Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi,

I read the following paragraph in a book:

"Terms are unequal groupings of degrees in each sign, each ruled by one of five planets(excluding the Sun and the Moon). According to the tester, the terms are a byproduct of Babylonian astrology which, like the decans, were grafted onto the zodiac when horoscopic astrology was developed. The size of the terms was originally based on how many degrees of the celestial equator rise with a given zodiacal sign at a given geographical latitude. These portions of the celestial equator were translated into zodiacal degrees, along with their planetary rulers.
The popular "Egyptian" terms were based on equatorial rising times at Egypt, hence the name. This fact leads one to wonder how differently the terms' sizes would have been if measured at the latitude of Stockholm; but fortunately the terms are minor dignity."

Does this mean that the terms should be recalculated for every latitude?

rob

Hi Rob

I wonder what book that was.

I wrote a lengthy paper about the origin of the terms which was published in Culture and Cosmos volume 11, about a year or so ago. With the brief time I have available today I can?t begin to explain the rationale behind the terms, but I can tell you that the logic encompasses a number of philosophical principles and that the reasoning behind the length and arrangement is quite complex. We can only hope to explain the reasoning behind the Ptolemaic terms, which are supposed to be a rendering of the Egyptian terms with the rationale being clearer and the correspondence between principle and value more consistent. This is not to say that I believe the Ptolemaic terms to be more reliable, but there is enough correspondence between the two versions for us to know the kind of logic that built up the Egyptian system. From what I know of this, the length and arrangement of the terms is not dependant upon rising times. It varies according to a set of principles which attributes or take away degrees of rulership according to how well each planet is suited to the sign and its order of rulership.

So the short answer is no, the terms don?t have to be recalculated for different locations.

Deb

Deb wrote: I wonder what book that was.
So the short answer is no, the terms don?t have to be recalculated for different locations.

Hi Deb,

Thanks for the information. The title of the book: Using Medieval Astrology.
However I don't know who the author is because I only got screenshots of a few pages from the book(Benjamin Dykes!?). To be honest I only know its title from the caption of the screenshot

rob

OK. Well it's probably not fair to assume that this is what Ben meant, since he might have explained it all very clearly on the next screenshot

Of course I can't say for sure without checking with him personally, but I am almost certain Ben would agree with me, and want to stress that he wasn't suggesting that the terms should be recalculated.

Deb

rob wrote:"Terms are unequal groupings of degrees in each sign, each ruled by one of five planets(excluding the Sun and the Moon). According to the tester, the terms are a byproduct of Babylonian astrology which, like the decans, were grafted onto the zodiac when horoscopic astrology was developed.

This should probably not be 'the tester', but (Jim) Tester, author of A History of Western Astrology! He does explain the origins of the terms as related to rising times, and he is not alone: Ptolemy himself mentions (but dismisses) such an explanation, so it was obviously in circulation some 1,900 years ago. Personally I find it no stranger than many other explanations. Naturally, if one subscribes to this theory, the terms should vary according to latitude -- but we have no exact description of how to allocate them.

About 200 years ago, English astrologer John Worsdale also proposed a new way to look at the terms, discussed here:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3483

Martin Gansten wrote: This should probably not be 'the tester', but (Jim) Tester, author of A History of Western Astrology!

Yes, it is "Tester" and the author is Benjamin N. Dykes(Ph. D.)

rob

Yes, Ptolemy writes:

And as for the specious and sophistic assertion that some attempt to make, namely that the times assigned to each single planet by the schedule of ascensions in all the climes add up to this same sum, it is false.

And he is right.

Personally I find it no stranger than many other explanations.

The difference is that analysis proves this was not the rationale that was employed. Other rationale clearly was employed.

Naturally, if one subscribes to this theory, ?

... then one would be wrong

- Oh and thank you Rob, for eliminating all the confusion on who wrote what

Deb wrote:

Personally I find it no stranger than many other explanations.

The difference is that analysis proves this was not the rationale that was employed. Other rationale clearly was employed.

I beg to differ. It seems to me that there is nothing very clear about the rationale of the terms -- which is probably why they exist in so many versions -- and that there is a definite correlation between rising times in one particular clime and the Egyptian terms. (Ptolemy is of course correct that rising times in other climes do not add up to the same figures for the same planetary rulers, which is precisely why some people do want to change the terms around according to the latitude of the nativity.)

I did read your excellent paper, Deb -- just a couple of months ago, in fact. You argue well, and I agree that 'complex' is a good description, although I would be more cautious with 'proven'. I don't feel very strongly about this one way or the other, but I do think Tester's argument deserves more than knocking on the head, particularly in view of the fact that the terms obviously have been connected with rising times (in some people's mind at least) since Ptolemy's time or earlier. The total term degrees ruled by each planet make up its major years, and the years of the planets is a concept which has been closely connected to rising times (and to directions based on rising times).

The total term degrees ruled by each planet make up its major years, and the years of the planets is a concept which has been closely connected to rising times

That remains unproven - on the other hand the concept of the Greater Year of each planet has never (in our known history) been subject to variation according to latitude - you agree? And what has been proven is that other logic determines the order of the terms.

But even if in some people's head the terms should be connected with rising times, there is simply no way to validate Tester's suggestion, or to know how to adapt the terms according to latitude. Astrologers have a hard enough time trying to understand and agree what the terms should be in the first place. When it comes to adapting them for latitude, there is no right or wrong, because it is all unproven, speculative territory that in my opinion, and Ptolemy's, (if not in your's) is downright rubbish to begin with.

But this is trivia, and you are awkward, so I will cease the argument...

Deb wrote:That remains unproven - on the other hand the concept of the Greater Year of each planet has never (in our known history) been subject to variation according to latitude - you agree? And what has been proven is that other logic determines the order of the terms.

I respect your arguments, but I don't think it has been proven. You are right that the years assigned to the planets have remained more or less the same throughout astrological history, but that doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the origins of the concept (which may have been forgotten long before the time of Ptolemy).

But even if in some people's head the terms should be connected with rising times, there is simply no way to validate Tester's suggestion, or to know how to adapt the terms according to latitude.

I fully agree.

Astrologers have a hard enough time trying to understand and agree what the terms should be in the first place. When it comes to adapting them for latitude, there is no right or wrong

There is no consensus on right or wrong in any case, as we have some 4-6 different systems to begin which (at least one of which includes the luminaries!).

because it is all unproven, speculative territory that in my opinion, and Ptolemy's, (if not in your's) is downright rubbish to begin with.

What Ptolemy (rightly) refutes is the idea that the rising times of the signs ruled by a given planet will add up to the same amount at all latitudes. He therefore assumes that there must be some other principle behind the constant numbers assigned to the terms, although he cannot find a fully satisfactory explanation. He does not in fact comment on the idea that the numbers could change with the latitude; presumably nobody had ever suggested it.

But this is trivia, and you are awkward, so I will cease the argument...

I apologize if you think I'm being awkward. This is obviously more important to you than to me, so I'll withdraw as well.

I apologize if you think I'm being awkward. This is obviously more important to you than to me, so I'll withdraw as well.

I was in a jesting mood and I hope that came across. Actually, it?s not trivia either ? although it seemed like it yesterday, just after my sister telephoned to remind me that she and her husband were coming for a meal last night (and the house was a mess!) I did wonder afterwards if my comment would seem abrupt to anyone who did not know what state I was in. But I agree that we should sleeve our pens for now ? we can withdraw them again for arguments with meat on them.