Chris Brennan wrote: Sorry, I didn't state this point very clearly. I meant to say that in the delineations that Valens gives he only derives each house relative to one of the first 8 houses.

Thanks for the clarification, this makes more sense. Still, I wonder why, in actual fact, it is only relative as far as the 7th house, not the 8th. I automatically assumed this was because it is at this point that the derivatives may repeat or reflect. I think it is noteworthy that there is no deriving relative to the 8th, but perhaps this is coincidental.

Paul wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, this makes more sense. Still, I wonder why, in actual fact, it is only relative as far as the 7th house, not the 8th. I automatically assumed this was because it is at this point that the derivatives may repeat or reflect. I think it is noteworthy that there is no deriving relative to the 8th, but perhaps this is coincidental.

Yes, I think that that is probably correct, and this is probably the reason why the Octatopos only extends through the first 8 whole sign houses to begin with, because if the idea of derivative houses is wrapped up with it then the 8th is the point where they begin to reflect. This is one way in which understanding this passage in Valens as taking place within the context of a discussion of derivative houses and the Octatopos helps to explain something that had been unclear previously -- why anyone would create a system that only dealt with the first 8 houses.

The other point that connects to this is that the Octatopos is unique in that it introduced some of the family member assignments to each of the houses that were missing in the Dodekatopos. So for example, the 3rd place as siblings, the 4th as parents, 5th as children, and the 7th as the spouse. In the derivative house delineations Valens as a tendency only to derive houses from those places that are associated with one of these specific family members. This almost seems to imply that derivative houses were first introduced only or primarily in order to study other family members through the native's birth chart, and not just abstract things about the houses. This holds up in almost every instance except for one, where he says that the 9th house is the 8th from the 2nd. Anyway, this may be why he doesn't go beyond the 7th. He also skips the 6th and 2nd most of the time as well, since those are the only other two houses that don't have family members assigned to them.

Hi Chris

Thanks for providing those references. I was aware of Olympiodorus?s comments and that?s why it struck me as odd that you described him as using whole-sign houses and quadrant houses at the same time. I can?t see anything in the text to suggest he uses whole signs personally ? he does mention that others do this, but whilst pointing out that this leads to faults; and then explaining the procedure for calculation. So I think we can safely assume Olympiodorus to be an advocate of quadrant division.

Incidentally, I did understand the point you were making in your post of Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:53 pm ? and what you have said subsequently doesn?t change the view I expressed in my earlier response as to why I think this is highly unlikely. I agree that there were a lot of different ideas and theories floating around in the early tradition, but we also have evidence of them being employed.

With regard to the meanings of the houses, mostly it is possible to understand the basis of the symbolism - and that it derives from their placement in the 12-fold scheme, utilizing associations of power (angularity/cadency), visibility, aspectual connections to the ascendant, the sense of rising or declining, and the associations of the planetary joys.

If I am reading your post correctly, you seem to be implying that an 8-house scheme might have existed as a separate construct and lent its meaning to the 12th house scheme. Yet the evidence that a 8 house scheme existed independently ? as opposed to simply relaying the meanings of the first 8 houses of the 12-fold scheme is minimal (Goold regards this idea as being a mistake); and evidence that any such scheme existed before the 12-fold division of houses acquired their meaning is non-existent, and IMO implausible. Because there is a logic as to why the 4th house - the root and foundation of the chart - signifies foundations, ancestors and parents, but there is no logic to why the 4th-part of an 8-fold scheme does that. Each of the house meanings can be evaluated in the same way ? the 8th house was described by Ptolemy as being ?the beginning of death? because from that place a planet moves towards the western angle where ?light and life? are ended, but then the 8th house theme of weakness, diurnal decline, and lack of aspect to the light of ascendant all suit the theme of loss and weakness that results in the association with death and decay. In this instance, it is true that the 8th part of an 8-fold scheme might represent ?the end?, but it offers no logic for why the 7th part is wives or women, or the 5th house is children, in the way that we understand by exploring the symbolic attachments of the 12 places.

It is good to consider, ponder and explore possibilities, but in this instance, the more I consider the possibility of what you are proposing, the more difficulties I encounter, compared to having no difficulty in assuming that when Valens talks about the 11th house from the 3rd house, he means exactly what we would naturally assume he means: that he is showing how relationships can be identified from the 12 places he is describing.

However, I did find your views on the Octatropos interesting. Coincidentally, a couple of days before you made your first posts I was in private correspondence with an astrologer who is exploring references to that, and is very inclined towards seeing it as something important which has been effectively masked in the tradition. I?ve never had much interest in it myself ? perhaps I have been swayed too much by what Goold writes of it in his introduction to Manilius? Astronomica (pages lxi to lxii) - that the idea that such as scheme existed independtly is a mistake, and has been forced upon readers by the clumsy actions of an interpolator. No one seems to know very much about this; or why, if it was a mistake, it gathered attention in the first place, so it is begging out for further research. I don?t see its relevance in this place, but agree that the fact it is alluded to in a margin note justifies your attempt to explore and ponder that connection.

It would be good at some time if there could be a forum thread dedicated to that.

Sorry I didn't thank you for your references more quickly - I'm probably going to be out of action for a few days as I finalize some presentation material for the upcoming conference in Istanbul. (Just a few days left and there's the whole dilemma of fate and freewill to resolve ... )

It is said that the whole of the natives life can be understood from the octatropos. We stay upon the earth and work within terrestrial concerns and when we are done, we leave by going up (8th). The sky is the realm of the gods and the earth is for those of us incarnate.

Deb wrote:Hi Chris
If I am reading your post correctly, you seem to be implying that an 8-house scheme might have existed as a separate construct and lent its meaning to the 12th house scheme.

...

However, I did find your views on the Octatropos interesting. Coincidentally, a couple of days before you made your first posts I was in private correspondence with an astrologer who is exploring references to that, and is very inclined towards seeing it as something important which has been effectively masked in the tradition.

I think that either I wasn't clear enough about this in my posts or you misunderstood what I was saying, because the Eight-Place system that I was referring to is the same as the Octatopos. I do not think that it was a separate 8-fold division of the entire circle of houses that competed with the 12-fold division, but instead it was just a system for determining a set of significations for the first 8 houses in zodiacal order, and this added some additional significations to the set of significations that already existed for the 12 houses.

Patrice Guinard wrote an article about the 8 house system that has everyone confused. These are not the 8 watches of the Chaldean towers. The 7 houses of ones family and personal life are all below the horizon or touching the earth (if one thinks of the average in terms of whole signs, they all connect to the earth). The house that has no connection to the earth is death.

http://cura.free.fr/11domi2e.html

zoidsoft wrote: We stay upon the earth and work within terrestrial concerns and when we are done, we leave by going up (8th). The sky is the realm of the gods and the earth is for those of us incarnate.

...

The house that has no connection to the earth is death.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me Curt, especially since the point of entry into life is the Ascendant and the first place, and then the houses are subsequently numbered downwards, into the earth. Then eventually you are flung out again at the Descendant and the 8th place. This would fit the Hermetic philosophical context of the Hermes and Asclepius texts, and the notion of descending through the spheres in order to incarnate, and then ascending back up through the spheres after death.

Yes, very interesting Curtis - and Chris, thanks for clarifying your position.

From Book 2, pg 28 after the section on the hour or the lot, Valens explains each of the 12 houses / places... (Riley translation):

6. The <XI> Place of the Good Daimon. Many Configurations. The Hearing and the Beholding Signs Must Also Be Investigated.

If the benefics are in the Sign of the Good Daimon, located in their proper places and in their proper faces, they make men illustrious and rich from youth?even more so if they are trine from the right with the Lot of Fortune or sextile with the Ascendant.

Note the italics. It says that the sign is capable of being a house.

The Schmidt translation has this as the first sentence in that paragraph in book 2, pt 1, pg 10:

If the benefics should be suitably situated upon the zoidion occupying the Good Spirit...

Where Riley uses the word sign, Schmidt transliterates it to "zoidion". This should leave no doubt that for topical analysis Valens is using whole sign houses.

This should leave no doubt that for topical analysis Valens is using whole sign houses.

Of course, it leaves no doubt if we close our eyes to everything that suggests otherwise in the rest of his work

Deb wrote:

This should leave no doubt that for topical analysis Valens is using whole sign houses.

Of course, it leaves no doubt if we close our eyes to everything that suggests otherwise in the rest of his work

Well lets look at the rest of his work then... Here's several more quotes (Riley):

Book 2, pg 25:

2. The Distinguishing Characteristics of the Triangles, the Houserulers, the Helpers, and the Sects
If <the> happens to be in the Ascendant or at MC or is in one of the operative signs...

The "operative signs" are these:

1. the Helm
4. Subterraneous pivot
5. Good Fortune
7. Setting
9. The God
10. The midheaven
11. The Good Daimon

Schmidt translation of "operative" would be "busy or telling" the Greek being "chrematistikos"... The other places are considered "inoperative" or "ektrope" according to Valens. With difference of opinion on the 3rd depending upon author.

Book 2,pg 28:

/64K/ 8K;9P. The VIII Place of Death. Various Views....If Mercury alone is in this Sign and is ruler of Intelligence (as Daimon is called), it makes fools, dullards, those handicapped in speech, illiterates.

Book 2 pg 29:

9K;10P. The <VII> Place of the Descendant
...If Mercury is with Mars in the Setting Sign...

Book 2 pg 30:

If Mercury is with the moon in the Sign of the Goddess and rules the Lot of Fortune or the Ascendant, the native will foretell everyone?s future and will share in the mysteries of the gods.

Book 2, pg 32:

Mercury trine with Jupiter is indicative of great deeds, especially if Mercury is at morning rising. Men become secretaries of kings, of cities, or of the masses, or they become financial officials. Since Mercury is altogether concerned with occupations and provides the active influence, the native will have a high status and the possession of a livelihood, especially if Mercury is in operative signs.

Boo2, pg 40:

As a result, the previously mentioned places and stars, when found in operative signs, make glorious, governing, royal nativities. When found in moderately active signs, they make noble and famous men who take control. When found in signs which just precede an angle, they make wealthy and vigorous men, stewards of others, men thought worthy of positions of trust and responsibility.

This is an obvious reference to angular signs, succeedent signs and cadent signs...

How many more of these do you need? It appears as though it is you who has closed your eyes and I wonder if you have even read this part of the text.

Curtis, all of these references can a) simply show that Valens was not precise in distinguishing between the terminology of place and sign; and b) show that he often did apply a casual sign=place, although not regarding this as the correct procedure he outlines elsewhere (and which he states elsewhere is the way to do it), for the practical reasons that have already been explored in previous posts of this thread.