Skyscript Astrology Forum

So, since I had heard (more than once) that Dorotheus at least *hints* at my all-time favourite system of house division (30° each, starting from the ASC - in other words, Equal plain and simple), I finally ordered Ben Dykes' edition to learn more. The book arrived today.

Now having spent a good couple of hours with it, I must confess, I feel a bit frustrated. The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..." While this at least seems to suggest a system akin to what our friend Mark here likes to call Vehlow-Raman, Dykes hastens to add (in a footnote): "These degrees must be taken in ascensional times, not zodiacal degrees ..."

Then in ch. 1.28 on p. 108, we find something that at first seems somewhat reminiscent of my beloved Equal Houses, even though the divisions are of just 15 degrees extension each (starting from an angle) - but not only are there only three of those to be taken into consideration, worse yet, we are again being reminded that this is about "degrees in ascension", not "equal degrees".

So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

Or did I miss something? Could it be (with all due respect for him) that Dykes' personal preferences may have coloured the way he interprets Dorotheus? Are there any variant readings known?

All opinions and informations appreciated.

Michael

No replies...

Tricky topic, huh?

These passages from Dorotheus were discussed here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

Dorotheus clearly states that the orb of influence of a planet wanes after the 15 degree mark (in ascension as Dykes reminds us). This can perhaps be seen as the precursor of the equal house concept in India where the midpoint of each 30 degree house is the cusp, or area of greatest strength for a planet.

This Dorotheus-to-India might be called “the evolution of a concept.??? We have no way of knowing if this particular Dorotheus text made its way to India, but somewhere along the way the 15 degree range from a central cusp took hold in India. The German Vehlow apparently discovered the same principle in his own work.

There are passages in Mantreswar’s Phaladeepika (debated 13th or 16th century) which reflect the idea of the degree range from a central cusp to the boundary of a house, a principle which (I assume) is still used by contemporary astrologers:

Chapter 15:13 “Even if a planet be posited in his sign of exaltation or a friendly sign or be enjoying the six kinds of strength (shadbala), he proves in affliction if he is situated at the junction of two houses...???

15:14 “In the case of various houses, the planets occupying the exact degrees (Bhava-Madhya) [cusp or house center] signified by any particular house, produce the full effects of that house. The planets situated in Bhava-Sandhi [junction point of two houses] produce no effects.???

Mantreswar’s Phaladeepika (trans. G.S. Kapoor) Ranjan Publications, 1991, p. 173.

Michael

I'm just away from my books at the moment but would love to explore this more with you. From memory, and I really do need to double check this, Dorotheus seems to calculate *both* ascensionally as well as via the ecliptic. I find this really quite fascinating, because of course we know the Greeks had access to all kinds of Babylonian rising time tables and I sometimes wonder if some house division logic emerged via using ascensional times and creating what we today would recognise as a house system. It's all just something to consider of course.

The apparently "standard model" which is promoted seems to go along the route of first there was the zodiac, the aspects emerged as zodiacal relationships, and the houses emerged from the zodiac itself. The aspects were understood to be chiefly amongst the zodiacal signs - at one point it was suggested degree based aspects were either rare, unimportant or non-existent.

What I find interesting is that on the contrary the oldest observations we have are horizon phenomena and culminating transit stars/decans which instead preclude a zodiac and focus instead on the four quadrants irrespective of zodiac or house. This focus far predates the equal signed zodiac in Babylon. In addition, one of our earliest major sources of the aspect doctrine offers the order of priority that aspects should be taken in:
1) degree based aspects
2) temporal aspects
3) sign based aspects

So in fact far from being the major focus, the signs are actually bottom of the pile. The most important was clearly precise aspects by degree and it seems that what we might typically call aspects in mundo were ranked higher than sign based aspects.

Now in Dorotheus, and possibly in other authors, we can imagine something similar with houses. Houses, for some, appear to be more important by degree and even temporally or, in this case, by ascensions, and perhaps zodiacal houses (e.g. WSH) were least important? Perhaps not.

It's just an interesting observation.

Michael Sternbach wrote:So, since I had heard (more than once) that Dorotheus at least *hints* at my all-time favourite system of house division (30° each, starting from the ASC - in other words, Equal plain and simple), I finally ordered Ben Dykes' edition to learn more. The book arrived today.

Now having spent a good couple of hours with it, I must confess, I feel a bit frustrated. The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..." While this at least seems to suggest a system akin to what our friend Mark here likes to call Vehlow-Raman, Dykes hastens to add (in a footnote): "These degrees must be taken in ascensional times, not zodiacal degrees ..."

Then in ch. 1.28 on p. 108, we find something that at first seems somewhat reminiscent of my beloved Equal Houses, even though the divisions are of just 15 degrees extension each (starting from an angle) - but not only are there only three of those to be taken into consideration, worse yet, we are again being reminded that this is about "degrees in ascension", not "equal degrees".

So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

Or did I miss something? Could it be (with all due respect for him) that Dykes' personal preferences may have coloured the way he interprets Dorotheus? Are there any variant readings known?

All opinions and informations appreciated.

Michael

This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing. And those who ,like Ben, make a living out of astrology and translations are for obvious reasons the least reliable.

Therese Hamilton wrote:These passages from Dorotheus were discussed here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

Dorotheus clearly states that the orb of influence of a planet wanes after the 15 degree mark (in ascension as Dykes reminds us). This can perhaps be seen as the precursor of the equal house concept in India where the midpoint of each 30 degree house is the cusp, or area of greatest strength for a planet.

This Dorotheus-to-India might be called “the evolution of a concept.??? We have no way of knowing if this particular Dorotheus text made its way to India, but somewhere along the way the 15 degree range from a central cusp took hold in India. The German Vehlow apparently discovered the same principle in his own work.

There are passages in Mantreswar’s Phaladeepika (debated 13th or 16th century) which reflect the idea of the degree range from a central cusp to the boundary of a house, a principle which (I assume) is still used by contemporary astrologers:

Chapter 15:13 “Even if a planet be posited in his sign of exaltation or a friendly sign or be enjoying the six kinds of strength (shadbala), he proves in affliction if he is situated at the junction of two houses...???

15:14 “In the case of various houses, the planets occupying the exact degrees (Bhava-Madhya) [cusp or house center] signified by any particular house, produce the full effects of that house. The planets situated in Bhava-Sandhi [junction point of two houses] produce no effects.???

Mantreswar’s Phaladeepika (trans. G.S. Kapoor) Ranjan Publications, 1991, p. 173.

Thank you, Therese.

What I take away from all this is a confirmation that Dorotheus (arguably) was using the same system that became so popular in Indian astrology, i.e., equal houses extending to both sides from the ASC, and so on.

Paul wrote:Michael

I'm just away from my books at the moment but would love to explore this more with you.

I'm all for it.

From memory, and I really do need to double check this, Dorotheus seems to calculate *both* ascensionally as well as via the ecliptic.

That sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to your reference(s), when you're ready.

I find this really quite fascinating, because of course we know the Greeks had access to all kinds of Babylonian rising time tables and I sometimes wonder if some house division logic emerged via using ascensional times and creating what we today would recognise as a house system. It's all just something to consider of course.

The apparently "standard model" which is promoted seems to go along the route of first there was the zodiac, the aspects emerged as zodiacal relationships, and the houses emerged from the zodiac itself. The aspects were understood to be chiefly amongst the zodiacal signs - at one point it was suggested degree based aspects were either rare, unimportant or non-existent.

What I find interesting is that on the contrary the oldest observations we have are horizon phenomena and culminating transit stars/decans which instead preclude a zodiac and focus instead on the four quadrants irrespective of zodiac or house. This focus far predates the equal signed zodiac in Babylon. In addition, one of our earliest major sources of the aspect doctrine offers the order of priority that aspects should be taken in:
1) degree based aspects
2) temporal aspects
3) sign based aspects

So in fact far from being the major focus, the signs are actually bottom of the pile. The most important was clearly precise aspects by degree and it seems that what we might typically call aspects in mundo were ranked higher than sign based aspects.

Now in Dorotheus, and possibly in other authors, we can imagine something similar with houses. Houses, for some, appear to be more important by degree and even temporally or, in this case, by ascensions, and perhaps zodiacal houses (e.g. WSH) were least important? Perhaps not.

It's just an interesting observation.

These are really profound thoughts, Paul. If I don't comment right now, it's simply because I would like to keep this thread on topic, i.e., focussed specifically on the equal house system used by Dorotheus.

However, you do make me think of opening up further threads to explore some of the associated topics you have brought up.

TT wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:So, since I had heard (more than once) that Dorotheus at least *hints* at my all-time favourite system of house division (30° each, starting from the ASC - in other words, Equal plain and simple), I finally ordered Ben Dykes' edition to learn more. The book arrived today.

Now having spent a good couple of hours with it, I must confess, I feel a bit frustrated. The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..." While this at least seems to suggest a system akin to what our friend Mark here likes to call Vehlow-Raman, Dykes hastens to add (in a footnote): "These degrees must be taken in ascensional times, not zodiacal degrees ..."

Then in ch. 1.28 on p. 108, we find something that at first seems somewhat reminiscent of my beloved Equal Houses, even though the divisions are of just 15 degrees extension each (starting from an angle) - but not only are there only three of those to be taken into consideration, worse yet, we are again being reminded that this is about "degrees in ascension", not "equal degrees".

So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

Or did I miss something? Could it be (with all due respect for him) that Dykes' personal preferences may have coloured the way he interprets Dorotheus? Are there any variant readings known?

All opinions and informations appreciated.

Michael

This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing. And those who ,like Ben, make a living out of astrology and translations are for obvious reasons the least reliable.

I agree that contemporary 'traditional astrologers' tend to promote their personal systems, representing their own view of the ancient texts. Perhaps this is inevitable, as the limitations of the source material necessitate a degree of interpretation. Part of the issue may be that its authors were simply not as exacting as we take for granted with contemporary textbook writers, i.e., they were just not too concerned with the rigorous distinctions that we moderns are so fond off. In some cases, they may also have assumed their readers to already possess some wide spread basic understanding, not to mention the intricacies of translating ancient languages and other factors.

While, personally, I like my practice of Astrology to have some support by classical sources (as far as those are applicable in the first place), I make no claims that it fully represents the system of this or that author. I believe that some valuable information has been neglected when classical Astrology was revised 100 years ago or so, however, I also look at Astrology as an evolving art/science; and as such, there are aspects to it that were (at the most) implied in the early writings, while it was left to us moderns to fully work them out.

Anyway, let's get back to Dorotheus...

Hi Michael,

Michael Sternbach wrote:The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..."

This is the reference I alluded to here (link). It is certainly not the so-called "Equal" system, and I believe one would be too hasty to conclude that it constitutes a house division proper.

Michael Sternbach wrote:So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

No, as far as I know. There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Are there any variant readings known?

No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

TT wrote:This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing.

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

Levente Laszlo wrote:Hi Michael,

Michael Sternbach wrote:The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..."

This is the reference I alluded to here (link). It is certainly not the so-called "Equal" system, and I believe one would be too hasty to conclude that it constitutes a house division proper.

Michael Sternbach wrote:So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

No, as far as I know. There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Are there any variant readings known?

No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

TT wrote:This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing.

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

Maternus is one that springs to mind. But the point is that the newer translations try to make it loo like they used whole signs above all
Calculations weren`t easy those days. Whole houses were meant to simplify IMHO
Suggest you read Deb on house systems and her interview by Chris Brennan. He was a lil bruised but that`s his problem. Most of these whole sign house gang comes from the US ,where the new idea,even if it`s old, is all the hype and the best way to make a few bucks.

Levente Laszlo wrote:Hi Michael,

Michael Sternbach wrote:The only unambiguous reference to the extent of a house that I could find so far is in ch. 1.7 on p. 68 f., where I read: "And if you found 15 degrees between a planet and the Ascendant, even if it was in the second sign from the Ascendant, then take its power into account as though its placement is in the Ascendant. But if it should increase beyond that, then it does not have power in the Ascendant ..."

This is the reference I alluded to here (link). It is certainly not the so-called "Equal" system, and I believe one would be too hasty to conclude that it constitutes a house division proper.

Michael Sternbach wrote:So no Equal Houses in Dorotheus after all? Not even by implication?

No, as far as I know. There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Are there any variant readings known?

No, as far as I know. What is more, the second passage (Ar. Dor. 1.28.3) is actually confirmed by a reference in the horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (8.4) and a paraphrasis in Book of Aristotle (3.2.2.47, p. 82 Dykes).

TT wrote:This has become a trend with these translators. Their translations are full of footnotes saying that the author was using whole signs. It´s a kind of brainwashing.

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

Maternus is one that springs to mind. But the point is that the newer translations try to make it look like they used whole signs above all
Calculations weren`t easy those days. Whole houses were meant to simplify IMHO
Suggest you read Deb on house systems and her interview by Chris Brennan. He was a lil bruised but that`s his problem. Most of these whole sign house gang comes from the US ,where the new idea,even if it`s old, is all the hype and the best way to make a few bucks

Thank you Levente for your (as usual) well informed reply.
I will comment on it as soon as I can find the time.

Regarding this:

Oh well. Then can you inform us about ancient authors not using whole signs apart from the ones already mentioned and discussed in the thread I linked above? Just to substantiate your, erm, conspiracy theory.

May I ask that you continue discussing the role generally played by WSH in ancient Astrology as well as conspiracy theories in respective threads. - Thanks.