Hi Mark,

Because this is not a simple argument I'll give an answer to some of your comments but then I need to leave this. I have just noticed that your post has grown a lot since I started writing my response, and I have differences of opinion on some of your new comments. However, I don't have time to add more than what I've written (which is already quite long) so I'll offer this as food for thought and let others continue the discussion, knowing that there will obviously be many who take a different view to mine.

Mark wrote: Its quite possible Ptolemy was applying a similar method to Valens cited above by Clelia. This would explain why he doesn't challenge the conventional whole sign orthodoxy of the time elsewhere in the Tetrabiblos.

Was there a ?conventional whole sign orthodoxy? that Ptolemy felt any compulsion to ignore or challenge ? or is this just a widely held current assumption based on the influence of the early Project Hindsight theories (many of which have had reason to be investigated further in the light of new evidence)?

The more interesting question for me is are later astrologers describing house systems that effectively replaced whole sign houses or were they combining them in their delineations?

Again, this assumes that the whole sign approach was the original and correct method, that was subsequently replaced or amalgamated into something new, rather than a matter of convenience or the acceptance of an ideal ? the ideal being that the signs matched the spatial divisions, not vice versa. Robert Hand has championed this theory but I think there is good evidence to suggest otherwise.

Manilius doesn't seem to be applying standard whole sign houses either. His approach is either equal house or if Robert Hand is right a combination of whole sign and equal.

There is no doubt that what Manilius describes is meaning derived from spatial division, and the effect of increase and decline of power as planets are raised to prominence in the angular places and then suffer weakness as they fall from angles by diurnal revolution. Whole sign is out of the question for Manilius. He describes the places as the spaces between the permanently fixed cardinal points (asc/mc/desc/ic) and stresses the point that ?the nature of the position prevails?. His text has been studied in great detail by many scholars within and without of astrology. Most accept that he was speaking only of some kind of spatial division of the local sphere, with the expectation that the house divisions reflected this. As the earliest extant text to describe the meaning of the houses to a level of detail clear enough to show how the spatial effect was the dominant source of house meaning, Manlius?s text is an argument against the notion that the whole sign approach offered an original method.

With regard to the article you referred to, this is the one that Robert Schmidt published in the 1990s to propose the notion that meaning comes from whole sign placement but quadrant divisions were used to evaluate planetary strength. Astrologers have relied upon the authority of this article without appreciating how many of the comments made within it are subject to debate.

For example, the suggestion that the whole sign ?method? was the oldest method of all, draws a lot of its weight from this being the apparent method of Valens (whilst admissions are made elsewhere that Valen's approach was often ?crude? in regard to technicalities). So when Robert Schmidt discusses why there is a very clear and explicit passage that describes the process of division adhering to what we call the ?Porphyry method? his suggestion is that we should consider this to be a separate technique, used only to judge planetary strength from position, rather than with respect to house meaning. Putting all other previous conceptions and contextual knowledge of other sources aside, this is not an irrational suggestion because the passage identifies the places as being powerful, average or weak ? what we are all familiar with in the concept of angular houses being strong, cadent houses weak and suceedent houses intermediate.

However, because Valens doesn?t appear to reference the meaning of these places, other than strength of position, Robert Schmidt suggests:

• "He in no way indicates that he is establishing a division into topics, or a house-system in the proper sense. In fact he makes it clear that he is not when discussing the second place so constructed, "and to judge another 1/3 part of the degrees as middling neither more good nor more base on account of the post-ascension of the Horoskopos and the Goddess and the diameter of God."

In support of this he makes an illogical point. He continues (I've emboldened some particularly sgnificant comments):

• "The post-ascension of the Horoskopos is the second whole-sign, while Goddess is the traditional name for the third whole-sign. In other words, this division has an intermediate activity level because the two second and third traditional whole-signs overlap on it. Notice that he does not reassign the name "post-ascension" to the second interval nor the name "Goddess" to the third interval of his new mundane division.
  
  Furthermore, Valens offers this assessment of activity levels as his own correction of a tradition that preceded him, in which the first 1/3 of the mundane quadrant was considered to be powerful, but all the remaining degrees weak. Thus, it may have been Valens first of all who extended the activity assessment to twelve places instead of eight, and such a system could not in that case have preceded him."

What Robert Schmidt is saying is that the way the first part of the explanation is written is confusing and seems to be proposing something less straightforward than a three-fold divsision between the ascendant and IC. However, the next paragraph, which is not quoted by Schmidt, is perfectly clear in its meaning and restores the necessary clarity to know that what we would naturally assume was indeed the case. Quoting from Mark Riley?s text for convenience it reads (III.2):

• It is necessary to calculate likewise from MC, and to consider the first third of the distance between angles as operative, the second third, following MC, as of average influence (thus it was called Good Daimon by the ancients), and the last third, up to the Ascendant, as afflicting and inoperative. The Places in opposition to these will have the same force. Orion expounded all this in his book.

The fact that Valens acknowledges this to have been done by the ancients is relevant, and the fact that he defines the places by name is very significant, because these names are not, as Robert Schmidt suggests, the names of whole signs, they are the names of the celestial ?places?, ie ?houses?, as made clear by an abundance of other sources which give their names and expand upon the house meanings which extend from or relate to those names. As for example, in Manilius, where we are told that the first place is called horoscope because it is on the same level as the earth and marks where the stars rise and the time is divided into hours; or for example that the 11th house is called ?good fortune? because it is a place where planets are moving upwards towards the towards the summit of heaven; the third, which rises by diurnal motion form the lowest region, called goddess, etc.

I could spend many hours debating other points in that article if I had the time, but I don?t. This always turns into a very controversial discussion so let me be clear that I?m not denying that a whole sign approach can be effective or denying the use of it in ancient practice. I am pointing out that some arguments are being exaggerated to the point of astrologers assuming the matter is cut and dried when it isn?t. Robert Schmidt concludes his article by saying: ?it is apparent that no astrologer writing in Greek ever used a dynamical division topically.?

The fact is that outside of Valens we still have very few examples of the practical application of these principles and very few examples indeed of graphical reproductions of charts that would make the matter clearer. However one of the very rare examples we have access to which offers a diagram to accompany the astrological analysis of the chart - in Greek - demonstrates the use of the Porphyry system of divisionand it clearly shows what Robert Schmidt says was never done. That?s obviously something to be considered. I'll give the link to the chart and my narrative on it below.

Although I am aware of arguments that this - like any other - might have been altered by a copyist, I see no reason to dispute the validity of this chart because I have checked all the details carefully. To suggest that the chart itself may have been later reconstructed in a system which was not that of the original astrologer's is not feasible unless we assume that the translator, for reasons of his own, changed the recorded text so that it matched with the chart details exactly, and also recalculated the whole thing, using the necessary tables of construction for the original time and place (which were not his own), down to minute details of agreement, rather than simply copying out what he saw before him (and then doing all this without leaving hint of a promotion of argument nor any reason as to why he would want to do all that complicated research rather than simply preserving and reproducing the original, which was the purpose of his work). Given that the method of Porphry division is so clearly described by a number of classical works, it is not necessary to assume that the system was never applied in practice. I think (well as far as I know) I was the first person to check the graphical chart details thoroughly and notice that this demonstrated Porphyry division. How many other examples may exist which have not yet been checked as this one has?

The details of that chart, which are interesting for all sorts of other reasons, are here:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/greek_horoscope.html

(And just to be clear, I have never said that Ptolemy was using Placidus houses!)

Mark wrote: Look at Indian astrology. They inherited Whole sign and Porphyry houses from the Greeks and Romans. In Indian astrology several different kinds of chart can be applied to natal analysis.

Mark

But do we really need?

It's a little like introducing Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and then Lilith, Vertex, Black Sun and more.

A lot of stuff in a chart does not give necessarily further information. But this should be the Virgo Sun

margherita

Hi Deb!

quoting Deb

Thanks for the comments. A quick reply as I have limited internet access. I covered your first point in a chapter in my book called 'Ptolemy's Powerful Places'. If you don't have it and would like to read it you can view it on Google books on this link.

I already have your book, one of the first I read when I went into traditional astrology, but I will check it again specially focusing on the issue you pointed out!

The chapter begins on p.109 but the relevant section that refers to this point is on p.115. What Ptolemy's text appears to present is an equal house system rather than a whole sign system; however the point I make in my book is that we can't rely on that brief passage as proof of either system being used by Ptolemy in practice.

I always understood that this was an explanation applicable only when dealing with length of life. Why he did not stressed to pick a planet before 5 degrees from the MC or from the 9th? Ptolemy mentions the rule only dealing with the ASC

Check the quote I give from Antiochus who describes the matter as Ptolemy does (from 5? above through the 25? that remain), but adds an extra detail to say that the principle only holds:
?if the squares [i.e, angles] should occur through ninety degrees. But if they should occur with a different number of degrees, divide the degrees of the square numbers equally into three parts, and you would know how many degrees each place of the zodiac has?. Thesaurus, ch. 26.

my basic point on this, that Antiochus elaborates and demonstrates this further by example is very telling - we shouldn't expect to see the same degree of detail in the Tetrabiblos because Antiochus was offering an explanation of how to divide the houses whereas Ptolemy was only defining which of the areas were 'places of power'

Antiochus certainly is not using a whole sign division! it seems that he divides the houses proportionally when the degrees between the aspects were not exact. I have to read all this stuff again! Thank you for mention it!
Anyway this kind of equal house division beginning 5? before the cusp up to the 25? has no logic if we think that by primary motion the 5 degrees before are entering in the previous place.
But I got your point: perhaps Ptolemy was using this kind of division, even if we do not have any proof, besides the use of considering a planet belonging to the horoskopo and for purposes of length of life.

On your second point, the strongest example of an astrologer considering house position by both 'division' and 'counting' I have seen (in fact the only compelling example I have seen myself) is Masha'allah, and where I have seen him do it, as I mentioned earlier, he doesn't use the quadrant division to merely establish strength, but draws most of the house meaning from that, with occasional reference to what it might also mean, by 'counting'.

Do you remember if you saw this in his book On Reception? This book had a huge influence in all my thinking. But he uses whole signs in it as far as I remember

but I'm not aware of any actual evidence to support the suggestion that astrologers drew meaning from whole signs and then reverted to quadrant analysis purely to determine effectiveness. If it was standard practice, wouldn't we expect to see at least one ancient astrologer explain that this is how it is done and why, in at least one place? There is no evidence and for me personally, there's no logic to the suggestion either. The cadent houses, for example, signify 'alien places' and places of weakness because they decline from the angle. It is clear that a great deal of house meanings are derived from whether or not the places are areas of effectiveness or weakness of expression, it is not something that can simply be detached from that principle as if there is no connection between effectiiveness o f the placement and the meanings we derive from it.

You have a good point here! Perhaps I jumped to conclusions and It does not make much logic, I agree, but, as you also said, the position of the places are linked to their significations, even if other condition also helped to give meaning to them.

All in my opinion, of course!

And a very valuable opinion! You made me think a lot! Thank you!

Clelia

Hi Clelia

The best book for you to refer to for Masha'allah, if you can get it, is
The Astrological History of Mashaallah (ISBN: 0674050258), translated by Edward Kennedy and David Pingree.

It contains a collection of charts concerning grand conjunctions and it is very revealing indeed on how Masha'allah's theory is applied in practice.

Yes I have seen the text 'On Reception' - there is a passage in chapter 4, 'Of a sickman' that gets used a lot in reference to this issue. It reads:

I considered which of the seven planets were joining to him, or which of them were separating from him, that is from Saturn, who was dignified in [the matter of] infirmity. I found Venus separating from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, seven degrees* from the lord of sickness, because Venus is in the house of sickness. Venus therefore signifies the diminishing of the sickness, because of her separation from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, by seven degrees, and because of her joining with Mars who receives her, and in turn is received by her.

Because Venus is in the 5th house by division but the 6th by counting [signs], this passage has been brought to attention by Robert Hand and Ben Dykes as a clear reference to Masha'allah's predominant use of the whole-sign approach. I am not so sure - Since Venus is in Capricorn I think it is more likely to be a statement that Venus is in the house (as in domicile) of Saturn, the significator of sickness, which serves to emphasise the fact that Venus was received in its square aspect to Saturn (and so the aspect was less threatening than otherwise).

The above is my translation BTW, which I made for a course exercise a few years back. I have put an asterisk next to 'degrees' because this is translated by Hand and Dykes as 'days' - the Latin says diebus, which normally means day but it has symbolic overlaps and degrees is obviously meant to be used here. Its meaning is shortly clarified when Masha?allah repeats the statement that Venus is 7 degrees separated from Saturn, this time using the word gradus. (Another example of confusion between the words is in the Liber Hermetis, XII - Robert Zoller?s Latin translation reads ?on the 13th degree of February?; corrected by Robert Hand?s footnote 2 (p.31) where he says that clearly the text means ?the day of February, not the ?degree?.)

Mark wrote:Actually, I think Porphyry's text is where the quote from the Thesaurus of Antiochus used by Deb above really originates but I need to check that point.

That's the case. This passage is most probably not from Antiochus. It forms chapter 52 of Porphyry which was later copied in Rhetorius, chapter 46 of Book 5 as it stands now. The Rhetorius manuscripts, however, have misleading titles as if the text was written by Antiochus, an error repeated by the editor, Franz Boll and previously Robert Schmidt too.

UPDATE: Pingree in his From Alexandria to Baghdad to Byzantium says that Porphyry ch. 52 is available now in the recension made by Demophilus, who quite probably himself inserted it into the archetype of the Porphyry manuscripts from Rhetorius V 46. Therefore while the chapter appears in that section of the Rhetorius work which mostly depends on Antiochus and Porphyry, it's from neither of them. I can imagine, however, that it comes from Porphyry's lost commentary on Ptolemy whose two exclusively preserved passages may be found in Hephaestio.

This article is from Robert Schmidt's introduction to Book III of the Tetrabiblos published by Project Hindsight (1996). Although its quite old it still has a lot of interesting information on the subject being discussed:

http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/houses.htm

Good that you had mentioned Robert Hand?s introduction to Valens? Book III!
It spare me the work to find it and, being in the internet, the work of copying it, not to mention the afraid of copyright?s infringiment.

When Valens analysed the Lots as a kind of horoskopus, the funny thing is that they were considered by whole signs. So, in many of his charts, if we had Saturn " looking" at the Lot, it was understood as a bad situation even if the Lot was at 1? and the planet was at 29 degrees.

quoting R.Hand:
"In Book III, chapter 2, he discusses a division of the mundane quadrant into three equal pieces (later called the Porphyry system). However, it is perfectly clear from context that his intention there is to determine the places in which the planets may be most and least active. He in no way indicates that he is establishing a division into topics, or a house-system in the proper sense"

This paragraph agrees to Deb?s opinion: cadency is one thing and does not suggests dynamical houses to analyse topics.

In Book 9th, quoting R.Hand translation: "But before all it is necessary to reckon the places to the degree. And at least whenever the degree of the Horoskopos may be grasped, it is necessary to count from that degree up until the 30 degree completion of the next zoidion. And that will be the place concerning life. Then similarly up to the completion of another 30 degrees concerning livelihood; and the next as before. For often two places falling together onto [or coinciding on] one zoidion foretell both species in accordance with their distances in degrees. And similarly, it is necessary to examine the lord of the zoidion, in what zoidion it chances to be and to what sort of place it holds fast, according to its canonical description in degrees. For in this manner the procedure [or perhaps turning] will be judged. And if someone would reckon platically at one place per zoidion (which is rare), they [the natives? the places?] encounter constraints and outrages, or the entanglements of matters. "

I understand that the astrologers will encounter constraints and outrages if they do not take into account the "intercepted" sign.

Well, it is only my own opinion, but I think that Valens in his last books was learning and writing, and not taking the time to go back and correct old references. In my opinion, he says quite different things in his last books. I don?t know if the reason was because he learned different methods and improved his techniques or because he was not totally aware of some inconsistencies in his work: perhaps he was confused or sick or not motivated, I don?t know, but he was even more difficult to understand in his last books.

As a student I can say that some of his more recent theories seemed fancies ideas.
But I?m not referring to the division of houses which seems a new approach, consistent with other author?s point of view.

Anyway I can?t believe that he would change his whole sign approach to deal with the lots as horoskopus, because this was a piece of resistance of his delineation technique.

regards

Clelia

Hi Clelia

The best book for you to refer to for Masha'allah, if you can get it, is
The Astrological History of Mashaallah (ISBN: 0674050258), translated by Edward Kennedy and David Pingree.

Thanks for mentioning the book: I don?t have it, except by some excerpts.

It contains a collection of charts concerning grand conjunctions and it is very revealing indeed on how Masha'allah's theory is applied in practice

.

Nice to know!

Yes I have seen the text 'On Reception' - there is a passage in chapter 4, 'Of a sickman' that gets used a lot in reference to this issue. It reads:

I considered which of the seven planets were joining to him, or which of them were separating from him, that is from Saturn, who was dignified in [the matter of] infirmity. I found Venus separating from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, seven degrees* from the lord of sickness, because Venus is in the house of sickness. Venus therefore signifies the diminishing of the sickness, because of her separation from Saturn, who was the lord of the house of sickness, by seven degrees, and because of her joining with Mars who receives her, and in turn is received by her

Because Venus is in the 5th house by division but the 6th by counting [signs], this passage has been brought to attention by Robert Hand and Ben Dykes as a clear reference to Masha'allah's predominant use of the whole-sign approach. I am not so sure - Since Venus is in Capricorn I think it is more likely to be a statement that Venus is in the house (as in domicile) of Saturn, the significator of sickness, which serves to emphasise the fact that Venus was received in its square aspect to Saturn (and so the aspect was less threatening than otherwise).

The above is my translation BTW, which I made for a course exercise a few years back. I have put an asterisk next to 'degrees' because this is translated by Hand and Dykes as 'days' - the Latin says diebus, which normally means day but it has symbolic overlaps and degrees is obviously meant to be used here. Its meaning is shortly clarified when Masha?allah repeats the statement that Venus is 7 degrees separated from Saturn, this time using the word gradus. (Another example of confusion between the words is in the Liber Hermetis, XII - Robert Zoller?s Latin translation reads ?on the 13th degree of February?; corrected by Robert Hand?s footnote 2 (p.31) where he says that clearly the text means ?the day of February, not the ?degree?.)

[

Hats off! You have a really awsome memory! :-))

warm regards

Clelia

Hello

Resuming and trying to summarize some ideas that our conversation helped me to improve:

1- I don?t know what kind of division Ptolemy adopted IF he adopted one. Maybe the Porphirius? division, or whole signs or perhaps he used the same criteria that he advocates for a planet to be considered in the 1st house in matters of length of life, as we see in Antiochus. Personally I don?t think he did, since it would be easier to add ? do the same to all places?. Besides this, he was dealing with places of power, so it was another kind of fish, other than places for topics.

2- Valens used whole signs in all his charts. But to say the honest true, we really don?t have any proof that he used quadrants for strength and whole sign for topics. I realized that I got strongly influenced by Robert Schmidt?s opinions.

3- Many ancient authors used Porphirius ? division and others, as Antiochus used a division of houses beginning 5 degrees before he cusp up to the 25 degrees, I don?t like this kind of division, because as I said to Deb, the houses walk clockwise, so the 29th degree pertains much more to the house itself than the 5th degree before it, when the planet is going to pertain to another house whereas the first one is diving deeply in the referred house.

4- Placidus de Tito said that his division, the Placidian, was based in Ptolemy and it was not true (don?t ask me why because I don?t have the necessary skill to explain ). But I understood that both systems are based on the division of time.

I really learned with the discussion, as always happens, and I want to thank you all!

Cl?lia

Here is what I would say Clelia in regard to your points.

1) I?m also not sure that when Ptolemy referred to the 5? above the horizon being part of the first house, he specifically meant this to refer to all the houses (as later astrologers seemed to assume); or that he meant all houses should be 5? before the cusp and 25? after. If he did, then this describes an equal house system with a 5? displacement. But maybe he was only partially describing what Antiochus described? This point has a long history of unresolved debate because it?s possible to use Ptolemy?s few brief comments with comparison to other texts to argue support for many house systems. The most honest thing is to admit we can?t be sure about Ptolemy?s stance on house construction because the brevity of the theoretical references and the lack of demonstrated theory in practice doesn?t allow firm conclusions. (Only strong opinions ).

There is another possibility which would suit the whole-sign argument: that what Ptolemy was aiming to describe, was a situation where the ascending sign would shift from one sign to the next if the ascending degree was in the last 5? of the ascending sign. It is hard to recognise that principle in the actual text of the Tetrabiblos, but the support for this idea comes from later Arabian astrologers making that kind of argument. We have to realise that these matters have been passionately argued for many many centuries!

3) My personal opinion about the 29th degree after the cups pertaining more to the house than the 5? above it: consider my last comment above - the ends of the signs are weak and with regard to the houses, general theory is that the closer a planet is to the cusp of a house, the more effectively it expresses the theme of that house. From the quadrant division perspective - if we have a planet sitting right on the midheaven degree, say 30 mins pre-ascended so it is just before the midheaven point, are we going to consider that planet as elevated and 10th house and strongly expressive, or cadent and 9th house and weak? I would describe it as sitting on the midheaven and being very powerful in its celestial placement. Where do we draw the limit of pre-ascended influence: 3?, 5? ? ? some have argued 15? and from what we know of Gauquelin sectors they may have a point.

It?s enough to drive a practicing astrologer crazy.

My astrological interest is mainly horary so it?s become habitual for me to use Regiomontanus and apply the 5? orb to house cusps as Lilly did, though I also realise that Lilly was only following convention himself ? at that time all the cutting edge astrology development was coming from Germany, following the ?rediscovery project? of Regiomontanus, Schoener, etc, who were generating interest towards the translation and republication of classical astrological texts with the kind of preservation focus that compares to the early Project Hindsight intentions.

I?ve given up trying to establish which house system is the ?right? one, but when I see a planet a few degrees before a cusp and not getting referred to, as if it isn?t relevant, as an astrologer it makes me want to ?bounce? in my seat. For me a planet just before a cusp is ?on the cusp? and very significant ? this is what I see when a chart is very clear and focussed in its symbolism; in horary and all other types of charts. But when a planet is far from a cusp I don?t give it half as much attention.

On another point, we don?t know that ?many? ancient astrologers used Porphyry, only that it was known about and discussed, and may have had more use than we currently realise. There is no ancient text that compares to the work of Valens for giving us such a wide array of chart examples ? so we still struggle to know a lot about the practical application of astrological techniques by those who followed different schools of thought. Yet we know that these different approaches existed ? see the discussion here on the 2nd century Michigan Papyrus 1, which seems to talk about one tradition that is more in line with Valens? approach, and another which is more in line with Ptolemy?s:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=40248

4) I don?t agree with the statement that what Placidus said was not true. It might have been entirely true because it?s not beyond the realms of possibility. But more likely he just thought it was true based on his own sources. Ptolemy description of mathematical calculations based on hour circles offers theoretical support for the use of planetary hours, primary directions and what we call the Placidus house system. What's important to realise is that Placidus followed the system; he didn?t invent it ? Tables of Houses for this were available throughout his lifetime; it is described on a 14th century astrolabe, the 12th century Hebrew astrologer Abraham Ibn Ezra acknowledged it as the system employed by Ptolemy; and according to North?s, Horoscopes and History, it is described by Abenmoat of Ja?n in the 11th century. (Abenmoat wrote treatises on spherical trigonometry and important commentaries on Euclid?s Elements ? and this is relevant because Euclid - also based in Alexandria as Ptolemy was - was the source of Ptolemy?s mathematical technique).

So 2nd millennium astrologers believed the system was described by Ptolemy, but we possess zero evidence to show that it actually was.

Thanks for your interest Clelia,

Best wishes
Deb

Clelia Romano wrote:
4- Placidus de Tito said that his division, the Placidian, was based in Ptolemy and it was not true (don?t ask me why because I don?t have the necessary skill to explain ). But I understood that both systems are based on the division of time.

Cl?lia

As told one million time I'm not interested in the "true Ptolemaic system" stuff, but Placido in claiming his method is based on Ptolemy is right.
Think about Ptolemaic directions, which are based on semiarc. What is Placido system nothing but dividing the semiarc in three equal parts?
This is the same idea of hourly distance Ptolemy mentions in his examples of directions.
If you calculate by hand a Ptolemaic direction, you will immediately see it.

margherita

Hello Deb:

Thanks for your answer!
It is my turn to have a limited access to the internet!

But I would like to clarify at least my 2nd point, when I hold that 29 degrees is more related to the house by PD. I was telling it in a general way and not referring to a planet position. The cusp is the more important point, I?m sure.

But, following the way Masha?allah pointed out, and correlating my rationale with some of his ideas, a planet that was in a cusp and loses his position is weaker than one that is, let?s say is 5 degrees after the cusp.
(Of course if the planet is the ruler of the sign we have to take it into consideration because of his celestial importance: anyway we have to see case by case, but I think that my point is valid as a general reasoning)

It is also true that the planet can be better positioned 5 degree before if he is going to become angular or sucedent and before he was in a cadent house.
All depends on individual charts. Again, I was talking in a general way and for the sake of argumentation.

My personal opinion about the 29th degree after the cups pertaining more to the house than the 5? above it: consider my last comment above - the ends of the signs are weak and with regard to the houses, general theory is that the closer a planet is to the cusp of a house, the more effectively it expresses the theme of that house. From the quadrant division perspective - if we have a planet sitting right on the midheaven degree, say 30 mins pre-ascended so it is just before the midheaven point, are we going to consider that planet as elevated and 10th house and strongly expressive, or cadent and 9th house and weak?

In this case I would see if the planet was in the same sign of the MC and if it was, probably I would consider it in the MC. If the sign of the 9th was the same of the MC, as some times occurs, I would consider it for both places.
But if the sign of the 9th was for example Sagittarius and the planet was Jupiter, and the MC was in Capricorn, I would consider it as configured to the 9th. But if it was Saturn, to the 10th.

Anyway 5 degrees before the cusp of MC is strong by position, but I was not referring to strenght, but to topics ( and let?s go again with the strengh/topic thing! )

Where do we draw the limit of pre-ascended influence: 3?, 5? ? ? some have argued 15? and from what we know of Gauquelin sectors they may have a point.

Hummm?indeed...he concluded that cadent houses were powerful, but maybe because he was using static houses cusps ( not giving a, so to speak "orb").
If we consider 15 degrees before the cusp as referring to the house is the same as saying that past events can be very influential?and they are.

Yes, it?s enough to drive us crazy -))

My astrological interest is mainly horary so it?s become habitual for me to use Regiomontanus and apply the 5? orb to house cusps as Lilly did, though I also realise that Lilly was only following convention himself

I?m very fond of horary, as well, but, after a period of changing, I chose Placidus or Alchabitius: they give less distortions referring to the shrink and stretching of the houses.

best regards

Cl?lia

margherita wrote:

Clelia Romano wrote:
4- Placidus de Tito said that his division, the Placidian, was based in Ptolemy and it was not true (don?t ask me why because I don?t have the necessary skill to explain ). But I understood that both systems are based on the division of time.

Cl?lia

As told one million time I'm not interested in the "true Ptolemaic system" stuff, but Placido in claiming his method is based on Ptolemy is right.
Think about Ptolemaic directions, which are based on semiarc. What is Placido system nothing but dividing the semiarc in three equal parts?
This is the same idea of hourly distance Ptolemy mentions in his examples of directions.
If you calculate by hand a Ptolemaic direction, you will immediately see it.

margherita

Hello Margherita:

I?m not the right person to answer that: to me your answer seems ok, but may be others with more mathematical expertise would say that the method of both was different!

best regards

Cl?lia