Margherita wrote:

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.

I agree in mundo working with fixed stars is a powerful technique. However, there are plenty of ancient sources that support the notion that stars were often simply being projected on to the ecliptic irrespective of their in mundo position. Even Anonymous of 379 allows for this method along with in mundo positions. Whatever its merits this method is very much a traditional way of working. Does Bezza reject this approach like Bernadette Brady?

Hello Mark,

what about your lecture about comets?

MarkC wrote:I agree in mundo working with fixed stars is a powerful technique. However, there are plenty of ancient sources that support the notion that stars were often simply being projected on to the ecliptic irrespective of their in mundo position.

I would not consider in this group texts about directions of stars, because in directions points are often taken without latitude, so for definition on the ecliptic. But surely it was used even their ecliptic position, I agree.

Even Anonymous of 379 allows for this method along with in mundo positions.

Please, here quote. I believe you, but I'm too much lazy to search the text.

Does Bezza reject this approach like Bernadette Brady?

I cannot reply for Bezza, I always reply what I understood of Bezza or from the things I read from his students.

I would say that I never saw from them a star in a birth chart put according its ecliptical projection. And surely Bezza writes in his "Comment to the first book of Tetrabiblos" that Robson book about fixed stars is wrong, because that stars are so far from the ecliptic that it's impossible to handle them like planets.

margherita

what about your lecture about comets?

It seemed to go down well. Had some nice comments afterwards. I did mention you by the way in regards your invaluable help! Although the turn out for the Conference was lower than normal. Lots of reasons such as late publicity, clashing with another event and no big names this year.

Anyway, I better save the rest for a PM.

Mark

MarkC wrote: Anyway, I better save the rest for a PM.

But the quote from Anonymous 379?

margherita

Margherita wrote:

But the quote from Anonymous 379?

Will come next week when I have time to check out Robert Zoller's translation!

I am rather preoccupied earning a crust and finding a new job just now. Sorry!

Anyway, the english translation of Bezza's version is much shorter than Zoller's version. I dont know know if that reflects the Italian original? It is odd though considering they are both translating the same text.

Mark

MarkC wrote: Anyway, the english translation of Bezza's version is much shorter than Zoller's version. I dont know know if that reflects the Italian original? It is odd though considering they are both translating the same text.

No idea, because I don't have Zoller version.
They indicate as source CCAG V/1 pp. 194-211

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... g.379.html

I will wait,

margherita

I'm reviving this old thread as I have a question for Astroart, (or anyone else knowledgeable in Greek terms who might want to offer an opinion on this).

I'm looking at section 1.21 of Antiochus, which Schmidt translates as:

?Concerning the Hurling of the Rays?
The succeeding planet is said to hurl its rays at the preceding planet ? For the ray of its fire is carried to the preceding planets as this planet goes in their direction. For example, a planet in Aries looks ahead at a planet in Cancer, and the one in Cancer hurls its rays at the one in Aries?.

The Greek terms he translates are:

hurls rays - aktinoboleo
looks ahead - epitheoreo

From what I understand of the philosophy behind this, the choice of the phrase "looks ahead" isn't very representative of what it being expressed. In the previous section (1.20) the term is translated as 'look ahead' or 'bear witness' and I think bear witness is appropriate, but 'look ahead' is not. I have also run a search on the term and it also seems to have been used to mean 'behold' which is fitting to what I understand of the philosophy too (or to 'aspect' since that means to 'behold' or witness' in its original sense). Essentially, the 'hurling of the rays' is the active element of casting the look, whereas the one that 'bears witness' or 'beholds' is the passive 'receiver'.

I don't claim to be an expert on the original and deeper meaning of Greek terms though, so I wonder if there is something in the makeup of that Greek word which led Schmidt to specifically choose the phrase 'look ahead'. I noticed that Astroart wrote about this word in an earlier post of this thread, hence - if you are still around Astroart - I'd like to get your indpendent opinion on this.

Deb

Deb wrote:I'm reviving this old thread as I have a question for Astroart, (or anyone else knowledgeable in Greek terms who might want to offer an opinion on this).

The Greek terms he translates are:

hurls rays - aktinoboleo
looks ahead - epitheoreo

From what I understand of the philosophy behind this, the choice of the phrase "looks ahead" isn't very representative of what it being expressed. In the previous section (1.20) the term is translated as 'look ahead' or 'bear witness' and I think bear witness is appropriate, but 'look ahead' is not. I have also run a search on the term and it also seems to have been used to mean 'behold' which is fitting to what I understand of the philosophy too (or to 'aspect' since that means to 'behold' or witness' in its original sense). Essentially, the 'hurling of the rays' is the active element of casting the look, whereas the one that 'bears witness' or 'beholds' is the passive 'receiver'.

For what Bezza says about this subject - what I understand at least from his "Commento al primo libro del Tetrabiblos" (Comment to the First Book of Tetrabiblos)- he uses the same word.

The preceding star LOOKS the following one while the following planet HURLS A RAY to the preceding one.

For what I understood the preceding planet is not passive, but it's the stronger, it is predominant, it controls the qualities of the following planet.

In a few words, Bezza agrees with Schmidt, I believe.

margherita

Hi Margherita

Thanks for answering. I agree that the preceding planet will be in the stronger position, but I think that could become a point of confusion to what I am trying to establish, which is purely related to the principles of which planet 'casts' the aspect and which planet 'receives it'.

That's why I want to look only at the meaning of the Greek word epitheoreo, without any preconceived expectations, to see if it is fundamentally implicit of the phrase 'looking ahead'.

I am relating this to the classical philosophy on optics, by which the Pythagoreans believed that visual contact was made via a line of fire (ie., illumination) (as decribed in this passage), which originated from the eye of the person who was doing the looking. This is what we would generally think of as someone who 'casts a look' (ie, 'hurling a ray'). So to actively 'look' is treated as something distinct to passively seeing, observing, witnessing, beholding or aspecting (using the word aspect in its original form) because then the vision presents itself rather than being sought.

Also, it doesn't make sense to use the term 'look ahead' to describe a planet in Aries in aspect to a planet in Cancer, since in the same place the planet in Cancer has been described as "the succeeding planet"'

I hope this makes sense
Deb

Deb wrote: That's why I want to look only at the meaning of the Greek word epitheoreo, without any preconceived expectations, to see if it is fundamentally implicit of the phrase 'looking ahead'.

In every case Bezza too translates epitheoreo as looking ahead.

So consider that two scholars like Bezza and Schmidt agree.

Let's wait Astroart, generally we are in agreement...

margherita

Thank you for raising this issue, Deb! It drives me batty. The only way I've been able to remember the dynamics of what I think I'm studying is to remember catch phrases like "look back in anger" for "hurling rays" - but then, I'm not really certain that I'm understanding what "back" actually means! There's the whole issue of "itoots" and "atoots," as I think Zoltan Mason put it - in the order of the signs/against the order of the signs - but even that matter seems to be obscured by the language you're referring to.

Deb wrote: Also, it doesn't make sense to use the term 'look ahead' to describe a planet in Aries in aspect to a planet in Cancer, since in the same place the planet in Cancer has been described as "the succeeding planet"'

Hi Deb

The term "look ahead" is used to describe an aspect in the order of the Zodiak just as you say: A planet in Aries "looks ahead" to a planet in Cancer. The "succeeding planet" is a term used in terms of the daily motion: In terms of the daily motion a planet in Cancer is following a planet in Aries. Thus the planet in Cancer is the "succeeding planet" and it "hurls the rays" unto the planet in Aries.

Keeping this in mind, the Schmidt-Translation is not any longer irritating:

?Concerning the Hurling of the Rays?
The succeeding planet [in terms of the daily motion] is said to hurl its rays at the preceding planet [in terms of the daily motion]? For the ray of its fire is carried to the preceding planets [in terms of the daily motion] as this planet goes in their direction. For example, a planet in Aries looks ahead [in terms of the order of the Zodiac !!!!!] at a planet in Cancer, and the one in Cancer hurls its rays at the one in Aries?.

It remains the secret of Robert Schmidt to have not explained the misleading last sentence beginning: "For example . . . " a llittle bit more.

Best Regards
Johannes