It is true that what I do is not conclusive and hypothetical, but what you say is absolutely fanciful. I have some evidence, you have none to work with. Argument ex silentio seems to be a very strong argument in this case.
You are trying to cast too much doubt on traditional astrology. You are free to quote any academic as an argument against any of my points, I much prefer that to straw man arguments.
I can see this thread has moved on, but my computer was in the shop for the past two days.
Petosiris, sometimes the best defense is a good offense, but really, these "mirror, mirror on the wall" ripostes are unhelpful. My thoughts on the origins of thematic house meanings are not "absolutely fanciful" or straw man tactics, but are based upon research that you apparently have not undertaken. I should start a separate thread on it, probably at Skyscript, where I note that you are also a member. Once I can find the time, it would take me a couple of days to get all of my notes organized, and to catch up on any late-breaking publications that might address this topic.
I've told you several times how busy I am of late, and this particular thread is about lots, so please be patient.
Where do you see me "trying to cast doubt on traditional astrology"? I have a lot of interest in the origins of horoscopic astrology. We also must recognize that, during the Hellenistic period, there wasn't just one astrology. On your sidereal thread, you yourself have noted signal differences between Ptolemy and the siderealists. In ancient times there were different "schools" of astrology ranging from practical hands-on professionals with clienteles, to Aristotelians, to court astrologers, to Hermeticists, to practitioners of Mithraism, to street fair astrologers, to whatever other dubious claimants the literary source authors complained about, as giving professional astrologers a bad name.
You seemed to denigrate Manilius as a poet, yet he was deeply convinced of the sacred nature of astrology; and in his day, poetry was deemed the proper way to write about the gods and the heavens. He wrote (3:30-35)
"I must wrestle with numerals and names of things unheard of, with the seasons, the changing fortunes and movements of the sky, with the signs' variations, and even with the portions of their portions. Ah, how great a task it is to put into words what passes understanding! Ah, how great to tell in fitting poetry, and this to yoke to a fixed metre!" (Goold translation, Loeb Classical Library, pp. 166-7.)
This doesn't mean that Manilius imparted no useful astrological information. Book 3 contains a fair bit of practical information on such topics as the length of time signs take to rise in different locations, length-of-life calculations, and the significance of the "tropic" (equinox and solstice) signs
So far as the Arabic parts are concerned, they were (in English translation) called "lots," as obviously the rise of Muslim astrology had not yet occurred. Manilius discussed the lots in the context of the uniqueness they imparted to each horoscope, focusing on the lot of fortune (3:96ff) The lot based on one's ascendant, moon, and sun position, and birth location deeply personalized the horoscope. The
athla (locations, "abodes") for the lots do not seem to correlate with today's house or sign characteristics, however. (See: Dorian Greenbaum,
The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology, pp. 290-296, google book.) Manilius distinguishes between day and night nativities (sect) for calculating the part of fortune.
Greenbaum argued that the way Manilius described the locations of the part of fortune suggested their use in both natal and electional astrology.
I'd be hard-pressed to write up this material in hexameters!
The
Astronomica of Manilius was written ca. 10-20 CE, making it the earliest extant Hellenistic astrology book, and an important source for tracking the history of horoscopic astrology, which emerges fully-fledged in his book.