Martin Gansten wrote: Absolutely correct. Placidus claimed to follow 'Ptolemy and Reason', and the amount of Placidus's own reason (steeped in scholastic philosophy) in his system is at least equal to the amount of actual Ptolemaic teachings.

Well, this is my doubt too; and I believe I see how Placidus methods work in practice more than you.
I think the point is always the same, we have no examples in Ptolemy book so we can't know if Placidus was true or not, or Zoller or whoever.

Margherita

Ive been using Alchabitius because of Zoller's course, but I find myself being drawn to Whole signs more and more, at least for natal. The only thing I don't like about whole signs is that I can't use house almutens which I kind of like.

Mithra6 wrote:Ive been using Alchabitius because of Zoller's course.

Hello, obviously I've no problems with Zoller, it's just that not coming from Anglosaxon traditional astrology world I have different sources than you.

In CieloeTerra they insist that Ptolemy used semi arcs as he taught in the second book of Almagest.

They follow this heritage line: IbnEzra ----> Girolamo Diedo-----> Placido

I know that Zoller says different because I read here

Anyway I never checked or changed method for the only reason I have a complet set of formulas for Placidus, and so I use (or better try to) them, while I haven't anything for Regiomontanus or other. If I had them, maybe in this moment I would calculate Regiomontanus directions, i don't know.


Margherita

Gjiada wrote:

Martin Gansten wrote: Absolutely correct. Placidus claimed to follow 'Ptolemy and Reason', and the amount of Placidus's own reason (steeped in scholastic philosophy) in his system is at least equal to the amount of actual Ptolemaic teachings.

Well, this is my doubt too; and I believe I see how Placidus methods work in practice more than you.

I am not sure what you mean here. Could you expand? I wasn't really commenting on the workability of Placidus houses, just noting that they are not there in the Tetrabiblos. (Nor in the Almagest, as far as I recall -- do you have a reference for that?)

I think the point is always the same, we have no examples in Ptolemy book so we can't know if Placidus was true or not, or Zoller or whoever.

Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. If you mean that Ptolemy could have used Placidus houses, but we don't know for sure because he left no example charts, then that is true; but the same would be true for any house system. And the argument would contradict the idea that Ptolemy actually described the Placidus system in Almagest. So perhaps I misunderstood you?

Mithra6 wrote:Ive been using Alchabitius because of Zoller's course, but I find myself being drawn to Whole signs more and more, at least for natal. The only thing I don't like about whole signs is that I can't use house almutens which I kind of like.

I tend to use Regiomontanus for natal, BUT - I also look at the chart by whole sign. I remember Rob Hand saying that somewhere in the ancient world the house meanings were a little different, and one of the ones assigned to the sixth was 'people who are out to destroy you' - as opposed to the 'opponents' concept of the seventh. This actually makes a lot of sense (well, it does to me) if you consider that the sixth house is things that happen to you that make your life bad over which you don't have control, as opposed to the 'self-undoing' that comes of the twelfth house.

Boy has that come ringing through loud and clear looking at a few charts where there were major problems in that area for clients - once I flipped it to whole sign, it was right there.

But I still see the value in Regio houses too, so as long as nobody complains, I'm going to keep the flexibility.

Olivia wrote: I tend to use Regiomontanus for natal, BUT - I also look at the chart by whole sign.

This is what I do, too. It seems to give both a focused and a "bird's eye" assessment of the chart.

Olivia wrote: I remember Rob Hand saying that somewhere in the ancient world the house meanings were a little different, and one of the ones assigned to the sixth was 'people who are out to destroy you' - as opposed to the 'opponents' concept of the seventh.

I remember him saying this, too, and it has seemed to work consistently in the charts I've studied.

Olivia wrote:I remember Rob Hand saying that somewhere in the ancient world the house meanings were a little different, and one of the ones assigned to the sixth was 'people who are out to destroy you' - as opposed to the 'opponents' concept of the seventh

In jyotish (Indian astrology) the meaning of houses are often close to the original Hellenistic meanings, and the 6th is the house of enemies there. To be more exact it signifies the ability to fight your enemies, and that's why malefics, especially Mars, are considered good in the 6th house - they give you the ability to fight. I've noted the fighters, combatants, boxers, etc. often have emphasis in the 6th house (especially in the 6th whole sign) which you wouldn't really expect unless you knew a bit jyotish. It is also thought that benefics (Venus and Jupiter) in the 6th house are bad, because then you're too soft and yielding against your enemies - and against illnessess.

Recently I read an interesting passage about the 6/12 axis in The Judgment of Nativites by Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat. He says about the Head and Tail of the Dragon in the 6th house:

The Head in the 6th house: robustness against illness, many slaves, many animals and profit from them. The Tail of the Dragon: illnessess, evildoings by the male and female slaves, and weakness among the animals, and no increase from them. (---)

The Head in the 12th: strength and many enemies, an increase in evil things, and povery. The Tail of the Dragon: little bad luck against enemies, oppression of them and [their] povery, and no harm from them.

Note how the 12th signifies enemies (you can see this in other parts of the book too), but the 6th signifies the ability to fight your enemies - and perhaps also the ability to fight against inner enemies = illnesses! The 6th house would then your resistance and immunity. Ben Dykes has noted in his then active blog that - if I remember correctly - in Arabic world the servants of the 6th house meant the men and horses you were able to send in a war when the king told you so, that is, your own personal troops. Perhaps that is the core meaning of the 6th house.

I've been too leaning more and more to the whole sign houses. What's most surprising is that - as Dykes has suggested in his Introduction to the Sahl / Masha'allah translation - the concept of angularity / cadency seems to work best with whole sign houses! An especially interesting concept is "cadent from the Ascendant" which Steven Birchfield has used in his delineations, meaning not houses 3/9 but houses 2, 6, 8, and 12: those houses that are in aversion to the Ascendant.

What bothers me in whole sigh houses is, what to do with the MC/IC axis? I know that you can simply locate it in the houses it happens to hit, but that doesn't quite satisfy me. If fame and home are in the 4/10 houses, what is the exact meaning of the MC/IC axis then? How to separate it from the houses? Indians have solved the problem simply by leaving the whole axis out.

Martin Gansten wrote: I am not sure what you mean here. Could you expand? I wasn't really commenting on the workability of Placidus houses, just noting that they are not there in the Tetrabiblos. (Nor in the Almagest, as far as I recall -- do you have a reference for that?)

Hello,
what I was trying to tell is that every traditional astrologer tries to give his opinion about the "true" houses system used by Ptolemy.

Here in Italy Bezza says Placidus: better said, that the house system which is in agreement with Ptolemy's teachings is Placidus.
And Diedo - who was Placidus forerunner- in his letter to Francesco Giuntini mentioned the second book of Almagest.

Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. If you mean that Ptolemy could have used Placidus houses, but we don't know for sure because he left no example charts, then that is true; but the same would be true for any house system.

In fact, I think so.
I'm not a supporter of any house division, I use Placidus - as I wrote - just because I have formulas based on his method.

Everybody in life uses just what s/he has at his/her disposal , no?

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:what I was trying to tell is that every traditional astrologer tries to give his opinion about the "true" houses system used by Ptolemy.

Here in Italy Bezza says Placidus: better said, that the house system which is in agreement with Ptolemy's teachings is Placidus.
And Diedo - who was Placidus forerunner- in his letter to Francesco Giuntini mentioned the second book of Almagest.

Well, fortunately we don't have to fall back on the opinions of others, since the original texts are there to see. Almagest II contains no discussion of house systems, and Tetrabiblos very little -- just that snippet in III.10 about various houses being in aspect to the ascendant, which suggests equal houses.

I'm not a supporter of any house division, I use Placidus - as I wrote - just because I have formulas based on his method.

Everybody in life uses just what s/he has at his/her disposal , no?

That's what we have computers for! All manner of houses just a mouse-click away...

Well, fortunately we don't have to fall back on the opinions of others, since the original texts are there to see. Almagest II contains no discussion of house systems, and Tetrabiblos very little -- just that snippet in III.10 about various houses being in aspect to the ascendant, which suggests equal houses.

Hello again Martin,

well, I think that if things would be so clear everybody would write the same and this is not the case.

But I agree. it's what we have at our disposal which makes the method right or wrong.
A correct method for which I should calculate trigonometric formulas by hand, it's wrong by definition

margherita

Well, fortunately we don't have to fall back on the opinions of others, since the original texts are there to see. Almagest II contains no discussion of house systems, and Tetrabiblos very little -- just that snippet in III.10 about various houses being in aspect to the ascendant, which suggests equal houses.

Yes we have texts. But how do we interpret them? The issue of what house system Ptolemy may have been alluding to has been a subject of considerable debate and will no doubt continue to exercise astrologers for decades to come. Some like Robert Hand are quite adamant Ptolemy was using whole-sign houses like his hellenistic contemporaries.

The revised edition of Deborah Houlding's book 'Houses: Temples of the Sky' has a good discussion of this area. Those familar with Deb's writing style will know it is characterised by its subtlety and its balanced approach.

One point which Deb and many other astrologers have raised in support of the possible antiquity of the time based Placidus houses is their direct link to the planetary hours. Are we too conclude this is just a random coincidence? I put this forward as a genuine question not a dogmatic argument.

Personally, I have become more and more impressed by whole-sign houses in natal work so I am not trying to score points for placidus houses.

MarkC wrote: Yes we have texts. . But how do we interpret them? The issue of what house system Ptolemy may have been alluding to has been a subject of considerable debate and will no doubt continue to exercise astrologers for decades to come.

Margherita