Deb wrote:

Gabe wrote: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.

I don't see what is flippant about my comment, as I do wonder what source(s) you are referencing. Other then Empedocles or Euclid, I don't recall any early sources on optics. If I was going to be disparaging or insulting, I would simply be so and there would be no doubt as to what I were saying or doing. Please don't ascribe such motivations on my part.

Gabe wrote: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.

Deb wrote:If you read my post above, you can see that is not what I was suggesting.

Deb wrote:I was only really seeking information regarding the Greek word epitheoreo ? and whether the notion of projecting or receiving is implicit within it

I was going by that. Here the URL for the lexicon entry on epitheoreo.
I was only really seeking information r ... within it

But if you wanted to genuinely ask me the question then why answer it yourself? When you follow up the comment that you wonder where I get something from, with a statement that seems to show that I couldn?t possibly have got it from anywhere, then the latter seems to suggest that you are not so much wondering about what I am saying, as rushing to smother it. Pardon me, if I was mistaken.

There are many works on optics that are relevant to the theory of planetary aspects, from the ancient, Arabic and Medieval periods. The Pythagorean theory was described by Alcmaeon (fl. early 5th century); it is recorded by Theophrastus. In the ancient period, in addition to Empedocles and Euclid, Plato left writings; there are relevant tracts in Aristotle?s writings on the Senses, and a lot of relevant material in Galen?s work ? and of course Ptolemy wrote a whole treatise on the subject too. This was translated into English by A Mark Smith ? it?s not directly about astrology but ? at a subtle level ? it is very informative about the underlying philosophy of the technique he describes, and his expert commentary pulls a lot of the principles into shape. I have struggled to read all the ancient treatises I can, and it has not been easy reading I can tell you!

(And sorry, but this is very rushed as I have to leave the house quickly)

GR wrote: 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.

GR, as far as I have understood Margherita: Neither Margherita nor me have ever stated what you say here:
that the daily or

"primary motion causes the hurling of rays"

To avoid any vagueness: I have expressly said that I don't know the reason of this terminology, the words of which I simply tried to explain: A planet's looking at another planet which is going ahead of him in the order of the Zodiac and thus called by Schmidt looking ahead, and a planet's hurling the rays at another planet which is following the hurling planet in the order of the Zodiac.

I wish my Greek were in better repair.

But I think 'epi---' means the planet that rises after and 'pro---' means the planet that rises before.

Just don't ask me to fill in the rest of those words - we need a linguist good in Greek here - it's rattling around somewhere in the back of my brain, but I can't get it to the front. And mostly the association came about because of a Greek mistranslation of a Hebrew term involving it that's caused no end of grief.

Wish I could be of any more help, but I think it would be the planet that rises after hurls its rays back towards the one that rose earlier.

Olivia wrote:
Wish I could be of any more help, but I think it would be the planet that rises after hurls its rays back towards the one that rose earlier.

This I understand too and what I meant.

In Johannes example Venus in matutine heliacal rising: Sun is at 20 Aries and Venus at 1 Aries.
Venus looks ahead to the Sun, Sun hurls a ray to Venus.

I believe Johannes means the same, it was his example

margherita

Yes, Margherita, obviously we are in agreement as to the understanding of these Hellenistic teachings (if the translations of the scholars are right . . . )

Johannes

Deb,

I join this discussion a little too late to be of any real help, as you have already found the lexical meaning of epithe?re?. Otherwise, the relevant entry in Liddle-Scott's standard lexicon is here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Aentry%3De)piqewre%2Fw
As you say, the word is composed of the verb the?re? (which means 'to see' and which hides behind our words 'theory' and 'theatre') and the preverb epi, which (like preverbs generally) has the disgusting ability of meaning almost anything. With verbs of motion, the list includes 'upon or over', 'to or towards', 'against', 'up to a point', etc.

I think what you are doing is very worthwhile, as mere semantic analysis is clearly not sufficient here. And I would warn against the idea that the same word must always carry the same technical meaning when used by different authors, or even in different passages by a single author. A case in point is a chart given by Balbillus, which Neugebauer and Van Hoesen made a pig's ear of translating because they obviously felt compelled to interpret the verb epanapheresthai as 'to rise after' (which is what it typically means, as in the noun epanaphora, 'succedent'), although in the context it can only mean 'to rise with' (an equally possible meaning). (I will have more to say on this in a forthcoming article.)

Thanks Martin. I'm looking forward to your article on Balbillus, so please let us have the details of that when it becomes available.

I'm going to be away for a few days, but I hope to come back to some of the other points later.

Deb

Deb wrote: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.

There is this intromission or emission theory of eyesight which indeed can be traced back to Pythagoras. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8g5483230373615/ Probably this link can be only read in its entirety at universities but the 'Free Preview' already mentions Pythagoras.

Interesting is that I read somewhere that the word aspect which is explained as 'seeing' each other is to be seen in the light of this theory as 'casting rays on' (each other). I'm sorry I don't know anymore where I read this so I can't give a link.

I know you are mostly interested in Kepler?s work Eddy, so you probably realise how important the understanding of visual rays was in Kepler's work. I don?t have time to check the details now but I know he is remembered in science for making breakthroughs on optical theory too. As with his study of harmonics, much of his argument was built around agreeing or disagreeing with the works that Ptolemy wrote on these subjects. Gabe is right that they are all connected to Pythagoreanism in their roots, although there are various hybrids and recognised developments.

Most of these disciplines were interconnected in ancient times. Mathematics and geometry had a lot of philosophical and mystical principles which fed into all of the 'natural sciences'. At the next level came the studies related to the senses of seeing and hearing. Astronomy, optics and planetary appearances all fell under the bracket of 'sight studies' whilst music and harmony fell under the 'hearing studies'. These were twinned which is why Plato called astronomy and music sister sciences.

I hesitated to mention this before, but I found it interesting that Pythagoras built his theory of harmonics on the belief that each planet emits a unique vibratory tone as it revolves, which reflects its influence and combines with other planetary hums to create the ?Harmony of the Spheres? ? which is used as the title of the great work by Kepler, the astrologer you most admire, and you recently placed youtube links to Nasa videos claiming to show the revolutionary fact that ... each planet emits its own unique hum as it revolves ? It's lovely

Thanks Deb. I must admit I don't know much about Kepler's optics theories. The one thing I know is that he proposed the use of the positive lens as ocular in the telescope, instead of the negative lens which gave a much smaller field.

I like his geometrical theories and whether these are all Pythagorean or more modern I don't really mind. I can imagine Gabe's point on Pythagorean ideas. Ideas of so long ago unavoidably get intertwined with those of others. Especially in the case if the learning was not written down or in cases of lost original works. Just like the case with Hermeticism, where many elements can be found from 300BC to 300AD it's difficult to find one source.

I can imagine your hesitation, or at least I think what you mean to tell. The idea of tones of planets can easily get associated with 19th century Theosophy or Alice Bailey's ideas, which are far too modern for this section of the forum. Moreover their ideas usually lack system and coherence. However in some cases there may be not so great a difference between modern and traditional astrology. In both one can see attempts of reconciling astrology with contemporary ideas. Moreover the ancient astrologers of 2000 years ago wouldn't call themselves 'traditional' I assume. I don't reject modern ideas/theories, it's just the Jungian/Rudhyarian psychological astrology I don't like.

Hello all,

I think we are all being pressed for time at the moment; it may have contributed to some of the shortness here.

As a small note, I've recently finished reading a nice intro on Pythagoras http://amzn.com/0801474523 and the author does mention how difficult it is to place ideas and even persons within the history of the "Italic philosophy". Alcmaeon, for example, is difficult to place; Aristole says he was not a Pythagorean, while Diogenes La?rtius, writing some 5 centuries later, places Alcmaeon as one of Pythagoras' students. Alcmaeon was from Croton, which was pretty much ground zero for the Pythagorean community, so there might have been an influence even if he was not a formal member of the group.