Whole sign houses and the MC

[dr. farr]

I think JUPITERASC was referring to the theory of the deferent/epicycle and the "crystalline circles" postulated in Greek astronomy which Ptolemy made the basis of his calculations regarding "motions" (see notes on this subject in, eg, Ibn Ezra's
"Beginning of Wisdom", from the 12th century)

I do believe we now have sufficient material (in English) to get a very good idea of the general nature and practices of non-Ptolemaic Hellenist astrology. We have Valens, Antiochus of Athens, Maternus, Maximus, the "Liber Hermetis", Anubion, Manetho, Sextus Empiricus, Hepaestio of Thebes, Dorotheus of Sidon, Manilius, Paulus Alexandrianus and Olympiodorus, and Rhetorius, all in English translations; and we also David Pingree's 2 volume study of the sanskrit "precis" from 149 AD ABOUT Greek astrology at that early time, ie, the "Yavanajitaka" ("Astrology of the Greeks")

I agree 100% with Waybread that Ptolemy's "project" was to set forth astrological doctrine and practice, upon a "natural logical" (ie, Rationalist) basis, which for the ancient's of the Roman world, meant, to erect a model based on Aristotelian rules of logic-and that is precisely what Ptolemy did, just as, during that same period of time (ie, the beginning of the Piscean Age) Galen did for medicine. Non-Ptolemaic Hellenist astrology was hermetic, mystical, neo-Pythagorean, neo-Platonic, EMPIRICAL (theories were made to match or explain phenomena); Ptolemy erected a consistent RATIONALIST (phenomena were made to match/agree with theories) model, a pure Aristotelian model, just as Galen did with medicine. Non-Ptolemaic Hellenist astrology represented several different "schools" or traditions of thought and practice, each somewhat at variance with the others: Ptolemy wanted to replace this with a single uniform model (based on aristotelian rules of logic) which (he claimed) was consistent with "Nature" and excluding any inputs from non-Rationalist considerations (such as intuition and revelation, which played a major role in the earliest origins of astrology itself) What Ptolemy did for science (Ptolemy named his complete model the "Syntaxis", which included geography, astrology, optics, harmonics) and what Galen did for medicine, was also done by Augustine for the emerging religion of the West, Christianity, in his application of Rationalistic Aristotelianism in the explanation of the Christian doctrines (this was called "scholasticism", and strongly influenced Christian metaphysical thought pretty much up to the 20th century)-in doing this, the more mystical, hermetic-like interpretations of, say Origen (and others), were rejected in favor of Augustinian rationalism (scholasticism founded upon the aristotelian model), just as the empirical/hermetic/neo-Pythagorean-neo-Platonic Hellenistic astrology (perhaps the term "astrologies" would be more accurate) was abandoned for the consistent, logical Ptolemaic aristotelian astrological model, during the Islamic transitional/Medieval/Renaissance times (until the collapse of the Ptolemaic ASTRONOMICAL model, as a result of the work of Copernicus, Isaac Newton and Kepler)

Who do I like? Well, I like them all, however, being a symbolist-esotericist-hermeticist at heart-I prefer the fuzzier, more mystical, more variable, less "logical", empirical, more symbolically oriented ideas and practices of the non-Ptolemaic Hellenists, to the strictly logical aristotelian model presented by Ptolemy: but then, put a gun to my head and say: choose either the Hellenists or the Carter/Sepharial/Hall/Addey Modernists, choose ONLY one group or the other, and I would have no hesitation in choosing-and that choice would be the Modernist authors just mentioned. Thankfully, no one is putting a gun to my head and demanding me to choose one or the other, so, I am very glad to know about the ideas and methods of the non-Ptolemaic Hellenists, and I have found a few important gems in their mix-mosh of instructions, which I would be sorry to be without!

Note to JUPITERASC: I am NOT AN ACADEMIC!!

[JUPITERASC]

waybread I chuckled when I read your post - it's hilarious - a good laugh is priceless, so thank you for that

Originally Posted by dr. farr

I think JUPITERASC was referring to the theory of the deferent/epicycle and the "crystalline circles" postulated in Greek astronomy which Ptolemy made the basis of his calculations regarding "motions" (see notes on this subject in, eg, Ibn Ezra's
"Beginning of Wisdom", from the 12th century)

you are correct regarding the intention of my comment dr. farr

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Thankfully, no one is putting a gun to my head and demanding me to choose one or the other, so, I am very glad to know about the ideas and methods of the non-Ptolemaic Hellenists, and I have found a few important gems in their mix-mosh of instructions, which I would be sorry to be without!
Note to JUPITERASC: I am NOT AN ACADEMIC!!

I echo your sentiments dr. farr (aka DR ANARCHY) furthermore I apologise most profusely for having implied you were an Academic

waybread, I would like to draw your attention to the following comments made by experienced astrologer margherita fiorello of heavenastrolabe http://heavenastrolabe.net/


"I would say that we don't know exactly what Greek astrologers used and how. For example it can be easily showed that Ptolemy examples of primary directions in Tetrabiblos III,11 fall on 'Placidean' cusps: http://heavenastrolabe.net/ptolemy-a...ry-directions/ Is it a coincidence? It is not likely. Does Ptolemy use different methods for different subjects? That was just Ptolemy method or Ptolemy took it from someone else? I'm sure nobody, neither Bezza or Schmidt really know...."

ok let's check out some other opinions - here is Curtis Manwaring's response to margherita fiorello's comment and it ties in nicely with the topic of this thread which happens to be "Whole Sign Houses And the MC"

"Well over 90% of everything that was ever written on the subject is lost, so debating what Greek astrologers did is probably an exercise in futility. There were astrologers of different opinions on the subject, but from the available evidence surrounding the founders, whole signs seems to be the default for topics.

We see Valens giving the MC to praxis and saying that if it falls outside of the 10th sign that this sign also participates in the determination with regard to what one does. It is important to realize that Valens is probably 300+ years removed from the founders he is fond of quoting

At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt. Mark Riley's translation is a "first draft" not checked for consistency (Riley says so) so I would not be inclined to use it against a more scrutinized translation such as Schmidt's for serious research" source: curtis manwaring aka zoidsoft

[discussion from Skyscript here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/vi...c6b9cbc2c3e575 page 2 bottom of page and page 3 top of page - Moderator]

[waybread]

Dr. Farr, you are a scholar and a gentleman, where or not your are an academic. Thanks for setting my point into a broader context.

Some of JupiterAsc's statements appear to have been lifted out of a discussion on whole sign houses over at the Skyscript forum. Anyone interested in this topic might find it worth reading.

Dr. Farr, I don't believe your own project is "presentist" (i.e., shaping a very messy past to suit one's purposes in the present) but I don't think you've made the case for a well-understood Hellenistic astrology based on your authors. Hipparchus's own work didn't survive. We have to affirm on faith that his successors quoted him correctly. Several of your authors' works survived only in fragments. Some of them were probably forgeries as early Hellenistic or Egyptian works (Manetheo's Book of Sothis and the Hermetic material.) Some of the texts you've already discounted as being too late to fit into the elect group of early Hellenist authors--they've been corrupted by Arab translators. Some of the authors are so different from one another that one could claim a uniform Hellenistic astrology only by dismissing them out of hand.

And puh-leeze, people--unless any of us has a doctorate in classical studies, and a serious academic research record under our belts, let us not piously criticize the translations of people who do. Even a few badly chosen words by a translator hardly discredits an entire translation!! But we know why astrologers without these credentials dismiss translations they don't like: it is to support a position to which they are previously committed. Evidence be d***ed.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by waybread

Some of JupiterAsc's statements appear to have been lifted out of a discussion on whole sign houses over at the Skyscript forum. Anyone interested in this topic might find it worth reading.

waybread - are these the specific comments you refer to? I have written on more than one occasion that I refer to skyscript as you shall note if you check out all my posts on this forum and I frequently place links to skyscript also -

In this instance I listed the names of the contributors of the information which I would have thought is sufficient - or are you saying one is not to refer to skyscript? When I refer to subjects that Deborah Houlding has detailed on her very useful website, for example dignity, debility and so on and so forth it is then that I post direct links to the direct information

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

waybread, I would like to draw your attention to the following comments made by experienced astrologer margherita fiorello of heavenastrolabe http://heavenastrolabe.net/

"I would say that we don't know exactly what Greek astrologers used and how. For example it can be easily showed that Ptolemy examples of primary directions in Tetrabiblos III,11 fall on 'Placidean' cusps: http://heavenastrolabe.net/ptolemy-a...ry-directions/ Is it a coincidence? It is not likely. Does Ptolemy use different methods for different subjects? That was just Ptolemy method or Ptolemy took it from someone else? I'm sure nobody, neither Bezza or Schmidt really know...."


ok let's check out some other opinions - here is Curtis Manwaring's response to margherita fiorello's comment and it ties in nicely with the topic of this thread which happens to be "Whole Sign Houses And the MC"

"Well over 90% of everything that was ever written on the subject is lost, so debating what Greek astrologers did is probably an exercise in futility. There were astrologers of different opinions on the subject, but from the available evidence surrounding the founders, whole signs seems to be the default for topics.

We see Valens giving the MC to praxis and saying that if it falls outside of the 10th sign that this sign also participates in the determination with regard to what one does. It is important to realize that Valens is probably 300+ years removed from the founders he is fond of quoting

At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt. Mark Riley's translation is a "first draft" not checked for consistency (Riley says so) so I would not be inclined to use it against a more scrutinized translation such as Schmidt's for serious research" source: curtis manwaring aka zoidsoft

Furtheremore, I made it more than clear with the use of inverted commas that the information is being quoted and since you overlooked to give a link to the topic in question when you referred to the so-called 'lifting' of information I now provide it for those interested http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=15 and Curtis Manwaring website link http://www.astrology-x-files.com/hou...dt-houses.html


waybread you posted on that thread and you commented as follows:

the following is quoted from skyscript

waybread, Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 On another forum I became so puzzled about the oft-repeated statement that whole signs were the only house system used before the late Hellenistic period, that I challenged some members simply to show me the evidence, chapter and verse...TMA has the article available on CD-- plus a lot of other material on it that I don't necessarily want. Two of the discussants have a copy of Hand's book and I asked if either of them would puh-leeze simply quote the lines from the original sources upon which Hand bases his argument. Still waiting.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=15

[deleted quote over 100 words against forum rules - Moderator]

[JUPITERASC]

waybread, you wrote:

Originally Posted by waybread

So comments like this one just make zero sense: "Ptolemy's work was always appealing to a mathematical elite and not the people."

waybread, you then, after saying it made zero sense, validated the above statement!

Originally Posted by waybread

"The people" were scarcely doing astrology of any description prior to the development of astrological computer software in recent decades!! Even fewer members of "the people" were doing astrology prior to the widespread availability of calculators and tables of houses. Why? Because you have to know too darn much math merely to construct a horoscope by hand!! This is why the term "astrologer" was a synonym for the term "mathematician" in Roman times. If you couldn't do the math, you couldn't be an astrologer.

clearly then Ptolemy was indeed as I wrote, writing for the erudition of a mathematical elite

Originally Posted by waybread

Moreover, without Ptolemy's work on the basics of identifying and cataloguing stars.

scholarly consensus is of the opinion - after much checking by experts and writing of scholarly tomes by said experts - that Ptolemy simply used the existing star catalogue compiled by Hipparchus - who himself utilised the work of his predecessors

Originally Posted by waybread

Plagiarism standards were lax in the past compared to today's standards, but science as a work of accretion is always the way that its advances have occured. So to say that Ptolemy built upon the foundations of Hipparchus (or Aristotle, for his model of the cosmos) is hardly unexpected.

waybread, you have said you are interested in the History of astrology so here is some history of astrology - simple plain history.

Ptolemy simply used Hipparchus original work. A century after Apollonius first described the theorem it was Hipparchus who was the first to apply the Appolonian geometry and it was Hipparchus who originally further developed those "moving circles" or "crystalline circles" aka deferent/epicycle as a technique for 'explaining' or accounting for retrogradation.

Ptolemy used Appolonian geometry as already developed by Hipparchus in order to also bring in Aristotle's ideas. Rather neat and mathematically appealing.

Originally Posted by waybread

I confess to being mystified about your comment on "uniform motion." Ptolemy wrote about the phenomenon of retrogradation, which hardly sounds like uniform motion to me.

The reason for your mystification waybread is because you have not understood that Ptolemy explained retrograde motion by using Apollonius' original geometry, as further built upon by Hipparchus - and as you have noticed as most of us have by now, that retrograde motion cannot be described as 'uniform!' That is the whole point.

waybread, dr. farr elucidated for you thus

Originally Posted by dr. farr

I think JUPITERASC was referring to the theory of the deferent/epicycle and the "crystalline circles" postulated in Greek astronomy which Ptolemy made the basis of his calculations regarding "motions" (see notes on this subject in, eg, Ibn Ezra's
"Beginning of Wisdom", from the 12th century)

Ptolemy's theoretically perfect mathematical explanation for retrograde motion remains a more than obvious testament to the fact that Ptolemy was indeed a mathematician and not an astrologer. the deferent/epicycle and the "crystalline circles" do not in fact describe the actual retrograde motion of the planets as seen from Earth

Originally Posted by waybread

But hey, JupiterAsc. I'm here for ya. When shall we tackle Vettius Valens? See you over on my separate thread on Mr. Pt vs. Mr. V?

waybread, I would appreciate your clarifying your meaning regarding the above comment - what precisely do you mean by 'tackling Vettius Valens'? Why 'tackle'! Simple debate would be most refreshing

[waybread]

JupiterAsc, ..You know a metaphor or slang expression when you read one...

[deleted off-topic and comments directed to Moderator that should have been PMed - Moderator]


JupiterAsc, hen I said that your statement about Ptolemy made "zero sense", I meant that you apparently misunderstand how both "the people" and "mathematicians" functioned within the context of astrology as a cultural practice until recent times.

So yet again--for the umpteenth time: the words "mathematician" and "astrologer" were used almost interchanegeably in Hellenistic times. If one couldn't do the math, he couldn't be an astrologer. Not all mathematicians were astrologers, but any astrologer with an actual clientele had to know his math first and foremost.

The evidence for mathematics as the required background for genethliacal astrologers is prima facie. You try to construct a horoscope without a computer program or even without a pocket calculator or table of houses-- or in ancient times, without a decent ephemeris or reliable data on star and planetary positions at any given time. Alternatively, you try actually to work out the techniques set forth by Vettius Valens for determining length of life, or whatnot. It can be done, but it requires considerable facility with mathematics.

An analogy today would be the requirement of a bachelor's degree for a student to gain admission into law or medical school.The student's primary interest and vocation may be law or medicine, but she will not be able to pass her board exam and get a license to practice if s/he doesn't start with that B. A. or B. S. (B. Sc.)

I've talked about the different types of astrology practiced in Hellenistic times until I am blue in the face. I repeat: not all ancient astrology was genethliacal. A lot of it wasn't. Some of it dealt with universal themes (sensu Robert Schmidt) such as meteorology, national character, or mundane events. So are you saying that these forms of astrology were somehow not astrology?

Is JupiterAsc's only form of acceptable astrology natal chart interpretation with actual clients? If so, you need to make a logical case for it. And Vettius Valens as your ne plus ultra isn't going to help you much, as I will point you to his horoscope abstracts that could not possibly have been of his own clients.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by waybread

JupiterAsc.....If you want to chasten me via your previous post, do cite your sources. I don't mind responding to them. What I really fail to understand, however, is what point/s you think you are making.

Originally Posted by waybread

And also, JupiterAsc-- what is the point of this and similar posts?

I confess to being mystified about your comment on "uniform motion." Ptolemy wrote about the phenomenon of retrogradation, which hardly sounds like uniform motion to me.

But hey, JupiterAsc. I'm here for ya. When shall we tackle Vettius Valens? See you over on my separate thread on Mr. Pt vs. Mr. V?

but dr. farr understood my meaning and responded as follows

Originally Posted by dr. farr

I think JUPITERASC was referring to the theory of the deferent/epicycle and the "crystalline circles" postulated in Greek astronomy which Ptolemy made the basis of his calculations regarding "motions" (see notes on this subject in, eg, Ibn Ezra's
"Beginning of Wisdom", from the 12th century)

and I said to dr. farr that he is correct in thinking that I refer to the theory of the deferent/epicycle and the "crystalline circles"

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

you are correct regarding the intention of my comment dr. farr

so waybread, is it not clear yet that I am not 'arguing with you' but simply stating opinions that are sufficiently already well documented online, not solely in academia and that it is because you have said you are familiar with the ideas of Ptolemy, that I thought you understood my meaning. As you apparently have misunderstood and/or not already understood the reason I posted those responses, then I elucidate.

briefly summarized, what I have said is that the “uniform motion” as described by Ptolemy relates to 'epicycles' and/or deferent motion of certain imaginary 'spheres' as proposed by Ptolemy in order to explain retrograde motion of the planets. In order to construct that imaginary model, Ptolemy continued the work and/or ideas of not only Aristotle but also Apollonius and Hipparchus

to be clear, what I am saying is that almost two thousand years ago, Ptolemy did NOT however correctly describe the retrograde motions of the planets as they in fact occur! Instead Ptolemy constructed a mythical universe consisting of numerous spheres

– furthermore, your suggestion that only an academic and/or “dr.” (someone holding a doctorate) and/or graduate is entitled to comment on “uniform motion” as it relates to retrogradation is misleading, because access to this information is freely available online to anyone who is sufficiently interested to find it! Neither you, I nor anyone requires a degree in order to access http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...aristotle.html

On perusing the page at http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...aristotle.html one discovers Ptolemy's ideas clarified and I now quote from that page:

More Sophisticated Epicycles: The Ptolemaic Universe

That ancient astronomers could convince themselves that this elaborate scheme still corresponded to "uniform circular motion" is testament to the power of three ideas that we now know to be completely wrong, but that were so ingrained in the astronomers of an earlier age that they were essentially never questioned:

1. All motion in the heavens is uniform circular motion. 2. The objects in the heavens are made from perfect material, and cannot change their intrinsic properties (e.g., their brightness). 3. The Earth is at the center of the Universe.

These ideas concerning uniform circular motion and epicycles were catalogued by Ptolemy in 150 A.D. His book was called the "Almagest" (literally, "The Greatest"), and this picture of the structure of the Solar System has come to be called the "Ptolemaic Universe".ENDQUOTE

[waybread]

There is no point in "debating" with you, Jupiter Asc, if your modus operandi is simply to copy and paste snippets of posts that we've already read, sometimes repeatedly, because (to repeat myself) they do not further the discussion. Perhaps they reinforce that you truly believe what you wrote previously, but they are not a form of furthering intellectual engagement.

Could the problem be that you don't think through what I write? For example, I made no "suggestion" that you needed a "doctorate" in order to contribute your material on uniform motion. I am pretty clear that your research skills are limited, however, based upon how and what you post. Trust me. I read a few thousand undergraduate term papers during my career.

And that's OK, but what I am trying to do is to get you to think through why some of your statements could not be correct, based upon the history of western astrology or western history more generally. It is OK for you to push back on this, but then you are kind of left with these problematic statements. And that's a pity. Obviously you have a lot of interest in the history of astrology or you wouldn't be reading and posting as much as you are.

Consequently, I would encourage you to become more of a connoisseur of what you read and accept. The Internet-- notably insofar as astrology is concerned-- is full of dubious or flat-out incorrect material. The whole point of critical thinking is to learn to discriminate between "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Just because a number of people believe something to be true doesn't make it so. This is especially the case with astrology because it has been so orphaned from our educational system. There are a number of researcher wannabe astrologers out there.

Also, it is important to distinguish between intellectual engagement and "scoring points." So I misunderstood you on one of the points of Ptolemy's writing that you didn't specify? Hey, I can live with that.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by waybread

There is no point in "debating" with you, Jupiter Asc, if your modus operandi is simply to copy and paste snippets of posts that we've already read, sometimes repeatedly, because (to repeat myself) they do not further the discussion. Perhaps they reinforce that you truly believe what you wrote previously, but they are not a form of furthering intellectual engagement.

waybread I disagree. Contributors of this forum frequently copy and paste snippets of posts simply because they do contribute to the discussion - in this particular case, I'm pointing out the rationale of my comments

Originally Posted by waybread

I am pretty clear that your research skills are limited, however, based upon how and what you post. Trust me. I read a few thousand undergraduate term papers during my career

waybread, may I respectfully remind you that you are not marking my undergraduate term paper and this is an internet forum on which your opinion regarding my "research skills" is just that - your opinion

Originally Posted by waybread

And that's OK, but what I am trying to do is to get you to think through why some of your statements could not be correct, based upon the history of western astrology or western history more generally. It is OK for you to push back on this, but then you are kind of left with these problematic statements. And that's a pity. Obviously you have a lot of interest in the history of astrology or you wouldn't be reading and posting as much as you are

Consequently, I would encourage you to become more of a connoisseur of what you read and accept. The Internet-- notably insofar as astrology is concerned-- is full of dubious or flat-out incorrect material. The whole point of critical thinking is to learn to discriminate between "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Just because a number of people believe something to be true doesn't make it so. This is especially the case with astrology because it has been so orphaned from our educational system. There are a number of researcher wannabe astrologers out there

It is important to realise that what I have said is historically accurate waybread,

I have simply stated that Ptolemy's explanation of retrograde motion is dependent upon the invention of an imaginary universe consisting of numerous 'spheres'

Furthermore, those imaginary spheres are moving in "uniform motion" within that imaginary universe. Rather than using words to illustrate, I provided a visual link to make it easier to imagine what Aristotle and Ptolemy envisioned at http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...aristotle.html

I attached a thumbnail of the illustration of Ptolemy's idea of a Ptolemaic universe entitled "Epicycles on Epicycles" for those who search for it on the link already given - and I re-attach that "Epicycles on Epicycles" illustration because it illustrates clearly Ptolemy's neat yet totally inaccurate explanation for the retrograde motions of our Geocentric view of the movements of the planets

For those who prefer words there are multiple online discussions on the subject of Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Almagest, Aristotle et al as you are aware, since you have contributed to such discussions, in particular for example at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6433

Originally Posted by waybread

Also, it is important to distinguish between intellectual engagement and "scoring points." So I misunderstood you on one of the points of Ptolemy's writing that you didn't specify? Hey, I can live with that.

waybread, thank you for saying so!

Nevertheless it was a rather important misunderstanding of an important point I made underpinning the rationale of many of the statements I have written

Also In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the superseded theory that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it. This geocentric model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, most Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

[socrates]

Do you know where Valens says one should use Whole sign houses?
In this page 58 excerpt theres only mention of ASC and MC
and theyre not in the same degree as the ASC


http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vet ... entire.pdf
The Control.
Various astrologers have handed down various teachings about the basis of the <nativity’s> length of
life. Since this topic seems quite complicated and complex, we will clarify it using methods proven by our
own experience. The first topics of discussion will be “control,” “projection of rays,” and
“houserulership.” First let the control with respect to the sun and the moon be investigated.
Some give day births to the sun, night births to the moon, but I say that the sun controls night births
and the moon day births, if they happen to be configured advantageously. If both are, assign control to the
one which is more appropriately configured in its own sect or triangle. Then the houseruler is found from
the terms of the controlling star. If both <the sun and the moon> are unfavorably situated, then the term of
the degree in the Ascendant or at MC will fix the houserulership, usually that <star> whose ruler is in an
appropriate configuration with the Ascendant.
Let these controlling points be considered as proven by us. The first control: the sun in Leo, the
moon in Cancer; the luminary in appropriate configuration with the Ascendant or MC will have the
control, and the ruler of its term will be houseruler. If both are in the terms of the same star, that star will
unquestionably be judged the houseruler.
The second control: if the sun is in the Ascendant, the moon in <the XII Place of the> Bad Daimon,
the sun will have control. If the sun is in <the XI Place of the> Good Daimon, and the moon is at MC,
the sun will have control. If the sun is in the Descendant while the moon is in the sign just following the
Descendant, /133K/ the sun will have control. If the moon is in the Descendant while the sun is in the
sign just following the Descendant, the sun will have control. If the sun just precedes MC while the moon
is in the Ascendant, the moon will have control. If the sun again just precedes MC while the moon just
follows the Ascendant, the moon will have control. If the sun again just precedes MC while the moon
/126P/ is also at MC, the moon will have control. If the sun just precedes MC and the moon just follows
MC, the moon will have control. If the moon precedes MC while the sun is at IC, the sun will have
control. If the moon precedes MC while the sun just follows IC, the sun will have control. If the sun
precedes the overhead angle while the moon follows IC, the moon will have control. If the sun precedes
the overhead angle while the moon is at IC, the moon will have control. If both luminaries precede MC,
the Ascendant will have control and the ruler if its terms will be considered the houseruler. If the Moon
follows MC while the sun is in <the IX Place of> the God, the luminary which first sends its rays exactly
to the Ascendant’s degree-position will have control. If the sun and the moon just precede the Ascendant
in the XII Place, MC will have control and the ruler of its terms will be houseruler.
As can be seen, if the nativity is during the day, the luminaries are not dominant if they are above the
earth. The Ascendant will have control and the ruler of its degrees will be the houseruler. For night
births, if the luminaries precede IC, MC will have control. If the sun just follows IC while the moon just
precedes MC, the luminary which first sends its rays exactly to the Ascendant will have control. If the sun
and the moon are in the Descendant, the term of the <preceding> new moon will have control and the ruler
of its degrees will be the houseruler. Similarly if both are in the Ascendant, at MC, or at IC, the term of
the new moon will have control and the ruler of its terms will be the houseruler. If the luminaries are in
the same sign (or in different signs) and in the terms of the same star, infallibly that star will be the
houseruler.
If the sun is found to be in its own depression <Libra>, it will not be the apheta, unless it is exactly in
the Ascendant (to the degree). The same is true for the moon in Scorpio <its depression>. If the moon is
found to be new and to be under the rays of the sun, it will not be the apheta, unless it too is exactly in the
Ascendant.
If the moon is nearing full /134K/ and passes out of this phase within the term in the Ascendant, it
will be both the apheta and the anaereta, if it passes out of the full-moon phase on that same day. It will be
necessary to examine the number of degrees between this day and the full moon; having found this number,
<you can> forecast the number of years. /127P/ For example: Ascendant, moon in Aries 22°. On the same
day it passed out of the full-moon phase at 27° of the same sign. The distance from its position then and
the full moon was 5°, which totals 4 years. The native lived that many years.
Death will occur particularly if a malefic applies its rays and if it is in aspect or opposition to the sign.
If a benefic is in the same relation, there will be infirmity and disease instead of death. The rest of the
moon’s phases during its connection with <the sun> are destructive.
It is necessary to consider the control to be certain if the sun or the moon is in aspect with the ruler of
the terms, and if it is at an angle or in operative degrees. If it is found to be turned away, the nativity is
Vettius Valens, Anthologies, Book III
5 9
judged to lack a houseruler. If the ruler of the sun’s or the moon’s sign and the ruler of the terms exchange
terms, then too will the houserulership be without a controller. It will be necessary to determine if the star
that seems to be houseruler is in the Descendant, for if it is, that nativity as well will lack a houseruler.
2. The Significant Degrees of the Angles.
First of all, fix the degree-positions of the Ascendant, MC, and the other angles. Then it is necessary
to take the distance in degrees from the Ascendant to IC (moving in the order of the signs), to consider onethird
of that total distance to be the “operative” degrees in the configuration of the angles, and to consider
the stars in these degrees, whether benefics or malefics, to be powerful. Consider the rest of the degrees in
order up to IC, as well as the stars in them, to be “inoperative” and impropitious. The points in
opposition to the Ascendant and to the other angles will fall into the same pattern with respect to operative
and inoperative degrees and the stars in <the operative degrees> will be powerful. It is therefore obvious
that there will not always be 30° at an angle, but sometimes more, sometimes fewer. If in the Ascending
and Descending signs there are fewer /135K/ than 30 powerful degrees, then there will be more than 30° at
MC and IC. If in the Ascending sign and its opposite there are more than 30°, then at MC and IC there
will be fewer.
An example: Ascendant at Pisces 13°, MC at Sagittarius 22°, IC at Gemini <22°>, Descendant at
Virgo 13°. I take the distance from the Ascendant to IC, /128P/ 99°. One-third of this is 33°. I count this
distance from the Ascendant and stop at Aries 16°. These degrees and the stars in them will be powerful;
the rest of the degrees from Aries 16° to IC will be inoperative. The points in opposition will have the
same effect. Secondly I take the distance from MC to the Ascendant, 81°. One-third of this is 27°. I count
this from MC and stop at Capricorn 19°. These degrees and those in opposition to them will be operative;
the rest will be inoperative. It is necessary to do likewise for other nativities in order to know whether
stars are in operative or inoperative degrees.
Now to me the following method seems more scientific: take the distance from the degree in the
Ascendant to IC, calculate one-third (as previously stated), then count from the Ascendant in the order of
the signs, and consider these degrees and those in opposition to be powerful. Now consider the other
<one-third> portion of the degrees to be average, neither completely good or bad, because this region 1)
follows the Ascendant, 2) is <the III Place of> the Goddess, 3) is in opposition to <the IX Place of> the
God. So then, the first third from the Ascendant will be operative and powerful, the second third will be
average, the third third will be crisis-producing and bad. The stars <in these regions> will act in the same
way.
It is necessary to calculate likewise from MC, and to consider the first third of the distance between
angles as operative, the second third, following MC, as of average influence (thus it was called Good
Daimon by the ancients), and the last third, up to the Ascendant, as afflicting and inoperative. The Places
in opposition to these will have the same force. Orion expounded all this in his book.
/136K/ 3. The Vital Sector.
Some astrologers, moved by envy or ignorance, have written elaborately, obscurely, and simplemindedly
about the vital sector. These men have made forecasts by adding, in every case, the rising times
of the degrees from the aphetic place to the point square with it. In view of this error, we find it necessary
to clarify the method of determining <the length of life>, because we find nativities living longer than the
90° arc, especially nativities in the signs of shorter rising times, even though the Old Astrologer
specifically says this is impossible. On the other hand, /129P/ we see some nativities which do not live
this 90° arc, even without the malefics’ projection of rays.
Therefore in casting a nativity, it will be necessary to determine if it does or does not have a
houseruler, and if the sun, the moon, or the Ascendant is the apheta. If the sun or moon are in the aphetic
place, then it will be necessary to figure the total rising times (in the klima of the nativity) from the
position of the apheta to the point square with it. Having found the total time, you can forecast that the
native will live as many years. This forecast will be accurate if the houseruler is in its own terms or is
configured appropriately, has contact or is in aspect with the apheta, and if no anaereta applies its rays and
deducts from the number of years. If the houseruler is not in aspect with the controller, but is otherwise
found to be favorably configured (i.e. in the Ascendant, at MC while rising), it will allot the full span of
years. If it is <not at> one of the other angles, it will deduct a portion of the arc proportional to its
relationship <with the rest of the horoscope>, but will allot the remainder <as the length of life>.
So, in all cases it will be necessary to figure the number of years allotted by the controller and compare
them with the years allotted by the houseruler. The total will be the number of years the native will live.
Vettius Valens, Anthologies, Book III
6 0
If the years of the houseruler are less than those of the apheta, he will live the years of the houseruler.12
The houseruler will allot the time—if the nativity has a houseruler—with some deduction of the arc from
angle to angle. If the years of the apheta are less than the years of the houseruler, the native will live the
number of years allotted by the apheta and the nativity will be judged to lack a houseruler. If the controller
is appropriately situated, each one (viz. the apheta and the houseruler) will assign its own period of years.
Some astrologers figure the distance from the /137K/ houserulers to the angles using <only> the
Ascendant and the Descendant. If they are 5 or 6 signs apart, they subtract <an appropriate> amount. I say
that one should figure the houseruler’s distance from all of the four angles, then subtract—if in fact the
nativity is found to have a houseruler. For he says: “…If <a star> is found to be at MC, in <the XI Place
of the> Good Daimon, or in some operative place, it will allot the full span of years.” So he did not
subtract the appropriate amount from <just> the Ascendant or the Descendant position. If neither the sun
nor the moon are in the aphetic place, but the Ascendant or MC are, one should not figure the number of
years from the aphetic place to the point square with it. <Instead> determine the number of degrees <from
the apheta> to the next angle, then forecast /130P/ the years—unless some anaereta embezzles from the
number of years by applying its rays.
An example: let a nativity in the second klima have Gemini 8° as the Ascendant, Aquarius 22° as
MC. Even though the vital sector starts at the Ascendant, its ending point is by no means at the point
square with it, Virgo 8°, but at IC, Leo 22°. I can forecast this total of years, unless some anaereta casts its
rays. If an anaereta is in Gemini 20°, or in any degree of Cancer, or projects its rays to such a point, the
native will live as many years as the number of degrees <=rising times> from the aphetic point to the
anaeretic point. In the same way if we make the vital sector begin at MC, Aquarius 22°, we will not find
the sum of years to be the distance from MC to the point square with it, Taurus 22°, but to Gemini 8°
<the Ascendant>. It is obvious that the vital sector can exceed 90° when using the method of signs, but it
cannot exceed the distance to an angle.
Occasionally this latter method can be used with the sun and moon, in which case they will exceed
90° if they are helped by houserulers, i.e. when they have houserulers in aspect, favorably situated, and able
to allot the full span. In the same example: if we start the vital sector at the Descendant, Sagittarius 8°, we
will find the end to be at Aquarius 22° <MC>. In each case, after finding the aphetic place, it will be
necessary to examine the distance to the next angle, and to make the vital sector extend to that position, if
no anaereta intercepts.
Let this further method be regarded as mystically proven in great detail by us: /138K/ to treat the
degree-position of the apheta as <if it were> MC. With it as MC, it will be necessary to investigate (using
the correct klima) which degree can be in the Ascendant. Having found this, make the vital sector extend
to that point. For example: let the aphetic point be at Scorpio 12° in the second klima. If we calculate
this as the Ascendant, the vital sector will extend to Aquarius 13°, which is IC. But if, as we just stated,
we make this point <Scorpio 12°> MC, we will find in the table of rising times that Capricorn 28°

[classical astrological texts are not copyright and so there is no limit to quotes from these texts - Moderator]

[socrates]

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...tiusValens.PDF

See page 29.Clearly he used equal house system,but wity MC in different house at times

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by socrates

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...tiusValens.PDF

See page 29.Clearly he used equal house system,but wity MC in different house at times

socrates, your observation highlights the original intended way that whole sign houses were employed - as explained previously by dr. farr as follows

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Cusps:Today (and for the past thousand years or so) we define cusps as "borders" (coasts), but that is not the original meaning of the word "cusp": it means "point" such as cuspal teeth (bicuspids) and the point of a sword

- so originally the term cusp meant the "point" of something, and in astrology originally the "cusp" of the house meant its "point";

now, when quadrant systems were developed, this "point" of the house came to mean its "beginning", which later came to mean its "border", ie, the "border" between one house and the other.

And later astrology also began using these "borders" (cusps) for various prognostic applications (Charles Carter came to believe that, for timing of events, the "cusps" of the Campanus house system gave the best results, among the various quadrant house systems)

But now notice this: in whole sign the cusps are NOT the 0 degree "borders" of sign/houses at all, and never were so regarded!

In whole sign, the "cusp" retained its original meaning, not as a "border" but rather as A POINT-and that POINT (cusp) for EACH house, was the sensitive point of that house, viz, the sensitive point in whole sign houses-each house-that is the "cusp" of each house-is a direct projection from the ascending degree.
Example:
-the ascending degree of a chart is 18 Taurus: what are the house cusps (sensitive points, original meaning of the word "cusp") in the whole sign houses of this chart?
Cusp of 1st house = 18 Taurus
Cusp of 2nd house = 18 Gemini
Cusp of 3rd house = 18 Cancer
Cusp of 4th house = 18 Leo
Cusp of 5th house = 18 Virgo
Cusp of 6th house = 18 Libra
Cusp of 7th house = 18 Scorpio
Cusp of 8th house = 18 Sagittarius
Cusp of 9th house = 18 Capricorn
Cusp of 10th house = 18 Aquarius
Cusp of 11th house = 18 Pisces
Cusp of 12th house = 18 Aries

Now it is these "cusps" (sensitive degrees, original meaning of the word "cusp" as a "point") that are (and were) used for progressions, timing of events, etc, and the fact is that they work for these purposes, quite well (in expert hands)

Whole sign does not use the BORDERS between houses (always 0 degree of any sign) for anything, but it DOES use "cusps" (points in the house, projected from the exact ascending degree) for timing (and other) delineative purposes.

Whole sign suddenly vanished (both in the West and in Vedic astrology) during the same period of time-ie, late 8th to early 9th century-this sudden disappearance suggests a sudden turn in astrological thinking and practices, rather than a gradual supplanting of a less effective traditional method (whole sign) by a new and more effective method (rheotrius/alchabitius in the West, and the closely related to whole sign Equal house, in Vedic astrology)

I quite agree with Waybread in the statement, "so what?" (if old time astrologers did or didn't do something) For me, there is only 1 reason I switched to whole sign - it worked better (FOR ME) I could care less if it were the oldest house system (which it is) or whether it was invented by Badda Bing at Barney's Beanery in Bayonne, 10 years ago: only things I consider are:
- does it seem to make sense?
- does it "taste good" to me (ie, does it "feel right" to me)
- and, if yes to the above, does it work (producing delineations and predicitions) better than what I have previously been doing?
Well, whole sign did all that, for me, so I switched; but I am not going to try to convince anyone of anything about it, except for beginners - to you who might just be starting out, I would say: try whole sign first, and see how well it might work for you...

link to thread entitled whole signs today http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42163&highlight=jove

[waybread]

Socrates, one thing I find with Valens and the other Hellenistic astrologers that I've read to date, is that they give no direct information on how they set their house cusps. So we have to infer how they set them-- if they did-- from other things that they write.

This can get confusing. In Valens, when he says "houserulers" (Riley translation) he doesn't mean the 12 houses we use today: he means planetary rulers of the triplicities (remembering that our word "sign" was often their word "house.") Our houses today are translated as Valens's word "place."

Then "ascendant", "descendant", "Midheaven" and sometimes "lower midheaven" can mean either a specific degree point or else an entire sign or house.

What further strikes me, is that it probably doesn't matter what house system you use with a lot of Hellenistic methods. You can apply them regardless. This has to be why most 20th century historians of astrology assumed that the ancients used the equal house system, while since the 1990s most traditional/neo-Hellenistic astrologers assume that the ancients used the whole sign system.

It seems to me that either system works with their techniques; and I might throw in Porphyry while we're at it for some of the material.

If we look at the underlying assumptions and about house-sign relationships today we just assume that houses are just basic to the practice of astrology. I am starting to think that this view wasn't so firmly entrenched with the earlier Hellenistic astrologers. Many of their techniques require no houses at all, for example.

We also find a lot of variation in what they say is the topical content of the houses. This further sounds to me like a part of astrology that was not well developed.

The Babylonian astrologers used no houses at all throughout their cuniform period, according to Francesca Rochberg, a leading authority. The ancient Egyptians had a rich star lore that was closely linked to their religious beliefs. They used the heavens as a calendar for timing agricultural practices and religious festivals. They developed a system of decans (360/10) tied to constellations both on and off the ecliptic. Some of the oldest extant Egyptian texts look more like omen-based prediction than birth charts (p. 106). Some of it verges on mundane astrology. However, any Egyptian horoscopic astrology would seem to have been comparatively recent, given their long stretch of ancient history. Then Egypt becomes part of the Graeco-Roman empire.

Nicholas Campion (The Dawn of Astrology, p. 104) says, "There is a school of thought which attributes the origins of all Western astrology to the Egyptians, and it is difficult to separate the idea that this was so from the belief that it should be so." Part of the problem is that Greek and Roman authors were themselves in error about the alleged legendary founders of astrology, Nechepso and Petosiris. Some sources attributed to ancient Egypt like the Book of Sothis were forged, innacurate on their facts and thus suspect, or merely attributed by later authors to earlier ones.

So I haven't found any primary evidence that the Egyptians used houses, either, prior to Hellenistic writers living in Alexandria. If anybody has such evidence, please give me the reference!

There is a debate among historians of astrology about possible diffusion of astrological techniques between India and the West, but the direction and timing of the flow is not resolved.

Under these circumstances, it would be very understandable if it took the Hellenistic astrologers a while to work out their house systems from scratch; and that there was a lot of flux and variety while this process occured.

[socrates]

Thanks
I just got this from mark Riley
The translation of the entire Anthologies will soon appear, put out by David Roell. Contact him about this matter: David R. Roell [dave@astroamerica.com]

Mark Riley

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by socrates

Thanks
I just got this from mark Riley
The translation of the entire Anthologies will soon appear, put out by David Roell. Contact him about this matter: David R. Roell [dave@astroamerica.com]
Mark Riley

socrates, thank you for posting email address for David Roell

I find it interesting that only a week after this particular thread commenced on this forum, a parallel thread entitled "Using Whole Signs or Placidus for Natal" appeared on skyscript and the content is remarkably similar http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/vi...r=asc&start=15 Chris Brennan states in that thread

I disagree that the only rational conclusion is that we don't have enough information to know what system Ptolemy was using. I personally found Schmidt's analysis of Ptolemy's consistent reference to the signs as 'places' throughout the Tetrabiblos as conclusive evidence that he was using whole sign houses. The only instance in which this is not the case is within the context of the length of life technique, but that is because this is the technique that quadrant houses were originally specifically designed for.

As with Valens, just because Ptolemy uses quadrant houses within the context of the length of life technique does not necessarily mean that that was the primarily form of house division that was meant to be used with the rest of the system that he presents.

The only astrological text we have from Porphyry is his Introduction, which is only partially preserved, interpolated, and largely consists of definitions that he is either quoting or paraphrasing from the earlier author Antiochus. So, in much of the text there is the question of who the author is, and if we should attribute the doctrines to Antiochus, Porphyry or some other later Medieval source who has been inserted into the text such as Sahl.

That being said, there are places in Porphyry's Introduction where the author is clearly referring to the signs as houses. In chapter 36 he cites an earlier author named Timaeus for the opinion that there are seven chremetistikos houses, and he specifically equates these places with signs relative to the ascendant:

Porphyry wrote:
"According to Timaeus, 7 signs are effective in each nativity - the 4 angles, the 2 trines of the ASC, and for the remaining one, the cadent of the MC." (trans. Holden, pg. 27).

Holden has a footnote here in his translation pointing out that whole sign houses are being assumed here. Are we to take this as being reflective of Porphyry's personal preference, or do we just ascribe this view to the sources he was drawing on? Interestingly, in this chapter the author goes on to say that if the degree of the ascendant is very late in the sign then the following sign will also be rendered jointly chrematistikos, which echoes a similar sentiment that Dorotheus expresses at one point, perhaps in a way that supports Schmidt's argument. Nothing is said about the MC or intermediate house cusps though, as this is still apparently a sign-based framework that the author is employing.

In chapters 41 through 43 Porphyry talks about the rising times of the signs in order to be able to calculate primary directions for the length of life technique. It is here in chapter 43 that he introduces what has become known as Porphyry houses, and he does so at this point because he notes that Ptolemy had his discussion of quadrant houses in his chapter on the length of life as well.

The only other discussion of quadrant houses in Porphyry outside of chapter 43 occurs at the very end of the work in chapter 52 when he talks about another type of length of life technique that has to do with the ages of life as determined relative to the houses in clockwise order starting from the ascendant. He reiterates a form of Porphyry style house division for the specific purpose of this technique. Are we to take this as indicative of the type of house division that he applied in general practice though, or is he introducing it just for the purpose of this technique because it relies so heavily on the concept of angularity? If it is the former, then why does he talk about the signs as being "active" or "inactive" earlier in the book, which is usually something that is reserved for the houses? Unfortunately at this point in the Introduction the rest of the text is just interpolations from Sahl and then it ends abruptly, so we never really get to find out how Porphyry applied all of these definitions in practice.

[socrates]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

socrates, thank you for posting email address for David Roell

I find it interesting that only a week after this particular thread commenced on this forum, a parallel thread entitled "Using Whole Signs or Placidus for Natal" appeared on skyscript and the content is remarkably similar http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/vi...r=asc&start=15 Chris Brennan states in that thread

I disagree that the only rational conclusion is that we don't have enough information to know what system Ptolemy was using. I personally found Schmidt's analysis of Ptolemy's consistent reference to the signs as 'places' throughout the Tetrabiblos as conclusive evidence that he was using whole sign houses. The only instance in which this is not the case is within the context of the length of life technique, but that is because this is the technique that quadrant houses were originally specifically designed for.

As with Valens, just because Ptolemy uses quadrant houses within the context of the length of life technique does not necessarily mean that that was the primarily form of house division that was meant to be used with the rest of the system that he presents.

The only astrological text we have from Porphyry is his Introduction, which is only partially preserved, interpolated, and largely consists of definitions that he is either quoting or paraphrasing from the earlier author Antiochus. So, in much of the text there is the question of who the author is, and if we should attribute the doctrines to Antiochus, Porphyry or some other later Medieval source who has been inserted into the text such as Sahl.

That being said, there are places in Porphyry's Introduction where the author is clearly referring to the signs as houses. In chapter 36 he cites an earlier author named Timaeus for the opinion that there are seven chremetistikos houses, and he specifically equates these places with signs relative to the ascendant:

Porphyry wrote:
"According to Timaeus, 7 signs are effective in each nativity - the 4 angles, the 2 trines of the ASC, and for the remaining one, the cadent of the MC." (trans. Holden, pg. 27).

Holden has a footnote here in his translation pointing out that whole sign houses are being assumed here. Are we to take this as being reflective of Porphyry's personal preference, or do we just ascribe this view to the sources he was drawing on? Interestingly, in this chapter the author goes on to say that if the degree of the ascendant is very late in the sign then the following sign will also be rendered jointly chrematistikos, which echoes a similar sentiment that Dorotheus expresses at one point, perhaps in a way that supports Schmidt's argument. Nothing is said about the MC or intermediate house cusps though, as this is still apparently a sign-based framework that the author is employing.

In chapters 41 through 43 Porphyry talks about the rising times of the signs in order to be able to calculate primary directions for the length of life technique. It is here in chapter 43 that he introduces what has become known as Porphyry houses, and he does so at this point because he notes that Ptolemy had his discussion of quadrant houses in his chapter on the length of life as well.

The only other discussion of quadrant houses in Porphyry outside of chapter 43 occurs at the very end of the work in chapter 52 when he talks about another type of length of life technique that has to do with the ages of life as determined relative to the houses in clockwise order starting from the ascendant. He reiterates a form of Porphyry style house division for the specific purpose of this technique. Are we to take this as indicative of the type of house division that he applied in general practice though, or is he introducing it just for the purpose of this technique because it relies so heavily on the concept of angularity? If it is the former, then why does he talk about the signs as being "active" or "inactive" earlier in the book, which is usually something that is reserved for the houses? Unfortunately at this point in the Introduction the rest of the text is just interpolations from Sahl and then it ends abruptly, so we never really get to find out how Porphyry applied all of these definitions in practice.

Since you mention Porphyrus,this is what Dave told me:


The First Book of Valens seems to have been overlooked by many. At section 6K / 5P (pg. 18 in my Riley edition) are explicit instructions for calculating the MC. In my marginal notes I find the method to be accurate. At some later point (at the moment I am unable to find the exact location) he trisects the resulting arc, a very simple mathematical process. Which produce Porphyry houses. Only in Book 8 or 9 does he explicitly state equal houses. Book 9 is largely a re-hash of earlier books and might not be by Valens at all.

Valens often moves sign by sign around the chart. This is not evidence of equal houses, as signs are superimposed upon houses. I myself do this: Equal signs, Placidus houses. In doing so, Valens often ignores the MC degree.

Valens makes a great deal of rising times. Know that rising times are Alcabitus houses. The times given by Valens are confirmed by modern calculation. Reading the text, it is clear that Valens would make more use of both Porphyry and Alcabitus if he had better planetary positions and real birth times. Reading Greek Horoscopes, the text by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen (1959), and puzzling out some inconsistencies, it seems clear to me that Valens' klima did not in fact match up with his rising times. Rising times are based on klima. This has a large bearing on houses.

Which also has to do with where Valens lived. Not in Antioch, so far as anyone is aware, and not in Alexandria, not from numerous hints in the text itself. I put Valens in the Crimea, where there was a number of flourishing Greek colonies. In the Crimea, 40-odd degrees north, equal houses do not work that well. (Alexandria is 32-ish north).

Which is to say that Valens will produce many surprises. He has certainly surprised me.

David R. Roell

[socrates]

After looking at my chart using different quadrant systems I never get more than 1 degree difference for any house cusp. So, in my case it`s difficult to test them

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by socrates

Since you mention Porphyrus,this is what Dave told me: The First Book of Valens seems to have been overlooked by many. At section 6K / 5P (pg. 18 in my Riley edition) are explicit instructions for calculating the MC. In my marginal notes I find the method to be accurate. At some later point (at the moment I am unable to find the exact location) he trisects the resulting arc, a very simple mathematical process. Which produce Porphyry houses. Only in Book 8 or 9 does he explicitly state equal houses. Book 9 is largely a re-hash of earlier books and might not be by Valens at all.

Valens often moves sign by sign around the chart. This is not evidence of equal houses, as signs are superimposed upon houses. I myself do this: Equal signs, Placidus houses. In doing so, Valens often ignores the MC degree.

Valens makes a great deal of rising times. Know that rising times are Alcabitus houses. The times given by Valens are confirmed by modern calculation. Reading the text, it is clear that Valens would make more use of both Porphyry and Alcabitus if he had better planetary positions and real birth times. Reading Greek Horoscopes, the text by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen (1959), and puzzling out some inconsistencies, it seems clear to me that Valens' klima did not in fact match up with his rising times. Rising times are based on klima. This has a large bearing on houses.

Which also has to do with where Valens lived. Not in Antioch, so far as anyone is aware, and not in Alexandria, not from numerous hints in the text itself. I put Valens in the Crimea, where there was a number of flourishing Greek colonies. In the Crimea, 40-odd degrees north, equal houses do not work that well. (Alexandria is 32-ish north).

Which is to say that Valens will produce many surprises. He has certainly surprised me. David R. Roell

I may as well mention that The Astrology Center of America, established 1993, is owned & operated by David Roell

Prior to the Professor Mark Riley version, sole access to these translations was via Project Hindsight - unless one has a command of any other languages Valens has been translated to!

For that reason, along with the fact that Mark Riley allows completely free access to the Valens translation, makes this a valuable resource. However, Professor Mark Riley himself cautions us all as follows

Caveat from Professor Mark Riley:

Quote:
What you find here is a preliminary translation completed in the 1990’s and not perfected since. It is based on Wilhelm Kroll’s 1908 edition (page numbers of this edition are marked with bold-faced K in my pdf) and on David Pingree’s 1986 edition (page numbers marked with P), a great improvement on his predecessor’s. The angled brackets (< >) indicate words added in the translation for clarity or (sometimes) to correct errors in the text .My studies in ancient mathematical literature, and (more important) in the Syriac and Arabic copies of Valens did not proceed far enough to put the finishing touches on this translation. Moreover I have moved on to other work. (See here.) So there are no guarantees of accuracy. You might also find some typos. Use at your own risk. In addition I am not prepared to answer questions about the translation. You are on your own

Originally Posted by socrates

After looking at my chart using different quadrant systems I never get more than 1 degree difference for any house cusp. So, in my case it`s difficult to test them

did you apply Hellenistic predictive techniques using whole sign houses?

[sandstone]

put simply, to me this conversation seems to be about house systems! it is interesting how the conversations that those interested in astrology can often devolve into conflicts with no resolution.. one is then left to decide for themselves which system they want to opt for..

in this conversation the 'historical perspective' as rendered from certain text are either the means for concluding a particular house system as being the correct one as practiced by the ancients, or not..

i am summarizing my impressions from reading and being a p/t participant to this thread.. perhaps saying ''house systems'' is a false description here especially if houses and signs were one and the same!

a word that pops up that triggers an ongoing question for me is the word 'quadrant' system.. my question : is it possible the astrologers of old were using a type of local space astrology whereby the quadrants weren't divided by where the zenith crossed the ecliptic - the midheaven) but were more general ie - the spot directly overhead (zenith) to the point directly opposite (nadir). of course zenith and nadir are not attached to the ecliptic, but they will still produce a quadrant type system if one uses these 2 horizontal (horizon) and vertical (zenith/nadir) axis.. so that is an ongoing question i have for those who are tossing around the word quadrant..

the other idea i would like to comment on which is a personal note of sorts is on my own evolution in regard to house systems.. i have never been happy with the use of houses! i am aligned more with the school of cosmobiology - ebertin/witte that essentially did away with house cusps in favour of midpoint analysis using the 4 angles, (or a few more if you want), in combo with the planets, (or a few more if you want - asteroids, hypothetical-s, etc.)

i found myself working doing charts with equal house system and having the midheaven as a point.. i would like to articulate my use of equal house systems.. like in indian astrology as i understand it, the ascendant was 'the' critical point whereby any geometrical relationship, 12, 3, 4, 6 8 etc. -whatever you wanted to extrapolate off this point essentially) was always the center or high point of the vibration... in this regard i had always felt intuitively that the sign connected what might have been found within it.. for example - if you had a rising degree/asc of a particular sign, then all planets in that sign, regardless of there position to that sign ( above or below) would share an obvious association.. the high point of the vibration of the rising degree was the 'center' of the wave.. the before or after would be the move up or down from the wave peak..

i am not sure if folks are interested in reading this! i am interested in communicating it because it is a part of a natural adoption of whole sign houses... i was already essentially doing a type of whole sign houses with equal house system, before i read robert hands little book on whole sign houses!!

i suppose what i am trying to communicate here in my own way is that the tension of who said what in an old book so as to figure some things out in some definitive way is beside the point to those astrologers who continue to base their approach off observation.. true, either something works or it doesn't for you.. i don't think someone is going to buy into a particular approach or system to houses unless they are happy with the results after trying them out... that said ................................

it is shocking at how easy it is for astrologers to jump on a bandwagon!! this tells me that astrologers are no different then people in exhibiting sheep like behaviour!!!! sorry, but i have to say it...

if so and so is using a particular house system and you really think they are the cats *** of astrology, well then obviously if you are a sheep you will have to use that same system too!!

which brings me back to the purpose of this conversation as i see it : folks are not trying to prove anything so as to win a contest on who is the smartest, most academic, or brightest, most read person on historical texts around astrology!!!! at least i hope they aren't cause that is not why i continue to read this thread..

i would actually like to read someone who has read a few books and processed the info in their own way to gleam and share their understanding of what it all means! why, i might even be tempted to go out and buy one of the books if i thought it was convincing enough.. in this way, i demonstrate traits of my fellow sheep! add your thoughts here without thinking you have to hammer someone over the head with a particular agenda that you're so strongly attached to that you fail to benefit from the wisdom of others.. i will continue to benefit from the wisdom of all of you as i find it the most rewarding part i take away from this experience here... thanks!

[socrates]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

I may as well mention that The Astrology Center of America, established 1993, is owned & operated by David Roell

Prior to the Professor Mark Riley version, sole access to these translations was via Project Hindsight - unless one has a command of any other languages Valens has been translated to!

For that reason, along with the fact that Mark Riley allows completely free access to the Valens translation, makes this a valuable resource. However, Professor Mark Riley himself cautions us all as follows

Caveat from Professor Mark Riley:

Quote:
What you find here is a preliminary translation completed in the 1990’s and not perfected since. It is based on Wilhelm Kroll’s 1908 edition (page numbers of this edition are marked with bold-faced K in my pdf) and on David Pingree’s 1986 edition (page numbers marked with P), a great improvement on his predecessor’s. The angled brackets (< >) indicate words added in the translation for clarity or (sometimes) to correct errors in the text .My studies in ancient mathematical literature, and (more important) in the Syriac and Arabic copies of Valens did not proceed far enough to put the finishing touches on this translation. Moreover I have moved on to other work. (See here.) So there are no guarantees of accuracy. You might also find some typos. Use at your own risk. In addition I am not prepared to answer questions about the translation. You are on your own


did you apply Hellenistic predictive techniques using whole sign houses?

Dave said the workds on Valens will be published early next year.
Regarding the last question,no i didnt.
Wich techniques are you referring to? Arabic parts? The only book i have on WSH is the little booklet by R. Hand. I also read some stuff on astrology x files

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by sandstone

i am not sure if folks are interested in reading this!

One is always interested in reading an opinion

Originally Posted by sandstone

i am interested in communicating it because it is a part of a natural adoption of whole sign houses... i was already essentially doing a type of whole sign houses with equal house system, before i read robert hands little book on whole sign houses!!

i suppose what i am trying to communicate here in my own way is that the tension of who said what in an old book so as to figure some things out in some definitive way is beside the point to those astrologers who continue to base their approach off observation.. true, either something works or it doesn't for you.. i don't think someone is going to buy into a particular approach or system to houses unless they are happy with the results after trying them out... that said ...............................

If you refer to the book by Valens which itself refers to the work of astrologers preceding Valens himself by at least three hundred years, then even if it is 'an old book', that same 'old book' contains references to information mostly likely from well over two thousand years ago. Even better, one can use the information gleaned from "that old book" for astrological purposes - imo that is obviously the sensible aim of the exercise!

Originally Posted by sandstone

it is shocking at how easy it is for astrologers to jump on a bandwagon!! this tells me that astrologers are no different then people in exhibiting sheep like behaviour!!!! sorry, but i have to say it...

if so and so is using a particular house system and you really think they are the cats *** of astrology, well then obviously if you are a sheep you will have to use that same system too!!

Why is that so shocking? The 'herd instinct' is ever present!

Originally Posted by sandstone

which brings me back to the purpose of this conversation as i see it : folks are not trying to prove anything so as to win a contest on who is the smartest, most academic, or brightest, most read person on historical texts around astrology!!!! at least i hope they aren't cause that is not why i continue to read this thread..

My opinion is that contributors to this thread are not only communicating their opinions but also considering the opinions of others who have an interest in the same subject matter - and that is most interesting

Originally Posted by sandstone

i would actually like to read someone who has read a few books and processed the info in their own way to gleam and share their understanding of what it all means! why, i might even be tempted to go out and buy one of the books if i thought it was convincing enough.. in this way, i demonstrate traits of my fellow sheep! add your thoughts here without thinking you have to hammer someone over the head with a particular agenda that you're so strongly attached to that you fail to benefit from the wisdom of others.. i will continue to benefit from the wisdom of all of you as i find it the most rewarding part i take away from this experience here... thanks!

Correspond with a hundred people who have all read the same book and interestingly, one frequently finds a hundred different opinions! Whereas if one reads the book in question oneself in order to draw one's own conclusions as to the author's intended meaning, one at least has the actual author's opinion on the matter.

Contrariwise, authors are often misinterpreted by oneself, so even if one reads the book, that is no guarantee of comprehending the message of the author: hearsay opinions from readers of a book may well be accurate – although equally – readers opinions may be wildly inaccurate! C'est la vie!

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by socrates

Dave said the workds on Valens will be published early next year.
Regarding the last question,no i didnt.
Wich techniques are you referring to? Arabic parts? The only book i have on WSH is the little booklet by R. Hand. I also read some stuff on astrology x files

Preliminary Natal Analysis, determination of the oikodespotes and so on and so forth ad infinitum - and it seems ad infinitum at times! Although there are some good astrology programs if one is insufficiently motivated to do the work oneself for any reason. Astrology x-files is a good site Zoidsoft is a member of this forum apparently http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=31524
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by sandstone

it is interesting how the conversations that those interested in astrology can often devolve into conflicts with no resolution.. one is then left to decide for themselves which system they want to opt for..

i would actually like to read someone who has read a few books and processed the info in their own way to gleam and share their understanding of what it all means! why, i might even be tempted to go out and buy one of the books if i thought it was convincing enough.. in this way, i demonstrate traits of my fellow sheep! add your thoughts here without thinking you have to hammer someone over the head with a particular agenda that you're so strongly attached to that you fail to benefit from the wisdom of others.. i will continue to benefit from the wisdom of all of you as i find it the most rewarding part i take away from this experience here... thanks!

Meeeee tooooo! I just wanted to say, in my novice-I-know-nothing-about-anything-way that the best part of being involved in this forum is that EVERYONE here seems to have pieces of information that are interesting, relevant, and help other members think for themselves...and the whole think for yourself/find your own way/we will still accept you feeling of this forum is the best part of being here.

[sandstone]

thanks jupiterasc

i do find it interesting what folks are or aren't willing to share, lol.. it will often say something about them, in spite of them!

i wasn't referring to any particular book when i said what i did.

i think most folks would like to think they are above following the herd.. i think very few are..

what you say at the end of your post is very true..

thanks tsmall! we are on the same page!

[waybread]

sandstone, I have been doing my level best to read the original sources with a fresh pair of eyes. This is a valuable exercise. Suppose we let go of all of our previous suppositions, what we've been taught, and "current wisdom" about a given historical topic, and just went back to reading the sources, line by line. Would we come up with the same conclusions, or would we see something else in the text?

Unfortunately, the idea that whole sign houses were ubiquitous in early antiquity has become the new orthodoxy.

Not only do I see a few textual references to the contrary in the primary sources, but I see precious little direct information in the primary sources to confirm this orthodoxy. It has become the default position. Maybe because I have an academic background, I am willing to risk shooting a few sacred cows. I am willing to suggest some basic principles of historiography (how history is written.)

There is a really interesting thread going on at the Skyscript forum just now on this topic, with a lot of discussion by card-carrying traditional astrologers.

As I posted there just recently, the Babylonians and pre-Hellenized Egyptians didn't use houses so far as we know. Unless we wish to speculate about some diffusion into the Greek/Roman empires from India, we assume that houses are a Greek invention, at least so far as western astrology is concerned. We have no evidence of horoscopic astrology in the Hellenized world prior to the 2nd or 1st century BC.

Once we do get extant Hellenistic primary sources, we find a lot of variety in what they said about houses. Which generally wasn't much, in the context of their entire texts. The thematic or topical content of houses varies greatly. A lot of the techniques refer more to angles or quadrants than to houses. The majority of techniques do not refer to houses, even in cases where today we would ascribe certain topics to houses. According to Nicholas Campion, The Dawn of Astrology, ch. 13, the house system seems to be based upon older Greek philosophies, so it is unsurprising that there might be some difficulties in grafting it to Babylonian horoscopy. By "late" antiquity, we clearly have other house systems in play.