Rulerships vis-a-vis houses 1 by beyond the stars I don't know if a thread already exists on this subject, but I'm trying to trace the rationale behind the connection between a sign on the cusp of a house and its associated planet. To make a long question as short as possible, it seems to be considered a "muddle" that "modern" astrology conflates planet/sign/house rulerships; I'm wondering why, if Ptolemy discusses in Tetrabiblos (sec. 17) that the planets have "familiarity" with the houses, it can be so contentious to use what have come to be called 'natural' house rulerships? One group of people takes for granted that the conflation is acceptable; another group says there is no precedent for this conflation, yet it does seem as though Ptolemy, for one, is not terribly clear on this matter and leaves room for interpretation? http://beyondthestarsastrology.com/ Quote Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:05 am
Re: Rulerships vis-a-vis houses 2 by Martin Gansten The word in the Tetrabiblos that is translated as 'house' (?????, oikos) corresponds to what we call a 'sign'. What we call a 'house' was called a 'place' (?????, topos) in Greek. So Ptolemy is speaking of planets having familiarity with the signs. https://astrology.martingansten.com/ Quote Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:03 pm
3 by Michael Sternbach Hi beyond the stars, I started a thread on this topic earlier this year. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8270 While Ptolemy was saying very little about what we call the houses today, Al Kindi and, more explicitly, William Lilly indeed made this connection between houses and signs; the latter by calling the signs 'co-rulers' of the houses (reproduced in Deborah Houlding: The Houses - Temples of the Sky). Quote Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:19 am
4 by beyond the stars Thank you very much, Michael; I am going to read through that thread now. And thank you both for responding. I appreciate it. http://beyondthestarsastrology.com/ Quote Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:20 am
5 by Michael Sternbach beyond the stars wrote:Thank you very much, Michael; I am going to read through that thread now. And thank you both for responding. I appreciate it. You're welcome. If you have any questions or thoughts on the topic, feel free to extend that thread, please. Quote Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:34 pm
6 by beyond the stars Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Here's the question: does that thread address where the idea of 'natural' rulerships come from? I'm reading through the thread, but it's gotten a bit long and I just thought I'd ask first before devoting hours to it. The idea of what is or isn't considered 'natural' is of interest to me; where do we get that idea from? There are many new sources that have been translated that others are more aware of than I am, and I'm wondering if this is ground that has already been covered here. I would imagine it has. Thanks everyone! http://beyondthestarsastrology.com/ Quote Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:56 am
7 by Deb I'm trying to trace the rationale behind the connection between a sign on the cusp of a house and its associated planet. Could you clarify your question? In Tetrabiblos I.17 Ptolemy discusses rulership of the planets over the signs of the zodiac (why Sun is assigned to Leo, Moon to Cancer, etc). Is it this logic that you want to understand? Or are you looking for a source that suggests something like Venus is the natural ruler of the 2nd house (regardless of whatever sign is on the 2nd house cusp)? The latter is not something you'll find expressed in traditional works. Quote Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:04 am