MarkC wrote:Thats very interesting. So I take it the so called 'sign chart' (r??i-cakra) is a whole sign chart while the 'house chart' (bh?va-cakra) is a quadrant system?

Yes.

I wasn't aware Indian astrology also used a quadrant system like Porphyry. Are you suggesting the Porphyry cusps are the centre of Whole sign houses? How does this actually work?

No, they are the centres of the quadrant houses. The cusps are the same as in a western Porphyry chart, but the first house begins halfway between cusps 12 and 1 and ends halfway between cusps 1 and 2, etc.

I have heard of the so called Navamsha chart which I believe is based on a division of the chart using the ninth harmonic.

Yes.

I was wondering what house system Indian astrologers use for horary? Is it simply whole sign or does it ever involve sign division?

In my experience, those who use quadrant houses (as described above) use them for natal and horary work equally.

I am leaving early tomorrow for Nottingham, where I may not have frequent Internet access, so if I go a bit quiet from now on it's not due to lack of interest.

No, they are the centres of the quadrant houses. The cusps are the same as in a western Porphyry chart, but the first house begins halfway between cusps 12 and 1 and ends halfway between cusps 1 and 2, etc.

Hi Martin,

Sorry but I am having real trouble getting to grips with this.

The house boundaries are separate from the cusps?

Lets have a simple whole sign example. Say I have 0 Taurus rising. The first house begins at 15 Aries and ends at 15 Taurus?

Mark

MarkC wrote:Sorry but I am having real trouble getting to grips with this.

The house boundaries are separate from the cusps?

Lets have a simple whole sign example. Say I have 0 Taurus rising. The first house begins at 15 Aries and ends at 15 Taurus?

No, we need to know both the Asc and the MC. Dividing the ecliptical arc between them by 6, every other point you get will be a house boundary (bh?va-sandhi) and the rest will be the house cusps (bh?va-sphu?a) or house midpoints (bh?va-madhya). The latter are identical with the Porphyry cusps.

Hello Martin,

Thanks for that. I was wondering if you could recommend any particular books on Indian astrology that set out more information on the houses?

I guess I am finding it hard to understand a quadrant house system where the house 'cusps' appear different from house boundaries. Are these points in the houses seen as places of particular power for planets to be located?

Thanks

Mark

MarkC wrote:Thanks for that. I was wondering if you could recommend any particular books on Indian astrology that set out more information on the houses?

The first one that springs to mind is the Sripatipaddhati ('Method of Sripati'). There is an old (1937) English translation by V. Subrahmanya Sastri:
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL3010661M/Sripatipaddhati-%3D
Perhaps one of the Indian astrological publishing houses or Internet bookshops would be able to produce a copy, or at least a photocopy of the book.

I guess I am finding it hard to understand a quadrant house system where the house 'cusps' appear different from house boundaries. Are these points in the houses seen as places of particular power for planets to be located?

Yes, they are. Planets are also considered more powerful when applying to the cusp (by primary motion) than when separating from it.

MarkC wrote:

I guess I am finding it hard to understand a quadrant house system where the house 'cusps' appear different from house boundaries. Are these points in the houses seen as places of particular power for planets to be located?

Martin wrote:

Yes, they are. Planets are also considered more powerful when applying to the cusp (by primary motion) than when separating from it.

I dont have my copy to hand right now but this issue makes me think of the section of Robert Hand's booklet on Whole Sign Houses where he discusses Firmicus.

If I recall correctly(?) Hand suggests Firmicus may have been using equal house cusps within whole sign houses.

Mark

It seems the idea of using two house systems to delineate a nativity is quite ancient.

I have been reading James Holden?s recent translation of Rhetorius. Rhetorius appears to have utilised both Alchabitius and Whole sign houses in the delineation of charts.

We see this on chapter 113 of the translation in the section headed ??The nativity of a Grammarian?? where Rhetorius writes:

?

?Investigating the foregoing nativity, I found the Moon and Saturn and Venus and Mars by degree to be cadent, but by sign the Moon, Saturn and Venus angular, and the Sun and Mercury, and Jupiter by sign to have been cadent , but by degree the Sun chanced to be succedent of the DSC.??
Rhetorius The Egyptian, p160-161, translated by James Holden

Mark wrote:It seems the idea of using two house systems to delineate a nativity is quite ancient.

I have been reading James Holden?s recent translation of Rhetorius. Rhetorius appears to have utilised both Alchabitius and Whole sign houses in the delineation of charts.

We see this on chapter 113 of the translation in the section headed ??The nativity of a Grammarian??

Hi Mark,

The example is a very interesting one. But I?m not convinced that this is an example of two house systems being simultaneously employed by the astrologer, rather than a clarification of position.

For example in this chart (below), he mentions that Saturn is cadent (in the 3rd house) by degree, but angular (in the 4th) by sign. He makes very little interpretative use of the houses, but it is clear that when he refers to Saturn, he considers Saturn as cadent and weak, pointing this out and asking ?how could he not have had a troublesome first age??. There is no sense of Saturn also being used as an angular or 4th-house planet. So I think that what we might be looking at here, is the need for the astrologer to explain that if you just use signs for houses, Saturn would appear to be angular, but it isn?t, because (correctly) calculated by degree it is cadent.

This is a proposition. I am genuinely interested in being corrected if I am wrong, because I?d like to have a clearer knowledge of whether this simultaneous interpretative use of houses did actually occur, or is it our assumption based on planetary position being explained by sign and degree, (which may simply have been because both were in use by the readers).

I wonder if you have an example Steven, which shows an absolutely clear *interpretative* use of two systems simultaneously? (I have discounted the supposedly 'clear' example in Masha'allah, On Reception: 'Of a Sick Man' because that particular passage seems to have been mistranslated - I wonder if there is another example that is not blighted by the possibiliy of mistranslation?).

One thing I am aware of, is that almost all authors talk about planets being debilitated by aspects that are ? very generally ? defined by sign relationship. Even Lilly?s 17th century work is full of this ? for example, the assertion that the Moon is debilitated in Gemini, because this is the 12th house from her own. If it weren?t for Lilly?s charts, and we only used his theory, it wouldn?t be hard at all to make the case that Lilly employed whole sign houses. But the charts make it clear that he didn?t. That?s one reason why I think that without authentic charts and diagrams, we are only getting half the picture of what ancient astrologers actually did in practice.

Anyway, in case anyone else finds it useful, this is the nearest computer recalculated chart for the Rhetorius example. I usually redraw the charts to make them match the text exactly, but I don?t have time to do that at the moment. The positions are not too far out so, for now, this is quite useful to print out and read alongside the judgement in Holden?s text.

With more praise to Holden ?

Hi Steven

Thanks for that. I have seen the Valens passage before but (from memory because I can?t find it quickly now) I haven?t been convinced that it argues for dual interpretation ? it seems to be talking in very general principles, and not in particular about one chart, so it's meaning is debateable.

The Masha?allah reference is the kind of thing I am looking for ? an example where an astrologer has used both house meanings simultaneously. Please don?t think I am naturally very doubting, but I just want to eliminate possible doubts - maybe you can tell me what I want to know, or give me a reference so that I can check for myself?

The most apparently persuasive remark is where, after giving a very clear interpretation of a 9th house Moon, the astrologer then appears to give an additional interpretation of a 10th house Moon. I think we can all agree that the 9th house ("by degree") interpretation is definitely being used. Then he says:

?The place of the Moon in upper midheaven (the 10th by counting) indicates that he will be secure from being killed, and because Venus escapes combustion (he means its emergence from the ray), this indicates that he will meet hardships and go into hiding for a while...Because the place of the Moon is in upper Midheaven and Mars is in the house of religion these indicate that he will seek religion and its being established by struggle.?

My concern is that the term ?upper midheaven? could simply mean that the Moon is elevated in the upper regions of the chart. Being elevated is a general accidental fortitude, which is why the 9th, 10th and 11th are all ideal places for the Hyleg ? hence, he is ?secure from being killed?. It would really help to know the full chart details, and whether the bracketed remark ?(the 10th by counting)? is in the original report, or a modern commentary, or if it is yours.

The second reference to the Moon ?in upper Midheaven and Mars is in the house of religion these indicate that he will seek religion and its being established by struggle? doesn?t seem to be giving an alternative interpretation to the Moon?s 9th house, religious connection. One misplaced comma could change the meaning entirely: ?The Moon near the midheaven, with Mars, in the 9th: he will seek religion and need to fight for it, etc?. (I am taking huge liberties but simply trying to demonstrate my point).

I realise this may well have to be left ?according to opinion? but if I can find an example that has no ambiguity, then I will be much happier about accepting that this was sometimes done. The issue of whether it is a good approach to use is not my concern or interest, but I have no prejudice against it, and no doubt that you can use this technique very impressively.

I agree that the Valens example should be contemplated by those who insist that Hellenistic astrology exclusively utilised the whole-sign approach. Another theory that I have frequently heard, which this thread helps to disprove, is that ancient astrologers, if they did use quadrant division, used it purely to determine planetary strength, and then resorted to the whole signs for ?house meanings?. As we can see, this was not the case. That theory never made sense to me, since I have long argued that the meaning of the houses are connected to, and have evolved out of, the sense of empowerment or decline of strength that each is able to give the planet in that place - so I don't see how it is possible to try to separate planetary strength from planetary meaning.

Thanks again for your help. If you can and you don't mind, please respond in your own good time. This is an interesting discussion and worth waiting for.

Deb

PS ? Will look forward to your contribution to the mystery chart - if you manage to find the time.

I will leave the heavy weights to debate this one out....

I just wanted to give James Holden's footnote comment to the Rhetorius chart kindly displayed by Deb:

The chart is considered in two ways: by Alchabitius house division, which Rhetorius calls ''by degree'' , and by Sign-House division, which he calls 'by sign'. The house positions are not the same. In the Alchabitius system the chart has no angular planets, but in the Sign-House the Moon, Venus and Saturn are all angular.

Mark

Hi Mark
I don?t know about Steven but I don?t have the time or inclination for a heavy weight discussion right now. There might be very clear references to persuade me that I need to change my opinion. If not, then this can be left open for interpretation. With regards to Holden?s footnote, my instincts (which are not infallible) make me wary of footnotes that are not proven by the content of the text. Here it seems a fair assumption that the astrologer is considering the chart in two ways, given the current opinion, but my point is that there isn?t actually anything in the text to show that this was being done, and that the astrologer may simply have been eliminating doubt about the position of the planet (as per post above). I am not going to cling to this suggestion though. It?s just an opinion. I think Steven and I are both like-minded in the belief that all new translations are capable of improving our understanding.

Best regards
Deb

Hello Deb,

I dont necessarily support Holden just because I quoted him. I do have some doubts too. It does seem a bit odd if Rhetorius is describing two house systems why his definition of the 10th house in the text is so clearly quadrant based.

For example here is Rhetorius on the 10th house:

The tenth house is called the angle, midheaven, and quadrant of the ASC. Rhetorius the Egyptian, p91, translated by James Holden

Again and again in the text the house boundary of the 10th is referred to as the MC. There is no reference to the MC falling in any house other than the 10th. That seems hard to reconcile with his use of whole-sign houses as Holden suggests.

An alternative explanation might be that Rhetorius was simply seeking to demonstrate, in the chart for the Nativity of the Grammarian , what he perceived as the superiority of his preferred quadrant technique in comparison to the older system.

Mark