Hermes, I agree with you that a hypothetical "sign number=house number" equation doesn't apply to ancient times.

But has anyone got a good explanation for why the sun is given as moving clockwise diurnally-- yet the houses, though stationary, are numbered counter-clockwise? I would really appreciate it!

The house numbering system seems to be pretty old. A left-hand ascendant makes sense if one faces south--then east is on the left, which was the traditional orientation of the horoscopic point. To number houses counter-clockwise with the daily movement of the sun as the guiding principle, I think one has to assume a north-at-the-top orientation, which would put the east at the right-hand, as Ptolemy constructed his map, and as we construct maps today.

I think Robert Schmidt argued for house meanings relating to a combination of diurnal and seasonal motion with respect to the angles (The Mountain Astrologer, Dec.2008), which I don't quite get so long as the chart has south at the top.

The sun's furthermost journey north (from a northern hemisphere geocentric, tropical perspective) appears at the calendar 0 degrees Cancer, the summer solstice. The sun's furthermost journey south appears at 0 degrees Capricorn, which would put Aries on the left and Libra on the right only if the chart is oriented with north/Cancer at the top This possible match-up still doesn't explain counter-clockwise house numbers (at least, to me ) With Cancer at the top (period of sun's greatest intensity?) and Capricorn at the bottom (weakest sun) don't we still get a clockwise progression?

I would read Hermes' and Mark's posts as pointing to further, and consequently multiple, thematic/topical house meanings in the centuries from which we first have hard evidence of astrological houses. However, I am not sure the Thema Mundi, as a teaching device, naturally applied to houses, as the meanings of the signs and planets in the different positions are different.

We find Firmicus Maternus (XVI) calling the 2nd house "the Gates of Hell" or the Anafora (rising up from the underworld)" (apparently as the exit ramp;) and the 8th, the "casting down into the underworld" which still seems to follow a diurnal clockwise solar motion. Then in XIX FM explains "the Gates of Hell" name as the 2nd house not making a major aspect to the first; which retains the "Gates of Hell" name (cf. Manilius) but offers a different explanation than FM posited shortly before. Why FM should next call such a negative place the "increase in personal hopes and material possessions" is unclear. The only reason I can think of is that either Firmicus Maternus compiled different interpretations --or perhaps he offered the vestiges of one root interpretation of which he was unclear.

Mark, in Graeco-Roman mythology, Jupiter wasn't the god of wealth so much as Hades/Pluto/Dis. The goddess Aphrodite/Venus personified both erotic love and aesthetics, which doesn't seem like an ancient match-up for the 12th. She certainly doesn't come across as an evil spirit.

Just another reason why I think it took astrologers a while to settle upon the "real" house traditions.

Waybread wrote:

Mark, in Graeco-Roman mythology, Jupiter wasn't the god of wealth so much as Hades/Pluto/Dis. The goddess Aphrodite/Venus personified both erotic love and aesthetics, which doesn't seem like an ancient match-up for the 12th. She certainly doesn't come across as an evil spirit.

I think its somewhat misleading to assume Graeco-Roman mythology always crosses over to astrology. Jupiter was associated with wealth and prosperity in ancient astrology.

Jupiter indicates childbearing, engendering, desire, loves, political ties, acquaintance, friendships with great men, prosperity.... The Anthology, Vettius Valens.

You have a point about about Venus not being a perfect fit for the 12th . As I already indicated this is the most difficult planet to fit in the system, A benefic and 'the bad daemon' aren't a match made in heaven! Still read Firmicus on an afflicted Venus.... I do think overall the Chaldean order was influential although less so than the other factors I have mentioned. You find it referred to in connection with the houses down to the time of William Lilly. The 12th is the joy of Saturn and the 6th is joy of Mars. So the two malefics are associated with the traditionally most unfortunate houses. Both are in aversion to the ASC. The other two houses in aversion to the ASC (2nd and 8th) also have unfortunate associations in ancient astrology.

To expand on what I said above the Solar and planetary cycle by diurnal motion is the key to understand the concept of angular, cadent and succedent houses. These only really makes sense when we adopt a diurnal perpective of planets and stars moving clockwise through the horoscope. The ascensional rising of signs can be compared to a slope. The succedent houses are the incline upwards, the peak is the angular houses or pivots, while the cadent houses are the downwards slope or 'falling away' from angularity. Hence all the cadent houses have associations with travel in ancient astrology. The succedent houses are full of promise. All the succedent houses have themes around money and resources. How we acquire it (2nd), how we spend it (5th), how we share it (8th) , and how others give to it to us (11th). The Angular houses all relate to the existentially key elements of self (1st), family/hertage (4th), partners (7th), Career (10th).

This explains why the 6th and 12th are such unfortunate houses as they fail on numerous fronts:

1 Aversion to ASC
2 Joys of malefics
3 Cadent

With the other cadent houses:

9th-Trines ASC, Joy of Sun,
3rd-Sextile ASC, Joy of Moon

The only explanation I can think for the 2nd house's negative association in ancient astrology (and still today in Indian astrology) is the fact it is in aversion to the ASC like the 8th house.

Mark

Mark wrote

I know you have studied with Robert Schmidt. Is this what he teaches?

No, it's what I teach.

Waybread wrote

Hermes, I agree with you that a hypothetical "sign number=house number" equation doesn't apply to ancient times.

Well... it doesn't apply to modern times as well.
What happens is that all sorts of faulty assumptions and conjectures are made about what house reflects what sign, but is seen as its more concrete significations. The 5th is Leo concretised as it were. So, Leo assignments get mixed up with 5th house topics, same goes for the sun.
The 10th house gets a very severe Victorian Calvinistic deal, by being seen as the natural place of Capricorn and Saturn. But it is simply the place of action. In the Thema Mundi the Ram is the 10th place. Keyword: action, praxis!
All the houses now suffer from such modern 'rectifications' of meanings.

But has anyone got a good explanation for why the sun is given as moving clockwise diurnally-- yet the houses, though stationary, are numbered counter-clockwise? I would really appreciate it!

It's the order in which the signs will rise after the one rising at the time of the chart, in the diurnal motion, would be my guess.

Hermes wrote:Waybread wrote [...]

But has anyone got a good explanation for why the sun is given as moving clockwise diurnally-- yet the houses, though stationary, are numbered counter-clockwise? I would really appreciate it!

It's the order in which the signs will rise after the one rising at the time of the chart, in the diurnal motion, would be my guess.

Yes. The sign/place rising at birth is the first place, the next to rise is the second place, etc.

Mark wrote:

I know you have studied with Robert Schmidt. Is this what he teaches?

Hermes wrote:

No, it's what I teach.

Ok. I am interested what your view is. Could you elaborate further how you see the Thema Mundi reflecting house meanings?

Thanks

Mark

Martin Gansten wrote:

Hermes wrote:Waybread wrote [...]

But has anyone got a good explanation for why the sun is given as moving clockwise diurnally-- yet the houses, though stationary, are numbered counter-clockwise? I would really appreciate it!

It's the order in which the signs will rise after the one rising at the time of the chart, in the diurnal motion, would be my guess.

Yes. The sign/place rising at birth is the first place, the next to rise is the second place, etc.

Martin, I get this part about the signs-- thank you.

I am still cogitating over the problem that the houses are stationary. Notably with the whole-sign system where each house occupies exactly 30 degrees, the houses don't move-- or even wiggle. So despite my agreement with Hermes on the problems ancient and modern of (mis) matching signs and houses, the passage of diurnal rising signs through numbered houses requires us to count backwards if we trace the course of a particular sign through the (stationary) houses. Not a problem-- it's just different.

Mark-- for sure astrological Jupiter shows up in association with good things of various sorts, and we do have to distinguish mythological Jupiter from astrological Jupiter.

I've been trying to wrap my head around questions like why the 2nd house in Hellenistic astrology is simultaneously "the gates of hell" or of Pluto and the house of "provision" of material sources. Pluto as god of the riches of the underworld that emerge as metal, including coinage; gems; and more esoterically, agriculture, seems a plausible fit. Presumably once the riches are above-ground, they fall under mythological Jupiter's rule, as he held dominion over everything above-ground, excepting Poseidon's rule over the sea.

Venus seems a less wonderful fit with the 12th. If all sorts of bad things get stuffed into the 12th, no doubt Bad Girl Venus belongs there, as well, but then we find that women more commonly get assigned to other houses of Hellenistic horoscopes, notably the 7th. Or to no houses, given the extensive use of lots (Arabic parts.)

But I think we also have the problem, for pagan authors, as to how far they could deviate from religious norms of their era. Given the syncretistic nature of ancient religions, each god had multiple stories and practices associated with him/her; but these were not infinitely elastic. The Graeco Roman gods associated with the planets all had Chaldean precursors and counterparts. Firmicus Maternus in his introduction (VI) notes variation in attitudes towards atheism and belief in his day, yet he says of astrologers:

"...we make men fear and worship the gods; we point out the will and majesty of the gods, since we maintain that all our acts are ruled by their divine motion. Let us therefore worship the gods.... Let us call upon the gods in supplication and piously fulfill our vows to them...."

We also have the problem of huge amounts of thematic variation within houses, according to different ancient authors; to the point where it would be hard to ascribe a particular god or planet's thematic rulerships to one specific house. Vettius Valens (Book IV:12) for example gives slaves (Saturn) to houses 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12. (3 cadents and 2 succedents.) Wives and women (Venus, Moon) belong to the 4th, 7th, and 10th (angular.) Travel (Jupiter? Mercury?) belongs to # 3, 7, 9, and 12 (3 cadents, one angular.) He gives 12 associations to the 9th house and 13 to the 4th house--none of which include the Hellenized Egyptian association with the father.

Hence my scepticism about any uniform tradition in house understandings in ancient times.

Anyway, I find this all totally engrossing. Thanks to those of you who have attempted to enlighten me.

I think I may have to beat a retreat on my theory about the Chaldean order of the planets and the origin of house meanings.

While there is plenty of medieval and renaissance support for this I haven't noticed it explicitly mentioned in any hellenistic texts.

Moreover, I have just spotted an ACT forum discussion where Robert Schmidt seems to confirm this:

I have not, however, found the Chaldean assigment of planets to places in the Hellenistic literature. I believe that this may have been a Medieval innovation, and I am concerned that it would disturb the overall structure of the thema mundi if it were Hellenistic in origin.

Another quote from Robert Schmidt in the same forum discussion:

The "Chaldean" order of the planets is certainly recognized by the Hellenistic astrologers, who call it the "seven-zoned sphere of Nechepso." My only point was that they do not use the descending order of this arrangement in the assignment of planets to topical places starting from the first place.

Mark

As Hermes has discussed the Thema Mundi as a possible origin for some house meanings I thought it would be be worth displaying it to assist our discussion.

I had always regarded this as basically a teaching tool used by the hellenistic astrologers to explain the exaltations, domicile rulers and aspectual relationships. I hadn't considered it as an explanation for house meanings. However, I thought I would enter into the spirit of this and look at it in terms of house associations.
There are undeniably some good fits with later associations and ancient belief. Its easy to appreciate Cancer rising with the Moon in the first fitting the sign representing the incarnation of new souls. This is originally a Babylonian belief and reappears in classical sources such as Porphyry and Macrobius.

http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/da ... 000798.php

The Moon and rising sign represent our physical body which is obviously essential for birth. As its a night chart the Moon is also the natural significator for the Mother. Another key factor in the birth process!

Aries ruling the 10th with its exaltation ruler the Sun fitting its diurnal location at midday. Saturn is the exaltation ruler of the 4th. Saturn is the night significator of the father. The IC also has ancient links to death and connections to the the earth and underground. Saturn is placed in the 7th place in Capricorn where it is domicile ruler. Saturn is pointing to a long term union (marriage). Its worth remembering marriage was often arranged in ancient times and was often about familial alliances (4th house). Saturn is in the house traditionally known as the 'setting place' here and is traditionally associated with death and later life. The linkage of the 9th with Pisces seems appropriate with its domicile and exaltation rulers both benefics. The 11th house 'good daimon' ruled by Taurus linked to a benefic Venus. Aquarius on the 8th house cusp ruled by Saturn fits well. Modern astrologers will be glad to see Mercury back in the 3rd house! Mercury has traditional links to brothers so this is appropriate. Although in this instance its in its domicile and exaltation sign of Virgo. Scorpio the 5th sign and Mars located there. A very powerful and highly dignified Mars by both sign, sect and aspect (trine Moon) , (square Sun). As a common sign Mercury is neither a benefic or malefic as this depends on its placement. Its ruling the 12th is interesting.

However , some of these configurations dont seem at all transparent (to me at least) in terms of later house associations. Jupiter in its domicile in Sagittarius the 6th house? I dont see how that fits into any of the 6th house associations. Jupiter also trines the Sun. I do note though Jupiter is out of sect and in aversion to Cancer where it is exaltation ruler. Being awkard there are other questions. However, dignified does a malefic like Mars really fit in the 5th -the house of children? The 2nd-'Gate of Hades' ruled by the Sun in its domicile? Admitedly, its a night chart so the Sun is out of sect. This is hard to understand. As Waybread commented:

I've been trying to wrap my head around questions like why the 2nd house in Hellenistic astrology is simultaneously "the gates of hell" or of Pluto and the house of "provision" of material sources.

I found this comment by Curtis Manwaring on his website very illuminating on this point:

Schmidt points out that this place is sometimes called the idle place and the reason that it is also called "the Gate of Hades" is because it is regarded as the exit point for the Sun on its way out of the underworld that begins when the Sun enters the setting place. He also says that the reason that this place is indicative of possessions (or what you tend to retain ownership of) is because of the two motions of the heavens: where the motion of the planets in zodiacal order takes something from the individual (1st house) and brings it to the 2nd place, but the diurnal motion takes what is in the 2nd and brings it back to the individual (1st house). In other words it represents what comes back to you.

Based on that explanation Sun in the 2nd in the Thema Mundi makes perfect sense.

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses ... hades.html

Mark

As Waybread suggests there are inconsistencies in the ancient tradition when we examine the assigned meanings of the different houses. In fact in the case of Vettius Valens those inconsistencies occur in the same text! For example Valens assigns children to the 11th place (Good Daimon) while he assigns marriage to the 5th place (Good Fortune). (The Anthology, Book II, ch 16).

However, later in the Anthology Valens seems to contradict or at least modify these house meanings. Hence later in the Anthology (Book IV , ch 12) we find the following definition of house meanings by Valens:

12. Concerning the Naming of the 12 Places and Concerning the
Twelve-Turning

Let the beginning be from the Ascendant, which is life, helm, body, breath.

The 2nd: manner of living, Gates of Hades, shaded place, giving, receiving, community.
The 3rd: siblings, being abroad, kingdom, authority, friends, relatives, heart, slaves.
The 4th: reputation, father, children, one's own wife and older persons, what one does, city, household, possessions, abidings, retribution, changes of place, dangers, death, constraints, mystical matters.
The 5th: place of children, friendship, community, putting out of emancipated slaves, a kind of good or well-doing.
The 6th: the place of slaves, injuries, enemies, ailments, weaknesses.
The 7th: the place of marriage, luck, intercourse with a woman, friendship, being abroad.
The 8th: death, benefits from deceased, idle place, lawsuits, weaknesses.
The 9th: the place of friendship, being away from home, benefits from foreigners, the place of god, king, sovereignty, astrology, oracular consultations, manifestation of gods, prophesying, place of mystical or secret matters, community.
The 10th: place of what one does, reputation, advancement, children, wife, change, renewal of things.
The 11th: place of friends, hopes, gifts, children, of emancipated slaves,
The 12th: place of foreign countries, enmities, slaves, injuries, dangers, courts of judgment, ailments, death, weakness.

Now Valens restores the 5th place to its more normal role as the house of children. However, he also mentions both the 10th and 11th house. Marriage is assigned to the more conventional place of the 7th house. However, the wife is not the 7th house (which is sexual relations) but rather indicated in both the 4th and 10th house. An indication of polygamy? The link with mysticism to the 4th house/IC is a common hellenistic association that hasn't been carried down to us. Note that like the 10th the 4th house is linked to reputation.

It could be the text is corrupted although this text is generally regarded as more free of this than most. What seems to be happening is that Valens is refining and trying to organise these associations as he writes the book. The later chapters therefore presumably represent later periods where Valens gave more thought to the topic of house associations. Valens was obviously in need of a good editor!

In this same section of the text Valens makes a very interesting comment:

Each place, then, properly produces what it signifies, but also the nature of the place of the diametrical sign cooperates

We can see this reflected a lot. Compare the hellenistic meanings of the 2nd-8th, 3rd-9th, 4th-10th, 5th-11th, 6th-12th.

Mark

Hi Mark-- I think your insights about Valens correspond with what I tried to convey about historical methods previously in this thread. Ironically, a text that seems messy and self-contradictory is actually more likely to be closer to an uncorrupted original than a tidier internally consistent source would be. The reason is because copyists, translators, and later astrologers tended to edit their versions.

The Latin roots of the literary term for this process, "to emend," actually means to free something from its faults! Unfortunately, those very "faults" probably provide a more accurate picture of the diversity of astrological practices in the past.

Some of the early authors like Valens seemed to be in the business of compiling information from different sources. This comes across when he gives different methods for calculating the same point in the chart or determining some thematic issue in a person's life. Has anyone ever worked through all of Valens's methods with a given nativity? Thankfully, I haven't, but I wonder if the techniques for a given topic would even give the same results. So score one point for his probable originality; but deduct one for the notion of a consistent system or "tradition" of astrology in ancient times.

The Carmen Astrologicum of Dorotheus of Sidon (1st century AD), from David Pingree's 2005 translation of a 4th century Persian source, contains additions from later Muslim transmitters. I am not sure who wrote the following remark (V:1), but it is fascinating. It seems to nail the process by which astrologers thought they compiled information:

"This is the book of Dorotheus, King of Egypt... He says in his book that he is following the tracks of the learned men who practised from among the learned of Babylon and Egypt...so that he might extract this [astrological information] from their books.... He says that, wherever he looked concerning what they dealt with and arranged of the science of the stars, he followed the best of their science and acquired it and explained it and collected it and extracted it from their books... as he made it an example for himself in his following their tracks, and he made it this book like a bee when it follows the most delicious of fruits, and the best of it is made into honey.... "

So right away we learn that by the first century AD there were still distinctive Babylonian and Egyptian traditions, something echoed by Ptolemy a century later with his differing Chaldean and Egyptian terms. Then we learn that the Persian transcriber thinks that Dorotheus did a pitch-and-sort on the materials available to him, so that he could write a more seamless narrative about astrological "best practice" in his day. A modern parallel would be a singer with 10 CDs to her credit, who compiles an 11th CD with the title, "The Best of ...."

The King of Egypt part is, of course, fiction, but it was commonly added to lend extra authority to an ancient text. Which is one reason why we have to be sceptical that there was an actual Nechepso, or that he was a king as was claimed, even if Nechepso was the given name of an ancient Egyptian astrologer.

Mark wrote:We can see this reflected a lot. Compare the hellenistic meanings of the 2nd-8th, 3rd-9th, 4th-10th, 5th-11th, 6th-12th.

This is actually a source for a very interesting consideration: every house would be sort of "reflective" to the other house in the same axis.

Let's take the 2nd/8th, where this would be readily apparent: the 8th was a gate to Hades just as the 2nd was. The difference is that the 8th represents the Sun entering through the gate and going into darkness, while the 2nd represents the Sun going out of it. So, while the 8th meaning is to take out the life's support, the 2nd meaning is to give support to it. Now, the complex part of this thought, is that the very material of life is corruption. Without corruption there can be no generation. So, both the 8th and 2nd would carry the meaning "death" in itself, but while the 8th depicts that which has outrun its use, the 2nd shows that which will be transformed in order to provide new life, and note that the definition of life here has to be broader than the simply physiological. If the matter was soil, the soil of the 8th is one that is turning barren and lifeless, while the soil of the 2nd is one that is being fertilized, in order to provide the initiation of a new life cycle. But both houses carry the idea of destruction: the 8th through the descension into darkness, and the 2nd through the ascension into light, or rather, the spirit disembodied.

There is a modern idea related to transformation, associated with the 8th house, but I find that the positive transformation to which the moderns refer themselves are much better described by the 2nd house, and this belonging to the same axis as the 8th, we see why there would be some degree of confusion. Perhaps, some ideas that come by as a "glimpse" or from empirical observation, gets muddled in presentation and detailing, on the process of their formalization or it's comprehension by the learner.

As ancient astrologers were not only compiling previous information, but also working with practical astrology, perceiving it through their eyes and minds, this "confusion" among subjects pertaining to different houses, specially on the same axis, can very well point to the necessity of (re)finding the common ground on which each house base themselves, in order to untangle certain associations and define what are their potential differences. Separating each group by axis and looking how they relate to the whole cycle could be a worth exercise to this purpose...

One obvious example would be the 5th/11th. If the 5th means children, the 11th having a relation to it as well (and ancient astrologers recognize this 11th house linking to children) we see the ruler of the 7th having the 11th as his 5th, and though not every children conceived will necessarily be the native's, it may well be argued that it is hard to have a child by oneself, so the 11th is a secondary significator to all children the native may have, as well as a ruler for adopted children (children born from others). I myself, think that the matter children steams from a broader cycle, that begins in the 4th with our ancestors and ends with our legacy (our children) in the 5th.

The axis that seems to me to create the most confusion is the 6th/12th. But I find that there is a hint in an old text attributed to Hermes (I believe so, do not remember now where exactly I read it) where it is said that the 12th is a place of weakness, because once brought into life in the ascendant, the matter is at it's most fragile state, like a newborn, and is prey to any severe or adverse condition that may befall upon it. I personally think that the 12th is a place representative of accidents, besides unintetional brought upon hidden enemies, because it forces maturation through adversity, and that is why it is said that it is a place of self-undoing, where poorly chosen actions lead to deprivation (surprisingly this could give argument to the defendants of 12th with a "karmic" function). On the other hand, if we look at the 6th, the same "fragility" theme is found, but now, it is not because the matter at hand is just newly born, rather, it is because it has just been deadly struck, exhausted of its purpose, as a specific cycle is closing in. Though not every passage of the Sun or other wanderer through the 8th and 7th will be symbolical of literal death, it will always be the testimony of impairment to life, to the disadvantage of the native or whatever is represented by the rising sign. Hence, the 6th is a house of debilitation, where the life force is found diminished, prey to diseases or attacks from obscure sources (below the earth). So, both houses, 6th/12th are on an equal ground, in that nourishment and resilience is needed, in order for a perilous situation to be overcome.