Skyscript Astrology Forum

For those who can read Latin: a printed (1559) Latin version of On Solar Revolutions by Ab? Ma?shar is available here:
http://bvpb.mcu.es/es/catalogo_imagenes ... 573&forma=
It runs under the name of Hermes, though, actually, it's a Latin translation made (in perhaps 1262 and by perhaps Stephen of Messina) from the late 10th century Greek version. This later one is that Pingree published in critical form in 1968 which further served as a basis for Robert Schmidt's partial translation. As Steven has already implied, the fuller Arabic original hasn't been printed yet, but at least, as Pingree asserts, the Greek version is a nearly word-by-word translation with only editorial omissions and additions (pertaining to headings and numbering). Finally, as far as I could check sometimes, the Latin version is quite faithful comparing to the Greek one.

Sorry for the interruption.

It is a pity that we don't have exact date for the terrible accident. "Late 1998" it could be before the solar return of 1998 or after it. To my opinion it was after 9 Nov 1998.
In comparing the solar return of 8 Nov 1968 to the natal chart we have (max. orb 60')
Mercury conj radical Uranus orb 34'
Pluto conj. radical Uranus 50'
Uranus 90 radical Saturn 44'
Mars 19Vir05' close to the radical Asc.
In comparing the converse solar return casting for 8 Nov 1968 to the natal chart we have much more critical aspects:
Pluto conj. radical Mars orb 11'
Uranus 90 radical Moon 6'!
Mercury conj. radical Pluto 61'
In similar comparison to the solar return of 1997 or to the corresponding converse we have only one aspect!
In the solar return, precession corrected, for 8 Nov 1998 Saturn is exactly on MC orb 13' and Uranus on Desc orb 14'. Note Mercury and Pluto are in conjunction.
If the accident was before 9 Nov 1998 the only relevant solar return is the converse solar return: Saturn 180 Mercury on the Asc/Desc axis of the solar chart 90 Mars.

Hello Steven,

Many, many thanks for this beautiful and complete text, which need to be printed and studied carefully!

Great stuff as usual, Steven. Thanks for posting it and for the explanations you've provided. One has to read it several times in order to grasp what you're teaching us here, but it's nevertheless most interesting and very important. When I read your posts, I realize how much there's yet to be learned in astrology(at least in my case)...it is quite a humbling experience, but in a positive way.

Now, in this goldmine of new information there's something that really puzzles me. Namely, you stated that in this nativity the Moon is the Hyleg,posited in the IV house...but I've learned so far that the hyalegical houses are I, X, XI, IX, VII(according to Ptolemy).
Could you please elaborate a bit on that?
Grateful in advance for your answer and I hope it is no dumb question

Best regards
Goran

Ptolemy wasn't the only one with instructions on how to calculate the hyleg - sort of like everything else in astrology!

By him, my hyleg is Jupiter, by most other methods, it's the ascendant.

And I agree, thank you Steven! The complexity of this stuff is truly mind-boggling, but if it weren't, most of us wouldn't be here.

THANK YOU STEVEN for another great post!
Having read your marvelous interpretation of the chart you used as an example, I have a question for you, if you don't mind. You said:

[quote="steven"]
In this case however the Sun is anything but a benefic. It is ruler of the 12th and exalted ruler (almuten) of the 8th, and it is corporally joined to (separating from) Saturn applying to Mars (besieged by the malefics)...


Could you just comment on the Sun's position in this chart, please? You say the Sun is besieged. I just noticed that both the Sun and Mars change signs before the sextile between them perfects. Do you still consider the Sun besieged? And if so, how do you interpret the change of signs? Or doesn't it matter?

Erna

steven wrote: In its essence besiegment is anytime one planet separates from a malefic and applies to a malefic and it doesn't matter if the Sun chases Mars into the next sign because his next application is to a malefic. Many of the ancients only give us the "worst case scenario" of separating from a corporeal joining and applying corporeally to another malefic, or their squares. But others also say when seperating from one and applying to another without qualifying it with a type of separation or application. The Sun in this chart is made accidentally malefic and especially for the Hyleg.

Thank you for clarifying this point, Steven. I guess my dabbling with horary influenced my thinking here, half hoping the Sun would be saved by the change of signs. Your example, however, did speak clearly that this was not the case.

Erna

Isaac Starkman wrote:
It is a pity that we don't have exact date for the terrible accident. "Late 1998" it could be before the solar return of 1998 or after it. To my opinion it was after 9 Nov 1998.

I totally agree with you Isaac. More than likely the accident happened after the SR of 1998. In Jim Eshelman?s book ?Interpreting Solar Returns? he states: ?Partile aspects (1 degree or less orb) reign supreme. We are now encountering very serious influences. Aspects at this high (partile) level of potency are apt to manifest no matter what. For anything less strong, angularity is required to lend easy expressiveness to what ever configurations are present. It is when angularity and aspect partility coincide that outstanding incidents are most likely to come about.?

Also, a Paran exists with SR Saturn and SR Uranus. Cyril Fagan states: ?When two or more planets are simultaneously on the same, adjacent or opposite angles they are said to be in paranatellonta (Paran). This is the most powerful of all configurations.?

SR Saturn partile SR MC in itself is a harbinger for probability of depressed circumstances for the Solar Year. Also a rising Natal Mars as Stephen pointed out is a strong aspect for potential accidents. SR Uranus partile the 7th angle is also partile 135 Natal Mars. Ebertin states in his book ?The Combination of Stellar Influences? on Mars-Uranus symbolism: ?A sudden application of effort, an intervention in the body (an operation). The liability or proneness to injuries or accidents.?

Excellent post Steven!

Regards, Steve

Hi, Steven

Glad that you felt so compelled to answer to my post that you did such an instructive post. :-)

For forum members that are from a modern background, I would like to remember that this is the traditional forum, and if Steven put his post here is because it is a traditional topic, using traditional methods and is meant specially to traditional astrologers who use the concepts and practices.

In the guidelines:

Everything that concerns traditional astrology belongs here; as does anything contemporary that is written by and about traditional astrology by contemporary authors as well as those in the past. Although there are mundane and natal forums, these topics will be covered here, but from strictly a traditional viewpoint.

Steven, thank you for the information about the moon being enemy to the ASC. I would never have guessed it, as the moon is both hyleg and the luminar of the chart that she could actually hurt the ASC.

If you have some minutes to spend, I would like to make two questions:
1- did you use porphyry for any particular reason? you used to use alchabitius.
2 - In the Solar Return, sun is in the profected sign of scorpio in both the nativity and in the SR. Saturn is in scorpio in the nativity, but saturn is in aversion to scorpio (althought mitigated aversion in aries). Wouldn?t the sun be a better time-lord?

The sun is a malefic in the chart, as you stated, and besides he is squaring the moon in the first house.

Thanks for the time invested in explaining these important concepts.

steven wrote:Hi Goran,

I do not follow Ptolemy when it comes to delineation Ptolemy also said this:

all rays always fall and similarly converge from every direction upon the same point, that is, the centre of the earth.

Does it really make a difference if its not "above" the horizon? Logically Ptolemy's "rules" are a bit silly because in a nocturnal chart he says,

By night prefer the moon first, next the sun...

It should be impossible to take the Sun at all in a nocturnal chart because it is ALWAYS below the horizon! So how can it be in one of his places? I don't think he thought it through completely.

There is an example in Vettius Valens where he in fact prefered a Moon in the 5th over a Sun in the 9th! Looking closely at the practicing astrologers, in a nocturnal chart if the Moon was in an angle and as long as the other criteria to be Hyleg were met, then the moon was taken as the Hyleg.

Steven

Thanks so much for your clarification on this controversial issue of Hyleg, Steven. It makes much more sense to me now.
In the end, there always remains this old proverb VITA BREVIS ARS LONGA learning astrology is a neverending story.

Hi Steven,

And thanks for the highly interesting post. As you know, I am far from being a Ptolemy-worshipper, but I would like to address two points you make:

I do not follow Ptolemy when it comes to delineation Ptolemy also said this:

all rays always fall and similarly converge from every direction upon the same point, that is, the centre of the earth.

Does it really make a difference if its not "above" the horizon?

Since being above or below the horizon is a factor that does have importance elsewhere in Hellenistic texts, why do you feel that it is out of place here?

Logically Ptolemy's "rules" are a bit silly because in a nocturnal chart he says,

By night prefer the moon first, next the sun...

It should be impossible to take the Sun at all in a nocturnal chart because it is ALWAYS below the horizon! So how can it be in one of his places? I don't think he thought it through completely.

Ptolemy actually does include the 1st house below the horizon in the east, as well as five degrees (whatever that means -- different topic!) below the horizon in the west, among his aphetic places, so I don't think you are doing him justice here. The 1st is included because it is in the process of rising (cf. the current 'twilight' thread!).

You are right, of course, that Valens and others did prefer angular and succedent planets as hyleg even if below the horizon. But it's hardly a case of Ptolemaeus contra mundum: everyone seems to have had his own twist, and Balbillus (our oldest source for the hyleg technique, and definitely a practising astrologer) actually is not so different from Ptolemy.

Hello Steven,

I would like to ask a question about the Lord of the Year (yearly profected Ascendant sign). As far as I understand Abu'Mashar, he used whole sign houses for delineations matters. So what should we take as Lord of the Year, if many planets were in the Profected Ascendant sign (whether radix or SR), is it always the one which has the lower ecliptic longitude or can we choose the one which is more powerful? Thank you!