Hellenistic delineations

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

So what would you say is the strongest planet? I think you ignored the fact that I said it was Saturn and not the Sun or Moon after I analyzed my own chart :/ But that's fine with me because Saturn is cool and the Sun and Moon are both boring, even in comparison to Jupiter. ZZZzzzZZZzzz I also said that I have a night chart (which is quite unfortunate considering the wonderful state of the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn and the terrible state of the Moon and Venus with a moderate Mars) but overall the Sun gets gender + hemisphere and the Moon gets gender + chart state so they both get equal sect...
 
Last edited:

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Well I think it's Saturn because lunatics don't like science and are actually capable of having fun at parties. JK. I think it's Saturn because of calculations. I really needed a day chart. Really really really. :/ But it's not that big of a deal because sect is only a +1 dignity per sect type from what I understand. But man, Sun conjunct Jupiter both sextile Saturn. That's a great setup for a day chart. Whoever was born just after me is lucky except when it comes to houses.

Edit: Vedic astrology puts Saturn as a night planet and Venus as a day planet. But this is Hellenistic so forget what you just read. Wipe it from your memory. Now is that better?
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Regarding Waybread's post about Maternus: his quoted teachings are VERY close to classical jyotish, and pretty much most delineation in the various Vedic approaches uses the LORDS of the houses (bhavas), ie, the sign lords (accidental rulers in Modernist Western terminoology), as primary considerations.

As I said earlier I myself consider sect only as one consideration in determining a given planet's relative strength; however, I must say that if we look at the writings of the early Islamic transitional era authors (eg,Abu Mashar), at least at that time they were very adamant about the sect/period matter: the period for them was either day or night, and the sect for them was the planets of the given period being where they should be: so (for these authors) they said that if a planet in its period was not where it was supposed to be ("in sect") then that planet was "powerless"!! Quite different than the outlook that states that if a planet in its period is not where it whould be it is "a little" bit detrimented!! For these authors, if the period was night, and the Moon were "out of sect" (by being posited in the day hemisphere of the chart), then the Moon would be powerless (!) in such a nocturnal chart (as I have posted earlier in this thread, I myself do not follow this doctrine because I believe it is way too extremist, but you can read this doctrine in such authors as Abu Mashar, Al-Kindi, Al-Biruni, etc)
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Regarding Waybread's post about Maternus: his quoted teachings are VERY close to classical jyotish, and pretty much most delineation in the various Vedic approaches uses the LORDS of the houses (bhavas), ie, the sign lords (accidental rulers in Modernist Western terminoology), as primary considerations.

As I said earlier I myself consider sect only as one consideration in determining a given planet's relative strength; however, I must say that if we look at the writings of the early Islamic transitional era authors (eg,Abu Mashar), at least at that time they were very adamant about the sect/period matter: the period for them was either day or night, and the sect for them was the planets of the given period being where they should be: so (for these authors) they said that if a planet in its period was not where it was supposed to be ("in sect") then that planet was "powerless"!! Quite different than the outlook that states that if a planet in its period is not where it whould be it is "a little" bit detrimented!! For these authors, if the period was night, and the Moon were "out of sect" (by being posited in the day hemisphere of the chart), then the Moon would be powerless (!) in such a nocturnal chart (as I have posted earlier in this thread, I myself do not follow this doctrine because I believe it is way too extremist, but you can read this doctrine in such authors as Abu Mashar, Al-Kindi, Al-Biruni, etc)

The Hellenistic Concept of Sect: Sect is just one word for a group of people with a common interest forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. e.g. a political party or faction united by common interests or beliefs especially concerned with their own narrow interests . Some planets belong to one sect, and some to the other. The two sects are diurnal and nocturnal – i.e. day and night.

The Sun is the leader of the diurnal sect, and the planets in that sect are Saturn and Jupiter.

The Moon is the leader of the nocturnal sect, and the planets in that sect are Mars and Venus.

If Mercury rises before the Sun—if he’s a morning star—then Mercury belongs to the diurnal sect.

But if Mercury sets after the Sun—if he’s an evening star—then Mercury belongs to the nocturnal sect.


So, those are the two sects, their leaders, and their members. :smile:

What sect signifies
What is meant by “being in sect” or “being in the sect of favour” is simply that planets are happiest if they are in an area of a natal chart that is in sync with their sect

So, for example, a nocturnal Mars is not going to be too happy in a diurnal chart and a diurnal Saturn is not going to be too happy in a nocturnal chart.

Similarly, in politics, two sects such as the Republicans and the Democrats each want to be in power and are unhappy and could potentially cause disruption for the other elected opposition party.


In the booklet "Night & Day, Planetary sect in Astrology", Robert Hand writes on page 6, second paragraph: "Although no ancient writing ever states this explicitly, it would seem from these writings that the most important of these relationships is that a planet is of the same sect as the chart. Diurnal planets work best in diurnal charts and nocturnal planets in nocturnal charts. That the condition of the chart is the most important of these three sect factors can be inferred from the fact that many of the Greek texts only mention the charts diurnal or nocturnal status in relation to the sect of the planet. Little is said about the agreement of the sect of the planet with that of the sign or placement".

 

sandstone

Banned
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

i am going to make one or two comments, but i am holding back from posting here as i find the back and forth tedious and time consuming.. i have other things i want to do, but i continue to follow comments and pick my spots..


first a response to a comment from jupiterasc:
unsurprisingly, two thousand plus years ago opinions differed - and continue to ...

this is true and needs to be emphasized!

it is fine to want to go back to study the roots or the 'tradition'.. if you do the reading you quickly realize the truth in jupiterasc's comment... there were many different views and their is no ''standardized'' method to a lot of the techniques and approaches that were taken..

here is an example..

dr farr quote :
I myself do not follow this doctrine because I believe it is way too extremist, but you can read this doctrine in such authors as Abu Mashar, Al-Kindi, Al-Biruni, etc..

these astrologers dr farr quotes lived somewhere between about 800-1200 ad... they differ in their perspective then the early hellenistic astrologers and as dr. farr has said, they are more extremist..

before one makes a decision to use the techniques based off a better understanding of the in's and out's of these same techniques they would benefit from doing many charts and working thru the different approaches one can take to these same techniques.. learning how to read charts is really what one is wanting to do in all this as i see it.. a fun exercise would be to take a chart of a well known person and try applying the technique to see if it holds true.. do it with a number of charts and see if you can find a pattern! buy some books and do some research..

happy trails - james
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

The problem with famous people is we generally get the sanitised version and/or what their publicist tells us!

so IMO an even better option is to read the charts of significant others, family members and friends
- people with whom one is familiar so one can immediately gauge the relevance/aptness or otherwise of Hellenistic (or any other) techniques. There is more to life than fame. For an 'ordinary person' transits involving planets ruling the MC as well as the house in which the MC is located may not mean winning an Oscar or achieving world wide fame, instead the planetary aspect could describe Graduation, passing an important examination or being promoted at work... possibly for some, achieving local recognition of some kind: many people who are locally well-known are not necessarily famous worldwide.

Even obscure people relocate! Studying planetary aspects involving planets ruling the IC and house in which the IC is located in the charts of friends and family is a simple, worthwhile and interesting way to check the validity of astrology, whether Hellenistic or otherwise.


Remember also that much has changed over the past two thousand years (it was during the 2nd Century that Valens faithfully chronicled the astrological techniques of astrologers who preceded him by three hundred years or more, so we are travelling far back in time) and obviously vocabulary, verbal style as well as meaning of words has changed - but it is not impossible to get the gist of the intended meaning.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Actually, Vettius Valens (Anthologies) included a lot of "celebrity charts" of his day.... and I suspect he knew a lot less about these individuals than we do about our celebrities, in today's world of media saturation. Publicists don't control the investigative reporters, let alone the Peeping Toms with cameras. Valens gives horoscopic data on a lot of "governors" and other government administrators. He couldn't possibly have known all of them personally.

Valens in particular uses a lot of math, and oftentimes different techniques to calculate the same horoscope point or to answer the same question. I've not worked through all of his techniques, but perhaps someone here (like JupiterAsc) has, and can say if they give the same result. One of Valens's big concerns is how to calculate the length of life. Valens seemingly "fathfully" compiled a bunch of materials accessible to him, but if you trace what Valens says about house topics, for example, you will notice a lot of internal variety and how the same topic crops up in different places in the Anthologies-- which some might term inconsistency. To me it suggests that Valens compiled material, without necessarily synthesizing it to create a more linear narrative.

Valens also is one guy who loaded his text with a lot of sensationalist and dire predictions. Not my cup of tea, but somebody else might appreciate them.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Since Mercury is the imitator, could it have the same sect as nearby planets when there are any?

If my chart is a night chart, then why on earth do I see the most influential planets on it as the Sun, Jupiter, Mercury, and (especially) Saturn? Those guys are supposed to be out of sect. I know the astrologers dr. farr mentioned considered the night/day condition of a chart to be period rather than sect and that explains it from one point of view (all except Mercury are in sect after all,) but is there any way to explain it from a Hellenistic point of view?

P.S. The Hellenistic point of view makes so much sense and so little at the same time. Planets of the diurnal sect prefer to be with the Sun above the horizon, and planets of the night chart prefer to be away from the Sun (which is below the horizon) above the horizon. There is a massive bias towards above-the-horizonness here. It makes sense some-what considering that most people are extroverts, but it doesn't make sense in other ways because I can't see every planet as being most effective in an extroverted way.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Well, your chart looked at as period/sect (late Hellenists like Paulus/Rhetorius and early Islamic transitional era authors like Abu Mashar) "works" well (is explained well) from that perspective, eg (using point totals) Moon = period+out of sect- = net 0; Sun = out of period 0 but in sect+1 = net+1; Jupiter = out of period 0 but in sect+1 = net +1; Saturn = out of period 0 but in sect = +1; Mercury = no period (points) but in sect (always in sect) = +1

However, what would be the Valens/era Hellenist explanation (as per the outline of sect given above in JUPITERASC's posts) of your own experience of the planets in your chart relative to this matter? While the concept and delineative application of sect was very important to the Hellenists of old, it was by no means their ONLY major consideration: other modifying considerations would have been angular vs cadent, the issue of combustion (and they used wide orbs up to nearly 9 degrees for this), the specific planet being in a pitted or elevated degree, the relative planetary elevations, and the dignity/debility totals for each planet: so I would say that in addition to their consideration of your chart relative to sect and the planets in and out of sect, they would also have brought these other considerations into their final delineation of the relative planetary influences in your chart.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

I think, though as indicated I have lots more reading to do, that whether or not the Sun or Moon are the strongest will depend on a number of factors...the most important of which (as we are currently learning) is if the chart is nocturnal or diurnal, and then how sect will play a part. I find it curious, and gratifying, to see that byjove has indicated that the Hellenists gave more meaning to the signs than to the planets. And if we are using whole sign, making the signs themselves the houses, astrology is starting to make a lot more sense to me.
The term sign is not used in Hellenistic astrology, because in the modern astrological sense, a sign has an archetypal association behind it, but a zoidion does not. Instead, the use of the zoidia seem to be primarily based on (a) duality, masculine/feminine: (b) triplicity, cardinal - the beginning of a season - fixed - the middle of a season - and mutable - the end of a season - and (c) quadruplicity, elemental quality of earth, fire, air, and water.

There is a distinct difference between the archetypal signs of modern astrology, and the zoidia of Hellenistic astrology. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the two, by using different terminology because a zoidion is a section of the zodiac that provides the manner of emanation for a planets action.

Robert Schmidt wrote three pages in the Project Hindsight translator’s preface of Vettius Valens The Anthology Book I and on the word zoidion, he says that it means “place for life.”

The root word zoion has two meanings - living thing and picture: it is a transliteration of ζῷον, meaning 'living being' or 'animal'. It is thus the root of 'zoology' and all related terms.

The Greeks seem to have viewed the constellations of the zodiac as places in which the gods lived and they thought differently of the constellations from the way we do today.

Today, we view the constellations as random sets of stars that mankind anthropomorphized into human and animal shapes - but the Greeks believed that they were a kind of “celestial artwork, ” created by the gods as dwelling places. So, they are dwelling places, or pictures, of the living gods.


The word Zoion has a relation to human life as well as animal life and the Greeks believed these zoidion or places actually had a living force, soul or spirit within the constellations :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Well, your chart looked at as period/sect (late Hellenists like Paulus/Rhetorius and early Islamic transitional era authors like Abu Mashar) "works" well (is explained well) from that perspective, eg (using point totals) Moon = period+out of sect- = net 0; Sun = out of period 0 but in sect+1 = net+1; Jupiter = out of period 0 but in sect+1 = net +1; Saturn = out of period 0 but in sect = +1; Mercury = no period (points) but in sect (always in sect) = +1

However, what would be the Valens/era Hellenist explanation (as per the outline of sect given above in JUPITERASC's posts) of your own experience of the planets in your chart relative to this matter? While the concept and delineative application of sect was very important to the Hellenists of old, it was by no means their ONLY major consideration: other modifying considerations would have been angular vs cadent, the issue of combustion (and they used wide orbs up to nearly 9 degrees for this), the specific planet being in a pitted or elevated degree, the relative planetary elevations, and the dignity/debility totals for each planet: so I would say that in addition to their consideration of your chart relative to sect and the planets in and out of sect, they would also have brought these other considerations into their final delineation of the relative planetary influences in your chart.
During the 2nd century, practicing astrologer Vettius Valens thoughtfully chronicled the techniques of astrologers who had preceded him by three hundred and more years, with the intention that future astrologers would be able to benefit from their study. We have no idea who Valens did or did not know nearly two thousand years ago, any speculation is academic and ultimately a matter of opinion. What we do have are the more than one hundred charts he used in order to illustrate the techniques he also chronicled. :smile:

Rebel Uranian, Valens did not use a points system, so then according to the methods Valens did chronicle regarding sect:

  1. Your chart is a night chart therefore, the nocturnal sect is in favor and irrespective of whether it is located above or below the horizon, your Moon is in the sect of favour and also sect leader of the two other nocturnal planets Mars and Venus
  2. However, with respect to conditions relative to the horizon, your natal Moon is in a location contrary to its nature (just below the horizon) – that's because in a nocturnal chart you'd want the nocturnal planets in the upper hemisphere away from the Sunso, although your moon remains in sect, your moon is not as happy as your moon would be if your moon had been located above the horizon. Simply because your moon is located in the same hemisphere as your sun, then your moon is considered slightly out of sect and more diurnal in nature
  3. Your natal Mars and Venus are nocturnal planets and are therefore happier because they are located above the horizon in the upper hemisphere of your chart away from the sun.
  4. Your natal Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are not of the sect in favour (out of sect) but although it is the wrong time of day for them, nevertheless because they are located below the horizon they are considered a little more natural.
  5. Because your natal Mercury rises before the sun it is a morning star - and Mercury is a morning star that makes it a diurnal planet - so your natal Mercury is ‘out of sect’ in your night chart
 

waybread

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

The ancient astrologers certainly did use signs, starting with the Babylonians!!!

There is a way that the past happened and that texts have come down to us.

It is correct to say that astrologers of antiquity used signs differently than modern astrologers use them today. In addition to the elements, they talked about whether signs were "crooked or straight" (Dorotheus V:2); "rough-skinned, leprous, mangy, or scurvy" or "licentious" (Rhetorius.)

Vettius Valens in book 1:2 has quite a list of these sign attributes. For example, Aries is: "the house of Mars, a masculine sign, tropic, terrestrial, governing, fiery, free, upward trending, semi-vocal, noble changeable, procuratorial, public, civic, with few offspring, servile, the Midheaven of the universe and the cause of rank, two-toned...unaspected and ecliptic."

What Valens means by being "born under" a particular sign is the rising sign, not the sun-sign. For more information about how this rising sign functions, we have to look at the "houseruler" (apparently Mars, as Aries is "the house of Mars") and how it is situated, notably with regard to Venus and Jupiter.

In Book 5 Firmicus Maternus has a whole "planets in signs" cookbook that, allowing for the differences in people's lives from the 4th century to today, has a surprisingly modern cookbook feel to it. For example, if your MC is in Cancer, lucky you. You will be noted for "famous deeds" and can look forward to wealth and prestige in your old age. If your MC is in Taurus, life will be mixed. Your marriage will be scandalous, but your career will be "in a public place or temple" and you will also receive riches and honours later in life.

Intriguingly, Schmidt's statement that "a zoidion is a section of the zodiac that provides the manner of emanation for a planets action" is precisely how most modern astrologers view signs' agency today.

It is also correct to say that ancient astrologers had different names for our word "sign", often calling a sign a "house", just to confuse matters.

JA wrote: The Greeks seem to have viewed the constellations of the zodiac as places in which the gods lived...."

Have you got a source for this? I've been studying mythology for a long time and have never come across it. There were 12 major gods on Mount Olympus, plus assorted minor gods up there. There was a celestial meaning to Olympus, but it wasn't in any particular contellations. Moreover, Pluto (Hades) lived in the underworld, together with his queen Persephone. Gods frequently traveled on the earth's surface, sometimes in disguise. Poseidon (Neptune) ruled the seas. Hermes (Mercury) was notable for being able to travel between the different realms.

The Greeks did put their folklore in the heavens, but these figures often related to Zeus memorializing an individual-- sometimes a mortal-- through the constellations. In this way we get a transmogrification of very ancient pre-Greek dieties for Aquarius to Gannymede, or of Virgo as Astraea. Yet the Greeks also believed in all sorts of minor deities who inhabited various parts of the landscape.

These can all be checked out on Wikipedia.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Some great work here, this is a great start for anyone wanting to learn this.

Dr. Farr, on that point of 15 degrees and angularity, I just spotted my Sun is angular in whole sign but about 24 degrees from the MC, so beyond the 15 degrees. I suppose it's a guide, like a noon birth placing the Sun in the 9th or 10th?

At what point in natal analysis does one consider planets 'seen' by the ascendant, signs of equal light and distance etc?

I am bumping up this question because I don't think it's been addressed yet?

Thanks to byjove, dr. farr, JUPITERASC, waybread and sandstone for their contributions so far. This new kid is still reading, so I don't have anything intelligent to add. I did want to toss out an observation, and I cannot seem to locate the exact threads where it has been brought up...waybread, you have mentioned in the past the "sensationalism" in some of the interpretations of the Hellenists, especially with regard to their considerations, and wording, of certain chart placements. In other posts, dr. farr and JUPITERASC have suggested, I believe, that it would be necessary to try to apply those descriptions in today's language, and make it relevant, and that it is the technique and not so much the interpretation that would matter...I want to suggest that it is possible what we have extant of the ancient astrologers' writings are in fact the "cookbooks" of the times, much like those that exist today. Perhaps then, as now, it was always necessary to synthesize the entire chart to get an accurate understanding?
 

waybread

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

tsmall, while I think that what you suggest is possible, we don't really end up with "Hellenistic astrology" but with a kind of modern astrology deploying a lot of Hellenistic methods.

Francesca Rochberg, in her book on cuniform Bablyonian astrology The Heavenly Writing, notes that the celestial omen-texts with which astrology got its start, were written as "if--then" propositions. IF a given event is observed in the heavens, THEN a specific human event will follow. This isn't because the planets cause anything, but because they signify what the gods (who do control things) intend.

You find "IF A--THEN B" constructions occuring a lot in Hellenistic astrology.

The "If A" part is reasonably easy to retain today provided one does the calculations and the author's meaning is clear. "If a benefic is in the 8th house, then...." "If in a day birth Mars squares the moon.... " and so on. Some of the calculations are a bit more advanced than others, but basically the "If A" part is feasible today.

The problem comes with the "then B" part of an interpretation. Unlike modern astrologers, the ancient astrologers were not concerned with one's inner life. The "then B" results of horoscopic placements have tangible, measureable results in the sense that they could be observed to happen or not to happen.

I've been reading about horoscopic house origins, so my copy of Vettius Valens Anthologies is turned to Book II where he discusses the effects of the houses with their planetary tenants. So how would we rescript the following? I say it can be done only with precisely the same kind of watering-down that traditionalists are apt to dislike in modern astrology. And the 10th house to Valens is one of the moderate ones!

"The X Place--Midheaven

Both benefics and malefics [i.e., "if A"] rejoice ["then B] in this place if [A] they have been assigned the Lot [of Fortune], the Ascendant, or Daimon [11th house.] If [A] any of the benefics are in it when rising, or if [A] they have contact with the moon, tyrants and kings are born, governors of districts, men known by name in many places. The ruler of this Place, if [A] situated favourably, makes vigorous/successful men; if [A] situated unfavourably, it makes feeble/unsuccessful men. If [A] the ruler is setting and a malefic is in conjunction or in opposition to this Place, it makes failures, as well as sterile or childless men."

So if we unpack this "cookbook" delineation; sure, some of it would work today. We could talk about men being successful or unsucessful. We could even predict men being sterile or childless. But tyrants, kings, governors? Vettius must have known this couldn't be true for everyone with favourable placements, even in his day. So do we say, as a modern astrologer might, "You have administrative ability and are a natural leader?" Valens wrote this material for men. Would it apply to women in the same way, now that women can be heads of state?

As I said, the 10th house is one of the easy ones. If we read further, say house 9, a well-tenanted 9th house makes someone a "prophet" who "will be obeyed like a god." "He will become a royal clerk from his middle years." If malefics get into the act, the person will be a "tyrant" who "sacks cities" and "pillages" them. A worse case would be the native having to seek sanctuary in temples.

I'm not sure how we would revise the predictions of the native being eaten by lions or dogs, or killed in a ship-wreck.

I don't think we can do Hellenistic astrology for the "then B" part of house 9 in the 21st century without seriously rescripting it to address modern sensitivities. But then we don't have Valens's astrology, we have revised-Hellenistic or modern-Hellenistic astrology.

If we look at Valens horoscope examples, a lot of them would today be considered clelebrity horoscopes, emphasizing (though not restricted to) political leaders. The modern-day equivalent would be basing our astrology examples on state governors or members of Congress.

Moreover, we could forget about astrology as a tool for self-awareness. The exterior biographical events are what matters.
 
Last edited:

sandstone

Banned
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

excellent comments, insight and overview waybread.. thank you.. i think your post explains why some of us continue to follow a path of realism in regard boxing ourselves into a particular style of astrology and want to take the best of what the field has to offer.. some might disagree with this approach in so far as we are not being true to a particular school of thought, but as i feel you have really clearly pointed out here, no one practicing traditional astrology or hellenistic astrology is able to do it! it is neo-traditional, or neo-hellenistic astrology that those keen on using the old methods are really doing..

also, the cookbook analogy to valens is a very good analogy as i see it.. i get the impression valens is a complier of different astrological thought of his day and beyond.. sometimes he says how he differs from the old astrologers, such as in the area of health where the old astrologers based most of it off the houses of the lot of fortune, or the lot of spirit, whereas he worked off the nature of the planets and signs more based off the ascendant.. i am on page 54 right now, in the 170 page pdf file for this at mark rileys site.. cookbook is an apt description, after having read a few of them in my time over the years..

waybread hits a home run as i see it in making a clear distinction between the type of astrology practiced in older times, to that which has been practiced in more recent times... what does one do with the formulas offered by valens which come with hard and fast definitions of the results on a physical level when one wants to know if there can be more to it then just the physical experience? i am not putting it as well as i think waybread has, but you get the idea if you put the time into reading some of these older texts...

thanks also for your comments and encouragement tsmall!
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

The ancients wrote within the context of their cultures and times; but there were principles involved, behind their techniques and also behind their interpretations, then as now-just as we today have principles at the root of our contemporary interpretations of the astological phenonema as determined by our techniques of delineation. What must be done is to understand the principles involved, to understand the fundamental objective of the particular technique (ancient technique, or, indeed, Modernist technique) being used (ie, what is the objective this technique is supposed to obtain?), and then to use our OWN understanding of what the result of that applied technique, shows, based upon our understanding of the meaningfulness of that result, which is ultimately based upon the principle (or symbol if you will) behind that result.

Otherwise, whether ancient or Modern, Vedic or Western, its just cookbook, which could be canned and spewed out by the proper computer program...
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

I'm not sure how we would revise the predictions of the native being eaten by lions or dogs, or killed in a ship-wreck.
IMO we are all capable of deciding for ourselves whether 'being eaten by lions' is something that only happened two thousand plus years ago. Lions prowl the jungles of today and often people are attacked by them and sometimes indeed consumed by them.

Ever consider a zoo? Worldwide, Zoos have millions of visitors and just two days ago January 2012, online media ran the story of a 3year old being hospitalized and currently in intensive care with serious head injuries, having being attacked by a lion in a zoo
.

Lions are often the stars of the show and here is an example that occurred at a Las Vegas MGM a year ago when a trainer was attacked and narrowly escaped http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYjufpxSfPw&feature=fvsr and only two years ago a teenager survived being attacked by three lions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKZOZViUKU&feature=related Circus lions attack trainer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU9pkFsdYpg&feature=related a surprising number of people own pet lions - lion attacks are not that rare :smile:
The ancients wrote within the context of their cultures and times; but there were principles involved, behind their techniques and also behind their interpretations, then as now-just as we today have principles at the root of our contemporary interpretations of the astological phenonema as determined by our techniques of delineation.
As dr. farr says the context of the cultures and the times is a necessary consideration. Just as there are those who disparage Valens et al, unsurprisingly the astrologers of 2012 may well be the subject of equal derision in the year 4012 :smile:
What must be done is to understand the principles involved, to understand the fundamental objective of the particular technique (ancient technique, or, indeed, Modernist technique) being used (ie, what is the objective this technique is supposed to obtain?),
(a) IMO Applying the ancient techniques is a useful and rewarding exercise

(b) - however, those who find Valens risible
are not obliged to practice the astrology of Valens - if one prefers 'modern astrology' nevertheless, one may acknowledge one's considerable debt to Vettius Valens et al who chronicled those techniques that 'modern astrology' is founded upon and without which 'modern astrology' is nonexistent.

(c) I continue to encourage those who find Valens of interest to explore Valens valuable techniques for themselves in order to make up their own minds.:smile:

.........and then to use our OWN understanding of what the result of that applied technique, shows, based upon our understanding of the meaningfulness of that result, which is ultimately based upon the principle (or symbol if you will) behind that result.
Good idea :smile:
Otherwise, whether ancient or Modern, Vedic or Western, its just cookbook, which could be canned and spewed out by the proper computer program...
Well said :smile:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Hey, thanks, sandstone!

JA, there is such a thing as a common-sense "sniff test."

There are also such things as data and reason. It should be possible for a lot of Hellenistic calculations, when considered side-by-side with an ephemeris, to consider roughly what percentage of today's population has a given placement for a manner-of-death prediction. We could easily translate that percentage into numbers of people (knowing today's population) and then see whether there's a match-up with the numbers of people who actually do get eaten by lions or dogs. I suspect that the numbers of people with the more sensationalistic particular placements/outcomes is far greater than the numbers affected by some of the stranger predicted outcomes.

As you know, too, from your readings, some of the other Hellenistic predictions get increasingly bizarre in historical context. We also have to account for major differences in culture between then and now.

For example, in Roman times, the astrologers' delineation of "children who are not raised" was a major concern. It was vastly different from the meaning today of children who didn't survive early childhood through no fault of their parents. Back then, unwanted babies were routinely exposed, often on garbage dumps. Even for babies in loving homes, infant mortality rates were staggering in Roman times. I would be very surprised if the Hellenistic delineations match up with the known infant mortality rates today in the developed nations.

Trafficking in human beings is an international scandal today, but chattel slavery on the scale that existed in Roman times (or even in the antebellum American South) just isn't something that the average person in the English-speaking world is going to encounter. Yet slavery, with various ramifications (including of one's parentage or spouse) was a major concern of Valens.

So there are all kinds of places where the "If A, then B" reasoning of astrological prediction runs into difficulties as current interpretation. Of course, we have to **modernize** Hellenistic astrology's predictions in order to make it work for consumers of astrology today.

Frankly, if anyone can wend his or her way through Valens's extensive mathematical techniques and determine that the predictions are actually accurate in chart-reading today, I take my hat off to you. Have you actually worked through them, JupiterAsc?

Dr. Farr, you interpretive methods sound sensible, but could you show how you would apply one of the wierder Hellenistic predictions in a sensible way to a contemporary interpretation, by way of example?
 

Frank

Well-known member
Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Realize, please, that the delineations given in Hellenistic material for single factors were merely the most extreme examples - a teaching tool, as it were.

I see just as many general and fatalistic interpretations in some "modern" astrology texts.

Look at Ebertin. He's a modern astrologer, right?
 
Top