Hi Osthanes

A very interesting post, thank you.

I have a different perspective because, for some time now, I have been increasingly convinced that ancient (pre-Ptolemaic) astrology was much more integrally bound to concepts of time than we currently make allowance for. The tropical zodiac was designed to represent the year; the zodiac signs were designed to represent the months of the year; the degrees were intended to represent the days of the month; and therefore it seems quite possible that, even from the start, houses were intended to represent the 2-hourly divisions of the day. There seems to be a number of ancient references where terminology related to houses and hours is used interchangeably (just as words related to days and degrees are often used interchangeably too). However, this is a point that I do need to research more deeply, clarifying the possible purpose of original terms, etc. and it is likely to be some time before I can give this the attention it needs. So I can only offer my view that the notion of the ascendant and the temporal house system is much older than we realise, with the admission that it is currently speculative (but not unreasonable).

Although this section is by no means about domification, generations did read it as a key for Ptolemy's understanding of division.

The reason being, of course, that Ptolemy includes within it a definition of what the powerful places are. Although this is not detailed enough to avoid debate, he does clearly reference the degrees of the ascendant, and most scholars who have analysed that approach see no evidence of a whole-sign approach. Since that passage in the Tetrabiblos is inconclusive, and since Ptolemy left no diagrams or details of actual charts, I cannot see the justification for the remark that Eddy pointed to:

In an article on house division in the Hellenistic astrology, Robert Schmidt mentions something similar that Ptolemy doesn't appear to use his own system but may have used whole sign houses. http://cura.free.fr/quinq/02schmi.html

Because when we also consider the passage in the Almagest, where Ptolemy begins by instructing us how to determine diurnal from nocturnal, and how the seasonal hours are calculated, and how they relate to the civil hours, and right ascension, and so forth, it doesn?t seem unreasonable that astrologers such as Ezra and Placidus acknowledged Ptolemy?s text as the written authority for the system of domification that they used.

You wrote:

As it appears, places doesn't play an important role in Ptolemy's astrology. In fact, he doesn't speak about domification matters, and the rare usage of traditional names of places ('Hour-marker', 'Midheaven', 'Good Spirit' etc.) doesn't seem to differ from standard astrological practice of that time.

I agree with this, but let's not consider it meaningless that the tenth place is called the midheaven, or that the first place is called the ?horoscope?: the hour marker - which is what the ascendant is, and which brings me back to my earlier point. The ancient civilisations had an overarching need to discover and record the passage of time. That they had a temporal basis to their division of the heavenly sphere makes a lot of sense. I admit that we presently appear to lack the evidence within extant astrological texts; but the calendrical basis of astronomical/astrological technique gives us good reason to assume that it possibly/probably existed.

Eddy, with regard to Schmidt?s article, (and taking into consideration that it is quite old now, and possibly he would choose to update some of his points), my view is that some of those conclusions are overly dramatic and not supported by the available evidence. In particular I am unconvinced by the suggestion that early astrologers used a quadrant division to obtain angular placement which determined planetary strength, whilst using a whole sign approach for house meaning. Not only is there no evidence to support this, it is also contrary to the very clear evidence we have that house meanings - to a large extent - convey the sense of strength or weakness of the angular placement!

Then we have comments where he makes dramatic statements such as

?Paulus still uses whole-sign houses exclusively in his topical delineations, despite his admiration for Ptolemy?.

We don't have the evidence to determine that Paulus used whole-sign houses exclusively. And this sort of comment ignores the very passionate plea in the scholia of chapter 28 of Paulus' work, which states that he discusses the division of the places, stressing

?the Horoscopos is primary for every inception and nativity ? both foundation and prelude, not only of the pivots, but also the rest of the places?. (Greenbaum p. 61)

Why should the ascendant be necessarily known to determine the rest of the places, if those places are simply assigned to the signs?

This passage then leads into a discussion on the principles of quadrant division. Olympiodorus elaborates further, admitting that there is ambiguity and difference of opinion, but stating that those who define the place as the sign use a reckoning that causes faults. And he states:

But one of the ancients, whose name time has handed down in the depths of forgetfulness, taking as a starting point what has been said by the most divine Ptolemy, that one must take the hour-marking place from 5 degrees of those pre-ascending the hour-marking degree, sets out a method that seems better than all the others (Greenbaum, p.119).

Olympiodorus is quite late, but we find a similar passage, informing the astrologer not to rely upon the signs to define the houses, in the text of Valens, Rhetorius, and others. Hence I personally find it hard to believe that of all the astrologers who wrote out this passage, not one of them took it seriously.

BTW, I am not trying to argue against the whole sign approach, because I admit that this clearly was a common approach. I just don't feel comfortable about glossing over the ambiguities. I don?t know whether Ptolemy was intending to explain the technical basis of a house system, but I am quite happy to leave it hanging in the air as a possibility that deserves more research and discussion.

Deb

Hi Deb,

thank you for your detailed answer. I think this issue is highly important, so I am very happy to hear your opinion. However, I'm afraid I'll need some time to reply in a more complete form; first I have to check some critical editions to see more clearly.

In the meantime, I'd pose a question.

Deb wrote:There seems to be a number of ancient references where terminology related to houses and hours is used interchangeably (just as words related to days and degrees are often used interchangeably too).

Deb wrote:Olympiodorus is quite late, but we find a similar passage, informing the astrologer not to rely upon the signs to define the houses, in the text of Valens, Rhetorius, and others.

Could you mention some passages?

Thanks,

Levente

Yes, it needs some time to be properly researched, which is why I have to admit that some points are currently speculative. The terminology of house and hours is something I do want to check for myself more carefully, but I am happy to give you similar references to the interchangeable words for degrees and days, and will list some examples below. As for the passages regarding division: some other refs I have to hand are - Rhetorius ?How one has to find by degree the 12 loci? CCAG 8.1, p.221,1 to p.222,28 (translated in Greek Horoscopes p.138); Valens ?concerning the notable degrees of the pivot points? (ascribed to Orion), at the end of III.2; and Antiochus Thesaurus, I.46 (Schmidt translation p.32-33). If you compare the passages closely, it seems very clear that they share the same purpose.

Interchange of words for degrees and days:

Dorotheus ? 1.8 (Pingree p.167). Pingree translates the word as 'days' but includes a bracket to show that 'degrees' are meant. (The same section is possibly interchanging terminology for hours and houses. It is entitled ?Knowledge of the masculine and feminine ?hours? of the nativity?).

Liber Hermetis, XII (Robert Zoller?s Latin translation reads ?on the 13th degree of February? and is corrected by Robert Hand?s footnote 2 (p.31) where he says that clearly the text means ?the day of February, not the ?degree??).

Haly, ?Judgements?; Pars Sexta, p.295

Masha?allah: Chapter IV: A question from a sick man

The Latin says diebus, which Hand and Dykes translate as ?days?, but it seems clear that degrees is meant. Its meaning is shortly clarified when Masha?allah repeats the statement that Venus is 7 degrees separated from Saturn, this time using the word gradus. This comment is used by Hand, and I think Dykes (I am remembering) as ?proof? that only the whole sign system could have been used, but taking the word to mean degrees instead of days, cancels that argument.

Lilly ? Look at the text under his picture in the frontispiece, where the 1st of May is written as 1 (degree symbol) May.

Regards
Deb

Great discussion.

I have been increasingly convinced that ancient (pre-Ptolemaic) astrology was much more integrally bound to concepts of time than we currently make allowance for. The tropical zodiac was designed to represent the year; the zodiac signs were designed to represent the months of the year; the degrees were intended to represent the days of the month; and therefore it seems quite possible that, even from the start, houses were intended to represent the 2-hourly divisions of the day.

This captures it perfectly.

Hi Deb

Just a short reply to the sources regarding division.

Rhetorius ?How one has to find by degree the 12 loci? CCAG 8.1, p.221,1 to p.222,28 (translated in Greek Horoscopes p.138)

That's which I described in the asterisked section: it's Chapter 12 of Epitome IV of Rhetorius whose editor was Demophilus in the 10th century. As I pointed out, the nativity itself might or may not have come really from Rhetorius, but having compared the chart to the other surviving versions, I'm rather convinced that the step-by-step instructions come from Demophilus himself. I hypothesise in the domification Demophilus relied upon a Greek translation of On Solar Revolutions of Ab? Ma?shar. This means not even one chart using a quadrant section method is known from the period before the Arabs!

Valens ?concerning the notable degrees of the pivot points? (ascribed to Orion), at the end of III.2

Yes, and there are at least two more similar statements from Valens. Indeed, he plays an important role in the history of domification.

Antiochus Thesaurus, I.46 (Schmidt translation p.32-33)

In fact, this is not the Thesaurus of Antiochus but a part of the Treasuries of Rhetorius, more correctly, Chapter 46 of Epitome II of Rhetorius which was copied to the archetype of the surviving form of the Introduction of Porphyry by Demophilus as Chapter 53. The transmission of Rhetorius and its connection to Antiochus and Porphyry, who seems to have plagiarized the former without acknowledgement, are the most deeply complicated issues I know about, but it's almost certain that Epitome II used to form the introductory part of Rhetorius' Book V (chapters 1-53) which partly but not exclusively utilized the Introduction of Antiochus. Probably, it reflects Rhetorius' understanding of Ptolemy.
(I relied on two articles by David Pingree: Antiochus and Rhetorius and From Alexandria to Baghd?d to Byzantium: the Transmission of Astrology.)

Regards,

Levente

Deb wrote:Eddy, with regard to Schmidt?s article, (and taking into consideration that it is quite old now, and possibly he would choose to update some of his points), my view is that some of those conclusions are overly dramatic and not supported by the available evidence. In particular I am unconvinced by the suggestion that early astrologers used a quadrant division to obtain angular placement which determined planetary strength, whilst using a whole sign approach for house meaning. Not only is there no evidence to support this, it is also contrary to the very clear evidence we have that house meanings - to a large extent - convey the sense of strength or weakness of the angular placement!

Then we have comments where he makes dramatic statements such as

?Paulus still uses whole-sign houses exclusively in his topical delineations, despite his admiration for Ptolemy?.

We don't have the evidence to determine that Paulus used whole-sign houses exclusively. And this sort of comment ignores the very passionate plea in the scholia of chapter 28 of Paulus' work, which states that he discusses the division of the places, stressing .............

Hi Deb
There is some vagueness in Schmidts articles. Perhaps it would be better to say that it remains unknown what some astrologers did. In Andrew's Moon exaltation thread I mentioned an article in which I believe the whole signs are used http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html Perhaps many people used whole signs and it is very conveniant because in that case the planets that are in a house are also in just one sign.

Deb wrote:I have been increasingly convinced that ancient (pre-Ptolemaic) astrology was much more integrally bound to concepts of time than we currently make allowance for. The tropical zodiac was designed to represent the year; the zodiac signs were designed to represent the months of the year; the degrees were intended to represent the days of the month; and therefore it seems quite possible that, even from the start, houses were intended to represent the 2-hourly divisions of the day.

Astronomy and civil time seems to have been time oriented but I'm not sure about if this means that it was used in astrology.

The following remark may be a brain rack but I don't believe the 'Placidus' system is a time system but it is a place system just like any other house system.

In this Astrodienst article three ways of calculating a Placidus lie system is demonstrated. http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph. ... c226863998 ?6.5
only the third can be classified as a time system, because it takes a point/moment in between two fixed moments. The other methods are defined differently. Further they remark that the culmination of a planet may be not in the south any more. Somewhere else a few weeks ago I gave an example of the possibility of the Sun rising in the south west, culminating in the west, setting in the south west and having the lowest culnination somewhere in the north north west. But this only occurs a couple kilometres of the poles and it is rather a theoretical question. However for me a reason not to use it.

Hi Levente, there are one or two points in your reply that are of interest to me. At the moment I am working on something else, so I would like to return to this when I have a bit more time at my disposal.

Hi Eddy, I am not sure if you have read Mike Wackford?s collection of articles on division in the Polar regions, but if not, it is well worth reading as it answers those sorts of questions and more. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

Personally, I would never try to pick out one house division method as more reliable than another, but his conclusion (from a technical angle) was very favourable for the Placidean system ? the only one to stand up to scrutiny in the polar regions.

Deb wrote:Personally, I would never try to pick out one house division method as more reliable than another, but his conclusion (from a technical angle) was very favourable for the Placidean system ? the only one to stand up to scrutiny in the polar regions.

The same claim has been made for several house systems. Alcabitius tables are available (or at least used to be, when people still used printed tables of houses) for 0-90 degrees. The fact is, however, that all ascendant-based house systems go a bit weird in the polar regions, simply because the ascendant does.

And I think that it's because life will hardly sustain itself in a place where the AC (place of life) swaps/becomes the MC (where we should go).

But then again, let's see if astrologer's will have problems and solutions when we decide to colonize the polar region...

Deb wrote:Hi Eddy, I am not sure if you have read Mike Wackford?s collection of articles on division in the Polar regions, but if not, it is well worth reading as it answers those sorts of questions and more. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

Hi Deb, Yes I'm familiar with Mike Wackford's collection. I read it a year ago. While it is an intelligent treatise based upon the proposal of Otto Ludwig, I'm sorry, I can't accept the system on several grounds. Perhaps I gave this thread a twist to this polar issue because of my remark of the poles. However I meant that remark as an illustration of the concept of a 'time system'.

Martin Gansten wrote:The fact is, however, that all ascendant-based house systems go a bit weird in the polar regions, simply because the ascendant does.

This is why I'd rather use the Meridian system or Equal MC or even Whole Sign based on the MC. Perhaps you know what Swedish astrologers usually use to cope with this, Martin.... or other members over here from the Northern areas of the world?

Now I got myself in hot water because I made that remark related to time vs. space . Here I too gave a twist to the thread, sorry Fran?ois.

A very short explanation of what I tried to say. I'll give an example which will clarify a lot I hope.

If we take for instance an exact Sun Mercury inferior conjuntion at the moment of Sunrise and at the same moment when both are in 0? Aries. This for 'normal' latitudes like London. In this example Mercury is exactly on the ecliptic just like the Sun (or we just use the projected points on the ecliptic). This means that both are exactly in the east at that moment.

12 hours + some dozens of seconds later they both will set in the west. However there are slight differences. At the start both are in 0?Aries with 0?declination. The Sun moves further into Aries and after 12 hours will have a slightly positive declination. Inferior conjunct Mercury is of retrograde and therefore moves backwards into Pisces and will get a slightly negative declination. So instead of setting ecactly in the west, the Sun sets slightly north of it and Mercury slightly south.

Viewed this way, the 'paths' of the planets aren't parallels but rather 'spirals'. Those of the Sun and Mercury 'diverge' in the example. However what we usually do when we calculate planets in their (Placidian) mundane positions (whether for the use of mundane aspects or for primary directions is pure geometrical or 'space' based. The position of a planet is taken at one moment, not as the moment between rising and setting. In this way 'real' parallels therefore are used. Even comparing it with a position of a few hours later, like in primary directions, it is the same. Two 'snapshot' moments are compared in which space is the measuring factor.

This may be difficult to grasp but the result is that at extremely high latitudes over 89? the differences are noticeable. However even at London's latitude the difference between the crossing of the Meridian of a planet and its culmination can be half a minute (if I remember my calculations well). Not much, just a few arc minutes but for me worth considering it from a theoretical point of view. And for Primary direction users who use exact positions also because this difference would be about 6 weeks.

When I realised that my life will come to an end before the discussion does, I lost all impetus to defend one system of houses over another. I like the philosophy of Placidus and its association with planetary hours, but I personally stick to using Regiomontanus, with the lazy argument that if it is good enough for the mathematician Regiomontanus, and the astrologer Lilly, then it is good enough for the likes of me.

Deb wrote:When I realised that my life will come to an end before the discussion does, I lost all impetus to defend one system of houses over another. I like the philosophy of Placidus and its association with planetary hours, but I personally stick to using Regiomontanus, with the lazy argument that if it is good enough for the mathematician Regiomontanus, and the astrologer Lilly, then it is good enough for the likes of me.

A year ago I got myself in an intensive debate on different reference frames. Not really a house system discussion but as different reference frames are the basis of the houses the heart of the discussion is the same. The discussion indeed probably won't come to an end and I think it's better for myself and debating partners not to try to convince others of my views. As I like the ecliptic and the aspects based upon it, a simple ecliptic based system would be the most attractive to me but maybe we will never know which one is the best.

Is it still possible to discuss a chart when the discussing members use different house systems or does it makes things unnecessarily more complicated?