While there's no doubt that Ebertin built on the work of his teacher Alfred Witte, it's very doubtful that it was "derived largely from material in the Rulebook for Planetary Pictures". Unfortunately "Rules for Planetary Pictures" is very hard to find, so I don't have access to the text of Witte's book, but from what I've gathered Witte's interpretations were mainly event oriented.
- How would you word it, can you make a suggestion? --StarAlchemist 06:03, 8 November 2005 (PST)
- I'm not sure how I'd word it, except to say that Ebertin built on some of the observations of the Uranian school. --Johnnyc 12:37, 8 November 2005 (PST)
Yeah, I think that I got the stub of this article from Wikipedia, where there are some harcore Uranians who were basically talking down on the Cosmobiologists quite a bit. So, that sentence may be skewed in a not entirely truthful fashion. However, Ebertin was a student of Witte's and for all intents and purposes he was using Witte's system, just minus the Transneps due to legal issues. I realize that there is a difference between the two systems, but there seem to be more similarities. But I don't have the Rulebook either, so maybe it should be removed, or reworded until some more substantial evidence comes up? --Chris Brennan 10:14, November 8, 2005 (PST)
- According to Harvey and Harding, Ebertin, "while recognizing the technical genius of Witte, became dissatisfied with the lack of any attempt on Witte's part in "Rules to come to grips with the deeper psychological principles involved." From what I understand of early Uranian astrology, their approach was retrospective and event oriented and lacking in nuance. Ebertin, building on the observational work of Witte and the Uranians, broadened the scope of the meanings of the planetary pairs to encompass the psyhological, sociological, biological, and probable manifestations of these principles. Also, while Ebertin's school focussed on midpoints and 8th Harmonic aspects to midpoints from planets, the Uranian school used halfsums, which are calculated in the same way was as the Arabic Parts (A+B-C). Both of these schools are interested in planetary symmetries, both have made enormous contributions to modern astrology.
- I think for the Uranians to say that Ebertin was using Witte's system minus the Transneptunians is a gross simplification on their part. They might as well say that their system is the same as Guido Bonati's, since he made extensive use of the Arabic Parts which is essentially the same as the Uranian halfsums.
- Understand I have no quarrel with the Uranians as I'm not a strict cosmobiologist by any means. In fact, I've been searching for Witte's Rules... for over 10 years now and despite a substantial astrology book collection with some rarities, it's been nearly impossible to find.
- I think that with this article, we have to stick to language that shows a clear influence of Witte on Ebertin and Cosmobiology, without suggesting that Ebertin's system is the same system as Witte's, because it isn't. All sources at my disposal show clear differences between them. Unfortunately, until we can have access to the text of Rules..., it will be more difficult to establish how they differed. --Johnnyc 12:37, 8 November 2005 (PST)
- Agreed. --Chris Brennan 13:33, November 8, 2005 (PST)
