Skyscript Astrology Forum

Good morning Tom,

Tom wrote:

* The point about Lilly is that he incorporates the older view, but just doesn't explain it very well.

And I can guess why. He scratched his head over this section, too.

and why he scratched his head about it? Lilly - when he does not agree- says "according the ancient is this, but I think that".

But which table he uses for temperament? Ptolemy's one or something else? Does he write any comment? No.

It's true that astrologers always show variants of the method, we do the same in our times, but principles should be fixed.

This is one of these cases, phases to the Sun are very important, because from them derive the strength and the nature of a planet; if we chance that, we change a lot of the traditional building.

Why Frawley should change like that the tradition? Is he a traditional astrologer who follows the Ancients or he is re-writing astrology? I don't understand his point. If we want modern astrologers, there are so many,

margherita

Tom wrote:

?... therefore Mars, which is in the middle of Jupiter and Venus will be the most temperate of all the planets.?

In this last sentence I think Morin refers to Tycho Brahe?s system. In Ptolemy?s system the Sun would be between Mars and Venus.

Could be a possibility. Here is a picture of the Tycho Brahe-model:
http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education ... omodel.gif The Earth is fixed and the Sun (with all the planets exept the Earth revolving him) revolves around the Earth, like the Moon does.

Hi Clelia

Thanks for the more detailed references ? now I understand why you want to look into this further. Personally speaking, I still think any reference to Mars being feminine is a confused expression of Mars? association with the nocturnal sect - but of course, this is only my opinion.

Let?s consider your original Ezra reference:

Mars is feminine, hot and dry, it burns, is bad and harmful. Represents destruction, famine, fire that burns by accident, battles, lawsuits and discussions ...

This is based upon an edition which is translated from Latin to Spanish. I compared it with the Levy-Cantera edition which is ?A literal translation of the Hebrew text?. The reference to Mars being feminine is not present. The text reads (ch.4, p.197)

Mars is hot, scorching dry, harmful and destructive. It prognosticates devastation, death, flames of fire, rebellion, blood, massacre, war, disputes, blows, separations ...

It might be worth checking other editions to see whether the word ?feminine? was inserted into the Latin edition by mistake, or dropped from the Hebrew addition as an assumed mistake.

In any case, throughout his works Ezra refers to Mars as ?he?, whilst referring to Venus and the Moon as ?she?. All of the references to Mars as a deity are masculine, and all of the human significations he represents are masculine ?soldiers, their commanders, blacksmiths, etc?. (Again, those of the feminine planets include feminine pursuits and female personifications). Ezra also frequently refers to Mars? ?great heat? and on various occasions mentions how the basis of gender definition is the generation of heat - for example ?Book of Reasons? (Epstein p.6) ?Gender: the warm ones are male, for male is always warmer than female?; and p.23 (of the Sun) ?and he is male, for his nature is warm, since he gives heat?.

However, I agree this is worth exploring further; especially since other references exist. Maybe it would be a good idea to start a new thread for this? I could ask Meira Epstein to take a look, if I could point her to a direct link.

Regards
Deb

Ps - It might be relevant to add that, a few years ago, I received an email from someone asking me to resolve an internet debate over whether Saturn is a masculine or feminine planet. One of the arguments for those who thought it was feminine is the fact that the first edition of my book on the houses shows a table which lines up the planets by gender and sect (p.39). Here I had Saturn tabulated as a feminine planet. To my embarrassment that was a typo that I hadn?t even noticed. My point is that if we are only talking about a few isolated contradictions to the usual theory, then we also have to factor in the possibility of manuscript error and simple mistake.

Tom,
For those who want to follow your discussion on humours, I have an old article online which has a useful rollover image http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ptolemy.html#ph However, I don?t believe that your posts, or my older article, does full justice to the usefulness of Ptolemy?s reasoning. I?ll leave that until I have more time.

In response to your latest post:

Tom wrote:Traditional astrology is largely based on Ptolemy.

Isn?t that a good reason why, here in this forum dedicated to ?traditional and ancient technique?, we should encourage understanding of what Ptolemy was trying to explain, before suggesting that if a modern author misrepresents Ptolemaic doctrine, then Ptolemaic doctrine must be wrong? (Your previous comment ?Instead we are taking Ptolemy's word for it, a man who may have never cast a horoscope in his life? still boggles me...)

Tom wrote:Finding other authors who agree with him is easy because since the middle ages he's been revered and no one dared examine or criticize him until Morin. By then it was too late and since then Morin has only recently been translated recently. It may be uncommon to think ill of the man who admittedly is as close to a founder as we have, but it is not heresy. That traditional authors trained to accept Ptolemy's word on everything agree with Ptolemy is not surprising, but I'm not sure it is more than jumping on the bandwagon.

This is really misrepresentative. Astrologers seem always to have been opinionated and contentious, and Ptolemy was the standard against which every astrologer pitted their arguments. Take a look at ibn Ezra?s works. He didn?t like that passage where Ptolemy justified the planetary temperaments either, but he still shows an excellent understanding of the philosophy that Ptolemy was trying to justify. I can only support the point that Margherita is making, that without the philosophical understanding of sect and phase, the astrological reason for most of western traditional astrology crumbles. This philosophy goes through Ptolemy?s work, it doesn?t begin or end with it.

As you know, I regard astrology as an ?evolutionary? tradition, so I don?t see Ptolemy?s work as faultless or even the most important. But we have so much to learn by striving to understand his reasoning. I don?t think you will be able to do that if you have a bias towards rejecting his argument and drowning out the sense of it.

Personally, I think the thread is slipping too far from its topic. We are not even talking about planetary phase to the Sun anymore. Your last two posts just seem to want to criticise Ptolemy?s explanation of planetary temperament, even though no one is disputing that Saturn is essentially cooling and also drying by nature. It is only when we talk about temporal shifts that the debate remains relevant, because these shifts are most definitely based upon the synodic phases. Hence if the shifts are going to be mentioned at all, then they should align to the traditional theory - surely, in this forum, everyone sees the sense of that?

Deb

Tom wrote:Morning Deb,

First I am not arguing that Ptolemy is always wrong or even nearly always wrong. I don't' believe that. I'm not even persuaded that he is wrong about this. More on that in a minute. In fact over the years I've vacillated between becoming annoyed when people disrespect him and becoming annoyed that people who venerate him unquestioningly. I guess I'm in the latter mood lately.

I believe neither me or Deborah are people who venerate someone, Frawley or Ptolemy or Bezza or Schmidt
We like thinking with our brain.

And yes, Ptolemy is very difficult to read without a guide. I told many times we need some comment translated in a modern language, I'm not so freaked with Medieval astrology, I would prefer to have for example Giuntini Speculum Astrologiae or Cardano's Comment to Tetrabiblos.

Because there are plenty of examples and information there, while Ptolemy is very sober in this, I agree.

margherita

Hi Deb:

In any case, throughout his works Ezra refers to Mars as ?he?, whilst referring to Venus and the Moon as ?she?. All of the references to Mars as a deity are masculine, and all of the human significations he represents are masculine ?soldiers, their commanders, blacksmiths, etc?.

It is true: more important than the cold reason we can offer, Mars is a masculine archetype, and this counts a lot.

However, I agree this is worth exploring further; especially since other references exist. Maybe it would be a good idea to start a new thread for this? I could ask Meira Epstein to take a look, if I could point her to a direct link.

I?ll be glad to know her opinion, since she is a respected translator of Ibn Ezra. By the way, I wrote her about this work translated into Spanish in 1954 and she wrote back, saying that it really existed, and that maybe sometime she will translate it herself.
If you don?t mind I prefer that this time you ask her yourself since you both are authors and can share informations in the same level.

Ps - It might be relevant to add that, a few years ago, I received an email from someone asking me to resolve an internet debate over whether Saturn is a masculine or feminine planet. One of the arguments for those who thought it was feminine is the fact that the first edition of my book on the houses shows a table which lines up the planets by gender and sect (p.39). Here I had Saturn tabulated as a feminine planet. To my embarrassment that was a typo that I hadn?t even noticed. My point is that if we are only talking about a few isolated contradictions to the usual theory, then we also have to factor in the possibility of manuscript error and simple mistake

.

This is really a timely information: It is funny to think that if you were an ancient author, we could quote your words to say that Saturn is feminine

If you think the matter deserves another topic to be open it?s okay. As for me,I?m satisfied with the discussion. I?ll look forward some eventual notice from Meira Epstein, and I think we don?t need to go any further, in my opinion.

Thank you, Deb!

Clelia

Hi Margherita:

And yes, Ptolemy is very difficult to read without a guide

.

Unhappily the translation made by the Project Hindsigh is out of print. The comments of Robert Hand and Robert Schmidt were precious, and I confess that reading them I understood Ptolemy for the first time. Perhaps it can still be found at some website that sells used books. I strongly recomend the edition.

best regards

Clelia

Well, there's be quite of bit of thread creep in this one, hasn't there?

While I'm not going to wander into the live fire range, I would like to say that I do miss the Mystery Charts. There hasn't been one in a long while, and it would be nice to see them again, although I've usually been too preoccupied to do them myself when they come around. I could also propose a few charts myself, unless it is the exclusive domain of Tom, when he isn't too busy burning the devil Ptolemy in effigy.

Clelia Romano wrote: Unhappily the translation made by the Project Hindsigh is out of print. The comments of Robert Hand and Robert Schmidt were precious, and I confess that reading them I understood Ptolemy for the first time. Perhaps it can still be found at some website that sells used books. I strongly recomend the edition.

Thanks for the input,

margherita

when he isn't too busy burning the devil Ptolemy in effigy.

I prefer the rack

Tom