Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:22 pm
No, Valens seems to have been roughly contemporary with Ptolemy, 2nd century CE. Here is a timeline with some questionable dates, but overall correct:fromChina wrote:I thought Valens was the oldest dated back to his work 2000 years ago. And later centuries other astrologers add stuff to their rules of finding the Predominator.
https://www.hellenisticastrology.com/ar ... trologers/
No, degree just means degree. Any aphetic point is located in a particular degree, whether it's the sun, the moon, the ascendant, the LoF, the syzygy, or something else. You need to know the degree in order to calculate the (primary) direction of that point up to a destroying planet or aspect. The distance between them are converted to ascensional degrees and equated to years of life: if there are, say, 73 such degrees between the aphetes (which could be the ascendant) and the square of Mars, for example, then the theory is that the native may die at age 73. Some modern translators call this technique 'circumambulation' or 'distribution', but it's the same thing under another name.One last question Sir, since English is my third language so I want to make sure I understand this right. Here is the pic of the pages in Dementra book where she said about Valens method.
He clearly said in there the Degrees of the Ascendant or to the Midheaven (if Sun and Moon in cadent). Degrees here I can only think of the bound lord of my Asc which is Venus.
Some would say that if you take the ruler of the terms as the oikodespotes, then its aspect should fall in the actual terms that it rules; but there seems no reason to insist that a ruler of the sign as a whole (whether by domicile, exaltation or triplicity) must also send an aspect into the same terms.





