Skyscript Astrology Forum

Maternus is one that springs to mind. But the point is that the newer translations try to make it look like they used whole signs above all
Calculations weren`t easy those days. Whole houses were meant to simplify IMHO
Suggest you read Deb on house systems and her interview by Chris Brennan. He was a lil bruised but that`s his problem. Most of these whole sign house gang comes from the US ,where the new idea,even if it`s old, is all the hype and the best way to make a few bucks

The whole sign conspiracy theory can get a bit disturbing at times.

Levente Laszlo wrote:Hi Michael,

Michael Sternbach wrote:The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..."

Levente Laszlo wrote:

This is the reference I alluded to here (link). It is certainly not the so-called "Equal" system, and I believe one would be too hasty to conclude that it constitutes a house division proper.

Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

That he emphasizes how such a planet can be in another sign suggests that he wants to make clear how the method he is describing here differs from WSH which he knew to be commonly used by the Astrologers of his day.

Michael Sternbach wrote:So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

Levente Laszlo wrote:

No, as far as I know. There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.

Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Are there any variant readings known?

Levente Laszlo wrote:

No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

TT wrote:This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing.

Levente Laszlo wrote:

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

Once again, to all it concerns: If you want to explore this topic here in my thread, keep it linked to Dorotheus please.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Levente Laszlo wrote:Hi Michael,

Michael Sternbach wrote:The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..."

Levente Laszlo wrote:

This is the reference I alluded to here (link). It is certainly not the so-called "Equal" system, and I believe one would be too hasty to conclude that it constitutes a house division proper.

Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

That he emphasizes how such a planet can be in another sign suggests that he wants to make clear how the method he is describing here differs from WSH which he knew to be commonly used by the Astrologers of his day.

Michael Sternbach wrote:So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

Levente Laszlo wrote:

No, as far as I know. There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.

Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Are there any variant readings known?

Levente Laszlo wrote:

No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

TT wrote:This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing.

Levente Laszlo wrote:

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

Once again, to all it concerns: If you want to explore this topic here in my thread, keep it linked to Dorotheus please.

In what page and book of the Carmen doe Dorotheus says those things?

TT wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Levente Laszlo wrote:Hi Michael,
Levente Laszlo wrote:

This is the reference I alluded to here (link). It is certainly not the so-called "Equal" system, and I believe one would be too hasty to conclude that it constitutes a house division proper.

Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

That he emphasizes how such a planet can be in another sign suggests that he wants to make clear how the method he is describing here differs from WSH which he knew to be commonly used by the Astrologers of his day.

Levente Laszlo wrote:

No, as far as I know. There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.

Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

Levente Laszlo wrote:

No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

Levente Laszlo wrote:

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

Once again, to all it concerns: If you want to explore this topic here in my thread, keep it linked to Dorotheus please.

In what page and book of the Carmen doe Dorotheus says those things?

I gave all the relevant references I found when I leafed through the book in the OP. If somebody is aware of others, I'd appreciate if they would post them. Even though, right now, I doubt there are any.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

What Dorotheus did was write a didactic poem, and if we believe the Arabic paraphrase preserves his genuine preface (Ar. Dor. 1.pr.5, p. 61 Dykes = p. 161 Pingree; also 5.1.4, p. 230 Dykes = p. 262 Pingree) - and it is fairly poetic indeed -, he extracted his instructions from a variety of sources. So if we read his instructions (or rather, what are reported to be his instructions, as the original is lost), we cannot simply infer that he is referring to his actual practice. In this respect, he is indeed similar to others such as Valens.

Also, in the Arabic paraphrase there are a handful of practical examples. One of them, dated to 29 CE, is also cited by "Rhetorius", and therefore indubitably genuine. Eight more examples, none of which are cited by Hellenistic authors, are also dated for the same era, which suggests they are also genuine. Now, it is usually assumed that these examples constitute Dorotheus' own cases (which is not beyond doubt), and if this assumption is accepted, they are the only reasonably reliable indicators for what Dorotheus actually did in practice. (If one were to reject the examples as Dorotheus' own cases, then they would basically reject that Dorotheus ever used astrology in actual practice.) In the examples the whole-sign house system is exclusively used, and consequently, this is the system that he used in practice (once again: provided he did use astrology in practice, not just versified it), no matter what other system(s) he might be referring to. In this respect too he is similar to others like Valens.

Let me reiterate: I strongly believe that only actual examples can reveal what an astrologer should actually have been doing; the works on astrology are otherwise full of instructions mainly of theoretical force nonetheless. That is why I consider assertions like "astrological author A used technique T" only valid when inferred from actual case examples, but otherwise misleadingly oversimplifying.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

This claim may be right, yet it is still a fact that all the extant charts before ca. 500 that provide any insight into the issue are analyzed as though whole signs are being used, even if the astrological authors could have invested some time into further calculations before publication. They did not do so, which suggests they did not feel compelled to do so.

Speaking of the apparent lack of clarification, there are many other cases of unspecified concepts and techniques. For example, "ascendant" was meant as a specific sign, a specific degree, or a specific house (to name the most obvious cases), depending on context but never formally defined. Furthermore, if there were no other "house systems" (the "equal system" being only a specifically degree-based subset of the whole-sign system), then why should one have bothered with definitions?

Michael Sternbach wrote:Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

I am sorry to say, but I think your interpretation is wrong and so are the implications you assume. But let me revisit the relevant passage (Ar. Dor. 1.7.7, pp. 68-69 Dykes = p. 165 Pingree). It is found in a chapter devoted to the question of upbringing, and the places (houses) promising successful upbringing are listed. One of these places is the ascendant (the first house), and here you find a specific instruction:

"And if you found 15° between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account just as though its placement is in the Ascendant (emphasis mine)." (Dykes translation)
"If you find a planet [such that there are] fifteen degrees between it and the ascendent, then, even if it is in the second sign from the ascendent, reckon its power as if it were in the ascendent (emphasis mine)." (Pingree translation)

The highlighted clause in the Arabic (p. 8.13 Pingree) reads as fa-ḥsib quwwatahu ka-mak??natihi fi ṭ-ṭ??liʿi, which, quite aptly translated by Dykes, clearly means something like "take its (i.e., of the planet being in the second house but within 15 degrees from the ascendant) power (i.e., for upbringing) into account (in the same way) as if it is positioned in the ascendant." In other words, a specific rule is introduced here, but the text by no means says that a planet located in this fashion belongs to the ascendant (the first house), and to assume that the same fifteen-degree interval should be measured clockwise from the ascendant to yield a 30-degree "house" in no way follows from the text.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Levente Laszlo wrote:No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

Here you are:

Book of Aristotle (Dykes translation): "And so, the Lord of the triplicity [being found] from the first degree of the sign up to the fifteenth, wholly with the degrees of the arisings of the Sun, and it (sic!) in a pivot, blesses the one who is born with luckiness, furnishes with dignities, adds attendants, even underofficials and scribes, nor will he ever happen to be deprived of dominion or power."

Horoscope of Constantine VII (my translation): "And Dorotheus adds the following (factors to consider): since the first trigonal lord of the Sun, which is Venus, is found pivotal in the hour-watcher, on her own throne, within 15 portions from the hour-watcher, the native will have greatness of fortune, especially in the first age of his life."

Levente Laszlo wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

What Dorotheus did was write a didactic poem, and if we believe the Arabic paraphrase preserves his genuine preface (Ar. Dor. 1.pr.5, p. 61 Dykes = p. 161 Pingree; also 5.1.4, p. 230 Dykes = p. 262 Pingree) - and it is fairly poetic indeed -, he extracted his instructions from a variety of sources. So if we read his instructions (or rather, what are reported to be his instructions, as the original is lost), we cannot simply infer that he is referring to his actual practice. In this respect, he is indeed similar to others such as Valens.

Yes, compiling manuals from earlier sources was a common practice in those days. And knowing this might help explain certain inconsistencies encountered in some of those books.

Also, in the Arabic paraphrase there are a handful of practical examples. One of them, dated to 29 CE, is also cited by "Rhetorius", and therefore indubitably genuine. Eight more examples, none of which are cited by Hellenistic authors, are also dated for the same era, which suggests they are also genuine. Now, it is usually assumed that these examples constitute Dorotheus' own cases (which is not beyond doubt), and if this assumption is accepted, they are the only reasonably reliable indicators for what Dorotheus actually did in practice. (If one were to reject the examples as Dorotheus' own cases, then they would basically reject that Dorotheus ever used astrology in actual practice.) In the examples the whole-sign house system is exclusively used, and consequently, this is the system that he used in practice (once again: provided he did use astrology in practice, not just versified it), no matter what other system(s) he might be referring to. In this respect too he is similar to others like Valens.

Let me reiterate: I strongly believe that only actual examples can reveal what an astrologer should actually have been doing; the works on astrology are otherwise full of instructions mainly of theoretical force nonetheless. That is why I consider assertions like "astrological author A used technique T" only valid when inferred from actual case examples, but otherwise misleadingly oversimplifying.

What I am personally most interested in when it comes to the ancient Astrologers is exactly the concepts they set forth. As my research also primarily concerns the theory that is underlying the art. Practice can be quite a different animal, to be sure - both now and then.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

This claim may be right, yet it is still a fact that all the extant charts before ca. 500 that provide any insight into the issue are analyzed as though whole signs are being used, even if the astrological authors could have invested some time into further calculations before publication. They did not do so, which suggests they did not feel compelled to do so.

Speaking of the apparent lack of clarification, there are many other cases of unspecified concepts and techniques. For example, "ascendant" was meant as a specific sign, a specific degree, or a specific house (to name the most obvious cases), depending on context but never formally defined. Furthermore, if there were no other "house systems" (the "equal system" being only a specifically degree-based subset of the whole-sign system), then why should one have bothered with definitions?

I feel they were just not into clear cut definitions so much in those days. Nowadays (especially in Western culture) we generally like to draw lines and take more of an analytical approach, whereas those folks were prone to connecting related concepts to each other. Their very writing style suggests to me that their brain was working differently.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

I am sorry to say, but I think your interpretation is wrong and so are the implications you assume. But let me revisit the relevant passage (Ar. Dor. 1.7.7, pp. 68-69 Dykes = p. 165 Pingree). It is found in a chapter devoted to the question of upbringing, and the places (houses) promising successful upbringing are listed. One of these places is the ascendant (the first house), and here you find a specific instruction:

"And if you found 15° between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account just as though its placement is in the Ascendant (emphasis mine)." (Dykes translation)
"If you find a planet [such that there are] fifteen degrees between it and the ascendent, then, even if it is in the second sign from the ascendent, reckon its power as if it were in the ascendent (emphasis mine)." (Pingree translation)

The highlighted clause in the Arabic (p. 8.13 Pingree) reads as fa-ḥsib quwwatahu ka-mak??natihi fi ṭ-ṭ??liʿi, which, quite aptly translated by Dykes, clearly means something like "take its (i.e., of the planet being in the second house but within 15 degrees from the ascendant) power (i.e., for upbringing) into account (in the same way) as if it is positioned in the ascendant."

But the Carmen Astrologicum says "second sign", not "second house". Moreover, it doesn't specify in what direction we are supposed to count. Yes, counting them counter-clockwise would be the more immediate thought. But if Dorotheus allowed for both directions, can we be positive he would have expressly said so?

In other words, a specific rule is introduced here, but the text by no means says that a planet located in this fashion belongs to the ascendant (the first house), and to assume that the same fifteen-degree interval should be measured clockwise from the ascendant to yield a 30-degree "house" in no way follows from the text.

Well, I am kind of extrapolating and filling in the blanks. Alright, I may be making certain assumptions. Then again, the author may well have assumed his readers to make assumptions.

To put it differently, applying rigorous analysis to a text that just does not lend itself to it may not lead to adequate understanding.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Levente Laszlo wrote:No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

Here you are:

Book of Aristotle (Dykes translation): "And so, the Lord of the triplicity [being found] from the first degree of the sign up to the fifteenth, wholly with the degrees of the arisings of the Sun, and it (sic!) in a pivot, blesses the one who is born with luckiness, furnishes with dignities, adds attendants, even underofficials and scribes, nor will he ever happen to be deprived of dominion or power."

I find the highlighted part rather intriguing. I wonder if it actually hints at a subdivision of the signs into 15 degrees segments, such as we see in Valens' 'steps'.

Horoscope of Constantine VII (my translation): "And Dorotheus adds the following (factors to consider): since the first trigonal lord of the Sun, which is Venus, is found pivotal in the hour-watcher, on her own throne, within 15 portions from the hour-watcher, the native will have greatness of fortune, especially in the first age of his life."

Thank you for the quotes. Looks like I need to augment my astrological library with yet more books sometime.

BTW, would you tell me where Dykes' translations of the Arabic paraphrase of Dorotheus and the Book of Aristotle can be found, please?

Michael wrote:

BTW, would you tell me where Dykes' translations of the Arabic paraphrase of Dorotheus and the Book of Aristotle can be found, please?

Book of Aristotle: Persian Nativities, Volume 1: Masha'allah and Abu'Ali.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Michael wrote:

BTW, would you tell me where Dykes' translations of the Arabic paraphrase of Dorotheus and the Book of Aristotle can be found, please?

Book of Aristotle: Persian Nativities, Volume 1: Masha'allah and Abu'Ali.

Thanks, Therese.

I only have Persian Nativities, Volume 2 so far.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Yes, compiling manuals from earlier sources was a common practice in those days. And knowing this might help explain certain inconsistencies encountered in some of those books.

I agree, but I also feel necessary to add that faulty transmissions of texts may also be responsible for the inconsistencies. In fact, all ancient astrological texts were demonstrably subject to alterations (omissions, additions, paraphrasing, rearrangements) in the course of the centuries, so we need to be extremely careful when articulating our opinions regarding ancient theory and practice.

Michael Sternbach wrote:What I am personally most interested in when it comes to the ancient Astrologers is exactly the concepts they set forth. As my research also primarily concerns the theory that is underlying the art. Practice can be quite a different animal, to be sure - both now and then.

That is fine, I just wanted to highlight some important issues. First, we cannot consider all astrological authors to have also been astrologers automatically. Second, there is a stark discrepancy between the occasional subtility of astrological theory and the somewhat rudimentary nature of astrological practice, and therefore we need to differentiate between discussions about theoretical concepts and assertions related to actual practice.

Michael Sternbach wrote:I feel they were just not into clear cut definitions so much in those days. Nowadays (especially in Western culture) we generally like to draw lines and take more of an analytical approach, whereas those folks were prone to connecting related concepts to each other. Their very writing style suggests to me that their brain was working differently.

It is basically a matter of stylistic conventions of a certain age. A didactic poem, for instance, was primarily aimed at entertaining and making instructions easier to retain. Other texts served for other purposes.

Michael Sternbach wrote:But the Carmen Astrologicum says "second sign", not "second house". Moreover, it doesn't specify in what direction we are supposed to count. Yes, counting them counter-clockwise would be the more immediate thought. But if Dorotheus allowed for both directions, can we be positive he would have expressly said so?

That would not be illogical to assume, but writing "Nth sign" for "Nth place (house)" is rather common for Dorotheus (and, for that matter, virtually every Hellenistic author). All the other instances given by Dorotheus are absolutely clear in this respect, which makes you assumption implausible.

Michael Sternbach wrote:I find the highlighted part rather intriguing. I wonder if it actually hints at a subdivision of the signs into 15 degrees segments, such as we see in Valens' 'steps'.

The "steps" (bathmoi) are actually related to lunar and planetary latitude and solar declination, and I believe it is only a coincidence that they look like subdivisions of signs. However, there is a remnant of Hellenistic subdivision of signs into halves surviving in the Indian concept of hor??, directly derived from Greek h??ra, 'hour'. Despite their existence, I don't think they are related to this 15-degree rule. What I believe is relevant I alluded to in the other thread linked above; I'll repeat it here for convenience:

Levente Laszlo wrote:Besides the well-known "equal system" that begins with the ascendant, there are traces of another "equal" one that has the ascendant in its middle (15th degree). (The soul of Johannes Vehlow must be rejoicing now.) Besides the known passages of Dorotheus and Antiochus (referring to Timaeus, who in turn referred to Hermes), the position of the ascendant to Cancer 15 in the thema mundi may confirm its existence, but the most immediate description is given in the "anonymous commentary" to Ptolemy (3.11.3): "he (i.e., Ptolemy) doesn't follow the opinion of the Egyptians, that is, that one must take the 15 pre-ascending [and] (the 15) post-ascending degrees." However, even if this "Vehlowish" system existed, there is simply not enough evidence to call it another "house system".

Michael Sternbach wrote:BTW, would you tell me where Dykes' translations of the Arabic paraphrase of Dorotheus and the Book of Aristotle can be found, please?

The Arabic paraphrase is the text commonly known as Carmen astrologicum. When in 1976 David Pingree published the Arabic paraphrase of Dorotheus's lost poem of unknown title, its English translation, and the related Latin and Greek passages he felt worthy of inclusion, he followed the convention of the Teubner series by using scholarly Latin for his contributions. To give a title for the book, he wrote Dorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum, that is, "Dorotheus of Sidon's astrological poem". Although it was not its real title, when the English translation of the Arabic paraphrase got published separately, it would become known under this title. Also, it is wrongly but widely assumed that Dorotheus's work equals this text.

So, to give a short answer, the book "Dorotheus of Sidon, Carmen astrologicum", translated and edited by Dykes in 2017, is the Arabic paraphrase, re-translated by Dykes from Pingree's edition.

Levente Laszlo wrote:

In the examples the whole-sign house system is exclusively used, and consequently, this is the system that he used in practice (once again: provided he did use astrology in practice, not just versified it), no matter what other system(s) he might be referring to. In this respect too he is similar to others like Valens.

Thank you Levente for your consistently high quality posts which continue to make the Traditional forum essential reading. Your above comment is a useful corrective. For many years the neo-hellenistic astrologers following Robert Schmidt were putting out the view that only whole sign houses were used in most of the ancient world. Criticism of that view revealed much more pluralism than was initially conceded. However, in the last few years there has been a counter-reaction to the early neo-hellenistic position. Its become fashionable amongst certain astrologers with a horary/renaissance astrology background such as Wade Caves, Eve Dembowski and Ema Kurent to suggest that whole sign was never really a stand alone house system and that there were no practical examples to be found in the astrological tradition. These astrologers seem to find it difficult to accept that ancient astrologers could have relied on a non-quadrant system like whole sign houses.

Mark

I would like to second marks comment.. thanks for the education levente.. it is much appreciated...

If you have Rhetorius you can see he used both Alchabitius and whole signs,but at least in the case of the dead infant(page 164) ,alchabitius worked better