Scholars with far more credentials than I have in ancient astronomy/astrology have also noted Ptolemy's attempt to get astrology on a more "scientific" footing. But we have to understand "science" in the sense of Aristotle and "rational" cause-and-effect; vs. the study of signs from the gods or religious metaphors; and also vs. what science means to us today. (Easy sources to locate are: Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology, 1994, pp. 104-109; Mark T. Riley's articles on Ptolemy linked on his website: www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt and the section on Ptolemy in "Hellenistic Astrology, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010)at www.iep.utm.edu/astr-hel/print/ . )

If you read Chris Brennan's new article on Ptolemy that he just linked (above) I note several places where he actually reinforces my point that Ptolemy seems to have made an effort to avoid houses. Further, I am not convinced that Ptolemy gave consideration to houses in many sections where he discusses angularity. If we assume Mr. Pt meant houses rather than proximaty in a more general way, it is interesting that he didn't come right out and say so. Maybe I can respond further to this article later.

Arguing for a uniform tradition in Hellenistic astrology in the past is really counter-productive. If neo-Hellenistic astrologers want something streamlined that they can work with today, that's fine. My concern is with how we represent the past. Two points:

1. Internal criticism has to be left to the language experts (not me!) like the late David Pingree, but this really gets into the whole problem of the transmission of oft-copied manuscripts.

Imagine that you are a scribe (dear reader) charged with copying-- and perhaps also translating-- a very long astrological manuscript by hand. Some of the material you don't actually understand very well. Some of it might have gone missing in transit. Some of the text's handwriting is hard to read. Maybe you (or your patron) really only want to get to the heart of the material, whatever you think that means. Maybe you find some inconsistencies between different parts of the text and are not sure how to present a coherent new document. Not to mention that you are tired, underpaid, and are getting a huge case of writer's cramp.

So you might make some mistakes in copying. You might botch the parts you don't understand. You might skip the parts that you find uninteresting and irrelevant. If you are trying to prepare a coherent treatise on astrology, you might add your own re-scripting and interpretations. And then this entire process gets repeated through the generations.

But if in 2011 we want to know what an early astrologer really said, we can keep in mind the following principle. It is not water-tight, but it seems to work.

1. Later copyists tend to emend. They paraphrase, delete "extraneous" material, add clarifications, or try to smooth-away inconsistencies. Consequently, a text that is harder to comprehend, with digressions and inconsistencies has a higher likelihood of being the original text than one that is streamlined and coherent-- or that agrees with subsequent texts on the topic.

Then let's multiply this principle by several extant astrological texts. This principle on its own really cautions against our looking for a streamlined, uniform view of the pure "astrological tradition." [/u] It is less likely, rather than more likely, to point us to the earlier or original souces.

2. The next point ges more at historical methodology: how historians write about the past. Essentially historians cannot write about the past without over-simplifying it, and perhaps conveying it through a narrative replete with fictional elements. The best they can do is to try to guard against the most obvious biases.

A lot of material on certain topics never gets recorded. It gets recorded in biased or mistaken ways. It doesn't survive the passage of time. Simultaneously for other topics there is too much information to fit into an article or even book. Some of this information seems trivial or repetitious. It gets discarded. More than likely the historian has his own motives and biases; i.e., a vested interest in writing history in a particular way. We all know the saying, "History is written by the conquerers." What gets suppressed? What gets promoted? What inter-personal or inter-group power relations are furthered in talking about the past in a particular way?

Economic history gets written differently by socialists than by capitalists. The history of Hellenistic astrology gets written differently by whole-signs vs. equal house advocates.

Consequently the past is not merely observed or described. The past is invented or created by historians to a certain extent. And much of what shapes "revisionist" history are the motives and ideologies of historians or their societies in the present. The uses of the past to serve objectives in the present is sometimes called presentism. It's easy. It is a lot harder to try to figure out what occured in the past as its own participants experienced it.

So here is another reason why we have to be very careful in assuming that astrology was done in a certain uniform way over a kazillion square km/miles over several centuries--about which we know so very little--, such that we can point to "the tradition." "The [invented] tradition" then becomes a kind of Procrustean Bed, in which contrary evidence from the past has to be stretched or chopped so that the narrative about "the tradition" still fits. Manilius or Ptolemy don't fit? Chop them. We actually have no hard evidence on the origins of houses in Hellenistic astrology? Stretch what little evidence we've got.

The more this normative process happens in order to sustain the narrative, the more "the tradition" becomes an ideology in the present, rather than a more faithful depiction of all of the messy variety that occured in astrologies of the past.

One of my concerns with the argument for whole sign houses is that the hard evidence from primary sources is so thin on the ground. With passage after passage from the early texts, it almost doesn't matter what house system one uses, for example. I read a lot of homage to Robert Hand and other contemporary astrologers as "evidence" (which it is not,) but little on the real excavation work that the whole-signs assertion demands. By all means present some Hellenistic authors, chapters, and verses to prove me wrong. Your articles that I have read would benefit from citations, incidentally.

Probably at some point, however, I will comment on your recent article on Ptolemy. I agree with some of what you wrote, but not all of it. If this thread is still continuing next week, I am tempted to go through one of the other Astro-Greats to discuss how he addresses the house issue.

Again, my thesis is that of course the whole-sign system was in use during whatever period of the Graeco-Roman world for which we have evidence. But it was not universal, and there are indirect lines of evidence that we can bring to bear on the problem.

I will post my comments about his recent article on Ptolemy (linked above) more generally.

1. Good things about this article are the discussions of the different translations of Tetrabiblos, and the problem of understanding when Ptolemy meant our present-day "house", "sign" or something else. For those of us holding the old Robbins translation, Chris sometimes notes areas of agreement with Robert Schmidt's more recent translations, which is helpful.

2. Chris essentially structures his argument as a cage-match or zero-sum game between whole signs and quadrant house systems.

But what if Ptolemy used no houses for a lot of his work? Quadrants with no houses where simple angularity is the primary consideration? A 5-degree inward starting point for one of his techniques? Whole signs for something else? This blend, I think, is closer to the spirit of Tetrabiblos.

3. I agree with Chris that there are extensive portions of Tetrabiblos with no reference to houses, including in places where astrologers today (as well as some in antiquity) would use houses. Ptolemy has other techniques.

But to understand why, I think we have to look at Ptolemy's work as a whole, and Ptolemy's larger objective, which was to put astrology on a more rational, "scientific" perspective--for his time. He likes a few elementary (pun intended) principles that can serve for a wide variety of explanations. Hot, cold, wet, dry. Solstices and equinoxes. Angles. What he doesn't seem to like is anything that deducts from astrology as a rational cause-and-effect enterprise. In his first chapter, in fact, Mr. Pt. explains a lot about his book project. (See also I:22.)

The trouble with houses with religious names, signs that are "crooked" or gendered, or whatnot, is that they don't really fit into the Aristotle-type plan. So we don't even find any reference to the second house in Tetrabiblos, for example, whether as "the Gates of Hell" of the house of "increase of wealth" because there is no way to shoe-horn their meanings into his "scientific" paradigm. He gives conventional names for non-scientific elements when he has to in order to faithfully convey key points of the astrology of his day, but they are not his cup of tea.

So to set up the article with the assumption that Ptolemy must have used some darn house system or other is somewhat off-kilter with the gestalt of the book as a whole.

And it isn't as though houses are necessary to conduct horoscopic astrology. The Babylonians didn't use them. They didn't calculate the horoscopic point. (Rochbert, 1998, 2004.)

4. We also have to note that genethliacal astrology was only one of Ptolemy's sub-fields in writing Tetrabiblos. He wrote a lot about what Robert Schmidt termed "universal astrology" with no house references that I could determine. Things like astrological meteorology, mundane astrology, electional astrology, and astrological geography. So a discussion of any house system in Tetrabiblos has to restrict itself to discussion of nativities. not his work as a whole, nor astrology's various branches.

5. Chris correctly notes that Ptolemy simply does not give a lot of detail on many of his techniques. "No evidence" unfortunately is never as powerful as "direct evidence." Chris correctly notes that Ptolemy has little to say on topical or thematic house meanings (parents, money, &c.) He states, "Unfortunately ... there are not many instances in the Tetrabiblos that we can study in order to infer what type of house division that he used." Yes! Spot on!

Where I would at least put in a huge question mark, however, is whether Ptolemy really intended house divisions at all in his dynamic discussions of angularity. A planet can be close to the midheaven, for example, and thereby be powerful. It sometimes seems as though Ptolemy merely discusses a kind of relative position in a quadrant, rather than specific divisions that can be demarcated at 30-degree intervals (III:3.) We could call this a four-house system, almost.

Anyway, there's more to be said about the rest of Chris's interesting article, which gets into specific cases, as well has his conclusions (unsurprisingly) in support of his previous contentions, but I really have to get some sleep!

The idea of the primacy of using signs for the delineation of topics/houses comes from the work of Robert Schmidt. He may actually agree with waybread, that textual analysis isn't enough to put forth that proposition, but also that textual analysis isn't the only or even best tool to use to understand what early astrological practice was. However, it is his case to make in whatever manner or forum he sees fit.

I would like to pick up a comment by Curtis earlier in the thread:

Whole signs were used for topics primarily whereas the trisections of angles were used for gauging strength.

As Chris has already stated by the Byzantine period astrologers such as Rhetorius and Olympiodorus seem to be using quadrant houses more extensively for delineation. This seems to be combined with whole signs.

This provides an interesting link to later Perso-Arab astrologers such as Sahl, Abu?Mashar, Masha?Allah and Al Qabasi . In the introduction to his book Introductions to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma?shar and Al-Qabasi Benjamin Dykes has an intriguing section entitled ?whole-sign versus quadrant based systems? where he discusses some of the history to the subject and his particular stance.

Benjamin Dykes describes a gradual progression (or regression if you prefer!) where astrologers like Sahl (possibly Abu Ma'shar too) seem to be relying exclusively on whole sign houses. Masha?allah is combining whole sign with quadrant houses while Al-Qabasi clearly utilises quadrant houses exclusively.

Dykes suggests one can look at this change-over in different ways. There was undoubtably an explosion of improved astronomical knowledge in the Islamic world in the 9th century that allowed the development of new house systems . However, as he points out there had to be a motivation to do this not just the astronomical and mathematical ability. Scribal error and misunderstanding of earlier sources may also have played a part.

Dykes basically, accepts the position of Schmidt and others that quadrant systems were really developed by Hellenistic astrologers to measure planetary strength or as he puts it ?activity? or ?busyness? of a planet.

Dykes also seems to think the so called 'equal house system' originated from an alternative method used by astrologers like Dorotheus, Antiochus , Ptolemy etc to measure planetary activity close to the ascendant. For example, both Dorotheus and Antiochus discuss planets within 15 degrees of the ASC participating in the activity or busyness of that area even if they were located in the second whole sign house. Dykes also believes Ptolemy was in all probability using an equal sign division method for his length of life technique.

According to Dykes neither the quadrant or equal sign division techniques were originally independent house systems in the early period. From this perspective these were not properly ?house systems? at all but rather sign division techniques derived from the angles (quadrant) or ASC (equal) to measure zones or sectors of particular activity, busyness or power for a planet. Dykes suggests the ancient 8 sector sign division system attributed to Nechepso may have had a similar use.

Dykes also makes a suggestion how the slightly less accurate Arabic translation of Dorotheus may have led to confusion that planets beyond 15 degree of the ASC were no longer in the first house.

Dykes states in summary:

''These are the types of considerations which I believe led ancient and medieval astrologers to begin identifying regions of power more and more with house topics, so that by the High Middle Ages of Latin Europe, a?? house?? meant almost exclusively a region of power measured from an axial degree, which was identifical to a topic of life. Although there has been controversy over different systems before, this is very different from a whole ?sign topical system overlaid with busy or advantageous signs and regions of power.

If we allow signs to signify topics, but the quadrant divisions to indicate something like 'power' , then the problem is largely solved: all planets in the rising sign will indicate first house matters , and will be central to life because of it, but they might be weak in power even if they are central to life. Consider arthritis; some arthritis might always be on one's mind (in the rising sign), but might never be debilitating or really problematic (cadent in power) but other arthritis might be on ones mind (in the rising sign) but very painful and distracting (angular in power). Other planets and signs could work in the same way: signs for topics, quadrant divisions for intensity.'' Introductions to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma?shar and Al-Qabasi by Benjamin Dykes (2010), page 19

This may will hopefully give the original poster and others here something to ponder on. With this outlook whole sign houses and quadrants are not in conflict. Rather we can adopt whole sign houses for topics but use our personal preferred method for determining planetary busyness, activity or power i.e. 12 sector quadrants, 12 sector equal sign divisions or the 8 sector sign division system of Nechepso.

Mark

I thought I would just add this link to a thread I opened on the traditional forum earlier this year:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6257

Its from a text called the Salmeschoiniaka which is attributed to the legendary Nechepso and Petosiris.

It seems to be the earliest extant text discussing the astrological topics but it is using 36 divisions rather than 12.

If anyone, wants to read the latest scholarship on early horoscopes I would recommend trying to track down this piece by Dorian Greenbaum and Micah Ross from (2010)

(Greenbaum, D. G., Ross, M. (2010). 'The Role of Egypt in the Development of the Horoscope', in Barres, L., Coppens, F., Smolarikova, K., Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, 146-182.)

Anyone who has come across Dorian Greenbaum's work will know how excellent it is. Micah Ross has also written recently on early demotic (late Egyptian) horoscopes.

Because of the obscurity of the publication I still haven't managed to get this article but I am sure it would be most rewarding for anyone that does.

Mark

Hello All,

I have just deleted several comments by members here. Indeed I have had to delete some entire posts which breached the forum rules.

I have also taken the opportunity to remove quite a few off topic posts. Sorry if you were one of the latter group.

This is a final reminder to all members here that ad hominem attacks, or other forms of disrespectful behaviour will lead to the permanent locking of this thread by a moderator. It could also lead to cancellation of your membership of this forum

I have re-opened this thread but I would like all members to re-read the forum policies before posting again here.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/templates ... r/read.php

In particular:

Most important - be respectful to other members. Remember that this board is public so you should avoid posting comments that could cause offence or be generally construed as objectionable in content or tone. Memberships are suspended and then cancelled if this foremost policy is ignored.

For future reference if you are upset or offended by the comments of another member try to resist the urge to post an immediate reply. If you dont feel the issue can be resolved with that member please contact a moderator rather than resorting to a flaming war on the thread.

Thanks

Mark Cullen
Moderator

On your point about Egyptian astrology: I will see if I can locate the article you mention. Sometimes edited volumes show up on library data bases. Greenbaum's dissertation at the University of London dealt with "The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology: Origins and Influence."

I will go way out on a limb here, (and probably further out into the small branches if you'd prefer to continue such a discussion on your Egyptian thread,) but the following (speculative and incomplete) thesis is starting to gel for me.

If anyone can point me to sources on this topic, I would be really appreciative.

I think what we see in the houses are hints of Hellenistic mystery cults and Egyptian solar/agricultural/religious teachings. This is beginning to resolve the problem for me of why, for example, the second house should be called simultaneously both the "Gates of Hell" or of Pluto, as well as the house that provides the sustenance of life (Neugebauer, 1943 for the 1st century AD.) Why should the IC/4th house simultaneously be called "the lake of the Underworld (Ibid) and the house of the father?

In Hellenistic mythology, Pluto/Hades/Dis was the god of the underworld and the dead, but also of the riches to be extracted from under the ground. The so-called "rape of Persephone" myth was apparently the core of the Eleusynian mysters in honour of Demeter, and we can sort of map some of it onto the below-ground houses. [This underground riches theme pops up again with the 4th house.]

In Egyptian mythology of Osiris, the gods and dead mortals' souls pass through several stages or stations. In one of the myths, Osiris unites with his father Re (Ra) in Dwat, the underworld, thereby becoming transfigured. In another one, Osiris unites in the underworld with his son Horus on a spiritual plane, thus enhancing his divine power. [cf. Jesus: "The Father and I are one."] A handy source is The Oxford Guide to Egyptian Mythology.

The Typhon of Manilius is the Egyptian trickster god Seth-- possibly the original Bad Daemon.

To put these houses into the esoteric framework for individuals, we have to consider the interpretation that the soul's true home is celestial. Life on earth is apt to be difficult and hellish. So birth into the earth dimension mirror's Persephone's descent into the underworld and forced marriage to her uncle. After an earthly death, the soul releases back into its celestial realm-- but in cyclical, not linear time.

By tracing the passage of the deity or soul through its stations, I think we can get at why the houses got their particular meanings. After all, it isn't as though "money" or "death" are transparently somehow observable in the sky.

What I am trying, also, to work out, is whether we need to postulate "north" as co-equal with the MC at the top of the chart. Interestingly, Ptolemy oriented his map with north on the top. This way, we get the West, the Egyptians' land of the dead, on the left side at the ascendant, and the limnality of the houses around the horizons.

Maybe someone has a better explanation for clockwise houses, other than pairing signs and houses with the solstices and equinoxes.

Then I think Ptolemy was well aware of the basics of Hellenistic and Egyptian religions, and just didn't want them in his "scientific astrology." He refers to a 6th house, but doesn't name it or the other under-ground houses.

The "working" astrologers with a clientele, however, were not interested either in their clients' soul-journey or science, and we lost the original meanings of houses. The Father became one's own father. The riches of Pluto's domain became one's own money. And so on.

Hello Waybread,

I have just obtained a copy of the article. I have had little time to read it and its quite long and complex but the basic themes make me think a fuller discussion fits better on the Egyptian thread.

Especially, because Greenbaum and Ross are quite explicit in suggesting the origin of the ascendant (and indeed all the angles) originate directly with the decans. This was what I was suggesting at and looking for feedback on in the older thread. This thread seems to have taken on a much wider period in its scope.

Greenbaum and Ross directly critique the thesis of David Pingree that Mesopotamian and Egyptian astrological ideas can be rigidly divided from hellenistic astrology. This it is suggested is a false dichotomy. Pingree's 'rapid development hypothesis' for horoscopic astrology is also challenged head on. Combined with the work of Francesca Rochberg on Mesopotamian astrology these authors considerely strengthen the 'gradual development' school of thought that posits horoscopic astrology developed over a long period of time in various stages. I do think this new research makes it more difficult to defend the position of other 'rapid development' writers on the history of horoscopic astrology such as Robert Schmidt.

I plan to put a synopsis of the article on the Egyptian thread. Hopefully in the next week or failing that after Christmas.

Mark

I have a question:

What do I do with a 10th house cusp and MC in a different house in whole signs? I do career delineation pretty much according to Bonatti which doesn't depend on the 10th, but with quadrants I still like to consider it in practice. In whole signs when the MC is in a different house I get confused.

Mithra6 wrote:I have a question:

What do I do with a 10th house cusp and MC in a different house in whole signs? I do career delineation pretty much according to Bonatti which doesn't depend on the 10th, but with quadrants I still like to consider it in practice. In whole signs when the MC is in a different house I get confused.

I'd treat it as both have signification with profession, i.e. if in the 11th, alliances play a significant role in the native's profession or acquisition of offices, meaning he is well connected.

If you want a "primary" one, I'd go with the 10th sign, as it has direct connection to action by being the 10th from the rising sign. But as you already know, there are other considerations that go before the examination of the 10th house in the matter of delineation of profession.