Signs have ''cusps'' in the context of ''ingressions of the planets'' - Hellenistic transits which are whole sign transits. I believe Chris Brennan meant it in this way - not that the first degree is in any way special as other house system ''cusps'' (in the medieval sense that Tom pointed out) are. I personally disagree with out of sign aspects which Chris Brennan allows for, so I would apply cusps as borders in this sense as well.

I personally do not believe there was such thing as sensitive point and I do not find those useful at all (except of course the angular pivots which are spatial and observable in nature). There is no evidence of any Hellenistic astrologer using sensitive house cusps. Those are in my opinion invention of modern astrologers who try to synthesize the two systems. I've seen a lot of astrologers consider angularity by quadrants but topics by signs, but I personally disagree with this approach.

We don't know anything about what was there before though. I speculate that the five degree rule stems from the decan system somehow, whereby the decan was the equivalent of a house with particular meaning associated with it, and imagined conceptually as centred, which means that five degrees before and after a point could be imagined as a decan for simplicity, but that, like this statement, is just speculation.

Actually, the way Hephaistio says to examine the decans, it sound like entirely whole decan system division - 1st for birth, 28th for livelihood, the 25th for weakness, the 19th for injury, the 17th for the wife and the 10th for death. There is no difference between the first degree and the tenth degree of the decan rising, it is the same decan. If anything, decans are argument for the use of whole signs. (In the same way some astrologers said to examine the first sign for birth, the tenth sign for rank, the seventh for injury and marriage and the fourth for death.)

petosiris wrote:Signs have ''cusps'' in the context of ''ingressions of the planets'' - Hellenistic transits which are whole sign transits. I believe Chris Brennan meant it in this way - not that the first degree is in any way special as other house system ''cusps'' (in the medieval sense that Tom pointed out) are.

I think he means both ways. If you look at argument 8 of his powerpoint here he says that whole signs may provide a solution for the Gauquelin sectors, but the only way that could happen is if the beginning of the sign had some special property like we would expect from the idea of a cusp.
http://theastrologypodcast.com/wp-conte ... houses.pdf

I've seen a lot of astrologers consider angularity by quadrants but topics by signs, but I personally disagree with this approach.

Me too but I'm sympathetic to it

There is no difference between the first degree and the tenth degree of the decan rising, it is the same decan

Right, now imagine that you have a mark that the first decan is whatever, and that's all you have. You may, for convenience, in the absence of any other information, put the ascendant point in the middle of the decan. In the same manner people have a first house starting 15 degrees prior to the ascendant etc.

If anything, decans are argument for the use of whole signs

We may have to agree to disagree here. The original use of the decans were a timekeeping method - you can measure something spatial (a decan) to determine something time related. In this way, the decans were actually a time keeping method used to measure the hours. Even by the time of the zodiac being related to the decans they were still time keeping in their role. Anubio for example recognises that the signs have three decans each but still provides them a time keeping role as they originally had. The decans were imagined as 36 ascendants, 36 different ascending decans and I am not aware of anyone recording the ascendant as anything other than the decan itself which can last for 10 days or 10 degrees, so if all that is recorded is the ascending decan then you don't know what the degree of that decan is (hence where I think the 'middling' of the decan may give us the 5 degree rule). The decans use at this point though is not particularly about spatial division as much as it is about inferring a time division by observing the space.

The two places where the decans were observed (or perhaps different sets of decans) was the astronomical ascendant and midheaven, suggesting that from very early on in the tradition, perhaps before any concept of the decans or houses having astrological meaning in and of themselves, the four angles were the important points that were considered for time keeping purposes via the decans. Of course the decans are also spatial and were also used spatially, so really it's too difficult to imagine, like with whole sign houses, the decans were *just* spatial, because their use, unlike that of whole sign houses, was also time keeping, and they were referred to as 'regulators' or 'markers' of time.

great conversation.. thanks!

Tom wrote:
Sort of, if we direct to house cusps. Not all astrologers did that. Progressions and the modern solar arc directions go the other way.

tom - in fact - progressions and solar arc can go either way.. it's my belief that these ideas were used in direct or converse motion.. but i would agree with you - that is not how most astrologers use them today.. especially with regard to solar arc directions- it really is about the degree differential between points or planets in the chart.. something separated by 30 degrees is going to connect whether they are directed, forward or back... it is a helpful tool to use, but some might not believe it!

petosiris wrote: I personally disagree with out of sign aspects which Chris Brennan allows for, so I would apply cusps as borders in this sense as well.

I personally do not believe there was such thing as sensitive point and I do not find those useful at all (except of course the angular pivots which are spatial and observable in nature). There is no evidence of any Hellenistic astrologer using sensitive house cusps. Those are in my opinion invention of modern astrologers who try to synthesize the two systems. I've seen a lot of astrologers consider angularity by quadrants but topics by signs, but I personally disagree with this approach.

hi petosiris.. thanks for chiming in... i like someone with holds a strong position for or against something! the way i see it, one either gives a greater priority to signs, or aspects.. clearly you emphasize signs over aspects.. i see it differently, but i appreciate where you and Frawley are coming from...

as for sensitive points - obviously the ascendant and midheaven axis degrees are sensitive points... after that - it becomes much more open to style... modern astrologers view the sun-moon or ascendant/midheaven midpoint as a sensitive point.. astrologers from the past have been using arabic or greek parts for a very long time... whether one views these parts as sensitive points or not - i suppose it is optional for the astrologer... some use the part of fortune and etc too.. are they sensitive points to your way of thinking or not? thanks..

Right, now imagine that you have a mark that the first decan is whatever, and that's all you have. You may, for convenience, in the absence of any other information, put the ascendant point in the middle of the decan. In the same manner people have a first house starting 15 degrees prior to the ascendant etc.

It find it highly disrespectful of the ancients to say that they used whole signs out of convenience, lack of calculation or haphazardly. There is also little if no evidence for this historical claim, especially in the earlier authors who are capable of calculating quadrants, have degrees of the ascendant and the planets, but do not do this.

That being said, I do not reject quadrants just because of my experience or antiquity. I reject them because they are incompatible with the Hellenistic approach to houses.

The first signifying body and spirit at the same time, and the seventh signifying injury and old age can only be coherent in a system that considers certain degrees above the horizon and certain degrees below the horizon to be related to those places. (interstice rationales are highly unappealing and asymmetrical)

Whole Sign Configurations are interchangeable with the houses - the upon the tenth and dexter concepts exists only because the Zenith Midheaven exists. The third and ninth are considered better than the sixth and twelfth because they aspect the orient (Ptolemy, statement that makes sense only in whole signs - 1:24).

The original use of the decans were a timekeeping method - you can measure something spatial (a decan) to determine something time related.

The zodiac is an excellent timekeeping method as well - 360 degrees for a reason.

I do not understand how is that related to their astrological (which had developed by the third century BC) usage, which was noting which decan is rising and then making forecast according to that decan (which is determined by the other 35, which is why the delineation of the rising image always takes into account the eleven as well, if you read Rhetorius and Valens carefully, you will see where). This approach is explicated in the Mathesis by Firmicus Maternus.

The decans were imagined as 36 ascendants

Yes, and dodekatemoria were imagined as 144 ascendants. There are 60th parts in Manilius - 720 ascendants (bound are also considered - 60). In Jyotish there are vargas, usually calculated in a whole sign manner. Do you think that is an unrelated coincidence?

as for sensitive points - obviously the ascendant and midheaven axis degrees are sensitive points... after that - it becomes much more open to style... modern astrologers view the sun-moon or ascendant/midheaven midpoint as a sensitive point.. astrologers from the past have been using arabic or greek parts for a very long time... whether one views these parts as sensitive points or not - i suppose it is optional for the astrologer... some use the part of fortune and etc too.. are they sensitive points to your way of thinking or not? thanks..

I think one should use the culminating image as the Midheaven for the purposes of Hellenestic astrology, and the zenith (bearing superior aspect to the rising at all times), and for the most part ignore the meridian MC. Those are spatial sensitive points anyone can observe by looking at the horizon to the east and to the zenith to the south (north in the Southern Hemisphere).

Interesting you mention lots, and Paul should take a look at this as well, as the Lots are not considered sensitive points, but Hour-Markers (ascendants) themselves. The place where the lot of fortune falls is called the place of fortune, ruling place, powerful, from which the whole can be seen. The place where the lot of the father falls is considered the place or sign of the father. Aspects to those lots are examined by sign configurations.

''Nor is enough to know the special shapes of signs and the individual ordinances which the stars impose on men at their birth ; they also affect our destinies through their agreements with each other, for they rejoice in alliances and cooperate with one another according to their natures and locations. - Goold, G. P. (1977). Manilius. Astronomica with an English Translation. Cambridge, MA.

When lots were abandoned because of Ptolemy in the Renaissance, house division was the only thing capable of differentiating things between people within two hours, aside from divisions (numbers), which Ptolemy and his later followers also rejected of course.

petosiris wrote: It find it highly disrespectful of the ancients to say that they used whole signs out of convenience, lack of calculation or haphazardly. There is also little if no evidence for this, especially in the earlier authors who are capable of calculating quadrants, have degrees of the ascendant and the planets, but do not do this.

Is this to me?
I agree with you, I haven't suggested otherwise. What I was imagining is a time before the house system as we know it when 36 decans were recorded, but not necessarily by degree, but by decan itself. In that world, you may imagine a decan as the ascendant being in the middle. I'm not saying that the ancients were too dumb to calculate houses.

I reject them because they are incompatible with the Hellenistic approach to houses.

Can you expand? In what sense are, say Porphyry houses, which are explicitly detailed in the Hellenistic tradition, incompatible with the Hellenistic tradition? What house system is incompatible and what is the Hellensitic approach to houses which makes them incompatible?

Whole Sign Configurations are interchangeable with the houses - the upon the tenth and dexter concepts exists only because the Zenith Midheaven exists.

The zenith has no bearing on this, and dexter concept exists as much because epicycle phenomenon that Ptolemy was operating from as well as the idea of moving with the diurnal motion. That wouldn't therefore be the Midheaven, but the nonagesimal.

The third and ninth are considered better than the sixth and twelfth because they aspect the orient (Ptolemy, statement that makes sense only in whole signs - 1:24).

Ptolemy never states this. Please quote and provide which version of Ptolemy you're using.

The zodiac is an excellent timekeeping method as well - 360 degrees for a reason.

Actually it's not all that fantastic in telling time, where the decan set was actually used for that very purpose.

I do not understand how is that related to their astrological (which had developed by the third century BC) usage, which was noting which decan is rising and then making forecast according to that decan (which is determined the other 35, which is why the delineation of the rising image always takes into account the eleven as well).

Can you restate the question? Not sure what you're asking.

The decans were imagined as 36 ascendants

Yes, and dodekatemoria were imagined as 144 ascendants. There are 60th parts in Manilius - 720 ascendants (bound are also considered - 60). In Jyotish there are vargas, usually calculated in a whole sign manner. Do you think that is an unrelated coincidence?

Can you tell me who refers to the dodekatemoria as 144 ascendants?
I don't know much about vargas to comment.

I think one should use the culminating image as the Midheaven for the purposes of Hellenestic astrology, and the zenith (bearing superior aspect to the rising at all times), and for the most part ignore the meridian MC. Those are spatial sensitive points anyone can observe by looking at the horizon to the east and to the zenith to the south (north in the Southern Hemisphere).

The zenith is not really used astrologically. It's the point directly over head, but for most of us there is no ecliptic/zodiac directly overhead. Instead the commonly used points are the nongesimal which is 90 degrees from the ascendant, and then the MC which is the intersection between ecliptic and meridian.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. If by MC you mean MC by degree and Midheaven you mean MC by sign, then that's fine, you can do so, but it's not necessarily the same as what Hellenistic authors themselves did.

I'm not sure what you mean by spatial and observable, they're spatial yes, but also temporal, and not directly observable, but only by examination of something transiting them by primary motion.

Paul should take a look at this as well, as the Lots are not considered sensitive points, but Hour-Markers (ascendants) themselves

I didn't want to complicate matters by introducing lots but we can if you like.

Only one Lot, the Lot of Fortune is ever used as an ascendant, but they were not used as time keepers, or at least I have no evidence of them being used in this manner. Do you? Instead they are often 'likened' to the ascendant.

Aspects to those lots are examined by sign configurations.

I disagree. In fact Valens explicitly states in places if the planet is exact to the degree then this means such and such etc. In Book IX he also has a formula for determining the ascendant degree if the Lot and the Moon is known which requires that the Lot is recorded also in degrees and not just signs.

That wouldn't therefore be the Midheaven, but the nonagesimal.

Zenith Midheaven

Ptolemy never states this. Please quote and provide which version of Ptolemy you're using.

their power is greater when they are in the orient, and less when they culminate beneath the earth or are in some other aspect to the orient; if they bear no aspect at all to the orient they are entirely powerless. - Robbins, F. E. (1940). Tetrabiblos (Vol. 435). Loeb Classical Library. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

I disagree. In fact Valens explicitly states in places if the planet is exact to the degree then this means such and such etc. In Book IX he also has a formula for determining the ascendant degree if the Lot and the Moon is known which requires that the Lot is recorded also in degrees and not just signs.

Yes, but he considered and uses whole sign aspects throughout his work. That is consistent with the whole sign paradigm. It would not be consistent with the paradigm of Ibn Ezra or orbs.

Can you tell me who refers to the dodekatemoria as 144 ascendants?

Hephaistio of Thebes gives ''thought-interpretation'' delineations for all 144 ascendants in Book III.

nongesimal

Being of course the closest to the zenith. Stellarium shows illustrates the overhead principle of the midheaven (the nonagesimal and sign) in contrast to the meridian perfectly.
https://i.imgur.com/DhGHBSx.png
https://i.imgur.com/7121ora.png

It is not considered astrologically today, but it was 2000 years ago in Alexandria, for example by Ptolemy.

Instead they are often 'likened' to the ascendant

Yes, that is what I meant. And they used them the same way because Signs = Places = Lots. Malefics setting without benefic testimony signifies misfortune to siblings (because they oppose the I, signifying siblings according to Hermes). The same opposed to the lot of siblings signifies misfortune to siblings.

See 2.40 of Valens, where he talks of the place of brothers as the I or III, and then he says how ''some astrologers'' find the place of brothers - by the lot of brothers. Unless you think that a lot ''fills'' a quadrant house, those statements make zero sense in anything but the whole sign paradigm.

petosiris wrote:Ptolemy, statement that makes sense only in whole signs - 1:24

Sorry I misread, I thought you said Ptolemy states that makes sense only in whole signs which seemed absurd.

Yes, but he considered and uses whole sign aspects throughout his work. That is consistent with the whole sign paradigm. It would not be consistent with the paradigm of Ibn Ezra or orbs.

He uses both.

Hephaistio of Thebes gives ''thought-interpretation'' delineations for all 144 ascendants in Book III.

What translation are you using? I only know of them being referred to as 12th parts even in this section. Can you quote where he refers to them as ascendant so I can see if it's different in my translation?

Being of course the closest to the zenith.

I ask, because it's hard to work out how you're differentiating MC, Midheaven and Zenith. So by Zenith you mean the nonagesimal, by MC you mean the degree of the MC and the Midheaven you mean the sign?

I don't know what the stellarium images are meant to show.

He uses both.

Ok, but we also have to question why whole signs configurations started to become disregarded as time went on. Surely quadrant houses contributed to this, if they were not the reason.

What translation are you using? I only know of them being referred to as 12th parts even in this section. Can you quote where he refers to them as ascendant so I can see if it's different in my translation?

Well he uses the 12th part of the ascendant, just as he uses decan of the ascendant. That is my argument.

I ask, because it's hard to work out how you're differentiating MC, Midheaven and Zenith. So by Zenith you mean the nonagesimal, by MC you mean the degree of the MC and the Midheaven you mean the sign?

''The squares, too, are used, as has been said, for sympathies in the nativities. Moreover, the arrangement of the squares is used by some for another purpose. For they supposed that, when one of the signs of the selfsame square is setting, the next sign culminates in the hemisphere beneath the Earth,> as when Capricorn is setting, Aries culminates, Cancer rises, and Libra culminates beneath the Earth. The same logic applies to the remaining squares.'' - Geminus, Introduction 2:18-19, trans. Evans and Berggren, p. 129

I think there is a midheaven degree in a midheaven sign (the whole image is very powerful, but there is a degree that is most powerful - this is what I say is observable spatially unlike artificial cusps of the other signs).

Both are always squaring the orient and found in the middle of the heaven (Moon in picture two). Perhaps the meridian MC has a separate meaning (arrow is pointed towards there in picture 2), but it should not be used in constructing a separate house system, thus for examining occupation, I use only the X, always the X.

The Moon is considered cadent in the pictures by quadrants. It is angular by whole signs. Being literally at the midheaven?, I would consider it angular. Because most astrologers refer to the meridian as MC, I would try to refer to this MC as nonagesimal next time.

petosiris wrote: Ok, but we also have to question why whole signs configurations started to become disregarded as time went on. Surely quadrant houses contributed to this, if they were not the reason.

It may well have but I'm not sure what we would draw from that if its true.

Well he uses the 12th part of the ascendant, just as he uses decan of the ascendant. That is my argument.

That's very different from saying he refers to 144 ascendants though. He does not. The distinction there is that the decans were actually referred to as ascendants.

''The squares, too, are used, as has been said, for sympathies in the nativities. Moreover, the arrangement of the squares is used by some for another purpose. For they supposed that, when one of the signs of the selfsame square is setting, the next sign culminates in the hemisphere beneath the Earth,> as when Capricorn is setting, Aries culminates, Cancer rises, and Libra culminates beneath the Earth. The same logic applies to the remaining squares.'' - Geminus, Introduction 2:18-19, trans. Evans and Berggren, p. 129

I think there is a midheaven degree in a midheaven sign (the whole image is very powerful, but there is a degree that is most powerful - this is what I say is observable spatially unlike artificial cusps of the other signs).

I don't know if you read all of Geminus. What Geminus is describing is that some people think that when one sign sets the sign 90 degrees from it is culminating. If you take the very next paragraph he goes on to describe how those people who think that are wrong. This phenomena only happens when aries or libra rises.

So the confusion, and the confusion we know happened in ancient times, it's what Geminus refers to, is between the midheaven as a point of culmination, and the nonagesimal as the point of highest altitude.

That's why I'm trying to define your terms clearer.

Both are always squaring the orient and found in the middle of the heaven (Moon in picture two). Perhaps the meridian MC has a separate meaning (arrow is pointed towards there in picture 2), but it should not be used in constructing a separate house system, thus for examining occupation, I use only the X, always the X.

The middle of the heaven can be imagined as the culminating point (MC) or nonagesimal. In this case the Moon is not at the MC. If you think we should be using the 90 degree point from the ascendant, and the middle of the heaven then is from the ascending degree, then use equal or whole. But the middle from east to west is the MC not the nonagesimal.

The terms, as you can see, can get confusing.

Being literally at the midheaven?, I would consider it angular. Because most astrologers refer to the meridian as MC, I would try to refer to this MC as nonagesimal next time.

Well it might be in the 10th sign or in the nonagesimal degrees, but it's hard to know what 'midheaven' means because it's been used interchangeably by various authors.

Basically if it's 90 degrees away its the nonagesimal. The way to think of it is that the equal 10th has astronomical validity in that the equal 10th house cusp is the nonagesimal and the point of highest altitude and is the middle of the heaven only in terms of imagining the heaven as being between the ascendant and descendant, but the MC (the meridian-ecliptic / culminating point etc) is the maximum altitude a given planet will attain in the course of its diurnal rotation and is the middle between east and west.

I don't know if you read all of Geminus. What Geminus is describing is that some people think that when one sign sets the sign 90 degrees from it is culminating. If you take the very next paragraph he goes on to describe how those people who think that are wrong. This phenomena only happens when aries or libra rises.

So the confusion, and the confusion we know happened in ancient times, it's what Geminus refers to, is between the midheaven as a point of culmination, and the nonagesimal as the point of highest altitude.

That's why I'm trying to define your terms clearer.

Of course, but I have the benefit of doubt that the ancient astrologers actually invented nonagesimal system out of ignorance. Do you?

The middle of the heaven can be imagined as the culminating point (MC) or nonagesimal. In this case the Moon is not at the MC. If you think we should be using the 90 degree point from the ascendant, and the middle of the heaven then is from the ascending degree, then use equal or whole. But the middle from east to west is the MC not the nonagesimal.

The terms, as you can see, can get confusing.

Right, the Meridian always points south and north, but the Nonagesimal does not. Of course, the ascendant-descendant does not point exactly east and west most of the time either. I do not think it is a coincidence that astrologers would view the east, south, west and north as idealized divisions, similar to how they approached astrology in general - like whole signs for example.

One can see this vague directional language used by some earlier Hellenistic authors like Petosiris and Antiochus. It is not always clear whether they meant quadrants, equals or whole signs by the ''east'', the decline of the ''south'' etc. which taken literally are impossible in any house system.

Basically if it's 90 degrees away its the nonagesimal. The way to think of it is that the equal 10th has astronomical validity in that the equal 10th house cusp is the nonagesimal and the point of highest altitude and is the middle of the heaven only in terms of imagining the heaven as being between the ascendant and descendant, but the MC (the meridian-ecliptic / culminating point etc) is the maximum altitude a given planet will attain in the course of its diurnal rotation and is the middle between east and west.

The equal 10th has astronomical validity and in my opinion it has larger astrological validity than the meridian MC (I do not know whether I am the first one to propose such thing, but I think equal house astrologers were of this type).

I basically am proposing a mixture of whole signs and equal houses to anyone who wants to sincerely approach Hellenistic astrology - use the nonagesimal as the ''MC degree''.

Perhaps stars at the meridian MC are strengthened, but that degree should not be considered for purposes of tenth house matters. Instead the image culminating should be considered for tenth house matters.

petosiris wrote: Of course, but I have the benefit of doubt that the ancient astrologers actually invented nonagesimal system out of ignorance. Do you?

Petosiris I'm not sure what assumptions you're making of my points here but I think something has been lost in the communication. I actually personally use two house systems, Placidus and Equal. Placidus uses the MC, equal the Nonagesimal, so I'm absolutely not knocking one or the other or imagining ignorance of ancient astrologers. However, ancient astrologer *did* confuse the two terms and the very quote you used from Geminus is actually a perfect example of that where he's highlighting this confusion. All I'm trying to do is figure out what *you* mean when you're using the terms so I can follow along with your posts.

The equal 10th has astronomical validity and in my opinion it has larger astrological validity than the meridian MC (I do not know whether I am the first one to propose such thing, but I think equal house astrologers were of this type).

I don't think you are the first and that's fine to imagine that the equal 10th has more astronomical validity than the MC, but if so, then I might ask, in what way?
As someone who uses both, I think they both have astronomical validity and they both measure two different things. I've likened it before to the nonagesimal indicating the winner of the race, whereas the MC indicates the sprinter's beating their best time. The nonagesimal is the point of highest altitude at this very moment in time, whereas the MC is the highest altitude that this particular degree will ever achieve in a 24 hour period. Both are astronomically valid and both relate to visibility and acclaim and recognition etc. but with different contexts.

I basically am proposing a mixture of whole signs and equal houses to anyone who wants to sincerely approach Hellenistic astrology - use the nonagesimal as the ''MC degree''.

But this is exactly what Geminus is advising against, he warns that people make this mistake, and I think to suggest to someone to pretend the nonagesimal is the MC degree would be to make the very mistake Hellenistic authors warned aspiring astrologers to be careful of.

Perhaps stars at the meridian MC are strengthened, but that degree should not be considered for purposes of tenth house matters. Instead the image culminating should be considered for tenth house matters.

It's worth highlighting that the "Image culminating" won't necessarily be the sign 10 signs from the ascendant and therefore not the nonagesimal. Part of my confusion here is that you sometimes speak of the MC as a culminating place and sometimes as a nonagesimal place, but the two are not the same. If you want culmination, you're talking about the MC degree or sign, but if you're talking about whole sign places or equal places you're not talking about the MC degree or sign. It's one or the other if you want one to be the 10th.