Skyscript Astrology Forum

The MC/Nonagesimal argument going on here (which I've just quickly scanned) seems to be a semantics argument that "Petosiris" isn't quite getting. Traditionally in astrology a planet is said to be culminating when it's at the MC, the point where the prime meridian intersects the ecliptic. However:

The nonagesimal is the zenith projected on to the ecliptic by an azimuth circle that passes through the north and south ecliptic poles. This projection can be shorter than the distance of the zenith to the intersection of the prime meridian and ecliptic. Traditionally In astrology the nonagesimal isn't called a culmination point, but that point is usually at a higher altitude than the junction of the prime meridian with the ecliptic (the MC). So:

Culmination (an astrological term) = intersection of prime meridian with the ecliptic (MC point)
Highest altitude = the point 90 degrees from the ascendant (Nonagesimal), the ecliptic degree closest to the zenith

It's a historical argument as to which astrologer used which point as the cusp of the 10th house.

Therese Hamilton wrote:The MC/Nonagesimal argument going on here (which I've just quickly scanned) seems to be a semantics argument that "Petosiris" isn't quite getting.

Seems like there is different form of traditional astrology out there that no one knows about.

In addition, after finding the Place which has been assigned to Fortune, examine the points square with it and the other aspects, just as with the angles in the natal chart. The Lot itself will be equivalent to the Ascendant and will mean “Life;??? the tenth place from it will be equivalent to MC and will mean “Rank;??? the seventh will be the Descendant; the fourth IC. - Valens, translation by Mark Riley

Can anyone help me construct quadrant houses from the Lot of Fortune? Could Valens have used quadrants here?

Him/Her and I suppose Vettius Valens and the other Hellenistic astrologers who use quadrant houses for particularly things like the length of life.

Actually, that is frequently not the case, length of life included for example:

After examining the Ascendant, it is necessary to investigate MC and to determine its ruler; then examine the Descendant and IC in the same way. If <their> are not found at the angles, the rulerships which follow the angles must be examined; if the stars are not in those signs either, the signs which precede the angles must be inspected. (Even if such positions do not possess a great deal of influence over activities and do not allot the maximum length of life, they are nevertheless active.) - Valens, Riley - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vet ... entire.pdf

Therese Hamilton wrote:Culmination (an astrological term) = intersection of prime meridian with the ecliptic (MC point)
Highest altitude = the point 90 degrees from the ascendant (Nonagesimal), the ecliptic degree closest to the zenith

Or, put slightly differently for the sake of easier comparison: the nonagesimal is that point in the ecliptic which at a given moment has the highest altitude above the horizon (by virtue of the simple fact that it is exactly midway between the rising and setting points). The astronomical MC or culminating point is the point that, at the same moment, has reached its own maximum altitude -- which, for observers in the northern hemisphere, will occur when that point is due south.

That is what 'culminate' means: to reach the highest point of one's own trajectory. Thus, when the sun culminates at local noon, it will be at the astronomical MC, due south. Depending on which degree of the ecliptic the sun happens to occupy (that is, on the time of year), its culmination will occur at a greater or lesser altitude -- it will be higher or lower in the sky -- but it will always begin descending towards the western horizon as soon as it has passed the meridian or astronomical MC. The same is, of course, true for any degree in the ecliptic, whether occupied by the sun or not.

Thank you, Martin! Clarity always helps. (This is one of those Skyscript messages I print to keep as a memory jog.)

Therese thanks so much for that message, you really managed to pull everything together very concisely and I think its' really helpful to put things kind of back on track as it were.

petosiris wrote: Seems like there is different form of traditional astrology out there that no one knows about.

You are not noone.

Having already proven the point by example using Valens, and the very same source you yourself provided (Geminos), I'll now include the opinion of the historian of Greek Astrology, Bouche Leclerq.

The translation is mine, so apologies if it reads a bit rushed, and the highlighted text is mine.

L'Astrologie Grecque, pp.259-260

it is necessary to make an excursion into the domain of geometry, a domain common to astrologers and astronomers, in order to pose the problem which has tormented more than anything else the astrologers capable of understanding it, and does more than anything else to discredit the run of the mill from the true “mathematicians???: the problem of the ascensions of the signs of the Zodiac, the solution of which regulates the position of the centres i.e. the angles and the places in respect to the degrees of the Zodiac.
The first astrologers ... considered the Zodiac as a circle which was sufficient to divide into four equal quadrants in order to have the positions of the horoscope i.e. the ascendant and of the occident i.e. the descendant or the points of intersection with the horizon, and of the superior and inferior culminations i.e. the MC and IC, or the points of intersection with the meridian i.e. note these are points with the meridian circle. But those who were capable of putting some precision in their measurements and having a touch of geometry realised that the Zodiac, turning around an oblique axis at its plane, was almost never divided in equal quadrants by the horizon and the meridian.
...
Similarly, the position of the centres i.e. the angles was wrong, and with it the distribution of the places, if one persisted in believing that the horizon and the meridian always divide the Zodiac in four equal parts.

It's worth pointing out that if you think the nonagesimal is at the MC, or that the whole sign 10th is the culminating sign, then you are one of the "run of the mill" that Bouche Leclerq refers to, and who Geminos criticises, and who Valens advises against.

This isn't that there's some "different astrology that noone knows about", this is that you are, at this point, quite wilfully choosing to remain ignorant about a topic that actually many people both today and in ancient times were quite aware of.

Can anyone help me construct quadrant houses from the Lot of Fortune?

Apples and pears. Nothing culminates from the Lot of Fortune. Notice that the disagreement is on the 'culminating sign'.

Actually, that is frequently not the case, length of life included for example:

After examining the Ascendant, it is necessary to investigate MC and to determine its ruler; then examine the Descendant and IC in the same way. If <their> are not found at the angles, the rulerships which follow the angles must be examined; if the stars are not in those signs either, the signs which precede the angles must be inspected. (Even if such positions do not possess a great deal of influence over activities and do not allot the maximum length of life, they are nevertheless active.) - Valens, Riley - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vet ... entire.pdf

Petosiris, serious question, do you actually read the sources you yourself provide? Valens says absolutely nothing here that suggests he thinks the 10th whole sign is always the culminating sign which contains the MC. Why are you providing this an example - what do you think it's demonstrating?

Let's get specific then, in the previous Book which sets the context for the one you quoted from:
Book III 2, Riley, p.29

First of all, fix the degree-positions of the Ascendant, MC, and the other angles. Then it is necessary to take the distance in degrees from the Ascendant to IC (moving in the order of the signs), to consider one third of that total distance to be the “operative??? degrees in the configuration of the angles, and to consider the stars in these degrees, whether benefics or malefics, to be powerful. Consider the rest of the degrees in order up to IC, as well as the stars in them, to be “inoperative??? and impropitious. The points in opposition to the Ascendant and to the other angles will fall into the same pattern with respect to operative and inoperative degrees and the stars in <the> will be powerful. It is therefore obvious that there will not always be 30° at an angle, but sometimes more, sometimes fewer

I do not know what you think you're quote is demonstrating, but here Valens clearly lays out what we now refer to more commonly as the Porphyry method of house division which, to be explicit, divides up the quadrant formed between the degrees of the Ascendant-Descendant axis with the degrees of the MC-IC axis and trisects them. We know this is not the nonagesimal that he means, and is in fact the astronomical degree of the MC (the culminating point) because he draws our attention to how 'obvious' it is that will therefore not always be 30º for a given angle (which there would be for whole signs or equal signs for that matter).

I do not know why you are imagining that the mistakes that certain astrologers made were somehow all part of some secret mystical approach, and that their failure at mathematics made them somehow insightful, instead a more germane solution is that certain astrologers made astronomical mistakes and Geminos is highlighting the problem to help others not make this mistake, and Valens is an example of someone who is aware of the problem and doesn't make the mistake.

The very mistake that you yourself are making here.

Apples and pears. Nothing culminates from the Lot of Fortune. Notice that the disagreement is on the 'culminating sign'.

He is saying that the X sign culminates from the Lot of Fortune. Clearly hard to explain via the current presentist position of seeing it as ignorant and mistaken, academia notwithstanding.

Petosiris, serious question, do you actually read the sources you yourself provide? Valens says absolutely nothing here that suggests he thinks the 10th whole sign is always the culminating sign which contains the MC.

Paul, can you stop making ad hominem arguments and read my quotes which clearly say that the X sign is the culminating sign and that the four angles are taken by the ascendant, nonagesimal and the points opposite those.

Just because you are quoting something irreconcilable with many statements of the Anthology begs the question which one is the correct one. Clearly Valens, Dorotheus and others employed both. Valens also defines equal houses later in the Anthology, which taken as his practice would make him quite the schizo.

Anyways, running in circles is not my type of favourite activity. One can examine the available literature and see that it is incorrect to use the quadrant MC for the purposes of Hellenistic astrology, and this has its own astronomical validity when examined via the nonagesimal, because although Martin avoids the word culminating (preferring ''highest'') for the zenith, it can be applied to it as well. That is all I can say on the topic.

Petosiris

which clearly say that the X sign is the culminating sign and that the four angles are taken by the ascendant, nonagesimal and the points opposite those.

It says nothing of the sort. Can you double check your quote, at this point I’m willing to imagine you copied and pasted the wrong bit. Otherwise just highlight what you think each sentence means and where you think he’s saying any of the things you think he is.

petosiris wrote:although Martin avoids the word culminating (preferring ''highest'') for the zenith, it can be applied to it as well.

Yes, I prefer to use words in their established sense. I find that it facilitates communication. For some reason you seem to prefer the opposite, not unlike Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,??? Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.???
“The question is,??? said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.???
“The question is,??? said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.???

If you really want to make a case for enlarging the astrological sense of the verb 'culminate', the best way forward might be to go to the Greek sources and try to locate passages that use the verb μεσου??ανέω (or perhaps some synonym which escapes me at present) in a sense that clearly does not mean 'culminate' in the generally accepted sense. They may be there; I don't know. But the established meaning of the English term is as I and others have stated in this thread (as any dictionary will tell you).

Martin Gansten wrote:

petosiris wrote:although Martin avoids the word culminating (preferring ''highest'') for the zenith, it can be applied to it as well.

Yes, I prefer to use words in their established sense. I find that it facilitates communication. For some reason you seem to prefer the opposite, not unlike Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,??? Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.???
“The question is,??? said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.???
“The question is,??? said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.???

If you really want to make a case for enlarging the astrological sense of the verb 'culminate', the best way forward might be to go to the Greek sources and try to locate passages that use the verb μεσου??ανέω (or perhaps some synonym which escapes me at present) in a sense that clearly does not mean 'culminate' in the generally accepted sense. They may be there; I don't know. But the established meaning of the English term is as I and others have stated in this thread (as any dictionary will tell you).

And you, better than Paul, know that they (the Greek sources) applied the term (midheaven) to the X sign and the nonagesimal. You also know that the Indians also call the X sign a kentron. My problem with this thread is why people are disputing that in the first place.

My problem with the ''established communication'' is that it rejects whole signs linguistically, but without any concrete argument. Without calling the X sign culminating and an angle, there is no way for one to accept whole signs, he will see the quadrant division as more ''astronomical'' and the like misdirections.

You probably noticed that Paul rejects whole signs and thinks that it is a mistake and confusion on part of the authors simply because it is not ''culminating'' in his own brain. Do you also think the authors were that stupid to confuse the zenith with the quadrant MC, or do you think they simply meant the first?

If I tell you, ''use the X sign for occupation just because whole signs tell you so'', I am not making much of an argument compared to, ''the X image is culminating in the sense that it is at the nonagesimal''. As a quadrant user, perhaps someone will be able to see it as a valid and coherent system that way?

In this sense, ''culminating'' was established method of communicating the sign that is culminating from the rising sign - that is the X sign.

petosiris wrote:I have not looked at the Greek texts, but I am confident that one will find the word zoidion there.

Dear Petosiris,

Normally, yes, but in this instance no. Valens uses τα κεντ??α και τας τουτων ???παναφο??ας ta kentra kai tas tout??n epanaforas ('the angles and those following them') in the first instance. In the second he wrote: δυσεως, π??οδυσεως, ???πικαταδυσεως duse??s, produse??s, epikataduse??s (literally 'the Descendant, before the Descendant and after the Descendant'). Riley has provided the rendering sign, and Pingree τόπον in the first part.

Konrad wrote:

petosiris wrote:I have not looked at the Greek texts, but I am confident that one will find the word zoidion there.

Dear Petosiris,

Normally, yes, but in this instance no. Valens uses τα κεντ??α και τας τουτων ???παναφο??ας ta kentra kai tas tout??n epanaforas ('the angles and those following them') in the first instance. In the second he wrote: δυσεως, π??οδυσεως, ???πικαταδυσεως duse??s, produse??s, epikataduse??s (literally 'the Descendant, before the Descendant and after the Descendant'). Riley has provided the rendering sign, and Pingree τόπον in the first part.

Yes, I just looked at the text and saw it is not there. I deleted that part. Sorry for the confusion. It could mean both in that case.

Nechepso refers to the tenth zoidion in Valens 7:5 likely referring to the MC? Riley explicitly refers to it as the MC, although I am not seeing that part in the Kroll edition? How would you read that passage Konrad - whole sign houses or quadrants?

Perhaps Riley thought that following the delineations concerning the transits to the MC, naturally Nechepso considered the tenth sign <MC>. The fragment refers to signs and places interchangeably.