MarkC wrote:
I take no responsibility for your mental health

no, no, girls are not like men, they are frail

Ah. You didn't mention that before. When was he writing? Maybe that is your killer quote.

I understand your point, the same Rethorius writes something like that, that this phase was not mentioned by the old astrologers still he is mentioning because he has experimented it.

I believe it should not be in the first astrological texts maybe, but around the first centuries of Christian age I believe yes.

Sarapione is from an uncertain age, between I century BC and the II AD.

Margherita

Hi Margherita,

I updated my post. See above! It would be great if we could see the actual text from the fragment on this........

I am also curious if Rhetorius says something similar. Considering the idea passes on to the Persians and Arabs it probably needed a late classical author like him to be the transmitter of the idea.

Looks like I need to bury my 'Persian origin' theory in the face of these texts.

Mark

Hi Mark,

To answer to your question I must first tell you the context of the fragment that is considered to be a prove that the Hellenistic astrology knew this notion.

So, the fragment is part of a more complex chapter in which Antiochus talks about how different elements in a chart (sign, planets, houses, phases) are related to masculine or feminine characteristics, and how the circumstances may change determining a masculinization or feminization.

In this context Antiochus tells us that planets that are in a state that is considered abnormal (nota bene, abnormal if we relate to their natural masculine or feminine character), when are in the heart of the Sun regain their vigor.
Remains two problems in my opinion:
- in the text there is no explicit mention about modifying the benefic or malefic nature of the planet when in the heart of the Sun. there is in my opinion only a suggestion that the planets regain their default state (and probably this is in accordance with the theory that planets in the heart of Sun regain also their natural virtue; one more argument: there is a passage that tells that after combustion planets are purified).
- is the text referring only to masculine planets or can be applied also to feminine planets?

Margherita wrote,

In every case case Sarapione, who seems to write around II century adds that Mercury rejoices when it is synodical.
If Sasha could find the Greek quote would be perfect, or so I hope.

Here is the complete reference and the fragment

Serapion Astrol., Fragmenta (Boudreaux). Vol. 8.4, p. 230 line 22


??????? ?? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????

I think I will have to rely on Sasha to paste the actual text, but there are also some lines in Porphyry (CCAG 5.4, pg 194, lines 3-6) that have some import, though again not a outright statement of the cazimi doctrine. The preceding and following passages state the cycle of the planets in relation to the Sun. Eventually the planets come under the beams of the Sun in the 15 degrees before or after it, but, in these particular lines, the planets in the same degree as the Sun are in conjunction (sunodos) with the Sun, not under the beams anymore, implicitly.

Hello Sasha,

So with Antiochus there does seem a only a suggestion that as you put it:

planets regain their default state (and probably this is in accordance with the theory that planets in the heart of Sun regain also their natural virtue; one more argument: there is a passage that tells that after combustion planets are purified).

So the debility of combustion is gone. However, the idea of planets being automatically 'supercharged' just because they are cazimi seems lacking here. Would you agree?

Also a malefic remains a malefic so due its essential nature a synodical placement will not change that or does it become 'purified'?

Certainly, this hellenistic approach seems an important step towards the notion of cazimi. However, its half a step rather than a full step with what you quote.

However, maybe Serapio, Porphyry or Rhetorius are more explicit.

The reference from Serapio of Alexandria, Margherita has mentioned seems the closest I have heard to the later full blown medieval concept of cazimi.

Are you willing to have a stab at translating that for us? Its ok no one is looking.

Hello again,

However, the idea of planets being automatically 'supercharged' just because they are cazimi seems lacking here. Would you agree?

Sincerely, I don?t know exactly what do you mean by ?supercharged?

Also a malefic remains a malefic so due its essential nature a synodical placement will not change that or does it become 'purified'?

That?s the problem. Sincerely I don?t know. If I were to go to the common sense to be purified means to go back to the initial state, a new beginning. So, this would mean to let the things that passed and to start a new cycle.

Are you willing to have a stab at translating that for us? Its ok no one is looking.

No need for blind guessing in the case of Serapiones

The fragment is translated by Giuseppe Bezza.

"The synodical planets are significant by virtue of their participation to the Sun light, for this reason rendering/emitting their energy (energeia) later (after Sun), provided they are in profitable (operative, influential- of course for the native) places. Particularly Mercury enjoys (chairo) being synodical and it is then operative (in the sense that it acts, in the text is used energeia)."


Now I must make a digression here. I cannot abstain myself from going to philosophy and analyze this energeia that is used in this fragment as in other texts too.

As keywords: energeia would be functioning, activity, act, actualization.
The word is linked with dynamis. In both cases it is hard to define in a common manner. More useful would be to differentiate energeia from other terms.
So, it?s not identical with movement (kinesis), because movement remains incomplete, is after all a process that is developing itself to an aim that is going to be accomplished. Energeia is complete, it?s not a process, is quite an activity.
Aristotle develops energeia from function (ergon). The function represents what a thing can do in a natural way, in accord with its nature. For this that thing needs the necessary capacity (dynamis) to undertake that task .So in the end we have en-ergeia, the state of functioning. The only thing that is missing is the aim. The aim in a natural way must be in accordance with the nature of that thing.
I hope I wasn?t talking about the cheese? from the Moon.


Next: to me it seems that chairo/gaudio/joy is more about the state of planets, and not necessary an indication of its benefic/malefic nature. In this way for example planets are in joy when are in strong houses, or in their signs. But again that is the effect. That?s way I think that Serapiones is trying to say that Mercury is enjoying being in the heart of the Sun because receives energy. But this doesn?t mean automatically that a malefic planet is becoming a benefic one. Actualy there is one more argument: in general the texts

Hi Sasha,

your text is intermitted!!! It's a pity because to read your article is a mere pleasure.

Johannes

??????? ?? ? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ???????

Mark: if you wanted a more literal translation, this means: 'Mercury especially rejoices when synodical, and becomes active.'

Martin
(whose Mercury is synodical)

Hello Sasha,

Sincerely, I don?t know exactly what do you mean by ?supercharged?

Sorry, its a bit of modern jargon I tend to use for very powerful planets.
I think the equivalent in Lilly was 'wonderous strong'. Or if you prefer highly auspicious. However, I suppose the hellenistic term would be 'rejoices'.

Thanks for all your efforts on this thread. Its most appreciated.

Hello Martin,

Mark: if you wanted a more literal translation, this means: 'Mercury especially rejoices when synodical, and becomes active.'

Thank you. Thats a nice snappy rendition I can probably retain in my head.

Its interesting that Serapio states Mercury 'especially' rejoices when synodical. It seems clear from the other texts planets are free from combustion in the synodical condition. However, can we support the assumption that all the planets 'rejoice' when synodical from any other hellenistic text? If not I am still curious how we got to the modern cazimi notion which is very positive irrespective of planet involved.

The other remaining question is which astrologer effects a switch-over to the notion of cazimi operating from 17' rather than 1 degree?

MarkC wrote:
I think the equivalent in Lilly was 'wonderous strong'. Or if you prefer highly auspicious. However, I suppose the hellenistic term would be 'rejoices'.

Wonderous strong does not mean highly auspicious...

Inputs?

Margherita

johannes susato

your text is intermitted!!! It's a pity because to read your article is a mere pleasure.

Thanks.

I wanted to add that according to some Hellenistic astrologers (and I have in mind Paulus) this state of joy (chairo) is given by more than one condition (1- in their terms, or signs, trigons or exaltation, 2- in sect, 3-position in house ?this last condition it?s not present in Paulus). So it can be concluded that this joy was present whenever planet was in an auspicious circumstances.
I might be wrong but that?s how I see it.

Mark:

I tend to use for very powerful planets.
I think the equivalent in Lilly was 'wonderous strong'.

Yes, but I think that the text doesn?t support the conclusion that we are dealing with a very powerful planet, in the sense that for example if that planet is in a cadent place the planet would still remain powerful.