Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Johannes!

Pardon me, but I am at a loss as to why the daily motion has anything to do with the matter of "looking ahead" or "emitting or casting rays"? Also, don't have my copy of this book handy, so there might be something in there that I am missing.

GR wrote:Hi Johannes!

Pardon me, but I am at a loss as to why the daily motion has anything to do with the matter of "looking ahead" or "emitting or casting rays"? Also, don't have my copy of this book handy, so there might be something in there that I am missing.

Hi GR!

I regret that I cannot explain to you what the daily motion has to to with the concept of "looking ahead" or with "hurling the rays" (pardon, not "emitting or casting rays").

But as you can read in the quote Deb gave us of Robert Schmidt's translation, the terms are: The following planet is "hurling its rays" at the preceding planet; and this can only be seen in terms of the daily motion - otherwise a planet in Cancer could not be described as "the succeeding planet" to a planet in Aries.

This is a question of understanding a given terminology. The Why of this terminology is a thing I cannot answer, and when my understanding of Robert Schmidt discussing these questions in another forum is correct, then he himself believes to have found the answer to this not before recently.

Regards,
Johannes

johannes susato wrote: But as you can read in the quote Deb gave us of Robert Schmidt's translation, the terms are: The following planet is "hurling its rays" at the preceding planet; and this can only be seen in terms of the daily motion - otherwise a planet in Cancer could not be described as "the succeeding planet" to a planet in Aries.

But that is the thing, I don't see what it can only be seen that way. To be more clear on my end, I'm taking the daily motion you are talking about to be the primary motion, from rising to culminating to setting to nadir; let me know if I'm correct?

The planet preceding is such both in the order of the images of the Zodiac(as Aries precedes and comes before Taurus, and Taurus precedes Gemini, etc.) and by degrees passed through a sign (as the 1st degree precedes and comes before the 2nd and so on).

johannes susato wrote:
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.

This is what Bezza teaches too.

1) By its motion along the Zodiac a planet LOOKS - epitheorei- showing to the other its face;
2) by its daily motion the planet HURLS a ray (aktinobolei) to the preceding one. (This is obvious now because daily motion goes against signs)

I guess it comes from Rethorius (in Anthiocus CCAG I) Bezza puts always quotes, I like this very much,

margherita

On this point, to me, the teachings of Robert Schmidt are not so relevant, because I wanted to explore different thoughts from an independent assessment of the passage, which isn?t tied to explaining his opinion.

I was only really seeking information regarding the Greek word epitheoreo ? and whether the notion of projecting or receiving is implicit within it, (hence I wondered if the translation ?looking ahead? is defined by the word itself, or by the presumed context). It is interesting that Guiseppe Bezza agrees in the translation, but I?m still curious to know more about the word origin. I am not suggesting the translation is wrong by any means, only checking out an interpretative point. I?ll do some further research and write to him if I get stuck.

My interest is mainly on the phrase which is here associated with the planet that ?hurls its rays?: ?For the ray of its fire is carried to the preceding planets as this planet goes in their direction?.

I?ve been looking into the various ancient theories on optics and visual rays. On the surface I took this to derive from a more purely Pythagorean-based philosophy, which assumes vision to be caused by the illumination of an internal fire which is cast out from the eye to allow the object to become visible. This is frequently described as a ?ray of fire? or a ?line of fire? which is issued outwards, so that what becomes visible is seen because of the light which is shed upon it. But this Pythagorean theory would only make sense through the principle of primary direction, where the ?succeeding planet? by diurnal revolution becomes the ?active? promissor. The terminology wouldn?t make a good fit with the principles of the more usual aspect theory.

The older Pythagorean theory is not quite the same as the one quoted by Astroart on p.1 of this thread, as an example of Robert Schmidt?s explanation. The theory described there is similar, but has added components developed by the Platonists. This allows a more natural association between the ?hurling? planet and the passive recipient of the ?look?. The look is cast from the eye, but meets with particles that shoot off (hurl?) from the objects being observed . This theory seems to make more sense of the terminology as it applies to aspect theory, rather than primary directions, but it doesn't explain why the hurling planet 'goes in the direction' of the preceeding planet - only diurnal revoluion makes sense of that.

The optical doctrines are obviously interrelated with astrological aspect theory, but this passage could be highly misleading if we fix the notion of ?looking ahead? (if it is what the word epitheoreo intrinsically means) to what we understand of terms like dexter or sinister aspect. If the theory that Robert Schmidt has chosen to explain this has been correctly identified, (I'm not sure) then it seems to relate more directly to the processes of application: the planet that ?looks ahead? being the planet which applies - assuming that the planetary motions are direct along the zodiac, so that a lighter planet moves toward a heavier recipient from the direction of the preceding signs. The identification as a preceding or succeeding planet obviously alters according to whether we take ?preceding? to mean by diurnal motion, or by advanced zodiacal progress, which I don't think this particular passage makes crystal clear, unfortunately.

GR wrote:

johannes susato wrote: But as you can read in the quote Deb gave us of Robert Schmidt's translation, the terms are: The following planet is "hurling its rays" at the preceding planet; and this can only be seen in terms of the daily motion - otherwise a planet in Cancer could not be described as "the succeeding planet" to a planet in Aries.

But that is the thing, I don't see what it can only be seen that way. To be more clear on my end, I'm taking the daily motion you are talking about to be the primary motion, from rising to culminating to setting to nadir; let me know if I'm correct?

The planet preceding is such both in the order of the images of the Zodiac(as Aries precedes and comes before Taurus, and Taurus precedes Gemini, etc.) and by degrees passed through a sign (as the 1st degree precedes and comes before the 2nd and so on).

You are correct as to the primary motion which I took the liberty to call daily motion.

Your are also completely right in your last paragraph, GR.

But then you forget then the daily/primary motion!

Given the Sun is in the 20th degree of Aries and Venus follows him in the 1st degree. Then Venus looks ahead to the Sun who is the first in the sign of Aries.

But rising in the morning Venus will be seen the first of both and the Sun follows her in rising. And as to the daily/primary motion it is then correct to say that Venus is the "preceding Planet". Then the Sun is hurling his beams unto Venus.

Johannes

Hi Margherita,

thank you for the Bezza-Quote and the support.

Regards
Johannes

Hello Deborah,

Deb wrote:On this point, to me, the teachings of Robert Schmidt are not so relevant, because I wanted to explore different thoughts from an independent assessment of the passage, which isn?t tied to explaining his opinion.

I believe Bezza is not dependant from Schmidt- I believe we could give this for granted. In his Comment to the first book of Tetrabiblos (which includes his translation of the first book of Tetrabiblos based on Boer edition) he gives many relevant quotes about all the introductory subjects included in the first book.

When Bezza does not agree with other scholars he says. For example in the beginning of the same book he criticizes the other Italian modern version of Tetrabiblos, the one of Simonetta Feraboli, who is one of the greatest expert of stellar catalogues and a Professor of Greek in Genova University. He is not a shy boy...

Maybe I don't understand English here, consider my difficulty with a language which is not mine, but which is the problem? I cannot catch...


This is Porphirius:
"Every preceding star LOOKS the following star and it is predominant, moving towards it, but it does not hurls any ray. In fact from the light of every star, the sight goes onwards, the ray backwards. "

I understand the same Johannes wrote better than me.


margherita

Maybe I don't understand English here, consider my difficulty with a language which is not mine, but which is the problem? I cannot catch...

I agree that here, and in other passages, what you and Johannes have described appears to be the obvious interpretation. However, other references show the notion of ?hurling rays? is not tied to the aspect being cast against the order of the signs. One example is Hephaistio II. 10, where Jupiter in Aries is described as hurling its ray to the Moon in Leo. So ?hurling a ray? doesn?t seem to be essentially about an aspect cast back against the order of the signs. The matter seems to be a little more complex.

I don?t have the answers but I am exploring whether

1) 'hurling of rays' was originally restricted to the concept of directions, and so not intended to be descriptive of usual aspects, (which fits the context of the Hephaistio reference); or

2) whether it might be intended to describe the response of the superior planet when an aspect is cast towards it (as per the optical theory that Robert Schmidt describes and which I outlined in my last post). If so, the interpretation ?looks ahead? for the 'looking' planet could be misleading ? are we really talking about ?look upon? rather than "look ahead"? (that would allow the Hephaistio example, in more modern terminology, to describe the Moon aspecting Jupiter, with Jupiter meeting the aspect by the outpouring of its rays).*

From what I understand 'look towards' would do just as much justice to the orignal Greek, and would not create this need for the ?looking? planet to be behind in the zodiac.

I did a bit of layman?s research on the web and the term epitheoreo is comprised of epi + theoreo. Theoreo means ?to consider, contemplate, be a spectator of, look at ? etc? whilst epi means ?upon, over, at, on, towards?.

I am not an expert on Greek words! I am just grasping about in the dark here, but I don?t see why the word epitheoreo becomes interpreted as ?look ahead?. The terms ?look towards? or ?look upon? could give us a different understanding of the principle being conveyed here. Its not an answer in itself but it frees us from expecting that a hurled ray goes against the order of the signs because of what is being said in passages such as this.

I hope that has made some sense!
Deb

*There are other ancient optical theories which describe the looker projecting a ray of light (or fire, etc) towards an object; with that object being described as continually throwing off particles from its surface into the surrounded space, like an aura, so that visual perception begins with the contact of the observer?s light to this surrounding aura ? this has obviously interesting philosophical connections to the principle of aspectual orbs.

Hi all,

Deb,

I do wonder where you're getting this "Pythagorean" optics thing? There is little if anything extant that can be sourced as purely Pythagorean, since so much of it was taken up by Plato et al and through Platonized, not to mention other borrowings before and after Plato, but all these ancient philosophers were very intermingled with their ideas.

As for epitheoreo, as far as the lexicon goes it has the primary meaning of examining something closely, I don't see any idea of receiving there.

Johannes & Margherita,

OK, I don't see quite the idea that the primary motion causes the hurling of rays, but the reference in Rhetorius mentions both the zodiacal motion and the primary motion after speaking about beholding and striking.

Deb wrote: I hope that has made some sense!

Yes, much better, thanks.
margherita

I do wonder where you're getting this "Pythagorean" optics thing?

Gabe, you make this sound like something I put together in my dinner hour, rather than something that has given me many headaches over a long period of time. I have no problem whatsoever about my thoughts being corrected or guided into a new light, but flippant disregard makes me disinclined to further the discussion. Feels like I'm putting a lot of thought into something that will just be dismissed without reflection anyway.

There is intermingling of the ideas, but not so much that modern experts on the ancient optical theories are not able to discern distinct differences between them and categorise them into 'types'. There are early accounts of the Pythagorean theory, originating from the early 5th century, which pre-date the Platonic theory and do not have the notion of the returning particles described by Plato.

As for epitheoreo, as far as the lexicon goes it has the primary meaning of examining something closely, I don't see any idea of receiving there.

If you read my post above, you can see that is not what I was suggesting. I?m not sure if you realise, because I don?t think you actually read my previous post, but I think this supports the point that I was making there.

Deb

Ps - Thanks Margherita - I'm glad I made some sense in the end