97
My personal belief then is that many of Valens's examples are deliberately simplified with minimal information to prove only the point he's currently having his students examined - and I think this point is so often ignored.
He is using whole signs well into Book IX, and especially when he reveals his ''keys'' and mystical methods using rising times, planetary years, profections etc. In fact, he gives only signs for his own chart even though he is able to include the degree of the Moon and the Ascendant (having shown his chart as an example in the conception chart, obviously some techniques like this require degrees).
I'm open to the idea that, like with whole sign aspects, Valens allowed signs to be demarcators of influence of some kind, such that having the MC in any sign will mean that the sign has a whole sign conjunction with the MC and anything in that sign, like with any aspect by sign, will be coloured by that aspect.
If you drop whole sign houses, Hellenistic astrology like using only the angles for initiatives, or using derivative houses from Fortune become increasingly shallow and out of place. Hellenistic profections, the houses meanings being related to configurations and whole sign aspects. The whole point of being able tell anything simply through the stars in the signs and the rising sign without any degree, is simply aversive to the idea that quadrants and equal houses are required.

So even though I believe one needs degrees today, we do not know whether the ancients thought that everyone possessed unique rising sign even in the case of twins as can be thought by the following passage:
“But,??? someone will say, “the chronocrators for twins will be the same, since the same stars are located at the same degree-positions!??? I answer that in such nativities, the shift of just the Ascendant alone alters the angles and the fortune and condition of the native, and it occasionally brings his end. - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vet ... entire.pdf
Obviously and contrary to this assertion very little changes in terms of the Hellenistic techniques he expounds through the anthology, which could by why someone would argue that this approach is falsified by the existence of twins. Anubio and Ptolemy's rectifications are similarly bogus because they place one ascendant for everyone born within a day. Similarly, even if you calculate the lots by degrees, you will have some minor changes in the grand scheme of the whole sign paradigm (even if you use house divisions I may add).
Instead you're rejecting what they actually say because otherwise an article of faith, that they used whole sign houses, may be put on shaky ground?
I already told you my theoretical and practical reasons for preferring whole signs. If somebody wants to further examine the historical evidence, he can check Chris Brennan's arguments in his book, or simply see the authors for himself such as:
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vet ... entire.pdf - Valens
https://books.google.bg/books/about/Gre ... edir_esc=y - Neugebauer and Hoesen Greek Horoscopes

99
Martin Gansten wrote:
petosiris wrote:
Martin Gansten wrote:I am not seeing the relevant example in Ptolemy 3.11 translation by Robbins, perhaps you can supply us with a quote.
It is III 10 in the Robbins translation, III 11 in Hübner's more recent critical edition.
Ok, I can see your doubt about the passage, and your reading of it now. But you do realize that would imply it rejects whole sign aspects and creates a new zodiac and new ''whole equal before 5 degrees aspects''?

Interesting, Martin. Perhaps the following:
Some, however, employ an order of masculine and feminine signs whereby the masculine begins with the sign that is rising, called the horoscope.
Is simply a tradition that Ptolemy was partly following, which favours equal houses (but beginning five degrees earlier) instead of the zodiac? Maybe someone found the zodiac boundaries artificial and created all this?

If I may propose an alternative reading of the passage that (I think) is less convoluted and hopefully plausible in the Greek text. Perhaps Ptolemy is using whole signs from the rising sign only if it the ascendant is before 25 degrees, for after 25 degrees the next whole sign would be more indicative of rising. Is it possible that Ptolemy meant that in the text? Perhaps he is using both, like Dorotheus and Valens imply at certain points.

If he does not use whole signs, perhaps you can explain the rest of the passage talking of aspects to different signs. It is also problematic since Valens and Dorotheus are using whole signs, which is like a radically different approach from this theory (perhaps the zodiac is also related to lots and numbers of which no reasonable explanation can be given).

Btw, Firmicus Maternus uses the signs as boundaries for aspects to the Moon, not the equal houses boundaries (thus he is using whole sign aspects, which I thought Ptolemy was using too). I do not have the text at the moment, but I remember encountering it in the translation by Bram.

100
petosiris wrote: He is using whole signs well into Book IX
I think you imagine that I'm arguing that he never uses whole signs or that he drops them completely after Book IV.
What I've been highlighting all this time is that some of the claims for whole sign houses may be exaggerated (we talked earlier about Gauquelin sectors and the extreme latitudes), but also that the idea that the Hellenistic astrologers only used whole signs and that quadrants are incompatible with Hellenistic astrology (a point you make in post Thu May 31, 2018 10:13 pm), is simply untrue. Along the way I've tried to encourage you to use the terminology as it actually is (nonagesimal vs MC debate), but what I'm not trying to suggest here is that whole sign houses are not used at all or they are never used again after Book IV.

In fact my very point has been for some years now that whole signs seemed to be a broad or rough house system analogous to how aspects by sign are a broader or rougher aspect system in comparison to aspects by degree - but just like how astrologers allowed for aspects by degree they also used houses by degree. Particularly equal houses and porphyry. As Porphyry can be imagined as a quadrant division, and we have clear examples of astrologers using that house system (quotes already provided), I reject your hypothesis that only whole signs make sense with hellenistic techniques.
If you drop whole sign houses, Hellenistic astrology like using only the angles for initiatives, or using derivative houses from Fortune become increasingly shallow and out of place.
But do you think I'm suggesting dropping whole sign houses?

Perhaps it would help to realise that I myself use Equal and Placidus regularly. When I argue that hellenistic astrologers used equal and porphyry I am not competing them with whole sign houses - actually if you look more closely at my posts you will see that I'm allowing for the idea that they may be used in conjunction with whole sign houses. I have always read Valens, from the moment that Riley's translation became available to me, in this light. I think Valens is describing a house system whereby you can be rough and broad via whole sign houses or you can be specific via some degree based system.
is simply aversive to the idea that quadrants and equal houses are required.
Emphasis mine, see my arguments above in this post. I am not arguing that ONLY equal and quadrant houses were used by Valens.
I already told you my theoretical and practical reasons for preferring whole signs.
For preferring them yourself, yes, but the arguments and reasons you provide are part of what I'm demonstrating to be incorrect - you base your reasons on some historical awareness of what the ancients did or didn't do, but as I've been trying to show, some of those assumptions are, I believe, questionable.
If somebody wants to further examine the historical evidence, he can check Chris Brennan's arguments in his book
Read my reply to Konrad, what do you make of my point regarding the equal and quadrant houses not needing a degree of the ascendant to be noted? I quote what I believe to be a misguided or ill thought through argument that Chris makes in his book - one which I think is very forgiveable and easy to make, but is nevertheless misguided.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

101
Read my reply to Konrad, what do you make of my point regarding the equal and quadrant houses not needing a degree of the ascendant to be noted? I quote what I believe to be a misguided or ill thought through argument that Chris makes in his book - one which I think is very forgiveable and easy to make, but is nevertheless misguided.
Paul, I read your replies, that is why I was reminded by some of Brennan's excellent arguments on the topic. About quadrants not needing the actual MC, I would agree with you (Paulus and Valens give arithmetical methods for calculating those). But Chris Brennan is obviously correct that 90%+ of the surviving charts can be calculated using whole signs exclusively. The students of Valens obviously are not going to pick some mathematical tables for the nativities that happened over hundred years before they lived and start calculating their degree positions (because some nativities are dated to around 60 AD and could belong to Critodemus).
Emphasis mine, see my arguments above in this post. I am not arguing that ONLY equal and quadrant houses were used by Valens.
There is not a single technique in Hellenistic astrology that requires an equal or quadrant house division. Most do not even require degrees (probably not mere coincidence).
I reject your hypothesis that only whole signs make sense with hellenistic techniques.
That is fine, but I wonder how much do you actually use Hellenistic techniques in practice. Have you read and tried Hephaistio, Dorotheus, Serapio, Zoroaster and the like on initiatives? (they all use the four whole sign angles and the X as culminating sign)

Almost every author uses some of the the following - whole sign aspects and lots, derivative whole sign houses from those, annual profections (which are always sign per year instead of the medieval degree approach) and transits.

Clearly one will get quite different results if he employs equal or quadrant houses for initiatives, profections, revolutions, transits and the like. The house division problem is the same as the zodiac issue, there is no world where both are equally valid (and between quadrants, equal and whole signs, there is an enormous difference). If the authors (Hellenistic, Persian and Indian) employed whole signs to great effect, then perhaps we should ask ourselves whether their approach is not correct after all, not the least because it is coherent and perfectly reasonable from an astronomical and symbolical approach, contrary to your assertions that it is simply provisional.

102
petosiris wrote:But Chris Brennan is obviously correct that 90%+ of the surviving charts can be calculated using whole signs exclusively.
90% might be able to be calculated using whole signs, but exclusively whole signs? No that's not the case, or at least would require a huge amount of additional research to demonstrate that this is the case. But really you've highlighted the problem here, in presenting the information like this we're given the connotation that only whole signs could have been calculated, Brennan explicitly states as much - and that conclusion, as per my previous argument, is flawed.

Now imagine I present it a different way, one I think is more accurate:
100% of the charts can be calculated without requiring any house division at all.

As for the others, nobody has done a study that I'm aware of that has repeated Hand's assertion about Valens and whole sign houses - it's something I intend to start. Additionally, nobody has looked at how many charts could be ascertained with the assumption that the chart was ever used with a house system at all, and if the sun or moon degree is known.
The students of Valens obviously are not going to pick some mathematical tables for the nativities that happened over hundred years before they lived and start calculating their degree positions (because some nativities are dated to around 60 AD and could belong to Critodemus).
See my point earlier about the examples being for students and therefore learning.
There is not a single technique in Hellenistic astrology that requires an equal or quadrant house division. Most do not even require degrees (probably not mere coincidence).
According to you perhaps, but not according to Valens who explicitly highlights the use of quadrant division if not for everything then at least for specific techniques.
That is fine, but I wonder how much do you actually use Hellenistic techniques in practice. Have you read and tried Hephaistio, Dorotheus, Serapio, Zoroaster and the like on initiatives? (they all use the four whole sign angles and the X as culminating sign)
I have used them in practice, that said, I do not consider myself a Hellenistic astrologer - my astrology is broader than Hellenistic astrology.
That said, the implication here seems to be to diminish my points, it's worth reminding you that you don't even need to be an astrologer to discuss points about the history of astrology which is what we're doing here. I've answered this question only as a courtesy. Let's move on from discussing one another to discussing the evidence.
Almost every author uses some of the the following - whole sign aspects and lots, derivative whole sign houses from those, annual profections (which are always sign per year instead of the medieval degree approach) and transits.
Not from the Lots, but from one Lot, Fortune. And I think it's debatable that they all used sign based profections, but that's frankly a matter for another debate that I dont' have the energy to open up here.
For what it's worth, little I'm sure, I use profections by sign myself.
contrary to your assertions that it is simply provisional.
Petosiris do not put words in my mouth please. I have no asserted that, on the contrary several times now I've asserted that whole signs could have been used alongside other house systems without any provision or boundary on that statement given.

I feel you want me to make some other points so you can jump on them and argue them, this is not the first time you've invented a straw man argument for me, but if we're going to get anywhere we have to just stick to what we're actually saying. If you're not sure, ask.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

103
Petosiris do not put words in my mouth please. I have no asserted that, on the contrary several times now I've asserted that whole signs could have been used alongside other house systems without any provision or boundary on that statement given.

I feel you want me to make some other points so you can jump on them and argue them, this is not the first time you've invented a straw man argument for me, but if we're going to get anywhere we have to just stick to what we're actually saying. If you're not sure, ask.
Well, it is either provisional, or two thousand year old authors like Dorotheus are really as stupid as people make them in this thread, thinking that whole signs and equal houses and quadrants work equally well. I do not get the feeling from Valens that he has split personalities. It is simple non-contradiction logic.

104
petosiris wrote:
Petosiris do not put words in my mouth please. I have no asserted that, on the contrary several times now I've asserted that whole signs could have been used alongside other house systems without any provision or boundary on that statement given.

I feel you want me to make some other points so you can jump on them and argue them, this is not the first time you've invented a straw man argument for me, but if we're going to get anywhere we have to just stick to what we're actually saying. If you're not sure, ask.
Well, it is either provisional, or two thousand year old authors like Dorotheus are really as stupid as people make them in this thread, thinking that whole signs and equal houses and quadrants work equally well. I do not get the feeling from Valens that he has split personalities. It is simple non-contradiction logic.
That might be your conclusion, but it's not mine. The difference is that you believe only one house system can be used at any one time, but I'm not of that opinion, and I recognise that in people like valens.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

105
It's a little late for this suggestion, but when only a Book number is given for a quotation from Valens or anyone else, it's too time consuming to check the quote when no chapter number or other specific reference is given. In general, only Martin had included chapter numbers in his quotes. (It wouldn't hurt for others to go back and edit posts to include chapters or more specific references in quotes.)

For Valens I'd like to compare the Schmidt and Gehrz translations, and now we have two editions of Dorotheus.

Petosiris, if you would shrink the size of your image, that would get rid of the too-wide screen for text.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

106
Therese Hamilton wrote:It's a little late for this suggestion, but when only a Book number is given for a quotation from Valens or anyone else, it's too time consuming to check the quote when no chapter number or other specific reference is given. In general, only Martin had included chapter numbers in his quotes. (It wouldn't hurt for others to go back and edit posts to include chapters or more specific references in quotes.)

For Valens I'd like to compare the Schmidt and Gehrz translations, and now we have two editions of Dorotheus.

Petosiris, if you would shrink the size of your image, that would get rid of the too-wide screen for text.
I ''fixed'' the image (by making it a link). I am sorry for not including the relevant chapter and lines, I usually use the search function for the browser (usually CTRL + F) and write a part of the text to find it.

This approach probably takes less than to find the page of a given book. And I am also sorry for this offtopic reply.

107
Petosiris wrote:
I ''fixed'' the image (by making it a link). I am sorry for not including the relevant chapter and lines, I usually use the search function for the browser (usually CTRL + F) and write a part of the text to find it.

This approach probably takes less than to find the page of a given book. And I am also sorry for this offtopic reply.
Thank you for fixing the image! It's not really off topic to add a reminder to reference future quotes on this or any other topic on Skyscript. It's probably not too difficult after finding a quote on-line to backtrack to the chapter number and line number if there is one. Ben Dykes' (printed) Dorotheus is a master work of references with chapter divisions, line numbers and cross references with Pingree (Appendix A).
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

108
Therese Hamilton wrote:It's a little late for this suggestion, but when only a Book number is given for a quotation from Valens or anyone else, it's too time consuming to check the quote when no chapter number or other specific reference is given.
You're right Therese, I updated my posts, let me know if I missed one.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/