Mark wrote:

So whether I choose to post here or not is small potatoes.

Make sure that Paul doesn't get to read this!

Quoting from a reply he gave to James recently:

Also, you talk to an Irish man of potatoes, you know you are going to both make me not only hungry but also make follow your posts with a new found respect and attention hitherto unseen.

Michael

Michael Sternbach wrote:

I would say that you are downplaying something that you don't want to be part of your astrological picture.

I don't have a fixed agenda in the way you seem to be implying Michael. If you or anyone else can show the kind of core influence you are implying in ancient foundational texts I will be as interested as anyone. My scepticism is founded on my reading many of the relevant ancient texts themselves. However, I cannot claim to have read absolutely everything so its possible there might be important gaps in my knowledge. Equally, I may have missed points in what I have read. Despite what you may assume I retain an open mind and I am receptive to further evidence. But the key point I feel is evidence.

I haven't seen any ancient texts explicitly setting out an association between the houses and body parts tied to zodiacal order Aries-Pisces. But that doesn't mean there might not be any. One ancient source that I would be very intrigued to check out on this is Claudius Galen of Pergamum. He was the greatest physician in the Roman world and lived in the 2nd century CE so he was a rough contemporary of both Claudius Ptolemy and Vettius Valens. Apparently something like a remarkable 1/6th of all the surviving texts from the classical era are by Galen! And about one half of all the texts surviving from ancient Greek. Galen was remarkably prolific. But I suspect the survival of so much material also reflects the enduring practicality of Galen's medical work across cultures. Galen was a crucial influence on later medical astrology. So it would be extremely interesting to see what he had to say on the topic of houses. I have a hunch (which is totally unsubstantiated at present ) that the Perso-Arabic astrologers may have got the body part association of houses from Galen. Unfortunately, very little of his work has been translated into English or other modern European languages. Update: I later rejected this theory as a source for the Zodiacal Man applied to house meanings for reasons I set out on page 4 of this thread

There is of course another historical issue here which is how we got to the modern outlook almost exclusively based on a tripartite of sign, planet and house e.g. Aries=Mars=1st house. It clearly has some embryonic roots in the association of body parts to houses in Perso-Arabic astrology.

I seem to recall Deb stating that by the early modern era the general linkage of signs to houses was already being applied by some astrologers. I think she had a quote from someone (Richard Saunders or Nicholas Culpeper?) complaining in the 17th century about they perceived as a degeneration of the art.

Anyway, rather than continue a somewhat negative dialectic with you here I have decided to post up in summary what I consider the key influences on early house meanings.

Mark

There are multiple explanations for the origin of house meanings in ancient astrology. However, I think the following are the most crucial. Each one of these factors could arguably generate a thread on their own.

The Relationship to the Ascendant-Ancient astrology only looked at so called ptolemaic aspects ie sextile, square, trine or opposition. There we have no inconjunct aspects. Hence we have the fundamental idea of houses that can literally ?see? or cannot see the ascendant. The houses that could not see the ascendant were in aversion to that house. Hence the 2nd, 6th, 8th, and 12th place from the ascendant had unfortunate associations. For example the 2nd place from the ascendant was originally known as 'The Gates of Hades'. Its interesting that Indian astrology still considers the 2nd house unfortunate today. The mitigation for the 6th and 2nd place is their trine to the 10th house so they have a relationship to career and status matters. This idea of aversion is found more generally in ancient and Perso-Arabic delineation when houses have a ruler that is in aversion to them.

Diurnal Motion of the Signs-Angularity/Succedent/Cadent . The concept of signs rising by primary motion before angles (succedent), reaching a peak of power on an angle (angularity) and then falling away from the angle (cadency) is basic to astrology and seems to have very ancient origins.

The cadent houses are 12th, 9th, 6th and 3rd. Hence we have two reasons for finding the 6th and 12th unfortunate houses in ancient astrology. The 3rd and 9th had significant mitigations which meant they never acquired the purely negative association of the 6th and 12th. Firstly, both houses can see the ascendant 3rd=sextile and 9th=trine. Secondly both houses are planetary joys to the luminaries. I return to the important issue of planetary joys and house meanings below.

The Diurnal Life Cycle of The Planets. Ancient sources are simply awash with references that support this idea. The cycle of life i.e. birth, maturity, decline, death and rebirth were understood through the diurnal motion of planets in a horoscope. Hence the ascendant= birth, the midday sun =mid life , 7th house =later life, decline, 4th house =death and rebirth of soul. Hence you find astrologers like Paul of Alexandria stating that Moon in the 7th house could indicate a late marriage or living abroad. Because the 7th opposes the ascendant it was a house associated with travel in ancient astrology. Ancient Egyptian solar mysticism seems to have been an important factor in influencing house meanings. Symbolically, decline or death is traced after the Sun reaches its culmination in the sky and sinks closer to the horizon.

The Planetary Joys. These also seemed to have strongly influenced ) house meanings. The traditional joys are: Mercury=1st, Moon=3rd, Venus=5th house, Mars=6th house, Sun=9th, Jupiter=11th, 12th=Saturn.

Hence as the house of the God/Gods the 9th is linked to the Sun. Jupiter is associated with the 11th house of the Good daimon. Hence the 11th was regarded as a very fortunate house. While people today might link this to Aquarius/Uranus its origins are very different. The 11th was all kinds of benefactors, money from others, and liberation from suffering (12th house). While the 11th was associated with a quite literally the Good Daimon, the 5th had association with the Goddess of good luck (Tyche). The links between Venus and the 5th are obvious. Pleasure , creativity and children. Note that Leo the 5th sign from Aries is a traditionally sterile sign. The malefics Mars and Saturn are said to ?joy? in the traditionally unfortunate 6th and 12th house.

The Oppositional Nature of The Houses Valens states that the house opposing the other often shares in its nature. Hence the 1st-7th, 2nd-8th, 3rd-9th, 4th-10th, 5th-11th, 6th-12th. Many of the house associations cross over somewhat or have a common theme.

The Thema Mundi-This is not discussed by Deb in her book on the houses but it is an idea I have commented about on Skyscript before. I think its possible the Thema Mundi may have been at least a partial influence on how the houses came to be regarded. Or to be more accurate the house placement of the signs in the Thema Mundi influenced the view of the signs. This actually, fits with Deb's earlier comment about houses influencing the meaning of signs but I don't know what she had explicitly in mind. I suspect she was thinking more of the primary motion of the signs.

So in the Thema Mundi here we have possible influence of signs on houses but starting with Cancer not Aries! Many of the ancient sources cite this such as Thrasyllus, Valens and Firmicus. Valens actually chooses to describe the signs through their sequence in the Thema Mundi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi

I wouldn't suggest its a smooth fit in every instance (the 6th with Sagittarius is the most problematic I feel). However, I do think the Thema Mundi, Cancer-Gemini sequence often fits better with the ancient thinking on houses in relationship to signs than the Aries-Pisces sequence.

A good example is the negative view of Aquarius in ancient sources like Valens. Of course the sign is ruled by the greater malefic Saturn. But beyond that it is associated with the 8th house of the Thema Mundi. A house which is in aversion to the ascendant. Quite at odds with this signs' positive placement in the 11th place in the Aries-Pisces sequence.

The Chaldean Planetary Order with Houses .
Despite its ancient sounding name this association seems to only date from the medieval period in relation to the houses. By this time the Thema Mundi had fallen into disuse. In this sequence the associations are:
1st-Saturn, 2nd-Jupiter, 3rd-Mars, 4th-Sun, 5th-Venus, 6th-Mercury, 7th-Moon, 8th-Saturn, 9th-Jupiter, 10th-Mars, 11th-Sun, 12th-Venus.

Mark

hi mark,

that is a nice summation of many older ideas on the houses. thanks.

i went and read deb's introduction in her book 'the houses - temples of the sky'. in 9 pages you can quickly see where she is coming from in wanting to remove any fuzzy thinking which has been created - according to her comments in this section starting sometime in the 17th century.

she seems to let william lilly off the hook for his reference of signs as 'co-signifactors' of the houses, saying the planets he identified as co-signifactors had nothing to do with sign rulerships. to quote her specifically: "Within his work associations between signs and house were given no particular emphasis beyond their joint rulership over similar parts of the body. The assumption that they could be equated in a more general sense seems to have taken root during the popularization of astrology in the 17th century and has been slowly infiltrating our reasoning ever since." those pesky 17th century modern astrologers, lol..

i'm not motivated to challenge some of the things she says in the introduction.. on balance i feel it's well written and wise to be clear on house meanings if you are going to be using this fundamental building block of astrology.. that said, it seems 'money' ( deb uses the 2nd house=taurus=venus idea as an example) wasn't thought about as much in the deep past, or they didn't use the word 'money' so much as wealth, or treasure trove for example (one of the parts in al biruni's book 'the book of instruction in the elements of the art of astrology' which uses venus and the 2nd house cusp to arrive at the part).. jupiter is the planet associated with wealth.. ptolemys tetrabiblios really offers nothing in the way of insight into where one would find some help in an issue around money either.. perhaps there are some traditional references for money that others are aware of.. perhaps on the other hand it is a 'modern' obsession...

In traditional astrology all the succedent houses can be looked at from a financial perspective.

2nd-How we earn money ourselves

5th-How we spend money (nb: joy of Venus)

8th-Money through death (inheritance) and shared finances

11th-Receiving money /financial support from others (nb: joy of Jupiter)

The ancients looked at these houses and the relevant lot, most especially the lot of fortune. Jupiter was as you said the natural significator of wealth.

The Perso-Arabic astrologers often presented this as a tripartite approach to every issue:

1 Planets in House/House ruler
2 Natural significator
3 The relevant Lot

Here is an article by Deb on traditional aphorisms for wealth:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/wealthaphorisms.html

Mark

hi mark,

thanks. i did note looking for a source on 'money' in tetrabiblios the use of the part of fortune as the primary part to work with. that was before you shared the link from deb here, but thanks for that anyway. some will enjoy reading it - it's a good article!

take 2.. i read over the article again. what i find interesting is how in the indications for wealth or lack of wealth section the 2nd house is mentioned 4 times, verses the 1st mentioned twice. the angles are mentioned a few times in a way that could touch on a few houses.. the 8th was mentioned once..no mention of many of the other houses... perhaps the 2nd has something to do with a persons resources with money, or lack of it being an important part of it.

i don't have this book 'bonatti on nativities' which is part 9 of bonattis work ( BOA) benjamin dykes put out in 2008 or thereabouts. however, i found a spot outlining the contents and found what i have quoted below. now, perhaps there are different ways to consider prosperity, but it seems to me based only on the outline of bonatti's which i take is correct here - the 2nd house does have a lot to do with the concept of money.. thoughts anyone? perhaps some folks have the book and have read the section.. for the record, aside from mentioning the association with the 11th and good fortune, there is no such similarity in focusing on the getting rich idea which is mentioned so often in relation to house 2 as witnessed below. house 5 and 8 have no mention connected to any of this either..

Bonatti's dates of birth and death are unknown, the latter probably occurring between 1296 and 1300.

"On the Second House:
1. Prosperity, substance, its acquisition
2. Where & by what means the native gets rich
3. When the native gets rich
4. "Why the ancients avoided certain ones of the said significators"
5. Whence & for what reason the native would get rich
6. The means whereby the native will get rich
7. The age or part of life in which the native gets rich
8. What significators will increase or decrease the native's money
9. "On what is signified by the places of the circle"
10. The same subject according to Abu 'Ali
11. Ruler of the ascendant in the various houses
12. Acquisition of substance, according to Abu 'Ali
13. On the same subject

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your very interesting list of various views on the wheel of the houses.

Happy that I finally found the opportunity for a proper reply.

I will have a look at all the options in your list, one by one, over several posts. Starting today with:

The Relationship to the Ascendant-Ancient astrology only looked at so called ptolemaic aspects ie sextile, square, trine or opposition. There we have no inconjunct aspects. Hence we have the fundamental idea of houses that can literally ?see? or cannot see the ascendant. The houses that could not see the ascendant were in aversion to that house. Hence the 2nd, 6th, 8th, and 12th place from the ascendant had unfortunate associations. For example the 2nd place from the ascendant was originally known as 'The Gates of Hades'. Its interesting that Indian astrology still considers the 2nd house unfortunate today. The mitigation for the 6th and 2nd place is their trine to the 10th house so they have a relationship to career and status matters. This idea of aversion is found more generally in ancient and Perso-Arabic delineation when houses have a ruler that is in aversion to them.

This is an interesting observation, to be sure, as far as the most ancient systems (Equal/WSH) are concerned. It also brings back to mind the Vehlow-Rahman system we discussed recently, which regards the house cusps as aspects to the ASC, each with 15? extension on both sides.

But, frankly, I am not sure how much of this explanation really holds true if we look at it critically...

Why would the inconjunct ?aspects? be seen as much more negative than the opposition and the square?

Why wasn't 7th believed to be that unfortunate? Sure, it can stand for one's enemies... But also for one's marriage! (Ok, some wouldn't see much difference here...)

Furthermore, why weren't the 4th and 10th seen as particularly problematic?

Mark, can this derivation of the house meanings based on aspects (and non-aspects) be found explicitly in ancient texts ? or is it a rather modern extrapolation?

Needless to say, anybody, don't hesitate to contribute to this discussion whatever seems to fit ? I promise, you won't be seen as interrupting anything!

Brainstorming is key to any real progress in controversial and complex topics!

Hi Michael,

Why wasn't 7th believed to be that unfortunate? Sure, it can stand for one's enemies... But also for one's marriage! (Ok, some wouldn't see much difference here...)

It was believed to be unfortunate. I think it was Serapio who stated that the malefic houses are the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 12th. I am not at my books just now, so I can't give the exct reference. Until I saw this, a chart of a friend always puzzled me: he has a Jupiter-Venus-Mercury conjunction in the 7th and has a very active, but troublesome, life. A lot of those troubles involve money, women and business respectively.

Furthermore, why weren't the 4th and 10th seen as particularly problematic?

The 4th was, as stated above. The 10th most likely not as, you have stated before yourself, it is the highest point of the ecliptic in the sky. I don't think the houses were considered benefic and malefic due to aspects to the ASC alone, there is a visual aspect to this too. The 7th sign is the setting one, the 4th the nadir of the the dark half of the chart.

i think it goes back to marks comment which is taken from the deep past.. houses that can't 'see' the ascendant are considered a negative.. the 150 or 30 aspect - 6/8 and 2/12 houses respectively - are not given a positive spin, however house 2 is the best of the bunch as it is rising up into the ascendant and planets found in house 2 eventually reach the ascendant by primary direction.. these other houses may form a nice aspect to the midheaven too which is considered more favourable.. essentially the angular houses are positive, or more positive then the cadent ones as planets in them have the ability to act.. planets in cadent houses have less strength based on this same ability to act.

well, that is the theory anyway.. i don't know what happens when a person considers 'aspects' and planets in aspect to other planets in angular houses. i suppose the concept would get modified which i think is what any tradition that grows has happen to it. it gets modified or altered according to new insight. the trine and sextile aspects have always been considered a positive generally from my reading of older astro lit.

the 7th had a connotation with death - sun setting, or planets dropping down below the horizon, so this runs counter to the idea of planets in angular houses having some power. i think one has to consider the planet. a planet like venus in a nocturnal chart on the descendant would be very different then mars in the same spot in a diurnal chart (john wayne gacy as an example of the later).. having the power to act can be a good or a bad thing and this has to be considered via the planet, as opposed to making a generalization over the house.

Deb wrote:I'd like to see the discussion reframed, so that it can develop in a way that doesn't force it into an "either/or" issue, but just looks at the issues and explores the evidence available. Co-incidentally, I was in private discussion with Chris Brennan about a week ago, about his concerns that the ancient sources make it hard to overlook the natural association between Gemini and the third house. This may be something he wants to contribute to the thread. Currently, it's a bad time for me, but perhaps in a week or so I'll be able to be more active.

I agree, and not just for the third house. I think anciently we find different house systems that get compiled, but not necessarily integrated. We have to think of the zodiac both seasonally and diurnally. The third was the house of the "goddess" but also the house of brothers. Hello, Gemini? The 9th was the house of "god"-- but this god was Apollo, the god of prophecy, a 9th house matter. Apollo was also a god of healing; and the 9th house in a house-sign correspondence, would have been located roughly around the constellation Ophiuchus, assuming Aries rising. Ophiuchus was associated with Aesclepius, the Greek healer.

The second house had several names (like the "gates of hell") but was also "the house of the provisionment of life," which translated into the house of money. (Cf. the association of the underworld god Pluto with riches coming from under the earth, like metals used in currency.) To the Graeco-Egyptians writing horoscopes in demotic, the 4th was the "dwat", which was the hall of judgement of Osiris in the afterlife. From this I think we get the house of the father from The Father, Osiris. The 8th "house of death" occurs at a time of day before sunset when temperatures in Egypt were at their hottest-- and most inimical to plant and human life. And so on.

References available upon request.

I think the Greeks, rationalists that they were, never quite explained the thematic content of houses, vs. their favourability or unfavourability based upon their position around the horoscope circle.

Deb, I really like your book on houses.

Hi Waybread,

This is all most revealing!

I would appreciate to get your references.

Best,
Michael