Skyscript Astrology Forum

Martin Gansten wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:Martin, what does the Greek say here? (in bold)

It says ???????????, h?roskop?sas, an aorist participle meaning something like 'having horoscoped' or 'while it is horoscoping'. What exactly it means 'to horoscope' is another matter...

Thanks. I'm thinking that at least as far as trigon lords are concerned that cadency from an angle is at least partially a hindrance even if it is in a whole sign angle. It makes me wonder once again how correct Obama's chart is because the first trigon lord is Mercury which while in the whole sign 7th is well below the horizon and the 2nd is Saturn which is completely cadent. Jupiter isn't really much better than Mercury. I think Saturn being in a possible 10th from fortune and in own domicile and bounds might bail it out to some extent. Valens hints in his first example that the angles aren't the only consideration. I think he also said somewhere that when a planet is to the right of an angle that it will be considered a hindrance and impediment, but I can't seem to find that text right now. I'd sure like to know if the word he used was "kentron"...

Deb wrote:Hi Curtis

I'm not sure if this has any relevancy to your point or not (I'm beset with trying to sort out computer problems today, so my brain is elsewhere), but I see I have some kind of highlight across the chart published on p.22 of Schmidt's Book II (conc) & Book III). noting Fortuna in 4th shows the Sun (in 7th) was below the horizon. Not sure if that impacts on this issue but you might find it worth noting if you haven't already.

I think the reasoning here is that because Fortune was in the 4th, they must be using the nocturnal formula, but Valens says to only use the nocturnal formula if the Moon also happens to be above the horizon at night (you will find this option in Delphic Oracle - F3 | Hellenistic | Lots tab). In practice though I haven't verified that he actually used this rule with any of his examples yet so I'm not even sure that this proves the use of whole sign houses in this instance. Valens in other places seems to say that it depends upon where the lots fall as to whether you switch due to how "chrematistikos" such positioning is. In my own experience, I would explain it like this; if you're left handed, you'll still be inclined to use your strongest hand for fortune and will not want to use your weak hand to support yourself unless forced.

Deb wrote: Larxene - have you checked the Holden translation of those quotes you gave from Firmicus earlier? I noticed yesterday that Bram's translation of the Latin is so abbreviated as to be pretty useless. I was hoping to take a closer look today, but can already see I won't have time for that. If anyone else has the Holden translation it would be useful to compare.

Unfortunately, the book never arrived and I was given a refund due to lack of stock for replacement. To think I timed it during Mercury day and hour too...

Maybe some time in the future...

Having compared Schmidt's translation of Book II (part 1) to Riley's, I've noted that Schmidt has the word "zoidion" transliterated in several places in the text, but Riley seems to favor the translation "place" which is more vague (could mean either house or sign). If the original text does indeed use "zoidion" which I think very likely, this seems to indicate that in this part of the delineation of the lord of the ascendant or the lot that one should use whole sign houses.

In particular, compare the first paragraph with Schmidt's translation on the Gate of Hades (2nd house) on page 17, which corresponds to Rileys translation on page 30 (book 2).

The only other option I can think of is that perhaps "zoidion" isn't exactly a "sign", but rather a concatenation of the meaning of a sign with a house, but I find that to be a stretch.

The Greek text does indeed read en tout? t? z?di? (or en tout?i t?i z?idi?i, if we're transliterating all the subscript iotas).

Another section from Valens bk II, part 1, pg 27-28 (Schmidt):

Zeus square Ares - If the one should mark the hour while the other is culminating or occupying the Good Spirt, will be powerful. For this figure becomes more powerful than the square, especially if a tropical [zoidion] should be in between.

From Riley book 2, pg 34:

Jupiter square with Mars is strong, if one is in the Ascendant and the other is either at MC or in <the> Good Daimon. This configuration will be stronger than that of trine, especially if a tropic sign is between.

I might have brought this up earlier in the thread as I remember Martin's "good spiriting" quote... At first I thought that the square could be from the ascendant to the 11th, but on second thought I think what it is saying is that the first configuration (culminating) is the square and that the second is thought of as a sextile but not mentioned. Otherwise, why say "for this figure becomes more powerful than the square" suggesting that there is a distinction here between the culminating figure and the one that is in the good spirit?

Notice that Riley mentions trine here whereas Schmidt has square. Which is it?

Now with the tropic sign being in between, that seems to point to only a single sign between the one on the Ascendant and the one in the Good Spirit. If it was square, then there would always be at least one tropical sign "in between" and no reason to mention it when measuring by degrees. If measuring by whole signs then it is possible for the square to not have a tropical sign "in between" because they could be at the angles.

zoidsoft wrote:Notice that Riley mentions trine here whereas Schmidt has square. Which is it?

It's trine (in both the Kroll and the Pingree editions). Probably just a slip of the pen on Schmidt's part. 'The square is stronger than the square' would require a lot of exegesis.