Thanks Mark! I am sure I wasn't the first. We have the same with certain names in Norway, too. Both HIS 'Radix System' and 'Fixed Stars' can be recommended. But as with every astrologer's work, whatever you decide to take with you is a pick. The LEFT hand is not as powerful as the RIGHT, but the LEFT can be more spectacular, impressive and striking when it gets through and accomplishes its goal. The RIGHT hand for the most of jobs and ordinary work.

However, discussions like this do clarify our understanding of language and art. And obviously also gender!

I bought his Radix System but all the Tables at the back were cut out.

Matt

We were both tricked!

Al H. Morrison actually sent me a copy of the Radix system as a gift. I had it arrive on Oct. 4. 1982. Honestly, you do not need the tables in the back of the book and cutting them out was probably a good idea.

PS to Matt: Did you loose page 107 aswell?
PS to MarkC: Electional Astrology is also in my library.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Vivian Robson got it wrong and his delination IS confusing. My advice is to ignore it.
I am sure you will find other portions of her work far more useful.

If you can't use it - loose it!

I agree.

I trust Robson very partially too.

I find the book about election good, and I used to prepare a lecture about the subject, but not the one about fixed stars, following CieloeTerra.

first of all which are Robson sources about stars? For example, our wonderful host, Deborah Houlding, mentions Robson interpretation for Castor in her article about Gaurico and Henry II, and in fact she cannot understand from which source Robson takes the meaning for that star. Castor is a Mercurian star, and a compassionate star in all the oldest stellar catalogues, but Robson makes it very unfavourable.

Then, in CieloeTerra they don't use stars by longitude but in mundo, because stars traditionally are moved by the motion of the sphera because they are "fixed", they don't have a real motion of their own -I know that ancients move them of 1 degree for 100 years but in the Aristotelian model they were fixed and attached to an outer sphere called Firmamentum, which sounds like "firm", motionless.

So I would take Robson with granum salis, put by yourself the English word, now I cannot remember

margherita

Gjiada wrote:I agree.
I trust Robson very partially too.

But, in respect, and I am sure we agree that the wrong often helps in discovering the right. That is also what the forum is about: gathering different bits of information, studying the practice and contribution of other astrologers and working out the correct application and meaning.

Andrew Bevan wrote: But, in respect, and I am sure we agree that the wrong often helps in discovering the right. That is also what the forum is about: gathering different bits of information, studying the practice and contribution of other astrologers and working out the correct application and meaning.

We agree in this too

I hate to be too much dependent on just one source, whatever important it would be, I believe that confront makes us always richer

margherita

I found an interesting passage in Vivian Robson`s "A Student`s Textbook of Astrology", page 26:
Quote:
Another distinction that is sometimes met with is in the direction from which an aspect is cast, a dexter aspect being one thrown backwards in the zodiac, and a sinister one thrown forward. The latter is said to be stronger for good or evil than the former.

Statement with similar content can be found in Strauch-Leovitius , ?Astrologische Aphorismen?, 1924, Verlag von A.M. Grimm, Bad T?lz(German translation of the original Latin edition from 1675 ).But it is somewhere in the book where the different topics of natal astrology are discussed. Unfortunately I do not remember the exact page.

The more I think about this topic the more I come to the conclusion that it is merley a mistake or mix-up in the usage of the definitions of dexter and sinister. But where and how did it start?

I think the beginning of the problem must be sought in the Hellenistic astrology, especially in the oldest written sources.The language of these sources is tricky, enigmatic and allows different interpretations.The core of the problem is: what is the basis of sinister/dexter aspect and respectively the dominant/dominated planet-primum mobile (the diurnal motion) or secundum mobile (the zodiacal motion)?Reading of these ancient texts, especially Antiochus, leads to the following conclusions (according to R. Schmidt?s interpretation):

?For Antiochus or his pre-Ptolemaic sources, however, I belive that the terminology of leading and following was understood with references to the natural motion of the planets around the zodiac instead of the diurnal motion.In Antiochus 7 we have seen that the sidedness of a figure was defined in just such a way , where figures on the right are those in images from which a planet has departed in accord with its natural motion around the zodiac, while figures on the left are those in images to which the planet will go.Therefore, I maintain that for Antiochus leading meant farther ahead in zodiacal order(either in the terms of image or in the terms of portion), and following meant farther behind in zodiacal order.To use diurnal motion as a reference would be to introduce a consideration that is foreign to the notion of figure formation, which after all is a matter of the planets movement around the zodiac irrespective of the diurnal motion.? (D&F, p.207)

As I said earlier, these old texts may have other interpretations too. I will only say that prof.Bezza(Milano) takes the opposite position.

astroart wrote:
As I said earlier, these old texts may have other interpretations too. I will only say that prof.Bezza(Milano) takes the opposite position.

I was checking my books.

In fact I understand that Bezza refers to the diurnal motion in classifying dexter and sinister aspects.

Planets which are risen before are stronger than the ones risen later, ie planets in the right part are stronger than the ones to the left side.

In the example at the beginning of the thread in fact Venus in Libra is stronger than Saturn in Aquarius, and she dominates.

If the opposite, it is Saturn which rules Venus, and makes her malefic.

I understand this from my reading of Bezza, at least.

Quotes are already given in the beginning of the thread.


margherita

Andrew Bevan wrote:We were both tricked!

PS to Matt: Did you loose page 107 aswell?

Yes, so I will never know exactly what happens with the Moon and Neptune.

We can't have that!! How on Earth can you Sleep?
A photocopy is coming right your way!!

Hi All,

Margherita wrote:

I trust Robson very partially too. I find the book about election good, and I used to prepare a lecture about the subject, but not the one about fixed stars, following CieloeTerra.

Sorry I have been away for the last week. I can see the discussion has moved on somewhat but I just wanted to pick up on Margherita's comment regarding Vivian Robson above. It appears the main reason Robson's electional book was so good was that it was essentially an 'edited highlights' compression of William Ramesey's electional chapters from Astrologia Restaurata:Astrology Restored published in 1653. Robson was rather cheeky not to even acknowledge Ramesey as his primary source!

I learned this recently from a talk by Kim Farnell on William Ramesey at The History Astrology Conference run by the Astrological Lodge in London. Kim hopes to publish an updated and fully annotated version of Astrologia Restaurata:Astrology Restored very soon. She has substantially altered and updated the electronic version of the text she has had available from her website for some years in this completely new publication. The book will be a valuable addition to students of electional and mundane astrology. Especially as the current Kessinger reproduction edition is poor quality and therefore hard going.

Mark