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

Using Whole Signs or Placidus for Natal
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dajorok



Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Posts: 25

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:56 am    Post subject: Using Whole Signs or Placidus for Natal Reply with quote

Lately I have been stuck on whether to use Placidus or Whole Signs for casting my birth chart. This is probably the toughest thing that I've had to deal with in traditional work so far and I need some insight on whether to use the oldest form of chart casting, or use a quadrant-based chart such as Placidus or Koch.

I've cast my chart in both house systems and there are many things that ring true to me in Placidus compared to Whole Sign.

In Placidus, I have Sun in the 7th in Leo, Moon in 9th in Scorpio, Mercury+Venus+Mars in the 7th in Virgo, Jupiter in the 5th in Cancer, and Saturn in the 11th in Capricorn.

In Whole Signs, I have Sun in the 7th/Leo, Moon in 10th/Scorpio, Mercury+Venus+Mars in 8th/Virgo, Jupiter in 6th/Cancer, and Saturn in 12th/Capricorn.

The problem is, I am more comfortable with Placidus than Whole Sign simply because it makes more sense to me. On the flip side, I feel like I'm missing something by picking one or the other, perhaps kidding myself into thinking one way rather than looking objectively at both. Why was the whole sign system neglected for use of quadrant systems like Placidus if whole sign allegedly gives more accurate results? What do YOU think of these two? I am asking because there is so much speculation on which house system to use, and people are always saying, "Pick one you are most comfortable with"...but I feel that that isn't the best solution. Additionally, I was born well below the 66 degree latitude of Placidus' polar problems, so it actually works very nicely. But still, Whole Signs...

Please let me know what you think, this is very important to me and I have no idea where to begin. Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave



Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Posts: 50

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dajorok:

I really think the "what you are comfortable with" is not such a bad idea, and even better "what works best for you," that is, seems to give you reliable results consistently.

I use Placidus. It seems to work very well.

One night, in the wee hours, a friend of mine called me and she was distrauht in extreme. She had just had a terrible dream presaging her own death. I cast a horary about her dream...she wanted to know if it was prophetic.

And, exactly on the horizon of her horary sat the Placidus cusp of her natal 8th. Odds against that, 359:1. No other sign system would have produced such results, and of course it was superlatively "apropos" to the question.

I am not proselytizing for any particular house system. All I am saying is that, for me, Placidus has shown itself to be a good way to divide the sky.

Seems to me that the sole criteria for selecting a house system, or any other sort of system or astrological tool is this: Does it produce consistently reliable results?

And, you appear to be just starting out. Don't you think you could experiment with different systems over the years to come and then decide which works best after you have more experience? The process of testing different ideas for yourself, rather than relying wholly on books or on Self-Proclaimed Geniuses like me, seems the wise course to take. You will learn a lot just by doing the studies...of horoscopes, not theories.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was the same as you until a few months ago but I decided to pick an era to study and go with what they used.

I started with Lilly and used divisional houses and it seemed fine but then I started using Valens and Masha'allah and so tested their methods with whole-sign and I must say, I think their natal work is much more rich, elegant and accurate, so I stuck with them and whole-sign. I guess I am saying you should begin with whatever system your teacher uses and learn their techniques first before experimenting. The correct system for me certainly had a greater impact on me, so I don't see why it wouldn't for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dajorok, I would suggest that you not choose a single house system as though you could fasten upon one forever.

Some astrologers think that different "natives" resonate more strongly to one house system or another. You have to start with horoscopes of people you know really well (with accurate birth times) and then run through different systems to see which matches them the best.

Ditto for your astrological interpretations. You may feel that you get a better grasp as an astrologer with one system or another.

I prefer Placidus, but if I want more detail on a chart I will try several house systems, including whole sign. This is especially true for high-latitude births.

I am doing my best now to read up on Hellenistic astrologers and am not convinced that the whole sign system was ubiquitous in their work, but that's a topic for another thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dajorok



Joined: 30 Mar 2010
Posts: 25

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waybread,

Thanks for suggesting to not use simply one method. I prefer Placidus, I know many who feel it is not *real* using quadrant-based systems, rather preferring the simplicity and elegance of whole-sign, but I just don't like where whole-sign puts all my planets. That may seem a bit trivial to complain about, but I don't have any 6th/8th/12th house issues and all five of my regular planets get put in one of those (excluding the Sun and Moon, which are in the 7th and 10th, respectively). But the thought still persists. I believe Bonatti may have used both quadrant-based and whole-signs, complimenting each other for different reasons, but as a general rule-of-thumb for my own interpretation of my own chart I believe Placidus works better for me. However, I still wonder if it is the most *accurate* for me, or if Placidus can explain things just as well.

Quote:
Some astrologers think that different "natives" resonate more strongly to one house system or another.

THAT, I have not heard of. Perhaps because of birth location, maybe? I advocate Placidus because it's great for time and location based upon where YOU were born. The 66+ latitude degrees still pose a problem for it, but for the people who used Placidus back in the day, I'm fairly certain none of them lived above that limit, so I don't think it was really an issue for them. Past that line, though, I would use whole-sign.

Quote:
I am doing my best now to read up on Hellenistic astrologers and am not convinced that the whole sign system was ubiquitous in their work

Understood about being a different topic, but I am rather interested in this, seeing as I was just reading a Bonatti book (which I believe I mentioned earlier) regarding perhaps a lost in translation view of using whole-signs and quadrant houses back in the old days. Would you mind sharing anything you've found regarding that?

It's truly strange because I can agree with much of what both house systems have to offer. For Saturn to be in the 12th house for whole-signs for me, as well as my cluster of planets in the 8th...I am not *that* much of a hermit, nor am I *that* grievous of mind. So it's kind of a tough call. Saturn positioned in the 11th house -- older friends, among other things, I can certainly agree with, and the cluster in the 7th house simply seems to me to fit me more.

Obviously though, I realize reading one's own chart requires a tremendous amount of objectivity, and I know I am missing many, many things in these big equations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At present I am trying to read through the major English-translation works in Hellenistic astrology. See if you can find the article by Robert Schmidt, "The Facets of Fate," The Mountain Astrologer, Dec. 22, 2008. I think it's on-line.

Although he's pretty committed to the ubiquity of whole signs for topics and specific areas of one's life, Schmidt argues that a "dynamical" house system was used to assess a planet's strength. Essentially planets were deemed strongest at an angle, with the cadent house being weakest. Because this technique had no necessary reference to signs, probably the ancients used Porphyry houses. Similarly, the Greeks had "good and bad" houses based on their relationship to the ascendant house, but these had no necessary relationship to signs.

I have to say that I haven't seen overpowering evidence that the ancients used whole signs consistently-- it is what mathematicians would call an "elegant" solution because it is so simple. But actually, you can use ancient astrologers' techniques with other house systems, so far as I can make out; and there are some puzzling statements in some of the early authors that don't make sense for whole sign houses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
Although he's pretty committed to the ubiquity of whole signs for topics and specific areas of one's life, Schmidt argues that a "dynamical" house system was used to assess a planet's strength.

I've read this quite often in the last few years, it seems a bit of a trend.

Why couldn't a planet's strength be indicated by the same house (or reference) system as the one used for topics?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The confusion between house systems has been traced to a misunderstanding of the purposes of those house systems. Different systems had different uses and were not meant to be combined:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses/schmidt-houses.html

Whole signs were used for topics primarily whereas the trisections of angles were used for gauging strength. Later on we see in Valens that he sometimes took the MC to give signs for praxis in the same way the 10th topical division was used (suggesting that one was to use the one that gave the greater testimonies). Each chart may be different then if this is the case.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
...
I have to say that I haven't seen overpowering evidence that the ancients used whole signs consistently-- it is what mathematicians would call an "elegant" solution because it is so simple. ...


"Elegance" in such contexts means "as simple as possible, but no simpler". Whether that encompasses whole signs is an "orthogonal" issue in "mathspeak".

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses/schmidt-houses.html

Whole signs were used for topics primarily whereas the trisections of angles were used for gauging strength.

the Schmidt article wrote:
Ptolemy is regarded as the author of a special equal house division that begins five degrees above the Ascendant, and it is now widely assumed that this was his preferred system. However, three things need to be pointed out here. First of all, prior to Book III, chapter 11, the discussion of length of life, there is no reason to believe that Ptolemy regards the Horoskopos, Midheaven, etc., as anything other than whole-sign houses.

As far as I've been able to understand Ptolemy, it seems quite acceptable that Ptolemy did mean to use equal house system starting at Asc-5°. Perhaps Ptolemy rather introduced the system as being more precise than the whole sign system.

No offence meant to Schmidt but are there other translating authors who disagree with him and see it differently or do they agree?

I've been looking around on the internet and here's something of Chris Brennan:
Chris Brennan wrote:
However, it appears to me (and probably Schmidt at this point as well) that it is not so much that the Hellenistic astrologers were using whole sign houses in order to assign topics (i.e. health, finances, siblings, parents, etc.) and quadrant houses in order to determine angularity, but rather that in almost every area of chart delineation whole sign houses were used in order to determine both topics and strength (angularity), except in the length of life treatment, which is where the Hellenistic astrologers usually tended to introduce the quadrant systems. This effectively means that unless you are working with the length of life technique, you are using whole sign houses virtually 100% of the time. Unfortunately, this caused quite a bit of confusion in the later Medieval tradition, which is what eventually led to the plethora of different house systems that were introduced.
source: http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2009/02/18/house-system-poll-rectification-research-project/ I find Brennan's view more convincing.

waybread wrote:
Some astrologers think that different "natives" resonate more strongly to one house system or another. You have to start with horoscopes of people you know really well (with accurate birth times) and then run through different systems to see which matches them the best.
I wonder where this idea originated. I think it developed as soon as more house systems were available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the theoretical ideas behind the idea of house division is the twofold meaning of the word "kentron" which can be translated as a "pivot" (around which something turns) or a goad (as in a cattle prod). Schmidt has associated the topical houses with the first meaning of the word which can mean a "center of activity" and dynamical divisions with the latter meaning "goad to action".

In other words, a planet can be in a center of activity, but not particularly motivated (if 10th house topic for instance, but not that close to the MC); or vice versa a planet can be declining (say 9th house which is not a "center of activity") but be highly motivated (a planet conjunct the MC in the 9th).

One of the interesting things is that the cadent places are said to be "metacosmios" which means between worlds. Implied in this is the idea that to be "centered" upon this world is to have focus in angular places or places that are coming into being (as opposed to passing away). Years ago a baseball analogy was proposed (maybe by Chuck Bucek or Dave Stricker) where it was said that the angles are "at bat" and the post ascensions (succedent) are "on deck" and the cadent places are "struck out" or on base. The decisions are made in the angles most focused here in the world and the things that are coming are in succeedent places, but the things that are not that focused in the world are cadent and potentially passing away. The mind is capable of being somewhere other than "the present" as is the case with the 9th (dreams, visions and philosophy) and 3rd. The 6th is a place of illness which indicates not being fully present in health in the physical world and the 12th is similarly so.

As such the angles represents a cross-hair (4 directions) where the 3 dimensional soul is most centered in focus (Aristotle says that a minimum of 3 dimensions is required for the soul to manifest). These create 12. Schmidt said something similar years ago but not quite in the same way and I'm bringing in the idea that the cross hairs of the angles represents our spiritual/physical orientation as if we are in a cube. The idea of a "cube" is based upon Schmidt's ideas on spear bearing as defined in his translation of Antiochus. This is the way I currently see the issue of houses. The below links are for those not familiar with Aristotle's take on the soul and material manifestation in the world.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.2.ii.html
http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/bodysoul.htm
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
No offence meant to Schmidt but are there other translating authors who disagree with him and see it differently or do they agree?


I'm sure that you will find all kinds of opinions in all areas of astrology. That was my problem in the early days reading the translations because there were as many different opinions as there were authors so instead of concentrating on the differences and who had more integrity to side against, I looked at what was the same and what might be the philosophical reasons for these positions. Schmidt made a breakthrough in realizing that many astrological ideas are composite constructs made up of more than one astrological variable and in this way was able to unravel the differences between some of the apparent contradictions between authors. This is why it is so important to become familiar with philosophy when dealing with astrological issues because it will help to keep integrity in your thinking.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
In other words, a planet can be in a center of activity, but not particularly motivated (if 10th house topic for instance, but not that close to the MC); or vice versa a planet can be declining (say 9th house which is not a "center of activity") but be highly motivated (a planet conjunct the MC in the 9th).

Perhaps this reflects the development of the MC as a mathematical (and calculable) point on the ecliptic (I believe somewhere in the 2nd century). In those days the MC wasn't part of the houses but a 'sensitive point' according to James Holden's A history of horoscopic astrology http://books.google.nl/books?id=9p1igGF3gpUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+astrology&hl=nl#v=onepage&q=history%20astrology&f=false p. 19

By the way, when I use equal MC houses I do something similar with the Ascendant. MC houses determining the topics and Asc. as a sensitive point. So just the reversed of the original use.

The concept of kentron/pivot is interesting but I think that from this it could follow that the equinoxes and solstices are pivots too. p. 91 of Holden mentions the view of the solstices being in the middle of Capricorn and Cancer. The Babylonians also did something similar in the earliest development of the zodiac (according to B.L. van der Waerden). Deb once wrote something on this and its relation to the antiscia http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html . Applying this concept to an ascendant based house system would lead to the Vehlow system, starting with Asc-15° as I.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 970
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
The concept of kentron/pivot is interesting but I think that from this it could follow that the equinoxes and solstices are pivots too. p. 91 of Holden mentions the view of the solstices being in the middle of Capricorn and Cancer. The Babylonians also did something similar in the earliest development of the zodiac (according to B.L. van der Waerden). Deb once wrote something on this and its relation to the antiscia. Applying this to an ascendant based house system would be the Vehlow system, starting with Asc-15° as I.


Yes. One of the things about a "pivot" (kentron) is the ability for there to be a change in direction which creates a "phasis" (an appearance that speaks). The cardinal points indicate a change in direction (or an initiation of something new which essentially is the same thing).
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5011
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eddy wrote:
Quote:
I've been looking around on the internet and here's something of Chris Brennan: Chris Brennan wrote:
However, it appears to me (and probably Schmidt at this point as well) that it is not so much that the Hellenistic astrologers were using whole sign houses in order to assign topics (i.e. health, finances, siblings, parents, etc.) and quadrant houses in order to determine angularity, but rather that in almost every area of chart delineation whole sign houses were used in order to determine both topics and strength (angularity), except in the length of life treatment, which is where the Hellenistic astrologers usually tended to introduce the quadrant systems. This effectively means that unless you are working with the length of life technique, you are using whole sign houses virtually 100% of the time. Unfortunately, this caused quite a bit of confusion in the later Medieval tradition, which is what eventually led to the plethora of different house systems that were introduced.
source: http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2009/02/18/house-system-poll-rectification-research-project/ I find Brennan's view more convincing.


The problem with that statement is that it is a serious oversimplication of the available evidence and makes a lot of assumptions. No one is really sure what house system Ptolemy was using. The topic has been discussed ad nauseum here on Skyscript for years and the only rational conclusion is that we dont have enough information in his Tetrabiblos to know quite what system he was using.

This article by Deb sets out quite a lot of detail on what we know ( and dont know) about Ptolemy's approach to houses:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob_print.html

One of the earliest surviving astrological texts is the Astronomica of Manilius dating from the early 1st century CE. He seems to be using a house system dividing up the celestial sphere. It has been suggested that this may be the Campanus house system. The third century astrologer Porphyry was obviously using the quadrant system named after him. However, the system was first mentioned by the 2nd century astrologer Vettius Valens in his Anthology. While Valens does use the porphyry house system for the length of life calculation it is Robert Schmidt's theory that this was the only way it was utilised. I have quoted a post below by Deb that questions this assumption. Equally, we have no evidence Porphyry was restricting himself to a length of life calculation in his use of quadrant houses. In his text the Mathesis The 4th century Roman astrologer Firmicus Maternus is using a house system that seems to utilise equal house cusps. Robert Hand has suggested Firmicus was actually using a whole sign house system with equal house cusps the points of strength in the houses. I haven't read James Holden's latest translation and would be interested to see his take on this. Then we have the 6th/7th century Byzantine astrologer Rhetorius who seems to be describing a time based quadrant house system that seems to be Alcabitius. I haven't studied other important early sources on this issue such as Paul of Alexandria and Hephaistio of Thebes. However, the above texts give me enough cause to question how universal the exclusive use of whole sign houses really was in hellenistic astrology.

I am no authority on statistics but to maintain the position that 100% of hellenistic astrologers were using whole sign houses (excluding length of life calculation) is drawing a conclusion that many of the available sources simply dont support.

The whole sign house system is clearly an idealized representation of the signs. However, from the earliest sources such as Dorotheus of Sidon in his Carmen Astrologicum we have references to 'straight' and crooked ' signs which seems a reference to the long and short ascensional rising times of the zodiac signs.

Its important to take a look at this article by Robert Schmidt as it has been immensely influential on others in the traditional astrological community. Schmidt's approach on the houses has been effectively adopted by others such as Robert Hand, and Chris Brennan.

http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/houses.htm

At this point I want to quote from a recent post Deborah Houlding made to me on another thread that makes a lot of extremely interesting points. I apologise for quoting another post so extensively and for dragging Deb into this discusion but her views are interesting and worth reading. Not least because too many astrologers are simply accepting one interpretation of the texts without critically examining the topic for themselves. Its not a question of who is right here but rather retaining an open mind that continues to ask searching questions.

Deb wrote:
Quote:
With regard to the article you referred to, this is the one that Robert Schmidt published in the 1990s to propose the notion that meaning comes from whole sign placement but quadrant divisions were used to evaluate planetary strength. Astrologers have relied upon the authority of this article without appreciating how many of the comments made within it are subject to debate.

For example, the suggestion that the whole sign ‘method’ was the oldest method of all, draws a lot of its weight from this being the apparent method of Valens (whilst admissions are made elsewhere that Valen's approach was often ‘crude’ in regard to technicalities). So when Robert Schmidt discusses why there is a very clear and explicit passage that describes the process of division adhering to what we call the ‘Porphyry method’ his suggestion is that we should consider this to be a separate technique, used only to judge planetary strength from position, rather than with respect to house meaning. Putting all other previous conceptions and contextual knowledge of other sources aside, this is not an irrational suggestion because the passage identifies the places as being powerful, average or weak – what we are all familiar with in the concept of angular houses being strong, cadent houses weak and suceedent houses intermediate.

However, because Valens doesn’t appear to reference the meaning of these places, other than strength of position, Robert Schmidt suggests:


Deb quoting Robert Schmidt
Quote:
"He in no way indicates that he is establishing a division into topics, or a house-system in the proper sense. In fact he makes it clear that he is not when discussing the second place so constructed, "and to judge another 1/3 part of the degrees as middling neither more good nor more base on account of the post-ascension of the Horoskopos and the Goddess and the diameter of God."


Deb wrote:
Quote:
In support of this he makes an illogical point. He continues (I've emboldened some particularly significant comments):


From Robert Schmidt's article:
Quote:
''The post-ascension of the Horoskopos is the second whole-sign, while Goddess is the traditional name for the third whole-sign. In other words, this division has an intermediate activity level because the two second and third traditional whole-signs overlap on it. Notice that he does not reassign the name "post-ascension" to the second interval nor the name "Goddess" to the third interval of his new mundane division.

Furthermore, Valens offers this assessment of activity levels as his own correction of a tradition that preceded him, in which the first 1/3 of the mundane quadrant was considered to be powerful, but all the remaining degrees weak. Thus, it may have been Valens first of all who extended the activity assessment to twelve places instead of eight, and such a system could not in that case have preceded him."


Deb wrote:
Quote:
What Robert Schmidt is saying is that the way the first part of the explanation is written is confusing and seems to be proposing something less straightforward than a three-fold divsision between the ascendant and IC. However, the next paragraph, which is not quoted by Schmidt, is perfectly clear in its meaning and restores the necessary clarity to know that what we would naturally assume was indeed the case.


Quoting from Mark Riley’s text for convenience it reads (III.2):
Quote:
''It is necessary to calculate likewise from MC, and to consider the first third of the distance between angles as operative, the second third, following MC, as of average influence (thus it was called Good Daimon by the ancients), and the last third, up to the Ascendant, as afflicting and inoperative. The Places in opposition to these will have the same force. Orion expounded all this in his book.''


Deb wrote:
Quote:
The fact that Valens acknowledges this to have been done by the ancients is relevant, and the fact that he defines the places by name is very significant, because these names are not, as Robert Schmidt suggests, the names of whole signs, they are the names of the celestial ‘places’, ie ‘houses’, as made clear by an abundance of other sources which give their names and expand upon the house meanings which extend from or relate to those names. As for example, in Manilius, where we are told that the first place is called horoscope because it is on the same level as the earth and marks where the stars rise and the time is divided into hours; or for example that the 11th house is called ‘good fortune’ because it is a place where planets are moving upwards towards the towards the summit of heaven; the third, which rises by diurnal motion form the lowest region, called goddess, etc.


Deb wrote:
Quote:
I could spend many hours debating other points in that article if I had the time, but I don’t. This always turns into a very controversial discussion so let me be clear that I’m not denying that a whole sign approach can be effective or denying the use of it in ancient practice. I am pointing out that some arguments are being exaggerated to the point of astrologers assuming the matter is cut and dried when it isn’t. Robert Schmidt concludes his article by saying: “it is apparent that no astrologer writing in Greek ever used a dynamical division topically.”

The fact is that outside of Valens we still have very few examples of the practical application of these principles and very few examples indeed of graphical reproductions of charts that would make the matter clearer. However one of the very rare examples we have access to which offers a diagram to accompany the astrological analysis of the chart - in Greek - demonstrates the use of the Porphyry system of divisionand it clearly shows what Robert Schmidt says was never done. That’s obviously something to be considered. I'll give the link to the chart and my narrative on it below.

Although I am aware of arguments that this - like any other - might have been altered by a copyist, I see no reason to dispute the validity of this chart because I have checked all the details carefully. To suggest that the chart itself may have been later reconstructed in a system which was not that of the original astrologer's is not feasible unless we assume that the translator, for reasons of his own, changed the recorded text so that it matched with the chart details exactly, and also recalculated the whole thing, using the necessary tables of construction for the original time and place (which were not his own), down to minute details of agreement, rather than simply copying out what he saw before him (and then doing all this without leaving hint of a promotion of argument nor any reason as to why he would want to do all that complicated research rather than simply preserving and reproducing the original, which was the purpose of his work). Given that the method of Porphry division is so clearly described by a number of classical works, it is not necessary to assume that the system was never applied in practice. I think (well as far as I know) I was the first person to check the graphical chart details thoroughly and notice that this demonstrated Porphyry division. How many other examples may exist which have not yet been checked as this one has?

The details of that chart, which are interesting for all sorts of other reasons, are here:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/greek_horoscope.html

_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 1 of 11

 
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