I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this question (so if it needs to be moved?)
With all the current interest in Hellenistic methods, how exactly does one go about deliniating a chart using Hellenistic astrology?
Hi T!
There have actually been many threads on this area I'd say in the last year particularly. But you have come across a good point in that perhaps the info. is a little scattered. So we could take the chance to bring some basics here, in one place, if that's along the lines of what you had in mind? I think this is a perfectly good place - natal astrology!
thanks for the reminder on the 'outers' being 'out' tsmall, as I think we can all agree that it is safe to say that two thousand plus years ago there were no delineations for 'the outers' in astrology.byjove, are you suggesting maybe making a hand drawn chart to look at? I was hoping we could use an astro chart. I have attached a new one. (in tropical, though I believe the jury is still out on what zodiac the Hellenists were using...)
I also believe that using this method, aspects can be made by sign position alone? Does anyone know if there is in fact an orb of influence?
edit to add: we seem to have had the same idea, lol. I think it would be important to keep the "outers" out of it, so to speak?
You're right MSO - There is "a bit more to it than that"So the difference between newspaper astrology and Hellenistic astrology is using whole signs and not using the outers?
Surely there's a bit more to it than that. The vapours have always been my favorite part of traditional astrological philosophy. *nods*
tsmall, I assumed that as well until I discovered that Robert Schmidt describes something he terms "Preliminary natal analysis" which consists not only of judging whether:I am assuming that the place to start would be by delineating each planet and the ASC, MC, IC and DC (as well as PoF and nodes) by sign position, as well as by degree. Would we need to look at a Porphyry at well to determine planetary strength? What "diginities" do we look at?
(btw, this chart is for someone not related to me, but whom I know very well, so we are looking at a real person.)
tsmall, I assumed that as well until I discovered that Robert Schmidt describes something he terms "Preliminary natal analysis" which consists not only of judging whether:
(a) a planet is able and/or planets are able - and/or unable - to conduct their business and/or businesses, as well as
(b) whether the natal planets are favorable or unfavorable to the native.
I discovered this in 2007 on an internet forum that is no longer accessible when one attempts to login
However there are other online sources of hellenistic information, such as http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/ as well as forums - eg skyscript, tribenet and ACTastrology (which has a forum moderated by Schmidt himself) http://actastrology.com/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=ccfb9e07cf3c1c2d55a9a780ffaefcef
I am assuming that the place to start would be by delineating each planet and the ASC, MC, IC and DC (as well as PoF and nodes) by sign position, as well as by degree. Would we need to look at a Porphyry at well to determine planetary strength? What "diginities" do we look at?
(btw, this chart is for someone not related to me, but whom I know very well, so we are looking at a real person.)
tsmall, I assumed that as well until I discovered that Robert Schmidt describes something he terms "Preliminary natal analysis" which consists not only of judging whether:
I have a little knowledge of Traditional Astrology which delineates amongst other considerations, by checking each individual planet by Sign as well as degree, as well as PoF, the four angles of the natal chart and therefore - until I discovered that internet forum in 2007, I assumed that Hellenistic astrology begins by doing that. However, I learned that Hellenistic astrology differs by analyzing a natal chart in a way that takes some getting used to as it is a complex procedure and based to a considerable extent on an individual astrologer's personal judgementAssumed which? That it would be necessary to start by looking at each planet, or that one would need a quadrant based chart in order to understand strength? Thank you for the links.
I have a little knowledge of Traditional Astrology which delineates amongst other considerations, by checking each individual planet by Sign as well as degree, as well as PoF, the four angles of the natal chart and therefore - until I discovered that internet forum in 2007, I assumed that Hellenistic astrology begins by doing that. However, I learned that Hellenistic astrology differs by analyzing a natal chart in a way that takes some getting used to as it is a complex procedure and based to a considerable extent on an individual astrologer's personal judgement
To quote Schmidt then:
"Some preliminary orientation for those unfamiliar with this technique. The first book of a lost writing by the Hellenistic astrologer Antiochus concluded with algorithms for determining two ruling planets in a nativity: the domicile master (oikodespotēs) of the nativity (the planet that takes the entire nativity as its home in the same manner that planets take certain images or “signs” as their domicile), and the lord (kurios) of the nativity. We know this from a Byzantine summary of this lost work and from extracts made from it by Porphyry. [deleted quote over 100 words in one post - Moderator]
One step at a time is a more sensible approach than leaping merrily over a chasmAh, well, one step at a time then? Especially when working with a "noob?"
The following are basics of Hellenistic analysis from Valens as translated by Robert SchmidtTo start, it appears that we first need to determine the chart sect? As in, whether the sun has precidence (day chart) or the moon (night chart?) In this instance, it would be the moon, as it is a nighttime chart? We then need to look to see which image (sign) houses the moon, and determine the trigon lord? And of course, next would be to explain what exactly trigon lords are. I can see this is going to be a pretty big undertaking..
Astrologers seem to have had more time available to them two thousand plus years ago... how fortunate they were!Are you able to short-cut this? Otherwise, it could be after Christmas before I can make a thourough study...
dr. farr, I am interested to ask you who originated this way of estimating angularity without a porphyry overlay and in what way does this method of estimating angularity differ from porphyry as well as is this a method used by any astrologers two thousand years ago?One can estimate angularity without a porphyry overlay: in your whole sign chart, find the ascending, MC, descendant and IC degrees (not the houses, but the degrees): any planet 15 degrees before or after of the specific degree is angular (relative to the horizon/horizon MC/IC axes); a planet within 15 degrees flowing toward the specific degree is "more angular" ("stronger" relative to angularity) than the planet flowing away from the specific degree (alhtough still within 15 degrees of that specific degree) These considerations are seperate from the whole sign house placements and center only upon the consideration of planetary strength relative to angularity.