Skyscript Astrology Forum

I have been wondering about the origin of the notion of cazimi (aka Zaminium)

As we all know cazimi means literally "in the heart of the Sun." Any planet that forms a conjunction with the Sun within 16' (arc minutes) of partile (exactitude) is said to be Cazimi, literally engulfed and fortified by Sol .

This position for a planet in horary or electional asrtrology is meant to be highly favourable in complete contrast to placement outside this favored protection zone where it will be judged 'combust' and therefore extremely debilitated.

For example here is William Lilly on the notion of cazimi:

A Planet within 12 degrees of the Sun, is said to be under his Beames, and then hath not fortitude, let it be in what Signe it will; when a Planet is within 16 minutes of the Sun, he is said to be in Cazimi, or heat of the Sun, and then it's an addition of fortune, and he is wonderous strong. William Lilly, Christian Astrology, aphorism 26, p300

I believe the word derives from Arabic so I am assuming the notion originates from Islamic era astrologers. I am not aware of the idea anywhere in hellenistic astrology. Equally, I understand there is no such notion in Indian astrology as a planet's proximity to the Sun is always a debility in that tradition regardless of how close it is.

I was therefore wondering just how old this concept might be? What is the oldest textual reference we have for a planet being fortified by being cazimi?

I have seen an online quote from Abu' Mashar ( Albumasar) (who of course is Persian/Afghani not Arabic!) but it doesn't seem as positive as Lilly:

In particular he states a planet in cazimi is "like a man who purifies himself and so lacks strength, but will regain health afterwards".

If that reference is correct that places us back in the mid 9th century AD.
Can anyone go further back than that? Might this point to a Persian origin to the concept despite the term being known through an Arabic word?

MarkC wrote: I have seen an online quote from Abu' Mashar (Albumasar) (who of course is Persian/Afghani not Arabic!) but it doesn't seem as positive as Lilly:

In particular he states a planet in cazimi is "like a man who purifies himself and so lacks strength, but will regain health afterwards".

If that quote is correct, I thinks it throws a lot of light on the subject. I was never comfortable with cazimi, since it seems an absurd concept, but in this light it seems as a transition from going into combustion and getting out of it. So it can be positive in that sense.

If that quote is correct, I thinks it throws a lot of light on the subject.

I wish I could be sure. No offence to Astrology Weekly but I would really like to see this for myself from the text of Abu's Mashar.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/special- ... cazimi.php

Unfortunately, I cannot locate by copy of the The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology right now. Could someone check this out to see if that quote is correct? If its not there I suppose it could still be in the full version of his Introduction to Astrology.

Thanks

Mark

The abbreviation of the introduction to astrology, Abu Mashar, ed., tr. Burnett.

I didn?t find the quote you said. I found these:

Chapter4, p. 30
2 - The good fortune of the planets is if they are in an aspect of the benefics - either sextile or trine - or they are in conjunction with them, or the malefics are cadent from them, or they are separating from a benefic and applying to another benefic, or they are contained between two benefics, or in the heart, or an aspect of the moon while the moon is made fortunate...

"in the heart" mean cazimi

p.33
15 - the misfortune of the planets is if they are in conjunction with the malefics or in their opposition....Or they are in the conjunction with the sun or in quartile aspect or in opposition...

So, I don?t see any reason to think that Abu mashar considered cazimi as a "not so good" condition. He listed combustion as one of the misfortunes of a planet, while the cazimi is listed as one of good fortune.

Sorry for disappointing the fans of Arabic astrology but I think the origin of the term is Hellenistic.
Example can be found in Rhetorii quaestiones astrologicae ex Antiochi thesauris excerptae (Laurentianus 28.34), CCAG ,1 p.142-164: egkardion or synodeyontes.
But can be found also in other fragments. If am not wrong for example in Olimpiodorus

sasha_i wrote: But can be found also in other fragments. If am not wrong for example in Olimpiodorus

"They are called synodical when they are in the same sign and degree of the Sun. What does he mean? Planets, when they are in the sign of the Sun are called synodical, especially when they are in the same degree of the Sun, in 59' "

Olimpiodorus c.11 in Paulus Alexandrinus. (I took it from Italian version, but you should have an English one)

Margherita

Hi,

(I took it from Italian version, but you should have an English one)

I, too, have the translation of Giuseppe Bezza. It?s a very good translation.

Hi Folks,

Thanks to you all for your input. I really appreciate the references.

I am certainly not trying to argue this from any particular pre-conceived position. I just want to get to the bottom of this concept.

Yuzuru

Your quotes certainly dont confirm the statement attributed to Abu'Mashar in Astrology Weekly. Perhaps not the most reliable source for information on traditional astrology.

However, I am somewhat confused by your statement:

I don?t see any reason to think that Abu Mashar considered cazimi as a "not so good" condition.

You yourself provide a quote from Abu'Mashar that does seem to support that view. :

15 - the misfortune of the planets is if they.... are in the conjunction with the sun or in quartile aspect or in opposition...

That hardly sounds like the ultra positive notion of cazimi found in Lilly does it? However, I assume that reference is just to combustion in regards conjunction with the sun?

What exactly does Abu'Mashar say about cazimi? Maybe that will clear this up.

Sasha

Your reference is to Rhetorius commenting on the Thesaurus of Antiochus of Athens? I take it your getting that straight from the original Greek?

What exactly is said that is relevant to the idea of cazimi?


Margherita,

Thanks for that.

Regarding Olympiodorus the quote is interesting:

[

They are called synodical when they are in the same sign and degree of the Sun. What does he mean? Planets, when they are in the sign of the Sun are called synodical, especially when they are in the same degree of the Sun, in 59' " Olimpiodorus c.11 in Paulus Alexandrinus.

What does he mean? Planets, when they are in the sign of the Sun are called synodical, especially when they are in the same degree of the Sun, in 59' "

I will check out the Greenbaum translation over the weekend.

In the meantime let me ask why do you assume this notion of 'synodical' is the same as cazimi? After all, in medieval astrology cazimi is when the planet is within 16 (or 17) minutes of the Sun not a degree. Also your quote doesn't mention this position strengthening the planet does it? Do you have any hellenistic reference that does imply that? If you do that would be a very powerful argument in support of a hellenistic origin. If not it seems to me the hellenistic sources may not be describing the same thing at all.

One practical consideration is that we know the astronomy of the Arabs improved on the Greek astronomy substantially in many respects. To calculate a planet within 16' degrees of the sun surely requires fairly sophisticated astronomy? I am wondering how widespread this kind of advanced astronomy could have been amongst astrologers in the hellenistic era?

From the surviving charts we have from this era we know that calculation of planetary positions was sometimes out by several degrees in Greek horoscopes so a calculation this precise in nature seems a bit unlikely to me.

Mark

Hello Mark,

MarkC wrote:
Margherita,

In the meantime let me ask why do you assume this notion of 'synodical' is the same as cazimi? After all, in medieval astrology cazimi is when the planet is within 16 (or 17) minutes of the Sun not a degree. Also your quote doesn't mention this position strengthening the planet does it? Do you have any hellenistic reference that does imply that? If you do that would be a very powerful argument in support of a hellenistic origin. If not it seems to me the hellenistic sources may not be describing the same thing at all.

No, no, Yuzuru and Sasha are right, synodical is the same as "cazimi", Demophilus: when planets are in the heart of the Sun, degree by degree, benefic planets see lasting their good, malefics their evil (in CCAG 5.)

I don't know why Arabs consider a tighter orb, but it's the same idea behind: it's the Sun which absorbs the quality of the planet and then it gives it back with its shine.

Margherita

Hello Margherita,

Sorry but Demophilus doesn't prove anything here about an earlier hellenistic origin. He was a 10th century C.E. astrologer which places him later than Abu 'Mashar. Nice quote all the same though.

If you or Sasha have an earlier reference confirming the notion of cazimi I would be fascinated to see it. As I said I will check out my translation of Olypiodoros by Greenbaum but the quote you already provided by him doesn't look the same as the later notion of cazimi to me. Maybe there are other references to 'synodical' planets that make this connection clearer?

Personally, I have always found the exclusive focus on 16' or 17' minutes a bit odd so if 1 degree was used earlier that would make more sense to me.

Mark

MarkC wrote:Hello Margherita,
Sorry but Demophilus doesn't prove anything here about an earlier hellenistic origin. He was a 10th century C.E. astrologer which places him later than Abu 'Mashar.

If you or Sasha have an earlier reference confirming the notion of cazimi I would be fascinated to see it.

I understand there is no trace in the older astrologers.
First quotes I found are from Rethorius or Sarapione.
"The synodical stars are meaningful because of their partecipation with the Sun."
Sasha?

As I said I will check out my translation of Olypiodoros by Greenbaum but the quote you already provided by him doesn't look the same as the later notion of cazimi to me.

why?

Personally, I have always found the exclusive focus on 16' or 17' minutes a bit odd so if 1 degree was used earlier that would make more sense to me.

16' should be the semi diameter of the Sun.


Margherita

I don't know why Arabs consider a tighter orb, but it's the same idea behind: it's the Sun which absorbs the quality of the planet and then it gives it back with its shine.

Hi, Marguerita
Sahl would use 1 degree also
I would guess that the tighter orb is probably the result of later considerations and probably the development of better forms of calculation of the position of the stars.