Clelia Romano wrote:
I?m not the right person to answer that: to me your answer seems ok, but may be others with more mathematical expertise would say that the method of both was different!

Cl?lia

No need to be an expert (I hate math too).

That's Ptolemaic primary directions method by hand (see point 3 planet to planet):

http://heavenastrolabe.net/primary-dire ... -software/

As everybody will tell Placido houses are 2 hours from each other.

For both the "hour" is the same mentioned in Ptolemy example about directions:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb59.htm

It is true that there is no evidence that Ptolemy used Placido house system (and in fact I'm agnostic about this), but obviously Placido used Ptolemy....

margherita

No need to be an expert (I hate math too).

That's Ptolemaic primary directions method by hand (see point 3 planet to planet):

http://heavenastrolabe.net/primary-dire ... -software/

As everybody will tell Placido houses are 2 hours from each other.

For both the "hour" is the same mentioned in Ptolemy example about directions:

Hi Margherita!

I hope you do not have awakened the sleeping math monster inside me

My doubt: Ptolemy worked with oblique ascensions when doing directions from the ASC to MC and the ascension time was different depending on the sign. But, as you are saying, each house has 2 hours, a fixed time. So can we suppose that signs and houses were judged accordingly to different conceptions?

Thank you for the links!

Clelia

Clelia Romano wrote: Hi Margherita!
I hope you do not have awakened the sleeping math monster inside me

I really hope no!

My doubt: Ptolemy worked with oblique ascensions when doing directions from the ASC to MC and the ascension time was different depending on the sign.

it seems to me you already asked me this some time ago. Ptolemy did not use the Hellenistic method. He writes:

in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned; in the prorogation from mid?heaven, as many as the times of the culminations; and in the prorogations from all the others, in proportion to or in accordance with the nearness of the risings, or settings, or culminations, to the angles, as we explained in the discussion of the length of life.

The cusps of intermediate houses in Placido behave exactly like the method described for directions of intermediate points in the book III. They are considered according their distance from meridian proportionally to the semiarc. This distance should be steady and equivalent to 2 hours.

Obviously Placido built the method on Ptolemy reading.

On the other hand it was known to everybody that Regiomontanus was not following Ptolemy..Argoli for example says in his famous book about directions, that there are two methods, the first is the difficult method Ptolemy explained, the other the rational method by Regiomontanus.

margherita

Ah mathematics, nice to see the both of you getting interested in the calculations by hand . I've just started to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, so getting to know all about awakening monsters.

margherita wrote:It is true that there is no evidence that Ptolemy used Placido house system (and in fact I'm agnostic about this), but obviously Placido used Ptolemy....

Martin said several times in the discussions that the ancient astrologers didn't feel the need to use the same house system according to the method of directions. In other words a semi-arc system could be used with another system like Porphyry or Alchabitius without the feeling of being inconsistent. This feeling of inconsistence (which I admittedly share) appears to be somewhat modern (or maybe stems from Placidus' days).

Eddy wrote:Ah mathematics, nice to see the both of you getting interested in the calculations by hand . I've just started to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, so getting to know all about awakening monsters.

margherita wrote:It is true that there is no evidence that Ptolemy used Placido house system (and in fact I'm agnostic about this), but obviously Placido used Ptolemy....

Martin said several times in the discussions that the ancient astrologers didn't feel the need to use the same house system according to the method of directions. In other words a semi-arc system could be used with another system like Porphyry or Alchabitius without the feeling of being inconsistent. This feeling of inconsistence (which I admittedly share) appears to be somewhat modern (or maybe stems from Placidus' days).

Yes, I know and one of one or two things I don't agree with Martin, of whom I like almost ALL.

Better said, it's true that one can calculate Ptolemaic primary directions and use Regiomontanus house system without any problem. Still it's obvious that Placido houses are built on Ptolemy system.

That's evident if we use the variant of algorithm I used in the article of my blog quoted previously (from Marco Fumagalli, founder of Cieloeterra from I moti del Cielo
http://www.cieloeterra.it/edizioni/libr ... cielo.html )

If we compare it with Martin formula of proportional distance (page 153 of Primary directions:astrology's old master Technique) with Fumagalli formula we directly work with hourly distance, so we can compare the point in respect to the Placidean house, which is measured in the same way.

It's more logic, even if not traditional, because we are using the same unit of measure.

margherita

Clelia ; My doubt: Ptolemy worked with oblique ascensions when doing directions from the ASC to MC and the ascension time was different depending on the sign.

it seems to me you already asked me this some time ago. Ptolemy did not use the Hellenistic method. He writes:

in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned; in the prorogation from mid?heaven, as many as the times of the culminations; and in the prorogations from all the others, in proportion to or in accordance with the nearness of the risings, or settings, or culminations, to the angles, as we explained in the discussion of the length of life.

Okay Margherita, first of all what is the Hellenistic method you?re referring to when saying that Ptolemy did not follow it?

Secondly, in the phrase:"in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned", I understand that he is using the ascensions of the signs.
Robert Schmidt and Robert hand in their commentaries of the directions in Ptolemy quote Hephaisto, Book 2, chapter 11, explaining the method to the region of Hellesponto.

It is a long explanation, and perhaps here is not the place to put these comments, perhaps in other thread...

Anyway, other Hellenistic releasing that I know is ?Valens? way to do it, which is quite different, since it begins with the horoskopus, counting the years and months of the ruler of the sign to know about the first years and up to the folowing houses to give testimony to the subsequent periods. Valens gives as example a native who had Saturn in Aquarius ( Saturn in this case gives 30 years) in the ASC. And he says that the man got emprisonned until his 30th year of life.

Thanks

Cl?lia

Good evening Clelia,

Clelia Romano wrote: Okay Margherita, first of all what is the Hellenistic method you?re referring to when saying that Ptolemy did not follow it?

The method of ascensions. For being clear for example the one mentioned in Paulus Alexandrinus, chap.34 On crisis.

Secondly, in the phrase:"in the prorogation from the horoscope a number equal to the times of ascension in the latitude concerned", I understand that he is using the ascensions of the signs.
Robert Schmidt and Robert hand in their commentaries of the directions in Ptolemy quote Hephaisto, Book 2, chapter 11, explaining the method to the region of Hellesponto.

I don't have that book but surely Robert Schdmidt and Robert Hand write there that Ptolemy uses oblique ascensions for directions to Asc, RA for directions to MC, and "something else" for intermediate points.

It is a long explanation, and perhaps here is not the place to put these comments, perhaps in other thread...

There is no need of explanation. You have the three examples of III book of Tetrabiblos. See by yourself if Ptolemy is using ascensions method or something else.
Try the Hellenistic method and try "Placidean" (no under the pole) and see which fits.

margherita

hervaro wrote:

There are some interesting mitigations that might help explain the remarkable reversal of fortune that permitted Bannatyne to become so wealthy.

Also, being a night-chart, the triplicity rulers of his sect-light are in order: Jupiter, Sun, Saturn (Moon in Aries).
Jupiter, governing the 1st part of life is miserably placed in his fall and (most important) cadent. Indeed, not a good period.
2nd part of life comes under the responsibility of the Sun. He is badly placed essentially, but mighty in the pivot of the 7th (and as you noted, the King has raised and taken Mercury ruler of the 2nd sign, to sit on his Lap on the Throne!).
3d part of life is (will be) taken care of by Saturn. Saturn is peregrine yet still has some power by placement in succedent house. One might fear though that some of this man's richness will dissappear, or be taken away... (Saturn retro).

But/and Jupiter together with Venus being in Fortuna's 7th house, with Fortuna's dispositor itself (the Moon, the Light of the Time) in the 10th house of Fortuna, certainly will have helped (and keep on helping)!

Herman

How do you know when each part of life begins?
I am 50,so I thought I was entering third part??!!

Damon wrote:

How do you know when each part of life begins? I am 50,so I thought I was entering third part??!!

Fair question!

The first step would be to calculate the Hyleg /Natal Predominator as the ancient and medieval astrologers did. There were quite a lot of variations on how to calculate the Hyleg/Predominator and you see different approaches between astrologers like Ptolemy, Valens and Antiochus-Porphyry.

Each planet in ancient astrology had its own cycle lasting the same amount of years as its synodic cycle.

The three rulers preside over a portion of the person's life. The condition of the first ruler will show the condition of life during the years of the cycle of that planet - ie A person born with an air sign hyleg/predominator during the day is ruled by Saturn for the first 30 years of life, then ages 30 to 50 are ruled by the condition of Mercury, Then the condition of Jupiter blends with these for the rest of the lifetime.

Synodic cycles of the planets (Minor periods):

Sun 19 years
Moon 25 years
Mercury 20 years
Venus 8 years
Mars 15 years
Jupiter 12 years
Saturn 30 years

The whole issue of the Hyleg and Alchoden is quite complicated and gets more so in medieval and renaissance astrology. This article by Bernadette Brady goes some way to explain the intricacies of the topic:

http://www.bernadettebrady.com/Pdfs/Hyleg.pdf

Mark

Good morning,

Obviously, one cannot delineate something (aversion) when one is not sure what it refers to (topical place). Some modern schools of astrology, ex. gr. Herr Reinhard Ebertin's Aalen School (also know as 'cosmobiology'), dispensed with astrological houses altogether. Others rejected all popular quadrant systems due to their results in polar regions.

As far as historians know to date (i have not read all of them ), Hellenistic astrologers including Klaudios Ptolomaios did not work with tables of houses but with tables of ascension times of signs by zones of geographical latitude. Calculations of semi-arcs, if and when performed, were interpolated from such tables. Apparently, some tables of ascension times of ecliptical constellations or bright stars thereof were also used, perhaps concurrently, as these are easier to observe.

In view of the few and inconclusive references in Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy was not 'house happy' in contrast to ex. gr. Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche. The 5 degrees offset mentioned apparently intended to include pivotal phenomena based on primary motion. Thus, to me it seems that 5 degrees measured in right ascension might be more appropriate than in ecliptical longitude. Perhaps i might gain astrological fame and immortality by amending the 'classical' houses system accordingly, copyrighting and publishing it.

Of course it seems convenient as Signora Margherita has stated to use the same system for places of topical delineations and for directions. Proponents of primary directions according to Herr Johannes M?ller of K?nigsberg, Bavaria, (Regiomontanus), generally apply his house system as well. From a practical perspective, for lives lasting a few decades, using the same key, ex. gr. Ptolemy's, the dates of primary directions yielded by M?ller's system often differ by years from those yielded by Placido di Titi's. If one has a fairly accurate birth time (within some minutes) and exact salient event times, comparison is not difficult.

If one includes house Al-Mubtazz, however, whole sign houses are much simpler in practice because, once the astrologer has selected parameters of essential dignities, the Al-Mubtazz per sign is constant.

To the meagre extent of my knowledge, no proper scientific, statistical investigations have been conducted to date to ascertain if a) the notion of topical places as such is valid and, if so, b) which system. Much speculation, little organised data - a feeding frenzy for sceptics.

Best regards,

lihin

Thanks Mark
In my ZET software when I click in Firdaria I see Period -Jupiter. Is that what youre referring to?
But I cant find calculation for Hyleg there

Hi damon,

My apologies as I rather confused matters above.

Essentially, there are two basic views on how to work with triiplicity ruler periods.

The hellenistic view (according to Robert Schmidt, Chris Brennan etc) seems to have been to divide the life into two basic periods with the third participating ruler having an influence throughout both periods of life.

However, in medieval astrology this was applied differently with the life divided into three periods controlled by each of the triplicity rulers.

I refer you to this old thread on the topic. In particular the comments of astrojin which are typically excellent in summarising the topic.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 8bb172b4b9

Mark