Skyscript Astrology Forum

Deb wrote:

Only Morin omitted to reference this, not Cardan. He describes how Mars casts an evil influence on each luminary, and especially the Moon because of the square. The footnote observation to Morin's work, that even by equal house "the indications were actually more bad than good" doesn't come close to the sorrowful account that Cardan gives of his own temperament as reflected in his nativity. He is ugly, sickly, full of vices, lustful, jealous, held back, vengeful, and very arrogant because he knew he was a genius and supremely intelligent. (He had a lot of resentment about the fact that he was born illegitimate, and so was often denied positions that he felt should have been his).

Maybe I am totally misreading you but in a subtle way I seem to detect an implicit agreement here that equal houses dont as accurately capture the real hardships of this nativity? I do note you use Regiomontanus houses yourself........

Personally, I think the exceptionally tight square of a malefic Lord 12 + 7 (Mars) to the natal Moon can explain many of the natal issues without recourse to a 12th house Moon. The Moon (for me the likely hyleg here) is also in a square to Saturn (Lord 9 +10) which is the malefic out of sect. But then I use whole sign houses with equal cusps myself......

Considering all the suffering caused by Cardano's children it is intriguing to examine the different planetary rulers of the 5th house in Regio (Sun in 6th) and Equal or Whole sign (Mercury Rx in the 6th).

Mark

re cardans chart - mercury at the moon/mars midpoint. mercury has turned retro in the 6th sign and rules the 5th equal house. mercury is stationary retro with the exact station 4 days prior to his birthdate.. my own observation is stationary planets seem to have undue influence in a persons life. the other prominent stationary planet neptune is conjunct the midheaven.. it seems to show up frequently on angles in ''illegitimate' births, although the term 'illegitimate' doesn't get used much today..

Michael Sternbach wrote:All I can say at the moment, Gettings writes in the Arkana Dictionary (entry Modus Equalis):

It is recorded that this system was in use in the 3rd millenium BC in India, and it was certainly one of the methods used prior to Ptolemy's day by Greek and Roman astrologers.

It's too bad that Gettings doesn't reveal his sources on this.

For the best of reasons, I think: there are none. There was no horoscopic astrology in India, and therefore no house systems, prior to the Hellenistic era.

Martin Sternbach wrote:

All I can say at the moment, Gettings writes in the Arkana Dictionary (entry Modus Equalis):

''It is recorded that this system was in use in the 3rd millenium BC in India, and it was certainly one of the methods used prior to Ptolemy's day by Greek and Roman astrologers.''

Firstly, I am not aware that Gettings is a particular authority on the topic of early house systems. Secondly without references a statement like this is of little intrinsic value. Thirdly, and possibly most crucially, this book was written back in 1990. In intervening period we have had the Project Hindsight translations and other authors writing on the likely significance of whole sign houses in ancient astrology by astrologers such as James Holden, Robert Schmidt, Robert Hand and Chris Brennan. It is now believed by many that what might previously have been assumed to be references to equal houses in ancient astrology were in fact more likely to be describing whole sign houses.

We do obviously have what appears to be Firmicus using equal in the 4th century CE. There is also the school of thought that Ptolemy may have been using a variant of equal for length of life calculation. However, I suspect the jury will alsways be out on that question due to lack of definitive evidence. Deborah Houlding has also highlighted Vettius Valens use of equal houses (as well as porphyry and whole sign).

But do we have evidence of equal being used before the 2nd century AD?

I think the evidence of use of equal before then in scant. I have to pose the same kind of practical question Deb posed to to me regarding whole sign houses. You may assume equal houses were being used but what evidence do you have to support your view?

I think the strongest source to bolster your position is Dorotheus of Sidon (1st century CE). He suggests the influence of the ASC extends 15 degrees into the next sign. Note he mentions degrees not signs or zoidia.

For what it is worth, my personal, view is that the ancient astrologers seem to have incorporated whole sign with other systems from a very early stage. While Schmidt and Dykes seem to think equal or porphyry developed as simply planetary strength indicators to support whole sign Deb is quite right that the ancient sources often provide little support for that view and sometimes openly contradict it.

Certainly, the rationale that Dorotheus of Sidon used to extend the influence of the ASC by degrees is fully consistent with the the logic of equal houses we find in Valens and Firmicus.

I think part of the problem is that people often adopt a last man standing approach to early house systems with the view that people had to be working exclusively with one system. I suspect the reality was often more complex and messy. In the general sense I think it is clear astrological praxis was not monolithic across the Mediterranean in the early centuries. Moreover, in a source like Valens we see a willingness and capacity to incorporate different house systems.

Mark

Michael Sternbach wrote:

All I can say at the moment, Gettings writes in the Arkana Dictionary (entry Modus Equalis):

Quote:
It is recorded that this system was in use in the 3rd millenium BC in India, and it was certainly one of the methods used prior to Ptolemy's day by Greek and Roman astrologers.

It's too bad that Gettings doesn't reveal his sources on this.

Martin replied:

For the best of reasons, I think: there are none. There was no horoscopic astrology in India, and therefore no house systems, prior to the Hellenistic era.

Martin,

Ack, I actually found the statement a little queer myself. It did seem in line with other claims I read as to the antiquity of the Indian Equal system, but they apparently don't get support by historical evidence.

Mark wrote:

I think part of the problem is that people often adopt a last man standing approach to early house systems with the view that people had to be working exclusively with one system. I suspect the reality was often more complex and messy. In the general sense I think it is clear astrological praxis was not monolithic across the Mediterranean in the early centuries. Moreover, in a source like Valens we see a willingness and capacity to incorporate different house systems.

Mark,

I agree with you, and I think we should learn from the ancients' example and - instead of arguing about which house system is the "right" one - start figuring out each system is showing us, and what it can be used for.

In this regard, I do hope for further discussion on the thread "Equal verses unequal house systems"
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=60
where I opened up a "blackboard" for this purpose.

Michael

The English astrologer Roger of Hereford (circa 1170 A.D.) in his book Liber de Astronomice iudicandi used whole- sign house system. More info:


Nicholas Whyte, Roger of Hereford?s Liber de Astronomice iudicandi:A Twelfth-Century Astrologer?s Manual,M.Phil Dissertation, 1991, p.18

Michael Sternabach wrote:

Could you give me the references for Noonan, Dykes, and Brennan, please?

Sorry Michael I missed your question further back in this thread.

George C. Noonan supported the idea Ptolemy was using a variant of equal houses in his book Classical Scientific Astrology. This was one of the first books to discuss traditional astrology to a popular audience.

Benjamin Dykes spends a considerable amount of space at the beginning of his book Introductions to Traditional Astrology discussing early house systems. Dykes only makes a passing comment that he considers it likely Ptolemy was using a variant of equal for length of life calculation at least. He also briefly discusses Dorotheus of Sidon, and Nechepso and Petosiris. The Octopos or 8 sector system is also discused.

Dykes is evidently a follower of Robert Schmidt's theory that quadrant systems were originally developed as planetary strength indicators rather than discrete house systems. He therefore also suggests that the Porphyry system, Octopos system and the Dorotheus idea of extending the influence of the ASC 15 degrees were all variant methods of assessing planetary strength. Dykes seems to be seeking to expand the scope of Robert Schmidt's theory on Porphyry houses being strength indicators to include Dorotheus and the 8 sector Octopos.

Robert Schmidt's theory first appeared in his Introduction to a translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos Part III in 1996. This was part of the Project Hindsight publications. This section was headed: House Division, Planetary Strength, and Cusps in Hellenistic Astrology

You can still read the piece online on Curtis Manwaring's website:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses ... ouses.html

Schmidt's theory has become very influential and most of the American astrologers who worked or studied with Schmidt such as Robert Hand, Demetra George, Joseph Crane , Curtis Manwaring and Chris Brennan all adopted his theory.

However, here on Skyscript Deborah Houlding has made some very strong arguments on the traditional forum in the last few years which seriously question this whole theory. She has offered textual references that raise questions on whether early astrologers may have instead saw these techniques as fully viable house systems not just tools to assess planetary strength. It has to be acknowledged Schmidt's theory was proposed at a very early stage of rediscovery of hellenistic astrology.

Getting back to Ptolemy , Chris Brennan has argued Ptolemy was actually using whole sign houses in his Tetrabiblos. His argument relies heavily on Robert Schmidt's translation of the Tetrabiblos into English and subtle lingustic differences in the way Schmidt translates the Greek text in contrast to his predecessors such as F.E. Robbins.

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/201 ... gn-houses/

Mark

In Brennan's article, I found this phrase interesting:

What we are left with then is a very concise text that sometimes takes certain concepts for granted. House division may be one of them.

The lack of definition in a concise text could also be due to multiplicity of them and the writer implies- use whichever and what I wrote still applies

while at the same time he has a tendency to not employ houses or Lots for topical purposes,

Because there were so many variants that they did not matter ?

PD

Mark wrote:

George C. Noonan supported the idea Ptolemy was using a variant of equal houses in his book Classical Scientific Astrology. This was one of the first books to discuss traditional astrology to a popular audience.

Interesting hint, Mark. Just by taking a look at Amazon's text sample it appears that the book may be worth purchasing for me. Even though I'm already quite familiar with the more basic aspects of traditional astrology, I get the impression that Noonan has some remarkable thoughts on the topic to share.

Benjamin Dykes spends a considerable amount of space at the beginning of his book Introductions to Traditional Astrology discussing early house systems. Dykes only makes a passing comment that he considers it likely Ptolemy was using a variant of equal for length of life calculation at least. He also briefly discusses Dorotheus of Sidon, and Nechepso and Petosiris. The Octopos or 8 sector system is also discused.

This made me wonder, is there any evidence suggesting that Dorotheus extended this 30? "orb" of the ASC (in which direction, BTW?) to a complete house system? And what's the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?

Dykes is evidently a follower of Robert Schmidt's theory that quadrant systems were originally developed as planetary strength indicators rather than discrete house systems. He therefore also suggests that the Porphyry system, Octopos system and the Dorotheus idea of extending the influence of the ASC 30 degrees were all variant methods of assessing planetary strength. Dykes seems to be seeking to expand the scope of Robert Schmidt's theory on Porphyry houses being strength indicators to include Dorotheus and the 8 sector Octopos.

Robert Schmidt's theory first appeared in his Introduction to a translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos Part III in 1996. This was part of the Project Hindsight publications. This section was headed: House Division, Planetary Strength, and Cusps in Hellenistic Astrology

You can still read the piece online on Curtis Manwaring's website:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses ... ouses.html

Thanks for the link. I actually have the whole Project Hindsight series somewhere, but since moving places, I haven't been able to figure out in which one of so many boxes the booklets are hiding!

Schmidt's theory has become very influential and most of the American astrologers who worked or studied with Schmidt such as Robert Hand, Demetra George, Joseph Crane , Curtis Manwaring and Chris Brennan all adopted his theory.

However, here on Skyscript Deborah Houlding has made some very strong arguments on the traditional forum in the last few years which seriously question this whole theory. She has offered textual references that raise questions on whether early astrologers may have instead saw these techniques as fully viable house systems not just tools to assess planetary strength. It has to be acknowledged Schmidt's theory was proposed at a very early stage of rediscovery of hellenistic astrology.

As much as I appreciate Robert's great achievements in making the ancient texts more accessible (I had a short but gratifying exchange with Ellen Black back in the 90s), I also enjoy Deb's efforts to demonstrate that we should be careful not to draw hasty conclusion especially in regard to the intricate topic of the houses.

Michael

Martin Sternbach wrote:

Interesting hint, Mark. Just by taking a look at Amazon's text sample it appears that the book may be worth purchasing for me. Even though I'm already quite familiar with the more basic aspects of traditional astrology, I get the impression that Noonan has some remarkable thoughts on the topic to share.

I dont want to mislead you Michael. I am not sure the book is all that extraordinary. But it was remarkable in a time when traditional astrology was an eccentricity. Personally, I think Noonan's book on Fixed Stars and Judicial astrology is his book I would prefer to have now.

Martin Sternbacjh wrote:

This made me wonder, is there any evidence suggesting that Dorotheus extended this 15� "orb" of the ASC (in which direction, BTW?) to a complete house system? And what's the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?

I think to answer that question would require a very careful study of the Carmen Astrologicum. I cannot find my Dykes book just now so cannot find if he cites a reference in the Carmen Astrologicum. I just scanned my translation of the the Carmen Astrologicum by David Pingree but couldn't find the section Dykes was referring to. As I recall Dykes suggest's Dorotheus indicates the influence of the ASC could be extended 15� in zodiacal order. So just like equal houses. I thought that might please you! However, the book does have quite a lot of interpolations from Perso-Arabic astrology (the references to God are a clue!) so we need to tread carefully.

Ben Dykes doesn't suggest this could be the basis of equal houses. He was really interested in discussing it as an alternative tradition of how to assess planetary strength that extended beyond the Whole Sign ASC sign. As I suggested Dykes (in that book at least) is aligned to Schmidt's theory that anything non-whole sign in ancient astrology must be a planetary strength technique. He ends up making the quite radical suggestion that people explore the 8 sector Octopos of Nechepso as a planetary strength indicator to supplement whole sign houses.

However, I think many people will be thinking along the lines you have indicated. As I suggested in my previous post in this thread if this idea of Dorotheus isn't an explicit reference to equal houses it certainly seems like an astrological predecessor of it. Now that Deb Houlding has demonstrated Valens was utilising equal houses (amongst others) this is an intriguing area for further research.

Martin Sternbach wrote:

As much as I appreciate Robert's great achievements in making the ancient texts more accessible (I had a short but gratifying exchange with Ellen Black back in the 90s), I also enjoy Deb's efforts to demonstrate that we should be careful not to draw hasty conclusion especially in regard to the intricate topic of the houses.

Yes I think we all enjoy Deb's contribution here! I think you have summed up her position perfectly.

Martin Sternbach wrote:

What is the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?

I think that is too complicated a question to answer in this context. It really deserves a separate thread. In particular the whole Octopos system and whether it was a house system or not. I think there have been a few threads on this already actually! I will see if I can find a link for you.

Mark

Michael wrote:

This made me wonder, is there any evidence suggesting that Dorotheus extended this 30? "orb" of the ASC (in which direction, BTW?) to a complete house system? And what's the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?

Mark replied:

I think to answer that question would require a very careful study of the Carmen Astrologicum. I cannot find my Dykes book just now so cannot find if he cites a reference in the Carmen Astrologicum. I just scanned my translation of the the Carmen Astrologicum by David Pingree but couldn't find the section Dykes was referring to. As I recall Dykes suggest's Dorotheus indicates the influence of the ASC could be extended 30? in zodiacal order. So just like equal houses. I thought that might please you! However, the book does have quite a lot of interpolations from Perso-Arabic astrology (the references to God are a clue!) so we need to tread carefully.

This pleases me indeed! I think I should get a copy of Ben Dykes' Introductions to Traditional Astrology then for the references to Dorotheus.

Michael wrote:

What is the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?

Mark replied:

I think that is too complicated a question to answer in this context. It really deserves a separate thread. In particular the whole Octopos system and whether it was a house system or not. I think there have been a few threads on this already actually! I will see if I can find a link for you.

Thanks Mark, looking forward to the links. Your assistance is much appreciated.

Michael

astroart wrote:The English astrologer Roger of Hereford (circa 1170 A.D.) in his book Liber de Astronomice iudicandi used whole- sign house system. More info:


Nicholas Whyte, Roger of Hereford�s Liber de Astronomice iudicandi:A Twelfth-Century Astrologer�s Manual,M.Phil Dissertation, 1991, p.18

It's true that Whyte claimed he used a whole-sign house system, but I think he was mistaken.

I'm doing my PhD on Roger of Hereford's "Liber de arte astronomice iudicandi", and the sample horoscope he uses later in the text has house cusps drawn up in several manuscripts, and they clearly all use Alcabitius houses. He does use the usual trick of nudging a planet forwards into the next house if it's close to a cusp, and this may be why Whyte assumed whole signs.

Whyte also maintains that he used a sidereal system, but again the horoscope example uses tropical - but Roger's astrolabe was almost certainly calibrated for sidereal, and he describes both methods. In fact, Roger was using tropical (unsurprisingly) for his delineations, but having to convert from sidereal values when using an astrolabe.