Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi
Someone mentioned that Bob Dylan`s fame made more sense using whole signs.
But what about Steve Jobs? Mercury rules 1st and 10th and is in 6th square its ruler Saturn.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Jobs,_Steve

Traditionally, fame and status has nothing to do with the lord of the MC or the 10th sign. You are looking for the luminaries, especially the sect light, to be bodyguarded by strong sect-mates preferably, but planets of the opposite sect will still do something. Steve Jobs has an angular Jupiter bodyguarding the Moon by square aspect. One thing I have noticed is that when a bodyguard of a luminary becomes the divisor of the luminary it bodyguards for, the good status and reputation (or the bad if it is afflicted) comes to the native. In the zodiac-that-shan't-be-named, the Moon enters Jupiter's bounds in 1974 and goes through them until 1981. A quick look at Steve Job's bio reveals that he made his rise towards the end of the 70's.

Of course, there are other indications of success such as: the Lot of Fortune being well-supported and its lord in a good place, strong and supported; prominent fixed stars rising or culminating; and basic things like benefics in the angles, or in good aspect to the luminaries, the malefics not aspecting.

But he is known for Mercurial exploits,yet his Mercury doesn`t look too good

Jens wrote:But he is known for Mercurial exploits,yet his Mercury doesn`t look too good

Actually, it is said by his peers and friends that he was more of a marketer, and not a programmer or an inventor. Mercury in the 6th sign nicely shows that those who supported his status were Mercurial, without him himself being necessarily so in his own functions. See Serapio on p64 of Holden's translation of Porphyry for more on that doctrine.

Greetings,

In Steve Jobs birth chart, Zeus dosen?t act as a spear-bearer for Selene.

If you have had in mind the first kind of spear-bearer - due to the position of the Light; not being in the 1st or 10th place -, Selene must be protected from ?right?, that is its weak spot - along with ?up? and ?front? -. Zeus is casting its ray from the left side of Selene.

Anyway, neither the zodiacal condition of the sect Light (domicile or exaltation) and neither the interval between the planets is respected - I am not convinced that is 13 portions because in the third kind of spear-bearer this interval dosen?t stand, to Selene being atributed only 7 portions -.

Fame has everything to do with the 10th place, that?s why in two kinds of spear-bearers is stated in an explict manner that the Lights must occupy the 1st or 10th place and in one kind of spear-bearer, those are the places to be preferred.

Marius,

Actually I was using the second kind of spearbearing i.e. the spearbearer striking the luminary with a ray, to a degree rising before the Sun and one rising after the Moon. As for the remainder, it is my judgement that Antiochus et al. are describing ideal conditions which are modified by the position and condition of the light and of the bodyguard, as Ptolemy advises in his section on this topic.

Let me clarify my comment re: the 10th house. Jens appeared to be expecting the 10th house lord being in a cadent, bad house to mean that the native should not have had any fame or success (and presumably the opposite to mean that the native would have much fame and success). This is most definitely not the case, and if the 10th lord is to work in this way, which is something I am not seeing, then it is pretty far down the list when compared to the other things I proposed.

I understand your point of view.

Disregarding the angular placement of Lights (1st and 10th are mentioned), in the second kind of spear-bearer the spear-bearer must be of the same sect with the Light and the spear-bearer must be able to strike Selene with a ray - applying figure -. In this case, the spear-bearer must be superior to Selene because it will protect its upper zone, wich is not our case. This is a sensitive subject anyway.

Hermes is ocuppying the 6th sign, but the 5th equal house. Hermes activities will be highly regulated not because its house placement, but because of its phase. Hermes is the dispositor of the AS and the 10th cusp (koruphe = place at the peak) and it will mark the native's life, profession and fame. The placement of Hermes gives us two main things: Hermes transacts business that brings profit or advantages for the native and its able to effect its significations, to bring them to completion.

Hermes in the confines of Zeus gives great rank in business and the blending with Kronos will give prudence, a "gloomy" silence and skills for computing and managing things.

Marius Cojoc wrote:I understand your point of view.

Disregarding the angular placement of Lights (1st and 10th are mentioned), in the second kind of spear-bearer the spear-bearer must be of the same sect with the Light and the spear-bearer must be able to strike Selene with a ray - applying figure -. In this case, the spear-bearer must be superior to Selene because it will protect its upper zone, wich is not our case. This is a sensitive subject anyway.

Hermes is ocuppying the 6th sign, but the 5th equal house. Hermes activities will be highly regulated not because its house placement, but because of its phase. Hermes is the dispositor of the AS and the 10th cusp (koruphe = place at the peak) and it will mark the native's life, profession and fame. The placement of Hermes gives us two main things: Hermes transacts business that brings profit or advantages for the native and its able to effect its significations, to bring them to completion.

Hermes in the confines of Zeus gives great rank in business and the blending with Kronos will give prudence, a "gloomy" silence and skills for computing and managing things.

It is not really a sensitive subject, it is explicitly stated in the sources: the definition of one planet striking another with a ray is that the one striking is ahead in zodiacal order of the one it strikes, as Jobs' Jupiter is to his Moon. The issue is that the Moon must be moving towards the ray (or the exact degree), while the Sun must be carried there by diurnal motion. The idea of the doryphory having to be of the same sect is exactly what I was talking about re: ideal conditions.

As for Mercury, regardless of one following Schmidt's most recent diversion into equal houses or not (which is a notion that is not found where he says it is in either Valens or Paulus), I think you have to acknowledge that Mercury is not in a great spot for providing for the native since it is in a sign not aspecting the ASC regardless of the zodiacal measurement used. It is also overcome by the out-of-sect malefic and without the aspect of either benefic. If this planet ruled the ASC or the MC, I would expect a much more troubled and difficult life than Jobs had - if we were to use the tropical calendar measurement, one full of ill-health and scandal, while using the sidereal, issues with allies and partners at work.

You described ?striking with a ray?, but also the ?overcoming? concept. I don?t belive that striking with a ray is single out only to the backward rays.

Antiochus definition of ?striking with a ray? is straightforward: ?That a star strikes a star with a ray, the one leading the one following according to figure.?

This is the definition, point. After this we recive just an example which presumably fits to this definition and some additional remarks.

In the case of all applying figures, the slowing moving planet can lead the figure. This is because the faster moving planet will always move to encounter the ray casted by the slower moving planet. In this sense, the slowing moving planet can strike with a ray from either direction.

In addition to this, I could point out that Antiochus uses in his example the verb ?ephora?? which contains the intensifier ?epi? which may restrict the ?striking with a ray? figure just to the three portions orb.

I belive that we are on different level of reasoning, not because mine its better, but because we don?t share the same ideas.

Hermes is not overcomed by a malefic and isn?t contrary to the sect either, and belive it or not, it will recive the testimony of a benefic.

I use equal house system due to Julius Firmicus Maternus and Wehlow due to Dorotheus of Sinod. They were my first astrology teachers and in my readings, only Valens surpass them.

Robert Schmidt dosen?t create diversions. He creates leads of reasoning. I am not in agreement with all of his findings, but I belive that is one of the best things that happened to the greek astrology for this times.

Marius Cojoc wrote:You described ?striking with a ray?, but also the ?overcoming? concept. I don?t belive that striking with a ray is single out only to the backward rays.

Antiochus definition of ?striking with a ray? is straightforward: ?That a star strikes a star with a ray, the one leading the one following according to figure.?

This is the definition, point. After this we recive just an example which presumably fits to this definition and some additional remarks.

Well the additional remarks are important and clarify exactly what is going on here, so I am surprised you have glossed over them. A planet is said to cast its ray backwards zodiacally, and it quite clearly states that a planet looking forward zodiacally does not cast a ray. I tend to favour Porphyry for this sort for thing since I have both Holden's translation and the critical edition, and he gives a further example that reinforces what he has taken from Antiochus.

In the case of all applying figures, the slowing moving planet can lead the figure. This is because the faster moving planet will always move to encounter the ray casted by the slower moving planet. In this sense, the slowing moving planet can strike with a ray from either direction.

Yes, I have read Schmidt's argument here, I do not think that is what is going on.

In addition to this, I could point out that Antiochus uses in his example the verb ?ephora?? which contains the intensifier ?epi? which may restrict the ?striking with a ray? figure just to the three portions orb.

I don't believe that ???? with the preposition ??? restricts an aspect to 3 degrees, especially since both Antiochus and Porphyry say that striking with a ray can happen by sign and by degree.

Hermes is not overcomed by a malefic and isn?t contrary to the sect either, and belive it or not, it will recive the testimony of a benefic.

Well, according to every example of overcoming I have read, Mercury is overcome, and is contrary to the sect (though I was referring to Saturn being contrary to the sect). As for the sextile of the Moon, two things: first, the idea that only Jupiter can really subdue Saturn's maleficence is found pretty uniformly throughout the tradition. Secondly, the Moon is applying by sextile, a weak aspect, and is on the wrong side of Mercury to be able to really dominate the contact, so I don't think it is able to counteract a relatively nasty Saturn. Obviously, it could be a lot worse if Saturn was in an angle and above the earth. If coming to this chart blind, I for one would certainly find it hard to say that Mercury is in any excellent position.

Regardless, your initial point was that Jupiter did not bodyguard the Moon, since we can agree that Jupiter is casting its ray to the Moon even though we would see that happening in different ways, I think it is clear that Jupiter does bodyguard the Moon, but in a less-than-optimal way since it is contrary to the sect.

Greetings,

The additional remarks of Antiochus are blurry as they can be. We don?t have any planets named, neither the type of the motions involved (fast, slow, direct or retrograd) or the number of portions in which the figure must be perfected.

I belive that I will close the subject of spear-bearer here, since I could offer a different interpretation of those remarks pointed by Antiochus.

Porphyry was a close follower of Ptolemy, which was not a follower of the Founders. Even the older material presented by Porphyry seems to be modified to be in agreement with Ptolemy.

The Antiochus translation of Robert Schmidt was made from two excerpts edited in the CCAG. One excerpt is attributed to Rhetorius - he made one of the largest Compedium of excerpts and is one of the lastest authors from whom we recived greek material unaffected by the arabs - and the other one has an unknow autorhship, but with the insertions of some known authorship.

The most chances to have an excerpt from the authentic text comes from this last direction, but the truth is that neither of this two sources are relaible.

?Ephora?? is reffering to a restricted interval. Check the definition of neighbouring in Antiochus. It was used the same verb, ?ephora??, in a much more explicit and narrow delineation.

Hermes is common in relation with the sect. This means that is impartial, it will act good with the good planets and bad with the bad planets, all of this in the same time, disregarding the sect. Hermes can favor a sect, but this is a diffrent path to discuss.

Hermes and Kronos are also ?friends? due to the joint-domicile relationship. You may already know this because this doctrine didn?t skip the sideral astrology. For the two last remarks you can read more in the Thesaurus of Antiochus.

There is to much to add to Steve Jobs Kronos-Hermes configuration, begining with the activities each planet conducts, continuing with the kind of relationship is formed between them - which I mentain that is not overcoming at all and neither maltreatment- and ending with the kind of mixture is produced (krasis). In fact, this configuration is the least of our problems.

Selene is the the sect Light and its one of the first things to inspect. The hexagonal relationship with the domicile lord of the AS (and of the 10th sign) is havey as can be. Also, the relationship with Zeus - the trigon lord of Selene - is very havey as well. Zeus is properly placed, conducting favorable businesses, transacting favorable businesses and enjoying its trigonal rulership status. The sect status of this planet is really a tiny problem.

Anyway, the hexagonal figure dosen?t represent a week aspect, but a diffrent type of connecting things. I hope that in the future we will able to connect things more properly and our understanding of this greek material will reach new peaks.

Marius Cojoc wrote:Greetings,

The additional remarks of Antiochus are blurry as they can be. We don?t have any planets named, neither the type of the motions involved (fast, slow, direct or retrograd) or the number of portions in which the figure must be perfected.

Even if I agreed that these remarks were vague, how can we then produce a completely unattested doctrine based on the faster moving planet reaching the slower and talking about rays in that sense as opposed to the traditional understanding? What we do have, however, is a number of other astrologers who were closer to this source than we are all understanding this doctrine in the same way. If we are going to say that everyone is, and has been, mistaken, then we need a little more than what you admit are a few vague statements.

Porphyry was a close follower of Ptolemy, which was not a follower of the Founders. Even the older material presented by Porphyry seems to be modified to be in agreement with Ptolemy.

Well, you are assuming there were a group of 'founders' in the first place. The diversity in the earliest phases of astrological practice is hard to see since we have so few texts, but even within those we have, we can see it is there. Just a quick look through Valens will show us that there were divergent groups or individuals everywhere as Valens' idiosyncratic profection method, and his outlining of Critodemus' version of the bounds attest to.

The most chances to have an excerpt from the authentic text comes from this last direction, but the truth is that neither of this two sources are relaible.

Yes, I agree. It is usually the case that the best we can say is: 'astrologer X thought technique Y should be conducted in this manner' which is why I am wary of projecting a single account back into its own past and talking of a pristine, original doctrine.

?Ephora?? is reffering to a restricted interval. Check the definition of neighbouring in Antiochus. It was used the same verb, ?ephora??, in a much more explicit and narrow delineation.

Yes, thanks for the further reference, I have read of neighbouring. Again, casting of a ray is said to occur zodiacally and by degree, so this refutes the 3 degree notion you have put forward.

Hermes is common in relation with the sect. This means that is impartial, it will act good with the good planets and bad with the bad planets, all of this in the same time, disregarding the sect. Hermes can favor a sect, but this is a diffrent path to discuss.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree again on this one.

Hermes and Kronos are also ?friends? due to the joint-domicile relationship. You may already know this because this doctrine didn?t skip the sideral astrology. For the two last remarks you can read more in the Thesaurus of Antiochus.

Yes, I am aware of the concept of joint-domicile lords too, though I am not aware of any actual practical value of it ever being discussed, nevermind demonstrated in the sources.

There is to much to add to Steve Jobs Kronos-Hermes configuration, begining with the activities each planet conducts, continuing with the kind of relationship is formed between them - which I mentain that is not overcoming at all and neither maltreatment- and ending with the kind of mixture is produced (krasis). In fact, this configuration is the least of our problems.

To be clear, I am not saying that Mercury is at its worst possible low and will never produce anything good, the issue was Jens claiming to believe that Mercury was responsible for Steve Jobs' status. I contend that it isn't, and if it was, then it would not have lifted him to such heights, not that he would be a pauper.

Selene is the the sect Light and its one of the first things to inspect. The hexagonal relationship with the domicile lord of the AS (and of the 10th sign) is havey as can be. Also, the relationship with Zeus - the trigon lord of Selene - is very havey as well. Zeus is properly placed, conducting favorable businesses, transacting favorable businesses and enjoying its trigonal rulership status. The sect status of this planet is really a tiny problem.

Again, to be clear, I am not saying that Jupiter is a horrible bodyguard to have, it is pretty well-placed, it is just that it being against the sect of the chart means that the benefits it would bring if it were in the same position in a day chart bodyguarding the Sun are not there. That, and its retrograde motion means that when it becomes active as divisor of the bound-lord of the directed Moon, its will provide gifts that do not last or will be less than hoped for, which is exactly what happened.

Anyway, the hexagonal figure dosen?t represent a week aspect, but a diffrent type of connecting things. I hope that in the future we will able to connect things more properly and our understanding of this greek material will reach new peaks.

Again, there are many instances in various sources that talk of a the sextile being a weak aspect, or at least weaker than the others. I agree with your last sentiment, even to the point where I hold out hope of some yet undiscovered batch of texts that we can begin to look over. What we do have now is tantalising in that they give so much, but hint at so much more! I also think it is a good thing that more practising astrologers are beginning to treat the subject in a more scholarly way since for too long we have had people who can barely conceal their derision working on the texts. The next stage is for more and more people to become familiar with the languages that the sources are written in. Can you read Koine Greek yourself?