46
Mark wrote:Hello Chris,
However, perhaps part of the problem is our medieval and subsequent associations for the planets?

Most medieval and modern astrologers might associate Mercury with travel. However, in Valens the Moon is described as the planet of travel and exploration. In particular 'voyages, travel and wanderings' . This fits very well with the Moon having its planetary joy in the 3rd house.
I think that it would be a mistake to rely only on Riley's preliminary rendering of these three words in order to make this argument. At one point I spent a while researching each of the words that Valens uses for the significations of the planets in the first chapter of the Anthology, and the three words that he gives in that passage under the Moon are "?????, ?????????, ??????," which to the best of my understand should more accurately be translated as "ships, living abroad, wanderings." After that Valens makes the parenthetical remark "since it [the Moon] does not hold straight through Cancer." That is to say, it signifies wanderings because the Moon rules the sign known as the Crab, which is a creature that walks sideways rather than in a straight line. So, the association of travel with the Moon in particular based on this passage seems a bit questionable, although it doesn't necessarily matter since I think that the 3rd house is capable of signifying travel without being associated with either the Moon or Mercury, because it is a decline.
Mark wrote: You have dismissed Egyptian associations for the Moon influencing the meaning of the 3rd house. However, if that is the case why does the astrological Moon fit so closely the description of the Egyptian Moon God Khonsu?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khonsu
I don't really see anything on that page that is very reminiscent of the way that the Hellenistic astrologers conceptualized the Moon. There is just the association with travel, but as I pointed out above travel does not necessarily show up as a signification of the Moon in Valens. I also don't think that it is really necessary for us to get too hung up on whether the Moon signifies travel, since all four of the declining places inherently signify travel in the Hellenistic tradition, regardless of what planet they are associated with.
Mark wrote: I do think your focus on posing 3rd house meanings to the natural zodiac tends to sideline how badly this approach fits many of the other houses. In that respect isn't this discussion totally lopsided? For example, why are we not discussing how totally off the mark Jupiterian associations are for the 12th house? And how do we match up a sterile sign Leo associated with the 5th house of children? How do Saturnian associations fit with the ancient meaning of the 11th house? They simply dont. Because of the natural zodiac modern astrology associates Venus with the 2nd house and links it to money rather than Jupiter.
I think that if we were to adopt the natural house associations and attempt to gain additional meaning from the houses based on them then the focus would not be on the planets that are the rulers of those signs, but instead it would primarily be on the natures or qualities of those signs themselves, which in some instances only reflect certain qualities of the ruler. So, instead of asking how is the 12th house like Jupiter, I think it would be more accurate to ask whether there are any similarities between the 12th house and Pisces, or the 5th house and Leo, or the 11th house and Aquarius. While I'm not personally fully interested in fully embracing that approach at this point, I could see how someone could have a stronger argument if they tried to frame the debate from this perspective.
Mark wrote: Considering that the 3rd already had association with travels and voyages I dont see the later addition of writing, communication and education as that radical a leap as some other changes that took place in house meanings. Its certainly not half as dramatic as completely changing the association of enemies from the 6th to 7th house for example.
The main point for me is just that I want to know exactly where the significations are being derived from symbolically or conceptually. For most of the traditional significations I think that you can do that simply by resorting to three key things: 1) angularity, 2) configuration to the Ascendant, 3) the joys. So you can say in each instance why a certain house signifies a certain thing based on a specific factor that is being interpreted in a symbolic way. This is actually one of the things that really appeals to me about traditional astrology. But this breaks down and does not necessarily hold true for the significations of writing, communication, and messages though, which were added in to the 3rd house later for reasons that are not clear.
Mark wrote: Still perhaps we need to cast our net a little wider? In many respects the Indian tradition has retained the hellenistic approach to the houses more closely than the medieval tradition. For example, Indian astrology like its hellenistic antecedent still regards the 6th house as the house of enemies.

Its instructive to study Indian sources to see how they approach this issue. In Indian astrology vidya or knowledge defines areas in houses meanings related to education, communication and teaching. This is associated with the 5th house in North Indian astrology whilst in South India it is linked to the 4th house.

So it seems to me there are numerous other approaches to this question than the rather stark way you present the issue. Most intriguingly perhaps exploring the contribution of the Indian tradition to this question.
I tried following up on the Indian possibility at one point to see if they had any Mercurial associations with the 3rd house in the earlier part of their tradition, but I was not able to find much, which seemed to reenforce what we already know about the Hellenistic tradition. Some of the more modern Indian astrologers associate the 3rd with communications now, but this seems to be due to influence from the Tajika and modern western traditions.
Mark wrote: I dont see why a hellenistic orientated astrologer has to slavishly follow notions from the Perso-Arabic period onwards. We do have other astrological options.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I have generally only adopted a few of the significations added by the Medieval tradition, although I'm starting to see some evidence that maybe there a more significations that represent valid additions, and I would just like to figure out a consistent conceptual justification for incorporating those, rather than just taking it for granted. That's all.

I hope that you didn't take any of my earlier counter points to your arguments personally, as I didn't mean to reject your suggestions as if they were completely without merit, but I was just saying that I had considered many of those options already myself and found that they didn't seem fully satisfying to me.

47
I just remembered Gauquelin's work, and decided to take a look at it again in order to refresh myself on what profession he found to correlate with the Moon, to see if that might give us an alternate access point for this issue.

Interestingly, the main profession he found to correlate with the Moon when it was prominent in a birth chart was professional writers.

Now, I have some reservations about using statistics as the starting point in order to derive planetary significations, but I thought that I would throw this out there as food for thought. It seems like it could potentially be used as an alternate piece of evidence in favor of arguing for the Moon itself as being sufficient in order to explain the 3rd house significations that were introduced in the Medieval tradition, without needing to have recourse to the natural house scheme. Just something to think about.

48
Hi Chris,

Let me start out by saying that I have no personal ambitions to convince you, or anybody else, of the validity of the natural house approach that I have seen as appropriate for myself. But I hope that we (Mark, I, and others) can be of assistance, to some degree, by providing you with a mirror reflecting the voices fighting over your Soul in your head. :-? That's a major purpose of a forum like this one, at least in my understanding.

First off, a suggestion:

In your post of Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:48 am you told us nicely how you started noticing some typical Mercurial traits in nativities with significant 3rd house placements (such as having the ruler of the ASC there). I wonder, did it occur to you to consciously and systematically look for this also in people with charts that have a comparable emphasis on other houses than 3rd?

I'm under the impression that you may be somewhat of a ?Mercurial type? yourself - so I could imagine that you are resonating with similar personalities strongly enough to allow your perceptions of these traits to bypass your previous believes. With some of the other types, the evidence may not show itself quite as readily, but you should be able to see it clearly enough if it's there, and if you look for it with a mind open to whatever the answer may turn out to be.

Moreover, may I suggest that we analyse some sample charts together on this thread? :D
I just remembered Gauquelin's work, and decided to take a look at it again in order to refresh myself on what profession he found to correlate with the Moon, to see if that might give us an alternate access point for this issue.

Interestingly, the main profession he found to correlate with the Moon when it was prominent in a birth chart was professional writers.

Now, I have some reservations about using statistics as the starting point in order to derive planetary significations, but I thought that I would throw this out there as food for thought. It seems like it could potentially be used as an alternate piece of evidence in favor of arguing for the Moon itself as being sufficient in order to explain the 3rd house significations that were introduced in the Medieval tradition, without needing to have recourse to the natural house scheme. Just something to think about.
Ha, so you are considering to refuse the scheme Medieval astrology (and from there onwards) offers - in favour of Gauquelin?! Gauquelin's research ?proved? almost all of traditional astrology in error, including the zodiac and the houses. :-sk Don't get me wrong, I don't consider Gauquelin's research as completely irrelevant. But I wonder why his observations on the Moon should have much say in the present context ? even beyond all the practitioners which do embrace our art's foundational principles, and yet find ?natural houses? confirmed in their daily practice. You can get support for any conceivable opinion ? if only you know where to look for it... Excuse my directness.

Consider that in Mayan astrology Venus was a Goddess of War!

Peace
Michael
Last edited by Michael Sternbach on Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

49
Mark wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:17 am
And how do we match up a sterile sign Leo associated with the 5th house of children?
Hi Mark,

You made me wonder: Does this evaluation of Leo hold true? That it is written in ancient texts doesn't guarantee anything. I am saying this because I observe Leo types to be very fond of children, often... Can you with any degree of certainty say that, in your own experience, you find them to be without children (or to be poor parents, for that matter) to an extraordinary degree?
I dont rule out that the natural zodiac influencing this thinking in medieval thought. As I pointed out earlier in the thread I have a pet theory that Claudius Galen was possibly the first source linking the Zodiac Man to the houses in the 2nd century CE. Until we have translations of all his voluminous astrological writings this remains an open question.
I find your theory intriguing. What made you think of this?

Michael

50
Chris Brennan wrote:
I think that it would be a mistake to rely only on Riley's preliminary rendering of these three words in order to make this argument. At one point I spent a while researching each of the words that Valens uses for the significations of the planets in the first chapter of the Anthology, and the three words that he gives in that passage under the Moon are "?????, ?????????, ??????," which to the best of my understand should more accurately be translated as "ships, living abroad, wanderings." After that Valens makes the parenthetical remark "since it [the Moon] does not hold straight through Cancer." That is to say, it signifies wanderings because the Moon rules the sign known as the Crab, which is a creature that walks sideways rather than in a straight line. So, the association of travel with the Moon in particular based on this passage seems a bit questionable, although it doesn't necessarily matter since I think that the 3rd house is capable of signifying travel without being associated with either the Moon or Mercury, because it is a decline.
What makes you assume I am exclusively basing my position on Valens? As I indicate below Ptolemy also supports this view too.

I haven?t had the opportunity to check out the Schmidt translation of Valens Anthology yet. I am sure the Greek linguists could argue this one out. However, to keep things simple for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt and work on the assumption that your translation is more accurate than Riley?s.

Even then though I still think this supports the Moon?s association with foreign travel. Looking at this culturally in the Roman period ships were the equivalent of cars, or aeroplanes. They were the primary mode of travel and communication between cultures across the Mediterranean. Moreover, even you have accepted the term ?living abroad? yourself which surely implies foreign travel?

I accept all the cadent houses and the 7th are travel houses in ancient astrology. However, the association is particularly strengthened by the presence of the Moon in one of those houses.

Ptolemy confirms this in his Tetrabiblos:
The topic of foreign travel receives treatment by observing the position of the luminaries to the angles, both of them, but particularly the moon. For when the moon is setting or declining from the angles, she portends journeys abroad or changes of place. Tetrabiblos, Book IV, 8, Translated by Robbins, Frank E. (ed.) 1940. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library).
All the more so in a house where the Moon has its joy! I am intrigued by Robert Schmidt?s take on the 3rd as a travel house. He points out there is no notion of the 3rd being short journeys as the medievals and moderns assume. Both houses can be long or short distances. In the case of the 3rd though with links to siblings, and family (The Moon) he suggests the travel is often a case of staying with family, friends or acquaintances.
I recall both Paul of Alexandria and Firmicus associate a Moon in the 7th with living abroad later in life. This highlights that the Moon is not just about travel. Its also about relocation ie literally setting up home in a new location.

In my own chart the Moon rules my third whole sign house with the Moon in the 7th. I have only relocated twice in my life to another location in the United Kingdom. Both occasions have coincided with a 3rd house profectional year.

More generally, its interesting how Valens decription of the planets fit the houses they joy in. It doesn?t just apply to the Moon. The meaning of other planets such as the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are closely aligned to the houses they joy in. A clear indication the meaning of the houses has a strong relationship to the planetary joys.

Chris Brennan wrote:
I think that if we were to adopt the natural house associations and attempt to gain additional meaning from the houses based on them then the focus would not be on the planets that are the rulers of those signs, but instead it would primarily be on the natures or qualities of those signs themselves, which in some instances only reflect certain qualities of the ruler. So, instead of asking how is the 12th house like Jupiter, I think it would be more accurate to ask whether there are any similarities between the 12th house and Pisces, or the 5th house and Leo, or the 11th house and Aquarius. While I'm not personally fully interested in fully embracing that approach at this point, I could see how someone could have a stronger argument if they tried to frame the debate from this perspective.
Ok. Its just that you have recurrently used the term ?mercurial? yourself rather than explicitly associate the 3rd with Gemini. I must say I still find the logic of this kind of argument unconvincing. Not least because we cant cherry pick when to use the natural zodiac in relation to houses and when to ignore it. Unless you want to make a case for some kind of astrological exceptionalism in regards the 3rd house and mercurial associations.

Of course astrologers are natural symbolists so we can make just about anything appear to fit to some degree. Still, Pisces and the 12th, Virgo and the 6th, Leo and the 5th, Aquarius and the 11th just don?t fly for me at all. I do accept Gemini for the 3rd, Cancer for the 4th and Libra for the 7th are certainly workable.

In my view the natural zodiac throws up far more difficulties in linking associations with houses than the Thema Mundi or cosmic zodiac. Not least because the Thema Mundi fits with the exaltations too. Hence Jupiter is exalted in the sign of the ASC (Cancer) while the Sun is exalted in the 10th place (Aries). Mars exalts in the 7th place. Hence we have the 7th place linked to both malefics as the domicile of Saturn and exaltation of Mars. Saturn is exalted in Libra which falls in the 4th place. Saturn , the planet of darkness holds dignity over the darkest part of the chart of the world. Venus exalts in Pisces in the 9th place while Mercury exalts in the 3rd place i.e. Virgo. The 11th Place (Taurus) is the exaltation of the Moon.

I think going down the natural zodiac path diminishes the distinctiveness of the separate house meanings themselves. I also think its something of a slippery slope. You might want to create a mental firewall between signs and domicile rulers but other astrologers clearly will not do this. That doesn?t mean we cannot make some things fit. As astrologers we are symbolic gymnasts. Hence Cancer and the 4th and Libra and the 7th are not bad fits. With Scorpio on the 8th (rather than Aquarius in the Thema Mundi) we get into modern notions of linkages to sex. In the Thema Mundi Scorpio and sex are 5th house related. Same issues with Taurus on the 2nd. The focus inevitably shifts from Jupiter to Venus having financial associations in many people?s minds.

Chris Brennan wrote:
I tried following up on the Indian possibility at one point to see if they had any Mercurial associations with the 3rd house in the earlier part of their tradition, but I was not able to find much, which seemed to reenforce what we already know about the Hellenistic tradition. Some of the more modern Indian astrologers associate the 3rd with communications now, but this seems to be due to influence from the Tajika and modern western traditions.
That wasn?t really why I raised the Indian tradition of houses. My point is that if we are coming from a purely Hellenistic outlook we have no tradition to follow regarding the association of messengers, letters and teaching by house. So I was suggesting that we do not need to axiomatically, assume the solution adopted by the Perso-Arabs of using the 3rd was the only valid way forward. We have the opportunity to explore other traditions of house meanings that also have a connection to the Hellenistic sources. Overall, I have tended to follow the third for these topic meanings without further enquiry. But your raising of this issue has certainly highlighted this issue in a new way for me.

Mark wrote:
I dont see why a hellenistic orientated astrologer has to slavishly follow notions from the Perso-Arabic period onwards. We do have other astrological options.
Chris Brennan wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I have generally only adopted a few of the significations added by the Medieval tradition, although I'm starting to see some evidence that maybe there a more significations that represent valid additions, and I would just like to figure out a consistent conceptual justification for incorporating those, rather than just taking it for granted. That's all.
I didn?t mean my comments to appear directed exclusively at you. It was more of a general comment. To a considerable extent I largely count myself in this grouping too more than any other period in the astrological tradition.

My comments about the Indian tradition of houses really set out what I mean. However, even excluding that it seems to me we can work with the tradition more creatively to try to see how a Hellenistic astrologer might have looked at the issue. My suggestion of looking at the Thema Mundi was just one example of that. I think that is preferable than seeking to nail the tradition down in a way that has controversial astrological logic behind it.

Chris Brennan wrote:
I hope that you didn't take any of my earlier counter points to your arguments personally, as I didn't mean to reject your suggestions as if they were completely without merit, but I was just saying that I had considered many of those options already myself and found that they didn't seem fully satisfying to me.
I didn?t have a problem with your comments Chris. My initial response was en passant anyway. Still I don?t agree with where your logic is taking you on this problem. Ultimately, I guess it is a question what we can all intellectually live with most comfortably. I think we both agree there is a gap in the Hellenistic tradition that needs a creative response. However, I think a less extreme response may be sufficient here rather than the dramatic concession you seem to proposing.

Despite what you state above I am fully confident the Hellenistic sources do support the idea that the Moon intrinsically incorporates an idea of travel. So I don?t see it as such a drastic stretch to include messengers and communication to the 3rd house as you seem to. Education and teaching is a more difficult stretch I accept. Still, the non-rational mind is linked to the Moon and early education could be associated with the Moon too.

If I have to I would rather use the Thema Mundi to support the case for a mercurial connection than the natural zodiac. Mercury finds both its domicile and exaltation rulership in the 3rd house of the Thema Mundi.

However, since I owe no particular allegiance to the medieval tradition I may also consider exploring the competing house meaning ideas in the Indian tradition too.

You mentioned all your research into 3rd house associations. Did you also explore the 4th and 5th house?

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:52 pm, edited 8 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

51
Hi Michael

My personal view,

If you want to verify a theory , using a example or examples is not a good approach.

Because a natal chart even the horary chart which refers to a single ,more focusing aspect, we are not able to expect a single testimony to deduce a conclusion .

An astrological chart is complicated that need be analyzed the agreement and objection and at least you need three evidences to support your argument. Why the number is three, I remember Chris Brennan had mentioned the reason in his Facebook .

And I think the logic or principle of a theory is the first thing we should consider before we use it because it is the matter with what is and how you build your theory system.

Just personal view, please excuse me.

Few days ago, I discussed with a friend in China about why does astrology work. We told about an interesting view that is we use a regular pattern to observe a irregular one .

The motion of planets is a regular pattern and our life is irregular at least as it looks like.

So ,we think besides astrology no matter traditional or modern psychological , as long as it is a regular changing pattern or mould , that can be used to observe and predict , like market prediction pattern ,weather prediction pattern, society prediction pattern etc.

And this view is not firstly existed , since I am aware of Bonatti admitting it as well.

Best Wishes

Ming

52
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Hi Mark,

You made me wonder: Does this evaluation of Leo hold true? That it is written in ancient texts doesn't guarantee anything. I am saying this because I observe Leo types to be very fond of children, often... Can you with any degree of certainty say that, in your own experience, you find them to be without children (or to be poor parents, for that matter) to an extraordinary degree?
Hi Michael,

The notion of barren and fertile signs is very ancient in astrology. For example, Ptolemy discusses it in his Tetrabiblos (2nd century CE).

I have to pose you back the challenge has modern astrology proven any of its key unique assumptions through empirical evidence? I think not!

Still, if we are going to seek to validate astrological principles nativities are a highly subjective area to attempt such a test anyway. I would suggest horary is a more practical area of enquiry. Astrologers are frequently asked questions relating to pregnancy in which the sign on the 5th cusp is crucial. Another very practical test of such ideas is gardening.

https://www.gardeningbythemoon.com/signs.html

Regarding the sign of Leo I dont think there was any suggestion that strongly solar types were not fond of children or poor parents! The notion of barreness and fertility simply refers to child bearing or growing potential under particular signs.

Moreover, the key point traditionally would be the sign on the 5th house cusp and its ruler.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
I find your theory intriguing. What made you think of this?
As I said on the first page of the thread this is basically a hunch of mine. I have no hard evidence to support it but I thought it might be historically plausible.

The use of the natural zodiac regarding houses was basically something that seems to have stemmed out of medical astrology.

Galen was therefore a logical figure to consider since he was a major figure in the development of ancient medicine in the Roman era. While not an astrologer as such he did incorporate some astrological concepts. I think his influence on Perso-Arabic astrology in terms of temperament theory was quite significant. However, despite the enormous corpus of literature he left behind little of it has so far been translated. Hence he often gets ignored in discussions of hellenistic astrology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... alen.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/claudius_galen.htm

Of course I could be quite wrong. In this article the author goes out of his way to diminish the relevance of the astrological content of Galen in his best known work incorporating astrological ideas known as Critical Days (De diebus decretoriis).

https://www.academia.edu/412047/Galen_a ... esalliance

Update: Having read segments of this book on Galen's Critical Days I think I need to abandon my theory on Galen. It appears Galen's astrology was fairly crude and focused on the Moon and aspects without any use of the ASC or houses

http://www.amazon.co.uk/diebus-decretor ... 0754656349

So in light of this I think my guess that Galen might be the source of the Zodiacal Man applied to astrological houses looks incorrect. It seems like the idea is probably a later Perso-Arabic development after all.

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

53
Mark wrote: What makes you assume I am exclusively basing my position on Valens? As I indicate below Ptolemy also supports this view too.

...
The topic of foreign travel receives treatment by observing the position of the luminaries to the angles, both of them, but particularly the moon. For when the moon is setting or declining from the angles, she portends journeys abroad or changes of place. Tetrabiblos, Book IV, 8, Translated by Robbins, Frank E. (ed.) 1940. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (Loeb Classical Library).
You know what, this is an excellent point, and you're totally right. I think that you just changed my mind about a key point in all of this.

My issue with Valens was that in his chapters on travel (Anthology II, 29-30) he uses this other Greek term apodemia to mean "travel," which literally means "being away from home," and this is not the same word given as a significaiton for the Moon that we talked about earlier, which was xeniteia. Also, in these chapters on travel Valens never really mentions the Moon, although he may be compiling most of the material from another author named Abraham. This is important because I thought that these two different Greek terms were being used in order to signal some sort of conceptual distinction between living abroad versus traveling.

Your pointing out this chapter in Ptolemy is important though because he actually uses the term xeniteia here, and it seems clear that the purpose of this chapter is talking about travel, not just living abroad, since he mentions return trips at one point.

So, I have to concede that you were right about what you said earlier about the Moon inherently signifying travel. This is important because then it would make the Moon unique among the four planets that have their joys in the cadent houses, because it would get some additional specialized notions of travel associated with it. I still feel like we need to do a bit more work in order to then make the jump to justifying messengers, messages, and so on, because I don't think that it is necessarily perfectly obvious how all of those subsequent significations are then derived.

I was thinking about this last night as I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get some sleep. Eventually I started trying to think of anything that might have been new or might have been introduced conceptually or culturally that might explain why messages don't seem to show up in the 3rd house in the Hellenistic tradition, but then they appear early on in the Medieval Arabic authors. One of the things that I realized is that the further development of horary during the Medieval period seems to have coincided with the introduction to some new types of configurations, such as transfer of light and collection of light, which are often done by the Moon since it moves so quickly. In transfer or translation of light in particular the Moon is seen to collect something from the planet it is separating from and then to transfer or transmit it to the planet that it is applying to, so that it acts as a sort of go-between, which would explain why it would subsequently become associated with legates and messengers. From there perhaps it is an even smaller step to incorporate the concept of what is being conveyed or carried, which is the message itself.

Anyway, thanks for that Mark. You may have just talked me out of needing to resort to the natural house assignments in order to explain some things. Maybe. There might still be some room for discussing some other issues at some point in the future though. I still need to do some more thinking about this.

54
Russell shared a video about Sun Blast yesterday, I know the reason why my brain wore out as well. A heavy headache!

I hardly accept that conceptual relationship equations: Sun=Leo=5th house .

Because there are three totally different systems or conceptions, Sun is a planet ,Leo is a Sign ,5th house is a house.

Although they are some common points , their intension and extension are very different.

That is , I have to say why modern psychological astrology seems blurred ,disorder,chaos, just because they make too many such over simple equations ,and ignore the distinguish.

Sorry for my offense.

55
MingWei wrote:
I have to say why modern psychological astrology seems blurred ,disorder,chaos, just because they make too many such over simple equations ,and ignore the distinguish.

Sorry for my offense.
I dont think generalised criticisms of modern astrology are very constructive on a forum like this. This is not the traditional forum and people post here from all kinds of astrological viewpoints.

Ultimately, all we can honestly say is 'this is my way of working, and this is what makes sense to me'. I dont think its productive to criticise approaches we dont practice ourselves. If we want to make a case for traditional techniques I think we are far more likely to influence others by presenting a positive, logical case and by sharing examples from our praxis.

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

56
Chris Brennan wrote:
You know what, this is an excellent point, and you're totally right. I think that you just changed my mind about a key point in all of this.
Glad to be of some assistance. Its funny that my very first experience of traditional astrology involved a short astrodrama on Deb?s intensive horary course almost a decade ago where I was effectively speaking as the Moon. One of the points I recall making was that that upstart Mercury had stolen many of my lunar associations and claimed them as his own!

Chris Brennan wrote:
So, I have to concede that you were right about what you said earlier about the Moon inherently signifying travel. This is important because then it would make the Moon unique among the four planets that have their joys in the cadent houses, because it would get some additional specialized notions of travel associated with it.
I am not sure the Moon is exactly unique in this respect but it is certainly pre-eminent as a travel planet amongst all the planets that joy in cadent signs. In the full section I quoted from Ptolemy he also mentions the Sun and later Mars as having some connection to travel too. So actually, three of the planets that joy in the cadent houses are mentioned in relation to travel. The only one missing is Saturn which is presumably due to its slow moving cycle which would make it unsuitable as a travel planet.

Chris Brennan wrote:
I still feel like we need to do a bit more work in order to then make the jump to justifying messengers, messages, and so on, because I don't think that it is necessarily perfectly obvious how all of those subsequent significations are then derived.
Actually, I think you have opened up a pandoras box here! I had rather complacently ignored this issue up to now. However, you are making me question a lot of assumptions. Even if we can work with the Moon in relation to messages what about writing in general, teaching and education?

Moreover, what about the medieval 9th house association with further education, legal matters and long distance travel? Isn?t this all reflecting associations with Sagittarius as the 9th sign in the natural zodiac?

Starting from first principles like a hellenistic astrologer wouldn't some of these associations such as higher education, and legal matters fit better with the 11th due to Jupiter having its joy there?

Its true Jupiter is also associated with the 9th place in the Thema Mundi (Pisces). However, I rather doubt this would have been a consideration for the Perso-Arabs astrologers who made these additions to house meanings.

Maybe we should open a thread explicitly exploring the change of house meanigs from the hellenistic to medieval era?

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

57
Hi ,Mark

Yes, you are right , I just murmured yesterday, and regard modern astrology as another subject or aspect.

Sorry for wasting the space of this discussion page.

:D

Ming