Hi Paul,
A few comments are in order here.
Paul wrote:As a relevant tangent, I will include this curious example which seems to strongly suggest the original text was describing a form of quadrant division in Greek Horoscopes by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen. The below is chopped and sliced from a dissertation I wrote on the topic, so forgive the jarring nature of it.
For me it shows that assuming, a priori, what house system the ancients used, or 'must have' used can lead us to literally ignore the evidence right beneath our noses. When we think we already have all the answers, we stop looking for them, and stop examining the data and instead project our assumptions.
WSH in Academia
There is a possibility that WSH, although forgotten to astrologers, was identified within academia. GH include a definition of house systems which acknowledges both quadrant division, as well as 30º divisions, which might be either WSH or EH .
I am not sure where in GH you are seeing this. At least in the chapter "Technical Terms", the loci are defined as either equal 30° divisions counting from the
Horoscopos (and in some cases from the Lot of Fortune) or as equal trisections of the quadrants between the centres, with an acknowledgement of the 5° zone preceding a cusp that Ptolemy mentions in
Tetrabiblos (GH p. 7 f.). This definition obviously excludes WSH and only leaves EH and Porphyry as alternatives.
Their definition of ‘Epanaphora’ and ‘Apoklima’, Greek transliterations which describe certain house positions, refer to the houses as signs, such as for Epanaphora, described as ‘a sign which precedes, in the order of the signs of the zodiac, a centre’ . In a footnote to Horoscope No. -3, they note that ‘if the sign of the Horoscopos’ (emphasis mine), which is Scorpio, is considered the first house, then the eleventh house is Virgo, again suggesting the sign and the house are interchangeable, which is suggestive of WSH. They referenced a diagram in the late 19th century work Astrologie Grecque by Bouché-Leclerq (BLC) as evidence . However, neither the diagram they refer to, nor the relevant passages surrounding it, describe a house as a full zodiacal sign, instead BLC argued, ‘their system, conceived independent from the signs of the Zodiac, was only superimposed onto the other’, that is to say that the houses and signs of the Zodiac were considered as independent entities, with houses superimposed upon the Zodiac . Nevertheless, whether inspired by BLC or not, the authors of GH do occasionally refer to houses as being signs, suggesting recognition of WSH as a concept, either accidentally or deliberately.
Horoscope No. 95
Neugebauer and Van Hoesen,
Greek Horoscopes, pp.28-38.
Horoscope No. 95 is an elaborate horoscope, with accompanying astrological treatise, recorded on papyrus across six columns . The ascendant is recorded as 25º Cancer, the midheaven as 10º Aries, and Venus is described in Taurus, though the exact degree is lost . The Midheaven degree conforms precisely to the System A method. In Column III, Venus is translated as ‘rising (toward) the center’, however, in a footnote the authors noted that:
‘The literal translation of the text “Venus rises in the center??? makes no sense since Venus is in the sign which precedes Midheaven’ .
That the authors assume a priori that the ‘center’ must be the 10th sign, and so Venus, in the 11th sign could not be in the centre, is evidence of an assumed WSH. However, if the text is correct, then provided Venus was in the first 15º of Taurus, then Venus could indeed be ‘in the center’ for a quadrant house system like Porphyry. The literal translation, therefore, suggests that a quadrant-division was used, which the authors of GH may have missed by assuming WSH a priori.
No, this does not suggest that the authors were assuming WSH.
The exact degree of Venus' position in Taurus isn't actually lost, as it can be derived from her being in Jupiter's terms (14° to 22° Taurus) and, more accurately yet, from her dodekatemorion falling on 3° Aquarius; therefore she must be located at 21° Taurus (see GH p. 34).
Since the ASC is 25° Cancer and the MC 10°30 Aries, the 10th Porphyry house ends at approximately 15° Taurus, thus Venus is definitely in the 11th - not just in WHS, but also in Porphyry and EH.
This finds some additional confirmation by Venus being in the "first Lot, of Agathos Daimon" - a term that the authors can't make sense of (p. 36), but which suggests to me a connection to the 11th house (the
place of Agathos Daimon); especially since the at first equally unintelligible "third Lot, concerning death" falls into Aquarius, where the 8th house (the
place of death) is situated in this chart. (These "lots" are mentioned in lines 72-74, and 77, 78 of the literal translation, p. 31.)
Cheers
Michael
