Skyscript Astrology Forum

astroart wrote:And one note at the end: the book "Hellenistic Astronomy: The Science in Its Contexts" is included in the bibliography of the article of Martin Gansten "Platikos and moirikos: Ancient Horoscopic Practice in the Light of Vettius Valens’ Anthologies".

That's right, I refer to Dorian's published works in several places of that paper, including one passage where she states that she got her information on Valens' use of places/houses from Robert Hand. I also refer to a chapter that she wrote with Micah Ross and which I consider very important for understanding the ancient roots of quadrant houses in the symbolism of rising and culminating decans.

Incidentally, I'm really hurt and upset that you give Dorian her title of PhD but not me. In fact, I'm considering making a multi-hour YouTube refutation video explaining in excruciating detail what is the difference between a docent and a mere PhD.

Seriously though, I wish people would stop making appeals to authority and just focus on making a cogent argument (or better still, move on).

Just to clarify in case anyone should have misunderstood: I have a great deal of appreciation for Dorian's scholarship, whether or not we agree on all issues, and my attempt at humour was in no way directed at her. It was simply meant to shine some light on the tactics that I keep seeing in some posts of hiding behind 'authorities' who (in fact or supposition) support the poster's views, while trying to disparage others, and avoiding to engage with the core issues under discussion. I have edited my previous post slightly to make this clearer.

Hi Astroart
I am good friends with Dorian Greenbaum and I think it would be fair to say that if she was writing now, she probably would not phrase this the way she did then. Like everyone else, she was adopting with good faith, a position that had appeared to have been established. But positions get changed in the light of new evidence and Dorian is too much of a good scholar not to consider with an open mind what has since been published. So (as previously said) published opinions of this are not evidence - we need to focus upon what the historical astrologers actually did, not what others have said they did.

With regard to the quotes of WS development in France in the 1950s, that is interesting and does not surprise me at all. In fact, it makes perfect sense, because we have already seen that it was a movement in France around the start of the 1900s that proposed abolishing the use of the houses and came up with the new design of a chart that was 'proportional' (floating MC) instead of 'standard' (MC upright).

That is something I would like to have more minds looking at. I've been very attentive to this over the last couple of years, trying to find a single example of a historical chart image that has a floating MC instead of a symmetrical design. I am sure there MUST be examples out there - but where are they?

Seriously though, I wish people would stop making appeals to authority and just focus on making a cogent argument.

Paulus Alexandrinus in his book Introductory Matters translated by Dorian Giesler Greenbaum in the section titled “ Concerning the Tabular Exposition of the Twelve Places??? says:

“ The second from Horoskopus is called Life and Gate of Hades, and post ascension of the Horoskopus. Sometimes it also signifies the reckoning about what one does on account of it being in harmony with the Midheaven through a left-hand triangle. In this zoidion, when the benefic stars are present here, as time goes on they bring about good fortunes, and sometimes show [those who are] the heirs of others. For the place becomes a giver of good expectations. But when malefics are actually on this place, they show a decline in life circumstances and loss of goods, and complete lack of success in acquiring property, and sometimes they make migrants.???

(p.45)

From the quotation in question, we see that the two terms “place??? and “zoidion??? are synonyms because by place the author of the text understands zoidion and by zoidion he understands place.

We find similar statements about the other places/houses.

I myself talk about the planets in the sign on the midheaven; I don't see how this proves any intention that the sign is expected to define the 'place'.
Also, one thing we should be sure about - ancient and historical authors were liberal with their terminology. In all matters, I have to spend time demonstrating to students how we cannot understand any term except by placing its context first - because historical authors did not have the precise and consistent use of astrological terminology that we think they do. Largely because they expected their meaning to be understood.
So you might infer something from this, but I don't.

Evidence that the terms "place" and "sign" were synonymous for Hellenistic astrologers is the following passage from Antiochus (translated by Levente Laszlo):

“19.On productive signs:
He says that according to Timaeus, seven signs are productive: the four pivots – the one marking the hour, the one culminating in the Midheaven, the setting one, and the anti-culminating one – the two (signs) the two signs in trigon with the Hour-Markers, and the succedent of the Midheaven; the rest are unproductive.???

Martin Gansten wrote:Seriously though, I wish people would stop making appeals to authority and just focus on making a cogent argument (or better still, move on).

I can figure out the gist of some Latin words and phrases, and I read modern French well enough to understand Paris Match, but for nuanced understanding of historical fact and precedent, I (and others like me) have no choice but to appeal to authority. Without scholars who are simultaneously fluent in classical languages and astrological studies - people capable of negotiating the subtleties of translation in historical, cross-cultural and multidisciplinary contexts - I'd be lost.

What I take away from the current re-ignition of this old, probably unresolvable debate, is gratitude for the wealth of material available and freely shared today, thanks to the dedication of so many scholars (on all sides of the issue) who are not only knowledgeable, but passionate about our astrological heritage and the need to formulate working, living systems for generations to come.

I have learned so much from the contributions of everyone engaged in this thread and in the videos that fueled it. Intellectual ferment and rigorous, honest debate is the stuff of life in a dumbed-down world.

My claim that the two terms “place/house??? and “sign??? are interchangeable in the sense of synonyms is supported by the opinion of already mentioned prof. Stephan Heilen in his magnum opus “Hadriani genitura – Die astrologischen Fragmente des Antigonos von Nikaia" (2015):

"Over these few very specific teachings, many historians of astrology have lost sight of what the most common method of dividing the dodekatropos was: the incorporation of ‘place’ (topos) and ‘sign’(zoidion). This method is a rule from the beginning of Greek astrology until at least the end of the 2nd century AD, but no mentions can be found neither in Bouché-Leclercq [book] nor in the relevant monograph of [John] North from 1986. It can be proven by numerous astrologers by either explicitly designating a certain place of the dodecatropos as ‘zoidion’ or applying the technical term ‘chrematizein’ (productive), which is defined by its reference to the dodecatropos, to the signs of the zodiac."

(p.691)

Deb wrote:Hi Astroart
I am good friends with Dorian Greenbaum and I think it would be fair to say that if she was writing now, she probably would not phrase this the way she did then. Like everyone else, she was adopting with good faith, a position that had appeared to have been established. But positions get changed in the light of new evidence and Dorian is too much of a good scholar not to consider with an open mind what has since been published. So (as previously said) published opinions of this are not evidence - we need to focus upon what the historical astrologers actually did, not what others have said they did.

With regard to the quotes of WS development in France in the 1950s, that is interesting and does not surprise me at all. In fact, it makes perfect sense, because we have already seen that it was a movement in France around the start of the 1900s that proposed abolishing the use of the houses and came up with the new design of a chart that was 'proportional' (floating MC) instead of 'standard' (MC upright).

That is something I would like to have more minds looking at. I've been very attentive to this over the last couple of years, trying to find a single example of a historical chart image that has a floating MC instead of a symmetrical design. I am sure there MUST be examples out there - but where are they?

Hi Deb,

Which French astrologers of the early 1900's were using a floating MC? From your post I gather that they weren't correlating it to houses, though, so were they using it simply for deriving the quadrants?

Please elaborate, if possible with exact references.

Cheers
Michael

orisis

you too can write a book on it! but first you will have to learn a few languages and study all the current documents available in numerous languages and if you haven't died by then, come to some conclusions which you can embody in a copyrighted manner, via videos, podcasts or what have you!!! don't delay.. the world is your oyster and the folks at skyscript are waiting for you to take the astrological world by storm!

cheers
james

Much as I like and respect Deb this thread should not be a loyalty test on that. Deb's involvement in this should be detached from a cool, rational, discussion on this issue. Frankly, I would favour starting this whole discussion again in a completely new thread.

I do think some of the social media abuse Deb has had to endure has been thorougly despicable. The Star Wars video being a rare light interlude.

However, I think we need to step back from turning this into some Houlding vs Brennan soap opera which is how most people have viewed this on social media.

While I do still disagree with some of the content of Deb's presentation I do think one good thing to come out out of all this is that people are being compelled to seriously reconsider the sources. I think that was the original motivation for the talk in the first place. In that respect maybe it has been a catalyst to allow something positive to emerge from all this apparent discord.

Ultimately, though I dont think the real challenge is coming from Deb's video but rather from Martin Gansten's Brill paper. Martin has systematically challenged the academic and astrological consensus that has emerged over the last few decades in the translations and research of James Holden, Robert Schmidt, Robert Hand, Dorian Greenbaum, Demetra George, Chris Brennan and more recently Levente László. Its a root and branch critique as I see it. So far the only academic response I have seen respond to Martin's paper is Levente László on social media. However, this response was quite accusatory and ad hominem and not set out in a structured, professional way. A full academic response is promised by Levente Lászlo at some undetermined point. I will look forward to seeing his detailed objections to Martin's paper.

I am not a philologist in Latin, Greek, Arabic or Sankrit so I cannot read the primary sources. The people that should be leading this debate should ideally be those people rather than astrologers with strong convictions either side of this. Still, it could be asserted that academic credentials do not necessarily guarantee full detached objectivity. As we all know academics can have strong disagreements on what primary sources do in fact say.

So I still think those of us on the sidelines still have a useful contribution to move the debate along. Just as long as it is expressed in a respectful way.

Any opinions I do express here will be based on my own research into translations of the primary sources or articles by leading academics. But I see no reason to rush to do this. I am still working my way through Martin's paper and several other papers on hellenistic astrology. I also want to reaquaint myself with several of the hellenistic texts. There has already been a lot of over impetuous chatter on this subject that has been a discredit to the whole traditional astrological community (assuming such a thing still exists!).

As Gilbert and Sullivan said in the Gondoliers 'quiet calm consideration will untangle every knot'

Mark

Moderator notice

Hi all,

The way I see it, this thread is turning into a mud fight real fast.

Bear in mind that Skyscript isn't Facebook. Its purpose is discussing ideas and concepts pertinent to astrology - not people's personal issues.

Be free to find fault with anyone's views and methods, as long as you remain factual and present arguments. But do refrain from ad hominems, please.

Any further posts that this moderation sees as inflammatory - regardless of who presents them (!) - will be removed.

Peace out,

Michael