Cadent houses being weak vs planetary joys

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Not trying to hijack the thread, but do you use Whole Sign and Alcabitius together?
I thought I remember you using Whole Signs, but wasn't sure.
i use Whole Sign for Topics :smile:
Alcabitius for planetary strength
You do realise that most of the topics' significations have to do with strength?
you do realise I'm no expert

quite simply
I refer to basics
i.e.
for example
IF

when using a quadrant system such as Alcabitius in tandem with Whole Sign

a planet is in 1st whether using EITHER Whole Sign OR Alcabitius
THEN
that planet is to some extent taking all other factors into account obviously :smile:

stronger than
when a planet is in 12th using quadrant system such as Alcabitius
is in 1st using whole Sign
 

petosiris

Banned
You do realise that most of the topics' significations have to do with strength?

This is why all astrologers switched to degree systems as soon as they were able to consistently calculate them. Incidentally, Ptedious Ptolemy's astronomical book and more importantly his ''Handy Tables'' played a large role in this proliferation. Ptolemy himself used a simple modified equal house system which was probably an embarrassment to the later astrologers, as Porphyry, Al-Qabisi, Regiomontanus and Placidus all claimed their house systems were the one used by Ptolemy. :smile:
 

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
I don’t find this concept of strong or weak houses coherent or reflective of the different interests, tasks, or characteristics of either the planets or the way they would operate together in a horoscope. Planets are in community with each other, not all trying to act “strong.”

Strong, weak, better, worse, exalted, debilitated etc. These concepts are real, though have fallen out of fashion in modern astrology.

Is living a cardboard box on the street better or worse than living in a mansion with servants attending to your every need?

If there is better or worse in real life then there should also be better or worse in the chart, unless astrology is unable to reflect real life.
 

petosiris

Banned
Strong, weak, better, worse, exalted, debilitated etc. These concepts are real, though have fallen out of fashion in modern astrology.

Is living a cardboard box on the street better or worse than living in a mansion with servants attending to your every need?

If there is better or worse in real life then there should also be better or worse in the chart, unless astrology is unable to reflect real life.

Well said.
 

waybread

Well-known member
HoldOrFold, you raise an interesting point (meaning I've wondered about it myself.)

One of my occasional pet projects is trying to learn the origin of the thematic meanings of houses in ancient times.

It's pretty clear that houses themselves (vs. signs) are of Egyptian origin. (Micah Ross & Dorian Greenbaum, "The Role of Egypt in the Development of the Horoscope" https://www.academia.edu/7451388/Th...velopment_of_the_Horoscope_with_D._Greenbaum_ )

Also, are you familiar with Chris Brennan's book Hellenistic Astrology? Highly recommended.

In reading the most prominent Hellenistic astrologers in English translation, I'm struck by the problem that they seemed to draw on different sources. There is overlap, but they are not identical.

A big difference is the system of evaluating house strength based on angularity, vs. one that relies more on whether the houses make a traditional major aspect with the ascendant. Namely, the sextile, square, trine, or opposition. In the first system, cadent houses are weak (see Manilius) but in the second system, the unfortunate houses are the inconjunct (semi-sextile or quincunx aspect) houses (12, 8, 6) with somehow the 2nd house having a more indifferent strength.

We have to acknowledge that Egyptian mythology long predated Hellenistic horoscopic astrology. The Babylonians didn't use houses until very late in the day, and this might have been a backwards diffusion from the Hellenists.

If you can find Otto Neugebauer and his associates' research papers on demotic (Roman-era Egyptian) horoscopes in the archaeological record, these use names from Egyptian mythology for some of the houses. The 4th is the "dwat" or "duat," Osiris's judgement hall of the dead. The 5th is the house of Hathor, described as the Egyptian Venus. The evil god Seth (Set) attacks the sun as it emerges in the morning with sandstorms that reduce its visibility.

The genius of the rationalist Greeks was to try to put these mythical materials into mathematic rationales. Nevertheless, a palimpsest of older narratives peeps out.

Because we also have Hellenistic names for some of the houses. The 12th is the house of the bad spirit. The 11th is the house of the good spirit (Jupiter, probably seen as equivalent to the Egyptian creator god Khnum.) Then we have opposite parallels with the 5th (good fortune, cf. benefic Venus) and 6th (bad fortune, cf. malefic Mars.)

Like the 12th, the 6th house of dusk also symbolized a time what the sun's light was dimmed.

Anciently the 3rd was the house of the goddess moon, while the 9th was the house of the sun god. This works out by Hellenistic sect, as well, with the greater malefic Saturn joying in the 12th and the greater benefic Jupiter joying in the 12th and 11th, respectively.)

Although the Egyptian scribe god Thoth was originally a moon god, the Hellenists assimilated him to their scribe god Hermes/Mercury, the psychopomp who leads the souls through the afterlife. Thoth was often depicted on the prow of Ra's sun boat. An ancient name for the first was the prow or the rudder. (Because Egyptian boats on the Nile had to be able to navigate both up and down the current, sometimes a rudder on the prow worked better.)

There is more material on Skyscript on the topic of planetary joys.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I find the argument to discredit Ptolemy "because he was not a practicing astrologer" to be similar to criticizing Donald Trump because he became president without ever having been a practicing politician. There are reasons to criticize both Trump and Ptolemy but they don't have to do with their cv.

Frankly, we don't know whether Ptolemy read horoscopes for other people or not. To me, this doesn't mean much. For the past century or so, university textbooks in economics, English literature, and political science have been written by university professors, not by people who were employed as economists, novelists, government office-holders, and so on.

As Petosiris notes, whether one approves of Ptolemy or not, he had a far more important influence on astrology going forward than did the astrologers who included horoscopes in their books. Part of Ptolemy's achievement was to set forth a systematic, comprehensive textbook. Today, in a college classroom, Tetrabiblos would probably be titled Principles of Astrology.

One thing the rationalist Ptolemy did not much care for were houses. This is a wee clue to astrological houses having a more mythological origin.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
HoldOrFold, you raise an interesting point (meaning I've wondered about it myself.)

One of my occasional pet projects is trying to learn the origin of the thematic meanings of houses in ancient times.

It's pretty clear that houses themselves (vs. signs) are of Egyptian origin. (Micah Ross & Dorian Greenbaum, "The Role of Egypt in the Development of the Horoscope" https://www.academia.edu/7451388/Th...velopment_of_the_Horoscope_with_D._Greenbaum_ )

Also, are you familiar with Chris Brennan's book Hellenistic Astrology? Highly recommended.

In reading the most prominent Hellenistic astrologers in English translation, I'm struck by the problem that they seemed to draw on different sources. There is overlap, but they are not identical.

A big difference is the system of evaluating house strength based on angularity, vs. one that relies more on whether the houses make a traditional major aspect with the ascendant. Namely, the sextile, square, trine, or opposition. In the first system, cadent houses are weak (see Manilius)



but in the second system, the unfortunate houses are
the inconjunct (semi-sextile or quincunx aspect)


houses (12, 8, 6) with somehow the 2nd house having a more indifferent strength.




- clearly you are not a traditional practitioner
i.e.

instead of your accustomed modernist terminology
on our tradtional board
we use the term AVERSION
or planets IN DISREGARD
aka DISJUNCT :smile:






We have to acknowledge that Egyptian mythology long predated Hellenistic horoscopic astrology. The Babylonians didn't use houses until very late in the day, and this might have been a backwards diffusion from the Hellenists.

If you can find Otto Neugebauer and his associates' research papers on demotic (Roman-era Egyptian) horoscopes in the archaeological record, these use names from Egyptian mythology for some of the houses. The 4th is the "dwat" or "duat," Osiris's judgement hall of the dead. The 5th is the house of Hathor, described as the Egyptian Venus. The evil god Seth (Set) attacks the sun as it emerges in the morning with sandstorms that reduce its visibility.

The genius of the rationalist Greeks was to try to put these mythical materials into mathematic rationales. Nevertheless, a palimpsest of older narratives peeps out.

Because we also have Hellenistic names for some of the houses. The 12th is the house of the bad spirit. The 11th is the house of the good spirit (Jupiter, probably seen as equivalent to the Egyptian creator god Khnum.) Then we have opposite parallels with the 5th (good fortune, cf. benefic Venus) and 6th (bad fortune, cf. malefic Mars.)

Like the 12th, the 6th house of dusk also symbolized a time what the sun's light was dimmed.

Anciently the 3rd was the house of the goddess moon, while the 9th was the house of the sun god. This works out by Hellenistic sect, as well, with the greater malefic Saturn joying in the 12th and the greater benefic Jupiter joying in the 12th and 11th, respectively.)

Although the Egyptian scribe god Thoth was originally a moon god, the Hellenists assimilated him to their scribe god Hermes/Mercury, the psychopomp who leads the souls through the afterlife. Thoth was often depicted on the prow of Ra's sun boat. An ancient name for the first was the prow or the rudder. (Because Egyptian boats on the Nile had to be able to navigate both up and down the current, sometimes a rudder on the prow worked better.)

There is more material on Skyscript on the topic of planetary joys.
 

petosiris

Banned
One thing the rationalist Ptolemy did not much care for were houses. This is a wee clue to astrological houses having a more mythological origin.

On the previous page I quoted a contemporary astrologer of Morin who said the following about Firmicus' chapter of the houses - ''he would be ridiculous who might think that these ridiculous reasons require our refutation'' (Holden translation, Book 17). Morin proceeds to give rational and naturalistic explanations for why he uses houses so much, as some of his fellow colleagues were returning to Ptolemy in this regard. :smile:
 

petosiris

Banned
You’re not trying to understand the point which is that a merely polar concept obscures qualitative and “scope of work” differences. Can Nature be exploited by the stronger? Of course. But she gets him in the end.

The ancient astrologers weren't better astrologers than modern day people, they were better philosophers.
 

sworm09

Well-known member
Or, let's talk about whether planets "behold" or "regard" the ascendant.

I think that this and angularity are more important and consistent than the meanings attached to the houses. Planetary aversion seems to be key in determining if a planet is going to help the native, harm the native, or performing in a bumbling manner.

I'm increasingly skeptical of how applicable the meanings of the houses are in delineation because I often find that when it comes down to actual chart work, we're required to stretch to make the planets fit the houses. I'm not quite at the point where I think that house meanings are all irrelevant nonsense, but I'm certainly beginning to appreciate just using planetary regards to the Asc and angularity when it comes to delineation. The planetary symbolism is rich enough that you can say quite a bit with just that. Often times I find that house meanings just make things confusing.

But that's just me and I have a lot of work to do before I can really say once and for all that I'm doing with using house meanings. I can just see how traditional delineation can be done without them.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
But that's just me and I have a lot of work to do before I can really say once and for all that I'm doing with using house meanings. I can just see how traditional delineation can be done without them.

In relation to this, I welcome everyone trying to achieve the objective of prediction on this board, whether they predict wealth with the lord of the Lot of Fortune or the lord of the second house cusp is immaterial, except technically. On the technicality all traditions and astrologers differ in some respect, but on the objective, they did not doubt that one could predict whether one would be of poor, middling or great fortune at least in general and from objective standpoint, and they all used the concept of planetary strength under some form for that matter. To doubt one technique and to advocate for another is to engage in traditional astrology and advancing it, to doubt the philosophy and the possibility of prediction, is to doubt traditional astrology to begin with. Probably for this reason the forum board description includes ''The focus is less on what would be considered modern psychological chart interpretation and more on prediction.''
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
A big difference is the system of evaluating house strength based on angularity, vs. one that relies more on whether the houses make a traditional major aspect with the ascendant. Namely, the sextile, square, trine, or opposition. In the first system, cadent houses are weak (see Manilius) but in the second system, the unfortunate houses are the inconjunct (semi-sextile or quincunx aspect) houses (12, 8, 6) with somehow the 2nd house having a more indifferent strength.

The 2nd is post-ascending and rising unlike the 8th which is post-ascending, but setting. The 3rd is pre-ascending, anti-culminating and also configured only with an inferior sextile. Both Dorotheus and Hephaistio explicitly say that the 2nd is better than the 3rd. The Indians likewise say the 6th, 8th and 12th are worst (dusthana) while the 3rd (not the 2nd) is middling. Ptolemy on the other hand seems to treat the 2nd as the fourth most powerful place in 3.3. and 3.4. of the Tetrabiblos. He seems to consider only orientality and angularity, unlike in 1.24. where he mentions aspect in a passing. I debated this once with a friend of mine, he argues that Ptolemy was only talking in general terms, and would also consider aspect to the Ascendant in the latter two chapters, where I was arguing that he (or the scribe) was using two different contradictory sources, with the latter being of Nechepso kind of understanding of the importance of orientality and angularity over aspect. We see this tense contradiction with other astrologers such as Dorotheus and Valens when using the triplicity rulers of the sect light, the 3rd and 9th places of gods and fortune suddenly become about beggars and misfortune.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I think that this and angularity are more important and consistent than the meanings attached to the houses. Planetary aversion seems to be key in determining if a planet is going to help the native, harm the native, or performing in a bumbling manner.

I'm increasingly skeptical of how applicable the meanings of the houses are in delineation because I often find that when it comes down to actual chart work, we're required to stretch to make the planets fit the houses. I'm not quite at the point where I think that house meanings are all irrelevant nonsense, but I'm certainly beginning to appreciate just using planetary regards to the Asc and angularity when it comes to delineation. The planetary symbolism is rich enough that you can say quite a bit with just that. Often times I find that house meanings just make things confusing.

But that's just me and I have a lot of work to do before I can really say once and for all that I'm doing with using house meanings. I can just see how traditional delineation can be done without them.

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.

Houses seem to be a post-Babylonian addition to astrology; and I am one of those people who agrees with Robert Hand that whole signs was probably the earliest house system developed. In that sense (only) we can apply what the Hellenists said about signs and planets in signs to houses.


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 get back to the OP, we do find planetary joys in opposition relationships with the malefics Saturn (12th) and Mars (6th,) the benefics Jupiter (11th) and Venus (5th) and luminaries sun (9th) and moon (3rd.) There are some other affinities, as well: the masculine planets Jupiter and the sun are in a sextile relationship. The feminine moon and Venus are in a sextile relationship. Malefics Saturn and Mars are in a square relationship with the sun and moon. Mercury joying in the first house beholds Jupiter, sun, Venus, and the moon, but not the malefics in the 12th and 6th houses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

petosiris

Banned
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.

Have you read Hellenistic astrological authors on events, elections and questions? Dorotheus and Hephaistio used to do the same prognostication using the four angles and never using lords of houses. Ptolemy did medical and mundane too. Btw just to clarify any possible misunderstanding, he consistently uses houses for planetary strength, and does occasionally use some of them as significators, especially the degrees of the Ascendant and the Midheaven, which he considers as two of the five most authoritative places at the nativity. What you are talking about mostly are particular topical significations like wealth in 2nd, siblings in 3rd, parents in 4th and so on, which Ptolemy often omits, although not entirely (as in the case of children, injury, action and slaves).
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Are we reading the same Tetrabiblos? Ptolemy explicity talks about houses only with respect to one method, calculating length of life in III. 10. Then he doesn't even mention all of the houses by number or name.

I agree that we can sometimes infer houses from Mr. Pt's discussions having to do with angularity, oriental/occidental, or the order of signs.

I have the sources you mention, but I don't read them to replicate the techniques.

[Deleted attacking comment. - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

petosiris

Banned
Are we reading the same Tetrabiblos? Ptolemy explicity talks about houses only with respect to one method, calculating length of life in III. 10. Then he doesn't even mention all of the houses by number or name.

I agree that we can sometimes infer houses from Mr. Pt's discussions having to do with angularity, oriental/occidental, or the order of signs.

I have the sources you mention, but I don't read them to replicate the techniques.

Sneaky!

Sneaky what?

Ptolemy uses the Ascendant, the Midheaven and the Descendant places for classification of events in mundane astrology in 2.7.
Ptolemy uses the 10th and 11th derivative places from Venus or Moon for the children of the mother/siblings in 3.5.
Ptolemy uses the Ascendant in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, 3.14 and 4.7 for gender, multiple births, teratology, infant mortality, bodily form, bodily injuries and diseases, diseases of the soul and pleasure or pain in friendship or enmity.
Ptolemy uses the Descendant and its pre-ascending place for bodily injuries and diseases in 3.12.
Ptolemy uses the Midheaven place for action in 4.4.
Ptolemy uses the Midheaven, its post-ascension and the opposite places for children in 4.6.
Ptolemy uses the ''place of the evil daemon'' for slaves in 4.7.
Ptolemy uses the Descendant and the four declines for travel in 4.8 and 4.9.
Ptolemy uses the Descendant degree as a potential significator of death and the Anti-Midheaven for burial in 4.9.
Ptolemy uses the Ascendant degree (for body and travel) and the Midheaven degree (for action, children and friendship) as two of the five most authoritative/prorogative places in 4.10.
Almost every chapter includes the usage of planetary power ''with respect to the nativity'', and he also has a great method for timing events with the quadrants, which he also uses for gender. He explains this in 1.6 and 3.3. He gives an alternative arrangement with alternating houses (some of the Medieval and Renaissance astrologers used this), but does not agree with it in 1.12.

[attacking comment - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

waybread

Well-known member
[response to attacking comment - Moderator]

My "sneaky" tag-line unfortunately was misplaced. Given your post, I won't now correct it. What I meant was Ptolemy really declines to talk about houses directly, except in sec. 3:10. Angularity, yes. But not like other Hellenistic astrologers itemized their thematic meanings. But as you point out, we can infer a lot about houses from examples such as those you posted. So he's kind of covert about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top