA56. 12th part is in Virgo, specifically 11VI12.

So how does the 12th part position of Virgo influence Jupiter's behavior?

Jupiter/Cancer/8th itself I delineate as consumer debt including real estate lending, facilitated by the banking industry.

Now we add the Virgo. "Jupiter in the dwad of Virgo is best delineated as not being able to see the forest through the trees. In financial affairs, it adds a level of bureaucratic red tape bristling with legalese and excessive paperwork."

If anyone has ever participated in a real estate closing in the United States, one will leave with a stack of paperwork which will include at least 20 documents and perhaps as many as 80-100 physical pages. This is the dwad of Virgo at work.

Best,

a stack of paperwork which will include at least 20 documents and perhaps as many as 80-100 physical pages. This is the dwad of Virgo at work.

An update with regard to the glossary entry. I am going to tweak a few points (to remove any suggestion that only one way of making the calculation is valid) but as I personally don't feel able to show the merits of the calculation that Firmicus employs, Konrad has kindly agreed to add to my text to show the merits of that system too. I am really pleased Konrad is willing to do this, as I want the entry to be something that any astrologer can refer to, to get better informed on how the technique has and is being employed. I anticipate the update being online early next week, and I'll add news when it is.

Deb wrote:Well Martin, somehow in replying to your post I managed to remove your original post to me (don't ask me how, I have no idea).

Oops. Well, I haven't got it saved either, but I think I basically said that Rochberg's text describes one method and her note describes another, but I'm not sure if that particular note was meant to refer to that particular paragraph of text because I haven't read the book yet; and that both methods, as far as I recall, are described in Babylonian sources.

I might add that even if we resort to multiplication in order to find the positions, we are dealing with subdivisions of a sign, just like the terms (the -moria in dodekatemoria means 'parts, pieces, portions' etc). And the 'times thirteen' method does in fact lead to thirteen parts in each sign, not twelve, as the sign itself gets both the first and the last part. (That's not to say it's not valid, as I haven't really experimented a lot with it -- mainly because traditional instructions on how to use it are so scant.)

The glossary item has now been updated and I?ve added extra illustrations and a table to show how the dodekatemoria are calculated by sign divisions into 2??.

Konrad has contributed a comment which explains how the use of this table leads to the same result as the Firmicus method of calculation.

Martin, as far as Babylonian sources are concerned, I am only aware of the multiplication method explained by Rochberg which shows agreement with the approach taken by Paulus Alexandrinus. If you come across reference to the other approach in Babylonian sources let me know and I?ll add it in. Currently, the glossary entry says of the two approaches to calculation:

"Both approaches have a meaningful rationale, and it is probable that they originated as two separate techniques (one emphasizing multiplication, the other emphasizing division) which became strongly associated with each other due to their shared descriptive name and symbolic dependency on the number 12."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/dodekatemorion.html