david starling
Well-known member
"Normative"! I use "Conventional Wisdom" for that. 
Do you agree with this? (House Positions = Sign Placements)
- Thread starter VonFinck
- Start date
waybread
Well-known member
Moonrise 3, This is a misinterpretation. In Ptolemy's day, there was no standard calendar in the ancient world. Different cultures and regions within Greece had their own calendars. You see remnants of this today, with the Jewish religious calendar starting in the fall with Rosh Hashannah. The Egyptian calendar year started with the rising of the start Sirius, as it presaged the Nile floods.
Let's focus on this passage:
What he's saying is that you have to start somewhere, so let's use animals as a metaphor.
Moreover, astrologers in Ptolemy's day observed the spring equinox in Aries, but not at zero degrees Aries. Some thought it was at 8 or 5 degrees Aries. He may not have invented the starting point at 0 degrees Aries, but he popularized it.
And this is just for the western tropical zodiac. In the sidereal zodiac used by some westerners and in Vedic astrology, the spring equinox is now in an early degree of Pisces, or even in late Aquarius.
If you read further into Tetrabiblos, you will see that Ptolemy actually didn't use houses. He mentions their. existence in one section only, to be used with one particular technique, and then he doesn't even give them all by name.
Moreover, if you match up Ptolemy's two paragraphs-- well, they don't very well. Aries on the east side of the horoscope is warm and moist in paragraph one. In the Aristotelian scheme, these conditions were favourable for growth. In the second paragraph, the east winds are drying, which was inimicable to growth. The sun in Cancer, at the summer solstice, a water sign, is more drying still.
Ptolemy's scheme is based on the Mediterranean climate regime, as you probably know.
He didn't mean" houses" in general by "angles." Angles in this context refer to the signs at the solstice and equinox points. Because houses are diurnal, not seasonal, the climate analogy doesn't actually apply.
Let's focus on this passage:
What he's saying is that you have to start somewhere, so let's use animals as a metaphor.
Moreover, astrologers in Ptolemy's day observed the spring equinox in Aries, but not at zero degrees Aries. Some thought it was at 8 or 5 degrees Aries. He may not have invented the starting point at 0 degrees Aries, but he popularized it.
And this is just for the western tropical zodiac. In the sidereal zodiac used by some westerners and in Vedic astrology, the spring equinox is now in an early degree of Pisces, or even in late Aquarius.
If you read further into Tetrabiblos, you will see that Ptolemy actually didn't use houses. He mentions their. existence in one section only, to be used with one particular technique, and then he doesn't even give them all by name.
Moreover, if you match up Ptolemy's two paragraphs-- well, they don't very well. Aries on the east side of the horoscope is warm and moist in paragraph one. In the Aristotelian scheme, these conditions were favourable for growth. In the second paragraph, the east winds are drying, which was inimicable to growth. The sun in Cancer, at the summer solstice, a water sign, is more drying still.
Ptolemy's scheme is based on the Mediterranean climate regime, as you probably know.
He didn't mean" houses" in general by "angles." Angles in this context refer to the signs at the solstice and equinox points. Because houses are diurnal, not seasonal, the climate analogy doesn't actually apply.
david starling
Well-known member
Aries IS the starting-point for the MODERN Tropical-zodiac. That's why "The First Point of Tropical Aries" became the starting point for Astronomy's Right Ascension, and why it's the reference-point for the Sidereal Ayanamsa. Spring is the time of renewal, after Winter ends, which is a good, although unnecessary, metaphorical reason for something already fait accompli. The Vernal Equinoctial Point marks the beginning of the first MODERN Tropical-sign, just as the Ascendant marks the beginning of the first Placidus House.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
you said:
well said
SIGNS are neither strong nor weak
HOUSES may be strong or weak
for example
angular houses are strong
houses 1,4,7 & 10 are all angular houses
angular houses 1,4,7 & 10 are strongest
david starling
Well-known member
But, Houses aren't really Houses, like in the "Three Little Pigs" fable, where the brick house was strong enough to fend off the Big Bad Wolf!
They REPRESENT the Areas of Life. Why should one Area of Life be intrinsically "stronger" than another, regardless of Placements?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Tropical Zodiac is a REPRESENTATIONBut, Houses aren't really Houses, like in the "Three Little Pigs" fable, where the brick house
was strong enough to fend off the Big Bad Wolf!
They REPRESENT the Areas of Life.
Why should one Area of Life be intrinsically "stronger" than another, regardless of Placements?
i.e.
at Spring Equinox sunrise, transiting Sun is in consellation of PISCES not Aries
that's because of precession
yet many, including yourself, use the "Tropical" zodiac nevertheless
david starling
Well-known member
Tropical Zodiac is a REPRESENTATION
i.e.
at Spring Equinox sunrise, transiting Sun is in consellation of PISCES not Aries
that's because of precession
yet many, including yourself, use the "Tropical" zodiac nevertheless
The Constellational IMAGES are also representations.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
david starling
Well-known member
Angular houses
i.e.
Houses 1,4,7 & 10
are strongest
Interesting theory!
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
So you have not read William Lilly then
Many are aware that houses are defined as:
angular = 1st, 4th, 7th & 10th
succeedent = 2nd, 5th, 8th, & 11th
and
cadent = 3rd, 6th, 9th & 12th
as shown in the diagram
and
The houses are not all equal in strength and power.
i.e.
If a planet is located in an angular house it is much more forceful in its effects
than it would be in a cadent house.
for example:
in CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY William Lilly writes:
The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor, and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next after the succeedents.
In force and virtue they stand so in order:
1 10 7 4 11 5 9 3 2 8 6 12
The meaning whereof is this, that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant, the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant
somewhat of more power to effect what he is significator of
than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles do more forcibly show their effects.
waybread
Well-known member
OK, but the point being that the sidereal zodiacs still roughly stick to the constellations for which the signs are named, today making them somewhere around 24 to 27 degrees different than in the western tropical zodiac. To me, this is another reason to question a precise sign-house overlap by-the-numbers.
The 0 Aries point isn't objectively real. You won't find it up there in the sky.
But taking your point as the convention that westerners have been using for almost two millennia, it still does not logically follow ipso facto that the first sign and the first house mean the same thing.
They do not. Houses show domains of activity. Signs show or in what manner a planet operates within a given domain of activity.
Maybe an analogy would be like saying the first 12 numbers and first twelve letters of the alphabet mean the same thing. We can all see a small bit of overlap. Both could be used in a rank-order numbering scheme, in in some IT operations, for example. But normally, we don't use letters of the alphabet and numbers interchangeably. You aren't going to work out an arithmetic problem, like dividing up a group restaurant tab, by using letters of the alphabet, for example.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Good answer! What about the idea that it's a connection (not conflation) between the manifestations of Earth's orbital movement (the Signs) and Earth's rotational movement (the Houses)? Also, we take for granted that the Ascendant marks the first House, but some cultures used the Sundown as beginning a day, not the point of Sunrise. So, both Ascendant as first House locator, AND Vernal Equinoctial Point as first Sign locator, could be considered arbitrary, and determined by convention.
waybread
Well-known member
David, this goes back to the beginnings of Hellenistic horoscopic astrology. We don't really know how the houses originated. The Babylonians didn't use them, and the Greeks adopted the major outlines of astrology from the Babylonians. The idea of houses probably was borrowed from the solar religion of ancient Egypt, in which Ra passed through several discrete stations or temples during his journey around the sky.
There is some thought that prior to the codification of 12 houses, astrologers may have simply used a quadrant system or, briefly, an 8-house system. With the quadrants, the obvious points were the east and west horizons where the sun rises and sets, the highest point reached by the sun during the day (MC) and then its postulated opposite point in a geocentric model (IC)
The points where the sun rose, set, and reached its highest and "lowest" (or southernmost and northernmost) place were seen as particularly powerful spots of the horoscope, with other portions of the quadrant "falling away" from them.
One thing I might stress is that the houses conceptually do not change their relative position. In a quadrant system, the cusps will wiggle around between charts, but in whole signs (which probably was a very early house system) the houses as 30-degree pie sectors completely stay put. The signs appear to rotate through the houses on a diurnal basis, due to what we now know as the earth's rotation on its axis.
I might also mention that we have vestiges of astrologers not being entirely bound by the Aries Point as the beginning point of the horoscope, in such methods as the planetary hours http://www.skyscript.co.uk/hourrule.html, dwads (where the first dwad is the same as its sign,) the planetary terms, and faces or decans (an essential dignity consideration.) Some modern astrologers use dwads https://aliceportman.com/calculating-duad-and-dwad-charts/ .
david starling
Well-known member
Right. All measurements of movement are relative to what is CHOSEN as the fixed point, or points. The horizons appear, subjectively, to be stationary, and it's easy to see what's above and below the horizons by holding them fixed in the Chart. As you always say, it's what works that counts. And what works for one Astrologer may not work for another. We can be absolutely sure about one thing--disagreement among Astrologers!
waybread
Well-known member
moonrise, I am glad you are reading Ptolemy, but please recognize that his translations are copyrighted, and the forum rules give is a 100-word limit to avoid copyright violation. I have the Loeb Classical Library translation. If that's what you're quoting, would you kindly include the page number/s or book and section number?
I would love to see you translate your second long excerpt into a justification of your sign=house method, subject to the following caveats.
1. The Greek words for signs and houses were confusingly translated by classicists who did not always understand astrology very well. This has caused a lot of confusion amongst readers who are unable to read the original classical Greek (or Latin in some instances.) I'd like to double-check this passage, because Ptolemy probably meant "signs" where your English translation is "houses." If you look at how Ptolemy instructs his readers on calculation, you will probably find him counting signs from the ascendant. As I mentioned earlier, he mentions houses as houses in our present-day sense in only one section in connection with a particular calculation, in a kind of standardized equal house system, and then he doesn't even give a complete list of all the houses and their meanings. The translater's apparent confusion of "houses" for signs seems especially clear in your last excerpted paragraph.
See Deborah Houlding on this point:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob5.html
2. The meanings of the houses were not well standardized in Hellenistic astrology. I could certainly cite authors if I take the time to rummage through my collection who give the MC/10th house as one's public image for better or worse (Vettius Valens) or fame and honours (Manilius.)
But supposing we take your point that Ptolemy gives the MC to the father: where does he relate it to Capricorn? In fact, if you use 0 degrees Aries on your eastern horizon, as you would do with a sign-house conflation using the diurnal zodiac, you would first get Cancer on the MC, with Capricorn on the IC. This actually makes some sense with the traditional meaning of the 4th as ruling one's father and patrimony, in the sense that Capricorn is ruled by Saturn, associated with one's father in a night birth.
Note that the order of rising signs in the course of a 24-hour period and the order of the sun-signs seasonally run in opposite directions.
3. If you read further down your second long quote, you can see that Ptolemy is really talking about how to assess planetary strength, not assigning house-sign match-ups. He does talk about the angles in a quadrant sense: again, angular planets were believed to be strongest. But you won't find him talking about this-or-that house in the way that we find in other Hellenistic authors or even in some of the archaeological finds of horoscopes.
Even so, it is really unclear how the sign representing the summer solstice somehow relates to the modern house=sign idea. From the perspective of Manilius, who gives the Hellenistic planetary joys, the moon joys in the third house, which used to be called the house of the Goddess, as opposed to the 9th house of the God, wherein Apollo (the sun) joys.
But wow. I'm impressed that you're taking the time and trouble to read Ptolemy. Would that more modern astrologers followed your spirit of inquity.
I would love to see you translate your second long excerpt into a justification of your sign=house method, subject to the following caveats.
1. The Greek words for signs and houses were confusingly translated by classicists who did not always understand astrology very well. This has caused a lot of confusion amongst readers who are unable to read the original classical Greek (or Latin in some instances.) I'd like to double-check this passage, because Ptolemy probably meant "signs" where your English translation is "houses." If you look at how Ptolemy instructs his readers on calculation, you will probably find him counting signs from the ascendant. As I mentioned earlier, he mentions houses as houses in our present-day sense in only one section in connection with a particular calculation, in a kind of standardized equal house system, and then he doesn't even give a complete list of all the houses and their meanings. The translater's apparent confusion of "houses" for signs seems especially clear in your last excerpted paragraph.
See Deborah Houlding on this point:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob5.html
2. The meanings of the houses were not well standardized in Hellenistic astrology. I could certainly cite authors if I take the time to rummage through my collection who give the MC/10th house as one's public image for better or worse (Vettius Valens) or fame and honours (Manilius.)
But supposing we take your point that Ptolemy gives the MC to the father: where does he relate it to Capricorn? In fact, if you use 0 degrees Aries on your eastern horizon, as you would do with a sign-house conflation using the diurnal zodiac, you would first get Cancer on the MC, with Capricorn on the IC. This actually makes some sense with the traditional meaning of the 4th as ruling one's father and patrimony, in the sense that Capricorn is ruled by Saturn, associated with one's father in a night birth.
Note that the order of rising signs in the course of a 24-hour period and the order of the sun-signs seasonally run in opposite directions.
3. If you read further down your second long quote, you can see that Ptolemy is really talking about how to assess planetary strength, not assigning house-sign match-ups. He does talk about the angles in a quadrant sense: again, angular planets were believed to be strongest. But you won't find him talking about this-or-that house in the way that we find in other Hellenistic authors or even in some of the archaeological finds of horoscopes.
Even so, it is really unclear how the sign representing the summer solstice somehow relates to the modern house=sign idea. From the perspective of Manilius, who gives the Hellenistic planetary joys, the moon joys in the third house, which used to be called the house of the Goddess, as opposed to the 9th house of the God, wherein Apollo (the sun) joys.
But wow. I'm impressed that you're taking the time and trouble to read Ptolemy. Would that more modern astrologers followed your spirit of inquity.
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
David, as I've mentioned above, repeatedly, there are cases where you find a "connection." Medical astrology. Jupiter, the 9th house, and Sagittarius having connections with long-distance travel and higher education. Another one would be Gemini (twin brothers) ruling siblings, a 3rd house matter.
I just don't think it helps to stretch it too far.
Note that my use of the words "rotation" and "orbit" are how we understand the diurnal and seasonal zodiacs today.
I sometimes wonder whether "convention" isn't a polite way of saying that something is arbitrary, but let's agree to it so that we can try to make systematic sense out of disparate phenomena.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
And what do you understand from that quote, moonrise?
For anyone who is interested in reading what Ptolemy has to say instead of getting conveniently-cut sections by someone who is trying to prove a point, here you go.
http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabelas/Tetrabiblos.pdf
For anyone who is interested in reading what Ptolemy has to say instead of getting conveniently-cut sections by someone who is trying to prove a point, here you go.
http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabelas/Tetrabiblos.pdf
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
moonrise, I actually paraphrased some of your latest long excerpt in a couple of previous posts.
Of course, horoscopic astrology starts with an MC and an ascendant (if you've ever calculated a horoscope by hand.) Ptolemy seems to be working with a crude quadrant system, vs. the system of 12 houses that were known in his day. (Cf. his contemporary, Vettius Valens.) Once more, the angles are the power points in Ptolemy's horoscope, with distance from the angles (their "falling away") diminishing a planet's power.
Ptolemy definitely looked at aspects between planetary pairs, although he seemed to do this by sign, rather than by degree. For example, if you had a domiciled moon in Cancer rising, that was a strong position-- both by domicile and by angularity. If you had Venus in Scorpio, then that Venus wasn't so strong (today we'd say it was in detriment) but the relationship with the moon would be harmonious due to the trine aspect.
Today we might say that Scorpio Venus was in the 5th house, but there's no evidence that Ptolemy would have understood Venus in terms of 5th house matters.
If Venus were in Libra or Aries, that would be a square relationship. Not so good.
I think it's great that you're delving into Ptolemy but I fail to see how you think your excerpts validate your sign=house ideas.
Of course, horoscopic astrology starts with an MC and an ascendant (if you've ever calculated a horoscope by hand.) Ptolemy seems to be working with a crude quadrant system, vs. the system of 12 houses that were known in his day. (Cf. his contemporary, Vettius Valens.) Once more, the angles are the power points in Ptolemy's horoscope, with distance from the angles (their "falling away") diminishing a planet's power.
Ptolemy definitely looked at aspects between planetary pairs, although he seemed to do this by sign, rather than by degree. For example, if you had a domiciled moon in Cancer rising, that was a strong position-- both by domicile and by angularity. If you had Venus in Scorpio, then that Venus wasn't so strong (today we'd say it was in detriment) but the relationship with the moon would be harmonious due to the trine aspect.
Today we might say that Scorpio Venus was in the 5th house, but there's no evidence that Ptolemy would have understood Venus in terms of 5th house matters.
If Venus were in Libra or Aries, that would be a square relationship. Not so good.
I think it's great that you're delving into Ptolemy
but I fail to see how you think your excerpts validate your sign=house ideas.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
You see "house" and think Ptolemy was referring to some type of quadrant type system. Even if he was, I don't see the relationship of what he is positing to your own views.
What this part is describing is "proper face" which refers to is the aspect relationship that you can see clearly in this diagram of the thema mundi. He uses Venus in his example, and what will notice by looking at the diagram is that the Venusian signs sextile the luminaries - Taurus sextiles Cancer and Libra Sextiles Leo. Disregarding that Venus can never sextile the Sun, the relationship spoke about here is one of aspect, not house position. If I have a Moon in Aquarius then Venus would be in her proper face providing that she was in Sagittarius (Aquarius sextiles Sagittarius). "House" in this context are the signs and their natural positioning around the zodiac wheel.
ETA: The occidental or oriental status have to be taken into account when looking at the proper face. Based on what I understand, nocturnal planets would have to be in a natural aspect to a luminary AND be placed in agreement with their sect luminary. Therefore, Mars, and Venus would have to be oriental to the Moon as well as occidental to the Sun as they are nocturnal planets (this brings sect into play). Jupiter would have to be oriental of the Sun - as he is a diurnal planet. Saturn wouldn't be oriental his sect partner when in proper face, as he would have to be opposed the Sun in order to meet the requirement.
Whether this has any effect in actual delineation I can't say, but this would seem to be the aspect equivalent of house joys, which were the traditional way of planets being attributed to certain signs as a result of affinity/quality, as opposed to similarity in sequence (Aries = 1st house etc)
Last edited: