skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Equal House System in Dorotheus - Really?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:09 pm    Post subject: Equal House System in Dorotheus - Really? Reply with quote

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? Confused

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
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No replies...

Tricky topic, huh? Confused
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

These passages from Dorotheus were discussed here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8744&postdays=0&postorder=asc&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:

Quote:
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.

_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1526

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TT



Joined: 01 Jun 2018
Posts: 117

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Equal House System in Dorotheus - Really? Reply with quote

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? Confused

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8744&postdays=0&postorder=asc&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:

Quote:
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.
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Smile

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Equal House System in Dorotheus - Really? Reply with quote

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? Confused

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... Smile
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 zōidion = 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TT



Joined: 01 Jun 2018
Posts: 117

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 zōidion = 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.


Last edited by TT on Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TT



Joined: 01 Jun 2018
Posts: 117

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 zōidion = 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


Last edited by TT on Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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:

Quote:
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. Smile
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petosiris



Joined: 08 Oct 2017
Posts: 141

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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


The whole sign conspiracy theory can get a bit disturbing at times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 ..."


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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.


Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

That he emphasizes how such a planet can be in another sign suggests that he wants to make clear how the method he is describing here differs from WSH which he knew to be commonly used by the Astrologers of his day.

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


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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 zōidion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.


Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

Quote:
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Are there any variant readings known?


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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).


As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

Quote:
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.


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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.


Once again, to all it concerns: If you want to explore this topic here in my thread, keep it linked to Dorotheus please.
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TT



Joined: 01 Jun 2018
Posts: 117

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
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 ..."


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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.


Dorotheus is saying here that a planet within a 15 degrees orb from the Ascendent (understood as an angle) should be counted to it even if it is in an adjacent sign. So, in effect, he goes on to use 'Ascendent' in the other sense the ancients sometimes apply that term, i.e., synonymously with the first place/house. Which in this case indeed extends in both directions from the angle, covering 30 degrees in total.

That he emphasizes how such a planet can be in another sign suggests that he wants to make clear how the method he is describing here differs from WSH which he knew to be commonly used by the Astrologers of his day.

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


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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 zōidion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses.


Only if we assume Dorotheus to be consistent in his approach to houses. However, as we see in others (e.g., Valens), it is not uncommon for an author of that period to refer to more than one house system in one and the same work.

Moreover, it seems to me that WSH was more of a rough-and-ready method in a time when accurate calculations weren't available at the the push of a button. Especially since nowhere do we see WSH laid out as a well founded method in its own right.

Quote:
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Are there any variant readings known?


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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).


As I don't have those sources at hand, I would appreciate if you could provide some quotes.

Quote:
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.


Levente Laszlo wrote:

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.


Once again, to all it concerns: If you want to explore this topic here in my thread, keep it linked to Dorotheus please.

In what page and book of the Carmen doe Dorotheus says those things?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated