Display posts from previous
Sort by

13 by Carl
After all Labats book which Brennan claims uses wsh is misleading and disapointing. The charts Chris shows in his podcast are monthly charts and he uses a method not mentioned in any greek source. He uses solar houses with degrees based on Theban calendar. So my capricorn sun rises and because I was born in january so does Saturn,ruler of the month, mars ruler of tuesday my birthday rises too,etc. Since it is a male chart Sun in leo is in 8th house. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues being fiscussed recently. Im still trying to understand all that but really not impressed. Brennan is using all kinds of tricks to make it look some modern astrologers used wsh
https://www.youtube.com/live/01IFZSjAoP0?feature=share

14 by Carl
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Orisis wrote:Check also Omar de Tiberias page 81. It also points to quadrant or equal houses
Give us the full reference please.[/quote

I'll have to add the link to the page

15 by Carl
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Orisis wrote:Check also Omar de Tiberias page 81. It also points to quadrant or equal houses
Give us the full reference please.
Omar de tiberias
three books on nativities

translated by Rob Hand
edted by Robert Schnidt

latin track volume 14

16 by Michael Sternbach
Hi Paul,

A few comments are in order here.
Paul wrote:As a relevant tangent, I will include this curious example which seems to strongly suggest the original text was describing a form of quadrant division in Greek Horoscopes by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen. The below is chopped and sliced from a dissertation I wrote on the topic, so forgive the jarring nature of it.

For me it shows that assuming, a priori, what house system the ancients used, or 'must have' used can lead us to literally ignore the evidence right beneath our noses. When we think we already have all the answers, we stop looking for them, and stop examining the data and instead project our assumptions.


WSH in Academia
There is a possibility that WSH, although forgotten to astrologers, was identified within academia. GH include a definition of house systems which acknowledges both quadrant division, as well as 30º divisions, which might be either WSH or EH .
I am not sure where in GH you are seeing this. At least in the chapter "Technical Terms", the loci are defined as either equal 30° divisions counting from the Horoscopos (and in some cases from the Lot of Fortune) or as equal trisections of the quadrants between the centres, with an acknowledgement of the 5° zone preceding a cusp that Ptolemy mentions in Tetrabiblos (GH p. 7 f.). This definition obviously excludes WSH and only leaves EH and Porphyry as alternatives.
Their definition of ‘Epanaphora’ and ‘Apoklima’, Greek transliterations which describe certain house positions, refer to the houses as signs, such as for Epanaphora, described as ‘a sign which precedes, in the order of the signs of the zodiac, a centre’ . In a footnote to Horoscope No. -3, they note that ‘if the sign of the Horoscopos’ (emphasis mine), which is Scorpio, is considered the first house, then the eleventh house is Virgo, again suggesting the sign and the house are interchangeable, which is suggestive of WSH. They referenced a diagram in the late 19th century work Astrologie Grecque by Bouché-Leclerq (BLC) as evidence . However, neither the diagram they refer to, nor the relevant passages surrounding it, describe a house as a full zodiacal sign, instead BLC argued, ‘their system, conceived independent from the signs of the Zodiac, was only superimposed onto the other’, that is to say that the houses and signs of the Zodiac were considered as independent entities, with houses superimposed upon the Zodiac . Nevertheless, whether inspired by BLC or not, the authors of GH do occasionally refer to houses as being signs, suggesting recognition of WSH as a concept, either accidentally or deliberately.


Horoscope No. 95
Neugebauer and Van Hoesen,
Greek Horoscopes, pp.28-38.

Horoscope No. 95 is an elaborate horoscope, with accompanying astrological treatise, recorded on papyrus across six columns . The ascendant is recorded as 25º Cancer, the midheaven as 10º Aries, and Venus is described in Taurus, though the exact degree is lost . The Midheaven degree conforms precisely to the System A method. In Column III, Venus is translated as ‘rising (toward) the center’, however, in a footnote the authors noted that:

‘The literal translation of the text “Venus rises in the center??? makes no sense since Venus is in the sign which precedes Midheaven’ .

That the authors assume a priori that the ‘center’ must be the 10th sign, and so Venus, in the 11th sign could not be in the centre, is evidence of an assumed WSH. However, if the text is correct, then provided Venus was in the first 15º of Taurus, then Venus could indeed be ‘in the center’ for a quadrant house system like Porphyry. The literal translation, therefore, suggests that a quadrant-division was used, which the authors of GH may have missed by assuming WSH a priori.
No, this does not suggest that the authors were assuming WSH.

The exact degree of Venus' position in Taurus isn't actually lost, as it can be derived from her being in Jupiter's terms (14° to 22° Taurus) and, more accurately yet, from her dodekatemorion falling on 3° Aquarius; therefore she must be located at 21° Taurus (see GH p. 34).

Since the ASC is 25° Cancer and the MC 10°30 Aries, the 10th Porphyry house ends at approximately 15° Taurus, thus Venus is definitely in the 11th - not just in WHS, but also in Porphyry and EH.

This finds some additional confirmation by Venus being in the "first Lot, of Agathos Daimon" - a term that the authors can't make sense of (p. 36), but which suggests to me a connection to the 11th house (the place of Agathos Daimon); especially since the at first equally unintelligible "third Lot, concerning death" falls into Aquarius, where the 8th house (the place of death) is situated in this chart. (These "lots" are mentioned in lines 72-74, and 77, 78 of the literal translation, p. 31.)

Cheers
Michael
Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

19 by Martin Gansten
Michael Sternbach wrote:The exact degree of Venus' position in Taurus isn't actually lost, as it can be derived from her being in Jupiter's terms (14° to 22° Taurus) and, more accurately yet, from her dodekatemorion falling on 3° Aquarius; therefore she must be located at 21° Taurus (see GH p. 34).
Thanks, Michael, for pointing that out. I just wanted to comment briefly on this (I'm still travelling):
Since the ASC is 25° Cancer and the MC 10°30 Aries, the 10th Porphyry house ends at approximately 15° Taurus, thus Venus is definitely in the 11th - not just in WHS, but also in Porphyry and EH.
The situation is made slightly more complex by the fact that some ancient astrologers considered a house (whether equal or quadrant) to begin before the cusp. Ptolemy's five-degree rule is well-known, but others proposed larger offsets or used the cusps as the centre of the house, the way many Indian astrologers still do. I'm not saying that is definitely the case here, but unless there is information to the contrary, it's a possibility to be reckoned with.

On the other hand, if the 'lots' mentioned should really be places, that's very interesting too, as they are given to the degree and minute of arc. But I'll have to postpone looking at that more closely.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

20 by Paul
Michael

I’ve a busy couple of days and not home with my references now. Will reply when I’m back properly.

Just to quickly add, Levente Laszlo reached out to me, including some similar points, which are also insightful. Don’t want to mess them up posting in haste so bear with me and I’ll reply properly.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

21 by Paul
Michael Sternbach wrote: I am not sure where in GH you are seeing this. At least in the chapter "Technical Terms", the loci are defined as either equal 30° divisions counting from the Horoscopos (and in some cases from the Lot of Fortune) or as equal trisections of the quadrants between the centres, with an acknowledgement of the 5° zone preceding a cusp that Ptolemy mentions in Tetrabiblos (GH p. 7 f.). This definition obviously excludes WSH and only leaves EH and Porphyry as alternatives.
Right, just to remind you, what I said was (with coloured emphasis):
Paul wrote:There is a possibility that WSH, although forgotten to astrologers, was identified within academia. GH include a definition of house systems which acknowledges both quadrant division, as well as 30º divisions, which might be either WSH or EH . Their definition of ‘Epanaphora’ and ‘Apoklima’, Greek transliterations which describe certain house positions, refer to the houses as signs, such as for Epanaphora, described as ‘a sign which precedes, in the order of the signs of the zodiac, a centre’ .
So hopefully this clarifies things. I am suggesting exactly what you said, that there is a definition of houses which could be either Equal Houses or a Quadrant House.

We agree.

But they *also* described the names of certain types of house as being signs. In that this may indicate a recognition of a form of WSH, I want to give it credit and recognise its importance.

On page 2:
Apoklima: A sign which precedes, in the order of the signs of the zodiac, a center is called apoklima: thus Aries is apoklima if, e.g., Midheaven is in Taurus. see also Loci, p. 8, note 22
On page 2:
Apoklima: A sign which precedes, in the order of the signs of the zodiac, a center is called apoklima: thus Aries is apoklima if, e.g., Midheaven is in Taurus. see also Loci, p. 8, note 22
You can see the same for Epanaphora on p.7, so I won't quote repeatedly here.

I will add that this isn't an off the cuff remark. There are other indications that these terms were imagined by the author as indicative of Whole Sign Houses. I have never seen anyone else make this point and I genuinely believe that there was recognition of WSH in certain scholarly works such as Greek Horoscopes. I do not necessarily think that information made its way to the astrological community but we should not assume that Holden didn't get this idea directly or indirectly from GH.

See for example, p.141:
Investigating the preceding nativity I found the moon and Saturn and Venus and Mars in apoklima by degree, and by sign moon and Saturn and Venus in center. And the sun and Mercury and Júpiter (in Libra) were in apoklima by sign; and by degree the sun happened to be at the epanaphora of the setting center.
So it's fairly clear to me that the authors of Greek Horoscopes understood that the ancients may define or divide their charts into houses both by degree, as well as by sign.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

22 by Paul
Michael I wanted to also add that your points resonate with some points that Levente László sent me by private message.

I am repeating that statement here with his permission because I think it's important to be critical in examining the issues and you both make very valid points.
Hi Paul, I'm just writing because I bumped into your analysis of the papyrus horoscope no. 95, and maybe you find it useful to know that the intended degree for Venus was probably Taurus 21. Apparently, the horoscopes uses the "Pauline" computation of the dodekatemoria, and in Taurus, the degree corresponding to the dodekatemorion Aquarius 3 is the 21st. It's also the last term of Jupiter.
I think these are good points and I'll look further into them when I get a moment. I have no attachment to being right and so if I have made mistakes I'm grateful for anyone who points them out to me.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”