Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:01 pm
by Andrew Bevan
Change my mind? No... not really, Ficina. If I want to read the planetary hour from the chart without adding the extra calculations, I observe the Sun's position by house.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:41 am
by Martin Gansten
MarkC wrote:One query though. As I understand it planetary hours are Babylonian in origin. If the system so clearly fits with Placidus houses doesn't this add weight to the argument that Placidus may be one of the earliest quadrant house systems? I know Porphyry houses were probably used by Valens and most likely pre-date him. Still this planetary hours link makes me wonder.....
I have read at least one astrologer suggesting Ptolemy might have been using Placidus houses.
This is somewhat off-topic, but for the record, the only thing approximating a house system in the Tetrabiblos is the description of the aphetical places (III.10 in the Robbins edition), where the first house begins 5 zodiacal degrees above the eastern horizon and ends 25 degrees below it, the other houses being defined by their aspectual relationships with the first. This is what we would call (a variety of) equal houses.
As I said before, Placidus houses were based on the idea of planetary hours (and of primary directions by proportional semi-arcs), not the other way around. Placidus, Regiomontanus, Porphyry and Alcabitius houses have all been put forward by their proponents as the 'true Ptolemaic system', but would almost certainly have seemed strange to Ptolemy.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:51 pm
by Andrew
This is somewhat off-topic, but for the record, the only thing approximating a house system in the Tetrabiblos is the description of the aphetical places (III.10 in the Robbins edition), where the first house begins 5 zodiacal degrees above the eastern horizon and ends 25 degrees below it, the other houses being defined by their aspectual relationships with the first. This is what we would call (a variety of) equal houses.
Is this the equal house method as taught by Margaret Hone, i.e., the degree of the Ascendant as the degree of each subsequent cusp?
Placidus, Regiomontanus, Porphyry and Alcabitius houses have all been put forward by their proponents as the 'true Ptolemaic system', but would almost certainly have seemed strange to Ptolemy.
Really? Ptolemy would have found the Placidus method strange? Really?
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:36 pm
by Martin Gansten
Andrew wrote:Is this the equal house method as taught by Margaret Hone, i.e., the degree of the Ascendant as the degree of each subsequent cusp?
I do not know Margaret Hone's writings, but this is how Ptolemy defines the aphetic places:
the twelfth part [Ptolemy's usual synonym for 'zodiacal sign'] surrounding the ascendant, from five degrees above the actual horizon up to the twenty-five degrees that remain, which are rising in succession to the horizon; the part sextile dexter to these 30 degrees, called that of the Good Daemon; the part in square, the mid-heaven above the earth; the part in trine, called that of the God [?]
This is Robbins's translation, which I have altered slightly to make it more literal. He thus divides the zodiac into 30? segments based on the rising degree, although he does not speak of the 'cusps' of the other houses.
Really? Ptolemy would have found the Placidus method strange? Really?
I think he would have, yes. Not difficult to understand, but different in conception from houses as they were understood in the 2nd century CE.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:04 pm
by Andrew Bevan
I have had two wishes on this subject:
1) That there was a planetary hour calculator that would calculate the hour according to various rules, ie. that took into consideration the choice and problems of different housesystems.
2) That there was a computor program that would bisect or trisect the houses according to the mathematics and geometry of the housesystem in application.
Most important for me would be a bisection of every house, which would make it easier so find the borderline of all the hours. We don't consider houses in the same manner as signs, but we do divide a sign into 3 faces or decans, and I wouldn't mind looking into seeing how this related to house location.
Planets relating to each other by placement in house does come to mind when considering the term of planets being in mundo (ie. in terrestial aspect) , as was demonstrated and practiced by Charles Carter, among others.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:56 pm
by Martin Gansten
Andrew J. Bevan wrote:Planets relating to each other by placement in house does come to mind when considering the term of planets being in mundo (ie. in terrestial aspect) , as was demonstrated and practiced by Charles Carter, among others.
I am not sure if I understand this last sentence correctly. Do you mean to say that Charles Carter worked with a mundane definition of the planetary terms (bounds)? If so, I would be very grateful for a reference. It could possibly have some bearing on the question discussed here:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3483
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:52 am
by Papretis
Andrew J. Bevan wrote:2) That there was a computor program that would bisect or trisect the houses according to the mathematics and geometry of the housesystem in application.
This is what I've hoped for too lately! One house system that I've been interested in lately again is "Sripati" or "Hindu Bhava" where the cusp is not the starting point of a house but the high point. The house is located in both sides of the cusp so that the border between two houses is located in the middle of their cusps.
The traditional Indian Sripati houses use Porphyry cusps, but what I'm hoping for is that you could calculate those houses by using any cuspal system you like. The quarter between two angles (say the Ascendant and the MC for example) would not be divided into three like usual but into six, and then the two slices surrounding the ASC/DC would become the 1/7 houses, the two slices surrounding the MC/IC would become the 4/10 houses, and so on with the rest of the houses.
I've done some statistical research on angular and cadent planets, and these Sripati houses would seem to show the planetary charasteristics more clearly than the traditional quadrant houses do (not even talking about the whole sign houses that give consistently the weakest results in this kind of studies).
(Sorry, this had nothing to do with the planetary hours.)
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:57 pm
by MWackford
Dear All,
Andrew is quite correct in suggesting that the semi-arc idea predates many other house methods. Robert Powell?s History of the Houses (All About Astrology, # 19, ACS, California) further suggests a connection to Egyptian ?star clocks? in this regard and I agree.
Semi-arc division would not have seemed new to Ptolemy. See his comments on prorogation.
MikeW
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:24 pm
by Martin Gansten
MWackford wrote:Semi-arc division would not have seemed new to Ptolemy. See his comments on prorogation.
Agreed, but he did not use semi-arcs to define houses. The methods of primary direction ('prorogation') and of house division were generally unrelated prior to Regiomontanus.
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:55 am
by Gem
Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions.
Andrew Bevan and Ficina know I'm a keen user of planetary hours and I know and appreciate the significance of planetary hours but have also wondered about the validity as raised by Andrew in the Planetary Hours thread in the sport section:
Andrew Bevan wrote:
I held a lecture for the Norwegian Astrological Association last month, where my lecture did touch into the question of radicality, and an unexpected event turned up. In the middle of the process of explaining the planetary hours to the audience and how they were structured and derived from the planetery week days, a gentlemen raised his hand in protest (An Aquarius, naturally!). His objection was "Who has decided that the Moon rules Monday?" I tried quoting the Bible and pointed to various classical authorities and our astrological roots. He failed to agree.
To a certain point, I agree with his arguement. While we have appointed the planets to various days of the week, who did decide that today is Sunday? If whoever it was decided to start with Sunday tomorrow, or somewhere along the line missed out a day of two, the whole order of planetary hours, days and rulership would be totally out.
The conclusion to this problem must be that it doesn't really matter, because the power is in the intelligence and design that constructed the system. Language has power because noises or words are given meaning. In the same sense, any kind of ritual or talismanic magic would have power on basis of the knowledge and intelligence of the person or persons who, singular or collectively, constructed the design...
Fortunately, the planetary hours are not influenced by adjusting the clocks for summertime, although the sphere of human experience is definately moved. This would lead us to conclude that the planetary hours reflected a rhythm in nature based upon the intervals between Sunrise and Sunset - and was not mearly a product of the clocks. However, the question of which day was to be held as Sunday, or on which day we should hold our Sabbat, this resolution must be left up to our religous beliefs.
Though I basically agree with what Andrew says, I've been wondering about this since then and thought perhaps other members might like to comment on the 'who decided Sunday is Sunday' question.
Many ancient cultures based the calendar on the lunar cycle. So the first day of the month would be logically the Moon's day but was it the New Moon, or the Full Moon or the first visible crescent Moon?
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:00 pm
by Andrew Bevan
Martin Gansten asked - Do you mean to say that Charles Carter worked with a mundane definition of the planetary terms (bounds)?
No - this is not what I meant. Carter applied mundane aspects, ie a planet in the 4rth is in a mundane square to a planet in the 1st. I think I must have expressed myself unclearly. My fault. If mundane aspects can be reckoned I was interested in a subdivision of the mundane houses (read bisection or trisection) for some sort of meaning or effect.
I realise my mind is wandering and my thoughts are not absolutely clear. Maybe I was hoping someone else would pick up the thread. Some times you have to look way into a house and maybe into the next sign before the planet in that house comes to surface. It isn't the first thing that comes to eye. You have to get to know the person, or the person has to reach within to get hold of these resources - it's almost like each house has an angular, succedent and cadent division. Is there more to learn about how we work with houses?
Now if the planetary hours change with the Sun's daily passage over the house cusps and the point of bisection in those houses, something could indicated the the first and second half of a mundane house differed in quality or effect. No hard facts to go on here, but my question on whether an additional meaning may be added to various portions of a house stems from the calculation and division of planetary hours.
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:46 am
by Andrew Bevan
On a different thread found in the horary section we had some difficulty, or rather I caused it
, in agreeing upon the planetary hour. My Quandrant and Regiomontanus
'Eye on the Ball' method of deciding the planetary hour suggested that the hour was Jupiter, while the time-based method of calculation (Placidus) suggested the hour belonged to Mars.
I had an interesting discussion with another contributor to the thread by email. The chart in question was cast for 10.31 a.m. Astrocalc software suggested that the hour in fact changed at 10.31, so if this were true the planetary hour would certainly be a boarderline case. The other forum member was using software that suggested the hour changed at 10.30, while ChronosXP, a popular and very useful freeware on the internet, suggested 10.27!!
I tried to work out what Lilly was doing. I found that he in the boarderline chart of page 389 of Christian astrology says that the hour is that of Mercury and the Moon!
On page 442 there is a chart where he says the hour is that of Mercury, but by observing the Sun's location by house I would have said he made a slip up here, because the hour belongs to the Moon - there can be no doubt!
