I have a question about Bonatti. I know that the large translation by Ben Dykes has been broken down into smaller publications. Which of these books contains Book 3, which extensively covers the planets? I see two possible candidates: There is a book on Basic Astrology, and one on Nativities listed on Amazon.

Thanks,
Therese

Therese Hamilton wrote:I believe Martin's considerations relate to the fact that many of the earlier conditions relate directly to fixed stars positioned within the 30 degree divisions of signs.

That's exactly right, and (I think) obvious from my original comment, particularly if taken in context. We were talking about the signs, and I said that just as contemporary sidereal astrologers must disregard the tropical references in ancient definitions of the signs, so contemporary tropical astrologers must disregard the references to particular stars in ancient definitions of the signs. To me this seems perfectly obvious, and it is a mystery to me what could appear 'historically unbalanced' or 'grotesquely inaccurate' about it.

Having said that, I would add that contemporary tropical astrologers also differ from most ancient astrologers (not astronomers, but astrologers) with regard to the tropical references (such as the equinox falling at 8? or 10? or 15? of Aries). But that's their lookout.

Therese Hamilton wrote:I have a question about Bonatti. I know that the large translation by Ben Dykes has been broken down into smaller publications. Which of these books contains Book 3, which extensively covers the planets? I see two possible candidates: There is a book on Basic Astrology, and one on Nativities listed on Amazon.

It's the one called "Bonatti on Basic Astrology". It has the first 3 books.

Mithra6 wrote:

It's the one called "Bonatti on Basic Astrology". It has the first 3 books.

Thank you. The book is on its way.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Such as the beginning of Aries: "Aries is by nature, watery, with thunder and hail," etc....

Obviously a "watery" Aries doesn't correlate with its designation of fiery.

Hi Therese

What source is this from? I'm curious, because when I quoted from Valens you replied stating that "Velens is problematic in that he combines seasonal and weather symbolism with constellational, star and planetary rulership symbolism"

And yet you don't seem to consider it problematic when you quote from him here which was in particular describing weather. You ignored hte earlier part where he says that "Aries is the house of Mars, a masculine sign, tropic, terrestrial, governing, fiery, free, upward-trending,"

So we do actually have the association of Aries being fiery as well, which seemed to be omitted in your own post.

f you look at a map of the sky with sidereal boundaries drawn in, you see that the entire first part of Aries contains a big part of the constellation of Pisces including the primary "knot," Alrisha, and the long cord of the northern fish and the fish itself.

Do you mean that the first part of 'tropical' Aries is contained by sidereal Pisces? Or do you mean that the first part of sidereal Aries is contained by the constellational Pisces?

Martin Gansten wrote: Having said that, I would add that contemporary tropical astrologers also differ from most ancient astrologers (not astronomers, but astrologers) with regard to the tropical references (such as the equinox falling at 8? or 10? or 15? of Aries). But that's their lookout.

I actually don't see why it's so problematic that the ancients calculated the equinox incorrectly, it doesn't relate to the basic principle of the logic behind tropical astrology that some tropical astrologers, less astute in the mathematics, got it wrong. Is this really, fundamentally, any different than having competing ayanamshas for example? Whilst the ancients may have calculated it differently, we now have a clearer indication of how to calculate the seasons so we no longer have this problem, even if the ancients, perhaps ignorant of these calculations, had to do otherwise.

In any event I always wonder to what extent the sidereal astrologers do manage to untangle the tropical assocations, just as I wonder how successfully the sidereal astrologers manage to untangle the sidereal associations. I genuinely believe that there are actually shadows of each in the other where the logic hasn't been successfully untangled.

For example, what is the logic behind sidereal astrologers using domicile rulership? If we accept the commonly accepted view that the luminaries line up with the signs of the brightest warmest months with saturn as the coldest body being the furthest away relating to the coldest months etc. how does this logic get applied in a purely sidereal away.

In other words what is it that is unique to the constellations of, say, Aries and Scorpio that causes Mars in particular to have domicile rulership of it? Clearly the system makes sense from a northern hemisphere tropical perspective, but what of a sidereal perspective? How do sidereal astrologers address this?
Also I'm sure there are many problems with the tropical zodiac utilising sidereal considerations, though none come to my mind just now, but as the use of rulerships is so obvious I wonder what sidereal astrologers do with this?

Mark wrote:Tom wrote:

Skyscript might attract some new blood and we'll all benefit from that.

Indeed that would be good. In the last year we have lost quite a few knowledgeable traditional forum regulars for varying reasons.

Mark

Big thank you to Deb for doing this:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6581

I received an enquiry about whether it would be possible to set up a thread that would only deal with sidereal interpretations. That would seem contrary to the focus of this particular forum, which has a broad interest in how ancient and traditional principles have become defined within mainstream western practice. Evaluating the historical and theoretical development of ancient techniques naturally generates debate, and in threads such as this it is impossible to censor posts so they are only adhering to one viewpoint.

To accommodate those who want to explore the practise of sidereal astrology without comparison to the tropical zodiac perspective I have set up a new forum area:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=17

As Tom mentioned earlier "The Traditional Forum was established as kind of a safe haven for traditionalists to discuss their favorite subject without interference from modern critics trying to establish their superiority."

Many sidereal astrologers are important, valued contributors to this forum and hopefully that will continue without any change. The idea of a forum area dedicated to the sidereal perspective is only that they now have a "safe haven" area too.

If I may answer your second point first, Paul:

For example, what is the logic behind sidereal astrologers using domicile rulership? If we accept the commonly accepted view that the luminaries line up with the signs of the brightest warmest months with saturn as the coldest body being the furthest away relating to the coldest months etc. how does this logic get applied in a purely sidereal away.

You are absolutely right: if we accept that premise (first formulated, as far as I know, by Ptolemy), then applying rulerships in the sidereal zodiac makes no sense -- and neither does applying those same rulerships in the tropical zodiac when casting charts for the southern hemisphere. But I don't see that Ptolemy's logic is very compelling to begin with. The association of the Sun with heat is natural, but why the Moon? And shouldn't the actual solstice point then fall in or close to the Sun's sign, rather than at the demarcation point between the signs ruled by Mercury and the Moon?

(As an aside, I will say that I routinely verify clients' birth times from the sidereal rulers of their ascendants, and so far they have never failed me, even when I have sent people away to double-check their seemingly precise birth times. But that is perhaps a topic more suitable for the newly-created sidereal forum.)

As for your second point:

I actually don't see why it's so problematic that the ancients calculated the equinox incorrectly [...]

As I said in an earlier post, there is no 'correctly' or 'incorrectly' to it. Saying that Aries coincides with the equinox, or that it begins such-and-such a number of degrees before it, are stipulative definitions. The point is that you can't have a purely tropical zodiac and then miscalculate the distance between its zero point and the equinox. In order to say that the equinox falls at 8? or 10? or 15? of Aries, you must have a different, visible point of reference for the beginning of Aries. In other words, such a measurement can only arise in a conceptually sidereal zodiac.

I feel I am beginning to repeat myself, and others are doing the same, so I may not participate much further on this thread -- at least I hope not to. I suspect all the good points have been made already.

Martin Gansten wrote: You are absolutely right: if we accept that premise (first formulated, as far as I know, by Ptolemy), then applying rulerships in the sidereal zodiac makes no sense -- and neither does applying those same rulerships in the tropical zodiac when casting charts for the southern hemisphere. But I don't see that Ptolemy's logic is very compelling to begin with. The association of the Sun with heat is natural, but why the Moon? And shouldn't the actual solstice point then fall in or close to the Sun's sign, rather than at the demarcation point between the signs ruled by Mercury and the Moon?

Right, it's a big if. I don't deny that, nor do I deny that it raises theoretical problems with a southern hemisphere perspective. These are all valid considerations. However it doesn't address the issue of domicile rulership in a sidereal scheme. I'm not fully aware of the entire history of domicile rulership, but to the best of my knowledge we have no (that we know of) examples of domicile rulership explicitly mentioned in the babylonian sources - though we may infer from it that they were aware of domicile dignity? I do not know enough about this to accurately make any statement one way or another. However we do know that the hellenistic astrologers were using domicile dignity, but what was the logic that it was based upon if not Ptolemy's?

I personally find a model, even if it takes some imagination to be more compelling than no model whatsoever. Is there a model that the sidereal astrologer would put forward to explain the logic behind domicile rulership?

I always saw the idea as less to do with heat as first and foremost to do with light. So the luminaries being the brightest objects were given the brightest months, though it is, admittedly, baffling why the brighter of the two, the sun, shouldn't get the cardinal sign. Either way, is there a sidereal logic that makes sense?

As I said in an earlier post, there is no 'correctly' or 'incorrectly' to it. Saying that Aries coincides with the equinox, or that it begins such-and-such a number of degrees before it, are stipulative definitions. The point is that you can't have a purely tropical zodiac and then miscalculate the distance between its zero point and the equinox. In order to say that the equinox falls at 8? or 10? or 15? of Aries, you must have a different, visible point of reference for the beginning of Aries. In other words, such a measurement can only arise in a conceptually sidereal zodiac.

Right, but I thought that's what they were talking about? Maybe I've misunderstood this all along. I always thought it was that the hellenistic, for the most part sidereally defined, astrologers were calculating the equinoctial point in relation to their sidereally defined zodiac. As in, in comparison to 0 Sidereal Aries, the equinoctial point was at 8, 10, 15 Aries. But this might have just been my massive assumption all along? If it is as I think it is, then I don't see why having several guesses in relation to the sidereal zodiac is so flawed, the basic principle behind it of trying to find the equinox and calculate from there is the same, it's just that the calculation is incorrect. With this in mind I don't see how it's all that different than taking an otherwise arbitrary fixed star such as Spica and using it as the basis of an ayanamsha - both are an attempt to define an otherwise fixed point and define their zodiac from it, even if there are competing calculations for how to do so.

Maybe I've been thinking of it obtusely though, I'm genuinely unsure now. I had always thought it was quite clear that the 8 degrees, 10 degrees etc. were in relation to a sidereal zodiac, almost the opposite to an ayanamsha, rather than subtracting from the tropical zodiac, instead adding to the sidereal zodiac if that makes sense. Am I wrong in that though?

Deb wrote:

Many sidereal astrologers are important, valued contributors to this forum and hopefully that will continue without any change. The idea of a forum area dedicated to the sidereal perspective is only that they now have a "safe haven" area too.

Thank you, Deb. I hope that with a safe haven we might see more posts by astrologers who use the sidereal zodiac. I have been very curious about the sidereal investigations Konrad mentioned.


Therese

Note to Martin:

Martin, somewhere in a quick scan of posts this morning (no time to carefully read posts until evening), you mentioned that you check the sidereal ascendant lord before reading a chart. If you have time, I'd like to see you elaborate on that point under a new topic heading ("The Ascendant Lord"...or whatever) on the new Sidereal forum Deb just set up.

Having a few concrete examples would help others to understand how we use sidereal rulers.

Therese