Skyscript Astrology Forum

i have more questions on this book and if i knew how to change the title of my previous thread which was also asking questions on some of the terms and roll this into it - i would.. link to previous thread here: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6848

this is a really good book for anyone wanting to consider the importance that sect had on astrologers interpretation of a chart from a long time ago.. the phase of the moon, specifically whether it was waxing or waning and whether it would come in contact with a nocturnal or diurnal planet in a day or night chart is given a good examination.. if anyone is interested in this sort of thing - consider reading this book, as i have read no other book that covers it as well as this book does.

so here is my question captured in a phrase that is used regularly in a section of the book i am reading right now : moving away from one planet and towards another planet..

what exactly do these astrologers from the past mean by this? if i assume they were only using certain aspects, am i to conclude that moving away from and toward another are about a planet separating and applying using ptolemaic aspects? that is my conclusion but i can't be sure..

Hello,
Quote:

am i to conclude that moving away from and toward another are about a planet separating and applying using ptolemaic aspects? that is my conclusion but i can't be sure..

This is also my understanding. Perhaps others might have a different view?

For those who plan to read Firmicus concerning the planetary delienations (hopefully you don't mind James!), these can be used as guidelines [the book does not contain proper indexing or table of contents]:

Source: Matheseos Libri VIII, Ancient Astrology Theory and Practice, Firmicus Maternus, translated by Jean Rhys Bram, 1975. [I am still thinking whether to invest on Holden's translation!]

Among all the Hellenistic books, Maternus? book is full with direct delineation as can be observed below!

Liber Tertius Chapters II to VII (PP 75-103) give delineations of planets (excluding Moon) in each House/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter XIII (PP 113-115) gives delineations of the Moon in each Houses/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter VIII (PP 103-104) gives delineations of Sun and Mercury in each House/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter IX (PP 104-106) gives delineations of Saturn and Mercury in each House/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter X (PP 106-108) gives delineations of Jupiter and Mercury in each House/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter XI (PP 108-110) gives delineations of Mars and Mercury in each House/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter XII (PP 111-113) gives delineations of Venus and Mercury in each House/Place.

Liber Tertius Chapter XIV (PP 115-116) gives delineations of Moon in Lot of Fortune?s place.

Liber Quartus gives a lot of direct delineations concerning Moon.

Liber Quartus Chapters II to VII (PP 119-122) give delineations of Moon together with her phase with other planets.

Liber Quartus Chapter VIII (Pg 123) gives delineations of VOC Moon.

Liber Quartus Chapters IX to XIV (PP 123-133) give delineations of Moon moving from other planets.

Liber Quartus Chapters XV and XVI (PP 133-135) give other delineations of Moon.

Liber Quartus Chapter XVII (PP 135-137) gives delineations of Lot of Fortune.

Liber Quartus Chapter XVIII (Pg 137) gives delineations of Lot of Daemon.

Liber Quartus Chapter XXI (PP 145-147) gives delineations planets and their general occupations.

Liber Quartus Chapter XXIV (PP 152-153) gives delineations on Moon with others on the angles.

Liber Quartus Chapter XXV (PP 153-154) gives delineations on the conjunctions and defluxions of the Moon.

Liber Quintus Chapter I (PP 156-163) gives delineations on the signs of the four angles.

Liber Quintus Chapter II (PP 163-166) gives further delineations on the Ascendant in the terms and combinations with other planets.

Liber Quintus Chapter III (PP 166-174) gives delineations of Saturn in the domicile of others.

Liber Quintus Chapter IV (PP 174-178) gives delineations of Jupiter in the domicile of others.

Liber Quintus Chapter V (Pg 178) gives delineations of Mercury in the domicile of others.

Liber Quintus Chapter VI (PP 178-180) gives delineations of Moon in the domicile of others.
Observe that there is a large lacunae for delineations of Mars, Venus and Sun in the signs.

Liber Sextus Chapters II to XXXI (PP 183-219) give delineations of the planetary combinations i.e. conjunctions and aspects.

Liber Septimus is filled with indirect delineations of many areas of life e.g. indications of slaves, royal charts, occupations, etc.

Liber Octavius gives emphasis to the individual degrees of the zodiacal signs, the fixed stars connected to these degrees and the art of myriogenesis.

good stuff astrojin! that was kind of you to give an overview on the book. it might entice a few more to want to read it. i personally think it is great as it motivates me to look at astrology from yet another angle, or the same one as i have been exploring, but on a more complex level.. thanks also for giving me your take on my question.

Hello again,

You're welcome!

If I may add...

The hellenistic astrologers (and early medieval arabic astrologers e.g. MashaAllah, Abu Ali, Sahl) seemed to demarcate delineation of planets in signs according to sect e.g. Saturn in Virgo in a diurnal/day chart is different from Saturn in Virgo in a nocturnal/night chart.

Later astrologers seemed to demarcate delineation of planets in signs according to its phase to the sun e.g. Saturn in Virgo when Saturn is oriental is different from Saturn in Virgo when it is occidental.

It would be interesting to know the reason (historically) to this shift and if they are actually diiferent dimensions of delineation!

astrojin wrote:Hello again,

You're welcome!

If I may add...

The hellenistic astrologers (and early medieval arabic astrologers e.g. MashaAllah, Abu Ali, Sahl) seemed to demarcate delineation of planets in signs according to sect e.g. Saturn in Virgo in a diurnal/day chart is different from Saturn in Virgo in a nocturnal/night chart.

Later astrologers seemed to demarcate delineation of planets in signs according to its phase to the sun e.g. Saturn in Virgo when Saturn is oriental is different from Saturn in Virgo when it is occidental.

It would be interesting to know the reason (historically) to this shift and if they are actually diiferent dimensions of delineation!

Well Ptolemy surely gives great emphasis to the heliacal phase, even if he obviously considers the sect.

So I don't think it's a shift between hellenistic and later astrologers. Ptolemy is an hellenistic astrologer, isn't he?

I believe- but it's my guess, here someone more competent could say better, that later, Tetrabiblos became the reference book and consequently astrologers gave more stress to heliacal phase.

Hello margrherita,

Well Ptolemy surely gives great emphasis to the heliacal phase, even if he obviously considers the sect.

So I don't think it's a shift between hellenistic and later astrologers. Ptolemy is an hellenistic astrologer, isn't he?

It is true that Ptolemy is Hellenistic astrologer but Ptolemy did not give any direct delineations of planets in signs e.g. Saturn in Virgo or anything of this kind in his tetrabiblos making it difficult to know whether he favours one or the other when making direct universal delineation of planets in different signs. Ptolemy did include both sect and phases when giving examples of topical delineation e.g. profession (where phase is really important). The same can be said of all traditional astrologers though i.e. when it comes to topical delineation, all of them somehow include all of the configurations of a planet viz. sect, phase, essential and accidental dignities, rulers, etc. (to a different degree).

For those traditional astrologers who did include direct delineations of planets in different signs, there seem to be two ?versions?; those who demarcate according to sect and those who demarcate according to phase (oriental vs. occidental). It would be nice to understand the subtle differences between them and the reason for them to do this.

By the way, I must say (as mentioned elsewhere) I myself do not delineate chart by looking at these cookbook interpretations and go around the chart judging from every planet. Rather, I start with a topic at hand and then exhaust all of the techniques/methods associated with the topic at hand. However, I still wish to understand the theoretical reasons for these apparent differences in the demarcations of delineating planets in signs.

astrojin wrote: It is true that Ptolemy is Hellenistic astrologer but Ptolemy did not give any direct delineations of planets in signs e.g. Saturn in Virgo or anything of this kind in his tetrabiblos making it difficult to know whether he favours one or the other when making direct universal delineation of planets in different signs.

Were you talking just about planets in signs? Sorry, I missed this.

In every case in general I would say that Ptolemy prefers phases and in fact since the beginning he says that phase alters the planetary nature.

But obviously he considers sect too, I agree with you.

margherita

hi astrojin,

great question and i don't know the history well enough to know why that shift took place. i am curious to read some of these astro authors that i have yet to read - MashaAllah, Abu Ali, Sahl - and perhaps you can answer a question about something you mention here.. do any of them give description of planets in signs based on sect or planetary phase? i have never read alterations in the basic meanings of planets in signs, although i know sect or phase has bearing.

for example - what is the difference between sun in aries in a diurnal verses a nocturnal chart - without going into the placement of mars for example? has anyone tried to articulate these differences? it would seem to me if sect is going to be of real significance then whether it is a day or night chart will have bearing on planets in signs.

astrojin - it is a great topic that you are raising here at any rate and i would be especially curious if anyone has covered these ideas historically.. although i recall reading interesting insights in valens free online - 168 page book from the past 1/2 year or so, i can't recall getting nearly as much interesting insight on basic natal chart reading as i am with this firmicus maternus book.. i am only 1/3 the way into the book too, lol.

Hello,
To Margherita:
This is my thinking too! I guess Ptolemy being an "astronomer" first would prefer astrological concepts derived from astronomical configuration.

To James, I will write something on the difference in delineation later...

i am about 1/2 way thru this book now and still enjoying it very much. i am being sidetracked with other stuff but i wanted to mention a few ideas that i read in it earlier today that someone might like to comment on as it is interesting from an astrology history point of view.

first is the idea of the moon rejoicing in the ascendant if in aspect to jupiter or venus. specifically page 134 "the moon rejoices on the ascendant or in the fifth or eleventh house if in aspect to venus or jupiter. also in the eighth house in a nocturnal chart and in signs in which it rejoices, with aspect of venus and jupiter, she indicates the greatest good fortune."

i thought the moon only rejoices in the 3rd according to some ideas i have picked up over the past few years.. thoughts anyone?

the 2nd idea is a bit more provocative and about the ruler of the chart. i suppose this was before the time when planets were put on some weigh scale based on numerous factors. page 138 "some have said that the ruler of the chart is the planet which is located in favourable house of the chart, in his own house or his own terms. but others have figured from the sun and moon, arguing that the ruler of the chart is the one in whose terms the sun and moon are found, that is, the sun in the daytime and the moon at night. there is some point to this theory. others say that the ruler of the chart is the ruler of the exaltation of the moon. still others maintain that the ruler is the one whose sign the moon enters after she has left the one in which she is found at the birth. we follow the last method and it is universally approved; but consider every thing we had said carefully. we shall instruct you with an example. "
fwiw - the sun and moon can't be the ruler of the chart for as rulers of the whole they disdain individual rulerships - to paraphrase from page 138..

i was unfamiliar with these ideas.. thoughts anyone?