A few questions about the midheaven and combinations

When the midheaven is in a cadent or succedent house, are planets that occupy that house accidentally dignified?

And regarding combinations (Valens Anthology), are two planets combined when in the same house even if they don't make a conjunction? And for combinations of three, do all three have to aspect each other?

Cheers,

Dan

When the midheaven is in a cadent or succedent house, are planets that occupy that house accidentally dignified?

Click to expand...

According to Valens it may appear so in whole signs, but I emphatically disagree with that approach. He does not explain the immediate inconsistencies of his theory (which worth mentioning he uses quite rarely throughout the anthology). And if that is so, one may just use quadrant houses. I prefer to use whole sign exclusively - the Midheaven is the 270th degree from the rising degree, and the culminating sign is always the tenth sign upon the rising sign. This one is more natural, with the quadrant Midheaven having an effect that is more concerned with declination throughout the day, but this is weaker than the one that is the closest to the zenith at the time - the so-called nonagesimal, equal house MC etc. Whole, vehlow and equal were never meant to base angularity on the quadrant MC, a common misconception.

And regarding combinations (Valens Anthology), are two planets combined when in the same house even if they don't make a conjunction? And for combinations of three, do all three have to aspect each other?

Click to expand...

He meant these combinations for conjunctions in the same sign. Conjunctions (called copresence/συμπαρουσία and not technically an aspect) and aspects (configurations/σχῆμα) in Hellenistic astrology are by sign. He explains the significations of sextile/hexagon, trine/trigon, square/tetragon and opposition/diameter a few chapters later. The combination of three stars I believe are meant for conjunctions of three stars, although he might have meant some usage for more broad purposes, for example when considering the effects of three stars with configurations or houserulers.

petosiris said:

According to Valens it may appear so in whole signs, but I emphatically disagree with that approach. He does not explain the immediate inconsistencies of his theory. And if that is so, one may just use quadrant houses. I prefer to use whole sign exclusively - the Midheaven is the 270th degree from the rising degree, and the culminating sign is always the tenth sign upon the rising sign. This one is more natural, with the quadrant Midheaven having an effect that is more concerned with declination throughout the day, but this is weaker than the one that is the closest to the zenith at the time - the so-called nonagesimal, equal house MC etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah I've been using other house systems (mainly porphyry) to try and get a better idea of what's going on but I think it's just adding to the confusion, whole signs is the one I use primarily so I'll stick with that and do some more research, nice one.

petosiris said:

He meant these combinations for conjunctions in the same sign. Conjunctions (called copresence/συμπαρουσία) and aspects (configurations/σχῆμα) in Hellenistic astrology are by sign. He explains the significations of sextile/hexagon, trine/trigon, square/tetragon and opposition/diameter a few chapters later. The combination of three stars I believe are meant for conjunctions of three stars, although he might have meant some usage for more broad purposes, for example when considering the effects of three stars with configurations or houserulers.

Click to expand...

Ah I see, I had a feeling I might've been a bit premature with my questions. And I didn't know aspects were by sign in Hellenistic astrology, I saw an option for it on the site I'm using but wasn't sure what was cracking! That makes sense when in conjunction, and yeah I still think there might be something to having three stars in configuration as I would've thought that'd give some power through the combination. Well thanks for clearing that up and giving me some areas to look into, you've been very helpful.

Yeah I've been using other house systems (mainly porphyry) to try and get a better idea of what's going on but I think it's just adding to the confusion, whole signs is the one I use primarily so I'll stick with that and do some more research, nice one.

Click to expand...

In whole signs you can still consider the Ascendant and the degrees square and opposite it as important for interpretation i.e. rising, culminating, setting or anti-culminating within 1, 3, 7 or 15 degrees of both sides are stronger than those 29 degrees away from the angles, but I don't extend those degrees to the declining and succedent signs (like someone like Dorotheus does), as I do not consider out of sign conjunctions, aspects etc. One is angularity by sign, the other is by degree, and the degree is particular to the general sign approach. It does not mean that everyone born within 2 hours have the same chart, and you also have lots to consider. In my opinion that is a more fruitful area of research than trying to use quadrant houses on top of whole signs.

I thought I'd reply here instead of starting a new thread as it's related to my initial question/s. So I've been trying to identify the exact strength of Saturn, now from what I understand, the 9th house is seen by the 1st house and so I'm inclined to conclude that Saturn is retaining much of his strength and therefore able to do business (due to his dignities), and especially as Mercury squares him (6 degree orb) thus further connecting him to the 1st house.

In a situation like this, would you extend the degrees from the Nonagesimal and/or take into consideration the Midheaven? I suspect that the configuration between Mercury and Saturn is sufficient, however, would you take the above into consideration if they weren't configured?

I'd appreciate any feedback/corrections/anything I've missed,

Thanks

DanTheRam said:

I thought I'd reply here instead of starting a new thread as it's related to my initial question/s. So I've been trying to identify the exact strength of Saturn, now from what I understand, the 9th house is seen by the 1st house and so I'm inclined to conclude that Saturn is retaining much of his strength and therefore able to do business (due to his dignities), and especially as Mercury squares him (6 degree orb) thus further connecting him to the 1st house.

In a situation like this, would you extend the degrees from the Nonagesimal and/or take into consideration the Midheaven? I suspect that the configuration between Mercury and Saturn is sufficient, however, would you take the above into consideration if they weren't configured?

I'd appreciate any feedback/corrections/anything I've missed,

Thanks

Click to expand...

Saturn and Mercury are trigon, at least in the tropical chart you present. Saturn is cadent according to whole signs, and in the 9th. Taurus and Capricorn are always in trine. The 9th is the least bad of the inoperative places, and a decent place for Saturn by day.

No, I personally would not for reasons I explained in my previous post. Saturn is slightly more elevated than usual, but in a declining and inoperative sign. The superior square ray of Saturn falls in Aries, so it has no effect in Taurus. The superior trine ray falls in Taurus which produces a configuration with Mercury. It is not an exchange of rays (within 3 degrees), nor is it very close figure (such as 7 or 15), so it is slightly weaker, but you should treat it for all purposes as a trine.

petosiris said:

Saturn and Mercury are trigon, at least in the tropical chart you present. Saturn is cadent according to whole signs, and in the 9th. Taurus and Capricorn are always in trine. The 9th is the least bad of the inoperative places, and a decent place for Saturn by day.

Click to expand...

Right, I'm with you. Yeah my sidereal chart is in better shape I think, I'm still undecided as to which one to use as I can relate to both. What's your preference?

petosiris said:

No, I personally would not for reasons I explained in my previous post. Saturn is slightly more elevated than usual, but in a declining and inoperative sign. The superior square ray of Saturn falls in Aries, so it has no effect in Taurus. The superior trine ray falls in Taurus which produces a configuration with Mercury. It is not an exchange of rays (within 3 degrees), nor is it very close figure (such as 7 or 15), so it is slightly weaker, but you should treat it for all purposes as a trine.

Click to expand...

Ah OK, yeah I understood what you said in your last post, I just wondered if there was any time you might allow for extending the degrees. And I thought the square might come into play due to the trine configuration being relatively weak but I'll gladly take that as a trine haha, and I know now to stick with the whole sign configurations and then take into account their degrees for strength. I'm about to work through your posts on Hellenistic astrology so I'll hold fire on the questions until I've read through those thoroughly and finished the book I'm currently reading.

Thanks for your help once again, and I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the two zodiacs or at least on which one you use and why.

Thanks for your help once again, and I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the two zodiacs or at least on which one you use and why.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

I personally prefer the sidereal zodiac conceptually and historically and present some arguments here - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120405, but I also do so by experience, since in whole signs angularity and aspects change quite often by zodiac, and for me personally cleared how some aspects seem to work, and how some saw tropical out of sign aspects as working as well. Based on fixed star boundaries, historical records and similar observations as with the tropical, I also prefer that the zodiac has Aldebaran and Antares at the middle of their signs, and Regulus and the Pleaides at the 6th ordinal degrees of their signs - I use Aldebaran 15 usually.

Vettius Valens himself did not use the tropical zodiac that begins with the vernal equinox at the first degree of Aries. His probable chart which he uses throughout the Anthology has Saturn in Cancer and Mercury in Aquarius only in a sidereal zodiac, or at least one which was aligned with different position of the equinox (his theoretical equinox was at the 8th degree of Aries).

Yeah my sidereal chart is in better shape I think

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, I did not choose the zodiac based on how mine or some other chart looked better, but simply which one seems to be closest to the truth. If the tropical zodiac works better, then it is better to stick with the tropical.

petosiris said:

You are welcome.

I personally prefer the sidereal zodiac conceptually and historically and present some arguments here - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120405, but I also do so by experience, since in whole signs angularity and aspects change quite often by zodiac, and for me personally cleared how some aspects seem to work, and how some saw tropical out of sign aspects as working as well. Based on fixed star boundaries, historical records and similar observations as with the tropical, I also prefer that the zodiac has Aldebaran and Antares at the middle of their signs, and Regulus and the Pleaides at the 6th ordinal degrees of their signs - I use Aldebaran 15 usually.

Click to expand...

The only experience I have with the sidereal zodiac is Vedic astrology which is what led me to Traditional so it's something I plan on exploring. I love a good argument so I shall look forward to reading that, nice one. I'm not all that familiar with the fixed stars yet, once I've got the basics down I'll delve into them.

petosiris said:

Nevertheless, I did not choose the zodiac based on how mine or some other chart looked better, but simply which one seems to be closest to the truth. If the tropical zodiac works better, then it is better to stick with the tropical.

Click to expand...

Well either way I've got Saturn kicking me hard up the **** so when I say better shape, I mean a kick from a slightly less painful angle (although the 10th house might be more painful!). I'll do experiments with both and see which one works.

What about Venus in 10th house, but the sign the brightest planet is in is Aries? That's my midheaven (3' conjunct Venus in 7'). For anyone with this alignment, esp. the sun and moon is in Aquarius, they're under a strong Venusian essence with the zodiac's first sign on their natal chart.

CapAquaPis said:

What about Venus in 10th house, but the sign the brightest planet is in is Aries? That's my midheaven (3' conjunct Venus in 7'). For anyone with this alignment, esp. the sun and moon is in Aquarius, they're under a strong Venusian essence with the zodiac's first sign on their natal chart.

Click to expand...

Ah I didn't know that. I'm looking at my sidereal chart at the moment and Venus is in the 11th but still makes a configuration with Aries (Ascendant). I'm just getting to the chapter on configurations in Valens Anthology so I should be able to start making sense of it all soon.

Thanks for your input!