Skyscript Astrology Forum

petosiris wrote: I am not sure if you know, but the Latin and Greek authors did not use the word sign (as mark) for the ecliptic divisions, but the word zoidion (image or living being) or signum (as image). The phrase you use ''image of the sign'' is therefore redundant. Signs and houses are very poor translations (if they can be called that) of images and places. Images are important semantic consideration since we are not talking about some abstract division or 30 degree portions, for example equal houses, but the constellations.

Yes I am aware of this, I'm not sure what I was trying to convey with my wording at 2.30 in the morning. I think I was trying to find some word to represent something which could, conceivably, be either a sign or a house, but then try to demonstrate that the two are not equivalent.

It is preposterous to argue that the rising or culminating image can mean any number of degrees spanning two images.

Who has suggested that though? I just want to be clear on what we're saying here. I am suggesting that Manilius says that the 10th is demarcated by the meridian. I said that Manilius says that the cardinal points receive each of the signs as they pass by. When describing the 10th house he uses similar phrasing, and talks of an arc sweeping up as attaining its height etc. and uses the term locus to describe it. Not signum.

Similarly when discussing the 9th he doesn't describe signs. He could of course, but he doesn't. He instead describes midday and the 'stars' which follow it which slope downward. He entirely uses astronomically relevant visual clues here to sort of model an apparent spatial representation of the primary motion of the stars and planets as they appear to rotate around the observer. He refers to things as 'climbing' and then reaching midday, or when something reaches its culmination and so on - it's clear he means the midheaven. He describes then both the 10th and 9th as being divided not by a sign, he could use that term, he does not, but by the same kind of wording he uses when describing the cardinal point. Midday is not a sign, it is a moment.

It is not that he's describing images here when he discusses these things.

I'm not sure where we are missing one another here, so just trying to clarify this. What I believe, not explicit in the texts, so just an inference, is that the influence (for lack of a better word) being sent to and from the houses to the signs kind of creates something like sense that provided a given sign contains the cusp or starting point of the house that this sign is coloured by that house and has the influence of that house, and in that way a given sign which contains the 11th house cusp, would be alike to the 11th house in terms of the influences it now is coloured by.

I just want to be clear on what I'm saying so when we disagree we can legitimately disagree with what each of us thinks rather than miscommunicate.

When the Crab is rising, the Ram is culminating, the Goat-Horned One is setting and the Scales are anti-culminating. The Twins are pre-ascending the Crab and the Lion is post-ascending the Crab.

Is this a quote from someone? I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course it's simply not true that when Cancer rises that Aries culminates. If this is a direct quote from someone it would be good to get the author. That's just not an astronomically sound proposition to make generally.

EDIT to add
Perhaps, if this is just coming from you, this is a typo or some confusion, perhaps you mean when Aries rises Capricorn always culminates? When the equinoctial points rise it means the ecliptic is rising due east and so there'll be 90 degrees to the solstice points, the same is not true of course when the solstice points rise. Houseman suggests Manilius wasn't aware of this fact so I'm not sure if this is a quote from Manilius or someone else or just your own example.

Who has suggested that though?

I am pretty sure that was suggested in this thread - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8308

I usually don't like pointing people.

Houseman suggests Manilius wasn't aware of this fact so I'm not sure if this is a quote from Manilius or someone else or just your own example.

Wait, are you saying that Manilius was not aware of a distinction between the quadrant MC and the zenith (called MC in Hellenistic astrology)? He must then had a double personality to also be proficient in quadrant house systems. I am not going to have this discussion again, explaining why the 10th sign (the image of the highest ether in the middle of the sky) was referred to as Midheaven.

petosiris wrote:

Who has suggested that though?

I am pretty sure that was suggested in this thread - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8308

Petosiris

If you're going to bring up points from completely different threads please reference it so we know what you are referring to.

If this is quote of mine, please quote me, otherwise I don't know what the context is that you mean and I am not going to read 10 pages of another thread to try to guess what context you have in mind. It would be easier just to quote the relevant part.

Paul wrote:

petosiris wrote:

Who has suggested that though?

I am pretty sure that was suggested in this thread - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8308

Petosiris

If you're going to bring up points from completely different threads please reference it so we know what you are referring to.

If this is quote of mine, please quote me, otherwise I don't know what the context is that you mean and I am not going to read 10 pages of another thread to try to guess what context you have in mind. It would be easier just to quote the relevant part.

No, it was not you. Martin Gansten argued that the references to zoidia may have referred to equal houses at the last two or three pages.

petosiris wrote:

Paul wrote:

petosiris wrote: I am pretty sure that was suggested in this thread - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8308

Petosiris

If you're going to bring up points from completely different threads please reference it so we know what you are referring to.

If this is quote of mine, please quote me, otherwise I don't know what the context is that you mean and I am not going to read 10 pages of another thread to try to guess what context you have in mind. It would be easier just to quote the relevant part.

No, it was not you. Martin Gansten argued that the references to zoidia may have referred to equal houses at the last two or three pages.

Ok it may be easier to just stick to what’s being said here or at least wait and see if Martin joins this discussion.

It’s worth repeating myself again, I’m only giving my two cents, not anyone else’s and I’m only trying to communicate that opinion not convince anyone else of it. In other words, when we conclude with disagreeing, which we inevitably will, then at least we know what we all disagree on. I think sometimes we assume we know, the only value these discussions have for me is the opportunity to hear and communicate different ideas. I’m totally up for that as long as time permits, but ultimately we’re both likely to walk away not convincing one another, I’m not going to even bother trying. I think everyone who posts here has a genuine disagreement based on their understanding of the texts. Sometimes things really are just that simple.

The astrologers casting horoscopes without degrees and the authors describing only sign-based aspects, either by choice or necessity or ignorance, obviously didn't perceive any problem here.

That is what I meant with my first post, although I doubt it will be heard.

I’m totally up for that as long as time permits, but ultimately we’re both likely to walk away not convincing one another, I’m not going to even bother trying.

You are in for a disappointment if you thought you were going to be able to persuade someone that has a bias blind spot that easily. Such a person would need a great amount of good fortune, an even then it would be transitory, or attractive of fools. Then the rational person either accepts this fate or becomes misanthropic and suffering.

But you do not need to suffer for the truth (if you are right). After all, the other side is the losing one. Be happy that you figured something out when others have failed and do not believe you. The people in the dark have no idea what they are stumbling over.

Paul,

Interesting how this topic morphed from aspects to houses before I even got a chance to chime in... Talk about thread drift!

Well, that's generally cool with me, so first of all, I will say that I think your definition of a house system as a static framework of reference - as opposed to the dynamism of the zodiac with its ceaseless motion - is a very astute one. This ties in with the old idea that the houses were somehow linked to the outermost sphere of the Aristotelian Universe, the one that was attributed to the 'unmoved mover'.

The epithome of that line of thinking would be the classical system of twelve equal houses starting from the ASC, which was previously more or less generally assumed to have been the prevalent one in antiquity, especially by the German researchers of astrological history. While we understand today that things in truth were certainly a little more complex, we do find explanations of that system in some of the most influential classical authors (Ptolemy, Valens, Firmicus Maternus), which is more than what can be said of WSH. - Although I am well aware of the extant practical examples for the latter, i (just like you) nonetheless consider it more of a common 'ad hoc' method, in want of more accurate calculations being readily available at the time.

I believe I have heard all the arguments in opposition to that view by now, and (again much like you) I just don't have the time and energy to enter another extensive and fruitless discussion about the topic. So please be free to use whatever house system you feel comfortable with, fellow astrologers, you do have my blessing!

What I haven't heard so far, however, is a philosophical (or astrosophical) rationale for WSH! Historical research is fine as far as it informs and expands our understanding and application of astrology, but I feel it's time the discussion shifts from hair-splitting argumentation over the validity of this or that interpretation to a demonstration of the relevance a particular approach might actually have for today's astrologer (traditionalist or not).

For there has been already much discussion of the principles underlying the various systems of equal and unequal, time- and space-based (etc) methods of house division, but what remains to be seen is if the adamant supporters of WSH have to offer more than a bunch of sketchy chart samples from the remote past, combined with a dismissal of the things the textbooks of the time actually were actually teaching.

Now the topic of the ancients' take on aspects is obviously related with this topic of the houses. Even though it has its own intricacies. Who knows, maybe we are yet going to talk about it, after all.

What I haven't heard so far, however, is a philosophical (or astrosophical) rationale for WSH!

I haven't either, but I put forward one myself on the previous page. It is the only reason I even bothered with a reply. Did you bother to read it?

David Cochrane, a modern astrologer, also noted the affinity of the sidereal zodiac with whole sign houses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgS_iMS7Cr0

An antistellar astrologer would not be able to see the meaning and coherency of the place, represented by the material boundaries of the image.

Other considerations have been put forward, for example the zodiacal configurations (schema) of each place to place, or the counting of houses from any point. But these, appear to me, side factors of the relations of the currently neglected signs. Manilius' work treats of them exclusively, while modern astrologers have went to great length to diminish their usage to ''background''. It would be a miracle if someone made a post on that matter.

This fascination with the rising and culminating twelfth-parts might be older than the Greek astrology, if we are to trust the usage of decans by some authors. Note that the decans were originally based on the same principle - stellar clusters occupying specific spaces. Whether the first part of the cluster or the middle or the last portion of the cluster arises, the deduction would be the same. The same would be judged of the degrees and minutes of the Myriogenesis, each portion should be looked at its own fatalistic terms.

Paul, let me first reply to some points you raised.

Paul wrote:It is curious to me that my own reading of Manilius, and indeed others, seems to be the same as what BL describes here. That the houses and signs are independent, the houses static, the signs moving through them not defining them, but passing influence from one another.

Bouché-Leclercq, publishing his book in 1899, is a representative of early, partly outdated scholarship. You see that he misses acknowledging that the word h??roscopos may also stand for the ascending sign itself, don't you? Or that the word kentron may also denote the angular signs, not just rising, setting, culminating and anti-culminating degrees? Or that he was unable to recognize, which is perfectly understandable at the end of the 19th century, that the relevant extant horoscopes didn't use any sort of domification, only house meanings superimposed on the signs? (At the same time, you've certainly checked the modern references I gave, haven't you? Let me add Wolfgang Hübner's monograph on the subject, Die Dodekatropos des Manilius (Manil. 2,856–970).)

But, regarding the basic claims, I can agree both with BL and you. The horizon tinges the zodiacal sections close to it with 1st and 7th-house meanings, no matter what "house system" one uses. In this respect, the houses are static indeed while the signs rotate.

Paul wrote:Nowhere in reading that section do I get the sense that he means by "horoscope" anything other than the point of the ascendant, certainly I don't think he means sign. Do you?

I think it is ambiguous; it depends what one wants to see. For me both interpretations are acceptable. This is what I really want to say: the poetic description of the pivots, quadrants, and houses allow different interpretations, from more literal ones (like yours) leading to the assumption of some sort of locally fixed quadrant system to ones that say the description is mostly symbolic and not necessarily correct in its minute astronomical details. This latter is what I claim; after all, even basic astrological concepts are idealistic approximations: the signs represent the ideal month and the degrees the ideal days, although neither is astronomically correct - and the same could be told about virtually everything else.

On the other hand, there are the two passages quoted earlier that imply that Manilius meant signs as houses. If someone takes the choice of words rigorously, which reading is based on a comparison with the usage of other authors, then it only allows the symbolic interpretation; which I do. You seem to have chosen a different approach, that is, that it is not whole signs that are dyed with house meanings but fractions; which I find quite stretched, but you may consider the symbolic interpretation of the whole description equally stretched. This would lead to a standoff.

Now, for a moment, let's assume that you are right, and Manilius intended to describe a quadrant system. But could he have computed one? I believe the answer is a definite "no," and I'll tell why.

In the first century CE, when an astrologer wanted to ascertain the ascending sign, if he knew the rising times (and most of the astrologers keep repeating them so that no-one could forget them), a gnomon or a not-too-imprecise waterclock or, on starry nights, even direct observation could yield acceptable results. If he wanted to ascertain it down to the degree, then there were sort of rule of thumb simple and not too precise arithmetic ways. If he wanted to take the meridian-MC by degree, this imprecision grew even further. (Computations like these can be found in Valens and Paulus, and if you check them, you'll see their limits.)

Of the 65 or so extant first-century horoscopes, seven calculate the ascendant to the degree. Of these, two are from Antigonus of Nicaea (writing not earlier than the late 2nd century) and two from Valens, which might have been calculated later; three are embedded in original documents. Fourteen first-century horoscopes indicate the sign of the midheaven (or the lower midheaven or both), including one original document giving the ascendant degree but only the midheaven sign; however, the sign is without exception the one in right quadrature with the ascendant. The degree of the midheaven is given only in a dozen or so horoscopes from the 1st century BCE to the 4th century CE, a third of which has imprecise or utterly wrong data.

For calculating "equal" houses, one needs the degree of the ascendant. It seems that the minority of the practicing astrologers bothered even with this calculation, except the astrologers casting so-called "deluxe" horoscopes. Neither did "15-degree rule" Dorotheus and "equal-houses promoter" Firmicus Maternus, who were both happy to use whole signs when it came to houses. "Archetypical practicing astrologer and also equal-houses promoter" Vettius Valens, the winner of the competition with his 120+ horoscopes, took up the arduous task to compute or at least publish the degree of the ascendant in five (!) cases. So even if the "equal" system(s) were originally introduced by His Thrice-Greatness, His Majesty the Wise or His Holiness of the Egyptians, when it meant labor, few astrologers were ready to make calculations; which suggests they were happy with whole signs, no matter they were philosophically (astrosophically, toposophically) sound or not.

If an astrologer is so adventurous that he wants to use a quadrant system of an easier type, that is, which slices up the quadrants on the ecliptic, he also needed the degree of the midheaven. As the numbers suggest, very few astrologers thought it was important. Even Valens, who describes Orion's system of trisecting the quadrants and who emphasizes the 10th- and 4th-house meanings of the meridian-MC and IC, gives the value only three times, of which one (Hor. gr. nat. 75.VII.19 in Val. 3.5.6-10) is fairly imprecise, and in a fourth case the degree of the MC is only implied, whereas no degrees whatsoever are given.

Ptolemy published his astronomical and astrological theories, including tables calculated using advanced methods for climes, right and oblique ascensions, in the second century. Gradually, his ideas were accepted: by the fifth century, planetary longitudes and degrees of the ascendant and the midheaven had been computed with the aid of his tables. It is probably not a coincidence the first full-fledged quadrant systems were expounded by Ptolemy's commentators, Pancharius (in the third or fourth century) and "Rhetorius" (if it was him; who knows, maybe in the fifth century). It was also Ptolemy's tables that enabled the author of the known form of Hor. gr. nat. 428.IX.8 to calculate the "Alchabitius" houses: you just do some simple arithmetics, and you'll get nice results.

Ptolemy's tables were calculated using the so-called Menelaus theorem, which was either developed by Menelaus of Alexandria around 100 CE or somewhat earlier. Actually, this theorem made the spherical trigonometry of the upcoming nine centuries possible. Perhaps there were a few forgotten astrologers who made tiresome calculations for quadrant houses in single horoscope or for constructing tables, but available historical data shows the spread of "house systems" from about 800 CE onward, probably not independently from the fact that around this time was Ptolemy's astronomy and astrology rediscovered.

So, can a first-century astrologer be imagined as someone making exhausting calculations? The answer, theoretically, is a "maybe" (provided the Menelaus theorem was available); however, historical data suggest that astrologers of this era were by far lazier. For me, a Manilius-like figure, who mixes System A data with System B data, uses the climes of Babylon, Alexandria, and Rome indiscriminately, and so on - and, alas, the majority of the Hellenistic astrologers was this sort of folks -, is more similar to an averagely informed modern astrologer who knows what buttons to press toget the horoscope but has very limited astronomical knowledge than to someone who not only knows exactly where the north is found (there was no polar star that time) but can visualize position circles dividing the prime vertical, or, Thot forbid!, even calculate them.

For my part, the debate on "house system issues in Hellenistic astrology" is over for forever. I've used all the relevant historical data from extant horoscopes, writings published and unpublished but available to me, the applicable philological, historical, and astronomical arguments drawn from these sources in this and previous threads, and I really don't have anything more to say.

So, Paul, if you feel like, after a little break, we can return to the titular topic of the thread.

Levente Laszlo wrote: Bouché-Leclercq, publishing his book in 1899, is a representative of early, partly outdated scholarship.

Which is why I said as much when I introduced him. In some cases though he wasn't outdated. I introduce him to demonstrate that it's obviously not about being proficient at Latin and all coming to the same conclusion. I chose him cos he explicitly quotes this part of Manilius and comes to a different conclusion - ie. I'm not alone in saying this and it's not therefore because of lack of awareness of the original translation.

At the same time, you've certainly checked the modern references I gave, haven't you? Let me add Wolfgang Hübner's monograph on the subject, Die Dodekatropos des Manilius (Manil. 2,856–970).)

Nope. It's entirely possible you're not reading my posts fully or not understanding them. I've said multiple times now what my intentions are here and, equally importantly what it is not. My intention is not to enter into some debate nor to prove anything nor to open some grander investigation or study. With respect you asked how I could think these things. My posts here are purely an attempt to answer that question. I don't speak German but I'm already familiar with some of your references. Some of them are not accessible to me because I don't speak German and a lot of material is in German. I've tried to find some of those references in English and can't.

But hey ho, as I say, I'm not here to debate nor to change anyone's opinions. Only to offer my own and listen to other people's.

Paul wrote: I think it is ambiguous; it depends what one wants to see. For me both interpretations are acceptable.

You mean when he talks about a point and arcs between one cardinal point and another you think he might really mean signs? I think there's absolutely no reason to think that, he clearly just means the points in this section. Whether he applies that to the houses is another matter, but in this section you really think by cardinal point he might actually mean sign?

not necessarily correct in its minute astronomical details. This latter is what I claim; after all, even basic astrological concepts are idealistic approximations: the signs represent the ideal month and the degrees the ideal days, although neither is astronomically correct - and the same could be told about virtually everything else.

Right but then this poetic description also applies to the evidence of whole sign houses, which is, no pun intended, hinged and pivoted around the occasional use of the word sign in later depictions of the houses, whilst in the section explicitly describing houses he's more clear and visual-astronomical in description.

On the other hand, there are the two passages quoted earlier that imply that Manilius meant signs as houses

Or else this is where the poetry came in.

If someone takes the choice of words rigorously, which reading is based on a comparison with the usage of other authors, then it only allows the symbolic interpretation; which I do.

This is the problem I run into when discussing the use of houses amongst ancient astrologers. If I focus on any one author it's a case of "well all the others ones did this instead". But actually I'd like to first go through each one one at a time. Let's not worry about any other authors. Let's imagine we only have Manilius - the question is what evidence of whole signs is available here. Then we can do another author. It's entirely possible everyone else but Manilius used whole sign houses for example and Manilius, whose influence is much less than others, did his own thing. Or else that there was more than one tradition.

I'd rather just take Manilius for now.

You seem to have chosen a different approach, that is, that it is not whole signs that are dyed with house meanings but fractions; which I find quite stretched, but you may consider the symbolic interpretation of the whole description equally stretched. This would lead to a standoff.

Well I may not have explained this well, but actually I'm open to either interpretation. The point is more obvious with the tenth house. If say the MC falls in the ninth sign, then I think that actually the quadrant house system that someone like Manilius (as I read him) employs is one that says that actually the 10th begins in the 9th sign, and then it's ambiguous (to me) the details of how Manilius employs that (if at all) in practice. Perhaps the entire sign is coloured/dyed by the MC - certainly I can read that interpretation of Manilius and I think there's evidence that this may be the case. He doesn't talk about fractions or portions of the sign. I'm inclined to believe this is more likely personally, but I'm also open to the idea he may just means a portion, but this is not so clear to me at this point in time. In the past I've described my viewpoint as being that it's like the sign has a whole sign conjunction with a given house cusp or point and is coloured by the influence of that house cusp.
I've been advised against saying whole sign conjunction because it may have other connotations I don't mean to intend, so I'm now trying to find another way of putting this. I probably haven't explained myself well here to be honest.

But could he have computed one? I believe the answer is a definite "no," and I'll tell why.

Of course he could, one only needs to use either the ascending times to create a crude quadrant house system, or else do something fairly straightforward like porphyry or else Campanus can be computed fairly easily with ancient tools. Manilius already tells us (and does some fluffing around) of the formulae for the ascensional times.

Now I think from some of your points you're implying that he couldn't do a quadrant division accurately - well I'm not implying he did it accurately or to the accuracy we can today. The question is what he was intending or believing he was doing or calculating. This reminds me of etic vs emic distinctions. What I'm arguing for is an emic investigation of Manilius - not necessarily what he actually did or how well he did it, but rather what he believed he was doing or attempting to do.

The degree of the midheaven is given only in a dozen or so horoscopes from the 1st century BCE to the 4th century CE, a third of which has imprecise or utterly wrong data.

We're going a little off point here because of course we should be focusing on Manilius. Keep in mind my points are overwhelmingly about Manilius and what he did or didn't do, not what all or most other Hellenistic authors did. Nevertheless....

Chris Brennan makes a similar argument in his book. As I highlighted to him, we do not need the charts which have ascendant degree to include the MC. We just need that the astrologer had an idea what latitude the chart was cast for - I think that's not an unreasonable expectation that they'd know that without necessarily writing it down.

Once they have one, they can calculate the other. Valens for example does exactly that in his calculation.

A simple modern example would be asking or taking note of both your age and your date of birth. Just because I dont' include the age doesn't mean I don't know or use it. One can be computed from the other.

There's also no reason to imagine that all the charts we have access to are actually interpreted with a house system anyway. Some of them are from Valens where he's describing some technique or property which doesn't rely on degree and then later in his work he apologises for his lack of precision which he used, he claims, for expedience and teaching, and then proceeds to be more specific to the degree. Talking about the 10th occurring in the 9th sign, how terrible it is to have the house begin at 0 degrees of the sign, and explicitly describing a form of porphyry houses as well as equal and never explicitly describing whole anywhere at all. Nevertheless I, unlike some other astrologer who argue against whole sign houses, do believe that Valens employed a simple sign for house system where precision was not needed, but also because there are many ways to divide the sky and I think Valens was open to symbolic ways of doing so and whole sign houses would include that. But I don't want to keep shifting these goalposts. Enough of Valens, I'm not discussing him here, but Manilius instead.

For me, a Manilius-like figure, who mixes System A data with System B data, uses the climes of Babylon, Alexandria, and Rome indiscriminately, and so on - and, alas, the majority of the Hellenistic astrologers was this sort of folks -, is more similar to an averagely informed modern astrologer who knows what buttons to press toget the horoscope but has very limited astronomical knowledge than to someone who not only knows exactly where the north is found (there was no polar star that time) but can visualize position circles dividing the prime vertical, or, Thot forbid!, even calculate them.

I agree, and in fact I think, like you, that most astrologers mixed the two systems, valens did as well for all his likelihood to be more specific.

See above, I'm not arguing that manilius created super exact horoscopes by today's standards. The question is, emically, what he thought or was attempting to do. THe question is did he think or attempt to describe a whole sign house system explicitly as being the only or most important system available, or was he trying to describe a quadrant system of some kind to some precision or imprecision. The answer for me is quadrant.

For my part, the debate on "house system issues in Hellenistic astrology" is over for forever. I've used all the relevant historical data from extant horoscopes, writings published and unpublished but available to me, the applicable philological, historical, and astronomical arguments drawn from these sources in this and previous threads, and I really don't have anything more to say..

Sure, I didn't expect anything else when I started this conversation.