I don't claim to be an expert on the original and deeper meaning of Greek terms though, so I wonder if there is something in the makeup of that Greek word which led Schmidt to specifically choose the phrase 'look ahead'. I noticed that Astroart wrote about this word in an earlier post of this thread, hence - if you are still around Astroart - I'd like to get your indpendent opinion on this.

Here I will give the translation of two words as they are given in the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell & Scott( 9th edition from 1996)-this is the last edition of the most prestigious dictionary of Ancient Greek.

epitheoreo: aktinoboleo:

Thank you very much, Martin, for the link and astroart for the enlightening copy!

Is it correct to say, that the mainstream opionion of scholars is that - in the direction of the zodiacal order - the following planet (for example in Capricorn) can see a preceding planet (for example in Aries) because of his, the follower's, looking ahead, and that the preceding planet looking forward cannot see the follower and thus only rays or emanates its light and strikes the ray at the follower without being able to perceive him?

Johannes

In medieval times they considered a sinister aspect weaker and dexter more forceful.

I think that finally I found an argument in support of my thesis that the sinister aspect is stronger than the dexter .
Ih his book Speculum astrologiae Francesco Giuntini(Junctinus) on page 1100, says:

?Sic sinister aspectus efficacior est dextro? or ?So the sinister aspect is more effective than the dexter.?

Hello Dimitar, nice to read you again

astroart wrote:
?Sic sinister aspectus efficacior est dextro? or ?So the sinister aspect is more effective than the dexter.?

If left are aspects following the order of the signs, I agreed with you since the beginning of the thread.

Giuseppe Bezza teaches the same, a planet from a previous sign controls the following one.

margherita

This thread is quite old, but some of the insights in it have helped me put together an interesting article.

In it, I try to reconcile between the seemingly contradictory notions of a dexter aspect being forceful and strong and the dominating planet being in the stronger position. We must take into account that any planet which casts a dexter ray would automatically be dominated by a planet earlier in the direction of diurnal motion. Also, any planet which casts a sinister ray would automatically be placed in the dominant position over a slower and heavier planet.

I've tried to address those contradictions in my article and propose a solution:
https://www.gurastro.com/2021/12/dexter ... anets.html

Feel free to share your insights on it,
Dima.

I have only skimmed your article, Dima, but as you say, this thread is quite old, so perhaps it is not a bad idea to revisit the original premise. Do we know of any ancient (or medieval) texts that state in so many words that 'dexter aspects are more powerful'?

I know that Firmicus consistently speaks of the planet holding the dexter end of an aspect being more powerful. So if Jupiter is in Aries and the Sun in Cancer, then Jupiter would be at the dexter end and therefore in the stronger position. But precisely because Jupiter is at the dexter end, the aspect it casts into Cancer is necessarily a sinister one (and vice versa for the Sun). It is easy to see how this may quickly lead to confusion. (It is somewhat similar to the varying ways of describing Lot calculations.)

There are other relevant factors in judging aspects, of course, such as application/separation, dignities, and reception (I deliberately chose an example with mutual reception). But staying with the dexter/sinister distinction, I am not aware of any traditional source stating that the sinister end of an aspect is the stronger position.

Martin hi,

In the dexter-sinister section of Deb Houlding's article it's stated that we must differentiate between two things. The planet in the dominant position (Jupiter in your example) and the planet which is dominated (the Sun in your example). On the one hand, this is domination or overcoming.
https://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

The other thing is that the faster planet casts an aspect which is either a dexter one or a sinister one. In your example that would be the Sun, which casts a dexter aspect to Jupiter (the slower planet).

As far as I've managed to understand, the dexter aspect is very commonly referred to as a strong and forceful aspect, which is a contradiction to the fact that a dexter aspect would always be cast towards a dominating planet. Hence, the idea and the proposed solution found in my article.
With sinister aspects, it's reversed, as they would always be cast from the dominating position to a heavier or slower planet.

Maybe, if you have the time, it would be worthwhile to read the article as a whole.

The second picture / diagram in my article (originally Deborah's picture) is key, I believe, for understanding the nuance here.

If you'll also read the next article by Anthony Louis, you'll see that he struggles with the same question, but he reaches a different solution. One which gives primacy to the faster planet which hurls the ray of an aspect, over the planet in the dominating position:
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2020/07 ... -astrology

Dima Gur wrote:In the dexter-sinister section of Deb Houlding's article it's stated that we must differentiate between two things. [...]

Without intending any disrespect towards Deb, it seems quite possible to me that she did misunderstand some things in that article, which is why I asked whether there are any ancient (pre-1995) sources that actually describe a dexter aspect (= one going towards the right, or clockwise) as powerful, rather than a dexter position.

As so often, part of the problem may be inexact translations. For instance, I see that Deb quotes Ptolemy (Tetr. IV 3) in Robbins's translation: And they will be even more fortunate if the attendant planets are in dexter aspect. But what the Greek text actually says is ???ὰν οἱ δο??υφο??οῦντες ἀστέ??ες δεξιοὶ τοῖς ὑπὲ?? γῆν κέντ??οις συσχηματίζωνται 'if the attending stars to the right are configured with the angles above the earth'. So in the situation described by Ptolemy, the aspecting planets are actually on the right-hand side, thus sending aspects to the left.

Just to be clear, the faster/slower distinction that you make is related to what I referred to as applying/separating. It is a separate consideration from dexter/sinister, just as dignity/debility is.

On the dexter/sinister front, I had a look in Lilly, whose use of the terms is often less than clear, but in some places he does seem to say that an aspect cast to the right (clockwise) is stronger. So the confusion seems to have begun by the time he was writing in the 17th century.

By way of contrast, here is Firmicus (VI 10,4-5, Holden's translation) on the Sun and Jupiter configured by square:

If Jupiter and the Sun are conjoined in square aspect, and Jupiter, possessing the superior part of a dexter square, aspects the Sun posited in a sinister square with a menacing aspect, that configuration denotes the insignia of dignity through either his own merit or that of his father, but it also bestows increases and promotions to good and great honors, and it always grants recommendations with good testimony, and many of them will experience the merit of dignity.

But if the Sun, made superior and possessing the dexter side, aspects Jupiter posited in the lower place with a square aspect, that configuration will make one decorated with a famous splendor of nobility, but it makes the father’s wealth to be proscribed with a miserable confiscation; and it stirs up dangerous disturbances by strong and evil enemies.

This is very similar to an anonymous Greek text on aspects, so Firmicus was following an older tradition here. The text doesn't mention whether the Sun is applying to Jupiter or separating from it, but simply assigns greater impact to the planet in the superior (dexter) position, whether it is the faster Sun or the slower Jupiter.

Yes,
it's in Lilly and other notable contemporary astrologers refer to that dexter vs sinister ray distinction as well:
Anthony Louis in here:
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2020/07 ... -astrology
Andrew Bevan in here:
https://www.astronor.com/sinister.htm
Deb Houlding as we've already established.

Maybe lilly based his logic on Ptolemy who states in 'Chapter II: Peculiarities observable throughout every entire climate', that:

"the natives of those countries which lie towards the east excel in courage, acting boldly and openly under all circumstances; for in all their characteristics they are principally conformed to the Sun’s nature, which is oriental, diurnal, masculine and dexter:—(and it is plainly apparent that the dexter parts of all animals are much stronger than others):—hence results the greater courage of the inhabitants of the East. And as the Moon, on her first appearance after conjunction, is always seen in the West, the western parts are therefore lunar,
and consequently feminine and sinister; whence it follows that the inhabitants of the west are milder, more effeminate and reserved"

[pages 75-76 in J. M. Ashmand's e-book translation of the Tetrabiblos]

Regardless, the actual idea of a dexter aspect being stronger, seems logical and well thought out to me. Since the planet looks forward to his direction of travel vs. the sinister backward look against his direction of travel (diurnal motion, that is).

I think this is one of the concepts that Lilly didn't quite grasp, and I won't fault contemporary astrologers for trustingly following his lead. But I do think it's a misunderstanding to say that the dexter aspect (proceeding towards the right) is stronger. As far as I know, the ancient sources all agree that it is the dexter planet (whose aspect proceeds from the right) that is stronger.

Dima Gur wrote:Maybe lilly based his logic on Ptolemy [...]

The passage in question (which, incidentally, isn't taken from the Tetrabiblos itself, but rather from Proclus' paraphrase) states that the parts located to the right are stronger, so its argument is actually in line with the standard ancient viewpoint. Anyway, I don't think Lilly set out to give his personal opinion on this; I just think he misunderstood the earlier doctrine -- unless the misunderstanding had already taken place at some earlier stage and Lilly simply copied it.

Actually, after re-reading Lilly, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. He does say that 'the dexter aspect is more forcible then the Sinister', but I am not absolutely certain that he means that the planet sending the dexter aspect (that is, the planet on the left) is stronger. It could be a question of unclear phrasing. I haven't yet found an example in Lilly that demonstrates the matter clearly one way or the other.