Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi James,

Sorry! Yes good point. FE Robbins translation of the Tetrabiblos is much more reliable than JM Ashmand. In fact Ashmand's translation isn't really a direct translation of the Tetrabiblos at all but only a translation of the Proclus paraphrase of the Tetrabiblos.

Here is FE Robbins:

Thus they assigned Saturn, which is cold, to the warmth of the day, and Mars, which is dry, to the moisture of the night, for in this way each of them attains good proportion through admixture and becomes a proper member of its sect, which provides moderation.

Bear in mind it after 2.00am here and I am getting sleepy. Time for bed.

Mark

james_m wrote: as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign?

[/quote]

Hello James!!

Yes, I did misunderstand, the part of: " - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example)" Did I misunderstand? Now I am confused. Oh well!

Really liked your posts! Yes, I got the translation error, regarding Mars counterbalancing its Moisture!! But knew what was meant.

The bigger issue I had was with Mars assigned to the Nocturnal sect, it makes no sense, nor is there logic in that idea or concept that was conceived by ????? No one suggested who "They" were that Ptolemy was stating came up with the concept of Mars being Nocturnal, back to my original statement of trying to counterbalance Mars dryness by putting Mars in the Nocturnal sect. Still wishful thinking in my opinion, if that is the basis of the theory.

Thanks All!!

thanks mark,

here is a crazy quote from the guy over at astroamerica
Comment: Ashmand's translation is superior to that by F.E. Robbins in one critical respect: Ashmand was an astrologer & well-understood what he translated, the result shows - on every page. Every important astrologer in the last 2 millennia has studied this book, every major astrologer of the last two centuries has poured over these very words. Join with them, join in the continuing astrological renewal of the last ten years.

on the robbins translation here is what he says

Comment: Ashmand is the better translator, as he well-knows who will be reading his text & what they will expect. Robbins has the better source materials, but does not handle them as well. Both these translations are good, but there remains a slight advantage to Ashmand.

never pay much attention to what book sellers have to say is about all i can take away from this and my ashmand translated copy, not to mention it looks like paul is working with the same translation if that is where he got that quote from!!!

morning sun,

it is confusing when i read it too, lol... it is better to try to get your head around the 3 ways that the idea of diurnal/nocturnal can be expressed first.. then i think it will make sense.. when i first read hands book a number of years ago i was scratching my head over the very same thing and didn't get it immediately..

the most confusing part is not about whether a planet is in a feminine or masculine sign, or whether it is a day chart or night chart.. those 2 means of arriving at the sect of a planet are straightforward.. the hard one to understand is when the sun is below the horizon in a nocturnal chart how mars being in the same lower half of the chart as in nixons case makes it also diurnal... lets put it this way - it would be considered more nocturnal if it was above the horizon line instead of below with the sun..

i am not sure throwing more words at this is going to help either, lol!!!

Hi James,

Yeah I used to go with that Dave Roell pitch at AstroAmerica about the Tetrabiblos too. However, if your doing detailed work and picking over fine nuances of what Ptolemy actually said there is no debate you need the FE Robbins translation and the parts Schmidt translated in Project Hindsight. That is all we really have in terms of actual translations of a reliable source text.

The F.E. Robbins translation is available free online:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

Mark

This article from Chris Brennan may be of help in clarifying the subject of sect if your struggling with it:

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008 ... y-of-sect/

Bear in mind though that several hellenistic astrologers dont even mention the two rejoicing conditions. So in terms of ancient astrology at least it would be an error to think of sect operating in three equally important factors. The fundamental distinction is to focus on whether the chart is day or night.

Its also not just horizon placement or sign gender that are influenced by sect. As I stated already it also influences notions around planetary phase and the quarters.

To recap the traditional quarters:

ASC-MC Masculine
MC-DESC-Feminine
DESC-IC Masculine
IC-ASC -Feminine

The traditional quarters go in diurnal or clockwise direction.

Mark

Morning Sun

No one suggested who "They" were that Ptolemy was stating came up with the concept of Mars being Nocturnal

We do know sect theory seems to have been around from very early in hellenistic astrology. However, there are obviously serious gaps in our knowledge who exactly developed sect theory. The same applies to domicile rulerships!

However, Mars association with the night could long pre-date hellenistic astrology in relation to its associations in Babylonian astrology. The Babylonian Mars was associated with the god Nergal who was linked to the war, disease, death and the underworld.

I recommend Gavin White's excellent book 'Babylonian Star Lore'.

http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/list ... es/nergal/

Here is an article by Bernadette Brady on Mars/Nergal:

http://zyntara.com/VisualAstrologyNewsl ... il2006.htm

Mark

james_m wrote: never pay much attention to what book sellers have to say is about all i can take away from this and my ashmand translated copy, not to mention it looks like paul is working with the same translation if that is where he got that quote from!!!

Yes though I have to say that the other version seems to get the point across better in this example. It was late at night when I posted it and barely read it to be honest. I just wanted to post the source of the idea of malefics associated with immoderation to convey that it wasn't my own opinion/idea but one well grounded in antiquity, in Ptolemy at least.



MorningSun

In regards who the 'they' are, I think Ptolemy normally refers to 'the ancients' when he uses terminology like this, which are probably Nechepso and Petrosirus, or the earlier "Hermes Trismegistus" - though it's incredibly unlikely that the concept began with them but, as Mark shows, probably came from Babylon initially.

I think there are varying understandings of sect though. I agree with Mark regarding there not being an equal emphasis on each of them, primarily the importance is on whether it is a day or night chart, but we also have some complexity with this as well. For example in Valens he indicates in Book Three that the importance of sect includes or is predominantly that nocturnal planets be in the opposite hemisphere as the sun and that diurnal ones be with the hemisphere of the Sun. So I also don't think it's true to suggest that the concept was not also popular in Hellenistic astrology (not that anyone has said this, but just to clarify the point). He later gives examples where, say, the Sun is above the hemisphere but Jupiter or Saturn are below it and are said to be not in their sect.

So I think there's an understandable confusion regarding sect, and clearly different astrologers had a different opinion of it.

Ashmand's so-called Tetrabiblos is actually a translation not of Ptolemy's text, but of Proclus' paraphrase. In other words, Robbins and Ashmand did not translate the same text differently; they translated different texts.

Martin Gansten wrote:Ashmand's so-called Tetrabiblos is actually a translation not of Ptolemy's text, but of Proclus' paraphrase. In other words, Robbins and Ashmand did not translate the same text differently; they translated different texts.

Martin, may I gather from your statement above that the tranlation by Robbins accords far more with the (probably orignial) text of Ptlolemy?

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:Martin, may I gather from your statement above that the tranlation by Robbins accords far more with the (probably orignial) text of Ptlolemy?

Yes, it does.

Martin Gansten wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Martin, may I gather from your statement above that the tranlation by Robbins accords far more with the (probably orignial) text of Ptlolemy?

Yes, it does.

Thank you, Martin. This difference in the 'originals' is surely known to the fewest - me inclusive. One should ever read the forewords . . .