Why would Mercury rejoice in Cancer, a mute sign, or Venus in Scorpio, the opposite of Taurus? Your example strikes me as a coincidence of two different systems.
Why does Mars Joy in H6?
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
Why would Mercury rejoice in Cancer, a mute sign, or Venus in Scorpio, the opposite of Taurus? Your example strikes me as a coincidence of two different systems.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
tsmall
Premium Member
The planets "rejoice/joy" in houses, not signs. And quite a few of the house significations are derrived from the joys.
waybread, thanks. Fingers crossed, lol. I have attached a picture of the Thema with both joys and exaltations.
Attachments
waybread
Well-known member
Thanks, Oddity-- but the Thema Mundi and planetary joys really seem to me like separate systems. It's gotta be more than just blood. As you know, the 5th is the house of one's children, as well; so there's got to be more to it than simple 1:1 correspondences. Venus joys in the 5th.
The Thema Mundi has been called a teaching tool, presumably on domiciles. I looked it up in Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology, and rightly or wrongly the later Hellenists attributed it to Imhotep (Asclepius) and Hermes via Nechepso and Petosiris. This seems like the Hermetic tradition. Firmicus Maternus (book 3) has quite an exposition on it, relating the planets' feminine and masculine domiciles and positions to their aspects to the sun and moon.
FM gives an ordering of the planets related to historical periods of humanity, from a more primitive state to an apparent pinnacle in his day.
There are several different explanations for the origins of the joys, some more rational and some more mystical. Brennan (p. 342) thought that the joys probably pre-dated the Hermes texts. He notes parallels between the meanings or significations of the houses and the joys.
My own theory is that the joys derived from ancient Egyptian religion and its passage of the sun through different stations at night, and the soul in the afterlife. For example, Manilius gave the 12th house to the Roman god Typhon (cf. our word typhoon) who seems like a cognate god for the Egyptian Seth, who threatened the new sun with chaos. Seth was the "great malefic" in the Egyptian pantheon, so he could reasonably linked to Saturn.
Venus, joying in the 5th house, was cognate with the Egyptian goddess Hathor, who ruled childbirth and pleasure.
So much is unknown about the origins of horoscopic astrology, in part because some of the material had the status of religious secrets, revealed only to initiates.
The Thema Mundi has been called a teaching tool, presumably on domiciles. I looked it up in Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology, and rightly or wrongly the later Hellenists attributed it to Imhotep (Asclepius) and Hermes via Nechepso and Petosiris. This seems like the Hermetic tradition. Firmicus Maternus (book 3) has quite an exposition on it, relating the planets' feminine and masculine domiciles and positions to their aspects to the sun and moon.
FM gives an ordering of the planets related to historical periods of humanity, from a more primitive state to an apparent pinnacle in his day.
There are several different explanations for the origins of the joys, some more rational and some more mystical. Brennan (p. 342) thought that the joys probably pre-dated the Hermes texts. He notes parallels between the meanings or significations of the houses and the joys.
My own theory is that the joys derived from ancient Egyptian religion and its passage of the sun through different stations at night, and the soul in the afterlife. For example, Manilius gave the 12th house to the Roman god Typhon (cf. our word typhoon) who seems like a cognate god for the Egyptian Seth, who threatened the new sun with chaos. Seth was the "great malefic" in the Egyptian pantheon, so he could reasonably linked to Saturn.
Venus, joying in the 5th house, was cognate with the Egyptian goddess Hathor, who ruled childbirth and pleasure.
So much is unknown about the origins of horoscopic astrology, in part because some of the material had the status of religious secrets, revealed only to initiates.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Planets exalting in signs seems equivalent to joying in houses.
I am not sure you understand the terms you are using. In Hellenistic astrology, zoidia/images/signs are houses/oikoi of planets, where the planets are said to rejoice/charein, whether by domicile, exaltation or trigon (note that there is also an oikodespotes/houseruler by bound).
Zoidia are also interchangeable with places/topoi which are what modern astrologers mean by ''houses''. Note in the first few centuries of the common era, the so-called whole sign system seems to have been used exclusively, thus each sign is a place, for example the eastern sign is Hour-Marker/Ascendant.
It is true that quite a few of the house significations are derived from the joys, but also quite a few are not. There is also the question of whether the joys are based on astronomical considerations, because then it becomes a circular argument for their usage, logically speaking.
No Hellenistic author ever presents a diagram remotely similar as yours. {deleted attacking comment, Moderator]
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited:
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Could you elaborate on this?
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.
I want to emphatically stress that this applies to exaltations, trigons and terms to even greater degree. Chris Brennan does not use terms in his course. The unaware might find it surprising that triplicities and terms were applied as equal or even greater houserulership (see my previous post on oikodespotes). Ptolemy, for example, uses them as equal considerations of predomination. Dorotheus and Manetho use house and term rulers as equal influences in degree placements. Some astrologers decide the Master (another oikodespotes) of the Nativity by the term, others by sign.
This is especially also true of the bizarre ''aspect doctrine'' reconstruction by Robert Schmidt, and the subsequent one by Demetra George, Ben Dykes and Chris Brennan. Thrasyllus, Dorotheus, Porphyry, Valens etc. all differ in some respect of striking with a ray, of latitude, of superiority etc., but western pundits tell us there is one grand Antiochus or Hermetic paradigm in all. If you are interested, I can offer dozens of examples.
Another issue is the zodiac. Although Robert Schmidt made the excellent job of translating zoidia as ''images'', other astrologers such as Chris Brennan think that ''sign'' as more appropriate term since ''abstract tropical divisions'' were meant in authors like Ptolemy, which is a bizarre and false claim. Obviously some astrologers coming from a modern perspective find it hard to resist the bending of texts according to agendas.
Last edited:
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
I'm interested in those dozens of examples
Alright, dexter aspects in Porphyry can happen by sextile, square and trine. In Valens 2.30K, they also occur by conjunction and opposition. ''Serapio'' also mentions that superiority occurs by conjunction, for example planet in the first degrees of a sign is superior to one that is in the last degrees of the same sign.
Striking with a ray influences three degrees on each side of the exact aspect according to Valens, but according to Antiochus and others, it occurs by application within a certain degree range and by sign (?) with a sinister aspect.
Porphyry, however, mentions that according to Thrasyllus, striking with a ray occurs to both sides, and that it does not matter whether the aspect is dexter and sinister.
Many authors strangely do not even mention the Antiochus definition, leading some scholars like Stephen Heilen to suggest that striking with a ray was originally conceptualized in the opposite counterclockwise way. Indeed, it is particularly perplexing that superiority occurs by right aspects, but striking with a ray occurs only by left aspects in some authors after Antiochus.
Dorotheus says one should examine latitude with aspects. Ptolemy says to do so only with conjunctions. Most authors do not ever mention latitude...
I would like to give the opinion from a private communication of Levente Laszlo - ''Actually, the whole issue seems a hornets' nest, for the following reasons: first, I don't think that really adequate research has been done on the whole Hellenistic "aspect theory," and that's why there are so many uncertainties. The concepts like sunaphe, kollesis, sunodos, aporrhoia, aktinobolia, kathuperteresis and so on form complex networks that can only be investigated en masse for a certain author.''
Oddity
Well-known member
Which means you need to observe these things in your practise and see how they play out.
Presumably, most of us are doing that. Even in early medieval astrology there are a fair number of gaps and disagreements. Trad astrology hasn't been around for that long (to us). And you'll find scholarship from ten or twenty years ago out-of-date - a lot.
There are a lot of techniques that work and work well, some that don't seem to do much of anything, others that have been lost or mistranslated. So you observe, and test, as well as delve into the scholarly side of it.
Presumably, most of us are doing that. Even in early medieval astrology there are a fair number of gaps and disagreements. Trad astrology hasn't been around for that long (to us). And you'll find scholarship from ten or twenty years ago out-of-date - a lot.
There are a lot of techniques that work and work well, some that don't seem to do much of anything, others that have been lost or mistranslated. So you observe, and test, as well as delve into the scholarly side of it.
waybread
Well-known member
[deleted references to attacking comments, Moderator]
What is your own background in ancient Greek? Philology? Note that modern English and ancient Greek do not always permit 1:1 translations.
Last edited by a moderator:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
presumably then
you are willing to share your own background in ancient Greek/philology
obviously, since you yourself are not a traditional astrologer
a reminder at this stage of the thread ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***
at https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120411
is timely
since the thread highlights in particular
that non-traditional posters on this board participate as guests
i.e.
QUOTE
This is the Traditional Astrology forum.
Out of all the different boards in this forum,
this one is the home for traditional astrologers.
It was created so that traditional astrologers
can discuss traditional astrology with each other
without having to justify it to non-traditionalists
or be interrupted by people disagreeing with traditional perspectives.
Traditional astrologers, welcome home!
If you are not a traditional astrologer, you are welcome as a guest.
Good guests respect the rules of the house.
All that you say is true, but it isn't my comments that stifle testing and disagreement.
tsmall
Premium Member
Let me assure you I am quite comprehensive with the terms I am using. I am well aware and well versed in the concepts presented by whole house systems, including the terms zodia, images, houses, rejoicing conditions, oikodespotes, bounds, etc. Let me also assure you that while I am familiar with them, I as a practicing traditional astrologer use house systems, and choose to not limit myself to the confines on Hellenism.
Sure. I use signs for topics, but make no mistake. I use Placidus house system.
NO ONE knows where the planetary joys, nor the exaltations came from. We only know they are there. We do know a few things though. Is your point only to take me to task? If so I as that you just stop.
Perhaps not, but then we have very few actual diagrams leftover from the Hellenistic era. I DO know of at least 2 contemporary Hellenistic astrologers who have published such a diagram.
tsmall
Premium Member
Why? I mean seriously, why? Haven't YOU ever been curious? We have this body of astrology handed to us, that includes rulerships, joys, and exaltations. Why WOULDN'T you want to see them on a wheel? Beyond that, how about a quote from Valens? Book II.."The VI Place, the house of Mars?"