Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:46 am**

Mark wrote:In early hellenistic astrology there is no mention of the four elements. The first astrological text to set this out is The Anthology of Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE.
Mark

Valens in the 2nd CE? Really, that is not how I remember my research. Rather than spend hours going through all of my books trying the find the correct source for you. I will give you a link to refresh your history on the Classical Elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

Here is just the first part of it I have copied and pasted below:

Classical wrote:Classical elements in Babylonia

The concept of the five classical elements in the Western tradition may originate from Babylonian mythology. The En?ma Eli?, a text written between the 18th and 16th centuries BC, describes five personified cosmic elements: the sea, earth, sky, fire, and wind.[1]

I believe it was the Sicilian philosopher Empedocles (ca. 450 BC). Empedocles called these the four "roots" rather than elements and I believe it was Plato who actually called them elements.

As I said earlier it is one of the basis and foundations of the elements in Astrology, I still stand by my statement.

As I said many times, it was an exercise in thinking out of the box, in turning things upside down,

an abstract thought of: If one makes a theory, does it make it real, By decreeing it so? That is the thought to ponder. That was the point. I do understand the theory and principles behind it, to wonder and question whether it is accurate, does it have an actual effect? What does it actually effect? Isn't the effect the actual placement in the natal chart, rather than the Theory?

There were some excellent explanations/observations and I thank all who took the time to add their knowledge and debate a bit. A good debate is a good challenge and excellent exercise for the brain to come out of ones comfort zone, and the Sect explanations were very helpful.

Curtis, you wrote a wonderful expose on Sect!! What a great contribution, and love the way it was written!! Very eloquent!

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:12 am**

Good morning,

Thanks to Mr Mark for explaining in detail one major part of my original intent for this post.

The polarity or gender assignments of Hellenistic astrology to the Four Qualities also differ from Aristotle's.

Hot: Aristotle active, masculine; same in Hellenistic astrology
Cold: Aristotle active, masculine; passive, feminine in Hellenistic astrology
Dry: Aristotle passive, feminine; active, masculine in Hellenistic astrology
Moist: Aristotle passive, feminine; same in Hellenistic astrology

For Aristotle, whose life preceded the major development of Hellenistic astrology, Dry and Moist are the results of the actions of Hot and Cold and therefore passive.

As far as i now know, no astrological epoch or school has adopted the Aristotelian polarities of the four Qualities. Perhaps other forum members have complementary information on this.

Best regards,

lihin

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:13 am**

Morning sun wrote:

Valens in the 2nd CE? Really, that is not how I remember my research. Rather than spend hours going through all of my books trying the find the correct source for you. I will give you a link to refresh your history on the Classical Elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

There is no doubt that the idea of the four elements has an ancient pedigree. I am well aware of that. For example in ancient India the Buddha (c 5th century BCE) described the four elements as a philosophical description of reality.

Aristotle in his work On Generation and Corruption associates the elements with the qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry. He also incorporated a 5th element known as the quintessence or ether, reasoning that whereas fire, earth, air, and water were earthly and corruptible, the stars could not be composed out of any of the four elements since they were made up an unchangeable, heavenly substance. This idea influenced later astrologers such as Ptolemy who utilises the Aristotlean qualities to describe signs and planets. Like Aristotle though Ptolemy assumed the heavens were unchanging and not subject to corruption.

However if we are discussing astrology rather than philosophy or religion there is no reference a specific element linked to each sign before Vettius Valens. He is the first source to do that. Valens does this in such a matter of fact way it seems quite likely he is relying on an older astrological tradition. However, there are no actual texts extant that support this view that have come to light yet.

The first Greek reference to the triplicities rather than the elements appears to be the astronomer Geminus who refers to them in section II,9 in his Introduction to the Phenomena (aka Isagoge) written around 50BCE. He states that the system was Chaldean in origin. His list of the four winds linked to the astrological triplicities is identical to that set out in the Mesopotamian omen texts. It seems that the Babylonian tradition of four winds may have merged with the compatible indigenous Greek tradition of Anemoi or the four winds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemoi

Mark

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:20 am**

MorningSun wrote: Valens in the 2nd CE? Really, that is not how I remember my research. Rather than spend hours going through all of my books trying the find the correct source for you. I will give you a link to refresh your history on the Classical Elements.

MorningSun

Mark was careful to say that the elements are not incorporated into astrology until around the second century ad - he did not say that the Greek philosophy schools did not have a concept of the elements, just that astrology had not incorporated them yet.

It is possible that astrologers prior to Valens used the elements - however we have no evidence that they did so. Therefore we must contend that we have no evidence for their incorporation within astrology prior to this period.

I thought it would be a critical thinking debate. Instead I felt LAMBLASTED by Mark and very closed to even debating the THEORY, of who came up with it, could it work another way, etc. Its a point I have pondered for some time, who came up with it, and does decreeing it so in a theory, make it so. When yes, Mars IS already modified in a water sign in a chart. Of course I understand the basis for the scheme.

I should point out though that this was not clear in your earlier posts. You seemed more interested in contending that there is no logic for the assignation of the malefics to their sect than in discussions of where it originated from. Also debates for the purposes of learning work best when both sides are willing to engage in possibilities and attempt to understand the implications their counterparts argue from, whilst you accuse Mark of not thinking outside the box, I might highlight that you came into the thread with the idea that sect made no sense and stuck to your guns just as rigidly - everyone else, it is worth mentioning, was trying to help you to make sense of sect if you were confused or misunderstanding. Nobody was lambasting you, everyone was trying to help you as they saw fit. I just point this out because sometimes we don't always realise that we're all ultimately on the same side - trying to discover a truth about astrological thinking.

We might well argue that sect as made up - decreed to be so by someone. I fail to see what argument we might make by simply you decreeing the contrary. Why not also look at domicile dignity and say it was just decreed to be that way. Certainly this is true for assignation of Pluto to Scorpio - someone just decided and it stuck. Maybe the same is true for sect, maybe it isn't. Maybe it's more about finding correlates for the symbolism in the real world and making logical connections between them (such as my example of fire with mars). We do not know. We do not know if someone (or a group of someones) invented much of horoscopic astrology, if it evolved over time, or if it was some combination of the above. We don't know but we do know that astrologers for millennia have worked with these concepts of sect, we can either try them for ourselves and if they work adopt them and if not drop them, or we can decide a priori that they do not work and make no logical sense and invent new ones for ourselves. It's up to us. Most people who use sect use it because they've seen it to work in practice as well as understanding the theory. But nobody will hold you down and force you to use it, if you want to make Mars part of the day sect it won't make any sense for those who understand the classical rationale and use of sect, but if it's what you prefer then go for it and more power to you. Similarly I may decide tomorrow that Aquarius is a water sign or a mutable sign and that Mars rules it. We can invent our astrology as we go along, but we might also want to study the 'as is' system before we go reinventing it of course - and I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I think ultimately most of the replies to you are attempts to explain or examine the way it is now rather than humouring any new inventions to astrology, not because of closed-mindedness, but because this venue isn't the most appropriate place to consider things like that.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:00 pm**

Previously I have read other sources claiming that Valens was the first astrologer to link the four elements to each sign. For example Chris Brennan has noted this point about Valens on an old Radio podcast.

However, I have noticed the link below suggests that the Roman astrologer Marcus Manilius also links each triplicity to an element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triplicity

I must say this is news to me. I dont have access to that text right now but intend to study it further when I get time. If this is correct(?) it would be fascinating as it would place the use of the four elements to the triplicities back to the 1st century CE.

Moreover, both Manilius and Valens seem to be influenced by Stoic philosophy. This this would strenghen the argument that attribution of elements to the zodiacal triplicities was Stoic in inspiration.

Of course as this is only in a Wikipedia article I dont want to automatically accept yet that Manilius used the 4 elements linked to the triplicities. I need to to see a reference to support that view.

Mark

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:43 pm**

Paul wrote:MorningSun

Mark was careful to say that the elements are not incorporated into astrology until around the second century ad - he did not say that the Greek philosophy schools did not have a concept of the elements, just that astrology had not incorporated them yet.

It is possible that astrologers prior to Valens used the elements - however we have no evidence that they did so. Therefore we must contend that we have no evidence for their incorporation within astrology prior to this period.

It was the Qualities I was referring to. Since the Qualities had been such common knowledge and incorporated in society for over 1,000 years before Ptolemy. The reasoning I mentioned earlier, of the basis for sect and Triplicity rulers was based on Ptolemy refering to the QUALITIES, hot, dry, wet, moist. So it was incorporated, in my understanding in Astrology for quite some time, by the "they" he referred to (the ancients). And it is the QUALITIES, which I stated previously that was the basis of the theory for putting Mars in the water Triplicity and Nocturnal Sect.

I could very well be misinterpreting, but the qualities were such a part of their beliefs in every part of their lives, yes, religion, culture, I cannot see it NOT having an earlier impact in Astrology, perhaps there are still many texts to be found.

As Rob Hands booklet: Planetary Sect, was Published in 1995, and he specifically warns the reader as such:

RobertHand wrote: The reader must be aware of several matters, however. First of all, this and all subsequent booklets in this series must be regarded as preliminary. Neither we, nor anyone else that we know of, has fully mastered all of the concepts involved in ancient and Medieval astrology. We are learning as we go just as the reader is. As we work more with these texts, it is safe to say that we will learn more, and that some of what we learn will force us to MODIFY what we say here now in these booklets. As we learn more, we will make the proper changes in these texts. Therefore these texts are of necessity somewhat fluid, for now is not the time to try to make definitive statements.

My questions regarding sect, which I wanted to make sure I understood and the difference between the current Hellenistic difference with the Medieval difference were answered quite well, which I really thanked everyone for!

He further goes on to say in his Introduction to Sect :

RobertHand wrote: To an astrologer of the late classical period on of the most important questions that influenced the interpretation of the chart was very simple and yet very fundamental: was teh native born by day or by night? In ohter words, was teh Sun above or below the horizon? This simple criterion affected the computation oflife expectancy, the computation of most of the lots (known to us somewhat incorrectly as "Arabic Parts"), the SUCCESSION OF PLANETARY RULERSHIPS IN TIME AND THE RULERS OF THE TRIPLICITIES.

Hence Sect, affecting Triplicity rulers.

However, I agree with you and Mark, that this is not the place to discuss the philosophical abstract question of the Triplicity scheme, of which I have and do understand why they made it so, and their reasoning behind it. Don't confuse questioning and pondering it with not understanding it, nor any desire to change it, and not accept it for what it is, just because of a philosophical question.

Its all good!!

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:19 pm**

I had a chance to check out the Astronomica of Manilius and it seems the Wikipedia article is wrong.

Manilius doesn't link the elements to the triplicities as the Wikipedia piece claims.

I found support for that view too in this article by Deborah Houlding on the triplicities:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html

From Deb's article:

Trigonal relationship of signs

The 1st century astrologer Manilius wrote in his Astronomica that triangles inscribed within the circle of the zodiac group the signs into four sets of triplicities:

Where the circle of the zodiac's rightward wheel is bounded, a line runs out into three equal lengths and joins itself at limits which are mutually extreme; the signs which the line strikes are called trigonal, because an angle is thrice formed and is assigned to three signs separated from each other by three intervening signs. The Ram beholds at equal distance the two signs of the Lion and the Archer rising on opposite sides of him; the signs of the Virgin and the Bull are in harmony with Capricorn ... [1]

Triplicities were identified because of the harmonious relationship inherent in the shape created by their relationship to each other. The association between triplicities and elements arose from this but was not explicitly stated by early astrologers such as Ptolemy and his contemporaries. Though humours were essential to their work, there was no characterisation of say, Aquarius as an 'air-sign' or Scorpio as a 'water-sign'. In Hellenistic astrology, the recognition of the triplicity lay in the fact that it facilitates agreement between the signs that are associated through the shape and symbolism of the triangle. Consequently any planets that are placed within those signs are able to create an harmonious blend of energies.

Mark

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:20 pm**

I forgot to add the fundamental philosophical question was: Does making a theory make it so. And you are right this is not the place for it, so I once again apologize.

So please do not take offense to it, I am still debating whether I believe Dawin's Evolutionary Theory, as more fossils are being found the picture is changing. Birds from Dinosaurs, Humans from Apes, why didn't the Apes evolve, and why are they still here. See questioning, just part of my nature, annoying isn't it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:36 pm**

Paul wrote:
Certainly this is true for assignation of Pluto to Scorpio - someone just decided and it stuck. Maybe the same is true for sect, maybe it isn't. Maybe it's more about finding correlates for the symbolism in the real world and making logical connections between them (such as my example of fire with mars). We do not know.

hi paul,

i have enjoyed morningsuns curiousity and desire to know what others think on this issue, while having some thoughts of her own that she hasn't been afraid to express.. i think you hit the nail on the head here by saying 'we do not know'. this could be applied to a lot of the reason for the use of different concepts in astrology, especially older ones.. we may not know the basis for them other then our own appreciation of how they seem to offer a better insight into the chart, but ultimately they are subjective as i see it.. astrologers make observations and some 'stick' better then others due the fact a number of astrologers make the same, or similar observations.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:03 pm**

Mark wrote:I had a chance to check out the Astronomica of Manilius and it seems the Wikipedia article is wrong.

Manilius doesn't link the elements to the triplicities as the Wikipedia piece claims.
Mark
Yes, it was the qualities that I referred to the theory being based on. They observed Mars heat and dryness being modified in a water sign, which everyone agrees on, including me. Ergo they made it ruler of water and earth triplicity.

As Curtis said, to balance the energies, in the scheme, a modified Mars is better than a hot Mars for the native. So they have made a (possibly)weaker, modified Mars as a ruler. Still pondering that one. Which begs the question is it better? A malefic Mars is also due to placement, squares and oppositions. Which leads back to my pondering, if by making it triplicity ruler of water, is it really better to have a weak ruler, or I should say modified. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. So in some respects you may have a modified (debilitated?) planet as a ruler (just a thought, don't take it as gospel). So if one were a General, I don't think you would want Mars in Cancer, lets say, in a nocturnal chart, in sect. I still don't think that would help, in that case, Mars rulership of the water sign, I don't think would be a good thing for a General. So the triplicity ruler is where is should be, right or is that wrong?

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:08 pm**

Paul wrote:
damon wrote:Paul,the only way the ancients could have tested if Mars was beneficial by night would be to get charts with unaspected Mars,cause in my experience a night Mars makes no difference if the said planet has evil aspects.
I don't necessarily think they did this empirically, I was just demonstrating that the only logic isn't MorningSun's assumption. However I don't think there would need to be an unaspected Mars - just observation of Mars during night charts. I don't want to go down this road though as it was just an example to show that there are many ways of thinking about why or how these significations may have arisen and to refute that it is illogical to do it this way - it is surely no less logical than anything else.
I noticed,while reading Morin,that a lot of ancient theory are opinions and theyre not necessarily better than ours.And we have a few advantages.
Who is the 'ours' and the 'we' implied?
But according to modern psychology,men tend to seek women who resemble their mother, and emotions muddle or interfere with inteligence. So,ancient astrologers words must be taken with a grain of caution
If you are thinking traditional astrology should be taken with a grain of salt what is the reason for posting in a forum dedicated to it? This forum is for discussion of traditional astrology as you know. If you think that psychologers have an advantage shouldn't you be posting in a psychological forum, and if you want to mix your astrology with that too then post in a psychologically . "[/b]

http://www.astroclassic.org/text-trad/MorinJ.pdf

Hi Paul
pages 17 and 18 Morin talks aboutthat

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:15 am**

pages 17 and 18 Morin talks about that

Would you please explain this in light of what you wrote to Paul instead of making oblique references?

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Sect, Mars as Nocturnal Planet ? Logic

Astrological qualities not identical to Aristotelian

Sect, Qualities and Triplicity Rulers