Arabic Parts in Hellenistic Astrology

Dirius

Well-known member
Not sure how the thread turned into sidereal tropic debate, but that's what I read from JA's reply to jazz.

For Arabic Astrology, should Babylonia not accounted as one too? Babylonia was the ancient land for now Iraq? Surely Iraq is that part of the world?

If so, Babylonians had sophisticated astrology from BC 700-800 time having their own ephemerides, charts with angles of stars, dignity tables etc? Their system had been passed onto ancient Egypt, and then to Greece and Rome?

The "hellenistic world" was the different empires and kingdoms that developed around the mediterranean and part of the middle east, after the conquests of Alexander the Great, around the year 320 BC. They are called this way, because hellenic culture (ancient greek) was spread through these kindgoms and states and mixed with ancient asian cultures (such as that of the persians). Eventually most of these kingdoms fell under the control of the Roman Empire. The astrology from this period of time is what most astrologers refer to as "hellenistic astrology"

Centuries later, during the 7th century AD, the muslim empire conquered a huge amount of those territories, mostly in northern African, Asia minor, and part of Europe. They absorbed part of this greek culture into their own, and astrology was part of that knowledge. The astrology that was developed and expanded within this period is what we usually call as "persian or arabic astrology". The reason why that name is chosen, is probably because not all of the astrologers were actually muslim (for example Ibn-Ezra was jewish living in muslim Spain), so astrologers today settled for the term "arabic" or "persian" (from historical perspective the muslim empire's origin was in arabia/persia)

---------

The original parts were created during the hellenistic period. However, they are popularly called "arabic" parts, because they were expanded under the influence of the "arabic astrologers" of the muslim empire during the middle-ages. The muslim astrologers also created many of them for different uses.

This is a time table of how we divide the periods of time and "schools" of astrology within what we call traditional. The dates may not be super accurate, but more or less:

Before 3rd century BC: Proto-astrology (Babylonia/Egypt)
From 3rd century BC to 7th century AD: Hellenistic Astrology (Hellenic Kingdoms/Roman empire)- use of Horoscopos**
From 7th century AD to 15th century AD: Persian Astrology (Muslim empire) - also called Arabic Astrology
From 15th century AD until 19th century: Reinassance Astrology (Europe)
From 19th century until now: Modern Astrology, in all its forms (worldwide)

** The historical hellenic period officially ends with the fall of the roman republic and the rise of the roman empire, but in astrology both periods are usually considered as part of the "hellenistic astrology" period.

You can also add Indian Astrology as a separate branch that developed on its own in Asia.
 
Last edited:
Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division :smile:

Thanks again sir. I'm just starting out, my background is music, history, face reading, alt medicine, etc. I'm not a pro astrologer. All I know is that when I have set up my birth chart or for others in sidereal fashion, the sun sign and ascendant did not make sense to us, it is one sign backwards from the Tropical. Tropical did make more sense to us. Nothing personal of course... Also modern settings beyond whole signs also push the ascendant up one sign, again not making sense in my or others birth charts. That was my observation. Thanks again!
 

petosiris

Banned
Senecar, if you're interested in Hellenistic astrology, you might look at Vettius Valens, Anthologies, written around 150 CE, about the same time as Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos.

JA's signature line has a link to an English translation.

Valens seemed to have used the Part of Fortune extensively, as a means of getting a better fix on the person's life, especially in terms of fame (good fortune) or shame. Basically he used a turned house method, where the house of the P of F was set equal to the first house, and the other houses following accordingly. This practice sometimes gave quite different interpretations than one would get from the radix chart.

So far as I can determine Valens knew of several different house systems, but used whole signs in his detailed chart analyses. He didn't mention sidereal vs. tropical, although his contemporary Ptolemy made a clear case for the tropical zodiac. Also, historian of astronomy Otto Neugebauer went through all of the collected Hellenistic-era horoscopes and matched them to positions that are essentially tropical; although ca. 150 there wasn't much difference.

Muslim astrologers like Al Biruni added a whole lot more parts to the repertory.

I heavily disagree with what you are saying.

''Basically'' he exposits derivative houses from Fortune never uses it again like some hundred other theories and techniques he collected (like equal and quadrant houses, although he actually uses quadrants a few times). His cosmic and natal angles are just fancy ways of saying the same thing Petosiris did by using angles from the Place/Sign of Fortune. He uses it mostly like other astrologers did, examine whether it is angular, inoperative or operative, the aspects, especially the angular houses (because planets would square and oppose from them) and the ruler. He uses 8th and 11th house from it a bit when talking of death and distinction, but that is it. He is not using 7th for wife or 4th for parents for example.

Neugebauer matched most of the Hellenistic horoscopes and you can see that Valens' values are most definitely sidereal, this is even mentioned by Neugebauer who says that the 0 Aries system is entirely absent in Babylonian astronomy and astrology. He mentions that when discussing Valens' horoscopes, because they are related.

Many of the horoscopes given by Valens are from the middle of the first century, where there was definitely a difference. This means his predecessors also used sidereal. Are you questioning that?
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Thanks again sir. I'm just starting out, my background is music, history, face reading, alt medicine, etc. I'm not a pro astrologer. All I know is that when I have set up my birth chart or for others in sidereal fashion, the sun sign and ascendant did not make sense to us, it is one sign backwards from the Tropical. Tropical did make more sense to us. Nothing personal of course... Also modern settings beyond whole signs also push the ascendant up one sign, again not making sense in my or others birth charts. That was my observation. Thanks again!

Nothing personal, but maybe asking a tropical astrologer why something is present in tropical, but not in sidereal is not the way to go. Post a chart and an observation where both sides can comment and each person can decide for himself. If it is related to sun sign, moon sign and ascendant signs, maybe the modern board is the right place for you, nothing personal.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Petosiris, I respect your knowledge. My interpretations have been somewhat different. A few years ago I actually worked out all of the verbal horoscopes in Valens that were complete enough to cast a horoscope. I used Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's dates. I found I had to offset them all by one day to get them to work out, but when I did that, I was able to cast charts that matched Valens's verbal descriptions, using whole signs houses.

I found that with the Part of Fortune, Valens used the house/sign only, not the degree. This made sense to me, because, in his day, it was hard to have a lot of confidence in exact birth times. He gives several horoscopes where he attributes the horoscope native's success or failure in life to the chart turned to put the P of F in the first house.

The thing about sidereal/tropical in Hellenistic times, is that there is a lot of confusion about them. We know the Babylonians used a sidereal zodiac, and that they did not use houses or calculate an ascendant. Greenbaum and Ross made a strong case for attributing the ascendant degree to the ancient Egyptians. As to when the spring equinox could be set exactly to 0 degrees Aries, there is some debate. Ptolemy may have jumped the gun. I note that he disliked houses, and said very little about them in Tetrabiblos.

I'm finally home after 7-weeks away. If you would like to pursue this topic further, I can delve into my archives of academic articles for citations.
 

Attachments

  • Valens horoscope 1.jpg
    Valens horoscope 1.jpg
    42.1 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
o
Petosiris, I respect your knowledge. My interpretations have been somewhat different. A few years ago I actually worked out all of the verbal horoscopes in Valens that were complete enough to cast a horoscope. I used Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's dates. I found I had to offset them all by one day to get them to work out, but when I did that, I was able to cast charts that matched Valens's verbal descriptions, using whole signs houses.

I found that with the Part of Fortune, Valens used the house/sign only, not the degree. This made sense to me, because, in his day, it was hard to have a lot of confidence in exact birth times. He gives several horoscopes where he attributes the horoscope native's success or failure in life to the chart turned to put the P of F in the first house.

The thing about sidereal/tropical in Hellenistic times, is that there is a lot of confusion about them. We know the Babylonians used a sidereal zodiac, and that they did not use houses or calculate an ascendant. Greenbaum and Ross made a strong case for attributing the ascendant degree to the ancient Egyptians. As to when the spring equinox could be set exactly to 0 degrees Aries, there is some debate. Ptolemy may have jumped the gun. I note that he disliked houses, and said very little about them in Tetrabiblos.

I'm finally home after 7-weeks away. If you would like to pursue this topic further, I can delve into my archives of academic articles for citations.

I have worked a few dozen of Valens signs and basically a lot are with different signs in tropical using any day. Because of inaccuracy I got a few only working with tropical, but they are really few. If you want, we can start discussing horoscopes in some thread.

It may not have been Ptolemy. The Thrasyllus summary contains an objection to those (who?) who said that it began from the first degree of Aries rather than the eighth. The Hellenistic astronomers have been doing tropical astronomy for centuries, but despite that, most of the evidence for early Hellenistic astrology is sidereal, because the rising times tables are for a sidereal zodiac, in fact there are two systems, one with Aries 8 and the other with Aries 10. There were no rising times tables for Aries 1 and from this I conclude that Nechepso and Petosiris were using sidereal zodiac, as they gave the rising times for their clima according to Valens.

Ptolemy was the first one who offered somewhat accurate tropical rising times for every latitude. His astronomy and handy tables were the best thing out there at the time.

On Lots actually being places rather than degrees regardless of their calculation, I recommend you read this discussion and a great post by Levente - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9952 /
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
We know the Babylonians used a sidereal zodiac, and that they did not use houses or calculate an ascendant. Greenbaum and Ross made a strong case for attributing the ascendant degree to the ancient Egyptians.

According to Kenneth Bowser, it was Babylonians who had real sophisticated Astrology based on advanced Astronomy.

They have had their own Ephemerides, calculated predictions for when various stars will rise and down. They even had calculated heliarical intervals of the planets. They had concept of Dignities and Exaltation of planets in the house etc.

It was Hellenstic astrolgers who were learning from them and also from the Egyptian astrologers about all these techniques of astrology.

In Greece and Rome, Astrology was regarded as crime and evil based on superstitious beliefs, and Astrologers were chased out, arrested and punished.

And most of the practicing Astrologers in ancient Greece and Rome were mostly from Mesopotamia, Egypt and Babylonia.

Therefore Hellenistic Astrology was in primitive state even in Valens time, and development was slow.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
According to Kenneth Bowser, it was Babylonians who had real sophisticated Astrology based on advanced Astronomy.

They have had their own Ephemerides, calculated predictions for when various stars will rise and down. They even had calculated heliarical intervals of the planets. They had concept of Dignities and Exaltation of planets in the house etc.

It was Hellenstic astrolgers who were learning from them and also from the Egyptian astrologers about all these techniques of astrology.

In Greece and Rome, Astrology was regarded as crime and evil based on superstitious beliefs, and Astrologers were chased out, arrested and punished.

And most of the practicing Astrologers in ancient Greece and Rome were mostly from Mesopotamia, Egypt and Babylonia.

Therefore Hellenistic Astrology was in primitive state even in Valens time, and development was slow.

The Babylonians had slightly more accurate tables and astronomy, but that is the only true point of what you say, except also for the astrologers part, - it is true that most good astrologers (and that we have records of) are from those regions. It partly has to do with geography, good desert weather and little mountains, and partly with culture.

Astrology was illegal at times in Rome, but it was tolerated, and many Roman and Byzantine emperors had court astrologers. The Dark Age 60s Fagan school by rejecting and bashing traditional Hellenistic astrology made the worst OFFENSE to the popularization of sidereal astrology (and wasted an opportunity), to the point that tropicalists quote Cyril Fagan rather than scholars*, as if Fagan represents Babylonian astrology.

They had the concept of affinities between signs and planets, but the word dignity triggers me off, as that is a medieval misleading concept of what you are trying to convey.

Look at a few Babylonian horoscopes - https://books.google.bg/books/about/Babylonian_Horoscopes.html?id=dSELAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y and Vettius Valens and tell me again what seems more sophisticated or primitive to you. Stop talking shield, please.

* For example in the socialist party preface of the translation of Book I of Valens by Robert Schmidt, Robert Hand quotes the opinion of Cyril Fagan that Valens and Hellenists used a tropical zodiac with a vernal point at the eighth degree. Why are the fanciful opinions of this modern author even considered in the history of traditional astrology? (rhetorical question)

My other favourite tropical argument is the ''they were confused one'' - they were neither sidereal nor tropical. Then what are they? What is this excluded middle I do not know about?
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
The Babylonians had slightly more accurate tables and astronomy, but that is the only true point of what you say, except also for the astrologers part, - it is true that most good astrologers (and that we have records of) are from those regions. It partly has to do with geography, good desert weather and little mountains, and partly with culture.

Astrology was illegal at times in Rome, but it was tolerated, and many Roman and Byzantine emperors had court astrologers. The Dark Age 60s Fagan school by rejecting and bashing traditional Hellenistic astrology made the worst OFFENSE to the popularization of sidereal astrology (and wasted an opportunity), to the point that tropicalists quote Cyril Fagan rather than scholars*, as if Fagan represents Babylonian astrology.

They had the concept of affinities between signs and planets, but the word dignity triggers me off, as that is a medieval misleading concept of what you are trying to convey.

Look at a few Babylonian horoscopes - https://books.google.bg/books/about/Babylonian_Horoscopes.html?id=dSELAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y and Vettius Valens and tell me again what seems more sophisticated or primitive to you. Stop talking shield, please.

* For example in the socialist party preface of the translation of Book I of Valens by Robert Schmidt, Robert Hand quotes the opinion of Cyril Fagan that Valens and Hellenists used a tropical zodiac with a vernal point at the eighth degree. Why are the fanciful opinions of this modern author even considered in the history of traditional astrology? (rhetorical question)

My other favourite tropical argument is the ''they were confused one'' - they were neither sidereal nor tropical. Then what are they? What is this excluded middle I do not know about?

That, I am afriad, sounds rather jumpy and skewed conclusion. I have not comparing Valens with Babylonians directly. But I was trying to emphasise the influence of Babylonians to earlier Hellenistic Astrologers like Valens.

But from modernist point of view, surely Valens would look as primitive because his charts are very simple charts with just Sun and Moon and Asc in most cases? Valens also had not done any inceptional Astrology (horary). I am not sure if he had done much on Returns and Transit charts for predictions?

Anyhow, again my previous post was insight from the Bowsers book = according to him, Fagan was the guy who started Sidereal Astrology revival in 20th century. Babylonians were portrayed as far superior and advanced bunch in Astrology than the very early Hellenistic astrologers in the book.

Hellenistic astrology didnt jump out suddenly from nowhere especially where it was oppressed by the government, people and culture in the country for long time. It had been inherited to them by the Babylonians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians, and that is what the core Hellenistic Astrology is about? Just because there is no surviving sophisticated horscopes from them doesn't mean they were primitive. Most readings were done orally in that time, and we are talking about anywhere between 550 - 3000 B.C. If you insist that way, then you are driving the points into archeological argument rather than astrological one.

So, my speculation is that when you say the Hellenistic Astrology, you could be actually talking about bunch of Astrologers from Babylonia, Egypt and Mesopotamia, who immigrated and worked in the area, and their inherited knowledge and techniques. Even Valens, has lived most of his life in Egypt not in Rome. Could he be actually from Egypt? Mesopotamia or Babylonian descent, who came to work in Greece and took Greek name because of practicality and convenience? Who knows?
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
That, I am afriad, sounds rather jumpy and skewed conclusion. I have not comparing Valens with Babylonians directly. But I was trying to emphasise the influence of Babylonians to earlier Hellenistic Astrologers like Valens.

But from modernist point of view, surely Valens would look as primitive because his charts are very simple charts with just Sun and Moon and Asc in most cases? Valens also had not done any inceptional Astrology (horary). I am not sure if he had done much on Returns and Transit charts for predictions?

Anyhow, again my previous post was insight from the Bowsers book = according to him, Fagan was the guy who started Sidereal Astrology revival in 20th century. Babylonians were portrayed as far superior and advanced bunch in Astrology than the very early Hellenistic astrologers in the book.

Hellenistic astrology didnt jump out suddenly from nowhere especially where it was oppressed by the government, people and culture in the country for long time. It had been inherited to them by the Babylonians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians, and that is what the core Hellenistic Astrology is about? Just because there is no surviving sophisticated horscopes from them doesn't mean they were primitive. Most readings were done orally in that time, and we are taking about well before 750 B.C. If you insist that way, then you are driving the points into archeological argument rather than astrological one.

So, my speculation is that when you say the Hellenistic Astrology, you could be talking about bunch of Astrologers from Babylonia, Egypt and Mesopotamia, who immigrated to the kingdom, and their inherited knowledge and techniques.

What do you call primitive? Methods to estimate longevity, distinction, infirmity and occupation of a person or answering petty questions? Valens did not use Sun, Moon and Ascendant, he gave planets in signs and a rising sign, enough for anyone with a brain to roughly estimate occupation, distinction, affairs and chronocratorship. He does give a few degrees in more than a few charts, especially when it concerns length of life.

Again you show ignorance and zero fact checking, Valens did practice something called katarche which is usually translated as inceptions or initiatives, (I prefer to call them initiations as they are symbolic beginnings, just like the nativity). From the translation by Mark Riley:

Consequently they <Initiatives> must be cast for all beginnings: the sailing of fleets, campaigns, commands, advancement, departures—everything that can come to accomplishment in life. <Without the Initiatives> it is not beneficial to sacrifice to the gods or to dedicate sanctuaries. Prayers will not be fulfilled nor God be worshipped...

Not your typical horary question, also they used entirely different techniques, those I gave you in the second book. To give an example of a Hellenistic inquiry:

Virgo Rising, Jupiter with Libra, Mars and Saturn with Sagittarius, prenatal New Moon, Sun, Mercury and Venus with Pisces, Lot of Fortune and Moon with Gemini.

The inquirer (question that equals an important event) was concerned with wealth on account of the Moon culminating in Gemini and Virgo Rising. The Moon being opposed by the malefics and Mercury being squared, and all being angular (the rest of the places do not matter) indicate that the inquirer was concerned with a large amount of stolen money or documents. I told him that the thief is a very smart person, living south and west and has an associate (on account of Venus), and that they will not be catched because the Moon is configured with a square and trine with operative benefics, but that the money will be restored to him on account of the opposition from the angular malefics.

The person had a large money stolen from his card (and thus his card number), having used it at an Automated Teller Machine with a checker, and that transaction was sent to some Rodrigo guy at an island near South America (the inquiry was in Europe). The bank restored him the money in a few days, despite there being a small chance of acknowledging and disputing the transaction. No one is catched or suspected.

There you go, your ''horary'' without a single application or degree. I used the techniques and advice of Petosiris, Dorotheus, Valens and Timaeus. I personally prefer my primitive astrology to tarot and Lilly.

The earliest authors use the angles, especially the I and X, the Moon and the Sun. You are so changeable and jumping from a thing to thing, not examining anything thoroughly, that I am sure sidereal astrology will not be not your final choice. Tomorrow you will read another book and you will start citing that, without having examined whether it is true, what occultist are you.
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
Again you show ignorance and zero fact checking, Valens did practice something called katarche which is usually translated as inceptions or initiatives, (I prefer to call them initiations as they are symbolic beginnings, just like the nativity).

That is kinda like an Electional Astrology in modern terms. It is a different field from Horary Astrology.

A lot of your information seem based on internet. I don't trust everything I read on internet. I tend to go with printed books.
 

petosiris

Banned
That is kinda like an Electional Astrology in modern terms. It is a different field from Horary Astrology.

A lot of your information seem based on internet. I don't trust everything I read on internet. I tend to go with printed books.

''Kinda'', but not exactly. Yeah, and you are always right and gifted with occult supraknowledge. At least you removed the A.: A.: picture. Good luck, dude.
 

Senecar

Well-known member
''Kinda'', but not exactly. Yeah, and you are always right and gifted with occult supraknowledge. At least you removed the A.: A.: picture. Good luck, dude.

Not even having to stretch as far as the modernists, if you compare Valens to some Medieval Astrologers or Lily, you would know that he is primitive and limited. BTW, primitive is not always negative meaning. Don't let you get disheartened by it.

Under his time and residence in world history, that is just natural, and expected.

Wrong again. I am not always right = never said that :) I am open minded.

Wrong even on that. Its nothing to do with occult. It is just common sense and fairness in debate.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Not even having to stretch as far as the modernists,
if you
compare Valens to some Medieval Astrologers
or Lily, you would
know that he is primitive and limited.
by the way
in order to compare Valens to any Medieval Astrologers
it is important to actually read and STUDY Valens entire ANTHOLOGY :smile:
fortunately
VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY is FREE ONLINE
at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
BTW, primitive is not always negative meaning.
Don't let you get disheartened by it.
Under his time and residence in world history, that is just natural, and expected.
Wrong again. I am not always right = never said that :) I am open minded.
Wrong even on that. Its nothing to do with occult.
It is just common sense and fairness in debate.
debate that requires reading as well as studying entire VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY
 

Senecar

Well-known member
by the way
in order to compare Valens to any Medieval Astrologers
it is important to actually read and STUDY Valens entire ANTHOLOGY :smile:
fortunately
VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY is FREE ONLINE
at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf

debate that requires reading as well as studying entire VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY


The debate was not mainly about Valens Astrology, but it was just given as a passing example.

Then for some strange reason, peto jumped on it, and lashed out :), which forced me to clarify my position.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

The debate was not mainly about Valens Astrology
but it was just given as a passing example.

Then for some strange reason, peto jumped on it, and lashed out :)
which forced me to clarify my position.
the fact is
you said :smile:
and I quote

Not even having to stretch as far as the modernists

if you compare Valens


to some Medieval Astrologers
or Lily
you would know that

he is primitive and limited
.
and
that is what you in fact said
so I responded that
to "compare Valens to some Medieval astrologers"
then
to have read and studied VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY
thoroughly
is necessary
and
fortunately
VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY is FREE ONLINE
at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
 

Senecar

Well-known member
the fact is
you said :smile:
and I quote


and
that is what you in fact said
so I responded that
to "compare Valens to some Medieval astrologers"
then
to have read and studied VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY
thoroughly
is necessary
and
fortunately
VETTIUS VALENS ANTHOLOGY is FREE ONLINE
at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

These days, I am focusing on learning about Horary astrology, but there is nothing to read about Valens, because obviously he has not written anything about Horary. :)

So my comparison is based on just my little knowledge from Wiki
and from Chris Brennan's book.

I don't feel that you must read the whole Valens work just to compare him and some Medieval Astrologers.

For Horary, you can still compare Valens and other Horary astrologers, and it takes only a few seconds to come to the answer. Valens has not written anything on Horary. End of comparison :)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
These days, I am focusing on learning about Horary astrology, but there is nothing to read about Valens, because obviously he has not written anything about Horary. :)

So my comparison is based on just my little knowledge from Wiki
and from Chris Brennan's book.

I don't feel that you must read the whole Valens work just to compare him and some Medieval Astrologers.

For Horary, you can still compare Valens and other Horary astrologers, and it takes only a few seconds to come to the answer.
Valens has not written anything on Horary. End of comparison :)
so you have not read Valens :smile:
then your "comparisons" are on flimsy ground
also
useful if you would clarify whether this thread
is an HORARY thread
or
ARABIC PARTS IN HELLENISTIC ASTROLOGY
from a Traditional perspective obviously
since you posted on Traditional board

 

Senecar

Well-known member
so you have not read Valens :smile:
then your "comparisons" are on flimsy ground
also
useful if you would clarify whether this thread
is an HORARY thread
or
ARABIC PARTS IN HELLENISTIC ASTROLOGY
from a Traditional perspective obviously
since you posted on Traditional board


Your presumption that one must read the whole work of Valens in order to compare him with Medieval Horary astrolgers sound flimsy itself and sound skewed to me. :)

The thread is now quite large including all those topics, so it doesn't sound clever to haggle about the topic when it came this far down the line :)

Anyhow, you are not the moderator are you?
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Your presumption that one must read the whole work of Valens
in order to compare him with Medieval Horary astrolgers
sound flimsy itself and sound skewed to me.
:)
The presumption that one may compare Valens
to Medieval Horary astrologers

without having read Valens THE ANTHOLOGY

and
without having read Medieval Horary astrologers

highlights who is flimsy and skewed on this matter

obviously
the word "comparison" implies comparison
and clearly
when one has nothing to compare
due to not having read Valens
that's "skewed"

The thread is now quite large including all those topics, so
it is just not sound clever to haggle about the topic
when it came this far down the line :)

Anyhow, you are not the moderator are you?
not so wise either
to make comparisons between Valens
and medieval horary astrologers
without reading and studying Valens obviously
and that's nothing to do with being or not being a moderator
it's just commensense
and fairness in debate

by the way, this is a FREE online astrology forum
on which anyone may comment

 
Top