Please re-read my post above (now edited for clarity).

If you have evidence of a historical astrologer recommending that the houses should be identified by sign-boundaries as a preferred approach please quote the text where this is done.

This is what my video is about. I have provided all the evidence with screnshots from the translations and shown where I took it from. I watched your video. If we are going to debate, watch my video.

In addition, see a brief passage on page 32 of Ben Dykes' introduction of his translation of Sahl that I have attached below:



And check out Sahl himself in Dykes's translation. I mean On Questions (p. 89-193), where he uses whole sign houses - from the first sign all the way to the twelfth sign. The same goes for Sahl's book of Choices (same book by Dykes - p.194-231), where he does the same with the houses: from the first sign to the twelfth sign. It is readily seen in the book contents.

I don't know if this is a genuine misunderstanding or just a straw-man argument, but to clarify, I think what Deb is asking for is a statement of principle similar to what you find in modern books and websites, along the lines of: The entire sign in which the ascendant degree falls is the first house, the entire next sign is the second house, etc. Personally, I'd be interested to see that too. The only statement of that sort that I know of is made by Firmicus (4th century CE), who immediately adds that this is enough for beginning students but that later on, he will explain how to divide houses by degree (which he then does, using equal houses).

I don't think anyone is disputing that, in practice, signs were used as houses quite often, for several centuries ('by counting', as the Arabic authors say). That can be taken as read. The question is, did anyone ever state that this method was superior to (or even as useful as) calculating houses by degree, or that houses by degree shouldn't be used for 'topics', etc., the way some astrologers do today? If not, I think it's reasonable to assume that it was a simplified method, as suggested by Firmicus.

Thanks for setting that out Martin - exactly right.

Let me be clear this one time so I can refer to this later if needed.
I don't dispute the evidence of more casual approaches being applied. I am also not suggesting that those using WS are doing it all wrong. I have huge respect for many astrologers using different approaches than I take myself, and I know that good practice comes from the sum of many things and noting strongly supported chart themes.

What I am doing is vocalising a challenge to the widely promoted assertion that WS was the original, the best and the preferred system of ancient astrologers for over 1000 years. That is what new students are hearing when they choose to adopt this method and become ingrained against the others.

That is where I raise the volume to say, actually, as far as I'm aware, no historical astrologer recommended this and presented it as a preferred system. And I made my argument so very black and white precisely so people can consider that. I can provide references to where astrologers have detailed, explained and recommended all the other methods of house division - so why can't we do this for WS, if it was the supposed best and preferred system for over 1000 years?

Martin Gansten wrote:I don't know if this is a genuine misunderstanding or just a straw-man argument, but to clarify, I think what Deb is asking for is a statement of principle similar to what you find in modern books and websites, along the lines of: The entire sign in which the ascendant degree falls is the first house, the entire next sign is the second house, etc. Personally, I'd be interested to see that too. The only statement of that sort that I know of is made by Firmicus (4th century CE), who immediately adds that this is enough for beginning students but that later on, he will explain how to divide houses by degree (which he then does, using equal houses).

I don't think anyone is disputing that, in practice, signs were used as houses quite often, for several centuries ('by counting', as the Arabic authors say). That can be taken as read. The question is, did anyone ever state that this method was superior to (or even as useful as) calculating houses by degree, or that houses by degree shouldn't be used for 'topics', etc., the way some astrologers do today? If not, I think it's reasonable to assume that it was a simplified method, as suggested by Firmicus.

Thats the key. Wsh was for beginners. Must re read Maternus

Martin said:

I don't know if this is a genuine misunderstanding or just a straw-man argument, but to clarify, I think what Deb is asking for is a statement of principle similar to what you find in modern books and websites, along the lines of: The entire sign in which the ascendant degree falls is the first house, the entire next sign is the second house, etc. Personally, I'd be interested to see that too. The only statement of that sort that I know of is made by Firmicus (4th century CE), who immediately adds that this is enough for beginning students but that later on, he will explain how to divide houses by degree (which he then does, using equal houses).

Ok. I have given that in my video. See here - from 25m 17s to 31m.10s:

https://youtu.be/XM42S64PItk?t=1517

In case someone would like to inspect the Bulgarian translation themselves, I can provide the relevant few sentences in Bulgarian text here and they can ask someone else.

Chris Brennan also provided passages from books in German and French, which were translated in English. I have the screenshots from his video. They go from 1h 38m 59s to 1h 48m.

Also, check out the only surviving Persian horoscope. It is the election for the coronation of their king in 531 AD. They used whole sign houses only (and the Sassanian ayanamsha). Again, I give that in my video and Bulgarian astrologer Dimitar Kozhuharov (known as "astroart" here) opened a topic in this forum about this back in November 2014. Unfortunately, the chart image he uploaded has expired, which is why I asked him to send me the original and the translation. I show them in my video, as well as the source he got it from.

For the sake of you and everyone else - if it is not quotable in this thread, then don't make reference to it here, because it is not relevant to the issue here.

Similarly, if someone has to spend 7 hours putting an argument together to support the idea that historical astrologers stated WS to be their preference, I'm not interested. Show me the passages.

Zagata wrote:Martin said:

I don't know if this is a genuine misunderstanding or just a straw-man argument, but to clarify, I think what Deb is asking for is a statement of principle similar to what you find in modern books and websites, along the lines of: The entire sign in which the ascendant degree falls is the first house, the entire next sign is the second house, etc. Personally, I'd be interested to see that too. The only statement of that sort that I know of is made by Firmicus (4th century CE), who immediately adds that this is enough for beginning students but that later on, he will explain how to divide houses by degree (which he then does, using equal houses).

Ok. I have given that in my video. See here - from 25m 17s to 31m.10s:

https://youtu.be/XM42S64PItk?t=1517

In case someone would like to inspect the Bulgarian translation themselves, I can provide the relevant few sentences in Bulgarian text here and they can ask someone else.

Chris Brennan also provided passages from books in German and French, which were translated in English. I have the screenshots from his video. They go from 1h 38m 59s to 1h 48m.

Also, check out the only surviving Persian horoscope. It is the election for the coronation of their king in 531 AD. They used whole sign houses only (and the Sassanian ayanamsha). Again, I give that in my video and Bulgarian astrologer Dimitar Kozhuharov (known as "astroart" here) opened a topic in this forum about this back in November 2014. Unfortunately, the chart image he uploaded has expired, which is why I asked him to send me the original and the translation. I show them in my video, as well as the source he got it from.

They werent really used. They were meant for beginners only as Maternus said

Deb wrote:Show me the passages.

I second that, and would only add: in the original language, please, with or without translation into a modern language. We are talking about texts, after all; they should be quotable in writing.

Orisis wrote:Thats the key. Wsh was for beginners. Must re read Maternus

To adhere to the standard I just asked for, here is the reference (from my recent article, fn. 34):

(Firm. Math. II 14,3–4): “The place of life is roughly [located] in that sign in which the ascendant is established, that of hope or property in the second sign from the ascendant, that of brothers in the third, that of parents in the fourth, that of children in the fifth, that of illness in the sixth, that of the spouse in the seventh, that of death in the eighth. […] But as we have said above, it suffices to have related these things roughly to sketch the beginnings for the student; later, indeed, we shall take care to explain how far these places are appointed by the accurate boundaries of degrees??? (Platice vitae locus est in eo signo, in quo est horoscopus constitutus, spei vel pecuniae in secundo horoscopi signo, fratrum in tertio, parentum in quarto, filiorum in quinto, valitudinis in sexto, coniugis in septimo, mortis in octavo. […] Sed haec, sicut superius diximus, platice ad informanda initia discentis dixisse sufficiat; postea vero, quatenus haec loca suptili partium definitione monstrantur, explicare curabimus).

It is not a matter of being quotable but of doing the work all over again, because you won't watch the video. I showed over 13 screenshots from translations of Ben Dykes alone.

Ok, here is the Bulgarian source: Специални??т начин за тълкуване на хоро??копа (1993), превод, подборка и коментари Валдемар Бези????ар, page 13 and page 15 (paragraph 2)

"З?? ТЪЛКУВ????Е ???? ХОРОСКОП??

По трактата на ??нуру??ар-Ибн-Заби-??л-Фаррух, намерен от Хендрих Ранцау, кн??з на Шлезвиг Холщайн.
С коментари от Валдемар Бези????ар и добавка на мнени??та на различни древни и ??редновековни а??тролози.

1.

Предполага ??е, че читател??т е запознат ?? методите за ??ъ??тав??не на хоро??коп. Има н??колко ??и??теми за изчи??л??ване на междинните домове, а ??ъщо така н??ма еднакво??т по отношение на това кое пред??тавл??ва "о??новна точка" на хоро??копа. Медиум Цели или ????цендент. Ето накратко как е еволюирало учението за домовете от древни времена до наши дни (1547г.):
а. Отначало знаците на зодиака ??а били домове, като "началото" - първи??т дом - е бил онзи знак, където ??е е намирала изгр??в??щата точка на еклиптиката - "хоро??копу??" или "а??цендент“, а ??ледващите домове ??е намирали в по??ледователно идващите знаци на зодиака.

2.

Има още много различни мнени?? за по??тро??ване на хоро??копа. Това е о??обено характерно за нашето време. Сега, практиче??ки в??еки автор изми??л?? повече или по-малко о??троумни начини. Така например, мнозина прав??т хоро??коп по Плациду??, но дел??т половин раз??то??ние между върховете и получават върховете н??къде към ??редата на домовете, като домовете о??тават при това ?? различна големина. ??о ??ндру??ар, чийто трактат е пред??тавен по-долу, ??е придържа към казаното в точка 1.а."

And here is the Persian electional chart:



And its translation:



Source: Bulgarian astrologer Dimitar Kozhuharov

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=

Whole sign houses are for beginners? Lol. Well, since the Persian imperial astrologers used them, then they must have been "beginners". Since Masha'allah used them, who was among the astrologers who elected the chart for Baghdad, the capital of the Caliphate, he must have been a "beginner" too. Not to mention Dorotheus. Notice the chart format the Persians used for the coronation of their king is the same as the one in the surviving Dorotheus. Of course it is, because they too were using whole sign houses. Check David Pingrees' s translation of Dorotheus that you have published, Deborah. Check Ben Dykes' translation too and see the multiple charts and no house cusps shown or used.

Would you mind telling us what those passages are saying in English please ? (this is an English language forum).