Skyscript Astrology Forum

As this is my first post; This site and forum(s) have so much fantastic information, thank you everyone who contributes here. I have found it to be such a valuable resource.

I'm trying to properly understand Valens (Riley trans.) meaning of "houseruler" / "houserulership" which appears dozens of times throughout the book.
Is there a single consistent definition?
Since many of you have spent a good many years with this text, how do you treat this? Do you typically change your evaluation of the intended planet based on the examples for the topic of the chapter, without concern for a consistent definition?
I had also wondered if the issues I'm struggling with resulted from different source words having been translated to the same english term. Does this occur in other translations like PH's if anyone has access to these for example?

My initial understanding is that the houseruler is the (first?) triplicity lord, adjusted by sect of the chart, based on Book2,1 (p.25) regarding "The Triangles". This seams to be supported in the following chapters by the often references to "houserulers" (plural), which is reasonable if the second and cooperating triplicity lords are considered too.

There however are contradictions later, where "houseruler" is used in the manner of sign-ruler; for example in Book3,14K;11P (p.69) in the example

"...moon, ascendant in pisces... period of the houseruler of the moon, Jupiter, 12 years"

It being a night chart, I would have thought it to be Mars, 15 years for the water triplicity using the earlier definition.

Then also in in Book 3,1 (p.58) where he explicitly states

"...then the houseruler is found from the terms of the controlling star"

...where the controlling star is described earlier as the most advantageously configured luminary, followed by some other possibilities.

So then in Book7 ~(p. 124) which is the "houseruler" are we instructed to examine the configuration of?
The example charts (p. 126) for this section seem to be consistent with the triplicity lords of the ascendant.

Thank you for any suggestions

Welcome to the forum, Algenna. The Greek word underlying the translation that you are asking about is oikodespotēs, which literally means 'house-ruler' (oikos is house, despotēs is ruler/master/lord). This is the standard word for 'ruler' in astrological contexts, and I would just translate it as such, without worrying about the 'house' part.* As you have already found out, it most often refers to the domicile ruler, but in some contexts to the triplicity ruler(s). Unfortunately, the ancient authors don't always bother to tell us which they mean.

*(Strictly speaking, oiko-des-potēs etymologically means 'house-house-ruler'. Despotēs, which we have borrowed as despot, is itself an old Indo-European compound of a word for house and a word for master. In Sanskrit it is dampati, which is mostly used in the dual to refer to a married couple: the joint rulers of a house. In Latin we have the first part as domus, house, from which dominus, lord, is formed -- incidentally, dominus is the usual way of translating oikodespotēs in Latin. Eventually the original meaning of despotēs was lost in Greek, so when they wanted to add the 'house' part they tacked on another word for house, oikos, which is what we have in borrowings like eco-nomy and eco-logy. But by the time Valens was writing, this compound too had become a generic word for ruler.)

I once tried to work out all of Valens' charts for which he gave adequate data. Although Valens knew about other house systems, the charts worked out only with whole signs houses. So I think that, most often, the house ruler meant the sign ruler.

waybread wrote:I once tried to work out all of Valens' charts for which he gave adequate data. Although Valens knew about other house systems, the charts worked out only with whole signs houses.

I am just finishing a scholarly paper on Valens' use of places/houses, which I hope will be out (preferably with Open Access) in the early part of 2022. For now, let me just say that Valens seems to have upheld the use of places by degree, as well as aspects by degree, lots by degree, etc., in principle but most often used approximative methods (by sign alone) in practice.

But even when the sign under discussion is not in doubt, it can have different rulers, particularly domicile versus triplicity rulers, which I think is what Algenna was asking about.

Later edit: It just occurred to me that we may be talking slightly at cross-purposes. The 'house' (oikos) in oikodespotēs is nothing to do with what astrologers today call houses. A house in that sense was called a 'place' (topos) in Greek astrology.

Marten, thanks for responding. I hope you will post a link to your paper when it comes out.

It's been some years since I worked on those Valens charts. I tried to coordinate what Valens wrote with Neugebauer & Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes, using The Astrodienst ephemeris. My initial impression was that the scholars were off by a day or two, but correct once I made the adjustment. However, I did not account for precession and I don't recall whether they did. I don' think so, for our results to be so close. I assumed a tropical zodiac, but ca 150 CE sidereal was still in use.

I played around with different degrees rising, and finally concluded that Valens used whole signs houses for his horoscope examples, regardless of his apparent knowledge of other house systems.

I was surprised to see that Valens' calculation for the part of fortune went by house/sign only, given that he sometimes gave degrees for the key horoscope points.

One thing that occurs to me, with my Valens "research" now well in my rearview mirror, is that Valens was writing a compendium as well as a textbook for aspiring astrologers. Given the inaccuracy of timing methods of his day, it is possible that he used simpler methods for his worked examples as being more accessible to his readers.

Yes, I'll make sure to post a link when the paper is out. That's often a longish process, though, so don't hold your breath.

waybread wrote:I played around with different degrees rising, and finally concluded that Valens used whole signs houses for his horoscope examples, regardless of his apparent knowledge of other house systems.

He does use approximative methods a lot, while repeatedly stating that using 'accurate' calculations by degree is the way to go. He is not alone in such inconsistency, of course. But as a matter of fact, he sometimes even profects by quadrant houses/places, so it's definitely not all whole signs. Details in my paper...

I was surprised to see that Valens' calculation for the part of fortune went by house/sign only, given that he sometimes gave degrees for the key horoscope points.

He actually does calculate lots to the degree at least some of the time, and states repeatedly that doing so is important. In one place he follows such a statement by an example where the lot falls in a different sign than it would by sign-only calculation, which Riley picks up on in his translation but mistakes for an error on Valens' part.

Martin, Waybred, thank you both for your replies.

Then it seems best to default to the sign ruler, unless its clear from the context or chart examples that he's specifically talking about the triplicity lords. This helps alot.

Martin good luck with your article.

Waybred, since any degree of accuracy in lot calculation would have (depending on the lot) depended greatly on the "calculation" of the Ascendant... if you can call it that, any comparison to thier modern counterparts seems pretty limiting, especially for night births. no..

the sign trine to the left of the of the dodekatemorion of the sun is the ascendant... etc...

Algenna:

Time-keeping was pretty inaccurate in ancient times.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... g-2006-02/

Which is why I think, even today, whole signs should be the preferred house system when an accurate birth time cannot be determined.