Skyscript Astrology Forum

Yuzuru wrote:

I do believe that this is not an error in translation, as many want to believe. It is a different technique, it is useful (I have seen a ton of horaries to know that rulers of houses DO work, where whole signs in horary DO NOT) and I think it should be confused with earlier developments, the same way that the divisional charts, and other techniques of Indian astrology, were invented by them and don?t need the seal of approval of Ptolemy to work very well.

I am quite rusty with horary but this is an important point. My experience of horary has been that planetary strength is vitally important. Even more so than in natal astrology. I therefore dont think a totally whole sign approach to horary would be that successful. I know experienced horary practitioners such as yourself and Deb are strong supporters of quadrant houses for horary and I dont have the volume of experience to disagree with you. Still, to be consistent with my natal approach I would want to combine whole sign topics combined with quadrant sign dvision to assess strength. I note what you are saying about WS topics simply not working in horary. However, have you tried combining it wiith quadrant houses or are you discussing an exclusively WS approach to horary such as Chris Brennan has been advocating recently?

If you are right and WS dont work in horary I am faced with a dilemma.
I think there are several possible conclusions.

1 WS houses simply dont work full stop and I have been deluding myself that they are assisting natal delineation of houses. However, that is refuted by my experience of working with WS houses in natal charts.

2 WS need to be combined with a quadrant system. The placement by quadrant house should be given a lot of weight but house rulers remain WS. This is the approach I currently favour.

3 Abandon WS for horary only. This may reflect the more divinatory nature of horary or its more fixed focus where the issues are much more restricted than natal examining a whole life. Potentialities have more time to unfold in nativities. In horary potentialities have to be initially powerful (angular houses) or they are less likely to materialize.

I guess this is one I will need to test out for myself. Time to get my hands dirty with more horary I think.

Mark

Clelia Romano wrote: But I?m not sure if even for delineation that Saturn could not be configured to the first house. How to explain that "Bannatyne is known for his tough, no nonsense personna on the show."? Specially to be tough is a saturnian quality, and nothing in the chart besides Saturn in the ASC can justify this kind of posture

I don't know this man, never heard of him in my life, but if there is melancholic strain I agree with you it should be Saturn in the first house, in a large conjunction with the Asc.

For me divisional houses work very well, and no need to use whole sign system, here I agree 100% with Yuzuru, there are really some trends in traditional astrology, which for example in Italy are not so granted.

I like very much Dykes and Schmidt, still one can read very well a chart using Ptolemy and houses, I saw it many times.

margherita

Margherita wrote:

I don't know this man, never heard of him in my life, but if there is melancholic strain I agree with you it should be Saturn in the first house, in a large conjunction with the Asc.

Saturn is a few minutes beyond the 9 degree orb I would usually use but some authorities allowed up to a 10 degree fixed orb. Its therefore arguable that the rays of Saturn are aspecting the ascendant by fixed orb from the 2nd house. Lets also not forget his Sun (ASC ruler) , Mercury and Mars are all disposited by Saturn and his Mercury forms a generosity with Saturn too. The Aquarian Sun is within orb of an opposition to the ASC. Isn't that enough? There is no denying Bannatyne comes over as more Saturnian than Leonine in public. There is also a bluntness and aggressiveness that seems more reflective of his close Mars opposition to his ASC and the Aries Moon (sect light). Couldn't the Saturnian personna just be picking up the Saturn aspect to the ASC and his strongly Aquarian influence? I notice in their recent book Luis Ribero and Helena Avelar give a lot of focus to the ruler of the ascendant and its placement by sign in assessing personality.

To get a better feel for him here are a couple of You Tube clips of Duncan Bannatyne speaking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l24GJmr ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2h_GIP0 ... re=related

Conceding Saturn is in the first is accepting quadrant houses for topics which I am not comfortable doing. How do you reconcile this Clelia? If we start saying both WS and quadrant houses define topic (rather than strength) it seems an awful muddle to me.

Margherita wrote:

For me divisional houses work very well, and no need to use whole sign system, here I agree 100% with Yuzuru, there are really some trends in traditional astrology, which for example in Italy are not so granted.

I am sure Yuzuru has stated before he uses quadrant and whole sign houses for natal work. Your right about trends or fashions in astrology. The heavy focus on Ptolemy in renaissance astrology was perhaps an earlier example.

Margherita wrote:

I like very much Dykes and Schmidt, still one can read very well a chart using Ptolemy and houses, I saw it many times.

Do you mean Placidus houses? Whether Ptolemy really used this house system is very controversial as I am sure you are aware. In any case getting a bunch of astrologers to agree on one house system is another one of those panaceas that will simply never happen. Proving objective truth to others from a subjective experience is always a tall order.

Mark

Hello,

Whole sign house + Quadrant:
When I was first introduced to whole sign house, I thought that this is logical and consistent (we've got houses in the sky and we've got houses on earth and they coincide to give us exactly what "as above, so below" really means.

However, as usual, we must see whether it works in practice. In my experience, whole sign house system seems to work very well for rme in most areas in natal chart but I still use quadrant house system for certain topics especially areas covered by the angular houses calculated via quadrant house system e.g. if a planet is in the following sign of the Ac/Mc/Dc/Ic sign but close to these points, I would still take them as bing angular (not succedent). In addition, I find that the quadrant house system should be used for certain specific techniques like longevity according to hyleg and alchocoden.

In horary, it is a different story altogether. The whole sign house system doesn't seem to work for me in horary. They do contribute meanings but quadrant is the way to go for horary. This is like 80-20 rule (80% Whole sign and 20% quadrant for natal and 20% Whole sign and 80% quadrant for horary). Having said this, both systems seem to have their place in both types of astrology.

Hello All!

I?m not comfortable with the idea that astrology must have different techniques, different division of houses, etc when using any of their branches, exception made for mundane because it deals with a more lengthy time than the " human astrology"

I do use whole sign houses and quadrants both in horary and natal astrology.

Masha?allah analyses the Solar Revolution as a natal chart and I would say that an horary chart should be viewed as a natal chart as well. Has the horary chart a hyleg? A alcocodem? Because the position, the angularity or cadency of the hilegiacal positions of the horary can tell if the querent?s expectations will be able to come to be or not.
For me astrology is only one and what is good for horary should be good for natal.

Quoting Mark:
?Conceding Saturn is in the first is accepting quadrant houses for topics which I am not comfortable doing. How do you reconcile this Clelia? If we start saying both WS and quadrant houses define topic (rather than strength) it seems an awful muddle to me

.?

Now I don?t know what o say . I think we get used;-) I was taught in this way, so for me it is a second nature.
Well, by primary motion, Saturn of your example will be the first planet to reach the ASC. It would be different if Saturn was in the 12th sign in the same distance. Perhaps the primary motion?s explanation makes more sense to you?

BTW, Mark: I saw the youtube videos you sent. Bannatyne has a face divided in two. I mean that his face is not symmetrical at all. I don?t know how to explain it, a double sign? You?re right: he looks like a martial man.

Quoting Margherita:
like very much Dykes and Schmidt, still one can read very well a chart using Ptolemy and houses, I saw it many times.

Marguerita, even if Placidus said that his division was based in Ptolemy?s, we don?t have any proof that Ptolemy used anything but whole signs;-)

regards

Clelia

I also tend to feel that Whole Signs work quite well for meaning, but in order to gauge strength, realisation, timing and other matters, quadrant houses are the way to go.

In horary, the angularity is a strong deciding factor in my experience, and seldom do I have to search through whole signs for additional info.

Another interesting thing I notice in my natal work is that planets in the 12th by quadrant, but still in the rising sign, are not necessarily malefic or corrupt, but are somewhat weak to manifest, taking a longer time to deliver the results that are promised, and/or lasting little, and/or not plenty.

Hello!

Another interesting thing I notice in my natal work is that planets in the 12th by quadrant, but still in the rising sign, are not necessarily malefic or corrupt, but are somewhat weak to manifest, taking a longer time to deliver the results that are promised, and/or lasting little, and/or not plenty.

Are you referring to planets in the 12th but 5? before the rising cusp? Or even before?

Thanks

Clelia

Hello Mark,

Mark wrote: Do you mean Placidus houses? Whether Ptolemy really used this house system is very controversial as I am sure you are aware. In any case getting a bunch of astrologers to agree on one house system is another one of those panaceas that will simply never happen. Proving objective truth to others from a subjective experience is always a tall order.

I use Placidus for natal (Regiomontanus for horary) and it works very well in my experience.

About the controversy about which house system Ptolemy used, I'm not so much interested, because my idea is nobody neither in Italy (ie Bezza) nor in the English speaking world could find a definitive word about it, an evidence dissolving every doubt.

Mercury and Mars are all disposited by Saturn and his Mercury forms a generosity with Saturn too. The Aquarian Sun is within orb of an opposition to the ASC. Isn't that enough?

that's not enough for me.
I don't use everything in a natal reading, I use significators according the matter inquired. The Aquarian Sun should be judged by season, ie inclines to phlegm, not to melancholy. Mars and Mercury are nothing for temperament, while we have a Leo Ascendant and Moon in Aries.
The only Saturnian stuff is Saturn at the Ascendant in my opinion. In every case I agree it does not depend on house system because it is quite near the Ascendant, but being in Virgo it would be in the second house, for me in the 1st one.

Your right about trends or fashions in astrology. The heavy focus on Ptolemy in renaissance astrology was perhaps an earlier example.

margherita

Clelia wrote:Marguerita, even if Placidus said that his division was based in Ptolemy?s, we don?t have any proof that Ptolemy used anything but whole signs;-)

Hi Clelia

I'm not aware of any proof that Ptolemy used whole signs.

One thing I have noticed - we tend to assume that there was no distinction between the terms astronomer and astrologer in the ancient period and that one was naturally the other. But there was a difference and a reason why the two terms existed rather than just one.

We can discern a difference of approach between men who were famed as astronomers, who wrote about astrology (such as Ptolemy), and men who wrote about astrology without having a reptuation as an astronomer (such as Firmicus). For example, Ptolemy was more famous for his astronomical text, and it's in the Almagest that his discussion of time division reveals the logic that underpins the 'Placidus system'. Placidus reports that he followed the logic of Ptolemy, and it's clear he did with regards to the division of time, which determines the planetary hours that are reflected by Placidean house division.

What we don't have, is a clear astrological example which proves one way or another which house system Ptolemy was working with - so we don't know whether it was the case that Ptolemy actually applied the same approach to house division as he did to time division, as Placidus supposed, or whether he used whole signs as you suppose. However, it is worth keeping in mind that the ancients utilised the planetary hours astrologically, so one way or another the principles of Placidus division were known, considered to be very important, and practically applied.

Astronomers were mainly interested in the division of time, and the function of the houses supports this. The work of astronomers such as Ptolemy and Geminos expect the calculations to be made exactly. But then we get texts like the Mathesis of Firmicus, who wrote about astrology in his retirement from his main career working as a lawyer. His book shows a lot of confusion about technical principles, a very generalised and simplified approach, and a lack of clear distinction between the midheaven and the 10th house, etc. We can't expect one ancient text to be the standard for another.

My own opinion is that the evidence we have suggests two things: one is that quadrant house division was known about and discussed, even in the most ancient texts; there are notable reminders that the division of the houses is not reliable unless the astrologer adjusts for the distortion of angles; and there are descriptions of ways to do this by the astrologers of the period. The other is that there was often an expectation that the division of houses would roughly coincide with that of the signs, and (perhaps for practicalities and the fact that it mainly did in some regions) it was convenient for some astrologers to work this way. Was 'whole-sign' ever a "system" or just a practical convenience? - I think there is good reason to leave that question open.

We have no evidence of any ancient astrologer using whole sign houses to determine planetary topic and then applying a quadrant division to determine planetary strength. There may be one or two passages in Valens which might be argued to show that he used a combination of whole-sign and quadrant division, but nothing clear, or which could be used to suggest that he used a quadrant division but then deferred to whole-sign as a reference for house meaning. Even Robert Hand, who helped to popularise this view, has admitted that it is a suggestion of what might have happened, for which there is no actual evidence. I don't accept the logic of this for many reasons that I don't have time to elaborate upon - I'll just mention one: that the actual meaning ascribed to the houses is drawn from and reflects the principle of strength of expression, so we cannot differentiate the principle of strength from meaning in regard to the houses.

By the time of Masha'allah we have clear examples of him simultaneously judging a planet's symbolic relevance by looking at what house it is in according to "division" and also considering its house placement according to "counting". In these examples the weight of his interest is according to division. If anyone says that Masha'allah used whole sign and not quadrant houses they are not representing what his legacy of charts demonstrate.

So I think the question is very much open and should be subject to further exploration. We also have to keep in mind that the most important and most ancient texts were not written for the 'uninitiated', and supposed that the reader would already know how to calculate planetary motion and divide the chart. Do we, for example, have any astrological texts which describe in detail how to calculate the daily motion of the planets and establish their position according to the hour? These details, if they are given, are given in astronomical texts such as Ptolemy's and those that are similar. We don't find it illogical that astrological texts do not dwell upon this background astronomical information, but we know that every astrologer needed to know this unless they were working from tabulated noon positions and rough calculations of the Moon's daily motion (which is very possible for many later Roman astrologers who were not trained as astronomers). For the same reason I don't think it is necessary for us to see detailed explanation of how to calculate houses by division, within ancient astrological texts, for us to consider that the knowledge was widely known. We have reminders and that is enough to show that quadrant division did exist. What is debateable is only the extent of its influence in practice.

(This was going to be a 1 line response, BTW, but it grew a little )

Cheers
Deb

Deb wrote:What we don't have, is a clear astrological example which proves one way or another which house system Ptolemy was working with

Reading Ptolemy, I always got the impression that he wasn't really interested in houses and mainly laid the emphasis on signs and humours in the zodiac.

Deb wrote:
(This was going to be a 1 line response, BTW, but it grew a little )

Cheers
Deb

In every case very well said. Thanks

margherita

I want to second this:

Deb wrote:the actual meaning ascribed to the houses is drawn from and reflects the principle of strength of expression, so we cannot differentiate the principle of strength from meaning in regard to the houses.

That's a very important point. Not all house meanings are drawn from the primary motion, but quite a few of them are. Also,

there was often an expectation that the division of houses would roughly coincide with that of the signs, and (perhaps for practicalities and the fact that it mainly did in some regions) it was convenient for some astrologers to work this way. Was 'whole-sign' ever a "system" or just a practical convenience? - I think there is good reason to leave that question open.

I personally think it may have been less than a system but more than a conveniance -- namely, a kind of feeling that although houses and signs didn't always actually coincide, ideally they should. Putting the ideal concept first is typical of much ancient thinking, which is still present in medieval writings, as when Sahl warns not to allow the midheaven to fall in the 9th sign when electing a time for something durable -- I am citing this example from memory, but I think it's right.

This said, there really is nothing about Placidus houses in Ptolemy. Not in the Tetrabiblos, not in the Almagest. The principle (proportional semi-arcs) is there -- it is what the Ptolemaic system of directions is built on -- but it really is nothing to do with houses. Our only clue is when Ptolemy says that the 9th, 10th and 11th houses are in trine, square and sextile to the ascendant, respectively; but again, he may have been speaking ideally. In any case, it's not Placidus.