Cadent houses being weak vs planetary joys

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
I watched an astrologypodcast episode and had some thoughts, here's a timestamped part about the 6th house and Mars rejoicing there: https://youtu.be/bddnuFMkmpQ?t=12350

Austin is saying how this house is kind of a house of "entropy", i.e. it indicates things like illnesses which wear down the body. It's a house which requires work and maintenance. The idea I'm getting from this is that everyone's got a 6th house, their body will always be in a state of entropy, for instance if you don't exercise you will waste away. This is the same for everyone to varying degrees. But if you have Mars there, it's looking after it and Mars is down for that kind of stuff as it rejoices here in the place of toil.

Another idea is that significations can be externalised outwards, an example is someone with benefics in the 6th house configured to the MC and this person was a really good doctor. Mars being in the 6th house can externalise the maelific nature of the house which is good for war, Mars' territory. Since the 6th is a house of attacking the body, it also represents weaponry i.e. tools used to attack the bodies of others, something which Mars delights in.

And imagine training in a martial arts dojo for instance. To become a good fighter, you will need to be attacked regularly. Mars loves this kind of training and it makes it stronger. Whereas imagine how Venus would feel being constantly under attack. So while the 6th would generally make other planets weak by being constantly stressed in this place, Mars here becomes strong.

So that's Mars at least, but what about the other cadent houses. Regarding the 9th house, it's configured to the Ascendant via a trine so it's considered the "best" of the cadent houses. But the idea of "the best of the worst" is not completely satisfactory for me. So I think the idea of cadent = weak isn't really enough on it's own, perhaps there is a synergy between the aspect to the ascendant and the angularity of a house becomes more than a sum of the two parts on their own, kind of like drinking something can be poisonous but if you add one ingredient it can be really healthy.

Part of the significations of the 9th is God and faith, and in a way in this sphere it pays to be humble and to give up elements of control as you let a higher power work through you. So perhaps the weakness here becomes strength as you are prostrating yourself before higher powers which bless you and your life through your humility and deference.
 

sworm09

Well-known member
I said I didn't want to hijack this thread and now look where I am. :biggrin:

You might be right re: nativities. Ptolemy used planets to analyse questions of siblings, parents, marriage, and so on, for which others would be inclined to use houses.

However, houses are essential in horary astrology, which is also part of traditional astrology. Houses are also basic in traditional medical and mundane astrology so perhaps it depends upon the type of astrology undertaken.

Ehhh not necessarily. To be clear when I say houses, I mean the topical meanings applied to the houses, not the houses themselves as defined by angularity and aspect to the Ascendant. For example if you ask a question about wealth and the Lord of the Ascendant is applying to a planet in one of the cadent houses and that planet also rules a house in aversion to the Ascendant, you have your answer right there without applying any house meanings. The significator applying to a well placed angular benefic that rules an angle is positive regardless of house meanings. This isn't strictly traditional, but it goes to show how questions can be answered without relying on house meanings.

It is indeed true that later horary forces you to pick a house for the quesited, but authors like Mashallah place more weight on the condition of the Lord of the Asc/Moon and their next aspect than house meanings. He eventually does add house meanings as a bit of another layer, but in laying down his baseline method in On Reception, very little is made of picking the house of the quesited before hand.

As far as mundane astrology goes, the same thing applies. Ptolemy only uses houses within his mundane astrology in regards to angularity. Even Persian Mundane astrology can be done without recourse to house meanings. Find the Lord of the Year and analyze their condition, look at what planets are angular and their condition, etc. etc.

Electional astrology can certainly be done without house meanings, as demonstrated by Dorotheus. I don't know anywhere close to enough about medical astrology to have an opinion either way. :pinched:

So I'd agree that house meanings are important to some authors, especially as the tradition went along, but it is possible to get useful information in horary and mundane without necessarily using the topics assigned to the houses. I would say that if one is to use topics as applied to the houses, one should make sure that it makes sense within the context of angularity and aspect to the Ascendant.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
I watched an astrologypodcast episode and had some thoughts, here's a timestamped part about the 6th house and Mars rejoicing there: https://youtu.be/bddnuFMkmpQ?t=12350

Austin is saying how this house is kind of a house of "entropy", i.e. it indicates things like illnesses which wear down the body. It's a house which requires work and maintenance. The idea I'm getting from this is that everyone's got a 6th house, their body will always be in a state of entropy, for instance if you don't exercise you will waste away. This is the same for everyone to varying degrees. But if you have Mars there, it's looking after it and Mars is down for that kind of stuff as it rejoices here in the place of toil.

Another idea is that significations can be externalised outwards, an example is someone with benefics in the 6th house configured to the MC and this person was a really good doctor. Mars being in the 6th house can externalise the maelific nature of the house which is good for war, Mars' territory. Since the 6th is a house of attacking the body, it also represents weaponry i.e. tools used to attack the bodies of others, something which Mars delights in.

And imagine training in a martial arts dojo for instance. To become a good fighter, you will need to be attacked regularly. Mars loves this kind of training and it makes it stronger. Whereas imagine how Venus would feel being constantly under attack. So while the 6th would generally make other planets weak by being constantly stressed in this place, Mars here becomes strong.

So that's Mars at least, but what about the other cadent houses. Regarding the 9th house, it's configured to the Ascendant via a trine so it's considered the "best" of the cadent houses. But the idea of "the best of the worst" is not completely satisfactory for me. So I think the idea of cadent = weak isn't really enough on it's own, perhaps there is a synergy between the aspect to the ascendant and the angularity of a house becomes more than a sum of the two parts on their own, kind of like drinking something can be poisonous but if you add one ingredient it can be really healthy.

Part of the significations of the 9th is God and faith, and in a way in this sphere it pays to be humble and to give up elements of control as you let a higher power work through you. So perhaps the weakness here becomes strength as you are prostrating yourself before higher powers which bless you and your life through your humility and deference.

The problem with explaining the seven planetary joys via house meanings is that you run into circular reasoning. It is much more likely that the house meanings came second after the joys were placed there.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I said I didn't want to hijack this thread and now look where I am. :biggrin:

Ehhh not necessarily. To be clear when I say houses, I mean the topical meanings applied to the houses, not the houses themselves as defined by angularity and aspect to the Ascendant. For example if you ask a question about wealth and the Lord of the Ascendant is applying to a planet in one of the cadent houses and that planet also rules a house in aversion to the Ascendant, you have your answer right there without applying any house meanings. The significator applying to a well placed angular benefic that rules an angle is positive regardless of house meanings. This isn't strictly traditional, but it goes to show how questions can be answered without relying on house meanings.

It is indeed true that later horary forces you to pick a house for the quesited, but authors like Mashallah place more weight on the condition of the Lord of the Asc/Moon and their next aspect than house meanings. He eventually does add house meanings as a bit of another layer, but in laying down his baseline method in On Reception, very little is made of picking the house of the quesited before hand.

As far as mundane astrology goes, the same thing applies. Ptolemy only uses houses within his mundane astrology in regards to angularity. Even Persian Mundane astrology can be done without recourse to house meanings. Find the Lord of the Year and analyze their condition, look at what planets are angular and their condition, etc. etc.

Electional astrology can certainly be done without house meanings, as demonstrated by Dorotheus. I don't know anywhere close to enough about medical astrology to have an opinion either way. :pinched:

So I'd agree that house meanings are important to some authors, especially as the tradition went along, but it is possible to get useful information in horary and mundane without necessarily using the topics assigned to the houses. I would say that if one is to use topics as applied to the houses, one should make sure that it makes sense within the context of angularity and aspect to the Ascendant.
WHOLE SIGN HOUSES clearly determines TOPICS
and eliminates ambiguity of HOUSE location of PLANET :smile:

and then
using any quadrant house system
such as Placidus, Alcabitius et al
assists with determining PLANETARY STRENGTH

Just changed my WHOLE way of thinking about it. Not saying I was looking for validation but i just couldn't return to the cusping style but cuspa as a sensitive point makes so much sense to me. For me, like Dr.Farr, whole sign is just far more accurate from personality to transit. I dont dablle in progressions too too much so i havent applied it there but This was such a great reply. I actually read that reaponse before and believe it or not its the main reason I stayed with whole sign and actually switched to it. You'd be surprised how often your name and Dr.Farr appeared on things when I googled astrology advice. I think yall were here when I first came.

Amazing post tho. Reading it a second time jist makes me solidfy my stance with whole sign houses. I'm still stuck at how much more since it makes. I think ppl think whole sign ditches cusps all together and even I thought it did but it doesn't it just reapplies them in a different way. God that makes so much sense to me. I have been on other websites where ppl use the cusps in order to have the desired placements they seek in their chart but i always felt like this was wrong. It never made sense to me to have a 12th and 1st house libra. It honestly confused me. Whole sign just provided more accuracy for me. And i didn't just use it for myself. I had some ppl ask me to read their chart and i took guesses using the whole sign system but never told them that's what i was using. They were shocked by how accurate I was and when i told them the system they looked even more shocked.

Safe to say im sticking with this system and now I have a new and more efficient way to use it

tsmalls comment at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=94683
explains the rationale

I use both whole signs and Placidus.


The original idea of quadrant based house systems was to determine angularity,
and never to replace the concept of topics
.


So I count signs for topics
and use a house system overlaid onto it.
Because, as I mentioned above, capability
and angularity/ability to act
are two different things.....


tsmall uses BOTH whole signs AND Placidus

I use BOTH whole signs AND Alcabitius

some use whole sign AND Regiomontanus

there are multiple QUADRANT house systems
its a matter of personal choice which to use in tandem with WHOLE SIGN
IF one chooses to do so
Yes, the dominant house system in Greco-Roman astrology
(until about the time of the end of the Classical Period) was whole sign,
but (among the famous very early Arabic astrologers of the transitional period)
only Abu'Mashar continued the ancient Greco-Roman practice,
and the whole sign house format became virtually forgotten (in the West)
until the mid-1990's.

Personally I think it was an historical tragedy for our astrological art
that whole sign houses became lost to memory,
for my experience
over the past nearly 20 years of exclusively using whole sign houses
has convinced me
of the more consistent accuracy of this house system, over any other...
 

petosiris

Banned
Thanks for the correction Osamenor! I am usually fine with mods editing and deleting biting comments on both sides if they want to stop a possible confrontation. It has to be fair.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Some time ago I wrote this on a thread related to the joy of Mars.

First, not all Hellenistic authors mention the joys. For example, Ptolemy makes no mention of them (although he does use the names of the places a few times, but perhaps for clarity).

Second, those that do, they do not always agree on whether the malefics in their joys are very good or very bad. Valens wants the malefics in the good places of V and XI, saying they do not do bad, but he says they do worst in the bad places of VI and XII (double negative does not make a positive). Paulus on the other hand says that the malefics in their joys bring good fortune if they are also favorably placed. It basically became the medieval dignity point. Valens seems to treat of those places not as dignity considerations, but as places influenced and controlled by the rulers that ''rejoice'' there.

Something tangentially related to ''rejoicing''.

I am pretty sure that the term ''rejoicing/charein'' is used in a variety of situations by different authors like Ptolemy, Valens and Dorotheus. Ptolemy for example uses it in his chapter on ''chariots and faces'', Valens with sect and horizon. Note Ptolemy never mentions the ''house joys''!

Basically, every good placement is ''joy'', in the same way that houses, exaltations, trigons and terms are all called ''houses/oikoi''. Indeed, this identical terminology in certain places makes it impossible to be certain whether the author meant the houseruler by sign, exaltation, triplicity or term, especially if the context is not clear enough (cf. Valens on the houserulers of trigon houserulers - in one passage of 2.2. it is hard to tell whether he meant the ''domicile'' rulers or the trigon rulers of the trigon rulers). Bouché-Leclercq (with usual sarcasm) criticizes oikodespotes as ''the most banal and least precise term of astrological vocabulary'' in L’astrologie grecque.

The confusion of this thread is that the posters, like you, have not examined the terminology of Greek source texts. I find it lamentable that our community has not taken greater caution with modern astrological evaluation and naive reconstruction of Hellenistic texts - in a more direct manner with emphasis on the source texts themselves. Semantics surrounding the zodiac, houses, rejoicing and ''the aspect doctrine'' often reveal problems of implausible reconstructions offered by modern astrologers working in this field.

On topic, ''rejoicing'' of one planet in a certain place is in language indistinguishable from the ''rejoicing'' by placement of diurnal planets above the horizon by day, in Valens. In another author like Ptolemy, ''rejoicing'' refers to something totally different.

In this case, it would be useful to apply reconstruction of different authors rather than presenting ridiculous reconstruction of ''Hellenistic astrology'' as if it is one monolithic thing. It is very easy to see how this thinking can lead to a concept like ''sorrow'', if rejoicing was meant to be used in a wider context, then the ''planetary joys'' can't be solely conceptualized as a singular dignity.

Planetary sorrows were a medieval concept that applied the logic of detriment and fall to the houses with joys. On that note the vocabulary police can become useful when people make linguistic claims about certain Hellenistic techniques as did some people on that thread without realizing that the term ''rejoicing'' was also applied to favourably placed planets (2.7P of Valens' Anthology), to planets in the hemisphere of the favourable sect (3.5 of Valens' Anthology), to planets in houses, exaltations, triplicities and terms of rulers with the same sect (1.23 of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos) etc.

That is exactly where this system ends up, isn’t it? So
reductionist as to be nonsensical.

''7P. <The X Place>—Midheaven
Both benefics and malefics rejoice in this place if they have been assigned the Lot, the Ascendant, or
Daimon.
If any of the <benefics> are in it when rising, or if they have contact with the moon, tyrants and
kings are born, governors of districts, men known by name in many places. The ruler of this Place, if
situated favorably, makes vigorous/successful men; if situated unfavorably, it makes feeble/unsuccessful
men. If <the ruler> is setting and a malefic is in conjunction or in opposition to this Place, it makes
failures, as well as sterile or childless men.'' - https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius Valens entire.pdf
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Jupiter Ascendant, It's not necessary to be the vocabulary police here. Wouldn't you call Chris Brennan, noted Hellenistic astrologer, "traditional?" Here's what he said on p. 298 of his book Hellenistic Astrology:
"...the concepts of the semi-sextile and quincunx aspects of modern astrology were never developed in the Hellenistic tradition, because these intervals were characterized by their lack of affinity..."

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator] use modern terms to make a traditional point more understandable.

Brennan here was making a point in his mention of the "non-Ptolemaic" aspects, as I was. Basically if houses don't share one of the Big Four aspects, this says something about their inability to coordinate within the horoscope. This is worth knowing about. (p. 298) For example, it is probably better if a malefic cannot "regard" a beneficial planet, because the malefic's influence is weakened by its position.

I would point out that the words "aversion" and "disregard" are English, whereas the astrologer authors of the Hellenistic period were writing in Greek and Latin. The English language did not exist during the Hellenistic period. So we are looking at approximate translations.

If we look at the English language translations of classical scholars, we find that Ptolemy doesn't even use "aversion" in Tetrabiblos 1:13, preferring simply to talk about the aspects of the opposition, trine, square, and sextile. Then he's got some material on other relationships between signs. However, in 1:16 "Of Disjunct Signs" he calls signs without "familiarities" with one another "disjunct" and "alien."

Chris Brennan, in his comprehensive Hellenistic Astrology, typically translates the Greek word apostrophe as "aversion," but also mentions its concise meaning of "turning away" from something. As such, apostrophe may not carry the connotation of repugnance meant by the English word "aversion," as we are simply talking about geometric relationships between signs and planets within signs and houses.

Brennan's chapter 9 on "the doctrine of configurations" is well worth reading.
The key word take-aways from Brennan on geometric relationships are "witnessing," "testimony," "observing," and "scrutinizing," He wrote (p. 293) ...in the Hellenistic tradition, aspects were conceptualized as the means by which planets could see or not see each other. The aspect doctrine then is partially based on ancient Greek optical theories...." He points out that the Latin root of our English word "aspect" is "seeing, looking at."

Accordingly, a conjunction was not technically an aspect, because conjoined planets could not properly behold one another; although the conjunction was often used as though it were a proper Hellenistic aspect.

Then we get into a more sign-based interpretation of affinities, according to a sign's gender, quadruplicity, element.
to be clear then

vis a vis the term aversion: "αποστροφή" :smile:
Factually
in Greek
the etymology backing this word today
has a negative meaning
for example
turning the head away from some despised person
is an aversion
something is repellent in some way


In Ancient Greek it is an exclamatory figure of speech
that occurs when a speaker suddenly ceases addressing their audience
and directs their comment to a third party
such as for example an opposing litigant
or some other individual who may be absent from the scene

therefore
in fact the word aversion as a technical term in astrology
implies
that something is out of our line of vision
thus planets are in aversion when in signs not configured to each other
by any of the five Ptolemaic aspects
conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition
 

waybread

Well-known member
I said I didn't want to hijack this thread and now look where I am. :biggrin:



Ehhh not necessarily. To be clear when I say houses, I mean the topical meanings applied to the houses, not the houses themselves as defined by angularity and aspect to the Ascendant. For example if you ask a question about wealth and the Lord of the Ascendant is applying to a planet in one of the cadent houses and that planet also rules a house in aversion to the Ascendant, you have your answer right there without applying any house meanings. The significator applying to a well placed angular benefic that rules an angle is positive regardless of house meanings. This isn't strictly traditional, but it goes to show how questions can be answered without relying on house meanings.

It is indeed true that later horary forces you to pick a house for the quesited, but authors like Mashallah place more weight on the condition of the Lord of the Asc/Moon and their next aspect than house meanings. He eventually does add house meanings as a bit of another layer, but in laying down his baseline method in On Reception, very little is made of picking the house of the quesited before hand.

As far as mundane astrology goes, the same thing applies. Ptolemy only uses houses within his mundane astrology in regards to angularity. Even Persian Mundane astrology can be done without recourse to house meanings. Find the Lord of the Year and analyze their condition, look at what planets are angular and their condition, etc. etc.

Electional astrology can certainly be done without house meanings, as demonstrated by Dorotheus. I don't know anywhere close to enough about medical astrology to have an opinion either way. :pinched:

So I'd agree that house meanings are important to some authors, especially as the tradition went along, but it is possible to get useful information in horary and mundane without necessarily using the topics assigned to the houses. I would say that if one is to use topics as applied to the houses, one should make sure that it makes sense within the context of angularity and aspect to the Ascendant.

From Petosiris:
The problem with explaining the seven planetary joys via house meanings is that you run into circular reasoning. It is much more likely that the house meanings came second after the joys were placed there.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there is some evidence that the origins of thematic house meanings are from Egyptian mythology about the passage of the deified sun, both through the daylight hours and through the night, with the parallel meaning of the passage of a human soul through life and afterlife. The exact order of the different gates and temples through which the sun/soul passed changed somewhat over time, but there is no doubt that Egyptian mythology predated Hellenistic astrology-- by several millennia.

(Joanne Conman http://www.joanneconman.com/ argued that the ancient Egyptians did not believe in an underworld, as did the Greeks and Romans; but had a schema that was more horizontal. Which accords with the horoscope angles also representing cardinal directions. Although she disputes this, there is evidence that the northern constellation Orion symbolized Osiris.)

Otto Neugebauer, Brown University historian of ancient astronomy/astrology, and his associates translated Roman-era Demotic horoscopes found in Egypt. (Micah Ross has recently updated Neugebauer's research http://www.cultureandcosmos.org/pdfs/11/11_Ross_Demotic_Texts_Vol11.pdf ) They found that some of the horoscopes retained the ancient Egyptian mythology. The 4th house, for example, termed the "dwat" or "duat," was the Egyptian hall of Osiris, where the dead went to be judged.

I won't go into further details unless you're interested, but basically the translation of the duat/4th house as one's father probably stemmed from the Egyptian belief that here the righteous soul assimilated to the divine Father as symbolized by Osiris.

The second house as "the gates of hell" was where the deified sun/soul prepared to exit the afterlife and return to day/life, as a kind of casting-up. This was also where the goddess provided him with the necessities of life.

The 8th as the traditional house of death relates to the Egyptian environment in ways that might be hard for people in temperate climates to understand. Basically the sun peaks in the sky at noon, but the hottest part of the day actually happens in mid-late afternoon. If you've spent time in a hot desert climate, you realize that this time of day can be death-dealing to the unprepared. Sunset (7th house) may be welcomed for bringing cooler temperatures.

Anyway, the Egyptian thematic meanings were probably based in their religious beliefs. It is interesting that Firmicus Maternus hints at parts of astrology being based in religious secrets.

Of course, this all maps onto the themes of angular, cadent, succedent, and cadent houses.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
I think that the warmest part of the day in most temperate regions is the Sun in the 9th house, not the 10th or 8th. The ancients accounted for seasonal lag with Leo, they could have accounted for the diurnal lag with the 9th house.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The Moon joys in the 3rd
Mars joys in the 6th

The Sun joys in the 9th

I think that the warmest part of the day in most temperate regions
is the Sun in the 9th house,

not the 10th or 8th.

The ancients accounted for seasonal lag with Leo, they could have accounted for the diurnal lag

with the 9th house.
Saturn joys in the 12th
These are all cadent houses, infact they are all of the cadent houses. Cadent houses are the only house quadruplicity to have a planet in it's joy in every house.
Yet cadent houses are considered weak, why would these be the best places for these planets to be?

e.g. is the Sun strengthened by being in the house of it's joy

or weakened by being in a cadent house,

how does one reconcile the two concepts?
that above quoted recent comment by petosiris throws light on Sun 9th Joy :smile:
i.e.
to be clear

I think that the warmest part of the day in most temperate regions
is the Sun in the 9th house,

not the 10th or 8th.

The ancients accounted for seasonal lag with Leo, they could have accounted for the diurnal lag

with the 9th house.
clearly there is no black and white
not in astrology

and not in "real life"
thus

if a planet is cadent but also in JOY
that planet is simply IN A MARGINALLY BETTER STATE
than
if that planet were cadent in one of the other cadent houses
that ARE NOT that planets JOY
 

petosiris

Banned
What part of the world where even logic does not apply is that? Sun in 8th is totally when it’s hottest.

The cusp of the 9th is definitely warmer than the cusp of the 8th during summer where I live, but I think you are right for winter. I don't know how it works in the desert.

But compare with another region in summer - https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/sydney/hourly

Just as the hottest days of summer don't happen until after the summer solstice, high temperatures don't usually happen until the late afternoon — typically 3 to 4 p.m. local time. By this time, the sun's heat has built up since noon and more heat is present at the surface than is leaving it. After 3 to 4 p.m., the sun sits low enough in the sky for the amount of outgoing heat to be greater than that incoming, and so temperatures begin to cool. - https://www.thoughtco.com/high-and-low-temperature-timing-3444247

3 to 4 is 8th house, so on average you might be right. Excuse me, I am an illogical moron.
 
Last edited:

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
if a planet is cadent but also in JOY
that planet is simply IN A MARGINALLY BETTER STATE
than
if that planet were cadent in one of the other cadent houses
that ARE NOT that planets JOY

That doesn't seem to be the standard view of a planet in it's joy, that it's simply in a "marginally better state" than if it were in a random cadent house.

Quote from the Skyscript glossary:

House of joy - the house where each of the traditional planets is assumed especially strong

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/house_of_joy.html
 

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
+2 apparently counters that assumption :smile:

Debrah Houlding is a respected traditional astrologer, was an editor of a traditional astrology magazine and is principle of some traditional astrology school. Would you say she's misguided in her description of planets in their joy being "especially strong"?

I'm no expert myself.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Debrah Houlding is a respected traditional astrologer, was
an editor of a traditional astrology magazine
and is principle of some traditional astrology school.
Would you say she's misguided
in her description of planets in their joy being "especially strong"?

I'm no expert myself
.
I'm no expert either :smile:
skyscript aka skyscrawl has a forum
so it is possible to ask Debrah Houlding
to define exactly her meaning
if that is what you would like to do
 

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
I'm no expert either :smile:
skyscript aka skyscrawl has a forum
so it is possible to ask Debrah Houlding
to define exactly her meaning
if that is what you would like to do

Yeah, that's a good idea though I don't think she participates in the forum anymore.

I ran across this thread where a user was sharing some of their insights. Though they're no expert either they have some interesting ideas...

quote:

Sun in the 9th house (trine to ascendant and in the house of his Joy) is definitely more favourable than sun in the 10th house but sun in the 10th house is more powerful (angular!) than sun in the 9th house (cadent house � or house where the power of the sun is turned away from native).

....

It is sometimes difficult for astrologers to differentiate these subtleties. Sometime we say that a planet is very good (favourable) when what we really mean is the planet is very powerful (a matter of strength not favourability).
 

petosiris

Banned
Deb is making a qualitative vs quantitative differentiation, as I noted on the previous page with the joys being imbedded with the house meanings in Valens. But I noted that he uses the same term for many placements in the 10th.

Furthermore, I am not sure if such difference like between essential and accidental dignity really existed in Hellenistic astrology - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1019579&postcount=10 I would like to see one share an example of that (not in general, as in dignified planets giving good stuff as rulers, but under the specified conditions in that post- like does a favourable Sun in 9th bring more rank than an afflicted powerful Sun in 10th?).
 
Last edited:
Top