+Regarding Steve's final paragraph in his latest posting, I must add my agreement with his point; for example, in medical astrology the houses have different indications and affinities than those given in natal, mundane and horary astrology (for example, there are no "weak" or "strong" houses as such in medical astrology, since each house can relate to organs, tissues, physiological processes or remedies; on the other side of the coin, each house may be regarded as indicating a particular pathological process, thus all houses could be regarded from this perspective as equally malefic; the ways of regarding houses in medical astrology is obviously different than the ways houses may be evaluated as to their meaning in natal, mundane or horary delineation)

+Regarding Olivia's observation about the 2nd house, it is interesting that Manilius, using the Part of Fortune as the 1st House (in constructing the Fortunata chart) gives the 2nd House as "War"...I wonder if there are any ramifications here (from Manilius) in understanding the concept of the 2nd house in general relative to natal, mundane or horary delineations?

I'm aware of Manilius's work. And he certainly wasn't the only one to use the Circle of Athla - the Fortune Ascendant chart.

But somewhere along the way.....

Deb, thanks for putting that much of your book is on Google, too.

A list of Manilius' fortunata allocations:
1st: Fortune
2nd: Warfare
3rd: Civil Employment
4th: Pleading (at the bar of justice)
5th: Marriage
6th: Plenty
7th: Danger
8th: Nobility (fame, honor)
9th: Children
10th: Man; "act of life"
11th: "Health" (but actually referencing disease conditions)
12th: Wishes

What a well researched post Steven! Thanks so much for adding those references, and your thoughtful reflections. There are some great points there, which I?ve only had time to briefly take in today ? I will definitely want to read again next week when I (hopefully!) have a little more time.

BTW, where Manilius describes the houses, the associations are very different to those listed above. The 6th house has no association with ?plenty? but is described as one which ?moves dejected from a cardinal point with the spectacle of ruin before its eyes? being a portal in which one is ?doomed to fall?. That feeds in directly to the tradition that Steven describes.

Deb

So it is very astonishing that the meanings of the 'turned' houses beginning with the part of fortune (Book III) are in such a contrast to the meanings of the houses between the cardinal points (Book II) you are referring to, Deb.

Does Manilius give an explanation of this divergence ? I can't find any.

I've not been able to find one, either, Johannes, but I've used Fortune charts and they've sometimes explained things the regular chart doesn't.

11 in the Fortune chart is also the place of acquisition (per Valens, I think, but I can't find my reading glasses at the moment), and that's made a lot of sense to me - not just with my own chart, but with clients. It also works for illness.

Thank you once again, Steven, and I know how difficult it can be to find and type up quotes.

I do have Rhetorius and have been wanting to give him another read - I thoroughly enjoyed the book when I first got it last summer. There's just so much in my reading list right now. Still, I'll make time for it.

johannes susato wrote:So it is very astonishing that the meanings of the 'turned' houses beginning with the part of fortune (Book III) are in such a contrast to the meanings of the houses between the cardinal points (Book II) you are referring to, Deb.

Does Manilius give an explanation of this divergence ? I can't find any.

The implication (which I perceive) is this:
+the houses generated from the ascendant (the "regular" chart of houses) signify the ramifications of the fundamental "meaningfulness" of the "point of origin", and the inter-relationships of each ramification (house) both with that "point of origin" (ascendant) and also with every other ramification (house);

+the "houses" generated from the Part of Fortune-which latter combines the "meaningfulness" not only of the "point of origin" {ascendant} but also the "meaningfulness" of both the Sun and of the Moon, as well as the "meaningfulness" of their combined relationships with each other-signify the ramifications of the "net effect" of this combined relationship (Part of Fortune) throughout the "circle of manifestation" (ie, the remaining 11 departments of the Fortunata chart)

Hi Steven

Going back to your earlier post, I think you expressed beautifully what I was struggling to put into words myself, about the association between the 6th house and enemies:

Steven wrote:So my question is what did the ancients mean by "enemies" in this house? It is clear it was not centered on what enemy or who as much as it was on what happened to his fortune because of them and the injuries; physical, mental, emotional, financial etc. This was the house of things happening to him which were unfortunate. This is a rather important distinction and is, as I understand it, the reason "enemy" is placed in this house. Nowhere does Valens, for example, speak of someone being an enemy but rather what occurs because of different influences, all of which are contrary and causing separations, exiles, conflict and injury to his fortune.

Thank you for putting the references that led you to that conclusion.
I don?t want to write as if we can now assume your post has settled that point, because perhaps not everyone will agree with you as much as I do, but I think you have summarised it as well as it is possible for anyone to summarise it!
But that still leaves the controversy over whether the 7th house was anciently used to signify the main opponent, and on this I want to add a few remarks to the comments that you made:

Steven wrote:there is not a single medieval Arabic astrologer that calls the 7th open enemies. If you read Masha'allah, Omar, Abu Ma?shar, Al Qabisi, Ibn Labban etc. they never call it the house of "open enemies".

The term ?open enemies? is perhaps a very modern term, so I don?t think we should even try to look for that particular term being used, but should aim to see the principle in use. Lilly, for example, using an older form of English, uses the term ?public enemies? when describing the signification of the 7th house (CA., p.54) - public here simply meaning ?made known about? rather than meaning the enemy of ?the public at large? as a modern student might assume at first glance. When he uses the term ?private enemies? in reference to the 12th house, he means unknown enemies rather than individual opponents, because the word private usually meant that which was kept hidden in his terminology. I know that this is 17th century terminology and so off the scale of this thread in a way; but my point is that the intended meaning of ancient definitions has to be extracted by context. As you?ve shown, we can get a very different account of things simply by moving from one author to another; so I also think it is important to look at the underlying philosophy that stands up over time, because that illuminates the principle being defined.
Anyway, you then say:

Probably the most influential astrologer of the medieval Arabs was Abu Ma'shar and he says this:

The seventh is the place of women, marriages, controversies and opposition.

There is no reference to "open enemies". Abu Ma'shar, as the Greeks, refers us to the 12th for enemies and their natures. Sahl preceding Abu Ma'shar writes;

The seventh house is the angle of the west; it signifies marriages and matters relating to women, battles, and contentions and contrarieties, and [especially] contentions that are between two people...

Contentions and battles between people does not make enemies an absolute. Haven't you ever had contentions with a friend? If you contend with someone are they automatically an enemy?

To my mind those quotes do show an absolute association between the 7th and ?the enemy?; at least in the way I am defining the term enemy. I see the 7th house as signifying the foe who will attack and engage in battle, rather than the person who is injurious by subtle means. Perhaps a better name is ?adversary? because as well as having friends who can become temporarily become opponents, it is also possible to have an opponent who (at times) expresses friendship. Still, during the period of the battle / war / controversy; they are opponents, and so the person with the opposing interest: ie., the enemy.

Maybe we have to accept subjective differences, but I would say that we do see a clear distinction of the 7th being used for the ?open? enemy here; with the 12th being used for the subtle, injurious hand of the unknown saboteur - even in the references you used. For example, Sahl:

The seventh place indicates what opposes him in power and what associates with him and antagonizes him. It is said to be the place of opponents, wives, husbands and partners.

...
The twelfth place indicates the inconsistencies and what contradicts and what harms him. It is said to be the place of enemies, opponents, misfortunes, griefs, imprisonment, captivity, meanness...

I think that is demonstrated by implication.
In reference to the 12th house you say:

There is only one astrologer he refers to which uses the term "secret enemies" and that is one Ad-Dawla, whoever he may be. The majority of medieval Arabic astrologers in the historical record did not use enemy, open or otherwise for the 7th. But in mundane considerations regarding conflicts and interrogations and elections for war, the 7th was seen as the opposing army but we should not confuse the extremely different uses of astrology. Because one uses the 7th in an election for war does not give a precedent for using it to signify enemies in a nativity simply because the nature of the examinations is quite different.

It would be interesting to know more about the Ad-Dawla reference.
If a house signification is valid, then surely it stacks up in all branches of astrology? What applies in horary should apply in natal and electional and mundane astrology too. We wouldn?t say that a friend is eleventh house for natal work but not for mundane astrology. Instead we assume that since the 11th house is a friend or a friendly situation in the nativity, then it will signify a friendly nation or friendly assistance in mundane work too.

It is probable that most of the practical examples of the 7th house as the enemy (in ancient or early texts) would be found in reference to mundane situations ? such as ingresses or great conjunctions, where the 7th will impact upon the possibility of war or engaging with an enemy. But this is partly because these matters were of greater importance, so we have better examples of their use. As you mentioned, we find this in Dorotheus, and we also find it in very ancient sources of the symbolism that we assume to show the symbolism that was built into house meanings. I am thinking of the well known diagram of ancient Etruscan liver divination which shows divisions similar to those we find in astrology, where the eastern angle is associated with 'the familiar' and the western angle is associated with 'the hostile'. A lengthy research project is probably required here!

One of the important points you have clarified in your post, is that we are all going to be talking at cross purposes if we don?t first identify what we mean by a term like ?enemy?, because in their own way I can see how the 6th 12th or 7th all have valid connections to this term. I think you put that point across very well indeed.

With regard to the circle of Athla, I'm afraid I don?t know too much about their origin, or their usefulness in practice. Maybe it would be a good idea to start a new thread on that issue - especially since this thread is now getting quite long and has a few complex issues already ?

Deb

Hi, Deb

If a house signification is valid, then surely it stacks up in all branches of astrology? What applies in horary should apply in natal and electional and mundane astrology too. We wouldn?t say that a friend is eleventh house for natal work but not for mundane astrology. Instead we assume that since the 11th house is a friend or a friendly situation in the nativity, then it will signify a friendly nation or friendly assistance in mundane work too.

I disagree with you in this point. The signification "in general" may be valid, but the techniques and applications will turn the signification moot.

For instance, I can use, in horary, the 2nd from 11th to find a lost object of my friend... to try to use any of this derivative simbolism in a natal chart is bound to make the astrology crazy.

Yes, the 12th is the 2nd from the 11th both in natal and in horary, but in horary we have a very clear application, and in natal it would be at least difficult to try to see the money of our friend based on our own natal charts.

The same way I have used with very success the 7th to represent enemies in horaries, but in natal work aspects of the 7th house seens to be usually about relationships (not always tough - at least one natal chart had a lot to say about legal quarrels)

I am very much in accord with the points made by Yuzuru is his posting, above. There is also another factor relative to house "affinity/meaning" and that has to do with the basis of interpretation you are applying:
-is this based upon the meaningfulness of the (sacred) geometry of space...or
-is this based upon the meaningfulness of (Pythagorean) numerical symbolism and relationships...

Manilius actually provides both the "geometry" of space and the "numerical relationships" basis in his "Astronomicon":
-in Book II he provides us with what is in fact the meaningful geometry of space, with his description of the "temples of the sky" and their relationships with each other
-in Book III, basing upon the Part of Fortune, he provides a description (of what amounts to) the (Pythagorean) numerical symbolic qualities and relationships (these being essentially derived from the qualities of number and of number relationships)
We find a very similar "number quality/relationship" permeating classical Chinese astrology.

+The "numerical" understanding of macrocosmic qualities (and influences) is really at the root of antiscia, Lots/Parts, dodekatemorion, monomoria, profection, symbolic progression, and I believe, even of midpoints and primary directions.

+The "geometric" understanding of macrocosmic qualities (and influences) is at the root of the divisions of space and their inter-relationships (the houses), and of such circumstances as placement of planets in signs, placement of signs in houses, spatial directions of the signs, aspects (involving signs, areas of space {ie, houses}, points in space {here involving a tie-in with "numerical" considerations}, planets, star positions, etc) and the subject of transits.

These two ways of comprehending the meaningfulness of macrocosmic qualities and influences are complementary, however confusion arises when we apply the "rules of evaluation" pertaining to one way of considering things, to the other way.

Hello GR,

From GR

The "profitable places" are those that are usually referred to as the "good houses" by many a old text: the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th houses. Now there is debate about which houses are "good", there always would be of course. In these places, planets can produce what they promise, provided that they are responsible for the particular matter at hand. For example, Saturn in domiciles of Mars in profitable places brings about the death of siblings, provided that Mars promises siblings by being lord of the 3rd or the Lot of Brothers.

Using the term good houses (at least in the way that you outlined above is even more confusing than ?profitable? houses (which is in itself as confusing) than strong or weak (without explanation). The explanation you gave above as good = planets can produce what they promise, provided that they are responsible for the particular matter at hand is not as easy to understand to a novice who would not think that the death of a brother is good!
Anyway, there are at least two different doctrines relating to houses, those that are strongly active vs. those that are not so active (angular, succedent, cadent) and those that refer to good and bad houses (those that aspect vs. in aversion to ascendant). I still think that these two doctrines should not be mixed. Your list is actually from the doctrine of good houses i.e. those that aspect the ascendant?s sign which you then equate to being profitable houses. Rhetorius drops the 3rd house from being profitable/effective. Why is this? Some modern Hellenistic astrologers quote Schmidt saying that the 3rd is the worst of the good houses and best of the bad houses ? but this is explaining away, it still begs the question ? why?

But if the terms don't relay clearly what is meant by their use, is it good to keep using them, without significant qualification? A cadent planet isn't going to do nothing, just that what it will do probably isn't useful to the native, or that doesn't involve the native except in a peripheral manner, or may in fact be inimical to that native or with troubles caused by the lord of its domicle not cooperating. Not quite accurate to say they have a weak Mars in the 12th that will mean he'll be in danger of being mugged, all other matters accounted for.

Of course the cadent planet will not do nothing ? any astrologer who says this is not an astrologer at all. Mars in the 12th is weak and is bad but not necessarily at the same time as there are other conditions that supersede the strength/weakness or goodness/evilness of a planet. We still have to look into the sect consideration, essential dignities, phasing of the planets, etc. to gage planetary good/bad and strong/weak conditions (or other terms that might suit you better).

To Steven,

As to this statement by Astrojin;
Quote:
Traditional astrologers (following the medieval Arabs) use the 7th for open enemies and the 12th for secret enemies).


Well, for the first there is not a single medieval Arabic astrologer that calls the 7th open enemies. If you read Masha'allah, Omar, Abu Ma?shar, Al Qabisi, Ibn Labban etc. they never call it the house of "open enemies".

Yes, but they still use words that mean open enemies like contentions, wars, opponents (which are what we moderns call open enemies and not friends or associates!). Deb has given the answer anyway:

From Deb:

The term ?open enemies? is perhaps a very modern term, so I don?t think we should even try to look for that particular term being used, but should aim to see the principle in use. Lilly, for example, using an older form of English, uses the term ?public enemies? when describing the signification of the 7th house (CA., p.54) - public here simply meaning ?made known about? rather than meaning the enemy of ?the public at large? as a modern student might assume at first glance.

From Yuzuru

Hi, Deb
Quote:

If a house signification is valid, then surely it stacks up in all branches of astrology? What applies in horary should apply in natal and electional and mundane astrology too. We wouldn?t say that a friend is eleventh house for natal work but not for mundane astrology. Instead we assume that since the 11th house is a friend or a friendly situation in the nativity, then it will signify a friendly nation or friendly assistance in mundane work too.


I disagree with you in this point. The signification "in general" may be valid, but the techniques and applications will turn the signification moot.

I agree with Yuzuru here that general significations belong to all branches of astrology but the specific significators derived from one branch may not apply at all for other branches.