Ben Dykes’s Medieval Astrology Blog

Dear friends of medieval and traditional astrology - welcome!

I have started this blog as a resource for people interested in medieval astrology, focusing on the 8th - 13th Centuries (the Arabic and medieval Latin period). I believe something like this is needed, especially since translations from source languages are slow to come out, articles are few, and not everyone interested in or practicing medieval astrology is an active student of a course (of which there are precious few–for now).

This blog is meant to be a vehicle for several things:

-Providing helpful info on my translation of Guido Bonatti’s Book of Astronomy (available at www.bendykes.com), and upcoming books as they are released

-Updates on my own upcoming talks, courses, and projects, such as the forthcoming translations of Sahl ibn Bishr (a.k.a. Zael, Zahel) and Masha’allah

-Issuing articles languishing in my desk drawer in a serial form

-Comments on ongoing issues in translation and understanding the transmission of astrological concepts from the Greeks to the Arabs/Persians and the Latins

-Occasional thoughts on a tight constellation of related issues: astrology, ancient and medieval astrology, and Western esotericism; readers might find entries on Plato one day, the Golden Dawn the next, whole-sign houses, some Latin or Arabic term

-Comments on relevant books I am reading or things I have heard, conferences I have attended

-Insights from actual client charts (after permission is secured and confidentiality assured)

For now I am allowing comments, but I will have to see how much time it takes to read and monitor them.

I hope you enjoy the forthcoming posts, and will let other interested friends and colleagues know about them!

Best,

Dr. Benjamin Dykes, AMA
The Cazimi Press

In late July I had the pleasure of attending the Project Hindsight Conclave in Cumberland, Maryland. The theme of the Conclave had to do with Hellenistic/traditional astrology and spirituality, and in addition to Robert Schmidt, Robert Zoller was also present and gave some talks. I enjoyed spending time speaking with my friend Chris Brennan on obscure points of late Classical/early Medieval transmissions of astrological material. And, many people bought my new, complete translation of Guido Bonatti’s Book of Astronomy.

About halfway through the Conclave I was asked to give a presentation on the Al-mubtazz of the Figure, a.k.a the Almutem Figuris (in Bob Zoller’s course). In addition to giving a presentation on how to find and interpret it, I also described a couple of methods for deriving a Hebrew name for the Al-mubtazz, as well as some methods for designing ritual/devotional practices for it. My talk was received well, and by the nods in the audience I could tell there were a number of people present who were already tuned into these ritual and devotional practices. It is something that really is important, I think, the more you incorporate medieval astrological concepts into your life.

The attendees all seemed to have a good time. The partying on the back porch was more restrained this year — all around, a good thing! Last year when I was an official speaker, we would routinely party and discuss astrology until about 2:00 AM…and then get a few hours’ sleep before starting the next day’s presentations around 8 or 9. For some reason the combination of being wired, drowsy, caffeinated, and physically exhausted didn’t keep us from doing well, but I don’t think I’d want to repeat it!

Schmidt’s presentation on Hellenistic concepts was partly a refresher from last year, supplemented by his recent work on Zodiacal releasing, and partly a development of some comments on relating groups of houses to periods of life (I recently saw this in a medieval text, so this was passed on via the Arabs/Persians). Zoller did some esoteric geometry and astrological Biblical exegesis.

I have high hopes for what we can learn from Hellenistic astrology. I speak to Bob Schmidt regularly and it is always exciting and informative. In order for those hopes to be realized, we need two things: first, Project Hindsight needs to get out their long-promised books–without them, we have only a conceptual skeleton. Second, we need to see actual delineations in addition to the interesting predictive techniques they have resuscitated (e.g., zodiacal releasing).

I wanted to give an update on my upcoming translation projects, as my priorities have changed somewhat since I originally projected a certain series of works. Originally, I had planned on translating Abu Bakr’s book of nativities and portions of ‘Ali al-Rijal’s (a.k.a. Haly Abenragel) major work: like Bonatti’s, an encyclopediac treatment of traditional astrology. But two things have convinced me that I must defer these until later. The first is my own work on Bonatti and his Latin sources; the second is the work of Project Hindsight and my many fruitful conversations with Robert Schmidt, especially at last year’s Conclave. These make it evident to me that many of the conceptual and technical answers we need to reconstruct Western astrology (and its transmission) must be found in early Arab and Persian astrologers such as Masha’allah and Sahl ibn Bishr (a.k.a. Zahel, Zael).

So, the order of my upcoming translations has changed. Here is my current, projected order:

1. Works of Sahl. This will include all five of Sahl’s most well-known works: the Introduction, Fifty Judgments, Questions, Elections, and Times. In addition to these I will include a work called On the Natures of Stones. As source material I will use manuscript and printed editions, as well as some critical editions of portions of the work, in both Arabic and Latin. This book should be ready to go this winter.

2. Works of Masha’allah. This will include about six of Masha’allah’s works in Latin translation, including: On Reception, On Revolutions of the Years of the World, the Letter on Eclipses, and On the Significations of the Planets in Nativities. There may be other short works, too. If I can stomach it, I may do On the Knowledge of the Motion of the Orb, though this work on astronomy looks boring to me. These should be ready in late winter or early spring 2008.

3. Abu Ma’shar on Revolutions. This work will include my second, totally revamped edition of Abu Ma’shar’s Flowers (a work on mundane astrology), and two special works that currently exist only in manuscript form: a work on mundane ingresses, and solar revolutions of nativities. Spring 2008.

And that’s not all! Over the next five years there will be many other translations available: al-Kindi’s Forty Judgments, Abu Bakr, the Latin Hermes, eight works of Ibn Ezra, a new translation of ‘Umar al-Tabari (a.k.a. Omar of Tiberias), and ibn Ridwan’s commentary on the Tetrabiblos, to name a few.

Soon I will also announce a research project I am embarking on, as well as a medieval astrology seminar to be held in beautiful Minneapolis in Summer 2008. Many things are coming up!

When I was crafting the index to Bonatti’s Book of Astronomy, I made some decisions that might not be immediately evident to readers. I want to explain a little bit about my decisions, and offer some guidance to those who are trying to consult the index.

With a subject as complicated as traditional astrology, you have to figure out how to categorize things. Some topics are easy: putting all of the Parts under one heading is an obvious choice. But take a topic like “orientality.” Do you put this under the Planets heading, since it is a condition of the planets? Or do you put it under something like the Sun, since it is a relation to the Sun? Or do you put it under its own heading?

In cases of topics that are complex and worthy of research in themselves, I gave them their own heading. So for instance, the issue of whole-sign aspects versus aspects by orb is a topic in itself, especially given the fact that we are still figuring out how the Hellenistic aspect doctrines were handed down. So all of these issues are listed under “Aspects.” Likewise with “Orientality,” which turns out to encompass a number of forms. Others in this category include Cadence, Combustion, Committing Disposition, Retrogradation, Reception, Sect.

Issues pertaining to mundane revolutions are found under Mundane Revolutions; but since individual natal revolutions are a predictive technique, for those you would look under Prediction.

Generic conditions pertaining to the planets, like “overcoming,” their various dignities, changing figure, their courses, and benefics/malefics, are under Planets.

Generic topics pertaining to signs, like being crooked/right or movable/fixed/common, are found under Signs.

Individual significations of the planets are listed under each planet (e.g., “Mercury”), but because planets play so many roles, not all are listed under the planet’s heading. For instance, if you wanted to know what kind of weather Saturn gives, since one of the Treatises is on weather, look under Weather, Benefics and Malefics.

Topics like the Head/Tail of the Dragon are set apart because of the special nature of the lunar Nodes.

A number of issues pertaining to the quadrant houses are contained under Houses, such as the “five-degree rule,” their significations, the “optimal places,” and so on.

Other topics I included under branches of astrology. All horary questions are found under Horary, elections under Elections, and so on.

This is the first installment of a reworked talk I gave last year at the Project Hindsight Conclave, on the subject of animals and the 6th house. It is the first of several articles I will be offering in serial form, working from notes and mainly-complete but unpublished articles. Enjoy!

When comparing the Hellenistic and medieval sources on their house attributions, one striking point is that the Hellenistic astrologers did not attribute animals of any kind to the 6th house. The only 6th house references are to slaves (and illness, which is not a topic of this article). The Arabic sources do continue this reference to slaves, as do the medieval Latins. But already with Masha’allah (9th Century), we see references to animals: quadrupeds, animals reckoned by head, war animals, wild animals, small animals or beasts not ridden, and beasts generally.

In the literature, there is no explanation of this sudden appearance of animals. But by the time we get to Bonatti’s Book of Astronomy (13th Century), we also get the following: small animals like bees, sheep, chickens; non-domestic slaves or serfs (as opposed to those attached to the household, who are always given the 2nd house), very young men, and “vassals and justices.” “Justices” in this context denotes something very particular. It denotes a feudal lord’s powers as a whole, in terms of his powers over those subject to him–and these powers could be very wide-ranging and all-encompassing.

What we see then is not only an emphasis on slaves (including the Slavs, who were subjugated as slave labor by and for the Muslims), but by Bonatti’s time there were several trends that only come out of medieval feudalism: young men, vassals, feudal justice, and slaves/serfs that are not housed with the feudal lord. At first glance it is unclear what to make of Bonatti’s list of small animals, but it clearly represents a further change. We will have to reconstruct some of the trends, vocabulary, and themes in medieval feudalism, along with some general details of the Islamic invasions, to make a plausible conjecture about how animals got into the 6th house.

We will see that one key to the issue of the 6th house is the changing historical role of people dependent on a feudal lord (who is represented by the 1st in this model). There was a change from these dependents as household members and fighting companions (attributed to the 2nd), to that of a client and contracted ally (attributed to the 6th). But the puzzle we need to solve is this: if cattle and other animals were originally considered to be movable property, which is a 2nd house issue, how did they get transferred to the 6th? What we will find is that there is an interesting institutional shift that tracks a linguistic shift, involving the distinction between a flock-animal (Lat. pecus) and the derivative French term fief (whence we get the English words “fief” and “feudalism”). This in turn is going to highlight some relationships between houses in light of feudalism, as well as emphasize relationships between other financial houses in the natal chart.

This is the second installment in a serial article on how animals came to be attributed to the 6th house. The first part is here.

Although we will have to look at the age of imperial Islam and medieval feudalism, the core of the answer to our problem lies in the attitude toward cattle in the ancient world, and their economic and functional link with slavery.

Three Latin words are especially important here.

a. The first is pecus, which refers to flock or herd animals (especially cattle and sheep). In fact one form of pecus (gen. pecoris) refers to animals as a flock or herd, while the other (gen. pecudis) refers to these animals counted by the head.

b. The second word derives from pecus: pecunia, “money.” Related to this is also the world “peculiar,” which means what is “one’s own.” 

c. Caput, which means a “head.” It is the root of our English words “capital” and “cattle” and “chattel.” 

These three cattle-related words, and the constellation of ideas they embody, will help to give us the keys to understanding animals and the 6th house.

Cattle were high on the order of commodities in Roman and other ancient civilizations’ law. From early civilizational periods they were valued for their meat and milk, but this use declined as they came to be used for tilling the soil. Later, they were used as media for exchange: fines, rents, and so one were often reckoned by cattle (this continued into the medieval period). In this period, slave-value and cattle-value were often considered side-by-side as economic units. Another later use of cattle was for labor in tillage and for manure. In this sense, cattle, considered as commodities, are “capital applied to land.”

The link between cattle and slavery comes in two ways. First, the use of oxen to deal with larger portions of settled land, demanded the increase of slave-labor to manage them: so i the ancient period, slaves and cattle go together as economic units and labor units. In the medieval period, we will see this link in terms of the payments vassals give their lords. Second, slaves were traded like cattle or livestock, especially in cultures where livestock is already used as a medium of exchanged (especially in cash-poor economies). These practices illustrate the striking linguistic relationship between the words and concepts above, because because of the way in which “chattel slavery” counts humans by the head (in the manner of owned cattle) as economic and labor units.

Next installment: imperial Islam.

This is the third installment in a serial article on how animals came to be attributed to the 6th house. The first part is here. The second part is here.

The medieval Islamic invasions and conquering of neighboring peoples tended to continue this ancient connection of cattle, slaves, and wealth. In general, the invading Muslims were not interested in settling and cultivating the land themselves. Rather, they preferred to let the subjugated peoples they encountered farm the land and offer tribute. There were two primary reasons for this.

First, the armies themselves tended to subjugate whomever they found before moving quickly on. Therefore it was impractical to do the farming themselves, as moving soldiers cannot be settled.

Second, there was a peculiar confluence of beliefs about Arab racial superiority with a warlord’s view of the conquered people. In order to understand this we need to introduce an Arabic word, dhimmi. This word denotes a member of a class subjugated to Muslim rule. It is usually translated as a “protected” person, but in a very specific way. Dhimmi derives from a verb meaning “to find fault with” or “to blame.” It implies a liability that someone incurs due to a fault of theirs. Now, one of the standard features of Islamic jihad is that in order to avoid a fight with the Islamic conquerors one has two choices: convert, or become a member of a subjugated class subject to various social and economic restrictions. This rule for non-Muslims is Qur’anic (see e.g. Qur’an 9.29) as well as deriving from the sayings of Muhammad himself, and is amply illustrated among the Islamic jurists. Standardly, non-Muslims had to pay special forms of taxes and tributes, called broadly jizya, but instead of paying with money one could pay through cattle and agricultural goods (called kharaj).

What this means is that people conquered by the Muslims, but who refused to convert, are being “protected” from their conquerors in the way victims of extortion are “protected” by their extortioners: by refusing to convert, they refuse the true faith; but in his generosity the conqueror will overlook this offense against the faith so long as they pay tribute and are humiliated for it. And the threat of violence remains, should the dhimmi be uncooperative. I also note that a common nickname for the dhimmi was “cattle.”

These features of Islamic imperialism led to the fact that not all conquered people were pressured to convert: it is much more lucrative to have non-Muslim dhimmis paying high tributes, than it is to have believers paying little. And Arab beliefs about their own superiority (or that Arabs especially can understand what it means to be Muslim) meant that there was a racial class element to the imperial system. There is something appropriate about Arabs being on top, of ruling from garrisons, and being distanced from agricultural cultivation, according to this view.

Just as in the ancient period, there is a close relationship in the Islamic system between servitude, cattle (as an agricultural payment of jizya), and economics. But there are differences between the two systems. First, the dhimmi is not by definition a slave or economic unit in himself, but rather has a fictive “pact” with the rulers that obligates him to labor and be a source of economic wealth. This means that we go from direct ownership to forms of obligation. Second, although the dhimmi or “protected” person is really a kind of victim, the ancient slaveowner did not even pretend to act in order to protect his slave.

We will see that in the medieval Latin period, the feudal system of vassalage continues these connections between cattle, servitude and economics, as well as that of the obligational bond and the protective relationship (but against external invaders instead of against the feudal lord himself, unlike the dhimmi’s situation).

By way of anticipation, astrologers should start noting the relationship that is being built up here: if the native is thought of as the 1st, then we are seeing an interplay between the 2nd house (his movable property, money) and the 6th house (his slaves and servants). It might be thought that animals belong to the 2nd, because they are movable economic units (rather than, say, the land, which would be the 4th); but we are seeing them identified functionally with the value of slaves in the 6th. Likewise, we would expect that slaves and servants belong to the 6th, but we also see that they are counted in terms of their revenue, a 2nd house matter: the slaves as exchangable units, the dhimmi as sources of tribute income.

In the next installment: the feudal system; vassals, boys, and household companions; the fief and cattle.

This is the fourth installment in a serial article on how animals came to be associated with the 6th house. Part one is here. Part two is here. Part three is here.

In Parts 1 and 2 of this article I outlined a set of words and concepts that linked cattle and wealth and slavery together, both as labor units and as economic units. In this Part, I will add two more elements: “boy words,” which describe social roles pertaining to the 2nd and 6th houses; and a description of how cattle-value came to be intertwined with land in a historical shift from the 2nd house to the 6th house.

In this installment, I will be speaking of the emerging system of feudalism from the early Middle Ages up to the High Middle Ages. I will do three things: (a) describe vassalage and feudalism as a whole, (b) describe the relationship within it of animals and vassals, and (c) describe several terms that help cement the astrological connection between animals and the 6th house. Because all of these issues are intertwined, it is difficult to present these one at a time. Therefore this installment will largely take the form of weaving a number of components together.

Vassalage is a key component of a whole system of economics, government, and life that is feudalism. The words “feudalism” and “feudal” derive from the Latin feodum or feos, which in French became fief, a word we still use in English today. Now, it turns out that this Latin word feodum derives from pecus, which we saw in Part 1 was a word meaning “cattle” or flock animals in general. Recall that cattle were an early form of economic units, as were slaves. In feudalism, a fief is a form of payment to a vassal—either in the form of money or land. But how did this sort of relationship come about?

Vassalage as a security need
In the medieval period, especially during the 9th – 11th Centuries, Europe was being continually invaded by the Hungarians, the Muslims, and the Northmen (Vikings).  There was a breakdown of authority, a breaking up of the populace, a loss of the cash economy. Security was a big issue. Feudalism was a way to deal with many of these issues, by consolidating lands, ensuring a flow of wealth, and increasing security.  This was done through vassalage.

There were two stages in the development of feudal vassalage which are pertinent to our understanding of the 6th house and animals.  I want to outline just a few things about vassalage first, then look at a shift in vassals’ roles which took place historically. This will help us understand how social and conceptual realities fostered an adaptation in astrology.

“Vassal” (Lat. vassallus) is the first of our “boy words.” It comes from Celtic and Welsh words meaning “boy” or “young man”—recall also that Bonatti says that young men can be associated with the 6th house. But there is another boy word, the medieval term “thane” or “thegn,” which refers to aristocratic classes of men granted lands by lords in exchange for military service. “Thane” derives from the Greek teknon, which means a boy or child.

But whose boy are we speaking of? The lord’s boys, i.e., men who are sworn to help or serve the lord in some way. Originally, these vassals were the comites (sing. comes, the institution comitatus), the fighting companions and armed retainers of the lord, who lived in his household.  These performed escort duties and higher household services, in part because lords weren’t constantly at war and they could be close to him. Astrologically, these companions can be attributed to the 2nd house, the house of allies: in horary charts for war, the 2nd signifies the querent’s allies, just as the 8th signifies the allies of the opponent, and the 11th signifies the allies of the king. It is also significant that these early vassals were often paid in cash or through room and board—that is, through 2nd house means of money or ready-to-hand goods. These comites were sometimes given land as payment, with the expectation of working the land.  But later vassals didn’t want to work with their hands. They wanted property complete with tenants.

To summarize, a lord needs companions to help him. But he needs to pay them in some way in order to ensure their loyalty and service. Once he does so, they become his “boys” or vassals and do his bidding. As the lord, he must protect and pay them; as the vassals, they must support and protect him.

The fief as fulfilling agricultural needs and as currency
Tribal chiefs often had the most cattle – it was a source of their power.  But (a) they needed land to pasture them, and (b) tribesmen had land that needed tilling.  Therefore feudal relations were also based on agricultural and financial need, a natural outgrowth that benefited both parties. The lord who started out as chief because he had more cattle, became a chief by being a lord over vassals who used his cattle.  The vassal needs the oxen and help of the lord, and the lord needs the vassals to till the land. Part of this arrangement, however, was that the vassals were supposed to pay the lord back in various ways, in exchange for the use of the animals and land that supported them.

As time went on, the fiefs (i.e., the land granted to the vassals) became inheritable. It was much easier to let a deceased vassal’s family continue to work the land they had grown up on, than to arrange a wholly new relationship of homage with someone new. But as part of this ceremonial renewal of homage to the lord by the heir, the heir would turn over some property to the lord upon inheritance.  This payment was often a head of cattle or a war horse (depending on what kind of vassalage was involved). In this arrangement, the real cattle paid to the lord were often a manifestation of the financial benefit the lord expected from the new vassal’s labor and service–this is a good reason to think that real cattle and real vassals were linked.

Moreover, to a medieval lord, the relationship of cattle-vassal-fief were not that distinct.  After all, if your vassal gave you cattle as payment for the land or position granted to him, then what you are (1) getting from him, (2) what you indirectly own via him (i.e., the cattle), and (c) your relationship to him (service), were not very distinct in practice. This principle can also be seen in the 10th house, which not only signifies a lord or king, but the salary-paying office he gives you.  Or the 4th, which is not only the parents, but one’s own patrimony.

But enfoeffing a vassal and receiving payment through cattle or other goods also gradually took place among the former military companions (who had had a 2nd house role). This was partly by accident, partly by necessity. For one thing, many vassals understandably wanted to be on their own land, or be granted mastery over some other serfs, rather than being in the constant company of a lord and be paid in cash. For another, lords found that granting land as fiefs to vassals was an easy way to solve some problems and ensure that all of their lands were occupied by loyal people. For example, William the Conquerer ordered his vassals to take on a fixed number of military knights as their vassals (whether they were military companions in the house, or enfoeffed with grants of land).  But the cost of housing and feeding these military men was so difficult, and they were so rowdy (especially when housed at monasteries), that the king’s vassals were impelled to enfoeff them. This was a practical reason for enfoeffing vassals instead of housing them as had been done in the past. These reasons marked a shift from vassals as close companions and accompanying allies (2nd house) to more distant relationships of service (6th house).

In sum, in the medieval period, there were two types of vassalage that mirror a transition from the 2nd house to the 6th: a 2nd house type vassalage, both by role (as a member and follower of the lord’s house) and payment (in moveable goods); and a 6th house type of vassalage, which was a more service-bound role, outside the lord’s house, given through loaning of land. Helping to structure this feudal system in people’s minds was a constellation of words that had conceptual and real historical connections to feudal practice: words denoting money, cattle, slavery, service, and grants of land or other benefits.

(A question arises: if the 2nd house in military horaries signifies the natural allies of the querent, could the 6th denote contracted allies like mercenaries?)

In the next and final installment: summary, conclusion, and an expansion of the financial houses and relationships between them.

Chris Brennan is an excellent Hellenistic astrologer and a friend, and I wanted to write a few words about his important article in the latest NCGR journal, because I believe we have confirmed that his argument about the rise of horary is not just probable, but true.

Recently Chris and I were able to attend a great conference centering on Plato’s Timaeus (an important work for astrologers) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This was a significant conference especially for having very important scholars of Plato and Hellenistic philosophers speak — including even a Nobel Prize winner in Physics.

Some of you might know that many important things that occur at conferences do not take place while speakers are delivering papers. So it was that, after a day of talks, I showed Chris my new translations of Sahl ibn Bishr and Masha’allah. It had been many months since I had read Masha’allah. But after a few minutes of reading, we realized that Masha’allah himself seemed to be confirming exactly what Chris had argued for in his paper. You can hardly get a better authority than Masha’allah.

Put briefly, Chris argues (drawing on material from the late David Pingree) that horary astrology was not part of Hellenistic practice. It was a much later development. Rather, following the high point of the Hellenistic period, astrologers used to cast “consultation charts.” These were charts in which the astrologer delineated why the client was coming to the consultation. I will defer to Chris’s expertise on the fine points, but the basic idea seems to be that the astrologer did not cast a chart for a question, but for the consultation. This is not a trivial distinction. In astrologers such as Bonatti, as I point out here, a valid horary chart is one in which the querent is aided by God to come to the astrologer with the right question at the right time; but a consultation chart could come about simply because the querent was fated to come when he did, and the astrologer would divine the nature of the question from the chart itself.

Chris Brennan uses much suggestive material, and good arguments, in his article in the NCGR journal (with further installments to come at a later date). But in order to prove the argument true, we would need some account of an actual consulation chart. Such proof has been lacking–until, apparently, now. In a short piece by Masha’allah (called in Latin De Cogitationibus), we seem to find just such proof. In this piece, Masha’allah describes a consultation in which a client comes to him, and from the chart itself Masha’allah describes in detail why the client has arrived, and what will happen to the matter in question. There is no mention at all of the client even presenting a question on his own. It would seem to be a textbook case of a “consultation chart,” offered by none other than one of the foremost medieval authorities. If this apparent evidence holds water, it seems there is no other choice but to say that horary was a late addition to the astrological repertoire.

This work, by the way, will be featured in my upcoming translation of Works of Masha’allah, available in early 2008.

Since I returned from the Timaeus conference at the University of Illinois, I have been hard at work to complete my next translation, Works of Sahl. Sahl ibn Bishr was an important, 9th Century authority for the medieval Latin astrologers. Like Masha’allah, he was a Persian Jew, and relies much on Dorotheus. This volume will feature six works of Sahl: the standard collection of five of his works (the Introduction, the Fifty Judgments, Questions, Elections, and On Times), as well as a work that has never been translated into a modern language, On the Natures of Stones.

I am happy to announce that most of the work on Sahl is complete, and I am currently in the editing stage. Things look good for Sahl to come out in late winter or early spring 2008. This will be an important addition to the growing literature in medieval astrology.

One feature of Sahl which I find striking is an almost total reliance on whole-sign houses (I want to be tentative about this until I complete the editing). In fact he makes statements about planetary combinations that do not make sense unless we assume whole-sign houses. For example, at one point in his Introduction he discusses how the benefics will affect a situation in which the Lord of the Ascendant (or the Moon) is in square to the malefics. The context seems to be either horary or electional charts. If the Lord of the Ascendant is in square to the malefics, and the benefics are in a sextile or trine to the Lord, then they will not be able to prevent the difficulties from the malefics.

At first this might seem counterintuitive. After all, what could be better than a sextile or trine from the benefics? But suppose that the Lord of the Ascendant is in Aries, and in square to a malefic in Capricorn. Any sextile or trine from the benefics will fall in a sign which is not in a classical aspect to that malefic: if it were a sextile from Gemini, or a trine from Leo–neither of those signs aspects Capricorn. The notion here seems to be that, in order to counter the malice of the malefic in Capricorn, the benefic has actually got to aspect the malefic directly by whole sign. It is not enough to have a bad influence from a malefic on the one hand, and a good influence from a benefic on the other. The benefic has actually got to be aspecting, and acting upon, the malefic itself.

These are the sorts of interesting situations that we will be exposed to in the Works of Sahl!