Coming late to the party, so to speak, due partly to old age infirmities.
Jane wrote:

Paul of Alexandria does mention the MC falling in a house other than the 10th

But it must be known that the culminating degree does not always fall in the 10th [house] from the ASC due to the inequality of the rising times of the signs, but sometimes in the ninth and sometimes in the eleventh....Section 30, trans. by James Holden

Jane, I believe that you, Holden and others are correct (in context of what comes before in previous chapters) in noting that this phrase relates to houses (places) rather than signs (an inexact translation of zõidoia which means “image,” such as figure, statue, picture-- Greenbaum p. ix, Schmidt) I’ll explain my reasons below, but first to illustrate three translations of Paul, and how each translator deals with this phrase in a different way:

James H. Holden (2012): But it must be known that the culminating degree does not always fall in the 10th [house] from the ASC due to the inequality of the rising times of the signs, but sometimes in the ninth and sometimes in the eleventh. (Paul of Alexandria: Introduction to Astrology, p. 68)

Note: Holden apparently inserts house where it is logically understood.

Robert Schmidt (1993): It is necessary to know that the culminating degree does not always fall in the tenth place from the Hõroskopos owing to the temporal ascension of the zõidoia, but that sometimes it falls in the ninth place and sometimes in the eleventh place. (Paulus Anexandrinus, Introductory Matters, p. 69)

Note: No matter how one reads the Greek, Schmidt has confidently used the word place here three times. Zõidoia refers to signs while place refers to houses and their topics.

Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum (2001): But it is necessary to know that the Midheaven degree does not always fall in the tenth from the Hõroskopos on account of the inequality of the zõidoia’s temporal ascension, but sometimes on the ninth, sometimes on the eleventh. (Late Classical Astrology: Paulus Anexandrinus and Olympiodorus, p. 63)

Note: Greenbaum avoids the place/zõidoia (sign/house) controversy by leaving out references to either.. Presumably she is closely following her Greek reference?

Without going into detail, translators have understood Hõroskopos to refer to the ascendant degree which marks the first place. Quoting Schmidt, p.50:

24: Concerning the Tabular Exposition of the Twelve Places
Of the twelve places which are taken in relation to every drawing up of effects, the origin and foundation is the Hõroskopos through which everything bearing upon man is apprehended. For the Hõroskopos is the giver of life and breath...

Following these statements is an exhaustive description of matters that come under each place (houses as we know them), first through the twelfth. Then we have more detailed discussions of places:

25: Concerning Children
Schmidt: “It will be necessary to look at the fifth and the eleventh place from the Hõroskopos , and the place at the peak..”.
26: Concerning What One Does
27: On The Declines
28: On the Motion of the Sun and Learning in What Zõidion and Roughly What Degree It Is In.
29: On How to Calculate the Hõroskopos
30: On the Midheaven (the chapter under discussion here)

The point being that this section of Paul deals with places and not specifically of zõidoia or signs. There is no particular reason why in Chapter 30, suddenly the focus shifts to zõidoia counted from the Hõroskopos away from places which have been discussed up to this point. I do not read Greek, but I studied under Robert Schmidt who up to now has always been my word of authority on translations of Hellenistic texts. Greenbaum has followed his lead in her translation of Paul.

Hi Therese,
When I quoted Paulus it was simply to point out that the old texts do mention the MC as a floating point that could appear in signs (or places) other than the the 10th from the horoscope; I never intended to use the MC's ability to float as a validation (or invalidation) of any house system.

I do know that Schmidt preferred to use 'place' whenever the texts covered topos or topics and that Schmidt may have thought the early texts implied that a Whole Sign House system was the first system of houses; however, I believe he may have got that wrong, partly because the Greeks were struggling with how exactly to divide quadrants (Valens spends a fair amount of time on his 'vital sectors' which focus on dividing the distance between the MC and Asc into thirds) and partly because of what you've quoted from Schmidt's translation:

24: Concerning the Tabular Exposition of the Twelve Places
Of the twelve places which are taken in relation to every drawing up of effects, the origin and foundation is the Hõroskopos through which everything bearing upon man is apprehended. For the Hõroskopos is the giver of life and breath...

If the Greeks truly believed the Ascendant was the foundation then I find it more believable that the Equal House system was the earliest for the very reason that it takes the Ascendant as the basis of all the 'places' in the chart. The instructions for Profection and for Fortune houses or houses relative to any other lot all begin with the degree placement of the Asc, lot, or any other element. But I also think there was a question on whether the 30º segments were to be taken in equal or unequal degrees.

Again, I think the original idea was 30º segments measured in RA from the Asc with the RA then needing to be converted to ecliptic degrees based on the 'latitude' of the place. I think the measurements of 30º in ecliptic longitude were used in profections as the time period was limited to 1 year whereas the RA measurements were 1º per year. Do I have proof this is what they were doing? Nope. But for better or worse, that's how I read what they were doing.

Jane wrote:

When I quoted Paulus it was simply to point out that the old texts do mention the MC as a floating point that could appear in signs (or places) other than the the 10th from the horoscope; I never intended to use the MC's ability to float as a validation (or invalidation) of any house system.

And that's how I read your post, Jane, as noting the MC as a floating point that could appear in locations other than the 10th from the ascendant (hõroskopos) or "hour marker." I wasn't thinking of validating any house system, but it did seem in the quotes I gave that places were meant rather than zõidoia as such. That was the main point of my post.

Here are the two relevant places from Paul and Firmicus, respectively (emphases mine):

εἰδέναι δὲ χρή, ὅτι ἡ μεσουρανοῦσα μοῖρα οὐ πάντοτε ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ πίπτει ἀπὸ τοῦ ὡροσκόπου διὰ τὸ ἄνισον τῆς τῶν ζῳδίων χρονικῆς ἀναφορᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐνάτου, ὁτὲ δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνδεκάτου

“And it is necessary to know that the degree of the midheaven does not always fall in the tenth from the ascendant, due to the inequality of the rising times of the signs, but sometimes in the ninth and sometimes in the eleventh.”

(No 'places' mentioned here, only 'signs': tōn zōdiōn.)

Medium vero caelum est ab horoscopo X. signum, sed interdum medium caelum etiam in XI. ab horoscopo signo partiliter invenitur

“The midheaven, indeed, is the 10th sign from the ascendant; yet sometimes, too, the midheaven is found by degree in the 11th sign from the ascendant.”

Firmicus is particularly illuminating, in that he first identifies the midheaven with a particular sign (the rough-and-ready method) and then as a point within a particular sign, which is not necessarily the one first mentioned (the when-it-really-matters method).

Martin wrote:

“And it is necessary to know that the degree of the midheaven does not always fall in the tenth from the ascendant, due to the inequality of the rising times of the signs, but sometimes in the ninth and sometimes in the eleventh.”
(No 'places' mentioned here, only 'signs': tōn zōdiōn.)

Yes, this is correct because the rising times of the signs determine the degree of the Ascendant, hõroskopos or hour marker, which determines the twelve places (houses) which determine topics in relation to the Ascendant. These are two different concepts: (1) rising times of the signs and (2) placement of the MC in places or houses. And of course signs and houses were often synonymous as a house was often referred to as a place and other times was given the name of a zõidion.

Bottom line of course is that Hellenistic texts are often confusing and contradictory as terms are mixed and matched with no clear distinction as to what is actually meant. Which begs the question: Why bother to argue over what an author is actually saying? To each his own point of view in many cases.

(I haven't mentioned Firmicus because I lack enough in translation to offer an intelligent viewpoint.)

I think in the context of the use of the table of rising times which were originally a means to track the length of day (which was then imported into astrology), combined with the common knowledge among Greeks that six signs rose and set during a day or night, it makes more sense to suggest that the astrologers are talking about the signs and not the houses when discussing the Midheaven deviating from the 10th sign.

The normal “midheaven” for the average Joe would have been 3 signs, just like how most people think our civil noon of 12:00 is the real local noon. It is only with the table of rising times that someone would be able to see the distortion and understand the difference since the length of the diurnal arc computed with the rising times would depend on the complimentary point of the ascendant, which is completely invisible and essentially imaginary unless the sun just happens to be on the descendant (in which case it would be the length of the day in question). This needed to be stressed since most people, especially for that period, had no idea of these kinds of subtleties until they needed them to practice astrology.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2024 1:32 am These are two different concepts: (1) rising times of the signs and (2) placement of the MC in places or houses.

Of which the latter concept is not mentioned in any classical text I've ever seen.

For anyone who is interested in the topic of house systems used by Hellenistic astrologers, Chris Brennan in his thoroughly researched Hellenistic Astrology (2017) has given an unbiased and comprehensive survey of the three house systems used (pages 365-414). Recommended necessary background reading for any current on-going discussion of Hellenistic houses.

Hi Therese, I have the book and have read that chapter; however, I don't find the argument for "the whole sign system...[as] the primary form of house division in the Hellenistic tradition" (p 365) to be persuasive mainly as

• there are not enough example charts (a few hundred at best, and a good chunk from one astrologer, Valens) to declare one house system as the "primary" system
• most of the texts we have were written to explain various concepts and techniques. To my eye, it appears the explanations include degrees when they are required to understand a particular technique and when the concept/technique can be explained without relying on degrees, they are left out
• it would be exceedingly difficult to apply 'directing through the bounds' or any primary direction method mentioned in the earliest texts if the Asc degree, at the very least, was not calculated; to me, the various methods for finding the degree (which pepper most of the texts) attest to its importance in a chart

As I result I tend to view whole sign houses as a useful abstraction rather than the "primary" system. Admittedly, my view is solely based on my own reading of the texts as translated in English (I have no Greek, Latin, or Arabic); I fully concede, as Chris said, "it is an area of ongoing research and debate" (p 365).

Chris Brennan's book is a useful introduction to ancient astrology in many respects, and I have recommended it as such myself, even in my academic writings. Having said that, it can hardly be called 'unbiased' when it comes to the topic of house division. I do second the recommendation that people interested in the question read it, but also suggest that they familiarize themselves with critiques of it (including mine, in the paper already referenced). Here is the penultimate paragraph from my paper:

While the ancient practice of equating the zodiacal signs with the twelve places, at least provisionally, is strongly corroborated by many examples from the Anthologies, it thus seems doubtful whether that practice merits the designation “system,” at least as it relates to the work of Vettius Valens. Such a designation as commonly used implies not just a practice, but one founded on theoretical principles, and Valens’ statements of principle all favour places by degree rather than sign. From a review of the text in its entirety, it thus seems likely that he would have agreed with the statement by Firmicus Maternus two centuries later: “[…] it suffices to have related these things roughly [by whole signs] to sketch the beginnings for the student; later, indeed, we shall take care to explain how far these places are appointed by the accurate boundaries of degrees.”

Hi there - this is an interesting discussion. Although the subject of equal houses is, perhaps, a little tangential in this context, I would be interested to know how people interpret this from Riley's translation of Valens' Anthology 9.3:

First of all, it is necessary to calculate the positions of the Places in degrees: count from whatever point
has been determined to be the Ascendant until you have completed the 30° of the first Place; this will be
the Place of Life. Then proceed until you have completed another 30°, the Place of Livelihood. Continue
in the order of signs. Often two Places will fall in one sign and will indicate both qualities according to
the number of degrees each one occupies. Likewise examine in which sign the ruler of the sign is and
which Place it controls (according to its degree-position in the horoscope). With these procedures, the
Place can readily be interpreted. If it is calculated that each Place exactly corresponds to each sign in the
chart as a whole (a circumstance which is rare), then the native will be involved in confinement, violence,
and entangling affairs.

This seems to be a pretty clear description of an equal house (place) system, and Valens allows for the 'ascendant' to be a number of degree-based positions, not just the rising degree (e.g. Fortune, Daimon, MC?).

I am particularly interested in views on the following sentence:

Often two Places will fall in one sign and will indicate both qualities according to
the number of degrees each one occupies.

Thinking of the following example:

Ascendant = First Place Degree = 15 Cancer
Second Place Degree = 15 Leo
Third Place Degree = 15 Virgo

The sentence above suggests that the first place, for example, will have two rulers: Moon and Sun, equally influential. Likewise, the second place will have two rulers: Sun and Mercury, equally influential.

If the Ascendant is 25 Cancer, the following 'cusps' are obtained:

Ascendant = First Place Degree = 25 Cancer
Second Place Degree = 25 Leo
Third Place Degree = 25 Virgo

In this case, the balance of authority seems to change: the first place holds 5 degrees of Cancer and 25 degrees of Leo, apparently making the Sun as ruler the stronger and more influential partner.

I guess the fact that Valens doesn't say that "two signs fall in one place" might indicate that I have misinterpreted the text. It's a bit ambiguous.

The final sentence seems to that a sign=place arrangement is rare, presumably because it requires the first few minutes/first degree of the sign to be rising. I'm not sure an argument against whole sign places could be mounted on the basis of this sentence, but it certainly suggests that this sort of division is a particular case of the equal house system.

Unfortunately I can't read the original texts, and have to rely on translations.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Thanks. Ed

I discuss that passage (including the simplified nature of Riley's rendering) on p. 17 of my paper (once more, here). It is indeed a description of equal houses, contrasting with the quadrant houses described by Orion (also quoted by Valens).