Eddy wrote:
I copied some details:
"Converting these to a common style produces an interesting ambiguity. The time counted from noon is the same as our 9:21 A.M. of 18 April. This matches with the sky at that time, when, as Gaurico notes, 16 degrees of Cancer was rising on the eastern horizon. Italian clock time normally meant hours and minutes counted after sunset, although up to a half hour of darkness could be added to sunset before the counting began. Since sunset occurred at approximately 6:52 P.M. on this date in Rome, 14:50 hours after that would indicate a time around 9:42 A.M. If darkness were added the time could be as late as 10:12 A.M. on 18 April.21"

I forgot to reply

In Italy there were different sets of time conventions. Somewhere the day started from sunset, they were called "Italian hours" in fact.
But merchants and lawyers used to calculate the time from Midnight because it was the moment of Jesus birth.
In every case Gaurico showed the chart.
It seems to me - Latin is worse than English that because Mars and Saturn are with the South Node there will be waste of money till the Ascendant will be directed to Jupiter and the MC to the trine of the same planet.

Margherita

Thanks Gabriel, eddy and Marguerita and sorry for having distracted the thread off topic.

Best regards to all
Yuzuru

yuzuru wrote:Note: using Julian Calender, in April 18, I got Sun in TAurus, not Leo!

Indeed, quite a mistake I made. We will have to wait a very long time to have an April 18 Julian Calendar Sun in Leo

The chart in Gjiada's post is the one I saw.

I'm sorry I continue the distraction from the thread but I just wanted to mention I just noticed that in that chart on the sides of cusps I and X you see 85 25 and 355 25 respectively. This last one is the sidereal time expressed in degrees, but interesting is that the first one is mentioned too. It is in fact the point on the equatorial plane that crossed the horizon. The ascendant can be far from this point and I wonder for which reason this is mentioned.

Hello Eddy

Eddy wrote: The chart in Gjiada's post is the one I saw.

Surely it was, i took from Gaurico

I just noticed that in that chart on the sides of cusps I and X you see 85 25 and 355 25 respectively. This last one is the sidereal time expressed in degrees, but interesting is that the first one is mentioned too. It is in fact the point on the equatorial plane that crossed the horizon. The ascendant can be far from this point and I wonder for which reason this is mentioned.

355.25 is the exact Right Ascension for the Pole 42, my city is at 41.54. True?

So 355.25+90.00=85.25 is the Oblique Ascension. Maybe they wrote in their charts to calculate directions faster:)

Margherita

...the words with which Ibn Ezra began his textbook are the mostimportant words ever written in astrology: the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord'

So Frawley is stating here explicitly that the tradition of western astrology is not just monotheistic but centred on the three religions of the book: Judaism; Islam and Christianity. This seems to be the 'essence' running through Frawley's definition of traditional astrology.

Monotheism has its one God. Our astrology is based on the path of one sun and its power of night and day through its diurnal motion. Twelve signs are derived from the one path of the one Sun. So are the twelve houses. And the aspects. Why is it so hard ? and so unacceptable ? to make the connection with monotheism? Modern secularists are still monotheists. We can shriek in support of rainbow diversity, but the power of 'The One' is still with us. Have you ever caught yourself wanting to be more whole and complete? Maybe you can see that in those moments you were in truth chasing after a model or paradigm of 'The One'. The one whole; the whole One. There's an industry of modern therapists (and astrologers) who will help you become the One that you possibly sense deep within and yearn to embody and express outwardly. After all, people don't go to therapists to become chaotic mixtures of unrelated elements or pretty rainbows of diversity. One God; one unified and whole person. That last part, anyway, is what contemporary westerners hope for. It's the western way. So why be so unhappy that the three major monotheistic religions share a philosophical basis with the astrology you use and that some astrologers simply and honestly acknowledge the connection and similarities?

It is undeniable that astrology existed in an increasingly Christian Empire in both the East and West. However, this came long after ther astrological tradition had taken root.

Not particularly. It looks like Western astrology wasn't all that old during the lifetime of Christ. As far as historical eras go, Christianity and Western astrology ? the astrology we now know and use ?coincide quite closely. The message of Christ was aimed at the individual person (the little One?), and dates to the beginning of a new view of the individual and his or her value and worth as an individual. It's not an exact fit, but the heyday of Hellenistic astrology matches pretty well. And then in or around 400 AD comes something new in Western literature ? the Confessions of Augustine, the self-told tale of the life and spiritual journey of an individual, a Christian. A 'one' telling his story. A couple centuries later monotheistic Islam will take root in the Middle East, and shortly thereafter Arab astrology based on the Greek model will have its day in the Sun. Islam, and then the flowering of Arab Greek-based astrology. A reflection of the nearly contemporary appearance of Hellenistic astrology and Christianity. We haven't even looked at the rise of Judaism and its proximity in time and place to Babylonian astrology. Monotheism and our dear astrology seem to come as a pair, like it or not.

**********************

A diversion:

The Roman Empire in which this astrology spread was a multi-faith one. In fact its religious plurality was more like the modern world than the medieval one.

A minor point here, but it struck me as interesting and something to wander around with for a moment.
The Roman Empire: One government, one Caesar, one seat of power ? one Rome. Many religions, but the Roman mind had its One. The predominant model was 'Rome'. Rome was the One, the One that ruled the many. A perfect spot to plant a pope.

Rome and the three religions mentioned above have something in common: a lot of battles, bloodshed and conquests. All of them can easily bring Mars to mind, the excessively dry planet. The Dry quality slices and cuts and makes divisions. Dividing, slicing and cutting connections makes for a free-standing One. The individual arises through separation. The One, the individual, arises ? and perishes ? through excessively dry (and malefic) Mars.

................................

Edited for a comment regarding Mars and excessive dryness: Is it more accurate to say that the cutting and separation of dryness would create 'one', and not 'One'? Just a little one. I'm getting my ones confused, which shouldn't happen if there's only one.

Monotheism has its one God. Our astrology is based on the path of one sun and its power of night and day through its diurnal motion. Twelve signs are derived from the one path of the one Sun. So are the twelve houses. And the aspects. Why is it so hard ? and so unacceptable ? to make the connection with monotheism?

What about hellenistic astrologers? What about Ptolemy?

Many religions, but the Roman mind had its One. The predominant model was 'Rome'. Rome was the One, the One that ruled the many. A perfect spot to plant a pope.

This is not exact. Rome, which is my city, was always open to different cultures. People from conquered countries can be Roman citizens and many emperors were strangers.
St. Paul from Tarsus, a city of Turkey, could proudly say Cives romanus sum!, I'm a Roman citizen.

Religion has nothing to share with astrology in my opinion, whatever Frawley can say. I agree with a previous post from Martin, it should be the excess of ardour of converts.
Margherita

Our astrology is based on the path of one sun and its power of night and day through its diurnal motion.

Not to mention the fundamental principle that light is power! Well said, Kirk.

I sympathise with those who are "turned off" by Frawley's apparently overtly religious viewpoint, which is reflected in the recently posted introduction. However, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Frawley has his own religious views, finds these reflected in astrology, and of course his writing reflects this. And yet, this makes him no different from any other writer on any other topic!

I hope that an author's values or personal beliefs do not stop others, myself included, from reading a book. We're rational adults who are quite capable of reading a variety of material and making up our own minds. If people are taking Frawley's word as gospel, unquestioned simply because he wrote it, then that is surely their fault, not Frawley's.

It's not a crime to admit to a religious or spiritual belief. In fact, I have a lot of empathy with the religious framework and viewpoints advanced in both Frawley's work and - not forgetting its full title! - Lilly's Christian Astrology. Given what astrology actually is, and the way it is used, I think that it is in fact much more appropriate to put this into the context of some spiritual belief system than to attempt to place it in a purely scientific or materialistic context.

The tone of the introduction posted here was overtly religious, and yes, Frawley may have a particular axe to grind when it comes to religion. But let's not dismiss his books entirely just because of this. If we're dismissing Frawley on the basis of religion, we'd have to dismiss Lilly too, at the very least! Instead we should approach the material as we would approach any other text - mindful of the underlying bias of the author, striving constantly to make up our own minds as to the value of what we are reading.

*waves white flag and calls for peace!*

Keren

Thank you to Eddy for details of the chart for the foundation of St Peter's Basilica, Rome, and to Margherita for confirming these details.

Like yuzuru, I am keen to learn from past experts in the art of making elections through the study of reliable election charts. I have problems with the data available in this case, however.

Not only do we have to possible dates - 17th & 18th April - but also two possible times, both given in a form modern scholarship doesn't seem totally certain how to interpret.

The chart set for 9.21 am, kindly supplied by Margherita, seems doubtful to me. Certainly, the ascendant ruler, Moon, is in the 9th house of religion in aspect with Jupiter, significator of religion - all very well for the founding of a church. But the aspect is (a) an opposition and (b) separating. In addition, three malefic influences - Mars, Saturn and the South Node - are in the second house. As Margherita points out, this is considered disastrous from the point of view of financing a building project. Surely no astrologer would have set an election with this trio in the second house.

I find it hard to accept that this is a genuine example of an election, though I'm prepared to be corrected. If there is anything to be learnt about the art of election from this chart, and anyone on the forum knows what that is, would they please be so good as to share the information with the rest of us, possibly in a separate, or new, thread?

Delaforge

delaforge wrote:
The chart set for 9.21 am, kindly supplied by Margherita, seems doubtful to me. Certainly, the ascendant ruler, Moon, is in the 9th house of religion in aspect with Jupiter, significator of religion - all very well for the founding of a church. But the aspect is (a) an opposition and (b) separating. In addition, three malefic influences - Mars, Saturn and the South Node - are in the second house. As Margherita points out, this is considered disastrous from the point of view of financing a building project. Surely no astrologer would have set an election with this trio in the second house.

Hello,
The chart I copied comes directly from Tractatus Astrologicus and the comment is of the same Gaurico.

Maybe it was not an election, but the day was arranged to the Pope for other reasons, 18th April is very near the 21st which since antiquity was known as the foundation date of Rome.

The author of the paper gives her opinion about the chart and says this chart was in some agreement with Jesus horoscope. Anyway I don't agree

The version with Libra Ascendant was given by Cardano and Gaurico was older. Gaurico should know better the traditional version of Jesus horoscope, the one with the first facie of the Virgo rising. Albumasar in fact had written that in the first facie of Virgo arose a Virgo feeding a child and this idea was very influential till Cardano reform of astrology.

I'm not convinced by MacGrath opinion, anyway this is just my idea.

Hello Keren,

It's not a crime to admit to a religious or spiritual belief. In fact, I have a lot of empathy with the religious framework and viewpoints advanced in both Frawley's work and - not forgetting its full title! - Lilly's Christian Astrology. Given what astrology actually is, and the way it is used, I think that it is in fact much more appropriate to put this into the context of some spiritual belief system than to attempt to place it in a purely scientific or materialistic context.

I fully accept all authors have their stance on religion like everyone else. It would be artificial to expect all references to religion to be taken out of an astrological work. In many cases its integral to a person?s world view of which astrology forms only a part. Its important to acknowledge many of the great astrologers of the past were very religious and this inevitably came into their work for example Vettius Valens, Bonatti, Al Biruni, Ibn Ezra or William Lilly. I personally think an astrology with no spiritual perspective is rather meaningless.

The tone of the introduction posted here was overtly religious, and yes, Frawley may have a particular axe to grind when it comes to religion. But let's not dismiss his books entirely just because of this. If we're dismissing Frawley on the basis of religion, we'd have to dismiss Lilly too, at the very least!

I was not dismissing Frawley on the basis of his religious faith. Instead I was questioning his highly subjective version of astrological history. This seemed to be motivated by a quite crude attempt to manipulate history to fit his own religious viewpoint exclusively. I am sure lots of people sharing Frawley?s particular faith would not agree with his version of history. While Lilly expressed his personal religious beliefs he never once suggested authors like Ptolemy or Dorotheus were not part of the astrological tradition because they were not monotheistic.

Frankly, I think Frawley?s position is complete nonsense and doesn?t stand up to examination by any intelligent person who has studied this subject. The only people that could agree with him are those totally ignorant of history or those equally determined to propogate an exclusively monotheistic version of astrological history.

Instead we should approach the material as we would approach any other text - mindful of the underlying bias of the author, striving constantly to make up our own minds as to the value of what we are reading.

I agree. I have all of John Frawley?s books (except Sports Astrology). I have never suggested not reading his books. Quite the contrary. He can be a very stimulating author when he sticks to astrology. He has his faults of course. You seldom see sources quoted in his books so it is very difficult to know where the traditional technique ends and Frawley begins in his writing.

However, his increasingly strident attempt to link astrological history to his particular faith exclusively smacks more of religious propaganda and than astrology to me.

A traditional approach to astrology which denies its hellenistic and bablylonian roots is impossible. Its like suggesting my definition of a table doesn't need to have any legs.

To be honest, I thought the point that members would find most interesting, and which ought to be known, is that JF has revised his views on temperament. However,

Nor is it true that anything written a long time ago is part of that tradition. The western tradition of astrology is a monotheistic tradition. It is the astrology of the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems. As such, it stands over and against any astrology rooted in relativism. Egyptian astrology; Hellenistic astrology; Vedic astrology; the astrology generally practised today: these are not part of the western tradition of astrology, and, because of the philosophies within which they are framed, have far more in common with each other than they do with that tradition.

This does seem a strange comment to me. The drive towards monotheism is implicit in most astrological texts, especially the Hellenistic texts which dwell upon the stoic philosophy of everything being connected under one universal will. We see it directly in passages such as the following from Manilius Astronomica (c. 10 AD).

For I shall sing of God, silent-minded monarch of nature who, permeating sky and land and sea, controls with uniform compact the mighty structure; how the entire universe is alive in the mutual concord of its elements and is driven by the pulse of reason since a single spirit dwells in all its parts and, speeding through all things, nourishes the world and shapes it like a living creature.2.60

Thus everything is organised throughout the whole world and follows a master. This God, and the Reason that controls everything, brings down from the heavenly stars the creatures of the Earth. Though the stars are very distant and remote, he makes us feel their influence.... 2.80

This is monotheism is it not? And it is the reason why the Christian Church has traditionally held a very tolerant attitude towards the philosophical basis of astrology. (Hence the reason why Popes could use astrology).

In the same passage Manilius talks about ?This God, and the all-controlling reason? which compels us to recognize its influence through the signs of heaven.

Whether we are compelled or impelled is really the deeper philosophical issue that had to be delicately handled by the church fathers. I don't think the monotheistic issue ever caused any real problems, because Christianity borrowed just as heavily from Stoicism as astrology did.

Hello Deb,

That?s a fair point about the presence and increasing influence of monotheistic ideas in the classical era before the complete ascendancy of Christianity.

However, the way classical texts were often interpreted and presented by later writers often meant the nuances of these texts original philosophical stance were often distorted to make them more acceptable to a Christian, Islamic or Judaic audience. See for example the way Aristotle was treated by Christian theologians.

It can be rather misleading to make assumptions with words like ?god? from our modern perspective. For example the Stoics and Neo-Platonists talked about ?god? but their philosophy was more accurately described as monism rather than monotheism. Neo-Platonist and Neo-Pythagorean ideas also incorporated concepts like reincarnation which we associate more as an ?eastern? religious belief today. Moreover, my reading of hermetic texts seems to indicate their position was better described as dualistic in a similar way to later Gnosticism. All these ideas and many more would have infused astrology in this era. In short, the religious climate was very plural in the first few centuries after the first millennia AD when horoscopic astrology was developing in the Hellenistic and Roman world.