Skyscript Astrology Forum

http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/14581/3799

Dr. Gansten, having been referred to your article on the length of life, I found myself disappointed that even scholars fail to understand our ancient method, partly revealed in my lost book ''The Bounds'' and in the King's lost book ''The Length of Life''.

These books were bound to be lost. I will not reveal lost information, but I will clarify some remaining fragments. But first, allow me to reveal a few passages from Sirius' Book IV, my student, whose technique is identical to the one of Balbilus.

''Before all, investigate the length of life, for it is ridiculous to attach particular predictions to one who by the constitution of the years of his life will never attain the time of the predicted events...
For birth, infancy and childhood examine the Hour-Marker, Trigon Lords of the Rising Zoidion, the Lot, the Lights and the Rulers of the Nativity. Unless they are all afflicted or weak, proceed with circumambulations through the bounds...
Know that the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th are inoperative zoidia and that the rest are operative.
In all nativities, the Ruling Light is Predominator if it is operative.
If it is not, the other Light is Predominator if it is operative.
If both Lights are inoperative, the Hour-Marker is Predominator.
Always release the Predominator unless the Master of the Nativity is more dominant and better placed. As soon as you determine the Releaser, look at the degrees and rays of the killing stars and from the rising times find the evident length of life...
The killing rays are the squares and oppositions of Saturn, Mars, the Sun and the Moon. If Venus or Jupiter intervene with rays or presence close to these degrees, they repudiate the previous testimony...
And Mercury neither destroys nor intervenes with its rays or presence, but acts as Cooperating Time Lord during the circumambulation...
Always consider the Primary Time Lord, for it makes clear the quality of each time period and the length of life...
And for long-lived nativities, pay attention to the 90th ascensional degree and the bounds near it...
Investigate the Primary Time Lords, determined from the circumambulation of the Releaser through the bounds. This should not be taken simply in accordance with the usual traditions...
Whether we direct the Predominator or the Master of the Nativity, we do so using rising keys and always in zodiacal order, for the Releaser has the power of the Hour-Marker...
For many direct the Hour-Marker one way, but the stars in the different direction, not knowing what is right and what is left. But we do not recognise their ''primary motion, meridian and frozen sky'', for the twelvefold circle is fixed and it is the Earth rotating on its axis that stirs the zoidia with its Four Powers...
When the Releaser is within 3° of a star 's ray or degree, that star becomes Cooperating Time Lord and its influence depends on the strength and nature of the ray and the star itself in the nativity...
The Domicile Ruler of the Predominator is the Master of the Nativity...
The Bound Ruler of the Predominator is the Joint Master of the Nativity...
The beginning, the main, the end and the measurement standard of the whole nativity is the Master. It makes clear the direction of actions, the basis of livelihood, what character, health and appearance one will have, and all the things that will accompany him in life. Without this star nothing, neither occupation nor advancement, will come to anyone...
And their times and powers are dependant on the latitudes of each nativity, thus they produce distinct results at different parts of the world and throughout history due to precession. And people born in Alexandria do not experience the same events nor they have the same length of life as those born in London...
Because the rising times change over time, the ascensional periods and keys are to be calculated for the location and date of birth...
Example: Hour-Marker at 6 Leo, Mars at 3 Leo, Jupiter at 24 Virgo, Moon at 28 Scorpio, Sun at 29 Taurus, Mercury at 15 Gemini, Saturn at 30 Gemini, Venus at 2 Cancer.
The Sun is Predominator and Releaser. The Rising Times are 27 for Taurus, 34.5 for Gemini, 38 for Cancer and 38 for Leo. And I divide them into 30 and find their keys 0.9, 1.15, 1.2666 and 1.2666 respectively.
And I measure the distance from the Sun to Mars - (2 x 0.9) + (30 x 1.15) + (30 x 1.2666) + (3 x 1.2666) and I reveal 78 years. So long is the length of life.''

Similar methods are employed by Dorotheus, Valens, Paulus, Hephaistio and Rhetorius. Umar Al-Tabari himself accurately describes the ''the practice which the ancients employed'' and ''which nearly all of us who distribute rays accept'' in his First Book on Nativities.

You made a right observation that Balbilus used rising times like everyone else. However, you made a mistake trying to impose your primary directions upon techniques that did not meant this at all. There is no mistake in the circumambulation to Aries, Sun walking into Pisces from Capricorn, and there is no mistake of Mars being a possible destroyer in either of the two nativities. It is your mistake that someone would be foolish to use rising times with contrary to zodiacal order circumambulation.

You appear short-sighted to think that this method is an approximation of anything, but the true length of life. You should correct and apologize for these mistakes.

Everyone else should compare these two methods of the length of life and try this system of Time Lords.

Petosiris

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9812 - Sidereal Origins of the Bounds

Thanks for plugging my paper. Here is another useful link.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to teach the commentator Greek or astrology. There are two difficult languages in the text. Balbilus using the ''sophisticated procedure'' of Ptolemy is impossible without the degrees of the angles. Not sure why you would consider that or the descriptive language of the commentator as anything, but going against your points.

I was suggesting (too subtly, it seems) that you should try to understand the textual arguments made before attempting to critique the conclusions.

Before we go any further with this, perhaps you might clarify whether you want your identification with Petosiris (my lost book ''The Bounds'' [...] Sirius' Book IV, my student) to be taken literally -- and, if not, why you made it. I find it helps to have some idea of an interlocutor's grasp on reality.

''perhaps you might clarify''

Even if your subtlety was as strong as your preconceptions, I would not.

''Before we go any further''

To what end? I do not have anything more to add to the topic. Farewell.

This is only tangentially related to this thread, but I was having a discussion with someone the other day that involved the two Balbilus charts, and I was wondering what your thoughts are about the dating issue on the second chart, Martin?

The issue is basically that in what Neugebauer and van Hoesen called the A manuscript the Moon is listed as being in Scorpio, while in the P manuscript it is listed as being in Virgo. This creates a slight difference when attempting to date and recalculate the chart, with the Virgo chart being 5 days earlier.

This difference creates an interpretive issue in reading the chart example and trying to understand the point that Balbilus was trying to make, because the Moon is one of the candidates for releasing in the predomination argument he does.

In the text the summarist says that Balbilus discounted the luminaries from consideration because they did not fall in an angle. From a purely textual standpoint then this would seem to imply that the text that has the Moon in Scorpio is the correct one, because with Gemini rising that would place the Moon in the 6th whole sign house. This basically is the solution that Neugebauer and van Hoesen go with, saying that one of the benefits of following the A manuscript that puts the Moon in Scorpio is that it makes sense of the statement that the Moon is *not* angular, whereas if the Moon was in Virgo then it would be in an angular according to whole sign houses.

In Schmidt and Hand's translation of this passage they note the manuscript variation and Neugebauer's preference, but then state that they believe the other manuscript that puts the Moon in Virgo is correct. They do not explain why they think that this is the case, but in looking at the recalculated charts using modern software it looks like the issue is that the planetary positions for the date that is 5 days earlier when the Moon was in Virgo fit the positions reported by Balbilus slightly better. The issue though is that if the chart with the Moon in Virgo is correct, then it seemingly creates a discrepancy with the delineation where Balbilus says that the Moon is not angular.

I wonder if the seeming discrepancy that putting the Moon in Virgo creates might be reconciled if Balbilus was using some degree-based form of house division for the purpose of determining angularity here. In the chart the Moon would be at 4 Virgo, so the degree of the quadrant or equal house IC would just have to be somewhere later in Virgo, and then the statement about the Moon *not* being angular would make sense because the Moon would be on the cadent side of the degree of the IC. This would then make what Balbilus was doing similar to Valens and Ptolemy, who both first introduce their degree-based forms of house division when they start talking about primary directions and releasing from a predominator for the purpose of the length of life technique.

The primary issue the theory runs into is that the degree of the Ascendant and Midheaven are not mentioned in this chart, but only the sign of the Ascendant is given. However, the degree of the Ascendant and meridian-Midheaven are both given in the first chart example by Balbilus, which may imply that he was using those points normally, and perhaps the summarist who paraphrased these delineations simply omitted mention of those degrees in this fragmentary summary, even though it ends up providing an important piece of context when discussing the condition of the Moon.

Does this make sense? I'm not sure if it seems like a bit of a stretch. I understand that the simplest solution would be to just go with the Moon in Scorpio, although the slightly more accurate positions of the earlier chart with the Moon in Virgo make me think that there might be a good reason to attempt to reconcile the delineation with that chart. I'm not sure if there is anything that I am overlooking though.

This is a different topic, that I have to reply to. I would not consider Balbilus' source using a tropical zodiac, but I will list the differences accordingly:

Moon in Scorpio for January 19:
Our zodiac, the text has:
Jupiter - 4
Mars + 3
Saturn - 1
Sun - 12
Mercury - 9
Venus + 5

Tropical, the text has:
Moon + 5
Saturn + 3
Sun - 8
Mars + 7
Mercury - 5
Venus + 10

Moon in Virgo for January 14:
Our zodiac, the text has:
Moon + 2
Jupiter - 4
Sun - 7
Mars + 7
Mercury - 5
Venus + 11

Tropical, the text has:
Moon + 6
Saturn + 4
Sun - 3
Mars + 11
Mercury - 1
Venus + 15

Moon in Virgo for January 15:
Our zodiac, the text has:
Moon - 11
Jupiter - 4
Saturn - 1
Sun - 8
Mars + 6
Mercury - 6
Venus + 10

Tropical, the text has:
Moon - 7
Saturn + 3
Sun - 4
Mars + 10
Mercury - 2
Venus + 14

You probably prefer the last tropical chart, as it goes with your point, but I think it is the first one using our zodiac.

The equinox, the longitude of the Sun and Mercury are hard to measure. Tables are useful, but they were looking at the sky to correct them. At these dates, Venus was having normal speed and was clearly visible at early night to have its longitude being so off. The stars in Pisces are faint, but those people were experienced astronomers:
https://i.imgur.com/6SgMkEt.png
Moon and Jupiter were visible too, but I cannot explain the difference with Jupiter. We have to consider astronomy as well when working with these old charts. The manuscripts' letters should also be checked for errors, but I do not have them at hand.

There is a better argument for choosing a Scorpio chart, the astrological one. Those who use quadrants do not all agree on what is declining. Most people use 5° range for angularity, some give more. I consider 5° an appropriate value for this experiment:

If Balbilus was using equal houses in your tropical chart, the Moon would be after the IC with the Hour-Marker past 10°, if the Moon was in Virgo. The Sun is angular when the Hour-Marker is past 22°. This means that the Hour-Marker has to be between 10° and 22° Gemini to have the Sun not angular. Saturn would always be angular in that range.

If the Moon was after the IC in ''Porphyry'' houses, the Sun and Saturn would clearly be angular in that case, while the summarist specifically says Balbilus went to the epanaphora of the setting point, because the Sun and the Moon were not in a kentron. We also have to consider that the MC in the other chart is 23 degrees earlier than it should be, a similar error is not possible in this chart.

He had a meridian in the previous chart and was able to calculate quadrant division, yet he did not for this purpose. If the MC was calculated accurately in Pisces, this means that the Hour-Marker is after 19° Gemini, which makes it unlikely that he used equal houses in his method.

With all these points being taken, I would reconsider your views. All charts are atrocious anyway, it is good he was practicing on dead people. Or the copyist was working in a dim cell.

The copyist neglected to even mention the angles. That means Balbilus was definitely using our method, not the ''sophisticated methods'' of Ptolemy and Martin Gansten. Finally I would not consider the Midheaven and the Subterranean declining places.

Chris Brennan, Balbilus likely used our bounds and our method. He also understood the importance of the Master better than Valens and Ptolemy did. I would never consider your history of house division as anything but alternative.

''primary directions''

Are they?

Chris: let's make this a separate thread. I'll reply to you there.